ScalingStacks

4.1. Snc models and simple blowups [015S]

Original official author HTML, exact retained edition. Historical TeX conversion verdicts remain unchanged. Cited-edition alignment and mathematical self-containment are not assessed.

Complete original source context · Original author HTML

4.1. Snc models and simple blowups

Given any two models 𝒳{\mathcal{X}}, 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} of XX, there is a canonical bimeromorphic map 𝒳′⇢𝒳{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}\dashrightarrow{\mathcal{X}}, and we say that 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} dominates 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} if this map is a morphism. Any two models 𝒳{\mathcal{X}}, 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} is dominated by a third, for instance the normalization of the graph of 𝒳⇢𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}\dashrightarrow{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}. By Hironaka’s theorem, any model is dominated by an snc model. Thus the set of models forms a directed set, in which snc models are cofinal.

Suppose 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} is an snc model and that 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} is another model that dominates 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} via ρ:𝒳′→𝒳\rho\colon{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}}. As in [KS06, Definition 22] we say that ρ\rho is a simple blowup if it is a blowup along a smooth, connected complex subspace WW of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} meeting transversely (or not at all) every irreducible component of 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0} that does not contain it. In this case, 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} is also an snc model.

Lemma 4.1.

Suppose 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} and 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} are snc models and that 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime} dominates 𝒳{\mathcal{X}} via ρ:𝒳′→𝒳\rho\colon{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}}. Then there exists a third snc model 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} dominating 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}, such that the induced map 𝒳′′→𝒳{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}} is a composition of simple blowups.

We are grateful to Bernard Teissier for help with the following argument.

Proof.

By Hironaka’s version of the Chow theorem (in turn a consequence of the flattening theorem), see [Hir75, Corollary 2], there exists a complex manifold 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} and a projective bimeromorphic morphism 𝒳′′→𝒳{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}} such that 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} dominates 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}. Since 𝒳′→𝒳{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}} is an isomorphism above XX, the construction in [Hir75] further guarantees that 𝒳′′→𝒳{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}} is an isomorphism above XX. Indeed, the proof proceeds by blowing up well-chosen smooth centers contained in the non-flat locus of 𝒳′→𝒳{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}}, see Définition 4.4.3 (2) in loc. cit.

We may therefore assume that 𝒳′→𝒳{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}} itself is projective, and more precisely the blowup of an ideal II cosupported on 𝒳0{\mathcal{X}}_{0}. By the principalization theorem for ideals, there exists a projective bimeromorphic morphism 𝒳′′→𝒳{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime}\to{\mathcal{X}} that is a composition of simple blowups, such that the pullback of II to 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} is a principal ideal, see [Kol07, Theorem 3.45] or [Wło09, Theorem 2.0.3]. In particular, 𝒳′′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime\prime} dominates 𝒳′{\mathcal{X}}^{\prime}. ∎

Original mathematics by the credited authors. Source-backed reader collection; mathematical self-containment is not assessed.