1
$\begingroup$

I'm having trouble finding the closure in the definition of a blow-up. For example, take the following example, with a node at $(0,0)$ (and at some other points) (it's not a homework question, just a concept that I'm stuck on!). $xy=x^6+y^6$. Then the blow-up should be the closure of this set, taken over all $(x,y) \neq (0,0)$: $ \{ ((u,v), (x,y)) \in \mathbb{A}^{2} \times \mathbb{P}^{1} | uy=vx, xy = x^6 + y^6 \}$.

How do I explicitly find the closure of this set? I understand the fibre of the projection map at the singular point should consist of two points (both of which are non-singular) - why is this so, and what are those two non-singular points (in the smooth variety that is the resolution)?.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This singularity is a node, not a cusp! $\endgroup$
    – quim
    Dec 14, 2009 at 13:17

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

Look at the affine pieces: over the open subset $u \neq 0$, you have a local coordinate $z = v/u$ and your equations can be written as $y = zx$ and $xy = x^6 + y^6$. Substituting $y$ in the second equation gives you $x^2z = x^6 + x^6 z^6$. Now this equation factors as $x^2 = 0$ and $z = x^4(1 + z^6)$; the locus where the first one vanishes is the exceptional divisor, while the second one gives you the closure you are looking for. Non-singularity of the point over $(x, y) = (0,0)$ (which is $(x,z) = (0,0)$) follows from $$ \frac{d}{dz} \big[z - x^4(1 + z^6)\big] \big|_{(x,z) = (0,0)} = 1$$ The other point shows up when considering the other affine piece, $v \neq 0$.

The reason why there are two points over $(x,y) = (0,0)$ is because at that point your curve has two branches. To see that, look at the lowest degree piece of the polynomial defining it (essentially, you are looking here at a neighborhood of the origin in the classical/analytic topology): this is $xy$, which is the union of the two axes. Blowing up pulls these two branches apart.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ In the first line it should be z = v/u, since you are over the open subset u \neq 0. $\endgroup$
    – GMRA
    Dec 13, 2009 at 20:17
  • $\begingroup$ @Grétar: thanks for catching that typo. It's fixed now. $\endgroup$ Dec 13, 2009 at 20:20
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much. One quick question: does the blow-up of a (irreducible) variety have to be irreducible? $\endgroup$ Dec 20, 2009 at 10:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If you are blowing up a reduced point like in this case, yes: the blowup is birational to the original variety. In other cases you might have to be careful. Check out the examples in Eisenbud and Harris' "The Geometry of Schemes". $\endgroup$ Dec 21, 2009 at 3:36
  • $\begingroup$ I think the blowup along a positive codimension closed subscheme (whenever it is reduced or not) is always birational. Do you think about a specific example in Eisenbud-Harris ? $\endgroup$
    – Qing Liu
    Feb 23, 2010 at 10:38

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.