Why do we have several definitions of Cartier divisor? For example, I found in two books the following definitions:

Let $X$ be a scheme. We denote the group $H^0(X,\mathcal K_X^*/\mathcal O_X^*)$ by $\operatorname{Div}(X)$. The elements of $\operatorname{Div}(X)$ are called as Cartier divisors on $X$.


Let $X$ be a scheme.

  1. An invertible sheaf on $X$ is an $\mathcal{O}_X$-module that is isomorphic to $\mathcal O_X$ locally on $X$.

  2. A closed subscheme $D$ of $X$ is called a Cartier divisor if its defining ideal sheaf $\mathcal I_D$ is an invertible sheaf on $X$.

How can one prove that the definitions are equivalent?

  • $\begingroup$ I blame the French. They have turned mathematics into definiology. $\endgroup$ – Pp.. Jan 1 '15 at 16:54

Closed subsheaves with invertible defining ideal $\mathcal I_D$ do not define general Cartier divisors, but only effective ones. Here is how:

There exists a covering of $X$ by open subsets $U_i$ on which the ideal sheaf is of the form $\mathcal I_D|U_i=f_i\mathcal O_{U_i}$ with $f_i\in \Gamma(U_i,\mathcal O _X)$.
The collection of pairs $(U_i,f_i)$ then represents the required global section of the sheaf $\mathcal K_X^*/\mathcal O_X^*$.
The effectivity mentioned above reflects the fact that this construction only yields sections of $\mathcal K_X^*/\mathcal O_X^*$ represented by regular functions but misses those represented by non regular rational functions, i.e. those having poles.


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.