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 pure dimensional projective complex scheme, reducible and non-reduced but without embedded components of lower dimension. Let $X=\cup X_i$ be the decomposition such that $X_i$ is set-theoretically irreducible and $\dim(X_i\cap X_j)<\dim(X_i)$.

Let $F_X$ be a torsion free sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules. If $F$ is generically locally free on each $X_i$ then one can define its multi-rank. What to do if $F|_{X_i}$ is not generically locally free?

For example let $X:=(x^p=0)\subset\mathbf P^2$ be the multiple line. Let $F_j$ be the $\mathcal{O}_X$ module generated by $x^j$. For $0 < j < p$ it is not locally free at any point.

My guess: let $pt\in X_i$ be generic enough closed point. Let $p_i$ be the generic multiplicity of $X_i$. At the point $pt\in X$ consider the intersection of $X_i$ with the generic plane of the complementary dimension. This gives the sub-scheme $Y\subset X $ supported on $pt$. Take the fraction $\frac{length(F\otimes\mathcal{O}_Y)}{p_i}$ as the rank on $X_i$.

In the previous example this gives the rank of $F_j$: $\frac{p-j}{p}$.

Is this the commonly accepted definition? References?

share|improve this question
Dear qui-vadis, could you say what ``torsion-free" means? I'm not sure what this means when $X$ is non-reduced. In your example, the sheaf $F_j$ has the property that a non-zero local section can be killed by a non-zero local regular function. –  jlk Nov 16 '10 at 6:33
Torsion-free= every stalk is torsion free= if an element s of the stalk of F is killed by a non-zero divisor in the local ring then s=0. Or, the sheaf does not have a subsheaf supported on a subscheme of smaller dimension –  Dmitry Kerner Nov 16 '10 at 12:12

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I don't know about commonly accepted, but here is one definition of rank (not multi-rank) that appears in theory of stable sheaves. Fix an ample line bundle $L$ and consider the Hilbert polynomial $P_{L}(F, t)$, defined by

$$ P_{L}(F, n) = \chi(F \otimes L^{\otimes n}). $$

The leading term of $P_{F, L}(t)$ is of the form $ \frac{r}{d!} t^d$, where $d$ is the dimension of the support. The number $r$ is called the ``rank" (with respect to $L$).

You can try to define multi-rank by doing this component-by-component.

Added: Here is an example. Consider the projective plane $\mathbb{P}^2_{\mathbb{C}}$ with coordinates $X, Y, Z$. A closed subscheme $C$ is defined by $X^p=0$, and the hyperplane class defines a very ample line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ on $C$. What are $\mathcal{L}$-ranks of some sheaves on $C$?

The Hilbert polynomial of the structure sheaf is: $$ P_{\mathcal{L}}(\mathcal{O}_{C}, T) = p T + 1 - \frac{(p-1)(p-2)}{2}. $$

In particular, the $\mathcal{L}$-rank is not $p$ and not $1$! More generally, you can check that every line bundle on $X$ has $\mathcal{L}$-rank $p$. This suggests that the $\mathcal{L}$-rank takes into account both the degree of the polarization and some information about the generators of $F$.

Now let's consider a sheaf that is generically non-zero, but also generically non-free. If $i \colon \mathbb{P}^1 \to C$ is the inclusion of the reduced subscheme, then

$$I := i_{*}(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1})$$

has this property. An application of the projection formula shows that the Hilbert polynomial of this function is: $$ P_{\mathcal{L}}(I, T) = T + 1. $$

In particular, the $\mathcal{L}$-rank is $1$!. The ratio of the $\mathcal{L}$-rank and the degree of $\mathcal{L}$ is equal to $1/p$. This looks closer to the number you are expecting.

share|improve this answer
Thanks. (Though I would prefer some standard textbook). It seems his rank coincides with the rank of the sheaf restricted to the reduced locus. (In particular his rank is always integer.) I need the rank of the sheaf on the genuine non-reduced scheme... –  Dmitry Kerner Nov 17 '10 at 4:13
@qui-vadis: Sorry, I just noticed this comment. The rank that Simpson uses is always an integer, but it does take into account the non-reduced structure. I added an example to illustrate what happens for non-reduced schemes. –  jlk Nov 21 '10 at 5:38

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.