--- abstract: 'The theory of $\Lambda$-rings, in the sense of Grothendieck's Riemann–Roch theory, is an enrichment of the theory of commutative rings. In the same way, we can enrich usual algebraic geometry over the ring ${{{\bf}Z}}$ of integers to produce $\Lambda$-algebraic geometry. We show that $\Lambda$-algebraic geometry is in a precise sense an algebraic geometry over a deeper base than ${{{\bf}Z}}$ and that it has many properties predicted for algebraic geometry over the mythical field with one element. Moreover, it does this is a way that is both formally robust and closely related to active areas in arithmetic algebraic geometry.' address: 'Australian National University, Canberra' author: - James Borger bibliography: - 'references.bib' date: '. <span> : </span>.' title: '$\Lambda$-rings and the field with one element' --- [^1] [^2] Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered} ============ Many writers have mused about algebraic geometry over deeper bases than the ring ${{{\bf}Z}}$ of integers. Although there are several, possibly unrelated reasons for this, here I will mention just two. The first is that the combinatorial nature of enumeration formulas in linear algebra over finite fields ${{{\bf}F}}_q$ as $q$ tends to $1$ suggests that, just as one can work over all finite fields simultaneously by using algebraic geometry over ${{{\bf}Z}}$, perhaps one could bring in the combinatorics of finite sets by working over an even deeper base, one which somehow allows $q=1$. It is common, following Tits @Tits:F1, to call this mythical base ${{{\bf}F}}_1$, the field with one element. (See also Steinberg @Steinberg:F1, p. 279.) The second purpose is to prove the Riemann hypothesis. With the analogy between integers and polynomials in mind, we might hope that $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}$ would be a kind of curve over $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}F}}_1$, that $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}{\otimes}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}{{{\bf}Z}}$ would not only make sense but be a surface bearing some kind of intersection theory, and that we could then mimic over ${{{\bf}Z}}$ Weil's proof @Weil:Riemann-hyp-function-field of the Riemann hypothesis over function fields.[^3] Of course, since ${{{\bf}Z}}$ is the initial object in the category of rings, any theory of algebraic geometry over a deeper base would have to leave the usual world of rings and schemes. The most obvious way of doing this is to consider weaker algebraic structures than rings (commutative, as always), such as commutative monoids, and to try using them as the affine building blocks for a more rigid theory of algebraic geometry. This has been pursued in a number of papers, which I will cite below. Another natural approach is motived by the following question, first articulated by Soulé @Soule:F1: Which rings over ${{{\bf}Z}}$ can be defined over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$? Less set-theoretically, on a ring over ${{{\bf}Z}}$, what should descent data to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ be? The main goal of this paper is to show that a reasonable answer to this question is a *$\Lambda$-ring structure*, in the sense of Grothendieck's Riemann–Roch theory @Grothendieck:Chern. More precisely, we show that a $\Lambda$-ring structure on a ring can be thought of as descent data to a deeper base in the precise sense that it gives rise to a map from the big étale topos of $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}$ to a $\Lambda$-equivariant version of the big étale topos of $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}$, and that this deeper base has many properties expected of the field with one element. Not only does the resulting algebraic geometry fit into the supple formalism of topos theory, it is also arithmetically rich—unlike the category of sets, say, which is the deepest topos of all. For instance, it is closely related to global class field theory, complex multiplication, and crystalline cohomology. So let us define an ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-algebra to be a $\Lambda$-ring. (The language of ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ will quickly feel silly, but for most of this paper, it will be useful as an expository device.) More generally, define an ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-scheme to be a scheme equipped with a $\Lambda$-structure. The theory of $\Lambda$-structures on schemes was introduced in Borger @Borger:BGWV@Borger:SLAG. (Although see Grothendieck @Grothendieck:Pursuing-stacks, p. 506.) Defining a $\Lambda$-structure on a general scheme $X$ takes some time, as it does on a general ring. But when $X$ is flat over ${{{\bf}Z}}$, there is a simple equivalent definition: it is a commuting family of endomorphisms $\psi_p\:X\to X$, indexed by the set of prime numbers $p$, such that each $\psi_p$ agrees with the $p$-th power Frobenius map on the special fiber $X\times_{\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}}\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}F}}_p$. It is also true that any reduced $\Lambda$-scheme is flat over ${{{\bf}Z}}$. Keeping these two facts in mind, it is possible to read most of this paper without knowing the definition in general. If we take this ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-to-$\Lambda$ dictionary seriously, then the functor that removes the $\Lambda$-structure from a $\Lambda$-scheme should be thought of as removing the descent data, and hence as the base-change functor from ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ to ${{{\bf}Z}}$. So for instance, ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ itself should be defined to be ${{{\bf}Z}}$ with its unique $\Lambda$-structure, where each $\psi_p$ is the identity map. It is the initial object in the category of $\Lambda$-rings. As indicated above, the definition of a $\Lambda$-structure extends not just to the category of schemes but to the entire ambient topos. By this, I mean the big étale topos over ${{{\bf}Z}}$, by definition the category of sheaves of sets on the category of affine schemes equipped with the étale topology. It is therefore natural to define the big étale topos over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ to be the category of such sheaves with $\Lambda$-structure. The base-change functor ${{v}}^*$ that strips off the $\Lambda$-structure then induces a well-defined map $${{v}}\:\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}{{\,\longrightarrow\,}}\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}F}}_1,$$ not on the level of schemes, which would of course be meaningless, but on the level of big étale toposes. The functor ${{v}}^*$ has not only a right adjoint ${{v}}_*$, as required, but also a left adjoint ${{v}}_!$. If we think of ${{v}}^*$ as the base-change functor, we should think of ${{v}}_*$ as the Weil restriction of scalars functor and ${{v}}_!$ as the base-forgetting functor. In terms of definitions rather than interpretations, ${{v}}_*$ sends a space to its arithmetic jet space, which is a multi-prime, algebraic version of Buium's $p$-jet space @Buium:Arithmetic-diff-equ, which is in turn a formal $p$-adic lift of the Greenberg transform @Greenberg:I@Greenberg:II. On the other hand, ${{v}}_!$ sends a space to its space of big Witt vectors. Both of these are given their natural $\Lambda$-structures. These constructions are exotic by the standards of algebraic geometry over fields, but even in the arithmetically local case, where we consider $p$-adic schemes with only one Frobenius lift $\psi_p$, they have proven very useful. See, for example, Buium @Buium:Arithmetic-diff-equ for applications of the first and Illusie @Illusie:dRW-1016 for the second. (In fact, Buium has had similar ideas regarding Frobenius lifts and the field with one element. See @Buium:geometry-of-fermat-adeles, the preface of @Buium:Arithmetic-diff-equ, or Buium–Simanca @Buium-Simanca:Arithmetic-Laplacians. Manin @Manin:Cyclotomy has also recently interpreted Witt vectors as being related to the field with one element.) For applications to usual, non-$\Lambda$ arithmetic algebraic geometry, the most interesting spaces over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ are those obtained from schemes over ${{{\bf}Z}}$. Whether we produce them by applying ${{v}}_!$ or ${{v}}_*$, the result is almost never a scheme of finite type over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. So from the perspective of algebraic geometry over ${{{\bf}Z}}$, the spaces of principal interest over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ are not those of finite type. In fact, as has been expected, there appear to be very few schemes of finite type over ${{{\bf}Z}}$ that descend to ${{{\shahjessica@example.org. But their infrequency is so extreme that they become interesting on their own terms. For example, it might be possible to describe the category of algebraic spaces of finite type over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ in purely combinatorial terms, without any mention of algebraic geometry or $\Lambda$-structures. This question is probably within reach, and the second purpose of this paper is to take some steps in that direction. For example, we prove the following theorem, stated here under restricted hypotheses: \[thm:intro-A\] Let $X$ be a smooth proper scheme over ${{{\bf}Z}}[1/M]$, for some integer $M{\geqslant}1$. If $X$ descends to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ (i.e., admits a $\Lambda$-structure), then is has the following properties: 1. The action of ${{\mathrm{Gal}}}(\bar{{{\bf}Q}}/{{{\bf}Q}})$ on any $p$-adic étale cohomology group ${H_{\mathrm{{{\text{{\rm \'et}}}}}}}^n(X_{\bar{{{\bf}Q}}},{{{\bf}Q}}_p)$ factors through its abelianization. 2. There is an integer $N$, all of whose prime divisors divide $Mp$, such that the restriction of the representation ${H_{\mathrm{{{\text{{\rm \'et}}}}}}}^n(X_{\bar{{{\bf}Q}}},{{{\bf}Q}}_p)$ to ${{\mathrm{Gal}}}(\bar{{{\bf}Q}}/{{{\bf}Q}}(\zeta_N))$ is isomorphic to a sum of powers of the cyclotomic character. 3. The $(i,j)$ Hodge number of the mixed Hodge structure on the singular cohomology $H^n(X^{{\mathrm{an}}},{{{\bf}C}})$ is zero when $i\neq j$. Another way to express this theorem is that only abelian Artin–Tate motives can be defined over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. (Compare Soulé @Soule:F1, 6.4, question 4.) While this means there are no motivically interesting ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-schemes of finite type, the argument that shows this is rather interesting. In the zero-dimensional case, it is an elementary consequence of the Kronecker–Weber theorem and Chebotarev's density theorem. (See Borger–de Smit @Borger-deSmit:integral-lambda-models.) In the higher-dimensional case, the argument also uses the Lefschetz theorem and the proper base change theorem for étale cohomology, on the one hand, and on the other, $p$-adic Hodge theory, including the potentially semi-stable theorem for arbitrary varieties proved by Kisin @Kisin:pst, following the work of many others. The theorem above attests to the predicted combinatorial nature of schemes of finite type over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. I emphasize once again that the combinatorial nature is not built into the foundations of the theory—it is a consequence of hard arithmetic results in the presence of finiteness conditions. Indeed, I expect that the cohomological theory of infinite-dimensional spaces over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ contains, via ${{v}}_!$ and de Rham–Witt theory, the full theory of motives, and even in a visible way. It is hard to imagine a theory defined in combinatorial terms having this property. As strong as the cohomological restrictions above are, they are far from being sharp. In a future version of this paper, I hope to show that all examples of finite type come from toric varieties, in a certain precise sense. Here is a partial result in this direction whose proof does appear in the present version. It is probably even a necessary step in the proof of the full classification theorem. \[thm:intro-B\] Let $X$ be a $\Lambda$-scheme which is of finite type over ${{{\bf}Z}}$. Then $X$ has a point with coordinates in a cyclotomic field. When $X$ is proper, there is even a $\Lambda$-morphism $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}\to X$. In other words, every ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-scheme of finite type has a cyclotomic point and, if proper, has an ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-point. I believe that this result had not been predicted. Observe that in the affine case, the theorem is a new result about $\Lambda$-rings, which can be stated independently of the theory. It says that every $\Lambda$-ring which is finitely generated as a ring admits a ring map to some cyclotomic field. Even in this case, the proof uses all the deep arithmetic results above. If we apply theorem \[thm:intro-A\] and the Lefschetz fixed-point formula at various primes $p$, we obtain the following result, which was essentially predicted (implicitly by the followers of Tits @Tits:F1, and by definition in Kurokawa @Kurokawa:zeta-functions-over-F1): \[cor:intro-A1\] Let $X$ be a smooth proper scheme over ${{{\bf}Z}}[1/M]$, for some integer $M{\geqslant}1$. If $X$ descends to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$, then there is an integer $N{\geqslant}1$ divisible only by the primes dividing $M$ such that for all prime powers $q>1$ with $q\equiv 1\bmod N$, the number of ${{{\bf}F}}_q$-valued points of $X$ is $P(q)$, where $P$ is the Hodge polynomial of $X$: $P(t)=\sum_{i,n}(-1)^n r_{i,n}t^i$, where $r_{i,n}$ is the $(i,i)$ Hodge number of ${H_{\mathrm{c}}}^n(X^{{\mathrm{an}}},{{{\bf}C}})$. In particular, if $X$ is smooth and proper over ${{{\bf}Z}}$, the number of such points is given by the polynomial $P(q)$ for all prime powers $q>1$. Let us now consider ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-points. It is not difficult to show, when $X$ is separated and of finite type over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$, that $X({{{\bf}F}}_1)$ is finite. So it is tempting to hope that the number of ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-valued points would be $P(1)$, the Euler characteristic of $X$. This is typically false, but if we restrict to complemented points—those whose complement is an open sub-${{{\bf}F}}_1$-scheme of $X$—then it is true in many situations. For instance, it is true for toric varieties, when given a certain natural, "toric" $\Lambda$-structure. But it is not always true. It fails for the toric varieties ${{{\bf}A}}^1$ and ${{{\bf}P}}^1$ if they are given the Chebychev $\Lambda$-structure (\[subsec:F1-points-on-Chebychev\]). On the other hand, if all $\Lambda$-varieties can indeed be built from toric varieties with the toric $\Lambda$-structure, it might be possible to salvage the formula $X({{{\bf}F}}_1)=P(1)=\chi(X)$ by cleverly reinterpreting the definitions. Our final purpose is to consider variations on the definition of $\Lambda$-structure, such as function-field analogues. For example, instead of working over $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}$, we can work over a smooth curve $S$ over a finite field $k$. Then our family of commuting Frobenius lifts would be indexed by the closed points of $S$, and the same procedure as over ${{{\bf}Z}}$ gives the notion of a $\Lambda_S$-structure, a topos of ${{{\bf}F}}_1^{S}$-spaces, and a topos map ${{v}}_{S}\:S{{\,\longrightarrow\,}}\operatorname{Spec}{{{{\bf}F}}_1^S}$. Having invented an absolute algebraic geometry relative to $S$, we can ask how it relates to the usual absolute algebraic geometry relative to $S$, that is, algebraic geometry over $k$. The answer is that the structure map ${{s}}\:S\to\operatorname{Spec}k$ factors naturally as a composition of topos maps: $$\xymatrix{ S\ar^-{{{v}}_S}[rr]\ar^-{{{s}}}[dr] & & \operatorname{Spec}{{{{\bf}F}}^S_1}\ar@{-->}_-{{{f}}}[dl] \\ & \operatorname{Spec}k. }$$ The map ${{f}}$ is not an equivalence, but it is not far from being one. For example, ${{f}}^*$ embeds the category of reduced algebraic spaces over $k$ fully faithfully into the category of spaces over ${{{\bf}F}}_1^S$, but there can be schemes defined over ${{{\bf}F}}_1^S$ (given by certain rank-one Drinfeld modules) that do not descend to $k$. As a check to see if this could lead to a proof of the Riemann hypothesis for ${{{\bf}Z}}$, one might examine the translation of Weil's proof of the Riemann hypothesis for $S$ from algebraic geometry over $k$ to that over ${{{\bf}F}}_1^S$. But since the current version of our theory says nothing about the archimedean place of ${{{\bf}Q}}$, it is hard to imagine this succeeding without further ideas. Even so, it should be done. Let us now list the contents of this paper. In section \[sec:lambda-spaces\], we recall the foundations of the theory of spaces over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ (that is, $\Lambda$-spaces). In section \[sec:examples\], we give examples of ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-schemes. In section \[sec:sub-lambda-spaces\], we discuss sub-${{{\bf}F}}_1$-spaces and in particular ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-valued points. In section \[sec:function-spaces\], we discuss function spaces over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ and especially $\operatorname{GL}_n$. In section \[sec:abelian-motives\], we show that abelian motives are Artin–Tate. This is a result in usual, non-$\Lambda$ number theory needed in the following section. In section \[sec:p-adic-cohomology\], we discuss the $p$-adic étale cohomology of ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-schemes of finite type and implications for point counting. And in section \[sec:variations\], we consider variations on our approach to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ for function fields and number fields larger than ${{{\bf}Q}}$. Other work {#other-work .unnumbered} ========== In the early days of this project, I was greatly inspired by Manin's exposition @Manin:Lectures-on-zeta, Soulé's paper @Soule:F1, and Deninger's program, for example @Deninger:cohomological-approach. In a strict mathematical sense, this paper does not owe them much, but their spiritual effect has been deep. There are, of course, many approaches to absolute algebraic geometry which I did not mention above. Here are some I know about. One is that an ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-algebra should be some kind of algebraic structure that is set-theoretically weaker than a commutative ring, for example a commutative monoid. From this point a view an ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-vector space is often taken to be a set, perhaps with some additional weak structure. One could investigate the $K$-theory that comes out of this, and even aspire to see the place at infinity by incorporating archimedean information in these structures. Another approach has been to pursue notions of $\zeta$-functions over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$, perhaps independently of any formal definition of ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. A final approach is to find and prove analogues over number fields of basic geometric results over function fields. For these approaches see the following references: Baez @Baez:TWF184, Connes–Consani @Connes-Consani:notion-of-geometry-over-f1, Connes–Consani–Marcoli @Connes-Consani-Marcoli:fun-with-f1, Deitmar @Deitmar:F1-schemes@Deitmar:F1-and-toric@Deitmer:zeta-and-k-theory, Diers @Diers:book, Durov @Durov:new-approach, Haran @Haran:non-additive-geometry @Haran:mysteries-of-the-real, Kapranov @Kapranov:absolute-direct-image, Kapranov–Smirnov @Kapranov-Smirnov:F1, Kurokawa @Kurokawa-Koyama:multiple-zeta@Kurokawa:mutlple-zeta-an-example@Kurokawa:zeta-functions-over-F1, Kurokawa–Ochiai–Wakayama @Kurokawa-et-al:absolute-derivations, Smirnov @Smirnov:Hurwitz, Tate–Voloch @Tate-Voloch:linear-forms, and Toën–Vaquié @Toen-Vaquie:Under-Spec-Z. Several of these writers have other papers on the subject, but I believe these are representative of their approaches. Acknowledgments {#acknowledgments .unnumbered} =============== My focused work on $\Lambda$-algebraic geometry began on October 22, 2003, when I read an email from Ivan Fesenko asking if there were relations between my paper @Borger-Wieland:PA with Ben Wieland and the field with one element. That question instantly gave direction to some scattered thoughts about $\Lambda$-algebraic geometry and the $p$-adic absolute point (\[subsec:local-absolute-point\]). My interests at the time were arithmetically local, and as obvious as the global connection is in retrospect, it had not occurred to me before that day. So I thank him greatly. I would also like to thank Mark Kisin for many conversations about this project over several years. Most of his influence on this project is on forthcoming work, but even with this paper, if he had not insisted that I begin writing up what I knew in the case of $\Lambda$-varieties of finite type over ${{{\bf}Z}}$, I never would have uncovered much of what is here. And since the foundational papers @Borger:BGWV@Borger:SLAG owe their existence to the present paper, perhaps they also owe some of it to him. I did some of this work in 2004–2005 at the Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques and the Max-Planck-Institut für Mathematik. It is a pleasure to thank them for their generous support and nearly ideal working environments. I did more work on this topic in January 2006, as a visitor at the University of Chicago. I thank Alexander Beilinson and Vladimir Drinfeld for making that possible. I have given a number of lectures on this material, and this paper has benefited from questions many people have asked, especially Alexandru Buium, Jordan Ellenberg, and Kirsten Wickelgren. I would particularly like to thank Wickelgren for some questions that directly inspired the material in section \[sec:function-spaces\]. $\Lambda$-spaces {#sec:lambda-spaces} ================ <span>*General $\Lambda$-spaces.*</span> Let us quickly review @Borger:SLAG. Let ${{{{W_{}^{*}}}}}={{{{W_{\infty}^{*}}}}}$ denote the infinite-length big Witt vector functor from the category of spaces to itself. (The category of spaces is, by definition, the category of sheaves of sets on the category of affine schemes under the étale topology.) Then ${{{{W_{}^{*}}}}}$ carries a monad structure, and a $\Lambda$-structure on a space $X$ is by definition an action of ${{{{W_{}^{*}}}}}$ on $X$. Note that if $X$ is an algebraic space, then the space ${{{{W_{}^{*}}}}}(X)$ is ind-algebraic but typically not algebraic. This is just the familiar fact that the ring of infinite-length Witt vectors is naturally a projective limit of rings. Here are some important examples. If $A$ is a ring, then we have ${{{{W_{}^{*}}}}}(\operatorname{Spec}A)= \operatorname{\mathrm{colim}}_n\operatorname{Spec}W_n(A)$, where $W_n$ denotes the functor of (big) Witt vectors of length $n$. Therefore a $\Lambda$-structure on the space $\operatorname{Spec}A$ is the same as a $\Lambda$-ring structure on $A$ in the usual sense. If $X$ is a flat algebraic space over ${{{\bf}Z}}$, then $\Lambda$-structure on $X$ is the same as a commuting family of endomorphisms $\psi_p\:X\to X$, one for each prime $p$, such that $\psi_p$ agrees with the $p$-th power Frobenius map on $X\times_{\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}}\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}F}}_p$. If a reduced algebraic space admits a $\Lambda$-structure, then it must be flat over ${{{\bf}Z}}$. Finally, if $X$ is a $\Lambda$-algebraic space, then ${{X}_{\mathrm{red}}}$ is a closed $\Lambda$-algebraic subspace. (Because a $\Lambda$-structure is given by a monad action, a subspace of a $\Lambda$-space can have at most one compatible $\Lambda$-structure.) Non-reduced $\Lambda$-algebraic spaces appear only sporadically in this paper. The functor ${{{{W_{}^{*}}}}}$ has a right adjoint ${{{W_{{*}}}}}={{{W_{{\infty*}}}}}$, the arithmetic jet space functor, which is a generalized version of Buium's $p$-jet space functor @Buium:Arithmetic-diff-equ. If $A$ is a ring, then ${{{W_{{*}}}}}(\operatorname{Spec}A) = \operatorname{Spec}\Lambda{\odot}A$, where $\Lambda{\odot}A$ denotes the $\Lambda$-ring freely generated by $A$. For example, ${{{W_{{*}}}}}({{{\bf}A}}^1_{{{{\bf}Z}}})=\operatorname{Spec}\Lambda$, where $\Lambda$ is the free $\Lambda$-ring on one generator, the ring of symmetric functions in infinitely many variables. Let $S=\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}$, and let ${\mathsf{Sp}}_S={\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}$ denote the category of spaces. Let ${\mathsf{Sp}}_{S/\Lambda}$ denote the category of $\Lambda$-spaces (with $\Lambda$-equivariant, or rather ${{{{W_{}^{*}}}}}$-equivariant, morphisms). This can also be described using ${{{W_{{*}}}}}$. By adjunction, ${{{W_{{*}}}}}$ inherits a comonad structure from the monad structure on ${{{{W_{}^{*}}}}}$. The category of $\Lambda$-spaces is the same as the category of spaces equipped with an action of the comonad ${{{W_{{*}}}}}$. It is therefore a topos, like ${\mathsf{Sp}}_S$. *Categorical structure.* Let ${{v}}^*\:{\mathsf{Sp}}_{S/\Lambda}\to{\mathsf{Sp}}_S$ denote the functor that simply strips off the $\Lambda$-structure. The point of this paper is that ${{v}}^*$ can also be thought of as the functor that strips off the descent data from ${{{\bf}Z}}$ to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$, and hence that it can be thought of as the base-change functor from ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ to ${{{\bf}Z}}$. Therefore, we have the following equation: $$\xymatrix@R=20pt@C=40pt{ {\mathsf{Sp}}_{S}\ar@/^2pc/[dd]^{{{v}}_*}\ar@/_2pc/[dd]_{{{v}}_!} & & {\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}\ar@/^2pc/[dd]^{\txt{\scriptsize Weil\\ \scriptsize restrict}} \ar@/_2pc/[dd]_{\txt{\scriptsize forget\\ \scriptsize base}} \\ & = \quad& \\ {\mathsf{Sp}}_{S/\Lambda}\ar[uu]_ {{{v}}^*} & & {\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}.\ar[uu]|{S\times_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}{-}} }$$ This means that the structure on the right is defined to be that on the left, or that we think of the precisely defined left-hand side using the geometric language of the right-hand side. Each functor is the left adjoint of the one to its right. The left adjoint ${{v}}_!$ of ${{v}}^*$ sends $X$ to its Witt space ${{{{W_{}^{*}}}}}(X)$ with the natural $\Lambda$-structure, and the right adjoint ${{v}}_*$ sends $X$ to its arithmetic jet space ${{{W_{{*}}}}}(X)$, again with the natural $\Lambda$-structure. As always the left adjoint of a base-change functor is called base-forgetting, and the right adjoint is called Weil restriction of scalars. In particular, if one accepts the premise of this paper, the space $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}\times_{\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}F}}_1}\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}$ must be defined to be the Witt space ${{{{W_{}^{*}}}}}(\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}})$. These three adjoint functors form, by definition, an essential topos map ${{v}}\:{\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{\bf}Z}}\to{\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}$. This is what one would would hope to have with any algebraic geometry over a deeper base than $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}$. Similarly, the base-forgetting functor ${{v}}_!$ is faithful but not full. (See @Borger:BGWV, 12.2.) Yet another way of expressing the point of this paper, in the playful tradition of the field with one element, is the nonsense formula "$\Lambda = {{{\bf}Z}}[{{\mathrm{Gal}}}({{{\bf}Z}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1)]$". The meaning of this is that if descent from ${{{\bf}Z}}$ to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ were controlled by a finite group, one would call it ${{\mathrm{Gal}}}({{{\bf}Z}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1)$. In that case, descent for rings would alternatively be controlled by the plethory ${{{\bf}Z}}[{{\mathrm{Gal}}}({{{\bf}Z}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1)]$ whose underlying ring would be the polynomial ring freely generated by the set ${{\mathrm{Gal}}}({{{\bf}Z}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1)$. (See Borger–Wieland @Borger-Wieland:PA.) But the plethory that actually controls this is $\Lambda$. So while the group ${{\mathrm{Gal}}}({{{\bf}Z}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1)$ does not exist, the polynomial algebra it would generate if it did exist does. Note that everything above extends to the case where $S$ is the spectrum of the ring of integers of any number field or any smooth curve over a finite field. Thus for any such $S$, there is a topos ${\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1^S}={\mathsf{Sp}}_{S/\Lambda_S}$, the topos of spaces over the $S$-variant of the field with one element. These toposes are all related as $S$ varies, and as one would expect, $S=\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}$, as above, gives the deepest one. We will return to this in section \[sec:variations\]. *$\Lambda$-modules.* An important topic we will not discuss in this paper is the $\Lambda$-analogue of a quasi-coherent sheaf. The non-linear nature of $\Lambda$-structures makes module theory slightly subtler than it is in equivariant algebraic geometry under actions of monoids or Lie algebras, or more generally in the context of Toën–Vaquié @Toen-Vaquie:Under-Spec-Z. The reason for this, in the language of Borger–Wieland @Borger-Wieland:PA, is that the additive bialgebra of the plethory $\Lambda$ does not agree with the cotangent algebra of $\Lambda$. Therefore one cannot properly speak about modules without specifying certain extra information. In the case of $\Lambda$, these are essentially the slopes of the Frobenius operators. I mention this here only because ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-modules are a frequent concern in papers on the field with one element and I will not address them. Examples {#sec:examples} ======== <span>*The point.*</span> The ring ${{{\bf}Z}}$ has a unique $\Lambda$-structure—each $\psi_p$ is the identity. Under this structure, it is the initial object in the category of $\Lambda$-rings. It is therefore reasonable to denote it ${{{\bf}F}}_1$ and call $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}$, viewed as a $\Lambda$-space, the absolute point. <span>*Monoid algebras.*</span> \[subsec:monoid-algebras\] If $M$ is any commutative monoid, the monoid algebra ${{{\bf}Z}}[M]$ has a natural $\Lambda$-action induced by $\psi_p\colon m\mapsto m^p$ for any $m\in M$, and so $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}[M]$ descends naturally to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. I will call this $\Lambda$-action the <span>*toric*</span> $\Lambda$-action. For example, given a choice of coordinates, ${{{\bf}A}}^r\times{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}^s$ equals $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}[{{{\bf}N}}^r\times {{{\bf}Z}}^s]$, which descends naturally to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. In fact, we have even more: the monoid scheme structure on $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}[M]$ also descends to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$, as does the group structure if $M$ is a group. Indeed, the coalgebra structure on ${{{\bf}Z}}[M]$ given by $m\mapsto m{\otimes}m$ for all $m\in M$ is a map of $\Lambda$-rings. The same is true of the counit and, if $M$ is a group, the antipode $m\mapsto m^{-1}$. For example, all split tori can be thought of as group schemes over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. The group scheme $\mu_n=\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}[x]/(x^n-1) = \operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}[{{{\bf}Z}}/n{{{\bf}Z}}]$ also descends to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. Following Kapranov–Smirnov @Kapranov-Smirnov:F1, Soulé calls this the base change to ${{{\bf}Z}}$ of ${{{\bf}F}}_{1^n}$, the field with $1^n$ elements @Soule:F1. <span>*Limits and colimits.*</span> \[subsec:limits\] The category of $\Lambda$-rings has products and coproducts, and their underlying rings agree with the same constructions taken in the category of rings. In fact, this is true for all limits and colimits—in particular pull-backs, push-outs, direct limits, and inverse limits. This is because the forgetful functor ${\mathsf{Ring}}_{\Lambda}\to{\mathsf{Ring}}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}$ has a left and a right adjoint. Since it is a topos, ${\mathsf{Sp}}_{S/\Lambda}$ also has all limits and colimits. And since ${{v}}^*$ has a left and a right adjoint, the space underlying any limit, or colimit, of $\Lambda$-spaces agrees with the limit, or colimit, or the underlying spaces. Further, since algebraization is a left adjoint, it commutes with ${{{{W_{}^{*}}}}}$. Therefore the algebraization of a $\Lambda$-space is an algebraic $\Lambda$-space. In particular, given a system of algebraic spaces with $\Lambda$-actions, the colimit taken in the category of algebraic spaces has a unique compatible $\Lambda$-action. (The analogous fact for limits is true simply because the subcategory of ${\mathsf{Sp}}_S$ consisting of algebraic spaces is closed under limits.) For the same reason, the affinization of an algebraic $\Lambda$-space is an affine $\Lambda$-space. <span>*Toric varieties.*</span> A toric variety is a colimit of spectra of monoid rings, where the maps in the system are open immersions induced by maps of the monoids. Therefore the colimit in ${\mathsf{Sp}}_S$ is an algebraic space (and even a scheme). By \[subsec:monoid-algebras\] and \[subsec:limits\], they carry natural $\Lambda$-actions. Thus toric varieties descend to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. (Compare Soulé @Soule:F1.) In particular, projective spaces ${{{\bf}P}}^n$ do, once we choose homogeneous coordinates. Then the Frobenius lifts are given by $$\psi_p\colon [x_0,\dots,x_n]\mapsto [x_0^p,\dots,x_n^p].$$ <span>*The Chebychev line.*</span> \[subsec:chebychev-line\] Clauwens @Clauwens:Line has used Ritt's work @Ritt:Permutable@Ritt:Permutable-errata to argue that, up to isomorphism, the affine line $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}[x]$ has exactly one $\Lambda$-structure besides the toric one of \[subsec:monoid-algebras\]. It can be described as follows. The ring ${{{\bf}Z}}[t^{\pm 1}]$, endowed with the toric $\Lambda$-action, has a $\Lambda$-involution $t\mapsto t^{-1}$. By \[subsec:limits\], the fixed subring is naturally a $\Lambda$-ring. It is freely generated as a ring by $x=t+t^{-1}$, and this gives the other $\Lambda$-action on ${{{\bf}Z}}[x]$. It also has a simple $K$-theoretic interpretation as the representation ring of the algebraic group $\operatorname{SL}_2$, but in this paper we are regarding the connection between $\Lambda$-rings and $K$-theory as a curiosity. The polynomials $\psi_p(x)$ are Chebychev polynomials: $$\psi_2(x) = x^2-2, \quad \psi_3(x) = x^3-3x, \quad \psi_5(x)=x^5-5x^3+5x, \quad \dots.$$ More generally, any subgroup of $\operatorname{GL}_n({{{\bf}Z}})$ acts on the toric $\Lambda$-ring ${{{\bf}Z}}[x_1^{\pm 1},\dots,x_n^{\pm 1}]$, and the invariant subrings give more examples of $\Lambda$-rings. For example, if we take the permutation representation $S_n\to\operatorname{GL}_n({{{\bf}Z}})$ of the $n$-th symmetric group, the invariant subring is isomorphic to ${{{\bf}Z}}[\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_{n-1},\lambda_n^{\pm 1}]$ and thus gives a non-toric $\Lambda$-action on ${{{\bf}A}}^{n-1}\times{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$. It would be interesting to generalize Clauwens' results. For example, are there only finitely many isomorphism classes of $\Lambda$-structures on ${{{\bf}A}}^2$? <span>*Singular lines.*</span> \[subsec:singular-lines\] We can divide out, not just by group actions, as in \[subsec:chebychev-line\], but also by any $\Lambda$-equivalence relation, whether we take the quotient in the category of affine $\Lambda$-spaces, algebraic $\Lambda$-spaces, or all $\Lambda$-spaces. For instance, on ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ with the toric $\Lambda$-action, we can identify $1$ and $-1$ to make a nodal line $$A = {\{f(z)\in{{{\bf}Z}}[t^{\pm 1}] \;|\; f(-1)=f(1)\}},$$ or we can identify $1$ with itself to order two to make a cuspidal line $$A' = {\{f(z)\in{{{\bf}Z}}[t^{\pm 1}] \;|\; f'(1)=0\}}.$$ It is easy to check that these subrings of ${{{\bf}Z}}[t^{\pm 1}]$ are sub-$\Lambda$-rings. Observe that we can identify the points $1,q\in{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ only when $q=\pm 1$—otherwise, the $\psi_p$ operators would fail to descend to the quotient. But if we use $\Lambda$-algebraic parameter spaces, there are non-discrete moduli. For instance, in the family $${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}\times{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}{{\,\buildrel {{\mathrm{pr}}}_1\over\longrightarrow\,}} {{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}},$$ we can identify the diagonal section $\Delta$ and the identity section ${{\mathrm{id}}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}}\times 1$, to get the family of nodal lines ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/(1\sim q)$ parameterized by $q\in{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$. The result is a perfectly legitimate $\Lambda$-algebraic family of nodal $\Lambda$-quotients of ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$. The reason why before $q$ could only lie in a finite set is that there we insisted that the endomorphisms $\psi_p$ act trivially on the parameter space. We will see below that an algebraic $\Lambda$-space of finite type over ${{{\bf}Z}}$ has only finitely many points (with coordinates in ${{{\bf}C}}$, say) fixed by the $\psi_p$ operators (\[pro:finiteness-of-periodic-spaces\]). Therefore in any $\Lambda$-algebraic family, only finitely many of the fibers will be stable under the $\psi_p$. In particular this will be true for any universal family, assuming the $\Lambda$-moduli space is of finite type. So the finiteness phenomenon above is rather general. We can also contract any $\Lambda$-invariant modulus on ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$. If $f(x)$ is a product of polynomials the form $x^n-1$, then the two maps $${{{\bf}Z}}[x^{\pm 1}] \rightrightarrows {{{\bf}Z}}[x^{\pm 1}]/(f(x)),$$ one given by $x\mapsto x$ and the other by $x\mapsto 1$, are $\Lambda$-ring maps. Therefore their equalizer is a $\Lambda$-ring. Its spectrum is ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ with the zero locus of $f(x)$ contracted to a point. Last, these constructions can be used to make $\Lambda$-schemes that cannot be covered by open affine $\Lambda$-schemes. In particular, it is inaccurate to say that $\Lambda$-schemes are formed by gluing $\Lambda$-rings together in the Zariski topology, though it is generally the right idea. The following example is due to Ben Wieland. Consider ${{{\bf}P}}^1$ with the toric $\Lambda$-structure, and let $X$ be the quotient by the $\Lambda$-equivalence relation $0\sim \infty$. Then there is no open immersion $j\:U\to X$ which has the following properties: $U$ is an affine $\Lambda$-scheme, $j$ is a $\Lambda$-map, and the nodal point $0=\infty$ is in the image. Indeed, if there were such a neighborhood $U$, then since it would be affine, the set $U({{{\bf}C}})$ would be the complement in $X({{{\bf}C}})$ of a finite nonempty subset $T$ of ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}({{{\bf}C}})$. But $U\cap{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ would also be a sub-$\Lambda$-space of ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$. Since $\psi_n$ on ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ is the $n$-th power map, $T$ would have to be closed under the extraction of $n$-th roots, which is not the case for any finite nonempty subset of ${{{\bf}C}}^*$. <span>*Zero-dimensional varieties.*</span> As shown in Borger–de Smit @Borger-deSmit:integral-lambda-models, it follows from class field theory that every $\Lambda$-ring which is both finite over ${{{\bf}Z}}$ and reduced is contained in a product of cyclotomic fields. It is in fact isomorphic to a sub-$\Lambda$-ring of a product of toric $\Lambda$-rings of the form ${{{\bf}Z}}[x]/(x^n-1)$. This can be viewed as an integral version of the Kronecker–Weber theorem. Thus even zero-dimensional $\Lambda$-algebraic geometry is somewhat interesting. In fact, the proofs of several theorems about higher-dimensional $\Lambda$-varieties use the zero-dimensional theory in key ways. <span>*Non-example: flag varieties.*</span> It follows from a theorem of Paranjape and Srinivas @Panjarape-Srinivas:self-maps that no flag varieties besides projective spaces ${{{\bf}P}}^n$ admit even one Frobenius lift $\psi_p$. Therefore, besides ${{{\bf}P}}^n$, flag varieties are not defined over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. In \[cor:lambda-varieties-are-Artin-Tate\] below, we show that there are strong motivic conditions on a variety for it to descend to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. But in the case of flag varieties, the obstruction is not in the motive. Indeed, flag varieties are paved by affine spaces and are therefore indistinguishable from them from the point of view of motives. It would be interesting to know whether flag varieties admit a weakened version of a $\Lambda$-structure but which is still stronger than being paved by $\Lambda$-varieties. <span>*Non-example: curves of genus $g{\geqslant}1$.*</span> Let $C_{{{{\bf}Q}}}$ be a connected smooth proper curve over ${{{\bf}Q}}$ of genus $g{\geqslant}1$. Choose in integer $M{\geqslant}1$ such that $C_{{{{\bf}Q}}}$ has a a connected smooth proper model $C$ over ${{{\bf}Z}}[1/M]$. Then $C$ has no $\Lambda$-structure. One can see this as follows. If $g{\geqslant}2$, let $p$ be a prime number such that $p\nmid M$. Then since $g{\geqslant}2$, the map $\psi_p$ cannot be a constant map on the fiber over ${{{\bf}Q}}$ because it is not on the fiber over ${{{\bf}F}}_p$. Therefore it must be an automorphism on the fiber over ${{{\bf}Q}}$. Further, there must exist an integer $n{\geqslant}1$ such that $\psi_p^{\circ n}$ is the identity on the fiber over ${{{\bf}Q}}$. But as $C_{{{{\bf}Q}}}$ is dense in $C$, we see that $\psi_p^{\circ n}$ is the identity. This contradicts the fact that $\psi_p$ is the Frobenius map on $C_{{{{\bf}F}}_p}$, which is a nonempty curve. If $g{\geqslant}1$, then for any prime $p\nmid M$, there is a finite extension $K$ of ${{{\bf}Q}}_p$ and point $e\in C(K)=C({{\mathcal{O}}}_K)$, where ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$ denote the integral closure of ${{{\bf}Z}}_p$ in $K$. Let us now take the group law on $C_{{{\mathcal{O}}}_K}$ to be the one for which $e$ is the identity, and let $E$ denote the endomorphism ring $\operatorname{End}(C_{\bar{{{\bf}Q}}_p})$. By enlarging $K$, we may assume $E=\operatorname{End}(C_K)$. Note that $E$ is an integral domain of rank $1$ or $2$ over ${{{\bf}Z}}$. Then there is an element $\varphi\in E$ such that $\psi_p(x)=\psi_p(e)+\varphi(x)$, for all points $x$. Therefore on each fiber of $C_{{{\mathcal{O}}}_K}$ over ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$, the degree of $\psi_p$ is $\varphi\bar\varphi\in{{{\bf}Z}}$. But on the fiber over the residue field of ${{\mathcal{O}}}_K$, the map $\psi_p$ agrees with the base-change of the $p$-th power Frobenius map, which has degree $p$. Therefore, we have $\varphi\bar\varphi=p$. This rules out $E={{{\bf}Z}}$. To rule out the other case, observe that the same equation implies $p$ is not inert in $E$. But since $p$ was allowed to be any sufficiently large prime, this is impossible. Sub-$\Lambda$-spaces {#sec:sub-lambda-spaces} ==================== *Periodic primes.* \[subsec:periodic-primes\] Let $X$ be a $\Lambda$-space. Let us say that a prime number $p$ is *periodic* if there exists an integer $m{\geqslant}1$ such that the endomorphism $\psi_p^{\circ m}$ of $X$ is the identity. We also say that $m$ a *period* of $p$. (Also see Davydov @Davydov:periodic-lambda-rings.) \[pro:finiteness-of-periodic-spaces\] Let $X$ be a separated algebraic $\Lambda$-space of finite type over ${{{\bf}Z}}$ with infinitely many periodic primes. Then $X$ is affine and quasi-finite over ${{{\bf}Z}}$. Let us consider quasi-finiteness first. It suffices to assume $X$ is reduced and, hence, flat over ${{{\bf}Z}}$. (See @Borger:SLAG.) Therefore it is enough to show that $X\times_{\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}}\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Q}}$ is finite over $\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Q}}$. Let $p$ be one of the given primes, and let $X_p$ denote the fiber of $X$ over $p$. Then $\psi_p$ is periodic, and therefore the $p$-th power Frobenius map on $X_p$ is periodic. By \[lem:Frob-periodic-implies-discrete\] below, the fiber $X_p$ is finite over ${{{\bf}F}}_p$. Because there are infinitely many such $p$, $X$ is finite over ${{{\bf}Z}}$ at a dense set of scheme-theoretic points. And because $X$ is of finite type, its fiber over ${{{\bf}Q}}$ is finite. (See EGA IV (522)727-8760) @EGA-no.28.) Affineness follows from quasi-finiteness. Since $X$ is separated, of finite type, and quasi-finite over ${{{\bf}Z}}$, Zariski's Main Theorem @EGA-no.11, III 4.4.3, implies it is an open subscheme of a scheme which is finite over ${{{\bf}Z}}$, and any such scheme is affine. \[lem:Frob-periodic-implies-discrete\] Let $X$ be an algebraic space of finite type over ${{{\bf}F}}_p$, and let ${{\mathrm{Fr}}}_X$ denote the $p$-th power Frobenius map on $X$. If ${{\mathrm{Fr}}}_X^{\circ n}$ is the identity map, then $X$ is a finite disjoint union of spaces of the form $\operatorname{Spec}F$, where $F$ is a field of degree at most $n$ over ${{{\bf}F}}_p$. Let $U=\operatorname{Spec}B$ be an affine étale cover of $X$. Then ${{\mathrm{Fr}}}^{\circ n}_U$ is the identity map on $U$. In particular, $B$ is reduced and is hence a subring of a finite product of fields. Because the $p$-th power map on $B$ has period $n$, the image in each field is a field of degree at most $n$ over ${{{\bf}F}}_p$. Since $U$ is a finite disjoint union of spectra of finite fields, and since $U$ covers $X$, $X$ is also such a space. \[pro:finitely-many-maps-from-periodic-spaces\] Let $X$ and $Y$ be separated algebraic $\Lambda$-spaces of finite type over ${{{\bf}Z}}$. Assume that $X$ is reduced and has infinitely many periodic primes. Then $\operatorname{Hom}_{\Lambda}(X,Y)$ is finite. Since $X$ is reduced, we can assume $Y$ is reduced. We can also assume that $Y$ satisfies the same periodicity conditions as $X$. Indeed, let $p$ be a periodic prime of $X$, and let $m_p$ denote its minimal period. Then the equalizer $Y_p$ of $\psi_p^{\circ m_p}$ and the identity map is a closed sub-$\Lambda$-space of $Y$. Therefore, so is the reduced subspace of $Y'=\cap_p Y_p$, where $p$ runs over all periodic primes of $X$. But any map $X\to Y$ factors through $Y'$, which as a closed subspace of $Y$ is of finite type over ${{{\bf}Z}}$. Therefore it is enough to assume $Y=Y'$, which is to say that $Y$ satisfies the same periodicity conditions as $X$. By \[pro:finiteness-of-periodic-spaces\], there are generically finite rings $A$ and $B$ such that $X=\operatorname{Spec}A$ and $Y=\operatorname{Spec}B$. Because $A$ and $B$ are reduced $\Lambda$-rings, they are torsion free, and thus $$\operatorname{Hom}_{\Lambda}(X,Y) = \operatorname{Hom}(B,A) \subseteq \operatorname{Hom}({{{\bf}Q}}{\otimes}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}B,{{{\bf}Q}}{\otimes}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}A).$$ By Galois theory, there are only finitely many ring maps between two finite étale algebras over a field; so $\operatorname{Hom}_{\Lambda}(X,Y)$ is finite. \[cor:finitely-many-f1-points\] Let $X$ be a separated algebraic space of finite type over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. Then there are only finitely many $\Lambda$-maps $\mu_n\to X$, where $\mu_n$ is defined in (\[subsec:monoid-algebras\]). In particular, $X$ has only finitely many ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-valued points. *Primitive $\Lambda$-spaces and complemented sub-$\Lambda$-spaces.* \[subsec:complemented-points\] Let $f:Y\to X$ be a map of $\Lambda$-algebraic spaces which is a closed (resp. open) immersion. Then $Y$ (or better, $f$) is said to be *complemented* if the complementary open (resp. reduced closed) algebraic subspace $T$ admits a $\Lambda$-structure such that the map $T\to X$ is a $\Lambda$-map. (Compare SGA 4 IV 9.1.13c @SGA4.1.) Note that because $T\to X$ is a monomorphism, the $\Lambda$-structure on $T$, when it exists, must be unique. We also say that a $\Lambda$-space $X$ is *primitive* if it is nonempty and its only nonempty complemented closed sub-$\Lambda$-space is itself. Observe that if $X'\to X$ is a $\Lambda$-morphism and $Y$ is a complemented closed (resp. open) algebraic subspace of $X$, then its preimage $X'\times_X Y$ is a complemented closed (resp.open) algebraic subspace of $X'$. Also it is clear that finite intersections of complemented closed (resp. open) $\Lambda$-algebraic subspaces are again complemented. Therefore the same is true for finite unions. For example, consider ${{{\bf}A}}^1$ with the toric $\Lambda$-structure. The ${{{\bf}Z}}$-valued $\Lambda$-points of ${{{\bf}A}}^1$ are in bijection with $\operatorname{Hom}_\Lambda({{{\bf}Z}}[x],{{{\bf}Z}})$, which agrees with $${\{x\in{{{\bf}Z}}\;|\; x^p=x\,\text{for all primes $p$}\}} = \{0,1\}.$$ So $0$ and $1$ are the only ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-valued points of the toric ${{{\bf}A}}^1$. The point $0$ is complemented, because its complement is the toric ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$. But the point $1$ is not complemented, because the preimage of $1$ under $\psi_2$, say, is $\mu_2$, which is not contained in $\{1\}$. More generally, the set of ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-valued points of ${{{\bf}A}}^d$ is $\{0,1\}^d$, but the only complemented point is the origin. \[pro:tori-are-primitive\] The $\Lambda$-space ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}^d$ is primitive, for any integer $d{\geqslant}0$. Let $Z$ be a nonempty complemented closed sub-$\Lambda$-space of ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}^d$. Since ${{Z}_{\mathrm{red}}}$ is flat over ${{{\bf}Z}}$ (@Borger:SLAG) and nonempty, the space $Z$ has a ${{{\bf}C}}$-valued point $z$. Write $z=(e^{w_1},\dots,e^{w_d})$ for some numbers $w_1,\dots,w_d\in{{{\bf}C}}$. For each integer $s{\geqslant}1$, the point $$z_s = (e^{w_1/s},\dots,e^{w_d/s})$$ satisfies $\psi_s(z_s)=z\in Z$. Because $Z$ is complemented, we then have $z_s\in Z$. But in the analytic topology we have $$\lim_{s\to\infty} z_s = (1,\dots,1).$$ Since $Z$ is closed (in the Zariski and hence analytic topology), it contains $(1,\dots,1)$, and because it is complemented, it must contain $\psi_n^{-1}(1,\dots,1)=\mu_n^d$ for any integer $n{\geqslant}1$. On the other hand, $\cup_n\mu_n$ is Zariski dense in ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$. Therefore $\cup_n\mu_n^d$ is Zariski dense in ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}^d$, and so we have $Z={{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}^d$. \[pro:comp-closed-of-torics\] Let $X$ be a toric variety. Then a closed sub-$\Lambda$-space is complemented if and only if it is a union of closures of torus orbits. For background on toric varieties, see Fulton's notes @Fulton:Toric-book, especially sections 2.1 and 3.2. Let $Z$ be a closed sub-$\Lambda$-space of $X$. Suppose $Z$ is a union of closures $Z_i$ of torus orbits. Then each $Z_i$ is the toric subvariety corresponding to a fan, and is therefore complemented. Since there are only finitely many torus orbits, the union $Z$ of the $Z_i$ is complemented. Now assume instead that $Z$ is complemented. Then its intersection with any torus orbit $Y$ is either $Y$ or $\emptyset$, by \[pro:tori-are-primitive\]. Therefore $Z$ is a union of torus orbits. Since $Z$ is closed, it is also a union of their closures. \[cor:comp-points-of-toric-varieties\] The complemented ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-points of a toric variety $X$ are the fixed points of the torus action. In particular, the number of complemented ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-points is the Euler characteristic. For example, the only complemented ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-valued point of the toric ${{{\bf}A}}^n$ is the origin. The toric ${{{\bf}P}}^n$ has exactly $n+1$ complemented points with values in ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. They are $[1,0,\dots,0]$, $[0,1,0,\dots,0]$, and $[0,\dots,0,1]$. These facts have been predicted in earlier speculations on the field with one element @Tits:F1, p. 285. Function spaces {#sec:function-spaces} =============== In this section, we discuss $\operatorname{GL}_n$ over ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. The group scheme $\operatorname{GL}_n$ does not descend to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. (See Buium @Buium:differential-subgroups.) But we can realize $\operatorname{GL}_n$ as the automorphism group of something that does descend to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$. This might be surprising, because formation of function spaces commutes with base change. Indeed, that is one important way in which the topos map ${{v}}\:{\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}\to{\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}$ is not like a true map of spaces. For discussion of $\operatorname{GL}_n$ in other approaches to ${{{\bf}F}}_1$, see for example Connes–Consani @Connes-Consani:notion-of-geometry-over-f1 and Toën–Vaquié @Toen-Vaquie:Under-Spec-Z. This section was directly inspired by some questions Kirsten Wickelgren asked me. Let $X$ and $Y$ be objects of ${\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}$. Write $\operatorname{Hom}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}(X,Y)$ for the set of maps from $X$ to $Y$, and write $\operatorname{Hom}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}(X,Y)$ for the set of maps ${{v}}^*X\to{{v}}^*Y$ between the underlying objects of ${\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}$. Let $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}(X,Y)$ denote the usual ${\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}$-object of maps from $X$ to $Y$. It is defined by $$\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}(X,Y)\: T \mapsto \operatorname{Hom}_{T}(X\times T, Y\times T),$$ for any space $T\in{\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}$. We define $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}(X,Y)$ similarly. Then we have a map $$\label{eq:lambda-locus-map-1} \operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}(X,Y) {{\,\longrightarrow\,}}{{v}}_*(\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}(X,Y)),$$ which sends an ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-map $a\:X\times T\to Y\times T$ to its underlying ${{{\bf}Z}}$-map ${{v}}^*(a)$. This map is clearly injective. Adjunction then gives another map $$\label{eq:lambda-locus-map-2} {{v}}^*\:{{v}}^*(\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}(X,Y)) {{\,\longrightarrow\,}}\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}(X,Y).$$ Note that this map is generally neither a monomorphism nor an epimorphism. This is one way in which the topos map ${{v}}\:{\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}Z}}}\to{\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}$ is different from one induced by a true map of spaces. For example, if $X=W(\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Q}})$, then (\[eq:lambda-locus-map-2\]) is identified with the map $Y^{{{{\bf}Z}}}\to Y^{{{{\bf}N}}}$, which is rarely a monomorphism. On the other hand, if $X=Y={{{\bf}A}}^1_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}$, then the map is not an epimorphism. Recall that an endomorphism ${{{\bf}A}}^n\to{{{\bf}A}}^n$ is a linear transformation if and only if it is equivariant under the action of ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ on ${{{\bf}A}}^n$ given by scalar multiplication: $${{{\bf}Z}}[x_1,\dots,x_n] {{\,\buildrel x_i\mapsto x_i{\otimes}z\over\longrightarrow\,}} {{{\bf}Z}}[x_1,\dots,x_n]{\otimes}_{{{\bf}Z}}{{{\bf}Z}}[z,z^{-1}].$$ Now observe that if we give ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ and ${{{\bf}A}}^n$ their toric $\Lambda$-structures, then this action morphism is $\Lambda$-equivariant. Therefore it is reasonable to define $$M_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1} = \operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^n),$$ where for general ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-spaces $X,Y$ with ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$-actions, we define $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}(X,Y)$ to be the sub-${{{\bf}F}}_1$-space of $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}(X,Y)$ consisting of the ${{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$-equivariant maps. Let us also set $$\operatorname{GL}_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1} = \operatorname{\underline{Aut}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n),$$ to be locus of $M_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1}$ consisting of invertible maps. Of course, $M_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1}$ is a monoid object in ${\mathsf{Sp}}_{{{{\bf}F}}_1}$ and $\operatorname{GL}_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1}$ is a group object. In \[cor:GL-over-F1\] below, we will describe them concretely. Note that because ${{v}}^*$ is faithful, we can view ${{v}}^*\big(\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}(X,Y)\big)$ as a subspace of $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}}({{v}}^*X,{{v}}^*Y)$. Consider this when $X={{{\bf}A}}^n$ and $Y={{{\bf}A}}^1$, both with the toric $\Lambda$-structures. Then for any ring $B$, a $B$-valued point of $\operatorname{Hom}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1)$ is just a $B$-module homomorphism $B^n\to B$, or simply a $1\times n$ matrix $(b_1,\dots,b_n)$ with entries in $B$. This furnishes an identification $$\label{eq:gln-ident} \operatorname{Hom}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1)=\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}[b_1,\dots,b_n]={{{\bf}A}}^n$$ \[pro:functionals-over-f1\] Under the identification (\[eq:gln-ident\]), the subspace of ${{{\bf}A}}^n$ corresponding to the subspace $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1)$ of $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1)$ is the union of the axes $$Z=\operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}[b_1,\dots,b_n]/(b_ib_j:i\neq j).$$ Further the operators on $Z$ induced by $\psi_p$ take each coordinate $b_i$ to $b_i^p$. We just calculate the $B$-valued points of ${{v}}^*\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1)$ for any ring $B$. We have $$({{v}}^*\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1))(\operatorname{Spec}B) = (\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1))({{v}}_!(\operatorname{Spec}B)).$$ But since $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1)$ sits inside $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1)$, which is affine, any map ${{v}}_!(\operatorname{Spec}B)\to \operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1)$ factors through the affinization $\operatorname{Spec}W(B)$ of ${{v}}_!(\operatorname{Spec}B)$. Therefore we have $$({{v}}^*\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1))(\operatorname{Spec}B) = (\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1))(\operatorname{Spec}W(B)).$$ If we think of points of ${{{\bf}A}}^n$ as $n$-dimensional column vectors, then it is natural to think of the points of $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1)$ as $1\times n$ matrices. Given such a matrix $$(a_1,\dots,a_n)\in W(B)^n,$$ the corresponding map in $\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1)(\operatorname{Spec}W(B))$ is an ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-map if and only if the ring map $$\label{eq:gln-map3} \varphi\:{{{\bf}Z}}[t] {{\,\longrightarrow\,}}{{{\bf}Z}}[x_1,\dots,x_n]{\otimes}W(B)$$ determined by $t\mapsto \sum_j x_j{\otimes}a_j$ is a $\Lambda$-ring map, where ${{{\bf}Z}}[x_1,\dots,x_n]$ has the toric $\Lambda$-structure. Thus to finish the proof, it suffices to show that necessary and sufficient conditions for $\varphi$ to be a $\Lambda$-ring map are, first, that each element $a_j$ is the Teichmüller lift of some element $b_j\in B$ and, second, that $b_ib_j=0$ for all $i\neq j$. Let us first show the necessity. So assume $\varphi$ is a $\Lambda$-ring map. Consider, for each $i$, the map $$\pi_i\:{{{\bf}Z}}[x_1,\dots,x_n]{\otimes}W(B) {{\,\longrightarrow\,}}W(B)$$ given by $x_j\mapsto \delta_{ij}$ and by the identity on $W(B)$. Then $\pi_i\circ\varphi$ is a $\Lambda$-ring map under which the image of $t$ is $a_i$. It follows that $a_{i}$ must be a Teichmüller lift. Indeed, giving a $\Lambda$-map ${{{\bf}Z}}[t] \to W(B)$ is by adjunction the same as giving a ring map ${{{\bf}Z}}[t]\to B$. This in turn is the same as an element of $b_i\in B$. Tracing through these identifications shows that $a_i=[b_i]$, and thus the necessity of the first condition above. To see the necessity of the second condition, use the operator $\lambda_2\in\Lambda$: $$0 = \varphi(0)=\varphi(\lambda_2(t))=\lambda_2(\varphi(t)) = \lambda_2\Big(\sum_j x_j{\otimes}[b_j]\Big) = \sum_{i<j} x_i x_j{\otimes}[b_i][b_j].$$ Thus for $i\neq j$, we have $[b_i b_j]=[b_i][b_j]=0$ and hence $b_ib_j=0$. Sufficiency is similar. Suppose $\varphi$ is defined by $$\varphi(t) = \sum_j x_j{\otimes}[b_j]$$ with $b_i b_j=0$ for all $i\neq j$. To show $\varphi$ is a $\Lambda$-ring map, it is enough to show it commutes with $\lambda_n$ for $n{\geqslant}2$. But we have that $\lambda_n(x_j{\otimes}[b_j])=0$ for all $n{\geqslant}2$. Therefore $\lambda_n(\sum_j x_j{\otimes}[b_j])$ is the $n$-th elementary symmetric function in the $x_j{\otimes}[b_j]$. Because $b_ib_j=0$ for $i\neq j$, each of the elementary monomials is zero when $n{\geqslant}2$. Therefore we have $$\lambda_n(\varphi(t)) = \lambda_n\Big(\sum_j x_j{\otimes}[b_j]\Big) = \lambda_n(0) = \varphi(0) = \varphi(\lambda_n(t)),$$ for $n{\geqslant}2$. Thus $\varphi$ is a map of $\Lambda$-rings. \[cor:GL-over-F1\] We have the following equalities of subspaces of $M_n$: $$M_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1}=Z^n \quad\quad\text{and}\quad\quad\operatorname{GL}_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1} = S_n\ltimes {{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}^n.$$ The first equality follows from the universal property of products and \[pro:functionals-over-f1\]: $$\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^n) = \big(\operatorname{\underline{Hom}}_{{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}A}}^n,{{{\bf}A}}^1)\big)^n = Z^n.$$ For the second equality, recall that a morphism of $\Lambda$-spaces is an isomorphism if and only if it becomes one after applying ${{v}}^*$. Therefore we have $$\operatorname{GL}_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1} = \operatorname{GL}_n \cap\; M_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1} = S_n\ltimes{{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}^n.$$ \[cor:F1-points-of-GLn\] 1. $M_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}F}}_1)$ is the set of $n\times n$ matrices with the property that every entry is either $0$ or $1$ and every row has at most one $1$. 2. $\operatorname{GL}_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1}({{{\bf}F}}_1)=S_n$. *Remarks.* Note that none of the ${{{\bf}F}}_1$-valued points of $\operatorname{GL}_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1}$ are complemented. Also note that the determinant map $\operatorname{GL}_{n/{{{\bf}F}}_1}\to {{{\bf}G}_{\mathrm{m}}}$ is not a $\Lambda$-map, because it fails to commute with $\psi_2$. It does commute with the other $\psi_p$ though. Aside: abelian motives are potentially cyclotomic {#sec:abelian-motives} ================================================= Let $p$ be a prime number. The purpose of this section is to establish the result (\[thm:abelian-motives-are-Artin-Tate\]) in usual, non-$\Lambda$ algebraic geometry that abelian $p$-adic Galois representations of geometric origin are Artin–Tate. The proof is an result in $p$-adic Hodge theory. It is well within the scope of established techniques, but to my knowledge, it is not actually in the literature. For results of a similar flavor, see Wang @Wang-CL:Cohomology-theory, Kisin–Lehrer @Kisin-Lehrer:CountingPonts, and van dan Bogaart–Edixhoven @vandenBogaart-Edixhoven.[^4] \[pro:cohomology-is-constructible\] Let $X$ be a separated scheme of finite type over ${{{\bf}Z}}[1/p]$. Let $f\:X\to \operatorname{Spec}{{{\bf}Z}}[1/p]$ denote the structure map. Then $R^nf_!({{{\bf}Q}}_p)$ is lisse away from a finite set of primes. If $X$ is smooth and proper over ${{{\bf}Z}}[1/M]$, then the sheaf is lisse at all primes not dividing $M$. Recall that we can define cohomology with compact support because, by Nagata's theorem, any separated morphism of finite type between noetherian schemes is compactifiable. (See Conrad @Conrad:Nagata-compact, theorem 4.1. Actually, according to a forthcoming paper of Conrad–Lieblich–Olsson, the scheme-theoretic hypotheses can be removed.) The sheaf $R^nf_!({{{\bf}Z}}/p{{{\bf}Z}})$ is constructible (Deligne SGA 4 1/2 @Deligne:SGA4.5 \[Arcata\] IV (6.2)) and hence lisse away from a finite set $T$ of primes. For $m{\geqslant}0$, if $R^nf_!({{{\bf}Z}}/p^m{{{\bf}Z}})$ is lisse, then all subsheaves and quotient sheaves of $R^nf_!({{{\bf}Z}}/p^m{{{\bf}Z}})$ are lisse away from $T$. On the other hand, by the long exact sequence of cohomology, $R^nf_!({{{\bf}Z}}/p^{m+1}{{{\bf}Z}})$ is an extension of a subsheaf of $R^nf_!({{{\bf}Z}}/p{{{\bf}Z}})$ by a quotient sheaf of $R^nf_!({{{\bf}Z}}/p^{m}{{{\bf}Z}})$ and is therefore also lisse away from $T$. By induction $R^nf_!({{{\bf}Z}}/p^m{{{\bf}Z}})$ is lisse away from $T$ for all $m$. Therefore $R^nf_!({{{\bf}Z}}_p)$ and hence $R^nf_!({{{\bf}Q}}_p)$ are lisse away from $T$. The final statement follows from Deligne, SGA 4 1/2 @Deligne:SGA4.5 \[Arcata\] V (3.1). *Cyclotomic representations.* Let $E$ be a finite extension of ${{{\bf}Q}}_p$. Let $K$ be a finite extension of ${{{\bf}Q}}$ or ${{{\bf}Q}}_p$, and let $V$ be a $d$-dimensional continuous $E$-linear representation of ${{\mathrm{Gal}}}(\bar{K}/K)$. Let us say that $V$ is *cyclotomic* if there exist integers $j_1,\dots,j_d$ such that $V$ is isomorphic to $E(j_1)\oplus\dots\oplus E(j_d)$. Let us say that $V$ is *potentially cyclotomic* if there exists a finite extension $L$ of $K$ such that $V$ is cyclotomic as a representation of ${{\mathrm{Gal}}}(\bar{K}/L)$. Observe that these concepts are independent of $E$ in the sense that for any finite extension $E'$ of $E$, we have $$\label{eq:cyclotomic-reps-and-coeffs} E'{\otimes}_E V \text{ is (potentially)
{'source': 'arXiv_out/0906'}