3
$\begingroup$

In the paper Compactifications de l'espace de modules de Hilbert-Blumenthal (Compositio. '78), M. Rapoport relates some assertions from a letter of Deligne to Serre, dated 1972. At the very beginning, the following claim is made:

Let $X$ be an abelian variety over a perfect field $k$ of characteristic $p>0$, with real multiplication by the ring of integers $\mathcal{O}_F$ of a totally real number field $F$. (This includes the condition that $\mathrm{Lie}(X_{k^{alg}})$ is free of rank 1 over $\mathcal{O}_F\otimes k^{alg}$.) $H^1_{cris}(X)$ is a free module of rank $2g$ over the ring of Witt vectors $W(k)$ of $k$ (so far so good). Then $H^1_{cris}(X)$, being torsion-free over $\mathcal{O}_F\otimes W(k)$, is projective because $\mathcal{O}_F \otimes W(k)$ is a Dedekind ring.

My question is: How or why is $\mathcal{O}_F \otimes W(k)$ a Dedekind ring? Take $k=\mathbb{F}_p$, so $W(k)=\mathbb{Z}_p$, and $F$ any totally real number field in which $p$ splits. Then it seems to me that $\mathcal{O}_F \otimes \mathbb{Z}_p$ is not even an integral domain. Is there some theorem about real multiplication of abelian varieties that stops $F$ from splitting over $p$? Is this some older definition of a Dedekind ring? What am I misunderstanding?

Later on, to check that $H^1_{cris}(X)$ is free over $\mathcal{O}_F \otimes W(k)$, the claim is made that it's okay to check if $H^1_{cris}(X)\otimes \mathbb{Q}_p$ is free over $F\otimes W(k)$. It may be obvious, but I'm not seeing why. Any clarification there would also be appreciated.

EDIT: As David Loeffler kindly points out in his answer, it would make sense if a Dedekind ring was a finite product of Dedekind domains.

There is at least one other definition of a Dedekind ring in the literature, in a paper of M. Bhargava (P-orderings and polynomial functions on arbitrary subsets of Dedekind rings, J. reine angew. 1997) as a "Noetherian, locally principal ring in which all non-zero primes are maximal." But according to this definition, the product of multiple Dedekind domains is never a Dedekind ring, since for example $\{0\}\times \mathbb{Z}_p$ is a non-maximal prime ideal of $\mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p$.

I will leave this question open for a little while longer, in case someone can clarify the exact sense of a Dedekind ring in M. Rapoport's paper, ideally with a reference.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ There's no doubt that David's answer is correct. Here Dedekind ring is being used in the same sense as Dedekind scheme: a scheme which is locally Noetherian, one-dimensional, and normal. A Dedekind ring is one whose Spec is normal. Neither this terminology, nor the terminology in Bhargava's paper, is used sufficiently often to be particularly standardized. $\endgroup$ – tracing Nov 28 '15 at 2:07
1
$\begingroup$

I don't have the original reference to hand, but notice that your quote has Dedekind ring, not Dedekind domain. It's possible that what was meant might be that the ring $R = O_F \otimes \mathbf{Z}_p$ is a finite direct product of Dedekind domains (indeed of DVRs), and hence any torsion-free $R$-module is projective.

For your second question: since the Dedekind domain factors $R_i$ of $R$ (which are just the completions of $O_F$ at the primes above $p$) are all discrete valuation rings, one sees that if $M$ is a projective $R$-module, it has the form $\bigoplus_i M_i$ where $M_i = M \otimes_R R_i$ and the $M_i$ are all free; so $M$ is free if and only if the $M_i$ all have the same rank, which is something you can check after inverting $p$ (or any other element you like).

By the way, examples where $p$ is split in $F$ must exist, because abelian varieties over number fields $K$ with real multiplication by $O_F$ certainly do exist, and the reduction of such an AV at all but finitely many primes of $K$ will give AV's over finite fields with $O_F$-multiplication. In particular, you can pick your prime of $K$ such that it lies above a rational prime $p$ split in $F$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, I think this is most likely it. Both parts of the argument can now be reworded without mentioning a Dedekind ring by just observing $\mathcal{O}_F \otimes W(k)$ is a product of Dedekind domains. I'm leaving the question open for a little while longer in case someone knows a reference for the exact sense used in the original paper. See the edit to the question for an existing definition that doesn't fit. $\endgroup$ – Prometheus Oct 4 '15 at 18:01

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.