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

Good Morning,

I'm trying to prove that two different definitions of the Hirzebruch Surfaces coincide, and am having problems. Let $a \geq 0$. My first definition for the $a^{th}$ surface is

$X_a= \mathbb{P}(\mathcal{O}(a) \oplus \mathcal{O}) \longrightarrow \mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}}$

My second definition is as follows. Let $C_a$ be a degree $a$ rational normal curve, ie the image under $\mathcal{O}(a)$ of $\mathbb{P}^1_{\mathbb{C}}$ into $\mathbb{P}^a_{\mathbb{C}}$, and let $D_a$ be the projective cone over $C_a$. That is, $D_a$ is defined by the same equations which define $C_a$, except now $D_a\subseteq \mathbb{P}^{a+1}$. Then $D_a$ is a surface which is smooth except for the possibly singular point $v=[0,...,0,1]$. Define $Y_a$ to be the blow-up of $D_a$ at $v$.

Why are $X_a$ and $Y_a$ isomorphic? (I want to stick to the algebraic or complex category, no smoothness allowed!)

Robert

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 5 down vote accepted

The cone $D_a$ has a singular point of type $\frac{1}{a}(1,1)$ at its vertex. Blowing up the vertex, the exceptional divisor is a curve $C \subset Y_a$ isomorphic to $C_a$ and whose self-intersection is $\deg \mathcal{O}_{C_a}(-1)=-a$.

Since $Y_a$ is clearly a geometrically ruled surface over a rational curve (the ruling is given by the strict transform af the system of lines of $D_a$) and $C$ is a section of self-intersection $-a$, it follows $Y_a \cong X_a.$

Conversely, starting from the surface $X_a$ one can consider the unique section $C$ of negative self-intersection, namely $C^2=-a$; then this section can be blown down by Artin contractibility criterion.

The blow-down of $C$ is precisely the map $\varphi$ associated to the complete linear system $|C+aF|$ in $X_a.$

Indeed $h^0(X_a, C+aF)=a+2,$ hence $$\varphi \colon X_a \longrightarrow D_a \subset \mathbb{P}^{a+1}.$$

It is immediate to check that $\varphi$ is birational onto its image $D_a$, that it contracts $C$, that the ruling of $X_a$ is sent into a family of lines passing through the point $\varphi(C)$ and that a general hyperplane section of $D_a$ is a rational normal curve $C_a$ of degree $a$.

Therefore $D_a$ is a cone over $C_a$ and $X_a$ is isomorphic to the blow-up of $D_a$ at its vertex $\varphi(C)$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your answer. What do you mean by a 'type' of a singular point? I haven't been able to find this phrase in any of the books I normally check. –  Robert Garbary Jul 14 '11 at 18:00
    
Yes, I was somehow informal. I intended to say that the vertex is a quotient singularity of type $\frac{1}{a}(1,1)$. This means that it is locally analytically isomorphic to the quotient $\mathbb{C}^2/\mathbb{Z}_a$, where the action of a generator is $(x, y) \to (\xi x, \xi y)$ and $\xi$ is a primitive $a$-th root of unity. –  Francesco Polizzi Jul 14 '11 at 18:52
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.