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

It is well known that the Grassmanian of lines in $\mathbb P^3$ is isomorphic to a quadric in $\mathbb P^5$. I would like to ask if the tautological rank two bundle on the grassmanian extends to a rank two bundle on the whole of $\mathbb P^5$?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 5 down vote accepted

I would say it doesn't. The tautological Chern classes generate $H^*$ of the Grassmanian, but the inclusion to $\mathbb{P}^4$ does not induce an epimorphism.

share|cite|improve this answer
(you mean P^5, right?) – Qfwfq Feb 21 '14 at 11:27
Yes, sure. Actually, any $\mathbb{P}$ :) – Alex Degtyarev Feb 21 '14 at 11:29
Alex, I think your reasoning is correct. Could you give me a reference to some nice book that explains that tautological Chern classes generate $H^*$ of the Grassmanian? – aglearner Feb 21 '14 at 11:31
Over $\mathbb{Q}$ this is just comparing the dimensions (the keyword being "Schubert calculus"). A lot about Grassmanians (including everything about your favorite one) is found here: David Eisenbud and Joe Harris, 3264 & All That: Intersection Theory in Algebraic Geometry – Alex Degtyarev Feb 21 '14 at 11:43

Here is an answer for this specific case. Let $Q$ be the tautological bundle on $X$, the Grassmannian. If it can be extended to say $E$ on 5-spcae, using the fact that $H^1_*(Q)=0$, one gets from the exact sequence, $0\to E(-2)\to E\to Q\to 0$, that $H^1_*(E)=0$ and thus $H^0(E)\to H^0(Q)$ is onto. In particular, you can lift the 4 sections of $Q$ to $E$ and since they generate $Q$, we see that they generate $E$ outside finite set of points. Restricting to a general hyperplane not passing through these points, we get a 4 generated rank 2 bundle on 4-space, which by a theorem of Faltings (see Inventiones, 1981), is trivial. Then the usual Horrocks theorem will say that $E$ itself is trivial and thus so is $Q$, which is absurd.

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.