Take the 2-minute tour ×

This question arised when I was trying to use this answer to understand Reid's "Young Person's guide to Canonical Singularities". In particular page 352 when computing the blow-up $Y\rightarrow A^2/\mu_3$, the affine plane quotient the cyclic group of order 3, arises to the conclusion that the exceptional divisor is $E\sim P^1$, (no problems there) and $\mathcal{O}_E(-E)\sim \mathcal{O}(3)$ (problems here).

Given a variety $Y$ and an effective Cartier divisor $D$ on it, there seems to be a pretty standard exact sequence:

$$0 \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_Y \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_Y(D) \longrightarrow\mathcal{O}_D(D)\longrightarrow 0 $$ As far as I understand, if $U$ is an open set in $S$ and $D\cap U = div(g)_U$ (for $D$ a hypersurface, if you want, and extend by linearity), then

$$ \mathcal{O}_Y(D)(U)= \{g \in \mathcal{O}_Y(U) \vert div(g)\geq D \}$$

or equivalently $g/f$ is regular. The first map must be something like $g\rightarrow gf$ maybe with some order. A good answer to my question would include:

  1. Is this correct?
  2. What is $\mathcal{O}_D(D)$?
  3. What is the second map?
  4. What does $\mathcal{O}_D(-D)$ mean
  5. Why $\mathcal{O}_E(-E) \sim \mathcal{O}(3)$? I understood the RHS is generated by polynomials of degree 3?

I am aware this is a simple question and probably everyone knows why, but I could not find a proper answer for it.

share|improve this question
1. Yes, the sequence is correct. 2. and 4. are dual, so it's really the same question. $\mathcal{O}_X(-D)$ is the ideal sheaf of D which is invertible. So $\mathcal{O}_D(-D)$ is its restriction to D as an invertible sheaf. It can also be understood as the cononormal sheaf. So then $\mathcal{O}_D(D)$ would be the normal sheaf and so on. I have go, but I hope that helps a little –  Donu Arapura Apr 26 '11 at 18:55
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 16 down vote accepted

Expanding the comment of Donu Arapura, let $X$ be a variety and $Y\subset X$ a subvariety. Then, you have a short exact sequence of sheaves $$ 0\to\mathcal I_Y\to\mathcal O_X\to\mathcal O_X/\mathcal I_Y\to 0, $$ where $\mathcal I_Y$ is the ideal sheaf of $Y$. By definition, $\mathcal O_X/\mathcal I_Y=\mathcal O_Y$ is the structure sheaf of $Y$.

If $\mathcal F$ is any invertible sheaf, then tensoring by $\mathcal F$ leaves the sequence exact, so that you have a short exact sequence $$ 0\to\mathcal I_Y\otimes\mathcal F\to\mathcal F\to\mathcal O_Y\otimes\mathcal F\to 0 $$ and $\mathcal O_Y\otimes\mathcal F$ is just the restriction of $\mathcal F$ to $Y$.

Now, suppose that your $Y=D$ is a (Cartier) divisor, and $\mathcal F=\mathcal O_X(D)$ is its associated (invertible) sheaf of sections (meromorphic functions with poles allowed along $D$). In this case, $\mathcal I_D=\mathcal O_X(-D)$ and the above-mentioned short exact sequence becomes $$ 0\to\mathcal O_X\to\mathcal O_X(D)\to\mathcal O_D(D)\to 0, $$ and $\mathcal O_D(D)$ is nothing but the restriction $\mathcal O_X(D)\otimes\mathcal O_D$ of the invertible sheaf $\mathcal O_X(D)$ to the hypersurface $D$.

You can argue dually for $\mathcal O_D(-D)$, which is thus just the restriction to $D$ of the invertible sheaf $\mathcal O_X(-D)$.

So your "second map", is just the restriction map.

For your last question, an heuristic explanation is the following: blow-up a smooth point on a surface to obtain a new surface $\widetilde X$, and call the exceptional divisor $E$. Then $\mathcal O_{\widetilde X}(-E)$ restricted to $E$, which is precisely $\mathcal O_E(-E)$, can be easily shown to be isomorphic to the (anti)tautological line bundle $\mathcal O(1)$ over $\mathbb P^1\simeq E$ (you can find that on every introductory book in algebraic geometry). Now, you are blowing up a singular point which is an isolated quotient singularity of order three, thus in some sense you are "counting three times" your point, so that $\mathcal O_E(-E)$ now becomes isomorphic to $\mathcal O(3)$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Diverietti's answer is exhaustive with respect to the first four questions, so let me say something just about the last one.

Miles Reid's example is actually a particular case of the following more general situation, which is explained for instance in Barth-Peters-Van de Ven book on compact complex surfaces.

Let $n$ and $q$ be natural numbers with $0 < q < n$, $(n,q)=1$ and let $\xi_n$ be a primitive $n-$th root of unity. Let us consider the action of the cyclic group $\mu_n=\langle \xi_n \rangle$ on $\mathbb{C}^2$ defined by

$\xi_n \cdot (x,y)=(\xi_nx, \xi_n^qy)$.

Then the analytic space $X_{n,q}=\mathbb{C}^2 / \mu_n$ has a cyclic quotient singularity of type $\frac{1}{n}(1,q)$, and $X_{n,q} \cong X_{n', q'}$ if and only if $n=n'$ and either $q=q'$ or $qq' \equiv 1$ (mod $n$). The exceptional divisor on the minimal resolution $\tilde{X}_{n,q}$ of $X_{n,q}$ is a H-J string (abbreviation of Hirzebruch-Jung string), that is to say, a connected union $E=\bigcup_{i=1}^k Z_i$ of smooth rational curves $Z_1, \ldots, Z_k$ with self-intersection $\leq -2$, and ordered linearly so that $Z_i Z_{i+1}=1$ for all $i$, and $Z_iZ_j=0$ if $|i-j| \geq 2$. More precisely, given the continued fraction

$\frac{n}{q}=[b_1,\ldots,b_k]:=b_1- \cfrac{1}{b_2 -\cfrac{1}{\dotsb - \cfrac{1}{\,b_k}}}$,

we have

$(Z_i)^2=-b_i, \quad i=1, \ldots, k.$

In the case considered by Miles Reid, we have $n=3$, $q=1$, i.e. the action is

$\xi_3 \cdot (x,y)=(\xi_3x, \xi_3y)$,

hence the resolution is a unique smooth curve $E:=Z_1$ with self-intersection $(-3)$; this explain why $\mathcal{O}_E(-E)=\mathcal{O}(3)$.

Notice that there is another possible action of $\mu_3$ on $\mathbb{C}^2$, namely

$\xi_3 \cdot (x,y)=(\xi_3x, \xi_3^2y)$.

The corresponding continued fraction is

$\frac{3}{2}=[2,2]=2- \frac{1}{2}$,

so the resolution is this case is given by two smooth rational curves of self-intersection $(-2)$ intersecting in a single point (this is a Rational Double Point of type $A_2$).

share|improve this answer
Thanks, this is quite interesting. However: a) you say before that the irreducible components of the minimal resolution will have self-intersection $\leq -2$, but in the case of $\mu_3$ they have -3. Why is this? b) According to Castelnuovo-Enriques contractibility criterion, when you blow-up or blow-down, the only divisor involved is a -1 line. I follow Beauville book. I suspect this because it only works on complex smooth surfaces c) I like the continues fraction bit. I fail to find it in BPV, though. Do you know a source which talks about this? –  Jesus Martinez Garcia Apr 27 '11 at 9:58
a) Well, $-3 < -2$, right? :-) b) You can contract any smooth rational curve with negative self-intersection (by Artin contractibility criterion), but in general the resulting surface is singular, unless you are contracting a $(-1)$-curve. c) Look at BPHV (Barth-Peters-Hulek-Van de Ven - the new edition) p. 99-105 –  Francesco Polizzi Apr 27 '11 at 10:09
You are absolutely right, thank you very much for your answer –  Jesus Martinez Garcia May 11 '11 at 12:11
add comment

Your Answer


