text:
# Limit canonical systems on curves with two components

## 1. Introduction

###### 1.1.

*Goal.* In \[EH2\] D. Eisenbud and J. Harris asked: “What are the limits of Weierstrass points in families of curves degenerating to stable curves *not* of compact type?” As announced in \[EM\], in the present article we answer their question for stable curves with just two irreducible components meeting at points in general position.

For a glimpse of our results, consider the following particular case: Let $`C`$ be a nodal curve with two elliptic components $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ meeting at $`\delta `$ points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta `$ in general position. View $`C`$ in $`^{3\delta 1}`$ under the bicanonical map, and let $`H^{3\delta 1}`$ be the projective subspace spanned by $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta `$. For each hyperplane $`LH`$ let $`R_1(L)`$ and $`R_2(L)`$ be the ramification divisors of the projections of $`E_1`$ and $`E_2`$ with center $`L`$, and put

$$W(L):=R_1(L)+R_2(L)+(\delta +1)(\delta 2)(p_1+\mathrm{}+p_\delta ).$$

It follows from our Theorem 10.7 (see Example 11.3 as well) that each $`W(L)`$ is limit of Weierstrass divisors in one–parameter families of smooth curves degenerating to $`C`$, and there are no other such limits.

###### 1.2.

*Some history.* Limits of ramification points and linear systems were studied by Eisenbud and Harris in the 80’s, when they developed the theory of limit linear series for curves $`C`$ of compact type; see \[EH1\]. (As observed in \[HM, p. 256\], the theory works more generally when $`C`$ is *treelike*, that is, when the normalization of $`C`$ at all its irreducible nodes is of compact type.) Many important applications of their theory were found; a survey is given in \[EH1\].

Since many applications were obtained from a theory applicable only to curves of a special type, it’s natural to expect more applications from a more general theory. In fact, Eisenbud and Harris wrote in \[EH3, p. 220\] that “…there is probably a small gold mine awaiting a general insight.” Despite the potential for applications and the vast interest the topic generated in the 80’s, the theory of limit linear series could not be extended to stable curves of more general type. There was unpublished work of Z. Ran on degenerations of linear series \[R\], but the crucial relationship with degenerations of ramification points was yet to be established.

It was only recently that this relationship was established by the first author in \[E2\], building up on the work of Ran (or rather rediscovering it) and using the substitutes for the sheaves of (relative) principal parts discovered in \[E1\]. It is apparently possible to generalize the theory of limit linear series of \[EH1\] starting from results in \[E2\].

Though a more general theory of limit linear series is yet to be developed, it is already possible to apply the results in \[E2\] to answer the question raised by Eisenbud and Harris; see 1.1. For starters we describe in the present article a complete answer for stable curves with just two irreducible components meeting at points in general position. This is a substantial breakthrough, as the question was not completely answered even for the simplest case of stable curves with two elliptic components meeting at two points in general position.

In fact, it was only very recently that partial progress was made by M. Coppens and L. Gatto towards answering the question. In \[CG\] Coppens and Gatto consider a stable curve $`C`$ with just two irreducible components meeting at $`\delta `$ points in general position, and show that all the points in each collection of $`\delta 1`$ smooth points of $`C`$ are limits of Weierstrass points in a suitable family of smooth curves degenerating to $`C`$. (Their result is partially recovered by our Proposition 11.1.) Besides this general result, they study the case where one of the components of $`C`$ is elliptic and obtain partial results. In contrast with the methods used in the present article, they use admissible covers.

Besides \[E2\], the recent work by L. Mainò on enriched structures in her Ph.D. thesis \[M\] was important for us. Actually, as we deal here only with limits of canonical systems, we used only a fraction of what is available in \[M\].

There are further recent works on (generalizations of) limit linear series worth noticing, even though they are not completely related to what we do here. First, there is a draft by R. Pandharipande \[P\] who takes a Geometric Invariant Theory approach to proving the existence of what he calls generalized linear series for certain degenerations. Second, there is A. Bruno’s thesis \[B1\], where he studies degenerations of linear systems to a stable curve with two components. It’s particularly interesting the conditions he gives for such a curve to be a limit of smooth plane quintics. Finally, there is \[B2\], where applications to (variants of) a problem of Severi’s are given.

We thank A. Bruno, M. Coppens, D. Eisenbud, J. Harris, S. Kleiman and specially L. Gatto and L. Mainò for helpful conversations.

###### 1.3.

*The general approach.* Rather than producing directly a space parameterizing limits of Weierstrass divisors on a stable curve, our approach consists of producing a variety $`𝕍`$ of limits of canonical systems and a formula that gives for each point of $`𝕍`$ the corresponding limit of Weierstrass divisors. This method is applicable to any stable curve, as we shall describe below.

Let $`C`$ be a connected, local complete intersection, projective curve of arithmetic genus $`g>0`$ defined over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic 0. Let $`B:=\text{Spec}(k[[t]])`$, and denote by $`o`$ its special point and $`\eta `$ its generic point. A *smoothing* of $`C`$ is a projective and flat map $`\pi :SB`$ such that $`S_\eta `$ is smooth and $`S_o=C`$. For each smoothing $`\pi :SB`$ of $`C`$ let $`W_\pi :=\overline{W}_\eta C`$, where $`W_\eta S`$ is the Weierstrass subscheme of $`S_\eta `$. We call the associated cycle $`[W_\pi ]`$ the *limit Weierstrass divisor of $`\pi `$*.

Let $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$ denote the irreducible components of $`C`$. A smoothing $`\pi :SB`$ of $`C`$ is called *regular* if $`S`$ is regular everywhere but possibly at the singularities of $`C`$ that lie on just one component $`C_i`$. If $`\pi :SB`$ is a regular smoothing of $`C`$, then $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$ are Cartier divisors on $`S`$.

Assume from now on that the irreducible components of $`C`$ meet at nodes, that is, ordinary double points. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ denote the set of points of intersection between distinct components of $`C`$. For each $`\mu `$ in $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^+:=_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$ let $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ be the curve obtained from $`C`$ by splitting the branches of $`C`$ at each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and connecting them by a chain of $`\mu _p1`$ rational, smooth curves (see Figure 1).

We say that $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is the *$`\mu `$–semi–stable model of $`C`$*. The smoothings of $`C`$ correspond to the regular smoothings of the semi–stable models of $`C`$. This correspondence is called *semi–stable reduction*; see 2.7. We shall view the irreducible components of $`C`$ as irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$.

For each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ let $`d_i`$ and put $`𝕃_i:=𝜔_i((1+d_i)_{p\mathrm{\Delta }_i}p)`$, where $`𝜔_i`$ is the dualizing sheaf of $`C_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i:=\mathrm{\Delta }C_i`$.

Let $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and consider a regular smoothing $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{S}B`$ of the $`\mu `$–semi–stable model $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ of $`C`$. Let $`𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$ be the (relative) dualizing sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. By Theorem 2.2, for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ there is a unique Cartier divisor $`D_i`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$ that is supported in the union of all irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ but $`C_i`$ and such that the following two properties hold for $`_i:=𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}(D_i)`$.

1. The natural map $`\varrho _i:H^0(_i)(o)H^0(_i|_{C_i})`$ is injective.
2. The natural map $`\varrho _{i,j}:H^0(_i)(o)H^0(_i|_{C_j})`$ is not zero if $`ji`$.

Let $`V_{\stackrel{~}{\pi },i}:=\mathrm{Im}(\varrho _i)`$. We call $`_i`$ the *canonical sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`C_i`$* and $`(V_{\stackrel{~}{\pi },i},_i|_{C_i})`$ the *limit canonical aspect of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`C_i`$*. For each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ denote by $`\mathrm{}_i(p)`$ the coefficient in $`D_i`$ of the irreducible component of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ other than $`C_i`$ containing $`p`$. We call $`\mathrm{}_i(p)`$ the *correction number for $`_i`$ at $`p`$*. Let $`d_{\stackrel{~}{\pi },i}:=\mathrm{max}\{\mathrm{}_i(p)|p\mathrm{\Delta }_i\}`$. If $`d_id_{\stackrel{~}{\pi },i}`$ then $`_i|_{C_i}𝕃_i`$, and thus $`V_{\stackrel{~}{\pi },i}`$ can be viewed as a $`g`$–dimensional subspace of $`H^0(𝕃_i)`$.

Assume from now on that $`d_id_{\stackrel{~}{\pi },i}`$ for every regular smoothing $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ of every semi–stable model of $`C`$ and every $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. (This condition holds if there are no loosely connected rational tails in $`C`$; see Remark 2.5.) Let

$$𝔾:=\mathrm{Grass}_g(H^0(𝕃_1))\times \mathrm{}\times \mathrm{Grass}_g(H^0(𝕃_n)).$$

Given a regular smoothing $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ of a semi–stable model of $`C`$ let

$$\nu _{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}:=(V_{\stackrel{~}{\pi },1},\mathrm{},V_{\stackrel{~}{\pi },n})𝔾.$$

For each $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ let

$$𝕍_\mu :=\{\nu _{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}|\stackrel{~}{\pi }\text{ is a regular smoothing of the }\mu \text{–semi–stable model of }C\}.$$

Put

(1.3.1)
$$𝕍:=\underset{\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+}{}𝕍_\mu 𝔾.$$

We call $`𝕍`$ the *variety of limit canonical systems of $`C`$*.

For each $`\nu =(V_1,\mathrm{},V_n)𝔾`$ let

$$W_\nu :=R_{\nu ,1}+\mathrm{}+R_{\nu ,n}+\underset{i<j}{}\underset{pC_iC_j}{}g(g1d_id_j)p,$$

where $`R_{\nu ,i}`$ is the ramification divisor of $`(V_i,𝕃_i)`$ for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. By Theorem 2.8 (see Remark 2.9 as well), if $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is a regular smoothing of a semi–stable model of $`C`$ then $`W_{\nu _{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}}`$ is the limit Weierstrass divisor of the corresponding smoothing of $`C`$.

So, in order to answer the question posed by Eisenbud and Harris (see 1.1), it’s enough to understand $`𝕍`$ well. We propose the following problems:

1. Describe explicitly each $`𝕍_\mu `$ and the interrelations among the various $`𝕍_\mu `$.
2. Find properties of $`𝕍`$. For instance, is $`𝕍`$ projective? Is $`𝕍`$ connected? What is the dimension of $`𝕍`$? When is $`𝕍`$ irreducible? What is the number of irreducible components of $`𝕍`$?

###### 1.4.

*Results.* Solving the problems raised at the end of 1.3 can be difficult without further hypotheses. In the present article we apply the approach of 1.3 for curves with just two irreducible components meeting at points in general position. We describe our results below.

Let $`C`$ be a connected, local complete intersection, projective curve of arithmetic genus $`g>0`$ defined over an algebraically closed field $`k`$ of characteristic 0. Assume that $`C`$ has only two irreducible components, denoted $`X`$ and $`Y`$, and that the points of $`XY`$ are nodes of $`C`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=XY`$ and $`\delta :=|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$. Let $`g_X`$ and $`g_Y`$ be the arithmetic genera of $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Then $`g=g_X+g_Y+\delta 1`$. Assume that $`\delta >1`$ or $`g_Xg_Y>0`$. Let $`𝜔_X`$ and $`𝜔_Y`$ denote the dualizing sheaves of $`X`$ and $`Y`$.

Assume from now on that $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ lies in general position on $`X`$ and $`Y`$. More precisely, assume that each effective divisor $`D`$ on $`X`$ (resp. $`Y`$) supported in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and of degree at most $`g_X`$ (resp. $`g_Y`$) imposes independent conditions on $`𝜔_X`$ (resp. $`𝜔_Y`$).

Let $`𝕍`$ be the variety of limit canonical systems of $`C`$, as described in 1.3. Our Theorem 10.6 asserts that $`𝕍`$ is connected, projective and of pure dimension. Moreover, $`dim𝕍=\delta 1`$ unless $`g_X=g_Y=0`$, in which case $`𝕍`$ is a point. Our Theorem 11.2 gives a lower bound for the number $`N(𝕍)`$ of irreducible components of $`𝕍`$. Using this lower bound we show that $`𝕍`$ is irreducible if and only if $`g_X,g_Y1`$. If $`\delta =2`$ then $`N(𝕍)=g\mathrm{gcd}(g_X+1,g_Y+1)`$; see 11.5.

We solve Problem 1 of 1.3 as well. In fact, our solution to Problem 2 follows from our quite explicit solution to Problem 1. We proceed as follows. To each $`\mu `$ in $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^+:=_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$ we associate non–empty subsets $`I_\mu ,J_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\delta `$–tuples $`\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that $`\alpha _{\mu ,p}g_Y`$ and $`\beta _{\mu ,p}g_X`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$; see 4.1. These associated data $`\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu ,I_\mu ,J_\mu `$ are obtained numerically from $`\mu `$ alone, but they have geometric meaning as well. In fact, let $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ be the $`\mu `$–semi–stable model of $`C`$ and $`\varphi :\stackrel{~}{C}C`$ the induced map. Let $``$ be the canonical sheaf with focus on $`X`$ (resp. $`Y`$) of a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Let $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then $`pI_\mu `$ (resp. $`pJ_\mu `$) if and only if $`\varphi _{}(|_{\stackrel{~}{C}})`$ is invertible at $`p`$; see Remark 5.3. In addition, $`\alpha _{\mu ,p}`$ (resp. $`\beta _{\mu ,p}`$) is the correction number for $``$ at the point of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ lying on $`X`$ (resp. $`Y`$) and above $`p`$; see Theorem 5.2. So $`𝕍_\mu 𝔾`$, where

$$𝔾:=\mathrm{Grass}_g(H^0(𝜔_X((1+g_Y)_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}p)))\times \mathrm{Grass}_g(H^0(𝜔_Y((1+g_X)_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}p))).$$

It’s interesting to note that, since $`I_\mu `$ and $`J_\mu `$ are non–empty, the canonical sheaves with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ of every regular smoothing of every semi–stable model of $`C`$ push forward to (relatively) simple sheaves on the corresponding smoothing of $`C`$. (Recall that a sheaf $`L`$ on $`C`$ is *simple* if $`\text{End}(L)=k`$.) So we need only consider sheaves that are simple on $`C`$ to obtain a projective variety $`𝕍`$. This is the same situation found in \[E3\], where a compactification of the (relative) Jacobian of a family of curves was constructed using only simple sheaves.

Theorem 10.1 asserts the importance of the data $`\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu ,I_\mu ,J_\mu `$: they determine $`𝕍_\mu `$. In fact, an explicit description of $`𝕍_\mu `$ from these data is given by Theorem 8.2. As a corollary we obtain Theorem 8.5, which asserts that each $`𝕍_\mu `$ is isomorphic to a torus and gives a formula for the dimension of $`𝕍_\mu `$.

Theorem 10.1 asserts as well that any two $`𝕍_\mu `$ and $`𝕍_\mu ^{}`$ are either equal or disjoint. Now, there are only finitely many $`𝕍_\mu `$ as there are only finitely many associated data $`\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu ,I_\mu ,J_\mu `$. So the covering (1.3.1) can actually be thought of as a finite stratification of $`𝕍`$.

It remains to describe the relationship between the several $`𝕍_\mu `$. First, Theorem 10.1 says that $`𝕍_{r\mu }=𝕍_\mu `$ for each positive integer $`r`$. This fact is not surprising as each regular smoothing of the $`\mu `$–semi–stable model of $`C`$ induces a regular smoothing of the $`r\mu `$–semi–stable model after base change of degree $`r`$ and resolution of singularities. At any rate, this fact allows us to define $`𝕍_\mu `$ for each $`\mu `$ in $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^+:=_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$ in the obvious way. Then we obtain a remarkable relation between the Zariski topology of $`𝕍`$ and the Euclidean topology of $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$: Theorem 10.5 asserts that there is a neighborhood $`U_\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ of each $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that the closure $`\overline{𝕍}_\mu 𝔾`$ satisfies

$$\overline{𝕍}_\mu =\underset{\overline{\mu }U}{}𝕍_{\overline{\mu }}$$

for every open neighborhood $`UU_\mu `$ of $`\mu `$.

###### 1.5.

*An overview.* Let $`C`$ be a connected, local complete intersection, projective curve of arithmetic genus $`g>0`$ defined over an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. Assume that the irreducible components of $`C`$ meet at nodes.

In Section 2 we review the fundamentals of the theory of limit linear systems and limit ramification points on $`C`$ developed in \[E2\], as applied to limits of canonical systems and Weierstrass points. In contrast with \[E2\] we show here how to handle non–regular smoothings of $`C`$ using semi–stable reduction; see 2.7 and Theorem 2.8. Semi–stable reduction can be incorporated to the general theory of limit linear systems and limit ramification points, but we refrain from carrying this out here.

In Section 3 we prove the purely numerical Lemma 3.1.

In Section 4 we define our basic set–up, introducing the terminology that shall be used in the rest of the article. Except in Section 6, it is assumed from here on that $`C`$ has just two irreducible components $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=XY`$. We state as well the general–position conditions, (4.3.1) and (4.3.2), that will be assumed later. Using Lemma 3.1, we define for each $`\mu `$ in $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^+:=_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}^+`$ the numerical data $`\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu ,I_\mu ,J_\mu `$ which will a posteriori determine the stratum $`𝕍_\mu `$ of the variety of limit canonical systems $`𝕍`$.

In Section 5 we determine for each regular smoothing of a semi–stable model $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ of $`C`$ the associated canonical sheaves and limit canonical aspects with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Our main result here is Theorem 5.2.

In Section 6 we review the part of the theory of enriched structures of Mainò’s which is necessary for us. Unfortunately, Mainò’s results do not seem to meet directly our needs. So we follow an approach that is slightly different from hers, and give independent proofs. For instance, for us an enriched structure is a collection of invertible fractional ideals on $`C`$ satisfying certain properties, rather than just the collection of their associated (abstract) invertible sheaves; see 6.4 and Remark 6.7. The main result of this section, Theorem 6.5, gives a criterion for when a collection of fractional ideals on $`C`$ comes from an enriched structure. It would actually be more useful to have instead a similar criterion valid for collections of invertible sheaves.

In Section 7 we begin our study of the regeneration process. More precisely, we fix $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, and determine which invertible sheaves on the $`\mu `$–semi–stable model $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ of $`C`$ are restrictions of canonical sheaves of regular smoothings of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ with foci on $`X`$ and/or $`Y`$. Theorem 6.5 is our main tool.

In Section 8 we apply the theorem of Section 7 to give a characterization of the stratum $`𝕍_\mu `$ in terms of the numerical data $`\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu ,I_\mu ,J_\mu `$. Our main results here are Theorems 8.2 and 8.5.

In Section 9 we study boundary points of certain tori orbits in products of Grassmannians. This section does not rely on the rest of the paper and might be of independent interest. In fact, Lemma 9.1 is probably well known. We give a proof of it as the proof of Lemma 9.2 is based on that proof.

In Section 10 we prove our most important results, Theorems 10.1, 10.5, 10.6 and 10.7. Here we tackle all strata $`𝕍_\mu `$ of $`𝕍`$ together and determine which lie in the closure in $`𝕍`$ of which. Lemma 9.2 is needed for this purpose.

In Section 11 we collect a few results: Proposition 11.1 recovers in part the main result of \[CG\] and Theorem 11.2 gives estimates on the number of irreducible components of $`𝕍`$. In addition, we describe how to represent $`𝕍`$ graphically (see 11.4) and describe this representation for $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|=2`$ and $`|\mathrm{\Delta }|=3`$; see 11.5–6.

###### 1.6.

*Notation.* If $`F`$ and $`G`$ are sets, let $`G_F:=_{pF}G`$. If $`G`$ is a group then so is $`G_F`$; in addition, if $`EF`$ we shall view $`G_E`$ as a subgroup of $`G_F`$ in the natural way.

Let $`F`$ be a finite set. Given $`b,c_F`$ write $`bc`$ if $`b_pc_p`$ for every $`pF`$. For each $`b_F`$ let $`|b|:=_{pF}b_p`$. View each $`pF`$ as an element of $`_F`$, defined by $`p_p:=1`$ and $`p_q:=0`$ if $`qp`$. In addition, view each $`bF`$ as the sum $`_{pb}p`$ inside $`_F`$.

Let $`k`$ be a field. Given $`b_F`$ and $`tk_F^{}`$, let $`t^b:=_{pF}t_p^{b_p}`$. The group $`k_F^{}`$ acts diagonally on $`k_F`$: given $`tk_F^{}`$ and $`vk_F`$, define $`tvk_F`$ by $`(tv)_p:=t_pv_p`$ for each $`pF`$.

If $``$ is a coherent sheaf and $`D`$ is a Cartier divisor on a scheme $`X`$, let $`𝒪_X(D)`$ denote the invertible sheaf associated to $`D`$, and put $`(D):=𝒪_X(D)`$. If $`X`$ is a scheme and $`Y`$ a closed subscheme, let $`[Y]`$ denote the associated cycle on $`X`$.

In the present article, a *curve* is a connected, reduced, *local complete intersection*, projective scheme of pure dimension 1 defined over an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. A singularity of a curve is called *irreducible* if it lies on just one irreducible component, and *reducible* if not. It is called a *node* if it is an ordinary double point. In the present article, a curve is called *nodal* if all its *reducible* singularities are nodes. In addition, a curve is called *treelike* if its normalization at all irreducible singularities is of compact type.

## 2. Limit canonical systems and Weierstrass divisors

###### 2.1.

*Limit canonical systems.* Let $`C`$ be a curve and $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$ its irreducible components. A *smoothing* of $`C`$ is a projective and flat map $`\pi :SB`$, where $`B`$ is the spectrum of a discrete valuation ring, the special fiber of $`\pi `$ is $`C`$ and the generic fiber is smooth. If $`\pi `$ is a smoothing of $`C`$ let $`𝜔_\pi `$ denote the (relative) dualizing sheaf of $`\pi `$. Then $`𝜔_\pi `$ is an invertible extension to $`S`$ of the canonical sheaf on the generic fiber of $`\pi `$.

A smoothing $`\pi :SB`$ of $`C`$ is said to be *regular* if $`S`$ is regular everywhere *but* possibly at the irreducible singularities of $`C`$.

Let $`\pi :SB`$ be a regular smoothing of $`C`$ and $`o`$ the special point of $`B`$. Then $`C_i`$ is a Cartier divisor on $`S`$ for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. (In fact, $`C_i`$ is principal away from the irreducible singularities of $`C`$ because $`S`$ is regular there, and at each irreducible singularity of $`C`$ in $`C_i`$ because $`C_i`$ is locally the pull–back of $`o`$.) In addition, $`C_1+\mathrm{}+C_n`$ is the pull–back of $`o`$, hence linearly equivalent to 0. Since $`C`$ is connected, a $``$–linear combination of $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$ is linearly equivalent to 0 if and only if it is a multiple of $`C_1+\mathrm{}+C_n`$.

If $``$ is an invertible extension to $`S`$ of the canonical sheaf on the generic fiber of $`\pi `$, then

$$𝜔_\pi (t_1C_1+\mathrm{}+t_nC_n)$$

for certain integers $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_n`$. We say that $``$ is a *canonical sheaf of $`\pi `$*. In particular, $`𝜔_\pi `$ is a canonical sheaf.

For each canonical sheaf $``$ of $`\pi `$, the base–change map $`\varrho _{}:H^0()(o)H^0(|_C)`$ is injective. We say that $`(\mathrm{Im}(\varrho _{}),|_C)`$ is a *limit canonical system of $`\pi `$*.

###### Theorem 2.2.

Let $`C`$ be a nodal curve of arithmetic genus $`g>0`$ and $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$ its irreducible components. Let $`\pi :SB`$ be a regular smoothing of $`C`$ and $`o`$ the special point of $`B`$. Then for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ there is a unique canonical sheaf $`_i`$ of $`\pi `$ meeting the following two conditions.

1. The natural map $`\varrho _i:H^0(_i)(o)H^0(_i|_{C_i})`$ is injective.
2. The natural map $`\varrho _{i,j}:H^0(_i)(o)H^0(_i|_{C_j})`$ is not zero if $`ji`$.

###### Proof.

As in \[E2, Thm. 1, p. 23 and Prop. 2, p. 26\]. See \[R\] as well. ∎

###### Definition 2.3.

Keep the set–up of Theorem 2.2. For each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ we say that $`_i`$ is the *canonical sheaf of $`\pi `$ with focus on $`C_i`$*. The associated limit canonical system is also said to have focus on $`C_i`$. In addition, we call the linear system $`(\mathrm{Im}(\varrho _i),_i|_{C_i})`$ the *limit canonical aspect of $`\pi `$ with focus on $`C_i`$*.

For each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ there are unique integers $`t_{i,1},\mathrm{},t_{i,n}`$ such that $`t_{i,i}=0`$ and

$$_i𝜔_\pi (\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}t_{i,j}C_j).$$

For each reducible node $`p`$ of $`C`$ in $`C_i`$ let $`\mathrm{}_i(p):=t_{i,j}`$, where $`j`$ is the unique integer such that $`ji`$ and $`pC_j`$. Call $`\mathrm{}_i(p)`$ the *correction number for $`_i`$ at $`p`$*.

###### Proposition 2.4.

Let $`C`$ be a nodal curve of arithmetic genus $`g>0`$ and $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$ its irreducible components. Let $`\pi :SB`$ be a regular smoothing of $`C`$. If $``$ is a canonical sheaf of $`\pi `$ such that the restriction $`H^0()H^0(|_{C_i})`$ is not zero for every $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, then for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ there are unique non–negative integers $`t_{i,1},\mathrm{},t_{i,n}`$ such that $`t_{i,i}=0`$ and

$$_i(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}t_{i,j}C_j),$$

where $`_i`$ is the canonical sheaf of $`\pi `$ with focus on $`C_i`$.

###### Proof.

As in \[E2, Prop. 4, p. 27\]. ∎

###### Remark 2.5.

Keep the set–up of Proposition 2.4. For each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ let $`e_i`$ be the minimum non–negative integer such that the restriction,

$$H^0(𝜔_\pi (e_iC_i))H^0(𝜔_\pi (e_iC_i)|_{C_i}),$$

is not zero. Since forming $`𝜔_\pi `$ commutes with changing $`B`$, we have $`e_i>0`$ if and only if $`C_i`$ is smooth and rational and there are as many connected components of $`\overline{CC_i}`$ as points in $`C_i\overline{CC_i}`$. (In this case, $`C_i`$ is called a *loosely connected rational tail*; see \[C, Def. 3.2, p. 75\].)

Let

$$:=𝜔_\pi (\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}e_iC_i).$$

By Proposition 2.4, for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, there are non–negative integers $`t_{i,1},\mathrm{},t_{i,n}`$ such that $`t_{i,i}=0`$ and

$$_i(\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}t_{i,j}C_j).$$

If $`pC_iC_j`$ for $`ji`$ then $`t_{i,j}2g2`$ because $`\mathrm{deg}_i|_{C_i}2g2`$. Observe that $`\mathrm{}_i(p)=t_{i,j}e_j+e_i`$. Thus $`\mathrm{}_i(p)2g2`$ if $`C_i`$ is not a loosely connected rational tail.

###### Definition 2.6.

Let $`\pi :SB`$ be a smoothing of a curve $`C`$. The Weierstrass scheme on the generic fiber of $`\pi `$ extends to a unique closed subscheme $`𝒲S`$ that is flat over $`B`$. We say that the special fiber $`W`$ of $`𝒲`$ is the *limit Weierstrass scheme of $`\pi `$*, and call the associated cycle $`[W]`$ the *limit Weierstrass divisor of $`\pi `$*.

###### 2.7.

*Semi–stable reduction.* Let $`C`$ be a nodal curve and $`\pi :SB`$ a smoothing of $`C`$. If $`p`$ is a node of $`C`$, then the local equation for $`\pi `$ at $`p`$ is of the form $`t^{\mu _p}=h_1h_2`$, where $`\mu _p`$ is a positive integer, $`t`$ is a local parameter of $`B`$ at the special point, and $`h_1`$ and $`h_2`$ are the local equations of the branches of $`C`$ at $`p`$. The integer $`\mu _p`$ is called the *singularity type of $`\pi `$ at $`p`$*. The smoothing is regular if and only if its singularity type at every reducible node of $`C`$ is 1.

If $`S`$ is not regular, then we resolve its singularities at the reducible nodes of $`C`$ by blowing up successively. We obtain a regular smoothing $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{S}B`$ whose generic fiber is equal to that of $`\pi `$, and whose special fiber $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is the curve obtained from $`C`$ by splitting the branches of $`C`$ at each reducible node $`p`$, and connecting them by a chain $`Z_p`$ of $`\mu _p1`$ rational, smooth curves $`Z_{p,1},\mathrm{},Z_{p,\mu _p1}`$, where $`\mu _p`$ is the singularity type of $`\pi `$ at $`p`$ (see Figure 1). We say that the curve $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ described above is a *semi–stable model of $`C`$*, and call $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ the *semi–stable reduction of $`\pi `$*. We’ll view the irreducible components of $`C`$ as irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$.

Conversely, let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}:\stackrel{~}{S}^{}B^{}`$ be any regular smoothing of the curve $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ described above. Blow down the chains $`Z_p`$ of rational, smooth curves, and let $`S^{}`$ denote the ensuing surface. Since the only curves contracted lie on the special fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$, the map $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}`$ descends to a map $`\pi ^{}:S^{}B^{}`$. The self–intersection of each $`Z_{p,j}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{}`$ is $`2`$ because $`\stackrel{~}{S}^{}`$ is regular along $`Z_{p,j}`$. So, each chain $`Z_p`$ is blown down to a node, and we recover the curve $`C`$ as the special fiber of $`\pi ^{}`$. Thus $`\pi ^{}`$ is a smoothing of $`C`$.

Let $`\varphi :\stackrel{~}{S}S`$ denote the birational map. Let $`𝜔`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝜔}`$ denote the (relative) dualizing sheaves of $`\pi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$, respectively. Since $`C`$ is Gorenstein, $`𝜔`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝜔}`$ are invertible. Since $`\stackrel{~}{𝜔}`$ and $`\varphi ^{}𝜔`$ coincide on the generic fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$, and on every irreducible component of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$, the two sheaves are equal. Hence, by the projection formula, $`𝜔=\varphi _{}\stackrel{~}{𝜔}`$. So, if $`W`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ are the limit Weierstrass schemes of $`\pi `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ then $`[W]=\varphi _{}[\stackrel{~}{W}]`$.

Therefore, to determine all limit Weierstrass divisors on $`C`$ we need only determine the limit Weierstrass divisor of each regular smoothing of each semi–stable model of $`C`$.

###### Theorem 2.8.

Let $`C`$ be a nodal curve of arithmetic genus $`g>0`$ and $`C_1,\mathrm{},C_n`$ its irreducible components. Let $`N`$ be the set of reducible nodes of $`C`$. Let $`\pi `$ be a smoothing of $`C`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ its semi–stable reduction. Let $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ be the special fiber of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. For each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$, let $`R_i`$ be the ramification divisor of the limit canonical aspect of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`C_i`$. For each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ and each $`pNC_i`$ let $`\mathrm{}_i(p)`$ be the correction number for the canonical sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`C_i`$ at the point of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ in $`C_i`$ lying above $`p`$. Then the limit Weierstrass scheme $`W`$ of $`\pi `$ satisfies

$$[W]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}R_i+\underset{i<j}{}\underset{pC_iC_j}{}g(g1\mathrm{}_i(p)\mathrm{}_j(p))p.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`pN`$, say $`pC_iC_j`$ where $`1i<jn`$. Let $`\mu _p`$ be the singularity type of $`\pi `$ at $`p`$. Let $`Z_{p,1},\mathrm{},Z_{p,\mu _p1}`$ be the chain of rational, smooth curves on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ that are contracted to $`p`$ in $`C`$. Assume that $`Z_{p,1}`$ intersects $`C_i`$ and $`Z_{p,\mu _p1}`$ intersects $`C_j`$. Put $`Z_{p,0}:=C_i`$ and $`Z_{p,\mu _p}:=C_j`$. For each $`h=0,\mathrm{},\mu _p1`$ let $`z_{p,h}`$ be the point of intersection of $`Z_{p,h}`$ and $`Z_{p,h+1}`$ (see Figure 1).

For each $`h=0,\mathrm{},\mu _p`$ let $`𝒩_{p,h}`$ denote the canonical sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`Z_{p,h}`$. For each $`h=1,\mathrm{},\mu _p1`$ let $`\lambda _{p,h}`$ and $`\nu _{p,h}`$ be the correction numbers for $`𝒩_{p,h}`$ at $`z_{p,h1}`$ and $`z_{p,h}`$, respectively. Since $`Z_{p,h}`$ is smooth and rational, and its self–intersection is $`2`$, it follows that $`𝒩_{p,h}|_{Z_{p,h}}`$ has degree $`\lambda _{p,h}+\nu _{p,h}`$. Hence, by Plücker’s formula, the ramification divisor $`R_{p,h}`$ of the limit canonical aspect of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`Z_{p,h}`$ satisfies

(2.8.1)
$$\mathrm{deg}R_{p,h}=g(\lambda _{p,h}+\nu _{p,h}(g1)).$$

Put $`\nu _{p,0}:=\mathrm{}_i(p)`$ and $`\lambda _{p,\mu _p}:=\mathrm{}_j(p)`$. Then

$$𝒩_{p,h+1}𝒩_{p,h}((\lambda _{p,h+1}+\nu _{p,h})Z_{p,h}+0Z_{p,h+1}+\mathrm{})$$

for $`h=0,\mathrm{},\mu _p1`$.

By \[E2, Thm. 7, p. 30\] the limit Weierstrass scheme $`\stackrel{~}{W}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ satisfies

(2.8.2)
$$[\stackrel{~}{W}]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}R_i+\underset{pN}{}\left(\underset{h=1}{\overset{\mu _p1}{}}R_{p,h}+\underset{h=0}{\overset{\mu _p1}{}}g(g1\lambda _{p,h+1}\nu _{p,h})z_{p,h}\right).$$

Now, $`[W]`$ is the push–forward of $`[\stackrel{~}{W}]`$ to $`C`$. Combining (2.8.1) and (2.8.2) we get the expression for $`[W]`$ claimed. ∎

###### Remark 2.9.

Keep the set–up of Theorem 2.8. For each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ let $`𝜔_i`$ be the dualizing sheaf of $`C_i`$. Assume that for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ there is an integer $`d_i`$ such that $`\mathrm{}_i(p)d_i`$ for each $`pNC_i`$. (For instance, we may let $`d_i:=2g2`$ for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$ if no irreducible component of $`C`$ is a loosely connected rational tail; see Remark 2.5.) Then, instead of viewing the limit canonical aspect of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`C_i`$ as a system with sections in $`𝜔_i(_{pNC_i}(1+\mathrm{}_i(p))p)`$, we may view it as having sections in $`𝜔_i((1+d_i)_{pNC_i}p)`$. Let $`R_i(d_i)`$ be the corresponding ramification divisor. Then

$$[W]=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}R_i(d_i)+\underset{i<j}{}g(g1d_id_j)\underset{pC_iC_j}{}p.$$

## 3. A numerical lemma

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a non–empty finite set and $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. For each $`\upsilon `$ there are unique $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying the following four conditions.

(3.1.1a) $`0<\rho _p\mu _p`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,
(3.1.1b) $`I:=\{p\mathrm{\Delta }|\rho _p=\mu _p\}`$ is non–empty,
(3.1.1c) $`\upsilon |\alpha |<\upsilon +|I|`$,
(3.1.1d) $`\mu _p(\alpha _p+1)\rho _p=\mu _q(\alpha _q+1)\rho _q`$ for all $`p,q\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
If $`\upsilon 1|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ then $`\alpha 0`$. If $`\alpha 0`$ but $`\alpha _p=0`$ for some $`pI`$ then $`\alpha =0`$ and $`I=\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

###### Proof.

The existence of $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying Conditions (3.1.1) is equivalent to the existence of $`\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying the following four conditions.

(3.1.2a) $`0\sigma _p\mu _p`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,
(3.1.2b) $`J:=\{p\mathrm{\Delta }|\sigma _p=0\}`$ is non–empty,
(3.1.2c) $`|\beta |=\upsilon `$,
(3.1.2d) $`\mu _p\beta _p+\sigma _p=\mu _q\beta _q+\sigma _q`$ for all $`p,q\mathrm{\Delta }`$.
In fact, suppose that $`\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfy Conditions (3.1.2). Define $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by letting for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$(\alpha _p,\rho _p):=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\beta _p+1,\mu _p),\hfill & \text{if }\sigma _p=\mu _p\text{,}\hfill \\ (\beta _p,\mu _p\sigma _p),\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`\alpha `$ and $`\rho `$ satisfy Conditions (3.1.1). Conversely, suppose that $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfy Conditions (3.1.1). By (3.1.1c), there is a proper subset $`K`$ of $`I`$ with $`|K|=|\alpha |\upsilon `$. Define $`\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by letting for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$(\beta _p,\sigma _p):=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\alpha _p1,\mu _p),\hfill & \text{if }pK\text{,}\hfill \\ (\alpha _p,\mu _p\rho _p),\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`\beta `$ and $`\sigma `$ satisfy Conditions (3.1.2).

Let’s prove now the existence of $`\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying Conditions (3.1.2). Let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ be the set of points $`x_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that

(3.1.3)
$$x_p=\mu _p\beta _p+\sigma _p\text{for each }p\mathrm{\Delta },$$

where $`\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfy Conditions (3.1.2a–c). Let

$$D:=\{y_\mathrm{\Delta }|y_p=y_q\text{ for all }p,q\mathrm{\Delta }\}.$$

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ meets $`D`$, then there are $`\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying Conditions (3.1.2). In addition, $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by (3.1.2b) and (3.1.2d). Thus, it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ meets $`D`$.

If $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ then $`\upsilon _{p\mathrm{\Delta }}x_p/\mu _p<\upsilon +\delta `$ by (3.1.2a–c) and (3.1.3). Since $`DP`$, where

$$P:=\{y_\mathrm{\Delta }|_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}y_p/\mu _p=0\},$$

there is a point $`x\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ closest to $`D`$. Fix this point $`x`$, and let $`\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying (3.1.2a–c) and (3.1.3). We’ll show that $`xD`$.

Suppose $`xD`$. Let $`d:_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the distance function to $`D`$. Since the coordinate axes are not parallel to $`D`$ and $`xD`$, we have $`_pd(x)0`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If $`0<\sigma _p<\mu _p`$ for a certain $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then we would be able to produce a point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ closer to $`D`$ by making $`\sigma _p`$ vary. So, either $`\sigma _p=0`$ or $`\sigma _p=\mu _p`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In addition, $`_pd(x)>0`$ if $`\sigma _p=0`$ and $`_pd(x)<0`$ if $`\sigma _p=\mu _p`$.

Suppose that $`\sigma _p=0`$ and $`\sigma _q=\mu _q`$ for certain $`p,q\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Define $`\beta ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\sigma ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by letting for each $`r\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$(\beta _r^{},\sigma _r^{}):=\{\begin{array}{cc}(\beta _p1,\mu _p),\hfill & \text{if }r=p\text{,}\hfill \\ (\beta _q+1,0),\hfill & \text{if }r=q\text{,}\hfill \\ (\beta _r,\sigma _r),\hfill & \text{otherwise.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`x_r=\mu _r\beta _r^{}+\sigma _r^{}`$ for every $`r\mathrm{\Delta }`$. However, since $`_qd(x)<0`$ and $`\sigma _q^{}=0`$, we would get a point of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ closer to $`D`$ by increasing $`\sigma _q^{}`$, reaching a contradiction. Therefore, either $`\sigma =0`$ or $`\sigma =\mu `$. By (3.1.2b), $`\sigma =0`$, and thus $`_pd(x)>0`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$.

Now, let $`yD`$ be the closest point to $`x`$, and $`z:=xy`$. Then $`_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}z_p=0`$. But $`z_p0`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ because $`_pd(x)>0`$. Hence $`z=0`$ and $`xD`$, reaching a contradiction. Thus $`xD`$, and hence $`\beta `$ and $`\sigma `$ satisfy Conditions (3.1.2).

Let’s prove now uniqueness of $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ meeting Conditions (3.1.1). Let $`\alpha ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\rho ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying the same conditions as $`\alpha `$ and $`\rho `$. Suppose $`\alpha _p>\alpha _p^{}`$ for some $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. So,

(3.1.4)
$$\mu _q(\alpha _q^{}+1)\rho _q^{}=\mu _p(\alpha _p^{}+1)\rho _p^{}<\mu _p(\alpha _p+1)\rho _p=\mu _q(\alpha _q+1)\rho _q,$$

and hence $`\alpha _q\alpha _q^{}`$ for every $`q\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with equality only if $`\rho _q^{}>\rho _q`$. Thus $`\alpha _q>\alpha _q^{}`$ for every $`qI`$. Then

$$|\alpha ||\alpha ^{}|+|I|\upsilon +|I|,$$

reaching a contradiction with (3.1.1c). So $`\alpha \alpha ^{}`$. Interchanging the roles of $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$, we get $`\alpha =\alpha ^{}`$.

Suppose now that $`\rho _p^{}>\rho _p`$ for some $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. So (3.1.4) holds, and hence $`\rho _q^{}>\rho _q`$ for every $`q\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Since $`\rho _q=\mu _q`$ and $`\mu _q\rho _q^{}`$ for every $`qI`$, we reach a contradiction. So, $`\rho _p^{}\rho _p`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Interchanging the roles of $`\rho `$ and $`\rho ^{}`$, we get $`\rho =\rho ^{}`$.

Finally, if $`\alpha _p<0`$ for some $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`\alpha _q<0`$ for every $`q\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by Condition (3.1.1d). If so, $`\upsilon |\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ by Condition (3.1.1c). Now, if $`\alpha 0`$ but $`\alpha _p=0`$ for some $`pI`$, then $`\alpha =0`$ and $`I=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by Condition (3.1.1d). ∎

###### Definition 3.2.

Keep the set–up of Lemma 3.1. We call $`(\alpha ,\rho ,I)`$, and sometimes only $`(\alpha ,I)`$, the *numerical data associated to $`\mu `$ and $`\upsilon `$*.

## 4. Set–up

###### 4.1.

*Two–component curves.* Let $`C`$ be a nodal curve with only two irreducible components, denoted $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }:=XY`$ and $`\delta :=|\mathrm{\Delta }|`$. To avoid exceptional cases, we shall assume that $`\delta >1`$ or $`g_Xg_Y>0`$. (If also the irreducible singularities of $`C`$ are nodes, then we are assuming that $`C`$ is semi–stable.)

For each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$, let $`x_p`$ and $`y_p`$ denote the points of $`X`$ and $`Y`$ lying over $`p`$. Let $`g_X`$ and $`g_Y`$ be the arithmetic genera of $`X`$ and $`Y`$. Then the arithmetic genus $`g`$ of $`C`$ is given by

$$g=g_X+g_Y+\delta 1.$$

Let $`𝜔_X`$ and $`𝜔_Y`$ be the dualizing sheaves of $`X`$ and $`Y`$, and $`𝜔`$ that of $`C`$. Let

$$𝕃:=𝜔_X((1+g_Y)\underset{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{}x_p)\text{ and }𝕄:=𝜔_Y((1+g_X)\underset{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{}y_p).$$

Let $`𝔾_X:=\mathrm{Grass}_g(H^0(𝕃))`$ and $`𝔾_Y:=\mathrm{Grass}_g(H^0(𝕄))`$ denote the Grassmannians of $`g`$–dimensional vector subspaces of $`H^0(𝕃)`$ and $`H^0(𝕄)`$. Set $`𝔾:=𝔾_X\times 𝔾_Y`$.

For each $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, let $`(\alpha _\mu ,\rho _\mu ,I_\mu )`$ be the numerical data associated with $`\mu `$ and $`g_Y`$, and $`(\beta _\mu ,\sigma _\mu ^{},J_\mu )`$ the numerical data associated with $`\mu `$ and $`g_X`$; see Definition 3.2. Set $`\sigma _\mu :=\mu \sigma _\mu ^{}`$.

Note that $`\rho _\mu ,\sigma _\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ if $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. In this case, let $`\gamma _\mu :=\alpha _{\mu ,p}\mu _p`$ for (any) $`pI_\mu `$ and $`ϵ_\mu :=\beta _{\mu ,p}\mu _p`$ for (any) $`pJ_\mu `$. If $`g_Y>0`$ then $`\gamma _\mu >0`$ by Lemma 3.1. Analogously, if $`g_X>0`$ then $`ϵ_\mu >0`$.

If $`g_Xg_Y>0`$ let $`t^+`$ be such that $`t\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and define $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mu :=\gamma _{t\mu }/\mathrm{gcd}(\gamma _{t\mu },ϵ_{t\mu })`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_\mu :=ϵ_{t\mu }/\mathrm{gcd}(\gamma _{t\mu },ϵ_{t\mu })`$. Note that $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_\mu `$ do not depend on the choice of $`t`$. In addition, if $`pI_\mu J_\mu `$ then $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mu =\alpha _{\mu ,p}/\mathrm{gcd}(\alpha _{\mu ,p},\beta _{\mu ,p})`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_\mu =\beta _{\mu ,p}/\mathrm{gcd}(\alpha _{\mu ,p},\beta _{\mu ,p})`$.

###### 4.2.

*Semi–stable reduction.* Preserve 4.1. Fix $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. Abbreviate $`\alpha _\mu `$, $`\rho _\mu `$, $`I_\mu `$, $`\beta _\mu `$, $`\sigma _\mu `$, $`J_\mu `$, $`\gamma _\mu `$, $`ϵ_\mu `$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mu `$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_\mu `$ by $`\alpha `$, $`\rho `$, $`I`$, $`\beta `$, $`\sigma `$, $`J`$, $`\gamma `$, $`ϵ`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. Let

(4.2.1)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}L_X:=𝜔_X(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(1+\alpha _p)x_p),\hfill & \\ L_Y:=𝜔_Y(_{pI}y_p_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}\alpha _py_p),\hfill & \\ M_Y:=𝜔_Y(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(1+\beta _p)y_p),\hfill & \\ M_X:=𝜔_X(_{pJ}x_p_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}\beta _px_p).\hfill & \end{array}$$

By Lemma 3.1, $`\alpha _p0`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In addition, $`\alpha _pg_Y`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Indeed, if $`g_Y=0`$ then $`\alpha =0`$. Now, if $`g_Y>0`$ then $`\alpha _p>0`$ for every $`pI`$; hence $`\alpha _pg_Y`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ because $`|\alpha |<g_Y+|I|`$. Likewise, $`0\beta _pg_X`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. So we may (and eventually will) view $`L_X`$ and $`M_Y`$ as subsheaves of $`𝕃`$ and $`𝕄`$, respectively.

Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ the curve obtained from $`C`$ by splitting its branches at each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and connecting them by a chain,

$$Z_p:=Z_{p,1}\mathrm{}Z_{p,\mu _p1},$$

of $`\mu _p1`$ rational, smooth curves $`Z_{p,j}`$, as depicted in Figures 1 and 2.

By convention, the leftmost curve in each chain $`Z_p`$ is $`Z_{p,1}`$ and the rightmost is $`Z_{p,\mu _p1}`$. In addition, set $`Z_{p,0}:=X`$ and $`Z_{p,\mu _p}:=Y`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and each $`j=0,\mathrm{},\mu _{p1}`$, let $`z_{p,j}`$ be the point of $`Z_{p,j}Z_{p,j+1}`$, as depicted in Figure 1. So $`z_{p,0}=x_p`$ and $`z_{p,\mu _p1}=y_p`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If $`\mu _p=1`$ for a certain $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then $`Z_p`$ is empty; in other words, the branches of $`C`$ at $`p`$ are not split in $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝜔}`$ denote the dualizing sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. As observed in 2.7, $`\stackrel{~}{𝜔}`$ is the pull–back of $`𝜔`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`𝜔`$ is the push–forward of $`\stackrel{~}{𝜔}`$ to $`C`$.

For each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$, each $`j=1,\mathrm{},\mu _p1`$ and each $`m`$, define the formal sums:

$`Z_p^{(m)}:=mZ_{p,1}+2mZ_{p,2}+\mathrm{}+(\mu _p1)mZ_{p,\mu _p1},`$
$`\widehat{Z}_p^{(m)}:=(\mu _p1)mZ_{p,1}+(\mu _p2)mZ_{p,2}+\mathrm{}+mZ_{p,\mu _p1},`$
$`Z_p^{(m,j)}:=Z_p^{(m)}+Z_{p,j+1}+2Z_{p,j+2}+\mathrm{}+(\mu _p1j)Z_{p,\mu _p1},`$
$`\widehat{Z}_p^{(m,j)}:=\widehat{Z}_p^{(m)}+Z_{p,j1}+2Z_{p,j2}+\mathrm{}+(j1)Z_{p,1}.`$
Set $`Z_p^{(m,\mu _p)}:=Z_p^{(m)}`$ and $`\widehat{Z}_p^{(m,0)}:=\widehat{Z}_p^{(m)}`$.

###### 4.3.

*General–position conditions.* We shall eventually assume general–position conditions on effective divisors $`D`$ of $`C`$ supported in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Typically, if 4.1 is preserved we shall consider both of the following two conditions:

(4.3.1a) $`h^0(𝜔_X(D))=0\text{ if }D\text{ is effective},\mathrm{deg}D=g_X\text{ and }\text{Supp}(D)\{x_p|p\mathrm{\Delta }\},`$
(4.3.1b) $`h^0(𝜔_Y(D))=0\text{ if }D\text{ is effective},\mathrm{deg}D=g_Y\text{ and }\text{Supp}(D)\{y_p|p\mathrm{\Delta }\},`$
whereas if also 4.2 is preserved we shall consider one or both of the following conditions:

(4.3.2a) $`h^0(L_Y(D))=0\text{ if }\mathrm{deg}D=g_Y+|I||\alpha |\text{ and }0D_{pI}y_p,`$
(4.3.2b) $`h^0(M_X(D))=0\text{ if }\mathrm{deg}D=g_X+|J||\beta |\text{ and }0D_{pJ}x_p.`$
If Conditions (4.3.1) hold, so do Conditions (4.3.2).

## 5. Degeneration

###### Lemma 5.1.

Preserve 4.1–2. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ be a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$ the dualizing sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. Put

$$:=𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}(\underset{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{}Z_p^{(\alpha _p,\rho _p)}+\gamma Y).$$

If (4.3.2a) holds, so do the following five assertions.

(5.1.1a) $`h^0(|_Y)>0,`$
(5.1.1b) $`h^0(|_Y(_{pI}y_p))=0,`$
(5.1.1c) $`h^0(|_X(_{pI}x_p))=gh^0(|_Y),`$
(5.1.1d) $`h^0(|_{Z_p}(x_py_p))=0\text{ for every }p\mathrm{\Delta },`$
(5.1.1e) $`h^0(|_{Z_p}(x_p))=h^0(|_{Z_p}(y_p))=0\text{ for every }pI.`$
###### Proof.

Note first that

(5.1.2)
$$|_XL_X\text{ and }|_YL_Y,$$

where the second isomorphism holds because of (3.1.1a,d). Now, for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and each $`j=1,\mathrm{},\mu _p1`$, let $`𝜔_{Z_{p,j}}`$ denote the dualizing sheaf of $`Z_{p,j}`$. Then

$$|_{Z_{p,j}}\{\begin{array}{cc}𝜔_{Z_{p,j}}((1+\alpha _p)z_{p,j}+(1\alpha _p)z_{p,j1})\hfill & \text{if }j<\rho _p\text{,}\hfill \\ 𝜔_{Z_{p,j}}((2+\alpha _p)z_{p,j}+(1\alpha _p)z_{p,j1})\hfill & \text{if }j=\rho _p\text{,}\hfill \\ 𝜔_{Z_{p,j}}((2+\alpha _p)z_{p,j}\alpha _pz_{p,j1})\hfill & \text{if }j>\rho _p\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`Z_{p,j}`$ is smooth and rational, $`𝜔_{Z_{p,j}}𝒪_{Z_{p,j}}(2)`$. So,

(5.1.3)
$$|_{Z_{p,j}}\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒪_{Z_{p,j}}\hfill & \text{if }pI\text{ or }j\rho _p,\hfill \\ 𝒪_{Z_{p,j}}(1)\hfill & \text{if }pI\text{ and }j=\rho _p\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Equations (5.1.1d–e) follow immediately.

Since $`\alpha 0`$ by Lemma 3.1, it follows from (5.1.2) that

(5.1.4)
$$h^0(|_X)=g_X+|\alpha |+\delta 1.$$

In addition, since $`|\alpha |g_Y`$ by (3.1.1c), Equation (5.1.1b) follows from (4.3.2a).

By Lemma 3.1, if there is $`pI`$ such that $`\alpha _p=0`$, then $`\alpha =0`$, and hence $`g_Y=0`$. Conversely, if $`g_Y=0`$ then $`\alpha =0`$. So, since $`|\alpha |<g_Y+|I|`$ by (3.1.1c), by (5.1.2) and (4.3.2a),

(5.1.5)
$$h^0(|_Y)=\{\begin{array}{cc}g_Y+|I||\alpha |\hfill & \text{if }g_Y>0\text{,}\hfill \\ \delta 1\hfill & \text{if }g_Y=0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

In any case, we get (5.1.1a).

Since $`\alpha 0`$, with equality only if $`g_Y=0`$, by (5.1.2) and Riemann–Roch,

(5.1.6)
$$h^0(|_X(_{pI}x_p))=\{\begin{array}{cc}g_X+|\alpha ||I|+\delta 1\hfill & \text{if }g_Y>0\text{,}\hfill \\ g_X\hfill & \text{if }g_Y=0\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Putting together (5.1.5) and (5.1.6) we get (5.1.1c). ∎

###### Theorem 5.2.

Preserve 4.1–2. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ be a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`\pi `$ the induced smoothing of $`C`$. Let $`𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$ be the dualizing sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. Set

(5.2.1) $`:=`$ $`𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}({\displaystyle \underset{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{}}Z_p^{(\alpha _p,\rho _p)}+\gamma Y),`$
(5.2.2) $`:=`$ $`𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}({\displaystyle \underset{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{}}\widehat{Z}_p^{(\beta _p,\sigma _p)}+ϵX).`$
Let $`V_X`$ and $`V_Y`$ denote the images of the restriction maps,

$$\tau _X:H^0(|_{\stackrel{~}{C}})H^0(|_X)\text{and}\tau _Y:H^0(|_{\stackrel{~}{C}})H^0(|_Y).$$

Then the following three statements hold.

1. If (4.3.2a) holds, then $``$ is the canonical sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`X`$, the map $`\tau _X`$ is injective, $`(V_X,|_X)`$ is the limit canonical aspect of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`X`$, the point $`x_p`$ is not a base point of the aspect for any $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\text{codim}(V_X,H^0(|_X))=|\alpha |g_Y\text{and}V_XH^0(|_X(_{pI}x_p)).$$
2. If (4.3.2b) holds, then $``$ is the canonical sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`Y`$, the map $`\tau _Y`$ is injective, $`(V_Y,|_Y)`$ is the limit canonical aspect of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`Y`$, the point $`y_p`$ is not a base point of the aspect for any $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\text{codim}(V_Y,H^0(|_Y))=|\beta |g_X\text{and}V_YH^0(|_Y(_{pJ}y_p)).$$
3. If (4.3.2a–b) hold, then the limit Weierstrass scheme $`W`$ of $`\pi `$ satisfies

$$[W]=R_X+R_Y+\underset{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{}g(g1\alpha _p\beta _p)p,$$

where $`R_X`$ and $`R_Y`$ are the ramification divisors of $`(V_X,|_X)`$ and $`(V_Y,|_Y)`$.

###### Proof.

Let’s prove Statement 1. Since (4.3.2a) holds, Lemma 5.1 applies. Let $`L:=|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$. Let’s check first that $`\tau _X`$ is injective. In fact, let $`sH^0(L)`$ such that $`s|_X=0`$. Then $`s|_{Z_p}H^0(L|_{Z_p}(x_p))`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. So $`s|_{Z_p}=0`$ for every $`pI`$ by (5.1.1e), and hence $`s|_YH^0(L|_Y(_{pI}y_p))`$. By (5.1.1b), $`s|_Y=0`$ as well. So $`s|_{Z_p}H^0(L|_{Z_p}(x_py_p))`$, and thus $`s|_{Z_p}=0`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by (5.1.1d). Hence $`s=0`$. So $`\tau _X`$ is injective.

Let’s prove now that $``$ is the canonical sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`X`$. We must check that Conditions 1 and 2 of Theorem 2.2 are verified. Condition 1 holds because $`\tau _X`$ is injective.

Let’s check Condition 2. The limit canonical system of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ associated to $``$ has (affine) rank $`g`$. Hence, to show that Condition 2 holds it is enough to prove that the kernel $`N_E`$ of the restriction map $`H^0(L)H^0(L|_E)`$ has dimension strictly less than $`g`$ for every irreducible component $`E`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ other than $`X`$. We divide the proof in three steps.

*Step 1*: We show that $`dimN_Y<g`$. In fact, if $`sN_Y`$ then $`s|_{Z_p}H^0(L|_{Z_p}(y_p))`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. So $`s|_{Z_p}=0`$ for each $`pI`$ by (5.1.1e), and hence $`s|_XH^0(L|_X(_{pI}x_p))`$. If $`s|_X=0`$ then $`s|_{Z_p}=0`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by (5.1.1d), and hence $`s=0`$. So,

(5.2.3)
$$dimN_Yh^0(L|_X(_{pI}x_p)).$$

Thus $`dimN_Y<g`$ by (5.1.1a) and (5.1.1c).

*Step 2*: Let $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`j`$ with $`0<j<\mu _p`$ such that either $`pI`$ or $`\rho _pj<\mu _p`$. We show that $`dimN_{Z_{p,j}}<g`$. In fact, if $`sN_{Z_{p,j}}`$ then $`s|_YH^0(L|_Y(y_p))`$ by (5.1.3). By (5.1.1e), if $`s|_Y=0`$ then $`s|_{Z_q}=0`$ for every $`qI`$, and thus $`s|_XH^0(L|_X(_{qI}x_q))`$. If $`s|_X=0`$ as well, then $`s=0`$ by (5.1.1d). So,

$$dimN_{Z_{p,j}}h^0(L|_Y(y_p))+h^0(L|_X(_{qI}x_q)).$$

Since $`|_YL_Y`$, it follows from (4.3.2a) that $`h^0(L|_Y(y_p))=h^0(L|_Y)1`$. By (5.1.1c), $`dimN_{Z_{p,j}}<g`$.

*Step 3*: Let $`p\mathrm{\Delta }I`$ and $`j`$ such that $`0<j<\rho _p`$. We show that $`dimN_{Z_{p,j}}<g`$. In fact, if $`sN_{Z_{p,j}}`$ then $`s|_XH^0(L|_X(x_p))`$ by (5.1.3). If $`s|_Y=0`$, then $`s|_{Z_q}=0`$ for every $`qI`$ by (5.1.1e), and thus $`s|_XH^0(L|_X(x_p_{qI}x_q))`$. If $`s|_X=0`$ as well, then $`s=0`$ by (5.1.1d). So,

(5.2.4)
$$dimN_{Z_{p,j}}h^0(L|_Y)+h^0(L|_X(x_p_{qI}x_q)).$$

By Lemma 3.1, $`\alpha 0`$, with equality only if $`I=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. So $`\alpha 0`$ because $`p\mathrm{\Delta }I`$. Since $`|_XL_X`$, we have

(5.2.5)
$$h^0(L|_X(x_p_{qI}x_q))=h^0(L|_X(_{qI}x_q))1.$$

So $`dimN_{Z_{p,j}}<g`$ by (5.1.1c) and (5.2.4–5).

Condition 2 is checked. So $``$ is the canonical sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`X`$.

Let’s prove now that $`(V_X,L|_X)`$ is the limit canonical aspect of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`X`$. Since the aspect has rank $`g`$, it is enough to show that $`h^0(L)g`$. By definition of $`N_Y`$, we have $`h^0(L)dimN_Y+h^0(L|_Y)`$. Hence,

$$h^0(L)h^0(L|_X(_{pI}x_p))+h^0(L|_Y)$$

by (5.2.3). So $`h^0(L)g`$ by (5.1.1c). So $`(V_X,L|_X)`$ is the limit canonical aspect of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`X`$.

Consider the remaining assertions in Statement 1. Let’s check first that

(5.2.6)
$$V_XH^0(L|_X(_{pI}x_p)).$$

In fact, if $`sN_Y`$ then $`s|_{Z_p}=0`$ for every $`pI`$ by (5.1.1e). Therefore,

(5.2.7)
$$\tau _X(N_Y)H^0(L|_X(_{pI}x_p)).$$

Now, since $`h^0(L)=g`$, from the definition of $`N_Y`$ we get $`dimN_Ygh^0(L|_Y)`$, and hence $`dimN_Yh^0(L|_X(_{pI}x_p))`$ by (5.1.1c). So equality holds in (5.2.7), and thus (5.2.6) follows.

Let’s check now that $`x_p`$ is not a base point of $`(V_X,L|_X)`$ for any $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. In fact, if there were $`pI`$ such that $`V_XH^0(L|_X(x_p))`$, then the restriction $`H^0(L)H^0(L|_{Z_p})`$ would be zero by (5.1.1e), thus contradicting Condition 2 of Theorem 2.2. In addition, if $`V_XH^0(L|_X(x_p))`$ for a certain $`p\mathrm{\Delta }I`$, then

$$h^0(L|_X(_{qI}x_q))=h^0(L|_X(x_p_{qI}x_q))$$

by (5.2.6), thus contradicting (5.2.5). So, no point of $`\{x_p|p\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ is a base point of $`(V_X,L|_X)`$.

Finally, $`\text{codim}(V_X,H^0(L|_X))=|\alpha |g_Y`$ because $`dimV_X=g`$, and because of (5.1.4). The proof of Statement 1 is complete. Statement 2 follows by analogy.

Let’s prove now Statement 3. By Statements 1 and 2, the sheaves $``$ and $``$ are the canonical sheaves and $`(V_X,|_X)`$ and $`(V_Y,|_Y)`$ are the limit canonical aspects of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$, respectively. By (5.2.1), for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the correction number for $``$ at $`x_p`$ is $`\alpha _p`$. By (5.2.2), for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the correction number for $``$ at $`y_p`$ is $`\beta _p`$. Then Statement 3 follows from Theorem 2.8. ∎

###### Remark 5.3.

Keep the set–up of Theorem 5.2. Let $`L_C`$ be the push–forward to $`C`$ of $`|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ and $`M_C`$ that of $`|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$. It follows from (5.1.3) that the sheaf $`L_C`$ is torsion–free of generic rank 1, and fails to be invertible precisely along $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$. Likewise, $`M_C`$ is torsion–free of generic rank 1, and fails to be invertible precisely along $`\mathrm{\Delta }J`$.

## 6. Enriched structures

###### 6.1.

*Deformation theory.* Let $`C`$ be a nodal curve defined over a field $`k`$. Since $`C`$ is one–dimensional, generically smooth, and a local complete intersection, $`\text{Ext}_C^2(\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1,𝒪_C)=0`$ by \[DM, Lemma 1.3, p. 79\]. By \[S\], there exists a versal formal deformation $`𝒱`$ of $`C`$ over the base scheme

$$M:=\text{Spec}(k[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_e]]),\text{ where }e:=dim_k\text{Ext}_C^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1,𝒪_C).$$

Since $`C`$ is a curve, $`H^2(C,𝒪_C)=0`$. By \[S\], the formal scheme $`𝒱`$ is the formal completion of a scheme $`V`$ projective and flat over $`M`$.

Let $`p`$ be a node of $`C`$. So $`\widehat{𝒪}_{C,p}k[[u,v]]/(uv)`$. The versal formal deformation of $`\widehat{𝒪}_{C,p}`$ is a complete, local $`k[[t]]`$–algebra $`\widehat{𝒪}`$ such that $`\widehat{𝒪}/t\widehat{𝒪}\widehat{𝒪}_{C,p}`$. More precisely, there is an isomorphism of $`k[[t]]`$–algebras,

$$\widehat{𝒪}k[[t,u,v]]/(uvt).$$

Let $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta `$ denote the nodes of $`C`$. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},\delta `$, let $`\widehat{𝒪}_i`$ denote the versal formal deformation of $`\widehat{𝒪}_{C,p_i}`$ over $`k[[t]]`$. Since global deformations induce local ones, there is a map $`\varphi _i:k[[t]]k[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_e]]`$ such that

$$\widehat{𝒪}_{V,p_i}\widehat{𝒪}_i_{k[[t]]}k[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_e]].$$

Since $`C`$ is a curve, by \[DM, Prop. 1.5, p. 81\], the tensor–product map,

$$\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _\delta :k[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_\delta ]]k[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_e]],$$

is formally smooth. Up to changing variables, we may assume that $`\varphi _1\mathrm{}\varphi _\delta `$ is the inclusion map. Thus, there is an isomorphism of $`k[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_e]]`$–algebras,

$$\widehat{𝒪}_{V,p_i}k[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_e,u_i,v_i]]/(u_iv_it_i),$$

for $`i=1,\mathrm{},\delta `$.

###### Definition 6.2.

Let $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ be a set and $`\lambda _\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. A subset $`P`$ of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ is called *$`\lambda `$–balanced* if $`\lambda _E=\lambda _F`$ for all $`E,FP`$. If $`P`$ is $`\lambda `$–balanced, set $`\lambda _P:=\lambda _E`$ for (any) $`EP`$.

###### 6.3.

*Certain fractional ideals.* Let $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ be a nodal curve defined over a field $`k`$. Let $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ denote the set of irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. For each $`P\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ set

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_P:=\underset{EP}{}E.$$

We say that $`\stackrel{~}{C}_P`$ is a *subcurve of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$*. Let $`\overline{C}`$ denote the disjoint union of the irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$.

For each pair $`(E,F)`$ of distinct irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{E,F}`$ denote the reduced Weil divisor with support $`EF`$. We shall view $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{E,F}`$ as a Cartier divisor on every subcurve of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ or $`\overline{C}`$ containing either $`E`$ or $`F`$ but not both.

For each $`\lambda _\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and each $`P\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ define

$$D_{\lambda ,P}:=\underset{EP}{}\underset{FP}{}(\lambda _F\lambda _E)\mathrm{\Delta }_{E,F}\text{ and }N_{\lambda ,P}:=𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}_P}(D_{\lambda ,P}).$$

If $``$ is a partition of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$, let $`\overline{C}_{}`$ be the disjoint union of the subcurves $`\stackrel{~}{C}_P`$ for $`P`$, and set

$$\overline{N}_{\lambda ,}:=\underset{P}{}N_{\lambda ,P}.$$

Let $`𝕋`$ be the total partition of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. Then $`\overline{C}_𝕋=\overline{C}`$. For each $`\lambda _\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ set $`\overline{N}_\lambda :=\overline{N}_{\lambda ,𝕋}`$. Then, for each partition $``$ of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in $`\lambda `$–balanced subsets, there is a natural injection $`\overline{N}_{\lambda ,}\overline{N}_\lambda `$ satisfying $`\overline{N}_{\lambda ,}𝒪_{\overline{C}}=\overline{N}_\lambda `$.

Note that

$$\overline{N}_{\mathrm{}_1\lambda _1+\mathrm{}_2\lambda _2}=\overline{N}_{\lambda _1}^\mathrm{}_1\overline{N}_{\lambda _2}^\mathrm{}_2$$

for all $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2`$ and all $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. So, $`\overline{𝔼}:=\{\overline{N}_\lambda |\lambda _\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\}`$ is a subgroup of the group $`\overline{𝕌}`$ of invertible sheaves of fractional ideals of $`\overline{C}`$.

###### 6.4.

*Enriched structures.* Preserve 6.3. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{S}B`$ be a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Let $`t`$ be a parameter of $`B`$ at its special point. For each $`\lambda _\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ define $`𝒩_\lambda :=𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(_{E\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\lambda _EE)`$. Then, for each $`\lambda `$–balanced subset $`P\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ define $`\rho _{\lambda ,P}`$ as the composition

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\rho _{\lambda ,P}:𝒩_\lambda & \stackrel{t^{\lambda _P}}{}& 𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(_{EP}(\lambda _E\lambda _P)E)& & N_{\lambda ,P},\end{array}$$

where the second map is the natural surjection.

For each $`\lambda _\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and each partition $``$ of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in $`\lambda `$–balanced subsets let

$$\rho _{\lambda ,}:=\underset{P}{}\rho _{\lambda ,P}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}:𝒩_\lambda |_{\stackrel{~}{C}}\overline{N}_{\lambda ,}.$$

Let $`N_{\lambda ,}`$ be the image of $`\rho _{\lambda ,}`$. Since each $`\rho _{\lambda ,P}`$ is surjective, $`\rho _{\lambda ,}`$ is an isomorphism onto $`N_{\lambda ,}`$ and $`N_{\lambda ,}𝒪_{\overline{C}_{}}=\overline{N}_{\lambda ,}`$. Note that $`N_{\lambda ,}`$ does not depend on the choice of $`t`$.

For each $`\lambda _\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ set $`N_\lambda :=N_{\lambda ,𝕋}`$. Then, for each partition $``$ of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in $`\lambda `$–balanced subsets, $`\rho _{\lambda ,𝕋}`$ factors as $`\rho _{\lambda ,}`$ followed by the natural injection $`\overline{N}_{\lambda ,𝕋}\overline{N}_\lambda `$. So $`N_{\lambda ,}=N_\lambda `$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝕌}`$ denote the group of invertible sheaves of fractional ideals of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Let

$$𝔼_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}:=\{N_\lambda |\lambda _\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\}\stackrel{~}{𝕌}.$$

Note that $`N_{\mathrm{}_1\lambda _1+\mathrm{}_2\lambda _2}=N_{\lambda _1}^\mathrm{}_1N_{\lambda _2}^\mathrm{}_2`$ for all $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{}_2`$ and all $`\lambda _1,\lambda _2_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$. So $`𝔼_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$ is the image of the group homomorphism,

$$e_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}:_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\stackrel{~}{𝕌},\text{ defined by }\lambda N_\lambda .$$

We say that $`e_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$ is the *enriched structure on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ given by $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$*.

###### Theorem 6.5.

Preserve 6.3. For each $`m=1,\mathrm{},d`$, let $`\lambda _m_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and let $`N_m`$ be an invertible $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$–submodule of $`\overline{N}_{\lambda _m}`$ satisfying $`N_m𝒪_{\overline{C}}=\overline{N}_{\lambda _m}`$. For each $`\mathrm{}^d`$ set $`\tau ^{(\mathrm{})}:=_{i=1}^d\mathrm{}_i\lambda _i`$. If

(6.5.1)
$$(N_1^\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}N_d^\mathrm{}_d)𝒪_{EF}=N_{\tau ^{(\mathrm{})},\{E,F\}}$$

for each $`\mathrm{}^d`$ and all distinct $`E,F\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ such that $`\tau _E^{(\mathrm{})}=\tau _F^{(\mathrm{})}`$, then there exists a regular smoothing $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ whose enriched structure $`e_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$ satisfies

$$N_m=e_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}(\lambda _m)\text{ for }m=1,\mathrm{},d.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta `$ denote the reducible nodes of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Let $`V/M`$ be the versal formal deformation of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Then $`M=\text{Spec}(R)`$, where

$$R:=k[[t_1,\mathrm{},t_\delta ,s_1,\mathrm{},s_e]]$$

for a certain integer $`e`$. In addition, we may assume that there is an isomorphism of $`R`$–algebras,

(6.5.2)
$$\widehat{O}_{V,p_h}R[[u_h,v_h]]/(u_hv_ht_h),$$

for each $`h=1,\mathrm{},\delta `$, where $`u_h`$ and $`v_h`$ are the local equations of the branches of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ meeting at $`p_h`$; see 6.1.

For each $`h=1,\mathrm{},\delta `$ choose $`a_hk^{}`$. Consider the surjection $`\varphi :Rk[[t]]`$, sending each $`t_h`$ to $`a_ht`$ and each $`s_i`$ to $`t`$. Let $`B:=\text{Spec}(k[[t]])`$ and set $`S:=V\times _MB`$, where $`B`$ is viewed as a closed subscheme of $`M`$ by means of $`\varphi `$. Since all $`a_h`$ are non–zero, the surface $`S`$ is regular. So $`S/B`$ is a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. In addition, the isomorphism (6.5.2) restricts to an isomorphism of $`k[[t]]`$–algebras,

$$\widehat{O}_{S,p_h}k[[t,u_h,v_h]]/(u_hv_ha_ht),$$

for each $`h=1,\mathrm{},\delta `$.

Recall the notation in 6.4. We need to show that we may choose $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_\delta k^{}`$ such that $`N_{\lambda _m}=N_m`$ for $`m=1,\mathrm{},d`$. Fix $`h\{1,\mathrm{},\delta \}`$ and $`m\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$. For convenience, put

$$p:=p_h,u:=u_h,v:=v_h.$$

Let $`E,F\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ such that $`pEF`$. Suppose that $`u`$ is the local equation of $`E`$ at $`p`$ and $`v`$ that of $`F`$. The completion $`\widehat{𝒩}_{\lambda _m,p}`$ of $`𝒩_{\lambda _m}`$ at $`p`$ is generated by $`(1/u)^{\lambda _{m,E}}(1/v)^{\lambda _{m,F}}`$. In addition,

$`\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _m,\{E\}}((1/u)^{\lambda _{m,E}}(1/v)^{\lambda _{m,F}})=`$ $`(t/u)^{\lambda _{m,E}}(1/v)^{\lambda _{m,F}}=(1/a_h)^{\lambda _{m,E}}(1/v)^\gamma ,`$
$`\widehat{\rho }_{\lambda _m,\{F\}}((1/u)^{\lambda _{m,E}}(1/v)^{\lambda _{m,F}})=`$ $`(1/u)^{\lambda _{m,E}}(t/v)^{\lambda _{m,F}}=(1/a_h)^{\lambda _{m,F}}(1/u)^\gamma ,`$
where $`\gamma :=\lambda _{m,F}\lambda _{m,E}`$. For each $`bk^{}`$ let

$$\psi _b:(1/v)^\gamma \widehat{𝒪}_{E,p}u^\gamma \widehat{𝒪}_{F,p}k$$

be the map defined by sending $`(f(1/v)^\gamma ,gu^\gamma )`$ to $`f(p)bg(p)`$. Then $`\widehat{N}_{\lambda _m,p}=\text{Ker}(\psi _{a_h^\gamma })`$. In addition, since $`N_m`$ is an invertible $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$–submodule of $`\overline{N}_{\lambda _m}`$ such that $`N_m𝒪_{\overline{C}}=\overline{N}_{\lambda _m}`$, there is $`b_mk^{}`$ such that $`\widehat{N}_{m,p}=\text{Ker}(\psi _{b_m})`$. We claim that we may choose $`a_hk^{}`$ such that $`a_h^\gamma =b_m`$, and hence $`\widehat{N}_{\lambda _m,p}=\widehat{N}_{m,p}`$. In fact, there’s clearly $`a_hk^{}`$ such that $`a_h^\gamma =b_m`$ if $`\gamma 0`$. On the other hand, if $`\gamma =0`$ then $`\widehat{N}_{m,p}=\widehat{𝒪}_{\stackrel{~}{C},p}`$ by Condition (6.5.1), and hence $`b=1`$. So any choice of $`a_hk^{}`$ yields $`a_h^\gamma =b_m`$.

Now, let $`m`$ vary in $`\{1,\mathrm{},d\}`$ and pick $`b_mk^{}`$ for each $`m`$ as in the above paragraph. By Condition (6.5.1), $`b_1^\mathrm{}_1\mathrm{}b_d^\mathrm{}_d=1`$ for every $`\mathrm{}^d`$ such that $`\tau _E^{(\mathrm{})}=\tau _F^{(\mathrm{})}`$. It follows that there is $`a_hk^{}`$ such that $`b_m=a_h^{\lambda _{m,F}\lambda _{m,E}}`$ for every $`m`$. Then $`\widehat{N}_{\lambda _m,p}=\widehat{N}_{m,p}`$ for each $`m=1,\mathrm{},d`$.

Finally, let $`h`$ vary in $`\{1,\mathrm{},\delta \}`$ and pick $`a_hk^{}`$ for each $`h`$ as in the above paragraph. Now, for each $`m=1,\mathrm{},d`$ the sheaves of fractional ideals $`N_m`$ and $`N_{\lambda _m}`$ coincide away from the reducible nodes of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ because

$$N_m𝒪_{\overline{C}}=\overline{N}_{\lambda _m}=N_{\lambda _m}𝒪_{\overline{C}}.$$

As we proved that $`N_{\lambda _m,p}=N_{m,p}`$ for each reducible node $`p`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and each $`m=1,\mathrm{},d`$, we get $`N_{\lambda _m}=N_m`$ for $`m=1,\mathrm{},d`$. ∎

###### Corollary 6.6.

Preserve 6.3. Let $`\lambda _\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ and let $``$ be the partition of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in maximal $`\lambda `$–balanced subsets. Let $`N`$ be an invertible sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Then there is a regular smoothing $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{S}B`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ such that

$$N𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(_{E\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\lambda _EE)|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}$$

if and only if $`N|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_P}N_{\lambda ,P}`$ for every $`P`$.

###### Proof.

The “only if” assertion is clear; see 6.4. Let’s prove now the “if” assertion. Since $`N|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_P}N_{\lambda ,P}`$ for every $`P`$, we may assume that $`N`$ is an invertible $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$–submodule of $`\overline{N}_{\lambda ,}`$ satisfying $`N𝒪_{\overline{C}_{}}=\overline{N}_{\lambda ,}`$. To finish the proof we apply Theorem 6.5 with $`d=1`$, with $`\lambda _1=\lambda `$ and $`N_1=N`$. So we check that the conditions for Theorem 6.5 hold. First, since $`N𝒪_{\overline{C}_{}}=\overline{N}_{\lambda ,}`$, we have $`N𝒪_{\overline{C}}=\overline{N}_\lambda `$ as well. Second, since $`d=1`$, we need only verify Condition (6.5.1) for $`\mathrm{}_1=1`$. Now, if $`E,F\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ are such that $`\lambda _E=\lambda _F`$, then there is $`P`$ such that $`E,FP`$. Since $`N𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}_P}=N_{\lambda ,P}`$, we have $`N𝒪_{EF}=N_{\lambda ,\{E,F\}}`$ as well. So Condition (6.5.1) is verified. By Theorem 6.5, there is a regular smoothing $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{S}B`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ such that $`N𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(_{E\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\lambda _EE)|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$. ∎

###### Remark 6.7.

Preserve 6.3 and 6.4. Mainò calls an enriched structure the canonical generators of the image of $`e_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$, and view them abstractly, without the additional structure of sheaves of fractional ideals. In \[M, Prop. 3.16\] she gives an intrinsic characterization of the enriched structures a nodal curve can have. The proof of Theorem 6.5 was inspired by the proof given to \[M, Prop. 3.16\]. In \[M\] Mainò constructs and studies the moduli of stable curves with enriched structures.

## 7. Regeneration, I

###### Theorem 7.1.

Preserve 4.1–2. Let $`L`$ and $`M`$ be invertible sheaves on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Then the following three statements hold.

1. If (4.3.2a) holds and $`g_Y>0`$, then $`L`$ is the restriction of the canonical sheaf with focus on $`X`$ of some regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ if and only if

(7.1.1)
$$L|_XL_X,L|_YL_Y,L|_{Z_{p,j}}\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒪_{Z_{p,j}}\hfill & \text{if }pI\text{ or }j\rho _p,\hfill \\ 𝒪_{Z_{p,j}}(1)\hfill & \text{if }pI\text{ and }j=\rho _p\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
2. If (4.3.2b) holds and $`g_X>0`$, then $`M`$ is the restriction of the canonical sheaf with focus on $`Y`$ of some regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ if and only if

(7.1.2)
$$M|_XM_X,M|_YM_Y,M|_{Z_{p,j}}\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒪_{Z_{p,j}}\hfill & \text{if }pJ\text{ or }j\sigma _p,\hfill \\ 𝒪_{Z_{p,j}}(1)\hfill & \text{if }pJ\text{ and }j=\sigma _p\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$
3. If (4.3.2a–b) hold and $`g_Xg_Y>0`$, then $`L`$ and $`M`$ are the restrictions of the canonical sheaves with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$, respectively, of some regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ if and only if (7.1.1–2) hold and $`(L^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }})|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJ}}\stackrel{~}{K}_{IJ}`$, where

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJ}:=XY(\underset{pIJ}{}Z_p)\stackrel{~}{C}$$

and

(7.1.3)
$$\stackrel{~}{K}_{IJ}:=\stackrel{~}{𝜔}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJ}}^{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\stackrel{~}{\beta })}(\underset{pIJ}{}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }\alpha _p\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\beta _p)(x_py_p)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\underset{pJ}{}x_p\stackrel{~}{\beta }\underset{pI}{}y_p).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ be the set of irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Let $`\lambda ,\nu _\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ such that

(7.1.4)
$$\underset{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{}Z_p^{(\alpha _p,\rho _p)}+\gamma Y=\underset{E\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{}\lambda _EE\text{and}\underset{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{}\widehat{Z}_p^{(\beta _p,\sigma _p)}+ϵX=\underset{E\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{}\nu _EE.$$

Let’s prove Statement 1. Consider first the “only if” assertion. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ be a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ and $`:=𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}Z_p^{(\alpha _p,\rho _p)}+\gamma Y)`$, where $`𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$ is the dualizing sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. By Theorem 5.2, $``$ is the canonical sheaf with focus on $`X`$. If $`L|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$, then (7.1.1) holds by (5.1.2–3).

Consider now the “if” assertion. Preserve 6.3. Let $``$ denote the partition of $`\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ in maximal $`\lambda `$–balanced subsets. Since $`g_Y>0`$, by Lemma 3.1, $`\alpha _p>0`$ for every $`pI`$. Hence $`\gamma >0`$ as well. So $`\lambda _X\lambda _Y`$, and hence $`\stackrel{~}{C}_P`$ is treelike for every $`P`$. Let $`N:=L\stackrel{~}{𝜔}^1`$. Since (7.1.1) holds and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_P`$ is treelike, $`N|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_P}N_{\lambda ,P}`$ for every $`P`$. By Corollary 6.6, there is a regular smoothing $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{S}B`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ such that $`N𝒩|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$, where $`𝒩:=𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(_{E\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}\lambda _EE)`$. Let $`𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$ be the dualizing sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$. Since (7.1.4) holds, by Theorem 5.2 the canonical sheaf $``$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`X`$ satisfies $`𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}𝒩`$. So $`L|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$. The proof of Statement 1 is complete. Statement 2 follows by analogy.

Let’s prove Statement 3. For each pair $`(\mathrm{},m)\times `$ let $`\tau ^{(\mathrm{},m)}:=\mathrm{}\lambda +m\nu `$. Then $`\tau _X^{(\mathrm{},m)}=\tau _Y^{(\mathrm{},m)}`$ if and only if $`(\mathrm{},m)(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$. In addition, using that

$$\gamma =\mu _p(\alpha _p+1)\rho _p\text{ and }ϵ=\mu _p\beta _p+\sigma _p\text{ for every }p\mathrm{\Delta },$$

it follows from (7.1.4) that

(7.1.5)
$$\underset{E\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{}\tau _E^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}E=\frac{\gamma ϵ}{\mathrm{gcd}(\gamma ,ϵ)}(X+Y+\underset{pIJ}{}\underset{j=1}{\overset{\mu _p1}{}}Z_{p,j})+D_1+D_2+D_3,$$

where

$`D_1=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{pJI}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }ϵ+\stackrel{~}{\beta }\alpha _p\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\beta _p)Z_{p,1}+{\displaystyle \underset{pIJ}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }\gamma +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\beta _p\stackrel{~}{\beta }\alpha _p)Z_{p,\mu _p1},`$
$`D_2=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{pJ}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }ϵ+\stackrel{~}{\beta }\alpha _p\stackrel{~}{\alpha }(\beta _p+1))Z_{p,1}+{\displaystyle \underset{pI}{}}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }\gamma +\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\beta _p\stackrel{~}{\beta }(\alpha _p+1))Z_{p,\mu _p1},`$
and where $`D_3`$ is a formal sum with integer coefficients of the rational curves $`Z_{p,j}`$ with $`pIJ`$ and $`1<j<\mu _p1`$.

Consider first the “only if” assertion of Statement 3. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ be a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$, and $`𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}`$ its dualizing sheaf. By Theorem 5.2, the canonical sheaves $``$ and $``$ of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$, respectively, are given by (5.2.1–2). By (7.1.4),

$$^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}𝜔_{\stackrel{~}{\pi }}^{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\stackrel{~}{\beta })}(\underset{E\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{}\tau _E^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}E).$$

So, it follows from (7.1.5) that $`^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJ}}\stackrel{~}{K}_{IJ}`$.

Consider now the “if” assertion. Let $`\stackrel{~}{L}:=L\stackrel{~}{𝜔}^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}:=M\stackrel{~}{𝜔}^1`$. We shall use the set–up of 6.3. Let $`\overline{L}:=\overline{N}_\lambda `$ and $`\overline{M}:=\overline{N}_\nu `$. By (7.1.1–2), we may view $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ as invertible $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$–submodules of $`\overline{L}`$ and $`\overline{M}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{L}𝒪_{\overline{C}}=\overline{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}𝒪_{\overline{C}}=\overline{M}`$. Multiplication by $`ck_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ gives automorphisms of $`\overline{L}`$ and $`\overline{M}`$; let $`\stackrel{~}{L}_c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_c`$ denote the images of $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ under these automorphisms. It’s clear that $`\stackrel{~}{L}_c𝒪_{\overline{C}}=\overline{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_c𝒪_{\overline{C}}=\overline{M}`$. For each $`ck_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$, each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and each $`j=0,\mathrm{},\mu _p`$ let $`c_{p,j}:=c_{Z_{p,j}}`$.

We’ll choose $`c,dk_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{L}_c`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_d`$ satisfy Condition (6.5.1) of Theorem 6.5. In other words, we’ll pick $`c,dk_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ such that

(7.1.6)
$$\stackrel{~}{L}_c^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{M}_d^m𝒪_{EF}=N_{\tau ^{(\mathrm{},m)},\{E,F\}}$$

for all $`(\mathrm{},m)\times `$ and all distinct $`E,F\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ such that $`\tau _E^{(\mathrm{},m)}=\tau _F^{(\mathrm{},m)}`$.

In fact, we need only obtain (7.1.6) for $`E`$ and $`F`$ that intersect, that is, for $`E`$ and $`F`$ such that $`\{E,F\}=\{Z_{p,j1},Z_{p,j}\}`$ for some $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and some $`j=1,\mathrm{},\mu _p`$. In addition, we need only obtain (7.1.6) for $`(\mathrm{},m)`$ in a $``$–basis of

$$H_{E,F}:=\{(\mathrm{},m)\times |\tau _E^{(\mathrm{},m)}=\tau _F^{(\mathrm{},m)}\}.$$

Let $`H_{p,j}:=H_{Z_{p,j1},Z_{p,j}}`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and each $`j=1,\mathrm{},\mu _p`$. Choose a $``$–basis $`B_{p,j}`$ of $`H_{p,j}`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and each $`j=1,\mathrm{},\mu _p`$. Note that $`H_{p,j}=\times `$ if and only if $`\alpha _p=\beta _p=0`$ and $`\sigma _p<j\rho _p`$; in this case let $`B_{p,j}:=\{(1,0),(0,1)\}`$. In all other cases, $`H_{p,j}`$ has rank 1. If $`pIJ`$ then $`(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$ is a basis of $`H_{p,j}`$ for every $`j`$; in this case let $`B_{p,j}:=\{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })\}`$.

Consider distinct $`E,F\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ with non–empty intersection. Then either $`EF`$ is treelike or $`\{E,F\}=\{X,Y\}`$ and there are distinct $`p,q\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`\mu _p=\mu _q=1`$. In either case there is an isomorphism between $`\stackrel{~}{L}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{M}^m𝒪_{EF}`$ and $`N_{\tau ^{(\mathrm{},m)},\{E,F\}}`$ for each $`(\mathrm{},m)H_{E,F}`$. In fact, such an isomorphism exists in the former case because both sheaves have the same restriction to $`E`$ and to $`F`$; and in the latter case because $`H_{X,Y}=(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })`$ and $`L^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}|_{XY}\stackrel{~}{K}_{IJ}|_{XY}`$. So, for each $`(\mathrm{},m)H_{E,F}`$ there is a unique $`e_{E,F}^{(\mathrm{},m)}k^{}`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{L}^{\mathrm{}}\stackrel{~}{M}^m𝒪_{EF}=(1,e_{E,F}^{(\mathrm{},m)})N_{\tau ^{(\mathrm{},m)},\{E,F\}}$$

as subsheaves of $`N_{\tau ^{(\mathrm{},m)},E}N_{\tau ^{(\mathrm{},m)},F}`$. Let $`e_{p,j}^{(\mathrm{},m)}:=e_{Z_{p,j1},Z_{p,j}}^{(\mathrm{},m)}`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and each $`j=1,\mathrm{},\mu _p`$. Since $`L^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJ}}\stackrel{~}{K}_{IJ}`$, it follows that

(7.1.7)
$$e_{p,1}^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}e_{p,2}^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}\mathrm{}e_{p,\mu _p}^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}=e_{q,1}^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}e_{q,2}^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}\mathrm{}e_{q,\mu _q}^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}\text{ for all }p,qIJ.$$

Therefore, finding $`c,dk_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ such that (7.1.6) holds for all $`(\mathrm{},m)\times `$ and all distinct $`E,F\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ with $`\tau _E^{(\mathrm{},m)}=\tau _F^{(\mathrm{},m)}`$ is equivalent to finding $`c,dk_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ such that, for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

(7.1.8)
$$c_{p,j1}^{\mathrm{}}d_{p,j1}^m=e_{p,j}^{(\mathrm{},m)}c_{p,j}^{\mathrm{}}d_{p,j}^m\text{ for each }j=1,\mathrm{},\mu _p\text{ and each }(\mathrm{},m)B_{p,j}.$$

Set $`c_X:=1`$ and $`d_X:=1`$. For $`pIJ`$ choose $`c_{p,j},d_{p,j}k^{}`$ inductively for $`j=1,\mathrm{},\mu _p1`$ such that

$$e_{p,j}^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}c_{p,j}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}d_{p,j}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}=c_{p,j1}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}d_{p,j1}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}.$$

By (7.1.7), we may choose $`c_Y,d_Yk^{}`$ such that

$$e_{p,\mu _p}^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}c_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}d_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}=c_{p,\mu _p1}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}d_{p,\mu _p1}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}$$

for every $`pIJ`$. If $`IJ=\mathrm{}`$, set $`c_Y:=1`$ and $`d_Y:=1`$. Then (7.1.8) is achieved for every $`pIJ`$.

If $`p\mathrm{\Delta }(IJ)`$ is such that $`\alpha _p=\beta _p=0`$ and $`\sigma _p<\rho _p`$, then choose $`c_{p,j}`$ inductively for $`j=1,\mathrm{},\rho _p`$ such that

$$e_{p,j}^{(1,0)}c_{p,j}=c_{p,j1},$$

and choose $`d_{p,j}`$ inductively for $`j=\mu _p1,\mathrm{},\sigma _p`$ such that

$$d_{p,j}=e_{p,j+1}^{(0,1)}d_{p,j+1}.$$

In addition, set $`c_{p,j}:=1`$ for $`j=\rho _p+1,\mathrm{},\mu _p1`$ and $`d_{p,j}:=1`$ for $`j=1,\mathrm{},\sigma _p1`$. Then (7.1.8) is achieved.

Let $`p\mathrm{\Delta }(IJ)`$ such that either $`\alpha _p0`$ or $`\beta _p0`$ or $`\sigma _p\rho _p`$. Then $`H_{p,j}`$ has rank 1 for every $`j=1,\mathrm{},\mu _p`$. By (7.1.5), $`\tau _X^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}=\tau _Y^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}`$. Now, since $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ are positive and $`pIJ`$, it follows from (7.1.5) as well that either $`\tau _{Z_{p,1}}^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}\tau _X^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}`$ or $`\tau _{Z_{p,\mu _p1}}^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}\tau _Y^{(\stackrel{~}{\beta },\stackrel{~}{\alpha })}`$. So, there is $`h_p\{1,\mathrm{},\mu _p1\}`$ such that

(7.1.9)
$$H_{p,h_p}H_{p,h_p+1}=0.$$

For $`j=1,\mathrm{},h_p1`$ choose $`c_{p,j},d_{p,j}k^{}`$ inductively such that

$$e_{p,j}^{(\mathrm{},m)}c_{p,j}^{\mathrm{}}d_{p,j}^m=c_{p,j1}^{\mathrm{}}d_{p,j1}^m\text{ where }(\mathrm{},m)B_{p,j}.$$

For $`j=\mu _p1,\mathrm{},h_p+1`$ choose $`c_{p,j},d_{p,j}k^{}`$ inductively such that

$$c_{p,j}^{\mathrm{}}d_{p,j}^m=e_{p,j+1}^{(\mathrm{},m)}c_{p,j+1}^{\mathrm{}}d_{p,j+1}^m\text{ where }(\mathrm{},m)B_{p,j+1}.$$

Now, let $`(\mathrm{}_{},m_{})B_{p,h_p}`$ and $`(\mathrm{}_+,m_+)B_{p,h_p+1}`$. By (7.1.9), $`(\mathrm{}_{},m_{})`$ and $`(\mathrm{}_+,m_+)`$ are $``$–independent. So, we may choose $`c_{p,h_p},d_{p,h_p}k^{}`$ such that

$$e_{p,h_p}^{(\mathrm{}_{},m_{})}c_{p,h_p}^{\mathrm{}_{}}d_{p,h_p}^m_{}=c_{p,h_p1}^{\mathrm{}_{}}d_{p,h_p1}^m_{}\text{and}c_{p,h_p}^\mathrm{}_+d_{p,h_p}^{m_+}=e_{p,h_p+1}^{(\mathrm{}_+,m_+)}c_{p,h_p+1}^\mathrm{}_+d_{p,h_p+1}^{m_+}.$$

Then (7.1.8) is achieved.

So, we obtained $`c,dk_\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^{}`$ such that (7.1.6) holds for all $`(\mathrm{},m)\times `$ and all distinct $`E,F\mathrm{{\rm Y}}`$ such that $`\tau _E^{(\mathrm{},m)}=\tau _F^{(\mathrm{},m)}`$. By Theorem 6.5 there is a regular smoothing $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{S}B`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ such that

$$\stackrel{~}{L}_c𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(\underset{E\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{}\lambda _EE)|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}\text{and}\stackrel{~}{M}_d𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{S}}(\underset{E\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{}\nu _EE)|_{\stackrel{~}{C}}.$$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{L}_cL\stackrel{~}{𝜔}^1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}_dM\stackrel{~}{𝜔}^1`$, it follows from (7.1.4) and Theorem 5.2 that $`L`$ and $`M`$ are the restrictions of the canonical sheaves of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$, respectively. ∎

## 8. Regeneration, II

###### Definition 8.1.

Preserve 4.1–2. Let $`VH^0(L_X)`$ and $`WH^0(M_Y)`$ be vector subspaces.

Suppose (4.3.2a) holds. Then $`V`$ is called *$`\mu `$–smoothable* if $`(V,L_X)`$ is the limit canonical aspect with focus on $`X`$ of a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Let $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}𝔾_X`$ be the subset of $`\mu `$–smoothable subspaces.

Suppose (4.3.2b) holds. Then $`W`$ is called *$`\mu `$–smoothable* if $`(W,M_Y)`$ is the limit canonical aspect with focus on $`Y`$ of a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Let $`𝕍_{\mu ,Y}𝔾_Y`$ be the subset of $`\mu `$–smoothable subspaces.

Suppose (4.3.2a–b) hold. Then the pair $`(V,W)`$ is called *$`\mu `$–smoothable* if $`(V,L_X)`$ and $`(W,M_Y)`$ are the limit canonical aspects with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ of the same regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Let $`𝕍_\mu 𝕍_{\mu ,X}\times 𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$ be the subset of $`\mu `$–smoothable pairs.

###### Theorem 8.2.

Preserve 4.1–2. For each $`F\mathrm{\Delta }`$ let $`C_F`$ be the blow–up of $`C`$ along $`\mathrm{\Delta }F`$. Let $`VH^0(L_X)`$ and $`WH^0(M_Y)`$ be vector subspaces. Then the following three statements hold.

1. If (4.3.2a) holds and $`g_Y>0`$, then $`V𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ if and only if there is an invertible sheaf $`L`$ on $`C_I`$ such that $`L|_XL_X`$ and $`L|_YL_Y`$ and such that $`V`$ is the image of the restriction map $`H^0(L)H^0(L_X)`$.
2. If (4.3.2b) holds and $`g_X>0`$, then $`W𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$ if and only if there is an invertible sheaf $`M`$ on $`C_J`$ such that $`M|_XM_X`$ and $`M|_YM_Y`$ and such that $`W`$ is the image of the restriction map $`H^0(M)H^0(M_Y)`$.
3. If (4.3.2a–b) hold and $`g_Xg_Y>0`$, then $`(V,W)𝕍_\mu `$ if and only if there are an invertible sheaf $`L`$ on $`C_I`$ as in Statement 1 and an invertible sheaf $`M`$ on $`C_J`$ as in Statement 2 such that their pull–backs $`L_{IJ}`$ and $`M_{IJ}`$ to $`C_{IJ}`$ satisfy

(8.2.1)
$$L_{IJ}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_{IJ}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}K_{IJ},$$

where

(8.2.2)
$$K_{IJ}:=𝜔_{IJ}^{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }+\stackrel{~}{\beta })}(\underset{pIJ}{}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }\alpha _p\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\beta _p)(x_py_p)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }\underset{pJ}{}x_p\stackrel{~}{\beta }\underset{pI}{}y_p),$$

where $`𝜔_{IJ}`$ is the pull–back to $`C_{IJ}`$ of the dualizing sheaf $`𝜔`$ of $`C`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\psi :\stackrel{~}{C}C`$ be the map contracting the subcurve $`Z_p`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. For each $`F\mathrm{\Delta }`$ let $`\phi _F:C_FC`$ be the blow–up map,

$$\stackrel{~}{C}_F:=XY(_{pF}Z_p)\stackrel{~}{C},$$

and let $`\psi _F:\stackrel{~}{C}_FC_F`$ be the map contracting the subcurve $`Z_p`$ for every $`pF`$.

Let’s prove Statement 1. First, let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ be a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ such that $`(V,L_X)`$ is the limit canonical aspect of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`X`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ be the restriction to $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ of the canonical sheaf of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`X`$. By Proposition 7.1,

(8.2.3a) $`\stackrel{~}{L}|_XL_X,\stackrel{~}{L}|_YL_Y,`$
(8.2.3b) $`\stackrel{~}{L}|_{Z_{p,j}}\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒪_{Z_{p,j}}\hfill & \text{if }pI\text{ or }j\rho _p,\hfill \\ 𝒪_{Z_{p,j}}(1)\hfill & \text{if }pI\text{ and }j=\rho _p\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$
By (8.2.3b), the sheaf $`\psi _{}\stackrel{~}{L}`$ is torsion–free, rank–1, and fails to be invertible precisely along the set $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$. Hence there are an invertible sheaf $`L`$ on $`C_I`$ and an isomorphism $`\lambda :\psi _{}\stackrel{~}{L}\phi _IL`$. Restricting $`\lambda `$ to $`X`$ and $`Y`$, and removing torsion, we obtain isomorphisms $`\stackrel{~}{L}|_XL|_X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}|_YL|_Y`$. So there is a commutative diagram,

(8.2.4)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}H^0(\stackrel{~}{L})& & H^0(L)\\ & & & & \\ H^0(\stackrel{~}{L}|_X)& & H^0(L|_X),\end{array}$$

where the vertical maps are restriction maps, and the horizontal maps are the isomorphisms induced by $`\lambda `$. In addition, $`L|_XL_X`$ and $`L|_YL_Y`$ by (8.2.3a). Now, since (8.2.4) is commutative, the restriction maps $`\tau :H^0(L)H^0(L_X)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\tau }:H^0(\stackrel{~}{L})H^0(L_X)`$ have the same image. Hence $`V=\mathrm{Im}(\stackrel{~}{\tau })`$ by Theorem 5.2, because $`(V,L_X)`$ is the limit canonical aspect of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with focus on $`X`$. So $`V=\mathrm{Im}(\tau )`$.

Conversely, let $`L`$ be an invertible sheaf on $`C_I`$ as in Statement 1. Then $`\phi _IL`$ is torsion–free, rank–1, and fails to be invertible precisely along $`\mathrm{\Delta }I`$. As $`\mu _p>1`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }I`$, there are an invertible sheaf $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ such that (8.2.3b) holds and an isomorphism $`\lambda :\psi _{}\stackrel{~}{L}\phi _IL`$. As before, $`\lambda `$ induces isomorphisms $`\stackrel{~}{L}|_XL|_X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}|_YL|_Y`$. So (8.2.3a) holds. By Theorem 7.1, there is a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ whose canonical sheaf with focus on $`X`$ restricts to $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. As before, $`V`$ is the image of the restriction map $`H^0(\stackrel{~}{L})H^0(L_X)`$. So $`V`$ is $`\mu `$–smoothable. The proof of Statement 1 is complete. Statement 2 follows by analogy.

Let’s prove Statement 3. First, let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ be a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ such that $`(V,L_X)`$ and $`(W,M_Y)`$ are the limit canonical aspects of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$, respectively. Let $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ be the restrictions to $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ of the canonical sheaves of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$, respectively. As observed in the proof of Statement 1, there are invertible sheaves $`L`$ and $`M`$ on $`C_I`$ and $`C_J`$, respectively, such that $`\psi _{}\stackrel{~}{L}\phi _IL`$ and $`\psi _{}\stackrel{~}{M}\phi _JM`$. In addition, $`L`$ and $`M`$ satisfy Statements 1 and 2, respectively.

Since $`\psi _{}\stackrel{~}{L}\phi _IL`$, there is a map $`\psi _I^{}L\stackrel{~}{L}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_I}`$. This map is injective because it is injective generically on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ and because $`L`$ is invertible. So $`\psi _I^{}L`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{L}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_I}`$ are isomorphic because they restrict to isomorphic sheaves on the irreducible components of $`\stackrel{~}{C}_I`$. Analogously, $`\psi _J^{}M\stackrel{~}{M}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_J}`$. Let $`L_{IJ}`$ and $`M_{IJ}`$ be the pull–backs of $`L`$ and $`M`$ to $`C_{IJ}`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{IJ}`$ be given by (7.1.3). Since $`(\stackrel{~}{L}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\stackrel{~}{M}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }})|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJ}}\stackrel{~}{K}_{IJ}`$ by Theorem 7.1, we have

(8.2.5)
$$\psi _{IJ}^{}(L_{IJ}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_{IJ}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }})\stackrel{~}{K}_{IJ}.$$

Now, since $`\stackrel{~}{𝜔}\psi ^{}𝜔`$, it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{K}_{IJ}\psi _{IJ}^{}K_{IJ}`$. So (8.2.1) holds.

Conversely, let $`L`$ be an invertible sheaf on $`C_I`$ and $`M`$ an invertible sheaf on $`C_J`$ as in Statement 3. As observed in the proof of Statement 1, there are invertible sheaves $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ such that $`\psi _{}\stackrel{~}{L}\phi _IL`$ and $`\psi _{}\stackrel{~}{M}\phi _JM`$, and such that (8.2.3) and (8.2.6) below hold.

(8.2.6a) $`\stackrel{~}{M}|_XM_X,\stackrel{~}{M}|_YM_Y,`$
(8.2.6b) $`\stackrel{~}{M}|_{Z_{p,j}}\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒪_{Z_{p,j}}\hfill & \text{if }pJ\text{ or }j\sigma _p,\hfill \\ 𝒪_{Z_{p,j}}(1)\hfill & \text{if }pJ\text{ and }j=\sigma _p\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$
Now, since $`\psi _{IJ}^{}K_{IJ}\stackrel{~}{K}_{IJ}`$, it follows from (8.2.1) that (8.2.5) holds. As shown above, $`\psi _I^{}L\stackrel{~}{L}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_I}`$ and $`\psi _J^{}M\stackrel{~}{M}|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_J}`$. Hence $`(\stackrel{~}{L}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\stackrel{~}{M}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }})|_{\stackrel{~}{C}_{IJ}}\stackrel{~}{K}_{IJ}`$. By Theorem 7.1, there is a regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ whose canonical sheaves with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ restrict to $`\stackrel{~}{L}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{M}`$, respectively. As shown in the proof of Statement 1, the restriction maps $`H^0(\stackrel{~}{L})H^0(L_X)`$ and $`H^0(\stackrel{~}{M})H^0(M_Y)`$ have images $`V`$ and $`W`$, respectively. So $`(V,W)`$ is $`\mu `$–smoothable. ∎

###### 8.3.

*Tori actions.* Preserve 4.1–2. Denote by $`C_{IJ}`$ the blow–up of $`C`$ along the points of $`\mathrm{\Delta }(IJ)`$. Fix isomorphisms $`\zeta _{X,p}:L_X(x_p)k`$ and $`\zeta _{Y,p}:L_Y(y_p)k`$ for each $`pI`$, and $`\xi _{X,p}:M_X(x_p)k`$ and $`\xi _{Y,p}:M_Y(y_p)k`$ for each $`pJ`$. If $`g_Xg_Y>0`$ and $`IJ\mathrm{}`$, choose them such that

$$\{(\zeta _{X,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\xi _{X,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }},\zeta _{Y,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\xi _{Y,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }})|pIJ\}$$

patch $`L_X^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_X^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$ and $`L_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$ to the sheaf $`K_{IJ}`$ given by (8.2.2). Consider the corresponding evaluation maps,

$$e_X:H^0(L_X)k_I,e_Y:H^0(L_Y)k_I,f_X:H^0(M_X)k_J,f_Y:H^0(M_Y)k_J.$$

Let $`V:=\mathrm{Im}(e_Y)`$ and $`W:=\mathrm{Im}(f_X)`$. Let $`h_X:=dimV`$ and $`h_Y:=dimW`$. Let

$$G_X:=\mathrm{Grass}_{h_X}(k_I)\text{and}G_Y:=\mathrm{Grass}_{h_Y}(k_J).$$

Consider the natural actions of the tori $`k_I^{}`$ and $`k_J^{}`$ on $`k_I`$ and $`k_J`$, and their respective actions on $`G_X`$ and $`G_Y`$. Denote by $`𝕆_V`$ and $`𝕆_W`$ the orbits of $`V`$ and $`W`$ under these actions, and by $`\psi _X:k_I^{}𝕆_V`$ and $`\psi _Y:k_J^{}𝕆_W`$ the orbit maps. If $`g_Xg_Y>0`$, let

(8.3.1)
$$T:=\{(s,t)k_I^{}\times k_J^{}|s_p^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}=t_p^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}\text{ for every }pIJ\},$$

and denote by $`𝕆`$ the orbit of $`(V,W)`$ under the induced action of $`T`$ on $`G_X\times G_Y`$.

###### Lemma 8.4.

Preserve 4.1–2 and 8.3. Then the following three statements hold.

1. If (4.3.2a) holds and $`\alpha 0`$, then $`e_X`$ induces a closed embedding $`\iota _X:G_X𝔾_X`$ such that $`\iota _X(𝕆_V)=𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$.
2. If (4.3.2b) holds and $`\beta 0`$, then $`f_Y`$ induces a closed embedding $`\iota _Y:G_Y𝔾_Y`$ such that $`\iota _Y(𝕆_W)=𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$.
3. If (4.3.2a–b) hold, $`\alpha 0`$ and $`\beta 0`$, then $`𝕍_\mu =(\iota _X\times \iota _Y)(𝕆)`$, where $`\iota _X`$ and $`\iota _Y`$ are the embeddings mentioned in Statements 1 and 2.

###### Proof.

Let’s prove Statement 1. Since $`\alpha 0`$, also $`g_Y>0`$, and $`\alpha _p>0`$ for every $`pI`$ by Lemma 3.1. By Riemann–Roch, $`h^0(L_X)=g+|\alpha |g_Y`$ and $`e_X`$ is surjective. Now, $`e_Y`$ is injective by (4.3.2a). So $`h^0(L_X)g=|I|h_X`$ by (5.1.5). Thus, taking inverse images by $`e_X`$ gives us a closed embedding $`\iota _X:G_X𝔾_X`$. Since $`g_Y>0`$ and (4.3.2a) holds, the description of $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ given in Theorem 8.2 applies. Comparing this description with that of $`𝕆_V`$ given in 8.3, we get $`\iota _X(𝕆_V)=𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$. The proof of Statement 1 is complete. Statement 2 is proved analogously.

Let’s prove now Statement 3. Since $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are non–zero, also $`g_X`$ and $`g_Y`$ are non–zero. Since (4.3.2a–b) hold as well, the description of $`𝕍_\mu `$ given in Theorem 8.2 applies. Comparing this description with that of $`𝕆`$ given in 8.3, we get $`𝕍_\mu =(\iota _X\times \iota _Y)(𝕆)`$. Statement 3 is proved. ∎

###### Theorem 8.5.

Preserve 4.1–2. Then the following three statements hold.

1. If (4.3.2a) holds, then $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ is locally closed in $`𝔾_X`$ and isomorphic to a torus. In addition, $`dim𝕍_{\mu ,X}=|I|1`$ if $`|\alpha |>g_Y`$; otherwise, $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}=\{H^0(L_X)\}`$.
2. If (4.3.2b) holds, then $`𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$ is locally closed in $`𝔾_Y`$ and isomorphic to a torus. In addition, $`dim𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=|J|1`$ if $`|\beta |>g_X`$; otherwise, $`𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=\{H^0(M_Y)\}`$.
3. If (4.3.2a–b) hold, then $`𝕍_\mu `$ is closed in $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}\times 𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$ and isomorphic to a torus. In addition,

$$dim𝕍_\mu =\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }|\alpha |=g_Y\text{ and }|\beta |=g_X\text{,}\hfill \\ |I|1\hfill & \text{if }|\alpha |>g_Y\text{ and }|\beta |=g_X\text{,}\hfill \\ |J|1\hfill & \text{if }|\alpha |=g_Y\text{ and }|\beta |>g_X\text{,}\hfill \\ |IJ|2\hfill & \text{if }|\alpha |>g_Y\text{ and }|\beta |>g_X\text{ and }IJ=\mathrm{}\text{,}\hfill \\ |IJ|1\hfill & \text{if }|\alpha |>g_Y\text{ and }|\beta |>g_X\text{ and }IJ\mathrm{}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

We shall use the set–up of 8.3. Let’s prove Statement 1. Assume first that $`|\alpha |=g_Y`$. Then Theorem 5.2 says that $`(H^0(L_X),L_X)`$ is the limit canonical aspect with focus on $`X`$ of any regular smoothing of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Therefore $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}=\{H^0(L_X)\}`$.

Assume now that $`|\alpha |>g_Y`$. Then $`\alpha 0`$ and $`g_Y>0`$. By (4.3.2a), all the Plücker coordinates of $`V`$ in $`G_X`$ are non–zero. In addition, $`Vk_I^{}`$ because $`|\alpha |>g_Y`$. Since the Plücker coordinates of $`V`$ are non–zero, $`\psi _X(t)=V`$ if and only if $`t^b=t^c`$ for all subsets $`b`$ and $`c`$ of $`I`$ satisfying $`|b|=|c|=h_X`$. Since $`h_X<|I|`$, given $`p,qI`$ distinct, there is a subset $`bI`$ with $`|b|=h_X`$ such that $`pb`$ but $`qb`$. Letting $`c:=bp+q`$, we have $`t^b=t^c`$ if and only if $`t_p=t_q`$. It follows that the orbit map $`\psi _X`$ factors through an isomorphism $`k_I^{}/k^{}𝕆_V`$, where $`k^{}`$ is viewed inside $`k_I^{}`$ under the diagonal embedding. So $`𝕆_V`$ is isomorphic to a torus of dimension $`|I|1`$.

Since $`\alpha 0`$, Lemma 8.4 says that $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ is the image of $`𝕆_V`$ under a closed embedding $`G_X𝔾_X`$. Thus $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ is locally closed in $`𝔾_X`$ and isomorphic to a torus of dimension $`|I|1`$. The proof of Statement 1 is complete. Statement 2 follows by analogy.

Let’s prove Statement 3. If $`|\beta |=g_X`$ then $`𝕍_\mu =𝕍_{\mu ,X}\times \{H^0(M_Y)\}`$. If $`|\alpha |=g_Y`$ then $`𝕍_\mu =\{H^0(L_X)\}\times 𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$. So Statement 3 follows from Statement 1 in the first case, and from Statement 2 in the second case.

Assume now that $`|\alpha |>g_Y`$ and $`|\beta |>g_X`$. Then $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$, $`g_X`$ and $`g_Y`$ are non–zero. View $`k^{}`$ inside $`k_I^{}`$ and $`k_J^{}`$ under the diagonal embeddings. Let $`T^{}:=T(k^{}\times k^{})`$, where $`T`$ is given by (8.3.1). Since $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$ are coprime, $`T`$ is a subtorus of dimension $`|IJ|`$ of $`k_I^{}\times k_J^{}`$. In addition, $`T^{}`$ is a one–dimensional subtorus of $`T`$ unless $`IJ=\mathrm{}`$, in which case $`T^{}=k^{}\times k^{}`$. Now, $`𝕆𝕆_V\times 𝕆_W`$ and the orbit map $`\psi :T𝕆`$ is the restriction to $`T`$ of $`\psi _X\times \psi _Y`$. Since $`\psi _X`$ and $`\psi _Y`$ factor through isomorphisms $`k_I^{}/k^{}𝕆_V`$ and $`k_J^{}/k^{}𝕆_W`$, then $`\psi `$ factors through an isomorphism $`T/T^{}𝕆`$. So $`𝕆`$ is closed in $`𝕆_V\times 𝕆_W`$ and isomorphic to a torus. In addition, $`dim𝕆=|IJ|1`$ unless $`IJ=\mathrm{}`$, in which case $`dim𝕆=|IJ|2`$.

Since $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are non–zero, Lemma 8.4 says that $`𝕍_\mu `$ is the image of $`𝕆`$ under a closed embedding $`G_X\times G_Y𝔾_X\times 𝔾_Y`$ that sends $`𝕆_V\times 𝕆_W`$ to $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}\times 𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$. Thus $`𝕍_\mu `$ is closed in $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}\times 𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$ and isomorphic to a torus of the dimension prescribed in Statement 3. ∎

###### 8.6.

*Extreme cases.* If (4.3.2a) holds, then

$$𝕍_{\mu ,X}=\{V𝔾_X|VH^0(L_X(\underset{pI}{}x_p))\text{ but }VH^0(L_X(x_q\underset{pI}{}x_p))\text{ for any }qI\}$$

in case $`|\alpha |=g_Y+1`$, and

$$𝕍_{\mu ,X}=\{V𝔾_X|VH^0(L_X(\underset{pI}{}x_p))\text{ but }VH^0(L_X(x_q))\text{ for any }qI\}$$

in case $`|\alpha |=g_Y+|I|1`$. We prove here the latter case; the former is proved analogously.

So, suppose $`|\alpha |=g_Y+|I|1`$. If $`\alpha =0`$ then $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}=\{H^0(L_X)\}`$ by Theorem 8.5, which agrees with the above description of $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ in the case at hand. Assume now that $`\alpha 0`$. From now on we shall use the set-up of 8.3. By (4.3.2a), all the Plücker coordinates of $`V`$ in $`G_X`$ are non–zero. Moreover, $`h_X=1`$. Then $`𝕆_V`$ parameterizes all one–dimensional subspaces $`Hk_I`$ such that the restriction map $`Hk_q`$ is an isomorphism for each $`qI`$. Now, Lemma 8.4 says that $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ is the image of $`𝕆_V`$ under the closed embedding $`\iota _X:G_X𝔾_X`$ induced by $`e_X`$. The description of $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ given in the last paragraph follows easily now.

If (4.3.2b) holds, and either $`|\beta |=g_X+1`$ or $`|\beta |=g_X+|J|1`$, then an analogous description holds for $`𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$.

###### 8.7.

*Projections.* Preserve 4.1–2. Using Theorem 8.2 we can describe $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ and $`𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$ in terms of central projections. In addition, we can describe $`𝕍_\mu 𝕍_{\mu ,X}\times 𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$ in terms of multi–linear algebra.

In fact, assume (4.3.2a) holds and $`g_Y>0`$. Then the natural map $`\varphi _Y:Y(H^0(L_Y))`$ is defined along $`\{y_p|pI\}`$, and the image $`\{\varphi _Y(y_p)|pI\}`$ spans $`(H^0(L_Y))`$. Now, $`\alpha _p>0`$ for each $`pI`$ by Lemma 3.1. By Riemann–Roch, the natural map $`\varphi _X:X(H^0(L_X))`$ is defined along $`\{x_p|pI\}`$, and the set $`\{\varphi _X(x_p)|pI\}`$ spans a projective subspace $`_X(H^0(L_X))`$ of dimension $`|I|1`$. Let $`T_X`$ be the set of all linear maps $`_X(H^0(L_Y))`$ sending $`\varphi _X(x_p)`$ to $`\varphi _Y(y_p)`$ for each $`pI`$. Then $`T_X`$ is a torus of dimension $`|I|1`$. For each $`tT_X`$ let $`_t_X`$ be the base locus of $`t`$, and let $`(V_t,L_X)`$ be the linear system given by projection with center $`_t`$. Then $`V_t𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ and the map $`\lambda _X:T_X𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ sending $`t`$ to $`V_t`$ is an isomorphism.

Now, assume (4.3.2b) holds and $`g_X>0`$. The sheaves $`M_X`$ and $`M_Y`$ define natural maps $`\psi _X:X(H^0(M_X))`$ and $`\psi _Y:Y(H^0(M_Y))`$. As above, $`\psi _Y`$ is defined along $`\{y_p|pJ\}`$, and the projective subspace $`_Y(H^0(M_Y))`$ spanned by $`\{\psi _Y(y_p)|pJ\}`$ has dimension $`|J|1`$. In addition, $`\psi _X`$ is defined along $`\{x_p|pJ\}`$, and $`\{\psi _X(x_p)|pJ\}`$ spans $`(H^0(M_X))`$. Let $`T_Y`$ be the set of all linear maps $`_Y(H^0(M_X))`$ sending $`\psi _Y(y_p)`$ to $`\psi _X(x_p)`$ for each $`pJ`$. As above, we define an isomorphism $`\lambda _Y:T_Y𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$.

Finally, assume (4.3.2a–b) hold and $`g_Xg_Y>0`$. Note that $`_X=(V_X)`$ and $`_Y=(V_Y)`$, where

$$V_X:=\frac{H^0(L_X)}{H^0(L_X(_{pI}x_p))}\text{and}V_Y:=\frac{H^0(M_Y)}{H^0(M_Y(_{pJ}y_p))}.$$

Combining a $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$–tuple with an $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }`$–tuple embedding, and composing with a Segre map, embed $`_X\times (H^0(M_X))`$ in $`\overline{}_X`$ and $`(H^0(L_Y))\times _Y`$ in $`\overline{}_Y`$, where

$`\overline{}_X:=(\text{Symm}_{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}(V_X)\text{Symm}_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}(H^0(M_X))),`$
$`\overline{}_Y:=(\text{Symm}_{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}(H^0(L_Y))\text{Symm}_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}(V_Y)).`$
Let $`C_{IJ}`$ be the blow–up of $`C`$ along $`\mathrm{\Delta }(IJ)`$, and $`K_{IJ}`$ the invertible sheaf on $`C_{IJ}`$ given by (8.2.2). Let $`\varphi :C_{IJ}(H^0(K_{IJ}))`$ be the natural map, and $`\overline{}_C`$ the projective subspace of $`(H^0(K_{IJ}))`$ spanned by $`\varphi (IJ)`$. In other words, $`\overline{}_C=(\overline{V})`$, where

$$\overline{V}:=\frac{H^0(K_{IJ})}{H^0(K_{IJ}(_{pIJ}p))}.$$

Now, $`K_{IJ}`$ restricts to $`L_X^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_X^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$ on $`X`$ and $`L_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$ on $`Y`$. Thus, lifting sections, we obtain well–defined maps,

$$\frac{H^0(L_X^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_X^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }})}{H^0(L_X^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_X^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}(_{pI}x_p))}\overline{V}\text{and}\frac{H^0(L_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }})}{H^0(L_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}(_{pJ}y_p))}\overline{V},$$

from which we derive natural linear maps $`\tau _X:\overline{}_C\overline{}_X`$ and $`\tau _Y:\overline{}_C\overline{}_Y`$, respectively.

Each $`sT_X`$ induces a linear map $`\zeta _s:\overline{}_X\overline{}`$, where

$$\overline{}:=(\text{Symm}_{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}(H^0(L_Y))\text{Symm}_{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}(H^0(M_X))).$$

Also, each $`tT_Y`$ induces a linear map $`\xi _t:\overline{}_Y\overline{}`$. Let

$$T:=\{(s,t)T_X\times T_Y|\zeta _s\tau _X=\xi _t\tau _Y\}.$$

Then $`(\lambda _X\times \lambda _Y)(T)=𝕍_\mu `$.

## 9. Boundary of tori orbits on Grassmannians

###### Lemma 9.1.

Let $`I`$ be a finite set and let $`Vk_I`$ be a non–zero vector subspace. Let $`h:=dimV`$ and $`G:=\mathrm{Grass}_h(k_I)`$. For each ordered tripartition $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$, let

(9.1.1)
$$V_𝕀:=k_I^{}+(k_{\overline{I}}(V+k_{I^{\prime \prime }})).$$

Let $`𝕆`$ denote the orbit of $`V`$ under the natural action of $`k_I^{}`$ on $`G`$. If all Plücker coordinates of $`V`$ in $`G`$ are non–zero, then the closure $`\overline{𝕆}G`$ is the union of the orbits of the subspaces $`V_𝕀k_I`$ obtained from all ordered tripartitions $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ satisfying $`|I^{}|<h|II^{\prime \prime }|`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`:=\{bI;|b|=h\}`$. For each $`b`$ let $`p_b`$ denote the corresponding Plücker coordinate on $`G`$. In terms of Plücker coordinates, $`sk_I^{}`$ acts on a point of $`G`$ with coordinates $`(p_b|b)`$ by taking it to the point with coordinates $`(s^bp_b|b)`$.

Let $`(\stackrel{~}{p}_b|b)`$ be Plücker coordinates of $`V`$ in $`G`$. By assumption, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_b0`$ for every $`b`$. Let $`ZG`$ be defined by the following equations on Plücker coordinates,

(9.1.2)
$$\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_1}\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_2}p_{b_3}p_{b_4}=\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_3}\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_4}p_{b_1}p_{b_2}\text{ for all }b_1,\mathrm{},b_4\text{ with }b_1+b_2=b_3+b_4.$$

It’s clear that $`𝕆Z`$.

Let $`WG`$ with Plücker coordinates $`(p_b|b)`$. Let

$$_W:=\{b|p_b0\},I_W^{}:=\underset{b_W}{}b,I_W^{\prime \prime }:=I\underset{b_W}{}b.$$

Note that $`|I_W^{}|h|II_W^{\prime \prime }|`$. Set $`\overline{I}_W:=I(I_W^{}I_W^{\prime \prime })`$.

We divide the proof in five steps.

*Step 1*: Let $`WZ`$ with Plücker coordinates $`(p_b|b)`$. Then the following two conditions hold.

(9.1.3a) $`_W=\{b|I_W^{}bII_W^{\prime \prime }\}`$
(9.1.3b) $`\text{There is }\overline{s}k_{\overline{I}_W}^{}\text{ such that }p_{b_1}\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_2}=\overline{s}^{(b_1b_2)}\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_1}p_{b_2}\text{ for all }b_1,b_2_W.`$
Indeed, let’s check (9.1.3a) first. If $`b_W`$ then $`I_W^{}bII_W^{\prime \prime }`$ by definition.

Conversely, suppose first that $`|_W|=1`$. Then $`I_W^{}=II_W^{\prime \prime }`$, and thus (9.1.3a) holds. Suppose now that $`|_W|>1`$. Let $`b_W`$. Then $`I_W^{}bII_W^{\prime \prime }`$. Let $`i,jI`$ such that $`ibI_W^{}`$ and $`jII_W^{\prime \prime }b`$. Using an induction argument, we need only show that $`bi+j_W`$. Since $`iI_W^{}`$ and $`jI_W^{\prime \prime }`$, there are $`b_1,b_2_W`$ such that $`ib_1`$ and $`jb_2`$. We’ll find $`b_0_W`$ such that $`ib_0`$ and $`jb_0`$. If $`jb_1`$ or $`ib_2`$, set $`b_0:=b_1`$ or $`b_0:=b_2`$, respectively. Suppose that $`jb_1`$ and $`ib_2`$. Then $`|b_1b_2|<h`$, and hence there is $`ub_1b_2`$. Set $`b_0:=b_1u+j`$. Then $`ib_0`$ and $`jb_0`$. Since $`b_1+b_2=b_0+(b_2j+u)`$, Equations (9.1.2) imply that $`b_0_W`$. Hence, since $`b+b_0=(bi+j)+(b_0j+i)`$, Equations (9.1.2) imply that $`bi+j_W`$ as well. Thus (9.1.3a) holds.

Let’s now check (9.1.3b). If $`\overline{I}_W=\mathrm{}`$ then $`|_W|=1`$, and hence (9.1.3b) holds trivially. Assume that $`\overline{I}_W\mathrm{}`$, and fix $`\overline{i}\overline{I}_W`$. Define $`\overline{s}k_{\overline{I}_W}^{}`$ by letting $`\overline{s}_{\overline{i}}:=1`$ and

$$\overline{s}_i:=\frac{p_{b\overline{i}+i}\stackrel{~}{p}_b}{\stackrel{~}{p}_{b\overline{i}+i}p_b}$$

for each $`i\overline{I}_W\overline{i}`$, where $`b_W`$ is chosen such that $`ib`$ and $`\overline{i}b`$. Observe that such $`b`$ exists because (9.1.3a) holds. Moreover, $`\overline{s}_i`$ is independent of the choice of $`b`$, because if $`b^{}_W`$ is such that $`ib^{}`$ and $`\overline{i}b^{}`$, then $`b+(b^{}\overline{i}+i)=(b\overline{i}+i)+b^{}`$, and hence the claimed independence of $`\overline{s}_i`$ follows from Equations (9.1.2).

If $`i`$ and $`j`$ are distinct elements of $`\overline{I}_W`$, then

(9.1.4)
$$p_b\stackrel{~}{p}_{bj+i}=(\overline{s}_j/\overline{s}_i)\stackrel{~}{p}_bp_{bj+i}$$

for every $`b_W`$ such that $`ib`$ and $`jb`$. Indeed, if either $`\overline{i}=i`$ or $`\overline{i}=j`$, then (9.1.4) holds by definition of $`\overline{s}_j`$ or $`\overline{s}_i`$. Suppose that $`\overline{i}\overline{I}_Wij`$. If $`\overline{i}b`$, then

$$\frac{\overline{s}_i}{\overline{s}_j}=(\frac{p_{b\overline{i}+i}\stackrel{~}{p}_b}{\stackrel{~}{p}_{b\overline{i}+i}p_b})/(\frac{p_{b\overline{i}+i}\stackrel{~}{p}_{bj+i}}{\stackrel{~}{p}_{b\overline{i}+i}p_{bj+i}})=\frac{p_{bj+i}\stackrel{~}{p}_b}{p_b\stackrel{~}{p}_{bj+i}}.$$

If $`\overline{i}b`$, then

$$\frac{\overline{s}_i}{\overline{s}_j}=(\frac{p_{bj+i}\stackrel{~}{p}_{bj+\overline{i}}}{\stackrel{~}{p}_{bj+i}p_{bj+\overline{i}}})/(\frac{p_b\stackrel{~}{p}_{bj+\overline{i}}}{\stackrel{~}{p}_bp_{bj+\overline{i}}})=\frac{p_{bj+i}\stackrel{~}{p}_b}{p_b\stackrel{~}{p}_{bj+i}}.$$

Either way, (9.1.4) holds. Now, (9.1.3b) follows from (9.1.4) and an induction argument. Step 1 is complete.

*Step 2*: Let $`WG`$ with Plücker coordinates $`(p_b|b)`$. If (9.1.3a,b) hold, then $`W\overline{𝕆}`$. Indeed, let $`\overline{s}k_{\overline{I}_W}^{}`$ as in (9.1.3b). Define $`u_I`$ and $`sk_I^{}`$ by letting for each $`iI`$,

$$u_i:=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }iI_W^{}\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }i\overline{I}_W\text{,}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }iI_W^{\prime \prime }\text{.}\hfill \end{array}\text{and}s_i:=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }iI_W^{}\text{,}\hfill \\ \overline{s}_i\hfill & \text{if }i\overline{I}_W\text{,}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }iI_W^{\prime \prime }\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Define a map $`\zeta :k^{}k_I^{}`$ by letting $`\zeta (r)_i:=s_ir^{u_i}`$ for each $`iI`$ and each $`rk^{}`$. For each $`rk^{}`$ let $`W_r:=\zeta (r)V`$ and $`(p_b(r)|b)`$ be Plücker coordinates of $`W_r`$. Because of our choice of $`\zeta `$, the power of $`r`$ in the expression for $`p_b(r)`$ is minimum exactly among those $`b_W`$. Let $`\overline{W}G`$ be the limit of $`W_r`$ as $`r`$ goes to 0, and $`(\overline{p}_b|b)`$ Plücker coordinates of $`\overline{W}`$. Of course, $`\overline{W}\overline{𝕆}`$. Now, $`\overline{p}_b0`$ if and only if $`b_W`$. Moreover, if $`b_1,b_2_W`$ then

$$\frac{\overline{p}_{b_1}}{\overline{p}_{b_2}}=s^{(b_1b_2)}\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_1}}{\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_2}}=\overline{s}^{(b_1b_2)}\frac{\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_1}}{\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_2}}=\frac{p_{b_1}}{p_{b_2}},$$

where the last equality holds by (9.1.3b). So $`\overline{W}=W`$, and hence $`W\overline{𝕆}`$. Step 2 is complete.

*Step 3*: If $`𝕀=(I,\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ is an ordered tripartition of $`I`$ such that $`|I^{}|h|II^{\prime \prime }|`$, then $`dimV_𝕀=h`$ and $`(p_b|b)`$ are Plücker coordinates of $`V_𝕀`$, where

$$p_b:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\stackrel{~}{p}_b\hfill & \text{if }I^{}bII^{\prime \prime },\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Indeed, let $`v_1,\mathrm{},v_h`$ be a basis of $`V`$ in $`k_I`$. Write $`I=\{1,\mathrm{},\delta \}`$ with

$`I^{}`$ $`=\{1,\mathrm{},|I^{}|\},`$
$`\overline{I}`$ $`=\{|I^{}|+1,\mathrm{},|I^{}+\overline{I}|\},`$
$`I^{\prime \prime }`$ $`=\{|I^{}+\overline{I}|+1,\mathrm{},|I|\}.`$
Since no Plücker coordinate of $`V`$ is zero, we may assume that the matrix $`(v_{i,j})_{1i,jh}`$ is the identity. Since $`|I^{}|h|II^{\prime \prime }|`$, a basis of $`V_𝕀`$ is given by the vectors $`\overline{v}_1,\mathrm{},\overline{v}_h`$ defined by

$$\overline{v}_{i,j}:=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }jI^{\prime \prime },\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }iI^{}\text{ and }j\overline{I},\hfill \\ v_{i,j}\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

In particular, $`dimV_𝕀=h`$. It follows as well that $`(p_b|b)`$ are Plücker coordinates of $`V_𝕀`$. Step 3 is complete.

*Step 4*: If $`W\overline{𝕆}`$, then there is an ordered tripartition $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ such that $`|I^{}|<h|II^{\prime \prime }|`$, and such that $`W`$ is in the orbit of $`V_𝕀`$ defined by (9.1.1). Indeed, let $`W\overline{𝕆}`$ with Plücker coordinates $`(p_b|b)`$. Since $`𝕆Z`$, we have $`WZ`$, and hence (9.1.3a,b) hold by Step 1. Since (9.1.3b) holds, we may replace $`W`$ by a certain point in its orbit and assume that $`p_b=\stackrel{~}{p}_b`$ for every $`b_W`$. Hence, using Step 3, it follows from (9.1.3a) that $`W=V_{\stackrel{~}{𝕀}}`$, where $`\stackrel{~}{𝕀}:=(I_W^{},\overline{I}_W,I_W^{\prime \prime })`$.

If $`|I_W^{}|<h`$ set $`𝕀:=\stackrel{~}{𝕀}`$. Step 4 is complete in this case. If $`|I_W^{}|=h`$ then $`\overline{I}_W=\mathrm{}`$, and thus $`V_{\stackrel{~}{𝕀}}=k_{I_W^{}}`$. In addition, $`I_W^{}\mathrm{}`$ because $`h>0`$. Let $`\overline{I}I_W^{}`$ be any non–empty subset and put $`𝕀:=(I_W^{}\overline{I},\overline{I},I_W^{\prime \prime })`$. Now, $`V_𝕀=k_{I_W^{}}`$ since $`h=|II_W^{\prime \prime }|`$. Then $`V_𝕀=V_{\stackrel{~}{𝕀}}=W`$. Step 4 is complete.

*Step 5*: If $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ is an ordered tripartition of $`I`$ such that $`|I^{}|<h|II^{\prime \prime }|`$, then $`V_𝕀\overline{𝕆}`$. Indeed, let $`(p_b|b)`$ be Plücker coordinates of $`V_𝕀`$. By Step 3,

$$_{V_𝕀}=\{b|I^{}bII^{\prime \prime }\}.$$

If $`h<|II^{\prime \prime }|`$ then $`I_{V_𝕀}^{}=I^{}`$ and $`I_{V_𝕀}^{\prime \prime }=I^{\prime \prime }`$. If $`h=|II^{\prime \prime }|`$ then $`I_{V_𝕀}^{}=I^{}\overline{I}`$ and $`I_{V_𝕀}^{\prime \prime }=I^{\prime \prime }`$. In either case (9.1.3a) holds. By Step 3 as well, (9.1.3b) holds trivially with $`\overline{s}=1`$. By Step 2, $`V_𝕀\overline{𝕆}`$, thus finishing Step 5.

Steps 4 and 5 show the lemma. ∎

###### Lemma 9.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be a finite set, $`I`$ and $`J`$ non–empty subsets of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let $`Vk_I`$ and $`Wk_J`$ be non–zero vector subspaces. Let $`h_1:=dimV`$ and $`G_1:=\mathrm{Grass}_{h_1}(k_I)`$. Let $`h_2:=dimW`$ and $`G_2:=\mathrm{Grass}_{h_2}(k_J)`$. For each ordered tripartition $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ and each ordered tripartition $`𝕁=(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`J`$, let

(9.2.1)
$$V_𝕀:=k_I^{}+(k_{\overline{I}}(V+k_{I^{\prime \prime }}))\text{and}W_𝕁:=k_J^{}+(k_{\overline{J}}(W+k_{J^{\prime \prime }})).$$

Let $`\lambda `$ and $`\tau `$ be positive integers, and set

$$T:=\{(s,t)k_I^{}\times k_J^{}|s_i^\tau t_j^\lambda =s_j^\tau t_i^\lambda \text{ for all }i,jIJ\}.$$

Let $`𝕆`$ denote the orbit of $`(V,W)`$ under the induced action of $`T`$ on $`G_1\times G_2`$. If all Plücker coordinates of $`V`$ and $`W`$ in $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ are non–zero, then the closure $`\overline{𝕆}G_1\times G_2`$ is the union of the orbits of the pairs $`(V_𝕀,W_𝕁)`$ obtained from all ordered tripartitions $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ and $`𝕁=(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`J`$ satisfying

(9.2.2)
$$|I^{}|<h_1|II^{\prime \prime }|\text{and}|J^{}|<h_2|JJ^{\prime \prime }|,$$

and such that the following two conditions hold.

(9.2.3a) $`I^{}JJ^{}I\text{ or }J^{\prime \prime }II^{\prime \prime }JJ(II^{})J^{\prime \prime }I,`$
(9.2.3b) $`J^{}II^{}J\text{ or }I^{\prime \prime }JJ^{\prime \prime }II(JJ^{})I^{\prime \prime }J.`$
###### Proof.

Let

$$:=\{bI;|b|=h_1\}\text{and}𝒞:=\{cJ;|c|=h_2\}.$$

For each $`b`$ let $`p_b`$ denote the corresponding Plücker coordinate on $`G_1`$. For each $`c𝒞`$ let $`q_c`$ denote the corresponding Plücker coordinate on $`G_2`$.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }:=(V,W)`$. Let $`(\stackrel{~}{p}_b|b)`$ be Plücker coordinates of $`V`$ in $`G_1`$ and $`(\stackrel{~}{q}_c|c𝒞)`$ be Plücker coordinates of $`W`$ in $`G_2`$. By assumption, $`\stackrel{~}{p}_b0`$ for every $`b`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{q}_c0`$ for every $`c𝒞`$. Let $`ZG_1\times G_2`$ be defined by the following equations on Plücker coordinates:

(9.2.4a) $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_1}\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_2}p_{b_3}p_{b_4}=\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_3}\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_4}p_{b_1}p_{b_2}`$ $`\text{for all }b_1,\mathrm{},b_4\text{ with }b_1+b_2=b_3+b_4,`$
(9.2.4b) $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{c_1}\stackrel{~}{q}_{c_2}q_{c_3}q_{c_4}=\stackrel{~}{q}_{c_3}\stackrel{~}{q}_{c_4}q_{c_1}q_{c_2}`$ $`\text{for all }c_1,\mathrm{},c_4𝒞\text{ with }c_1+c_2=c_3+c_4,`$
(9.2.4c) $`\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_1}^\tau \stackrel{~}{q}_{c_1}^\lambda p_{b_2}^\tau q_{c_2}^\lambda =\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_2}^\tau \stackrel{~}{q}_{c_2}^\lambda p_{b_1}^\tau q_{c_1}^\lambda `$ $`\text{for all }b_1,b_2\text{ and }c_1,c_2𝒞\text{ satisfying (9.2.5)},`$
where

(9.2.5)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}b_1+c_1=b_2+c_2,\hfill & \\ b_1(IJ)=b_2(IJ),\hfill & \\ c_1(JI)=c_2(JI).\hfill & \end{array}$$

Given $`\nu G_1\times G_2`$ with Plücker coordinates $`(p_b|b)`$ and $`(q_c|c𝒞)`$, let

$$_\nu :=\{b|p_b0\}\text{and}𝒞_\nu :=\{c𝒞|q_c0\}.$$

Put

$$I_\nu ^{}:=\underset{b_\nu }{}b,I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }:=I\underset{b_\nu }{}b,J_\nu ^{}:=\underset{c𝒞_\nu }{}c,J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }:=J\underset{c𝒞_\nu }{}c.$$

Note that $`|I_\nu ^{}|h_1|II_\nu ^{\prime \prime }|`$ and $`|J_\nu ^{}|h_2|JJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime }|`$. Set

$$\overline{I}_\nu :=I(I_\nu ^{}I_\nu ^{\prime \prime })\text{and}\overline{J}_\nu :=J(J_\nu ^{}J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }),$$

and let

$$\overline{T}_\nu :=\{(s,t)k_{\overline{I}_\nu }^{}\times k_{\overline{J}_\nu }^{}|s_i^\tau t_j^\lambda =s_j^\tau t_i^\lambda \text{ for all }i,j\overline{I}_\nu \overline{J}_\nu \}.$$

We divide the proof in five steps.

*Step 1*: If $`\nu 𝕆`$ then $`\nu Z`$. Indeed, let $`\nu 𝕆`$ with Plücker coordinates $`(p_b|b)`$ and $`(q_c|c𝒞)`$. Since $`\nu 𝕆`$, there is $`(s,t)T`$ such that $`p_b=s^b\stackrel{~}{p}_b`$ for every $`b`$ and $`q_c=t^c\stackrel{~}{q}_c`$ for every $`c𝒞`$. Clearly, (9.2.4a–b) hold. As for (9.2.4c), it holds if and only if $`s^{\tau (b_1b_2)}=t^{\lambda (c_2c_1)}`$ for all $`b_1,b_2`$ and $`c_1,c_2𝒞`$ satisfying (9.2.5). Since $`(s,t)T`$, we need only show that

$$(b_1J)(b_2J)=b_1b_2=c_2c_1=(c_2I)(c_1I).$$

But the three equalities above hold because (9.2.5) holds. So $`\nu Z`$, finishing Step 1.

*Step 2*: Let $`\nu Z`$ with Plücker coordinates $`(p_b|b)`$ and $`(q_c|c𝒞)`$. Then the following four conditions hold.

(9.2.6a) $`_\nu =\{b|I_\nu ^{}bII_\nu ^{\prime \prime }\},`$
(9.2.6b) $`𝒞_\nu =\{c𝒞|J_\nu ^{}cJJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime }\},`$
(9.2.6c) $`\{\begin{array}{cc}I_\nu ^{}JJ_\nu ^{}I\text{ or }J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }II_\nu ^{\prime \prime }JJ(II_\nu ^{})J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }I,\hfill & \\ J_\nu ^{}II_\nu ^{}J\text{ or }I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }JJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime }II(JJ_\nu ^{})I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }J.\hfill & \end{array}`$
(9.2.6d) $`\text{There is }(\overline{s},\overline{t})\overline{T}_\nu \text{ such that }\{\begin{array}{cc}p_{b_1}\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_2}=\overline{s}^{(b_1b_2)}\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_1}p_{b_2}\hfill & \text{for all }b_1,b_2_\nu ,\hfill \\ q_{c_1}\stackrel{~}{q}_{c_2}=\overline{t}^{(c_1c_2)}\stackrel{~}{q}_{c_1}q_{c_2}\hfill & \text{for all }c_1,c_2𝒞_\nu .\hfill \end{array}`$
Indeed, (9.2.6a–b) follow as in the proof of Lemma 9.1.

Let’s check (9.2.6c) now. Suppose there are $`iI_\nu ^{}(JJ_\nu ^{})`$ and $`j(JJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime })(II_\nu ^{})`$. Since $`iI_\nu ^{}`$ and $`jI_\nu ^{}`$, there is $`b_\nu `$ such that $`ib`$ and $`jb`$. Since $`iJ_\nu ^{}`$ and $`jJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$, and since (9.2.6b) holds, there is $`c𝒞_\nu `$ such that $`ic`$ and $`jc`$. Since $`b+c=(bi+j)+(cj+i)`$, Equations (9.2.4c) imply that $`bi+j_\nu `$. However, $`iI_\nu ^{}`$, reaching a contradiction. Analogously, if $`J_\nu ^{}(II_\nu ^{})\mathrm{}`$ then $`I(JJ_\nu ^{})I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }J`$.

Suppose now that there are $`iJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime }(II_\nu ^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`j(JJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime })(II_\nu ^{})`$. Since $`iI_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`jI_\nu ^{}`$, and since (9.2.6a) holds, there is $`b_\nu `$ such that $`ib`$ and $`jb`$. Since $`iJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`jJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$, there is $`c𝒞_\nu `$ such that $`ic`$ and $`jc`$. Since $`b+c=(bi+j)+(cj+i)`$, it follows from Equations (9.2.4c) that $`cj+i𝒞_\nu `$. However, $`iJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$, reaching a contradiction. Analogously, if $`I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }(JJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime })\mathrm{}`$ then $`I(JJ_\nu ^{})I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }J`$. So (9.2.6c) is proved.

Let’s check (9.2.6d). As in the proof of Lemma 9.1, there are $`\overline{s}k_{\overline{I}_\nu }^{}`$ and $`\overline{t}k_{\overline{J}_\nu }^{}`$ such that

(9.2.7)
$$\{\begin{array}{cc}p_{b_1}\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_2}=\overline{s}^{(b_1b_2)}\stackrel{~}{p}_{b_1}p_{b_2}\hfill & \text{ for all }b_1,b_2_\nu ,\hfill \\ q_{c_1}\stackrel{~}{q}_{c_2}=\overline{t}^{(c_1c_2)}\stackrel{~}{q}_{c_1}q_{c_2}\hfill & \text{ for all }c_1,c_2𝒞_\nu .\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`i`$ and $`j`$ are distinct elements of $`\overline{I}_\nu \overline{J}_\nu `$, let $`b_\nu `$ and $`c𝒞_\nu `$ such that $`ibc`$ and $`jbc`$. Since $`b+(cj+i)=(bj+i)+c`$, Equations (9.2.4c) and (9.2.7) imply that $`\overline{s}_i^\tau \overline{t}_j^\lambda =\overline{s}_j^\tau \overline{t}_i^\lambda `$. So $`(\overline{s},\overline{t})\overline{T}_\nu `$, and hence (9.2.6d) holds. Step 2 is complete.

*Step 3*: Let $`\nu G_1\times G_2`$ with Plücker coordinates $`(p_b|b)`$ and $`(q_c|c𝒞)`$. If (9.2.6a–d) hold, then $`\nu \overline{𝕆}`$. Indeed, for $`u_I`$, $`v_J`$, $`sk_I^{}`$ and $`tk_J^{}`$, define the map

$$\zeta :=(\zeta _1,\zeta _2):k^{}k_I^{}\times k_J^{},$$

by letting $`\zeta _1(r)_i:=s_ir^{u_i}`$ for each $`iI`$ and $`\zeta _2(r)_j:=t_jr^{v_j}`$ for each $`jJ`$. We’ll choose $`u`$, $`v`$, $`s`$ and $`t`$ as indicated below.

Let $`(\overline{s},\overline{t})\overline{T}_\nu `$ as in (9.2.6d). For each $`i\overline{I}_\nu `$ set $`u_i:=0`$ and $`s_i:=\overline{s}_i`$. For each $`j\overline{J}_\nu `$ set $`v_j:=0`$ and $`t_j:=\overline{t}_j`$.

For each $`i(I\overline{I}_\nu )J`$ and each $`j(J\overline{J}_\nu )I`$ set $`s_i:=1`$ and $`t_j:=1`$, and put

$$u_i:=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }iI_\nu ^{}\text{,}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }iI_\nu ^{\prime \prime }\text{,}\hfill \end{array}\text{and}v_j:=\{\begin{array}{cc}1\hfill & \text{if }jJ_\nu ^{}\text{,}\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }jJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime }\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Choose the remaining $`s_i`$ and $`t_j`$ in such a way that $`(s,t)T`$. As for the remaining $`u_i`$ and $`v_j`$ there are three cases to consider.

*Case 1*: If

(9.2.8)
$$IJ=(I_\nu ^{}J_\nu ^{})(\overline{I}_\nu \overline{J}_\nu )(I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }),$$

set $`u_i:=\lambda `$ and $`v_i:=\tau `$ if $`iI_\nu ^{}J_\nu ^{}`$ and $`u_i:=\lambda `$ and $`v_i:=\tau `$ if $`iI_\nu ^{\prime \prime }J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$.

*Case 2*: In case (9.2.8) does not hold, but

(9.2.9)
$$IJ=(I_\nu ^{}J_\nu ^{})(\overline{I}_\nu J_\nu ^{})(I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }J_\nu ^{})(I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }\overline{J}_\nu )(I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }),$$

set

(9.2.10)
$$u_i:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\lambda \hfill & \text{ if }iI_\nu ^{}J_\nu ^{},\hfill \\ \lambda \hfill & \text{ if }iI_\nu ^{\prime \prime }J_\nu ^{},\hfill \\ 2\lambda \hfill & \text{ if }iI_\nu ^{\prime \prime }\overline{J}_\nu ,\hfill \\ 3\lambda \hfill & \text{ if }iI_\nu ^{\prime \prime }J_\nu ^{\prime \prime },\hfill \end{array}\text{and}v_i:=\{\begin{array}{cc}3\tau \hfill & \text{ if }iJ_\nu ^{}I_\nu ^{},\hfill \\ 2\tau \hfill & \text{ if }iJ_\nu ^{}\overline{I}_\nu ,\hfill \\ \tau \hfill & \text{ if }iJ_\nu ^{}I_\nu ^{\prime \prime },\hfill \\ \tau \hfill & \text{ if }iJ_\nu ^{\prime \prime }I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }.\hfill \end{array}$$

*Case 3*: In case (9.2.8) does not hold, but

(9.2.11)
$$IJ=(I_\nu ^{}J_\nu ^{})(I_\nu ^{}\overline{J}_\nu )(I_\nu ^{}J_\nu ^{\prime \prime })(\overline{I}_\nu J_\nu ^{\prime \prime })(I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }),$$

set $`u_i`$ and $`v_i`$ as in (9.2.10), but exchanging $`I`$ with $`J`$, $`\lambda `$ with $`\tau `$, and the $`u_i`$ with the $`v_i`$.

If (9.2.9) and (9.2.11) hold, then (9.2.8) holds as well. So the three cases above are independent. Moreover, one of the three cases occur. Indeed, if $`J(II_\nu ^{})J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`I(JJ_\nu ^{})I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$, then (9.2.8) occurs by (9.2.6c). On the other hand, if $`J(II_\nu ^{})J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$ then (9.2.11) holds, and if $`I(JJ_\nu ^{})I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$, then (9.2.9) holds.

We chose $`\zeta `$ in such a way that it factors through $`T`$. Indeed, since $`(s,t)T`$, it is enough to check that $`\tau (u_iu_j)=\lambda (v_iv_j)`$ for all $`i,jIJ`$, what can easily be done in each of the three cases above.

Let $`\nu _r:=\zeta (r)\stackrel{~}{\nu }`$ for each $`rk^{}`$, and let $`(p_b(r)|b)`$ and $`(q_c(r)|c𝒞)`$ be Plücker coordinates of $`\nu _r`$. Because of our choice of $`\zeta `$, the power of $`r`$ in the expression for $`p_b(r)`$ is minimum exactly among those $`b_\nu `$. Likewise, the power of $`r`$ in the expression for $`q_c(r)`$ is minimum exactly among those $`c𝒞_\nu `$. Let $`\overline{\nu }G_1\times G_2`$ be the limit of $`\nu _r`$ as $`r`$ goes to 0. As in the proof of Lemma 9.1, we have $`\overline{\nu }=\nu `$. Then $`\nu \overline{𝕆}`$, finishing Step 3.

*Step 4*: Let $`\nu \overline{𝕆}`$. Then there are ordered tripartitions $`𝕀=(I,\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`𝕁=(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ and $`J`$, respectively, such that (9.2.2–3) hold, and such that $`\nu `$ is in the orbit of $`(V_𝕀,W_𝕁)`$ defined by (9.2.1). Indeed, let $`(p_b|b)`$ and $`(q_c|c𝒞)`$ be the Plücker coordinates of $`\nu \overline{𝕆}`$. By Step 1, $`\nu Z`$. Hence (9.2.6a–d) hold by Step 2. Since (9.2.6d) holds, we may replace $`\nu `$ by a certain point in its orbit and assume that $`p_b=\stackrel{~}{p}_b`$ for every $`b_\nu `$ and $`q_c=\stackrel{~}{q}_c`$ for every $`c𝒞_\nu `$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{𝕀}:=(I_\nu ^{},\overline{I}_\nu ,I_\nu ^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝕁}:=(J_\nu ^{},\overline{J}_\nu ,J_\nu ^{\prime \prime })`$. As in the proof of Lemma 9.1, we have $`\nu =(V_{\stackrel{~}{𝕀}},W_{\stackrel{~}{𝕁}})`$.

There are four cases to consider.

*Case 1*: If $`|I_\nu ^{}|<h_1`$ and $`|J_\nu ^{}|<h_2`$, set $`𝕀:=\stackrel{~}{𝕀}`$ and $`𝕁:=\stackrel{~}{𝕁}`$. Clearly (9.2.2) holds, whereas (9.2.3a–b) hold by (9.2.6c). Since $`\nu =(V_𝕀,W_𝕁)`$, Step 4 is complete for Case 1.

*Case 2*: If $`|I_\nu ^{}|=h_1`$ and $`|J_\nu ^{}|<h_2`$, then set $`𝕀:=(I_\nu ^{}\overline{I},\overline{I},I_\nu ^{\prime \prime })`$ for a certain non–empty subset $`\overline{I}I_\nu ^{}`$ to be defined below. Set $`𝕁:=\stackrel{~}{𝕁}`$. As in the proof of Lemma 9.1, we have $`\nu =(V_𝕀,W_𝕁)`$.

Clearly (9.2.2) holds. We need only choose $`\overline{I}`$ such that (9.2.3a–b) hold, and we’ll do it according to whether (9.2.8), (9.2.9) or (9.2.11) occurs. If (9.2.8) or (9.2.9) occurs, set $`\overline{I}:=I_\nu ^{}`$. If (9.2.8) does not occur but (9.2.11) does, set

$$\overline{I}:=\{\begin{array}{cc}I_\nu ^{}J\hfill & \text{if }I_\nu ^{}J\text{,}\hfill \\ I_\nu ^{}J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }\hfill & \text{if }I_\nu ^{}J\text{ and }I_\nu ^{}(J_\nu ^{}\overline{J}_\nu )\text{,}\hfill \\ I_\nu ^{}\overline{J}_\nu \hfill & \text{if }I_\nu ^{}(J_\nu ^{}\overline{J}_\nu )\text{ and }I_\nu ^{}J_\nu ^{}\text{,}\hfill \\ I_\nu ^{}\hfill & \text{if }I_\nu ^{}J_\nu ^{}\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

With any of the above choices (9.2.3a–b) hold for $`𝕀`$ and $`𝕁`$.

*Case 3*: If $`|I_\nu ^{}|<h_1`$ and $`|J_\nu ^{}|=h_2`$, proceed as in Case 2, exchanging $`I`$ with $`J`$.

*Case 4*: If $`|I_\nu ^{}|=h_1`$ and $`|J_\nu ^{}|=h_2`$, let $`\overline{I}I_\nu ^{}`$ and $`\overline{J}J_\nu ^{}`$ be non–empty subsets, and put

$$𝕀:=(I_\nu ^{}\overline{I},\overline{I},I_\nu ^{\prime \prime })\text{and}𝕁:=(J_\nu ^{}\overline{J},\overline{J},J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }).$$

As in Case 2, we need only choose $`\overline{I}`$ and $`\overline{J}`$ such that (9.2.3a–b) hold. If (9.2.8) occurs, set $`\overline{I}:=I_\nu ^{}`$ and $`\overline{J}:=J_\nu ^{}`$. If (9.2.9) occurs but (9.2.8) does not, set $`\overline{I}:=I_\nu ^{}`$ and $`\overline{J}:=I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }J_\nu ^{}`$. If (9.2.11) occurs but (9.2.8) does not, set $`\overline{I}:=I_\nu ^{}J_\nu ^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\overline{J}:=J_\nu ^{}`$. With any of the above choices (9.2.3a–b) hold for $`𝕀`$ and $`𝕁`$. Step 4 is complete.

*Step 5*: If $`\nu =(V_𝕀,W_𝕁)`$, where $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`𝕁=(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ are ordered tripartitions of $`I`$ and $`J`$ such that (9.2.2–3) hold, then $`\nu \overline{𝕆}`$. Indeed, let $`(p_b|b)`$ and $`(q_c|c𝒞)`$ be Plücker coordinates of $`\nu `$. As in the proof of Lemma 9.1,

$$_\nu =\{b|I^{}bII^{\prime \prime }\}.$$

If $`h_1<|II^{\prime \prime }|`$ then $`I_\nu ^{}=I^{}`$ and $`I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }=I^{\prime \prime }`$. If $`h_1=|II^{\prime \prime }|`$ then $`I_\nu ^{}=I^{}\overline{I}`$ and $`I_\nu ^{\prime \prime }=I^{\prime \prime }`$. In either case (9.2.6a) holds. Analogously, (9.2.6b) holds. Now, (9.2.6c) is simply a restatement of (9.2.3) if $`h_1<|II^{\prime \prime }|`$ and $`h_2<|JJ^{\prime \prime }|`$. In the remaining cases, (9.2.6c) can be obtained from (9.2.3) as well. Finally, as in the proof of Lemma 9.1, Condition (9.2.6d) holds trivially with $`(\overline{s},\overline{t})=1`$. By Step 3, $`\nu \overline{𝕆}`$, thus finishing Step 5.

Steps 4 and 5 show the lemma. ∎

## 10. The variety of limit canonical systems

###### Theorem 10.1.

Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). Let $`\mu ,\mu ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. Then the following five assertions hold.

1. $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}`$ if and only if $`\alpha _\mu =\alpha _\mu ^{}`$ and either $`I_\mu =I_\mu ^{}`$ or $`|\alpha _\mu |=g_Y`$.
2. $`𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},Y}`$ if and only if $`\beta _\mu =\beta _\mu ^{}`$ and either $`J_\mu =J_\mu ^{}`$ or $`|\beta _\mu |=g_X`$.
3. $`𝕍_\mu =𝕍_\mu ^{}`$ if and only if $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}`$ and $`𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},Y}`$.
4. Either $`𝕍_\mu =𝕍_\mu ^{}`$ or $`𝕍_\mu 𝕍_\mu ^{}=\mathrm{}`$.
5. If $`\mu ^{}=t\mu `$ for a certain $`t^+`$, then $`𝕍_\mu =𝕍_\mu ^{}`$.

###### Proof.

We take two preliminary steps.

*Step 1*: If $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}\mathrm{}`$, then $`\alpha _\mu =\alpha _\mu ^{}`$ and either $`I_\mu =I_\mu ^{}`$ or $`|\alpha _\mu |=g_Y`$. Indeed, let $`V𝔾_X`$, and assume that $`V𝕍_{\mu ,X}𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}`$. Let

$$L_X:=𝜔_X(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(1+\alpha _{\mu ,p})x_p)\text{and}L_Y:=𝜔_Y(_{pI_\mu }y_p_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}\alpha _{\mu ,p}y_p).$$

Then $`VH^0(L_X)`$. Now, $`x_p`$ is not a base point of $`(V,L_X)`$ for any $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by Theorem 5.2. So $`g_Y\alpha _{\mu ,p}`$ is the minimum order of $`(V,𝕃)`$ at $`x_p`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Analogously, $`g_Y\alpha _{\mu ^{},p}`$ is the minimum order of $`(V,𝕃)`$ at $`x_p`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. So $`\alpha _\mu =\alpha _\mu ^{}`$.

Assume now that $`|\alpha _\mu |>g_Y`$. Let $`F\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We claim that

(10.1.1)
$$VH^0(L_X(_{pF}x_p))$$

if and only if $`FI_\mu `$. In fact, $`VH^0(L_X(_{pI_\mu }x_p))`$ by Theorem 5.2. So, if $`FI_\mu `$ then (10.1.1) holds. Conversely, suppose (10.1.1) holds. Since $`\alpha _\mu 0`$, by Riemann–Roch, $`\{x_p|p\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ imposes independent conditions on $`H^0(L_X)`$. So, since $`VH^0(L_X(_{pI_\mu }x_p))`$ by Theorem 5.2, it follows from (10.1.1) that $`VH^0(L_X(_{pF^{}}x_p))`$, where $`F^{}:=FI_\mu `$. We may thus assume that $`F^{}=F`$.

Suppose by contradiction that $`FI_\mu `$. Replacing $`F`$ by a larger subset, if necessary, we may assume $`|I_\mu F|=1`$. Since $`\{x_p|p\mathrm{\Delta }\}`$ imposes independent conditions on $`H^0(L_X)`$, there is $`sH^0(L_X)`$ such that $`s(x_p)=0`$ for every $`pF`$ and $`s(x_p)0`$ for $`pI_\mu F`$. So $`sV`$ by (10.1.1). Let $`C_{I_\mu }`$ be the blow–up of $`C`$ along $`\mathrm{\Delta }I_\mu `$. By Theorem 8.2, there is an invertible sheaf $`L`$ on $`C_{I_\mu }`$ such that $`L|_XL_X`$ and $`L|_YL_Y`$, and such that $`V`$ is the image of the restriction map $`H^0(L)H^0(L_X)`$. Let $`\stackrel{~}{s}H^0(L)`$ lifting $`s`$ and $`t:=\stackrel{~}{s}|_Y`$. So $`tH^0(L_Y(_{pF}y_p))`$. Since $`|I_\mu F|=1`$ and $`|\alpha |>g_Y`$, it follows from (4.3.2a) that $`h^0(L_Y(_{pF}y_p))=0`$. So $`t=0`$, and hence $`s(x_p)=0`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The contradiction proves our claim.

Now, $`\alpha _\mu =\alpha _\mu ^{}`$. By analogy, (10.1.1) holds if and only if $`FI_\mu ^{}`$. So $`I_\mu =I_\mu ^{}`$. Step 1 is complete.

*Step 2*: Assume that $`\alpha _\mu =\alpha _\mu ^{}`$ and either $`I_\mu =I_\mu ^{}`$ or $`|\alpha _\mu |=g_Y`$. Then $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}`$. Indeed, it follows from Theorem 8.2 and the hypothesis that $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}`$ if $`|\alpha _\mu |>g_Y`$. Now, if $`|\alpha _\mu |=g_Y`$ then

$$𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}=𝕍_{\mu ,X}=\{H^0(L_X)\}$$

by Theorem 8.5. Step 2 is complete.

Steps 1 and 2 prove Statement 1. Statement 2 follows by analogy. Let’s prove Statement 3. By definition, $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ and $`𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$ are the images of $`𝕍_\mu `$ in $`𝔾_X`$ and $`𝔾_Y`$, respectively, for each $`\mu _+^\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Hence, if $`𝕍_\mu =𝕍_\mu ^{}`$ then $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}`$ and $`𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},Y}`$.

Conversely, assume that $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}`$ and $`𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},Y}`$. By Statements 1 and 2, we have $`(\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu )=(\alpha _\mu ^{},\beta _\mu ^{})`$. In addition, $`I_\mu =I_\mu ^{}`$ when $`|\alpha _\mu |>g_Y`$ and $`J_\mu =J_\mu ^{}`$ when $`|\beta _\mu |>g_X`$. So, if $`|\alpha _\mu |>g_Y`$ and $`|\beta _\mu |>g_X`$ then $`𝕍_\mu =𝕍_\mu ^{}`$ by Theorem 8.2. Now, if $`|\alpha _\mu |=g_Y`$ or $`|\beta _\mu |=g_X`$ then

$$𝕍_\mu =𝕍_{\mu ,X}\times 𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}\times 𝕍_{\mu ^{},Y}=𝕍_\mu ^{},$$

where the first and last equalities follow from Theorem 8.5. Statement 3 is proved.

Let’s prove Statement 4. Suppose that $`𝕍_\mu 𝕍_\mu ^{}\mathrm{}`$. Then $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}\mathrm{}`$ as well. Thus $`𝕍_{\mu ,X}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}`$ by Step 1. Analogously, $`𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},Y}`$. By Statement 3, $`𝕍_\mu =𝕍_\mu ^{}`$. Statement 4 is proved.

Finally, let’s prove Statement 5. Suppose $`\mu ^{}=t\mu `$ for a certain $`t^+`$. Then the numerical data $`(\alpha _\mu ,I_\mu )`$ associated with $`\mu `$ and $`g_Y`$ is equal to that associated with $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`g_Y`$. Analogously, the numerical data $`(\beta _\mu ,J_\mu )`$ associated with $`\mu `$ and $`g_X`$ is equal to that associated with $`\mu ^{}`$ and $`g_X`$. Thus $`𝕍_\mu =𝕍_\mu ^{}`$ by Statements 1, 2 and 3. ∎

###### Definition 10.2.

Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). For each $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ let

$$𝕍_\mu :=𝕍_{t\mu },𝕍_{\mu ,X}:=𝕍_{t\mu ,X},𝕍_{\mu ,Y}:=𝕍_{t\mu ,Y},$$

where $`t`$ is any positive integer such that $`t\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. (By Theorem 10.1, $`𝕍_\mu `$ is well defined.) Give $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ the topology induced by the Euclidean topology of $`_\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let

$$𝕍:=\underset{\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+}{}𝕍_\mu 𝔾.$$

We call $`𝕍`$ the *variety of limit canonical systems of $`C`$*. We call each $`𝕍_\mu `$ a *stratum* of $`𝕍`$.

###### Proposition 10.3.

Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). For each $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ let

$$𝕌_\mu :=\{\mu ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }^+|𝕍_\mu ^{}=𝕍_\mu \}.$$

Then each $`𝕌_\mu `$ is convex and homogeneous, and the covering $`\{𝕌_\mu |\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+\}`$ of $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is finite.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 10.1, $`𝕍_{t\mu }=𝕍_\mu `$ for each $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and each $`t^+`$. In other words, each $`𝕌_\mu `$ is homogeneous.

Let $`\mu ,\mu ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. Clearly, $`𝕌_\mu =𝕌_\mu ^{}`$ if and only if $`𝕍_\mu =𝕍_\mu ^{}`$. So, by Theorem 10.1, $`𝕌_\mu =𝕌_\mu ^{}`$ if and only if $`(\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu )=(\alpha _\mu ^{},\beta _\mu ^{})`$,

(10.3.1)
$$I_\mu =I_\mu ^{}\text{ when }|\alpha _\mu |>g_Y\text{and}J_\mu =J_\mu ^{}\text{ when }|\beta _\mu |>g_X.$$

On the other hand, $`0\alpha _{\mu ,p}g_Y`$ and $`0\beta _{\mu ,p}g_X`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`I_\mu ,J_\mu \mathrm{\Delta }`$. So, as $`\mu `$ runs over $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, the associated numerical data $`\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu ,I_\mu ,J_\mu `$ runs over a finite set. Therefore, the covering $`\{𝕌_\mu |\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+\}`$ of $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is finite.

Assume now that $`𝕌_\mu =𝕌_\mu ^{}`$. Let $`t[0,1]`$. Set

$$\mu (t):=t\mu +(1t)\mu ^{},\rho (t):=t\rho _\mu +(1t)\rho _\mu ^{},\sigma (t):=t\sigma _\mu +(1t)\sigma _\mu ^{},$$

and put

$`I(t):=`$ $`\{p\mathrm{\Delta }|\rho (t)_p\rho (t)_q\text{ for every }q\mathrm{\Delta }\},`$
$`J(t):=`$ $`\{p\mathrm{\Delta }|\sigma (t)_p\sigma (t)_q\text{ for every }q\mathrm{\Delta }\}.`$
Then $`I(t)=I_\mu I_\mu ^{}`$ if $`I_\mu I_\mu ^{}\mathrm{}`$ and $`J(t)=J_\mu J_\mu ^{}`$ if $`J_\mu J_\mu ^{}\mathrm{}`$. By (10.3.1),

(10.3.2)
$$I(t)=I_\mu \text{ when }|\alpha _\mu |>g_Y\text{and}J(t)=J_\mu \text{ when }|\beta _\mu |>g_X.$$

Now, since $`(\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu )=(\alpha _\mu ^{},\beta _\mu ^{})`$, it follows that

$$(\alpha _{\mu (t)},\beta _{\mu (t)})=(\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu )\text{and}(I_{\mu (t)},J_{\mu (t)})=(I(t),J(t)).$$

Then $`𝕍_{\mu (t)}=𝕍_\mu `$ by (10.3.2) and Theorem 10.1. So $`𝕌_\mu `$ is convex. ∎

###### Lemma 10.4.

Preserve 4.1. Then, for each $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ there exists an open neighbourhood $`U_\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ of $`\mu `$ such that, for each open neighbourhood $`UU_\mu `$ of $`\mu `$, the following four statements hold.

1. If $`\overline{\mu }U`$ then there are unique ordered tripartitions $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I_\mu `$ and $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`J_\mu `$ satisfying the following six properties.

(10.4.1a) $`g_Y+|I^{\prime \prime }||\alpha _\mu |<g_Y+|I_\mu I^{}|,`$
$`g_X+|J^{\prime \prime }||\beta _\mu |<g_X+|J_\mu J^{}|,`$
$`\overline{I}=I_{\overline{\mu }},`$
$`\alpha _{\overline{\mu },p}=\alpha _{\mu ,p}1\text{ if }pI^{\prime \prime }\text{ and }\alpha _{\overline{\mu },p}=\alpha _{\mu ,p}\text{ otherwise,}`$
$`\overline{J}=J_{\overline{\mu }},`$
$`\beta _{\overline{\mu },p}=\beta _{\mu ,p}1\text{ if }pJ^{\prime \prime }\text{ and }\beta _{\overline{\mu },p}=\beta _{\mu ,p}\text{ otherwise.}`$
If $`g_Xg_Y>0`$, then $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ satisfy the two properties below as well:
(10.4.1b) $`I^{}J_\mu J^{}I_\mu \text{ or }J^{\prime \prime }I_\mu I^{\prime \prime }J_\mu J_\mu (I_\mu I^{})J^{\prime \prime }I_\mu ,`$
$`J^{}I_\mu I^{}J_\mu \text{ or }I^{\prime \prime }J_\mu J^{\prime \prime }I_\mu I_\mu (J_\mu J^{})I^{\prime \prime }J_\mu .`$
2. If $`g_Y>0`$ and $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ is an ordered tripartition of $`I_\mu `$ satisfying (10.4.1a), then there is $`\overline{\mu }U`$ satisfying (10.4.1c,d).
3. If $`g_X>0`$ and $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ is an ordered tripartition of $`J_\mu `$ satisfying (10.4.1b), then there is $`\overline{\mu }U`$ satisfying (10.4.1e,f).
4. If $`g_Xg_Y>0`$ and $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ are ordered tripartitions of $`I_\mu `$ and $`J_\mu `$ satisfying (10.4.1a,b,g,h), then there is $`\overline{\mu }U`$ satisfying (10.4.1c–f).

###### Proof.

To ease notation, let

$$(\alpha ,\rho ,I,\beta ,\sigma ,J):=(\alpha _\mu ,\rho _\mu ,I_\mu ,\beta _\mu ,\sigma _\mu ,J_\mu ).$$

Let $`U_\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ consist of the points of the form $`\mu +\epsilon `$ for all $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying

(10.4.2)
$$|\epsilon _p|<\frac{\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{min}^{}(\rho _q,\mu _q\rho _q,\sigma _q,\mu _q\sigma _q)|q\mathrm{\Delta })}{3(1+\mathrm{max}(\mathrm{max}(\alpha _q,\beta _q)|q\mathrm{\Delta }))}\text{ for every }p\mathrm{\Delta }\text{,}$$

where “$`\mathrm{min}^{}`$” means the smallest non–zero number among the four listed. If (10.4.2) holds, then $`|\epsilon _p|<\mu _p`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and hence $`U_\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$.

We take three preliminary steps.

*Step 1*: For each $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ there are ordered tripartitions $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ and $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`J`$ such that (10.4.1a,b) and (10.4.3a,b) below hold.

(10.4.3a) $`\epsilon _p\alpha _p<\epsilon _q\alpha _q=\epsilon _r\alpha _r<\epsilon _s\alpha _s\text{ for all }pI^{}\text{, all }q,r\overline{I}\text{ and all }sI^{\prime \prime }\text{,}`$
(10.4.3b) $`\epsilon _p\beta _p<\epsilon _q\beta _q=\epsilon _r\beta _r<\epsilon _s\beta _s\text{ for all }pJ^{}\text{, all }q,r\overline{J}\text{ and all }sJ^{\prime \prime }\text{.}`$
Indeed, for each $`\tau `$ let

$$I_\tau ^{}:=\{pI|\epsilon _p\alpha _p<\tau \},\overline{I}_\tau :=\{pI|\epsilon _p\alpha _p=\tau \},I_\tau ^{\prime \prime }:=\{pI|\epsilon _p\alpha _p>\tau \}.$$

Since $`g_Y|\alpha |<g_Y+|I|`$, there is a unique $`\lambda _\epsilon `$ such that

$$g_Y+|I_{\lambda _\epsilon }^{\prime \prime }||\alpha |<g_Y+|II_{\lambda _\epsilon }^{}|.$$

Let $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime }):=(I_{\lambda _\epsilon }^{},\overline{I}_{\lambda _\epsilon },I_{\lambda _\epsilon }^{\prime \prime })`$. Then (10.4.1a) and (10.4.3a) hold. By analogy, we construct $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ satisfying (10.4.1b) and (10.4.3b). Step 1 is complete.

*Step 2*: If $`g_Xg_Y>0`$ and there are ordered tripartitions $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ and $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`J`$ satisfying (10.4.3) for a certain $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then (10.4.1g,h) hold. Indeed, if $`p,qIJ`$ then $`\mu _p\alpha _p=\mu _q\alpha _q`$ and $`\mu _p\beta _p=\mu _q\beta _q`$. Hence

(10.4.4)
$$\alpha _p\beta _q=\alpha _q\beta _p\text{ for all }p,qIJ\text{.}$$

Assume that $`g_Xg_Y>0`$. Let $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ be ordered tripartitions of $`I`$ and $`J`$ satisfying (10.4.3) for a certain $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Delta }`$. If there are $`pI^{}(JJ^{})`$ and $`q(II^{})(JJ^{\prime \prime })`$, then $`\epsilon _p\alpha _p<\epsilon _q\alpha _q`$ and $`\epsilon _q\beta _q\epsilon _p\beta _p`$ by (10.4.3). Now, $`\alpha _p\beta _p>0`$ because $`g_Xg_Y>0`$. Using (10.4.4) we get

$$\epsilon _p\alpha _p\beta _p<\epsilon _q\alpha _q\beta _p=\epsilon _q\beta _q\alpha _p\epsilon _p\alpha _p\beta _p,$$

reaching a contradiction. If there are $`pJ^{\prime \prime }(II^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`q(II^{})(JJ^{\prime \prime })`$, then $`\epsilon _p\alpha _p\epsilon _q\alpha _q`$ and $`\epsilon _q\beta _q<\epsilon _p\beta _p`$ by (10.4.3). Using (10.4.4) as before, we get $`\epsilon _p\alpha _p\beta _p<\epsilon _p\alpha _p\beta _p`$, reaching a contradiction. So (10.4.1g) holds. By analogy, (10.4.1h) holds. Step 2 is complete.

*Step 3*: Let $`\overline{\mu }:=\mu +\epsilon `$ for $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that (10.4.2) holds. Let $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ be ordered tripartitions of $`I`$ and $`J`$ such that (10.4.1a,b) hold. If (10.4.3a) holds, then so do (10.4.1c,d). If (10.4.3b) holds, then so do (10.4.1e,f). Indeed, define $`\overline{\alpha },\overline{\beta }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by letting for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\overline{\alpha }_p:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\alpha _p1\hfill & \text{if }pI^{\prime \prime },\hfill \\ \alpha _p\hfill & \text{otherwise},\hfill \end{array}\text{and}\overline{\beta }_p:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\beta _p1\hfill & \text{if }pJ^{\prime \prime },\hfill \\ \beta _p\hfill & \text{otherwise}.\hfill \end{array}$$

By (10.4.1a,b),

$$g_Y|\overline{\alpha }|<g_Y+|\overline{I}|\text{and}g_X|\overline{\beta }|<g_X+|\overline{J}|.$$

If (10.4.3a) holds, let $`\lambda :=\epsilon _p\alpha _p`$ for (any) $`p\overline{I}`$, and define $`\overline{\rho }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by letting for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\overline{\rho }_p:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\overline{\mu }_p+\epsilon _p\alpha _p\lambda \hfill & \text{if }pI^{}\text{,}\hfill \\ \overline{\mu }_p\hfill & \text{if }p\overline{I}\text{,}\hfill \\ \epsilon _p\alpha _p\lambda \hfill & \text{if }pI^{\prime \prime }\text{,}\hfill \\ \rho _p+\epsilon _p(1+\alpha _p)\lambda \hfill & \text{if }pI\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then

$$\overline{\mu }_p(\overline{\alpha }_p+1)\overline{\rho }_p=\overline{\mu }_q(\overline{\alpha }_q+1)\overline{\rho }_q\text{for all }p,q\mathrm{\Delta }\text{.}$$

In addition, it follows from (10.4.2) and (10.4.3a) that $`0<\overline{\rho }_p\overline{\mu }_p`$ for every $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with $`\overline{\rho }_p=\overline{\mu }_p`$ if and only if $`p\overline{I}`$. So $`(\overline{\alpha },\overline{\rho },\overline{I})=(\alpha _{\overline{\mu }},\rho _{\overline{\mu }},I_{\overline{\mu }})`$, proving (10.4.1c,d).

If (10.4.3b) holds, let $`\tau :=\epsilon _p\beta _p`$ for (any) $`p\overline{J}`$, and define $`\overline{\sigma }_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by letting for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\overline{\sigma }_p:=\{\begin{array}{cc}\tau \epsilon _p\beta _p\hfill & \text{if }pJ^{}\text{,}\hfill \\ 0\hfill & \text{if }p\overline{J}\text{,}\hfill \\ \overline{\mu }_p+\tau \epsilon _p\beta _p\hfill & \text{if }pJ^{\prime \prime }\text{,}\hfill \\ \sigma _p+\tau \epsilon _p\beta _p\hfill & \text{if }pJ\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

As before, $`(\overline{\beta },\overline{\sigma },\overline{J})=(\beta _{\overline{\mu }},\sigma _{\overline{\mu }},J_{\overline{\mu }})`$, proving (10.4.1e,f). Step 3 is complete.

Let’s prove that $`U:=U_\mu `$ satisfies Statement 1. Indeed, let $`\overline{\mu }:=\mu +\epsilon `$ for $`\epsilon _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that (10.4.2) holds. By Step 1, there are ordered tripartitions $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ and $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`J`$ such that (10.4.1a,b) and (10.4.3a,b) hold. So (10.4.1c–f) hold by Step 3. If $`g_Xg_Y>0`$ then (10.4.1g,h) hold as well by Step 2. The uniqueness of the tripartitions follows from (10.4.1c–f).

Let $`UU_\mu `$ be an open neighbourhood of $`\mu `$. Let’s prove Statement 2. Assume $`g_Y>0`$, and let $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ be an ordered tripartition of $`I`$ satisfying (10.4.1a). Define $`\upsilon _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by letting for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

(10.4.5)
$$\upsilon _p:=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{ if }pI^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }I)\text{,}\hfill \\ \mu _p\hfill & \text{ if }p\overline{I}\text{,}\hfill \\ 2\mu _p\hfill & \text{ if }pI^{\prime \prime }\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`\epsilon :=t\upsilon `$, where $`t^+`$ is such that $`\overline{\mu }:=\mu +\epsilon `$ lies in $`U`$. Now, $`\alpha _p>0`$ for each $`pI`$ because $`g_Y>0`$. Then (10.4.3a) follows from (10.4.5). So (10.4.1c,d) hold by Step 3. Analogously, Statement 3 holds.

Let’s prove Statement 4. Assume that $`g_Xg_Y>0`$. Let $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ and $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ be ordered tripartitions of $`I`$ and $`J`$ satisfying (10.4.1a,b,g,h). Define $`\upsilon _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ according to the following three cases.

*Case 1*: If

(10.4.6)
$$IJ=(I^{}J^{})(\overline{I}\overline{J})(I^{\prime \prime }J^{\prime \prime }),$$

let for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\upsilon _p:=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }pI^{}J^{}(\mathrm{\Delta }(IJ))\text{,}\hfill \\ \mu _p\hfill & \text{if }p\overline{I}\overline{J}\text{,}\hfill \\ 2\mu _p\hfill & \text{if }pI^{\prime \prime }J^{\prime \prime }\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

*Case 2*: If (10.4.6) does not hold, but

$$IJ=(I^{}J^{})(\overline{I}J^{})(I^{\prime \prime }J^{})(I^{\prime \prime }\overline{J})(I^{\prime \prime }J^{\prime \prime }),$$

let for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$,

$$\upsilon _p:=\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }pI^{}(J^{}I)(\mathrm{\Delta }(IJ))\text{,}\hfill \\ \mu _p\hfill & \text{if }p\overline{I}\text{,}\hfill \\ 2\mu _p\hfill & \text{if }pI^{\prime \prime }J^{}\text{,}\hfill \\ 3\mu _p\hfill & \text{if }p\overline{J}\text{,}\hfill \\ 4\mu _p\hfill & \text{if }pJ^{\prime \prime }(I^{\prime \prime }J)\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

*Case 3*: If (10.4.6) does not hold, but

$$IJ=(I^{}J^{})(I^{}\overline{J})(I^{}J^{\prime \prime })(\overline{I}J^{\prime \prime })(I^{\prime \prime }J^{\prime \prime }),$$

define $`\upsilon _p`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ as in Case 2, but now exchanging $`I`$ with $`J`$.

As in the proof of Lemma 9.2, it follows from (10.4.1g,h) that the three cases above are independent, and one of them occurs.

Let $`\epsilon :=t\upsilon `$, where $`t^+`$ is such that $`\overline{\mu }:=\mu +\epsilon `$ lies in $`U`$. Now, $`\alpha _p>0`$ for each $`pI`$ and $`\beta _p>0`$ for each $`pJ`$ because $`g_Xg_Y>0`$. Then Conditions (10.4.3a,b) hold in each of the three cases above. So (10.4.1c–f) hold by Step 3. ∎

###### Theorem 10.5.

Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). Then, for each $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, there is an open neighbourhood $`U_\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ of $`\mu `$ such that the closure $`\overline{𝕍}_\mu 𝔾`$ satisfies

$$\overline{𝕍}_\mu =\underset{\overline{\mu }U}{}𝕍_{\overline{\mu }}$$

for every open neighbourhood $`UU_\mu `$ of $`\mu `$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. By Theorem 10.1, we may assume that $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. Let $`U_\mu `$ be the open neighborhood of $`\mu `$ given by Lemma 10.4. To ease notation, let

$$(\alpha ,\rho ,I,\beta ,\sigma ,J):=(\alpha _\mu ,\rho _\mu ,I_\mu ,\beta _\mu ,\sigma _\mu ,J_\mu ).$$

In addition, if $`g_Xg_Y>0`$ let $`(\stackrel{~}{\alpha },\stackrel{~}{\beta }):=(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_\mu ,\stackrel{~}{\beta }_\mu )`$. Let $`L_X`$, $`L_Y`$, $`M_X`$ and $`M_Y`$ be the invertible sheaves given by (4.2.1). As in 8.3, let $`C_{IJ}`$ denote the blow–up of $`C`$ along $`\mathrm{\Delta }(IJ)`$. Fix isomorphisms $`\zeta _{X,p}:L_X(x_p)k`$ and $`\zeta _{Y,p}:L_Y(y_p)k`$ for each $`pI`$, and $`\xi _{X,p}:M_X(x_p)k`$ and $`\xi _{Y,p}:M_Y(y_p)k`$ for each $`pJ`$. If $`g_Xg_Y>0`$ and $`IJ\mathrm{}`$, choose them such that

$$\{(\zeta _{X,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\xi _{X,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }},\zeta _{Y,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\xi _{Y,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }})|pIJ\}$$

patch $`L_X^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_X^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$ and $`L_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$ to the sheaf $`K_{IJ}`$ given by (8.2.2). Consider the corresponding evaluation maps,

$$e_X:H^0(L_X)k_I,e_Y:H^0(L_Y)k_I,f_X:H^0(M_X)k_J,f_Y:H^0(M_Y)k_J.$$

Let $`V:=\mathrm{Im}(e_Y)`$ and $`W:=\mathrm{Im}(f_X)`$. Let $`h_X:=dimV`$ and $`h_Y:=dimW`$. Let

$$G_X:=\mathrm{Grass}_{h_X}(k_I)\text{and}G_Y:=\mathrm{Grass}_{h_Y}(k_J).$$

Consider the natural actions of the tori $`k_I^{}`$ and $`k_J^{}`$ on $`k_I`$ and $`k_J`$, and their respective actions on $`G_X`$ and $`G_Y`$. Let $`𝕆_V`$ and $`𝕆_W`$ denote the orbits of $`V`$ and $`W`$ under these actions.

Let $`UU_\mu `$ be an open neighborhood of $`\mu `$. We divide the proof in three steps.

*Step 1*: We’ll show that the closure $`\overline{𝕍}_{\mu ,X}𝔾_X`$ satisfies

$$\overline{𝕍}_{\mu ,X}=\underset{\overline{\mu }U}{}𝕍_{\overline{\mu },X}$$

if $`g_Y>0`$. In fact, assume that $`g_Y>0`$. Then $`\alpha 0`$. By Lemma 8.4, the map $`e_X`$ induces a closed embedding $`\iota _X:G_X𝔾_X`$ such that $`\iota _X(𝕆_V)=𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$.

For each ordered tripartition $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ let

$$V_𝕀:=k_I^{}+(k_{\overline{I}}(V+k_{I^{\prime \prime }})),$$

and denote by $`𝕆_{V_𝕀}`$ the orbit of $`V_𝕀`$ in $`G_X`$ under the action of $`k_I^{}`$. By (4.3.1), all the Plücker coordinates of $`V`$ in $`G_X`$ are non–zero. Thus, by Lemma 9.1, the closure $`\overline{𝕆}_VG_X`$ is the union of the orbits $`𝕆_{V_𝕀}`$ obtained from all ordered tripartitions $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ such that

(10.5.1)
$$|I^{}|<h_X|II^{\prime \prime }|.$$

Since $`h_X=g_Y|\alpha |+|I|`$, Condition (10.5.1) is equivalent to (10.4.1a). By Lemma 10.4, each ordered tripartition $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ satisfying (10.5.1) satisfies (10.4.1c,d) for a certain $`\overline{\mu }U`$. Conversely, for each $`\overline{\mu }U`$ there is an ordered tripartition $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ satisfying (10.4.1c,d) and (10.5.1).

Now, let $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ be an ordered tripartition of $`I`$ satisfying (10.5.1), and let $`\overline{\mu }U`$ such that (10.4.1c,d) hold. Let

(10.5.2)
$$\overline{L}_X:=L_X(_{pI^{\prime \prime }}x_p)\text{and}\overline{L}_Y:=L_Y(_{pI^{}}y_p).$$

Let $`\overline{e}_X`$ and $`\overline{e}_Y`$ be the following compositions,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\overline{e}_X:H^0(\overline{L}_X)& & H^0(L_X)& \stackrel{e_X}{}& k_I& & k_{\overline{I}},\\ \overline{e}_Y:H^0(\overline{L}_Y)& & H^0(L_Y)& \stackrel{e_Y}{}& k_I& & k_{\overline{I}},\end{array}$$

where in each composition the first map is the natural injection, and the third map is the natural surjection. Equivalently, $`\overline{e}_X`$ and $`\overline{e}_Y`$ are the evaluation maps corresponding to the isomorphisms $`\overline{\zeta }_{X,p}:\overline{L}_X(x_p)k`$ and $`\overline{\zeta }_{Y,p}:\overline{L}_Y(y_p)k`$ induced by $`\zeta _{X,p}`$ and $`\zeta _{Y,p}`$ for each $`p\overline{I}`$. Let $`\overline{V}:=\mathrm{Im}(\overline{e}_Y)`$ and $`\overline{h}_X:=h_X|I^{}|`$. Since $`\overline{h}_X>0`$ by (10.5.1), from (4.3.1) we get $`dim\overline{V}=\overline{h}_X`$. In addition, $`V_𝕀=\overline{V}+k_I^{}`$. Let $`\overline{G}_X:=\mathrm{Grass}_{\overline{h}_X}(k_{\overline{I}})`$, and denote by $`\overline{\iota }_X:\overline{G}_X𝔾_X`$ the closed embedding induced by $`\overline{e}_X`$, as in Lemma 8.4. Let $`𝕆_{\overline{V}}`$ denote the orbit of $`\overline{V}`$ under the natural action of $`k_{\overline{I}}^{}`$. Since $`V_𝕀=\overline{V}+k_I^{}`$, there is a bijection $`\psi _X:𝕆_{\overline{V}}𝕆_{V_𝕀}`$ taking a subspace $`H𝕆_{\overline{V}}`$ to $`H+k_I^{}`$. Note that

$$\iota _X(𝕆_{V_𝕀})=\iota _X(\psi _X(𝕆_{\overline{V}}))=\overline{\iota }_X(𝕆_{\overline{V}}).$$

By (10.4.1c,d),

(10.5.3)
$$\overline{L}_X=𝜔_X(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(1+\alpha _{\overline{\mu },p})x_p)\text{and}\overline{L}_Y=𝜔_Y(_{pI_{\overline{\mu }}}y_p_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}\alpha _{\overline{\mu },p}y_p).$$

So, it follows from Lemma 8.4 that $`\overline{\iota }_X(𝕆_{\overline{V}})=𝕍_{\overline{\mu },X}`$, and hence $`\iota _X(𝕆_{V_𝕀})=𝕍_{\overline{\mu },X}`$. Thus, by Lemma 9.1,

$$\overline{𝕍}_{\mu ,X}=\underset{\overline{\mu }U}{}𝕍_{\overline{\mu },X},$$

finishing Step 1.

*Step 2*: We’ll show that the theorem holds if $`g_Xg_Y=0`$. In fact, assume that $`g_X=0`$. By Theorem 8.5,

$$𝕍_{\mu ^{},Y}=\{H^0(𝜔_Y(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}y_p))\}$$

and $`𝕍_\mu ^{}=𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}\times 𝕍_{\mu ^{},Y}`$ for every $`\mu ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. If $`g_Y=0`$ as well, then $`𝕍_\mu ^{}=𝕍_\mu `$ for every $`\mu ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, and hence the theorem holds. On the other hand, if $`g_Y>0`$ then the closure $`\overline{𝕍}_\mu 𝔾`$ satisfies

$$\overline{𝕍}_\mu =\overline{𝕍}_{\mu ,X}\times 𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=\underset{\overline{\mu }U}{}𝕍_{\overline{\mu },X}\times 𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=\underset{\overline{\mu }U}{}𝕍_{\overline{\mu },X}\times 𝕍_{\overline{\mu },Y}=\underset{\overline{\mu }U}{}𝕍_{\overline{\mu }},$$

where the second equality holds by Step 1. Now, the case where $`g_Y=0`$ is analogous. Step 2 is complete.

*Step 3*: We’ll show that the theorem holds if $`g_Xg_Y>0`$. Since $`g_X>0`$, by Lemma 8.4, the map $`f_Y`$ induces a closed embedding $`\iota _Y:G_Y𝔾_Y`$ such that $`\iota (𝕆_W)=𝕍_{\mu ,Y}`$. Let

$$T:=\{(s,t)k_I^{}\times k_J^{}|s_p^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}=t_p^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}\text{ for all }pIJ\}.$$

Let $`𝕆`$ be the orbit of $`(V,W)`$ under the induced action of $`T`$ on $`G_X\times G_Y`$. By Lemma 8.4, we have $`\iota (𝕆)=𝕍_\mu `$, where $`\iota :=\iota _X\times \iota _Y:G_X\times G_Y𝔾`$.

For each pair of ordered tripartitions $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ and $`𝕁=(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`J`$, define the subspaces $`V_𝕀k_I`$ and $`W_𝕁k_J`$ by (9.2.1). By (4.3.1), all the Plücker coordinates of $`V`$ in $`G_X`$ and of $`W`$ in $`G_Y`$ are non–zero. Thus, by Lemma 9.2, the closure $`\overline{𝕆}G_X\times G_Y`$ is the union of the orbits under $`T`$ of the pairs $`(V_𝕀,W_𝕁)`$ obtained from all ordered tripartitions $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ and $`𝕁=(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`J`$ satisfying (9.2.2,3).

As in Step 1, Condition (9.2.2) is equivalent to Conditions (10.4.1a,b). Since (9.2.3) is equal to (10.4.1g,h), by Lemma 10.4, for each pair consisting of an ordered tripartition $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ and an ordered tripartition $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`J`$ satisfying (9.2.2,3), there is a certain $`\overline{\mu }U`$ satisfying (10.4.1c–f). Conversely, for each $`\overline{\mu }U`$ there are ordered tripartitions $`(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`I`$ and $`(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ of $`J`$ satisfying (10.4.1a–h).

Now, let $`𝕀=(I^{},\overline{I},I^{\prime \prime })`$ be an ordered tripartition of $`I`$ and $`𝕁=(J^{},\overline{J},J^{\prime \prime })`$ an ordered tripartition of $`J`$ satisfying (9.2.2,3), and let $`\overline{\mu }U`$ such that (10.4.1c–f) hold. Let $`\overline{L}_X`$ and $`\overline{L}_Y`$ be given by (10.5.2), and put

(10.5.4)
$$\overline{M}_X:=M_X(_{pJ^{}}x_p)\text{and}\overline{M}_Y:=M_Y(_{pJ^{\prime \prime }}y_p).$$

Let $`\overline{e}_X:H^0(\overline{L}_X)k_{\overline{I}}`$ and $`\overline{e}_Y:H^0(\overline{L}_Y)k_{\overline{I}}`$ be the evaluation maps corresponding to the isomorphisms $`\overline{\zeta }_{X,p}:\overline{L}_X(x_p)k`$ and $`\overline{\zeta }_{Y,p}:\overline{L}_Y(y_p)k`$ induced by $`\zeta _{X,p}`$ and $`\zeta _{Y,p}`$ for each $`p\overline{I}`$. Let $`\overline{f}_X:H^0(\overline{M}_X)k_{\overline{J}}`$ and $`\overline{f}_Y:H^0(\overline{M}_Y)k_{\overline{J}}`$ be the evaluation maps corresponding to the isomorphisms $`\overline{\xi }_{X,p}:\overline{M}_X(x_p)k`$ and $`\overline{\xi }_{Y,p}:\overline{M}_Y(y_p)k`$ induced by $`\xi _{X,p}`$ and $`\xi _{Y,p}`$ for each $`p\overline{J}`$.

Let $`\overline{V}:=\mathrm{Im}(\overline{e}_Y)`$ and $`\overline{h}_X:=h_X|I^{}|`$. In addition, let $`\overline{G}_X:=\mathrm{Grass}_{\overline{h}_X}(k_{\overline{I}})`$, and denote by $`\overline{\iota }_X:\overline{G}_X𝔾_X`$ the closed embedding induced by $`\overline{e}_X`$, as in Lemma 8.4. Let $`\overline{W}:=\mathrm{Im}(\overline{f}_X)`$ and $`\overline{h}_Y:=h_Y|J^{}|`$. Then $`dim\overline{W}=\overline{h}_Y`$ and $`W_𝕁=\overline{W}+k_J^{}`$, as in Step 1. Let $`\overline{G}_Y:=\mathrm{Grass}_{\overline{h}_Y}(k_{\overline{J}})`$, and denote by $`\overline{\iota }_Y:\overline{G}_Y𝔾_Y`$ the closed embedding induced by $`\overline{f}_Y`$. Let $`O`$ denote the orbit of $`(V_𝕀,W_𝕁)`$ in $`G`$ under the action of $`T`$. Let $`𝕆^{}`$ denote the orbit of $`(\overline{V},\overline{W})`$ under the natural action of

$$\overline{T}:=\{(s,t)k_{\overline{I}}^{}\times k_{\overline{J}}^{}|s_p^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}=t_p^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}\text{ for every }p\overline{I}\overline{J}\}$$

on $`\overline{G}:=\overline{G}_X\times \overline{G}_Y`$. Since $`V_𝕀=\overline{V}+k_I^{}`$ and $`W_𝕁=\overline{W}+k_J^{}`$, there is a bijection $`\psi :𝕆^{}O`$ taking a pair $`(H_X,H_Y)𝕆^{}`$ to $`(H_X+k_I^{},H_Y+k_J^{})O`$. Let $`\overline{\iota }:=\overline{\iota }_X\times \overline{\iota }_Y:\overline{G}_X\times \overline{G}_Y𝔾`$. Note that

(10.5.5)
$$\iota (O)=\iota (\psi (𝕆^{}))=\overline{\iota }(𝕆^{}).$$

By (10.4.1c,d), we have (10.5.3). In addition, by (10.4.1e,f),

$$\overline{M}_X=𝜔_X(_{pJ_{\overline{\mu }}}x_p_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}\beta _{\overline{\mu },p}x_p)\text{and}\overline{M}_Y=𝜔_Y(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(1+\beta _{\overline{\mu },p})y_p).$$

We will apply Lemma 8.4 to show that $`\overline{\iota }(𝕆^{})=𝕍_{\overline{\mu }}`$. First, note that $`\alpha _{\overline{\mu }}0`$. Indeed, $`\alpha _{\overline{\mu },p}=\alpha _p`$ for every $`p\overline{I}`$ by (10.4.1d). Now, $`\overline{I}`$ is non–empty and contained in $`I`$, and $`\alpha _p>0`$ for every $`pI`$. Hence $`\alpha _{\overline{\mu },p}>0`$ for every $`p\overline{I}`$. Analogously, $`\beta _{\overline{\mu }}0`$. So, Lemma 8.4 applies. If $`I_{\overline{\mu }}J_{\overline{\mu }}=\mathrm{}`$, we get $`\overline{\iota }(𝕆^{})=𝕍_{\overline{\mu }}`$ immediately.

Assume $`I_{\overline{\mu }}J_{\overline{\mu }}\mathrm{}`$, and let $`qI_{\overline{\mu }}J_{\overline{\mu }}`$. Then

$$\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\overline{\mu }}=\frac{\alpha _{\overline{\mu },q}}{\mathrm{gcd}(\alpha _{\overline{\mu },q},\beta _{\overline{\mu },q})}=\frac{\alpha _q}{\mathrm{gcd}(\alpha _q,\beta _q)}=\stackrel{~}{\alpha },$$

where the middle equality follows from (10.4.1c–f). Analogously, $`\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\overline{\mu }}=\stackrel{~}{\beta }`$. Since

$$\{(\zeta _{X,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\xi _{X,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }},\zeta _{Y,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}\xi _{Y,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }})|pIJ\}$$

patch $`L_X^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_X^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$ and $`L_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }}M_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }}`$ to the sheaf $`K_{IJ}`$ given by (8.2.2), it follows from (10.5.2) and (10.5.4) that

$$\{(\overline{\zeta }_{X,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\overline{\mu }}}\overline{\xi }_{X,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\overline{\mu }}},\overline{\zeta }_{Y,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\overline{\mu }}}\overline{\xi }_{Y,p}^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\overline{\mu }}})|pI_{\overline{\mu }}J_{\overline{\mu }}\}$$

patch $`\overline{L}_X^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\overline{\mu }}}\overline{M}_X^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\overline{\mu }}}`$ and $`\overline{L}_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\overline{\mu }}}\overline{M}_Y^{\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\overline{\mu }}}`$ to the sheaf

$$\overline{K}:=\overline{K}_{IJ}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\overline{\mu }}(_{pI^{\prime \prime }}x_p+_{pI^{}}y_p)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\overline{\mu }}(_{pJ^{\prime \prime }}y_p+_{pJ^{}}x_p)),$$

where $`\overline{K}_{IJ}`$ is the pull–back of $`K_{IJ}`$ to the blowup $`\overline{C}`$ of $`C`$ along $`\mathrm{\Delta }(I_{\overline{\mu }}J_{\overline{\mu }})`$. Using Equation (8.2.2) and (10.4.1c–f), we get

$$\overline{K}\overline{𝜔}^{(\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\overline{\mu }}+\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\overline{\mu }})}\left(\underset{pI_{\overline{\mu }}J_{\overline{\mu }}}{}(\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\overline{\mu }}\alpha _{\overline{\mu },p}\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\overline{\mu }}\beta _{\overline{\mu },p})(x_py_p)\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_{\overline{\mu }}\underset{pJ_{\overline{\mu }}}{}x_p\stackrel{~}{\beta }_{\overline{\mu }}\underset{pI_{\overline{\mu }}}{}y_p\right),$$

where $`\overline{𝜔}`$ is the pull–back to $`\overline{C}`$ of the dualizing sheaf $`𝜔`$ of $`C`$. Applying Lemma 8.4, we get $`\overline{\iota }(𝕆^{})=𝕍_{\overline{\mu }}`$.

Since $`\overline{\iota }(𝕆^{})=𝕍_{\overline{\mu }}`$, we get $`\iota (O)=𝕍_{\overline{\mu }}`$ from (10.5.5). Thus, by Lemma 9.2,

$$\overline{𝕍}_\mu =\underset{\overline{\mu }U}{}𝕍_{\overline{\mu }},$$

finishing Step 3. ∎

###### Theorem 10.6.

Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). Then the variety $`𝕍`$ of limit canonical systems of $`C`$ is projective and connected. In addition, $`𝕍`$ is of pure dimension $`\delta 1`$, unless $`g_X=g_Y=0`$; in the exceptional case,

(10.6.1)
$$𝕍=\{(H^0(𝜔_X(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}x_p)),H^0(𝜔_Y(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}y_p)))\}.$$

###### Proof.

By Proposition 10.3, the covering $`\{𝕍_\mu |\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+\}`$ of $`𝕍`$ is finite. Hence, it follows from Theorem 10.5 that $`𝕍`$ is projective.

Let’s prove that $`𝕍`$ is connected. Let $`\mu _1,\mu _2_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. For each $`t[0,1]`$ let

$$\mu (t):=(1t)\mu _1+t\mu _2\text{and}I_t:=\{s[0,1]|𝕍_{\mu (s)}=𝕍_{\mu (t)}\}$$

By Proposition 10.3, each $`I_t`$ is an interval, and finitely many $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_n[0,1]`$ suffice to get a covering $`I_{t_1},\mathrm{},I_{t_n}`$ of $`[0,1]`$. Assume $`t_1<\mathrm{}<t_n`$. Then $`𝕍_{\mu (t_1)}=𝕍_{\mu _1}`$ and $`𝕍_{\mu (t_n)}=𝕍_{\mu _2}`$. By Theorem 10.5, for each $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$ either $`𝕍_{\mu (t_i)}\overline{𝕍}_{\mu (t_{i+1})}`$ or $`\overline{𝕍}_{\mu (t_i)}𝕍_{\mu (t_{i+1})}`$; in either case $`\overline{𝕍}_{\mu (t_i)}\overline{𝕍}_{\mu (t_{i+1})}\mathrm{}`$. Since each $`𝕍_{\mu (t)}`$ is irreducible by Theorem 8.5, it follows that $`𝕍_{\mu _1}`$ and $`𝕍_{\mu _2}`$ lie in the same connected component of $`𝕍`$. So $`𝕍`$ is connected.

If $`g_X=g_Y=0`$, then $`\alpha _\mu =\beta _\mu =0`$ for each $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. Hence (10.6.1) follows from Theorem 8.5.

Assume now that either $`g_X>0`$ or $`g_Y>0`$. Let’s show that $`𝕍`$ is of pure dimension $`\delta 1`$. Let $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. Then $`dim𝕍_\mu \delta 1`$ by Theorem 8.5. So, it’s enough to show that either $`dim𝕍_\mu =\delta 1`$ or there is $`\mu ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that $`𝕍_\mu \overline{𝕍}_\mu ^{}𝕍_\mu ^{}`$. To ease notation, let

$$(\alpha ,\rho ,I,\beta ,\sigma ,J,ϵ):=(\alpha _\mu ,\rho _\mu ,I_\mu ,\beta _\mu ,\sigma _\mu ,J_\mu ,ϵ_\mu ).$$

There are two cases to consider.

*Case 1*: Assume that there is $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that

(10.6.2)
$$pI\text{ if }|\alpha |>g_Y\text{ and }pJ\text{ if }|\beta |>g_X.$$

Let $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying (10.6.2), and put

$$t^{}:=\mathrm{min}(\frac{\rho _p}{1+\alpha _p},\frac{\mu _p\sigma _p}{1+\beta _p}).$$

Then $`t^{}>0`$. For each $`t`$ such that $`0tt^{}`$ let $`\mu (t):=\mu tp`$. We claim that $`t^{}<\mu _p`$. Indeed, if $`pIJ`$ then either $`\rho _p<\mu _p`$ or $`\sigma _p>0`$, and hence $`t^{}<\mu _p`$. On the other hand, since $`g_X>0`$ or $`g_Y>0`$, if $`pIJ`$ then $`\alpha _p>0`$ or $`\beta _p>0`$, and hence $`t^{}\mu _p/2`$. Therefore $`\mu (t)_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ if $`0tt^{}`$.

Now, if $`0t<t^{}`$ then $`(\alpha _{\mu (t)},\beta _{\mu (t)})=(\alpha ,\beta )`$. Moreover, it follows from (10.6.2) that $`I_{\mu (t)}=I`$ if $`|\alpha |>g_Y`$ and $`J_{\mu (t)}=J`$ if $`|\beta |>g_X`$. By Theorem 10.1, $`𝕍_{\mu (t)}=𝕍_\mu `$ if $`0t<t^{}`$. Thus $`𝕍_\mu \overline{𝕍}_\mu ^{}`$ by Theorem 10.5, where $`\mu ^{}:=\mu (t^{})`$. On the other hand, either $`\alpha _{\mu ^{},p}=\alpha _p+1`$ or $`\beta _{\mu ^{},p}=\beta _p+1`$. By Theorem 10.1, $`𝕍_\mu ^{}𝕍_\mu =\mathrm{}`$. So $`𝕍_\mu \overline{𝕍}_\mu ^{}𝕍_\mu ^{}`$, finishing the proof.

*Case 2*: Assume now that there is no $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying (10.6.2). In addition, assume that $`dim𝕍_\mu \delta 1`$. We claim that

(10.6.3)
$$|\alpha |>g_Y,|\beta |>g_X,IJ=\mathrm{\Delta }\text{and}IJ=\mathrm{}.$$

Indeed, suppose that $`|\alpha |=g_Y`$. Since there is no $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying (10.6.2), we must have $`|\beta |>g_X`$. Then $`dim𝕍_\mu =|J|1`$ by Theorem 8.5. So $`J\mathrm{\Delta }`$ because $`dim𝕍_\mu <\delta 1`$. Now, (10.6.2) holds for $`p\mathrm{\Delta }J`$, reaching a contradiction. Thus $`|\alpha |>g_Y`$. Analogously, $`|\beta |>g_X`$. Now, (10.6.2) holds for $`p\mathrm{\Delta }(IJ)`$. Thus $`IJ=\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Finally, if $`IJ\mathrm{}`$ then $`dim𝕍_\mu =\delta 1`$ by Theorem 8.5. Thus $`IJ=\mathrm{}`$, and (10.6.3) holds.

Define $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }`$ by letting $`\lambda _p:=\mu _p`$ if $`pJ`$ and $`\lambda _p:=0`$ otherwise. Put

$$t^{}:=\mathrm{min}(\mathrm{min}\left(\frac{\sigma _p}{ϵ}|pJ\right),\mathrm{min}\left(\frac{\rho _p}{\mu _p(1+\alpha _p)}|pJ\right)).$$

Then $`t^{}>0`$. Let $`\mu (t):=\mu t\lambda `$ for each $`t`$ such that $`0tt^{}`$. Now, $`\rho _p<\mu _p`$ for every $`pJ`$ because $`IJ=\mathrm{}`$. So $`t^{}<1`$, and hence $`\mu (t)_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ if $`0tt^{}`$. Let $`\mu ^{}:=\mu (t^{})`$. Then either $`\alpha _{\mu ^{},p}=\alpha _{\mu ,p}+1`$ for some $`pJ`$ or $`J_\mu ^{}J`$. Since $`|\beta |>g_X`$, in either case $`𝕍_\mu 𝕍_\mu ^{}=\mathrm{}`$ by Theorem 10.1. On the other hand,

$$(\alpha _{\mu (t)},\beta _{\mu (t)},I_{\mu (t)},J_{\mu (t)})=(\alpha ,\beta ,I,J)$$

if $`0t<t^{}`$. Hence $`𝕍_\mu \overline{𝕍}_\mu ^{}𝕍_\mu ^{}`$ as in Case 1. ∎

###### Theorem 10.7.

Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). For each $`\nu =(V_1,V_2)𝔾`$, let

$$W_\nu :=R_{\nu ,X}+R_{\nu ,Y}+\underset{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{}g(\delta 2)p,$$

where $`R_{\nu ,X}`$ and $`R_{\nu ,Y}`$ are the ramification divisors of the linear systems $`(V_1,𝕃)`$ and $`(V_2,𝕄)`$, respectively. If $`𝕍`$ is the variety of limit canonical systems of $`C`$, then $`\{W_\nu |\nu 𝕍\}`$ is the set of limit Weierstrass divisors of smoothings of $`C`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$, and denote by $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ the curve gotten from $`C`$ by splitting the branches of $`C`$ at each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and connecting them by a chain of $`\mu _p1`$ rational smooth curves; see 4.2. Let

(10.7.1)
$$L_X:=𝜔_X(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(1+\alpha _{\mu ,p})x_p)\text{and}M_Y:=𝜔_Y(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(1+\beta _{\mu ,p})y_p).$$

Let $`\nu :=(V_1,V_2)𝕍_\mu `$. By definition, $`(V_1,L_X)`$ and $`(V_2,M_Y)`$ are the limit canonical aspects with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ of a certain regular smoothing $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$. Let $`\pi `$ be the induced smoothing of $`C`$; see 2.7. By Theorem 5.2, the limit Weierstrass scheme $`W`$ of $`\pi `$ satisfies

(10.7.2)
$$[W]=R_1+R_2+\underset{p\mathrm{\Delta }}{}g(g1\alpha _{\mu ,p}\beta _{\mu ,p})p,$$

where $`R_1`$ and $`R_2`$ are the ramification divisors of $`(V_1,L_X)`$ and $`(V_2,M_Y)`$. Now, since

$$𝕃=L_X(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(g_Y\alpha _{\mu ,p})x_p)\text{and}𝕄=M_Y(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(g_X\beta _{\mu ,p})y_p),$$

we have

$$R_1=R_{\nu ,X}g_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(g_Y\alpha _{\mu ,p})p\text{and}R_2=R_{\nu ,Y}g_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(g_X\beta _{\mu ,p})p.$$

Using the above expressions in (10.7.2), since $`g=g_X+g_Y+\delta 1`$, we get $`[W]=W_\nu `$. So $`W_\nu `$ is a limit Weierstrass divisor.

Conversely, if $`\pi `$ is a smoothing of $`C`$, then there is $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that $`\pi `$ induces a regular smoothing $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ of the curve $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ obtained from $`C`$ by splitting the branches of $`C`$ at each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and connecting them by a chain of $`\mu _p1`$ rational smooth curves; see 2.7 and 4.2. Let $`L_X`$ and $`M_Y`$ be as in (10.7.1). By Theorem 5.2 there are vector subspaces $`V_1H^0(L_X)`$ and $`V_2H^0(M_Y)`$ such that $`(V_1,L_X)`$ and $`(V_2,M_Y)`$ are the limit canonical aspects of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ with foci on $`X`$ and $`Y`$, respectively. Let $`\nu :=(V_1,V_2)𝔾`$. By definition, $`\nu 𝕍_\mu `$. Now, proceed as in the above paragraph to conclude that the limit Weierstrass scheme $`W`$ of $`\pi `$ satisfies $`[W]=W_\nu `$. ∎

## 11. Miscellany

###### Proposition 11.1.

Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). If $`g_X>0`$ or $`g_Y>0`$ then there is a $`(\delta 1)`$–dimensional family of limit Weierstrass divisors on $`C`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`g_Y>0`$. Then we may choose $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that $`|\alpha |=g_Y+\delta 1`$. Define $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ by letting $`\mu _p:=1/\alpha _p`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then $`\alpha _\mu =\alpha `$ and $`I_\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Let

$$L_X:=𝜔_X(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}(1+\alpha _p)x_p)\text{and}\overline{L}_X:=L_X(_{p\mathrm{\Delta }}x_p).$$

Then $`h^0(L_X)=g+\delta 1`$ and $`h^0(\overline{L}_X)=g1`$. For each $`qX`$ let

$$V_q:=H^0(L_X(gq))+H^0(\overline{L}_X)H^0(L_X).$$

Let $`UX`$ be the dense open subset of points $`qX`$ such that $`h^0(L_X(gq))=\delta 1`$ and $`h^0(\overline{L}_X(gq))=0`$. Then $`dimV_q=h^0(L_X)1`$ for each $`qU`$.

We claim that there are $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{\delta 1}U`$ such that

(11.1.1a) $`dim(V_{q_1}\mathrm{}V_{q_j})=h^0(L_X)j,`$
(11.1.1b) $`V_{q_1}\mathrm{}V_{q_j}H^0(L_X(x_p))\text{ for any }p\mathrm{\Delta }\text{,}`$
for $`j=0,\mathrm{},\delta 1`$. Indeed, let’s prove the claim by induction on $`j`$. First, (11.1.1a,b) hold trivially for $`j=0`$. Now, let $`j\{0,\mathrm{},\delta 2\}`$ and suppose that there are $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_jU`$ such that (11.1.1a,b) hold. Let $`V_j:=V_{q_1}\mathrm{}V_{q_j}`$. Then there is $`qU`$ such that

(11.1.2)
$$dim(V_jH^0(L_X(x_pgq)))=\delta j2\text{for every }p\mathrm{\Delta }.$$

By (11.1.1a) and (11.1.2),

$$h^0(L_X(x_pgq))=\delta 2\text{and}V_j+H^0(L_X(x_pgq))=H^0(L_X)$$

for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Now, if $`V_jV_q`$ then $`V_j+H^0(L_X(gq))V_q`$, and hence $`V_q=H^0(L_X)`$. However, $`dimV_q=h^0(L_X)1`$ because $`qU`$, reaching a contradiction. So $`V_jV_q`$, and hence $`dim(V_jV_q)=h^0(L_X)j1`$.

In addition, if $`V_jV_qH^0(L_X(x_p))`$ for a certain $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$, then

$$V_jV_q=V_j(H^0(L_X(x_pgq))+H^0(\overline{L}_X)).$$

Now, $`h^0(\overline{L}_X(gq))=0`$ because $`qU`$. Moreover, $`V_jH^0(\overline{L}_X)`$. So

$$dim(V_jH^0(L_X(x_pgq)))=dim(V_jV_q)h^0(\overline{L}_X).$$

Since $`dim(V_jV_q)=h^0(L_X)j1`$, it follows that

$$dim(V_jH^0(L_X(x_pgq)))=h^0(L_X)j1(g1)=\delta j1,$$

contradicting (11.1.2). Hence $`V_jV_qH^0(L_X(x_p))`$ for any $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The induction proof of our claim is complete.

For each $`D=(q_1,\mathrm{},q_{\delta 1})U^{\delta 1}`$ let $`V_D:=V_{q_1}\mathrm{}V_{q_{\delta 1}}`$. The following conditions on $`DU^{\delta 1}`$,

(11.1.3a) $`dimV_D=g,`$
(11.1.3b) $`V_DH^0(L_X(x_p))\text{ for any }p\mathrm{\Delta }\text{,}`$
define an open subset $`WU^{\delta 1}`$. By our claim, $`W\mathrm{}`$.

Let $`D:=(q_1,\mathrm{},q_{\delta 1})W`$. Since $`V_{q_j}H^0(\overline{L}_X)`$ for each $`j=1,\mathrm{},\delta 1`$, also $`V_DH^0(\overline{L}_X)`$. As shown in 8.6, Conditions (11.1.3) imply that $`V_D𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$. Since $`V_D+H^0(L_X(gq_j))V_{q_j}`$, and since $`dimV_{q_j}=g+\delta 2`$ and $`h^0(L_X(gq_j))=\delta 1`$, it follows that $`V_DH^0(L_X(gq_j))0`$ for each $`j=1,\mathrm{},\delta 1`$. So $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{\delta 1}`$ are ramification points of $`(V_D,L_X)`$, and hence of $`(V_D,𝕃)`$. Since $`V_D𝕍_{\mu ,X}`$ it follows from Theorem 10.7 that $`q_1,\mathrm{},q_{\delta 1}`$ sit on the support of a limit Weierstrass divisor on $`C`$. Since $`dimW=\delta 1`$, there must be a $`(\delta 1)`$–dimensional family of limit Weierstrass divisors. ∎

###### Theorem 11.2.

Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). Let $`𝕍`$ be the variety of limit canonical systems of $`C`$, and denote by $`N(𝕍)`$ the number of its irreducible components. Set

$$n_\delta (h):=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h+\delta 1}{\delta }\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{h}{\delta }\right)\text{and}g_{i,j}:=\mathrm{gcd}(g_X+i,g_Y+j)$$

for all $`h,i,j^+`$. Assume that $`\delta >1`$. Then the following two statements hold.

1. If $`g_Xg_Y=0`$ or $`g_X=g_Y`$ then $`N(𝕍)=n_\delta (\mathrm{max}(g_X,g_Y))`$, unless $`g_X=g_Y=0`$; in the exceptional case, $`N(𝕍)=1`$.
2. If $`g_Xg_Y>0`$ then

$$N(𝕍)n_\delta (g_X)+n_\delta (g_Y)\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{\delta 1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{g_{i,j}1}{\delta 1}\right).$$
3. $`𝕍`$ is irreducible if and only if $`g_X1`$ and $`g_Y1`$.

###### Proof.

If $`g_X=g_Y=0`$ then $`𝕍`$ is simply a point by Theorem 10.6, thus proving Statements 1 and 3 in this case. We may assume from now on that $`g_Y>0`$. (The case where $`g_X>0`$ is completely analogous.)

Given $`i^+`$, the number of $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such $`|\alpha |=i`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{i1}{\delta 1}\right)`$. Thus the number of $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that $`i<|\alpha |<i+\delta `$ is $`n_\delta (i)`$.

If $`h^+`$ then $`n_\delta (h)=1`$ if and only if $`h=1`$. Indeed, $`n_\delta (1)=1`$ because $`\delta >1`$. In addition, if $`h>1`$ then the number of $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that $`|\alpha |=h+\delta 1`$ is at least $`\delta `$, and hence $`n_\delta (h)>1`$ because $`\delta >1`$.

Let $`N_X(𝕍)`$ be the number of strata $`𝕍_\mu `$ of $`𝕍`$ with $`dim𝕍_{\mu ,X}=\delta 1`$. By Theorem 8.5, $`dim𝕍_{\mu ,X}=\delta 1`$ if and only if $`I_\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`|\alpha _\mu |>g_Y`$. Now, given $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ satisfying $`g_Y<|\alpha |<g_Y+\delta `$, there is $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that $`I_\mu =\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\alpha _\mu =\alpha `$. (For instance, pick $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ given by $`\mu _p:=1/\alpha _p`$ for each $`p\mathrm{\Delta }`$.) If also $`\mu ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ satisfies $`I_\mu ^{}=\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`\alpha _\mu ^{}=\alpha `$ then there is $`t^+`$ such that $`\mu ^{}=t\mu `$, and hence $`𝕍_\mu ^{}=𝕍_\mu `$ by Theorem 10.1. It follows that sending $`𝕍_\mu `$ to $`\alpha _\mu `$ gives a 1–1 correspondence between the set of strata $`𝕍_\mu `$ of $`𝕍`$ with $`dim𝕍_{\mu ,X}=\delta 1`$ and the set of $`\alpha _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ with $`g_Y<|\alpha |<g_Y+\delta `$. Thus $`N_X(𝕍)=n_\delta (g_Y)`$.

If $`g_X=0`$ then $`N(𝕍)=N_X(𝕍)`$, thus proving Statement 1 in this case. Moreover, $`N(𝕍)=1`$ if and only if $`g_Y=1`$, thus proving Statement 3 in this case.

Assume from now on that $`g_X>0`$. By analogy, $`N_Y(𝕍)=n_\delta (g_X)`$, where $`N_Y(𝕍)`$ is the number of strata $`𝕍_\mu `$ of $`𝕍`$ with $`dim𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=\delta 1`$.

Fix $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{},\delta 1\}`$. Let $`\alpha ,\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that

(11.2.1)
$$|\alpha |=g_Y+i\text{and}|\beta |=g_X+j.$$

Then there is $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that

(11.2.2)
$$\mu _p\alpha _p=\mu _q\alpha _q\text{and}\mu _p\beta _p=\mu _q\beta _q\text{for all }p,q\mathrm{\Delta }$$

if and only if

(11.2.3)
$$\frac{\alpha _p}{\beta _p}=\frac{g_Y+i}{g_X+j}\text{ for every }p\mathrm{\Delta }\text{.}$$

Now, $`\alpha ,\beta _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ satisfy (11.2.1,3) if and only if there is $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that

$$|\tau |=g_{i,j},\alpha =\frac{g_Y+i}{g_{i,j}}\tau ,\beta =\frac{g_X+j}{g_{i,j}}\tau .$$

So, there is a 1–1 correspondence between the set of pairs $`(\alpha ,\beta )_\mathrm{\Delta }^+\times _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ satisfying (11.2.1) and (11.2.2) for a certain $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and the set of $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that $`|\tau |=g_{i,j}`$. The number of $`\tau _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ such that $`|\tau |=g_{i,j}`$ is $`\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{g_{i,j}1}{\delta 1}\right)`$.

Let $`N`$ be the number of strata $`𝕍_\mu `$ of $`𝕍`$ such that

(11.2.4)
$$dim𝕍_{\mu ,X}=dim𝕍_{\mu ,Y}=\delta 1.$$

Then $`N(𝕍)N_X(𝕍)+N_Y(𝕍)N`$. Now, by Theorem 8.5, Condition (11.2.4) holds if and only if

$$I_\mu =J_\mu =\mathrm{\Delta },|\alpha _\mu |>g_Y,|\beta _\mu |>g_X.$$

It follows from Theorem 10.1 that sending $`𝕍_\mu `$ to $`(\alpha _\mu ,\beta _\mu )`$ gives a 1–1 correspondence between the set of strata $`𝕍_\mu `$ of $`𝕍`$ satisfying (11.2.4) and the set of pairs $`(\alpha ,\beta )_\mathrm{\Delta }^+\times _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ satisfying (11.2.1) for certain $`i,j\{1,\mathrm{},\delta 1\}`$ and (11.2.2) for a certain $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. Thus

$$N=\underset{i,j=1}{\overset{\delta 1}{}}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{g_{i,j}1}{\delta 1}\right).$$

Since $`N(𝕍)N_X(𝕍)+N_Y(𝕍)N`$, we proved Statement 2.

Without loss of generality, assume from now on that $`g_Yg_X`$. Clearly $`N(𝕍)N_X(𝕍)`$, and hence $`N(𝕍)n_\delta (g_Y)`$. So, $`N(𝕍)=1`$ only if $`n_\delta (g_Y)=1`$, and hence only if $`g_Y=1`$. It follows that $`𝕍`$ is irreducible only if $`g_X=g_Y=1`$.

Assume from now on that $`g_X=g_Y`$. Then $`(\alpha _\mu ,I_\mu )=(\beta _\mu ,J_\mu )`$ for each $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$. It follows from Theorem 8.5 that $`dim𝕍_{\mu ,X}=\delta 1`$ if and only if $`dim𝕍_\mu =\delta 1`$. Hence $`N(𝕍)=N_X(𝕍)`$, thus proving Statement 1. Now, if $`g_X=g_Y=1`$ then $`N(𝕍)=1`$ by Statement 1. ∎

###### Example 11.3.

Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). Assume that $`g_X=g_Y=1`$. Then $`g=\delta +1`$. Choose a basis for $`H^0(𝜔^2)`$ and consider the corresponding bicanonical map $`\varphi :C^{3\delta 1}`$. Let $`H`$ (resp. $`H_X`$, resp. $`H_Y`$) be the subspace of $`^{3\delta 1}`$ spanned by the image of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ (resp. $`X`$, resp. $`Y`$) under $`\varphi `$. Then $`dimH=\delta 1`$ and

$$dimH_X=dimH_Y=2\delta 1.$$

Moreover, $`H_XH_Y=H`$. We may view each hyperplane $`LH`$ as a subspace of both $`H_X`$ and $`H_Y`$, and compose $`\varphi |_X:XH_X`$ and $`\varphi |_Y:YH_Y`$ with the projections from $`H_X`$ and $`H_Y`$ centered at $`L`$. Since $`𝜔_X`$ and $`𝜔_Y`$ are trivial, these compositions correspond to vector subspaces $`V_{L,X}H^0(𝜔_X(2\mathrm{\Delta }))`$ and $`V_{L,Y}H^0(𝜔_Y(2\mathrm{\Delta }))`$ of dimension $`g`$. It follows from the discussion in 8.7 that

$$𝕍=\{(V_{L,X},V_{L,Y})|L\text{ is a hyperplane of }H\}.$$

###### 11.4.

*Graphic representation.* Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). For each $`\lambda _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ and each non–empty subset $`K\mathrm{\Delta }`$ let

$`𝕌_{X,\lambda ,K}:=`$ $`\{\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+|\alpha _\mu =\lambda \text{ and }I_\mu =K\},`$
$`𝕌_{Y,\lambda ,K}:=`$ $`\{\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+|\beta _\mu =\lambda \text{ and }J_\mu =K\}.`$
Then $`𝕌_{X,\lambda ,K}`$ and $`𝕌_{Y,\lambda ,K}`$ are homogeneous. Now, $`\mu 𝕌_{X,\lambda ,K}`$ if and only if Condition (14.4.1) below holds.

(11.4.1)
$$\text{There’s }\rho _\mathrm{\Delta }^+\text{ such that }\{\begin{array}{cc}0<\rho _p\mu _p\text{ for every }p\mathrm{\Delta }\text{,}\hfill & \\ \rho _p=\mu _p\text{ if and only if }pK\text{,}\hfill & \\ \mu _p(\lambda _p+1)\rho _p=\mu _q(\lambda _q+1)\rho _q\text{ for all }p,q\mathrm{\Delta }\text{.}\hfill & \end{array}$$

Condition (11.4.1) can be restated as

(11.4.2)
$$\frac{\mu _p}{\mu _q}\{\begin{array}{cc}(\frac{\lambda _q}{\lambda _p+1},\frac{\lambda _q}{\lambda _p}]\hfill & \text{if }qK\text{,}\hfill \\ [\frac{\lambda _q}{\lambda _p},\frac{\lambda _q+1}{\lambda _p})\hfill & \text{if }pK\text{,}\hfill \\ (\frac{\lambda _q}{\lambda _p+1},\frac{\lambda _q+1}{\lambda _p})\hfill & \text{if }p,qK\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Similar conditions define the points $`\mu 𝕌_{Y,\lambda ,K}`$. Condition (11.4.2) shows that $`𝕌_{X,\lambda ,K}`$ is convex. Analogously, $`𝕌_{Y,\lambda ,K}`$ is convex as well.

For each $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ let

$`𝕌_{X,\mu }:=`$ $`\{\mu ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }^+|𝕍_{\mu ^{},X}=𝕍_{\mu ,X}\},`$
$`𝕌_{Y,\mu }:=`$ $`\{\mu ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }^+|𝕍_{\mu ^{},Y}=𝕍_{\mu ,Y}\},`$
$`𝕌_\mu :=`$ $`\{\mu ^{}_\mathrm{\Delta }^+|𝕍_\mu ^{}=𝕍_\mu \}.`$
Then $`𝕌_\mu =𝕌_{X,\mu }𝕌_{Y,\mu }`$ by Theorem 10.1. In addition,

(11.4.3a) $`𝕌_{X,\mu }=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝕌_{X,\alpha _\mu ,I_\mu }\hfill & \text{if }|\alpha _\mu |>g_Y\text{,}\hfill \\ _{I\mathrm{\Delta }}𝕌_{X,\alpha _\mu ,I}\hfill & \text{if }|\alpha _\mu |=g_Y\text{,}\hfill \end{array}`$
(11.4.3b) $`𝕌_{Y,\mu }=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝕌_{Y,\beta _\mu ,J_\mu }\hfill & \text{if }|\beta _\mu |>g_X\text{,}\hfill \\ _{J\mathrm{\Delta }}𝕌_{Y,\beta _\mu ,J}\hfill & \text{if }|\beta _\mu |=g_X\text{.}\hfill \end{array}`$
In particular, $`𝕌_\mu `$, $`𝕌_{X,\mu }`$ and $`𝕌_{Y,\mu }`$ are convex and homogeneous.

Using (14.4.2,3) we can represent graphically the covering of $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ by the strata $`𝕌_\mu `$, and then study their interrelations. Since there is a 1–1 correspondence between the $`𝕌_\mu `$ and the $`𝕍_\mu `$ this graphic representation is useful in the study of the variety of limit canonical systems $`𝕍`$. For instance, using Theorem 10.5 and the graphic representation we can determine whether two irreducible components of $`𝕍`$ intersect, and what the intersection is. We can also compute the number of irreducible components of $`𝕍`$ using Theorem 8.5 and the graphic representation. See 11.5 and 11.6 below.

As the $`𝕌_\mu `$ are homogeneous, it’s more convenient to fix $`q\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and consider the map

(11.4.4)
$$_\mathrm{\Delta }^+_{\mathrm{\Delta }\{q\}}^+,\text{ given by }\mu \overline{\mu }\text{, where }\overline{\mu }_p:=\mu _p/\mu _q\text{ for each }p\mathrm{\Delta }\{q\}\text{.}$$

So, instead of depicting the covering of $`_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ by the $`𝕌_\mu `$, we can depict the covering of $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }\{q\}}^+`$ by the corresponding images of the $`𝕌_\mu `$.

###### 11.5.

*Curves with $`\delta =2`$.* Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). Assume $`\delta =2`$. By Theorem 8.5, a stratum $`𝕍_\mu `$ of the variety of limit canonical systems $`𝕍`$ has dimension 1 if and only if either $`|\alpha _\mu |=g_Y+1`$ or $`|\beta _\mu |=g_X+1`$. Fix $`q\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and identify $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }\{q\}}^+`$ with $`^+`$. Under the map (11.4.4), the strata $`𝕌_\mu `$ are sent to the intervals in $`^+`$ depicted in Figure 3, where we assume that $`g_Y>g_X>0`$.

Figure 3. Graphic representation for $`\delta =2`$.

The points marked as “$`\times `$” (resp. “$``$”) correspond to the strata $`𝕍_\mu `$ of $`𝕍`$ with $`|\alpha _\mu |=g_Y+1`$ (resp. $`|\beta _\mu |=g_X+1`$). The number of distinct marked points on the line in Figure 3 is the number $`N(𝕍)`$ of irreducible components of $`𝕍`$. Thus

$$N(𝕍)=g_X+g_Y\mathrm{gcd}(g_X+1,g_Y+1)+1.$$

So, if $`\delta =2`$ then equality holds in Statement 2 of Theorem 11.2.

The open intervals on the line in Figure 3 correspond to the strata $`𝕍_\mu `$ of $`𝕍`$ with $`|\alpha _\mu |=g_Y`$ and $`|\beta _\mu |=g_X`$, and hence represent points of $`𝕍`$. By Theorem 10.5, the stratum of $`𝕍`$ corresponding to a certain interval in Figure 3 is the intersection of the closures in $`𝔾`$ of the one–dimensional strata of $`𝕍`$ corresponding to each end of the interval. Therefore, $`𝕍`$ is as described in Figure 4. Each irreducible component of $`𝕍`$ is a projective line, unless it corresponds to a point on the line in Figure 3 that is simultaneously marked as “$`\times `$” and “$``$”. In this case, the irreducible component is isomorphic to a rational curve of bidegree

$$\frac{(g_X+1,g_Y+1)}{\mathrm{gcd}(g_X+1,g_Y+1)}$$

in the quadric $`^1\times ^1`$.

###### 11.6.

*Curves with $`\delta =3`$.* Preserve 4.1 and assume (4.3.1). Assume $`\delta =3`$. Fix $`r\mathrm{\Delta }`$, and identify $`_{\mathrm{\Delta }\{r\}}^+`$ with $`^+\times ^+`$. Under the map (11.4.4), the strata $`𝕌_\mu `$ are sent to convex regions in $`^+\times ^+`$ of dimensions varying from $`0`$ to $`2`$. These dimensions are “dual” to those of the corresponding strata $`𝕍_\mu `$ of the variety of limit canonical systems $`𝕍`$. More precisely, the image of $`𝕌_\mu `$ in $`^+\times ^+`$ has dimension $`i`$ if and only if $`dim𝕍_\mu =2i`$.

We depict the decomposition of $`^+\times ^+`$ for $`g_X=g_Y=3`$ in Figure 5a, and for $`g_X=2`$ and $`g_Y=4`$ in Figure 5b. In Figure 5b the solid lines depict the decomposition of $`^+\times ^+`$ by the images under (11.4.4) of the strata $`𝕌_{\mu ,X}`$, whereas the dashed lines depict the decomposition given by the strata $`𝕌_{\mu ,Y}`$.

The open disc in Figure 5a corresponds to one of the neighborhoods $`U_\mu `$ whose existence was claimed by Theorem 10.5. More precisely, let $`\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ whose image under the map (11.4.4) is the center $`c`$ of the disc, and let $`U_\mu _\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ be the inverse image of the disc under this same map. Then the closure $`\overline{𝕍}_\mu 𝔾`$ satisfies

$$\overline{𝕍}_\mu =\underset{\overline{\mu }U_\mu }{}𝕍_{\overline{\mu }}.$$

More precisely, $`\overline{𝕍}_\mu `$ is an irreducible component of $`𝕍`$ and

$$\overline{𝕍}_\mu 𝕍_\mu =\overline{𝕍}_{\mu _1}\overline{𝕍}_{\mu _2}\overline{𝕍}_{\mu _3},$$

where $`\mu _1,\mu _2,\mu _3_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ are (any) points having images under (11.4.4) in the interiors of the three segments of lines $`l_1,l_2,l_3`$ meeting at $`c`$, as shown in Figure 5a. Each $`\overline{𝕍}_{\mu _i}`$ is irreducible of dimension 1. In addition, if $`1i<j3`$ then $`\overline{𝕍}_{\mu _i}\overline{𝕍}_{\mu _j}=𝕍_{\mu _{i,j}}`$ where $`\mu _{i,j}_\mathrm{\Delta }^+`$ is (any) point having image under (11.4.4) in the open region $`R_{i,j}`$ whose boundary contains $`l_i`$ and $`l_j`$, as shown in Figure 5a. Each $`𝕍_{\mu _{i,j}}`$ is a point.

Let $`N(𝕍)`$ be the number of irreducible components of $`𝕍`$. If $`g_X=g_Y=3`$ then $`N(𝕍)`$ is the number of marked points in Figure 5a. So $`N(𝕍)=9`$, as shown in Theorem 11.2. If $`g_X=2`$ and $`g_Y=4`$ then $`N(𝕍)`$ is the number of points in Figure 5b that are either marked or in the intersection of a solid line and a dashed line. There are $`19`$ marked points and $`6`$ points of intersection of a solid line and a dashed line in Figure 5b. Thus $`N(𝕍)=25`$. Note that in this case Theorem 11.2 says simply that $`N(𝕍)19`$.

Instituto de Matemática Pura e Aplicada, Estrada Dona Castorina 110, 22460-320 Rio de Janeiro RJ, Brazil

E-mail address: `esteves@impa.br`

Universidade Federal Fluminense, Rua Mário Santos Braga, s/n, Valonguinho, 24020-005 Niterói RJ, Brazil

New address: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Mathematics, 77 Massachusetts Avenue, 02139 Cambridge MA, U.S.A.

E-mail address: `nivaldo@impa.br`