2
$\begingroup$

Let $f:X\dashrightarrow Y$ be a birational map between projective varieties not contracting any divisor. Assume that $X$ is smooth, and that $Y$ has at most ordinary singularities at finitely many points.

Is it true then that $K_X = f^{*}K_Y$ ?

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ No, let $f$ be the blow-up of a point in smooth $Y$. Then $K_X=f^*K_{Y}+ E$ where $E$ is the exceptional divisor. See, for example, Debarre's book "Higher dimensional algebraic geometry" $\endgroup$ – SashaP Oct 25 '16 at 18:31
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I forgot to write that $f$ does not contract any divisor. $\endgroup$ – Jessica_90 Oct 25 '16 at 18:33
  • $\begingroup$ So, you mean biratonial map, aren't you? $\endgroup$ – SashaP Oct 25 '16 at 18:42
  • $\begingroup$ Exaclty, a birational map (not necessarily a morphism) not contracting any divisor. $\endgroup$ – Jessica_90 Oct 25 '16 at 18:47
8
$\begingroup$

There are several issues with this question.

One issue is that if $f$ is a rational map and not a morphism, then you have to say what you mean by $f^*$. Another issue is that if $K_Y$ is not at least $\mathbb Q$-Cartier, then $f^*K_Y$ doesn't make sense even if $f$ is a morphism. (More precisely, there is no good way to define $f^*K_Y$. In other words, $f^*$ can really only be defined for $\mathbb Q$-Cartier divisors).

I am also not entirely sure what "ordinary singularities" mean, but let me assume that it includes at least "normal". You kind of need that to talk about divisors anyway. I guess it might also imply that $K_Y$ is $\mathbb Q$-Cartier, in which case the second issue is resolved.

I guess you could do the following: If $X$ is normal, then $f$ is defined in codimension $1$, so let $U\subseteq X$ be a dense open set where $f$ is defined and $X\setminus U$ is at least codimension $2$ in $X$. If $f$ does not contract a divisor, then the exceptional set is also at least of codimension $2$, so we might as well assume that $f|_U$ is an isomorphism onto its image. So, you could define "$f^*K_Y$" as the "closure" of $K_U$ on $X$ which should indeed be $K_X$, but this feels more as a push-forward from $Y$ to $X$ than a pull-back, so I'd rather denote it (as it is done in the literature) by $f^{-1}_*K_Y$. But with that it is true that $f^{-1}_*K_Y\sim K_X$ and you don't even have to worry about $K_Y$ being $\mathbb Q$-Cartier.

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.