The question arises from "Geometry of Algebraic Curves" from Arbarello, Cornalba, Griffiths and Harris. I wrote something down in my master's thesis that I admittedly don't completely understand, and I wanna figure it out now that I have some time on my hands!

Page 311 claims the following, which I expanded a bit to make the question self-contained :

Let $A$ and $B$ be algebraic vector bundles over a complex algebraic variety $W$ and let $\mathbb P \overset{def}= \mathbb P(\mathrm{Hom}(B,A)) \to W$ be the associated projective bundle. Let $\sigma : A \to B$ be a morphism of vector bundles ; by composition, $\sigma$ induces a map $$ \widetilde{\sigma} : \mathrm{Hom}(B,A) \to \mathrm{Hom}(A,A). $$ We consider the composition of bundle maps on $\mathbb P$ : $$ \mathcal O_{\mathbb P}(-1) \overset{i}{\to} \pi^* \mathrm{Hom}(B,A) \overset{\pi^* \widetilde{\sigma}}{\to} \pi^* \mathrm{Hom}(A,A) \overset{\mathrm{tr}}{\to} \mathcal O_{\mathbb P} $$ where $i$ is the standard inclusion and $\mathrm{tr}$ is the trace functional. (...)

What is this standard inclusion? I can't even deal with the case where $W$ is a point (which would at least let me understand the map on the fibers...). In this case vector bundles are vector spaces $V_A, V_B$, so I am looking for a map of varieties $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P(\mathrm{Hom}(V_B,V_A))}(-1) \to \pi_{\mathbb P}^* \mathrm{Hom}(V_B,V_A)$, and by the universal property of the pullback, since I already have a map $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P}(-1) \to \mathbb P$, all I need is a map $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P}(-1) \to \mathrm{Hom}(V_B,V_A)$. But even that map I don't see it!


It's pretty much the same as what happens for the tautological bundle over projective space.

Recall that if $\mathbb P^n$ is the projective space of lines in $V := \mathbb C^{n+1}$, the tautological bundle $\mathcal O(-1)$ is the bundle of lines in $V$, so we get an inclusion $$ 0 \to \mathcal O(-1) \to \underline V $$ of vector bundles over $\mathbb P^n$, where $\underline V$ is the trivial vector bundle over $\mathbb P^n$ with fiber $V$. The inclusion maps a line in $\mathcal O(-1)$ (which is the space of lines in $V$) to the line in $\underline V$, tautologically.

Passing now to your situation, suppose $E \to X$ is a holomorphic vector bundle of rank $r+1$ over a complex manifold $X$. We then construct the projective bundle $\pi : \mathbb P(E) \to X$ of lines in $E$, and get an inclusion $$ 0 \to \mathcal O(-1) \to \pi^* E $$ of vector bundles over $\mathbb P^n$, in exactly the same way as before. You have $E = \mathrm{Hom}(B,A)$, which doesn't really matter since the inclusion exists for any vector bundle.

Note that the first situation is just the case where $X$ is a point, because we can interpret a vector space $V$ as a vector bundle over a point, and then $\underline V = \pi^* V$, where $\pi : \mathbb P^n \to \{\mathrm{pt}\}$ is the constant map.

  • $\begingroup$ I guess my problem is that I don't "recall" that (that $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P}(-1)$ is the bundle of lines in $V$) from anywhere. It's obvious that $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^n}(1)$ is the bundle of hyperplanes since its global sections are linear polynomials, but $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^n}(-1)$ has no global sections, and I don't know what is the standard (or at least natural) way to get a line out of a rational function of degree $-1$. I can try to guess but I'd like to see it written out somewhere. Can you expand? $\endgroup$ – Patrick Da Silva Oct 4 '16 at 14:02
  • $\begingroup$ The construction of $\mathbb P^n$ and $\mathcal O(-1)$ is done (very quickly!) in Demailly's book [1] in Chapter 5, Section 15, circa page 277. It really is just a matter of noting that every point in projective space is a line, so you automatically get a line bundle over projective space, which we call $\mathcal O(-1)$. [1] www-fourier.ujf-grenoble.fr/~demailly/manuscripts/agbook.pdf $\endgroup$ – Gunnar Þór Magnússon Oct 4 '16 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ (To be fair this is one of those things that is obvious (tautological, even) once you understand it, but it took me ages to finally get it. :) ) $\endgroup$ – Gunnar Þór Magnússon Oct 4 '16 at 14:13
  • $\begingroup$ Sadly this doesn't help me, because he defines geometrically $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P}(-1)$ as the bundle of lines and then $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P}(1)$ as its dual. If you can tell me why the exact sequence $$ 0 \to H^* \to V^* \to \mathcal O(1) \to 0 $$ defines the bundle of hyperplanes, I'd be fine. The thing is my definition of these twisted sheaves are as the coherent sheaves associated to twists of modules, so there's a priori nothing geometric about it ; the only link I have between geometry and algebra is the one in $\mathcal O(1)$ since linear equations and hyperplanes are easy. $\endgroup$ – Patrick Da Silva Oct 4 '16 at 14:15
  • $\begingroup$ I don't think this is a complicated statement either, I just don't see how people think of it. (See page 278 of your document for the exact sequence.) Do I need to include an inner product structure to match lines and hyperplanes?? $\endgroup$ – Patrick Da Silva Oct 4 '16 at 14:17

So, after a long discussion with Gunnar Þór Magnússon, I came to the following conclusion.

Algebraically, of course, the standard definitions are to begin with a complex variety $X$, a locally free sheaf of constant finite rank $\mathscr E$ on $X$ and then $\mathbb P(\mathscr E) \overset{def}= \mathrm{Proj}(\mathrm{Sym}(\mathscr E^*))$. The definitions of $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P \mathscr E}(k)$ follow from the $\mathrm{Proj}$ construction. In particular, if $X$ is a point, $\mathscr E$ corresponds to a vector space $V$ and $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(k) = \widetilde{\mathrm{Sym}(V^*)(k)}$ for $k \in \mathbb Z$. In coordinates, this gives us $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^n}(k) = \widetilde{ \mathbb C[x_0,\cdots,x_n](k) }$. However, this definition does not make it obvious how to define a map $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P V}(-1) \to \mathbb P(V) \times V$, showing that $\mathcal O_{\mathbb PV}(-1)$ is the tautological subbundle of the Grassmannian of lines in $V$, namely $\mathbb P(V) = \mathbb G(1,V)$, as described in this link. In the case of the tautological subbundle, I did understand the map, but I did not understand that the bundle was $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1)$, so I ended up with equivalent problems but no understanding.

Gunnar gave me the link (see pages 277-281) describing the geometric description of $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(1)$ via the dual of the exact sequence $$ 0 \to \mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1) \to \underline V \to \underline V/\mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1) \to 0 $$ to obtain $$ 0 \to (\underline V/\mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1))^* \to \underline V^* \to \mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1)^* \to 0 $$ We can use this to define geometrically $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(1) \overset{def}= \mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1)^*$. By "geometrically", I mean defining the classical variety set-theoretically (as in Hartshorne's first chapter or as in Harris' Algebraic Geometry, for instance) and then defining the map to $\mathbb P(V)$ making it into a geometric vector bundle. The above exact sequence shows that we can write $$ \mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1)^* = \{ ([v],[\varphi : V \to \mathbb C]) \, | \, (*) \} $$ where $[v]$ is the line through $v \in V \setminus \{0\}$ and $\varphi_1,\varphi_2 : V \to \mathbb C$ are called equivalent at $[v]$ if $\varphi_1(v) = \varphi_2(v)$. When we fix an hyperplane $H \subseteq V$, we can identify the fiber of $\pi : \mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1)^* \to \mathbb P(V)$ at $[v] \in \mathbb P(V) \setminus \mathbb P(H)$ with $V^*/H^*$ ; choosing a basis for $V$ also gives an identification $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1)^* \simeq \widetilde{\mathrm{Sym}(V^*)(1)} = \mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(1)$ which is consistent with changes of bases, so this isomorphism appears to be natural ; more explicitly, if $V = \langle e_0,\cdots,e_n \rangle$ and $V^* = \langle x_0,\cdots,x_n \rangle$ where $x_i(e_j) = \delta_{ij}$, since $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1)^*|_{\mathcal D_+(x_i)}$ has fibers identified with $V^*/H_i^*$ (where $H_i$ is the hyperplane $x_i = 0$) and $\widetilde{\mathrm{Sym}(V^*)(1)}|_{\mathcal D_+(x_i)} \simeq \widetilde{\mathbb C[x_0/x_i,\cdots,x_n/x_i]}$, each quotient $\frac{x_j}{x_i}$ describes a section of both sheaves which can be used to identify them. I am not quite satisfied by this argument, but I am at least convinced. If someone has something better, I'm open.

The point is I am worried about naturality in $V$ (and more generally, in $\mathscr E$, but I guess it would follow from that in $V$) and choosing bases makes it not very believable. I want the functor which associates to each locally free sheaf of constant rank over $X$ a geometric vector bundle over $X$ to map $\widetilde{\mathrm{Sym}(V^*)}(k)$ to the variety $(\mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1))(-k)$ where $\mathcal O_{\mathbb P(V)}(-1)$ is defined as the tautological line bundle which we then twist. I chose these two guys because they are the easiest to naturally define, but it might not be the way to go.

(I'd be a big fan of a coordinate free argument matching the algebraic and geometric definition of those sheaves.)


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.