Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T05:28:10.304Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Double Solids, Categories and Non-Rationality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 December 2013

Atanas Iliev ,
Ludmil Katzarkov  and
Victor Przyjalkowski
Atanas Iliev
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematical Sciences, College of Natural Science, Seoul National University, San 56-1, Sillim-dong, Gwanak-gu, Seoul 151-747, Republic of Korea ([email protected])
Ludmil Katzarkov
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697-3875, USA ([email protected])
Victor Przyjalkowski
Affiliation:
Mathematical Institute, Russian Academy of Sciences, 32A Leninsky Avenue, Moscow, Russia ([email protected]; [email protected])
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper suggests a new approach to questions of rationality of 3-folds based on category theory. Following work by Ballard et al., we enhance constructions of Kuznetsov by introducing Noether–Lefschetz spectra: an interplay between Orlov spectra and Hochschild homology. The main goal of this paper is to suggest a series of interesting examples where the above techniques might apply. We start by constructing a sextic double solid X with 35 nodes and torsion in H3(X, ℤ). This is a novelty: after the classical example of Artin and Mumford, this is the second example of a Fano 3-fold with a torsion in the third integer homology group. In particular, X is non-rational. We consider other examples as well: V10 with 10 singular points, and the double covering of a quadric ramified in an octic with 20 nodal singular points. After analysing the geometry of their Landau–Ginzburg models, we suggest a general non-rationality picture based on homological mirror symmetry and category theory.

Keywords

Fano varietiesrationality questionsLandau–Ginzburg modelPrimary 14E0814F05Secondary 14J4514J33
Type
Research Article
Information
Proceedings of the Edinburgh Mathematical Society , Volume 57 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 145 - 173
Copyright
Copyright © Edinburgh Mathematical Society 2014 

References

1.Artin, M. and Mumford, D., Some elementary examples of unirational varieties which are not rational, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. 25(3) (1972), 75–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Aspinwall, P., Morrison, D. and Gross, M., Stable singularities in string theory, Commun. Math. Phys. 178(1) (1996), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Ballard, M., Favero, D. and Katzarkov, L., A category of kernels for graded matrix factorizations and its implications for Hodge theory, Publ. IHES (in press).Google Scholar
4.Ballard, M., Favero, D. and Katzarkov, L., Orlov spectra: bounds and gaps, Invent. Math. 189(2) (2012), 359–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5.Beauville, A., Variétés rationnelles et unirationnelles, Lect. Notes Math. 997 (1983), 16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6.Bott, R. and Tu, L., Differential forms in algebraic topology, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Volume 82 (Springer, 1982).Google Scholar
7.Cheltsov, I. and Park, J., Sextic double solids, in Cohomological and geometric approaches to rationality problems: new perspectives, Progress in Mathematics, Volume 282, pp. 75–132 (Birkhäuser, 2010).Google Scholar
8.Cheltsov, I., Katzarkov, L. and Przyjalkowski, V., Birational geometry via moduli spaces, in Birational geometry, rational curves, and arithmetic (Springer, 2013).Google Scholar
9.Cossec, F., Reye congruences, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 280(2) (1983), 737–751.Google Scholar
10.Endrass, S., On the divisor class group of double solids, Manuscr. Math. 99(3) (1999), 341–358.Google Scholar
11.Favero, D., Iliev, A. and Katzarkov, L., On the Griffiths groups of Fano manifolds of Calabi–Yau Hodge type, Pure Appl. Math. Quart. (in press).Google Scholar
12.Garavuso, R., Katzarkov, L., Kreuzer, M. and Noll, A., Super Landau–Ginzburg mirrors and algebraic cycles, J. High. Energy. Phys. 2011(3) (2011), 17.Google Scholar
13.Gross, M., Katzarkov, L. and Rudat, H., Towards mirror symmetry for varieties of general type, Duke Math. J. (in press).Google Scholar
14.Grothendieck, A., Le groupe de Brauer I, II, III, in Dix exposés sur la cohomologie des schemas, Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics, Volume 3, pp. 46–188 (North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1968).Google Scholar
15.Harris, J. and Tu, L., On symmetric and skew-symmetric determinantal varieties, Topology 23 (1984), 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16.Hirzebruch, F., Topological methods in algebraic geometry, Die Grundlehren der Mathematischen Wissenschaften, Volume 131 (Springer, 1978).Google Scholar
17.Iliev, A., Katzarkov, L. and Scheidegger, E., 4-dimensional cubics, Noether–Lefschetz loci and gaps (in preparation).Google Scholar
18.Ilten, N., Lewis, J. and Przyjalkowski, V., Toric degenerations of Fano threefolds giving weak Landau–Ginzburg models, J. Alg. 374 (2013), 104–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19.Ingalls, C. and Kuznetsov, A., On nodal Enriques surfaces and quartic double solids, Math. Ann. (in press).Google Scholar
20.Iskovskikh, V. A., Birational automorphisms of three-dimensional algebraic varieties, J. Sov. Math. 13 (1980), 815–868.Google Scholar
21.Iskovskikh, V. A. and Prokhorov, Yu., Algebraic geometries V: Fano varieties, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, Volume 47 (Springer, 1999).Google Scholar
22.Jozefiak, T., Lascoux, A. and Pragacz, P., Classes of determinantal varieties associated with symmetric and skew-symmetric matrices, Math. USSR Izv. 18 (1982), 575–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
23.Katzarkov, L., Homological mirror symmetry and algebraic cycles, in Riemannian topology and geometric structures on manifolds (ed. Galicki, K. and Simanca, S. R.), Progress in Mathematics, Volume 271 (Birkhäuser, 2009).Google Scholar
24.Katzarkov, L. and Kerr, G., Orlov spectra as a filtered cohomology theory, Adv. Math. 243 (2013), 232–261.Google Scholar
25.Katzarkov, L. and Przyjalkowski, V., Landau–Ginzburg models: old and new, in Proc. 18th Gokova Geometry–Topology Conf. (Gokova, Turkey), pp. 97–124 (International Press, Somerville, MA, 2011).Google Scholar
26.Katzarkov, L., Kontsevich, M. and Pantev, T., Hodge theoretic aspects of mirror symmetry, in From Hodge theory to integrability and TQFT: tt* -geometry (ed. Donagi, R. and Wendlang, K.), Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, Volume 78, pp. 87–174 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27.Katzarkov, L., Nemethi, A. and Stepanov, D., Four-dimensional cubics spectra and monodromy (in preparation).Google Scholar
28.Kuznetsov, A., Derived categories of Fano threefolds, Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 264(1) (2009), 110–122.Google Scholar
29.Oliva, C., Algebraic cycles and Hodge theory on generalized Reye congruences, Compositio Math. 92(1) (1994), 1–22.Google Scholar
30.Orlov, D., Remarks on generators and dimensions of triangulated categories, Moscow Math. J. 9(1) (2009), 143–149.Google Scholar
31.Przyjalkowski, V., Weak Landau–Ginzburg models for smooth Fano threefolds, Izv. Math. 77(4) (2013), 135–160.Google Scholar
32.Rouquier, R., Dimensions of triangulated categories, J. K-Theory 1(2) (2008), 193–256.Google Scholar
33.Zagorskii, A., Three-dimensional conical fibrations, Math. Notes 21 (1977), 420–427.Google Scholar