Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $X$ be an algebraic variety (i.e. an integral separated scheme of finite type over an algebraically closed field $k$) and let $G$ be a finite group of automorphisms of $X$. Suppose (as we may in the case of quasi-projective varieties) that for any $x$ in $X$, the orbit $G_x$ of $x$ is contained in an affine open subset of $X$. A classical result states that there exists a (unique) $k$-variety $Y$ together with a finite, surjective and separable morphism $\pi \colon X\to Y$ such that:

1) As topological space $(Y,\pi)$ is the quotient of $X$ for the action of $G$.

2)There is a natural isomorphism $\mathcal{O}_Y \to \pi_{*}(\mathcal{O}_X)^{G}$.

In this setting, let $\mathcal{F}$ be a coherent sheaf on $Y$. Since for any $g$ in $G$ we have a commutative diagram:

\begin{array}{ccc} X & \to^{g} & X \\ \downarrow^{\pi} & & \downarrow^{\pi}\\ Y & \to^{id} & Y \end{array}

there should be a map between $\pi^{*}\mathcal{F}$ and $\pi^{*}\mathcal{F}$ induced by $g$, that is a natural automorphism. However, I can't really understand what the map is supposed to do... The conclusion is that $G$ acts on the pullback of the sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ in a compatible manner (with respect to the action on $X$), but I can hardly imagine what is really happening here, beyond the formal arguments. Can anybody explain this in a more concrete way?

P.S. Sorry for the bad $\TeX$ typesetting: I suppose that the above diagram should be understood as a commutative triangle.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

The slogan here is that questions about the (non-equivariant) geometry of $Y$ have answers coming from the $G$-equivariant geometry of $X$.

It's probably helpful to consider first the case of a topological space $X$ with a free action of a finite group $G$, and a vector bundle $E$ on $Y=X/G$. In this case, the pullback is by definition the vector bundle of pairs $(x,e)$ where $x \in X$ and $e$ is in the fiber of $e$ over the orbit of $x$. The group $G$ evidently acts on $X \times E$ via its action on $X$, and this set of pairs is stable.

Now, to motivate the definition of a $G$-equivariant coherent sheaf, let's begin with a fiber bundle $E$ on a topological space $X$ with a continuous action of a topogical group $G$. There are two maps $\pi,a:G \times X \rightarrow X$, the projection $\pi$ onto the second factor and the action map $a$. We can pull $E$ back by these to obtain two bundles $\pi^*E$ and $a^*E$ on $G\times X$. Concretely, we have $$\pi^* E=\{(g,x,e) \ | \ e \in \text{fiber through} \ x \} \quad \text{and} \quad a^* E=\{(g,x,e) \ | \ e \in \text{fiber through} \ gx \},$$ and the map $\alpha:(g,x,e) \mapsto (g,x,ge)$ defines an isomorphism from $\pi^* E$ onto $a^*E$. The associativity for the action of $G$ on $E$ and the fact that $1 \in G$ acts by the identity force this map $\alpha$ to satisfy some additional requirements, which I will be happy to tell you about if this is what you want to know.

This is the official definition of $G$-equivariant sheaf on $X$, which works in any geometric category (e.g., schemes, or algebraic spaces): it is a sheaf on $X$ together with an isomorphism $\alpha:\pi^* E \rightarrow a^* E$ satisfying additional conditions corresponding to $g(h(x))=(gh)(x)$ and $1 x=x$.

At the level of sections, given a $G$-equivariant sheaf $E$ and a section $f$ of $E$ over an open subset $U$ of $X$, we obtain a section $gf$ of $E$ over $gU$. But of course we want this to vary continuously in $g$, $f$, and $U$, and the definition we have indicated above packages all this conveniently.

share|cite|improve this answer
In the case of a topological space without extra structure (that is the case of a scheme) this is probably a good example. My problems arise when I want to understand the relations between the two structure sheaves. In particular, what do we mean when we say that the action of $G$ on the pullback of $\mathcal{F}$ is compatible with the action of $G$ on $X$? What happens at the level of sections? – FedeB Mar 4 '12 at 21:40
Dear @FedeB, Well, I have given more information, but it's still not clear to me from the text of your question what you really want to know. Please let me know if I can be of further assistance. – Stephen Mar 4 '12 at 23:21
Thank you, this is much better! Would you mind writing down the additional requirements you mentioned in the answer? – FedeB Mar 5 '12 at 8:58
Dear @Steve, do you have any readable reference for the subject? I also have a small related question: when you write $G\times X\to X$ I suppose that you mean the product as topological spaces (with $G$ endowed with a discrete topology. In the scheme setting (say, $X$ a $k$-scheme), do you put a kind of standard $k$-scheme structure on $G$ in order to consider the fiber product $G \times_k X$ as schemes over $k$? – FedeB Mar 5 '12 at 11:03

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.