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

Let $S$ be a connected scheme. We say that $S$ is simply connected if every smooth and proper morphism $X \to S$ of relative dimension $0$ has a section. This is equivalent to the standard definition, since finite etale morphisms are smooth and proper morphisms of relative dimension $0$, and, after reducing to the connected case, havinga section is equivalent to being trivial.

Now say that $S$ is $d$-trivial if every smooth and proper morphism $X \to S$ of relative dimension $d$ has a section. So being $0$-trivial is the same as being simply connected.

We might extend the definition to call $\infty$-trivial schemes that are $d$-trivial for all $d$.

For what numbers $d>0$ can we say something about which schemes are $d$-trivial?

This question was originally inspired by this excellent question in which it is proven that $\operatorname {Spec} \mathbb Z$ is $1$-trivial but not $6$-trivial. The apparent difficulty of further progress on $\operatorname{Spec} \mathbb Z$ led me to wonder if other cases, such as varieties over $\mathbb C$, might be easier. In particular:

For what $d$ is $\mathbb P^1_\mathbb C$ $d$-trivial? $\mathbb P^n_\mathbb C$?

share|cite|improve this question
It is easy to see that $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}}$ is $1$-trivial: if the fibres have genus $0$ it follows from Tsen's theorem that there must be a section and if the fibres have genus $>0$ it follows from the fact that $\mathbb{P}^1$ is simply connected and that Teichmuller space is a bounded domain that any such morphism must be a product. – ulrich Mar 13 '13 at 5:43
For $g=1$ a simpler argument works: $M_1$ itself is affine! – Will Sawin Mar 13 '13 at 6:59
What about the analogous question for fibrations of topological spaces, or at least fiber bundles? – David Corwin Mar 13 '13 at 7:21
Characteristic 0? I think the counterexamples I gave you before, using Fulton-Deligne, might show that $\mathbb{P}^1$ is not $2$-trivial in positive characteristic (there are also Moret-Bailly pencils). – Jason Starr Mar 13 '13 at 10:54
@Dan Petersen: Any family of elliptic curves is a torsor of order $n$, for some $n$, over the family of Jacobians. If the base is simply connected the $n$-torsion local system of the family of Jacobians must be trivial and then its $H^1$ is also trivial. So the torsor is trivial, hence the original family has a section. – ulrich Mar 13 '13 at 11:17

Already $\mathbb{P}^2_{\mathbb{C}}$ is not $1$-trivial, e.g., the relative Proj of the symmetric algebra of the sheaf of relative differentials (the projectivized tangent bundle) cannot have any section.

$\textbf{Edit}.$ Also you can use Serre's construction to construct similar locally free sheaves of rank $2$ over $\mathbb{P}^1\times \mathbb{P}^1$. This raises a red flag in considering "$d$-simple" as a generalization of "simply connected". For every generalization of simply connected that I know of, a product of two "simply connected" varieties is again "simply connected". Yet that fails for "$1$-simple".

share|cite|improve this answer
Could it be that the correct generalization is that a product of a $d$-simple and a $d'$-simple variety is $(d+d')$-simple? – Dan Petersen Mar 13 '13 at 15:56
@Jason: Are there any higher-dimensional simply-connected varieties for which Serre's construction fails? I don't think simply-connectedness in characteristic $p$ has that property. @Dan: $d+d'$-simple implies $d$-simple, because you can always take the fiber product of a smooth proper cover with $\mathbb P^{d'}$. – Will Sawin Mar 13 '13 at 17:52
@Will: You can put a double structure on $\mathbb{P}^n$ as in Hartshorne, Exercise III.5.9 in such a way that the resulting scheme has no nontrivial locally free sheaves of rank $2$ coming from Serre's construction. In general, I believe it is an open question whether every proper scheme over a field has "enough locally free sheaves". Burt Totaro has a nice survey about this. – Jason Starr Mar 13 '13 at 18:23

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.