7
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over $\mathbb{C}$, and fix $A$ an ample divisor as the polarization. We say a vector bundle $E$ to be (semi-)stable, if for any proper subsheaf $F$ of $E$, $\mu(F)<\mu(E)$ (resp. $\leq$).

I guess it is not sufficient to check just subbundles $F$ of $E$. But is there a counterexample? Or more precisely, is there an example of $(X, A, E, F)$ satisfying the following conditions?

(1)$X,A,E$ are as above, and $F$ is a proper subsheaf of $E$ breaking the stability condition, i.e., $\mu(F)\geq \mu(E)$.

(2)There exists no vector bundle which break the stability condition, i.e., $\mu(F')<\mu(E)$ for any subbundle $F'$ of $E$.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
0

2 Answers 2

Reset to default
9
$\begingroup$

There are many examples of unstable bundles on a projective surface that have no non-trivial subbundles. For example, if $k$ is an integer with $k < 3$ and $I$ is the sheaf of ideal of $m$ distinct points in $\mathbb P^2$, with $m > 0$, there exists an extension $$ 0 \longrightarrow \mathcal O \longrightarrow E \longrightarrow I(k) \longrightarrow 0 $$ on $\mathbb P^2$ in which $E$ is locally free. Furthermore, the Chern classes of $E$ are $c_1(E) = k$ and $c_2(E) = m$ (for this, see page 103 of "Vector bundles on complex projective spaces", by Okonek, Schneider and Spindler). If $k < 0$, this vector bundle is clearly unstable; but for most values of $k$ and $m$ it can not split as a direct sum of line bundles, hence it cannot contain a line subbundle (since every extension of line bundles on $\mathbb P^2$ splits).

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Hi Angelo, maybe there is something that I am missing, but I cannot understand completely your last argument. Why do you mention the fact that every extension of line bundles on $\mathbb P^2$ splits? In any case, if $E$ fits in a short exact sequence of vector bundles, say with left and right terms respectively $\mathcal O(a)$ and $\mathcal O(b)$, then its Chern classes are given respectively by $a+b$ and $ab$, and one may certainly choose $k$ and $m$ to be not of that form, isn't it? $\endgroup$
    – diverietti
    Dec 3, 2014 at 12:46
7
$\begingroup$

The reason for the condition to be on subsheaves is that the slope of a sheaf E on X is unchanged by removing subschemes of X of cod >1. Consequently the Harder-Narasimhan filtration, etc. must allow torsion free subsheaves in its construction. It is enough to consider 'saturated' subsheaves meaning subsheaves F such that E/F is torsion free since passing from a subsheaf F' to its saturate raises the slope.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.