I was working on Exercise 2.0.4 of Bhatt's notes, which are available here.

The exercise states:

Let $f\colon R\to S$ be a map of char $p$ rings that is surjective with nilpotent kernel. Then $R^{perf}$ and $S^{perf}$ are isomorphic. Here, $R^{perf}:= \underleftarrow {\lim}R$, the inverse limit of Frobenius automorphisms of $R$.

My solution: let N be the nilradical of R. We have an exact sequence $$0\to N\to R\to S\to 0.$$

Taking the inverse limit, we have

$$0 \to\underleftarrow {\lim}N\to R^{perf}\to S^{perf}$$ exact. So in order to show $R^{perf}$ and $S^{perf}$ are isomorphic, we have to prove that $\underleftarrow {\lim}N$ is zero, which implies that the Frobenius map on $N$ is surjective. However, this isn't always the case. (e.g $R=\mathbb F_{5}[T]/(T^2)$)

I think this exercise is elementary but I cannot figure out where is m mistake.


$\newcommand{\perf}{\mathrm{perf}}$ I'm not totally sure what you're trying to do. Can you add more detail?

If you're just looking for a solution, here's one I believe. By definition we have that

$$R^\perf=\{(x_i)\in R:x_{i+1}^p=x_i\}$$

Note then that the map $f:R^\perf\to S^\perf$ is merely the map $f((x_i))=(f(x_i))$. Let us set $I:=\ker f$ and suppose that $I^{p^k}=0$ for some fixed $k\geqslant 0$.

We first claim that $f$ is surjective. Suppose now that $(y_0,\ldots)\in S^\perf$. Let us then for all $i\geqslant 0$ take some $x'_i$ such that $f(x'_i)=y_{i+k}$. Let us then consider $(x_i)$ with $x_i=(x'_i)^{p^k}$. Note that $f(x_i)=f(x'_i)^{p^k}=y_{i+k}^{p^k}=y_i$. The only thing to verify is that $x_{i+1}^p=x_i$. To see this note that since


that $(x'_{i+1})^p-x'_i\in I$. This implies that


from where the conclusion follows.

To see that it's injective note that if $f((x_i))=(0)$ then $x_i\in I$ for all $i$. Note though that since $x_i=x_{i+k}^{p^k}$ this implies, since $I^{p^k}=0$, that $x_i=0$. The conclusion follows.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much! I have figured out where is my mistake.I misunderstood the condition "nilpotent kernel" and I thought it means the kernel is nilradical. I feel sorry for my stupid mistake. $\endgroup$ – Ff E Apr 27 at 10:26
  • $\begingroup$ @FfE To be honest, it seems a bit ambiguous to me. The interpretation I took was that $(\ker f)^\ell=0$ for some $\ell$. Does that seem reasonable to you? $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Apr 27 at 10:28
  • $\begingroup$ This is reasonable. In fact, we can show this is surjective by Mittag-Leffler condition(stacks.math.columbia.edu/tag/0594). This condition can be proved by the assumption that kernel is nilpotent. The injectivity is easy to see. $\endgroup$ – Ff E Apr 27 at 10:37
  • $\begingroup$ @FfE Yeah, perhaps. It seems more natural to just do it by hand though. $\endgroup$ – Alex Youcis Apr 27 at 10:38

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.