Potential semi-stability of p-adic representations coming from algebraic geometry

Last week, I participated in a summer school on arithmetic geometry and Langlands program. Although this is not my field of interests, I always give some respect those who work in those fields. I also did gave a motivational TA talk about couting points on elliptic curves. To be honest, I do not expect to learn much from this school but I got enough inspiration to read arithmetic stuff, which I am going to write.

Since I am an algebraic geometer, I'd like to present things in a geometric way. Let p be a prime number and denote \mathbb{Q}_p the p-adic local field. Let K be a finite extension of \mathbb{Q}_p. Let G_K = \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K) the absolute Galois group. A \ell-adic representation of G_K is a continuous morphism (of groups)

G_K \longrightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(V),

where V is a finite-dimensional \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}-vector space with \ell \neq p a prime. We denote by K^{unr} the maximal unramified extension and I_K = \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K^{unr}) the inertia group. We say that 

  • V has good reduction if I_K acts trivially on V.
  • V has potentially good reduction if there exists a finite extension L/K so that V as a representation of G_L has good reduction.
  • V is semi-stable if the image of I_K in \mathrm{GL}(V) is unipotent.
  • V is potentially semi-stable if there exists a finite extension L/K so that V as a representation of G_L is semi-stable.

We are going to see that, examples coming from algebraic geometry is potentially semi-stable.

  1. (Cyclotomic character) For each n \geq 0, we see that the roots of unity \mu_{\ell^n}(\overline{K}) \simeq (\mathbb{Z}/\ell^n\mathbb{Z}) (non-canonically, as it depends on a choice of root of unity) and they form an inverse system \mu_{\ell^{n+1}} \longrightarrow \mu_{\ell^n} and each of them carries an action of G_K. Thus, there is an action G_K \longrightarrow \varprojlim \mu_{\ell^n}(\overline{K}). By convention, we set the RHS to be \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}(1), the Tate twist. It is a free \mathbb{Z}_l-module of rank 1. Hence a morphism G_K \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}^{\times}, called the cyclotomic character. Tensoring with \mathbb{Q}_{\ell} we obtain G_K \longrightarrow \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^{\times}.
  2. (Elliptic curves) Let E/K be an elliptic curve, then G_K acts on E(\overline{K}). In particular, G_K acts on E[\ell^n] = \left \{P \in E(\overline{K}) \mid \ell^n P = 0 \right \}. We know that E[\ell^n] is a free \mathbb{Z}/\ell^n\mathbb{Z}-module of rank 2 and the family E[\ell^{n+1}] \longrightarrow E[\ell^n] forms an inverse system; hence they induce a represention (after taking limit and tensoring with \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}) G_K \longrightarrow \mathrm{GL}_2(\mathbb{Q}_l).
  3. (Etale cohomology) Let X/K be a K-variety. Let X_{\overline{K}} be its base change to \overline{K} and p \colon X_{\overline{K}} \longrightarrow X the projection. For each g \in G_K = \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K), we get an isomorphism H^i_{et}(X_{\overline{K}},p^*\mathcal{F}) \longrightarrow H^i_{et}(X_{\overline{K}},g^*p^*\mathcal{F})
    for any sheaf \mathcal{F} on X. In the special case when \mathcal{F} = \mathbb{Z}/\ell^n\mathbb{Z} the constant sheaf, we get an automorphism of H^i_{et}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbb{Z}/\ell^n\mathbb{Z}) and hence there is an action of G_K on H^i_{et}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbb{Z}/\ell^n\mathbb{Z}). By taking projective limit over the system H^i_{et}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbb{Z}/\ell^{n+1}\mathbb{Z}) \longrightarrow H^i_{et}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbb{Z}/\ell^n\mathbb{Z})
    and tensoring with \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}, we obtain the so-called \ell-adic representation given by the action of G_K on H^i_{et}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}). If X is proper and smooth over K, these representations are finite-dimensional. One can also consider cohomology with compact support. For instance, putting X = \mathbb{P}^1, one obtains the "dual" of the cyclotomic character.

Theorem 1 (Grothendieck). Let X be a smooth, projective variety over K, then the \ell-adic representations H^i_{et}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}) are potentially semi-stable.

Before digging into the proof, let me stress that some of the above terminologies are from geometry. Let \mathcal{O}_K denotes the ring of integers and k its residue field. The triplet (K,\mathcal{O}_K,k) is something for which I would call "a disk" in the sense that:

  • \mathcal{O}_K is the full disk.
  • K the generic fiber, is understood as a punctured disk.
  • k the special fiber, is nothing but the origin. 

For any variety \mathcal{X} \longrightarrow \mathrm{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_K), we draw the commutative diagram by base change \require{AMScd}
\begin{CD} \mathcal{X}_{\eta} @>>> \mathcal{X} @<<< \mathcal{X}_s\\ @VVV @VVV @VVV \\ \eta = \mathrm{Spec}(K) @>>> \mathrm{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_K) @<<< s = \mathrm{Spec}(k) \end{CD}

In some sense, given a variety X/K, we expect it comes from a variety \mathcal{X}/\mathcal{O}_K, i.e., \mathcal{X}_{\eta} = X and the special fiber \mathcal{X}_s has good geometric properties. In such a case, we refer \mathcal{X} as a model of X. More precisely, we say that

  • X has good reduction if there exists a smooth proper model \mathcal{X}/\mathcal{O}_K. Equivalently, we demand that \mathcal{X}_s/k is smooth. 
  • X has semi-stable reduction if there exists a flat, proper model \mathcal{X}/\mathcal{O}_K whose special fiber \mathcal{X}_s has simple normal crossings.

If X has good reduction or has semi-stable reduction, so do the corresponding \ell-adic representions H^i_{et}(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}). The converse, however, is far from being true, even for elliptic curves. In some sense, a model (together with its special fiber) controls the generic fiber. This is the whole philosophy of nearby cycles functors because the special fiber is usually simpler than the generic fiber; specially in the case when resolutions of singularities are available, so one can transform problems on generic fibers to ones on special fibers. Grothendieck's theorem on potential semi-stability can be stated as follows (with some improvements by Gabber)

Theorem 2 (Grothendieck, Gabber). Let \mathcal{X}/\mathcal{O}_K be a \mathcal{O}_K-variety. Under the assumption of theorem 2 for the generic fiber X = \mathcal{X}_{\eta}, there exists an open subgroup I_1 \subset I, independent of l, such that for all g \in I_1, (g-1)^{i+1}=0 on H^i_c(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbb{Z}/\ell^n\mathbb{Z}) or H^i(X_{\overline{K}},\mathbb{Z}/\ell^n\mathbb{Z})

Let us now go into the details.

Proposition 3. Let \rho \colon G_K \longrightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}) be a l-adic representation, then there exists an open subgroup I_1 \subset I such that for all g \in I_1, \rho(g) is unipotent.

We let K^{tr} be the maximal tamely ramified extension of K, obtained by adding all n-th roots of a uniformizer of K to K^{unr}, with n prime to p. We consider the wild inertia group P_K =  \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K^{tr}), which is a pro p-group. There is an isomorphism 

I_K/P_K \longrightarrow \varprojlim_{(n,p)=1}\mu_n(\overline{K}) \simeq \prod_{q \neq p}\mathbb{Z}_q(1), \sigma \longmapsto \left(\frac{\sigma(\sqrt[q]{\pi})}{\sqrt[q]{\pi}} \right),

where \pi denotes a uniformizer of K. Let P_{K,\ell} be the inverse image of \prod_{q \neq p,l} \mathbb{Z}_q in I_K via the canonical surjection I_K \longrightarrow I_K/P_K. The group P_{K,\ell} can be identified with the group \mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K}/K^{tr,\ell}), where K^{tr,\ell} is the \ell-part of K^{tr}, which is obtained by adding all \ell^n-roots of a uniformizer to K^{unr}. We note that \mathrm{Gal}(K^{tr,\ell}/K^{unr}) \simeq \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}(1) via

\sigma \longmapsto \left(\frac{\sigma(\sqrt[l^n]{\pi})}{\sqrt[l^n]{\pi}} \right),

and no power of \ell can kill any element in P_{K,\ell}; heuristically speaking, the order of P_{K,\ell} is prime to \ell. The following filtration maybe helpful

1 \subset P_K \subset P_{K,\ell} \subset I_K \subset G_K

and conversely

K \subset K^{unr} \subset K^{tr,\ell}  \subset K^{tr} \subset \overline{K}.

We have the following key step in proving arithmetic local monodromy theorem.

Lemma 4. Let \rho \colon G_K \longrightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}) be a \ell-adic represention, then \rho(P_{K,\ell}) is finite

Proof.  We will show that \mathrm{Ker}(\rho_{\mid P_{K,\ell}}) is open (hence it has finite index because P_{K,\ell} is compact). By looking at valuations, we see that 

K_m = \left \{1 + \ell^m \mathrm{M}_n(\mathbb{Z}_{\ell}) \right \} \subset \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{Q}_{\ell})

provided that m \geq 1. We have a descending sequence K_{m+1} \subset K_m of open subgroups and each quotient K_m/K_{m+1} is an abelian group killed by l. Let V = (\rho_{\mid P_{K,\ell}})^{-1}(K_1) then V is an open subgroup of P_{K,\ell}. We claim that V = \mathrm{Ker}(\rho_{\mid P_{K,\ell}}). At first, it is clear that (\rho_{\mid P_{K,\ell}})(V) \subset K_1 and \mathrm{Ker}(\rho_{\mid P_{K,\ell}}) \subset V. Since V is an open subgroup of P_{K,\ell}, no power of \ell can kill elements in V. As a consequence, the image of (\rho_{\mid P_{K,\ell}})(V) in K_1/K_2 must be trivial as the latter group is killed by \ell. This proves that (\rho_{\mid P_{K,\ell}})(V) \subset K_2. Proceed the same way, we see that 

(\rho_{\mid P_{K,\ell}})(V) \subset \bigcap_{m \geq 1}K_m = 1.

Thus, V \subset \mathrm{Ker}(\rho_{\mid P_{K,\ell}}) and hence equality holds. 

We need some technical definition.

Definition 5. Let t be a topological generator of \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}(1). for any b \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}, we see t^b to be the limit \varprojlim_{m \in \mathbb{Z}, m \to b} t^m. (The same definition makes sense for b \in \hat{\mathbb{Z}})

Proposition 3 can be rephrased (and generalized a bit) as follows.

Proposition 3'. Assume that no finite extension of k contains all l^n-roots of unity, then any \ell-adic representation \rho: G_K \longrightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}) is potentially semi-stable

Proof. After making a finite extension is necessary, we may even assume that \rho(P_{K,\ell}) is trivial. In this way, any \ell-adic representation can be viewed as a morphism \overline{\rho} \colon \colon \mathrm{Gal}(K^{tr,\ell}/K) \longrightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}). We then have an exact sequence

1 \longrightarrow \mathrm{Gal}(K^{tr,\ell}/K^{unr}) \simeq \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}(1) \longrightarrow \mathrm{Gal}(K^{tr,\ell}/K) \longrightarrow \mathrm{Gal}(k^{sep}/k) \longrightarrow 1

with k being the residue field of K. Let t be a topological generator of \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}(1). We choose a finite extension E of \mathbb{Q}_{\ell} so that the characteristic polynomial of \overline{\rho}(t) splits into linear factors in E. Then W = E \otimes_{\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}} \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^n admits an induced action from \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}^n via 

g(\lambda \otimes v) = \lambda \otimes gv.

We use the same nation for the induced action \overline{\rho} \colon G_K \longrightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(E). Let a \in E be an eigenvalue of \overline{\rho}(t) and v \neq 0 \in W a corresponding eigenvector, i.e., 

\overline{\rho}(t)(v) = av.

For any g \in \mathrm{Gal}(K^{tr,\ell}/K), we claim that gtg^{-1}=t^{\chi_{\ell}(g)}, where \chi_{\ell} \colon \mathrm{Gal}(K^{tr,\ell}/K) \longrightarrow \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}^{\times} is some character function. Indeed, let

L = K[X]/(X^{\ell^n} - \pi) = K(\sqrt[\ell^n]{\pi}) \subset K^{tr,\ell}

and \alpha= \overline{X} \in L then \overline{\rho}(g^{-1})(\alpha) = \zeta_{\ell^n}\alpha for some \ell^n-root of unity \zeta_{\ell^n}. Note that t \in I_K/P_{K,\ell} \simeq \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}(1), it must act trivially on \zeta_{\ell^n} because the extension K[X]/(X^{\ell^n}-1) \subset K^{unr} (again, \ell \neq p is important). Moreover \overline{\rho}(t)(\alpha) = \zeta_{\ell^n}^{t_n}\alpha for some t_n \in \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}^{\times}. This implies that

\overline{\rho}(gtg^{-1})(\alpha) = \overline{\rho}(gt)(\zeta_{\ell^n}\alpha) = \overline{\rho}(g)(\zeta_{\ell^n}^{t_n+1}\alpha) = (\zeta_{\ell^n}^{t_n})\alpha

and hence we can define \chi_{\ell}(g) = t_n. An elementary calculation shows that\overline{\rho}(t)(g^{-1}v) = a^{\chi_{\ell}(g)}g^{-1}v,
and hence a^{\chi_{\ell}(g)} is also an eigenvalue.The hypothesis is equivalent to saying that \chi_{\ell} takes infinitely many values and any eigenvalue of t is a root of unity. In particular, some power of t must act unipotently. Note that t is a topological generator, the previous fact shows that some (closed) subgroup of \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}(1) (given by taking the closure of some power of t) acts unipotently. By taking inverse image via I_K \longrightarrow I_K/P_{K,\ell}, we deduce that some subgroup of finite index of I_K acts unipotently.

Proof of theorem 1. The idea is to show that the \ell-adic represention on etale cohomology coming from some other action G_{K'} \longrightarrow \mathrm{GL}_n(\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}) with K' satisfying the hypothesis of proposition 3'

Since X is projective, it can be written as V_+(f_1,...,f_m) \subset \mathbb{P}^n_K  for some homogeneous polynomials f_1,...,f_m. Let K_0 be the field obtained by adding all coefficients of f_1,...,f_n to the prime field of K. Let K_1 be the topological closure of K_0 in K. Then K_1 is a complete discrete valued field with residue field k_1 of finite type over \mathbb{F}_p.

Let k_2 = k_1^{p^{-\infty}} be the perfect closure of k_1. There exists a complete discrete valued field K_1 \subset K_2 \subset K whose residue field is k_2. Now we have

X = X_0 \times_{K_0} K = (X_0 \times_{K_0} K_2) \times_{K_2} K

and the action of G_K comes from the action of G_{K_2}. But for K_2, the contidion of proposition 3' is satisfied, so the theorem follows.

Nhận xét

Bài đăng phổ biến từ blog này

Affine Grassmannians of reductive groups

Drinfeld curves and geometric Mackey Formula