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

Mumford’s theorem for surface says that for a surface $S$ with $p_g(S)\neq0$ ,$\text{CH}_0(S)$ is not representable(or infinite-dimensional). But in Voisin's LECTURES ON THE HODGE ANDGROTHENDIECK–HODGE CONJECTURES she says that the next theorem is the natural generalization of Mumford’s theorem: Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety with $\text{CH}_0(X)=\mathbb{Z} $, Then $H^{k,0}(X)=0$ for all $k> 0 $. But how can this theorem imply Munford's theorem? If not why she says it is the natural generalization.

share|cite|improve this question

I just looked at her notes. First she states the result you quote, that if $p_g(S) \neq 0$ then $\mathrm{CH}_0(S)$ is infinite dimensional. But after this she proves that if $\mathrm{CH}_0(S) \cong \mathbb Z$ then not only will $p_g = 0$ but also the irregularity vanishes. In other words $H^{2,0} = H^{1,0} = 0$. It is this statement that is then generalized to higher dimensions.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.