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'm reading a recent preprint by Beauville on the nonrationality of a specific sextic threefold $X$ which is a complete intersection of a quadric and a cubic in $\mathbb P^5$. At some point he uses that $H^0(X,\Omega^2)=0$, and I was having trouble figuring out why that was. It occurred to me that it might use the Hodge decomposition, its symmetry, and two applications of the Lefshetz hyperplane theorem, but I couldn't get it to work. Anyone know a quick answer?

share|cite|improve this question
Here's the argument I was thinking of which uses Lefschetz, which I should seen immediately: By Lefschetz $H^{p,q}(\mathbb P^5)$ is isomorphic to $H^{p,q}(C)$ for $p+q<4$, where $C$ is the cubic hypersurface. Applying this again by cutting with the quadric $Q$ to get our $X$, we see that $H^{p,q}(X)$ is isomorphic to $H^{p,q}(C)$ for $p+q<3$. Since the $h^{p,q}(\mathbb P^n)=0$ for $p\neq q$, this gives our result. I suppose since one proves Lefschetz with Kodaira vanishing, it's all the same really, but this is what I had in mind originally. – HNuer Feb 21 '11 at 20:36
Of course this is another possibility. The point is that this is a more general property of Fano manifolds... Of course all this needs $X$ to be smooth... – diverietti Feb 21 '11 at 21:55
up vote 5 down vote accepted

What you are asking for is not the second plurigenus: the second plurigenus is $h^0(X,2K_X)$. So do you need the vanishing of the second plurigenus or of the space of global holomorphic two forms?

If you need just the second plurigenus, then this is very easy since by adjunction $K_X\simeq\mathcal O_X(−1)$ and so $h^0(X,2K_X)=h^0(X,\mathcal O_X(−2))=0$ since $\mathcal O_X(−2)$ is negative.

On the other hand, if you need the vanishing of global holomorphic two-forms, this is quite easy, too. Just observe that since $-K_X\simeq \mathcal O_X(1)$, then $-K_X$ is positive. So, you get by Kodaira's vanishing $$ H^q(X,K_X-K_X)=H^q(X,\mathcal O_X)=0,\quad q\ge 1. $$ But now, by Dolbeault's isomorphism, $H^q(X,\mathcal O_X)\simeq H^{0,q}(X,\mathbb C)$. By the Hodge symmetry $h^{0,2}(X,\mathbb C)=h^{2,0}(X,\mathbb C)=h^0(X,\Omega_X^2)$, where the last equality is again thanks to the Dolbeault isomorphism, and you are done.

share|cite|improve this answer
Do you need any explanation about how to use adjunction formula to find the expression of the canonical bundle in term of the tautological bundle of the projective space? – diverietti Feb 21 '11 at 19:31
No, I understand why $K_X=\mathcal O_X(-1)$. – HNuer Feb 21 '11 at 20:27

$h^{q,0}(X) = h^{0,q}(X) = 0$ for any Fano $X$ and $q > 0$, because $-K_X$ ample implies $$ H^q(X, \Omega^0) = H^q(X, K_X \otimes (-K_X)) = 0 $$ by Kodaira vanishing.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.