$\def\PP{\mathbb{P}}$In a course where all varieties are quasi-projective (as in Shafarevich Volume I), I am trying to figure out whether I can justify talking about the total spaces of the tangent and cotangent bundles to a smooth variety.

The tangent bundle to a (quasi)-affine variety is fine. If $X$ is (quasi)-affine, embedded as a subvariety of some vector space $V$, then the tangent bundle of $V$ is isomorphic to $V \oplus V$, and $TX$ is a subvariety of $TV$.

If $X$ embeds in $\PP(W)$, then the tangent bundle to $X$ embeds in the tangent bundle to $T \PP(W)$, so the question is whether there is a sufficiently nice proof that $T \PP(W)$ is quasi-projective. The best I can do is the following: For $\bar{w}$ in $\PP(W)$, the tangent space $T_{\bar{w}} \PP(W)$ is canonically isomorphic to $\mathrm{Hom}(k \bar{w}, W/k \bar{w})$. For $(\bar{w}, \phi) \in T \PP(W)$, choose a lift $\vec{w}$ of $\bar{w}$ to $W$ and a lift $\tilde{\phi} \in \mathrm{Hom}(k \vec{w}, W)$ of $\phi$. Send $(\bar{w}, \phi)$ to $(\vec{w} \otimes \vec{w},\ \vec{w} \wedge \tilde{\phi}(\vec{w}))$ in $\mathbb{P}(\mathrm{Sym}^2 W \oplus \bigwedge^2 W)$. Then the projectivization and the wedge product cancel out our choices, and I believe I can show this is a regular immersion of $T \PP(W)$ into $\mathbb{P}(\mathrm{Sym}^2 W \oplus \bigwedge^2 W)$. This construction is too ugly to present; does anyone know a nicer one?

The cotangent bundle seems to be much worse. It doesn't even make sense unless $\Omega^1$ is reflexive, but let's say $X$ is smooth.

It is true that, if $X$ is affine, then the total space of any vector bundle $E \to X$ is affine. (Use the fact that affineness of a morphism can be checked on any affine cover, see for example Prop 7.3.4 in Vakil, and contrast with Jason Starr's answer here.)

Also, if $X$ is quasi-projective, then the total space of any vector bundle $\pi: E \to X$ is quasi-projective. (Proof sketch: Let $\mathcal{E}^{\vee}$ be the sheaf of sections of the dual bundle. For $L$ sufficiently ample, $\mathcal{E}^{\vee} \otimes L$ is globally generated. I think we can then embed $E$ in $\PP(H^0(X, L)^{\vee} \oplus H^0(X, \mathcal{E}^{\vee} \otimes L)^{\vee})$.)

But these arguments are clearly not for a first term. Is there some more elementary way to do it, or does this just wait until next term?

  • $\begingroup$ Cannot this be somehow derived from the case of the universal principal bundle over the Grassmanian (which is the (Stiefel) manifold of linearly independent tuples)? $\endgroup$ – მამუკა ჯიბლაძე Nov 6 '14 at 19:23
  • $\begingroup$ Interesting idea! Yes, possibly. I've already built the universal sub-bundle. It looks like, to do what you suggest, I'd have to build the universal quotient bundle as well. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Nov 6 '14 at 21:26
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user52824 Absolutely! So far I have made this point concerning: The definition of product (why do we have to Segre embed) and the definition of Grassmannian (why can't we just glue $\binom{n}{d}$ affine spaces)? I also plan to make it when talking about normalization. I hadn't realized that total spaces of bundles was another such setting, but now I have another chance to complain about it. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Nov 7 '14 at 14:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @მამუკაჯიბლაძე A globally generated vector bundle is always a quotient of a universal quotient bundle; that's why I needed to get to the quotient bundles. In general, I think the best you can say is that, if $E$ is a vector bundle on a quasi-projective variety $X$ then $E \otimes L$ is globally generated for sufficiently ample $L$. This comes up if you try to define Chern classes in algebraic geometry by pulling back from Grassmannians. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Nov 7 '14 at 14:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @მამუკაჯიბლაძე I actually do think it is progress of a sort. $T^{\ast} X$ is a quotient of $T^{\ast} \mathbb{P}(W)$ so we have plausibly reduced to (1) Embedding $T^{\ast} \mathbb{P}(W)$ and (2) embedding the universal quotient bundle. Not that this is simple enough to belong in a class, but it's fun. $\endgroup$ – David E Speyer Nov 7 '14 at 14:39

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.