In algebraic geometry, an action of a group scheme is a generalization of a group action to a group scheme. Precisely, given a group S-scheme G, a left action of G on an S-scheme X is an S-morphism
![{\displaystyle \sigma :G\times _{S}X\to X}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/98836d85cbb91714fb613e2f0d8960b2b133a33c)
such that
- (associativity)
, where
is the group law,
- (unitality)
, where
is the identity section of G.
A right action of G on X is defined analogously. A scheme equipped with a left or right action of a group scheme G is called a G-scheme. An equivariant morphism between G-schemes is a morphism of schemes that intertwines the respective G-actions.
More generally, one can also consider (at least some special case of) an action of a group functor: viewing G as a functor, an action is given as a natural transformation satisfying the conditions analogous to the above.[1] Alternatively, some authors study group action in the language of a groupoid; a group-scheme action is then an example of a groupoid scheme.
Constructs
The usual constructs for a group action such as orbits generalize to a group-scheme action. Let
be a given group-scheme action as above.
- Given a T-valued point
, the orbit map
is given as
.
- The orbit of x is the image of the orbit map
.
- The stabilizer of x is the fiber over
of the map ![{\displaystyle (x,1_{T}):T\to X\times _{S}T.}](https://wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/media/math/render/svg/ea13ad011d2eef27adc1cdae9f94de1e8ca50395)
Problem of constructing a quotient
![[icon]](//upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1c/Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg/20px-Wiki_letter_w_cropped.svg.png) | This section needs expansion. You can help by adding to it. (June 2018) |
Unlike a set-theoretic group action, there is no straightforward way to construct a quotient for a group-scheme action. One exception is the case when the action is free, the case of a principal fiber bundle.
There are several approaches to overcome this difficulty:
Depending on applications, another approach would be to shift the focus away from a space then onto stuff on a space; e.g., topos. So the problem shifts from the classification of orbits to that of equivariant objects.
See also
References
- ^ In details, given a group-scheme action
, for each morphism
,
determines a group action
; i.e., the group
acts on the set of T-points
. Conversely, if for each
, there is a group action
and if those actions are compatible; i.e., they form a natural transformation, then, by the Yoneda lemma, they determine a group-scheme action
.