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

If $X$ is a normal projective variety and $D$ a divisor in it, we say that $\pi\colon (\widetilde X,\widetilde D)\rightarrow (X,D)$ is a log resolution if $\widetilde X$ is a resolution of $X$, the strict transfor $\widetilde D$ of $D$ is non-singular and $\widetilde D \cup \{ \text{exceptional divisors} \}$ have simple normal crossings.

I know little about techniques for resolution of singularities and as far as I am aware, for varieties over algebraically closed fields, the problem of finding resolutions of singularities is open.

However, I was wondering if the following is solved, by whom and if someone can provide me with a 'black-box' reference:

Question: Given a projective variety $X$ over a field of characteristic $p$ and a divisor $D$ on $X$, is there a log resolution of the pair $(X,D)$ in the cases where $X$ is a non-singular variety of small dimension (1,2,3) and/or in the case the $p\neq 2,3,5\ldots$? What if the variety is a product of a projective variety and the affine line?

Of course partial answers are appreciated. However the purpose of this is just to use it in a birational proof for something else, so by no means I intend to prove it myself or get any close to it.

share|improve this question
2  
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_of_singularities Resolution of singularities for varieties in dimensions 1,2,3 have been proved in all characteristics. –  Parsa Oct 24 '11 at 15:02
    
That is what made me post the question. I would like to have an actual reference other than Wikipedia. Moreover WP speaks just of resolution of singularities. What I am aiming for is \em{log resolutions} of pairs $(X,D)$. Is it 'obvious' that if $X$ has dimension at most $3$ and therefore $D$ has dimension at most $2$ I can find a resolution $\pi\colon(\widetilde X,\widetilde D)\rightarrow(X,D)$ such that $\widetilde X$ is a resolution of $X$ and $\widetilde D$ is non-singular \em{and $\pi^{-1}(D)$ consists of simple normal crossings} just because I can resolve $X$ and $D$ independently? –  Jesus Martinez Garcia Oct 24 '11 at 21:12
2  
I don't know if embedded resolution of singularities is known in dim 3. Without the $D$ and $p> 5$ (for some weird technical reason) it goes back to Abhyankar in the 60's, who also did the dim. 2 case earlier. There are newer proofs, I believe in unrestricted char and dim 3, due to Cutkosky Amer J 2009, and Cossart-Piltant J Algebra 2008/9. The link that Parsa gives more precise refs. –  Donu Arapura Oct 24 '11 at 22:49
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 3 down vote accepted

What you want does follow from Cutkosky's paper cited by Donu Arapura (and presumably already from results of Abhyankar, but I have not checked). One just has to combine his Theorems 1.1 and 1.2. More precisely, one can resolve singularities of $X$ using Theorem 1.1 to get $\pi_1: X_1 \to X$ with $X_1$ smooth and then apply Theorem 1.2 to the pair $(V,S) = (X_1,D_1)$, where $D_1$ is the union of $\pi_1^{-1}(D)$ and the exceptional divisors.

This requires that the characteristic be $>5$, but if you use the result of Cossart and Piltant instead of Cutkosky's Theorem 1.1 you can get a log resolution in any characteristic (since Cutkosky's Theorem 1.2 has no characteristic restriction).

share|improve this answer
    
You are right. The same is explained by Hauser in ams.org/journals/bull/2010-47-01/S0273-0979-09-01274-9/… It requieres a bit more than embedded resolutions because one wants to have log resolutions but Hauser explains this too. Thanks :) –  Jesus Martinez Garcia Oct 25 '11 at 10:19
    
However note that Cutkowsky, Cossart and Piltant paper are for non-singular threefolds! The case of $(X,D)$ where $X$ is a singular threefold is open. –  Jesus Martinez Garcia Oct 25 '11 at 11:21
1  
As I explained, one can first resolve the singularities of $X$ to reduce to the nonsingular case. The only potential problem I can see is that the exceptional locus or the inverse image of $D$ might not be pure dimensional. Is that what you are worried about? (It seems to me that this can be fixed by applying Cutkosky's Theorem 1.3.) –  ulrich Oct 25 '11 at 12:41
1  
If you are referring to Hauser's comment that embedded resolution is open for threefolds, I think what he means is that it is not known when $D$ has dimension $3$, not $X$. –  ulrich Oct 25 '11 at 12:42
    
First: it is enough to get embedded resolution, since one can get a log resolution from it following footnote 4 in Hauser. I am not an expert so for me your comment on reducing to non-singular case seems reasonable. Even if the inverse image of $D$ was not pure dimensional, one could do the modification above to make it so. However the strict transform of $D$ must also be pure dimensional and I am not sure this can be achieved in that way. –  Jesus Martinez Garcia Nov 2 '11 at 12:32
show 2 more comments

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.