0
$\begingroup$

i'm studying the article "Variétés Kahleriennes dont la première classe de chern est nulle" by Arnaud Beauville and i have a couple of questions i would like to ask you, hoping they are not too trivial.

They are about Corollaire 1 and 2 at pages 776 and 777:

1) Let's say we have $X$ an irreducible symplectic manifold and $L$ an holomorphic not trivial line bundle on $X$. We have $f:\mathcal{X}\rightarrow B$ a Kuranishi family of $X$, with $f^{-1}(0)=X$. I think (i may be wrong) that this is sufficient for Beauville to say that if we have two line bundles $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}'$ on $\mathcal{X}$ such that $\mathcal{L}|_X=\mathcal{L}'|_X$, then we can say that $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}'$ differ by an element in $Pic(B)$.

Again i'm afraid this is trivial, but i can't understand this point.. if i restrict $\mathcal{L}$ and $\mathcal{L}'$ to another fiber $\mathcal{X}_b$ for me a priori the two bundles can differ by an element in $Pic(\mathcal{X}_b)$..

2) With the same hypothesis on $X$, in corollaire 2 Beauville says that if $l$ is the class of an ample line bundle $L$ on $X$ (which gives the embedding $X\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^N$) and $\mathcal{K}$ is the Hilbert scheme of $X$ in $\mathbb{P}^N$, with natural map $h:\mathcal{K}\rightarrow B$ ($B$ again is the base of the Kuranishi family), then the image of $h$ is contained in the set $\widetilde{B}:=\{b\in B| 0\neq{u_b^{-1}}^*(l)\in H^{1,1}(\mathcal{X}_b,\mathbb{Z})\}$.

Of course $u_b:X\rightarrow \mathcal{X}_b$ is the diffeomorphism between the fibers of the Kuranishi family and of course i think that the image of $h$ should be given by the points $b\in B$ for which $\mathcal{X}_b$ is projective.

On $\widetilde{B}$ i know by corollaire 1 that i can extend the line bundle $L$ to a line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ on $\mathcal{X}|_{\widetilde{B}}$, so now by Beauville it should follow that the restriction $\mathcal{L}|_{\mathcal{X}_b}$, $b\in\widetilde{B}$, should be ample. Why is that?

Thank you

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

1): The manifolds considered have $h^{1,0}=0$, so two line bundles $L$ and $L'$ on $\mathcal{X}_b$ are isomorphic if and only if $c_1(L)=c_1(L')$ in $H^2(\mathcal{X}_b,\mathbb{Z})$. If this holds at one point, it holds everywhere.

2): Being ample is an open property, so reducing $B$ if necessary you may indeed assume that $\mathcal{L}|_{\mathcal{X}_b}$ is ample for all $b$ in $\tilde{B} $.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! but now i see what is my problem.. i can't see why is ampleness an open condition.. could you explain that? $\endgroup$ – Paz Deal May 12 '14 at 17:22
  • $\begingroup$ Again about point 2, this doesn't convince me completely, because we are implying that if for a fiber $\mathcal{X}_b$ there is an embedding in $\mathbb{P}^N$, then it must be by a deformation of $L$.. i'm not convinced about that.. $\endgroup$ – Paz Deal May 12 '14 at 17:39

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.