What does an inadmissible locus look like?

Let H/ \overline{\mathbf{F}_p} be some p-divisible group of dimension d and height h, and let \mathcal{M} be the rigid generic fiber (over \mathrm{Spa}\,\breve{\mathbf{Q}}_p) of the associated Rapoport-Zink space. This comes with its Grothendieck-Messing period map \pi: \mathcal{M} \to \mathrm{Gr}(d,h), where \mathrm{Gr}(d,h) is the rigid analytic Grassmannian paramatrizing rank d quotients of the (covariant) rational Dieudonne module M(H) /\breve{\mathbf{Q}}_p. Note that \mathrm{Gr}(d,h) is a very nice space: it’s a smooth connected homogeneous rigid analytic variety, of dimension d(h-d).

The morphism \pi is etale and partially proper (i.e. without boundary in Berkovich’s sense), and so the image of \pi is an open and partially proper subspace* of the Grassmannian, which is usually known as the admissible locus. Let’s denote this locus by \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a. The structure of the admissible locus is understood in very few cases, and getting a handle on it more generally is a famous and difficult problem first raised by Grothendieck (cf. the Remarques on p. 435 of his 1970 ICM article). About all we know so far is the following:

  • When d=1 (so \mathrm{Gr}(d,h) = \mathbf{P}^{h-1}) and H is connected, we’re in the much-studied Lubin-Tate situation. Here, Gross and Hopkins famously proved that \pi is surjective, not just on classical rigid points but on all adic points, so \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a = \mathrm{Gr}(d,h) is the whole space. This case (along with the “dual” case where h>2,d=h-1) turns out to be the only case where \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a = \mathrm{Gr}(d,h), cf. Rapoport’s appendix to Scholze’s paper on the Lubin-Tate tower.
  • When H \simeq \mathbf{G}_m^{d} \oplus (\mathbf{Q}_p/\mathbf{Z}_p)^{h-d}, i.e. when H has no bi-infinitesimal component, it turns out that \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a = \mathbf{A}^{d(h-d)} is isomorphic to rigid analytic affine space of the appropriate dimension, and can be identified with the open Bruhat cell inside \mathrm{Gr}(d,h). This goes back to Dwork, who proved it when d=1,h=2. (I don’t know a citation for the general result, but presumably for arbitrary d,h this is morally due to Serre-Tate/Katz?)
  • In general there’s also the so-called weakly admissible locus \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^{wa} \subset \mathrm{Gr}(d,h), which contains the admissible locus and is defined in some fairly explicit way. It’s also characterized as the maximal admissible open subset of the Grassmannian with the same classical points as the admissible locus. In the classical rigid language, the map \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a \to \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^{wa} is etale and bijective; this is the terminology used e.g. in Rapoport-Zink’s book.
  • In general, the admissible and weakly admissible loci are very different.  For example, when H is isoclinic and (d,h)=1 (i.e. when M(H) is irreducible as a \varphi-module), \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a contains every classical point, and \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^{wa} = \mathrm{Gr}(d,h), so the weakly admissible locus tells you zilch about the admissible locus in this situation (and they really are different for any 1 < d < h-1).

That’s about it for general results.

To go further, let’s switch our perspective a little. Since \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a is an open and partially proper subspace of \mathrm{Gr}(d,h), the subset |\mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a| \subseteq |\mathrm{Gr}(d,h)| is open and specializing, so its complement is closed and generalizing.  Now, according to a very general theorem of Scholze, namely Theorem 2.42 here (for future readers, in case the numbering there changes: it’s the main theorem in the section entitled “The miracle theorems”), if \mathcal{D} is any diamond and E \subset |\mathcal{D}| is any locally closed generalizing subset, there is a functorially associated subdiamond \mathcal{E} \subset \mathcal{D} with |\mathcal{E}| = E inside |\mathcal{D}|. More colloquially, one can “diamondize” any locally closed generalizing subset of |\mathcal{D}|, just as any locally closed subspace of |X| for a scheme X comes from a unique (reduced) subscheme of X.

Definition. The inadmissible/nonadmissible locus \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^{na} is the subdiamond of \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^{\lozenge} obtained by diamondizing the topological complement of the admissible locus, i.e. by diamondizing the closed generalizing subset |\mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a|^c \subset |\mathrm{Gr}(d,h)| \cong |\mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^{\lozenge}|.

It turns out that one can actually get a handle on \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^{na} in a bunch of cases!  This grew out of some conversations with Jared Weinstein – back in April, Jared raised the question of understanding the inadmissible locus in a certain particular period domain for \mathrm{GL}_2 with non-minuscule Hodge numbers, and we managed to describe it completely in that case (see link below). Last night, though, I realized we hadn’t worked out any interesting examples in the minuscule (i.e. p-divisible group) setting! Here I want to record two such examples, hot off my blackboard, one simple and one delightfully bizarre.

Example 1. Take h=4, d=2 and H isoclinic. Then |\mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a|^c is a single classical point, corresponding to the unique filtration on M(H) with Hodge numbers 0,0,1,1 which is not weakly admissible. So \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a = \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^{wa} in this case.

Example 2. Take h=5, d=2 and H isoclinic$.  Now things are much stranger.  Are you ready?
Theorem. In this case, the locus \mathrm{Gr}^{na} is naturally isomorphic to the diamond (X \smallsetminus 0)^{\lozenge} / \underline{D^\times}, where X is an open perfectoid unit disk in one variable over \breve{\mathbf{Q}}_p and D=D_{1/3} is the division algebra over \mathbf{Q}_p with invariant 1/3, acting freely on X \smallsetminus 0 in a certain natural way. Precisely, the disk X arises as the universal cover of the connected p-divisible group of dimension 1 and height 15, and its natural D-action comes from the natural D_{1/15}-action on X via the map D_{1/3} \to D_{1/3} \otimes D_{-2/5} \simeq D_{-1/15} \simeq D_{1/15}^{op}.

This explicit description is actually equivariant for the D_{2/5}-actions on X and Gr. As far as diamonds go, (X \smallsetminus 0)^{\lozenge}/\underline{D^{\times}} is pretty high-carat: it’s spatial (roughly, its qcqs with lots of qcqs open subdiamonds), and its structure morphism to \mathrm{Spd}\,\breve{\mathbf{Q}}_p is separated, smooth, quasicompact, and partially proper in the appropriate senses. Smoothness, in particular, is meant in the sense of Definition 6.1 here (cf. also the discussion in Section 4.3 here). So even though this beast doesn’t have any points over any finite extension of \breve{\mathbf{Q}}_p, it’s still morally a diamondly version of a smooth projective curve!

The example Jared and I had originally worked out is recorded in section 5.5 here. The reader may wish to try adapting our argument from that situation to the cases mentioned above – this is a great exercise in actually using the classification of vector bundles on the Fargues-Fontaine curve in a hands-on calculation.

Anyway, here’s a picture of (X \smallsetminus 0)^{\lozenge} / \underline{D^{\times}}, with some other inadmissible loci in the background:

diamond

 

 

*All rigid spaces here and throughout the post are viewed as adic spaces: in the classical language, \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a does not generally correspond to an admissible open subset of \mathrm{Gr}(d,h), so one would be forced to say that there exists a rigid space \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a together with an etale monomorphism \mathrm{Gr}(d,h)^a \to \mathrm{Gr}(d,h). But in the adic world it really is a subspace.

Advertisements

Arithmetische geometrie

Just attended a week-long meeting at Oberwolfach on arithmetic geometry.

  • “So did you do this computation like Gauss, or did you use a computer?” – Gabber to Katz

 

  • “Let the indices work it out themselves!” – Janssen

 

  • “Shouwu, either you’re going to answer my question, or I’m going to hand you over to Ofer!” – Kisin

 

  • Katz (telling a story at the beginning of his talk): “… So anyway, after Spencer returned to Princeton, this is how he described the math department at Stanford [where he had just been a professor for a couple years]: ‘At Stanford, they’re still studying the topology of the unit disk!’ ”
    Conrad (from the audience): “Those days are over.”

 

  • “We use what I wrote.” – Janssen reassuring Gabber

 

  • “So Peter, why did you turn down the breakthrough prize? [pause] I’m only asking because I’m drunk!”

 

  • Anon.: “So Ofer, do you come here much?”
    Gabber: [looks down at table, silently moves his finger across it in stepwise motion for 30 seconds] “Seventeen times.”

 

  • Two common referees for technical papers on Shimura varieties: Frobenius and Verschiebung.

 

  • Me (after writing down the “new” definition of a diamond): “Is that OK, Peter?”
    Scholze (from the back row): “Looks good!”

 

  • Zhang: “So Mochizuki is like the Buddha.  He writes his ideas.  He is satisfied.  If you want to understand them, you visit him, you ask him questions, he gives you a little idea, you go away and study.  You have to be a monk.  Have a monk’s approach.”
    Anon.: “Unfortunately, there aren’t very many good monks.”

 

  • A “symplectic lifting whatever shit”. Apparently they’re defined in Kai-Wen Lan’s thesis?

 

  • Gabber was NOT happy when he heard about Mochizuki’s Gaussian integral analogy.

 

  • While eating the horrible bread casserole thing, which Kedlaya, Lieblich and I had mangled pretty badly while serving ourselves:
    Lieblich:”What is this supposed to BE?”
    Kedlaya: “Some kind of croque madame?”
    Nizioł: “Yes, a croque madame.  But I think you guys croqued it.”

Autocorrect doesn’t know math

The autocorrect feature in Gmail has the unfortunate but hilarious habit of vigorously changing standard math terms into free-associative nonsense.  Here are some highlights (and I might add to this list from time to time):

  • “Igusa varieties” -> “Iguana varieties”
  • “Zariski topology” -> “Czarist topology”
  • “Gelfand spectrum” -> “Gelatin spectrum”
  • “cokernel” -> “cockerel” (my favorite so far)

Hodge-Newton paradise

I just posted a new version of my preprint on local shtukas and Harris’s conjecture.  To be clear, the goal of this paper is to make good on the optimism I expressed in this previous post.  This project has been one of the most intense mathematical experiences of my life, and I hope to write a proper blog post about it soon.

Anyway, the paper should basically be stable at this point, with the exception that \S4.3 will probably be rewritten to some degree once Peter’s six-functors book is done.  The only real difference from the the first version is that the material around the “pointwise criterion” in \S2.2 has been streamlined and clarified a bit.  All comments, questions or corrections are very welcome!