4
$\begingroup$

Let $Y$ be a projective scheme. The naive definition of a Hilbert scheme of subschemes $X$ of $Y$ would require us to projectively embed $Y$, then ask that $X$ have a fixed Hilbert polynomial $p$.

However, this space is usually disconnected. Cheap example: $Y$ is two points, $p=1$, and the Hilbert scheme is $Y$ itself. More expensive example: $Y = {\mathbb P}^1 \times {\mathbb P}^1$ in the Segre embedding, $p(d) = d+1$. Then $X$ is a line from one of the two rulings, so this naive Hilbert scheme is a disjoint union of two $\mathbb P^1$s.

If $F\to X$ is a flat family of subschemes of $Y$, i.e. $F \subseteq Y\times X$, then the class in $K_\bullet(Y)$ of a fiber -is- isn't locally constant on $X$. (EDIT: Oops! Jason Starr suggests a related invariant that is, in a comment.) So the proper definition of "the Hilbert scheme of subschemes of $Y$" should include "with fixed $K$-class $p \in K_\bullet(Y)$". (If $Y$ is projective space, the $K$-class is exactly the same data as the Hilbert polynomial.) This finer invariant suffices to break apart the disconnected spaces in the examples above.

I presume that, in general, fixing the $K$-class is not enough to get a connected Hilbert scheme. (Certainly Hartshorne's proof of connectivity in the case $Y={\mathbb P}^n$ does not go through, as it uses a big group action.)

Is there an easy example of a projective scheme $Y$ and two subschemes $X_1,X_2$ defining the same class in $K$-homology of $Y$, but there is no flat connected family of subschemes of $Y$ including $X_1,X_2$ as fibers?

$\endgroup$
3
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ What do you mean by $K_*(Y)$, and by the class of $Y$ in $K_*(Y)$? It is topological K-theory? For algebraic K-theory, it is certainly false that the class of the structure sheaf of a fiber is locally constant. $\endgroup$
    – Angelo
    Nov 29, 2012 at 16:07
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Angelo: Allen can answer for himself, but I bet he means the image of the map $K_\ast(X) \to \text{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}(K^\ast(X),\mathbb{Z})$ induced by the pairing $K^\ast(X) \times K_\ast(X) \to \mathbb{Z}$ sending $([\mathcal{E}],[\mathcal{F}])$ to $\chi(X,\mathcal{E}\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X}\mathcal{F})$. This is the sort of thing that Martin Olsson and I used in our work to try to pin down the numerical invariants of a quasi-compact, open and closed piece of the Hilbert scheme. $\endgroup$ Nov 29, 2012 at 18:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No, I was just wrong, but I like Jason's fix. $\endgroup$ Nov 30, 2012 at 2:03

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Take a generic quintic in $\mathbb CP^4$ and consider lines on it

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ In this example I assumed that the question was about topological $K$-theory. $\endgroup$
    – aglearner
    Nov 29, 2012 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ This would certainly be an interesting answer. Is the claim that it has lines, they're rigid, but they're all in the same K-class? $\endgroup$ Nov 30, 2012 at 2:20
  • $\begingroup$ @Allen, I have to look on the fix of Jason, in fact I can only claim the obvious: that on the quintic all lines give the same integral homology classes since $H_2$ of the quintic is $\mathbb Z$. Since I don't understand yet the definition of Jason, I can not say anything else. But I would imagine that all "discreet" invariants of these lines would coincide, but any "finer" might not (and probably will not). $\endgroup$
    – aglearner
    Nov 30, 2012 at 8:42
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @aglearner: It is indeed true that the structure sheaves of any two lines on a quintic threefold give the same image in $\text{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}(K^\ast(X),\mathbb{Z})$. For $\mathcal{F} = \mathcal{O}_L$, the structure sheaf of a line $L$ in $X$, for every locally free sheaf $\mathcal{E}$ on $X$, $\chi(X,\mathcal{E}\otimes_{\mathcal{O}_X}\mathcal{F})$ equals $\chi(L,\mathcal{E}|_L)$. By Riemann-Roch (or the classification of locally free sheaves on $\mathbb{P}^1$), this is just $\text{deg}(\mathcal{E}) + \text{rank}(\mathcal{E})$, independent of $L$. $\endgroup$ Nov 30, 2012 at 13:17

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.