Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Say I have an algebraic surface $S$ (smooth, projective over $\mathbb{C}$) and a morphism $f: S \to B$ to some curve $B$ (smooth, projective over $\mathbb{C}$) defined by the complete linear system corresponding to some divisor $D$ on $S$. We assume this linear system to be base point free.

Is it true that $D$ will be a sum of fibres of $f$ and if so, why?

In fact I'm just trying to understand the proof of Proposition IX.2.(b) in Beauville's book on algebraic surfaces. The proof goes as follows:

(Here $S$ is a smooth projective surface over $\mathbb{C}$ with $\kappa(S) = 1$. Moreover, $M$ is some effective divisor such that $|M|$ is base point free - corresponding to the mobile part of $|nK_S|$ for some $n$ such that the $n$-th plurigenus is at least $2$ - and $K \cdot M = 0$ where $K$ is the canonical divisor.)

"(...) It follows that $|M|$ defines a morphism $f$ from $S$ to $\mathbb{P}^N$ whose image is a curve $C$. Consider the Stein factorization $f: S \to B \to C \subseteq \mathbb{P}^N$, where $p: S \to B$ has connected fibres. Let $F$ be a fibre of $p$. Since $M$ is a sum of fibres of $p$ and $K \cdot M = 0$, we must have $K \cdot F = 0$. (...)"

There are three statements which are not clear to me:

*Why should $M$ be a sum of fibres of $p$?

*Why does $K \cdot M = 0$ imply that $K \cdot F = 0$ for ANY fibre $F$?

*Why on earth should the curve $B$ coming out of this construction be smooth? I mean, all we did is starting with a smooth, projective surface $S$ with $\kappa(S) = 1$, taking the mobile part of the linear system $|nK_S|$ for some $n$ such that the $n$-th plurigenus is $\geq 2$ (which is base point free), giving a curve $C$ which is the image of the corresponding pluricanonical map, and then taking the curve $B$ coming out of the Stein factorization. I see no reason why $B$ should be smooth, I'm really lost here.

On a related note, in the proof of Proposition IX.3:

"(...) Let $S$ be a minimal elliptic surface. Since $K_S \cdot F_b = 0$ for all $b \in B$, the maps contract the fibres $F_b$. It follows that the image of $\varphi_{nK}$ has dimension $\leq 1$. (...)"

Why is this true?

share|cite|improve this question

This looks like very simple. By construction $D \sim f^*E$ for some ample divisor $E$ on $B$.

share|cite|improve this answer
So $D$ linearly equivalent to a sum of vertical divisors. – user18119 Jun 9 '12 at 20:12

Here's an attempt to clarify the three statements.

Why should $M$ be a sum of fibres of $p$?

$f=\varphi_M$ is the morphism associated to $|M|$ and $f$ factorizes with $p$ plus an embedding of the curve, so geometrically you have to think of the fibers of $p$ as fibers of $f=\varphi_M$. Now, the condition $M^2=0$ geometrically means that the curves in $|M|$ are vertical: indeed a fiber of $p$ (read: of $f$) will be an element in $|M|$, and has self-intersection zero. In other words the components of $M$ are contained in some fibers of $p$. In symbols this means we can write $$ M=\sum r_F F $$ where $r_F\geq 0$ and $F$ are the fibers of $p$.

Why does $K \cdot M = 0$ imply that $K \cdot F = 0$ for ANY fibre $F$?

Observe $K\cdot F\geq 0$ for any fiber since $K$ is nef. Thus $$ 0=K\cdot M=\sum r_F K\cdot F $$ which gives $K\cdot F=0$.

Why on earth should the curve $B$ coming out of this construction be smooth?

Yes, it could also be singular. If that's the case then just replace $B$ with its desingularization. You still have your morphism $p:S\rightarrow B$ onto a smooth curve, with the desired properties.

Hope that helps :)

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.