MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I believe to have found a typo in Griffiths & Harris.

In the chapter on surfaces, section Rational Surfaces 1, I am trying to read the result that a holomorphic vector bundle over $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}}$ is a sum of invertible bundles.

What is the exact sequence that shows up at the start of his argument? Mine only has 2 terms and involves the fibres of E and H, which doesn't really make sense to me.

Any help would be appreciated.

share|cite|improve this question
Consider the "term" in that exact sequence that makes no sense because it's two terms written next to each other. Now put an arrow between them. Presto---you're back on track! – Kevin Buzzard Nov 1 '10 at 13:17
Hi Robert, There are many many typos in Griffiths and Harris. I've only gone through Chapters 0 and 1, but marked up my book in many places. I can show you next term when you're in my Kahler manifolds class. – Spiro Karigiannis Nov 1 '10 at 13:25
For the proof in the algebraic case, and a clever remark, try section 10.5, page 129, of Algebraic varieties, by George Kempf. – roy smith Nov 1 '10 at 15:41
(I have removed some gendered language. I hope I have not changed any intended meanings.) – Theo Johnson-Freyd Nov 1 '10 at 18:20
up vote 5 down vote accepted

Let $H$ be the divisor corresponding to the point $x\in \mathbb{P}^1$. Tensoring the exact sequence $$ 0\to O_{\mathbb{P}^1}(-H)\to O_{\mathbb{P}^1}\to O_x\to 0. $$ with $E\otimes H^k$, gives $$ 0\to O_{\mathbb{P}^1}(E\otimes H^{k-1})\to O_{\mathbb{P}^1}(E\otimes H^{k})\to E_x\otimes H_x^{k}\to 0. $$Here GH writes $E_x\otimes H_x^{k}$ for $E\otimes H^k\otimes O_x$, or what is the same, the fiber of $E\otimes O(H^{k})$ over $x$.

share|cite|improve this answer
What exactly is the final sheaf that appears there? I don't understand. – Robert Garbary Nov 2 '10 at 2:11
I edited my answer. – J.C. Ottem Nov 2 '10 at 12:00

I don't have my copy of Griffiths and Harris in front of me, but regarding Grothendieck's theorem, there's a nice elementary argument by Michiel Hazewinkel & Clyde F. Martin. Here is a link to ScienceDirect. It's only five pages, and mostly consists of linear algebra (and really, is closer to 3 pages, ignoring abstract, intro, and white space at the end).

share|cite|improve this answer
The classical theorem is called the Kronecker Pencil Lemma. There is a proof in one of Gantmacher's books on matrices. I also recall a modern proof in the book "Vector Bundles on Complex Projective Spaces", by Okonek et al. – Deane Yang Nov 1 '10 at 15:44
I think "only five papers" should be "only five pages." – Charles Staats Nov 2 '10 at 0:52
@Charles: Ack! Thanks for the correction – Charles Siegel Nov 2 '10 at 2:16

Your Answer


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.