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

A holomorphic vector bundle $E\to M$ over a compact Kähler manifold $M$ with Kähler form $\omega$ is called stable if for any coherent analytic subsheaf $\mathcal F$ of lower rank of $E$ there holds $\mu(\mathcal F)<\mu(E)$ where $\mu(\mathcal F)=deg_\omega(\mathcal F)/rank(\mathcal F)$ and $deg_\omega(\mathcal F)=\int_MC_1(\mathcal F)\wedge *\omega$ where $C_1$ is the form representing the first Chern class.

My question is where can I find a proof (in case there is one) of the fact that such a stable holomorphic vector bundle is simple (which means that any holomorphic endomorphism is a constant times the identity). In the famous Uhlenbeck-Yau paper of 1986 it is said that "it is very likely" that it is true but they assume simplicity rather than giving a proof.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 7 down vote accepted

As far as I can tell the following argument given in the case of $\mathbb{P}^n$ from Okonek-Schneider-Spindler "Vector bundles on complex projective spaces" works here as well. If someone could check this over I'd be grateful, as I'd be surprised if Uhlenbeck-Yau missed it.

First show that if $f:E_1\to E_2$ is a homomorphism of stable bundles of the same slope then $f$ has the "expected rank," i.e. it is either injective or generically surjective. For if $I$ is the image sheaf and its rank is smaller than expected, we have by stability

$$\mu(I) > \mu(E_1) = \mu(E_2) > \mu(I),$$

a contradiction.

Next suppose $f:E_1\to E_2$ is a nonzero homomorphism of stable bundles of the same rank and $c_1$. By the previous paragraph, $f$ is injective. Then the induced map $\det E_1\to \det E_2$ is also injective; this is a map of line bundles of the same $c_1$, so it is in fact an isomorphism. But then $f$ originally must have been an isomorphism.

In particular, any nonzero endomorphism $f:E\to E$ of a stable bundle is an isomorphism. Now choose a point $x\in X$, and look at the action $f_x : E_x\to E_x$ on the fiber. Choose an eigenvalue $\lambda\in \mathbb{C}$ of $f_x$. Then $f-\lambda I$ is either zero or an isomorphism, but it isn't an isomorphism at $x$ so we conclude $f = \lambda I$.

share|improve this answer
Could you please explain to a newbie like me why $\mu(I)>\mu(E_1)$? –  Mircea Jul 26 '13 at 5:21
Because $I$ is a quotient of $E_1$ of smaller rank and $E_1$ is stable. (Using an exact sequence $0\to K \to E_1 \to I\to 0$, we have $\mu(I) > \mu(E_1)$ iff $\mu(K) < \mu(E_1)$.) –  Jack Huizenga Jul 26 '13 at 5:29

It seems that the answer is very simple (and should have been known to Uhlenbeck-Yau). Let $E$ be a stable bundle, equipped with an Hermitian-Einstein metric and connection, and $End(E)$ its authomorphism bundle, which is also Hermitian-Einstein, with slope 0. Then any automorphism is parallel, because a Hermitian-Einstein bundle with slope zero cannot have non-parallel sections. Then the corresponding eigenbundles are parallel with respect to the connection. A parallel sub-bundle of a Hermitian bundle obviously splits.

share|improve this answer
How do you equip a stable bundle with a Hermitian-Einstein metric? –  Mircea Jul 27 '13 at 9:02
You equip it by Uhlenbeck and Yau, indeed... That's the point of Misha's answer I think! On the other hand, this is certainly not the easy direction in the Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondence! –  diverietti Jul 27 '13 at 10:00
but as I said Uhlenbeck and Yau assume simplicity in their definition of stability.. –  Mircea Jul 27 '13 at 14:31
Understood. Now simplicity is never assumed in the definition of stability (see Lubcke-Teleman). Sorry for a confusion. –  Misha Verbitsky Jul 28 '13 at 11:08

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.