Advertisement

European Journal of Mathematics

, Volume 4, Issue 3, pp 845–858 | Cite as

Alpha-invariants and purely log terminal blow-ups

  • Ivan Cheltsov
  • Jihun Park
  • Constantin Shramov
Open Access
Research Article

Abstract

We prove that the sum of the \(\alpha \)-invariants of two different Kollár components of a Kawamata log terminal singularity is less than 1.

Keywords

Alpha-invariant of Tian Log Fano variety Purely log terminal blow-up Log terminal singularity 

Mathematics Subject Classification

14E05 14J45 32Q26 
We assume that all varieties are defined over the field \({\mathbb {C}}\). Let V be a normal irreducible projective variety of dimension \(n\geqslant 1\), and let \({\Delta }_V\) be an effective \({\mathbb {Q}}\)-divisor on V. Writewhere each \({\Delta }_i\) is a prime divisor, and each \(a_i\) is a positive rational number. Suppose that the log pair \((V,{\Delta }_{V})\) has at most Kawamata log terminal singularities. Then, in particular, each \(a_i\) is less than 1. Suppose also that the divisor Open image in new window is ample, so that \((V,{\Delta }_{V})\) is a log Fano variety. Finally, suppose that V is faithfully acted on by a finite group G such that the divisor \({\Delta }_{V}\) is G-invariant. Let \(\alpha _G(V,{\Delta }_V)\) be the real number defined byThis number is known as the \(\alpha \)-invariant of the log Fano variety \((V,{\Delta }_V)\), or its global log canonical threshold (see [12, Definition 3.1]). If G is trivial, we put \(\alpha (V,{\Delta }_{V})=\alpha _{G}(V,{\Delta }_{V})\).

Example 1

The divisor Open image in new window is ample if and only if Open image in new window . One has

We put \(\alpha _G(V)=\alpha _{G}(V,{\Delta }_{V})\) if \({\Delta }_{V}=0\).

Example 2

A finite group G acting faithfully on \({\mathbb {P}}^1\) is one of the following finite groups: the alternating group \({\mathfrak {A}}_5\), the symmetric group \({\mathfrak {S}}_4\), the alternating group \({\mathfrak {A}}_4\), the dihedral group \({\mathfrak {D}}_{2m}\) of order 2m, or the cyclic group \(\varvec{\mu }_{m}\) of order m (including the case \(m=1\), that is, the trivial group). The number Open image in new window is equal to the length of the smallest G-orbit in \({\mathbb {P}}^1\), which gives

If both Open image in new window and G is trivial, we put \(\alpha (V)=\alpha _{G}(V,{\Delta }_{V})\). This is the most classical case. Namely, if V is a smooth Fano variety, then by [11, Theorem A.3] the number \(\alpha (V)\) coincides with the \(\alpha \)-invariant of V defined by Tian in [45]. Its values were found or estimated in many cases. For example, in the toric case the explicit formula for \(\alpha (V)\) is given by Cheltsov and Shramov in [11, Lemma 5.1]. It gives Open image in new window , which can also be verified by an easy explicit computation.

The \(\alpha \)-invariants of all del Pezzo surfaces with at worst Du Val singularities were computed in [2, 4, 7, 37, 38, 43]. Furthermore, the \(\alpha \)-invariants of many non-Gorenstein singular del Pezzo surfaces that are quasi-smooth well-formed complete intersections in weighted projective spaces were computed in [9, 15, 24]. The \(\alpha \)-invariants of many smooth and singular Fano threefolds were computed or estimated in [3, 5, 6, 11, 23, 25]. The \(\alpha \)-invariants of smooth Fano hypersurfaces were estimated in [1, 8, 10, 40].

The \(\alpha \)-invariant plays an important role in Kähler geometry. If V is a smooth Fano variety, then V admits a G-invariant Kähler–Einstein metric provided thatThis was proved by Tian in [45]. In [21], this result was improved by Fujita. He proved that V admits a Kähler–Einstein metric if it is smooth andIn particular, all smooth hypersurfaces in Open image in new window of degree d are Kähler–Einstein, because their \(\alpha \)-invariants are at least \(({d-1})/{d}\) by [1, 8].
The K-stability of the log Fano variety \((V,{\Delta }_V)\) crucially depends on \(\alpha (V,{\Delta }_V)\). For instance, ifthen the log Fano variety \((V,{\Delta }_V)\) is K-unstable by [22, Theorem 3.5] and [19, Lemma 5.5]. This bound is sharp, since Open image in new window is K-semistable and Open image in new window . Vice versa, if Open image in new window , then the log Fano variety \((V,{\Delta }_V)\) is K-semistable by [34, Theorem 1.4] and [20, Proposition 2.1].

The \(\alpha \)-invariant also plays an important role in birational geometry. It was first observed by Park in [35], where he proved a theorem that evolved into the following:

Theorem 3

([4, Theorem 1.5]) Let X be a variety with at most terminal \({{\mathbb {Q}}}\)-factorial singularities. Suppose that there is a proper morphism \(\phi :X\rightarrow Z\) such that Z is a smooth curve, and \(-K_X\) is \(\phi \)-ample. Let P be a point in Z, and let \(E_X\) be the scheme fiber of \(\phi \) over P. Suppose that \(E_X\) is irreducible, reduced, normal, and has at most Kawamata log terminal singularities, so that \(E_X\) is a Fano variety by the adjunction formula. Suppose also that there is a commutative diagramsuch that Y is a variety with at most terminal \({\mathbb {Q}}\)-factorial singularities, \(\psi \) is a proper morphism, the divisor \(-K_{Y}\) is \(\psi \)-ample, and \(\rho \) is a birational map that induces an isomorphismwhere \(E_Y\) is the scheme fiber of \(\psi \) over P. Suppose, in addition, that \(E_Y\) is irreducible. Then \(\rho \) is an isomorphism provided that \(\alpha (E_X)\geqslant 1\). Moreover, if \(E_Y\) is reduced, normal and has at most Kawamata log terminal singularities, then \(\rho \) is an isomorphism provided that \(\alpha (E_X)+\alpha (E_Y)>1\).

Theorem 3 gives a necessary condition in terms of \(\alpha \)-invariants for the existence of a non-biregular fiberwise birational transformation of a Mori fibre space over a curve. It follows from [29, Theorem 1.1] that this condition is not a sufficient condition. Nevertheless, the bound is sharp (one can find many examples in [35, 36]).

Example 4

Let S be a \({\mathbb {P}}^1\)-bundle over a curve. Then we have an elementary transformation to another \({\mathbb {P}}^1\)-bundle over the same curve. Note that the Open image in new window by Example 2.

Example 5

([18, Example 5.8]) Let S be a smooth cubic surface in \({\mathbb {P}}^3\) with an Eckardt point O. Denote by \(L_{1},L_{2},L_{3}\) the lines in S passing through O. Put Open image in new window , and let \(\phi \) be the natural projection Open image in new window . Let us identify S with a fiber of \(\phi \). Then there is a commutative diagramwhere \(\alpha \) is the blow-up of the point O, the map \(\psi \) is the anti-flip along the proper transforms of the curves \(L_{1},L_{2},L_{3}\), and \(\beta \) is the contraction of the proper transform of the surface S. The scheme fiber of \(\psi \) over the point \(\phi (S)\) is a cubic surface in \({\mathbb {P}}^3\) that has one singular point of type \({\mathbb {D}}_{4}\). Its \(\alpha \)-invariant is 1 / 3 (see [4, Theorem 1.4]). On the other hand, we have \(\alpha (S)={2}/{3}\) (see [2, Theorem 1.7]).

Example 6

([35, Example 5.3]) Let X and Y be subvarieties in Open image in new window given by equationsrespectively, where t is a coordinate on Open image in new window , and Open image in new window are homogeneous coordinates on \({\mathbb {P}}^{3}\). Then the projections Open image in new window and Open image in new window are fibrations into cubic surfaces, and the mapgives a non-biregular birational fiberwise map \(\rho :X\dasharrow Y\). The fiber of \(\phi \) over the point \(t=0\) is a cubic surface that has one Du Val singular point of type \({\mathbb {E}}_{6}\), so that its \(\alpha \)-invariant is 1 / 6 (see [4, Theorem 1.4]), and the fiber of \(\psi \) over the point \(t=0\) is a smooth cubic surface with an Eckardt point, so that its \(\alpha \)-invariant is 2 / 3 (see [2, Theorem 1.7]).
The \(\alpha \)-invariant also plays an important role in singularity theory. Let \(U\ni P\) be a germ of a Kawamata log terminal singularity. Then it follows from [47, Lemma 1] (cf. [39, Proposition 2.12]) that there is a birational morphism \(\phi :X\rightarrow U\) such that its exceptional locus consists of a single prime divisor \(E_X\) such that \(\phi (E_X)=P\), the log pair \((X,E_X)\) has purely log terminal singularities, and the divisor Open image in new window is \(\phi \)-ample. Thenfor some positive rational number \(\delta _X\). Recall from [39, Definition 2.1] that the birational morphism \(\phi :X\rightarrow U\) is a purely log terminal blow-up of the singularity \(U\ni P\).
By [27, Theorem 7.5], the divisor \(E_X\) is a normal variety that has rational singularities. Moreover, it can be naturally equipped with a structure of a log Fano variety. Let \(R_{1},\ldots ,R_{s}\) be all the irreducible components of the locus Open image in new window of codimension 2 that are contained in \(E_X\). Putwhere \(m_{i}\) is the smallest positive integer such that the divisor \(m_{i}E_X\) is Cartier in a general point of \(R_{i}\). Then \(\mathrm{Diff}_{E_X}(0)\) is usually called the different of the pair \((X,E_X)\). One hasFurthermore, the singularities of the log pair \((E_X,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_X}(0))\) are Kawamata log terminal by Adjunction (see [44, 3.2] or [26, 17.6]). This means that \((E_X,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_X}(0))\) is a log Fano variety with Kawamata log terminal singularities, because \(-E_X\) is \(\phi \)-ample.

Definition 7

(cf. [31, Definition 1.1]) The log Fano variety \((E_X,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_X}(0))\) is a Kollár component of \(U\ni P\).

Let us show how to compute \(\alpha (E_X,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_X}(0))\) in three simple cases.

Example 8

(cf. [39, Example 2.4]) Let \(U\ni P\) be a germ of a Du Val singularity, and \(f:W\rightarrow U\) be the minimal resolution of this singularity. Then the exceptional curves of f are smooth rational curves whose self-intersections are Open image in new window , and their dual graph is of type \({\mathbb {A}}_m,{\mathbb {D}}_m,{\mathbb {E}}_6,{\mathbb {E}}_7\), or \({\mathbb {E}}_8\). Let \(E_W\) be one of the exceptional curves that is chosen as follows. If \(U\ni P\) is not a singularity of type \({\mathbb {A}}_m\), let \(E_W\) be the only f-exceptional curve that intersects three other f-exceptional curves, i.e., \(E_W\) is the “fork” of the dual graph. If \(U\ni P\) is a singularity of type \({\mathbb {A}}_m\), choose \(E_W\) to be the k-th curve in the dual graph. In this case, we may assume that \(k\leqslant ({m+1})/{2}\). In all the cases, there exists a commutative diagramwhere h is the contraction of all f-exceptional curves except \(E_W\), and g is the contraction of the proper transform of \(E_W\) on the surface Y. Denote the g-exceptional curve by \(E_Y\). Then Y has at most Du Val singularities of type \({\mathbb {A}}\), the curve \(E_Y\) is smooth, and it contains all the singular points of the surface Y, if any. One can check that the log pair \((Y,E_Y)\) has purely log terminal singularities (see [28, Theorem 4.15 (3)]). Also, the divisor Open image in new window is g-ample. Thus, the curve \(E_Y\) is a Kollár component of the singularity \(U\ni P\). Moreover,
$$\begin{aligned} \mathrm{Diff}_{E_Y}(0)= {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \, 0 &{} \text {in the case of } {\mathbb {A}}_1,\\ \,\displaystyle \frac{m-1}{m}\,P_{m-1}&{} \text {in the case of } {\mathbb {A}}_m \text { and } k=1,\\ \,\displaystyle \frac{k-1}{k}\,P_{k-1}+\frac{m-k}{m-k+1}\,Q_{m-k}&{} \begin{aligned} &{}\text {in the case of } {\mathbb {A}}_m \\ &{} \text {and } 2\leqslant k\leqslant ({m+1})/{2},\end{aligned}\\ \,\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\,P_1+\frac{1}{2}\,Q_1+\frac{m-3}{m-2}\,R_{m-3}&{} \text {in the case of } {\mathbb {D}}_m,\\ \,\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}\,P_1+\frac{2}{3}\,Q_2+\frac{m-4}{m-3}\,R_{m-4}&{} \text {in the case of } {\mathbb {E}}_m, \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
where Open image in new window , and \(R_\ell \) are singular points of Y that lie on \(E_Y\). The singular point \(P_i\) (resp. Open image in new window and \(R_\ell \)) is a Du Val singular point of type Open image in new window (resp. \({\mathbb {A}}_{j}\) and \({\mathbb {A}}_{\ell }\)). Since Open image in new window , it follows from Example 1 that
$$\begin{aligned} \alpha (E_Y,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_Y}(0))= {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \,\displaystyle \frac{k}{m+1}\leqslant \frac{1}{2} &{} \text {in the case of } {\mathbb {A}}_m,\\ \,1&{} \text {in the case of } {\mathbb {D}}_m, \\ \,2&{} \text {in the case of } {\mathbb {E}}_6, \\ \,3&{} \text {in the case of } {\mathbb {E}}_7, \\ \,6&{} \text {in the case of } {\mathbb {E}}_8. \\ \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$

Example 9

Let \(U\ni P\) be a germ of a Du Val singularity of type \({\mathbb {A}}_m\), and let \(f:W\rightarrow U\) be the minimal resolution of this singularity.

Let Q be a point on one of the f-exceptional curves. We consider two cases, one is the case where the point Q belongs to one of the two exceptional curves that correspond to “tails” of the dual graph but it is not contained in any other exceptional curve, the other is the case where Q is the intersection point of the k-th and Open image in new window -th f-exceptional curves, \(1\leqslant k\leqslant {m}/{2}\).

Let \(\xi :\widehat{W}\rightarrow W\) be the blow-up at Q, and \(\zeta \) be the contraction of the proper transforms of all the f-exceptional curves. Thus, there exists a commutative diagramDenote the g-exceptional curve by \(E_Y\). It is a smooth rational curve. The dual graphs of the exceptional curves of the minimal resolution of singularities \(\zeta :\widehat{W}\rightarrow Y\) are chains such that the self-intersection numbers of the exceptional curves are \(-3, -2\), \(\ldots , -2\), and the proper transform of \(E_Y\) intersects only the “tail” components of these chains. In the former case, Y has a unique singular point O, which is a quotient of \({\mathbb {C}}^2\) by the cyclic group \(\varvec{\mu }_{2m+1}\). In the latter case, it contains two singular points \(P_1\) and \(P_2\), which are quotients of \({\mathbb {C}}^2\) by the cyclic groups \(\varvec{\mu }_{2k+1}\) and \(\varvec{\mu }_{2(m-k)+1}\), respectively.
By [28, Theorem 4.15 (3)] the log pair \((Y,E_Y)\) has purely log terminal singularities. Also, the divisor Open image in new window is g-ample. Thus, the curve \(E_Y\) is a Kollár component of the singularity \(U\ni P\). Moreover,Therefore,
$$\begin{aligned} \alpha (E_Y,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_Y}(0))= {\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \,\displaystyle \frac{1}{2m+2}<\frac{1}{2}&{} \text {in the former case},\\ \,\displaystyle \frac{2k+1}{2m+2}\leqslant \frac{1}{2}&{} \text {in the latter case}. \end{array}\right. } \end{aligned}$$
In particular, in the latter case we see that \(\alpha (E_Y,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_Y}(0))={1}/{2}\) if and only if m is even, and Q is the “central point” of the configuration of the f-exceptional curves.

It is easy to see from [28, Theorem 4.15] that if \(U\ni P\) is a Du Val singularity of type \({\mathbb {D}}\) or \({\mathbb {E}}\), and the exceptional curve \(E_W\) in Example 8 is not the one corresponding to the “fork” of the dual graph, then the curve \(E_Y\) is not a Kollár component (see [39, Example 4.7]). We will see later that in these cases the singularity \(U\ni P\) has a unique Kollár component, which is described in Example 8. This is not true in general, i.e., a Kollár component of a singularity \(U\ni P\) may not be unique, as one can see from Examples 8 and 9. Nevertheless, Li and Xu established in [31, Theorem B] the following:

Theorem 10

A K-semistable Kollár component of \(U\ni P\) is unique if it exists.

The K-semistable Kollár components of two-dimensional Du Val singularities are described in our Examples 8 and 9. They are precisely the Kollár components whose \(\alpha \)-invariants are at least 1 / 2 (cf. [32, Example 4.7]).

Note that Du Val singularities are two-dimensional rational quasi-homogeneous isolated hypersurface singularities. The K-semistable Kollár components of many three-dimensional rational quasi-homogeneous isolated hypersurface singularities have been described in [9, 15]. Similarly, the K-semistable Kollár components of many four-dimensional rational quasi-homogeneous isolated hypersurface singularities have been described in [23].

The purpose of this paper is to prove the following analogue of Theorem 3.

Theorem 11

Let \(U\ni P\) be a germ of a Kawamata log terminal singularity. Suppose that there is a commutative diagramwhere Open image in new window and Open image in new window are purely log terminal blow-ups of the germ \(U\ni P\). If
$$\begin{aligned} \alpha (E_X,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_X}(0))+\alpha (E_Y,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_Y}(0))\geqslant 1, \end{aligned}$$
then \(\rho \) is an isomorphism.
Before proving this result, let us consider its applications. Suppose thatBy Theorem 11, this inequality implies that the \(\alpha \)-invariant of another Kollár component of the singularity \(U\ni P\), if any, must be less than Open image in new window , so that it should be K-unstable. Of course, this also follows from Theorem 10, because inequality (1) implies that the log Fano variety \((E_X,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_X}(0))\) is K-semistable.

Theorem 11 also implies

Corollary 12

If \(\alpha (E_X,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_X}(0))\geqslant 1\), then the Kollár component of  \(U\ni P\) is unique.

This corollary is well known: it follows from [39, Theorem 4.3] and [30, Theorem 2.1]. Recall from [39, Definition 4.1] that the singularity \(U\ni P\) is said to be weakly exceptional if it has a unique purely log terminal blow-up. This is equivalent to the condition that there is a Kollár component \(E_X\) of \(U\ni P\) such that \(\alpha (E_X,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_X}(0))\geqslant 1\) (see [39, Theorem 4.3], [30, Theorem 2.1], and [12]). It follows from Example 8 that Du Val singularities of types \({\mathbb {D}}\) and \({\mathbb {E}}\) are weakly exceptional. On the other hand, Du Val singularities of type \({\mathbb {A}}\) are not weakly exceptional, since each of them admits several Kollár components (see Examples 8 and 9), and thus has several purely log terminal blow ups.

Remark 13

Du Val singularities are special examples of two-dimensional quotient singularities. Note that quotient singularities are always Kawamata log terminal. For each of them, it is easy to describe one Kollár component. Let \({\widehat{G}}\) be a finite subgroup in \(\mathrm{GL}_{n+1}({\mathbb {C}})\). Suppose that \(U\ni P\) is a quotient singularity Open image in new window . By the Chevalley–Shephard–Todd theorem, we may assume that the group \({\widehat{G}}\) does not contain any quasi-reflections (cf. [13, Remark 1.16]). Let Open image in new window be the quotient map. Then there is a commutative diagramwhere \(\pi \) is the blow-up at the origin, the morphism \(\omega \) is the quotient map that is induced by the action of \({\widehat{G}}\) lifted to the variety W, and \(\psi \) is a birational morphism. Denote by \({\widetilde{E}}\) the exceptional divisor of \(\pi \), and denote by \(E_Y\) the exceptional divisor of \(\psi \). Then Open image in new window , and \(E_Y\) is naturally isomorphic to the quotient Open image in new window , where G is the image of the group \({\widehat{G}}\) in \(\mathrm{PGL}_{n+1}({\mathbb {C}})\). Moreover, the log pair \((Y,E_Y)\) has purely log terminal singularities, and the divisor Open image in new window is \(\psi \)-ample. Thus, the log Fano variety \((E_Y,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_Y}(0))\) is a Kollár component of the singularity \(U\ni P\). Also, it follows from [31, Example 7.1 (1)] and [31, Theorem 1.2] that \((E_Y,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_Y}(0))\) is K-semistable. Furthermore, one has(see [12, Proof of Theorem 3.16]). Thus, if Open image in new window , then this Kollár component is unique by Corollary 12. One can find many subgroups Open image in new window in [12, 13, 14, 16, 33, 41, 42]. Note also that one always has \(\alpha _G({\mathbb {P}}^{n})\leqslant 1184036\) by [46].

In the remaining part of the paper, we prove Theorem 11. Let us use its assumptions and notations. We have to show that \(\rho \) is an isomorphism. Suppose that this is not the case. Let us seek for a contradiction.

We may assume that U is affine. There exists a commutative diagramsuch that W is a smooth variety, and f and g are birational morphisms. Denote by \(E_X^W\) and \(E_Y^W\) the proper transforms of the divisors \(E_X\) and \(E_Y\) on the variety W, respectively. Then \(E_X^W\) is g-exceptional, and \(E_Y^W\) is f-exceptional. We may assume that \(E_X^W,E_Y^W\) and the remaining exceptional divisors of f and g form a divisor with simple normal crossings.
Observe that \(E_X^W\ne E_Y^W\). Indeed, if \(E_X^W=E_Y^W\), then \(\rho \) is small, which is impossible, because \(-E_X\) is \(\phi \)-ample, and \(-E_Y\) is \(\psi \)-ample (see [17, Proposition 2.7]). Let \(F_1,\ldots ,F_m\) be the prime divisors on W that are contracted by both f and g. Thenfor some rational numbers \(a,a_1,\ldots ,a_m\). Since the log pair \((X,E_X)\) has purely log terminal singularities, all numbers \(a,a_1,\ldots ,a_m\) are strictly less than 1. Also, we havewhere \(b,b_1,\ldots ,b_m\) are non-negative rational numbers. Then \(b>0\), since \(f(E_Y^W)\subset E_X\).
Fix an integer \(n\gg 0\). Put Open image in new window . Then \({\mathscr {M}}_X\) does not have any base points. Denote its proper transforms on Y and W by \({\mathscr {M}}_X^Y\) and \({\mathscr {M}}_X^W\), respectively. Thenwhich implies that Open image in new window . On the other hand, we have Open image in new window for some positive rational number \(\delta _Y\). Put \(\epsilon _X={\delta _Y}/({nb})\). Then Open image in new window , so thatfor some rational numbers \(\alpha ,\alpha _1,\ldots ,\alpha _m\). Similarly, let \({\mathscr {M}}_Y\) be the base point free linear system Open image in new window . Denote by \({\mathscr {M}}_Y^X\) and \({\mathscr {M}}_Y^W\) its proper transforms on X and W, respectively. Then there is a positive rational number \(\epsilon _Y\) such that Open image in new window , so thatfor some rational numbers \(\beta ,\beta _1,\ldots ,\beta _m\).

Lemma 14

One has \(\alpha >1\) and \(\beta >1\). In particular, the singularities of the log pairs Open image in new window and Open image in new window are not log canonical.

Proof

It is enough to show that \(\alpha >1\). We haveThis givesIt implies thatRecall that Open image in new window . We then obtainwhere \(t_X=1+({\alpha -1})/{\delta _X}\). On the other hand, from (2) we obtainNow we letso that \(-B\) is f-nef. Then B is effective if and only if Open image in new window is effective by Negativity Lemma (see [28, Lemma 3.39]). Since \(a<1\), the divisor B is not effective, which implies that \(\alpha >1\). \(\square \)
As in the proof of Lemma 14, put \(t_Y=1+({\beta -1})/{\delta _Y}\). ThenNow take any positive rational numbers \(\lambda \) and \(\mu \) such that \(\lambda +\mu \geqslant 1\). One hasso that \(K_X+E_X+\lambda \epsilon _Y{\mathscr {M}}_Y^X+\mu \epsilon _X{\mathscr {M}}_X\) is \(\phi \)-ample. Similarly, we see thatso that \(K_Y+E_Y+\lambda \epsilon _Y{\mathscr {M}}_Y+\mu \epsilon _X{\mathscr {M}}_X^Y\) is \(\psi \)-ample.

Lemma 15

At least one of the log pairs Open image in new window and Open image in new window is not log canonical.

Proof

Suppose that Open image in new window and Open image in new window are log canonical. Then the log pairs Open image in new window and Open image in new window are also log canonical. On the other hand, we have
$$\begin{aligned} K_W+E_X^W+\lambda \epsilon _Y\mathscr {M}_Y^W&+\mu \epsilon _X\mathscr {M}_X^W+cE_Y^W+\sum _{i=1}^{m}c_iF_i\\&\sim _{\mathbb {Q}} f^*\bigl (K_X+E_X+\lambda \epsilon _Y\mathscr {M}_Y^X+\mu \epsilon _X\mathscr {M}_X\bigr ) \end{aligned}$$
for some rational numbers \(c,c_1,\ldots ,c_m\) that do not exceed 1. Similarly, we have
$$\begin{aligned} K_W+E_Y^W+\lambda \epsilon _Y\mathscr {M}_Y^W&+\mu \epsilon _X\mathscr {M}_X^W+dE_X^W+\sum _{i=1}^{m}d_iF_i\\&\sim _{\mathbb {Q}} g^*\bigl (K_Y+E_Y+\lambda \epsilon _Y\mathscr {M}_Y+\mu \epsilon _X\mathscr {M}_X^Y\bigr ), \end{aligned}$$
where \(d,d_1,\ldots ,d_m\) are rational numbers that do not exceed 1. Denote by \(D_W\) the boundary Open image in new window . Then
$$\begin{aligned} K_W+D_W\sim _{\mathbb {Q}}f^*\bigl (K_X+E_X&+\lambda \epsilon _Y\mathscr {M}_Y^X+\mu \epsilon _X\mathscr {M}_X\bigr )\\&\quad ~\,\,~+(1-c)E_Y^W+\sum _{i=1}^{m}(1-c_i)F_i\\ \sim _{\mathbb {Q}}g^*\bigl (K_Y+E_Y&+\lambda \epsilon _Y\mathscr {M}_Y+\mu \epsilon _X\mathscr {M}_X^Y\bigr )\\&\quad \,\,~~+(1-d)E_X^W+\sum _{i=1}^{m}(1-d_i)F_i. \end{aligned}$$
Moreover, the log pair \((W,D_W)\) is log canonical, since W is smooth, the linear systems \({\mathscr {M}}_Y^W\) and \({\mathscr {M}}_X^W\) are free from base points, and the divisors \(E_X^W,E_Y^W,F_1,\ldots ,F_m\) form a simple normal crossing divisor. Since \(K_X+E_X+\lambda \epsilon _Y{\mathscr {M}}_Y^X+\mu \epsilon _X{\mathscr {M}}_X\) is \(\phi \)-ample, it follows from [28, Corollary 3.53] that the log pair \(\bigl (X,E_X+\lambda \epsilon _Y{\mathscr {M}}_Y^X+\mu \epsilon _X{\mathscr {M}}_X\bigr )\) is the canonical model of the log pair \((W,D_W)\). Similarly, the log pair \(\bigl (Y,E_Y+\lambda \epsilon _Y{\mathscr {M}}_Y+\mu \epsilon _X{\mathscr {M}}_X^Y\bigr )\) is also the canonical model of the log pair \((W,D_W)\), because \(K_Y+E_Y+\lambda \epsilon _Y{\mathscr {M}}_Y+\mu \epsilon _X{\mathscr {M}}_X^Y\) is \(\psi \)-ample. Since the canonical model is unique by [28, Theorem 3.52], we see that \(\rho \) is an isomorphism. Since \(\rho \) is not an isomorphism by assumption, we obtain a contradiction. \(\square \)
Let \(\lambda =\alpha (E_X,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_X}(0))\) and \(\mu =\alpha (E_Y,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_Y}(0))\). We may assume that the log pair Open image in new window is not log canonical. Then Open image in new window is not log canonical by Inversion of Adjunction, see [26, 17.6]. On the other hand, we haveThis is impossible by the definition of the \(\alpha \)-invariant \(\alpha (E_X,\mathrm{Diff}_{E_X}(0))\).

Notes

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to the referees for helpful comments on the earlier version of the paper.

References

  1. 1.
    Cheltsov, I.A.: Log canonical thresholds on hypersurfaces. Sb. Math. 192(8), 1241–1257 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cheltsov, I.: Log canonical thresholds of del Pezzo surfaces. Geom. Funct. Anal. 18(4), 1118–1144 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheltsov, I.: Fano varieties with many selfmaps. Adv. Math. 217(1), 97–124 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cheltsov, I.: On singular cubic surfaces. Asian J. Math. 13(2), 191–214 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cheltsov, I.A.: Log canonical thresholds of three-dimensional Fano hypersurfaces. Izv. Math. 73(4), 727–795 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Cheltsov, I.A.: Extremal metrics on two Fano varieties. Sb. Math. 200(1), 95–132 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Cheltsov, I., Kosta, D.: Computing \(\alpha \)-invariants of singular del Pezzo surfaces. J. Geom. Anal. 24(2), 798–842 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cheltsov, I.A., Park, J.: Total log canonical thresholds and generalized Eckardt points. Sb. Math. 193(5), 779–789 (2002)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheltsov, I., Park, J., Shramov, C.: Exceptional del Pezzo hypersurfaces. J. Geom. Anal. 20(4), 787–816 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cheltsov, I., Park, J., Won, J.: Log canonical thresholds of certain Fano hypersurfaces. Math. Z. 276(1–2), 51–79 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cheltsov, I.A., Shramov, C.A.: Log canonical thresholds of smooth Fano threefolds. With an appendix by J.-P. Demailly. Russian Math. Surveys 63(5), 73–180 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cheltsov, I., Shramov, C.: On exceptional quotient singularities. Geom. Topol. 15(4), 1843–1882 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cheltsov, I., Shramov, C.: Six-dimensional exceptional quotient singularities. Math. Res. Lett. 18(6), 1121–1139 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cheltsov, I.A., Shramov, C.A.: Sporadic simple groups and quotient singularities. Izv. Math. 77(4), 846–854 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheltsov, I., Shramov, C.: Del Pezzo zoo. Exp. Math. 22(3), 313–326 (2013)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cheltsov, I., Shramov, C.: Weakly-exceptional singularities in higher dimensions. J. Reine Angew. Math. 689, 201–241 (2014)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Corti, A.: Factoring birational maps of threefolds after Sarkisov. J. Algebraic Geom. 4(2), 223–254 (1995)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Corti, A.: Del Pezzo surfaces over Dedekind schemes. Ann. Math. 144(3), 641–683 (1996)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Fujita, K.: Openness results for uniform K-stability (2017). arXiv:1709.08209
  20. 20.
    Fujita, K.: Uniform K-stability and plt blowups of log Fano pairs (2017). arXiv:1701.00203
  21. 21.
    Fujita, K.: K-stability of Fano manifolds with not small alpha invariants. J. Inst. Math. Jussieu.  https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474748017000111
  22. 22.
    Fujita, K., Odaka, Y.: On the K-stability of Fano varieties and anticanonical divisors (2016). arXiv:1602.01305 (to appear in Tohoku Math. J.)
  23. 23.
    Johnson, J., Kollár, J.: Fano hypersurfaces in weighted projective \(4\)-spaces. Exp. Math. 10(1), 151–158 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kim, I.-K., Park, J.: Log canonical thresholds of complete intersection log del Pezzo surfaces. Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. 58(2), 445–483 (2015)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kim, I.-K., Okada, T., Won, J.: Alpha invariants of birationally rigid Fano three-folds. Math. Res. Not. IMRN Int.  https://doi.org/10.1093/imrn/rnw310
  26. 26.
    Kollár, J.: Singularities of pairs. In: Kollár, J., Lazarsfeld , R., Morrison, D.R. (eds.) Algebraic Geometry. Proceedings of Symposia in Pure Mathematics, vol. 62.1, pp. 221–287. American Mathematical Society, Providence (1997)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Kollár, J., Abramovich, D. (eds.): Flips and Abundance for Algebraic Threefolds. Astérisque, vol. 211. Société Mathématique de France, Paris (1992)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kollár, J., Mori, S.: Birational Geometry of Algebraic Varieties. Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 134. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Krylov, I.: Rationally connected non-Fano type varieties. Eur. J. Math. 4(1), 335–355 (2018)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Kudryavtsev, S.A.: Pure log terminal blow-ups. Math. Notes 69(5–6), 814–819 (2001)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Li, C., Xu, C.: Stability of valuations and Kollár components (2016). arXiv:1604.05398
  32. 32.
    Liu, Y.: The volume of singular Kähler–Einstein Fano varieties (2016). arXiv:1605.01034
  33. 33.
    Markushevich, D., Prokhorov, Yu.G.: Exceptional quotient singularities. Amer. J. Math. 121(6), 1179–1189 (1999)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Odaka, Y., Sano, Y.: Alpha invariant and K-stability of \(\mathbb{Q}\)-Fano varieties. Adv. Math. 229(5), 2818–2834 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Park, J.: Birational maps of del Pezzo fibrations. J. Reine Angew. Math. 538, 213–221 (2001)MathSciNetzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Park, J.: A note on del Pezzo fibrations of degree 1. Comm. Algebra 31(12), 5755–5768 (2003)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Park, J., Won, J.: Log-canonical thresholds on del Pezzo surfaces of degrees \(\geqslant 2\). Nagoya Math. J. 200, 1–26 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Park, J., Won, J.: Log canonical thresholds on Gorenstein canonical del Pezzo surfaces. Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 54(1), 187–219 (2011)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Prokhorov, Yu.G.: Blow-ups of canonical singularities. In: Bahturin, Y. (ed.) Algebra. De Gruyter Proceedings in Mathematics, pp. 301–317. de Gruyter, Berlin (2000)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Pukhlikov, A.V.: Birational geometry of Fano direct products. Izv. Math. 69(6), 1225–1255 (2005)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Sakovics, D.: Weakly-exceptional quotient singularities. Cent. Eur. J. Math. 10(3), 885–902 (2012)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Sakovics, D.: Five-dimensional weakly exceptional quotient singularities. Proc. Edinburgh Math. Soc. 57(1), 269–279 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shi, Y.: On the \(\alpha \)-invariants of cubic surfaces with Eckardt points. Adv. Math. 225(3), 1285–1307 (2010)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Shokurov, V.V.: 3-Fold log flips. Izv. Math. 40(1), 95–202 (1993)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Tian, G.: On Kähler–Einstein metrics on certain Kähler manifolds with \(C_{1}(M)>0\). Invent. Math. 89(2), 225–246 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Tiep, P.H.: The \(\alpha \)-invariant and Thompson’s conjecture. Forum Math. Pi. 4, e5 (2016)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Xu, C.: Finiteness of algebraic fundamental groups. Compositio Math. 150(3), 409–414 (2014)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan Cheltsov
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jihun Park
    • 3
    • 4
  • Constantin Shramov
    • 2
    • 5
  1. 1.School of MathematicsThe University of EdinburghEdinburghUK
  2. 2.Laboratory of Algebraic GeometryNational Research University Higher School of EconomicsMoscowRussia
  3. 3.Institute for Basic ScienceCenter for Geometry and PhysicsPohangRepublic of Korea
  4. 4.Department of MathematicsPOSTECHPohangRepublic of Korea
  5. 5.Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations