1
$\begingroup$

I'm studing currents from Demailly's Complex Geometry, and the author defines the direct image of a current by a $C^{\infty}$ map and also for the case of a submersion. My question is about the compatibility of the direct image of the wedge product of smooth forms, in particular if $F:X\to Y$ is a submersion and $\omega,\tau$ are smooth $(p,p)$ forms, is it true that $F_{*}(\omega\wedge\tau)=F_{*}(\omega)\wedge F_{*}(\tau)$? This is true on the locus where $F$ is not singular, but it could exist a set where $F$ could not be defined, I think for example to a birational map, for example a blow-up or something like this.

Edit: I'll try to explain better. (I'm sorry but this argument is new to me and very difficult too.) If $\omega$ and $\tau$ are smooth forms of bidegree $p$, I can always define the wedge product as smooth forms, but I can see it also as a wedge product of currents in particular (as I understand it from Demailly). So, according to Demailly's book, I can define the direct image of the current $\omega\wedge\tau$; is this correct? Now, I have no idea when the wedge product of current is defined, but let's suppose that $F_{*}(\omega)\wedge F_{*}(\tau)$ is well defined. Now considering $F_{*}(\omega)$ and $F_{*}(\tau)$ as currents, is it true that $F_{*}(\omega)\wedge F_{*}(\tau)=F_{*}(\omega\wedge\tau)$?

$\endgroup$
7
  • $\begingroup$ What do you want exactly? Are you considering push-forward as forms or as currents? In the second case, the wedge product is not well defined in general... $\endgroup$
    – diverietti
    Dec 14, 2011 at 10:27
  • $\begingroup$ just push-forward of smooth forms. i'm starting to study the currents so i don't know so much about it. $\endgroup$
    – alike
    Dec 14, 2011 at 10:32
  • $\begingroup$ in order even to define the push-forward of smooth forms as smooth forms, you need really $F$ to be a smooth submersion, so I don't understand very much your question! $\endgroup$
    – diverietti
    Dec 14, 2011 at 10:34
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Despite what is written below, the answer is "not at all". First of all, direct image of a current of bidimension $(p,p)$ by a proper submersion of relative dimension $d$ gives a current of bidimension $(p-d,p-d)$. So both sides don't have the same degree unless $d=0$. And even when $d=0$, i.e., when $F$ is a covering, and after identifications of tangent spaces, the fiber of the left hand side at a point $x$ is $\sum_{F(y)=x} \omega(y)\wedge \tau(y)$, while that of the right hand side is $(\sum_{F(y)=x}\omega(y))\wedge(\sum_{F(y)=x} \tau(y))$. $\endgroup$
    – ACL
    Dec 15, 2011 at 23:06
  • $\begingroup$ (As in your question, the currents on $Y$ are in fact given by forms.) $\endgroup$
    – ACL
    Dec 15, 2011 at 23:07

2 Answers 2

1
$\begingroup$

Here is an example to show that your question has a negative answer, even for a simple case as blowup in 2 dimension. Just say you have a map $f:X\rightarrow Y$ and two closed smooth forms $u$ and $v$ and assume you have $f_*(u)\wedge f_*(v)=f_*(u\wedge v).$

Not talking about how to do wedge product of two general currents, no one really knows how to do so. Just say that it must be compatible with the pushforward on cohomology level. Then you should then have $f_*[u]\wedge f_*[v]=f_*[u\wedge v]$. Here I used $[.]$ for the cohomology class of a smooth closed form.

Now let $f \colon X\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^2$ be the blowup a point, and let $E$ be the exceptional divisor. Let $u=v$ be a closed smooth form representing the cohomology class of $E$. Then $f_*(u)$ and $f_*(v)$ must have the cohomology class of $f_*(E)$ which is zero, while $f_*(u\wedge v)$ has the cohomology class of $f_*(E.E)$ which is minus of a point.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The pushforward $f_*\Omega$ of a smooth nondegenerate volume form $\Omega$ on $X$ with respect to the holomorphic map $f:X\to Y$ is defined as follows: From definition of pushforward of a current by duality, for any continuous function $\psi$ on $Y$, we have

$$\int_{X_{can}}\psi f_*\Omega=\int_{X}(f^*\psi)\Omega=\int_{y\in Y}\int_{f^{-1}(y)}(f^*\psi)\Omega$$ and hence on regular part of $Y$ we have

$$f_*\Omega=\int_{f^{-1}(y)}\Omega$$

Hence by this formula $f_{*}(\omega\wedge\tau)=f_{*}(\omega)\wedge f_{*}(\tau) $ is not correct in general.

Moreover, Demailly showed that

$$\omega=f^*f_*\omega+\lambda{E}$$ where $E$ is the exceptional divisor and $\lambda\geq -v(\omega,Z)$ where $v(\omega,Z)=\inf_{x\in Z}v(\omega,x)$ and $v(\omega,x)$ is the Lelong number. Hence $f_{*}(\omega\wedge\tau)=f_{*}(\omega)\wedge f_{*}(\tau) $ is not correct.

Definition of Lelong number: Let $W\subset \mathbb C^n$ be a domain, and $\Theta$ a positive current of degree $(q,q)$ on $W$. For a point $p\in W$ one defines $$\mathfrak v(\Theta,p,r)=\frac{1}{r^{2(n-q)}}\int_{|z-p|<r}\Theta(z)\wedge (dd^c|z|^2)^{n-q}$$ The Lelong number of $\Theta$ at $p$ is defined as

$$\mathfrak v(\Theta,p)=\lim_{r \to 0}\mathfrak v(\Theta,p,r)$$

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Theorem: Suppose $M$ and $\tilde M$ are complex manifolds (not necessarily compact) and $f:\tilde M\to M$ is a proper modification. If $T$ is a positive $∂\bar∂$-closed current on $M$ of degree $(1,1)$, then there exists a positive $∂\bar∂$-closed current $\tilde T$ on $\tilde M$ of degree $(1,1)$ such that $f_∗\tilde T=T$. Moreover, if $\tilde M$ is compact, such a current is unique. See Lucia Alessandrini and Giovanni Bassanelli, Metric properties of manifolds bimeromorphic to compact Kähler spaces, J. Differential Geom. Volume 37, Number 1 (1993), 95-121. $\endgroup$
    – user21574
    Jul 24, 2017 at 0:22
  • $\begingroup$ See Exercise 1.16 of as reference about a part of my answer thichthichiu.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/… $\endgroup$
    – user21574
    Oct 31, 2017 at 2:24

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.