1
$\begingroup$

Let $X_0$ be a smooth projective variety over the complex numbers and let $X$ be an infinitesimal deformation of $X_0$ over the ring of dual numbers.

If the canonical bundle of $X_0$ is ample (resp. anti-ample), does it follow that the canonical bundle of $X$ over $\mathbb C[\epsilon]$ is ample (resp. anti-ample)?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

This is true in a much more general setting:

Fact Let $X$ be a proper variety over a noetherian ring $A$ and let $\mathscr L$ be a line bundle on $X$. Then $\mathscr L$ is ample if and only if $\mathscr L_{\mathrm{red}}\simeq \mathscr L\otimes \mathscr O_{X_{\mathrm{red}}}\ $ is ample on $X_{\mathrm{red}}$.

See Exc.III.5.7(b) in [Hartshorne] for the proper case and EGA II, 4.5.13 without the proper assumption (thanks to @Laurent Moret-Bailly for the EGA reference).

In your case $X_0\simeq X_{\mathrm{red}}$ and $\omega_{X_0}\simeq \left(\omega_{X} \right)_{\mathrm{red}}\simeq \left(\omega_{X/\mathbb C[\varepsilon]}\ \ \right)_{\mathrm{red}}$ .

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In fact $X$ need not be proper; or even of finite type (EGA II, 4.5.13). $\endgroup$ – Laurent Moret-Bailly Jul 1 '15 at 5:56
  • $\begingroup$ Right, of course. I guess I got stock in the proper world by the wording of the question... :) $\endgroup$ – Sándor Kovács Jul 1 '15 at 6:58

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.