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

Let $X=Proj(T),\quad Y=Proj(S),\quad T,S$ are graded rings. Suppose $(X,\mathcal{O}_X)\cong (Y,\mathcal{O}_Y)$. Is it always ture $\mathcal{O}_{X}(n)\cong \mathcal{O}_{Y}(n)$?

This problem comes out when I try to justify one step in a proof of Hartshorne:

Let $X$ be a projective scheme over a noetherian ring $A$("projective" here means there is a close immersion $i:X\to \mathbb{P}_{A}^{r}$), and let $\mathcal{F}$ be a quasi-coherent $\mathcal{O}_X$-module, then $i_{\star}(\mathcal{F}(n))=(i_{\star}\mathcal{F})(n)$.

I try to consider the simplest case where $\mathcal{F}=\mathcal{O}_X$. Although I know there exist a homogenous ideal $I\subset A[x_1 \dots x_r]$, s.t. $X\cong Proj(A[x_1 \dots x_r]/I)$, I know nothing about $\mathcal{O}_{X}(n)$. For one thing, $I$ may not be unique, for another $X$ can isomorphism to a complete different $Proj(S)$. The question thus can also be phrased as: Does it make sense to say twisting operation without knowing the graded ring of a projective scheme.

share|cite|improve this question
I think the answer is no even when you restrict the question to projective schemes. See Ch. I Ex. 3.9. – Zhen Lin Jul 24 '11 at 8:50
Thank you for pointing out that exercise. It is an example of$ Proj S\cong Proj T$ with S not isomorphism to T, but do they have different twisting sheaves? So far, I cannot check this. – Li Zhan Jul 25 '11 at 9:05

The Serre twist is more of a property of "embedding in projective space" than an intrinsic one. If $X$ is a scheme, say of finite type over a noetherian ring $A$ (one can loosen these hypotheses), one would say that a line bundle $\mathcal{L}$ on $X$ is very ample if there is an immersion of $X$ into some projective space over $A$ (Hartshorne assumes some $\mathbb{P}^n_A$; EGA assumes more general projectivizations of vector bundles) such that $\mathcal{L}$ is the pull-back of $\mathcal{O}(1)$. So your question equates to asking whether a very ample line bundle on a projective scheme is uniquely determined. The answer is almost always no: if $\mathcal{L}$ is very ample, so is any positive tensor power $\mathcal{L}^{\otimes d}$.

This corresponds to the fact that $\mathrm{Proj} A$ is isomorphic to $\mathrm{Proj} A^{(d)}$ (elements whose homogeneous components have degree divisible by $d$), but that this isomorphism (the $d$-uple embedding) pulls $\mathcal{O}(1)$ on $\mathrm{Proj} A^{(d)}$ back to $\mathcal{O}(d)$ on $\mathrm{Proj} A$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Could you explain more about why my question equates to asking whether a very ample line bundle on a projective scheme is uniquely determined. I did not quite follow you at that point. – Li Zhan Jul 25 '11 at 9:07
@Li Zhan: An ample line bundle on a projective scheme is a way of "presenting" the scheme as $\mathrm{Proj} A$ for a graded ring $A$. Different ample line bundles will give different "presentations." In particular, this "presentation" determines $\mathcal{O}(1)$ (as just the line bundle itself). – Akhil Mathew Jul 28 '11 at 2:20

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.