2
$\begingroup$

Let consider the birational Cremona transformation $\sigma: \mathbb{P}^2 \dashrightarrow \mathbb{P}^2 $ defined by $$(X:Y:Z) \mapsto (X^{-1}:X^{-1}: Z^{-1})=(YZ:XZ:XY)$$.

In language of birational geometry the sections $YZ,XZ,XY \in H^0(\mathbb{P}^2, O_{\mathbb{P}^2}(2))$ induce it as

$$\sigma: \mathbb{P}^2 \backslash B = \mathbb{P}^2_{YZ} \cup \mathbb{P}^2_{XZ} \cup \mathbb{P}^2_{XY} \to \mathbb{P}^2$$.

with the base locus $B= \operatorname{Supp}V(YZ) \cap \operatorname{Supp}V(XZ) \cap \operatorname{Supp}V(XY) $ where $\sigma$ is not defined and $\mathbb{P}^2_{YZ}:= \{p \in \mathbb{P}^2 \ \vert \ (YZ)_p \neq 0 \}$ the non vanishing locus. Similar for $XZ$ and $XY$.

By construction $\mathbb{P}^2_{YZ}= \sigma^{-1}(D_+ (X)), \mathbb{P}^2_{XZ}= \sigma^{-1}(D_+ (Y)), \mathbb{P}^2_{XY}= \sigma^{-1}(D_+ (Z))$. Obviously $\sigma$ is not defined at points $(0:0:1), (0:1:0),(1:0:0) \in B$.

Up to now we introduced some notations; now the essential part of my question:

Let $V(F)=C \subset \mathbb{P}^2 $ be a curve defined by homogeoneous polynomial $F(X,Y,Z)= \sum_{i+j+k=n}a_{ijk}X^iY^jZ^k$ with $deg(F)=n$.

We assume that $C$ has at point $(0:0:1)$ multiplicity $d$, $(0:1:0)$ multiplicity $e$ and $(1:0:0)$ multiplicity $f$.

Recall, how multiplicity is defined: $(0:0:1) \in D_+(Z)$ and when we dehomogenize $F$ with respect $Z$ we get a new polynomial $f^Z$ in variables $x=X/Z,y=Y/Z$ that has structure

$$f^Z(x,y)= \sum_{i+j+k=n}a_{ijk}x^iy^j= \\ \sum_{i+j+k=n, i+j=d}a_{ijk}x^iy^j + \sum_{i+j+k=n, i+j >d}a_{ijk}x^iy^j =: f^Z_d +f^Z_{>d} $$

Recall again that by definition of multiplicity $d$ is minimal natural number with this property: for all $a_{ijk} \neq 0$ we have $i+j \ge d$. This is equivalent to say that $d$ is maximal with the property that the $d$-th power $(x,y)^d$ of the maxiaml ideal $(x,y) \subset k[x,y]$ contains $f^Z(x,y)$.

Analogously for multiplities $e$ and $f$ with respect to $(0:1:0)$ and $(1:0:0)$.

QUESTION: Why the pushforward of $C$ by $\sigma$ is the vanishing set

$$ \sigma_*C = (X^{-f}Y^{-e}Z^{-d}F(YZ,XZ, XY) =0) \ \ \ ?$$

By symmetry reasons it is clear that it suffice to show locally that this holds for restriction to affine open subscheme $D_+(Z)= \operatorname{Spec} \ k[X/Z,Y/Z] \subset \mathbb{P}^2$.

We know from construction that

$$\sigma_*C(D_+(Z))=C(\sigma^{-1}D_+(Z))= C(\mathbb{P}^2_{XY})= \\ C(D_+(XY))= C \vert _{D_+(X)}(D(y)) = k[y,z]_y/f^X(y,z).$$

Recall, $k[y,z]_y= k[y^{\pm 1},z]$ is the localization by $y$. If we now denote

$H:= X^{-f}Y^{-e}Z^{-d}F(YZ,XZ, XY)$ and $S:= V(H)$, then $H$ localized at $Z$ is $h^Z(x,y):=x^{-f}y^{-e} F(y,x, xy)$ and thus

$$S(D_+(Z))= k[x,y]/h^Z(x,y).$$

And we have to verify $k[y,z]_y/f^X(y,z)=k[x,y]/h^Z(x,y)$.

Although up to now I only used definitions (in correct way?) the equation I have to verify seems not to make any sense. I think that somewhere I have already done a hard error but I can't find it. Can anybody help? Is there an easier way to verify the claim in the question?

Thanks for your help.

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

2
$\begingroup$

I think that you need to assume that $F$ is not divisible by $X$, $Y$ or $Z$. This being done, the equation of $\sigma_*(F)$ on the open subset where $XYZ\not=0$ is given by $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$. Hence, $\sigma_*(F)$ is equal to $$F(YZ,XZ,XY)X^aY^bZ^c$$ for some integers $a,b,c\in \mathbb{Z}$. As you want to remove $X=0$, $Y=0$ and $Z=0$ from the polynomial $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$, you can choose $a,b,c$ to be $\le 0$ and then define them as $-\alpha,-\beta,-\gamma$ where $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ are the multiplicities of $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$ along $X=0,Y=0,Z=0$ respectively.

Let us do the case of $X$, the rest being symmetrical. Write $$F=\sum_{i\ge f} X^{n-i} a_i(Y,Z)$$ where each $a_i$ is homogeneous of degree $i$ and $a_f\not=0$ (as $f$ is for you the multiplicity of $F$ at $[1:0:0]$). Then $$F(YZ,XZ,XY)=\sum_{i\ge f} (YZ)^{n-i} a_i(XZ,XY)=X^f(\sum_{i\ge f} (YZ)^{n-i} X^{i-f}a_i(Z,Y))$$ which proves that $\alpha=f$. Similarly, you find $\beta=e$ and $\gamma=d$, giving the desired result.

$\endgroup$
12
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, thank you for your answer. Two aspects I not completely understand. Firstly, you say that the equation of $\sigma_*(V(F)) \vert _{D_+(XYZ)}$ is given by $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$. Could you explain why? Indeed, $\sigma^{-1}(D_+(XYZ))=\sigma^{-1}(D_+(X) \cap D_+(Y) \cap D_+(Z))= D_+(YZ) \cap D_+(XZ) \cap D_+(XY)$, right? But the way how you conclude from this that the restriction of $\sigma_*(F)$ to $D_+(XYZ)$ coinsides with vanishing set of $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$ I not see yet. $\endgroup$
    – user267839
    Apr 12, 2020 at 0:10
  • $\begingroup$ And secondly, when we know that $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$ describes $\sigma_*(V(F)) \vert _{D_+(XYZ)}$, then cleary $\sigma_*(F)$ is the vanishing set of $F(YZ,XZ,XY)X^aY^bZ^c$ with a priori unknown integers $a,b,c$. You wrote: "As you want to remove $X=0$, $Y=0$ and $Z=0$ from the polynomial $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$, you can choose $a,b,c$ to be $\le 0$ and then define them as $-\alpha,-\beta,-\gamma$ where $\alpha,\beta,\gamma$ are the multiplicities of $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$ along $X=0,Y=0,Z=0$ respectively." I not understand why we have to require that $F(YZ,XZ,XY)X^aY^bZ^c$ must be not divisible by $X, Y$ and $Z$? $\endgroup$
    – user267839
    Apr 12, 2020 at 0:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\sigma$ restricts to an automorphism of the open subset of $\mathbb{P}^2$ given by $XYZ\not=0$. I think that it is $D_+(XYZ)$ in your notation. Then, $\sigma_*(F)$ is the closure of the image of $F$ by $\sigma$ on this open set. As $\sigma$ is given by $[X:Y:Z]\mapsto [YZ:XZ:XY]$ on $D_+(XYZ)$, the equation of $\sigma_*(F)$ on any point of $D_+(XYZ)$ is given by $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$. The closure on $\mathbb{P}^2$ does not contain $X=0$ or $Y=0$ or $Z=0$, that is why we remove them and that is why $F(YZ,XZ,XY)X^aY^bZ^c$ is not divisible by $X$, $Y$ or $Z$. $\endgroup$ Apr 12, 2020 at 6:42
  • $\begingroup$ About the claim that $\sigma_*(F)$ on $D_+(XYZ)$ is given by $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$ I'm a bit confused. You argue that it's because $\sigma$ is given by $[X:Y:Z]\mapsto [YZ:XZ:XY]$. Let me point out where I still see a subtile problem. In following we consider implicitly only the the restrictions of $\sigma$ and $C=V(F))$ to $D_+(XYZ)$ without make mention of it by $... \vert _{D_+(XYZ)}$ notation. Also, everywhere where I write in following $F$ I mean $F(X,Y,Z)$ in contrast to $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$. $\endgroup$
    – user267839
    Apr 13, 2020 at 1:16
  • $\begingroup$ Probably, we using different notations: what is your concrete definition of $\sigma_*(F)$? Your argument that $\sigma_*(F)$ is given by $F(YZ,XZ,XY)$ follows from $[X:Y:Z]\mapsto [YZ:XZ:XY]$ leads me to suspicion that you maybe use $\sigma_*(F)= \sigma^{-1}V(F)$ as definition. The reason that leads me to this suspicion was the basic fact that $\sigma^{-1}V(F)=V(F(YZ,XZ,XY))$. Sorry, if I misunderstood your argument. $\endgroup$
    – user267839
    Apr 13, 2020 at 1:17

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.