Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 134 3 iii b Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Choose an ample Cartier divisor . Put initially , for small positive real . Since is nef, the nef-plus-ample ampleness lemma makes ample. The polynomialhas . Thus the desired strict inequality holds when are sufficiently small and positive.
We must also arrange rationality of the two specified classes; itself need not be rational. Choose rational ample classes and sufficiently near and , and defineThen is close to and is close to , so both are ample real divisors by openness of the ample cone. Also and are rational and ample. Continuity preserves the strict inequality, giving
Here is the needed algebraic Morse inequality for ample divisors, with its section-count proof. Choose rational Cartier divisor representatives of and a common positive integer making very ample integral Cartier divisors. For the section-count argument rename these scaled representatives ; undoing this scaling restricts section indices to sufficiently divisible multiples and leaves bigness unchanged. Choose an effective Cartier divisor by taking a defining section that avoids the associated points of . Repeated divisor restriction exact sequences giveBecause is very ample, for each a section of avoiding the finitely many associated points of gives an injection into . Thus every summand is at most . By Serre vanishing and asymptotic Riemann–Roch for the ample ,For , the restriction term is the constant length of , giving the same formula directly. The positive coefficient proves that , hence , is big. Scaling back preserves bigness, so
For a general projective scheme, enforce the same strict inequality separately on each positive-dimensional reduced irreducible component , using its own dimension . At every such expression equals the positive number . Finitely many conditions are preserved by one sufficiently small choice and one sufficiently close rational approximation on . The top-dimensional inequalities imply the printed inequality for with its positive generic multiplicities; the section proof on each component makes componentwise big. This avoids inferring bigness on every component from just a positive sum. The displayed inequality is used for . For , its literal intersection power is undefined; handle this vacuous positivity case separately. Every line bundle is ample, all numerical classes are zero, and the componentwise bigness convention makes the conclusions automatic.
Past exam of the mathematics course of the University of Cambridge 2017 iii Paper 134 3 iii d Solution Created 2026-10-03 Updated 2026-10-05
Choose as in (c). Thenis the sum of a nef divisor and an ample real divisor. The nef-plus-ample ampleness lemma givesFor clarity, this last lemma follows from Kleiman's criterion and the convex cone property: if is an interior point of the nef cone and lies in that cone, translating a small neighbourhood of by stays in the cone. Thus remains in its interior, which is the ample cone on a projective scheme.
The complete argument proves the real Nakai–Moishezon criterion rather than assuming it: curve positivity gives nefness, rational approximation and a proved section-count inequality give bigness, induction and the finite-support argument give a uniform ample subtraction, and the nef-plus-ample lemma concludes ampleness. The zero-dimensional case is automatic, and ampleness on reduced components handles reducibility and nilpotents.
Real Nakai–Moishezon criterion 2026-10-05
A real Cartier class on a projective scheme is ample if and only if its top self-intersection on every positive-dimensional integral subvariety is positive. For the converse curve tests give nefness. Small ample perturbations and rational approximation give ample rational with satisfying the algebraic Morse inequality for ample divisors, hence bigness. Induction gives ample restrictions on codimension-one subvarieties; uniform ample subtraction from a big divisor with ample exceptional restrictions makes nef. The nef-plus-ample ampleness lemma concludes. For reducible schemes perform the finite component tests simultaneously.