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

I'm wondering if there is a generalization of the Proj construction used in algebraic geometry. Given a graded ring R, which is a monoid homomorphism $R\to \mathbb{N}$, we can form the scheme Proj(R), which is the union of Spec$(R_f)_0$.

I'm wondering if there is a way to extend this construction to general homomorphisms from a ring to a (sharp) monoid.

In particular, I want to see if there is a ``Proj'' construction which gives the product $\mathbb{P}^m\times\mathbb{P}^n$ from the bidegree $k[x_0,\ldots,x_m,y_0,\ldots,y_n]\to\mathbb{N}^2$.

(I know this can be seen via two consecutive Proj, but want to see if this generalizes, as I want to see what happens if the degree map take value in a general toric monoid.)

share|improve this question
    
What does "sharp" mean? That is has an identity and embeds into its Grothendieck group? Googling produces many instances of the phrase "sharp monoid", but not a definition. –  Anton Geraschenko Dec 3 '10 at 7:39
1  
Sharp means no (non-trivial) units. –  36min Dec 3 '10 at 7:43
2  
This is called "multi-proj" for submonoids of Z^n and is annoyingly hard to google due to google thinking you really meant "multi-project". Look in Miller and Sturmfels. –  Ben Webster Dec 3 '10 at 8:31
    
@Ben: I found the book at books.google.com/…, but can you give a more detail reference on sections, I can't search Multi-Proj in it either. –  Yuhao Huang Dec 3 '10 at 8:40
    
By the way, the only varieties you'll ever get are the usual projs of taking the graded pieces for multiples of a single generic vector in your monoid (maybe after saturation). You might also want to look into geometric invariant theory. –  Ben Webster Dec 3 '10 at 8:45
show 2 more comments

2 Answers

My naive guess from the examples is the following:

Spec$k[P^{gp}]$ (which is just a product of $\mathbb{G}_m$'s) (somehow) acts on Spec$R$, and a GIT-quotient gives the construction you need, because the Proj construction is just a GIT-quotient of Spec$R$ by $\mathbb{G}_m$ w.r.t a certain linearization.

I'm not sure if the above construction generalizes directly, maybe some extra data is necessary.

share|improve this answer
add comment

The monoid and the sharpness condition feel misplaced to me. After all, there's no reason a ring must be positively graded in order to take Proj of it.

A grading on $R$ is "really" a $\mathbb G_m$-action on $R$, which happens to be the same as a monoid homomorphism from $R$ to the character group of $\mathbb G_m$. $Proj(R)$ is obtained by cutting the $\mathbb G_m$-fixed locus out of $Spec(R)$ and quotienting what's left by the action of $\mathbb G_m$. So it feels like the more natural generalization to shoot for is "Proj" of a ring with group action.

But maybe not. I think a productive case to think about is $R=k[x,xy,x^2y]$ with the bi-grading inherited from $k[x,y]$. It seems to me unlikely that any reasonable generalized $Proj(R)$ would depend on which specific monoid you take, whether its $\mathbb N\times \mathbb N$, or something bigger, or something smaller. It may as well be $\mathbb Z\times \mathbb Z$.

share|improve this answer
    
Anton- You should know better than this. By your recipe, what is the Proj of k[x,y] with x of weight 1 and y of weight -1? This is one of the standard examples for why geometric invariant theory is a good reason and it involves (surprise, surprise) picking a positive direction. The monoid you use for your proj should be a submonoid of the ample cone on the result; it doesn't sound like you really want to have lots of units. Such line bundles can only see the affinization of your variety. –  Ben Webster Dec 3 '10 at 8:42
    
@Ben: I don't understand your objection. The recipe produces something over Spec of the zero-graded (invariant) subring. In your example, you get the non-separated line over the line Spec(k[xy]). It's weird, but what's so unreasonable about it? You're right that cutting out the fixed locus is probably the wrong thing to do, since you could artificially change this locus--the right thing is to remove points with large stabilizers. But once you do that, this recipe is basically the quotient of the pre-stable locus. It seems like I don't have to pick line bundle to construct things like ℙ^n. –  Anton Geraschenko Dec 3 '10 at 15:25
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.