Picard-Vessiot theory of differentially simple rings

arXiv:1304.7663v2 [math.RA] 4 Apr 2014

Andreas Maurischat
Andreas Maurischat, Lehrstuhl A für Mathematik, RWTH Aachen University,
Templergraben 55, 52056 Aachen, Germany

Abstract
In Picard-Vessiot theory, the Galois theory for linear differential equations, the
Picard-Vessiot ring plays an important role, since it is the Picard-Vessiot ring
which is a torsor (principal homogeneous space) for the Galois group (scheme).
Like fields are simple rings having only (0) and (1) as ideals, the Picard-Vessiot
ring is a differentially simple ring, i.e. a differential ring having only (0) and (1)
as differential ideals. Having in mind that the classical Galois theory is a theory
of extensions of fields, i.e. of simple rings, it is quite natural to ask whether one
can also set up a Picard-Vessiot theory where the base is not a differential field,
but more general a differentially simple ring. It is the aim of this article to give
a positive answer to this question, i.e. to set up such a differential Galois theory.
Keywords: Differential Galois theory, iterative derivations
2010 MSC: 12H20, 13B05

1. Introduction
Differential Galois theory – and also difference Galois theory – is a generalisation
of classical Galois theory to transcendental extensions. Instead of polynomial
equations, one considers differential resp. difference equations, and even iterative
differential equations in positive characteristic. One branch of differential Galois
theory is Picard-Vessiot theory, the study of linear differential equations. In this
case the Galois group turns out to be a linear algebraic group or more generally
an affine group scheme of finite type over the field of constants. As one considers
solution fields of the polynomial equations in classical Galois theory, there are
solution fields in Picard-Vessiot theory. This however is a flaw in the theory
because the Galois group scheme does not act on the solution field but on a
subring whose field of fractions is the solution field. This subring, called PicardVessiot ring, even has nice properties. For instance, this ring is differentially
simple, i.e. it does not have any differential ideals apart from {0} and the ring
itself, just as fields are simple rings. This raises the question whether the PicardEmail address: andreas.maurischat@matha.rwth-aachen.de (Andreas Maurischat)

Preprint submitted to Journal of Algebra

7th Apr, 2014

Vessiot theory should be a theory of extensions of differentially simple rings
rather than fields.
In this article, we therefore generalise (and modify) the existing Picard-Vessiot
theory to extensions of differentially simple rings.
In positive characteristic, differential rings are replaced by rings with an iterative
derivation, since the constants of a derivation are too big in positive characteristic (every p-th power is a constant in characteristic p). On the other hand, in
characteristic zero there is a one-to-one-correspondence between derivations and
iterative derivations, as long as the ring contains the rational numbers – a condition which is fulfilled for differentially simple rings. Hence, a Picard-Vessiot
theory of differentially simple rings in characteristic zero is a special case of a
Picard-Vessiot theory for iterative differentially simple rings in arbitrary characteristic.
The whole paper therefore is formulated for iterative differential rings (IDrings for short) of arbitrary characteristic and iterative differential modules
(ID-modules for short). Apart from small modifications, the proofs in this
paper also work in more general settings, e.g. for rings with several commuting
iterative derivations.
The main results are an existence result for Picard-Vessiot rings even if the
constants are not algebraically closed (see Thm. 5.7), the existence of a Galois
group scheme G for a Picard-Vessiot ring R (see Cor. 6.4), as well as a Galois
correspondence between intermediate Picard-Vessiot rings S ⊆ T ⊆ R and
closed normal subgroup schemes H of G.
In Section 2, the basic notation, some basic examples and first properties of
ID-rings are given. We procede in Section 3 with giving some properties of IDsimple rings. Section 4 is dedicated to ID-modules over ID-simple rings. In our
definition, ID-modules are finitely generated as modules over the ring. A main
difference to ID-modules over ID-fields is that ID-modules over ID-rings need
not be free as modules. However, we show (see Thm. 4.3) that all ID-modules
over ID-simple rings are projective as modules. This also implies (see Cor. 4.4)
that ID-stable submodules are again finitely generated modules, although our
ID-rings are not assumed to be Noetherian.
In Section 5, we are studying Picard-Vessiot rings for ID-modules over a fixed
ID-simple ring S. We will define them as minimal ID-simple solution rings
(Def. 5.1) and show later on that this definition coincides with the usual one
(given for example in [7, Sect. 3]) if the ID-module is free as an S-module.
Furthermore, we give criteria for the existence of a Picard-Vessiot ring. Namely,
if the ID-ring S has a CS -rational point (where CS denotes the field of constants),
then for every ID-module M there exists a Picard-Vessiot ring (cf. 5.7). As in
the case of an ID-field as base ring, we show in Thm. 5.6 for a general IDsimple ring that a Picard-Vessiot ring always exists and is even unique up to
ID-isomorphisms, if the constants CS are algebraically closed.
Section 6 is dedicated to the Galois group of a Picard-Vessiot extension and
the Galois correspondence. A Galois correspondence is obtained between intermediate PV-rings and closed normal subgroup schemes of the Galois group.

2

Arbitrary closed subgroup schemes don’t fit into the picture here, because the
factor schemes will not be affine, and hence the corresponding “ID-scheme”
would not be the spectrum of a ring.
2. Basic notation
All rings are assumed to be commutative with unit and different from {0}.
We will use the following notation (see also [9]). An iterative derivation on
a ring R is a homomorphism of rings
θ(0) = idR
 θ : R → R[[T ]], such that
i+j (i+j)
(i)
(j)
(i)
and for all i, j ≥ 0, θ ◦ θ = i θ
, where the maps θ : R → R are
P∞
defined by θ(r) =: i=0 θ(i) (r)T i . The pair (R, θ) is then called an ID-ring and
CR := {r ∈ R | θ(r) = r} is called the ring of constants of (R, θ). An ideal
I E R is called an ID-ideal if θ(I) ⊆ I[[T ]] and R is ID-simple if R has no IDideals apart from {0} and R. An ID-ring which is a field is called an ID-field.
Iterative derivations are extended to localisations by θ( rs ) := θ(r)θ(s)−1 and to
tensor products by
X
θ(k) (r ⊗ s) =
θ(i) (r) ⊗ θ(j) (s)
i+j=k

for all k ≥ 0.
A homomorphism of ID-rings f : S → R is a ring homomorphism f : S → R
(n)
(n)
s.t. θR ◦ f = f ◦ θS for all n ≥ 0. If R̃ is an ID-ring extension of R. Then an
element r ∈ R̃ is called ID-finite over R if the R-submodule of R̃ generated by
{θ(k) (r) | k ≥ 0} is finitely generated.
An ID-module (M, θM ) over an ID-ring R is a finitely generated R-module M
together with an iterative derivation θM on M , i.e. an additive map θM : M →
 (i+j)
(j)
(i)
(0)
M [[T ]] such that θM (rm) = θ(r)θM (m), θM = idM and θM ◦ θM = i+j
i θM
for all i, j ≥ 0.
A subset N ⊆ M of an ID-module (M, θM ) is called ID-stable, if θ(n) (N ) ⊆ N
for all n ≥ 0. An ID-submodule of (M, θM ) is an ID-stable R-submodule N of
M which is finitely generated as R-module.1 For an ID-module (M, θM ) and an
ID-stable R-submodule N ⊆ M , the factor module M/N is again an ID-module
with the induced iterative derivation.
The free R-module Rn is an example of an ID-module over an ID-ring R with
iterative derivation given componentwise. An ID-module (M, θM ) over R is
called trivial if M ∼
= Rn as ID-modules, i.e. if M has a basis of constant
elements.
For ID-modules (M, θM ), (N, θN ), the direct sum M ⊕N is an ID-module with
iterative derivation given componentwise, and the tensor product M ⊗R N is
1 Since R may not be Noetherian, R-submodules of finitely generated modules may not be
finitely generated.

3

an ID-module with iterative derivation θ⊗ given by
X (i)
(k)
(j)
θ⊗ (m ⊗ n) :=
θM (m) ⊗ θN (n)

for all k ≥ 0.

i+j=k

For ID-modules (M, θM ), (N, θN ), a morphism f : (M, θM ) → (N, θN ) of IDmodules is a homomorphism f : M → N of the underlying modules such that
(k)
(k)
θN ◦f = f ◦θM for all k ≥ 0. For a morphism f : (M, θM ) → (N, θN ), the kernel
Ker(f ) and the image Im(f ) are ID-stable R-submodules of M resp. N . The
image Im(f ) is indeed an ID-submodule, since it is isomorphic to M/ Ker(f ).
Also the cokernel Coker(f ) is an ID-module.
Example 2.1.
i) For any field C and R := C[t], the homomorphism of Calgebras θt : R → R[[T ]] given by θt (t) := t + T is an iterative derivation
on R with field of constants C. This iterative derivation will be called the
iterative derivation with respect to t. R is indeed an ID-simple ring,
since for any polynomial 0 6= f ∈ R of degree n, θ(n) (f ) equals the leading
coefficient of f , and hence is invertible in R = C[t].
ii) For any field C, C[[t]] also is an ID-ring with the iterative derivation
with respect to t, given by θt (f (t)) := f (t + T ) for f ∈ C[[t]]. The
constants
θt ) are C, and (C[[t]], θt ) also is ID-simple, since for
P of (C[[t]],
i
f= ∞
a
t
∈
C[[t]]
with an 6= 0, one has
i
i=n
(n)

θt (f ) =

∞
X

ai

i=n

 
i i−n
t
∈ C[[t]]× .
n

Hence, every non-zero ID-ideal contains a unit. This ID-ring will play an
important role, since every ID-simple ring can be ID-embedded into C[[t]]
for an appropriate field C (comp. Thm. 3.4).
iii) For any ring R, there is the trivial iterative derivation on R given by
θ0 : R → R[[T ]], r 7→ r · T 0 . Obviously, the ring of constants of (R, θ0 ) is
R itself.
iv) Given a differential ring (R, ∂) containing the rationals (i.e. a Q-algebra R
1 n
with a derivation ∂), then θ(n) := n!
∂ defines an iterative derivation on
R. On the other hand, for an iterative derivation θ, the map θ(1) always
is a derivation. Hence, differential rings containing Q are special cases of
ID-rings.
Since for a differentially simple ring in characteristic zero, its ring of constants always is a field (same proof as for ID-simple rings), we see that
the Picard-Vessiot theory for ID-simple rings, we provide here, contains a
Picard-Vessiot theory for differentially simple rings in characteristic zero
as a special case.
Remark 2.2. We will not assume our rings to be Noetherian. Hence, for an
ID-module over an ID-ring R, there might exist R-submodules which are stable
under the iterative derivation, but are not finitely generated as R-module, and
therefore are not ID-modules in our definition. In particular, the kernel of a
4

morphism of ID-modules is not an ID-module in general.
Another problem that might occur is concerned with ID-finiteness of elements.
In general, the set of ID-finite elements in a ring extension R̃ does not have any
extra structure (sums and products of ID-finite elements may be not ID-finite).
Furthermore, there might be elements r ∈ R which are not ID-finite over R,
since the ideal generated by all θ(k) (r) (k ≥ 0) does not need to be finitely
generated. For ID-simple rings, however, both points will work out fine as we
will see in Cor. 4.4, resp. in Prop. 3.2, and Cor. 4.5.
Proposition 2.3. Let (R, θ) be an ID-ring, C := CR its ring of constants, and
let D/C be a ring extension such that D is free as C-module. Moreover, let D be
equipped with the trivial iterative derivation θD (d) = d ∈ D[[T ]] for all d ∈ D.
Then the constants of R ⊗C D are exactly the elements 1 ⊗ d, d ∈ D.
Proof. By definition all elements 1 ⊗ d are constant. For proving that there are
no others, let (di )P
i∈I be a basis of D as C-module, and consider an arbitrary
constant element i∈I ri ⊗ di ∈ R ⊗C D (almost all ri equal to 0). Then for all
k ≥ 0,
X
X
0 = θ(k) (
ri ⊗ di ) =
θ(k) (ri ) ⊗ di .
i∈I

i∈I

Therefore,
P i.e. ri ∈ C.
P all ri are constant,
Hence, i∈I ri ⊗ di = 1 ⊗ ( i∈I ri di ).
3. Properties of ID-simple rings
Since our basic objects will be ID-simple rings, we will now summarize some
properties of ID-simple rings:
Proposition 3.1. Let (S, θ) be an ID-simple ring. Then
i) S is an integral domain.
ii) The field of fractions of S has the same constants as S.
iii) The ring of constants of S is a field.
Proof. i) and ii) are proved in [7, Lemma 3.2]. However, ii) also follows as a
special case of Prop. 3.2, since constants are ID-finite elements. Part iii) follows
from ii), since the inverses of constants are constants, and hence the ring of
constants of an ID-field is indeed a field.
Proposition 3.2. Let (S, θ) be an ID-simple ring. Then an element x ∈
Quot(S) is ID-finite over S if and only if x ∈ S.
Proof. If x ∈ S, then I := θ(n) (x) | n ∈ N S is an ID-ideal of S, hence I = {0}
or I = S = h1iS . In both cases I is finitely generated, and hence x is ID-finite.
Now assume x ∈ Quot(S) is ID-finite over S, so by definition the S-module
M := θ(n) (x) | n ∈ N S ⊆ Quot(S) is finitely generated. M is also stable
under the iterative derivation, as is easily verified by calculation. The ideal
I := {s ∈ S | sm ∈ S ∀m ∈ M } is non-zero, since it contains the product of the
5

denominators of generators of M .
We will show that I is an ID-ideal. From this the claim follows, since by IDsimplicity of S, this will imply I = S, and hence 1 · x ∈ S.
For all s, m ∈ Quot(S), n ∈ N the equation
θ(n) (s · m) =

X

θ(i) (s)θ(j) (m) = θ(n) (s) · m +

n−1
X

θ(i) (s)θ(n−i) (m)

i=0

i+j=n

holds. In particular, for all s ∈ I, m ∈ M we inductively obtain for all n ∈ N:
θ(n) (s) · m = θ(n) (s| {z
· m}) −
∈S

n−1
X
i=0

θ(i) (s)
| {z }

∈I by ind.hyp.

and hence, θ(n) (s) ∈ I. Therefore, I is an ID-ideal.

θ(n−i) (m) ∈ S,
| {z }
∈M

Proposition 3.3. Let (S, θ) be an ID-simple ring and C := CS its field of
constants, and let D be a finitely generated C-algebra equipped with the trivial
iterative derivation. Then there is a bijection
I(D)
I
J ∩ (1 ⊗C D)

o

I ID (S ⊗C D)
/
/

✤
o

✤

S ⊗C I
J

between the ideals of D and the ID-ideals of S ⊗C D.
Proof. cf. [8, Lemma 10.7].
Theorem 3.4. Let (S, θ) be an ID-simple ring, m E S a maximal ideal, and
C = S/m the residue field. Then (S, θ) can be embedded into (C[[t]], θt ) as
ID-ring.
Proof. The iterative
θ induces an injective ring homomorphism θ̃ :
P derivation
(n)
n
θ
(x)t
, and it is easy to check, that θ̃ is indeed an
S → S[[t]], x 7→ ∞
n=0
ID-homomorphism (S, θ) → (S[[t]], θt ) where θt denotes the iterative derivation
with respect to t (comp. Example 2.1ii)). Since m[[t]] is an ID-ideal of S[[t]] and
S is ID-simple, also θ̄ : S → (S/m)[[t]] = C[[t]] is injective which is the desired
ID-embedding.
4. ID-modules over ID-simple rings
Throughout the section, let C denote an arbitrary field, and let (S, θ) denote
an ID-simple ring with field of constants C.
Remark 4.1. For a finitely generated S-module M , the following conditions
are equivalent (see [1, Section II.5.2, Theorem 1]):
i) M is projective.
6

ii) M is finitely presented and locally free in the weaker sense, i.e. for every
prime ideal P E S the localisation MP = SP ⊗S M is a free SP -module.
iii) M is locally free in the stronger sense: there exist x1 , . . . , xr ∈ S, generating the unit ideal, such that for each i, M [ x1i ] is a free S[ x1i ]-module.
Furthermore, Cartier showed in [2, Appendice, Lemme 5], that the condition
“finitely presented” in ii) is superfluous if S is an integral domain.
Since, ID-simple rings are integral domains by Proposition 3.1, in our situation
the conditions projective, locally free in the weaker sense and locally free in the
stronger sense are equivalent for finitely generated modules.
Lemma 4.2. Assume that S is a local ring and let m denote the maximal ideal.
Let (M, θM ) be an ID-module over (S, θ). Then M is a free S-module.
Proof. Let {x1 , . . . , xn } be a minimal set of generators of M , and assume that
this set is S-linearly dependent, i.e. there are ri ∈ S (not all of them equal to 0)
such that r1 x1 + · · · + rn xn = 0. Since S is ID-simple, for each ri there is some
ki ∈ N0 such that θ(ki ) (ri ) 6∈ m, i.e. θ(ki ) (ri ) ∈ S × . Take k ∈ N0 maximal such
that for all j < k and all i = 1, . . . , n: θ(j) (ri ) ∈ m. W.l.o.g. θ(k) (r1 ) ∈ S × .
Then one obtains:


k
n
X
X
(k−j)
(k)

θ(j) (ri )θM (xi )
0 = θM (r1 x1 + · · · + rn xn ) =
i=1

≡

n
X

θ(k) (ri )xi

j=0

mod mM

i=1

Since θ(k) (r1 ) is invertible, this implies x1 ∈ hx2 , . . . , xn i+mM , hence hx2 , . . . , xn i+
mM = M , and by Nakayama’s lemma hx2 , . . . , xn i = M contradicting the assumption that {x1 , . . . , xn } was minimal.
Hence, {x1 , . . . , xn } is linearly independent, and therefore a basis of M .
Theorem 4.3. If (M, θM ) is an ID-module over (S, θ), then M is a projective
S-module.
Proof. For every prime ideal P E S the localisation SP is a local ring and an
ID-simple ring, and MP = SP ⊗S M is an ID-module over SP . By the previous
lemma, MP is free for all P , i.e. M is locally free in the weaker sense, hence
projective.
Corollary 4.4. Let (M, θM ) be an ID-module over (S, θ). Then every ID-stable
S-submodule of M is a finitely generated S-module, and hence an ID-submodule
of M .
Proof. Let N be an ID-stable S-submodule of M , then the factor module M/N is
again an ID-module, and hence a projective S-module by the previous theorem.
Therefore, the exact sequence of S-modules
0 → N → M → M/N → 0
7

splits. Hence, N is isomorphic to a factor module of M and therefore finitely
generated.
Corollary 4.5. Let (R, θ) be an ID-ring extension of (S, θ). Then the set of
elements in R which are ID-finite over S is an S-subalgebra of R.
Proof. By Prop. 3.2, all elements in S are ID-finite over S. So it remains to show
that for ID-finite elements x, y ∈ R also x + y and x · y are ID-finite. Since x and
y are ID-finite over S, the S-modules θ(n) (x) | n ∈ N S and θ(n) (y) | n ∈ N S
are finitely generated. But then also M := θ(n) (x) | n ∈ N S + θ(n) (y) | n ∈ N S
is finitely generated as well as N := θ(n) (x)θ(m) (y) | n, m ∈ N S . Therefore, M
and N are ID-modules over S. Using additivity of the θ(n) resp. the generalized
Leibniz rule, one obtains that θ(n) (x + y) | n ∈ N S and θ(n) (x · y) | n ∈ N S
are ID-stable S-submodules of M resp. of N , and hence by Cor. 4.4, they are
both finitely generated as S-modules. Therefore x + y and x · y are ID-finite
over S.
We end the considerations on the structure of ID-modules by looking at the
special case of the ID-simple ring (S, θ) = (C[[t]], θt ) (comp. Example 2.1ii)).
Theorem 4.6. Let C be a field. Then every ID-module over (C[[t]], θt ) is trivial.
Proof. Let (M, θM ) be an ID-module over (C[[t]], θt ). Since, C[[t]] is a local
ring, M is a free C[[t]]-module by Lemma 4.2. Hence, let b = (b1 , . . . , br ) be a
basis of M and A(t, T ) ∈ Matr×r (C[[t]][[T ]]) be such that θM (b) = bA(t, T ). 2
Since θ(0) = idM , one has A(t, 0) = 1r ∈ GLr (C[[t]]) which implies that A(t, T )
is invertible, i.e. A(t, T ) ∈ GLr (C[[t]][[T ]]). Therefore, also Y (t) := A(t, −t) ∈
Matr×r (C[[t]]) is invertible, since Y (0) = A(0, 0) = 1r ∈ GLr (C). We claim
that bY (t) is a basis of constant vectors in M , and hence M ∼
= S r as ID-modules.
Since, θM (bY (t)) = θM (b)θt (Y (t)) = bA(t, T )Y (t + T ), we have to show that
Y (t) = A(t, T )Y (t + T ).
(i)

(i)

Since the iteration rule θM ◦ θM =
commutative diagram

i+j
i

 (i+j)
θM
holds, one has the following

U θM

/ M [[U ]]
M❍
❍❍
❍❍
❍❍
θM [[U]]
❍❍
θ
T +U M
❍$ 
M [[T, U ]]
(which indeed is equivalent to the iteration rule; cf. [6, §27]). Here U θM and
are the iterative derivations on M with T replaced by U resp. by T + U ,

T +U θM

2 When

we apply θ resp. θM to a tuple or a matrix, it is meant to apply θ P
resp. θM to each
entry. Then the equation has to be read as a matrix identity, i.e. θM (bi ) = rj=1 bj A(t, T )ji
for A(t, T )ji being the (j, i)-th entry of A(t, T ).

8

θ

T 7→U

M
→ M [[T ]] −−−→ M [[U ]]. The map θM [[U ]] denotesP
the exten-
i.e. U θM : M −−
∞
i
sion
of
θ
to
M
[[U
]]
by
applying
θ
to
each
coefficient,
i.e.
θ
[[U
]]
:=
M
M
M
i=0 mi U
P∞
i
i=0 θM (mi )U ∈ M [[T, U ]].
Applying this to our setting, we obtain

bA(t, T + U ) =
=

T +U θM (b)

= θM [[U ]] (U θM (b))

θM [[U ]] (bA(t, U )) = bA(t, T )A(t + T, U ),

hence A(t, T + U ) = A(t, T )A(t + T, U ). Specializing U to −t − T , we finally get
Y (t) = A(t, −t) = A(t, T )A(t + T, −t − T ) = A(t, T )Y (t + T ).

5. Picard-Vessiot rings
Throughout the section, let C denote an arbitrary field, (S, θ) an ID-simple ring
with CS = C, and let (M, θM ) denote an ID-module over S.
Definition 5.1. A solution ring for M is an ID-simple ring 0 6= (R, θR )
together with a homomorphism of ID-rings f : S → R s.t.
(i) CR = f (C),
(ii) R ⊗S M is a trivial ID-module over R.
A Picard-Vessiot ring (PV-ring) for M is a minimal solution ring 0 6= (R, θR ),
i.e. if 0 6= (R̃, θR̃ ) with f˜ : S → R̃ is another solution ring, then any IDhomomorphism g : R̃ → R (if it exists) is an isomorphism.
Remark 5.2.
i) Since the kernel of an ID-homomorphism is an ID-ideal,
and S is ID-simple, the homomorphism f is always injective. Therefore,
we can view any solution ring R as an extension of S, and we will omit
the homomorphism f .
ii) Assume that M is a free S-module with basis b = (b1 , . . . , br ), and R is
a solution ring for M , then there is a matrix Y ∈ GLr (R) s.t. bY is a
basis of constant elements in R ⊗S M . Such a matrix will be called a
fundamental solution matrix for M (with respect to b).
The next proposition implies that in case of an ID-module M which is free as Smodule, our definition of PV-ring coincides with the usual one given for example
in [7, Sect. 3] (if the constants are algebraically closed) resp. in [9, Def. 2.3].
Proposition 5.3. Assume that M is free as an S-module, and let R be a
solution ring for M . Then there is a unique Picard-Vessiot ring R̃ inside R.
This is the S-subalgebra of R generated by the coefficients of a fundamental
solution matrix and the inverse of its determinant.

9

Proof. Let Y ∈ GLr (R) be a fundamental solution matrix for M with respect
to a basis b. Then any other fundamental solution matrix for M in GLr (R)
is obtained as F · Y · G for F ∈ GLr (S) and G ∈ GLr (C) (base change in
M resp. CR⊗S M ). Hence, all fundamental solution matrices generate the same
S-subalgebra R̃ = S[Y, det(Y )−1 ] of R. And since every solution ring has to contain a fundamental solution matrix, there is no solution ring strictly contained
in R̃. It remains to show that R̃ is ID-simple.
Let C[Z, det(Z)−1 ] be the group ring of GLr,C equipped with the trivial iterative derivation, and let S[X, det(X)−1 ] be an ID-extension of S with θ(X) :=
θ(Y )Y −1 X, i.e. X is also a fundamental solution matrix for M . Then the
R-linear map
λ : R ⊗S S[X, det(X)−1 ] → R ⊗C C[Z, det(Z)−1 ], X 7→ Y ⊗ Z
is an ID-isomorphism. Furthermore R̃ ∼
= S[X, det(X)−1 ]/I˜ for an appropri˜
˜ = R ⊗ J˜ for some ideal J˜ E
ate ID-ideal I. By Proposition 3.3, λ(R ⊗ I)
−1
C[Z, det(Z) ]. Hence, we obtain an R-linear ID-isomorphism
˜
λ̄ : R ⊗S R̃ → R ⊗C C[Z, det(Z)−1 ]/J.
Now let I E R̃ be a maximal ID-ideal, then again by Proposition 3.3, there is an
˜ s.t. λ̄(R ⊗ I) = R ⊗ J, and we again obideal J E C[Z, det(Z)−1 ] containing J,
tain an R-linear ID-isomorphism R⊗S (R̃/I) → R⊗C C[Z, det(Z)−1 ]/J. The restriction of this map to 1⊗S (R̃/I) therefore, gives an ID-monomorphism R̃/I →
R ⊗C C[Z, det(Z)−1 ]/J. Choosing a maximal ideal m of C[Z, det(Z)−1 ]/J,
and letting D := (C[Z, det(Z)−1 ]/J)/m (a finite extension of C), leads to
R̃/I → R ⊗C D which is again injective, since R̃/I is ID-simple and the kernel
is an ID-ideal. On the other hand, its D-linear extension R̃/I · D → R ⊗C D has
image R̃ ⊗C D (since Y = λ̄(Y Z̄ −1 )). But this means that the transcendence
degree of R̃/I over S has to be at least as big as the one of R̃ over S. Hence, I
has to have height 0, i.e. I = 0 since, R̃ ⊆ R is an integral domain.
Theorem 5.4. Let M be an ID-module over S, R a solution ring for M , and
e = (e1 , . . . , er ) be an R-basis of R ⊗S M consisting of ID-constant elements.
Furthermore, let x1 , . . . , xl ∈ S such that hx1 , . . . , xl iS = S and M [ x1i ] is free
over S[ x1i ] for all i = 1, . . . , l.3 For all i let bi be a basis of M [ x1i ] over S[ x1i ]
consisting of elements in M , and Yi ∈ Matr×r (R) s.t. bi = eYi (i = 1, . . . , l).
Furthermore, choose ni ∈ N such that xni i M ⊆ hbi iS .
Then there is a unique Picard-Vessiot ring R̃ for M inside R, and it is explicitely
n
given by R̃ := S[Yj , det(xj j Yj−1 ) | j = 1, . . . l].
Proof. First at all, since hx1 , . . . , xl iS = S and therefore hxn1 1 , . . . , xnl l iS = S,
P
there exist a1 , . . . , al ∈ S s.t. li=1 ai xni i = 1. This also implies that b1 ∪ · · · ∪ bl
3 The x exist, since M is projective by Theorem 4.3, hence locally free in the stronger
i
sense.

10

is a set of generators for M . Hence, b1 ∪· · ·∪bl is a set of generators for R⊗S M ,
and there also is a matrix Ỹ ∈ Matrl×r (R) s.t. e = (b1 , . . . , bl )Ỹ . The proof
now procedes in three steps:
n
Step 1: We show that R̃ = S[Yj , det(xj j Yj−1 ) | j = 1, . . . l] ⊆ R:
n
n
nj
nj
Since xj M ⊆ hbj iS and bi xj = bj xj j Yj−1 Yi , the matrix (xj j Yj−1 Yi ) has
coefficients in S for all i, j. Then
n

exj j

(b1 , . . . , bl )Ỹ xj j = (b1 xj j , . . . , bl xj j )Ỹ

=

bj (xj j Yj−1 Y1 , . . . , xj j Yj−1 Yl )Ỹ ∈ hbj iR

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

n

=

and exj j = bj (xj j Yj−1 ). Therefore, xj j Yj−1 ∈ Matr×r (R). Therefore we obtain
n
R̃ = S[Yj , det(xj j Yj−1 )] ⊆ R.
Step 2: R̃ is a solution ring for M :
R̃ is ID-simple, since all the localisations R̃[ x1i ] are ID-simple by the consideration of the special case of a free ID-module, because they are just Picard-Vessiot
rings for the free S[ x1i ]-modules M [ x1i ]. (Yi−1 is a fundamental solution matrix
for M [ x1i ].)
Furthermore, R̃ ⊗S M contains the basis e, since
e=e·

l
X
j=1

n

aj xj j =

l
X

n

bj (xj j Yj−1 )aj ∈ hb1 ∪ · · · ∪ bl iR̃ = R̃ ⊗S M.

j=1

Hence, R̃ ⊗S M is a trivial ID-module and therefore R̃ is a solution ring for M .
Step 3: R̃ is a Picard-Vessiot ring for M , and the unique one inside R:
The steps 1 and 2 work for any solution ring R, in particular for a Picard-Vessiot
ring R′ ⊆ R. In this case, by minimality of R′ , and R̃ ⊆ R′ , we obtain that
R′ = R̃. Therefore R̃ is a Picard-Vessiot ring, and the unique one inside R.
Corollary 5.5. Let (R, θR ) be a Picard-Vessiot ring for M . Then:
(a) All r ∈ R are ID-finite over S.
(b) R/S is faithfully flat.
n

Proof. (a) By the previous theorem, R = S[Yj , det(xj j Yj−1 ) | j = 1, . . . l],
using the same notation as in the theorem. By Cor. 4.5, the set of ID-finite
elements is a subalgebra of R, so we only have to show that the entries of Yj
n
and det(xj j Yj−1 ) are ID-finite over S:
Since b1 ∪· · ·∪bl is a generating set of M , there is a matrix A ∈ Matrl×rl (S[[T ]])
s.t. θ(b1 , . . . , bl ) = (b1 , . . . , bl ) · A. Hence,
eθ(Y1 , . . . , Yl ) = θ(b1 , . . . , bl ) = e(Y1 , . . . , Yl ) · A,
which implies θ(Y1 , . . . , Yl ) = (Y1 , . . . , Yl ) · A. Therefore, all entries of the Yj are
ID-finite over S.
In the local case over S[ x1i ], we get θ(Yi ) = Yi Ai for some Ai ∈ Matr×r ((S[ x1i ])[[T ]]),

11

and hence θ(det(Yi )) ∈ det(Yi ) · (S[ x1i ])[[T ]], as well as θ(det(Yi−1 )) ∈ det(Yi−1 ) ·
(S[ x1i ])[[T ]].
n
Since (xj j Yj−1 Yi ) has coefficients in S for all i, j (comp. proof of Thm. 5.4), we
n
n
n
obtain that det(xj j Yj−1 ) = det(xj j Yj−1 Yi ) det(Yi−1 ) fulfills θ(det(xj j Yj−1 )) ∈
n
n
n
det(xj j Yj−1 ) · (S[ x1i ])[[T ]] for all i, and hence θ(det(xj j Yj−1 )) ∈ det(xj j Yj−1 ) ·
nj −1
S[[T ]]. Therefore, det(xj Yj ) is also ID-finite over S.
(b) By part (a), all elements in R are ID-finite over S and therefore, R is the
union of ID-modules over S. In particular, R is the union of projective (hence
flat) S-modules. Therefore, R is also a flat S-module.
Assume R/S is not faithfully flat. Then there is a maximal ideal m E S such
P
that mR = R. Hence, there exist ai ∈ m, ri ∈ R s.t. 1 = ki=1 ai ri . Since,
all elements of R are ID-finite, there is an ID-S-module N ⊆ R containing all
ri . The S-submodule S · 1 ⊆ N is an ID-submodule (since 1 is constant). As
N/(S · 1) is an ID-module over S and all ID-modules are projective, S · 1 is a
direct summand of N as S-modules. This however contradicts 1 ∈ mN .
5.1. Existence and uniqueness of Picard-Vessiot rings
In Picard-Vessiot theory of ID-modules over ID-fields, it is well known that
a Picard-Vessiot ring exists and is unique up to ID-isomorphism if the field of
constants is algebraically closed (cf. [7, Lemma 3.4] resp. [13, Prop. 1.20]). If the
field of constants is not algebraically closed a Picard-Vessiot ring may not exist
(see [10]) and if it exists, it may not be unique (cf. [4]). But in [4], Dyckerhoff
also gave a criterion for the existence in characteristic zero. This is about the
same criterion as we give in Thm. 5.7. Our proof however is different, and works
in arbitrary characteristic.
The existence and uniqueness result for algebraically closed constants is also
present in our situation:
Theorem 5.6. Let M be an ID-module over S. If the constants C of S are algebraically closed, then there exists a Picard-Vessiot ring for M and it is unique
up to ID-isomorphism.
Proof. By [7, Lemma 3.4] there exists a PV-ring R̃ for Quot(S) ⊗S M over
Quot(S). In particular, R̃ is a solution ring for M . Hence by Thm. 5.4, there
is a PV-ring R for M inside R̃. Uniqueness of the PV-ring R can be seen as
follows: For a PV-ring R, the ID-ring R̃ := Quot(S) ⊗S R is a PV-ring for
Quot(S) ⊗S M over Quot(S). Since R̃ is unique for Quot(S) ⊗S M up to IDisomorphism by [7, Lemma 3.4], and R is unique inside R̃ by Thm. 5.4, R is the
unique PV-ring for M up to ID-isomorphism.
The uniqueness could also be deduced directly from Theorem 6.3, since for
′
algebraically closed constants C, the affine scheme IsomID
S (R, R ) always has a
′
C-rational point (R and R being PV-rings for M ).
Theorem 5.7. Let S have a maximal ideal m satisfying S/m ∼
= C = CS . Then
for any ID-module M over S there exists a Picard-Vessiot ring R for M .
12

∼ C,
Proof. Since S is ID-simple and has a maximal ideal m satisfying S/m =
(S, θ) can be embedded into (C[[t]], θt ) by Theorem 3.4. Since C[[t]] is ID-simple,
has constants C (comp. Ex. 2.1ii)) and C[[t]] ⊗S M is a trivial ID-module by
Theorem 4.6, C[[t]] therefore is a solution ring for M . Hence by Theorem 5.4,
there exists a Picard-Vessiot ring for M (even unique inside C[[t]] with respect
to this given embedding of S in C[[t]]).
6. The differential Galois group scheme
In this section we establish the Galois correspondence for a Picard-Vessiot extension analogous to the classical ones. The ideas are the same as in [4, Sect. 2]
resp. in [8, Sect. 10/11]. But we have to do a bit more work, since our modules
are not free.
As in the previous section, let C denote an arbitrary field, (S, θ) an ID-simple
ring with CS = C, and let (M, θM ) denote an ID-module over S.
Theorem 6.1. Let R′ be a solution ring for M and R a PV-ring for M . Then
the map
α : R′ ⊗C CR′ ⊗S R −→ R′ ⊗S R, r ⊗ a 7→ (r ⊗ 1) · a
is an ID-isomorphism. Furthermore, CR′ ⊗S R is a finitely generated C-algebra.
Proof. By definition α is an ID-homomorphism.
First we show injectivity: Since α is an ID-homomorphism, Ker(α) is an IDideal of R′ ⊗C CR′ ⊗S R . Since R′ is ID-simple, Ker(α) is generated by elements
in CR′ ⊗S R by Proposition 2.3. But CR′ ⊗S R embeds into R′ ⊗S R. Hence,
Ker(α) = {0}.
For showing surjectivity, we use the notation of Theorem 5.4. So let x1 , . . . , xl ∈
S be such that hx1 , . . . , xl iS = S and M [ x1i ] is free as S[ x1i ]-module for all
i = 1, . . . , l, and let bi be a basis of M [ x1i ] consisting of elements of M , and
ni ∈ N such that xni i M ⊆ hbi iS . Furthermore, let e resp. e′ be a basis of
constant elements in R ⊗S M resp. R′ ⊗S M . Additionally, let Yi ∈ Matr (R)
and Xi ∈ Matr (R′ ) such that bi = eYi = e′ Xi . Then R is generated over S by
the entries of Yi and xni i Yi−1 , and by R′ -linearity of α it is enough to show that
these entries are in Im(α).
e and e′ can also be viewed as bases of the free (R′ ⊗S R)-module (R′ ⊗S R) ⊗S
M .4 Hence, there is a matrix Z ∈ GLr (R′ ⊗S R) such that eZ = e′ . Since both
e and e′ consist of constant vectors the entries of Z are also constant, and the
same holds for its inverse Z −1 ∈ GLr (R′ ⊗S R). Hence, Z ∈ GLr (CR′ ⊗S R ).
For all i we have eYi = bi = e′ Xi = eZXi and hence Yi = ZXi ∈ Matr (R′ ⊗S R),
as well as xni i Yi−1 = (xni i Xi−1 )Z −1 . Hence, the entries of all Yi and of all xni i Yi−1
are in the image of α.
Finally, as just seen, the restriction of α to R′ ⊗C C[Z, Z −1 ] ⊆ R′ ⊗C CR′ ⊗S R is
also surjective. But α is an isomorphism, so R′ ⊗C C[Z, Z −1 ] = R′ ⊗C CR′ ⊗S R .
4R

and R′ both embed into R′ ⊗S R, since they are both ID-simple.

13

Therefore, C[Z, Z −1 ] = CR′ ⊗S R , and CR′ ⊗S R is a finitely generated C-algebra.
Proposition 6.2. Let R and R′ be PV-rings for M , and let D be a C-algebra
equipped with the trivial iterative derivation. Then any (S ⊗C D)-linear IDhomomorphism R ⊗C D → R′ ⊗C D is an isomorphism.
Proof. Let β : R⊗C D → R′ ⊗C D be an (S ⊗C D)-linear ID-homomorphism. As
in the previous proof, Ker(β) is generated by constants and hence is trivial. For
the surjectivity, we remark that β(R) and R′ are both PV-rings for M . As in
the previous proof, there are bases of constant elements e and e′ in β(R) ⊗S M
resp. R′ ⊗S M which can both be viewed as bases of the free (R′ ⊗C D)-module
(R′ ⊗C D) ⊗S M .
The same arguments as in the previous proof (with R and R′ switched) show
that R′ is contained in the subring β(R ⊗C D) = β(R) · D of R′ ⊗C D. Hence
by D-linearity β is surjective.
Theorem 6.3. Let R and R′ be PV-rings for M . Then the functor
ID
′
′
IsomID
S (R, R ) : (Algebras/C) −→ (Sets), D 7→ IsomS (R ⊗C D, R ⊗C D)

is represented by Spec(CR′ ⊗S R ). In particular, it is an affine scheme of finite
type over C.
Proof. Using the previous proposition and theorem, the proof is exactly the
same as in [4, Cor. 2.11], or in [8, Prop. 10.9.].
As a special case for R′ = R we obtain the representability of AutID (R/S).
Corollary 6.4. For a PV-extension R/S, the group functor AutID (R/S) is
represented by G := Spec(CR⊗S R ), and thus G ∼
= AutID (R/S) is an affine
group scheme of finite type over C.
Definition 6.5. We call G = AutID (R/S) the ID-Galois group (scheme)
of R/S and denote it by Gal(R/S).
Proposition 6.6. Let R/S be a PV-extension and G = Gal(R/S) the ID-Galois
group. Denote GS := G ×C Spec(S) the extension of G by scalars. Then Spec(R)
is a GS -torsor.
Proof. The inverse of the isomorphism α of Theorem 6.1 for R′ = R induces an
isomorphism of affine schemes
GS ×Spec(S) Spec(R) = G ×C Spec(R) −→ Spec(R) ×Spec(S) Spec(R).
By bookkeeping of the identifications one verifies that this map is indeed the
isomorphism (g, x) 7→ (g(x), x) indicating that Spec(R) is a GS -torsor.

14

For setting up a Galois correspondence, we need a definition of functorial invariants (comp. [8, Sect. 11]):
Let H ≤ G be a subgroup functor, i. e. for every C-algebra D, the set H(D) is a
group acting on RD := R ⊗C D and this action is functorial in D. An element
r ∈ R is then called invariant under H if for all D, the element r ⊗ 1 ∈ RD is
invariant under H(D). The ring of invariants is denoted by RH . (In [5, I.2.10]
the invariant elements are called “fixed points”.)
Remark 6.7. Let γ : R ⊗S R → R ⊗C C[G] denote the inverse of the isomorphism α. The action of G := Gal(R/S) on R is fully described by the
ID-homomorphism ρ := γ|1⊗R : R → R ⊗C C[G]. Namely, for a C-algebra
D and g ∈ G(D) with corresponding g̃ ∈ Hom(C[G], D), one has g(r ⊗ 1) =
(1 ⊗ g̃)(ρ(r)) ∈ R ⊗C D for all r ∈ R.
Furthermore, for a closed subgroup scheme H ≤ G, defined by an ideal I ⊆ C[G],
G
one has r ∈ RH if and only if, ρ(r) ≡ r ⊗ 1 mod R ⊗ I, resp. if πH
(ρ(r)) =
G
r ⊗ 1 ∈ R ⊗C C[H] where πH : C[G] → C[G]/I = C[H] denotes the canonical
projection.
Proposition 6.8. Let R/S be a PV-extension and G = Gal(R/S) the ID-Galois
group. Then RG = S.
Proof. By the previous remark, r ∈ RG if and only if ρ(r) = r ⊗ 1. This means
that γ(r ⊗ 1) = r ⊗ 1 = γ(1 ⊗ r) which is equivalent to r ∈ Quot(S). Since, R/S
is faithfully flat by Cor. 5.5, we obtain r ∈ S.
Remark 6.9. The converse conclusion to Proposition 6.8, i.e. that RH = S for
H ≤ G implies H = G, is not true. For example, if G = GLn (C) and H is taken to
be a Borel subgroup, then R ∼
= S[GLn ]H = S.
= S[GLn ] by Hilbert 90, and RH ∼
H
The geometrical reason is that R is the ring of global sections of the scheme
Spec(R)/H. In case of H being the Borel subgroup this is a projective scheme
over S.
Before we come to the Galois correspondence, we need some lemmas and propositions. We start with a condition on an ID-simple ring ensuring that it is a
PV-ring.
Lemma 6.10 (analog of [8, Prop. 10.12]). Let R/S be a faithfully flat extension of ID-simple rings with CR = CS = C. Assume there exists an affine
group scheme G of finite type over C such that Spec(R) is a GS -torsor and the
corresponding isomorphism of S-algebras γ : R ⊗S R → R ⊗C C[G] is an IDisomorphism. Here, as usual C[G] is equipped with the trivial iterative derivation. Then R is a Picard-Vessiot ring over S.
Proof. The proof goes similar to [12], proof of Thm. 3.3(a)⇒(b).
Since, Spec(R) is a GS -torsor, R is finitely generated over S, and we can
choose C-linear independent elements u1 , . . . , ur ∈ R such that R is generated over S by these elements. By possibly increasing the set of u’s we can
assume that ρ(hu1 , . . . , ur iC ) ⊆ hu1 , . . . , ur iC ⊗C C[G], since by general theory on comodules, every element is contained in a finite dimensional comodule
15

(cf. [11, P
Thm. 2.1.3]).5 Then there are bij ∈ C[G] (i, j = 1, . . . , r) such that
r
ρ(uj ) = i=1 ui ⊗ bij for all j = 1, . . . , r, or written in matrix notation:
ρ(u1 , . . . , ur ) = (u1 , . . . , ur ) ⊗ B,

for B = (bij )1≤i,j≤r .
Since, ρ is a homomorphism of ID-rings, we also obtain for all n ∈ N that
ρ(θ(n) (u1 ), . . . , θ(n) (ur )) = (θ(n) (u1 ), . . . , θ(n) (ur )) ⊗ B.
Now, let M ⊆ Rr be the S-module generated by all vectors (θ(n) (u1 ), . . . , θ(n) (ur ))
(n ≥ 0). Then M is an ID-stable subset of Rr by definition and an S-module.
We will show that M is finitely generated as S-module, that R ⊗S M = R · M =
Rr , as well as that for any R̃ $ R, the standard basis of Rr is not contained in
R̃ ⊗S M .
The first shows that M is indeed an ID-module over S, the second that R is a
solution ring for M , and the third that R is a minimal solution ring, hence a
Picard-Vessiot ring for M .
We consider the matrices
 (k )

θ 1 (u1 ) . . . θ(k1 ) (ur )


..
..
W (k1 , . . . , kr ) := 
 ∈ Matr×r (R)
.
.
θ(kr ) (u1 ) . . .

θ(kr ) (ur )

for (k1 , . . . , kr ) ∈ Nr , and the ideal
I := hdet(W (k1 , . . . , kr )) | (k1 , . . . , kr ) ∈ Nr iR ⊆ R
generated by the determinants of all these matrices.
Since {u1 , . . . , ur } are C-linearly independent, {θ(u1 ), . . . , θ(ur )} ⊆ R[[T ]] are
R-linearly independent (cf. [12, Prop. 1.5]), and therefore, there is a matrix
W (k1 , . . . , kr ) having full rank. In particular, I 6= {0}. Furthermore, using the
Leibniz determinant formula and the product rule for iterative derivations one
obtains
θ(n) (det(W (k1 , . . . , kr ))) =

X

n1 +···+nr =n



k1 +n1
k1



···



kr +nr
kr



det(W (k1 +n1 , . . . , kr +nr )).

Hence, I is an ID-ideal, and since R is ID-simple, we have I = R. Therefore, there exist matrices W1 , . . . , Wl ∈ {W (k1 , . . . , kr ) | (k1 , . . . , kr ) ∈ Nr } and
Pl
a1 , . . . , al ∈ R such that 1 = i=1 ai det(Wi ). Using the adjugate matrices Wi#
of the Wi we get
1r =

l
X

ai det(Wi )1r =

l
X

ai Wi# Wi .

i=1

i=1

5 As in Remark 6.7, ρ := γ|
1⊗R denotes the coaction of C[G] on R corresponding to the
action of G.

16

This means that the standard basis of Rr is obtained as an R-linear combination
of the rows of the Wi , and hence R · M = Rr .
For the finite generation of M , we take W = W (k1 , . . . , kr ) of full rank, and
observe that ρ(W ) = W ⊗ B, ρ(det(W )) = det(W ) ⊗ det(B) and ρ(W # ) = (1 ⊗
B # )·(W # ⊗1), by using W W # = det(W )1r . Write θ(n) (u) := (θ(n) (u1 ), . . . , θ(n) (ur )),
then we get
γ(det(W ) ⊗ θ(n) (u)W # ) =
=
=
=

det(W )(θ(n) (u) ⊗ B)(1 ⊗ B # )(W # ⊗ 1)
(det(W )θ(n) (u) ⊗ det(B)1r )(W # ⊗ 1)
θ(n) (u)W # det(W ) ⊗ det(B)
γ(θ(n) (u)W # ⊗ det(W ))

Since, γ is an isomorphism, we have θ(n) (u)W # ⊗det(W ) = det(W )⊗θ(n) (u)W # ,
and since the tensor product is taken over S, each entry of θ(n) (u)W # is a
Quot(S)-multiple of det(W ). So there is a vector s = (s1 , . . . , sr ) ∈ S r and
t ∈ S such that t · θ(n) (u)W # = s det(W ), and hence
t · θ(n) (u) = sW.
This shows that all the vectors θ(n) (u) are S-linearly dependent to the rows of
W . Recalling that the rows of W were R-linearly independent, this show that
for any S-module N generated by vectors θ(n) (u) for several n ∈ N containing
the rows of W , one has R ⊗S N = R · N .
Applying this to the S-module M and to the S-module N generated by the rows
of the Wi (i = 1, . . . , l) above, we see that R ⊗S N = Rr = R ⊗S M . Hence by
faithful flatness of R/S, M = N and M is a finitely generated S-module.
Finally, we observe that for any solution ring R̃ inside R, the standard basis
r
of Rr must be contained
Pr in R̃ ⊗S M ⊆ R , as it is a basis of constant vectors.
Since (u1 , . . . , ur ) = i=1 ui ei ∈ M , we get that ui ∈ R̃. Hence, R̃ = R.

17

Proposition 6.11. Let R/S be a PV-extension with Galois group scheme G.
For an ID-ring T with S ⊆ T ⊆ R the following are equivalent:
i) T is a Picard-Vessiot ring over S for some ID-module.
ii) T is ID-simple and stable under the action of G, i.e. ρ(T ) ⊆ T ⊗C C[G].
iii) There is a normal subgroup scheme H of G such that T = RH .
If the equivalent conditions are fulfilled, the normal subgroup scheme H in iii)
can be taken to be H = Gal(R/T ).
Proof. i)⇒ii): (cf. [9, proof of Prop. 3.4])
Since, T is a PV-extension over S, we obtain a commutative diagram
T ⊗S T

R ⊗S R

∼
=

/ T ⊗C C[Gal(T /S)] = T ⊗C CT ⊗S T
∼
=


/ R ⊗C C[G] = R ⊗C CR⊗S R

where the vertical maps are just the inclusions. But this implies ρ(T ) ⊆ T ⊗C
CT ⊗S T ⊆ T ⊗C C[G], i. e. T is stable under the action of G.
ii)⇒iii): Since R also is a PV-ring over T for T ⊗S M , the Galois group H :=
Gal(R/T ) exists, and by Prop. 6.8, we have RH = T . The group scheme H
is indeed a closed subgroup scheme of G: R ⊗T R is a factor ring of R ⊗S R
by an ID-ideal I. Since γ : R ⊗S R → R ⊗C C[G] is an isomorphism, one has
γ(I) = R ⊗C J for an ideal J E C[G] by Prop. 3.3. Hence, C[H] = CR⊗T R =
C(R⊗S R)/I = C[G]/J. Furthermore, since T is stable under the G-action, for all
C-algebras D and g ∈ G(D), h ∈ H(D) ⊆ G(D), also g −1 hg fixes the elements
of T ⊗C D, i.e. g −1 hg ∈ H(D). Hence, H is a normal subgroup of G.
iii)⇒i): (comp. [8, proof of Thm. 11.5(ii)])
First at all we show that T = RH is ID-simple, that T has constants C, and
that T /S is faithfully flat. If I E T is an ID-ideal, then RI E R is an ID-ideal,
and hence, RI equals {0} or R. So I = (RI)H is {0} or RH = T . Furthermore
C = CS ⊆ CT ⊆ CR = C, hence CT = C. Faithful flatness is clear by the proof
of Cor. 5.5, since T ⊆ R consists of ID-finite elements.
The isomorphism γ : R ⊗S R → R ⊗C C[G] is H-equivariant, considered by the
action of H on the right tensor factor, and hence we get an ID-isomorphism
R ⊗S R H ∼
= R ⊗C C[G]H . Again by taking invariants (this time H is only acting
on the first tensor factor), this isomorphism restricts to an isomorphism
R H ⊗S R H ∼
= RH ⊗C C[G]H .
Since H is normal, G/H is an affine group scheme with C[G/H] ∼
= C[G]H (cf. [3,
III,§3, Thm. 5.6 and 5.8]). By construction of the isomorphism, it is an IDisomorphism, and it is the isomorphism corresponding to the map (G/H)S ×S
Spec(RH ) → Spec(RH ) ×S Spec(RH ) indicating that Spec(RH ) is a (G/H)S torsor. Therefore, by Lemma 6.10, T = RH is a PV-ring over S.
The statement on the choice of H has already been seen in the proof of the
implication ii)⇒iii).
18

Theorem 6.12. (Galois correspondence) Let R/S be a PV-extension for some
ID-module and G = Gal(R/S). Then there is a bijection between
T := {T | S ⊆ T ⊆ R intermediate PV-ring}
and
H := {H | H ≤ G closed normal subgroup scheme of G}
given by Ψ : T → H, T 7→ Gal(R/T ) resp. Φ : H → T, H 7→ RH .
Remark 6.13. The maps Ψ and Φ can be defined between all intermediate IDrings and all closed subgroups of G. But contrary to the Galois correspondences
in [8] and others, one does not get a full bijection, as we only consider the
rings and not the fields of fractions. Remark 6.9 provides an example that the
extension Φ would not be injective in general.
Maybe, one would get a full bijection when considering schemes with ID-simple
structure sheaves, because G/H, and therefore Spec(R)/H is a non-affine scheme
in general.
Proof of Thm. 6.12. Prop. 6.11 already shows most things: If H is a normal
subgroup scheme of G, then RH is a PV-ring. Hence Φ is welldefined. If T is
an intermediate PV-ring, the group scheme H := Gal(R/T ) is a closed normal
subgroup scheme of G. Hence, Ψ is welldefined. Furthermore, RGal(R/T ) = T
showing Φ ◦ Ψ = id.
It remains to show that Gal(R/RH ) = H for all closed normal subgroup schemes
H of G. In the proof of Prop. 6.11, it is shown that Gal(RH /S) ∼
= G/H. Furthermore, the projection map G → G/H corresponds to the map Gal(R/S) →
Gal(RH /S) given by restricting the automorphisms in Gal(R/S) to RH . Hence,
Gal(R/RH ) is the kernel of this map, i.e. equals H.
References
[1] Nicolas Bourbaki. Commutative algebra. Chapters 1–7. Elements of Mathematics (Berlin). Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1998. Translated from the French,
Reprint of the 1989 English translation.
[2] Pierre Cartier. Questions de rationalité des diviseurs en géométrie
algébrique. Bull. Soc. Math. France, 86:177–251, 1958.
[3] Michel Demazure and Pierre Gabriel. Groupes algébriques. Tome I:
Géométrie algébrique, généralités, groupes commutatifs. Masson & Cie,
Éditeur, Paris, 1970. Avec un appendice Corps de classes local par Michiel
Hazewinkel.
[4] Tobias Dyckerhoff. The inverse problem of differential Galois theory over
the field R(z). Preprint, 2008.
[5] Jens Carsten Jantzen. Representations of algebraic groups, volume 107 of
Mathematical Surveys and Monographs. American Mathematical Society,
Providence, RI, second edition, 2003.
19

[6] Hideyuki Matsumura. Commutative ring theory, volume 8 of Cambridge
Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
second edition, 1989. Translated from the Japanese by M. Reid.
[7] B. Heinrich Matzat and Marius van der Put. Iterative differential equations
and the Abhyankar conjecture. J. Reine Angew. Math., 557:1–52, 2003.
[8] Andreas Maurischat. Galois theory for iterative connections and nonreduced Galois groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 362(10):5411–5453, 2010.
[9] Andreas Maurischat. Infinitesimal group schemes as iterative differential
Galois groups. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 214(11):2092–2100, 2010.
[10] A. Seidenberg. Contribution to the Picard-Vessiot theory of homogeneous
linear differential equations. Amer. J. Math., 78:808–818, 1956.
[11] Moss E. Sweedler. Hopf algebras. Mathematics Lecture Note Series. W. A.
Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1969.
[12] Mitsuhiro Takeuchi. A Hopf algebraic approach to the Picard-Vessiot theory. J. Algebra, 122(2):481–509, 1989.
[13] Marius van der Put and Michael F. Singer. Galois theory of linear differential equations, volume 328 of Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2003.

20

