Algebraic Hyperbolicity of Complements of Generic Hypersurfaces in Projective Spaces

We have already completed almost all the necessary arguments. For n=2, this follows directly from Theorem 3.1 and Corollary 4.4. For n>2, by Theorem 3.1, we know that the only possible counterexamples to (1.3) lie in the fibers and undefined locus of \theta, that is, they form a bounded family of curves, which we call M. We can stratify M by both the geometric genus and the intersection type with D, so it remains to show that no dominant stratum of curves of M can violate algebraic hyperbolicity. Thus, the result follows from Proposition 2.1.

We follow Demailly’s argument in the projective case. Suppose that there is a nonconstant map \alpha: A \to {{\mathbb P}}^2 \setminus D from a semiabelian variety A to {{\mathbb P}}^2 \setminus D whose image does not lie in S. Let [n]:A \to A be the map sending a\to na by the group law and let f:C \hookrightarrow A be a curve in A cut out by \dim A - 1 generic very ample divisors. Clearly, h_n = \alpha\circ [n]\circ f: C\to {{\mathbb P}}^2\setminus D is nonconstant for all n. Let C\hookrightarrow \overline{C} be the completion of C to a smooth projective curve and \overline{h}_n: \overline{C}\to {{\mathbb P}}^2 be the completion of h_n. Since \overline{h}_n^{-1}(D)\subset \overline{C} \setminus C,

Since \overline{h}_n(C) does not lie in S, we have

for L = {\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(1) by Theorem 1.3. This is impossible since \deg \overline{h}_n^* L\to \infty as n\to \infty.

Because C is a general element of a dominant families of curves in X, the log normal sheaf N_{f/X}(\log D) is generically globally generated, and hence has non-negative degree. The degree of the log normal sheaf is 2g-2+i - (K_X+D) \cdot f(C). The result follows.

This is simply piecing everything together. If for a general hypersurface D we can find a curve violating (1.3) or (1.3), then we can spread the curve out into a universal family as in Proposition 3.3. We wish to understand the log normal sheaf. Using Proposition 3.6, we see that it admits a surjection from some copies of pullbacks of M_1. By Proposition 3.12, we see that the rank m_1 of the image of the first M_1 must be 1. By Lemma 3.13, it follows that we can lift the curve C to V. By Lemma 3.17, it follows that the lifting of C to V must lie in a fiber of \theta: V \dashrightarrow \overline{U}_{0,d}^{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}\nolimits} or the undefined locus of \theta. The result follows.

We have the following sequences:

Taking degrees in (Proof), we get

We already constructed B and {\mathcal Y} in the discussion at the beginning of this section. It remains to show that the log tangent sheaf N_{Y_b/{{\mathbb P}}^n}(\log D_b) is the cokernel of the map T_{{\mathcal Y}}^{\operatorname{vert}}|_{Y_b} \to f^* T_{{\mathcal X}}^{\operatorname{vert}}(-\log {\mathcal D})|_{Y_b}. By Proposition 3.5, N_{Y_b/{{\mathbb P}}^n}(\log D_b) is the restriction of N_{{\mathcal Y}/{\mathcal X}}(\log {\mathcal D}) to Y_b. By Proposition 3.4, we see that N_{{\mathcal Y}/{\mathcal X}}(\log {\mathcal D}) is the cokernel of the map of vertical log tangent sheaves. The result follows.

The short exact sequences (?), (?) and (?) fit together in the following commutative diagram, where {\mathcal K}_1 denotes the cokernel of the natural inclusion T_{\mathcal Y}^{\operatorname{vert}}(-\log {\mathcal D}) \hookrightarrow f^*T_{\mathcal X}^{\operatorname{vert}}(-\log {\mathcal D}):

The required isomorphism follows from the Nine Lemma.

Recall that T_{\mathcal Y}(-\log {\mathcal D}) and T_{\mathcal X}(-\log {\mathcal D}) are vector bundles. By generic flatness, the restriction of (?) to the general fiber Y_b remains exact. Hence, we have the short exact sequence

which together with (Proof) extend to the exact diagram:

Note that N=\dim B, and that the columns come from Y_b and D_b being fibers of the fibrations {\mathcal Y} and {\mathcal D}, respectively. Therefore, the required isomorphism follows from applying the Nine Lemma to this diagram.

The first part follows from Proposition 3.3, and the natural inclusion M_d \to T_{\mathcal X}(-\log \mathcal{D}) comes from Proposition 3.7. By Proposition 3.10, this map will be surjective if 2g-2+i < (d-(2n-1))e. The last statement follows directly from Proposition 3.8.

First, we have the following commutative diagram, which contains the short exact sequences (?) and (?). {\mathcal K}_2 denotes the cokernel of the natural inclusion T_{\mathcal X}^{\operatorname{vert}}(-\log {\mathcal D}) \hookrightarrow p_2^*T_B\simeq H^0({\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^n}(d))\otimes {\mathcal O}_{\mathcal X}. The middle column comes from the natural splitting of T_{\mathcal X}\simeq p_1^*T_{{{\mathbb P}}^n}\oplus p_2^*T_B.

It follows from the Nine Lemma that {\mathcal K}_2\simeq {\mathcal O}_{\mathcal D}({\mathcal D}).

The bottom row of the above diagram induces a natural inclusion p_1^*M_d \hookrightarrow T_{\mathcal X}^{\operatorname{vert}}(-\log {\mathcal D}) via the natural restriction map p_1^*{\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^n}(d) \to {\mathcal O}_{\mathcal D}(\mathcal D). This gives the following commutative diagram, which contains the bottom row of (Proof) and the pullback of the short exact sequence (?) via the projection p:{\mathcal X}\rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^n. {\mathcal K}_3 denotes the cokernel of p_1^*M_d \hookrightarrow T_{\mathcal X}^{\operatorname{vert}}(-\log {\mathcal D}). The right column is obtained by twisting the standard short exact sequence 0 \rightarrow {\mathcal O}_{\mathcal X}(-{\mathcal D}) \rightarrow {\mathcal O}_{\mathcal X} \rightarrow {\mathcal O}_{\mathcal D}\rightarrow 0 by {\mathcal O}_{\mathcal X}({\mathcal D}). Observe that although the first two terms in the right column are both sheaves pulled back from {{\mathbb P}}^n, the map between them is not pulled back from {{\mathbb P}}^n.

It follows from the Snake Lemma that {\mathcal K}_3\simeq p_1^*{\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^n}.

Let P_1, \dots, P_s be a basis for H^0({\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^n}(d-1)). Then multiplication by P_i gives a map M_1 \to M_d. Taking the direct sum of all such maps, we get a surjection M_1^{\oplus s} \to M_d.

Since \beta is generically surjective and M_1 injects into a direct sum of trivial sheaves, we have

If N=\iota_b^*\text{Im} \;\alpha, then by (3.2) and (?), we obtain

By Proposition 3.8, there is a surjection M_1^{\oplus s}\rightarrow M_d for some s. We can pull back this surjection via f_b^*p_1^*, and then compose with the surjection \alpha_b from diagram (?) to get a generically surjective map

for some t\leq s. Since \alpha is not generically surjective, we must have rank \iota_b^*\text{Im }\alpha< rank N_{Y_b/{{\mathbb P}}^n}(\log D_b) = n-1, so we can take t\leq n-2. Proposition 3.9 then implies that \deg \iota_b^*\text{Im }\alpha\geq -(n-2)e. Hence by (?), we have \deg N_{Y_b/{{\mathbb P}}^n}(\log D_b)\geq-(n-2)e, and so

Let the hypersurface be parametrized by b\in B, and let f_b:Y_b\rightarrow X_b={{\mathbb P}}^n be a curve of geometric genus g and degree e such that Y_b\nsubseteq D_b=D and i(Y_b, D)=i. If \alpha is not generically surjective, then Proposition 3.10 implies that

If \alpha is generically surjective, then we can apply Proposition 3.9 with t\leq n-1. So we obtain \deg N_{Y_b/{{\mathbb P}}^n}(\log D_b)\geq-(n-1)e, and so 2g-2+i\geq (d-2n)e.

Since rank m_1\geq2, we must have t \leq n-2. Hence, Proposition 3.9 implies that \deg N_{Y_b/{{\mathbb P}}^n}(\log D_b)\geq-(n-2)e, and so 2g-2+i\geq (d-(2n-1))e.

First consider the case n\geq 3. Since rank N_{Y_b/{{\mathbb P}}^n}(\log D_b)=n-1\geq 2, Lemma 2.1 in [Clemens03] implies that \ker m_1\vert_p is independent of the generic polynomial P_1 inducing the map m_1. Hence, the image of

which is the ideal H^0({\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^n}(d)\otimes I_\ell) of some line \ell=\ell(p,b) through p, is contained in \ker \alpha\vert_p.

For n=2, we need a different argument to show that \ker m_1\vert_p is independent of the generic polynomial P_1. For this argument, given some P=P_1\in H^0({\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^n}(d-1)), we denote the map m_1 induced by P as m_P, and define Q_P to be the torsion-free part of the image of m_P. Since rank f_b^*p_1^*M_1=2, \ker m_P and Q_P must have rank one. Now we split into two cases depending on how their degrees compare.

If \deg \ker m_P\leq \deg Q_P, then \deg Q_P\geq \frac{1}{2}\deg f_b^*p_1^*M_1= -\frac{1}{2}e, which implies (3.13).

If \deg \ker m_P> \deg Q_P, then 0\subseteq \ker m_P\subseteq f_b^*p_1^*M_1 is the Harder-Narasimhan filtration, so \ker m_P is independent of P, and we can now denote it as \ker m_1. The same argument as in the case n\geq 3 above implies the existence of some line \ell=\ell(p,b) through p whose ideal H^0({\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^n}(d)\otimes I_\ell) is contained in \ker \alpha\vert_p.

To prove uniqueness, suppose that there are two distinct lines through p whose ideals are contained in \ker \alpha\vert_p. By a dimension count, we would then have M_d\vert_p=\ker \alpha\vert_p, which contradicts the assumption that \alpha_b:f_b^*p_1^*M_d\rightarrow \iota_b^*\alpha is generically surjective.

Let x,y,z be the coordinates on {{\mathbb P}}^2, and let p = V(y,z), \ell = V(z). Let {\mathcal Y}_p \subset {\mathcal Y} be the fiber over p_1\circ f: {\mathcal Y} \rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^2. Now consider the associated line map \lambda: {\mathcal Y}_p \dashrightarrow {{\mathbb G}}(1,2). Since {\mathcal Y} is GL(3)-invariant, \lambda maps onto the locus of lines through p. Let {\mathcal Y}_{p,\ell} be the fiber of \lambda over [\ell]\in {{\mathbb G}}(1,2), where \ell:=\ell(p,b). By GL(3)-invariance of {\mathcal Y}, it is enough to show that {\mathcal Y}_{p,\ell} has one-dimensional image under \rho.

\rho|_{{\mathcal Y}_{p,\ell}} can be decomposed as the composition of \rho_1: {\mathcal Y}_{p,\ell} \to H^0(\ell,{\mathcal O}_{\ell}(4)) and \rho_2: H^0(\ell,{\mathcal O}_{\ell}(4)) \dashrightarrow \overline{U}_{0,4}^{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}\nolimits}. Let H_{bad} \subset H^0(\ell,{\mathcal O}_{\ell}(4)) be the locus where \rho_2 is not well-defined, namely, the locus of polynomials with at least a triple root union the locus of polynomials with a double root at p. If the image of \rho_1 is contained in H_{bad}, then \rho is not well-defined, so we can assume that the image of \rho_1 is not contained in H_{bad}.

By Lemma 3.13, H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,I_{\ell}(4)) is contained in T_{\mathcal Y}^{\operatorname{vert}}(-\log {\mathcal D})\vert_{(p,b)}. Since {\mathcal Y}_{p,\ell} has codimension at most 1 in {\mathcal Y}_p, the relative tangent space to \rho_1 at (p,b) will consist of a codimension at most 1 space in the affine space F_b + H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,I_{\ell}(4)), where F_b is the polynomial defining the quartic plane curve D_b. Then, the result follows by a dimension count: the dimension of {\mathcal Y}_{p,\ell} is \dim {\mathcal Y} - 3 = \dim B - 2. The dimension of the space of degree 4 polynomials restricting to a particular polynomial on \ell is \dim H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,I_{\ell}(4)) = \dim B - 5, and the dimension of the fibers of \rho_2: H^0(\ell, {\mathcal O}_{\ell}(4)) \dashrightarrow \overline{U}_{0,4}^{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}\nolimits} is 3 away from H_{bad}. Thus, the dimension of the image of \rho|_{{\mathcal Y}_{p,\ell}} is at most

The first statement follows from the Grauert-Mulich Theorem, see for instance Theorem 2.1.4 of [OkonekSchneiderSpindler] or [PatelRiedlTseng] for more details. To see the second statement, consider the locus W in {{\mathbb P}}^2 \times H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,{\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(4)) of pairs (\ell, f) such that T_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(-\log V(f))|_\ell \cong {\mathcal O}(1) \oplus {\mathcal O}(-2). We claim that W has codimension 2, from which it follows that the projection of W onto H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2, {\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(4)) has finite (or possibly empty) general fiber.

To show this, we consider a line \ell in {{\mathbb P}}^2 and argue that the space of f such that T_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(-\log V(f))|_\ell \cong {\mathcal O}(1) \oplus {\mathcal O}(-2) has codimension 2 in H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,{\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(4)). This will not depend on the choice of coordinates, so assume that \ell is the line V(x). Consider the following diagram.

Here, \alpha is the map of partial derivatives (f_x, f_y, f_z) restricted to \ell. For T_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(-\log D)|_\ell to have an {\mathcal O}(1) summand, we see that some linear combination of the partials must be 0. Write f as f = x g(x,y,z) + h(y,z). Then the coordinates of the map (f_x, f_y, f_z) restricted to \ell will be (g, h_y, h_z). There is a 2-dimensional choice for which linear combination af_x+bf_y+cf_z is 0 (because the vanishing is invariant under scaling), and so it remains to show that a fixed linear combination, the codimension of f such that af_x+bf_y+cf_z vanishes upon restricting to \ell is 4. If b = c= 0, we see that this is equivalent to the vanishing of g|_{\ell}, which is indeed four conditions: the vanishing of the xy^3, xy^2z, xyz^2 and xz^3 terms. If one of b and c is nonzero, we can select our coordinate y so that f_y is zero. This implies that h_y is zero, which implies the vanishing of the y^4, y^3z, y^2z^2, and yz^3 terms, which is again four conditions. The result follows.

Choose coordinates x,y,z on {{\mathbb P}}^2 so that p = V(y,z), \ell = V(z). For convenience, write F = F_b. Since we are assuming that \alpha is generically surjective, we work in the case that \ker \alpha|_{(p,b)} has codimension 2 in T_{{\mathcal X}}^{\operatorname{vert}}(-\log {\mathcal D})|_{(p,b)} = H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,{\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(4)). We know that H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,I_{\ell}(4)) is contained in \ker \alpha|_{(p,b)}, and by GL(3)-invariance of {\mathcal Y}, it follows that M_1|_p\cdot \operatorname{Jac} (F) = (yF_x, yF_y, yF_z, zF_x, zF_y, zF_z) are all contained in \ker \alpha|_{(p,b)}. Thus, it remains to show that \ker \alpha|_{(p,b)} is generated by these elements. This will follow if we can show that H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,I_{\ell}(4)) + M_1|_p\cdot \operatorname{Jac} (F) has codimension 2 in H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,{\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(4)).

Suppose that \ell is not a jumping line for T_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(-\log D_b). [Marangone, Theorem 10] characterizes the non-jumping lines for any vector bundle \mathcal{E} of rank two over {{\mathbb P}}^2 as exactly the weak Lefschetz elements for its first cohomology module H^1_*({{\mathbb P}}^2,\mathcal{E}). Let A={{\mathbb C}}[x,y,z]/Jac(F) denote the first cohomology module for T_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(-\log D_b), and let A_i be the i-th graded piece of A. Then, it follows that the multiplication map by z is surjective as a map from A_3 \to A_4. Thus, we see that H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,I_{\ell}(4)) and xF_x, xF_y, xF_z, yF_x, yF_y, yF_z generate H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,{\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(4)).

We now work modulo H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,I_{\ell}(4)). Since the space H^0(\ell,{\mathcal O}_{\ell}(4)) = H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,{\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(4)) / H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,I_{\ell}(4)) has dimension 5, the six polynomials xF_x, xF_y, xF_z, yF_x, yF_y, yF_z must admit a linear relation modulo H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,I_{\ell}(4)). If the relation does not involve the xF_j and only involves yF_x, yF_y, yF_z, then it implies a relation among F_x, F_y, F_z, and hence, a relation among xF_x, xF_y, xF_z. Thus, there must be some relation among xF_x, xF_y, xF_z, yF_x, yF_y, yF_z that involves at least one of xF_x, xF_y, and xF_z. In particular, it follows that M_1|_p\cdot \operatorname{Jac} (F) has codimension at most 2 in H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,{\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(4)) / H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,I_{\ell}(4)) as required.

For general b, note that F_b does not vanish at p, so F_b is not in \ker \alpha|_{(p,b)}, but it clearly is in T_{{\mathcal Y}}^{\operatorname{vert}}(-\log {\mathcal D})|_{(p,b)}. The result follows.

As in the proof of Lemma 3.14, let {\mathcal Y}_p \subset {\mathcal Y} be the fiber of p_1\circ f: {\mathcal Y} \rightarrow {{\mathbb P}}^n over p. Since {\mathcal Y} is GL(n+1)-invariant, the associated line map \lambda: {\mathcal Y}_p \dashrightarrow {{\mathbb G}}(1,n) maps onto the locus of lines through p. Let {\mathcal Y}_{p,\ell} be the fiber of \lambda over [\ell]\in {{\mathbb G}}(1,n), where \ell:=\ell(p,b). It is enough to show that {\mathcal Y}_{p,\ell} has 0-dimensional image under \rho. We can factor the restriction map \rho_\ell: {\mathcal Y}_{p,\ell} \dashrightarrow \overline{U}_{0,d}^{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}\nolimits} as

The case n \geq 3 follows directly from an argument of Voisin [voisinCorrection, Lemma 3], which we summarize here for the reader’s convenience. We have a distribution \mathcal{I} \subset T_{{\mathcal Y}}^{\operatorname{vert}} on {\mathcal Y}, whose fiber over a general point (p,b) of {\mathcal Y} is precisely H^0({\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^n}(d) \otimes I_{\ell}). We can understand the Lie bracket map \psi: \bigwedge^2 \mathcal{I} \to T_{{\mathcal Y}}^{\operatorname{vert}}/\mathcal{I} at the point (p,b) explicitly in coordinates, in terms of the differential of the associated line map, which we denote by \phi: T_{{\mathcal Y}}^{\operatorname{vert}}\vert_{(p,b)} \to T_{\ell} \,{{\mathbb G}}(1,n)_p. Here {{\mathbb G}}(1,n)_p is the space of lines in {{\mathbb P}}^n passing through p, and T_{\ell} \,{{\mathbb G}}(1,n)_p \simeq H^0(\ell, N_{\ell / {{\mathbb P}}^n}(-p)). A local calculation shows that \phi vanishes on \mathcal{I}^2, so the map \psi at (p,b) descends to a map

where K = H^0(\ell, N_{\ell / {{\mathbb P}}^n}(-p)) and the map is given by \psi(A \wedge B) = A\cdot\phi(B) - B\cdot\phi(A), where \cdot comes from the natural contraction pairing of K^* with K. Using [voisinCorrection, Lemma 4], it follows that if \phi is nontrivial on \mathcal I, the image of \psi must have codimension at most 1 in H^0({\mathcal O}_{\ell}(d)(-p)). This contradicts our choice of {\mathcal Y} being codimension n-1\geq 2 in {\mathcal X}, so it follows that \phi must be trivial on \mathcal I. As in [voisinCorrection], it follows that the vertical tangent space T_{\rho_1} of the map \rho_1 contains H^0({\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^n}(d)\otimes I_\ell). By the GL(n+1)-invariance of {\mathcal Y}, the image of \rho_1 is closed under the GL(2)-actions that fix p. The tangent directions corresponding to these actions, which span a space of dimension 3, are contained in the vertical tangent space T_{\rho_2} of \rho_2. So, we have the following bound on the dimension of the image of \rho_\ell.

The other case is n=2. We have shown in Lemma 3.14 that \rho has an image of dimension at most one. If the image is 0-dimensional, we are done, so suppose not. We will show that the image of {\mathcal Y}_p in \overline{U}_{0,4}^{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}\nolimits} is 0-dimensional. The lifiting {\mathcal Y} \to B \times V restricts to a lifting {\mathcal Y}_p \to B \times {{\mathbb G}}(1,2)_p, where {{\mathbb G}}(1,2)_p is the space of lines through p. Let Z be the preimage of \rho({\mathcal Y}_p) in B \times {{\mathbb G}}(1,2)_p. We see that Z has codimension 1 in B \times {{\mathbb G}}(1,2)_p, so that Z maps generically finitely onto {\mathcal X}_p, giving an isomorphism of tangent spaces at a general point. The relative tangent space of Z \to \overline{U}_{0,4}^{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}\nolimits} is H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,I_{\ell}(4)) + M_1|_p\cdot \operatorname{Jac}(F) + F, coming from the polynomials with fixed restriction to the line together with the automorphisms of {{\mathbb P}}^2 fixing p that move the line. By Lemma 3.16, this is the same as T_{{\mathcal Y}}^{\operatorname{vert}}(-\log {\mathcal D})|_{(p,b)}, so it follows that {\mathcal Y} must be a fiber of the map to \overline{U}_{0,4}^{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}\nolimits}, as required.

Since C meets the dual curve of D, there is at least one line L\in C that fails to meet D transversely. Clearly, such L cannot meet D at a point with multiplicity 2; otherwise, the image of C will meet the boundary point of \overline{M}_{0,4}^{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}\nolimits}. So for D general, such L can only be a flex line of D. It is also clear that two such distinct curves C_1 and C_2 can only meet at these flex lines.

The map \gamma: {{\mathbb G}}(1,2)\dashrightarrow M_{0,4}^{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}\nolimits} is smooth at a line L\in {{\mathbb G}}(1,2) meeting D transversely if and only if we have a surjection

induced by the exact sequence

This happens if and only if H^1(L, T_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(-\log D)) = 0, or equivalently,

By Lemma 3.15 there are only finitely many such lines L. In conclusion, \gamma is smooth outside of a finite set of points plus the dual curve of D. Therefore, for j general, C is smooth outside of the 24 flex lines. Let us figure out the type of singularity of C at a flex line L.

For simplicity, suppose that C passes through the flex line L = \{y = 0\} of D, where (x,y) are the affine coordinates of {{\mathbb P}}^2. In these coordinates, D is given by the affine equation

and we can scale so that g(0,0) = 1. Let (s,t) be local coordinates of {{\mathbb G}}(1,2) at L, so that a deformation of L in {{\mathbb G}}(1,2) is given by

Then y = sx + t meets D at the points

The above equation has four roots r_i = r_i(s,t) for i=1,2,3,4, where r_4 \in {{\mathbb C}}[[s,t]] and r_1, r_2, r_3 are algebraic functions in s and t, defined in some finite extension of {{\mathbb C}}[[s,t]]. They satisfy

The limit of the cross ratio of these four points is

Hence j = j(\lambda).

Given the j-invariant j, there exists a pair (a, b) such that if r_1,r_2,r_3 are the three roots of the equation

then

The ratio a^3/b^2 uniquely characterizes the pairs (a,b) with this property, so we may regard (a,b) as a point in the corresponding weighted projective line {{\mathbb P}}(2,3).

When a = 0 and b\ne 0, j = j(-e^{2\pi i/3}). When a \ne 0 and b = 0, j = j(2). Suppose that j\ne j(2), j(-e^{2\pi i/3}). Then the corresponding (a,b) satisfies ab \ne 0.

For some fixed local branch C of a component of a fiber of \gamma, let

be the local normalization of C at (0,0). Let us consider the roots of

If 3m > 2n, then

after some permuation of r_1, r_2, r_3. This is impossible because we assume that j\ne j(-e^{2\pi i/3}).

Similarly, if 3m < 2n, then

after some permuation of r_1, r_2, r_3. This is impossible because we assume that j\ne j(2).

So we necessarily have 3m = 2n. Let us rewrite the normalization as

where v = O(u) is a function of u. Let us consider the roots of

in {{\mathbb C}}[[u, v]]. Clearly, all r_1, r_2, r_3, r_4 are functions in u^l and v. Furthermore,

where c_1, c_2, c_3 are three roots of x^3 + ax + b = 0 and d_1, d_2, d_3 are constants satisfying the equations

Since r_1,r_2, r_3, r_4 have constant j-invariant,

The above equation, viewed as an equation in {{\mathbb C}}[[u,v]], will have non-vanishing coefficient of v provided that

which holds provided that j\ne j(-e^{2\pi i/3}). Therefore, we may write

for a function v(w)\in {{\mathbb C}}[[w]] satisfying v(0) = 0. So the normalization of C is

Since the normalization of C is birational onto its image, we must have l=1. In conclusion, the normalization of C is given by

for some v(u) \in {{\mathbb C}}[[u]] satisfying v(0) = 0. That is, when ab \ne 0, C has a cusp at L. It follows from the description above that v(u) is uniquely determined by (a,b).

Furthermore, when b\to 0, i.e., j\to j(2), the flat limit of C is simply the image of (s,t) = (au^2, 0), i.e., locally a nonreduced curve supported on a smooth curve with multiplicity 2. This is due to the fact that (?) still holds for j=j(2).

Let us now prove that C passes through all 24 flex lines and \deg C = 12 for j general. To be more precise, we can extend \gamma to a rational map

in an obvious way. We claim that the closure \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j, D)} of \gamma^{-1}(j, D) for (j,D) general is an integral curve C of degree 12 passing through all 24 flex lines to D. Note that \overline{\theta^{-1}(j, D)}, a priori, is not necessarily irreducible.

Let F be the set of 24 flex lines to D. Let C_1 be an irreducible component of \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j_1, D)} for (j_1,D) general. Suppose that C_1 passes through a subset F_1 of F. Due to the uniqueness of v(u) in (?), C_1 has only one local branch at each line L\in F_1.

By [Har79], the monodromy group on the 24 flex lines of D is the full symmetric group as D varies. So there is a component C_1^\sigma of \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j_1, D)} passing through \sigma(F_1) for every permutation \sigma of F.

Let C_2 be an irreducible component of \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j_2, D)} for (j_2,D) general and j_2\ne j_1. Suppose that C_2 passes through a subset F_2 of F. Then C_1 and C_2 meet only at L\in F_1\cap F_2 and (C_1.C_2)_L = 6 by (?). Therefore,

For the same reason, we have

Since \deg C_1 = \deg C_1^{\sigma}, we conclude that

This holds for every permutation \sigma on F. So we necessarily have F_1 = F or F_2 = F. And since j_1 and j_2 are general, this implies that

That is, every component of \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j, D)} is an integral curve of degree 12 with cusps at L\in F for (j, D) general.

Also \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j, D)} cannot have more than one irreducible component. Otherwise, if C and C' are two distinct irreducible components of \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j, D)}, both curves are locally given by (?) at each flex line L\in F with the same a and b. Hence (C.C')_L > 6 and it follows that C.C' > 144, which contradicts the fact that \deg C = \deg C' = 12.

This proves that for (j,D) general, \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j, D)} is an integral curve of degree 12 with cusps at the 24 flex lines to D and smooth elsewhere. Next, let us prove that this is also true for all j \ne j(2), j(-e^{2\pi i/3}) and D general.

Let \Gamma = \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j, D)} for some j \ne j(2), j(-e^{2\pi i/3}) and D general, where we consider \gamma^{-1}(j, D) as the scheme-theoretical preimage of (j,D). Since \Gamma is the flat limit of C = \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j, D)} for (j, D) general, \Gamma has degree 12 and (\Gamma . C)_L = 6 for all flex lines L\in F. Every irreducible component of \Gamma has a cusp at L if it passes through L\in F. So for every L\in F, there exists a unique irreducible component of \Gamma passing through L. Therefore, \Gamma must be reduced and irreducible; otherwise, two components G_1 and G_2 of \Gamma must be disjoint, which is impossible.

This proves that \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j, D)} is an integral curve of degree 12 with cusps at the 24 flex lines to D for all j \ne j(2), j(-e^{2\pi i/3}) and D general.

Finally, let us deal with the cases j = j(2), j(-e^{2\pi i/3}). Again, we let \Gamma = \overline{\gamma^{-1}(j, D)}. We still have \deg \Gamma = 12 and (\Gamma . C)_L = 6 for all L\in F.

If j=j(2), then b=0. Since the flat limit of (?) as b\to 0 exists, \Gamma is nonreduced with multiplicty 2 at each L\in F. So again, for every L\in F, there exists a unique irreducible component of \Gamma passing through L. Therefore, \Gamma has a unique irreducible component and hence \Gamma = 2G for an integral curve G of degree 6.

If j=j(-e^{2\pi i/3}), then a=0. By (?), \Gamma either is nonreduced with multiplicty 3 or has a singularity of multiplicity 3 at each L\in F. So again, for every L\in F, there exists a unique irreducible component of \Gamma passing through L. Therefore, \Gamma has a unique irreducible component; either \Gamma is reduced and irreducible or \Gamma = 3G for an integral curve G of degree 4. However, in this case, the former is impossible by comparing the arithmetic genus of \Gamma and the \delta-invariants of \Gamma at L\in F: p_a(\Gamma) = 55 < 3\cdot 24.

By Lemma 4.1, \deg \eta(C) = 12, 6 or 4, where \eta: V\to {{\mathbb G}}(1,2) is the projection V\to {{\mathbb G}}(1,2). Let G = \eta(C), S = \eta^{-1}(G) and \nu: \widehat{S} \to V be the normalization of S. Obviously, \widehat{S} is a {{\mathbb P}}^1-bundle over the normalization \widehat{G} of G.

Let \widehat{D} = \nu^* \pi^* D, where \pi is the projection V\to {{\mathbb P}}^2. Clearly, \widehat{D} is a multisection of \widehat{S}/\widehat{G} of degree 4. The map \widehat{D}\to \widehat{G} is unramified outside of the 24 flex lines to D. Over a flex line L\in G, \widehat{D} meets the fiber \widehat{S}_{_L} at two points with multiplicities 1 and 3, respectively. Let p_{_L} be the point on \widehat{S}_{_L} where \widehat{D} and \widehat{S}_{_L} intersect with multiplicity 3. By (?), \widehat{D} has an ordinary triple point at p_{_L}. That is, \widehat{D} is locally a union of three sections at p_{_L} that meet each other transversely.

Let \widehat{C} = \nu^{-1}(C) be the proper transform of C. Suppose that \widehat{C} is a multisection of \widehat{S}/\widehat{G} of degree \delta. By our hypothesis, the multisection \widehat{C}\cup \widehat{D} has local constant moduli on the fibers of \widehat{S}/\widehat{G}. By our previous argument, over every a flex line L\in G, \widehat{C}\cup \widehat{D} is locally a union of \delta + 3 sections at p_{_L} that meet each other transversely; otherwise, \theta(C) will meet a boundary component of \overline{U}_{0,4}^{\mathop{\mathrm{Sym}}\nolimits}. Therefore,

Thus, we have

and hence

This implies that \deg \pi_* C = 18\delta. In addition, we have \delta \le 3. Indeed, \delta = 1 if \deg G = 12, \delta = 1 or 2 if \deg G = 6, and \delta = 1 or 3 if \deg G = 4.

First observe that T_\theta and G_4 are identical subsheaves of T_V outside of the non-defined locus of \theta and the locus of lines with T_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(-\log D)|_\ell = {\mathcal O}(1) \oplus {\mathcal O}(-2). By Lemma 3.15, this will be a codimension 2 locus in V, so their first chern classes will be the same. Similarly, R^1 \eta_* \pi^* T_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(-\log D) will be 0 outside of a codimension 2 subset, so it won’t affect the calculation of c_1.

Using Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch, we see that \mathop{\mathrm{ch}}\nolimits(\eta_* \pi^* T_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(-\log D) ) = \eta_*(\mathop{\mathrm{ch}}\nolimits(\pi^* T_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(-\log D) \mathop{\mathrm{td}}\nolimits T_{\eta}) .

Since T_{\eta} = (-1,2), we have \mathop{\mathrm{td}}\nolimits(T_{\eta}) = 1- \frac{1}{2}H_2+H_1+\frac{1}{12}(-H_2+2H_1)^2. Using the defining sequence

with the Euler sequence, we see that \mathop{\mathrm{ch}}\nolimits(T_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(-\log D)) = 2 - H_1 -\frac{13}{2}H_1^2. Combining, we compute \eta_* ((2-H_1-\frac{13}{2})(1- \frac{1}{2}H_2+H_1+\frac{1}{12}(-H_2+2H_1)^2) = 1-7H + \text{higher terms}. The result follows.

This is a simple chern class calculation. Since C is tangent to T_\theta, it follows that T_C(-\log D \cap C) maps to T_{\theta}, which implies that its degree is at most the degree of T_{\theta}|_C. The result follows from the fact that the class of C is (18,12), (18, 6), or (18,4) by Lemma 4.1.

We first compute the dimension of the universal family of such pairs. Let W be the variety of pairs (C,D) where C is a smooth conic and D is a quartic plane curve such that C meets D to order 6 at one point and to order 1 at two other points. We wish to compute the dimension of W. There is a natural map \pi_1 from W to the space {{\mathbb P}} H^0({\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(2)) of conics, surjective over the locus of smooth conics. We wish to compute the dimension of a fiber of \pi_1. Let C be a smooth conic. Then the map H^0({{\mathbb P}}^2,{\mathcal O}_{{{\mathbb P}}^2}(4)) \to H^0({\mathcal O}_C(4)) is surjective, so the dimension of a general fiber of \pi_1 has dimension \dim H^0(\mathcal{I}_{C}(4)) + \dim C \times {\mathfrak S}^2 C = 9. Thus, the dimension of W is 14, the same as the dimension of the space of quartic plane curves. Observe that W will contain pairs (C,D) with D smooth. To see this, observe that the space of possible D meeting C to order at least 6 at a given point p form a linear system. By Bertini, a general D in the linear system will be smooth away from the base locus p. However, we see that the reducible conic C \cup C_1 will be in the linear system for some conic C_1 not containing p, so the general element of the linear system will be smooth at p as well.

We now claim that the map \pi_2 from W to the space of quartic plane curves is generically finite. To see this, note that given a fixed (C,D) in W with D smooth, the deformations of C that still meet D to order 6 at one point will be parameterized by H^0(N_{C/{{\mathbb P}}^2}(\log D)). A simple degree calculation shows that the degree of N_{C/{{\mathbb P}}^2}(\log D) is -1, and since C and D are both smooth, we see that the normal bundle will be a vector bundle. It follows that H^0(N_{C/{{\mathbb P}}^2}(\log D)) = 0, which completes the proof.