I have been reading the section in the beginning of Fourier-Mukai and Nahm Transforms in Geometry and Mathematical Physics by Bartocci et. al., and stumbled across the following sentence (page 26).

If we assume that $X$ is projective, since $G$ is fi nite there exists a $G$-equivariant ample line bundle, and this implies that every $G$-invariant sheaf has a left resolution by locally free $G$-equivariant sheaves.

Unfortunately the authors give no reference for this, is this an easy fact (I am still getting used to equivariant things)? Could some one provide a reference?

More generally, does this statement hold when $X$ is not projective? What about if $G$ is not finite?


Suppose $L$ on $X$ is a (very) ample line bundle. Then $\oplus_{g \in G} g^* L$ is a $G$ equivariant vector bundle. Its determinant is also $G$ equivariant and isomorphic to $\otimes_{g \in G} {g^*L}$, with each factor (very) ample. Thus it is (very) ample.

Now this line bundle gives us a $G$-equivariant embedding into projective space, and to construct the resolution by $G$-equivariant vector bundles we can construct a resolution using bundles of the form $\oplus_{g \in G} g^* \mathcal O(n)$. Other than the "averaging trick," the construction of this resolution is identical to Serre's non-equivariant resolution, i.e. twist high enough that your sheaf is globally generated, use a surjection from a trivial bundle, twist back down, and then repeat for the kernel.

I've used the finiteness of $G$ and the projectivity of $X$ heavily, and I'm not sure what you can say without them.

  • $\begingroup$ I see that finiteness is heavily used, but since a finite resolution of locally free sheaves exists on any regular variety, I’m not sure that projectivity hypotheses are needed. $\endgroup$ – DKS Feb 6 at 2:15
  • $\begingroup$ Also, thank you for enlightening me with regards to the claimed fact. $\endgroup$ – DKS Feb 6 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ @DKS Ah, I didn't know that fact. It does seem then that you could use averaging to construct an equivariant resolution. Do you have a reference? $\endgroup$ – Phil Tosteson Feb 6 at 5:13
  • $\begingroup$ I did end up finding a discussion in Chriss and Ginsburg, Representation Theory and Complex Geometry, the beginning of chapter 5. $\endgroup$ – DKS Feb 6 at 11:05
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A reference for my comment is an exercise in Hartshorne, number III.6.9a if I remember correctly. $\endgroup$ – DKS Feb 6 at 11:05

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.