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

I am reading the "Notes on stable maps and quantum cohomology" by Fulton and Pandharipande and I got stuck in the proof of the Theorem 2, p.27. The authors consider the space $Def(\mu)$ of first order deformations of a pointed stable map $\mu = (C, p_i, \mu: C \to X)$. For $C = \mathbb P^1$ they write down an exact sequence $$ 0 \to H^0(C,T_C) \to Def_R(\mu) \to Def(\mu) \to 0, $$ where $Def_R(\mu)$ is the space of first order deformations of $\mu$ with $C$ held rigid.

What does they mean by held rigid?

Later $C$ is a tree of $\mathbb P^1$'s. Let $G$ be the dual graph of $C$. Now they consider the space $Def_G(\mu) \subset Def(\mu)$ of first order deformations of the pointed stable map $\mu$ preserving the dual graph.

What does they mean by preserving the dual graph?

If I understand it correctly, $Def(\mu)$ consists of all $(\mathcal C \to Spec\ \mathbb C[\varepsilon], \bar p_i, \bar \mu: \mathcal C \to X)$ such that $\mathcal C \otimes_{\mathbb C[\varepsilon]} \mathbb C \cong C, \bar p_i \otimes \mathbb C = p_i$ and $C \to \mathcal C \xrightarrow{\bar \mu} X$ coincides with $\mu$. So, a geometric fiber of $\mathcal C$ should have the same dual graph as $C$.

Thanks a lot.

share|cite|improve this question
I've already asked the second question on MSE. Since the crossposting is not every time an issue, I hope it's ok. – boxdot Jun 11 '12 at 13:41
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Dear finite,

First, a confusing typo in your short exact sequence. It should be $$ 0 \to H^0(C,T_C) \to \mathrm{Def}_R(\mu) \to \mathrm{Def}(\mu) \to 0.$$ What they mean by "held rigid" here is that they consider maps from $C = \mathbf P^1$ with a fixed choice of coordinates, not up to automorphism of $\mathbf P^1$. If we ignore marked points then the more "global" way of saying this is that $\mathrm{Def}(\mu)$ is the tangent space of $\overline{M}_{0,0}(X,\beta)$ at the point $[\mu]$, whereas $\mathrm{Def}_R(\mu)$ is the tangent space of the Hom scheme $\mathrm{Hom}(C,X)$, which just parametrizes morphisms $C \to X$, at $[\mu]$. Naively, one expects then that $\overline{M}_{0,0}(X,\beta)$ is locally the quotient of $\mathrm{Hom}(C,X)$ by $\mathrm{Aut}(C) \cong \mathrm{PGL}(2)$. This is essentially what the short exact sequence expresses, note e.g. that $\dim H^0(C,T_C) = \dim \mathrm{PGL}(2) = 3$.

In the definition of $\mathrm{Def}_G(\mu)$ they just mean that they consider first order deformations whose dual graph is $G$. The corresponding "global" way of saying this is that they consider the locally closed substack of $\overline{M}_{0,n}(X,\beta)$ defined by demanding that the dual graph is $G$, and consider the tangent space of this substack.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, that clarifies a lot, especially the "global way". (I've corrected the typo.) – boxdot Jun 12 '12 at 14:42

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.