1 Introduction
Smooth Fano threefolds have been classified by Iskovskikh, Mori, and Mukai into
$105$
families, which are labeled as
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ac0bf/ac0bf3aa157828e716cd1ab4054c315db1cf3e93" alt=""
1.1,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4fa36/4fa364615fe45406f296eb5d4cfd862b9db95435" alt=""
1.2,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f29a3/f29a35d8ce03aff9b378ac08ba5da7b6b66d9b3c" alt=""
1.3,
$\ldots $
,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/173f3/173f3bc5e75721abdf726f56b573b85c4dc68fa7" alt=""
10.1. See [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3] for the description of these families. Threefolds in each of these
$105$
deformation families can be parametrized by a nonempty rational irreducible variety. It has been proved in [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3], [Reference Fujita11], [Reference Fujita12] that the deformation families
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/28c8a/28c8a726a40b10728ca84affa0d1ab235016482a" alt=""
do not have smooth K-polystable members, and general members of the remaining 78 deformation families are K-polystable. In fact, for 54 among these 78 families, we know all K-polystable smooth members [Reference Abban and Zhuang2]–[Reference Cheltsov and Park6], [Reference Denisova9], [Reference Liu14], [Reference Xu and Liu16]. The remaining
$24$
deformation families are
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/de8ad/de8adea258c4b3ca2a33f9cf799aa73c6630af28" alt=""
The goal of this paper is to show that all smooth Fano threefolds in the family
3.3 are K-stable. Smooth members of this deformation family are smooth divisors in
$\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^2$
of degree
$(1,1,2)$
. To be precise, we prove the following result.
Main Theorem. Let X be a smooth divisor in
$\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^2$
of degree
$(1,1,2)$
. Then X is K-stable.
2 Smooth Fano threefolds in the deformation family
3.3
Let X be a divisor in
$\mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}\times \mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
of tridegree
$(1,1,2)$
, where
$([s:t],[u:v],[x:y:z])$
are coordinates on
$\mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}\times \mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
. Then X is given by the following equation:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/446e7/446e772d709d02e3b21370007876f62b1814bc7e" alt=""
where each
$a_{ij}=a_{ij}(x,y,z)$
is a homogeneous polynomials of degree
$2$
. We can also define X by
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/06965/06965b89b30345a95a7fa2d6f4206022b0a1b487" alt=""
where each
$b_{ij}=b_{ij}(s,t;u,v)$
is a bi-homogeneous polynomial of degree
$(1,1)$
.
Suppose that X is smooth. Then X is a smooth Fano threefold in the deformation family
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7fcfc/7fcfca912f90b3dd625739dd8a91f5d5f2b4ee34" alt=""
3.3. Moreover, every smooth Fano threefold in this deformation family can be obtained in this way. Observe that
$-K_X^3=18$
, and we have the following commutative diagram:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/56a7f/56a7f821222c7c0f51b3039f677b9b3841d5564f" alt=""
where all maps are induced by natural projections. Note that
$\omega $
is a (standard) conic bundle whose discriminant curve
$\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1}\subset \mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$
is a (possibly singular) curve of degree
$(3,3)$
given by
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0438b/0438b65c5dcb80dc3353c9ccd40c833394df1daa" alt=""
Similarly, the map
$\pi _3$
is a (nonstandard) conic bundle whose discriminant curve
$\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^2}$
is a smooth plane quartic curve in
$\mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
, which is given by
$a_{11}a_{22}=a_{12}a_{21}$
. Both maps
$\phi _1$
and
$\phi _2$
are birational morphisms that blow up the following smooth genus
$3$
curves:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/57396/573965ba4f1f38747faf05fb278852f287aea067" alt=""
Finally, both morphisms
$\pi _1$
and
$\pi _2$
are fibrations into quintic del Pezzo surfaces.
Let
$H_1=\pi _1^*(\mathcal {O}_{\mathbb {P}^1}(1))$
, let
$H_2=\pi _2^*(\mathcal {O}_{\mathbb {P}^1}(1))$
, let
$H_3=\pi _3^*(\mathcal {O}_{\mathbb {P}^2}(1))$
, and let
$E_1$
and
$E_2$
be the exceptional divisors of the morphisms
$\phi _1$
and
$\phi _2$
, respectively. Then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/602e6/602e6bebb20fef3d7c3dc76a21a43ce8ff2ad6d0" alt=""
This gives
$E_1+E_2\sim 4H_3$
, which also follows from
$E_1+E_2=\pi _3^*(\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^2})$
. We have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/04575/04575102f5bee956371e973d95323b3a88389918" alt=""
In particular, we see that
$\alpha (X)\leqslant \frac {2}{3}$
. Note that
$E_1\cong E_2\cong \Delta _{\mathbb {P}^2}\times \mathbb {P}^1$
.
The Mori cone
$\overline {\mathrm {NE}}(X)$
is simplicial and is generated by the curves contracted by
$\omega $
,
$\phi _1$
, and
$\phi _2$
. The cone of effective divisors
$\mathrm {Eff}(X)$
is generated by the classes of the divisors
$E_1$
,
$E_2$
,
$H_1$
, and
$H_2$
.
Lemma 1. Let S be a surface in the pencil
$|H_1|$
. Then S is a normal quintic del Pezzo surface that has at most Du Val singularities, the restriction
$\pi _3\vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
is a birational morphism, and the restriction
$\pi _2\vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$
is a conic bundle. Moreover, one of the following cases holds:
$\bullet $ The surface S is smooth.
-
(𝔸1) The surface S has one singular point of type
$\mathbb {A}_1$ .
-
(2𝔸1) The surface S has two singular points of type
$\mathbb {A}_1$ .
-
(𝔸2) The surface S has one singular point of type
$\mathbb {A}_2$ .
-
(𝔸3) The surface S has one singular point of type
$\mathbb {A}_3$ .
Furthermore, in each of these five cases, the del Pezzo surface S is unique up to an isomorphism.
Proof. This is well known [Reference Cheltsov and Prokhorov7], [Reference Coray and Tsfasman8].
Remark 2. In the notations and assumptions of Lemma 1, suppose that the surface S is singular, and let
$\varpi \colon \widetilde {S}\to S$
be its minimal resolution of singularities. Then the dual graph of the
$(-1)$
-curves and
$(-2)$
-curves on the surface
$\widetilde {S}$
can be described as follows:
(
$\mathbb {A}_1$ ) if S has one singular point of type
$\mathbb {A}_1$ , then the dual graph is
(
$2\mathbb {A}_1$ ) if S has two singular points of type
$\mathbb {A}_1$ , then the dual graph is
(
$\mathbb {A}_2$ ) if S has one singular point of type
$\mathbb {A}_2$ , then the dual graph is
(
$\mathbb {A}_3$ ) if S has one singular point of type
$\mathbb {A}_3$ , then the dual graph is
Here, as in the papers [Reference Cheltsov and Prokhorov7], [Reference Coray and Tsfasman8], we denote a
$(-1)$
-curve by
$\bullet $
, and we denote a
$(-2)$
-curve by
$\circ $
.
Lemma 3. Let
$S_1$
be a surface in
$|H_1|$
, let
$S_2$
be a surface in
$|H_2|$
, and let P be a point in
$S_1\cap S_2$
. Then at least one of the surfaces
$S_1$
or
$S_2$
is smooth at P.
Proof. Local computations.
Corollary 4. In the notations and assumptions of Lemma 3, suppose that the conic
$S_1\cdot S_2$
is reduced. Then at least one of the surfaces
$S_1$
or
$S_2$
is smooth along
$S_1\cap S_2$
.
Lemma 5. Let P be a point in X, let C be the scheme fiber of the conic bundle
$\omega $
that contains P, and let Z be the scheme fiber of the conic bundle
$\pi _3$
that contains P. Then C or Z is smooth at P.
Proof. Local computations.
Lemma 6. Let C be a fiber of the morphism
$\pi _3$
, and let S be a general surface in
$|H_3|$
that contains C. Then S is smooth,
$K_S^2=4$
, and
$-K_S\sim (H_1+H_2)\vert _{S}$
, which implies that
$-K_S$
is nef and big. Moreover, one of the following three cases holds:
-
(1) The conic C is smooth,
$-K_S$ is ample, and the restriction
$\omega \vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$ is a double cover branched over a smooth curve of degree
$(2,2)$ .
-
(2) The conic C is smooth, the divisor
$-K_S$ is not ample, the conic
$\omega (C)$ is an irreducible component of the discriminant curve
$\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1}$ , the conic C is contained in
$\mathrm {Sing}(\omega ^{-1}(\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1}))$ , and the restriction map
$\omega \vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$ fits the following commutative diagram:
$\alpha $ is a birational morphism that contracts two disjoint
$(-2)$ -curves, and
$\beta $ is a double cover branched over a singular curve of degree
$(2,2)$ , which is a union of the curve
$\omega (C)$ and another smooth curve of degree
$(1,1)$ , which intersect transversally at two distinct points.
-
(3) The conic C is singular,
$-K_S$ is ample, and the restriction
$\omega \vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$ is a double cover branched over a smooth curve of degree
$(2,2)$ .
Proof. The smoothness of the surface S easily follows from local computations. If
$-K_S$
is ample, the remaining assertions are obvious. So, to complete the proof, we assume that
$-K_S$
is not ample. Then the restriction
$\omega \vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$
fits the commutative diagram
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0b9c2/0b9c2c1faa120f0371a6e9c05aa527716dfdea33" alt=""
where
$\alpha $
is a birational morphism that contracts all
$(-2)$
-curves in S, and
$\beta $
is a double cover branched over a singular curve of degree
$(2,2)$
. Let
$\ell $
be a
$(-2)$
-curve in S. Then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8c92d/8c92d3636e69accbd183a6f0e65067c7d4e08891" alt=""
so that
$\omega (\ell )$
is a point in
$\mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$
. But
$\pi _3(\ell )$
is a line in
$\mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
that contains the point
$\pi _3(C)$
. This shows that the curve
$\ell $
is an irreducible component of a singular fiber of the conic bundle
$\omega $
. Therefore, we see that
$\omega (\ell )\in \Delta _{\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1}$
. This implies that the conic bundle
$\omega $
maps an irreducible component of the conic C to an irreducible component of the curve
$\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1}$
because S is a general surface in the linear system
$|H_3|$
that contains the curve C.
If C is singular, an irreducible component of the curve
$\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1}$
is a curve of degree
$(1,0)$
or
$(0,1)$
, which is impossible [Reference Prokhorov15, §3.8]. Therefore, we see that the conic C is smooth and irreducible, and the curve
$\omega (C)\cong C$
is an irreducible component of the discriminant curve
$\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1}$
. Since the conic bundle
$\omega $
is standard [Reference Prokhorov15], the surface
$\omega ^{-1}(\omega (C))$
is irreducible and nonnormal, which easily implies that the conic C is contained in its singular locus.
Choosing appropriate coordinates on
$\mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}\times \mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
, we may assume that
$\pi _3(C)=[0:0:1]$
, the conic C is given by
$x=y=sv-tu=0$
,
$([0:1],[0:1])$
is a smooth point of the curve
$\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1}$
, and the fiber
$\omega ^{-1}([0:1],[0:1])$
is given by
$s=u=xy=0$
. Then X is given by
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/29f39/29f391f2f420b3c76ff7db97bfd1d8e446451a8b" alt=""
for some numbers
$a_1$
,
$a_2$
,
$a_3$
,
$b_1$
,
$b_2$
,
$b_3$
,
$b_4$
,
$b_5$
,
$c_1$
,
$c_2$
,
$c_3$
. One can check that
$\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1}$
indeed splits as a union of the curve
$\omega (C)$
and the curve in
$\mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$
of degree
$(2,2)$
that is given by
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/06d62/06d6233e6014abf02b939a48c39240afbcba68d0" alt=""
The surface S is cut out on X by the equation
$y=\lambda x$
, where
$\lambda $
is a general complex number. Then the double cover
$\beta \colon \overline {S}\to \mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$
is branched over a singular curve of degree
$(2,2)$
, which splits as a union of the curve
$\omega (C)$
and the curve in
$\mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$
of degree
$(1,1)$
that is given by
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/16097/1609759276fe84fc16f0c288f453354be0bb16d3" alt=""
Since
$\lambda $
is general and X is smooth, these two curves intersect transversally by two points, which implies the remaining assertions of the lemma.
Note that the case (
$\mathrm {2}$
) in Lemma 6 indeed can happen. For instance, if X is given by
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dcd66/dcd669ccc0d2b14c161ab9431bc0a8cdbca4f58e" alt=""
then X is smooth, and general surface in
$|H_3|$
that contains the curve
$\pi _3^{-1}([0:0:1])$
is a smooth weak del Pezzo surface, which is not a quartic del Pezzo surface.
Lemma 7. Let C be a smooth fiber of the morphism
$\omega $
, and let S be a general surface in
$|H_1+H_2|$
that contains the curve C. Then S is a smooth del Pezzo surface of degree
$2$
, and
$-K_S\sim H_3\vert _{S}$
.
Proof. Left to the reader.
3 Applications of Abban–Zhuang theory
Let us use notations and assumptions of §2. Let
$f\colon \widetilde {X}\to X$
be a birational map such that
$\widetilde {X}$
is a normal threefold, and let
$\mathbf {F}$
be a prime divisor in
$\widetilde {X}$
. Then, to prove that X is K-stable, it is enough to show that
$\beta (\mathbf {F})=A_X(\mathbf {F})-S_X(\mathbf {F})>0$
, where
$A_X(\mathbf {F})=1+\mathrm {ord}_{\mathbf {F}}(K_{\widetilde {X}}/K_X)$
and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/854f6/854f621922b372e0f9dcf5d0158bd59d6a287204" alt=""
This follows from the valuative criterion for K-stability [Reference Fujita11], [Reference Li13].
Let
$\mathfrak {C}$
be the center of the divisor
$\mathbf {F}$
on the threefold X. By [Reference Fujita10, Th. 10.1], we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f534a/f534a80e81bf495494bc0bd38da9a4842e02584a" alt=""
for every surface
$S\subset X$
. Hence, if
$\mathfrak {C}$
is a surface, then
$\beta (\mathbf {F})>0$
. Thus, to show that X is K-stable, we may assume that
$\mathfrak {C}$
is either a curve or a point. If
$\mathfrak {C}$
is a curve, then [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.26] gives the following corollary.
Corollary 8. Suppose that
$\beta (\mathbf {F})\leqslant 0$
and that
$\mathfrak {C}$
is a curve. Let S be an irreducible normal surface in the threefold X that contains
$\mathfrak {C}$
. Set
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c99db/c99dbbb89e0141f2c0b1185c61e2a41b4eb2b264" alt=""
where
$\tau $
is the largest rational number u such that
$-K_X-uS$
is pseudoeffective,
$P(u)$
is the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of
$-K_X-uS$
, and
$N(u)$
is its negative part. Then
$S(W^S_{\bullet ,\bullet };\mathfrak {C})>1$
.
Let P be a point in
$\mathfrak {C}$
. Then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/14103/141033c0fa65dbf766500619257a6e0821e9edf0" alt=""
where the infimum is taken over all prime divisors E over X whose centers on X that contain P. Therefore, to prove that the Fano threefold X is K-stable, it is enough to show that
$\delta _P(X)>1$
. On the other hand, we can estimate
$\delta _P(X)$
by using [Reference Abban and Zhuang1, Th. 3.3] and [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.30]. Namely, let S be an irreducible surface in X with Du Val singularities such that
$P\in S$
. Set
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e8bff/e8bff3ff71022d0810819a5a11db7fd47a8e3c74" alt=""
For
$u\in [0,\tau ]$
, let
$P(u)$
be the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of the divisor
$-K_X-uS$
, and let
$N(u)$
be its negative part. Then [Reference Abban and Zhuang1, Th. 3.3] and [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.30] give
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9ee3a/9ee3a85718541a55238910616d98b7f3a0b0533b" alt=""
for
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d4cd6/d4cd614d70f0201e4acb976d5e541da0e5a108ee" alt=""
where
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/047ec/047eca79c33475bb303a2dd009a89ec1ec8a4cbe" alt=""
and now the infimum is taken over all prime divisors F over S whose centers on S that contain P. Let us show how to apply (3.1) in some cases. Recall that
$S_X(S)<1$
by [Reference Fujita10, Th. 10.1].
Lemma 9. Let C be the fiber of the conic bundle
$\pi _3$
that contains P, and let S be a general surface in
$|H_3|$
that contains C. Suppose that S is a smooth del Pezzo of degree
$4$
and that C is smooth. Then
$\delta _P(X)>1$
.
Proof. One has
$\tau =1$
. Moreover, for
$u\in [0,1]$
, we have
$N(u)=0$
and
$P(u)|_S=-K_S+ (1-u)C$
. Let
$L=-K_S+(1-u)C$
. Using Lemma 24 and arguing as in the proof of Lemma 27, we get
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2c41c/2c41cc2bd658794948ff0b18e66b073fd4dbf96c" alt=""
for any prime divisor F over S such that
$P\in C_S(F)$
. Then (3.1) gives
$\delta _P(X)>1$
.
Similarly, we obtain the following result.
Lemma 10. Let S be the surface in
$|H_1|$
that contains P. Then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d8266/d8266ce509a585e291678003bfd20a53ee3661e7" alt=""
for
$\delta _P(S)=\delta _P(S,-K_S)$
, where
$\delta _P(S,-K_S)$
is defined in Appendix 1.
Proof. We have
$\tau =\frac {3}{2}$
. Moreover, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c4bec/c4becb06ac01c8df9121fea2bddc5344e0caf633" alt=""
and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/22b5c/22b5c40bf44cb65e76bb00ca790a4d7e793e7cf1" alt=""
Note also that
$E_2\vert _{S}$
is a smooth genus
$3$
curve contained in the smooth locus of the surface S.
Recall that S is a quintic del Pezzo surface with at most Du Val singularities and that the restriction morphism
$\pi _2\vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$
is a conic bundle. Note that the morphism
$\pi _3\vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
is birational. Let C be a fiber of the conic bundle
$\pi _2\vert _{S}$
, and let L be the preimage in S of a general line in
$\mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
. Then
$-K_S\sim C+L$
and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c1d70/c1d7015ad9ede6cfccbbc5577bc527f345c83d08" alt=""
Since
$2L-C$
is pseudoeffective, the divisor
$\frac {7-4u}{3}(-K_S)-(2-u)C-(3-2u)L$
is also pseudoeffective.
Let F be a divisor over S such that
$P\in C_S(F)$
. Then it follows from Lemma 27 that
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/66bca/66bca6c1fb1e694972ad296b1b78e61bc3f10abf" alt=""
Then
$\delta _{P}(S;W^S_{\bullet ,\bullet })\geqslant \frac {1}{\frac {80}{81\delta _P(S)}+\frac {7}{288}}=\frac {2,592\delta _P(S)}{2,560+63\delta _P(S)}$
and the required assertion follows from (3.1).
Keeping in mind that
$S_X(S)<1$
by [Reference Fujita10, Th. 10.1] and the
$\delta $
-invariant of the smooth quintic del Pezzo surface is
$\frac {15}{13}$
by [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Lem. 2.11], we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 11. Let S be the surface in
$|H_1|$
that contains P. If S is smooth, then
$\delta _P(X)>1$
.
Similarly, using Lemmas 25 and 26 from Appendix 1, we obtain the following corollary.
Corollary 12. Let S be the surface in
$|H_1|$
that contains P. Suppose that S has at most singular points of type
$\mathbb {A}_1$
and that P is not contained in any line in S that passes through a singular point. Then
$\delta _P(X)>1$
.
Alternatively, we can estimate
$\delta _P(X)$
using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Th. 1.7.30]. Namely, let C be an irreducible smooth curve in S that contains P. Suppose S is smooth at P. Since
$S\not \subset \mathrm {Supp}(N(u))$
, we write
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/67cb5/67cb53ebe4871e6f568247e3a6939c534d2b69ca" alt=""
where
$N_S^\prime (u)$
is an effective
$\mathbb {R}$
-divisor on S such that
$C\not \subset \mathrm {Supp}(N_S^\prime (u))$
, and
$d(u)=\mathrm {ord}_C(N(u)\vert _S)$
. Now, for every
$u\in [0,\tau ]$
, we define the pseudoeffective threshold
$t(u)\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$
as follows:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/76bb4/76bb4b799f92defc8914dbd4f4c2c34e37c10283" alt=""
For
$v\in [0, t(u)]$
, we let
$P(u,v)$
be the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of
$P(u)|_S-vC$
, and we let
$N(u,v)$
be its negative part. As in Corollary 8, we let
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f6a56/f6a56f1c93f14e9b96159ccbfc3f343c04395ce9" alt=""
Note that
$C\not \subset \mathrm {Supp}(N(u,v))$
for every
$u\in [0, \tau )$
and that
$v\in (0, t(u))$
. Thus, we can let
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9aa26/9aa26a43a247d9a90504a8b6c1c66a56408fede3" alt=""
Finally, we let
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/85908/8590813d2287544a926a1e8f1128721854e523c7" alt=""
Then [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Th. 1.7.30] gives the following corollary.
Corollary 13. One has
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c8bab/c8bab207e9a54ee7b5bd2ea726f5adf8daa62e81" alt=""
Moreover, if both inequalities in (★) are equalities and
$\mathfrak {C}=P$
, then
$\delta _P(X)=\frac {1}{S_X(S)}$
.
Let us show how to compute
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;C)$
and
$S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)$
in some cases.
Lemma 14. Suppose that
$\omega (P)\not \in \Delta _{\mathbb {P}^1\times \mathbb {P}^1}$
. Let S be a general surface in
$|H_1+H_2|$
that contains P, and let C be the fiber of the morphism
$\omega $
containing P. Then
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;C)=\frac {31}{36}$
and
$S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)=1$
.
Proof. We have
$\tau =1$
. Moreover, for
$u\in [0,1]$
, we have
$N(u)=0$
and
$P(u)|_S=-K_S+2(1-u)C$
. On the other hand, it follows from Lemma 7 that S is a smooth del Pezzo surface of degree
$2$
, and the restriction map
$\pi _3\vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
is a double cover that is ramified over a smooth quartic curve. Therefore, applying the Galois involution of this double cover to C, we obtain another smooth irreducible curve
$Z\subset S$
such that
$C+Z\sim -2K_S$
,
$C^2=Z^2=0$
and
$C\cdot Z=4$
, which gives
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4da5b/4da5b5c22ffc0e1162fde5b1f55683742597e0d6" alt=""
Then
$P(u)\vert _{S}-vC$
is pseudoeffective
$\iff P(u)\vert _{S}-vC$
is nef
$\iff v\leqslant \frac {5}{2}-2u$
. Thus, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e1824/e1824bd857b158b9346d09ce549163b58b4a7c7e" alt=""
and
$P(u,v)\cdot C=2$
. Now, integrating, we obtain
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;C)=\frac {31}{36}$
and
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)=1$
.
Lemma 15. Suppose that
$P\not \in E_1\cup E_2$
. Let S be a general surface in
$|H_3|$
that contains P, and let C be the fiber of the morphism
$\pi _3$
containing P. Suppose that S is a smooth del Pezzo surface. Then
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;C)=\frac {7}{9}$
and
$S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)=1$
.
Proof. We have
$\tau =1$
. Moreover, for
$u\in [0,1]$
, we have
$N(u)=0$
and
$P(u)|_S=-K_S+(1-u)C$
. Since S is a smooth del Pezzo surface, the restriction map
$\omega \vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^1_{s,t}\times \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$
is a double cover ramified over a smooth elliptic curve. Therefore, using the Galois involution of this double cover, we get an irreducible curve
$Z\subset S$
such that
$C+Z\sim -K_S$
,
$C^2=Z^2=0$
, and
$C\cdot Z=2$
, which gives
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c62b3/c62b38c9fe6f1546e3fa4a5cae611b8bfdbe11f9" alt=""
Then
$P(u)\vert _{S}-vC$
is pseudoeffective
$\iff P(u)\vert _{S}-vC$
is nef
$\iff v\leqslant 2-u$
. Thus, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6c004/6c0040d2b50043c0929f95439daf22df80e4a510" alt=""
and
$P(u,v)\cdot C=2$
. Now, integrating, we obtain
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;C)=\frac {7}{9}$
and
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)=1$
.
Lemma 16. Suppose that
$P\not \in E_1\cup E_2$
. Let S be a general surface in
$|H_3|$
that contains P, and let C be the fiber of the morphism
$\pi _3$
containing P. Suppose S is not a smooth del Pezzo surface. Then
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;C)=\frac {8}{9}$
and
$S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)=\frac {7}{9}$
.
Proof. We have
$\tau =1$
. Moreover, for
$u\in [0,1]$
, we have
$N(u)=0$
and
$P(u)|_S=-K_S+(1-u)C$
. It follows from Lemma 6 that S contains two
$(-2)$
-curves
$\mathbf {e}_1$
and
$\mathbf {e}_2$
such that
$-K_S\sim 2C+\mathbf {e}_1+\mathbf {e}_2$
. On the surface S, we have
$C^2=0$
,
$C\cdot \mathbf {e}_1=C\cdot \mathbf {e}_2=1$
,
$\mathbf {e}_1^2=\mathbf {e}_2^2=-2$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/556fb/556fb103ca904d9f92dea06cae6ddf43805f7ab3" alt=""
Then
$P(u)\vert _{S}-vC$
is pseudoeffective
$\iff v\leqslant 3-u$
. Moreover, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e68bc/e68bc6f1f52c92fa42c65e15fbdab25ef435d506" alt=""
Now, integrating
$\mathrm {vol}(P(u)\vert _{S}-vC)$
, we obtain
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;C)=\frac {8}{9}$
.
To compute
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)$
, observe that
$F_P(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C})=0$
, because
$P\not \in \mathbf {e}_1\cup \mathbf {e}_2$
, since S is a general surface in
$|H_3|$
that contains C. On the other hand, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/f1835/f1835bdd8f758d6cf2e9bec22b8e614d4896059d" alt=""
Hence, integrating
$(P(u,v)\cdot C)^2$
, we get
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)=\frac {7}{9}$
as required.
Lemma 17. Suppose
$P\in (E_1\cup E_2)\setminus (E_1\cap E_2)$
. Let S be a general surface in
$|H_3|$
that contains P, and let C be the irreducible component of the fiber of the conic bundle
$\pi _3$
containing P such that
$P\in C$
. Then
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;C)=1$
and
$S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,C};P)\leqslant \frac {31}{36}$
.
Proof. We have
$\tau =1$
. For
$u\in [0,1]$
, we have
$N(u)=0$
and
$P(u)|_S\sim _{\mathbb {R}}-K_S+(1-u) (C+C^\prime )$
, where
$C^\prime $
is the irreducible curve in S such that
$C+C^\prime $
is the fiber of the conic bundle
$\pi _3$
that passes through the point P. Since
$P\not \in E_1\cap E_2$
, we see that
$P\not \in C^\prime $
.
By Lemma 6, the surface S is a smooth del Pezzo surface of degree
$4$
, so we can identify it with a complete intersection of two quadrics in
$\mathbb {P}^4$
. Then C and
$C^\prime $
are lines in S, and S contains four additional lines that intersect C. Denote them by
$L_1$
,
$L_2$
,
$L_3$
, and
$L_4$
, and let
$Z=L_1+L_2+L_3+L_4$
. Then the intersections of the curves C,
$C^\prime $
, and Z on the surface S are given in the table below.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8b983/8b98320aac7bd8b2eec31be983b5a982adca61b0" alt=""
Observe that
$-K_S\sim _{\mathbb {Q}}\frac {3}{2}C+\frac {1}{2}C^\prime +\frac {1}{2}Z$
. This gives
$P(u)\vert _{S}-vC\sim _{\mathbb {R}}(\frac {5}{2}-u-v)C+ (\frac {3}{2}-u)C^\prime +\frac {1}{2}Z$
, which implies that
$P(u)\vert _{S}-vC$
is pseudoeffective
$\iff v\leqslant \frac {5}{2}-u$
.
Moreover, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/70705/7070535f283afe4b2b1d10777f7b7026b33ce6e2" alt=""
Now, integrating
$\mathrm {vol}(P(u)\vert _{S}-vC)$
and
$(P(u,v)\cdot C)^2$
, we get
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;C)=1$
and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ff989/ff989c9c2c973bdac71f5388999e34f5ceac72af" alt=""
because
$P\not \in C^\prime $
, and the curves Z and C intersect each other transversally.
4 The proof of Main Theorem
Let us use notations and assumptions of §§2 and 3. Recall that
$\mathbf {F}$
is a prime divisor over the threefold X and that
$\mathfrak {C}$
is its center in X. To prove Main Theorem, we must show that
$\beta (\mathbf {F})>0$
.
Lemma 18. Suppose that
$\mathfrak {C}$
is a curve. Then
$\beta (\mathbf {F})>0$
.
Proof. Suppose that
$\beta (\mathbf {F})\leqslant 0$
. Then
$\delta _P(X)\leqslant 1$
for every point
$P\in \mathfrak {C}$
. Let us seek for a contradiction.
Let
$S_1$
be a general surface in the linear system
$|H_1|$
. Then
$S_1$
is smooth. Hence, if
$S_1\cap \mathfrak {C}\ne \varnothing $
, then
$\delta _P(X)\leqslant 1$
for every point
$P\in S_1\cap \mathfrak {C}$
, which contradicts Corollary 11. We see that
$S_1\cdot \mathfrak {C}=0$
. Similarly, we see that
$S_2\cdot \mathfrak {C}=0$
for a general surface
$S_2\in |H_2|$
. So, we see that
$\omega (\mathfrak {C})$
is a point.
Let C be the scheme fiber of the conic bundle
$\omega $
over the point
$\omega (\mathfrak {C})$
. Then
$\mathfrak {C}$
is an irreducible component of the curve C. If the fiber C is smooth, then we
$\mathfrak {C}=C$
.
Suppose that C is smooth. If S is a general surface in the linear system
$|H_1+H_2|$
that contains
$\mathfrak {C}$
, then
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;\mathfrak {C})=\frac {31}{36}<1$
by Lemma 14, which contradicts Corollary 8. So, the curve C is singular.
Note that
$\pi _3(\mathfrak {C})$
is a line in
$\mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
. On the other hand, the discriminant curve
$\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^2}$
is an irreducible smooth quartic curve in
$\mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
. Therefore, in particular, the line
$\pi _3(\mathfrak {C})$
is not contained in
$\Delta _{\mathbb {P}^2}$
. Now, let P be a general point in
$\mathfrak {C}$
, let Z be the fiber of the conic bundle
$\pi _3$
that passes through P, and let S be a general surface in
$|H_3|$
that contains the curve Z. Then Z and S are both smooth, and it follows from Lemma 6 that S is a del Pezzo of degree
$4$
, so that
$\delta _P(X)>1$
by Lemma 9.
Hence, to complete the proof of Main Theorem, we may assume that
$\mathfrak {C}$
is a point. Set
$P=\mathfrak {C}$
. Let
$\mathscr {C}$
be the fiber of the conic bundle
$\omega $
that contains P.
Lemma 19. Suppose that
$P\not \in E_1\cap E_2$
. Then
$\beta (\mathbf {F})>0$
.
Thus, to complete the proof of Main Theorem, we may assume, in addition, that
$P\in E_1\cap E_2$
. Then the conic
$\mathscr {C}$
is smooth at P by Lemma 5. In particular, we see that
$\mathscr {C}$
is reduced.
Lemma 20. Suppose that
$\mathscr {C}$
is smooth. Then
$\beta (\mathbf {F})>0$
.
To complete the proof of Main Theorem, we may assume that
$\mathscr {C}$
is singular. Write
$\mathscr {C}=\ell _1+\ell _2$
, where
$\ell _1$
and
$\ell _2$
are irreducible components of the conic
$\mathscr {C}$
. Then
$P\ne \ell _1\cap \ell _2$
, since
$P\not \in \mathrm {Sing}(\mathscr {C})$
.
Let
$S_1$
and
$S_2$
be general surfaces in
$|H_1|$
and
$|H_2|$
that pass through the point P, respectively. Then
$\mathscr {C}=S_1\cap S_2$
, and it follows from Corollary 4 that
$S_1$
or
$S_2$
is smooth along the conic
$\mathscr {C}$
. Without loss of generality, we may assume that
$S_1$
is smooth along
$\mathscr {C}$
. We let
$S=S_1$
.
If S is smooth, then
$\delta _P(X)>1$
by Corollary 11. Thus, we may assume that S is singular.
Recall that S is a quintic del Pezzo surface and that
$\ell _1$
and
$\ell _2$
are lines in its anticanonical embedding. The preimages of the lines
$\ell _1$
and
$\ell _2$
on the minimal resolution of the surface S are
$(-1)$
-curves, which do not intersect
$(-2)$
-curves. By Lemma 1 and Remark 2, one of the following cases holds:
(
$\mathbb {A}_1$ ) The surface S has one singular point of type
$\mathbb {A}_1$ .
(
$2\mathbb {A}_1$ ) The surface S has two singular points of type
$\mathbb {A}_1$ .
In both cases, the restriction morphism
$\pi _3\vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
is birational. In (
$\mathbb {A}_1$
)-case, this morphism contracts three disjoint irreducible smooth rational curves
$\mathbf {e}_1$
,
$\mathbf {e}_2$
, and
$\mathbf {e}_3$
such that
$E_1\vert _{S}=2\mathbf {e}_1+\mathbf {e}_2+\mathbf {e}_3$
, the curves
$\mathbf {e}_1$
,
$\mathbf {e}_2$
, and
$\mathbf {e}_3$
are sections of the conic bundle
$\pi _2\vert _{S}\colon S\to \mathbb {P}^1_{u,v}$
, the curve
$\mathbf {e}_1$
passes through the singular point of the surface S, but
$\mathbf {e}_2$
and
$\mathbf {e}_3$
are contained in the smooth locus of the surface S. In (
$2\mathbb {A}_1$
)-case, the morphism
$\pi _3\vert _{S}$
contracts two disjoint curves
$\mathbf {e}_1$
and
$\mathbf {e}_2$
such that
$E_1\big \vert _{S}=2\mathbf {e}_1+2\mathbf {e}_2$
, the curves
$\mathbf {e}_1$
and
$\mathbf {e}_2$
are sections of the conic bundle
$\pi _2\vert _{S}$
, and each curve among
$\mathbf {e}_1$
and
$\mathbf {e}_2$
contains one singular point of the surface S. In both cases, we may assume that
$\ell _1\cap \mathbf {e}_1\ne \varnothing $
.
Let us identify the surface S with its image in
$\mathbb {P}^5$
via the anticanonical embedding
$S\hookrightarrow \mathbb {P}^5$
. Then
$\ell _1$
and
$\ell _2$
and the curves contracted by
$\pi _3\vert _{S}$
are lines. In (
$\mathbb {A}_1$
)-case, the surface S contains two additional lines
$\ell _3$
and
$\ell _4$
such that
$\ell _3+\ell _4\sim \ell _1+\ell _2$
, the intersection
$\ell _3\cap \ell _4$
is the singular point of the surface S, and the intersection graph of the lines
$\ell _1$
,
$\ell _2$
,
$\ell _3$
,
$\ell _4$
,
$\mathbf {e}_1$
,
$\mathbf {e}_2$
, and
$\mathbf {e}_3$
is shown here:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1a9ad/1a9ad41e56393266f39bce5f9df63fa300a797ad" alt=""
In this picture, we denoted by
$\bullet $
the singular point of the surface S. Moreover, on the surface S, the intersections of the lines
$\ell _1$
,
$\ell _2$
,
$\ell _3$
,
$\ell _4$
,
$\mathbf {e}_1$
,
$\mathbf {e}_2$
, and
$\mathbf {e}_3$
are given in the table below.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/27ff8/27ff8c6b07dd8fc6a8e395b1c468e51b55531554" alt=""
Likewise, in (
$2\mathbb {A}_1$
)-case, the surface S contains one additional line
$\ell _3$
such that
$2\ell _3\sim \ell _1+\ell _2$
, the line
$\ell _3$
passes through both singular points of the del Pezzo surface S, and the intersection graph of the lines on the surface S is shown in the following picture:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e7e14/e7e14aaf862e2e4d44788af7c338e3811a7f9d02" alt=""
As above, the singular points of the surface S are denoted by
$\bullet $
. The intersections of the lines
$\ell _1$
,
$\ell _2$
,
$\ell _3$
,
$\mathbf {e}_1$
, and
$\mathbf {e}_2$
on the surface S are given in the table below.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/fcb19/fcb199a34eade53224463dedcef767a810d3df69" alt=""
Remark 21. By [Reference Cheltsov and Prokhorov7, Lem. 2.9], the lines in S generate the group
$\mathrm {Cl}(S)$
and the cone of effective divisors
$\mathrm {Eff}(S)$
, and every extremal ray of the Mori cone
$\overline {\mathrm {NE}}(S)$
is generated by the class of a line.
In (
$\mathbb {A}_1$
)-case, the point P is one of the points
$\mathbf {e}_1\cap \ell _1$
,
$\mathbf {e}_2\cap \ell _2$
, or
$\mathbf {e}_3\cap \ell _2$
, because
$P\in E_1\cap E_2$
. On the other hand, if
$P=\mathbf {e}_2\cap \ell _2$
or
$P=\mathbf {e}_3\cap \ell _2$
, it follows from Corollary 12 that
$\delta _P(X)>1$
. In (
$2\mathbb {A}_1$
)-case, either
$P=\mathbf {e}_1\cap \ell _1$
or
$P=\mathbf {e}_2\cap \ell _2$
. Therefore, to complete the proof of Main Theorem, we may assume that
$P=\mathbf {e}_1\cap \ell _1$
in both cases.
Now, we will apply Corollary 13 to the surface S with
$C=\mathbf {e}_1$
at the point P. We have
$\tau =\frac {3}{2}$
. As in the proof of Corollary 10, we see that
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5c3e4/5c3e49fa9e751803552dd41cbf236878563ae0f7" alt=""
and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/54b87/54b87643bf509d36493ee981ae221debcb763d8d" alt=""
Since
$H_1\vert _{S}\sim 0$
,
$H_2\vert _{S}\sim \ell _1+\ell _2$
, and
$H_3\vert _{S}\sim \ell _1+2\mathbf {e}_1$
, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6db0f/6db0f016d774370f195cf63179ffdd86195247e8" alt=""
Thus, since the intersection form of the curves
$\ell _1$
and
$\ell _2$
is semi-negative definite, we get
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/089f7/089f7f3794ced9b0280a7347e494619bd5997f6d" alt=""
Similarly, if
$0\leqslant u\leqslant 1$
, then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/12e21/12e218cee7e7b7ec1424ac568e20cd19c54d1934" alt=""
Likewise, if
$1\leqslant u\leqslant \frac {3}{2}$
, then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bea77/bea77349f16d2a0451513af47dc8265662f2e10f" alt=""
Integrating, we get
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;\mathbf {e}_1)=\frac {137}{144}$
and
$S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,\mathbf {e}_1};P)=\frac {59}{96}+F_P(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{S,\mathbf {e}_1})$
. To compute
$F_P(W_{\bullet ,\bullet ,\bullet }^{S,\mathbf {e}_1})$
, we let
$Z=E_2\vert _{S}$
. Then Z is a smooth curve of genus
$3$
such that
$\pi (Z)$
is a smooth quartic in
$\mathbb {P}^2_{x,y,z}$
. Moreover, the curve Z is contained in the smooth locus of the surface S, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e0249/e02493fe5d69d8b93084cd386c84f3ba74812996" alt=""
In particular, we have
$Z\cdot \mathbf {e}_1=1$
. Since
$\mathbf {e}_1\not \subset Z$
, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ee1c1/ee1c17b28443a5c55037aa0d1075f67f27fbf4ac" alt=""
Note that
$P\in Z$
, because
$P\in E_1\cap E_2$
. Thus, since
$\mathbf {e}_1\cdot Z=1$
and
$\mathbf {e}_1\cdot \ell _1=1$
, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/bfb16/bfb165079ba9514f7fd069511445a7bb1c09b9a2" alt=""
so that
$S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,\mathbf {e}_1};P)=\frac {31}{36}$
. Now, applying Corollary 13, we get
$\delta _P(X)>1$
, because
$S_X(S)<1$
. Therefore, we see that
$\beta (\mathbf {F})>0$
. By [Reference Fujita11], [Reference Li13], this completes the proof of Main Theorem.
Remark 22. Instead of using Corollary 13, we can finish the proof of Main Theorem as follows. Let F be a divisor over S such that
$P\in C_S(F)$
, and let
$\mathcal {C}$
be a fiber of the conic bundle
$\pi _2\vert _{S}$
. Then, arguing as in the proof of Corollary 10, we get
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/967ae/967ae157529bfa63778004a09841f38624dc9129" alt=""
But
$\delta _P(S)=1$
by Lemmas 25 and 26, since
$P=\mathbf {e}_1\cap \ell _1$
. Thus, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/44f7d/44f7d862cba753c674577a6bb43cefe809a8d269" alt=""
Set
$L=-K_S+t\mathcal {C}$
for
$t\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$
. Then L is ample and
$L^2=5+4t$
. Define
$\delta _P(S,L)$
as in Appendix 1. Then, applying [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.24] to the flag
$P\in \mathbf {e}_1\subset S$
, we get
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/33882/3388279dbab63dcb4bfc8604a9f5363f87ebd5ae" alt=""
The proof of this inequality is very similar to our computations of
$S(W_{\bullet ,\bullet }^S;\mathbf {e}_1)$
and
$S(W_{\bullet , \bullet ,\bullet }^{S,\mathbf {e}_1};P)$
, so that we omit the details. Now, we let
$t=\frac {u-1}{3-2u}$
. Then
$t\geqslant \frac {-3+\sqrt {21}}{6}\iff u\geqslant \frac {3}{2}(1-\frac {1}{\sqrt {21}})$
, so
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/29679/296790797273dfbd2fdf70f9d100c01ea2ede334" alt=""
Now, using (♡), we get
$S(W^S_{\bullet ,\bullet };F)\leqslant \frac {247}{288}A_S(F)+\frac {247}{2,016}A_{S}(F)=\frac {247}{252}A_S(F)$
. Then
$\delta _{P}(S;W^S_{\bullet ,\bullet })\geqslant \frac {252}{247}$
, so that
$\delta _P(X)>1$
by (3.1), since
$S_X(S)<1$
by [Reference Fujita10, Th. 10.1].
Appendix A
$\delta $
-invariants of del Pezzo surfaces
In this appendix, we present three rather sporadic results about
$\delta $
-invariants of del Pezzo surfaces with at most du Val singularities, which are used in the proof of Main Theorem.
Let S be a del Pezzo surface that has at most du Val singularities, let L be an ample
$\mathbb {R}$
-divisor on the surface S, and let P be a point in S. Set
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/39461/39461e49e21bd575bcb6a778b2716fcffa45d489" alt=""
where infimum is taken over all prime divisors F over S such that
$P\in C_S(F)$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dc0da/dc0da5edf8b2faa8c7691b809bae9a27c3083ad0" alt=""
Example 23. Suppose that S is a smooth cubic surface in
$\mathbb {P}^3$
and that
$L=-K_S$
. Let T be the hyperplane section of the cubic surface S that is singular at P. Then it follows from [Reference Abban and Zhuang1, Th. 4.6] that
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/676be/676be69c24ccc3adaf817eb35e3392f68a47fffb" alt=""
It would be nice to find an explicit formula for
$\delta _P(S,L)$
in all possible cases. But this problem seems to be very difficult. So, we will only estimate
$\delta _P(S,L)$
in three cases when
$K_S^2\in \{4,5\}$
.
Suppose that
$4\leqslant K_S^2\leqslant 5$
. Let us identify S with its image in the anticanonical embedding.
Lemma 24. Suppose that S is smooth and
$K_S^2=4$
. Let C be a possibly reducible conic in S that passes through P, and let
$L=-K_S+tC$
for
$t\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$
. If the conic C is smooth, then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/dd2f1/dd2f1b7fa8a0ffbe48a9d146463e2d496a664bb3" alt=""
Similarly, if C is a reducible conic, then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8ba15/8ba1504d63a6853d159f4c7f2183568263de3cdb" alt=""
Proof. The proof of this lemma is similar to the proof of [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Lem. 2.12]. Namely, as in that proof, we will apply [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Th. 1.7.1], [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.12], and [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.25] to get (♣) and (♠). Let us use notations introduced in [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Sect. 1] applied to S polarized by the ample divisor L.
First, we suppose that P is not contained in any line in S. In particular, the conic C is smooth. Let
$\sigma \colon \widetilde {S}\to S$
be the blowup of the point P, let E be the exceptional curve of the blowup
$\sigma $
, and let
$\widetilde {C}$
be the proper transform on
$\widetilde {S}$
of the conic C. Then
$\widetilde {S}$
is a smooth cubic surface in
$\mathbb {P}^3$
, and there exists a unique line
$\mathbf {l}\subset \widetilde {S}$
such that
$-K_{\widetilde {S}}\sim \widetilde {C}+E+\mathbf {l}$
. Take
$u\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$
. Then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d87ca/d87ca3490d4366bfcd48da6bce750d7926f5e9f1" alt=""
which implies that
$\sigma ^*(L)-uE$
is pseudoeffective
$\iff u\leqslant 2+t$
. Similarly, we see that
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7b851/7b8517cf8cd776a3833615b1f3604b3993594671" alt=""
where we denote by
$\mathscr {P}(u)$
the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of the divisor
$\sigma ^*(L)-uE$
, and we denote by
$\mathscr {N}(u)$
its negative part. This gives
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5a3be/5a3beb6b9c9e3c9e660752bb0d5d3c8bfdf26de2" alt=""
Moreover, applying [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.25], we obtain
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/920b9/920b9af2d3f383650076a52660834ab0293cc1b2" alt=""
for every point
$Q\in E$
. Note that
$A_S(E)=2$
. Thus, it follows from [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.12] that
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/094a4/094a4d2c4e362a713f19c0fb512460831264ceb1" alt=""
To complete the proof of the lemma, we may assume that S contains a line
$\ell $
such that
$P\in \ell $
. Then
$\ell \cdot C=0$
or
$\ell \cdot C=1$
. If
$\ell \cdot C=0$
, then
$\ell $
must be an irreducible component of the conic C. Let us apply [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Th. 1.7.1] and [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.25] to the flag
$P\in \ell $
to estimate
$\delta _P(S,L)$
. Take
$u\in \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$
. Let
$P(u)$
be the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of the divisor
$L-u\ell $
, and let
$N(u)$
be its negative part. We must compute
$P(u)$
,
$N(u)$
,
$P(u)\cdot \ell $
, and
$\mathrm {vol}(L-u\ell )$
.
There exists a birational morphism
$\pi \colon S\to \mathbb {P}^2$
that blows up five points
$O_1,\dots ,O_5\in \mathbb {P}^2$
such that no three of them are collinear. For every
$i\in \{1,\ldots ,5\}$
, let
$\mathbf {e}_i$
be the
$\pi $
-exceptional curve such that
$\pi (\mathbf {e}_i)=O_i$
. Similarly, let
$\mathbf {l}_{ij}$
be the strict transform of the line in
$\mathbb {P}^2$
that contains
$O_i$
and
$O_j$
, where
$1\leqslant i<j\leqslant 5$
. Finally, let B be the strict transform of the conic on
$\mathbb {P}^2$
that passes through the points
$O_1,\dots ,O_5$
. Then
$\mathbf {e}_1,\ldots ,\mathbf {e}_5,\mathbf {l}_{12},\ldots ,\mathbf {l}_{45},B$
are all lines in S, and each extremal ray of the Mori cone
$\overline {\mathrm {NE}}(S)$
is generated by a class of one of these
$16$
lines.
Suppose that the conic C is irreducible. Then
$C\cdot \ell =1$
. In this case, without loss of generality, we may assume that
$\ell =\mathbf {e}_1$
and
$C\sim \mathbf {l}_{12}+\mathbf {e}_2$
. If
$0\leqslant t\leqslant 1$
, then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/111ca/111ca9506a5ccaec06b80dc4e838622f069d85ac" alt=""
and
$L-u\ell $
is not pseudoeffective for
$u>\frac {3+t}{2}$
. Similarly, if
$t\geqslant 1$
, then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4c41b/4c41bf45fd1577386a61588ae5fef271fd58380c" alt=""
and
$L-u\ell $
is not pseudoeffective for
$u>2$
. Then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/316c3/316c3d5a448ec4a84907ee9632f4e4ae33113079" alt=""
Observe that
$P\not \in \mathbf {l}_{ij}$
for every
$1\leqslant i<j\leqslant 5$
. Thus, if
$t\leqslant 1$
, then [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.25] gives
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/58eed/58eeda10ad39c593eef8f19ee3af298e6252457e" alt=""
Similarly, if
$t\geqslant 1$
, then [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.25] gives
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1f4dd/1f4dd52da7444f0e0556de884f3ec283fcc8fe00" alt=""
Now, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Th. 1.7.1], we get (♣).
To complete the proof of the lemma, we may assume that the conic C is reducible. In this case, we let
$\ell $
be an irreducible component of the conic C that contains P. Without loss of generality, we may assume that
$\ell =\mathbf {e}_1$
and
$C=\mathbf {e}_1+B$
. Then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/990ce/990ceb5d240c63ad0bb432027ca41bf3e73f31f9" alt=""
and the divisor
$L-u\ell $
is not pseudoeffective for
$u>\frac {3+2t}{2}$
. This gives
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7caf9/7caf9323b9ce146555d67bed12b116ed48320f69" alt=""
Moreover, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.25], we compute
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5571/d55711c24b7baf3c2ada6cc3829ab1390655aca2" alt=""
Now, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Th. 1.7.1], we get (♠) as claimed.
In the remaining part of this appendix, we suppose that
$K_S^2=5$
,
$L=-K_S$
, and S has isolated ordinary double points, that is, singular points of type
$\mathbb {A}_1$
. As usual, we set
$\delta _P(S)=\delta _P(S,-K_S)$
and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/5ccf9/5ccf9e55f73c0ca3c819a4acbf36efaad72f8553" alt=""
Let
$\eta \colon \widetilde {S}\to S$
be the minimal resolution of the quintic del Pezzo surface S. Since
$-K_{\widetilde {S}}\sim \eta ^*(-K_S)$
, we can estimate the number
$\delta _P(S)$
as follows. Let O be a point in the surface
$\widetilde {S}$
such that
$\eta (O)=P$
, and let C be a smooth irreducible rational curve in
$\widetilde {S}$
such that:
-
• If
$P\in \mathrm {Sing}(S)$ , then C is the
$\eta $ -exceptional curve such that
$\eta (C)=P$ .
-
• If
$P\not \in \mathrm {Sing}(S)$ , then C is appropriately chosen curve that contains O.
As usual, we set
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0c790/0c790887d8ed7e78b22522b71e152d777aa8a5a9" alt=""
For
$u\in [0,\tau ]$
, let
$P(u)$
be the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of the divisor
$-K_{\widetilde {S}}-uC$
, and let
$N(u)$
be its negative part. Let
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/34664/346647a4919bba73a6aec73e904ca7f2aae96456" alt=""
and let
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6b77c/6b77c5b8187505c5924647319a26448b7e3ef2a3" alt=""
If
$P\not \in \mathrm {Sing}(S)$
, then [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Th. 1.7.1] and [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.25] give
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/0c0d5/0c0d5ec7e9fa61773f1f7ffbc61c3b37c206e202" alt=""
Similarly, if
$P\in \mathrm {Sing}(S)$
, then [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.12] and [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.25] give
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c6231/c623189ef2c9bba252379b5068c82901d6adad64" alt=""
Lemma 25. Suppose that S has one singular point. Then
$\delta (S)=\frac {15}{17}$
, and the following assertions hold:
-
• If P is not contained in any line in S that contains the singular point of S, then
$\delta _P(S)\geqslant \frac {15}{13}$ .
-
• If P is not the singular point of the surface S, but P is contained in a line in S that passes through the singular point of the surface S, then
$\delta _P(S)=1$ .
-
• If P is the singular point of the surface S, then
$\delta _P(S)=\frac {15}{17}$ .
Proof. We let
$P_0$
be the singular point of the surface S, and let
$\ell _0$
be the
$\pi $
-exceptional curve. Then it follows from [Reference Coray and Tsfasman8] that there exists a birational morphism
$\pi \colon \widetilde {S}\to \mathbb {P}^2$
such that
$\pi (\ell _0)$
is a line, the map
$\pi $
blows up three points
$Q_1$
,
$Q_2$
, and
$Q_3$
contained in
$\pi (\ell _0)$
and another point
$Q_0\in \mathbb {P}^2\setminus \pi (\ell _0)$
.
For
$i\in \{0,1,2,3\}$
, let
$\mathbf {e}_i$
be the
$\pi $
-exceptional curve such that
$\pi (\mathbf {e}_i)=Q_i$
. For every
$i\in \{1,2,3\}$
, let
$\ell _i$
be the strict transform of the line in
$\mathbb {P}^2$
that passes through
$Q_0$
and
$Q_i$
. Then
$\ell _0$
,
$\ell _1$
,
$\ell _2$
,
$\ell _3$
,
$\mathbf {e}_0$
,
$\mathbf {e}_1$
,
$\mathbf {e}_2$
, and
$\mathbf {e}_3$
are the only irreducible curves in the surface
$\widetilde {S}$
that have negative self-intersections. Moreover, the intersections of these curves are given in the following table:
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ca1ad/ca1adfeaa572222638cd8b1cb3feb10222fa184e" alt=""
Note that
$\eta (\ell _1)$
,
$\eta (\ell _2)$
,
$\eta (\ell _3)$
,
$\eta (\mathbf {e}_0)$
,
$\eta (\mathbf {e}_1)$
,
$\eta (\mathbf {e}_2)$
, and
$\eta (\mathbf {e}_3)$
are all lines contained in the surface S. Among them, only the lines
$\eta (\mathbf {e}_1)$
,
$\eta (\mathbf {e}_2)$
, and
$\eta (\mathbf {e}_3)$
pass through the singular point
$P_0$
.
For
$(a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3,b_0,b_1,b_2,b_3)\in \mathbb {R}^8$
, we write
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c2954/c29545dce499efb643bb3eda36687933cc1f86c2" alt=""
If
$P=P_0$
, then
$C=\ell _0$
, which implies that
$\tau =2$
and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6d4fe/6d4fe14fbb75cfa8fc8202153e59e5aecee0a653" alt=""
which implies that
$S_S(C)=\frac {17}{15}$
and
$S(W^{C}_{\bullet , \bullet };O)=1$
. Therefore, using (♢), we obtain
$\delta _{P_0}(S)=\frac {15}{17}$
.
To proceed, we may assume that
$P\ne P_0$
. If
$O\in \mathbf {e}_0$
, we let
$C=\mathbf {e}_0$
. Then
$\tau =2$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d4d22/d4d22dc7e61c384add6d478053ba0b0b684ec05e" alt=""
which implies that
$S_S(C)=\frac {13}{15}$
and
$S(W^{C}_{\bullet , \bullet };O)\leqslant \frac {13}{15}$
, so that
$\delta _P(S)=\frac {15}{13}$
by (⧫).
If
$O\in \ell _1$
, we let
$C=\ell _1$
. In this case, we have
$\tau =2$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2d592/2d592fcf7b2a8aca1ce465859928d55567199f67" alt=""
so that
$S_S(C)=\frac {13}{15}$
. If
$O\in \ell _1\setminus (\mathbf {e}_0\cup \mathbf {e}_1)$
, then
$S(W^{C}_{\bullet , \bullet };O)=\frac {11}{15}$
. If
$O=\ell _1\cap \mathbf {e}_1$
, then
$S(W^{C}_{\bullet , \bullet };O)=1$
. Thus, using (⧫), we see that
$\delta _P(S)=\frac {15}{13}$
if
$O\in \ell _1\setminus \mathbf {e}_1$
, and
$\delta _P(S)\geqslant 1$
if
$O=\ell _1\cap \mathbf {e}_1$
.
Similarly,
$\delta _P(S)=\frac {15}{13}$
if
$O\in \ell _2\setminus \mathbf {e}_2$
or
$O\in \ell _3\setminus \mathbf {e}_3$
, and
$\delta _P(S)\geqslant 1$
if
$O=\ell _2\cap \mathbf {e}_2$
or
$O=\ell _3\cap \mathbf {e}_3$
.
If
$O\in \mathbf {e}_1$
, we let
$C=\mathbf {e}_1$
. In this case, we have
$\tau =2$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b5799/b57999501caab20775926e32b285742e33678b3d" alt=""
which implies that
$S_S(C)=1$
and
$S(W^{C}_{\bullet , \bullet };O)\leqslant \frac {13}{15}$
if
$O\in \mathbf {e}_1\setminus \ell _0$
, so that
$\delta _P(S)=1$
by (⧫).
Likewise, we see that
$\delta _P(S)=1$
in the case when
$O\in \mathbf {e}_2$
or
$O\in \mathbf {e}_3$
. Thus, to complete the proof, we may assume that P is not contained in any line in S.
Now, we let C be the unique curve in the pencil
$|\ell _1+\mathbf {e}_1|$
that contains P. By our assumption, the curve C is smooth and irreducible. Then
$\tau =2$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/c91c6/c91c6af7d38e63d24c0e407a68ea3d36f16bd4a2" alt=""
Then
$S_S(C)=\frac {11}{15}$
and
$S(W^{C}_{\bullet , \bullet };O)=\frac {23}{30}$
. Thus, it follows from (⧫) that
$\delta _P (S)\geqslant \frac {30}{23}>\frac {15}{13}$
.
Finally, let us estimate
$\delta _P(S)$
in the case when the del Pezzo surface S has two singular points. In this case, the surface S contains a line that passes through both its singular points [Reference Coray and Tsfasman8].
Lemma 26. Suppose S has two singular points. Let
$\ell $
be the line in S that passes through both singular points of the surface S. Then
$\delta (S)=\frac {15}{19}$
. Moreover, the following assertions hold:
-
• If P is not contained in any line in S that contains a singular point of S, then
$\delta _P(S)\geqslant \frac {15}{13}$ .
-
• If P is not contained in the line
$\ell $ , but P is contained in a line in S that passes through a singular point of the surface S, then
$\delta _P(S)=1$ .
-
• If
$P\in \ell $ , then
$\delta _P(S)=\frac {15}{19}$ .
Proof. Let
$\mathbf {e}_1$
and
$\mathbf {e}_2$
be
$\eta $
-exceptional curves. Then
$\widetilde {S}$
contains
$(-1)$
-curves
$\ell _1$
,
$\ell _2$
,
$\ell _3$
,
$\ell _4$
, and
$\ell _5$
such that the intersections of the curves
$\ell _1$
,
$\ell _2$
,
$\ell _3$
,
$\ell _4$
,
$\ell _5$
,
$\mathbf {e}_1$
, and
$\mathbf {e}_2$
on
$\widetilde {S}$
are given in the following table.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7c4d9/7c4d92098d04056cd5d1a3901dee7a3b0f11c93a" alt=""
The curves
$\eta (\ell _1)$
,
$\eta (\ell _2)$
,
$\eta (\ell _3)$
,
$\eta (\ell _4)$
, and
$\eta (\ell _5)$
are the only lines in S. Moreover, we have
$\ell =\eta (\ell _1)$
, and
$\eta (\ell _1)$
,
$\eta (\ell _2)$
, an
$\eta (\ell _5)$
are the only lines in S that contain a singular point of the surface S.
As in the proof of Lemma 25, for
$(a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_5,b_1, b_2)\in \mathbb {R}^7$
, we write
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/abd60/abd60f299b4fc94b2d210ce6855e5d8e1264be94" alt=""
If
$O\in \ell _1\setminus (\mathbf {e}_1\cup \mathbf {e}_2)$
, we let
$C=\ell _1$
. In this case, we have
$\tau =3$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1d967/1d967f9bacc70ba98e3d2ca01a97f133ab11c405" alt=""
which implies that
$S_S(C)=\frac {19}{15}$
and
$S(W^{C}_{\bullet , \bullet };O)\leqslant \frac {17}{15}$
, so that
$\delta _P(S)=\frac {15}{19}$
by (⧫).
If
$O\in \mathbf {e}_1$
, then
$C=\mathbf {e}_1$
. In this case, we have
$\tau =2$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/98d39/98d39b9fe6c9ea9fb0723aaf6fdec4f266bf5f97" alt=""
which implies that
$S_S(C)=\frac {17}{15}$
and
$S(W^{C}_{\bullet , \bullet };O)\leqslant \frac {19}{15}$
, so that
$\delta _P(S)\geqslant \frac {19}{15}$
by (♢).
On the other hand, we already know that
$S_S(\ell )=\frac {19}{15}$
, which implies that
$\delta _P(S)=\frac {19}{15}$
if
$P=\eta (\mathbf {e}_1)$
. Similarly, we see that
$\delta _P(S)=\frac {19}{15}$
if
$P=\eta (\mathbf {e}_2)$
. Hence, we may assume that
$O\not \in \mathbf {e}_1\cup \mathbf {e}_2\cup \ell _1$
.
If
$O\in \ell _2$
, we let
$C=\ell _2$
. In this case, we have
$\tau =2$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/ea258/ea258a033963c2c750eaf376a68d5bc0c067a033" alt=""
which implies that
$S_S(C)=1$
and
$S(W^{C}_{\bullet , \bullet };O)\leqslant \frac {13}{15}$
, so that
$\delta _P(S)=1$
by (⧫).
Similarly, we see that
$\delta _P(S)=1$
if
$O\in \ell _5$
. Hence, if P is contained in a line in S that passes through a singular point of the surface S, then
$\delta _P(S)=1$
. Thus, we may assume that
$O\not \in \ell _2\cup \ell _2$
.
If
$P\in \ell _3$
, we let
$C=\ell _3$
. In this case, we have
$\tau =2$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a8291/a8291cd6dc17d8abd54042ca5a7d4529944dfa51" alt=""
which implies that
$S_S(C)=\frac {13}{15}$
and
$S(W^{C}_{\bullet , \bullet };O)\leqslant \frac {13}{15}$
, so that
$\delta _P(S)=\frac {15}{13}$
by (⧫).
Similarly, we see that
$\delta _P(S)=\frac {15}{13}$
if
$O\in \ell _4$
. Therefore, we may also assume that
$O\not \in \ell _3\cup \ell _4$
.
Let C be the curve in the pencil
$|\ell _2 + \ell _3|$
that contains O. Then C is smooth and irreducible, since O is not contained in the curves
$\ell _1$
,
$\ell _2$
,
$\ell _3$
,
$\ell _4$
,
$\ell _5$
,
$\mathbf {e}_1$
, and
$\mathbf {e}_2$
by assumption. Then
$\tau =2$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/a46f4/a46f49c066d34911071d40109620637653a51e2b" alt=""
This implies that
$S_S(C)=\frac {11}{15}$
and
$S(W^{C}_{\bullet , \bullet };O)=\frac {23}{30}$
, so that
$\delta _P(S)\geqslant \frac {30}{23}>\frac {15}{13}$
by (⧫).
Appendix B Nemuro lemma
Now, let X be any smooth Fano threefold, let
$\pi \colon X\to \mathbb {P}^1$
be a fibration into del Pezzo surfaces, let S be a fiber of the morphism
$\pi $
such that S is an irreducible reduced normal del Pezzo surface that has at worst du Val singularities, and let P be a point in S. As in §3, set
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/00607/00607cbf0a6f16195ec78e3f83e749faf37979b6" alt=""
For
$u\in [0,\tau ]$
, let
$P(u)$
be the positive part of the Zariski decomposition of the divisor
$-K_X-uS$
, and let
$N(u)$
be its negative part. Suppose, in addition, that
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/431ea/431eabff877e34256d69be993f3cb2a2a62d474e" alt=""
for some irreducible reduced surfaces
$E_1,\dots ,E_l$
on the Fano threefold X that are different from S, where each
$f_i\colon [0,\tau ]\to \mathbb {R}_{\geqslant 0}$
is some function. For every
$j\in \{1,\ldots ,l\}$
, we set
$c_j=\mathrm {lct}_{P}(S;E_j|_S)$
. As in Appendix 1, we set
$\delta _P(S)=\delta _P(S,-K_S)$
. Define
$S(W^S_{\bullet ,\bullet };F)$
and
$\delta _{P}(S;W^S_{\bullet ,\bullet })$
as in [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, §1], or define these numbers using the formulas used in (3.1).
Lemma 27. Let F be any prime divisor over S such that
$P\in C_S(F)$
. Then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/16148/161487c1c9909fa9194cc0495a98a7b260c5a942" alt=""
In particular, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/9efc0/9efc0ad088ee0a8c946fca5f4c65366c1a4d5ea4" alt=""
Proof. Since the log pair
$(S, c_j E_j|_S)$
is log canonical at P, we conclude that
$\mathrm {ord}_F(E_j|_S)\leqslant \frac {A_S(F)}{c_j}$
. Thus, we get the first inequality in (♢). Moreover, since
$P(u)|_S=-K_S-N(u)|_S$
, we have
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/7e6a1/7e6a1b8f8b92d4cade32d88ec19c755878f56dd7" alt=""
Hence, the assertion follows.
Corollary 28. Suppose that
$N(u)=0$
for every
$u\in [0,\tau ]$
, that is, we have
$l=0$
. Then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/6d27f/6d27f51af320f61f98a871f22b94710014f3a7ca" alt=""
Corollary 29. Suppose that
$l=1$
,
$E_1|_S$
is a smooth curve contained in
$S\setminus \mathrm {Sing}(S)$
, and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/2a5b2/2a5b23d71e6b9765abcd7080e6c1699f6ac1f74e" alt=""
for some
$t\in (0,\tau )$
and some
$c\in \mathbb {R}_{>0}$
. Then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/e6c6c/e6c6c5ce3036292361916d04893090dc75453f22" alt=""
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the Nemuro city council and Saitama University for excellent working conditions. We would like to thank an anonymous referee for useful comments.