Table of Contents
Fetching ...

Hom schemes for algebraic groups

Sean Cotner

TL;DR

This work extends the representability of Hom schemes from reductive to non-reductive group schemes G over a base S, proving that under mild hypotheses the functor $rac{Hom}_{S ext{-gp}}(G,H)$ is representable (as a disjoint union of schemes, often affine or quasi-affine) and clarifying when base change preserves this structure. A core innovation is a general representability criterion built around purity and a notion of strong generation by finitely many subtori, allowing reduction to Hom data on tori and a finite collection of subschemes. The paper then derives field-specific results (characterizing closed $H$-orbits in Hom in terms of Serre’s complete reducibility, among other statements), analyzes Isom schemes, and develops characteristic-0 refinements, while also addressing global-base phenomena, generic vs. global representability, and functorial behavior under restriction to tori or parabolics. The results yield a flexible framework for representability across bases and provide numerous examples, including parabolic cases, Moy–Prasad-type filtrations, and non-reductive contexts, with implications for orbit structure and moduli in algebraic group theory.

Abstract

In SGA3, Demazure and Grothendieck showed that if $G$ and $H$ are smooth affine group schemes over a scheme $S$ and $G$ is reductive, then the functor of $S$-homomorphism $G \to H$ is representable. In this paper we extend this result to cover cases in which $G$ is not reductive, with much simpler proofs. Our results apply in particular to parabolics over any base, and they are essentially optimal over a field. We also relate the closed orbits in Hom schemes to Serre's theory of complete reducibility, answer a question of Furter--Kraft, and provide many examples.

Hom schemes for algebraic groups

TL;DR

This work extends the representability of Hom schemes from reductive to non-reductive group schemes G over a base S, proving that under mild hypotheses the functor is representable (as a disjoint union of schemes, often affine or quasi-affine) and clarifying when base change preserves this structure. A core innovation is a general representability criterion built around purity and a notion of strong generation by finitely many subtori, allowing reduction to Hom data on tori and a finite collection of subschemes. The paper then derives field-specific results (characterizing closed -orbits in Hom in terms of Serre’s complete reducibility, among other statements), analyzes Isom schemes, and develops characteristic-0 refinements, while also addressing global-base phenomena, generic vs. global representability, and functorial behavior under restriction to tori or parabolics. The results yield a flexible framework for representability across bases and provide numerous examples, including parabolic cases, Moy–Prasad-type filtrations, and non-reductive contexts, with implications for orbit structure and moduli in algebraic group theory.

Abstract

In SGA3, Demazure and Grothendieck showed that if and are smooth affine group schemes over a scheme and is reductive, then the functor of -homomorphism is representable. In this paper we extend this result to cover cases in which is not reductive, with much simpler proofs. Our results apply in particular to parabolics over any base, and they are essentially optimal over a field. We also relate the closed orbits in Hom schemes to Serre's theory of complete reducibility, answer a question of Furter--Kraft, and provide many examples.
Paper Structure (24 sections, 45 theorems, 56 equations)

This paper contains 24 sections, 45 theorems, 56 equations.

Key Result

Theorem 1.1

Let $k$ be a field, and let $G$ and $H$ be finite type $k$-group schemes. If there is no surjective $k$-homomorphism $G^0 \to {\mathbf G}_{\rm{a}}$, then the functor $\mathop{\mathrm{\underline{\mathop{\mathrm{Hom}}\nolimits}}}\nolimits_{k\textrm{-}\rm{gp}}(G, H)$ is representable by a disjoint unio

Theorems & Definitions (110)

  • Theorem 1.1
  • Theorem 1.2
  • Theorem 1.3
  • Lemma 2.1
  • proof
  • Lemma 2.2
  • proof
  • Definition 2.3
  • Lemma 2.4
  • proof
  • ...and 100 more