1 Erratum to: manuscripta math. 160, 239–264 (2019) https://doi.org/10.1007/s00229-018-1056-6
An error in Proposition 5.11 was pointed out by professor Adrian Langer. In the statement of the proposition, the variety Z must be projective. Therefore, Proposition 5.11 should have been stated as follows:
Proposition 5.11
Let X, \(\Delta \), Z and f be as in Definition 5.1, and Y be a normal variety. Assume that \(f:X\rightarrow Z\) can be factored into projective morphisms \(g:X\rightarrow Y\) with \(g_*{{\mathcal {O}}}_X\cong {{\mathcal {O}}}_Y\) and \(h:Y\rightarrow Z\). Suppose that Z is projective.
-
(1)
If \((f,\Delta )\) is F-split, then so is h.
-
(2)
Assume that Y is smooth. If \((g,\Delta )\) and h are F-split, then so is \((f,\Delta )\).
-
(3)
The converse of (2) holds if \(K_Y\sim _{{{\mathbb {Z}}}_{(p)}}h^*K_Z\).
Furthermore, the proof of statements (2) and (3) of the proposition includes an unclear part and an unsuitable part, so the proof should be modified as follows:
Proof of Proposition 5.11
Let \(e>0\) be an integer. Now we have the following commutative diagram:
Here, \(\pi ^{(e)}:=(F_{Y/Z}^{(e)})_X\). We first show (1). The above diagram induces the commutative diagram of \({{\mathcal {O}}}_{Y_{Z^e}}\)-modules
where the left vertical morphism is an isomorphism because of the flatness of \((F_Z^e)_Y\). Since the lower horizontal morphism splits, so does the upper one.
Next, we show (2) and (3). As explained in Observation 5.4, if \((g,\Delta )\) is F-split, then there exists an effective \({{\mathbb {Z}}}_{(p)}\)-Weil divisor \(\Delta '\ge \Delta \) on X such that \(K_{X/Y}+\Delta '\) is \({{\mathbb {Z}}}_{(p)}\)-linearly trivial and that \((g,\Delta ')\) is also F-split. Therefore, when we prove (2), we may assume that \(\Delta \) is a \({{\mathbb {Z}}}_{(p)}\)-Weil divisor and that \((p^e-1)(K_{X/Y}+\Delta )\sim 0\) for every \(e>0\) divisible enough. In this case, \((p^e-1)(K_{X/Z}+\Delta ) \sim (p^e-1)g^* K_{Y/Z}\), so \({\mathcal {L}}^{(e)}_{(X/Z,\Delta )} \cong {g^{(e)}}^* {\mathcal {N}}_1^{(e)}\) for a line bundle \({\mathcal {N}}_1^{(e)}\) on \(Y^{e}\), and \( {\mathcal {L}}^{(e)}_{(X/Y,\Delta )} \cong {\mathcal {O}}_{X^e} \cong {g^{(e)}}^*{\mathcal {O}}_{Y^e}. \) By an argument similar to the above, when we show (3), we may suppose that for every \(e>0\) divisible enough, \({\mathcal {L}}^{(e)}_{(X/Y,\Delta )} \cong {g^{(e)}}^* {\mathcal {M}}_1^{(e)}\) for a line bundle \({\mathcal {M}}_1^{(e)}\) on \(Y^e\), and \( {\mathcal {L}}^{(e)}_{(X/Z,\Delta )} \cong {\mathcal {O}}_{X^e} \cong {g^{(e)}}^* {\mathcal {O}}_{Y^e}. \) In summary, since we now prove (2) and (3), we may assume that for every \(e>0\) divisible enough, \({{\mathcal {L}}}^{(e)}_{(X/Y,\Delta )} \cong {g^{(e)}}^*{\mathcal {M}}^{(e)}\) and \({{\mathcal {L}}}^{(e)}_{(X/Z,\Delta )} \cong {g^{(e)}}^*{\mathcal {N}}^{(e)}\) for line bundles \({\mathcal {M}}^{(e)}\) and \({\mathcal {N}}^{(e)}\) on \(Y^e\).
Let \(V\subseteq Y\) be an open subset such that g is flat at every point in \(X_V:=g^{-1}(V)\) and \({\mathrm {codim}}(Y\setminus V)\ge 2\). Let \(u:U\rightarrow X_V\) be the open immersion of the regular locus of \(X_V\). Set \(g':=g\circ u:U\rightarrow Y\). We then have \({g'}_*{{\mathcal {O}}}_U\cong {{\mathcal {O}}}_Y\) because of the assumptions. Therefore, for every line bundle \({\mathcal {N}}\) on Y, we see that
by the projection formula. In addition, by the flatness of \(F_Z^e\), we get \({{g'}_{Z^e}}_*{{\mathcal {O}}}_{U_{Z^e}}\cong {{\mathcal {O}}}_{Y_{Z^e}}\), and so \( H^0\left( U_{Z^e}, {\mathcal {O}}_{U_{Z^e}}\right) \cong H^0\left( X_{Z^e}, {\mathcal {O}}_{X_{Z^e}}\right) \) by an argument similar to the above. Hence, we have the following commutative diagram:
Note that we are assuming that \({\mathcal {L}}^{(e)}_{(X/Z,\Delta )} \cong {g^{(e)}}^*{\mathcal {N}}\) for a line bundle \({\mathcal {N}}\) on \(Y^e\). Since the splitting of \(\phi ^{(e)}_{(X/Z,\Delta )}\) is clearly equivalent to the surjectivity of \(H^0\left( X_{Z^e},\phi _{(X/Z,\Delta )}^{(e)}\right) \), we see that the F-splitting of \((f,\Delta )\) and that of \((f|_U:U\rightarrow Z,\Delta |_U)\) are equivalent. By an argument similar to the above, we find that the F-splitting of \((g,\Delta )\) and that of \((g|_U,\Delta |_U)\) are also equivalent.
Assume that we can choose \(V=Y\) and \(U=X\), i.e. X and Y are regular and g is flat. Let \(e>0\) be an integer. By the flatness of g, we have the following commutative diagram:
This implies that
Applying the functor \({\mathcal {H}}om(\underline{\quad },{{\mathcal {O}}}_{X_{Z^e}})\) and the Grothendieck duality to the natural morphism
we obtain the morphism
Note that
We now prove the assertion. If \((g,\Delta )\) is F-split and h is F-split, then both of \(\phi ^{(e)}_{(X/Y,\Delta )}\) and \(\phi ^{(e)}_{Y/Z}\) split for every \(e>0\) divisible enough. Therefore, \(\phi ^{(e)}_{(X/Z,\Delta )}\) also splits, i.e. \((f,\Delta )\) is F-split. Conversely, suppose that \((f,\Delta )\) is F-split and that \((p^e-1)K_{Y/Z}\sim 0\) for an \(e>0\). Then, \({{\mathcal {L}}}^{(e)}_{Y/Z}\cong {{\mathcal {O}}}_{Y_{Z^e}}\) and \({\omega }_{\pi ^{(e)}}\cong {{\mathcal {O}}}_{X_{Y^e}}\). Fix an \(e>0\) divisible enough. Since \(H^0\left( X_{Z^e},\phi _{(X/Z,\Delta )}^{(e)}\right) \) is surjective, \(H^0\left( X_{Z^e},{\pi ^{(e)}}_*\phi _{(X/Y,\Delta )}^{(e)}\right) \) is a nonzero morphism, and hence so is \(H^0\left( X_{Y^e},\phi ^{(e)}_{(X/Y,\Delta )}\right) \). This morphism is surjective because of \(H^0(X_{Y^e},{{\mathcal {O}}}_{X_{Y^e}})\cong H^0(Y^e,{{\mathcal {O}}}_{Y^e})\cong k\). Thus, \(\phi ^{(e)}_{(X/Y,\Delta )}\) splits, and so \((g,\Delta )\) is F-split. Note that the F-splitting of h follows directly from (1). \(\square \)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Ejiri, S. Erratum to “When is the Albanese morphism an algebraic fiber space in positive characteristic?”. manuscripta math. 168, 305–307 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00229-022-01392-0
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00229-022-01392-0