Rational maps are automatically regular
31 Dec 2021
The other day a friend of mine was asking for help with an algebraic geometry problem. I was happy to walk her through it, and because she and I were doing this online, I actually have a record of what I sent her! She seemed to think it was helpful, so I figured I would post (a slightly edited version of) it ^_^.
What’s the problem we’re solving today? Well:
Prove every rational map
Let’s work with
Let’s first remember what a rational map
(from
where
Why is this? Well we’re choosing a point in
Now, there are two things to remember about rational maps that might be counterintuitive at first:
The first is that
Can you show that any such
Notice this sounds worse than it is! Remember that Zariski open sets are
always dense, so even though
The second pitfall is that it’s entirely possible for the same rational map two have multiple representations. For a simple example, notice
and
define the same map
But there’s subtler examples too. For instance,
and
also represent the same function!
Why? Because if we only look at the places where both of these functions
are defined, they represent the same point in
The first function is defined at
As an instructive exercise, show that if
and
and
all represent the same regular function from
Of course, it seems like we should be able to use this in order to solve the “only defined on an open set” issue. After all, in light of the previous exercise, writing
seems like a silly thing to do! We should just multiply everything in sight
by the (nonzero, homogeneous) polynomial
which is defined everywhere! Notice there doesn’t seem to be anything special
about our particular function
Unfortunately, no. For example, consider the map
This looks fine, right? How could it be undefined at a point? Well remember
that
Can you see why
Moreover, you should (intuitively) convince yourself that no amount of rescaling by homogeneous polynomials will solve the problem.
Now, we say that a rational map
So
Importantly,
Now, surprisingly, examples like
So! How are we going to show this? Well it turns out regularity is like continuity/differentiability/etc.
Just like continuity/differentiability of
Now importantly, there are two useful open sets which we know cover
, which is open since it agrees with , which is open since it agrees with
So if we check that
Let’s do the check for the
So let’s take our representation
and plug in
where I’m somewhat abusively calling
But now we have simple quotients of single variable polynomials!
We want to know that
There’s two answers:
- “one of the
”. - “all of the
simultaneously”.
The dream, then, is to show that we can massage the
But now we can solve each of these problems in turn.
First, we can clear denominators. We rewrite
as
which solves the “
Next, we look to solve the “simultaneously
So we divide everything by the (nonzero, homogeneous) polynomial
Each of our three polynomials has only finitely many roots, so we only have
to clear away finitely many shared factors of this form. In particular, we
eventually stop, and at that point the coordinates are never simultaneously
And we’re done!
I’ll leave it to you to do the (entirely symmetric!) argument showing that
As a quick exercise, which will hopefully be instructive nonetheless, where
in this proof do we use the fact that we’re working with
Also, if you’re feeling dedicated, can you generalize this to all rational
maps
Hopefully this helps some people! I know algebraic geometry is a tricky subject, and it seems like there aren’t a ton of really simple examples that are easy to find. I’m happy to add one to the pile ^_^.
Now, though, I need to head out! It’s new years eve, and I have to bake some muffins for a little get together!
Stay safe, stay warm, and happy new year everyone ^_^
-
As an aside, have you thought about why the degrees of, say
and must be equal? We want to know that our function is well defined, so if we pick two different representatives of the same projective point, we should get the same output.But if
, then for we haveso the function
is well defined! ↩ -
As an aside, this is the telltale sign of a “sheaf” of functions, but I won’t go into that here. ↩