Consider the lattice $$N=\{(a,b,c)\in\mathbb{Z}^3\mid a+b+c\equiv 0\mod 2\}$$ and the Cone $$\sigma=Cone(e_1,e_e,e_3)\subset N_{\mathbb{R}}\cong \mathbb{R}^3$$ The associated affine toric variety $X_{\sigma}$ has as its canonical divisor $K_{X_\sigma}=\sum_{i=1}^3-D_i$, where $D_i$ are the torus orbits corresponding to the rays $Cone(e_i)\subset \sigma$. The minimal ray generators are $(2,0,0),(0,2,0),(0,0,2)$, denote them by $u_1,u_2,u_3$ respectively.

We know that for $m\in M=N^\vee$ the corresponding rational function $\chi^m:X_\sigma\to \mathbb{C}$ has: $$div(\chi^m)=\sum_{i=1}^3 \langle m, u_i\rangle D_i$$

So when we take $m:(a,b,c)\mapsto -\frac{1}{2}(a+b+c)$ then $m\in N^\vee$, and $div(\chi^m)=\sum_{i=1}^3-D_i$, showing that $K_{X_\sigma}$ is Cartier.

However, in "Toric varieties" by Cox,Little,Schenck, example 11.2.7 the authors claim that $K_{X_\sigma}$ is not Cartier, while $2K_{X_\sigma}$ is.

I don't understand this. They seem to imply that the $m$ I defined is not an element of $N^\vee$, but to me it seems clear that it is... It takes only integer values on the element of $N$, so should be a well defined element of $N^\vee$.

What am I not understanding here?

Here's another way of seeing that it should be Cartier. Taking the basis $(1,1,0),(1,0,1),(0,1,1)$ for $N$ we get an isomorphism $N\cong \mathbb{Z}^3$. Under this isomorphism $\sigma$ corresponds to the cone $$Cone((-1,1,1),(1,-1,1),(1,1,-1))\subset\mathbb{R}^3$$

Now the dual lattice is just $\mathbb{Z}^3$, and the pairing is the dot product. Then set $m=(-1,-1,-1)$.

  • $\begingroup$ I have just a small remark : are you sure about your minimal generators ? How do you obtain $(1,1,0) \in N$ from your generators ? $\endgroup$ – user171326 May 19 '17 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ @N.H. $(1,1,0), (1,0,1),(0,1,1)$ are not contained in $\sigma$; they are just a basis for $N$ (so we can move from the weird "shifted lattice" $N$ to the standard lattice $\mathbb{Z}^3$). With respect to this basis the elements $(2,0,0),(0,2,0),(0,0,2)\in N$ are given by $(-1,1,1),(1,-1,1),(1,1,-1)\in\mathbb{Z}^3$. Does that make sense? $\endgroup$ – user2520938 May 19 '17 at 17:51
  • $\begingroup$ I'm probably a bit rusty (and sorry to bother you !) but I still don't see why $(1,1,0) \notin \sigma$ ? For me since $\sigma = \text{cone}(e_1, e_2,e_3)$ $\sigma$ is the set of $ae_1 + be_2 + ce_3$ with $a,b,c$ positive real numbers right ? So $(1,1,0) = e_1 + e_2$ should be in $\sigma$ ? Sorry again to be not very useful. I think your argument looks correct, I can try to read this part and think about it. $\endgroup$ – user171326 May 19 '17 at 18:51
  • $\begingroup$ @N.H. No problem! Thanks for thinking about it. You are Right that $(1,1,0)\in\sigma$, but it is not the generator for one of the 1-dimensional Faces of $\sigma$; the ray generated by $(1,1,0)$ Lies in the relative interior of the cone. On the other hand, the $(2,0,0)$ etc generated the 1 dimensional Faces of the cone. $\endgroup$ – user2520938 May 19 '17 at 18:56
  • $\begingroup$ Ok I got it ! I'll try to think about it. $\endgroup$ – user171326 May 19 '17 at 19:00

Indeed $K_{X_{\sigma}}$ is Cartier. Your argument is correct, and the claim stated in the book is wrong. They also claim that $Cl(X) \cong \Bbb Z/2 \Bbb Z$. But the rays generators $u_i$ verify $u_i = (f_1 + f_2 + f_3) - f_i$ where $f_i = (1,1,1) - e_i$ is the basis of your lattice. In particular, we have an exact sequence $$ 0 \to M \to \oplus_{\rho_i} \Bbb Z D_i \to Cl(X) \to 0$$ where the first map is the matrix $\alpha = \begin{pmatrix} - 1 & 1 & 1 \\ 1 & - 1 & 1 \\ 1 & 1 & - 1\end{pmatrix}$

So we have $$ Cl(X) \cong \text{coker}(\alpha) = \{(a,b,c) \in \Bbb Z^3 : a = b + c, b = a + c, c = a + b\} \cong \{(a,b) : 2a = 2 b = 0\} \cong \Bbb Z/ 2 \Bbb Z \times \Bbb Z/2 \Bbb Z$$ which shows that they probably wrote the wrong lattice.

  • $\begingroup$ A little more remark : my teacher told me that the correct space to consider should be the quotient of $\Bbb C^3$ by the action of $\Bbb Z/2 \Bbb Z : t \cdot(x,y,z) = (-x,-y,-z)$. Cox gives a way of finding the lattice from the action of a cyclic group in the case of surface but I am not sure how to adapt the argument. My teacher also suggested that the good lattice was $N = \{a +b = a + c = 0 \mod 2 \}$. $\endgroup$ – user171326 May 23 '17 at 19:30
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks a lot for this answer and contacting your professor. I'll see if this $N$ does indeed produce a $K_X$ that is not Cartier, while $2K_X$ is. $\endgroup$ – user2520938 May 24 '17 at 9:25
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, if you find the correct answer don't hesitate to write it as an answer, I'll be very glad to see the computations. $\endgroup$ – user171326 May 24 '17 at 9:35

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.