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

So, I feel like I'm missing something obvious, but I have the following situation:

Let $X\to Y$ be a finite group quotient of schemes (in fact, varieties) by the finite group $G$. Let $\tilde{Y}\to Y$ be any resolution of singularities. Then we have a natural map $X\times_Y \tilde{Y}\to X$ which is birational, and $X\times_Y \tilde{Y}\to \tilde{Y}$ is a quotient by $G$. I want to be able to say that $X\times_Y \tilde{Y}$ is a resolution of $X$, and if $G$ acts freely, I can see how. But what if there's a locus (let's say a divisor) where $G$'s action has stabilizers?

EDIT: I'm leaving the above, though that situation is no good, thanks to comments below and abx's answer. But perhaps this is more reasonable:

Given $X\to Y$ a quotient by $G$ a finite group and $\tilde{Y}\to Y$ a resolution of $Y$, can I always find a resolution $\tilde{X}\to X$ such that $G$ acts on $\tilde{X}$ and $\tilde{X}/G\cong \tilde{Y}$?

share|improve this question
2  
The fiber product you write is typically singular. –  Lev Borisov Jun 9 at 11:17
    
Is there any reasonable to check criterion for when it's smooth? –  Charles Siegel Jun 9 at 12:10
    
Why do you believe that $X \times_Y \widetilde{Y} \rightarrow \widetilde{Y}$ is the quotient by the natural $G$-action on the source (say assuming $X$ and $Y$ are quasi-projective varieties over an algebraically closed field)? This entails some delicate algebraic conditions, not just topological ones, and the formation of such quotients generally does not commute with non-flat base change (beyond the case of a free $G$-action). –  user76758 Jun 9 at 12:53
    
User76758: Good point, I am working in a specific situation and can check it there. Though between your comment, Lev's comment, and abx's answer, I think I've realized that I didn't quite ask the question that I wanted to, but a much stronger statement. I'm editing the question to rephrase. –  Charles Siegel Jun 9 at 13:01

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I suspect that you will have trouble with trying to "simultaneously" resolve $X$ and $X/G$. We actually run into this issue in the joint paper with Anatoly Libgober arXiv:math/0206241 (although it may not be evident from the paper) and consequently had to settle for working with $\hat X\to\hat Y$ which was $G$-equivariant morphism of smooth varieties which is not necessarily a quotient map. It didn't matter for us a whole lot, since we were working with the formalism of log-terminal pairs.

However, it may not be completely impossible to find this "simultaneous resolution", especially if you know something about $X$ (say it is of small dimension). You can start by using abelianization trick of Batyrev (arXiv:math.AG/0009043) to reduce to the situation when the stabilizers of the action of $G$ are abelian. But then you get into a bit of trouble.

Let me illustrate this trouble by the simplest example, that of $A_2$ singularity. Let $G=\mathbb Z_3$ act on $X=\mathbb C^2$ by $(x,y)\mapsto (xw,yw^{-1})$ where $w=\exp(2\pi I/3)$.

One may view the quotient in terms of toric geometry: one starts with the toric variety that corresponds to the cone $C=(\mathbb Q_{\geq 0})^2$ in the lattice $N=\mathbb Z^2$. Taking the quotient by the above group has the effect of enlarging the lattice $N$ to a coindex three suplattice $N_1=\mathbb Z^2+ {\mathbb Z}(\frac 13,-\frac 13)$. The minimal resolution of singularities of the quotient corresponds to subdividing the cone $C$ into three cones $$ \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(1,0)+\mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(\frac 23,\frac 13),~~ \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(\frac 23,\frac 13)+\mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(\frac 13,\frac 23),~~ \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(\frac 13,\frac 23)+\mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(0,1) $$ which are generated by lattice elements of $N_1$ (the two additional rays correspond to the two exceptional divisors of the minimal resolution).

Taking the obvious $\hat X$, which is the normalization of resolution of $Y$ in the field of functions of $X$ corresponds to considering the same subdivision, but now in the original lattice $N$. The same cones can be written now in terms of minimum generators as $$ \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(1,0)+\mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(2,1),~~ \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(2,1)+\mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(1,2),~~ \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(1,2)+\mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(0,1). $$ The middle cone is now not generated by a basis of the lattice (determinant is three) and thus gives a singular point.

If one is looking for a toric "simultaneous" resolution of this singularity, then one needs to make a subdivision in such a way that for each of the smaller cones taking minimum generators in either lattice $N$ or $N_1$ gives a basis of the said lattice. This requires that in each cone exactly one of minimum generators of $N$ coincides with that of $N_1$. It is possible to do it in this example by splitting the middle cone into $$ \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(2,1)+\mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(1,1),~~ \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(1,1)+\mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(1,2) $$ which becomes $$ \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(\frac 23,\frac 13)+\mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(1,1),~~ \mathbb Q_{\geq 0}( 1,1)+\mathbb Q_{\geq 0}(\frac 13,\frac 23) $$ in $N_1$.

So in this example such $\hat X$ exists. You can try playing with other surface singularities, say $A_n$ for starters. If I were to bet on this, I would say that if you can handle $A_4$, then you should be able to get all of $A_n$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks a lot, looks like I'll need to find a workaround in my situation. –  Charles Siegel Jun 11 at 0:06

It is a good exercise to make the computation in the simplest possible case: $X=\mathbb{C}^2$, $G=\mathbb{Z}/2$ acting by the antipodal involution, so that $Y$ is a quadratic cone, $\tilde{Y}$ obtained by blowing up the vertex of the cone. Locally $\tilde{X} :=X\times _Y\tilde{Y} $ is given in $\mathbb{C}^3$ by the equations $x(y-tx)=y(y-tx)=0$. That is, $\tilde{X} $ is the plane $y=tx$, with an embedded line along $x=y=0$ (corresponding to the exceptional divisor).

share|improve this answer
    
This is a nice example, but there is something I am missing in it. If you consider the blow-up $Z \rightarrow X$ of $X$ along $0$, then $Z$ maps surjectively to $\tilde{X}$. But $Z$ being integral, I think this implies that $\tilde{X}$ is integral (because the map $Z \rightarrow \tilde{X}$ is surjective). –  Libli Jul 8 at 22:22
    
That's not true, think of a non-reduced scheme $X$ and the map $X_{red}\rightarrow X$. –  abx Jul 9 at 4:56
    
Well the map you mention is not surjective at the scheme-theoretic level but I understand what you mean. It seems that the map from $Z$ to $\tilde{X}$ is only surjective at the set-theoretic level and not at the scheme-theoretic level. –  Libli Jul 9 at 17:33

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.