1 Introduction
Smooth Fano threefolds have been classified by Iskovskikh, Mori, and Mukai into $105$ families, which are labeled as
1.1,
1.2,
1.3, $\ldots $ ,
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
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
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:
where each $a_{ij}=a_{ij}(x,y,z)$ is a homogeneous polynomials of degree $2$ . We can also define X by
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
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:
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
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:
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
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
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:
-
(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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
for
where
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
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
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
and
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
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
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
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:
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
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
Finally, we let
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
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
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
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
Then $P(u)\vert _{S}-vC$ is pseudoeffective $\iff P(u)\vert _{S}-vC$ is nef $\iff v\leqslant 2-u$ . Thus, we have
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
Then $P(u)\vert _{S}-vC$ is pseudoeffective $\iff v\leqslant 3-u$ . Moreover, we have
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
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.
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
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
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:
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.
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:
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.
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
and
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
Thus, since the intersection form of the curves $\ell _1$ and $\ell _2$ is semi-negative definite, we get
Similarly, if $0\leqslant u\leqslant 1$ , then
Likewise, if $1\leqslant u\leqslant \frac {3}{2}$ , then
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
In particular, we have $Z\cdot \mathbf {e}_1=1$ . Since $\mathbf {e}_1\not \subset Z$ , we have
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
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
But $\delta _P(S)=1$ by Lemmas 25 and 26, since $P=\mathbf {e}_1\cap \ell _1$ . Thus, we have
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
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
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
where infimum is taken over all prime divisors F over S such that $P\in C_S(F)$ , and
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
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
Similarly, if C is a reducible conic, then
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
which implies that $\sigma ^*(L)-uE$ is pseudoeffective $\iff u\leqslant 2+t$ . Similarly, we see that
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
Moreover, applying [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.25], we obtain
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
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
and $L-u\ell $ is not pseudoeffective for $u>\frac {3+t}{2}$ . Similarly, if $t\geqslant 1$ , then
and $L-u\ell $ is not pseudoeffective for $u>2$ . Then
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
Similarly, if $t\geqslant 1$ , then [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.25] gives
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
and the divisor $L-u\ell $ is not pseudoeffective for $u>\frac {3+2t}{2}$ . This gives
Moreover, using [Reference Araujo, Castravet, Cheltsov, Fujita, Kaloghiros, Martinez-Garcia, Shramov, Süß and Viswanathan3, Cor. 1.7.25], we compute
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
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
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
and let
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
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
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:
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
If $P=P_0$ , then $C=\ell _0$ , which implies that $\tau =2$ and
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
In particular, we have
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
Hence, the assertion follows.
Corollary 28. Suppose that $N(u)=0$ for every $u\in [0,\tau ]$ , that is, we have $l=0$ . Then
Corollary 29. Suppose that $l=1$ , $E_1|_S$ is a smooth curve contained in $S\setminus \mathrm {Sing}(S)$ , and
for some $t\in (0,\tau )$ and some $c\in \mathbb {R}_{>0}$ . Then
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.