Confusion about good reductionbad reduction for elliptic curvesDoes isomorphic generic fibre imply isomorphic special fibre for smooth morphisms?Lifting abelian varieties in (the closed fiber of) a fixed Neron modelExistence of proper integral models.Kernels and cokernels for morphisms of abelian schemes up to isogeniesUnderstanding of Tamagawa numbers of hyperelliptic curveReduction of torsion points on Neron ModelThe final step in the proof of Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich as in the paper of Serre-TateGood reduction of abelian varieties over valuation rings via coveringsAn abelian variety has good reduction $iff$ the Neron model is properSmooth proper variety over $mathbb Q$ with everywhere bad reductionThe space of integral liftings of a variety

Confusion about good reduction


bad reduction for elliptic curvesDoes isomorphic generic fibre imply isomorphic special fibre for smooth morphisms?Lifting abelian varieties in (the closed fiber of) a fixed Neron modelExistence of proper integral models.Kernels and cokernels for morphisms of abelian schemes up to isogeniesUnderstanding of Tamagawa numbers of hyperelliptic curveReduction of torsion points on Neron ModelThe final step in the proof of Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich as in the paper of Serre-TateGood reduction of abelian varieties over valuation rings via coveringsAn abelian variety has good reduction $iff$ the Neron model is properSmooth proper variety over $mathbb Q$ with everywhere bad reductionThe space of integral liftings of a variety













3












$begingroup$


I am confused about the notion of good reduction. Let $R$ be a DVR, let $K$ be its fraction field. If we have a smooth proper $K$-scheme $V$, then I believe $V$ is said to have good reduction at the unique non-zero prime ideal if there exists a smooth proper $R$-scheme whose generic fiber is $V$.



I tend to dislike the word "exists". I think for abelian varieties, a condition equivalent to good reduction can be formulated in terms of the 1st cohomology. Can a condition not involving the existential quantifier and equivalent to good reduction be given for general smooth proper $K$-schemes?



A second question, if $F$ is a number field, then what is the right notion of good reduction modulo a non-zero prime ideal of the ring of integers of $F$ for smooth proper $F$-schemes? The issue for me is the compatibility between different prime ideals: if a smooth proper $F$-scheme has "good reduction everywhere", does it mean that there is a single integral model that has smooth fibers over every prime ideal, or just that for any prime ideal you can find a (proper flat, or I don't know what should be required really) model that has smooth fiber over that prime ideal?



Third question: given a smooth proper scheme, is there some functorially constructed "best" integral model so that all questions of reduction can be just answered using that particular model? I have heard something about Neron models but I think they only work for abelian varieties.



I apologize for these naive questions but all references I found so far refer to good reduction without giving a definition. If there is a reference addressing the above questions I will gladly study it.










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor



John Sidis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Joe Silverman's answer (among others) at mathoverflow.net/questions/16600/… might interest you.
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    9 hours ago















3












$begingroup$


I am confused about the notion of good reduction. Let $R$ be a DVR, let $K$ be its fraction field. If we have a smooth proper $K$-scheme $V$, then I believe $V$ is said to have good reduction at the unique non-zero prime ideal if there exists a smooth proper $R$-scheme whose generic fiber is $V$.



I tend to dislike the word "exists". I think for abelian varieties, a condition equivalent to good reduction can be formulated in terms of the 1st cohomology. Can a condition not involving the existential quantifier and equivalent to good reduction be given for general smooth proper $K$-schemes?



A second question, if $F$ is a number field, then what is the right notion of good reduction modulo a non-zero prime ideal of the ring of integers of $F$ for smooth proper $F$-schemes? The issue for me is the compatibility between different prime ideals: if a smooth proper $F$-scheme has "good reduction everywhere", does it mean that there is a single integral model that has smooth fibers over every prime ideal, or just that for any prime ideal you can find a (proper flat, or I don't know what should be required really) model that has smooth fiber over that prime ideal?



Third question: given a smooth proper scheme, is there some functorially constructed "best" integral model so that all questions of reduction can be just answered using that particular model? I have heard something about Neron models but I think they only work for abelian varieties.



I apologize for these naive questions but all references I found so far refer to good reduction without giving a definition. If there is a reference addressing the above questions I will gladly study it.










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor



John Sidis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Joe Silverman's answer (among others) at mathoverflow.net/questions/16600/… might interest you.
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    9 hours ago













3












3








3





$begingroup$


I am confused about the notion of good reduction. Let $R$ be a DVR, let $K$ be its fraction field. If we have a smooth proper $K$-scheme $V$, then I believe $V$ is said to have good reduction at the unique non-zero prime ideal if there exists a smooth proper $R$-scheme whose generic fiber is $V$.



I tend to dislike the word "exists". I think for abelian varieties, a condition equivalent to good reduction can be formulated in terms of the 1st cohomology. Can a condition not involving the existential quantifier and equivalent to good reduction be given for general smooth proper $K$-schemes?



A second question, if $F$ is a number field, then what is the right notion of good reduction modulo a non-zero prime ideal of the ring of integers of $F$ for smooth proper $F$-schemes? The issue for me is the compatibility between different prime ideals: if a smooth proper $F$-scheme has "good reduction everywhere", does it mean that there is a single integral model that has smooth fibers over every prime ideal, or just that for any prime ideal you can find a (proper flat, or I don't know what should be required really) model that has smooth fiber over that prime ideal?



Third question: given a smooth proper scheme, is there some functorially constructed "best" integral model so that all questions of reduction can be just answered using that particular model? I have heard something about Neron models but I think they only work for abelian varieties.



I apologize for these naive questions but all references I found so far refer to good reduction without giving a definition. If there is a reference addressing the above questions I will gladly study it.










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor



John Sidis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






$endgroup$




I am confused about the notion of good reduction. Let $R$ be a DVR, let $K$ be its fraction field. If we have a smooth proper $K$-scheme $V$, then I believe $V$ is said to have good reduction at the unique non-zero prime ideal if there exists a smooth proper $R$-scheme whose generic fiber is $V$.



I tend to dislike the word "exists". I think for abelian varieties, a condition equivalent to good reduction can be formulated in terms of the 1st cohomology. Can a condition not involving the existential quantifier and equivalent to good reduction be given for general smooth proper $K$-schemes?



A second question, if $F$ is a number field, then what is the right notion of good reduction modulo a non-zero prime ideal of the ring of integers of $F$ for smooth proper $F$-schemes? The issue for me is the compatibility between different prime ideals: if a smooth proper $F$-scheme has "good reduction everywhere", does it mean that there is a single integral model that has smooth fibers over every prime ideal, or just that for any prime ideal you can find a (proper flat, or I don't know what should be required really) model that has smooth fiber over that prime ideal?



Third question: given a smooth proper scheme, is there some functorially constructed "best" integral model so that all questions of reduction can be just answered using that particular model? I have heard something about Neron models but I think they only work for abelian varieties.



I apologize for these naive questions but all references I found so far refer to good reduction without giving a definition. If there is a reference addressing the above questions I will gladly study it.







ag.algebraic-geometry






share|cite|improve this question







New contributor



John Sidis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor



John Sidis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question






New contributor



John Sidis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.








asked 10 hours ago









John SidisJohn Sidis

161




161




New contributor



John Sidis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.




New contributor




John Sidis is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Joe Silverman's answer (among others) at mathoverflow.net/questions/16600/… might interest you.
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    9 hours ago












  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Joe Silverman's answer (among others) at mathoverflow.net/questions/16600/… might interest you.
    $endgroup$
    – KConrad
    9 hours ago







2




2




$begingroup$
Joe Silverman's answer (among others) at mathoverflow.net/questions/16600/… might interest you.
$endgroup$
– KConrad
9 hours ago




$begingroup$
Joe Silverman's answer (among others) at mathoverflow.net/questions/16600/… might interest you.
$endgroup$
– KConrad
9 hours ago










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$


(1) Can a condition not involving the existential quantifier and equivalent to good reduction be given for general smooth proper $K$-schemes?




Not in terms of their "topology" in general. For abelian varieties, there's the Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich criterion: $X$ has good reduction iff $H^1(X_bar K, mathbfQ_ell)$ is unramified (there is also a $p$-adic Hodge theory variant if $R$ has mixed characteristic $(0,p)$, due to Coleman-Iovita). This has been extended to K3 surfaces recently by Liedtke-Matsumoto and Chiarellotto-Lazda-Liedtke, but even there the answer is quite subtle if the residue field is not algebraically closed (roughly speaking, one can only detect good reduction after an unramified extension using $H^2$, and to detect good reduction one has to do some hard work). Already curves give an example where cohomology is insufficient: there exist "curves of compact type" i.e. with bad reduction but whose Jacobian has good reduction (e.g. a curve whose model has a special fiber whose dual graph has no loops). Andreatta-Iovita-Kim provide a criterion in terms of the Galois action on the geometric fundamental group.



One could wonder whether looking at the Galois action on the etale homotopy type can see good reduction. I don't know the answer, but it might be not too difficult to find a counterexample.




(2) If $F$ is a number field, then what is the right notion of good reduction modulo a non-zero prime ideal of the ring of integers of $F$ for smooth proper $F$-schemes?




To me, this would mean that for every maximal ideal $mathfrakp subseteqmathcalO_K$, the base change of $X$ to the henselian (or complete, shouldn't matter) local ring of $operatornameSpecmathcalO_K$ at $mathfrakp$ has good reduction in the sense of the definition over a dvr you gave.



An alternative definition would be that $X$ has a smooth proper model over $mathcalO_K$.



For abelian varieties the two notions coincide because of Neron models.




(3) Given a smooth proper scheme, is there some functorially constructed "best" integral model so that all questions of reduction can be just answered using that particular model?




I think the answer is no. Again the most studied case beyond abelian varieties is curves (where one has the Deligne-Mumford compactification) and K3 surfaces (where one has so-called Kulikov models, whose existence is conjectural in general, and which are not unique).



If, however, you are interested with smooth and proper models, and you allow yourself to fix a polarization, then the theorem of Mumford and Matsusaka might be useful. See the answers to this question.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

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

    else
    createEditor();

    );

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



    );






    John Sidis is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f333952%2fconfusion-about-good-reduction%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    6












    $begingroup$


    (1) Can a condition not involving the existential quantifier and equivalent to good reduction be given for general smooth proper $K$-schemes?




    Not in terms of their "topology" in general. For abelian varieties, there's the Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich criterion: $X$ has good reduction iff $H^1(X_bar K, mathbfQ_ell)$ is unramified (there is also a $p$-adic Hodge theory variant if $R$ has mixed characteristic $(0,p)$, due to Coleman-Iovita). This has been extended to K3 surfaces recently by Liedtke-Matsumoto and Chiarellotto-Lazda-Liedtke, but even there the answer is quite subtle if the residue field is not algebraically closed (roughly speaking, one can only detect good reduction after an unramified extension using $H^2$, and to detect good reduction one has to do some hard work). Already curves give an example where cohomology is insufficient: there exist "curves of compact type" i.e. with bad reduction but whose Jacobian has good reduction (e.g. a curve whose model has a special fiber whose dual graph has no loops). Andreatta-Iovita-Kim provide a criterion in terms of the Galois action on the geometric fundamental group.



    One could wonder whether looking at the Galois action on the etale homotopy type can see good reduction. I don't know the answer, but it might be not too difficult to find a counterexample.




    (2) If $F$ is a number field, then what is the right notion of good reduction modulo a non-zero prime ideal of the ring of integers of $F$ for smooth proper $F$-schemes?




    To me, this would mean that for every maximal ideal $mathfrakp subseteqmathcalO_K$, the base change of $X$ to the henselian (or complete, shouldn't matter) local ring of $operatornameSpecmathcalO_K$ at $mathfrakp$ has good reduction in the sense of the definition over a dvr you gave.



    An alternative definition would be that $X$ has a smooth proper model over $mathcalO_K$.



    For abelian varieties the two notions coincide because of Neron models.




    (3) Given a smooth proper scheme, is there some functorially constructed "best" integral model so that all questions of reduction can be just answered using that particular model?




    I think the answer is no. Again the most studied case beyond abelian varieties is curves (where one has the Deligne-Mumford compactification) and K3 surfaces (where one has so-called Kulikov models, whose existence is conjectural in general, and which are not unique).



    If, however, you are interested with smooth and proper models, and you allow yourself to fix a polarization, then the theorem of Mumford and Matsusaka might be useful. See the answers to this question.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$

















      6












      $begingroup$


      (1) Can a condition not involving the existential quantifier and equivalent to good reduction be given for general smooth proper $K$-schemes?




      Not in terms of their "topology" in general. For abelian varieties, there's the Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich criterion: $X$ has good reduction iff $H^1(X_bar K, mathbfQ_ell)$ is unramified (there is also a $p$-adic Hodge theory variant if $R$ has mixed characteristic $(0,p)$, due to Coleman-Iovita). This has been extended to K3 surfaces recently by Liedtke-Matsumoto and Chiarellotto-Lazda-Liedtke, but even there the answer is quite subtle if the residue field is not algebraically closed (roughly speaking, one can only detect good reduction after an unramified extension using $H^2$, and to detect good reduction one has to do some hard work). Already curves give an example where cohomology is insufficient: there exist "curves of compact type" i.e. with bad reduction but whose Jacobian has good reduction (e.g. a curve whose model has a special fiber whose dual graph has no loops). Andreatta-Iovita-Kim provide a criterion in terms of the Galois action on the geometric fundamental group.



      One could wonder whether looking at the Galois action on the etale homotopy type can see good reduction. I don't know the answer, but it might be not too difficult to find a counterexample.




      (2) If $F$ is a number field, then what is the right notion of good reduction modulo a non-zero prime ideal of the ring of integers of $F$ for smooth proper $F$-schemes?




      To me, this would mean that for every maximal ideal $mathfrakp subseteqmathcalO_K$, the base change of $X$ to the henselian (or complete, shouldn't matter) local ring of $operatornameSpecmathcalO_K$ at $mathfrakp$ has good reduction in the sense of the definition over a dvr you gave.



      An alternative definition would be that $X$ has a smooth proper model over $mathcalO_K$.



      For abelian varieties the two notions coincide because of Neron models.




      (3) Given a smooth proper scheme, is there some functorially constructed "best" integral model so that all questions of reduction can be just answered using that particular model?




      I think the answer is no. Again the most studied case beyond abelian varieties is curves (where one has the Deligne-Mumford compactification) and K3 surfaces (where one has so-called Kulikov models, whose existence is conjectural in general, and which are not unique).



      If, however, you are interested with smooth and proper models, and you allow yourself to fix a polarization, then the theorem of Mumford and Matsusaka might be useful. See the answers to this question.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$















        6












        6








        6





        $begingroup$


        (1) Can a condition not involving the existential quantifier and equivalent to good reduction be given for general smooth proper $K$-schemes?




        Not in terms of their "topology" in general. For abelian varieties, there's the Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich criterion: $X$ has good reduction iff $H^1(X_bar K, mathbfQ_ell)$ is unramified (there is also a $p$-adic Hodge theory variant if $R$ has mixed characteristic $(0,p)$, due to Coleman-Iovita). This has been extended to K3 surfaces recently by Liedtke-Matsumoto and Chiarellotto-Lazda-Liedtke, but even there the answer is quite subtle if the residue field is not algebraically closed (roughly speaking, one can only detect good reduction after an unramified extension using $H^2$, and to detect good reduction one has to do some hard work). Already curves give an example where cohomology is insufficient: there exist "curves of compact type" i.e. with bad reduction but whose Jacobian has good reduction (e.g. a curve whose model has a special fiber whose dual graph has no loops). Andreatta-Iovita-Kim provide a criterion in terms of the Galois action on the geometric fundamental group.



        One could wonder whether looking at the Galois action on the etale homotopy type can see good reduction. I don't know the answer, but it might be not too difficult to find a counterexample.




        (2) If $F$ is a number field, then what is the right notion of good reduction modulo a non-zero prime ideal of the ring of integers of $F$ for smooth proper $F$-schemes?




        To me, this would mean that for every maximal ideal $mathfrakp subseteqmathcalO_K$, the base change of $X$ to the henselian (or complete, shouldn't matter) local ring of $operatornameSpecmathcalO_K$ at $mathfrakp$ has good reduction in the sense of the definition over a dvr you gave.



        An alternative definition would be that $X$ has a smooth proper model over $mathcalO_K$.



        For abelian varieties the two notions coincide because of Neron models.




        (3) Given a smooth proper scheme, is there some functorially constructed "best" integral model so that all questions of reduction can be just answered using that particular model?




        I think the answer is no. Again the most studied case beyond abelian varieties is curves (where one has the Deligne-Mumford compactification) and K3 surfaces (where one has so-called Kulikov models, whose existence is conjectural in general, and which are not unique).



        If, however, you are interested with smooth and proper models, and you allow yourself to fix a polarization, then the theorem of Mumford and Matsusaka might be useful. See the answers to this question.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$




        (1) Can a condition not involving the existential quantifier and equivalent to good reduction be given for general smooth proper $K$-schemes?




        Not in terms of their "topology" in general. For abelian varieties, there's the Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich criterion: $X$ has good reduction iff $H^1(X_bar K, mathbfQ_ell)$ is unramified (there is also a $p$-adic Hodge theory variant if $R$ has mixed characteristic $(0,p)$, due to Coleman-Iovita). This has been extended to K3 surfaces recently by Liedtke-Matsumoto and Chiarellotto-Lazda-Liedtke, but even there the answer is quite subtle if the residue field is not algebraically closed (roughly speaking, one can only detect good reduction after an unramified extension using $H^2$, and to detect good reduction one has to do some hard work). Already curves give an example where cohomology is insufficient: there exist "curves of compact type" i.e. with bad reduction but whose Jacobian has good reduction (e.g. a curve whose model has a special fiber whose dual graph has no loops). Andreatta-Iovita-Kim provide a criterion in terms of the Galois action on the geometric fundamental group.



        One could wonder whether looking at the Galois action on the etale homotopy type can see good reduction. I don't know the answer, but it might be not too difficult to find a counterexample.




        (2) If $F$ is a number field, then what is the right notion of good reduction modulo a non-zero prime ideal of the ring of integers of $F$ for smooth proper $F$-schemes?




        To me, this would mean that for every maximal ideal $mathfrakp subseteqmathcalO_K$, the base change of $X$ to the henselian (or complete, shouldn't matter) local ring of $operatornameSpecmathcalO_K$ at $mathfrakp$ has good reduction in the sense of the definition over a dvr you gave.



        An alternative definition would be that $X$ has a smooth proper model over $mathcalO_K$.



        For abelian varieties the two notions coincide because of Neron models.




        (3) Given a smooth proper scheme, is there some functorially constructed "best" integral model so that all questions of reduction can be just answered using that particular model?




        I think the answer is no. Again the most studied case beyond abelian varieties is curves (where one has the Deligne-Mumford compactification) and K3 surfaces (where one has so-called Kulikov models, whose existence is conjectural in general, and which are not unique).



        If, however, you are interested with smooth and proper models, and you allow yourself to fix a polarization, then the theorem of Mumford and Matsusaka might be useful. See the answers to this question.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 8 hours ago









        Piotr AchingerPiotr Achinger

        8,95722957




        8,95722957




















            John Sidis is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            John Sidis is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












            John Sidis is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











            John Sidis is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.














            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f333952%2fconfusion-about-good-reduction%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            ParseJSON using SSJSUsing AMPscript with SSJS ActivitiesHow to resubscribe a user in Marketing cloud using SSJS?Pulling Subscriber Status from Lists using SSJSRetrieving Emails using SSJSProblem in updating DE using SSJSUsing SSJS to send single email in Marketing CloudError adding EmailSendDefinition using SSJS

            Кампала Садржај Географија Географија Историја Становништво Привреда Партнерски градови Референце Спољашње везе Мени за навигацију0°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.340°11′ СГШ; 32°20′ ИГД / 0.18° СГШ; 32.34° ИГД / 0.18; 32.34МедијиПодациЗванични веб-сајту

            19. јануар Садржај Догађаји Рођења Смрти Празници и дани сећања Види још Референце Мени за навигацијуу