3
$\begingroup$

Suppose $A$ is an abelian variety, $X, Y$ are subvarieties of $A$ of complementary dimension,

Does every component of $X \cap Y$ contribute non-negatively to the intersection number?

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Let E be an elliptic curve, A = E x E, X = Y = E x {0}. X cap Y contributes zero. $\endgroup$
    – ya-tayr
    Commented Jul 22, 2013 at 5:21
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If all the components of $X\cap Y$ are of dimension $0$, then they contribute positively, for $X$ and $Y$ then intersect properly (with your assumption on the dimensions). See Fulton's book on intersection theory for this notion. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 22, 2013 at 8:12
  • $\begingroup$ Depends what you mean by positively: greater than zero or greater than equal to zero. $\endgroup$
    – abz
    Commented Jul 22, 2013 at 11:00
  • $\begingroup$ oops, I mean 'non-negatively' $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 22, 2013 at 11:57
  • $\begingroup$ I think this is true, at least for connected components; it's not clear to me how one can isolate a contribution from each irreducible component. This follows from the fact that if E is a trivial vector bundle on a variety Z then the Gysin map from the Chow groups of E to the Chow groups of Z preserves effectivity (see Prop 3.3 of Fultons IT). $\endgroup$
    – naf
    Commented Jul 22, 2013 at 14:46

2 Answers 2

3
$\begingroup$

The following answer expands on my comment.

We use Fulton's definition of the intersection product. Consider the diagonal embedding $\Delta$ of $A$ in $A \times A$ (which is regular) and intersect this with $X \times Y$. Since $A$ is an abelian variety, the normal bundle $E$ of $\Delta$ is trivial. The normal cone $C$ of $X \times Y \cap \Delta$ is an effective cycle in $E$ and the intersection product is the pullback of this cycle to $\Delta$ via the zero section. Connected components of $C$ map to connected components of $X \cap Y$ and the claim is that each such component gives a non-zero contribution. This follows from the following claim:

Let $Z$ be any variety and $E$ a trivial vector bundle on $Z$. Then the Gysin map (induced by the zero section) from $CH^*(E)$ to $CH^*(Z)$ preserves effective cycles.

This can be seen using Proposition 3.3 in Fulton's book where this Gysin map is expressed as a product followed by a pushforward. In the case $E$ is trivial, the product involved can be seen to be effective since it is given by repeated intersection with divisors in a base point free linear system. Pushforward always preserves effectivity, so the claim follows.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Can't you always find a geometric point $T\in A$ such that the intersection of $X$ and the translation $Y+T$ is either empty or 0-dimensional? Since $X\cdot Y$ is numerically equivalent to $X\cdot(Y+T)$, that should give you the desired non-negativity, as per Damian's comment.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed, for field of characteristic zero this is proved in Kleiman, 1974 $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 22, 2013 at 14:35
  • $\begingroup$ It's certainly true you can move to make the intersections isolated, which is why I believed the statement in the first place. But in trying to actually make a proof out of this: how do you know that each connected component before you moved can really be followed to a bunch of points along the move? $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 22, 2013 at 14:48
  • $\begingroup$ @OlegEroshkin The conclusion is still right in characteristic $p$. You can't always make $X \cap (Y+T)$ reduced, but you can always arrange that it is zero dimensional. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 22, 2013 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ $X \cap Y + T$ is a closed subset of $A \times A$, where the first $A$ is where the intersection happens and the second $A$ parameterizes $T$. So it has a proper projection morphism to the second $A$. Etale-locally, we can lift the decomposition into connected components of a special fiber of this morphism to the whole morphism, by lifting the idempotents. So following the connected components to sets of points in a well-defined way is no problem, although it's not immediately obvious to me that this preserves intersections numbers. $\endgroup$
    – Will Sawin
    Commented Jul 23, 2013 at 3:18

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .