6
$\begingroup$

A characteristic feature of Berkovich spaces is that they are locally connected (in fact, locally contractible). I'd like to understand the proof. The key ingredient seems to be Corollary 2.2.8 in Berkovich's book. A key step in the proof is to take a connected component $W_n$ of a certain set $V_n$, but there is no explanation of why this connected component should be open (as I think it needs to be). I'd like to understand why.

Question: Why are Berkovich spaces locally connected?

Ideally, I'd appreciate a clarification of Berkovich's proof, or else a pointer to some other proof in the literature. Also, I'd be happy to understand the case of the Berkovich spectrum of a ring.

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

Let $X = \mathcal{M}(A)$ be an affinoid space. There is a map $\mathcal{M}(A) \to \operatorname{Spec}(A)$ sending a seminorm to its kernel. It is continuous, surjective and induces a bijection between the connected components of $\mathcal{M}(A)$ and $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$. Let me prove the last point.

First assume that $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ is connected. Then $\mathcal{M}(A)$ is connected too. Indeed, consider a clopen subset $U$ of $\mathcal{M}(A)$. We can construct an analytic function $e$ on $\mathcal{M}(A)$ that is 0 on $U$ and 1 on the complement. But the global sections on $\mathcal{M}(A)$ are nothing but $A$ itself (Tate's theorem), so $e$ defines an element of $A$, which is idempotent. Since $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ is connected, $A$ has only the trivial idempotents, so $e$ equals 0 or 1, hence $U$ is either the whole $\mathcal{M}(A)$ or the empty set.

For the general case, pick a connected component of $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$. It is a Zariski-closed subset of $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$, hence of the form $\operatorname{Spec}(B)$, with $B$ a quotient of $A$, so in particular an affinoid algebra. The previous argument shows that its preimage $\mathcal{M}(B)$ is connected. This finishes the proof of the bijection.

Finally, recall that the affinoid algebra $A$ is noetherian, so $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ has finitely many connected components, and similarly for $\mathcal{A}$. As a consequence, those connected components are open.

I think this is what you need to complete the proof of local connectedness.

I am not sure what you mean about the Berkovich spectrum of a ring at the end of your post, so I will not comment on that.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I think that the Berkovich spectrum of a ring is simply the usual one, namely, the set of seminorms on a ring with weak topology. For example, $\mathcal M(\mathbb Z)$ looks like a star, with all archimedean and non-archimedean seminorms. $\endgroup$
    – Z. M
    Sep 27, 2022 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ @Z.M: I am rather familiar with the construction but still not sure what the question is. Is $\mathcal{M}(A)$ locally connected for an arbitrary Banach ring $A$? Too general to be true I guess. $\endgroup$ Sep 27, 2022 at 20:47
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I was indeed under the impression that $\mathcal M(A)$ should be locally connected for any discrete ring or Banach ring $A$, but I see now that it's important here to restrict to the affinoid case. So for example, the general theorem does not explain the fact (also true, I think!) that $\mathcal M(\mathbb Z)$ is connected and locally connected. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    Sep 28, 2022 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ Note to self: this answer shows that in the affinoid case, the connected components of $\mathcal M(A)$ are open in $\mathcal M(A)$. This doesn't compete the proof of local connectedness -- one needs to show that each point has a neighborhood basis of connected open sets. But that's exactly what Bekovich's 2.2.8 does. $\endgroup$
    – Tim Campion
    Sep 28, 2022 at 12:40
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @TimCampion I don't think $\mathcal{M}(A)$ should be locally connected in general, just as $\operatorname{Spec}(A)$ is not. Yes, $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{Z})$ is connected and locally connected, which may be seen directly. Actually, all Berkovich spaces over $\mathbb{Z}$ are locally (path-)connected, see Théorème 7.2.17 in arxiv.org/abs/2010.08858. $\endgroup$ Sep 28, 2022 at 19:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge that you have read and understand our privacy policy and code of conduct.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.