3
$\begingroup$

Let $X_k$ be $\mathbb{P}^2$ blown up at $k$ points (where $k$ is $0$ to $8$). Let $\beta \in H_2(X_k, \mathbb{Z}) $ be a homology class given by $$ \beta := n L + m_1 E_1 + \ldots + m_k E_k $$ where $L$ is the homology class of a line and $E_i$ are the exceptional divisors. My question is as follows:

Which homology classes are $\textit{indecomposable}$? By definition, a homology class is indecomposable if:

a) It can be represented by a non constant holomorphic map $u:\mathbb{P}^1 \longrightarrow X_k $ and

b) It cannot be written as $\beta = \beta_1 + \ldots \beta_n$ for some $n \geq 2$ such that each $\beta_i$ has a non constant holomorphic representative (as a map from $\mathbb{P}^1 $ to $X_k$).

My motivation for asking the question is as follows: I am explicitly trying to work out what is $N_{\beta}$, the number of rational curves in $X_k$ (through the right number of generic points) that represent the class $\beta$. Kontsevich and Mannin have given a recursive formula for this number in their paper (page 29)

http://www.ihes.fr/~maxim/TEXTS/WithManinCohFT.pdf

In order to actually calculate what is $N_{\beta}$, we need some initial conditions. I think the initial condition is that $N_{\beta} =1$ if $\beta$ is indecomposable.

$\textbf{Added Later:}$ Based on Mark's observation (and one further question I have about Kontsevich Mannin's paper) I have posted a separate question on mathoverflow

Are genus zero Gromov Witten Invariants on Del-Pezzo surfaces enumerative?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ If $k \geq 2$ the extremal rays on the cone of curves are all the classes of $(-1)$-curves (which are in particular rational), and I guess these classes should be indecomposable. Any other effective class can be written as a positive $\mathbb Q$-linear combination of these, but maybe not as an integer combination, I suppose. Do you know any examples of indecomposable classes that aren't just $(-1)$-curves? $\endgroup$ – user47305 May 27 '15 at 2:11
  • $\begingroup$ I guess when $k = 8$ you have the class of a nodal cubic through the points. So there are more than just $(-1)$-curves. (I think for that class $N_\beta = 12$, though I could be wrong.) $\endgroup$ – user47305 May 27 '15 at 2:17
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Mark: see arxiv.org/abs/math/0309111, especially Corollary 3.3. $\endgroup$ – user5117 May 27 '15 at 5:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Ritwik There are no such curves if the points are general. The only way that class can be effective is if all $8$ points are collinear. $\endgroup$ – user47305 May 27 '15 at 13:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Ritwik There is no curve representing the class $L-E_1 -\cdots- E_8$ unless the 8 points are collinear. That is the class of a line going through all eight points. $\endgroup$ – user47305 May 27 '15 at 13:39
2
$\begingroup$

Let me just summarize the comment thread in case someone more knowledgeable is willing to intervene.

Artie observes that The Cox Ring of a Del Pezzo surface by Batyrev--Popov shows that every effective class on a del Pezzo with $k \geq 2$ is a sum of $(-1)$-curve classes, with one exception. This means that no effective classes can be indecomposable in the sense above except for those of $(-1)$-curves. All the $(-1)$-curve classes are clearly indecomposable and have $N_\delta = 1$. And of course it is easy to write down these classes explicitly.

The one exception is that if $k = 8$ the anticanonical class is not a sum of two nonzero effective classes. This class is represented by (the strict transforms of) the pencil of cubics through the 8 blown up points. There are 12 singular cubics in the pencil, hence 12 that are rational, and it seems that we should have $N_\delta = 12$ by the OP's definition. The catch is that Kontsevich-Manin "expect" $N_\delta = 1$ for an indecomposable class on a del Pezzo (page 29 of the article in the question, following Claim 5.2.3).

So the question is, have we misunderstood something along the way (more likely, e.g. the definition of $N_\delta$), or did the authors forget a minor case? (A secondary question: is this already worked out somewhere?)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I have asked this as a separate question. There is a further question I had about Kontsevich Mannis's paper. I combined that and your question in this thread mathoverflow.net/questions/207812/… $\endgroup$ – Ritwik May 28 '15 at 6:17

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.