8
$\begingroup$

(From Vakil's notes, Exercise 18.4.K) If $C$ is an integral projective curve over a field $k$, and $\mathscr{L}$ is an ample line bundle on $C$, why is the degree of $\mathscr{L}>0$?

If $C$ is also a regular curve, then I think I can do this, as it can be quickly checked that ${\rm deg}(\mathscr{L}^{\otimes n}) = n {\rm deg}(\mathscr{L})$ and, if $\mathscr{L}$ is very ample, there exists a global section (and that section must vanish somewhere or else our very ample bundle is trivial).

However, I don't see how to extend this argument to the case where the curve might not be regular. The degree of a coherent sheaf is defined in the notes as \begin{align*} {\rm deg}(\mathscr{F}):=\chi(C,\mathscr{F}) - ({\rm rank} \mathscr{F})\chi(C,\mathscr{O}_C) \end{align*}

As one possible useful fact, Exercise 18.4.S seems to say that we can express $\mathscr{L}$ as $\mathscr{O}_C(\sum{n_ip_i})$ where $p_i$ are regular points that are not associated points. I don't know why this is true, but it would at least allow us to view $\mathscr{L}$ more concretely (in particular, repeating the argument for Riemann Roch for regular projective curves tells us the degree of $\mathscr{L}$). However, even assuming this fact, I would need to know be able to compute the degree of $\mathscr{L}$ using the zeros and poles of a global section to use the argument above.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I was wondering about this as well, but there is probably a reason why the exercise appeared right after he introduced the definition of degree for a curve that is not regular. $\endgroup$ – DCT Jun 18 '14 at 20:17
4
$\begingroup$

The result and your argument (which is the first I would think of) are still valid for integral projective curves, but the theory is more delicate. For example, you can find the result as 7.3.2 Proposition 3.25(b) of Liu's wonderful book, in which he develops Riemann-Roch results with minimal assumptions on what constitutes a "curve" (e.g. possibly singular, nonreduced).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ All right thanks (upvote). I'll accept this once I understand it fully. It might be a while because I'll be away and because I packed Liu's book in storage where I can't get it... $\endgroup$ – DCT Jun 19 '14 at 4:46
  • $\begingroup$ Dear @Dtseng, you're welcome. I'm glad to hear that you own a copy of the book, so can look up the reference (somewhat) easily! $\endgroup$ – Andrew Jun 19 '14 at 4:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Okay, understanding it fully was a bad term to use, but I tried to take a look. I think the gist is that we can use cartier divisors instead of weil divisors in Riemann-Roch because the idea of length works even if the stalks aren't DVRs. Given this, the proof of Riemann Roch isn't changed much. The argument seems to work in exactly the same way as above. The identity ${\rm deg}(\mathscr{L}^{\otimes n})= n{\rm deg}(\mathscr{L})$ still holds, and the fact that very ample bundles have of lots of sections (more than 1-dimensional) plus the proposition you cited finishes it. $\endgroup$ – DCT Jun 19 '14 at 6:25

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.