8
$\begingroup$

What are all the etale morphisms from a scheme $X$ to $\Bbb A^1_k$?

Knowing that $X\to \Bbb A^1_k$ is etale means that $X$ is $1$-dimensional I think. Additionally, $X$ must admit a zariski open cover by affines, $X=\bigcup_{i\in I} Spec(A_i)$ where each $A_i$ is a $k[t]$-algebra.

So we have that $X$ is covered by $1$-dimensional affine $k[t]$-algebras. Additionally, these $U_i=Spec(A_i)$ are taken by open immersion $U_i\to X$ into $X$, and open immersions are etale, so each of these are etale over $\Bbb A^1_k$, so we can probably simplify our analysis first to affines over $\Bbb A^1_k$.

In which case we first want to consider $Spec(A_i)\to Spec(k[t])$ morphisms that are etale. I think $A_i$ should be finitely presented as a $k[t]$-algebra, so of the form $k[t][x_1,\dots,x_n]/(f_1,\dots,f_m)$ where being $1$-dimensional means that $(f_1,\dots,f_m)$ must cut out an $n$-dimensional subvariety of $\Bbb A^{n+1}_k$.

I'm not sure if I'm correct at this point, and I'm not sure how to find all of them. I think maybe one can argue like: 1) surjective finite etale morphisms to $\Bbb A^1_k$ are necessarily just isomorphisms $\Bbb A^1_k\to \Bbb A^1_k$, 2) any etale morphism $X\to \Bbb A^1_k$ can be covered by finite etale morphisms $U_i\to X\to \Bbb A^1_k$, and composites of etale morphisms are etale 3) ???, 4) profit

Bonus: I really would like to understand all etale coverings $\{U_i\to \Bbb A^1_k\}_{i\in I}$, where the question above was my first obstruction to working this out. So any ideas on that would also be helpful.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You can explicitly describe the etale site of any Dedekind scheme. If no one replies, I will write something later. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Apr 27 at 2:27
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexYoucis What is a dedekind scheme? Spectrum of a dedekind domain? $\endgroup$ – Earth Cracks Apr 27 at 2:30
  • $\begingroup$ Integral normal scheme of dimension $1$ (locally spectrum of Dedekind domain( $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Apr 27 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexYoucis In case noone answers, and you forget to come back here, did you have a reference for this explicit description (or some partial description)? $\endgroup$ – Earth Cracks Apr 27 at 2:35
  • $\begingroup$ I'm in the process of writing it up (it's semi-long). I don't remember a reference off the top of my head. I think I read it in some work of Zink originally, but I don't recall. I'll finish writing it later when I have more time. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Apr 27 at 4:42
0
$\begingroup$

$\newcommand{\h}{\mathcal{O}}$$\newcommand{\sep}{\mathrm{sep}}$$\newcommand{\Gal}{\mathrm{Gal}}$$\newcommand{\ov}[1]{\overline{#1}}$$\newcommand{\Spec}{\mathrm{Spec}}$

Disclaimer: Of course, none of the below is original. I don't remember where I first learned it (it was almost certainly something Brian Conrad wrote, but I can't find it--it might be something he posted on MO?).

Setup:

Let $X$ be any Dedekind scheme. By defintion (for me) this means that $X$ is an integral normal Noetherian scheme of dimension $1$ (so locally the spectrum of a Dedekind domain). Let us set $K:=K(X)$. Note that for each point $x\in X$ we can define an inertia subgroup at $x$, denoted $I_x$, as follows. Let $\h_{X,\ov{x}}$ be the strict Henselization of $X$ at $\ov{x}:\Spec(k(x)^\sep)\to X$ (see this for more detail). Note that we can embed $\h_{X,\ov{x}}$ into $K^\sep$ essentially as follows. Choose a valuation $v'$ of $K^\sep$ lying over $v_x$. Then, take the union of the valuation rings $\{x\in F:v'(x)\geqslant 0\}$ as $L$ travels over the finite subextensions of $K^\sep/K$ such that $v'$ (restricted to that extension) is unramified over $K$. Let $L_x:=\mathrm{Frac}(\h_{X,\ov{x}})$. We then set $I_x:=\Gal(K^\sep/L_x)$. Note that $\Gal(K^\sep/K)/I_x\cong \Gal(k(x)^\sep/k(x)$.

So, in reality we won't explicitly parameterize all etale covers. Instead, we'll virtually parameterize all etale maps. Less cryptically, let us now suppose that $Y\to X$ is an etale morphism. Then, we know that $Y\to X$ is locally quasi-finite--there is an open cover $\{Y_i\}$ of $Y$ such that $Y_i\to X$ s quasi-finite. In particular, every etale map $Y\to X$ has a refinement (in the big Zariski site) by a cover of the form $\displaystyle \bigsqcup_i Y_i\to X$ with $Y_i\to X$ quasi-finite. Thus, for all intents and purposes it's really enough to describe the category $\mathscr{C}$ of all quasi-finite etale maps $U\to X$.

Let us make the further following reduction. Namely, note that if $Y\to X$ is quasi-finite then $Y_K\to\mathrm{Spec}(K)$ is a finite etale $K$-scheme. Indeed, we know that every etale scheme over $\mathrm{Spec}(K)$ is a disjoint union of spectra of finite separable extensions of $K$ (e.g. see this). Since $Y_K$ is quasi-finite it must be a finite disjoint union, and thus a finite etale cover.

By the 'spreading out principle' this implies that there exists some open subscheme $U$ of $X$ such that $Y_U\to U$ is finite etale. Let us set $\mathscr{C}_U$ to be the category of quasi-finite etale maps $Y\to X$ such that $Y_U\to U$ is finite. Then, what we will actually do here is give a fairly easy way to 'paramaterize' the category $\mathscr{C}_U$.

Description of $\mathscr{C}_U$

Let us take an object $Y\to X$ of $\mathscr{C}_U$. We shall essentially claim is that we can somehow capture $Y$ by the finite etale cover $Y_U\to U$ and the 'straggler fibers' over the points in $Z:=X-U$. moreover, we shall claim that both pieces of these data can be described in terms of Galois sets.

Let us begin by noting that if $Y\to X$ is in $\mathscr{C}_U$ the since $U$ is normal we know that $Y_U$ is normal. And, in fact, it's pretty easy to see that $Y_U$ is actually just the normalization of $X$ in $Y_K$. Thus, we see that $Y_U$ is actually determined from $Y_K$ which is determined by the finite (discrete) $\Gal(K^\sep/K)$-set $Y(K^\sep)$ which is unramified along $U$. Recall that a $\Gal(K^\sep/K)$-set $T$ is called unramified at $x$ if $I_x$ acts trivially on it, and that it's unramified along $U$ if its unramified at every $x\in U$.

In fact, what we have just described is the following well-known result:

Fact 1: The association $V\mapsto V(K^\sep)$ is an equivalence of categories from the category $\mathsf{Fet}(U)$ of finite etale covers of $U$ to the set of finite discrete $\Gal(K^\sep/K)$-sets unramified along $U$.

So, this accounts for $Y_U\to U$, but what about these straggler fibers $Y_x$ for $x\in Z:=X-U$?

Well, note that for each $x\in Z$ that we have a natural inclusion $Y(k(x)^\sep)\hookrightarrow Y(K^\sep)$. Indeed, since $Y_{\Spec(\h_{X,\ov{x}})}\to \Spec(\h_{X,\ov{x}})$ is etale, we can use Hensel's lemma to say that $Y(k(x)^\sep)=Y(\h_{X,\ov{x}})$. Since $\h_{X,\ov{x}}\hookrightarrow K^\sep$ (by the discussion at the beginning of the setup) this gives us a natural map $Y(k(x)^\sep)\to Y(K^\sep)$ which is easily seen to be injective. Moreover, since $I_x$ naturally acts trivially on $Y(k(x)^\sep)$ (by definition) we see that $Y(k(x)^\sep)$ naturally lands in $Y(K^\sep)^{I_x}$.

Note that since $I_x$ acts trivially on $Y(K^\sep)^{I_x}$ that $\Gal(k(x)^\sep/k(x)$ acts on $Y(K^\sep)^{I_x}$ and, in fact, the inclusion $Y(k(x)^\sep)\hookrightarrow Y(K^\sep)^{I_x}$ is $\Gal(k(x)^\sep/k(x)$-equivariant.

The main result is then the following:

Theorem: The association $Y\mapsto (Y(K^\sep),\{Y(k(x)^\sep)\}_{x\in Z})$ is an equivalence of categories from $\mathscr{C}_U$ to the category of tuples $(T,\{T_x\})$ where $T$ is a finite discrete $\Gal(K^\sep/K)$-set and $T_x$ is a $\Gal(k(x)^\sep/k(x))$-stable subset of $T^{I_x}$. Moreover, $T_x=T^{I_x}$ if and only if the associated quasi-finite etale scheme $Y\to X$ is finite etale in some open neigborhood of $X$.

So we see that $\mathscr{C}_U$ is parameterized by some concrete sets of Galois theoretic data.

Will add example with $\mathbb{A}^1_k$ later

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ when you say 'spreading out principle', do you mean this: stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/02NW? $\endgroup$ – user631975 Apr 27 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ @AknazarKazhymurat Right, (4) there is 'spreading out' in this situation. I'm just generally thinking of Theorem 3.2.1 of this: www-math.mit.edu/~poonen/papers/Qpoints.pdf Of course, you need to check finiteness is on the table, but it is. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Apr 27 at 17:28

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.