1: \documentclass[11pt,reqno]{amsart}

2: \setlength{\textwidth}{14cm}

3: 

4: \usepackage[dvips]{graphicx,color}

5: \usepackage{amssymb,amscd,latexsym,epsfig}

6: \usepackage[arrow,matrix,line]{xy}

7: \usepackage[mathscr]{euscript}

8: 

9: \DeclareFontFamily{OT1}{rsfs}{}

10: \DeclareFontShape{OT1}{rsfs}{n}{it}{<-> rsfs10}{}

11: \DeclareMathAlphabet{\curly}{OT1}{rsfs}{n}{it}

12: 

13: \newcommand{\rt}[1]{\stackrel{#1\,}{\rightarrow}}

14: \newcommand{\Rt}[1]{\stackrel{#1\,}{\longrightarrow}}

15: \newcommand\comp{{\!\,}_{{}^\circ}}

16: \newcommand\B{\operatorname{Bl}}

17: \newcommand\C{\mathbb C}

18: \newcommand\Q{\mathbb Q}

19: \newcommand\R{\mathbb R}

20: \newcommand\G{\mathbb G}

21: \renewcommand\S{\mathscr S}

22: \newcommand\Z{\mathcal Z}

23: \newcommand\PP{\mathbb P}

24: \renewcommand\P{\mathcal P}

25: \newcommand{\T}{\mathcal T}

26: \newcommand\X{\curly X}

27: \newcommand\XX{\,\widehat{\!\curly X}{}}

28: \newcommand\Y{\curly Y}

29: \renewcommand\L{\mathcal L}

30: \newcommand\LL{\curly L}

31: \renewcommand\O{\mathcal O}

32: \newcommand\I{\curly I}

33: \newcommand\into{\hookrightarrow}

34: \newcommand\res{\arrowvert_}

35: \newcommand\To{\longrightarrow}

36: \newcommand\half{\frac12}

37: \newcommand\ip{{\mbox\,\_\hspace{-1.5mm}\shortmid\hspace{1.5pt}}}

38: \renewcommand\_{^{\ }_}

39: \newcommand{\mat}[4]{\left(\begin{array}{cc} \!\!#1 & #2\!\! \\ \!\!#3 &

40: #4\!\!\end{array}\right)}

41: \newcommand{\rk}{\operatorname{rank}}

42: \newcommand{\coker}{\operatorname{coker}}

43: \newcommand{\im}{\operatorname{im}}

44: \newcommand{\Hom}{\operatorname{Hom}}

45: \newcommand{\Ext}{\operatorname{Ext}}

46: \newcommand{\Aut}{\operatorname{Aut}}

47: \newcommand{\Pic}{\operatorname{Pic}}

48: \newcommand{\Proj}{\operatorname{Proj}\,}

49: \newcommand{\Spec}{\operatorname{Spec}\,}

50: \newcommand{\Hilb}{\operatorname{Hilb}}

51: \newcommand{\Grass}{\operatorname{Grass}}

52: 

53: \makeatletter \@addtoreset{equation}{section} \makeatother

54: \renewcommand{\theequation}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}

55: 

56: \newtheorem{thm}[equation]{Theorem}

57: \newtheorem{lem}[equation]{Lemma}

58: \newtheorem{cor}[equation]{Corollary}

59: \newtheorem{prop}[equation]{Proposition}

60: \newtheorem{conj}[equation]{Conjecture}

61: 

62: \theoremstyle{definition}

63: \newtheorem{defn}[equation]{Definition}

64: \newtheorem{rmk}[equation]{Remark}

65: \newtheorem{rmks}[equation]{Remarks}

66: 

67: 

68: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

69: 

70: \title[The Hilbert-Mumford criterion]

71: {\textbf{A study of the Hilbert-Mumford criterion for the stability of

72: projective varieties}}

73: \author[J. Ross and R. P. Thomas]{Julius Ross and Richard Thomas}

74: 

75: \begin{document}

76: 

77: \begin{abstract} \noindent

78: We make a systematic study of the Hilbert-Mumford criterion for different

79: notions of stability for polarised algebraic

80: varieties $(X,L)$; in particular for K- and Chow stability. For each type of stability this leads to a concept of

81: slope $\mu$ for varieties and

82: their subschemes; if $(X,L)$ is semistable then $\mu(Z)\le\mu(X)$ for all

83: $Z\subset X$. We give examples such as curves, canonical models and Calabi-Yaus.

84: We prove various foundational technical results towards understanding

85: the converse, leading to partial results; in particular this gives a geometric

86: (rather than combinatorial) proof of the stability of smooth curves.

87: \end{abstract}

88: 

89: \maketitle

90: 

91: 

92: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

93: 

94: 

95: \section{Introduction; slope stability}

96: 

97: Geometric Invariant Theory \cite{GIT} has been very successful in forming

98: moduli spaces of (semi)stable coherent sheaves over polarised

99: algebraic varieties $(X,L)$ \cite{HL}. Moduli space is constructed as a quotient

100: of a subset of a Quot scheme by a group, and the Hilbert-Mumford criterion

101: is applied to 1-parameter subgroups. Their weights are found to be dominated

102: by positive linear combinations of weights of particularly simple 1-parameter

103: subgroups corresponding to a degeneration

104: of a sheaf $E$ into a splitting $F\oplus E/F$, for some subsheaf $F\le E$.

105: Thus stability of sheaves is governed by subsheaves; calculating the corresponding

106: weights leads to the notion of slope stability (the exact form of the slope

107: depending on the linearisation used on Quot).

108: 

109: Forming moduli spaces of (semi)stable varieties themselves using GIT has

110: proved much more difficult, and has mainly been accomplished for canonically

111: polarised varieties using the Chow linearisation, due to work of Mumford

112: \cite{GIT, Mu}, Gieseker \cite{Gi}, and, in a little more generality, Viehweg

113: \cite{V}. Roughly

114: speaking one expects varieties polarised by their canonical bundle $L=K_X$

115: to be automatically stable since their moduli functor is

116: already separated because of the birational invariance of spaces of sections

117: of powers of the canonical bundle. In the general case no geometric

118: criterion for (in)stability has emerged. This is because the Hilbert-Mumford

119: criterion has not been successfully simplified or interpreted for varieties;

120: instead Viehweg proved deep positivity results to produce the group-invariant

121: sections of the appropriate line bundle directly (for varieties with semi-ample

122: canonical bundle). Kollar \cite{Ko} and others have turned to other methods

123: for producing moduli of varieties, but new impetus to understanding stability

124: has come from the link between K-stability and the existence

125: of K\"ahler-Einstein and constant scalar curvature K\"ahler metrics \cite{Ti1,

126: Do1} to which we apply our methods in \cite{RT}.

127: 

128: Our approach uses the Hilbert-Mumford criterion, as pioneered by

129: Mumford \cite{Mu}. He calculates the relevant weights in terms of 

130: blow-ups of $X\times\C$ in subschemes supported on thickenings of $X\times\{0\}$;

131: one of our main results (Corollary \ref{ref}) reduces the calculation to

132: a sum of weights of blow-ups \emph{in the scheme-theoretic central fibre}.

133: (In a sense which is made clear by the proof the construction

134: turns the horizontal thickenings of Mumford ``vertical", into the

135: central fibre.)

136: 

137: Taking just one such blow-up in a subscheme $Z\subset X$ gives the ``deformation

138: to the normal cone of $Z$", analogous

139: to the simple 1-parameter subgroups that arise in the GIT of sheaves.

140: This gives a numerical condition for $Z$ to destabilise $X$, and so

141: a notion of ``slope stability", by analogy with the sheaf theory which we

142: now review briefly.

143: 

144: For a sheaf $E$ over $(X,L)$, the \emph{reduced} Hilbert polynomial $p\_E$

145: is the monic version of the Hilbert polynomial

146: $\P\_{\!E}(r)=\chi(E\otimes L^r)=a_0r^n+a_1r^{n-1}+\ldots\,$:

147: $$

148: p\_E(r)=\frac{\chi(E\otimes L^r)}{a_0}=r^n+\mu(E)r^{n-1}+\ldots\,,

149: $$

150: and the \emph{slope} of $E$ is its leading nontrivial coefficient,

151: \begin{equation} \label{mu}

152: \mu(E)=a_1/a_0.

153: \end{equation}

154: (This differs from the usual definition deg$\,(E)/\rk(E)$ by unimportant

155: terms that depend only on the geometry of $(X,L)$.)

156: Then we say that $E$ is \emph{semistable} if for all proper coherent subsheaves

157: $F\le E$,

158: $$

159: p\_F\preceq p\_E\,.

160: $$

161: For \emph{Gieseker semistability}, $\preceq$ means there exists an $r_0>0$

162: such that $p\_F(r)\le p\_{E}(r)$ for all $r\ge r_0$; for \emph{slope semistability}

163: the inequality is at the level of the $r^{n-1}$ coefficients:

164: \begin{equation} \label{mu2}

165: \mu(F)\le\mu(E).

166: \end{equation}

167: If the inequalities are all strict then $E$ is \emph{stable}, and this agrees

168: with the appropriate GIT notions for different choices of linearisation (i.e.\

169: choice of equivariant line bundle on the Quot scheme; in fact Jun Li's

170: line bundle \cite{Li} is only semi-ample, but he extends GIT to this case.)

171: 

172: Due to different choices

173: of linearisation and asymptotics there are also many notions of stability

174: (Hilbert, Chow, asymptotic Hilbert, asymptotic Chow and K-stability) for

175: varieties, defined in the next section, and so many versions of slope. We

176: first describe the one relevant to K-stability.

177: 

178: Given a subscheme $Z$ of a polarised algebraic variety $(X,L)$, define

179: $$

180: \epsilon(Z)=\sup\{c\in\Q_{\,>0}\colon L^r\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{cr}\text{ is globally

181: generated } \forall r\gg0 \text{ with } cr\in\mathbb N\}.

182: $$

183: The Hilbert-Samuel polynomial for \emph{fixed} $x$,

184: \begin{equation} \label{HS}

185: \chi(L^r\otimes\I^{xr}_{\!Z})=a_0(x)r^n+a_1(x)r^{n-1}+\ldots\,,\quad r\gg0,

186: \ rx\in\mathbb N,

187: \end{equation}

188: defines $a_i(x)$ which are polynomials in $x$ (see Section \ref{K})

189: and so extend by the same formulae to

190: $x\in\R$. Then analogously to (\ref{mu}) we define the \emph{K-slope} of

191: $\I_Z$ (with respect to $L$ and $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z)]$) to be

192: \begin{equation} \label{def:slope}

193: \mu_c(\I_Z)=\mu_c(\I\_Z,L):=\frac{\int_0^c\big(a_1(x)+\frac{a_0'(x)}2\big)dx}

194: {\int_0^ca_0(x)dx}\,.

195: \end{equation}

196: Setting $Z=\emptyset$ defines the slope of $X$ (precisely: of $\O_X$ with

197: respect to $L$ and $c$) as

198: \begin{equation} \label{def:X}

199: \mu(X)=\mu(X,L)=\frac{a_1}{a_0}\,,

200: \end{equation}

201: independently of $c$. Here $a_i$ are the coefficients of the

202: Hilbert polynomial $\chi(L^r)=a_0r^n+a_1r^{n-1}+\ldots\,,\ a_0=a_0(0)$

203: and, for $X$ normal, $a_1=a_1(0)$ (\ref{normal}).

204: 

205: Setting $\mu(Z):=\sup\_{0<c\le\epsilon(Z)}\mu_c(\I_Z)$, we say that

206: $(X,L)$ is \emph{K-slope semistable} if for all proper $Z\subset X$,

207: $$

208: \mu(Z)\le\mu(X), \qquad\qquad\text{i.e.}\quad \frac{\int_0^c\left(a_1(x)+

209: \frac{a_0'(x)}2\right)dx}{\int_0^ca_0(x)dx}\le\frac{a_1}{a_0}\quad

210: \forall c\in(0,\epsilon(Z)].

211: $$

212: Cf. (\ref{mu2}).

213: The definition of slope stability is slightly trickier (Definition \ref{defstab});

214: for this reason we work with $\mu_c(\I_Z)$ instead of $\mu(Z)$. Then (Theorem

215: \ref{thm:kstableslopestable}) $X$ is slope (semi)stable if it is K-(semi)stable.

216: 

217: The $a_0'/2$ ``correction term" in the definition of slope arises from the

218: difference between the Hilbert polynomial of a 2-component normal crossing

219: variety and the sum of those of its components (whereas for sheaves, $\P\_{\!E}=

220: \P\_{\!F}+\P\_{\!E/F}$ for any $F\le E$). Simon Donaldson

221: pointed out that his analysis of stability of toric varieties \cite{Do2}

222: throws up a boundary term similar to our $(a_0(c)-a_0)/2=\int_0^ca_0'/2$;

223: we explain this in \cite{RT}.

224: 

225: Similarly for $X\subseteq\PP^N=\PP(H^0(X,L)^*)$ (embedded in projective space

226: by the space of sections of its polarisation $L=\O_X(1)$ for ease of exposition;

227: see Section \ref{sec:chow} for the general case), a subscheme $Z\subset

228: X$ and an \emph{integer} $0<c\le\epsilon(Z)$,

229: we define the \emph{Chow slope} of $\I_Z$ to be

230: $$

231: Ch_c(\I_Z):=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^ch^0(\I_{\!Z}^i(1))}{\int_0^ca_0(x)dx}\,.

232: $$

233: Setting $Z=\emptyset$ gives $Ch(\O_X)=Ch(X):=\frac{h^0(\O_X(1))}{a_0}$;

234: then Chow (semi)stability implies Chow slope (semi)stability (Theorem

235: \ref{thmchow}):

236: $$

237: Ch_c(\I_Z){\ }^{\ <\,}_{(\le)}\ Ch(X).

238: $$

239: Asymptotic Chow is more like Gieseker stability and so our slope criterion

240: for that (\ref{chow}) is more complicated.

241: 

242: Section \ref{K} describes the various stability notions uniformly, while

243: Section \ref{Kslope} introduces slope stability via the deformation to the

244: normal cone. Arbitrary 1-parameter subgroups are studied in Section \ref{testconfigs},

245: calculating their weights in terms of a sequence of simple blow ups in Corollary

246: \ref{ref}. In Section \ref{converse} these weights are shown to be those

247: of a deformation to the normal cone under certain circumstances, giving a

248: partial

249: converse to ``stability $\Rightarrow$ slope stability". We used to think

250: this could be done in general, but the failure of the \emph{thickenings}

251: of certain flat families of subschemes to themselves be flat prevents  

252: us from carrying out the programme in full. We study

253: when the thickenings \emph{are} flat, and get round the problem with a basechange

254: trick in some situations. This deals with the curve case completely, i.e.\

255: stability and slope stability are equivalent there,

256: giving geometric proofs of the K- and asymptotic Chow stability of curves

257: of genus $\ge1$. As far as we know all previous proofs used analysis and

258: combinatorics

259: respectively. Section \ref{sec:chow} is devoted to Chow stability

260: and Section \ref{egs} to examples. Many more examples, such as projective

261: bundles, appear in \cite{RT}, in particular showing that K- and slope

262: stability are also equivalent for projective bundles over a curve.

263: 

264: \noindent \textbf{Acknowledgements.} 

265: We would like to thank Brian

266: Conrad, Kevin Costello, Dale Cutkosky, Simon Donaldson, David Eisenbud,

267: Daniel Huybrechts, Frances Kirwan, Miles Reid and

268: Bal\'azs Szendr\"oi for useful conversations. The book

269: \cite{HL} and paper \cite{Mu} have been very useful to us. The authors

270: were supported by an EPSRC PhD studentship and a Royal Society

271: university research fellowship respectively. The second author would also

272: like to thank Oscar Garcia-Prada and Peter Newstead for supporting a visit

273: to CSIC, Madrid, where much of this work was done.

274: 

275: \section{Notation} \label{notation}

276: 

277: Throughout this paper $Z$ will denote a closed subscheme of a proper

278: irreducible polarised scheme $(X,L)$ of dimension $n=\dim X$; for much of

279: the paper $X$ will be a normal irreducible variety. By $jZ$ we mean the subscheme

280: which is the $j$-fold thickening of $Z$ defined by its ideal sheaf $\I_{jZ}:=

281: \I_{\!Z}^j$. We denote

282: the blow up along $Z$ by $\pi\colon\widehat X\to X$, with exceptional divisor

283: $E$. Then $\pi^*\I_{\!Z}^j=\O(-jE)$ and there exists a $p$ such that

284: $\pi_*\O(-jE)=\I_{\!Z}^j$ for all $j\ge p$.  For convenience

285: we often suppress pullback maps, mix multiplicative and additive

286: notation for line bundles, and use the same letter to denote a divisor

287: and the associated line bundle.  For example on $\widehat{X}$, we

288: denote $(\pi^*L(-E))^{\otimes k}$ by $L^k-kE$. Worse still, where it

289: does not cause confusion, $L^k$ may also denote $c_1(L)^{\cap k}$.

290: 

291: For brevity we often denote sheaf cohomology on a space $X$ by $H^i_X$;

292: this never means local cohomology.

293: 

294: Any vector space $V$ with a $\C^\times$-action splits into one-dimensional

295: weight spaces $V=\bigoplus_iV_i$, where $t\in\C^\times$ acts on $V_i$ by

296: $t^{w_i}$. The $w_i$ are the \emph{weights} of the action, and $w(V)=\sum_iw_i$

297: is the \emph{total weight} of the action; i.e.\ the weight of the induced

298: action on $\Lambda^{\max}V$.

299: 

300: On any family over $\C=\Spec\C[t]$, $t$ will denote the pullback of the

301: standard coordinate on $\C$.

302: 

303: A line bundle $L$ is \emph{semi-ample} \cite{La} if its high

304: powers are globally generated (i.e.\ basepoint free). In this paper all

305: semi-ample line bundles will have the additional property that

306: the contraction they define is birational; that is $L$ is the pull back of

307: an ample line bundle from a birational scheme. (It is important that this

308: contraction can be trivial, i.e.\ semi-ample includes ample.)

309: 

310: Given a (semi-)ample line bundle $L$ on $X$, the \emph{Seshadri constant}

311: of $Z$ is

312: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

313:  \epsilon(Z) = \epsilon(Z,X,L)&=&\sup\,\{c\in\Q_{\,>0}\colon L^r\otimes

314:  \I_{\!Z}^{cr} \text{ is globally generated for } r\gg0\} \\ \label{def:seshadri}

315: &=&\max\,\{ c \in \Q_{\,>0}: L - cE \,\, \text{is nef on }\widehat X \}.

316: \end{eqnarray}

317: 

318: Given a pair of ideals $J\subset I\subset\O_X$, we say that $J$ \emph{saturates}

319: I if there exists $i>0$ such that $JI^{i-1}=I^i$. Equivalently, 

320: on the blow up $p\colon\widehat X\to X$ of $X$ along $I$ with exceptional

321: divisor $E$, the natural inclusion $p^*J\to\O(-E)$ is an isomorphism.

322: (This equivalence is a tautology: the zero set of the sections

323: of $p^*J\subseteq\O(-E)$ has homogeneous ideal the saturation of

324: $\oplus_iJI^{i-1}\subseteq\oplus_iI^i$ (\cite{Ha} Exercise II.5.10); this

325: is all of $\oplus_iI^i$ if and only if the zero set is empty, if and only

326: if the sections generate $\O(-E)$.)

327: 

328: Similarly, give a line bundle $L$ on $X$, the global sections of $L\otimes

329: I$ generate a subsheaf $L\otimes J\subset L\otimes I$, defining an ideal

330: $J$. We say that \emph{the global sections of $L\otimes I$

331: saturate} $I$ if $J$ saturates $I$. Equivalently, the global

332: sections of $L\otimes I$ generate the line bundle $L(-E)$ on $\widehat

333: X$. This is weaker than (i.e.\ is implied by) $L\otimes I$ being globally

334: generated.

335: 

336: 

337: \section{Hilbert, Chow and K-stability, and test configurations} \label{K}

338: 

339: Fix a polynomial $\P$ of degree $n$ and consider any $n$-dimensional

340: proper polarised scheme $(X,L)$ whose Hilbert polynomial equals $\P$:

341: $$

342: \P(r)=\chi\_X(L^r) = a_0r^n+a_1r^{n-1}+\ldots\,,

343: $$

344: where

345: $a_0=\frac{1}{n!}\int_X c_1(L)^n=\frac{L^n}{n!}$ and, for smooth $X$,

346: $$

347: a_1=\frac{1}{2(n-1)!}\int_X c_1(X)c_1(L)^{n-1}=

348: -\frac{K_X.L^{n-1}}{2(n-1)!}\,.

349: $$

350: Fix $r>0$ such that $L^r$ is both very ample on $X$, and 

351: \begin{equation} \label{rlarge}

352: H^i(L^r)=0 \quad\text{for }i>0, \quad\Rightarrow\ H^0(L^r)^*\cong\C^{\P(r)}.

353: \end{equation}

354: Then $L^r$ embeds $X$ in $\PP=\PP^{\P(r)-1}$, defining a point of the

355: Hilbert scheme $\Hilb=\Hilb_{\P',K}$ of subschemes of $\PP$ with

356: Hilbert polynomial $\P'(K)=\P(Kr)$.  Then there is a $K_0$ such that for

357: \emph{all} points $\{X\}$ of Hilb and $K\ge K_0$ we have an exact sequence

358: \begin{equation} \label{eq:seshilb}

359: 0\to H^0_\PP(\I_X(K))\to S^K \C^{\P(r)*}\cong S^K H_X^0(L^r)\to

360: H^0_X(L^{Kr})\to0.

361: \end{equation}

362: This (see for example \cite{V}) defines Hilb as a closed subscheme of the

363: Grassmannian 

364: $$

365: \G=\Grass(S^K \C^{\P(r)*},\P(Kr)).

366: $$

367: 

368: So $(X,L^r)$ and a choice of isomorphism $H^0(L^r)^*\cong\C^{\P(r)}$

369: give us a point $x=x_{r,K}$ in $\G$, with different choices of isomorphism

370: corresponding (up to scale) to the orbits of

371: $SL(\P(r),\C)$ on $\PP^{\P(r)-1}$. A $g\in SL(\P(r),\C)$ acting on $\C^{\P(r)}$

372: induces an action

373: \begin{equation} \label{convention}

374: (S^Kg^*)^{-1} \quad\text{on }\ S^K \C^{\P(r)*},

375: \end{equation}

376: and so one on $\G=\Grass(S^K \C^{\P(r)*},\P(Kr))$. It is this action that

377: commutes with the action on $\Hilb\subset\G$ induced by that on $\PP$.

378: Points in the orbit of $x\in\G$ correspond to

379: the projective transformations of $X$.

380: 

381: From (\ref{eq:seshilb}), the fibre over $x\in\Hilb$ of the

382: hyperplane bundle on $\G$ is naturally isomorphic to

383: \begin{equation} \label{eq:line}

384: \O_{\G}(1)\res{x}=\Lambda^{\max} H^0_X(L^{Kr})\otimes

385: \left(\Lambda^{\max} S^K H^0_X(L^r)\right)^*.  

386: \end{equation}

387: 

388: \begin{defn}

389: $(X,L)$ is Hilbert (semi)stable with respect to $r$ if the point $x_{r,K}\in\Hilb$

390: is GIT (semi)stable for the action of $SL(\P(r),\C)$, linearised on (\ref{eq:line}),

391: for all $K\gg0$.

392: \end{defn}

393: 

394: \emph{Asymptotic Hilbert stability} is defined to mean Hilbert stability

395: for all sufficiently large $r$.

396: By picking a different line bundle on the Hilbert scheme (i.e.\ a different

397: projective embedding of Hilb -- the beautiful Chow embedding \cite{Mu})

398: we also get the notion of \emph{Chow stability} with respect to $r$

399: and \emph{asymptotic Chow stability}. We need the concept

400: of a \emph{test configuration}, as defined in the foundational paper \cite{Do2}.

401: 

402: \begin{defn}

403: A \emph{test configuration} for a polarised variety $(X,l)$ is

404: \begin{enumerate}

405:   \item A proper flat morphism $\pi\colon\X\to\C$,

406:   \item An action of $\C^\times$ on $\X$ covering the usual

407:     action of $\C^\times$ on $\C$,

408:   \item An equivariant very ample line bundle $\L$ on $\X$,

409:   \end{enumerate}

410:   such that the fibre $(\X_t,\L|_{\X_t})$ is isomorphic to $(X,l)$ for

411:   one, and so all, $t\in\C\backslash\{0\}$.

412: 

413: A test configuration is called a \emph{product configuration}

414: if $\X\cong X\times\C$, and a \emph{trivial configuration} if in addition

415: $\C^\times$ acts only on the second factor. 

416: 

417: We will often need a weaker concept which we call a \emph{semi test configuration}

418: where $\L$ is just globally generated.

419: \end{defn}

420: 

421: \begin{prop}

422: In the situation of (\ref{rlarge}), a 1-parameter subgroup of $GL(\P(r),\C)$

423: is equivalent to the data of a test configuration for $(X,L^r)$.

424: \end{prop}

425: 

426: \begin{proof}

427: The action of a 1-parameter subgroup of $GL(\P(r),\C)$ on

428: $X\subseteq\PP(H^0_X(L^r)^*)$

429: clearly gives a test configuration $(\X,\L)$ for $(X,L^r)$ with $\L$ the

430: pull back of the (equivariant) line bundle $\O_\PP(1)$.

431: 

432: Conversely the subgroup

433: can be recovered from the test configuration via the induced $\C^\times$-action

434: on the dual of the vector space $(\pi_*\L)|_{\{0\}}$. Since $\pi_*\L$ is

435: torsion-free (by flatness) over the curve $\C$ it is a vector bundle, and

436: $\X$ sits inside the projectivisation of its dual by the very ampleness of

437: $\L$. Its general fibre has dimension $\P(r)$, so $(\pi_*\L)|_{\{0\}}$ does

438: too.

439: 

440: Pick a trivialisation of $\pi_*\L$ over $\C$, identifying it with

441: $(\pi_*\L)|_{\{0\}}\times\C$. This has a diagonal $\C^\times$-action, inducing

442: one on $\PP(\pi_*\L)^*\supset\X$ which yields the original test configuration;

443: thus these two operations are mutual inverses.

444: 

445: (Note that in fact $(\pi_*\L)|_{\{0\}}\cong H^0_\X(\L)\big/tH^0_\X(\L)$.

446: The map $\leftarrow$ is just restriction; we need to define its inverse $\to$.

447: Any element of $(\pi_*\L)|_{\{0\}}$ can be lifted to a meromorphic section

448: $s$ of $\L$ on $\X$ that is regular on $\X_0$.

449: The projection of its polar locus to $\C$ does not contain $\{0\}$

450: and so is a finite number of points in $\C$. Choosing a polynomial $p$ with

451: high order zeros at these points such that $p(0)=1$, $p.s$ is a holomorphic

452: section with the same class as $s$ in $(\pi_*\L)|_{\{0\}}$ since $p-1\in(t)$.

453: Then $[p.s]$ defines the required class in $H^0_\X(\L)\big/tH^0_\X(\L)$.)

454: \end{proof}

455: 

456: Denote the weight of the induced $\C^\times$-action on

457: $(\pi_*\L^K)|_{\{0\}}=H^0_\X(\L^K)\big/tH^0_\X(\L^K)$ by $w(Kr)$.

458: (We enumerate by $k:=Kr$ since $(\X,\L^K)$ is a test configuration for $(X,L^{Kr})$.

459: The confused reader may set $r=1$ temporarily.) For $K\gg0,\ 

460: (\pi_*\L^K)|_{\{0\}}$ is $H^0_{\X_0}(\L^K)$ and

461: $w(k)=w(Kr)$ is a polynomial of degree $n+1$ in $k=Kr$ by the equivariant

462: Riemann-Roch theorem. (It is important that we do \emph{not} modify

463: $w(k)$ to be this polynomial for small $k$, so for instance $w(r)$ really

464: is the weight on

465: $(\pi_*\L)|_{\{0\}}$.) To make the $\C^\times$-action special

466: linear on $(\pi_*\L)|_{\{0\}}$ we first pull back the family by the cover

467: $\C\to\C,\ t\mapsto t^{r\P(r)}$, making the action of weight $r\P(r)w(r)$.

468: Composing with the trivial action which scales the $\L$-fibres with weight

469: $-rw(r)$ scales $\Lambda^{\max}(\pi_*\L)|_{\{0\}}$ with weight

470: $-r\P(r)w(r)$, cancelling out the previous action. (The extra factor of $r$

471: is to make the formula (\ref{normalised}) nicer, and is natural if $(X,\L)$

472: is the $r$th twist of a test configuration for $(X,L)$.)

473: Since this new action acts with zero total weight on $S^K(\pi_*\L)|_{\{0\}}$,

474: it acts on the line $\O_\G(1)|_{\{\X_0\}}=

475: \Lambda^{\max}H^0_{\X_0}(\L^{Kr})\otimes

476: \left(\Lambda^{\max}S^K(\pi_*\L)|_{\{0\}}\right)^*$ (compare (\ref{eq:line})

477: which was for $(X,L^r)$ with no higher cohomology of $L^r$) with

478: \emph{normalised weight}

479: \begin{equation} \label{normalised}

480: \tilde{w}_{r,Kr}=\tilde{w}_{r,k}=w(k)r\P(r)-w(r)k\P(k), \qquad k:=Kr.

481: \end{equation}

482: The normalised weight is a polynomial $\sum_{i=0}^{n+1}e_i(r)k^i$

483: of degree $n+1$ in $k$ for $k\gg0$,

484: with coefficients which are also polynomial of degree $n+1$ in $r$ for $r\gg0$:

485: $e_i(r)=\sum_{j=0}^{n+1}e_{i,j}r^j$ for $r\gg0$. The normalisation means

486: that the coefficient of

487: $(rk)^{n+1}$ vanishes: $e_{n+1,n+1}=0$. The Hilbert-Mumford

488: criterion relates this weight to stability as follows.

489: 

490: \begin{thm} \label{thm:instability}

491: A polarised variety $(X,L)$ is \emph{stable} if and only if

492: $$

493: \tilde{w}_{r,k} \succ 0 \quad \forall \text{ nontrivial

494: test configurations for } (X,L^r),

495: $$

496: where $\succ$ and $\forall$ mean the following for the

497: different notions of stability:

498:   \begin{itemize}

499:   \item Hilbert stable with respect to $r$: for any nontrivial

500: test configuration for $(X,L^r),\ \tilde{w}_{r,k}>0$ for all $k\gg0$,

501: \item Asymptotically Hilbert stable: for all $r\gg0$, any nontrivial

502: test configuration for $(X,L^r)$ has $\tilde{w}_{r,k}>0$ for all $k\gg0$,

503:   \item Chow stable with respect to $r$: for any nontrivial

504: test configuration for $(X,L^r)$, the leading $k^{n+1}$

505: coefficient $e_{n+1}(r)$ of $\tilde{w}_{r,k}$ is positive: $e_{n+1}(r)>0$,

506: \item Asymptotically Chow stable: for all $r\gg0$, any nontrivial

507: test configuration for $(X,L^r)$ has $e_{n+1}(r)>0$,

508: \item K-stable: for all $r\gg0$, any nontrivial test configuration for $(X,L^r)$

509: has leading

510: coefficient $e_{n,n+1}$ of $e_{n+1}(r)$ (the \emph{Donaldson-Futaki invariant}

511: of the test configuration) positive: $e_{n,n+1}>0$.

512: \end{itemize}

513: Furthermore the result holds if we replace ``stable" with

514: ``semistable" and strict inequalities with non strict inequalities throughout.

515: 

516: Finally $(X,L)$ is \emph{polystable} if it is semistable and any destabilising

517: test configuration (i.e.\ one which is not strictly stable) is a product

518: configuration.

519: \end{thm}

520: 

521: The increasing number of test configurations that have to be tested in the

522: second, fourth and fifth definitions

523: as $r\to\infty$ currently prevent us from adding K-stability to the left

524: of the following consequences of Theorem \ref{thm:instability}. \\

525: 

526: Asymptotically Chow stable $\Rightarrow$ Asymptotically Hilbert stable

527: $\Rightarrow$ Asymptotically Hilbert semistable $\Rightarrow$ Asymptotically

528: Chow semistable $\Rightarrow$ K-semistable. \\

529: 

530: The relation between K-stability and asymptotic Chow stability is analogous

531: to the relation between slope stability and Gieseker stability for vector

532: bundles, and a geometric criterion for asymptotic Chow stability would show

533: it was implied by K-stability; we only have a necessary condition (Theorem

534: \ref{chow}).

535: 

536: The fact that Chow stability is controlled by the coefficient $e_{n+1}(r)$

537: is due to Mumford \cite{Mu}. The definition of K-stability above is due to

538: Donaldson, adapting Tian's original differential-geometric definition to

539: allow nonnormal central fibres $\X_0$ (though what

540: is called properly semistable in \cite{Ti2} and stable in

541: \cite{Do2} is what we call K-polystable). Tian \cite{Ti1}

542: defines a line bundle (the ``CM polarisation") on $\Hilb$ such that K-stability

543: is exactly stability in the sense of the Hilbert-Mumford criterion for this

544: line bundle \cite{PT}. K-stability is probably not a bona

545: fide GIT notion: Tian's polarisation may not be ample, and

546: the number of test configurations increases as $r$ tends to infinity.

547: However it is K-polystability that is conjecturally related to

548: the existence of constant scalar curvature K\"ahler metrics; we apply our

549: methods to these in \cite{RT}.

550: 

551: The definition of polystability says that any destabilising test configuration

552: comes from a $\C^\times$-action on $X$ with the appropriate weight 0 (i.e.\

553: Donaldson-Futaki invariant 0 in the K-polystability case). This corresponds to an

554: orbit in Hilb which is closed in the semistable points but with possibly

555: higher dimensional stabilisers; equivalently the orbit in the total space

556: of the dual of the polarising line bundle over Hilb is closed. There seems

557: to be no universally accepted name for this; we use polystability by analogy

558: with bundles.

559: 

560: A test configuration $(\X,\L)$ for $(X,L^r)$ can be twisted to get another,

561: $(\X,\L^K)$, for $(X,L^{Kr})$; for $K\gg0$ this will have no higher cohomology.

562: Since the definition of K-stability is unchanged if

563: $L$ is replaced by some power, for this notion we can allow $\L$ to

564: be an ample $\Q$\,-line bundle in the definition of a test configuration.

565: 

566: Letting $F:=e_{n,n+1}$ denote the Donaldson-Futaki invariant and writing

567: the unnormalised weight $w(k)$ as $b_0k^{n+1}+b_1k^n+\ldots\,$, we see that

568: \begin{equation} \label{Futaki}

569: F=b_0a_1-b_1a_0,

570: \end{equation}

571: and $-a_0^{-2}F$ is the coefficient of $k^{-1}$ in the expansion of

572: $w(k)/k\P(k)$.  When the central fibre $\X_0$ is smooth,

573: $F=\frac{a_0}{4}\nu$, where $\nu$ is the usual Calabi-Futaki invariant

574: of $c_1(L)$ and the vector field generated by the $S^1$-action

575: \cite{Do2}. \\

576: 

577: Without loss of generality we now take $r=1$.

578: An arbitrary test configuration $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))$ for $(X,L)$ is, by definition,

579: $\C^\times$-isomorphic to the trivial test configuration $(X\times\C,L)$

580: away from the central fibre. It is therefore $\C^\times$-birational to

581: $(X\times\C,L)$ and so is dominated by a blow up $(\X,\L)$ of $X\times\C$

582: in a $\C^\times$-invariant ideal $I$ supported on (a thickening

583: of) the central fibre $X\times\{0\}$:

584: \begin{eqnarray}

585: (\X,\L)\ =&(\B_I(X\times\C),L(-E))&\Rt{\phi}\ (\Y,\O_\Y(1)) \nonumber \\

586: &\downarrow p \label{any} \\ &(X\times\C,L)\,. \nonumber

587: \end{eqnarray}

588: Here we use the canonical $\C^\times$-action

589: on $\B_I(X\times\C)$ inherited from that on $I$, and its linearisation on

590: the line bundle $\L:=L-E=p^*(L\otimes I)$, where $E$ denotes the exceptional

591: divisor. $L-E=\phi^*\O_\Y(1)$ and the horizontal arrow in (\ref{any}) is

592: an equivariant map of equivariant

593: polarisations (although $L-E$ may be only semi-ample), whereas

594: $p$ does not respect the polarisation.

595: 

596: Mumford (\cite{Mu} section 3 of the proof of Theorem 2.9) essentially shows

597: that any test configuration is of this form, where $I=I_r$ is of the form

598: \begin{equation} \label{ideals}

599: I_r=\I_0+t\I_1+t^2\I_2+\ldots+t^{r-1}\I_{r-1}+(t^r)\ \subset\ \O_X\otimes\C[t].

600: \end{equation}

601: Here the ideals $\I_0\subseteq\I_1\subseteq\ldots\subseteq\I_r

602: \subseteq\O_X$ correspond to subschemes $Z_0\supseteq Z_1\supseteq\ldots\supseteq

603: Z_{r-1}$ of $(X,L)$, so $I_r$ is $\C^\times$-invariant and corresponds to

604: a subscheme of $X\times\C$ supported on (the $r$-fold

605: thickening of) the central fibre $X\times\{0\}$.

606: 

607: This can be proved by writing the $\C^\times$-invariant ideal $I$ as a sum

608: of weight spaces: defining $\I_j$ in terms of the weight-$j$ piece $t^j\I_j$

609: we get the weight space decomposition (\ref{ideals}). Or, embedding a test

610: configuration in some $\PP^N\times\C$, Mumford's result applies directly.

611: 

612: For example, given a $\C^\times$-action on $X$ with ``repulsive fixed point

613: set" $Z$ (that part of the fixed point set with negative weight spaces in

614: its normal cone), there is a blow up of $X\times\C$ supported on $Z\times\{0\}$ in which the proper transform of $X\times\{0\}$ can be blown down to give

615: back $X\times\C$ but with a nontrivial $\C^\times$-action.

616: 

617: Since $(\X,\L)$ is a \emph{semi} test configuration (and

618: because later we will want to replace an ample $(X,L)$ with a semi-ample

619: $(\widehat X,p^*L)$ for some resolution of singularities $p$) we will

620: prove many results in the generality of semi test configurations.

621: 

622: General test configurations (\ref{any}) will be studied in Section \ref{testconfigs};

623: next we look at the simplest case (beyond product configurations) of $r=1,\

624: I=\I_Z+(t)$ in (\ref{any}): the \emph{deformation of $X$ to the normal cone

625: of $Z$}.

626: 

627: 

628: \section{Deformation to the normal cone and K-slope stability} \label{Kslope}

629: 

630: Given any proper subscheme $Z\subset X$ we get a canonical test

631: configuration $\X$, the blow up of $X\times\C$ along $Z\times\{0\}$ with

632: exceptional divisor $P$.  This deformation to the normal cone has central

633: fibre $\X_0=\widehat X\cup_E P$, where $\widehat X$ is

634: the blow up of $X$ along $Z$ with exceptional divisor $E$. When $Z$ and

635: $X$ are both smooth $P=\PP(\nu\oplus\underline\C)$ is the projective

636: completion of the normal bundle $\nu$ of $Z$ in $X$, glued along

637: $E=\PP(\nu)$ to the blow up of $X$.  For more on the deformation to the

638: normal cone see \cite{Fu}; for a diagram see Section \ref{testconfigs}.

639:  

640: Let $\pi$ be the composite of the projections

641: $\X\to X\times\C\to X$. For $L$ an ample line bundle on $X$ and $c$ a positive

642: rational number let $\L_c$ be the $\Q\,$-line bundle $\pi^*L-cP$. This

643: restricts to $L$ on the general fibre of $\X\rightarrow\C$, and is ample

644: for $c$ sufficiently small.

645: 

646: \begin{prop} \label{ample}

647: Fix $L$ an ample (respectively semi-ample) line bundle on $X$.

648:   For $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z))\cap\Q$ (\ref{def:seshadri}), the $\Q$-line bundle

649:   $\L_c$ is ample (semi-ample) on

650:   $\X$. If $\epsilon(Z)\in\Q$ then $\L_{\epsilon(Z)}$ is nef. If in

651:   addition the global sections of $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{\epsilon(Z)k}$

652:   saturate (see Section \ref{notation}) for $k\gg0$ then $\L_{\epsilon(Z)}$

653:   is semi-ample.

654: \end{prop}

655: 

656: \begin{proof}

657: Note that if $k,kc\in\mathbb N$ and $L^k$ is globally generated

658: and the sections of $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck}$ saturate, then $\L_c^k$

659: is globally generated on $X\times\C$ by the

660: sections $\pi^*H^0(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck})+t^{ck}\pi^*H^0(L^k)$. Algebraically

661: this is the statement that on $X\times\C$, $\I_{\!Z}^{ck}+(t^{ck})$ saturates

662: $(\I_Z+(t))^{ck}$. Geometrically it says that the global sections saturating

663: $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck}$ generate $L^k-ckP$ on $\X$ away from the zero

664: section $\PP(\underline\C\to Z)\cong Z$ of the cone $P\to Z$, over which

665: the sections $t^{ck}H^0(L^k)$ generate.

666: 

667: Putting $c=\epsilon$ now gives the third claim. For the first

668: two we claim that we may assume that $L$ is ample by replacing $(X,L)$ by

669: $(Y,\O_Y(1)):=\Proj\bigoplus_kH^0(L^k)$ if necessary. For $k$ sufficiently

670: large that $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}$ is globally

671: generated, $H^0(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z})\subset H^0(L^k)=H^0(\O_Y(k))$

672: generates a subsheaf $\O_Y(k)\otimes\I_{Z_0}\subset\O_Y(k)$ and so a subscheme

673: $Z_0\subset Y$ such the pullback of $\I_{Z_0}$ to $X$ is $\I_Z$. Thus it

674: is sufficient to prove the result for $Z_0\subset(Y,\O_Y(1))$ and then pullback

675: to get the result for $Z\subset(X,L)$.

676: 

677: On $\widehat X$, $L-cE$ is in the ample cone for small $c$ and

678: on its boundary for $c=\epsilon(Z)$, so by Kleiman \cite{Kl}

679: $L-cE$ is ample for rational $c<\epsilon(Z)$. So $L^k-ckE$ is globally generated

680: for $k\gg0$; equivalently the global sections of $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck}$

681: saturate $\I_{\!Z}^{ck}$ (for $k$ sufficiently large that the pushdown of

682: $\O(-ckE)$ to $X$ is $\I_{\!Z}^{ck}$). $L^k$ is also globally generated so

683: again this implies that $\L_c^k$ is globally generated. Thus $\L_c$

684: is nef for $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z))$, but it is ample for small $c$ since $\pi^*L$

685: is ample. Thus by Kleiman again, $\L_c$ is actually ample and $\L_{\epsilon(Z)}$

686: is nef.

687: \end{proof}

688: 

689: The obvious $\C^\times$-action on $X\times\C$ (acting trivially on the

690: $X$ factor) lifts to an action on the deformation to the normal cone

691: $(\X,\L_c)$ which, on the central fibre $\X_0=\widehat

692: X\cup_EP$, is trivial on $\widehat X$.  When $Z$ and $X$

693: are both smooth, $\lambda\in\C^\times$ acts on

694: $P=\PP(\nu\oplus\underline \C)$ as $\operatorname{diag}(1,\lambda)$.

695: 

696: \begin{thm} \label{degen}

697: Fix $L$ ample and $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z))\cap\Q$. Then $(\X,\L_c)$ is a flat

698: family of polarised schemes, and, for all $k\gg0,\ ck\in\mathbb N$, the

699: total weight of the induced action on $H^0(\X_0,\L_c^k)$ is

700: $$

701: w(k)=-\sum_{j=1}^{ck} j\,h^0\!\left(L^k\otimes(\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j}/

702: \I_{\!Z}^{ck-j+1})\right)=\sum_{j=1}^{ck} \chi(L^k\otimes

703: \I_{\!Z}^j)-ckh^0(L^k).

704: $$

705: \end{thm}

706: 

707: \begin{proof} From the definition of the blow up of a subscheme, $\X=\Proj

708: \bigoplus_{k\ge 0} \S_k$, where

709: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

710: \S_k &=& (\I_{\!Z \times \{0\}})^k = (\I_Z+(t))^k \\

711: &=& \bigoplus_{j=0}^{k-1} t^j\I_{\!Z}^{k-j}\ \oplus\

712: t^k\C[t]\O_X\ \subset\ \C[t]\otimes\O_X. \label{S}

713: \end{eqnarray}

714: It follows that for all $k\gg0$, the pushdown of $-kP$ to $X\times\C$ is

715: $\bigoplus_{j=0}^{k-1}t^j\I_{\!Z}^{k-j}\oplus t^k\C[t]\O_X$, with the higher

716: pushdowns zero. By the ampleness of $L-cP$ (\ref{ample}), for $k\gg0$ we

717: have the vanishing of

718: $$

719: H^i_\X((L-cP)^k) = H^i_{X\times\C}(\pi_*(L^k-ckP)) =

720: \bigoplus_{j=0}^{ck-1} t^j H^i_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j})\oplus

721: t^{ck}\C[t]H^i_X(L^k),

722: $$

723: for $i>0$. In particular then,

724: \begin{equation} \label{vanish}

725: H^i_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j})=0\quad\text{for}\ j=0,\ldots,ck, \quad

726: i>0.

727: \end{equation}

728: 

729: Now

730: $$

731: \X_0=\Proj\bigoplus_{k\ge0}\S_k/t\S_k,

732: $$

733: where by (\ref{S}),

734: \begin{equation} \label{St}

735: \S_k/t\S_k=\I_{\!Z}^k\ \oplus\ t\!\left(\!\I_{\!Z}^{k-1}/\I_{\!Z}^k\right)\

736: \oplus\,\ldots\,\oplus\ t^k\big(\O_X/\I_Z\big).

737: \end{equation}

738: Replacing $\I_Z$ by $\I^c_{\!Z}$ does not change the blow up (just the corresponding

739: exceptional line bundle) so that, for $k\gg0$,

740: \begin{equation} \label{wspace}

741: H^0_{\X_0}(\L_c^k)=H^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck})\ \oplus\,\bigoplus_{j=1}^{ck}

742: t^j H^0_X(L^k\otimes(\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j}/\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j+1})).

743: \end{equation}

744: The vanishing (\ref{vanish}) of

745: $H^1(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j+1})$ for $1\le j\le ck$ means that the dimension

746: of this is

747: $$

748: h^0_{\X_0}(\L_c^k)=

749: h^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck})+\sum_{j=1}^{ck}\left(h^0_X(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^{ck-j})-

750: h^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j+1})\right),

751: $$

752: which is $h^0_X(L^k)$. By (\cite{Ha} Theorem III.9.9) this proves flatness

753: of the family.

754: 

755: Now (\ref{wspace}) is the weight space decomposition with respect to the

756: $\C^\times$-action: $\C^\times$ acts on $t$ with weight $-1$ and trivially

757: on $X$ and so on $\I_Z$. Therefore

758: \begin{eqnarray}

759: w(k) &=& -\sum_{j=1}^{ck} jh^0\left(L^k\otimes(\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j}/

760: \I_{\!Z}^{ck-j+1})\right) \nonumber \\

761: &=&-\sum_{j=1}^{ck} j\left(h^0(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^{ck-j})-

762: h^0(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^{ck-j+1})\right) \label{noco} \\

763: &=& \sum_{j=1}^{ck} (ck-j+1) h^0(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)-\sum_{j=0}^{ck-1}

764: (ck-j)h^0(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^j) \nonumber \\

765: &=& \sum_{j=1}^{ck} h^0(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^j)-ckh^0(L^k)

766: \ =\ \sum_{j=1}^{ck} \chi(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^j)-ckh^0(L^k), \nonumber

767: \end{eqnarray}

768: where the second and last equalities follow from the vanishing (\ref{vanish})

769: of $H^i(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j+1})$ for $1\le j\le ck$ and $i>0$.

770: \end{proof}

771: 

772: We may only take $c=\epsilon(Z)$ if the global sections

773: of $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{\epsilon(Z)k}$ saturate for $k\gg0$. In this case

774: $\L_c$ is semi-ample, pulled back from a contraction $p$ from $(\X,\L_c)\to\C$

775: to $\Proj\bigoplus_{k\gg0}H^0_\X(\L_c^k)$, which we call $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))\to\C$.

776: By construction, $p^*\colon H^0_\Y(\O_\Y(k))\to H^0_\X(\L_c^k)$ is then

777: an isomorphism. By Lemma 2.13 of \cite{Mu}, $\Y\to\C$ is also a flat family,

778: so $(\Y,\O_\Y(k))\to\C$ is a test configuration for $k\gg0$.

779: 

780: \begin{thm} \label{ss}

781: Let $Z$ be a proper subscheme of an irreducible polarised algebraic

782: variety $(X,L)$, and suppose that $c=\epsilon(Z)\in\Q$ and the global sections

783: of $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{\epsilon(Z)k}$ saturate for $k\gg0,\ ck\in\mathbb

784: N$. Letting $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))$ be the contraction of $(\X,\L_c)$ constructed

785: above, the weight of the action on $\Lambda^{\max}H^0_{\Y_0}(\O_\Y(k))$ is

786: $$

787: w(k)=\sum_{j=1}^{ck}\chi(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)-ckh^0(L^k)=

788: \sum_{j=1}^{ck}\chi(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)-ckh^0(L^k)+O(k^{n-1}).

789: $$

790: \end{thm}

791: 

792: \begin{proof}

793: By (\ref{S}), for $k\gg0$,

794: $$

795: H^0_\X(\L_c^k)=H^0_{X\times\C}(L^k\otimes\S_{ck})\cong

796: \bigoplus_{j=0}^{ck-1}t^jH^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{k-j})\ \oplus\ t^{ck}\C[t]H^0_X(L^k),

797: $$

798: yielding

799: \begin{equation} \label{qt}

800: \frac{H^0_\X(\L_c^k)}{tH^0_\X(\L_c^k)}\cong H^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck})\

801: \oplus\ \bigoplus_{j=1}^{ck}\,t^j\frac{H^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j})}

802: {H^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j+1})}\,.

803: \end{equation}

804: By the isomorphism $p^*\colon H^0_\Y(\O_\Y(k))\to H^0_\X(\L_c^k)$ this is

805: the weight space decomposition of $H^0_\Y(\O_\Y(k))\big/tH^0_\Y(\O_\Y(k))$,

806: which by flatness of $\Y\to\C$ and ampleness of $\O_\Y(1)$ is

807: $H^0_{\Y_0}(\O_\Y(k))$. So the total weight is

808: $$

809: -\sum_{j=1}^{ck} j\left(h^0(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^{ck-j})-

810: h^0(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^{ck-j+1})\right).

811: $$

812: Just as in (\ref{noco}) this is $\sum_{j=1}^{ck}h^0(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)-ckh^0(L^k)$.

813: Then replacing $h^0$ by $\chi$ gives an error bounded by $\sum_{j=1}^{ck}

814: h^{\ge1}_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j+1})$, where $h^{\ge1}:=\sum_{i=1}^nh^i$.

815: So the result follows from Lemma \ref{error} below.

816: \end{proof}

817: 

818: \begin{lem} \label{error}

819: Fix $Z\subset(X,L)$ and $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z))\cap\Q$, or $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z)]

820: \cap\Q$ if $\epsilon(Z)\in\Q$ and the global sections of $L^k\otimes

821: \I_{\!Z}^{\epsilon(Z)k}$ saturate for $k\gg0$. Then

822: $$

823: \sum_{j=0}^{ck}h^{\ge1}_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)=O(k^{n-1}).

824: $$

825: \end{lem}

826: 

827: \begin{proof}

828: Fix $\varepsilon\in(0,c)\cap\Q$. Then $\L_{c-\varepsilon}$ is ample on

829: $\X$, while $\L_c$ is generated by its global sections and so nef. So we

830: can apply Fujita vanishing (\cite{La} Theorem

831: 1.4.35) to give $N\gg0$ such that $\L_{c-\varepsilon}^N\otimes\L_c^p$ has

832: no higher cohomology for any $p\ge0$. For $k>N$, setting $p=k-N$ shows

833: that $\L_{c-\varepsilon N/k}^k$ has no higher cohomology. So for $k\gg0$

834: we have

835: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

836: 0&=&H^i_\X((L-(c-\varepsilon N/k)P)^k)=H^i_{X\times\C}

837: (\pi_*(L^k-(ck-\varepsilon N)P)) \\

838: &=&\bigoplus_{j=0}^{ck-\varepsilon N-1}t^j H^i_X(L^k\otimes

839: \I_{\!Z}^{ck-\varepsilon N-j})\ 

840: \oplus\ t^{ck-\varepsilon N}\C[t]H^i_X(L^k), \label{dec}

841: \end{eqnarray}

842: for $i>0$. That is, $h^{\ge1}(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck-\varepsilon N-j})=0$ for

843: $j=0,\ldots,ck-\varepsilon N$. So the sum becomes

844: $$

845: \sum_{j=0}^{ck}h^{\ge1}_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)=

846: \sum_{j=0}^{\varepsilon N-1}h^{\ge1}_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j})=

847: \sum_{j=0}^{\varepsilon N-1}h^{\ge1}_{\widehat X}(L^k-(ck-j)E),

848: $$

849: where we have taken $k$ sufficiently large that the pushdown of $\O_{\widehat

850: X}(-iE)$ is $\I_{\!Z}^i$ (and higher pushdowns are zero) for $i>ck-\varepsilon

851: N$. A corollary of Fujita vanishing is that $h^i(\curly F(kD))=O(k^{n-i})$

852: for any coherent sheaf $\curly F$ and nef divisor $D$ (\cite{La} Theorem

853: 1.4.40). Applying this on $\widehat X$ in turn to $\curly F=

854: \O,\O(E),\ldots,\O((\varepsilon N-1)E)$ and $D=L-cE$ shows that each

855: $h^{\ge1}_{\widehat X}(L^k-(ck-j+1)E)=O(k^{n-1})$. Since

856: $N$ is fixed, then, we get a similar bound on the whole sum.

857: \end{proof}

858: 

859: \begin{cor} \label{weight}

860: For $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z)]\cap\Q$ define

861: $$

862: \tilde{w}_{r,k}(c)=r\chi(L^r)\sum_{j=1}^{ck}h^0(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)

863: \,-k\chi(L^k)w(r)-ck\chi(L^k)r\chi(L^r),

864: $$

865: which, for $r$ sufficiently large \emph{for fixed $Z\subset X$,} is

866: $$

867: \tilde{w}_{r,k}(c)=r\chi(L^r)\sum_{j=1}^{ck}h^0(L^k\otimes

868: \I_{\!Z}^j) - k\chi(L^k)\sum_{j=1}^{cr}h^0(L^r\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j).

869: $$

870: For $cr\in\mathbb Z$, $L^r$ globally generated and $L^r\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{cr}$

871: saturated by its sections, $(X,L^r)$ is unstable if $\tilde{w}_{r,k}(c)\preceq0$,

872: where $\preceq$ is defined as in Theorem \ref{thm:instability}, depending

873: on the type of stability. We say that $(X,L^r)$ is destabilised by $Z$. Similarly

874: for strict instability and $\prec$.

875: \end{cor}

876: 

877: \begin{proof}

878: The conditions on $r$ are just to ensure that $(\X,\L_c^r)$ (or $(\Y,\O_\Y(r))$

879: if $c=\epsilon$) is a genuine test configuration; for K-stability we are

880: free to twist by higher $r$ and use Proposition \ref{ample}

881: to remove these conditions.

882: 

883: The result is a direct consequence of Theorems \ref{degen} and \ref{ss} and

884: the identity $\tilde{w}_{r,k}=w(k)r\chi(L^r)-w(r)k\chi(L^k)$ (\ref{normalised}).

885: \end{proof}

886: 

887: Recall from the introduction the definition of the $a_i$ and $a_i(x)$ (\ref{HS}).

888: Choose $p$ so that $\mathbf R\pi_*\O(-jE)=\I_{\!Z}^j$ for $j\ge p$,

889: then for $k,xk\in\mathbb N,\,k\ge p/x$,

890: \begin{equation} \label{definitionofa_i}

891: \chi\_{\widehat X}(L^k-xkE)=\chi\_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{xk})=a_0(x)k^n

892: + a_1(x)k^{n-1} + \ldots +a_n(x).

893: \end{equation}

894: But by Riemann-Roch, $P(k,j):=\chi\_{\widehat{X}}(L^k-jE)$ is a polynomial

895: of total degree $n$. Writing $P=P_0+\ldots+P_n$ where $P_i$ is

896: homogeneous of degree $n-i,\ a_i(x)=P_i(1,x)$ is therefore a degree

897: $n-i$ polynomial in $x$ which can be extended to

898: all real $x$. 

899: 

900: \begin{prop} \label{integrals}

901: For $X$ irreducible the weights $\sum_{j=1}^{ck}\chi(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^j)-

902: ckh^0(L^k)$ of Theorems \ref{ss} and \ref{degen} can be written

903: $$

904: w(k)=\left(\int_0^ca_0(x)dx-ca_0\right)k^{n+1}+\left(\int_0^c\!a_1(x)

905: +\frac{a_0'(x)}2\,dx-ca_1\right)k^n+O(k^{n-1}).

906: $$

907: \end{prop}

908: 

909: \begin{proof} Using (\ref{definitionofa_i}) for $j>p$ we split up

910: $\sum_{j=1}^{ck}\chi(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^j)$ as

911: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

912: && \sum_{j=1}^p\chi(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^j)

913: +\sum_{j=p+1}^{ck}\chi(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^j) \\

914: &=&p\,\chi(L^k)-\sum_{j=1}^p\chi(L^k\otimes\O_{jZ})+\sum_{j=p+1}^{ck}(a_0(j/k)k^n

915: + a_1(j/k)k^{n-1}+\ldots) \nonumber \\

916: &=&\int_0^{p/k}\!a_0(x)dx\,k^{n+1} + \sum_{j=p+1}^{ck}(a_0(j/k)k^n

917: + a_1(j/k)k^{n-1})+O(k^{n-1}), \label{prox}

918: \end{eqnarray}

919: using the fact that $jZ$ has dimension $\le n-1$ (since $X$ is irreducible)

920: and $a_0(x)$ is a polynomial with $a_0(0)=a_0$.

921: 

922: For a smooth function $f$, as $k\to\infty$ with $ck\in\mathbb

923: N$, the trapezium rule gives \cite{Hi}

924: \begin{equation} \label{easyeuler}

925: \sum_{j=1}^{ck}f(j/k)=\int_0^c\left(kf(x)+\frac{f'(x)}2\right)dx+O(k^{-1}).

926: \end{equation}

927: This can be proved by Taylor's theorem, or directly for polynomials by noting

928: that for $f(x)=x^m$ we have the identity 

929: $$

930: \sum_{j=1}^{ck} j^m = \frac{(ck)^{m+1}}{m+1} + \frac{(ck)^m}2+ O(k^{m-1}).

931: $$

932: Applying this to $f(x)=a_i(x),\ i=1,2$, (\ref{prox}) now approximates

933: $\sum_{j=1}^{ck}\chi(L^k\otimes \I_{\!Z}^j)$ by

934: \begin{multline*} \hspace{-4mm}

935: \int_0^{p/k}\!\!a_0(x)dx\,k^{n+1}

936: +\left(\int_{p/k}^cka_0(x)+\frac{a_0'(x)}2dx\right)k^n+

937: \left(\int_{p/k}^cka_1(x)dx\right)k^{n-1}+ O(k^{n-1}) \\

938: =\left(\int_0^c a_0(x) dx \right) k^{n+1} + \left(\int_0^c

939:   a_1(x) + \frac{a_0'(x)}{2}dx \right) k^n + O(k^{n-1}),

940: \end{multline*}

941: since $\int_0^{p/k}\!a_1(x)+\frac{a_0'(x)}{2} dx\,k^n=O(k^{n-1})$.

942: Subtracting $ckh^0(L^k)=ca_0\,k^{n+1}+ca_1\,k^n+O(k^{n-1})$ gives the result.

943: \end{proof}

944: 

945: Note that by Riemann-Roch on $\widehat X$,

946: $n!a_0(x)=(L-xE)^n>0$ for $x\in(0,\epsilon(Z))$ by the ampleness of $L-xE$,

947: so for $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z)]$, $\int_0^ca_0(x)dx>0$. Therefore we can define

948: the \emph{slope} (or K-slope) of $\I_Z$ (\ref{def:slope}) by 

949: $$

950: \mu_c(\I_Z)=\mu_c(\I_Z,L) = \frac{\int_0^c a_1(x) + \frac{a'_0

951:     (x)}{2} dx} {\int_0^c a_0(x)

952:   dx}=\frac{\int_0^ca_1(x)dx}{\int_0^ca_0(x)dx}+

953: \frac{a_0(c)-a_0}{2\int_0^ca_0(x)dx}\,,

954: $$

955: and that of $X$ (\ref{def:X}),

956: $$

957: \mu(X) = \frac{a_1}{a_0} \qquad \left(=-\frac n2\cdot\frac{K_X.L^{n-1}}{L^n}

958: \ \text{ for $X$ smooth}\right).

959: $$

960: This gives the following obvious definition of K-slope stability, which,

961: like K-stability, is independent of replacing

962: $L$ by $L^r$ (on replacing $c,\,x$ and $\epsilon$ by $rc,\,rx$ and

963: $r\epsilon$).

964: 

965: \begin{defn} \label{defstab}

966: We say that $(X,L)$ is slope (semi/poly)stable if for every proper

967: subscheme $Z$ of $X$, the following holds:

968: \begin{itemize}

969: \item \textbf{\emph{slope semistability}}: $\mu_c(\I_Z,L)\le\mu(X)$ for all

970: $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z)]$,

971: \item \textbf{\emph{slope stability}}: \hspace{6mm} $\mu_c(\I_Z,L)<\mu(X)$

972: for all $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z))$, and also for $c=\epsilon(Z)$ if

973: $\epsilon(Z)\in\Q$ and global sections of $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{\epsilon(Z)k}$

974: saturate for $k\gg0$,

975: \item \textbf{\emph{slope polystability}}: $\ (X,L)$ is slope

976:   semistable, and if $(Z,c)$ is any pair such that

977:   $\mu(\I_Z,c)=\mu(X)$, then $c=\epsilon(Z)$ is rational and, on the

978:   deformation to the normal cone of $Z$, $\L_c$ is pulled back from a

979:   product test configuration $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))\cong(X\times\C,L)$.

980: \end{itemize}

981: \end{defn}

982: 

983: \begin{thm}

984: \label{thm:kstableslopestable}

985: If a polarised variety $(X,L)$ is K-stable then it is slope stable.

986: If it is K-polystable (respectively K-semistable) then it is slope polystable

987: (semistable).

988: \end{thm}

989: 

990: \begin{proof}

991: From the deformation to the normal cone of $Z$ we get test configurations

992: $(\X,\L_c^k)$ (for $c<\epsilon(Z),\ k\gg0$), or $(\Y,\O_\Y(k))$ (for $c=\epsilon(Z)$

993: if $\epsilon(Z)\in\Q$ and the global sections of $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{\epsilon(Z)k}$

994: saturate). Its total weight $w(k)$ is given by Theorems \ref{degen}

995: and \ref{ss} respectively. Writing $w(k)=b_0k^{n+1}+b_1k^n + O(k^{n-1})$,

996: its Donaldson-Futaki invariant (\ref{Futaki}) is, by Proposition \ref{integrals},

997: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

998: F(Z) &=& b_0a_1-b_1a_0=\left(\int_0^c\!a_0(x)dx-ca_0\right)\!a_1-\left(

999: \int_0^c\!a_1(x)+\frac{a_0'(x)}2\,dx-ca_1\right)\!a_0 \\

1000: &=& a_0\Big(\mu(X)-\mu_c(\I_Z)\Big)\int_0^c\!a_0(x)dx. \label{F1}

1001: \end{eqnarray}

1002: This is a strictly positive multiple of $\mu(X)-\mu_c(\I_Z)$, and K-stability

1003: (K-semistability) implies it is strictly positive (nonnegative). This gives

1004: the result so long as, in the semistable/polystable case, the test configuration

1005: is not trivial. But the central fibres of both $(\X,\L_c)$ and $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))$

1006: have nontrivial $\C^\times$-actions.

1007: \end{proof}

1008: 

1009: This result means that slope instability provides an obstruction to the existence

1010: of constant scalar curvature K\"ahler metrics (and so also K\"ahler-Einstein

1011: metrics); see \cite{RT} where there are also numerous examples.

1012: 

1013: Letting $\tilde{a}_i(x) = a_i-a_i(x)$ be the coefficients of

1014: $\chi(L^k\otimes\O_{xkZ})=\chi(L^k/(L^k\otimes\I^{xk}_{\!Z}))$, we define

1015: the slope of $\O_Z$ (in slightly misleading notation) to be

1016: \begin{equation} \label{qslope}

1017: \mu_c(\O_Z)=\frac{\int_0^c \tilde{a}_1(x) + \frac{\tilde{a}'_0 (x)}{2}

1018: dx}{\int_0^c \tilde{a}_0(x)dx}\,.

1019: \end{equation}

1020: Notice that we can rephrase slope stability in the equivalent ways

1021: $$

1022: \mu_c(\I_Z)<\mu(X)\ \Longleftrightarrow\ \mu(X)<\mu_c(\O_Z)\ \Longleftrightarrow\

1023: \mu_c(\I_Z)<\mu_c(\O_Z),

1024: $$

1025: due to the implications

1026: $$

1027: \frac AB< \frac CD\ \Longleftrightarrow\ 

1028: \frac CD<\frac{C-A}{D-B}\ \Longleftrightarrow\ \frac AB<\frac{C-A}{D-B}

1029: $$

1030: for $0<B<D$, on setting $B=\int_0^c a_0(x) dx$ and $D=ca_0$ (so $D-B=\int_0^c

1031: \tilde{a}_0(x)dx>0$).

1032: 

1033: \begin{rmks} \label{normal}

1034: On the blow up $\widehat X$ we have the formula

1035: \begin{equation} \label{a0}

1036: a_0(x)=\frac1{n!}(L-xE)^n,

1037: \end{equation}

1038: and so $a_0(0)=a_0$, since the intersection $L^n$ can be calculated

1039: equally on $X$ or $\widehat X$.

1040: 

1041:  The $a_i(0)$ are the coefficients of the polynomial

1042:   $$

1043:   \chi\_{\widehat{X}}(L^k)=\chi\_X ((\mathbf R\pi_*\O_{\widehat X})\otimes

1044:   L^k)=\sum_{i=0}^n(-1)^ih^0_X(R^i\pi_*\O_{\widehat X}\otimes L^k)

1045:   \quad\text{for }k\gg0.

1046:   $$

1047:   \emph{If $X$ is normal}, then $\pi_*\O_{\widehat X}=\O_X$ (\cite{Ha} proof

1048:   of Corollary III.11.4). $E$ has dimension $n-1$ and $R^i\pi_*\O$

1049:   is supported on points over which the fibre has dimension $\ge i$, so the

1050:   support of $R^i\pi_* \O_{\widehat X}$ has codimension at least

1051:   $i+1$. Hence $\chi(R^i\pi_* \O_{\widehat X}\otimes L^k) =

1052:   O(k^{n-1-i})$, and $\chi\_{\widehat X}(\pi^*L^k)= \chi\_X(L^k) +

1053:   O(k^{n-2})$ so $a_1(0)=a_1$ also.

1054:   

1055:   (The same argument shows that if $Z$ has dimension $j$, then $a_i(0)=a_i$

1056: for $i\le\max\{n-j-1,0\}$ (and $i\le\max\{n-j-1,1\}$ for $X$ normal).

1057:   If $Z\subset X$ are both smooth in a neighbourhood

1058:   of $Z$, then $\mathbf R\pi_* \O_{\widehat X}=\O_X$ so $a_i(0)=a_i$ for

1059: all $i$.)

1060: 

1061: Since $H^0(L^r\otimes\I^{xr}_{\!Z})\subseteq H^0(L^r\otimes\I^{yr}_{\!Z})$

1062: for $x>y$, $a_0(x)$ is a decreasing function in $x$: $a_0'(x)\le0$. In fact

1063: from (\ref{a0}),

1064: \begin{equation} \label{a0'}

1065: a_0'(x)=-\frac{1}{(n-1)!}

1066: (L-xE)^{n-1}.E<0 \quad\text{for }x\in(0,\epsilon(Z)),

1067: \end{equation}

1068: by the ampleness of $L-xE$.

1069: In particular $a_0(x)<a_0$ for $x\in(0,\epsilon(Z))$, showing that $\mu_c(\O_Z)$

1070: (\ref{qslope}) is finite.

1071: 

1072:   For $X$ normal then,

1073:   \begin{equation} \label{decreasing}

1074:   \mu_c(\I_Z)=\mu(X)+\frac{a_0'(0)}{2a_0} + O(c)

1075:   \end{equation}

1076:   is strictly less than $\mu(X)$ for small $c$, and the slope inequality

1077:   is automatically satisfied. In all of the examples we have

1078: considered \cite{Ro, RT}, one need only test

1079: the slope inequality at $c=\epsilon(Z)$.

1080:   If this held in general it would

1081:   simplify the definition of stability. Sz\'ekelyhidi \cite{Sz} has shown

1082:   by example that for the modification of K-stability relevant to extremal

1083:   metrics this is not the case.

1084: \end{rmks}

1085: 

1086: \subsection*{\textbf{Simplifying destabilising subschemes}}

1087: 

1088: \begin{prop}\label{simplify}

1089:   Suppose that $Z\subset X$ is a strictly destabilising subscheme in the

1090:   sense that it violates the slope inequality (\ref{defstab}). Then at least

1091:   one of the connected

1092:   components of $Z$ strictly destabilises. Similarly if $Z$ is a thickening

1093: $Z=mZ'$ of $Z'\subset X$ then $Z'$ strictly destabilises.

1094: \end{prop}

1095: 

1096: \begin{proof}

1097:   Suppose $Z=Z_1\cup Z_2$ with $Z_1$ and $Z_2$ disjoint.  Then

1098:   $\tilde{a}_i^{Z}(x)=\tilde{a}_i^{Z_1}(x) + \tilde{a}_i^{Z_2}(x)$

1099:   (\ref{qslope}) since $\O_{xkZ}=\O_{xkZ_1}\oplus \O_{xkZ_2}$.

1100:   Suppose $Z$ is strictly destabilises.  Then there is a

1101:   $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z)]\cap\Q$ such that

1102: \begin{equation} \label{simplify2}

1103: \mu_c(\O_Z) = \frac{\big(\int_0^c\tilde a_0^{Z_1}(x)dx\big)\mu_c(\O_{Z_1})+

1104: \big(\int_0^c\tilde a_0^{Z_2}(x)dx\big)\mu_c(\O_{Z_2})}{\int_0^c

1105: \tilde{a}_0^{Z_1}(x) dx + \int_0^c \tilde{a}_0^{Z_2}(x) dx} < \mu(X).

1106: \end{equation}

1107: This implies that for some $j\in\{0,1\}$, $\mu_c(\O_{Z_j})< \mu(X)$,

1108: and by Lemma \ref{seshadridisconnected} $c\le \epsilon(Z_j)$, so $Z_j$ is

1109: strictly destabilising.

1110: 

1111: Finally if $(\I_{\!Z}^m,c)$ destabilises then so does $(\I_{\!Z},mc)$ since

1112: $\epsilon(mZ)=\frac1m\epsilon(Z)$ and

1113: \begin{equation*}

1114: \mu_c(\I_{\!Z}^m)=\mu_{mc}(\I_Z) + (m-1)\frac{\int_0^{mc}a_0'(x)dx}

1115: {2\int_0^{mc}a_0(x)dx}<\mu_{mc}(\I_Z),

1116: \end{equation*}

1117: as $a_0'(x)<0$ for $x\in(0,mc)$ (\ref{a0'}).

1118: \end{proof}

1119: 

1120: \begin{lem}\label{seshadridisconnected}

1121: If $Z_1\cap Z_2=\emptyset$ then $\epsilon(Z_1\cup Z_2)\le

1122: \min(\epsilon(Z_1),\epsilon(Z_2))$.

1123: \end{lem}

1124:  

1125: \begin{proof} 

1126: Let $\pi\colon \widehat X\to X$ be the blowup of $X$ along $Z_1\cup

1127: Z_2$ with exceptional divisor $E=E_1\cup E_2$, where $E_i$ is the

1128: subset of $E$ sitting over $Z_i$.  Let $\epsilon=\epsilon(Z_1\cup

1129: Z_2)$, so by definition $\pi^* L-\epsilon E$ is nef.  If $C$ is an

1130: irreducible curve contained in $E_2$ then $(\pi^* L-\epsilon

1131: E_1).C\ge0$ by ampleness of $L$ and the fact that $E_1.C=0$.  If $C$

1132: is not contained in $E_2$ then $(\pi^* L-\epsilon E_1).C=(\pi^*

1133: L-\epsilon E).C + \epsilon E_2.C \ge 0$.  Hence by the Kleiman

1134: criterion, $\pi^* L-\epsilon E_1$ is nef. But this line bundle is the pullback

1135: of $L-\epsilon E_1$ from $\B_{Z_1}X$, so the latter line bundle is also nef

1136: (\cite{La} Example 1.4.4(ii)), proving that $\epsilon\le\epsilon(Z_1)$.

1137: \end{proof}

1138: 

1139: \begin{lem} \label{pts}

1140: Let $(X,L)$ be a smooth polarised variety of dimension $n$ and

1141: $\epsilon=\epsilon(p,L)$ be the Seshadri constant of some point $p$

1142: in $X$. Then $p$ strictly destabilises if and only if 

1143: $$

1144: \big((-K_X).L^{n-1}\big)\epsilon(p,L)>(n+1)L^n.

1145: $$

1146: \end{lem}

1147: 

1148: \begin{proof}

1149: We have $\tilde{a}_0(x)=a_0-a_0(x)=\frac{1}{n!}(L^n-(L-xE)^n)=

1150: -\frac{(-x)^n}{n!}E^n=\frac{x^n}{n!}$ since $c_1(L)^{\cap j},\,j>0$ can be

1151: represented by a cycle on $X$ missing $p$, so by a cycle on $\widehat X$

1152: missing $E$. Similarly using $K_{\widehat X}=K_X+(n-1)E$,

1153: $$

1154: \tilde{a}_1(x)=a_1-a_1(x)=-\frac{K_XL^{n-1}-(K_X+(n-1)E)(L-xE)^{n-1}}{2(n-1)!}=

1155: \frac{(n-1)x^{n-1}}{2(n-1)!}\,,

1156: $$

1157: yielding (\ref{qslope}),

1158: $$

1159: \mu_c(\O_p,L) = \frac{\int_0^c\frac{(n-1)x^{n-1}}{2(n-1)!}+\frac{x^{n-1}}{2(n-1)!}dx}

1160: {\int_0^c\frac{x^n}{n!}dx}=\frac{n(n+1)}{2c}\,.

1161: $$

1162: So $p$ strictly destabilises if and only if $n(n+1)a_0<2ca_1$. As

1163: this is linear in $c$ it holds for some $c\le\epsilon$ if and only if

1164: it holds for $c=\epsilon$. Substituting $a_0=\frac1{n!}L^n$ and $2a_1=

1165: -\frac1{(n-1)!}K_X.L^{n-1}$ gives the result.

1166: \end{proof}

1167: 

1168: One can of course also calculate the slope of a smooth point more directly

1169: by working locally with

1170: $H^0(L^k\otimes\O_{ckp})\cong\bigoplus_{j=0}^{ck-1}S^jT^*_pX$. We now get

1171: 

1172: \begin{thm} \label{pts2}

1173: If $X$ is smooth then no point strictly destabilises.

1174: \end{thm}

1175: 

1176: \begin{proof}

1177: For any line bundle $A$ we say that $H^0(A)$ \emph{generates $s$-jets at

1178: $p$} if

1179: $$

1180: H^0(A) \rightarrow A \otimes\big(\O_p/\I_p^{s+1}\big)=A|_{(s+1)\{p\}}

1181: $$

1182: is a surjection, where $\I_p$ denotes the maximal ideal at $p$. We define

1183: $s(A)$ to be the maximum integer $s$ such that $H^0(A)$ generates $s$-jets

1184: at $p$ (and set $s(A)=-\infty$ if no such $s$ exists).

1185: 

1186: Demailly (\cite{De} Lemma 8.6) proves that given any $s\ge0$, if $H^0(kA)$

1187: generates $(k(n+s)+1)$-jets at $p$, then $H^0(A+K_X)$ generates $s$-jets

1188: at $p$. Setting

1189: $s=(n+1)(m-1)$ (and noting that $k(n+1)m\ge k(n+s)+1$) we see that for $m\ge

1190: 1$ and any $k\ge1$,

1191: $$

1192: s(kA) \ge k(n+1)m \quad\Rightarrow\quad s(A+K_X)\ge (n+1)(m-1).

1193: $$

1194: Applying this again to $A+K_X$ (with $k=1$) implies that $s(A+2K_X)\ge(n+1)(m-2)$

1195: and so inductively $s(A+rK_X)\ge(n+1)(m-r)$ for $r\le m$. Setting $r=m$,

1196: \begin{equation}\label{generationofadjointbundles}

1197: s(kA) \ge k(n+1)m \quad\Rightarrow\quad s(A+mK_X)\ge0.

1198: \end{equation}

1199: 

1200: Fix any rational number $m/M\in(0,\epsilon(p,L))$, so that

1201: $\epsilon(p,(n+1)ML)>(n+1)m$. Then by the identity (\cite{De} Lemma 7.6)

1202: $$

1203: \epsilon(p,A) = \lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{s(kA)}k\,,

1204: $$

1205: applied to $A=(n+1)ML$,

1206: we can find a $k\gg0$ such that $s(k(n+1)ML)>k(n+1)m$. Thus by

1207: (\ref{generationofadjointbundles}), $(n+1)ML+mK_X$ has a section (not vanishing

1208: at $p$), and so $((n+1)ML+mK_X).L^{n-1}\ge0$. Therefore

1209: $((n+1)L+\epsilon(p,L)K_X).L^{n-1}\ge0$.

1210: \end{proof}

1211: 

1212: \begin{rmk}

1213: If $X=\PP^n$ we may as well assume that $L$ is the

1214: hyperplane bundle as slope stability is invariant under rescaling. So

1215: $\epsilon(p)=1$ for any point $p$ and $-K=(n+1)L$, which gives

1216: equality in (\ref{pts}), so $\PP^n$ is at best K-semistable (since

1217: $L^k\otimes\I_p^k$ is generated by global sections).

1218: In fact $\PP^n$ is K-polystable in the sense of Definition \ref{defstab},

1219: and the deformation to the normal cone of $\{p\}$ has semi-ample

1220: $\L_c$ for $c=1$, pulled back from a blow down to $\PP^n\times\C$.

1221: So the degeneration is a product family with a nontrivial

1222: $\C^\times$-action, and the semistability we are seeing comes from a

1223: $\C^\times$-action on $\PP^n$ with Donaldson-Futaki invariant zero.

1224: \end{rmk}

1225: 

1226: 

1227: \subsection*{Asymptotic slope Chow stability}

1228: 

1229: If instead of K-instability we are interested in asymptotic stability,

1230: then the relevant slope function is more complicated.

1231: 

1232: Let $(X,L)$ be a polarised manifold, $r$ be a positive integer, and 

1233: $Z$ a subscheme of $X$ such that on the blow up $p\colon\widehat X\to X$

1234: of $X$ along $Z$,

1235: \begin{equation} \label{condition}

1236: \mathbf Rp_*\O(-jE)=p_*\O(-jE)=\I_{\!Z}^j\quad\forall j\ge0.

1237: \end{equation}

1238: (E.g. if $Z\subset X$ are both smooth in a neighbourhood of $Z$.)

1239: Then for \emph{all} $k$ and $x$ (with $k,\,xk\in\mathbb N$) we have the exact

1240: formula

1241: $$

1242: \chi(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{xk}) = a_0(x)k^n + a_1(x)k^{n-1} +\ldots+a_n(x).

1243: $$

1244: Letting $B_i$

1245: denote the Bernoulli numbers, define $\beta_0=1,\,\beta_1=\frac12$ and

1246: $\beta_i=\frac{B_i}{i!}$ for $i\ge 2$. Then we define the \emph{asymptotic

1247: Chow slope} $\eta_c(\I_Z)$ of $\I_Z$ for $c\le\epsilon(Z)$ to be

1248: \begin{eqnarray*}

1249: \eta_c(\I_Z)&=&\eta_c(\I_Z,L,r) = \sum_{j=0}^{n+1} c_j r^{n+1-j} \\

1250: &=& r^{n+1} + \mu_c(\I_Z)r^n + \ldots + c_{n+1},

1251: \end{eqnarray*} 

1252: where

1253: $$

1254: c_j = \frac{\sum_{i=0}^j

1255: \int_0^c\beta_ia_{j-i}^{(i)}(x) dx}{\int_0^c a_0(x)dx}\,.

1256: $$

1257: I.e. $c_0=1,\ c_1=\frac{\int_0^c a_1(x)+\frac{a_0'(x)}2dx}{\int_0^c a_0(x)dx}

1258: =\mu_c(\I_Z)$,

1259: $$

1260: c_2=\frac{1}{\int_0^c a_0(x) dx} \int_0^c

1261: a_2(x) + \frac{a_1'(x)}{2} + \frac{a_0^{''}(x)}{12}\,dx, \quad\mathrm{etc.}

1262: $$

1263: Defining the asymptotic Chow slope of $X$ to be the slope of the empty

1264: subscheme,

1265: $$

1266: \eta\_X(r) = \eta(\O_X,L,r) = \frac{r\chi(L^r)}{a_0} = r^{n+1} + \mu(X)

1267: r^n + \frac{a_2}{a_0}r^{n-1} + \ldots + \frac{a_n}{a_0}r,

1268: $$

1269: we say (with great difficulty) that $X$ is asymptotically

1270: Chow slope strictly destabilised by $Z$ if, for all $r\gg0$,

1271: $$

1272: \eta_c(\I_Z,r)>\eta\_X(r).

1273: $$

1274: 

1275: \begin{thm} \label{chow}

1276:   If a polarised variety is asymptotically Chow slope strictly

1277:   destabilised by $Z$ satisfying (\ref{condition}) then it is

1278:   asymptotically Chow strictly unstable.  

1279: \end{thm}

1280: 

1281: \begin{proof}

1282:   The proof is almost the same as for Theorem

1283:   \ref{thm:kstableslopestable}.  We calculate the coefficient

1284:   $e_{n+1}(r)$ of $k^{n+1}$ in $\tilde{w}_{r,k}$

1285:   (\ref{normalised}),

1286: $$

1287: e_{n+1}(r)\ =\ b_0r\chi(L^r)-a_0w(r)\ =\ (b_0+ca_0)r\chi(L^r)-

1288: a_0\big(w(r)+cr\chi(L^r)\big)

1289: $$

1290: (instead of its $r^n$ coefficient the Donaldson-Futaki invariant) for the

1291: deformation to the normal cone. By Theorem \ref{thm:instability}, if

1292: $e_{n+1}(r)<0$ then $(X,L)$ is Chow unstable with respect to $r$. By the

1293: continuity of $\eta_c$ we may take $c<\epsilon(Z)$,

1294: so that $w(r)$ is calculated by Theorem \ref{degen} and $b_0$ by Proposition

1295: \ref{integrals}, giving

1296: $$

1297: e_{n+1}(r)<0 \quad\Longrightarrow\quad

1298: \int_0^ca_0(x)dx\,r\chi(L^r)<a_0\sum_{j=1}^{cr}\chi(L^r\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j).

1299: $$

1300: Instead of the trapezium rule (\ref{easyeuler}) we use the fact \cite{Hi}

1301: that for any polynomial $f$,

1302: $$

1303: \sum_{j=1}^{cr} f(j/r) = \int_0^c \sum_{i=0}^n

1304: \beta_i \frac{f^{(i)}(x)}{r^{i-1}}dx.

1305: $$

1306: (The case $f(x)=x^m$ follows from the definition of $\beta_i$, implying the

1307: general case by linearity.) The theorem follows

1308: by applying this  to the polynomial $f(x)= a_0(x)r^n + a_1(x)r^{n-1}

1309: +\ldots+a_n(x)=\chi(L^r\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{xr})$. 

1310: \end{proof}

1311: 

1312: 

1313: \section{Simplifying arbitrary test configurations} \label{testconfigs}

1314: 

1315: We begin with an important technical result allowing us to calculate weights

1316: of a test configuration $(\Y,\O_\Y(k))$ in terms of a semi test configuration

1317: $(\X,\L^k)$ that dominates it.

1318: 

1319: So let $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))$ be an equivariantly polarised flat $\C^\times$-family

1320: with general fibre $(X,L)$, and fix another flat $\C^\times$-family $(\X,\L)\to\C$

1321: with a birational $\C^\times$-equivariant map

1322: $$

1323: p\colon(\X,\L)\to(\Y,\O_\Y(1)) \qquad \text{such that }\ \L=p^*\O_\Y(1)

1324: \ (\text{equivariantly}).

1325: $$

1326: 

1327: \begin{prop} \label{stein}

1328: If $X$ is normal then there exists an $a\ge0$ such that

1329: $$

1330: w(H^0_{\Y_0}\!(\O_\Y(k)))

1331: =w\left(H^0_\X(\L^k)\big/tH^0_\X(\L^k)\right)-ak^n+O(k^{n-1}).

1332: $$

1333: \end{prop}

1334: 

1335: \begin{proof}

1336: $p$ factors through the its Stein factorisation (\cite{Ha} Corollary

1337: III.11.5) as

1338: $$

1339: (\X,\L)\Rt{q}(\X'=\Proj\bigoplus_kH^0_\X(\L^k),\O\_{\!\X'}(1))\Rt{p'}(\Y,\O_\Y(1)).

1340: $$

1341: $q_*$ induces an equivariant isomorphism between $H^0_\X(\L^k)$ and

1342: $H^0_{\X'}(\O\_{\!\X'}(k))$ for $k\gg0$, and $\X'$ is flat over $\C$ since

1343: $H^0_\X(\L^k)$ has no $t$-torsion by the flatness of $\X$.

1344: Thus replacing $\X$ by $\X'$ and $p$ by $p'$ if necessary, we may assume

1345: that $p$ is finite and so $\L=p^*\O_\Y(1)$ is ample. Moreover, the general

1346: fibre of $\X'$ is $(X,L)$ by the normality of $X$, so

1347: $(\X,\L^k)$ is now a genuine test configuration for $(X,L^k)$.

1348: 

1349: So we have a $\C^\times$-equivariant morphism of polarised families

1350: $(\X\rt{\Pi\,}\C,\L)\Rt{p}(\Y\rt{\pi}\C,\O_\Y(1))$, and we wish to relate

1351: the total weights of the $\C^\times$-actions on

1352: $H^0_{\Y_0}(\O_\Y(k))$ and $H^0_\X(\L^k)\big/tH^0_\X(\L^k)$; but the latter

1353: is now isomorphic to $H^0_{\X_0}(\L^k)$ for $k\gg0$ by ampleness and flatness.

1354: $p^*$ induces an exact sequence

1355: $$

1356: 0\to\O_\Y\to p_*\O_\X\to Q\to0,

1357: $$

1358: for some cokernel $Q$ supported on $\Y_0$ (since $p$ is an isomorphism away

1359: from the central fibres).

1360: So $t^sQ=0$ for some $s\ge0$. We first give the argument for $s=1$

1361: to illustrate the more technical general case.

1362: 

1363: Tensoring with $\O_\Y(k)$ and pushing down to $\C$ gives an exact sequence on

1364: $\C$,

1365: $$

1366: 0\to\pi_*(\O_\Y(k))\to\Pi_*(\L^k)\to Q_k\to0,

1367: $$

1368: where $Q_k=\pi_*(Q\otimes \O_\Y(k))$ satisfies $tQ_k=0$. Therefore its restriction to $0\in\C$

1369: is also isomorphic to $Q_k$, and Tor$_1(Q_k,\O_0)=\ker\big(Q_k\Rt{\times t}Q_k\big)\cong

1370: Q_k$, giving the exact diagram

1371: $$

1372: \begin{array}{ccccccccc}

1373: & 0 & \to & \pi_*(\O_\Y(k)) & \Rt{p^*} & \Pi_*(\L^k) & \to & \!\!Q_k & \to0

1374: \\ & \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow\wr \\

1375: 0\to & Q_k\! & \to & H^0_{\Y_0}(\O_\Y(k)) & \Rt{p^*} & H^0_{\X_0}(\L^k)

1376: & \to & Q_k|\_0\! & \to0 \\

1377: &&& \downarrow && \downarrow \\ &&& 0 && 0

1378: \end{array}

1379: $$

1380: where the vertical arrows are restriction to $0\in\C$, and the flatness of

1381: $\pi,\,\Pi$ and ampleness of $\O_\Y(1),\,\L$ give the two

1382: central terms and ensure that Tor$_1(\Pi_*(\L^k),\O_0)=0$.

1383: 

1384: These are maps of $\C^\times$-modules, except that the left hand $Q_k$

1385: has weight shifted by $-1$ (i.e.\ is isomorphic to $Q_k\otimes\langle t\rangle$

1386: as a $\C^\times$-module). We see this by exhibiting an explicit weight-$(-1)$

1387: isomorphism $\delta$ from $Q_k$ to the kernel of the lower $p^*$. Given $q\in

1388: Q_k$, choose a lift $\hat q\in\Pi_*(\L^k)$. $t\hat q$ has zero image in $Q_k$

1389: so is in the image of some $f\in\pi_*\O_\Y(k)$. $f|\_0\in H^0_{\Y_0}(\O_\Y(k))$

1390: maps under $p^*$ to $t\hat q|\_0\in  H^0_{\X_0}(\L^k)$, i.e.\ zero, so is

1391: an element $\delta(q)\in\ker p^*=\,$Tor$_1(Q_k,\O_0)$. Since this map involved

1392: multiplication by $t$ it has weight $-1$.

1393: 

1394: So in this case of $s=1$, $w(H^0_{\Y_0}\!(\O_\Y(k)))=w(H^0_{\X_0}(\L^k))-\dim Q_k$, and

1395: $\dim Q_k=ak^n+O(k^{n-1})$, where $a=$\,rank$(Q_k)\O_\Y(1)^n/n!\ge0$ since $Q_k$ is

1396: supported on the $n$-dimensional central fibre.

1397: 

1398: For general $s$ we still have the exact sequence

1399: $$

1400: 0\to\mathrm{Tor}_1(Q_k,\O_0)\to H^0_{\Y_0}(\O_\Y(k))\Rt{p^*} H^0_{\X_0}(\L^k)

1401: \to Q_k|\_0\to0,

1402: $$

1403: where again the first term $\ker\big(Q_k\Rt{\times t}Q_k\big)$ is isomorphic

1404: to the last $Q_k|\_0$. For instance if we pick an isomorphism $Q_k\cong\bigoplus_i

1405: \C[t]/(t^{j_i})$, each $j_i\le s$, then $Q_k|\_0\cong\bigoplus_i\C[t]/(t)$

1406: maps isomorphically via $\oplus_it^{j_i-1}$ to $\bigoplus_i(t^{j_i-1}\C[t])

1407: /(t^{j_i})=\ker\big(Q_k\Rt{\times t}Q_k\big)$. More invariantly, filter

1408: $Q^k$ by $\ker t^j\subseteq\ker t^{j+1}\subseteq\ldots\subseteq\ker t^s=Q^k$,

1409: and so $Q_k|\_0$ by $\ker t^j/(\im t\cap\ker t^j)$ with graded pieces $V^j=

1410: \ker t^j/(\ker t^{j-1}+\im t\cap\ker t^j)$. Then there exists a weight-$(-j)$

1411: ``multiplication

1412: by $t^j$" map taking $V^j$ into $H^0_{\Y_0}(\O_\Y(k))$ whose sum over $j\le

1413: s$ gives an isomorphism to Tor$_1(Q_k,\O_0)=\ker p^*$.

1414: 

1415: The map is defined roughly as before. Given $q\in V^j$, lift to $\ker(Q_k\rt{t^j}Q_k)$

1416: and then to $\hat q\in\Pi_*(\L^k)$. The image of $t^j\hat q$ in $Q_k$

1417: is zero by construction, so is in the image of $f\in\pi_*\O_\Y(k)$. $f|\_0\in

1418: H^0_{\Y_0}(\O_\Y(k))$ maps to $t^j\hat q|\_0\in H^0_{\X_0}(\L^k)$, i.e.\ to

1419: zero since $j\ge1$. Thus $f|\_0=\delta(q)$ for some $\delta(q)\in\ker p^*$.

1420: $\ker t^{j-1}$ and $\im t\cap\ker t^j$ clearly map to zero via this construction,

1421: so $\delta$ is well defined. The upshot is that

1422: $$

1423: w(H^0_{\Y_0}\!(\O_\Y(k)))=w(H^0_{\X_0}(\L^k))-\sum_{j=0}^sj\dim V_j.

1424: $$

1425: $\sum_{j=0}^sj\dim V_j$ is a polynomial in $k$ (since both weights $w$

1426: are), so is $ak^n+O(k^{n-1})$ for some $a\ge0$ because $0\le\sum\dim V_j=\dim

1427: Q_k=O(k^n)$ as before.

1428: \end{proof}

1429: 

1430: \begin{rmk} \label{assumenormal}

1431: In particular if $X$ is normal then for K-stability we need only

1432: consider \emph{normal} test configurations. This is because

1433: any test configuration $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))$ is dominated by its normalisation,

1434: which also has general fibre $X$ if $X$ is normal. The pullback of $\O_\Y(1)$

1435: is ample, so some twist gives another test configuration which is \emph{less

1436: stable} than $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))$, in the sense that it has the same weight to

1437: leading order and a smaller Donaldson-Futaki invariant, by Proposition

1438: \ref{stein} above. 

1439: 

1440: Similarly for Chow stability we may compute the Chow weight of any test

1441: configuration on its normalisation. Of course most of our test configurations

1442: have nonnormal central fibre, however.

1443: \end{rmk}

1444: 

1445: Given any test configuration $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))$ (\ref{any}) we now build

1446: inductively the semi test configuration $(\B_{I_r}(X\times\C),L-E)$

1447: (\ref{ideals}) that dominates it, starting from the deformation to the normal

1448: cone $(\B_{I_1}(X\times\C),L-P)$ of $Z_0$.

1449: 

1450: So let $\X^1\rt{\pi^1}X\times\C$ denote $\B_{I_1}(X\times\C)$, i.e.\ the blow

1451: up in $Z_0\times\{0\}$:

1452: $$

1453: \X^1=\Proj\bigoplus_k\,\S_k, \qquad\qquad \S_k:=(\I_0+(t))^k.

1454: $$

1455: Recall that the central fibre of $\X^1$ is $\widehat X\cup_eP$, where $\widehat

1456: X$ is the blow up of $X$ along $Z_0$ with exceptional divisor $e$, and $P$

1457: is the exceptional divisor of $\pi^1$.

1458: $P$ is a projective cone over $Z_0$ (Proj of the graded algebra over $Z_0$

1459: with $k$th graded piece $\bigoplus_{i=0}^{k-1}\I_0^i/\I_0^{i+1}$) -- the projective

1460: completion of the normal cone to $Z_0\subset X$. Its zero

1461: section $Z_0'$ is a copy of $Z_0$ which fits into a flat

1462: family with the $Z_0\times\{t\}$ in each fibre $X_t$, which we see as follows.

1463: 

1464: The proper transform $\overline{Z_0\times\C}$ is defined

1465: by the graded sheaf of ideals generated by $\I_0\subset\S_1=\I_0+(t)$

1466: in the graded sheaf of algebras $\bigoplus_k\S_k$. That is, $\O(-P)\otimes

1467: \I_{\overline{\!Z_0\times\C}}$ is generated by the sections of $\I_0\subset\S_1$.

1468: It is abstractly isomorphic

1469: to the blow up of $Z_0\times\C$ along its intersection with $Z_0\times\{0\}$,

1470: but this is a divisor in $Z_0\times\C$, so $\overline{Z_0\times\C}\cong

1471: Z_0\times\C$. The central fibre $Z_0'\cong Z_0$ is

1472: defined by the graded sheaf of ideals generated by $\I_0+t\S_1=\I_0+(t^2)

1473: \subset\S_1$. 

1474: 

1475: \begin{figure}[h]

1476: \center{\input{normalcone.pstex_t}}

1477: \end{figure}

1478: 

1479: Similarly the proper transform of $Z_1\times\C$ is the blow up of $Z_1\times\C$

1480: along its intersection $Z_1\times\{0\}$ with $Z_0\times\{0\}$; that is 

1481: $\overline{Z_1\times\C}\cong Z_1\times\C$. It is defined by the graded sheaf

1482: of ideals generated by $\I_0+\I_1\S_1=\I_0+t\I_1\subset\S_1$,

1483: with central fibre $Z_1'\subseteq Z_0'\subset P$ isomorphic to $Z_1$ and

1484: defined by

1485: \begin{equation} \label{I1'}

1486: \I_0+(\I_1+(t))\S_1=\I_0+t\I_1+(t^2)\ \subset\ \S_1.

1487: \end{equation}

1488: 

1489: We now form $\X^2$ by blowing up $\X^1$ in $Z_1'$. Since $\I_0+t\I_1+(t^2)$

1490: is just $I_2$ (\ref{ideals}), we have basically shown that $\X^2$ dominates

1491: $\B_{I_2}(X\times\C)$. Precisely, we have maps $\X^2\rt{\pi^2}

1492: \X^1\rt{\pi^1}X\times\C$, and set $E_1:=(\pi^1)^*P,\ E_2$ to be the exceptional

1493: divisor of $\pi^2$, and $E$ to be the exceptional divisor of $\B_{I_2}(X\times\C)$.

1494: While $\O(-cE_1-eE_2)$ is relatively

1495: ample for $0<e<c$, it is only semi-ample for $e=c$\,:

1496: 

1497: \begin{prop} \label{p}

1498: $\X^2\to X\times\C$ factors through a map $p^2\colon\X^2\to\B_{I_2}(X\times\C)$.

1499: Under this map, $(p^2)^*(\O(-E))=\O(-E_2-E_1)$.

1500: \end{prop}

1501: 

1502: \begin{proof}

1503: For $k$ sufficiently large, $\pi^1_*\O(-kE_1)=(\I_0+(t))^k=\S_k$, in which

1504: the ideal $(\I_0+t\I_1+(t^2))^k$ defines the $k$th power of the ideal of

1505: $Z_1'$ (\ref{I1'}). That is, $(\pi^1\comp\pi^2)^*(\I_0+t\I_1+(t^2))^k\cong

1506: (\pi^2)^*\I_{\!Z_1'}^k(-kP)=\O(-kE_1-kE_2)$.

1507: Therefore the sections $(\I_0+t\I_1+(t^2))^k\subset(\pi^1\comp\pi^2)_*\O(-kE_1-kE_2)$

1508: generate $\O(-kE_1-kE_2)$ and so define a regular map from $\X^2$ to

1509: $\Proj\bigoplus_{k\gg0}(\I_0+t\I_1+(t^2))^k$, i.e.\ to

1510: $$

1511: \Proj\bigoplus_{k\gg0}I^k_2=\B_{I_2}(X\times\C). \vspace{-9mm}

1512: $$ \vspace{2mm}

1513: \end{proof}

1514: 

1515: In fact the contraction $p^2$ just collapses the restriction $P\res{Z_1}$

1516: of the cone $P\to Z_0$ down to $Z_1$, but we will not need this.

1517: 

1518: Similarly in $\X^2$ there is a copy $Z_1''$ of $Z_1$, sitting in a flat

1519: family with $Z_1\subset X$ as the central fibre of the proper transform

1520: $\overline{Z_1\times\C}$. In the coordinate ring

1521: $\bigoplus_k\S_k=\bigoplus_k(\I_0+t\I_1+(t^2))^k$ (we are recycling the symbol

1522: $\S_k$ and shall do so again below) pulled back from $\X$ by the above map

1523: $p^2$ (\ref{p}), $\I_{\overline{Z_1\times\C}}$ is generated by $\I_0+t\I_1\subset

1524: (\I_0+t\I_1+(t^2))$, since this is the largest ideal that localises to $\I_1$

1525: when we invert $t$ and work on $X\times\C^\times$. Thus $\I_{Z_1''}$ is generated

1526: by $\I_0+t\I_1+t(\I_0+t\I_1+(t^2))=\I_0+t\I_1+(t^3)$. 

1527: 

1528: So there is also a $Z_2''\subset Z_1''$, isomorphic to $Z_2$, inside it.

1529: $\overline{Z_2\times\C}$ has ideal generated by $\I_0+t\I_1+t^2\I_2\subset

1530: \S_1=\I_0+t\I_1+(t^2)$, since this is the largest ideal that localises to $\I_2$

1531: when we invert $t$ and work on $X\times\C^\times$. Thus its central fibre

1532: $Z_2''$ is defined by the ideal

1533: \begin{equation} \label{I3}

1534: \I_0+t\I_1+t^2\I_2+t\S_1=\I_0+t\I_1+t^2\I_2+(t^3).

1535: \end{equation}

1536: 

1537: Blowing it up gives $\X^3$, with exceptional divisor $E_3$ (and we denote

1538: the pullbacks to $\X^3$ of $E_1,\,E_2$ by the same notation). Then, just

1539: as in Proposition \ref{p}, the pushdown of $\O_{\X^3}(-E_3-E_2-E_1)$ to $X\times\C$

1540: is generated by $I_3=\I_0+t\I_1+t^2\I_2+(t^3)$ by (\ref{I3}), so $\X^3\to X\times\C$

1541: factors through $\B_{I_3}(X\times\C)$.

1542: 

1543: Inductively we obtain $\X^s\to X\times\C$

1544: as the blow up $\pi^s$ along $Z_{s-1}^{(s-1)}\subset\X^{s-1}$,

1545: the central fibre of the proper transform of $Z_{s-1}

1546: \times\C$. The coordinate ring of $\X^{s-1}$ over $X\times\C$ has $k$th graded

1547: piece $\S_k=(\I_0+t\I_1+\ldots+t^{s-2}\I_{s-2}+(t^{s-1}))^k$, and the ideal

1548: of the proper transform of $\overline{Z_{s-1}\times\C}$ is generated by

1549: $\I_0+\ldots+t^{s-2}\I_{s-2}+t^{s-1}\I_{s-1}\subset\S_1=\I_0+\ldots+t^{s-2}\I_{s-2}

1550: +(t^{s-1})$, since this is the largest ideal that localises to $\I_{s-1}$

1551: when we invert $t$ and work on $X\times\C^\times$. Therefore the ideal of

1552: its central fibre $Z_{s-1}^{(s-1)}$ is generated by

1553: $$

1554: \I_0+\ldots+t^{s-2}\I_{s-2}+t^{s-1}\I_{s-1}+t\S_1\ =\ 

1555: \I_0+\ldots+t^{s-2}\I_{s-2}+t^{s-1}\I_{s-1}+(t^s).

1556: $$

1557: Thus the pushdown of $\O\_{\!\X^s}(-E_s-\ldots-E_1)$ contains $\I_0+t\I_1+

1558: \ldots+t^{s-1}\I_{s-1}+(t^s)$, giving the following, as in Proposition \ref{p}.

1559: 

1560: \begin{thm} \label{pr}

1561: $\X^s\to X\times\C$ factors through a map $p^s\colon\X^s\to\B_{I_s}(X\times\C)$,

1562: where $I_s=\I_0+t\I_1+\ldots+t^s\I_{s-1}+(t^s)$ (\ref{ideals}).

1563: Under this map, $(p^s)^*(\O(-E))=\O(-E_s-\ldots-E_1)$. \hfill$\square$

1564: \end{thm}

1565: 

1566: In turn any test configuration $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))$ is dominated by a map $\phi$

1567: from some $\B_{I_r}(X\times\C)$ (\ref{any}), giving $\rho^r:=\phi\comp p^r\colon

1568: \X^r\to\Y$. Denote by $L_r$ the semi-ample line bundle $(\pi^1\comp\ldots\comp

1569: \pi^r)^*L-E_r-\ldots-E_1$ on $\X^r$, so that $(\rho^r)^*\O_\Y(1)=L_r$.

1570: Then by the above and Proposition \ref{stein} we have

1571: 

1572: \begin{cor} \label{ref}

1573: The total weight on (the $k$th twist of) an arbitrary test configuration

1574: $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))$ can be calculated on $(\X^r,L_r)$ by

1575: $$

1576: w(H^0_{\Y_0}(\O_\Y(k))=

1577: w\left(H^0_{\X^r}(L_r^k)\big/tH^0_{\X^r}(L_r^k)\right)-ak^n+O(k^{n-1}).

1578: $$

1579: \end{cor}

1580: 

1581: \begin{cor} \label{seshadriIr}

1582: The Seshadri constant $\epsilon(I_r)$ of the ideal $I_r$ (\ref{ideals})

1583: is $\min\{\epsilon(Z_i)\}_{i=1}^{r-1}$.

1584: \end{cor}

1585: 

1586: \begin{proof}

1587: If $c\in(0,\min\{\epsilon(Z\_i)\}_{i=1}^{r-1})\cap\Q$ then for $k\gg0$, the sections

1588: $$

1589: H^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_0^{ck})\,\oplus\,t^{ck}H^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_1^{ck})\,\oplus\,

1590: \ldots\,\oplus\,t^{(r-1)ck}H^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_{r-1}^{ck})\,\oplus\,t^{rck}H^0_X(L^k)

1591: $$

1592: saturate $I^{ck}_r$ (\ref{ideals}). Therefore the Seshadri constant of $I_r$

1593: (which is $\ge1$ by the semi ampleness of $L-E$ in (\ref{any})) is at least

1594: $\min\{\epsilon(Z\_i)\}_{i=1}^{r-1}$.

1595: 

1596: We prove the opposite inequality inductively. The induction begins for

1597: $r=0$ by Proposition \ref{ample}; suppose it is true for $r$. That is,

1598: $L-xE$ is nef on $\B_{I_r}(X\times\C))$ precisely when

1599: $x\in[0,\min\{\epsilon(Z_i)\}_{i=1}^{r-1}]$. Equivalently, pulling back by

1600: $p^r$, $L-x(E_1+\ldots+E_r)$ is nef on $\X^r$ if and only if $x\in[0,

1601: \min\{\epsilon(Z_i)\}_{i=1}^{r-1}]$. Pick $c$ such that

1602: $L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_{r+1})$ is nef on $\X^{r+1}$; we must show that

1603: $c\le\min\{\epsilon(Z_i)\}_{i=1}^{r-1}$ and $c\le\epsilon(Z_r)$.

1604: 

1605: To show the former, we claim that since $L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_{r+1})$

1606: is nef on $\X^{r+1}$, $L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_r)$

1607: is nef on $\X^r$. Given any irreducible proper curve $C\subset\X^r$ not entirely

1608: contained in $Z_r^{(r)}$, let $\overline C$ denote its proper transform in

1609: $\X^{r+1}$. Then $[L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_r)].C\ge[L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_{r+1})].\overline

1610: C\ge0$ since $\overline C.E_{r+1}\ge0$. On the other hand if $C\subset Z_r^{(r)}$,

1611: then there is an isomorphic copy $C'\subset Z_r^{(r+1)}\subset\X^{r+1}$ such

1612: that $[L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_r)].C=[L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_{r+1})].C'\ge0$. So indeed

1613: $L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_r)$ is nef on $\X^r$ and so $c\le\min\{\epsilon(Z_i)\}_{i=1}^{r-1}$

1614: by induction.

1615: 

1616: Secondly, fix $c$ such that $L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_r)$

1617: is nef on $\X^r$. $Z_r^{(r)}\cong Z_r$ lies in the central fibre $(\X^r)\_0$,

1618: fitting into a flat family with

1619: $Z_r\times\C^\times$ away from the central fibre. Seshadri constants are

1620: lower semicontinuous in polarised families, so the Seshadri constant (with

1621: respect to $L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_r)$) of $Z_r^{(r)}$ \emph{inside

1622: the central fibre $(\X^r)\_0$} is at most $\epsilon(Z_r)$ (with

1623: respect to $L$, since this is $L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_r)$ restricted to a general

1624: fibre). The Seshadri constant of $Z_r^{(r)}$ inside the whole of

1625: $\X^r$ can only be smaller still; therefore if $L-c(E_1+\ldots+E_r)-cE_{r+1}$

1626: is nef then $c\le\epsilon(Z_r)$.

1627: \end{proof}

1628: 

1629: We could contract each $\X^s$ using $L_s$; this would give an

1630: isomorphism in a neighbourhood of $Z_s^{(s)}$ by (\cite{Ha}

1631: Proposition II.7.3) since $L_s|_{Z_s^{(s)}}

1632: \cong L|\_{Z_s}$ is ample \emph{and} $L_s^k\otimes\I_{\!Z_s^{(s)}}$

1633: is globally generated (by sections of $L^k\otimes(\I_0+t\I_1+\ldots+

1634: t^s\I_s+(t^{s+1}))$ on $X$). Thus we could proceed inductively with these

1635: contracted $\X^s$s with \emph{ample} line bundles on them, but since we

1636: cannot currently seem to get significantly better estimates by working with

1637: ample bundles we proceed with the semi-ample $(\X^s,L_s)$ and contract at

1638: the last, $r$th stage. By Corollary \ref{ref} we lose nothing by ignoring

1639: this contraction and simply calculating the weight on $\X^r$.

1640: 

1641: So, modulo the contraction, we have exhibited any test

1642: configuration (\ref{any}) as a finite number of blow ups (starting with

1643: $X\times\C$) \emph{in subschemes $Z^{(i)}_i$ supported in the scheme theoretic

1644: central fibre} that themselves sit in flat families with the $Z_i\subset X$. We

1645: calculate the weight on such a blow up in Theorem \ref{big}, for which

1646: we need two preliminary results.

1647: 

1648: The following Proposition is the appropriate generalisation to general

1649: test configurations of the case $Z\times\C\subset X\times\C$ used in (\ref{St}),

1650: (\ref{qt}) and (\ref{error}). We will apply it to the flat families

1651: $\Z=\overline{Z_s\times\C}\,\subset\X^s\to\C$

1652: and their thickenings $k\Z$, when these thickenings are also flat.

1653: 

1654: \begin{prop} \label{central}

1655: Fix flat families $\Z\subset\X\to\C$ with central fibres

1656: $Z'\subset\X_0$, such that the thickenings $k\Z\subset\X\to\C$

1657: are also flat over $\C$. Let $\I\_{\!Z'\subset\X}$ (respectively

1658: $\I_{Z'}$) denote the ideal sheaf of $Z'\subset\X$ ($Z'\subset\X_0$).

1659: Then

1660: $$

1661: \frac{\I_{\!Z'\subset\X}^k}{t\I_{\!Z'\subset\X}^k}\ \cong\

1662: \I_{\!Z'}^k\ \oplus\ \bigoplus_{j=1}^k\,t^j

1663: \frac{\I_{\!Z'}^{k-j}}{\I_{\!Z'}^{k-j+1}}\,.

1664: $$

1665: \end{prop}

1666: 

1667: \begin{proof}

1668: Flatness of $\X\to\C$ and $j\Z\to\C$ imply the exactness of the

1669: bottom two rows of the following, from which follows the exactness of the

1670: top row.

1671: $$

1672: \begin{array}{ccccccc}

1673: &0&&0&&0 \\

1674: & \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow \\

1675: 0\to & \I_\Z^j & \rt{t} & \I_\Z^j & \to & \I_{\!Z'}^j & \to0 \\

1676: & \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow \\

1677: 0\to & \O_\X & \rt{t} & \O_\X & \to & \O_{\X_0} & \to0 \\

1678: & \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow \\

1679: 0\to & \O_{j\Z} & \rt{t} & \O_{j\Z} & \to & \O_{jZ'} & \to0 \\

1680: & \downarrow && \downarrow && \downarrow \\

1681: &0&&0&&0

1682: \end{array}

1683: $$

1684: Chasing through either the top two rows or the first two columns then shows

1685: that in $\O_\X$, $(t)\cap\I_\Z^j=t\I_\Z^j$. Also

1686: by flatness there is a similar diagram with $t$ replaced by $t^i$ (and the

1687: right hand column suitably modified) showing that in fact

1688: \begin{equation} \label{one}

1689: (t^i)\cap\I_\Z^j=t^i\I_\Z^j.

1690: \end{equation}

1691: Applying $H^0_\X(L\otimes\,\cdot\,)$ gives a similar exact diagram without

1692: the right hand and lower zeros, so the same argument shows that

1693: \begin{equation} \label{one'}

1694: (t^i)\cap H^0_\X(L\otimes\I_\Z^j)=t^iH^0_\X(L\otimes\I_\Z^j).

1695: \end{equation}

1696: The top row also gives $\I_\Z^j/t\I_\Z^j=\I_{\!Z'}^j$, which implies that

1697: \begin{equation} \label{four}

1698: \frac{\I_\Z^j}{\I_\Z^{j+1}+t\I_\Z^j}=\frac{\I_{\!Z'}^j}{\I_{\!Z'}^{j+1}}\,.

1699: \end{equation}

1700: $\I\_{Z'\subset\X}=\I_\Z+(t)$, so $\I_{\!Z'\subset\X}^k=

1701: \sum_{j=0}^k t^j\I_\Z^{k-j}$ and

1702: \begin{equation} \label{five}

1703: \frac{\I_{\!Z'\subset\X}^k}{t\I_{\!Z'\subset\X}^k}=

1704: \frac{\sum_{j=0}^k t^j\I_\Z^{k-j}}{\sum_{j=0}^k t^{j+1}\I_\Z^{k-j}}=

1705: \sum_{j=0}^k\frac{t^j\I_\Z^{k-j}}{t^j\I_\Z^{k-j}\ \cap\ \sum_{i=0}^k

1706: t^{i+1}\I_\Z^{k-i}}\,,

1707: \end{equation}

1708: where we use the fact that in an abelian category, for $A,B,C\subset V$

1709: with $C\subset A+B$, we have $(A+B)/C=A/(A\cap C)+B/(B\cap C)$ in $V/C$.

1710: We claim that

1711: \begin{equation} \label{three}

1712: t^j\I_\Z^{k-j}\ \cap\ \sum_{i=0}^kt^{i+1}\I_\Z^{k-i}=

1713: t^j\I_\Z^{k-j+1}+t^{j+1}\I_\Z^{k-j},

1714: \end{equation}

1715: except for $j=0$ when the right hand side becomes $t\I_\Z^k$.

1716: The inclusion $\supseteq$ is clear. For $\subseteq$, consider the left

1717: hand side:

1718: \begin{eqnarray*}

1719: t^j\I_\Z^{k-j} \!\!&\cap&\!\! \left((t\I_\Z^k+\ldots+t^j\I_\Z^{k-j+1})+

1720: (t^{j+1}\I_\Z^{k-j}+\ldots+(t^{k+1}))\right) \\

1721: \subseteq t^j\I_\Z^{k-j} \!\!&\cap&\!\! \left(t\I_\Z^{k-j+1}+(t^{j+1})\right).

1722: \end{eqnarray*}

1723: An element of this can be written as $t^jf=tg+t^{j+1}h$, that is

1724: $t^{j-1}f-g=t^jh$, where $f\in\I_\Z^{k-j},\ g\in\I_\Z^{k-j+1}$

1725: and so $t^{j-1}f-g\in\I_\Z^{k-j}$.

1726: So $t^jh\in(t^j)\cap\I_\Z^{k-j}$, which by (\ref{one}) is $t^j\I_\Z^{k-j}$.

1727: Thus $h$ may be taken to lie in $\I_\Z^{k-j}$. Similarly

1728: $g\in(t^{j-1})\cap\I_\Z^{k-j+1}=t^{j-1}\I_\Z^{k-j+1}$.

1729: Therefore $t^jf=tg+t^{j+1}h\in t^j\I_\Z^{k-j+1}+t^{j+1}\I_\Z^{k-j}$, proving

1730: the inclusion.

1731: 

1732: So by (\ref{three}) and (\ref{four}), equation (\ref{five}) has become

1733: $$

1734: \frac{\I_{\!Z'\subset\X}^k}{t\I_{\!Z'\subset\X}^k}=\frac{\I_\Z^k}{t\I_\Z^k}+

1735: \sum_{j=0}^k t^j \frac{\I_\Z^{k-j}}{\I_\Z^{k-j+1}+t\I_\Z^{k-j}}

1736: =\I_{\!Z'}^k+\sum_{j=0}^k t^j\frac{\I_{\!Z'}^{k-j}}{\I_{\!Z'}^{k-j+1}}\,.

1737: $$

1738: To check that the sum is direct, intersect the $j$th numerator with the others:

1739: $$

1740: t^j\I_\Z^{k-j}\cap\sum_{p\ne j}t^p\I_\Z^{k-p}\subseteq t^j\I_\Z^{k-j}\cap

1741: \left(\I_\Z^{k-j+1}+(t^{j+1})\right).

1742: $$

1743: By the same methods as before this lies in $t^j\I_\Z^{k-j+1}+t^{j+1}\I_\Z^{k-j}$,

1744: which is the $j$th denominator, as required.

1745: \end{proof}

1746: 

1747: To apply the above result inductively to the $\X^i$ requires the flatness

1748: of the

1749: thickenings $k(\overline{Z_i\times\C})$ in $\X^i$ of the proper transforms

1750: of the $Z_i\times\C\subset X\times\C$. This is only automatic for $k=1$,

1751: but also holds for arbitrary $k$ if the $Z_i$ and $X$ are all \emph{smooth},

1752: or, we shall show, if:

1753: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

1754: \text{\emph{$X$ is reduced, each $Z_{r-1}\subseteq\ldots\subseteq Z_0$ is

1755: a Cartier divisor in $X$, and any irreducible}} \hspace{-1cm} \\ \label{reduced}

1756: \text{\emph{component common to any pair $Z_i,\,Z_j$ has the same

1757: multiplicity in each.}} \quad

1758: \end{eqnarray}

1759: This odd looking condition is clearly satisfied if, for instance, each $Z_i$

1760: is reduced.

1761: 

1762: \begin{prop} \label{flat}

1763: Suppose that $X$ and the $Z_i$ satisfy (\ref{reduced}).

1764: Then $j(\overline{Z_i\times\C})\subset \X^i$ is flat over $\C$ for each

1765: $j\in\mathbb N$.

1766: \end{prop}

1767: 

1768: \begin{proof}

1769: Firstly, consider $\overline{j(Z_i\times\C)}$. Its ideal is defined by

1770: those functions which, on restriction to $t\ne0$, lie in $\I_{\!Z_i\times

1771: \C^\times}^j$. Since $t$ is invertible there, this implies that if $tf\in

1772: \I\_{\overline{j(Z_i\times\C)}}$ then $f\in\I\_{\overline{j(Z_i\times\C)}}$\,.

1773: Therefore the structure sheaf of

1774: $\overline{j(Z_i\times\C)}$ has no $t$-torsion. It is also flat away from

1775: $t=0$ (where it is $j(Z_i\times\C^\times)$); thus $\overline{j(Z_i\times\C)}$

1776: is automatically flat over $\C$.

1777: 

1778: $\I\_{\overline{j(Z_i\times\C)}}\supseteq\I^j_{\overline{Z_i\times\C}}$;

1779: therefore to prove that $j(\overline{Z_i\times\C})$ is flat over $\C$ it

1780: is sufficient to prove the opposite inclusion

1781: \begin{equation} \label{inclusion}

1782: \I\_{\overline{j(Z_i\times\C)}}\ \subseteq\ \I^j_{\overline{Z_i\times\C}}\,.

1783: \end{equation}

1784: 

1785: $\X^i$ is obtained by blowing up $\X^{i-1}$ in $Z_{i-1}^{(i-1)}$; we claim

1786: the complement

1787: $\X^i_\text{aff}$ of the proper transform $\overline{(\X^{i-1})\_0}$ of the

1788: central fibre in $\X^i$ is affine over $X\times\C$ with coordinate ring

1789: \vspace{3mm} \begin{equation} \vspace{-11mm} \label{coord} \end{equation}

1790: \begin{multline*}

1791: \!\!\sum_{a\_0,a\_1,\ldots,a\_{i-1}\ge0}\left(\!\frac{\I_0}{t^i}\!\right)^{\!a_0}

1792: \!.\!\left(\!\frac{\I_1}{t^{i-1}}\!\right)^{\!a_1}

1793: \!\ldots\!\left(\!\frac{\I_{i-1}}t\!\right)^{\!a\_{i-1}}\ = \\

1794: \O_X\otimes\C[t]\ +\ \frac{\I_{\!i-1}}t\ +\ \frac{\I_{\!i-2}+\I_{\!i-1}^2}{t^2}

1795: \ +\ \frac{\I_{\!i-3}+\I_{\!i-2}\I_{\!i-1}+\I_{\!i-1}^3}{t^3}\ +\ \ldots,

1796: \end{multline*}

1797: with its obvious ring structure. Each $\I_i$ is an $\O_X$-module, so the

1798: whole ring inherits an $\O_X\otimes\C[t]$-module structure, corresponding

1799: to the projection to $X\times\C$.

1800: 

1801: There are many ways to see this. One is to note that, away from $\overline

1802: {(\X^{i-1})\_0}$\,, the map to $\B_{I_i}(X\times\C)$ of Theorem

1803: \ref{pr} is an isomorphism. This is because, in the notation of that section,

1804: sections of $\O(-E_1-\ldots-E_i)$ over $X\times\C$ do not contract the

1805: exceptional divisor $E_i$ of the blow up of $\X^{i-1}$ in $Z_{i-1}^{(i-1)}$

1806: (as noted in the remarks following the proof of Corollary \ref{seshadriIr}).

1807: Let $E$ denote the exceptional divisor of

1808: $\B_{I_i}(X\times\C)$, and $s_E\in H^0(\O(E))$ the canonical section

1809: vanishing on $E$. For $k\gg0$, the sections of $\O(-kE)$ are the sections

1810: of $I_i^k/s_E^k$ (that is, pull back sections of $I_i^k$ from

1811: $X\times\C$ to $\B_{I_i}(X\times\C)$ and divide by $s_E^k$ to get a

1812: regular section of $\O(-kE)$). $t^i\in I_i=\I_0+t\I_1+\ldots+

1813: t^{i-1}\I_{i-1}+(t^i)$

1814: defines the section $t^i/s_E$ of $\O(-E)$ which trivialises $\O(-E)$ over

1815: $\X^i_\text{aff}$ -- the complement of its zero locus $\overline{(\X^{i-1})\_0}$.

1816: Using this trivialisation identifies the functions on $\X^i_\text{aff}$ which

1817: have poles of order $\le k$ on $\overline{(\X^{i-1})\_0}$ with

1818: $$

1819: \frac{I_i^k}{t^{ik}}\ =\ 

1820: \left(\O+\frac{\I_{i-1}}{t}+\ldots+\frac{\I_0}{t^i}\right)^k;

1821: $$

1822: taking the limit as $k\to\infty$ gives the regular functions (\ref{coord}).

1823: 

1824: Alternatively, we can work inductively with the $\X^j$. A similar analysis

1825: as above shows the coordinate ring of the complement of $\overline{\X_0}$

1826: in the blow up of a family $\X$ over $\C$ in an ideal $I+(t)$ is

1827: \begin{equation} \label{BI}

1828: \O_\X+\frac It+\frac{I^2}{t^2}+\frac{I^3}{t^3}+\ldots

1829: \end{equation}

1830: Thus we find the coordinate ring of $\X^1_\text{aff}=\X^1\backslash\,

1831: \overline{X\times\{0\}}$ is

1832: $$

1833: \O_X\otimes\C[t]\,+\,\frac{\I_0}t\,+\,\frac{\I_0^2}{t^2}\,+\,\frac{\I_0^3}{t^3}\,+\ldots

1834: $$

1835: Inside this the ideal of $\overline{Z_1\times\C}$ is $\I_1+\frac{\I_0}t+

1836: \frac{\I_0^2}{t^2}+\ldots$ (as this is the largest ideal that localises

1837: to $\I_1\otimes\C[t,t^{-1}]$ on $t\ne0$); applying (\ref{BI}) to this ideal

1838: $I$ gives the coordinate ring of $\X^2_\text{aff}=\X^2\backslash\,

1839: \overline{(\X^1)_0}$ as

1840: $$

1841: \O_X\otimes\C[t]\ +\ \frac{\I_1}t\ +\ \frac{\I_1^2+\I_0}{t^2}\ +\ 

1842: \frac{\I_1^3+\I_0\I_1}{t^3}\ +\ \ldots

1843: $$

1844: But this is the $i=2$ case of (\ref{coord}), and inductively we recover it

1845: for all $i$. In (\ref{coord}) we have the ideal

1846: \begin{equation} \label{kZ}

1847: \I\_{\overline{j(Z_i\times\C)}}\ =\ 

1848: \sum_{a\_0,a\_1,\ldots,a\_{i-1}\ge0}\frac{\I_i^j\cap(\I_0^{a_0}.\I_1^{a_1}

1849: \ldots\I_{i-1}^{a\_{i-1}})}{t^{ia_0}.t^{(i-1)a_1}\ldots t^{a\_{i-1}}}\,,

1850: \end{equation}

1851: as this is the largest ideal that localises to $\I_i^j\otimes\C[t,t^{-1}]$

1852: on $t\ne0$. In the $j=1$ case, $\I_i\subseteq\I_0^{a_0}.\I_1^{a_1}

1853: \ldots\I_{i-1}^{a\_{i-1}}$ unless $a_j=0\ \forall j$,

1854: so $\I\_{\overline{Z_i\times\C}}$ differs from (\ref{coord}) only in the

1855: first term $\I_i\subset\O_X\otimes\C[t]$:

1856: \begin{equation} \label{Z}

1857: \I\_{\overline{Z_i\times\C}}\ =\ \I_i\ +\!\sum_{a\_j\ge0,\ \sum_{j=0}^{i-1}a_j\ge1}

1858: \frac{\I_0^{a_0}.\I_1^{a_1}

1859: \ldots\I_{i-1}^{a\_{i-1}}}{t^{ia_0}.t^{(i-1)a_1}\ldots t^{a\_{i-1}}}\,.

1860: \end{equation}

1861: By (\ref{inclusion}) we are left with showing that each term of (\ref{kZ}) is

1862: contained in the $j$th power of (\ref{Z}):

1863: \begin{equation} \label{Zk}

1864: \I^j_{\overline{Z_i\times\C}}\ =\sum_{p=0}^j\left(\sum_{a\_j\ge0,\

1865: \sum_{j=0}^{i-1}a_j\ge p}\!\!\I_i^{j-p}\cdot\frac{\I_0^{a_0}.\I_1^{a_1}

1866: \ldots\I_{i-1}^{a\_{i-1}}}{t^{ia_0}.t^{(i-1)a_1}\ldots t^{a\_{i-1}}}\right).

1867: \end{equation}

1868: 

1869: We now work locally, where the conditions (\ref{reduced}) on $Z_i\subseteq

1870: Z_{i-1}\subseteq\ldots\subseteq Z_0$ imply that

1871: $\I_i=(f_i)$ and $\I_j=(g_jf_i),\ j\le i-1$ for some $g_j$

1872: \emph{which do not divide} $f_i$. Therefore,

1873: for any $a_j\ge0$ with $p:=\sum_{j=0}^{i-1}a_j\le j$, we have

1874: \begin{multline*}

1875: \I_i^j\cap(\I_0^{a_0}\ldots\I_{i-1}^{a\_{i-1}})=

1876: (f_i^j)\cap(f_i^p.g_0^{a_0}\ldots g_{i-1}^{a\_{i-1}})

1877: =(f_i^j.g_0^{a_0}\ldots g_{i-1}^{a\_{i-1}}) \\

1878: =(f_i^{j-p}.f_i^p.g_0^{a_0}\ldots g_{i-1}^{a\_{i-1}})

1879: =\I_i^{p-a}.\I_0^{a_0}\ldots\I_{i-1}^{a\_{i-1}},

1880: \end{multline*}

1881: using the fact the $\O_X$ is

1882: torsion-free. This gives the desired inclusion.

1883: \end{proof}

1884: 

1885: To apply Proposition \ref{flat} will involve replacing $X$ by a blow up on

1886: which the pullbacks of the $Z_i$ are divisors. Pulling back the polarisation,

1887: we find we are forced to work with a semi-ample line bundle. To this end,

1888: for any $Z\subset X$ and \emph{semi-ample} $L\to X$, we define 

1889: \begin{equation} \label{wkZ}

1890: w_k(Z):=\sum_{j=1}^{ck}h^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)-ckh^0_X(L^k)

1891: \end{equation}

1892: (cf. (\ref{degen}) and (\ref{ss})) for any $c\in\Q$ such that $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck}$

1893: is saturated by its global sections. This equals

1894: \begin{equation} \label{wkchi}

1895: w_k(Z)=\sum_{j=1}^{ck}\chi\_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)-ck\chi\_X(L^k)+O(k^n)

1896: \qquad (O(k^{n-1})\text{ for $L$ ample}),

1897: \end{equation}

1898: by the following generalisation of Lemma \ref{error} applied to $Z$ and

1899: $Z=\emptyset$.

1900: 

1901: \begin{lem} \label{wkerror}

1902: For $Z\subset X,\ L\to X$ semi-ample, and $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck}$ saturated

1903: by global sections for $k\gg0$,

1904: $\sum_{j=1}^{ck}h^{\ge1}(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)=O(k^n)$.

1905: \end{lem}

1906: 

1907: \begin{proof}

1908: Consider the

1909: blow up of $X\times\PP^1$ in $Z\times\{0\}$ with exceptional divisor $P$

1910: and line bundle $\O_{\PP^1}(ck)\boxtimes L^k-ckP$. This is semi-ample, generated

1911: by $t^{ck}\boxtimes H^0_X(L^k)\,+\,s^{ck}\boxtimes H^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck})$,

1912: where $s,\,t\in H^0(\O_{\PP^1}(1))$ are the sections vanishing at $\infty,

1913: \,0\in\PP^1$ respectively. So its higher

1914: cohomology has total dimension bounded by $O(k^n)$. But by pushing down

1915: first to $X\times\PP^1$, then to $X$, this higher cohomology can be computed

1916: as $\bigoplus_{j=0}^{ck}s^{ck-j}t^j\boxtimes H^{\ge1}_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{ck-j})$,

1917: of total dimension $\sum_{j=1}^{ck}h^{\ge1}(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)$.

1918: \end{proof}

1919: 

1920: Fix $(\X,L)\to\C$ such that for $k\gg0$, $(\X,L^k)$ is a semi test configuration

1921: for $(X,L^k)$. Given $\Z\subset\X$ a $\C^\times$-invariant

1922: subscheme, denote its general fibre by $Z\subset X$ and central fibre $Z'\subset

1923: \X_0$. Let $(\B_{Z'}(\X),\L_c)\rt{\pi}(\X,L)$

1924: denote the blow up of $\X$ along $Z'$, with exceptional divisor $E$ and

1925: line bundle $\L_c=\pi^*L-cE$. (As usual $c\in(0,\epsilon(Z'))$ or $c=\epsilon(Z')$

1926: if $L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z'}^{\epsilon(Z')k}$ is saturated by

1927: global sections for $k\gg0$.) Thus $\L_c$ is semi-ample by Proposition

1928: \ref{ample}, making $(\B_{Z'}(\X),\L_c^k)$ a semi test configuration for

1929: $(X,L^k)$ for $k\gg0$.

1930: 

1931: Then we have the following generalisation of Theorems \ref{degen} and \ref{ss}.

1932: 

1933: \begin{thm} \label{big}

1934: In the above situation, suppose that the thickenings $j\Z\subset\X$ are flat

1935: over $\C$ for all $j\in\mathbb N$, and the $\C^\times$-action on

1936: $H^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k)$ has only weights

1937: which lie between $-Ck$ and $0$, for some $C>0$. Then

1938: $$

1939: w\big(H^0_{\X_0}(L^k)\big)=w\big(H^0_\X(L^k)\big/tH^0_\X(L^k)\big)+O(k^n),

1940: $$

1941: $H^0_{(\B_{Z'}(\X))\_0}\!(\L_c^k)$ has only weights which lie between $-(C+c)k$

1942: and $0$, and

1943: $$

1944: w\big(H^0_{(\B_{Z'}(\X))\_0}\!(\L_c^k)\big)=w\big(H^0_{\X_0}(L^k)\big)+w_k(Z)

1945: +O(k^n).

1946: $$

1947: If $L$ is ample then the first $O(k^n)$ correction vanishes, and if in

1948: addition either $c<\epsilon(Z')$ or the $\C^\times$-action on

1949: $H^0_{\X_0}(L^k)$ is trivial then the second correction is $O(k^{n-1})$.

1950: \end{thm}

1951: 

1952: \begin{proof}

1953: $(\Y=\Proj\bigoplus_kH^0_\X(L^k),\O_\Y(1))$ is a polarised

1954: family over $\C$ with general fibre $(\Proj\bigoplus_kH^0_X(L^k),\O(1))$.

1955: It is flat because $H^0_\X(L^k)$ has no $t$-torsion, by the flatness of

1956: $\X$. For $k\gg0$, by the flatness of $\Y$ and ampleness of

1957: $\O_\Y(1)$, the central fibre has sections $H^0_{\Y_0}(\O(k))=

1958: H^0_\Y(\O(k))\big/tH^0_\Y(\O(k))=H^0_\X(L^k)\big/tH^0_\X(L^k)$. Again by

1959: flatness and ampleness, this has the same dimension

1960: as for the general fibre, which is $h^0_X(L^k)$, which equals

1961: $\chi\_X(L^k)+O(k^{n-1})$ by semi-ampleness. In turn by flatness and

1962: semi-ampleness, this equals $\chi\_{\X_0}(L^k)+O(k^{n-1})=

1963: h^0_{\X_0}(L^k)+O(k^{n-1})$. Therefore the inclusion

1964: $$

1965: \frac{H^0_\X(L^k)}{tH^0_\X(L^k)}\ \subseteq\ H^0_{\X_0}(L^k)

1966: $$

1967: has codimension $O(k^{n-1})$. This inclusion is $\C^\times$-equivariant,

1968: and all weights on the right hand side lie between $-Ck$ and $0$ by assumption.

1969: Therefore the total weights on the two vector spaces differ by at most

1970: $O(k^n)$, as claimed. If $L$ is ample then by cohomology vanishing

1971: $H^0_{\X_0}(L^k)=H^0_\X(L^k)\big/tH^0_\X(L^k)$ and the correction vanishes.

1972: \\

1973: 

1974: To streamline notation we fix the convention in the proof of the second

1975: result that

1976: $ck+1=\infty$ so that, for instance, $\I_{\!Z'}^{ck}/\I_{\!Z'}^{ck+1}$ means

1977: $\I_{\!Z'}^{ck}$ and we can deal with all of the terms in Proposition \ref{central}

1978: uniformly. For $k\gg0$, this gives

1979: \begin{equation} \label{HBl}

1980: H^0_{(\B_{Z'}(\X))\_0}\!(\L_c^k)=H^0_{\X_0}\!\bigg(L^k\otimes

1981: \frac{\I_{\!Z'\subset\X}^{ck}}{t\I_{\!Z'\subset\X}^{ck}}\bigg)=

1982: \bigoplus_{i=0}^{ck}\ t^i\,H^0_{\X_0}\!\left(\!L^k\otimes

1983: \frac{\I_{\!Z'}^{ck-i}}{\I_{\!Z'}^{ck-i+1}}\right).

1984: \end{equation}

1985: Since the weight on $t^i$ is $-i$ and lies between $-ck$ and $0$,  this

1986: shows the weights on $H^0_{(\B_{Z'}(\X))\_0}\!(\L_c^k)$ indeed lie between

1987: $-(C+c)k$ and $0$. Included in this $\C^\times$-module is

1988: \begin{equation} \label{split2}

1989: \bigoplus_{i=0}^{ck}\ t^i\frac{H^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k\otimes

1990: \I_{\!Z'}^{ck-i})}{H^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z'}^{ck-i+1})}\,,

1991: \end{equation}

1992: of dimension $h^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k)$, which we have already noted above

1993: is the same as $h^0_X(L^k)$ to $O(k^{n-1})$. The same working (applied

1994: to $(\B_{Z'}(\X),\L_c)$ instead of $(\X,L)$) shows that

1995: $h^0_{(\B_{Z'}(\X))\_0}\!(\L_c^k)$ also equals $h^0_X(L^k)+O(k^{n-1})$.

1996: Thus the $-(C+c)k$-bound on weights means we can instead calculate the

1997: weight on (\ref{split2}) at the expense of an $O(k^n)$ error.

1998: If $L$ is ample and $c<\epsilon(Z')$ then $\L_c$ is also ample, so

1999: $h^0_{(\B_{Z'}(\X))\_0}\!(\L_c^k)=h^0_X(L^k)=h^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k)$ and we

2000: can calculate the weight on (\ref{split2}) without error.

2001: Finally if $c=\epsilon(Z')$ and $L$ is ample

2002: then as in Proposition \ref{error}, (\ref{HBl}) and (\ref{split2}) agree

2003: for all but $i=0,\ldots eN$ (independent of $k$) so if the $\C^\times$-action

2004: on $H^0_{\X_0}(L^k)$ is trivial then their weights differ by

2005: $\le\sum_{i=0}^{eN}ih^1(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z'}^{ck-i+1})\le eN.O(k^{n-1})=O(k^{n-1})$.

2006: 

2007: Define $V^0:=H^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k)$, and

2008: \begin{equation} \label{filt}

2009: V^p:=H^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z'}^p)\subseteq V^{p-1}\subseteq\ldots

2010: \subseteq V^0.

2011: \end{equation}

2012: Let $V^0=\bigoplus_{j=-Ck}^{\,0}V^{0,j}$ be its weight space decomposition.

2013: Given such a splitting $\bigoplus_jV^{0,j}$ of a vector space

2014: $V^0$, the generic subspace $V^p\subset V^0$ is not generated

2015: by the pieces $V^{p,j}:=V^p\cap V^{0,j}$; i.e.\ $V^p\supsetneq

2016: \bigoplus_jV^{p,j}$. But if $V^0$ has a $\C^\times$-action whose weight space

2017: decomposition is $\bigoplus_jV^{0,j}$, and each $V^p\subset V^0$ is

2018: $\C^\times$-invariant, then indeed

2019: \begin{equation} \label{filt1}

2020: V^p=\bigoplus_jt^jV^{p,j} \qquad\text{and}\qquad \frac{V^p}{V^{p+1}}\cong

2021: \bigoplus_jt^j\frac{V^{p,j}}{V^{p+1,j}}\,.

2022: \end{equation}

2023: This holds here since $\I_{\!Z'}^p$ is $\C^\times$-invariant.

2024: 

2025: So the splitting $\bigoplus_{i=0}^{ck}t^iV^{k-i}\big/V^{k-i+1}$ (\ref{split2})

2026: further splits as

2027: \begin{equation} \label{split9}

2028: \bigoplus_{i,j}t^i\frac{V^{ck-i,j}}{V^{ck-i+1,j}}\,.

2029: \end{equation}

2030: Defining $h^{a,b}:=\dim V^{ck-a,b}/V^{ck-a+1,b}$, the weight on the determinant

2031: of (\ref{split9}) is $\sum_{i,j}(-i+j)h^{i,j}$.

2032: 

2033: By (\ref{filt1}), $\sum_jh^{i,j}=\dim V^{ck-i}/\dim V^{ck-i+1}$, which by (\ref{filt})

2034: is $h^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z'}^{ck-i})-h^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z'}^{ck-i+1})$.

2035: So as in (\ref{noco}), $-\sum_{i=0}^{ck}i\sum_jh^{i,j}=\sum_{i=1}^{ck}h^0_{\X_0}

2036: (L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z'}^i)\,-ckh^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k)$.

2037: 

2038: Similarly, the fact that $V^{i+1,j}\subset V^{i,j}\subset\ldots\subset V^{0,j}$

2039: filters $V^{0,j}$ means that $\sum_ih^{i,j}=\dim V^{0,j}$. Therefore

2040: $$

2041: w\big(H^0_{(\B_{Z'}(\X))\_0}\!(\L_c^k)\big)=\sum_{i,j}(-i+j)h^{i,j}=

2042: -\sum_{i=0}^{ck}i\bigg(\!\sum_jh^{i,j}\bigg)

2043: +\!\sum_{j=-Ck}^0j\bigg(\!\sum_ih^{i,j}\bigg)+O(k^n)

2044: $$

2045: equals

2046: $$

2047: \sum_{i=1}^{ck}h^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z'}^{ck-i})-ckh^0_{\X_0}\!(L^k)\

2048: +\sum_{j=-Ck}^0j\dim V^{0,j}+O(k^n).

2049: $$

2050: We can replace $h^0$ by $\chi$ at the expense of $O(k^n)$ by Lemma \ref{wkerror}

2051: (and at the expense of $O(k^{n-1})$, by Proposition \ref{error}, if $L$

2052: is ample). But $\I_{\!Z'}^j\subset\O_{\X_0}$ sits in a flat family with

2053: $\I_{\!Z}^j\subset\O_X$, in which Euler characteristics are preserved, so the above

2054: weight is

2055: \begin{multline*}

2056: \sum_{j=1}^{ck}\chi\_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^j)-ckh^0_X(L^k)+w\big(

2057: H^0_{\X_0}(L^k)\big)+O(k^n) \\

2058: =w_k(Z)+w\big(H^0_{\X_0}(L^k)\big)+O(k^n),

2059: \end{multline*}

2060: by (\ref{wkchi}). And if $L$ is ample and if either $c<\epsilon(Z')$ or the

2061: $\C^\times$-action on $H^0_{\X_0}(L^k)$ is trivial then the correction

2062: is $O(k^{n-1})$.

2063: \end{proof}

2064: 

2065: 

2066: \section{Towards a converse} \label{converse}

2067: 

2068: To apply Theorem \ref{big} to Corollary \ref{ref} to express weights of test

2069: configurations (\ref{any}) as sums of $w_k(Z)$s requires flatness of the

2070: thickenings $j(\overline{Z_i\times\C})$ in $\X^i$. To help achieve this by

2071: applying

2072: Proposition \ref{flat} we assume that $X$ is reduced and pass to a blow up

2073: $p\colon\widehat X\to X$ on which the (pullbacks of the) $Z_i$ are Cartier

2074: divisors $D_i$: $p^*\I_{Z_i}=\O(-D_i)$. In fact

2075: by Hironaka's resolution of singularities we may take the $D_i$ to have simple

2076: normal crossing (snc) support. That

2077: is there are smooth reduced divisors $\{F_j\}\subset\widehat X$ such that

2078: $F=\cup_jF_j$ has simple normal crossings and $D_i=\sum_jm_{ij}F_j$ for each

2079: $i$ and some nonnegative integers $m_{ij}$. We pull $L$ back

2080: to $\widehat X$, and construct the families $(\XX^s,L_s)\to\C$

2081: as before, using $D_s\subset\widehat X$ in place

2082: of $Z_s\subset X$. There are equivariant surjective maps $\XX^s\to\X^s$

2083: which identify (by pullback) the $L_s$

2084: line bundles, defined by pulling back sections of $L^k\otimes\I_i^j$ on $X$

2085: to sections of $L^k\otimes\O(-jm_iD_i)$ on $\widehat X$.

2086: 

2087: \begin{thm} \label{bigger}

2088: Suppose that $X$ is normal, and fix an arbitrary test configuration $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))$

2089: (\ref{any}) with associated subschemes $Z_0\subseteq\ldots\subseteq Z_{r-1}\subset

2090: X$ (\ref{ideals}). Suppose that there is a resolution $D_0\subseteq\ldots\subseteq

2091: D_{r-1}\subset\widehat X$ with divisors $D_i$ satisfying condition

2092: (\ref{reduced}). (For instance if the connected components of the snc divisors

2093: $D_i$ have the same multiplicities locally, i.e.\ $m_{ij}\in\{0,m\}$ for some

2094: locally constant $m$ and all $i$. E.g. if the $D_i$ are all reduced, which

2095: is the $m=1$ case.) Then

2096: $$

2097: w(H^0_{\Y_0}\!(\O_\Y(k)))=\sum_{i=0}^{r-1}w_k(Z_i)+O(k^n).

2098: $$ 

2099: \end{thm}

2100: 

2101: \begin{proof}

2102: $(\XX^r,L_r)$ dominates $(\X^r,L_r)$ which in turn dominates

2103: $(\B_{I_r}(X\times\C),\L_1)$ and so $(\Y,\O_\Y(1))$,

2104: and the space of sections of the $k$th power of the line bundle on the

2105: general fibre is $h^0_X(L^k)$ for all three, by the normality of $X$.

2106: Therefore by Proposition \ref{stein}

2107: and the first part of Theorem \ref{big} we may calculate $w(H^0_{(\widehat

2108: \X^r)\_0}\!(L_r^k))$ at the expense of an $O(k^n)$ error.

2109: 

2110: We apply Theorem \ref{big} inductively to $\X=\XX^i$ with $c=1$ (which is

2111: $\le\epsilon(Z_i)=\epsilon(D_i)=\epsilon(D^{(i)}_i)$ by Corollary

2112: \ref{seshadriIr}) and $\Z=\overline{D_i\times\C}$ with central fibre

2113: $D_i^{(i)}$. The condition (\ref{reduced}) on the $D_i$ guarantees that each

2114: $j(\overline{D_i\times\C})$ is flat over $\C$ by Proposition \ref{flat}.

2115: 

2116: The induction starts with $\widehat X\times\C$, for which all weights are

2117: zero so trivially satisfy the $-Ck$ bound. Theorem \ref{big} then ensures

2118: the induction continues to compute the weight as

2119: $$

2120: \sum_{i=0}^{r-1}w_k(D_i)+O(k^n).

2121: $$

2122: Since $X$ is normal, all sections of $p^*L$ on $\widehat X$ are pullbacks

2123: from $X:\ H^0_{\widehat X}(L^k)\cong H^0_X(L^k)$. Thus the same is true of

2124: those sections vanishing on the pullback of $Z_i:\ H^0_{\widehat X}

2125: (L^k\otimes\I_{\!D_i}^j)\cong H^0_X(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z_i}^j)$. Thus $w_k(D_i)

2126: =w_k(Z_i)$ by their definition (\ref{wkZ}), as required.

2127: \end{proof}

2128: 

2129: In particular we can now calculate the leading order term of the weight if

2130: the snc divisors

2131: $D_i$ in a resolution of singularities $\widehat X$ of $(X,Z_i)$ are

2132: reduced. The next case we consider is when they have multiplicities which

2133: can vary with $i$ but are still locally constant over their snc support.

2134: Here the relevant flatness result does not hold, but we will find that it

2135: does after performing a basechange and normalisation.

2136: 

2137: So we consider the case when $I_r$ (\ref{ideals}) is locally of the form

2138: \begin{equation} \label{ideal}

2139: \I_D^{p_1}+t\I_D^{p_2}+\ldots+(t^r),

2140: \end{equation}

2141: for some reduced snc divisor $D$. These $p_i$ may

2142: vary over the different connected components of $D$, but since the total

2143: weight is a sum over contributions from each connected component we can

2144: calculate the weight of each separately.

2145: 

2146: Pick a local function $z$ generating the ideal $\I_D$, so that (\ref{ideal})

2147: is $(z^{p_1})+t(z^{p_2})+\ldots+(t^r)$. In the concave hull of the points

2148: $(p_i,i),\,i=1,\ldots,r$ in the $(z,t)$-plane, we choose extremal vertices

2149: $(k_i,\rho_i),\,i=1,\ldots,l$ so that they form a

2150: concave set with the same concave hull (and $(k_1,\rho_1)=(p_1,0),\ (k_l,\rho_l)

2151: =(0,r)$). This defines a new ideal

2152: \begin{equation} \label{ideal2}

2153: (z^{k_1})+t^{\rho\_2}(z^{k_2})+\ldots+(t^{\rho\_l}),

2154: \end{equation}

2155: with the same integral closure as (\ref{ideal}) since in this situation

2156: taking integral closures corresponds to taking concave hulls, and an ideal

2157: saturates its integral closure. In the next theorem we decorate $w_k(D)$

2158: (\ref{wkZ}) as $w_k(D,c)$ with the value $c$ that determines the line bundle

2159: $\L_c=L-cE$ on the blow up.

2160: 

2161: \begin{thm} \label{divs}

2162: Set $m_i=\frac{\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i}{k_i-k_{i+1}},\ i=1,\ldots l$, and $m_0=0$.

2163: If $L$ is ample, then the total weight of the blow up in the ideal (\ref{ideal})

2164: is the sum over the connected components $D$ of

2165: $$

2166: -\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}(m_i-m_{i-1})w_k(D,k_i)-ak^n+O(k^{n-1}),

2167: $$

2168: for some $a\ge0$. If $L$ is semi-ample, the above expression is correct

2169: to $O(k^n)$.

2170: \end{thm}

2171: 

2172: \begin{proof}

2173: We start by proving the weaker estimate for $L$ semi-ample.

2174: First blow up $X\times\C$ in $D\times\{0\}$ (i.e.\ locally in the ideal $(z)+(t)$),

2175: then in $D'$ (recall this is

2176: the central fibre of $\overline{D\times\C}$ in the blow up), then $D''=D^{(2)}$,

2177: etc. up to $D^{(j-1)}$. As in Theorem \ref{pr} we denote by $E_i$ the

2178: pullback of the exceptional divisor of the $i$th blow up, and by $s_i$

2179: the canonical section of $\O(E_i)$ vanishing on $E_i$. Then we claim

2180: that the pushdown of $\O(-p_1E_1-\ldots-p_jE_j),\ p_1\ge p_2\ge\ldots\ge

2181: p_j$, to $X\times\C$ is the ideal

2182: \begin{multline} \label{induction}

2183: (z^{p_1})+\ldots+t^{p_1+p_2-2p_2}(z^{p_2})+\ldots+t^{p_1+p_2+p_3-3p_3}(z^{p_3})

2184: \\ +\ldots+\qquad\cdots\qquad+\ldots+

2185: t^{p_1+\ldots+p_j-jp_j}(z^{p_j})+(t^{p_1+\ldots+p_j}).

2186: \end{multline}

2187: Here ``$\ldots$" means ``all convex combinations in between", i.e.\ the integral

2188: closure of the ideal generated by the named terms.

2189: (So $(f)+\ldots+(g)$ includes all monomials $h$ such that there exist $\lambda,\mu

2190: \in\mathbb N$ with $h^{\lambda+\mu}=f^\lambda g^\mu$.) That is, we claim

2191: the sections of $\O(-p_1E_1-\ldots-p_jE_j)$ over $X\times\C$ are $s_1^{-p_1}\ldots

2192: s_j^{-p_j}$ times by the above ideal. This is standard but

2193: fiddly to prove, and is best done by Newton diagram. We give

2194: an unenlightening proof; the reader is advised to skip straight to the

2195: Newton diagram (Figure \ref{diag}) for the special case below.

2196: 

2197: We prove (\ref{induction}) inductively alongside the claim that the complement

2198: of the divisor $t/s_j=0$ (which is the proper transform, in the $j$th blow

2199: up, of the central fibre of the $(j-1)$th blow up) is affine over $X\times\C$

2200: with coordinate ring

2201: \begin{equation} \label{affcoord}

2202: \O\_{\!X\times\C}\left[\frac z{t^j}\right].

2203: \end{equation}

2204: (In particular, at a smooth point of $D$ where $z$ is a local coordinate

2205: in an analytic coordinate system $(y_1,\ldots y_{n-1},z)$ for $X$, we see

2206: that this part of the $j$th blow up is $\Spec\C[y_1,\ldots,y_{n-1},z,t,z/t^j]

2207: =\Spec\C[y_1,\ldots,y_{n-1},Z,t]$, where $Z=z/t^j$, and so is locally

2208: isomorphic to $X\times\C$ with the proper transform of $(z^k=0)$ being $(Z^k=0)$.)

2209: 

2210: For the first blow up, the sections of $O(-kE_1)$ are $(z,t)^ks_1^{-k}$ (there

2211: are no more because the exceptional divisor is a $\PP^1$-bundle over $D$).

2212: This is in agreement with (\ref{induction}),

2213: and the proper transform of the central fibre is $t/s_1=0$. On its complement,

2214: $t^k/s_1^k$ trivialises $O(-kE_1)$; dividing by it identifies the sections

2215: $((z)+(t))^ks_1^{-k}$ with $\O\_{\!X\times\C}.((z/t)^k+(z/t)^{k-1}+\ldots+(z/t)+1)$.

2216: Taking the limit as $k\to\infty$ gives the coordinate ring $\O\_{\!X\times\C}

2217: \left[\frac zt\right]$ claimed (\ref{affcoord}). So the induction starts

2218: at $j=1$.

2219: 

2220: At the $j$th stage the coordinate ring (\ref{affcoord}) shows that $D^{(j)}$

2221: has ideal $(Z,t)$, where $Z=z/t^j$. Let $\pi$ denote the $(j+1)$th blow

2222: up. By the first step of the induction, $\{t/s_{j+1}\ne0\}$ has coordinate

2223: ring augmented by $Z/t=z/t^{j+1}$;

2224: i.e.\ by induction $\O\_{\!X\times\C}\left[\frac z{t^j}\right]\left[\frac

2225: z{t^{j+1}}\right]=\O\_{\!X\times\C}\left[\frac z{t^{j+1}}\right]$.

2226: 

2227: $\pi_*\O(-p\_{j+1}E_{j+1})$ is the ideal $((Z)+(t))^{p\_{j+1}}=

2228: t^{-jp\_{j+1}}(z^{p\_{j+1}})+\ldots+(t^{p\_{j+1}})$; i.e.\ the sections of

2229: $\O(-p\_{j+1}E_{j+1})$ over $\X^j$ are $s_{j+1}^{-p\_{j+1}}$ times by sections

2230: of this ideal. Multiplying by the trivialising section 

2231: $t^{p_1}s_1^{-p_1}\ldots t^{p_j}s_j^{-p_j}$ of $\O(-p_1E_1-\ldots-p_jE_j)$

2232: shows that over our affine piece,

2233: $$

2234: \pi_*\O(-p_1E_1-\ldots-p\_{j+1}E_{j+1})=\big(\pi_*\O(-p\_{j+1}E_{j+1})\big)\otimes

2235: \O(-p_1E_1-\ldots-p_jE_j)

2236: $$

2237: is the ideal

2238: $$

2239: \big[t^{p_1+\ldots+p_j-jp\_{j+1}}(z^{p\_{j+1}})+\ldots+(t^{p_1+\ldots+p_j+p\_{j+1}})

2240: \big].s_1^{-p_1}\!\ldots s_j^{-p_j}\subseteq\O(-p_1E_1-\ldots-p_jE_j).

2241: $$

2242: Thus the sections of $\O(-p_1E_1-\ldots-p\_{j+1}E_{j+1})$ are the sections

2243: of $\O(-p_1E_1-\ldots-p_jE_j)$ which lie in the above ideal, i.e.\ the intersection

2244: of (\ref{induction}) with the ideal $t^{p_1+\ldots+p_j-jp\_{j+1}}(z^{p\_{j+1}})

2245: +\ldots+(t^{p_1+\ldots+p_j+p\_{j+1}})$. But this is (\ref{induction}) with

2246: $j$ replaced by $j+1$, completing the induction.

2247: 

2248: We first assume that the $m_i$ are all integers. Then the ideal (\ref{ideal2})

2249: has integral closure of the form (\ref{induction}), on taking $p_1,\ldots,p_{m_1}$

2250: all equal

2251: \begin{figure}[h]

2252: \center{\input{newton.pstex_t} \caption{Newton diagram for the blow up in

2253: the ideal (\ref{ideal2}) \label{diag}}}

2254: \end{figure}

2255: to $k_1$, then $p_{m_1+1},\ldots,p_{m_2}$ all equal to $k_2$, and so

2256: on, up to $p_{m\_{N-1}+1},\ldots,p_{m\_N}$ all equal to $k_N$.

2257: This is illustrated in Figure \ref{diag}, the Newton diagram of the $(z,t)$

2258: plane, with the $m_i$s being (minus) the gradients of the bold lines.

2259: Taking the integral closure, i.e.\ including the monomials ``$\ldots$" in

2260: (\ref{induction}), corresponds to including all integral points

2261: both on and above the line to lie in the ideal. Replacing $z$ by $Z=z/t^j$

2262: and multiplying by the trivialising section $t^{p_1+\ldots+p_j}$ in the

2263: above working corresponds to the integral affine transformation that locally

2264: takes one corner of the bold line into the $(z,t)$-axes.

2265: 

2266: So we may calculate the weight of this sequence of blow ups, $m_1$ times

2267: in the central fibre of $\overline{D\times\C}$ with weight $c=k_1$, then

2268: $(m_2-m_1)$ times in the central fibre of $\overline{D\times\C}$ with weight

2269: $c=k_2$, etc. (The weight here just means the coefficient of the exceptional

2270: divisor in the line bundle $L-cE$ we use, as usual.) The flatness criterion

2271: (\ref{reduced}) is trivially satisfied so that by Theorem \ref{big} we

2272: may calculate the weight to be that claimed. This differs from the weight

2273: of the blow up in (\ref{ideal}) by a $-ak^n+O(k^{n-1})$ correction by Proposition

2274: \ref{stein} since the blow up in the integral closure (\ref{ideal2})

2275: is the normalisation of the blow up in (\ref{ideal}).

2276: 

2277: If $L$ is ample then we can improve the estimate. In the first blow up,

2278: $\X=X\times\C$ is the trivial product configuration, so the

2279: $\C^\times$-action on $H^0_{\X_0}(L^k)$ is trivial and we can use the better

2280: estimate of Theorem \ref{big}. Next we group the first $m_1$ blow ups together

2281: as one blow up in $((z)+(t^{m_1}))^{k_1}$; this has the advantage

2282: that we do no blowing down (in fact the previous $m_1$ blow ups blow down

2283: to this). Since this blow up is the $t\mapsto t^{m_1}$ basechange of the

2284: blow up in the ideal $((z)+(t))$ (with $c=k_1$), it has weight $m_1w_k(D,k_1)$,

2285: the same as the sum of the $m_1$ blow ups we performed above. Similarly we

2286: group the next

2287: $m_2$ blow ups together, blowing up with $c=k_2$ in the ideal generated

2288: by $t^{m_2}$ and the ideal of $\overline{D\times\C}$, and calculate its

2289: weight as the $t\mapsto t^{m_2}$ basechange of a blow up we already know.

2290: Inductively we end up with the same formula for the weights, but with

2291: the added $O(k^{n-1})$ accuracy of Theorem \ref{big} coming from the fact

2292: that (after the first blow up) there are no blow downs, so $c$ is less

2293: than the Seshadri constant of the relevant $D^{(i)}$ at each stage.

2294: 

2295: Finally, if the $m_i$ are not integers, we simple replace $t$ by $t^M$

2296: in (\ref{ideal}), i.e.\ we basechange our test configuration, where $M$

2297: clears the denominators of all the $m_i$. This replaces all the $m_i$ by

2298: the integers $Mm_i$ while multiplying the $\C^\times$-weight by $M$.

2299: Substituting the $Mm_i$ into our formula for the weights gives the weight

2300: of this new test configuration with a $-ak^n+O(k^{n-1})$ correction (coming

2301: from taking

2302: the integral closure of this new ideal; replacing the test configuration

2303: with its normalisation and using Proposition \ref{stein}); dividing by $M$

2304: gives the weight of the original test configuration for any $m_i$.

2305: \end{proof}

2306: 

2307: This just leaves the case of where the divisors $F_j$ in the snc divisors

2308: $D_i$ in a resolution $\widehat X$ intersect with differing multiplicities

2309: (the simplest example

2310: being $\I_{D_0}=(x^2y)$ and $\I_{D_1}=(x)$ locally). This of course cannot

2311: happen for curves, so we have

2312: 

2313: \begin{cor} \label{Kslopecurve}

2314: A smooth curve $(X,L)$ is K-(semi/poly)stable if and only if it is slope

2315: (semi/poly)stable.

2316: \end{cor}

2317: 

2318: \begin{proof} 

2319: Smooth curves are normal, and for the resolution of singularities $\widehat

2320: X$ we of course take $X$ itself, so we can apply the stronger form of Theorem

2321: \ref{divs}. Since the Donaldson-Futaki invariant only uses the coefficients

2322: $b_0$ and $b_1$ of $w(k)=b_0k^{n+1}+b_1k^n+O(k^{n-1})$, this implies that

2323: the Futaki

2324: invariant of an arbitrary test configuration (\ref{any}) is $\ge$ a positive

2325: linear combination

2326: of Futaki invariants of (the deformation to the normal cone of) subschemes.

2327: Slope stability implies that these are all positive.

2328: \end{proof}

2329: 

2330: This result makes it trivial to understand K-stability for smooth curves;

2331: see Theorem \ref{smoothcurvesareKstable}.

2332: 

2333: 

2334: \section{Chow stability} \label{sec:chow}

2335: 

2336: Mumford's notion of Chow (semi)stability \cite{Mu} of $(X,\O_X(1))\subseteq\PP^N$,

2337: for \emph{fixed} $N$, is the simplest form of stability to calculate (as

2338: opposed to \emph{asymptotic} Chow stability (\ref{chow}), which is second

2339: only to asymptotic Hilbert stability in difficulty). It is also

2340: useful in algebro-geometric applications since it is a genuine GIT

2341: notion giving projective (and so proper and separated) moduli spaces.

2342: 

2343: For any subscheme $Z\subseteq X$, we define the polynomial

2344: $a_0(x)$ by $\chi\_X(\I_{\!Z}^{xk}(k))=a_0(x)k^n+a_1(x)k^{n-1}+\ldots$ for

2345: $k\gg x^{-1}>0$ as before. We also define $a_0$ by $h^0(\O_X(k))=a_0k^n+

2346: a_1k^{n-1}+\ldots$\,; by (\ref{a0}), $a_0=a_0(0)$.

2347: 

2348: For any subscheme $Z\subseteq X\subseteq\PP^N$ and \emph{integer}

2349: $0<c\le\epsilon(Z)$, we define the \emph{Chow slope} of $\I_Z$ to be

2350: $$

2351: Ch_c(\I_Z):=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^ch^0_{\PP^N}(\I_{\!Z}^i(1))}{\int_0^ca_0(x)dx}\,,\qquad

2352: Ch(\I_Z)=\max_{\mathbb N\ni c\le\epsilon(Z)}\big(Ch_c(\I_Z)\big)\ \in\,[-\infty,\infty].

2353: $$

2354: (Here we define max of the empty set to be $-\infty$, and division by 0

2355: to give $\infty$.) Setting $Z=\emptyset$ gives $Ch(X)=Ch(\O_X)$ as

2356: $$

2357: Ch(X):=\frac{h^0_{\PP^N}(\O(1))}{a_0}=\frac{N+1}{a_0}\,.

2358: $$

2359: If $X\into\PP^N$ is the Kodaira embedding of $X$ in $\PP(H^0(\O_X(1))^*)$,

2360: i.e.\ if $H^0_{\PP^N}(\O(1))\to H^0_X(\O(1))$ is an isomorphism, then

2361: $h^0_{\PP^N}(\I_Z(1))=h^0_X(\I_Z(1))$ for all $Z\subseteq X$. This can

2362: be arranged, for fixed $(X,L)$, by taking a sufficiently large multiple

2363: $L^k=:\O_X(1)$ of the polarisation and setting $\PP^N=\PP(H^0_X(L^k)^*)$.

2364: In this situation the above slopes can be written intrinsically in terms

2365: of $(X,\O_X(1))$ as

2366: $$

2367: Ch_c(\I_Z)=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^ch^0_X(\I^i_{\!Z}(1))}{\int_0^ca_0(x)dx}

2368: \qquad\text{and}\qquad Ch(X)=\frac{h^0_X(\O(1))}{a_0}\,.

2369: $$

2370: 

2371: We say that $X\subset\PP^N$ is \emph{Chow slope stable} if $Ch(\I_Z)<Ch(X)$

2372: for all nonempty $Z\subseteq X$, and Chow slope semistable if $Ch(\I_Z)\le

2373: Ch(X)$. We have

2374: \begin{equation} \label{sss}

2375: Ch_c(\I_Z)<Ch(X) \quad\Longleftrightarrow\quad

2376: Ch(X)<Ch_c(\O_Z):=\frac{\sum_{i=1}^c\big(N+1-h^0(\I_{\!Z}^i(1))\big)}

2377: {\int_0^c\!\tilde a_0(x)dx}\,.

2378: \end{equation}

2379: 

2380: \begin{thm} \label{thmchow}

2381: If $X\subseteq\PP^N$ is Chow (semi)stable then it is Chow slope (semi)stable.

2382: \end{thm}

2383: 

2384: \begin{proof}

2385: Choose a basis of $H^0_{\PP^N}(\O(1))$ compatible with the filtration

2386: $H^0_{\PP^N}(\I_{\!Z}^c(1))\subseteq H^0_{\PP^N}(\I_{\!Z}^{c-1}(1))\subseteq\ldots

2387: \subseteq H^0_{\PP^N}(\I_Z(1))\subseteq H^0_{\PP^N}(\O(1))$, so that the

2388: first $p_i:=h^0_{\PP^N}(\I_{\!Z}^i(1))$ elements are contained in

2389: $H^0_{\PP^N}(\I_{\!Z}^i(1))$. The corresponding hyperplanes $H_1,H_2,\ldots,$

2390: $H_{N+1}$ and subschemes $Z_i:=

2391: X\cap H_1\cap\ldots\cap H_i$ therefore satisfy $Z_{p_i}\supseteq iZ$ (i.e.\

2392: $\I_{Z_{p_i}}\subseteq\I_{\!Z}^i$).

2393: 

2394: Choose weights $\rho_1=0=\ldots=\rho_{p_c},\ \rho\_{p\_

2395: c+1}=1=\ldots=\rho_{p_{c-1}},\

2396: \ldots,\ \rho\_{p\_1+1}=c=\ldots=\rho_{p_0}$ so that ideal on $X\times\C$,

2397: \begin{equation} \label{IN}

2398: t^{\rho_1}\I_{Z_1}+t^{\rho_2}\I_{Z_2}+\ldots+t^{\rho\_{\!N}}\I_{Z_N}

2399: +(t^{\rho\_{\!N+1}})

2400: \end{equation}

2401: equals

2402: \begin{equation} \label{wobbly}

2403: I=\I_{Z_{p_c}}+t\I_{Z_{p_{c-1}}}+\ldots+t^{c-1}\I_{Z_{p_1}}+(t^c),

2404: \end{equation}

2405: which by construction is contained in the ideal

2406: \begin{equation} \label{straight}

2407: \I_{\!Z}^c+t\I_{\!Z}^{c-1}+\ldots+t^{c-1}\I_Z+(t^c)=(\I_Z+(t))^c.

2408: \end{equation}

2409: 

2410: $X\subset\PP^N$ is Chow stable for the $\C^\times$-action which has

2411: weight $\rho_i$ on the $i$th vector of our basis of $H^0_{\PP^N}(\O(1))$.

2412: Mumford (\cite{Mu} Theorem 2.9) shows that this is equivalent to the inequality

2413: \begin{equation} \label{mummy}

2414: -a<\frac{a_0}{N+1}\sum_{i=1}^{N+1}\rho_i,

2415: \end{equation}

2416: where $a$ is the Chow weight of the blow up of $X\times\C$ in

2417: the ideal $I$ (\ref{wobbly}), i.e.\ $ak^{n+1}+O(k^n)$ is the total weight

2418: of the induced $\C^\times$-action on $H^0_{(\B_I(X\times\C))\_0}\!(L^k(-kE))$.

2419: (This is only one half of Mumford's result, the

2420: harder part being his computation of $a$ in terms of

2421: ideals on $X\times\C$, which we do not use. The reader wishing

2422: to compare our conventions with Mumford's should rewrite the above as

2423: $-(n+1)!\,a<(n!\,a_0)\frac{n+1}{N+1}\sum\rho_i$,

2424: replace $n$ with $r$, $N$ with $n$, and $\rho_i$ with $\rho\_{N-i}$.

2425: Finally the sign arises from our convention (\ref{convention}) that if

2426: $g$ acts on $V$ then the induced action on its functions $S^KV^*$ is by

2427: $(S^Kg^*)^{-1}$; Mumford calculates the weight of $S^Kg^*$.) Notice this

2428: is Theorem \ref{thm:instability} applied to (\ref{normalised}) on setting

2429: $r=1,\,h^0(L^r)=N+1$ and $w(1)=\sum_i\rho_i$. 

2430: 

2431: Since $c\ge\epsilon(Z)$, we know the Chow weight on the blow up in $(\I_Z+(t))^c$

2432: (Proposition \ref{integrals}). But $I$ is

2433: contained in $(\I_Z+(t))^c$ (\ref{straight}), so the weight on the latter

2434: is more negative (for instance Mumford's formula (\cite{Mu} Theorem 2.9)

2435: for the Chow weight shows this), giving the inequality

2436: $$

2437: a\le\int_0^ca_0(x)dx-ca_0.

2438: $$

2439: Thus (\ref{mummy}) gives

2440: $$

2441: \frac{N+1}{a_0}\!\left(\!ca_0-\int_0^ca_0(x)dx\!\right)\!<

2442: \sum_{i=1}^{N+1}\rho_i=1(p_{c-1}-p_c)+2(p_{c-2}-p_{c-1})+\ldots+c(p_0-p_1)

2443: \vspace{-10pt} $$$$ \hspace{3cm}

2444: =-p_c-p_{c-1}-\ldots-p_1+cp_0=-\sum_{i=1}^ch^0_{\PP^N}(\I_{\!Z}^i(1))+c(N+1),

2445: $$

2446: which is

2447: \begin{equation} \label{r1}

2448: \frac{\sum_{i=1}^ch^0_{\PP^N}(\I^i_{\!Z}(1))}{\int_0^ca_0(x)dx}

2449: <\frac{N+1}{a_0}\,.

2450: \end{equation}

2451: Semistability is similar, replacing (\ref{mummy}) by the non strict inequality.

2452: \end{proof}

2453: 

2454: \begin{rmks}

2455: Setting $c=1$ gives the inequality $\frac{N+1}{a_0}\int_0^1a_0(x)dx>h^0(\I_Z(1))$,

2456: and replacing $Z$ by $kZ$ then gives $\frac{N+1}{a_0}\frac1k\int_0^ka_0(x)dx>

2457: h^0(\I_{\!Z}^k(1))$. We could have gotten this alternative slope-type inequality

2458: directly from stability for the $\C^\times$-action that had all of the above

2459: $\rho_i$ equal to zero (for $i\le p_k$) or one ($i>p_k$). However, it is

2460: strictly weaker than our slope inequality $\frac{N+1}{a_0}\int_0^ka_0(x)dx>

2461: \sum_{i=1}^kh^0(\I_{\!Z}^i(1))$ (\ref{thmchow}) since this last sum is clearly

2462: $\ge kh^0(\I_{\!Z}^k(1))$. \smallskip

2463: 

2464: For $X$ semistable, taking $Z=X,\,c=1$ (so $a_0(x)\equiv0$) shows that

2465: $h^0_{\PP^n}(\I_X(1))=0$, i.e.\ $X$ is not contained in any hyperplane and

2466: $H^0_{\PP^N}(\O(1))$ injects into $H^0_X(\O(1))$. To make this injection

2467: an isomorphism requires the assumption that $X\subseteq\PP^N$ is a Kodaira

2468: embedding. \smallskip

2469: 

2470: Notice that (\ref{r1}) is more-or-less the $k^{n+1}$

2471: coefficient of (\ref{weight}) (with $r=1$ and rearranged). There can be

2472: higher cohomology corrections since $I$ (\ref{wobbly}) is not the same as

2473: $(\I_Z+(t))^c$ (\ref{straight}); these disappear for $r\gg0$.

2474: \end{rmks}

2475: 

2476: We now want to understand to what extent slope Chow stability should

2477: imply Chow stability. This involves

2478: demonstrating the inequality (\ref{mummy}) for \emph{all} linearly independent

2479: sequences of hyperplanes $H_1,H_2,\ldots$ and \emph{all} choices of weights

2480: $0=\rho_1\le\rho_2\le\ldots\le\rho\_{N+1}$. As before we set $Z_i=X\cap

2481: H_1\cap\ldots H_i,\ \I_i:=\I_{Z_i}$.

2482: 

2483: The idea is to relate the weight of the associated $\C^\times$-action (with

2484: weight $\rho_i$ on the $i$th vector of our basis of $H^0_{\PP^N}(\O(1))$)

2485: to a sum of weights of $\C^\times$-actions of the standard form considered

2486: in Theorem \ref{thmchow}. The problem is that we have noted

2487: that we can only express weights as a sum of weights of the deformation

2488: to the normal cone of subschemes if either

2489: condition (\ref{reduced}) holds or the multiplicities of $\I_i$ are locally

2490: constant (at least on some resolution where they are ncds). But in either

2491: of these good cases we can demonstrate the general procedure of passing

2492: from slope stability to stability.

2493: 

2494: So let us assume for illustration that each $\I_i$ has the local form $O(-k_iD)$

2495: for some reduced Cartier divisor $D$ and number $k_i$ constant on $D$.

2496: (We have seen, as in Theorem \ref{bigger}, one can also pass to a resolution

2497: $\widehat X$ if necessary to make the $Z_i$ sncds to calculate Chow weights

2498: (the $k^{n+1}$-coefficient of Hilbert weights), so the assumption is not

2499: so restrictive, and is sufficient to deal with curves.)

2500: That is, $I=t^{\rho_1}\I_1+t^{\rho_2}\I_2+\ldots+

2501: (t^{\rho\_{\!N+1}})$ has the local form

2502: \begin{equation} \label{deali}

2503: I=\I_D^{k_1}+t^{\rho_2}\I_D^{k_2}+\ldots+(t^{\rho\_{l}}),

2504: \end{equation}

2505: with $0=\rho_1\le\rho_2\le\ldots\le\rho\_{\!N+1}$,

2506: and $k_1\ge k_2\ge\ldots>k_l=0=k_{l+1}=\ldots=k_{N+1}$ (so $l\le N+1$ is

2507: the smallest number with $k_l=0$). These $k_i$ and $l$ may vary as $D$ ranges

2508: over the connected components of $Z_1$.

2509: 

2510: \begin{thm} \label{uniform}

2511: If $(X,\O(1))$ is slope Chow stable then the weight $a$ (\ref{mummy})

2512: satisfies $-\frac{N+1}{a_0}\,a<\sum_{i=1}^{N+1}\rho_i+\delta$,

2513: where $\delta=\sum_{i=1}^N(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)h^1(\I_i(1))$.

2514: \end{thm}

2515: 

2516: This is the inequality  $-\frac{N+1}{a_0}\,a<

2517: \sum_{i=1}^{N+1}\rho_i$ required for Chow stability (\ref{mummy}), modulo

2518: some $h^1$ corrections (which we estimated away in the K-stability

2519: analogue). In (\ref{uniformcurve}) the result is strengthened slightly and

2520: the correction estimated on curves to prove their asymptotic

2521: Chow stability.

2522: 

2523: \begin{proof}

2524: The $k^{n+1}$-coefficient $a$ of

2525: the weight of our $\C^\times$-action is the same as that on the blow

2526: up of $\widehat X\times\C$ in $I$ (\ref{deali}). In Theorem \ref{divs} we

2527: calculated this to be a sum $a=\sum_Da_D$ over

2528: the connected components $D$ of its support, where

2529: \begin{equation} \label{a}

2530: a_D=-\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}{}'\left(\!\frac{\tilde\rho_{i+1}-\tilde\rho_i}{k_i-k_{i+1}}-

2531: \frac{\tilde\rho_i-\tilde\rho_{i-1}}{k_{i-1}-k_i}\right)\!

2532: \int_0^{k_i}\!\tilde a_0^D(x)dx.

2533: \end{equation}

2534: Here $\tilde\rho_i$ is defined uniquely by requiring that $(k_i,\tilde\rho_i)$

2535: lies on the boundary of the concave hull of the set of points $(k_i,\rho_i)_{i=1}^l$

2536: in the $(k,\rho)$-plane. Thus the $\tilde\rho_i$ need not be integers but,

2537: for instance, $\tilde\rho_1=\rho_1$ and $\tilde\rho_i=\rho_l$ for all $i\ge

2538: l$. More generally, $\tilde\rho_i\le\rho_i$ for all $i$. Concavity of the

2539: $(k_i,\tilde\rho_i)$ ensures that any term in the above sum with a zero

2540: in the denominator also has zero in the numerator; the prime $'$ on the summation

2541: sign signifies that we ignore these $\frac00$ terms (the terms with $k_i=k_{i+1}$)

2542: in the sum; equivalently

2543: we set $\frac00:=0$. In the first term we set $\tilde\rho_0:=0$.

2544: 

2545: The Seshadri constant of $D$ is $\ge k_i$ for

2546: all $i$ since $\I_D^{k_i}$ is locally the intersection of

2547: a sequence of hyperplanes, so $\I_D^{k_i}(1)$ is globally generated

2548: near $D$, so $\I_D^{rk_i}(r)$ is too. Therefore Chow slope stability

2549: for $D\subset X$ (\ref{sss}) gives the inequalities

2550: $$

2551: \frac{N+1}{a_0}\int_0^{k_i}\!\tilde a_0^D(x)dx<\sum_{i=1}^{k_i}\big(

2552: N+1-h^0(\I^i_D(1))\big).

2553: $$

2554: Since all of the integrals in (\ref{a}) have coefficients which are $\ge0$

2555: by the concavity of the $(k_i,\tilde\rho_i)$, we obtain

2556: \begin{eqnarray} \nonumber

2557: -\frac{N+1}{a_0}\,a_D &<& \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}{}'\left(\!\frac{\tilde\rho_{i+1}-

2558: \tilde\rho_i}{k_i-k_{i+1}}-\frac{\tilde\rho_i-\tilde\rho_{i-1}}

2559: {k_{i-1}-k_i}\right)\sum_{j=1}^{k_i}\big(N+1-h^0(\I^j_D(1))\big) \\

2560: &=& \label{diverge} \sum_{i=1}^{l-1}{}'\ \frac{\tilde\rho_{i+1}-\tilde\rho_i}

2561: {k_i-k_{i+1}}\sum_{j=k\_{i+1}+1}^{k_i}\big(N+1-h^0(\I^j_D(1))\big) \\ \nonumber

2562: &\le& \sum_{i=1}^N(\tilde\rho_{i+1}-\tilde\rho_i)\big(N+1-h^0(\I_D^{k_i}(1))\big),

2563: \end{eqnarray}

2564: where in the last line we have added back in the $k_i=k_{i+1}$ terms since

2565: they are positive.

2566: Since the last sum is also $\sum_{i=2}^{N+1}\tilde\rho_i(h^0(\I_D^{k_i}(1))-

2567: h^0(\I_D^{k_{i+1}}(1)))$, with a positive coefficient for each $\tilde\rho_i$,

2568: we can replace $\tilde\rho_i$ by $\rho_i\ge\tilde\rho_i$ to give

2569: $$

2570: -\frac{N+1}{a_0}\,a_D<\sum_{i=1}^N(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)h^0(\O_{k_iD}(1)).

2571: $$

2572: Sum over the connected components $D$ and use $h^0(\I_i(1))\ge

2573: i$ to give

2574: \begin{eqnarray*}

2575: -\frac{N+1}{a_0}\,a &<& \sum_{i=1}^N(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)h^0(\O_{Z_i}(1)) \\

2576: &\le& \sum_{i=1}^N(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)\big(N+1-h^0(\I_i(1))+h^1(\I_i(1))\big) \\

2577: &\le& \sum_{i=1}^N(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)\big(N+1-i\big)

2578: +\sum_{i=1}^N(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)h^1(\I_i(1)) \\

2579: &\le& \sum_{i=1}^{N+1}\rho_i+\delta.

2580: \end{eqnarray*}

2581: (In the above, any sum from $i$ to $j$ with $j<i$ is to be interpreted as

2582: zero, and in passing from the first line to the second we have used the fact

2583: that $\sum_{j=1}^{k_l}=0$ since $k_l=0$.)

2584: \end{proof}

2585: 

2586: The Chow slope inequality (\ref{sss}) can be rewritten

2587: $$

2588: \epsilon+\frac{N+1}{a_0}=\epsilon+Ch(X)<Ch_c(\O_Z)=

2589: \frac{\sum_{i=1}^c\big(N+1-h^0(\I_{\!Z}^i(1))\big)}{\int_0^c\!\tilde a_0(x)dx}

2590: $$

2591: for some small $\epsilon>0$. This implies

2592: the weaker inequality (which is all that we shall require for curves)

2593: \begin{equation} \label{css}

2594: \left(\frac{N+1}{a_0}+\epsilon\right)\int_0^c\!\tilde a_0(x)dx<

2595: \sum_{i=1}^ch^0(\O_{iZ}(1)).

2596: \end{equation}

2597: If $\epsilon$ can be chosen uniformly in (\ref{css}) for all $Z\subset X$

2598: we call $X$ \emph{uniformly Chow slope stable with constant $\epsilon$}.

2599: This will help us to deal with the correction $\delta$.

2600: 

2601: For $X$ a curve we can improve the estimates of Theorem \ref{uniform} slightly

2602: and use Clifford's theorem to bound the $h^1$ terms:

2603: 

2604: \begin{thm} \label{uniformcurve}

2605: If a smooth curve $(X,L)$ of genus $g$ and $d=\deg L>2g-2$ is

2606: uniformly Chow slope stable (\ref{css}) with constant $\epsilon\ge

2607: \big(1+\frac1{d-g}\big)\big(g-\frac12\big).\frac1d$ then it is Chow stable.

2608: \end{thm}

2609: 

2610: \begin{proof}

2611: We follow the same proof as above with $\frac{N+1}{a_0}$ replaced by

2612: $\frac{N+1}{a_0}+\epsilon$ throughout, up to (\ref{diverge}), at which

2613: point we use estimates specific to curves to better bound the $h^1$ terms.

2614: That is, $D$ is locally a smooth point $\{p\}$ in $X$, and for those $i$

2615: with $k_i\ne k_{i+1}$ (i.e.\ those involved in the sum $\sum{}'$),

2616: $$

2617: \frac1{k_i-k_{i+1}}\sum_{j=k\_{i+1}+1}^{k_i}h^0(\O_{j\{p\}}(1))=

2618: \frac12\big(h^0(\O_{k_i\{p\}}(1))+h^0(\O_{k_{i+1}\{p\}}(1))+1\big).

2619: $$

2620: Therefore (\ref{diverge}) becomes

2621: $$

2622: -\left(\frac{N+1}{a_0}+\epsilon\right)a_p<\sum_{i=1}^{l-1}{}'

2623: (\tilde\rho_{i+1}-\tilde\rho_i)\frac12\big(h^0(\O_{k_i\{p\}}(1))+

2624: h^0(\O_{k_{i+1}\{p\}}(1))+1\big).

2625: $$

2626: We can now add back in those $i$ with $k_i=k_{i+1}$, as all terms are positive.

2627: Each $\tilde\rho_i$ appears with positive coefficient in the result, since

2628: it can be rearranged as $\sum_{i=2}^N\tilde\rho_i\big(

2629: h^0(\O_{k_{i-1}\{p\}}(1))-h^0(\O_{k_{i+1}\{p\}}(1))\big)+\rho\_{\!N+1}\big(

2630: h^0(\O_{k_N\{p\}}(1))+1\big)$.

2631: So replacing $\tilde\rho_i$ by $\rho_i\ge\tilde\rho_i$, summing over

2632: $p$ in the support

2633: of $Z_1$, and using $h^0(\I_i(1))\ge i$, gives

2634: \enlargethispage*{1ex}

2635: \begin{eqnarray*}

2636: -\left(\frac{N+1}{a_0}+\epsilon\right)a \hspace{-2cm} & \\ \qquad\quad &<&

2637: \sum_{i=1}^N(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)\frac12

2638: \big(h^0(\O_{Z_i}(1))+h^0(\O_{Z_{i+1}}(1))+1\big) \\

2639: &\le& \sum_{i=1}^N(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)\frac12\Big[N+1-h^0(\I_i(1))

2640: +h^1(\I_i(1))+ \\

2641: && \hspace{45mm} N+1-h^0(\I_{i+1}(1))+h^1(\I_{i+1}(1))+1\Big] \\

2642: &\le& \sum_{i=1}^N(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)\big[N+1-i\big]

2643: +\frac12\sum_{i=1}^N(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)\big(h^1(\I_i(1))+h^1(\I_{i+1}(1))\big)

2644: \\ &=& \sum_{i=1}^{N+1}\rho_i+\delta, \hspace{20mm}

2645: \delta:=\frac12\sum_{i=1}^N(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)

2646: \big(h^1(\I_i(1))+h^1(\I_{i+1}(1))\big)

2647: \end{eqnarray*}

2648: i.e.

2649: \begin{equation}

2650: -\left(1+\epsilon\frac{a_0}{N+1}\right)\frac{N+1}{a_0}\,a

2651: <\left(1+\frac{\delta}{\sum_{i=1}^{N+1}\rho_i}\right)

2652: \sum_{i=1}^{N+1}\rho_i\,. \label{d}

2653: \end{equation}

2654: This $\delta$ is a tiny improvement over the one in Theorem \ref{uniform},

2655: but can be bounded using Clifford's theorem, which for our purposes says

2656: that $h^1(L)\le\max\{1+g-h^0(L),0\}$. Thus $h^1(\I_i(1))\le1+g-i$ for $i\le

2657: g$ and vanishes for $i>g$. This yields

2658: \begin{multline*}

2659: \delta\le\sum_{i=1}^g(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)\frac12\big(1+g-i+1+g-(i+1)\big)=

2660: \\ \sum_{i=1}^g(\rho_{i+1}-\rho_i)\Big(g-i+\frac12\Big)=\sum_{i=2}^g\rho_i+

2661: \frac12\rho_{g+1},

2662: \end{multline*}

2663: since $\rho_1=0$. Since the $\rho_i$ are monotonic in $i$,

2664: $$

2665: \sum_{i=2}^g\rho_i+\frac12\rho_{g+1}\le\Big(g-\frac12\Big)\rho_{g+1}

2666: \le\Big(g-\frac12\Big)\frac{\frac12\rho_{g+1}+\sum_{i=g+2}^{N+1}\rho_i}

2667: {N-g+\frac12}\,.

2668: $$

2669: Adding $\frac{g-\frac12}{N-g+\frac12}\big(\sum_{i=2}^g\rho_i+

2670: \frac12\rho_{g+1}\big)$ to both sides gives

2671: $$

2672: \frac N{N-g+\frac12}\left(\sum_{i=2}^g\rho_i+\frac12\rho_{g+1}\right)

2673: \le\frac{g-\frac12}{N-g+\frac12}\sum_{i=2}^{N+1}\rho_i,

2674: $$

2675: and so

2676: $$

2677: \delta\le\sum_{i=2}^g\rho_i+\frac12\rho_{g+1}\le

2678: \frac{g-\frac12}N\sum_{i=2}^{N+1}\rho_i.

2679: $$

2680: Combined with (\ref{d}) we find that uniform slope stability implies that

2681: $$

2682: -\left(1+\epsilon\frac{a_0}{N+1}\right)\frac{N+1}{a_0}\,a<

2683: \left(1+\frac{g-\frac12}N\right)\sum_{i=1}^{N+1}\rho_i,

2684: $$

2685: which implies the inequality $-\frac{N+1}{a_0}\,a<\sum_{i=1}^{N+1}\!\rho_i\,$

2686: required (\ref{mummy}) if $\epsilon\ge\frac{N+1}{a_0}\frac{g-\frac12}N$.

2687: The condition $d>2g-2$ implies that $h^1(\O(1))=0$ so $N+1=d+1-g$ and $a_0=d$.

2688: Therefore the inequality is $\epsilon\ge\big(1+\frac1{d-g}\big)

2689: \big(g-\frac12\big)\frac1d$.

2690: \end{proof}

2691: 

2692: \begin{thm}

2693: Smooth curves $(X,\O(1))$ of genus $g\ge1$ are uniformly slope stable (\ref{css})

2694: with any constant $\epsilon<\frac gd$, and so are asymptotically Chow stable.

2695: \end{thm}

2696: 

2697: \begin{proof}

2698: We need only demonstrate the inequality

2699: (\ref{css}) in the case of $Z=\{p\}$ a single reduced point, as the inequality

2700: for a multiple of $\{p\}$ is weaker and the inequality for arbitrary $Z$

2701: follows from adding the inequalities for its connected components.

2702: By Riemann-Roch, $\tilde a_0(x)=x$, so that $\int_0^c\tilde a_0(x)=c^2/2$

2703: while $\sum_{i=1}^ch^0(\O_{iZ}(1))=\sum_{i=1}^ci=c(c+1)/2$. Therefore

2704: $$

2705: \left(\frac{d+1-g}d+\epsilon\right)\frac{c^2}2=

2706: \left(\frac{N+1}{a_0}+\epsilon\right)\int_0^c\!\tilde a_0(x)dx\ <\ 

2707: \sum_{i=1}^ch^0(\O_{iZ}(1))=\frac{c^2+c}2\,,

2708: $$

2709: so long as $\epsilon<\frac1c+\frac{g-1}d$. Of course $c\le d$, so $(X,L)$

2710: is uniformly Chow slope stable with any constant $\epsilon<\frac gd$.

2711: 

2712: Theorem \ref{uniformcurve} then gives Chow stability, so long as

2713: $\frac gd>\big(1+\frac1{d-g}\big)\big(g-\frac12\big).\frac1d$ which is true

2714: for $g\ge1$ and sufficiently large $d$.

2715: \end{proof}

2716: 

2717: \begin{rmk}

2718:   Mumford \cite{Mu} proves the sharper result that $(X,\O(1))$ is Chow stable

2719:   for $\deg\O(1)>2g$ using a combinatorial argument.

2720: \end{rmk}

2721: 

2722: 

2723: \section{Examples} \label{egs}

2724: 

2725: Our remaining examples all deal with K-slope stability. Many more examples,

2726: calculations and applications are given in \cite{RT}.

2727: 

2728: \subsection{Varieties with nonnegative canonical bundle}\ \vskip 5pt

2729: \noindent

2730: Suppose that $X$ has at worst canonical singularities.

2731: That is $X$ is normal, there is an integer $m$ such that $mK_X$ is

2732: Cartier, and given any resolution of singularities

2733: $\pi_1\colon\overline{\!X}\,\rightarrow X$ we have

2734: \begin{equation}\label{canonical}

2735: mK_{\overline{\!X}}=\pi_1^*(mK_X)+\sum_i\alpha_iF_i \quad\text{with}\ \ \alpha_i\ge 0, 

2736: \end{equation}

2737: where the $F_i$ are the irreducible components of the

2738: exceptional set of $\pi_1$. We can define intersection with the canonical

2739: class of $X$ on $\overline{\!X}\,$ by $K_X.(\,\cdot\,):=\frac1m(mK_X).(\,\cdot\,)$.

2740: 

2741: For any subscheme $Z\subset X$ let

2742: $$

2743: \overline{\!X}\Rt{\pi_2\ }\widehat X\rt{\pi}X

2744: $$

2745: be a resolution of singularities of $\widehat X$, the blow up of $X$ along

2746: $Z$. $\pi_1=\pi\comp\pi_2\colon\overline{\!X}\rightarrow

2747: X$ is a resolution of singularities of $X$, so (\ref{canonical}) holds.

2748: Letting $F=\pi_2^*E$, $L-xF=\pi_2^*(L-xE)$ is nef on $\overline{\!X}$

2749: for $0\le x\le\epsilon(Z)$.

2750: 

2751: We wish to compute $a_i(x)$ on $\overline{\!X}$ instead of $\widehat

2752: X$. Since $\O_{\widehat X}\subseteq\pi_{2*}\O_{\,\overline{\!X}}$ with quotient

2753: supported in codimension one, we have an inclusion

2754: $$

2755: H^0_{\widehat X}((L-xE)^k)\subseteq H^0_{\overline{\!X}}((L-xF)^k),

2756: $$

2757: with cokernel of dimension $\le O(k^{n-1})$ by Fujita vanishing, for

2758: $0\le x<\epsilon(Z)$. As in (\ref{normal}), for $k\gg0$, $h_{\,\overline{\!X}}^i

2759: ((L-xF)^k)=h^0_{\widehat X}((L-xE)^k\otimes R^i\pi_{2*}\O)=O(k^{n-1-i})$

2760: since the support of $R^i\pi_{2*}\O$ has codimension at least $i+1$.

2761: Therefore $\chi\_{\widehat X}((L-xE)^k)=\chi\_{\overline{\!X}}((L-xF)^k)

2762: -ak^{n-1}+O(k^{n-2})$ for some $a\ge0$. That is, for $0\le x<\epsilon(Z)$,

2763: we have

2764: $$

2765: a_0(x) = \frac{1}{n!}(L-xF)^n, \vspace{-6pt}

2766: $$

2767: and \vspace{-6pt}

2768: \begin{equation}\label{a_idefinedbyaresolution}

2769: \qquad\qquad a_1(x)\le-\frac{1}{2(n-1)!}K_{\overline{\!X}}.(L-xF)^{n-1}

2770: \le-\frac{1}{2(n-1)!}K_{X}.(L-xF)^{n-1},

2771: \end{equation}

2772: where the second inequality follows from (\ref{canonical}) and the

2773: fact that $L-xF$ is nef. Again as in (\ref{normal}), the first two

2774: terms of the Euler characteristic of $L$ are the same as those of

2775: $\pi_1^* L$, so equality holds in (\ref{a_idefinedbyaresolution}) when

2776: $x=0$.  That is $a_0=\frac1{n!}L^n$ and

2777: \begin{equation} \label{a_1definedbyaresolution}

2778: a_1 = -\frac{1}{2(n-1)!}  K_{\overline{\!X}}.L^{n-1}=- \frac{1}{2(n-1)!} K_X.L^{n-1},

2779: \end{equation}

2780: since $L$ is trivial along the $F_i$. With these preliminaries, it becomes

2781: easy to prove the following.

2782: 

2783: \begin{thm} \label{CY} \textbf{Calabi-Yaus and canonical models}. \\

2784: Let $X$ be an irreducible variety with at worst canonical singularities.

2785: \newline

2786: ${}\quad\bullet$ If $K_X$ is numerically trivial then $(X,L)$ is slope stable for all polarisations $L$. \newline

2787: ${}\quad\bullet$ If $K_X$ is ample then the canonical polarisation $(X,K_X)$

2788: is slope stable.

2789: \end{thm}

2790: 

2791: \begin{proof}

2792: In both cases, $K_X\sim\alpha L$ is numerically equivalent to a nonnegative

2793: multiple $\alpha\ge0$ of the polarisation. So by (\ref{a_1definedbyaresolution}),

2794: $\mu(X)=a_1/a_0=-n\alpha/2$. By (\ref{a_idefinedbyaresolution}), 

2795: $$

2796: -\mu(X)a_0(x)+a_1(x)\le\frac{\alpha}{2(n-1)!}(L-xF)^n-\frac1{2(n-1)!}

2797: (\alpha L).(L-xF)^{n-1},

2798: $$

2799: which equals $-\frac{\alpha x}{2(n-1)!}F.(L-xF)^{n-1}\le0$ since $L-xF$ is

2800: nef. Since $a_0'(x)<0$ for $x\in(0,\epsilon(Z))$ (\ref{a0'}), integration

2801: gives

2802: $$

2803: -\mu(X)\int_0^ca_0(x)dx+\int_0^ca_1(x)+\frac{a_0'(x)}2dx<0 \quad\text{for}\

2804: c\in(0,\epsilon(Z)],

2805: $$

2806: which rearranges to give slope stability: $\mu_c(\I_Z)<\mu(X)$.

2807: \end{proof}

2808: 

2809: With more work, this can be generalised as follows.

2810: 

2811: \begin{thm}

2812: Suppose that $(X,L)$ has at worst canonical singularities, and

2813: $K_X$ is nef and big. Then $(X,L)$ is slope stable

2814: for $L$ ample and sufficiently close to $K$.  More precisely,

2815:   \begin{itemize}

2816:   \item For any divisor $G$ there is a $\delta_0>0$ such

2817:     that if $0\le \delta<\delta_0$ and $L=K_X+\delta G$ is ample then

2818:     $(X,L)$ is slope stable.

2819:   \item If $2\mu(X,L)L + nK_X$ is nef then $(X,L)$ is slope stable.

2820:   \item If $-2\mu(X,L)L - nK$ is nef then $(X,L)$ is slope stable.

2821: \end{itemize}

2822: \end{thm}

2823: 

2824: In \cite{RT} we prove that no smooth $Z$ can slope destabilise a smooth $(X,L)$

2825: with these properties, and the proof extends to general $Z$ and $X$ with

2826: canonical singularities using the preliminaries

2827: (\ref{a_idefinedbyaresolution}) and (\ref{a_1definedbyaresolution}).

2828: 

2829: These results are to be expected due to the deep and difficult related

2830: results of Viehweg \cite{V}, and the expectation that the minimal

2831: model programme can be carried out in all dimensions (and so can be

2832: done in families) \cite{Ka}.  In fact Theorem \ref{CY} can be proved in a

2833: round about way for smooth varieties with no holomorphic vector fields by

2834: the stability results of \cite{Do1, Zh} applied to the K\"ahler-Einstein

2835: metrics of \cite{Au, Y} on such

2836: varieties. Similarly, if $X$ has no holomorphic vector fields and $L$ is

2837: ample and sufficiently close to $K_X$ then an implicit function theorem

2838: argument applied to the K\"ahler-Einstein metric provides a constant scalar

2839: curvature K\"ahler metric in $[c_1(L)]$.  But the quick proofs

2840: above demonstrate that using slope stability it could become much easier

2841: to produce and compactify moduli of varieties with semi-ample canonical

2842: bundle \cite{V}.

2843: 

2844: 

2845: \subsection{Irreducible Curves} \label{curves}\ \vskip 5pt

2846: 

2847: \begin{prop}\label{prop:stabilityofpolarisedcurves}

2848:   Let $(\Sigma,L)$ be an irreducible polarised curve with arithmetic genus

2849:   $g\ge 2$. The Hilbert-Samuel polynomial of a subscheme $Z\subset\Sigma$

2850:   can be written  

2851: \begin{equation}\label{hilbertsamuelofsubschemesofcurves} 

2852: h^0(L^k\big/(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{xk})) = e(Z)xk-\rho(Z)\quad \text{for}\ k\gg0,

2853: \end{equation} 

2854:   and $Z$ destabilises $\Sigma$ if and only if it strictly

2855:   destabilises, if and only if $2\rho(Z)> e(Z)$.

2856: \end{prop}

2857: 

2858: \begin{proof}

2859:   The assumption on the genus implies that $\mu(\Sigma)<0$. As $\dim 

2860: \Sigma=1$, 

2861: $\tilde{a}_0(x)$

2862:   is a degree 1 polynomial vanishing at the origin, while $\tilde a_1(x)$

2863:   has degree 0. So writing $\tilde a_0(x)=e(Z)x$ and $\tilde{a}_1(x)=-\rho(Z)$,

2864:   $$

2865:   \mu_c(\O_Z) = \frac{\int_0^c \tilde{a}_1(x) +

2866:     \frac{\tilde{a}_0'(x)}{2} dx}{\int_0^c \tilde{a}_0(x) dx} =

2867:   \frac{e(Z)-2\rho(Z)}{e(Z)c}\,.

2868:   $$

2869:   This has the same sign as $e(Z)-2\rho(Z)$ for all $c>0$, and tends to $\pm\infty$

2870:   as $c\to0$. Thus $p$ destabilises if and only if it strictly destabilises

2871:   if and only if this sign is negative.

2872: \end{proof}

2873: 

2874: \begin{thm} \label{multiplicityofdestabilisingsingularpoints}

2875:   Let $(\Sigma,L)$ be a polarised irreducible curve of arithmetic

2876:   genus $g\ge 2$.

2877:   \begin{itemize}

2878:   \item If $\Sigma$ has a point of multiplicity $e\ge 3$ then

2879:     $(\Sigma,L)$ is not slope stable.

2880:   \item If $\Sigma$ has at worst ordinary double points then

2881:     $(\Sigma,L)$ is slope stable.

2882: \end{itemize}

2883: \end{thm}

2884: 

2885: \begin{proof}

2886:   For the first statement suppose $Z=\{p\}$ is a point of $\Sigma$

2887:   with multiplicity $e\ge 3$.  Northcott has shown (\cite{No}

2888:   Lemma 1) that $\rho\ge e-1$.  Hence $2\rho\ge 2e-2>e$ and

2889:   $Z$ strictly destabilises.

2890:   

2891:   For the second statement suppose for a contradiction that $Z$ is a

2892:   destabilising subscheme of $\Sigma$.  From Proposition

2893:   \ref{simplify} (especially (\ref{simplify2})) and Lemma

2894:   \ref{seshadridisconnected} we see that

2895:   $\mu_c(\I_{Z_0})\ge\mu(\Sigma)$ for some connected component $Z_0$ of $Z$

2896:   and $c\le\epsilon(Z_0)$ (we are not saying that $Z_0$ destabilises since

2897:   we may not be allowed to take $c=\epsilon(Z_0)$). If the support $p\in\Sigma$

2898:   of $Z_0$ is a smooth point then $Z_0=m\{p\}$ must by a thickened point,

2899:   which

2900:   by Proposition \ref{simplify} shows that $\mu_{mc}(\I_{\{p\}})\ge\mu(X)$.

2901:   But in the notation of (\ref{hilbertsamuelofsubschemesofcurves}),

2902:   $e(\{p\})=1$, which by Theorem 3.2 of \cite{KM} implies that

2903:   $\rho(\{p\})=0$, so by Proposition \ref{prop:stabilityofpolarisedcurves}

2904:   $\mu_{mc}(\I_{\{p\}})$ is in fact $<\mu(X)$.

2905:   

2906:   Hence $Z$ must be supported at one of the singular points, and we

2907:   can reduce to looking at the local analytic model $\Spec R,\ 

2908:   R=\C[X,Y]/(XY)$.  Let $I$ be an ideal of $R$

2909:   which is supported at $(X,Y)$.  (By abuse of notation we shall not

2910:   distinguish between a polynomial in two variables and its class in

2911:   $R$.)  We can pick a finite number of generators of $I$ of the form

2912:   $f_i=a_iX^{p_i}+b_iY^{q_i}$, with $a_i,b_i\in\mathbb C$.

2913:    

2914:   Let $p=\min\{p_j\colon a_j\neq 0\},\ q=\min\{q_j\colon a_j\neq 0\}$;$p,q\ge1$ since $I$ is supported at the origin.

2915:   Pick an $i$ such that $p_i=p$ and $a_i\ne0$;

2916:   then $X^{pk+1}=\frac{X}{a_i^k}(a_iX^{p_i} + b_i Y^{q_i})^k\in I^k$; similarly

2917:   $Y^{qk+1}\in I^k$. Therefore

2918:   $R/I^k$ is spanned by $\{1,X,\ldots,X^{pk},Y,\ldots

2919:   Y^{qk}\}$.  By the definition of $p$ and $q$, $I^k$ is spanned by

2920:   $\{X^i, Y^j \colon i\ge pk, j\ge qk\}$, so the vectors $\{1,X,\ldots

2921:   X^{pk-1}, Y,\ldots, Y^{qk-1}\}$ in $R/I^k$ are linearly independent.

2922:   Thus

2923:   $$

2924:   (p+q)k-1\le \dim R/I^k \le (p+q)k+1.

2925:   $$

2926:     Writing $\dim R/I^k=ek-\rho$ we have $-1\le\rho\le 1$.

2927:   Hence $2\rho \le 2\le p+q=e$, so by Proposition

2928:   \ref{prop:stabilityofpolarisedcurves} $I$ does not destabilise.

2929: \end{proof}

2930: 

2931: \begin{rmk}

2932:   Eisenbud and Mumford \cite{Mu} analyse the effect of singular points

2933:   on Chow stability of higher dimensional varieties. It would be interesting

2934:   to know if their results can be seen using slope stability.

2935: \end{rmk}

2936: 

2937: These results combined with Theorem \ref{thm:kstableslopestable} imply

2938: that curves with singularities of multiplicity greater than two are strictly

2939: K-unstable. We cannot deduce positive results about K-stability from the

2940: results of Section \ref{converse}, however, since $\Sigma$ need not

2941: be normal. Unless, that is, $\Sigma$ is smooth:

2942: 

2943: \begin{thm}\label{smoothcurvesareKstable} Any smooth polarised curve $(\Sigma,L)$

2944: of genus $g$ is K-stable if $g\ge1$ and strictly K-polystable if $g=0$.

2945: \end{thm}

2946: 

2947: \begin{proof}

2948: By Corollary \ref{Kslopecurve} it is equivalent to prove the results for

2949: slope (poly)stability. Instead of using previous results it is now easier

2950: to proceed directly. Any nonempty subscheme $Z$ is a divisor

2951: of degree $d>0$, so

2952: $$

2953: \chi(L^k\otimes\I_{\!Z}^{xk})=k\deg L-xdk+1-g

2954: $$

2955: shows that $\tilde a_0(x)=xd$ and $\tilde a_1(x)=0$. Thus $\mu_c(\O_Z)=

2956: \frac{cd}{c^2d}=\frac1{c}>0\ge\frac{1-g}{\deg L}=\mu(X)$ for $g\ge1$, proving

2957: slope stability.

2958: 

2959: For $g=0$, $c$ may take values up to and \emph{including} $\epsilon(Z)=\deg

2960: L/d$, since $L^d\otimes\I_Z^{\deg L}=\O_{\PP^1}(d\deg L-d\deg L)=\O_{\PP^1}$

2961: is globally generated.

2962: Thus $\mu_c(\O_Z)\ge\frac{d}{\deg L}\ge\frac1{\deg L}=\mu(X)$ with equality

2963: (strict semistability) only for $d=1$, \emph{i.e.}\ $Z$ a single point, and

2964: $c=\epsilon(Z)$. Since the deformation to

2965:   the normal cone of a single point on $\PP^1$ blows down to $\PP^1\times\C$

2966:   (with a nontrivial $\C^\times$-action) from which the relevant line bundle

2967:   $\L_c$ pulls back, we find $\PP^1$ is in fact slope polystable.

2968: \end{proof} 

2969: 

2970: This can also be proved using the constant curvature

2971: metric on $\Sigma$ and analysis of the Mabuchi functional, but this

2972: seems to be the first direct algebraic proof.

2973: 

2974: 

2975: \begin{thebibliography}{GIT}

2976: 

2977: \bibitem[Au]{Au}

2978: Aubin, T. (1976).

2979: \emph{\'Equations du type Monge-Amp\`ere sur les vari\'et\'es k\"ahleriennes

2980: compactes.} C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris S\'r. A-B \textbf{283}, A119--A121. 

2981: 

2982: \bibitem[De]{De}

2983: Demailly, J.-P (1994).

2984: \emph{$L\sp 2$ vanishing theorems for positive line bundles and

2985:   adjunction theory}, Transcendental methods in algebraic geometry

2986: (Cetraro), 1--97.

2987: 

2988: \bibitem[Do1]{Do1}

2989: Donaldson, S. K. (2001).

2990: \emph{Scalar curvature and projective embeddings, I.}

2991: Jour. Diff. Geom. \textbf{59}, 479--522.

2992: 

2993: \bibitem[Do2]{Do2}

2994: Donaldson, S. K. (2002).

2995: \emph{Scalar curvature and stability of toric varieties}. Jour. Diff. Geom.

2996: \textbf{62}, 289--349.

2997: 

2998: \bibitem[Fu]{Fu}

2999: Fulton, W. (1984).

3000: \emph{Intersection theory}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

3001: 

3002: \bibitem[Gi]{Gi}

3003: Gieseker, D. (1977). 

3004: \emph{Global moduli for surfaces of general type.}

3005: Invent. Math. \textbf{43}, 233--282.

3006: 

3007: \bibitem[Gr]{Gr}

3008: Grothendieck, A. (1960/61).

3009: \emph{Techniques de construction et th\'eor\`emes d'existence en g\'eom\'etrie

3010: alg\'ebrique. IV. Les sch\'emas de Hilbert.} S\'eminaire Bourbaki, No. 221.

3011: 

3012: \bibitem[Ha]{Ha}

3013: Hartshorne, R. (1977).

3014: \emph{Algebraic Geometry.} Graduate Texts in Mathematics 52, Springer-Verlag.

3015: 

3016: \bibitem[Hi]{Hi}

3017: Hildebrand, F. B. (1974).

3018: \emph{Introduction to numerical analysis}, 2nd Ed., McGraw-Hill,

3019: New York.

3020: 

3021: \bibitem[HL]{HL}

3022: Huybrechts, D. and Lehn, M. (1997).

3023: \emph{Geometry of moduli spaces of shaves.}

3024: Aspects in Mathematics Vol. E31, Vieweg.

3025: 

3026: \bibitem[Ka]{Ka}

3027: Karu, K. (2000).

3028: \emph{Minimal models and boundedness of stable varieties}. Jour. Alg. Geom.

3029: \textbf{9}, 93--109.

3030: 

3031: \bibitem[KM]{KM} 

3032: Kirby, D. and Mehran, A. (1982) 

3033: \emph{A note on the

3034:     coefficients of the Hilbert-Samuel polynomial for a Cohen-Macaulay

3035:     module.} Jour. London Math. Soc. (2) \textbf{no. 3}, 449--457.

3036: 

3037: \bibitem[Kl]{Kl}

3038: Kleiman, S. L. (1966).

3039: \emph{Toward a numerical theory of ampleness.} Ann. of Math. \textbf{84},

3040: 293--344.

3041: 

3042: \bibitem[Ko]{Ko}

3043: Koll\'ar, J. (1994).

3044: \emph{Projectivity of complete moduli.}

3045: Jour. Diff. Geom \textbf{32}, 235--268.

3046: 

3047: \bibitem[La]{La}

3048: Lazarsfeld, R. (2004).

3049: \emph{Positivity in algebraic geometry. I. Classical setting: line bundles

3050: and linear series.} Ergeb. Math. Grenzgeb. (3), Springer-Verlag.

3051: 

3052: \bibitem[Li]{Li}

3053: Li, J. (1993).

3054: \emph{Algebraic geometric interpretation of Donaldson's polynomial invariants.}

3055: Jour. Diff. Geom. \textbf{37}, 417--466.

3056: 

3057: \bibitem[Ma]{Ma}

3058: Matlis, E. (1973)

3059: \emph{The multiplicity and reduction number of a one-dimensional local

3060: ring.} Proc. London Math. Soc. \textbf{26}, 273--288.

3061: 

3062: \bibitem[Mat]{Mat}

3063: Matsusaka, T. (1972).

3064: \emph{Polarized varieties with a given Hilbert polynomial.}

3065: Amer. J. Math. \textbf{94}, 1027--1077.

3066: 

3067: \bibitem[Mo]{Mo}

3068: Morrison, I. (1980). 

3069: \emph{Projective stability of ruled surfaces.}

3070: Invent. Math. \textbf{56}, 269--304. 

3071: 

3072: \bibitem[Mor]{Mor}

3073: Mori, S. (1982).

3074: \emph{Threefolds whose canonical bundles are not numerically effective.}

3075: Ann. of Math. \textbf{116}, 133--176

3076: 

3077: \bibitem[Mu]{Mu}

3078: Mumford, D. (1977).

3079: \emph{Stability of projective varieties.}

3080: Enseignement Math. (2) \textbf{23}, 39--110. 

3081: 

3082: \bibitem[GIT]{GIT}

3083: Mumford, D., Fogarty, J. and Kirwan, F. (1994).

3084: \emph{Geometric Invariant Theory.}

3085: Third edition, Erg. Math. \textbf{34}, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

3086: 

3087: \bibitem[No]{No}

3088: Northcott, D. (1960).

3089: \emph{A note on the coefficients of the abstract Hilbert function.} J. London Math. Soc. \textbf{35}, 209--214.

3090: 

3091: \bibitem[PT]{PT}

3092: Paul, S. and Tian, G. (2004).

3093: \emph{Algebraic and Analytic K-Stability.} Preprint math.DG/0405530.

3094: 

3095: \bibitem[Ro]{Ro}

3096: Ross, J. (2003).

3097: \emph{Instability of polarised algebraic varieties.} PhD thesis, Imperial

3098: College.

3099: 

3100: \bibitem[RT]{RT}

3101: Ross, J. and Thomas, R. P. (2004).

3102: \emph{An obstruction to the existence of constant scalar

3103: curvature K\"{a}hler metrics.} Preprint math.DG/0412518.

3104: 

3105: \bibitem[Sz]{Sz}

3106: Sz\'ekelyhidi, G. (2004).

3107: \emph{Extremal metrics and K-stability.} Preprint math.AG/0410401.

3108: 

3109: \bibitem[Ti1]{Ti1}

3110: Tian, G. (1994).

3111: The $K$-energy on hypersurfaces and stability.

3112: Comm. Anal. Geom. \textbf{2}, 239--265.

3113: 

3114: \bibitem[Ti2]{Ti2}

3115: Tian, G. (1997).

3116: \emph{K\"ahler-Einstein metrics with positive scalar curvature.}

3117: Invent. Math. \textbf{130}, 1--37. 

3118: 

3119: \bibitem[V]{V}

3120: Viehweg, E. (1995).

3121: \emph{Quasi-projective moduli for polarized manifolds.} 

3122: Erg. Math. (3) \textbf{30}. Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

3123: 

3124: \bibitem[Y]{Y}

3125: Yau, S.-T. (1978).

3126: \emph{On the Ricci curvature of a compact K\"ahler manifold and the complex

3127: Monge-Amp\`ere equation. I.} Comm. Pure Appl. Math. \textbf{31}, 339--411. 

3128: \bibitem[Zh]{Zh}

3129: Zhang, S. (1996).

3130: \emph{Heights and reductions of semi-stable varieties.}

3131: Compositio Math. \textbf{104}, 77--105.

3132: 

3133: \end{thebibliography}

3134: 

3135: \vskip 4mm

3136: 

3137: {\small \noindent {\tt jaross@math.columbia.edu} \\

3138: \noindent \small{\tt richard.thomas@imperial.ac.uk}} \newline

3139: \noindent Department of Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027.

3140: USA. \\

3141: Department of Mathematics, Imperial College, London SW7 2AZ. UK.

3142: 

3143: \end{document}

3144: 

3145: 

3146: