First I want to clarify what I mean by the Kodaira-Spencer map.

Let's have a family of deformations $\pi:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow B$ of a complex manifold $X=\mathcal{X}_0:=f^{-1}(0)$ (by that I mean that $f$ is an holomorphic proper submersion between the complex manifolds $\mathcal{X}$ and $B$). Then the Kodaira-Spencer map $\rho:T_{B,b}\rightarrow H^1(\mathcal{X}_b,T_{\mathcal{X}_b})$ is the map induced in cohomology by the exact sequence of sheaves $$ 0\rightarrow T_{\mathcal{X}_b}\rightarrow T_{\mathcal{X}|\mathcal{X}_b}\rightarrow f^*T_B|\mathcal{X}_b\rightarrow 0 $$ By "versal deformation" $Def(X)$ I mean that any other deformation $\mathcal{X}\rightarrow B$ of $X$ can be obtained as the pullback deformation for a certain map $g:B\rightarrow Def(X)$ and the differential of $g$ is unique.

My question is: why is the Kodaira-Spencer map for the versal deformation bijective?

This is not clear to me. Also, some authors define the versal deformation as the deformation for which the Kodaira-Spencer map is bijective.

  • $\begingroup$ You must be missing an hypothesis: perhaps the vanishing of $h^2(\mathcal{X}_b,T_{\mathcal{X}_b})$? Without a hypothesis such as this, there may be examples of a complex manifold $\mathcal{X}_0$ that admits nontrivial first-order deformations, i.e., elements in $H^1(\mathcal{X}_b,T_{\mathcal{X}_b})$, none of which deform to higher order. In that case, taking $B$ to be a point, the morphism satisfies your "versal property". Yet $T_B$ is zero-dimensional. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Jul 13 '13 at 22:40

This is basically a tautology. A tangent vector $v$ to $Def(X)$ at $0$ is a map $D:=Spec(k[t]/(t^2))\to Def(X)$ mapping the closed point to 0, i.e. a family $X_v\to D$, i.e. a first order deformation of $X_0$. These are classified by the vector space $H^1(X, T_X)$, so we get a bijection $T_0 Def(X) \to H^1(X, T_X)$ which turns out to be the Kodaira-Spencer map.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What you say would be perfectly correct if the OP did not insist that $B$ be a complex manifold, instead of merely a complex analytic space. However, with the hypothesis that $B$ be a complex manifold, the map need not be bijective. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Jul 14 '13 at 1:44
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Jason you're completely right! I didn't read the question carefully and thought of schemes the whole time... $\endgroup$ – Piotr Achinger Jul 14 '13 at 8:04

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.