5
$\begingroup$

I found in the literature that, in characteristic 0, Kodaira vanishing holds for log-canonical pairs. On the other hand, the usual statement for Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing talks about a klt pair $(X,\Delta)$.

Question: Are there (good) examples of failure of Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing for log-canonical pairs (even better, for $\Delta=0$)?

$\endgroup$
3
$\begingroup$

In Prop. 3.13 of http://arxiv.org/pdf/1212.5105.pdf there is an example of a generically finite map $\lambda : T\to A$ where $A$ is an abelian variety and $T$ is a Gorenstein variety with log canonical singularites, and $R^1\lambda _* \omega _T\ne 0$ is supported at a closed point of $A$ (everything is defined over a field of characteristic 0). But then if $H$ is sufficiently ample on $A$, $\lambda ^*H$ is nef and big on $T$ and $H^j(R^i\lambda _* \omega _T)=0$ for $j>0$ and $i\geq 0$. Thus $H^1(T,\omega _T\otimes \lambda ^*H)\cong H^0(R^1\lambda _* \omega _T \otimes H)\ne 0$.

There are surely more straightforward examples (eg. there is no need to go to the trouble of guaranteeing that there is a generically finite map to an abelian variety).

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm a little confused by this answer. It seems to contradict Theorem 1.7 in the article linked in the question. If $T$ has a single isolated lc singularity, then this point is the only log canonical center of $T$ so any big and nef line bundle $L$ is big when restricted to the log canonical centers of $(T,0)$. The above theorem then guarantees that $H^j(T, \omega_T \otimes L) = 0$ for $j > 0$. What am I missing? $\endgroup$ – Dori Bejleri Sep 24 '16 at 16:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Dori Thank!. You are right, it is not an isolated singularity, but the singularity does live over a single point on the abelian variety. Also thanks for adding the reference to Thm 1.10 of Fujino's paper. $\endgroup$ – Hacon Sep 25 '16 at 3:03
  • $\begingroup$ Ah okay that makes more sense. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – Dori Bejleri Sep 25 '16 at 3:16
6
$\begingroup$

Here is a straightforward example with $\Delta \neq 0$. I think it can be adapted to give an example without a boundary.

Let $X_0 = C \times C'$ be a product of elliptic curves viewed as an elliptic fibration $X_0 \to C$ with a fixed section $S_0$ and fiber $E_0$. Let $\mu : X \to X_0$ be the blowup of the intersection point $p = S_0 \cap E_0$. I'll denote the exceptional divisor by $A$ and the two strict tranforms by $S$ and $E$.

Now consider the log canonical pair $(X, \Delta = S + F + E)$ where $F$ is the strict transform of a fiber disjoint from $p$. We have that $K_X \sim_\mathbb{Q} A$ and $$ L = K_X + \Delta = K_X + S + F + E $$ is big, nef and even semiample. $L$ is zero precisely on $E$ so the basepoint free linear series $|mL|$ for $m \gg 0$ induces a log canonical contraction $f : X \to Y$ that contracts $E$ to an elliptic singularity and $Y$ is the log canonical model of $(X, \Delta)$.

Now we want to show that $\mathcal{O}_X(mL) = \omega_X(\Delta) \otimes \mathcal{O}_X((m-1)L)$ has nonzero higher cohomology. First note that $f_*\mathcal{O}_X(mL) = \mathcal{O}_Y(m(K_X + f_*\Delta))$ is sufficiently ample on $Y$ so $H^j(f_*\mathcal{O}_X(mL)) = 0$ for $j > 0$. Therefore $$ H^1(X, \mathcal{O}_X(mL)) = H^0(Y, R^1f_*\mathcal{O}_X(mL)) $$ from Leray spectral sequence. Now $R^1f_*\mathcal{O}_X(mL)$ is a skyscraper sheaf at $f(E)$ and we can compute this is nonzero by the theorem on formal functions using: $(1)$ $E$ is an elliptic curve, $(2)$ $mL|_E = \mathcal{O}_E$.

Here the restriction of $mL$ to $E$ contributes to the cohomology since $E$ is a log canonical center of the pair. If I understand correctly, this is the only way that KV vanishing can fail for log canonical pairs:

$\textbf{Theorem:}$ Let $(X, \Delta)$ be a projective log canonical pair. Let $L$ be a big and nef $\mathbb{Q}$-Cartier divisor such that $L$ remains big when restricted to each log canonical center of $(X,\Delta)$. Then $$ H^j(X, \mathcal{O}_X(K_X + \Delta + L)) = 0 $$ for $j > 0$.

This is a special cause of Theorem 1.10 in this paper of Fujino. See also Theorem 1.7 in the paper linked in the question.

$\endgroup$

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.