ScalingStacks

Remark 4.8.2 . [0522]

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

Remark 4.8.2.

In the case b1​(D)≠0b_{1}(D)\neq 0, from the proof we can make the same conclusion except the holomorphic line bundles L+L_{+} and L−L_{-} can not be prescribed as isomorphic to the powers on the given holomorphic line bundle LL. Instead, as can be seen in the above proof, they are determined by the restriction of ∂zω~​(z)\partial_{z}\tilde{\omega}(z) on the two ends. However, as pointed in Remark 4.3.2, we always have L+=L−⊗k+⊗ℱL_{+}=L^{-\otimes k_{+}}\otimes\mathcal{F} and L−=L⊗k−⊗ℱ−1L_{-}=L^{\otimes k_{-}}\otimes\mathcal{F}^{-1} for some holomorphic line bundle ℱ\mathcal{F} on DD with c1​(ℱ)=0c_{1}(\mathcal{F})=0. In particular the tensor product L+⊗L−L_{+}\otimes L_{-} is always isomorphic to LkL^{k}. The freedom of ℱ\mathcal{F} corresponds exactly to the choice of the connection 1-form Θ\Theta in the construction of ℳ∗\mathcal{M}^{*}.

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