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

Let $X\subset \mathbb{P}^n$ be a projective algebraic variety with coordinate ring $R$. $X$ is said to be arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay if $R$ is a Cohen-Macauly ring. A equivalent definition is that the natural morphism $$R\to \oplus_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\mathcal{O}_X(k)$$ is bijictive and $H^i(X,\mathcal{O}_X(k))=0$ for all $k\in\mathbb{Z}$ and $1\leq i\leq \text{dim} X-1$. Does anyone know a proof for the equivalence? Without assuming that $X$ is Cohen-Macaulay, I can only prove that $R$ is Cohen-Macauly at $0$, the vertex of the affine cone. How to prove $R$ or the section ring is Cohen-Macauly at other points of the affine cone? Did I miss something from the idea? Or is there an complete alternative proof?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Here's a proof. Let me assume that $X$ is not zero dimensional, but instead is equidimensional. I'll actually prove the whole thing (more than you want), but I'll prove the Cohen-Macaulay thing first.

Now, either condition implies that $X$ itself is Cohen-Macaulay, let me explain this.

Set $S$ to denote the section ring $$ \bigoplus_{k \in \mathbb{Z}} O_X(k) $$ and use $m = S_+$ to denote the irrelevant ideal at the origin.

  1. In the first condition, we notice that the punctured spectrum of $\text{Spec} S$ is an $\mathbb{A}^1$-bundle over $X$. Thus if $X$ is not Cohen-Macaulay, neither is $\text{Spec} S$.

  2. In the second condition, choose $k \gg 0$. Then $0 = H^i(X, O_X(-k))$ is Grothendieck-dual to $\mathbb{H}^{-i}(X, \omega_X^{\bullet}(k)) \cong H^0(X, {\bf h}^{-i} \omega_X^{\bullet}(k))$ which is non-zero for some $i < \dim X$ if $X$ is not Cohen-Macaulay (for the isomorphism, we used a spectral sequence). Indeed an equidimensional variety $X$ is Cohen-Macaulay if and only if ${\bf h}^{-i} \omega_X^{\bullet} = 0$ for $0 < i < \dim X$ (here $\omega_X^{\bullet}$ is the dualizing complex).

On the other hand the fact that $X$ is Cohen-Macaulay implies that $S$ is also Cohen-Macaulay except possibly at the origin (again use the $\mathbb{A}^1$-bundle description).

Certainly the map $R \to S$ is bijective in high degree and so birational. Then $\text{Spec} S \to \text{Spec} R$ is an isomorphism everywhere except possibly at the origin. Thus $R$ is also Cohen-Macaulay except possibly at the origin.

It sounds like you already know what follows:

Suppose now that $R \subsetneq S$. But then if $U \subseteq \text{Spec}R$ is the punctured spectrum, we have that $H^0(U, O_{Spec R}) = H^0(U, O_{\text{Spec} S}) \supseteq S$. In particular, $H^0(U, O_{\text{Spec} R}) \neq R$ and so $R$ cannot be S2 because $H^1_m(S) \neq 0$. This follows from the exact sequence: $$0 \to R \to H^0(U, O_{\text{Spec} R}) \to H^1_m(S) \to 0.$$ In particular, this shows that the equality $R = S$ is necessary.

Conversely suppose that $R = S$. Additionally since $X$ is Cohen-Macaulay, it is S2, then the section ring $S$ is also S2 away from the origin by the $\mathbb{A}^1$-bundle thing again. Furthermore, its trivial to see that $S = H^0(U, O_{\text{Spec} S})$ and so the depth of $S$ is at least 2 at the origin. This implies that $R = S$ is S2. Thus the isomorphism theorem also gives us some vanishing of local cohomology. In particular, at least the $H^1_m(S) = 0$ by the above exact sequence.

Now, for the next part:

It follows from straightforward computations with Cech cohomology that $$ H^i(X, O_X(k)) = [H^{i+1}_{m}(S)]_k $$ for $i > 0$ (here $[\bullet]_k$ means the $k$th graded piece of the module). Thus the vanishing over the other $H^i(X, O_X(k))$ implies the vanishing in all remaining degrees of $H^{i+1}_m(S)$. This completes the proof.

This is described in somewhat more detail in THIS paper by Karen Smith.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Maybe this is helpful. Let $X$ be an $n$-dimensional equidimensional closed subscheme of $P = \mathbb{P}^N$. Let $r = N - n$ be the codimension. The following are easily seen to be equivalent:

$H^i(X, \mathcal{O}_X(-q)) = 0$ for $i < n$ and $q\gg 0$,

$H^i(P, \mathcal{O}_X(-q)) = 0$ for $i < n$ and $q\gg 0$,

$Ext_P^j(\mathcal{O}_X(-q), \omega_P) = 0$ for $j>r$ and $q\gg 0$,

$H^0(P, \mathcal{E}xt_P^j(\mathcal{O}_X(-q), \omega_P)) = 0$ for $j > r$ and $q\gg 0$ ,

$\mathcal{E}xt_P^j(O_X, \omega_P) = 0$ for $j > r$,

$\mathcal{E}xt^j_{O_{P, x}} (O_{X, x}, \omega_{P, x}) = 0 $ for $j > r$ and $x\in X$,

$H^i_{\mathfrak{n}} (O{X, x}) = 0$ for $i < n$ and $x\in X$, where $\mathfrak{n}$ is the maximal ideal of $O_{P, x}$,

$H^i_{\mathfrak{m}} (O_{X, x}) = 0$ for $i < n$ and $x\in X$, where $\mathfrak{m}$ is the maximal ideal of $O{X, x}$.

$X$ is Cohen-Macaulay.

share|improve this answer
    
Can anyone help with the typesetting? –  Piotr Achinger Apr 27 '12 at 18:55
    
Piotr, removing the $\mathcal{O}$'s and replacing them with $O$'s will fix it. –  Karl Schwede Apr 27 '12 at 20:41
    
@Piotr: Thank you very much for your answer. I like the argument. –  Fei YE Apr 28 '12 at 8:58
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.