6
$\begingroup$

Is there anything special about the classes of affine varieties in the Grothendieck ring of varieties (over $\mathbb{C})$?. Is there some specialisation that allows us to distinguish classes of affine varieties from general classes?

After R. van Dobben de Bruyn's answer, it might be more interesting to consider the modified version: is there anything special about classes that can be represented by an irreducible smooth affine variety?

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Jouanolou's trick implies (together with the reasoning given by @deBruyn) that the class of any quasi-projective irreducible scheme times the class of affine space is the class of an irreducible affine scheme. Hence, if you invert the class of an affine line, then "everything is affine". $\endgroup$ – Kapil May 18 at 12:05
16
$\begingroup$

Being affine is not invariant under scissors relations. In other words, it is possible that $[X] = [Y]$ in the Grothendieck ring, where $X$ is affine and $Y$ is not.

For example, the diagonal $\Delta \subseteq \mathbf P^1 \times \mathbf P^1$ is ample, so $X = \mathbf P^1 \times \mathbf P^1 \setminus \Delta$ is affine. But $$[X] = [\mathbf P^1 \times \mathbf P^1] - [\mathbf P^1] = (\mathbf L + 1)^2 - (\mathbf L + 1) = \mathbf L^2 + \mathbf L = [\mathbf P^2 - p],$$ and $\mathbf P^2 - p$ is not affine for any point $p \in \mathbf P^2$.

If you allow $k$-schemes with multiple components, every effective class has an affine representative. For example, a class of the form $[X]$ can be made affine by cutting $X$ into locally closed pieces that are affine (e.g. using Noetherian induction).

It could still be an interesting question which classes have a representative that is irreducible and affine (or irreducible smooth affine, or ...).

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Yes I see, this was a trivial question. Thanks. $\endgroup$ – user2520938 May 17 at 16:37
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Is it actually L^2+L on the left hand side and \Bbb{P}^2 - pt on the right? $\endgroup$ – Eoin May 17 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ @Eoin: you're absolutely right! Fixed. $\endgroup$ – R. van Dobben de Bruyn May 17 at 16:56

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.