Solution
ID: past-exam-of-the-mathematics-course-of-the-university-of-cambridge/2018/iii/paper-139/2/vi/b/solution
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2018 iii Paper 139 2 vi b Solution by
Codex 0 Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
The strict statement as printed needs the qualification if . Part (a) already shows in the present situation, and the next part proves ; an unconditional would contradict that conclusion.
To prove the needed conditional statement, suppose . A fixed part has . Indeed, a different has smaller multiplicity along some component of ; otherwise would be a nonzero effective linearly trivial divisor. Adding a member of the movable part avoiding that component contradicts fixedness.
The Hodge index theorem for algebraic surfaces, together with and , gives . If equality held, Riemann–Roch theorem for algebraic surfaces would give , and Serre duality would give . Hence , a contradiction. ThereforeThis is the fixed-part elimination on a K3 surface argument.
New to topics? Read the docs here!