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
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
Problem of constructing a quotient
| 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 .