The Logarithmic Cotangent Complex
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
The logarithmic cotangent complex Martin C. Olsson Received: date / Revised version: date – c Springer-Verlag 2005 Abstract. We define the cotangent complex of a morphism of fine log schemes, prove that it is functorial, and construct under certain restrictions a transitivity triangle. We also discuss its relationship with deformation theory. 1. Introduction 1.1. The goal of this paper is to develop a logarithmic version of the the- ory of cotangent complexes for morphisms of schemes ([6]). Our interest in the development of such a theory comes from two sources. First, we want to generalize the log smooth deformation theory due to K. Kato ([9], 3.14, see also [8]) in order to understand more complicated deformation theory problems in the logarithmic category (see section 5). Such deformation theory problems arise for example in the study of log Gromov–Witten the- ory ([12], [19]). Secondly, we are hopeful that the development of a theory of log cotangent complexes can be useful in the study of intersection the- ory on degenerations of varieties. In fact, the beginnings of a theory of log cotangent complexes can be found in the recent work of K. Kato and T. Saito ([10]) on logarithmic localized intersection product, where it is used to study a proper scheme over a complete discrete valuation ring whose reduced closed fiber is a divisor with normal crossings. In this paper, we associate to every morphism of fine log schemes f : X → Y ([9]) a projective system ≥−n−1 ≥−n ≥0 LX/Y = (· · · −→ LX/Y −→ LX/Y −→ · · · −→ LX/Y ), ≥−n [−n,0] where each LX/Y is an essentially constant ind-object in D (OX ) (the derived category of sheaves of OX -modules with support in [−n, 0]). We call the system LX/Y the cotangent complex of f, and we show that it has the following properties (1.1 (i))–(1.1 (v)): M. Olsson School of Mathematics, Institute for Advanced Study , Einstein Drive, Princeton, NJ 08540 USA 2 Martin C. Olsson ≥−n−1 ≥−n (1.1 (i)). For any n ≥ 0, the natural map τ≥−nLX/Y → LX/Y is an isomorphism. ∗ (1.1 (ii)). If f is strict (i.e. the map f MY → MX is an isomorphism), ◦ ◦ then (τ≥−nL ◦ ◦) represents LX/Y , where X (resp. Y ) denotes the un- X/Y derlying scheme of X (resp. Y ). 1 (1.1 (iii)). If f is log smooth, then the sheaf of log differentials ΩX/Y represents LX/Y . (1.1 (iv)). If X0 −−−−→a X 0 (1.1.1) f y yf Y 0 −−−−→b Y is a commutative diagram of fine log schemes, then there is a natural map ∗ La LX/Y −→ LX0/Y 0 . (1.1.2) If (1.1.1) is cartesian and if f is log flat, then (1.1.2) is an isomorphism, and if in addition the composite X0 → Y 0 → Y satisfies condition (T ) below (1.4), then the map 0∗ ∗ Lf LY 0/Y ⊕ La LX/Y −→ LX0/Y (1.1.3) is an isomorphism. (1.1 (v)). Given a composite f g X −−−−→ Y −−−−→ Z (1.1.4) satisfying condition (T ) below (1.4), there is a natural map ∗ LX/Y −→ Lf LY/Z [1]. (1.1.5) such that the resulting triangle ∗ ∗ Lf LY/Z −→ LX/Z −→ LX/Y −→ Lf LY/Z [1] (1.1.6) is distinguished (in the sense of (1.8 (iii)). 1.2. As an application of this log cotangent complex, we explain how to compute crystalline cohomology of “log complete intersections” in terms of the log cotangent complex. This application is modelled on the ap- proach of Illusie in ([7], VIII). The logarithmic cotangent complex 3 1.3. As shown by an argument of W. Bauer (section 7), there does not exist a reasonable theory of cotangent complexes for log schemes for which one has a distinguished triangle (1.1.6) for every composite as in (1.1.4). In this paper, we construct the distinguished triangle (1.1.6) when (1.1.4) satisfies the following condition (which holds for example if g is log flat (3.14) or if f is an integral morphism (3.15)): 1.4 (Condition (T)). There exists a family of commutative diagrams π Xi XX ×Z Zi X ×Y Yi Xi f ? ? ? fi + πYi YY ×Z Zi Yi (1.4.1) g ? ? g π i Zi + ZZi such that ◦ ◦ ◦ (1.4 (i)). The schemes Xi, Y i, and Zi are all affine. (1.4 (ii)). The maps πXi , πYi , and πZi are all strict, and their underlying morphisms of schemes are flat and locally of finite presentation. ` ◦ ◦ (1.4 (iii)). The induced map i Xi → X is surjective. (1.4 (iv)). There exists charts βXi : QXi −→ MXi , βYi : QYi −→ MYi , βZi : QZi −→ MZi and injective maps θ1 : QZi −→ QYi , θ2 : QYi −→ QXi such that the diagrams βXi βYi QXi −−−−→ MXi QYi −−−−→ MY x x x x θ f b θ gb 2 i 1 i β β Yi ∗ Zi ∗ QYi −−−−→ fi MYi QZi −−−−→ gi MZi commute and j Tor (OZ ⊗ [Q ] [QX ], OY [G]) = 0 for all j > 0. OZ ⊗ [Q ] [QY ] i Z Zi Z i i i Z Zi Z i (1.4.2) 4 Martin C. Olsson gp gp Here G := Coker(Q → Q ) and OY [G] is viewed as a OZ ⊗ [QY ] Zi Yi i i Z[QZi ]Z i algebra via the map ∗ OZ ⊗ [QY ] −→ OY [G], t ⊗ e(q) 7−→ g (t)βQ (q) · gq¯, (1.4.3) i Z[QZi ] Z i i Yi where gq¯ denotes the image of q in G. Remark 1.5. As explained to us by Gabber, the vanishing condition (1.4.2) is equivalent to j Tor (OZ ⊗ [Q ] [QX ], OY ) = 0 for all j > 0. (1.5.1) OZ ⊗ [Q ] [QY ] i Z Zi Z i i i Z Zi Z i A proof of this equivalence is given at the end of section 4. 1.6. On the other hand, Gabber has shown that if one does not require 1 LX/S ' ΩX/S for X → S log smooth, then there does exist a theory of log cotangent complexes for which one has a distinguished triangle for all composites X → Y → Z. We explain Gabber’s approach in section 8. 1.7. The paper is organized as follows. In section 2 we construct certain algebraic stacks LogΓ classifying commutative diagrams of log structures of a fixed form (see (2.1) for Γ the precise definition of Log ). These stacks generalize the stacks LogS studied in ([14]), and are the main technical tool used in the construction of the functoriality morphism (1.1.2) and the transitivity triangle (1.1.6). We define LX/Y in section 3 and verify properties (1.1 (i))–(1.1 (v)), assuming a key proposition (3.10) concerning condition (T ). This propo- sition is proven in section 4. In section 5 we discuss the relationship between the logarithmic cotan- gent complex and deformation theory of log schemes generalizing ([6], III.1.2.3, III.2.1.7, III.2.2.4) to log schemes. This section relies heavily on the results of ([13]). In section 6 we apply the cotangent complex to study log versions of results in ([7], VIII) as mentioned above. In section 7 we discuss an argument of W. Bauer which shows that there does not exist a reasonable theory of cotangent complexes for log schemes for which one has a distinguished triangle (1.1.6) for every com- posite as in (1.1.4). Thus some condition, such as condition (T ), is needed in order to have (1.1 (v)). Finally we discuss in section 8 an alternate approach to defining a G log cotangent complex LX/S for a morphism of log schemes X → S due to Gabber. This approach has the advantage that one always has a dis- G tinguished triangle. Furthermore, there is a natural map LX/S → LX/S whose cone is cohomologically concentrated in degrees ≤ −3. This implies The logarithmic cotangent complex 5 G that for the standard deformation theory problems one can use LX/S in- stead of LX/S. We have also included an appendix which contains some basic re- sults about simplicial monoids which are needed in the study of Gabber’s cotangent complex. 1.8. Notation and prerequisites (i). Logarithmic geometry: We assume that the reader is familiar with logarithmic geometry at the level of the first two sections of ([9]) and with the paper ([14]). Throughout the paper, a log structure on a scheme X means a log structure on the ´etalesite Xet. If α : M → OX is a pre-log structure on a scheme X, then we denote by (Ma, α) (or just Ma) the associated log structure, and if (M, α) is a ∗ log structure on X then we denote by M the sheaf M/OX . If X is a log scheme, we usually denote its log structure by MX and its ◦ underlying scheme by X. If f : X → Y is a morphism of log schemes, we ◦ ◦ ◦ denote the underlying morphism of schemes by f : X → Y . For a fine log ◦ scheme X, we denote by LogX the algebraic stack over X whose objects are fine X-log schemes and whose morphisms (T1 → X) → (T2 → X) are b ∗ morphisms of X-log schemes g : T1 → T2 for which g : g MT2 → MT1 is an isomorphism ([14]). If f : T → X is a morphism of fine log schemes, ◦ then we denote by Lf : T → LogX the associated 1-morphism. Recall that a chart for a fine log structure M on a scheme X is a map P → M from the constant sheaf associated to a fine (i.e.