Suppose $(X,\Delta\ge 0)$ is a pair such that $(p^g-1)(K_X+\Delta)$ is an Integral Weil Divisor for some $g>0$ and $X$ is a normal variety. Define $\mathcal{L}_{e,\Delta} = \mathcal{O}_X( (1-p^g)(K_X + \Delta) )$ and note it is a reflexive sheaf.

We can still define the map $\phi^e: \mathcal{L}_{e, \Delta} \to \mathcal{O}_X$ for $g|e$, following the Grothendieck Trace map, Reflexivity of Weil divisors and normality of $X$. Now my question is, can I define the non-$F$-pure ideal $\sigma(X, \Delta)$ of $(X, \Delta$) as $\sigma(X, \Delta)=\bigcap_{e\ge 0} \phi^{eg}F^{eg}_*\mathcal{L}_{e, \Delta}$ ?

What I mean is that, will this definition have all the good properties of the $\mathbb{Q}$-Cartier case? For example, I need to know whether $\phi^{eg}F^{eg}_*\mathcal{L}_{e, \Delta}=\sigma(X, \Delta)$ for all $e\gg 0$ or not?

Also, is $\sigma(X, \Delta)$ the Unique Largest ideal $\mathcal{I}$ such that $\phi^{eg}F^{eg}_*(\mathcal{L}_{e, \Delta}\cdot \mathcal{I})=\mathcal{I}$ for all $e>0$?


I think the answer is that we don't know.

You can certainly make the definition of $\sigma(X, \Delta)$ as that intersection. It seems a reasonable one to me. The intersection is still descending.

However, I don't think we know whether that intersection stabilizes (if I recall correctly, the usual proof doesn't work, but I haven't checked it recently). I wouldn't be surprised if the image stabilized though. Here's a subtle point that we'd need to run the usual proof.

Suppose $\phi^e(F^e_* \mathcal{L}_{e, \Delta}) = \phi^{e+g}(F^{e+g}_* \mathcal{L}_{e+g, \Delta})$. Is it automatically true that $$ \phi^e(F^e_* \mathcal{L}_{e, \Delta}) = \phi^{e+g}(F^{e+g}_* \mathcal{L}_{e+g, \Delta}) = \phi^{e+g}(F^{e+2g}_* \mathcal{L}_{e+2g, \Delta}) = \ldots? $$ In the case that $(p^g -1 )(K_X + \Delta)$ is Cartier, this is easy (work locally, then use the projection formula). However, in the more general case I don't see how to do it. Just because $\phi^e$ and $\phi^{e+g}$ have the same image in $O_X$, I don't see why $$ F^{e+g}_* \mathcal{L}_{e+g, \Delta} \to \mathcal{L}_{g, \Delta} \text{ and } F^{e+2g}_* \mathcal{L}_{e+2g, \Delta} \to \mathcal{L}_{g, \Delta} $$ should have the same image. These maps are obtained from the maps you wrote by tensoring and then reflexifying (and reflexifying could break things a priori).

Still, I wouldn't be surprised if these images stabilized for some more subtle reason (there are other things worth trying too in this direction too).

I would be more surprised if the second statement about $\sigma(X, \Delta)$ being the unique largest ideal satisfying that property was true, but I don't know.

  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much Karl. One last question, is there anyway to define Sharp F-purity or Strongly F-regular for this kind of pairs ? $\endgroup$
    – Omprokash
    Aug 17 '13 at 2:13
  • $\begingroup$ Yes there are and this is simpler. The easiest way is a local definition. In the Sharp F-pure case, it's easily seen to be equivalent to there locally existing a boundary $\Delta' \geq \Delta$ such that $(K_X + \Delta')$ is $\mathbb{Q}$-Cartier with index not divisible by $p$ and such that $(X, \Delta')$ is sharply $F$-pure. In the strongly $F$-regular case it can be shown to be equivalent to the analogous condition, but this is more work (see my paper Test ideals in Q-Gorenstein rings or my paper with Karen Globally $F$-regular vs log Fano... Hopefully this helps. $\endgroup$ Aug 17 '13 at 2:32

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.