ScalingStacks

0PBM

Proof. Note that the second assumption on I′I^{\prime} shows that the full subquiver of Γ⁡(θ)\Gamma(\theta) with vertex set I′I^{\prime} is a disjoint union of oriented lines and oriented circles.

Let i1≠i2∈Ii_{1}\neq i_{2}\in I. If i1,i2∈I∖I′i_{1},i_{2}\in I\setminus I^{\prime}, then u⁡(i1)≠u⁡(i2)u(i_{1})\neq u(i_{2}). Assume now i1∈I′i_{1}\in I^{\prime} and i2∈I∖I′i_{2}\in I\setminus I^{\prime}. Since i1→i2i_{1}\to i_{2} is not an arrow of the quiver, we have u⁡(i1)≠i2u(i_{1})\neq i_{2}, hence u⁡(i1)≠u⁡(i2)u(i_{1})\neq u(i_{2}). Finally if i1,i2∈I′i_{1},i_{2}\in I^{\prime}, then u⁡(i1)≠u⁡(i2)u(i_{1})\neq u(i_{2}). We have shown that uu is a braid.

Note that there is a (unique) decomposition θ=θu∘u\theta=\theta^{u}\circ u with |θ|=|θu|+|u||\theta|=|\theta^{u}|+|u|. In order to show that θu⋅u≠0\theta^{u}\cdot u\neq 0, we can replace θ\theta by θ|I∖I0\theta_{|I\setminus I_{0}} and MM by M∖I0M\setminus I_{0}, thanks to Lemma 7.4.25. So, we assume now that I0=∅I_{0}=\emptyset.

Let q:Z~→Zq:\tilde{Z}\to Z be a non-singular cover of ZZ. Let M~=q−1​(M)\tilde{M}=q^{-1}(M). Let θ~:I~→J~\tilde{\theta}:\tilde{I}\to\tilde{J} be the unique lift of θ\theta to Z~\tilde{Z}. We have a decomposition θ~i=β~i⋅α~i\tilde{\theta}_{i}=\tilde{\beta}^{i}\cdot\tilde{\alpha}^{i} for i∈I~i\in\tilde{I} and q⁡(α~i)=αq⁡(i)q(\tilde{\alpha}^{i})=\alpha^{q(i)}.

Let I~′=q−1​(I′)∩I~\tilde{I}^{\prime}=q^{-1}(I^{\prime})\cap\tilde{I}. Note that qq induces a morphism of quivers Γ⁡(θ~)→Γ⁡(θ)\Gamma(\tilde{\theta})\to\Gamma(\theta), hence I~′\tilde{I}^{\prime} satisfies the assumptions of the lemma and we have a decomposition θ~=θ~u~∘u~\tilde{\theta}=\tilde{\theta}^{\tilde{u}}\circ\tilde{u}. Since q⁡(u~)=uq(\tilde{u})=u, it follows that if the lemma holds for θ~\tilde{\theta}, then it holds for θ\theta.

We assume now that ZZ is non-singular. If the lemma holds for connected components of ZZ, it will hold for ZZ, hence it is enough to prove the lemma for ZZ connected. Assume now ZZ is connected. There is an injective morphism of curves f:Z→S1f:Z\to S^{1}, where S1S^{1} is unoriented. It the lemma holds for S1S^{1}, it holds for ZZ.

We assume finally that Z=S1Z=S^{1} unoriented. Let i1≠i2∈I′i_{1}\neq i_{2}\in I^{\prime} such that i⁡(ui1,ui2)≠0i(u_{i_{1}},u_{i_{2}})\neq 0. Note that ui1u_{i_{1}} and ui2u_{i_{2}} have opposite directions and i⁡(ui1,ui2)=1i(u_{i_{1}},u_{i_{2}})=1. Furthermore, θir\theta_{i_{r}} has the same direction as uiru_{i_{r}}, hence i⁡(θi1,θi2)=i⁡((θu)i1,(θu)i2)+1i(\theta_{i_{1}},\theta_{i_{2}})=i((\theta^{u})_{i_{1}},(\theta^{u})_{i_{2}})+1. Given i1≠i2∈Ii_{1}\neq i_{2}\in I with i1∉I′i_{1}{\not\in}I^{\prime}, we have i⁡(ui1,ui2)=0i(u_{i_{1}},u_{i_{2}})=0. It follows from Remark 7.4.11 that θu⋅u≠0\theta^{u}\cdot u\neq 0. This completes the proof of the lemma. ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source collection and HTML conversion remain in progress.

Andrew Manion, Raphael Rouquier

Original source: arXiv:2009.09627v2