1
$\begingroup$

I am struggling with a question that was posed here before, about why a reducible analytic variety $V=V_1\cup V_2$ must be singular in $V_1\cap V_2$.

I must say I didn't really figure out the suggestions there, but I thought of a different reasoning: basically, a point in $V$ is non-singular if it has a neighborhood homeomorphic to $\mathbb{C}^n$. Now if the intersection is a point $V_1\cap V_2 = \{p\}$, and $p$ is non-singular, then a neighborhood $U$ must have a homeomorphism $\phi(U)=\mathbb{C}^n$. In this case $\phi(V_1-p)\cup\phi(V_2)$ is a disjoint union covering $\mathbb{C}^n$, and so $\mathbb{C}^n$ is not connected.

Does this proof make sense? And can it be generalized for larger $V_1\cap V_2$? (I'm wondering if the intersection must always have a point with a neighborhood that shares points with both sets).

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$
  1. $M_1\cap M_2$ is an analytic set of $D$ and therefore it is an analytic set of $M_1$. Since $M_1\supset U\cap M_1=U\cap M_2\subset M_2,$ $U\cap M_1\subset M_1\cap M_2$. So, the analytic set $M_1\cap M_2$ contains a nonempty open subset in $M_1$, by connectedness, $M_1=M_1\cap M_2$. Do the same to $M_2$.

  2. If $P$ is not a singular point of $A$, there is a connected neighborhood $U$ of $P$ such that $A\cap U$ is complex submanifold of $U$. Choosing our coordinate system the question reduced to a local case:

The union of two proper varieties of $\mathbb{C}^n$ can not contain a neighborhood of origin.


Suppose that the two varieties at origin are given by zeros of $(f_1,\ldots,f_r)$ and $(g_1,...,g_k)$ respectively. Then the union at the origin is given by the zeros of $(f_i g_j)$. Therefore, by the identical principle, the zeros of $f_ig_j$ contains a neighborhood of origin if and only if $f_i$ is always zero or $g_j$ is always zero. Since the two varieties are proper subsets, this completes the proof.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

I am also stuck with this question and I am not sure if this will help. Referring to a book "Holomorphic functions and integral Representations in several complex variables" by Michael Range, the two following exercise problems (unfortunately!) can help you answer your question:

[Page 31: E.2.13] Let $M_{1}$ and $M_{2}$ be closed connected complex manifolds of the region $D\subseteq \mathbb{C}^{n}$. If there exists $U$ a neighbourhood of $P\in M_{1}\cap M_{2}$ with $U\cap M_{1}=U\cap M_{2}$, then $M_{1}=M_{2}$.

[Page 40: E.3.8] Let $A_{1}$ and $A_{2}$ be analytic sets, $P\in A_{1}\cap A_{2}$. If for each $U$ neighbourhood of $P$, $U\cap A_{1}\neq U\cap A_{2}$, then $P$ is a singular point of $A=A_1\cup A_2$.

Remark: I think in E.3.8, it is implicitly implied that $A_{1}\neq A_{2}$.

Therefore, if $V_{1}\cap V_{2}$ is not contained in $V_{s}$, then we may find $z\in V_{1}\cap V_{2}$ which is regular. Then by E.3.8, there exists a neighbourhood $U$ of $z$ such that $U\cap V_{1}=U\cap V_{2}$. By $E.2.13$, therefore $V_{1}=V_{2}=V$ which is not possible.

So we are left with finishing two questions. Hope someone can help!

N.B. This is the best I can come up with. It might be wrong also, so exercise caution!

$\endgroup$

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.