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

Let $X$ be a compact complex manifold and $L\to X$ a holomorphic line bundle (without any a priori assumption on its positivity).

Suppose that for each $x,y\in X$, with $x\ne y$, there exists a $k_0\in\mathbb N$ which depends on $x$ and $y$, such that for all $k\in\mathbb N$, $k\ge k_0$ there exists a global holomorphic section $\sigma_k\in H^0(X,L^{\otimes k})$ such that $\sigma_k(x)=0$ and $\sigma_k(y)\ne 0$.

Is it then true that this property is uniform with respect to couples of distinct points of $X$?

In other words, is it then true that there exists a $k_1\in\mathbb N$ such that for all $k\in\mathbb N$, $k\ge k_1$, and for all $x,y\in X$, with $x\ne y$, one can find a global holomorphic section $\tau_k\in H^0(X,L^{\otimes k})$ such that $\tau_k(x)=0$ and $\tau_k(y)\ne 0$?

Thanks in advance!

share|cite|improve this question
Btw, in your final formula, should $\tau_k(y)=0$ be instead $\tau_k(y) \neq 0$? – M P Dec 14 '11 at 11:23
right, I edit my question then! thanks – diverietti Dec 14 '11 at 12:52
up vote 5 down vote accepted

I think this is true.

The condition implies that for some $n$ the sections of $L^{\otimes n}$ are base point free, so $L^{\otimes n}$ is obtained by pulling back $\mathcal O(1)$ along a map $X \to \mathbb P^N$ for some $N$. This map must be finite, because otherwise there would be a positive dimensional connected subspace of $X$ along which $L^{\otimes n}$ would be trivial, and then its point could not be separated by any power of $L$. By GAGA $X$ is projective, and then $L^{\otimes n}$ is ample (it is a standard result that a pullback of an ample line bundle along a finite map is ample). But this implies that $L$ is ample, so all sufficiently large powers of $L$ must be very ample.

[Addendum]: I guess I am using three facts: that the image $Y$ of $X$ in $\mathbb P^N$ is closed, hence projective, by Chow's theorem; that given a finite map $X \to Y$, if $Y$ is algebraic so is $X$, by GAGA; that the the pullback of an ample line bundle along a finite map is still ample (which implies that $X$ is projective).

share|cite|improve this answer
Dear Angelo, thank you very much for your answer! As long as I can see, it seems to work perfectly. Two comments are in order: 1) Which "kind" of GAGA are you invoking here? Does one need $X$ to be already projective in order to say that a line bundle on $X$ pullback of an ample by a finite map is ample? 2) Do you think there is a more "elementary" proof of this fact? By elementary I mean just using, for example, combining sections of different powers of $L$ to obtain such an uniformity (I don't know if I am clear enough to make you understand what I mean by elementary here...) – diverietti Dec 14 '11 at 14:16
I didn't say that in the original question, but I was really guessing if there was a "down-to-earth proof" of this fact... – diverietti Dec 14 '11 at 14:17
I have no idea how to give a direct elementary proof, sorry. – Angelo Dec 14 '11 at 14:38
If the assumption is that for any $x,y \in X$ there is a global section such that it vanishes at $x$ and doesn't vanish at $y$, OR vice versa, then this system is not necessarily ample. – Parsa Dec 16 '11 at 10:33
So, where is Angelo's answer incorrect? I cannot see! – diverietti Dec 18 '11 at 19:28

Maybe I am making a mistake, but you could try the following. First, for each $k$ the set $U_k$ of points $x$ for which there is a section of $L^k$ not vanishing at $x$ is open. Moreover, the union of all the $U_k$ is all of $X$, by assumption (case of 0-dimensional $X$ is easy!). Thus, by compactness, there is a $k_0$ such that the line bundle $L^{k_0}$ is base point free. Now use $L^{k_0}$ to give a map to projective space and reduce to the projective case. If you care about the "all greater multiples" business, you can build it in this argument, I believe.

share|cite|improve this answer
I don't think this can work so plainly, even just for the case of (asymptotic) base point freeness! First, I really need the property for all enough large multiples. Second, I don't think that your argument could straightforwardly be adapted to this: what you show is that if $U_{k_1},\dots,U_{k_N}$ gives a finite covering, then $L^{k_0}$, where $k_0:=\operatorname{lcm}(k_1,\dots,k_N)$, works (and hence its multiples, too). Do I understand well? – diverietti Dec 14 '11 at 13:41

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.