Text size

Section 58

Hilbert–Mumford inequalities for smooth pairs

For clarity, we fix the sign convention. If a one-parameter subgroup λ:𝔾m→SL(E)\lambda:\mathbb G_m\to\operatorname{SL}(E) acts on a vector space and vv is a nonzero vector, let wtmin(v)\operatorname{wt}_{\min}(v) be the least weight of a nonzero component of vv. The weight of 𝒪ℙ(1)\mathcal O_{\mathbb P}(1) at limt→0λ(t)[v]\lim_{t\to0}\lambda(t)[v] is −wtmin(v)-\operatorname{wt}_{\min}(v). We denote the fibre weight of a linearized line bundle by μ\mu. For an ample linearization, the Hilbert–Mumford criterion [39] says that a point is stable precisely when μ>0\mu>0 for every nontrivial one-parameter subgroup, and semistable when all these weights are nonnegative.

Lemma 58.1. If V(Q1,Q2)⊂ℙ5V(Q_1,Q_2)\subset\mathbb P^5 is smooth, the determinant of its pencil is a binary sextic with six distinct zeros. Every singular member has rank five, and the projective stabilizer of the pencil is finite.

Proof. Bertini’s theorem gives a nonsingular member AA: outside the base locus apply Bertini, while on the base locus every nonzero linear combination of the two gradients is nonzero. Write a second member as BB, and let T=A−1BT=A^{-1}B, which is self-adjoint for the nondegenerate symmetric form AA. A repeated eigenvalue would give an eigenvector v≠0v\ne0 with A(v,v)=0A(v,v)=0. If its eigenspace has dimension at least two, choose an isotropic vector in that eigenspace. If it has dimension one, a Jordan chain gives v=(T−c)wv=(T-c)w and hence A(v,v)=A(w,(T−c)v)=0A(v,v)=A(w,(T-c)v)=0. Then B(v,v)=0B(v,v)=0 and Bv=cAvBv=cAv, producing a singular point of VV. Thus TT has six distinct eigenvalues. This proves the assertions about the determinant and ranks.

Conversely, a pencil with six distinct determinant zeros has a nonsingular member AA and an AA-orthogonal eigenbasis for A−1BA^{-1}B. In this basis its equations are ∑yi2=∑ciyi2=0\sum y_i^2=\sum c_i y_i^2=0 with the cic_i distinct. Dependent gradients would force a point to be supported in a single coordinate, which cannot satisfy the first equation. Thus its intersection is smooth as well.

A projective transformation preserving the pencil permutes its six singular members. The kernel of this action fixes every member of the pencil. After rescaling a linear representative, it preserves AA and BB and hence commutes with TT. In an AA-orthogonal eigenbasis of TT it is a diagonal sign matrix. Thus the kernel is finite, and the action on the pencil has finite image. ◻

Lemma 58.2. Let a0,…,a5a_0,\ldots,a_5 be the weights of a nontrivial one-parameter subgroup on the linear coordinates, so ∑ai=0\sum a_i=0. Let PP be a pencil defining a smooth intersection of two quadrics. Choose a basis adapted to the weight filtration and put d1=wtmin(Q1)≤d2=wtmin(Q2).d_1=\operatorname{wt}_{\min}(Q_1)\le d_2=\operatorname{wt}_{\min}(Q_2). Then (58.1)d1<0,d2≤−d15,μη(P,λ)=−(d1+d2).\label{f216:eq:git-pencil-weights} d_1<0,\qquad d_2\le-\frac{d_1}{5},\qquad \mu_\eta(P,\lambda)=-(d_1+d_2).

Proof. Being adapted means that the initial forms of the basis give a basis of the associated graded pencil. Thus the initial Plücker coordinate has weight d1+d2d_1+d_2, proving the last equality.

Suppose first that d1≥0d_1\ge0. Every monomial of both quadrics then has nonnegative weight. Every term in their determinant polynomial has total weight 2∑ai=02\sum a_i=0. Consequently that determinant is unchanged if both quadrics are replaced by their weight-zero parts. The latter therefore form a pencil with six distinct determinant zeros. By the same elementary linear-algebra criterion used in Lemma 58.1, its intersection is smooth. The one-parameter subgroup fixes both weight-zero quadrics. This contradicts the finiteness of its projective stabilizer. Hence d1<0d_1<0.

If Q2Q_2 is nonsingular, a nonzero determinant term gives 6d2≤06d_2\le0, which suffices. If Q2Q_2 is singular, its zero in the determinant sextic is simple. The coefficient of ss in det(Q2+sQ1)\det(Q_2+sQ_1) is therefore nonzero. Each of its terms uses one matrix entry of Q1Q_1 and five of Q2Q_2, and again has total coordinate weight zero. Thus d1+5d2≤0d_1+5d_2\le0. ◻

Lemma 58.3. In calculating the Hilbert–Mumford weight of a pair (V,C)(V,C), one may assume that Π=⟨C⟩\Pi=\langle C\rangle is a coordinate plane invariant under λ\lambda, without changing any of the three weights for ζ,ξ,η\zeta,\xi,\eta or the smoothness of VV and CC.

Proof. Choose an eigenbasis within each weight space. Row reduction relative to the weight filtration gives a unipotent transformation uu such that uΠ=limt→0λ(t)Π,limt→0λ(t)uλ(t)−1=1.u\Pi=\lim_{t\to0}\lambda(t)\Pi, \qquad \lim_{t\to0}\lambda(t)u\lambda(t)^{-1}=1. Concretely, a basis of the plane consists of pivot vectors plus terms of higher vector weight, and uu removes those terms. Such a transformation preserves initial vectors in every representation. Equivalently, uu belongs to the unipotent radical of the parabolic associated to λ\lambda. It therefore preserves the limits and fibre weights of the three linearized bundles. Replace (V,C)(V,C) by (uV,uC)(uV,uC). The limiting plane is invariant; a change of basis inside the weight spaces makes it a coordinate plane. ◻

Lemma 58.4. In the coordinates of Lemma 58.3, let σ\sigma be the sum of the three coordinate weights on Π\Pi. If qq is the quadratic equation of the smooth conic and b=wtmin(q)b=\operatorname{wt}_{\min}(q), then (58.2)μξ=σ,μζ=−b,3b≤2σ,b≥d1.\label{f216:eq:git-conic-weights} \mu_\xi=\sigma,\qquad \mu_\zeta=-b,\qquad 3b\le2\sigma,\qquad b\ge d_1.

Proof. The plane is a subspace of EE, whose vector weights are the negatives of the coordinate weights. Thus det𝒮*\det\mathcal S^* has weight σ\sigma. The weight of 𝒪ℋ(1)\mathcal O_{\mathcal H}(1) is −b-b by its definition. The matrix of qq is nonsingular. A nonzero determinant term uses three entries, each with weight at least bb, and its total coordinate weight is 2σ2\sigma. This proves 3b≤2σ3b\le2\sigma.

The plane is not contained in VV. Indeed, on such a plane the normal derivatives of two defining quadrics would give an everywhere surjective map 𝒪ℙ2⊕3→𝒪ℙ2(1)⊕2\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^2}^{\oplus3}\to\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^2}(1)^{\oplus2} if VV were smooth. Its kernel would be 𝒪ℙ2(−2)\mathcal O_{\mathbb P^2}(-2), contradicting the equality of second Chern classes in this exact sequence. Therefore some member of PP restricts to a nonzero scalar multiple of qq. Every element of PP has least weight at least d1d_1. Restricting to an invariant coordinate plane only deletes monomials, so b≥d1b\ge d_1. ◻

Proposition 58.5. Every point of WsmW^\mathrm{sm} is GIT stable for ℒ\mathcal L. More precisely, for every nontrivial one-parameter subgroup, (58.3)μℒ((V,C),λ)=20σ−6b−66(d1+d2)≥−1445d1>0.\label{f216:eq:git-strict} \begin{split} \mu_{\mathcal L}((V,C),\lambda) &=20\sigma-6b-66(d_1+d_2)\\ &\ge -\frac{144}{5}d_1>0. \end{split}

Proof. Apply the preceding lemmas. From 3b≤2σ3b\le2\sigma and b≥d1b\ge d_1 we get 20σ−6b≥24b≥24d1.20\sigma-6b\ge24b\ge24d_1. Moreover, d1+d2≤4d1/5d_1+d_2\le4d_1/5. Substitution gives μℒ≥24d1−2645d1=−1445d1>0.\mu_{\mathcal L}\ge24d_1-\frac{264}{5}d_1 =-\frac{144}{5}d_1>0. The line bundle is ample by Lemma 57.5, so the Hilbert–Mumford criterion applies. ◻

Remark 58.6. The same calculation proves stability of every smooth pair for 6ζ+20ξ+cη6\zeta+20\xi+c\eta whenever c>30c>30: the lower bound becomes (24−4c/5)d1>0(24-4c/5)d_1>0. The actual CM coefficient is c=66c=66. This is a simultaneous inequality for all one-parameter subgroups, so no enumeration of possible weighted flags is needed.

Example 58.7. Consider coordinates (s,x,z,t0,t1,t2)(s,x,z,t_0,t_1,t_2) and Q1=zt0−st1−xt2,Q2=x2+sz+t0t2+t12+t22.Q_1=zt_0-st_1-xt_2,\qquad Q_2=x^2+sz+t_0t_2+t_1^2+t_2^2. The determinant of the Hessian of Q1+τQ2Q_1+\tau Q_2 is 4τ6+4τ2−14\tau^6+4\tau^2-1, which is squarefree. Its leading coefficient is nonzero, so the pencil has six distinct singular members and VV is smooth. On Π={t0=t1=t2=0}\Pi=\{t_0=t_1=t_2=0\} the conic is x2+sz=0x^2+sz=0. Give the linear coordinates weights (−1,−1,−1,1,1,1)(-1,-1,-1,1,1,1). Then (d1,d2)=(−2,0),b=−2,σ=−3,μℒ=84>0.(d_1,d_2)=(-2,0),\quad b=-2,\quad\sigma=-3, \qquad\mu_{\mathcal L}=84>0. The conic contribution 20σ−6b=−4820\sigma-6b=-48 is negative: the positivity comes from including the pencil contribution −66(d1+d2)=132-66(d_1+d_2)=132. For the inverse subgroup the corresponding weight is 180180. This calculation illustrates why the three terms of the CM polarization must be kept with their actual coefficients.