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

Let $f:X\to Y$ be a finite dominant morphism of nonsingular varieties over some algebraically closed field. Let $P\in X$ be a point of codimension one, then $f(P)$ is also of codimension one. We can define the ramification index $e_P$ of $P$ in the same way one would do it if $X$ and $Y$ were curves, my main reference here is Hartshorne IV.2. My question is somewhat about the correct generalization of Proposition II.6.9 in Hartshorne.

From Liu's Book (Algebraic Geometry and Arithmetic Curves; in particular Thm. 7.2.18 and Exc. 7.2.3) I conclude that for any $Q\in Y$ of codimension one, we should obtain the equality

$\deg(f)=\displaystyle\sum_{P\in f^{-1}(Q)} e_P\cdot [k(P):k(Q)]$.

while

$\deg(f^\ast Q) = \displaystyle\sum_{P\in f^{-1}(Q)} e_P$

Now, I really want $\deg(f^\ast Q)$ to be constant for all $Q$ of codimension one - is this always the case? If not, can you name additional assumptions to make this work? Clearly, the condition $[k(P):k(Q)]=1$ for all $f(P)=Q$ comes to mind - in other words, the restriction of $f$ to any prime divisor of $X$ is an isomorphism. Does this hold under certain assumptions about $f$?

share|improve this question
    
Do you care primarily about curves, or do you need to say something about higher dimensional varieties? Hagen Knaf points this out as well. Also, I think the condition $[k(P) : k(Q)] = 1$ does NOT mean that the restriction of $f$ to any prime divisor of $X$ is an isomorphism. It means that the restriction of $f$ to any prime divisor induces a birational map to its image (of course, for curves, these are the same things). –  Karl Schwede Apr 26 '11 at 11:43
    
I am mostly interested in higher dimensional varieties. You're right about everything else, though. –  Jesko Hüttenhain Apr 26 '11 at 11:52
    
If $f$ is a Galois cover, then for all $P\in Y$ of codimension $1$ we have $r_P e_P f_P =\mathrm{deg}(f)$, where $r_P =|f^{-1}(P)$, $e_P$ is the ramification index of some (and thus all) point $Q\inf^{-1}(P)$ and $f_P =[k(Q):k(P)]$ for some (and thus all) $Q\inf^{-1}(P)$. Your requirement then is equivalent to $f_P$ as a function of $P$ is constant. If in addition $\mathrm{deg}(f)$ is a prime $p$, then either $f_P=p$ for all $P$ or $f_P=1$ for all $P$. Statements like this are treated in algebraic number theory, but I have'nt seen something like that for varieties. –  Hagen Apr 27 '11 at 10:29
    
That sounds interesting, what exactly is a Galois cover and why is the degree $[k(Q):k(P)]$ identical for all points in the fiber? –  Jesko Hüttenhain Apr 28 '11 at 7:52
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

In the situation you consider the degree $\mathrm{deg}(f)$ is equal to the degree $[K(X):K(Y)]$ of the extension of the function fields of $X$ and $Y$. The precise requirements are that $X$ and $Y$ are normal varieties and that $f$ is finite. The base field is not required to be algebraically closed.

For varieties of dimension $\geq 2$ there is no degree function for Weil divisors comparable to the one in the case of curves. Your definition(?) of $\mathrm{deg}(f^\ast Q)$ looks at least strange to me. How would you define the degree of an arbitrary Weil (prime) divisor of $X$? There should then be no reference to $f$ ...

share|improve this answer
    
I would have defined the degree of any Weil divisor to be the sum of its coefficients, but that is not really my point anyways. Mostly I would like $\sum_P e_P$ to be constant, and I would like to know when this is the case. –  Jesko Hüttenhain Apr 26 '11 at 11:45
4  
Dear Jesko, You can't define the degree of a Weil divisor in this way (well you can, of course, but it is a meaningless quantity, not preserved under linear equivalence, for example). You have to choose a projective embedding (or more-or-less equivalently, an ample divisor) and define degree relative to this embedding. Regards, Matthew –  Emerton Apr 26 '11 at 13:03
    
Dear Matthew, I am terribly sorry about my poor choice of words. I completely understand that my terminology was flawed there, if not even wrong. My intuition comes from the one-dimensional case and I should probably have given it more thought - However, I would really just like to know under what conditions the quantity $\sum_{P\in f^{-1}(Q)} e_P$ is a constant for all $Q$ of codimension one. It does not matter to me whether it is the degree of anything, to be frank. –  Jesko Hüttenhain Apr 26 '11 at 14:01
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.