5
$\begingroup$

I have two highly-coupled questions concerning holomorphic line bundles, and so I will go ahead and ask them together. The first concerns line bundles on $\mathbb{CP}^1$ and the other concerns line bundles on a complex torus (elliptic curve).

On a Riemann surface $X$, I can always define a so-called "point bundle", to use the terminology of Gunning's book on vector bundles (Princeton notes series). I can always pick a point $p$ and define a holomorphic line bundle $N_p$ of degree $1$, whose nonzero holomorphic sections vanish to order $1$ at $p$ and are nonvanishing elsewhere.

1. On $X=\mathbb{CP}^1$, there is only one such line bundle up to isomorphism, and we call this $\mathcal O(1)$, the hyperplane bundle. I can prove this in the standard way, using the long sequence in cohomology associated to the exponential sequence, i.e. $H^1(\mathcal O^*)\cong H^2(\mathbb Z)\cong\mathbb Z$ on the projective line. (The first isomorphism is the degree map and the second comes from the fact that the underlying topological space is compact and real $2$-dimensional.)

But is there a way to see more directly that if $N_p$ and $N_q$ are two point bundles on $\mathbb{CP}^1$, then they must be isomorphic, even when $p$ and $q$ are distinct? I thought about rotating the underlying $2$-sphere along the equatorial circle connecting $p$ and $q$, but does this rotation of the sphere lift to an isomorphism of bundles (and is it holomorphic)? Is there a better way to see the isomorphism?

2. On an elliptic curve $X$, the isomorphism classes of holomorphic line bundles of a fixed degree are parametrised by another elliptic curve, the Jacobian. If we take the Jacobian of degree $1$ line bundles, and we take a point $p\in X$, then we get a map from $X$ to the Jacobian by sending $p$ to the class $[N_p]$ belonging to the corresponding point bundle. This map is an isomorphism. Why? In other words, if $p$ and $q$ are distinct points in $X$, then why are $N_p$ and $N_q$ non-isomorphic as holomorphic line bundles? (Again, I don't want to use the cohomology of the exponential sequence. It gives me that the Jacobian for a fixed degree is a torus of complex dimension $1$, the quotient of a copy of $\mathbb C$ by a lattice $\mathbb Z^2$, and that's great. But I want to see directly why the two line bundles cannot admit an isomorphism between them.)

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I do realize these are probably trivial questions for the experts. I don't wish to waste anyone's time. However, I would appreciate as direct an answer as possible (rather than a "go work it out" or go "look it up" answer --- I have been both working it out and looking it up, and now I need help). Thank you. $\endgroup$ – MathsByTheSea Dec 30 '14 at 22:25
3
$\begingroup$

Your guess is right -- these problems are closely related. I don't have time for too careful an answer and in particular the signs in this answer may be backwards.

An automorphism of the base space doesn't give rise to a morphism of bundles at all, so your plan for the Riemann sphere doesn't work. Instead, consider a function which vanishes to order 1 at p and has a pole of order 1 at q. Multiplication by this function takes sections of one bundle to sections of another.

Now for an elliptic curve, suppose you had an isomorphism between these bundles. Then $N_p \otimes N_q^{-1}$ would admit a nonzero section. This is a function with at most one pole of order 1 and such a function does not exist on a genus 1 curve (say by the Hurwitz formula). Same for any other higher genus curve.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Hunter --- thanks for this. Why am I allowed to use a meromorphic function for the isomorphism between $N_p$ and $N_q$ on $\mathbb{CP}^1$? $\endgroup$ – MathsByTheSea Dec 30 '14 at 22:52
  • $\begingroup$ My understanding is that two isomorphic line bundles' transition functions differ by $\delta h$, where $h=(h_0,h_1)$ is a $0$-cochain for the sheaf of non-vanishing holomorphic functions adapted a standard $2$-set covering of the sphere. When we apply the boundary operator $\delta$, we get $(\delta h)_{0,1}=h_1h_0^{-1}$. This is holomorphic on the intersection, but globally meromorphic. Is that what is happening here? (I am taking the open set $U_0$ to be centred at $p$ and the other to be centred at $q$, and the intersection to contain neither of these points.) $\endgroup$ – MathsByTheSea Dec 30 '14 at 23:33
  • $\begingroup$ almost, the point is that h_1 is holomorphic on all of U_1 and h_0 on all of U_0. (just holomorphic on the double overlap isn't enough.) $\endgroup$ – hunter Dec 30 '14 at 23:37
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, when I said $(h_0,h_1)$ is a cochain for the sheaf of non-vanishing holomorphic functions, I thought that implied they are holomorphic on all of $U_0$ and $U_1$, respectively. $\endgroup$ – MathsByTheSea Dec 30 '14 at 23:47
  • $\begingroup$ I think I've got it, anyway: if $U_0$ is centred at $p$ and excludes $q$, then I take a holomorphic function $h_0$ on an open set $V_0$ that properly contains both $U_0$ and $q$, such that $h_0$ vanishes at $q$ and is holomorphic non-vanishing on $U_0$. Then we do something similar regarding $h_1$ (it vanishes at $p$ but is holomorphic non-vanishing on $U_1$). The isomorphism in the direction $N_p\to N_q$ is $h_0h_1^{-1}$. $\endgroup$ – MathsByTheSea Dec 31 '14 at 0:09

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.