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

When I was reading a paper, I came across a statement like "Since ince $M$ is affine, the trivial bundle is ample and ..." I think that line bundle $L$ on a variety $M$ is ample if it the global sections of $L^{\otimes n}$ give an embedding $M$ to some projective space. Is this clear for the trivial line bundle of affine variety?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Quoting Hartshorne, Example II.7.4.2:

If [the scheme] $X$ is affine, then any invertible sheaf on $X$ is ample.

Hartshorne's definition of ampleness (equivalent to yours; see Theorem II.7.6) is that $L$ is ample if, for any coherent sheaf $F$ on $X$, there exists an integer $n_0$ such that $F \otimes L^n$ is generated by globals for all $n > n_0$. You get the example I quote above upon recalling (II.5.16.2) that coherent sheaves on an affine scheme are determined by their global sections, and you get the result you quote because the trivial bundle is invertible.

share|cite|improve this answer
I see. Hartshorne's definition of ampleness is different from what I initially thought. As you said, they are the same in case $X$ is affine as global section defines the scheme. But he defines it via global generation... Thank you very much. – M. K. Sep 13 '12 at 8:45
@M.K., Hartshorne's definition (=that of EGA) is the correct one. For an algebraic variety it is equivalent to the embedding property. – user18119 Sep 13 '12 at 9:49
Really? I will think about it. Thanks, QiL. – M. K. Sep 13 '12 at 18:14

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.