MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have heard several times that the proof of the second part of the Chow's moving lemma (of algebraic geometry), is problematic; and that this is the reason Fulton, Intersection theory, does not use it to define intersection product.

Has anyone heard similar claims, and if so, what/where is the gap ?

For completeness, I mean the moving lemma, say as stated in J.Roberts, Appendix 2(Algebraic Geometry, 1970, ed. Oort). The problem claimed is with the 'Moreover' part.

Lemma (Chow's moving lemma). - Let $W$ and $W'$ be cycles on X. Then there exists a cycle $W''$ rationally equivalent to $W'$ such that $W \cdot W''$ is defined. Moreover, there exists an algebraic family $\{Z(t)\}_{t \in P^1(k)}$ deforming $W'$ into $W$ such that $Z(t)\cdot W$ is defined for almost all t.

share|cite|improve this question
This is not the reason that the moving lemma is not used in Fulton's book. The way intersection theory is developed there is more general, since it requires no quasi-projectivity assumptions, and much more powerful, since he constructs a "refined" intersection product which is impossible using the moving lemma. – ulrich Dec 17 '12 at 13:30
I think that the proof of Roberts is correct for the case where the ground field is algebraic closed. May be the gap, if any, happens when k is not algebraic closed. By the way, in the second part, the family Z(t) is rational ($t\in \mathbb{P}^1(k)$), which is stronger than that you stated. – nono Dec 17 '12 at 15:23
Nono, thanks, I corrected the statement. I should have been more clear: the claim I heard was that there is no complete proof in the literature, or rather that some experts think so. – Andrew Dec 17 '12 at 16:30
Thanks, Andrew. However, I still do not know what parts of the proof that you think are problematic. Did the experts you contacted say so? Do you consider X not be smooth, or do you consider the case where the field k is not algebraic closed, or else? There is also the paper "Moving algebraic cycles of bounded degree" on Inventiones math. by Friedlander and Lawson, in which they present a proof of the result in Roberts as well (see page 99 on in the paper). – nono Dec 17 '12 at 17:42
By the way, the first part says that you can find a cycle W" which is rationally equivalent to W' such that W.W" is well-defined. If you accept the first part, then I think you must accept the second part as well, at least in principle. This is because to say that W" is rationally equivalent to W', you must have a family W(t) with $t\in \mathbb{P}^1(k)$ so that $W(0)=W'$ and $W(\infty )=W"$. Now this family intersects properly with $W$ at one point $\infty$, it should do so for a dense open set in $\mathbb{P}^1$. – nono Dec 17 '12 at 23:25

Your Answer


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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.