2
$\begingroup$

Consider de orbifold $\mathbb{C}^2$/$\mathbb{Z}_n$. In this case a full crepant resolution exists and it is unique. However, this orbifold admits partial resolutions. So my question is: Are all those partial resolutions crepant? or on the contrary, there is a unique partial crepant resolution too.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

You should really make this question more clear. What do you mean by a "partial resolution"? For instance, is it normal, or at least $S_2$? Is it $\mathbb Q$-factorial? Or is at least the canonical divisor $\mathbb Q$-Cartier? You need some assumption for the question to make sense.


Consider the crepant resolution $\pi:Y\to X$. (By the way if a surface has a crepant resolution it must be the minimal resolution and hence it is unique). Next, let's blow up a point on a $\pi$-exceptional curve $E\subset Y$ (say one that's not contained in any other exceptional curves) $\sigma: Z\to Y$. Now $Z$ is smooth and $F=\sigma^{-1}_*E$ has self-intersection $F^2=-3$ and $F\simeq \mathbb P^1$, so it can be contracted to a normal surface $Z\to W$. By construction we get a proper birational morphism $W\to X$. This is a partial resolution, but it is not crepant.


So, perhaps you mean a partial resolution that's partial to the crepant resolution. I mean that it is an intermediate partial resolution. That kind of partial resolutions are also crepant by the following Lemma (but let's do a definition first).

Definition Let $\alpha:X\to Y$ be a proper birational morphism between normal varieties. Assume that $K_Y$ is $\mathbb Q$-Cartier, then $\alpha$ will be called crepant if $K_X\sim \alpha^* K_Y$.

-

Lemma Let $\alpha:X\to Y$ and $\beta:Y\to Z$ be two proper birational morphisms and assume that $X,Y,Z$ are normal algebraic surfaces such that $K_Y$ and $K_Z$ are $\mathbb Q$-Cartier. then if $\beta\circ\alpha$ is crepant, then so are $\alpha$ and $\beta$.

Proof: Write $$K_X=\alpha^*K_Y+\sum a_iE_i$$ where $E_i$ are $\alpha$-exceptional irreducible divisors and $$K_Y=\beta^*K_Z+\sum b_jF_j$$ where $F_j$ are $\beta$-exceptional irreducible divisors. It follows that then $$K_X=\alpha^*\beta^*K_Z+\sum a_iE_i+\sum b_j\alpha^* F_j.$$ If $\beta\circ\alpha$ is crepant, then $$\sum a_iE_i+\sum b_j\alpha^* F_j\sim 0.$$ However, for each $j$, we have that $\alpha^*F_j= \widetilde F_j +\sum a_{ij}E_i$ where $\widetilde F_j$ is the strict transform of $F_j$ on $X$, so we get that for some other set of coefficients we have $$\sum c_iE_i+\sum b_j\widetilde F_j\sim 0.$$ The $E_i$ and $\widetilde F_j$ together are all $\beta\circ\alpha$ exceptional and hence linearly independent. Therefore $b_j=0$ for all $j$ and then $$\sum a_iE_i\sim 0$$ with the original $a_i$'s. The same reasoning says that then the $a_i=0$ which proves the statement.$\square$

Remark
It seems to me that the same proof works in arbitrary dimension, so one does not need to limit to surfaces for the Lemma.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ $\mathbb{Z}_n$ acts diagonally. It is a very known fact that the orbifold above admits a crepant resolution (this is an $A_{n-1}$ singularity, so the exceptional set is a chain of $\mathbb{P}^1$'s). Now, if you consider the total space of the canonical bundle of the weighted projective line $\mathbb{P}(1,n-1)$ you have a partial crepant resolution. My question is if this is the unique partial crepant resolution. And of course, I mean that this rsolution is partial because is an intermediate resolution. $\endgroup$
    – mathvader
    Feb 5, 2016 at 9:26
  • $\begingroup$ Of course. I was thinking something else. Sorry. $\endgroup$ Feb 5, 2016 at 9:30
  • $\begingroup$ ps: if that's your question, then this is an answer, no? $\endgroup$ Feb 5, 2016 at 9:32

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.