Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

We know by some facts from Kobayashi, if the Kahler manifold $M$ has positive first Chern class, i.e., $c_1 (M)>0$ then $M$ is simply connected. So if $c_1 (M)<0$ under which assumption on $M$ , we have $π_1(M)={e}$.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

This is really more of an extended comment, since I'm not sure how to give a definite answer. When $\dim M=1$, $c_1(M)>0$ if and only if $M= \mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^1$ if and only if $M$ is simply connected, by the uniformization theorem. In the dimension $2$, things are more complicated. Certainly simply connected with $c_1 < 0$ exist. For example, any surface in $\mathbb{C}\mathbb{P}^3$ of degree $5$ or more will work. However, there are also plenty of nonsimply connected examples (products of curves of large genus, ball quotients...). Does this help?

Added Explanation: To explain where the examples are coming from and to answer your 2nd comment, let me explain I'm using Kodaira's embedding theorem to translate $c_1(M)<0$ to ampleness of the canonical bundle $K$. This condition is stable under products.

share|improve this answer
Of course I know the proof of this fact for$c_1(M)>0$. But I am looking for further assumption when $c_1(M)<0 or =0$ –  Hassan Jolany Jul 2 '12 at 1:28
My point was really the answer is NEVER in dimension $1$ and inconclusive in higher dimension. –  Donu Arapura Jul 2 '12 at 3:42
OK, for dim=1 you right, but in your example in higher dimension the products of curves of large genus, has negative sign or has not sign ? –  Hassan Jolany Jul 2 '12 at 10:18
The Ricci curvature adds when you take products, so indeed products of manifolds with $c_1<0$ will have $c_1<0$ by Yau's proof of the existence of a Kahler-Einstein metric. More simply, ampleness of the canonical bundle of two manifolds implies ampleness of the canonical bundle of the product, as this is the product of the canonical bundles. –  Ben McKay Apr 14 '13 at 19:10

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.