text:
# The Hyodo-Kato theorem for rational homotopy types

## 1 Introduction

Let $`A`$ be a complete discrete valuation ring with perfect residue field $`k`$ of characteristic $`p>0`$ and fraction field $`F`$. Denote by $`W`$ the ring of Witt vectors of $`k`$ and by $`K`$ the fraction field of $`W`$. Endow $`A`$ with the log structure $`A0A`$ and let $`X`$ be a proper smooth connected fine saturated log scheme over $`A`$ with generic fiber $`X^{}`$ and special fiber $`Y`$ which we assume to be of Cartier type ( 2.12). The Hyodo-Kato theorem ( Theorem 5.1) says

$$H_{DR}^i(X^{})H_{cr}^i(Y/W)_WF$$

where the cohomology groups appearing in the statement are algebraic De Rham cohomology on the left and the crystalline cohomology of $`Y`$ with respect to $`W`$ on the right.

We will prove a version of this theorem in the context of the unipotent rational homotopy types defined in . The definitions will be reviewed in the next section, but let us state the main result here. If $`A_{cr}(Y)`$ denotes the crystalline rational homotopy type of $`Y`$ and $`A_{DR}(X^{})`$ the De Rham rational homotopy type of $`X^{}`$, then

###### Theorem 1

$$A_{DR}(X^{})A_{cr}(Y)F$$

in the homotopy category of commutative differential graded algebras (CDGA’s) over $`F`$.

In , we proved this result essentially when $`A`$ has the trivial log structure. Let $`x`$ be a point of $`X`$, $`x^{}`$ the correponding point on the generic fiber, and $`y`$ the reduction of $`x`$ to the special fiber. It is simple to check that the augmentations induced by $`x^{}`$ and $`y`$ on the homotopy types are compatible. Hence, we get

###### Corollary 1

$$\pi _1^{dr}(X^{},x^{})\pi ^{cr}(Y,y)_KF$$

as pro-unipotent algebraic groups over $`F`$.

We also get results of the Artin-Mazur type  on higher homotopy groups of simply connected varieties. For this, let $`X_1^{}`$ and $`X_2^{}`$ be proper smooth geometrically-connected varieties over a number field $`E`$ equipped with normal crossing divisors $`D_1^{}`$ and $`D_2^{}`$. Denote by $`𝒪_{E,v}`$ the localization at a prime $`v`$ of the ring of integers $`𝒪_E`$ of $`E`$. Assume that $`X_i^{}`$ extends to a proper flat scheme $`X_i`$ over $`𝒪_{E,v}`$ with special fibers $`Y_i`$ and that $`D_i^{}`$ extends to a divisor $`D_i`$ on $`X_i`$ that is relatively of normal crossing. Further assume that $`D_i+Y_i`$ is a strict normal crossing divisor. View $`X_i`$ as a log scheme with the log structures given by $`D_i+Y_i`$. $`Y_i`$ also has the induces log structure.

###### Corollary 2

Suppose $`Y_1Y_2`$ as log schemes. Then for every embedding $`\sigma :E𝐂`$ such that the $`(X_i^{}D_i^{})_E𝐂`$ are simply-connected, their higher rational homotopy groups are isomorphic.

The hypothesis of the corollary is satisfied for example if

$$X_1𝒪_{E,v}/m_v^2X_2𝒪_{E,v}/m_v^2$$

by a map that preserves the divisors $`D_i+Y_i`$.

The proof of the theorem consists of choosing explicit CDGA representatives for the homotopy types and a few other intermediate complexes using embedding systems for crystalline cohomology, constructing explicit multiplicative maps between them and, thereby, ‘exorcising the derived category’ from the proof of the usual Hyodo-Kato isomorphism.

It is perhaps useful to think about the theorem in the following general context: Let $`𝒜`$ be the homotopy category of non-negatively graded CDGA’s over some field and consider the forgetful functor

$$R:𝒜𝒞$$

to the derived category of complexes. Following the ideas of rational homotopy theory, one should think of objects $`A`$ in $`𝒜`$ as being rationally nilpotent topological spaces and $`R(A)`$ as being like the homotopy groups of the space. Given two objects $`A`$, $`B`$ and an isomorphism $`g:R(A)R(B)`$, we can then ask if there is in fact an isomorphism $`f:AB`$ such that $`g=R(f)`$. That is, we wish to prove a Whitehead-type theorem showing that an isomorphism of homotopy groups is induced by an actual isomorphism of spaces. In our situation, the usual Hyodo-Kato isomorphism says that $`R(A_{DR}(X^{}))R(A_{cr}(Y)_KF)`$ and our theorem says that this map can be lifted to a map of ‘spaces.’

In the process of making maps explicit, one encounters the problem of assembling a collection of maps in (an increasing sequence of) finite characteristics into a single map of algebras. This is because the Hyodo-Kato isomorphism depends on the fact that repeated Frobenius twists of complexes computing crystalline cohomology w.r.t. two different log structures become increasingly close, i.e., isomorphic modulo increasingly high powers of $`p`$. That is, an inverse system of complexes related by the relative Frobenius and reduction mediates the Hyodo-Kato isomorphism. To deal with this difficulty we use a differential graded algebra version of homotopy direct limits, namely, the mapping telescope of an inverse system of maps. In fact, it will be necessary to, employ the notion of a ‘twisted’ inverse limit introduced by Ogus to define ‘twisted’ mapping telescopes and the key definition of an ‘infinitely twisted’ mapping telescope (obtained by taking a direct limit of twisted mapping telescopes). Once one has this machinery in place, the isogenies that occur in the usual proof fall into place nicely as isomorphisms of $`\mathrm{}`$-twisted mapping telescopes and the rest of the argument becomes quite short.

We remark that the proof of theorem 1 appears to clarify the cohomological Hyodo-Kato isomorphism as well: The rational homotopy types considered as complexes compute the usual cohomology groups (crystalline and De Rham). However, the proof given here, while just a modification of those of Hyodo-Kato and Ogus, possesses an advantage over them in that the maps involved are made completely explicit. Furthermore, the proof makes clear that the essence of the argument is local, although we do not present it in an overtly local fashion.

One issue we do not deal with in this paper is the dependence of the isomorphism stated in the theorem on the choice of a uniformizer for $`A`$. Although it is more or less clear that one gets the same kind of dependence as in the cohomological theorem, we prefer to discuss this in a subsequent paper together with a more detailed study of the monodromy operator and period isomorphisms.

A few words about our convention: For the most part we leave the log structure implicit and do not introduce separate notation to indicate their presence. The important exception of course is in the proof of theorem 1. A multiplicative quasi-isomorphism of CDGA’s is just a quasi-isomorphism at the level of complexes that respects the multiplicative structure. A quasi-equivalence, on the other hand, is an isomorphism in the homotopy category of CDGA’s.

## 2 Brief review

For precise definitions, we refer the reader to  sections 3 and 4, and the references therein. In this section, we will just recall at the superficial level some basic notation, the objects that we will need, and their main properties.

For concreteness, we concentrate on the situation described in the introduction. Therefore, $`k`$ is endowed with the log structure of the punctured point which is associated to the pre-log structure $`𝐍k`$ that sends 1 to 0. $`Y`$, then, is a smooth proper fine saturated log scheme of Cartier type over $`k`$ and $`y:\text{Spec}(k)Y`$ is a point of $`Y`$. (We remind the reader that this means in particular that it is a map of log schemes.)

The unipotent crystalline rational homotopy type $`A_{cr}(Y)`$ of $`Y`$ is defined by the following formula:

$$A_{cr}(Y)=TW(W\omega _y):=s_{TW}((\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(G(W\omega _Y)))_WK)$$

The notation is that given a pro-sheaf $`L`$, $`G(L)`$ is a cosimplicial Godement resolution  for the étale topology, $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}`$ goes from the category of inverse systems $`(M_n)_{n𝐍}`$, where $`M_n`$ is a (cosimplicial) $`W_n`$-algebra, to the category of complete cosimplicial $`W`$-algebras, and finally, $`s_{TW}`$ is Navarro-Aznar’s ‘simple Thom-Whitney algebra’ functor . $`W\omega _Y`$ is the pro-sheaf of CDGA’s consisting of the De Rham-Witt differential forms of $`Y`$. It is probably best at this point not to worry about the precise construction and just remember that

$$TW()=s_{TW}((\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(G()))_WK)$$

is a functor from the isogeny category of pro-sheaves of CDGA’s over $`W`$ (that is, systems $`(L_n)`$ where a given level $`L_n`$ is a sheaf of CDGA’s over $`W_n`$) to the homotopy category of CDGA’s over $`K`$. As motivation for the language of homotopy types, we refer the reader to .

A basic proprty of the functor $`s_{TW}`$ is that for any cosimplicial CDGA $`C`$, $`s_{TW}(C)s(C)`$ in the derived category of complexes, where $`s()`$ denotes the usual ‘associated simple object’ functor. Ostensibly, the definition depends on the choice of a surjective system of geometric points on $`Y`$. Denote for a moment $`A_S`$ the rational homotopy type constructed from a specific system $`S`$ of geometric points. Given two different systems $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$, we can find a third system $`S_3`$ dominating both

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & S_3& & \\ & & & & \\ S_1& & & & S_2\end{array}$$

which therefore gives us multiplicative quasi-isomorphisms

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & A_{S_3}& & \\ & & & & \\ A_{S_1}& & & & A_{S_2}\end{array}$$

Hence, the isomorphism class of $`A_{cr}(Y)`$ in the homotopy category of CDGA’s is well-defined. Furthermore, if $`S_4`$ were chosen instead of $`S_3`$, then we could dominate these two by a third $`S_5`$ fitting into a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & S_3& & \\ & & & & \\ S_1& & S_5& & S_2\\ & & & & \\ & & S_4& & \end{array}$$

leading us to a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & A_{S_3}& & \\ & & & & \\ A_{S_1}& & A_{S_5}& & A_{S_2}\\ & & & & \\ & & A_{S_4}& & \end{array}$$

Therefore, the isomorphism $`A_{S_1}A_{S_2}`$ is canonical in the homotopy category. This justifies omitting the system of points from the notation for the homotopy type. We will omit similar obvious arguments in a few other places of the papers.

The (unipotent) De Rham rational homotopy type of $`X^{}`$ is defined by

$$A_{DR}(X)=TW(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/F}):=s_{TW}\mathrm{\Gamma }(G(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/F}))$$

where the Godement resolution is now taken on $`X^{}`$. But GAGA implies that

$$A_{DR}(X)s_{TW}((\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(G(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{X}/A})))_AF)$$

where the formal completion $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{X}/A}`$ of the De Rham complex of $`X/A`$ is regarded as a pro-sheaf on $`Y`$. It is the latter object that we will compare to $`A_{cr}`$.

$`A_{cr}`$ can be computed using the ‘crystalline complex’ associated to an embedding system ( 2.18): Let $`(Y_.,Z_.)`$ be a pair of simplicial schemes that fit into a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Y_.& & Z_.\\ & & \\ Y& & \end{array}$$

where $`Y_.`$ is a simplicial hypercovering (that satisfies cohomological descent for the étale topology) which we equip with the log structure pulled back from that of $`Y`$, $`Y_.Z_.`$ is a closed embedding of formal log schemes, and $`Z_.`$ is smooth formal log scheme over $`W`$. Then the associated crystalline complex is by definition

$$C(Y_.,Z_.):=\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z_./W}_{𝒪_{Z_.}}D_{Y_.}(Z_.)$$

Here, $`D_{Y_.}(Z_.)`$ is the divided power envelop of $`Y_.`$ in $`Z_.`$. Regard $`C(Y_.,Z_.)`$ as a simplicial pro-CDGA on $`Y_.`$. Then we also defined $`TW(C(Y_.,Z_.))`$ in this setting and we have a quasi-equivalence (i.e., an isomorphism in the homotopy category):

$$TW(C(Y_.,Z_.))TW(W\omega _Y)$$

The functor $`TW`$ (Thom-Whitney) can be defined in a more general setting, as we have already done in the definition of $`A_{DR}`$ for example, but also for crystalline complexes over more general bases. So if $`Y/S`$ is a fine saturated smooth log scheme over an affine base $`S=\text{Spec}(R)`$ and $`ST=\text{Spec}(B)`$ is an exact immersion of formal log schemes where $`B`$ is of characteristic zero, then to any embedding system $`(Y.,Z_.)`$ as above with $`Z_.`$ smooth over $`B`$, we can associate the crystalline complex $`C(Y_.,Z_.)`$ and the Thom-Whitney algebra $`TW(C(Y_.,Z_.))`$ which ends up as a CDGA over $`B𝐐`$. This algebra is in fact canonically independent of the embedding system: Any two embedding systems can be dominated by a third giving rise to a quasi-equivalence which, in turn, is independent in the homotopy category of the dominating system.

## 3 Mapping telescopes

Now we will go on to define the (twisted) mapping telescopes of inverse systems of complete $`W`$-algebras.

First, if $`f:AB`$ is a map of (complete) CDGA’s over $`W`$, we define the mapping cylinder that fits into a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & Cyl(f)\\ & & \\ A& & B\end{array}$$

as follows: Denote by $`I`$ the formal divided power De Rham complex of $`W<<x>>`$, which therefore is concentrated in degrees 0 and 1. Consider the two augmentation maps $`e_0,e_p:I𝐙`$ that evaluate functions in $`I^0`$ at 0 and $`p`$, respectively, and sends $`I^1`$ to zero. Hence $`BI`$ is likewise equipped with two maps to $`B`$ which we also denote by $`e_0`$ and $`e_p`$. Here and henceforward, all tensor products are topological. The mapping cylinder $`Cyl(f)`$ of $`f`$ is defined to be the subalgebra of $`ABI`$ consisting of elements $`(a,b)`$ such that $`f(a)=e_0(b)`$. Notice that the map $`Cyl(f)B`$ induced by $`e_p:BIB`$ becomes surjective after tensoring with $`𝐐`$: for any $`bB`$, $`(0,xb/p)`$ is in $`Cyl(f)𝐐`$ and maps to $`b`$. On the other hand, integrally, we can only say that if $`bB`$, then $`pb`$ is in the image of $`e_p`$. The map $`ACyl(f)`$ given by $`a(a,f(a))`$ induces a q.i. In fact, the projection $`Cyl(f)A`$ to the first component is a chain homotopy inverse. Now, given an inverse system of maps

$$A_.:\mathrm{}A_3A_2A_1$$

indexed by the positive integers, it is clear how to construct the mapping telescope $`Tel(A_.)`$. It is the inverse limit of the inverse system defined inductively by putting $`Tel_1=A_1`$ and

$$Tel_{i+1}:=Cyl(A_{i+1}Tel_i)$$

where the map $`A_{i+1}Tel_i`$ is the composite $`A_{i+1}A_iTel_i`$. The construction of $`Tel`$ is clearly functorial for inverse systems of CDGA’s. In particular, one can apply the construction to inverse systems of cosimplicial CGDA’s or bi-cosimplicial CDGA’s. Also, there is a map of inverse systems $`A_.Tel_.`$ giving rise to a functorial map $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}A_.Tel`$.

We will also need the ‘twisted’ inverse limit construction of Ogus ( p.203): Given an inverse system $`L_.`$ of $`W`$-modules indexed by $`𝐍`$ and an integer $`m`$, let $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mL_.`$ be the collection of elements $`(a_i)`$, $`a_iL_i`$, such that $`a_ip^ma_{i1}`$. If $`nm`$, then we have natural maps $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mL_.\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^nL_.`$ given by $`(a_i)(p^{(nm)i}a_i)`$. That is, the twisted inverse limits form a directed system.

Using these, we can also construct the $`m`$twisted telescope

$$Tel^m(A_.)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mTel_i(A_.)$$

as well as the infinitely twisted telescope

$$Tel^{\mathrm{}}(A_.)=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_mTel^m(A_.)$$

Clearly, we have functorial maps $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mA_.Tel^m(A_.)`$ and

$$\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_m\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mA_.Tel^{\mathrm{}}(A_.)$$

###### Lemma 1

Let $`L_.K_.`$ be a map of inverse systems of ((bi-)cosimplicial) CDGA’s which is a quasi-isomorphism at each level. That is, each $`L_nK_n`$ is a quasi-isomorphism. Suppose, furthermore, that the transition maps for both systems (denoted $`\pi `$) have the following property: there exists some $`m`$ such that for each element $`x`$ of level $`i`$, there exists an element $`y`$ of level $`i+1`$ such that $`\pi (y)=p^mx`$. Then

$$\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_n\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^nL_.\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_n\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^nK_.$$

is a quasi-isomorphim.

Proof. It is straightforward to check that the twisted inverse limit commutes with the cone construction, so that, for each $`n`$, we have an exact triangle

$$0\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^nL_.\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^nK_.\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^nC_.$$

where $`C_.`$ is the cone of $`L_.K_.`$. Since direct limits commute with cohomology, we need only show that

$$\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}H(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^nC_.)=0$$

In fact, the transition map

$$H(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^nC_.)H(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^{n+m}C_.)$$

is zero. To see this, let the cocycle $`(c_i)`$ represent an element of $`H(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^nC_.)`$. We will show that $`(p^{mi}c_i)\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^{n+m}C_.`$ is a coboundary. Construct an element $`(b_i)\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^{n+m}C_.`$ such that $`d(b_i)=(p^{mi}c_i)`$ inductively as follows: assume we have constructed up to $`b_j`$. That is, for $`ij`$, $`db_i=p^{mi}c_i`$ and $`\pi (b_j)=p^{n+m}b_{j1}`$. Since each $`C_i`$ is acyclic, there exists an $`x_{j+1}C_{j+1}`$ such that $`dx_{j+1}=c_{j+1}`$. Hence, $`d\pi (p^{mj}x_{j+1})=p^{mj}\pi (c_{j+1})=p^{mj+n}c_j=p^ndb_j`$ and $`d(\pi (p^{mj}x_{j+1})p^nb_j)=0`$. Again by acyclicity in level $`j`$, we can then find an $`a_j`$ such that $`da_j=\pi (p^{mj}x_{j+1})p^nb_j`$. Multiplying by $`p^m`$, we get

$$\pi (p^{(j+1)m}x_{j+1})p^{n+m}b_j=d(p^ma_j)=d\pi (a_{j+1})$$

for some $`a_{j+1}`$. Now put

$$b_{j+1}:=p^{(j+1)m}x_{j+1}da_{j+1}$$

Then $`\pi (b_{j+1})=p^{n+m}b_j`$ and $`db_{j+1}=p^{(j+1)m}c_{j+1}`$, so we are done.

We emphasize that $`Tel^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a functor from inverse systems of ((bi-)cosimplicial) CDGA’s to ((bi-)cosimplicial) CDGA’s and that the maps

$$\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}A_.\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_m\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mA_.Tel^{\mathrm{}}(A_.)$$

are multiplicative.

## 4 Proof of theorem

In this section, it will be useful to employ the following notation: Given a $`p`$-adic formal scheme $`S`$ and an integer $`m`$, $`S/m`$ denotes $`S_{𝐙_p}𝐙/p^{v_p(m)}`$, where $`v_p`$ is the $`p`$-adic valuation for which $`v_p(p)=1`$.

We denote by $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ the scheme $`\text{Spec}W[t]`$ equipped with the log structures associated to the pre-log structures $`𝐍W[t]`$ that send 1 to $`0`$ and $`t`$, respectively. So both restrict to the log structure of the punctured point on $`\text{Spec}(k)`$. $`W[t]`$ carries the Frobenius $`\sigma `$ given by the usual Frobenius on $`W`$ and sending $`t`$ to $`t^p`$. Denote by $`W<<t>>`$, the $`p`$-adic completion of the divided power polynomial algebra $`W<t>`$ over $`W`$ which therefore also carries log structures induced by those of $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$. Denote these formal log schemes by $`\widehat{S}_1`$ and $`\widehat{S}_2`$. The Frobenius $`\sigma `$ of $`W[t]`$ naturally extends to $`W<<t>>`$. We will denote by $`S_i^{(n)}`$ the scheme $`\text{Spec}(W[t])`$ equipped with the log structure of $`S_i`$ pulled back by the $`n`$-th iterate of the Frobenius. Hence, we see that $`S_1^{(n)}S_1`$ while the log structure on $`S_2^{(n)}`$ is associated to the pre-log structure $`𝐍W[t]`$ that sends $`1`$ to $`t^{p^n}`$. We will also use the notation $`\widehat{S}_i^{(n)}`$ in the obvious manner.

The difficult part of the Hyodo-Kato isomorphism says that if $`Y`$ is a smooth fine proper log scheme of Cartier type, then

$$H^i(Y/S_1)_𝐙𝐐H^i(Y/S_2)_𝐙𝐐$$

that is, the crystalline cohomology is the same for the two log structures, up to isogeny.

We recall the proof, taking care to make some maps more explicit.

We start out by choosing embedding systems $`Y_.Z_.^1`$ and $`Y_.Z_.^2`$ for $`Y`$ w.r.t. the two log schemes $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$ that admit Frobenius lifts. This notion requires a brief explanation: Denote by $`S_a^{(n)}`$ the Frobenius twisted log schemes introduced above. There are then maps $`S_aS_a^{(n)}`$ induced from the monoid map $`𝐍𝐍`$, $`1p^n`$. Now, $`(Z_.^a)^{(n)}`$ is a smooth simplicial log scheme over $`S_a^{(n)}`$, and a Frobenius lift refers to a map $`F:Z_.^a(Z_.^a)^{(1)}`$ that fits into the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Z_.^a& \stackrel{F}{}& (Z_.^a)^{(1)}\\ & & \\ S_a& & S_a^{(1)}\end{array}$$

Such embedding systems can be constructed, for example, as follows: $`Y_0`$ in both cases is just the disjoint union of the elements of an affine open covering of $`Y`$ and $`Z_0^1`$ and $`Z_0^2`$ are smooth liftings of $`Y_0`$ to $`S_1`$ and $`S_2`$, respectively. Then the $`Y_i=Y_1\times _YY_1\times \mathrm{}\times Y_1`$ ($`i+1`$-times) embed diagonally into

$$Z_i^a=Z_0^a\times _{S_a}Z_0^a\times _{S_a}\mathrm{}\times _{S_a}Z_0^a$$

($`i+1`$-times) for $`a=1,2`$ and come together to form a simplicial hypercovering. By the affine smoothness, we easily get the Frobenius lifts in cosimplicial level 0 and then the other levels by taking products.

Let $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ be crystalline complexes for the two different embedding systems, and form the bi-cosimplicial algebras over $`W<<t>>`$

$$B_a:=\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}\mathrm{\Gamma }(G(C_a))$$

for $`a=1,2`$. Denote by $`B_a^{(n)}`$ the pull-back of $`B_a`$ via $`\sigma ^n`$, which therefore arise from crystalline complexes for $`(Z_.^a)^{(n)}`$, the $`n`$-th Frobenius pull-back of $`Z_.^a`$, w.r.t. $`S_a^{(n)}`$. In particular, when we adjoin divided powers and reduce mod $`p^n!`$, the two log structures are isomorphic, so we get isomorphisms in the derived category of bi-cosimplicial complexes

$$B_1^{(n)}/(p^n)!B_2^{(n)}/(p^n)!$$

We can get these maps to fit into commutative diagrams of bi-cosimplicial CDGA’s

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}B_1^{(n+1)}/(p^n)!& & L_{n+1}& & B_2^{(n+1)}/(p^n)!\\ \varphi & & & & \varphi \\ B_1^{(n)}/(p^n)!& & L_n& & B_2^{(n)}/(p^n)!\end{array}$$

where the horizontal arrows are multiplicative quasi-isomorphisms of CDGA’s (as opposed to maps in the derived category of complexes) constructed as follows. The vertical arrows on either end are induced by the Frobenius lifts. $`L_n`$ is the crystalline complex for $`Y^{(n)}`$ relative to $`\widehat{S}_1^{(n)}/p^n!=\widehat{S}_2^{(n)}/p^n!`$ computed using the ‘diagonal’ embedding system

$$Y_.^{(n)}(Z_.^1)^{(n)}\times _{\widehat{S}_1^{(n)}/p^n!}(Z_.^2)^{(n)}$$

The Frobenius lifts for $`Z_.^1`$ and $`Z_.^2`$ determine one for each product giving the maps $`L_{n+1}L_n`$. The horizonal maps are then induced by the projections. We stress that all the maps are given by pull-backs of differential forms, and hence, are multiplicative.

On the other hand, the iterates of the Frobenius induce multiplicative maps of inverse systems

$$B_a^{(.)}/p^.!B_a/p^.!$$

where the target is just the inverse system given by the reductions of $`B_a`$ with the natural projections connecting them.

Lemma 1 from the previous section admits the following corollaries:

###### Corollary 3

The following arrows are quasi-isomorphisms:

$$Tel^{\mathrm{}}(B_1^{(.)})Tel^{\mathrm{}}(L_.)Tel^{\mathrm{}}(B_2^{(.)})$$

###### Corollary 4

$$\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}_m\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^m(B_a/p^.!)Tel^{\mathrm{}}(B_a/p^.!)$$

is a quasi-isomorphism.

On the other hand, we have the

###### Proposition 1

The map

$$B_a^{(.)}/p^.!B_a/p^.!$$

induces a quasi-isomorphism

$$Tel^{\mathrm{}}(B_a^{(.)}/p^.!)Tel^{\mathrm{}}(B_a/p^.!)$$

for $`a=1,2`$.

Proof. We will omit the subscript $`a`$ from the notation. Hence, $`S`$ also refers to either $`S_1`$ or $`S_2`$.

If $`C_n`$ is the cone of $`B^{(n)}/p^n!B/p^n!`$ then $`Tel_n(C_.)`$ is the cone of $`Tel_n(B^{(.)}/p^.!)Tel_n(B/p^.!)`$ That is, we have an exact triangle:

$$0Tel_n(B^{(.)}/p^.)Tel_n(B/p^.!)Tel_n(C_.)$$

The key point is the following

###### Lemma 2

$`H^i(C_n)=H^i(Tel_n(C_.))`$ is killed by $`p^{2in}`$ for $`i>0`$ and $`p^n`$ for $`i=0`$.

Proof of lemma. Since the algebras are constructed out of the stalks of Godements resolutions, the statement is local on $`Y`$. So we may assume that the embedding system is just a smooth $`S`$ lift $`X`$ and that we also have a Frobenius lift $`f`$. Thus, $`f`$ induces pull-back maps

$$\varphi ^n:\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{(n)}/S^{(n)}}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/S}$$

It suffices to show that the cone $`C_n`$ of this map mod $`p^n!`$ has $`i`$-th cohomology killed by $`p^{2in}`$ for $`i>0`$ and $`p^n`$ for $`i=0`$. We just give the argument for $`i>0`$ since the $`i=0`$ case is an obvious modification.

Recall the map $`F`$ given by $`\varphi /p^i`$ in degree $`i`$. The definition works just as in the usual case ( 0.2.3.3) using the $`W`$-flatness of the sheaf of differentials. $`F`$ induces an injection ( III.1.5.4):

$$F:\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{(1)}/S^{(1)}}^i/[p^n(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{(1)}/S^{(1)}}^i)+pd(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{(1)}/S^{(1)}}^{i1})]\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/S}^i/[p^n(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/S}^i)+d(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/S}^{i1})]$$

This is an immediate consequence of the Cartier isomorphism, again as in the classical case.

Note the following corollary: given $`x\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{(1)}/S^{(1)}}^i`$, if $`F(x)=p^my`$ for some $`y`$, then $`x=p^mz`$ for some $`z`$. This is obvious for $`m=1`$ from the above injection. Assume it for $`m1`$. $`F(x)=p^my`$ in any case implies $`x=p^mw+pdu`$. But then $`F(pdu)=F(x)F(p^mw)=p^m(yF(w))`$ so $`F(du)`$ is divisible by $`p^{m1}`$. Therefore, $`du=p^{m1}v`$ and $`x`$ is divisible by $`p^m`$.

By iterating the argument, we also see that if $`x\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{(n)}/S^{(n)}}^i`$ and $`F^n(x)`$ is divisible by $`p^m`$, then so is $`x`$.

Now, let

$$(a,b)\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/S}^i\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{(n)}/S^{(n)}}^{i+1}$$

represent a cocycle in

$$C^i=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/S}^i\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{(n)}/S^{(n)}}^{i+1})𝐙/p^n!$$

Then $`\varphi ^n(b)da=p^n!x`$ and $`db=p^n!y`$. Write the first equality as

$$F^n(p^{in}b)=p^n!x+da$$

and apply the injection above to get

$$p^{in}b=p^n!w+pds=p^n!w+dc$$

for some $`w`$ and $`c`$. We also get

$$d(\varphi ^n(c)p^{in}a)=p^{in}\varphi ^n(b)p^n!p^{in}F^n(w)p^{in}da=p^n!p^{in}(xF^n(w))$$

That is,

$$\varphi ^n(c)p^{in}ad^1(p^n!p^{in}\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/S}^{i+1})$$

Recall the formula

$$d^1(p^n\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/S}^{i+1})=\mathrm{\Sigma }_{0kn}p^kF^{nk}(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{(nk)}/S^{(nk)}}^i)+\underset{0kn1}{}F^k(d\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{(k)}/S^{(k)}}^{i1})$$

whose proof also follows  0.2.3.13 verbatim, as pointed out by Jannsen in the appendix of . Thus, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\varphi ^n(c)p^{in}a=p^n!p^{in}z_0+p^n!p^1p^{in}F(z_1)+\mathrm{}+p^n!p^np^{in}F^n(z_n)+\mathrm{}\\ F^N(z_N)+du_0+F(du_1)+\mathrm{}+F^{N1}(du_{N1})\end{array}$$

where $`N=v_p(p^n!)+in`$. We examine the terms in this equality after multiplying by another $`p^{in}`$. We get that $`\varphi ^n(p^{in}c)p^{2in}a`$ is of the form $`p^n!p^{in}z+\varphi ^n(l)+du`$. If we apply the differential $`d`$, we get that $`d\varphi ^n(l)=\varphi ^n(dl)`$ is divisible by $`p^{in}p^n!`$. Thus, $`F^n(dl)`$ is divisible by $`p^n!`$, and hence, so is $`dl`$. So we get $`d(p^{in}cl)=p^{2in}b`$ (mod $`p^n!`$) and $`\varphi ^n(p^{in}cl)du=p^{2in}a`$ (mod $`p^n!`$). Hence, the class of $`(p^{2in}a,p^{2in}b)`$ (mod $`p^n!`$) is a coboundary. This proves the lemma.

For all our considerations, we may assume that the dimension $`d`$ of $`Y`$ is positive. Therefore, we see that all the cohomology of $`C_n`$ is killed by $`p^{2dn}`$. The remainder of the proof of the proposition is as in the proof of Lemma 1 : Let $`(c_n)`$ be a cocycle in $`Tel^m(C_.)`$. Then $`(p^{(2d+1)n}c_n)Tel^{(m+2d+1)}(C_.)`$ is a coboundary.

Remark: The fact that the relative Frobenius is an isogeny has been the source of many important theorems on crystalline cohomology starting with the theorem of Berthelot and Ogus. Here, it is rather mysteriously manifested in the isomorphism of infinitely twisted mapping telescopes.

Thus we have arrived at an explicit isomorphism in the derived category from

$$\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^m\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mB_1/p^.!$$

to

$$\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^m\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mB_2/p^.!$$

mediated by the following system of arrows all of which are quasi-isomorphisms:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}& & & & Tel^{\mathrm{}}(L_.)& & & & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ & & Tel^{\mathrm{}}(B_1^{(.)}/p^.!)& & & & Tel^{\mathrm{}}(B_2^{(.)}/p^.!)& & \\ & & & & & & & & \\ \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^m\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mB_1/p^.!& & Tel^{\mathrm{}}(B_1/p^.!)& & & & Tel^{\mathrm{}}(B_2/p^.!)& & \underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^m\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mB_2/p^.!\end{array}$$

On the other hand, as has already been pointed out, it is trivial to check that if $`L_.`$ is an inverse system of $`W`$-algebras, then $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^m\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mL_.`$ is a $`W`$ algebra, even though each $`\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mL_.`$ separately is not. Also, maps in the category of inverse systems of algebras induce algebra homomorphisms for this double limit. Therefore, we see that the isomorphism constructed above is actually an isomorphism in the homotopy category of algebras.

Now consider the natural map

$$\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}B_a/p^.!\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^m\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mB_a/p^.!$$

By Ogus ( Lemma 18), we have an isomorphism

$$(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}B_a/p^.!)𝐐(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^m\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}^mB_a/p^.!)𝐐$$

Thus, we have constructed a quasi-equivalence from

$$(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}B_1/p^i!)𝐐$$

to

$$(\underset{}{\mathrm{lim}}B_2/p^i!)𝐐$$

Applying the Thom-Whitney simple object functor twice, we get a quasi-equivalence

$$TW(C(Y_.,Z_.^1)TW(C(Y_.,Z_.^2))$$

It is straightforward to check that this map is independent (in the homotopy category) of the various choices made.

The rest of the argument is as in , section 7, and amounts to a ‘Berthelot-Ogus’ type argument . Choose a uniformizer $`\pi `$ of $`A`$ which therefore determines a presentation $`AW[t]/(f(t))`$, where $`f(t)`$ is an Eisentein polynomial of degree $`e=[F:K]`$. Let $`R`$ be the $`p`$-adic completion of the divided power envelop of $`(f(t),p)`$ inside $`W[t]`$. Thus $`R`$ is also the completed DP envelop of the ideal $`(t^e)`$. We have a natural map $`g:RW<<t>>`$. On the other hand, if $`r`$ is such that $`p^re`$, then the map $`\sigma ^r:W<<t>>W<<t>>`$ factors through $`W<<t>>RW<<t>>`$. Composing in the other direction $`RW<<t>>R`$ is, by definition, the Frobenius map of $`R`$. Let $`Y^{}=XA/p`$ with the induced log structure. Also, give $`\text{Spec}(R)`$ the log structure induces from $`S_2`$. We have the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}Y^{}& & Y& & Y^{}\\ & & & & \\ \text{Spec}(A/p)& & \text{Spec}(k)& & \text{Spec}(A/p)\\ & & & & \\ \text{Spec}(R)& & \widehat{S}_2& & \text{Spec}(R)\end{array}$$

where the composite of the horizontal arrows are all the $`r`$-th iterate of the Frobenius. We choose crystalline complexes for $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ as follows. Construct first embedding systems for $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ w.r.t. $`S_2`$ that fit into a diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}Y_.& & Y_.^{}& & Z_.\\ & & & & \\ Y& & Y^{}& & \end{array}$$

where $`Z_.`$ is smooth over $`S_2`$ and the left hand square is cartesian. We can also arrange for $`Z_.`$ to admit a Frobenius lift compatible with the Frobenius of $`W[t]`$. Then $`C=\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z_./W[t]}W<<t>>`$ and $`C^{}=\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z_./W[t]}R`$ are crystalline complexes for $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ and we can regard both as simplicial sheaves of CDGA’s on $`Y_.`$.

Denote by $`C^{(r)}`$ (resp. $`(C^{})^{(r)}`$ ) the pull-back of $`C`$ (resp. $`C^{}`$) by the $`r`$-th power of the Frobenius map of $`W<<t>>`$ (resp. $`R`$). Then the big diagram above implies that

$$(C^{})^{(r)}C^{(r)}_{W<<t>>}R$$

in the homotopy category of sheaves of CDGA’s on $`Y_.`$. On the other hand, the Frobenius lifts induce maps $`C^{(r)}C`$ and $`(C^{})^{(r)}C^{}`$. So we have maps of sheaves of CDGA’s

$$CRC^{(r)}R(C^{})^{(r)}C^{}$$

and taking Thom-Whitney algebras, we have multiplicative maps

$$TW(C)(R𝐐)TW(C^{(r)})(R𝐐)TW((C^{})^{(r)})TW(C^{})$$

of CDGA’s over $`R𝐐`$. From the fact that the relative Frobenius is an isogeny ( Proposition 2.24), we know that all these maps are quasi-equivalences. Now we tensor with the quotient map $`R𝐐A𝐐=F`$ to get

$$TW(C)_{W<<t>>𝐐}FTW(C^{})_{RQ}F$$

By using the fact that $`C^{}A`$ is the crystalline complex associated to an embedding system for $`Y^{}`$ w.r.t. $`A`$ which is also true of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{X}/A}`$, we get

$$TW(C^{})FTW(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\widehat{X}/A})TW(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^{}/F})$$

On the other hand, $`C`$ is quasi-equivalent to $`C(Y.,Z_.^2)`$ from the previous section, so that $`TW(C)TW(C(Y.,Z_.^2))TW(C(Y.,Z_.^1))`$ and $`C(Y.,Z_.^1)`$ is quasi-equivalent to the base change to $`W<<t>>`$ of a crystalline complex for $`Y`$ w.r.t. $`W`$ so we get

$$TW(C)FTW(W\omega _Y)_KF$$

giving us the desired quasi-equivalence

$$TW(W\omega _Y)_KFTW(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/F})$$

This is the isomorphism of homotopy types stated in the theorem.

Proof of corollary 1

We need to discuss basepoints. We start with a careful discussion of the basepoint for $`W\omega _Y`$. If $`y:\text{Spec}(k)Y`$ is a point of $`Y`$, then there is a map $`W\omega _Yy_{}(W)`$. It is given by $`0`$ in positive degrees and the canonical map $`e_y:W𝒪_YW(k)`$ induced by $`𝒪_Yk`$. This map induces $`TW(W\omega _Y)TW(y_{}(W))`$. However, a simple examination of the definition yields the following description of the degree zero term $`TW^0(y_{}(W))`$: It consists of collections $`(f_n)`$ where $`f_n`$ is a function on $`𝐀_K^n`$ with the property that $`_i(f_{n+1})=f_n`$ for any $`i`$. The map $`(f_n)f_0`$ yields a quasi-isomorphism $`TW(y_{}(W))K`$. We obtain thereby the augmentation map $`TW(W\omega _Y)K`$. Let’s describe this map explicitly. The degree zero term of $`TW(W\omega _Y)`$ consists of compatible sequences ( section 3) $`(a_n)`$, $`a_n_{\overline{p}}(W𝒪_Y)_{\overline{p}}𝒪_{𝐀_K^n}`$ where $`\overline{p}`$ is an $`n+1`$-tuple of points in $`Y`$. Thus, $`a_0`$ is just an element of $`_p(W𝒪_Y)_p`$, and the map $`TW(W\omega _Y)K`$ is zero in positive degrees while in degree zero it sends $`(a_n)`$ to $`e_y(a_0)`$. Now, let $`(Y_.,Z_.)`$ be an embedding system for which $`Y_0`$ is the disjoint union of an affine open cover of $`Y`$ and $`Z_0`$ is a smooth lifting of $`Y_0`$ which admits a Frobenius lift $`F`$. By the construction at the beginning of the section, for example, such embedding systems exist. The base point $`yY`$ lifts to $`Y_0`$ and a $`W`$ point $`z`$ of $`Z=Z_0`$. Locally, we can express $`W_n𝒪_Y`$ as the cohomology $`\underset{¯}{H}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z_n/W_n})`$ and then we get the map $`𝒪_ZW𝒪_Y`$ that sends $`a`$ to the sequence $`(F^n(a)(\text{mod}p^n))_n`$ which is the degree zero component of the quasi-isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/W}W\omega _Y`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z/W}D_y(Z)`$ be the divided power envelop of $`y`$ in $`Z`$. Then we have $`(\underset{¯}{H}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z_n/W_n}D_y(Z_n)))_nW(k)`$. The augmentation $`e_z:𝒪_ZW`$ given by evaluation at $`z`$ then fits into a commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}𝒪_Z& & (\underset{¯}{H}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z_n/W_n}))_n& & W𝒪_Y\\ & & & & \\ W& & (\underset{¯}{H}^0(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Z_n/W_n}D_y(Z_n)))_n& & W\end{array}$$

where the first arrow in the bottom row sends $`aW`$ to the inverse system $`(\sigma ^n(a)(\text{mod}p^n))_n`$ This implies that

$$(TW(C(Y_.,Z_.)),e_z)(TW(W\omega _Y),e_y)$$

as augmented algebras.

Now, assume we are in the situation at the end of section 2 where $`V\text{Spec}(R)`$ is a smooth proper connected fine saturated log scheme over an affine base and $`\text{Spec}(R)\text{Spec}(B)`$ is an exact topologically nilpotent immersion where $`B`$ is of characteristic zero. Assume also that we are given a point $`v:\text{Spec}(R)V`$. Then we can always find an embedding system $`(V_.,Z_.)`$ with the property that $`v`$ lifts to $`V_0`$ and to a point $`z:BZ_0`$. This point allows us to put an augmentation $`TW(C(V_.,Z_.))B𝐐`$ on the Thom-Whitney algebra and a product construction shows that for any two choices of embedding systems, there is a homotopy equivalence between the Thom-Whitney algebras which is compatible with the augmentation. Similarly for different choices of liftings of the point $`y`$. From this, applied to the various embedding systems that occur in the proof of the theorem, one easily deduces that the homotopy equivalence

$$TW(C(Y_.,Z_.))FTW(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^{})$$

takes the augmentation induced by $`e_z`$ to that induced by evaluation at $`x^{}`$.

Proof of Corollary 2.

The isomorphism classes of the higher rational homotopy groups are determined by their dimension, and this dimension can be computed in any complex embedding of $`E`$ or after base change to the completion $`E_v`$ of $`E`$ w.r.t. $`v`$. The assumptions imply that the special fibers $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_2`$ are isomorphic smooth log schemes. Thus, $`TW(\omega _{Y_2})TW(\omega _{Y_2})`$, which implies the quasi-equivalence of $`TW(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X_1^{}}(\mathrm{log}D_1^{}))E_v`$ and $`TW(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X_2^{}}(\mathrm{log}D_2^{}))E_v`$. Thus, their bar complexes are quasi-equivalent, giving isomorphisms of their cohomology groups, i.e., the higher De Rham homotopy groups of $`X_1^{}D_1^{}`$ and $`X_2^{}D_2^{}`$ .

Acknowledgement: Both authors were supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation.

M.K.: DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA, TUCSON, AZ 85721

EMAIL: kim@math.arizona.edu

R.H.: DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, DUKE UNIVERSITY, DURHAM, NC 27708

EMAIL: hain@math.duke.edu


format: text

text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

According to the holographic principle , within a given volume $`V`$ the number of degrees of freedom is bounded by a quantity proportional to the surface area $`A`$ of the volume. This is obtained from the idea that the maximal entropy inside the volume is given by the largest black hole that just fits inside the volume, while the entropy of the latter obeys the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula $`A/4G`$, where $`G`$ is the Newton constant. Thus, the holographic principle gives an entropy bound on matter inside the volume

$$S\frac{A}{4G},$$
(1.1)
which is called the holographic bound.

Fischler and Susskind  were the first to consider entropy bound in the cosmological setting. In a closed universe, the holographic bound in its naive form (1.1) is not applicable because there is no boundary in the closed universe. On the other hand, the argument leading to (1.1) assumes that it is possible to form a black hole filling the whole volume. This is no longer valid in the universe since the expansion rate $`H`$ of the universe and the total energy in the universe restrict the maximal size of black hole . Following Fischler and Susskind, it was argued that the maximal entropy inside the universe is produced by black holes with size of Hubble horizon . The usual holographic arguments lead to the result that the total entropy should be less than or equal to the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy of a Hubble horizon-sized black hole times the number of Hubble regions in the universe. That is, one has $`S\beta HV/G`$, where $`V`$ represents the volume of the universe and $`\beta `$ is a pure coefficient. This coefficient is fixed by Verlinde  by using a local version of holographic bound . This bound is called the Hubble entropy bound, which has the form

$$S_\mathrm{H}=(n1)\frac{HV}{4G},$$
(1.2)
where $`n`$ stands for spatial dimensions of the universe. The Hubble bound is valid for a strongly self-gravitating universe ($`HR1`$). Except for the Hubble bound, Verlinde introduced other two entropy bounds :

$`\mathrm{Bekenstein}\mathrm{Verlinde}\mathrm{bound}:`$ $`S_{\mathrm{BV}}={\displaystyle \frac{2\pi }{n}}ER`$
$`\mathrm{Bekenstein}\mathrm{Hawking}\mathrm{bound}:`$ $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}=(n1){\displaystyle \frac{V}{4G_{n+1}R}}.`$ (1.3)
Here $`E`$ is the total energy of the matter filling the universe and $`R`$ is the scale factor. The Bekenstein-Verlinde bound $`S_{\mathrm{BV}}`$ is the counterpart of the Bekenstein entropy bound  in the cosmological setting , which is believed to hold for a weakly self-gravitating universe ($`HR1`$). The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy bound does not serve as an entropy bound, but acts as a criterion whether the universe is in a weakly self-gravitating phase ($`HR1`$) or in a strongly self-gravitating phase ($`HR1`$. The Friedmann equation of a ($`n+1`$)-dimensional, closed Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe is

$$H^2=\frac{16\pi G}{n(n1)}\frac{E}{V}\frac{1}{R^2},$$
(1.4)
from which one can see that $`S_{\mathrm{BV}}S_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ for $`HR1`$, while $`S_{\mathrm{BV}}S_{\mathrm{BH}}`$ for $`HR1`$. Clearly one has $`S_{\mathrm{BV}}=S_{\mathrm{BH}}=S_\mathrm{H}`$ at the critical point $`HR=1`$. Furthermore, Verlinde found that with the three cosmological entropy bounds, the Friedmann equation (1.4) can be cast to

$$S_\mathrm{H}=\sqrt{S_{\mathrm{BH}}(2S_{\mathrm{BV}}S_{\mathrm{BH}})},$$
(1.5)
the cosmological Cardy formula. This formula (1.5) has a close relation to the Cardy-Verlinde formula describing the entropy of conformal field theories. For more discussions, see .

We note that those discussions on the entropy bounds crucially depend on the area entropy formula of black holes (1.1). However, it is well-known that the area entropy formula of black holes holds only in Einstein gravity. If some higher derivative curvature terms appear, for example, one has to include some additional terms to the area entropy formula of black holes . Therefore it would be interesting to see how those entropy bounds get modified in higher derivative gravity theories. In this note we will discuss entropy bounds in the Gauss-Bonnet gravity, which belongs to a special class of higher derivative gravity theories in the sense that the equation of motion for the Gauss-Bonnet gravity contains no more than second derivatives of metric.

## 2 Bekenstein bound and Bekenstein-Verlinde bound

Bekenstein was the first to consider the issue of maximal entropy for a macroscopic system. He argued that for a closed system with total energy $`E`$, which fits in a sphere with radius $`R`$ in three spatial dimensions, there exists an upper bound on the entropy of the system

$$SS_\mathrm{B}=2\pi ER,$$
(2.1)
which is called the Bekenstein entropy bound. This bound is believed to be valid for a system with limited self-gravity, which means that the gravitational self-energy is negligibly small compared to its total energy. However, it is interesting to note that this bound gets saturated for a ($`3+1`$) dimensional Schwarzschild black hole, which of course is a strongly self-gravitating object. Furthermore it was found that the form (2.1) is independent of spatial dimensionality. That is, the form (2.1) keeps unchanged for any dimensional object. This is obtained by considering a Geroch process in an arbitrary dimensional Schwarzschild black hole and the generalized second law of black hole thermodynamics . It is easy to show that for a higher ($`n+1>4`$) dimensional Schwarzschild black hole, the Bekenstein entropy bound still holds, but it is not saturated.

In deriving the Bekenstein entropy bound , black hole thermodynamics is used. And the thermodynamics of black holes is dependent of gravity theories under consideration. In fact, we show here that the Bekenstein entropy bound is independent of gravity theories. As a result, the Bekenstein-Verlinde bound has also the same feature of independence of gravity theories. Consider an arbitrary, ($`n+1`$)-dimensional spherically symmetric black hole solution

$$ds^2=e^{2\delta (r)}\left(1\frac{2m(r)}{r^{n2}}\right)dt^2+\left(1\frac{2m(r)}{r^{n2}}\right)^1dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }_{n1}^2,$$
(2.2)
where $`\delta `$ and $`m`$ are two continuous functions of $`r`$, It is assumed that $`e^{2\delta (r)}0`$ in the whole spacetime. The black hole horizon $`r_+`$ is determined by equation $`12m(r_+)/r_+^{n2}=0`$. The Hawking temperature $`T`$ associated with the horizon is

$$T=\frac{e^{\delta (r_+)}}{4\pi }\left(\frac{n2}{r_+}\frac{2m^{}(r_+)}{r_+^{n2}}\right),$$
(2.3)
where a prime denotes derivative with respect to $`r`$. We denote by $`M`$ the mass of the black hole. According to the first law of black hole thermodynamics, which always holds because a black hole behaves as a thermodynamic system, one has the entropy variation $`\mathrm{}S`$ when the mass gets increase by a small amount $`\mathrm{}M`$,

$$\mathrm{}S=T^1\mathrm{}M.$$
(2.4)
Let us consider a Geroch process in the black hole background (2.2). Suppose that one has a thermodynamic system with energy $`E`$ and $`R`$ being the radius of the smallest ($`n1`$)-sphere circumscribing the system. Now move this system from infinity to a place just outside the horizon of the black hole (2.2), and drop the matter into the black hole.

The mass added to the black hole is given by the energy $`E`$ of the system, which gets redshifted according to the position of the center of mass at the drop-off point, at which the circumscribing sphere almost touches the horizon. The center of mass can be brought to within a proper distance $`R`$ from the horizon, while all parts of the system still remain outside the horizon. Thus one needs to calculate the redshift factor at a proper distance $`R`$ from the horizon .

Let $`x`$ be the radial coordinate distance from the horizon $`x=rr_+`$. The redshift factor near the horizon is given by

$$\chi ^2(x)=e^{2\delta (r_+)}\left(\frac{n2}{r_+}\frac{2m^{}(r_+)}{r_+^{n2}}\right)x$$
(2.5)
up to the leading order of $`x`$. Near the horizon, the proper distance $`R`$ has a relation to the coordinate distance $`x`$,

$$R=2\sqrt{\frac{x}{(n2)/r_+2m^{}(r_+)/r_+^{n2}}}.$$
(2.6)
Hence the absorbed mass is $`\mathrm{}M=E\chi (x)`$. Substituting this into (2.4), we find that the increased entropy of the black hole is

$$\mathrm{}S=T^1E\chi (x)=2\pi ER.$$
(2.7)
According to the generalized second law of black hole thermodynamics , which says that the total entropy of black hole and matter outside the black hole never decreases in any physical process, we can immediately obtain the maximal entropy of the system,

$$S_m2\pi ER.$$
(2.8)
This is just the Bekenstein entropy bound (2.1). From the above one can see that we have neither specified what the black hole solution (2.2) is, nor in which gravity theory it is. Hence the resulting conclusion (2.8) is independent of gravity theories. This is an expected result since as stated above, the Bekenstein bound is valid only for systems with limited self-gravity, which implies that gravity effect is negligible. In addition, the Bekenstein-Verlinde bound $`S_{\mathrm{BV}}`$ in (1) is the counterpart of the Bekenstein bound in the cosmological setting. Therefore we conclude that the Bekenstein-Verlinde bound is also independent of gravity theories.

## 3 Hubble bound and Bekenstein-Hawking bound in Gauss-Bonnet gravity

Now we consider the so-called Gauss-Bonnet gravity theory by adding the Gauss-Bonnet term to the Einstein-Hilbert action,

$$𝒮=\frac{1}{16\pi G}d^{n+1}x\sqrt{g}\left(+\alpha (_{\mu \nu \gamma \sigma }^{\mu \nu \gamma \sigma }4_{\mu \nu }^{\mu \nu }+^2)\right),$$
(3.1)
where $`\alpha `$ is a constant. Here we exclude the case of $`n=3`$ since in that case the Gauss-Bonnet term is a topological term. The static spherically symmetric black hole solutions in (3.1) have been found in . The entropy of the black holes has the expression

$$S=\frac{A}{4G}\left(1+\frac{n1}{n3}\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{R^2}\right),$$
(3.2)
where $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }=(n2)(n3)\alpha `$, $`A`$ represents the horizon area of the black hole and $`R`$ the horizon radius. Following Verlinde , in this section we “derive” the Hubble bound for a closed FRW universe in the Gauss-Bonnet theory.

In  Verlinde used a version of holographic bound proposed by Fischler and Susskind  and subsequently developed by Bousso , which gives a restriction of entropy flow $`S`$ through a contracting light sheet: the entropy flow $`S`$ is less than or equal to $`A/4G`$, where $`A`$ is the area of the surface from which the light sheet originates. The infinitesimal version of the holographic bound plays a crucial role in the “derivation” by Verlinde. According to the infinitesimal version, for every ($`n1)`$-dimensional surface at time $`t+dt`$ with area $`A+dA`$, one has $`dSdA/4G`$. Here $`dS`$ represents the entropy flow through the infinitesimal light sheets originating at the surface at $`t+dt`$ and extending back to time $`t`$, and $`dA`$ denotes the increase in area between $`t`$ and $`t+dt`$. Obviously the holographic bound is based on the area entropy formula of black holes. In our case, the black hole entropy is given by (3.2). The infinitesimal version is then changed to

$$dS\frac{1}{4G}d\left[A\left(1+\frac{n1}{n3}\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{R^2}\right)\right].$$
(3.3)
In a ($`n+1`$) dimensional closed FRW universe, for a surface which is fixed in comoving coordinates, the area $`A`$ changes as a result of the expansion of the universe by an amount

$$dA=(n1)HAdt,$$
(3.4)
where the relation $`AR^{n1}`$ has been used. Choose one of two past light sheets that originate at the surface: the inward or the outward going. The entropy flow through this light sheet between $`t`$ and $`t+dt`$ is given by the entropy density $`s=S/V`$ times the infinitesimal volume $`Adt`$ swept out by the light sheet. That is, one has

$$dS=\frac{S}{V}Adt.$$
(3.5)
Applying $`AR^{n1}`$ to (3.3), and then substituting (3.3) and (3.4) into (3.5), we obtain

$$SS_\mathrm{H}=(n1)\frac{HV}{4G}\left(1+\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{R^2}\right),$$
(3.6)
which is the Hubble entropy bound in the Gauss-Bonnet gravity. This is the main result of ours. If a cosmological constant is added to the action (3.1), the entropy of black holes still has the expression (3.2. Hence the Hubble entropy bound still takes the form (3.6) even if a cosmological constant is present in the Gauss-Bonnet gravity.

On the other hand, the Friedmann equation for the Gauss-Bonnet gravity (3.1) is

$$H^2+\frac{1}{R^2}+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\left(H^2+\frac{1}{R^2}\right)^2=\frac{16\pi G}{n(n1)}\frac{E}{V},$$
(3.7)
from which we see that when $`HR=1`$, the Bekenstein-Verlinde bound $`S_{\mathrm{BV}}=2\pi ER/n`$ equals the Hubble bound $`S_\mathrm{H}`$ given by (3.6). This is a good check for our “derivation” of the Hubble bound. Furthermore, from the Friedmann equation (3.7), we find that the Bekenstein-Hawking bound has the form

$$S_{\mathrm{BH}}=(n1)\frac{V}{4GR}\left(1+\frac{2\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}{R^2}\right).$$
(3.8)
As in the case of Einstein theory , this Bekenstein-Hawking bound (3.8) was obtained by identifying $`S_{\mathrm{BH}}=S_{\mathrm{BV}}`$ via the Friedmann equation (3.7) at the critical point $`HR=1`$. Hence at the critical point the property that three cosmological entropy bounds become identical in Einstein theory persists in the Gauss-Bonnet gravity. Inspecting the Friedmann equation (3.8), however, we find that it can no longer be rewritten in the form (1.5), which might be related to that the black hole entropy in higher derivative theories cannot be cast to the Cardy-Verlinde formula .

## 4 Conclusion

In summary this paper has initiated the study of holography in gravity theories with higher derivative curvature terms. As a concrete model, we have considered the Gauss-Bonnet theory. We have shown that as expected, the Bekenstein bound and the Bekenstein-Verlinde bound keep the same forms as in Einstein theory, while the Hubble bound and Bekenstein-Hawking bound get modified. Along the Verlinde’s approach, we have obtained expressions of the Hubble bound and Bekenstein-Hawking bound. When the universe undergoes a transition from a weakly self-gravitating phase ($`HR1`$) to a strongly self-gravitating phase ($`HR1`$), the three cosmological entropy bounds get matched at the critical point $`HR=1`$, as in the case of Einstein gravity. However, the Friedmann equation of the Gauss-Bonnet gravity cannot be rewritten in the form of the cosmological Cardy formula.

## Acknowledgment

We thank H.W. Lee for useful discussions. The work of R.G.C. was supported in part by a grant from Chinese Academy of Sciences and a grant from Ministry of Education, PRC. Y.S.M. acknowledges partial support from the KOSEF, Project Number: R02-2002-000-00028-0. R.G.C. is grateful to Relativity Research Center and School of Computer Aided Science, Inje University for warm hospitality during his visit.