In exercise 16.4.B of Vakil's notes, he establishes that the group of automorphisms of $\mathbb{P}_k^n$ is $PGL_{n+1}(k)$. This I can manage to show, but in the remarks following the exercise he asks why this does not work over an arbitrary base ring $A$, and I have a hard time to see why. I have three questions and would be grateful if someone can comment on them:

1) First, is it true that $\pi^*O_{\mathbb{P}_A}(1)\simeq O_{\mathbb{P}_A}(1)$ if $\pi:\mathbb{P}_A^{n}\to\mathbb{P}_A^{n}$ is an automorphism? Over a field $k$, this holds because an automorphism induces an isomorphism on Picard groups. So a generator must be sent to a generator, but I do not understand the Picard group of $\mathbb{P}_A^{n+1}$, so I can't see if this generalizes. In any case, if it is true, please give an argument. If it's not, please give a counter-example.

2) Does it make sense to define $PGL_{n+1}(-)$ as the functor that sends $A$ to the set of $(n+1)\times (n+1)$ invertible matrices over $A$ modulo multiples of identity? If so, is it representable (possibly in some sub-category of schemes over $A$)?

3) If $PGL_{n+1}(A)$ does not parametrize automorphisms of $\mathbb{P}_A^{n+1}$, what does it parametrize?

4) Is there a good description of automorphisms of $\mathbb{P}_A^n$?

  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The Picard group of $\mathbb{P}^n_A$ is $\mathbb{Z}$ when $A$ is a factorial ring. If $A$ is not factorial, there is no hope to get such a simple group. Just let $n=0$. $\endgroup$ – Martin Brandenburg Oct 18 '14 at 20:58
  • $\begingroup$ See proposition 6.12 in Hida's "p-Adic Automorphic Forms on Shimura Varieties" : If $S = Spec(R)$ is connected, then $PGL_n(R) = Aut(P^{n-1}_R)$. $\endgroup$ – Watson Nov 7 '18 at 19:01

Ch. 0, §5 of Mumford's Geometric Invariant Theory (3rd ed.) answers 1) and 4) well, I think. Let $PGL(n+1) = \{\operatorname{det} (a_{ij}) \ne 0\} \subset \operatorname{Proj}\mathbb{Z}[a_{00},\ldots,a_{nn}]$ denotes the projective general linear group which acts on $\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}$ in the usual way. Let $\mathscr{PGL}(n+1)$ denote the functor $S \mapsto \operatorname{Hom}(S,PGL(n+1))$ in the category of noetherian schemes. Let $\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^n)$ denote the functor sending $S$ to the group of automorphisms $\operatorname{Aut}_S(\mathbb{P}^n_S)$ of $\mathbb{P}^n_S$ over $S$.

Theorem. The functors $\mathscr{PGL}(n+1)$ and $\operatorname{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^n)$ are isomorphic.

I don't know of a better description in general (i.e. for non-noetherian schemes), but this seems to answer 4).

Moreover, his proof answers 1): the invertible sheaves on $\mathbb{P}^n_S = \mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{Z} \times S$ are all of the form $p_1^*(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}}(k)) \otimes p_2^*(L)$ where $L$ is an invertible sheaf on $S$, and $p_1,p_2$ are the projection morphisms. So, if $\alpha \in \operatorname{Aut}_S(\mathbb{P}^n_S)$, then $\alpha^*(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n_S}(1)) \cong p_1^*(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}}(k)) \otimes p_2^*(L)$ for some $k$ and $L$. Then, since $\alpha$ is an automorphism over $S$, we must have

$$\bigoplus_{i=0}^n X_i \cdot \mathcal{O}_S \cong p_{2*}p_1^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}}(1) \cong p_{2*}(p_1^*(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}}(k)) \otimes p_2^*(L)) \cong \bigoplus_{r_0+\cdots+r_n=k}^n (X_0^{r_0}\cdots X_n^{r_n}) \cdot L$$

so $k=1$ and in fact by [EGAII, 4.2] every isomorphism $\alpha$ can be obtained by choosing an invertible sheaf $L$ and an isomorphism $\bigoplus_{i=0}^n X_i \cdot \mathcal{O}_S \overset{\sim}{\to} \bigoplus_{i=0}^n X_i \cdot L$. What's nice is that before, $PGL(n+1)$ consisted of $(n+1) \times (n+1)$ matrices of sections of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^n_\mathbb{Z}}(1)$ with non-vanishing determinant; now the isomorphisms $\bigoplus_{i=0}^n X_i \cdot \mathcal{O}_S \overset{\sim}{\to} \bigoplus_{i=0}^n X_i \cdot L$ are given by $(n+1) \times (n+1)$ matrices of sections of $L$ with non-vanishing determinant.

In particular, to answer your comment on Qiaochu's answer, it looks like $S$ having trivial Picard group is sufficient went to answer 3) affirmatively, but I'm not convinced it's necessary: by the proof it looks like what we need is that for all invertible sheaves $L$ on S such that $\bigoplus_{i=0}^n X_i \cdot \mathcal{O}_S$ and $\bigoplus_{i=0}^n X_i \cdot L$ are isomorphic, we also have that $\mathcal{O}_S$ and $L$ are isomorphic.

  • $\begingroup$ What do the $X_i$ denote? $\endgroup$ – user7090 Dec 20 '17 at 19:55
  • $\begingroup$ @Jadwiga The $X_i$ are the variables on $\mathbb{P}^n$. My apologies for forgetting to define it! $\endgroup$ – Takumi Murayama Dec 20 '17 at 20:07
  • $\begingroup$ Ok no problem. Your answer has been very helpful regardless! $\endgroup$ – user7090 Dec 20 '17 at 20:08

2) No. Here is a topological analogy, which I learned from MO: instead of commutative rings, let's think about C*-algebras of continuous functions on compact Hausdorff spaces $X$. Then $\text{GL}_n(C(X))$ is equivalently the space of continuous functions $X \to \text{GL}_n(\mathbb{C})$, for example. The "correct" definition of $\text{PGL}_n(C(X))$, e.g. the one that makes it representable by a space, is therefore the space of continuous functions $X \to \text{PGL}_n(\mathbb{C})$.

This is not the same as $\text{GL}_n(C(X))$ mod its center; the discrepancy is described up to homotopy by an exact sequence

$$H^{0}(X, \mathbb{C}^{\times}) \to H^{0}(X, \text{GL}_n(\mathbb{C})) \to H^{0}(X, \text{PGL}_n(\mathbb{C})) \to H^{1}(X, \mathbb{C}^{\times}) \to \cdots$$

associated to the short exact sequence

$$1 \to \mathbb{C}^{\times} \to \text{GL}_n(\mathbb{C}) \to \text{PGL}_n(\mathbb{C}) \to 1$$

of topological groups, where by $H^0(X, G)$ I mean homotopy classes of continuous maps $X \to G$ and by $H^1(X, G)$ I mean homotopy classes of continuous maps $X \to BG$, where $BG$ is the delooping of $G$. Here $H^1(X, \mathbb{C}^{\times}) \cong \text{Pic}(X) \cong H^2(X, \mathbb{Z})$ is the Picard group of continuous line bundles on $X$, so the exact sequence tells us that the obstruction to lifting an element in $\text{PGL}_n(C(X))$ to an element of $\text{GL}_n(C(X))$, up to homotopy, is given by a line bundle on $X$; roughly speaking this is because there is a $\mathbb{C}^{\times}$s worth of lifts locally but no guarantee that it is possible to patch them up globally into a consistent global lift.

  • $\begingroup$ this was cool! thanks. $\endgroup$ – adrido Oct 19 '14 at 6:46

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.