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'm learning the basics about stable curves. Suppose we have a connected complex projective curve $C$, at worst nodal and of genus $g\geq 2$. Then I want to prove that the following are equivalent:

  1. $|\textrm{Aut}\,C|<\infty$.
  2. For every smooth rational component $E\subset C$, $|E\cap\overline{C-E}|\geq 3$.
  3. The dualizing sheaf $\omega_C$ is ample.

My attempts: for $1\Rightarrow 2$, I notice the following facts (but I might be wrong!): first, an automorphism must send a component onto itself. Second, it has to permute the nodes. Third, we have $$E\cap\overline{C-E}=\{\textrm{Nodes of } C\, \textrm{inside }E\}.$$ Hence if we have strictly less than $3$ nodes on a component $E\cong\mathbb P^1$, then because Aut $\mathbb P^1$ is 3-dimensional, we have infinitely many choices of automorphisms of $E$, which I can then extend to automorphisms of $C$. Contradiction.

For $2\Rightarrow 1$, let $\phi\in\textrm{Aut}\,C$. By the condition $|E\cap\overline{C-E}|\geq 3$ I can choose $3$ points on every smooth rational component, and their images (permutations) determine a unique automorphism of $E$. Then, I would like to conclude using the fact that there are finitely many components and finitely many permutations. But I wonder if I can really conclude, because my argument does not involve singular components. So how to fix the reasoning?

Furthermore, I have no idea how to deal with the condition on $\omega_C$. Indeed I was able to show just one thing: namely, if $\omega_C^m$ gives me an embedding of $C$ in $\mathbb P^r$, then necessarily $m\geq 3$, and $r=(2m-1)(g-1)-1$. So, a "$3$" magically appeared, but I don't know how to use it!

Last (aside) question. I'll be honest: I don't know why $\omega_C$ is invertible for such a curve $C$. Is there an easy way to prove it?

Thanks for any help.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

For (1) implies (2): it is not true that an automorphism must preserve each irreducible component. There is a normal subgroup $H$ of $\mathrm{Aut}(C)$ consisting precisely in those automorphisms which leave each component globablly invariant and which fix individually each intersection point. The quotient is a subgroup of the finite group of permutations of the components and of the intersection points.

If (2) is not satisfied, let $L$ be a smooth rational component meeting the other components at one or two points. Then there are infinitely many automorphisms of $L$ fixing these intersections points. Each of this automorphism extends (by identity on the other components) to an automorphism of $C$, hence $\mathrm{Aut}(C)$ is infinite.

If (2) is satisified, for each element $\sigma\in H$, the restriction of $\sigma$ to any irreducible component belongs to a finite group (this uses the fact that the groups of automorphisms of $\mathbb P^1$ minus three points, of elliptics curve minus one point, and of curves of genus $\ge 2$ are all finite). So $H$, hence $\mathrm{Aut}(C)$, are finite.

As for $\omega_{C}$: it is invertible because $C$ is locally complete interseciton. The proof of the ampleness when $C$ is stable can be found in "Algebraic geometry and arithmetic curves", 10.3.13. The same computations can be used to show the inverse.

It is not true that when $\omega_C^{\otimes n}$ is very ample then $n\ge 3$. Already for smooth $C$, $\omega_C$ can be very ample (enough to take non-hyperelliptic curves).

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks @QiL! I have only one doubt left, in your $2\Rightarrow 1$: what kind of irreducible component can such a curve have? I would say: $\mathbb P^1$, elliptic curves (but why do you remove just one point from them?), smooth curves of genus $\geq 2$ (the nonsingular ones), or nodal curves of any genus (the singular ones). Does your argument include all the possibilities? –  Brenin Dec 2 '12 at 9:48
    
@atricolf: I just forgot singular components. But the group of automorphisms of such a component fixing a point (an intersection point) is finite. It is enough to see what happen at the normalization. –  user18119 Dec 2 '12 at 9:54
    
Thank you very much! –  Brenin Dec 2 '12 at 10:03

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.