The seventh lecture of algebraic curves by Karl Christ.
Last time we stopped with the calculation that KPr=OPr(−r−1). Using this together with the following theorem is quite profitable:
Theorem: (Adjunction formula). Let
X be smooth and
Y⊆X smooth of codimension
k. Then we can express the canonical sheaf of
Y in terms of the canonical sheaf of
X in the following way:
KY=KX⊗⋀kNY/X⊗OY, where we include the last tensor just to ensure that this equality happens as sheaves on
Y. I believe the tensor products are taken over
C.
The most common situation in which we use this is where k=1, in which case the adjunction formula says
KY=KX⊗OX(Y)⊗OY
or in the divisor notation
KY=(KX+Y)∣Y0.
Here's a sketch of the proof for k=1:
Proof. (Sketch). We have an exact sequence
0→TY→TX∣Y→NY/X→0. We have a picture on the board at this point which shows a curve
Y together with a tangent line drawn at a point on
Y and a normal space (a plane) at the same point.
Dualize this to get
0→NY/X∗→TX∣Y∗→TY∗→0
noting that the rank of these bundles are
1,
n and
n−1 respectively. It's a general fact that if you have an exact sequence
0→F′→F→F′′→0,
then
⋀rF=⋀r′F′ ⊗ ⋀r′′F′′,
so
⋀nTX∣Y∗=NY/X∗⊗⋀n−1TY∗.
The leftmost term is
KX∣Y and the rightmost term is
KY, so rearranging, we get
KY=NY/X⊗KX⊗OY.
Let's see Bezout's theorem.
Theorem: (Bezout's Theorem). If
C1,
C2⊆P2 are projective curves of degree
d1 and
d2 respectively, then
C1⋅C2=d1⋅d2.
Proof. C1 is linearly equivalent to a union of
d1 general lines; likewise,
C2 is linearly equivalent to a union of
d2 general lines. Any two linear intersect in exactly one point, and
C1⋅C2 is well-defined on linear equivalence classes. Thus, counting intersection of lines gives
C1⋅C2=d1⋅d2.
Remember: C1 and C2 are divisors of P2 and two divisors C and D are linearly equivalent (C∼D) if and only if C−D=div(f). The statement that every curve of degree d is linearly equivalent to a union of lines is something like saying that every polynomial of degree d factors as a product of d linear terms.
Proposition: (genus-degree formula). If
C⊆P2 is a smooth plane curve of degree
d and genus
g, then
g=2(d−1)(d−2).
Proof. Recall that we saw, as a corollary of Riemann Roch, that
deg(KC)=2g−2. By adjunction we get
KC=(KP2+C)∣C=(OP2(−3)⊗OP2(d))∣C=(OP2(d−3))∣C which implies
deg(KC)=(d−3)⋅d=d2−3d=2g−2. Solving for
g gives the result.
A curve on P1×P1 (take coordinates [u0:u1]×[v1×v2]) is given by a bi-homogeneous polynomial of bi-degree (d1,d2); that is, a polynomial in u0,u1,v0,v1 which is homogeneous of degree d1 in u0,u1 and homogeneous of degree d2 in v0,v1. For instance, u02⋅u1⋅v0⋅v1+u13⋅v02 has bidegree (3,2).
Fact: C∼D⊆P1×P1 if and only if C and D have the same bi-degree.
Proposition: Let
C1 and
C2 be curves of bidegrees
(d1,e1) and
(d2,e2). Then
C1⋅C2=d1e2+d2e1
The proof is, again, done by counting the intersections of lines. Omitted.
Now consider an arbitrary curve C in P1×P1 of bi-degree (d1,d2). It has canonical divisor
KC=(KP1×P1+C)∣C
by the adjunction formula. Once you know that KP1×P1=OP1×P1(−2) (see below for this computation) the above equality implies that bideg(KQ)=(−2,−2).
Here are two ways of seeing that KP1×P1=OP1×P1(−2).
Method 1: We realize Q=P1×P1 as a smooth quadric in P3 (in fact, every smooth quadric in P3 is isomorphic to P1×P1). To see this, take the Segre embedding [u0:u1]×[v0:v1]↦[u0v0:u0v1:u1v0:u1v1] and notice that this is exactly the surface xy=zw in P3 after choosing homogeneous coordinates [x:y:z:w].
Now apply adjunction:
KQ=(KP3+Q)∣Q=(OP3(−4)+OP3(2))∣Q=(OP3(−2))∣Q.
Method 2: (Thanks Abhishek!) We can instead calculate KP1×P1 without considering an embedding into P3 by applying the adjunction formula to one copy of P1 inside of P1×P1. Adjunction says
KP1=(KP1×P1+P1).
We know KP1=OP1(−2) since KPr=OPr(−r−1).
Applying the Corollary about deg(KC) to our curve C of bi-degree (d1,d2), we have
2g−2=deg(KC)=deg((KP1×P1+C)∣C)=(d1−2)⋅d2 + (d2−2)⋅d1=2d1d2−2d2−2d1,
which implies g=(d1−1)(d2−1).
This leads to the following proposition.
Proposition: If
C is a smooth curve of bi-degree
(d1,d2) on
P1×P1, then
g(C)=(d1−1)(d2−1).
Comparing the genus/degree formulas for curves in P2 and P1×P1 warrants the following remark.
Remark:
For some g (e.g. g = 2) there exists no smooth plane curve of that genus, simply because d↦2(d−1)(d−2) is not a surjective map on N.
In contrast, for any g there exists a smooth curve of genus g on P1×P1. For example, a smooth curve of bi-degree (g−1,2).