On the topologies on ind-varieties and related irreducibility questions

Complete rings, completion (13J10) Schemes and morphisms (14A15) Affine spaces (automorphisms, embeddings, exotic structures, cancellation problem) (14R10)

Abstract: In the literature there are two ways of endowing an affine ind-variety with a topology. One possibility is due to Shafarevich and the other to Kambayashi. In this paper we specify a large class of affine ind-varieties where these two topologies differ. We give an example of an affine ind-variety that is reducible with respect to Shafarevich's topology, but irreducible with respect to Kambayashi's topology. Moreover, we give a counter-example of a supposed irreducibility criterion of Shafarevich which is different from a counter-example given by Homma. We finish the paper with an irreducibility criterion similar to the one given by Shafarevich.

Review text

Shafarevich introduced the notion of ind-varieties and ind-groups to deal with some natural infinite dimensional varieties like say \(\mathrm{GL}_n(k[t])\) [ Simpos. Int. Geom. Algebr., Roma 1965, 208--212 (1967); Rend. Mat. Appl., V. Ser. 25, 208--212 (1966; Zbl 0149.39003)]. Later, Kambayashi discovered some issues with this definitions and proposed a somewhat different definition at least for affine varieties [J. Algebra 185, No. 2, 481--498, appendix 498--501 (1996; Zbl 0909.13013), Osaka J. Math. 40, No. 3, 621--638 (2003; Zbl 1089.13015)]. These two definitions are somewhat different and the ind-topology defined by Shafarevich is finer than that of Kambayashi, which the author refers to as a Zariski topology. The paper under review describes results about when these two topologies differ, when they coincide and certain irreducibility criteria for ind-varieties.

Recommendations

Cites work

Cited in

(5)

This page was built for publication: On the topologies on ind-varieties and related irreducibility questions

Report a bug (only for logged in users!)Click here to report a bug for this page (MaRDI item Q2376711)