3
$\begingroup$

I'd like to check with my colleagues whether I have correctly understood "embedded resolution of singularities".

Let $X$ be a nonsingular projective variety over $\mathbf C$ and let $D$ be a "nice" divisor on $X$, say $D$ has strictly normal crossings. (Maybe we could just take $D$ to be a closed subscheme?)

Then, has the following statement been proven? And what is a "good" reference?

There exists a projective birational surjective morphism $\psi:Y\to X$ with $Y$ a nonsingular projective variety over $\mathbf C$ and the inverse image of $D$ in $Y$ a nonsingular projective variety over $\mathbf C$ of codimension one in $Y$?

I'm worried about whether I have correctly understood this statement, or maybe one needs some "normality" conditions on $D$ to assure this "embedded" resolution of singularities.

Also, how does one obtain this embedded resolution of singularities? Can we write down a terminating process which ends with an embedded resolution of singularities?

I have a hard time "believing" the above statement, but I don't know why. If anybody can explain to me that this is not so surprising as a result I would be very thankful.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This is Hironaka's theorem. Notice that you can require the strict transform of $D$ to be smooth; in general the inverse image of $D$ (i.e. the total transform) will be a normal crossing divisor. See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resolution_of_singularities, in particular the section Definitions and the bibliography. Also look at this nice expository paper by Hauser ams.org/journals/bull/2003-40-03/S0273-0979-03-00982-0 $\endgroup$
    – Francesco Polizzi
    Feb 1 '13 at 15:49
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ At some point I found the following reference particularly useful: Wlodarczyk, Jaroslaw (2005), "Simple Hironaka resolution in characteristic zero", J. Amer. Math. Soc. 18 (4): 779–822, doi:10.1090/S0894-0347-05-00493-5 $\endgroup$
    – Chris Brav
    Feb 1 '13 at 16:25
3
$\begingroup$

What embedded resolution does achieve is this: if $Z\subset X$ is a Zariski closed set in a variety, then there is a smooth variety $Y\to X$, obtained from a series of blow ups along smooth centers, such that the preimage of $Z$ is a divisor with normal crossings. However, there is no reason to expect that the inverse of image of $Z$ (or your $D$) in a further blow up will be smooth. (Francesco said this already in a comment, but it bears repeating.) This is already clear in the case where D is a union of two lines in the plane. If you take the preimage in a further blow up, you will get a tree of $\mathbb{P}^1$'s. So your instinct is correct here.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

As Donu and Francesco already explained, the preimage of $D$ is usually not smooth simply because if it contains any subvarieties (subschemes) that are blown up, then the preimage will not be irreducible, but if $X$ is normal, then the preimage will be connected and hence necessarily singular along the intersection of different components.

On the other hand what can be achieved is that the strict transform of $D$ is non-singular. The strict transform or birational transform is the closure of the dense subset of $D$ that lies on the locus of $X$ where the resolution is an isomorphism.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

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.