Bigness
Throughout this talk, is a field of characteristic zero, algebraically
closed unless otherwise specified.
A variety is an integral scheme, separated and of finite type over a field.
Throughout this talk, is a complete variety over
.
Definition: Let
be a line sheaf on
. We say that
is
big if there is a constant
such that
for all sufficiently large
and divisible
.
Lemma. (Kodaira) Let
be a line sheaf and
an ample line
sheaf on
. Then
is big iff
has a (nonzero) global section
for some
.
Proof: ``
'' is obvious.
``'': Write
with
a reduced
effective very ample divisor. It will suffice to show that
has a global section for some
.
Consider the exact sequence
Definition: A vector sheaf
of rank
on
is big if there is
a
such that
Equivalently,
is big iff
on
is big.
Essential base locus
Definition: Assume that is projective, and let
be a (big)
line sheaf on
. The essential base locus of
is the subset
Question: If
is a big vector sheaf, is its essential base locus
properly contained in
?
Answer: No. Example: Unstable
over curves.
Question: What if
is big and semistable?
Curves
Throughout this section, is a (projective) curve.
Definition: (Mumford) A vector sheaf
on
is semistable if,
for all short exact sequences
Theorem. Let
be a big semistable vector sheaf on
. Then
is ample (i.e.,
is ample on
). In particular,
the essential base locus of
is empty.
Proof: By Kleiman's criterion for ampleness, the sum of an ample and
a nef divisor is again ample, so by Kodaira's lemma it suffices to show
that if
is a semistable vector sheaf on
, then all effective
divisors
on
are nef.
So, let be an effective divisor and
a curve on
.
We want to show:
Since
is semistable, so is
(proof later).
Therefore we may assume that is a section of
, and that
is a prime
divisor.
Since is a section, it corresponds to a surjection
.
Moreover,
. By semistability, therefore,
Now consider . Let
be the degree of
on fibers of
;
.
Then
for some
.
Thus
corresponds to a section of
, hence we have
an injection
Since
is semistable, so is
(proof later); hence
Let
; then
has rank
.
The diagram
![]() |
![]() |
Higher Dimensional Varieties
Let again be a complete variety of arbitrary dimension.
Construction: Given a vector sheaf
on
of rank
and a representation
Examples of this include ,
, and
.
Definition: (Bogomolov) A vector sheaf
of rank
on
is
unstable if there exists a representation
of determinant 1 (i.e., factoring through
) such that
has a nonzero section that vanishes at at least one point.
It is semistable if it is not unstable.
Theorem. (Bogomolov) If is a curve, then Bogomolov's definition of
semistability agrees with Mumford's.
Remark: If has determinant
then
,
but not conversely.
Indeed, the representation
,
, has image contained in
but its does not factor through
.
To see that the (true) converse holds, first show that the vanishing of the
determinant defines an irreducible subset of ; this is left as
an exercise for the reader.
Now suppose that
is a representation that
factors through
, and suppose also that its image is not contained
in
. Then
is a nonconstant regular function
, hence it determines a nonconstant rational function
on
with zeros and poles contained in
. But the
latter is irreducible, so it can't have both zeroes and poles there,
contradiction.
So now we can pose:
Question: If is a projective variety and
is a big, semistable
vector sheaf on
, then is the essential base locus of
a proper
subset of
?
Remark: We can't conclude that
is ample in the above, as the following
example illustrates. Let
be a projective variety of dimension
,
let
be a big semistable vector sheaf on
of rank
,
let
be the blowing-up of
at a closed point, and let
be the exceptional divisor. Then the essential base locus of
must contain
.
My Mitteljahrentraum
The question of an essential base locus being a proper subset comes up in Nevanlinna theory, and I hope to be able to use it in number theory, as well. Here's how.
Bogomolov has shown that
is semistable for a smooth surface
.
One would hope to generalize this, to
for a normal
crossings divisor
on
, and also to higher dimensions. Then it would
suffice to prove that one of these bundles is big to get arithmetical
consequences.
Moreover, Bogomolov's definition of semistability can be generalized to
defining semistability of higher jet bundles. These are not vector bundles,
because they correspond to elements of
for a group
other than
. But, one can make the same definition, using
those representations of
having the appropriate kernel:
again
(Green-Griffiths), or a certain bigger group (Semple-Demailly).
Probably the latter.
Bigness is easy to define in this context, and then one hopefully can use the two properties to talk about the exceptional base locus. Already the proof of Bloch's theorem in Nevanlinna theory can probably be recast in this mold.
Is Semistability Really Necessary?
The proof of the main theorem of this talk didn't really need the full definition of semistability; it only used the condition on the degrees of subbundles for subbundles of rank 1 and corank 1. Would the following definition make sense, and would it be preserved under pull-back and symmetric power?
Definition: Let be a projective curve and let
be a vector sheaf
of rank
on
. Then
is
-semistable if
the condition on degrees and ranks of subbundles holds for all full subbundles
of rank
and corank
.
Again, what would be a reasonable representation-theoretic formulation of this definition?
Loose Ends
In the proof of the main theorem it remains to show that semistability is
preserved under pull-back and under taking .
To show the first assertion, let
be generically finite,
and let
be a semistable vector sheaf on
. Suppose that
is unstable. Let
be a representation
such that
has a nonzero global section that vanishes
somewhere. Let
. Then taking norms gives a global section of
The second assertion is proved similarly: suppose there is a representation
Back to the
main index
for Rational and integral points on higher dimensional varieties.
ARRAY(0x8ddb63c)