Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

4

I am reading a wonderful article of Arnaud Beauville, called La théorie de Hodge et quelques applications http://math.unice.fr/~beauvill/conf/Bordeaux2.pdf

There is one place on page 12 that I can not understand. Beauville seem to claim the following:

Claim. Denote by $K$ the field of meromorphic functions of the (complex) cubic $x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3+x_4^3+x_5^3=0$. Then one can show that there exists an embedding $K\subset \mathbb C(y_1,y_2,y_3)$.

Question. How to show this?

I have to say, I doubt this statement (not anymore). Since the cubic is unirational, we have $K\subset \mathbb C(y_1,...,y_n)$ for some $n$. But it sounds strange that one can chose $n=3$. Is this a misprint or I miss something?

(for a connection to Luroth problem see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_variety)

PS. I guess Artie's comment explains that Beauville is 100% correct. So I would like to ask one more (non-trivial ?) question:

Question 2 Is it known what is the minimal number $d$ such that there is a degree $d$ (dominant) morphism from a rational complex projective three-fold to the cubic?

edited Apr 27 2012 at 13:20

asked Apr 26 2012 at 21:27

aglearner
3,858●8●24

1

I think the issue here is that there are various definitions of unirational. One is that there is a dominant rational map P^n --> X for some n (that's equivalent to your statement about the function field). But one can show without too much difficulty that it's equivalent to ask for a dominant rational map P^d --> X. where d is the dimension of X. Then the claim about function fields follows. – Artie Prendergast-Smith Apr 26 2012 at 21:51

1

Another small comment: your defining equation seems to be missing a variable. – Artie Prendergast-Smith Apr 26 2012 at 22:10

2

@aglearner, "I wonder what is the minimal possible degree". The minimal possible degree is 2. The degree cannot be 1, or else the cubic threefold $X$ would be rational (contradicting Clemens-Griffiths). On the other hand, if you fix a general line $L$, then it is easy to prove rationality of the parameter space $B$ for pairs $(p,H)$ of a point $p\in L$ and a $2$-plane $L\subset H$ such that $H$ is tangent to $X$ at $p$. Let $C$ be the parameter space for triples $(p,H,q)$ where $(p,H)$ is as above, and where $q$ lies on the residual conic to $L$ inside the plane cubic $H\cap X$.(contd.) – Jason Starr Apr 27 2012 at 11:35

1

(contd.) There is a projection $\pi:C\to B$, $\pi(p,H,q) = (p,H)$, which is a conic bundle. And there is a section $P:B\to C$, $P(p,H) = (p,H,p)$. Thus $C$ is birational to $B\times \PP^1$. On the other hand, it is easy to see that the projection $\rho:C\to X$, $\rho(p,H,q) = q$ is generically finite of degree $2$, just the number of intersection points of the residual conic with the line $L$. – Jason Starr Apr 27 2012 at 11:38

1

Jason, huge thanks, great explanation! If you would transfer these two comments into an answer, I would be very happy to accept it. To confirm, for you $L$ is a generic line on $X$. By the way, I was always confused by the expression "conic bundle". Does this mean a bundle whose fibers are $\mathbb P^1$, but some of them may be degenerate? – aglearner Apr 27 2012 at 12:49

show 3 more comments

Artie Prendergast-Smith · Accepted Answer · 2012-04-27 15:10:00Z UTC

(As requested, I'm turning my comment into an answer.)

The issue seems to be that there are differing definitions of unirational. One is that there exists a dominant rational map $\mathbf{P}^n \dashrightarrow X$ for some $n$. (That corresponds to the inclusion of function fields $K \subset \mathbb C(y_1,...,y_n)$.) But it's easy to show that it's equivalent to ask for a dominant rational map $\mathbf{P}^d \dashrightarrow X$, where $d$ is the dimension of X. (In your case, this gives the inclusion $K \subset \mathbb C(y_1,y_2,y_3)$.)

To see the equivalence of the two, suppose $\phi: \mathbf{P}^n \dashrightarrow X$ is a dominant rational map with $n$ strictly larger than dim X. Then a general hyperplane $H$ in $\mathbf{P}^n$ will intersect the general fibre of $\phi$, so the restriction of $\phi$ to $H$ is still dominant. By induction, you're done.

Discussion of Luroth’s problem in an article of Beauville

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

1 Answer

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.