Lemma 90.28.1. Being formally homotopic is an equivalence relation on sets of morphisms in \widehat{\mathcal{C}}_\Lambda .
90.28 Uniqueness of versal rings
Given R, S in \widehat{\mathcal{C}}_\Lambda we say maps f, g : R \to S are formally homotopic if there exists an r \geq 0 and maps h : R \to R[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]] and k : R[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]] \to S in \widehat{\mathcal{C}}_\Lambda such that for all a \in R we have
h(a) \bmod (t_1, \ldots , t_ r) = a,
f(a) = k(a),
g(a) = k(h(a)).
We will say (r, h, k) is a formal homotopy between f and g.
Proof. Suppose we have any r \geq 1 and two maps h_1, h_2 : R \to R[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]] such that h_1(a) \bmod (t_1, \ldots , t_ r) = h_2(a) \bmod (t_1, \ldots , t_ r) = a for all a \in R and a map k : R[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]] \to S. Then we claim k \circ h_1 is formally homotopic to k \circ h_2. The symmetric inherent in this claim will show that our notion of formally homotopic is symmetric. Namely, the map
is an isomorphism. Set h(a) = \Psi ^{-1}(h_2(a)) for a \in R and k' = k \circ \Psi , then we see that (r, h, k') is a formal homotopy between k \circ h_1 and k \circ h_2, proving the claim
Say we have three maps f_1, f_2, f_3 : R \to S as above and a formal homotopy (r_1, h_1, k_1) between f_1 and f_2 and a formal homotopy (r_2, h_2, k_2) between f_3 and f_2 (!). After relabeling the coordinates we may assume h_2 : R \to R[[t_{r_1 + 1}, \ldots , t_{r_1 + r_2}]] and k_2 : R[[t_{r_1 + 1}, \ldots , t_{r_1 + r_2}]] \to S. By choosing a suitable isomorphism
we may fit these maps into a commutative diagram
with h_2'(t_ i) = t_ i for 1 \leq i \leq r_1 and h_1'(t_ i) = t_ i for r_1 + 1 \leq i \leq r_2. Some details omitted. Since this diagram is a pushout in the category \widehat{\mathcal{C}}_\Lambda (see proof of Lemma 90.4.3) and since k_1 \circ h_1 = f_2 = k_2 \circ h_2 we conclude there exists a map
with k_1 = k \circ h_2' and k_2 = k \circ h_1'. Denote h = h_1' \circ h_2 = h_2' \circ h_1. Then we have
k(h_1'(a)) = k_2(a) = f_3(a), and
k(h_2'(a)) = k_1(a) = f_1(a).
By the claim in the first paragraph of the proof this shows that f_1 and f_3 are formally homotopic. \square
Lemma 90.28.2. In the category \widehat{\mathcal{C}}_\Lambda , if f_1, f_2 : R \to S are formally homotopic and g : S \to S' is a morphism, then g \circ f_1 and g \circ f_2 are formally homotopic.
Proof. Namely, if (r, h, k) is a formal homotopy between f_1 and f_2, then (r, h, g \circ k) is a formal homotopy between g \circ f_1 and g \circ f_2. \square
Lemma 90.28.3. Let \mathcal{F} be a deformation category over \mathcal{C}_\Lambda with \dim _ k T\mathcal{F} < \infty and \dim _ k \text{Inf}(\mathcal{F}) < \infty . Let \xi be a versal formal object lying over R. Let \eta be a formal object lying over S. Then any two maps
such that f_*\xi \cong \eta \cong g_*\xi are formally homotopic.
Proof. By Theorem 90.26.4 and its proof, \mathcal{F} has a presentation by a smooth prorepresentable groupoid
in functors on \mathcal{C}_\lambda such that \mathcal{F}. Then the maps s : R \to R_1 and t : R \to R_1 are formally smooth ring maps and e : R_1 \to R is a section. In particular, we can choose an isomorphism R_1 = R[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]] for some r \geq 0 such that s is the embedding R \subset R[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]] and t corresponds to a map h : R \to R[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]] with h(a) \bmod (t_1, \ldots , t_ r) = a for all a \in R. The existence of the isomorphism \alpha : f_*\xi \to g_*\xi means exactly that there is a map k : R_1 \to S such that f = k \circ s and g = k \circ t. This exactly means that (r, h, k) is a formal homotopy between f and g. \square
Lemma 90.28.4. In the category \widehat{\mathcal{C}}_\Lambda , if f_1, f_2 : R \to S are formally homotopic and \mathfrak p \subset R is a minimal prime ideal, then f_1(\mathfrak p)S = f_2(\mathfrak p)S as ideals.
Proof. Suppose (r, h, k) is a formal homotopy between f_1 and f_2. We claim that \mathfrak pR[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]] = h(\mathfrak p)R[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]]. The claim implies the lemma by further composing with k. To prove the claim, observe that the map \mathfrak p \mapsto \mathfrak pR[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]] is a bijection between the minimal prime ideals of R and the minimal prime ideals of R[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]]. Finally, h(\mathfrak p)R[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]] is a minimal prime as h is flat, and hence of the form \mathfrak q R[[t_1, \ldots , t_ r]] for some minimal prime \mathfrak q \subset R by what we just said. But since h \bmod (t_1, \ldots , t_ r) = \text{id}_ R by definition of a formal homotopy, we conclude that \mathfrak q = \mathfrak p as desired. \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).
All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.
Comments (0)