Text size

Section 92

An audit of the singular-fibre refinement

Lemma 92.1 (The actual fibre series). For integers 0≤j≤2m0\le j\le2m, the fibre refinement of H0(X,mL)H^0(X,mL) has, after removal of its fixed factor, the complete restriction of the positive part in Lemma 90.1. In particular, if FF is centred at a singular point of TT, then S(WT;F)=320(∫0∞vol(−KT−vF)dv+∫12∫0∞vol(−KT−(u−1)CT−vF)dvdu).S(W^T;F)=\frac3{20}\left( \int_0^\infty\operatorname{vol}(-K_T-vF)\,dv+ \int_1^2\int_0^\infty \operatorname{vol}(-K_T-(u-1)C_T-vF)\,dv\,du\right).

Proof. For j≤mj\le m, the restriction sequence is surjective on sections because (mL−(j+1)T)−KX=(m+1)L−(j+1)T(mL-(j+1)T)-K_X=(m+1)L-(j+1)T is nef and big, so Kawamata–Viehweg vanishing applies. For m<j≤2mm<j\le2m, the exact fixed component is (j−m)D(j-m)D, and the residual divisor is P=(2m−j)B+(j−m)HP=(2m-j)B+(j-m)H. Its restriction sequence is again surjective: (P−T)−KX=P+B(P-T)-K_X=P+B is nef and big. Thus the fixed restriction is (j−m)CT(j-m)C_T and the moving restriction is complete. The curve CTC_T is contained in the smooth locus of TT; this also follows from the local blow-up charts below. Its order at a valuation centred at a singular point of TT is zero. Taking the asymptotic order sums gives the formula, including its factor 3/L3=3/203/L^3=3/20. ◻

Lemma 92.2 (The A2A_2 calculation). Suppose TT has one A2A_2 singularity and no other singularities. There is an exceptional curve FF on its minimal resolution with AT(F)=1,S(WT;F)=9180.A_T(F)=1,\qquad S(W^T;F)=\frac{91}{80}. Consequently δp(T;WT)≤80/91<1\delta_p(T;W^T)\le80/91<1 at that singular point.

Proof. The resolution T̃\widetilde T is obtained by blowing up three distinct points of the conic, with two further successive blow-ups along the conic above the third point. Let h,e1,…,e5h,e_1,\ldots,e_5 be the line class and the total exceptional classes; their intersection matrix is diag(1,−1,−1,−1,−1,−1)\operatorname{diag}(1,-1,-1,-1,-1,-1). Put A=e3−e4,F=e4−e5,J=e5,R0=h−e3−e4,Q0=2h−∑i=15ei.A=e_3-e_4,\quad F=e_4-e_5,\quad J=e_5,\quad R_0=h-e_3-e_4,\quad Q_0=2h-\sum_{i=1}^5e_i. The curves A,FA,F are the two (−2)(-2)-curves over the A2A_2 point. The resolution is crepant, so AT(F)=1A_T(F)=1. Moreover Q0⋅F=0Q_0\cdot F=0. For 1≤u≤21\le u\le2 write Pu=−KT̃−(u−1)Q0,Pu2=5−u2.P_u=-K_{\widetilde T}-(u-1)Q_0,\qquad P_u^2=5-u^2. The negative parts of Pu−vFP_u-vF are Nu(v)={v2A,0≤v≤2−u,v2A+(u+v−2)J,2−u≤v≤1,v2A+(u+v−2)J+(v−1)R0,1≤v≤2.N_u(v)= \begin{cases} \tfrac v2 A,&0\le v\le2-u,\\ \tfrac v2 A+(u+v-2)J,&2-u\le v\le1,\\ \tfrac v2 A+(u+v-2)J+(v-1)R_0,&1\le v\le2. \end{cases} Their supports are negative definite: A,J,R0A,J,R_0 are disjoint and have squares −2,−1,−1-2,-1,-1. The proposed positive parts are orthogonal to their negative parts. To check nefness it suffices to test the negative curves e1,e2,A,F,J,Q0,h−e1−e2,h−e1−e3,h−e2−e3,R0.e_1,e_2,A,F,J,Q_0,h-e_1-e_2,h-e_1-e_3,h-e_2-e_3,R_0. For clarity, their intersections in the three chambers are as follows; the identical rows have been combined. [0,2−u][2−u,1][1,2]e1,e22−u2−u2−uA000F3v/22−u+v/23−u−v/2J2−u−v00Q0u2−v2−vh−e1−e2112−vh−e1−e3,h−e2−e31−v/21−v/21−v/2R01−v1−v0\begin{array}{c|ccc} & [0,2-u]&[2-u,1]&[1,2]\\ \hline e_1,e_2&2-u&2-u&2-u\\ A&0&0&0\\ F&3v/2&2-u+v/2&3-u-v/2\\ J&2-u-v&0&0\\ Q_0&u&2-v&2-v\\ h-e_1-e_2&1&1&2-v\\ h-e_1-e_3,\ h-e_2-e_3&1-v/2&1-v/2&1-v/2\\ R_0&1-v&1-v&0 \end{array} All entries are nonnegative in the relevant chamber. Squaring the positive parts gives V(u,v)={5−u2−32v2,0≤v≤2−u,9−4u−4v+2uv−12v2,2−u≤v≤1,12(v−2)(v+4u−10),1≤v≤2.V(u,v)= \begin{cases} 5-u^2-\tfrac32v^2,&0\le v\le2-u,\\ 9-4u-4v+2uv-\tfrac12v^2,&2-u\le v\le1,\\ \tfrac12(v-2)(v+4u-10),&1\le v\le2. \end{cases} The endpoint positive part is (2−u)(2h−e1−e2−e3−e4)(2-u)(2h-e_1-e_2-e_3-e_4), which has square zero. The nef conic-pencil class 2h−e1−e2−e3−e42h-e_1-e_2-e_3-e_4 intersects Pu−vFP_u-vF in 2−v2-v, proving the threshold v=2v=2, including when u=2u=2. Direct integration yields I(u)=∫02−u(5−u2−32v2)dv+∫2−u1(9−4u−4v+2uv−12v2)dv+∫1212(v−2)(v+4u−10)dv=u3−6u2+193.\begin{aligned} I(u)&=\int_0^{2-u}(5-u^2-\tfrac32v^2)\,dv +\int_{2-u}^1(9-4u-4v+2uv-\tfrac12v^2)\,dv\\ &\quad+\int_1^2\tfrac12(v-2)(v+4u-10)\,dv =\frac{u^3-6u^2+19}{3}. \end{aligned} In particular, I(1)=14/3I(1)=14/3, and S−KT(F)=7/6S_{-K_T}(F)=7/6. Lemma 92.1 gives S(WT;F)=320(143+∫12u3−6u2+193du)=320(143+3512)=9180.S(W^T;F)=\frac3{20} \left(\frac{14}{3}+\int_1^2\frac{u^3-6u^2+19}{3}\,du\right) =\frac3{20}\left(\frac{14}{3}+\frac{35}{12}\right) =\frac{91}{80}. ◻

Remark 92.3 (The normalization correction). The volume polynomials above agree with [14, Appendix A.3]. However, its Corollary A.5 writes 83/8083/80. The contribution from 0≤u≤10\le u\le1 is 35S−KT(F)=7/10\frac35 S_{-K_T}(F)=7/10, rather than 3/53/5; the difference is 1/10=8/801/10=8/80. This accounts exactly for the correction from 83/8083/80 to 91/8091/80. Either value obstructs a direct extension of that fibre-flag proof. This is a statement about the refined surface series, and does not prove K-instability of XX.