3

I'm going to compare the two construction of twisted sheaf/bundle $\mathcal{O}(1)$ from algebraic and topological viewpoint:

1) Algebraic construction (Hartshorne's Algebraic Geometry, p. 117):

Definition. Let $S$ be a graded ring, and let $X = \operatorname{Proj} (S)$. For any $n \in \mathbb{Z}$, we define the sheaf $\mathcal{O}_X(n)$ to be $S(n)^{\sim}$. We call $\mathcal{O}_X(-1)$ the Tautological bundle.

For $X= \mathbb{P}^n$ we can $\mathcal{O}_X(l)$ also characterize by cycle condition: the twisted sheaf $\mathcal O_{P^n}(l)$ is fully determined by it. as $\mathcal O_{P^n}(l)$ are invertible the restrictions $\mathcal O_{P^n}(l) \vert _{U_i}$ to $U_i := D_+(X_i)=Proj(k[X_1,...,X_n])_{(T_i)}= Spec(k[X_1/X_i,...,X_n/X_i])$ are generated by certain regular sections $s_i \in O_{P^n}(l)(U_i)$. The cycle condition is noting but a family of $\phi_{ij} \in O_{P^n}(l)(U_i \cap U_j)^*$ such that $\phi_{ij} s_i = s_j$. for $l \in \mathbb{Z}$ the cycle is given by $\phi_{ij} = (\frac{X_i}{X_j})^l \in O_{P^n}(l)(U_i \cap U_j)^*$. Recall that $O_{P^n}(l)$ is uniqely determined by the the data $(\phi_{ij})_{ij}$ up to glocal section $a \in O_{P^n}(l)(X)^*$, i.e. $(\phi_{ij})_{ij}$ and $(a \cdot \phi_{ij})_{ij}$ determine the same line bundle $O_{P^n}(l)$ for every $a \in O_{P^n}(l)(X)^*$.

2) Topological construction:

Let $V$ be a vector space of dimension $n$, and $\Bbb P(V) = X$ be the space of its lines. Write $\mathcal O_X(-1)$ for the topological line bundle $L=\{(l,v) \in X \times V : v \in l\}$ with canonical projection to $X$.

Q: If we take $S= k[X_1,...,X_n]$ and thus $\operatorname{Proj}(S)= \mathbb{P}_k^n$, how can I connect these both constructions explicitly and understand that the tautological bundle in both constructions in "certain way" coincide with each other.

to be more precise: if we use the cycle condition for description of 1) for $l=1$, how the data $\phi_{ij} = (\frac{X_i}{X_j})^{-1} \in O_{P^n}(-1)(U_i \cap U_j)^*$ is reflected in topological version $L=\{(l,v) \in X \times V : v \in l\}$?

Assume $\operatorname{char}(k)=0$. Then GAGA theorems provide correspondence $\mathcal{F} \to \mathcal{F}^{an}$ that defines an exact functor from the category of sheaves over $ (X,\mathcal{O}_{X})$ to the category of sheaves of $ (X^{an},\mathcal{O}^{an}_{X})$. The bundles of $ (X^{an},\mathcal{O}^{an}_{X})$ are the "topological" bundles and therefore we obtain identification between $Pic(X) = \mathbb{Z}$ and line bundles over $X$. Thus formally we can establish such correspondence.

The motivation of this question is more focused on intuitive approach to understand why $\mathcal{O}_X(-1)$ and $L=\{(l,v) \in X \times V : v \in l\}$ by these correspondence are the "same" . Is there any geometric intuition which makes this identifiction plausible focused on how the cycle condition is "reflected" in topological pendant $L$? I would very thankful if somebody could take some time to explain how one have to think intuitively about this identification.

  • Isn't the tautological bundle $\mathscr{O}_X(-1)$? – Viktor Vaughn Dec 19 '19 at 06:49
  • Some relevant links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 – Viktor Vaughn Dec 19 '19 at 06:57
  • thank you for the correction and references. although none of linked threads fully answer my question a couple of them gave me the opportunity to precise the core of the problem. I will try to explain it in updated version more concretely nevertheless I think that the main obstacle is to understand how the cycle condition from the "algebraic" version is reflected in $L={(l,v) \in X \times V : v \in l} $. –  Dec 20 '19 at 00:21
  • Tim: I think what you need to do is work out explicit equations for $L \subset X \times V$. Then pick two charts on $X$ and see how the equations for $L$ dehomogenize in the two charts. You should be able to work out the cocycles by comparing the two dehomoginizations. – Tabes Bridges Dec 20 '19 at 05:34
  • 1
    It's not clear if you know this already from your post, but to any locally free sheaf you can associate to it a scheme (so something that's actually a space) which is going to be a vector bundle (in fact it's basically what you've said about the cocycles). This is covered somewhere in Hartshorne's ch 2.5 exercises.

    Then you'll see that the sheaf $\mathcal{O}(-1)$ really does correspond to the tautological bundle. In fact there's nothing special about 'topological' or the fact that you're working over $\mathbb{C}$ ( in particular you don't need GAGA), it works over any field.

    – loch Dec 20 '19 at 05:38
  • You refer to Ex. 5.18 on page 128? let think about the case $X= \mathbb{P}^1=Proj(K[X_1,X_2])= D_+(X_1) \cup D_+(X_2)$. By the construction in 5.18 we obtain a (geometric) vector bundle $f:Y:=Spec(S(\mathcal{O}(-1)) \to X$ with isomorphisms $\psi_i:f^{-1}(D_+(X_i) \to \mathbb{A}{D+(X_i)}^1$. For $i=1$ we have $U_1=Spec(K[X_2/X_1])$, thus $\mathbb{A}{D+(X_i)}^1= Spec(K[X_2/X_1][Y])$. The cocycle condition for $\mathcal{O}(-1)$ given by $\phi_{12} = (\frac{X_1}{X_2})^{-1} \in O_{\mathbb{P^1}}(-1)(U_1 \cap U_2)^*$ translates for $V:= U_1 \cap U_2$ to –  Dec 26 '19 at 01:24
  • glueing map $f_{12}: \mathbb{A}V^1 \to \mathbb{A}_V^1$ which is a linear automorphism given by $\psi_2 \circ \psi_1^{-1}=\psi^{#}{12}(Y)= \phi_{12} \cdot Y= (\frac{X_1}{X_2})^{-1}Y$. –  Dec 26 '19 at 01:24
  • We are going now to compare it with topological bundle $p:L={(l,v) \in X \times V : v \in l} \to X$. Over $D_+(X_i)$ by definition $L$ trivializes and our job is to find the "topological transition map" $t_{12}: p^{-1}(V) \to p^{-1}(V)$ and compare it with $f_{12}$. If they coincide, we are done. we observe that by triviality $p^{-1}(V) = \mathbb{A}^1 \times V= \mathbb{A}_V^1$. –  Dec 26 '19 at 01:25
  • Now if we talk only about "topological" taotological bundle $L$: what is it's linear transition map $t_{12}: V \times \mathbb{K} \to V \times\mathbb{K}, (k,v) \mapsto (a \cdot k,v)$? My approach was using trivialisation maps $(\pi, \phi_1)^{-1}:U_1\times\mathbb{K} \rightarrow p^{-1}(U_1)$ by $([a_1,a_2], w) \rightarrow ([a_1, a_2], (w, \frac{a_2}{a_1}w))$ and similary for $U_2$. Then the transition function $t_{12}$ maps $([a_1,a_2], w) \rightarrow ([a_1,a_2], \frac{a_2}{a_1} w)$. is that correct? the problem is that I not understand why this transition coincide with $f_{12}$ obtained above. –  Dec 26 '19 at 02:41

0 Answers0