This paper investigates the existence, properties, and parameter spaces of nontrivial logarithmic co-Higgs structures on unstable bundles over algebraic curves, extending some results to higher dimensions.
Contribution
It provides criteria for the existence and non-existence of such structures, describes their parameter spaces, and explores their invariants and higher-dimensional cases.
Findings
01
Criteria for existence and non-existence established
02
Parameter spaces of structures described
03
Higher-dimensional cases analyzed
Abstract
We study various aspects on nontrivial logarithmic co-Higgs structure associated to unstable bundles on algebraic curves. We check several criteria for (non-)existence of nontrivial logarithmic co-Higgs structures and describe their parameter spaces. We also investigate the Segre invariants of these structures and see their non-simplicity. In the end we also study the higher dimensional case, specially when the tangent bundle is not semistable.
Equations131
0TX(−logD)TX⊕i=1mεi∗ODi(Di)0,
0TX(−logD)TX⊕i=1mεi∗ODi(Di)0,
{0}=F0⊂F1⊂⋯⊂Fs=E
{0}=F0⊂F1⊂⋯⊂Fs=E
μ+(E):=μ(F1),μ−(E):=μ(Fs/Fs−1).
μ+(E):=μ(F1),μ−(E):=μ(Fs/Fs−1).
μ−(E)≤μ+(E)+μ+(TD)=μ+(E⊗TD).
μ−(E)≤μ+(E)+μ+(TD)=μ+(E⊗TD).
r=r1+⋯+rs,d=d1+⋯+ds.
r=r1+⋯+rs,d=d1+⋯+ds.
U=UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds)
U=UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds)
{0}=F0⊗TD⊂F1⊗TD⊂⋯⊂Fs⊗TD
{0}=F0⊗TD⊂F1⊗TD⊂⋯⊂Fs⊗TD
E⊗TDE⊗TD⊗2
E⊗TDE⊗TD⊗2
0TDTX⊕i=1mCpi0.
0TDTX⊕i=1mCpi0.
μ−(E)=μ(Fs/Fs−1)≤γ+μ(F1)=γ+μ+(E),
μ−(E)=μ(Fs/Fs−1)≤γ+μ(F1)=γ+μ+(E),
b(i):=i+1≤k≤smin{k∣μ(Fi/Fi−1)+γ≥μ(Fk/Fk−1)}
b(i):=i+1≤k≤smin{k∣μ(Fi/Fi−1)+γ≥μ(Fk/Fk−1)}
c(j):=1≤k≤j−1max{k∣μ(Fj/Fj−1)≤γ+μ(Fk/Fk−1)}.
c(j):=1≤k≤j−1max{k∣μ(Fj/Fj−1)≤γ+μ(Fk/Fk−1)}.
(s;r1,…,rs;d1,…,ds)∈Z⊕(2s+1)
(s;r1,…,rs;d1,…,ds)∈Z⊕(2s+1)
0F1F2F2/F10
0F1F2F2/F10
0G1EG20,
0G1EG20,
E≅OP1(b1)⊕r1⊕⋯⊕OP1(bs)⊕rs,
E≅OP1(b1)⊕r1⊕⋯⊕OP1(bs)⊕rs,
Δ:=1≤i<j≤s∑max{0,γ+1+bi−bj}.
Δ:=1≤i<j≤s∑max{0,γ+1+bi−bj}.
E≅E+⊕E−, with E+≅⊕i=1eOP1(bi)⊕ri and E−≅⊕i=e+1rOP1(bi)⊕ri.
E≅E+⊕E−, with E+≅⊕i=1eOP1(bi)⊕ri and E−≅⊕i=e+1rOP1(bi)⊕ri.
gcd(r1,d1)=gcd(rs,ds)=1 and d1/r1+γ≥ds/rs.
gcd(r1,d1)=gcd(rs,ds)=1 and d1/r1+γ≥ds/rs.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Full text
Existence of nontrivial logarithmic co-Higgs structure on curves
We study various aspects on nontrivial logarithmic co-Higgs structure associated to unstable bundles on algebraic curves. We check several criteria for (non-)existence of nontrivial logarithmic co-Higgs structures and describe their parameter spaces. We also investigate the Segre invariants of these structures and see their non-simplicity. In the end we also study the higher dimensional case, specially when the tangent bundle is not semistable.
The first author is partially supported by MIUR and GNSAGA of INDAM (Italy). The second author is supported by Basic Science Research Program 2015-037157 through NRF funded by MEST and the National Research Foundation of Korea(KRF) 2016R1A5A1008055 grant funded by the Korea government(MSIP)
A logarithmic co-Higgs sheaf on a complex manifold X is a pair (E,Φ) with a torsion-free coherent sheaf E on X and a morphism Φ:E→E⊗TD satisfying the integrability condition Φ∧Φ=0, where TD is the logarithmic tangent bundle X associated to an arrangement D of hypersurfaces with simple normal crossings. When D is empty, it is a co-Higgs sheaf in the usual sense, introduced and developed by Hitchin and Gualtieri; see [18, 15]. When E is locally free, it is a generalized vector bundle on X considered as a generalized complex manifold, whose co-Higgs field vanishes in the normal direction to the support of D.
It is observed in [4, Theorem 1.1] that the semistability of a co-Higgs bundle (E,Φ) on X with nonnegative Kodaira dimension implies the semistability of E. In case of negative Kodaira dimension, there are several works on description of moduli space of semistable co-Higgs bundles, including the case when the associated bundle is not stable; see [27] and [10].
Now the additional condition for a co-Higgs field to vanish in the normal direction to D with higher degree, forces the associated bundle to be unstable. So we are mainly interested in the logarithmic co-Higgs sheaves associated to the arrangement with high degree and assume that the length of Harder-Narasimhan filtration is at least two. We fix numeric data for the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of the sheaf in consideration, i.e. fix the length s at least two of the filtration together with rank ri and degree di of the successive quotients in the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2). Setting γ:=degTD and μi:=di/ri, we always assume that μs−μ1≤γ<0 as the least requirement for the existence of the non-trivial co-Higgs field; see Corollary 3.9. Then we investigate the numeric criterion for the sheaf to admit a non-trivial co-Higgs field; see Proposition 3.4 and Theorem 3.7.
Theorem 1.1**.**
Fix the numeric data for the Harder-Narasimhan filtration and denote by U the set of the torsion-free sheaves on an algebraic curve X with these data. Then the following hold:
(i)
there exists an unstable sheaf in U with non-trivial co-Higgs field;
(ii)
the inequality μs−μ1≥γ+1−g implies the existence of an unstable sheaf in U with no non-trivial co-Higgs field;
(iii)
the inequality μs−μ1<γ+1−g implies that every sheaf in U admits a non-trivial co-Higgs field.
The existence part is induced by explicit usage of positive elementary transformations and the positive answer to the Lange conjecture [28]. Furthermore we extend the notion of Segre invariant to the setting of logarithmic co-Higgs sheaves and show that it is well-defined over curves under the assumption that γ<0 and that this invariant is same as the usual Segre invariant under a certain condition; see Corollary 4.8 and Proposition 4.14.
Theorem 1.2**.**
For a logarithmic co-Higgs sheaf (E,Φ) on an algebraic curve X with γ<0, the kth-Segre invariant sk(E,Φ) is well-defined. It is also equal to the Segre invariant sk(E) in the usual sense, if E admits the complete Harder-Narasimhan filtration, i.e. ri=1 for all i.
Then we check in Proposition 4.14 that co-Higgs sheaves associated to unstable bundle are usually not stable, not even simple.
Over algebraic curves the bundle TD is automatically semistable. So, as the counterpart to the case of algebraic curves, in §5 we deal with the case when the dimension of X is at least 2 and TD is not semistable. Under the assumption that the biggest slope in the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of TD is negative, we give a recipe to construct all the pairs (E,Φ) with E reflexive of rk(E)=r∈{2,3} and non-trivial co-Higgs field Φ:E→E⊗TD. When r=2 and in most cases with r=3, the map Φ is always 2-nilpotent and so it is integrable. We also /point out exactly when we cannot guarantee the integrability.
2. Preliminary
Let X be a smooth projective variety of dimension n at least one with the tangent bundle TX over the field of complex numbers C. We fix an ample line bundle OX(1) and denote by E(t) the twist of E by OX(t) for any coherent sheaf E on X and t∈Z. We also denote by E∨ the dual of E. The dimension of cohomology group Hi(X,E) is denoted by hi(X,E) and we will skip X in the notation, if there is no confusion. We define the slope μ(E) of a coherent sheaf E on X with respect to OX(1) to be degE/rk(E).
Now consider an arrangement D={D1,…,Dm} of pairwise distinct, smooth and irreducible divisors Di on X, and if there is no confusion we also denote by D the divisor D1+…+Dm. We assume that the divisor D has simple normal crossings. Then the associated logarithmic tangent bundle TX(−logD) is locally free and fits into the following exact sequence; see [13].
[TABLE]
where εi:Di→X is the embedding. If there is no confusion, we will simply denote TX(−logD) by TD.
Definition 2.1**.**
[4]
A D-logarithmic co-Higgs sheaf on X is a pair (E,Φ) where E is a torsion-free coherent sheaf on X and Φ:E→E⊗TD with Φ∧Φ=0. Here Φ is called the logarithmic co-Higgs field of (E,Φ) and the condition Φ∧Φ=0 is an integrability condition originating in the work of Simpson [29].
For a torsion-free coherent sheaf E on X, we consider its associated Harder-Narasimhan filtration:
[TABLE]
with the graduation gr(E):=⊕i=1sFi/Fi−1 such that each Fi/Fi−1 is semistable and μ(Fi/Fi−1) is strictly decreasing for all i<s. The integer s is called the length of the filtration, and if s=r, then the filtration is said to be complete. We denote by μ+(E) and μ−(E) the maximal and minimal slopes in the filtration, respectively:
[TABLE]
Remark 2.2**.**
For two torsion-free sheaves A and B on X, let A⊗B be the quotient of A⊗B by its torsion. If A and B are semistable, then A⊗B is also semistable by [22, Theorem 2.5]. Applying this observation to the Harder-Narasimhan filtrations of A and B, we get that μ+(A⊗B)=μ+(A)+μ+(B).
Lemma 2.3**.**
If f:A→B is a nonzero map between two torsion-free sheaves on X, then we have μ−(A)≤μ+(B)
Proof.
Let {0}=A0⊂A1⊂⋯⊂Aa=A be the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of A and let k∈{1,…,a} be the minimal integer such that Ak⊈ker(f), i.e. the minimal integer such that f∣Ak≡0. Then we have f∣Ak−1≡0 and so f∣Ak induces a nonzero map f:Ak/Ak−1→B.
Let {0}=B0⊂B1⊂⋯⊂Bb=B be the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of B and let l be the minimal positive integer l≤b such that f(Ak/Ak−1)⊆Bl. Then we have f(Ak/Ak−1)⊈Bl−1 and so f induces a nonzero map f^:Ak/Ak−1→Bl/Bl−1. Since Ak/Ak−1 and Bl/Bl−1 are semistable, we have μ(Ak/Ak−1)≤μ(Bl/Bl−1). By the definition of μ+ and μ− in terms of the Harder-Narasimhan filtration we have μ(Ak/Ak−1)≥μ−(A) and μ(Bl/Bl−1)≤μ+(B), concluding the assertion.
∎
Remark 2.2 and Lemma 2.3 give the following whose assertion will be assumed throughout this article.
Corollary 2.4**.**
Assuming the existence of a nonzero map Φ:E→E⊗TD, we have
[TABLE]
Remark 2.5**.**
Assume that E is not semistable and so s≥2. If there exists a nonzero map f∈Hom(E/Fs−1,Fs−1⊗TD), then we may composite the quotient map E→E/Fs−1 with it to get a nonzero 2-nilpotent logarithmic co-Higgs field Φf. Note that the associated co-Higgs field is uniquely determined by the choice of a map, i.e. if f and g are two different nonzero maps in Hom(E/Fs−1,Fs−1⊗TD), then we get Φf=Φg.
If n is at least two, we fix a polarization OX(1) with respect to which we consider (semi-)stability. For most cases in this article we will mainly assume that D is of high degree so that TD is “sufficiently negative” and that TD is semistable with γ=degTD<0, except in §5.2;
Assumption 2.6**.**
We always assume that γ=degTD is negative, if there is no specification.
Remark 2.7**.**
There are manifolds with ΩX1 ample as in [11, 12], in which cases we may even take D=∅: If instead of logarithmic co-Higgs field we use the field TX(−D)≅TX⊗OX(−D) vanishing on a divisor D, then we may use the semistability of the tangent bundle of many Fano manifolds [26] and then take a very positive D to get TX(−D) negative and semistable.
We fix a triple of integers (r,d,s)∈Z⊕3 together with pairs (ri,di)∈Z⊕2 for 1≤i≤s such that r≥2, s≥1, ri≥1 and
[TABLE]
Assume further that di/ri>di+1/ri+1 for i=1,…,s−1. Then we denote by
[TABLE]
the set of all torsion-free coherent sheaves E of rank r such that the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2) of E with respect to OX(1) has (r1,d1;⋯;rs,ds) as its numerical data, i.e. each quotient sheaf Fi/Fi−1 is semistable of rank ri and degree di. By [22] the filtration (2) tensored by TD
[TABLE]
is the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of E⊗TD if TD is semistable. We also assume the existence of a nonzero co-Higgs field Φ:E→E⊗TD: if n is at least two, we do not assume for the moment the integrability condition Φ∧Φ=0, because in the most examples in this article it will follow from the other assumption, or from Lemma 2.8, where we assume that s is at least two.
Denote by Φ the following map:
[TABLE]
induced by Φ. Comsiting the natural map TD⊗2→∧2TD with Φ∘Φ, we have Φ∧Φ as an element in Hom(E,E⊗∧2TD).
Lemma 2.8**.**
If s is at least two, then we have Φ∘Φ=0, i.e. Φ is 2-nilpotent. In particular, we have Φ∧Φ=0.
Proof.
Since we assume that γ is negative, the sheaf F1⊗TD⊂E⊗TD is the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of E⊗TD
and F1⊗TD⊗2⊂E⊗TD⊗2 is the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of E⊗TD⊗2. Thus we have Φ(E)⊆F1⊗TD and Φ(F1⊗TD)=0, implying that Φ∘Φ=0.
∎
3. Curve case
Assume that X is a smooth algebraic curve of genus g and take D={p1,…,pm} a set of m distinct points. Then we have TD≅TX⊗OX(−D) with degree γ:=2−2g−m. We assume that γ is negative so that we are not in the set-up of [24]. The sequence (1) turns into the following
[TABLE]
Another feature of the case n=1 is that all logarithmic co-Higgs fields automatically satisfy the integrability condition.
Consider a vector bundle E of rank r with the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2) and we assume
[TABLE]
which is a necessary condition for the existence of a nonzero map Φ:E→E⊗TD; see Corollary 3.9.
Remark 3.1**.**
For each i∈{1,…,s} with μ(Fi/Fi−1)+γ≥μ−(E), define
[TABLE]
and then the map Φ induces a map Φi:Fb(i)/Fb(i)−1→(Fi/Fi−1)⊗TD. Similarly, for each j∈{2,…,s} with μ(Fj/Fj−1)≤γ+μ+(E), define
[TABLE]
The map Φ induces a map Φj:Fj/Fj−1→(Fc(j)/Fc(j)−1)⊗TD. Note that these maps Φi and Φj are not necessarily nonzero.
Now fix the following numeric data
[TABLE]
with s,ri>0 for each i such that di/ri>di+1/ri+1 for all i; if g=0, we also assume ai/ri∈Z for each i. Recall that we denote by UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) the set of all vector bundles E of rank r:=∑i=1sri on X with the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2) such that rk(Fi/Fi−1)=ri and degFi/Fi−1=di for each i. The conditions just given above for s, ri and di are the necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a vector bundle E on X with rank r and degree d:=d1+⋯+ds.
Indeed, for the existence part, in case g≥2 we may even take a stable bundle Fi/Fi−1, while in case g=1 by Atiyah’s classification of vector bundles on elliptic curves, we may take as Fi/Fi−1 a semistable bundle; we can choose either indecomposable one or polystable one, depending on our purpose.
To get parameters spaces we first get parameter spaces for the sheaves E, then for a fixed sheaf E we study all logarithmic co-Higgs fields Φ:E→E⊗TD and then we put together the informations. We have several problems coming from the sheaves E such as non-separatedness or often reducibility of moduli of sheaves, and then more problems bring the logarithmic co-Higgs field into the picture.
First of all, we fix enough numerical invariant to get a bounded family of pairs (E,Φ). Fixing an ample line bundle OX(1), we consider sheaves E with a Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2) and we fix the Hilbert function of each subquotient Fi/Fi−1. Since each Fi/Fi−1 is assumed to be semistable, the family of all Fi/Fi−1 are bounded. We first see that the Ext1-groups involved in the extensions
[TABLE]
are upper bounded and that the set of all F2 is bounded. Then we consider the set of all F3 and so on, inductively. We may get relative Ext1-groups as parameter spaces, but these parameter spaces usually do not parametrizes one-to-one isomorphism classes of sheaves, even by taking into account that proportional extensions gives isomorphic sheaves.
For the relative Ext1 we need to have universal family parametrizing all Fi/Fi−1 and we usually need to work with parameter spaces of sheaves which do not parametrizes one-to-one isomorphic classes. Note that there is a flat family with isomorphic sheaves E whose flat limit is gr(E)=⊕i=1sFi/Fi−1. Thus there is no hope of one-to-one parametrization of isomorphism classes of sheaves; when the numerology allows that some Fi/Fi−1 is strictly semistable, then this phenomenon occurs even for the graded subquotient Fi/Fi−1. Algebraic stacks of course do not parametrize isomorphism classes of sheaves, not even of vector bundles; see [14]. In the case n=1 with X=P1, we have a unique bundle, E for any fixed parameter space UP1(s;r1,d1;⋯;rs,ds) and so the parameter space for (E,Φ) is the vector space Hom(E,E⊗TD), which parametrizes one-to-one the isomorphism classes of pairs (E,Φ). See Remark 3.12 for the case n=1 and X a curve of genus g≥2.
Remark 3.2**.**
In the case s=2, the datum of (E,Φ) with [E]∈UX(2;r1,d1;r2,d2) and Φ:E→E⊗TD induces a holomorphic triple ψ:E/F1F1⊗TD in the sense of [9] and we may study the stability of the holomorphic triple. Conversely, for every holomorphic triple f:G2→G1⊗TD such that G1 and G2 are semistable with rk(Gi)=ri and degGi=di, i=1,2, and for any extension class
[TABLE]
we get [E]∈UX(2;r1,d1;r2,d2) with 0⊂G1⊂E as its Harder-Narasimhan filtration and a 2-nilpotent map Φ:E→E⊗TD induced by f. Two sheaves, say E and E′, fitting as middle bundles in (6) for the same G1 and G2 are isomorphic if and only if their associated extensions are proportional, because G1 and G2 are assumed to be semistable with d1/r1>d2/r2 and so (6) is the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of the bundle in the middle.
This argument fits very well in §5.1, where TD is assumed to be semistable, because Fi⊗TD would be in the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of E⊗TD;
in this case we only require that E is torsion-free and then define U(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) with Mumford’s (slope-)semistability.
3.1. Projective line
We take X=P1 and then we have TD≅OP1(γ) with γ<0. Any vector bundle E≅⊕i=1rOP1(ai) on P1 with a1≥⋯≥ar can be rewritten as
[TABLE]
with ∑i=1sri=r and b1>⋯>bs, i.e. in the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2) associated to E, we have Fi/Fi−1≅OP1(bi)⊕ri. Now consider UP1(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) with bi:=di/ri and then it is a single point set, consisting only of E. Set
[TABLE]
Then we have h0(Hom(E,E(γ)))=Δ. So the parameter space is a well-defined vector space, or its associated projective space if we consider nonzero co-Higgs fields up to scalar multiplication. We have Δ>0 if and only if b1+γ≥bs.
For any Φ∈Hom(E,E(γ)) and any positive integer i, let Φ(i):E→E(iγ) be the map obtained by iterating i times a shift of Φ. If b1+iγ<bs for some i, then we have Φ(i)=0 and so Φ is a nilpotent logarithmic co-Higgs field. In particular, if b1+2γ<bs≤b1+γ, then all logarithmic co-Higgs fields are 2-nilpotents and so we have the following.
Proposition 3.3**.**
For the bundle E in (7) with 2γ≤bs−b1<γ, the set of its co-Higgs structures is identified with a Δ-dimensional vector space.
Now the assumption in (5) is simply b1+γ≥bs and let e be the last integer i such that bi>γ+b1. Then we may write
[TABLE]
It is possible to have e=0 and so E+ is trivial. Then we have H0(End(E)(γ))=H0(Hom(E−,E)(γ)). Thus in case of P1 we may rephrase our question in the set-up of holomorphic triples (E1,E2,f) with E1=E−, E2=E(γ) and f:E1→E2. Here, E1 and E2 are related in a sense that E1 is a twist of a factor of E2. So our general problem concerning nonzero maps Φ:E→E(γ) is equivalent to a problem about nonzero maps Φ:E−→E(γ).
3.2. Elliptic curves
Let X be an elliptic curve and use the classification of vector bundles on elliptic curves due to M. Atiyah in [1]. We have TD≅OX(−D).
Proposition 3.4**.**
Fix an integer s≥2 and consider U:=UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) with ds/rs≤d1/r1+γ.
(i)
There exists [E]∈U with Hom(E,E(−D))=0.
(ii)
If ds/rs=d1/r1+γ, there is [E]∈U with Hom(E,E(−D))=0.
(iii)
If ds/rs<d1/r1+γ, then we have Hom(E,E(−D))=0 for all [E]∈U.
(iv)
If e is the maximal integer such that ds/rs≤d1/r1+eγ, then we have Φ(e+1)=0 for every [E]∈U and Φ∈Hom(E,E(−D))=0.
Proof.
Take [E]∈U and set Es:=Fs/Fs−1. In the set-up of part (iii) we have
μ(Es∨⊗F1(−D))>0 and so Riemann-Roch gives h0(Es∨⊗F1(−D))>0. Take as Φ the composition of the surjection E→Es with a nonzero map Es→F1(−D) and then the inclusion F1(−D)↪E(−D), proving (iii).
Now assume ds/rs=d1/r1+γ. Take as Ei any semistable bundle with prescribed numeric data so that E1 and Es are polystable and no factor of E1(−D) is isomorphic to a factor of Es. Set E:=⊕i=1sEi. Due to the slope, we have Hom(Ei,Ej(−D))=0 if (i,j)=(s,1). Since every nonzero map between stable bundles with the same slope is an isomorphism, we have Hom(Es,E1(−D))=0 and so Hom(E,E(−D))=0, proving part (ii).
Under the same situation, set t:=gcd(∣ds∣,rs) and write rs=at and ds=bt. Then each indecomposable factor of Es has rank a and degree b, which is also stable. Pick one of these indecomposable factors, say A. Now from ds/rs=d1/r1+γ, we see that a divides r1. Then we have r1/a∈Z and it also divides d1, say r1=ap and d1=qp. We also see that gcd(a,q)=gcd(a,b)=1 and so E1 is a polystable bundle whose factors have rank a and degree q=b−aγ. Let G be any polystable vector bundle of rank r1 and degree d1 with A⊗OX(D) as one of its factors. Set F:=G⊕(⊕i=2sEi) and then we have [F]∈U. Since Hom(Es,G(−D))=0, we have Hom(F,F(−D))=0, proving part (i).
Part (iv) is obvious.
∎
Remark 3.5**.**
In parts (i) and (iii) of Proposition 3.4 the proof gives the existence of a nonzero 2-nilpotent co-Higgs field Φ.
3.3. Higher genus case
Assume that X has genus g≥2. Note that γ≤2−2g. For the pairs of integers (r,d) with r>0, denote by MX(r,d) the moduli space of the stable vector bundles of rank r on X with degree d. It is known to be a non-empty, smooth and irreducible quasi-projective variety of dimension r2(g−1)+1.
Fix a point p∈X and take any exact sequence on X:
[TABLE]
with A and B locally free. Note that rk(A)=rk(B) and that degB=degA+1. Then we say that B is obtained from A by applying a positive elementary transformation at p and that A is obtained from B by applying a negative elementary transformation at p. For a fixed A (resp. B) the set of all extensions (9) is parametrized by a vector space of dimension rk(A) (resp. rk(B)); since it is an irreducible variety, we may speak about the general positive elementary transformation of A (resp. a general negative elementary transformation of B).
Lemma 3.6**.**
For (r,d,k)∈Z⊕3 with r,k>0, fix a general bundle [A]∈MX(r,d). If B is obtained from A by applying k positive elementary transformations, then it is stable.
Proof.
Since the statement is trivial for r=1, we may assume r≥2.
(a) First assume k=1 with the sequence (9) and that B is not stable so that there exists a subbundle Gt⊂B of rank t∈{1,…,r−1} with degGt/t≥(d+1)/r. Let C⊂A be the saturation of u−1(G) and set a:=degC. Then we have
a≥degu−1(G)≥degG−1. Since A is general, we get by [21, Theorem 3.10] or [7, Theorem 2] that μ(A/C)−μ(C)≥g−1, from which we get
[TABLE]
Using this with deg(Gt)≤a+1, we get
[TABLE]
The equality holds if and only if g=2 and degGt=a+1. Let a be the maximal degree of a rank t subbundle of A. For arbitrary t and g, Mukai and Sakai proved in [23] that td−ar≤t(r−t)g, while the quoted results also said that td−ar≥t(r−t)(g−1). The precise value of a is known by an unpublished result of A. Hirschowitz in [17] and [21, Remark 3.14], which says that td−ar=t(r−t)(g−1)+ε, where ε is the only integer such that 0≤ε<r and ε+t(r−t)(g−1)≡td(modr).
Now assume g=2. We conclude unless ε=0, a=a and degGt=a+1. In this case we use that we take a general positive elementary transformation of A. Since ε=0 and A is general, A has only finitely many rank t subbundles of maximal degree a=a, say Ni for 1≤i≤δ; see [25] and [30]. The fiber Ni∣{p} of Ni at p is a t-dimensional linear subspace of the fiber A∣{p} of A at p, which is an r-dimensional vector space. The union of these t-dimensional linear subspaces Ni for 1≤i≤δ, is a proper subset of A∣{p}. Thus, for a general positive elementary transformation B of A at p, the saturation Mi of Ni is just Ni for all i, i.e. degu−1(Mi)=degMi for all i, contradicting the assumptions a=a and degGt=a+1.
(b) Now assume k≥2. The case k=1 proves that a general positive elementary transformation of a stable bundle is stable. Similarly a general negative transformation of a stable
bundle is also stable, and so we may apply the step (a) k times to get the assertion.
∎
Theorem 3.7**.**
Fix an integer s≥2 and consider U:=UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) with ds/rs≤d1/r1+γ.
(i)
There exists [E]∈U with Hom(E,E⊗TD)=0.
(ii)
If ds/rs≥d1/r1+γ+1−g, there is [E]∈U with Hom(E,E⊗TD)=0.
(iii)
If ds/rs<d1/r1+γ+1−g, then Hom(E,E⊗TD)=0 for all [E]∈U.
Proof.
Take [E]∈U and set Es:=Fs/Fs−1. Since Es and F1 are semistable, the bundle Es∨⊗F1(−D) is also semistable. In the set-up of part (iii) we have μ(Es∨⊗F1⊗TD)>g−1 and so Riemann-Roch gives h0(Es∨⊗F1⊗TD)>0. Take as Φ the composition of the
surjection E→Es with a nonzero map Es→F1⊗TD and then the inclusion F1⊗TD↪E⊗TD, proving (iii).
Now assume the set-up of (ii) and pick a general element (E1,…,Es) in
[TABLE]
In particular, each Ei is a general stable bundle in MX(ri,di). Set E:=⊕i=1sEi and then it is sufficient to prove the following claim for (ii).
Claim 1: We have Hom(E,E⊗TD)=0.
Proof of Claim 1: Since E:=⊕i=1sEi, it is enough to prove that H0(Ei,Ej⊗TD)=0 for all i,j. We have H0(Ei,Ei⊗TD)=0 for each i, because Ei is stable and γ<0. Now assume i=j. Note that (Ei∨,Ej⊗TD) is a general element of
[TABLE]
We have μ(Ei∨⊗Ej⊗TD)=−μ(Ei)+μ(Ej)+γ≤g−1. By a theorem of A. Hirschowitz in [28, Theorem 1.2], we have h0(Ei∨⊗Ej⊗TD)=0, concluding the proof of Claim 1.
Now we prove part (i). Let Bi be a semistable bundle of rank ri on X with degree di for each i, and let E:=⊕i=1sBi. Our strategy is to find appropriate B1 and Bs with the additional condition Hom(Bs,B1⊗TD)=0, which would imply part (i).
(a) Assume rs<r1. Setting r′:=r1−rs and d′:=d1+γr1−ds, it is enough to show the existence of an exact sequence of vector bundles on X:
[TABLE]
with A1,A2 semistable and A1 of rank rs and degree ds, A2 of rank r1 and degree d1+γr1. Then A3 would be of rank r′ and degree d′, and we may take Bs:=A1 and B1:=A2⊗TD∨.
Note that for a quadruple of integers (x1,x2,a1,a2)∈Z⊕4 with x2>x1>0 and a1/x1≤a2/x2 (resp. a1/x1<a2/x2), we have
[TABLE]
Using the above to (x1,x2,a1,a2)=(rs,r1,ds,d1+γr1), together with
[TABLE]
we have d1/r1+γ≤d′/r′ with equality if and only if ds/rs=d1/r1+γ. When the equality holds, we may take as A1 and A3 arbitrary semistable bundles with the prescribed ranks and degrees and then take A2:=A1⊕A3. Now assume ds/rs<d1/r1+γ and so d1/r1+γ<d′/r′. In this case by the positive answer to the conjecture of Lange, there is an exact sequence (10) of vector bundles on X with the prescribed ranks and degrees and with stable A1, A2 and A3; see [28, Introduction].
(b) Assume rs>r1. Similarly as in (a) we set r′′:=rs−r1 and d′′:=d1−γr1−ds. By taking Bs:=A2 and B1:=A3⊗TD∨, it is sufficient to find an exact sequence (10) with A2 and A3 semistables, A1 of rank r′′ and degree d′′, A2 of rank rs and degree ds and A3 or rank r1 and degree d1+γr1.
First assume ds/rs=d1/r1+γ. In this case we have d′′/r′′=ds/rs and we take as A1 and A3 arbitrary semistable bundles with prescribed ranks and degrees and set A2:=A1⊕A3. Now assume ds/rs<d1/r1+γ and so d1/r1+γ>d′′/r′′. Again by the conjecture of Lange proved in [28] we may take A1, A2, A3 with the prescribed ranks and degree and stable.
(c) Assume rs=r1. First assume ds/rs=d1/r1+γ, i.e. d1=ds−γr1. In this case we take as Bs any semistable bundle with rank rs and degree ds and set B1:=Bs⊗TD. Now assume k:=d1+r1γ−ds>0. We take as Bs a general stable bundle of rank rs and degree ds. Then Bs⊗TD is a general element of MX(r1,d1−t). We take as B1 a bundle obtained from Bs⊗TD by applying k general positive elementary transformations.
∎
Remark 3.8**.**
Consider a smooth algebraic curve X of an arbitrary genus g≥0 and assume s≥3 together with
[TABLE]
By Theorem 3.7 in case g≥2 and Proposition 3.4 for g=1, there is (E,Φ)
with [E]∈UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) and a nonzero map Φ:E→E⊗TD. Take any [E]∈UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) with the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2). Note that we have Hom(A,B)=0 for any semistable bundles A and B with μ(A)>μ(B). Claim 1 in the proof of Theorem 3.7 applied to E/F1 shows that any map Φ:E→E⊗TD is uniquely determined by f:E/Fs−1→F1⊗TD; moreover we get Im(Φ)=Im(f) and ker(Φ) is the inverse image of ker(f) under the surjection E→E/Fs−1.
Conversely, for 1≤i≤s, choose arbitrary semistable bundles Ei with rk(Ei)=ri and degEi=di, and a map f:Es→E1⊗TD. To get a vector bundle [E]∈UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds), we only need to consider (s−1) extension classes
[TABLE]
for i=1,…,s−1, where F1:=E1. Once E is chosen, the map Φ:E→E⊗TD is uniquely determined by f.
In case of curves, we sometimes may improve Remark 2.3 to a strict inequality in the following way.
Remark 3.9**.**
Take [E]∈U:=UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) with the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2). Assume that s≥2 with rs=r1,
[TABLE]
Since gcd(r1,d1)=1, the sheaf F1 is stable and so F1⊗TD is stable. Since gcd(rs,ds)=1, the sheaf Fs/Fs−1 is also stable. From r1=rs we get that F1⊗TD and Fs/Fs−1 are not isomorphic and so we have Hom(Fs/Fs−1,F1⊗TD)=0. If s≥3, we obviously have
Hom(Fi/Fi−1,Fj⊗TD)=0 for all i,j∈{1,…,s} with (i,j)=(s,1), even without the assumptions rs=r1 and gcd(r1,d1)=gcd(rs,ds)=1.
Thus we have Hom(E,E⊗TD)=0.
Remark 3.10**.**
In the following exact sequence
[TABLE]
of vector bundles on X with A and B semistable, if we have μ(A)+2−2g>μ(B), then we have h1(A⊗B∨)=0 and so (11) splits. Thus if we have
[TABLE]
for all i, then we have E≅gr(E) for all [E]∈U:=UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds).
Now assume di/ri+2−2g≥di+1/ri+1 for all i. If the equality holds for some i, i.e. di/ri=di+1/ri+1+2g−2, then we have ri=ri+1 and that rh and dh are coprime, where h∈{i,i+1} is the index with higher rank rh=max{ri,ri+1}. As in Remark 3.9 we get E≅gr(E) for all [E]∈U.
For example, take s=2. We just proved that E≅F1⊕F2/F1 for all [E]∈U(2;1,d1;1,d2) with a nonzero map Φ:E→E⊗TD and either D=0 or r1=r2, and dh,rh∈Z, where rh=max{r1,r2}.
Example 3.11**.**
Assume d1>d2−γ. For a fixed R∈Picd2(X), consider the set
[TABLE]
where the equivalent relation ∼ is given by (F1,ψ)∼(F1,cψ) for all c∈C∗. E is the set of all effective divisors of X with degree d1+γ−d2 and so E is isomorphic to a symmetric product of d1+γ−d2 copies of X and in particular it is irreducible. By Remark 3.10 we have E≅F1⊕F2/F1 for all [E]∈UX(2;1,d2+γ;1,d2).
Example 3.12**.**
Assume g≥2 and take D=∅ so that γ=2−2g. Fix any d∈Z and consider E∈UX(2;1,d+2g−2;1,d) with a nonzero map Φ:E→E⊗TX. Set R:=F2/F1∈Picd(X) and then Φ is induced by a nonzero map ψ:R→F1⊗TX. Since F1 is in Picd+2g−2(X), the map ψ is an isomorphism. Thus we get F1≅R⊗ωX and that for a fixed E the set of all nonzero map Φ is parametrized by a nonzero scalar. From h1(ωX)=1 we see that there are, up to isomorphism, exactly two vector bundles E fitting into an exact sequence
[TABLE]
that is, (R⊗ωX)⊕R and an indecomposable bundle. Thus the set of all (E,Φ), up to isomorphisms, with nonzero Φ, is parametrized one-to-one by the disjoint union of two copies of Picd(X)×C∗. Thus no one-to-one parameter space is irreducible. We get another irreducible parameter space that is not one-to-one, by taking as parameter space, up to a nonzero constant, the relative Ext1 group of (12) over Picd(X); each indecomposable bundle E appears ∞1-times and it has gr(E)≅(R⊗ωX)⊕R as its limit inside the parameter space.
Now for s at least two let us define the set Uco=UXco(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) of certain co-Higgs bundles associated to U=UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) as follows.
[TABLE]
Denote by Γ⊆MX(r1,d1)×MX(rs,ds) the set of all pairs (F1,Fs/Fs−1) obtained from Uco and call the projection from Γ to each factor by π1 and π2, respectively.
Proposition 3.13**.**
Assume that
•
each di is positive such that di/ri>di+1/ri+1 for all i, and
•
d1/r1+γ≥ds/rs.
Then we have the following assertions.
(i)
If r1=rs, then π1 and π2 are dominant.
(ii)
If r1<rs (resp. r1>rs) and d1/r1+γ>ds/rs, then π1 (resp. π2) is dominant.
(iii)
Assume d1/r1+γ>g−1+ds/rs. Then Γ contains a non-empty open subset of MX(r1,d1)×MX(rs,ds); if r1≥rs, then we have ker(Φ)=Fs−1.
Proof.
Fix a point ([A1],[As])∈MX(r1,d1)×MX(rs,ds). For arbitrary [Ai]∈MX(ri,di), i=2,⋯,s−1, we consider E:=⊕i=1sAi with the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2) such that F1≅A1 and Fs/Fs−1≅As. We take a map Φ:E→E⊗TD with Φ(Fs−1)=0, which is induced by a map ψ:As→A1⊗TD whose existence is guaranteed by the assumptions.
First assume rs=r1. We need to prove the existence of a map ψ of rank r1 when A1 is general in MX(r1,d1) and As is general in MX(rs,ds); we do not claim here that ([A1],[A2]) is general in MX(r1,d1)×MX(rs,ds). The dominance of π2 is the content of Lemma 3.6. The dominance of π1 can be proved by applying the dual map, or with the same proof as in the proof of Lemma 3.6, concluding part (i).
Now assume rs<r1 and d1/r1+γ>ds/rs. We take as As a general element of MX(rs,ds). The existence of a stable A1∈MX(r1,d1) with an embedding ψ:As↪A1⊗TD with A1/ψ(As) stable and general in MX(rs−r1,d1−γr1) is proved in part (i) of the proof of Theorem 3.7.
By using part (ii) of the proof of Theorem 3.7 instead of part (i), we get the case rs>r1 and d1/r1+γ>ds/rs.
Now consider part (iii) and assume d1/r1+γ>g−1+ds/rs. Take a general ([A1],[As])∈MX(r1,d1)×MX(rs,ds) and set B1:=A1⊗TD. Then it is sufficient to find ψ:As→B1 with Im(ψ)=min{r1,rs}. By the assumptions, we have μ(As∨⊗B1)>g−1 and so Riemann-Roch gives Hom(As,B1)=0. Take a general element ψ∈Hom(As,B1) and then it is sufficient to prove that ψ has rank min{r1,rs}. Note that we have h1(As∨⊗B1)=0 and so B1 is an element of the following set
[TABLE]
By Riemann-Roch, we have the following, for each [F]∈W,
[TABLE]
Now take the relative Hom with W as its parameter space, i.e. for each [F]∈W, the fibre is Hom(As,F). The total space Λ of this relative Hom is irreducible, because h0(As∨⊗F) is constant for all [F]∈W by [6] and [20]. By [5, part (d) of Theorem 1.2], a general element (φ:As→F) of Λ has φ with rank min{r1,rs}. When r1≥rs, this implies that ker(Φ)=Fs−1, because the map ψ:Fs/Fs−1→F1⊗TD is injective if and only if it has rank rs .
∎
Remark 3.14**.**
As in the end of proof of Proposition 3.13, to show that the set of the co-Higgs bundles (E,Φ) with certain properties is parametrized by an irreducible variety, it sometimes works to prove that (a) the set of all bundles E is parametrized by an irreducible variety Y, and (b) the integer k:=dimHom(Ey,Ey⊗TD) is constant for all y∈Y. In this case, the set of all (E,Φ) with no restriction on Φ is parametrized by a vector bundle of rank k on Y.
Example 3.15**.**
Assume r1=rs and d1/r1+γ=ds/rs. Consider a bundle [E]∈UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) with an arbitrary map Φ:E→E⊗TD. Since di/ri>d1/r1+γ for all i<s, there is no nonzero map Fi/Fi−1→E⊗TD and so we have Fs−1⊆ker(Φ). On the other hand, since ds/rs>dj/rj+γ for all j>1, we have Φ(E)⊆F1. We have rk(Φ)=r1 if and only if Fs/Fs−1≅F1⊗TD and Φ is induced by an isomorphism Fs/Fs−1→F1⊗TD.
Example 3.16**.**
Assume r1=rs and that
[TABLE]
If we choose (E,Φ) with [E]∈UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds), then as in Example 3.15 we see that Φ(E)⊆F1⊗TD and Fs−1⊆ker(Φ), because di/ri+γ<ds/rs for all i>1 and dj/rj>d1/r1+γ for all j<s. Set k:=d1−d2+γr1. Then we have rk(Φ)=r1 if and only if F1⊗TD is obtained from Fs/Fs−1 by applying k positive elementary transformations and Φ is induced by the associated inclusion Fs/Fs−1↪F1⊗TD.
4. Segre invariant
In this section, we do not assume that TD has some kind of negativity, so that we may have stable (E,Φ) with nonzero Φ. Let E be a torsion-free sheaf of rank r≥2 and Φ:E→E⊗TD a co-Higgs field. For a fixed integer k∈{1,…,r−1}, let us denote by S(k,E,Φ) the set of all subsheaves A⊂E of rank k such that Φ(A)⊆A⊗TD. Define the kth-Segre invariant to be
[TABLE]
In case Φ=0, we simply denote it by sk(E). This is an extension of the Segre invariant, introduced in [19] with the notation sk(E), to the case n≥2. Over curves this notion was used in several literatures, including [5, 7, 8, 17, 21, 25, 28, 30]. If we take TD∨ instead of TD, we get a definition for logarithmic Higgs fields. Note that we always have S(k,E,0)=∅ and sk(E)≤sk(E,Φ).
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let (E,Φ) be a 2-nilpotent co-Higgs bundle of rank r, and set A:=ker(Φ) and B:=Im(Φ) with r′:=rk(A). Then we have the following:
(i)
A∈S(r′,E,Φ);
(ii)
S(k,A,0)⊆S(k,E,Φ)* for 1≤k<r′;*
(iii)
B* is torsion-free and Φ−1(G)∈S(k,E,Φ) for all G∈S(k−r′,B,0) and r′<k<r;*
(iv)
S(k,E,Φ)=∅* for all k.*
Proof.
Parts (i) and (ii) are obvious. Part (iii) is true, because B⊆A⊗TD by the definition of 2-nilpotent. Part (iv) follows from the other ones.
∎
Example 4.2**.**
From [3, Theorem 1.1] we get a description of the set of nilpotent co-Higgs structures on a fixed stable bundle of rank two on Pn. Indeed it is either trivial or an (n+1)-dimensional vector space, depending on the parity of the first Chern class and an invariant xE. We get a non-trivial set of nilpotent co-Higgs structures on E if and only if c1(E)+2xE=−3, and in this case we get s1(E,Φ)=1.
4.1. Curve case
From now on we assume n=1 with g=g(X) and γ<0. Take (E,Φ) with [E]∈UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) and let (2) be the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of E.
Remark 4.3**.**
From the assumption γ<0, we have Φ(Fi)⊆Fi−1⊗TD.
Remark 4.3 immediately proves the following two lemmas.
Lemma 4.4**.**
For an integer j∈{1,…,s−1}, set k(j)=∑i=1jri. Then
[TABLE]
Remark 4.5**.**
We expect that the inequality in Lemma 4.4 is in fact equality, although we give the positive answers only to some special cases; see Lemma 4.6 and Proposition 4.10.
Lemma 4.6**.**
Assume g=0 and take E≅⊕i=1rOP1(ai) with ai≥aj for all i≤j. Then we have
[TABLE]
Proposition 4.7**.**
Fix [E]∈UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) with s≥2 and Φ∈Hom(E,E⊗TD). Choose any k∈{r1+1,…,r−rs+1} such that there is h∈{1,…,s−1} with r1+⋯+rh<k<r1+⋯+rh+1, and set
[TABLE]
Let B⊂Fh+1/Fh be any subsheaf of rank r′ and degree d′, and set A:=u−1(B), where u is the surjection in the exact sequence
[TABLE]
Then B∈S(k,E,Φ) and sk(E,Φ)≤kdegE−k(degFh+e).
Proof.
Note that d′ is the degree of all rank r′ maximal degree subsheaves of Fh+1/Fh. Since degA=d′, we have degB=degFh+d′. Since Φ(Fh+1)⊂Fh⊂B, we have B∈S(k,E,Φ). Since degB=degFh+degA, we get the assertion.
∎
Now Lemma 4.6 and Proposition 4.7 prove the following result.
Corollary 4.8**.**
The Segre invariant sk(E,Φ) is defined for all (E,Φ), if γ<0.
Example 4.9 shows that in Proposition 4.7 we may have strict inequality; of course, to be in the set-up of Proposition 4.7 we need to have rh+1≥2.
Example 4.9**.**
Assume g≥5 and fix h∈{1,…,s−2} with s≥3. Set rh+1=rh+2=2 and fix ri>0 for i∈/{h+1,h+2} and di∈Z, i=1,…,s such that
•
di/ri>di+1/ri+1 for all i=1,…,s−1 and
•
dh+1=2dh+2+1.
By a theorem of Nagata there is a stable bundle Eh+1 of rank 2 with degree dh+1 and g−1≤s1(Eh+1)≤g. Here, s1(Eh+1) is the only integer t with g−1≤t≤g and dh+1−t even. For i=h+1 we choose Ei to be any semistable bundle of degree di
and rank ri. Set E:=⊕i=1sEi and then we have Fi=⊕j=1iEj in the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2) of E.
Take any Φ:E→E⊗TD with ker(Φ)⊇⊕i=0h+1Ei, e.g. take Φ=0 or, for certain E1 and Es so that there is a nonzero map Es→E1⊗TD, take a 2-nilpotent map Φ with ker(Φ)⊇Fs−1. Let A⊂Fh+1/Fh be a line subbundle of maximal degree and then we have B:=u−1(A)=(∑i=1hEi)⊕A. If we set B1:=(∑i=1hEi)⊕Eh+2, then we have degB1>degB.
Proposition 4.10**.**
Assume ri=1 for all i. For an integer k∈{1,…,r−1} and any co-Higgs bundle (E,Φ) with [E]∈UX(r;1,d1;…;1,dr), we have
[TABLE]
and Fk is the only bundle achieving the minimum degree in S(k,E,Φ).
Proof.
By Remark 4.3 and Lemma 4.4, we have [Fk]∈S(k,E,Φ). Thus it is sufficient to prove that Fk is the only one achieving the minimum degree in S(k,E,0). Take any [G]∈S(k,E,0) with maximal degree. The maximality condition on degG implies that E/G has no torsion and so it is a vector bundle of rank r−k on X. We use double induction on k and r. The case k=1 is obvious, because F1 is the first step of the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of E.
Assume that k is at least two and the proposition holds for trivial co-Higgs fields with any k′∈{1,…,k−1} and any bundles E′ whose Harder-Narasimhan filtration has rank one bundles as subquotients.
Assume for the moment F1⊂G. Since F1 is saturated in E, i.e. E/F1 has no torsion, F1 is saturated in G and G/F1 is a rank k−1 subsheaf of the vector bundle [E/F1]∈UX(r−1;1,d2;…;1,dr). The inductive assumption gives degG/F1≤degFk/F1, with equality if and only if G/F1≅Fk/F1, i.e. degG≤degFk with equality if and only if G≅Fk.
Now assume F1⊈G. Since G is saturated in E, this means that F1+G has rank k+1. Let N be the saturation of F1+G in E, and then we have degN≥degF1+degG and N/F1 is a rank k subsheaf of E/F1. If r≥k−2, then by the inductive assumption on r we have degN/F1≤degFk+1/F1<degFk−degF1 and so degG<degFk, a contradiction. Thus we may assume k=r−1 and so N≅E. Since F1+G has rank k+1, the natural map G→E/F1 is injective. Thus we have degG≤degE−degF1<degFr−1, a contradiction.
∎
Now for k∈{1,…,r−1} set
[TABLE]
δ0(E,Φ):=0 and δr(E,Φ):=deg(E). In case Φ=0, we simply denote it by δk(E).
Proposition 4.11**.**
Fix h∈{1,…,s} with s≥2 and set ρ:=r1+⋯+rh. For [E]∈UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds), we have
(i)
sρ(E)=ρdegE−kdegFh* and Fh⊂E is the only subsheaf of rank ρ with degree degFh;*
(ii)
degE≤Fh−1+(k−ρ)dh/rh* for k with ρ−rh<k<ρ and [G]∈S(k,E,0);*
(iii)
δk(E)−deg(Fh−1)* for k with ρ−rh<k<ρ, equals*
[TABLE]
Proof.
Set μi:=μ(Fi/Fi−1)=di/ri for i=1,…,s and let G⊆E be a rank ρ subsheaf of maximal degree. Then part (i) is trivial if s=h, because G≅E in this case. Thus we may assume that h<s. Set a0=0 and
[TABLE]
for i=1,…,s. If we denote by Ri⊆Fi/Fi−1 the image of Fi∩G by the quotient map πi:Fi→Fi/Fi−1, then Ri is trivial, i.e. Fi∩G⊆Fi−1, if and only if ki=0. Setting S:={i∈{1,…,s}∣ki>0}, we have ∑i=1ski=∑i∈Ski=ρ and that G≅Fh if and only if ki=ri for all i≤h, or equivalently ki=0 for all i>h. Since F0 is trivial, we have R1≅F1∩G. Thus we have degG=∑i∈SdegRi. Since each Fi/Fi−1 is semistable, we have degRi≤kiμi for all i∈S and so we may use that μi>μj for all i<j to get part (i).
For part (ii) let G⊂E be a rank k subsheaf of maximal degree and define ki, S⊆{1,…,s} and the sheaves Ri⊂Fi/Fi−1 as above. Then we have ∑i∈Ski=k and degG≤∑i∈Skiμi and again we may use that μi>μj for all i<j, to get the assertion. Part (iii) comes directly from the definition of δk(E).
∎
As immediate corollaries of Theorem 4.11 we get the following.
Corollary 4.12**.**
We have sk(E,Φ)=sk(E)=sk(gr(E)) for all k.
Corollary 4.13**.**
For k with r−rs<k<r, we have
[TABLE]
4.2. Simplicity
Again let X be a smooth curve of genus g. Fix R∈Pic(X) and set γ:=degR. For a map Φ:E→E⊗R, set
[TABLE]
where f^ is the map f⊗idR:E⊗R→E⊗R.
In case γ>0, it often happens that End(E,Φ) is properly contained in End(E) and (E,Φ) is simple with E not simple, e.g. stable Higgs fields when g≥2
or stable co-Higgs fields when g=0. In this short section, we consider the case γ<0 and show why this is seldom the case for γ<0.
We assume that [E]∈UX(s;r1,d1;⋯;rs,ds) with the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2) and that Φ:E→E⊗R is nonzero and so s≥2. Note that every endomorphism of E preserves the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of E. By Remark 4.3, every endomorphism of (E,Φ) also preserves the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of E. Now set K:=ker(Φ) and then we have K⊇F1 by the case i=1 of Remark 4.3 or Lemma 5.3 below.
For two maps φ∈End(E/Fr−1) and ψ∈Hom(E/Fr−1,K), define a map f:E→E to be the following composition:
[TABLE]
where the first map is the natural quotient and the second map is given by ψ∘φ. By the definition of K, we have Φ∘f=0. If Φ is 2-nilpotent, i.e. Im(Φ)⊆K⊗R, e.g. if s=2 by Lemma 4.1, we have f^∘Φ=0. So, if Φ is 2-nilpotent and Hom(E/Fr−1,K)=0, then we have End(E,Φ)≅C. We also see from F1⊆K that if Hom(E/Fr−1,F1)=0, then we have End(E,Φ)≅C. By Riemann-Roch, we get Hom(E/Fr−1,F1)=0, if ds/rs<d1/r1+g−1. Since Φ=0 and each Fi/Fi−1 is semistable, we have ds/rs≤d1/r1+γ. Now if R≅TD, then we have γ≤2−2g and so ds/rs<g−1+d1/r1
for all g≥2. Thus we get the following.
Proposition 4.14**.**
For [E]∈UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) with a nonzero co-Higgs field Φ on a smooth curve X of genus g≥2, the pair (E,Φ) is not simple.
Remark 4.15**.**
In our set-up, adding a nonzero map Φ to an unstable bundle E does not help enough to get
a semistable pair (E,Φ); usually it is not simple, e.g. any endomorphism inducing Fs→F1 commutes with Φ.
5. Higher dimensional case
In this section we consider the case when the dimension of X is at least two. Note that a coherent sheaf E on X is semistable if and only if μ+(E)=μ−(E).
5.1. Case of TD semistable
We fix a polarization OX(1) with respect to which we consider slope, stability and semistability. We assume that TD is semistable with μ(TD)<0; in case μ(TD)≥0, we would get that the framework would be the construction of stable or semistable co-Higgs or logarithmic co-Higgs bundles as in [4]. There are several manifolds X with TX semistable, or equivalently with the semistable cotangent bundle; see [26].
Choose a pair (E,Φ) with E a torsion-free sheaf of rank r and Φ:E→E⊗TD with the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2) of E. Then the sheaf Fi/Fi−1 is a torsion-free semistable sheaf for all i and μ(Fi/Fi−1)>μ(Fi−1/Fi−2) for every i>1. As in §3 on curve case, for fixed integers ri and di, we consider the set UX(s;r1,d1,…,rs,ds) of torsion-free sheaves of rank r on X with the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2) with subquotient Fi/Fi−1 of ranks ri and degrees di for i=1,…,s.
Recall that in characteristic zero the tensor product of two semistable sheaves is still semistable by [22, Theorem 2.5], So if Φ is not trivial, then we get s≥2 and so E is not semistable with the Harder-Narasimhan filtration (4) for E⊗TD. If A is a semistable torsion-free sheaf, then we have
[TABLE]
Thus if [E]∈UX(s;r1,d1;…;rs,ds) and there is a nonzero map Φ:E→E⊗TD, then we get d1/r1+γ≥ds/rs; see Corollary 3.9. Now let us use the same idea in Lemma 2.3. Define
[TABLE]
and then we have Φ(E)⊂Fℓ2⊗TD. From γ<0, we get ℓ2≤s−1. On the other hand, letting
[TABLE]
the map Φ induces a nonzero map Φ:E/Fℓ1Fℓ2⊗TD. In particular, if ℓ1≥ℓ2, e.g. s=2 or d2/r2+γ<ds/rs, which imply ℓ2=1, then any such map Φ is 2-nilpotent.
In [4, Section 2] we consider the following exact sequence for r≥2
[TABLE]
where A is a line bundle of degA<0 with h0(TD⊗A∨)≥r−1 and Z⊂X is a locally complete intersection of codimension two. Under certain assumptions on Z, we may choose E to be reflexive or locally free. Then any (r−1)-dimensional linear subspace of H0(TD⊗A∨) produces a nonzero 2-nilpotent co-Higgs field defined by the following composition:
[TABLE]
Assume now the existence of an endomorphism v:E→E such that v′∘Φ=Φ∘v, where v′:E⊗TD→E⊗TD is the induces by v and the identity map on TD. Since we assume that degA<0, (13) is the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of E. We also assume that (13) does not split and so every automorphism of E is induced by an element of H0(A∨)⊕(r−1) and an (r−1)×(r−1)-matrix of constants acting on OX⊕(r−1). Note that, if r=2, these assumptions imply h0(End(E))=1+h0(A∨). In this case, the co-Higgs field Φ is obtained by composing a map Φ1:IZ⊗A→TD with a map Φ2:TD→E⊗TD induced by the inclusion in (13).
5.2. Case of TD not semistable
In this subsection we assume that TD is not semistable so that it admits the Harder-Narasimhan filtration
[TABLE]
with h≥2. Assume further that μ+(TD)=μ(H1)<0. Since h≥2, we have dimX≥h≥2.
Fix a torsion-free sheaf E of rank r and degree d with Harder-Narasimhan filtration (2). We assume the existence of a nonzero logarithmic co-Higgs field Φ:E→E⊗TD.
Lemma 5.1**.**
If E is reflexive, then Fi is also reflexive for each i.
Proof.
In case n=1, the sheaf Fi in (2) is locally free and in particular reflexive. Now assume n≥2 and then we need to prove that Fi has depth at least two. This is true, because
E has depth at least two and E/Fi has no torsion and so it has positive depth.
∎
Remark 5.2**.**
Lemma 5.1 works for arbitrary TD, even in the case n=1.
Lemma 5.3**.**
We have F1⊆ker(Φ) and s≥2.
Proof.
Assume Φ(F1)=0 and let i0 be the minimal integer i∈{1,…,s} such that Φ(F1)⊆Fi⊗TD. By the definition of i0, the map Φ induces a nonzero map φ:F1→(Fi0/Fi0−1)⊗TD. Since the tensor product of two semistable sheaves, modulo its torsion, is again semistable by [22, Theorem 2.5] and μ(H1)<0, the sheaf gr((Fi0/Fi0−1)⊗TD) given by the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of TD has all its factors with slope less than μ(F1). Thus we get Φ=0, a contradiction.
Now Φ is a nonzero map with ker(Φ)⊇F1 and so we have s≥2.
∎
Remark 5.4**.**
By Lemma 5.1, the pair (F1,0) is a logarithmic co-Higgs subsheaf of (E,Φ) and so (E,Φ) is not semistable. In particular, E is also not semistable.
5.2.1. Rank 2 case
In this subsection we consider the co-Higgs sheaves (E,Φ) with E reflexive of rank two and Φ nonzero.
Lemma 5.5**.**
If E is reflexive of rank two, then Φ is 2-nilpotent.
Proof.
Since Φ is nonzero, the sheaf F1 has rank one by Lemma 5.3. Since F1 is reflexive on a smooth variety X by Lemma 5.1, it is a line bundle by [16, Proposition 1.9]. Now we get that E/F1≅IZ⊗A for some line bundle A and some closed subscheme Z⊂X with dimZ≤n−2. By definition of Harder-Narasimhan filtration, we have degA<degF1. Let ψ:E→(E/F1)⊗TD be the map induced by Φ. Since ker(Φ)⊇F1 by Lemma 5.3, it is sufficient to prove
that Φ(E)⊆F1⊗TD, i.e. ψ=0. Note that ψ induces a map ψ:(E/F1)→(E/F1)⊗TD with Im(ψ)=Im(ψ), due to F1⊆ker(Φ). Since (E/F1) has rank one and it is torsion-free, it is semistable. Again as in the proof of Lemma 5.3, since μ(H1)<0 and the tensor product of two semistable sheaves, modulo its torsion, is semistable by [22, Theorem 2.5], we have μ((E/F1)⊗H1)<μ(E/F1) and so ψ=0. Thus we have ψ=0.
∎
Now we describe all pairs (E,Φ) with E reflexive of rank two and Φ nonzero. By Lemma 5.3 and assumption that Φ is nonzero, the sheaf E is not semistable and s=2. By Lemmas 5.1, 5.3, 5.5 and [16, Proposition 1.9], the map Φ is 2-nilpotent and it fits into an exact sequence
[TABLE]
with Z a closed subscheme of X with either Z=∅ or dimZ=n−2. Moreover, Φ is uniquely determined by a map u:det(E)⊗F1∨→F1⊗TD. Thus the set of all logarithmic co-Higgs structures on E is parametrized by
[TABLE]
The trivial element 0∈V(E) corresponds to the trivial co-Higgs field Φ=0. Note that Φ=0 also exists for stable sheaves.
Now we reverse the construction. Fix two line bundles L1 and L2 on X with degL1>degL2 and a closed subscheme Z⊂X such that a general extension
[TABLE]
is reflexive. We just observed that any co-Higgs field Φ:E→E⊗TD is 2-nilpotent and that Hom(E,E⊗TD)≅H0(L1⊗L2∨⊗TD). We may see [16, Theorem 4.1] for a description about the conditions on L1, L2, ωX and Z assuring the existence of a reflexive sheaf fitting in (15) when n=3. Since (15) is the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of any E fitting into (15), so the family of the co-Higgs sheaves (E,Φ) with gr(E)=L1⊕(IZ⊗L2) is parametrized by a fibration over PExtX1(IZ⊗L2,L1) whose fibre over [E] is H0(L1⊗L2∨⊗TD).
Remark 5.6**.**
Assume s=2 and μ+(TD)<0. For a torsion-free coherent sheaf E of rank at least 2, as in the proof of Lemma 5.5 we see that every logarithmic co-Higgs field Φ:E→E⊗TD is integrable and 2-nilpotent with
[TABLE]
where F1 is semistable, and E/F1 is torsion-free and semistable. Recall that if E is reflexive, then so is F1 by Lemma 5.1. Take any exact sequence
[TABLE]
Any such extension in (16) is torsion-free. For any fixed G fitting into (16), not necessarily reflexive, the proof of Lemma 5.5 shows that every logarithmic co-Higgs field Φ:G→G⊗TD is integrable and 2-nilpotent with Hom(G,G⊗TD)≅Hom(E/F1,F1⊗TD).
5.2.2. Rank 3 case
We assume r=3 and that E is reflexive. Since we assume μ+(TD)<0, we get s≥2 by Lemma 5.3 and so s∈{2,3}.
Remark 5.7**.**
The case s=2 is dealt in Remark 5.6. In this case, the sheaf F1 is either a line bundle or a semistable reflexive sheaf of rank two with E/F1≅IZ⊗A for some line bundle A and a closed subscheme Z⊂X with dimZ≤n−2. In both cases, we may apply Remark 2.8.
From now on we assume s=3 and so the sheaf Fi in (2) has rank i for each i. By Lemma 5.1, the sheaf F1 is a line bundle and F2 is reflexive so that F2/F1≅IZ1⊗A1 and E/F2≅IZ2⊗A2 with A1,A2 line bundles and Z1,Z2 closed subschemes of X with dimension at most n−2. Here we have degF1>degA1>degA2. Set
[TABLE]
where μ−(F2)=degA1 and μ+(E⊗TD)=degF1+μ+(TD)
(a) Assume δ(E)>0 and then we have Φ∣F2=0, i.e. Φ is uniquely induced by a map u1:IZ2⊗A2→E⊗TD. Since E/F2≅IZ2⊗A2 is of rank one and μ+(TD)<0, the composition of u1 with the quotient map E⊗TD→(E/F2)⊗TD is trivial, implying Im(u1)⊆F2⊗TD. Thus Φ is uniquely determined by a map u:IZ2⊗A2→F2⊗TD. Conversely, any map u:IZ2⊗A2→F2⊗TD induces a 2-nilpotent logarithmic co-Higgs field on E by taking the composition u∘π, where π:E→E/F2 is the quotient map.
(b) Assume now δ(E)≤0. Set B:=Im(Φ∣F2) and G:=Im(Φ). Since we have
[TABLE]
the composition of Φ with the quotient map E⊗TD→(E/F2)⊗TD is trivial and so we have G⊆F2⊗TD. If B is trivial, then we may apply part (a), i.e. Φ is 2-nilpotent and it is uniquely induced by u:IZ2⊗A2→F2⊗TD. Now we assume that B is not trivial. Since Φ(F1)=0 and F2/F1 is a torsion-free sheaf of rank one, we have B≅F2/F1 and so rk(G)∈{1,2}. Note that we have B⊆F1⊗TD from μ+(E/F2)+μ+(TD)<μ+(E/F2).
(b-i) First assume rk(G)=1 and then B is a subsheaf of G with the same rank. Since F1⊗TD is a saturated subsheaf of F2⊗TD, we have G⊆F1⊗TD. Thus Φ is uniquely determined by a map E/F1→F1⊗TD, i.e. by an element of H0(TD⊗F1⊗A∨); the converse also holds, but we cannot guarantee the integrability of the associated logarithmic co-Higgs field.
(b-ii) Now assume rk(G)=2. Since we have G=ψ(E/F1) for the map ψ:E/F1→E⊗TD, the map ψ is injective as a map of sheaves and G≅E/F1. In this case we also have F1=ker(Φ). We get that E is a reflexive sheaf fitting into an exact sequence
[TABLE]
with F1 a line bundle and G a torsion-free unstable sheaf of rank two with degF1>μ+(G). The map Φ is determined by a unique injective map v:G→F2⊗TD. Conversely, set G1⊂G to be the Harder-Narasimhan filtration of G and F2=f−1(G1), where f is the surjection in (17). Then the composition of the quotient map E→E/F1 with an injective map G→F2⊗TD induces a logarithmic co-Higgs field Φ with the given data (F1,F2,G), which does not necessarily satisfy the integrability condition. Note that if G⊂F1⊗TD, i.e. Φ comes from an injective map G→F1⊗TD, then Φ is 2-nilpotent and so it is integrable.
Example 5.8**.**
Assume that TD is not semistable with Harder-Narasimhan filtration (14) and set μ2(TD):=μ(H2/H1). Let E be a torsion-free sheaf of rank r with (2) as its Harder-Narasimhan filtration and assume μ+(E)−μ−(E)<μ2(TD). In this case, for any map Φ:E→E⊗TD, the sheaf Im(Φ) is contained in the subsheaf E⊗H1 of E⊗TD, which is the image of the natural map E⊗H1→E⊗TD. We have E⊗H1≅E⊗H1 if either E or H1 is locally free. Note that H1 is locally free, if it has rank one, because H1 is reflexive and X is smooth; see [16, Proposition 1.9]. In particular, if n=2, then H1 is a line bundle and μ2(TD)=μ−(TD). Thus under these assumptions we may repeat the observations given in the case TD semistable using H1 instead of TD. Without any assumption on μ2(TD) we may see at least a part of the logarithmic co-Higgs fields of E in this way.
Bibliography30
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] M. F. Atiyah, Vector bundles on an elliptic curve , Proc. London Math. Soc. 7 (1959), 414–452.
2[2] E. Ballico and S. Huh, A note on co-Higgs bundles , to appear in Taiwanese J. Math., preprint, ar Xiv:1606.01843 [math.AG].
3[3] E. Ballico and S. Huh, 2 2 2 -nilpotent co-Higgs structures , preprint, ar Xiv:1606.02584 [math.AG].
4[4] E. Ballico and S. Huh, Logarithmic co-Higgs bundles , preprint, ar Xiv:1609.03733 [math.AG].
5[5] E. Ballico and B. Russo, Maps between stable vector bundles on a smooth curve , Bull. Polish Acad. Sci. Math. 50 (2002), no. 4, 433–446.
6[6] C. Bănică, Sur les Ext-globaux dans une déformation , Compositio Math. 44 (1981), no. 1-3, 17–27.
7[7] U. N. Bhosle, Maximal subsheaves of torsion-free sheaves on nodal curves , J. London Math. Soc. (2) 74 (2006), 59–74.
8[8] L. Brambila Paz and H. Lange, A stratification of the moduli space of vector bundles on curves Dedicated to Martin Kneser on the occasion of his 70th birthday, J. Reine Angew. Math. 494 (1998), 173–187.