Algebraization and Tannaka duality (Q502274): Difference between revisions

From MaRDI portal
Importer (talk | contribs)
Created a new Item
 
Importer (talk | contribs)
Changed an Item
Property / review text
 
The author computes some natural colimits of algebraic spaces using a new Tannaka duality result for algebraic spaces. The paper considers the following three situations: Let \(X\) be any quasi-compact quasi-separated algebraic space then for any I-adically complete ring \(A\) one has \(X(A) \simeq \lim X(A/I^n)\) (``algebraization of jets''), and for any set \(A_i\) of rings one has \(X(\prod A_i) \simeq \prod_i X(A_i)\) (``algebraization of products''). The third main theorem is a ``formal gluing'' result. I will just state an important special case here: Given \(X\) as above with a closed subspace \(Z\), complement \(U = X \setminus Z\) and completion \(\hat X\) then X is the pushout of \(\hat X\) and \(U\) along \(V = \hat X \setminus Z\), and similarly D(X) is \(D(\hat X) \times_{D(V)} D(U)\). (Here \(D(X)\) is the infinity category of quasi-coherent complexes on \(X\).) The reader will note that the assumptions are very mild. The author provides a large number of instructive examples throughout the text, including proofs of some (easier) special cases of the main results as well as counterexamples showing that most assumptions are sharp. For example, the first two results do not hold for algebraic stacks. All the proofs proceed via the following Tannaka duality result, which is of independent interest: Given quasi-compact quasi-separated algebraic spaces \(X\) and \(S\) one has that \(\Hom(S,X)\) is equivalent via pullback to exact monoidal functors between the infinity categories of perfect complexes on X and S. Thus the proofs of the main results can be reduced to showing equivalences of categories of perfect complexes. One has to work with (some version of) infinity categories here, considering derived categories would not suffice. Bharghav's proof of Tannaka duality makes use of Jacob Lurie's work in derived algebraic geometry. In fact, various Tannaka duality results predate this work, for example Lurie's Tannaka duality for derived stacks. The author gives references in the introduction. But when specialising to algebraic spaces previous results required stricter assumptions on the algebraic spaces \(S\) and \(X\).
Property / review text: The author computes some natural colimits of algebraic spaces using a new Tannaka duality result for algebraic spaces. The paper considers the following three situations: Let \(X\) be any quasi-compact quasi-separated algebraic space then for any I-adically complete ring \(A\) one has \(X(A) \simeq \lim X(A/I^n)\) (``algebraization of jets''), and for any set \(A_i\) of rings one has \(X(\prod A_i) \simeq \prod_i X(A_i)\) (``algebraization of products''). The third main theorem is a ``formal gluing'' result. I will just state an important special case here: Given \(X\) as above with a closed subspace \(Z\), complement \(U = X \setminus Z\) and completion \(\hat X\) then X is the pushout of \(\hat X\) and \(U\) along \(V = \hat X \setminus Z\), and similarly D(X) is \(D(\hat X) \times_{D(V)} D(U)\). (Here \(D(X)\) is the infinity category of quasi-coherent complexes on \(X\).) The reader will note that the assumptions are very mild. The author provides a large number of instructive examples throughout the text, including proofs of some (easier) special cases of the main results as well as counterexamples showing that most assumptions are sharp. For example, the first two results do not hold for algebraic stacks. All the proofs proceed via the following Tannaka duality result, which is of independent interest: Given quasi-compact quasi-separated algebraic spaces \(X\) and \(S\) one has that \(\Hom(S,X)\) is equivalent via pullback to exact monoidal functors between the infinity categories of perfect complexes on X and S. Thus the proofs of the main results can be reduced to showing equivalences of categories of perfect complexes. One has to work with (some version of) infinity categories here, considering derived categories would not suffice. Bharghav's proof of Tannaka duality makes use of Jacob Lurie's work in derived algebraic geometry. In fact, various Tannaka duality results predate this work, for example Lurie's Tannaka duality for derived stacks. The author gives references in the introduction. But when specialising to algebraic spaces previous results required stricter assumptions on the algebraic spaces \(S\) and \(X\). / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / reviewed by
 
Property / reviewed by: Julian Holstein / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / Mathematics Subject Classification ID
 
Property / Mathematics Subject Classification ID: 14A20 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / zbMATH DE Number
 
Property / zbMATH DE Number: 6670053 / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / zbMATH Keywords
 
algebraization
Property / zbMATH Keywords: algebraization / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / zbMATH Keywords
 
colimits of algebraic spaces
Property / zbMATH Keywords: colimits of algebraic spaces / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / zbMATH Keywords
 
formal gluing
Property / zbMATH Keywords: formal gluing / rank
 
Normal rank
Property / zbMATH Keywords
 
Tannaka duality
Property / zbMATH Keywords: Tannaka duality / rank
 
Normal rank

Revision as of 01:38, 1 July 2023

scientific article
Language Label Description Also known as
English
Algebraization and Tannaka duality
scientific article

    Statements

    Algebraization and Tannaka duality (English)
    0 references
    0 references
    3 January 2017
    0 references
    The author computes some natural colimits of algebraic spaces using a new Tannaka duality result for algebraic spaces. The paper considers the following three situations: Let \(X\) be any quasi-compact quasi-separated algebraic space then for any I-adically complete ring \(A\) one has \(X(A) \simeq \lim X(A/I^n)\) (``algebraization of jets''), and for any set \(A_i\) of rings one has \(X(\prod A_i) \simeq \prod_i X(A_i)\) (``algebraization of products''). The third main theorem is a ``formal gluing'' result. I will just state an important special case here: Given \(X\) as above with a closed subspace \(Z\), complement \(U = X \setminus Z\) and completion \(\hat X\) then X is the pushout of \(\hat X\) and \(U\) along \(V = \hat X \setminus Z\), and similarly D(X) is \(D(\hat X) \times_{D(V)} D(U)\). (Here \(D(X)\) is the infinity category of quasi-coherent complexes on \(X\).) The reader will note that the assumptions are very mild. The author provides a large number of instructive examples throughout the text, including proofs of some (easier) special cases of the main results as well as counterexamples showing that most assumptions are sharp. For example, the first two results do not hold for algebraic stacks. All the proofs proceed via the following Tannaka duality result, which is of independent interest: Given quasi-compact quasi-separated algebraic spaces \(X\) and \(S\) one has that \(\Hom(S,X)\) is equivalent via pullback to exact monoidal functors between the infinity categories of perfect complexes on X and S. Thus the proofs of the main results can be reduced to showing equivalences of categories of perfect complexes. One has to work with (some version of) infinity categories here, considering derived categories would not suffice. Bharghav's proof of Tannaka duality makes use of Jacob Lurie's work in derived algebraic geometry. In fact, various Tannaka duality results predate this work, for example Lurie's Tannaka duality for derived stacks. The author gives references in the introduction. But when specialising to algebraic spaces previous results required stricter assumptions on the algebraic spaces \(S\) and \(X\).
    0 references
    algebraization
    0 references
    colimits of algebraic spaces
    0 references
    formal gluing
    0 references
    Tannaka duality
    0 references

    Identifiers