I know this may be a trivial question, but I can't find the answer on, for example, Milne's online notes and Danilov's Cohomology of Algebraic Varieties.

Suppose $K$ is a number field (say), $\overline K$ its algebraic closure, $G_K:=\text{Gal}(\overline K/K)$, $X$ is a variety over $K$, $\mathcal F$ is a locally constant (or constructible (?), don't know if it's true) abelian sheaf on $X_{\text{et}}$. It is said that for any $i\geqslant 0$, there is a continuous $G_K$ action on $H_{\text{et}}^i(X_{\overline K},\mathcal F)$.

My question is, how can one define this action? I found the answer that if $i=1$ and $\mathcal F$ is the constant sheaf associated to an abelian group $A$, then $H_{\text{et}}^1(X_{\overline K},\mathcal F)=\text{Hom}(\pi_1^{\text{et}}(X_{\overline K}),A)$, using the following exact sequence $$ 0\to\pi_1^{\text{et}}(X_{\overline K})\to \pi_1^{\text{et}}(X)\to\pi_1^{\text{et}}(\text{Spec }K)\cong G_K\to 0 $$ we get the Galois action. But what about $i\neq 1$ or $\mathcal F$ is not constant sheaf?

[EDIT] After viewing other questions on this site, I found that it is the proper base change theorem: if $f:X\to\text{Spec }K$ is proper, then there is a canonical isomorphism $H_\text{et}^i(X_{\overline K},\mathcal F_{\overline K})\xrightarrow\sim(R^if_*\mathcal F)_{\overline K}$, the latter is a $G_K$-module. (Complaint: this theorem is contained in notes I mentioned, but it relates etale cohomology to Galois representations is unmentioned, strange.)

But what about $X$ not proper, for example $X=Y_1(N)$ the open modular curve?

[EDIT2] Thanks for Roland's answer, but could anyone explain the simplest example: when $X=\text{Spec }k$, why does this definition of Galois action on $H_{\text{et}}^0$ coincides with the action given by the following category equivalence?

\begin{align*} \mathbf{Sh}\big((\text{Spec }k)_{\text{et}},\mathbf{Ab}\big) &\cong\{\text{discrete abelian group with continuous }G_k\text{-action}\} \\ \mathcal F&\mapsto\varinjlim_{k'/k\text{ finite separable extension}} \mathcal F(\text{Spec }k') \\ \big(\text{Spec }k'\mapsto A^{\text{Gal}(\overline k/k')}\big)&\leftarrow A \end{align*}

In fact, at first I thought I understand this category equivalence, but later I found that I didn't.

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It acts by functoriality. For every $\sigma\in G_K$ you have an automorphism $\sigma:X_{\overline{K}}\to X_{\overline{K}}$ and thus you get an isomorphism $H^i(X_{\overline{K}},\sigma^{-1}\mathcal{F})\to H^i(X,\mathcal{F})$. If $\mathcal{F}$ is constant there is a canonical identification of $\sigma^{-1}\mathcal{F}$ with $\mathcal{F}$. If $\mathcal{F}$ is actually an LCC sheaf, and $X$ proper you can think of $H^i(X_{\overline{K}},\mathcal{F}_{\overline{K}})$ as being the geometric stalk of $R^if_\ast\mathcal{F}$ (where $f:X\to\mathrm{Spec}(K)$) and geometric stalks always have a $G_K$-action. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Sep 23 '15 at 15:16
  • $\begingroup$ Of course, what I am hiding in the above (the second part) is that since $\mathcal{F}$ is defined over $K$, you have an isomorphism of $\sigma^{-1}\mathcal{F}_{\overline{K}}$ with $\mathcal{F}_{\overline{K}}$ (which is why there is an honest to god action opposed to just a system. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Sep 23 '15 at 15:19
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexYoucis Why do you need $X$ proper and $\mathcal{F}$ LCC ? $\endgroup$ – Roland Sep 23 '15 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Roland You don't. I just wanted to make sure that $R^if_\ast\mathcal{F}$ is LCC—it makes me happier. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Sep 23 '15 at 15:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Roland Perhaps I should have mentioned it. If no one answers the question, I'll be more detailed in my answer. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Sep 23 '15 at 15:22

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I really don't see where we need the proper assumption to get a Galois action.

So let $X/k$ be any scheme, $\overline{k}$ a separable (or algebraic) closure of $k$, and $\mathcal{F}$ be any sheaf on $X$. Write $X_\overline{k}$ for the base change of $X$, $p:X_\overline{k}\rightarrow X$ the induced morphism. Write also $\mathcal{F}_\overline{k}=p^*\mathcal{F}$ for the pullback of $\mathcal{F}$ to $X_\overline{k}$.

For $g\in\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{k}/k)$, we have an induce morphism $g:X_\overline{k}\rightarrow X_\overline{k}$, which induce a pullback $g^*\mathcal{F}_\overline{k}$. I claim that there is a canonical isomorphism $g^*\mathcal{F}_\overline{k}\simeq\mathcal{F}_\overline{k}$. This is because $\mathcal{F}$ comes from $X$. Indeed : $g^*\mathcal{F}_\overline{k}=g^*p^*\mathcal{F}=p^*\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{F}_\overline{k}$.

Hence we have an induced action on cohomology : $$ H^i(X_\overline{k},\mathcal{F}_\overline{k})\rightarrow H^i(X_\overline{k},g^*\mathcal{F}_\overline{k})\simeq H^i(X_\overline{k},\mathcal{F}_\overline{k})$$ which is the action you are looking for.

Now there is also the approach of Alex Youcis : if $f:X\rightarrow\operatorname{Spec}k$ is the structural morphism, $R^if_*\mathcal{F}$ is a sheaf on $\operatorname{Spec}k$ hence a set equipped with a continuous discrete $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{k}/k)$-set. Unless I'm mistaken, I don't think we need to add any assumption for the following claim : the underlying $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{k}/k)$-set is exactly $H^i(X_\overline{k},\mathcal{F}_\overline{k})$ with the above action. (This prove in particular that the above action is continuous).

This follows from the following continuity result $$\varinjlim_{k'}H^i(X_{k'},\mathcal{F}_{k'})=H^i(X_\overline{k},\mathcal{F}_\overline{k})$$ where $k'$ runs through the finite Galois extensions of $k$ in $\overline{k}$ and the trivial base change $(R^if_*\mathcal{F})_{k'}=R^if_*\mathcal{F}_{k'}$.

EDIT : Let me expand a bit on the last assertion. First, let us show that the stalk of $R^nf_*\mathcal{F}$ at a geometric point $\operatorname{Spec}\overline{k}$ is indeed $H^n(X_\overline{k},\mathcal{F}_\overline{k})$.

By definition, the stalk of $R^nf_*\mathcal{F}$ is $\varinjlim_{k'}R^nf_*\mathcal{F}(k')$ where the limit is taken over all the finite extension of $k'$ inside $\overline{k}$. Now recall that $R^nf_*\mathcal{F}$ is the sheaf associated to the presheaf $k'\mapsto H^n(X_{k'},\mathcal{F}_{k'})$, and since the stalk of a presheaf is the same as its associated sheaf, we get $(R^nf_*\mathcal{F})_\overline{k}=\varinjlim_{k'}H^n(X_{k'},\mathcal{F}_{k'})=H^n(X_\overline{k},\mathcal{F}_\overline{k})$, the last equality is from a limit argument (we should add $X$ quasi-compact and quasi-separated here).

Recall that the equivalence between sheaves on $(\operatorname{Spec}k)_{ét}$ and $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{k}/k)$-sets is the following : if $\mathcal{F}$ is a sheaf on $\operatorname{Spec}k$, then $\mathcal{F}_\overline{k}=\varinjlim\mathcal{F}(k')$ is a $\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{k}/k)$-set. The action of $\sigma\in\operatorname{Gal}(\overline{k}/k)=\varprojlim\operatorname{Gal}(k'/k)$ on $\mathcal{F}_\overline{k}$ is induced by the compatibles actions on the $\mathcal{F}(k')$ (check that is indeed compatible).

Now you should convinced yourself that this is indeed the pull-back to $\overline{k}$ and that this action is the same as the induced action by functoriality (that is very first one I wrote). Do the same with $R^if_*$ and you will get the compatibility of the two actions in general.

Exercise : Take $k=\mathbb{R}$ and $\mathcal{F}=\mu_4$ the sheaf $A\mapsto\{x\in A, x^4=1\}$ and compute the action of the stalk (there is no trap here).

  • $\begingroup$ How do you commute the pull-backto get that $R^if_\ast$ has fiber $H^i(X_{\overline{k}},\mathcal{F}_{\overline{k}})$? You need to use some sort of base change theorem. Either proper or smooth. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Sep 24 '15 at 21:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlexYoucis Yes you need a base change, but neither proper nor smooth, actually a much easier one that requires no assertions : the "étale base change", and the go to the limit by continuity. Or put differently, by definition the stalk of $R^if_*\mathcal{F}$ at $\overline{k}$ is $\varinjlim_{k'}(R^if_*\mathcal{F})(k')=\varinjlim_{k'}H^i(X_{k'},\mathcal{F}_{k'})=H^i(X_\overline{k},\mathcal{F}_\overline{k})$ (because a stalk of a presheaf is the same as the stalk of its associated sheaf). $\endgroup$ – Roland Sep 25 '15 at 11:46
  • $\begingroup$ Excuse me for being ignorant, but it seems all you've explained is how to reduce the result to finite extensions. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Sep 25 '15 at 11:55
  • $\begingroup$ Oh! I see, now I understand. Good point! I didn't think to use the presheaf. :) $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Sep 25 '15 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer, but could you explain when $X=\text{Spec }k$, why does this definition of Galois action coincides with the action given by category equivalence? $\endgroup$ – Jz Pan Sep 28 '15 at 3:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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