7
$\begingroup$

The minimal model program aims to find a minimal representative in the birational class of a given variety with reasonable singularities. Assuming this has been done, it seems natural to ask what these minimal models look like.

Is it feasible to ask for a classification of minimal (complex) varieties, say for threefolds? If so, has this been done? Or are there known wild examples which show that seeking a classification is too ambitious?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ There is not a birational/numerical classification smooth algebraic surfaces of general type, as far as I am aware. Quoting from Beauvilles, complex algebraic surfaces page 114: "In view of the diversity of these examples, one does not hope to describe completely all surfaces of general type. The natural questions turning up are of a more general nature; for example finding the possible numerical invariants for such a surface, This problem is still some way from a complete solution." $\endgroup$
    – Nick L
    Apr 13, 2022 at 10:19
  • $\begingroup$ As already pointed out by @NickL, the problem of "geography" for minimal algebraic surfaces is still open. Moreover, some of the main results come from Donaldson theory and Seiberg-Witten theory which are special to complex dimension 2 (cf. the last part of the newest version of "Compact complex surfaces" by Barth, Hulek, Peters, Van de Ven). $\endgroup$ Apr 13, 2022 at 10:37

1 Answer 1

15
$\begingroup$

It depends what you mean by classification. The key results for surfaces IMO are: 1) Any surface $S$ of general type has a canonical model given by $S_{can}:={\rm Proj} R(K_S)$ and a unique minimal model given by the minimal resolution of $S_{can}$. 2) The canonical volume ${\rm vol}(S)=K_{S_{can}}^2$ is an integer and 3) $5K_{S_{can}}$ is very ample. In particular for fixed $v$, canonical modules of surfaces of general type of volume ${\rm vol}(S)=v$ can be parametrized by a variety of finite type. On the other hand, for any fixed invariants ${\rm vol}(S)$, $h^1(\mathcal O _S)$ etc it can be impossibly hard to determine the moduli space of canonical models of such surfaces of general type.

All of this actually generalizes to all dimensions (with a few caveats / changes). 1) holds by Birkar-Cascini-Hacon-McKernan: $R(K_X)=\oplus H^0(mK_X)$ is finitely generated and we take $X_{can}={\rm Proj}(R(K_X))$; there are also minimal models which have terminal singularities. One canonical model can have multiple minimal models (but only finitely many and they are connected by flops). 2-3) By a result of of Hacon-McKernan, Takayama, Tsuji, for any fixed dimension, the canonical volumes ${\rm vol}(X)=K_{X_{can}}^{\rm dim(X)}$ belong to a discrete set and for fixed dimension $d$ and volume $v$ there is an integer $m$ such that $mK_{X_{can}}$ is very ample.

Explicit results are few and far apart (the work of J.Chen and M.Chen comes to mind).

$\endgroup$
0

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.