2
$\begingroup$

How can I associate a local system to a representation $\rho: \pi_1(X) \to \mathbb C^*$?

I have seen some construction, but it doesn't click for me. I know that the idea is to use a diagonal action of $\pi_1(X)$ on $\tilde X \times \mathbb C$, where $P: \tilde X \to X$ is the universal cover. But why does one obtain a local system in this way?

For example, I have seen the construction (with $L_{\tilde X}$ the trivial sheaf on $\tilde X$): $$\Gamma(U,\mathcal L):= \{s \in \Gamma(P^{-1}(U,L_{\tilde X})):~ \forall u \in P^{-1}(U), \forall \gamma \in \pi_1(X,v),~ s(\gamma.u)=\rho(\gamma).s(u) \}. $$

I guess the sheaf axioms are inherited from $L_{\tilde X}$. But why is this locally constant?

My approach: $P$ is a covering map, so we automatically get nice neighbourhoods to work with. But then how do I proceed?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ mathoverflow.net/questions/17786/… may help. $\endgroup$ – KReiser May 18 at 6:18
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for the link. Unfortunately, in the answers, there is only "This sheaf can be checked to be locally constant". I will have to look at the provided references probably $\endgroup$ – abdul May 22 at 9:43
3
$\begingroup$

For any representation $\rho : \pi_1 X \to \text{GL}(\mathbf{V})$ of the fundamental group in a complex vector space $\mathbf{V}$, denote $L = \tilde{X} \times_\rho \mathbf{V}$ obtained from quotienting $\tilde{X} \times \mathbf{V}$ by the diagonal $\pi_1(X)$-action $g\cdot(y, v) = (gy, \rho(g)v)$ as you described. The topology on $\tilde{X} \times \mathbf{V}$ is given so that it is the espace etale of a constant sheaf on $\tilde{X}$ (i.e., $\mathbf{V}$ is discrete) which descends down to a quotient topology on $L$.

To be completely explicit, denote $q : \tilde{X} \times \mathbf{V} \to L$ to be the quotient map, $p : \tilde{X} \to X$ to be the universal covering projection and $\pi : L \to X$ to be the projection obtained from the $\pi_1(X)$-equivariant coordinate projection $\text{proj} : \tilde{X} \times \mathbf{V} \to \tilde{X}$ after quotienting by $\pi_1(X)$ on domain and range. The diagram commutes:

$$\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} \tilde{X} \times \mathbf{V} @>{q}>> L\\ @V{\text{proj}}VV @VV{\pi}V \\ \tilde{X} @>{p}>> X \end{CD}$$

For any $x \in X$ one can choose a neighborhood $U$ evenly covered by $p : \tilde{X} \to X$, so that $p^{-1}(U) = \bigsqcup V_i$ where $V_i$ are the slices over $U$, $p|V_i : V_i \to U$ are homeomorphisms. Then $(p \circ \text{proj})^{-1}(U) = \bigsqcup V_i \times \mathbf{V}$ and since $\pi_1(X)$ acts freely by homeomorphisms on the collection of slices $\{V_i\}$ in $\tilde{X}$ and by linear homeomorphisms on $\mathbf{V}$ there's a homeomorphism $q\left((p \circ \text{proj})^{-1}(U)\right) \to U \times \mathbf{V}$ which respects the individual projections to $U$. By commutativity of the square above, $q \left((p \circ \text{proj})^{-1}(U)\right) = \pi^{-1}(U)$. To encapsulate, then, we have a homeomorphism $\pi^{-1}(U) \to U \times \mathbf{V}$ making the following square commute:

$$\require{AMScd} \begin{CD} \pi^{-1}(U) @>{\cong}>> U \times \mathbf{V}\\ @V{\pi}VV @VV{\text{proj}}V \\ U @>{\text{id}}>> U \end{CD}$$

Now that the topology is worked out, note that the sheaf $\mathscr{F}$ associated to $\rho$ is nothing other than the one obtained from thinking of $L$ as the espace etale. Indeed, for any $U \subset X$ associate the complex vector space $\mathscr{F}(U) = \{s : U \to X | s \pi = \text{id}_U\}$. It's fairly straightforward to prove this is a sheaf; just check the identity and the gluing axioms by hand.

The local triviality of $\mathscr{F}$ is a corollary of the topological triviality of $L$ that we obtained above. For any $x \in X$, we can find a neighborhood $U$ such that $L$ is topologically trivial over $U$, i.e., the last commutative diagram holds. This would imply for every open subset $O \subset U$, $\mathscr{F}(O) \cong \{s : O \to U \times \mathbf{V} : \text{proj}\circ s = \text{id}_O\} \cong C^0(O, \mathbf{V})$. But remember $\mathbf{V}$ has the discrete topology, so this is just isomorphic to $\mathbf{V}$. Under this isomorphism, the restriction maps are all identity. In other words, $\mathscr{F}|_U$ is trivial.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, but right at the end, isn't it needed to argument slighlty different? Is it really enough to show $\mathscr F(U)= V$ in order to show $\mathscr F|_U$ is trivial? Wouldn't this mean that for example the sheaf of holomorphic functions on a compact complex manifold is trivial? $\endgroup$ – abdul May 22 at 15:18
  • $\begingroup$ @abdul Yes, of course. What I mean is, for any open subset $O \subset U$, $\mathscr{F}(O) \cong \mathbf{V}$, which follows from the topological triviality of $L|_U$ again. That's what the constant sheaf means; the leaf space pulls back to $U \times \mathbf{V}$ above $U$. $\endgroup$ – Balarka Sen May 22 at 18:36

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.