arXivarXiv:math/0310418v4 [math.AG] 18 Jun 2004 LOCAL MONODROMY IN NON-ARCHIMEDEAN ANALYTIC GEOMETRY LORENZO RAMERO ﬁfth release CONTENTS 0. Introduction (Snapshots from an Expeditio

arX

iv:m

ath/

0310

418v

4 [m

ath.

AG

] 18

Jun

200

4

LOCAL MONODROMY IN NON-ARCHIMEDEAN ANALYTIC GEOMETRY

LORENZO RAMERO

fifth release

CONTENTS

0. Introduction (Snapshots from an Expedition) 20.1. Where we came from 20.2. Where we were heading 20.3. What we hoped to find there 20.4. Why we were not disappointed 30.5. Planning for the journey 30.6. Division of labour 40.7. Surveyor’s gear 40.8. Detour to visit a relative 50.9. Dulcis in fundo 51. Algebraic preliminaries 61.1. Power-multiplicative seminorms 61.2. Normed modules 101.3. Henselian algebras and complete algebras 152. Study of the discriminant 172.1. Discriminant 172.2. Finite ramified coverings of annuli 202.3. Convexity and piecewise linearity of the discriminantfunction 262.4. Thep-adic Riemann existence theorem 333. Study of the conductors 353.1. Algebraization 353.2. Vanishing cycles 413.3. Conductors 504. Local systems on the punctured disc 604.1. Break decomposition 604.2. Local systems with bounded ramification 64References 78

Lorenzo RameroUniversite de Bordeaux IInstitut de Mathematiques351, cours de la LiberationF-33405 Talence Cedexe-mail address:[email protected] page:http://www.math.u-bordeaux.fr/∼ramero

1

http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0310418v4

2 LORENZO RAMERO

“Der Weg ist das Ziel”

Bierdeckel im Cafe PendelBonn, ca. Mai 2004

0. INTRODUCTION (SNAPSHOTS FROM ANEXPEDITION)

0.1. Where we came from. Let F := k((T )) be the field of Laurent power series with coeffi-cients in a fieldk; if k has positive characteristic, denote byGF the Galois group of a separableclosure ofF . As it is well known, everyℓ-adic representation admits a naturalbreak decomposi-tion as a finite direct sum ofQℓ[GF ]-submodules. These decompositions are nicely compatiblewith the standard operations defined on the categoryQℓ[GF ]-Mod of Qℓ[GF ]-modules, suchas tensor products andHom functors.

On the other hand, ifk has characteristic zero, one may consider the categoryD.E.(F/k)of finite dimensionalF -vector spaces endowed with aT -adically continuousk-linear connec-tion. Then the theory of Levelt-Turritin says that every object of D.E.(F/k) admits a naturaldecomposition, satisfying wholly analogous compatibilities (see [33]).

The parallelisms revealed by the study ofQℓ[GF ]-Mod andD.E.(F/k) are aboundant andstriking, to the point that one can write down a heuristic dictionary to translate definitions andtheorems back and forth between them (see [33, Appendix]). More recently, Yves Andre hasintroduced notions ofslope filtrationandHasse-Arf filtrationfor a general tannakian category(see [1, Def.1.1.1 and Def.2.2.1]), which extract the basic features that are common to these twocategories (and indeed, to others as well). He has shown that, quite generally, the existence of aHasse-Arf filtration imposes very binding restrictions on the structure of a tannakian category.

0.2. Where we were heading.The aim of this work is to exhibit another specimen of the samesort as those considered by Andre. Namely, let(K, | · |) be an algebraically closed valued fieldof mixed characteristic(0, p), complete for its rank one valuation| · | : K → ΓK ∪{0} (we mayview the value groupΓK as a subgroup ofR>0). Let alsoΛ be a local ring which is a filteredunion of finite rings on whichp is invertible. Our objects of study are the locally constantsheaves of freeΛ-modules of finite rank on the etale site of the punctured disc :

D(r)∗ := {x ∈ K | 0 < |x| ≤ r} (for anyr ∈ ΓK).

These modules form a categoryΛ-Loc(r), which is tannakian ifΛ is a field. However, we arereally interested in describing thelocal monodromyof these sheaves,i.e. their behaviour in anarbitrarily small neighborhood of the missing center of thedisc, hence we do not distinguishtwo local systemsF andF ′ on the etale sitesD(r)∗et, respectivelyD(r′)∗et, if they becomeisomorphic after restriction to some smaller discD(r′′)∗ (with 0 < r′′ ≤ r, r′). Hence, we arereally concerned with the2-colimit category :

Λ-Loc(0+) := colimr→0+

Λ-Loc(r).

0.3. What we hoped to find there. It is instructive to consider first the case where the mon-odromy is finite,i.e. the local systemF under consideration becomes constant on some fi-nite Galois etale coveringX → D(r)∗, say with Galois groupG. This case is already highlynon-trivial : F is the same as aΛ[G]-module of finite type, and if we insisted on a completedescription of theglobalmonodromy ofF , we would have to classify all such representations,so essentially all possible finite coverings ofD(r)∗ – a task that is probably beyond the reachof current techniques. On the other hand, thegermsof finite coverings ofD(r)∗ are completelyclassified by the so-calledp-adic Riemann existence theorem, proved by O.Gabber around1982(unpublished) and by W.Lutkebohmert about ten years later([40]). Explicitly, after restrictionto a smaller disc, every such finite covering becomes a disjoint union of cyclic coverings of

LOCAL MONODROMY IN NON-ARCHIMEDEAN ANALYTIC GEOMETRY 3

Kummer type; therefore the local monodromy of ourF will be a representation of a finitecyclic group.

Though no such description is known for general etale coverings ofD(1)∗ (i.e. for those ofinfinite degree), this provides some evidence for the thesisthat, by shifting the focus to germsof coverings, one should expect to reach a new, but substantially tamer mathematical territory –one in which some general geographical features are discernible and can be used as worthwhilereference points.

0.4. Why we were not disappointed. This expectation is largely borne out by our main theo-rem 4.2.42, which can be stated as follows. Suppose thatH1(D(r)∗et,F ) is aΛ-module of finitetype, in which case we say thatF hasbounded ramification; this condition is independent of thevaluer ∈ ΓK . Then there exists a connected open subsetU ⊂ D(r)∗ such thatU ∩ D(ε)∗ 6= ∅

for everyε > 0, and such that the restriction ofF to Uet admits abreak decompositionas adirect sum of locally constant subsheaves :

(0.4.1) F|U ≃⊕

γ∈Γ0

F (γ)

indexed by the ordered groupΓ0, which is the product of ordered groupsQ×R, endowed withthe lexicographic ordering (of courseF (γ) 6= 0 for only finitely manyγ ∈ Γ). This decomposi-tion is compatible in the usual way with tensor products andHom functors; moreover, one maydefine Swan conductors forF , and there is also an adequate analogue of the Hasse-Arf theo-rem. Since the Swan conductor determines the Euler-Poincare characteristic ofRΓ(D(r)∗et,F ),it follows easily that, in caseΛ is a field, the subcategoryΛ-Loc(0+)b.r. of Λ-Loc(0+) consist-ing ofΛ-modules with bounded ramification, is tannakian. Therefore, the break decompositionin Λ-Loc(0+)b.r. would be precisely what is needed to define a filtration of Hasse-Arf type,in the sense of [1], if it were not for the following two short-comings. First, the filtration isnot indexed by the real numbers, but by the more complicated groupΓ0. This is however aminor divergence, which can be cured, for instance, by generalizing a little the definition ofslope filtration in a tannakian category. More seriously, the break decomposition of an object ofΛ-Loc(0+)b.r. is defined (a priori) only in a strictly larger tannakian category; this is becausethe open subsetU may not contain any punctured discD(ε)∗ (though it intersects all of them).

I expect that actually every local system with bounded ramification admits a break decom-position already over some small punctured disc, and I hope to address this question in a futurerelease of this work. Once this result is available, it will be possible to apply the tannakianmachinery of [1] to study the structure of such local systems.

0.5. Planning for the journey. The proof of theorem 4.2.42 is divided into two separate steps.The first step consists in describing the monodromy ofF around the borderof a discD(r)∗.This is one of the points where the standard topological intuition may be misleading: a non-archimedean punctured disc is far from being “homotopically equivalent” to an annulus, for anyreasonable notion of homotopy equivalence. Indeed, it is easy to construct examples of (finiteor infinite) connected Galois coverings ofD(r)∗ that are completely split at the border, that isover every annulus of the form:

D(a, r) := {x ∈ K | a ≤ |x| ≤ r}

with a ∈ ΓK sufficiently close tor. (And conversely, an etale covering ofD(r)∗ may becompletely split near the center, and connected on every annulusD(a, r) with a sufficientlyclose tor.) But the crucial difference is that the monodromy around the border isalwaysfinite. As a consequence, the study of this monodromy is an essentially algebraic affair thatcan be carried out by a suitable extension of classical ramification theory for henselian discretevaluation rings with perfect residue field.

4 LORENZO RAMERO

This extension has been developed by R.Huber in [31]: the main tool is a certain rank twovaluationη(r), defined on the ring of analytic functionsO(D(a, r)) onD(a, r) (for anya < r),and continuous for thep-adic topology. In a precise sense (best expressed in the language of adicspaces), this valuation is localized at the border of the disc. Moreover, the value groupΓη(r) ofη(r) is naturally isomorphic toΓK × Z, ordered lexicographically. Now, letf : X → D(a, r)etbe a finite, connected, etale and Galois covering of Galois groupG, such thatf ∗F is a constantsheaf. Thenη(r) admits finitely many extensionsx1, . . . , xn to O(X), and the action ofGpermutes transitively these extensions. Fix one of these valuationsx := xi; the stabilizerStx ⊂ G can be naturally identified with the Galois group of a finite separable extension

κ(η(r))∧h ⊂ κ(x)∧h

of henselian valued fields, obtained by suitably henselizing the completions (for the valuationtopologies)κ(η(r))∧, κ(x)∧ of the fields of fractions ofO(D(a, r)) and respectivelyO(X). Letπ1(r) be the Galois group of a separable closure ofκ(η(r))∧h; we may regardF as aΛ[G]-module, hence as aΛ[Stx]-module, by restriction, and then as aΛ[π1(r)]-module, by inflation.

The groupπ1(r) admits a natural (upper numbering) higher ramification filtration, whollyanalogous to the standard one for discrete valued fields, except that it is indexed by the orderedgroupΓη(r) ⊗Z Q. Therefore, whenΛ is a field, the tannakian categoryΛ[π1(r)]-Mod is yetanother example of a category with a slope filtration, exceptthat the filtration is indexed byΓη(r) ⊗Z Q, rather than byR. Moreover, this slope filtration is even ofHasse-Arf type, providedwe redefine appropriately the Newton polygon of a representation.

0.6. Division of labour. R.Huber’s ramification theory yields, for every radiusr ∈ ΓK , aΛ[π1(r)]-equivariant break decomposition of the stalkFη(r). The second step of the proof oftheorem 4.2.42 consists in describing how this decomposition evolves asr changes. This steppresents in turn two aspects: on the one hand, we have to examine thecontinuitypropertiesof the breaks,i.e. the way the decomposition varies in a neighborhood of a givenradiusr;on the other hand, we have to make anasymptoticstudy, to determine the behaviour of thedecomposition forr → 0+. The upshot is that, for large values ofr, the breaks ofFη(r) vary ina continuous, but apparently patternless manner; but, as weapproach the missing center of thedisc, eventually a coherent order emerges: the decompositions fall into step, and they give riseto the asymptotic decomposition (0.4.1).

0.7. Surveyor’s gear. Both the continuity and the aymptotic study ultimately relyon the re-markable properties of certain conductor functions attached to our local systemF . To definethese conductors we may assume, without loss of generality,thatΓK = R>0. Suppose thatf : X → D(a, b) is a finite Galois etale covering, with groupG, such thatf ∗F is constant. Foreveryr ∈ [a, b], we have theπ1(r)-equivariant break decomposition

Fη(r) ≃M1(γ1(r))⊕ · · · ⊕Mn(γn(r))

wheren depends also onr, and the breaksγi(r) live in R>0 × Q. For anyγ ∈ R>0 × Q,let us denote byγ♭ andγ♮ the projections ofγ on R>0 and respectivelyQ. Set alsomi :=rkΛMi(γi(r)) for everyi = 1, . . . , n. Then we may consider the conductor functions :

δF : [log 1/b, log 1/a] → R≥0 and sw♮(F , ·) : [a, b] → Z

defined by letting :

δF (− log r) := −n∑

i=1

log γi(r)♭ ·mi and sw♮(F , r+) :=

n∑

i=1

γi(r)♮ ·mi.

We show thatδF is a piecewise linear, continuous and convex function, and moreover the rightderivative ofδF is computed bysw♮(F , ·) (see proposition 4.1.8). The functionsw♮(F , ·) can


be characterized in terms of the Swan conductor of the coveringX. Namely, for everyr ∈[a, b], choose a valuationx of O(X) extending the valuationη(r); then the higher ramificationfiltration of Stx determines, in the usual way, aZ-valued Swan characterswx of Stx (see 3.3),which is the character of an element ofK0(Zℓ[Stx]). We induce to get a virtual character ofG :

sw♮G(r

+) := IndGStxsw♮x

which is independent of the choice ofx. Let nowρ ∈ K0(Λ[G]) be theΛ[G]-module corre-sponding toF ; sincesw♮G(r

+) lies inK0(Zℓ[G]), we may apply the natural pairing

〈·, ·〉G : K0(Zℓ[G])×K0(Λ[G]) → Z

and we obtain the identity :sw♮(F , r+) = 〈sw♮G(r

+), ρ〉G.

On the other hand, for everyr ∈ [a, b] one can consider the preimageX(r) ⊂ X of the annulusD(r, r) ⊂ D(a, b). The ring of analytic functionsO+

X(r) onX(r) whose sup-norm is≤ 1 isa finite free module over the analogous ringO

+D (r) of bounded functions onD(r, r). Hence

the discriminantd♭f(r) of this ring extension is well-defined, and it is an invertible function onD(r, r), sincef is etale. Its sup-norm|d♭f(r)| is a real number in]0, 1], andδf (− log r) :=

− log |d♭f(r)| ∈ R≥0. Let nowG := f∗ΛX be the direct image of the constant sheafΛX onXet;thenG corresponds to the regular representation ofG, and we have the identity :

δG = δf .

Hence, the right (logarithmic) derivative of the discriminant is the Swan conductor of the regularrepresentation ofG : this is our analogue of Hasse’s Fuhrerdiskriminantenproduktformel.

0.8. Detour to visit a relative. The proof of the convexity ofδF is accomplished by a rathertechnical argument, involving semi-stable reduction and avanishing cycle calculation. As acorollary, one derives a proof of the convexity of the discriminant functionδf . However, theconvexity ofδf can also be shown by a completely elementary argument that uses little morethan some valuation theory, the first rudiments of the theoryof adic spaces, and some simpletools from p-adic analysis borrowed from [6] and the first chapter of [24]. We present thisargument in section 2.3, since it is of independent interest: indeed, as explained in section2.4, with its aid one may quickly derive a proof of thep-adic Riemann existence theorem. Thisproof is not only much more elementary than Lutkebomert’s;it is also significantly simpler thanGabber’s original argument1. All in all, I believe it is a convincing demonstration of thenewpossibilities opened up by the theory of adic spaces.

0.9. Dulcis in fundo. The ideas which enable to tackle successfully the asymptotic study ofthe break are developed in section 4.2, and find their roots inharmonic analysis techniques, suchas Fourier transform and the allied method of stationary phase; this should come as no surpriseto any reader familiar with the works of Katz (e.g. [35]) or Laumon ([38]). Closer to home,these ideas represent an extension (perhaps, a vindication) of my previous work [42], where Iintroduced a Fourier transform for sheaves ofΛ-modules on the etale site of the analytification(A1

K)ad of the affine line. For more details, we refer the reader to remark 4.2.18. This intrusion

of concepts and viewpoints originating from such a seemingly far removed area of mathematics,is for me one of the most appealing aspects of this project. Itwas already one of the main themesin [42], and I believe that it runs deeper than a mere formal analogy : for instance, from thisperspective, formula (0.4.1) is none else than a spectral decomposition of the local systemF .Whereas [42] dealt only with a suggestive, butad hocclass of local systems, we have nowa good grasp of all those local systemsF whose ramification is bounded. This boundedness

1Of course, the reader will have to take my word for it, since Gabber never published his proof.

6 LORENZO RAMERO

condition can also be restated in terms of Swan conductors, hence it is, on the one hand a purelylocal condition that serves to circumscribethegood class of local systems that should be stableunder the usual Yoga of cohomological operations. On the other hand, it is a finiteness conditionon the cohomology ofF , hence – from the harmonic viewpoint – it is essentially likeconfiningour attention to the class of “integrable sheaves”;i.e. we are really doing harmonic analysis inthe spaceL1 : a most natural restriction.

We cannot resist ending on a more speculative note. As it has been seen, in many situationslocal monodromy is described via the higher ramification filtration on a Galois group, definedby an appropriate valuation. This cannot be literally true for the local monodromy theory ofthe punctured disc, since the trivializing coveringX → D(r)∗ of a local system may haveinfinite degree, in which case the field of fractions ofO(X) has infinite transcendence degreeover the field of fractionsO(D(r)∗). Nevertheless, one may ask whether there exists a valuation“localized at the origin”, which governs, in some mysterious way, the local monodromy theoryof D(r)∗. It turns out that there exists one natural candidate, whichis well-defined on the ringA := K[T, T−1] (of regular functions on the “algebraic punctured disc”) : namely, the rank twospecializationw of the degree valuationv : A → Z ∪ {∞} such thatv(T n) := n for everyn ∈ Z. The value group ofw is the lexicographically ordered group∆ := Z × ΓK , and onehas the rule :w(a · T n) := (n, |a|), for everyn ∈ Z and everya ∈ K. Notice that∆ ⊗Z Q

is isomorphic – as an ordered group – to the groupΓ0 that indexes our break decomposition.However, this valuationw is notp-adically continuous, hence it does not lie in the adic spectrumSpaA, but only in the larger valuation spectrumSpvA.

Acknowledgements: I am hugely indebted with Ofer Gabber for explaining me the proofof his unpublished theorem and for many discussions, through which I have learned many ofthe techniques that play an essential role in this work. Especially, I have learned from him anidea, due originally to Deligne ([37]), that allows to calculate the rank of vanishing cycles; thesame idea is recycled in the proof of proposition 3.2.30. I thank Isabelle Vidal for sending me acopy of her thesis [48], where she uses de Jong’s method of alterations to deduce consequencesfor the etale cohomology of schemes; her argument is applied here to the study of vanishingcycles (theorem 3.2.17). I also wholeheartedly acknowledge the support of the IHES and theMax-Planck Institute in Bonn, where large parts of this research have been carried out. Thispaper was stimulated and inpired by Roland Huber’s work [31].

1. ALGEBRAIC PRELIMINARIES

1.1. Power-multiplicative seminorms. Real-valued valuations on fields and topological al-gebras have been standard tools inp-adic analytic geometry since the earliest infancy of thesubject; by contrast, the role played by higher rank valuations in several fundamental questionshas been recognized only in recent times.

In non-archimedean analysis one encounters more generallycertain ultrametric real-valuednorms (or seminorms) that are not multiplicative, but only power-multiplicative. We shall seethat higher rank power-multiplicative seminorms appear just as naturally, and are just as useful.

1.1.1. In this section we let(Γ, <) be a totally ordered abelian group, whose neutral elementis denoted by1 and whose composition law we write multiplicatively. As customary, we shallextend the ordering and the composition law ofΓ to the setΓ ∪ {0}, in such a way thatγ > 0for everyγ ∈ Γ, andγ · 0 = 0 · γ = 0 for everyγ ∈ Γ ∪ {0}. Notice also that the ordering ofΓextends uniquely toΓQ := Γ⊗Z Q. Finally we letΓ+ := {γ ∈ Γ | γ ≤ 1}

Definition 1.1.2. LetA be a ring. Apower-multiplicativeΓ-valued seminormonA is a map

| · | : A→ Γ ∪ {0}

satisfying the following conditions:


(a) |0| = 0 and|1| = 1.(b) |x− y| ≤ max(|x|, |y|) for all x, y ∈ A.(c) |x · y| ≤ |x| · |y| for all x, y ∈ A.(d) |xn| = |x|n for everyx ∈ A and everyn ∈ N.

One says also that(A, | · |) is aΓ-seminormed ring. If |x| 6= 0 wheneverx 6= 0, one saysthat | · | is a Γ-valued normand correspondingly one talks ofΓ-normed rings. If in (c) wehave equality for everyx, y ∈ A, then we say that(A, | · |) is aΓ-valued ringand that| · | isaΓ-valued valuation. A morphismφ : (A, | · |) → (A′, | · |′) of Γ-seminormed rings is a ringhomomorphismφ : A→ A′ such that|φ(a)|′ = |a| for everya ∈ A. Notice that the subset

(1.1.3) A+ := {a ∈ A | |a| ≤ 1} ⊂ A

is a subring ofA. Thesupportof | · | is the ideal

supp(| · |) := {a ∈ A | |a| = 0} ⊂ A.

If | · | is a valuation,supp(| · |) is a prime ideal.

Lemma 1.1.4. Let (A, | · |) be a seminormed ring andx, y ∈ A any two elements such that|x| 6= |y|. Then|x+ y| = max(|x|, |y|).

Proof. Let us say that|x| < |y|. By (b) of definition 1.1.2 we have:

|y| ≤ max(|x+ y|, |x|) ≤ max(|y|, |x|) = |y|.

Hence|y| = |x+ y|, which is the claim. �

1.1.5. Let(A, | · |) be a semi-normed ring. For every monic polynomialp(T ) := Tm +a1T

m−1 + · · ·+ am ∈ A[T ] we set

σ(p) := max(|ai|1/i | i = 1, . . . , m) ∈ ΓQ ∪ {0}

and callσ(p) thespectral valueof p(T ).

Lemma 1.1.6.Letp, q ∈ A[T ] be monic polynomials. Thenσ(pq) ≤ max(σ(p), σ(q)). If | · | isa valuation, the above inequality is, in fact, an equality.

Proof. Mutatis mutandis, this is the same as the proof of [6,§1.5.4, Prop.1]. �

1.1.7. LetA be a normal domain,K the field of fractions ofA, andA → B an injectiveintegral ring homomorphism such thatB is torsion-free as anA-module. For anyb ∈ B ⊗A Kthe set of polynomialsP (T ) ∈ K[T ] such thatP (b) = 0 is an ideal, whose monic generatorµb(T ) is theminimal polynomialof b.

Lemma 1.1.8.Keep the assumptions of(1.1.7)and suppose thatb ∈ B. Thenµb(T ) ∈ A[T ].

Proof. By [41, Th.10.4] we haveA =⋂v Av wherev ranges over all the valuations ofK whose

valuation ringAv containsA. We can therefore suppose thatA is the valuation ring of one suchv : A→ Γv ∪ {0}. For any polynomialp(T ) :=

∑ni=0 aiT

i ∈ K[T ] let

|p|v := max(v(ai) | i = 0, . . . , n) ∈ Γv ∪ {0}.

By assumption, there is a monic polynomialP (T ) ∈ A[T ] such thatP (b) = 0, henceµb dividesP in K[T ]. The assertion is therefore a consequence of the following:

Claim1.1.9. |p · q|v = |p|v · |q|v for all p, q ∈ K[T ].

Proof of the claim. We leave it as an exercise for the reader: one can easily adaptthe directargument used in the classical proof of the Gauss lemma (cp. [6, p.44]). �

8 LORENZO RAMERO

1.1.10. In the situation of (1.1.7), letb ∈ B and say that

µb(T ) = T n + a1Tn−1 + a2T

n−2 + · · ·+ an

for somen ∈ N and elementsa1, . . . , an ∈ A, in view of lemma 1.1.8. Suppose now that| · | : A → Γ ∪ {0} is a power multiplicativeΓ-valued seminorm onA. Then thespectralseminormof b is defined as

|b|sp := σ(µb(T )) ∈ ΓQ ∪ {0}.

The name of| · |sp is justified by the following:

Proposition 1.1.11.With the notation of(1.1.10), the pair(B, | · |sp) is aΓQ-seminormed ring.

Proof. We consider theA-algebraA′ := A[ΓQ]. HenceA′ is generated as anA-algebra byelements[γ], for all γ ∈ ΓQ, subject to the relations

[γ] · [δ] = [γ · δ] for all γ, δ ∈ ΓQ.

Clearly, every element ofA′ admits a unique expression of the form∑

γ∈ΓQaγ ·[γ] whereaγ = 0

for all but finitely manyγ ∈ ΓQ. Set alsoB′ := B ⊗A A′.

Claim 1.1.12. A′ is a normal domain, flat overA, andB′ is a torsion-freeA′-module.

Proof of the claim.We can writeΓQ =⋃i∈I Γi, the filtered union of all the finitely generated

subgroupsΓi ⊂ ΓQ. ThenA′ =⋃i∈I A[Γi], and it suffices to show the claim for the subalgebras

A′i := A[Γi]. SinceΓ is torsion-free, we have (non-canonical) isomorphismsΓi ≃ ZNi , whence

A′i ≃ A[T±1

1 , . . . , T±1N ] ≃ A ⊗Z Z[T±1

1 , . . . , T±1N ], from which flatness is clear. Normality

follows as well, in view of [20, Ch.IV, Prop.6.14.1]. Likewise,B′ is the filtered union of theA′i-algebraB[T±1

1 , . . . , T±1N ], and the latter are clearly torsion-free overA′

i. ♦

We define a map| · | : A′ → ΓQ by the rule:∑

γ∈ΓQ

aγ · [γ] 7→ max(|aγ| · γ | γ ∈ ΓQ).

Claim 1.1.13. (A′, | · |) is aΓQ-seminormed ring.

Proof of the claim.All conditions of definition 1.1.2 are clearly fulfilled, except possibly for (d).However, for givenx =

∑γ aγ · [γ], let δ ∈ Γ be the minimal element such that|aδ| · δ = |x|.

Say thatxn =∑

γ bγ · [γ]; we have

bδn · [δn] =∑

γ1·...·γn=δn

aγ1 · [γ1]· . . . ·aγn · [γn].

If now γ1· . . . ·γn = δn and theγi are not all equal toδ, then necessarilyγi < δ for somei ≤ n.By the choice ofδ it follows that |aγi| · γi < |aδ| · δ, hence|aγ1 · [γ1]· . . . ·aγn · [γn]| < |x|n. Inview of lemma 1.1.4 we deduce that|bδn | · δ

n = |x|n, so (d) holds as well. ♦

From claim 1.1.12 it follows that the induced mapA′ → B′ is injective, and by claim 1.1.13we can replaceA, B andΓ by respectivelyA′, B′ andΓQ, which allows us to assume that

(1.1.14)|A| = |B|sp = Γ∪{0} = ΓQ∪{0} and there is a group homomorphism[·] : Γ → A×

which is a left inverse for| · | : A→ Γ ∪ {0}.

LetB+ := {x ∈ B | |x|sp ≤ 1}.

Claim 1.1.15. A+ is normal andB+ is the integral closure ofA+ in B.


Proof of the claim.To show thatA+ is normal, it suffices to prove thatA+ is integrally closedin A. Hence, suppose thatx ∈ A satisfies an equation of the formxn + a1x

n−1 + · · ·+ an = 0,where|ai| ≤ 1 for i = 1, . . . , n. It follows that |x|n ≤ max(|x|n−i | i = 1, . . . , n), whichis possible only when|x| ≤ 1, as required. Next, letb ∈ B+; by definition this means thatµb(T ) ∈ A+[T ], sox is integral overA+. Conversely, we apply lemma 1.1.8 withA+ in placeof A, to see that|b|sp ≤ 1 for everyb ∈ B which is integral overA+. ♦

Finally, we verify conditions (a)-(d) of definition 1.1.2. (a) is obvious. Letx, y ∈ B and saythatδ := |x| ≤ γ := |y|; thanks to (1.1.14) we have

|x · [γ−1]| ≤ |x| · γ−1 ≤ 1

and likewise|y · [γ−1]| ≤ 1. By claim 1.1.15 it follows thatx · [γ−1] andy · [γ−1] are integral overA+, hence the same holds for their sum and again claim 1.1.15 implies that|(x+y) · [γ−1]| ≤ 1.Consequently|x + y| ≤ |(x + y) · [γ−1]| · γ ≤ |y|, which is (b). For (c) one considers theproductx · [δ−1] · y · [γ−1] which is integral overA+ by an analogous argument; then|x · y| ≤|x · [δ−1] ·y · [γ−1]| ·δ ·γ ≤ |x| · |y|, which is (c). Finally, suppose that|xn| = ε < δn; by (1.1.14)the value groupΓ is divisible, hence we can consider the elementz := x · [ε−1/n] and in fact|zn| ≤ 1, hencezn is integral overA+, so the same holds forz, and again|z| ≤ 1, therefore|x| ≤ ε1/n < δ, a contradiction that shows (d). �

Remark 1.1.16. (i) Proposition 1.1.11 generalizes [6,§3.2.2, Th.2], which deals with the spe-cial case of real-valued norms. The proof ofloc.cit. does not extend to the present case, since itis based on a smoothing technique that makes sense only for real-valued seminorms.

(ii) In the situations encountered in later sections, it is probably not too hard to verify directlythat the spectral norm is power-multiplicative (the same can already be said for most applica-tions of [6, §3.2.2, Th.2]). However, it seems desirable to have a generalstatement such asproposition 1.1.11.

Lemma 1.1.17.In the situation of(1.1.10):

(i) Let(A, | · |) → (A′, | · |′) be a flat morphism ofΓ-seminormed normal domains, supposethatB′ := A′ ⊗A B is torsion-free overA′, and endow it with the spectral seminorm| · |′sp relative to the induced injective ring homomorphismA′ → B′. Then:(a) The natural map(B, | · |sp) → (B′, | · |′sp) is a morphism ofΓQ-seminormed rings.(b) If | · | : A → Γ ∪ {0} is a valuation, we have|ab|sp = |a| · |b|sp for everya ∈ A

andb ∈ B.(ii) Suppose thatB = B1×· · ·×Br, where eachBi is anA-algebra fulfilling the conditions

of (1.1.7), and for i = 1, . . . , r, denote by| · |sp,i the spectral norm ofBi. Then, foreveryb := (b1, . . . , br) ∈ B we have:

|b|sp ≤ max(|bi|sp,i | i = 1, . . . , r)

and if the norm ofA is a valuation, the inequality is actually an equality.(iii) Suppose that(A, | · |) → (B, | · |B) is an extension of valuation rings, such thatB is

integral overA. Then the spectral norm| · |sp is a valuation equivalent to| · |B.

Proof. (i.a): For givenb ∈ B, let C ⊂ B be a finiteA-subalgebra withb ∈ C; thenC ′ :=A′ ⊗A C ⊂ B′. LetK andK ′ be the fields of fraction ofA and respectivelyA′; the elementbinduces aK-linear (resp.K ′-linear) endomorphisms on the finite dimensionalK-vector space(resp.K ′-vector space)C⊗AK (resp.C ′⊗A′ K ′), and the spectral seminorms ofb inB andB′

are defined in terms of the minimal polynomials of these endomorphisms. Hence the assertionboils down to the invariance of the minimal polynomial underbase field extensions.

(i.b): If µb(T ) = T n + a1Tn−1 + a2T

n−2 + · · ·+ an, thenµab(T ) = T n + a · a1Tn−1 + a2 ·

a2Tn−2 + · · ·+ an · an, from which the assertion follows easily.

10 LORENZO RAMERO

(ii): The minimal polynomial ofb is the least common multiple of the minimal polynomialsof b1, . . . , br; hence the claim follows from lemma 1.1.6.

(iii): Let b ∈ B such that|b|B = 1, andµb(T ) := T n+∑n

i=1 aiTn−i the minimal polynomial

of b overFrac(A). Sinceb is integral overA, we haveai ∈ A for everyi = 1, . . . , n, hence|b|sp ≤ 1; on the other hand, since :

1 = |b|nB = |n∑

i=1

aibn−i|B ≤ max(|ai| | i = 1, . . . , n)

we have as well :1 ≤ |b|sp, so that|b|sp = 1. Finally, for a general elementb ∈ B \ {0}, wemay finds ∈ N \ {0} anda ∈ A such that|bs · a|B = 1, hence|b|sB · |a| = 1 = |b|ssp · |a|, in viewof (i.b). The assertion follows. �

1.2. Normed modules. Throughout this section(A, | · |) denotes aΓ-normed ring (for someordered abelian groupΓ). Following ([6, §2.1.1, Def.1]), we shall say that afaithfully Γ-seminormedA-moduleis a pair(V, | · |V ) consisting of anA-moduleV and a map| · |V :V → Γ ∪ {0} such that:

(i) |x− y|V ≤ max(|x|V , |y|V ) for everyx, y ∈ V .(ii) |ax| = |a| · |x|V for everya ∈ A andx ∈ V .

If moreover| · |V satisfies also the axiom:(iii) |x|V = 0 if and only if x = 0

then we say that(V, | · |V ) is a faithfullyΓ-normedA-module. In the following we will supposethat all theΓ-seminormedA-modules under consideration are faithfully seminormed, so weshall refer to them simply as “seminormedA-modules” (or “normedA-modules” if (iii) holds).

1.2.1. LetV := (V, | · |V ) be a free seminormedA-module of finite rank. Following [6,§2.4.1,Def.1], we say thatV isA-cartesianif there exists a basis{v1, . . . , vn} of V such that

∣∣∣∣∣

n∑

i=1

aivi

∣∣∣∣∣V

= max1≤i≤n

|ai| · |vi|V

for all a1, . . . , an ∈ A. A basis with this property is calledA-orthogonal(or just orthogonal).

1.2.2. Suppose that(A, | · |) is a valuation ring. Recall that animmediate extensionof A is aflat morphism of valuation rings(A, | · |) → (A′, | · |′) inducing an isomorphism of value groupsΓ

∼→ Γ′ and residue fieldsA∼ ∼

→ A′∼. For instance, the henselization(Ah, | · |h) of (A, | · |)is an immediate extension; also the completion(A∧, | · |∧) of (A, | · |) relative to its valuationtopology, is an immediate extension.

Lemma 1.2.3.Let (A, | · |) be a valuation ring,(A′, | · |′) an immediate extension ofA, andBa flatA-algebra; setB′ := A∧ ⊗A B. We endowB (resp.B′) with the spectral seminorm| · |sp(resp. | · |′sp) relative to the valuation ofA (resp. ofA′). Suppose furthermore that bothB andB′ are reduced. Then:

(i) If (B, | · |sp) is A-cartesian, then(B′, | · |′sp) is A′-cartesian. More precisely, a sub-set{b1, . . . , bd} is an orthogonal basis ofB if and only if{1 ⊗ b1, . . . , 1 ⊗ bd} is anorthogonal basis ofB′.

(ii) Conversely, suppose that(B′, | · |′sp) is A′-cartesian, and assume that(A′, | · |′) ⊂(A∧, | · |∧), the completion ofA for the valuation topology. Then(B, | · |sp) is A-cartesian.

Proof. Notice thatB is free of finite rank overA if and only ifB∧ is free of finite rank overA∧

([25, Rem.3.2.26(ii)]), hence we may assume from start thatB is free of finite rank.


(i): Suppose that{b1, . . . , bd} is an orthogonal basis ofB; for everya′1, . . . , a′d ∈ A∧ such

thatx :=∑d

i=1 a′i ⊗ bi 6= 0, we have|x|′sp 6= 0, since by assumptionB∧ is reduced. SinceA′ is

an immediate extension ofA, we can finda1, . . . , ad ∈ A such that

(1.2.4) either ai = 0 or |ai − a′i| < |a′i| for everyi ≤ d

and especially,|ai| = |a′i| for everyi ≤ d. Sety :=∑d

i=1 aibi; we deduce :|x − 1 ⊗ y|′sp <max(|ai| · |bi|sp) = |y|sp = |1⊗ y|′sp, by lemma 1.1.17(i.a), whence :

|x|′sp = |y|sp = max(|a′i| · |1⊗ bi|′sp | i = 1, . . . , d)

i.e. {1⊗b1, . . . , 1⊗bd} is an orthogonal basis. Conversely, if{1⊗b1, . . . , 1⊗bd} is orthogonal,obviously{b1, . . . , bd} is orthogonal inB.

(ii): In view of (i), we can assume thatB∧ isA∧-cartesian, and it remains to show thatB isA-cartesian. Choose an orthogonal basise′1, . . . , e

′d forB∧. We shall use the following analogue

of (1.2.4) :

Claim1.2.5. We can finde1, . . . , en ∈ B such that|ei − e′i|′sp < |e′i|

′sp for i = 1, . . . , d.

Proof of the claim.Write e′i =∑d

j=1 a′j ⊗ bj for somea′1, . . . , a

′d ∈ A∧ andb1, . . . , bd ∈ B;

choose approximationsa1, . . . , ad ∈ A∧ of these elements and setei :=∑d

j=1 ajbj . By lemma1.1.17(i.b) we have :|ei− e′i|sp ≤ max(|aj − a′j | · |bj |sp | j ≤ d), which can be made arbitrarilysmall. ♦

It follows that |ei|sp = |e′i|′sp and(ei | i = 1, . . . , d) is a basis ofB (by Nakayama’s lemma);

furthermore, for everya1, . . . , ad ∈ A we have:

|d∑i=1

aiei −d∑i=1

aie′i|′sp = |

d∑i=1

ai(ei − e′i)|′sp ≤ max(|ai| · |ei − e′i|

′sp | i = 1, . . . , d)

< max(|ai| · |e′i|′sp | i = 1, . . . , d) = |

d∑i=1

aie′i|′sp.

Hence:

|d∑i=1

aiei|sp = |d∑i=1

aie′i|′sp = max(|ai| · |e

′i|′sp | 1 ≤ i ≤ d) = max(|ai| · |ei|sp | 1 ≤ i ≤ d).

In other words, the basis(ei | i = 1, . . . , d) is orthogonal. �

Remark 1.2.6. I do not know whether lemma 1.2.3(ii) holds for an arbitrary immediate exten-sion(A, | · |) → (A′, | · |′). If the rank of the valuation ringA is greater than one, this seriouslylimits the usefulness of lemma 1.2.3, since for instance, for such valuations, the henselizationAh of A is not necessarily contained inA∧.

1.2.7. Let(K, | · |) be a valued field with value groupΓ and residue fieldK∼, L a finiteextension ofK and

| · |i : L→ Γi ∪ {0} i = 1, . . . , k

the finitely many extensions of| · |. For everyi ≤ k, letL∼i be the residue field of the valuation

ring L+i of (L, | · |i), and setfi := [L∼

i : K∼], ei := (Γi : Γ). Furthermore, for every pair ofintegersi, j ≤ k let Γij be the value group of the valuation ringL+

ij := L+i · L+

j ; the embeddingLi ⊂ Lij induces a natural surjective order-preserving group homomorphismsΓi → Γij, whosekernel we denote∆ij. Then we have natural isomorphisms of ordered groupsΓi/∆ij ≃ Γj/∆ji,for every such pair(i, j). For everyi ≤ k set also∆i :=

⋂j 6=i∆ij .

Proposition 1.2.8. In the situation of(1.2.7), endow theK-algebraL with its spectral norm| · |sp (relative to the norm| · | onK), and suppose moreover that :

(a) The extensionK ⊂ L is defectless, i.e.∑d

i=1 ei · fi = [L : K].

12 LORENZO RAMERO

(b) Γ +∆i = Γi for everyi ≤ k.(c) For everyi ≤ k, the quotient∆i/(Γ∩∆i) consists of equivalence classesαi1, . . . , αiei

of elements of∆i :αi1 := 1 > αi2 > · · · > αiei

such thatαij > γ for everyi ≤ k, everyj ≤ ei, and everyγ ∈ Γ+ \ {1}.(d) ∆i 6= {1} for everyi ≤ k.

Then(L, | · |sp) is a cartesian(K, | · |)-module.

Proof. Assumption (c) and [44, Th.5] imply that for everyi ≤ k and everyj ≤ ei we may findxij ∈ L such that :

(1.2.9) |xij|i = αij and |xij|l = 1 for everyl 6= i.

Next, for everyi ≤ k, let ci1, . . . , cifi ∈ L+i whose equivalence classes form a basis of theK∼-

vector spaceL∼i . In view of assumption (d) we may find, for everyi ≤ k, a non-zero element

bi ∈ K such that :|bi| ∈ Γ+ ∩∆i \ {1}.

Then, according to [44, Lemme 9] we may find, for everyi ≤ k and everyj ≤ fi, elementsyij ∈ L such that :

(1.2.10) |yij − cij |i ≤ |bi| and |yij|l ≤ |bi| for everyl 6= i.

The proposition now follows from assumptions (a) and (b), and the following :

Claim 1.2.11. The family :

Σ := (xijyil | i = 1, . . . , k; j = 1, . . . , ei; l = 1, . . . , fi)

is orthogonal relative to the spectral norm| · |sp.

Proof of the claim.Let a ∈ L be an element which can be written in the form :

a =k∑

i=1

ai where : ai =

ei∑

j=1

fi∑

l=1

aijlxijyil for everyi = 1, . . . , k

with aijl ∈ K. We have to show that :

|a|sp = max(|aijl| · |xijyil|sp | i = 1, . . . , k; j = 1, . . . , ei; l = 1, . . . , fi).

Let (Kh, Lh) be the henselization of(K, | · |), and setLh+ := L+ ⊗K+ Kh+, whereL+ :={x ∈ L | |x|sp ≤ 1} is the integral closure ofK+ in L. In view of lemma 1.1.17(i.a), it sufficesto verify thatΣ is an orthogonal system of elements of(Lh, | · |hsp), whereLh = Lh+ ⊗K+ K

and | · |sp is the spectral norm ofLh relative to| · |h. However,Lh = Lhi × · · · × Lhk , where(Lhi , | · |

hi ) denotes the henselization of(Li, | · |i), for everyi ≤ k, hence lemma 1.1.17(ii) yields

the identity :

(1.2.12) |a|sp = max(|a|i | i = 1, . . . , k).

For everyi ≤ k let us set :

γi := max(|aijl| | j = 1, . . . , ei; l = 1, . . . , fi).

In view of lemma 1.1.17(i.b) we may assume that :

max(γi | i = 1, . . . , k) = 1.

Fix i ≤ k. By inspecting (1.2.9) and (1.2.10) we see that in that case :

|at|i ≤ |bi| for everyt 6= i.


whence :

(1.2.13) |a|i ≤ max(|ai|i, |bi|) and equality holds if|ai|i > |bi|.

• Now, suppose first thatγi = 1, and denote byj0 the smallest integerj ≤ ei such that|aijl| = 1 for somel ≤ fi. With this notation, we may decompose :

ai = a′i + xij0 ·

fi∑

l=1

aij0lyil

wherea′i is the sum of the termsaijlxijyil with j 6= j0. By (1.2.10), the residue classes inL∼i of

the elementsyi1, . . . , yifi are all distinct, hence (1.2.9) yields :

|xij0 ·

fi∑

l=1

aij0lyil|i = αij0

and, on the other hand :|a′i|i ≤ αi,j0+1

sinceαi,j0+1 is greater than any element inΓ+ \ {1}. Summing up we obtain :

(1.2.14) |ai|i = αij0 = max(|aijl| · |xijyil|sp | j = 1, . . . , ei; l = 1, . . . , fi) if γi = 1

and combining with (1.2.13) :

(1.2.15) |a|i = αij0 wheneverγi = 1.

• Suppose next thatγi < 1. Then|ai|i ≤ γi, and in view of (1.2.13) we deduce :

(1.2.16) |a|i ≤ max(|γi|, |bi|) wheneverγi < 1.

Finally, from (1.2.12), (1.2.15) and (1.2.16) we conclude that, in order to evaluate|a|sp wemay neglect all the termsaijl such thatγi < 1, and then the sought identity follows from(1.2.14). �

Remark 1.2.17.Of the four conditions of proposition 1.2.8, the first one is very natural, andin fact characterizes cartesian extensions of a valued fields, in the rank one case (see [6,§3.6.2,Prop.5]). On the other hand, conditions (b), (c) and (d) appear (to me) as artifical, and certainlyleave room for improvements.

1.2.18. Suppose thatV := (V, | · |V ) 6= 0 andW := (W, | · |W ) are two normedA-modules;let ψ : V → W be anA-linear homomorphism. We say thatψ is boundedif there existsγ ∈ Γsuch that

|ψ(x)|W/|x|V ≤ γ for everyx ∈ V \ {0}.

We denote byL (V,W ) theA-module of all boundedA-linear homomorphismsV → W . IfΓ ⊂ R, then one can define the norm ofψ as the supremum of|ψ(x)|W/|x|V for x ranging overall x ∈ V \{0} ([6, §2.1.6]). For more general groupsΓ, this quantity is not necessarily defined.Hence, forψ ∈ L (V,W ) we shall set

|ψ|L := supx∈V \{0}

|ψ(x)|W|x|V

whenever this is well defined as an element ofΓ ∪ {0}. Lemma 1.2.19 shows that, ifV andWareA-cartesian, the norm|ψ|L is well defined for everyA-linear mapψ.

Lemma 1.2.19.Let V := (V, | · |V ) andW := (W, | · |W ) be two freeA-cartesian normedA-modules of finite rank. Then:

(i) L (V,W ) = Homk(V,W ) and the pair(L (V,W ), | · |L ) is anA-cartesian normedA-module.

14 LORENZO RAMERO

(ii) If (vi | i = 1, . . . , n) and(wj | j = 1, . . . , m) are orthogonal basis ofV , resp.W , thenthe basis(v∗i ⊗ wj | i = 1, . . . , n; j = 1, . . . , m) of L (V,W ) is orthogonal.

Proof. (i) will follow from the more precise assertion (ii). The basis in (ii) is characterized bythe identities

v∗i ⊗ wj(vk) = δik · wj for everyi = 1, . . . , n andj = 1, . . . , m.

Claim 1.2.20. |v∗i ⊗ wj|L = |wj|W/|vi|V .

Proof of the claim.By definition we have

|v∗i ⊗ wj|L = supb∈An\{0}

|bi| · |wj|Wmax1≤k≤n

|bk| · |vk|V.

For givenb := (b1, . . . , bn), in order for the expression on the right-hand side to be non-zero,it is necessary thatbi 6= 0; in that case the denominator of the right-hand side cannot be madelower than|bi| · |vi|V , so the claim follows. ♦

Taking into account claim 1.2.20, the lemma boils down to thefollowing

Claim 1.2.21. For everyn×m matrix (αij) with coefficients inA we have:

supb∈An\{0}

max1≤j≤m

|∑

i αijbi| · |wj|W

max1≤k≤n

|bk| · |vk|V= max

ij|αij| ·

|wj|W|vi|V

.

Proof of the claim. The inequality≥ can be shown by choosing, for everyr ≤ n, the vectorbr := (b1r, . . . , bnr) such thatbir = 0 for i 6= r andbrr = 1. For the inequality≤ one remarksthat

max1≤j≤m

|∑

i αijbi| · |wj|W

max1≤k≤n

|bk| · |vk|V≤

maxij

|αijbi| · |wj|W

max1≤k≤n

|bk| · |vk|V≤ max

ij

|αijbi| · |wj|W|bi| · |vi|V

from which the claim follows easily. �

1.2.22. LetV andW be as in lemma 1.2.19. By lemma 1.2.19(i) there is a naturalA-linearisomorphism

L (V ⊗AW,A) ≃ L (V,L (W,A))

whence a natural structure ofA-cartesian normedA-module onL (V ⊗kW,A). After dualizing(and applying again lemma 1.2.19) we deduce thatV ⊗A W carries a natural structure ofA-cartesian normedA-module. Furthermore, let(vi | i = 1, . . . , n) and(wj | j = 1, . . . , m) beorthogonal bases forV and respectivelyW ; using repeatedly lemma 1.2.19(ii) one sees easilythat(vi ⊗ wj | i = 1, . . . , n; j = 1, . . . , m) is an orthogonal basis forV ⊗AW and moreover

|vi ⊗ wj| = |vi|V · |wj|W for everyi = 1, . . . , n andj = 1, . . . , m.

Remark 1.2.23.At least whenΓ = R, andA is a field, it should be possible to use the char-acterization of [6,§2.1.7, Cor.3] to see that the above normedA-module structure onV ⊗AWagrees with the one defined on the complete tensor productV ⊗AW as in [6,§2.1.7].


1.2.24. As a special case of (1.2.22), we deduce a natural norm on every tensor powerV ⊗k ofV . All theseA-modules areA-cartesian. For everyk ∈ N we have a natural imbedding ofA-modules:ΛkAV → V ⊗k induced by the antisymmetrizer operator ([8, Ch.III,§7.4, Remarque])

V ⊗k → V ⊗k : v1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ vk 7→∑

σ∈Sk

vσ(1) ⊗ · · · ⊗ vσ(k).

Hence the norm ofV ⊗k restricts to a natural norm onΛkAV . Let {v1, . . . , vn} be an orthogonalbasis forV . For every subsetI ⊂ {1, . . . , n} of cardinality|I| = k we setvI := vi1 ∧ · · · ∧ vik ,wherei1 < · · · < ik are the elements ofI. One checks easily that

|vI | = |vi1|V · . . . ·|vik |V

and the basis(vI | I ⊂ {1, . . . , n}, |I| = k) is orthogonal.

1.2.25. In the situation of (1.2.24), consider a freeA+-submoduleV + ⊂ V such that thenatural mapA⊗A+ V + → V is an isomorphism. The highest exterior powerΛnA+V + is a rankone freeA+-submodule of theA-cartesian moduleΛnAV . Pick any generatore of ΛnA+V +; onesees easily that the value

|V +| := |e|

is independent of the choice ofe. Especially, ifA is an integral domain andI ⊂ A+ is anyprincipal ideal, then|I| is well defined.

Lemma 1.2.26.Suppose thatA is an integral domain and letV +1 ⊂ V +

2 ⊂ V be twoA+-submodules of the free cartesianA-moduleV of finite rank, fulfilling the conditions of(1.2.25).Then we have:

|V +1 | = |F0(V

+2 /V

+1 )| · |V +

2 |.

Proof. HereF0 denotes the Fitting ideal (see [36, Ch.XIX] for generalities on Fitting ideals).Letn be the rank ofV ; more or less by definition we haveF0(V

+2 /V

+1 ) = F0(Λ

nA+V

+2 /Λ

nA+V

+1 ),

from which the assertion follows easily. �

1.3. Henselian algebras and complete algebras.Let (K, | · |) be a complete valued field ofrank one,m the maximal ideal of the valuation ringK+ of K, K∼ := K+/m the residue fieldandΓK the value group. Let alsoπ ∈ m be a fixed non-zero element.

1.3.1. For anyK+-algebraR, let us denote byR-Algfpet/K (resp.R-Algfget/K) the categoryofR-algebrasB that are finitely presented (resp. finitely generated) asR-modules and such thatBK := B⊗K+K is etale overRK := R⊗K+K. Furthermore, for any objectB ofR-Algfget/K ,letBν be the integral closure inBK of the image ofB.

Proposition 1.3.2.With the notation of(1.3.1), suppose thatR isK+-flat and henselian alongits idealπR, and denote byR∧ theπ-adic completion ofR. Then :

(i) The base change functorB 7→ B∧ := R∧ ⊗R B induces equivalences :

R-Algfpet/K∼→ R∧-Algfpet/K R-Algfget/K

∼→ R∧-Algfget/K .

(ii) AnnB∧(π) = AnnB(π) for every objectB ofR-Algfget/K .(iii) Suppose furthermore thatRK andR∧

K are normal domains. Then the natural map :

Bν ⊗R R∧ → (B ⊗R R

∧)ν

is an isomorphism for every objectB ofR-Algfget/K .

16 LORENZO RAMERO

Proof. (i): The assertion forR-Algfpet/K follows from [23, Ch.III, §3, Th.5 and§4, Rem.2,p.587]. Next, letB∧ be any object ofR∧-Algfget/K ; we may find a filtered system(B∧

λ | λ ∈ Λ)of finitely presentedR∧-algebras, with surjective transition mapsφ∧

λµ : B∧λ → B∧

µ , whosecolimit isB. SinceB∧ is integral overR∧, we may also arrange thatB∧

λ is integral overR∧ foreveryλ ∈ Λ, and then everyB∧

λ is of finite presentation asR∧-module. Furthermore, sinceB∧K

is a finitely presentedR∧K-algebra, we may assume that

(1.3.3) B∧λ ⊗K+ K ≃ B∧ for everyλ ∈ Λ.

Therefore everyB∧λ is an object ofR∧-Algfpet/K . In this case, under the foregoing equivalence,

this family comes from a filtered system(Bλ | λ ∈ Λ) of objects ofR-Algfpet/K . LetB be thecolimit of the latter family; thenB ⊗R R

∧ ≃ B∧. Moreover :

Claim 1.3.4. (i) B is a finitely generatedR-module.

(ii) The induced map :Bλ ⊗K+ K → BK is bijective for everyλ ∈ Λ.

Proof of the claim.For (i), it suffices to show that the transition mapsφλµ : Bλ → Bµ are stillsurjective. Indeed, letCλµ := Coker φλµ; thenCλµ ⊗R R

∧ = 0, henceCλµ/πCλµ = 0, andthereforeCλµ = 0, by Nakayama’s lemma.

(ii): Let Cλ := B/Bλ; we have to show thatπnCλ = 0 for large enoughn ∈ N. However,Cλ/π

nCλ ≃ Cλ ⊗R (R/πnR) ≃ Cλ ⊗R (R∧/πnR∧) ≃ Cλ ⊗R R∧ for every sufficiently large

n ∈ N, by (1.3.3). It follows thatCλ/πnCλ = Cλ/πmCλ for everym > n, i.e. πnCλ = πmCλ,

whenceπmCλ = 0 by (i) and Nakayama’s lemma. ♦

Claim 1.3.4 implies thatB is an object ofR-Algfget/K , hence the base change functor isessentially surjective on the subcategoryR∧-Algfget/K . Next, letC be any other object ofR-Algfget/K , andα∧ : B∧ → C∧ a ring homomorphism. Choose a filtered system(Cµ | µ ∈ Λ′)of objects ofR-Algfpet/K whose colimit isC; for everyλ ∈ Λ, let ψλ : B∧

λ → B∧ be thenatural map; we may findµ ∈ Λ′ such that the compositionα∧ ◦ φλ factors though a morphismα∧µλ : B∧

λ → C∧µ . Let αµλ : Bλ → Cµ be the corresponding morphism inR-Algfpet/K and

αλ : Bλ → C its composition with the natural mapCµ → C. One checks easily thatαλ doesnot depend on the choice ofαµλ, and moreover, the collection(αλ | λ ∈ Λ) is compatible withthe transition morphismsφλλ′ : Bλ → Bλ′ of the filtered system(Bλ | λ ∈ Λ), therefore it givesrise to a mapα : B → C, and by construction it is clear thatα⊗R1R∧ = α∧. This shows that thebase change is a full functorR-Algfget/K → R∧-Algfget/K . A similar argument, by reductionto finitely presented algebras, yields also the faithfulness of the functor, thus concluding theproof of assertion (i).

(ii): To start out, we claim that the natural mapB → B∧ is injective for every objectB ofR-Algfget/K . Indeed, letI ⊂ B be the kernel of this map; then bothB∧ and(B/I)∧ are thecoproduct ofB andR∧ in the category ofR-algebras, hence the natural mapB∧ → (B/I)∧ is anisomorphism, so the same holds for the mapB → B/I, in view of (i). Now, letT := AnnB(π);clearlyT ⊗R R

∧ = T , whence a right exact sequence :T → B∧ π→ B∧ → 0. However,T

injects intoB∧, since it injects intoB andB injects intoB∧; hence the foregoing sequence isshort exact, which is assertion (ii).

(iii): Under the standing assumptions,Bν is the colimit of the filtered family(Bλ | λ ∈ Λ)consisting of all the objects ofR-Algfget/K such thatBλ⊗K+ K = B and such thatπ is regularin Bλ. In view of (ii), the family(B∧

λ | λ ∈ Λ) consists of all the objects ofR∧-Algfget/K suchthatB∧

λ ⊗K+ K = B and such thatπ is regular inB∧λ , hence its colimit is(B∧)ν . �

1.3.5. LetA aK+-algebra of finite presentation, andAh (resp. A∧) the henselization ofAalong its idealπA (resp. theπ-adic completion ofA). Recall that theπ-adic completion ofAh is naturally isomorphic toA∧. (indeed,Ah/πnAh is the henselization ofA/πnA along its


idealπA/πnA, for everyn ∈ N [43, Ch.XI, §2, Prop.2]; therefore the natural mapA/πnA →Ah/πnAh is an isomorphism for everyn ∈ N, which implies the claim).

Lemma 1.3.6. In the situation of(1.3.5), suppose thatA is flat overK+. ThenA∧ is faithfullyflat overAh.

Proof. To begin with, we claim thatA∧ is flat overK+. Indeed, suppose thatπx = 0 forsomex ∈ A∧; choose a sequence(xk | k ∈ N) of elements ofA converging tox in theπ-adictopology ofA∧. Then the sequence(πxk | k ∈ N) converges to0, and sinceA has noπ-torsion,it follows easily that the sequence(xk | k ∈ N) also converges to0, sox = 0.

Claim1.3.7. In order to show the lemma, it suffices to prove thatA∧ is flat overA.

Proof of the claim.First, if A∧ is flat overA, thenA∧ is flat overAh as well. To conclude, bystandard reductions, it suffices to show that a finitely generatedAh-moduleM vanishes if andonly if M∧ := A∧ ⊗Ah M vanishes. But ifM∧ = 0, it follows thatM/πM = 0, and then weinvoke Nakayama’s lemma to see thatM = 0. ♦

Hence, let us that showA∧ is flat overA; to this aim, sinceA/πA ≃ A∧/πA∧, [25, Lemma5.2.1] says that it suffices to show thatA∧

K := A∧ ⊗K+ K is flat overAK := A ⊗K+ K. SaythatA = K+[T1, . . . , Tn]/I for some finitely generated idealI.

Claim1.3.8. πnI = I ∩ πnK+[T1, . . . , Tn] for everyn ∈ N.

Proof of the claim.By assumptionTorK+

1 (A,K+/πnK+) = 0; hence

I/πnI = Ker(K+[T1, . . . , Tn]/πnK+[T1, . . . , Tn] → A/πnA).

The claim follows easily. ♦

By [41, Th.8.4] we haveA∧ ≃ K+〈T1, . . . , Tn〉/I∧, whereI∧ is the completion ofI for the

subspace topology as a submodule ofK+[T1, . . . , Tn]; by claim 1.3.8 the subspace topology isnothing else than theπ-adic topology. It then follows from [25, Prop.7.1.1](iv) that :

I∧ = IK+〈T1, . . . , Tn〉

henceA∧ ≃ K+〈T1, . . . , Tn〉 ⊗K+[T1,...,Tn] A andA∧K ≃ K〈T1, . . . , Tn〉 ⊗K[T1,...,Tn] AK , hence

we are reduced to the case whereA = K+[T1, . . . , Tn]. Let n ⊂ A∧K be any maximal ideal,

and setq := n ∩ AK ; it suffices to show thatA∧K,n is flat overAK,q. However, it is well known

thatE := A∧K/n is a finite extension ofK, hence the same holds forAK/q ⊂ E. Choose

any maximal idealnE ⊂ A∧E := E ⊗K A∧

K ≃ E〈T1, . . . , Tn〉 lying overn and letqE be thepreimage ofnE inAE := E[T1, . . . , Tn]. Since the extensionA∧

K,n → A∧E,nE

is faithfully flat, weare reduced to showing thatA∧

E,nEis flat overAE,qE . Hence we can replaceK byE and assume

from start thatA/n ≃ K, in which casen = (T1− a1, . . . , Tn− an) for somea1, . . . , an ∈ K+.Clearly then-adic completions ofAK andA∧

K are both isomorphic toK[[T1−a1, . . . , Tn−an]],and by [41, Th.8.8] this latter ring is faithfully flat over bothAK,q andA∧

K,n. The claim followseasily. �

2. STUDY OF THE DISCRIMINANT

2.1. Discriminant. Let R → S be a ring homomorphism such thatS is a freeR-module offinite rank. Every elementa ∈ S defines anR-linear endomorphism

µa : S → S b 7→ ab

whose trace and determinant we denote respectively bytrS/R(a) andNmS/R(a). There followsa well-definedR-bilineartrace form

TrS/R : S ⊗R S → R a⊗ b 7→ trS/R(ab).

18 LORENZO RAMERO

It is well known (seee.g.[25, Th.4.1.14]) thatTrS/R is a perfect pairing if and only ifS is etaleoverR. Pick a basise1, . . . , ed of S; one defines thediscriminantof S overR as the element

dS/R := det(TrS/R(ei ⊗ ej) | 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d) ∈ R.

One verifies easily thatdS/R is well defined (i.e. independent of the choice of the basis) up tothe square of an invertible element ofR.

2.1.1. LetR be a (not necessarily commutative) unitary ring; for any integerm > 0 we letMm(R) be the unitary ring of allm × m matrices with entries inR. For everya ∈ R andevery pair of integersi, j ≤ m we denote byEij(a) ∈ Mm(R) the elementary matrix whose(i, j)-entry equalsa, and whose other entries vanish; moreover, sometimes we maydenote by1m the unit ofMm(R). If n > 0 is any other integer, we let

αn :Mn(Mm(R))∼→ Mnm(R)

be the unique ring isomorphism such that

Eij(Ekl(a)) 7→ Ei(m−1)+k,j(m−1)+l(a) for all a ∈ R, 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n, 1 ≤ k, l ≤ m.

Suppose now thatt := (tij) ∈Mn(Mm(R)) is a matrix whose entriestij commute pairwise; letT ⊂Mm(R) be the commutative ring generated by all thetij ; we can then viewt as an elementof Mn(T ) so that its determinant is well-defined as an element ofT . To avoid ambiguities, weshall writedetn(tij | 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n) for this determinant.

Lemma 2.1.2. With the notation of(2.1.1), suppose that the ringR is commutative and lett := (tij | 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n) ∈ Mn(Mm(R)) be an element such that all the matricestij ∈ Mm(R)commute pairwise. We have the identity:

(2.1.3) det(detn(tij | 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n)) = det(αn(t)).

Proof. We proceed by induction onn, the casen = 1 being trivial. Hence, assumen > 1;suppose first thatt11 ∈Mm(R) is an invertible matrix. It follows that the matrix

s := E11(t11) +n∑

k=2

Ekk(1m)

is invertible inMn(Mm(R)), and obviously its entries commute pairwise and with the entriesof t; furthermore the sought identity is easily verified fors. Since both sides of (2.1.3) aremultiplicative in t, we are therefore reduced to verifying the identity fors−1 · t, hence we canassume thatt11 = 1m. Next, let

e := (1m)n −n∑

k=2

E1k(t1k).

Clearlye is invertible inMn(Mm(R)), and again its entries commute both pairwise and with theentries oft; thus it suffices to show the sought identity fore and fore−1·t. The identity is obviousfor e, therefore we can replacet by e−1 · t and assume thatt1j = δ1j ·1m for everyj ≤ n. In thiscase,detn(tij | 1 ≤ i, j ≤ n) equals the determinant of the(n−1)×(n−1)-minor t′ obtained byomitting the first row and the first column oft, anddet(αn(t)) = det(αn−1(t

′)). By inductiveassumption, the sought identity is already know for such a minor, so the proof is complete incaset11 is invertible. For a generalt, we notice thatdet(t11 + λ1m) is a non-zero-divisor inthe free polynomialR-algebraR[λ] and consider the localizationS := R[λ, det(t11 + λ1m)

−1].The assumptions of the lemma are verified by the matrixt′′ := t + E11(λ1m) ∈ Mn(Mm(S))and moreovert′′11 is invertible inMn(S), so (2.1.3) holds fort′′, and actually yield an identityin the subringR[λ] of S. After specializing the latter identity inλ = 0, we deduce that (2.1.3)holds fort as well. �


Proposition 2.1.4.LetA → B → C be maps of commutative rings and suppose thatB (resp.C) is a freeA-module (resp.B-module) of finite rank. Letr := rkBC. Then we have:

dC/A = (dB/A)r · NmB/A(dC/B).

Proof. Let d := rkAB; pick basese1, . . . , ed ∈ B of theA-moduleB andf1, . . . , fr ∈ C of theB-moduleC; clearly the system(eifj | i ≤ d, j ≤ r) is a basis for the freeA-moduleC of rankdr. We letT ∈Mr(Md(A)) be the element whose(j, j′)-entry is the matrixTjj′ such that

(Tjj′)ii′ := trC/A(eifjei′fj′) for every1 ≤ i, i′ ≤ d.

In the notation of (2.1.1), we havedC/A = det(αr(T )). Moreover, letM ∈ Mr(B) (resp.N ∈Md(A)) be the matrix such thatMjj′ := trC/B(fjfj′) (resp. such thatNii′ := trB/A(eiei′));by the transitivity of the trace, we can write

(2.1.5) (Tjj′)ii′ = trB/A(eiei′ ·Mjj′).

Let µ : B → Md(A) be the unique ring homomorphism such that

bei =d∑

k=1

µ(b)kiek for all b ∈ B.

Especially:ei′Mjj′ =∑d

k=1 µ(Mjj′)ki′ek and consequenly:

(2.1.6) trB/A(eiei′Mjj′) =d∑

k=1

µ(Mjj′)ki′ · trB/A(ekei) =d∑

k=1

Nik · µ(Mjj′)ki′.

Finally, let∆(N), µ(M) ∈Mr(Md(A)) be the matrices such that

∆(N)jj′ := N · δjj′ µ(M)jj′ := µ(Mjj′) for all 1 ≤ j, j′ ≤ r.

Taking into account (2.1.5) and (2.1.6) we see that

T = ∆(N) · µ(M)

whence, an application of lemma 2.1.2 delivers the sought identity. �

2.1.7. In the situation of (2.1) we let

τS/R : S → S∗ := HomR(S,R)

be the map such thatτS/R(b)(b′) = TrS/R(b ⊗ b′) for every b, b′ ∈ S. Notice thatS∗ is anS-module with the natural scalar multiplication defined by the rule: (b · φ)(b′) := φ(bb′) foreveryb, b′ ∈ S andφ ∈ S∗. With respect to thisS-module structure,τ is S-linear; thus, we candefine thedifferent ideal

DS/R := AnnS(Coker τS/R) ⊂ S.

In this generality, not much can be said about the idealDS/R. However, suppose furthermorethat there is an isomorphism ofS-modulesω : S∗ ∼

→ S; it follows easily thatDS/R is theprincipal ideal generated byδ := ω ◦ τ(1). Denote byNmS/R(DS/R) ⊂ R the principal idealgenerated byNmS/R(δ).

Lemma 2.1.8.Under the assumptions of(2.1.7)we have the identity:

NmS/R(DS/R) = dS/R.

Proof. Indeed, letr := rkRS; directly from the definition we deduce that

dS/R = AnnR(Coker ΛrRτS/R) = AnnR(Coker Λ

rR(ω ◦ τS/R)).

which implies straightforwardly the assertion. �

20 LORENZO RAMERO

Example 2.1.9.Suppose thatR is a henselian valuation ring andS is the integral closure ofRin a finite extension of the field of fractions ofR; moreover suppose thatS is a finitely presentedR-module. Then actuallyS is a freeR-module of finite rank. Notice thatS is a valuation ringand anS-module isS-torsion-free if and only if it isR-torsion-free; in particular we see thatS∗ is a finitely presentedS-torsion-freeS-module, hence it is free overS (seee.g. [25, lemma6.1.14]) and clearlyrkSS∗ = 1, so lemma 2.1.8 applies to the extensionR ⊂ S. Moreover :

Lemma 2.1.10.Keep the assumptions of example2.1.9and suppose moreover that the valua-tion | · |R ofR has rank one; letd := rkRS. Then:

(i) In case the valuation| · |R is discrete,|dS/R| ≥ |π|d(1−1/e)R · |d|d, whereπ ∈ R is a

uniformizer ofR ande is the ramification index ofS overR.(ii) In case the valuation| · |R is not discrete,|dS/R| ≥ |d|d.

Proof. ObviouslytrS/R(d−1) = 1 in either case. If the valuation ofR is discrete, we can writetrS/R(π

−1 · d−1) = π−1, henceπ−1 · d−1 /∈ D−1S/R and consequentlyD−1

S/R ⊂ πS · π−1 · d−1S(inclusion of fractional ideals, whereπS is a uniformizer forS). The bound then follows easilyfrom lemma 2.1.8. In case the valuation is non-discrete, thesame argument yields the weakerestimate:D−1

S/R ⊂ x · d−1S, for everyx with |x|R < 1, whence the sought inequality, again bylemma 2.1.8. �

Lemma 2.1.11.LetR be a valuation ring andS2 ⊂ S1 twoR-algebras that are both free ofthe same finite rank asR-modules. Then we have:

dS2/R = F0(S1/S2)2 · dS1/R.

Proof. (HereF0 denotes the Fitting ideal of the torsionR-moduleS1/S2.) This is a special caseof [25, Lemma 7.5.4]. �

The following example will play a key role in later sections.

Example 2.1.12.Let K, K+ andπ be as in (1.3). As usual, one letsK+〈T1, . . . , Tn〉 be theπ-adic completion ofK+[T1, . . . , Tn]. We consider the (continuous) ring homomorphism

ψ : K+〈ξ〉 → K+〈S, T 〉/(ST − π2) : ξ 7→ S + T.

Notice thatK+〈S, T 〉/(ST −π2) is generated overK+〈ξ〉 by the class ofS, which satisfies theintegral equation

S2 − Sξ + π2 = 0.

The matrix of the trace form for the morphismψ, relative to the basis(1, S) is:(

2 ξξ ξ2 − 2π2

).

Finally, the discriminant ofψ is dψ := ξ2 − 4π2.

2.2. Finite ramified coverings of annuli. We keep the notation and assumptions of (1.3), andwe suppose additionally thatK is algebraically closed.

2.2.1. We shall use rather freely the language of adic spacesof [29] and [30]. For a quickreview of the main definitions, we refer also to [25,§7.2.15-27]. Recall that such an adic spaceis a datum of the form(X,OX ,O

+X), where(X,OX) is a locally ringed space andO+

X ⊂ OX

is a subsheaf of rings satisfying certain natural conditions (seeloc.cit.); moreover such an adicspace is obtained by gluingaffinoid open subspaces that areadic spectraSpaA attached tocertain pairsA := (A⊲, A+) consisting of a ring and an integrally closed subringA+ ⊂ A⊲.

For everyx ∈ X we shall denote :• κ(x) the residue field ofOX,x, which is a valued field whose valuation we denote| · |x.


• (κ(x)∧, | · |∧x) (resp.(κ(x)h, | · |hx)) the completion for the valuation topology (resp. thehenselization) of(κ(x), | · |x).

• (κ(x)∧h, | · |∧hx ) the henselization of(κ(x)∧, | · |∧x).In agreement with (1.1.3), we shall writeκ(x)+ for the valuation ring of the valuation| · |x, andlikewise we defineκ(x)∧+ and so on. For future reference we point out :

Lemma 2.2.2.LetX be an analytic adic space,x ∈ X any point andy ∈ X a specializationof x. Then the induced mapκ(y)∧ → κ(x)∧ is an isomorphism of complete topological fields.

Proof. It follows directly from [30, Lemma 1.1.10(iii)]. �

Remark 2.2.3. Let f : X → Y be a finite map of analytic adic spaces,x ∈ X any point andy := f(x). Notice that the extension of valued fields(κ(y), | · |y) ⊂ (κ(x), | · |x) is usuallynotalgebraic, whereas the induced map on completions :

(κ(y)∧, | · |∧y ) → (κ(x)∧, | · |∧x)

is always a finite algebraic extension ([30, Lemma 1.5.2]), but the latter does not necessarilyinduce a finite map between the corresponding valuation rings (see (2.2.16)). That is why it isuseful to take henselizations : the induced ring homomorphismκ(y)∧h+ → κ(x)∧h+ is finite.

2.2.4. Following R.Huber ([29], [30]), we call aK-affinoid algebraa pairA := (A⊲, A+),whereA⊲ is aK-algebra of topologically finite type andA+ is a subring of the ringA◦ of allpower-bounded elements ofA⊲. We shall consider exclusively affinoid ringsA of topologicallyfinite type overK; for suchA one has alwaysA+ = A◦. The subringA◦ is characterized by atopological – rather than metric – condition. Hence in principle the notation of this section mayconflict with (1.1.3). However, whenA⊲ is reduced, one knows that thesupremum seminorm| · |sup on A⊲ is a power-multiplicative norm ([6,§6.2.4, Th.1]), and furthermore in this caseA◦ = {a ∈ A⊲ | |a|sup ≤ 1} ([6, §6.2.3, Prop.1]). For any suchA we shall also writeA∼ :=A◦/mA◦.

2.2.5. Another possible source of confusion is the following situation. LetA be a normaldomain of topologically finite type overK, and endowA with its supremum norm| · |sup;let alsoA → B be an injective finite ring homomorphism. According to proposition 1.1.11,B is endowed with its spectral seminorm| · |sp; on the other hand,B can also be endowedwith its supremum seminorm and the problem arises whether these two seminorms coincide.According to [6,§3.8.1, Prop.7], this turns out to be the case, provided thatB is torsion-free asanA-module.

Lemma 2.2.6. Let A be a reduced affinoidK-algebra of topologically finite type. LetU ⊂X := SpaA be an affinoid subdomain. ThenOX(U) is reduced.

Proof. It suffices to show that, for every maximal idealq ⊂ B := OX(U), the localizationBq isreduced. However, by a theorem of Kiehl,Bq is excellent (see [11, Th.1.1.3] for a proof), henceit suffices to show that theq-adic completionB∧

q of Bq is reduced. Letp := q ∩ A; sinceUis a subdomain inX, the natural mapA → B induces an isomorphism of complete local ringsA∧

p ≃ B∧q , so we are reduced to showing thatA∧

p is reduced, which holds becauseAq is reducedand excellent (again by Kiehl’s theorem). �

2.2.7. For everya, b ∈ ΓK with a ≤ b, we denote byD(a) the disc of radiusa, and byD(a, b)the annulus of radiia andb. Say thata = |α| andb = |β| for α, β ∈ K×; then

D(a, b) := SpaA(a, b) and D(a) := SpaA(a)

whereA(a, b) (resp.A(a)) is the affinoidK-algebra of topologically finite type such that

A(a, b)⊲ := K〈α/ξ, ξ/β〉 (resp.A(a)⊲ := K〈ξ/α〉).

HenceA(a, b)+ = A(a, b)◦ = K+〈α/ξ, ξ/β〉 andA(a)+ = A(a)◦ = K+〈ξ/α〉.

22 LORENZO RAMERO

2.2.8. LetX be any adic space locally of finite type overSpaK and withdimX = 1. Thepoints ofX fall into three distinct classes, according to whether: (I)they admit neither a propergeneralization nor a proper specialization, or (II) they admit a proper specialization, or else (III)they have a proper generalization. For every pointx ∈ X of class (III), we shall denote byx♭

the unique generization ofx in X, sox♭ is a point of class (II). The value groupΓx of | · |xadmits a natural decomposition (see [31,§1.1 and Cor.5.4])

Γx ≃ Γdivx ⊕ 〈γ0〉

whereΓdivx is the maximal divisible subgroup contained inΓx, and〈γ0〉 ≃ Z is the subgroup

generated by the elementγ0 uniquely characterized as the largest element of the subsetΓ+x \{1}

(notation of (1.1.1)).

2.2.9. For instance, takeX := (A1K)

ad, the analytification of the affine line. The topo-logical space underlying(A1

K)ad consists of the equivalence classes of continuous valuations

v : K[ξ] → Γv extending the valuation ofK. These valuations are described in [31,§5]: to theclass (I) belonge.g.the height one valuations of the form

f(ξ) 7→ |f(x)| for all f(ξ) ∈ K[ξ]

wherex ∈ K = A1K(K) is any element (these are theK-rational points of(A1

K)ad). The

valuations of classes (II) and (III) are all of height respectively one and two. The elements ofthese classes admit a uniform description, that we wish to explain. To this aim we consider animbedding of ordered fields

(R, <) → (R(ε), <)

whereR(ε) is a purely transcendental extension ofR, generated by an elementε such that0 < ε < r for every real numberr > 0. One can viewR(ε) as a subfield of the ordered fieldof hyperreal numbers∗R (see [27]). For everyx ∈ K, every real numberr > 0 and everyω ∈ {1, 1− ε, 1/(1− ε)} ⊂ R(ε) consider the valuation

| · |r·ω : K[ξ] → R(ε) :n∑

i=0

ai(ξ − x)n 7→ max(|ai| · ri · ωi | i = 0, . . . , n).

If ω = 1, this is the usual Gauss (sup) norm attached to the disc of radiusr centered at the pointx; this is a valuation of height one. Forω 6= 1 we get a valuation which should be thought ofas the sup norm on a disc of radiusr · ω, again centered atx; this new kind of valuation is aspecialization of| · |r, and indeed all the specializations of the latter occur in this manner. Ifr /∈ ΓK , then| · |r belongs to the class (I); in this case the valuations| · |r·ω are all equivalent,regardless ofω, and therefore they induce the same point of(A1

K)ad. If r ∈ ΓK then| · |r is in

the class (II); in this case the| · |r·ω for ω 6= 1 are two inequivalent valuations of height two,hence of class (III), and indeed all valuations of class (III) arise in this way.

2.2.10. Leta, b ∈ ΓK with a ≤ b. Forr ∈ (a, b]∩ΓK , the valuation| · |r(1−ε) extends toA(a, b)by continuity; if moreoverr > a, then the point of(A1

K)ad corresponding to this valuation lies

in the open subdomainD(a, b). This point shall be denoted henceforth byη(r), and to lightennotation we shall writeκ(r) (resp.κ(r♭)) for the residue field ofη(r) (resp. ofη(r)♭). Noticethatκ(r) is also the same as the stalkOD(a,b),η(r).

Likewise, if r ∈ [a, b) ∩ ΓK , the valuation| · |r/(1−ε) determines a pointη′(r) of (A1K)

ad thatlies in the open subdomainD(a, b); the residue field ofη′(r) shall be denotedκ′(r). Notice thatη(r)♭ = η′(r)♭.


2.2.11. Letf : X → D(a, b) be a finite and flat morphism of affinoid adic spaces of degreed,and suppose thatX is reduced (i.e. X = SpaB whereB is a reduced flat affinoid algebra ofrankd as anA(a, b)-module). For everyr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK , we set :

B(r) := (f∗OX)η(r)

which is a reduced finiteκ(r)-algebra, in view of lemma 2.2.6. We endowB(r) with thespectral norm| · |sp,η(r) relative to the valuation| · |η(r); it follows that

B(r)+ = (f∗O+X)η(r).

Lemma 2.2.12.In the situation of(2.2.11), let y ∈ D(a, b) any point. Thenf−1(y) is the set ofall the valuations on(f∗OX)y that extend the valuation| · |y corresponding toy.

Proof. Let X = Spa(B⊲, B◦); the topology ofB⊲ is theA(a, b)-module topology,i.e. theunique one such that the family ofA(a, b)◦-submodules(πB◦ | π ∈ m \ {0}) is a fundamentalsystem of neighborhoods of0. LetBy := B⊲ ⊗A(a,b)⊲ Oy = (f∗OX)y; similarlyBy has a well-definedOy-module topology and the fibref−1(y) consists of the continuous valuations| · |′ onBy extending the valuation| · |y, and such that

(2.2.13) |s|′ ≤ 1 for all s ∈ B◦.

Let | · |′ be any valuation onBy extending| · |y, and letp ⊂ By be the support of| · |′; thequotient topology onE := By/p is theκ(y)-module topology, whereκ(y) is the residue fieldof y. However, letΓy andΓE be the value groups of| · |y and respectively| · |E; since[ΓE : Γy]is finite, it is easy to see that| · |′ is continuous. Hence, continuity holds for all| · |′ extending| · |y, and since anywayB◦ is the integral closure ofA(a, b)◦ in B⊲, the same goes for condition(2.2.13). �

2.2.14. In the situation of (2.2.11), letx ∈ X be a point of class (III). The valuation| · |x isan extension of the valuation| · |f(x) : κ(f(x)) → R(ε), hence its value group can be realizedinside the multiplicative group of the fieldR((1 − ε)1/d!), which is an algebraic extension ofR(ε) of degreed!, admitting a unique ordering extending the ordering ofR(ε) (again, one canthink of all this as taking place inside the hyperreal numbers; of course, there is no real need tointroduce this auxiliary field: it is nothing more than a suggestive notational device). In termsof the decomposition of (2.2.8), we haveΓdiv

x ⊂ R×>0 and〈γ0〉 ⊂ {(1− ε)i | i ∈ 1

d!Z}. We shall

consider the two projections:

Γx → Γdivx : γ 7→ γ♭ and Γx →

1

d!Z : γ 7→ γ♮

whereγ♮ is characterized by the identity

(1− ε)γ♮

· γ♭ = γ for everyγ ∈ Γx.

Sometimes it is more natural to use an additive (rather than multiplicative) notation; in order toswitch from one to the other, of course one takes logarithms.Hence we define :

(2.2.15) log γ := log γ♭ − γ♮ · ε ∈ R + εR for everyγ ∈ Γx.

The composition

B → Γdivx ∪ {0} : s 7→ |s|♭x

is a continuous rank one valuation ofB and determines the unique generizationx♭ of x inX. If we view R((1 − ε)1/d!) as a subfield of the hyperreal numbers, then the projection|s|♭xcorresponds to the shadow of the bounded hyperreal|s|x.

24 LORENZO RAMERO

2.2.16. The ringB(r) is a product of finite field extensionsF1 × · · · × Fk of Oη(r), and thefactorsFj are in natural bijective correspondence with the elements of the fibref−1(η(r)♭) (seealso [30, Prop.1.5.4]). Moreover,B(r)+ decomposes as the productF+

1 ×· · ·×F+k , whereF+

j

is the integral closure ofκ(r)+ in Fj . The valuation ringκ(r)+ is not henselian, hence it mayoccur thatF+

j is not a valuation ring, but only a normedκ(r)+-algebra; that happens preciselywhen there are distinct pointsx, y ∈ f−1(η(r)) such thatx♭ = y♭ (see example 2.3.13).

Lemma 2.2.17.In the situation of(2.2.11), suppose furthermore that the morphismf is gener-ically etale. Then, for everyr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK we have:

(i) The normed ring(B(r)+, | · |sp,η(r)) is a free cartesianκ(r)+-module of rankd.(ii) |s|sp,η(r) = max(|s|x | x ∈ f−1(η(r))) for all s ∈ B(r).

(iii) Let us viewB(r)+ as a submodule of the normed cartesian module(B(r), | · |sp,η(r)),so that the value|B(r)+|sp,η(r) is defined (notation of(1.2.25)). Then:

2|B(r)+|♮sp,η(r) = deg(f)− ♯f−1(η(r))

where♯f−1(η(r)) denotes the cardinality of the fibref−1(η(r)).(iv) If R ⊂ B(r)+ is a finiteκ(r)+-algebra such thatR⊗K+ K = B(r), thenR = B(r)+

if and only ifR/mR is a reducedK∼-algebra.

Proof. (i): under the current assumptions, the field extensionκ(r)∧ ⊂ κ(x)∧ is finite (seeremark 2.2.3(i)) and separable. Let us set :

B(r)∧+ := B(r)+ ⊗κ(r)+ κ(r)∧+

B(r)∧ := B(r)⊗κ(r) κ(r)∧.

SinceB(r) is an etaleκ(r)-algebra,B(r)∧ is an etaleκ(r)∧-algebra, especially it is reduced; byflatness,B(r)∧+ is a subalgebra ofB(r)∧, hence it is reduced as well. Hence lemma 1.2.3(ii)applies, and reduces to showing that(B(r)∧+, |·|∧sp) is a free cartesianκ(r)∧+-module of rankd.Furthermore, proposition 1.3.2(iii) implies thatB(r)∧+ is normal, hence it is the direct product

(2.2.18) B(r)∧+ = L+1 × · · · × L+

k

of finitely many normal domains, and eachL+i is the integral closure ofκ(r)∧+ in a finite

algebraic extensionLi of κ(r)∧. Notice as well, thatκ(r♭)∧+ is henselian, since it is completeand of rank one; henceL+

i ⊗κ(r)∧+ κ(r♭)∧+ is a valuation ring whose valuation extends| · |♭η(r).On the other hand, by lemma 2.2.12 the points ofx ∈ f−1(η(r)) correspond to the valuations| · |x on B(r) that extend| · |η(r); these are also the valuations onB(r)∧ that extend| · |∧η(r).Hence, the decomposition (2.2.18) induces a partition

f−1(η(r)) = Σ1 ∪ · · · ∪ Σk

where, for eachi ≤ k, Σi is the set of valuations ofLi that extend| · |∧η(r).By lemma 1.1.17(ii), we are reduced to showing :

Claim 2.2.19. For everyi ≤ k, let | · |sp,i be the spectral norm of theκ(r)∧-algebraLi; then(L+

i , | · |sp,i) is aκ(r)∧+-cartesian module.

Proof of the claim.It suffices to show that the finite field extensionκ(r)∧ ⊂ Li fulfills conditions(a)–(d) of proposition 1.2.8. However, condition (a) is none else than [31, Lemma 5.3(ii)]. Next,say thatΣi = {x1, . . . , xl}, and letΓ1, . . . ,Γl be the value groups of the residue fieldsκ(xi).By inspecting the construction, one sees easily thatx♭i = x♭j for everyi, j ≤ l, which meansthat the subgroup∆ij ⊂ Γi defined as in (1.2.7), is the unique convex subgroup correspondingto x♭i, so (d) holds, and also (b) is clear. Finally, (c) follows easily from [25, Cor.5.4 andProp.1.2(iii)]. ♦


(ii): In view of lemma 1.1.17(i.a), it suffices to show the analogous identity for

(B(r)∧h, | · |∧hsp,η(r)) := (B(r), | · |sp,η(r))⊗κ(r) κ(r)∧h.

By the proof of (i) we know thatB(r)∧h =∏

x∈f−1(η(r)) κ(x)∧h, so the assertion follows from

lemma 1.1.17(ii),(iii).(iii): In light of lemma 1.2.3(i) it suffices to show the same identity for |B(r)∧h+|∧h♮sp ; how-

ever, from [31, Prop.1.2(iii) and Cor.5.4] we deduce that

|κ(x)∧h+|∧h♮x =[κ(x)∧h : κ(r)∧h]

2

for everyx ∈ f−1(η(r)); then the assertion follows easily.(iv): Suppose first thatR/mR is reduced. According to (i),R is a finitely generated sub-

module of a freeκ(r)+-module of finite rank; hence it is free as aκ(r)+-module. Hence everyx ∈ R can be written in the formx = ay for somea ∈ K+ and an elementy ∈ R whose imageinR/mR does not vanish. It follows that everyx ∈ B(r) can be written in the formx = ay forsomea ∈ K and somey ∈ R \ mR. Let nowx ∈ B(r)+, and suppose thatx = ay for somey ∈ R \mR anda ∈ K with |a| > 1; clearlyx is integral overR, so we can write

xn + b1xn−1 + · · ·+ bn = 0

for someb1, . . . , bn ∈ R. Hence

yn + b1a−1yn−1 + · · ·+ bna

−n = 0.

In other words,yn ∈ mR, whencey ∈ mR, sinceR/mR is reduced; the contradiction showsthatR = B(r)+. Conversely, suppose thatR = B(r)+ and letx ∈ R whose image inR/mR isnilpotent; thenxn ∈ mR for n ∈ N large enough, sayxn = ay for somea ∈ m andy ∈ R. Wecan writea = bnc for b, c ∈ m, so(x/b)n = cy ∈ R, sox/b ∈ R, since the latter is integrallyclosed inR⊗K+ K. Finally,x ∈ mR, as claimed. �

Lemma 2.2.20.In the situation of(2.2.11), let r ∈ (a, b]∩ΓK , U ⊂ D(a, b) an open neighbor-hood ofη(r), s ∈ Γ(U, f∗OX) and setk := |s|♮sp,η(r) ∈

1d!Z. Then there existsr′ ∈ (a, r) such

that:(i) η(t) ∈ U for everyt ∈ (r′, r] ∩ ΓK .(ii) |s|sp,η(t) = |s|sp,η(r) · (t/r)

k whenevert ∈ (r′, r] ∩ ΓK .

Proof. (i) is obvious. In order to prove (ii), consider an integral equation

sn + g1sn−1 + · · ·+ gn = 0

wheregi ∈ Γ(U,OD(a,b)) for everyi ≤ n. It is easy to see that the assertion fors will followonce the same assertion is known for the sectionsg1, . . . , gn. Hence, we are reduced to the caseX = D(a, b). We can also assume that there existα1, . . . , αm ∈ K such that|αi| = r for everyi ≤ m and

U = D(r′, r) \m⋃

i=1

Ei

whereEi = {p ∈ D(r′, r) | |ξ − αi|p < r} (so eachEi is a closed subset ofD(r′, r)). Then, inview of [24, Prop.2.8] we have a Mittag-Leffler decomposition

s = s0 + s1 +

m∑

i=1

hi

where

s0 =∞∑

n=0

anξn s1 =

∞∑

n=1

bnξ−n hi =

∞∑

n=1

ci,n(ξ − αi)−n (i = 1, . . . , m)

26 LORENZO RAMERO

for coefficientsan, bn, ci,n ∈ K subject to the conditions:

limn→∞

rn|an| = limn→∞

r′−n|bn| = limn→∞

r−n|ci,n| = 0.

Recalling the standard power series identity:

(ξ − αi)−n =

∞∑

k=0

(−n

k

)(−αi)

−n−kξk

we deduce that

|s1|η(t) = supn>0

|bn| · t−n(1− ε)−n for everyt ∈ (r′r] ∩ ΓK

and ∣∣∣∣∣s0 +m∑

i=1

hi

∣∣∣∣∣η(t)

= supk∈N

|dk| · tk(1− ε)k for everyt ∈ (r′r] ∩ ΓK .

where

dk = ak +m∑

i=1

∞∑

n=1

(−n

k

)(−αi)

−n−kci,n for everyk ∈ N.

Notice that|s1|η(t) 6= |s0 +∑m

i=1 hi|η(t) for everyt ∈ (r′, r] ∩ ΓK , therefore

|s|η(t) = max

|s1|η(t),

∣∣∣∣∣s0 +m∑

i=1

hi

∣∣∣∣∣η(t)

and hence it suffices to prove assertion (ii) separately fors1 ands0 +∑m

i=1 hi.The coefficientsdk enjoy the following property. There exists a smallestk0 ∈ N such that

|dk0| = supk∈N

|dk| · rk.

Namely,k0 is the unique integer such that∣∣∣∣∣s0 +

m∑

i=1

hi

∣∣∣∣∣η(r)

= |dk0| · rk0(1− ε)k0.

Thus, when evaluating|s0 +∑m

i=1 hi|η(t) for t < r, we can disregard all the termsdkξk fork > k0, since their norms decrease faster than that of the leading termdk0ξ

k0. There remainto consider the finitely many monomialsd0, d1ξ, . . . , dk0−1ξ

k0−1; however, it is clear from thedefinition ofk0 that the norms of these terms are still strictly smaller thanthe norm of the leadingtermdk0ξ

k0, as long ast is sufficiently close tor. Thus, we can replace the sections0+∑m

i=1 hiby its leading monomial, for which the sought assertion trivially holds; an analogous, thougheasier argument also works fors1 : we leave the details to the reader. �

2.3. Convexity and piecewise linearity of the discriminant function. The assumptions andnotations are as in (2.2). The statements proven so far make use of only a few relatively simplelocal properties of the sheaff∗O

+X ; nevertheless, they would already suffice to prove most of the

forthcoming proposition 2.3.17. However, in order to show theorem 2.3.35, it will be necessaryto cast a closer look at the ring of global sections off∗O

+X ; the following lemmata 2.3.1, 2.3.2

and proposition 2.3.5 will provide us with everything we need.

Lemma 2.3.1.LetA→ B be a finite morphism ofK-algebras of topologically finite type. ThenA◦ is of topologically finite presentation overK+ andB◦ is a finitely presentedA◦-module.


Proof. By [6, §6.4.1, Cor.5] we know thatB◦ is a finiteA◦-module; moreover, applyingloc.cit.to an epimorphismK〈T1, . . . , Tn〉 → A we deduce thatA◦ is finite overK+〈T1, . . . , Tn〉. By[25, Prop.7.1.1(i)] we deduce thatA◦ is finitely presented as aK+〈T1, . . . , Tn〉-module, andalso thatB◦ is finitely presented overA◦. �

Lemma 2.3.2.LetB be a flat, reducedK+-algebra of topologically finite type, and setA :=B ⊗K+ K. ThenB = A◦ if and only ifB/mB is reduced.

Proof. (Notice that the assertion is a global version of lemma 2.2.17(iv), and indeed its proof isanalogous to that of the former.)

Claim2.3.3. B/aB is a freeK+/aK+-module for everya ∈ m.

Proof of the claim.By [25, Prop.7.1.1(i)] we haveB ≃ K+〈T1, . . . , Tr〉/I for somer ≥ 0and a finitely generated idealI. It follows thatB/aB ≃ K+/aK+[T1, . . . , Tr]/J , whereJ isthe image ofI. We can writeK+/aK+ =

⋃λ∈ΛRλ, the filtered union of its noetherian local

subalgebrasRλ. By [21, Ch.IV, Prop.8.5.5] we can findλ ∈ Λ and a finitely presented flatRλ-algebraBλ such thatB/aB ≃ Bλ ⊗Rλ

K+/aK+. It suffices to show thatBλ is a freeRλ-module; however, sinceRλ is artinian, this follows from [41, Th.7.9]. ♦

Claim2.3.4. A◦ is the integral closure ofB in A.

Proof of the claim.Choose a continuous surjectionφ : C := K+〈T1, . . . , Tr〉 → B. It sufficesthen to notice thatC = (C ⊗K+ K)◦ and apply [6,§6.3.4, Prop.1]. ♦

By claim 2.3.3, everyx ∈ B \ {0} can be written in the formx = ay for somea ∈ K+ andan elementy ∈ B whose image inB/mB does not vanish. It follows that everyx ∈ A\{0} canbe written in the formx = ay for somea ∈ K and somey ∈ B \mB. After these remarks, onecan proceed as in the proof of lemma 2.2.17(iv): the details shall be entrusted to the reader.�

Proposition 2.3.5.Let (F, | · |F ) be a complete algebraically closed valued field extension ofK, such that| · |F is a valuation of rank one. LetA be a normal domain of topologically finitetype overK, such thatA∼ is a principal ideal domain,B a finite, reduced and flatA-algebra,andg ∈ A such that|g|sup = 1. SetAF := A⊗KF . Then :

(i) B◦ is a freeA◦-module of finite rank.(ii) B〈g−1〉◦ = B◦ ⊗A◦ A〈g−1〉◦.

(iii) (B ⊗A AF )◦ = B◦ ⊗A◦ A◦

F .

Proof. To start out, let us endowA andB with their supremum norms; then by (2.2.4) and [6,§3.8.1, Prop.7], we haveA◦ = A+ andB◦ = B+. By lemma 2.3.1 we deduce thatA+ is oftopologically finite type overK+ andB+ is finitely presented overA+.

Claim2.3.6. B∼ is free of finite rank overA∼.

Proof of the claim.By the foregoing we know already thatB∼ is finite overA∼, hence it sufficesto show thatB∼ is torsion-free as anA∼-module. However, under the current assumptions thenorm| · |sup onA is a valuation ([6,§6.2.3, Prop.5]). It follows that

(2.3.7) |b|sp = maxvv(b) for all b ∈ B

wherev ranges over the finitely many extensions of the supremum valuation ofA to B ([6,§3.3.1, Prop.1]). For each suchv, letsupp(v) := v−1(0), which is a prime ideal ofB, and denoteby Bv ⊂ Frac(B/supp(v)) the valuation ring of the valuation induced byv on B/supp(v).SinceΓK is divisible, it is easy to see thatmBv is the maximal ideal ofBv. From (2.3.7) it isclear thatB∼ ⊂

∏v Bv/mBv. Finally, for everyv the fieldBv/mBv is a finite extension of

Frac(A∼), especially it is torsion-free overA∼, and the same holds then forB∼. ♦

28 LORENZO RAMERO

From claim 2.3.6 and [21, Ch.IV, Prop.8.5.5] it follows thatthere existsπ ∈ m such thatB+/πB+ is flat overA+/πA+. In view of [25, Lemma 5.2.1] we conclude thatB+ is flat,hence projective overA+. Finally, a standard application of Nakayama’s lemma showsthat anylifting of a basis ofB∼ is a basis of theA+-moduleB+, which proves (i).

Claim 2.3.8. The ringC := B◦ ⊗A◦ A〈g−1〉◦ is reduced.

Proof of the claim.From (i) we deduce that the natural map

B◦ ⊗A◦ A〈g−1〉◦ → B〈g−1〉 = B◦ ⊗A◦ A〈g−1〉

is injective. Hence it suffices to show thatB〈g−1〉 is reduced, which holds by lemma 2.2.6.♦In view of claim 2.3.8 and lemma 2.3.2, assertion (ii) will follow once we know thatC/mkC

is reduced. However, the latter is isomorphic toB∼ ⊗A∼ A∼[g−1], whereg ∈ A∼ is the imageof g ([6, §7.2.6, Prop.3]). Again lemma 2.3.2 ensures thatB∼ is reduced.

(iii): According to [11, Lemma 3.3.1.(1)],BF := B ⊗A AF = B◦ ⊗A◦ AF is reduced. From(i) we deduce thatD := B◦ ⊗A◦ A◦

F is a subalgebra ofBF , so it is reduced as well. Hence inorder to prove (iii) it suffices, by lemma 2.3.2, to show thatD/mFD is reduced (wheremF isthe maximal ideal ofF+). However,D/mFD ≃ B∼ ⊗K∼ F∼ and the extensionK∼ → F∼ isseparable, so everything is clear. �

2.3.9. Leta, b ∈ ΓK with a < b and f : X → D(a, b) a finite, flat and generally etalemorphism, say of degreed. For everyr ∈ [a, b] ∩ ΓK we define:

B(r)♭ := (f∗O+X)η(r)♭ .

It follows easily from proposition 2.3.5(ii) that

(2.3.10) B(r)♭ = B(r)+ ⊗κ(r)+ κ(r♭)+ for everyr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK

(notation of (2.2.10) and (2.2.11)).

2.3.11. The apparent asymmetry between the valuesa andb can be easily resolved. Indeed,let us consider the isomorphism

q : D(1/b, 1/a) → D(a, b) : ξ 7→ ξ−1

and letg := q−1 ◦ f . For everyr ∈ (1/b, 1/a], the imageq(η(r)) is the pointη′(1/r) (notationof (2.2.10)). Hence,g∗ : OD(1/b,1/a) → g∗OX endows(f∗O

+X)η′(a) with a structure ofκ(1/a)+-

algebra, and sinceη′(a)♭ = η(a)♭, we deduce that an identity analogous to (2.3.10) holds alsofor r = a, provided we replaceη(a) by η′(a). Especially, since – according to lemma 2.2.17(i)– the stalkB(r)+ is a freeκ(r)+-module of rankd, we see thatB(r)♭ is a freeκ(r♭)+-moduleof rankd for everyr ∈ [a, b] ∩ ΓK .

2.3.12. Now, asf is generically etale, the trace formsTrB(r)♭/κ(r♭)+ andTrB(r)+/κ(r)+ inducethe same perfect pairing after tensoring withκ(r♭). We set

d+f (r) := dB(r)+/κ(r)+ ∈ κ(r)+ for everyr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK .

(respectively:

d♭f(r) := dB(r)♭/κ(r♭)+ ∈ κ(r♭)+ for everyr ∈ [a, b] ∩ ΓK .

Notation of (2.1).) Sinced♭f(r) is well defined up to the square of an invertible element ofκ(r♭)+, the real-valued function:

δf : [log 1/b, log 1/a] ∩ log ΓK → R≥0 − log r 7→ − log |d♭f(r)|η(r)♭

is well defined independently of all choices. Unless we have to deal with more than one mor-phism, we shall usually drop the subscript, and writeδ, d♭ instead ofδf , d♭f . We call δ thediscriminant functionof the morphismf .


Example 2.3.13.Let f : X → D(a, a−1) be a finite, flat and generically etale morphism, wherea := |π| for someπ ∈ m. Using the Mittag-Leffler decomposition [24, Prop.2.8] oneverifieseasily thatA(a, a−1)◦ = K+〈π/ξ, ξ/π〉 ≃ K+〈S, T 〉/(ST − π2) (alternatively, one sees thisvia lemma 2.3.2). We seth := Spa(ψK) ◦ f : X → D(1), whereψK := ψ ⊗K+ K, with ψdefined as in example 2.1.12. A direct computation shows that

h−1(D(r, 1)) = f−1(D(a, a/r)) ∪ f−1(D(r/a, a−1)) for everyr ∈ (a, 1] ∩ ΓK .

Consequently:

d♭h(r) = d♭f(r/a) · d♭f(a/r) wheneverr ∈ (a, 1] ∩ ΓK

and therefore

(2.3.14) δh(−ρ) = δf (ρ− log a) + δf (log a− ρ) for ρ ∈ (log a, 0] ∩ log ΓK .

Incidentally, letη′(a) ∈ D(1) be defined as in (2.2.10); it is easy to check that the preimageofη′(a) in D(a, a−1) underSpaψK is the subset{η(1), η′(1)}.

2.3.15. Letf : [r, s] → R be a piecewise linear function; for everyρ ∈ [r, s) we denote bydf/dt(ρ+) theright slopeof f at the pointr, i.e. the unique real numberα such thatf(ρ+x) =f(ρ) + αx for every sufficiently smallx ≥ 0. Similarly we can define theleft slopedf/dt(ρ−)for everyρ ∈ (r, s]. More generally, the definition makes sense wheneverf is defined on adense subset of[r, s].

Example 2.3.16.Let f andg be as in (2.3.11). Then

δf(ρ) = δg(−ρ) anddδfdt

(ρ−) = −dδgdt

(−ρ+)

for everyρ ∈ (log 1/b, log 1/a] ∩ log ΓK .

Proposition 2.3.17.With the notation of(2.3.12), the functionδ is piecewise linear; moreover:

dδ

dt(− log r+) = |d+(r)|♮η(r) − 2|B(r)+|♮sp,η(r) for everyr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK .

(Notation of (1.2.25).)

Proof. By lemma 2.2.17(i) we can find an orthogonal basisc1, . . . , cd of (B(r)+, | · |sp,η(r)) over(κ(r)+, | · |η(r)). Obviously we have|ci|♭sp,η(r) = 1 for everyi = 1, . . . , d; we set

(2.3.18) γi := |ci|♮sp,η(r) ∈

1

d!Z for i = 1, . . . , d.

For everyi, j ≤ d we can find uniquely determinedmij1, . . . , mijd ∈ κ(r)+ such that

ci · cj =

d∑

k=1

mijkck.

For everyi, j, k ≤ d we set

(2.3.19) xijk := |mijk|♭η(r) and µijk := |mijk|

♮η(r)

so thatxijk ∈ [0, 1] andµijk ∈ N. Since theci are orthogonal, it follows easily that

(2.3.20) µijk ≥ γi + γj − γk wheneverxijk = 1.

Lemma 2.2.20(ii) implies that

(2.3.21)mijk

aµijk,ciaγi

∈ B(sr)+ for everyi, j, k = 1, . . . , d

30 LORENZO RAMERO

whenevera ∈ K+ is an element withs := |a| sufficiently close to1. Clearly we have

(2.3.22)ciaγi

·cjaγj

=∑

k

mijk

aγi+γj−γk·ckaγk

which, in view of (2.3.20) and (2.3.21), means that

(2.3.23) C (sr) :=d∑

i=1

κ(sr)+ ·ciaγi

is a finite (unitary) subalgebra ofB(sr)+ for everys := |a| sufficiently close to1.Let B(r)∼ := B(r)+ ⊗K+ K∼. The mapb 7→ |b|♮sp,η(r) induces a power-multiplicative norm

onB(r)∼, whence a filtrationFil•B(r)∼ defined by setting:

FilhB(r)∼ := {b ∈ B(r)∼ | |b|♮sp,η(r) ≥ h} for everyh ∈1

d!Z.

The filtrationFil•B(r)∼ restricts to a filtrationFil•O∼η(r) on O∼

η(r) := κ(r)+ ⊗K+ K∼. Theassociated graded ringgr•B(r)∼ can be computed explicitly. Indeed, (2.3.18) shows thatgr•B(r)∼ = gr•O∼

η(r)[c1, . . . , cd], whereci is the class ofci in grγiB(r)∼ for i = 1, . . . , d.Furthermore, for everyi, j ≤ d we have the rule:

ci · cj =d∑

k=1

βijkck

whereβijk is determined as follows. If eitherxijk < 1 orµijk > γi+ γj − γk, thenβijk = 0 andotherwiseβijk is the class ofmijk in grµijkO∼

η(r).

Claim 2.3.24. C (sr)/mC (sr) ≃ gr•B(r)∼ for everys ∈ Γ+K \ {1} sufficiently close to1.

Proof of the claim.With the notation of (2.3.23) we have

C (sr)/mC (sr) = O∼η(sr)

[ c1aγ1

, . . . ,cdaγd

].

We define an isomorphism

(2.3.25) gr•O∼η(r) ≃ O

∼η(sr)

by the rule:g 7→ g/an (mod mO

+η(sr)) for everyg ∈ grnO∼

η(r).

Via (2.3.25),C (sr)/mC (sr) becomes a freegr•O∼η(r)-module, whose rankd is the same as the

rank ofgr•B(r)∼. Obviously, we would like to extend the isomorphism (2.3.25) by setting

(2.3.26) ci 7→ ci/aγi for everyi = 1, . . . , d.

In view of (2.3.22), in order to prove that (2.3.26) yields a well-defined ring homomorphism, itsuffices to show that the class ofmijk/a

γi+γj−γk in O∼η(sr) agrees with the image ofβijk under

(2.3.25), whenevers is sufficiently close to1. This can be checked easily by inspecting thedefinitions; we leave the details to the reader. ♦

Claim 2.3.27. C (sr) = B(sr)+ whenevers ∈ Γ+K is sufficiently close to1.

Proof of the claim. In view of claim 2.3.24 and lemma 2.2.17(iv), it suffices to show thatgr•B(r)∼ is reduced. But this is clear, since the norm|·|♮sp,η(r) onB(r)∼ is power-multiplicative.

♦

In view of claim 2.3.27 we have

(2.3.28) d+(sr) = det(TrB(rs)+/κ(rs)+

( ciaγi

⊗cjaγj

)| 1 ≤ i, j ≤ d

)= a−2·

∑i γi · d+(r)η(rs)


whenevers := |a| is sufficiently close to1 (hered+(r)η(rs) denotes the image ofd+(r) inκ(rs)+; this is well-defined whenevers is sufficiently close to1). However, one deduces easilyfrom (2.3.10) that|d+(t)|♭η(t) = |d♭(t)|η(t)♭ for everyt ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK . Since we have as well:

|B(r)+|♮sp,η(r) =

d∑

i=1

γi

the contention follows from lemma 2.2.20(ii). �

2.3.29. Proposition 2.3.17 expresses the slope of the discriminant function at a given radiusr as a local invariant depending only on the behaviour of the morphismf over the pointη(r).We wish now to consider a special situation, where the slope can also be obtained as a globalinvariant of the ringΓ(X,O+

X). Namely, suppose thatg : X → D(1) is a finite, flat and gener-ically etale morphism; proceeding as in the foregoing we attach tog a discriminant functionδg, which clearly shall be defined over the set[0,+∞) ∩ log ΓK = − log Γ+

K . However, ourpresent aim is to compute the right slope ofδg(ρ) in a small neighborhood ofρ = 0. To thispurpose, letB◦ := Γ(X,O+

X) andB := B◦ ⊗K+ K; according to proposition 2.3.5(i),B◦ is afree module, necessarily of rankd := deg(g), over the ringA(1)◦ = Γ(D(1),O+

D(1)). ClearlyB ⊗A(1) κ(1) = B(1), hence the natural map

(2.3.30) B◦η := B◦ ⊗A(1)◦ κ(1)

+ → B(1)+

is injective. Letd◦g := dB◦/A(1)◦ ; combining lemmata 2.1.11 and 1.2.26 we deduce:

(2.3.31) |d+g (1)|♮η(1) − 2 · |B(1)+|♮sp,η(1) = |d◦g|

♮η(1) − 2 · |B◦

η |♮sp,η(1).

Notice that the left-hand side of this identity calculates the right slope ofδg at the pointρ = 0,hence the right-hand side is the sought global formula for this slope.

2.3.32. The contribution|B◦η |♮sp,η(1) can be further analyzed. Indeed, let us set

B◦hη := B◦ ⊗A(1)◦ κ(1)

∧h+.

The ringB◦hη is henselian along the idealpηB◦h

η , wherepη is the maximal ideal ofκ(1)+. Letq1, . . . , qk ⊂ B◦

η be the finitely many prime ideals lying overpη; the ringB◦hη decomposes as a

direct product of henselian local rings:

B◦hη = B◦h

q1× · · · × B◦h

qk.

For everyi = 1, . . . , k set

F(qi) := {x ∈ g−1(η(1)) | κ(x)+ dominatesB◦qi}.

After completion, henselization and localization atqi, the map (2.3.30) yields injective ringhomomorphisms (see the proof of lemma 2.2.17(i)) :

(2.3.33) B◦hqi

→ B(1)∧h+qi≃

∏

x∈F(qi)

κ(x)∧h+

More precisely, letκ(qi) (resp.κ(x)) be the residue field ofB◦hqi

(resp. ofκ(x)∧h+); the maps(2.3.33) induce isomorphismsκ(qi)

∼→ κ(x) for everyx ∈ F(qi), hence the image of (2.3.33)

lands in theseminormalizationof B◦hqi

, i.e. the subring

Bhνqi

:= κ(x1)∧h+ ×κ(qi) · · · ×κ(qi) κ(xr)

∧h+

(the fibre product overκ(qi) of the ringsκ(xi)h+, where{x1, . . . , xr} = F(qi)). Let us set:

α(qi) := |F0(Bhνqi/B◦h

qi)|∧h♮η(1) for everyi = 1, . . . , k.

32 LORENZO RAMERO

Lemma 2.3.34.With the notation of(2.3.32), we have:

2 · |B◦η |♮sp,η(1) = deg(g) +

k∑

i=1

(2α(qi) + ♯F(qi)− 2).

Proof. (Here♯F(qi) denotes the cardinality of the finite setF(qi).) First of all, we remark thatκ(qi) ≃ κ(η(1)) ≃ κ(1)+/ξκ(1)+, whereξ ∈ A(1) is an element such that|ξ|η(1) = 1 − ε,hence|F0(κ(qi))|

♮η(1) = 1; it follows easily that

|F0(B(1)∧h+qi/Bhν

qi)|∧h♮η(1) = ♯F(qi)− 1 for everyi = 1, . . . , k.

Hence

2 · |B◦η |♮sp,η(1) = 2 · |B◦h

η |∧h♮sp,η(1) = 2 · (|B(1)∧h+|∧h♮sp,η(1) + |F0(B(1)∧h+/B◦hη )|∧h♮η(1))

= 2 · |B(1)+|♮sp,η(1) + 2∑k

i=1(|F0(B(1)∧h+qi/Bhν

qi)|∧h♮η(1) + |F0(B

hνqi/B◦h

qi)|∧h♮η(1))

= 2 · |B(1)+|♮sp,η(1) + 2∑k

i=1(♯F(qi)− 1 + α(qi))

= deg(g)− ♯g−1(η(1)) + 2∑k

i=1(♯F(qi)− 1 + α(qi))

where the last equality holds by lemma 2.2.17(iii). Since clearly

k∑

i=1

♯F(qi) = ♯g−1(η(1))

the assertion follows. �

Theorem 2.3.35.With the notation of(2.3.12):

(i) δf extends to a continuous, piecewise linear functionδ : [log 1/b, log 1/a] → R≥0 withinteger slopes.

(ii) If moreoverf is etale, thenδ is convex.

Proof. Let (F, | · |F ) be an algebraically closed valued field extension ofK with |F |F = R≥0,and denote byfF : X ×SpaK SpaF → D(a, b) ×SpaK SpaF the morphism deduced by basechange off ; using proposition 2.3.5(iii) one sees thatδfF agrees withδf wherever the latteris defined. Hence we can and do assume from start that|K| = R≥0. Now, for the proofof (i) it suffices to show thatδf is piecewise linear in the neghborhood of every real numberρ := log 1/r ∈ [log 1/b, log 1/a]. Using a morphismg as in example 2.3.16, one reduces toconsider the case wherer > a, and study the functionδf in a small interval[ρ, ρ + x]. In suchsituation, the more precise proposition 2.3.17 shows that the assertion holds.

Suppose next thatf is etale. In order to show (ii), we need to study the functionδ in anysmall neighborhood of the form[log 1/r − x, log 1/r + x] ⊂ [log 1/b, log 1/a]. Assertion (ii)then means that the functionρ 7→ δ(log 1/r − ρ) + δ(log 1/r + ρ) has positive derivative in aneighborhood of0. We can assume thatr = 1 andx = − log |π| for someπ ∈ m, so we reduceto consider an etale morphismf : X → D(a, a−1) (for a := |π|). In view of (2.3.14) we canfurther reduce to studying the morphismh := Spa(ψK) ◦ f : X → D(1), defined as in example2.3.13, and then we have to show that the left slope ofδh is negative in a small neighborhood(x, 0]. Say thatX = SpaB; in the notation of (2.3.31) we have

(2.3.36) |d◦h|♮η(1) = |(dψ)

d|♮η(1) = 2d = deg(g)

by example 2.1.12 and proposition 2.1.4. Finally, in view of(2.3.31), (2.3.36), proposition2.3.17 and lemma 2.3.34, the sought assertion is implied by the following:

Claim 2.3.37. Resume the notation of (2.3.32). Then♯F(qi) ≥ 2 for everyi = 1, . . . , k.


Proof of the claim.Recall thatq1, . . . , qk are by definition the prime ideals ofB◦η lying over the

maximal ideal ofκ(1)h+, or what is the same, the prime ideals ofB◦ lying over the maximalidealp := mA(1)◦ + ξA(1)◦ of A(1)◦. Now, we have already observed (example 2.3.13) thatA(a, a−1)◦ ≃ K+〈S, T 〉/(ST−π2), andψ is the mapK+〈ξ〉 → K+〈S, T 〉/(ST−π2) such thatξ 7→ S + T . HenceA(a, a−1)◦/pA(a, a−1)◦ ≃ K∼[S, T ]/(ST, S + T ) ≃ K∼[S]/(S2). Thus,there is exactly one prime idealP ⊂ A(a, a−1)◦ lying overp and necessarilyqi ∩A(a, a−1)◦ =P for everyi = 1, . . . , k. On the other hand, the fibreψ−1(η(1)) ⊂ D(a, a−1) consists of thetwo valuationsη′(a), η(1/a), and clearly both of them dominate the local ringA(a, a−1)◦P. It isnow a standard fact that, for each prime idealqi, there are valuationsη1, η2 onB which extendrespectivelyη′(a) andη(1/a), and which dominate the local ringB◦

qi. By lemma 2.2.12 we

haveη1, η2 ∈ SpaB, whence the claim. �

Remark 2.3.38. The continuity and piecewise linearity of the functionδf are also proved inthe preprint [45] of T.Schmechta. He also obtains some interesting results in the case wherethe base field has positive characteristic. His methods are refinements of those of Lutkebohmert[40]. (However, as far as I understand, he does not prove the convexity of the functionδf .)

2.4. The p-adic Riemann existence theorem.In this section we show how to use theorem2.3.35 to solve the so-calledp-adic Riemann existence problem in caseK is a field of charac-teristic zero. We choose an argument that maximizes the use of valuation theory; see remark2.4.8 for some indications of an alternative, slightly different proof.

2.4.1. Recall that a finite etale coveringf : X → D(a, b) is said to beof Kummer type, if thereexists an integern > 0 and an isomorphismg : D(a1/n, b1/n)

∼→ X such thatf ◦ g = Spaφ,

whereφ : A(a, b) → A(a1/n, b1/n) is the map ofK-affinoid algebras given by the ruleξ 7→ ξn

(notation of (2.2.7)).

Lemma 2.4.2.Let f : X → D(a, b) andg : Y → X be two finiteetale coverings. Thenf andg are of Kummer type, if and only if the same holds forf ◦ g.

Proof. Left to the reader. �

Theorem 2.4.3.Suppose thatK is algebraically closed of characteristic zero, and letf : X →D(a, b) be a finiteetale morphism of degreed. There is a constantc := c(d) ∈ (0, 1] suchthat the restrictionf−1(D(c−1a, cb)) → D(c−1a, cb) splits as the disjoint union of finitely manyfinite coverings of Kummer type.

Proof. First of all, letf ′ : Y → D(a, b) be the smallest Galois etale covering that dominatesf (i.e. such thatf ′ factors throughf ); it is well-known that the degree off ′ is bounded byd!. Suppose now that the theorem is known forf ′; then we may findc ∈ (0, 1] such that therestriction off ′ to the preimage ofD(c−1a, cb) is of Kummer type. Using lemma 2.4.2 wededuce that the same holds for the restriction off to f−1(D(c−1a, cb)). Hence, we may replacef by f ′ and assume from start thatf is a Galois covering, say of finite groupG.

Next, we consider the functionδ : [log 1/b, log 1/a] ∩ log ΓK → R≥0 corresponding to thecoveringf . To start out, lemma 2.1.10 implies thatδ admits an upper bound that depends onlyon d; sinceδ is convex, piecewise linear and non-negative and since its slopes are integers(theorem 2.3.35), it follows easily that we may find a constant c ∈ (0, 1], depending only onthe degred, such thatδ is linear (indeed constant) on the interval[log 1/(bc), log c/a] ∩ log ΓK .We may therefore assume from start thatδ is linear. Also, we may assume thata < 1 andb = a−1, in which case we letg := SpaψK : D(a, a−1) → D(1), whereψ is defined as inexample 2.3.13, andh := g ◦ f : X → D(1). Let p := mA(1)◦ + ξA(1)◦ ⊂ A(1)◦; in theproof of claim 2.3.37 we have established that there exists aunique prime idealP ⊂ A(a, a−1)◦

34 LORENZO RAMERO

lying over p, and both ringsκ(η′(a))+ andκ(b)+ dominate the localizationA(a, b)◦P; denotealsoq1, . . . , qk ⊂ B◦ the finitely many prime ideals lying overp.

The natural mapA(1)◦ → A(1)◦∧ ≃ K+[[ξ]] from A(1)◦ to its ξ-adic completion, factorsthrough the henselizationA(1)◦hp of A(1)◦ along its idealp; henceB◦∧ := B◦ ⊗A(1)◦ A(1)

◦∧

decomposes as a direct product of algebras :B◦∧ ≃ C1 × · · · × Ck. Moreover, for everyt ∈ m \ {0}, the mapA(1)◦ → A(|t|)◦ induced by the open imbeddingD(|t|) → D(1) factorsthroughA(1)◦∧, and induces an isomorphismA(1)◦/p

∼→ A(|t|)◦/pt, wherept := mA(|t|)◦ +

(ξ/t)A(|t|)◦. It follows that the prime ideals of

B◦ ⊗A(1)◦ A(|t|)◦ ≃ (C1 ⊗A(1)◦∧ A(|t|)

◦)× · · · × (Ck ⊗A(1)◦∧ A(|t|)◦)

lying overpt are in natural bijection with the prime idealsq1, . . . , qk, and therefore every factorCi(t) := Ci⊗A(1)◦ A(|t|)

◦ contains exactly one of these prime ideals. Notice thatg−1(D(|t|)) =D(a/|t|, |t|/a), whence natural isomorphisms :

f−1(D(a/|t|, |t|/a)) ≃ Spa(C1(t)⊗K+ K)∐ · · · ∐ Spa(Ck(t)⊗K+ K)

so that the restriction ofδ to [log a/|t|, log |t|/a]∩log ΓK decomposes as a sumδ = δ1+· · ·+δk,whereδi is the discriminant function of the restriction

fi : Spa(Ci(t)⊗K+ K) → D(a/|t|, |t|/a)

for everyi ≤ k. Since every suchδi is still convex, and their sum is linear, it follows thatδi islinear for everyi ≤ k. We remark as well, that eachfi is still a Galois covering, whose Galoisgroup is the subgroup ofG that stabilizesqi, for the natural action ofG on the set{q1, . . . , qk}.Clearly it suffices to prove the theorem separately for everyetale coveringfi, hence we mayreplace from startf by fi, and assume additionally thatk = 1, in which case we shall writeqinstead ofq1. Defineα(q), F(q) as in (2.3.32). By inspection of the proof of theorem 2.3.35 wededuce thatδ is linear precisely when :

(2.4.4) α(q) = 0 and ♯F(q) = 2.

Especially, the preimagesf−1(η′(a)) and f−1(η(b)) both consist of precisely one point; letx ∈ X be the only point lying overη(b). We deduce a Galois extension of valued fields :

κ(b) → κ(x)

whose Galois group is isomorphic toG. Since the residue field ofK is algebraically closed, theresidue field extensionκ(η(b)) → κ(x) is trivial, and thereforeG is a solvable group. Thus, wemay factorf as a composition of finitely many etale coverings :

Xn := Xgn−→ Xn−1

gn−1−→ · · ·

g1−→ X0 := D(a, b)

such that the degree ofgi is a prime number for everyi ≤ n. Using lemma 2.4.2 and an easyinduction, we may then further reduce to the case whereG is a cyclic group of prime orderd.

Such coverings are classified by the etale cohomology groupH := H1(D(a, b)et,Z/dZ)(whereD(a, b)et denotes the etale site ofD(a, b), as defined in [30]). The latter can be computedby the Kummer exact sequence (on the etale site ofD(a, b)) :

0 → µd → O× (−)d

−→ O× → 0

(recall thatK has characteristic zero) and since the Picard group ofD(a, b) is trivial ([24,Th.2.2.9(3)]), one obtains a natural isomorphism :

H∼→ A(a, b)×/(A(a, b)×)d

whereA(a, b)× denotes the invertible elements ofA(a, b). Under this isomorphism, the Kum-mer coverings of degreed correspond to the equivalence classes of the sectionsξj, for j =0, . . . , d− 1 (notation of (2.2.7)). Thus, we come down to verifying the following :


Claim 2.4.5. There exists a constantc := c(d) ∈ (0, 1] such that, for everyu ∈ A(a, b)×, therestrictionu′ := u|D(a/c,bc) can be written in the form :u′ = vd · ξj for somev ∈ A(a/c, cb)×

and0 ≤ j ≤ d− 1.

Proof of the claim. Let α, β ∈ K× such that|α| = a, |β| = b; it is well known that everyinvertible elementu of A(a, b) can be written in the formu = γ · ξn · (1 + h) whereγ ∈ K×,n ∈ Z andh ∈ A(a, b)◦ of the form

(2.4.6) h(ξ) =∑

k∈Z\{0}

hkξk ∈ K+〈ξ/α, β/ξ〉

with |h|sup < 1. Hence we are reduced to showing that1+h admits ad-th root, after restrictionto a smaller annulusD(a/c, b/c). This is clear in cased 6= p, in which case we may even choosec = 1. Finally, suppose thatd = p; it is well known that1 + h admits ap-th root as soon as

(2.4.7) |h|sup < |p|1/(p−1).

Using the explicit description (2.4.6) we may easily determine c ∈ (0, 1] such that the estimate(2.4.7) holds for the restrictionh|D(a/c,cb). �

Remark 2.4.8. Keep the notation of the proof of theorem 2.4.3. Alternatively, one may deducefrom (2.4.4) thatq is an ordinary double point of the analytic reduction ofX, in which case [7,Prop.2.3] shows that the corresponding formal fibre is an open annulus, and then theorem 2.4.3follows without too much trouble.

3. STUDY OF THE CONDUCTORS

3.1. Algebraization. Let V be a henselian local ring,s the closed point ofSpec V andκ(s) itsresidue field. For every affineV -schemeX we letXs := X ×Spec V Spec κ(s). More generally,letX := SpecR be any affine scheme, andZ ⊂ X a closed subscheme, sayZ = V (I) for anidealI ⊂ R; we denote byRh

I the henselization ofR along the idealI and byR∧I the I-adic

completion ofR. Thehenselizationof X alongZ is the affine schemeXh/Z := SpecRh

I .

Lemma 3.1.1.LetA be a noetherian ring,I, J ⊂ A two ideals.

(i) The natural commutative diagram

A∧I∩J

//

��

A∧I

��

A∧J

// A∧I+J

is cartesian.(ii) Moreover, for everyn ∈ N, setAn := A/Jn. Then there is a natural isomorphism of

A-algebras:

A∧I+J

∼→ lim

n∈NA∧n,I .

Proof. (i): Using [19, Ch.0, Lemme 19.3.10.2] we see that the natural commutative diagram

A/(In ∩ Jn) //

��

A/In

��

A/Jn // A/(In + Jn)

36 LORENZO RAMERO

is cartesian for everyn > 0. SetA′ := limn∈N

A/(In + Jn) andA′′ := limn∈N

A/(In ∩ Jn). We

deduce easily a cartesian commutative diagram:

A′′ //

��

A∧I

��A∧J

// A′

and it remains only to show that the natural mapsA′ → A∧I+J andA∧

I∩J → A′′ are isomor-phisms. For the former, it suffices to remark that

(3.1.2) (I + J)2n−1 ⊂ In + Jn ⊂ (I + J)n

for everyn > 0. For the latter, one uses the Artin-Rees lemma [41, Th.8.5] to show that foreveryn ∈ N there existsm ∈ N such that

Im ∩ Jn ⊂ InJn ⊂ (I ∩ J)n

from which (i) follows easily. (ii) is an easy consequence of(3.1.2); we leave the details to thereader. �

Theorem 3.1.3.In the situation of(3.1), suppose thatκ(s) is a perfect field. LetX be an affinefinitely presentedV -scheme of pure relative dimension one,Σ ⊂ Xs a finite subset such thatXs \ Σ is smooth overSpec κ(s). Then there exists a projectiveV -schemeY of pure relativedimension one and an open affine subsetU ⊂ Y with an isomorphism ofV -schemes

(3.1.4) Xh/Xs

≃ Uh/Us.

Moreover,Us is dense inYs andY is smooth overSpecV at all the points ofYs \ Us.

Proof. We begin with the following:

Claim3.1.5. There exists a projective purely one-dimensionalκ(s)-schemeY0 and a dense openimbedding ofκ(s)-schemes

(3.1.6) Xs ⊂ Y0

such thatY0 is smooth overSpecκ(s) at all the points ofY0 \Xs.

Proof of the claim.This is standard : one picks a projectiveκ(s)-schemeXs containingXs asa dense open subscheme, and letX ′

s be the normalization ofXs \ Σ. By [9, Ch.V,§3.2, Th.2]we know thatX ′

s is of finite type overκ(s), and sinceX ′s has dimension one, we know as well

that all its local rings are regular, hence they are formallysmooth overκ(s), in view of [41,§28, Lemma 1] and [22, Ch.IV, Prop.17.5.3]. One can then glueXs andX ′

s along their commonopen subschemeXs \ Σ; the resulting schemeY0 will do. ♦

We can write as usualV as the colimit of a filtered family(Vλ | λ ∈ Λ) of noetherianlocal subrings ofV , essentially of finite type over an excellent discrete valuation ring, and suchthat the inclusion mapsjλ : Vλ → V are local ring homomorphisms. Thenjλ extends to amapV h

λ → V from the henselization ofVλ, andV is still the colimit of the filtered family(V h

λ | λ ∈ Λ). For someλ ∈ Λ we can find an affine finitely presentedV hλ -schemeXλ and an

isomorphism ofV -schemes:SpecV ×Spec V h

λXλ

∼→ X.

For everyλ ∈ Λ, let kλ be the residue field ofV hλ ; we can even chooseλ in such a way

that the schemeY0 provided by claim 3.1.5 descends to a projectivekλ-schemeY0,λ, so thatY0 ≃ Spec κ(s)×Spec kλ Y0,λ. LetΣλ ⊂ Y0,λ be the image ofΣ; we can furthermore assume thatY0,λ is smooth overSpec kλ outsideΣλ, and that there exists an open imbedding ofkλ-schemes

(3.1.7) Spec kλ ×Spec V hλXλ ⊂ Y0,λ


inducing (3.1.6), after base change toSpecκ(s) (see [22, Ch.IV, Prop.17.7.8]). At the costof trading the residue fieldκ(s) with a non-perfect field, we can then replace the given ringV by one suchV h

λ , the schemeX by Xλ andΣ by Σλ; hence we can assume thatV is thehenselization of a ring of essentially finite type over an excellent discrete valuation ring, andadditionally, that there exists a projectiveκ(s)-schemeY0 as in claim 3.1.5.

Let n ⊂ V be the maximal ideal; denote byV -Alg the category ofV -algebras, bySet thecategory of sets. We define a functorF : V -Alg → Set as follows. For aV -algebraA, F (A)is the set of equivalence classes of data of the form(ZA, YA, fA, gA, hA) where:

• ZA andYA are finitely presentedA-schemes, andYA is projective overSpecA.• fA : ZA → XA := SpecA ×Spec V X andgA : ZA → YA are etale morphisms ofA-schemes.

• hA : YA,s := SpecA/nA×SpecA YA → SpecA/nA×Spec κ(s) Y0 is an isomorphism.• The restrictionfA,s : ZA,s := SpecA/nA×SpecAZA → XA,s := SpecA/nA×Spec V X

is an isomorphism.• The restrictiongA,s : ZA,s → YA,s is an open imbedding and the morphism

SpecA/nA×Spec κ(s) (3.1.6): XA,s → YA,s

agrees withhA ◦ gA,s ◦ f−1A,s.

• YA is smooth overSpecA at all the points ofYA,s \ gA,s(ZA,s).

Two data(ZA, YA, fA, gA, hA) and (Z ′A, Y

′A, f

′A, g

′A, h

′A) are said to be equivalent if there are

isomorphisms ofA-schemesZA∼→ Z ′

A, YA∼→ Y ′

A such that the obvious diagrams commute. AmapA→ A′ of V -algebras induces an obvious base change mapF (A) → F (A′).

Claim 3.1.8. F (V ) 6= ∅ if and only if there exists a pair(U, Y ) as in the theorem, with anisomorphism ofV -schemesYs

∼→ Y0.

Proof of the claim.Indeed, suppose we have found(Z, Y, f, g, h) ∈ F (V ). Then we can setU := gV (Z) ⊂ Y ; the morphismf andg induce isomorphismsfh : Zh

/Zs

∼→ Xh

/Xsandgh :

Zh/Zs

∼→ Uh

/Xs, and therefore the pair(U, Y ) fulfills the conditions of the theorem; furthermore

h yields an isomorphismYs∼→ Y0. Conversely, suppose that a pair(U, Y ) has been found

that fulfills the conditions of the theorem; especially, (3.1.4) induces a morphism ofV -schemesg : Xh

/Xs→ U . By [43, Ch.XI,§2, Th.2]Xh

/Xsis the projective limit of a cofiltered family of

morphisms ofV -schemes(fα : Xα → X | α ∈ I) such that everyXα is affine and finitelypresented overSpec V , the induced morphismsXα,s → Xs are isomorphisms, and for everyx ∈ Xα the induced mapOX,fα(x) → OXα,x is local ind-etale. By [21, Ch.IV, Th.11.1.1] wededuce that there is an open (quasi-compact) subsetZα of Xα containingXα,s such that therestriction offα to Zα is flat; then, up to shrinkingZα, we can achieve that the morphismZα → X is an etale neighborhood ofXs, andX is still the projective limit of theV -schemesZα. We can then findα ∈ I such thatg factors through a morphismgα : Zα → U ; after furthershrinkingZα, the morphismgα becomes etale. Hence, the datum(Zα, Y, fα, gα) represents anelement ofF (V ). ♦

Next, in view of [21, Ch.IV, Th.8.10.5] and [22, Ch.IV, Prop.17.7.8(ii)] one sees easily thatF is a functor of finite presentation. LetV ∧ be then-adic completion ofV ; according to Artin’sapproximation theorem [2, Th.I.12], every element ofF (V ∧) can be approximated arbitrarilyclosely in then-adic topology by elements ofF (V ), especially:

(3.1.9) F (V ) 6= ∅ ⇔ F (V ∧) 6= ∅.

So finally, in view of (3.1.9) and claim 3.1.8, we can replaceV by V ∧ and suppose from startthatV is a complete noetherian local ring. LetVn := V/nn+1 andXn := SpecVn×Spec V X for

38 LORENZO RAMERO

everyn ∈ N. We endowV with its n-adic topology; the family(Xn | n ∈ N) defines a uniqueaffine formalSpf V -schemeX.

Claim 3.1.10. There exists a properSpf V -schemeY with an open imbeddingX ⊂ Y, suchthat the reduced fibre ofY is V0-isomorphic toY0, and such thatY is formally smooth overSpf V at all points ofY0 \X0.

Proof of the claim.In view of [18, Ch.III,§3.4.1] and [16, Ch.I, Prop.10.13.1], it suffices to lifttheV0-schemeY0 to a compatible family(Yn | n ∈ N) of schemes such that

(i) for everyn ∈ N there are isomorphisms ofVn-schemes:Yn∼→ SpecVn×Spec Vn+1Yn+1;

(ii) moreover, (3.1.6) lifts to a system of open imbeddings of Vn-schemesXn ⊂ Yn com-patible with the isomorphisms (ii);

(iii) Yn is smooth overSpecVn at all points ofYn \Xn.

To this aim, we may assume thatΣ 6= ∅, in which caseY ′0 := Y0 \ Σ is smooth and affine

overSpecV0. One can then liftY ′0 to a compatible system of schemes(Y ′

n | n ∈ N) satisfying acondition as the foregoing (i), and such that furthermore,Y ′

n is smooth overSpec Vn for everyn ∈ N. Again some basic deformation theory shows that the imbeddingX0 \ Σ ⊂ Y ′

0 lifts to acompatible system of open imbeddingsXn \ Σ ⊂ Y ′

n for everyn ∈ N. Therefore one can glueXn andY ′

n along their common open subschemeXn \ Σ; the resulting schemesYn will do. ♦

Next we are going to construct an invertibleOY-module onY. To this aim we proceed asfollows. Let{y1, . . . , yn} := Y0 \X0. By constructionY is formally smooth overSpf V at thepoint yi, for everyi = 1, . . . , n. For everyi ≤ n, the maximal ideal ofOY0,yi is principal, saygenerated by the regular elementti ∈ OY0,yi. The natural ring homomorphismOY,yi → OY0,yi

is surjective, hence we can liftti to an elementti ∈ OY,yi.

Claim 3.1.11. ti is a regular element inOY,yi for everyi = 1, . . . , n.

Proof of the claim.By [19, Ch.0, Th.19.7.1] the ringOY,yi is flat overV ; then the claim followsfrom [19, Ch.0, Prop.15.1.16]. ♦

In view of claim 3.1.11 we can find an open affine subschemeUi ⊂ Y such thatyi ∈ Ui andti extends to a regular element ofΓ(Ui,OY). Finally, setVi := Y \ {yi} andWi := Ui ∩Vi;we define the invertibleOY-moduleL ∧

i by gluing the sheavesOUi(defined onUi) andOVi

(defined onVi); the gluing map is the isomorphism

OVi|Wi

∼→ OUi|Wi

f 7→ ti · f.

So, the global sections ofL ∧i are identified naturally with the pairs(f, g) wheref ∈ Γ(Ui,OY),

g ∈ Γ(Vi,OY) andf|Wi= ti · g|Wi

. Clearly,L ∧i /nL

∧i is the invertible sheafOY0(yi) onY0; set

L ∧ := L ∧1 ⊗OY

· · ·⊗OYL ∧n . notice that, sinceX is affine, every irreducible component ofX0

meets{y1, . . . , yn}; it then follows from [39,§7.5, Prop.5] thatL ∧/nL ∧ is ample onY0, andthen [18, Ch.III, Th.5.4.5] shows thatY is algebraizable to a projective schemeY overSpec V ,andL ∧ is the formal completion of an ample invertibleOY -module that we shall denote byL .Especially,L /nL is the ample sheafOY0(y1 + · · ·+ yn) onY0.

By inspecting the construction, we see thatL ≃ OY (D), whereD is an ample divisor onYwhose supportSupp(D) ⊂ Y intersectsY0 in precisely the closed subsetY0 \ X0. Thereforethe open subsetU := Y \Supp(D) is affine and clearlyU ∩Y0 = X0. LetU ⊂ Y be the formalcompletion ofU along its closed subschemeX0; it follows that the imbeddingX ⊂ Y inducesan isomorphism of affine formalSpf V -schemes:

(3.1.12) U∼→ X.

Let Y sm ⊂ Y be the set of all pointsx ∈ Y such thatY is smooth overSpecV atx; accordingto [20, Ch.IV, Cor.6.8.7] and [22, Ch.IV, Cor.17.5.2],Y sm is an open subset ofY .


Claim3.1.13. Y0 \X0 ⊂ Y sm.

Proof of the claim.Indeed, for everyy ∈ Y0, the completions of the local ringsOY,y andOY,y areisomorphic topologicalV -algebras, therefore the claim follows from [19, Ch.IV, Prop.19.3.6]and [22, Ch.IV, Prop.17.5.3]. ♦

Claim 3.1.14. The (reduced) closed subschemeY sing := Y \ Y sm is finite overSpec V , andmoreoverY sing ⊂ U .

Proof of the claim.First of all, since the morphismY → SpecV is proper (especially, univer-sally closed), the closure of any point ofY meets the closed fibreY0. It follows easily that thedimension ofY sing is the maximum of the dimension of the local ringsOY sing,y, wherey rangesover all the points ofY sing ∩ Y0. However,Y sing ∩ Y0 is precisely the set of pointsy ∈ Y0 withthe property thatY0 is not smooth overSpecV0 at y; in other words,Y sing ∩ Y0 ⊂ Σ, whichconsists of finitely many closed points, whence:

dimOY sing,y ⊗V V0 = 0 for everyy ∈ Y sing ∩ Y0.

On the other hand, quite generally we have the inequality:

dimOY sing,y ≤ dim V + dimOY sing,y ⊗V V0

for everyy ∈ Y sing∩Y0 (see [41, Th.15.1]), therefore we conclude that the relative dimension ofY sing overSpec V equals zero, henceY sing is finite overSpec V , as claimed. SinceU containsY sing ∩ Y0 by construction, and since every point ofY sing admits a specialization to a point ofY0, it is clear thatY sing is contained inU . ♦

For anyV -algebraA denote byA∧n then-adic completion ofA.

Claim 3.1.15. For anyV -algebraR of finite type, the natural morphismSpecR∧n → SpecR is

regular.

Proof of the claim.According to [20, Ch.IV, Prop.7.4.6], it suffices to show that all the formalfibres ofR are geometrically regular. However, this follows from [20,Ch.IV, Th.7.4.4(ii)]. ♦

Say thatX = SpecR andU = SpecS, for someV -algebrasR andS of finite type; (3.1.12)induces an isomorphism ofV -schemes

φ∧ : U∧ := SpecS∧n

∼→ X∧ := SpecR∧

n .

Claim3.1.16. Let x ∈ U∧ be any point whose imagey ∈ U lies outsideY sing. Let x′ := φ∧(x)and denote byy′ the image ofx′ in X. ThenX is smooth overSpec V at the pointy′.

Proof of the claim. It suffices to show that the induced morphismSpecOX,y → Spec V isregular ([22, Ch.IV, Cor.17.5.2]). However, by assumptionSpecOY,y → Spec V is regular,hence so is the morphismSpecOY ∧,x → Spec V , in view of claim 3.1.15. Consequently themorphismSpecOX∧,x′ → SpecV is regular, and since the mapOX,y′ → OX∧,x′ is faithfullyflat, the claim follows from [41, Th.32.1]. ♦

Next, let J ⊂ S be an ideal withV (J) = Y sing. In view of claim 3.1.14, the quotientS/Jn is finite overV for everyn ∈ N; especially, it is complete for then-adic topology. Wededuce from lemma 3.1.1(ii) that the natural mapS∧

J → S∧nS+J is an isomorphism (notation

of (3.1)), and then lemma 3.1.1(i) implies that the natural mapS∧nJ → S∧

n is an isomorphismas well, whence, by composingφ∧ with the natural mapX∧ → X, a morphism ofV -schemesψ : SpecS∧

nJ → X. The latter can be seen as a section

σ∧ : SpecS∧nJ → U ×Spec V X

40 LORENZO RAMERO

of theU-schemeU ×Spec V X (namely,σ∧ is the unique section such thatπ ◦ σ∧ = ψ, whereπ : U ×Spec V X → X is the natural projection). It follows from claim 3.1.16 that the sectionσ∧ fulfills the assumptions of [23, Ch.II, Th.2 bis], so that there exists a section

σ : SpecShnJ → U ×Spec V X.

such thatσ andσ∧ agree on the closed subschemeSpecS/nJ . LetShn be the henselization ofSalong the idealnS; finally we define a morphism ofV -schemes

β : SpecShnω→ SpecShnJ

σ→ U ×Spec V X

π→ X

whereω is the natural morphism. The theorem is now a straightforward consequence of thefollowing :

Claim 3.1.17. β induces an isomorphismSpecShnω→ Xh

/X0.

Proof of the claim. By construction,β andφ∧ agree on the closed subschemeSpecS/nS. Letβ∧ : U∧ → X∧ be the morphism induced byβ and denote bygr•nR andgr•nS the graded ringsassociated to then-preadic filtrations ofR and respectivelyS; we deduce that the morphismsβ andφ∧ induce the same homomorphismgr•nR → gr•nS of graded rings. Sinceφ∧ is anisomorphism, it then follows thatβ∧ is an isomorphism as well ([9, Ch.III,§2, n.8, Cor.3]).Next, according to [43, Ch.XI,§2, Th.2], the ringShn is the filtered colimit of a family of etaleS-algebras(Sλ | λ ∈ Λ) such thatSλ/nSλ isS-isomorphic toS/nS for everyλ ∈ Λ. Especially,then-adic completionS∧

λ,n is S-isomorphic toS∧n , and we can findλ ∈ Λ such thatβ descends

to a morphismβλ : SpecSλ → X. Consequently, the mapR → S∧λ,n is formally etale for

then-adic topology, therefore the same holds for the mapR → Sλ induced byβλ. Finally, letp ∈ SpecSλ/nSλ, and setq := p ∩ R ∈ X0; a fortiori we see thatSλ,q is formally etale overRq for theq-preadic andp-preadic topologies; by [22, Ch.IV, Prop.17.5.3] we deducethatSλ isetale overR at all the points ofSpecSλ/nSλ. SinceShn ≃ Shλ,n, the claim follows. �

3.1.18. Suppose thatV is a valuation ring whose field of fractionsK is algebraically closed,and letS := Spec V . We conclude this section with a result stating the existence of semi-stable models for curves over the generic point ofS. The proof consists in reducing to the casewhereV is noetherian and excellent, to which one can apply de Jong’smethod of alterations[12]. Recall that asemi-stableS-curve is a flat and proper morphismg : Y → S such thatall the geometric fibres ofg are connected curves having at most ordinary double points assingularities. Denote byη the generic point ofS. We consider a projective finitely presentedmorphismf : X → S such thatf−1(η) is irreducible of dimension one. We also assume thatX is an integral scheme, andG is a given finite group ofS-automorphisms ofX.

Proposition 3.1.19.In the situation of(3.1.18), there exists a projective and birational mor-phismφ : X ′ → X of S-schemes such that :

(a) The structure morphismf ′ : X ′ → S is a semi-stableS-curve whose generic fibref ′−1(η) is irreducible and smooth overSpecK.

(b) G acts onX ′ as a group ofS-automorphisms, andφ isG-equivariant.

Proof. Let us writeV as the colimit of the filtered family(Vi | i ∈ I) of its excellent noetheriansubrings. By [21, Ch.IV, Th.8.8.2(i),(ii)], we may findi ∈ I such that bothf and the action ofG descend to, respectively, a finitely presented morphismfi : Xi → Si := Spec Vi and a finitegroup ofSi-automorphisms ofXi. By [21, Ch.IV, Th.8.10.5] we may even suppose thatfi isprojective, and – up to replacingI by a cofinal subset – we may suppose that the latter propertyholds for all i ∈ I. For everyi ∈ I, let ηi be the generic point ofSi; we apply [21, Ch.IV,Prop.8.7.2 and Cor.8.7.3] to the projective system of schemes(f−1

i (ηi) | i ∈ I) to deduce thatthere existsi ∈ I such thatf−1

i (ηi) is geometrically irreducible overSpec κ(ηi). LetZi ⊂ Xi be


the Zariski closure (with reduced structure) off−1i (ηi); thenZi ×Si

S is a closed subscheme ofX containingf−1(η), so it coincides withX, since the latter is an integral scheme. Moreover,sincefi is a closed morphism andηi ∈ fi(Zi), we havefi(Zi) = Si. Furthermore, theG-actiononXi restricts to a finite group ofSi-automorphisms ofZi. The restrictionZi → Si of fi fulfillsthe conditions of [12, Th.2.4], hence we may find a commutative diagram :

Z ′i

φi//

f ′i��

Zi

fi��

S ′i

ψi// Si

such thatZ ′i andS ′

i are integral and excellent,φi andψi are projective, dominant and generi-cally finite, f ′

i is a semi-stable projectiveS ′i-curve and moreover a finite groupG′ acts byS ′

i-automorphisms onX ′

i in such a way thatf ′i isG′-equivariant; also there is a surjectionG′ → G

so thatφi is equivariant for the inducedG′-action (condition (v) of [12, Th.2.4]). Furthermore,if η′i denotes the generic point ofS ′

i, the induced morphism

(3.1.20) f ′−1i (η′i) → f−1

i (ηi)×Spec κ(ηi) Spec κ(η′i)

is birational (condition of [12, Th.2.4(vii)(b) and Rem.2.3(v)]). After taking the base changeS → Si we arrive at the commutative diagram :

Z ′ := Z ′i ×Si

Sφi,S

//

f ′i,S��

X

f

��S ′ := S ′

i ×SiS

ψi,S// S

where againψi,S is generically finite and projective. Sinceκ(η) is algebraically closed, it fol-lows that the induced mapκ(η) → κ(η′) is bijective for everyη′ ∈ ψ−1

i,S (η); by the valuative cri-terion for properness ([17, Ch.II, Th.7.3.8(b)]) we deducethatψi,S admits a sectionσ : S → S ′.We setX ′ := Z ′ ×S′ S (the base change along the morphismσ) and denote byφ : X ′ → X therestriction ofφi,S. By construction,f ′ : X ′ → S is a semi-stableS-curve. From (3.1.20) wededuce easily that the induced morphismf ′−1(η) → f−1(η) is birational, and then, sincef ′ isflat, it follows thatX ′ is integral andφ is birational. Moreover, the action ofG′ is completelydetermined by its restriction to the generic fibref ′−1(η), and sinceφ is equivariant, it followsthat this action factors throughG. �

3.2. Vanishing cycles.We resume that notation of (2.2); we letS := SpecK+, and denote bys the closed point ofS. According to [30,§4.2], to everyS-schemeX and every abelian sheafF onXet one attaches a complex of abelian sheaves

RΨX/S(F ) ∈ D(Xs,et,Z)

whereXs := X ×S SpecK∼ andD(Xs,et,Z) denotes the derived category of the category ofabelian sheaves onXs,et. Its stalk at a pointx ∈ Xs can be computed as follows. Denote byXh/{x}the spectrum of the henselization of the local ringOX,x; then there is a natural isomorphism inthe derived category of complexes of abelian groups:

(3.2.1) RΨX/S(F )x ≃ RΓ((Xh/{x} ×S SpecK)et, F ).

We let alsoXK := X×S SpecK. There is a natural map

RΓ(XK , F ) → RΓ(Xs, RΨX/S(F ))

42 LORENZO RAMERO

which is an isomorphism whenX is proper overS. On the other hand, one has a natural mor-phism inD(Xs,et,Z)

(3.2.2) F|Xs [0] → RΨX/S(F )

and the cone of (3.2.2) is a complex onXs called thecomplex of vanishing cyclesof the sheafF , and denoted byRΦX/S(F ).

Any S-morphismφ : X → Y induces a natural map of complexes

(3.2.3) φ∗RΦY/S(F ) → RΦX/S(φ∗F )

for every abelian sheafF onYet.

3.2.4. Letπ ∈ m be any non-zero element, and setA := K+[S, T ]/(ST − π2); theπ-adiccompletion ofA is the subringA◦ of the affinoid ringA := A(a, a−1), wherea := |π| (cp.example 2.1.12). LetAh be the henselization ofA along its idealπA; by proposition 1.3.2(i),the base change functor :

Ah-Algfpet/K → A◦-Algfpet/K : B 7→ A◦ ⊗Ah B.

is an equivalence.

3.2.5. Letf : X := SpaB → D(a, a−1) be a finite etale morphism, so thatB is a finite etaleA-algebra, and suppose moreover that a finite groupG acts freely onX in such a way thatfbecomes aG-equivariant morphism, provided we endowD(a, a−1) with the trivialG-action.This situation includes the basic case wheref is a Galois (etale) morphism with Galois groupG, but we also allow the case whereG is the trivial group. Under these assumptions,B isnormal, therefore the same holds forB◦. Moreover, by lemma 2.3.1,B◦ is a finitely presentedA◦-module; we denote byB the unique (up to unique isomorphism)Ah-algebra correspondingto B◦ under the equivalence of (3.2.4). By proposition 1.3.2(iii), B is normal, and clearlytheG-action onB translates into aG-action onB, fixing Ah. SinceAh/mAh ≃ A◦/mA◦,we can view the prime idealP ⊂ A◦ defined in the proof of claim 2.3.37, as an element ofSpecAh/mAh. Similarly, the finitely many prime idealsq1, . . . , qn ⊂ B◦ lying overP can beviewed as elements ofSpecB/mB. We also obtain a natural action ofG on the set{q1, . . . , qn}.For everyi = 1, . . . , n, we let:

• St(qi) ⊂ G be the stabilizer ofqi,• AhP (resp.Bhi ) the henselization of the local ringAP (resp. ofBqi),• AhP,K := AhP⊗K+ K, Bhi,K := Bhi ⊗K+ K, ThK := SpecAhP,K , Xhi,K := SpecBhi,K• Λ a finite local ring such thatℓnΛ = 0, for a prime numberℓ 6= charK∼ and some

integern > 0.

With this notation we define:

∆(X, qi, F ) := RΓ((Xhi,K)et, F ) and ∆(X,F ) :=n⊕

i=1

∆(X, qi, F )

for every sheaf ofΛ-modulesF on the etale site ofXhi,K . Moreover, ifC• is a bounded complexof Λ-modules andH•C• is a finiteΛ-module, we shall denote byχ(C•) the Euler-Poincarecharacteristicof C•, which is defined by the rule :

χ(C•) :=

∑i∈Z(−1)i · lengthΛ(H

iC•)

lengthΛ(Λ).

In caseC• is a complex of freeΛ-modules (especially,C• is perfect), we have also the identity:

χ(C•) =∑

i∈Z

(−1)i · rkΛ(Ci).


As usual ([32, Exp.X,§1]) one can view the constant sheafΛXhi,K

on (Xhi,K)et as a sheaf ofG-

modules with trivialG-action, and then by functoriality,∆(X, qi,Λ) is a complex ofΛ[St(qi)]-modules in a natural way. Furthermore,∆(X,Λ) is a complex ofΛ[G]-modules, whose struc-ture can be analyzed as follows. LetO1,∪ · · · ∪ Ok = {q1, . . . , qn} be the decomposition intoorbits under theG-action, and for everyi ≤ k let us pick a representativeqi ∈ Oi; then :

(3.2.6) ∆(X,Λ) ≃k∑

i=1

IndGSt(qi)∆(X, qi,Λ) in D(Λ[G]-Mod).

The proof is left to the reader.

Lemma 3.2.7.With the notation of(3.2.5), the following holds:

(i) The complex ofΛ-modules∆(X, qi, F ) is perfect of amplitude[0, 1], for every con-structible sheafF of freeΛ-modules on(Xhi,K)et.

(ii) For everyn ∈ N, there is a natural isomorphism inD+(Z/ℓnZ-Mod) :

Z/ℓnZL

⊗Z/ℓn+1Z ∆(X, qi,Z/ℓn+1Z)

∼→ ∆(X, qi,Z/ℓ

nZ).

(iii) For every locally constant sheafF of Λ-modules on(ThK)et we have :

χ(∆(D(a, a−1),P, F )) ≤ 0.

Proof. To start out, notice that the schemeSpecBhq,K is a cofiltered limit of one-dimensionalaffineK-schemes of finite type; then (ii) is an easy consequence of [13, Th. finitude, Cor.1.11].We also deduce that the cohomological dimension ofSpecBhi,K is ≤ 1; furthermore, it followsfrom (3.2.1) and [30, Prop.4.2.5] thatHn∆(X, qi, F ) has finite length for everyn ∈ N andevery constructible sheafF of Λ-modules, hence assertion (i) follows from :

Claim 3.2.8. LetR be a (not necessarily commutative) right noetherian ring with centerR0 ⊂R, φ : Z → Y a morphism of schemes, andC• a complex inD−(Zet, R). Suppose that thefunctor

Rφ∗ : D+(Zet, R0) → D+(Yet, R0)

has finite cohomological dimension (thus,Rφ∗ extends to the whole ofD(Zet, R0)). Then :

(i) C• is pseudo-coherent if and only ifHnC• is coherent for everyn ∈ Z.(ii) C• is perfect if and only if it is pseudo-coherent and has locally finiteTor-dimension.

(iii) If the Tor-dimension ofC• is ≤ d (for somed ∈ Z), then theTor-dimension ofRφ∗C

• ∈ Ob(D−(Yet, R)) is ≤ d.

Proof of the claim.(i) (resp. (ii), resp. (iii)) is a special case of [5, Exp.I, Cor.3.5] (resp. [5,Exp.I, Cor.5.8.1], resp. [4, Exp.XVII, Th.5.2.11]). ♦

(iii): It follows from (i) that the Euler-Poincare characteristic of∆(D(a, a−1),P, F ) is welldefined whenΛ is a finite field of characteristicℓ. For the general case, letmΛ ⊂ Λ be themaximal ideal; we consider the descending filtrationF ⊃ mΛF ⊃ m2

ΛF ⊃ · · · ⊃ mrΛF = 0,

whose graded subquotients are sheaves of modules over the residue fieldκ(Λ) of Λ; sincethe expression that we have to evaluate is obviously additive in F , we are then reduced tothe case whereF is an irreducible locally constant sheaf ofκ(Λ)-modules. In such case,if F is not constant the assertion is clear, so we can further suppose thatF is the constantsheaf with stalks isomorphic toκ(Λ). However,AhP is a normal domain, thereforeThK is con-nected, soH0∆(D(a, a−1),P, κ(Λ)) = κ(Λ). Finally, from [14, Exp.XV,§2.2.5] we deriveH1∆(D(a, a−1),P, κ(Λ)) = κ(Λ). (loc.cit. considers the vanishing cycle functor relative to afamily defined over a strictly henselian discrete valuationring, but by inspecting the proofs it iseasy to see that the same argument worksverbatimin our setting as well.) �

44 LORENZO RAMERO

3.2.9. LetR be a (not necessarily commutative) ring. We denote byK0(R) (resp. byK0(R))the Grothendieck group of finitely generated projective (resp. finitely presented) leftR-modules.Any perfect complexC• ofR-modules determines a class[C•] ∈ K0(R). Namely, one choosesa quasi-isomorphismP • ∼

→ C• from a bounded complex of finitely generated projective leftR-modules, and sets[C•] :=

∑i∈Z(−1)i · [P i]; a standard verification shows that the definition

does not depend on the chosen projective resolution.

Proposition 3.2.10.In the situation of(3.2.5)we have:

(i) ∆(X, qi,Λ) is a perfect complex ofΛ[St(qi)]-modules of amplitude[0, 1].(ii) [∆(X, qi,Fℓ)[1]] ∈ K0(Fℓ[St(qi)]) is the class of a projectiveFℓ[St(qi)]-module.

(iii) [∆(X,Fℓ)[1]] ∈ K0(Fℓ[G]) is the class of a projectiveFℓ[G]-module.

Proof. (i): This is well known: letfK : Xhi,K → ThK be the natural morphism; one shows as inthe proof of [32, Exp.X, Prop.2.2] thatfK∗Λ is a flat sheaf ofΛ[St(qi)]-modules, and then claim3.2.8(iii) implies that the complex ofΛ[St(qi)]-modules∆(X, qi,Λ) ≃ ∆(D(a, a−1),P, fK∗Λ)is of finite Tor-dimension. It then follows from claim 3.2.8(i),(ii) and lemma 3.2.7(i) that∆(X, qi,Λ) is a perfect complex ofΛ[St(qi)]-modules of amplitude[0, 1].

(ii): Let us choose a complex∆• := (∆0 → ∆1) of finitely generated projectiveFℓ[St(qi)]-modules with a quasi-isomorphism∆• ∼

→ ∆(X, qi,Fℓ); if M is anyFℓ[St(qi)]-module of finitelength, we deduce a quasi-isomorphism (cp. the proof of lemma 3.2.7(ii))

M ⊗Fℓ[St(qi)] ∆• ∼→ RΓ(ThK,M ⊗Fℓ[St(qi)] fK∗Fℓ).

Whenceχ(M ⊗Fℓ[St(qi)] ∆•) ≤ 0, in view of lemma 3.2.7(iii). In other words :

rkFℓM ⊗Fℓ[St(qi)] ∆

0 ≤ rkFℓM ⊗Fℓ[St(qi)] ∆

1 for everyM of finite length.

On the other hand,K0(Fℓ[St(qi)]) is endowed with an involution ([32, Exp.X,§3.7])

K0(Fℓ[St(qi)]) → K0(Fℓ[St(qi)]) : [M ] 7→ [M ]∗ := [M∗] := [HomFℓ(M,Fℓ)].

We have a natural isomorphism

HomFℓ[St(qi)](N,M∗) ≃ (N ⊗Fℓ[St(qi)] M)∗

for everyFℓ[St(qi)]-modules of finite lengthM andN ([32, Exp.X, Prop.3.8]). Since clearlyrkFℓ

M = rkFℓM∗ for every suchM , we conclude that

(3.2.11)rkFℓ

HomFℓ[St(qi)](∆0,M) ≤ rkFℓ

HomFℓ[St(qi)](∆1,M) for everyM of finite length.

By [47, §14.3, Cor.1,2] the projective modules∆0 and∆1 are direct sums of projective en-velopes of simpleFℓ[St(qi)]-modules; however, (3.2.11) implies that the multiplicityin ∆0 ofthe projective envelopePN of any simple moduleN is≤ the multiplicity ofPN in ∆1, whencethe assertion.

(iii) is an easy consequence of (ii) and (3.2.6). �

3.2.12. Keep the assumptions of proposition 3.2.10. For every n ∈ N we setΛn := Z/ℓnZ; inview of lemma 3.2.7(ii) we derive natural isomorphisms inD+(Λn[St(qi)]-Mod) :

(3.2.13) Λn[St(qi)]L

⊗Λn+1[St(qi)]∆(X, qi,Λn+1)∼→ Λn

L

⊗Λn+1∆(X, qi,Λn+1)∼→ ∆(X, qi,Λn).

Then, according to [32, Exp.XIV,§3, n.3, Lemme 1] we may find :

• An inverse system(∆•n(X, qi) | n ∈ N), such that∆•

n(X, qi) is a complex of projectiveΛn[St(qi)]-modules of finite rank, concentrated in degrees0 and1, and the transitionmaps are isomorphisms of complexes ofΛn[St(qi)]-modules :

(3.2.14) Λn ⊗Λn+1 ∆•n+1(X, qi)

∼→ ∆•

n(X, qi) for everyn ∈ N.


• A system of isomorphisms :∆•n(X, qi)

∼→ ∆(X, qi,Λn) in D+(Λn[St(qi)]-Mod),

compatible with the isomorphisms (3.2.13) and (3.2.14).(Actually, loc.cit. includes the assumption that the coefficient rings are commutative. Thisassumption is not verified by our system of ringsΛn[St(qi)]; however, by inspecting the proof,one sees easily that the commutativity is not needed.)

We let∆•∞(X, qi) be the inverse limit of the system(∆•

n(X, q) | n ∈ N); this is a complexof projectiveZℓ[St(qi)]-modules of finite rank, concentrated in degrees0 and1, and we haveisomorphisms of complexes ofΛn[St(qi)]-modules :

Λn[St(qi)]⊗Zℓ[St(qi)] ∆•∞(X, qi) ≃ Λn ⊗Zℓ

∆•∞(X, qi) ≃ ∆•


Likewise, we set

∆•n(X) :=

n⊕

i=1

∆•n(X, qi)

and the analogue of (3.2.6) holds for∆•n(X), especially the latter is a complex of finitely gen-

erated projectiveΛn[G]-modules and the inverse limit∆•∞(X) of the system(∆•

n(X) | n ∈ N)is a complex of finitely generated projectiveZℓ[G]-modules.

Lemma 3.2.15.In the situation of(3.2.12):(i) The element[∆•

∞(X, qi)[1]] ∈ K0(Zℓ[St(qi)]-Mod) is the class of a finitely generatedprojectiveZℓ[St(qi)]-module.

(ii) The element[∆•∞(X)[1]] ∈ K0(Zℓ[G]-Mod) is the class of a finitely generated pro-

jectiveZℓ[G]-module.

Proof. (i) follows from proposition 3.2.10(ii) and [47,§14.4, Cor.3], and (ii) follows from (i).�

3.2.16. In view of lemma 3.2.15, the element[∆•∞(X, qi)⊗ZQ] ∈ K0(Qℓ[St(qi)]) is the class

of a finite-dimensionalℓ-adic representation ofSt(qi). For such representationsρ, it makessense to ask whether the associated character takes only rational values,i.e. whether the class[ρ] lies in the subgroupRQ(St(qi)) ⊂ K0(Qℓ[St(qi)]) (notation of [47,§12.1]), and a completecharaterization ofQ⊗Z RQ(St(qi)) is provided by the criterion of [47,§13.1]. The availabilityof that criterion is the main reason why we are interested inℓ-adic representations (rather thanjust ℓ-torsion ones).

Theorem 3.2.17.With the notation of(3.2.16):

(i) The class[∆•∞(X, qi)⊗Z Q] lies inRQ(St(qi)).

(ii) The class[∆•∞(X)⊗Z Q] lies inRQ(G).

Proof. Of course it suffices to show (i). We begin with the following :

Claim3.2.18. There exist :

• a projective birational morphismφ : Y → X of integral projectiveS-schemes, whereY → S is a semistableS-curve with smooth connected generic fibreYK → SpecK;

• group homomorphismsSt(qi) → AutSY andSt(qi) → AutSX such thatφ is St(qi)-equivariant;

• a pointx ∈ Xs, fixed bySt(qi), with anSt(qi)-equivariant isomorphism :OhX,x

∼→ Bhi ;

• an open neighborhoodU ⊂ X of x, which is a connected normal scheme.

Proof of the claim.To start out,Bhi is the colimit of a filtered family(Bµ | µ ∈ J) of etaleB-algebras, and since sinceBhi is a normal domain, we may assume that the same holds foreveryBµ. We may findµ ∈ J such that the action ofSt(qi) onBhi descends to an action byK+-automorphisms onBµ ([21, Ch.IV, Th.8.8.2(i)]). Ifx ∈ U := SpecBµ denotes the contraction

46 LORENZO RAMERO

of the idealqi ⊂ B, we have anSt(qi)-equivariant isomorphismOhU,x

∼→ Bhi . Let V ⊂ Bµ

be a finitely generatedK+-submodule, say of rankn + 1, that generatesOU; V determinesa morphismψ : U → PnS, and by choosingV large enough, we may achieve thatψ is aclosed immersion; moreover we may suppose thatV is stable under the naturalSt(qi)-action,in which caseψ is St(qi)-equivariant. Denote byX the Zariski closure ofψ(U) (with reducedstructure). Then the action ofSt(qi) extends toX andf : X → S is a projective finitely presentedmorphism; moreover, sinceU is a normal scheme, the generic fibref−1(η) is irreducible. Toconclude, it suffices to invoke proposition 3.1.19. ♦

Hence, letφ : Y → X andx ∈ U ⊂ Xs be as in claim 3.2.18, andφs : Ys → Xs (resp.φη : YK → XK) the restriction ofφ; applying the proper base change theorem ([4, Exp.XII,Th.5.1]), we derive a naturalSt(qi)-equivariant isomorphism :

(3.2.19) Rφs∗RΨY/SΛ∼→ RΨX/SRφη∗Λ

in D(Xs,et,Λ), for every ringΛ as in (3.2.5). SetZ := φ−1s (x); taking the stalk overx of the

map (3.2.19) yields anSt(qi)-equivariant isomorphism :

(3.2.20) RΓ(Z,RΨY/SΛ)∼→ (RΨX/SRφη∗Λ)x.

Moreover,UK is smooth overSpecK, henceφη restricts to an isomorphism onφ−1UK , hence:

(3.2.21) (RΨX/SRφη∗Λ)x ≃ (RΨX/SΛ)x ≃ ∆(X, qi,Λ)

where again these isomorphisms areSt(qi)-equivariant. On the other hand, [14, Exp.XV,§2.2]yields natural isomorphisms :

(3.2.22) R0ΨY/SΛ ≃ Λ|Ys R1ΨY/SΛ ≃ i∗Λ(−1)|Ysings

RjΨY/SΛ = 0 for j > 1

where i : Ysings → Ys is the closed immersion of the singular locus ofYs (which consists

of finitely manySpecK∼-rational points) and(−1) denotes the Tate twist. (Actually,loc.cit.considers the case whereS is a henselian discrete valuation ring, but by inspecting the proofone sees easily that the same argument works in our situationas well.) SinceZ is proper overSpecK∼, one may apply [4, Exp.XVII, Th.5.4.3] to deduce that (3.2.20) and (3.2.21) still holdafter we replaceΛ byQℓ and∆(X, qi,Λ) by∆•

∞(X, qi)⊗Z Q. Hence,[∆•∞(X, qi)⊗Z Q] is the

difference of the classes :

R1 := [RΓ(Z,Qℓ)] R2 := [Γ(Zsing,Qℓ(−1))].

where theSt(qi)-actions onR1 andR2 are deduced by functoriality from the actions ofSt(qi)on the sheavesQℓ andQℓ(−1), and the latter are defined via (3.2.22). So the theorem followsfrom the following :

Claim 3.2.23. R1, R2 ∈ RQ(St(qi)).

Proof of the claim. ConceriningR1 : first of all, notice that the action ofSt(qi) onΛ|Ys (resp.onQℓ|Ys) induced by the isomorphism (3.2.22), is the trivial one (this isomorphism is the map(3.2.2)). Letρ : Z ′ → Z be the normalization morphism, and say thatW1, . . . ,Wk are theirreducible components ofZ ′; a standarddevissageshows that

R1 = [RΓc(Z′,Qℓ)]− [Γ(ρ−1Zsing,Qℓ)] + [Γ(Zsing,Qℓ)]

where theSt(qi)-actions on the terms appearing on the right-hand side are deduced, by functo-riality, from the trivialSt(qi)-actions on the constantℓ-adic sheavesQℓ on the schemeZ ′. Letg ∈ St(qi) be any element,g′ : Z ′ → Z ′ the uniqueK∼-automorphism that lifts the action ofgonZ, andg′′ : g′∗Qℓ

∼→ Qℓ the isomorphism that defines the trivialSt(qi)-action onQℓ|Z′. We


have a natural decomposition :RΓc(Z ′,Qℓ) ≃⊕k

i=1RΓc(Wi,Qℓ), andRΓc(Z ′, g′′) restricts toisomorphisms :

ωi : RΓc(g′(Wi),Qℓ)

∼→ RΓc(Wi,Qℓ) for everyi = 1, . . . , k.

It follows that the trace ofRΓc(Z ′, g′′) is the sum of the traces of the mapsωi such thatg′(Wi) =Wi. EachWi is either a point or a smooth projectiveK∼-curve. In caseWi is a point,ωi is theidentity map; to determine the trace ofωi in caseWi is a smooth curve, we may apply theLefschetz fixed point formula [13, Rapport, Th.5.3], and it follows easily that[RΓc(Z ′,Qℓ)] ∈RQ(St(qi)). Next, consider the term[Γ(Zsing,Qℓ)]; a similar argument shows that, in order tocompute the trace of the automorphism induced byg on Γ(Zsing,Qℓ), we may neglect all thepoints ofZsing that are not fixed by the action ofg; if z ∈ Zsing is fixed byg, then clearlythe trace ofΓ({z}, g) equals1, so we get as well[Γ(Zsing,Qℓ)] ∈ RQ(St(qi)). Finally, weconsider[Γ(ρ−1Zsing,Qℓ)] : let (Zsing)g be the set of points ofZsing that are fixed byg; anargument as in the foregoing shows that the trace ofΓ(ρ−1Zsing, g′′) is the same as the trace ofΓ(ρ−1(Zsing)g, g′′). For everyz ∈ (Zsing)g, the fibreρ−1(z) consists of two pointsz′1 andz′2, andclearlyg either exchanges them, in which case the corresponding contribution to the trace is0,or elseg fixes them, in which case the contribution is2. Hence[Γ(ρ−1Zsing,Qℓ)] ∈ RQ(St(qi)),so the claim holds forR1.

ConcerningR2 : let againg ∈ St(qi) be any element; the action ofg onR2 is induced byan action ofg on (R1ΨηQℓ)|Ysing , i.e. by an isomorphismg′ : g∗Qℓ(−1)|Ysing

∼→ Qℓ(−1)|Ysing.

Arguing as in the foregoing case, we see that the trace ofΓ(Zsing, g′) is the same as the traceof Γ((Zsing)g, g′). Hence, for our purposes, it suffices to determine the automorphismg′z of thestalk over anyz ∈ Zsing which is fixed byg. By [14, Exp.XV,§2.2], Poincare duality yields aperfect pairing :

(R1ΨηQℓ)z ×H1{z}(Ys, RΨηQℓ(1)) → Qℓ.

Hence it suffices to show that[H1{z}(Ys, RΨηQℓ(1))] lies inRQ(St(qi)). However, according to

[14, Exp.XV, lemme 2.2.7], we have a natural short exact sequence :

0 → H0({z},Qℓ)(1) → H0(ρ−1{z},Qℓ)(1) → H1{z}(Ys, RΨηQℓ(1)) → 0

which becomesSt(qi)-equivariant, provided we endow theℓ-adic sheavesQℓ|{z} andQℓ|ρ−1{z}

with their trivial actions. It follows that the trace ofg′z equals1 if g fixes the points ofρ−1{z},and equals−1 if g exchanges these two points. �

3.2.24. Keep the notation of (3.2.5) and letH ⊂ G be any subgroup; sinceA is a Japanesering ([6, §6.1.2, Prop.4]) we see easily that the subringBH of elements fixed byH is an affinoidalgebra; we can then consider the morphismfH : X/H := SpaBH → D(a, a−1); clearlyfH isagain etale (indeed, this can be checked after an etale base change, especially, after base changeto X, in which case the assertion is obvious). Moreover, obviously (BH)◦ = (B◦)H ; underthe equivalence of (3.2.4), the finitely presentedA◦-algebra(BH)◦ corresponds to a unique(up to unique isomorphism) finitely presentedAh-algebraC such thatC ⊗K+ K is etale overAhK := Ah ⊗K+ K. By lemma 1.3.6 the natural mapAh → A◦ is faithfully flat; by consideringthe left exact sequence ofAh-modules

0 // BH // B⊕h∈H(1−h)

//⊕

h∈H B

one deduces easily that

(3.2.25) C = BH .

48 LORENZO RAMERO

3.2.26. Suppose next, that the subgroupH ⊂ G is contained inSt(qi). We denote byqHi theimage ofqi in Spec (BH)◦. In view of (3.2.25) the induced map

g : Xhi,K → Yhi,K := SpecChqHi ,K

is a Galois etale covering with Galois groupH.

Lemma 3.2.27.In the situation of(3.2.26), we have a natural isomorphism inD(Zℓ-Mod) :

∆•∞(X/H, qHi )

∼→ ∆•

∞(X, qi)H .

Proof. (Notice that, since in generalH is not a normal subgroup ofSt(qi), the only group surelyacting on∆(X/H, qHi ,Λn) is the trivial one, so∆•

∞(X/H, qHi ) is to be meant as a complex offreeZℓ-modules.) To start with, letΛ be any ring as in (3.2.5); the functorF 7→ ΓH(F ) := FH

on sheaves ofΛ[H ]-modules on(Yhi,K)et induces a derived functor

RΓH : D+((Yhi,K)et,Λ[H ]) → D+((Yhi,K)et,Λ).

Likewise, we have a derived functor :

RΓH : D+(Λ[H ]-Mod) → D+(Λ-Mod).

Especially, consider the inverse system(∆•n(X, qi) | n ∈ N) of (3.2.12); since each∆•

n(X, qi)is a complex of projectiveΛn[St(qi)]-modules, the natural map :

ΓH∆•n(X, qi) → RΓH∆•

n(X, qi)

is an isomorphism inD(Λn-Mod), for everyn ∈ N. Similarly, sinceg∗Λn,Xhi,K

is a sheaf of

projectiveΛn[H ]-modules, we have natural isomorphisms of sheaves on(Yhi,K)et :

(3.2.28) Λn,Yhi,K

∼→ RΓHg∗Λn,Xh

i,K.

Now, by applying to (3.2.28) the triangulated functor

RΓ : D((Yhi,K)et,Λn) → D(Λn-Mod)

and using the obvious isomorphism of triangulated functors

RΓ ◦RΓH ≃ RΓH ◦RΓ : D+((Yhi,K)et,Λn[H ]) → D+(Λn-Mod)

we deduce natural isomorphisms :

∆•n(X/H, q

Hi )

∼→ RΓ((Yhi,K)et,Λn)

∼→ ΓH∆•


The assertion then follows after taking inverse limits. �

3.2.29. In the situation of (3.2.5), letδ : [log a,− log a] ∩ log ΓK → R≥0 be the discriminantfunction of the morphismf . We saw in the course of the proof of theorem 2.3.35 how one cancalculate the variation of the slope ofδ at the pointρ = 0 – that is, the slope aroundρ = 0 ofthe functionρ 7→ δ(−ρ) + δ(ρ). The expression is a sum of contributions indexed by the primeidealsq1, . . . , qn. Proposition 3.2.30 explains how these localized contributions can be read offfrom the complexes∆(X, qi,Fℓ) (whereFℓ is the finite field withℓ elements).

Proposition 3.2.30.Resume the notation of(2.3.32)and (3.2.5). Then :

(3.2.31) 2α(qi) + F(qi)− 2 = χ(∆(X, qi,Fℓ)[1]). for everyi = 1, . . . , n.

Proof. We shall give a global argument: first, according to [22, Ch.IV, Prop.17.7.8] and [43,Ch.XI, §2, Th.2], we can find :

• an etale mapA → A′ of K+-algebras of finite presentation such that the induced mapA⊗K+ K∼ → A′ ⊗K+ K∼ is an isomorphism;

• a finitely presentedA′-algebraB with an isomorphismAh ⊗A′ B′ ∼→ B. Especially, the

induced morphismA′ ⊗K+ K → B′ ⊗K+ K is still etale.


SetT := SpecA′ andX := SpecB′. Using (3.2.1) one deduces natural isomorphisms in thederived category of complexes ofFℓ-vector spaces:

(3.2.32) ∆(X, qi,Fℓ) ≃ RΨX/S(Fℓ,X)qi

for every i = 1, . . . , n. The special fibreXs := SpecB′/mB′ of theS-schemeX is of puredimension one, since it is finite overSpecA/mA, and it is reduced, in view of lemma 2.3.2.HenceXs is generically smooth overSpecK∼; denote byXνs andXn

s respectively the seminor-malization and normalization ofXs (cp. [39,§7.5, Def.13]). There are natural finite morphisms

Xnsπ1→ Xνs

π2→ Xs

and the quotientOXs-modules

Q1 := (π2 ◦ π1)∗OXns/π2∗OXν

sand Q2 := π2∗OXν

s/OXs

are torsion sheaves concentrated on the singular locusXsings ⊂ Xs. By inspecting the definition,

one verifies easily that

(3.2.33) α(qi) = dimK∼ Q2,qi for everyi = 1, . . . , n.

Similarly, using [41, Th.10.1] and lemma 2.2.12 one finds a natural bijection between the pointsof F(qi) and the points ofXn

s lying over the pointqi ∈ Xs (cp. the proof of [31, Th.6.3]). Thisleads to the identity:

(3.2.34) ♯F(qi) = 1 + dimK∼ Q1,qi for everyi = 1, . . . , n.

Now, let us fix one pointq := qi and choose an affine open neighborhoodV ⊂ X of q such thatX \ V containsXsing

s \ {q}; by further restrictingV we can even achieve that the special fibreVs is connected. One can then apply theorem 3.1.3 to produce a projectiveS-schemeY of purerelative dimension one containing an open subschemeU such thatYs is connected,Y is smoothoverS at the points ofYs \ Us, and furthermoreUh/Us

≃ Vh/Vs. By construction, the generic

fibre YK is a smooth projective curve overSpecK, andYsings ⊂ {q}. It is also clear that the

morphismY → S is flat, whence an equality of Euler-Poincare characteristics:

χ(YK ,OYK) = χ(Ys,OYs).

On the other hand, letc be the number of irreducible components ofYs; [39,§7.5, Cor.33] yieldsthe identity

dimFℓH1(Ys,et,Fℓ) = dimFℓ

H1(Yns,et,Fℓ) + dimK∼(π∗OYn

s/OYν

s)− c+ 1

= dimFℓH1(Yn

s,et,Fℓ) + F(q)− c

whereYns

π→ Yνs is the natural morphism from the normalization to the seminormalization of

Ys. SincedimFℓH0(Yn

s,et,Fℓ) = c, we deduce

χet(Ys,Fℓ) = χet(Yns ,Fℓ)− F(q) + 1.

Furthermore, in light of (3.2.33) and (3.2.34) we can write

χ(Ys,OYs) = χ(Yns ,OYs)− α(q)− ♯F(q) + 1.

By Riemann-Roch we have

χet(Yns ,Fℓ) = 2χ(Yn

s ,OYs) and χet(YK ,Fℓ) = 2χ(YK ,OYs).

Putting everything together we end up with the identity:

χet(YK ,Fℓ) = χet(Ys,Fℓ)− ♯F(q) + 1− 2α(q).

Now, the complexRΦY/S(Fℓ) is concentrated atYsings ⊂ {q}; it follows thatRΦY/S(Fℓ) ≃

j!RΦU/S(Fℓ), wherej : Us → Ys is the open imbedding. Since furthermore the henselizations

50 LORENZO RAMERO

of U andV are isomorphic, we have a natural identificationRΦU/S(Fℓ)q ≃ RΦV/S(Fℓ)q ≃RΦX/S(Fℓ)q. Consequently

(3.2.35) χ(RΦX/S(Fℓ)q) = χet(YK ,Fℓ)− χet(Ys,Fℓ) = 1− ♯F(q)− 2α(q).

Clearlyχ(RΨX/S(Fℓ)q) = 1 + χ(RΦX/S(Fℓ)q), whence the contention. �

3.3. Conductors. We consider now a finite Galois etale coveringf : X → D(a, b) of GaloisgroupG. For givenr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK , pick anyx ∈ f−1(η(r)); G acts transitively on the setf−1(η(r)) and the stabilizer subgroupStx ⊂ G of x is naturally isomorphic to the Galoisgroup of the extension of henselian valued fieldsκ(r)∧h ⊂ κ(x)∧h (see [31,§5.5]). By [31,Prop.1.2(iii) and Cor.5.4],κ(x)∧h+ is a freeκ(r)∧h+-module of rank equal to the ordero(Stx)of Stx; hence the differentD+

x/η(r) of the ring extensionκ(r)∧h+ ⊂ κ(x)∧h+ is well-definedand, by arguing as in (2.1.7) one sees that it is principal. Moreover, it is shown in [31, Lemma2.1(iii)] that for everyσ ∈ Stx there is a valueix(σ) ∈ Γ+

x ∪ {0} such that

|t− σ(t)|∧hx = ix(σ)

for all t ∈ κ(x)∧h such that|t|∧hx is the largest element ofΓ+x \ {0}. The same argument as in

the case of discrete valuations shows the identity

(3.3.1) |D+x/η(r)|

∧hx =

∏

σ∈Stx\{1}

ix(σ).

One defines thehigher ramification subgroupsof Stx by setting :

Pγ := {σ ∈ Stx | ix(σ) < γ} for everyγ ∈ Γ+x

and one says thatγ ∈ Γ+x is a jump in the family(Pγ | γ ∈ Γ+

x ) if Pγ′ 6= Pγ for everyγ′ < γ.Whenγ < 1, the subgroupPγ is contained in the uniquep-Sylow subgroupSt(p)x of Stx.

Furthermore, one has Artin and Swan characters; to explain this, let us introduce thetotalArtin conductor:

ax : Stx → Γx ax(σ) :=

ix(σ)−1 if σ 6= 1

∏

τ∈Stx\{1}

ix(τ) if σ = 1.

It is convenient to decompose this total conductor into two (normalized) factors:

a♮x(σ) := o(Stx) · ax(σ)♮ and a♭x(σ) := −o(Stx) · log ax(σ)

♭ for all σ ∈ Stx.

and as usual the Swan character issw♮x := a♮x−uStx , whereuStx := regStx −1Stx is the augmen-tation character,i.e. the regular characterregStx minus the constant function1Stx(σ) := 1 foreveryσ ∈ Stx. Huber shows thata♮x (resp.sw♮x) is the character of an element ofK0(Qℓ[Stx])(resp. ofK0(Zℓ[Stx]) : see [31, Th.4.1]); these are respectively the Artin and Swan represen-tations. In general, these elements are however only virtual representations (whereas it is wellknown that in the case of discrete valuation rings one obtains actual representations).

3.3.2. The identities obtained in [47,§19.1] also generalize as follows. Letγ0 := 1 ∈ Γx andγ1 > γ2 > · · · > γn be the jumps in the family(Pγ | γ ∈ Γ+

x ) which are< 1. Then directlyfrom the definitions we deduce the identities :

(3.3.3) a♭x =n∑

i=1

o(Pγi) · logγ♭i−1

γ♭i· IndStxPγi

uPγisw♮x =

n∑

i=1

o(Pγi) · (γ♮i − γ♮i−1) · Ind

StxPγi

uPγi


whereuPγiis the augmentation character of the groupPγi . Especially, notice that there exist two

R-valued and, respectively,Q-valued class functionsa♭St

(p)x

andsw♮St

(p)x

of thep-Sylow subgroup

St(p)x , such that:

a♭x = IndStxSt

(p)x

a♭St

(p)x

and sw♮x = IndStxSt

(p)x

sw♮

St(p)x

(the induced class functions from the subgroupSt(p)x to Stx; here we viewa♭x as anR-valued

class function). Next, we define

a♮G(r

+) := IndGStx a♮x a♭G(r

+) := IndGSt

(p)x

a♭St

(p)x

sw♮G(r

+) := IndGSt

(p)x

sw♮

St(p)x

.

Notice thata♮G(r+) andsw♮G(r

+) do not depend on the choice of the pointx ∈ f−1(η(r)).Moreover, for any elementχ ∈ K0(C[G]) we let :

a♭G(χ, r+) := 〈a♭G(r

+), χ〉G sw♮G(χ, r

+) := 〈sw♮G(r+), χ〉G

where〈·, ·〉G is the natural scalar product ofR ⊗Z K0(C[G]) ([47, §7.2]). For future referencewe point out :

Lemma 3.3.4. (i) a♭G(χ, r+) ∈ R for everyχ ∈ K0(C[G]).

(ii) Moreover,a♭G(χ, r+) ≥ 0 wheneverResG

St(p)xχ is a positive element ofK0(C[St

(p)x ]).

Proof. Both assertions follow easily from (3.3.3). �

3.3.5. Now, suppose thatf ′ : X ′ → D(a, b) is another finite Galois etale covering whichdominatesX, i.e. such thatf ′ factors throughf and an etale morphismg : X ′ → X. Theng(X ′) is a union of connected components ofX. LetG′ be the Galois group off ′; we assumeas well thatg is equivariant for theG′-action onX ′ and theG-action onX, i.e. there is a grouphomomorphism

φ : G′ = Aut(X ′/D(a, b)) → G = Aut(X/D(a, b))

such thatφ(σ) ◦ g = g ◦ σ for everyσ ∈ G′. Pick x′ ∈ X ′ lying over x; there follows acommutative diagram of group homomorphisms :

Stx′ //

��

Stx

��

G′φ

// G

whose vertical arrows are injections and whose top horizontal arrow is a surjection. One showsas in [46, Ch.VI,§2, Prop.3] that :

a♭x = IndStxStx′a♭x′ a♮x = IndStxStx′

a♮x′

whence the identities :

(3.3.6) a♭G(r+) = IndGG′a

♭G′(r+) a

♮G(r

+) = IndGG′a♮G′(r

+).

3.3.7. Later we shall also need to know that the conductors are invariant under changes ofbase field. Namely, let(K, | · |) → (F, | · |F ) be a map of algebraically closed valued fields ofrank one; say thatX = SpaB, and set :

XF := SpaB⊗KF D(a, b)F := SpaA(a, b)⊗KF.

The natural map of adic spaceXF → X is surjective andG-equivariant, hence we may choosex′ ∈ XF lying overx. Let f ′ : XF → D(a, b)F be the morphism deduced by base change fromf . Then we may define Artin and Swan conductors for the extension κ(f ′(x′))∧ ⊂ κ(x′)∧.

Lemma 3.3.8. In the situation of(3.3.7), the following holds :

52 LORENZO RAMERO

(i) The natural mapκ(x) → κ(x′) induces isomorphisms on value groups and Galoisgroups :

(3.3.9) Γx∼→ Γx′ Stx′

∼→ Stx.

(ii) Under the identification(3.3.9), we have :

ix(σ) = ix′(σ) for everyσ ∈ Stx.

Proof. Setη(r)F := f ′(x′) andκ(r)F := κ(η(r)F ); one checks easily that the natural commu-tative diagram :

κ(r) //

��

B(r) := (f∗OX)η(r)

��

κ(r)F // B(r)F := (f ′∗OXF

)η(r)F

is cocartesian. By lemma 2.2.12, the setf−1(η(r)) (resp. f ′−1(η(r)F )) is in natural bijectionwith the set of valuations onB(r) (resp. B(r)F ) that extend| · |η(r) (resp. | · |η(r)F ). It thenfollows by standard valuation theory (see [9, Ch.VI,§2, Exerc.2]) that the mapf ′−1(η(r)F ) →f−1(η(r)) is a surjection; letN (resp.N ′) be the cardinality off−1(η(r)) (resp.f ′−1(η(r)F )).Moreover,B(r)F is reduced, by [11, Lemma 3.3.1.(1)]; letr be its rank overκ(r)F , whichis also the rank ofB(r) overκ(r). Sinceκ(η(r)) andκ(η(r)F ) are defectless in every finiteseparable extension ([31, Lemma 5.3(iii)]), we deduce that:

r = N · (Γx : Γη(r)) = N ′ · (Γx′ : Γη(r)F ).

We know already thatN ′ ≥ N , and sinceΓη(r) = Γη(r)F , it is also clear that(Γx′ : Γη(r)F ) ≥(Γx : Γη(r)), whence (i). Next, in light of (i), for everyσ ∈ Stx′ we may computeix′(σ) as|σ(t) − t|x′ , wheret ∈ κ(x) is any element such that|t|x is the largest element inΓ+

x \ {1}.Assertion (ii) is then an immediate consequence. �

Lemma 3.3.10.For every subgroupH ⊂ G, denote byfH : X/H → D(a, a−1) the morphismdeduced fromf . The following identities hold:

δfH (− log r) = a♭G(C[G/H ], r+) for everyr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK

anddδfHdt

(− log r+) = sw♮G(C[G/H ], r+) for everyr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK .

Proof. (HereC[G/H ] = IndGH1H , where1H is the trivial character ofH.) First of all, oneapplies (3.3.1) to derive, as in [46, Ch.VI,§3, Cor.1] that

|d+fH(r)|♮η(r) = 〈a♮G(r

+), IndGH1H〉G and − log |d+fH(r)|♭η(r) = 〈a♭G(r

+), IndGH1H〉G

(notation of (2.3.12)), which already implies the first of the sought identities. Moreover wededuce:

〈sw♮G(r+), IndGH1H〉G = |d+fH(r)|

♮η(r) − 〈IndGStxuStx , Ind

GH1H〉G

= |d+fH(r)|♮η(r) + ♯(H\G/Stx)− (G : H).

which is equivalent to the second stated identity, in view oflemma 2.2.17(iii) and proposition2.3.17. �


3.3.11. Of course, one can also repeat the same discussion with the pointη′(r) instead ofη(r)(notation of (2.2.10)); then one obtains charactersa

♮G(r

−), a♭G(r−), sw♮G(r

−) and – in view ofexample (2.3.16) – the identity:

(3.3.12) −dδfdt

(− log r−) = 〈sw♮G(r−), regG〉G for everyr ∈ [a, b) ∩ ΓK .

Moreover we have :

Lemma 3.3.13.a♭G(r−) = a♭G(r

+).

Proof. In view of (3.3.3) and its analogue fora♭G(r−), we see that both sides of the sought

identity are elements ofR ⊗Z RQ(G) (notation of [47,§12.1]). By [47,§13.1, Th.30], it thensuffices to check thata♭G(C[G/H ], r−) = a♭G(C[G/H ], r+) for every (cyclic) subgroupH ⊂ G.The latter is clear, in light of lemma 3.3.10. �

Proposition 3.3.14.For everyχ ∈ K0(C[G]) the function

δf,χ : (log 1/b, log 1/a] ∩ log ΓK → R : − log r 7→ a♭G(χ, r+)

is the restriction of a piecewise linear continuous function defined on(log 1/b, log 1/a], and thefollowing identity holds :

dδf,χdt

(− log r+) = sw♮G(χ, r

+) for everyr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK .

Proof. Due to Artin’s theorem [47,§9.2, Cor.] we may assume thatχ is induced from a characterρ : H → C× of a cyclic subgroupH ⊂ G. Denote bya♭|H (resp.sw♮|H) the restriction toH of

a♭G (resp. ofsw♮G); by Frobenius reciprocity, we are reduced to showing that the map :

− log r 7→ 〈a♭|H(r+), ρ〉H

extends to a piecewise linear and continuous function, withright slope〈a♮|H(r+), ρ〉H . Let k

be the order ofρ, i.e. the smallest integer such thatρk = 1H ; we shall argue by inductionon k. For k = 1, ρ is the trivial character, and then the assertion follows from lemma 3.3.10.Hence, suppose thatk > 1 and that the assertion is known for all the characters ofH whoseorder is strictly smaller thank. There exists a unique subgroupL ⊂ H with (H : L) = k,andC[H/L] ⊂ C[H ] is the direct sum of all characters ofH whose orders dividek. Bylemma 3.3.10 the sought assertion is known for this direct sum of characters, and then ourinductive assumption implies that the assertion is also known for the sumρ′ := ρ1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ ρnof all characters ofH whose order equalsk. The latter are permuted under the natural actionof (Z/kZ)× on K0(C[H ]) (cp. [47, §9.1, Exerc.3]). Moreover, for anyj ∈ (Z/kZ)× letΨj : K0(C[H ]) → K0(C[H ]) be the corresponding operator.

Claim3.3.15. a♭|H = Ψj(a♭|H) for everyj ∈ (Z/kZ)×.

Proof of the claim.From [31, Lemma 2.6] it follows thatax(σ) = ax(τ) wheneverσ andτgenerate the same subgroup ofStx. The claim is a direct consequence. ♦

Using claim 3.3.15 we compute :

〈a♭|H(r+), ρ〉 = 〈Ψj(a

♭|H(r

+)),Ψj(ρ)〉 = 〈a♭|H(r+),Ψj(ρ)〉

for everyr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK and everyj ∈ (Z/kZ)×. Thus :

a♭G(χ, r+) =

a♭G(ρ, r+)

o((Z/kZ)×).

A similar argument yields a corresponding identity forsw♮G(χ, r

+), and concludes the proof ofthe proposition. �

54 LORENZO RAMERO

The following is the main result of this chapter.

Theorem 3.3.16.Suppose thatb = a−1, so that we can define the complex ofZℓ[G]-modules∆•

∞(X) as in(3.2.12). Then we have the identity :

[Q⊗Z ∆•∞(X)[1]] = sw

♮G(1

+) + sw♮G(1

−).

Proof. We begin with the following:

Claim 3.3.17. For every abelian subgroupH ⊂ G we have a natural identification:

∆•∞(X)H = ∆•

∞(X/H).

Proof of the claim.Indeed, letp1,. . . ,pk be the prime ideals of(B◦)H lying overP (notation of(3.2.5)); for everyj := 1, . . . , k letSj be the set of the prime ideals ofB◦ lying overpj . Clearly⋃kj=1 Sj = {q1, . . . , qn}, and for everyj ≤ k the subgroupH stabilizes the direct sum

∆•∞(X,Sj) :=

⊕

q∈Sj

∆•∞(X, q).

Let Lj ⊂ H be the stabilizer of any (hence each) element ofSj ; by lemma 3.2.27 we have anatural identification:

∆•∞(X,Sj)

Lj =⊕

q∈Sj

∆•∞(X/Lj, q

Lj) =⊕

q∈Sj

∆•∞(X/H, pj).

However, the quotientH/Lj permutes transitively the summands of∆•∞(X,Sj)

Lj , whence theclaim. ♦

Claim 3.3.18. For every cyclic subgroupH ⊂ G we have:

(3.3.19) 〈[Q⊗Z ∆•∞(X)[1]],C[G/H ]〉G = 〈sw♮G(1

+) + sw♮G(1

−),C[G/H ]〉G.

Proof of the claim.We use the morphismh := Spaψ◦f defined in example 2.3.13. ForH ⊂ Gany cyclic subgroup, sethH := Spaψ ◦ fH . In view of proposition 3.2.30 and claim 3.3.17, andarguing as in the proof of theorem 2.3.35, we see that the left-hand side of (3.3.19) computes(−1) times the left slope at the point0 of the discriminant function ofhH . But combininglemma 3.3.10, (3.3.12) and example 2.3.16 we conclude that also the right-hand side admits thesame interpretation. ♦

Sincesw♯G(1+)+ sw

♯G(1

−) is a rational valued function onG, the theorem follows from claim3.3.18, theorem 3.2.17(ii) and [47,§13.1, Th.30]. �

Corollary 3.3.20. Keep the notation of proposition3.3.14. For every complex representationρ of G, the functionδf,ρ is the restriction of a non-negative, piecewise linear, continuous, andconvex real-valued function defined on(log 1/b, log 1/a], with integer slopes.

Proof. Continuity and piecewise linearity are already known from proposition 3.3.14, andδf,ρtakes values inR≥0, by lemma 3.3.4(i),(ii). In view of [31, Th.4.1], proposition 3.3.14 alsoimplies that the slopes ofδf,ρ are integer. Finally, letr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK be a radius such that theleft and right slope ofδf,ρ are different at the value− log r; up to restricting the coveringf , andrescaling the coordinate, we may assume thatr = 1 andb = a−1, in which case theorem 3.3.16,lemma 3.3.13 and (3.3.12) yield the identity :

(3.3.21) 〈[Q⊗Z ∆•∞(X)][1], ρ〉G =

dδf,ρdt

(0+)−dδf,ρdt

(0−).

However, lemma 3.2.15 implies that the left-hand side of (3.3.21) is a non-negative integer forany representationρ, whence the contention. �


3.3.22. Next we consider modular representations ofG. Namely, letΛ be a complete discretevaluation ring with residue fieldΛ of positive characteristicℓ 6= p, and field of fractionsΛQ :=Λ[1/ℓ] of characteristic zero. We assume that we are also given a fixed imbedding ofΛQ intothe field of complex numbers :

(3.3.23) ΛQ → C.

As usual (cp. (3.2.9)), for any groupH we denote byK0(Λ[H ]) (resp. byK0(Λ[H ])) theGrothendieck group of the category ofΛ[H ]-modules of finite rank overΛ (resp. of projectiveΛ[H ]-modules of finite rank). We shall also considerK0(ΛQ[H ]) = K0(ΛQ[H ]). The tensorproduct (overΛ) induces a ring structure on these groups, and according to [47,§15.5, Prop.43]there is a commutative diagram of ring homomorphisms :

K0(Λ[H ])cH

//

eH''NNNNNNNNNNN

K0(Λ[H ])

K0(ΛQ[H ])

dH

77ppppppppppp

such thatdH andeH are adjoint maps for the natural bilinear pairing

〈·, ·〉H : K0(Λ[H ])×K0(Λ[H ]) → Z

i.e. we have the identity ([47,§15.4]) :

(3.3.24) 〈ρ, dH(χ)〉H = 〈eH(ρ), χ〉H for everyχ ∈ K0(ΛQ[H ]) andρ ∈ K0(Λ[H ]).

3.3.25. For instance, for everyr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK there exists a unique elementsw♮G(r+) ∈

K0(Λ[G]) such thatsw♮G(r+) = eG(sw

♮G(r

+)). Likewise, by inspecting (3.3.3) we see that thereexist elements

a♭G(r+) ∈ R⊗Z K

0(Λ[G]) a♭St

(p)x(r+) ∈ R⊗Z K

0(Λ[St(p)x ])

such that :

a♭St

(p)x(r+) = e

St(p)x(a♭St

(p)x(r+)) a♭G(r

+) = eG(a♭G(r

+)) a♭G(r+) = IndG

St(p)xa♭St

(p)x(r+).

Now, letχ ∈ K0(Λ[G]) be any element; we define the function :

δf,χ : (log 1/b, log 1/a] ∩ log ΓK → C − log r 7→ 〈a♭G(r+), χ〉G.

Proposition 3.3.26. If χ is the class of aΛ-linear representation (i.e. a positive element ofK0(Λ[G])), thenδf,χ is the restriction of a non-negative, piecewise linear, convex and continu-ous real-valued function defined on(log 1/b, log 1/a], and moreover :

(3.3.27)dδf,χdt

(− log r+) = 〈sw♮G(r+), χ〉G

Proof. According to [47,§16.1, Th.33], we may findχ ∈ K0(ΛQ[G]) ⊂ K0(C[G]) such thatdG(χ) = χ. For everyr ∈ (a, b] ∩ ΓK , we compute :

δf,χ(− log r) = 〈a♭G(r+), dG(χ)〉G = 〈a♭G(r

+), χ〉G

and then piecewise linearity, continuity, as well as (3.3.27) follow from proposition 3.3.14.SinceResG

St(p)x(χ) = d−1

St(p)x

◦ResGSt

(p)x(χ) is a positive element ofK0(C[St

(p)x ]), lemma 3.3.4(i),(ii)

implies thatδf,χ(− log r) ∈ [0,+∞).As for the convexity, notice that we cannot apply directly corollary 3.3.20, since the element

χ ∈ K0(C[G]) may fail to be positive. Nevertheless, the argument proceeds along the samelines : letr ∈ (a, b]∩ΓK be a radius such that the left and right slopes ofδf,χ are different at the

56 LORENZO RAMERO

value− log r; we may assume thatb = a−1 andr = 1, in which case the class[∆•∞(X)[1]] ∈

K0(Zℓ[G]) is well defined and positive. Clearly we have :

[Q⊗Z ∆•∞(X)[1]] = eG([∆

•(X,∆)[1]])

(notation of (3.2.5)). Then we compute using theorem 3.3.16, lemma 3.3.13 and (3.3.12) :

(3.3.28)dδf,χdt

(0+)−dδf,χdt

(0−) = 〈[Q⊗Z ∆•∞(X)][1], χ〉G = 〈[∆•(X,∆)[1]], χ〉G

where again the last identity follows from (3.3.24). To conclude we apply proposition 3.2.10(iii)to deduce the sought positivity of the right-most term in (3.3.28). �

Next, we wish to investigate the continuity properties of the higher ramification filtration.These are gathered in the following :

Theorem 3.3.29.In the situation of(3.3), there existsr′ ∈ (a, r) and, for everys ∈ (r′, r]∩ΓK,a pointx(s) ∈ f−1(η(s)) such that :

(i) The stabilizerStx(s) ⊂ G of x(s) under the naturalG-action onf−1(η(s)), is a sub-group independent ofs.

(ii) The length of the higher ramification filtration ofStx(s) = Gal(κ(x(s))∧h/κ(s)∧h) :

Pγn(s) ⊂ · · · ⊂ Pγ1(s) ⊂ St(p)x(s)

is independent ofs ∈ (r′, r] ∩ ΓK .(iii) Setγ♮k := γk(r)

♮ for everyk ≤ n. Then :

γk(s) = (s/r)γ♮k · γk(r) for everys ∈ (r′, r] ∩ ΓK .

Proof. Chooser′ ∈ (a, r) ∩ ΓK such that the discriminant functionδf has constant left slopeon [r′, r] ∩ ΓK . Up to rescaling the coordinates, we may assume thatr = a andr′ = a−1

with a := |π| for someπ ∈ m. ThenD(r′, r) = D(a, a−1) = SpaA(a, a−1), andA◦ :=A(a, a−1)◦ = K+〈S, T 〉/(S · T − π2). Also, there is no harm in replacingX by its restrictionto f−1(D(r′, r)). LetB be an affinoidK-algebra such thatX = SpaB, and denote byP ⊂ A◦

the unique maximal ideal such thatS, T ∈ P. Let q1, . . . , qk ⊂ B◦ be the maximal ideals lyingoverP.

Claim 3.3.30. For everys ∈ (a, a−1] ∩ ΓK and everyi ≤ k there is exactly one pointxi(s) ∈f−1(η(s)) such thatκ(xi(s))+ dominatesB◦

qi.

Proof of the claim.One argues as in the proof of theorem 2.4.3, using (2.4.4) : the details shallbe left to the reader. ♦

By standard arguments we may find an etale ring homomorphismφ : A◦ → C such that :

• SpecC is connected,P′ := PC is a maximal ideal ofC, and the induced mapA◦/P →C/P′ is an isomorphism.

• SpecC ⊗A◦ B◦ is the union ofk connected components, which are therefore in naturalbijection with the set{q1, . . . , qk}.

Let C∧ be theπ-adic completion ofC; thenC∧K := C∧ ⊗K+ K is an affinoidK-algebra,

and the induced morphism of affinoid spacesg : Y := SpaC∧K → D(a, a−1) is etale ([30,

Cor.1.7.3(iii)]).

Claim 3.3.31. (i) (C∧K)

◦ = C∧.

(ii) g restricts to an isomorphismYt := g−1(D(a/|t|, |t|/a))∼→ D(a/|t|, |t|/a), for every

t ∈ m \ {0}.(iii) For everys ∈ (a, a−1] ∩ ΓK , the preimageg−1(η(s)) consists of one point.


Proof of the claim.(i): SinceC is K+-flat, the same holds forC∧ (cp. the proof of lemma1.3.6); moreoverC/mC is reduced, since it is etale over the reduced ringA∼ (notation of(2.2.4)). Then the assertion follows from lemma 2.3.2.

Next, denote byA◦hP (resp.Ch

P′) the henselization ofA◦ (resp. ofC) alongP (resp. alongP′); for everyt ∈ m \ {0}, the mapA◦ → A◦

t := A(a/|t|, |t|/a)◦ (dual to the open immersionD(a/|t|, |t|/a) ⊂ D(a, a−1)) factors through a natural morphismA◦h

P → A◦t . Sinceφ induces

an isomorphismA◦hP

∼→ Ch

P′, assertion (ii) follows easily. This implies already assertion (iii),for everys ∈ (a, a−1) ∩ ΓK . It remains to show that there exists exactly one point iny ∈ Ylying overη(a−1); in view of (i), this is the same as showing thatC ⊗K+ K admits exactly onecontinuous valuation| · |y : C ⊗K+ K → Γy ∪ {0} such that

|t|y = |t|η(a−1) for everyt ∈ A◦ and |t|y ≤ 1 for everyt ∈ C.

These valuations are in natural bijection with the set of valuations| · |y on C/mC such that|t|y = |t|♮η(a−1) for the classt ∈ A∼ of every elementt ∈ A◦ \ mA◦. But sinceC/mC is etaleoverA∼ andP′ is a prime ideal, there is exactly one such valuation| · |y. ♦

LetZ := X ×D(a,a−1) Y ; thenZ = SpaC∧K ⊗A◦ B◦. SetD := C∧ ⊗A◦ B◦.

Claim3.3.32. O+Z (Z) = D andD is henselian along its idealmD.

Proof of the claim.Obviously the second assertion follows from the first. SinceB◦ is a finitelypresentedA◦-module (lemma 2.3.1),D is theπ-adic completion ofC ⊗A◦ B◦, and since thelatter is flat overK+, the same holds forD (cp. the proof of lemma 1.3.6). Furthermore,D/mD = (C/mC) ⊗A∼ B∼. By lemma 2.3.2, the ringB∼ is reduced, hence the same holdsfor D/mD, and then the claim follows by a second application of lemma 2.3.2. ♦

It follows from claim 3.3.32 and the construction ofC, thatZ splits as the disjoint union ofkopen and closed subsetsZqi (i = 1, . . . , k), in natural bijection with the setΣ := {q1, . . . , qk},and such that precisely one prime ideal ofO

+Z (Zqi) lies overP′, for everyi ≤ k. Choose

arbitrarilyq ∈ Σ, and letZq ⊂ Z be the corresponding open and closed subset. The restrictionh : Zq → Y of f ×D(a,a−1) Y is a finite Galois etale morphism, whose Galois group is thestabilizerSt(q) ⊂ G of q for the naturalG-action onΣ. Furthermore, combining claims 3.3.30,3.3.31 we deduce that, for everys ∈ (a, a−1] ∩ ΓK there exists precisely one pointz(s) ∈ Zq

such that{h(z(s))} = g−1(η(s)); sety(s) := h(z(s)) for every suchs. Let g′ : Zq → X bethe restriction ofX ×D(a,b) g, and setx(s) := g′(z(s)) for everys ∈ (a, a−1] ∩ ΓK . Sinceg′

is equivariant for the action ofSt(q), we see that this family(x(s) | s ∈ (a, a−1] ∩ ΓK) fulfillscondition (i); indeed we haveStx(s) = St(q) for each pointx(s).

Claim3.3.33. For everys ∈ (a, a−1] ∩ ΓK , the following holds :

(i) The natural mapsκ(s) → κ(y(s)) andκ(x(s)) → κ(z(s)) induceSt(q)-equivariantidentifications :

κ(s)∧h+∼→ κ(y(s))∧h+ and κ(x(s))∧h+

∼→ κ(z(s))∧h+

(ii) The mapκ(y(s)) → κ(z(s)) is a finite field extension, andκ(z(s)) = (h∗OZq)y(s).

Proof of the claim.(i): For s < a−1 this is already clear from claim 3.3.31(ii); indeed in this caseone does not need to complete, nor to henselize, to obtain isomorphisms. For the case wheres = a−1, setD := κ(a−1)∧h+ ⊗A◦ C, and letDν ⊂ D be the normalization ofκ(a−1)∧h+ in D.ThenSpecD andSpecDν have the same number of irreducible components; moreoverDν is aproduct of finitely many valuation rings, each of which is a finite extension ofκ(a−1)∧h+. SinceC admits only one valuation extending| · |η(a−1), we deduce that precisely one of the irreduciblecomponents ofSpecD is finite overκ(a−1)∧h+. Let V be the direct factor ofD correspondingto this irreducible component; thenV ∩ Frac(C) is the valuation ring of the field of fractions

58 LORENZO RAMERO

Frac(C), corresponding toy(a−1) ∈ Y . On the one hand, the extensionκ(a−1)∧h+ → V isetale, hence an isomorphism; on the other hand, the naturalmapV → κ(y(a−1))∧h+ induces abijection on value groups, so the mapκ(a−1)∧h+ → κ(y(a−1))∧h+ is an isomorphism, as stated.The remaining assertion concerningκ(x(a−1))∧h+ is an easy consequence; the details shall beleft to the reader.

(ii): It suffices to show thatz(s) admits a cofinal system of open neighborhoodsU ⊂ Zq suchthat the restrictionh|U : U → h(U) is finite. However, letV ⊂ Zq be any open neighborhoodof z(s); since{z(s)} = h−1(h(z(s))), the subsetU := h−1(Y \h(Zq\V )) ⊂ V is also an openneighborhood ofz(s), and clearlyh|U is finite. ♦

Claim3.3.34. LetU ⊂ Zq be an open neighborhood ofz(a−1), t ∈ OZ(U) any section, and setk := |t|♮z(a−1). Then there existsr ∈ (a, a−1) such that :

(i) z(s) ∈ U for everys ∈ [r, a−1] ∩ ΓK .(ii) |t|z(s) = |t|z(a−1) · (s · a)

k for everys ∈ [r, a−1] ∩ ΓK .

Proof of the claim.Notice that claim 3.3.33(ii), and lemma 1.1.17(iii) imply that the spectralnorm induced on theκ(y(s))-algebraκ(z(s)) agrees with the valuation| · |z(s), for everys ∈(a, a−1] ∩ ΓK . Then we may argue as in the proof of lemma 2.2.20, to reduce the claim to thespecial case whereZq = Y andh is the identity map, thereforeU ⊂ Y is an open neighborhoodof y(s) and t ∈ OY (U). In such case, in view of claim 3.3.33(i), we may findt′ ∈ κ(a−1)such that|t/t′|y(a−1) = 1. Thent/t′ extends to a section ofO+

Y over an open subsetU ′ ⊂ Ucontainingy(a−1), and up to restrictingU ′ we may assume thatt/t′ is invertible inO

+Y (U

′).Applying again claim 3.3.33(i) we see that|t|y(s) = |t′|η(s) for everys ∈ [s, a−1]∩ΓK such thaty(s) ∈ U ′, and then both assertions follow from lemma 2.2.20. ♦

Let d := o(Stq), and pickt ∈ κ(z(a−1)) such that

|t|z(a−1) = (1− ε)1/d.

By claim 3.3.34, there exists an open neighborhoodU ⊂ Zq of z(a−1) andr ∈ (a, a−1) suchthatt ∈ OZ(U), z(s) ∈ U for everys ∈ [r, a−1] ∩ ΓK and :

(3.3.35) |t|z(s) = |t|z(a−1) · (s · a)1/d = (1− ε)1/d · (s · a)1/d for everys ∈ [r, a−1] ∩ ΓK .

Let σ ∈ St(q) be any element; by definition, we have :

iz(a−1)(σ) = |t− σ(t)|z(a−1).

Now, let s ∈ [r, a−1] ∩ ΓK , and choosec ∈ K× such that|c| = (s · a)1/d; in view of (3.3.35),we also obtain the identity :

(3.3.36) iz(s)(σ) = |c−1 · t− σ(c−1 · t)|z(s) = (s · a)−1/d · |t− σ(t)|z(s).

Setk := iz(a−1)(σ)♮; if we apply claim 3.3.34 tot− σ(t), we can rewrite (3.3.36) in the form :

iz(s)(σ) = (s · a)k−1/d · |t− σ(t)|z(a−1) = (s · a)k−1/d · iz(a−1)(σ)

which easily yields assertions (ii) and (iii). �

3.3.37. Clearly, the analogue of theorem 3.3.29 holds also for the fibres over the pointsη′(s)(see (3.3.11)). Namely, suppose thatr ∈ [a, b); then there existsr′ ∈ (r, a−1) and for everys ∈ [r, r′) ∩ ΓK a pointx′(s) ∈ f−1(η′(s)) such that :

• The stabilizer subgroupStx′(s) ⊂ G of x′(s) under the naturalG-action onf−1(η′(s)),is independent ofs.


• The length of the higher ramification filtration :

Pβm(s) ⊂ · · · ⊂ Pβ1(s) ⊂ St(p)x′(s)

of Stx′(s) = Gal(κ(x′(s))∧h/κ′(s)∧h) is independent ofs ∈ [r, r′) ∩ ΓK .• Setβ♮k := βk(r)

♮ for everyk ≤ m. Then :

βk(s) = (s/r)−β♮k · βk(r) for everys ∈ [r, r′) ∩ ΓK .

In other words, at the left (resp. at the right), of everyr ∈ (a, b) ∩ ΓK , the higher ramificationfiltrations of the points lying overη(s) (resp. η′(s)) for s sufficiently close tor, change in acontinuous – indeed linear – fashion. To get the complete picture, we must also analyze whathappens when we switch from the left to the right of a given radiusr, i.e. we need to understandhow the filtrations(Pγi(r) | i = 1, . . . , n) and(Pβi(r) | i = 1, . . . , m) are related. The key isto compare both ramification filtrations to a third one, attached to the finite Galois extensionκ(r♭) ⊂ κ(x(r)♭) = κ(x′(r)♭) (see [30, Prop.1.5.4]). To this aim, we make the following :

Definition 3.3.38. Let f : X → D(a, b) be a Galois finite etale covering, with Galois groupG, x ∈ X a point of type (III) andx♭ its unique proper generization (notation of (2.2.8)). LetSt♭x ⊂ G be the stabilizer subgroup of the pointx♭, under the natural action ofG on f−1f(x♭).ThenSt♭x is naturally identified with the Galois groupGal(κ(x♭)∧/κ(f(x♭))∧). For any givenc ∈ K+ \ {0} we set :

P ♭γ := Ker(St♭x → Aut(κ(x♭)∧+ ⊗K+ K+/cK+)) whereγ := |c|.

ClearlyP ♭γ is a normal subgroup ofSt♭x for everyγ ∈ Γ+

K . and the sequence(P ♭γ | γ ∈ Γ+

K) iscalled thehigher ramification filtrationof St♭x.

Proposition 3.3.39.Letx ∈ X be as in(3.3), and let(Pγ | γ ∈ Γ+x ) (resp. (P ♭

γ | γ ∈ Γ+K)) be

the higher ramification filtration ofStx (resp. ofSt♭x). ThenStx ⊂ St♭x and moreover :

P ♭γ =

⋃

n∈Z

Pγn0 ·γ for everyγ ∈ Γ+K \ {1}.

(Hereγ0 is the largest element ofΓ+x \ {1}.)

Proof. The first assertion is obvious. Next, let{x1, . . . , xk} := f−1f(x) be the orbit ofx = x1under theG-action; in light of lemma 2.2.2, we see thatκ(xi)∧ = κ(x♭)∧ for everyi ≤ k, andthe ringsκ(xi)∧+ are the valuation rings of the fieldκ(x♭)∧ that dominateκ(f(x))∧+. Let Cbe the integral closure ofκ(f(x))∧+ in κ(x♭)∧; C is semilocal ring, whose localizations at themaximal ideals are the valuation ringsκ(xi)∧+; applying [41, Th.1.4] we may then findt ∈ Csuch that :

(3.3.40) |t|∧x = 1 and |t|∧xi < 1 for everyi = 2, . . . , k.

Suppose now thatσ ∈ St♭x \ Stx; (3.3.40) implies easily that|σ(t)− t|∧x♭

= (|σ(t)− t|∧x )♭ = 1,

henceσ /∈ P ♭γ wheneverγ < 1, in other words :

(3.3.41) P ♭γ ⊂ Stx for everyγ < 1.

Thus, supposeσ ∈ P ♭γ for someγ < 1, and chooset ∈ κ(x)∧ such that|t|x = γ0; due to

(3.3.41), we have :ix(σ)♭ = |σ(t)− t|♭x ≤ γ, whenceP ♭γ ⊂ P ′

γ :=⋃n∈Z Pγn0 ·γ.

Conversely, supposeσ ∈ Pγ for someγ ∈ Γ+x such thatγ♭ < 1; by definition, this means that

|σ(t)−t|x < γ for everyt ∈ κ(x)∧+ ([31, Lemma 2.1(ii)]). Lets ∈ κ(x♭)∧+; thenc·s ∈ κ(x)∧+

for everyc ∈ m, hence :

|c| · |σ(s)− s| = |σ(c · s)− c · s|x < γ

60 LORENZO RAMERO

therefore|σ(c · s)− c · s|x < γ · |c|−1 for everyc ∈ m \ {0} and consequently|σ(s)− s|♭x ≤ γ♭,i.e. σ ∈ P ♭

γ♭, which shows thatP ′

γ ⊂ P ♭γ for everyγ ∈ Γ+

K \ {1}, as stated. �

Remark 3.3.42.If we apply proposition 3.3.39 to a pair of pointsx, x′ ∈ X lying overη(r) andrespectivelyη′(r), and such thatx♭ = x′♭, we see that both ramification filtrations “to the left”and “to the right” of the radiusr can be compared to the same “central” ramification filtrationfor St♭x = St♭x′ . This expresses the sought continuity property for the jumps of the ramificationfiltrations.

4. LOCAL SYSTEMS ON THE PUNCTURED DISC

In this chapter we fix a complete and algebraically closed valued field(K, | · |) of rank oneand of zero characteristic. We shall use the standard notation of (2.2), and we suppose that thecharacteristic of the residue fieldK∼ is p > 0.

4.1. Break decomposition. Let Λ be an artinian localZ[1/p]-algebra whose residue fieldΛhas positive characteristicℓ 6= p; we assume that the groupΛ× of invertible elements ofΛcontains a subgroup isomorphic toµp∞ :=

⋃n>0 µpn (whereµpn denotes the group ofpn-th

roots of one contained inK×), and we fix such an imbedding :

(4.1.1) µp∞ ⊂ Λ×.

Moreover, we shall also suppose thatΛ is the filtered union of its finite subrings. This lattercondition is motivated by the following :

Lemma 4.1.2. Let X be a quasi-compact analytic adic space overK, F a locally constantconstructibleΛ-module on theetale siteXet of X. Then there exists a finite subringΛ′ ⊂ Λand a locally constant constructibleΛ′-moduleF ′ onXet such thatF ≃ F ′ ⊗Λ Λ′.

Proof. This lemma – stated in the language of Berkovich’s non-archimedean analytic varieties– appears in [42, Lemma 4.1.8]. We sketch here the argument inthe case of adic spaces. First,using [30, Lemma 1.4.7, Cor.1.7.4] we find finitely many affinoid open subsetsU1, . . . , Un ⊂X coveringX, and for eachi ≤ n a finite etale morphismfi : Vi → Ui such thatf ∗

i F|Ui

is a constantΛ-module, whose stalk (at some chosen geometric point ofVi) we denoteMi.ThenVi is an affinoid adic space for everyi ≤ n ([30, §1.4.4]), hence the same holds forWi := Vi ×Ui

Vi, especially the setπ0(Wi) of connected components ofWi is finite. Then thedescent datum forF|Ui

relative to the morphismfi amounts to a finite set ofΛ-automorphisms(φij | j ∈ π0(Wi)) of Mi, fulfilling a certain cocycle condition. SinceMi is of finite typeandΛ is noetherian, we may find a finite subringΛi ⊂ Λ, a finiteΛi-moduleM ′

i and a set ofautomorphisms(φ′

ij | j ∈ π0(Wi)) such thatMi ≃ M ′i ⊗Λi

Λ andφij = φ′j ⊗Λi

1Λ for everyi ≤ n andj ∈ π0(Wi). Furthermore, after replacingΛi by some larger finite subring, we canachieve that the cocycle conditions are still fulfilled by the system(φ′

ij | j ∈ π0(Wi)); hencethe latter furnishes a descent datum forM ′

i relative tofi, whence aΛi-moduleF ′i onUi,et such

thatF ′i ⊗Λi

Λ ≃ F|Ui. Next, letUij := Ui ∩ Uj for everyi, j ≤ n, so thatF is defined by a

cocycle system of isomorphisms(F ′i ⊗Λi

Λ)|Uij

∼→ (F ′

j ⊗ΛjΛ)|Uij

. Again, these isomorphismsare already defined over some larger subringΛij ⊃ Λi + Λj, and the claim follows easily. �

Remark 4.1.3. (i) Keep the situation of lemma 4.1.2; an easy corollary is the following fact.There exists a finite etale coveringf : Y → X such thatf ∗F is a constantΛ-module onYet.

(ii) This is in general false, ifΛ is not a filtered union of finite subrings : for a counterex-ample, consider an elliptic curveE overK, with bad reduction overK+; it is well known thatthe associated analytic spaceEan can be uniformized by the analytic torusGan

m,K , and the cor-responding etale coveringGan

m,K → Ean is Galois with groupG ≃ Z. If we takeΛ := Fℓ(T ),


we may define an actionχ : G → EndΛ(L) on a one-dimensionalΛ-vector spaceL, by let-ting a generatorσ ∈ G act as multiplication byT . The characterχ defines a locally constantconstructibleΛ-module onEan

et that trivializes onGanm,K , but does not trivialize on any finite

covering ofEan.

4.1.4. LetF a constructible, locally constant and locally free sheaf ofΛ-modules on the etalesite of thepunctured discof radius one,i.e. the analytic adic space

D(1)∗ := D(1) \ {0}

where0 ∈ D(1) is the closed point corresponding to the valuation given by the rule :f(ξ) 7→|f(0)| for everyf ∈ A(1) (notation of (2.2.7)). Following [31,§8], for everyr ∈ Γ+

K onedefines the Swan conductor of the stalkFη(r), viewed as a representation of the Galois group ofthe algebraic closure of the henselian fieldκ(r)∧h :

(4.1.5) π1(r) := Gal((κ(r)∧h)a : κ(r)∧h).

This conductor is a (possibly negative) integer which we shall denote by :

sw♮(F, r+).

(Huber denotes this quantity byαx(F ) in loc.cit., with x := η(r).)

4.1.6. In this chapter we wish to investigate the propertiesof the function

(4.1.7) − log Γ+K → Z : − log r 7→ sw♮(F, r+).

To start out, the identity ([31, Lemma 8.1(iii)]) :

sw♮(F, r+) = lengthΛΛ · sw♮(F ⊗Λ Λ, r+)

reduces the study ofsw♮(F, r+) to that ofsw♮(F ⊗Λ Λ, r). Now, for everyr ∈ Γ+K let us fix

a finite Galois etale coveringfr : Xr → D(r, 1) such thatf ∗rF|D(r,1) is a constant sheaf (since

D(r, 1) is a quasi-compact open subspace ofD(1)∗, the existence offr is ensured by remark4.1.3(i)). LetGr be the Galois group of the coveringfr; the sheaf(F ⊗Λ Λ)|D(r,1) can beregarded in the usual way as a finite dimensionalΛ-linear representation ofG, in other words,as a positive elementχ ∈ K0(Λ[G]). By inspecting the definitions we find the identity :

sw♮(F, s+) = lengthΛΛ · 〈sw♮Gr(s+), χ〉Gr for everys ∈ (r, 1] ∩ ΓK .

This leads us to set :

δF (− log s) := lengthΛΛ · δfr ,χ(− log s) for everys ∈ (r, 1] ∩ ΓK

(notation of (3.3.25)). Suppose now thatf ′r : X ′

r → D(r, 1) is another Galois covering thatdominatesf ′

r (i.e. such thatf ′r factors throughfr). LetG′ be the Galois group off ′

r, and setχ′ :=ResGG′χ; it follows easily from (3.3.6) thatδfr ,χ = δf ′r ,χ′ . Since any two Galois etale coveringsare dominated by a common one, we deduce that the functionδF thus defined is independent ofthe choice off . Especially, letr′ < r be another positive real number inΓK , choose a Galoisetale coveringfr′ : X ′ → D(r′, 1) trivializing F , letχ′ be theΛ[Gr′ ]-module corresponding to(F ⊗Λ Λ)|D(r′,1) and define the functionδ′F := lengthΛΛ · δfr′ ,χ′ : (0, log 1/r′] ∩ log ΓK → R;it follows easily thatδ′F agrees withδF wherever the latter is defined. Hence, by patching theselocally defined function, we obtain a well defined mapping :

δF : − log Γ+K → R.

Proposition 4.1.8. In the situation of (4.1.4), the mappingδF is the restriction of a non-negative, piecewise linear, continuous and convex real-valued function. Moreover :

dδFdt

(− log r+) = sw♮(F, r+) for everyr ∈ Γ+K .

62 LORENZO RAMERO

Proof. All the hard work has already been done, and it remains only toinvoke proposition3.3.26. �

Corollary 4.1.9. In the situation of(4.1.4), the function :

− log Γ+K → Z − log r 7→ sw♮(F, r+)

is monotonically non-decreasing, and moreover :

sw♮(F, 0+) := limr→0+

sw♮(F, r+) ∈ N ∪ {+∞}.

Proof. The monotonicity follows from the convexity ofδF . The limit valuesw♮(F, 0+) cannotbe negative, sinceδF is non-negative. �

4.1.10. To advance further, we use the break decomposition of [31, §8]. We choose the elegantpresentation of N.Katz in [34, Ch.1], which makes it transparent that this is really a generalrepresentation-theoretic device. Indeed, suppose thatH is a finite group with a unique (hencenormal)p-Sylow subgroupP , and assume thatP admits a finite descending filtration :

Pn := {1} ⊂ Pn−1 ⊂ · · ·P1 ⊂ P0 := P

consisting of subgroupsPi normal inH for everyi ≤ n. LetR be anyZ[1/p]-algebra, and foreveryi ≤ n let us define the element :

ei :=1

o(Pi)

∑

g∈Pi

g ∈ R[H ].

SincePi is normal inH, everyei is a central idempotent element inR[H ]. One verifies easilythat the central idempotents :

e0, e1 · (1− e0), e2 · (1− e1), · · · , en · (1− en−1) = 1− en−1

are orthogonal and sum to1, hence define a natural decomposition ofR[H ] in n + 1 directfactors. Correspondingly, everyR[H ]-moduleM admits abreak decomposition:

M =M−1 ⊕M0 ⊕ · · · ⊕Mn−1

intoR[H ]-submodules such that :

M−1 =MP MPii = 0 for everyi ≥ 0 and M

Pj

i =Mi wheneverj > i.

Furthermore, for everyi ≤ n the ruleM 7→ Mi defines an exact functor :R[H ]-Mod →R[H ]-Mod, and for every pair ofR[H ]-modulesM , N we have :

HomR[H](Mi, Nj) = 0 wheneveri 6= j.

One deduces easily that :

(4.1.11)

Mi ⊗R Nj ⊂ (M ⊗R N)max(i,j) if i 6= jMi ⊗R Ni ⊂

∑j≤i(M ⊗R N)j for everyi = −1, . . . , n

HomR(Mi, Nj)⊂HomR(M,N)max(i,j) if i 6= jHomR(Mi, Ni)⊂

∑j≤iHomR(M,N)j for everyi = −1, . . . , n.

See [34, Lemma 1.3] for details. Moreover, the break decomposition is invariant under arbitrarybase-changeR→ R′, i.e. we have :

(4.1.12) (M ⊗R R′)i =Mi ⊗R R

′ for everyi ≤ n.


4.1.13. The generalities of (4.1.10) shall be applied to thegroupH := Stx of (3.3) and itshigher ramification filtration, and withR := Λ. However, for book-keeping purposes, it isconvenient to replace the lower-numbering indexing of thisfiltration, by a upper-numbering one.With our current notation, this is defined as follows. First,one considers the order-preservingbijection :

φ : Q⊗Z Γx → Q⊗Z Γx γ 7→∏

g∈Stx

max(γ, i(g)/γ0)

whereγ0 ∈ Γ+x is defined as in (2.2.14). Notice thatφ maps(Q⊗Z Γx)

+ bijectively onto itself.Next we let :

P γ := Pφ−1(γ) for everyγ ∈ Γ+x .

If γ1 > · · · > γn−1 > γn are the jumps in the family(Pγ | γ ∈ Γ+x ) that are less than1, we

obtain therefore a finite filtration ofStx :

{1} ⊂ P φ(γn) ⊂ P φ(γn−1) ⊂ · · · ⊂ P φ(γ1) ⊂ P

whereP is the p-Sylow subgroup ofStx. If now M is anyΛ-module, we derive a breakdecomposition as in (4.1.10) :

M =M(1)⊕M(φ(γ1))⊕ · · · ⊕M(φ(γn))

such thatM(1) =MP and :(4.1.14)M(φ(γi))

Pφ(γi) = 0 for everyi ≤ n and M(φ(γi))Pφ(γj)

=M(φ(γi)) wheneverj > i.

The valuesφ(γi) such thatM(φ(γi)) 6= 0 are calledthe breaksof M .

4.1.15. Especially, letF be as in (4.1.4), andr ∈ Γ+K . Choosea ∈ (0, r) ∩ ΓK and a finite

Galois etale coveringfa : Xa → D(a, 1) trivializing F|D(a,1). Denote byGa the Galois groupof fa, pick any pointx ∈ f−1

a (η(r)), and letStx ⊂ Ga be the stabilizer ofx. The stalkFr := Fη(r) is aΛ[Ga]-module of finite type, hence aΛ[Stx]-module, by restriction. Then theupper numbering filtration ofStx yields a break decomposition :

(4.1.16) Fr = Fr(β0(r))⊕ Fr(β1(r))⊕ · · · ⊕ Fr(βn(r))

with 1 = β0(r) > β1(r) > · · · > βn(r). Of course, this is also aπ1(r)-equivariant decomposi-tion (notation of (4.1.5)).

Lemma 4.1.17.With the notation of(4.1.15), we have the identity :

δF (− log r) = −n∑

i=1

log βi(r)♭ · lengthΛ(Fr(βi(r))).

Proof. First, (4.1.12) allows to reduce to the case whereΛ = Λ. Then the sought identity isderived from (3.3.3) by a standard calculation (cp. the proof of [31, Prop.8.2 and Cor.8.4]).�

Lemma 4.1.18.In the situation of(4.1.15), chooser′ ∈ (a, r) such that the conditions(i) and(ii) of theorem3.3.29are fulfilled, withf := fa. Then, for everys ∈ (r′, r] ∩ ΓK :

(i) The length of the break decomposition ofFs :

Fs = Fs(β0(s))⊕ Fs(β1(s))⊕ · · · ⊕ Fs(βn(s))

is independent ofs.(ii) For every others′ ∈ (r′, r] ∩ ΓK , the isomorphismωs,s′ of theorem3.3.29(i) induces

equivariant isomorphismsFs(βk(s)) ≃ Fs′(βk(s′)), for everyk = 0, . . . , n.

(iii) Moreover, setβ♮k := βk(r)♮ for everyk ≤ n. Then :

βk(s) = (s/r)β♮k · βk(r) for everys ∈ (r′, r] ∩ ΓK .

64 LORENZO RAMERO

Proof. This is an exercise in translating from lower to upper numbering. Indeed, assertions(i) and (ii) are clear from theorem 3.3.29, and it remains only to show (iii). However, let{x(s) | s ∈ (r′, r] ∩ ΓK} be a family of points as in theorem 3.3.29 (withf := fa), andPγn(s) ⊂ · · · ⊂ Pγ1(s) ⊂ St

(p)x(s) the lower numbering ramification filtration ofStx(s). Let alsoγ0

be the largest element inΓ+x(s) \ {1}. Then, for everyk ≤ n we may compute :

βk(s) := φ(γk(s)) = γk(s)o(Pγk(s)) ·

∏

g∈Stx(s)\Pγk(s)

i(g)/γ0

= γk(s)o(Pγk(s)) ·

∏

1≤t<k

γt(s)o(Pγt(s)

)−o(Pγt+1(s))

so the sought identities follow from theorem 3.3.29(iii). �

4.2. Local systems with bounded ramification.We keep the notation of (4.1). Corollary4.1.9 suggests the following :

Definition 4.2.1. Let F be a locally constant and locally freeΛ-module of finite rank on theetale site ofD(1)∗. We say thatF hasbounded ramificationif sw♮(F, 0+) ∈ N.

The class of sheaves with bounded ramification includes thatof meromorphically ramifiedΛ-modules from [42]. The first result concerning these sheaves is :

Theorem 4.2.2.(i) If F andF ′ are twoΛ-modules with bounded ramification onD(1)∗et, thenF ⊗Λ F

′ andH omΛ(F, F′) have also bounded ramification.

(ii) Especially, ifΛ is a field, the full subcategory of the category ofΛ-modules onD(1)∗et,consisting of allΛ-modules with bounded ramification, is tannakian.

Proof. Of course (ii) follows from (i). To show assertion (i) forF⊗ΛF′, since we knowa priori

thatδF⊗ΛF ′ is piecewise linear, continuous and convex (proposition 4.1.8), it suffices to providea rough estimate on the rate of growth of the latter mapping, in terms ofδF andδF ′. However,for givenr ∈ Γ+

K let

Fr = Fr(1)⊕ Fr(γ1)⊕ · · · ⊕ Fr(γn) and F ′r = F ′

r(1)⊕ F ′r(γ

′1)⊕ · · · ⊕ F ′

r(γ′m)

be the break decompositions of the stalks ofF andF ′ over the pointη(r). We set :

λi := lengthΛFr(γi) xi := − log γ♭i for everyi ≤ n

andλ′j := lengthΛF

′r(γ

′j) yj := − log γ′♭j for everyj ≤ m.

Clearly(F ⊗Λ F′)η(r) = ⊕i,jFr(γi)⊗Λ F

′r(γ

′j), and using (4.1.11) and lemma 4.1.17 we arrive

at the inequality :

δF⊗ΛF ′(− log r) ≤∑

ij

xiyj ·max(λi, λ′j) ≤ (rkΛF ) · (rkΛF

′) ·max(δF (− log r), δF ′(− log r))

as required. A similar argument takes care ofH omΛ(F, F′) and concludes the proof of the

theorem. �

Example 4.2.3.Choose a coordinateT on A1K , (so thatA1

K = SpecK[T ]), and for everym ∈ N, denote byfm : A1

K → A1K the morphism such thatf ∗

m(T ) = Tm. The restriction offmto Gm,K := SpecK[T, T−1] is a torsor in the etale topology ofGm,K for the groupµm ⊂ K×,hence the analytificationf ad

m is aµm-torsor in the etale topology ofGadm,K . For every character

χ : µm → Λ×, we letK (χ) be the locally free rank oneΛ-module onD(1)∗et which is induced,via χ, by the restriction of the torsorf ad

m . Let n ≤ m be the order ofχ (i.e. the smallestk ∈ N


such thatχk is the trivial character), and denote byµ a chosen generator ofµn. It follows from[31, Ex.8.8] that :

sw♮(K (χ), r+) = 0 for everyr ∈ Γ+K .

Especially,K (χ) is aΛ-module with bounded ramification. Moreover, ifχ is not trivial, the(unique) break ofK (χ) equals|1− µ| for everyr ∈ Γ+

K .

Example 4.2.4.Keep the notation of example 4.2.3, and let :

D(1−) :=⋃

r∈Γ+K\{1}

D(r).

The morphism :

log : D(1−) → (A1K)

ad such that log∗(T ) =

∞∑

n=1

(−1)n−1

n· T n

is a torsor in the etale topology of(A1K)

ad for the constant groupµp∞ (see [31, Lemma 9.4] or[42, Lemma 6.1.1]). We denote byL the locally freeΛ-module on(A1

K)adet which is induced

by this torsor via the inclusion (4.1.1). The sheafL has been studied at length in [42]. Forinstance, one can show that for any two morphismsφ, ψ : (A1

K)ad → (A1

K)ad, there exists a

natural isomorphism :

(4.2.5) (φ∗L )⊗Λ (ψ∗

L ) ≃ (φ+ ψ)∗L

whereφ+ ψ is the addition ofφ andψ, regarded as sections of the structure sheaf of(A1K)

ad.Let g : Gm,K → A1

K be the morphism such thatg∗(T ) = T−1, and for everyq ∈ Q≥0, let(m,n) ∈ N2 be the unique pair of relatively prime integers such thatq = n/m; we set :

L (q) := fm∗ ◦ f∗n ◦ g

∗L

wherefm andfn are defined as in example 4.2.3. The following lemma 4.2.6 shows that thesheavesL (q)|D(1)∗ have bounded ramification.

Lemma 4.2.6.Let q ∈ Q>0, and writeq = n/m, with n,m ∈ N and (n,m) = 1; moreover,write n = paN , m = pbM , with a, b ≥ 0 and (N, p) = (M, p) = 1 (of course, eithera = 0or b = 0). Setλ := |p|1/(p−1) and l := lengthΛΛ. The following holds (notice thatδL (q)(ρ) isdefined for everyρ ∈ log ΓK) :

(i) δL (q) is the unique continuous piecewise linear function such that :(a) δL (q)(ρ) = 0 wheneverρ ≤ q−1 log λ.(b) The right slope ofδL (q) equals :

• lN on the interval[q−1 log λ, q−1 log |1/p||) ∩ log ΓK ;• lpjN on the interval[jq−1 log |1/p|, (j+1)q−1 log |1/p|)∩ log ΓK , for everyj = 1, . . . , a− 1.

• ln on the half-line[aq−1 log |1/p|,+∞) ∩ log ΓK .(ii) sw♮(L (q), 0+) = ln.

(iii) For everyq ∈ Q≥0, the sheafL (q)|D(1)∗ is indecomposable in the category of locallyfreeΛ-modules onD(1)∗et.

(iv) More precisely, for everyr ∈ ΓK , letπ1(r)(p) be the uniquep-Sylow subgroup ofπ1(r).Set :

r0 :=

{|p|(b−1)/q if b 6= 0λ−1/q if b = 0.

Then, for everyr ≤ r0, the stalkL (q)r is an indecomposableΛ[π1(r)(p)]-module(notation of (4.1.15)); especially,L (q)r has a unique breakβ(q, r).

66 LORENZO RAMERO

(v) Suppose thata = b = 0. Then :

β(q, r) =

{rq · (1− ε)q · λ · |p|−a for r ≤ λ−1/q

1 otherwise.

Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume thatΛ is a field, hencel = 1. Notice thatLis trivial on the discD(λ−) :=

⋃r<λD(r), hence :

δL (1)(ρ) = 0 wheneverρ < log λ.

In view of proposition 4.1.8,δL (1) is then completely determined, once we know its right de-rivative sw♮(L (1), ·). However, [31, Lemma 9.4] shows that :

sw♮(L (1), r+) = 1 wheneverr ≤ λ−1

which gives (i), forq = 1. Suppose now thatn = paN > 1 is an integer, and setP := pa;according to [31, Ex.8.8(i)], we have :

sw♮(L (n), r+) = sw♮(fk∗L (n), rn+) for everyr ∈ ΓK and everyk ∈ N

which translates as the identity :

(4.2.7)dδL (n)

dt(ρ+) =

dδfk∗L (n)

dt(kρ+) for everyρ ∈ log ΓK and everyk ∈ N.

We shall apply (4.2.7) withk = n, so we need to calculate the conductor offn∗L (n). Theprojection formula yields :

fn∗L (n) ≃ L (1)⊗Λ fn∗Λ.

Claim 4.2.8. There is a natural isomorphism :

fn∗Λ ≃ fN∗Λ⊗Λ fP∗Λ.

Proof of the claim.The morphismfn induces an inclusion of fundamental groupsφ : H :=π1(Gm,K , x) → G := π1(Gm,K , fn(x)) (for any choice of a geometric pointx) whose image isa normal subgroup with cokernel isomorphic toZ/nZ. The constant sheafΛ onGm,K corre-sponds to the trivial representation ofH, andfn∗Λ is the induction of this representation alongthe inclusionφ. Likewise we may describefN∗Λ andfP∗Λ. However :

Λ⊗Λ[H] Λ[G] ≃ Λ[G/H ] = Λ[Z/nZ]

so fn∗Λ is also the induction of the trivial representation of the trivial group {0}, along theinclusion{0} ⊂ Z/nZ, and likewise forfN∗Λ andfP∗Λ. So finally, the sought isomorphismboils down to theΛ-algebra isomorphism :Λ[Z/nZ] ≃ Λ[Z/PZ]⊗Λ Λ[Z/NZ]. ♦

Sinceµp∞ ⊂ Λ×, we have :

fP∗Λ ≃⊕

χ:µP→µp∞

K (χ)

where the sum runs over theP different characters ofµP ⊂ K× (notation of example 4.2.3).Thus,fn∗L (n) decomposes as the direct sum ofP terms of the form

M (χ) := L (1)⊗Λ K (χ)⊗Λ fM∗Λ.

Let pj > 1 be the order of the characterχ; according to [31, Ex.8.8(ii)], the unique break ofK (χ)r is independent ofr, and equals|p|j · λ. On the other hand, the unique breakβ(r) ofL (1)r can be computed fromδL (1) using proposition 4.1.8 : we getβ(r) = 1 for r > λ−1

andβ(r) = rλ · (1 − ε) for r ≤ λ−1. From (4.1.11) we deduce that the unique break of(L (1)⊗Λ K (χ))r equals1 for r > |p|j andrλ · (1 − ε) for r ≤ |p|j. Next, since(N, p) = 1,


the only possible break of the stalk(fN∗Λ)r equals1, hence the stalks ofL (1)⊗Λ K (χ) andM (χ) have the same breaks. Consequently :

(4.2.9)dδM (χ)(ρ

+)

dt=

{0 for ρ < j log |1/p|N otherwise

Sinceδfn∗L (n) =∑

χ δM (χ), assertion (i) forq = n follows from (4.2.7) (withk := n) and(4.2.9). Finally, letq := n/m, with n,m two relatively prime integers; in order to determinethe right slope ofδL (q), it suffices to apply (4.2.7) withk := m. This completes the proof of (i).

Assertion (ii) is an immediate consequence of (i); also (iii) follows directly from (iv), and(v) follows from (i) and (iv). Hence it remains only to show (iv) whenΛ is a field, which wemay assume to be algebraically closed. The assertion is obvious if q is an integer, since in thatcaseL (q)r has rank one. For the general caseq = n/m, notice that the action ofπ1(s) (resp.π1(s

m)) onL (n)s (resp.L (q)sm) factors through a finite quotientHs (resp.Gs), and :

L (q)sm ≃ IndGs

HsL (n)s for everys ∈ ΓK .

The morphismfm is a torsor for the groupµm, and we have a natural identificationGs/Hs ≃µm. We shall apply Mackey’s irreducibility criterion (this isshown in [47,§7.4, Cor.] incase the base field has characteristic zero, but the result holds whenever the characteristic ofthe algebraically closed fieldΛ does not divide the order ofGs; this latter condition is clearlyfulfilled here). To this aim, we have to show that, for everyµ ∈ µm \ {1}, the conjugaterepresentationL (n)µs is not isomorphic toL (n)s. However, we have a natural identification :

L (n)µs ≃ µ∗L (n)s

whereµ : Gm,K := SpecK[T, T−1] → Gm,K is the morphism such thatµ∗(T ) = µ · T .According to (4.2.5), we have a natural isomorphism :

µ∗L (n)⊗Λ L (n)−1 ≃ g∗L

whereg : Gm,K → Gm,K is the morphism such thatg∗(T ) = (1 − µ−n)T−n. SinceLr is nottrivial wheneverr ≥ λ, it follows that (g∗L )s is not trivial whenever|1 − µ−n| · s−n ≥ λ.However,µ is a primitivepb-root of unity for somej = 1, . . . , b, we have :

|1− µ| = λ · |p|j−1

so in this case,(g∗L )s is not trivial for s ≤ |p|(j−1)/n. If b = 0, then |1 − µ| = 1, andthen(g∗L )s is not trivial for s ≤ λ−1/n. Letting r := sm, we obtain the contention, in ei-ther case. As an immediate consequence, we see thatL (q)r admits a single breakβ(q, r) forr ≤ r0; this break can be determined by evaluatingδL (q)(− log r), since the latter must equal−m log β(q, r)♭ (lemma 4.1.17); we leave to the reader the elementary calculation. �

4.2.10. LetF be a locally freeΛ-module onD(1)∗ with bounded ramification. We wish todefine thebreaks ofF around the origin. Ideally, one would like to define a stalkFη(0) thatcaptures the behaviour ofF in arbitrarily small punctured open discsD(ε)∗ centered at theorigin; then the sought breaks should be numerical invariants associated to this stalk. To makesense of this, one would like to complete somehow the sequence of points(η(r) | r ∈ Γ+

K) witha limit pointη(0); however, such a limit point seems to elude the grasp of the formalism of adicspaces, hence we have to proceed in a rather more indirect fashion. But the ideal picture shouldbe kept in mind, as it motivates much of what we are trying to doin the remainder of this work.

To begin with, for givenr, α ∈ Γ+K we set :

(4.2.11) F ♭r (α) :=

⊕

βi(r)♭=α

Fr(βi(r))

68 LORENZO RAMERO

where1 = β0(r) > · · · > βn(r) are the breaks ofFr, so that we have the break decomposition(4.1.16). Say thatrkΛF = d and− log r = ρ; we consider the unique sequence of real numbers:

(4.2.12) 0 ≤ f1(ρ) ≤ f2(ρ) ≤ · · · ≤ fd(ρ)

in which, for everyβ ∈ Γ+K , the value− log β appears with multiplicity equal torkΛF ♭

r (β).

Lemma 4.2.13.The functionsf1, . . . , fd extend to piecewise linear continuous mapsR≥0 →R≥0.

Proof. Using lemma 4.1.18, we deduce already thatf1, . . . , fd extend to continuous, linearfunctions on every small segment of the form[− log r,− log r′).

It remains to show that for everyρ > 0 there is some small segment(ρ′, ρ] on which thefunctionsfi are continuous. To this aim, we remark that all the considerations of (4.2.10) and(4.1.13) can be repeated for the family of stalksFη′(r) (instead ofFr := Fη(r)). We obtain inthis way a break decompositionFη′(r)(δ0) ⊕ · · · ⊕ Fη′(r)(δl) for Fη′(r), and we may define thesubmodulesF ♭

η′(r)(α) for everyα ∈ Γ+K , just as in (4.2.11). Using the ranks of the modules

F ♭η′(r)(α), we may finally construct a non-decreasing sequence0 ≤ f ′

1(ρ) ≤ f ′2(ρ) ≤ · · · ≤

f ′d(ρ) analogous to (4.2.12). Making use of (3.3.37) (rather than theorem 3.3.29), one can then

show the analogue of lemma 4.1.18 which expresses the continuity of the breaksδi; from thelatter, we see that the functionsf ′

i are continuous on segments of the form(ρ′, ρ]. To concludeit suffices to show thatfi = f ′

i for everyi ≤ d. This boils down to the following :

Claim 4.2.14. F ♭η′(r)(α) ≃ F ♭

r (α) for everyα ≤ 1.

Proof of the claim. We do not only assert the existence of an isomorphism in the categoryΛ-Mod, but more precisely, that the two modules are equivariantlyisomorphic, in the followingsense. Say thatr ∈ (a, b) for somea, b ∈ Γ+

K , and pick a Galois etale coveringf : X → D(a, b)that trivializesF|D(a,b); choose also pointsx, x′ lying over repectivelyη(r) andη′(r), such thatx♭ = x′♭. We shall use the ramification filtration(P ♭

γ | γ ∈ Γ+K) of St♭x, given by definition

3.3.38. According to proposition 3.3.39, thep-Sylow subgroupSt♭(p)x is naturally a subgroupof St(p)x andSt(p)x′ , and the claim amounts to aSt♭(p)x -equivariant identification ofF ♭

η′(r)(α) and

F ♭r (α).Proceeding as in (4.1.13), we replace the lower-numbering indexing by the upper-numbering

(P ♭,γ | γ ∈ Γ+K). Say that(P γ | γ ∈ Γ+

x ) (resp. (Qγ | γ ∈ Γ+x′)) is the upper-numbering

ramification filtration forStx (resp. forStx′). Then proposition 3.3.39 yields the identities :

(4.2.15)⋃

n∈Z

Qγn0 ·γ = P ♭,γ =⋃

n∈Z

P γn0 ·γ for everyγ ∈ Γ+K \ {1}.

Recall that, by construction, for eachβ ∈ {β1(r), . . . , βn(r)}, the direct summandFr(β) isof the formeβ · Fr, whereeβ is a certain central idempotent inΛ[St(p)x ]. Likewise, for everyδ ∈ {δ1, . . . , δl}, we haveFη′(r)(δ) = e′δ · Fη′(r) for a certain central idempotente′δ ∈ Λ[St

(p)x′ ].

Then, by inspecting the definitions, we see thateβ (resp.e′δ) actually lies in the subringΛ[St♭(p)x ],wheneverβ♭ < 1 (resp.δ♭ < 1). (HereSt♭(p)x is the uniquep-Sylow subgroup oft♭x.) Moreover,(4.2.15) leads to the identities :

∑

β♭=α

eβ =∑

δ♭=α

e′δ for everyβ ∈ Γ+K \ {1}.

This already shows the claim forα < 1. The case forα = 1 can similarly be dealt with,using (4.2.15) and the characterization (4.1.14) of the breaks : the details shall be left to thereader. �


4.2.16. We shall denote by∆(F ) ⊂ R≥0 × R≥0 the union of the graphs of the functionsf1, . . . , fd defined in (4.2.12). Let now(K ′, | · |′) be an algebraically closed valued field ex-tension of(K, | · |) whose value group isR>0 (e.g. we can take a maximally complete fieldcontainingK). The givenΛ-moduleF pulls back to a locally constantΛ-moduleF ′ on the adicspaceD(1)∗ ×SpaK SpaK ′. In view of lemma 3.3.8, we see that for everyr ∈ Γ+

K the breaksof F ′

r are the same as that ofFr, therefore the subset∆(F ′) is none else than the topologicalclosure of∆(F ). Hence for the considerations that follow we may replaceK byK ′ andF byF ′, and assume thatΓK = R>0. Simple operations onF can be translated into correspondingchanges for the subset∆(F ). For instance, for anys ∈ K+ \ {0}, let µs : D(1)∗ → D(1)∗ bethe “shrinking” morphism suchµ∗

s(ξ) = s · ξ. We have(µ∗sF )x ≃ Fµs(x) for everyx ∈ D(1)∗,

so that

∆(µ∗sF ) = (log |s|, 0) + ∆(F ) := R2

≥0 ∩ {(x+ log |s|, y) | (x, y) ∈ ∆(F )}.

We are now ready to make the following :

Definition 4.2.17. Assume thatΓK = R>0 and letF be a locally constant and locally freeΛ-module onD(1)∗et of finite rank. Then thebreak functionof F is the mapping :

β(F, ·) : Q≥0 → R≥0 ∪ {∞}

defined by the rule :

β(F, q) :=1

rkΛL (q)· sup {sw♮(F ⊗Λ µ

∗sL (q), 0+) | s ∈ K+ \ {0}} for everyq ∈ Q≥0.

Remark 4.2.18.Suppose thatF is the restriction of a sheafF ′ of Λ-modules on(A1K)

adet , and

consider the caseq = 1 : the cohomology complexRΓc(F ′µ∗sL (1)) is none else than the stalk

over the points−1 ∈ K = A1K(K) of the Fourier transformF (F ′) of F , as defined in [42]. In

view of the (analogue of the) Grothendieck-Ogg-Shafarevich formula (see [31, Th.10.2]), wesee that the functionβ(F, 1) essentially calculates the Euler-Poincare characteristic of F (F )in a neighborhood of the point∞ ∈ (P1

K)ad. This is the sort of quantities that appear in the

method of stationary phase (see the introduction,§0.9), and indeed this sort of sheaf-theoreticharmonic analysis has motivated the definition of the functionβ.

For any rational numberq, we define thedenominatorof q as the smallest positive integernsuch thatnq ∈ Z.

Theorem 4.2.19.LetF be as in definition4.2.17, and suppose moreover thatF has boundedramification. Then :

(i) For everyq ∈ Q≥0, β(F, q) is a positive rational number, whose denominator dividesthe denominator ofq.

(ii) β(F, q) ≥ q · rkΛF for everyq ∈ Q≥0, and the inequality is an equality for everysufficiently largeq (soβ(F, ·) is eventually linear).

(iii) The break functionβ(F, ·) is the restriction of a functionR≥0 → R≥0 which is convex,continuous, non-decreasing and piecewise linear whose slopes are integers.

Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume thatΛ is a field. We begin by introducingsome notation : we letS ⊂ Q be the subset of the numbers of the formn/m wheren, m arerelatively prime positive integers, such that(p, n) = (p,m) = 1. Also, for everys ∈ K× andq ∈ R, set

c(q, s) := (p− 1)−1 log |p|+ q log |s|.

By lemma 4.2.6(v), for anyq ∈ S, and everys ∈ K×, the subset∆(µ∗sL (q)) is the graph of the

function :ρ 7→ b(q, ρ, s) := max{0, qρ− c(q, s)} for everyρ ∈ R≥0.

70 LORENZO RAMERO

In the study of the “stalk overη(0)”, we are allowed to disregard the behaviour of our sheafFoutside any given punctured discD(ε)∗, i.e. we may disregard the part of∆(F ) that lies in avertical band of the form[0, c] × R; hence, let us defineΣ(q) as the subset of allc(q, s) ∈ R

such that∆(µ∗

sL (q)) ∩∆(F ) ∩ ([q−1c(q, s),+∞)× R)

is a set whose cardinality is at most countable. Notice thatR \ Σ(q) has at most countablecardinality; especially,Σ(q) is dense inR, for everyq ∈ S.

Let s ∈ K+ \ {0}, q ∈ S, setL ′ := µ∗sL (q), and suppose thatc(q, s) ∈ Σ(q); this means

that for everyρ ≥ max(q−1c(q, s), 0) :

• either(ρ, b(q, ρ, s)) /∈ ∆(F ),• or else the right and left slope ofb(q, ·, s) at the pointρ are different from the slopes of

each of the functionsfi as in (4.2.12), such thatfi(ρ) = b(q, ρ, s).

However, say thatρ = − log r, let γ be the unique break ofL ′r , andβ1, . . . , βk the finitely

many breaks ofFr; then by definition,∆(F ) ∩ ({r} × R) consists of the values− log β♭j (forj = 1, . . . , k), and− log γ♭ = b(q, ρ, s). Furthermore, by theorem 3.3.29 and (3.3.37), the (rightand left) slopes of the functionsfi at the pointρ are none else than the valuesβ♮j (and likewisefor the slope ofb(q, ·, s)). We conclude thatγ /∈ {β1, . . . βk}, and then (4.1.11) implies that thebreaks of(F ⊗Λ L ′)r are the values

(4.2.20) β ′j := min(γ, βj) for j = 1, . . . , k.

Moreover, letM(β1)⊕ · · · ⊕M(βk) M ′(β ′

1)⊕ · · · ⊕M ′(β ′k)

be the break decompositions ofFr and respectively(F ⊗Λ L ′)r; then :

(4.2.21) rkΛM′(β ′

j) = rkΛL (q) · rkΛM(βj) for everyj ≤ k.

Setd := rkΛF ; combining lemma 4.2.6(iii), (4.2.20) and (4.2.21) we arrive at the identity :

δF⊗ΛL ′(ρ) = rkΛL (q) ·d∑

i=1

max(fi(ρ), b(q, ρ, s)).

Notice that, sincefi ≥ 0 for everyi ≤ d, the foregoing identity persists also forρ < q−1c(q, s).Recall also that these functionsfi are continuous and piecewise linear (lemma 4.2.13). Thismotivates the following :

Claim 4.2.22. For everyq ∈ R≥0 andc ∈ R, consider the function

fq,c : R≥0 → R≥0 ρ 7→d∑

i=1

max(fi(ρ), qρ− c).

Then :

(i) fq,c is continuous, convex and piecewise linear.(ii) The (right and left) slopes offq,c are of the formqa+b, wherea ∈ {0, 1, . . . , d}, b ∈ Z.

(iii) Moreover,fq,c is eventually linear (i.e. of the formρ 7→ ρx + y for every sufficientlylargeρ).

(iv) More precisely, ifq ∈ Q≥0, then for every sufficiently largeρ ∈ R≥0 the left and rightslope offq,c coincide, and their common value is a rational number whose denominatordivides the denominator ofq.

(v) For everyρ ∈ R≥0, the functionR≥0 → R≥0 : q 7→ fq,c(ρ) is non-decreasing, convex,continuous and piecewise linear.


Proof of the claim.By construction, the functionrkΛL (q) · fq,c is the mappingδF⊗ΛL ′ , when-everq ∈ S, L ′ = µ∗

sL (q) and c = c(q, s) ∈ Σ(q). Hence, forc ∈ Σ(q), convexity andcontinuity (and piecewise linearity) offq,c follow from proposition 4.1.8. Now, ifc andc′ areany two positive real numbers, it is clear that :

|fq,c(ρ)− fq,c′(ρ)| ≤ q · |c− c′| for everyρ ∈ R≥0.

SinceΣ(q) is dense inR, it follows easily thatfq,c is convex and continuous for everyc ∈ R.Similarly, for q, q′ ∈ R≥0, we may bound the difference|fq,c − fq′,c| in terms of|q − q′|, onevery bounded subset ofR≥0; sinceS is dense inR≥0, we deduce continuity and convexity offq,c for everyq ∈ R≥0 andc ∈ R. Next, for givenρ0 := − log r0 ≥ 0, let β1, . . . , βk be thebreaks ofFr0, so that we have the break decompositionFr0 = Fr0(β1) ⊕ · · · ⊕ Fr0(βk). Setmj := rkΛFr0(βj) for everyj ≤ k. We may find a segment[ρ0, ρ1], and for everyi ≤ d, anintegerji ≤ k such that :

fi(ρ) = fi(ρ0) + (ρ− ρ0) · β♮ji

for everyρ ∈ [ρ0, ρ1].

It follows easily that there existsρ2 ∈ (ρ0, ρ1] such that :

(4.2.23) fq,c(ρ) = (qa+ b) · ρ+ c′ for everyρ ∈ [ρ0, ρ2]

wherea := max{i ≤ d | − log βji ≤ (qρ0 − c) + qε} (notation of (2.2.15)), and :

b :=k∑

j>ja

mjβ♮j c′ := ca+

k∑

j>ja

mj(β♭j − ρ0β

♮j).

This shows the piecewise linearity offq,c. We deduce as well thatb ∈ Z, since each termmjβ♮j

is the Swan conductor of the Galois moduleFr0(βj) (denotedα(Fr0(βj)) in [31, §8]).This shows that (i) and (ii) hold. Moreover, (4.2.23) also easily implies (v). Assertion (iii)

is already known for every pair(q, c) with q ∈ S andc ∈ Σ(q) (theorem 4.2.2(i)). Next, ifc′ ∈ R is arbitrary, since the distance betweenfq,c andfq,c′ is bounded, andfq,c′ is convex andpiecewise linear, it is easy to deduce thatfq,c′ is also eventually linear. Finally, ifq′ ≤ q isany positive real number, it is clear thatfq′,c′ ≤ fq,c′; sincefq,c′ is eventually linear andfq′,c′is convex, it follows that right derivativeρ 7→ dfq′,c′/dt(ρ

+) is non-decreasing and bounded;but from (ii) we see that the set of possible slopes forfq′c′ does not admit accumulation points,hence the right derivative offq′,c′ must be eventually constant. This concludes the proof of (iii).

Assertion (iv) is clear from (ii). ♦

Claim 4.2.22(iii) says that, for everyq ∈ R≥0 andc ∈ R, the limit :

(4.2.24) s(q) := limρ→+∞

fq,c(ρ)/ρ

exists and is a rational number independent ofc, whose denominator divides the denominatorof q. Now, supposeq ∈ S, c ∈ Σ(q) andc′ > c is some real number; one sees easily that

sw♮(F ⊗Λ µ∗sL (q), r+) ≥ sw♮(F ⊗Λ µ

∗s′L (q), r+)

for everyr ∈ (0, 1] and everys, s′ ∈ K+ with log |s| = c andlog |s′| = c′. It follows that

β(F, q) = sup{sw♮(F ⊗Λ µ∗sL (q), 0+) | s ∈ K+ andlog |s| ∈ Σ(q)} = s(q)

for everyq ∈ S.

Claim4.2.25. The functionQ≥0 → R : q 7→ β(F, q) is non-decreasing.

Proof of the claim.It suffices to show that, ifq′ < q < q′′ with q′, q′′ ∈ S andq ∈ Q, thenβ(F, q′) ≤ β(F, q) ≤ β(F, q′′). However, chooses′ ∈ K+ \ {0} such thatc(q′, s′) ∈ Σ(q′);from lemma 4.2.6 we see that there existsρ0 ∈ R such that∆(L (q))∩ ([ρ0,+∞)×R≥0) is thegraph of a linear map. We may then finds ∈ K× such that|s| < |s′| and such that∆(µ∗

sL (q))∩

72 LORENZO RAMERO

([ρ0,+∞) × R≥0) ∩ ∆(F ) is a countable subset. Since∆(µ∗sL (q)) lies above∆(µ∗

s′L (q′))in the region[ρ0,+∞) × R≥0, an argument as in the foregoing shows thatδF⊗µ∗sL (q)(ρ) >δF⊗µ∗

s′L (q′)(ρ) for ρ ≥ ρ0. But sinceq′ ∈ S, we have seen that the slope ofδF⊗µ∗

s′L (q′) equals

β(F, q′), henceβ(F, q) ≥ β(F, q′), as required. The proof of the other inequality is similar, andshall be left to the reader. ♦

From claim 4.2.22(v) we deduce thats is a non-decreasing function. Sinces andβ(F, ·) agreeon the dense subsetS, they must coincide for allq ∈ Q≥0. Combining with claim 4.2.22(iv),this proves assertion (i).

(ii): From the definition offq,c, it is obvious thatfq,0(ρ) ≥ qρ · rkΛF for everyρ ∈ R≥0,hences(q) ≥ q · rkΛF . Furthermore, since

∑di=1 fi(ρ) = δF (ρ) is a convex function which is

eventually linear of slopeq0 := sw♮(F, 0+), one sees easily that there existsc ∈ R such that :

fi(ρ) ≤ q0ρ+ c for everyρ ∈ R≥0 and everyi ≤ d.

Hencefq,0(ρ) = qρ · rkΛF for everyq > q0, providedρ is large enough. Consequentlys(q) =q · rkΛF for everyq > q0, so (ii) holds.

(iii): Claim 4.2.22(v) implies that the functionq 7→ s(q) is convex and non-decreasing. Next,if q.q′ are any two positive real numbers, it is clear that|s(q)−s(q′)| ≤ d·|q−q′|, so the mappings is also continuous. Moreover, the convexity ofs implies that the right derivativeds/dt(ρ+)exists for everyρ ∈ R>0 and is non-decreasing, ands is a primitive of its right derivative.

Claim 4.2.26. ds/dt(ρ+) ∈ Z for everyρ ∈ Q.

Proof of the claim.Write ρ = a/b with relatively prime positive integersa, b. By definition, wehave :

(4.2.27)ds

dt(ρ+) = lim

n→+∞bn ·

{s

(ρ+

1

bn

)− s(ρ)

}.

Now, if we letn run over the positive integers, the right-hand side of (4.2.27) is the limit of asequence of integers, since the denominators of both(ρ+ 1/(bn)) ands(ρ) dividebn. ♦

We deduce from claim 4.2.26 that the right derivative ofs is a non-decreasing step function(constant on segments of the form[a, b)). Hences is piecewise linear with integral slopes,which concludes the proof of (iii) and of the theorem. �

4.2.28. LetF be as in theorem 4.2.19. The idea is that the graph ofβ(F, ·) should be theNewton polygon associated to the sought break decomposition of the stalkF0 of F over themissing pointη(0) (see (4.2.10)). According to this picture, the breaks ofF0 are the valuesqi ∈ R>0 such thatds/dt(q−) 6= ds/dt(q+) (wheres is defined as in (4.2.24)); naturally we callthese thebreak pointsof β(F, ·). The first observation is that there are only finitely many breakpoints, and all of them are rational; indeed, this is a straightforward consequence of theorem4.2.19. Let0 < q1 < q2 < · · · < qn be these break points, and setq0 := 0. Sinceβ(F, ·) ispiecewise linear and non-negative, we may find uniqueµ0, µ1, . . . , µn ≥ 0 such that :

(4.2.29) β(F, q) =

n∑

j=0

µj ·max(qj, q) for everyq ∈ Q≥0.

Indeed, by deriving both sides of (4.2.29), we find :

(4.2.30)i∑

j=0

µj =dβ(F, q)

dq

∣∣∣∣q=q+i

for everyj ≤ n.

And sinceβ(F, ·) has integer slopes (theorem 4.2.19(iii)), we deduce thatµj ∈ N for everyj ≤ n. For everyj ≤ n, the integerµj should be nothing else than the rank of the direct factor


of F0 which is pure of breakqj . This is borne out by the identity :

rkΛF =n∑

j=0

µj

which holds, sinceβ(F, ·) is eventually linear of sloperkΛF (theorem 4.2.19(ii)). For thisreason, we shall say thatµi is themultiplicity of the breakqi, for everyi = 0, . . . , n. Now, let :

0 < τ1 ≤ τ2 ≤ · · · ≤ τd

be the unique sequence of rational numbers in which the valueqi appears with multiplicityµi,for everyi = 0, . . . , n. We have :

Theorem 4.2.31.Keep the notation of(4.2.28), and letd := rkΛF . Then there existρ0 ≥ 0,and real numbersc1, c2, . . . , cd such that :

fi(ρ) = τi · ρ+ ci for everyρ ≥ ρ0 and everyi = 1, . . . , d

wheref1, f2, . . . , fd : R≥0 → R≥0 are defined as in(4.2.12).

Proof. Recall (claim 4.2.22) thatfq,0(ρ) :=∑d

i=1max(fi(ρ), qρ) for everyρ ∈ R≥0. For everyρ, y ∈ R≥0, let us set :

Iρ,y := {i ∈ N | 1 ≤ i ≤ d and fi(ρ) ≤ y} Nρ,y := ♯Iρ,y

(where, as usual, for any setI, we denote by♯I the cardinality ofI). Let q′ > q be any two realnumbers; we may compute :

fq′,0(ρ)− fq,0(ρ) = q′ρNρ,q′ρ − qρNρ,qρ −∑

i∈J

fi(ρ) for everyρ ≥ 0

where :J := {i ∈ N | 1 ≤ i ≤ d and qρ < fi(ρ) < q′ρ}.

It follows easily that :

(4.2.32) g(q, q′, ρ) :=fq′,0(ρ)− fq,0(ρ)

(q′ − q)ρ∈ [Nρ,qρ, Nρ,q′ρ] for everyρ > 0.

Now, letq > 0 be any real number which is not a break point forβ(F, ·); letk ∈ {0, 1, . . . , n} bethe largest integer such thatqk < q. If k = n, setqn+1 := q+1, so that in any caseq ∈ (qk, qk+1).We notice that the functions defined as in (4.2.24) is linear on the interval[qk, qk+1], since theproof of theorem 4.2.19 shows thats agrees withβ(F, ·) onQ≥0. Especially :

limρ→+∞

g(q, qk+1, ρ) = limρ→+∞

g(qk, q, ρ) =dβ(F, q)

dq

∣∣∣∣q=q+k

.

But recall that the slopes ofβ(F, ·) are integers; therefore, combining with (4.2.32) we deduce:

(4.2.33)dβ(F, q)

dq

∣∣∣∣q=q+k

∈ [Nρ,qkρ, Nρ,qρ] ∩ [Nρ,qρ, Nρ,qk+1ρ] = {Nρ,qρ} for all largeρ.

The meaning of (4.2.33) is that, ifq is not a break, then the points(ρ, fi(ρ)) tend to “moveaway” from the line{(x, y) | qx = y}; indeed, (4.2.33) shows that ifq′ ∈ (qk, q) is any otherreal number, thenIρ,qρ = Iρ,q′ρ providedρ is large enough. Fix anyε > 0 such that :

2ε < min{qk+1 − qk | k = 0, . . . , n− 1}

and set :Jk(ρ) := Iρ,(qk+ε)ρ \ Iρ,(qk−ε)ρ for everyk ≤ n and everyρ ≥ 0.

74 LORENZO RAMERO

Notice that, since the functionsfi are continuous (lemma 4.2.13), each setJk(ρ) will be even-tually independent ofρ (i.e. for large values ofρ), and we shall therefore denote it simply byJk. Summing up, so far we have exhibited a natural partition :

{1, 2, . . . , d} = J0 ∐ J1 ∐ · · · ∐ Jn

such that, for everyk ≤ d, the valuesTk(ρ) := {(ρ, fi(ρ)) | i ∈ Jk} “cluster” around a straightline of slopeqk. Explicitly, for everyε > 0 and for every largeρ, the points ofTk(ρ) lie in theconeCε(k) := {(x, y) ∈ R2

>0 | |y/x − qk| < ε}. Next we show that, for every largeρ, thesetTk(ρ) actually lies in a band of slopeqk and fixed bounded width. To this aim, for everyk = 0, 1, . . . , n and everyc ∈ R, set :

hk(ρ) :=∑

i∈Jk

fi(ρ) h∗k,c(ρ) :=∑

i∈Jk

max(fi(ρ), qkρ− c) for everyρ ∈ R≥0.

Claim 4.2.34. (i) For everyk ≤ n the following holds :

(i) the functionshk andh∗k,c are eventually linear.(ii) ♯Jk = µk.

(iii) limρ→+∞

hk(ρ)/ρ = qkµk = limρ→+∞

h∗k,c(ρ)/ρ.

Proof of the claim.Supposeq ∈ (qk, qk+1). We can then write :

fq,0(ρ) = qρ ·∑

t≤k

♯Jt +n∑

t=k+1

ht(ρ) for every sufficiently largeρ.

Since the functionfq,0(ρ) is eventually linear, we deduce that, for everyk ≤ n, the sum∑nt=k+1 ht is eventually linear, so the same holds for each termht. LetCt := lim

ρ→+∞ht(ρ)/ρ. In

view of (4.2.24) we deduce :

s(q) = q ·∑

t≤k

♯Jt +n∑

t=k+1

Ct for everyq ∈ (qk, qk+1) and everyk ≤ n.

Now suppose thatq′ ∈ (q, qk+1). Taking into account (4.2.30), we find :

(q′ − q) ·∑

t≤k

♯Jt = s(q′)− s(q) = (q′ − q) ·∑

j≤k

µj

from which (ii) follows easily, arguing by induction onk. Finally, on the one hand we knowthathk is eventually linear; on the other hand, for everyε > 0, each of its summandsfi (fori ∈ Jk) is eventually contained in the coneCε(k), so assertion (iii) forhk follows easily from(ii). Next, we look at the identity :

fqk,c(ρ) = (qkρ− c) ·∑

t<k

µt +n∑

t=k+1

ht(ρ) + h∗k,c(ρ)

which holds for everyk ≤ n and every large enoughρ, in view of (ii). Sincefqk,0 andhk+1, . . . , hn are eventually linear functions, we see that the same holds for h∗k,c, for everyk ≤ n. This shows (i), and also the remaining assertion (iii) forh∗k follows easily. ♦

We now fixk ∈ {0, 1, . . . , n}, and write justq, µ J , h andh∗c instead ofqk, µk, Jk, hk, h∗k,c.

Claim 4.2.35. For everyi ∈ J , the function

ρ 7→ |fi(ρ)− qρ|

is bounded.


Proof of the claim.It follows easily from claim 4.2.34 that both functions :∑

i∈J

{max(fi(ρ), qρ)− qρ} and∑

i∈J

{max(fi(ρ), qρ)− fi(ρ)}

are eventually constant. Since these summands are always non-negative, we deduce that, foreveryi ∈ J , the terms :

max(fi(ρ), qρ)− qρ and max(fi(ρ), qρ)− fi(ρ)

are bounded, which is the claim. ♦

Claim4.2.36. For everyi ∈ J there existsai ∈ R such that :

limρ→+∞

fi(ρ)− qρ = ai.

Proof of the claim.Say thatJ = {i0, . . . , i0 + µ − 1}. We prove, by induction ont, thatai0+twith the desired property exists for everyt < µ. For t < 0, there is nothing to prove. Next,suppose thatt ≥ 0 and that the assertion is already known for every integer< t; we set :

g(ρ) :=

i0+µ−1∑

i=i0+t

fi(ρ) g∗c (ρ) :=

i0+µ−1∑

i=i0+t

max(fi(ρ), qρ− c) for everyρ ∈ R≥0 andc ∈ R.

Using the inductive assumption, and claim 4.2.34, we see that there existsC ∈ R with :

(4.2.37) limρ→+∞

g(ρ)− ρq(µ− t) = C.

Set :a := lim inf

ρ→+∞fi0+t(ρ)− qρ b := lim sup

ρ→+∞fi0+t(ρ)− qρ.

Notice that :

(4.2.38) a ≥ ai0 , . . . , ai0+t−1

sincefi ≤ fi+1 for everyi = 1, . . . , d − 1. Supposea < b, pick x ∈ (a, b) and setc := −x; inview of (4.2.38), we have :

h∗c(ρ) = t(qρ− c) + g∗c (ρ) for every large enoughρ.

Then claim 4.2.34 implies thatg∗c is eventually linear of slopeq(µ−t). Combining with (4.2.37),we deduce that there existsC ′ ∈ R such that :

(4.2.39) limρ→+∞

g∗c (ρ)− g(ρ) = C ′.

However, due to our choice ofx, for everyρ ≥ 0 and everyε > 0 we may findρ′, ρ′′ ≥ ρ suchthat :

g∗c (ρ′) = g(ρ′) and g∗c (ρ

′′)− g(ρ′′) > x− a+ ε

which contradicts (4.2.39). Hencea = b, and the common value is a real number, due to claim4.2.35. This concludes the inductive step. ♦

To conclude the proof of the theorem, we shall show that the function fi0+t is eventuallylinear, wheneveri0 + t ∈ J = {i0, . . . , i0 + µ − 1}. We shall proceed by induction ont. Ift < 0, there is nothing to prove. Hence, suppose that the assertion is known for every integer< t. Seta := ai0+t, whereai0 , . . . , ai0+µ−1 are the real numbers whose existence is ensured byclaim 4.2.36. LetJ(a) := {i ∈ J | ai = a}; we shall show simultaneously that all the functionsfi with i ∈ J(a) are eventually linear, hence we may suppose thati0+t is the smallest element ofJ(a). In this case, using the inductive assumption and claim 4.2.34, we see that both functions

76 LORENZO RAMERO

g andg∗−a introduced in the proof of claim 4.2.36 are eventually linear. Moreover, it is also clearthat :

limρ→+∞

g∗−a(ρ)− g(ρ) = 0.

It follows thatg(ρ) = g∗−a(ρ) for every large enoughρ, hence

(4.2.40) fi(ρ) ≥ qp+ a for everyi ∈ J(a) and every largeρ.

On the other hand, leti1 be the largest element ofJ(a); if i1 < i0+µ−1, chooseb ∈ (a, ai1+1);otherwise, setb := ai1 + 1. In either case, we may write :

h∗−b(ρ) = i1(qρ+ b) +∑

i>i1

fi(ρ) for every large enoughρ.

Hence∑

i>i1fi is eventually linear, and therefore the same holds forg−

∑i>i1

fi =∑

i∈J(a) fi.Clearly :

limρ→+∞

∑

i∈J(a)

(fi(ρ)− qρ− a) = 0.

Combining with (4.2.40), we deduce the contention. �

4.2.41. Let(Γ0,≤) be the abelian groupQ× ΓK , endowed with the ordering such that :

(q, c) ≤ (q′, c′) if and only if eitherq′ < q or elseq = q′ andc ≤ c′.

(This is the lexicographic ordering, except that the ordering onQ is the reverse of the usualone.) For givenr ∈ Γ+, letΓr be the value group of the valuation| · |η(r). The mapping :

Γ0 → Q⊗Z Γr : (q, c) 7→ c · rq · (1− ε)q

is an isomorphism of groups which does not respect the orderings (indeed, the ordering onΓ0

induced by this isomorphism is also lexicographic, but the two factorsQ andΓK are swapped).Nevertheless, we may interpret theorem 4.2.31, by saying that the “missing stalkF0” admits abreak decomposition which is naturally indexed by elementsof Γ+

0 . More precisely, we have :

Theorem 4.2.42.LetF be as in theorem4.2.19. Then there existr0 ∈ Γ+K , a connected open

subsetU ⊂ D(1)∗ and a decomposition :

F|U =⊕

(q,c)∈Γ+0

M(q, c)

where each summandM(q, c) is a locally constantΛ-module onUet, such that :

(i) U ∩ D(ε) 6= ∅ for everyε ∈ Γ+K .

(ii) For everyr ≤ r0, we haveη(r) ∈ U and :

M(q, c)η(r) = Fr(c · rq · (1− ε)q).

Proof. SetE := E ndΛ(F ), the sheaf ofΛ-linear endomorphisms ofF . We have to exhibitU ⊂ D(1)∗ fulfilling (i), and for each(q, c) ∈ Γ+

0 , a projectorπ ∈ E(U) such that

(Im π)η(r) = Fr(c · rq · (1− ε)q).

By theorem 4.2.31, we may findρ0 ≥ 0 such that the functionsfi are linear on the half-line[ρ0,+∞); up to replacingρ0 by a larger real number, we may achieve that, for everyi, j ≤ d,the graphs of the functionsfi, fj are either disjoint or equal. Say thatρ0 = − log r0. Theopen subsetU shall be constructed by removing fromD(r0)∗ infinitely many closed discs.Indeed, supposer ≤ r0, and letβ1(r), . . . , βk(r) be the breaks ofFr; we may assume that


c · rq · (1 − ε)q = β1(r). From our choice ofρ0, it follows thatβi(r)♭ = βj(r)♭ if and only if

i = j; in other words, the decomposition (4.1.16) is the same as the decomposition

Fη(r)♭ =⊕

α∈Γ+K

F ♭r (α)

(notation of (4.2.11)). Hence, the stalkEη(r)♭ contains a projectorπη(r)♭ that cuts out the sum-mandFr(β1(r)). However, sinceF is locally constant onD(1)∗et, the same holds forE; espe-cially,E is overconvergent, in the sense of [30, Def.8.2.1]. Let :

D(1)∗etµ

−→ D(1)∗ν

−→ D(1)∗p.p

be the natural morphisms of sites, whereD(1)∗p.p denotes the topological spaceD(1)∗ endowedwith its partially proper topology ([30, Def.8.1.3]). On the one hand, using [30, Prop.1.5.4], wededuce that the natural map :

(µ∗E)η(r)♭ → Eη(r)♭

is a bijection; on the other hand, according to [30, Prop.8.1.4(a)], the counit of adjunctionν∗ν∗(µ∗E) → (µ∗E) is an isomorphism, hence also the natural map

(ν∗µ∗E)η(r)♭ → µ∗Eη(r)♭

is bijective. Therefore, we may find a partially proper open neighborhoodV ⊂ D(1)∗ of η(r)♭,and a sectionπV ∈ E(V ), such that(πV )η(r)♭ = πη(r)♭ . SinceE is locally constant andπ2

η(r)♭=

πη(r)♭ , it follows thatπV is a projector inE(V ), and its stalk(πV )η(r) cuts out the direct summandFr(β1(r)).

Next, for everyr′ < r, letD(r′, r−) :=⋃r′<s<r D(r

′, s); by inspecting the proof of theorem3.3.29 we see that, providedr′ is sufficiently close tor, there exists a decomposition :

F|D(r′,r−) ≃k⊕

j=1

Gj

consisting of locally constantΛ-modulesGj onD(r′, r−)et, such that :

(Gj)η(s) = Fs(βj(s)) for everyj ≤ k and everys ∈ [r′, r).

Thus, we may find a unique projectorπD(r′,r−) ∈ E(D(r′, r−)) that cuts out the direct summandG1. Finally, on the intersectionV ∩ D(r′, r−), we must haveπV = πD(r′,r−), hence we obtaina sectionπW (r) of E on the open subsetW (r) := V ∪ D(r′, r−). Up to removing some smallclosed subset, we may assume thatW (r) is of the formD(r′, r)\

⋃mi=1 E(ai, ρi), whereE(ai, ρi)

denotes the closed disc with centerai ∈ D(r, r) and radiusρi < r. By a standard compactnessargument, we see that there exists a sequence(rn | n ∈ N) of elements ofΓK , with rn ≤ r0for everyn ∈ N, and limn→+∞ rn = 0, such thatU :=

⋃n∈NW (rn) contains the subset

{η(s) | s ∈ ΓK ; s ≤ r0}. Clearly, this open subsetU will do. �

78 LORENZO RAMERO

REFERENCES

[1] Y.A NDRE, Filtrations de type Hasse-Arf et monodromiep-adique.Invent.Math.148 (2002), pp.285–317.[2] M.A RTIN, Algebraic approximation of structures over complete local rings. Publ. Math. IHES36 (1969)

pp.23–58.[3] M.A RTIN ET AL ., Theorie des topos et cohomologie etale des schemas – tome 2.Springer Lect. Notes Math.

270 (1972).[4] M.A RTIN ET AL ., Theorie des topos et cohomologie etale des schemas – tome 3.Springer Lect. Notes Math.

305 (1973).[5] P.BERTHELOT ET AL., Theorie des Intersection et Theoremes de Riemann-Roch.Springer Lect. Notes Math.

225 (1971).[6] S.BOSCH, U.GUNTZER, R.REMMERT, Non-Archimedean analysis.Springer Grundl. Math. Wiss.261

(1984).[7] S.BOSCH, W.LUTKEBOHMERT, Uniformization of Abelian Varieties I.Math. Ann.270 (1985) pp.349-379.[8] N.BOURBAKI Algebre.Hermann(1970).[9] N.BOURBAKI, Algebre Commutative.Hermann(1961).[10] N.BOURBAKI, Topologie Generale.Hermann(1971).[11] B.CONRAD, Irreducible components of rigid spaces.Ann. Inst. Fourier49 (1999) pp.473–541.[12] A.J. DE JONG, Families of curves and alterations.Ann. Inst. Fourier47 (1997) pp.599–621.[13] P.DELIGNE ET AL., Seminaire de Geometrie Algebrique du Bois-Marie SGA41

2. Springer Lect. Notes Math.

569 (1977).[14] P.DELIGNE, N.KATZ, Seminaire de Geometrie Algebrique du Bois-Marie. Groupes de monodromie en

geometrie algebrique (SGA 7 II).Springer Lect. Notes Math.340 (1973).[15] J.DIEUDONNE, A.GROTHENDIECK, Elements de Geometrie Algebrique – Chapitre I.Springer Grundl.

Math. Wiss.166 (1971).[16] J.DIEUDONNE, A.GROTHENDIECK, Elements de Geometrie Algebrique – Chapitre I.Publ. Math. IHES4

(1960).[17] J.DIEUDONNE, A.GROTHENDIECK, Elements de Geometrie Algebrique – Chapitre II.Publ. Math. IHES8

(1961).[18] J.DIEUDONNE, A.GROTHENDIECK, Elements de Geometrie Algebrique – Chapitre III, partie 1.Publ. Math.

IHES11 (1961).[19] J.DIEUDONNE, A.GROTHENDIECK, Elements de Geometrie Algebrique – Chapitre IV, partie1.Publ. Math.




IHES32 (1967).[23] R.ELKIK , Solutions d’equations a coefficients dans un anneau henselien.Ann. Sci. E.N.S.6 (1973) pp.553–

604.[24] J.FRESNEL, M.VAN DER PUT, Rigid Geometry and Its Applications.Birkhauser Progress in Math.218

(2004).[25] O.GABBER, L.RAMERO, Almost ring theory.Springer Lect. Notes Math1800 (2003).[26] M.GARUTI, Prolongement de revetements galoisiens en geometrie rigide.Comp. Math.104 (1996) pp.305–

331.[27] R.GOLDBLATT , Lectures on the hyperreals. An introduction to nonstandard analysis.Springer Grad. Text

Math.118 (1998).[28] L.GRUSON, M.RAYNAUD , Criteres de platitude et de projectivite.Invent. Math.13 (1971) pp.1–89.[29] R.HUBER, Bewertungsspektrum und rigide Geometrie.Regensburger Math. Schriften23 (1993).[30] R.HUBER, Etale cohomology of rigid analytic varieties and adic spaces.Vieweg Aspects of Math.30 (1996).[31] R.HUBER, Swan representations associated with rigid analytic curves.J. reine angew. Math.537 (2001)

pp.165-234.[32] L.I LLUSIE ET AL ., Cohomologieℓ-adique et fonctionsL. Springer Lect. Notes Math.589 (1977).[33] N.M.KATZ, On the calculation of some differential Galois groups.Invent. Math.87 (1987), pp.13–61.[34] N.M.KATZ, Gauss Sums, Kloosterman Sums, and Monodromy Groups.Princeton U. Ann. of Math. Studies

116 (1988).[35] N.M.KATZ, Exponential sums and differential equations.Princeton U. Ann. of Math. Studies124 (1990).


[36] S.LANG, Algebra – Third edition.Addison-Wesley(1993).[37] G.LAUMON, Semi-continuite du conducteur de Swan (d’apres P.Deligne).Asterisque83 (1981) pp.173–219.[38] G.LAUMON, Transformation de Fourier, constantes d’equations fonctionnelles et conjecture de Weil.Publ.

Math. IHES65 (1987), pp.131–210.[39] Q.LIU, Algebraic geometry and arithmetic curves.Oxford Univ. Press(2002).[40] W.LUTKEBOHMERT, Riemann’s existence problem for ap-adic field.Invent. Math.111 (1993), pp.309–330.[41] H.MATSUMURA, Commutative ring theory.Cambridge Univ. Press(1986).[42] L.RAMERO On a class of etale analytic sheaves.J. of Alg. Geom.7 (1998) pp.405-504.[43] M.RAYNAUD , Anneaux locaux henseliens.Springer Lect. Notes Math.169 (1970).[44] P.RIBENBOIM, Le theoreme d’approximation pour les valuations de Krull. Math. Zeit.68 (1957) pp.1–18.[45] T.SCHMECHTA, Etale Uberlagerungen vonp-adischen Kreisscheiben.Schriftenreihe Math. Inst. Univ.

Munster29 (2001).[46] J.P.SERRE, Corps locaux.Hermann(1968).[47] J.P.SERRE, Representations lineaires des groupes finis – Cinquieme edition.Hermann(1998).[48] I.V IDAL , Contribution a la cohomologie etale des schemas et des log schemas.These Univ. Paris Sud(2001).

Documents

arXivarXiv:math/0310418v4 [math.AG] 18 Jun 2004 LOCAL MONODROMY IN NON-ARCHIMEDEAN ANALYTIC GEOMETRY LORENZO RAMERO ﬁfth release CONTENTS 0. Introduction (Snapshots from an Expeditio