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

In Hartshorne's proof of a result of Igusa (see III, 9.13 of Hartshorne) he claims without proof that any two closed points on a variety can be connected by the image of a nonsingular curve, or by a finite number of such curves. I've seen something like this come up in other places as well, and I don't know why such a fact should be true or so obvious as not to explain. Can anyone explain it to me? Thanks

share|improve this question
3  
I think one could argue as follows: i) use Chow's Lemma (Harthshorne p.107) to reduce to the case that the variety is projective, ii) cut the variety by hyperplane sections to get a curve connecting the two points, iii) normalise to get the result. I am sure someone will correct me if I've missed something important... –  Artie Prendergast-Smith Sep 13 '11 at 15:58
3  

1 Answer 1

Mumford's book "Abelian Varieties" contains a proof of the following statement: given two points $x$ and $y$ on a variety, there is an irreducible curve containing both (Lemma on p. 56 in the section on the Theorem of the Cube). The normalization of the curve is non-singular, so this yields the desired result.

The proof is roughly what Artie said. Arguing by dimension, it is enough to produce an irreducible codimension $1$ subvariety containing the points. Pick a blow-up $f: X' \to X$ such that $X'$ is projective and the fibers $f^{-1}(x)$, $f^{-1}(y)$ are positive dimensional. Now fix a projective embedding of $X'$ and take a general hyperplane section $H$. This section is irreducible (Bertini) and meets the fibers $f^{-1}(x)$ and $f^{-1}(y)$ (for dimensional reasons). The image of $H$ under $f$ is the desired subvariety.

Question for the experts: What's an example where it is impossible to take the curve to be smooth?

share|improve this answer
3  
To answer your question: if $X$ is itself a singular curve! –  M P Sep 13 '11 at 16:22
    
Maybe less tautologically: if the singular locus of $X$ is the support of an ample divisor, then you are probably in trouble. –  M P Sep 13 '11 at 16:23
    
@MP: Your remark reminded me that in my proof sketch, I should have stated at the beginning "We can assume the dimension of $X$ is at least $2$." No suitable blow-up exists if $X$ is a single point... –  jlk Sep 13 '11 at 19:36
    
@jlk Also in order for your assertion that the general section meets the fibers $f^{-1}(x)$ and $f^{-1}(y)$ from a dimension count, I believe you also need that dim $X\geq 2$. You don't just need it to define the blow-up, unless you had some other dimensional reason in mind, which I'd like to here. Thanks for the nice answer. –  HNuer Sep 13 '11 at 20:06

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.