2
$\begingroup$

I read the following in Fulton's book. Could you help me to solve it? Thanks!

Example: $V = V(XW - YZ) \in A^4(k)$. $\Gamma(V) = k[X, Y, Z, W]/(XW-YZ)$. Let $\overline{X}, \overline{Y}, \overline{Z}, \overline{W}$ be the residue of $X, Y, Z, W$ in $\Gamma{V}$. Then $\overline{X}/\overline{Y} = \overline{Z}/\overline{W} = f \in k(V)$ is defined at $P = (x, y, z, w) \in V$ if $y \neq 0 $ or $w \neq 0$.

Exercise 2-20: Show that it is impossible to write $f = a/b$, where $a, b \in \Gamma(V)$, and $b(P) \neq 0$ for every $P$ where $f$ is defined. Show that the pole set of $f$ is exactly $\{(x, y, z, w) \mid y = w =0\}$.

$\endgroup$
5
$\begingroup$

Suppose that $f=a/b$ with $a,b\in\Gamma(V)$. Note that $\Gamma(V)$ is an integral domain.

Then $a/b = \bar{X}/\bar{Y}$ thus in $k(V) = \mathrm{Frac}(\Gamma(V))$, we have $a\bar{Y} = b\bar{X}$, i.e. $aY-bX$ vanishes on $V$. Now, taking $P=(1,0,1,0)$, note that $P\in V$ and that $a(P)Y(P)=0$ but $X(P)\neq 0$. Hence $b(P)=0$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks you! I see your argument works for the second assertion. What's about the first one? $\endgroup$ Aug 16 '17 at 16:33
  • $\begingroup$ Here is how to prove the first part: suppose $b(x,y,z,w)\neq 0$ for all $y\neq 0$. It then follows that $b$ depends on $y$ alone (see this post for a simple argument). So if $b(x,y,z,w)\neq 0$ also for all $w\neq 0$, then $b$ is actually a constant. Since $zb-aw\in (xw-yz)$, evaluating at $(0,0,1,0)$ we find $b=0$, that is impossible. $\endgroup$
    – Math101
    Dec 17 '19 at 11:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Math101, Shouldn't it be evaluating at $(0,0,1,1)$? $\endgroup$
    – Steve
    Dec 10 '20 at 8:39
0
$\begingroup$

I don't think the above arguments for this problem are correct. A sketch solution is given by Mumford on page 21 of "The Red Book of Varieties and Schemes" (footnote 2).

Here are some details.

  1. $V = V( wx - yz )$ has $I(V) = (F)$ where $F = wx-yz$ is irreducible in $k[x,y,z,w]$. Let $U_1 = V - V(w), U_2 = V - V(y)$. Then $z/w$ is regular on $U_1$ and $x/y$ is regular on $U_2$. On $U_1 \cap U_2$ we have $z/w = x/y$ since $wx - yz \in I(V)$.

The most we can expect at this point is to have a rational function defined on $U_1 \cup U_2 = V - V(w,y)$.

  1. Let $Z = V(w,y) \subseteq V$. Let $a,b \in k[x,y,z,w]$ be such that $a/b$ is regular on $V - Z$. Note that $b(1,0,1,0) = 0$ is allowed, which explains why one of the solutions already given is incorrect. A correction suggests to consider $P=(0,0,1,1)$, but this does not lie on $V$.

Mumford argues that $V(b) \cap V = Z$ using a dimension argument. But the concept of dimension is not developed at this stage of Fulton's book. Instead, here is an elementary argument.

Since $a/b = x/y$ on $U_2$ we have $ay - bx = g(wx-yz)$ for some $g \in k[x,y,z,w]$. Re-arranging gives $y( a + gz ) = x(b + gw)$ and so $y | (b+gw)$ and so $b = -gw + hy$ for some $h \in k[x,y,z,w]$. It follows that $b$ is identically zero on $Z$.

  1. Now suppose $b$ is non-zero on $V - Z$. Define $Z' = V(x,z) \subseteq V$. Note that $Z \cap Z' = (0,0,0,0)$. Consider $b$ restricted to $Z'$. It is a polynomial $b(0,y,0,w) \in k[y,w]$ that is zero only at $(0,0)$. We can apply an argument along the lines of the one given above by Math101 (Dec 17, 2019) to get a contradiction (assuming $k$ is algebraically closed, or at least infinite). One could also argue using dimensions, since $V(b(0,y,0,w))$ should be co-dimension 1 in $k^2$.
$\endgroup$

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.