0
$\begingroup$

Suppose $F: {\mathbb C}^N \to {\mathbb C}$ defines a singularity at the origin (for simplicity one can assume that $F$ is a quasi-homogeneous polynomial). Suppose it is nondegenerate, i.e., $dF(z) = 0$ only at $z = 0$. Let $D_i \subset {\mathbb C}^N$ be the divisor defined by $\partial_i F$.

My question is: is there a natural condition on $F$ to guarantee the following (or can we prove the following under the nondegenerate condition):

For any $I \subsetneq \{1, \ldots, N\}$, $F$ doesn't vanish identically on (any component of) the intersection

$$\bigcap_{i \in I} D_i.$$

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

Assume that $F$ is quasihomogeneous.

A condition on $F$ would be the following. For each $k$ write $F=x_kG+H_k(x_1,\dots,x_{k-1},x_{k+1},\dots, x_N)$. Then $H_k$ is quasihomogeneous. If for each $k$ the polynomial $H_k$ has an isolated singularity in $\mathbb{C}^{N-1}$ then $F$ does not vanish identically on any irreducible component of $\cap_{i\in I} D_i$ for any $I$ under consideration.

However, if $H_k$ has a nonisolated singularity in $\mathbb{C}^{N-1}$ then $F$ does vanish identically on an irreducible component $\cap_{i \in \{1,\dots, N\}, i\neq k} D_i$.

To prove the first statement, note that it suffices to prove it for any $I$ with $N-1$ elements. Let $I_k$ be the subset where we leave out $k$. Also note that by the Euler relation for quasihomogeneous polynomials we have that the partials of $F$ form a complete intersection. Therefore any irreducible component of $C_k:=\cap_{i\in I_k} D_i$ has dimension one. If $F$ vanishes on an irreducible component of $C_k$ then by the Euler relation for quasihomogeneous polynomials we find that $x_k \partial_k F$ is zero on this particular component. If $\partial_k F$ would be zero then $F$ would have a nonisolated singularity, hence $x_k=0$.

Now the partial of $F$ wrt to $x_i$ for $i\neq k$, when restricted to $x_k=0$, coincide with the partial of $H$ wrt to $x_i$. Since $H$ has an isolated singularity we find that no component of $C_k$ is contained in $x_k=0$. This proves the first statement.

The second statement follows along the same lines.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.