2
$\begingroup$

Let $X$ be a smooth variety over $\mathbb{C}$, and let $\omega \in \operatorname{Pic}(X)_\mathbb{R}$ be an ample class. I would like to know if any $\mu_\omega$-semistable sheaf $E \in \operatorname{Coh}(X)$ admits a Jordan-Hölder sequence, i.e. a finite sequence $$0 = E_0 \subset E_1 \subset \dots \subset E_{n-1} \subset E_n = E,$$ such that the factors $E_i / E_{i+1}$ are $\mu_\omega$-stable.

Lehn and Huybrechts state something similar, the claim the existence of a Jordan-Hölder sequence with stable factors, which, according to the same book, is a weaker notion than $\mu$-stability. Also, I don't understand the proof they give:

Proof. Any filtration of $E$ by semistable sheaves with reduced Hilbert polynomial $p(E)$ has a maximal refinement, whose factors are necessarily stable.

Why is that true, and what exactly is a maximal refinement? Or am I missing something different here?

This is what I tried:

If $E$ is not already stable, the set of proper subsheaves $E' \subsetneq E$ with $\mu(E') = \mu(E)$ is non-empty. Then we can mod out a maximal subsheaf of that kind (which exists by Noetherianity), and obtain $F = E / E'$.

Question 1: Why is $F$ torsion free?

Equivalently, one could ask why $E'$ is saturated. It would also be sufficient if the saturation $\tilde{E''}$ of any submodule $E'' \subset E$ had the same slope, but I don't think this is true: If $\tilde{E''} / E''$ is supported in dimension $1$, then $c_1(\tilde{E''} / E'') \cdot \omega > 0$, so $\mu(\tilde{E''}) < \mu(E'')$.

Now suppose $F$ is torsion free. Then $\mu(F) = \mu(E)$, and $F$ is in fact $\mu$-stable, because any proper nonzero quotient $F \to Q \to 0$ with $\mu(Q) = \mu(F) = \mu(E)$ violates the maximality of $E'$. So inductively we can construct a sequence $$ E = E^0 \supset E^1 \supset E^2 \supset \dots,$$ whose quotients $F^i = E^i / E^{i+1}$ are torsion-free, stable sheaves of slope $\mu(E)$. Because the quotients are torsion-free, the ranks of the $F^i$ are strictly decreasing, so the sequence has to stop.

Question 2: Is the rest of my reasoning correct?

A bit of context: I'm reading Bridgeland's Stability conditions on K3 surfaces, and in the proof of Lemma 6.2, he writes:

The only nontrivial part is to check that if a torsion-free $\mu_\omega$-semistable sheaf $E$ satisfies $(\Delta − r\beta)\cdot\omega = 0$, then $Z(E) \in \mathbb R_{ >0}$. It is enough to check this when $E$ is $\mu_\omega$-stable.

I figured that a Jordan–Hölder sequence might prove this reduction step, and I don't see any other way to do it.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is done in detail in the book by Huybrechts and Lehn. $\endgroup$ – abx Dec 13 '19 at 14:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @abx I don't see this in the book. They prove in detail the existence of a Harder-Narasimhan filtration, but the Jordan-Hölder filtration is really short. I added a paragraph about my confusion. Or am I missing something here? $\endgroup$ – red_trumpet Dec 13 '19 at 16:12
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The final blockquote seemed to be directly cut-and-pasted, as it had Unicode symbols in place of TeX. I edited, except that I wasn't sure what to make of "$Z(E) ∈ R >0$". I guessed it meant "$Z(E) \in \mathbb R_{> 0}$". If this was wrong, then I apologise; please feel free to (re-)correct it. $\endgroup$ – LSpice Dec 13 '19 at 17:34
  • $\begingroup$ @LSpice You are correct, thanks! I figured there would be no harm leaving the Unicode symbols, but $R > 0$ slipped my sight. $\endgroup$ – red_trumpet Dec 13 '19 at 17:36
0
$\begingroup$

So I talked to my advisor, and one of the misconceptions I had is about $\mu_\omega$-semistability: A torsion-free sheaf $E$ is called $\mu_\omega$-semistable, if for all subsheaves $0 \neq E' \subset E$ with $\operatorname{rk}(E') < \operatorname{rk}(E)$, one has $\mu_{\omega}(E') \leq \mu_\omega(E)$. Similar for stability.

With this definition, one can take a maximal subsheaf $E'$ with $\mu_\omega(E') = \mu_\omega(E)$ and $\operatorname{rk}(E') < \operatorname{rk}(E)$. Then the saturation $\tilde{E'}$ has the same rank, and $c_1(E') + c_1(\tilde{E'} / E') = c_1(\tilde{E'})$. Because $\omega$ is ample, $c_1(\tilde{E'} / E') \cdot \omega \geq 0$, so $$c_1(\tilde{E'}) \cdot \omega \geq c_1(E') \cdot \omega,$$ and the same is true for the slopes. But $E'$ already has maximal slope, so $\mu(\tilde{E'}) = \mu(E')$, and hence $E' = \tilde{E'}$ by the maximality.

Would be nice if someone could check this :)

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.