1
$\begingroup$

I was thinking in several related questions for which I haven't been able to find a proof nor a formal statement (Basically when do holomorphic mappings induce Kähler forms and how does Kählerness behave under holomorphic mappings).

So, let's suppose $X$ and $Y$ are complex manifolds. Now, I will denote by $\pi\colon X\to Y$ and $f\colon Y\to X $ some random holomorphic mappings. My questions are

  1. If $(X, \omega_X)$ is Kähler, is it true that $(Y, f^*\omega_X)$ is always Kähler? (it should be true if $f$ is an immersion, but I want to know if that holds as well for other conditions, e.g., properness, submersions, etc.)
  2. Does the existence of a holomorphic mapping $f\colon Y\to (X, \omega_X)$ impose some restrictions on the Kählerness of $Y$ or the fibres $Y_x:= f^{-1}(x)$? (in case the latter happen to be complex manifolds as well). For example, can we find another Kähler form on $Y$ other than $f^*\omega_X$ (whenever $f^*\omega_X$ is Kähler of course)? In general, does the existence or the properties of the mapping $f$ itself impose restrictions on the the Kählerness of $Y$ and/or the fibres $Y_x$?.
  3. If $\pi\colon (X, \omega_X)\to Y$ is holomorphic, when can we say that $Y$ and/or the fibres $X_y:=\pi^{-1}(y)$ are Kähler as well? (and how do we construct their Kähler forms if it can be done?) [this one is particularly relavant when $\pi$ is a quotient map or a covering map] Edit: I found this exercise (aptly labelled hard) in some online notes a few days ago. As for the weird counterxample mentioned below (a deformation of Kähler manifolds that is not a Kähler), one can trace it back to Hironaka (An Example of a Non-Kahlerian Complex-Analytic Deformation of Kahlerian Complex Structures) enter image description here
  4. A slightly related question: is it true that the pullback of positive forms is always a positive form, i.e., if $\omega$ is a positive $(p, p)$-form on $X$, does it hold as well for $f^*\omega$ on $Y$? Edit: This seems to be true at least for vector spaces, as you can see in page 129 of Demailly's Complex analytic and differential geometry. enter image description here

I will appreciate if you can give me some hints/proofs/counterexamples or point me out to some solid references with fully elaborated proofs/examples, not just some yes/no kind of answers. Regards!

$\endgroup$
2
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ When you're thinking about different scenarios, don't forget to include the case that $Y$ is the blow-up of $X$ at a point or along a smooth subvariety. $\endgroup$ Feb 7 at 0:02
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ Also trivial counterexamples arise from products (and the corresponding projection maps), as well as constant maps. I don't know if you want such counterexamples articulated or if you would like to add further conditions to rule these out. $\endgroup$ Feb 7 at 0:43
1
+50
$\begingroup$

$1.$ This is not true. For example, if $\dim Y > \dim X$, then $f^*\omega_X$ is degenerate (in directions in the kernel of $f_*$). Even if $\dim Y = \dim X$, this issue can still occur. For example, let $Y$ be the blowup of $X$ at a point $x$ (as Ted Shifrin alluded to in the comments). If $\dim X \geq 2$, then $(f^*\omega_X)_y$ is degenerate for all $y$ with $f(y) = x$. To see this, note that for a tangent vector $v \in T_yY$ along the exceptional divisor, we have $f_*(v) = 0$, so $(f^*\omega_X)_y(v, w) = (\omega_X)_x(f_*(v), f_*(w)) = (\omega_X)_x(0, f_*(w)) = 0$ for all $w \in T_yY$.

In general, a two-form $\alpha$ is the Kähler form of a Kähler metric if and only if it is a real positive $(1, 1)$-form, see this question. As $f$ is holomorphic, $f^*\omega_X$ is a real $(1, 1)$-form, so it is the Kähler form of a Kähler metric if and only if it is positive. In the examples above, $f^*\omega_X$ is degenerate and hence not positive. If $f : Y \to X$ is a holomorphic immersion, then $f^*\omega_X$ is positive and therefore gives rise to a Kähler metric on $Y$.

$2.$ The existence of a holomorphic map $f : Y \to X$ with $X$ Kähler has no bearing on the existence of Kähler metrics on $Y$ or the fibers of $f$. One reason for this is that we always have constant maps $X \to Y$. Even if $f : Y \to X$ is non-constant, it could be the case that neither $Y$ nor the fibers of $f$ admit Kähler metrics. For example, let $Y = Y_0\times X$ where $Y_0$ is a Hopf surface and $X$ is a compact Kähler manifold, and consider the holomorphic map $f : Y \to X$ given by projection onto the second factor. The complex manifold $Y$ does not admit a Kähler metric, and neither do the fibers of the map as they are Hopf surfaces.

$3.$ The existence of a holomorphic map $\pi : X \to Y$ with $X$ Kähler does not imply that $Y$ is Kähler. For example, take $X$ and $Y$ as in point $2$ and let $\pi(x) = (y_0, x)$ where $y_0 \in Y_0$ is some chosen point. On the other hand, if $\pi^{-1}(y)$ is a complex submanifold of $X$ which is the case if $y$ is a regular value of $\pi$ for example, then the restriction of the Kähler metric on $X$ to $\pi^{-1}(y)$ is a Kähler metric. More generally, the restriction of a Kähler metric to a complex submanifold is a Kähler metric, see Proposition $3.1.10$ of Huybrechts' Complex Geometry: An Introduction for example.

If $\pi : X \to Y$ is a finite covering map and $X$ admits a Kähler metric, then so does $Y$. This is true because there is a finite covering $\rho : X' \to X$ such that the induced finite covering $\pi' : X' \to Y$ is a normal covering. Then we can average the Kähler metric $\rho^*\omega_X$ on $X'$ over the deck transformations of $\pi'$ to obtain a Kähler form which descends to $Y$.

$4.$ This is false as the counterexamples in point $1$ demonstrate (for the case of $\omega = \omega_X$ a positive $(1, 1)$-form).

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you very much for the detailed answer. Can you check out my latest edits? As for the fourth point, can we impose conditions on $f$ in order for it to preserve positive forms of any degree? (I guess holomorphic immersions can do the trick for any positive $(p, p)$-forms, but I wanted to see if we can impose a weaker condition) $\endgroup$ Feb 19 at 5:30
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding your first edit, the first part of the exercise is difficult (in particular, you need to know about currents). For the second part, I don't know why you're mentioning Hironaka's example, that doesn't seem relevant as all the fibers of $f : X \to Y$ are Kähler. Instead, you can take $X$ to be an elliptic Hopf surface, then there is a holomorphic map $f : X \to \mathbb{CP}^1$ such that every fibre is an elliptic curve. $\endgroup$ Feb 19 at 12:07
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding your second edit, note that Demailly is not using the same definition of positive as I thought you intended. He's using positive in the French sense (what I would call non-negative). In particular, Demailly would consider the zero form to be positive. $\endgroup$ Feb 19 at 12:08

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.