This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Rational curves on K3 surfaces of small genus

Rijul Saini School of Mathematics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, 1 Homi Bhabha Road, Colaba, Mumbai, 400005, India. [email protected]
Abstract.

Let 𝔅g\mathfrak{B}_{g} denote the moduli space of primitively polarized K​3K3 surfaces (S,H)(S,H) of genus gg over β„‚\mathbb{C}. It is well-known that 𝔅g\mathfrak{B}_{g} is irreducible and that there are only finitely many rational curves in |H||H| for any primitively polarized K​3K3 surface (S,H)(S,H). So we can ask the question of finding the monodromy group of such curves. The case of g=2g=2 essentially follows from the results of Harris [6] to be the full symmetric group S324S_{324}, here we solve the case g=3g=3 and 44.

Key words and phrases:
Rational curves, K3 surfaces, Monodromy groups, Genus 4 curves
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary 14J28; Secondary 20B25, 14H45

1. Introduction


We work over the field β„‚\mathbb{C}. Unless otherwise specified, whenever we refer to genus of a curve over a field kk, we always mean the arithmetic genus of the curve.

Let 𝔅g\mathfrak{B}_{g} denote the moduli space of primitively polarized K​3K3 surfaces (S,β„’)(S,\mathcal{L}) of genus gg, i.e. SS is a K​3K3 surface and β„’\mathcal{L} is a primitive polarization of SS of degree (β„’)2=2​gβˆ’2(\mathcal{L})^{2}=2g-2. Then 𝔅g\mathfrak{B}_{g} is irreducible. Due to Chen [4] for generic (S,β„’)βˆˆπ”…g(S,\mathcal{L})\in\mathfrak{B}_{g}, every rational curve in |H||H| is an integral nodal rational curve. Also for any (S,β„’)βˆˆπ”…g(S,\mathcal{L})\in\mathfrak{B}_{g} there are only finitely many rational curves in |β„’||\mathcal{L}| with the number ngn_{g} for the generic (S,β„’)(S,\mathcal{L}) given by the Yau-Zaslow formula

βˆ‘gβ‰₯0ng​qg=qΔ​(q)=∏nβ‰₯1(1βˆ’qn)βˆ’24=1+24​q+324​q2+3200​q3+25650​q4+…\sum_{g\geq 0}n_{g}q^{g}=\frac{q}{\Delta(q)}=\prod_{n\geq 1}(1-q^{n})^{-24}=1+24q+324q^{2}+3200q^{3}+25650q^{4}+\ldots

conjectured by Yau and Zaslow in [13] and proven by Beauville in [1] under the assumption that all rational curves in |β„’||\mathcal{L}| are nodal which was proven by Chen in [4].

Thus, we may study the monodromy group Ξ“g\Gamma_{g} of these rational curves. That is, we may consider the so called Severi variety β„­g\mathfrak{C}_{g} of (S,β„’,C)(S,\mathcal{L},C) such that (S,β„’)(S,\mathcal{L}) is a primitively polarized K​3K3 surface of genus gg, and C∈|β„’|C\in|\mathcal{L}| is a rational curve, and consider the generically finite map Ξ³g:β„­g→𝔅g\gamma_{g}:\mathfrak{C}_{g}\to\mathfrak{B}_{g} and study the monodromy group Ξ“g\Gamma_{g} of Ξ³g\gamma_{g}.

For g=2g=2: The generic primitively polarized (S,β„’)(S,\mathcal{L}) with (β„’)2=2(\mathcal{L})^{2}=2 is a double cover Ο€:Sβ†’β„™2\pi:S\to\mathbb{P}^{2} of β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2} ramified over a generic sextic curve CβŠ‚β„™2C\subset\mathbb{P}^{2} with β„’=Ο€βˆ—β€‹π’ͺ​(1)\mathcal{L}=\pi^{*}\mathcal{O}(1). As H0​(S,Ο€βˆ—β€‹π’ͺ​(1))β‰…H0​(β„™2,π’ͺ​(1))H^{0}(S,\pi^{*}\mathcal{O}(1))\cong H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{2},\mathcal{O}(1)), all curves in |β„’||\mathcal{L}| are double covers Ο€:Cβ„“β†’β„“\pi:C_{\ell}\to\ell of some line β„“βŠ‚β„™2\ell\subset\mathbb{P}^{2}. Thus, for Cβ„“C_{\ell} to be rational, β„“\ell must be a bitangent to the sextic curve CC. The monodromy of these bitangent curves was studied by Harris in [6], where he established that the monodromy group of the bitangents of a generic degree dd plane curve is O6​(β„€/2​℀)O_{6}(\mathbb{Z}/2\mathbb{Z}) if d=4d=4, and is the full symmetric group if d>4d>4. Thus, we get that the monodromy group Ξ“2\Gamma_{2} is the full symmetric group S324S_{324}. (This is observed in [7, Page 295])

In this paper, we prove the case of g=3g=3 and g=4g=4.

Theorem 1 (Main Theorem).

Ξ“g\Gamma_{g} is the full symmetric group for g=3,4g=3,4 i.e. Ξ“3β‰…S3200\Gamma_{3}\cong S_{3200} and Ξ“4β‰…S25650\Gamma_{4}\cong S_{25650}.

In the proof of Harris, to establish the existence of a simple transposition one studies flex bitangents to the curve. In our case, this corresponds to a rational curve with one simple cusp and rest of the singularities being nodes. Also, the Plucker formula gets replaced by the Yau-Zaslow formula as proven by Beauville [1] where he proves it for any (S,β„’)(S,\mathcal{L}) with curves being counted with certain multiplicities.

Note that for generic (S,β„’)βˆˆπ”…g(S,\mathcal{L})\in\mathfrak{B}_{g}, the Picard group of SS is generated by the class of β„’\mathcal{L}, and β„’\mathcal{L} is very ample if gβ‰₯3g\geq 3. So, we may consider the embedding Ο†|β„’|:Sβ†ͺβ„™g\varphi_{|\mathcal{L}|}:S\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{g} given by |β„’||\mathcal{L}|.

If g=3,4,g=3,4, or 55, then it is known that the generic (S,β„’)βˆˆπ”…g(S,\mathcal{L})\in\mathfrak{B}_{g} is embedded via Ο†|β„’|\varphi_{|\mathcal{L}|} as a complete intersection in β„™g\mathbb{P}^{g}: for g=3g=3 it is given by a quartic in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}, for g=4g=4 it is given as the intersection of a quadric and a cubic in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4}, and for g=5g=5 it is given as the intersection of 33 quadrics in β„™5\mathbb{P}^{5}. Also, the general complete intersection of that type will be a K​3K3 surface.

So let WgW_{g} be the space of complete intersections in β„™g\mathbb{P}^{g} of the type given as above. Let UgβŠ‚WgU_{g}\subset W_{g} be the open subset consisting of smooth surfaces. Then UgU_{g} has a natural map to 𝔅g\mathfrak{B}_{g}. Let

Jg={(S,H)|S∩H​ is rationalΒ }βŠ†WgΓ—(β„™g)∨,J_{g}=\{(S,H)\ |\ S\cap H\textup{ is rational }\}\subseteq W_{g}\times(\mathbb{P}^{g})^{\vee},

and let Ο€:Jgβ†’Wg,Ξ·:Jgβ†’(β„™g)∨\pi:J_{g}\to W_{g},\ \eta:J_{g}\to(\mathbb{P}^{g})^{\vee} be the projection maps.

Then Ο€|Ug:Ο€βˆ’1​(Ug)β†’Ug\pi|_{U_{g}}:\pi^{-1}(U_{g})\to U_{g} is exactly the pull back of Ξ³g\gamma_{g} to WgW_{g}. So it is enough to show that the monodromy group of Ο€\pi is SngS_{n_{g}} to prove that Ξ“gβ‰…Sng\Gamma_{g}\cong S_{n_{g}}. We will denote the monodromy group of Ο€\pi by Ξ g\Pi_{g}.

We follow the same lines of argument as in Harris’s calculation of monodromy in the paper [6], i.e. we prove that Ξ g\Pi_{g} is successively transitive, 2-transitive, and finally contains a simple transposition.

In the paper [3] by Chen, he conjectures (Conjecture 1.2) that the monodromy is always transitive (and also proves it in the cases g=3,4g=3,4 which we consider in this paper). In [5], it is proven that the monodromy is transitive for 3≀g≀93\leq g\leq 9 and g=11g=11, by proving that the universal Severi variety 𝒱0g\mathcal{V}^{g}_{0} is irreducible.

For transitivity and 2-transitivity we prove that certain subschemes of JgJ_{g} are irreducible, and their complements do not dominate WgW_{g}. To prove existence of a simple transposition we prove that there is a surface SS on the moduli space and a hyperplane HH so that if C=S∩HC=S\cap H, then the singularities of CC are all simple nodes but for one point where it is a simple cusp, and that any other hyperplane section of SS which is a rational curve is actually rational nodal, and that JgJ_{g} is locally irreducible at this point (S,H)(S,H) on JgJ_{g}.

The paper is organized as follows: In Section 2 we give an outline of the proof. In Section 3 we discuss the space of maps from a curve to a surface with the image containing some specified points and we discuss a space of rational curves of genus gg (with some assumptions on the singularities) which are canonically embedded in β„™gβˆ’1\mathbb{P}^{g-1}. In Section 4 we begin by proving the existence of a K​3K3 surface in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} with two given curves as hyperplane sections and then give the proof for g=3g=3. In section 5 we prove the corresponding lemmas as in section 4 for g=4g=4 and then give the proof for g=4g=4.

While writing the paper, we found out that the case of g=3g=3 was proven by Sailun Zhan [14]. Our proof is different in this case and we also prove the substantially more difficult case of g=4g=4.

Acknowledgement: I would like to thank my advisor Prof. N. Fakhruddin for his guidance and patience. This paper would not be possible without his help.

2. Outline of the proof

Given any scheme SS, and Sβˆ’S-schemes X,TX,T, we denote by XTX_{T} the base change XΓ—STX\times_{S}T of XX to TT. If T=Spec​(k)T=\textup{Spec}(k) for a field kk, we sometimes write XTX_{T} as XkX_{k} instead.

2.1. K3 surfaces

A K​3K3 surface SS is a smooth projective surface with Ξ©S2β‰…π’ͺS\Omega_{S}^{2}\cong\mathcal{O}_{S} and h1​(S,π’ͺS)=0h_{1}(S,\mathcal{O}_{S})=0. A primitively polarized K​3K3 surface of genus gg is a pair (S,β„’)(S,\mathcal{L}), where XX is a K​3K3 surface, and β„’\mathcal{L} is an indivisible, nef line bundle on XX, such that |β„’||\mathcal{L}| is without fixed component and β„’2=2​gβˆ’2\mathcal{L}^{2}=2g-2 (hence gβ‰₯1g\geq 1). Given such a pair, |β„’||\mathcal{L}| is base point free, and the morphism Ο†|β„’|\varphi_{|\mathcal{L}|} determined by this linear system is birational if and only if β„’2>0\mathcal{L}^{2}>0 and |β„’||\mathcal{L}| does not contain any hyperelliptic curve (hence gβ‰₯3g\geq 3) (see [11]).

For any given non-negative integer gg one considers the moduli functor

Bg:(Sch/β„‚)o​p​pβ†’(Sets),T↦{(f:Xβ†’T,β„’)}B_{g}:\ (Sch/\mathbb{C})^{opp}\to(Sets),\ T\mapsto\{(f:X\to T,\mathcal{L})\}

that sends a scheme TT of finite type over β„‚\mathbb{C} to the set Bg​(T)B_{g}(T) of equivalence classes of pairs (f,β„’)(f,\mathcal{L}) with f:Xβ†’Tf:X\to T a smooth proper morphism and β„’βˆˆPicX/T​(T)\mathcal{L}\in\textup{Pic}_{X/T}(T) such that for all geometric points Spec​(k)β†’T\mathrm{Spec}(k)\to T, i.e. kk an algebraically closed field, the base change yields a K​3K3 surface XkX_{k} with a primitive ample line bundle β„’Xk\mathcal{L}_{X_{k}} such that (β„’Xk)2=2​gβˆ’2(\mathcal{L}_{X_{k}})^{2}=2g-2, i.e. (Xk,β„’k)(X_{k},\mathcal{L}_{k}) is a primitively polarized K​3K3 surface of genus gg.

By definition, (f,β„’)∼(fβ€²,β„’β€²)(f,\mathcal{L})\sim(f^{\prime},\mathcal{L}^{\prime}) if there exists a T-isomorphism ψ:Xβ†’Xβ€²\psi:X\xrightarrow[]{\leavevmode\nobreak\ }X^{\prime} and a line bundle β„’0\mathcal{L}_{0} on TT such that Οˆβˆ—β€‹β„’0β‰…β„’βŠ—fβˆ—β€‹β„’0\psi^{*}\mathcal{L}_{0}\cong\mathcal{L}\otimes f^{*}\mathcal{L}_{0}.

Then we have,

Proposition 2.

[10] For every gβ‰₯1g\geq 1, the moduli functor BgB_{g} can be coarsely represented by an irreducible quasi-projective variety 𝔅g\mathfrak{B}_{g} of dimension 19. If gβ‰₯3g\geq 3, for (X,β„’)(X,\mathcal{L}) very general in 𝔅g\mathfrak{B}_{g}, the Picard group of XX is generated by the class of β„’\mathcal{L}, and β„’\mathcal{L} is very ample.

Definition 3 (Rational curve).

We call a curve CC over a field kk rational if all irreducible components of CkΒ―C_{\overline{k}} have geometric genus 0 where kΒ―\overline{k} is an algebraic closure of kk and CkΒ―C_{\overline{k}} is the base change of CC to Spec​(kΒ―)\textup{Spec}(\overline{k}).

For any (X,β„’)βˆˆπ”…g​(β„‚)(X,\mathcal{L})\in\mathfrak{B}_{g}(\mathbb{C}), there are only finitely many rational curves given by sections of LL. Let ngn_{g} denote this number for a generic (X,β„’)(X,\mathcal{L}). Then we have Yau-Zaslow’s formula proven by Beauville in [1] assuming a result later proven by Chen [4].

Proposition 4 (Yau-Zaslow’s Formula).
βˆ‘gβ‰₯0ng​qg=qΔ​(q)=∏nβ‰₯1(1βˆ’qn)βˆ’24=1+24​q+324​q2+3200​q3+25650​q4+…\sum_{g\geq 0}n_{g}q^{g}=\frac{q}{\Delta(q)}=\prod_{n\geq 1}(1-q^{n})^{-24}=1+24q+324q^{2}+3200q^{3}+25650q^{4}+\ldots

More specifically, Beauville showed that if we count curves with multiplicities, then ngn_{g} will be the number of curves counted with multiplicity for any primitively polarized (X,β„’)(X,\mathcal{L}) of genus gg. For any rational curve C∈|β„’|C\in|\mathcal{L}|, the multiplicity with which it is counted is ∏x∈Cϡ​(x)\prod_{x\in C}\epsilon(x). If xx is a smooth point or a node, ϡ​(x)=1\epsilon(x)=1, and if xx is a singular point with singularity of the form xpβˆ’yqx^{p}-y^{q} with p,qp,q coprime, then we have

Proposition 5.

([1] Proposition 4.3) If xx is a singular point with singularity of the form xpβˆ’yqx^{p}-y^{q} with p,qp,q coprime then

ϡ​(x)=1p+q​(p+qq)\epsilon(x)=\frac{1}{p+q}\binom{p+q}{q}

The result proven by Chen in [4] is

Proposition 6.

[4] For (X,β„’)(X,\mathcal{L}) very general in 𝔅g\mathfrak{B}_{g}, any rational curve in |β„’||\mathcal{L}| is nodal.

2.2. Monodromy of a generically finite map

Throughout the section, let X,YX,Y be two algebraic varieties of the same dimension over β„‚\mathbb{C} with XX irreducible, and Ο€:Yβ†’X\pi:Y\to X a generically finite map of degree dd. Let p∈Xp\in X be a generic point so that Ο€βˆ’1​(p)\pi^{-1}(p) consists of dd distinct points q1,β‹―,qdq_{1},\cdots,q_{d}.

2.2.1. Monodromy group.

This is defined similar to monodromy groups arising from covering maps in many topological and geometric situations. Let UβŠ‚XU\subset X be a sufficiently small Zariski open set so that Ο€\pi is an unbranched covering map of degree dd restricted to V=Ο€βˆ’1​(U)V=\pi^{-1}(U). We may also assume p∈Up\in U. For any loop Ξ³:[0,1]β†’U\gamma:[0,1]\to U based at pp, and any lift qiq_{i} of pp, there exists a unique lift of Ξ³\gamma, denoted by Ξ³i~:[0,1]β†’V\widetilde{\gamma_{i}}:[0,1]\to V so that Ξ³i~​(0)=qi\widetilde{\gamma_{i}}(0)=q_{i}. The endpoint of Ξ³i~\widetilde{\gamma_{i}} is well defined up to homotopy of Ξ³\gamma. Therefore, we have an action of Ο€1​(U,p)\pi_{1}(U,p) on the set {q1,β‹―,qd}\{q_{1},\cdots,q_{d}\} so that the equivalence class of homotopic loops [Ξ³]βˆˆΟ€1​(U,p)[\gamma]\in\pi_{1}(U,p) sends qiq_{i} to the endpoint of the lifted arc Ξ³i~\widetilde{\gamma_{i}}. With respect to the fixed numbering, this gives a homomorphism Ο€1​(U,p)β†’Ξ£d\pi_{1}(U,p)\to\Sigma_{d}, sometimes referred to as the monodromy representation. The image of this homomorphism is called the monodromy group of the covering map Ο€:Vβ†’U\pi:V\to U. Note that, a priori, the monodromy group may depend on the choice of the Zariski open subset UU, although it actually does not.

The following lemmas which we reproduce from [6] comes in handy to prove that the monodromy group is transitive and to show that there exists a simple transposition in the monodromy group:

Lemma 7.

Let X,YX,Y be two algebraic varieties of the same dimension over ℂ\mathbb{C} with XX irreducible, and π:Y→X\pi:Y\to X a generically finite map of degree dd. If YY has only one irreducible component of maximum dimension, then the monodromy group acts transitively on the fibre.

Proof.

Let the irreducible component of maximum dimension of YY be Y0Y_{0}. Then Ο€|Y0:Y0β†’X\pi|_{Y_{0}}:Y_{0}\to X is also generically finite and Yβˆ–Y0β†’XY\setminus Y_{0}\to X is not dominant. Therefore, the monodromy of Ο€\pi is the same as the monodromy of Ο€|Y0\pi|_{Y_{0}}. So we may assume YY itself is irreducible.

Let UβŠ‚XU\subset X be a sufficiently small Zariski open set so that Ο€\pi is an unbranched covering map of degree dd restricted to V=Ο€βˆ’1​(U)V=\pi^{-1}(U). Let p∈Up\in U. Ο€βˆ’1​(Ξ”)\pi^{-1}(\Delta) is open in YY, therefore connected since YY is irreducible. So take a path Ξ³~:[0,1]β†’V\widetilde{\gamma}:[0,1]\to V connecting some two points q1,q2βˆˆΟ€βˆ’1​(p)q_{1},q_{2}\in\pi^{-1}(p). The image π​(Ξ³~)\pi(\widetilde{\gamma}) will be a loop Ξ³\gamma whose equivalence class [Ξ³]βˆˆΟ€1​(U,p)[\gamma]\in\pi_{1}(U,p) will give an element of the monodromy group sending q1q_{1} to q2q_{2}. ∎

Lemma 8.

Let Ο€:Yβ†’X\pi:Y\to X be a holomorphic map of degree dd. Suppose there exists a point p∈Xp\in X such that the fiber of YY over pp consists of exactly dβˆ’1d-1 distinct points, i.e., simple points q1,…,qdβˆ’2q_{1},...,q_{d-2} and a double point qdβˆ’1=qdq_{d-1}=q_{d}. Suppose furthermore YY is locally irreducible at qdβˆ’1q_{d-1}. Then the monodromy group MM of Ο€\pi contains a simple transposition.

Proof.

Take a small neighborhood Ξ”\Delta of XX such that Ο€βˆ’1​(Ξ”)\pi^{-1}(\Delta) consists of dβˆ’1d-1 disjoint irreducible components Ξ”i\Delta_{i}, where Ξ”i\Delta_{i} is a small neighborhood of qiq_{i}, and Ο€\pi restricted to Ξ”i\Delta_{i} gives an isometry for i=1,β‹―,dβˆ’2i=1,\cdots,d-2 and a double cover branched only at qdβˆ’1q_{d-1} for i=dβˆ’1i=d-1. Take a point p~βˆˆΞ”\tilde{p}\in\Delta with p~β‰ p\tilde{p}\neq p. Then Ο€βˆ’1​(p~)\pi^{-1}(\tilde{p}) consists of dd distinct points q~i\tilde{q}_{i} so that q~iβˆˆΞ”i\tilde{q}_{i}\in\Delta_{i} for i=1,β‹―,dβˆ’2i=1,\cdots,d-2, and q~d,q~dβˆ’1βˆˆΞ”dβˆ’1\tilde{q}_{d},\tilde{q}_{d-1}\in\Delta_{d-1}. Let Ξ³~\tilde{\gamma} be any arc connecting q~d,q~dβˆ’1\tilde{q}_{d},\tilde{q}_{d-1} in Ξ”dβˆ’1\Delta_{d-1}. Then the monodromy representation of Ξ³=π​(Ξ³~)\gamma=\pi(\tilde{\gamma}) gives a simple transposition exchanging dd and dβˆ’1d-1. ∎

We follow the notation of the introduction. We assume g=3g=3 or 44 throughout. We recall from the introduction that we denote the monodromy group of π:Jg→Wg\pi:J_{g}\to W_{g} by Πg\Pi_{g} and that proving Πg≅Sng\Pi_{g}\cong S_{n_{g}} is enough to prove that Γg≅Sng\Gamma_{g}\cong S_{n_{g}}.

2.3. Transitivity

As remarked before, to prove that Ξ g\Pi_{g} is transitive it suffices to prove that JgJ_{g} has only one irreducible component of maximum dimension. We prove this by studying the fibers of Ξ·\eta. Let the fiber of Ξ·\eta over HH be YHY_{H}. Then YHY_{H} has a map to the space ZZ of rational curves of genus gg which are canonically embedded in Hβ‰…β„™gβˆ’1H\cong\mathbb{P}^{g-1} by taking (S,H)↦S∩H(S,H)\mapsto S\cap H. Then we prove irreducibility results about the fiber of this map as well as ZZ.

2.4. 2-Transitivity

Now, fix a hyperplane HH in β„™g\mathbb{P}^{g} and a rational integral curve CC of genus gg canonically embedded in HH. Assume that singularities of CC are either all nodal singularities or one simple cusp and others nodal.

Let Wβ€²={S|S∩H=C}βŠ†WW^{\prime}=\{S\ |\ S\cap H=C\}\subseteq W.

Let Jβ€²={(S,Hβ€²)|S∩Hβ€²J^{\prime}=\{(S,H^{\prime})\ |\ S\cap H^{\prime} is integral rational, Hβ€²β‰ H,S∩H=C}βŠ†Wβ€²Γ—((β„™g)βˆ¨βˆ’H)H^{\prime}\neq H,\ S\cap H=C\}\subseteq W^{\prime}\times((\mathbb{P}^{g})^{\vee}-H). Let Ο€β€²:Jβ€²β†’Wβ€²,Ξ·β€²:Jβ€²β†’((β„™g)βˆ¨βˆ’H)\pi^{\prime}:J^{\prime}\to W^{\prime},\ \eta^{\prime}:J^{\prime}\to((\mathbb{P}^{g})^{\vee}-H) be the projection maps. Let the fiber of Ξ·β€²\eta^{\prime} above a fixed Hβ€²H^{\prime} be THβ€²={S|S∩H=C,S∩H′​ is integral rational}T_{H^{\prime}}=\{S\ |\ S\cap H=C,\ S\cap H^{\prime}\textup{ is integral rational}\}.

Now for any fixed finite scheme Yβˆˆβ„™gβˆ’1Y\in\mathbb{P}^{g-1}, let RYR_{Y} be the space of genus gg integral rational curves Cβ€²C^{\prime} canonically embedded in β„™gβˆ’1\mathbb{P}^{g-1} which contain YY. Then we have a map Ο„:THβ€²β†’RC∩Hβ€²\tau:T_{H^{\prime}}\to R_{C\cap H^{\prime}}, which sends S↦S∩Hβ€²S\mapsto S\cap H^{\prime}.

We will show that the monodromy of Ο€β€²\pi^{\prime} is transitive, which will prove that Ξ g\Pi_{g} is 2-transitive. (Since we may take CC to be S∩HS\cap H for a general (S,H)(S,H) and such a CC will be integral nodal)

First, we show that Wβ€²W^{\prime} contains a K​3K3 surface if CC has only nodes or simple cusps. Next, we prove that the fibers of Ο„\tau are all irreducible of the same dimension. Then we prove bounds on dimensions of RYR_{Y} for certain YY of length 2​gβˆ’22g-2. Note that YY being equal to C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} imposes certain restrictions on YY, for example if g=4g=4, YY must be the intersection of a conic with a cubic in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}, and (although we don’t need this case) if g=5g=5, YY must be the intersection of three quadrics in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}. If YY is the disjoint union of 2​gβˆ’22g-2 general points (constrained by the restrictions as noted above), then we show that RYR_{Y} is irreducible of dimension equal to the bound. Finally, since a general hyperplane section of CC will be 2​gβˆ’22g-2 distinct points so as long as we are able to show that there are 2​gβˆ’22g-2 general points (constrained by the restrictions as before) on CC we will be through.

2.5. Simple transposition

Following [6] (see Lemma 8), to prove that Πg\Pi_{g} admits a simple transposition, it is enough to show that there is a point SS in WgW_{g} such that the fiber of π:Jg→Wg\pi:J_{g}\to W_{g} above SS is y1,⋯,yny_{1},\cdots,y_{n} satisfying:

  1. (1)

    y1y_{1} corresponds to a rational curve having gβˆ’1g-1 nodes and 11 simple cusp and y2,β‹―,yny_{2},\cdots,y_{n} are points corresponding to rational nodal curves.

  2. (2)

    n=degβ‘Ο€βˆ’1n=\deg\pi-1.

  3. (3)

    JgJ_{g} is locally irreducible at y1y_{1}.

In the proof of Harris[6] where he establishes the existence of a simple transposition in the monodromy group of bitangents to a degree dd curve in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2} one studies flex bitangents to the curve. In our case, this corresponds to a rational curve with one simple cusp and rest of the singularities being nodes. Also, the Plucker formula gets replaced by the Yau-Zaslow formula as proven by Beauville [1].

By Beauville’s Yau-Zaslow formula (See Proposition 4 and 5), we see that if property 1 is satisfied, then the curve y1y_{1} will be counted with multiplicity (52)/5=2\binom{5}{2}/5=2 and the rest of the curves being nodal curves will be counted with multiplicity 11, which means that nn is exactly 11 less than the number of rational curves in the linear system |π’ͺ​(1)||\mathcal{O}(1)| of a general surface, which is deg⁑π\deg\pi.

Finally, if there exists a K​3K3 surface in WgW_{g} with a hyperplane section as a rational simple cuspidal curve CC, then by using the transitivity of the monodromy of Ο€β€²\pi^{\prime} for this CC (which we proved before) we will get an SS so that one hyperplane section is CC and the others are rational nodal. This concludes the outline of the proof.

3. Preliminaries

3.1. A space of maps with specified images

Definition 9 (Immersion).

Let kk be a field, CC be a curve over kk, and X,TX,T be schemes over kk. Let Ο•:CTβ†’XT\phi:C_{T}\to X_{T} be a morphism, and DβŠ‚CTD\subset C_{T} be a relative effective divisor. We say Ο•\phi is an immersion at DD, if for every geometric point tt of TT, the map Ο•t:Ctβ†’Xt\phi_{t}:C_{t}\to X_{t} induced on the fiber at tt is an immersion at the points of Dt=D∩CtD_{t}=D\cap C_{t} i.e. the map on tangent spaces at those points is injective.

Definition 10 (Normal Sheaf).

Let kk be a field, CC be a curve over kk, and XX be a scheme over kk. Let p1,β‹―,pnp_{1},\cdots,p_{n} be points of CC. Let g:Cβ†’Xg:C\to X be a morphism which is an immersion pip_{i} if pip_{i} is a smooth point of CC, and locally an embedding at pip_{i} if pip_{i} is a singular point of CC. The normal sheaf NgN_{g} of (g,p1,β‹―,pn)(g,p_{1},\cdots,p_{n}) is then defined to be the dual of ℐC/ℐC2\mathscr{I}_{C}/\mathscr{I}_{C}^{2} in a neighbourhood of pip_{i} of the pip_{i} which are singular points and is the the cokernel of TCβ†’gβˆ—β€‹TXT_{C}\to g^{*}T_{X} elsewhere. Here ℐC\mathscr{I}_{C} is the ideal sheaf of the image g​(C)g(C) of CC in XX.

Suppose we have divisors D1,β‹―,DnD_{1},\cdots,D_{n} of CC so that each of them is supported at a single point. If DiD_{i} is supported at pip_{i}, then the normal sheaf of (g,D1,β‹―,Dn)(g,D_{1},\cdots,D_{n}) is defined to be the normal sheaf of (g,p1,β‹―,pn)(g,p_{1},\cdots,p_{n}) as above.

Lemma 11.

Let kk be a field, CC be a local complete intersection projective curve/k, XX be another scheme/k, and for i=1,β‹―,mi=1,\cdots,m we have Y1,β‹―,YmY_{1},\cdots,Y_{m} finite connected curvilinear subschemes of XX of length n1,β‹―,nmn_{1},\cdots,n_{m} supported at (not-necessarily distinct) points y1,β‹―,ymy_{1},\cdots,y_{m} respectively. Let YY be a finite subscheme of XX supported at y1,β‹―,ymy_{1},\cdots,y_{m}.

Consider the functor F=F​(C,X,Y1,β‹―,Ym):F=F(C,X,Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{m}): Schemes/k β†’\to Sets given by

F​(T)={(Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm):Ο•:CTβ†’XT​ is flat.​For all ​i,DiβŠ‚CT​ is a degree ​ni​ relativeeffective cartier divisor with ​ϕ​(Di)=(Yi)T,Ο•|Di:Diβ†’(Yi)Tis an isomorphism, and ​ϕ​ is an immersion at ​Di.}F(T)=\left\{(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}):\ \begin{aligned} &\phi:C_{T}\to X_{T}\textup{ is flat.}\ \textup{For all }i,\ D_{i}\subset C_{T}\textup{ is a degree }n_{i}\textup{ relative}\\ &\textup{effective cartier divisor with }\phi(D_{i})=(Y_{i})_{T},\ \phi|_{D_{i}}:D_{i}\to(Y_{i})_{T}\\ &\textup{is an isomorphism, and }\phi\textup{ is an immersion at }D_{i}.\end{aligned}\right\}

We also consider the functor F~=F~​(C,X,Y,n1,β‹―,nm):\tilde{F}=\tilde{F}(C,X,Y,n_{1},\cdots,n_{m}): Schemes/k β†’\to Sets given by

F~​(T)={(Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm,i1,β‹―,im):Ο•:CTβ†’XT​ is flat.​For all ​j,ij:TΓ—Spec​(k​[x]/(xnj))β†’YT​ is an embedding withimage ​Zj,DjβŠ‚C​ is a degree ​nj​ relative effectivecartier divisor with ​ϕ​(Dj)=Zj,Ο•|Dj:Djβ†’Zj​ isan isomorphism, and ​ϕ​ is an immersion at ​Dj.}\tilde{F}(T)=\left\{(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m},i_{1},\cdots,i_{m}):\ \begin{aligned} &\phi:C_{T}\to X_{T}\textup{ is flat.}\ \textup{For all }j,\\ &i_{j}:T\times\textup{Spec}(k[x]/(x^{n_{j}}))\to Y_{T}\textup{ is an embedding with}\\ &\textup{image }Z_{j},\ D_{j}\subset C\textup{ is a degree }n_{j}\textup{ relative effective}\\ &\textup{cartier divisor with }\phi(D_{j})=Z_{j},\ \phi|_{D_{j}}:D_{j}\to Z_{j}\textup{ is}\\ &\textup{an isomorphism, and }\phi\textup{ is an immersion at }D_{j}.\end{aligned}\right\}

Assume now that XX is a projective surface which is smooth at the points y1,β‹―,ymy_{1},\cdots,y_{m}. Then the functors F,F~F,\tilde{F} are representable. If XX is a projective surface, then for a point (g,D1,β‹―,Dm)∈F​(k)(g,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\in F(k) so that XX is smooth at the points of g​(C)g(C), gg is an immersion at the smooth points of CC, and locally an embedding at singular points of CC, the tangent space to FF at (g,D1,β‹―,Dm)∈F​(k)(g,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\in F(k) is given by the inverse image of H0​(C,ℐD1​⋯​ℐDm​Ng)H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D_{1}}\cdots\mathscr{I}_{D_{m}}N_{g}) under the map H0​(C,gβˆ—β€‹TX)β†’H0​(C,Ng)H^{0}(C,g^{*}T_{X})\to H^{0}(C,N_{g}), where NgN_{g} is the normal sheaf of (g,D1,β‹―,Dm)(g,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}).

Proof.

For any projective kβˆ’k-schemes S,Sβ€²S,S^{\prime}, let Hom​(Sβ€²,S)\text{Hom}(S^{\prime},S) and Em​(Sβ€²,S)\text{Em}(S^{\prime},S) be the Hom-scheme of Sβ€²S^{\prime} to SS and the subscheme of the Hom-scheme consisting of embeddings of Sβ€²S^{\prime} into SS, respectively. Let Tn=Spec​(k​[x]/(xn))T_{n}=\text{Spec}(k[x]/(x^{n})).

Then FF is a subfunctor of

Hom​(C,X)Γ—Em​(Y1,C)Γ—β‹―Γ—Em​(Ym,C).\text{Hom}(C,X)\times\text{Em}(Y_{1},C)\times\cdots\times\text{Em}(Y_{m},C).

The subfunctor of Hom​(C,X)Γ—Em​(Yi,C)\text{Hom}(C,X)\times\text{Em}(Y_{i},C) of (Ο•,Ο†)(\phi,\varphi) such that Ο•\phi is an immersion at the point in the image of Ο†\varphi is an open subscheme, and the subfunctor of Hom​(C,X)Γ—Em​(Yi,C)\text{Hom}(C,X)\times\text{Em}(Y_{i},C) of (Ο•,Ο†)(\phi,\varphi) with Ο•βˆ˜Ο†\phi\circ\varphi is a fixed morphism (corresponding to Yiβ†ͺXY_{i}\hookrightarrow X) is a closed subscheme. Thus, FF is representable. Similarly, F~\tilde{F} is a subfunctor of

Hom​(C,X)Γ—Em​(Tn1,C)Γ—β‹―Γ—Em​(Tnm,C)Γ—Emy1​(Tn1,Y)Γ—β‹―Γ—Emym​(Tnm,Y)\text{Hom}(C,X)\times\text{Em}(T_{n_{1}},C)\times\cdots\times\text{Em}(T_{n_{m}},C)\times\text{Em}_{y_{1}}(T_{n_{1}},Y)\times\cdots\times\text{Em}_{y_{m}}(T_{n_{m}},Y)

where Emy​(Tn,Y)\text{Em}_{y}(T_{n},Y) is the space of embeddings supported at yy. As before, the subfunctor consisting of (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm,i1,β‹―,im)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m},i_{1},\cdots,i_{m}) such that Ο•\phi is an immersion at DiD_{i} for every ii is an open subscheme. Also, the subfunctor of Hom​(C,X)Γ—Em​(Tn,C)Γ—Em​(Tn,C)\text{Hom}(C,X)\times\text{Em}(T_{n},C)\times\text{Em}(T_{n},C) of (Ο•,Ο†,i)(\phi,\varphi,i) with Ο•βˆ˜Ο†=i\phi\circ\varphi=i is a closed subscheme. Thus, F~\tilde{F} is representable.

Every element of the tangent space of FF at (g,D1,β‹―,Dm)(g,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}) may be seen as an element of the tangent space H0​(C,gβˆ—β€‹TX)H^{0}(C,g^{*}T_{X}) of Hom(C,X)(C,X) at gg because over k​[Ξ΅]/Ξ΅2k[\varepsilon]/\varepsilon^{2}, if we fix a morphism gβ€²g^{\prime} which equals gg over the special fiber then the divisors Diβ€²D_{i}^{\prime} which will restrict to DiD_{i} over the special fiber and map isomophically onto YiY_{i} will be uniquely determined by gβ€²g^{\prime} (if they exist) since gβ€²g^{\prime} is an immersion at the points of DiD_{i}. So we need to only check that the elements of tangent space of Fβ€²F^{\prime} are exactly the set of elements of H0​(C,gβˆ—β€‹TX)H^{0}(C,g^{*}T_{X}) which map to H0​(C,ℐD1​⋯​ℐDm​Ng)H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D_{1}}\cdots\mathscr{I}_{D_{m}}N_{g}). We need only check this at the point yiy_{i} of YiY_{i}.

Since the finite subschemes of a scheme which are supported at a point pp are 1-1 correspondence with the finite subschemes of the Spec of the completion of the local ring at pp, we may argue at the level of completions. We may choose formal coordinates so that the map corresponding to gg at the completion level is Ξ±:kβ€‹βŸ¦x,yβŸ§β†’kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y⟧/(f)\alpha:k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket\to k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket/(f). Note that here we are using the fact that gg is an immersion at the smooth points of CC, and locally an embedding at singular points of CC, and that CC is an lci curve. The ideal sheaf of our divisor will be given by an ideal II which contains ff.

Then we need to consider formal power series of the form f+Ρ​f1f+\varepsilon f_{1} so that f+Ρ​f1f+\varepsilon f_{1} is contained in the extended ideal IeI^{e} . This happens if and only if f1∈If_{1}\in I, which implies that the element of H0​(gβˆ—β€‹TX)H^{0}(g^{*}T_{X}) corresponding to f+Ρ​f1f+\varepsilon f_{1} goes to an element of H0​(ℐDi​Ng)H^{0}(\mathscr{I}_{D_{i}}N_{g}).

This local calculation remains unchanged for Fβ€²F^{\prime} so the same calculation proves it in that case also. ∎

We will also need a calculation of the ways to embed Spec​(k​[x]/(xn))\mathrm{Spec}(k[x]/(x^{n})) in a curve at a specified point:

Lemma 12.

Let CC be an integral curve inside a surface XX. Let P∈CP\in C, and suppose that PP is a smooth point of XX. Let DD be the finite curvilinear connected scheme of length nn, i.e. Dβ‰…Spec​(k​[x]/(xn))D\cong\mathrm{Spec}(k[x]/(x^{n})). Consider the scheme EmP​(D,C)\textup{Em}_{P}(D,C) parametrizing the embeddings ψ:Dβ†ͺC\psi:D\hookrightarrow C so that Οˆβ€‹(D)\psi(D) is supported at PP. Then we have

1. If PP is a smooth point of CC then dimEmP​(D,C)=0\dim\textup{Em}_{P}(D,C)=0.

2. If PP is a node of CC then dimEmP​(D,C)=0\dim\textup{Em}_{P}(D,C)=0 if n=1n=1, dimEmP​(D,C)=1\dim\textup{Em}_{P}(D,C)=1 if nβ‰₯2n\geq 2.

3. If PP is a simple cusp of CC then there is no embedding if nβ‰₯4n\geq 4, dimEmP​(D,C)=0\dim\textup{Em}_{P}(D,C)=0 if n=3n=3, dimEmP​(D,C)=1\dim\textup{Em}_{P}(D,C)=1 if n=2n=2, dimEmP​(D,C)=0\dim\textup{Em}_{P}(D,C)=0 if n=1n=1.

Proof.

We may do a local calculation at the point PP. Note that our embeddings are all contained in the curve CC inside the surface XX and PP is a smooth point of XX.

1. Smooth point: There is only a unique subscheme of CC of length nn supported at PP, so 0-dimensional.

2. Node: We can do a local calculation at the point. Say we have a length nn curvilinear subscheme corresponding to IβŠ‚kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y⟧I\subset k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket such that x​y∈Ixy\in I.

Since II is curvilinear and has colength nn, we may assume I=(f,g)I=(f,g) where ff has non-zero linear term and all terms of gg are deg β‰₯n\geq n.

Now x​y∈Ixy\in I, so the linear term of ff has to divide x​yxy (Assuming nβ‰₯2n\geq 2). Without loss of generality, let the linear term of ff be xx.

Thus we have f=x+f1f=x+f_{1}, and so we may assume (after repeated substitution of βˆ’f1-f_{1} for xx in f,gf,g) that g=yng=y^{n} and f=x+f1​(y)f=x+f_{1}(y). Also we may assume degree of f1f_{1} is ≀nβˆ’1\leq n-1.

Now a​f+b​g=x​yaf+bg=xy for some a,b∈kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y⟧a,b\in k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket. We know that deg gβ‰₯2g\geq 2 and gg has no term involving xx therefore a=ya=y. And hence f1=cβ‹…ynβˆ’1f_{1}=c\cdot y^{n-1} for some constant cc.

Thus we get a one dimensional space for nβ‰₯2n\geq 2.

3. Cusp: Let nβ‰₯3n\geq 3. Similar reasoning as above allows us to assume I=(f,g)I=(f,g), x2βˆ’y3∈Ix^{2}-y^{3}\in I. In this case the linear term of ff divides x2x^{2}, so again we may assume f=x+f1​(y)f=x+f_{1}(y) and g=yng=y^{n}.

Now, a​f+b​g=x2βˆ’y3af+bg=x^{2}-y^{3} implies a=x,f1​(y)=0,n=3,b=βˆ’1a=x,f_{1}(y)=0,n=3,b=-1.

Hence for nβ‰₯4n\geq 4 no embedding, n=3n=3 zero dimensional space, n=2n=2 one dimensional space. ∎

Lemma 13.

Let CC be a curve in β„™n\mathbb{P}^{n}, with p∈Cp\in C being a smooth point. Let LL be the tangent line to CC at pp. Then for a general hyperplane HH containing LL, multp​(H∩C)=multp​(L∩C)\textup{mult}_{p}(H\cap C)=\textup{mult}_{p}(L\cap C).

Proof.

We may work in the completion of the local rings of CC and β„™n\mathbb{P}^{n} at pp. The latter is kβ€‹βŸ¦x1,β‹―,xn⟧k\llbracket x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}\rrbracket. Hyperplanes containing pp correspond to linear polynomials in the xix_{i}.

Let CC be given by the vanishing of polynomials f1,β‹―,fnβˆ’1f_{1},\cdots,f_{n-1}. pp is a smooth point, so we have that the linear terms of f1,β‹―,fnβˆ’1f_{1},\cdots,f_{n-1} are linearly independent. Thus, we may choose coordinates x1,β‹―,xnx_{1},\cdots,x_{n} so that the linear term of fif_{i} is xix_{i} for i=1,β‹―,nβˆ’1i=1,\cdots,n-1. Then the tangent line LL is given by x1=0,β‹―,xnβˆ’1=0x_{1}=0,\cdots,x_{n-1}=0. The hyperplanes containing LL correspond to linear polynomials in x1,β‹―,xnβˆ’1x_{1},\cdots,x_{n-1} i.e. the coefficient of xnx_{n} is 0.

Now, we note that there exist g1,β‹―,gnβˆ’1g_{1},\cdots,g_{n-1} of the form gi=xi+hi​(xn)g_{i}=x_{i}+h_{i}(x_{n}) such that the ideal generated by them (f1,β‹―,fnβˆ’1)=(g1,β‹―,gnβˆ’1)(f_{1},\cdots,f_{n-1})=(g_{1},\cdots,g_{n-1}) are the same. To see this, note that fi=xiβˆ’fi,1​(x1,β‹―,xnβˆ’1)f_{i}=x_{i}-f_{i,1}(x_{1},\cdots,x_{n-1}), where fi,1f_{i,1} has degree β‰₯2\geq 2, so we may substitute xjx_{j} for fj,1f_{j,1} repeatedly in fi,1f_{i,1} to get the desired power series hi​(xn)h_{i}(x_{n}) in xnx_{n}.

Now to finish off the proof, it suffices to notice that

multp​(L∩C)\displaystyle\textup{mult}_{p}(L\cap C) =length​(kβ€‹βŸ¦x1,β‹―,xn⟧(x1,β‹―,xnβˆ’1,f1,β‹―,fnβˆ’1))\displaystyle=\textup{length}\left(\frac{k\llbracket x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}\rrbracket}{(x_{1},\cdots,x_{n-1},f_{1},\cdots,f_{n-1})}\right)
=length​(kβ€‹βŸ¦x1,β‹―,xn⟧(x1,β‹―,xnβˆ’1,g1,β‹―,gnβˆ’1))\displaystyle=\textup{length}\left(\frac{k\llbracket x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}\rrbracket}{(x_{1},\cdots,x_{n-1},g_{1},\cdots,g_{n-1})}\right)
=length​(k⟦xn⟧(h1,β‹―,hnβˆ’1))\displaystyle=\textup{length}\left(\frac{k\llbracket x_{n}\rrbracket}{(h_{1},\cdots,h_{n-1})}\right)
=mini⁑(deg⁑hi).\displaystyle=\min_{i}(\deg h_{i}).

and for a hyperplane HH given by a1​x1+β‹―+anβˆ’1​xnβˆ’1a_{1}x_{1}+\cdots+a_{n-1}x_{n-1},

multp​(H∩C)\displaystyle\textup{mult}_{p}(H\cap C) =length​(kβ€‹βŸ¦x1,β‹―,xn⟧(a1​x1+β‹―+anβˆ’1​xnβˆ’1,f1,β‹―,fnβˆ’1))\displaystyle=\textup{length}\left(\frac{k\llbracket x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}\rrbracket}{(a_{1}x_{1}+\cdots+a_{n-1}x_{n-1},f_{1},\cdots,f_{n-1})}\right)
=length​(kβ€‹βŸ¦x1,β‹―,xn⟧(a1​x1+β‹―+anβˆ’1​xnβˆ’1,g1,β‹―,gnβˆ’1))\displaystyle=\textup{length}\left(\frac{k\llbracket x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}\rrbracket}{(a_{1}x_{1}+\cdots+a_{n-1}x_{n-1},g_{1},\cdots,g_{n-1})}\right)
=length​(k⟦xn⟧(a1​h1+β‹―+an​hnβˆ’1))\displaystyle=\textup{length}\left(\frac{k\llbracket x_{n}\rrbracket}{(a_{1}h_{1}+\cdots+a_{n}h_{n-1})}\right)
=deg⁑(a1​h1+β‹―+an​hn).\displaystyle=\deg(a_{1}h_{1}+\cdots+a_{n}h_{n}).

For general a1,β‹―,anβˆ’1a_{1},\cdots,a_{n-1}, mini⁑(deg⁑hi)=deg⁑(a1​h1+β‹―+an​hn)\min_{i}(\deg h_{i})=\deg(a_{1}h_{1}+\cdots+a_{n}h_{n}), and this finishes the proof. ∎

Lemma 14.

Let CC be a curve in β„™n\mathbb{P}^{n}, and let p∈Cp\in C be a singularity of CC which is a simple node or a simple cusp. Then the general hyperplane of β„™n\mathbb{P}^{n} passing through pp intersects CC in a scheme of length 22 at pp.

Proof.

Let A1=kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y⟧/(x​y)A_{1}=k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket/(xy) and A2=kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y⟧/(x3βˆ’y2)A_{2}=k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket/(x^{3}-y^{2}). We first prove that Ai/(f)A_{i}/(f) has length 22 if f=a​x+b​y+f=ax+by+ higher terms with a,bβ‰ 0a,b\neq 0.

i=1i=1: Multiplying ff by xnx^{n}, we have

a​x1+n=a′​x2+n+Β higher terms(mod(f,x​y))ax^{1+n}=a^{\prime}x^{2+n}+\textup{ higher terms}\pmod{(f,xy)}

for all nβ‰₯1n\geq 1, so we have that x2=0(mod(f,x​y))x^{2}=0\pmod{(f,xy)}. Similarly, y2=0(mod(f,x​y))y^{2}=0\pmod{(f,xy)}. So, A1/(f)=kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y⟧/(a​x+b​y,x2,y2,x​y)A_{1}/(f)=k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket/(ax+by,x^{2},y^{2},xy) is of length 22.

i=2i=2: Let c=βˆ’b/ac=-b/a. Then x=c​y+Β higher terms(mod(f,y2βˆ’x3))x=cy+\textup{ higher terms}\pmod{(f,y^{2}-x^{3})}. So,

x2=c2​y2=c2​x3=0(mod(f,y2βˆ’x3,(x,y)3)).x^{2}=c^{2}y^{2}=c^{2}x^{3}=0\pmod{(f,y^{2}-x^{3},(x,y)^{3})}.

Similarly,

x​y=c​y2=c​x3=0(mod(f,y2βˆ’x3,(x,y)3)).xy=cy^{2}=cx^{3}=0\pmod{(f,y^{2}-x^{3},(x,y)^{3})}.

Therefore, m2=m3m^{2}=m^{3} where mm is the maximal ideal of A2/(f)A_{2}/(f). So, m2=0m^{2}=0 by Nakayama Lemma. Hence, A1/(f)=kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y⟧/(a​x+b​y,x2,y2,x​y)A_{1}/(f)=k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket/(ax+by,x^{2},y^{2},xy) is of length 22.

Coming back to the main problem, we take the completion of the local ring at pp to get

π’ͺp^=kβ€‹βŸ¦x1,β‹―,xn⟧/(f1,β‹―,fnβˆ’1)β‰…Ai\widehat{\mathcal{O}_{p}}=k\llbracket x_{1},\cdots,x_{n}\rrbracket/(f_{1},\cdots,f_{n-1})\cong A_{i}

for i=1i=1 or i=2i=2. Note that here the x1,β‹―,xnx_{1},\cdots,x_{n} denote the coordinates of an affine space 𝔸n\mathbb{A}^{n} containing pp. By the above calculation it is enough to note that the isomorphism on m/m2m/m^{2} for the two rings sends a general linear polynomial on the left to a general linear polynomial on the right. ∎

3.2. A space of rational curves of genus gg

Definition 15 (Canonical map).

Let CC be a Gorenstein projective curve of genus gg over a field kk, and let Ο‰\omega denote its canonical sheaf. Then Ο‰\omega is invertible and globally generated and hence gives a map

ΞΊ:Cβ†’β„™gβˆ’1\kappa:C\to\mathbb{P}^{g-1}

which we call as the canonical map of CC.

Definition 16 (Canonically embedded curve).

Let CC be a projective curve over a field kk embedded in β„™n\mathbb{P}^{n}. CC is said to be canonically embedded in β„™n\mathbb{P}^{n} if CC is Gorenstein, with canonical sheaf Ο‰\omega satisfying π’ͺβ„™n​(1)|C=Ο‰\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n}}(1)|_{C}=\omega, and i:Cβ†ͺβ„™ni:C\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{n} is the canonical map. (in particular, this means that the genus of CC is n+1n+1)

Let gβ‰₯3g\geq 3. Let CC be a integral rational curve of genus gg having only nodes or simple cusps as singularities, and consider a normalization map Ξ±:β„™1β†’C\alpha:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to C. Let P1,β‹―,PgP_{1},\cdots,P_{g} be the gg singular points of CC, and let VC=βˆΞ±βˆ’1​(Pi)V_{C}=\coprod\alpha^{-1}(P_{i}). Then VCV_{C} is a union of gg length-2 schemes which are pairwise disjoint. Now, VCV_{C} determines CC up to isomorphism, and two subschemes V,Vβ€²V,V^{\prime} determine isomorphic CC if and only if there is an automorphism of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} which takes VV to Vβ€²V^{\prime}.

Consider the scheme (β„™1)2​g(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g} and consider the open set X0βŠ‚(β„™1)2​gX_{0}\subset(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g} corresponding to 2g-tuples (p1,β‹―,p2​g)(p_{1},\cdots,p_{2g}) of points so that no three points are the same, and if two points pip_{i} and pjp_{j} are the same with i<ji<j then ii is odd and j=i+1j=i+1. Note that X0X_{0} is irreducible since it an open set of (β„™1)2​g(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g}. Also, for 1≀c≀g1\leq c\leq g, let XcX_{c} be the closed subset of X0X_{0} where cc pairs of points are equal.

Now, consider the projection map Ξ›:β„™1Γ—(β„™1)2​gβ†’(β„™1)2​g\Lambda:\mathbb{P}^{1}\times(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g}\to(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g}. Then Ξ›\Lambda has 2​g2g sections Ξ±1,β‹―,Ξ±2​g\alpha_{1},\cdots,\alpha_{2g} corresponding to the coordinates of the points. We glue the pairs of sections (Ξ±1​(X0),Ξ±2​(X0))(\alpha_{1}(X_{0}),\alpha_{2}(X_{0})), (Ξ±3​(X0),Ξ±4​(X0))(\alpha_{3}(X_{0}),\alpha_{4}(X_{0})), β‹―,(Ξ±2​gβˆ’1​(X0),Ξ±2​g​(X0))\cdots,(\alpha_{2g-1}(X_{0}),\alpha_{2g}(X_{0})) to get a scheme Y0Y_{0} so that Ξ›\Lambda factors as β∘λ\beta\circ\lambda:

β„™1Γ—(β„™1)2​gβ†’Ξ»0Y0→𝛽(β„™1)2​g\mathbb{P}^{1}\times(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g}\xrightarrow[]{\lambda_{0}}Y_{0}\xrightarrow[]{\beta}(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g}

Now, note that each fibre of Ξ²\beta, C=Ξ²βˆ’1​(x)C=\beta^{-1}(x) comes equipped with a normalization map Ξ»x:Ξ›βˆ’1​(x)=β„™1β†’C\lambda_{x}:\Lambda^{-1}(x)=\mathbb{P}^{1}\to C. The fibres of Ξ²\beta over X0X_{0} will be rational curves of genus gg having only nodes or simple cusps as singularities, and every rational curve of genus gg having only nodes or simple cusps as singularities will occur as a fibre over the point of X0X_{0} corresponding to the points of VCV_{C} (with a point occurring twice when it is occurring with multiplicity two in VCV_{C}).

Consider the subgroup Ξ©\Omega of the permutation group generated by elements of the form (2​iβˆ’1 2​i)(2i-1\ 2i) and (2​iβˆ’1 2​jβˆ’1)β‹…(2​i​ 2​j)(2i-1\ 2j-1)\cdot(2i\ 2j) for 1≀i,j≀g1\leq i,j\leq g. Then we have that Ξ©\Omega acts on (β„™1)2​g(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g} by permuting the elements and acts on β„™1Γ—(β„™1)2​g\mathbb{P}^{1}\times(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g} by acting on the second coordinate, and the map Ξ›\Lambda is Ξ©\Omega-equivariant. The action of Ξ©\Omega restricts to an action on X0X_{0}. Also the diagonal actions of Aut​(β„™1)\mathrm{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{1}) on (β„™1)2​g(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g} and β„™1Γ—(β„™1)2​g\mathbb{P}^{1}\times(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g} make the map Ξ›\Lambda to be Aut​(β„™1)\mathrm{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{1})-equivariant. So we have an action of G=Ω×Aut​(β„™1)G=\Omega\times\mathrm{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{1}) on (β„™1)2​g(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g} and β„™1Γ—(β„™1)2​g\mathbb{P}^{1}\times(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g} so that Ξ›\Lambda is GG-equivariant. Finally, we note that the action of GG on (β„™1)2​g(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g} restricts to an action on X0X_{0}, and that Y0Y_{0} is obtained as the pushout of the maps Ξ±e​v​e​n,Ξ±o​d​d:X0β€‹βˆβ‹―β€‹βˆX0β†’β„™1Γ—(β„™1)2​g\alpha_{even},\alpha_{odd}:X_{0}\coprod\cdots\coprod X_{0}\to\mathbb{P}^{1}\times(\mathbb{P}^{1})^{2g} where Ξ±e​v​e​n\alpha_{even} corresponds to the even sections and Ξ±o​d​d\alpha_{odd} corresponds to the odd sections. These maps are interchanged or mapped to themselves by GG. Thus we get an action of GG on Y0Y_{0} so that Ξ²\beta is GG-equivariant.

Two fibres Ξ²βˆ’1​(x),Ξ²βˆ’1​(xβ€²)\beta^{-1}(x),\beta^{-1}(x^{\prime}) are isomorphic for x,xβ€²βˆˆX0x,x^{\prime}\in X_{0} iff there is an element of GG mapping xx to xβ€²x^{\prime}. Then let X0β€²X_{0}^{\prime} be the open set of X0X_{0} of 2​gβˆ’2g-tuples such that no non-identity automorphism of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} fixes it. Then Aut​(β„™1)\mathrm{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{1}) acts freely on X0β€²X_{0}^{\prime}. Also note that no non-identity automorphism of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} fixes 44 general points of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1}, so there will be points in X0β€²X_{0}^{\prime} corresponding to curves with cc simple cusps for every 0≀c≀g0\leq c\leq g if gβ‰₯4g\geq 4 and for every 0≀c≀20\leq c\leq 2 if g=3g=3. Thus, if we define Xcβ€²=X0β€²βˆ©XcX_{c}^{\prime}=X_{0}^{\prime}\cap X_{c} then it will be a non-empty open subset of XcX_{c} for every 0≀c≀g0\leq c\leq g if gβ‰₯4g\geq 4 and for every 0≀c≀20\leq c\leq 2 if g=3g=3.

Recall that a curve over a field kk is called a hyperelliptic curve if there is a degree-2 morphism λ:C→ℙ1\lambda:C\to\mathbb{P}^{1}. If there is no such map we call it non-hyperelliptic.

We want to focus attention to points of X0β€²X_{0}^{\prime} which represent non-hyperelliptic curves. Let β„Œg\mathfrak{H}_{g} be the subvariety of X0X_{0} corresponding to points with fibers as hyperelliptic curves. Then we have the following lemma:

Lemma 17.

Let gβ‰₯3g\geq 3. We have:

  1. (1)

    dimβ„Œg=g+1\dim\mathfrak{H}_{g}=g+1.

  2. (2)

    dimβ„Œg∩Xc\dim\mathfrak{H}_{g}\cap X_{c} is empty for cβ‰₯3c\geq 3, dimβ„Œg∩X1=g\dim\mathfrak{H}_{g}\cap X_{1}=g and dimβ„Œg∩X2=gβˆ’1\dim\mathfrak{H}_{g}\cap X_{2}=g-1.

Proof.

Let C′C^{\prime} and C′′C^{\prime\prime} be two copies of ℙ1\mathbb{P}^{1}. Any integral hyperelliptic curve CC admits a degree 22 map β:C→C′′=ℙ1\beta:C\to C^{\prime\prime}=\mathbb{P}^{1}. If CC is moreover rational then we may compose β\beta by the normalization map α:C′=ℙ1→C\alpha:C^{\prime}=\mathbb{P}^{1}\to C to get a degree 22 map γ:C′=ℙ1→C′′=ℙ1\gamma:C^{\prime}=\mathbb{P}^{1}\to C^{\prime\prime}=\mathbb{P}^{1}. Then γ\gamma will be ramified at 22 points by Riemann-Hurwitz Formula.

The map Ξ³\gamma will factor as β∘α\beta\circ\alpha for some nodal CC if and only if the 2​g2g points of Cβ€²C^{\prime} we get as the inverse images of the singular points of CC are obtained as the inverse image of gg points of Cβ€²β€²C^{\prime\prime} via Ξ³\gamma.

Also, Ξ³\gamma will factor as β∘α\beta\circ\alpha for some CC which has cc simple cusps if and only if the 2​gβˆ’2​c2g-2c points of Cβ€²C^{\prime} we get as the inverse images of the nodes of CC are obtained as the inverse image of gβˆ’cg-c points of Cβ€²β€²C^{\prime\prime} via Ξ³\gamma, and the points of Cβ€²C^{\prime} corresponding to the cusps of CC are points of ramification. Thus, cc must satisfy c≀2c\leq 2.

Thus, the subspace of β„Œg\mathfrak{H}_{g} corresponding to nodal CC may be identified with g+1g+1 points in β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} and hence g+1g+1 dimensional. The subspace of β„Œg\mathfrak{H}_{g} corresponding to CC having one (resp. two) simple cusps may be identified with gg (resp. gβˆ’1g-1) points in β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1}, and hence gg (resp. gβˆ’1g-1) dimensional.

∎

So let X=X0β€²βˆ–β„ŒgX=X_{0}^{\prime}\setminus\mathfrak{H}_{g} be the points of X0β€²X_{0}^{\prime} where fibers of Ξ²\beta are non-hyperelliptic. Then from Lemma 17, we get that XX has dimension 2​g2g and contains points corresponding to curves with cc simple cusps for every 0≀c≀g0\leq c\leq g for gβ‰₯4g\geq 4 and for every 0≀c≀20\leq c\leq 2 if g=3g=3. Let Y=Ξ²βˆ’1​(X)Y=\beta^{-1}(X) be the pre-image of XX under Ξ²\beta.

The action of G=Ω×Aut​(β„™1)G=\Omega\times\mathrm{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{1}) restricts to an action on XX. As seen before, Aut​(β„™1)\mathrm{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{1}) acts freely on XX. Also, Ξ©\Omega acts freely on the set of tuples with 2​g2g distinct points, and the points fixed by some element of Ξ©\Omega are the tuples with two points repeated.

Let BB be the scheme representing the functor IsomX​(P,β„™g)\mathrm{Isom}_{X}(P,\mathbb{P}^{g}) where PP is the projective bundle associated to the vector bundle Ξ²βˆ—β€‹Ο‰Y\beta_{*}\omega_{Y}, where Ο‰Y\omega_{Y} is the relative dualizing line bundle. Then BB is a smooth scheme which is a P​G​LgPGL_{g}-bundle over XX with β„‚\mathbb{C}-points given by (x,Ο†)(x,\varphi) where x∈X​(β„‚)x\in X(\mathbb{C}), and isomorphisms Ο†:ℙ​(H0​(C,Ο‰C))β†’β„™gβˆ’1\varphi:\mathbb{P}(H^{0}(C,\omega_{C}))\to\mathbb{P}^{g-1} where C=Ξ²βˆ’1​(x)C=\beta^{-1}(x) is the rational curve of genus g corrresponding to x∈X​(β„‚)x\in X(\mathbb{C}).

The action of GG on XX and YY makes Ξ²\beta a GG-equivariant map, and hence induces an action of GG on PP which induces an action of GG on BB.

Note that every CC corresponding to a point of XX is non-hyperelliptic and Gorenstein, so the canonical map ΞΊ|Ο‰|:C→ℙ​(H0​(C,Ο‰C))\kappa_{|\omega|}:C\to\mathbb{P}(H^{0}(C,\omega_{C})) is an embedding by [8]. So, we get a map from BB to the Hilbert scheme of curves in β„™gβˆ’1\mathbb{P}^{g-1}. The image is of course contained in the open set Z~\widetilde{Z} of the Hilbert scheme corresponding to geometrically integral rational curves having only nodes or simple cusps as singularities. Thus we have a map Ξ¦0:Bβ†’Z~\Phi_{0}:B\to\widetilde{Z}.

The image of Ξ¦0\Phi_{0} is closed: To prove this, we only need to prove that it is stable under specializations. So it is enough to prove that if you have a DVR TT and a curve over it (embedded in β„™gβˆ’1\mathbb{P}^{g-1}) such that the fibres are geometrically integral, the generic fibre is rational with only nodes and simple cusps and is canonically embedded and the special fibre also only has nodes or simple cusps then the special fibre is also canonically embedded (and rational). Of course, rational is clear, so the main point is to prove canonically embedded. We have that the special fibre is (geometrically) irreducible. So, the Picard scheme of the family exists and is separated (see Theorem 5 on p.212 of [2]), so the canonical bundle can only specialize to the canonical bundle.

So, let ZgZ_{g} be the scheme theoretic image of BB under Ξ¦\Phi. Then ZgZ_{g} is a closed subscheme of Z~\widetilde{Z}, and every point of ZgZ_{g} corresponds to a canonically embedded rational curve in β„™gβˆ’1\mathbb{P}^{g-1} with nodes or cusps. So we have the restriction map Ξ¦:Bβ†’Zg\Phi:B\to Z_{g}. ZgZ_{g} is irreducible since BB is irreducible. The fiber of Ξ¦\Phi over a point of ZgZ_{g} corresponding to the curve CC will be given by the GG-orbit of the point in BB corresponding to the point of XX corresponding to CC together with isomorphisms ℙ​(H0​(C,Ο‰C))β†’β„™gβˆ’1\mathbb{P}(H^{0}(C,\omega_{C}))\to\mathbb{P}^{g-1}, thus the dimension of ZgZ_{g} is g2+2​gβˆ’4g^{2}+2g-4.

Let U1U_{1} be the irreducible component of X1X_{1} where p1=p2p_{1}=p_{2}, let X(1)X_{(1)} be the intersection X1∩XX_{1}\cap X and let U(1)U_{(1)} be the intersection U1∩XU_{1}\cap X. Then U(1)U_{(1)} and X(1)X_{(1)} have codimension 1 in XX. If q:Bβ†’Xq:B\to X denotes the natural map from BB to XX, then let B(1)B_{(1)} be the inverse image of X(1)X_{(1)} under qq and let BUB_{U} be the inverse image of U(1)U_{(1)} under qq. Then BUB_{U} is also irreducible and therefore the image of BUB_{U} under Ξ¦\Phi which we denote by Zgβˆ’1,1Z_{g-1,1} is also irreducible. Note that every point of Zgβˆ’1,1Z_{g-1,1} corresponds to a canonically embedded rational curve in β„™gβˆ’1\mathbb{P}^{g-1} with nodes or cusps and at least one cusp. Therefore the inverse image of Zgβˆ’1,1Z_{g-1,1} is equal to B(1)B_{(1)}. Now, B(1)B_{(1)} has codimension 1 in BB so we will have the dimension of Zgβˆ’1,1Z_{g-1,1} as g2+2​gβˆ’5g^{2}+2g-5.

Ξ¦\Phi factors as Ο•βˆ˜t\phi\circ t: B→𝑑B/Ξ©β†’Ο•ZgB\xrightarrow{t}B/\Omega\xrightarrow{\phi}Z_{g}. BB is smooth, hence normal which implies that B/Ξ©B/\Omega is normal. Also, any fibre of Ο•\phi is isomorphic to P​G​L2PGL_{2}, since the fiber of Ξ¦\Phi was seen to be exactly a GG-orbit. Thus, they are geometrically irreducible.

We recall the definition of weakly-proper morphism from [9] (where it is stated as morphisms satisfying the weak lifting property for DVRs). A map f:Xβ†’Yf:X\to Y of noetherian schemes is called a weakly-proper morphism if given any DVR TT a morphism Spec​(T)β†’Y\textup{Spec}(T)\to Y there exists a DVR Tβ€²T^{\prime}, a dominant morphism from Spec​(Tβ€²)\textup{Spec}(T^{\prime}) to Spec​(T)\textup{Spec}(T) and a morphism from Spec​(Tβ€²)\textup{Spec}(T^{\prime}) to XX so that the following diagram commutes

Spec​(Tβ€²){\textup{Spec}(T^{\prime})}X{X}Spec​(T){\textup{Spec}(T)}Y{Y}ρ\scriptstyle{\rho}u\scriptstyle{u}f\scriptstyle{f}Ο†\scriptstyle{\varphi}
Lemma 18.

The map Ο•:B/Ξ©β†’Zg\phi:B/\Omega\to Z_{g} is weakly proper.

Proof.

We will first prove that if we have a curve over Spec​(T)\textup{Spec}(T) where TT is a DVR which is flat with integral rational fibres having only nodes or cusps as singularities then up to replacing TT by a finite extension Tβ€²T^{\prime} the curve can be constructed by considering β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} over Tβ€²T^{\prime} and gluing 2g sections appropriately.

To prove this, we first check that the normalisation of any such curve (over TT) is isomorphic to β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} after a finite base change. Since the fibres are rational this amounts to proving that the normalisation is smooth.

Checking smoothness is a local question, so we may assume that TT is k​[[t]]k[[t]] and the gg singularities correspond to sections: in general the singularities need not correspond to rational points but after a base change we can assume this. Now we need to understand the structure of the singularity locally. There are two cases, where the singularity on the special fibre has a node or a cusp.

In the nodal case, the local structure is given by y2=(xβˆ’a​(t))2y^{2}=(x-a(t))^{2} for some a​(t)∈T=k​[[t]]a(t)\in T=k[[t]] (because if there is a node on the special fibre then there must also be a node on the generic fibre). By changing coordinates this just becomes y2=x2y^{2}=x^{2} and the normalisation of T​[x,y]/(y2βˆ’x2)T[x,y]/(y^{2}-x^{2}) is isomorphic to T​[z]Γ—T​[z]T[z]\times T[z] which is smooth.

In the cuspidal case, the local structure will be given by y2=x3+a​(t)​x+b​(t)y^{2}=x^{3}+a(t)x+b(t) where aa and bb in k​[[t]]k[[t]] have 0 constant term. Furthermore, we have that the discriminant 4​a3+27​b24a^{3}+27b^{2} is zero since there is also a singularity on the generic fibre. So, there exists c​(t)c(t) in k​[[t]]k[[t]] so that a=βˆ’3​c2,b=2​c3a=-3c^{2},b=2c^{3} because comparing valuations, we have that 3​v​(a)=2​v​(b)3v(a)=2v(b), and then it suffices to observe that if two units u,uβ€²u,u^{\prime} satisfy u3=u′⁣2u^{3}=u^{\prime 2} then u=(uβ€²/u)2,uβ€²=(uβ€²/u)3u=(u^{\prime}/u)^{2},u^{\prime}=(u^{\prime}/u)^{3}.

Now, x3βˆ’3​c2​x+2​c3x^{3}-3c^{2}x+2c^{3} factorizes as (xβˆ’c)2​(x+2​c)(x-c)^{2}(x+2c) so we may replace xβˆ’cx-c by xx and consider the normalization of T​[x,y]/(y2=x2​(xβˆ’a))T[x,y]/(y^{2}=x^{2}(x-a)) where T=k​[[t]]T=k[[t]]. This has normalization T​[y/x,x]T[y/x,x], with y/xy/x and xx satisfying (y/x)2=xβˆ’a(y/x)^{2}=x-a which is isomorphic to T​[z]T[z] and hence smooth.

Now, any element of Zg​(T)Z_{g}(T) corresponds to the data of a curve Ο„:Cβ†’Spec​(T)\tau:C\to\mathrm{Spec}(T) over Spec​(T)\mathrm{Spec}(T) which is flat with integral rational fibres having only nodes or cusps as singularities, and a canonical embedding of the curve in β„™Tgβˆ’1\mathbb{P}^{g-1}_{T}. We proved above that after going to a finite extension Tβ€²T^{\prime} the curve can be constructed by considering β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} over Tβ€²T^{\prime} and gluing 2g sections. These sections are well defined only up to an action of Ξ©\Omega, so we get a point xΒ―\overline{x} of (X/Ξ©)T(X/\Omega)_{T} corresponding to these 2​g2g sections. The data of the canonical embedding of the curve in β„™Tgβˆ’1\mathbb{P}^{g-1}_{T} gives an isomorphism Ο†:ℙ​(Ο‰C)β†’β„™gβˆ’1\varphi:\mathbb{P}(\omega_{C})\to\mathbb{P}^{g-1} where Ο‰C\omega_{C} is the relative dualizing bundle of CC over TT. So, we get a lift to B/Ξ©B/\Omega corresponding to xΒ―\overline{x} and Ο†\varphi. ∎

Lemma 19.

Let f:X→Yf:X\to Y be a weakly proper, surjective map of finite type kk-schemes, and suppose that XX is locally irreducible and the fibers of ff are geometrically connected. Then YY is locally irreducible.

Proof.

We will use the following fact [12, Tag 054F]: Let AA be a noetherian local domain, then there exists a map Aβ†’RA\to R where RR is a DVR such that the closed point of Spec​(R)\textup{Spec}(R) maps to the closed point of Spec​(A)\textup{Spec}(A) and the same for the generic points.

Let Xβ€²X^{\prime} be the normalization of XX and Yβ€²Y^{\prime} be the normalization of YY. Then the map f:Xβ†’Yf:X\to Y induces a map fβ€²:Xβ€²β†’Yβ€²f^{\prime}:X^{\prime}\to Y^{\prime}. To prove that YY is locally irreducible it suffices to show that Yβ€²β†’YY^{\prime}\to Y is a bijection. Note that ff is weakly proper implies fβ€²f^{\prime} is also weakly proper since any map from Spec​(R)β†’X\textup{Spec}(R)\to X factors through Xβ€²X^{\prime}.

First observe that fβ€²f^{\prime} is surjective. This is because if yβ€²βˆˆYy^{\prime}\in Y then there exists T=Spec​(R)T=\textup{Spec}(R) for some DVR RR so that the generic point of TT maps to the generic point of YY and the special point of TT maps to yβ€²y^{\prime}. And then by the lifting property we get that fβ€²f^{\prime} is surjective.

Finally, since Xβ€²β†’XX^{\prime}\to X is a bijection, so the fibers of Xβ€²β†’YX^{\prime}\to Y will also be geometrically connected. But this factors through the finite morphism Yβ€²β†’YY^{\prime}\to Y, so Yβ€²β†’YY^{\prime}\to Y must be a bijection, which finishes the proof. ∎

Proposition 20.

ZgZ_{g} is irreducible of dimension g2+2​gβˆ’4g^{2}+2g-4, Zgβˆ’1,1Z_{g-1,1} is irreducible of dimension g2+2​gβˆ’5g^{2}+2g-5, and ZgZ_{g} is locally irreducible at every point.

Proof.

Irreducibility and dimension of ZgZ_{g} was seen before, so we need to only show local irreducibility. The map Ο•:B/Ξ©β†’Zg\phi:B/\Omega\to Z_{g} is weakly proper, B/Ξ©B/\Omega is normal, and the fibers of Ο•\phi are irreducible. So by Lemma 19 we have that ZgZ_{g} is locally irreducible. ∎

4. The case g=3g=3

4.1. Preliminary lemmas

Lemma 21 (Existence of a K3 surface in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} with given hyperplane sections).

Let CC be a degree 44 irreducible, reduced plane curve in a hyperplane HH of ℙ3\mathbb{P}^{3}, and let C′C^{\prime} be a degree 44 irreducible, reduced plane curve in a hyperplane H′H^{\prime} of ℙ3\mathbb{P}^{3} with H≠H′H\neq H^{\prime}. Assume that

1. Cβ€²βˆ©H=C∩Hβ€²C^{\prime}\cap H=C\cap H^{\prime} as subschemes of H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime},

2. Sing ​C∩Sing ​Cβ€²=Ø\textup{Sing }C\cap\textup{Sing }C^{\prime}=\O. (For any variety XX, Sing ​X\textup{Sing }X is the set of singular points of XX)

Then there exists a smooth quartic surface SβŠ‚β„™3S\subset\mathbb{P}^{3} such that S∩H=CS\cap H=C and S∩Hβ€²=Cβ€²S\cap H^{\prime}=C^{\prime}.

Proof.

Let [x:y:z:t][x:y:z:t] denote the coordinates of β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}. Without loss of generality, we may asssume HH to be the hyperplane {x=0}\{x=0\}, Hβ€²H^{\prime} to be the hyperplane {t=0}\{t=0\}. Let the degree 44 integral curve CC in HH be given by the equation g​(y,z,t)=0g(y,z,t)=0, and Cβ€²C^{\prime} in Hβ€²H^{\prime} be given by the equation h​(x,y,z)=0h(x,y,z)=0. The condition Cβ€²βˆ©H=C∩Hβ€²C^{\prime}\cap H=C\cap H^{\prime} as subschemes of H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime} gives that g​(y,z,0)=λ​h​(0,y,z)g(y,z,0)=\lambda h(0,y,z) for some constant Ξ»\lambda.

Thus, we want to consider homogeneous polynomials f​(x,y,z,t)f(x,y,z,t) of degree 44 such that f​(x,y,z,0)=Ξ»1​gf(x,y,z,0)=\lambda_{1}g and f​(0,y,z,t)=Ξ»2​hf(0,y,z,t)=\lambda_{2}h for some constants Ξ»1,Ξ»2\lambda_{1},\lambda_{2}, and ff is smooth. This is a linear system with base locus CβˆͺCβ€²C\cup C^{\prime}, so using Bertini theorem, we get that for a general ff, the only singularities may occur on CβˆͺCβ€²C\cup C^{\prime}.

Let PP be a singular point, and let P∈CP\in C, i.e. x​(P)=0x(P)=0. Then fx​(P)=fy​(P)=fz​(P)=ft​(P)=0f_{x}(P)=f_{y}(P)=f_{z}(P)=f_{t}(P)=0, where fxf_{x} is the partial derivative of ff wrt xx, and similar for y,z,ty,z,t. On the other hand, x​(P)=0x(P)=0 means that fy​(P)=Ξ»1​gy​(P),fz​(P)=Ξ»1​gy​(P),ft​(P)=Ξ»1​gt​(P)f_{y}(P)=\lambda_{1}g_{y}(P),f_{z}(P)=\lambda_{1}g_{y}(P),f_{t}(P)=\lambda_{1}g_{t}(P), thus PP is a singular point of CC. Similarly, if P∈Cβ€²P\in C^{\prime}, then PP must be a singular point of Cβ€²C^{\prime}.

Let f=Ξ»1​g+x​f1​(y,z,t)+f=\lambda_{1}g+xf_{1}(y,z,t)+ higher terms in xx, where f1​(y,z,t)f_{1}(y,z,t) is a degree 33 homogeneous polynomial in y,z,ty,z,t. If P∈CP\in C, ft​(P)=f1​(P)f_{t}(P)=f_{1}(P). Note that the condition on f1​(y,z,t)f_{1}(y,z,t) is that f1​(y,z,0)f_{1}(y,z,0) is fixed up to a constant. Let f1​(y,z,t)=aβ‹…t3+f_{1}(y,z,t)=a\cdot t^{3}+ lower degree terms in tt. Thus, we may choose aa so that f1​(P)f_{1}(P) is non-zero for the singular points of CC not lying on Cβ€²C^{\prime}. Thus, ft​(P)f_{t}(P) is non-zero at these points for this choice of aa. Similarly, we may choose the coefficient bb of x3​tx^{3}t so that fx​(P)f_{x}(P) is non-zero for the singular point of Cβ€²C^{\prime} not lying on CC. Thus, we may choose ff so that the points of CC not lying on Cβ€²C^{\prime} and the points of Cβ€²C^{\prime} not lying on CC are non-singular points of ff.

Let PP be in the intersection of CC and Cβ€²C^{\prime}. Then PP is a singular point of ff only if PP is a singular point of both CC and Cβ€²C^{\prime}, which is an empty set.

Thus, we get an ff which is smooth at every point, and hence defines a smooth quartic surface satisfying the required properties. ∎

Lemma 22.

Let CC be a non-degenerate degree 44 integral curve in a hyperplane HH of β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}. Then there exists a smooth quartic surface SβŠ‚β„™3S\subset\mathbb{P}^{3} such that S∩H=CS\cap H=C. The general such SS will satisfy S∩Hβ€²β€²S\cap H^{\prime\prime} is integral for all hyperplanes Hβ€²β€²βŠ‚β„™3H^{\prime\prime}\subset\mathbb{P}^{3}.

Proof.

The first part follows from Lemma 21 because there exists a hyperplane Hβ€²H^{\prime} which intersects CC transversally, and we can find a smooth degree 44 curve in Hβ€²H^{\prime} passing through any 4 points on a line.

Let the coordinates of β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} be [x:y:z:w][x:y:z:w], HH be the hyperplane {w=0}\{w=0\}, and CC in HH be given by the quartic equation {f0​(x,y,z)=0}\{f_{0}(x,y,z)=0\}. Note that CC is integral and non-degenerate, so C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} will be a length 44 scheme for any hyperplane Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}.

Let f​(x,y,z,w)=f0​(x,y,z)+w​f1​(x,y,z,w)f(x,y,z,w)=f_{0}(x,y,z)+wf_{1}(x,y,z,w) be the general quartic equation satisfying f​(x,y,z,0)=f0​(x,y,z)f(x,y,z,0)=f_{0}(x,y,z). We say that ff extends f0f_{0}. The space of such ff is isomorphic to 𝔸20\mathbb{A}^{20}. Let S=V​(f)βŠ‚β„™3S=V(f)\subset\mathbb{P}^{3}.

  • β€’

    Suppose SS contains the line L={y=z=0}L=\{y=z=0\}. Let Hβ€²H^{\prime} be the hyperplane {z=0}\{z=0\}. We assume that L∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²L\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}. Then setting y=z=0y=z=0, one gets f1​(x,0,0,w)=0f_{1}(x,0,0,w)=0. Therefore, the coefficients of x3,x2​w,x​w2,w3x^{3},x^{2}w,xw^{2},w^{3} in f1​(x,y,z,w)f_{1}(x,y,z,w) are 0. So, we get that the subvariety DLD_{L} of 𝔸20\mathbb{A}^{20} parametrizing ff so that SS contains LL is isomorphic to 𝔸16\mathbb{A}^{16}.

    Now, let the space of lines in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} be β„’=𝔾​(1,3)=Gr​(2,4)\mathscr{L}=\mathbb{G}(1,3)=\mathrm{Gr}(2,4). Consider the subspace 𝒲1\mathscr{W}_{1} of 𝔸15Γ—β„’Γ—(β„™3)∨\mathbb{A}^{15}\times\mathscr{L}\times(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee} such that

    𝒲1={(f,L,Hβ€²)|f​ extends ​f0,LβŠ‚S∩Hβ€²}.\mathscr{W}_{1}=\{(f,L,H^{\prime})|f\text{ extends }f_{0},\ L\subset S\cap H^{\prime}\}.

    Firstly, observe that (f,L,Hβ€²)βˆˆπ’²1(f,L,H^{\prime})\in\mathscr{W}_{1} implies that Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H, so we assume Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H in what follows. Note that LβŠ‚S∩Hβ€²L\subset S\cap H^{\prime} implies that L∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²L\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}, so the projection map Ο€23:𝒲1β†’β„’Γ—(β„™3)∨\pi_{23}:\mathscr{W}_{1}\to\mathscr{L}\times(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee} factors through the space (L,Hβ€²)(L,H^{\prime}) so that LβŠ‚Hβ€²L\subset H^{\prime} and LL contains a point of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime}. Now, the space of lines in a fixed Hβ€²H^{\prime} which contains a point of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is of dimension 1, and the hyperplanes themselves vary in a space of dimension 3, so the space (L,Hβ€²)(L,H^{\prime}) so that LβŠ‚Hβ€²L\subset H^{\prime} and LL contains a point of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} has dimension 44. Also, the fibre of the projection map Ο€34\pi_{34} over (L,Hβ€²)(L,H^{\prime}) will be isomorphic to the variety DLD_{L} which has dimension 1111 as computed above. Thus, the dimension of 𝒲1\mathscr{W}_{1} is at most 16+4=2016+4=20. The space of hyperplanes Hβ€²H^{\prime} containing a fixed line LL is of dimension 1, so the dimension of image of the projection map Ο€1:𝒲1→𝔸20\pi_{1}:\mathscr{W}_{1}\to\mathbb{A}^{20} is of dimension at most 1919.

  • β€’

    Let Hβ€²H^{\prime} be the hyperplane {z=0}\{z=0\}. Suppose SS contains the conic TT in Hβ€²H^{\prime} given by {z=0,t​(x,y,w)=0}\{z=0,t(x,y,w)=0\}, where tt is a degree 22 homogeneous polynomial. We assume that T∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²T\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}. Then setting z=0z=0, we get that f​(x,y,0,w)=λ​(x,y,w)​tf(x,y,0,w)=\lambda(x,y,w)t for some quadratic polynomial Ξ»\lambda, where λ​(x,y,0)\lambda(x,y,0) is a fixed polynomial determined by f0f_{0}. So, we get that the subvariety ETE_{T} of 𝔸20\mathbb{A}^{20} parametrizing ff so that SS contains TT is isomorphic to 𝔸15\mathbb{A}^{15}.

    Now, let the space of integral degree 2 curves in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} be 𝒯\mathscr{T}. Consider the subspace 𝒲2\mathscr{W}_{2} of 𝔸20×𝒯×(β„™3)∨\mathbb{A}^{20}\times\mathscr{T}\times(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee} such that

    𝒲2={(f,T,Hβ€²)|f​ extends ​f0,TβŠ‚S∩Hβ€²}.\mathscr{W}_{2}=\{(f,T,H^{\prime})|f\text{ extends }f_{0},\ T\subset S\cap H^{\prime}\}.

    Firstly, observe that (f,T,Hβ€²)βˆˆπ’²2(f,T,H^{\prime})\in\mathscr{W}_{2} implies that Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H, so we assume Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H in what follows. Note that TβŠ‚S∩Hβ€²T\subset S\cap H^{\prime} implies that T∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²T\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}, so the projection map Ο€23:𝒲2→𝒯×(β„™3)∨\pi_{23}:\mathscr{W}_{2}\to\mathscr{T}\times(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee} factors through the space of (T,Hβ€²)(T,H^{\prime}) so that TβŠ‚Hβ€²T\subset H^{\prime} and T∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²T\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}. Note C∩Hβ€²βŠ‚H∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime}\subset H\cap H^{\prime} is curvilinear, so there are only finitely many length 22 subschemes of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime}, each lying on the line β„“=H∩Hβ€²\ell=H\cap H^{\prime}. Thus, if we fix T∩Hβ€²T\cap H^{\prime} we also fix β„“=Hβ€²βˆ©H\ell=H^{\prime}\cap H. The space of planes Hβ€²H^{\prime} containing β„“\ell is of dimension 1, and the space of conics TT in Hβ€²H^{\prime} so that Tβˆ©β„“T\cap\ell is fixed is of dimension 3. Thus, the space (T,Hβ€²)(T,H^{\prime}) so that TβŠ‚Hβ€²T\subset H^{\prime} and T∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²T\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime} has dimension 44. So, the image of Ο€34\pi_{34} is of dimension at most 44 and the fibre of Ο€23\pi_{23} over (T,Hβ€²)(T,H^{\prime}) is isomorphic to ETE_{T} which is 1515 dimensional, thus 𝒲2\mathscr{W}_{2} is of dimension at most 15+4=1915+4=19. So the dimension of image of the projection map Ο€1:𝒲2→𝔸20\pi_{1}:\mathscr{W}_{2}\to\mathbb{A}^{20} is of dimension at most 1919.

Now, note that for any hyperplane Hβ€²H^{\prime}, S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} is a degree 44 curve in Hβ€²H^{\prime}, so if it is reducible then it must contain either a degree 11 curve in Hβ€²H^{\prime}, which is a line or a degree 22 curve in Hβ€²H^{\prime}. Hence, the surfaces SS for which S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} is reducible must correspond to ff which are in the image of 𝒲1\mathscr{W}_{1} or in the image of 𝒲2\mathscr{W}_{2}. Since both of these are not dominant, so we get that the general ff which extends f0f_{0} must satisfy that S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} is integral for all Hβ€²H^{\prime}. ∎

Lemma 23.

Let HH be a hyperplane in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}, and let CβŠ‚HC\subset H be a canonically embedded integral curve of genus 33. Suppose that either CC represents a general point of Z3Z_{3} or a general point of Z2,1Z_{2,1}. Then there exists a smooth quartic K3 surface SβŠ‚β„™3S\subset\mathbb{P}^{3} such that S∩H=CS\cap H=C. The general such SS will satisfy that

  1. (1)

    for all hyperplanes Hβ€²βŠ‚β„™3H^{\prime}\subset\mathbb{P}^{3}, Cβ€²=S∩Hβ€²C^{\prime}=S\cap H^{\prime} is integral.

  2. (2)

    If Cβ€²=S∩Hβ€²C^{\prime}=S\cap H^{\prime} is rational integral and has a cuspidal singularity for a hyperplane Hβ€²βŠ‚β„™3H^{\prime}\subset\mathbb{P}^{3} different from HH, then Cβ€²C^{\prime} has exactly one simple cusp and 2 simple nodes as singularities.

Proof.

By Lemma 22, we already know the existence, and the part (1)(1) i.e. for all hyperplanes Hβ€²βŠ‚β„™3H^{\prime}\subset\mathbb{P}^{3}, Cβ€²=S∩Hβ€²C^{\prime}=S\cap H^{\prime} is integral. So from now on we will only consider integral curves.

For part (2)(2), we claim that for any hyperplane Hβ€²H^{\prime} of β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}, inside the space ZHβ€²Z_{H^{\prime}} of canonically embedded rational integral curves of genus 33 in Hβ€²H^{\prime}, we have that the subspace ZHβ€²β€²Z^{\prime}_{H^{\prime}} of curves having either (a) a higher order cusp at some point, or (b) a cusp at some point and a non-simple nodal singularity at some other point, has codimension β‰₯2\geq 2.

To see this, let UU be the subspace of Hom​(β„™1,Hβ€²)\textup{Hom}(\mathbb{P}^{1},H^{\prime}) consisting of maps g:β„™1β†’Hβ€²g:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to H^{\prime} so that gβˆ—β€‹π’ͺH′​(1)=π’ͺβ„™1​(4)g^{*}\mathcal{O}_{H^{\prime}}(1)=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}(4) and g​(β„™1)g(\mathbb{P}^{1}) is canonically embedded in Hβ€²H^{\prime}. Consider the map Ξ²:Uβ†’ZHβ€²\beta:U\to Z_{H^{\prime}} which sends a map to its image. This is a dominant map with the fibre over a curve CC being given by Aut(β„™1)Γ—(\mathbb{P}^{1})\timesAut(C)(C) which is 3-dimensional. Now, we consider the space VV of tuples (g,P,x)(g,P,x) consisting of maps g:β„™1β†’β„™2g:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to\mathbb{P}^{2} so that the image of gg is in π’ͺ​(4)\mathcal{O}(4) and points Pβˆˆβ„™1P\in\mathbb{P}^{1} and x∈Xx\in X so that g​(P)=xg(P)=x. Then VV is an etale-local fibre bundle over β„™1Γ—β„™2\mathbb{P}^{1}\times\mathbb{P}^{2}. If gg maps [a:b]↦[p(a,b):q(a,b):r(a,b)][a:b]\mapsto[p(a,b):q(a,b):r(a,b)] where p,q,rp,q,r are degree 44 homogeneous polynomials with no common zero, then the condition for g([0:1])=[0:1:0]g([0:1])=[0:1:0] is that p0=r0=0p_{0}=r_{0}=0, where p​(a,b)=p0​b4+p1​a​b3+p2​a2​b2+p3​a3​b+p4​a4p(a,b)=p_{0}b^{4}+p_{1}ab^{3}+p_{2}a^{2}b^{2}+p_{3}a^{3}b+p_{4}a^{4} and similar for q,rq,r. Now, the condition for gg to be not an immersion at [0:1][0:1] is that p1=r1=0p_{1}=r_{1}=0. Thus, we get that codimension 2 irreducible subspace of the fibre over ([0:1],[0:1:0])([0:1],[0:1:0]) corresponding to non-immersions at PP. So, we get a codimension 2 irreducible subspace of VV itself corresponding to (g,P,x)(g,P,x) with gg not being an immersion at PP. Now, the first projection from Vβ†’UV\to U has one-dimensional fibres, so we must have the image as a codimension 1 irreducible subspace of UU. Now, to prove that the general point has a simple cusp and simple nodes at other points, we can work inside the subspace where p0=p1=r0=r1=0p_{0}=p_{1}=r_{0}=r_{1}=0, and prove that for general p,q,rp,q,r satisfying this condition, that the image is a curve with one simple cusp and other singularities as nodal. We have that in a neighbourhood of [0:1:0][0:1:0], the map gg is

t↦(p​(t,1)q​(t,1),r​(t,1)q​(t,1))=(t2​(a+b​t+b′​t2)q​(t,1),t2​(c+d​t+d′​t2)q​(t,1))t\mapsto\left(\frac{p(t,1)}{q(t,1)},\frac{r(t,1)}{q(t,1)}\right)=\left(\frac{t^{2}(a+bt+b^{\prime}t^{2})}{q(t,1)},\frac{t^{2}(c+dt+d^{\prime}t^{2})}{q(t,1)}\right)

Now, q​(t,1)q(t,1) do not vanish at 0, so we can choose an inverse for it at the completion level, so that the map at the completion becomes

t↦(a0​t2+a1​t3+β‹―,b0​t2+b1​t3+β‹―)t\mapsto(a_{0}t^{2}+a_{1}t^{3}+\cdots,b_{0}t^{2}+b_{1}t^{3}+\cdots)

where

a0=aq0,b0=cq0,a1=b​q0βˆ’a​q1q02,b1=d​q0βˆ’c​q1q02.a_{0}=\frac{a}{q_{0}},\ b_{0}=\frac{c}{q_{0}},\ a_{1}=\frac{bq_{0}-aq_{1}}{q_{0}^{2}},\ b_{1}=\frac{dq_{0}-cq_{1}}{q_{0}^{2}}.

Thus, for general a,b,c,d,q0,q1a,b,c,d,q_{0},q_{1}, we will have that a0​b1β‰ a1​b0a_{0}b_{1}\neq a_{1}b_{0}. Hence, we may choose local coordinates so that the map becomes t↦(t2,t3)t\mapsto(t^{2},t^{3}). This gives us a simple cusp.

To prove that a general gg which is not an immersion at [0:1][0:1] is an immersion at every other point, by a similar argument as before, it is enough to show that in the space of maps gg such that g([0:1])=[0:1:0]g([0:1])=[0:1:0] and g([1:0])=[1:0:0]g([1:0])=[1:0:0] with gg not being an immersion at [0:1][0:1], the subspace of gg not being an immersion at [1:0][1:0] has codimension 2. But this is simple to verify: the given conditions are that p0=p1=r0=r1=0p_{0}=p_{1}=r_{0}=r_{1}=0 and q4=r4=0q_{4}=r_{4}=0, and the condition for gg to not be an immersion at [1:0][1:0] is that q3=s3=0q_{3}=s_{3}=0 so we clearly get a codimension 2 subspace.

Finally, we want to prove that g​(C)g(C) only has simple nodes at other singular points. Using a similar argument as before, one may assume that gg is general so that g([0:1])=[0:1:0]g([0:1])=[0:1:0] with gg not being an immersion at [0:1][0:1] and also g([1:0])=[1:0:0]g([1:0])=[1:0:0] and g([1:1])=[1:0:0]g([1:1])=[1:0:0] and proceed to prove that the image has a simple node at [1:0:0][1:0:0]. A similar calculation as before gives that the map gg in a neighbourhood of [1:0:0][1:0:0] is

t↦(t​(tβˆ’1)​(a+b​t+b′​t2)p​(1,t),t​(tβˆ’1)p​(1,t))t\mapsto\left(\frac{t(t-1)(a+bt+b^{\prime}t^{2})}{p(1,t)},\frac{t(t-1)}{p(1,t)}\right)

This gives us a simple node if a,b,bβ€²a,b,b^{\prime} and the coefficients of pp are general.

Now, let YHβ€²Y_{H^{\prime}} be the subspace of WW so that S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} is rational. Then YHβ€²Y_{H^{\prime}} has codimension 44 in WW. Now, we have a map ψHβ€²:YHβ€²β†’ZHβ€²\psi_{H^{\prime}}:Y_{H^{\prime}}\to Z_{H^{\prime}} which sends S↦S∩Hβ€²S\mapsto S\cap H^{\prime}. This map is smooth. Therefore, the inverse image of ZHβ€²β€²Z^{\prime}_{H^{\prime}} under ψ\psi has codimension 2 inside YHβ€²Y_{H^{\prime}}, and hence it has codimension 66 inside WW. Therefore, this subspace intersects YHY_{H} in subspace of codimension at least 22, and hence it cannot map under ψH\psi_{H} onto any codimension 1 subspace of ZHZ_{H}. Since the curve CC that we consider either corresponds to a general point of ZHZ_{H} or a general point of a codimension 1 subspace of ZHZ_{H}, so we have the result.

∎

4.1.1. Rational Curves containing a prescribed finite subscheme

Lemma 24.

Following the notation of Lemma 11, let C=β„™1C=\mathbb{P}^{1}, and Tϕ​(F)T_{\phi}(F) denote the tangent space of F=F​(C,X,Y1,β‹―,Ym)F=F(C,X,Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{m}) at the point (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)∈F​(k)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\in F(k).

If X=β„™2X=\mathbb{P}^{2}, DiD_{i} is of length nin_{i}, βˆ‘ni=4\sum n_{i}=4 and Ο•:β„™1β†’β„™2\phi:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to\mathbb{P}^{2} is a degree 4 map (i.e. Ο•βˆ—β€‹π’ͺ​(1)=π’ͺ​(4)\phi^{*}\mathcal{O}(1)=\mathcal{O}(4)) which is an immersion, then dimTϕ​(F)=10\dim T_{\phi}(F)=10.

Proof.

Using Lemma 11, the tangent space of FF is given by Ξ³βˆ’1​(H0​(C,ℐD​NΟ•))\gamma^{-1}(H^{0}(C,\mathcal{I}_{D}N_{\phi})), where NΟ•N_{\phi} is the normal bundle corresponding to Ο•\phi, Ξ³\gamma is the map H0​(C,Ο•βˆ—β€‹TX)β†’H0​(C,NΟ•)H^{0}(C,\phi^{*}T_{X})\rightarrow H^{0}(C,N_{\phi}), and ℐD=ℐD1​⋯​ℐDm=π’ͺ​(βˆ’4)\mathcal{I}_{D}=\mathscr{I}_{D_{1}}\cdots\mathscr{I}_{D_{m}}=\mathcal{O}(-4) (since βˆ‘ni=4\sum n_{i}=4).

So we need to calculate the dimension of this space for maps Ο•:β„™1β†’X\phi:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to X.

We know that X=β„™2X=\mathbb{P}^{2}, Ο•:β„™1β†’β„™2\phi:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to\mathbb{P}^{2} is a degree 4 map. We have,

0β†’Tβ„™1β†’Ο•βˆ—β€‹TXβ†’NΟ•β†’00\to T_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\to\phi^{*}T_{X}\to N_{\phi}\to 0

Now detTX=(Ο‰X)∨=π’ͺ​(3)\det T_{X}=(\omega_{X})^{\vee}=\mathcal{O}(3) implies that detΟ•βˆ—β€‹TX=π’ͺ​(12)\det\phi^{*}T_{X}=\mathcal{O}(12), since Ο•\phi is a degree 4 map. Thus, taking determinants, we get that NΟ•=π’ͺ​(10)N_{\phi}=\mathcal{O}(10) and ℐD​NΟ•=π’ͺ​(6)\mathcal{I}_{D}N_{\phi}=\mathcal{O}(6). So H0​(ℐD​NΟ•)H^{0}(\mathcal{I}_{D}N_{\phi}) is a codimension-44 space inside the 1111 dimensional space H0​(NΟ•)H^{0}(N_{\phi}).

Now, H1​(β„™1,Tβ„™1)=0H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},T_{\mathbb{P}^{1}})=0, so taking the long exact sequence on cohomology we get

0β†’H0​(β„™1,Tβ„™1)β†’H0​(β„™1,Ο•βˆ—β€‹TX)β†’H0​(β„™1,NΟ•)β†’00\to H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},T_{\mathbb{P}^{1}})\to H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\phi^{*}T_{X})\to H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},N_{\phi})\to 0

Now, H0​(β„™1,ℐD​NΟ•)H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{I}_{D}N_{\phi}) has codimension-44 in H0​(β„™1,NΟ•)H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},N_{\phi}), so, the dimension of the required tangent space is 11+3βˆ’4=1011+3-4=\boxed{10}. ∎

Lemma 25.

Let CC be the unique (up to isomorphism) rational curve of genus 11 with 1 simple cusp. Let Y1,β‹―,YmY_{1},\cdots,Y_{m} be finite length curvilinear subschemes of β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}, with their lengths totalling 44.

Consider the functor F=F​(C,β„™2,Y1,β‹―,Ym)F=F(C,\mathbb{P}^{2},Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{m}), and let (g,D1,β‹―,Dm)∈F​(k)(g,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\in F(k) be a point. Suppose that g:Cβ†’β„™2g:C\to\mathbb{P}^{2} is an immersion, and the image g​(C)g(C) is a degree 44 curve in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}. Also we assume that gg is an embedding at the cusp of CC, that g​(C)g(C) only has 2 simple nodes and 1 simple cusp and that at most one of the DiD_{i} are supported at the cusp of CC. Then if (dimF)g(\dim F)_{g} denotes the dimension of FF at the point (g,D1,β‹―,Dm)(g,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}), then we have

  • β€’

    (dimF)g≀8(\dim F)_{g}\leq 8 if none of the DiD_{i} are not supported at the cusp,

  • β€’

    (dimF)g≀9(\dim F)_{g}\leq 9 if length Di≀2D_{i}\leq 2 if DiD_{i} is supported at the cusp,

  • β€’

    (dimF)g≀10(\dim F)_{g}\leq 10 otherwise.

Proof.

We have the following exact sequence on the tangent spaces:

0β†’TCβ†’gβˆ—β€‹Tβ„™2β†’Ο•Ng0\to T_{C}\to g^{*}T_{\mathbb{P}^{2}}\xrightarrow{\phi}N_{g}

where NgN_{g} is the dual of ℐC/ℐC2\mathscr{I}_{C}/\mathscr{I}_{C}^{2} in a neighbourhood of the cusp and is the usual normal bundle elsewhere. Then this gives us a map on global sections:

0β†’H0​(C,TC)β†’H0​(C,gβˆ—β€‹Tβ„™2)β†’H0​(Ο•)H0​(C,Ng)0\to H^{0}(C,T_{C})\to H^{0}(C,g^{*}T_{\mathbb{P}^{2}})\xrightarrow{H^{0}(\phi)}H^{0}(C,N_{g})

We want the inverse image of H0​(C,ℐD​Ng)H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}) under H0​(Ο•)H^{0}(\phi) where ℐD=ℐD1​⋯​ℐDm\mathscr{I}_{D}=\mathscr{I}_{D_{1}}\cdots\mathscr{I}_{D_{m}}.

We first prove that the degree of NgN_{g} is 12. There is a canonical map from NgN_{g} to the pullback of the normal bundle of g​(C)g(C) in XX which is an isomorphism outside the 44 points lying above the 22 nodes. The latter has degree 4Γ—4=164\times 4=16 so deg⁑Ng=12\deg N_{g}=12 will follow by showing that the cokernel of the map referred to above is a finite length sheaf supported at these 44 points and computing the length. To compute this, all we need to do is work out what all these sheaves and maps are locally i.e. when g​(C)g(C) is the curve x​y=0xy=0 in the plane and CC is its normalisation (so a union of two lines). Now, let A=k⟦x,y⟧,I=(xy),B1=k⟦u⟧,B2=k⟦v⟧,B=B1βŠ•B2A=k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket,I=(xy),B_{1}=k\llbracket u\rrbracket,B_{2}=k\llbracket v\rrbracket,B=B_{1}\oplus B_{2} and we have the map

A\displaystyle A →𝑔B\displaystyle\xrightarrow{\ g\ }B
x\displaystyle x ↦u\displaystyle\mapsto u
y\displaystyle y ↦v\displaystyle\mapsto v

Now, if TRT_{R} denotes the dual of Ξ©R1\Omega^{1}_{R} of any ring RR, then TB=TB1βŠ•TB2β‰…B1βŠ•B2T_{B}=T_{B_{1}}\oplus T_{B_{2}}\cong B_{1}\oplus B_{2}, TAβ‰…AβŠ•AT_{A}\cong A\oplus A with the maps

TB=B1βŠ•B2\displaystyle T_{B}=B_{1}\oplus B_{2} β†’d/d​gBβŠ•B=TAβŠ—B\displaystyle\xrightarrow{\ d/dg\ }B\oplus B=T_{A}\otimes B
(1,0)\displaystyle(1,0) ↦((1,0),(0,0))\displaystyle\mapsto((1,0),(0,0))
(0,1)\displaystyle(0,1) ↦((0,0),(0,1))\displaystyle\mapsto((0,0),(0,1))

So the cokernel NgN_{g} of d/d​gd/dg is isomorphic to BB and TAβŠ—Bβ†’NgT_{A}\otimes B\to N_{g} is given by ((a,b),(c,d))↦(c,b)((a,b),(c,d))\mapsto(c,b). Now, the map from TAT_{A} to N=Hom​(I/I2,A)β‰…AN=\textup{Hom}(I/I^{2},A)\cong A is given by

TA=AβŠ•A\displaystyle T_{A}=A\oplus A β†’πœ“A=Hom​(I/I2,A)\displaystyle\xrightarrow{\ \psi\ }A=\textup{Hom}(I/I^{2},A)
(1,0)\displaystyle(1,0) ↦y\displaystyle\mapsto y
(0,1)\displaystyle(0,1) ↦x\displaystyle\mapsto x

Thus, the canonical map Ngβ‰…Bβ†’Bβ‰…NβŠ—BN_{g}\cong B\to B\cong N\otimes B will be given by (1,0)↦(u,0)(1,0)\mapsto(u,0) and (0,1)↦(0,v)(0,1)\mapsto(0,v), which means that the cokernel of this map has length 22 as desired with length 11 supported at each of the two lines.

So, now we have that NgN_{g} has degree =16βˆ’2Γ—2=12=16-2\times 2=12. This implies that ℐD​Ng\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g} has degree 88. Thus,

h0​(C,Ng)=12,h0​(C,ℐD​Ng)=8h^{0}(C,N_{g})=12,h^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g})=8

Let QgQ_{g} be the image of gβˆ—β€‹TXg^{*}T_{X} in NgN_{g} under Ο•\phi. Then, since 111This may be seen using a computer software, see https://faculty.math.illinois.edu/Macaulay2/doc/Macaulay2-1.16/share/doc/Macaulay2/Macaulay2Doc/html/_tangent__Sheaf_lp__Projective__Variety_rp.html where they have done precisely this calculation.

h0​(C,TC)=2,h1​(C,TC)=0h^{0}(C,T_{C})=2,h^{1}(C,T_{C})=0

so we have

0β†’H0​(C,TC)β†’H0​(C,gβˆ—β€‹TX)β†’H0​(C,Qg)β†’00\to H^{0}(C,T_{C})\to H^{0}(C,g^{*}T_{X})\to H^{0}(C,Q_{g})\to 0

Therefore, we want to know the dimension of H0​(C,ℐD​Ng∩Qg)H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g}).

Now, Qg=NgQ_{g}=N_{g} away from the cusp, since Ο•\phi is an immersion away from the cusp and CC is smooth away from the cusp. Now, in a neighbourhood of the cusp, we have

ℐC/ℐC2\displaystyle\mathscr{I}_{C}/\mathscr{I}_{C}^{2} →𝑑ΩX|C\displaystyle\xrightarrow{d}\Omega_{X}|_{C}
y2βˆ’x3\displaystyle y^{2}-x^{3} ↦d​(y2βˆ’x3)=2​y​d​yβˆ’3​x2​d​x\displaystyle\mapsto d(y^{2}-x^{3})=2ydy-3x^{2}dx

So, locally around the cusp, we have QgQ_{g} is (3​x2,2​y)β‹…Ng=(x2,y)β‹…Ng(3x^{2},2y)\cdot N_{g}=(x^{2},y)\cdot N_{g}. Thus, Ng/QgN_{g}/Q_{g} will be length 2 supported at the cusp. Let β„’\mathcal{L} be the line bundle which is the subsheaf of NgN_{g} defined as (y)β‹…Ng(y)\cdot N_{g} around the cusp and identical to NgN_{g} away from the cusp. Then we have β„’βŠ‚QgβŠ‚Ng\mathcal{L}\subset Q_{g}\subset N_{g}, and we also have Ng/β„’N_{g}/\mathcal{L} to be of length 3. Therefore, β„’\mathcal{L} is a degree 9 line bundle, implying h1​(C,β„’)=0h^{1}(C,\mathcal{L})=0, and therefore

0β†’H0​(C,β„’)β†’H0​(C,Ng)β†’H0​(C,Ng/β„’)β†’00\to H^{0}(C,\mathcal{L})\to H^{0}(C,N_{g})\to H^{0}(C,N_{g}/\mathcal{L})\to 0

is exact. In particular, we have that H0​(C,Ng)β†’H0​(C,Ng/β„’)H^{0}(C,N_{g})\to H^{0}(C,N_{g}/\mathcal{L}) is surjective, and combining this with the fact that H0​(C,Ng/β„’)β†’H0​(C,Ng/Qg)H^{0}(C,N_{g}/\mathcal{L})\to H^{0}(C,N_{g}/Q_{g}) is surjective, we get that

0β†’H0​(C,Qg)β†’H0​(C,Ng)β†’H0​(C,Ng/Qg)β†’00\to H^{0}(C,Q_{g})\to H^{0}(C,N_{g})\to H^{0}(C,N_{g}/Q_{g})\to 0

is exact. Thus, h0​(C,Qg)=10h^{0}(C,Q_{g})=10.

Now, ℐDβ€‹β„’βŠ‚β„D​Ng∩Qg\mathscr{I}_{D}\mathcal{L}\subset\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g}, and ℐD​ℒ\mathscr{I}_{D}\mathcal{L} is a degree 33 line bundle so h1​(C,ℐD​ℒ)=0h^{1}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}\mathcal{L})=0, so a similar argument as before implies that

0β†’H0​(C,ℐD​Ng∩Qg)β†’H0​(C,ℐD​Ng)β†’H0​(C,ℐD​Ng/ℐD​Ng∩Qg)β†’00\to H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g})\to H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g})\to H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}/\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g})\to 0

If DD is not supported at the cusp, then h0​(C,ℐD​Ng∩Qg)=h0​(C,ℐD​Ng)βˆ’2=6h^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g})=h^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g})-2=6 and we will have the dimension of the tangent space as 6+2=86+2=8.

If DD is supported at the cusp, then locally we have that DD is given by f∈R=k​[[x,y]]/(y2βˆ’x3)f\in R=k[[x,y]]/(y^{2}-x^{3}). We claim that if f∈(x2,y)f\in(x^{2},y) then R/(f)R/(f) has length β‰₯3\geq 3. This follows because if R/(f)R/(f) has length 22 then f∈mβˆ–m2f\in m\setminus m^{2} where m=(x,y)m=(x,y) so ff has linear term yy since ff is also in (x2,y)(x^{2},y). But R/(f)R/(f) has length β‰₯3\geq 3 for any ff which has linear term yy.

So, if ℐD​Ng∩Qg=ℐD​Ng\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g}=\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g} then DD has length 33 at the cusp. In this case, the dimension of the tangent space is 8+2=108+2=10.

Finally, if fβˆ‰(x2,y)f\not\in(x^{2},y) then h0​(C,ℐD​Ng∩Qg)=7h^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g})=7 and we get the dimension of the tangent space is 7+2=97+2=9. ∎

Lemma 26.

For any fixed curvilinear finite scheme Yβˆˆβ„™2Y\in\mathbb{P}^{2}, let RYR_{Y} be the space of degree 44 rational integral curves Cβ€²C^{\prime} in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2} which contain YY. Let RY(1)R^{(1)}_{Y} be the subspace of RYR_{Y} corresponding to points representing curves which do not have a cusp, and let RY(2)R^{(2)}_{Y} be the points representing curves which have a cusp.

Suppose YY is a length 44 scheme supported on a line LL. Then we have:

  1. (1)

    dimRY(1)≀7\dim R^{(1)}_{Y}\leq 7.

  2. (2)

    For a curve Cβ€²C^{\prime} representing a point of RY(2)R^{(2)}_{Y} which has exactly 1 cusp and 2 nodes as singularities,

    1. (a)

      If YY is not supported at the cusp of Cβ€²C^{\prime}, then (dimRY(2))C′≀6(\dim R^{(2)}_{Y})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 6.

    2. (b)

      If every component of YY has length ≀2\leq 2, then (dimRY(2))C′≀7(\dim R^{(2)}_{Y})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 7.

    3. (c)

      (dimRY(2))C′≀7(\dim R^{(2)}_{Y})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 7 for any YY.

Proof.

Let Y1,β‹―,YmY_{1},\cdots,Y_{m} be the connected components of YY with deg⁑Yi=ni\deg Y_{i}=n_{i}. YiY_{i}’s are all curvilinear since they are subschemes of LL. Let Cβ€²C^{\prime} be a integral rational curve of degree 44 in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2} which contains YY.

If Cβ€²C^{\prime} does not have a cusp, let Ο•:β„™1β†’Cβ€²β†ͺβ„™2\phi:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to C^{\prime}\hookrightarrow\mathbb{P}^{2} be a normalization map of Cβ€²C^{\prime}. Then Ο•\phi is an immersion. Let DiD_{i} be length nin_{i} subschemes of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} mapping to YiY_{i}. Thus, (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}) is a point of the space F1=F1​(β„™1,β„™2,Y1,β‹―,Ym)F_{1}=F_{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathbb{P}^{2},Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{m}). We bound the dimension of F1F_{1} at the point (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)∈F1​(k)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\in F_{1}(k) by looking at the tangent space of F1F_{1} at this point. By Lemma 24, we have this bound on the dimension as 1010. If F1β€²F^{\prime}_{1} is the component of FF where Ο•\phi is a degree 44 map, then we have a dominant map Ξ¨1:F1β€²β†’RY(1)\Psi_{1}:F^{\prime}_{1}\to R^{(1)}_{Y} defined as (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)↦ϕ​(β„™1)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\mapsto\phi(\mathbb{P}^{1}). The automorphism group of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} is 3-dimensional, and fixes ϕ​(β„™1)\phi(\mathbb{P}^{1}) so every fibre of Ξ¨1\Psi_{1} is at least 3-dimesional, and so we have a upper bound of 77 on the dimension of RY(1)R^{(1)}_{Y} at Cβ€²C^{\prime}.

Now, let Cβ€²C^{\prime} have one simple cusp and 2 simple nodes. Let π’ž\mathscr{C} be the unique (up to isomorphism) rational curve of genus 1 with 1 cusp, and let Ο•:π’žβ†’Cβ€²\phi:\mathscr{C}\to C^{\prime} be the blow up of Cβ€²C^{\prime} at the nodes. Let DiD_{i} be length nin_{i} subschemes of π’ž\mathscr{C} mapping to YiY_{i}. Thus, (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}) is a point of the space F2=F2​(π’ž,β„™2,Y1,β‹―,Ym)F_{2}=F_{2}(\mathscr{C},\mathbb{P}^{2},Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{m}). If F2β€²F^{\prime}_{2} is the component of F2F_{2} where Ο•\phi is a degree 44 map, then we have a dominant map Ξ¨2:F2β€²β†’RY(2)\Psi_{2}:F^{\prime}_{2}\to R^{(2)}_{Y} defined as (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)↦ϕ​(β„™1)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\mapsto\phi(\mathbb{P}^{1}). Now, by Lemma 25, the dimension of F2F_{2} at (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}) is bounded by 88 if DiD_{i} are not supported at the cusp, bounded by 99 if length Di≀2D_{i}\leq 2 if DiD_{i} is supported at the cusp and bounded by 1010 regardless. The automorphism group of π’ž\mathscr{C} is 2-dimensional, and fixes ϕ​(π’ž)\phi(\mathscr{C}) so every fibre of Ξ¨2\Psi_{2} is at least 2-dimensional, and so we have a upper bound of 6,7,6,7, or 88 on the dimension of RY(2)R^{(2)}_{Y} at Cβ€²C^{\prime} depending on the above conditions. ∎

Lemma 27.

Let LL be a line in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}.

  1. (1)

    If CβŠ‚β„™2C\subset\mathbb{P}^{2} is a curve corresponding to a general point of Z3Z_{3}, then C∩LC\cap L consists of 44 general points on LL.

  2. (2)

    If CβŠ‚β„™2C\subset\mathbb{P}^{2} is a curve corresponding to a general point of Z2,1Z_{2,1}, then C∩LC\cap L consists of 44 general points on LL.

Proof.

Observation: There exists a point of Z3Z_{3} (and Z2,1Z_{2,1}) so that the curve CC that it represents intersects LL in 44 distinct points. We note that if CC is any curve corresponding to a point of Z3Z_{3} (or Z2,1Z_{2,1}) then C∩Lβ€²C\cap L^{\prime} will be the union of 66 distinct points for a general hyperplane LL. Now, since all lines in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2} are projectively equivalent, this implies that there will be a ΟƒβˆˆAut​(β„™2)\sigma\in\textup{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{2}) so that σ​(C)∩L\sigma(C)\cap L is the union of 66 distinct points. On the other hand, note that σ​(C)\sigma(C) will continue to represent a point of Z3Z_{3} (or Z2,1Z_{2,1}, respectively).

  1. (1)

    We know that Z3Z_{3} is irreducible of dimension 1111.

    Now, consider the rational map Ξ±:Z3​\dashedrightarrow​Sym4​(L)\alpha:Z_{3}\dashedrightarrow\textup{Sym}^{4}(L) where C↦C∩LC\mapsto C\cap L. Take any Y={p1,β‹―,p4}Y=\{p_{1},\cdots,p_{4}\} corresponding to a point on Sym4​(L)\textup{Sym}^{4}(L), then the the fiber of Ξ±\alpha over YY is RYR_{Y}. Note that YY consists of 44 distinct points, therefore RYR_{Y} has dimension ≀7\leq 7 by Lemma 26. Therefore, Ξ±\alpha has to be dominant, since the image cannot be less than 11βˆ’7=411-7=4 dimensional.

  2. (2)

    We know that Z2,1Z_{2,1} is irreducible of dimension 1010.

    Now, consider the rational map Ξ±:Z2,1​\dashedrightarrow​Sym4​(L)\alpha:Z_{2,1}\dashedrightarrow\textup{Sym}^{4}(L) where C↦C∩LC\mapsto C\cap L. Take any Y={p1,β‹―,p4}Y=\{p_{1},\cdots,p_{4}\} corresponding to a point on Sym4​(L)\textup{Sym}^{4}(L), then the the fiber of Ξ±\alpha over YY is RY(2)R^{(2)}_{Y}. Note that YY consists of 44 distinct points, so it cannot be supported at the cusp of any curve in the inverse image of YY under Ξ±\alpha. Thus, RY(2)R^{(2)}_{Y} has dimension ≀6\leq 6 by Lemma 26. Therefore, Ξ±\alpha has to be dominant, since the image cannot be less than 10βˆ’6=410-6=4 dimensional.

∎

4.2. Proof of the main result

  • β€’

    Let WW be the space of quartic surfaces in ℙ3\mathbb{P}^{3}. So W≅ℙ34W\cong\mathbb{P}^{34}.

  • β€’

    Let J={(S,H)|S∩HJ=\{(S,H)\ |\ S\cap H is rational}βŠ†WΓ—(β„™g)∨\}\subseteq W\times(\mathbb{P}^{g})^{\vee}.

  • β€’

    Let Ο€:Jβ†’W,Ξ·:Jβ†’(β„™g)∨\pi:J\to W,\ \eta:J\to(\mathbb{P}^{g})^{\vee} be the projection maps.

Proposition 28.

The monodromy group Πg\Pi_{g} of π:J→W\pi:J\to W is transitive for g=3g=3.

Proof.

We know by Lemma 22, that the general element SS of WW has all its hyperplane sections as integral curves, so we may restrict attention to J0={(S,H)|S∩HJ_{0}=\{(S,H)\ |\ S\cap H is rational integral}\}. It suffices to show that J0J_{0} has only one irreducible component of maximum dimension. We restrict Ο€\pi and Ξ·\eta to J0J_{0} and call them Ο€0\pi_{0} and Ξ·0\eta_{0}.

Let the fiber of Ξ·0\eta_{0} above a fixed hyperplane HH be YH={S|S∩H​ is rational integral}Y_{H}=\{S\ |\ S\cap H\textup{ is rational integral}\}. Consider the map ψ:YHβ†’Z\psi:Y_{H}\to Z from YHY_{H} to the space ZZ of rational integral curves of degree 44 in Hβ‰…β„™2H\cong\mathbb{P}^{2} which sends S↦S∩HS\mapsto S\cap H. Then ψ\psi is surjective due to Lemma 21. Let Hilbd​(β„™n)\mathrm{Hilb}_{d}(\mathbb{P}^{n}) be the Hilbert scheme of degree dd hypersurfaces in β„™n\mathbb{P}^{n}. Then we have that Hilbd​(β„™n)β‰…β„™md,n\mathrm{Hilb}_{d}(\mathbb{P}^{n})\cong\mathbb{P}^{m_{d,n}} where md,n=(n+dd)βˆ’1m_{d,n}=\binom{n+d}{d}-1. For any hyperplane HβŠ‚β„™nH\subset\mathbb{P}^{n}, let Vd,nV_{d,n} be the subspace of Hilbd​(β„™n)\mathrm{Hilb}_{d}(\mathbb{P}^{n}) consisting of hypersurfaces which contain HH. Then we have a map

ψd,n,H:Hilbd​(β„™n)βˆ–Vd,nβ†’Hilbd​(β„™nβˆ’1)\psi_{d,n,H}:\mathrm{Hilb}_{d}(\mathbb{P}^{n})\setminus V_{d,n}\to\mathrm{Hilb}_{d}(\mathbb{P}^{n-1})

obtained by intersecting the hypersurface with HH. We can also choose coordinates so that ψd,n,H\psi_{d,n,H} is seen as a projection map from β„™md,nβˆ–Vd,nβ†’β„™md,nβˆ’1\mathbb{P}^{m_{d,n}}\setminus V_{d,n}\to\mathbb{P}^{m_{d,n-1}}, and therefore we have that ψd,n,H\psi_{d,n,H} is flat. Now, ψ:YHβ†’Z\psi:Y_{H}\to Z is just a base change of ψ4,3,H\psi_{4,3,H} to ZZ, therefore we get that ψ\psi is also flat.

Let CC be a degree 44 rational integral curve in HH. Let β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} be parametrized by coordinates [x:y:z:t][x:y:z:t], HH be given by {t=0}\{t=0\}, and CC be given by the degree 4 equation {f​(x,y,z)=0}\{f(x,y,z)=0\}, then the fiber of ψ\psi over CC is parametrized by degree 44 homogeneous polynomials f~\tilde{f} such that f~​(x,y,z,0)=c​f\tilde{f}(x,y,z,0)=cf, for some cc non-zero scalar. Thus the fibers of ψ\psi are isomorphic to 𝔸20\mathbb{A}^{20} and thus smooth and irreducible of dimension 20. Combining with the earlier observation that ψ\psi is flat, we get that ψ\psi is smooth.

Now, recall Z3Z_{3} from Section 3.2. This is a dense subscheme of ZZ corresponding to rational curves with only nodes or cusps as singularities and whose normalization map does not have a non-trivial automorphism. From Lemma 20, Z3Z_{3} is irreducible of dimension 1111, so ZZ is also irreducible of dimension 1111.

Thus, since ψ\psi is smooth, YHY_{H} is also irreducible of dimension 31.

Finally, it suffices to note that Ξ·0:J0β†’(β„™3)∨\eta_{0}:J_{0}\to(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee} makes J0J_{0} into an Γ©tale locally trivial fibre bundle over (β„™3)∨(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee}, thus J0J_{0} is irreducible of dimension 34. Thus we may apply Lemma 7 to end the proof. ∎


Let Hβ€²H^{\prime} be a hyperplane in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}. A curve Cβ€²βŠ‚Hβ€²C^{\prime}\subset H^{\prime} satisfies (βˆ—)(*) if it satisfies the following:

  1. (1)

    Cβ€²C^{\prime} is an integral rational curve of genus 33 and is canonically embedded in Hβ€²H^{\prime}.

  2. (2)

    If Cβ€²C^{\prime} has a cusp then it has exactly one simple cusp and 2 simple nodes.

Fix a hyperplane HH in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}, a rational integral curve CβŠ‚HC\subset H of degree 4. Assume that the singularities of CC are either all nodal singularities or one simple cusp and others nodal, and that CC corresponds to a general point of Z3Z_{3} in the former case and a general point of Z2,1Z_{2,1} in the latter case.

  • β€’

    Let Wβ€²={S|S∩H=C}βŠ†WW^{\prime}=\{S\ |\ S\cap H=C\}\subseteq W. Note that Wβ€²W^{\prime} is irreducible of dimension 2020. Also, it always contains a smooth surface due to Lemma 21. Due to Lemma 22, we have an open subset of Wβ€²W^{\prime} consisting of smooth SS so that S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} satisfies (βˆ—)(*) for every Hβ€²H^{\prime} for which S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} is rational. Denote this open subset by Wβ€²β€²W^{\prime\prime}.

  • β€’

    Let Jβ€²={(S,Hβ€²)|S∩Hβ€²J^{\prime}=\{(S,H^{\prime})\ |\ S\cap H^{\prime} is rational integral, Hβ€²β‰ H,S∩H=C}βŠ†Wβ€²Γ—((β„™3)βˆ¨βˆ’H)H^{\prime}\neq H,\ S\cap H=C\}\subseteq W^{\prime}\times((\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee}-H). Let Ο€β€²:Jβ€²β†’Wβ€²\pi^{\prime}:J^{\prime}\to W^{\prime} be the projection map to Wβ€²W^{\prime}.

  • β€’

    Let the fiber of Ξ·β€²β€²\eta^{\prime\prime} above a fixed Hβ€²H^{\prime} be THβ€²={S|S∩H=C,S∩H′​ is rational integralΒ }T_{H^{\prime}}=\{S\ |\ S\cap H=C,\ S\cap H^{\prime}\textup{ is rational integral }\}.

  • β€’

    We have a map Ο„:THβ€²β†’RC∩Hβ€²\tau:T_{H^{\prime}}\to R_{C\cap H^{\prime}}, which sends S↦S∩Hβ€²S\mapsto S\cap H^{\prime}.

  • β€’

    The fibre of Ο„\tau over Cβ€²C^{\prime} is given by the space XC,Cβ€²={S|S∩H=C,S∩Hβ€²=Cβ€²}X_{C,C^{\prime}}=\{S\ |\ S\cap H=C,\ S\cap H^{\prime}=C^{\prime}\} which may be identified with the space of quartics f​(x,y,z,t)f(x,y,z,t) such that f​(x,y,z,0)=f1​(x,y,z)f(x,y,z,0)=f_{1}(x,y,z) and f​(x,y,0,t)=f2​(x,y,t)f(x,y,0,t)=f_{2}(x,y,t) are fixed (up to scalars). Thus it is non-empty iff f1​(x,y,0)=f2​(x,y,0)f_{1}(x,y,0)=f_{2}(x,y,0) up to a scalar, and in this case we may vary coefficients of monomials which involve z​tzt which is a linear space of dimension 10 hence XC,Cβ€²X_{C,C^{\prime}} is isomorphic to 𝔸10\mathbb{A}^{10} if C∩Hβ€²=Cβ€²βˆ©HC\cap H^{\prime}=C^{\prime}\cap H as subschemes of H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime}.

The following is the key computation of the proof:

Proposition 29.

If YY is the disjoint union of 44 points on a line in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}, RYR_{Y} is irreducible of dimension 77.

Proof.

We consider degree 44 maps f:β„™1β†’β„™2f:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to\mathbb{P}^{2} so that the image f​(β„™1)f(\mathbb{P}^{1}) contains some 44 given points on a line and we fix three of the points on β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} mapping to three of these given points. Call this space as MapsY​(β„™1,β„™2)\textup{Maps}_{Y}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathbb{P}^{2}).

Such a map is given by [a:b]↦[f1(a,b):f2(a,b):f3(a,b)][a:b]\mapsto[f_{1}(a,b):f_{2}(a,b):f_{3}(a,b)], where f1,f2,f3f_{1},f_{2},f_{3} are homogeneous polynomials of degree 44 having no common zeros.

Let the fixed 44 points be

[0:1]↦[0:1:0],[0:1]\mapsto[0:1:0],
[1:0]↦[1:0:0],[1:0]\mapsto[1:0:0],
[1:1]↦[1:1:0],[1:1]\mapsto[1:1:0],
[1:Ξ»]↦[1:ΞΌ:0].[1:\lambda]\mapsto[1:\mu:0].

Here ΞΌ\mu is fixed, ΞΌβ‰ 0,1\mu\neq 0,1, and Ξ»\lambda is allowed to vary. Let f1​(a,b)=p0​a4+p1​a3​b+p2​a2​b2+p3​a​b3+p4​b4f_{1}(a,b)=p_{0}a^{4}+p_{1}a^{3}b+p_{2}a^{2}b^{2}+p_{3}ab^{3}+p_{4}b^{4}, and similar for f2f_{2} and f3f_{3} with pip_{i}’s replaced by qiq_{i} and rir_{i} respectively.

Thus, we are looking at the subspace of β„™15×𝔸1\mathbb{P}^{15}\times\mathbb{A}^{1} corresponding to the conditions

p0β‰ 0,q0\displaystyle p_{0}\neq 0,\ q_{0} =0,r0=0\displaystyle=0,\ r_{0}=0
p4=0,q4\displaystyle p_{4}=0,\ q_{4} β‰ 0,r4=0\displaystyle\neq 0,\ r_{4}=0
p0+p1+p2+p3\displaystyle p_{0}+p_{1}+p_{2}+p_{3} =q1+q2+q3+q4β‰ 0,\displaystyle=q_{1}+q_{2}+q_{3}+q_{4}\neq 0,
μ​(p0+p1​λ+p2​λ2+p3​λ3)\displaystyle\mu(p_{0}+p_{1}\lambda+p_{2}\lambda^{2}+p_{3}\lambda^{3}) =q1​λ+q2​λ2+q3​λ3+q4​λ4β‰ 0,\displaystyle=q_{1}\lambda+q_{2}\lambda^{2}+q_{3}\lambda^{3}+q_{4}\lambda^{4}\neq 0,
r1+r2+r3\displaystyle r_{1}+r_{2}+r_{3} =0,\displaystyle=0,
r1+r2​λ+r3​λ2\displaystyle r_{1}+r_{2}\lambda+r_{3}\lambda^{2} =0.\displaystyle=0.

Thus, we have Ξ»β‰ 0,1\lambda\neq 0,1, r3β‰ 0r_{3}\neq 0. Now, Ξ»=r1/r3\lambda=r_{1}/r_{3}, substituting this and p0=q1+q2+q3+q4βˆ’p1βˆ’p2βˆ’p3p_{0}=q_{1}+q_{2}+q_{3}+q_{4}-p_{1}-p_{2}-p_{3} in the fourth equation we get that the space of integral rational curves in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2} containing the points [0:1:0],[1:0:0],[1:1:0],[1:ΞΌ:0][0:1:0],[1:0:0],[1:1:0],[1:\mu:0] is isomorphic to the hypersurface FF of β„™[r1:r3:p1:p2:p3:q1:q2:q3:q4]\mathbb{P}[r_{1}:r_{3}:p_{1}:p_{2}:p_{3}:q_{1}:q_{2}:q_{3}:q_{4}] intersected with the open sets q1+q2+q3+q4β‰ 0q_{1}+q_{2}+q_{3}+q_{4}\neq 0, q1​r33+q2​r1​r32+q3​r12​r3+q4​r13β‰ 0q_{1}r_{3}^{3}+q_{2}r_{1}r_{3}^{2}+q_{3}r_{1}^{2}r_{3}+q_{4}r_{1}^{3}\neq 0, q1+q2+q3+q4βˆ’p1βˆ’p2βˆ’p3β‰ 0q_{1}+q_{2}+q_{3}+q_{4}-p_{1}-p_{2}-p_{3}\neq 0 and q4β‰ 0q_{4}\neq 0 where FF is the polynomial

F=μ​(r34​(q1+q2+q3+q4βˆ’p1βˆ’p2βˆ’p3)+p1​r13​r3+p2​r12​r32+p3​r13​r3)βˆ’q1​r1​r33βˆ’q2​r12​r32βˆ’q3​r13​r3βˆ’q4​r14F=\mu(r_{3}^{4}(q_{1}+q_{2}+q_{3}+q_{4}-p_{1}-p_{2}-p_{3})+p_{1}r_{1}^{3}r_{3}+p_{2}r_{1}^{2}r_{3}^{2}+p_{3}r_{1}^{3}r_{3})-q_{1}r_{1}r_{3}^{3}-q_{2}r_{1}^{2}r_{3}^{2}-q_{3}r_{1}^{3}r_{3}-q_{4}r_{1}^{4}

We prove that this space is irreducible in β„™[r1:r3:p1:p2:p3:q1:q2:q3:q4]β‰…β„™8\mathbb{P}[r_{1}:r_{3}:p_{1}:p_{2}:p_{3}:q_{1}:q_{2}:q_{3}:q_{4}]\cong\mathbb{P}^{8} of dimension 7.

First we prove that FF is irreducible. Suppose FF is reducible, say F=G​HF=GH. Now, FF is linear in p1p_{1}, so one of G,HG,H has to be linear in p1p_{1}, and the other has to have no terms containing p1p_{1}. Similar for p2,p3,q1,q2,q3,q4p_{2},p_{3},q_{1},q_{2},q_{3},q_{4}. But note that we do not have a term involving pi​pjp_{i}p_{j} or pi​qjp_{i}q_{j}, thus if GG is linear in p1p_{1}, then it must be linear in all the pi,qjp_{i},q_{j}. Hence H=H​(r1,r3,ΞΌ)H=H(r_{1},r_{3},\mu).

Now, HH must divide the coefficient of p1p_{1} which is μ​(r1​r33βˆ’r34)=μ​r33​(r1βˆ’r3)\mu(r_{1}r_{3}^{3}-r_{3}^{4})=\mu r_{3}^{3}(r_{1}-r_{3}). ΞΌβ‰ 0\mu\neq 0, so this implies that HH must be divisible by r3r_{3} or (r1βˆ’r3)(r_{1}-r_{3}). But this implies that FF is divisible by r3r_{3} or (r1βˆ’r3)(r_{1}-r_{3}). FF is not divisible by r3r_{3} since we have a non-zero coefficient q4q_{4} of r14r_{1}^{4}. Also, FF is not divisible by (r1βˆ’r3)(r_{1}-r_{3}) since substituting r1=r3r_{1}=r_{3} in FF we get μ​(q1+q2+q3+q4)βˆ’q1+q2+q3+q4\mu(q_{1}+q_{2}+q_{3}+q_{4})-q_{1}+q_{2}+q_{3}+q_{4} which is non-zero since ΞΌβ‰ 1\mu\neq 1.

Thus, the space {F=0}\{F=0\} is irreducible of dimension 77. Now the space under consideration is an open subset of {F=0}\{F=0\} so it suffices to prove that it is non-empty. Now the open sets under consideration q1+q2+q3+q4β‰ 0q_{1}+q_{2}+q_{3}+q_{4}\neq 0, q1​r33+q2​r1​r32+q3​r12​r3+q4​r13β‰ 0q_{1}r_{3}^{3}+q_{2}r_{1}r_{3}^{2}+q_{3}r_{1}^{2}r_{3}+q_{4}r_{1}^{3}\neq 0, q1+q2+q3+q4βˆ’p1βˆ’p2βˆ’p3β‰ 0q_{1}+q_{2}+q_{3}+q_{4}-p_{1}-p_{2}-p_{3}\neq 0 and q4β‰ 0q_{4}\neq 0 are all complements of irreducible hypersurfaces, so it suffices to observe that since FF is irreducible and not equal to any one of these hypersurfaces so it must not be contained in the union of these hypersurfaces.

Thus, MapsY​(β„™1,β„™2)\textup{Maps}_{Y}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathbb{P}^{2}) is irreducible of dimension 77. Now, MapsY​(β„™1,β„™2)\textup{Maps}_{Y}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathbb{P}^{2}) surjects onto RYR_{Y} by sending a map to its image in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}. The fiber over any point is a finite subset of S3S_{3}, since any Ο•βˆˆMapsY​(β„™1,β„™2)\phi\in\textup{Maps}_{Y}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathbb{P}^{2}) is a normalization map of the image ϕ​(C)\phi(C) and there is only the trivial automorphism of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} which fixes [1:0],[1:1],[0:1][1:0],[1:1],[0:1], so the only choice is to choose which points of YY correspond to [1:0],[1:1],[0:1][1:0],[1:1],[0:1].

Thus, RYR_{Y} is irreducible of dimension 77. ∎

Proposition 30.

The monodromy group of Ο€β€²\pi^{\prime} is transitive.

Proof.

We have the following calculations:

  • β€’

    Let Y=C∩Hβ€²Y=C\cap H^{\prime}. So, YY is a length 44 scheme supported on the line H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime}. If YY is 4 distinct points, then by Proposition 29 we have RYR_{Y} is irreducible of dimension 7. By Lemma 26, if every component of YY has length ≀2\leq 2 then RYR_{Y} has dimension ≀7\leq 7 at every point corresponding to a curve satisfying (βˆ—)(*). If some component of YY has length β‰₯3\geq 3 then RYR_{Y} has dimension ≀8\leq 8 at every point corresponding to a curve satisfying (βˆ—)(*).

  • β€’

    The fiber XC,Cβ€²X_{C,C^{\prime}} of Ο„\tau over Cβ€²C^{\prime} is either empty or irreducible of dimension 1010. If Hβ€²H^{\prime} does not pass through any singular point of CC, then Ο„\tau is surjective by Lemma 21. So, if Hβ€²H^{\prime} intersects CC transversally, we have that dimTHβ€²=17\dim T_{H^{\prime}}=17 and it has only one irreducible component of dimension 1717.

  • β€’

    A general line passing through any singular point PP of CC only intersects CC at a length 2 scheme at PP by Lemma 14. Also, the tangent line to CC at a general smooth point of CC intersects CC at PP with multiplicity 22. Thus, if Hβ€²H^{\prime} is either a general hyperplane containing a singular point of CC or a general hyperplane tangent to some point of CC (by Lemma 13), then it intersects CC at YY with each component of YY having length 11 or 22. So, (dimRC∩Hβ€²)C′≀7(\dim R_{C\cap H^{\prime}})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 7 for such Hβ€²H^{\prime} and for Cβ€²C^{\prime} satisfying (βˆ—)(*), and hence (dimTHβ€²)S≀17(\dim T_{H^{\prime}})_{S}\leq 17 for [S]∈Wβ€²β€²[S]\in W^{\prime\prime} and Hβ€²H^{\prime} in the codimension 1 subspace of (β„™3)∨(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee} of general tangents or general hyperplanes passing through a singular point of CC.

  • β€’

    Finally, if Hβ€²H^{\prime} is in the codimension 2 subspace corresponding to the hyperplanes so that C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} has a length 33 component, then we have (dimRC∩Hβ€²)C′≀8(\dim R_{C\cap H^{\prime}})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 8 for such Hβ€²H^{\prime} and for Cβ€²C^{\prime} satisfying (βˆ—)(*). So, (dimTHβ€²)S≀18(\dim T_{H^{\prime}})_{S}\leq 18 for [S]∈Wβ€²β€²[S]\in W^{\prime\prime} over this codimension 2 subspace of (β„™3)∨(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee}.

  • β€’

    Thus, (β„™3)βˆ¨βˆ’H=UβˆͺV1βˆͺV2(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee}-H=U\cup V_{1}\cup V_{2} where UU consists of Hβ€²H^{\prime} which meets CC transversally, V1V_{1} consists of Hβ€²H^{\prime} so that every component of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} has length ≀2\leq 2, and V2V_{2} is the rest. Note that V1,V2V_{1},V_{2} are of codimension 1,2 respectively. We have that THβ€²T_{H^{\prime}} has only one irreducible component of maximum dimension, dimTHβ€²=17\dim T_{H^{\prime}}=17 over Hβ€²βˆˆUH^{\prime}\in U, (dimTHβ€²)S≀17(\dim T_{H^{\prime}})_{S}\leq 17 for [S]∈Wβ€²β€²,Hβ€²βˆˆV1[S]\in W^{\prime\prime},H^{\prime}\in V_{1} and (dimTHβ€²)S≀18(\dim T_{H^{\prime}})_{S}\leq 18 for [S]∈Wβ€²β€²,Hβ€²βˆˆV2[S]\in W^{\prime\prime},H^{\prime}\in V_{2}.

  • β€’

    So if we consider the open set Ξ·β€²β£βˆ’1​(U)βŠ‚Jβ€²\eta^{\prime-1}(U)\subset J^{\prime}, then we get that

    (dim(Jβ€²βˆ–Ξ·β€²β£βˆ’1​(U)))(S,Hβ€²)<20(\dim(J^{\prime}\setminus\eta^{\prime-1}(U)))_{(S,H^{\prime})}<20

    for [S]∈Wβ€²β€²[S]\in W^{\prime\prime}. Therefore, (Jβ€²βˆ–Ξ·β€²β£βˆ’1​(U))(J^{\prime}\setminus\eta^{\prime-1}(U)) cannot dominate Wβ€²β€²W^{\prime\prime} and hence cannot dominate Wβ€²W^{\prime}. Now, Ξ·β€²|U:Ξ·β€²β£βˆ’1​(U)β†’U\eta^{\prime}|_{U}:\eta^{\prime-1}(U)\to U is dominant, and its fibres have only one irreducible component of maximum dimension 1717. Let Jβ€²β€²J^{\prime\prime} be the closed set of Ξ·β€²β£βˆ’1​(U)\eta^{\prime-1}(U) consisting of x∈Jβ€²x\in J^{\prime} so that Ξ·β€²β£βˆ’1​(η​(x))\eta^{\prime-1}(\eta(x)) has dimension β‰₯17\geq 17 at xx. So, we get that Ξ·β€²|Jβ€²β€²:Jβ€²β€²β†’U\eta^{\prime}|_{J^{\prime\prime}}:J^{\prime\prime}\to U is dominant and its fibres are irreducible of dimension 1717. Thus, since UU is irreducible of dimension 3, we have that Jβ€²β€²J^{\prime\prime} has only one irreducible component of maximum dimension 20. So this unique irreducible component of Jβ€²β€²J^{\prime\prime} must be the only component of Jβ€²J^{\prime} which dominates Wβ€²W^{\prime} (Note that the fibres of Ξ·β€²\eta^{\prime} at Ξ·β€²β£βˆ’1​(U)βˆ–Jβ€²β€²\eta^{\prime-1}(U)\setminus J^{\prime\prime} are of dimension ≀16\leq 16 so this space will be of dimension ≀19\leq 19 and so will not dominate Wβ€²W^{\prime}). Thus, we can conclude that Jβ€²J^{\prime} has only one irreducible component which dominates Wβ€²W^{\prime}. Thus, Ο€β€²\pi^{\prime} has transitive monodromy by Lemma 7. ∎

Proposition 31.

The monodromy group Ξ g\Pi_{g} of Ο€\pi is 2-transitive for g=3g=3.

Proof.

Let HH be a hyperplane in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} and let CβŠ‚HC\subset H be a canonically embedded integral rational curve of genus 3 corresponding to a general point of Z3Z_{3}. Then by Lemma 22, there exists a smooth K​3K3 surface SS in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} such that S∩H=CS\cap H=C. This implies that for a surface SS corresponding to a general point of WW, there is a hyperplane section of SS corresponding to a general point of Z3Z_{3}.

Using Proposition 30 for this CC which is a general point of Z3Z_{3} and which is also a hyperplane section S∩HS\cap H for a SS corresponding to a general point of WW, we have that the monodromy group of Ο€β€²\pi^{\prime} is transitive. Therefore, we get an element of the monodromy group which fixes (S,H)(S,H) and sends (S,Hβ€²)(S,H^{\prime}) to (S,Hβ€²β€²)(S,H^{\prime\prime}) for any two points in the fiber Ο€βˆ’1​(S)\pi^{-1}(S) different from (S,H)(S,H). Now, since Ξ g\Pi_{g} has already been proven to be transitive, so we get that Ξ g\Pi_{g} is 2-transitive. ∎

Proposition 32.

Ξ g\Pi_{g} contains a simple transposition for g=3g=3.

Proof.

From Lemma 8, to prove that Πg\Pi_{g} admits a simple transposition, it is enough to show that there is a point S in W such that the fiber of π:J→W\pi:J\to W above SS is y1,⋯,yny_{1},\cdots,y_{n} satisfying:

  1. (1)

    y1y_{1} corresponds to a rational integral curve with 2 nodes and 1 simple cusp as singularities, and y2,β‹―,yny_{2},\cdots,y_{n} are points corresponding to rational nodal curves.

  2. (2)

    n=degβ‘Ο€βˆ’1n=\deg\pi-1.

  3. (3)

    JJ is locally irreducible at y1y_{1}.

Let H,Hβ€²H,H^{\prime} be two distinct hyperplanes in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} and let L=H∩Hβ€²L=H\cap H^{\prime}. Take YY to be the union of 44 general points on LL. Then by Lemma 27, there exists a curve CβŠ‚HC\subset H which is a canonically embedded integral rational curve of genus 3 corresponding to a general point of Z2,1Z_{2,1} such that C∩L=YC\cap L=Y. Lemma 27 also gives us the existence of a curve Cβ€²βŠ‚HC^{\prime}\subset H which is a canonically embedded integral rational curve of genus 3 orresponding to a general point of Z3Z_{3} such that Cβ€²βˆ©L=YC^{\prime}\cap L=Y. Then by Lemma 21, there exists a smooth K​3K3 surface SS in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} such that S∩H=CS\cap H=C and S∩Hβ€²=Cβ€²S\cap H^{\prime}=C^{\prime}. This implies that for a surface SS corresponding to a general point of Wβ€²W^{\prime} (where Wβ€²W^{\prime} is defined with respect to CC), there is a hyperplane section of SS corresponding to an integral rational nodal curve. Using Proposition 30, we have that the monodromy group of Ο€β€²\pi^{\prime} is transitive. Therefore, we get that the fiber of a general SS in Wβ€²W^{\prime} will only consist of points (S,Hβ€²)∈Jβ€²(S,H^{\prime})\in J^{\prime} with S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} rational nodal. So, this SS will satisfy property 11.

By Proposition 5, we see that if property 1 is satisfied, then the curve y1y_{1} will be counted with multiplicity (52)/5=2\binom{5}{2}/5=2 and the rest of the curves being nodal curves will be counted with multiplicity 11, which means that nn is exactly 11 less than the number of rational curves in the linear system |π’ͺ​(1)||\mathcal{O}(1)| of a general surface, which is deg⁑π\deg\pi. Thus, property 2 is satisfied.

Finally, we need to show that JJ is locally irreducible at the point (S,H)(S,H) with S∩H=CS\cap H=C. This will follow from Proposition 20 as follows: Let YHY_{H}, ZZ, ψ:YHβ†’Z\psi:Y_{H}\to Z be as in the proof of Proposition 28. ZZ has Z3Z_{3} as an open subset and hence locally irreducible at CC by Proposition 20 (Note that CC corresponds to a point of Z3Z_{3}). Recall that ψ\psi is smooth. Therefore YHY_{H} is also locally irreducible at the points of the fiber over CC, and finally so is JJ since Ξ·:Jβ†’(β„™3)∨\eta:J\to(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee} makes JJ into an Γ©tale locally trivial fibre bundle over (β„™3)∨(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee}.

∎

5. The case g=4g=4

5.1. Preliminary lemmas

We will prove some lemmas similar to the ones in the genus 3 case.

Lemma 33.

Let CC be an integral curve, and Ο•:Cβ€²β†’C\phi:C^{\prime}\to C be a normalization of CC. Let p∈Cp\in C be a point so that CC can be embedded in a smooth surface locally at pp, and suppose that Ο•βˆ’1​(p)\phi^{-1}(p) consists of dd distinct points of Cβ€²C^{\prime} for dβ‰₯2d\geq 2. Then g​(C)β‰₯g​(Cβ€²)+d​(dβˆ’1)/2g(C)\geq g(C^{\prime})+d(d-1)/2, where g​(C)g(C) denotes the (arithmetic) genus of CC.

Proof.

We know that

g​(C)=g​(Cβ€²)+βˆ‘P∈Clength​(π’ͺP~/π’ͺP)g(C)=g(C^{\prime})+\sum_{P\in C}\textup{length}(\widetilde{\mathcal{O}_{P}}/\mathcal{O}_{P})

where π’ͺP\mathcal{O}_{P} is the completion of the local ring of CC at PP and π’ͺP~\widetilde{\mathcal{O}_{P}} is its integral closure. So it is enough to prove that the term for P=pP=p is β‰₯d​(dβˆ’1)/2\geq d(d-1)/2. Now, we have

π’ͺpβ†’π’ͺp~≅⨁i=1dk⟦xi⟧.\mathcal{O}_{p}\to\widetilde{\mathcal{O}_{p}}\cong\bigoplus_{i=1}^{d}k\llbracket x_{i}\rrbracket.

Then, since CC can be embedded in a smooth surface locally at pp, we have π’ͺp=kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y⟧/(f)\mathcal{O}_{p}=k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket/(f) for some ff. In particular, we have that dimk(π’ͺp/mpdβˆ’1)≀d​(dβˆ’1)/2\dim_{k}(\mathcal{O}_{p}/m_{p}^{d-1})\leq d(d-1)/2. On the other hand, dimk(k​[x]/xdβˆ’1)=dβˆ’1\dim_{k}(k[x]/x^{d-1})=d-1 so we have dimk(π’ͺp~/mdβˆ’1)=d​(dβˆ’1)\dim_{k}(\widetilde{\mathcal{O}_{p}}/m^{d-1})=d(d-1). Therefore, length​(π’ͺp~/π’ͺp)β‰₯d​(dβˆ’1)/2\textup{length}(\widetilde{\mathcal{O}_{p}}/\mathcal{O}_{p})\geq d(d-1)/2. ∎

Lemma 34.

Let CC be a curve in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} which is the complete intersection of two hypersurfaces X,YX,Y of degrees d,ed,e, where d,eβ‰₯2d,e\geq 2. Let p∈Cp\in C be such that it is a singular point of both XX and YY. Then CC does not have a planar singularity at pp.

Proof.

Without loss of generality, we may assume that β„™3=β„™[x:y:z:t]\mathbb{P}^{3}=\mathbb{P}[x:y:z:t], and pp is the point [0:0:0:1][0:0:0:1], so we have

π’ͺC,Pβ‰…k​[x,y,z](x,y,z)(f,g)\mathcal{O}_{C,P}\cong\frac{k[x,y,z]_{(x,y,z)}}{(f,g)}

with f,gf,g being polynomials of degree d,eβ‰₯2d,e\geq 2 with no linear term (since they have a singularity at (0,0,0)(0,0,0)).

But now note that dimmP/mP2=3\dim m_{P}/m_{P}^{2}=3, whereas for planar singularities we have this dimension always equal to 22. The assertion follows. ∎

Lemma 35.

Let CC be an integral, genus 44, canonically embedded curve in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} of degree 66. Then C=Q∩RC=Q\cap R, where

1. Q,RQ,R are irreducible hypersurfaces of degrees 2,32,3 respectively, in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}.

2. QQ is uniquely determined by CC, and RR is uniquely determined up to a linear multiple of QQ.

3. QQ has at most one singular point, Sing ​RβŠ†Sing ​C\textup{Sing }R\subseteq\textup{Sing }C has at most 44 singular points.

4. If CC has only planar singularities then Sing ​Q∩Sing ​R∩Sing ​C=Ø\textup{Sing }Q\cap\textup{Sing }R\cap\textup{Sing }C=\O.

Proof.

We have Ο‰Cβ‰…π’ͺ​(1)|C\omega_{C}\cong\mathcal{O}(1)|_{C}, so h0​(C,π’ͺ​(2)|C)=h0​(C,2​ω)=9h^{0}(C,\mathcal{O}(2)|_{C})=h^{0}(C,2\omega)=9, whereas h0​(β„™3,π’ͺ​(2))=10h^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{3},\mathcal{O}(2))=10. Thus, there is a quadric hypersurface QQ which contains CC. If QQ is reducible, then it has to be a union of hyperplanes, but that would mean that CC is a degenerate curve contradicting the fact that it is canonically embedded. Thus, QQ is irreducible, and it is unique because the intersection with any other quadric would have to have degree 44 which is less than the degree of CC.

On the other hand, we have h0​(C,π’ͺ​(3)|C)=h0​(C,3​ω)=15h^{0}(C,\mathcal{O}(3)|_{C})=h^{0}(C,3\omega)=15, whereas h0​(β„™3,π’ͺ​(3))=20h^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{3},\mathcal{O}(3))=20. Therefore, there is a cubic hypersurface RR containing CC which is not the union of QQ and a hyperplane. Now, RR is irreducible since CC is not contained in any hyperplane, and QQ is the only quadric hypersurface CC is contained in. Since Q∩RQ\cap R has degree 66 and contains CC, so it must equal CC. Any irreducible quadric in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} has at most one singular point, so QQ has at most one singular point.

Now, to prove that RR is uniquely determined up to a linear multiple of QQ, we need only prove that the map H0​(β„™3,π’ͺ​(3))β†’H0​(C,π’ͺ​(3)|C)H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{3},\mathcal{O}(3))\to H^{0}(C,\mathcal{O}(3)|_{C}) is surjective. Now, note that we have the exact sequence

0→ℐC​(3)β†’π’ͺ​(3)β†’π’ͺ​(3)|Cβ†’00\to\mathcal{I}_{C}(3)\to\mathcal{O}(3)\to\mathcal{O}(3)|_{C}\to 0

so it is enough to show that H1​(β„™3,ℐC​(3))=0H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{3},\mathcal{I}_{C}(3))=0. But CC is the intersection of a quadric and cubic, so we have

0β†’π’ͺ​(βˆ’5)β†’π’ͺ​(βˆ’2)βŠ•π’ͺ​(βˆ’3)→ℐCβ†’00\to\mathcal{O}(-5)\to\mathcal{O}(-2)\oplus\mathcal{O}(-3)\to\mathcal{I}_{C}\to 0

Now, H1​(β„™3,π’ͺ​(n))=H2​(β„™3,π’ͺ​(m))=0H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{3},\mathcal{O}(n))=H^{2}(\mathbb{P}^{3},\mathcal{O}(m))=0 for any n,mn,m, so taking the long exact sequence on cohomology (after twisting by π’ͺ​(n)\mathcal{O}(n)), we get H1​(β„™3,ℐ​(n))=0H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{3},\mathcal{I}(n))=0 for any nn, so in particular H1​(ℐC​(3))=0H^{1}(\mathcal{I}_{C}(3))=0.

So, we may vary the cubic r0​(xΒ―)r_{0}(\underline{x}) defining RR by a linear multiple of q0​(xΒ―)q_{0}(\underline{x}) to obtain all cubics containing CC. Thus, we may take the linear system r​(xΒ―)=r0​(xΒ―)+l​(xΒ―)​q0​(xΒ―)r(\underline{x})=r_{0}(\underline{x})+l(\underline{x})q_{0}(\underline{x}). The base locus is all xΒ―\underline{x} such that r0​(xΒ―)=0r_{0}(\underline{x})=0 and q0​(xΒ―)=0q_{0}(\underline{x})=0, i.e. the points of CC. Hence, by Bertini’s theorem, a general such RR only has singularities on CC. Singular points of RR lying on CC will also be a singular point of CC (as may be seen from the Jacobian criterion). So we get an RR which may only have singularities on singular points of CC.

Finally, the last statement about the intersection of singularities follows directly from Lemma 34. ∎

Lemma 36 (Existence of a K3 surface in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4} with given hyperplane sections).

Let H,Hβ€²H,H^{\prime} be two distinct hyperplanes in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4}, and let CβŠ‚HC\subset H, Cβ€²βŠ‚Hβ€²C^{\prime}\subset H^{\prime} be integral curves of genus 44 which are respectively canonically embedded in HH and Hβ€²H^{\prime}. Let QQ(resp. Qβ€²Q^{\prime}) be the unique quadric hypersurface in HH(resp. Hβ€²H^{\prime}) containing CC(resp. Cβ€²C^{\prime}). Assume that

1. Cβ€²βˆ©H=C∩Hβ€²C^{\prime}\cap H=C\cap H^{\prime} as subschemes of H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime}, and Qβ€²βˆ©H=Q∩Hβ€²Q^{\prime}\cap H=Q\cap H^{\prime} as subschemes of H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime}.

2. C,Cβ€²C,C^{\prime} have only planar singularities.

3. Sing ​Qβ€²βˆ©Sing ​Q=Ø\textup{Sing }Q^{\prime}\cap\textup{Sing }Q=\O and Sing ​C∩Sing ​Cβ€²=Ø\textup{Sing }C\cap\textup{Sing }C^{\prime}=\O.

Then there exists a smooth K3 surface SβŠ‚β„™4S\subset\mathbb{P}^{4} which is the intersection of a quadric and a cubic, and such that S∩H=C,S∩Hβ€²=Cβ€²S\cap H=C,\ S\cap H^{\prime}=C^{\prime}.

Proof.

Let β„™4=β„™[x0:x1:x2:x3:x4]\mathbb{P}^{4}=\mathbb{P}[x_{0}:x_{1}:x_{2}:x_{3}:x_{4}]. We may assume without loss of generality that H={x0=0},Hβ€²={x4=0}H=\{x_{0}=0\},H^{\prime}=\{x_{4}=0\}.

We have Q∩Hβ€²=Qβ€²βˆ©HQ\cap H^{\prime}=Q^{\prime}\cap H. So, Q=V​(g1​(x1,x2,x3,x4)),Qβ€²=V​(g2​(x0,x1,x2,x3))Q=V(g_{1}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})),Q^{\prime}=V(g_{2}(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3})) with g1​(x1,x2,x3,0)=g2​(0,x1,x2,x3)g_{1}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},0)=g_{2}(0,x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}) where g1,g2g_{1},g_{2} are degree 2 homogeneous polynomials.

Consider the quadric hypersurfaces T1,a=V​(g)βŠ‚β„™4T_{1,a}=V(g)\subset\mathbb{P}^{4} given by quadrics g​(x0,x1,x2,x3,x4)g(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4}) such that g​(0,x1,x2,x3,x4)=g1,g​(x0,x1,x2,x3,0)=g2g(0,x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})=g_{1},g(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},0)=g_{2}, i.e. g=aβ‹…x0​x4+g3g=a\cdot x_{0}x_{4}+g_{3} if g3=g1+g2βˆ’g2​(0,x1,x2,x3)g_{3}=g_{1}+g_{2}-g_{2}(0,x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}).

This is a linear system with base points being the points [x0:x1:x2:x3:x4][x_{0}:x_{1}:x_{2}:x_{3}:x_{4}] such that x0​x4=0,g3=0x_{0}x_{4}=0,g_{3}=0, i.e. QβˆͺQβ€²Q\cup Q^{\prime}. Hence, by Bertini’s theorem, a general such quadric will be smooth away from the points of QβˆͺQβ€²Q\cup Q^{\prime}. Thus, for all but finitely many aa, T1,aT_{1,a} will be smooth away from the points of QβˆͺQβ€²Q\cup Q^{\prime}.

Now, if a singular point PP of T1,aT_{1,a} has x0=0x_{0}=0, then

βˆ‚gβˆ‚xi​(P)=βˆ‚g1βˆ‚xi​(P)=0,Β for ​i=1,2,3,4\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_{i}}(P)=\frac{\partial g_{1}}{\partial x_{i}}(P)=0,\textup{ for }i=1,2,3,4

Thus, if PP has x0=0x_{0}=0 then P∈Sing ​QP\in\textup{Sing }Q. Similarly, if PP has x4=0x_{4}=0 then P∈Sing ​Qβ€²P\in\textup{Sing }Q^{\prime}. Thus, if x0​(P)=0x_{0}(P)=0 then x4​(P)β‰ 0x_{4}(P)\neq 0 since Sing ​Q∩Sing ​Qβ€²=Ø\textup{Sing }Q\cap\textup{Sing }Q^{\prime}=\O. Now,

βˆ‚gβˆ‚x0​(P)=aβ‹…x4​(P)+βˆ‚g3βˆ‚x0​(P)=0,\frac{\partial g}{\partial x_{0}}(P)=a\cdot x_{4}(P)+\frac{\partial g_{3}}{\partial x_{0}}(P)=0,

therefore, we for all but finitely many values of aa, T1,aT_{1,a} has no singularities with x0=0x_{0}=0. Similarly, for all but finitely many values of aa, T1,aT_{1,a} has no singularities with x4=0x_{4}=0.

Hence, for all but finitely many values of aa, T1,aT_{1,a} is a smooth quadric in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4}.

Let QHβ€²=Q∩Hβ€²=Qβ€²βˆ©HQ_{H^{\prime}}=Q\cap H^{\prime}=Q^{\prime}\cap H. Consider cubics RβŠ‚H,Rβ€²βŠ‚Hβ€²R\subset H,R^{\prime}\subset H^{\prime} containing C,Cβ€²C,C^{\prime} respectively. Then RHβ€²=R∩Hβ€²R_{H^{\prime}}=R\cap H^{\prime} is a cubic in H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime} such that RHβ€²βˆ©QHβ€²R_{H^{\prime}}\cap Q_{H^{\prime}} is a fixed length 66 scheme C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime}. So, the degree 3 polynomial defining any other cubic with this property will differ from the one for RHβ€²R_{H^{\prime}} by a linear multiple of the polynomial defining QHβ€²Q_{H^{\prime}}. Hence, RHβ€²R_{H^{\prime}} will differ from RHβ€²R^{\prime}_{H} by a linear multiple of QHβ€²Q_{H^{\prime}}. The upshot is that we may add this linear multiple to the original RR to ensure that R∩Hβ€²=Rβ€²βˆ©HR\cap H^{\prime}=R^{\prime}\cap H.

So, we have R=V​(h1​(x1,x2,x3,x4)),Rβ€²=V​(h2​(x0,x1,x2,x3))R=V(h_{1}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})),R^{\prime}=V(h_{2}(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3})) with h1​(x1,x2,x3,0)=h2​(0,x1,x2,x3)h_{1}(x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},0)=h_{2}(0,x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}).

Then, consider the linear system on T1,aT_{1,a} given by cubics T2,b,c=V​(h​(x0,x1,x2,x3,x4))T_{2,b,c}=V(h(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})) such that h​(0,x1,x2,x3,x4)=h1,h​(x0,x1,x2,x3,0)=h2h(0,x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},x_{4})=h_{1},h(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},0)=h_{2}, i.e. h=bβ‹…x02​x4+cβ‹…x0​x42+h3h=b\cdot x_{0}^{2}x_{4}+c\cdot x_{0}x_{4}^{2}+h_{3} if h3=h1+h2βˆ’h2​(0,x1,x2,x3)h_{3}=h_{1}+h_{2}-h_{2}(0,x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}).

The base locus of this linear system are points [x0:x1:x2:x3:x4][x_{0}:x_{1}:x_{2}:x_{3}:x_{4}] on T1,aT_{1,a} such that x0​x4=0,h3=0x_{0}x_{4}=0,h_{3}=0, i.e. CβˆͺCβ€²C\cup C^{\prime}. Hence, by Bertini’s theorem, a general such cubic T2,b,cT_{2,b,c} will intersect T1,aT_{1,a} in a surface which is smooth away from the points of CβˆͺCβ€²C\cup C^{\prime}.

Now, any point PP contained in CC will have x0=0x_{0}=0, so the Jacobian of V​(g,h)V(g,h) at PP will be

[aβ‹…x4​(P)+βˆ‚g3βˆ‚x0​(P)βˆ‚g1βˆ‚x1​(P)βˆ‚g1βˆ‚x2​(P)βˆ‚g1βˆ‚x3​(P)βˆ‚g1βˆ‚x4​(P)cβ‹…x42​(P)+βˆ‚h3βˆ‚x0​(P)βˆ‚h1βˆ‚x1​(P)βˆ‚h1βˆ‚x2​(P)βˆ‚h1βˆ‚x3​(P)βˆ‚h1βˆ‚x4​(P)]\left[{\begin{array}[]{ccccc}a\cdot x_{4}(P)+\dfrac{\partial g_{3}}{\partial x_{0}}(P)&\dfrac{\partial g_{1}}{\partial x_{1}}(P)&\dfrac{\partial g_{1}}{\partial x_{2}}(P)&\dfrac{\partial g_{1}}{\partial x_{3}}(P)&\dfrac{\partial g_{1}}{\partial x_{4}}(P)\\ c\cdot x_{4}^{2}(P)+\dfrac{\partial h_{3}}{\partial x_{0}}(P)&\dfrac{\partial h_{1}}{\partial x_{1}}(P)&\dfrac{\partial h_{1}}{\partial x_{2}}(P)&\dfrac{\partial h_{1}}{\partial x_{3}}(P)&\dfrac{\partial h_{1}}{\partial x_{4}}(P)\\ \end{array}}\right]

Thus, looking at the last 44 columns, if PP is a singular point of V​(g,h)V(g,h) then it must be a singular point of Q∩R=CQ\cap R=C. Now CC is at worst nodal or cuspidal, so PP cannot be simultaneously a singular point of both QQ and RR. Thus, there is a non-zero column among the last 44 columns and so if Pβˆ‰Hβ€²P\not\in H^{\prime} i.e. it has x4β‰ 0x_{4}\neq 0, then we may choose a,ca,c such that the first column is linearly independent of that column, and so if a,b,ca,b,c are general then no point of Sing CC not lying on Hβ€²H^{\prime} will be a singular point of V​(g,h)V(g,h).

Similar analysis for x4=0x_{4}=0 leads us to having that if a,b,ca,b,c are general then V​(g,h)V(g,h) is smooth at the points of Sing Cβ€²C^{\prime} not lying on HH. Thus, the only singularities that may occur are on Sing C∩C\cap Sing Cβ€²C^{\prime} which is empty. Thus, for a,b,ca,b,c general we get that V​(g,h)V(g,h) is smooth.

So we conclude that S=T1,a∩T2,b,cS=T_{1,a}\cap T_{2,b,c} is smooth, which concludes the proof, since S∩H=C,S∩Hβ€²=Cβ€²S\cap H=C,S\cap H^{\prime}=C^{\prime}.

∎

Lemma 37.

Let CβŠ‚β„™3C\subset\mathbb{P}^{3} be a canonically embedded curve of genus 44. Suppose that CC has only nodes or simple cusps as singularities and that the unique quadric containing CC is smooth. Let VβŠ†(β„™3)∨V\subseteq(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee} be the subspace of hyperplanes HH so that C∩HC\cap H contains a component of length β‰₯3\geq 3. Then VV has codimension β‰₯2\geq 2 in (β„™3)∨(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee}.

Proof.

Let p∈Cp\in C be a node or a simple cusp. Then Lemma 14 gives us that a general hyperplane HH passing through pp will have an intersection of length 22 at pp. So, the hyperplanes HH passing through pp and having an intersection of length β‰₯3\geq 3 at pp will have codimension β‰₯2\geq 2 in (β„™3)∨(\mathbb{P}^{3})^{\vee}.

For a smooth point pp on CC, we can talk about the multiplicity of C∩HC\cap H at pp. A hyperplane HH containing pp will have multp​(C∩H)β‰₯2\textup{mult}_{p}(C\cap H)\geq 2 if and only if HH contains the tangent line LL to CC at pp. Now, by Lemma 13, for a general hyperplane HH containing LL, we have multp​(H∩C)=multp​(L∩C)\textup{mult}_{p}(H\cap C)=\textup{mult}_{p}(L\cap C). Now, let QQ be the unique quadric containing CC. Then QQ is smooth. So, if L∩QL\cap Q is a proper intersection for the tangent line LL to CC at a smooth point pp of CC, then for a general hyperplane HH which contains LL,

multp​(H∩C)=multp​(L∩C)≀multp​(L∩Q)≀2.\textup{mult}_{p}(H\cap C)=\textup{mult}_{p}(L\cap C)\leq\textup{mult}_{p}(L\cap Q)\leq 2.

Finally, it suffices to observe that the tangent line LL to CC is contained in QQ only for finitely many points, since CC does not contain a ruling of QQ. This finishes the proof. ∎

Lemma 38.

Let HH be a hyperplane in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4}, and let CβŠ‚HC\subset H be a canonically embedded integral curve of genus 44. Suppose that CC has only nodes or simple cusps as singularities and that the unique quadric surface in HH containing CC is smooth. Then there exists a smooth K3 surface SβŠ‚β„™4S\subset\mathbb{P}^{4} which is the intersection of a quadric and a cubic, and such that S∩H=CS\cap H=C. The general such SS will satisfy that S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} is integral for all hyperplanes Hβ€²βŠ‚β„™4H^{\prime}\subset\mathbb{P}^{4}.

Proof.

We can prove the existence of a smooth K3 surface SβŠ‚β„™4S\subset\mathbb{P}^{4} which is the intersection of a quadric and a cubic, and such that S∩H=CS\cap H=C similar as in Lemma 36. So we need to now prove that the general such SS will satisfy S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} is integral for all hyperplanes Hβ€²βŠ‚β„™4H^{\prime}\subset\mathbb{P}^{4}.

Let the coordinates of β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4} be [x:y:z:v:w][x:y:z:v:w], HH be the hyperplane {w=0}\{w=0\}, and CC be a integral non-degenerate curve in HH which is the intersection of the quadric and cubic in HH given by equations {f0​(x,y,z,v)=0}\{f_{0}(x,y,z,v)=0\} and {g0​(x,y,z,v)=0}\{g_{0}(x,y,z,v)=0\} respectively. We assume that CC has only nodes or simple cusps as singularities. Note that CC is integral and non-degenerate, so C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} will be a length 66 scheme for any hyperplane Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4}.

Let f​(x,y,z,v,w)=f0​(x,y,z,v)+w​f1​(x,y,z,v,w)f(x,y,z,v,w)=f_{0}(x,y,z,v)+wf_{1}(x,y,z,v,w) be the general quadric equation satisfying f​(x,y,z,v,0)=f0​(x,y,z,v)f(x,y,z,v,0)=f_{0}(x,y,z,v). The space of such ff is isomorphic to 𝔸5\mathbb{A}^{5}.

Let g​(x,y,z,v,w)=g0​(x,y,z,v)+w​g1​(x,y,z,v,w)g(x,y,z,v,w)=g_{0}(x,y,z,v)+wg_{1}(x,y,z,v,w) be the general quadric equation satisfying g​(x,y,z,v,0)=g0​(x,y,z,v)g(x,y,z,v,0)=g_{0}(x,y,z,v). The space of such gg is isomorphic to 𝔸15\mathbb{A}^{15}. We say that f,gf,g extends f0,g0f_{0},g_{0} if they are of the above form. Let S=V​(f,g)βŠ‚β„™4S=V(f,g)\subset\mathbb{P}^{4}.

  • β€’

    Suppose SS contains the line L={y=z=v=0}L=\{y=z=v=0\}. Let Hβ€²H^{\prime} be the hyperplane {v=0}\{v=0\}. We assume that L∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²L\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}. Then setting y=z=v=0y=z=v=0, one gets f1​(x,0,0,0,w)=0f_{1}(x,0,0,0,w)=0 and g1​(x,0,0,0,w)=0g_{1}(x,0,0,0,w)=0. Therefore, f1​(x,y,z,v,w)=f2​(y,z,v)f_{1}(x,y,z,v,w)=f_{2}(y,z,v) for some homogeneous f2f_{2} of degree 1 and g1​(x,y,z,v,w)=g2​(y,z,v)+x​g3​(y,z,v)+w​g3​(y,z,v)g_{1}(x,y,z,v,w)=g_{2}(y,z,v)+xg_{3}(y,z,v)+wg_{3}(y,z,v) for some homogeneous g2,g3,g4g_{2},g_{3},g_{4} of degree 2,1,12,1,1 respectively. So, we get that the subvariety DLD_{L} of 𝔸5×𝔸15\mathbb{A}^{5}\times\mathbb{A}^{15} parametrizing f,gf,g so that SS contains LL is isomorphic to 𝔸3×𝔸12\mathbb{A}^{3}\times\mathbb{A}^{12}.

    Now, let the space of lines in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4} be β„’=𝔾​(1,4)=Gr​(2,5)\mathscr{L}=\mathbb{G}(1,4)=\mathrm{Gr}(2,5). Consider the subspace 𝒲1\mathscr{W}_{1} of 𝔸5×𝔸15Γ—β„’Γ—(β„™4)∨\mathbb{A}^{5}\times\mathbb{A}^{15}\times\mathscr{L}\times(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee} such that

    𝒲1={(f,g,L,Hβ€²)|(f,g)​ extends ​(f0,g0),LβŠ‚S∩Hβ€²}.\mathscr{W}_{1}=\{(f,g,L,H^{\prime})|(f,g)\text{ extends }(f_{0},g_{0}),\ L\subset S\cap H^{\prime}\}.

    Firstly, observe that (f,g,L,Hβ€²)βˆˆπ’²1(f,g,L,H^{\prime})\in\mathscr{W}_{1} implies that Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H, so we assume Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H in what follows. Note that LβŠ‚S∩Hβ€²L\subset S\cap H^{\prime} implies that L∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²L\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}, so the projection map Ο€34:𝒲1β†’β„’Γ—(β„™4)∨\pi_{34}:\mathscr{W}_{1}\to\mathscr{L}\times(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee} factors through the space (L,Hβ€²)(L,H^{\prime}) so that LβŠ‚Hβ€²L\subset H^{\prime} and LL contains a point of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime}. Now, the space of lines in a fixed Hβ€²H^{\prime} which contains a point of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is of dimension 2, and the hyperplanes themselves vary in a space of dimension 4, so the space (L,Hβ€²)(L,H^{\prime}) so that LβŠ‚Hβ€²L\subset H^{\prime} and LL contains a point of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} has dimension 66. Also, the fibre of the projection map Ο€34\pi_{34} over (L,Hβ€²)(L,H^{\prime}) will be isomorphic to the variety DLD_{L} which has dimension 1515 as computed above. Thus, the dimension of 𝒲1\mathscr{W}_{1} is at most 15+6=2115+6=21. The space of hyperplanes Hβ€²H^{\prime} containing a fixed line LL is of dimension 2, so the dimension of image of the projection map Ο€12:𝒲1→𝔸5×𝔸15\pi_{12}:\mathscr{W}_{1}\to\mathbb{A}^{5}\times\mathbb{A}^{15} is of dimension at most 1919.

  • β€’

    Let Hβ€²H^{\prime} be the hyperplane {v=0}\{v=0\}. Suppose SS contains the conic TT in Hβ€²H^{\prime} given by {v=0,y=0,t​(x,z,w)=0}\{v=0,y=0,t(x,z,w)=0\}, where tt is a degree 22 homogeneous polynomial. We assume that T∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²T\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}. Then setting y=v=0y=v=0, we get that f​(x,0,z,0,w)=λ​tf(x,0,z,0,w)=\lambda t for some non-zero constant Ξ»\lambda determined by f0f_{0} and g​(x,0,z,0,w)=(a​x+b​z+c​w)​tg(x,0,z,0,w)=(ax+bz+cw)t is a (non-zero) linear multiple of tt where a,ba,b are determined by g0g_{0}. So, we get that the subvariety ETE_{T} of 𝔸5×𝔸15\mathbb{A}^{5}\times\mathbb{A}^{15} parametrizing f,gf,g so that SS contains TT is isomorphic to 𝔸2×𝔸10\mathbb{A}^{2}\times\mathbb{A}^{10}.

    Now, let the space of integral degree 2 curves in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4} be 𝒯\mathscr{T}. Consider the subspace 𝒲2\mathscr{W}_{2} of 𝔸5×𝔸15×𝒯×(β„™4)∨\mathbb{A}^{5}\times\mathbb{A}^{15}\times\mathscr{T}\times(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee} such that

    𝒲2={(f,g,T,Hβ€²)|(f,g)​ extends ​(f0,g0),TβŠ‚S∩Hβ€²}.\mathscr{W}_{2}=\{(f,g,T,H^{\prime})|(f,g)\text{ extends }(f_{0},g_{0}),\ T\subset S\cap H^{\prime}\}.

    Firstly, observe that (f,g,T,Hβ€²)βˆˆπ’²2(f,g,T,H^{\prime})\in\mathscr{W}_{2} implies that Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H, so we assume Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H in what follows. Note that TβŠ‚S∩Hβ€²T\subset S\cap H^{\prime} implies that T∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²T\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}, so the projection map Ο€34:𝒲2→𝒯×(β„™4)∨\pi_{34}:\mathscr{W}_{2}\to\mathscr{T}\times(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee} factors through the space of (T,Hβ€²)(T,H^{\prime}) so that TβŠ‚Hβ€²T\subset H^{\prime} and T∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²T\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}. We know that any degree 2 curve TT in Hβ€²H^{\prime} will lie in a plane Hβ€²β€²H^{\prime\prime} which will be unique since TT is integral. So we can consider the space

    X={(T,Hβ€²β€²,Hβ€²)|TβŠ‚Hβ€²β€²βŠ‚Hβ€²,T∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²}X=\{(T,H^{\prime\prime},H^{\prime})|T\subset H^{\prime\prime}\subset H^{\prime},T\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}\}

    seen as a subspace of 𝒯×𝔾​(2,4)Γ—(β„™4)∨\mathscr{T}\times\mathbb{G}(2,4)\times(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee}. Consider the third projection p:Xβ†’(β„™4)∨p:X\to(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee}, and fix a Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H.

    • –

      If C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is curvilinear, then there are only finitely many length 22 subschemes of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime}, each lying on a unique line β„“\ell. Thus, if we fix T∩Hβ€²T\cap H^{\prime} we also fix β„“=Hβ€²β€²βˆ©H\ell=H^{\prime\prime}\cap H. The space of planes Hβ€²β€²H^{\prime\prime} in HH containing β„“\ell is of dimension 1, and the space of conics TT in Hβ€²β€²H^{\prime\prime} so that Tβˆ©β„“T\cap\ell is fixed is of dimension 3. Thus, we get that in this case pβˆ’1​(H)p^{-1}(H) is 44 dimensional.

    • –

      If C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is not curvilinear, then Hβ€²H^{\prime} must be the full tangent space at some singular point of CC. We know that there is a 1-dimensional space of embeddings of k​[x]/(x2)k[x]/(x^{2}) at a singularity of CC (since they are either nodes or cusps) and each embedding defines a unique line, and so we get a 11-dimensional space of lines β„“\ell. The rest of computation is the same as the previous case, so we get that in this case pβˆ’1​(H)p^{-1}(H) is 55 dimensional.

    Now, the space of hyperplanes Hβ€²H^{\prime} containing a fixed plane in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4} is of dimension 1. So, we have that the space of hyperplanes Hβ€²H^{\prime} so that C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is not curvilinear is of dimension 1. So, pβˆ’1​(Hβ€²)p^{-1}(H^{\prime}) is 55 dimensional over this 1-dimensional space, and 44-dimensional over the 44-dimensional complement, hence XX is of dimension at most 88. So, the image of Ο€34\pi_{34} is of dimension at most 88 and the fibre of Ο€34\pi_{34} over (T,Hβ€²)(T,H^{\prime}) is isomorphic to ETE_{T} which is 1212 dimensional, thus 𝒲2\mathscr{W}_{2} is of dimension at most 12+8=2012+8=20. The space of hyperplanes Hβ€²H^{\prime} containing a fixed conic TT is of dimension 1, so the dimension of image of the projection map Ο€12:𝒲2→𝔸5×𝔸15\pi_{12}:\mathscr{W}_{2}\to\mathbb{A}^{5}\times\mathbb{A}^{15} is of dimension at most 1919.

  • β€’

    Let Hβ€²H^{\prime} be the hyperplane {v=0}\{v=0\}. Suppose SS contains a rational normal curve VV in Hβ€²H^{\prime}, which is the image of the degree 3 map q:β„™1β†’Hβ€²q:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to H^{\prime} given by [a:b]↦[q1(a,b):q2(a,b):q3(a,b):q4(a,b)][a:b]\mapsto[q_{1}(a,b):q_{2}(a,b):q_{3}(a,b):q_{4}(a,b)] where {qi}\{q_{i}\} are linearly independent degree 3 homogeneous polynomials in a,ba,b. We assume that V∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²V\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}. Then plugging in these coordinates we get that

    f​(q1​(a,b),q2​(a,b),q3​(a,b),0,q4​(a,b))=0,g​(q1​(a,b),q2​(a,b),q3​(a,b),0,q4​(a,b))=0.f(q_{1}(a,b),q_{2}(a,b),q_{3}(a,b),0,q_{4}(a,b))=0,g(q_{1}(a,b),q_{2}(a,b),q_{3}(a,b),0,q_{4}(a,b))=0.

    Note that (writing f​(q1,β‹―,qn)f(q_{1},\cdots,q_{n}) as short for f​(q1​(a,b),β‹―,qn​(a,b))f(q_{1}(a,b),\cdots,q_{n}(a,b)) for any polynomial ff in nn variables and any polynomials qiq_{i} in a,ba,b)

    f0​(q1,q2,q3,0)=q4​(a,b)​u​(a,b),g0​(q1,q2,q3,0)=q4​(a,b)​v​(a,b)f_{0}(q_{1},q_{2},q_{3},0)=q_{4}(a,b)u(a,b),g_{0}(q_{1},q_{2},q_{3},0)=q_{4}(a,b)v(a,b)

    are multiples of q4​(a,b)q_{4}(a,b) since V∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²V\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}. So we get that

    f1​(q1,q2,q3,0,q4)=βˆ’u​(a,b),g1​(q1,q2,q3,0,q4)=βˆ’v​(a,b).f_{1}(q_{1},q_{2},q_{3},0,q_{4})=-u(a,b),g_{1}(q_{1},q_{2},q_{3},0,q_{4})=-v(a,b).

    So, f1​(x,y,z,0,w)f_{1}(x,y,z,0,w) will be a fixed linear polynomial since q1,β‹―,q4q_{1},\cdots,q_{4} are linearly independent polynomials. Also, if there is a solution g~1\tilde{g}_{1} to g1​(q1,q2,q3,0,q4)=βˆ’v​(a,b)g_{1}(q_{1},q_{2},q_{3},0,q_{4})=-v(a,b), then g1​(x,y,z,0,w)βˆ’g~1g_{1}(x,y,z,0,w)-\tilde{g}_{1} will be a quadric which will vanish on VV and hence must be in the linear span of the three independent quadrics which contain VV. So, we get that the subvariety of 𝔸5×𝔸15\mathbb{A}^{5}\times\mathbb{A}^{15} parametrizing f,gf,g so that SS contains VV is isomorphic to 𝔸1×𝔸8\mathbb{A}^{1}\times\mathbb{A}^{8}.

    Now, let the space of integral degree 3 curves in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4} be 𝒱\mathscr{V}. Consider the subspace 𝒲3\mathscr{W}_{3} of 𝔸5×𝔸15×𝒱×(β„™4)∨\mathbb{A}^{5}\times\mathbb{A}^{15}\times\mathscr{V}\times(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee} such that

    𝒲3={(f,g,V,Hβ€²)|(f,g)​ extends ​(f0,g0),VβŠ‚S∩Hβ€²}.\mathscr{W}_{3}=\{(f,g,V,H^{\prime})|(f,g)\text{ extends }(f_{0},g_{0}),\ V\subset S\cap H^{\prime}\}.

    Firstly, observe that (f,g,V,Hβ€²)βˆˆπ’²3(f,g,V,H^{\prime})\in\mathscr{W}_{3} implies that Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H, so we assume Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H in what follows. Note that VβŠ‚S∩Hβ€²V\subset S\cap H^{\prime} implies that V∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²V\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}, so the projection map Ο€34:𝒲3→𝒱×(β„™4)∨\pi_{34}:\mathscr{W}_{3}\to\mathscr{V}\times(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee} factors through the space YY of (V,Hβ€²)(V,H^{\prime}) so that VβŠ‚Hβ€²V\subset H^{\prime} and V∩HβŠ‚C∩Hβ€²V\cap H\subset C\cap H^{\prime}. Consider the map

    p:Y\displaystyle p:Y β†’Hilb3​(β„™4)Γ—(β„™4)∨\displaystyle\to\mathrm{Hilb}_{3}(\mathbb{P}^{4})\times(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee}
    (V,Hβ€²)\displaystyle(V,H^{\prime}) ↦(V∩H,Hβ€²)\displaystyle\mapsto(V\cap H,H^{\prime})

    Fix a Hβ€²β‰ HH^{\prime}\neq H.

    • –

      If we impose V∩Hβ€²V\cap H^{\prime} equal some fixed three distinct points, then we get that the space of rational normal curves containing these points is of dimension 66 as can be seen as follows: We may assume that Hβ€²={v=0}H^{\prime}=\{v=0\} and the three points are given by A=[1:0:0:0:0],B=[0:1:0:0:0],C=[0:0:1:0:0]A=[1:0:0:0:0],B=[0:1:0:0:0],C=[0:0:1:0:0] if they are not collinear, and if they are collinear then we may assume they lie on the line {z=v=w=0}\{z=v=w=0\} and are given by A=[1:0:0:0:0],B=[0:1:0:0:0],C=[1:1:0:0:0]A=[1:0:0:0:0],B=[0:1:0:0:0],C=[1:1:0:0:0]. So, we can identify this with the space of degree 3 maps

      q:β„™1\displaystyle q:\mathbb{P}^{1} β†’β„™3\displaystyle\to\mathbb{P}^{3}
      [a:b]\displaystyle[a:b] ↦[q1(a,b):q2(a,b):q3(a,b):q4(a,b)]\displaystyle\mapsto[q_{1}(a,b):q_{2}(a,b):q_{3}(a,b):q_{4}(a,b)]
      [1:0]\displaystyle[1:0] ↦A\displaystyle\mapsto A
      [0:1]\displaystyle[0:1] ↦B\displaystyle\mapsto B
      [1:1]\displaystyle[1:1] ↦C\displaystyle\mapsto C

      (Here we identify A,B,CA,B,C with their projections to Hβ€²H^{\prime}). If qi​(a,b)=βˆ‘jqi,j​aj​b3βˆ’jq_{i}(a,b)=\sum_{j}q_{i,j}a^{j}b^{3-j}, then we get the conditions q4,0=q4,3=0,q3,0=q3,3=0,q2,0=0,q1,3=0q_{4,0}=q_{4,3}=0,q_{3,0}=q_{3,3}=0,q_{2,0}=0,q_{1,3}=0 from the first two points, and the conditions q1,0+q1,1+q1,2=0,q2,1+q2,2+q2,3=0,q4,1+q4,2=0q_{1,0}+q_{1,1}+q_{1,2}=0,q_{2,1}+q_{2,2}+q_{2,3}=0,q_{4,1}+q_{4,2}=0 for C=[0:0:1:0:0]C=[0:0:1:0:0], and the conditions q1,0+q1,1+q1,2=q2,1+q2,2+q2,3,q3,1+q3,2=0,q4,1+q4,2=0q_{1,0}+q_{1,1}+q_{1,2}=q_{2,1}+q_{2,2}+q_{2,3},q_{3,1}+q_{3,2}=0,q_{4,1}+q_{4,2}=0 for C=[1:1:0:0:0]C=[1:1:0:0:0].

      So, we get 3 independent conditions on the coefficients of qiq_{i} for every point, and hence we get a 66 dimensional space.

    • –

      If we impose V∩Hβ€²V\cap H^{\prime} equal a fixed length 2 scheme supported at a point AA plus another fixed point BB, then we get that the space of rational normal curves containing these points is of dimension 77 as can be seen as follows: We may assume that Hβ€²={v=0}H^{\prime}=\{v=0\} and the points are given by A=[1:0:0:0:0],B=[0:1:0:0:0]A=[1:0:0:0:0],B=[0:1:0:0:0]. So, we can identify this with the space of degree 3 maps

      q:β„™1\displaystyle q:\mathbb{P}^{1} β†’β„™3\displaystyle\to\mathbb{P}^{3}
      [a:b]\displaystyle[a:b] ↦[q1(a,b):q2(a,b):q3(a,b):q4(a,b)]\displaystyle\mapsto[q_{1}(a,b):q_{2}(a,b):q_{3}(a,b):q_{4}(a,b)]
      [1:0]\displaystyle[1:0] ↦[1:0:0:0]\displaystyle\mapsto[1:0:0:0]
      [0:1]\displaystyle[0:1] ↦[0:1:0:0]\displaystyle\mapsto[0:1:0:0]

      with q4​(1,b)q_{4}(1,b) having a double root at 0. If qi​(a,b)=βˆ‘jqi,j​aj​b3βˆ’jq_{i}(a,b)=\sum_{j}q_{i,j}a^{j}b^{3-j}, then we get the conditions q4,0=q4,1=q4,3=0,q3,0=q3,3=0,q2,0=0,q1,3=0q_{4,0}=q_{4,1}=q_{4,3}=0,q_{3,0}=q_{3,3}=0,q_{2,0}=0,q_{1,3}=0. Also, we need to go modulo the 1-dimensional automorphisms of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} which fix [1:0][1:0] and [0:1][0:1]. So, we get a 77 dimensional space.

    • –

      If we impose V∩Hβ€²V\cap H^{\prime} equal a fixed length 3 scheme supported at a point AA, then we get that the space of rational normal curves containing these points is of dimension 88 as can be seen as follows: We may assume that Hβ€²={v=0}H^{\prime}=\{v=0\} and the point is given by A=[1:0:0:0:0]A=[1:0:0:0:0]. So, we can identify this with the space of degree 3 maps

      q:β„™1\displaystyle q:\mathbb{P}^{1} β†’β„™3\displaystyle\to\mathbb{P}^{3}
      [a:b]\displaystyle[a:b] ↦[q1(a,b):q2(a,b):q3(a,b):q4(a,b)]\displaystyle\mapsto[q_{1}(a,b):q_{2}(a,b):q_{3}(a,b):q_{4}(a,b)]
      [1:0]\displaystyle[1:0] ↦[1:0:0:0]\displaystyle\mapsto[1:0:0:0]

      with q4​(1,b)q_{4}(1,b) having a triple root at 0. If qi​(a,b)=βˆ‘jqi,j​aj​b3βˆ’jq_{i}(a,b)=\sum_{j}q_{i,j}a^{j}b^{3-j}, then we get the conditions q4,0=q4,1=q4,2=0,q3,0,q2,0=0q_{4,0}=q_{4,1}=q_{4,2}=0,q_{3,0},q_{2,0}=0. Also, we need to go modulo the 2-dimensional automorphisms of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} which fix [1:0][1:0]. So, we get a 88 dimensional space.

    Note that the image of pp is contained in the space G={(U,Hβ€²)}G=\{(U,H^{\prime})\} where Hβ€²H^{\prime} is a hyperplane in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4} and UU is a length 3 curvilinear scheme contained in C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime}. We can break this space GG into three subschemes: UU is the union of 33 distinct points, UU is the union of a point and a connected length 2 scheme, and UU is a connected length 3 scheme. Call these G1,G2,G3G_{1},G_{2},G_{3} respectively. Then we know that the fibre of pp has dimension 66 over G1G_{1}, dimension 77 over G2G_{2} and dimension 88 over G3G_{3}.

    • –

      Consider the second projection of G1G_{1}, p1:G1β†’(β„™4)∨p_{1}:G_{1}\to(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee}. Then p1p_{1} has 0 dimensional fibres since there are only finitely many ways to choose 3 points in C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime}. Thus, G1G_{1} has dimension at most 44.

    • –

      Consider the second projection of G2G_{2}, p2:G2β†’(β„™4)∨p_{2}:G_{2}\to(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee}. Then the image of p2p_{2} consists of Hβ€²H^{\prime} which are either tangent to CC, or pass through a singular point of CC. So, the image of p2p_{2} is at most 33 dimensional. Also, p2p_{2} has a 0 dimensional fibre over Hβ€²H^{\prime} if C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is curvilinear, and p2βˆ’1​(Hβ€²)p_{2}^{-1}(H^{\prime}) is at most 1 dimensional if C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is not curvilinear (by Lemma 12). The space of hyperplanes Hβ€²H^{\prime} so that C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is not curvilinear is of dimension 1. Hence, G2G_{2} has dimension at most 33.

    • –

      Consider the second projection of G3G_{3}, p3:G2β†’(β„™4)∨p_{3}:G_{2}\to(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee}. Then the image of p3p_{3} consists of Hβ€²H^{\prime} which intersect CC at some point pp with multiplicity β‰₯3\geq 3. So, by Lemma 37, the image of p3p_{3} is at most 22 dimensional. Also, p3p_{3} has a 0 dimensional fibre over Hβ€²H^{\prime} if C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is curvilinear, and p3βˆ’1​(Hβ€²)p_{3}^{-1}(H^{\prime}) is at most 1 dimensional if C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is not curvilinear (by Lemma 12). The space of hyperplanes Hβ€²H^{\prime} so that C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is not curvilinear is of dimension 1. Hence, G3G_{3} has dimension at most 22.

    Thus, YY has dimension at most 1010, and the fibre of Ο€34\pi_{34} over (V,Hβ€²)(V,H^{\prime}) was seen to be 9 dimensional, so we get that 𝒲3\mathscr{W}_{3} is at most 1919 dimensional. So, the image of the projection map Ο€12:𝒲3→𝔸5×𝔸15\pi_{12}:\mathscr{W}_{3}\to\mathbb{A}^{5}\times\mathbb{A}^{15} has dimension at most 1919.

Now, note that for any hyperplane Hβ€²H^{\prime}, S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} is a degree 66 non-degenerate curve in Hβ€²H^{\prime}, so if it is reducible then it must contain either a degree 11 curve in Hβ€²H^{\prime}, which is a line or a degree 22 curve in Hβ€²H^{\prime}, which is a conic in a plane in Hβ€²H^{\prime} or a degree 33 non-degenerate curve in Hβ€²H^{\prime}, which is a rational normal curve. Hence, the surfaces SS for which S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} is reducible must correspond to (f,g)(f,g) which are in the image of 𝒲1\mathscr{W}_{1} or in the image of 𝒲2\mathscr{W}_{2} or in the image of 𝒲3\mathscr{W}_{3}. Since all three of these are not dominant, so we get that the general (f,g)(f,g) which extends (f0,g0)(f_{0},g_{0}) must satisfy that S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} is integral for all Hβ€²H^{\prime}. ∎

Lemma 39.

Let HH be a hyperplane in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4}, and let CβŠ‚HC\subset H be a canonically embedded integral curve of genus 44. Suppose that either CC represents a general point of Z4Z_{4} or a general point of Z3,1Z_{3,1}. Then there exists a smooth K3 surface SβŠ‚β„™4S\subset\mathbb{P}^{4} which is the intersection of a quadric and a cubic, and such that S∩H=CS\cap H=C. The general such SS will satisfy that

  1. (1)

    for all hyperplanes Hβ€²βŠ‚β„™4H^{\prime}\subset\mathbb{P}^{4}, Cβ€²=S∩Hβ€²C^{\prime}=S\cap H^{\prime} is integral.

  2. (2)

    for any hyperplane Hβ€²βŠ‚β„™4H^{\prime}\subset\mathbb{P}^{4} so that Cβ€²=S∩Hβ€²C^{\prime}=S\cap H^{\prime} is rational integral and has a cuspidal singularity, Cβ€²C^{\prime} has exactly one simple cusp and three simple nodes as singularities and the unique quadric surface Qβ€²Q^{\prime} in Hβ€²H^{\prime} containing Cβ€²C^{\prime} is smooth.

Proof.

By Lemma 38, we already know the existence, and the part (1)(1) i.e. for all hyperplanes Hβ€²βŠ‚β„™4H^{\prime}\subset\mathbb{P}^{4}, Cβ€²=S∩Hβ€²C^{\prime}=S\cap H^{\prime} is integral. So from now on we will only consider integral curves.

For part (2)(2), we claim that for any hyperplane Hβ€²H^{\prime} of β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4}, inside the space ZHβ€²Z_{H^{\prime}} of canonically embedded rational integral curves of genus 44 in Hβ€²H^{\prime}, we have

  • β€’

    Claim 1: The subspace ZHβ€²β€²Z^{\prime}_{H^{\prime}} of curves having a cusp at some point is irreducible of codimension 1 and the curve corresponding to a general point of ZHβ€²β€²Z^{\prime}_{H^{\prime}} has a simple cusp and 3 simple nodes as its singularities.

  • β€’

    Claim 2: The subspace ZHβ€²β€²β€²Z^{\prime\prime}_{H^{\prime}} of curves having a cusp and being contained in a singular quadric has codimension β‰₯2\geq 2.

To see this, we note that if 𝒬\mathcal{Q} is the space of irreducible quadric hypersurfaces in Hβ€²H^{\prime} then there is a map Ξ±:ZH′→𝒬\alpha:Z_{H^{\prime}}\to\mathcal{Q} sending the curve to the unique quadric hypersurface containing it. Then Ξ±\alpha is a dominant map. Let RXR_{X} be the fibre of Ξ±\alpha over a quadric XX. Now, let UXU_{X} be the subspace of Hom​(β„™1,X)\textup{Hom}(\mathbb{P}^{1},X) consisting of maps g:β„™1β†’Xg:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to X so that gβˆ—β€‹π’ͺX​(1)=π’ͺβ„™1​(6)g^{*}\mathcal{O}_{X}(1)=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}(6) and g​(β„™1)g(\mathbb{P}^{1}) is canonically embedded in Hβ€²H^{\prime}. Consider the map Ξ²:UXβ†’RX\beta:U_{X}\to R_{X} which sends a map to its image. This is a dominant map with the fibre over a curve CC being given by Aut(β„™1)Γ—(\mathbb{P}^{1})\timesAut(C)(C) which is 3-dimensional.

For the second claim, we begin by observing that the subspace of 𝒬\mathcal{Q} consisting of singular XX has codimension 1. Now we want to show that the subspace of RXR_{X} corresponding to curves having a cusp at some point has codimension 11 for singular XX. To prove this we will show that the inverse image of this subspace under Ξ²\beta has codimension 11 in UXU_{X}.

XX is an irreducible singular quadric in Hβ€²β‰…β„™3H^{\prime}\cong\mathbb{P}^{3}, so we may choose coordinates [x:y:z:t][x:y:z:t] so that X=V​(x2βˆ’y​z)X=V(x^{2}-yz). Now, if the map g:β„™1β†’β„™3g:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to\mathbb{P}^{3} is given by [a:b]↦[p(a,b):q(a,b):r(a,b):s(a,b)][a:b]\mapsto[p(a,b):q(a,b):r(a,b):s(a,b)] where p,q,r,sp,q,r,s are degree 66 homogeneous polynomials with no common zero then the condition for the image of gg to be contained in XX is that p​(a,b)2=q​(a,b)​r​(a,b)p(a,b)^{2}=q(a,b)r(a,b). If the gcd of q,r=uq,r=u (well defined up to a scalar), then q=u​v2q=uv^{2}, r=u​w2r=uw^{2} for some polynomials v,wv,w and p=u​v​wp=uvw. So, for d=0,1,2,3d=0,1,2,3, we get different components by fixing the degree of u=2​du=2d, and considering the space of polynomials u,v,w,su,v,w,s so that u,v,w,su,v,w,s are homogeneous of degree 2​d,3βˆ’d,3βˆ’d,62d,3-d,3-d,6 respectively, with {v,w}\{v,w\} having no common zero and {u​v​w,s}\{uvw,s\} having no common zero. Note that the space of such polynomials has dimension 1616. The space UXU_{X} is the obtained by going modulo the action of 𝔾m×𝔾m\mathbb{G}_{m}\times\mathbb{G}_{m} where (Ξ»,ΞΌ)β‹…(u,v,w,s)=(λ​u,μ​v,μ​w,λ​μ2​s)(\lambda,\mu)\cdot(u,v,w,s)=(\lambda u,\mu v,\mu w,\lambda\mu^{2}s). Let

u=βˆ‘i+j=deg⁑uui​ai​bju=\sum_{i+j=\deg u}u_{i}a^{i}b^{j}

and similar for v,w,sv,w,s.

Now, we check what the condition on gg is for it to be not an immersion at a point PP. Let P=[0:1]P=[0:1], then the conditions are (we assume u1=0u_{1}=0 if d=0d=0)

  1. (1)

    (u1​v0​w0+u0​v1​w0+u0​v0​w1)​s0=u0​v0​w0​s1(u_{1}v_{0}w_{0}+u_{0}v_{1}w_{0}+u_{0}v_{0}w_{1})s_{0}=u_{0}v_{0}w_{0}s_{1}.

  2. (2)

    (u1​v02+2​u0​v0​v1)​s0=u0​v02​s1(u_{1}v_{0}^{2}+2u_{0}v_{0}v_{1})s_{0}=u_{0}v_{0}^{2}s_{1}.

  3. (3)

    (u1​w02+2​u0​w0​w1)​s0=u0​w02​s1(u_{1}w_{0}^{2}+2u_{0}w_{0}w_{1})s_{0}=u_{0}w_{0}^{2}s_{1}.

If d,v0,w0β‰ 0d,v_{0},w_{0}\neq 0, then

(u1​v02+2​u0​v0​v1)​s0=u0​v02​s1⇔(u1​v0+2​u0​v1)​s0=u0​v0​s1(u_{1}v_{0}^{2}+2u_{0}v_{0}v_{1})s_{0}=u_{0}v_{0}^{2}s_{1}\iff(u_{1}v_{0}+2u_{0}v_{1})s_{0}=u_{0}v_{0}s_{1}
(u1​w02+2​u0​w0​w1)​s0=u0​w02​s1⇔(u1​w0+2​u0​w1)​s0=u0​w0​s1(u_{1}w_{0}^{2}+2u_{0}w_{0}w_{1})s_{0}=u_{0}w_{0}^{2}s_{1}\iff(u_{1}w_{0}+2u_{0}w_{1})s_{0}=u_{0}w_{0}s_{1}

These two are independent irreducible conditions and the equation (1) is dependent on these two, so we get a codimension 2 space. If dβ‰ 0d\neq 0, but v0=0v_{0}=0, then w0β‰ 0w_{0}\neq 0, so we have the conditions u0​v1​s0=0u_{0}v_{1}s_{0}=0 and (u1​w0+2​u0​w1)​s0=u0​w0​s1(u_{1}w_{0}+2u_{0}w_{1})s_{0}=u_{0}w_{0}s_{1}. The latter defines an irreducible space and is not contained in the former, so we get a codimension 3 space in this case. Similarly w0=0w_{0}=0 also gives us a codimension 3 space. If d=0d=0, then u0β‰ 0u_{0}\neq 0 and u1=0u_{1}=0, so the conditions are

  1. (1)

    (v1​w0+v0​w1)​s0=v0​w0​s1(v_{1}w_{0}+v_{0}w_{1})s_{0}=v_{0}w_{0}s_{1}.

  2. (2)

    2​v0​v1​s0=v02​s12v_{0}v_{1}s_{0}=v_{0}^{2}s_{1}.

  3. (3)

    2​w0​w1​s0=w02​s12w_{0}w_{1}s_{0}=w_{0}^{2}s_{1}.

and similar arguments as before will give us a codimension 2 space. Since PP is allowed to vary in β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1}, we get a codimension 1 space of maps which are not immersions. This proves the second claim.

Now, for the first claim, it is enough to consider UXU_{X} for smooth quadrics XX and prove that the subspace consisting of maps which are not immersions is irreducible and that the general point of this subspace is a map which is not an immersion at a single point and the image has a simple cusp at the image of that point and the only other singularities are simple nodes. Now, XX is a smooth quadric surface in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} so Xβ‰…β„™1Γ—β„™1X\cong\mathbb{P}^{1}\times\mathbb{P}^{1}. Now, we consider the space VV of tuples (g,P,x)(g,P,x) consisting of maps g:β„™1β†’Xg:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to X so that the image of gg is in π’ͺ​(3)⊠π’ͺ​(3)\mathcal{O}(3)\boxtimes\mathcal{O}(3) (this is needed for it to be canonically embedded) and points Pβˆˆβ„™1P\in\mathbb{P}^{1} and x∈Xx\in X so that g​(P)=xg(P)=x. Then VV is an etale-local fibre bundle over β„™1Γ—X\mathbb{P}^{1}\times X. If gg maps [a:b]↦[p(a,b):q(a,b)]Γ—[r(a,b):s(a,b)][a:b]\mapsto[p(a,b):q(a,b)]\times[r(a,b):s(a,b)] where p,q,r,sp,q,r,s are degree 33 homogeneous polynomials with no common zero, then the condition for g([0:1])=([0:1]Γ—[0:1])g([0:1])=([0:1]\times[0:1]) is that p0=r0=0p_{0}=r_{0}=0, where p​(a,b)=p0​b3+p1​a​b2+p2​a​b2+p3​a3p(a,b)=p_{0}b^{3}+p_{1}ab^{2}+p_{2}ab^{2}+p_{3}a^{3} and similar for q,r,sq,r,s. Now, the condition for gg to be not an immersion at [0:1][0:1] is that p1=r1=0p_{1}=r_{1}=0. Thus, we get that codimension 2 irreducible subspace of the fibre over ([0:1],[0:1]Γ—[0:1])([0:1],[0:1]\times[0:1]) corresponding to non-immersions at PP. So, we get a codimension 2 irreducible subspace Vβ€²V^{\prime} of VV itself corresponding to (g,P,x)(g,P,x) with gg not being an immersion at PP. Now, the first projection restricted to Vβ€²V^{\prime}: Vβ€²β†’UXV^{\prime}\to U_{X} has zero-dimensional fibres, so we must have the image as a codimension 1 irreducible subspace of UXU_{X}.

Now, to prove that the curve corresponding to a general point of the image of Vβ€²V^{\prime} has a simple cusp, we can work inside the subspace where p0=p1=r0=r1=0p_{0}=p_{1}=r_{0}=r_{1}=0, and prove that for general p,q,r,sp,q,r,s satisfying this condition, that the image is a simple cusp. We have that in a neighbourhood of [0:1]Γ—[0:1][0:1]\times[0:1], the map gg is

t↦(p​(t,1)q​(t,1),r​(t,1)s​(t,1))=(t2​(a+b​t)q​(t,1),t2​(c+d​t)s​(t,1))t\mapsto\left(\frac{p(t,1)}{q(t,1)},\frac{r(t,1)}{s(t,1)}\right)=\left(\frac{t^{2}(a+bt)}{q(t,1)},\frac{t^{2}(c+dt)}{s(t,1)}\right)

Now, q​(t,1),s​(t,1)q(t,1),s(t,1) do not vanish at 0, so we can choose inverses for them at the completion level, so that the map at the completion becomes t↦(a0​t2+a1​t3+β‹―,b0​t2+b1​t3+β‹―)t\mapsto(a_{0}t^{2}+a_{1}t^{3}+\cdots,b_{0}t^{2}+b_{1}t^{3}+\cdots) where a0=a/q0,b0=c/s0,a1=b/q0βˆ’a​q1/q02,b1=c/s0βˆ’c​s1/s02a_{0}=a/q_{0},b_{0}=c/s_{0},a_{1}=b/q_{0}-aq_{1}/q_{0}^{2},b_{1}=c/s_{0}-cs_{1}/s_{0}^{2}. Thus, for general a,b,q0,q1,s0,s1a,b,q_{0},q_{1},s_{0},s_{1}, we will have that a0​b1β‰ a1​b0a_{0}b_{1}\neq a_{1}b_{0}. Hence, we may choose coordinates so that the map becomes t↦(t2,t3)t\mapsto(t^{2},t^{3}). This gives us a simple cusp.

To prove that a general gg which is not an immersion at [0:1][0:1] is an immersion at every other point, by a similar argument as before, it is enough to show that in the space of maps gg such that g([0:1])=([0:1]Γ—[0:1])g([0:1])=([0:1]\times[0:1]) and g([1:0])=([1:0]Γ—[1:0])g([1:0])=([1:0]\times[1:0]) with gg not being an immersion at [0:1][0:1], the subspace of gg not being an immersion at [1:0][1:0] has codimension 2. But this is simple to verify: the given conditions are that p0=p1=r0=r1=0p_{0}=p_{1}=r_{0}=r_{1}=0 and q3=s3=0q_{3}=s_{3}=0, and the condition for gg to not be an immersion at [1:0][1:0] is that q2=s2=0q_{2}=s_{2}=0 so we clearly get a codimension 2 subspace.

Finally, to show that the image of gg has a simple node at other singular points, (again by a similar argument as before) it is enough to show that for a general gg so that g([0:1])=([0:1]Γ—[0:1]),g([1:0])=([1:0]Γ—[1:0]),g([1:1])=([1:0]Γ—[1:0])g([0:1])=([0:1]\times[0:1]),g([1:0])=([1:0]\times[1:0]),g([1:1])=([1:0]\times[1:0]) and gg is not an immersion at [0:1][0:1], we have that there is no other point which is mapped to ([1:0]Γ—[1:0])([1:0]\times[1:0]) under gg apart from [1:0][1:0] and [1:1][1:1] and the tangent directions at ([1:0]Γ—[1:0])([1:0]\times[1:0]) coming from [1:0][1:0] and [1:1][1:1] are different. This also follows from the simple observation that the conditions are that p​(a,b)=a2​(p2​b+p3​a),r​(a,b)=a2​(r2​b+r3​a)p(a,b)=a^{2}(p_{2}b+p_{3}a),r(a,b)=a^{2}(r_{2}b+r_{3}a) and that q​(a,b)=b​(bβˆ’a)​(q4​b+q5​a),s​(a,b)=b​(bβˆ’a)​(s4​b+s5​a)q(a,b)=b(b-a)(q_{4}b+q_{5}a),s(a,b)=b(b-a)(s_{4}b+s_{5}a) for some q4,q5,s4,s5q_{4},q_{5},s_{4},s_{5}. There is no other point which is mapped to ([1:0]Γ—[1:0])([1:0]\times[1:0]) under general such gg apart from [1:0][1:0] and [1:1][1:1] since q4​s5β‰ q5​s4q_{4}s_{5}\neq q_{5}s_{4} for general q4,q5,s4,s5q_{4},q_{5},s_{4},s_{5} so q​(a,b),s​(a,b)q(a,b),s(a,b) will not share three common roots. The tangent directions at ([1:0]Γ—[1:0])([1:0]\times[1:0]) coming from [1:0][1:0] and [1:1][1:1] are q5​r3/s5​p3q_{5}r_{3}/s_{5}p_{3} and (q4+q5)​(r2+r3)/(s4+s5)​(p2+p+3)(q_{4}+q_{5})(r_{2}+r_{3})/(s_{4}+s_{5})(p_{2}+p+3) respectively. These are not the same for general p2,p3,r2,r3,q4,q5,s4,s5p_{2},p_{3},r_{2},r_{3},q_{4},q_{5},s_{4},s_{5}, and so we are done.


Let ZHβ€²β€²β€²β€²Z^{\prime\prime\prime}_{H^{\prime}} be the subspace of ZHβ€²β€²Z^{\prime}_{H^{\prime}} of points not satisfying that they have 3 simple nodes and one simple cusp. So ZHβ€²β€²β€²β€²Z^{\prime\prime\prime}_{H^{\prime}} has codimension 2 in ZHβ€²Z_{H^{\prime}}. Let YHβ€²Y_{H^{\prime}} be the subspace of WW so that S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} is rational. Then YHβ€²Y_{H^{\prime}} has codimension 44 in WW. We have a map ψHβ€²:YHβ€²β†’ZHβ€²\psi_{H^{\prime}}:Y_{H^{\prime}}\to Z_{H^{\prime}} which sends S↦S∩Hβ€²S\mapsto S\cap H^{\prime}. This map is smooth. Therefore, the inverse image of ZHβ€²β€²β€²β€²βˆͺZHβ€²β€²β€²Z^{\prime\prime\prime}_{H^{\prime}}\cup Z^{\prime\prime}_{H^{\prime}} under ψ\psi has codimension 2 inside YHβ€²Y_{H^{\prime}}, and hence it has codimension 66 inside WW. Therefore, this subspace intersects YHY_{H} in subspace of codimension at least 22, and hence it cannot map under ψH\psi_{H} onto any codimension 1 subspace of ZHZ_{H}. Since the curve CC that we consider either corresponds to a general point of ZHZ_{H} or a general point of a codimension 1 subspace of ZHZ_{H}, so we have the result.

∎

Lemma 40.

Let HH be a hyperplane in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4}, and let CβŠ‚HC\subset H be a canonically embedded integral curve of genus 44. Suppose that either CC represents a general point of Z4Z_{4} or a general point of Z3,1Z_{3,1}. Let Hβ€²H^{\prime} be another hyperplane in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4} different from HH.

Let QQ be the unique quadric surface in HH containing CC. Then QQ is smooth. If the intersection C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is non-curvilinear at a point PP, then H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime} is the tangent plane to QQ at pp, so Q∩Hβ€²Q\cap H^{\prime} is a union of two distinct lines L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} intersecting at PP. Also, the scheme C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is a union of a length 44 subscheme of L1βˆͺL2L_{1}\cup L_{2} at PP, together with one point on L1L_{1} and another point on L2L_{2}.

Proof.

QQ is smooth follows from the proof of Lemma 39 since we got that inside the the space ZHβ€²Z_{H^{\prime}} of canonically embedded rational integral curves of genus 44 in Hβ€²H^{\prime}, we have the subspace ZHβ€²β€²β€²Z^{\prime\prime}_{H^{\prime}} of curves having a cusp and being contained in a singular quadric has codimension β‰₯2\geq 2 (this settles it for a general point of Z3,1Z_{3,1}) and the subspace of curves contained in a singular quadric has codimension 11 (for a general point of Z4Z_{4}).

If C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is non-curvilinear at PP, then it is clear that H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime} is the tangent plane to QQ at PP and therefore Q∩Hβ€²Q\cap H^{\prime} is a union of two lines L1βˆͺL2L_{1}\cup L_{2} intersecting at PP. Now, CC is the intersection of QQ with a cubic surface in HH, so each of these two lines L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} will intersect CC in a length 3 scheme.

Let us identify H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime} as β„™2[x:y:z]\mathbb{P}^{2}[x:y:z], P=[0:0:1]P=[0:0:1] and let Q∩H=V​(x​y)Q\cap H=V(xy). Now, consider a cubic V​(f)V(f) which has a singularity at pp, so f​(x,y,1)=a​x2+b​x​y+c​y2+f(x,y,1)=ax^{2}+bxy+cy^{2}+ higher degree terms. Multiplying ff by x​ynxy^{n} we get c​yn+2+cy^{n+2}+ higher degree terms in y=0(mod(x​y,f​(x,y,1)))y=0\pmod{(xy,f(x,y,1))}. Thus, if a,cβ‰ 0a,c\neq 0 then in the local ring kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y⟧/(x​y,f​(x,y,1))k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket/(xy,f(x,y,1)), we have that xn=0,yn=0x^{n}=0,y^{n}=0 for all nβ‰₯3n\geq 3. Thus,

kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y⟧/(x​y,f​(x,y,1))β‰…kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y⟧/(x​y,a​x2+c​y2)k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket/(xy,f(x,y,1))\cong k\llbracket x,y\rrbracket/(xy,ax^{2}+cy^{2})

which is a length 4 scheme. It is also clear that if a,cβ‰ 0a,c\neq 0 then the two lines of Q∩HQ\cap H intersect CC with multiplicity 22 at PP. Therefore, since these lines intersect CC in a length 3 scheme, so we must have one point each lying on L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} which is also in C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime}.

Thus, to prove that the component of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} at PP is of length 44, it suffices to fix P,QP,Q and show that the equation of the cubic at pp has non-zero x2x^{2} and y2y^{2} coefficients (if Q∩Hβ€²Q\cap H^{\prime} is given by {x​y=0}\{xy=0\}).

So we identify Q=β„™1Γ—β„™1Q=\mathbb{P}^{1}\times\mathbb{P}^{1} and take p=[0:1]Γ—[0:1]p=[0:1]\times[0:1]. Then CC is the image of a map

Ο•:β„™1β†’β„™1Γ—β„™1\phi:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to\mathbb{P}^{1}\times\mathbb{P}^{1}

which is given by

[x:y]↦[p(x,y):q(x,y)]Γ—[r(x,y):s(x,y)][x:y]\mapsto[p(x,y):q(x,y)]\times[r(x,y):s(x,y)]

where p,q,r,sp,q,r,s are degree 33 homogeneous polynomials in x,yx,y with p,qp,q having no common zero and r,sr,s having no common zero. We have three cases:

  1. (1)

    Ο•\phi is general with the property that P1=[0:1],P2=[1:0]P_{1}=[0:1],P_{2}=[1:0] maps to P=[0:1]Γ—[0:1]P=[0:1]\times[0:1].

  2. (2)

    Ο•\phi is general with the property that P1=[0:1],P2=[0:1]P_{1}=[0:1],P_{2}=[0:1] maps to P=[0:1]Γ—[0:1]P=[0:1]\times[0:1] and Q3=[1:1]Q_{3}=[1:1] maps to Pβ€²=[1:0]Γ—[1:0]P^{\prime}=[1:0]\times[1:0] and Ο•\phi is not an immersion at Q3Q_{3}.

  3. (3)

    Ο•\phi is general with the property that P1=[0:1]P_{1}=[0:1] maps to P=[0:1]Γ—[0:1]P=[0:1]\times[0:1] and Ο•\phi is not an immersion at QQ.

Let q​(x,y)=q0​y3+q1​x​y2+q2​x2​y+q3​x3q(x,y)=q_{0}y^{3}+q_{1}xy^{2}+q_{2}x^{2}y+q_{3}x^{3} and s​(x,y)=s0​y3+s1​x​y2+s2​x2​y+s3​x3s(x,y)=s_{0}y^{3}+s_{1}xy^{2}+s_{2}x^{2}y+s_{3}x^{3}. Also, let β„™1Γ—β„™1=[u:w]Γ—[v:t]\mathbb{P}^{1}\times\mathbb{P}^{1}=[u:w]\times[v:t].


In the first case, we have p​(x,y)=x​y​(p0​y+p1​x)p(x,y)=xy(p_{0}y+p_{1}x) and r​(x,y)=x​y​(r0​y+r1​x)r(x,y)=xy(r_{0}y+r_{1}x). Then in the open set at the point PP where wβ‰ 0w\neq 0 and tβ‰ 0t\neq 0, the image of Ο•\phi is parametrized by (u,v)=(p​(x,y)/q​(x,y),r​(x,y)/s​(x,y))(u,v)=(p(x,y)/q(x,y),r(x,y)/s(x,y)). If f​(u,v)f(u,v) is a polynomial vanishing at these parameters, then we need to show that the u2u^{2} and v2v^{2} terms of f​(u,v)f(u,v) are non-zero. To see this it is enough to observe that if a0​u2+a1​u​v+a2​v2a_{0}u^{2}+a_{1}uv+a_{2}v^{2} is the degree 22 term of f​(u,v)f(u,v) then the only condition that a0,a1,a2a_{0},a_{1},a_{2} satisfy is that

x3​y3|a0​p​(x,y)2​s​(x,y)2+a1​p​(x,y)​q​(x,y)​r​(x,y)​s​(x,y)+a2​r​(x,y)2​q​(x,y)2.x^{3}y^{3}|a_{0}p(x,y)^{2}s(x,y)^{2}+a_{1}p(x,y)q(x,y)r(x,y)s(x,y)+a_{2}r(x,y)^{2}q(x,y)^{2}.

So, we have that

(p02​s02)β‹…a0+(p0​q0​r0​s0)β‹…a1+(r02​q02)β‹…a2=0(p_{0}^{2}s_{0}^{2})\cdot a_{0}+(p_{0}q_{0}r_{0}s_{0})\cdot a_{1}+(r_{0}^{2}q_{0}^{2})\cdot a_{2}=0

and

(p12​s32)β‹…a0+(p1​q3​r1​s3)β‹…a1+(r12​q32)β‹…a2=0(p_{1}^{2}s_{3}^{2})\cdot a_{0}+(p_{1}q_{3}r_{1}s_{3})\cdot a_{1}+(r_{1}^{2}q_{3}^{2})\cdot a_{2}=0

In order to prove that a2β‰ 0a_{2}\neq 0 it suffices to observe that (p02​s02)β‹…(p1​q3​r1​s3)β‰ (p12​s32)β‹…(p0​q0​r0​s0)(p_{0}^{2}s_{0}^{2})\cdot(p_{1}q_{3}r_{1}s_{3})\neq(p_{1}^{2}s_{3}^{2})\cdot(p_{0}q_{0}r_{0}s_{0}) since p0,p1,r0,r1,q0,q3,s0,s3p_{0},p_{1},r_{0},r_{1},q_{0},q_{3},s_{0},s_{3} are general. Similarly to prove that a0β‰ 0a_{0}\neq 0 it is enough to check that (r02​q02)β‹…(p1​q3​r1​s3)β‰ (r12​q32)β‹…(p0​q0​r0​s0)(r_{0}^{2}q_{0}^{2})\cdot(p_{1}q_{3}r_{1}s_{3})\neq(r_{1}^{2}q_{3}^{2})\cdot(p_{0}q_{0}r_{0}s_{0}) which is again true since p0,p1,r0,r1,q0,q3,s0,s3p_{0},p_{1},r_{0},r_{1},q_{0},q_{3},s_{0},s_{3} are general.


In the second case, we just have additionally that q​(x,1)q(x,1) and r​(x,1)r(x,1) has a double root at [1:1][1:1]. This happens if and only if q0+q1+q2+q3=0q_{0}+q_{1}+q_{2}+q_{3}=0 and 3​q0+2​q1+q2=03q_{0}+2q_{1}+q_{2}=0 so q1=q3βˆ’2​q0q_{1}=q_{3}-2q_{0} and q2=q0βˆ’2​q3q_{2}=q_{0}-2q_{3} and similar for sis_{i}. So p0,p1,r0,r1,q0,q3,s0,s3p_{0},p_{1},r_{0},r_{1},q_{0},q_{3},s_{0},s_{3} are general for this case also, and hence the same computation as the first case shows that we are through in this case also.


In the third case, we have p​(x,y)=x2​(p0​y+p1​x)p(x,y)=x^{2}(p_{0}y+p_{1}x) and r​(x,y)=x2​(r0​y+r1​x)r(x,y)=x^{2}(r_{0}y+r_{1}x). So in this case the only condition satisfied by a0,a1,a2a_{0},a_{1},a_{2} is that

x6|a0​p​(x,y)2​s​(x,y)2+a1​p​(x,y)​q​(x,y)​r​(x,y)​s​(x,y)+a2​r​(x,y)2​q​(x,y)2.x^{6}|a_{0}p(x,y)^{2}s(x,y)^{2}+a_{1}p(x,y)q(x,y)r(x,y)s(x,y)+a_{2}r(x,y)^{2}q(x,y)^{2}.

So, we have that

(p02​s02)β‹…a0+(p0​q0​r0​s0)β‹…a1+(r02​q02)β‹…a2=0(p_{0}^{2}s_{0}^{2})\cdot a_{0}+(p_{0}q_{0}r_{0}s_{0})\cdot a_{1}+(r_{0}^{2}q_{0}^{2})\cdot a_{2}=0

and

p0​s0​(2​p1​s0+2​p0​s1)β‹…a0+(p1​r0​q0​s0+p0​r1​q0​s0+p0​r0​q1​s0+p0​r0​q0​s1)β‹…a1+r0​q0​(2​r1​q0+2​r0​q1)β‹…a2=0p_{0}s_{0}(2p_{1}s_{0}+2p_{0}s_{1})\cdot a_{0}+(p_{1}r_{0}q_{0}s_{0}+p_{0}r_{1}q_{0}s_{0}+p_{0}r_{0}q_{1}s_{0}+p_{0}r_{0}q_{0}s_{1})\cdot a_{1}+r_{0}q_{0}(2r_{1}q_{0}+2r_{0}q_{1})\cdot a_{2}=0

In order to prove that a2β‰ 0a_{2}\neq 0 it suffices to observe that

(p02​s02)β‹…(p1​r0​q0​s0+p0​r1​q0​s0+p0​r0​q1​s0+p0​r0​q0​s1)βˆ’(p0​q0​r0​s0)β‹…p0​s0​(2​p1​s0+2​p0​s1)(p_{0}^{2}s_{0}^{2})\cdot(p_{1}r_{0}q_{0}s_{0}+p_{0}r_{1}q_{0}s_{0}+p_{0}r_{0}q_{1}s_{0}+p_{0}r_{0}q_{0}s_{1})-(p_{0}q_{0}r_{0}s_{0})\cdot p_{0}s_{0}(2p_{1}s_{0}+2p_{0}s_{1})
=p02​s02​(βˆ’p1​r0​q0​s0+p0​r1​q0​s0+p0​r0​q1​s0βˆ’p0​r0​q0​s1)β‰ 0=p_{0}^{2}s_{0}^{2}(-p_{1}r_{0}q_{0}s_{0}+p_{0}r_{1}q_{0}s_{0}+p_{0}r_{0}q_{1}s_{0}-p_{0}r_{0}q_{0}s_{1})\neq 0

since these coefficients are general. Similarly, a0β‰ 0a_{0}\neq 0 and so we are done. ∎

5.1.1. Rational Curves containing a prescribed finite subscheme

Lemma 41.

Let YY be a length 66 subscheme of β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2} which is obtained as the intersection of a (not-necessarily irreducible) conic curve and a cubic curve in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}. Then there is a unique conic curve in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2} containing YY.

Proof.

Let QQ be a conic and RR be a cubic in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2} so that Y=Q∩RY=Q\cap R. Thus, QQ and RR do not share a common component. Suppose, if possible, that there is another conic Qβ€²Q^{\prime} distinct from QQ which contains YY. If QQ and Qβ€²Q^{\prime} do not share a common irreducible component, then Q∩Qβ€²Q\cap Q^{\prime} is a length 44 scheme by Bezout’s Theorem, which is impossible because YβŠ†Q∩Qβ€²Y\subseteq Q\cap Q^{\prime} and YY has length 66. So Q,Qβ€²Q,Q^{\prime} share a common component L1L_{1} where L1L_{1} is a line. Note that QQ and Qβ€²Q^{\prime} cannot both be non-reduced, since that would imply that they are both equal to the double line L1L_{1}. Therefore, if QQ is the double line L1L_{1} then Qβ€²Q^{\prime} is reduced, so Q=L1βˆͺL1β€²Q=L_{1}\cup L_{1}^{\prime} where L1β€²L_{1}^{\prime} is a line distinct from L1L_{1}. This implies that for any line L2L_{2} passing through the intersection point of L1L_{1} and L1β€²L_{1}^{\prime}, the conic L1βˆͺL2L_{1}\cup L_{2} will contain YY. The general L2L_{2} will not be a component of RR, so we may assume that Q=L1βˆͺL2Q=L_{1}\cup L_{2} for such an L2L_{2}.

Therefore, Q=L1βˆͺL2Q=L_{1}\cup L_{2} is the union of two distinct lines L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} in β„™2\mathbb{P}^{2}. We may further assume that L1L_{1} is the common component in QQ and Qβ€²Q^{\prime} so L2L_{2} is not an irreducible component of Qβ€²Q^{\prime}. Now, L2∩Y=L2∩RL_{2}\cap Y=L_{2}\cap R is of length 33 and L2∩Qβ€²L_{2}\cap Q^{\prime} is of length 22 by Bezout’s Theorem. On the other hand, L2∩YβŠ†L2∩Qβ€²L_{2}\cap Y\subseteq L_{2}\cap Q^{\prime} but the former has length 33 while the latter has length 22, a contradiction.

∎

Lemma 42.

Let YY be a length nn curvilinear subscheme of a surface XX supported at a single point p∈Xp\in X with nβ‰₯2n\geq 2. Assume that YY is contained in a smooth curve in XX, and that XX is contained in a smooth threefold. Let Xβ€²X^{\prime} be the blowup of XX at pp. Then there exists a curvilinear subcheme Yβ€²Y^{\prime} in Xβ€²X^{\prime} of length nβˆ’1n-1 such that for any smooth curve CC (with blowup Cβ€²C^{\prime}), CC contains YY iff Cβ€²C^{\prime} contains Yβ€²Y^{\prime}.

Proof.

Let YY be contained in a smooth curve DD. Now, if Dβ€²D^{\prime} is the blowup of DD at pp, then Dβ€²D^{\prime} maps isomorphically to DD since DD is smooth. Let YDY_{D} be the inverse image of YY under this isomorphism. Now, let Yβ€²Y^{\prime} be the unique length nβˆ’1n-1 subscheme of YDY_{D} (uniqueness and existence follows from the fact that YDβ‰…Yβ‰…Spec ​k​[x]/xnY_{D}\cong Y\cong\text{Spec }k[x]/x^{n}). We claim this is the Yβ€²Y^{\prime} that we want.

First we deal with the case when XX is smooth.

Let CC be any smooth curve such that its blowup Cβ€²C^{\prime} contains Yβ€²Y^{\prime}. Let mm be the intersection multiplicity of CC and DD at pp. Since YY is the unique length nn subscheme of DD supported at pp we only need to show that mβ‰₯nm\geq n. But now note that the intersection multiplicity of Cβ€²C^{\prime} and Dβ€²D^{\prime} at pβ€²p^{\prime} will be mβˆ’1m-1 (where pβ€²p^{\prime} is the support of Yβ€²Y^{\prime}). But both Cβ€²C^{\prime} and Dβ€²D^{\prime} contain Yβ€²Y^{\prime}, so mβˆ’1β‰₯nβˆ’1m-1\geq n-1, and hence mβ‰₯nm\geq n.

For the converse, if CC contains YY then the intersection multiplicity of CC and DD at pp is at least nn, and so the intersection multiplicity of Cβ€²C^{\prime} and Dβ€²D^{\prime} at pβ€²p^{\prime} is at least nβˆ’1n-1, and since Yβ€²Y^{\prime} is the unique length nβˆ’1n-1 subscheme of Dβ€²D^{\prime} supported at pβ€²p^{\prime}, so we have that Cβ€²C^{\prime} contains Yβ€²Y^{\prime}.

Now, let XX be general, and let CC be any smooth curve such that Cβ€²C^{\prime} passes through Yβ€²Y^{\prime}. Now, the question is local at pp, and XX is contained in a smooth threefold, so we may work in Spec ​kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y,z⟧\text{Spec }k\llbracket x,y,z\rrbracket. With a change of coordinates, we may assume that DD is given by the ideal (x,y)(x,y), and CC is given by the ideal (f,g)(f,g), where f,g∈(x,y,z)f,g\in(x,y,z) are linearly independent modulo (x,y,z)2(x,y,z)^{2}. (Also, f,g∈(x,y,zn)f,g\in(x,y,z^{n}) for nβ‰₯2n\geq 2)

Now, let f=f1+zk​f2f=f_{1}+z^{k}f_{2} and g=g1+zk​g2g=g_{1}+z^{k}g_{2}, where f1,g1∈(x,y)f_{1},g_{1}\in(x,y) and f2f_{2} is a unit in kβ€‹βŸ¦x,y,z⟧k\llbracket x,y,z\rrbracket. Then consider T=g2​fβˆ’f2​gT=g_{2}f-f_{2}g. Then T∈(f,g)∩(x,y)T\in(f,g)\cap(x,y). Also, TT will have a non-zero deg 11 term due to f,gf,g having linearly independent deg 11 terms.

Thus, we have proved that locally, C,DC,D are both contained in a smooth surface given by T=0T=0. Hence, due to uniqueness of Yβ€²βŠ‚Dβ€²Y^{\prime}\subset D^{\prime}, we can reduce to the smooth surface case and proceed as before. This completes the proof. ∎

Lemma 43.

Following the notation of Lemma 11, let C=β„™1C=\mathbb{P}^{1}, and Tϕ​(F)T_{\phi}(F) denote the tangent space of F=F​(C,X,Y1,β‹―,Ym)F=F(C,X,Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{m}) at the point (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)∈F​(k)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\in F(k). Let XX be an irreducible quadric surface in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}, βˆ‘ni=6\sum n_{i}=6 and Ο•βˆ—β€‹π’ͺX​(1)=π’ͺ​(6)\phi^{*}\mathcal{O}_{X}(1)=\mathcal{O}(6). Suppose that Ο•\phi is an immersion. If XX is singular with singular point P, suppose further that length(Yi)β‰₯2(Y_{i})\geq 2 if YiY_{i} is supported at PP and that not more than four of the YiY_{i} are supported at PP. Then (dimF)ϕ≀8+d(\dim F)_{\phi}\leq 8+d where (dimF)Ο•(\dim F)_{\phi} is the dimension of FF in a neighbourhood of the point (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}) and dd is the number of YiY_{i} which are supported at the singular point of XX (so d≀4d\leq 4).

Proof.

XX is a quadric surface in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}, Ο•:β„™1β†’X\phi:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to X satisfies Ο•βˆ—β€‹π’ͺX​(1)=π’ͺ​(6)\phi^{*}\mathcal{O}_{X}(1)=\mathcal{O}(6).

First, let us assume that ϕ​(β„™1)\phi(\mathbb{P}^{1}) is not supported at the singular point of XX. We have

0β†’Tβ„™1β†’Ο•βˆ—β€‹TXβ†’NΟ•β†’00\to T_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\to\phi^{*}T_{X}\to N_{\phi}\to 0

Let U=Xs​mU=X_{sm} be the smooth locus of XX. So U=XU=X or U=XU=X minus one point. Note that by the adjunction formula Ο‰X|U=π’ͺX​(βˆ’2)|U\omega_{X}|_{U}=\mathcal{O}_{X}(-2)|_{U}, so det(TX)|U=π’ͺ​(2)\det(T_{X})|_{U}=\mathcal{O}(2). Therefore, detΟ•βˆ—β€‹TX=π’ͺ​(12)\det\phi^{*}T_{X}=\mathcal{O}(12), since Ο•βˆ—β€‹π’ͺX​(1)=π’ͺ​(6)\phi^{*}\mathcal{O}_{X}(1)=\mathcal{O}(6) and ϕ​(β„™1)βŠ‚U\phi(\mathbb{P}^{1})\subset U. So, looking at determinants in the short exact sequence, we have that NΟ•=π’ͺ​(10)N_{\phi}=\mathcal{O}(10).

Now, βˆ‘ni=6\sum n_{i}=6 so if ℐD=ℐD1​⋯​ℐDm\mathcal{I}_{D}=\mathscr{I}_{D_{1}}\cdots\mathscr{I}_{D_{m}}, then ℐD=π’ͺ​(βˆ’6)\mathcal{I}_{D}=\mathcal{O}(-6). Thus, ℐD​NΟ•=π’ͺ​(4)\mathcal{I}_{D}N_{\phi}=\mathcal{O}(4). This implies that H0​(β„™1,ℐD​NΟ•)H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{I}_{D}N_{\phi}) is a codimension-66 space inside the 1111 dimensional space H0​(β„™1,NΟ•)H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},N_{\phi}).

Now, H1​(β„™1,Tβ„™1)=0H^{1}(\mathbb{P}^{1},T_{\mathbb{P}^{1}})=0, so we have

0β†’H0​(β„™1,Tβ„™1)β†’H0​(β„™1,Ο•βˆ—β€‹TX)β†’H0​(β„™1,NΟ•)β†’00\to H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},T_{\mathbb{P}^{1}})\to H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\phi^{*}T_{X})\to H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},N_{\phi})\to 0

H0​(β„™1,ℐD​NΟ•)H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},\mathcal{I}_{D}N_{\phi}) has codimension-66 in H0​(β„™1,NΟ•)H^{0}(\mathbb{P}^{1},N_{\phi}), so, the dimension of Tϕ​(F)T_{\phi}(F) is 11+3βˆ’6=811+3-6=\boxed{8}. Thus, we have that (dimF)ϕ≀8(\dim F)_{\phi}\leq 8.

Now, assume that XX is singular and ϕ​(β„™1)\phi(\mathbb{P}^{1}) is supported at the singular point of XX. Consider the blowup f:Xβ€²β†’Xf:X^{\prime}\to X of XX at the singular point PP of XX. Then Xβ€²X^{\prime} is smooth and any map Ο•:β„™1β†’X\phi:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to X factors through a map g:β„™1β†’Xβ€²g:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to X^{\prime}.

β„™1{\mathbb{P}^{1}}Xβ€²{X^{\prime}}X{X}Ο•\scriptstyle{\phi}g\scriptstyle{g}f\scriptstyle{f}

Now, Xβ€²X^{\prime} is a β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} bundle over β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1}, it is β„™β„™1​(π’ͺβŠ•π’ͺ​(βˆ’2))\mathbb{P}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}(\mathcal{O}\oplus\mathcal{O}(-2)) over β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1}. We have Pic​(Xβ€²)=℀​AβŠ•β„€β€‹B\text{Pic}(X^{\prime})=\mathbb{Z}A\oplus\mathbb{Z}B, where AA is a fibre of the map X′→𝑝ℙ1X^{\prime}\xrightarrow{p}\mathbb{P}^{1}, and BB is a section of pp corresponding to π’ͺX′​(1)\mathcal{O}_{X^{\prime}}(1).

Also, we have that fβˆ—β€‹π’ͺX​(1)=π’ͺX′​(2​A+B)f^{*}\mathcal{O}_{X}(1)=\mathcal{O}_{X^{\prime}}(2A+B). This implies that gβˆ—β€‹π’ͺX′​(2​A+B)=π’ͺβ„™1​(6)g^{*}\mathcal{O}_{X^{\prime}}(2A+B)=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}(6). Now, Euler exact sequence gives us

0β†’Ξ©Xβ€²/β„™11β†’pβˆ—β€‹(π’ͺβŠ•π’ͺ​(βˆ’2))βŠ—π’ͺX′​(βˆ’1)β†’π’ͺβ„™1β†’00\to\Omega_{X^{\prime}/\mathbb{P}^{1}}^{1}\to p^{*}(\mathcal{O}\oplus\mathcal{O}(-2))\otimes\mathcal{O}_{X^{\prime}}(-1)\to\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}\to 0

Now, pβˆ—β€‹(π’ͺβŠ•π’ͺ​(βˆ’2))βŠ—π’ͺX′​(βˆ’1)=(π’ͺβŠ•π’ͺ​(βˆ’2​A))βŠ—π’ͺ​(βˆ’B)=π’ͺ​(βˆ’B)βŠ—π’ͺ​(βˆ’2​Aβˆ’B)p^{*}(\mathcal{O}\oplus\mathcal{O}(-2))\otimes\mathcal{O}_{X^{\prime}}(-1)=(\mathcal{O}\oplus\mathcal{O}(-2A))\otimes\mathcal{O}(-B)=\mathcal{O}(-B)\otimes\mathcal{O}(-2A-B).

Taking determinant, we have Ξ©Xβ€²/β„™11=π’ͺ​(βˆ’2​Aβˆ’2​B)\Omega_{X^{\prime}/\mathbb{P}^{1}}^{1}=\mathcal{O}(-2A-2B).

We also have

0β†’pβˆ—β€‹Ξ©β„™11β†’Ξ©Xβ€²1β†’Ξ©Xβ€²/β„™11β†’00\to p^{*}\Omega_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}^{1}\to\Omega_{X^{\prime}}^{1}\to\Omega_{X^{\prime}/\mathbb{P}^{1}}^{1}\to 0

where exactness on the left is since any map from a locally free sheaf to a torsion free sheaf is injective.

Taking determinant, we have that detΞ©Xβ€²1=π’ͺ​(βˆ’4​Aβˆ’2​B)\det\Omega_{X^{\prime}}^{1}=\mathcal{O}(-4A-2B), and hence detgβˆ—β€‹Ξ©Xβ€²1=gβˆ—β€‹π’ͺ​(βˆ’4​Aβˆ’2​B)=O​(βˆ’12)\det g^{*}\Omega_{X^{\prime}}^{1}=g^{*}\mathcal{O}(-4A-2B)=O(-12), since gβˆ—β€‹π’ͺ​(2​A+B)=π’ͺ​(6)g^{*}\mathcal{O}(2A+B)=\mathcal{O}(6) as noted earlier.

Thus, we have that detgβˆ—β€‹TXβ€²=π’ͺ​(12)\det g^{*}T_{X^{\prime}}=\mathcal{O}(12), and hence Ng=π’ͺ​(10)N_{g}=\mathcal{O}(10). Now for each i=1,β‹―,mi=1,\cdots,m, define Yiβ€²Y_{i}^{\prime} to be the inverse image of YiY_{i} under ff if YiY_{i} is not supported at PP, and Yiβ€²Y_{i}^{\prime} to be the unique subscheme of Xβ€²X^{\prime} of length 1 less than the length of YiY_{i} given by Lemma 42 if YiY_{i} is supported at PP. Now note that there is a natural map F​(β„™1,Xβ€²,Y1β€²,β‹―,Ymβ€²)β†’F​(β„™1,X,Y1,β‹―,Ym)F(\mathbb{P}^{1},X^{\prime},Y_{1}^{\prime},\cdots,Y_{m}^{\prime})\to F(\mathbb{P}^{1},X,Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{m}), which is dominant so

(dimF​(β„™1,X,Y1,β‹―,Ym))ϕ≀(dimF​(β„™1,Xβ€²,Y1β€²,β‹―,Ymβ€²))g.(\dim F(\mathbb{P}^{1},X,Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{m}))_{\phi}\leq(\dim F(\mathbb{P}^{1},X^{\prime},Y_{1}^{\prime},\cdots,Y_{m}^{\prime}))_{g}.

Now, ℐD=ℐD1′​⋯​ℐDmβ€²=π’ͺ​(βˆ’6βˆ’d)\mathcal{I}_{D}=\mathscr{I}_{D_{1}^{\prime}}\cdots\mathscr{I}_{D_{m}^{\prime}}=\mathcal{O}(-6-d) here, so ℐD​Ng=π’ͺ​(4βˆ’d)\mathcal{I}_{D}N_{g}=\mathcal{O}(4-d) where Diβ€²D_{i}^{\prime} is the unique subdivisor of DiD_{i} mapping isomorphically onto Yiβ€²Y_{i}^{\prime}. Then the same calculation as in the previous case shows that the dimension of the tangent space of F​(β„™1,Xβ€²,Y1β€²,β‹―,Ymβ€²)F(\mathbb{P}^{1},X^{\prime},Y_{1}^{\prime},\cdots,Y_{m}^{\prime}) comes out to be 8+d\boxed{8+d}.

∎

Lemma 44.

Let CC be the unique (up to isomorphism) rational curve of genus 11 with 1 simple cusp, and let X≅ℙ1×ℙ1X\cong\mathbb{P}^{1}\times\mathbb{P}^{1} be a smooth quadric surface in ℙ3\mathbb{P}^{3}. Let Y1,⋯,YmY_{1},\cdots,Y_{m} be finite length curvilinear subschemes of XX, with their lengths totalling 66.

Consider the functor F=F​(C,X,Y1,β‹―,Ym)F=F(C,X,Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{m}), and let (g,D1,β‹―,Dm)∈F​(k)(g,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\in F(k) be a point. Suppose that g:Cβ†’Xg:C\to X is an immersion, and the image g​(C)g(C) lies in π’ͺ​(3)⊠π’ͺ​(3)\mathcal{O}(3)\boxtimes\mathcal{O}(3). We also assume that gg is an embedding at the cusp of CC, that g​(C)g(C) only has 3 simple nodes and 1 simple cusp and that at most one of the DiD_{i} are supported at the cusp of CC. Then if (dimF)g(\dim F)_{g} denotes the dimension of FF at the point (g,D1,β‹―,Dm)(g,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}), then we have

  • β€’

    (dimF)g≀6(\dim F)_{g}\leq 6 if none of the DiD_{i} are not supported at the cusp,

  • β€’

    (dimF)g≀7(\dim F)_{g}\leq 7 if length Di≀2D_{i}\leq 2 if DiD_{i} is supported at the cusp,

  • β€’

    (dimF)g≀8(\dim F)_{g}\leq 8 otherwise.

Proof.

We have the following exact sequence on the tangent spaces:

0β†’TCβ†’gβˆ—β€‹TXβ†’Ο•Ng0\to T_{C}\to g^{*}T_{X}\xrightarrow{\phi}N_{g}

where NgN_{g} is the dual of ℐC/ℐC2\mathscr{I}_{C}/\mathscr{I}_{C}^{2} in a neighbourhood of the cusp and is the usual normal bundle elsewhere. Then this gives us a map on global sections:

0β†’H0​(C,TC)β†’H0​(C,gβˆ—β€‹TX)β†’H0​(Ο•)H0​(C,Ng)0\to H^{0}(C,T_{C})\to H^{0}(C,g^{*}T_{X})\xrightarrow{H^{0}(\phi)}H^{0}(C,N_{g})

We want the inverse image of H0​(C,ℐD​Ng)H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}) under H0​(Ο•)H^{0}(\phi) where ℐD=ℐD1​⋯​ℐDm\mathscr{I}_{D}=\mathscr{I}_{D_{1}}\cdots\mathscr{I}_{D_{m}}.

We first prove that the degree of NgN_{g} is 12. There is a canonical map from NgN_{g} to the pullback of the normal bundle of g​(C)g(C) in XX which is an isomorphism outside the 66 points lying above the 33 nodes. The latter has degree 1818 so deg⁑Ng=12\deg N_{g}=12 will follow by showing that the cokernel of the map referred to above is a finite length sheaf supported at these 66 points and computing the length. To compute this, all we need to do is work out what all these sheaves and maps are locally i.e. when g​(C)g(C) is the curve x​y=0xy=0 in the plane and CC is its normalisation (so a union of two lines). This was done in the proof of Lemma 25.

So, now we have that NgN_{g} has degree =18βˆ’2Γ—3=12=18-2\times 3=12. This implies that ℐD​Ng\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g} has degree 66. Thus,

h0​(C,Ng)=12,h0​(C,ℐD​Ng)=6h^{0}(C,N_{g})=12,h^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g})=6

Let QgQ_{g} be the image of gβˆ—β€‹TXg^{*}T_{X} in NgN_{g} under Ο•\phi. Then we know that

h0​(C,TC)=2,h1​(C,TC)=0h^{0}(C,T_{C})=2,h^{1}(C,T_{C})=0

so we have

0β†’H0​(C,TC)β†’H0​(C,gβˆ—β€‹TX)β†’H0​(C,Qg)β†’00\to H^{0}(C,T_{C})\to H^{0}(C,g^{*}T_{X})\to H^{0}(C,Q_{g})\to 0

Therefore, we need to find the dimension of H0​(C,ℐD​Ng∩Qg)H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g}).

Now,Qg=NgQ_{g}=N_{g} away from the cusp, since Ο•\phi is an immersion away from the cusp and CC is smooth away from the cusp. Now, in a neighbourhood of the cusp, we have

ℐC/ℐC2\displaystyle\mathscr{I}_{C}/\mathscr{I}_{C}^{2} →𝑑ΩX|C\displaystyle\xrightarrow{d}\Omega_{X}|_{C}
y2βˆ’x3\displaystyle y^{2}-x^{3} ↦d​(y2βˆ’x3)=2​y​d​yβˆ’3​x2​d​x\displaystyle\mapsto d(y^{2}-x^{3})=2ydy-3x^{2}dx

So, locally around the cusp, we have QgQ_{g} is (3​x2,2​y)β‹…Ng=(x2,y)β‹…Ng(3x^{2},2y)\cdot N_{g}=(x^{2},y)\cdot N_{g}. Thus, Ng/QgN_{g}/Q_{g} will be length 2 supported at the cusp. Now, we proceed as in the proof of Lemma 25. Using β„’\mathcal{L} which we define to be the line bundle given as the subsheaf of NgN_{g} defined by the section yy around the cusp and equal to NgN_{g} away from the cusp, and proceeding as in the proof of Lemma 25, we get that

0β†’H0​(C,Qg)β†’H0​(C,Ng)β†’H0​(C,Ng/Qg)β†’00\to H^{0}(C,Q_{g})\to H^{0}(C,N_{g})\to H^{0}(C,N_{g}/Q_{g})\to 0

is exact. Thus, h0​(C,Qg)=10h^{0}(C,Q_{g})=10. Now, ℐDβ€‹β„’βŠ‚β„D​Ng∩Qg\mathscr{I}_{D}\mathcal{L}\subset\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g}, and ℐD​ℒ\mathscr{I}_{D}\mathcal{L} is a degree 33 line bundle so h1​(ℐD​ℒ)=0h^{1}(\mathscr{I}_{D}\mathcal{L})=0, so the same argument as before implies that

0β†’H0​(C,ℐD​Ng∩Qg)β†’H0​(C,ℐD​Ng)β†’H0​(C,ℐD​Ng/ℐD​Ng∩Qg)β†’00\to H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g})\to H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g})\to H^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}/\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g})\to 0

Thus, if DD is not supported at the cusp, then h0​(C,ℐD​Ng∩Qg)=h0​(C,ℐD​Ng)βˆ’2=4h^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g})=h^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g})-2=4 and we will have the dimension of the tangent space as 4+2=64+2=6.

If DD is supported at the cusp, then locally we have that DD is given by f∈R=k​[[x,y]]/(y2βˆ’x3)f\in R=k[[x,y]]/(y^{2}-x^{3}). We recall from the proof of Lemma 25 that if f∈(x2,y)f\in(x^{2},y) then R/(f)R/(f) has length β‰₯3\geq 3.

So, if ℐD​Ng∩Qg=ℐD​Ng\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g}=\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g} then DD has length 33 at the cusp. In this case, the dimension of the tangent space is 6+2=86+2=8.

Finally, if fβˆ‰(x2,y)f\not\in(x^{2},y) then h0​(C,ℐD​Ng∩Qg)=5h^{0}(C,\mathscr{I}_{D}N_{g}\cap Q_{g})=5 and we get the dimension of the tangent space is 5+2=75+2=7. ∎

Lemma 45.

For any finite scheme YβŠ‚β„™3Y\subset\mathbb{P}^{3}, and any (not-necessarily smooth) quadric surface XβŠ‚β„™3X\subset\mathbb{P}^{3} containing YY, let RY,XR_{Y,X} be the space of canonically embedded genus 44 rational integral curves Cβ€²C^{\prime} in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} which contain YY and are contained in XX. Let RY,X(1)R^{(1)}_{Y,X} be the subspace of RY,XR_{Y,X} corresponding to points representing curves which do not have a cusp, and let RY,X(2)R^{(2)}_{Y,X} be the points representing curves which have a cusp.

Suppose YY is a length 66 scheme supported on the conic X∩HX\cap H for a hyperplane HH of β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}. If YY is curvilinear, we have:

  1. (1)

    dimRY,X(1)≀5+d\dim R^{(1)}_{Y,X}\leq 5+d where d=1d=1 if XX is singular at a point of YY and 0 otherwise.

  2. (2)

    For a curve Cβ€²C^{\prime} representing a point of RY,X(2)R^{(2)}_{Y,X} which has exactly 1 cusp and 3 nodes as singularities, and for smooth XX,

    1. (a)

      If YY is not supported at the cusp of Cβ€²C^{\prime}, then (dimRY,X(2))C′≀4(\dim R^{(2)}_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 4.

    2. (b)

      If every component of YY has length ≀2\leq 2, then (dimRY,X(2))C′≀5(\dim R^{(2)}_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 5.

    3. (c)

      If some component of YY has length β‰₯3\geq 3, then (dimRY,X(2))C′≀6(\dim R^{(2)}_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 6.

Now, suppose that X∩HX\cap H is the union of two lines L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} intersecting at the point p0p_{0}. Let YY be supported on X∩HX\cap H, with Y=Y1βˆͺp1βˆͺp2Y=Y_{1}\cup p_{1}\cup p_{2} where Y1Y_{1} is non-curvilinear of length 44 supported at a point p0p_{0} and p1,p2p_{1},p_{2} are two other distinct points. Also, suppose that Y∩L1Y\cap L_{1} and Y∩L2Y\cap L_{2} are length 2 schemes. Then we have:

  1. (1)

    dimRY,X(1)≀7\dim R^{(1)}_{Y,X}\leq 7.

  2. (2)

    For a curve Cβ€²C^{\prime} representing a point of RY,X(2)R^{(2)}_{Y,X} which has exactly 1 cusp and 3 nodes as singularities, and for smooth XX, (dimRY,X(2))C′≀6(\dim R^{(2)}_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 6.

Proof.

Note that for any curve Cβ€²C^{\prime} corresponding to a point of RY,XR_{Y,X}, we have Y=Cβ€²βˆ©HY=C^{\prime}\cap H since YY is a length 66 subscheme of the length 66 scheme Cβ€²βˆ©HC^{\prime}\cap H.

We first analyze the dimensions of RY,X(1)R^{(1)}_{Y,X} and RY,X(2)R^{(2)}_{Y,X} when YY is curvilinear: Let Y1,β‹―,YmY_{1},\cdots,Y_{m} be the connected components of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} with deg⁑Yi=ni\deg Y_{i}=n_{i}. YiY_{i}’s are all curvilinear. Let Cβ€²C^{\prime} be a curve corresponding to a point of RY,XR_{Y,X}.

  • β€’

    If Cβ€²C^{\prime} does not have a cusp, let Ο•:β„™1β†’Cβ€²β†ͺX\phi:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to C^{\prime}\hookrightarrow X be a normalization map of Cβ€²C^{\prime}. Then Ο•\phi is an immersion. Let DiD_{i} be length nin_{i} subschemes of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} mapping to YiY_{i}. Thus, (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}) is a point of the space F(1)=F​(β„™1,X,Y1,β‹―,Ym)F^{(1)}=F(\mathbb{P}^{1},X,Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{m}). We bound the dimension of F(1)F^{(1)} at the point (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)∈F(1)​(k)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\in F^{(1)}(k) by looking at the tangent space of FF at this point. By Lemma 43, we have this bound on the dimension as 8+d8+d where d=1d=1 if XX is singular at a point of YY and 0 otherwise. So, if F0(1)F^{(1)}_{0} is the component of F(1)F^{(1)} where Ο•\phi is a degree 66 map, then we have a dominant map Ξ¨1:F0(1)β†’RY,X(1)\Psi_{1}:F^{(1)}_{0}\to R^{(1)}_{Y,X} defined as (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)↦ϕ​(β„™1)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\mapsto\phi(\mathbb{P}^{1}). The automorphism group of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} is 3-dimensional, and fixes ϕ​(β„™1)\phi(\mathbb{P}^{1}) so every fibre of Ξ¨1\Psi_{1} is at least 3-dimensional, and so we have a upper bound of 5+d5+d on the dimension of RY,X(1)R^{(1)}_{Y,X} at Cβ€²C^{\prime} where d=1d=1 if XX is singular at a point of YY and 0 otherwise.

  • β€’

    If Cβ€²C^{\prime} has 1 cusp and 3 nodes as the only singularities, let π’ž\mathscr{C} be the unique (up to isomorphism) rational curve of genus 1 with 1 cusp, and let Ο•:π’žβ†’Cβ€²\phi:\mathscr{C}\to C^{\prime} be the blow up of Cβ€²C^{\prime} at the nodes. Let DiD_{i} be length nin_{i} subschemes of π’ž\mathscr{C} mapping to YiY_{i}. Thus, (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}) is a point of the space F(2)=F​(π’ž,X,Y1,β‹―,Ym)F^{(2)}=F(\mathscr{C},X,Y_{1},\cdots,Y_{m}). So, if F0(2)F^{(2)}_{0} is the component of F(2)F^{(2)} where Ο•\phi is a degree 44 map, then we have a dominant map Ξ¨2:F0β†’RY,X(2)\Psi_{2}:F_{0}\to R^{(2)}_{Y,X} defined as (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)↦ϕ​(π’ž)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m})\mapsto\phi(\mathscr{C}). Now, by Lemma 44, the dimension of F(2)F^{(2)} at (Ο•,D1,β‹―,Dm)(\phi,D_{1},\cdots,D_{m}) is bounded by 66 if DiD_{i} are not supported at the cusp, bounded by 77 if length Di≀2D_{i}\leq 2 if DiD_{i} is supported at the cusp and bounded by 88 regardless. The automorphism group of π’ž\mathscr{C} is 2-dimensional, and fixes ϕ​(π’ž)\phi(\mathscr{C}) so every fibre of Ξ¨2\Psi_{2} is at least 2-dimensional, and so we have a upper bound of 4,5,4,5, or 66 on the dimension of RY,X(2)R^{(2)}_{Y,X} at Cβ€²C^{\prime} depending on the above conditions.

Suppose YY is not curvilinear, and let Y=Y1βˆͺp1βˆͺp2Y=Y_{1}\cup p_{1}\cup p_{2} where Y1Y_{1} is a non-curvilinear length 44 scheme supported at a singular point p0p_{0} of CC and p1,p2p_{1},p_{2} are some two other points of CC. In this case X∩HX\cap H is the union of two distinct lines L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} in HH meeting at p0p_{0} so that L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} both intersect YY with multiplicity 2 at p0p_{0}. Again, let Cβ€²C^{\prime} be a curve corresponding to a point of RY,XR_{Y,X}. Note that p1,p2p_{1},p_{2} are smooth points of Cβ€²C^{\prime} (since Y=Cβ€²βˆ©HY=C^{\prime}\cap H). If Cβ€²C^{\prime} has a simple cusp at p0p_{0} and 3 nodes as the only other singularities, then we know that the dimension of RY,X(2)R^{(2)}_{Y,X} at Cβ€²C^{\prime} is bounded by 66 by the same argument as before. So assume that Cβ€²C^{\prime} does not have a cusp at p0p_{0}.

Let us investigate the case when Cβ€²C^{\prime} does not have a cusp and XX is smooth. Let Ο•:β„™1β†’Cβ€²\phi:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to C^{\prime} be a normalization of Cβ€²C^{\prime}. So Ο•\phi is an immersion. Then the pullback of Cβ€²βˆ©H=YC^{\prime}\cap H=Y will be a degree 66 divisor DD of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1}. If p1β€²,p2β€²p_{1}^{\prime},p_{2}^{\prime} are the points of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} mapping to p1,p2p_{1},p_{2} respectively, then D=p1β€²+p2β€²+Dβ€²D=p_{1}^{\prime}+p_{2}^{\prime}+D^{\prime} where Dβ€²=D1+D2+β‹―+DmD^{\prime}=D_{1}+D_{2}+\cdots+D_{m} is supported at the mm points of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1} which map to p0p_{0}. Consider the scheme F~​(β„™1,X,Y,n1,β‹―,nm,1,1)\tilde{F}(\mathbb{P}^{1},X,Y,n_{1},\cdots,n_{m},1,1) which we will simply call F~​(nΒ―)\tilde{F}(\underline{n}), and take the component F~0\tilde{F}_{0} of F~\tilde{F} where Ο•\phi is a degree 66 map and the image of Ο•\phi has genus 44. Then the union of F~0​(nΒ―)\tilde{F}_{0}(\underline{n}) over all partitions (nΒ―)(\underline{n}) of 44 surjects onto RY,XR_{Y,X}. To bound the dimension of F~0​(nΒ―)\tilde{F}_{0}(\underline{n}) we note that it maps to E​(nΒ―)=E​mp0​(Tn1,C)Γ—β‹―Γ—E​mp0​(Tnm,C)E(\underline{n})=\textup{E}m_{p_{0}}(T_{n_{1}},C)\times\cdots\times\textup{E}m_{p_{0}}(T_{n_{m}},C) with fiber over the embeddings (Y1β€²,β‹―,Ymβ€²)(Y_{1}^{\prime},\cdots,Y_{m}^{\prime}) as F​(β„™1,X,Y,Y1β€²,β‹―,Ymβ€²,p1,p2)F(\mathbb{P}^{1},X,Y,Y_{1}^{\prime},\cdots,Y_{m}^{\prime},p_{1},p_{2}). Recall from Lemma 43, that dimF​(β„™1,X,Y,Y1β€²,β‹―,Ymβ€²,p1,p2)ϕ≀8\dim F(\mathbb{P}^{1},X,Y,Y_{1}^{\prime},\cdots,Y_{m}^{\prime},p_{1},p_{2})_{\phi}\leq 8. We have the cases:

  • β€’

    (1,1,1,1): Due to Lemma 33, such a Cβ€²C^{\prime} must necessarily have genus β‰₯6\geq 6, so this case does not arise.

  • β€’

    (2,1,1): By Lemma 12, dimE​(nΒ―)=1\dim E(\underline{n})=1. So we have the dimension of F~0​(nΒ―)≀9\tilde{F}_{0}(\underline{n})\leq 9.

  • β€’

    (3,1): By Lemma 12, dimE​(nΒ―)=1\dim E(\underline{n})=1. So we have the dimension of F~0​(nΒ―)≀9\tilde{F}_{0}(\underline{n})\leq 9.

  • β€’

    (2,2): By Lemma 12, dimE​(nΒ―)=2\dim E(\underline{n})=2. So we have the dimension of F~0​(nΒ―)≀10\tilde{F}_{0}(\underline{n})\leq 10.

So, we get that (dimRY,X(1))C′≀7(\dim R^{(1)}_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 7 in the case when XX is smooth. The case when Cβ€²C^{\prime} has a cusp (not at p0p_{0}) is handled exactly the same way as above, with π’ž\mathscr{C} instead of β„™1\mathbb{P}^{1}, and using the calculations in Lemma 44 (note that none of the DiD_{i} will be supported at the cusp), so we will get (dimRY,X(2))C′≀6(\dim R^{(2)}_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 6 in this case. Also, the case when Cβ€²C^{\prime} does not have a cusp and XX is singular at a point different from p0p_{0} is also dealt with the same way as above, and we get (dimRY,X(1))C′≀7(\dim R^{(1)}_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 7 in this case.

So it remains to deal with the case of Cβ€²C^{\prime} not having a cusp and XX being singular at p0p_{0}. Let f:Xβ€²β†’Xf:X^{\prime}\to X be the blow-up of XX at p0p_{0}. Then we will have two points p0(1)p^{(1)}_{0} and p0(2)p^{(2)}_{0} in the intersection of the exceptional of ff with the strict transform of Cβ€²C^{\prime} and these will be determined by YY since these will correspond to the two tangent directions L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} at p0p_{0}. The upshot of this is that we only need to consider F​(β„™1,Xβ€²,p0(1),p0(2),p1β€²,p2β€²)F(\mathbb{P}^{1},X^{\prime},p^{(1)}_{0},p^{(2)}_{0},p_{1}^{\prime},p_{2}^{\prime}) which has dimension ≀10\leq 10 as we saw in the proof of Lemma 43. So, we get (dimRY,X(1))C′≀7(\dim R^{(1)}_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 7 in this case. ∎

Lemma 46.

Let XX be a smooth quadric surface in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}, and let Hβ€²H^{\prime} be a plane in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} which intersects XX in the conic D=X∩Hβ€²D=X\cap H^{\prime}. Let RXR_{X} be the space of integral rational curves of genus 4 canonically embedded in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} which lie on XX, and let RXβ€²R^{\prime}_{X} be the codimension 1 irreducible subspace of RXR_{X} consisting of curves in RXR_{X} having a cusp. Then

  1. (1)

    if CC is a curve corresponding to a general point of RXR_{X}, then C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} consists of 66 general points on DD.

  2. (2)

    if CC is a curve corresponding to a general point of RXβ€²R^{\prime}_{X}, then C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} consists of 66 general points on DD.

Proof.

From the proof of Lemma 39, we have that RXR_{X} is irreducible of dimension 1111, and RXβ€²R^{\prime}_{X} is irreducible of dimension 1010, since RXR_{X} (resp. RXβ€²R^{\prime}_{X}) is the image of UXU_{X} (resp. the codimension 1 irreducible subspace of UXU_{X} of non-immersions) under Ξ²\beta.

Observation: There exists a point of RXR_{X} (and RXβ€²R^{\prime}_{X}) so that the curve CC that it represents intersects Hβ€²H^{\prime} in 66 distinct points. We note that if CC is any curve corresponding to a point of RXR_{X} (or RXβ€²R^{\prime}_{X}) then C∩HC\cap H will be the union of 66 distinct points for a general hyperplane HH. Now, there will be a ΟƒβˆˆAut​(β„™3)\sigma\in\textup{Aut}(\mathbb{P}^{3}) so that σ​(H)=Hβ€²\sigma(H)=H^{\prime} and σ​(X)=X\sigma(X)=X. So, σ​(C)\sigma(C) will represent a point of RXR_{X} (or RXβ€²R^{\prime}_{X}, respectively) which intersects Hβ€²H^{\prime} in 66 distinct points.

  1. (1)

    Consider the rational map Ξ±:RX​\dashedrightarrow​Sym6​(D)\alpha:R_{X}\dashedrightarrow\textup{Sym}^{6}(D) where C↦C∩Hβ€²C\mapsto C\cap H^{\prime} (this is a rational map due to the above observation). Take any Y={p1,β‹―,p6}Y=\{p_{1},\cdots,p_{6}\} corresponding to a point on Sym6​(D)\textup{Sym}^{6}(D), then the the fiber of Ξ±\alpha over YY is RY,XR_{Y,X}. Note that YY consists of 66 distinct points and XX is smooth, therefore RY,XR_{Y,X} has dimension ≀5\leq 5 by Lemma 45. Therefore, Ξ±\alpha has to be dominant, since the image cannot be less than 11βˆ’5=611-5=6 dimensional.

  2. (2)

    Consider the rational map Ξ±:RX′​\dashedrightarrow​Sym6​(D)\alpha:R^{\prime}_{X}\dashedrightarrow\textup{Sym}^{6}(D) where C↦C∩Hβ€²C\mapsto C\cap H^{\prime}(this is a rational map due to the above observation). Take any Y={p1,β‹―,p6}Y=\{p_{1},\cdots,p_{6}\} corresponding to a point on Sym6​(D)\textup{Sym}^{6}(D), then the the fiber of Ξ±\alpha over YY is RY,X(2)R^{(2)}_{Y,X}. Note that YY consists of 66 distinct points, so cannot be supported at the cusp of CC for any curve CC in the fiber over YY. Thus RY,X(2)R^{(2)}_{Y,X} has dimension ≀4\leq 4 by Lemma 45. Therefore, Ξ±\alpha has to be dominant, since the image cannot be less than 11βˆ’5=611-5=6 dimensional.

∎

5.2. Proof of the main result

  • β€’

    Let WW be the Hilbert scheme of complete intersections in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4} of a quadric hypersurface with a cubic hypersurface. So W=W4W=W_{4} where W4W_{4} is as in the introduction.

  • β€’

    Let J={(S,H)|S∩HJ=\{(S,H)\ |\ S\cap H is rational integral }βŠ†WΓ—(β„™4)∨\}\subseteq W\times(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee}. So JβŠ‚J4J\subset J_{4}.

  • β€’

    Let Ο€:Jβ†’W,Ξ·:Jβ†’(β„™4)∨\pi:J\to W,\ \eta:J\to(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee} be the projection maps. Note that by Lemma 38, the complement of JJ in J4J_{4} will not dominate WW, so the monodromy group of Ο€\pi will be equal to Ξ 4\Pi_{4}.

Proposition 47.

The monodromy group Π4\Pi_{4} of π:J→W\pi:J\to W is transitive.

Proof.

As with the proof of Proposition 28, it suffices to show that JJ has only one irreducible component of maximum dimension.

First, we note that Ξ·:Jβ†’(β„™4)∨\eta:J\to(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee} makes JJ into an Γ©tale locally trivial fibre bundle over (β„™4)∨(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee}, thus JJ also has only one irreducible component of maximum dimension. The fiber of Ξ·\eta above a fixed hyperplane HH is YH={S|S∩H​ is rational integral}Y_{H}=\{S\ |\ S\cap H\textup{ is rational integral}\}. Note that for S∈YHS\in Y_{H}, S∩H=CS\cap H=C is an integral curve in HH which is the intersection of a quadric and cubic, so by the adjunction formula, Ο‰C=π’ͺC​(1)\omega_{C}=\mathcal{O}_{C}(1) and hence CC is canonically embedded in HH. Thus, we may consider the map ψ:YHβ†’Z\psi:Y_{H}\to Z from YHY_{H} to the closed subscheme ZZ of rational curves in the Hilbert scheme of curves in Hβ‰…β„™3H\cong\mathbb{P}^{3} which are the complete intersection of a quadric surface and a cubic surface. Then ψ\psi is surjective due to Lemma 36. Note that due to the adjunction formula, these curves corresponding to points of ZZ are all canonically embedded. Conversely, every canonically embedded rational curve will be a point of ZZ.

On the other hand, ZZ contains Z4Z_{4} as a dense open subset corresponding to points which represent curves having only nodes and simple cusps as singularities and whose normalization morphism does not admit a non-trivial automorphism. Now, Z4Z_{4} is irreducible by Proposition 20, hence ZZ is irreducible of dimension 2020.

Let CC be a genus 44 rational integral curve canonically embedded in HH. Let β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4} be parametrized by coordinates [x0:x1:x2:x3:x4][x_{0}:x_{1}:x_{2}:x_{3}:x_{4}], HH be given by {x4=0}\{x_{4}=0\}. Write C=QC∩RCC=Q_{C}\cap R_{C} as the intersection of a quadric and cubic in HH. Let the equations of QC,RCQ_{C},R_{C} be f​(x0,β‹―,x3)=0f(x_{0},\cdots,x_{3})=0 and g​(x0,β‹―,x3)=0g(x_{0},\cdots,x_{3})=0 respectively.

If SS belongs to the fiber of ψ\psi over CC, then S=Q∩RS=Q\cap R where QQ is a quadric hypersurface and RR is a cubic hypersurface. Now, if Q∩H=Q0Q\cap H=Q_{0} and R∩H=R0R\cap H=R_{0}, then Q0∩R0=CQ_{0}\cap R_{0}=C. Therefore, Q0Q_{0} must be the unique quadric in HH which contains CC, thus Q0=QCQ_{0}=Q_{C}. Thus, if the equation of Q,RQ,R are f~​(x0,β‹―,x4)=0\tilde{f}(x_{0},\cdots,x_{4})=0 and g~​(x0,β‹―,x4)=0\tilde{g}(x_{0},\cdots,x_{4})=0 respectively, then we may vary the equation of QQ in the 𝔸5\mathbb{A}^{5} of f~\tilde{f} such that f~​(x0,x1,x2,x3,0)=c​f\tilde{f}(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},0)=cf for some non-zero scalar cc. Also, R0R_{0} is a cubic containing CC, so g~​(x0,x1,x2,x3,0)=g\tilde{g}(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},0)=g up to a linear multiple of ff, but on the other hand Q∩RQ\cap R gives the same surface when we change gg by a linear multiple of ff so we may take all g~\tilde{g} so that g~​(x0,x1,x2,x3,0)=g\tilde{g}(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},0)=g, and identify different g~\tilde{g} if they differ by a scalar times x4​fx_{4}f. Thus, we get that the fiber of ψ\psi over CC is isomorphic to the space (𝔸5×𝔸15)/∼(\mathbb{A}^{5}\times\mathbb{A}^{15})/\sim corresponding to (f~,g~)(\tilde{f},\tilde{g}) so that f~​(x0,x1,x2,x3,0)=c​f\tilde{f}(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},0)=cf for some non-zero scalar cc, g~​(x0,x1,x2,x3,0)=g\tilde{g}(x_{0},x_{1},x_{2},x_{3},0)=g and we identify (f~,g~)∼(f~,g~+c′​x4​f)(\tilde{f},\tilde{g})\sim(\tilde{f},\tilde{g}+c^{\prime}x_{4}f). Thus, we get the fiber of ψ\psi over CC to be isomorphic to 𝔸19\mathbb{A}^{19}.

We claim that ψ\psi is flat: To see this we proceed on similar lines as in the proof of Proposition 32. We denote the Hilbert scheme of complete intersection of type (2,3) in β„™n\mathbb{P}^{n} by Hilb(2,3)​(β„™n)\mathrm{Hilb}_{(2,3)}(\mathbb{P}^{n}), then we have that ψ\psi is a base change to ZZ of the morphism from Hilb(2,3)​(β„™4)\mathrm{Hilb}_{(2,3)}(\mathbb{P}^{4}) (minus the closed subset consisting of surfaces not intersecting HH properly) to Hilb(2,3)​(β„™3)\mathrm{Hilb}_{(2,3)}(\mathbb{P}^{3}), the morphism given by intersecting with HH. So, it is enough to note that this morphism between Hilbert schemes is flat. To see this we note that both the schemes are smooth: both the Hilbert schemes are a projective bundle over a projective space, and that the map has constant fibre dimension: the fibre of this space will also be isomorphic to 𝔸19\mathbb{A}^{19} by exactly the same calculation as in the previous paragraph where we calculated the fibres of ψ\psi. Thus, ψ\psi is flat.

Thus, ψ\psi is flat and has smooth fibres so ψ\psi is smooth. Now we know that ZZ is irreducible of dimension 20, so combining with ψ\psi is smooth we get that YHY_{H} is irreducible of dimension 39. Finally, since JJ is an Γ©tale locally trivial fibre bundle over (β„™4)∨(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee} with fibres YHY_{H}, thus JJ is also irreducible of dimension 43. ∎

Let Hβ€²H^{\prime} be a hyperplane in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4}. A curve Cβ€²βŠ‚Hβ€²C^{\prime}\subset H^{\prime} satisfies (βˆ—)(*) if satisfies the following:

  1. (1)

    Cβ€²C^{\prime} is an integral rational curve of genus 44 and is canonically embedded in Hβ€²H^{\prime}.

  2. (2)

    If Cβ€²C^{\prime} has a cusp then it has exactly one simple cusp and the unique quadric surface Qβ€²Q^{\prime} containing Cβ€²C^{\prime} is smooth.

Fix a hyperplane HH in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4}, and a genus 4 canonically embedded rational integral curve CβŠ‚HC\subset H. Suppose that either CC is represented by a general point of Z4Z_{4} or a general point of Z3,1Z_{3,1}.

Let Wβ€²={S|S∩H=C}βŠ†WW^{\prime}=\{S\ |\ S\cap H=C\}\subseteq W. Note that Wβ€²W^{\prime} is irreducible of dimension 1919, by the analysis in the proof of Proposition 47. Also, it always contains a smooth surface due to Lemma 36.

We define

Jβ€²={(S,Hβ€²)|S∩H=C,S∩H′​ is rational integral,Hβ€²β‰ H}βŠ†Wβ€²Γ—((β„™4)βˆ¨βˆ’H).J^{\prime}=\{(S,H^{\prime})\ |\ S\cap H=C,\ S\cap H^{\prime}\textup{ is rational integral},\ H^{\prime}\neq H\}\subseteq W^{\prime}\times((\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee}-H).

Let Ο€β€²:Jβ€²β†’Wβ€²,Ξ·β€²:Jβ€²β†’((β„™4)βˆ¨βˆ’H)\pi^{\prime}:J^{\prime}\to W^{\prime},\ \eta^{\prime}:J^{\prime}\to((\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee}-H) be the projection maps. So, by Lemma 39, there is an open set Wβ€²β€²βŠ†Wβ€²W^{\prime\prime}\subseteq W^{\prime} so that for any (S,Hβ€²)βˆˆΟ€β€²β£βˆ’1​(Wβ€²β€²)(S,H^{\prime})\in\pi^{\prime-1}(W^{\prime\prime}), S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} satisfies (βˆ—)(*). Let the fiber of Ξ·β€²\eta^{\prime} above a fixed Hβ€²H^{\prime} be

T1,Hβ€²={S|S∩H=C,S∩H′​ is rational integralΒ }T_{1,H^{\prime}}=\{S\ |\ S\cap H=C,\ S\cap H^{\prime}\textup{ is rational integral }\}

.

For any curvilinear finite scheme YY of length 66 in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}, let T2,YT_{2,Y} be the space of integral rational curves of genus 44 which are canonically embedded in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} and which contain YY. We have a map

Ξ³:\displaystyle\displaystyle\gamma: T1,Hβ€²β†’T2,C∩Hβ€²\displaystyle T_{1,H^{\prime}}\to T_{2,C\cap H^{\prime}}
S↦S∩Hβ€²\displaystyle S\mapsto S\cap H^{\prime}

By Lemma 36, Ξ³\gamma is surjective. Let the fibre of Ξ³\gamma over Cβ€²C^{\prime} be

XC,Cβ€²={S|S∩H=C,S∩Hβ€²=Cβ€²}X_{C,C^{\prime}}=\{S|S\cap H=C,\ S\cap H^{\prime}=C^{\prime}\}
Lemma 48.

For C,Cβ€²C,C^{\prime} such that C∩Hβ€²=Cβ€²βˆ©HC\cap H^{\prime}=C^{\prime}\cap H, XC,Cβ€²X_{C,C^{\prime}} is irreducible of dimension 44.

Proof.

By Lemma 35, we may write C=QC∩RCC=Q_{C}\cap R_{C}, and Cβ€²=QCβ€²βˆ©RCβ€²C^{\prime}=Q_{C^{\prime}}\cap R_{C^{\prime}}, where QC,QCβ€²Q_{C},Q_{C^{\prime}} are uniquely determined quadrics in H,Hβ€²H,H^{\prime} respectively, and RC,RCβ€²R_{C},R_{C^{\prime}} are uniquely determined up to a linear multiple of QC,QCβ€²Q_{C},Q_{C^{\prime}} respectively. As argued in the proof of Lemma 36, we get RC,RCβ€²R_{C},R_{C^{\prime}} so that RC∩Hβ€²=RCβ€²βˆ©HR_{C}\cap H^{\prime}=R_{C^{\prime}}\cap H.

Consider

X1={Q|Β Q quadric hypersurface in ​ℙ4​ such that ​Q∩H=QC,Q∩Hβ€²=QCβ€²}X_{1}=\{Q|\text{ Q quadric hypersurface in }\mathbb{P}^{4}\text{ such that }Q\cap H=Q_{C},\ Q\cap H^{\prime}=Q_{C^{\prime}}\}
X2={R|Β R cubic hypersurface in ​ℙ4​ such that ​R∩H∩QC=C,R∩Hβ€²βˆ©QCβ€²=Cβ€²}X_{2}=\{R|\text{ R cubic hypersurface in }\mathbb{P}^{4}\text{ such that }R\cap H\cap Q_{C}=C,\ R\cap H^{\prime}\cap Q_{C^{\prime}}=C^{\prime}\}

X3={(R1,R2)|R1X_{3}=\{(R_{1},R_{2})|\ R_{1} cubic hypersurface in H such that R1∩QC=C,R2R_{1}\cap Q_{C}=C,\ R_{2} cubic hypersurface in Hβ€²H^{\prime} such that R2∩QCβ€²=Cβ€²R_{2}\cap Q_{C^{\prime}}=C^{\prime}, R1∩Hβ€²=R2∩H}R_{1}\cap H^{\prime}=R_{2}\cap H\}

As seen in the proof of Lemma 36, X1X_{1} is isomorphic to 𝔸1\mathbb{A}^{1}, so it is irreducible of dimension 11.

There is a natural map X2β†’X3X_{2}\to X_{3}, R↦(R∩H,R∩Hβ€²)R\mapsto(R\cap H,R\cap H^{\prime}), whose fiber is a 𝔸2\mathbb{A}^{2}. X3X_{3} is irreducible and 6 dimensional, since we may vary R1R_{1} in a 𝔸5\mathbb{A}^{5}, and if we fix R1R_{1}, then the condition R1∩Hβ€²=R2∩HR_{1}\cap H^{\prime}=R_{2}\cap H means that we may we may vary R2R_{2} in a 𝔸1\mathbb{A}^{1}. Hence, X2X_{2} is irreducible of dimension 88.

Also, we have a surjetive map X1Γ—X2β†’XC,Cβ€²X_{1}\times X_{2}\to X_{C,C^{\prime}}, (Q,R)↦Q∩R(Q,R)\mapsto Q\cap R, so XC,Cβ€²X_{C,C^{\prime}} is irreducible. (Q,R)(Q,R) and (Qβ€²,Rβ€²)(Q^{\prime},R^{\prime}) have the same intersection iff Q=Qβ€²Q=Q^{\prime} and R=Rβ€²R=R^{\prime} up to a linear multiple of QQ, so the fibers have dimension 55. Hence, XC,Cβ€²X_{C,C^{\prime}} is irreducible of dimension 44.

∎

Let T3,YT_{3,Y} be the space of integral quadric hypersurfaces in ℙ3\mathbb{P}^{3} which contain YY. We have a natural map δY:T2,Y→T3,Y\delta_{Y}:T_{2,Y}\to T_{3,Y} sending the curve to the unique (irreducible, reduced) quadric containing it.

Recall the definition of RY,XR_{Y,X} from Lemma 45. Then we have that the fiber of Ξ΄Y\delta_{Y} above a quadric hypersurface XX in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} is RY,XR_{Y,X}.

The following is the key computation in the proof:

Proposition 49.

Let HH be a hyperplane in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}, and let YY be a disjoint union of 66 points in HH which are general with the property of being contained in a conic in HH. If XX is a smooth quadric surface in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} containing YY, then RY,XR_{Y,X} has dimension 55 and only one irreducible component of dimension 55.

Proof.

We want to prove that if XX is smooth and YY is a disjoint union of 66 points and does not lie on a line, then RY,XR_{Y,X} has only one irreducible component of dimension 55. We may assume that X≅ℙ1×ℙ1X\cong\mathbb{P}^{1}\times\mathbb{P}^{1} is embedded in ℙ3\mathbb{P}^{3} via the Segre embedding, and may assume that YY lies on the diagonal of ℙ1×ℙ1\mathbb{P}^{1}\times\mathbb{P}^{1} (since YY does not lie on a line in ℙ3\mathbb{P}^{3}) Let the points of YY be y1,⋯,y6y_{1},\cdots,y_{6}.

The points of RY,XR_{Y,X} correspond to images of maps Ξ±:β„™1β†’β„™1Γ—β„™1\alpha:\mathbb{P}^{1}\to\mathbb{P}^{1}\times\mathbb{P}^{1} so that image of Ξ±\alpha, Cβ€²=α​(β„™1)C^{\prime}=\alpha(\mathbb{P}^{1}) contains y1,β‹―,y6y_{1},\cdots,y_{6} and is in the linear system (3,3)(3,3) (since it is the intersection of a cubic in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} with XX). Now, Cβ€²C^{\prime} is intersects the diagonal exactly at y1,β‹―,y6y_{1},\cdots,y_{6}. which is given by [a:b]↦([p(a,b):q(a,b)],[r(a,b):s(a,b)])[a:b]\mapsto([p(a,b):q(a,b)],[r(a,b):s(a,b)]), where p,q,r,sp,q,r,s are polynomials of degree 33.

Let the fixed 66 points be

[0:1]↦y1=([0:1],[0:1]),[0:1]\mapsto y_{1}=([0:1],[0:1]),
[1:0]↦y2=([1:0],[1:0]),[1:0]\mapsto y_{2}=([1:0],[1:0]),
[1:1]↦y3=([1:1],[1:1]),[1:1]\mapsto y_{3}=([1:1],[1:1]),
[1:Ξ»1]↦y4=([1:ΞΌ1],[1:ΞΌ1]),[1:\lambda_{1}]\mapsto y_{4}=([1:\mu_{1}],[1:\mu_{1}]),
[1:Ξ»2]↦y5=([1:ΞΌ2],[1:ΞΌ2]),[1:\lambda_{2}]\mapsto y_{5}=([1:\mu_{2}],[1:\mu_{2}]),
[1:Ξ»3]↦y6=([1:ΞΌ3],[1:ΞΌ3]),[1:\lambda_{3}]\mapsto y_{6}=([1:\mu_{3}],[1:\mu_{3}]),

Let p​(a,b)=p0​a3+p1​a2​b+p2​a​b2+p3​b3p(a,b)=p_{0}a^{3}+p_{1}a^{2}b+p_{2}ab^{2}+p_{3}b^{3}, and similar for q,r,sq,r,s with pip_{i}’s replaced by qi,ri,siq_{i},r_{i},s_{i} respectively.

Looking at these conditions as linear equations in the pip_{i} and qiq_{i} gives us:

[00010000000010001111βˆ’1βˆ’1βˆ’1βˆ’1ΞΌ1ΞΌ1​λ1ΞΌ1​λ12ΞΌ1​λ13βˆ’1βˆ’Ξ»1βˆ’Ξ»12βˆ’Ξ»13ΞΌ2ΞΌ2​λ2ΞΌ2​λ22ΞΌ2​λ23βˆ’1βˆ’Ξ»2βˆ’Ξ»22βˆ’Ξ»23ΞΌ3ΞΌ3​λ3ΞΌ3​λ32ΞΌ3​λ33βˆ’1βˆ’Ξ»3βˆ’Ξ»32βˆ’Ξ»33]​[p0p1p2p3q0q1q2q3]=0\left[{\begin{array}[]{cccccccc}0&0&0&1&0&0&0&0\\ 0&0&0&0&1&0&0&0\\ 1&1&1&1&-1&-1&-1&-1\\ \mu_{1}&\mu_{1}\lambda_{1}&\mu_{1}\lambda_{1}^{2}&\mu_{1}\lambda_{1}^{3}&-1&-\lambda_{1}&-\lambda_{1}^{2}&-\lambda_{1}^{3}\\ \mu_{2}&\mu_{2}\lambda_{2}&\mu_{2}\lambda_{2}^{2}&\mu_{2}\lambda_{2}^{3}&-1&-\lambda_{2}&-\lambda_{2}^{2}&-\lambda_{2}^{3}\\ \mu_{3}&\mu_{3}\lambda_{3}&\mu_{3}\lambda_{3}^{2}&\mu_{3}\lambda_{3}^{3}&-1&-\lambda_{3}&-\lambda_{3}^{2}&-\lambda_{3}^{3}\\ \end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}[]{c}p_{0}\\ p_{1}\\ p_{2}\\ p_{3}\\ q_{0}\\ q_{1}\\ q_{2}\\ q_{3}\end{array}}\right]=0

and the same conditions on rir_{i} and sis_{i}. Note that ΞΌi\mu_{i} are fixed and distinct, and the Ξ»i\lambda_{i} are also distinct and not equal to 0,10,1.

Thus, p3=q0=0p_{3}=q_{0}=0, and

[111βˆ’1βˆ’1βˆ’1ΞΌ1ΞΌ1​λ1ΞΌ1​λ12βˆ’Ξ»1βˆ’Ξ»12βˆ’Ξ»13ΞΌ2ΞΌ2​λ2ΞΌ2​λ22βˆ’Ξ»2βˆ’Ξ»22βˆ’Ξ»23ΞΌ3ΞΌ3​λ3ΞΌ3​λ32βˆ’Ξ»3βˆ’Ξ»32βˆ’Ξ»33]​[p0p1p2q1q2q3]=0\left[{\begin{array}[]{cccccc}1&1&1&-1&-1&-1\\ \mu_{1}&\mu_{1}\lambda_{1}&\mu_{1}\lambda_{1}^{2}&-\lambda_{1}&-\lambda_{1}^{2}&-\lambda_{1}^{3}\\ \mu_{2}&\mu_{2}\lambda_{2}&\mu_{2}\lambda_{2}^{2}&-\lambda_{2}&-\lambda_{2}^{2}&-\lambda_{2}^{3}\\ \mu_{3}&\mu_{3}\lambda_{3}&\mu_{3}\lambda_{3}^{2}&-\lambda_{3}&-\lambda_{3}^{2}&-\lambda_{3}^{3}\\ \end{array}}\right]\left[{\begin{array}[]{c}p_{0}\\ p_{1}\\ p_{2}\\ q_{1}\\ q_{2}\\ q_{3}\end{array}}\right]=0

Let us call the 4Γ—64\times 6 matrix which is multiplied on the left in the above equation as AA. If AA has full rank, we have a subspace of 𝔸3Γ—β„™5Γ—β„™5\mathbb{A}^{3}\times\mathbb{P}^{5}\times\mathbb{P}^{5} corresponding to these 4 linearly independent linear conditions on pi,qip_{i},q_{i} as well as the same conditions on ri,sir_{i},s_{i}, and thus we get a irreducible space of dimension 5.

Consider the (𝔸3βˆ’Ξ”)×𝔸3(\mathbb{A}^{3}-\Delta)\times\mathbb{A}^{3} spanned by Ξ»i\lambda_{i} and ΞΌj\mu_{j} (Ξ”\Delta is the subscheme consisting of points where two of coordinates are equal or some coordinate is equal to 0 or 11), and consider the closed subvariety Ξ“\Gamma corresponding to the points where AA does not have full rank. Consider the 4Γ—34\times 3 matrix Aβ€²A^{\prime} formed by the last 33 columns of AA, and denote by MiM_{i} the determinant of the 3Γ—33\times 3 minors of Aβ€²A^{\prime} formed by deleting the it​hi^{th} row. Then the determinant of the matrix formed by the it​hi^{th} column of AA together with the last three columns of AA will be

M1+ΞΌ1​M2+ΞΌ2​M3+ΞΌ3​M4​ for ​i=1,\displaystyle M_{1}+\mu_{1}M_{2}+\mu_{2}M_{3}+\mu_{3}M_{4}\textup{ for }i=1,
M1+ΞΌ1​λ1​M2+ΞΌ2​λ2​M3+ΞΌ3​λ3​M4​ for ​i=2,\displaystyle M_{1}+\mu_{1}\lambda_{1}M_{2}+\mu_{2}\lambda_{2}M_{3}+\mu_{3}\lambda_{3}M_{4}\textup{ for }i=2,
M1+ΞΌ1​λ12​M2+ΞΌ2​λ22​M3+ΞΌ3​λ32​M4​ for ​i=3.\displaystyle M_{1}+\mu_{1}\lambda_{1}^{2}M_{2}+\mu_{2}\lambda_{2}^{2}M_{3}+\mu_{3}\lambda_{3}^{2}M_{4}\textup{ for }i=3.

These equations define Ξ“\Gamma. These polynomials are linear in the ΞΌi\mu_{i}, and they are linearly independent because the matrix

[M2M3M4Ξ»1​M2Ξ»2​M3Ξ»3​M4Ξ»12​M2Ξ»22​M3Ξ»32​M4]\left[{\begin{array}[]{ccc}M_{2}&M_{3}&M_{4}\\ \lambda_{1}M_{2}&\lambda_{2}M_{3}&\lambda_{3}M_{4}\\ \lambda_{1}^{2}M_{2}&\lambda_{2}^{2}M_{3}&\lambda_{3}^{2}M_{4}\\ \end{array}}\right]

has determinant M2β‹…M3β‹…M4β‹…M1M_{2}\cdot M_{3}\cdot M_{4}\cdot M_{1} which is not zero since Ξ»i\lambda_{i} are distinct and not equal to 0,10,1 (Each MiM_{i} is the determinant of a vandermonde matrix). So we have that the projection of Ξ“\Gamma on to the first component is an isomorphism.

Thus, the projection of Ξ“\Gamma on to the second component is either not dominant, or if it is dominant, then the general fiber is a finite scheme.

Now, the rank of AA is always β‰₯3\geq 3 since Aβ€²A^{\prime} has full rank. Hence, if AA does not have full rank then it has rank 33. In this case, once we fix Ξ»i\lambda_{i}, we will get a space of dimension 22 spanned by the pi,qjp_{i},q_{j} times a space of dimension 22 spanned by the ri,sjr_{i},s_{j}. But, now if ΞΌi\mu_{i} are general then there can only be a finite scheme of the Ξ»i\lambda_{i}, hence we get that these have dimension 44.

Thus, we have a unique component of maximum dimension 55. ∎

Proposition 50.

Jβ€²J^{\prime} has dimension 1717 and has only one irreducible component of dimension 1717.

Proof.

We basically unwind the calculations above. Let QQ be the unique quadric surface in HH containing CC. Then QQ is smooth by Lemma 40.

  • β€’

    We consider the map Ξ΄Y:T2,Yβ†’T3,Y\delta_{Y}:T_{2,Y}\to T_{3,Y} for Y=C∩Hβ€²Y=C\cap H^{\prime}. Note that YY is the intersection of a conic and cubic in H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime}. So by Lemma 41 there will be a unique conic DD in H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime} containing YY. Thus, T3,YT_{3,Y} will be an open set of the linear system of {\{quadrics Q0Q_{0} in Hβ€²H^{\prime} so that Q0∩H=DQ_{0}\cap H=D or Q0∩H=H}Q_{0}\cap H=H\}, and therefore irreducible of dimension 4. This linear system has base points at DD, but DD has at most one singular point, so the general Q0Q_{0} will be smooth (by the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 36). Also, the subvariety of T3,YT_{3,Y} of quadrics Q0Q_{0} with a singularity at a point of YY is non-empty iff the unique conic D=Q∩Hβ€²D=Q\cap H^{\prime} containing YY is singular at a point of YY and it has codimension 1 in T3,YT_{3,Y} in this case.

  • β€’

    The map Ξ΄Y\delta_{Y} is dominant if YY is a union of 66 general points on a conic : We proved in Lemma 46 that on any smooth quadric XX in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}, and any 66 general points on X∩HX\cap H, that there is a genus 44 curve Cβ€²C^{\prime} canonically embedded in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} which is lying on that smooth quadric and passing through these 66 points.

  • β€’

    By Proposition 49, if YY is a union of 66 general points on a conic and for smooth XX, dimRY,X=5\dim R_{Y,X}=5 and RY,XR_{Y,X} has only one irreducible component of dim5\dim 5. Thus, if YY is a disjoint union of 66 general points on a conic, then dimT2,Y=9\dim T_{2,Y}=9 and T2,YT_{2,Y} has only one irreducible component of dimension 99.

  • β€’

    Let Cβ€²C^{\prime} be a curve satisfying (βˆ—)(*) represented by a point of RY,XR_{Y,X}. Note that the condition (βˆ—)(*) is an open condition in RY,XR_{Y,X}. Let Y=Y1βˆͺβ‹―βˆͺYmY=Y_{1}\cup\cdots\cup Y_{m}, with YiY_{i} being the connected components of YY. By Lemma 45, if YY is curvilinear with every YiY_{i} of length ≀2\leq 2, then we have that (dimRY,X)C′≀5(\dim R_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 5 if XX is not singular at a point of YY and (dimRY,X)C′≀6(\dim R_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 6 if XX is singular at a point of YY. Therefore, (dimT2,Y)C′≀9(\dim T_{2,Y})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 9 for such YY. In general, we have (dimRY,X)C′≀6(\dim R_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 6 regardless of XX, so (dimT2,Y)C′≀10(\dim T_{2,Y})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 10 for any curvilinear YY.

  • β€’

    If YY is not curvilinear, then by Lemma 40, we know that Y=Y1βˆͺp1βˆͺp2Y=Y_{1}\cup p_{1}\cup p_{2} where Y1Y_{1} will be a non-curvilinear length 44 scheme supported at a singular point p0p_{0} of CC and p1,p2p_{1},p_{2} are some two other points of CC. Also, we know that in this case Q∩Hβ€²Q\cap H^{\prime} is the union of two distinct lines L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} in H∩Hβ€²H\cap H^{\prime} meeting at p0p_{0} so that L1L_{1} and L2L_{2} both intersect YY with multiplicity 2 at p0p_{0}. So, by Lemma 45, we have (dimRY,X)C′≀7(\dim R_{Y,X})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 7. So, we get (dimT2,Y)C′≀11(\dim T_{2,Y})_{C^{\prime}}\leq 11 in this case.

  • β€’

    Now, the fibers XC,Cβ€²X_{C,C^{\prime}} of Ξ³\gamma are irreducible of dimension 44 by Lemma 48. Thus, if C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} is the union of 66 general points on the conic Q∩Hβ€²Q\cap H^{\prime}, then dimT1,Hβ€²=13\dim T_{1,H^{\prime}}=13 and it has only one irreducible component of dim13\dim 13. Otherwise if Y=C∩Hβ€²Y=C\cap H^{\prime} and S∈Wβ€²β€²S\in W^{\prime\prime}, then we have (dimT1,Hβ€²)S≀13(\dim T_{1,H^{\prime}})_{S}\leq 13 if YY is curvilinear with every component YiY_{i} of length ≀2\leq 2, (dimT1,Hβ€²)S≀14(\dim T_{1,H^{\prime}})_{S}\leq 14 if YY is curvilinear, and (dimT1,Hβ€²)S≀15(\dim T_{1,H^{\prime}})_{S}\leq 15 if YY is not curvilinear.

  • β€’

    Thus, (β„™4)βˆ¨βˆ’H=UβˆͺV1βˆͺV2βˆͺV3(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee}-H=U\cup V_{1}\cup V_{2}\cup V_{3} where UU consists of Hβ€²H^{\prime} which meets CC in 66 general points lying on Q∩Hβ€²Q\cap H^{\prime}, V1V_{1} consists of Hβ€²H^{\prime} in the complement of UU so that every component of C∩Hβ€²C\cap H^{\prime} has length ≀2\leq 2, V2V_{2} consists of Hβ€²H^{\prime} in the complement of UβˆͺV1U\cup V_{1} which have a curvilinear intersection with CC, an V3V_{3} is the space of Hβ€²H^{\prime} having non-curvilinear intersection with CC. Note that V1V_{1} has codimension 1 since the general hyperplane section will consist of 66 general points, V2V_{2} has codimension 2 due to Lemma 37, and V3V_{3} has codimension 3 since any Hβ€²βˆˆV3H^{\prime}\in V_{3} must contain the tangent plane at some singular point of CC. We have that THβ€²T_{H^{\prime}} has only one irreducible component of maximum dimension and dimTHβ€²=17\dim T_{H^{\prime}}=17 over Hβ€²βˆˆUH^{\prime}\in U, (dimTHβ€²)S≀17(\dim T_{H^{\prime}})_{S}\leq 17 for [S]∈Wβ€²β€²,Hβ€²βˆˆV1[S]\in W^{\prime\prime},H^{\prime}\in V_{1} and (dimTHβ€²)S≀18(\dim T_{H^{\prime}})_{S}\leq 18 for [S]∈Wβ€²β€²,Hβ€²βˆˆV2[S]\in W^{\prime\prime},H^{\prime}\in V_{2}.

  • β€’

    So if we consider the open set Ξ·β€²β£βˆ’1​(U)βŠ‚Jβ€²\eta^{\prime-1}(U)\subset J^{\prime}, then we get that

    (dim(Jβ€²βˆ–Ξ·β€²β£βˆ’1​(U)))(S,Hβ€²)<20(\dim(J^{\prime}\setminus\eta^{\prime-1}(U)))_{(S,H^{\prime})}<20

    for [S]∈Wβ€²β€²[S]\in W^{\prime\prime}. Therefore, (Jβ€²βˆ–Ξ·β€²β£βˆ’1​(U))(J^{\prime}\setminus\eta^{\prime-1}(U)) cannot dominate Wβ€²β€²W^{\prime\prime} and hence cannot dominate Wβ€²W^{\prime}. Now, arguing similar as in the proof of Proposition 30, we can conclude that Jβ€²J^{\prime} has only one irreducible component which dominates Wβ€²W^{\prime}. Thus, Ο€β€²\pi^{\prime} has transitive monodromy by Lemma 7. ∎

Proposition 51.

Ξ g\Pi_{g} is 2βˆ’2-transitive for g=4g=4.

Proof.

Let HH be a hyperplane in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4} and let CβŠ‚HC\subset H be a canonically embedded integral rational curve of genus 4 corresponding to a general point of Z4Z_{4}. Then by Lemma 38, there exists a smooth K​3K3 surface SS in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} such that S∩H=CS\cap H=C. This implies that for a surface SS corresponding to a general point of WW, there is a hyperplane section of SS corresponding to a general point of Z4Z_{4}.

Using Proposition 50 for this CC which is a general point of Z4Z_{4} and which is also a hyperplane section S∩HS\cap H for a SS corresponding to a general point of WW, we have that the monodromy group of Ο€β€²\pi^{\prime} is transitive. Therefore, we get an element of the monodromy group which fixes (S,H)(S,H) and sends (S,Hβ€²)(S,H^{\prime}) to (S,Hβ€²β€²)(S,H^{\prime\prime}) for any two points in the fiber Ο€βˆ’1​(S)\pi^{-1}(S) different from (S,H)(S,H). Now, since Ξ g\Pi_{g} has already been proven to be transitive, so we get that Ξ g\Pi_{g} is 2-transitive.

∎

Proposition 52.

Ξ g\Pi_{g} contains a simple transposition for g=4g=4.

Proof.

We will follow the same proof as the proof of the g=3g=3 case, i.e. Proposition 32. Thus, we only need to show (note that Beauville’s formula holds in this case too)

  1. (1)

    The existence of a surface SS such that Ο€βˆ’1​(S)\pi^{-1}(S) consists of (S,H)(S,H) such that S∩HS\cap H is rational nodal for all HH apart from one H0H_{0} where S∩H0S\cap H_{0} has one simple cusp and rest nodal singularities.

  2. (2)

    Local irreducibility of JJ at this point (S,H0)(S,H_{0}).

Let H,Hβ€²H,H^{\prime} be two distinct hyperplanes in β„™4\mathbb{P}^{4}. Take smooth quadric surfaces QβŠ‚HQ\subset H and Qβ€²βŠ‚Hβ€²Q^{\prime}\subset H^{\prime} so that Q∩Hβ€²=Qβ€²βˆ©HQ\cap H^{\prime}=Q^{\prime}\cap H and let YY to be the union of 66 general points on DD where DD is the conic Q∩Hβ€²=Qβ€²βˆ©HQ\cap H^{\prime}=Q^{\prime}\cap H. Then by Lemma 46, there exists a curve CβŠ‚HC\subset H which is a curve corresponding to a general point of RQβ€²R^{\prime}_{Q} such that C∩Hβ€²=YC\cap H^{\prime}=Y. Lemma 27 also gives us the existence of a curve Cβ€²βŠ‚HC^{\prime}\subset H which is curve corresponding to a general point of RQβ€²R_{Q^{\prime}} such that Cβ€²βˆ©H=YC^{\prime}\cap H=Y. Then by Lemma 21, there exists a smooth K​3K3 surface SS in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3} such that S∩H=CS\cap H=C and S∩Hβ€²=Cβ€²S\cap H^{\prime}=C^{\prime}. This implies that for a surface SS corresponding to a general point of Wβ€²W^{\prime} (where Wβ€²W^{\prime} is defined with respect to CC), there is a hyperplane section of SS corresponding to an integral rational nodal curve. Finally, we note that a curve corresponding to a general point of Z3,1Z_{3,1} which is canonically embedded in HH is contained in a smooth quadric surface, and all smooth quadric surfaces are projectively equivalent, so a general point of RQβ€²R^{\prime}_{Q} will also correspond to a general point of Z3,1Z_{3,1}. Thus, we have that CC corresponds to a general point of Z3,1Z_{3,1}.

Using Proposition 50, we have that the monodromy group of Ο€β€²\pi^{\prime} is transitive. Therefore, we get that the fiber of a general SS in Wβ€²W^{\prime} will only consist of points (S,Hβ€²)∈Jβ€²(S,H^{\prime})\in J^{\prime} with S∩Hβ€²S\cap H^{\prime} rational nodal. So, this SS will satisfy property 11.

Finally, we need to show that JJ is locally irreducible at the point (S,H)(S,H) with S∩H=CS\cap H=C where CC is a general rational cuspidal curve of genus 4 canonically embedded in β„™3\mathbb{P}^{3}.

Let YHY_{H}, ZZ, ψ:YHβ†’Z\psi:Y_{H}\to Z be as in the proof of Proposition 47. ZZ has Z4Z_{4} as a dense open subset and hence locally irreducible at CC by Proposition 20 (Note that CC is a point of Z4Z_{4} since it is general). ψ\psi is smooth, and hence YHY_{H} is also locally irreducible at the points of the fiber over CC. Finally, we have that Ξ·:Jβ†’(β„™4)∨\eta:J\to(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee} makes JJ into an Γ©tale locally trivial fibre bundle over (β„™4)∨(\mathbb{P}^{4})^{\vee} with fibres YHY_{H}, thus JJ is also locally irreducible at the points of the fiber over CC. This ends the proof. ∎

References

  • [1] Arnaud Beauville. Counting rational curves on K​3K3 surfaces. Duke Math. J., 97(1):99–108, 1999.
  • [2] Siegfried Bosch, Werner LΓΌtkebohmert, and Michel Raynaud. NΓ©ron models, volumeΒ 21 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (3)]. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
  • [3] XiΒ Chen. Rational curves on K​3K3 surfaces. J. Algebraic Geom., 8(2):245–278, 1999.
  • [4] XiΒ Chen. A simple proof that rational curves on K​3K3 are nodal. Math. Ann., 324(1):71–104, 2002.
  • [5] Ciro Ciliberto and Thomas Dedieu. On universal Severi varieties of low genus K​3K3 surfaces. Math. Z., 271(3-4):953–960, 2012.
  • [6] Joe Harris. Galois groups of enumerative problems. Duke Math. J., 46(4):685–724, 1979.
  • [7] Daniel Huybrechts. Lectures on K3 surfaces, volume 158 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016.
  • [8] StevenΒ Lawrence Kleiman and RenatoΒ Vidal Martins. The canonical model of a singular curve. Geom. Dedicata, 139:139–166, 2009.
  • [9] JΓ‘nos KollΓ‘r. Quotient spaces modulo algebraic groups. Ann. of Math. (2), 145(1):33–79, 1997.
  • [10] I.Β I. PjateckiΔ­-Ε apiro and I.Β R. Ε afarevič. Torelli’s theorem for algebraic surfaces of type K3{\rm K}3. Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 35:530–572, 1971.
  • [11] B.Β Saint-Donat. Projective models of K3 surfaces. Amer. J. Math., 96:602–639, 1974.
  • [12] The Stacks Project Authors. Stacks Project. https://stacks.math.columbia.edu, 2018.
  • [13] Shing-Tung Yau and Eric Zaslow. BPS states, string duality, and nodal curves on K​3K3. Nuclear Phys. B, 471(3):503–512, 1996.
  • [14] Sailun Zhan. Monodromy of rational curves on K​3K3 surfaces of low genus. arXiv preprint arXiv:2004.08719, 2020.