4
$\begingroup$

By the GAGA principle we know that a holomorphic vector bundle E->X is analitically isomorphic to an algebraic one, say F->X, and by definition F is locally trivial in the Zariski topology. But since the isomorphism between E and F is analytic, I fail to see if this implies that E is Zariski locally trivial too.

I hope the answer is not "trivially yes" for some stupid reason, but I cannot guarantee that.

$\endgroup$

3 Answers 3

7
$\begingroup$

You get (analytic) trivializations of E over Zariski-open sets just by composing a trivialization of E with the isomorphism between E and F. Of course, you do not get algebraic trivializations, but for this you would need an algebraic structure on E in the first place.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ It seems to work, and it seems that my question was trivial, as I suspected. Thank you anyway, for your clarification :-) $\endgroup$ Nov 5, 2009 at 0:02
5
$\begingroup$

It's probably worth noting that etale-locally trivial principal GL(n)-bundles are automatically Zariski-locally trivial. This isn't necessarily true for general G.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ I don't see how the situation depends on the group G; can you explain a bit? $\endgroup$ Nov 5, 2009 at 2:24
0
$\begingroup$

My memory is fuzzy, but when you compute algebraic bundle cohomology, and it happens to be 0 here because of GAGA, I think, on all affine subschemes, wouldn't it automatically mean the bundle is locally trivial?

$\endgroup$

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.