12
$\begingroup$

Let $X=E_1\times\cdots\times E_n$, where $E_i$ is the elliptic curve $E_i=\mathbb{C}/(\mathbb{Z}+\mathbb{Z}\alpha_i)$. In Grothendieck's "The Hodge Conjecture is False for Trivial Reasons," $X$ is stated to fail the original formulation of the Generalized Hodge Conjecture, for appropriate choices of $\alpha_i$. Namely, there exist classes in $F^1H^n(X,\mathbb{C})\cap H^n(X,\mathbb{Q})$ that are not generated by images of Gysin maps $H^{n-2q}(Y,\mathbb{Q})\to H^{n}(X,\mathbb{Q})$, where $Y$ is a resolution of a codimension $q\ge1$ subscheme of $X$. (Here $F^1H^n(X,\mathbb{C})=H^{1,n-1}(X)\oplus\cdots\oplus H^{n,0}(X)$ is the first term in the Hodge filtration for $X$.)

He states without proof that the dimension of the subspace of $H^n(X,\mathbb{Q})$ generated by images of Gysin maps is $2^n-N$, where $N$ is the dimension of the $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space generated by distinct products of $\alpha_i$. I am confused by this, because it seems that when the $\alpha_i$ are generic, this number is 0. In particular, there are no non-zero Hodge classes in $H^2(E_1\times E_2,\mathbb{Q})$, but don't $E_1\times 0$ and $0\times E_2$ define nonzero Hodge classes?

Would appreciate it if someone could clear up my confusion and also provide a hint for how to prove the claim in the above paragraph.

$\endgroup$
6
$\begingroup$

This definitely looks like an error in Grothendieck's paper! I think I have figured out what he meant. To simplify notation, I will concentrate on the case where Grothendieck builds his example: $H^3$ of a product of $3$ elliptic curves. I prefer to think in homology for this purpose, so I'll be talking about $H_3(E_1 \times E_2 \times E_3)$.

Put $X = E_1 \times E_2 \times E_3$ where $E_i = \mathbb{C}/(\mathbb{Z}+\mathbb{Z} \tau_i)$. I'll write $z_i$ for the coordinate on the universal cover of $E_i$, so $dz_i$ is the nonvanishing holomorphic $(1,0)$-form on $E_i$.

Let $V$ be the subspace of $H_3(X, \mathbb{Q})$ spanned by the images of all $H_3(Y, \mathbb{Q})$, as $Y$ ranges over $2$-dimensional subvarieties of $X$. Hodge's "general conjecture" is an attempted description of $V$. (The famous Hodge conjecture deals with $H_{2 \dim Y}(Y)$, so we are talking about the span of the fundamental classes; this less famous one allows the subscript on homology to be independent of the dimension of $Y$.)

Specifically, Hodge conjectures that $\alpha \in H_3(X, \mathbb{Q})$ lies in $V$ if and only if $\int_{\alpha} \omega=0$ for any $\omega \in H^{(3,0)}(X)$. In fact, $H^{(3,0)}(X)$ is one dimensional, spanned by $d z_1 \wedge d z_2 \wedge dz_3$, so this criterion says that $\int_{\alpha} d z_1 \wedge d z_2 \wedge dz_3=0$. Let's denote the space of $\alpha$ obeying this condition by $V'$. It is easy to see that $V \subseteq V'$, since $ d z_1 \wedge d z_2 \wedge dz_3|_Y=0$ for any algebraic surface $Y$.

Grothendieck observes that, for "trivial reasons", $V$ is even dimensional. However, he shows that $V'$ need not be.

By Kunneth, we have $$H_3(X, \mathbb{Q}) = \bigoplus_{i_1+i_2+i_3=3} H_{i_1}(E_1, \mathbb{Q}) \otimes H_{i_2}(E_2, \mathbb{Q}) \otimes H_{i_3}(E_3, \mathbb{Q}).$$ Every summand other than $H_1 \otimes H_1 \otimes H_1$ is easily seen to be in $V$. So it is natural to consider the inclusion $V \cap (H_1\otimes H_1 \otimes H_1) \subseteq V' \cap (H_1\otimes H_1 \otimes H_1)$, which will be equality if and only if $V \subseteq V'$ is equality. I believe that Grothendieck, without bothering to say so, has switched to working with these subspaces in his dimension computation. Each of the other summands is two-dimensional, so this doesn't effect the parity of the dimension.

So, let's compute the dimension of $V' \cap (H_1\otimes H_1 \otimes H_1)$. Let $\gamma^0_i$ be the $1$-cycle $\mathbb{R}/\mathbb{Z}$ in $E_i$, and let $\gamma^1_i$ be the $1$-cycle $\mathbb{R} \tau_i/\mathbb{Z} \tau_i$. So $\gamma^0_i$, $\gamma^1_i$ is a basis of $H_1(E, \mathbb{Q})$. So a basis for $H_1 \otimes H_1 \otimes H_1$ is the $8$ products $\gamma_1^{j_1} \times \gamma_2^{j_2} \times \gamma_3^{j_3}$, where each $j_i$ is $0$ or $1$. We have $\int_{\gamma_i^j} dz_i = \tau_i^j$, so $$\int_{\gamma_1^{j_1} \times \gamma_2^{j_2} \times \gamma_3^{j_3}} d z_1 \wedge d z_2 \wedge dz_3 = \tau_1^{j_1} \tau_2^{j_2} \tau_3^{j_3}.$$ Putting $$\alpha = \sum_{j_1, j_2, j_3 =0}^1 c(j_1, j_2, j_3)\ [\gamma_1^{j_1} \times \gamma_2^{j_2} \times \gamma_3^{j_3}] \in H_3(X, \mathbb{Q}),$$ we see that $\alpha \in V'$ if and only if $$\sum_{j_1, j_2, j_3 =0}^1 c(j_1, j_2, j_3) \ \tau_1^{j_1} \tau_2^{j_2} \tau_3^{j_3}=0.$$ Thus, $V' \cap (H_1\otimes H_1 \otimes H_1)$ is identified with the $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space $$\left\{ c \in \mathbb{Q}^{\{0,1\}^3} : \sum_{j_1, j_2, j_3 =0}^1 c(j_1, j_2, j_3) \ \tau_1^{j_1} \tau_2^{j_2} \tau_3^{j_3}=0 \right\}.$$ We see that the dimension of $V' \cap (H_1\otimes H_1 \otimes H_1)$ is $2^3-N$ where $N$ is the dimension of the $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space spanned by the monomials $\tau_1^{j_1} \tau_2^{j_2} \tau_3^{j_3}$.

As Grothendieck points out, if $\tau_1=\tau_2=\tau_3$ is a cubic irrational, these monomials span a $3$-dimensional vector space. As you say, for generic $\tau_i$, the monomomials span an $8$ dimensional vector space, so $V' \cap (H_1\otimes H_1 \otimes H_1)=0$. This reflects that the obvious classes, coming from $H_3(E_i \times E_j)$ with $1 \leq i < j \leq 3$, are all in the other summands of $H_3(X)$.

$\endgroup$

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.