Invariants of projective space II: Cycles and Bundles
Thursday, December 06th, 2012 | Author: Konrad Voelkel
I want to explain a particularly easy example of a motivic cellular decomposition: That of -dimensional projective space. The discussion started with cohomology (part 1) and in this part 2, we discuss intersection-theoretic and bundle-theoretic invariants. In part 3 we will see the motivic stuff.
The invariants discussed in this article are closely related and I wrote an article about the divisorial jungle before.
Divisor class group, Picard group
Since projective space is an integral scheme of finite type, smooth over the base, we have four different isomorphic characterizations of the Picard group. It is the group of invertible sheaves (lines bundles) with tensor product, up to isomorphism . It is isomorphic to the Cartier class group
of Cartier divisors modulo principal divisors, which is isomorphic to the sheaf cohomology group
. It is the Class group
of Weil divisors modulo principal divisors.
Any hypersurface of degree
in projective
-space is linearly equivalent to the Weil divisor
, where
is a (generic) hyperplane. In particular, all hyperplanes are linearly equivalent to each other. The degree of
is
, so the degree homomorphism
is an isomorphism. In particular,
is non-trivial. One can show
by first proving
for
the divisor of a non-zero rational function
and then writing
for
some rational functions, so
.
The line bundles on , for
a field, are generated (up to isomorphism) by the tautological bundle
, its dual
and their tensor powers
, which are all called twisting sheaves. The usual isomorphism
identifies
with
.
Chow ring
The Chow ring of
is the graded ring whose
-th graded component is the Chow group
of codimension
cycles up to rational equivalence, with ring structure coming from the intersection product. Here, we consider Chow groups with integer coefficients.
Let us first look at . Can we come up with any cycles, hopefully non-trivial ones? In dimension
, that is codimension
, we have the points
which are all rationally equivalent, since any two points
in
can be joined by a
via the map
(check
). In dimension
, that is codimension
, there is
and that's the only closed subvariety, since
is irreducible. In higher or lower codimensions, there is nothing.
The trick that shows that two points on are rationally equivalent actually works for hyperplanes in
, and we have seen (in the section above) that one can show (using linear equivalence of divisors) that these are all classes of cycles. Since rational equivalence of codimension 1 cycles coincides with linear equivalence of divisors, this shows that
, for
the class of a hyperplane
(in fact, a point).
The structure of looks less clear at first, but one can show that it is generated by any codimension
linear subspace via the following "excision lemma":
Lemma: Let be a closed immersion,
the open complement, then the sequence
is exact for all
(where the arrows are pushforward by
and
, so we need to take the grading by dimension).
We apply this with ,
,
a hyperplane, and then
. Then we use
for
to get that
is a surjection. In fact, also
is a surjection for
, and because of
we can use induction.
A small remark: the excision lemma can be improved to a long exact localization/Gysin sequence for higher Chow groups, and the next term on the left would be
, which gives a much smoother proof. The localization sequence, on the other hand, is very very hard to prove (at least that's what Voevodsky writes, so I believe it).
To see that there are no relations in
(for
), i.e.
with
the class of a codimension
linear subspace, we look at the cases
(since the case
is clear and we have seen the case
above, that was the divisor-setting). Any relation would be of the form
for
some rational functions. Let
and
the projection to a linear
-dimensional subspace disjoint from
. Then
is proper, so there is proper pushforward
which can not annull
because of compatibility with the degree morphism
(and
has degree
over
), but has to annul
.
We see that two hyperplanes in in general position intersect to a linear subspace of codimension
, and in general
, so we have
.
Algebraic K-Theory
From the general theory, we can use smoothness of over a perfect field
to deduce that the Chern character with rational coefficients
is an isomorphism. I think this also works for
over
, since only regularity is used. However, the rational coefficients are quite unsatisfying. At least from
we can guess how
might look like. Or can we? Actually it is way more complicated than the rationalized picture, and I think the general answer is still unknown!
Serre proved a theorem, that every coherent sheaf on admits a surjective map of some
for positive
. This shows that
is generated by the set of all
. Furthermore, one can show that there is a relation in
between any set of
coherent sheaves on
, by analyzing the Koszul complex on
.
For a rank
vector bundle on a quasiprojective variety
, one can look at the projective bundle
which is fiber-wise a projective space of the fiber. On the total space
one has canonically the tautological bundle and its tensor powers
, which generate (for
)
. One can take a vector bundle
, pull it back to
and twist it (i.e. tensor it with some
). This gives functors
.
The projective bundle theorem for algebraic K-Theory says that these functors induce an equivalence
and
is a ring isomorphism.
If we apply this to a trivial rank vector bundle
, where
, we see that
.
In particular, . But the higher algebraic K-groups of the integers are not known! One might naively guess that it becomes better by taking a field as base, but fields (even algebraically closed ones) have a very rich higher K-theory, too.
Still, the projective bundle theorem shows us that the K-Theory of projective space isn't really complicated, since all the complexity lies in the K-Theory of the base.
Some afterthoughts
By the way, I realise during writing this that I would love to hear something about other isomorphism invariants I'm missing, like the Kodaira dimension, existence of a spin structure on the associated complex manifold, volume of the Fubini-Study metric, geodesic completeness, Lusternik-Schnirelman category, whatever... I fell in love with the idea of computing everything of . Please tell me your favourite isomorphism invariant of
or
or
in the comments!