MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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 am working on the class of the Fulton-Macpherson compactification of configuration space in the Grothendieck ring of varieties, over the field of complex numbers. As a first step, I am wondering about the case of 2 points, i.e. the motive of $X[2]/S_2$ for a nonsingular variety $X$. For the case the two points coincide, one was lead naturally to the space $(\mathbb{P}(T_x^2/T_x))/S_2\cong\mathbb{P}((\mathbb{A}^n)^2/\mathbb{A}^n)$. My question is: (1) does this space admit an expression in terms of the Lefschetz motive $\mathbb{L}$? (2) does this space admit a cell decomposition? (i.e. is it a disjoint union of locally closed subvarieties isomorphic to affine spaces?)

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 0 down vote accepted

If we identify $T_x^2 / T_x$ with $\mathbb A^n$, then the action of $S_2$ is multiplication by $-1$. So $S_2$ acts trivially on the projectivization and you are just asking about the existence of a cell decomposition of projective space.

A useful reference might be the last parts of Ezra Getzler's old preprint "Mixed Hodge structures of configuration spaces". He derives explicit formulas for the $S_n$-equivariant "motivic" Euler characteristic of $X[n]$ in terms of the motivic Euler characteristic of $X$. Here "motivic" means that the Euler characteristic is taken in a suitable ring of the form $K$ tensored with the representation ring of $S_n$, where $K$ is e.g. the Grothendieck group of $\ell$-adic Galois representations or the Grothendieck group of Hodge structures. So his formulas include in particular the equivariant Hodge-Deligne polynomial. Then taking $S_n$-invariants just corresponds to the substitution $p_n \mapsto x^n$, where $p_n$ is the $n$th power sum and $x$ is an indeterminate.

share|cite|improve this answer
Yes you are absolutely right, but how about the case of at least three points? Does a clean motivic decomposition still exists? Also, thank you for the excellent reference! – xf495 Feb 6 '13 at 8:19

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.