Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

2

1

Hi.

Can anyone answer the two following questions:

For $n$-dimensional $X$ Cohen-Macaulay complex space, is it true that the sheaf of top degree homolorphic forms $\Omega^{n}_{X}$ has no torsion?

For $f:X\rightarrow S$ Cohen-Macaulay morphism of reduced complex spaces, is it true that $\Omega^{n}_{X/S}$ has no torsion on $X$?

I think that these two questions have negative answers; but I don't know how to prove it.

In fact, if it is true then the "fundamental class morphism" would be injective!

Thank you.

edited Jul 26 2010 at 17:42

Anweshi
4,226●2●25●56

asked Jul 26 2010 at 16:56

kaddar
359●1●6

1

The answer to (1) is definitely "no" since there is always a nowhere-dense analytic set on whose complement the space $X$ is Cohen-Macaulay. One gets similarly many counterexamples to (2) beginning with any flat analytic map $f$. – BCnrd Jul 26 2010 at 17:05

5

Dear Mohamed: please try to not post duplicate questions. As it stands, one of yours got -1 and the other +1 (who knows what's up with that). – BCnrd Jul 26 2010 at 17:07

3

@BCnrd: I don't understand the relevance of the existence of an open dense Cohen-Macaulay subset. In any case it is easy to give an example: Consider the union of the coordinate axes in the plane, $xy=0$. Then we have the only relation $xdy+ydx=0$ so that that $xdy$ is a non-zero torsion element (killed by $x$ and $y$). – Torsten Ekedahl Jul 26 2010 at 17:46

@Torsten: I was just pointing out that it should be ubiquitous that the requested condition fails, such as any situation where the sheaf is not torsion-free over the complement of a nowhere-dense analytic set (I was thinking of $X$ which is not generically reduced). – BCnrd Jul 26 2010 at 18:53

@BCnrd: Got you. A non-reduced counterexample is of course not cheating yet it somehow feels like it.... – Torsten Ekedahl Jul 26 2010 at 18:57

Anweshi · Answer 1 · 2010-07-26 18:40:07Z UTC

1

Thanks to Brian and Ekedahl.

Yes, in any case the answer is "NO"; After asking the question, I made some easy computation with the Whitney umbrella $\lbrace{(x,y,z)\in {\Bbb C}^{3}: x^{2}-zy^{2}=0}\rbrace$ which convinces me that 1) is not true.

For the second question, see Kunz-Waldi, Contem.Math 79 \$.5; the kernel of the relative fundamental class is almost never empty...

P.S: Excuse me, I don't know how to add some comment to the question.

edited Jul 26 2010 at 18:40

Anweshi

answered Jul 26 2010 at 18:32

kaddar
359●1●6

2

If one takes a reduced irreducible curve (hence Cohen-Macaulay), most of the time (and easy to check), the module of 1-forms will have torsion. In fact, a well known conjecture of Berger posits that if this module is torsion free then the curve is smooth. The conjecture is open to the best of my knowledge. – Mohan Kumar Jul 26 2010 at 19:26

Hi Mohan, nice to see you here ! – Chandan Singh Dalawat Jul 27 2010 at 3:03

1

kaddar, you should accept this answer by clicking the checkmark to the left, if you're satisfied by this. That way the question will be marked as answered in the system. – jc Sep 21 2010 at 3:19

Kahler forms on Cohen Macaulay spaces

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

1 Answer

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.