5
$\begingroup$

Let $E$, $X$ be irreducible smooth algebraic varieties over the complex numbers and let $p \colon E \to X$ be a morphism which is locally trivial with respect to the Zariski topology. Since $p$ is a vector bundle and the varieties are smooth, we get a natural isomorphism $p^\ast \colon\textrm{Pic}(X) \to \textrm{Pic}(E)$ by the pull-back of divisors, see e.g. Chp. 3 in [Fu84].

Is it true that $p^\ast \omega_X = \omega_E$ where $\omega_X$ and $\omega_E$ denote the canonical divisors of $X$ and $E$ respectively?

Any proof, counter-example or textbook reference would be perfect.

[Fu84] W. Fulton. Intersection theory, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984.

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
7
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Take a vector bundle $E$ of rank r+1 on $Y$. We have $K_X=\mathscr O_X(-r-1)\otimes \pi^\ast \det E^\vee\otimes \pi^\ast K_Y$ where $\pi:X=\mathbb P(E)\to Y$ Here is your answer with details :math.stackexchange.com/questions/1559927/… $\endgroup$
    – user21574
    Oct 17, 2017 at 7:58
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Philosophically, the condition would mean that the fibers have trivial canonical bundle. That can be turned into a computation like Jolany describes to show that unless the fibers have trivial canonical bundle, this can't happen $\endgroup$
    – meh
    Oct 17, 2017 at 16:26
  • $\begingroup$ @ aginensky , I gave a related answer, to canonical divisor of projective bundle of $E$ . Th OP asking for canonical divisor of $E$. $\endgroup$
    – user21574
    Oct 17, 2017 at 17:19
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I think the confusion between the commenters comes about because the question is written in a very confusing way. First you say "let $p: E \rightarrow X$ be a morphism which is locally trivial with respect to the Zariski topology". OK, so now I am thinking about a projective bundle, or maybe an isotrivial family of elliptic curves, or... But then in the next sentence you say "Since $p$ is a vector bundle..." Where did that come from? If you really just want to ask about vector bundles, please make that clear. $\endgroup$
    – Pooter
    Oct 18, 2017 at 8:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm very sorry, yes, I wrote the question in a confusing way. I meant that $p \colon E \to X$ is a vector bundle. $\endgroup$
    – Anonymous
    Oct 18, 2017 at 8:42

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
1
$\begingroup$

I'm sorry for asking the question. There is an easy counter-example. Let $\mathbb{F}_1$ be the first Hirzebruch surface and let $\pi \colon \mathbb{F}_1 \to \mathbb{P}^1$ be a projection which makes $\mathbb{F}_1$ a $\mathbb{P}^1$-bundle over $\mathbb{P}^1$. Let $S \subset \mathbb{F}_1$ be the unique section of $\pi$ which has self-intersection $-1$. Then $\pi$ restricts to a vector bundle $p \colon E \to \mathbb{P}^1$ where $E = \mathbb{F}_1 \setminus S$. The canonical divisor of $\mathbb{P}^1$ is $-2 P$ where $P$ is some point on $\mathbb{P}^1$. On the other hand, $\mathbb{F}^1$ is the blow-up of $\mathbb{P}^2$ in one point and thus the canonical divisor of $E$ is given by $-3 F$ where $F$ is a fiber of $p$. But the pull-back of $-2P$ on $E$ is $-2 F$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Here is an even easier counter-example: Any such $p:E\to X$ where the canonical bundle of the fibers is not trivial. $\endgroup$
    – Sándor Kovács
    Oct 17, 2017 at 20:21
  • $\begingroup$ @Sándor Kovács Interesting comment $\endgroup$
    – user21574
    Oct 18, 2017 at 4:42

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.