Monday, 28 August 2006

ag.algebraic geometry - The canonical line bundle of a normal variety


Edit (11/12/12): I added an explanation of the phrase "this is essentially equivalent to XX being S2S2" at the end to answer aglearner's question in the comments.
[See also here and here]




Dear Jesus,



I think there are several problems with your question/desire to define a canonical divisor on any algebraic variety.



First of all, what is any algebraic variety? Perhaps you mean a quasi-projective variety (=reduced and of finite type) defined over some (algebraically closed) field.



OK, let's assume that XX is such a variety. Then what is a divisor on XX? Of course, you could just say it is a formal linear combination of prime divisors, where a prime divisor is just a codimension 1 irreducible subvariety.



OK, but what if XX is not equidimensional? Well, let's assume it is, or even that it is irreducible.



Still, if you want to talk about divisors, you would surely want to say when two divisors are linearly equivalent. OK, we know what that is, D1D1 and D2D2 are linearly equivalent iff D1D2D1D2 is a principal divisor.



But, what is a principal divisor? Here it starts to become clear why one usually assumes that XX is normal even to just talk about divisors, let alone defining the canonical divisor. In order to define principal divisors, one would need to define something like the order of vanishing of a regular function along a prime divisor. It's not obvious how to define this unless the local ring of the general point of any prime divisor is a DVR. Well, then this leads to one to want to assume that XX is R1R1, that is, regular in codimension 11 which is equivalent to those local rings being DVRs.



OK, now once we have this we might also want another property: If ff is a regular function, we would expect, that the zero set of ff should be 1-codimensional in XX. In other words, we would expect that if ZsubsetXZsubsetX is a closed subset of codimension at least 22, then if ff is nowhere zero on XsetminusZXsetminusZ, then it is nowhere zero on XX. In (yet) other words, if 1/f1/f is a regular function on XsetminusZXsetminusZ, then we expect that it is a regular function on XX. This in the language of sheaves means that we expect that the push-forward of mathscrOXsetminusZmathscrOXsetminusZ to XX is isomorphic to mathscrOXmathscrOX. Now this is essentially equivalent to XX being S2S2.



So we get that in order to define divisors as we are used to them, we would need that XX be R1R1 and S2S2, that is, normal.



Now, actually, one can work with objects that behave very much like divisors even on non-normal varieties/schemes, but one has to be very careful what properties work for them.



As far as I can tell, the best way is to work with Weil divisorial sheaves which are really reflexive sheaves of rank 11. On a normal variety, the sheaf associated to a Weil divisor DD, usually denoted by mathcalOX(D)mathcalOX(D), is indeed a reflexive sheaf of rank 11, and conversely every reflexive sheaf of rank 11 on a normal variety is the sheaf associated to a Weil divisor (in particular a reflexive sheaf of rank 11 on a regular variety is an invertible sheaf) so this is indeed a direct generalization. One word of caution here: mathcalOX(D)mathcalOX(D) may be defined for Weil divisors that are not Cartier, but then this is (obviously) not an invertible sheaf.



Finally, to answer your original question about canonical divisors. Indeed it is possible to define a canonical divisor (=Weil divisorial sheaf) for all quasi-projective varieties. If XsubseteqmathbbPNXsubseteqmathbbPN and overlineXoverlineX denotes the closure of XX in mathbbPNmathbbPN, then the dualizing complex of overlineXoverlineX is
omegaboverlineXullet=RmathscrHommathbbPN(mathscrOoverlineX,omegamathbbPN[N])omegaboverlineXullet=RmathscrHommathbbPN(mathscrOoverlineX,omegamathbbPN[N])
and the canonical sheaf of XX is
omegaX=hn(omegaboverlineXullet)|X=mathscrExtNnmathbbPN(mathscrOoverlineX,omegamathbbPN)|XomegaX=hn(omegaboverlineXullet)|X=mathscrExtNnmathbbPN(mathscrOoverlineX,omegamathbbPN)|X
where n=dimXn=dimX. (Notice that you may disregard the derived category stuff and the dualizing complex, and just make the definition using mathscrExtmathscrExt.) Notice further, that
if XX is normal, this is the same as the one you are used to and otherwise it is a reflexive sheaf of rank 11.



As for your formula, I am not entirely sure what you mean by "where the DiDi are representatives of all divisors in the Class Group". For toric varieties this can be made sense as in Josh's answer, but otherwise I am not sure what you had in mind.




(Added on 11/12/12):




Lemma A scheme XX is S2S2 if and only if for any iota:ZtoXiota:ZtoX closed subset of codimension at least 22, the natural
map mathscrOXtoiotamathscrOXsetminusZmathscrOXtoiotamathscrOXsetminusZ is an isomorphism.



Proof
Since both statements are local we may assume that XX is affine.
Let xinXxinX be a point and ZsubseteqXZsubseteqX its closure in XX. If xx is a codimension at most 11 point, there is nothing to prove, so we may assume that ZZ is of codimension at least 22.



Considering the exact sequence (recall that XX is affine):
0toH0Z(X,mathscrOX)toH0(X,mathscrOX)toH0(XsetminusZ,mathscrOX)toH1Z(X,mathscrOX)to00toH0Z(X,mathscrOX)toH0(X,mathscrOX)toH0(XsetminusZ,mathscrOX)toH1Z(X,mathscrOX)to0
shows that mathscrOXtoiotamathscrOXsetminusZmathscrOXtoiotamathscrOXsetminusZ is an isomorphism
if and only if
H0Z(X,mathscrOX)=H1Z(X,mathscrOX)=0H0Z(X,mathscrOX)=H1Z(X,mathscrOX)=0 the latter condition is equivalent to
mathrmdepthmathscrOX,xgeq2,mathrmdepthmathscrOX,xgeq2,
which given the assumption on the codimension is exactly the condition that XX is S2S2 at xinXxinX. qquadsquareqquadsquare

No comments:

Post a Comment