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

In describing part of the geometry of the cone of curves for an algebraic surface $S$, we need to find $(-1)$ curves within $S$. Once we've done that, then we can say that the "negative" part of the cone of curves has as many extremal rays as $(-1)$ curves. Here I am using the cone theorem: $$\overline{NE}(S)=\overline{NE}(S)_{K_S\geq 0}+\sum_i \mathbb{R}^+[C_i]$$ where $C$ are such negative self-intersection rational curves.

However, is there an intuitive argument showing that if we have a curve of negative self-intersection, then such a curve is going to generate a extremal ray in the cone of curves?

What is known about this "positive" part $\overline{NE}(S)_{K_S\geq 0}$ of the cone describe in the theorem?

share|improve this question
    
That looks like an interesting theorem! Could you provide a link for those new to it, please? –  Ilya Nikokoshev Mar 2 '10 at 9:52
    
Sure, Wikipedia has two excellent references en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_of_curves –  Csar Lozano Huerta Mar 2 '10 at 15:42
2  
Your second sentence is not right as stated. Every rational curve of negative self-intersection yields an extremal ray, not only (-1)-curves. –  Andrea Ferretti Apr 14 '10 at 13:50
    
That's right...got it. Thks! –  Csar Lozano Huerta Apr 14 '10 at 14:29
add comment

3 Answers

EDIT: We may assume that the Picard number is at least two, as otherwise the cone is simply a ray generated by any effective curve. In particular, every effective curve is extremal. I will also assume that "curve" means "effective curve". (This edit was prompted by Damiano's comment that is now (sadly) deleted. It was a useful contribution.)

A curve on a surface is simultaneously a curve and a divisor and assuming the surface is smooth or at least $\mathbb Q$-factorial, then the curve, as a divisor, induces a linear functional on $1$-cycles. This works better if the surface is proper, so let's assume that.

So, if $C$ is such a curve, then the corresponding linear function on the space where $NE(S)$ lives is best represented by the hyperplane on which it vanishes and remembering which side is positive and which one is negative.

If $C$ is reducible, then it may have negative self-intersection, but it is not extremal. For an example, blow up two separate points on a smooth surface and take the sum of the exceptional divisors. My guess is that you meant irreducible, so let's assume that.

Now we have $3$ cases:

1) $C^2>0$. In this case $C$ is in the interior of the cone and it cannot be extremal, can't even be on the boundary (Use Riemann-Roch to prove this).

2) $C^2=0$. Since $C$ is irreducible, it follows that it is nef and hence a limit of ample classes, so it is effective, but as Damiano pointed out I have already assumed that. (It is left to the reader to rephrase this if $C$ is assumed to be nef instead of effective). In this case the hyperplane corresponding to $C$ as a linear functional is a supporting hyperplane of the cone, intersecting it at least in the ray generated by $C$. So $C$ is definitely on the boundary, but it may or may not be extremal depending on the surface. For example any curve of self-intersection $0$ on an abelian surface is extremal, but for instance a member of a fibration that also has reducible fibers is not extremal despite being irreducible. For the latter think of a K3 surface with an elliptic fibration that has some $(-2)$-curves contained in some fibers.

3) $C^2<0$. If $C$ is effective, then $C\cdot D>0$ for any irreducible curve $D\neq C$. This means that $C$ and all other irreducible curves lie on different sides of the hyperplane corresponding to $C$ as a linear functional, so the convex cone they generate must have $C$ generating an extremal ray.

Observe that we did not use the Cone Theorem. In fact one gets a different "cone theorem" this way:

Theorem Let $S$ be a smooth projective surface $H$ an arbitrary ample divisor on $S$ and let $$ Q^+=\{\sigma\in N_1(S) \vert \sigma^2 >0, H\cdot\sigma \geq 0 \} $$ be the "positive component" of the interior of the quadric cone defined by the intersection pairing. Then $$ \overline{NE}(S) = \overline{Q^+} + \sum_{C^2<0} \mathbb R_+[C] $$

There is also one for $K3$'S, using the above notation:

Theorem Let $S$ be a smooth algebraic K3 surface and assume that its Picard number is at least $3$. (If the Picard number is at most $2$, then there are not too many choices for a cone). Then one of the following holds:

(i) $$ \overline{NE}(S) = \overline{Q^+}, or $$

(ii) $$ \overline{NE}(S) = \overline{\sum_{C\simeq \mathbb P^1, C^2<0} \mathbb R_+[C]}. $$ The two cases are distinguished by the fact whether there exists a curve in $S$ with negative self-intersection. If the Picard number is at least $12$, then only (ii) is possible.

For proofs and more details, see this paper.

share|improve this answer
    
Hi damiano, yes, you are right, but... 1) The question is not interesting otherwise. If the Picard number is one, the cone is just a ray and every effective curve is extremal (belonging to the same extremal ray). But I should have said so. 2) I suppose you are referring to the comment that effective is not needed. When I wrote that I was going to write something different and did not go back to fix it. I will edit it now. –  Sándor Kovács Oct 19 '10 at 9:28
    
I agree that I was being very picky, and I had given you my vote! I have also erased my previous comment, as no longer relevant. d –  damiano Oct 19 '10 at 9:47
add comment

A curve (irreducible reduced divisor) C with negative selfintersection is always an extremal ray. To see it, first observe that C is the only effective divisor in its complete linear system |C| (if D~C, then C·D=C²<0 so C is a component of D, and therefore D=C), and for the same reason nC is the only effective divisor in |nC|. Now, if C were not extremal it would be possible to express it as the sum of two things in the Mori cone, which means you could write nC~D+E for some n, with D and E nontrivial effective divisors. This is a contradiction.

On the positive part, I believe the most difficult case is rational surfaces, see a recent preprint by Tommaso de Fernex arXiv:1001.5243. I also think in Lazarsfeld's book (Positivity in Algebraic Geometry) there are a few examples, including ones in which the positive part is "round" (part of its border is defined by the quadratic equation $C²\ge 0$).

share|improve this answer
add comment

One further comment (which I can't add as a comment due to lack of reputation): in the case where S is the blowup of the projective plane in $r \geq 10$ very general points (for smaller r, the K-nonnegative part of the cone of curves is either empty or a single ray), Nagata's conjecture on curves predicts the following upper bound: if there exists a curve C whose projection to the plane has degree d and passes through the blown-up points p_1,...,p_r with multiplicities m_1,...,m_r, then we have

$$ d > \frac{1}{\sqrt r} \ \sum_{i=1}^r m_i$$

To take a very simple case, this says that there cannot exist a cubic curve passing through 10 very general points in the plane (which of course we already know), or equivalently that the cone of curves of the blowup doesn't contain the K-positive vector 3L-L_1-...-L_10. (Here L is the class in N^1(S) of the line in the plane, and L_i the class of the exceptional curve of the blowup of p_i).

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.