## Are schematic fixed-points of a Cohen-Macaulay scheme Cohen-Macaulay?

### Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

I'm not sure how long this iterative questions can go on, but let me try again. Let's say $X$ is a Cohen-Macaulay scheme with an action of $\mathbb{G}_m$ (i.e. if $X$ is affine, a grading on the coordinate ring). Are the schematic fixed points $X^{\mathbb{G}_m}$ of $X$ Cohen-Macaulay?

-

2
I am not sure what the usual business is, but it is not true that if $\mathbb G_{\rm m}$ acts on a variety $X$ with a fixed point $p$, then this induces an action of $\mathbb G_{\rm m}$ on $\mathop{\rm Spec}\mathcal O_{X,p}$. – Angelo Oct 25 2010 at 21:39
Is this an issue of not being able to find a $\mathbb{G}_m$-invariant affine open containing $p$? – Ben Webster♦ Oct 25 2010 at 22:23
Those invariant affines are not cofinal in all neighborhoods. Algebraically, the localization of C[x] at the ideal (x) does not admit a grading...does it? – David Treumann Oct 25 2010 at 22:34
Ah, right. That was complete nonsense. Removed. I think you probably you can reduce to the graded local case, but let me not worry about that. – Ben Webster♦ Oct 25 2010 at 23:03
Let $T^1$ act on ${\mathbb A}^3$ with weights $0,1,1$. Then on the ${\mathbb P}^2$, the fixed-point set is not equidimensional. So you can only hope to have a local statement. – Allen Knutson Oct 26 2010 at 0:39
show 1 more comment

## 2 Answers

Here is a counterexample. Consider the action of $\mathbb G_{\rm m}$ on $\mathbb A^4$ defined by $t \cdot(x,y,z,w) = (x, y, tz, t^{-1}w)$, and let $X$ be the invariant closed subscheme with ideal $(xy, y^2 + zw)$; this is a complete intersection, hence it is Cohen-Macaulay. The fixed point subscheme is obtained by intersecting with the fixed point subscheme in $\mathbb A^4$, which is given by $z = w = 0$; hence it is the subscheme of $\mathbb A^2$ given by $xy = y^2 = 0$, which is of course the canonical example of a non Cohen-Macaulay scheme.

Developing this idea a little, one can show that any kind of horrible singularity can appear in the fixed point subscheme of a $\mathbb G_{\rm m}$-action on a complete intersection variety.

-

Murphy's law strikes again! – Ben Webster♦ Oct 27 2010 at 6:50

### You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.

Edit: the following does not answer Ben's question. It gives an example of the subring fixed by $G_m$ being not CM, while the question asked about the subscheme of fixed points, see the comments for more details.

Let $R$ be the (homogenous) cone of a curve $C$ of genus $g>0$, for example $R=\mathbb C[x,y,z]/(x^3+y^3+z^3)$. Let $S=R[u,v]$, $X=\text{Spec}(S)$ and $G_m$ acts by

$a.(x,y,z,u,v) = (ax,ay,az,a^{-1}u, a^{-1}v)$.

Then $A= S^{G_m}$ would be a homogenous coordinate ring for $Y= C\times \mathbb P^1$, so it is not Cohen-Macaulay (if $A$ is CM, it would mean that $H^1(Y,\mathcal O_Y)=0$, impossible, see here for an explanation).

(I learned this idea from Hochster, let me try to find a reference)

-
Hailong- this is the categorical quotient, not schematic fixed points. The schematic fixed points here are a single point with reduced structure and thus Cohen-Macaulay. – Ben Webster♦ Oct 25 2010 at 23:12
Hmm, sorry, I always thought of this notation as the invariants. What do you mean by schematic fixed pts? Are they just literally the pts of $X$ fixed by the group action? – Hailong Dao Oct 26 2010 at 0:10
@Hailong: you applied the fixed-point functor to the algebra rather than to the space. That is, the notation itself has a consistent meaning. (I'm not surely how to reasonable define schematic fixed points; in characteristic zero, with a connected group, one could look where the generating vector fields vanish.) – Allen Knutson Oct 26 2010 at 0:43
Dear Hailong: No ad hoc constructions/definitions are required. For any scheme $X$ over a ring $k$ and action on $X$ by a $k$-gp scheme $G$, define functor $X^G$ on $k$-algebras as follows: for $k$-algebra $R$, $X^G(R)$ is set of $x \in X(R)$ fixed by the $G_R$-action on $X_R$ (i.e., for any $R$-algebra $R'$, $x$ viewed in $X(R')$ is $G(R')$-invariant). Is this represented by a closed subscheme of $X$? Yes, provided $X$ is locally of finite type and separated over $k$ and $G$ is affine and fppf over $k$ with connected fibers. (See Prop. A.8.10(1)ff. in "Pseudo-reductive groups" for details.) – BCnrd Oct 26 2010 at 1:28

1
@ Allen and BCnrd: thank you! I will leave my answer, so people might benefit from your explanations and avoid my mistakes! – Hailong Dao Oct 26 2010 at 2:07
show 1 more comment
{"extraction_info": {"found_math": true, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 63, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0}, "config": {"markdown_headings": true, "markdown_code": true, "boilerplate_config": {"ratio_threshold": 0.18, "absolute_threshold": 20, "end_threshold": 15, "enable": true}, "remove_buttons": true, "remove_image_figures": true, "remove_link_clusters": true, "table_config": {"min_rows": 2, "min_cols": 3, "format": "github"}, "remove_chinese": true, "remove_edit_buttons": true, "extract_latex": true}, "english_confidence": 0.912219762802124, "perplexity_flag": "head"}