Let $X \subset \mathbb{P}^3$ be a singular surface. For simplicity take $X$ to be a cone over a smooth conic. And let $C \subset X$ be a curve passing through the singular point, with normalization morphism \begin{equation*} \nu: \tilde{C} \rightarrow C. \end{equation*}

My question is: how can we determine the degree of the ramification divisor of the morphism $\nu$?

And specifically, in the case of a quadric, let's just consider the case where $\tilde{C} \subset \tilde{X}$, where $\pi: \tilde{X} \rightarrow X$ is the minimal resolution of $X$ and $\tilde{C}$ intersects the exceptional $(-2)$-curve transversely. Can we calculate the degree of ramification in this case?

My thought was to look at the exact sequence \begin{equation*} 0 \rightarrow \Omega_X \rightarrow \Omega_X^{\vee \vee} \rightarrow Q \rightarrow 0, \end{equation*} where the cokernel $Q$ is supported at the singular point and then pull this back via $\pi$ \begin{equation*} \pi^* \Omega_X \rightarrow \pi^*(\Omega_X^{\vee \vee}) \rightarrow \pi^* Q \rightarrow 0. \end{equation*}

and then restrict this to $\tilde{C}$. So to make this work, I need to calculate $Q$ and $\pi^* Q$. Is there a good reference for this calculation? Or a better way to understand the ramification more directly?



I think there is no ramification in the case you are interested in.

The surface $\tilde X$ is the minimal ruled surface $\mathbb F_2$. The map $\tilde X \to X$ contracts the $-2$-curve $E$ to a point and maps the fibers of the ruling of $\mathbb F_2$ to lines in $\mathbb P^3$. So at every point of $E$ the map has differential of rank 1 and the kernel of the differential is the tangent space to $E$, because $E$ is contracted.

If $E$ intersects $\tilde C$ transversally, by the previous remarks, $\tilde C \to C$ has non zero differential at $x$.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your helpful comment, and I believe your method is superior to calculations with the cotangent bundle. However, I am interested in the case where the $\tilde{C}.E > 1$, so that this is indeed a singular point of $C$. $\endgroup$
    – Jordan
    Nov 21 '12 at 18:30
  • $\begingroup$ In fact $E\tilde C=1$ is not necessary, it is enough that the intersection of $E$ and $\tilde C$ are transversal. I've edited my answer accordingly. $\endgroup$
    – rita
    Nov 21 '12 at 19:16
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, your explanation does make plenty of sense. For some reason, I had thought the situation was more complicated for space curve singularities, but I suppose not in this case. $\endgroup$
    – Jordan
    Nov 21 '12 at 21:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.