4
$\begingroup$

I wonder whether it is true that the composition of two GIT-quotients is another GIT-quotient. It should be an analogue of a set-theoretic formula $X/(G \times H)\simeq (X/G)/H$ but with GIT-quotients instead.


Background. Mumford's theorem (GIT, thm. 1.10). Let $G$ be a reductive group acting on an algebraic variety $X$ and (linearly) on a vector space $V$, and let $\phi: X \to \mathbb PV$ be a $G$-morphism. Then there is a non-empty open subset $$X_{ss,\phi}=\{ x \in X : \text{for any $v\in V$ representing $\phi(x)\in\mathbb PV$}$$ $$\text{the closure $\overline{Gv}$ of the $G$-orbit of $v$ does not contain $0\in V$ } \}$$ such that there exists a geometric quotient categorical quotient $p: X_{ss,\phi} \to X_{ss,\phi}/G$. It is called (semistable) GIT-quotient.


Problem. Let $G \times H$ be a reductive group acting on an algebraic variety $X$ and (linearly) on a vector space $V$, and let $\phi: X \to \mathbb PV$ be a $G$-morphism. By Mumford's theorem, there is the GIT-quotient $p_1: X_{ss, \phi} \to X_{ss, \phi} / G$ and it satisfies a universal of categorical quotient, $H$ also acts on $Y:=X_{ss, \phi} / G$.

Now let $H$ act (linearly) on a vector space $W$ and $\psi: Y \to \mathbb PW$ be an $H$-morphism, so that there is a GIT-quotient $p_2: Y_{ss,\psi} \to Y_{ss,\psi} / H$. So let us denote $Z:=Y_{ss,\psi} / H$.

Now suppose that not only $H$ but $G \times H$ acts (linearly) on $W$. Let $\chi: X \to \mathbb PW$ be a $G \times H$-morphism such that the following diagram is commutative: $$\begin{array}{ccc} X & \xrightarrow{\chi} & \mathbb PW \\ \uparrow i && \uparrow \psi \\ X_{ss,\phi} & \xrightarrow{p} &Y \end{array}$$

So there is a GIT-quotient $X_{ss, \chi} \to X_{ss, \chi} / (G \times H)$. I wonder whether $$X_{ss, \chi}=X_{ss, \phi} \cap p_1^{-1}(Y_{ss, \psi})$$ and $$X_{ss, \chi} / (G \times H) \simeq Z.$$

Any suggestions: references, counterexamples or corrections are welcome!

$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

My question should have consisted of two. I will formulated both using linearization via line bundles, not embeddings into projective space, as it makes them more clear.

Question 1. Suppose that $\pi: X \to Y$ is a quotient by $G$, that $H$ acts on $X$ commuting with $G$ (so that $H$ also acts on $Y$) and that $\mathcal L$ is $H$-line bundle on $Y$. Is it true that $$X //_{\pi^* \mathcal L} (G \times H) = Y //_{\mathcal L} H?$$

Answer 1. First, $\pi^* \mathcal L$ is $G \times H$-line bundle. Second, if the action of $G$ is free, holds $$\bigoplus_{n \geqslant 0} H^0(X, \pi^*\mathcal L^{\otimes n})^{G \times H}=\bigoplus_{n \geqslant 0} H^0(Y, \mathcal L^{\otimes n})^H,$$ and taking $Proj$'s, one proves the fact. If the action is not free, there should be a counterexample, I believe.

Question 2. Suppose that $\mathcal L_1$ and $\mathcal L_2$ are $G$- and $G \times H$-line bundles on $M$. Is it true that $$(M^{ss}(\mathcal L_1)) //_{\mathcal L_2} (G \times H) = M //_{\mathcal L_2} (G \times H)?$$

(To get the situation of the question 1, let $X=M^{ss}(\mathcal L_1)$ and $\mathcal L_2=\pi^*\mathcal L$.)

Answer 2. Of course not, why should it be, even if $H=0$? For example, consider Atiyah flop: let $$M=\mathrm{Spec}\; \mathbb C[x_i, y_j] \quad (i=1\ldots k,\;j=1\ldots l)$$ with $G=\mathbb C^*$ acting via $t(x_i, y_j)=(tx_i, t^{-1}y_j)$. Choose $\mathcal L_1=\mathcal O(t)$ and $\mathcal L_2=\mathcal O(t^{-1})$. Then $M^{ss}(\mathcal L_1)=\{ \overline x \neq 0 \}$ and $M^{ss}(\mathcal L_2)=\{ \overline y \neq 0 \}$ and the quotients are geometric, therefore $$(M^{ss}(\mathcal L_1)) //_{\mathcal L_2} (G \times H) \subsetneq M //_{\mathcal L_2} (G \times H).$$ For the details on this beautiful construction, see Miles Reid's What is a flip?

$\endgroup$

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.