2
$\begingroup$

This is a question about exercise 2 (c), pp.113-114, from Chapter 4 of Voisin's "Hodge Theory and Complex Algebraic Geometry, I".

Let $X$ be a compact complex curve with a divisor $D = \sum x_i$ on it (all $x_i$ are different so there are no multiplicities). Consider the exact sequence $$0 \to K_X \to K_X(D) \stackrel{Res}{\to} \oplus_i \ \mathcal{O}_{x_i} \to 0,$$ where $$Res_i(w) = \int_{\partial D_i} \frac{1}{2\pi i} w$$is the residue of the meromorphic form around $x_i$.

We further have the associated long exact sequence $$0 \to H^0 (K_X) \to H^0 (K_X(D)) \to \oplus_i \ H^0 (\mathcal{O}_{x_i}) \stackrel{\delta}{\to} H^1(K_X) \to H^1 (K_X(D)) \to 0.$$

The exercise asks to show that $\delta(1_{x_i})$ is the class in $H^1(K_X)$ of the form $\bar \partial \mu_i$, where $\mu_i$ is a differential form of type $(1,0)$, which is $C^{\infty}$ away from $x_i$, and equal to $\frac{dz_i}{z_i}$ in a neighborhood of $x_i$.

I am assuming that we have to work with the Dolbeault representation of cohomology classes, so $$H^1(K_X) = A^{1,1}(X)/ \bar \partial \left( A^{1,0}(X) \right).$$

  1. Comment by @Blazej from this thread says that $\bar \partial$ removes the singularity from $\frac{dz_i}{z_i}$. In what sense should I interpret this statement? Is it that since away from $0$ this form is holomorphic then we just postulate $\bar \partial \left( \frac{dz_i}{z_i} \right) = 0$ on that neighborhood?

  2. If the previous interpretation is correct then how do I go about the exercise? The only way to compute the connecting homomorphism that I know of is to functorially pick (injective/acyclic/Cech?) resolutions for all the sheaves and chase the resulting diagram. For $K_X$ and $K_X(D)$ I can choose the Dolbeault, but what do I choose for the skyscraper sheaves?

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ The $\mathcal O_{x_i}$ are acyclic, so they resolve themselves. This is also the reason why there is no $H^1(\bigoplus_i \mathcal O_{x_i})$ appearing in the long exact sequence you wrote. $\endgroup$ Jul 15 '21 at 8:08
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! The acyclicity didn't occur to me. And for 1. do you agree with the interpretation in the post as it is? $\endgroup$
    – Bananeen
    Jul 16 '21 at 10:26
0
$\begingroup$

This can be done by diagram chase, just as you suggest. For the sheaves $K_X$ and $K_X(D)$ you choose the Dolbeault resolutions. The sheaf $\bigoplus_i \mathcal O_{x_i}$ is acyclic, and hence $0 \to \bigoplus_i \mathcal O_{x_i} \to \bigoplus_i \mathcal O_{x_i} \to 0$ is an acyclic resolution. For the diagram chase, we first have to pick a preimage of the section $1_{x_i}$ under the map $$A^{0,1}(K_X(D)) \to \bigoplus_j \mathcal O_{x_j}.$$ Now choose a local coordinate $z_i$ in a neighbourhood $U$ of $x_i$ and take $\mu_i|_U = \frac{d z_i}{z_i}$. This is a section of $K_X(D)$ over $U$. Then we may extend $\mu_i|_U$ to a global section $\mu_i$ by multiplying with a $\mathcal C^\infty$-bump-function $f$ that is identically $1$ in a neighbourhood of $x_i$ and has compact support in $U$. So $\mu_i = f \cdot \mu_i|_U$ is a well-defined global section of $K_X(D)$, which has a single pole at $x_i$, and hence it is a preimage of $1_{x_i}$.

Now by the definition of the connecting homomorphism $\delta$ we get $\bar \partial \mu_i = \delta(1_{x_i})$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Upon further reflection, I don't see how we have a short exact sequence of resolutions: in degree zero indeed we have $0 \to A^{0,0}(K_X) \to A^{0,0}(K_X(D)) \to \oplus_j \mathcal{O}_{x_j} \to 0$, but in degree $1$ we will have $0 \to A^{0,1}(K_X) \to A^{0,1}(K_X(D)) \to 0 \to 0$ which is not exact, right? $\endgroup$
    – Bananeen
    Jul 19 '21 at 0:07
  • $\begingroup$ @Bananeen Note that even though $\mathcal O_{x_j}$ is acyclic, it's resolution $0 \to \mathcal O_{x_j} \to \mathcal O_{x_j} \to 0$ is not zero in degree 1. So in degree 1 you get an exact sequence $0 \to A^{0,1}(K) \to A^{0,1}(K(D)) \to \bigoplus_j \mathcal O_{x_j} \to 0$. $\endgroup$ Jul 19 '21 at 7:00
  • $\begingroup$ Something is not right here. I adopt the degree convention like this: a resolution of $\mathcal{F}$ is an exact complex $0 \to \mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{R}^0 \to \mathcal{R}^1 \to ...$. So for the three sheaves in play we have $0 \to K_X \to A^{0,0}(K_X) \to A^{0,1}(K_X) \to 0$, $0 \to K_X(D) \to A^{0,0}(K_X(D)) \to A^{0,1}(K_X(D)) \to 0$, $0 \to \oplus_i \mathcal{O}_{x_i} \to \oplus_i \mathcal{O}_{x_i} \to 0 \to 0$. I cannot see a way to reconcile this with what you are writing at the level of $A^{0,1}$'s. $\endgroup$
    – Bananeen
    Jul 19 '21 at 23:27

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.