ScalingStacks

Proof. [059J]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context Β· Original author HTML

Proof.

We follow the proof of [Gub10, Proposition 5.7] but in order to establish the result for an arbitrary non-archimedean field KK (not necessarily algebraically closed), we use [Gub13, Proposition 6.22] instead of [Gub07, Proposition 4.4]. Let Ο„\tau be an open face of 𝔇\mathfrak{D}. We prove first that R:=red⁑(pπ”›β€²β€²βˆ’1​(Ο„))R:=\red(p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}^{-1}(\tau)) is a stratum of 𝔛~β€²β€²\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}^{\prime\prime}. There is a unique stratum SS of 𝔛~\tilde{\mathfrak{X}} such that Ο„\tau is contained in the interior of Ξ”S\Delta_{S}. Let π”˜\mathfrak{U} be a formal open subset of 𝔛\mathfrak{X} such that SS is the distinguished stratum of π”˜\mathfrak{U} (Proposition 2.5). As strata are compatible with localization we may assume 𝔛=π”˜\mathfrak{X}=\mathfrak{U}. Let ψ1β€²:𝔛′′→𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²\psi_{1}^{\prime}:\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}\rightarrow\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime} be the base change of the composition of the Γ©tale map ψ:𝔛→𝔛⁑(𝒏,𝒂,m)\psi:\mathfrak{X}\rightarrow\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a},m) with the projection on the first factor 𝔛⁑(𝒏,𝒂)\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a}). By [Gub13, Proposition 6.22] the first part of the proposition holds for 𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}. Let TT be the stratum of 𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime} corresponding to Ο„\tau, i.e.

(2.1) Ο„=p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)′​(redβˆ’1⁑(T))\displaystyle\tau=p_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}(\red^{-1}(T))

and

(2.2) T=red⁑(p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²βˆ’1​(Ο„)).\displaystyle T=\red(p_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}^{-1}(\tau)).

where p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²:𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²a​nβ†’Ξ”Sp_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}:\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime an}\rightarrow\Delta_{S} is the retraction map. We prove R=ψ~1β€²βˆ’1​(T)R=\tilde{\psi}_{1}^{\prime-1}(T). First we observe that

red⁑((Οˆβ€²1an)βˆ’1​(p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²βˆ’1​(Ο„)))=ψ~1β€²βˆ’1​(red⁑(p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²βˆ’1​(Ο„))).\red(({\psi^{\prime}}_{1}^{\textup{an}})^{-1}(p_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}^{-1}(\tau)))=\tilde{\psi}_{1}^{\prime-1}(\red(p_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}^{-1}(\tau))).

The inclusion βŠ†\subseteq is clear because redβˆ˜Οˆβ€²1an=ψ~β€²1∘red\red\circ{\psi^{\prime}}_{1}^{\textup{an}}=\tilde{\psi}^{\prime}_{1}\circ\red. The other inclusion follows from this fact and an application of [Gub13, Proposition 6.22]. For details we refer to the proof of [Gub10, Proposition 5.7]. We conclude

R=red⁑(pπ”›β€²β€²βˆ’1​(Ο„))=red⁑((Οˆβ€²1an)βˆ’1​(p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²βˆ’1​(Ο„)))=ψ~1β€²βˆ’1​(red⁑(p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²βˆ’1​(Ο„)))​=(2.2)β€‹Οˆ~1β€²βˆ’1​(T).R=\red(p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}^{-1}(\tau))=\red(({\psi^{\prime}}_{1}^{\textup{an}})^{-1}(p_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}^{-1}(\tau)))=\tilde{\psi}_{1}^{\prime-1}(\red(p_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}^{-1}(\tau)))\overset{(\ref{T=})}{=}\tilde{\psi}_{1}^{\prime-1}(T).

By [Ber99, Lemma 2.2] RR is a strata subset. To see that RR is indeed a stratum it is enough to show that RR is irreducible. But this follows from

ψ~1β€²βˆ’1​(T)=(T×𝔛~​(m))×𝔛~​(𝒏,𝒂,m)′𝔛~β€²β€²β‰…(T×𝔛~​(m))Γ—{0~}×𝔛~​(m)ψ~βˆ’1​({0~}×𝔛~​(m))β‰…TΓ—S,\tilde{\psi}_{1}^{\prime-1}(T)=(T\times\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}(m))\times_{\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a},m)^{\prime}}\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}^{\prime\prime}\cong(T\times\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}(m))\times_{\{\tilde{0}\}\times\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}(m)}\tilde{\psi}^{-1}(\{\tilde{0}\}\times\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}(m))\cong T\times S,

where the latter is irreducible by [Gro65, Corollaire 4.5.8 (i)]. As the open faces of 𝔇\mathfrak{D} cover Ξ”\Delta, every stratum of 𝔛~β€²β€²\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}^{\prime\prime} is obtained this way. It remains to prove that we can recover Ο„\tau from RR. First note that

p𝔛′′​((Οˆβ€²1an)βˆ’1​(redβˆ’1⁑(T)))=p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)′​(redβˆ’1⁑(T)).p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}(({\psi^{\prime}}_{1}^{\textup{an}})^{-1}(\red^{-1}(T)))=p_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}(\red^{-1}(T)).

The inclusion βŠ†\subseteq is clear because p𝔛′′=p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²βˆ˜Οˆβ€²1anp_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}=p_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}\circ{\psi^{\prime}}_{1}^{\textup{an}}. For the other inclusion, let x∈p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)′​(redβˆ’1⁑(T))=Ο„x\in p_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}(\red^{-1}(T))=\tau. As the sets redβˆ’1⁑(Tβ€²)\red^{-1}(T^{\prime}) with Tβ€²T^{\prime} varying over the strata of 𝔛~​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime} cover 𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²an{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}^{\textup{an}} and using [Gub13, Proposition 6.22] and the fact the p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)β€²p_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}} restricts to the identity on Ξ”\Delta we deduce x∈redβˆ’1⁑(T)x\in\red^{-1}(T). Hence xx is an element of the left hand side which proves the equality claimed in the display. Now the rest is an easy calculation:

p𝔛′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(R))\displaystyle p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}(\red^{-1}(R)) =p𝔛′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(ψ~1β€²βˆ’1​(T)))\displaystyle=p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}(\red^{-1}(\tilde{\psi}_{1}^{\prime-1}(T)))
=p𝔛′′​((Οˆβ€²1an)βˆ’1​(redβˆ’1⁑(T)))\displaystyle=p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}(({\psi^{\prime}}_{1}^{\textup{an}})^{-1}(\red^{-1}(T)))
=p𝔛​(𝒏,𝒂)′​(redβˆ’1⁑(T))\displaystyle=p_{\mathfrak{X}(\boldsymbol{n},\boldsymbol{a})^{\prime}}(\red^{-1}(T))
=(2.1)​τ.\displaystyle\overset{(\ref{tau=})}{=}\tau.

Finally we want to show that RR may be replaced by a nonempty subset YY of RR. Clearly, the arguments in [Gub10, Proposition 5.7] generalize to the polystable situation, so we presume the claim for KK algebraically closed and show how to drop this assumption. Let β„‚K\mathbb{C}_{K} be the completion of an algebraic closure of KK. We denote by Ο€:𝔛ℂK′′→𝔛′′\pi:\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}}\rightarrow\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime} the base change of 𝔛′′\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime} to β„‚K∘\mathbb{C}_{K}^{\circ}. Let Rβ€²R^{\prime} be the union of the strata of 𝔛~β„‚Kβ€²β€²\tilde{\mathfrak{X}}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}} lying over RR. Then Ο€\pi induces a surjection p𝔛ℂK′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(Rβ€²))β† p𝔛′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(R))p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}}}(\red^{-1}(R^{\prime}))\twoheadrightarrow p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}(\red^{-1}(R)) as the strata in Rβ€²R^{\prime} correspond to open faces lying over Ο„\tau. Let Yβ€²Y^{\prime} be a lift of YY in Rβ€²R^{\prime}. By [Gub10, Proposition 5.7] we have p𝔛ℂK′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(Yβ€²))=p𝔛ℂK′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(Rβ€²))p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}}}(\red^{-1}(Y^{\prime}))=p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}}}(\red^{-1}(R^{\prime})). Clearly p𝔛′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(Y))βŠ†p𝔛′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(R))p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}(\red^{-1}(Y))\subseteq p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}(\red^{-1}(R)) and hence it is enough to show that the restriction of Ο€\pi to p𝔛ℂK′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(Yβ€²))p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}}}(\red^{-1}(Y^{\prime})) factors through p𝔛′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(Y))p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}(\red^{-1}(Y)). We have the following commutative diagram:

S⁑(𝔛ℂKβ€²β€²)\textstyle{S(\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}Ο€\scriptstyle{\pi}p𝔛ℂK′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(Yβ€²))\textstyle{p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}}}(\red^{-1}(Y^{\prime}))\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}redβˆ’1⁑(Yβ€²)\textstyle{\red^{-1}(Y^{\prime})\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}p𝔛ℂKβ€²β€²\scriptstyle{p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}}}}Ο€\scriptstyle{\pi}red\scriptstyle{\red}Yβ€²\textstyle{Y^{\prime}\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}Ο€\scriptstyle{\pi}S⁑(𝔛′′)\textstyle{S(\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime})}redβˆ’1⁑(Y)\textstyle{\red^{-1}(Y)\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces\ignorespaces}p𝔛′′\scriptstyle{p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}}red\scriptstyle{\red}Y\textstyle{Y}

Let x∈p𝔛ℂK′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(Yβ€²))x\in p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}}}(\red^{-1}(Y^{\prime})) and y∈redβˆ’1⁑(Yβ€²)y\in\red^{-1}(Y^{\prime}) with p𝔛ℂK′′​(y)=xp_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}}}(y)=x then π⁑(x)=π⁑(p𝔛ℂK′′​(y))=p𝔛′′​(π⁑(y))∈p𝔛′′​(redβˆ’1⁑(Y))\pi(x)=\pi(p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}_{\mathbb{C}_{K}}}(y))=p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}(\pi(y))\in p_{\mathfrak{X}^{\prime\prime}}(\red^{-1}(Y)). This proves the claim. ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.