First, let me emphasize that for $X$ a not-necessarily proper variety, we say that a line bundle $L$ on $X$ is ample, if for some positive integer $n$, $L^{\otimes n}$ arises as $j^*O(1)$ for some (not-necessarily closed) immersion $j:X\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^n$.

Now, let $X$ be a variety and $L$ a line bundle on $X$, and let
$f:X^{nor}\rightarrow X$ be the normalization map. Suppose that $f^*L$ is ample. Is it true that $L$ is ample?

  • With your definition, a line bundle is ample if and only if it is when you pull it back under a finite map. – Mohan Sep 14 at 13:19
  • Could you please explain why? – jacob Sep 14 at 13:20
  • The best proof (not necessarily the easiest) would be to show that with your definition, a line bundle $L$ is ample if and only for any coherent sheaf $F$, $H^i(F\otimes L^n)=0$ for all large $n$ and all $i>0$. This property transfers nicely under finite maps. – Mohan Sep 14 at 13:24
  • 1
    @Mohan: your criterion is not true for non-proper varieties. For example, consider $\mathscr L = \mathcal O_X$ on $X = \mathbb A^2 \setminus \{0\}$, which is ample by Tag 01QE (and take $\mathscr F = \mathcal O_X$ as well). – R. van Dobben de Bruyn Sep 14 at 14:21
  • @R.vanDobbendeBruyn You are right, it is a mistake. – Mohan Sep 14 at 15:25
up vote 6 down vote accepted

There is a non-quasi-affine variety $X$ with quasi-affine normalization. See Tag 0271. Then $\mathcal{O}_X$ is a counter example.

Your Answer


By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.