This is an example (example 1.3) of the Hartshorne's book Ample Subvarieties of algebraic varieties.

The proposition (by Kleiman) is the following:

Proposition There is a complete scheme $X'$ and an invertible sheaf $L'$, such that $L'$ is not isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}(D')$ for any Cartier divisor $D'$ on $X'$.

I have questions about the proof, which I quoted in bold letters as (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e). Down after I explain my reasoning about each question.

Here (Hartshorne's book), scheme proper over $k$ and complete scheme are equivalents. $k$ is algebraically closed. A non-singular scheme is assumed to be irreducible.


Let $X$ be a complete non-singular, non-projective 3-fold containing two disjoint irreducible curves $C_1$ and $C_2$ such that $C_1+C_2$ is algebraically equivalent to zero. (Hartshorne give a reference and an example for this afirmation, such an X exists).

If $D$ is any prime divisor which intersects $C_1$ properly (and there are such, since $X$ is non-singular), then $D$ must contain $C_2$, because $(D\cdot C_2) = -(D\cdot C_1) < 0$. (a)

Let $P$ be a point of $C_2$. Define a new scheme $X'$, which has the same topological space as $X$, and the same structure sheaf everywhere except P. At $P$, define $\mathcal{O}_{X',P} =\mathcal{O}_{X,p}\oplus k$, with multiplication defined by $(a,\lambda)(b,\mu) = (ab, a\lambda+b\mu)$.

Then the only non-zero divisors of $\mathcal{O}_{X',P}$ are units, so no Cartier divisor on $X'$ can contain $P$. (b)

In fact, it is easly noted that there is a one-to-one correspondence $$Div (X') = \{D \in Div (X)\ \ /\ \ P\notin D\} .$$ On the other hand, we have an exact sequence $$0\rightarrow k \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X'}^* \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_X^* \rightarrow 0\ \ \ \ \mathbf{(c)}$$ so $Pic (X') \cong Pic (X)$. (d)

Let $D$ be a divisor on $X$ which intersects $C_1$ properly. Let $L = \mathcal{O}_X(D)$, and let $L'$ be the corresponding invertible sheaf on $X'$.Then L' is not isomorphic to $\mathcal{O}_{X'}(D')$ for any Cartier divisor $D'$ on $X'$.(e) $\blacksquare$

So I think the next for the items

(a) $D\cdot C_1>0$, since $D$ intersects $C_1$ properly. As $C_1+C_2$ is algebraically equivalent to zero then its is linearly equivalent to zero, $D\cdot(C_1+C_2)=0 \Rightarrow D\cdot C_2=-D\cdot C_1 < 0$. If $C_2 \not\subset D$ so $D\cdot C_2 \geq 0$ and this is a contradiction, hence $C_2\subset D$.

(b) Then the local equations for $D$ is an $f\in \mathcal{O}_{X',P}^*$, an unity, and this can not let be because $\{x\ \ /\ \ f(x)=0\}=\emptyset$.

(c) I think that in the sequence I should be change $k$ by $k^*$. The sequence $$0\rightarrow k^* \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X',x}^* \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X,x}^* \rightarrow 0$$ is exact for any $x\neq P$ by the natural inclusions. The sequence $$0\rightarrow k^* \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X',P}^* \rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{X,P}^* \rightarrow 0$$ is exact in $x=P$ by the maps $\lambda\mapsto (0,\lambda)$ and $(a,\lambda)\mapsto a$.

(d) So if I write the long exact sequence of cohomology $$\cdots \rightarrow H^1(X,k^*)\rightarrow H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_{X'}^*)\rightarrow H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_{X'}^*)\rightarrow \cdots$$ hence $H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_{X'}^*)\cong H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_{X}^*)$ because $H^i(X,k^*)=0 \ \forall \ i>0$ since $k^*$ is a constant sheave on $X$ and this is flasque.

(e) If $L'\cong \mathcal{O}_{X'}(D')$ then $D'\sim D$ and $\mathcal{O}_{X}(D)\in Div(X')$ which is a contradiction because $p\in D$ since $D$ intersects $C_1$ properly ( item (a)).

If my reasoning is correct, because is important the algebraic equivalence to zero of $C_1+C_2$? and I don't know why it is necessary to $X$ to be non projective, although in the Hartshorne's book the note before this example says that for every projective scheme the map $Div(X)\rightarrow Pic(X)$ is sobrejective (by Nakai).

I would really appreciate any explanation for my questions and a revision for my reasonings for the proof of the proposition.



Nice write-up of an interesting proposition. There are parts I also don't understand, so this is more working through it with you than really answering your question.

for a., it's not true that algebraic equivalence implies linear equivalence -- but it is true that algebraic equivalence implies equality of intersection numbers, which is what Hartshorne is using.

b. yes, exactly.

c. I agree, it should be $k^*$ and not $k$. We can check that a sequence of sheaves is exact on stalks, and it's clear that this one is.

d. Right on, yes.

e. There's something I don't get here. We know that $D$ intersects $C$ properly, but maybe $D'$ doesn't. It seems that we are using something explicit about the correspondence between invertible sheaves on $X$ and $X'$.

Two more things I don't get (I'll use Roman numerals and maybe you can answer me):

i. Hartshorne just defines the new scheme $X'$ like it isn't a problem. But it's not true in general that if $R$ is a ring and $P$ is a prime, there's another ring $S \to R$ with a prime $Q$ pulling back to $P$ such that $S_Q$ is whatever ring you like and $\text{Spec} (R \setminus P) = \text{Spec} (S \setminus Q)$ .

ii. Where are we using that the ambient space $X$ is non-projective? It's easy to construct projective three-folds with disjoint irreducible algebraically equivalent curves.

  • $\begingroup$ I see the answer to my question ii. now; we want $C_1$ to be $-C_2$, which perhaps can't happen on a projective three-fold. $\endgroup$ – hunter Oct 11 '18 at 13:06
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer, its very helpful. Can you explain me more about your answer for your question ii), please? Why $C_1$ can not be $-C_2$ over a projective 3-fold? I don't understand your question i) and what means $Spec(R\P)$? Spec(R\P)=Spec(R)\P ? Hartshorne defines $X'=(X,\mathcal{O}_{X'})$ where $\mathcal{O}_{X',x}=\mathcal{O}_{X,x}$ for $x\neq P$ and $\mathcal{O}_{X',P}=\mathcal{O}_{X,P}\oplus k$ for $x= P$, and I assumed it as true (that X' is well defined), but I still trying to convince myself of that. Is your question i) about this? $\endgroup$ – Protágoras Oct 12 '18 at 1:40
  • $\begingroup$ @Protagoras. Yes. My question in (i) is: a scheme needs to have an open cover by spectra of rings. I'm not convinced that one can just change the local ring at a point without some argument. For (ii), I don't know that this is true, just speculating. $\endgroup$ – hunter Oct 12 '18 at 2:12

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

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