4

I am currently preparing for an exam in algebraic geometry and came across the following exercise:

Let $k$ be an algebraically closed field. Let $f\colon\mathbb{P}_k^1\to \mathbb{P}_k^1$, $[x,y]\to [x^2,y^2]$.

  1. Show that $f_*(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}_k^1})$ is a vector bundle $\mathcal{E}$ on $\mathbb{P}_k^1$, which has rank 2.
  2. Show that $\mathcal{E}\cong \mathbb{P}_k^1\oplus\mathbb{P}_k^1(-1)$

Somebody showed me a proof that used that $f_*(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}_k^1})$ is the universal scheme over $\mathbb{P}_k^1$ containig a square root and some properties about $\text{Spec}$ underlined. But I didn't really understand that and feel that is seems unecessarily complicated. I would like to give a more concrete proof showing first that $f_*(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}_k^1})(U)$ and $f_*(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}_k^1})(V)$ are both $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}_k^1}$-modules of rank 2 where $U\cup V= \mathbb{P}_k^1$ is the standard cover and then gluing those along transition maps (which I think should work and would prove 1. and 2.). However I seem to be confused on what the module $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}_k^1}$-module strucure on $f_*(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}_k^1})$ actually is since I somehow can't work it out. I would be thankful if somebody could show me/teach me how such a concrete proof might go since I am lost in defintions!

KReiser
  • 65,137
Womm
  • 441
  • Is item $2$ vector bundle isomorphism? – Bob Dobbs Feb 17 '24 at 14:50
  • It is an isomorphism of $\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}_k^1}$-modules – Womm Feb 17 '24 at 15:00
  • In which definitions are you lost? @Womm – Bob Dobbs Feb 17 '24 at 15:06
  • I think the biggest problem is that I don't understand the $\mathcal{O}{\mathbb{P}_k^1}$-structure on $f*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}_k^1}$ and therefore I am not sure how to understand the module structure on the respective affine charts. – Womm Feb 17 '24 at 15:08
  • "exam question in algebraic geometry" is not a very specific title - it could refer to a very wide range of subjects. I've made your question your title so that it's now very obvious what you're asking about. – KReiser Feb 17 '24 at 16:57

1 Answers1

1

Let $f \colon (X, \mathcal{O}_X) \longrightarrow (Y,\mathcal{O}_Y)$ be a morphism of locally ringed space and $\mathcal{F}$ be a sheaf of $\mathcal{O}_X$-modules, then a structure of a $\mathcal{O}_Y$-modules of $f_*\mathcal{F}$ is given by a morphism (with some additional conditions on compatibility) $$\mathcal{O}_Y \times f_*\mathcal{F} \longrightarrow f_*\mathcal{F}$$ which is by adjunction equivalent to $$f^*(\mathcal{O}_Y \times f_*\mathcal{F}) \longrightarrow \mathcal{F}.$$ This can be given by $$f^*(\mathcal{O}_Y\times f_*\mathcal{F}) = f^*\mathcal{O}_Y \times f^*f_*\mathcal{F} \longrightarrow \mathcal{O}_X \times \mathcal{F} \longrightarrow \mathcal{F},$$ where $f^*f_* \longrightarrow id$ is unit morphism and the last map is the structural morphism of $\mathcal{F}$. Since $\mathbb{P}_k^1$ has a canonical decomposition $D_+(x),D_+(y)$, we may can just reduce to computations to an affine line. The second part of the problem already suggests what you want. It really reduces your problem to a single morphism $f \colon \mathbb{A}_k^1 \longrightarrow \mathbb{A}^1_k, x \longmapsto x^2$. At the level of global sections, this is given by $k[x] \longrightarrow k[x], x \longmapsto x^2$ and hence it identifies one $k[x]$ with $k[x,t]/(t^2-x) \simeq k[x] \oplus k[x]t$. From this, it implies that $$f_*(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_k^1})(\mathbb{A}_k^1) = \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_k^1}(f^{-1}(\mathbb{A}^1_k)) \simeq (\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_k^1} \oplus \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{A}_k^1}(-1))(\mathbb{A}_k^1).$$ The twist $(-1)$ comes from the fact that $t$ is of degree $1$ in $k[x,t]$. Indeed $\mathcal{O}(-1)_0 = 0$ and $\mathcal{O}(-1)_1 =\mathcal{O}$.

Alexey Do
  • 2,109
  • 1
    Regarding the last bit of your post: If $t$ sits in degree 1, then that summand is zero in degree zero. The degree zero part should correspond to global sections of the corresponding sheaf, so that summand ought to be $\mathcal{O}(-1)$ – Brian Shin Feb 17 '24 at 16:54
  • @BrianShin, thanks, my mistake, I corrected it. – Alexey Do Feb 17 '24 at 17:09