I have just realised that a group scheme I've known and loved for years is probably a bit wackier than I'd realised.
In this question, in Charles Rezk's answer, I erroneously claim that his construction of the space representing Drinfeld Gamma1(p) structures on elliptic curves must be flawed, because the global properties of Y1(p) that I know from Katz-Mazur seemed to contradict global properties that his construction appeared to me to have. We took the conversation to email and I also started writing down my thoughts more carefully to check there were no problems with them. I found a problem with them---hence this question.
Let p be prime, let Ngeq4 be an integer prime to p, and consider the fine moduli space Y1(N) over an algebraically closed field k of characteristic p. The N isn't important, it just saves me having to use the language of stacks. Let Yo denote the open affine of Y1(N) obtained by removing the supersingular points. Over Yo we have an elliptic curve E (obtained from the universal family over Y1(N)).
In brief: here's the question. The p-torsion E[p] of E---it's a group scheme and its identity component is non-reduced. But (regarded as an abstract scheme) does it have a component which is reduced? I think it might! This goes against my intuition.
Now let me go more carefully. Let's consider the scheme E[p] of p-torsion points. This is finite flat over Yo and hence as an an abstract scheme over k it's going to be some sort of 1-dimensional gadget. It also sits in the middle of an exact sequence of group schemes over Yo:
0toKtoE[p]toHto0
with K=ker(F), F the relative Frobenius map (an isogeny of degree p). Now at every point in Yo, the fibre of K is isomorphic to mup and the fibre of E[p] is isomorphic to muptimesmathbfZ/pmathbfZ. In particular all components of all fibres are isomorphic and non-reduced. Now here is where my argument in the thread in the question linked to above must become incorrect. I wanted to furthermore claim that
(a) K (as an abstract curve) is non-reduced, and then
(b) hence (because K is the identity component of E[p] and "all components of a group are isomorphic as sets") all components of E[p] are non-reduced.
I now think that (b) is nonsense. In fact I know (b) is nonsense in the sense that mup over mathbfQ has only two components and they look rather different when p is odd, but in some sense I feel here that the difference is more striking. In fact I now strongly suspect that E[p] as an abstract scheme has two components, one being K and the other being a regular scheme (an Igusa curve) mapping down in an inseparable way onto Yo (so the component isn't smooth over Yo but abstractly it's a smooth curve).
If someone wants a proper question, then there is one: am I right? The identity component of E[p] is surely non-reduced---but does E[p] have any regular components? I know how to prove this but it will be a deformation theory argument and I've got to go to bed :-/ If so then I think it's the first example I've seen, or at least internalised, of a group scheme where the behaviour of a non-identity component is in some sense a lot better than the behaviour of the identity component. I say "in some sense" because somehow it's the map down to k that is better-behaved, rather than the map down to Yo. Someone please tell me I'm not talking nonsense ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment