On plus-one generated conic-line arrangements with simple singularities

Using Proposition 2.5, if \mathcal{C} is plus-one generated of degree d=2k with k\geq 2 and \nu(\mathcal{C})=2, then we have

Recall that we have the following combinatorial count:

Combining these two equations we get

Simple manipulations lead us to

If \mathcal{C} is plus-one generated, then the discriminant \triangle_{d_{1}} of (Proof) satisfies

This gives us

Observe that

and we finally get

On the other hand,

so we have

Using these combinatorial constraints we see that for k=2 one has t_{2}\geq 0 and n_{2}+n_{3}\leq 2, and we will return to this case in a moment. Now suppose that k\geq 3. Using the same argument as in [Pokora, Remark 3.3] (including the data on the triple intersections), we can observe that

and we arrive at the following chain of inequalities:

This gives us that k \leq 5. Let us consider the case k=5. Using our bound on the number of tacnodes, we obtain

By (Proof) we see that for k=5 we have t_{2} \leq 17, so from now on we will assume that \mathcal{C} is plus-one generated such that t_{2}=17. Note that the following weak combinatorics can only occur:

so in order to get a plus-one generated example one needs to decide whether there exists an arrangement of k=5 conics with t_{2}=17 and n_{3}=2. By [Pokora, Theorem B], the following Hirzebruch-type inequality holds (when k \geq 3):

However, if we plug (k; n_{2},t_{2},n_{3}) = (5;0,17,2) into (Proof), then we get a contradiction, which means that such an arrangement cannot exist.

To complete our proof, we need to show that for each k \in \{2,3,4\} we have an example of a plus-one generated arrangement.

• (k=2) In this case we should have n_{2}+n_{3}\leq 2 and t_{2}\geq 0. If we assume that t_{2}=2, then the arrangement is nearly-free by [DJP], so we can exclude this case. The next possible case is t_{2}=1 and n_{2}=2, and in this situation we have \tau(\mathcal{C})=5. We show that such a weak combinatorics leads to a plus-one generated example. Let us take

  \mathcal{Q}(x,y,z) =(x^2 + y^2 - z^2 )\cdot\bigg(x^2 - \frac{13}{10}xz + \frac{36}{10}y^2 - \frac{23}{10}z^2 \bigg).

  as the defining equation of our arrangement. We can check using that (d_{1},d_{2},d_{3}) = (2,2,3), and this implies that \mathcal{C} is plus-one generated.

• (k=3) Using [GM, Proposition 5], if we have an arrangement of 3 conics with 5 tacnodes, then these three conics are projectively equivalent to the three conics given by the equations:

  \quad \quad \quad x^{2}+y^{2}-z^{2}=0, \, \ell^{2}x^{2}+(\ell^{2}+1)y^{2}-2\ell yz =0, \, m^{2}x^{2}+(m^{2}+1)y^{2}-2m yz = 0,

  where \ell, m \in \mathbb{C}\setminus \{0, \pm 1\}, \ell\neq m, \ell m\neq 1. Let us take \ell = 2, m=-2, and denote by Q(x,y,z) the defining equations of these three conics. Then \tau(\mathcal{C})= 17, since t_{2}=5, n_{2}=2, and (d_{1},d_{2},d_{3}) = (3,3,4), so \mathcal{C} is plus-one generated.

• (k=4) Using [GM, Proposition 7 b)], if we have an arrangement of 4 conics with 11 tacnodes, then these four conics are projectively equivalent to the conics given by the following equations:

  x^2 + y^2 - z^2 =0, \, x^2 + r^{2}y^2 - r^{2}z^2=0, \, x^2 + (r^{2}+1)y^{2} \pm 2ryz,

  where r \in \mathbb{C} \setminus \{0,\pm 1, \pm \iota\}. Let us take r=2 and denote by Q(x,y,z) the defining equation of our arrangement \mathcal{C}. We have \tau(\mathcal{C})=35, since t_{2}=11 and n_{2}=2. Using we can check that (d_{1},d_{2},d_{3}) = (4,4,5), which tells us that \mathcal{C} is plus-one generated.

This completes the proof.

Denote by m=2k+d the degree of the arrangement. Since \mathcal{CL} is plus-one generated with the exponents (d_{1},d_{2},d_{3}) such that d_{1}\leq d_{2} < d_{3}, and d_{1}+d_{2} = m, then by [DimcaSernesi, Theorem 2.1] one has

and this follows from the fact that the log-canonical threshold for nodes is equal to 1. This implies that 3 \leq m\leq 4. If m=3, then we have k=1 and d=1, and an easy inspection shows us that the only possible case is to have n_{2}=2. However, such an arrangement is nearly-free, i.e., d_{3}=d_{2}, so we exclude this case. Let us pass to the case when m=4. It means that we have k=1 and d=2. Using the Bézout theorem, we must have exactly five nodes. Now we are going to give a geometric realization of the weak combinatorics (k,d;n_{2}) = (1,2;5). Let us consider arrangement \mathcal{C} defined by the following polynomial:

We have exactly n_{2}=5 nodes, and using we can check that

so \mathcal{C} is plus-one generated.

It follows from [DimcaPokora, Proposition 4.7].

Using Proposition 3.3 and Proposition 3.2 we see that m \in \{4, ..., 12\}. We start with a degree-wise characterization. For m=4 we have a plus-one generated arrangement described in Proposition 3.2, so we are going to present constructions of plus-one generated conic-line arrangements in degrees m\in \{5,6,7,8\} with types of singularities prescribed above.

• (m=5) Let \mathcal{CL}_{5} be defined by the following polynomial:

  Q(x,y,z) = x(x+y)(x-y)(x^2 + y^2 - z^2).

  Here we have n_{3}=1 and n_{2}=6, so \tau(\mathcal{CL}_{5})=10. Then we can check directly, using , that (d_{1},d_{2},d_{3}) = (2,3,4), so \mathcal{CL}_5 is plus-one generated.

• (m=6) Let \mathcal{CL}_{6} be defined by the following polynomial:

  Q(x,y,z) = x(y-x)(y+x)(x^2 + y^2 - z^2)\bigg(y-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}z\bigg).

  Here we have n_{3}=3 and n_{2}=5, so \tau(\mathcal{CL}_{6})=17. Then we can check directly, using , that (d_{1},d_{2},d_{3}) = (3,3,4), so \mathcal{CL}_6 is plus-one generated.

• (m=7) Let \mathcal{CL}_{7} be defined by the following polynomial:

  Q(x,y,z) = x(y-x)(y+x)(x^2 + y^2 - z^2)\bigg(y-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}z\bigg)\bigg(y+\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}z\bigg).

  Here we have n_{3}=5 and n_{2}=5, so \tau(\mathcal{CL}_{6})=25. Then we can check directly, using , that (d_{1},d_{2},d_{3}) = (3,4,5), so \mathcal{CL}_7 is plus-one generated.

• (m=8) Let us consider the arrangement \mathcal{CL}_{8} that is given by the following defining polynomial:

  Q(x,y,z) = (x-y)(x+y)(x-z)(x+z)(y-z)(y+z)(x^{2} + y^{2} - z^{2}).

  It is easy to see that we have n_{2}=7, t_{2}=4 and n_{3}=4, which gives us \tau(\mathcal{CL}_{8}) = 35. Using we can check that (d_{1},d_{2},d_{3}) = (4,4,5), so \mathcal{CL}_{8} is plus-one generated.

Now we are going to exclude the existence of arrangements with m \in \{11,12\}.

• (m=11) Using Proposition 3.3, we see that

  \frac{11}{2} \geq d_{1} \geq \frac{22}{3}-2,

  and since d_{1} \in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}, we arrive at a contradiction.

• (m=12) We are going to use two important combinatorial constraints. First of all, we have the naive combinatorial count:

  \binom{12}{2} - k = \binom{m}{2}-k = n_{2}+2t_{2}+3n_{3}.

  Next, we will use the following Hirzebruch-type inequality [Gal, Proposition 4.4]:

  8k +n_{2} + n_{3} \geq 8k+n_{2} + \frac{3}{4}n_{3} \geq d+ \frac{5}{2}t_{2}.

  By the assumption our arrangements are plus-one generated, so using Proposition 3.3 we see that

  6 = \frac{m}{2} \geq d_{1} \geq \frac{2}{3}\cdot 12 - 2 = 6,

  so we arrive at the case d_{1}=d_{2}=6 and d_{3}>6. By Proposition 2.5 we get

  89 = d_{1}^{2}-d_{1}(m-1)+(m-1)^2 - \nu(\mathcal{CL}) = n_{2}+3t_{2}+4n_{3}.

  Combining (Proof) with the (naive) combinatorial count, we arrive at

  t_{2}+n_{3}=23+k, \quad n_{2}+n_{3}=20-3k.

  From Hirzebruch-type inequality we get

  5k+20 = 8k + n_{2} + n_{3} \geq d + \frac{5}{2}t_{2},

  so we have found the following upper-bound on the number of tacnodes:

  t_{2} \leq \frac{2}{5}\bigg(5k+20\bigg) - \frac{2}{5}d = 2k+8-\frac{2}{5}d.

  Using the above constraints, we have the following possibilities:

  The paper has a table here, which this page does not show.

  .

  Since t_{2}+n_{3} = 23 + k \geq 24, we arrive at a contradiction.

Let us denote by \alpha_L a homogeneous linear form that defines the line L. By [STY, Theorem 1.6, Remark 1.8], we have the following exact sequence of vector bundles

where {\mathcal{E}}_{\mathcal{C}} denotes the locally free sheaf (i.e. vector bundle) obtained by the sheafification of the graded module D_0(\mathcal{C}). We will compute |\mathcal{C}' \cap L| via Chern numbers associated to the vector bundles in sequence (Proof). For a complex vector bundle \mathcal{E}, we denote by c_i(\mathcal{E}) is the i-th Chern number of \mathcal{E}. The exact sequence (Proof) implies the equality

see for instance [F, Section 3] for details.

If \mathcal{C} is plus-one generated with exponents (d_1, d_2) and level d_3, then we get, directly from Definition 2.3, formulas for the Chern numbers of the associated vector bundle \mathcal{E}_{\mathcal{C}}, in terms of the exponents and level. We will leave the details of this easy computation to the interested reader (check [F] for the general theory and computations on Chern numbers). We have:

and

Since \nu(\mathcal{C}') = \nu(\mathcal{C}) = 2 in our hypothesis, we have d'_3-d'_2 = d_3-d_2 = 1. Now we will substitute the formulas for Chern numbers (?) and (?) in the equality (Proof), taking into account also the formula for the Chern polynomial of \mathcal{E}_{\mathcal{C}'}(-1) = \mathcal{E}_{\mathcal{C}'} \otimes _{\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2}} \mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^2}(-1) in terms of the Chern polynomial of \mathcal{E}_{\mathcal{C}'}, see again [F, Section 3]. We obtain the equality

or explicitly

Observe that by [DIS, Proposition 3.1] we have d_1 \in \{d'_1, d'_1+1\}. To complete our proof, let us first consider the case d_1 = d'_1. Then d_2 = d'_2 +1 and (?) becomes

Secondly, if d_1 = d'_1+1, then d_2 = d'_2, and (?) becomes

In conclusion, we necessarily get |\mathcal{C}' \cap L| \in \{d'_1+1, \; d'_2\}, which completes the proof.

We are going to use directly an orbifold version of the Bogomolov-Miyaoka inequality. We will work with the pair \bigg(\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}, \alpha D \bigg) which is going to be log-canonical and effective. In order to be effective, one requires that \alpha \geq \frac{3}{{\rm deg}(C)} = \frac{3}{m}, and in order to be log-canonical, \alpha should be less than or equal to the minimum of log-canonical thresholds of our singular points, which means that \alpha \leq {\rm min}\bigg\{1,\frac{3}{4},\frac{2}{3}\bigg\}. Summing up, based on the first part of our discussion, let \alpha \in [3/m, 2/3]. Now we are in a position that allows us to use the following Langer’s inequality proved in [Langer], namely

where \mu_{p} is the local Milnor number of p \in {\rm Sing}(C) and e_{{\rm orb}}\bigg(p,\mathbb{P}^{2}_{\mathbb{C}}, \alpha D\bigg) denotes the local orbifold Euler number of p \in {\rm Sing}(C). In our setting we have the following values:

Assume that \alpha \in [1/3, 2/3], then our inequality follows from plugging the collected data above into (Proof).

It follows from Theorem 3.8, namely we can take \alpha = \frac{4}{10} and then we can check that (3.8) does not hold for (k,d;n_{2},t_{2},n_{3}) =(1,7;7,5,6).