arXiv:1707.05476v1 [] 18 Jul 2017

Reduced class groups grafting relative invariants ∗
Haruhisa Nakajima
Department of Mathematics, Faculty of Science, Josai University
Keyakidai, Sakado 350-0295, Japan

Abstract
Let (X, T ) be a regular stable conical action of an algebraic torus on an affine
normal conical variety X defined over an algebraically closed field of characteristic
zero. We define a certain subgroup of Cl(X//T ) and characterize its finiteness in
e of X. Consequently we show that
terms of a finite T -equivariant Galois descent X
the action (X, T ) is equidimensional if and only if there exists a T -equivariant finite
e such that (X,
e T ) is cofree. Moreover the order of Gal(X/X)
e
Galois covering X → X
is controlled by a certain subgroup of Cl(X). The present result extends thoroughly
the equivalence of equidimensionality and cofreeness of (X, T ) for a factorial X.
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate orders of divisor classes associated to
modules of relative invariants for a Krull domain with a group action. This is
useful in studying on equidimensional torus actions as above. The generalization
of R. P. Stanley’s criterion for freeness of modules of relative invariants plays an
important role in showing key assertions.
MSC: primary 13A50, 14R20; secondary 14L30, 14M25, 20G05, 20G15
Keywords: relative invariant; equidimensional action; cofree action; divisor class
group; algebraic torus

Contents
1 Introduction

2

2 Preliminaries

4

3 Krull domains with group actions

7

4 Affine normal varieties with group actions

15

5 Equidimensional toric actions

18

∗ Dedicated

to the memory of late Professor Masayoshi Nagata.

1

1

Introduction

Let (X, G) denote a regular action of an affine algebraic group G on an affine algebraic
variety X over an algebraically closed field K of characteristic p ≥ 0. We say that
(X, G) is admitting an algebraic quotient, if the algebra O(X)G of invariants of G in the
coordinate ring O(X) of X is finitely generated over K. The algebraic quotient X//G of
X by G is defined by O(X)G . Such an action (X, G) is said to be equidimensional (resp.
cofree), if the quotient morphism πX,G : X → X//G is equidimensional, i.e., closed fibers
of πX,G are pure (dim X − dim X//G)-dimensional (resp. if O(X) is O(X)G -free).
For a finite dimensional linear representation G → GL(V ) of a connected algebraic
group G over the complex number field C, the following conjecture is well known (e.g.,
Appendix to Chap. 4 of [9]) and relates to the subject of the present paper (e.g., [13]).
The Russian conjecture If (V, G) is equidimensional, then it is cofree.
Especially for an algebraic torus G, the Russian conjecture is solved affirmatively (cf.
[20]), which is generalized in [12] to the case where (V, G) is a conical factorial variety
V = X with a stable conical action of an algebraic torus over K of characteristic zero.
It should be noted that this result is not true for any conical normal variety X (cf.
Example 5.7, i.e., the Russian conjecture for normal varieties does not hold ). Here X
(resp. (X, G)) is said to be conical, if X is affine and O(X) is a positively graded, i.e.,
a Z 0 - graded algebra defined over O(X)0 = K (Z 0 = N ∪ {0}) (resp. if the action of
G preserves each homogeneous part of O(X)). Moreover (X, G) is said to be stable, if
there is a non-empty open subset of X consisting of closed G-orbits.
The purpose of this paper is to study on the following problem which produces
extensions of the results in [12].
Problem 1.1 Suppose that G is an algebraic torus and (X, G) a stable conical action
of G on a conical normal variety X defined over K of characteristic zero. If (X, G) is
equidimensional, then:
e for a normal conical
• Does there exist a G-equivariant finite Galois covering X → X
e with a conical G-action admitting the commutative diagram
variety X
e
X
X
 −−−−→ 


π
πX,Gy
X
e,Gy

(1.1)

∼
=

e G) is cofree?
such that (X,

e /G
X//G −−−−→ X/

e in such a way that the order |Gal(X/X)|
e of the
• Moreover can we choose X → X
e
Galois group of X → X is a divisor of a power of the exponent of a subgroup of
the divisor class group Cl(X) of X?

This problem is closely connected with relative invariants of algebraic tori, because
their irreducible representations are of degree one. Relative invariants of finite groups
and compact Lie groups are studied by R. P. Stanley (cf. [18, 19]), which inspires the
author to extend R. P. Stanley’s criterion for freeness of modules of relative invariants.
2

Our study on Problem 1.1 in the present paper is based on the result in [11, 15] mentioned
as above.
The main auxiliary part is given in Sect. 3. We explain the results in Sect.3 in
more detail. Let us consider a Krull domain R acted by an abstract group G as ring
automorphisms and the RG -modules Rχ of χ-invariants in R for 1-cocycles χ’s of G in
the group U(R) of units of R. We associate some qualified cocycles χ with the Weil
divisors D(χ) on R and the divisorial RG -lattices d(RG ,R) (Rχ ). In Corollary 3.6, the
orders ord([D(χ)]) in Cl(R) will be characterized by the equality


ord([D(χ)]) = min m ∈ N | Rmχ ∼
= RG
on the order of [D(χ)], if Rm(χ)χ ∼
= RG for some m(χ) ∈ N . By the identity
d(RG ,R) (Rmχ ) = m · d(RG ,R) (Rχ )
for some cocycles, we will establish Theorem 3.12 as a main result in Sect. 3, which
shows ord([D(χ)]) is equal to ord([d(RG ,R) (Rχ )]) in Cl(RG ). In Definition 3.13, the
reduced class group UrCl(R, G) (resp. f
Cl(R, G)) is defined to be a subgroup of Cl(R)
(resp. of Cl(RG )) generated by certain [D(χ)]’s (resp. certain [d(RG ,R) (Rχ )]’s). Then
by Theorem 3.15 we have the equality of exponents
exp(UrCl(R, G)) = exp(f
Cl(R, G)) < ∞

(1.2)

of reduced class groups if Rm(χ)χ ∼
= RG for some qualified χ’s with m(χ) ∈ N .
Sect. 4, 5 are devoted to the study on Problem 1.1 and hence, without specifying,
suppose that (X, G) is a regular action of a connected affine algebraic group G on an
affine normal variety over K of characteristic zero. The pseudo-reflections in the general
linear group GL(V ) are recognized as elements which are inertial at minimal prime ideals
in O(V ) = Sym(V ∗ ) (cf. [11]). We define pseudo-reflections for (X, G) and characterize
the ramification indices of discrete valuations on X over X//G in the case where G0 is an
algebraic torus, in terms of orders of pseudo-reflections (cf. [14]). The qualified cocycles
treated in Sect. 3 are determined by pseudo-reflection subgroups (cf. Proposition 4.5).
Moreover suppose that both X and (X, G) are conical. Then, combining Proposition
4.5 with Theorem 3.15, by [12] we will obtain the main result of Sect. 4, 5, i.e., Theorem
5.2. Furthermore we define in Definition 5.4 the obstruction subgroup Obs(X, G) of G
for cofreeness of (X, G) which excludes some characters χ such that O(X)χ ∼
6 O(X)G .
=
Consequently, we solve affirmatively Problem 1.1 as follows (cf. Theorem 5.8):
Theorem 1.2 Under the same circumstances as in Problem 1.1, (X, G) is equidimensional if and only if there exists a (normal) closed subgroup Obs(X, G) of G whose restriction to X is of order dividing a power of the exponent of the subgroup UrCl(O(X), G)
of Cl(X) such that (X//Obs(X, G), G) is cofree.
The order |Obs(X, G)|X | of restrictions of Obs(X, G) to X is effectively determined
e := X//Obs(X, G), we
and is closely related to the equality (1.2). Clearly putting X
e
have a commutative diagram (1.1) and Gal(X/X) = Obs(X, G)|X . Thus the following
criterion for cofreeness is obtained:
3

Corollary 1.3 Under the same circumstances as in Problem 1.1, suppose that (X, G)
is equidimensional. Then (X, G) is cofree if and only if |Obs(X, G)|X | = 1.
The if part of Corollary 1.3 is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.2. There are
many equidimensional (X, G)’s which are not cofree (e.g., Example 5.7). Theorem 1.2
and Corollary 1.3 are regarded as quite generalizations of the main theorem in [12].
For a group homomorphism G → Aut(Y ) we denote by G|Y the set {σ|Y | σ ∈ G}
where σ|Y denotes the restriction of σ to Y . Let exp(G) be the exponent of a group G
and ord(a) denote the order of a ∈ G. For a subset (or an element) Ω of G, let hΩi
be the subgroup of G generated by Ω and ZG (Ω) the centralizer of Ω in G. Let tor(A)
denote the torsion part of an abelian group A. The notations Z and N are standard
(i.e, the set of all integers and that of all natural numbers, respectively). Let Z 0 denote
the additive monoid consisting of all non-negative integers.

2

Preliminaries

Let Q(A) be the total quotient ring of a commutative ring A and let Ht1 (A) be the set
consisting of all prime ideals p of A of height one (ht(p) = 1). Consider a ring extension
A ֒→ B of integral domains. For i ∈ Z 0 set
(i)

Ht1 (B, A) := {p ∈ Ht1 (B) | ht (p ∩ A) = i}
S
(i)
[j]
and moreover Ht1 (B, A) := i≧j Ht1 (B, A) for j ∈ N . Put
XQ (B) := {p ∈ Ht1 (B) | p ∩ A = Q}

for any Q ∈ Ht1 (A). For a nonempty subset M of Q(B), we define
\
(Aq ⊗A (A · M )) .
d(A,B) (M ) :=
q∈Ht1 (A)

Here A·M denotes the A-submodule generated by M and each Aq ⊗A (A·M ) is regarded
as a subset of Q(A) ⊗A (A · M ) ֒→ Q(B). Especially in the case of A = B, we simply use
dA (M ) instead of the notation d(A,A) (M ). If B is a Krull domain and A = Q(A) ∩ B,
then A is a Krull domain (e.g., [8]) and for any q ∈ Ht1 (A) the set Xq (B) is nonempty
(cf. [7, 12]). In this case, for P ∈ Xq (B) let e(P, q) denote the reduced ramification
index of P over q (e.g., [14]). In the case where A is a Krull domain, let vA,p denote the
discrete valuation of A defined by p ∈ Ht1 (A) and, for a subset M of Q(A) generating
a fractional ideal A · M of A in Q(A), let divA (M ) be the divisor on A associated with
the divisorialization dA (A · M ) = dA (M ) of A · M on A (e.g., [1]) . Let Div(A) and
Cl(A) denote the (Weil) divisor group and the divisor class group of A, respectively. For
a (Weil) divisor D ∈ Div(A), we denote by IA (D) the divisorial fractional ideal of A
associated with D. Our notation is standard (cf. [1, 4]).
Proposition 2.1 ([15]) Let R be a Krull domain and L a subfield of Q(R) such that
L = Q(R ∩ L). Suppose that J is a divisorial fractional ideal of R. If J ∩ L 6= 0, then
J ∩ L is a fractional ideal of R ∩ L and divR∩L (J ∩ L) equals to DJ which is given by
i♯ 
hv

X
R,P (J)
· divR∩L (q),
max
DJ :=
P∈Xq (R) e(P, q)
q∈Ht1 (R∩L)

4

where [a]♯ denotes −[−a] for any real number a and [ · ] denotes the Gauss symbol.
Corollary 2.2 Under the same circumstances as in Proposition 2.1, suppose moreover
that vR,P (J) ≡ 0 mod e(P, q) for any q ∈ Ht1 (R ∩ L) and any P ∈ Xq (R). Then
n · divR∩L (J ∩ L) = divR∩L (dR (Jn ) ∩ L)
for any n ∈ N .
Proof. Let q ∈ Ht1 (R ∩ L) be any prime ideal. For a prime ideal P0 ∈ Xq (R), the
condition
max (vR,P (J)) = vR,P0 (J)
P∈Xq (R)

holds if and only if
max (vR,P (dR (Jn ))) = vR,P0 (dR (Jn )).

P∈Xq (R)

By the assumption on discrete valuations of J in R and Proposition 2.1, we have
vR∩L,q (dR (Jn ) ∩ L) =

max

P∈Xq (R)

n·

=

v

max

R,P (dR (J

n

)) 

e(P, q)
v
(J) 
R,P

=

vR,P0 (dR (Jn ))
e(P, q)

e(P, q)
n · vR∩L,q (J ∩ L).

=

P∈Xq (R)

The assertion follows from this. ✷
For a Krull domain R and a subfield L of Q(R), the subgroup D(R,R∩L) (g1 , . . . , gn )
of Div(R ∩ L) is defined as follows:
Lemma 2.3 Suppose that R is a Krull domain and let L be a subfield of Q(R) such
that L = Q(R ∩ L). Let {g1 , . . . gn } be a finite set of nonzero elements in R. Then the
subgroup
*(
)+



1
divR∩L Qn
,
R ∩L
∀i1 , . . . , in ∈ Z 0
ij
j=1 gj
which is denoted by D(R,R∩L) (g1 , . . . , gn ), of Div(R ∩ L) is finitely generated.

Proof. By Proposition 2.1, we see that, for any q ∈ Ht1 (R ∩ L), the equivalence
vR∩L,q



Qn

1

j=1

gj ij





R ∩ L 6= 0 ⇐⇒

max

P∈Xq (R)

"

−

Pn

j=1 ij

· vR,P (R · gj )

e(P, q)

holds, where [ · ]♯ defined in Proposition 2.1. On the other hand, the set
n n
[
q ∈ Ht1 (R ∩ L)

j=1

o
∃P ∈ Xq (R) such that vR,P (R · gj ) 6= 0 ,
5

#♯

6= 0

which is denoted by supp(g1 , . . . , gn : R, R ∩ L), has only finite elements. Since
(
)



1
q ∈∈ Ht1 (R ∩ L) vR∩L,q Qn
R ∩ L 6= 0 ⊆ supp(g1 , . . . , gn : R, R ∩ L)
ij
j=1 gj
for any i1 , . . ., in ∈ Z 0 , we see that
D(R,R∩L) (g1 , . . . , gn ) ⊆

X

Z · divR∩L (q) ⊆ Div(R ∩ L).

q∈supp(g1 ,...,gn :R,R∩L)

The assertion follows from this. ✷
Suppose that R is an integral domain on which a group G acts as automorphisms. Let
Z 1 (G, U(R)) be the group of all 1-cocycles of G on the group U(R) of units of R whose
group structure is given by addition. The trivial 1-cocyle is denoted by θ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R)).
For any χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R)), let
Rχ = {x ∈ R | σ(x) = χ(σ) · x (∀σ ∈ G)}
which is regarded as an RG -module. If Λ and Γ are subsets of Z 1 (G, U(R)), let −Λ be
the set {−χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R)) | χ ∈ Λ} and put
Λ + Γ := {χ + ψ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R)) | χ ∈ Λ, ψ ∈ Γ}.
Denote by Z 1 (G, U(R))R the set {χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R)) | Rχ 6= {0}} and put
n
o
[2]
1
ZR
(G, U(R))(2) := χ ∈ −Z 1 (G, U(R))R
R−χ 6⊆ P (∀P ∈ Ht1 (R, RG )) ,
respectively. Set

e1 (G, U(R)) := Z 1 (G, U(R))(2) ∩ −Z 1 (G, U(R))(2)
Z
R
R
R

n
Z 1 (G, U(R))R := χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R



o
dimQ(RG ) Q(RG ) ⊗RG Rχ = 1 .

For χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R , the condition that dimQ(RG ) Q(RG ) ⊗RG Rχ = 1 holds if and
only if the equality
((1/f ) · R) ∩ Q(RG ) = ((1/f ) · R)G
holds for some (or any) nonzero f ∈ Rχ (cf. Lemma 3.1 of [15]). Moreover in the case
where R is a Krull domain, put
n
1
ZR
(G, U(R))e := χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R
∃fP ∈ Rχ \{0} such that
o
(1)
vR,P (fP ) ≡ 0 (mod e(P, P ∩ RG )) (∀P ∈ Ht1 (R, RG )) .

Lemma 2.4 The set Z 1 (G, U(R))R has the following properties:

(i) For χi ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R (i = 1, 2), the condition χ1 + χ2 ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R implies
that χi ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R .
6


(ii) Z 1 (G, U(R))R ⊇ Z 1 (G, U(R))R ∩ −Z 1 (G, U(R))R .

(iii) If Q(RG ) = Q(R)G , then Z 1 (G, U(R))R = Z 1 (G, U(R))R .
Proof. (i): Let f be a nonzero element of Rχ2 . Then the map Rχ1 ∋ x → x·f ∈ Rχ1 +χ2
is RG -monomorphism, which implies the assertion.
The remainder of the assertions follows from Lemma 3.1 of [15]. ✷
We immediately have the following lemma whose proof is easy and omitted:
1
e1 (G, U(R))) is an additive submonoid
Lemma 2.5 The set ZR
(G, U(R))(2) (resp. Z
R
1
(resp. subgroup) of Z (G, U(R)) containing the group B 1 (G, U(R)) of 1-st coboudaries
of G in U(R). Especially in the case where R is a Krull domain, the set
1
1
1
1
ZR
(G, U(R))(2) ∩ ZR
(G, U(R))e (resp. ZeR
(G, U(R)) ∩ ZR
(G, U(R))e )

is a submonoid (resp. subgroup) of Z 1 (G, U(R)) containing the group B 1 (G, U(R)). ✷
Lemma 2.6 Let χ be a 1-cocycle in Z 1 (G, U(R))R .
(i) Rχ = d(RG ,R) (Rχ ) if and only if d(RG ,R) (Rχ ) ⊆ R.
(ii) Suppose that χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R and d(RG ,R) (Rχ ) ⊆ R hold. Then Rχ ∼
= RG
G
as R -modules if and only if the following condition is satisfied:
For a nonzero

element f of Rχ , the RG -module d(RG ,R) ((1/f ) · R) ∩ Q(RG ) is principal.

Proof. (i): The “only if” part follows from the fact d(RG ,R) (Rχ ) ⊆ (Q(RG ) ⊗RG R)χ .
(ii): By the choice of χ and Lemma 3.1 of [15], we see

d(RG ,R) ((1/f ) · R) ∩ Q(RG ) = d(RG ,R) ((1/f ) · Rχ ) = (1/f ) · d(RG ,R) (Rχ ) ,

which shows the assertion. ✷

3

Krull domains with group actions

In this section suppose that R is a Krull domain acted by a group G as automorphisms.
Let E ∗ (G, R) denote the subgroup
 
 X

X
X
e(P, q) · divR (P) ⊕
Z·
Z · divR (P)
q∈Ht1 (RG )

P∈Xq (R)

[2]

P∈Ht1 (R,RG )

of Div(R). Recall that a divisor D is said to be effective (i.e., D ≧ 0), if IR (D) ⊆ R.
Definition 3.1 An effective divisor D ∈ Div(R), which is denoted by D ≧ 0, is said
to be minimal effective relative to (RG , R), if D has a decomposition D = D1 + D2 for
0 ≦ D1 ∈ E ∗ (G, R) and 0 ≦ D2 ∈ Div(R), then D1 must be equal to zero.
For a minimal effective divisor D relative to (RG , R) on R, we immediately see
D = 0 if and only if D ≡ 0 mod E ∗ (G, R). In the following lemma we define the
minimal effective divisor D(χ) relative to (RG , R) for any cocycle χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R .
The group G acts on Div(R) naturally and a divisor D on R is said to be G-invariant if
D is invariant under the action of G on Div(R), i.e., D ∈ Div(R)G .
7

Lemma 3.2 Let χ be a cocycle in Z 1 (G, U(R))R . Then:
(i) For any nonzero f , g ∈ Rχ , divR (f ) ≡ divR (g) mod E ∗ (G, R).
1
(ii) If χ ∈ ZR
(G, U(R))e , then for any nonzero f ∈ Rχ we have
(1)

vR,P (f ) ≡ 0 (mod e(P, P ∩ q)) (∀P ∈ Ht1 (R, RG )).
(iii) There exists a unique minimal effective divisor D(χ) on R relative to (RG , R) such
that, for a nonzero element f ∈ Rχ ,
E ∗ (G, R) ∋ divR (f ) − D(χ) ≧ 0.
(iv) The divisor D(χ) is G-invariant and does not depend on the choice of f ∈ Rχ .
Moreover the divisorial ideal IR (D(χ)) associated with D(χ) contains Rχ .
1
(v) In the case where χ ∈ ZR
(G, U(R))e , we have
(1)

vR,P (IR (D(χ))) ≡ 0 (mod e(P, P ∩ q)) (∀P ∈ Ht1 (R, RG )).
Moreover if mχ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R for some m ∈ N , then the divisors D(χ) and
D(mχ) satisfy m · D(χ) = D(mχ) in Div(R).
(vi) For any cocycles χ1 , χ2 ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R such that χ1 + χ2 ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R , the
divisors D(χ1 ) and D(χ2 ) (for existence of D(χi ), see (i) of Lemma 2.4) satisfy
D(χ1 + χ2 ) ≡ D(χ1 ) + D(χ2 ) mod E ∗ (G, R).
(vii) Suppose that D(χ) is principal, i.e., D(χ) = divR (g) for some g ∈ R. Then there
is a cocycle

ψ ∈ χ + (−Z 1 (G, U(R))R ) ∩Z 1 (G, U(R))R
such that g ∈ Rψ . This cocycle ψ has the properties that ψ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R ,
D(ψ) = D(χ) and D(χ − ψ) = 0.

Proof. Since the choice of χ implies f /g = f ′ /g ′ for some nonzero f ′ , g ′ ∈ RG , the
assertion (i) follows easily from this. The assertion (ii) is a consequence of (i) and the
1
definition of ZR
(G, U(R))e .
(iii): For any nonzero f ∈ Rχ , put
X
D2 (f ) =
vR,P (f ) · divR (P)
(0)

(1)

P∈Ht1 (R,RG )∪Ht1 (R,RG )

−

X

q∈Ht1 (RG )



min

Q∈Xq (R)




vR,Q (f )  
·
e(Q, q)

X

P∈Xq (R)


e(P, q) · divR (P)
(3.1)

and D1 (f ) = divR (f ) − D2 (f ), where [ · ] denotes the Gauss symbol. Then we see
0 ≦ D1 (f ) ∈ E ∗ (G, R) and D2 (f ) is a minimal effective divisor on R relative to (RG , R).
For a nonzero g ∈ Rχ , define D1 (g) and D2 (g) similarly as above. By (i) we see that
D2 (f ) − D2 (g) ≡ −D1 (f ) + D1 (g) mod E ∗ (G, R)
≡ 0 mod E ∗ (G, R)
8

(3.2)

which implies, for any q ∈ Ht1 (RG ), there is an integer cq satisfying
vR,P (IR (D2 (f ))) − vR,P (IR (D2 (g))) = cq · e(P, q) (∀P ∈ Xq (R))
and depending only on q. Exchanging f with g, we may suppose that cq ≧ 0. By the
definition (3.1) of D2 (f ), we see vR,P (IR (D2 (f ))) < e(P, q) for some P ∈ Xq (R), which
requires cq = 0. Consequently D2 (f ) is just the minimal effective divisor desired in the
assertion (iii).
(iv): By the congruence (3.2) the divisor D2 (f ) does not depend on the choice of a
nonzero f ∈ Rχ . The remainder follows from (iii).
(v): The congruence in (v) follows from (ii) and (3.1). Choose any q from Ht1 (RG ).
Then, by the choice of χ, the assertion (ii) and the definition of D(χ), we see that
vR,P (IR (D(χ))) = 0 for some P ∈ Xq (R), which implies vR,P (IR (m · D(χ))) = 0. From
this we see that m · D(χ) is a minimal effective divisor on R relative to (RG , R). Since
E ∗ (G, R) ∋ m · (divR (f ) − D(χ)) = divR (f m ) − m · D(χ) ≧ 0,
the assertion follows from the uniqueness of D(mχ) for mχ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R shown in
the assertion (iv).
(vi): Note that χi ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R (cf. (i) of Lemma 2.4) and D(χi ) are well
defined. The congruence in (vi) follows easily from (iii) and the independence of D(χ)
on the choice of f stated in (iv).
(vii): As D(χ) is G-invariant, we have a cocycle ψ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R such that
Rψ ∋ g. Then D(χ) is a minimal effective divisor relative to (RG , R) with the property
E ∗ (G, R) ∋ divR (g) − D(χ) = 0 (≥ 0).
Since {0} 6= Rχ ⊆ IR (D(χ)) = R · g (cf. (iv)), we see that χ − ψ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R , which
implies ψ, χ − ψ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R (cf. (vi)). Clearly by the uniqueness of D(ψ) (cf.
(iii)), D(χ) = D(ψ). By (vi) we have
D(ψ) + D(χ − ψ) ≡ D(χ) mod E ∗ (G, R).
This shows D(χ − ψ) = 0. ✷
Theorem 3.3 ([15]) For χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R)), the RG -module Rχ is RG -free of rank one
if and only if the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) dim Q(RG ) ⊗RG Rχ = 1.
(ii) There exists a nonzero element f ∈ Rχ satisfying
∀q ∈ Ht1 (RG ) ⇒ ∃P ∈ Xq (R) such that vR,P (f ) < e(P, q)

(3.3)

If these conditions are satisfied, Rχ = RG · f for any nonzero element f ∈ Rχ such that
(3.3) holds.
Corollary 3.4 Let χ be a cocycle in Z 1 (G, U(R))R . Then Rχ is RG -free if and only if
M
divR (f ) ≡ D(χ) mod
Z · divR (P)
(3.4)
[2]

P∈Ht1 (R,RG )

9

1
for some nonzero f ∈ Rχ . Especially in the case where χ ∈ −ZR
(G, U(R))(2) , Rχ ∼
= RG
G
as R -modules if and only if D(χ) = divR (f ) for some nonzero f ∈ Rχ . Moreover
Rχ = RG · f holds, in the both cases where these conditions are satisfied.

Proof. Suppose that the congruence (3.4) holds for some nonzero f ∈ Rχ . Then the
condition (3.3) holds for f and hence, by Theorem 3.3 we see that Rχ ∼
= RG as RG G
modules. Conversely suppose that Rχ is R -free. Then by Theorem 3.3 we can choose
a nonzero element from f ∈ Rχ in such a way that f satisfies the condition (3.3). By
the definition of D(χ) (cf. D2 (f ) defined by (3.1)) we must have
X
D(χ) =
vR,P (f ) · divR (P),
(0)

(1)

P∈Ht1 (R,RG )∪Ht1 (R,RG )

which shows that the congruence (3.4) holds.
The remainder of the assertion follows easily from Theorem 3.3 and these observations. ✷
Let coh(χ) denote the cohomology class of a 1-cocycle χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R)). This induces a homomorphism coh : Z 1 (G, U(R)) → H 1 (G, U(R)). The zero element of the
additive group H 1 (G, U(R)) is denoted by coh(θ) (recall that θ is the trivial 1-cocycle
in Z 1 (G, U(R))). For a G-invariant principal divisor D = divR (h) for some h ∈ Q(R),
define the cohomology class coh(D) ∈ H 1 (G, U(R)) which is the class of the 1-cocycle
G ∋ σ → σ(h)/h ∈ U(R). Clearly coh(D) does not depend on the choice of h.
For χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R)), put N · χ := {nχ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R)) | n ∈ N }. Recall that tor(A)
stands for the torsion part of an abelian group A.

1
1
Proposition 3.5 Let χ be a cocycle in ZR
(G, U(R))e ∩ −ZR
(G, U(R))(2) such that
N · χ ⊆ Z 1 (G, U(R))R . Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) D(χ) is a principal divisor satisfying the conditions as follows:
(a) coh(χ) − coh(D(χ)) 6∈ tor(H 1 (G, U(R)))\{coh(θ)}.
(b) Rmχ ∼
= RG as RG -modules for some m ∈ N .
(ii) For any n ∈ N , Rnχ ∼
= RG as RG -modules.
(iii) Rχ ∼
= RG as RG -modules.
Proof. The implication (ii) ⇒ (i) follows immediately from Corollary 3.4 (in this case,
coh(χ) = coh(D(χ))).
(i) ⇒ (iii) : Let f be a nonzero element of R such that divR (f ) = D(χ) and g a
nonzero element of Rχ . Then, as R · f ⊇ R · g (cf. the inequality in (iii) of Lemma 3.2),
1
we express g = f · h for some h ∈ R. Since mχ ∈ −ZR
(G.U(R))(2) (cf. Lemma 2.5), by
the choice of χ, (v) of Lemma 3.2 and Corollary 3.4, we see that
D(mχ) = divR (f m ) = divR (w)
for some nonzero element w ∈ Rmχ ∼
= RG . Here note Rmχ = RG · w (cf. the last
statement of Corollary 3.4). So, let u ∈ U(R) be the unit satisfying f m = w · u. As
Rmχ ∋ g m , we have
f m · hm = g m = w · v = f m · u−1 · v
10

for some v ∈ RG , which requires
coh(χ) − coh(D(χ)) = coh(divR (h)) ∈ tor(H 1 (G, U(R))).
Since G ∋ σ → σ(h)/h ∈ U(R) is a coboundary (cf. (a) of (i) ), we see h · t ∈ RG for
a unit t ∈ U(R), which implies t−1 · f ∈ Rχ . Hence the assertion of (iii) follows from
Corollary 3.4.
(iii) ⇒ (ii) : By Corollary 3.4, we can choose a nonzero element f ∈ Rχ in such a way
that D(χ) = divR (f ). For any n ∈ N , from Lemma 3.2 we infer that D(nχ) = divR (f n ),
which implies that Rnχ ∼
= RG as RG -modules. ✷
Corollary 3.6 Under the same circumstances as in Proposition 3.5, suppose that there
exists a number m ∈ N such that Rmχ ∼
= RG as RG -modules. Then the divisor class
[D(χ)] in Cl(R) is a torsion element. Suppose moreover that
coh(iχ) − coh(D(iχ)) 6∈ tor(H 1 (G, U(R)))\{coh(θ)}

(3.5)

for any i ∈ N such that D(iχ) is a principal divisor. Then the following equality holds;

ord([D(χ)]) = min q ∈ N Rqχ ∼
= RG as RG -modules

where ord([D(χ)]) is the order of [D(χ)] in the group Cl(R).

1
Proof. Since mχ ∈ −ZR
(G.U(R))(2) , by the assumption that Rmχ ∼
= RG and Corollary
3.4, we see D(mχ) = divR (g) for some g ∈ Rmχ , which shows m · [D(χ)] = 0 (cf. (v) of
Lemma 3.2). We similarly have

ord([D(χ)]) ≦ min q ∈ N Rqχ ∼
= RG as RG -modules .

Let k denote the right hand side of this inequality. As Rkχ ∼
= RG , we have an element
h ∈ Rkχ satisfying D(kχ) = divR (h) (cf. Corollary 3.4). Let t ∈ N be a common
multiplier of k and ord([D(χ)]). Put ψ = ord([D(χ)])χ. Then, by (v) of Lemma 3.2,
D(tχ) = (t/k) · D(kχ). Clearly D(tχ) = divR (ht/k ) and ht/k ∈ Rtχ . This implies that
R(t/ord([D(χ)]))ψ ∼
= RG as RG -modules (cf. Corollary 3.4). Then from the condition (3.5)
and the implication (i) ⇒ (iii) of Proposition 3.5 we infer that Rψ ∼
= RG as RG -modules,
which completes the proof. ✷
Remark 3.7 Define
Z 1 (G, U(R))R,0 := {δ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R | D(δ) = 0}.
For χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R such that D(iχ) is principal, we have a cocycle ψ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R
satisfying D(iχ) = divR (g) = D(ψ) for some g ∈ Rψ and D(iχ − ψ) = 0 (cf. (vii) of
Lemma 3.2). Since
coh(iχ) − coh(D(iχ)) = coh(iχ) − coh(D(ψ)) = coh(iχ − ψ),
the condition (3.5) holds if the following equality holds :

T 1
coh(δ) | δ ∈ N · χ + (−Z 1 (G, U(R))R )
Z (G, U(R))R,0
∩tor(H 1 (G, U(R))) = {coh(θ)}.
11

(3.6)

In general we denote by H 1 (G, U(R))R,0 the image of Z 1 (G, U(R))R,0 under the canonical map coh : Z 1 (G, U(R)) → H 1 (G, U(R)). Clearly B 1 (G, U(R)) ⊆ Z 1 (G, U(R))R,0 .
If the equality
H 1 (G, U(R))R,0 ∩ tor(H 1 (G, U(R))) = {coh(θ)}
holds, then (3.6) is satisfied.
Lemma 3.8 For a cocycle χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R , the RG -module Rχ is RG -isomorphic to
an integral ideal I of RG , which is unique up to a multiplication of a non-zero element
of Q(RG ). Moreover we have an RG -isomorphism d(RG ,R) (Rχ ) → dRG (I) whose restriction induces Rχ ∼
= I and the divisor class [dRG (I)] of dRG (I) in Cl(RG ) is uniquely
determined by χ.
Proof. For a nonzero f ∈ Rχ we see Rχ ∼
= (1/f )R ∩Q(RG ) as RG -modules (cf. Lemma
3.1 of [15]) and by Proposition 2.1 see that the RG -module (1/f )R∩Q(RG ) is a fractional
ideal of RG . The assertion follows immediately from this. ✷
Definition 3.9 In the circumstances as in Lemma 3.8 we denote by [Rχ ] the divisor
class [dRG (I)] ∈ Cl(RG ) of dRG (I) for χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R , where the ideal I of RG is
defined in Lemma 3.8.
Proposition 3.10 There is a canonical embedding d(RG ,R) (Rχ ) ⊆ R for any cocycle
1
χ ∈ Z 1 (G, U(R))R ∩ ZR
(G, U(R))(2) .
1
(G, U(R))(2) . Then, for any P ∈ Ht1 (R) such that
Proof. Let χ be a cocycle in ZR
G
ht(P ∩ R ) ≧ 2, we can choose a nonzero element g from R−χ in such a way that g 6∈ P.
Since (RG )P∩RG is a Krull domain, we see
\
(RG )P∩RG =
(RG )q
q∈Ht1 (RG ),q⊆P

⊇
q∈Ht1

\

(RG )q ⊗RG (g · Rχ ) ⊇ g · d(RG ,R) (Rχ ).

(RG ),q⊆P

Thus by the choice of g, one sees g · RP = RP ⊇ (RG )P∩RG ⊇ g · d(RG ,R) (Rχ ), which
requires RP ⊇ d(RG ,R) (Rχ ) for any P ∈ Ht1 (R) such that ht(P ∩ RG ) ≧ 2.
In general, we have
RP

⊇
⊇
⊇

RP ⊗R (R · Rχ )
 na
(R\P)−1 Rχ =
b
G
RP∩R
G ⊗RG Rχ

a ∈ Rχ , b ∈ R\P

o

(3.7)

G
for a prime ideal P of R. Here we identify RP∩R
G ⊗RG Rχ (resp. RP ⊗R (R · Rχ ))
G
G −1
−1
with (R \(P ∩ R )) Rχ (resp. (R\P) R · Rχ ) in Q(R). Since Xq (R) 6= ∅ for all
q ∈ Ht1 (RG ), by (3.7) we see that

 T
T
G
(RG )P∩RG ⊗RG Rχ
(1)
q∈Ht1 (RG ) (R )q ⊗RG Rχ =
P∈Ht1 (R,RG )
 T

T
= P∈Ht(1) (R,RG ) (RG )P∩RG ⊗RG Rχ ∩ P∈Ht(0) (R,RG ) (RG )P∩RG ⊗RG Rχ
1
1
T
⊆ P∈Ht1 (R)\Ht[2] (R,RG ) (RP ⊗R R) .
1

12

These localizations are regarded as modules of fractions in Q(R) and intersections are
defined in Q(R). Thus we must have
\
\

(RP ⊗R R) = R
d(RG ,R) (Rχ ) =
RqG ⊗RG Rχ ⊆
q∈Ht1 (RG )

P∈Ht1 (R)

because R is a Krull domain. ✷
1
1
Corollary 3.11 Let χ be a cocycle in ZR
(G, U(R))e ∩ ZR
(G, U(R))(2) . Then, for a
G
G
∼
natural number n, Rnχ = R as R -modules if and only if n · [Rχ ] = 0 in Cl(RG ).

Proof. By the choice of χ, we see

N · χ ⊆ Z 1 (G, U(R))R ∩ −Z 1 (G, U(R))R ⊆ Z 1 (G, U(R))R .

Let f be a nonzero element of Rχ . Applying Corollary 2.2 to the ideal R · (1/f ) with
the aid of (ii) of Lemma 3.2, we see




1
1
divRG R · n ∩ Q(RG ) = n · divRG R · ∩ Q(RG )
f
f

(3.8)

for any n ∈ N (cf. Lemma 3.1 of [15]). From Lemma 3.8, the identity (3.8) can be
deduced to [Rnχ ] = n · [Rχ ] in Cl(RG ). By Lemma 2.5, Lemma 2.6 and Proposition 3.10,
we immediately see that Rnχ ∼
= RG if and only if [Rnχ ] = 0 in Cl(RG ), which implies
the assertion. ✷
Combining Corollary 3.6 with Corollary 3.11, we immediately have
1
e1 (G, U(R)). Suppose that the
Theorem 3.12 Let χ be a cocycle in ZR
(G, U(R))e ∩ Z
R
equality (3.5) holds for any i ∈ N such that D(iχ) is a principal divisor. If [Rχ ] ∈
tor(Cl(RG )), then

ord([Rχ ]) in Cl(RG ) = ord([D(χ)]) in Cl(R) (< ∞)

which is equal to min q ∈ N | Rqχ ∼
= RG as RG -modules . ✷

Definition 3.13 Let UrCl(R, G) denote the subgroup of Cl(R) generated by
n
o
1
1
eR
[D(χ)] χ ∈ ZR
(G, U(R))e ∩ Z
(G, U(R))

where [D(χ)] denotes the divisor class of D(χ) ∈ Div(R). Define f
Cl(R, G) to be the
subgroup
Dn
oE
1
1
eR
[Rχ ]
χ ∈ ZR
(G, U(R))e ∩ Z
(G, U(R))

of Cl(RG ).

Recall that exp(N ) denotes the exponent of a group N . The next result follows from
Remark 3.7 and Theorem 3.12.

13

Proposition 3.14 Suppose that the subset


1
e1 (G, U(R))
coh Z 1 (G, U(R))R,0 ∩ ZR
(G, U(R))e ∩ Z
R

of H 1 (G, U(R)) does not contain a non-trivial torsion element of H 1 (G, U(R)). Suppose
that f
Cl(R, G) is a torsion group. If one of exp(UrCl(R, G)) and exp(f
Cl(R, G)) is finite,
then we have exp(UrCl(R, G)) = exp(f
Cl(R, G))

1
e1 (G, U(R)) and i a natural number such
Proof. Let χ be a cocycle in ZR
(G, U(R))e ∩ Z
R
that D(iχ) = divR (g) for a nonzero g ∈ R. Let ψ be a cocycle of G in U(R) defined by
1
1
Rψ ∋ g. Then ψ ∈ ZR
(G, U(R))R , D(ψ) = D(iχ), Rψ = RG · g, iχ − ψ ∈ ZR
(G, U(R))R
and D(iχ − ψ) = 0 (cf. (vii) of Lemma 3.2). Since Riχ = Riχ−ψ · g (cf. (iv) of Lemma
1
e1 (G, U(R)), by (v) of Lemma 3.2
3.2), R−iχ · g ⊆ R−iχ+ψ and iχ ∈ ZR
(G, U(R))e ∩ Z
R
and (3.1) we have
1
e1 (G, U(R)).
iχ − ψ ∈ ZR
(G, U(R))e ∩ Z
R

Thus the condition (3.5) holds for iχ and Theorem 3.12 can be applied to χ. By our
assumption, UrCl(R, G) and f
Cl(R, G) are torsion groups. The exponent of a torsion
abelian group generated by a subset Ξ is determined by the ideal ∩a∈Ξ ord(a)Z of Z.
The assertion follows from this observation and Theorem 3.12. ✷
Theorem 3.15 Suppose that
 X
1
e1 (G, U(R) ⊆
coh ZR
(G, U(R))e ∩ Z
Z 0 · coh(λ)
R

(3.9)

λ∈Λ

f
for a non-empty finite subset Λ of Z 1 (G, U(R))R . Suppose that Cl(R,
G) is a torsion
group. Then it is a finite group. Moreover if


1
e1 (G, U(R))
coh Z 1 (G, U(R))R,0 ∩ ZR
(G, U(R))e ∩ Z
R
in H 1 (G, U(R)) does not contain a non-trivial torsion element, we have
exp(UrCl(R, G)) = exp(f
Cl(R, G)) < ∞.

Proof. Let Λ = {λ1 , . . . , λn } and choose a nonzero gi from Rλi for any 1 ≦ i ≦ n. By
1
e1 (G, U(R)), we can choose ji ∈ Z 0 and u ∈ U(R) in
(3.9), for χ ∈ ZR
(G,P
U(R))e ∩ Z
R
n
such a way that χ − i=1 ji λi is a 1-coboundary of G defined by u−1 . Then
d(RG ,R) (Rχ ) ∼
= d(RG ,R)



 1


u
Q ji R ∩ Q(RG ) = d(RG ,R) Q ji R ∩ Q(RG )
gi
gi

as RG -modules (cf. Lemma 3.1 of [15]). Consequently f
Cl(R, G) is a subgroup of the
image of D(R,RG ) (g1 , . . . , gn ) (for definition, cf. Lemma 2.3) under the canonical homoCl(R, G) is finitely generated.
morphism Div(RG ) → Cl(RG ). By Lemma 2.3 the group f
The remainder of the assertion of this theorem follows from Proposition 3.14. ✷
14

4

Affine normal varieties with group actions

Hereafter let G be an affine algebraic group over an algebraically closed field K of
characteristic p ≧ 0. Let (X, G) be a regular action of G on an affine normal variety X
defined over K. Let X(G) be the additive group of all rational characters of G and for
a rational G-module W and χ ∈ X(G), denote by Wχ the subspace {x ∈ W | σ(x) =
χ(σ)x (∀σ ∈ G)} of W consisting of all vectors of weight χ. Put X(G)W := {χ ∈
X(G) | Wχ 6= {0}}. The cocycles of G on U(O(X)) defined by regular functions are
identified with rational characters: If G is connected, by a result of M. Rosenlicht we
see Z 1 (G, U(O(X)))O(X) = X(G)O(X) (e.g., [2, 7]), since X is normal.
(1)
For any P ∈ Ht1 (O(X), O(X)G ), put
IG (P) := {σ ∈ G | σ(x) ≡ x mod P (∀x ∈ O(X))}
which is called the inertia group at P under the action of G. Clearly IG (P) contains the
ineffective kernel Ker(G → Aut(X)) of the action (X, G) which is denoted by L(X,G) .
Definition 4.1 The pseudo-reflection group of the action (X, G), denoted by R(X, G),
(1)
is defined to be the subgroup of G generated by IG (P)’s for all P ∈ Ht1 (O(X), O(X)G ).
e
Let R(X,
G) be the subgroup of G generated by L(X,G) and IG (P)’s for all P ∈
(1)

Ht1 (O(X), O(X)G ) such that P are non-principal. This is called the non-principal
pseudo-reflection subgroup of the action (X, G).

e
Obviously G ✄ R(X, G) ✄ R(X,
G) ✄ L(X,G) . By Sect. 1 of [15] the group R(X, G)|X
∼
(= R(X, G)/L(X,G) ) of restrictions to X is finite under the assumption that G0 is linearly
reductive. In the case where O(X)G is finitely generated over K, let X//G denote the
affine variety defined by O(X)G and πX,G : X → X//G denote the quotient morphism
defined by the inclusion O(X)G → O(X).
Definition 4.2 The action (X, G) admitting its quotient X//G, i.e., O(X)G is finitely
generated over K, is defined to be cofree (resp. equidimensional ), if O(X) is a free
O(X)G -module (resp. πX,G : X → X//G is equidimensional). Especially in the case
where G is linearly reductive,
(X, G) is defined to be isobaric cofree if the ψ-isotypical
P
component O(X)[ψ] :=
V ⊆O(X),V ∼
=ψ V ⊆ O(X) of the rational G-module O(X) is
G
zero or O(X) -free, for any irreducible representation ψ of G.
For a conical action (X, G) of a conical X with a linearly reductive G, (X, G) is cofree
if and only if it is isobaric cofree. Here X is said to be conical, if the coordinate ring
O(X) is a Z 0 -graded algebra defined over O(X)0 = K and (X, G) is said to be conical,
moreover if the action of G preserves each homogeneous part of O(X). We immediately
have
Lemma 4.3 Suppose that O(X)G is finitely generated over K. If O(X)G → O(X) is
no-blowing-up of codimension one (e.g., PDE in p. 30 of [4]) (especially if (X, G) is
e1 (G, U(R)). ✷
equidimensional), then Z 1 (G, U(R))R ∩ (−Z 1 (G, U(R))R ) = Z
R

Proposition 4.4 Suppose that G0 is linearly reductive. Let N be a normal closed subgroup of G such that N |X is finite. Then:
15

e
(i) R(X//N, G) = N · R(X, G) and N ✁ R(X/
/N, G) ✁ N · R(X, G).

e
(ii) If both X and (X, G) are conical and the order |(N · R(X, G))/R(X/
/N, G)| is a
e
unit in K, then the natural action (X//R(X//N, G), N · R(X, G)) is cofree.

Proof. (i): Since N is normal in G, we immediately see R(X//N, G) ⊇ R(X, G).
(1)
For any p ∈ Ht1 (O(X)N , O(X)G ) let P be a prime ideal of O(X) lying over p. Put
H = IG (p). Clearly H ⊇ N , IH (P) = IG (P) and H|X is finite (cf. Sect. 1 of [14]).
From Exposé V of [5] we infer that the canonical morphisms
O(X)N ·IH (P) → O(X)IH (P)
O(X)H → O(X)IH (P)
are étale at P ∩ O(X)IH (P) . Consequently the monomorphism
O(X)H → O(X)N ·IH (P)
is unramified at p ∩ O(X)N ·IH (P) . If σ ∈ H, we see σ · IH (P) · σ −1 = IH (σ(P)) =
IH (τ (P)) = τ · IH (P) · τ −1 for some τ ∈ N . Thus N · IH (P) is a normal subgroup of
H stabilizing p ∩ O(X)N ·IH (P) . On the other hand, by the definition of H and Sect. 41
of [10], the residue class field of (O(X)N ·IH (P) )p∩O(X)N ·IH (P) is purely inseparable over
that of (O(X)H )p∩O(X)H , which requires that these fields coincide. Applying Nakayama
Lemma to the finite unramified local morphism
(O(X)H )p∩O(X)H → (O(X)N ·IH (P) )p∩O(X)N ·IH (P) ,
we must have H = N · IH (P) = N · IG (P), which shows the assertion.
(1)
(ii): Let p ∈ Ht1 (O(X)N , O(X)G ) be a principal ideal such that IG (p)|X//N is
non-trivial. Then there exists a homogeneous element f1 generating principally p. Let
{Kf1 , Kf2 , . . . , Kfs } be the N · R(X, G)-orbit of Kf1 consisting of s K-subspaces of
(1)
O(X)N . Let q be a non-principal ideal in Ht1 (O(X)N , O(X)G ). For any τ ∈ IG (q), we
Qs
Qs
e (X//N,G) Qs f
e (X//N,G) = O(X)R
easily see that τ (
f)=
f . Thus p ∩ O(X)R

and

i=1

i

i=1

i

i=1

e (X//N,G)
e (X//N,G) ) ⊆ O(X)R
(σ − 1)(O(X)R

s
Y

i

fi

i=1

e
for any σ ∈ IG (p). Since N · R(X, G)/R(X/
/N, G) is generated by generalized ree
R
(X//N,G)
flections in Aut(O(X)
) in the sense of M. Hochster and J. A. Eagon [6], the
e (X//N,G) is free (e.g., Chapitre 5 of [3]). ✷
O(X)N ·R(X,G) -module O(X)R

Proposition 4.5 Suppose that char(K) = p = 0, G0 is an algebraic torus, the action
(X, G) is stable and G equals to the centralizer ZG (G0 ) of G0 in G. Then

1
(G, U(O(X)))e = χ ∈ X(G)
O(X)χ 6= {0}, χ(R(X, G)) = {1} .
X(G) ∩ ZO(X)

16

(1)

Proof. Let P ∈ Ht1 (O(X), O(X)G ) and χ ∈ X(G) ∩ Z 1 (G, U(O(X)))O(X) . Suppose
that there exists a nonzero fP ∈ Rχ such that vO(X),P (fP ) is divisible by the ramification index e(P, P ∩ O(X)G ). Then, as O(X)G
P∩O(X)G is a discrete valuation ring,
fP = g · w for some g ∈ U(O(X)P ) and w ∈ O(X)G
P∩O(X)G . For any τ ∈ IG (P), we
have χ(τ )g · w = τ (g) · w and hence χ(τ ) ≡ 1 mod P, which induces χ(τ ) = 1.
Conversely suppose that χ(IG (P)) = {1}. For any nonzero f ∈ Rχ , we see
vO(X),P (f ) =
≡

e(P, P ∩ O(X)IG (P) ) · vO(X)IG (P) ,P∩O(X)IG (P) (f )
0 mod e(P, P ∩ O(X)G )

as e(P, P ∩ O(X)IG (P) ) = e(P, P ∩ O(X)G ) (cf. [14]). This shows the assertion. ✷
For any m ∈ N , put
tor(m, G, H) := {σ ∈ G | σ m ∈ H}
for a closed subgroup H of G. When G ✄ H and G/H is abelian, tor(m, G, H) is a
normal closed subgroup of G containing H. Suppose that G is connected. Put
X(G)O(X) := {χ ∈ X(G) | O(X)χ · O(X)−χ 6= {0}}
and define K(X, G) := ∩χ∈X(G)O(X) Ker(χ). Then
O(X)K(X,G) = K[O(X)χ | χ ∈ X(G)O(X) ] =

M

O(X)χ

χ∈X(G)O(X)

and if this K-algebra is finitely generated, the induced action (X//K(X, G), G) is stable
(cf. [12]). In the case where G is an algebraic torus, (X, G) is stable if and only if
X = X//K(X, G).
Let G × X(G) → K ∗ denote the canonical pairing, where K ∗ denotes U(K).
The orT
thogonal set operation ⊥G is defined naturally by this pairing, i.e, Y ⊥G := ψ∈Y Ker(ψ)
for a subset Y ⊆ X(G) and N ⊥G := {ψ ∈ X(G) | ψ(N ) = {1}} for a subset N ⊆ G.
Lemma 4.6 Suppose that char(K) = p = 0 and G is a connected algebraic group. Let
Γ be a closed normal subgroup of G containing K(X, G). Then:
⊥G
= Γ.
(i) Γ⊥G = X(G)O(X)Γ and X(G)O(X)Γ
(ii) For any m ∈ N , tor(m, G, Γ)⊥G = m · X(G)O(X)Γ ⊆ X(G).

⊥G
e1
, we have
Especially, putting Ω(X,G) := Z
O(X) (G, U(O(X)))

1
e1
(G, U(O(X)Ω(X,G) )) = X(G)O(X)Ω(X,G) .
ZeO(X)
(G, U(O(X))) = Z
Ω
O(X) (X,G)

Proof. Since the canonical pairing

G/(∩ψ∈X(G) Ker(ψ)) × X(G/(∩ψ∈X(G) Ker(ψ))) −→ K ∗

17

of a diagonalizable group is non-degenerate, Γ⊥G
X(G)O(X)Γ . Especially
K(X, G)⊥G = (X(G)O(X) )⊥G

⊥G

⊥G

= Γ and (X(G)O(X)Γ )⊥G

⊥G

=

= X(G)O(X) ⊇ Γ⊥G

and hence for ψ ∈ Γ⊥G we have {0} 6= O(X)±ψ ⊆ O(X)Γ , which shows Γ⊥G ⊆
X(G)O(X)Γ . The converse inclusion is obvious. Thus the assertion in (i) follows.
(ii) : Consider the canonical non-degenerate pairing G/Γ × X(G/Γ) → K ∗ . Then by
the definition of tor(m, G, Γ), we have
⊥
tor(m, G, Γ)/Γ G/Γ = tor(m, G/Γ, {Γ})⊥G/Γ = m · X(G/Γ)

(e.g., Chap. 3 of [17]). This implies tor(m, G, Γ)⊥G = m · Γ⊥G and the assertion follows
from (i).
[2]
Ω(X,G)
e1
Let χ ∈ Z
, O(X)G ), we
O(X) (G, U(O(X))) be a cocycle. For Q ∈ Ht1 (O(X)
have P ∈ XQ (O(X)) and, by the choice of χ,
O(X)±χ = O(X)±χ ∩ O(X)Ω(X,G) 6⊆ P ∩ O(X)Ω(X,G) = Q,

which implies that
1
e1
(G, U(O(X)Ω(X,G) )) ⊆ X(G)O(X)Ω(X,G) ) .
(G, U(O(X))) ⊆ Z
ZeO(X)
Ω
O(X) (X,G)

Here Z 1 (G, U(O(X)Ω(X,G) )) is naturally regarded as a subgroup of Z 1 (G, U(O(X)). The
last assertion can be shown by applying (i) to Γ = Ω(X,G) . ✷

5

Equidimensional toric actions

⊥G

1
e1
Denote by ∆(X,G) the group Z
for a conO(X) (G, U(O(X))) ∩ ZO(X) (G, U(O(X)))e
nected algebraic group G (for ⊥G , see the paragraph preceding Lemma 4.6). In the case
where O(X)∆(X,G) is finitely generated, the natural action (X//∆(X,G) , G) is stable.
Proposition 5.1 Suppose that char(K) = p = 0 and G is a connected algebraic group
such that O(X)Ru (G) is finitely generated over K as a K-algebra, where Ru (G) denote
the unipotent radical of G. Then f
Cl(O(X), G) is finitely generated.

Proof. By our assumption the K-algebra O(X)∆(X,G) is finitely generated (cf. [9]), as
G/Ru (G) is reductive. Since ∆(X,G) ⊇ K(X, G), we see that
X(G)O(X)

∆(X,G)

= X(G)O(X)∆(X,G) = (∆(X,G) )⊥G
1
e1
= Z
O(X) (G, U(O(X))) ∩ ZO(X) (G, U(O(X)))e

(5.1)

(cf. Lemma 4.6). Since O(X)∆(X,G) is generated by a finite set of relative invariants of
∆(X,G)
satisfying
G as a K-algebra, there is a finite subset Λ of X(G)O(X)
X
∆(X,G)
⊆
X(G)O(X)
Z 0 · λ,
λ∈Λ

18

which shows that the condition (3.9) holds for O(X) = R. By the proof of Theorem
3.15 the reduced class group f
Cl(O(X), G) is finitely generated. ✷

Theorem 5.2 Under the same circumstances as in Proposition 5.1, the following four
conditions are equivalent:

(i) The action (X//tor(v, G, ∆(X,G) ), G/tor(v, G, ∆(X,G) )) is isobaric cofree for some
v ∈ N.
(ii) f
Cl(O(X), G) is a finite group.

(iii) exp(f
Cl(O(X), G)) < ∞.

(iv) v := exp(f
Cl(O(X), G)) < ∞ and (X//tor(v, G, ∆(X,G) ), G/tor(v, G, ∆(X,G) )) is
isobaric cofree.

In the case where U(O(X)) = K ∗ , these conditions are equivalent to
(v) exp(UrCl(O(X), G)) = exp(f
Cl(O(X), G)) < ∞.

Especially if both X and (X, G) are conical, these conditions are equivalent to
(vi) The natural action (X//∆(X,G) , G) is equidimensional.
Proof. The equivalence (ii) ⇔ (iii) follows from Proposition 5.1. For a natural number
v, by Lemma 4.6 we have
M
O(X)χ
O(X//tor(v, G, ∆(X,G) )) =
χ∈tor(v,G,∆(X,G) )⊥G

=

M

O(X)χ

χ∈v·X(G)O(X//∆(X,G) )

=

M

O(X)vψ .

(5.2)

ψ∈(∆(X,G) )⊥G

(iii) ⇒ (i) : Put v = exp(f
Cl(O(X), G)) and let χ be a cocycle in tor(v, G, ∆(X,G) )⊥G .
1
1
Then there is a cocycle ψ ∈ ZeO(X)
(G, U(O(X))) ∩ ZO(X)
(G, U(O(X)))e satisfying
vψ = χ (cf. (5.1) and Lemma 4.6). By the definition of f
Cl(O(X), G), the divisor
class v · [O(X)ψ ] ∈ Cl(O(X)G ) equals to zero. Applying Corollary 3.11 to χ, we see that
O(X)χ ∼
= O(X)G as O(X)G -modules. Thus (X//tor(v, G, ∆(X,G) ), G/tor(v, G, ∆(X,G) ))
is isobaric cofree (cf. (5.2)). The implication (iii) ⇒ (iv) follows from this.
1
e1
(i) ⇒ (iii) : Let ψ ∈ Z
O(X) (G, U(O(X))) ∩ ZO(X) (G, U(O(X)))e be any cocycle. By
Lemma 4.6 we have vψ ∈ tor(v, G, ∆(X,G) )⊥G and see that O(X)vψ ∼
= O(X)G (cf. (i)).
Then it follows from Corollary 3.11 that v ·[O(X)ψ ] = 0 ∈ Cl(O(X)). Thus f
Cl(O(X), G)
is a torsion group, which shows (iii) (cf. Proposition 5.1).
Suppose O(X) has only trivial units. Then Z 1 (G, U(O(X))) ∼
= H 1 (G, U(O(X))).
1
1
As H (G, U(O(X)))R,0 ⊆ X(G) ⊆ H (G, U(O(X))), by Remark 3.7 the equivalence (ii)
⇔ (v) follows from Theorem 3.15.
19

Suppose that both X and (X, G) are conical. The implication (i) ⇒ (vi) is a consequence of the generic fiber theorem of graded version of flat local morphisms (e.g., [8]).
So suppose that the condition (vi) holds. Let
⊥G
1
e1
ψ∈Z
O(X) (G, U(O(X))) ∩ ZO(X) (G, U(O(X)))e = (∆(X,G) )

be a cocycle. Since (X//∆(X,G) , G/∆(X,G) ) is a stable and equidimensional action of an
algebraic torus on a conical normal variety, applying Sect. 4 of [12] to O(X)ψ , we can
choose a natural number r in such a way that
O(X)nrψ = O(X//∆(X,G) )nrψ ∼
= O(X)G
for all n ∈ N as O(X)G -modules. Hence f
Cl(O(X), G) is a torsion group (cf. Corollary
3.11), which shows (ii). ✷

Corollary 5.3 Under the same circumstances as in Proposition 5.1, suppose that both
X and (X, G) are conical. Then the following conditions are equivalent:
(i) v := exp(UrCl(O(X//K(X, G)), G)) < ∞ and (X//tor(v, G, R(X//K(X, G), G)), G)
is cofree.

(ii) exp(UrCl(O(X//K(X, G)), G)) = exp(f
Cl(O(X//K(X, G)), G)) < ∞ and the inclusion O(X)G → O(X)K(X,G) is no-blowing-up of codimension one (cf. p. 30 of
[4]).
(iii) f
Cl(O(X//K(X, G)), G) is a finite group and the inclusion O(X)G → O(X)K(X,G)
is no-blowing-up of codimension one.
(iv) (X//K(X, G), G) is equidimensional.

Proof. In order to show this corollary, we may suppose that K(X, G) = {1} as
tor(m, G, R(X//K(X, G), G)) ⊇ K(X, G)
for m ∈ N . So (X, G) is a faithful stable action of an algebraic torus G. The implication
(i) ⇒ (iv) and the equivalence (iv) ⇔ “(X//R(X, G), G) is equidimensional” follow from
the finiteness of R(X, G). Each condition of (i) - (iv) satisfies the condition that the
inclusion O(X)G → O(X)K(X,G) is no-blowing-up of codimension one (cf. (PDE), p. 30
e1
of [4]), which is assumed in the following proof. Then Z
O(X) (G, U(O(X)) = X(G)O(X) =
1
⊥G
= ZO(X)
(G, U(O(X))e , which
X(G). On the other hand, by Proposition 4.5, R(X, G)
shows
 ⊥G

1
e1
= R(X, G)
∆(X,G) = Z
O(X) (G, U(O(X)) ∩ ZO(X) (G, U(O(X))e

(cf. Lemma 4.6). Thus the equivalence of conditions in this corollary is a consequence
of Theorem 5.2. ✷

Suppose that G is an algebraic torus and (X, G) is stable. Clearly Q(O(X)G ) =
Q(O(X))G . Moreover, in the case where t(X,G) := exp(UrCl(O(X), G)) is finite, express
t(X,G) = t̃(X,G) · tR
(X,G)
20

(5.3)

as a product of natural numbers t̃(X,G) , tR
(X,G) satisfying that
GCD(t̃(X,G) , |R(X, G)|X |) = 1
and |R(X, G)|X | is divisible in Z by any prime divisor of tR
(X,G) . Let F(X,G) be the
subgroup of R(X, G) consisting all elements σ ∈ R(X, G) such that prime divisors of
ord(σ|X ) are divisors of tR
(X,G) . Obviously there exists a natural number k such that
k+j
k
R
, G, L(X,G) ) ∩ R(X, G)
tor((tR
(X,G) ) , G, L(X,G) ) ∩ R(X, G) = tor((t(X,G) )

= F(X,G)
for any j ∈ N .
Definition 5.4 Under the same circumstances as above, define the obstruction subgroup
for cofreeness of (X, G), denoted by Obs(X, G), as follows;
e
Obs(X, G) := R(X/
/H(X,G), G)

where H(X,G) := tor(t̃(X,G) , G, L(X,G) ) · tor(tR
(X,G) , G, F(X,G) ) (cf. Definition 4.1).
Remark 5.5 Obviously Obs(X, G)|X is a finite group. If X (i.e., O(X)) is factorial,
then t(X,G) = 1 and we see that L(X,G) = Obs(X, G), i.e., Obs(X, G)|X = {1}. On
the other hand in the case where U(O(X)) = K ∗ , unless Obs(X, G)|X = {1}, (X, G) is
never isobaric cofree (cf. Corollary 3.11 and Theorem 5.2).
There are many examples of equidimensional actions of (connected) algebraic tori on
conical normal varieties which are not cofree as follows:
Example 5.6 Let V = K 4 be a 4-dimensional vector space over K and let
subgroup
 



ζ3
u


*






−1
[


ζ3
u
∗
2
 (u, v) ∈ (K )

τ =



ζ3−1
v





 


−1
v
ζ3−1

M be a


+






of GL(V ∨ ) where V ∨ the K-dual space of V and ζ3 is a primitive 3-th root of 1 in K.
Put X := V //hτ i and G := M 0 which acts naturally on X. Since M ⊆ SL(V ), we see
that R(V, M ) = {1} and hence R(X, G) = {1}. Clearly V //G ∼
= A2K and the action
(V, G) is cofree, which implies that (X, G) is equidimensional. Applying Samuel’s Galois
descent to the action (V //G, hτ i), we have
Cl(O(X)G ) = Cl((O(V )G )hτ i ) ∼
= Z/3Z.
Because (X, G) is not cofree, we see {[θ]} =
6 f
Cl(O(X), G) = Cl(O(X)G ) and t(X,G) = 3
(recall θ denotes the trivial cocycle). Consequently
Obs(X, G)|X ∼
= Z/3Z ⊕ Z/3Z.
21

Example 5.7 Let V = K 4 and put

tu



tu−1
G := 

t




t



H := 






t−3







t
t
t−3





(t, u) ∈ (K ∗ )2

t ∈ K∗

















⊆ GL(V ∨ ),

⊆ GL(V ∨ ),

and X := V //H. Here the matrix representation is given by the basis {X1 , . . . , X4 }. As
in Example 5.6, we similarly see that R(X, G) = {1}. By [16] one sees that Cl(O(X)) ∼
=
HX4 ∼
= Z/3Z. There is a finite dominant morphism π : X → Y = A3 , where Y is defined
by K[X13 X4 , X23 X4 , X33 X4 ] and π is associated with K[X13 X4 , X23 X4 , X33 X4 ] ֒→ O(X).
Clearly G acts naturally on Y and π is G-equivariant. Since (Y, G) is cofree, (X, G) is
stable and equidimensional. On the other hand we easily see that both (V, G) and (X, G)
are not cofree. Hence f
Cl(O(X), G) 6= {0} and Cl(O(X)) ⊇ UrCl(O(X), G) ∼
= Z/3Z.
Consequently
Obs(X, G)|X ∼
= Z/3Z.
Obviously X is regarded as an affine toric variety with a non-cofree equidimensional
torus action commuting with its toric structure. In general, for any finitely generated
abelian group A, there exists an affine toric variety whose class group is isomorphic to
A (cf. [16]).
Theorem 5.8 Suppose that G is a connected algebraic torus and p = 0. Suppose that
both X and (X, G) are conical. If (X, G) is stable, then the following conditions are
equivalent:
(i) The action (X, G) is equidimensional.
(ii) The exponent exp(UrCl(O(X), G)) is finite and the action (X//Obs(X, G), G) =
(X//Obs(X, G), G/Obs(X, G)) is cofree.
Proof. (ii) ⇒ (i) : Since cofree conical actions are equidimensional and the group
Obs(R, G)|X is finite, we immediately see that (ii) implies (i).
(i) ⇒ (ii) : Suppose that (X, G) is equidimensional. We use notation in Definition
5.4 and the paragraph preceding to Definition 5.4. By Proposition 4.4 we see that
Obs(X, G) ✁ R(X//H(X,G) , G) = H(X,G) · R(X, G)
and (X//Obs(X, G), R(X//H(X,G) , G)) is cofree. Let χ ∈ X(G) be a character satisfying
χ(H(X,G) · R(X, G)) = {1}. Note χ ∈ X(G)O(X) , as χ(L(X,G) ) = {1}. It suffices to
show that O(X)χ ∼
= O(X)G as O(X)G -modules. Let σ be any element of G such that
σ t(X,G) ∈ R(X, G). Recall the expression (5.3). As the map
R(X, G) ∋ τ → τ t̃(X,G) ∈ R(X, G)
22

R

induces an automorphism of R(X, G)|X , the element σ t(X,G) belongs to the subgroup
tor(t̃(X,G) , G, L(X,G) ) · R(X, G). Since
R

tor(t̃(X,G) , G, L(X,G) ) ∋ τ → τ t(X,G) ∈ tor(t̃(X,G) , G, L(X,G) )
induces an automorphism of tor(t̃(X,G) , G, L(X,G) )|X and R(X, G) contains L(X,G) , we
R

can choose µ from tor(t̃(X,G) , G, L(X,G) ) in such a way that (σ ·µ)t(X,G) ∈ R(X, G). Then
R

express (σ · µ)t(X,G) = γ1 · γ2 for some γi ∈ R(X, G) such that
GCD(ord(γ1 |X ), tR
(X,G) ) = 1
and any prime divisor of ord(γ2 |X ) is a divisor of |R(X, G)|X |. Clearly γ2 ∈ F(X,G) .
R

Since F(X,G) ⊇ L(X,G) and hγ1 i ∋ τ → τ t(X,G) ∈ hγ1 i induces an automorphism of
hγ1 i|X , there exists an element δ ∈ hγ1 i satisfying
R

(σ · µ · δ)t(X,G) ∈ F(X,G) .
Consequently we see
σ ∈ tor(t̃(X,G) , G, L(X,G) ) · tor(tR
(X,G) , G, F(X,G) ) · R(X, G) = H(X,G) · R(X, G).
Thus χ(σ) = 1, which implies
χ(tor(t(X,G) , G, R(X, G))) = {1}.
By the implication (iv) ⇒ (i) of Corollary 5.3, we see that O(X)χ ∼
= O(X)G as O(X)G modules. ✷
Proof of Theorem 1.2.
suppose that

Suppose that (X, G) is faithful and by Theorem 5.8 we may



t(X,G) := exp (UrCl(O(X), G)) = exp f
Cl(O(X), G) < ∞.

By Definition 5.4 we see that prime divisors of |Obs(X, G)| are same as those of t(X,G) ,
which implies that there exists a power of t(X,G) which is divisible by |Obs(X, G)|. ✷
Now, Corollary 1.3 follows immediately from the definition of f
Cl(O(X), G) and Theorem 5.8.

References
[1] H. Bass, Algebraic K-Theory, W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York 1968.
[2] H. Bass, Introduction to some methods of algebraic K-theory, Regional Conference Series
in Mathematics, No. 20, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, R.I. 1974.
[3] N. Bourbaki, Groupes et Algèbres de Lie : Chapitres 4 à 6 (Éléments de Mathématique)
Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York 2006.

23

[4] R. M. Fossum, The Divisor Class Groups of a Krull Domains, Springer-Verlag, BerlinHeidelberg-New York 1973.
[5] A. Grothendieck, Revêtements Étales et Groupe Fondamental (SGA1), Seminaire de
geometrie algebrique du Bois-Marie 1960-61, Lecture Notes in Math. 224, Springer-Verlag,
Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1971.
[6] M. Hochster; J. A. Eagon, Cohen-Macaulay rings, invariant theory, and the generic perfection of determinantal loci, Amer. J. Math. 93 (1971), 1020-1058.
[7] A. Magid, Finite generation of class groups of rings of invariants, Proc. of Amer. Math.
Soc. 60, 45-48 (1976).
[8] H. Matsumura, Commutative Ring Theory, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge 1986.
[9] D. Mumford; J. Fogarty; F. Kirwan, Geometric Invariant Theory, 3rd. Enlarged Ed.,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1994.
[10] M. Nagata, Local Rings, Robert E. Krieger Publ. Co., New York 1975.
[11] H. Nakajima, Relative invariants of finite groups, J. Algebra 79, 218-234 (1982).
[12] H. Nakajima, Equidimensional actions of algebraic tori, Annales de L’Institut Fourier 45,
681-705 (1995).
[13] H. Nakajima, Equidimensional relatively stable reductive algebraic groups with simple
commutator subgroups, Proc. Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 73, 181-184 (1997)
[14] H. Nakajima, Reduced ramification indices of quotient morphisms under torus actions, J.
Algebra 242, 536-549 (2001).
[15] H. Nakajima, Divisorial free modules of relative invariants on Krull domains, J. Algebra
292, 540-565 (2005).
[16] H. Nakajima, Cofree embeddings of algebraic tori preserving canonical sheaves, Proc.
Japan Acad. Ser. A Math. Sci. 82, 155-160 (2006).
[17] T. A. Springer, Linear Algebraic Groups, 2nd. Ed., Birkhäuser, Boston 1998.
[18] R. P. Stanley, Relative invariants of finite groups generated by pseudo-reflections, J.
Algebra 49, 134–148 (1977).
[19] R. P. Stanley, Combinatorics and invariant theory, Relations between combinatorics and
other parts of mathematics (Proc. Sympos. Pure Math. Ohio State Univ., Columbus, Ohio,
1978), Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., XXXIV, pp. 345–355, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence
1979.
[20] D. Wehlau, A proof of the Popov conjecture for tori, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 114, 839-845
(1992).

24

