On minimal 4-folds of general type with $p_g \geq 2$
Jianshi Yan

TL;DR
This paper proves that for certain 4-dimensional algebraic varieties of general type with geometric genus at least 2, the 33-canonical map is birational and establishes a new lower bound for the canonical volume, improving previous results.
Contribution
It establishes the birationality of the 33-canonical map and improves the lower bound for the canonical volume of minimal 4-folds of general type with p_g ≥ 2.
Findings
33-canonical map is birational onto its image
Canonical volume has a lower bound of 1/520
Improves previous bounds established by Chen and Chen
Abstract
We show that, for nonsingular projective 4-folds V of general type with geometric genus , the 33-canonical map is birational onto the image and the canonical volume has the lower bound , which improves a previous theorem by Chen and Chen.
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.
Taxonomy
TopicsAlgebraic Geometry and Number Theory · Geometry and complex manifolds · Advanced Algebra and Geometry
On minimal 4-folds of general type with
Jianshi Yan
School of Mathematical Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
Abstract.
We show that, for nonsingular projective 4-folds V of general type with geometric genus , is birational onto the image and the canonical volume has the lower bound , which improves a previous theorem by Chen and Chen.
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification: 14J35, 14E05, 14C20, 14E30.
1. Introduction
Studying the behavior of pluricanonical maps of projective varieties has been one of the fundamental tasks in birational geometry. For varieties of general type, an interesting and critical problem is to find a positive integer so that is birational onto the image. A momentous theorem given by Hacon-McKernan [12], Takayama [18] and Tsuji [19] says that there is some constant (for any integer ) such that the pluricanonical map is birational onto its image for all and for all minimal projective -folds of general type. By using the birationality principle (see, for example, Theorem 2.2), an explicit upper bound of is determined by that of . Therefore, finding the explicit constant for smaller is the upcoming problem. However, is known only for , namely, , by Bombieri [2] and by Chen-Chen [4, 5, 6] and Chen [10].
The first partial result concerning the explicit bound of was due to [6, Theorem 1.11] by Chen and Chen that is birational for all nonsingular projective 4-folds of general type with . It is mysterious whether the numerical bound “35” is optimal under the same assumption.
In this paper, we go on studying this question and prove the following theorem:
Theorem 1.1**.**
Let be a nonsingular projective 4-fold of general type with . Then
- (1)
* is birational for all ;*
- (2)
.
Remark 1.2*.*
As being pointed out by Brown and Kasprzyk [3], the requirement on in Theorem 1.1(1) is indispensable from the following list of canonical fourfolds:
- (1)
, ; 2. (2)
, ; 3. (3)
, ; 4. (4)
, ; 5. (5)
, ; 6. (6)
, .
Besides, the following two hypersurfaces has and is non-birational, so one may expect that is the optimal lower bound of such that is birational for a nonsingular projective 4-fold of general type with :
- (1)
;
- (2)
.
Throughout all varieties are defined over a field of characteristic [math]. We will frequently use the following symbols:
‘’ denotes linear equivalence or -linear equivalence;
‘’ denotes numerical equivalence;
‘’ or, equivalently, ‘’ means fixed effective divisors.
2. Preliminaries
Let be a nonsingular projective 4-fold of general type with geometric genus . By the minimal model program (see, for instance [1, 15, 16, 17]), we can find a minimal model of with at worst -factorial terminal singularities. Since the properties, which we study on , are birationally invariant in the category of normal varieties with canonical singularities, we do focus our study on instead. Clearly the canonical sheaf satisfies for any canonical divisor .
2.1. Convention
For an arbitrary linear system of positive dimension on a normal projective variety , we may define a generic irreducible element of in the following way. We have , where and denote the moving part and the fixed part of respectively. Consider the rational map . We say that * is composed of a pencil* if ; otherwise, * is not composed of a pencil*. A generic irreducible element of is defined to be an irreducible component of a general member in if is composed of a pencil or, otherwise, a general member of .
Keep the above settings. We say that can distinguish different generic irreducible elements and of a linear system on if neither nor is contained in , and if .
A nonsingular projective surface of general type with and is referred to as a -surface, where is the minimal model of .
2.2. Set up for the map
Fix an effective divisor . By Hironaka’s theorem, we may take a series of blow-ups along nonsingular centers to obtain the model satisfying the following conditions:
(i) is nonsingular and projective;
(ii) the moving part of is base point free so that
[TABLE]
is a non-trivial morphism;
(iii) the union of and all those exceptional divisors of has simple normal crossing supports.
Take the Stein factorization of . We get
[TABLE]
and hence the following diagram commutes:
Y$$Y^{\prime}$$\overline{\varphi_{1,Y}(Y)}$$\Gamma-------------f_{1}$$s$$\pi$$\varphi_{1,Y}$$g_{1}
We may write
[TABLE]
where is a sum of distinct exceptional divisors with positive rational coefficients. Denote by the moving part of . Since has at worst -factorial terminal singularities, we may write
[TABLE]
where is an effective -divisor as well. One has .
If , we have , where and are smooth fibers of and . More specifically, when , we say that * is composed of a rational pencil* and when , we say that * is composed of an irrational pencil*.
If , by Bertini’s theorem, we know that general members are nonsingular and irreducible.
Denote by a generic irreducible element of . Set
[TABLE]
So we naturally get
[TABLE]
2.3. Fixed notations
Pick up a generic irreducible element of . Modulo further blow-ups on , which is still denoted as for simplicity, we may have a birational morphism onto a minimal model of . Let be the smallest positive integer such that .
Set and let be the -canonical map: . Similar to the 4-fold case, take the Stein factorization of the composition:
[TABLE]
Denote by the induced projective morphism with connected fibers from by Stein factorization. Set
[TABLE]
where . Let be a generic irreducible element of . Then we have
[TABLE]
where is an effective -divisor. Denote by the contraction morphism of onto its minimal model .
Suppose that is a base point free linear system on . Let be a generic irreducible element of . As is nef and big, by Kodaira’s lemma, there is a rational number such that .
Set
[TABLE]
2.4. Technical preparation
We will use the following theorem which is a special form of Kawamata’s extension theorem (see [14, Theorem A]).
Theorem 2.1**.**
(cf. [11, Theorem 2.2]) Let be a nonsingular projective variety on which is a smooth divisor. Assume that where is an ample -divisor and is an effective -divisor such that . Then the natural homomorphism
[TABLE]
is surjective for any integer .
In particular, when is of general type and , as a generic irreducible element, moves in a base point free linear system, the conditions of Theorem 2.1 are automatically satisfied. Keep the settings as in 2.2 and 2.3. Take and . Then for sufficiently large and divisible integer , we have
[TABLE]
and the homomorphism
[TABLE]
is surjective. By [16, Theorem 3.3], is base point free, so one has
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
where the latter inequality holds by [7, Lemma 2.7]. So we get the canonical restriction inequality:
[TABLE]
Similarly, one has
[TABLE]
We will tacitly use the following type of birationality principle.
Theorem 2.2**.**
(cf. [5, 2.7]) Let be a nonsingular projective variety, and be two divisors on with being a base point free linear system. Take the Stein factorization of : where is a fibration onto a normal variety . Then the rational map is birational onto its image if one of the following conditions is satisfied:
- (i)
, and is birational for a general member of .
- (ii)
, can distinguish different general fibers of and is birational for a general fiber of .
2.5. Some useful lemmas
The following results on surfaces and 3-folds will be used in our proof.
Lemma 2.3**.**
(see [6, Lemma 2.5]) Let be the birational contraction onto the minimal model from a nonsingular projective surface of general type. Assume that is not a -surface and that is a curve on passing through very general points. Then .
Lemma 2.4**.**
([9, Lemma 2.5]) Let be a nonsingular projective surface. Let be a nef and big -divisor on satisfying the following conditions:
- (1)
;
- (2)
* for all irreducible curves passing through any very general point .*
Then gives a birational map.
3. Proof of the main theorem
As an overall discussion, we keep the same settings as in 2.2 and 2.3.
3.1. Separation properties of
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let be a minimal 4-fold of general type with . Then can distinguish different generic irreducible elements of for all .
Proof.
Suppose . As we have , by Theorem 2.2, we may just consider the case when is composed of a pencil. In particular, when is composed of a rational pencil, which is the case when , the global sections of can distinguish different points of . So , and consequently can distinguish different general fibers of . Hence we may just deal with the case when is composed of an irrational pencil. We have , where are smooth fibers of and . Pick two different generic irreducible elements , of . Then by Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem ([13, 20]), one has
[TABLE]
and the surjective map
[TABLE]
Since , both and are effective. So for general , is effective. As is moving and , both groups in (3.2) and (3.2) are non-zero. Therefore, can distinguish different generic irreducible elements of . ∎
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let be a minimal 4-fold of general type with . Pick up a generic irreducible element of . Then can distinguish different generic irreducible elements of for all
[TABLE]
Proof.
Suppose . We have . Similar to the proof of Lemma 3.1, we consider the following two situations: (i) is not composed of a pencil or is composed of a rational pencil; (ii) is composed of an irrational pencil.
For (i), one has
[TABLE]
By Theorem 2.1, one has
[TABLE]
As can distinguish different generic irreducible elements of .
For (ii), it holds that
[TABLE]
Using Theorem 2.1 again, one gets
[TABLE]
where and are two different generic irreducible elements of . The vanishing theorem implies the surjective map
[TABLE]
where we note that is linearly trivial for . Since , both groups in (3.4) and (3.4) are non-zero. So can distinguish different generic irreducible elements of for any . ∎
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let be a minimal 4-fold of general type with . Pick up a generic irreducible element of and a generic irreducible element of . Define
[TABLE]
Then can distinguish different generic irreducible elements of for all
Proof.
Similar to the proof of Lemma 3.2, we have
[TABLE]
Since , we have
[TABLE]
As , is not composed of an irrational pencil, so the statement automatically follows. ∎
3.2. Two useful propositions
Proposition 3.4**.**
Let be a minimal 4-fold of general type with . Pick up a generic irreducible element of and a generic irreducible element of . If is not a -surface, then is birational for all
[TABLE]
Proof.
Suppose . Since
[TABLE]
is nef and big, and it has simple normal crossing support, Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem implies
[TABLE]
where is nef and big and has simple normal crossing support.
By the canonical restriction inequality (2.1), we may write
[TABLE]
where is certain effective -divisor. As , one may obtain
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
As (2.2) also gives
[TABLE]
for some effective -divisor on , together with (3.6), one has
[TABLE]
where is nef and big. Hence the statement clearly follows from Lemma 2.3, Lemma 2.4, Lemma 3.1, Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 2.2. ∎
Proposition 3.5**.**
Let be a minimal 4-fold of general type with . Pick up a generic irreducible element of and a generic irreducible element of . If is neither a -surface nor a -surface, then is birational for all
[TABLE]
Proof.
Suppose . Following the same procedures as in the proof of Lemma 3.2 and Lemma 3.3, one has
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Furthermore, one has
[TABLE]
By virtue of Bombieri’s result in [2] that gives a birational map unless is a -surface or a -surface, together with Lemma 3.1, Lemma 3.2 and Theorem 2.2, the statement holds. ∎
3.3. The case of
We follow Chen-Chen’s approach in [6, Theorem 8.2] to deal with the case of .
Theorem 3.6**.**
([6, Theorem 8.2]) Let be a minimal 4-fold of general type with . Assume that , then is birational for all .
Proof.
By Theorem 2.2, we may just consider for a general member . As we have , (2.1) gives
[TABLE]
Modulo some birational modifications, we may assume that is a base point free linear system. Pick up a generic irreducible element of . It follows that
[TABLE]
Modulo -linear equivalence, we have
[TABLE]
Using Theorem 2.1, we get
[TABLE]
Thus, combining (3.7) and (3.9), one gets
[TABLE]
By (3.5), we already have
[TABLE]
where . As for some effective -divisor on and
[TABLE]
is nef and big, Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem implies
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
Since , where is an effective -divisor on , by Lemma 2.4, gives a birational map whenever .
Since , we may take and by the proof of Lemma 3.2 we know that distinguishes different generic irreducible elements of for . Therefore, is birational for all in this case. ∎
3.4. The case of
Theorem 3.7**.**
Let be a minimal 4-fold of general type with . Assume that , then is birational for all .
Proof.
We have and . By Lemma 3.1, distinguishes different generic irreducible elements of for all .
As an overall discussion, we study the linear system for generic irreducible element of . Recall that, by (3.5) and (3.6), we already have
[TABLE]
where U_{m,S}\equiv\big{(}(m-1-\frac{1}{\theta_{1}})\frac{\theta_{1}}{\theta_{1}+1}-\frac{t_{1}}{a_{t_{1},T}}\big{)}\pi_{T}^{*}(K_{T})|_{S} is a nef and big -divisor on . As we have for some effective -divisor on , applying Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem, we may get
[TABLE]
where with
[TABLE]
Thus, whenever m>\big{(}\frac{2}{\xi}+\frac{t_{1}}{a_{t_{1},T}}+\frac{1}{\beta}+1\big{)}\cdot\frac{\theta_{1}+1}{\theta_{1}}, gives a birational map.
Therefore, by Lemma 3.2, Lemma 3.3 and Theorem 2.2, is birational provided that
[TABLE]
Now we study this problem according to the value of .
Case 1.
Clearly, we may take and so . From [8, Section 2, Section 3], we know that one of the cases occur:
- (1)
, ; (correspondingly, or and in [8]) 2. (2)
, ; (correspondingly, and -surface case in [8]) 3. (3)
, ; (correspondingly, and -surface case in [8]) 4. (4)
, ; (correspondingly, and -surface case in [8]) 5. (5)
, . (correspondingly, and other surface case in [8])
So is birational for all .
Case 2.
According to [6, Corollary 4.10], must be of one of the following types: (i) ; (ii) .
For Type (i), we have and set . When is composed of a pencil, we have and is exactly the general fiber of the induced fibration from . If is not a -surface, by Proposition 3.4, is birational for all . If is a -surface, by [11, Proposition 4.1, Case 2], we have and , and hence is birational for . When is not composed of a pencil, we have . Refer to the case by case argument of [11, Proposition 4.2, Proposition 4.3], to give an exact list, must be among one of the situations: , , , , , , , , . Hence is birational for all .
For Type (ii), we have and set . When is composed of a pencil and the generic irreducible element of is neither a -surface nor a -surface, by Proposition 3.5, is birational for all . When and is composed of a rational pencil of -surfaces, the case by case argument of [11, Proposition 4.6, Proposition 4.7] tells that must be among one of the situations: , , , , , , , . Hence is birational for all . Otherwise, the case by case argument of [11, Proposition 4.5] tells that must be among one of the situations: , , . Hence is birational for all .
In conclusion, is birational for all . ∎
3.5. The canonical volume of 4-folds
Theorem 3.8**.**
Let be a minimal 4-fold of general type with . Then .
Proof.
We have .
Recall that . One has
[TABLE]
As we also have (2.1) and , it follows that
[TABLE]
By (2.2) and , we may get
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Now we estimate the canonical volume according to the same classification of and as in Subsection 3.3 and Subsection 3.4.
(I) The case of
Remember that in this case, (by (3.8)) and (by (3.9)). So we have
(II) The case of
Subcase (II-1). .
As in Theorem 3.7, Case 1, , so we correspondingly have the estimation as follows:
- (1)
, , then ; 2. (2)
, , then ; 3. (3)
, , then ; 4. (4)
, , then ; 5. (5)
, , then .
Subcase (II-2). .
We follow the same classification of as in Theorem 3.7, Case 2.
Recall that for Type (i), we have . When is composed of a pencil and the general fiber of the induced fibration from is not a -surface, we have , , , and thus . When is composed of a pencil and the general fiber is a -surface, we have , , , and hence . When is not composed of a pencil, we have . The corresponding lower bounds of to those of are as follows: .
For Type (ii), we have . When is not composed of a pencil, then and . When is composed of a pencil of -surfaces, then and . When is composed of a pencil of surfaces with , then . When and is composed of a rational pencil of -surfaces, the corresponding lower bounds of to those of are as follows: Otherwise, and .
So we have shown . ∎
3.6. Proof of Theorem 1.1
Proof.
Theorem 3.6, Theorem 3.7 and Theorem 3.8 directly implies Theorem 1.1. ∎
Acknowledgment. The author would like to express her gratitude to Meng Chen for his guidance over this paper and his encouragement to the author. The author would also like to thank Dr. Yong Hu for pointing out the nonexistence of a kind of fibration in Subcase(II-2) in the previous version, which improves my result in the previous version.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] C. Birkar, P. Cascini, C. D. Hacon and J. Mc Kernan: Existence of minimal models for varieties of log general type , J. Amer. Math. Soc. 23 (2010), no. 2, 405–468.
- 2[2] E. Bombieri: Canonical models of surfaces of general type , Publications Mathematiques de L’IHES 42 (1973), 171–219.
- 3[3] G. Brown and A. Kasprzyk: Four-dimensional projective orbifold hypersurfaces , Exp. Math. 25 (2016), no. 2, 176–193.
- 4[4] J. A. Chen and M. Chen: Explicit birational geometry of threefolds of general type, I , Ann. Sci. Ecole Norm. Sup. 43 (2010), 365–394.
- 5[5] J. A. Chen and M. Chen: Explicit birational geometry of threefolds of general type, II , J. Differ. Geom. 86 (2010), 237–271.
- 6[6] J. A. Chen and M. Chen: Explicit birational geometry for 3-folds and 4-folds of general type, III , Compos. Math. 151 (2015), 1041–1082.
- 7[7] M. Chen: Canonical stability in terms of singularity index for algebraic 3-folds , Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 131 (2001), 241-264.
- 8[8] M. Chen: A sharp lower bound for the canonical volume of 3-folds of general type , Math. Ann. 337 (2007), 887–908.
