MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

It may be difficult to give some special and non-trivial examples of Kähler cones.The examples I know are the following:

  1. for complex tori, the Kähler cone is just the set of positive hermitian matrices;
  2. for a Kähler manifold $M$ with $h^{1,1}(M)=1$, then the Kähler cone is just $\mathbb{R}_{+}$.

Thus in order to give a non-trivial example, firstly we must require $h^{1,1}(M)>1$. I would like to see an example such that:

  1. the cone equation or the boundary of the cone is clear;
  2. $c_{1}(M)>0$, or the sign of $c_{1}(M)$ is not definite (are there some intresting manifolds of this type?).

Of course, any explicit shape will be welcome.

share|cite|improve this question
Given that the question currently has $5$ downvotes and one close vote (mine) stemming from its inauspicious beginning, it might be best to close and delete it and start again from scratch. I wonder what the moderators think of this? – Pete L. Clark Dec 28 '10 at 11:38
This is a genuine question, I don't quite see why it is down-voted. If you want to look for non-trivial examples where the cone can be explicitly described, one case to consider is toric varieties, you might have a look at Section 6 in the book . Ample cone can be explicitly described as well for Fano surfaces. If you want the case when $C_1$ is not necessarily ample, you should definitely look in the article – Dmitri Dec 28 '10 at 12:51
I guess that the OP is a non-native english speaker, and this would explain the high number of grammar mistakes. However, I also think that this is a genuine question which does not deserve so many downvotes, so I took the liberty of fixing the english and the LateX (needless to say, always respecting the author). – Francesco Polizzi Dec 28 '10 at 13:13
The question was downvoted because in its original form it was, literally, random noise (check the edit history). I agree that it's a perfectly good question now. I would like to withdraw my vote to close. – Pete L. Clark Dec 28 '10 at 13:48

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.