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

I'm having trouble understanding the proof of the adjunction formula on Griffiths & Harris book (p. 146).

The formula states that if $V \subset M$ is a smooth analytic hypersurface then we have an isomorphism $N^*_V \simeq [-V]|_V$, where $N_V$ is the normal bundle of $V$ and $[-V]$ the line bundle associated to the divisor $-V$.

The strategy is to show that $N_V^* \otimes [V] \simeq \mathcal{O}_Y$ (the trivial line bundle over $Y$) by constructing a nonvanishing global section.

If $V$ is defined by $f_i$ on $U_i$ then the cocicles of $[V]$ are $f_{ij}=f_i/f_j$ and $df_i$ is a section of $N^*_V$. On the other hand, using the product rule for the derivative one gets that $df_i = f_{ij} df_j$ and hence glue to a section of $[V]$. The book states then that the $df_i$ give a global section of $N_V^* \otimes [V]$. Why is that?

Is this statement true? I see that if one has sections $s$ of $L$ and $s'$ of $L'$ then $s \otimes s'$ is a section of $L \otimes L'$. In our case we know that $df_i$ is a section of both $N_V^*$ and $[V]$ and so we get that $df_i \cdot df_i$ (and not $df_i$) is a section of $N_V^* \otimes [V]$. What am I missing here?

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 6 down vote accepted

The normal bundle
Choose on each $U_i$ a coordinate system $(z_1^{i},...,z_n^{i})$ such that $U_i\cap V$ is given by the equation $z_n^{i}=0$, so that $f_i=z_n^{i}$ .
The normal bundle $N_V$ on $V \;$ is then given by the cocycle

$$n_{ij}=\frac {\partial z_n^{i}}{\partial z_n^{j}} \in \mathcal O^*(V \cap U_{ij})$$ Note carefully that this bundle is defined only on $V$ , and not on $M$.

The bundle associated to $V$
In the same notation the bundle $\mathcal O(V)=[V]$ is defined by a cocycle $g_{ij}\in \mathcal O^*(U_{ij})$ satisfying
$z^i_n=z^j_n.g_{ij}$ on $U_{ij}$.
Taking partial derivatives with respect to $z^j_n$ yields $\frac {\partial z_n^{i}}{\partial z_n^{j}} = g_{ij}+z^j_n.\frac {\partial g_{ij}}{\partial z^j_n} $.
Restricting this to $V \cap U_{ij}$, we get a cocycle for $[V]|V$ ( remember that $z^j_n=0$ on $V\cap U_j$) $$\frac {\partial z_n^{i}}{\partial z_n^{j}} = g_{ij} \in \mathcal O^*(V \cap U_{ij})$$

The two displayed equations prove that $n_{ij}=g_{ij}$ and thus that $$N_V \simeq[V]|V$$

(As you see, I prefer to avoid differential forms and dualization : no $N_V^*$, no $[-V]$. )

share|cite|improve this answer

The $df_i$ define local frames for $N_V^*$. These induce holomorphic local trivializations of $N_V^*$ which, because $df_i = f_{ij}df_j$ on V, have transition functions $f_{ij}^{-1}$, suitably restricted. This indicates that $N_V^*\simeq [-V]|_V$.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.