Jump to content

Torsor (algebraic geometry)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In algebraic geometry, a torsor or a principal bundle is an analogue of a principal bundle in algebraic topology. Because there are few open sets in Zariski topology, it is more common to consider torsors in étale topology or some other flat topologies. The notion also generalizes a Galois extension in abstract algebra. Though other notions of torsors are known in more general context (e.g. over stacks) this article will focus on torsors over schemes, the original setting where torsors have been thought for. The word torsor comes from the French torseur. They are indeed widely discussed, for instance, in Michel Demazure's and Pierre Gabriel's famous book Groupes algébriques, Tome I.[1]

Definition

[edit]

Let be a Grothendieck topology and a scheme. Moreover let be a group scheme over , a -torsor (or principal -bundle) over for the topology (or simply a -torsor when the topology is clear from the context) is the data of a scheme and a morphism with a -invariant (right) action on that is locally trivial in i.e. there exists a covering such that the base change over is isomorphic to the trivial torsor [2]

Notations

[edit]

When is the étale topology (resp. fpqc, etc.) instead of a torsor for the étale topology we can also say an étale-torsor (resp. fpqc-torsor etc.).

Étale, fpqc and fppf topologies

[edit]

Unlike in the Zariski topology in many Grothendieck topologies a torsor can be itself a covering. This happens in some of the most common Grothendieck topologies, such as the fpqc-topology the fppf-topology but also the étale topology (and many less famous ones). So let be any of those topologies (étale, fpqc, fppf). Let be a scheme and a group scheme over . Then is a -torsor if and only if over is isomorphic to the trivial torsor over . In this case we often say that a torsor trivializes itself (as it becomes a trivial torsor when pulled back over itself).

Correspondence vector bundles--torsors

[edit]

Over a given scheme there is a bijection, between vector bundles over (i.e. locally free sheaves) and -torsors, where , the rank of . Given one can take the (representable) sheaf of local isomorphisms which has a structure of a -torsor. It is easy to prove that .

Trivial torsors and sections

[edit]

A -torsor is isomorphic to a trivial torsor if and only if is nonempty, i.e. the morphism admits at least a section . Indeed, if there exists a section , then is an isomorphism. On the other hand if is isomorphic to a trivial -torsor, then ; the identity lement gives the required section .

Examples and basic properties

[edit]
  • If is a finite Galois extension, then is a -torsor (roughly because the Galois group acts simply transitively on the roots.) By abuse of notation we have still denoted by the finite constant group scheme over associated to the abstract group . This fact is a basis for Galois descent. See integral extension for a generalization.
  • If is an abelian variety over a field then the multiplication by , is a torsor for the fpqc-topology under the action of the finite -group scheme . That happens for instance when is an elliptic curve.
  • An abelian torsor, a -torsor where is an abelian variety.

Torsors and cohomology

[edit]

Let be a -torsor for the étale topology and let be a covering trivializing , as in the definition. A trivial torsor admits a section: thus, there are elements . Fixing such sections , we can write uniquely on with . Different choices of amount to 1-coboundaries in cohomology; that is, the define a cohomology class in the sheaf cohomology (more precisely Čech cohomology with sheaf coefficient) group .[3] A trivial torsor corresponds to the identity element. Conversely, it is easy to see any class in defines a -torsor over , unique up to a unique isomorphism.

The universal torsor of a scheme and the fundamental group scheme

[edit]

In this context torsors have to be taken in the fpqc topology. Let be a Dedekind scheme (e.g. the spectrum of a field) and a faithfully flat morphism, locally of finite type. Assume has a section . We say that has a fundamental group scheme if there exist a pro-finite and flat -torsor , called the universal torsor of , with a section such that for any finite -torsor with a section there is a unique morphism of torsors sending to . Its existence, conjectured by Alexander Grothendieck, has been proved by Madhav V. Nori[4][5][6] for the spectrum of a field and by Marco Antei, Michel Emsalem and Carlo Gasbarri when is a Dedekind scheme of dimension 1.[7][8]

The contracted product

[edit]

The contracted product is an operation allowing to build a new torsor from a given one, inflating or deflating its structure with some particular procedure also known as push forward. Though the construction can be presented in a wider generality we are only presenting here the following, easier and very common situation: we are given a right -torsor and a group scheme morphism . Then acts to the left on via left multiplication: . We say that two elements and are equivalent if there exists such that . The space of orbits is called the contracted product of through . Elements are denoted as . The contracted product is a scheme and has a structure of a right -torsor when provided with the action . Of course all the operations have to be intended functorially and not set theoretically. The name contracted product comes from the French produit contracté and in algebraic geometry it is preferred to its topological equivalent push forward.

Morphisms of torsors and reduction of structure group scheme

[edit]

Let and be respectively a (right) -torsor and a (right) -torsor in some Grothendieck topology where and are -group schemes. A morphism (of torsors) from to is a pair of morphisms where is a -morphism and is group-scheme morphism such that where and are respectively the action of on and of on .

In this way can be proved to be isomorphic to the contracted product . If the morphism is a closed immersion then is said to be a sub-torsor of . We can also say, inheriting the language from topology, that admits a reduction of structure group scheme from to .

Structure reduction theorem

[edit]

An important result by Vladimir Drinfeld and Carlos Simpson goes as follows: let be a smooth projective curve over an algebraically closed field , a semisimple, split and simply connected algebraic group (then a group scheme) and a -torsor on , being a finitely generated -algebra. Then there is an étale morphism such that admits a reduction of structure group scheme to a Borel subgroup-scheme of .[9][10]

Further remarks

[edit]
  • It is common to consider a torsor for not just a group scheme but more generally for a group sheaf (e.g., fppf group sheaf).
  • The category of torsors over a fixed base forms a stack. Conversely, a prestack can be stackified by taking the category of torsors (over the prestack).
  • If is a connected algebraic group over a finite field , then any -torsor over is trivial. (Lang's theorem.)

Invariants

[edit]

If P is a parabolic subgroup of a smooth affine group scheme G with connected fibers, then its degree of instability, denoted by , is the degree of its Lie algebra as a vector bundle on X. The degree of instability of G is then . If G is an algebraic group and E is a G-torsor, then the degree of instability of E is the degree of the inner form of G induced by E (which is a group scheme over X); i.e., . E is said to be semi-stable if and is stable if .

Examples of torsors in applied mathematics

[edit]

According to John Baez, energy, voltage, position and the phase of a quantum-mechanical wavefunction are all examples of torsors in everyday physics; in each case, only relative comparisons can be measured, but a reference point must be chosen arbitrarily to make absolute values meaningful. However, the comparative values of relative energy, voltage difference, displacements and phase differences are not torsors, but can be represented by simpler structures such as real numbers, vectors or angles.[11]

In basic calculus, he cites indefinite integrals as being examples of torsors.[11]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ Demazure, Michel; Gabriel, Pierre (2005). Groupes algébriques, tome I. North Holland. ISBN 9780720420340.
  2. ^ Vistoli, Angelo (2005). Grothendieck Topologies, in "Fundamental Algebraic Geometry". AMS. ISBN 978-0821842454.
  3. ^ Milne 1980, The discussion preceding Proposition 4.6.
  4. ^ Nori, Madhav V. (1976). "On the Representations of the Fundamental Group" (PDF). Compositio Mathematica. 33 (1): 29–42. MR 0417179. Zbl 0337.14016.
  5. ^ Nori, Madhav V. (1982). "The fundamental group-scheme". Proceedings Mathematical Sciences. 91 (2): 73–122. doi:10.1007/BF02967978. S2CID 121156750.
  6. ^ Szamuely, Tamás (2009). Galois Groups and Fundamental Groups. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511627064. ISBN 9780521888509.
  7. ^ Antei, Marco; Emsalem, Michel; Gasbarri, Carlo (2020). "Sur l'existence du schéma en groupes fondamental". Épijournal de Géométrie Algébrique. arXiv:1504.05082. doi:10.46298/epiga.2020.volume4.5436. S2CID 227029191.
  8. ^ Antei, Marco; Emsalem, Michel; Gasbarri, Carlo (2020). "Erratum for "Heights of vector bundles and the fundamental group scheme of a curve"". Duke Mathematical Journal. 169 (16). doi:10.1215/00127094-2020-0065. S2CID 225148904.
  9. ^ Gaitsgory, Dennis (October 27, 2009). "Seminar notes: Higgs bundles, Kostant section, and local triviality of G-bundles" (PDF). Harvard University. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2022-06-30.
  10. ^ Lurie, Jacob (March 5, 2014). "Existence of Borel Reductions I (Lecture 14)" (PDF). Harvard University.
  11. ^ a b Baez, John (December 27, 2009). "Torsors Made Easy". math.ucr.edu. Retrieved 2022-11-22.

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]