On \(\varphi\)-modules (Q1924216)

Let \({\mathbf k}\) be a function field of transcendency one which is finitely generated over the finite field \(\mathbb{F}_r\); assume further that \(\mathbb{F}_r\) is the full field of constants. Let \(\infty\) be a fixed prime of \({\mathbf k}\) and let \({\mathbf A}\) be the subring of \({\mathbf k}\) consisting of those functions regular outside \(\infty\). Let \(L\) be a finite extension of \({\mathbf k}\) and let \(\psi\) be a Drinfeld \({\mathbf A}\)-module of rank \(d\) defined over \(L\). For \(\pi \in \text{Spec} ({\mathbf A})\) one can, in a standard manner, form the Tate module \(T_\pi (\psi)\), etc.; this Tate module is a free module of rank \(d\) over the completion \({\mathbf A}_\pi\). If now \(\varphi\) is another Drinfeld module over \(L\) and \(f: \varphi \to \psi\) is a morphism defined over \({\mathbf k}\), then one has a functorial action \(f_*: T_\pi (\varphi) \to T_\pi (\psi)\) as \({\mathbf A}_\pi\)-modules. Let \(L^{\text{sep}}\) be a separable closure of \(L\) and let \(G_L: = \text{Gal} (L^{\text{sep}}/L)\). The canonical action of \(G_L\) on \(T_\pi (\varphi)\) and \(T_\pi (\psi)\) commutes with \(f_*\); thus we deduce a natural homomorphism \[ \Hom_L (\varphi, \psi) \otimes_{\mathbf A} {\mathbf A}_\pi \to \Hom_{A_\pi [G_L]} \bigl(T_\pi (\varphi), T_\pi (\psi) \bigr). \] The Tate conjecture for Drinfeld modules asserts that the above mapping (which is easily seen to be injective) is an isomorphism. This result was originally established by \textit{A. Tamagawa} [see ``The Tate conjecture for \(A\)-premotives'' (preprint) as well as ``The Tate conjecture and the semisimplicity conjecture for \(t\)-modules'', Res. Inst. Math. Sci. Kokyuroku, Proc. Res. Inst. Math. Sci. 925, 89-94 (1995)]. The author arrived at a similar proof very soon after Tamagawa and this was published as ``The Tate conjecture of \(t\)-motives'' [Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 123, 3285-3287 (1995; Zbl 0848.11027)]. The Tate conjecture can be reduced to a certain ``linear Frobenius equation'', which is what Taguchi solves in the above Proceedings article. However, the reader of that article is left wondering what it all has to do with the Tate conjecture. In the beautiful article being reviewed, the author supplies all the missing background for his proof. The interested reader is strongly encouraged to look at this paper as well as the author's 1995 paper.