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

Suppose X is a normal projective complex variety, (X, $\Delta$) is a klt pair and f : X $\to$ Z is a Mori fiber space given by a contraction of an extremal ray for this pair. Here I mean that the relative dimension is at least 1. Do we know anything about the singularities of Z? Z is normal more or less by construction and we do know that if X was Q-factorial then so is Z. Can we say anything more? Eg: is there a $\Delta'$ on Z with (Z, $\Delta'$) klt? Does Z have rational singularities? What if $\Delta$ = 0, is Z terminal? Canonical?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Under the assumption that $X$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-factorial, section 5 of the paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0606666 addressed this issue, which was also proved earlier in Ambro's paper. Basically, if you assume the pair $(X,\Delta)$ is klt, so is the base $(Z,\Delta_Z)$ for some $\Delta_Z$. As the example of Prokhorov shows, this is optimal, namely, the base may not be terminal (canonical) even you assume the $(X,\Delta)$ is. For lc case, I think dlt modification+perturbation reduce the question to the klt case.

share|improve this answer
    
To Sandor: surely we can forget $\Delta_Z$. But I write $\Delta_Z$ because I want to emphasize in the proof the discriminant divisor will appear, and for many questions we should take it into account. –  CYXU Oct 15 '10 at 17:32
    
Hi Chenyang! Sure that makes sense, I just meant that for the original question. I actually thought about adding that nevertheless there might be natural divisor that should be added and that I can imagine that it is easier or more natural to prove that a certain pair is klt (etc) than proving it for the ambient variety directly. –  Sándor Kovács Oct 16 '10 at 7:15
    
Nice paper by the way! –  Sándor Kovács Oct 16 '10 at 7:16
add comment

Dear Eugene,

I think I can answer one of your questions, namely about $Z$ having rational singularities. It does and here is why:

$Z$ is indeed normal by construction.

Since $f$ is a Mori-contraction, $-K_X$ is $f$-nef and $f$-big. (In fact, since the relative Picard number is $1$ it is $f$-ample). I claim that $R^if_*\mathcal O_X=0$ for all $i>0$. If $f$ were birational, this would be a simple consequence of Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing. In this case we need to work a little more.

First, by Kollár's torsion-freeness theorem (see [Yujiro Kawamata, Katsumi Matsuda, and Kenji Matsuki. Introduction to the minimal model problem. In Algebraic geometry, Sendai, 1985, volume 10 of Adv. Stud. Pure Math., pages 283-360. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987.] for the format needed here and see the references there for proofs) these sheaves are torsion-free. (Not in general, just in this case!).

Second, let $U\subseteq Z$ be a non-empty subset over which $f$ is flat. The fibers over $U$ are Fano varieties and hence $H^i(F,\mathcal O_F)=0$ for $i>0$ for a fiber $F$. I probably should have taken a resolution to start with and then one would not have to worry about singularities, but at least for a general $F$ one can say that $(F,\Delta_{|F})$ is klt and hence Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing applies, so we get the above vanishing. Anyway, then by Grauert's theorem [Hartshorne, III.12] it follows that $(R^if_*\mathcal O_X)_{|U}=0$ for all $i>0$. However, we have already established that these sheaves are torsion-free, so if they are zero on a non-empty open set then they are zero everywhere.

OK, so we get that $R^if_*\mathcal O_X=0$ for all $i>0$. Now we are only almost there because the original definition of rational singularities would require this for a birational morphism and $f$ is decidedly not birational. But this still implies that $Z$ has rational singularities by SJK: A characterization of rational singularities.


Now, regarding whether $Z$ can be klt, canonical, etc. One simplification I can suggest is that you do not need the $\Delta'$ there. If you find a $\Delta'$ such that $(Z,\Delta')$ is klt, dlt, lc, etc, then so is $Z$ since by the $\mathbb Q$-factoriality $\Delta'$ will be $\mathbb Q$-Cartier. See [Kollár-Mori, 2.35].

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.