Where is the local structure theory of étale morphisms needed?











up vote
3
down vote

favorite












In Stacks 02GH it is mentioned étale morphisms are locally standard étale. This seems to be the analogue of the local form of local diffeomorphisms in the smooth category. In the latter, local structure plays a big role.



Where is the local structure of étale morphisms needed further on in the theory? Which important proofs crucially require actually knowing an explicit local form?










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    3
    down vote

    favorite












    In Stacks 02GH it is mentioned étale morphisms are locally standard étale. This seems to be the analogue of the local form of local diffeomorphisms in the smooth category. In the latter, local structure plays a big role.



    Where is the local structure of étale morphisms needed further on in the theory? Which important proofs crucially require actually knowing an explicit local form?










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      3
      down vote

      favorite











      In Stacks 02GH it is mentioned étale morphisms are locally standard étale. This seems to be the analogue of the local form of local diffeomorphisms in the smooth category. In the latter, local structure plays a big role.



      Where is the local structure of étale morphisms needed further on in the theory? Which important proofs crucially require actually knowing an explicit local form?










      share|cite|improve this question













      In Stacks 02GH it is mentioned étale morphisms are locally standard étale. This seems to be the analogue of the local form of local diffeomorphisms in the smooth category. In the latter, local structure plays a big role.



      Where is the local structure of étale morphisms needed further on in the theory? Which important proofs crucially require actually knowing an explicit local form?







      algebraic-geometry schemes






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 15 hours ago









      Arrow

      5,04911445




      5,04911445






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          One part where it is essential is that the etale site is a "topological invariant". More precisely, if $X_0 subset X$ is a subscheme with the same underlying space as $X$ (for example, some nonreduced structure), then there is an equivalence of sites: $Et/X to Et/X_0$, given by $Y mapsto Y_0 = Y times_X X_0$.



          The proof of full faithfullness doesn't require the local structure, rather it goes through some elementary facts about sections of the projection maps from the product and some more "Hartshorne-style" facts about maps. To show essential surjectivity though, you construct it locally. If you can show that for any point $p$ in the $X_0$-Scheme $Y_0$, there is a neighborhood $U_0$ so that $U_0 = U times_X X_0$, then a standard glueing argument for this will complete the proof. However to show this local fact, you need (very crucially!) the local structure of an etale map. This is contained nicely in Lemma 2.3.11 in Lei Fu, Etale Cohomology Theory.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Dear DKS, is this an important result on the path to proving the Weil conjectures? I would appreciate some more details about its significance!
            – Arrow
            7 hours ago










          • Not by itself, but it is an important foundational result in Étale cohomology. So it certainly is a part of that approach.
            – DKS
            5 hours ago










          • Dear DKS, please forgive my ignorance again, but is this result in a sense necessary for the proof of the Weil conjectures, or, say, the comparison theorem for étale cohomology? Thanks again!
            – Arrow
            3 hours ago











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006343%2fwhere-is-the-local-structure-theory-of-%25c3%25a9tale-morphisms-needed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote













          One part where it is essential is that the etale site is a "topological invariant". More precisely, if $X_0 subset X$ is a subscheme with the same underlying space as $X$ (for example, some nonreduced structure), then there is an equivalence of sites: $Et/X to Et/X_0$, given by $Y mapsto Y_0 = Y times_X X_0$.



          The proof of full faithfullness doesn't require the local structure, rather it goes through some elementary facts about sections of the projection maps from the product and some more "Hartshorne-style" facts about maps. To show essential surjectivity though, you construct it locally. If you can show that for any point $p$ in the $X_0$-Scheme $Y_0$, there is a neighborhood $U_0$ so that $U_0 = U times_X X_0$, then a standard glueing argument for this will complete the proof. However to show this local fact, you need (very crucially!) the local structure of an etale map. This is contained nicely in Lemma 2.3.11 in Lei Fu, Etale Cohomology Theory.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Dear DKS, is this an important result on the path to proving the Weil conjectures? I would appreciate some more details about its significance!
            – Arrow
            7 hours ago










          • Not by itself, but it is an important foundational result in Étale cohomology. So it certainly is a part of that approach.
            – DKS
            5 hours ago










          • Dear DKS, please forgive my ignorance again, but is this result in a sense necessary for the proof of the Weil conjectures, or, say, the comparison theorem for étale cohomology? Thanks again!
            – Arrow
            3 hours ago















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          One part where it is essential is that the etale site is a "topological invariant". More precisely, if $X_0 subset X$ is a subscheme with the same underlying space as $X$ (for example, some nonreduced structure), then there is an equivalence of sites: $Et/X to Et/X_0$, given by $Y mapsto Y_0 = Y times_X X_0$.



          The proof of full faithfullness doesn't require the local structure, rather it goes through some elementary facts about sections of the projection maps from the product and some more "Hartshorne-style" facts about maps. To show essential surjectivity though, you construct it locally. If you can show that for any point $p$ in the $X_0$-Scheme $Y_0$, there is a neighborhood $U_0$ so that $U_0 = U times_X X_0$, then a standard glueing argument for this will complete the proof. However to show this local fact, you need (very crucially!) the local structure of an etale map. This is contained nicely in Lemma 2.3.11 in Lei Fu, Etale Cohomology Theory.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • Dear DKS, is this an important result on the path to proving the Weil conjectures? I would appreciate some more details about its significance!
            – Arrow
            7 hours ago










          • Not by itself, but it is an important foundational result in Étale cohomology. So it certainly is a part of that approach.
            – DKS
            5 hours ago










          • Dear DKS, please forgive my ignorance again, but is this result in a sense necessary for the proof of the Weil conjectures, or, say, the comparison theorem for étale cohomology? Thanks again!
            – Arrow
            3 hours ago













          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          One part where it is essential is that the etale site is a "topological invariant". More precisely, if $X_0 subset X$ is a subscheme with the same underlying space as $X$ (for example, some nonreduced structure), then there is an equivalence of sites: $Et/X to Et/X_0$, given by $Y mapsto Y_0 = Y times_X X_0$.



          The proof of full faithfullness doesn't require the local structure, rather it goes through some elementary facts about sections of the projection maps from the product and some more "Hartshorne-style" facts about maps. To show essential surjectivity though, you construct it locally. If you can show that for any point $p$ in the $X_0$-Scheme $Y_0$, there is a neighborhood $U_0$ so that $U_0 = U times_X X_0$, then a standard glueing argument for this will complete the proof. However to show this local fact, you need (very crucially!) the local structure of an etale map. This is contained nicely in Lemma 2.3.11 in Lei Fu, Etale Cohomology Theory.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          One part where it is essential is that the etale site is a "topological invariant". More precisely, if $X_0 subset X$ is a subscheme with the same underlying space as $X$ (for example, some nonreduced structure), then there is an equivalence of sites: $Et/X to Et/X_0$, given by $Y mapsto Y_0 = Y times_X X_0$.



          The proof of full faithfullness doesn't require the local structure, rather it goes through some elementary facts about sections of the projection maps from the product and some more "Hartshorne-style" facts about maps. To show essential surjectivity though, you construct it locally. If you can show that for any point $p$ in the $X_0$-Scheme $Y_0$, there is a neighborhood $U_0$ so that $U_0 = U times_X X_0$, then a standard glueing argument for this will complete the proof. However to show this local fact, you need (very crucially!) the local structure of an etale map. This is contained nicely in Lemma 2.3.11 in Lei Fu, Etale Cohomology Theory.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 9 hours ago









          DKS

          600312




          600312












          • Dear DKS, is this an important result on the path to proving the Weil conjectures? I would appreciate some more details about its significance!
            – Arrow
            7 hours ago










          • Not by itself, but it is an important foundational result in Étale cohomology. So it certainly is a part of that approach.
            – DKS
            5 hours ago










          • Dear DKS, please forgive my ignorance again, but is this result in a sense necessary for the proof of the Weil conjectures, or, say, the comparison theorem for étale cohomology? Thanks again!
            – Arrow
            3 hours ago


















          • Dear DKS, is this an important result on the path to proving the Weil conjectures? I would appreciate some more details about its significance!
            – Arrow
            7 hours ago










          • Not by itself, but it is an important foundational result in Étale cohomology. So it certainly is a part of that approach.
            – DKS
            5 hours ago










          • Dear DKS, please forgive my ignorance again, but is this result in a sense necessary for the proof of the Weil conjectures, or, say, the comparison theorem for étale cohomology? Thanks again!
            – Arrow
            3 hours ago
















          Dear DKS, is this an important result on the path to proving the Weil conjectures? I would appreciate some more details about its significance!
          – Arrow
          7 hours ago




          Dear DKS, is this an important result on the path to proving the Weil conjectures? I would appreciate some more details about its significance!
          – Arrow
          7 hours ago












          Not by itself, but it is an important foundational result in Étale cohomology. So it certainly is a part of that approach.
          – DKS
          5 hours ago




          Not by itself, but it is an important foundational result in Étale cohomology. So it certainly is a part of that approach.
          – DKS
          5 hours ago












          Dear DKS, please forgive my ignorance again, but is this result in a sense necessary for the proof of the Weil conjectures, or, say, the comparison theorem for étale cohomology? Thanks again!
          – Arrow
          3 hours ago




          Dear DKS, please forgive my ignorance again, but is this result in a sense necessary for the proof of the Weil conjectures, or, say, the comparison theorem for étale cohomology? Thanks again!
          – Arrow
          3 hours ago


















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006343%2fwhere-is-the-local-structure-theory-of-%25c3%25a9tale-morphisms-needed%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Berounka

          Sphinx de Gizeh

          Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...