arXiv reader

The \ell-adic Dualizing Complex on an Excellent Surface with Rational Singularities

Ting Li

arXiv
0809.0068v2 · PDF · 30 April 2010
Categories
math.AG
Licence
CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

In this article, we show that if X is an excellent surface with rational singularities, the constant sheaf \mathbb{Q}_{\ell} is a dualizing complex. In coefficient \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}, we also prove that the obstruction for \mathbb{Z}_{\ell} to become a dualizing complex lying on the divisor class groups at singular points. As applications, we study the perverse sheaves and the weights of \ell-adic cohomology groups on such surfaces.

Items 37

Definition

Definition 1.1

KUDN

Let X be a scheme satisfying (†), \delta \colon X \to \mathbb{Z} a dimension function. A potential dualizing complex (in coefficient \Lambda) on X consisting of

  1. an object \mathscr{K} in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\textbf{+}}{}{^{\textbf{+}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \Lambda},

  2. an isomorphism \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \varGamma_x(\mathscr{K}) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \Lambda\bigl(\delta(x)\bigr)\bigl[2\delta(x)\bigr] in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\textbf{+}}{}{^{\textbf{+}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{x_{\textup{\'et}}, \Lambda} for every point x on X;

and these data satisfy that: for every immediate specialization \bar{y} \to \bar{x} on X, the following diagram commutes,

\xymatrix@C+2em{\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \varGamma_{\bar{y}}(\mathscr{K}) \ar[r]^-{\mathrm{sp}^X_{\bar{y} \to \bar{x}}} \ar[d]_-{\cong} & \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \varGamma_{\bar{x}}(\mathscr{K})(1)[2] \ar[d]^-{\cong} \\ R\bigl(\delta(y)\bigr)\bigl[2\delta(y)\bigr] \ar@{=}[r] & R\bigl(\delta(x)+1\bigr)\bigl[2(\delta(x)+1)\bigr]}

where \mathrm{sp}^X_{\bar{y} \to \bar{x}} is the transition morphism of codimension 1 defined in [JRiou1, §1].

Proposition

Proposition 1.2

IL5H

Every scheme X satisfying (†) equipped with a dimension function \delta has a potential dualizing complex, unique up to unique isomorphism, which we denoted by \mathscr{K}_{X, \delta} or simply by \mathscr{K}_X. Moreover the potential dualizing complex is a dualizing complex.

Proposition

Proposition 1.3

JSDJ

Let X be a regular scheme satisfying (†). Then \delta(x) \mathrel{\mathop:}= - \dim \mathcal{O}_{X,x} is a dimension function on X and we have \mathscr{K}_{X, \delta} = \Lambda.

Proposition

Proposition 1.4

I8SG

Let f \colon X \to Y be a compactifiable morphism of schemes satisfying (†). Let \delta_Y be a dimension function on Y and equip X with the dimension function

\delta_X(x) \mathrel{\mathop:}= \delta_Y\bigl(f(x)\bigr) + \operatorname{tr.d.} k(x) \big/ k\bigl(f(x)\bigr) \,.

Then we have \mathscr{K}_{X, \delta_X} = \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} f^! \mathscr{K}_{Y, \delta_Y}.

Used by Proof, Proof
Proposition

Proposition 1.5

4VL3

Let f \colon X \to Y be a regular morphism of schemes satisfying (†). Let \delta_Y be a dimension function on Y and equip X with the dimension function

\delta_X(x) \mathrel{\mathop:}= \delta_Y(y) - \dim \mathcal{O}_{X_y, x} \qquad \bigl(y \mathrel{\mathop:}= f(x)\bigr)

Then we have \mathscr{K}_{X, \delta_X} = f^{\ast} \mathscr{K}_{Y, \delta_Y}.

Definition

Definition 1.6

FLLG

Let X be a scheme satisfying (†) equipped with a dimension function \delta. For each n \in \mathbb{Z}, we define

\mathrm{H}_{n}(X, \delta, \Lambda) \mathrel{\mathop:}= \mathrm{H}^{-n}(X_{\textup{\'et}}, \mathscr{K}_{X, \delta}) = \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \Lambda}}\bigl(\Lambda_X, \mathscr{K}_{X, \delta}[-n]\bigr) \,.

We also use \mathrm{H}_{n}(X, \delta) or \mathrm{H}_{n}(X, \Lambda) or \mathrm{H}_{n}(X) to denote \mathrm{H}_{n}(X, \delta, \Lambda), if no confusion arise.

Proposition

Proposition 1.7

FYKD

Let X be a scheme satisfying (†) equipped with a dimension function \delta, Y a closed subscheme of X and U \mathrel{\mathop:}= X \setminus Y. Then there is a long exact sequence of \Lambda-modules:

\cdots \mathrm{H}_{n+1}(U, \delta) \to \mathrm{H}_{n}(Y, \delta) \to \mathrm{H}_{n}(X, \delta) \to \mathrm{H}_{n}(U, \delta) \to \mathrm{H}_{n-1}(Y, \delta) \to \cdots \,.
Used by Proof
Proposition

Proposition 1.8 (Mayer-Vietoris Sequence)

GPV4

Let X be a scheme satisfying (†) equipped with a dimension function \delta, X_1 and X_2 two closed subschemes of X such that X = X_1 \cup X_2 (as sets). Then we have a long exact sequence

\cdots \to \mathrm{H}_{n}(X_1 \cap X_2, \, \delta) \to \mathrm{H}_{n}(X_1, \delta) \oplus \mathrm{H}_{n}(X_2, \delta) \to \mathrm{H}_{n}(X, \delta) \to \mathrm{H}_{n-1}(X_1 \cap X_2, \, \delta) \to \cdots \,.
Used by Proof
Notation

Notation 1.9

2RQF

Let X be a Noetherian scheme, \delta a dimension function on X. Then we define

\dim_{\delta}(X) \mathrel{\mathop:}= \sup_{x \in X}\delta(x) \,.

If \xi_1, \xi_2, \ldots, \xi_r are all generic points of irreducible components of X, then

\dim_{\delta}(X) = \max_{1 \leqslant i \leqslant r} \delta(\xi_i) < +\infty \,.
Proposition

Proposition 1.10 (Vanishing)

9NK6

Let X be a scheme satisfying (†) equipped with a dimension function \delta. Then \mathrm{H}_{n}(X, \delta) = 0 for all n > 2 \dim_{\delta}(X).

Corollary

Corollary 1.11

3PN4

Let X be a scheme satisfying (†) equipped with a dimension function \delta, Y a closed subscheme of X, X' \mathrel{\mathop:}= X \setminus Y. Then for each integer n > 2 \dim_{\delta}(Y) + 1, there is a canonical isomorphism \mathrm{H}_{n}(X, \delta) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}_{n}(X', \delta) of \Lambda-modules.

Proof of Corollary 1.11

We have only to apply Proposition 1.7.

Notation

Notation 1.12

XIHX

Let X be a scheme satisfying (†) equipped with a dimension function \delta, d \mathrel{\mathop:}= \dim_{\delta}(X).

  1. First we assume that X is regular and integral. Then we use \mathrm{t}_X \colon \Lambda \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathscr{K}_{X, \delta}(-d)[-2d] to denote the canonical morphism defined by Proposition 1.3, and use \mathrm{cl}(X) to denote the element in \mathrm{H}_{2d}(X, \delta)(-d) corresponding to \mathrm{t}_X.

  2. Second we only assume that X is integral. As X is excellent, U \mathrel{\mathop:}= X_{\mathrm{reg}} is an open dense subset of X. Obviously \dim_{\delta}(X \setminus U) < d. By Corollary 1.11, there is a canonical isomorphism

    \mathrm{H}_{2d}(X, \delta)(-d) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}_{2d}(U, \delta)(-d) \,.

    Let \mathrm{cl}(X) be the inverse image of \mathrm{cl}(U) under above isomorphism.

  3. In general case, we let X_1, X_2, \ldots, X_r be all irreducible components of X with \dim_{\delta}(X_i) = d. For each i, regard X_i as a reduced subscheme of X, let \iota_i \colon X_i \hookrightarrow X be the inclusion and let \xi_i be the generic point of X_i. Then we define

    \mathrm{cl}(X) \mathrel{\mathop:}= \sum^r_{i=1} \mathrm{length}(\mathcal{O}_{X, \xi_i}) \cdot \iota_{i, \ast} \bigl(\mathrm{cl}(X_i)\bigr) \in \mathrm{H}_{2d}(X, \delta)(-d) \,.

    We also use \mathrm{t}_X \colon \Lambda \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathscr{K}_{X, \delta}(-d)[-2d] to denote the morphism in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X, \Lambda} corresponding to \mathrm{cl}(X).

Notation

Notation 1.13

TMJ8

Let X be a scheme satisfying (†) equipped with a dimension function \delta, Y a closed subscheme of X, d \mathrel{\mathop:}= \dim_{\delta}(Y). Then we define

\mathrm{cl}_X(Y) \mathrel{\mathop:}= \iota_{\ast}\bigl(\mathrm{cl}(Y)\bigr) \in \mathrm{H}_{2d}(X, \delta)(-d) \,,

where \iota \colon Y \hookrightarrow X is the inclusion.

Lemma

Lemma 1.14

190M

Let X be a scheme satisfying (†), Y a closed subscheme of X, U \mathrel{\mathop:}= X \setminus Y, i \colon Y \hookrightarrow X and j \colon U \hookrightarrow X the inclusions. Then for each object \mathscr{F} in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \Lambda}, there are two distinguished triangles in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \Lambda}:

  1. j_!j^{\ast}\mathscr{F} \to \mathscr{F} \to i_{\ast}i^{\ast}\mathscr{F} \to j_!j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[1] ,

  2. i_{\ast}\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} i^!\mathscr{F} \to \mathscr{F} \to \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} j_{\ast} j^{\ast}\mathscr{F} \to i_{\ast}\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} i^!\mathscr{F}[1] .

Used by Proof, Proof
Lemma

Lemma 1.15

6MPY

Let X be a scheme satisfying (†), Y a closed subscheme of X, U \mathrel{\mathop:}= X \setminus Y, i \colon Y \hookrightarrow X and j \colon U \hookrightarrow X the inclusions, \mathscr{F}' \xrightarrow{\varphi} \mathscr{F} \xrightarrow{\psi} \mathscr{F}'' a sequence of objects in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \Lambda}. Assume that one of the following two conditions holds:

  1. j^{\ast}(\varphi) \colon j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}' \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} j^{\ast}\mathscr{F} is an isomorphism, j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}'' = 0, and for all n \in \mathbb{Z},

    0 \to \mathrm{H}^{n}(i^{\ast}\mathscr{F}') \to \mathrm{H}^{n}(i^{\ast}\mathscr{F}) \to \mathrm{H}^{n}(i^{\ast}\mathscr{F}'') \to 0

    is a short exact sequence;

  2. j^{\ast}(\psi) \colon j^{\ast}\mathscr{F} \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}'' is an isomorphism, j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}' = 0, and for all n \in \mathbb{Z},

    0 \to \mathrm{H}^{n}(\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} i^!\mathscr{F}') \to \mathrm{H}^{n}(\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} i^!\mathscr{F}) \to \mathrm{H}^{n}(\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} i^!\mathscr{F}'') \to 0

    is a short exact sequence.

Then there exists a morphism \delta \colon \mathscr{F}'' \to \mathscr{F}'[1] which makes

\mathscr{F}' \xrightarrow{\varphi} \mathscr{F} \xrightarrow{\psi} \mathscr{F}'' \xrightarrow{\delta} \mathscr{F}'[1]

a distinguished triangle in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \Lambda}.

Proof of Lemma 1.15

The morphism \varphi extends to a distinguished triangle

\mathscr{F}' \xrightarrow{\varphi} \mathscr{F} \xrightarrow{\phi} \mathscr{G} \xrightarrow{\rho} \mathscr{F}'[1]

in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \Lambda}. Note that 0 \to \mathscr{F}'' \xrightarrow{\mathrm{id}} \mathscr{F}'' \to 0[1] is also a distinguished triangle. Hence there exists a morphism \alpha \colon \mathscr{G} \to \mathscr{F}'' such that the triple (0, \psi, \alpha) is a morphism of distinguished triangles, i.e., the following diagram commutes.

\xymatrix{\mathscr{F}' \ar[r]^-{\varphi} \ar[d]^{0} & \mathscr{F} \ar[r]^-{\phi} \ar[d]^{\psi} & \mathscr{G} \ar[r]^-{\rho} \ar[d]^{\alpha} & \mathscr{F}'[1] \ar[d]^{0} \\ 0 \ar[r] & \mathscr{F}'' \ar[r]^-{\mathrm{id}} & \mathscr{F}'' \ar[r] & 0[1]}

Now if (1) holds, then both j^{\ast}(\alpha) and i^{\ast}(\alpha) are isomorphic; and if (2) holds, then both j^{\ast}(\alpha) and \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} i^!(\alpha) are isomorphic. In either case, by Lemma 1.14, the morphism \alpha \colon \mathscr{G} \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathscr{F}'' is an isomorphism. Therefore we may let \delta \mathrel{\mathop:}= \rho \circ \alpha^{-1}.

Proposition

Proposition 1.16

PIXJ

Let

\xymatrix{Y' \ar@{^(->}[r]^-{i'} \ar[d]_{q} \ar@{}[dr]|-*+{\square} & X' \ar[d]^{p} \\ Y \ar@{^(->}[r]^-{i} & X}

be a Cartesian square of schemes satisfying (†), r \mathrel{\mathop:}= p \circ i' = i \circ q. Assume that p is proper, i is a closed immersion; and there exists an open subset U of X such that i(Y) = X \setminus U and p induces an isomorphism p^{-1}(U) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} U. Then for each object \mathscr{F} in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \Lambda}, there are two distinguished triangles:

\begin{gathered} \mathscr{F} \xrightarrow{\delta_i \oplus \delta_p} i_{\ast} \circ i^{\ast} \mathscr{F} \oplus \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} p_{\ast} \circ p^{\ast} \mathscr{F} \xrightarrow{\delta_q \circ \mathrm{pr}_{1} - \delta_{i'} \circ \mathrm{pr}_{2}} \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} r_{\ast} \circ r^{\ast} \mathscr{F} \to \mathscr{F}[1]\,, \\ \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} r_{\ast} \circ \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} r^! \mathscr{F} \xrightarrow{\vartheta_q \oplus \vartheta_{i'}} i_{\ast} \circ \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} i^! \mathscr{F} \oplus \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} p_{\ast} \circ \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} p^! \mathscr{F} \xrightarrow{-\vartheta_i \circ \mathrm{pr}_{1} + \vartheta_p \circ \mathrm{pr}_{2}} \mathscr{F} \to (\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} r_{\ast} \circ \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} r^! \mathscr{F})[1] \,, \end{gathered}

in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\textbf{+}}{}{^{\textbf{+}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \Lambda}, where \delta and \vartheta are induced by the adjunctions.

Proposition

Proposition 1.17

N2JP

Let the assumptions and the notations be as in Proposition 1.16; and let \delta be a dimension function on X. Then there is a long exact sequence of \Lambda-modules:

\cdots \to \mathrm{H}_{n+1}(X, \delta) \to \mathrm{H}_{n}(Y', \delta) \xrightarrow{q_{\ast} \oplus i'_{\ast}} \mathrm{H}_{n}(Y, \delta) \oplus \mathrm{H}_{n}(X', \delta) \xrightarrow{-i_{\ast} \circ \mathrm{pr}_{1} + p_{\ast} \circ \mathrm{pr}_{2}} \mathrm{H}_{n}(X, \delta) \to \cdots \,.
Used by Proof
Proposition

Proposition 2.1

WE6Q

Let C be a 1-equidimensional proper algebraic scheme over a separably closed field k. Let C^{(1)}, C^{(2)}, \ldots, C^{(r)} be all connected components of C; and let C_1, C_2, \ldots, C_n be all irreducible components of C. Assume that \mathrm{H}^{1}(C, \mathcal{O}_C) = 0. Then we have

  1. As to homology, we have

    1. There is a canonical isomorphism:

      \mathrm{H}_{0}(C) = \bigoplus^r_{i=1} \mathrm{H}_{0}(C^{(i)}) \@ifempty{\oplus \deg}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{\oplus \deg}} \Lambda^{\oplus r} \,.
    2. \mathrm{H}_{1}(C) = 0.

    3. \mathrm{H}_{2}(C)(-1) is a free \Lambda-module with basis \mathrm{cl}(C_1),\ldots,\mathrm{cl}(C_n).

  2. As to cohomology, we have

    1. There is a canonical isomorphism:

      \mathrm{H}^{0}(C, \Lambda) = \bigoplus^r_{i=1} \mathrm{H}^{0}(C^{(i)}) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \Lambda^{\oplus r} \,.
    2. \mathrm{H}^{1}(C, \Lambda) = 0.

    3. There is a canonical isomorphism \mathrm{H}^{2}\bigl(C, \Lambda(1)\bigr) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \Lambda^{\oplus n} which sends c_1(\mathscr{L}) to \bigl(\deg(\mathscr{L}|_{C_1}), \ldots, \deg(\mathscr{L}|_{C_r})\bigr) for each invertible \mathcal{O}_C-module \mathscr{L}.

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 2.1

(1). Let \bar{k} be the algebraic closure of k. After replacing k with \bar{k} and X with (X \otimes_k \bar{k})_{\mathrm{red}}, we may assume that k is algebraically closed and X is reduced. Now we use induction on the number n of irreducible components of C.

First consider the case n = 1. In this case, C is integral. Let \widetilde{C} be the normalization of C. Then there is a long exact sequence

0 \to \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_C) \to \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{C}}) \to \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{C}}/\mathcal{O}_C) \to \mathrm{H}^{1}(C, \mathcal{O}_C) \,.

Note that \mathrm{H}^{1}(C, \mathcal{O}_C) = 0, \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_C) = k and \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{C}}) = \varGamma(\widetilde{C}, \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{C}}) = k. Hence \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{C}}/\mathcal{O}_C) = 0. Since \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{C}}/\mathcal{O}_C is a coherent \mathcal{O}_C-module whose support is of dimension \leqslant 0, we have \mathcal{O}_{\widetilde{C}}/\mathcal{O}_C = 0, i.e., C = \widetilde{C} is normal. So we have C = \mathrm{P}_k^1.

Assume that (1) is valid for all integers < n. Let C' be an irreducible component C and let C'' be the union of all other irreducible components. Regard C' and C'' as reduced closed subschemes of C. Then there is a short exact sequence:

0 \to \mathcal{O}_C \xrightarrow{c \mapsto (\bar{c}, \bar{c})} \mathcal{O}_{C'} \oplus \mathcal{O}_{C''} \xrightarrow{(a, b) \mapsto \bar{a}-\bar{b}} \mathcal{O}_{C' \cap C''} \to 0 \,,

which induces a long exact sequence:

\begin{gathered} 0 \to \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_C) \to \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_{C'}) \oplus \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_{C''}) \to \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_{C' \cap C'}) \\ \to \mathrm{H}^{1}(C, \mathcal{O}_C) \to \mathrm{H}^{1}(C, \mathcal{O}_{C'}) \oplus \mathrm{H}^{1}(C, \mathcal{O}_{C''}) \to 0 \,. \end{gathered}

Let r and s be the numbers of connected components of C and C'' respectively; and let Z_1, Z_2, \ldots, Z_m be all connected components of C'' which intersect with C'. Then m =s - r+ 1. On the other hand, we have

\dim_k \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_C) = r, \quad \dim_k \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_{C'}) = 1, \quad \dim_k \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_{C''}) = s.

As \mathrm{H}^{1}(C, \mathcal{O}_C) = 0, we have \mathrm{H}^{1}(C, \mathcal{O}_{C'}) = \mathrm{H}^{1}(C, \mathcal{O}_{C''}) = 0, and

\dim_k \varGamma(C, \mathcal{O}_{C' \cap C'}) = s-r+1 = m \,.

This shows that for each i, Z_i \cap C' contains only one point P_i, and C' \cap C'' = \{P_1, P_2, \ldots, P_m\}.

Using induction on Z_i, C' and C'', we obtain that (1) is valid on all Z_i, C' and C''. Applying Proposition 1.8, we obtain an isomorphism \mathrm{H}_{2}(C') \oplus \mathrm{H}_{2}(C'') \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}_{2}(C) and an exact sequence

0 \to \mathrm{H}_{1}(C) \to \mathrm{H}_{0}(C' \cap C'') \xrightarrow{l} \mathrm{H}_{0}(C') \oplus \mathrm{H}_{0}(C'') \to \mathrm{H}_{0}(C) \to 0 \,.

Note that the map l has an inverse which is defined by the composition

\mathrm{H}_{0}(C') \oplus \mathrm{H}_{0}(C'') \xrightarrow{\text{pr}} \mathrm{H}_{0}(C'') \xrightarrow{\text{pr}} \bigoplus^m_{i=1} \mathrm{H}_{0}(Z_i) \@ifempty{\oplus \varphi_i}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{\oplus \varphi_i}} \bigoplus^m_{i=1} \mathrm{H}_{0}(P_i) = \mathrm{H}_{0}(C' \cap C'') \,,

where the isomorphism \varphi_i, which maps \mathrm{cl}_{Z_i}(P_i) to \mathrm{cl}(P_i), is obtained by applying (a) on Z_i. Therefore (1) are valid for C.

(2) Let \pi \colon C \to \operatorname{Spec} k be the structural morphism. Note that

\mathrm{H}^{q}(C, \Lambda) = \mathrm{H}^{q}(\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \pi_{\ast} \Lambda_C) = \mathrm{H}^{q}\bigl(\mathscr{D}(\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \pi_{\ast} \mathscr{D}(\Lambda_C))\bigr) = \mathrm{H}^{q}\bigl(\mathscr{D}(\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \pi_{\ast} \mathscr{K}_C)\bigr) \,,

where \mathscr{D} \mathrel{\mathop:}= \mathscr{H}om(\@ifempty{.6em}{\raisebox{0.2ex}{\Tiny\textbullet}}{\makebox[.8em][c]{\raisebox{0.2ex}{\Tiny\textbullet}}}, \mathscr{K}) is the dualizing functor. By (1), we have

\mathrm{H}^{q}(\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \pi_{\ast} \mathscr{K}_C) = \mathrm{H}_{-q}(C) = \begin{cases} \Lambda^{\oplus r} & q = 0, \\ \Lambda(1)^{\oplus n} & q = -2, \\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}

In other words, all entries of \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \pi_{\ast} \mathscr{K}_C are free \Lambda-modules. Therefore we have

\mathrm{H}^{q}(C, \Lambda) = \begin{cases} \Lambda^{\oplus r} & q = 0, \\ \Lambda(-1)^{\oplus n} & q = 2, \\ 0 & \text{otherwise.} \end{cases}

So (2) is verifies. (c) is also by [SGA4, IX, 4.7].

Remark

Remark 2.2

G1ZE

In fact, every connected component of (C \otimes_k \bar{k})_{\mathrm{red}} is a tree of nonsingular rational curves with normal crossings.

Proposition

Proposition 3.1

XQGM

Let X be a surface which is the spectrum of a strictly Henselian local ring, P the closed point of X, U \mathrel{\mathop:}= X \setminus P. Assume that U is regular, and X admits a desingularization \pi \colon \widetilde{X} \to X which induces an isomorphism \pi^{-1}(U) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} U. Let E \mathrel{\mathop:}= \pi^{-1}(P) be the exceptional divisor. Then we have

  1. The map \mathrm{H}^{0}(\mathrm{t}_X) \colon \Lambda \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}_{4}(X)(-2) is an isomorphism.

  2. \mathrm{H}_{3}(X) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}^{1}\bigl(E, \Lambda(2)\bigr).

  3. There is an exact sequence of \Lambda-modules:

    0 \to \mathrm{H}_{2}(E) \to \mathrm{H}^{2}\bigl(E, \Lambda(2)\bigr) \to \mathrm{H}_{2}(X) \to \mathrm{H}_{1}(E) \to 0 \,,

    Moreover the kernel of the map \mathrm{H}_{2}(X) \to \mathrm{H}_{1}(E) is a finite group.

  4. There is an exact sequence of \Lambda-modules:

    0 \to \mathrm{H}_{1}(X) \to \mathrm{H}_{0}(E) \xrightarrow{\deg} \Lambda \to 0 \,.
  5. \mathrm{H}_{q}(X) = 0 for q > 4 or q < 1.

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 3.1

After applying Proposition 1.17 to the following Cartesian square,

\vcenter{\xymatrix{E \ar@{^(->}[r]^-{\tilde{i}} \ar[d]_{\tau} \ar@{}[dr]|-*+{\square} & \widetilde{X} \ar[d]^{\pi} \\ P \ar@{^(->}[r]^-{i} & X}}

we obtain a long exact sequence

\cdots \to \mathrm{H}_{n+1}(X) \to \mathrm{H}_{n}(E) \to \mathrm{H}_{n}(P) \oplus \mathrm{H}_{n}(\widetilde{X}) \to \mathrm{H}_{n}(X) \to \cdots \,.

For each q \in \mathbb{Z}, there is a canonical isomorphism of \Lambda-modules:

\mathrm{H}_{q}(\widetilde{X}) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}^{4-q}\bigl(\widetilde{X}, \Lambda(2)\bigr) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}^{4-q}\bigl(E, \Lambda(2)\bigr) \,,

where the first isomorphism is induced by Proposition 1.3 (since \widetilde{X} is regular), and the last isomorphism is from the base change theorem via the square (Proof). Thus \mathrm{H}_{q}(\widetilde{X}) = 0 for q < 2 and q > 4. Also note that \mathrm{H}_{q}(E) = 0 for q < 0 and q > 2; and \mathrm{H}_{q}(P) = \begin{cases} 0 & q \neq 0, \\ \Lambda & q= 0. \end{cases} Hence we may divide (Proof) to three exact sequences

\begin{gathered} 0 \to \mathrm{H}^{0}\bigl(E, \Lambda(2)\bigr) \to \mathrm{H}_{4}(X) \to 0, \\ 0 \to \mathrm{H}^{1}\bigl(E, \Lambda(2)\bigr) \to \mathrm{H}_{3}(X) \to \mathrm{H}_{2}(E) \to \mathrm{H}^{2}\bigl(E, \Lambda(2)\bigr) \to \mathrm{H}_{2}(X) \to \mathrm{H}_{1}(E) \to 0, \\ 0 \to \mathrm{H}_{1}(X) \to \mathrm{H}_{0}(E) \xrightarrow{\deg} \Lambda \to \mathrm{H}_{0}(X) \to 0. \end{gathered}

Now (1) is by the exact sequence (Proof).

From the sequence (Proof), to prove (4) & (5) we have only to prove the map \mathrm{H}_{0}(E) \xrightarrow{\deg} \Lambda is epimorphic. Since X is strictly local, the field k \mathrel{\mathop:}= k(P) is separably closed. Let Q be a closed point on E. Then \deg \mathrm{cl}_E(Q) = \bigl[k(Q), k\bigr]. Put p \mathrel{\mathop:}= \operatorname{char} k. Since k is separably closed, the number \bigl[k(Q), k\bigr] is either 1 or a power of p; in both cases, it is invertible on \Lambda (as \ell \neq p). Hence \deg is surjective.

From the sequence (Proof), to prove (2) & (3) we have only to prove that the homomorphism \mathrm{H}_{2}(E)(-1) \to \mathrm{H}^{2}\bigl(E, \Lambda(1)\bigr) is injective and its cokernel is a torsion group. Let E_1, E_2, \ldots, E_n be all irreducible components of E. Then \mathrm{H}_{2}(E)(-1) is a free \Lambda-Module with a basis \bigl\{\mathrm{cl}_E(E_i)\bigr\}^n_{i=1}. Note that the composite map

\mathrm{H}_{2}(E)(-1) \to \mathrm{H}_{2}(\widetilde{X})(-1) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}^{2}\bigl(\widetilde{X}, \Lambda(1)\bigr) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}^{2}\bigl(E, \Lambda(1)\bigr) \@ifempty{\rho}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{\rho}} \Lambda^{\oplus n}

sends each \mathrm{cl}_E(E_i) to \sum\limits^n_{j=1}a_{ij}e_j, where the isomorphism \rho is defined in [SGA4, IX, 4.7], e_1, e_2, \ldots, e_n is the standard basis for \Lambda^{\oplus n}, and

a_{ij} = \deg \bigl(\mathscr{L}_{\widetilde{X}}(E_i)|_{E_j}\bigr) = (E_i, E_j) \,,

where \mathscr{L}_{\widetilde{X}}(E_i) means the invertible sheaf on \widetilde{X} associated to the divisor E_i. In other words, the map (Proof) is given by the intersection matrix \bigl((E_i, E_j)\bigr), which is negative-definite by [MR0276239, (14.1)]. Therefore the map (Proof) is injective with torsion cokernel.

Theorem

Theorem 3.2

73LL

Let the assumptions and the notations be as in Proposition 3.1. We further assume that X has a rational singularity at P. Then we have

  1. Let \mathrm{Cl}(X) denote the Weil divisor class group of X. Then there is a canonical isomorphism

    \mathrm{cl} \colon \mathrm{Cl}(X) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \Lambda \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}_{2}(X)(-1)

    which sends each [Y] \otimes 1 to \mathrm{cl}_X(Y).

  2. The map \mathrm{H}^{0}(\mathrm{t}_X) \colon \Lambda \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}_{4}(X)(-2) is an isomorphism.

  3. \mathrm{H}_{q}(X) = 0 for q \neq 2, 4.

Proof of Theorem 3.2

By [MR0276239, (4.1)], any desingularization of a surface with rational singularities is a product of quadratic transformations. Since X is the spectrum of a local ring, the exceptional divisor E is connected. Thus the map \deg \colon \mathrm{H}_{0}(E) \to \Lambda is an isomorphism by Proposition 2.1 (1a). Then (2) & (3) are by Proposition 3.1 and Proposition 2.1. So we have only to prove (1).

We adopt the assumptions and notation in [MR0276239, §14]. Let E_1, E_2, \ldots, E_n be all irreducible components of E. For each i, let d_i > 0 be the greatest common divisor of all the degrees of invertible sheaves on E_i. Put k \mathrel{\mathop:}= k(P) and p \mathrel{\mathop:}= \operatorname{char} k. For each i, let Q_i be a closed point on \mathrm{Reg}(E_i). Then Q_i defines an invertible sheaf of degree \bigl[k(Q_i), k\bigr] on E_i. Since the number \bigl[k(Q_i), k\bigr] is invertible on \Lambda, so is d_i.

Let \mathbf{E} be the additive group of divisors on \widetilde{X} generated by \{E_i\}^n_{i=1}. Then \mathbf{E} is a free abelian group with basis E_1, E_2, \ldots, E_n. Put \mathbf{E}^{\ast} \mathrel{\mathop:}= \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}(\mathbf{E}, \mathbb{Z}) and let \varepsilon_1, \varepsilon_2, \ldots, \varepsilon_n be the dual basis. We define a homomorphism of groups:

\vartheta \colon \mathbf{E} \to \mathbf{E}^{\ast} \,, \qquad E_i \mapsto \sum^n_{j=1} \tfrac{1}{d_j}(E_i, E_j) \cdot \varepsilon_j \,.

By [MR0276239, (14.3), (14.4) & (17.1)], there is an exact sequence

0 \to \mathbf{E} \xrightarrow{\vartheta} \mathbf{E}^{\ast} \to \mathrm{Cl}(X) \to 0 \,.

Let e_1,e_2,\ldots,e_n be the basis for the free \Lambda-module \mathrm{H}^{2}\bigl(E, \Lambda(1)\bigr) defined by the isomorphism in Proposition 2.1 (2c). Since each d_j is invertible on \Lambda, the homomorphism

\delta \colon \mathbf{E}^{\ast} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \Lambda \to \mathrm{H}^{2}\bigl(E, \Lambda(1)\bigr) \,, \qquad \varepsilon_j \otimes 1 \mapsto d_j e_j

is an isomorphism of \Lambda-modules. It is easy to check that the following diagram

\xymatrix{0 \ar[r] & \mathbf{E} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \Lambda \ar[r]^{\vartheta \otimes \mathrm{id}} \ar[d]^{\text{(i)}}_{\cong} & \mathbf{E}^{\ast} \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \Lambda \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\delta}_{\cong} & \mathrm{Cl}(X) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \Lambda \ar[r] \ar[d]^{\mathrm{cl}} & 0 \\ 0 \ar[r] & \mathrm{H}_{2}(E)(-1) \ar[r] & \mathrm{H}^{2}\bigl(E, \Lambda(1)\bigr) \ar[r] & \mathrm{H}_{2}(X)(-1) \ar[r] & 0}

is commutative with both rows exact, where the isomorphism (i) sends each E_i \otimes 1 to \mathrm{cl}_E(E_i). Therefore \mathrm{cl} \colon \mathrm{Cl}(X) \otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \Lambda \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}_{2}(X)(-1) is an isomorphism.

Corollary

Corollary 3.3

LXP7

Let X be a surface having only finitely many singular points, all of which are rational singularities. Then \mathrm{t}_X \colon \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(2)[4] \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathscr{K}_X is an isomorphism in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}. In particular, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell} is a dualizing complex on X_{\textup{\'et}} in coefficient \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}.

Used by Proof, Proof
Corollary

Corollary 3.4 (Poincaré Duality)

0IBC

Let k be a separably closed field on which \ell is invertible. And let X be a surface over k. Assume that X has only finitely many singular points, all of which are rational singularities. Then

  1. The trace map \operatorname{Tr}_X \colon \mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{c}}^{4}\bigl(X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(2)\bigr) \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathbb{Q}_{\ell} is an isomorphism.

  2. For every 0 \leqslant r \leqslant 4 and every object \mathscr{F} in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}, the pairing

    \mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{c}}^{r}(X, \mathscr{F}) \times \mathrm{Ext}^{4-r}_X\bigl(\mathscr{F}, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(2)\bigr) \to \mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{c}}^{4}\bigl(X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(2)\bigr) \@ifempty{\operatorname{Tr}_X}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{\operatorname{Tr}_X}} \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}

    is nondegenerate.

  3. For every 0 \leqslant r \leqslant 4, the pairing

    \mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{c}}^{r}(X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}) \times \mathrm{H}^{4-r}\bigl(X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(2)\bigr) \to \mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{c}}^{4}\bigl(X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(2)\bigr) \@ifempty{\operatorname{Tr}_X}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{\operatorname{Tr}_X}} \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}

    is nondegenerate.

Proof of Corollary 3.4

(3) is a special case of (2). Let p \colon X \to \operatorname{Spec} k be the structural morphism. By Corollary 3.3 and Proposition 1.4, we have isomorphisms

\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(2)[4] \@ifempty{\mathrm{t}_X}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{\mathrm{t}_X}} \mathscr{K}_X \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} p^! \mathbb{Q}_{\ell} \,.

Hence we have

\begin{aligned} \mathrm{Ext}_X^{4-r}\bigl(\mathscr{F}, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(2)\bigr) & \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}}\bigl(\mathscr{F}[r], \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(2)[4]\bigr) \\ & \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}}\bigl(\mathscr{F}[r], \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} p^! \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\bigr) \\ & \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \operatorname{Hom}_{\mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{\mathbb{Q}_{\ell}}}\bigl(\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} p_! \mathscr{F}[r], \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}\bigr) \\ & \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{c}}^{r}(X, \mathscr{F})\spcheck \,. \end{aligned}

So (2) is proved. In above isomorphism, letting r = 4 and \mathscr{F} = \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}, we obtain

\mathrm{H}_{\mathrm{c}}^{4}(X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell})\spcheck \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathrm{H}^{0}\bigl(X, \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(2)\bigr) = \mathbb{Q}_{\ell}(2) \,.

So (1) is proved.

Corollary

Corollary 3.5

O4CT

Let X be a surface having only finitely many singular points, all of which are rational singularities. Assume further that for any singular point P, \mathcal{O}_{X, P}^{\mathrm{sh}} is factorial. Then \mathrm{t}_X \colon \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}(2)[4] \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathscr{K}_X is an isomorphism in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}}. In particular, \mathbb{Z}_{\ell} is a dualizing complex on X_{\textup{\'et}} in coefficient \mathbb{Z}_{\ell}.

Remark

Remark 3.6

KBUI

By [MR0276239, (17.2)], the ring \mathcal{O}_{X, P}^{\mathrm{sh}} is factorial if and only if its completion \widehat{\mathcal{O}}_{X, P}^{\mathrm{sh}} is factorial. See [MR0276239, §25] for the complete list of two-dimensional factorial complete local rings with rational singularities.

Proposition

Proposition 4.1

ZVVK

Let X be a surface having only finitely many singular points, all of which are rational singularities; U an open dense subset contained in X_{\mathrm{reg}} and j \colon U \hookrightarrow X the inclusion. Let \mathscr{F} be a smooth \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}-sheaf on X_{\textup{\'et}}. Then \mathscr{F}[2] is an object in \mathrm{Perv}(X, \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}) and there is a canonical isomorphism j_{! \ast} \circ j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathscr{F}[2].

Used by Proof
Proof of Proposition 4.1

Obviously we may assume that U = X_{\mathrm{reg}}. Then Y \mathrel{\mathop:}= X \setminus U contains only finitely many singular points, all of which are rational singularities of X. Let P be a point in X \setminus U. Then

i_P^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] = \mathscr{F}_P[2] \in \vphantom{\mathbf{D}}^{\mathrm{P}}\mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}, \leqslant -2}{}{^{\mathrm{b}, \leqslant -2}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}} \,.

Next we calculate i_P^! \mathscr{F}[2]. Put \overline{X} \mathrel{\mathop:}= \operatorname{Spec} \mathcal{O}_{X, P}^{\mathrm{sh}}, and let \rho \colon \overline{X} \to X and \iota \colon P \hookrightarrow \overline{X} be the canonical morphisms. Since \overline{X} is strictly local and \mathscr{F} is a smooth sheaf, \rho^{\ast}\mathscr{F} \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}^{\oplus r} for some r \in \mathbb{N}. So we have

\begin{alignedat}{2} i_P^! \mathscr{F}[2] &= \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \iota^! \circ \rho^{\ast} \mathscr{F}[2] \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \iota^! \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}^{\oplus r}[2] \\ & \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \bigl(\mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \iota^! \mathscr{K}_{\overline{X}}(-2)[-4]\bigr)^{\oplus r}[2] & & \qquad (\text{\autoref{M-A21}}) \\ &= \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \iota^! \mathscr{K}_{\overline{X}}^{\oplus r}(-2)[-2] \\ & \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \mathscr{K}_P^{\oplus r}(-2)[-2] & & \qquad (\text{\autoref{P-78E}}) \\ & \@ifempty{}{\xrightarrow{\,\sim\,}} {\xrightarrow[\,\sim\,]{}} \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}^{\oplus r}(-2)[-2] \,. \end{alignedat}

Hence i_P^! \mathscr{F}[2] \in \vphantom{\mathbf{D}}^{\mathrm{P}}\mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}, \geqslant 2}{}{^{\mathrm{b}, \geqslant 2}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}}. This show that \mathscr{F}[2] \in \mathrm{Perv}(X, \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}).

Let i \colon Y \hookrightarrow X and j \colon U \hookrightarrow X be the inclusion. Then i^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] \in \vphantom{\mathbf{D}}^{\mathrm{P}}\mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}, \leqslant -2}{}{^{\mathrm{b}, \leqslant -2}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{Y_{\textup{\'et}}, \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}} and \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} i^! \mathscr{F}[2] \in \vphantom{\mathbf{D}}^{\mathrm{P}}\mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}, \geqslant 2}{}{^{\mathrm{b}, \geqslant 2}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{Y_{\textup{\'et}}, \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}}. So both {}^{\mathrm{P}}i^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] and {}^{\mathrm{P}}i^!\mathscr{F}[2] are zero. By Lemma 1.14, there are two long exact sequences in \mathrm{Perv}(X, \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}):

\begin{gathered} \cdots \to {}^{\mathrm{P}}j_! \circ j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] \to \mathscr{F}[2] \to i_{\ast} \circ {}^{\mathrm{P}}i^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] \to \cdots \,, \\ \cdots \to i_{\ast} \circ {}^{\mathrm{P}}i^!\mathscr{F}[2] \to \mathscr{F}[2] \to {}^{\mathrm{P}}j_{\ast} \circ j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] \to \cdots \,. \end{gathered}

Thus {}^{\mathrm{P}}j_! \circ j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] \to \mathscr{F}[2] is an epimorphism and \mathscr{F}[2] \to {}^{\mathrm{P}}j_{\ast} \circ j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] is a monomorphism. Therefore j_{! \ast} \circ j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] = \mathscr{F}[2].

Definition

Definition 4.2

BK6Q

Let w \in \mathbb{Z}. An element \alpha \in \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}^{\ast} is said to be pure of weight w if for any \mathbb{Q}-embedding \iota \colon \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell} \hookrightarrow \mathbb{C}, we have |\iota(\alpha)| = q^{r/2}.

Definition

Definition 4.3

OLT7

Let X be an algebraic scheme over k.

  1. A constructible \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}-sheaf \mathscr{F} on X is said to be

    • punctually pure of weight n if for every closed point x on X, all eigenvalues of the geometric Frobenius F_x acting on \mathscr{F}_{\bar{x}} are pure of weight w;

    • mixed (of weights \leqslant w), if there exists a finite filtration

      0 = \mathscr{F}_r \subset \mathscr{F}_{r-1} \subset \cdots \subset \mathscr{F}_1 \subset \mathscr{F}_0 = \mathscr{F}

      consisting of constructible \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}-sheaves, such that each \mathscr{F}_i/\mathscr{F}_{i+1} is punctually pure (of weights \leqslant n).

  2. An object \mathscr{F} in \mathbf{D}_{\mathrm{c}}\@ifempty{\mathrm{b}}{}{^{\mathrm{b}}}\@ifnextchar({\b@Brac}{\n@Brac}{X_{\textup{\'et}}, \widetilde{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}} is said to be

    • mixed of weights \leqslant w if for every n \in \mathbb{Z}, \mathrm{H}^{n}(\mathscr{F}) is mixed of weights \leqslant n+w;

    • mixed of weights \geqslant w if \mathrm{D}(\mathscr{F}) = \mathbf{R}\mathscr{H}\!om(\mathscr{F}, \mathscr{K}_X) is mixed of weights \leqslant -w;

    • pure of weight w if it is mixed of weights \leqslant w and \geqslant w.

Proposition

Proposition 4.4

G599

Let X be a complete surface over k, \mathscr{F} a smooth \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}-sheaf on X_{\textup{\'et}}. Assume that X has only finitely many singular points, all of which are rational singularities; and \mathscr{F} is punctually pure of weight w. Then for every n \in \mathbb{N}, the \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}-module \mathrm{H}^{n}(\overline{X}_{\textup{\'et}}, \overline{\mathscr{F}}) is punctually pure of weight n+w.

Proof of Proposition 4.4

Put U \mathrel{\mathop:}= X_{\mathrm{reg}} and let j \colon U \hookrightarrow X be the inclusion. Since U is smooth and j^{\ast}\mathscr{F} is a smooth \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}-sheaf, j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] is pure of weight w+2. By Proposition 4.1, \mathscr{F}[2] \in \mathrm{Perv}(X, \overline{\mathbb{Q}}_{\ell}) and j_{! \ast} j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] \cong \mathscr{F}[2]. So after applying [MR751966, Corollaire 5.4.3], we obtain that j_{! \ast} j^{\ast}\mathscr{F}[2] \cong \mathscr{F}[2] is pure of weight w+2. Let \pi \colon X \to \operatorname{Spec} k be the structural morphism. By [MR601520, (3.3.1) & (6.2.3)], the functor \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \pi_{\ast} = \mathbf{R}\@ifempty{}{}{^{}} \pi_! sends perverse sheaves pure of weight w+2 on X to perverse sheaves pure of weight w+2 on \operatorname{Spec} k. Hence we prove the proposition.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:0809.0068v2 by Ting Li, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/0809/0809.0068.jsonl.