Lemma 40.10.1. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. If $U$ is the spectrum of a field, then the composition morphism $c : R \times _{s, U, t} R \to R$ is open.

## 40.10 Properties of groupoids on fields

A “groupoid on a field” indicates a groupoid scheme $(U, R, s, t, c)$ where $U$ is the spectrum of a field. It does **not** mean that $(U, R, s, t, c)$ is defined over a field, more precisely, it does **not** mean that the morphisms $s, t : R \to U$ are equal. Given any field $k$, an abstract group $G$ and a group homomorphism $\varphi : G \to \text{Aut}(k)$ we obtain a groupoid scheme $(U, R, s, t, c)$ over $\mathbf{Z}$ by setting

This example still is a groupoid scheme over $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k^ G)$. Hence, if $G$ is finite, then $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ is finite over $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k^ G)$. In some sense our goal in this section is to show that suitable finiteness conditions on $s, t$ force any groupoid on a field to be defined over a finite index subfield $k' \subset k$.

If $k$ is a field and $(G, m)$ is a group scheme over $k$ with structure morphism $p : G \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$, then $(\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k), G, p, p, m)$ is an example of a groupoid on a field (and in this case of course the whole structure is defined over a field). Hence this section can be viewed as the analogue of Groupoids, Section 39.7.

**Proof.**
The composition is isomorphic to the projection map $\text{pr}_1 : R \times _{t, U, t} R \to R$ by Diagram (40.3.0.2). The projection is open by Morphisms, Lemma 29.23.4.
$\square$

Lemma 40.10.2. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. If $U$ is the spectrum of a field, then $R$ is a separated scheme.

**Proof.**
By Groupoids, Lemma 39.7.3 the stabilizer group scheme $G \to U$ is separated. By Groupoids, Lemma 39.22.2 the morphism $j = (t, s) : R \to U \times _ S U$ is separated. As $U$ is the spectrum of a field the scheme $U \times _ S U$ is affine (by the construction of fibre products in Schemes, Section 26.17). Hence $R$ is a separated scheme, see Schemes, Lemma 26.21.12.
$\square$

Lemma 40.10.3. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. Assume $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ with $k$ a field. For any points $r, r' \in R$ there exists a field extension $k'/k$ and points $r_1, r_2 \in R \times _{s, \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)} \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k')$ and a diagram

such that $\varphi $ is an isomorphism of schemes over $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k')$, we have $\varphi (r_1) = r_2$, $\text{pr}_0(r_1) = r$, and $\text{pr}_0(r_2) = r'$.

**Proof.**
This is a special case of Lemma 40.7.1 parts (1) and (2).
$\square$

Lemma 40.10.4. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. Assume $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ with $k$ a field. Let $k'/k$ be a field extension, $U' = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k')$ and let $(U', R', s', t', c')$ be the restriction of $(U, R, s, t, c)$ via $U' \to U$. In the defining diagram

all the morphisms are surjective, flat, and universally open. The dotted arrow $R' \to R$ is in addition affine.

**Proof.**
The morphism $U' \to U$ equals $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k') \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$, hence is affine, surjective and flat. The morphisms $s, t : R \to U$ and the morphism $U' \to U$ are universally open by Morphisms, Lemma 29.23.4. Since $R$ is not empty and $U$ is the spectrum of a field the morphisms $s, t : R \to U$ are surjective and flat. Then you conclude by using Morphisms, Lemmas 29.9.4, 29.9.2, 29.23.3, 29.11.8, 29.11.7, 29.25.8, and 29.25.6.
$\square$

Lemma 40.10.5. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. Assume $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ with $k$ a field. For any point $r \in R$ there exist

a field extension $k'/k$ with $k'$ algebraically closed,

a point $r' \in R'$ where $(U', R', s', t', c')$ is the restriction of $(U, R, s, t, c)$ via $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k') \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$

such that

the point $r'$ maps to $r$ under the morphism $R' \to R$, and

the maps $s', t' : R' \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k')$ induce isomorphisms $k' \to \kappa (r')$.

**Proof.**
Translating the geometric statement into a statement on fields, this means that we can find a diagram

where $i : k \to k'$ is the embedding of $k$ into $k'$, the maps $s, t : k \to \kappa (r)$ are induced by $s, t : R \to U$, and the map $\tau : k' \to k'$ is an automorphism. To produce such a diagram we may proceed in the following way:

Pick $i : k \to k'$ a field map with $k'$ algebraically closed of very large transcendence degree over $k$.

Pick an embedding $\sigma : \kappa (r) \to k'$ such that $\sigma \circ s = i$. Such a $\sigma $ exists because we can just choose a transcendence basis $\{ x_\alpha \} _{\alpha \in A}$ of $\kappa (r)$ over $k$ and find $y_\alpha \in k'$, $\alpha \in A$ which are algebraically independent over $i(k)$, and map $s(k)(\{ x_\alpha \} )$ into $k'$ by the rules $s(\lambda ) \mapsto i(\lambda )$ for $\lambda \in k$ and $x_\alpha \mapsto y_\alpha $ for $\alpha \in A$. Then extend to $\tau : \kappa (\alpha ) \to k'$ using that $k'$ is algebraically closed.

Pick an automorphism $\tau : k' \to k'$ such that $\tau \circ i = \sigma \circ t$. To do this pick a transcendence basis $\{ x_\alpha \} _{\alpha \in A}$ of $k$ over its prime field. On the one hand, extend $\{ i(x_\alpha )\} $ to a transcendence basis of $k'$ by adding $\{ y_\beta \} _{\beta \in B}$ and extend $\{ \sigma (t(x_\alpha ))\} $ to a transcendence basis of $k'$ by adding $\{ z_\gamma \} _{\gamma \in C}$. As $k'$ is algebraically closed we can extend the isomorphism $\sigma \circ t \circ i^{-1} : i(k) \to \sigma (t(k))$ to an isomorphism $\tau ' : \overline{i(k)} \to \overline{\sigma (t(k))}$ of their algebraic closures in $k'$. As $k'$ has large transcendence degree we see that the sets $B$ and $C$ have the same cardinality. Thus we can use a bijection $B \to C$ to extend $\tau '$ to an isomorphism

\[ \overline{i(k)}(\{ y_\beta \} ) \longrightarrow \overline{\sigma (t(k))}(\{ z_\gamma \} ) \]and then since $k'$ is the algebraic closure of both sides we see that this extends to an automorphism $\tau : k' \to k'$ as desired.

This proves the lemma. $\square$

Lemma 40.10.6. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. Assume $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ with $k$ a field. If $r \in R$ is a point such that $s, t$ induce isomorphisms $k \to \kappa (r)$, then the map

(see proof for precise notation) is an automorphism $R \to R$ which maps $e$ to $r$.

**Proof.**
This is completely obvious if you think about groupoids in a functorial way. But we will also spell it out completely. Denote $a : U \to R$ the morphism with image $r$ such that $s \circ a = \text{id}_ U$ which exists by the hypothesis that $s : k \to \kappa (r)$ is an isomorphism. Similarly, denote $b : U \to R$ the morphism with image $r$ such that $t \circ b = \text{id}_ U$. Note that $b = a \circ (t \circ a)^{-1}$, in particular $a \circ s \circ b = b$.

Consider the morphism $\Psi : R \to R$ given on $T$-valued points by

To see this is defined we have to check that $s \circ a \circ t \circ f = t \circ f$ which is obvious as $s \circ a = 1$. Note that $\Phi (e) = a$, so that in order to prove the lemma it suffices to show that $\Phi $ is an automorphism of $R$. Let $\Phi : R \to R$ be the morphism given on $T$-valued points by

This is defined because $s \circ i \circ b \circ t \circ g = t \circ b \circ t \circ g = t \circ g$. We claim that $\Phi $ and $\Psi $ are inverse to each other. To see this we compute

where we have used the relation $a \circ s \circ b = b$ shown above. In the other direction we have

The lemma is proved. $\square$

Lemma 40.10.7. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. If $U$ is the spectrum of a field, $W \subset R$ is open, and $Z \to R$ is a morphism of schemes, then the image of the composition $Z \times _{s, U, t} W \to R \times _{s, U, t} R \to R$ is open.

**Proof.**
Write $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$. Consider a field extension $k'/k$. Denote $U' = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k')$. Let $R'$ be the restriction of $R$ via $U' \to U$. Set $Z' = Z \times _ R R'$ and $W' = R' \times _ R W$. Consider a point $\xi = (z, w)$ of $Z \times _{s, U, t} W$. Let $r \in R$ be the image of $z$ under $Z \to R$. Pick $k' \supset k$ and $r' \in R'$ as in Lemma 40.10.5. We can choose $z' \in Z'$ mapping to $z$ and $r'$. Then we can find $\xi ' \in Z' \times _{s', U', t'} W'$ mapping to $z'$ and $\xi $. The open $c(r', W')$ (Lemma 40.10.6) is contained in the image of $Z' \times _{s', U', t'} W' \to R'$. Observe that $Z' \times _{s', U', t'} W' = (Z \times _{s, U, t} W) \times _{R \times _{s, U, t} R} (R' \times _{s', U', t'} R')$. Hence the image of $Z' \times _{s', U', t'} W' \to R' \to R$ is contained in the image of $Z \times _{s, U, t} W \to R$. As $R' \to R$ is open (Lemma 40.10.4) we conclude the image contains an open neighbourhood of the image of $\xi $ as desired.
$\square$

Lemma 40.10.8. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. Assume $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ with $k$ a field. By abuse of notation denote $e \in R$ the image of the identity morphism $e : U \to R$. Then

every local ring $\mathcal{O}_{R, r}$ of $R$ has a unique minimal prime ideal,

there is exactly one irreducible component $Z$ of $R$ passing through $e$, and

$Z$ is geometrically irreducible over $k$ via either $s$ or $t$.

**Proof.**
Let $r \in R$ be a point. In this proof we will use the correspondence between irreducible components of $R$ passing through a point $r$ and minimal primes of the local ring $\mathcal{O}_{R, r}$ without further mention. Choose $k \subset k'$ and $r' \in R'$ as in Lemma 40.10.5. Note that $\mathcal{O}_{R, r} \to \mathcal{O}_{R', r'}$ is faithfully flat and local, see Lemma 40.10.4. Hence the result for $r' \in R'$ implies the result for $r \in R$. In other words we may assume that $s, t : k \to \kappa (r)$ are isomorphisms. By Lemma 40.10.6 there exists an automorphism moving $e$ to $r$. Hence we may assume $r = e$, i.e., part (1) follows from part (2).

We first prove (2) in case $k$ is separably algebraically closed. Namely, let $X, Y \subset R$ be irreducible components passing through $e$. Then by Varieties, Lemma 33.8.4 and 33.8.3 the scheme $X \times _{s, U, t} Y$ is irreducible as well. Hence $c(X \times _{s, U, t} Y) \subset R$ is an irreducible subset. We claim it contains both $X$ and $Y$ (as subsets of $R$). Namely, let $T$ be the spectrum of a field. If $x : T \to X$ is a $T$-valued point of $X$, then $c(x, e \circ s \circ x) = x$ and $e \circ s \circ x$ factors through $Y$ as $e \in Y$. Similarly for points of $Y$. This clearly implies that $X = Y$, i.e., there is a unique irreducible component of $R$ passing through $e$.

Proof of (2) and (3) in general. Let $k \subset k'$ be a separable algebraic closure, and let $(U', R', s', t', c')$ be the restriction of $(U, R, s, t, c)$ via $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k') \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$. By the previous paragraph there is exactly one irreducible component $Z'$ of $R'$ passing through $e'$. Denote $e'' \in R \times _{s, U} U'$ the base change of $e$. As $R' \to R \times _{s, U} U'$ is faithfully flat, see Lemma 40.10.4, and $e' \mapsto e''$ we see that there is exactly one irreducible component $Z''$ of $R \times _{s, k} k'$ passing through $e''$. This implies, as $R \times _ k k' \to R$ is faithfully flat, that there is exactly one irreducible component $Z$ of $R$ passing through $e$. This proves (2).

To prove (3) let $Z''' \subset R \times _ k k'$ be an arbitrary irreducible component of $Z \times _ k k'$. By Varieties, Lemma 33.8.13 we see that $Z''' = \sigma (Z'')$ for some $\sigma \in \text{Gal}(k'/k)$. Since $\sigma (e'') = e''$ we see that $e'' \in Z'''$ and hence $Z''' = Z''$. This means that $Z$ is geometrically irreducible over $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ via the morphism $s$. The same argument implies that $Z$ is geometrically irreducible over $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ via the morphism $t$. $\square$

Lemma 40.10.9. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. Assume $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ with $k$ a field. Assume $s, t$ are locally of finite type. Then

$R$ is equidimensional,

$\dim (R) = \dim _ r(R)$ for all $r \in R$,

for any $r \in R$ we have $\text{trdeg}_{s(k)}(\kappa (r)) = \text{trdeg}_{t(k)}(\kappa (r))$, and

for any closed point $r \in R$ we have $\dim (R) = \dim (\mathcal{O}_{R, r})$.

**Proof.**
Let $r, r' \in R$. Then $\dim _ r(R) = \dim _{r'}(R)$ by Lemma 40.10.3 and Morphisms, Lemma 29.28.3. By Morphisms, Lemma 29.28.1 we have

On the other hand, the dimension of $R$ (or any open subset of $R$) is the supremum of the dimensions of the local rings of $R$, see Properties, Lemma 28.10.3. Clearly this is maximal for closed points $r$ in which case $\text{trdeg}_ k(\kappa (r)) = 0$ (by the Hilbert Nullstellensatz, see Morphisms, Section 29.16). Hence the lemma follows. $\square$

Lemma 40.10.10. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. Assume $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ with $k$ a field. Assume $s, t$ are locally of finite type. Then $\dim (R) = \dim (G)$ where $G$ is the stabilizer group scheme of $R$.

**Proof.**
Let $Z \subset R$ be the irreducible component passing through $e$ (see Lemma 40.10.8) thought of as an integral closed subscheme of $R$. Let $k'_ s$, resp. $k'_ t$ be the integral closure of $s(k)$, resp. $t(k)$ in $\Gamma (Z, \mathcal{O}_ Z)$. Recall that $k'_ s$ and $k'_ t$ are fields, see Varieties, Lemma 33.28.4. By Varieties, Proposition 33.31.1 we have $k'_ s = k'_ t$ as subrings of $\Gamma (Z, \mathcal{O}_ Z)$. As $e$ factors through $Z$ we obtain a commutative diagram

This on the one hand shows that $k'_ s = s(k)$, $k'_ t = t(k)$, so $s(k) = t(k)$, which combined with the diagram above implies that $s = t$! In other words, we conclude that $Z$ is a closed subscheme of $G = R \times _{(t, s), U \times _ S U, \Delta } U$. The lemma follows as both $G$ and $R$ are equidimensional, see Lemma 40.10.9 and Groupoids, Lemma 39.8.1. $\square$

Remark 40.10.11. Warning: Lemma 40.10.10 is wrong without the condition that $s$ and $t$ are locally of finite type. An easy example is to start with the action

and restrict the corresponding groupoid scheme to the generic point of $\mathbf{A}^1_{\mathbf{Q}}$. In other words restrict via the morphism $\mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Q}(x)) \to \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Q}[x]) = \mathbf{A}^1_{\mathbf{Q}}$. Then you get a groupoid scheme $(U, R, s, t, c)$ with $U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(\mathbf{Q}(x))$ and

In this case $\dim (R) = 1$ and $\dim (G) = 0$.

Lemma 40.10.12. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. Assume

$U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ with $k$ a field,

$s, t$ are locally of finite type, and

the characteristic of $k$ is zero.

Then $s, t : R \to U$ are smooth.

**Proof.**
By Lemma 40.4.1 the sheaf of differentials of $R \to U$ is free. Hence smoothness follows from Varieties, Lemma 33.25.1.
$\square$

Lemma 40.10.13. Let $S$ be a scheme. Let $(U, R, s, t, c)$ be a groupoid scheme over $S$. Assume

$U = \mathop{\mathrm{Spec}}(k)$ with $k$ a field,

$s, t$ are locally of finite type,

$R$ is reduced, and

$k$ is perfect.

Then $s, t : R \to U$ are smooth.

**Proof.**
By Lemma 40.4.1 the sheaf $\Omega _{R/U}$ is free. Hence the lemma follows from Varieties, Lemma 33.25.2.
$\square$

## Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like `$\pi$`

). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

## Comments (0)