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

On a smooth projective surface, the intersection number of two divisors $C,D$ may be defined as $\chi(O)-\chi(O(C))-\chi(O(D))+\chi(O(C+D))$ (Hartshorne, ex. V.1.1). Bilinearity of the intersection number translates to the formula $\sum_{I\subset\{1,2,3\}}(-1)^{|I|}\chi(O(\sum_{i\in I}C_i))=0$ which is somewhat similar to the theorem of the cube in the form $\bigotimes_{I\subset\{1,2,3\}}m_I^*\mathcal L^{(-1)^{|I|}}\cong O$. Is this just a coincidence, or is there any deeper reason for this similarity?

share|cite|improve this question
Both are Moebíus-inversion-ish sums/products. – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Mar 2 '10 at 19:53

The reason for both is that the third derivative of a (nonhomogeneous) quadratic function is zero.

$\chi(O(D))$ on a surface is a quadratic function of $D$, by Riemann-Roch.

Theorem of cube on an abelian variety is another face of the fact that the Riemann theta funciton $$\theta(z,\tau)=\sum_m \exp(2\pi i(m^2\tau/2+ mz))$$ written as a sum of eigenfunctions $\sum_m c_m q^m$, $q=\exp(2\pi i z)$, has coefficients $c_m$ which are multiplicatively quadratic in $m$.

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.