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.

Let $X$ be a smooth projective, complex variety. Denote by $\bar X$ its analytification, i.e. $X$ with the "classical" topology of a complex manifold. Now do these spaces have the same Euler characteristic $\chi(X)=\chi(\bar X)$? Why (not)?

Edit: To clarify, by $\chi(X)$ I mean the topological Euler characteristic of the underlying topological space of the scheme $X$, not the Euler characteristic $\chi(X,\mathcal{O}_X)$ of its structure sheaf.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 7 down vote accepted

On the topological side, we have the Fröhlicher relation (where $\Omega^p_X$ is the sheaf of regular algebraic $p$-forms on $X)$

$$\chi(X^{top })=\sum_{p,q} (-1)^{p+q}dim_{\mathbb C} H^q(X,\Omega^p_X)$$ It is quite remarkable in that the left-hand side can be computed if you just know the underlying topological space of $X$, whereas the right hand side, involving coherent sheaf cohomology, requires for its computation the algebraic structure of $X$.

On the algebraic side, given a smooth algebraic variety $X$ of dimension $n$, its Euler characteristic $\chi(X)$ may be taken to mean the integer $\chi(X)=\sum_{i} (-1)^{i}dim_{\mathbb C} H^i(X,\mathcal O_X)$, an invariant closely related to the arithmetic genus $p_a(X)$ by the formula $p_a(X)=(-1)^n(-1+\chi (\mathcal O_X) )$ .
For a curve Riemann-Roch tells you that $\chi (\mathcal O_X)=1-g$, where $g$ is the good old genus of that curve, and so we have $p_a(X)=(-1)^1(-1+(1-g))=g$, which is reassuring!
For higher dimensional varieties we have the formula ( a special case of Hirzebruch's Riemann-Roch formula) $$\chi (\mathcal O_X)=t_{2n}[Todd(X)]$$

The right-hand side, the Todd genus, takes some time to unravel, but the amazing thing is that it only depends on the differentiable structure $X^{diff}$ of $X$, whereas the individual terms of the alternating sum on the left-hand side depend on the algebraic structure of $X$.
For $n=2$, the case of a surface, this unpacks to Max Noether's formula

$$ \chi (\mathcal O_X)=\frac{c_1^2(X)+c_2(X)}{12} $$
where the $c_i$'s are the Chern classes of the differentiable tangent bundle.
Note that it is a priori not in thre least evident that the right-hand side is an integer, i.e. that its numerator is divisible by $12$ !

(Emmy Noether, of noetherian fame, was Max's daughter by the way)

share|improve this answer
    
By $\chi(X)$, I do not mean $\chi(\mathcal{O}_X)$, but the actual topological Euler characteristic of the topological space $X$ (with its 'locally Zariski' topology). Those should be very different, if I am not mistaken? –  Jesko Hüttenhain Aug 19 '11 at 15:18
1  
If $X$ is irreducible, the constant sheaf $\mathbb Z$ will be flabby, hence acyclic and so in this sense $\mathbb\chi(X,\mathbb Z)=1$. If you insist on singular homology for the Zariski toplogy, I doubt that you will find anything interesting: otherwise Grothendieck wouldn't have invented étale cohomology... –  Georges Elencwajg Aug 19 '11 at 15:37
    
I'm glad about that, rattle. –  Georges Elencwajg Aug 19 '11 at 15:43
    
Is $\chi(X,\mathbb{Z})$ the same as the euler characteristic of $X$, defined via singular homology with coefficients in $\mathbb{Z}$? If yes, then all my questions have been answered. –  Jesko Hüttenhain Aug 19 '11 at 15:44
1  
I suppose I wasn't clear: I think that $\chi_{sing} X^{Zar}\neq \chi_{sing} X^{classical}$, where on both sides you have singular homology, but on the left-hand side you take $X$ with its non-Hausdorff Zariski topology (=all open sets huge) and on the right-hand side you take $X$ with its classical, Hausdorff, metric topology (=some open sets very small). –  Georges Elencwajg Aug 19 '11 at 15:57

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.