Let be an abelian variety of dimension
over a field
of characteristic
. In the previous posts, we saw that to give a deformation
of
over a local artinian ring with residue field
was the same as giving a continuous morphism of rings
: that is, the local deformation space is smooth on
parameters.
There is another description of the deformation space in terms of the -divisible group, though. Given
, we can form the formal scheme
where each is a finite group scheme of rank
over
. As a formal scheme, this is smooth: that is, given a small extension
in
and a morphism
, there is an extension
In fact, we start by finding an extension (as
is smooth), and then observe that this extension must land in some
if
landed in
.
As a result, we can talk about deformations of this formal (group) scheme.
Definition 16 A deformation of a smooth, formal group scheme
over
over a ring
is a smooth, formal group scheme
over
which reduces mod the maximal ideal (i.e., when restricted to
-algebras) to
.
Suppose . Using Schlessinger’s criterion, we find that (under appropriate finiteness hypotheses),
must be prorepresentable by a power series ring
for some
. In other words,
corresponds to a formal group over
.
Suppose for instance that was a supersingular elliptic curve. By definition, each of the
is a thickening of the zero point, and consequently
is the formal completion
of
at zero. This data is equivalent to the formal group of
, and as we just saw a deformation of this formal group over a ring
is a formal group over
which reduces to the formal group of
mod the maximal ideal.
The main result is:
Theorem 17 (Serre-Tate) Let
. There is an equivalence of categories between abelian schemes over
and pairs
where
is an abelian variety over
and
a deformation of
over
.
So, in particular, deformations of over
are equivalent to deformations of
over
.
In this post, I’ll describe an argument due to Drinfeld for this result (which I learned from Katz’s article).
1. Lifting
The key step in Drinfeld’s argument is the following idea. Let with maximal ideal
, and let
be a fppf sheaf of abelian groups on
-algebras, satisfying certain assumptions below. Let
for
sufficiently large (depending on
). The claim is that for any
-algebra
, there exists a natural map of groups
which lifts the map . In other words, there is a functorial lift of multiplication by
on the reduction mod
to the thickened version. As we’ll see, this implies that any two deformations of an abelian variety are isogeneous (though not necessarily isomorphic).
We need the following assumptions:
is formally smooth (as a sheaf on
-algebras).
- The “formal completion
” defined via
is a formal group scheme, represented by a formal group over
(i.e., of the form
).
This is satisfied by the sheaf of abelian groups associated to an abelian scheme over , and ditto for a deformation of
if
is an abelian variety over
.
Proposition 18 Let
be a functor satisfying the above two conditions (where
has maximal ideal
). Then, there exists an
(depending on
) with the following property: for any
-algebra
, there is a map of abelian groups
lifting multiplication by
on
. This is natural in homomorphisms of such functors.
Proof: The idea of the proof is simple: given , we use formal smoothness to lift this to an element
, and then take
to be the required image. The whole point is that the choice of
doesn’t depend on the choice of
. In fact, given two choices
lifting
, we find that
But now is a formal Lie group, so
is represented by an element in coordinates
where the
. Multiplication by
now annihilates these if
is appropriate, because
is artinian and
(e.g. we could take
).
Let’s now use this to see that any two deformations of an abelian variety over
are isogeneous. Let
be two such. The claim is that there is a morphism of abelian schemes
which lifts multiplication by on
. For this we can work at the level of abelian sheaves for the flat topology, and then we define, for an
-algebra
, the map
where is the morphism of the previous lemma, and we note that
are the same on
-algebras (they are
). By construction, this is a lifting of multiplication by
on
, and is consequently an isogeny.
Note that this morphism is necessarily unique among lifts of multiplication by . We could see this by the rigidity lemma, or we could note that two lifts
would have their difference
. Since multiplication by
is a surjection on
(when considered as a fppf sheaf on
-algebras) while multiplication by
is zero on
, it follows that
must be zero.
In fact, we can state:
Lemma 19 Let
be two fppf abelian sheaves satisfying the two conditions above (i.e., formally smooth with formal completions represented by a formal Lie group). Suppose multiplication by
is a surjection on each, moreover. Then reduction mod
gives an injection
and, moreover, there is a map
lifting multiplication by
: if
,
lifts
.
In other words, we cannot necessarily lift a morphism to a morphism
, but we can always lift
times that. This lift is necessarily unique, because multiplication by
is a surjection and reduction mod the maximal ideal is injective.
Proof: This is now proved in exactly the same way as for abelian schemes. Given an -algebra
and
, we define
where we use the multiplication by lift
mentioned earlier.
2. Full faithfulness
Now, we can prove the Serre-Tate theorem. The theorem states that a certain forgetful functor is an equivalence of categories between abelian schemes over and abelian schemes over
together with a deformation of their
-divisible group. In order to see this, we’ll have to show that it is fully faithful and essentially surjective.
Let’s start by showing that it is fully faithful.
Lemma 20 Given abelian schemes
over
with
-reductions
, a morphism
of abelian varieties, and a lift
lifting
, then there is a unique morphism
of abelian
-schemes lifting these.
Proof: By the previous analysis, we know that there is a morphism of abelian schemes
which lifts , and which is unique with this property. We need to show that
can be “divided by
,” which amounts (by descent theory) to saying that it annihilates the kernel
of multiplication by
.
To see this, note that this morphism induces a map
which lifts
. There is another morphism which has this property: namely,
(here this is honest multiplication by
!). By the uniqueness assertions of the previous analysis, we find that
because both lift the same morphism . Anyway, the conclusion is that
is actually (when restricted to the
-divisible group) a multiple of
, which means that it has to annihilate
. It now follows that
itself can be divided by
, which means that we can lift
and
.
3. Essential surjectivity
The last step in the proof of the Serre-Tate theorem is the essential surjectivity. That is, given an abelian variety , and a deformation
of
over
, we need to produce an abelian scheme over
lifting all this data. The first step is to lift
itself over
to an abelian scheme: we’ve seen that deformations of abelian varieties are unobstructed, so this is not an issue. So, we get a lifting
, which induces a new lifting
of the
-divisible group
. This is not the same as
most likely, but we can use the same analysis to see that it is isogeneous to
.
In fact, we have a map
and this induces a lift of ,
(Technically, the should be in quotes as well, since it does not make sense.) Similarly, we can lift
to a map
, and the composite either way must be
(by uniqueness). It follows now that the map
is an isogeny, and the kernel
is a finite (indeed, flat) subgroup scheme
.
Now we consider the quotient abelian scheme . This comes with a map
, by construction, and the claim is that it also lifts
; in fact, we have a map
which is an isomorphism, as lifts the subgroup scheme
. In particular, we find that the quotient
is a deformation of
with the appropriate
-divisible group
.
Leave a Reply