Type II Unprojection

0.17 MB·

by  Stavros Argyrios Papadakis

5
Type II Unprojection
0
0
2
Stavros Argyrios Papadakis
n
a
J January 2005

9
2

] Abstract
G
Answering a question of M. Reid, we define and prove the Goren-
A
steiness of the type II unprojection.
.
h
t
a 1 Introduction
m
[
Unprojection is a philosophy, due to M. Reid, which is based on adjunction,

1 andaims toconstructandanalyseGorenstein ringsintermsof simplerones.
v
Geometrically, it is an inverse of projection and can also be considered as a
4
3 modern version of Castelnuovo blow–down.
5
The case that has been well understood by now is the unprojection of
1
type Kustin–Miller (or type I), which was studied in [PR] and [P], and is
0
5 originally due, in a different formulation using complexes, to A. Kustin and
0
M. Miller [KM]. Examples by Reid, A. Corti, S. Altınok, G. Brown and
/
h others (cf. [Al], [CPR], [Ki], [R]) suggest that there are also other types of
t
a unprojections that appear naturally and are useful in algebraic geometry.
m
Thepurposeof thepresentworkistoprovidethefoundationsfortheun-
: projectionoftypeII.TheinitialdatafortheunprojectionisduetoReid,who
v
i also gave some indications about how it should look like (cf. [Ki] Section 9).
X
The main difficulties compared to the unprojection of type Kustin–Miller
r
a are the existence of nonlinear relations and the increase of codimension by
more that one. We give for the firsttime a precise definition (Definition 2.2)
of the generic type II unprojection and in Theorem 2.15 we prove that it is
Gorenstein.
As a demonstration of our methods, we define using base change, and
prove using generic perfection, the Gorensteiness of the complete intersec-
tion type II unprojection (Section 3). In Section 4 we discuss calculational
aspects and applications to algebraic geometry. Finally, in Section 5 we
state some remarks and open questions.
1
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: I wish to thank Miles Reid for suggesting
the problem, encouragement, and many useful conversations, and Janko
Boehm, Gavin Brown, Christoph Lossen and Frank–Olaf Schreyer for im-
portant discussions. This work was financially supported by the Deutschen
Forschungsgemeinschaft Schr 307/4-2.
2 Generic type II unprojection
2.1 Definion of the unprojection ring
Fix positive integers k,n with k ≥1 and n ≥ 2. Our ambient ring will be a
polynomial ring O over the integers
amb
O = Z[a ,z,w ]
amb ij p
where 1 ≤ i ≤ k+1, 1 ≤ j ≤ n and w is a finite number of indeterminants
p
w1,w2,... that we use only for extra flexibility in the applications. We
assign a to have weight equal to i for 1 ≤ i≤ k+1, z to have weight k+2.
ij
We also give each w a positive number as weight.
p
Following Reid (cf. [Ki] Section 9.5), we define I to be the ideal of
D
O generated by the 2×2 minors of the 2×n(k+1) matrix M, where
amb
a21 ... a2n ... ak+1,1 ... ak+1,n za11 ... za1n
M =
(cid:18)a11 ... a1n ... ak1 ... akn ak+1,1 ... ak+1,n(cid:19)
(2.1)
We notice that I is a homogeneous ideal of O . We set
D amb
D = V(I )⊂ SpecO , O = O /I
D amb D amb D
and
OD = Z[x1,...,xn,t,wp], D = Spec(OD).
Remark 2.1 Theering O is not normal. Geeometrically,ethe normalisation
D
of D is the map
q :D → D
with e
a = x ti−1, z = tk+1
ij j
for 1 ≤ i≤ k+1, 1 ≤ j ≤ n. Since q is an isomorphism in codimension one,
we have
ωD = q∗ωD = q∗OD. (2.2)
We also see that the ideal I is primeeof codime ension nk in O .
D amb
2
Let I be a homogeneous prime ideal of O such that I ⊂ I , I has
X amb X D X
codimemsion nk −1 in O , and the integral domain O = O /I is
amb X amb X
normal and Gorenstein. We denote by K(X) to be the field of fractions of
O , and we set
X
−1
I = {f ∈ K(X): fI ⊂ O }.
D D X
We will consider O as a quotient ring of O . Using (2.2), ω is a Cohen–
D X D
Macaulay OX-modulewhichneedsk+1generators e0,...ek,asOD-module.
It is also clear (cf. [Ki] Section 9.5) that we can choose them so that the
module of relations between them is generated by relations of the form
e
Mt i = 0.
(cid:18)ei+1(cid:19)
Definition 2.2 The generic type II unprojection is the O -subalgebra of
X
K(X)
−1
O [I ] ⊂ K(X)
X D
−1
generated by I .
D
The relation with adjunction theory is as follows:
Since, by assumption, I has codimension one in the Gorenstein ring
D
O , we have as in [PR] p. 563 a short exact sequence
X
resD
0 → ωX → HomOX(ID,ωX) −−−→ ωD → 0
where res is the Poincar´e residue map. Using the Gorensteiness of O we
D X
get the short exact sequence
0 → OX → HomOX(ID,OX) −r−e−sD→ ωD → 0 (2.3)
ID contains a regular element of OX, therefore HomOX(ID,OX) is canoni-
−1
cally isomorphic to I , and we will consider it as a submodule of K(X).
D
−1
After giving a presentation of O [I ] (Proposition 2.6), we prove in
X D
Theorem 2.15 that it is Gorenstein.
Remark 2.3 Assume the ideal I ⊂ O is principal, say I = (a). Then
D X D
−1
it clear that the ring O [I ] is a localization of O hence Gorenstein. In
X D X
the following, we will assume that I is not a principal ideal of O .
D X
3
2.2 Presentation of the unprojection ring
By the assumptions on I and O , we have a natural valuation map
D X
∗
val : K(X) → Z
D
It is convenient to extend it by assigning val 0 = +∞.
D
Remark 2.4 For an element s ∈ I−1 wehave val (s)≥ −1. We claim that
D D
−1
every s ∈ O [I ] with val (s) ≥ 0 is in O . Indeed, by the normality
X D D X
of O it is enough to prove that for every codimension one prime ideal
X
I ⊂ O we have val (s)≥ 0. Let I 6= I , then there exists a point p ∈ E
E X E E D
and f ∈ I with f(p) 6= 0. For sufficiently large k we have sfk ∈ O , as a
D X
consequence s is defined at the point p.
We fix s0,s1,...,sk ∈ HomOX(ID,OX)⊂ K(X) such that resD(si) = ei
for 0 ≤ i ≤ k. By the adjunction sequence (2.3), there exist elements
c ,d ∈ O (for 1 ≤ i≤ k, 1 ≤ j ≤ n and 0 ≤ p ≤ k−1), such that
i,j,p j,p X
ai+1,jsp+aijsp+1−ci,j,p = 0∈ K(X),
za1jsp+ak+1,jsp+1−dj,p = 0∈ K(X).
Moreover, by the same sequence it follows that any (inhomogeneous)
linear relation between s0,...,sk is generated by these relations.
Let OX[T0,...Tk] be the polynomial ring over OX in k +1 indetermi-
nants, and denote by
−1
φ: OX[T0,...Tk]→ OX[ID ]
the O -algebra homomorphism with φ(T ) = s . We set
X i i
fia,j,p = ai+1,jTp+aijTp+1−ci,j,p,
fjb,p = za1jTp+ak+1,jTp+1−dj,p.
These elements are in the kernel of φ and moreover generate the submodule
of linear relations. Our aim now is to describe the quadratic relations and
prove that together with the linear they generate the kernel of φ. We need
the following lemma.
Lemma 2.5 (Quadratic relations) The following are true.
a) Let 0 ≤ j,m ≤ k, 1 ≤ i,l ≤ k + 1 and 1 ≤ t ≤ n. Assume
l+m = i+j. Then
val (a s −(−1)j−ma s ) ≥ 0.
D it j lt m
4
b) Let 0 ≤ i,j,l,m ≤ k. Assume l+m = i+j. Then
val (s s −s s )≥ −1.
D i j l m
c) Let 0 ≤ i,j,l,m ≤ k. Assume l+m = i+j −(k+1). Then
val (s s −(−1)k+1zs s )≥ −1.
D i j l m
Proof For a) we notice that assuming i< l, we have
aitsj −(−1)j−maltsm =vi−vi+1+vi+2−···+(−1)l−i−1vl−1,
where vq = aqtsj+i−q +aq+1,tsj+i−q−1. Taking into account the linear rela-
tions the result follows.
For b) it is enough to show that
valD(sisj −si−1sj+1)≥ −1.
We have
a11(sisj −si−1sj+1) = sj(a11si+a21si−1)−si−1(a11sj+1+a21sj).
Taking into account the linear relations the result follows.
For c), using b) it is enough to show that for i≥ 1 we have
valD(sksi−(−1)k+1zsi−1s0) ≥ −1.
We have
a11(sksi−(−1)k+1zsi−1s0)=
si(a11sk −(−1)kak+1,1s0)−(−1)k+1s0(a11zsi−1+ak+1,1si),
so the result follows from a). QED
Using Proposition 2.5, for i,j with i + j ≤ k there exists polynomial
giaj(T0,...,Tk) ∈ker(φ), of the form
giaj = TiTj −T0Ti+j +linear terms.
Inaddition,fori,j withi+j ≥ k+1,thereexistpolynomialgibj(T0,...,Tk) ∈
ker(φ), of the form
gibj = TiTj −(−1)k+1zT0Ti+j−k−1+linear terms.
In both cases by linear terms we mean terms of total degree in T0,...Tn at
most one.
5
Proposition 2.6 We have
ker(φ) = (fa ,fb ,ga,gb ),
i,j,p j,p ij ij
with indices as above.
Proof Taking into account the relations ga,gb, it is enough to restrict
to polynomials h(T0,...,Tk) which have total degree with respect to the
variables (T1,...,Tk) at most one.
We use induction on the total degree (with respect to all variables) p of
the polynomial h.
We already noticed that for p = 1 it is true.
Assume it is true for all polynomials of total degree at most p−1 in the
kernel of φwhich have total degree with respect to thevariables (T1,...,Tk)
at most one. Let h(T0,T1,...,Tk) be a polynomial of total degree exactly p
in the kernel of φ, which has (T1,...,Tk)-degree at most one. Assume
p p−1
h(T0,...,tk) = e0T0 +T0 u1(T1,...,Tk)+L(T0,...,Tk)
wheree0 ∈ OX,u1is(homogenously)linearin(T1,...,Tk),andL(T0,...,Tk)
has total degree at most p−1. Write
p−1
h(T0,...,Tk)= T0 (e0T0+u1)+L.
We have
valD(e0s0+u1(s1,...,sk)) ≥ 0,
otherwise valDh(s0,...,sk) ≤ −k, which contradicts h(s0,...,sk) = 0.
Therefore, by Remark 2.4
e0s0+u1(s1,...,sk)∈ OX.
By the case p = 1, there exists c∈ O such that
X
e0T0+u1(T1,...,Tk)−c∈ (fa,fb,ga,gb).
We finish the proof by using the inductive hypothesis on the polynomial
p−1
cT0 +L(T0,...,Tk).
QED
6
2.3 The theorem
Remark 2.7 Asin[PR]Lemma1.1,wecanassumethats0 ∈ HomOX(ID,OX)
is injective, write
s0: ID → IN ⊂ OX
for the image of s0.
We will use the following rather general result
Proposition 2.8 Let A be a Cohen–Macaulay ring, I an ideal of codimen-
sion one, φ: I → A an injective A-homomorphism with image the ideal
J ⊂ A. Assume that if for a ∈ A we have I ⊂ (a), then a is a unit of A.
Then J has codimension one in A.
Proof By the assumption, there exists an A-regular element w in I. φ(w)
is not a unit, otherwise for all b ∈ I we have
−1 −1
b = φ(w)(φ(w)) b = (φ(w)) φ(b))w,
contradictingourassumptions. Sinceφisinjective,φ(w)isaregularelement
of J, so J has codimension at least one.
Assume now that J has codimension at least two. Since A is Cohen–
Macaulay, there exists an A-regular sequence of length two contained in J.
That immediately implies that the natural map from A to Hom (J,A) is
A
an isomorphism. As a result, φ−1: J → I is given by multiplication by
an element a ∈ A. If a is a unit, we get J = I, a contradiction since I
has codimension one. If a is not a unit, then I ⊂ (a), contradicting our
assumptions. So J can only have codimension one. QED
Corollary 2.9 We have codimOX IN = 1.
Proof Suppose that for an element a∈ O we have
X
I ⊂ (a) ⊂ O .
D X
Recallthatweassume(Remark2.3)thattheidealI ofO isnotprincipal,
D X
thereforea ∈/ ID. Letw1 ∈ ID beanonzeroelement. We havethat adivides
w1, and since ID is prime, there exists w2 ∈ ID with w1 = aw2. Continuing
this way, we get an increasing sequence of ideals of O
X
(w1) ⊂(w2) ⊂ (w3)⊂ ...
7
such that wi = awi+1. Since OX is Noetherian, this sequence becomes
stationary, sothereexistsanindexiandb ∈ OX withwi+1 = bwi. Therefore
(ab−1)w = 0, and since O is an integral domain we get a a unit. Then,
i X
the Corollary follows from Proposition 2.8. QED
For simplicity, we set
R1 = OX[T0,...,Tk]/(fa,fb,ga,gb).
−1
By Proposition 2.6, R1 is isomorphic under φ to OX[ID ] ⊂ K(X), so it is
an integral domain and therefore T0 is an R1-regular element. Let (T0) be
the ideal of R1 generated by T0.
Proposition 2.10 We have the following isomorphisms of O -modules
X
R1/(T0) ∼= HomOX(ID,OX)/(s0) ∼= HomOX(IN,OX)/(iN) ∼= ωN,
where iN ∈ HomOX(IN,OX) is the natural inclusion iN: IN → OX. Notice
that in the second and third quotient we divide by the O -submodules gen-
X
erated by the respective elements, while in the first with the ideal (that is,
the R1-submodule) generated by T0.
Proof By Corollary 2.9 wehave thatN hascodimension oneinX. There-
fore, the adjunction exact sequence
0 → OX → HomOX(IN,OX) → ωN → 0
gives the isomorphism
HomOX(IN,OX)/(iN) ∼= ωN.
The isomorphism s0: ID → IN induces an isomorphism
∗
s0 :HomOX(IN,OX) → HomOX(ID,OX)
∗
with (s0)(iN) = s0. The isomorphism
HomOX(ID,OX)/(s0)∼= HomOX(IN,OX)/(iN)
follows.
Now we will prove that
R1/(T0)∼= HomOX(ID,OX)/(s0).
8
Using the isomorphism R1 ∼= OX[ID−1], is it enough to prove that
OX[ID−1]/(s0)∼= HomOX(ID,OX)/(s0)
as O -modules. Again, the first quotient is with respect to the ideal gener-
X
ated by s0, while the second is with respect to the submodule.
Denote by ψ the composition
−1 −1
HomOX(ID,OX)→ OX[ID ]→ OX[ID ]/(s0),
(the first map is the natural inclusion).
Clearly s0 is in the kernel of ψ. Using the relations ga,gb we get that
the map ψ is surjective.
CLAIM ker(ψ) = (s0).
Proof of Claim: Assume u(s1,...,sk) ∈ ker(ψ), where u(T1,...,Tk) ∈
OX[T1,...,Tk] has total degree at most one. There exists h(T0,...,TK) ∈
OX[T0,...,Tk] with
u(s1,...,sk) = s0h(s0,...,sk).
−1
(Equality inside OX[ID ].) As a consequence, valD(h(s0,...,sk)) ≥ 0. By
Remark 2.4, h(s0,...,sk) ∈ OX. Therefore, u(s1,...,sk) is inside the OX-
submodule of HomOX(ID,OX) generated by s0. QED
Remark 2.11 To prove that R1 Gorenstein it is enough to prove that
−1
R1/(T0) is Gorenstein. This is because ID and OX are graded so OX[ID ]
hasanaturalgradingandwiththat,T0 isahomogeneouselementofpositive
degree (cf. [BH] Exerc. 3.6.20(c), p. 144).
Remark 2.12 To prove that R1/(T0) is Gorenstein, it is enough, due to
Proposition 2.10, to prove
grade (m,ω )= dimO −1,
OX N X
wherem = (a ,z,w ) is theuniquemaximal homogeneous ideal of O , and
ij p X
Ext1OX(ωN,OX) ∼= ωN,
the isomorphism as O -modules.
X
Proposition 2.13 We have
grade (m,ω )= dimO −1.
OX N X
9
Proof By Remark 2.1,
gradeOX(m,ωD) = dimOX −1.
Using the two adjunction sequences for ω and ω the result follows using
D N
the arguments of step 2 of the proof of [PR] Theorem 1.5. QED
Remark 2.14 It is clear that the map
h3: OD → ωD
with
h3(a) = ares(s0)
is injective. Write T for the cokernel of h3. From Remark 2.1 it fol-
lows that as an O -module T is isomorphic to a direct sum of k copies
X
of OX/(a11,...,ak+1,n).
Therefore, the support of T in O has codimension in Spec(O ) equal
X X
to (k+1)n−(nk−1) = n+1 ≥ 3. Using [BH] Corollary 3.5.11, we get
1 2
Ext (T,O )= Ext (T,O )= 0.
OX X OX X
We are now ready to prove our main theorem.
Theorem 2.15 The ring O [I−1] is Gorenstein
X D
Proof We follow the pattern of the proof of [PR] Theorem 1.5.
Using Remarks 2.11, 2.12, and Proposition 2.13, it is enough to prove
that
Ext1OX(ωN,OX)∼= ωN
as O -modules.
X
Start with the two columns consisting of canonical maps
I O
X
T T
OX HomOX(ID,ωX)
↓ ↓
 
Oy ωy
D D
10