1
$\begingroup$

I'm starting to learn the minimal model program. It seems there are two definitions for a variety $X$ with only terminal singularities to be minimal:

  1. $K_X$ is nef.
  2. Every birational morphism from $X$ to $Y$ must be an isomorphism, where $Y$ is another variety with only terminal singularities.

Suppose $X$ is a smooth minimal model of dimension greater than 2. Why are 1 and 2 equivalent definitions? In particular, why does 2 imply 1? Does the exceptional divisor contain an extremal ray?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! This clarifies my understanding of exceptional divisor. By the way, if both $X$ and $Y$ are varieties of the same dimension, $f$ is a nontrivial birational morphism from $X$ to $Y$, does $X$ necessarily contain an exceptional divisor which is contracted by $f$? I know this is true when both $X$ and $Y$ are smooth. $\endgroup$ – user17314 Aug 25 '11 at 4:12
4
$\begingroup$

1 implies 2 follows from the so called "negativity lemma", see for example Lemma 3.39 in the book by Kollar-Mori. The main point is that an effective linear combination of exceptional divisors can never be $f$-nef for a birational morphism $f:X \to Y$.

2 implies 1 is not true: consider $X = \mathbb{P}^n$.

(The condition 2 is the classical definition of minimal but Mori realised that 1 is a better definition.)

| 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.