Let $X$ be a smooth projective variety over $\mathbb{C}$. The Hilbert scheme on $X$ parametrizes quotients $\mathcal{O}_X \to E$ with fixed Hilbert polynomial. Let us fix the Hilbert polynomial to lead to subschemes of codimension at least $2$. Then we can also look at the moduli space parametrizing semistable rank $1$ sheaves with corresponding Hilbert polynomial and trivial determinant, i.e. ideal sheaves.

Whenever we have a family of quotients, we can take the kernel to get a family of ideal sheaves. That should induce a bijective morphism. However, it seems unclear to me how to get an inverse morphisms.

Under what kind of hypotheses are these two moduli spaces the same? I am in particular interested in the case of Hilbert schemes of curves in $\mathbb{P}^3$.

Edit: Since I never wrote it down and it came up in the comments, let me write down what the functors are I am exactly talking about.

The Hilbert scheme represents the functor that maps $S$ to quotients $\mathcal{O}_{X \times S} \to E$ that are flat over the base $S$.

The moduli of semistable sheaves represents the functor that maps $S$ to flat families $E \in \operatorname{Coh}(X \times S)$ of semistable sheaves modulo tensoring with line bundles pulled back from $S$.

We then look at the corresponding connected components coming from fixing the Hilbert polynomial and ask whether they are the same.


1 Answer 1


It seems to me that $$\mathscr{I}_Z^{\vee\vee}\simeq \mathscr{O}_X,$$ because the left-hand side is reflexive and isomorphic to $\mathscr{O}_X$ away from $Z$, which has codimension at least $2$ by assumption. In other words, the abstract sheaf $\mathscr{I}_Z$ is canonically embedded in $\mathscr{O}_X$ via the double-dual map $$\mathscr{I}_Z\to \mathscr{I}_Z^{\vee\vee}\simeq \mathscr{O}_X.$$

So the inverse map you are looking for is induced by $$\mathscr{I}_Z\mapsto (\mathscr{O}_X\simeq\mathscr{I}_Z^{\vee\vee}\to \text{coker}(\mathscr{I}_Z\to \mathscr{I}_Z^{\vee\vee})\simeq \mathscr{O}_Z).$$

I suppose I used that $X$ is smooth in the identification $$\mathscr{I}_Z^{\vee\vee}\simeq \mathscr{O}_X,$$ but you can probably relax this a bit. (I'm a little worried about making this work in families, which is, strictly speaking, necessary; so this answer is not quite complete.)

  • 4
    $\begingroup$ "I'm a little worried about making this work in families, which is, strictly speaking, necessary; so this answer is not quite complete." Please see EGA III_2, Corollaire, p. 70: $Y$ is the moduli space of sheaves, $X$ is the product of $Y$ and your fixed variety, $\mathcal{F}$ is the structure sheaf of $X$, and $\mathcal{G}$ is the universal ideal sheaf. Proj of the symmetric algebra of $\mathcal{N}$ is the scheme which naturally maps to the Hilbert scheme. It remains to prove that $\mathcal{N}$ is invertible. This can be checked on closed, affine, Artin subschemes of $Y$. $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2015 at 16:30
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ By the way, if $X$ is a proper Deligne-Mumford stack (rather than a scheme), then existence of $\mathcal{N}$ is generalized via the following article: M. Lieblich, "Remarks on the stack of coherent algebras", Int. Math. Res. Not. 2006, Art. ID 75273. If $X$ is a proper Artin stack whose diagonal is finite, this follows from the following article: Olsson, M. "Hom-stacks and restriction of scalars." Duke Math. J. 134 (2006), no. 1, 139–164. $\endgroup$ Nov 15, 2015 at 18:55
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Since formation of $\mathcal{N}$ is compatible with arbitrary base change, by Daniel's argument the base change of $\mathcal{N}$ from $Y$ to each closed point $y$ of $Y$ is a rank $1$ locally free sheaf. Also, by construction $\mathcal{N}$ is coherent. Thus, by Nakayama's Lemma, Zariski locally $\mathcal{N}$ is a quotient of the structure sheaf of $Y$. If the kernel of this quotient is not zero, then Krull's Intersection Theorem implies the same after base change to $\mathcal{O}_{Y,y}/\mathfrak{m}_{Y,y}^N$, which is Artinian. $\endgroup$ Nov 20, 2015 at 19:21
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Jason's argument shows that $\mathscr{N}$ is a line bundle on $X\times S$ pulled back from the base $S$; to conclude that it is in fact trivial (and hence $\mathscr{N}^{\vee}$ is trivial, which is what we want) use that $\mathscr{N}^\vee\simeq \det(\mathscr{I}_Z)$ b/c it is so away from $Z$ (and its formation commutes w/ base change) and is locally free; but your condition is that $\det(\mathscr{I}_Z)$ is trivial. $\endgroup$ Nov 21, 2015 at 3:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it actually is necessary--you want a map from a moduli space of sheaves to a hilbert scheme. So you need a way of going from a family of sheaves to a family of schemes, in this case by taking the cokernel of the map I produce and arguing that it is the structure sheaf of a subscheme. Unless you pin down the family as I suggest, it simply won't be; rather it'll be a line bundle on a subscheme... $\endgroup$ Nov 21, 2015 at 21:58

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.