Ulrich Bundles on some threefold scrolls over \mathbb{F}_e

We consider non–trivial extensions (?) as in Case L; recall that \dim {\rm Ext}^1(L_2,L_1)=4b_0-4\geqslant 4, being b_0 \geqslant 2, and moreover that a general vector bundle \mathcal{F}_1 arising from a general extension as in (?) is Ulrich w.r.t. \xi.

Moreover, since \mu(L_1) = \mu(L_2) = 8b_0 - k_0 -3, as computed in § ?-Case L, one has \mu(\mathcal{F}_1) = 8b_0 - k_0 -3 and furthermore, since L_1 and L_2 are slope–stable, of the same slope and non–isomorphic line bundles, by [c-h-g-s, Lemma 4.2], \mathcal F_1 is simple, that is h^0(\mathcal{F}_1\otimes\mathcal{F}_1^{\vee}) = 1, in particular it is indecomposable.

We now want to show that h^2(\mathcal{F}_1\otimes\mathcal{F}_1^{\vee}) = 0 = h^3(\mathcal{F}_1\otimes\mathcal{F}_1^{\vee}) and that \chi(\mathcal{F}_1\otimes\mathcal{F}_1^{\vee})=-6b_0+3. Tensoring (?) with \mathcal{F}_1^{\vee} we get

Dualizing (?) gives the following exact sequence

Tensoring (?) with L_1 and L_2, respectively, gives

Because \mathcal{F}_1 is simple, then h^0(X, \mathcal{F}_1\otimes \mathcal{F}_1^{\vee} )=1. The remaining cohomology H^i(X, \mathcal{F}_1\otimes \mathcal{F}_1^{\vee} ) can be easily computed from the cohomology sequence associated to (?) and (?). Clearly h^i(\mathcal{O}_{X_0})=0 if i\geqslant 1 and h^0(\mathcal{O}_{X_0})=1. It remains to compute H^i( \varphi^*\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_0}(3,-b_0)) and H^i( \varphi^*\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_0}(-3,b_0)).

Similarly

It thus follows that h^2(\mathcal{F}_1\otimes\mathcal{F}_1^{\vee}) = 0 = h^3(\mathcal{F}_1\otimes\mathcal{F}_1^{\vee}). From (?) we have that

Since \mathcal{F}_1 is simple with h^2(\mathcal{F}_1\otimes \mathcal{F}_1^{\vee}) = 0, by [c-h-g-s, Proposition 2.10] there exists a smooth modular family containing the point [\mathcal{F}_1]. Furthermore, since \mathcal{F}_1 is Ulrich, with Chern classes

as computed in § ?–Case L, the general point [\mathcal{U}] of the smooth modular family to which [\mathcal{F}_1] belongs corresponds to an Ulrich rank two vector bundles with same Chern classes as above, i.e. as in (3.1), as it follows from the facts that Ulrichness is an open condition (by semi-continuity) and that Chern classes are invariants on irreducible families.

We want to show that \mathcal{U} is also slope–stable w.r.t. \xi. By Theorem 1.4–(b) (cf. also [b, Sect 3, (3.2)]), if \mathcal{U} were not a stable bundle, it would be presented as an extension of Ulrich line bundles on X_0. In such a case, by the classification of Ulrich line bundles given in Theorem 2.1 and all the possible extensions computed in § ?-Case M or Case L-M, we see that the only possibilities for \mathcal{U} to arise as an extension of Ulrich line bundles should be extensions either (?) or (?), by Chern classes reasons. In both cases the dimension of (the projectivization) of the corresponding families of extensions are either 4b_0 -5 or 2b_0+1. On the other hand, by semi-continuity on the smooth modular family, one has

thus

as computed above. In other words, the smooth modular family whose general point is [\mathcal{U}] is of dimension 6b_0 -3, which is bigger than 4b_0-5 and 2 b_0 +1, for any b_0 \geqslant 2. This shows that [\mathcal{U}] general corresponds to a stable, and so also slope-stable bundle (cf. Theorem 1.4-(c) above).

By slope-stability of \mathcal{U}, we deduce that the moduli space of rank two Ulrich bundles with Chern classes as in (3.1) is not empty and it contains a generically smooth component \mathcal M, of dimension 6b_0-3 whose general point [\mathcal{U}] \in \mathcal M is also slope-stable, whose slope w.r.t. \xi is \mu(\mathcal{U}) = \frac{c_1(\mathcal{U}) \cdot \xi^2}{2} = 8b_0 - k_0 -3, as c_1( \mathcal{U} ) = c_1(\mathcal{F}_1).

Finally, note that

This, together with the fact that \mathcal{U} is of rank two, gives

i.e. that \mathcal{U}^{\vee}(K_{X_0} + 4 \xi) \cong \mathcal{U} in other words \mathcal{U} is isomorphic to its Ulrich dual bundle, i.e. \mathcal{U} is special, as stated.

With preliminaries as above, take X = X_0 and denote by \rho_{1,2} \in \mathcal R the point corresponding to the bundle L_1 \oplus L_2 as in § ?-Case L, which is the same Jordan-Hölder graded object of the bundles \mathcal F_1 and \mathcal F_1' arising as non trivial extensions in (?) and (?), respectively. Since \rho_{1,2} corresponds to a (strictly) polystable bundle on X_0, then G \cdot \rho_{1,2} is a closed G-orbit and we can apply the same reasoning as above. Therefore, if we show that \rho_{1,2} is a smooth point of \mathcal R, then \mathcal R is locally (in the analytic topology) irreducible around \rho_{1,2} and therefore the same occurs for \mathcal M around the point \pi(\rho_{1,2}) which implies that the modular component arising from (deformations of) extensions \mathcal F_1 as in (?) is the same component arising from (deformations of) extensions \mathcal F'_1 as in (?).

Therefore, we need to show that \mathcal R is smooth at the point \rho_{1,2}. To do this, notice first that certainly it exists an irreducible component, say R_{1,2}, of \mathcal R passing through the point \rho_{1,2} whose dimension is \dim(G) + h^1 (\mathcal F_1 \otimes \mathcal F_1^{\vee}), where \mathcal F_1 is a non-trivial extension as in (?). Indeed, as in the proof of Theorem 3.1, \mathcal F_1 admits an irreducible smooth modular family of dimension h^1 (\mathcal F_1 \otimes \mathcal F_1^{\vee}) which gives rise to an irreducible parameter space \mathcal P \subset \mathcal R, parametrizing all quotients which are isomorphic to the bundles of such an irreducible smooth modular family, which is therefore of dimension \dim(\mathcal P) = \dim(G) + h^1 (\mathcal F_1 \otimes \mathcal F_1^{\vee}) and whose closure \overline{\mathcal P} in \mathcal R contains the point \rho_{1,2}; thus \rho_{1,2} \in \overline{\mathcal P} \subseteq R_{1,2} so one has

Since \rho_{1,2} \in \mathcal R corresponds to a (strictly) polystable bundle, from above, its G-orbit G\cdot \rho_{1,2} is closed in \mathcal R; thus by Luna’s étale slice theorem (cf. e.g. [HL, Thm. 4.2.12]) there exists a locally closed subscheme S \subset \mathcal R passing through \rho_{1,2} which is G_{\rho_{1,2}}-invariant, where G_{\rho_{1,2}} denotes the stabilizer in G of the point \rho_{1,2}, and such that the multiplication map G \times S \to \mathcal R induces a G-equivariant étale morphism \psi : G \times_{G_{\rho_{1,2}}} S \to \mathcal R, where

as in [Drezet, Sect. 1.1]. Because G = {\rm PGL}(k, \mathbb C), then one has

since h^0(L_1 - L_2) = h^0(L_2 - L_1) = 0 as it follows from (?), (?), (?), (?). Therefore, we have an isomorphism of tangent spaces

the latter of dimension

as it follows from [Drezet, Proposition 4.9-(6)] and the facts \dim\left(T_{Id_G}(G) \right) = \dim(G) and \dim\left(T_{Id_G}(G_{\rho_{1,2}}) \right)= \dim(\mathbb C^*). In particular,

On the other hand, from the proof of [OGrady, Proposition 1.2.3], one has

Using (?), (?) and the cohomological computations as in (?), (?) and the fact that L_1 -L_1 = L_2 - L_2 = \mathcal O_{X_0}, from (?) we have \dim\left( T_{\rho_{1,2}} (S)\right) = 6b_0 -2 thus, from (?), we get \dim\left( T_{\rho_{1,2}} (\mathcal R)\right) = 6b_0 - 3 + \dim(G). On the other hand, from the proof of Theorem 3.1, one has h^1(\mathcal F_1 \otimes \mathcal F_1^{\vee} ) = 6b_0 -3, where \mathcal F_1 a non trivial extension as in (?). Therefore, from above \dim\left( T_{\rho_{1,2}} (\mathcal R)\right) = h^1(\mathcal F_1 \otimes \mathcal F_1^{\vee} ) + \dim(G) which, together with (?), implies that

i.e. that \mathcal R is smooth at \rho_{1,2} and so that R_{1,2} is the unique irreducible component of \mathcal R passing through \rho_{1,2}, which completes the proof of the claim.

By [a-c-mr, Theorem 3.4], we know that there exist rank two vector bundles \mathcal H_1 on \mathbb{F}_e, which are Ulrich with respect to c_1({\mathcal E}_e) =\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(3, b_e), given by extensions

where Z is a general zero-dimensional subscheme of \mathbb{F}_e of length \ell(Z)=2b_e-3e. Such a bundle \mathcal{H}_1 is stable, cf. [a-c-mr, Remark 3.7], hence simple, that is h^0(\mathcal{H}_1 \otimes \mathcal{H}_1^{\vee})=1, and indecomposable.

Set \mathcal{H}:= \mathcal{H}_1(-c_1({\mathcal E}_e)), which is stable being a twist of a stable vector bundle, so it is also simple, i.e. h^0(\mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal{H}^{\vee})=1. By Theorem 1.7 the vector bundle \mathcal{V} : = \xi \otimes \varphi^*(\mathcal{H}) is a rank two vector bundle on X_e which is Ulrich with respect to \xi.

From (Proof) we see that c_1(\mathcal{H})= \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(1 , b_e-e-2) and c_2(\mathcal{H})=2b_e-3e-1. Easy Chern classes computations give that

Moreover by Theorem 1.4–(b) (cf. also [b, Sect 3, (3.2)]) such a bundle \mathcal{V} is stable, so also slope-stable by Theorem 1.4-(c), since there are no Ulrich line bundles on (X_e, \xi) as it follows from Theorem 2.1.

Our next step is to compute the cohomology groups H^i(X_e, \mathcal{V} \otimes\mathcal{V}^{\vee} )   for i=0,1,2,3. Because H^i(X_e, \mathcal{V} \otimes\mathcal{V}^{\vee} ) = H^i(X_e, \varphi^*(\mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal{H}^{\vee}))\cong H^i(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal{H}^{\vee}) we will focus on computations of H^i(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal{H}^{\vee}), i=0,1,2,3.

First of all h^3(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal{H}^{\vee}) = 0, as \mathbb{F}_e is a surface, and h^0(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal{H}^{\vee}) = 1, as \mathcal{H} is simple. For the other cohomology groups, we tensor (Proof) with -c_1({\mathcal E}_e)=\mathcal O_{{\mathbb F}_e}(-3,-b_e) and we get

Because \mathcal{H} is of rank 2 and c_1(\mathcal{H})=\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(1 , b_e-2-e), we have that \mathcal{H}^{\vee}\cong \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(-1 , -b_e+2+e) and thus after tensoring (?) with \mathcal{H}^{\vee} we get

In order to compute the cohomology groups of \mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(-1 , 1+e-b_e) we will use the short exact sequence (?) twisted with \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(-1 , 1+e-b_e) which gives

From this we can easily see that H^0(\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(-1 , 1+e-b_e))=0=H^2(\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(-1 , 1+e-b_e)) and h^1(\mathcal{F}\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(-1 , 1+e-b_e))=2b_e-3e-1.

Our next task is to compute the cohomology groups of I_Z\otimes \mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0, 1). We tensor the sequence

with \mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0, 1) and \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(1 , b_e-e), respectively, and we get

We tensor (?) with \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0 , 1 ) and we get

Now use the cohomology sequence associated to the short exact sequences (?), (?) and (?). Note that

and

because Assumptions 1.8 forces b_e \geqslant 3e +2). Notice that \dim (|\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(1, b_e-e)|)=2b_e-3e+1, so h^0( I_Z\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(1, b_e-e))=2 , being Z general of length \ell(Z)=2b_e-3e. Therefore from (?) it follows that h^i( I_Z\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(1, b_e-e))=0 for i=1,2. Now using (?) it follows that h^0(\mathbb{F}_e,\mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0, 1))=3 and h^i(\mathbb{F}_e,\mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0, 1))=0 for i=1,2. Thus h^2(I_Z\otimes \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0, 1))=0 and this, combined with the cohomology sequence associated to (?), gives that h^2( \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal{H}^{\vee})=0.

Thus from (?), since h^0(\mathbb{F}_e, (\mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0 ,1))_{|Z} )=2(2b_2-3e) and h^i(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0 , 1)_{|Z} )=0 for i=1,2, it follows that \chi(I_Z\otimes \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0, 1) )=\chi(\mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0 , 1))-\chi( \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0 , 1)_{|Z})=3-4b_e+6e. From the cohomology sequence associated to (?) it follows that \chi( \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal{H}^{\vee} )=\chi(I_Z\otimes \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(0, 1) )+\chi(\mathcal{H} \otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(-1 , 1+e-b_e) )=3-4b_e+6e-2b_2+3e+1=4-6b_e+9e and thus h^1( \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal{H}^{\vee})=1-\chi( \mathcal{H}\otimes \mathcal{H}^{\vee})=6b_e-9e-3.

As already observed, H^i(X_e, \mathcal{V} \otimes\mathcal{V}^{\vee} )\cong H^i(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal H\otimes \mathcal H^{\vee}), i=0,1,2,3, hence the above computations give us the dimensions of all the cohomology groups H^i(X_e, \mathcal{V} \otimes\mathcal{V}^{\vee}), i=0,1,2,3.

By [c-h-g-s, Proposition 2.10], since h^2( \mathcal{V} \otimes \mathcal{V}^{\vee}) = 0 and \mathcal{V} is simple, it follows that \mathcal{V} admits a smooth modular family giving rise to a component \mathcal M of the moduli space of rank two Ulrich vector bundles with Chern classes

Moreover, since \mathcal{V} is slope-stable, it corresponds to a smooth point [\mathcal{V}] of such a component \mathcal M such that, \dim (\mathcal M) = h^1(\mathcal{V} \otimes \mathcal{V}^{\vee} ) = 6 b_e-9e-3, as stated.

Since Ulrichness, slope-stability, simplicity are open conditions as well as Chern classes are constant for vector bundles varying in \mathcal M, it follows that all the properties satisfied by \mathcal V hold true for the general member [\mathcal{U} ] \in \mathcal M, in particular \mathcal M is also generically smooth.

Note further that K_{X_e}+4\xi=-2\xi+\varphi^*\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(-2,-2-e)+\varphi^*\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(3,b_e)+4\xi=2\xi+\varphi^*\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_0}(1,b_e-e-2)=c_1(\mathcal{V}), thus \mathcal{U} is a special Ulrich bundle. Finally, the slope of \mathcal{U} with respect to \xi is

For r=1 we have \mathcal{G}_1 = L_1; therefore \mathcal{G}_1 \otimes L^{\vee} and \mathcal{G}_1^{\vee} \otimes L are either equal to \mathcal O_{X_0}, if L=L_1, or equal to L_1 - L_2 and L_2 - L_1, respectively, if L=L_2. Therefore (i) and (ii) hold true by computations as in § ?-Case L. As for (iii), by (?) we have that L_{\epsilon_{2}} = L_2 thus h^1(\mathcal{G}_1 \otimes L_{2}^{\vee}) = h^1(L_1 - L_2) = 4 b_0 - 4, as is § ?-Case L, the latter being always greater than or equal to {\min}\{4b_0-4,\;2b_0+2\} \geqslant 4 since b_0 \geqslant2 by (1.9).

Therefore, we will assume r \geqslant2 and proceed by induction. Regarding (i), since it holds for r=1, assuming it holds for r-1 then by tensoring (?) with L^{\vee} we get that

because h^j(\mathcal{G}_{r-1} \otimes L^{\vee}) = 0, for j=2,3, by inductive hypothesis whereas h^j(L_{\epsilon_{r}} \otimes L^{\vee}) = 0, for j=2,3, since L_{\epsilon_{r}} \otimes L^{\vee} is either \mathcal O_{X_0}, or L_2-L_1, or L_1-L_2.

A similar reasoning, tensoring the dual of (?) by L, proves (ii).

To prove (iii), tensor (?) by L_{\epsilon_{r+1}}^{\vee} and use that h^2(\mathcal{G}_{r-1}\otimes L_{\epsilon_{r+1}}^{\vee})=0 by (i). Thus we have the surjection

which implies that h^1(\mathcal{G}_r \otimes L_{\epsilon_{r+1}}^{\vee}) \geqslant h^1(L_{\epsilon_{r}} \otimes L_{\epsilon_{r+1}}^{\vee}). According to the parity of r, we have that L_{\epsilon_{r}} \otimes L_{\epsilon_{r+1}}^{\vee} equals either L_1 - L_2 or L_2 - L_1. From computations as in § ?-Case L, h^1(L_1-L_2) = 4b_0-4 whereas h^1(L_2-L_1) = 2b_0+2. Notice that

Therefore one concludes.

For r=1, we have \mathcal{G}_1 = L_1 and the statement holds true from Theorem 2.1 and computations in § ?-Case L.

For any r \geqslant2, notice that

Therefore, from Lemma 4.1-(iii) there exist non–trivial extensions as in (?), which are therefore Ulrich with respect to \xi and whose Chern class c_1(\mathcal{G}_r) is exactly as in (?).

By induction \mu(\mathcal{G}_{r-1}) = \mu(L_{\epsilon_{r}}) = 8 b_0 - k_0 - 3; then \mathcal{G}_r has the same slope w.r.t. \xi.

(i) Consider the exact sequence (?), where r is replaced by r+1. From {\rm Ext}^1(L_{\epsilon_{r+1}},\mathcal{G}_r)\cong H^1(\mathcal{G}_r \otimes L_{\epsilon_{r+1}}^{\vee}) and the fact that the exact sequence defining \mathcal{G}_{r+1} is constructed by taking a non–zero vector [\mathcal{G}_{r+1}] in {\rm Ext}^1(L_{\epsilon_{r+1}},\mathcal{G}_r), it follows that the coboundary map

of the exact sequence

is non–zero so it is injective. Thus, (i) follows from the cohomology of (Proof).

(ii) We use induction on r. For r=1, the right hand side of the formula yields 4(b_0-1) which is exactly h^1(\mathcal{G}_1 \otimes L_2^{\vee})=h^1(L_1-L_2) as in § ?-Case L.

When r=2, the right hand side of the formula is 2(b_0+1) which is h^1(\mathcal{G}_2 \otimes L_1^{\vee}) = h^1(L_2 - L_1) = 2b_0+2, as it follows from computations in § ?-Case L, from the exact sequence

obtained by (?) with r=2 and tensored with L_1^{\vee}, and the fact that h^j(\mathcal O_{X_0}) = 0, for j=1,2.

Assume now that the formula holds true up to some integer r \geqslant 2; we have to show that it holds also for r+1. Consider the exact sequence (?), with r replaced by r+1, and tensor it by L_{\epsilon_{r+2}}^{\vee}. We thus obtain

If r is even, then L_{\epsilon_{r+2}} = L_2 whereas L_{\epsilon_{r+1}} =L_1. Thus h^0(L_{\epsilon_{r+1}}\otimes L_{\epsilon_{r+2}}^{\vee})= h^0(L_1 - L_2) = 0 and h^1(L_{\epsilon_{r+1}}\otimes L_{\epsilon_{r+2}}^{\vee})=h^1(L_1 - L_2) = 4b_0 -4. On the other hand, by Lemma 4.1-(i), h^2(\mathcal{G}_r\otimes L_{\epsilon_{r+2}}^{\vee})=0. Thus, from (?), we get:

as r and r+2 have the same parity. Using (i), we have h^1(\mathcal{G}_r\otimes L_{\epsilon_{r}}^{\vee}) = h^1(\mathcal{G}_{r-1}\otimes L_{\epsilon_{r}}^{\vee}) -1 therefore, by inductive hypothesis with r-1 odd, we have h^1(\mathcal{G}_{r-1}\otimes L_{\epsilon_{r}}^{\vee}) = \frac{r}{2} (4b_0-4) - \frac{(r-2)}{2}. Summing up, we have

which is easily seen to be equal to the right hand side expression in (ii), when r is replaced by r+1.

If r is odd, the same holds for r+2 whereas r+1 is even. In this case L_{\epsilon_{r+2}}= L_1, L_{\epsilon_{r+1}} =L_2 so h^1(L_{\epsilon_{r+1}}\otimes L_{\epsilon_{r+2}}^{\vee})=h^1(L_2 - L_1) = 2b_0+2 and one applies the same procedure as in the previous case.

(iii) We again use induction on r. For r=1, formula (iii) states that h^j(L_1 -L_1)=h^j(\mathcal O_{X_0})=0, for j=2,3, which is certainly true.

Assume now that (iii) holds up to some integer r \geqslant 1; we have to prove that it holds also for r+1. Consider the exact sequence (?), where r is replaced by r+1, and tensor it by \mathcal{G}_{r+1}^{\vee}. From this we get that, for j=2,3,

the latter equality follows from h^j( L_{\epsilon_{r+1}} \otimes \mathcal{G}_{r+1}^{\vee}) =0, j =2,3, as in Lemma 4.1-(ii).

Consider the dual exact sequence of (?), where r is replaced by r+1, and tensor it by \mathcal{G}_{r}. Thus, Lemma 4.1-(i) yields that, for j=2,3, one has

Now (?)–(?) and the inductive hypothesis yield h^j( \mathcal{G}_{r+1} \otimes \mathcal{G}_{r+1}^{\vee})=0, for j=2,3, as desired.

(iv) For r=1, (iv) reads \chi(L_1-L_2)= - h^1(L_1-L_2) = 4 - 4b_0, which is true since h^j(L_1-L_2)=0 for j=0,2,3.

For r=2, (iv) reads \chi(\mathcal{G}_2 \otimes L_1^{\vee}) = 1 - h^1(L_2-L_1) = - 1 - 2 b_0 and this holds true because if we take the exact sequence (?), with r=2, tensored by L_1^{\vee} then

as h^j(L_2-L_1)= 0 for j=0,2,3.

Assume now that the formula holds up to a certain integer r \geqslant 2, we have to prove that it also holds for r+1. From (?) we get

If r is even, the same is true for r+2 whereas r+1 is odd. Therefore,

Then (Proof), with r replaced by r-1, yields

Substituting (?) into (?) and using the inductive hypothesis with r-1 odd, we get

proving that the formula holds also for r+1 odd.

Similar procedure can be used to treat the case when r is odd. In this case, L_{\epsilon_{r+1}} = L_2 whereas L_{\epsilon_{r+2}} = L_1. Thus, from the above computations,

As in the previous case, \chi(\mathcal{G}_r\otimes L_{1}^{\vee}) = 1 + \chi (\mathcal{G}_{r-1} \otimes L_{1}^{\vee}) so, applying inductive hypothesis with r-1 even, we get \chi(\mathcal{G}_r\otimes L_{1}^{\vee}) = 1 + \frac{(r-1)}{2} (1 - h^1(L_2-L_1)). Adding up all these quantities, we get

so formula (iv) holds true also for r+1 even.

(v) For r=1, (v) reads \chi(L_1 -L_1) = \chi(\mathcal O_{X_0}) =1, which is correct. For r=2, (v) reads \chi(L_2\otimes \mathcal{G}_2^{\vee})= 1 - h^1(L_2-L_1), which is once again correct as it follows from the dual of sequence (?) tensored by L_2.

Assume now that the formula holds up to a certain integer r \geqslant 2 and we need to proving it for r+1. Dualizing (?), replacing r by r+1 and tensoring it by L_{\epsilon_{r+1}} we find that

The dual of sequence (?), with r replaced by r-1, tensored by L_{\epsilon_{r+1}} yields

Substituting (?) into (?) and using the fact that r+1 and r-1 have the same parity, we get

If r is even, then \chi(L_{\epsilon_{r+1}} \otimes L_{\epsilon_{r}}^{\vee}) = \chi(L_1-L_2) = - h^1(L_1-L_2) whereas, from the inductive hypothesis with r-1 odd, \chi(L_{\epsilon_{r-1}}\otimes \mathcal{G}_{r-1}^{\vee}) = 1 + \frac{(r-2)}{2} (1 - h^1(L_1-L_2)). Thus

the latter equals 1 + \frac{r}{2} (1 - h^1(L_1-L_2)), proving that the formula holds also for r+1 odd.

If r is odd, the strategy is similar; in this case one has \chi(L_{\epsilon_{r+1}} \otimes L_{\epsilon_{r}}^{\vee}) = \chi(L_2-L_1) = - h^1(L_2-L_1) and, by the inductive hypothesis with r-1 even, \chi(L_{\epsilon_{r-1}}\otimes \mathcal{G}_{r-1}^{\vee}) = \frac{(r-1)}{2} (1 - h^1(L_2-L_1)) so one can conclude.

(vi) We first check the given formula for r=1,2. We have \chi(\mathcal{G}_1 \otimes \mathcal{G}_1^{\vee})=\chi(L_1-L_1)=\chi(\mathcal O_{X_0})=1, which fits with the given formula for r=1. From (?), with r=2, tensored by \mathcal{G}_2^{\vee} we get

From the dual of (?), with r=2, tensored by L_1 we get

Combining (?) and (?), we get

which again fits with the given formula for r=2.

Assume now that the given formula is valid up to a certain integer r \geqslant2; we need to prove it holds for r+1. From (?), in which r is replaced by r+1, tensored by \mathcal{G}_{r+1}^{\vee} and successively the dual of (?), with r replaced by r+1, tensored by \mathcal{G}_r we get

If r is even, then r+1 is odd and L_{\epsilon_{r+1}} = L_1. From (v) with (r+1) odd, we get \chi(L_{\epsilon_{r+1}} \otimes \mathcal{G}_{r+1}^{\vee}) = 1 + \frac{r}{2} (1 - h^1(L_1-L_2)), whereas from (iv) with r even \chi(\mathcal{G}_{r} \otimes L_{\epsilon_{r+1}}^{\vee}) = \frac{r}{2} (1 - h^1(L_2-L_1)). Finally, by the inductive hypothesis with r even, \chi(\mathcal{G}_{r} \otimes \mathcal{G}_{r}^{\vee}) = \frac{r^2}{4} (2 - h^1(L_1-L_2) - h^1(L_2-L_1)). Summing–up the three quantities, one gets

proving that the formula holds for r+1 odd.

If r is odd, then \chi(L_{\epsilon_{r+1}} \otimes \mathcal{G}_{r+1}^{\vee}) = \frac{r+1}{2} (1 - h^1(L_2-L_1)), as it follows from (v) with (r+1) even, whereas \chi(\mathcal{G}_{r} \otimes L_{\epsilon_{r+1}}^{\vee}) = \frac{(r+1)}{2} (1 - h^1(L_1-L_2)) - 1, as predicted by (iv) with r odd. Finally, form the inductive hypothesis with r odd, we have \chi(\mathcal{G}_{r} \otimes \mathcal{G}_{r}^{\vee}) = 1 + \frac{(r^2-1)}{4} (2 - h^1(L_1-L_2)- h^1(L_2-L_1)). If we add up the three quantities, we get

finishing the proof.

By inductive assumption, \mathcal{U}_{r-1} specializes to \mathcal{G}_{r-1} in the smooth modular family thus, by semi-continuity and by Lemma 4.1-(i), one has

For the same reason

where the latter is as in Lemma 4.3-(iv).

Thus, equality in (Proof), together with (Proof), reads

namely

where h^1(\mathcal{G}_{r-1} \otimes L_{\epsilon_r}^{\vee}) \geqslant {\rm min} \{4b_0-4,\;2b_0 +2\} \geqslant 4, as from Lemma 4.1-(iii) where r is replaced by r-1. We claim that the following equality

holds true.

Assume for a moment that (?) has been proved; since \mathcal{U}_{r-1} is slope-stable, of the same slope as L_{\epsilon_r}, and \mathcal{U}_{r-1} is not isomorphic to L_{\epsilon_r}, then h^0(\mathcal{U}_{r-1} \otimes L_{\epsilon_r}^{\vee} ) = 0 as any non-zero homomorphism L_{\epsilon_r} \to \mathcal{U}_{r-1} should be an isomorphism. Thus, using (?), for any r \geqslant 2 one gets therefore

which, together with Lemma 4.1-(iii), proves the statement.

Thus, we are left with the proof of (?). To prove it, we will use induction on r.

If r=2, then \mathcal{G}_1 = L_1, L_{\epsilon_2} = L_2, thus h^0(\mathcal{G}_1 \otimes L_2^{\vee}) = h^0(L_1-L_2) = 0, as it follows from (?) and from (?). If otherwise r=3, then \mathcal{G}_{r-1} = \mathcal{G}_2 as in (?) whereas L_{\epsilon_3} = L_1, as in (?). Thus, tensoring (?) by L_1^{\vee}, one gets

since h^0(L_2 - L_1) = 0, from (?) and from (?), then h^0( \mathcal{G}_2 \otimes L_1^{\vee}) = h^0(\mathcal O_{X_0}) = 1.

Assume therefore that, up to some integer r-2 \geqslant 2, (?) holds true and take \mathcal{G}_{r-1} a non-trivial extension as in (?), with r replaced by r-1, namely

If r is even, then r-2 is even and r-1 is odd, in particular L_{\epsilon_{r-1}} = L_1 and L_{\epsilon_{r}} = L_2. Thus, tensoring (?) with L_{\epsilon_{r}}^{\vee} = L_2^{\vee} gives

Since h^0(L_1 - L_2) = 0 then

On the other hand, by (?), with r replaced by r-2, namely

we have L_{\epsilon_{r-2}} = L_2, since r-2 is even as r is. Thus, tensoring (?) with L_{\epsilon_r}^{\vee} and taking into account that r is even, one gets

Notice that \mathcal{G}_{r-3} \otimes L_2^{\vee} = \mathcal{G}_{r-3} \otimes L_{\epsilon_{r-2}}^{\vee} thus, since r-3 is odd, h^0(\mathcal{G}_{r-3} \otimes L_2^{\vee}) = 0 by induction and by (?). On the other hand, the coboundary map

is non-zero since, by iterative construction, \mathcal{G}_{r-2} is taken to be a non-trivial extension; therefore \partial is injective which implies h^0(\mathcal{G}_{r-2} \otimes L_2^{\vee}) = 0 and so h^0(\mathcal{G}_{r-1} \otimes L_{\epsilon_r}^{\vee}) = 0, as desired.

Assume now r to be odd thus, L_{\epsilon_{r}} = L_1 whereas L_{\epsilon_{r-1}} = L_2. Tensoring (?) with L_1^{\vee} gives

As h^0(L_2 - L_1) = 0, then

Since r is odd, then also r-2 is odd and one gets

Notice that h^0(\mathcal{G}_{r-3} \otimes L_1^{\vee} ) = h^0(\mathcal{G}_{r-3} \otimes L_{\epsilon_{r-2}}^{\vee}) = 1, as it follows from (?) with r replaced by r-2 which is odd since r is. On the other hand, the fact that \mathcal{G}_{r-2} arises from a non–trivial extension implies as before that the coboundary map

is once again injective. This gives h^0(\mathcal{G}_{r-2} \otimes L_1^{\vee}) = h^0(\mathcal{G}_{r-3} \otimes L_1^{\vee}) = 1, which implies h^0(\mathcal{G}_{r-1} \otimes L_{\epsilon_r}^{\vee}) = 1. This concludes the proof of the Lemma.

Since \mathcal F_r is of rank r and Ulrich w.r.t. \xi, the same holds for the general member [\mathcal{U}_r] \in \mathcal M(r), since Ulrichness is an open property in irreducible families as \mathcal M(r). For the same reasons c_1(\mathcal{U}_r) = c_1(\mathcal F_r) = c_1(\mathcal{G}_r), as in (?), and \mu(\mathcal{U}_r) = \mu(\mathcal F_r) = \mu(\mathcal{U}_{r-1}).

Since \mathcal F_r is simple, as observed above, by semi-continuity h^0( \mathcal{U}_r \otimes \mathcal{U}_r^{\vee}) = 1, i.e. \mathcal{U}_r is simple, in particular it is indecomposable.

Property (ii) follows by specializing \mathcal{F}_r to a vector bundle \mathcal{G}_r constructed above, and using semi-continuity and Lemma 4.3-(iii) and (ii), respectively. Property (i) follows by Lemma 4.3-(vi), since the given \chi depends only on the Chern classes of the two factors and on X_0, which are constant in the irreducible family \mathcal M(r).

The reasoning is similar to [cfk1, Lemma 4.5], we will describe it for reader’s convenience. Assume that \mathcal{D} is a destabilizing subsheaf of \mathcal{F}_r, that is 0<{\rm rk}(\mathcal{D}) < {\rm rk}(\mathcal{F}_r )=r and \mu(\mathcal{D}) \geqslant\mu=\mu(\mathcal{F}_r). Define the sheaves

so that (?) may be put into the following commutative diagram with exact rows and columns:

defining the sheaves \mathcal{K}' and \mathcal{Q}'. We have {\rm rk}(\mathcal{Q}) \leqslant 1.

Assume that {\rm rk}(\mathcal{Q})=0. Then \mathcal{Q} =0, whence \mathcal{K} \cong \mathcal{D} and \mathcal{Q}' \cong L_{\epsilon_r}. Since \mu(\mathcal{K}) =\mu(\mathcal{D}) \geqslant\mu=\mu(\mathcal{U}_{r-1}) and \mathcal{U}_{r-1} is slope–stable, we must have {\rm rk}(\mathcal{K})={\rm rk}(\mathcal{U}_{r-1})=r-1. It follows that {\rm rk}(\mathcal{K}')=0. As

where D' is an effective divisor supported on the codimension one locus of the support of \mathcal{K}', we have

Hence D'=0, which means that \mathcal{K}' is supported in codimension at least two. Thus, the sheaves {\mathfrak ext}^i(\mathcal{K}',\mathcal O_{X_0}) are zero, for i \leqslant 1, and it follows that

as desired. If furthermore \mathcal{F}_r/\mathcal{D} is torsion–free, then we must have \mathcal{K}'=0, whence \mathcal{D} \cong \mathcal{U}_{r-1} and {\mathcal{F}_r}/\mathcal{D} \cong L_{\epsilon_r}.

Next we prove that {\rm rk}(\mathcal{Q})=1 cannot happen. Indeed, if {\rm rk}(\mathcal{Q})=1, then {\rm rk}(\mathcal{K})={\rm rk}(\mathcal{D})-1 \leqslant r-2<r-1={\rm rk}(\mathcal{U}_{r-1}) and {\rm rk}(\mathcal{Q}')=0; in particular \mathcal{Q}' is a torsion sheaf. Since

where D is either an effective divisor supported on the codimension-one locus of the support of \mathcal{Q}' or it is D=0 if {\rm codim}({\rm Supp} (\mathcal{Q}')) \geqslant 2. Then, we have

This contradicts the slope–stability of \mathcal{U}_{r-1}.

Consider the general member [\mathcal{U}_r] \in \mathcal M(r); then it satisfies h^0(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes \mathcal{U}_r^{\vee})=1 and h^j(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes \mathcal{U}_r^{\vee})=0 for j=2,3, by Lemma 4.5.

From the fact that h^2(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes \mathcal{U}_r^{\vee})=0, it follows that \mathcal M(r) is generically smooth of dimension \dim (\mathcal M(r)) = h^1(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes \mathcal{U}_r^{\vee}) (cf. e.g. [c-h-g-s, Prop. 2.10]). On the other hand, since h^3(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes \mathcal{U}_r^{\vee})=0 and h^0(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes \mathcal{U}_r^{\vee})=1, we have h^1(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes \mathcal{U}_r^{\vee}) = -\chi(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes \mathcal{U}_r^{\vee})+1. Therefore, the formula concerning \dim (\mathcal M(r)) directly follows from Lemma 4.5-(i).

Similarly, being slope-stable by assumptions, also the general member \mathcal{U}_{r-1} of \mathcal M(r-1) satisfies h^0(\mathcal{U}_{r-1} \otimes \mathcal{U}_{r-1}^{\vee})=1. Thus, using Lemma 4.5-(ii), the same reasoning as above shows that

where \chi (\mathcal{U}_{r-1} \otimes \mathcal{U}_{r-1}^{\vee}) as in Lemma 4.5-(i) (with r replaced by r-1). Morover, by specialization of \mathcal{U}_{r-1} to \mathcal{G}_{r-1} and semi-continuity, we have

where the latter is as in Lemma 4.3-(ii) (with r replaced by r-1). Therefore, by the very definition of \mathcal M(r)^{\rm ext} and by (?)-(?), we have

On the other hand, from the above discussion,

Therefore to prove that \dim (\mathcal M(r)^{\rm ext}) < \dim (\mathcal M(r)) it is enough to show that for any integer r \geqslant2 the following inequality

holds true. Notice that the previous inequality reads also

which is satisfied for any r \geqslant2, as we can easily see.

Indeed use Lemmas 4.5-(i) and 4.3-(ii): if r is even, the left hand side of (?) reads rb_0 + 2 + \frac{(r-2)}{2} which obviously is positive since r, b_0 \geqslant2; if r is odd, then r \geqslant3 and the left hand side of (?) reads (r-1) (2b_0-3) + \frac{(r-3)}{2} which obviously is positive under the assumptions r \geqslant3, b_0 \geqslant2.

We use induction on r, the result being obviously true for r=1, where \mathcal{U}_1 = L_1, \mathcal M(1) = \{L_1\} is a singleton, and \mathcal M(1)^{\rm ext} = \emptyset.

Assume therefore r \geqslant2 and that the general member of \mathcal M(r) is not slope–stable, whereas the general member of \mathcal M(r-1) is. Then, similarly as in [cfk1, Prop. 4.7], we may find a one-parameter family of bundles \{\mathcal{U}_r^{(t)}\} over the unit disc \Delta such that \mathcal{U}_r^{(t)} is a general member of \mathcal M(r) for t \neq 0 and \mathcal{U}_r^{(0)} lies in \mathcal M(r)^{\rm ext}, and such that we have a destabilizing sequence

for t \neq 0, which we can take to be saturated, that is, such that \mathcal{Q}^{(t)} is torsion free, whence so that \mathcal{D}^{(t)} and \mathcal{Q}^{(t)} are (Ulrich) vector bundles (see [c-h-g-s, Thm. 2.9] or [b, (3.2)]).

The limit of \mathbb P(\mathcal{Q}^{(t)}) \subset \mathbb P(\mathcal{U}_r^{(t)}) defines a subvariety of \mathbb P(\mathcal{U}_r^{(0)}) of the same dimension as \mathbb P(\mathcal{Q}^{(t)}), whence a coherent sheaf \mathcal{Q}^{(0)} of rank {\rm rk}(\mathcal{Q}^{(t)}) with a surjection \mathcal{U}_r^{(0)} \to \mathcal{Q}^{(0)}. Denoting by \mathcal{D}^{(0)} its kernel, we have {\rm rk}(\mathcal{D}^{(0)})={\rm rk}(\mathcal{D}^{(t)}) and c_1(\mathcal{D}^{(0)})=c_1(\mathcal{D}^{(t)}). Hence, (?) specializes to a destabilizing sequence for t=0. Lemma 4.6 yields that {\mathcal{D}^{(0)}}^{\vee} (respectively, {\mathcal{Q}^{(0)}}^{\vee}) is the dual of a member of \mathcal{M}(r-1) (resp., the dual of L_{\epsilon_r}). It follows that {\mathcal{D}^{(t)}}^{\vee} (resp., {\mathcal{Q}^{(t)}}^{\vee}) is a deformation of the dual of a member of \mathfrak{U}(r-1) (resp., a deformation of L_{\epsilon_r}^{\vee}), whence that \mathcal{D}^{(t)} is a deformation of a member of \mathcal{M}(r-1), as both are locally free, and \mathcal{Q}^{(t)} \cong L_{\epsilon_r}, for the same reason.

In other words, the general member of \mathcal M(r) is an extension of L_{\epsilon_r} by a member of \mathcal{M}(r-1). Hence \mathcal M(r)=\mathcal M(r)^{\rm ext}, contradicting Lemma 4.7.

It directly follows from Theorem 3.1, (?), (?) and from Lemmas 4.5, 4.7 and Proposition 4.8, where by abuse of notation we have used the same symbol \mathcal M(r) for the smooth modular family which gives rise to the generically smooth irreducible component of the corresponding moduli space.

For h=1, (iii) and (iv) follow from the proof of Theorem 3.4. As for (i), the vanishings hold when \mathcal{U}_2' = \mathcal{U}_2 once again by the proof of Theorem 3.4, and thus, by semi-continuity, they also hold for a general pair ([\mathcal{U}_2'], [\mathcal{U}_2]) \in \mathcal M (2) \times \mathcal M (2). Similarly, (ii) follows from the proof of Theorem 3.4, since the given \chi is constant as \mathcal{U}_2 and \mathcal{U}'_2 vary in \mathcal M (2).

We now prove the statements for any integer h \geqslant2 by induction. Assume therefore that they are satisfied for all positive integers k less than h.

(i) Let j \in \{2,3\}. By specialization and (?) we have

and the latter are 0 by induction. Similarly, by specialization and the dual of (?) we have

which are again 0 by induction.

(ii) By specialization, (?) and induction we have

Likewise, by specialization, the dual of (?) and induction, the same holds for \chi(\mathcal{U}'_2 \otimes {\mathcal{U}_{2h}}^{\vee}).

(iii) Let j = 2,3; by specialization, (?) and its dual we have

which are all 0 by induction.

(iv) By specialization, (?) and its dual we have

By induction, this equals (4 + 9e - 6b_e) + 2 (h-1)(4 + 9e - 6b_e)+ (h-1)^2(4 + 9e - 6b_e)=h^2(4 + 9e - 6b_e).

We prove this by induction on h, the case h=1 being satisfied by the choice of \mathcal M (2). Therefore, let h \geqslant2; for general [\mathcal{U}_{2h-2}] \in \mathcal M (2h-2) and [\mathcal{U}'_2] \in \mathcal M (2), one has

By Lemma 4.10-(i) we have that h^j(\mathcal{U}'_2 \otimes \mathcal{U}_{2h-2}^{\vee}) = 0, for j=2,3. Therefore

so, by specialization and invariance of \chi in irreducible families, we have

the latter equality following from Lemma 4.10-(ii) (with h replaced by h-1) whereas the last strict inequality following from h \geqslant2. Hence, by its very definition, one has that \mathcal M (2h)^{\rm ext}, and so also \mathcal M (2h), is not empty.

The members of \mathcal M (2h) have rank 2h and first Chern class 2h\xi+\varphi^*\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(h,h(b_e-e-2)) as in (?), since c_1 (\mathcal{U}_{2h}) = c_1(\mathcal{F}_{2h}) being constant in \mathcal M (2h). It is immediate that extensions of Ulrich bundles are still Ulrich, so the general member \mathcal{U}_{2h} of \mathcal M(2h) is an Ulrich bundle. It also satisfies h^j(\mathcal{U}_{2h} \otimes \mathcal{U}_{2h}^{\vee})=0 for j=2,3 by Lemma 4.10-(iii).

The proof is almost identical to that of Lemma 4.6, so the reader is referred therein.

We prove this by induction on h, the case h=1 being satisfied by \mathcal M(2) as in Theorem 3.4.

Let therefore h \geqslant2 and assume that we have proved the lemma for all positive integers k \leqslant h-1; we will prove it for h.

The slope of the members of \mathcal M (2) and \mathcal M (2h-2) are both equal to 8b_e - k_e - 12 e -3 as in (?). Thus, by [c-h-g-s, Lemma 4.2], the general member [\mathcal{F}_{2h}] \in \mathcal M (2h)^{\rm ext} corresponds to a simple bundle. Hence, by semi-continuity, also the general member [\mathcal{U}_{2h}]\in \mathcal M (2h) corresponds to a simple bundle which also satisfies h^j(\mathcal{U}_{2h} \otimes \mathcal{U}_{2h}^{\vee})=0, j=2,3, by Lemma 4.10-(iii).

Therefore \mathcal M (2h) is smooth at [\mathcal{U}_{2h}] (see, e.g., [c-h-g-s, Prop. 2.10]) with

using the facts that h^0(\mathcal{U}_{2h} \otimes \mathcal{U}_{2h}^{\vee})=1 as \mathcal{U}_{2h} is simple, and that \chi(\mathcal{U}_{2h} \otimes \mathcal{U}_{2h}^{\vee})=h^2(4 + 9e - 6b_e) by Lemma 4.10-(iv). This proves that \mathcal M(2h) is generically smooth of the stated dimension.

Finally, we prove that \mathcal{U}_{2h} general is slope–stable and that \dim(\mathcal M (2h)^{\rm ext}) < \dim(\mathcal M (2h)). If \mathcal{U}_{2h} general were not slope-stable then, as in the proof of Proposition 4.8, we could find a one-parameter family of bundles \{\mathcal{U}_{2h}^{(t)}\} over the disc \Delta such that \mathcal{U}_{2h}^{(t)} is a general member of \mathcal M (2h) for t \neq 0 and \mathcal{U}_{2h}^{(0)} lies in \mathcal M (2h)^{\rm ext}, and such that we have a destabilizing sequence

for t \neq 0, which we can take to be saturated, that is, such that \mathcal{G}^{(t)} is torsion free, whence so that \mathcal{D}^{(t)} and \mathcal{G}^{(t)} are (Ulrich) vector bundles (see [c-h-g-s, Thm. 2.9] or [b, (3.2)]). The limit of \mathbb P(\mathcal{G}^{(t)}) \subset \mathbb P(\mathcal{U}_{2h}^{(t)}) defines a subvariety of \mathbb P(\mathcal{U}_{2h}^{(0)}) of the same dimension as \mathbb P(\mathcal{G}^{(t)}), whence a coherent sheaf \mathcal{G}^{(0)} of rank {\rm rk} (\mathcal{G}^{(t)}) with a surjection \mathcal{U}_{2h}^{(0)} \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{G}^{(0)}. Denoting by \mathcal{D}^{(0)} its kernel, we have {\rm rk} (\mathcal{D}^{(0)})= {\rm rk} (\mathcal{D}^{(t)}) and c_1(\mathcal{D}^{(0)})=c_1(\mathcal{D}^{(t)}). Hence, (?) specializes to a destabilizing sequence for t=0.

Lemma 4.12 yields that {\mathcal{D}^{(0)}}^{\vee} (resp., {\mathcal{G}^{(0)}}^{\vee}) is the dual of a member of \mathcal M (2) (resp., of \mathcal M (2h)). It follows that {\mathcal{D}^{(t)}}^{\vee} (resp., {\mathcal{G}^{(t)}}^{\vee}) is a deformation of the dual of a member of \mathcal M (2)) (resp., of \mathcal M (2h)), whence that {\mathcal{D}^{(t)}} (resp., {\mathcal{G}^{(t)}}) is a deformation of a member of \mathcal M (2) (resp., \mathcal M (2h)), as both are locally free. It follows that [\mathcal{U}_{2h}^{(t)}] \in \mathcal M (2h)^{\rm ext} for t \neq 0. Thus,

On the other hand we have

for general [\mathcal{U}_{2h-2}] \in \mathcal M (2h-2) and [\mathcal{U}'_2]\in \mathcal M (2). As \mathcal{U}_{2h-2} and \mathcal{U}'_2 are slope–stable by induction, of the same slope, we have h^0(\mathcal{U}'_2 \otimes \mathcal{U}_{2h-2}^{\vee})=0. Lemma 4.10-(i), (ii) and (iii) thus yield

Hence, by (?) and (?) we have

as it easily follows from the fact that h \geqslant2. The previous inequality shows that \dim (\mathcal M (2h)^{\rm ext}) < \dim (\mathcal M (2h)), as stated; in particular (?) is a contradiction, which forces also \mathcal{U}_{2h} general to be slope-stable.

Similarly as in the proof of Theorem 3.4, we consider a rank-3 vector bundle \mathcal{A}_3 on \mathbb{F}_e which is Ulrich w.r.t. c_1(\mathcal E_e) = 3C_e+b_ef = \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(3,b_e), for any e >0.

Such a bundle certainly exists, as it follows from [ant, Prop. 5.3, Thm. 6.2]; indeed, using same notation therein, we let r=3, D \in |\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(\alpha,\beta)| be any divisor on \mathbb{F}_e, polarization c_1(\mathcal E_e) = 3C_e + b_ef = \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(3,b_e) (in [ant] the polarization is denoted by h), it follows that any pair (3,D), satisfying

and such that

is an admissable Ulrich pair on \mathbb{F}_e w.r.t. the polarization \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(3,b_e) (cf. [ant, Def. 5.1, Prop. 5.3]).

Because b_e \geqslant 3e+2 from (1.9), then one has 7 \leqslant \alpha\leqslant 14. If we therefore take e.g. \alpha=12 and \beta=4b_e-3, an easy check shows that the previous relations hold true. Hence the pair (3, \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(12, 4b_e -3)) = (3,\;12C_e+(4b_e-3)f) is an admissable Ulrich pair, thus \mathbb{F}_e certainly supports rank-3 vector bundles, say \mathcal{A}_3, which are Ulrich w.r.t. c_1(\mathcal E_e)=3C_e+b_ef, such that c_1(\mathcal{A}_3) = 12C_e+(4b_e-3)f = \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(12, 4b_e-3) and which are given as cokernels of appropriate injective vector bundle maps, (see [ant, Thm. 4.1, (4.1) and Thm. 6.2]). They moreover satisfies Ext^2(\mathcal{A}_3,\mathcal{A}_3) = h^2(\mathcal{A}_3 \otimes \mathcal{A}_3^{\vee}) =0 (cf. [ant, Lemma 6.3]). From [ant, Prop. 6.4], any such bundle \mathcal{A}_3 is slope-stable, hence simple i.e. h^0(\mathcal{A}_3 \otimes \mathcal{A}_3^{\vee})=1. These bundles belong to the moduli space \mathcal M_{c_1(\mathcal E_e)}^U(3,c_1,c_2) of rank-3 vector bundles of given Chern classes c_1, c_2, which are Ulrich w.r.t. c_1(\mathcal E_e), which is smooth, irreducible, of dimension

(cf. [ant, Prop. 6.4]). All points of \mathcal M_{c_1(\mathcal E_e)}^U(3,c_1,c_2) correspond to slope–stable Ulrich bundles, since on \mathbb{F}_e there are no Ulrich line bundles w.r.t. c_1(\mathcal E_e) = 3 C_e + b_e f = \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(3,b_e) from [a-c-mr, Thm. 2.1] (cf. Theorem 1.4-(b) or [b, Sect.3, (3.2)]).

Using Theorem 1.7, we therefore first consider on \mathbb{F}_e bundles \mathcal{H}_3:= \mathcal{A}_3(-c_1({\mathcal E}_e)), which are of rank 3, with first Chen class

and then, on X_e, we take

which are rank-3 vector bundles on X_e which are Ulrich w.r.t. \xi, as it follows from Theorem 1.7, whose first Chern class c_1 := c_1 (\mathcal{V}_3) is as in (4.14). From Main Theorem–(a), when e>0, there are no Ulrich line bundles w.r.t. \xi thus, once again by Theorem 1.4-(b) or [b, Sect.3, (3.2)], \mathcal{V}_3 is also slope-stable w.r.t. \xi, whose slope is as in (4.14); in particular it is also simple. Moreover, by Leray’s isomorphism, projection formula and independence on the twists, one has

which implies that bundles \mathcal{V}_3 fill–up a smooth modular component \mathcal M(3) of the moduli space of rank-3 vector bundles on X_e, which are Ulrich w.r.t. \xi, whose first Chern class and slope w.r.t. \xi are as in (4.14), (4.14), respectively, and whose dimension is

as in [ant, Prop. 6.4].

We prove it by induction on h. We start with h=1, namely r=3. In this case, (iii) and (iv) follow from Theorem 4.14. Indeed, take \mathcal{V}_3 = \xi \otimes \varphi^*(\mathcal H_3) so, by (?) and semi–continuity, one has

which proves (iii) for h=1; moreover, by stability and semi–continuity, one has h^0(X_e, \mathcal{U}_{3} \otimes \mathcal{U}_{3}^{\vee}) = h^0(X_e, \mathcal{V}_{3} \otimes \mathcal{V}_{3}^{\vee}) = 1, therefore from the vanishings above one has

which also proves (iv) for h=1.

As for (i), by semi–continuity, one has

for any 0 \leqslant j \leqslant 3, where \mathcal{V}_2 = \mathcal{V} as in the proof of Theorem 3.4, i.e. \mathcal{V}_2 = \xi \otimes \varphi^*(\mathcal H), where c_1(\mathcal H) = C_e + (b_e-e-2)f = {\mathcal O}_{\mathbb{F}_e}(1, b_e-e-2). From Leray’s isomorphism, projection formula and invariance under twists, it follows that, for any 0 \leqslant j \leqslant 3, one has

and

where \mathcal{A}_3 = \mathcal H_3(c_1(\mathcal E_e)) is the rank-3 vector bundle on \mathbb{F}_e as in the proof of Theorem 4.14 whereas \mathcal H_1= \mathcal H(c_1(\mathcal E_e)) is the rank-2 vector bundle on \mathbb{F}_e as in (Proof), which are both Ulrich w.r.t. c_1(\mathcal E_e) = {\mathcal O}_{\mathbb{F}_e}(3, b_e). Therefore, for dimension reasons, h^3(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal{A}_3 \otimes \mathcal H_1^{\vee}) = h^3(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal H_1 \otimes \mathcal{A}_3^{\vee}) = 0, which implies therefore h^3 (X_e, \mathcal{U}_3 \otimes \mathcal{U}^{\vee}_2) = h^3(X_e, \mathcal{U}_2 \otimes \mathcal{U}^{\vee}_3) = 0, as desired.

To prove that h^2(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal{A}_3 \otimes \mathcal H_1^{\vee})=0 recall that, from [ant, Prop. 6.4], \mathcal{A}_3 arises as the cokernel of a general injective vector bundle map of the form

for suitable positive integers \gamma,\;\delta,\,\tau as in [ant, Thm. 4.1], in our situation one can see that \gamma=b_e-3e+3,\;\delta=b-3e,\,\tau=6. Tensoring (?) by \mathcal H_1^{\vee} gives that

therefore to prove that h^2(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal{A}_3 \otimes \mathcal H_1^{\vee}) =0 it is enough to show that

Taking into account that \mathcal H_1 is of rank 2, i.e. \mathcal H^{\vee}_1 \cong \mathcal H_1 (- c_1(\mathcal H_1)), where c_1(\mathcal H_1) = C_e + (b_e - e - 2)f = \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(1, b_e - e -2), from (Proof) one has that \mathcal H_1 (- c_1(\mathcal H_1)) fits in

where Z \subset \mathbb{F}_e is a general zero-dimensional subscheme of \mathbb{F}_e of length \ell(Z) = 2b_e - 3e. Thus, from (?), to prove (?) it is enough to prove that

which trivially hold true from either Serre duality on \mathbb{F}_e or from the use of the exact sequence 0 \to I_Z \to \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e} \to \mathcal O_Z \to 0. This shows that h^2(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal{A}_3 \otimes \mathcal H_1^{\vee})=0.

To prove instead that h^2(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal H_1 \otimes \mathcal{A}_3^{\vee})=0, one considers the dual exact sequence of (?), i.e.

and tensor it by \mathcal H_1, which gives

From (Proof), it is enough to prove

and

The vanishings of the h^2’s easily follow from the same reasoning as above; by Leray’s isomorphism and projection formula one gets h^1 (\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(1, e)) = h^1(\mathbb{P}^1, \mathcal O_{\mathbb P^1}(e) \oplus \mathcal O_{\mathbb P^1}) = 0. At last, if we take into account that Z is a zero-dimensional subscheme of length \ell(Z) = 2b_e - 3e of general points on \mathbb{F}_e, then Z imposes independent conditions on the linear system |\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(2, b_e)| on \mathbb{F}_e, which is of dimension 3 b_e - 3e + 2 > \ell(Z) = 2b_e - 3e since b_e \geqslant 3e+2 by (1.9); this means that h^1(I_Z \otimes \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(2, b_e)) = h^1(\mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(2, b_e)) and the latter is zero by standard computations. This shows that h^2(\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal H_1 \otimes \mathcal{A}_3^{\vee})=0, which concludes the proof of (i) for h=1.

Finally, to prove (ii) for h=1, from invariance of \chi in irreducible families and from above one has

and

Since \mathcal{A}_3 and \mathcal H_1 are both Ulrich bundles w.r.t. c_1(\mathcal E_e) = 3 C_e + b_e f= \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(3, b_e) on \mathbb{F}_e, let us consider the smooth projective model (S, \mathcal O_S(1)) \cong (\mathbb{F}_e, \mathcal O_{\mathbb{F}_e}(3, b_e)), which is a surface, in a suitable projective space, of degree d := \deg(S) = (c_1(\mathcal E_e))^2 = 6 b_e - 9e. Thus, from [c-h-g-s, Prop. 2.12], one has

and

where p_a(S) =1 and K_S = - 2 C_e - (e+2)f. Using that c_1(\mathcal H_1) = 7 C_e + (3b_e - e - 2) f and c_1(\mathcal{A}_3) = 12 C_e + (4b_e -3)f, one gets

plugging these computations in the previous formulas, one gets

which concludes the proof of (ii) for h=1.

We now prove by induction that all statements hold true also for any integer h \geqslant 2. Assume therefore that they are satisfied for all positive integers k such that 1 \leqslant k \leqslant h-1.

(i) Let j \in \{2,3\}. By specialization and (?) tensored with {\mathcal{U}_2}^{\vee}, we have black

and the latter are 0 by induction. Similarly, by specialization and using the dual of (?) tensored with {\mathcal{U}_2} we have

which are again 0 by induction.

(ii) By specialization, (?) tensored with {\mathcal{U}_2}^{\vee} and induction we have

Likewise, by specialization, the dual of (?) and induction, we have

(iii) Let j = 2,3; by specialization, (?) and its dual we have

which are all 0 by induction.

(iv) By specialization, (?) and its dual we have

By induction, this equals

We prove this by induction on h, the case h=1 being satisfied by the choice of \mathcal M (3) as in Theorem 4.14. Therefore, let h \geqslant 2; for general [\mathcal{U}_{2h-1}] \in \mathcal M (2h-1) and [\mathcal{U}_2] \in \mathcal M (2), one has

By Lemma 4.15-(i) we have that h^j(\mathcal{U}_2 \otimes \mathcal{U}_{2h-1}^{\vee}) = 0, for j=2,3. Therefore

so, by specialization and invariance of \chi in irreducible families, we have

the latter equality following from Lemma 4.15-(ii) (with h replaced by h-1) whereas the last strict inequality following from h \geqslant 2 and b_e \geqslant 3e +2 by (1.9).

The above computations prove that \dim ({\rm Ext}^1(\mathcal{U}_{2h-1},\mathcal{U}_2)) >0, i.e. there exist non-trivial extensions as in (?), and that the scheme \mathcal M (2h+1)^{\rm ext}, and so also \mathcal M (2h+1), is not empty.

The members of \mathcal M (2h+1) have rank 2h+1 and first Chern class as in (?), since c_1 (\mathcal{U}_{2h+1}) = c_1(\mathcal{F}_{2h+1}) being constant in \mathcal M (2h+1). It is immediate that extensions of Ulrich bundles are still Ulrich, so the general member [\mathcal{U}_{2h+1}] \in \mathcal M(2h+1) corresponds to an Ulrich bundle w.r.t. \xi. It also satisfies h^j(\mathcal{U}_{2h+1} \otimes \mathcal{U}_{2h+1}^{\vee})=0 for j=2,3 by Lemma 4.15-(iii).

The proof is identical to that of Lemma 4.12, so the reader is referred therein.

We prove this by induction on h, the case h=1 being satisfied by \mathcal M(3) as in Theorem 4.14, where in such a case \mathcal M(3)^{\rm ext} = \emptyset.

Let therefore h \geqslant 2 and assume that we have proved the statement for all positive integers k \leqslant h-1; we will prove it for h.

The slope of the members of \mathcal M (2) and \mathcal M (2h-1) are both equal to 8b_e - k_e - 12 e -3 as in (?). Thus, by [c-h-g-s, Lemma 4.2], the general member [\mathcal{F}_{2h+1}] \in \mathcal M (2h+1)^{\rm ext} (which is not empty by Proposition 4.16) corresponds to a simple bundle. Hence, by semi-continuity, also the general member [\mathcal{U}_{2h+1}]\in \mathcal M (2h+1) corresponds to a simple bundle which also satisfies h^j(\mathcal{U}_{2h+1} \otimes \mathcal{U}^{\vee}_{2h+1})=0, j=2,3, by Lemma 4.15-(iii).

Therefore \mathcal M (2h+1) is smooth at [\mathcal{U}_{2h+1}] (see, e.g., [c-h-g-s, Prop. 2.10]) with

using the facts that h^0(\mathcal{U}_{2h+1} \otimes \mathcal{U}^{\vee}_{2h})=1 as \mathcal{U}_{2h+1} is simple, and the computation of \chi(\mathcal{U}_{2h+1} \otimes \mathcal{U}^{\vee}_{2h+1}) in Lemma 4.15-(iv). This proves that \mathcal M(2h+1) is generically smooth of the stated dimension.

Finally, we prove that \mathcal{U}_{2h+1} general is slope–stable and that \dim(\mathcal M (2h+1)^{\rm ext}) < \dim(\mathcal M (2h+1)). If \mathcal{U}_{2h+1} general were not slope-stable then we could find a one-parameter family of bundles \{\mathcal{U}_{2h+1}^{(t)}\} over the disc \Delta such that \mathcal{U}_{2h+1}^{(t)} is a general member of \mathcal M (2h+1) for t \neq 0 and \mathcal{U}_{2h+1}^{(0)} lies in \mathcal M (2h+1)^{\rm ext}, and such that we have a destabilizing sequence

for t \neq 0, which we can take to be saturated, that is, such that \mathcal{G}^{(t)} is torsion free, whence so that \mathcal{D}^{(t)} and \mathcal{G}^{(t)} are (Ulrich) vector bundles (see [c-h-g-s, Thm. 2.9] or [b, (3.2)]). The limit of \mathbb P(\mathcal{G}^{(t)}) \subset \mathbb P(\mathcal{U}_{2h+1}^{(t)}) defines a subvariety of \mathbb P(\mathcal{U}_{2h+1}^{(0)}) of the same dimension as \mathbb P(\mathcal{G}^{(t)}), whence a coherent sheaf \mathcal{G}^{(0)} of rank {\rm rk} (\mathcal{G}^{(t)}) with a surjection \mathcal{U}_{2h+1}^{(0)} \twoheadrightarrow \mathcal{G}^{(0)}. Denoting by \mathcal{D}^{(0)} its kernel, we have {\rm rk} (\mathcal{D}^{(0)})= {\rm rk} (\mathcal{D}^{(t)}) and c_1(\mathcal{D}^{(0)})=c_1(\mathcal{D}^{(t)}). Hence, (?) specializes to a destabilizing sequence for t=0.

Lemma 4.17 yields that {\mathcal{D}^{(0)}}^{\vee} (resp., {\mathcal{G}^{(0)}}^{\vee}) is the dual of a member of \mathcal M (3) (resp., of \mathcal M (2h+1)). It follows that {\mathcal{D}^{(t)}}^{\vee} (resp., {\mathcal{G}^{(t)}}^{\vee}) is a deformation of the dual of a member of \mathcal M (2)) (resp., of \mathcal M (2h+1)), whence that {\mathcal{D}^{(t)}} (resp., {\mathcal{G}^{(t)}}) is a deformation of a member of \mathcal M (2) (resp., \mathcal M (2h+1)), as both are locally free. It follows that [\mathcal{U}_{2h+1}^{(t)}] \in \mathcal M (2h+1)^{\rm ext} for t \neq 0. Thus,

On the other hand we have

for [\mathcal{U}_{2h-1}] \in \mathcal M (2h-1) and [\mathcal{U}_2]\in \mathcal M (2) general. Because \mathcal{U}_2 is slope–stable and also \mathcal{U}_{2h-1} is slope–stable by induction, of the same slope, we have h^0(\mathcal{U}_2 \otimes \mathcal{U}_{2h-1}^{\vee})=0. Thus, (Proof) gives

Hence, from (?), using also (?) and the fact that \dim(\mathcal M(2)) = (6b_e - 9e -3) from Theorem 3.4, one has

as h \geqslant 2. The previous inequality shows that \dim (\mathcal M (2h+1)^{\rm ext}) < \dim (\mathcal M (2h+1)), as stated; in particular (?) is a contradiction, which forces also \mathcal{U}_{2h+1} general to be slope-stable.

In the even case, the statement directly follows from Theorem 3.4, (?), (?) and from Propositions 4.11, 4.13. For odd cases, the statement follows from Theorem 4.14, (?), (?) and from Propositions 4.16, 4.18

(a) When e >0, the fact that \mathbb{F}_e does not support line bundles which are Ulrich w.r.t. c_1(\mathcal{E}_e) = 3 C_e + b_ef is proved in [a-c-mr, Thm. 2.1]; however, this fact is also a direct consequence of Main Theorem–(a) and Theorem 1.7.

For e=0 observe that the line bundles L_1 and L_2 as in Main Theorem–(a), which are Ulrich w.r.t. \xi on X_0, give rise, by push forward and by Theorem 1.7, to Ulrich line bundles w.r.t c_1(\mathcal{E}_0)=3C_0+b_0 f on \mathbb{F}_0. Indeed

thus

which give

that are the only Ulrich line bundles on \mathbb{F}_0 w.r.t. c_1(\mathcal{E}_e) =3C_0+b_0 f, according to [cas, Example 2.3] and [ant, Proposition 4.4].

(b) As for any rank r \geqslant 2 in the case e=0, observe that vector bundles \mathcal{U}_r on X_0 as in Main Theorem–(b) when restricted to a general fibre F of \varphi: X_0 \to \mathbb{F}_0 are such that \mathcal{U}_r|_F \cong \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P^1}(1)^{\oplus r}. To see this, one proceeds by induction. By (?), L_1|_F \cong \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P^1}(1) \cong L_2|_F, thus \mathcal{F}_1| _F \in {\rm Ext}^1(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P^1}(1),\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P^1}(1))=H^1(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P^1})=(0), hence \mathcal{F}_1| _F \cong \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P^1}(1)^{\oplus 2}, which is the most balanced splitting. Since \mathcal{U}_2=\mathcal{U} as in Theorem 3.1 is a deformation of \mathcal{F}_1 then \mathcal{U}_2 |_F \cong \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P^1}(1)^{\oplus 2}. Assume by induction, that for some r \geqslant 3 one has \mathcal{U}_{r-1} |_F \cong \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P^1}(1)^{\oplus r-1} for [\mathcal{U}_{r-1}] \in \mathcal{M}(r-1) general. Then by (?), one has

and, once again, since {\rm Ext}^1(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P^1}(1), \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P^1}(1)^{\oplus r-1} )=0 then \mathcal{F}_r |_F\cong \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb P^1}(1)^{\oplus r}.

Thus by [f-lc-pl, Theorem 6.1], using the diagram

therein, where \varphi': \tilde{S} \to \mathbb{F}_0 is the blow-up at c_2(\mathcal{E}_0) points on \mathbb{F}_0 and where \sum E_i is the \varphi'-exceptional divisor, one has that \varphi_*(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes i_*(\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{S}}(\sum E_i))) is a rank r vector bundle on \mathbb{F}_0 which is Ulrich w.r.t. c_1(\mathcal{E}_0)=3C_0+b_0 f. More precisely [f-lc-pl, Proposition 6.2] gives rise to a component of the moduli space of Ulrich bundles of rank r on \mathbb{F}_0, which are Ulrich w.r.t. c_1(\mathcal{E}_0)=3C_0+b_0 f, of first Chern class

On the other hand, if we set \mathcal{H}_r := \varphi_*(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes i_*(\mathcal{O}_{\tilde{S}}(\sum E_i))), the one-to-one correspondence in [f-lc-pl, Proposition 6.2] asserts that \mathcal{U}_r \cong \xi \otimes \varphi^*(\mathcal{H}_r(-c_1(\mathcal{E}_0))). From Main Theorem-(b) one knows c_1(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes \xi^{\vee}) and, since c_1(\mathcal{U}_r \otimes \xi^{\vee}) = c_1(\mathcal{H}_r(-c_1(\mathcal{E}_0))) = c_1(\mathcal{H}_r)-r c_1(\mathcal{E}_0), it follows that c_1 (\mathcal{H}_r) is as stated; pairs (r, c_1(\mathcal{H}_r)) are Ulrich admissible pairs w.r.t. 3C_0+b_0 f in the sense of [ant, Def. 5.1].

By the one-to-one correspondence in [f-lc-pl, Proposition 6.2] and Main Theorem-(b), we have therefore the existence of moduli spaces \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}_0}(r) of Ulrich bundles on \mathbb{F}_0 w.r.t. 3 C_0 + b_0 f, of any rank r\geqslant 2, of first Chern class and dimension as stated. Moreover since \mathcal{U}_r \cong \xi \otimes \varphi^*(\mathcal{H}_r(-c_1(\mathcal{E}_0))) then

i.e. h^2(\mathbb{F}_0, \mathcal{H}_r\otimes \mathcal{H}_r^{\vee}) =0 and h^0(\mathbb{F}_0, \mathcal{H}_r\otimes \mathcal{H}_r^{\vee}) =1, namely the component \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}_0}(r) is also generically smooth and its general point [\mathcal{H}_r] \in \mathcal{M}_{\mathbb{F}_0}(r) corresponds to a simple bundle.

It is also clear that \mathcal{H}_r is slope-stable w.r.t. 3 C_0 + b_0f: if not, by the one-to-one correspondence given by [f-lc-pl, Proposition 6.2], any destabilizing rank-k Ulrich sub-bundle \mathcal D_k of \mathcal \mathcal{H}_r general, for some 1 \leqslant k \leqslant r-1, would give rise to a rank-k vector bundle \xi \otimes \varphi^*(\mathcal D_k(- c_1 (\mathcal E_0)) which is Ulrich on X_0 w.r.t. \xi, by Theorem 1.7, and which would be a destabilizing sub-bundle on \mathcal{U}_r general in \mathcal M(r) on X_0, contradicting Main Theorem–(b).

When r=2,3, the previous arguments are in accordance with [ant, Prop. 6.4], for the polarization 3C_0+b_0 f, and c_1 as stated.

(c) Similar arguments as in (b), but for the case for e>0, are obtained by using Main Theorem–(c), Theorem 1.7 and the one-to-one correspondence in [f-lc-pl, Proposition 6.2].