ConceptComplete

Etale and fppf Topologies

The etale and fppf topologies are the two most important Grothendieck topologies in algebraic geometry beyond the Zariski topology. The etale topology is the algebraic analogue of the classical topology on complex manifolds, while the fppf topology is needed for studying inseparable phenomena, non-smooth group schemes, and descent in its most general form. Understanding these topologies is essential for the theory of algebraic stacks.


Etale Morphisms

Definition1.17Etale morphism

A morphism f:XYf: X \to Y of schemes is etale if it satisfies any of the following equivalent conditions:

  1. ff is flat and unramified.
  2. ff is flat, locally of finite presentation, and for every yYy \in Y, the fiber Xy=X×YSpec(k(y))X_y = X \times_Y \operatorname{Spec}(k(y)) is a disjoint union of spectra of finite separable field extensions of k(y)k(y).
  3. ff is smooth of relative dimension 00.
  4. ff is locally of finite presentation, and for every affine open Spec(B)Y\operatorname{Spec}(B) \subseteq Y and affine open Spec(A)f1(Spec(B))\operatorname{Spec}(A) \subseteq f^{-1}(\operatorname{Spec}(B)), the ring AA is a standard etale BB-algebra: A=B[t]g/(p(t))A = B[t]_g / (p(t)) where p(t)p(t) is a monic polynomial and p(t)p'(t) is invertible in AA.
  5. (For schemes locally of finite type over a field kk) ff is locally of finite type and formally etale: for every affine YY-scheme Spec(R)\operatorname{Spec}(R) and every nilpotent ideal IRI \subseteq R, the map HomY(Spec(R),X)HomY(Spec(R/I),X)\operatorname{Hom}_Y(\operatorname{Spec}(R), X) \to \operatorname{Hom}_Y(\operatorname{Spec}(R/I), X) is a bijection.
ExampleFinite separable field extensions

A morphism Spec(L)Spec(k)\operatorname{Spec}(L) \to \operatorname{Spec}(k) is etale if and only if L/kL/k is a finite separable field extension (or a finite product of such). The map Spec(Q(2))Spec(Q)\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{2})) \to \operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{Q}) is etale. The map Spec(Fp(t1/p))Spec(Fp(t))\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{F}_p(t^{1/p})) \to \operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{F}_p(t)) is not etale (it is purely inseparable).

More generally, Spec(B)Spec(A)\operatorname{Spec}(B) \to \operatorname{Spec}(A) is finite etale if and only if BB is a finite projective AA-module and the trace form BABAB \otimes_A B \to A is non-degenerate.

ExampleStandard etale morphisms

The morphism Spec(Z[t]/(t25))Spec(Z)\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{Z}[t]/(t^2 - 5)) \to \operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{Z}) is etale away from the prime 22 (since the derivative 2t2t is invertible away from 22) but is not etale at 22 (the polynomial t25t21=(t1)(t+1)(mod2)t^2 - 5 \equiv t^2 - 1 = (t-1)(t+1) \pmod{2} has a repeated root modulo 22... actually, (t1)(t-1) and (t+1)(t+1) are the same modulo 22, so t25(t1)2(mod2)t^2 - 5 \equiv (t-1)^2 \pmod{2}).

So Spec(Z[t]/(t25)[1/2])Spec(Z[1/2])\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{Z}[t]/(t^2 - 5)[1/2]) \to \operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{Z}[1/2]) is finite etale of degree 2. The fiber over a prime p2p \neq 2 splits into two points if 55 is a square modulo pp (i.e., the Legendre symbol (5/p)=1(5/p) = 1).

ExampleOpen immersions are etale

Every open immersion UXU \hookrightarrow X is etale (it is flat, unramified, and locally of finite presentation). In fact, open immersions are precisely the etale morphisms that are also monomorphisms.

Conversely, an etale morphism of finite type between integral schemes with the same function field is an open immersion (by Zariski's main theorem).

ExampleEtale covers of curves

Let CC be a smooth projective curve over an algebraically closed field kk, and let f:DCf: D \to C be a finite morphism of smooth curves. Then ff is etale if and only if ff is unramified, i.e., the ramification divisor R=PD(eP1)PR = \sum_{P \in D} (e_P - 1) \cdot P is zero (every point has ramification index 11).

By the Hurwitz formula 2g(D)2=deg(f)(2g(C)2)+deg(R)2g(D) - 2 = \deg(f)(2g(C) - 2) + \deg(R), an etale cover of degree dd satisfies g(D)1=d(g(C)1)g(D) - 1 = d(g(C) - 1). For C=P1C = \mathbb{P}^1 (genus 00), no nontrivial etale covers exist when char(k)=0\operatorname{char}(k) = 0 (since g(D)1=d(01)=d<0g(D) - 1 = d(0-1) = -d < 0). Over Spec(Z)\operatorname{Spec}(\mathbb{Z}), Minkowski's theorem says there are no nontrivial unramified extensions, reflecting the same phenomenon.

ExampleEtale morphisms and henselian rings

A local ring (R,m)(R, \mathfrak{m}) is henselian if Hensel's lemma holds: for every monic polynomial fR[t]f \in R[t], if fˉ=gˉhˉ\bar{f} = \bar{g}\bar{h} in (R/m)[t](R/\mathfrak{m})[t] with gcd(gˉ,hˉ)=1\gcd(\bar{g}, \bar{h}) = 1, then f=ghf = gh with g,hg, h lifting gˉ,hˉ\bar{g}, \bar{h}.

Equivalently, (R,m)(R, \mathfrak{m}) is henselian if and only if every finite RR-algebra is a product of local rings, if and only if every etale neighborhood of the closed point Spec(R/m)Spec(R)\operatorname{Spec}(R/\mathfrak{m}) \hookrightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(R) has a section.

The strict henselization RshR^{\text{sh}} is the colimit of all local-etale RR-algebras, and the stalk of an etale sheaf F\mathcal{F} at a geometric point over m\mathfrak{m} is Fxˉ=limF(Spec(R))\mathcal{F}_{\bar{x}} = \varinjlim \mathcal{F}(\operatorname{Spec}(R')) where RR' runs over etale neighborhoods, converging to F(Spec(Rsh))\mathcal{F}(\operatorname{Spec}(R^{\text{sh}})).


The Etale Site and Etale Topology

Definition1.18Etale topology

The etale topology on the category Sch/S\mathbf{Sch}/S (or on the small etale site XetX_{\text{et}}) is the Grothendieck topology where covering families are surjective families of etale morphisms:

{fi:UiU}iI is an etale cover    each fi is etale and ifi(Ui)=U.\{f_i: U_i \to U\}_{i \in I} \text{ is an etale cover} \iff \text{each } f_i \text{ is etale and } \bigcup_i f_i(U_i) = U.

ExampleEtale covers of an elliptic curve

Let EE be an elliptic curve over a field kk. For each integer nn with gcd(n,char(k))=1\gcd(n, \operatorname{char}(k)) = 1, the multiplication-by-nn map [n]:EE[n]: E \to E is a finite etale morphism of degree n2n^2. Its kernel is E[n](Z/nZ)2E[n] \cong (\mathbb{Z}/n\mathbb{Z})^2 (over kˉ\bar{k}).

So {[n]:EE}\{[n]: E \to E\} is an etale cover. The induced map on etale fundamental groups gives the full Tate module: π1et(E)Z^2×(Galois part)\pi_1^{\text{et}}(E) \cong \hat{\mathbb{Z}}^2 \times (\text{Galois part}).

The etale covers of EE are classified by the etale fundamental group, which encodes both the geometric covers and the Galois action.

ExampleEtale covers of affine n-space

For Akn\mathbb{A}^n_k over an algebraically closed field kk of characteristic 00, the etale fundamental group is trivial: π1et(Akn)=1\pi_1^{\text{et}}(\mathbb{A}^n_k) = 1. Every finite etale cover is trivial.

In characteristic p>0p > 0, this fails dramatically: the Artin-Schreier cover Spec(k[x,y]/(ypyx))Ak1\operatorname{Spec}(k[x,y]/(y^p - y - x)) \to \mathbb{A}^1_k is a connected etale Z/pZ\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z}-cover. The etale fundamental group of AFp1\mathbb{A}^1_{\overline{\mathbb{F}_p}} is huge (it surjects onto every finite group generated by at most one element at each prime-to-pp part, by Abhyankar's conjecture, proved by Raynaud and Harbater).


Flat Morphisms and the fppf Topology

Definition1.19Flat morphism

A morphism f:XYf: X \to Y of schemes is flat if for every xXx \in X with y=f(x)y = f(x), the local ring map OY,yOX,x\mathcal{O}_{Y,y} \to \mathcal{O}_{X,x} is flat (i.e., OX,x\mathcal{O}_{X,x} is a flat OY,y\mathcal{O}_{Y,y}-module).

ff is faithfully flat if it is flat and surjective. Equivalently, the pullback functor ff^* on quasi-coherent sheaves is exact and faithful.

Definition1.20fppf topology

The fppf topology (fidelement plat de presentation finie) on Sch/S\mathbf{Sch}/S declares {UiU}\{U_i \to U\} a covering family if each UiUU_i \to U is flat and locally of finite presentation, and iUiU\coprod_i U_i \to U is surjective.

The acronym "fppf" stands for "faithfully flat and of finite presentation" (referring to the joint morphism UiU\coprod U_i \to U).

ExampleFlat morphisms from free modules

The morphism Spec(A[t])Spec(A)\operatorname{Spec}(A[t]) \to \operatorname{Spec}(A) is flat (and faithfully flat) for any ring AA, since A[t]A[t] is a free AA-module. The morphism Spec(A[t]/(tn))Spec(A)\operatorname{Spec}(A[t]/(t^n)) \to \operatorname{Spec}(A) is flat (and faithfully flat) since A[t]/(tn)A[t]/(t^n) is free of rank nn as an AA-module.

More generally, any morphism corresponding to a flat ring map ABA \to B gives a flat morphism of schemes. Flatness is the scheme-theoretic analogue of "having fibers of constant dimension" (though this is a rough heuristic).

ExampleFrobenius as an fppf cover

Over Fp\mathbb{F}_p, the Frobenius morphism F:A1A1F: \mathbb{A}^1 \to \mathbb{A}^1 given by xxpx \mapsto x^p corresponds to the ring map Fp[t]Fp[t]\mathbb{F}_p[t] \to \mathbb{F}_p[t] sending ttpt \mapsto t^p. This makes Fp[t]\mathbb{F}_p[t] a free Fp[t]\mathbb{F}_p[t]-module of rank pp (via the basis 1,t,t2,,tp11, t, t^2, \ldots, t^{p-1}).

So the Frobenius is finite flat of degree pp, hence an fppf cover {F:A1A1}\{F: \mathbb{A}^1 \to \mathbb{A}^1\}. However, it is not etale: it is totally inseparable (the fiber over any closed point is a single point with multiplicity pp).

This is a key example showing what fppf detects that etale does not: inseparable maps and group schemes like αp=ker(F:GaGa)\alpha_p = \ker(F: \mathbb{G}_a \to \mathbb{G}_a).

Examplemu_p in characteristic p

Over a field kk of characteristic pp, the group scheme μp=Spec(k[t]/(tp1))=Spec(k[t]/((t1)p))\mu_p = \operatorname{Spec}(k[t]/(t^p - 1)) = \operatorname{Spec}(k[t]/((t-1)^p)) is not reduced (and not etale over kk). The morphism [p]:GmGm[p]: \mathbb{G}_m \to \mathbb{G}_m given by ttpt \mapsto t^p has kernel μp\mu_p.

The sequence 1μpGm[p]Gm11 \to \mu_p \to \mathbb{G}_m \xrightarrow{[p]} \mathbb{G}_m \to 1 is exact in the fppf topology but not in the etale topology. Over a field kk, Hfppf1(k,μp)H^1_{\text{fppf}}(k, \mu_p) classifies μp\mu_p-torsors, which correspond to degree-pp purely inseparable extensions and Brauer-Severi varieties in certain cases. The etale cohomology Het1(k,μp)H^1_{\text{et}}(k, \mu_p) gives k×/(k×)pk^\times/(k^\times)^p only when μp\mu_p is etale (i.e., when pp is invertible in kk, which contradicts char(k)=p\operatorname{char}(k) = p).


Comparison of Etale and fppf

RemarkWhen etale and fppf agree

For a smooth group scheme GG over XX, the etale and fppf cohomology agree:

Heti(X,G)Hfppfi(X,G)H^i_{\text{et}}(X, G) \cong H^i_{\text{fppf}}(X, G)

This is a consequence of the fact that smooth morphisms locally (in the etale topology) have sections. So if GG is smooth, then GG-torsors that are locally trivial in the fppf topology are already locally trivial in the etale topology.

For non-smooth group schemes (αp\alpha_p, μp\mu_p in characteristic pp, etc.), the etale and fppf cohomology genuinely differ, and the fppf topology is essential.

ExampleBrauer group and the choice of topology

The Brauer group Br(X)\operatorname{Br}(X) can be defined as Het2(X,Gm)H^2_{\text{et}}(X, \mathbb{G}_m) (etale cohomology) or as the group of Azumaya algebras modulo Brauer equivalence.

The etale and fppf H2H^2 agree for Gm\mathbb{G}_m: Het2(X,Gm)=Hfppf2(X,Gm)H^2_{\text{et}}(X, \mathbb{G}_m) = H^2_{\text{fppf}}(X, \mathbb{G}_m). This is because Gm\mathbb{G}_m is smooth, so the comparison theorem applies.

For a field kk, Br(k)\operatorname{Br}(k) classifies central simple algebras over kk up to Morita equivalence. For example, Br(R)=Z/2Z\operatorname{Br}(\mathbb{R}) = \mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z} (generated by the quaternions H\mathbb{H}), Br(Fq)=0\operatorname{Br}(\mathbb{F}_q) = 0 (Wedderburn), and Br(Qp)=Q/Z\operatorname{Br}(\mathbb{Q}_p) = \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z} (local class field theory).

ExamplePicard group computation

For any scheme XX, the Picard group Pic(X)=Het1(X,Gm)=HZar1(X,Gm)=Hfppf1(X,Gm)\operatorname{Pic}(X) = H^1_{\text{et}}(X, \mathbb{G}_m) = H^1_{\text{Zar}}(X, \mathbb{G}_m) = H^1_{\text{fppf}}(X, \mathbb{G}_m). All three topologies give the same answer.

This equality for H1H^1 is essentially Hilbert's Theorem 90: for the etale case, it says Het1(Spec(L/k),Gm)=0H^1_{\text{et}}(\operatorname{Spec}(L/k), \mathbb{G}_m) = 0 for any Galois extension L/kL/k. For the fppf case, it generalizes to say that every Gm\mathbb{G}_m-torsor in the fppf topology is already locally trivial in the Zariski topology.

However, for higher cohomology, the topologies may differ. For example, Het3H^3_{\text{et}} and Hfppf3H^3_{\text{fppf}} can differ for non-smooth coefficient sheaves.


Etale and fppf Covers in Practice

ExampleComputing with etale covers

Consider the etale cover {f:Spec(k[t,t1])Spec(k[t2,t2])}\{f: \operatorname{Spec}(k[t, t^{-1}]) \to \operatorname{Spec}(k[t^2, t^{-2}])\} given by the inclusion k[t2,t2]k[t,t1]k[t^2, t^{-2}] \hookrightarrow k[t, t^{-1}] (adjoin a square root of t2t^2). This is a degree-2 etale cover of Gm\mathbb{G}_m by Gm\mathbb{G}_m.

The fiber product is Spec(k[t,t1])×Spec(k[t2,t2])Spec(k[t,t1])=Spec(k[t,t1]k[t2,t2]k[t,t1])\operatorname{Spec}(k[t, t^{-1}]) \times_{\operatorname{Spec}(k[t^2, t^{-2}])} \operatorname{Spec}(k[t, t^{-1}]) = \operatorname{Spec}(k[t, t^{-1}] \otimes_{k[t^2, t^{-2}]} k[t, t^{-1}]). The tensor product k[t,t1]k[s,s1]k[t,t1]k[t, t^{-1}] \otimes_{k[s, s^{-1}]} k[t, t^{-1}] (where s=t2s = t^2) is k[t,t1,u,u1]/(t2u2)=k[t,t1,u,u1]/((tu)(t+u))k[t, t^{-1}, u, u^{-1}]/(t^2 - u^2) = k[t, t^{-1}, u, u^{-1}]/((t-u)(t+u)), which splits as k[t,t1]×k[t,t1]k[t, t^{-1}] \times k[t, t^{-1}] (identifying u=tu = t or u=tu = -t).

This is characteristic of a Galois cover: the fiber product over itself splits as copies indexed by the Galois group Z/2Z\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}.

Examplefppf torsors from group schemes

Let G=μ2=Spec(k[t]/(t21))G = \mu_2 = \operatorname{Spec}(k[t]/(t^2-1)) over a field kk with char(k)2\operatorname{char}(k) \neq 2. A μ2\mu_2-torsor over Spec(k)\operatorname{Spec}(k) is a scheme PP with a μ2\mu_2-action that is locally trivial. These are classified by Hfppf1(k,μ2)=Het1(k,μ2)=k×/(k×)2H^1_{\text{fppf}}(k, \mu_2) = H^1_{\text{et}}(k, \mu_2) = k^\times / (k^\times)^2.

Concretely, each class ak×/(k×)2a \in k^\times / (k^\times)^2 gives the torsor Pa=Spec(k[x]/(x2a))P_a = \operatorname{Spec}(k[x]/(x^2 - a)) with μ2\mu_2-action tx=txt \cdot x = tx (where t2=1t^2 = 1). The torsor PaP_a is trivial (isomorphic to μ2\mu_2 itself) if and only if aa is a square in kk.

For k=Qk = \mathbb{Q}, H1(Q,μ2)=Q×/(Q×)2H^1(\mathbb{Q}, \mu_2) = \mathbb{Q}^\times / (\mathbb{Q}^\times)^2, which is infinite (generated by 1-1 and the primes pp).


Properties of Etale and Flat Morphisms

RemarkStability properties

Both etale and flat morphisms have excellent stability properties:

Etale morphisms:

  • Stable under base change: if f:XYf: X \to Y is etale and g:ZYg: Z \to Y, then X×YZZX \times_Y Z \to Z is etale.
  • Stable under composition: fgf \circ g etale if both ff and gg are etale.
  • Local on the target: ff is etale iff it is etale over an open cover of YY.
  • Local on the source: if {UiX}\{U_i \to X\} is an etale cover and each fUif|_{U_i} is etale, then ff is etale.
  • Etale morphisms are open maps (like local homeomorphisms in topology).

Flat morphisms:

  • Stable under base change and composition.
  • Flat morphisms are open (Chevalley's theorem).
  • If f:XYf: X \to Y is flat and locally of finite presentation, and YY is locally Noetherian, then ff is an open map.
  • "Going down" holds for flat morphisms: if pq\mathfrak{p} \subseteq \mathfrak{q} in YY and qX\mathfrak{q}' \in X lies over q\mathfrak{q}, then there exists pq\mathfrak{p}' \subseteq \mathfrak{q}' lying over p\mathfrak{p}.

Summary

RemarkKey comparisons

| Property | Zariski | Etale | fppf | fpqc | |----------|---------|-------|------|------| | Cover morphisms | Open immersions | Etale, surjective | Flat, fin. pres., surj. | Flat, surjective, q.c. | | Detects | Zariski-local data | Galois/separable data | All flat data | All faithfully flat data | | H1(,Gm)H^1(\cdot, \mathbb{G}_m) | Pic\operatorname{Pic} | Pic\operatorname{Pic} | Pic\operatorname{Pic} | Pic\operatorname{Pic} | | H1(,GLn)H^1(\cdot, GL_n) | Zar. v.b. | Etale v.b. | All v.b. | All v.b. | | Good for smooth GG | Sometimes | Yes | Yes | Yes | | Good for non-smooth GG | No | No | Yes | Yes | | Descent for qcoh sheaves | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes |

The etale topology is the workhorse for arithmetic geometry (Galois representations, \ell-adic cohomology, Weil conjectures). The fppf topology is needed for moduli of non-smooth objects and torsors under non-smooth group schemes. The fpqc topology is the natural setting for descent theory but is rarely used for cohomology computations.