6
$\begingroup$

Let $\mathcal E$ be an $SL(2)$-bundle on $\mathbb P^2$. Assume that the restriction of $\mathcal E$ to any $\mathbb P^1$ is non-trivial. Is it true that $\mathcal E$ is a direct sum of two line bundles?

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ In positive characteristic $2$, I believe that can fail (possibly you are interested only in characteristic $0$). If you pullback the tangent bundle of $\mathbb{P}^2$ by a Frobenius map, then the degree is even. Thus, you can tensor with an invertible sheaf to make the determinant trivial. Every line in $\mathbb{P}^2$ maps under Frobenius to a line (with different coefficients). The restriction of $T_{\mathbb{P}^2}$ to a line is $\mathcal{O}(2)\oplus \mathcal{O}(1).$ $\endgroup$ Nov 1, 2017 at 19:21
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. But what about characteristic 0? $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2017 at 2:01
  • $\begingroup$ The answer by @Sasha works in all characteristics. If $E$ is a direct sum of $\mathcal{O}(-d)$ and $\mathcal{O}(d)$, then the second Chern class of $E$ equals $-d^2 c_1(\mathcal{O}(1))^2$ for the integer $d$. Thus, for a rank $2$ locally free whose first Chern class is not such a negative square, $E$ cannot be a direct sum of invertible sheaves. $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2017 at 2:04
  • $\begingroup$ Note, that my previous comment also explains pullbacks of the tangent bundle. For every morphism $f:\mathbb{P}^2\to \mathbb{P}^2$ with $f^*\mathcal{O}(1)\cong \mathcal{O}(2b)$ for an integer $b$ (whether or not $f$ is a Frobenius morphism), for $E=\mathcal{O}(-3b)\otimes f^*T_{\mathbb{P}^2}$, then $c_2(E)$ equals $3e^2 c_1(\mathcal{O}(1))^2$, and this is not of the form $-d^2c_1(\mathcal{O}(1))^2.$ Thus, $E$ is not a direct sum of two line bundles. $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2017 at 2:47
  • $\begingroup$ And is it obvious that $f^*T_{\mathbb P^2}$ is not a direct sum of two line bundles? $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2017 at 4:33

2 Answers 2

4
$\begingroup$

No. A simple counterexample is a nontrivial extension $$ 0 \to O(1) \to E \to I_x(-1) \to 0, $$ where $x$ is a point and $I_x$ is its ideal sheaf.

EDIT: basics of Serre's construction.

First, note that $$ Ext^1(I_x(−1),O(1)) \cong Ext^2(O_x,O(1)) \cong H^0(\mathbb{P}^2,\mathcal{E}\mathit{xt}^2(O_x,O(1))) \cong H^0(\mathbb{P}^2,O_x). $$ Next, let us rewrite the defining sequence of $E$ as $$ 0 \to O(1) \to E \to O(-1) \to O_x \to 0. $$ Applying $\mathcal{H}\mathit{om}(-,O(1))$ to it, we get $$ 0 \to O(2) \to E^\vee(1) \to O \to \mathcal{E}\mathit{xt}^2(O_x,O(1)) \to \mathcal{E}\mathit{xt}^1(E,O(1)) \to 0. $$ So, to check that $\mathcal{E}\mathit{xt}^1(E,O(1)) = 0$ and hence $E$ is locally free, it is enough to show that the map $$ O \to \mathcal{E}\mathit{xt}^2(O_x,O(1)) \cong O_x $$ is surjective. But by the above chain of isomorphisms, this map corresponds to the original extension class, hence is non-zero. And any non-zero map to $O_x$ is surjective.

$\endgroup$
8
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. Could you explain the notation? What is $I_x$? $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2017 at 4:31
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexanderBraverman: $I_x$ is the ideal of the point $x$. $\endgroup$
    – Sasha
    Nov 2, 2017 at 5:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, thanks. And why is such an extension locally free? (Sorry for the stupid questions) $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2017 at 14:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @AlexanderBraverman: This is a special case of Serre's correspondence. Just note that $Ext^1(I_x(-1),O(1)) \cong Ext^2(O_x,O(1)) = H^0(\mathbb{P}^2,\mathcal{E}\mathit{xt}^2(O_x,O(1))) \cong H^0(\mathbb{P}^2,O_x)$ and hence the class of the extension generates the sheaf $\mathcal{E}\mathit{xt}^2(O_x,O(1)) \cong O_x$. $\endgroup$
    – Sasha
    Nov 2, 2017 at 15:17
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I am probably missing something basic: I understand why there is such a non-trivial extension, but why is it locally free? Doesn't it necessarily split in some neighbourhood of $x$? $\endgroup$ Nov 2, 2017 at 22:05
0
$\begingroup$

Let's look at $T_{\mathbb{P}^2}$ as Jason Starr suggests. We have the Euler exact sequence:

$$ 0 \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^3 \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2}(1) \rightarrow T_{\mathbb{P}^2} \rightarrow 0$$

Note that $\mathrm{Ext}^1(L_1,L_2) = 0$ for any two line bundles on $\mathbb{P}^2$. Hence, if $T_{\mathbb{P}^2}$ splits as direct sum of line bundles (say $L_1 \oplus L_2$), we have:

$$ \mathbb{C}^3 \otimes \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2}(1) = \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2} \oplus L_1 \oplus L_2,$$

which is clearly impossible. On the other hand, $T_{\mathbb{P}^2}$ is obviously $\mathrm{SL}_3$-homogeneous and by the normal exact sequence, the restriction of $T_{\mathbb{P}^2}$ to any $\mathbb{P}^1$ is $\mathcal{O}(1) \oplus \mathcal{O}(2)$, which is non-trivial.

You might be interested in the following result:

Theorem (Grauert-Mülich) : Let $E$ be a rank $2$, $\mu$-semi-stable vector bundle on $\mathbb{P}^2$ with $c_1(E) = 0.$ Then, for a generic line $l \subset \mathbb{P}^2$, the restriction $E|_{l}$ is trivial.

You could also have a look at this paper https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/BFb0099972 by Maruyama. In there he studies the singularities of the curve of lines $l \in \mathbb{P}^2$ such $E|_{l}$ is non-trivial.

EDIT I misunderstood what was meant by $\mathrm{SL}_2$-bundle. By $\mathrm{SL}_2$-bundle, you mean a rank-$2$ vector bundle with trivial first Chern class. So if your vector bundle does not restrict to the trivial bundle on the generic $\mathbb{P}^1$, then the Grauert-Mülich Theorem implies that it is not $\mu$-semi-stable. In particular, it has a destabilizing sub-line bundle.

It is not obvious to me that all unstable rank $2$ vector bundle on $\mathbb{P}^2$ do split, but that is perhaps true...

EDIT(bis) By proposition 4 of this paper : http://www.seminariomatematico.unito.it/rendiconti/67-1/15.pdf, a rank $2$-vector bundle (say $E$) on $\mathbb{P}^2$ with $c_1 = 0$ splits if and only if $h^1(E(-1)) = 0$.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ You are right that $E$ should be unstable, and this precisely gives my example. The first $O(1)$ is the destabilizing subsheaf. You can replace it by $O(k)$ for any $k > 0$ (and then, of course, replace $I_x(-1)$ by $I_x(-k)$). $\endgroup$
    – Sasha
    Nov 4, 2017 at 21:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Sasha : Ok. Sorry! I thought you had a misprint and that you wanted to write the Koszul complex twisted by $\mathcal{O}(1)$ (which would look like: $$0 \rightarrow \mathcal{O}(-1) \rightarrow \mathcal{O} \oplus \mathcal{O} \rightarrow I_x(1) \rightarrow 0)$$ But you are indeed considering something entirely different. $\endgroup$
    – Libli
    Nov 5, 2017 at 19:26

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.