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

Suppose $S$ is an algebraic surface (possibly projective) over an algebraically closed field $k$. Suppose $D_i$ are irreducible smooth curves (rational, if you want) with negative self-intersection and simple normal crossings such that there is a morphism $f:S\rightarrow S'$ which collapses them to a point.

Can we form an effective divisor $D=\sum d_i D_i$ such that $D\cdot D_i<0$ for all $i$? Note that if I had said $\leq$ rather than $\lt$ this is the content of the Proposition in page 83 of Reid's Park City lectures. I ask for strict inequality.

My belief is that this is possible, but I don't manage to give a proof nor find a reference or even to find a counter-example... This would be very useful for many arguments in birational geometry of surfaces.

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

The intersection matrix $(D_i\cdot D_j)$ is negative definite and hence invertible. So the system of equations: $\sum_i d_i D_i\cdot D_j=\alpha_j$ is solvable for any set of $\alpha_j$'s, in particular for negative ones. It is an easy consequence of the negative definite property that if $\alpha_j<0$ for all $j$, then $d_i>0$ for all $i$.

A really slick way to do this (in any dimension) if $S$ is quasi-projective, $f$ is projective, and $S'$ is $\mathbb Q$-factorial the following: Let $H$ be an effective (reduced if you want) ample divisor on $S$ and consider $f_*H$ (as a subscheme). Since $S'$ is $\mathbb Q$-factorial, this is a $\mathbb Q$-Cartier divisor, so $mf_*H$ is Cartier for some $m$. Therefore $f^*(mf_*H)-mH$ is effective, supported on the exceptional divisor and (strictly) negative on every curve contracted by $f$.

share|improve this answer
    
Great answer. Thank you! –  Jesus Martinez Garcia Jan 23 '12 at 11:19
add comment

See the proof ON ISOLATED RATIONAL SINGULARITIES OF SURFACES (Artin) Propostiion 2 (i).

share|improve this answer
    
I knew that paper, although I didn't check it when I wrote the post since I thought Reid's notes were a rewrite of this. I checked it now and it says $D\cdot D_i\leq 0$ not $D\cdot D_i<0$, as I thought. However the proof claims that this is indeed the case although it does not explain why. Sandor does it below. I guess I should accept his answer, if anything because it is more complete but I am also thankful to this post. –  Jesus Martinez Garcia Jan 23 '12 at 11:18
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.