3
$\begingroup$

If $X$ is a projective variety then Hilbert's syzygy theorem says that any coherent sheaf of $\mathcal O_X$ modules has a finite global resolution by locally free modules.

By GAGA, I believe this should imply that over any smooth complex submanifold of $\mathbb CP^n$, a coherent sheaf of modules over the sheaf of holomorphic functions has a finite global resolution by holomorphic vector bundles.

Assuming what I said is correct, is there a direct proof of this in the analytic setting? Also, is the analytic statement true for more general complex manifolds (e.g. Kahler)?

Note: this is a crosspost from math.SE.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ You want to add the word "smooth" in the first sentence. $\endgroup$
    – Steven Landsburg
    Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ Dear Eric, I added a true link towards your question on Math.SE, I hope you do not mind. $\endgroup$
    – agt
    Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 20:01
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ The analytic input into the proof of GAGA provides everything which is required, so GAGA isn't needed and the algebraic proof (appropriately formulated) literally works in the analytic setting. Namely, by the analytic ampleness properties of $O(1)$, any coherent analytic sheaf on a closed complex-analytic subspace $X$ of $\mathbf{CP}^n$ has a resolution by vector bundles. So if $X$ is smooth then by Serre's theorem on finiteness of global dimension of regular local rings (applied to stalks of $O_X$) this resolution has vector bundle kernel at the $(\dim X)$-th step. $\endgroup$
    – user76758
    Commented Jan 9, 2014 at 20:22
  • $\begingroup$ @user76758 thanks. maybe you should make your comment an answer. also, do you have good references for these statements? thanks. $\endgroup$
    – Eric O. Korman
    Commented Jan 12, 2014 at 4:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Eric: Since I assume you have read the proof of GAGA, and hence must know the analytic properties of $O(1)$ and the basic theory of coherent-analytic sheaves (without which that proof doesn't work), you just use exactly the same proof as in the algebraic case. There is probably no reference because it is literally the same argument. Just talk with anyone in algebraic geometry or number theory on the faculty at your university if you have further questions about it. $\endgroup$
    – user76758
    Commented Jan 12, 2014 at 17:08

0

Reset to default

You must log in to answer this question.