Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am curious about following similar statements in algebraic geometry and complex geometry:

Algebraic Geometry Version: If $X$ is an integral scheme, the map from Cartier divisor group to Picard group (i.e. group of invertible sheaves) $CaCl(X) \to Pic(X)$ is surjective.

Complex Geometry Version: If $X$ is a complex manifold, then the image of $CaCl(X) \to Pic(X)$ is generated by those line bundles $L \in Pic(X)$ with $H^0(X,L) \neq 0$.

More interesingly, there is a remark for the complex version:

Remark: $CaCl(X) \to Pic(X)$ may not be surjective even for very easy manifolds, e.g. a generic complex torus of dimension two, this is no longer the case.

My questions is twofold:

Explicit one: How to justify the above remark, i.e. $CaCl(X) \to Pic(X)$ may not be surjective for a generic complex torus of dimension two.

Inexplicit one: Though I don't know the exact meaning of "integral manifold" (or the proper prototype of integral scheme ), it seems for me that "integrality" is natrual endowed by a complex manifold(suppose it is connected). And thus, the difference is quite unexpected. How could this come out, and what are reasonable category to guarantee subjectivity.

share|improve this question
    
Well, first of all, not every complex manifold is algebraic! –  Zhen Lin Aug 2 '12 at 9:33
    
You are absolutely right, but I believe this is not the reason to hinder us making comparision with each other. –  Li Zhan Aug 2 '12 at 9:49

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

For any complex torus $X$ of dimension $n$ the set of isomorphism classes of holomorphic line bundles $Pic(X)$ is a huge group: already the group $Pic^0(X)$ of line bundles $L$ with zero Chern class ($c_1(L)=0$) is itself a complex torus of dimension $n$ , called the dual torus $\hat X=Pic^0(X)$.

However there exist two-dimensional complex tori $X$ having no curves at all , so that its group of divisors is zero (see here for a detailed analysis).

So for such tori no non-trivial line bundle comes from a divisor.

A "philosophical" explanation
For integral (= reduced and irreducible) schemes Hartshorne proves that every line bundle comes from a divisor in Proposition II,6.15
The proof uses that sheaves that are constant on some open covering of $X$ are constant on the whole of $X$.
This is due to irreducibility: two non-empty open subsets of $X$ have non-empty intersection.
But this is completely false for complex manifolds since a Hausdorff space containing at least two points is never irreducible.
A variant of this explanation is that on an integral scheme a rational function defined on an open subset of the scheme extends to a rational function on the whole scheme, whereas the analogous result for meromorphic functions on a complex manifold is completely false .

share|improve this answer
    
Dear Georges Elencwajg, Thank you so much! The first problem seems much difficult than what I initially thought. And the explanation for the underlying reason warn me to be careful when doing such analogy, cause I usually take them for granted. –  Li Zhan Aug 2 '12 at 13:57
    
Dear Li, you are welcome. –  Georges Elencwajg Aug 2 '12 at 18:10

Your Answer

 
discard

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.