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

Reading this article by A. Caldararu I'm having troubles with Prop. 3.2 at page 11. Maybe it's a lack of prerequisites, and surely a trivial question for those who are inside the topic, but I'm not able to find anything about what follows:

In particular, how do I have to interpret the sentence

a basis of $H^0(P^n, \cal O^{n+1})$ is given by a dual basis of $y_0, ... ,y_n$ [...]

Is there some kind of duality between $H^0(P^n, \cal O^{n+1})$ and $H^0(P^n, \cal O(1))$?

Edit: Maybe it's better to make my question more precise. It's not difficult to notice that there exists an identification $H^0(P^n, \mathcal O^{n+1})\cong H^0(P^n, \mathcal O)^{n+1}\cong \mathbf C^{n+1}$; and according to Caldararu's argument $H^0(P^n, \cal O(1))$ (which is the homogeneous degree-1 part of the coordinate ring of $P^n(\mathbf C)$) should coincide with the dual of the former space: I'm not very comfortable in doing a linear-algebra parallel now (degree-1 homogeneous polynomials = covectors), but maybe it's only a psychological reason which prevents me to do so.

Hence, a slightly less difficult question for you is: am I correct in thinking this way?

share|cite|improve this question
    
You should probably tell us what $y_0$, $\dots, $y_n$ are. – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Dec 28 '11 at 19:31
    
Sure, I forgot the policy for comfortable reading. Just edited with the Proposition I need to understand. – Fosco Loregian Dec 28 '11 at 19:45

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.