text:
# On 𝑘th-order embeddings of 𝐾3 surfaces and Enriques surfaces

## 1. Introduction

Let $`L`$ be a line bundle on a smooth connected surface $`S`$ over the complex numbers. Recall \[Be-So2\] that $`L`$ is called $`k`$-very ample, for an integer $`k0`$, if for any $`0`$-dimensional subscheme $`(𝒵,𝒪_𝒵)`$ of length $`h^0(𝒪_𝒵)=k+1`$, the restriction map $`H^0(L)H^0(L𝒪_𝒵)`$ is surjective. This definition is a natural generalization of the notions of spannedness and very-ampleness of line bundles. In fact, by definition, $`L`$ is $`0`$-very ample if and only if $`L`$ is generated by its global sections, and $`L`$ is $`1`$-very ample if and only if $`L`$ is very ample.

There are various geometrical interpretations of the notion of $`k`$-very ampleness. Denoting by $`S^{[r]}`$ the Hilbert scheme of $`0`$-dimensional subschemes of $`S`$ of length $`r`$, and by $`\mathrm{Grass}(r,H^0(L))`$ the Grassmannian of all $`r`$-dimensional quotients of $`H^0(L)`$, then the rational map

$$\varphi _k:S^{[k+1]}\mathrm{Grass}(k+1,H^0(L)),$$

sending $`(𝒵,𝒪_𝒵)S^{[k+1]}`$ into the quotient $`H^0(L)H^0(L𝒪_𝒵)`$ is a morphism if $`L`$ is $`k`$-very ample and an embedding if and only if $`L`$ is $`(k+1)`$-very ample \[C-G\].

Also, if $`S`$ is embedded in $`𝐏^{h^0(L)1}`$ via a very ample line bundle $`L`$, then $`L`$ is $`k`$-very ample if and only if $`S`$ has no $`(k+1)`$-secant $`(k1)`$-planes.

There is also a slightly weaker condition than $`k`$-very ampleness as follows \[B-F-S\]: $`L`$ is called $`k`$-spanned, for an integer $`k0`$, if for any curvilinear $`0`$-dimensional subscheme $`(𝒵,𝒪_𝒵)`$ of length $`h^0(𝒪_𝒵)=k+1`$, the restriction map $`H^0(L)H^0(L𝒪_𝒵)`$ is surjective. Recall that a $`0`$-dimensional scheme $`(𝒵,𝒪_𝒵)`$ is called curvilinear if $`dimT_x𝒵1`$ for every $`x𝒵_{\mathrm{red}}`$. On a smooth irreducible curve, the two notions of $`k`$-very ampleness and $`k`$-spannedness coincide for all $`k0`$. On a smooth connected surface they coincide for $`k2`$ \[B-F-S, Lemma 3.1\]. In the sequel we will show that for $`K3`$ and Enriques surfaces these two notions are equivalent for all $`k0`$.

In recent years a lot of work has been done in the study of $`k`$-very ample and $`k`$-spanned line bundles on surfaces (see e.g. \[Ba-So\], \[B-F-S\], \[Be-So1\], \[Be-So2\], \[Be-So3\], \[Be-So4\], \[DR1\], \[DR2\], \[Te2\], \[Be-Sz\]), and in particular, in the classification of pairs $`(S,L)`$, where $`S`$ is a surface and $`L`$ is a $`k`$-very ample or $`k`$-spanned line bundles on $`S`$.

In \[B-F-S\] (resp. \[Be-So2\]) Beltrametti, Francia and Sommese (resp. the first and third author) showed that if $`L`$ is nef and $`L^24k+5`$, and $`K_S+L`$ is not $`k`$-very ample (resp. $`k`$-spanned), then there exists an effective divisor $`D`$ such that

$$L.Dk1D^2<L.D/2<k+1.$$

Recently, Terakawa \[Te2\] showed that for line bundles of degree $`>4k+4`$ on surfaces of Kodaira dimension zero, these conditions are also sufficient. Since $`K_S`$ is numerically equivalent to zero, in particular necessary and sufficient conditions for a nef line bundle $`L`$ to be $`k`$-very ample and $`k`$-spanned were granted. In fact these conditions are equivalent for the $`k`$-very ample and the $`k`$-spanned case.

If $`L`$ is a big $`k`$-spanned line bundle on a smooth surface $`S`$ of Kodaira dimension zero and $`L^24k+4`$, then either $`S`$ is a $`K3`$ surface and $`L^2=4k`$, $`4k+2`$ or $`4k+4`$, or $`S`$ is an Enriques surface and $`L^2=4k+4`$ (see Proposition 2.4 below).

In this paper we complete the description of $`k`$-very ample and $`k`$-spanned line bundles on surfaces of Kodaira dimension zero. Our approach holds for all $`L^24k`$ on $`K3`$ surfaces (resp. all $`L^24k+4`$ on Enriques surfaces), so no condition that $`L^24k+4`$ will be imposed, since they would not make the proofs easier. Thus, we give a unified presentation of the cases $`L^24k+5`$, already treated by the mentioned authors, and the cases with low values of $`L^2`$, where the results are new. We will need a different approach than in \[B-F-S\] and \[Be-So2\], where Bogomolov stability is used, making the assumption $`L^24k+5`$ necessary.

The author would like to mention that at the same time that an earlier version of this paper was written, and independently, T. Szemberg \[Sz\] treated the Enriques case. In particular, he showed that the case $`L^2=4k+4`$ and $`L`$ $`k`$-very ample only occurs if $`k=0`$.

For spanned and big line bundles of any degree on a $`K3`$ surface our approach also makes it possible to give a characterization of birational $`k`$-very ampleness and birational $`k`$-spannedness. A big and globally generated line bundle $`L`$ will be called birationally $`k`$-very ample (resp. birationally $`k`$-spanned), if there exists a non-empty Zariski-open subset of $`S`$ where $`L`$ is $`k`$-very ample (resp. $`k`$-spanned). These concepts (which on a $`K3`$ surface turn out to be equivalent as well) are interesting not only in their own rights, but also because they are connected to the Clifford index of smooth curves in $`|L|`$, the minimal gonality of smooth curves in $`|L|`$ \[C-P\] and the existence of a certain type of rank $`2`$ vector bundle on $`S`$.

The following three theorems are the main results in this paper.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`L`$ be a big and nef line bundle on a $`K3`$ surface and $`k0`$ an integer. The following conditions are equivalent:

* $`L`$ is $`k`$-very ample,
* $`L`$ is $`k`$-spanned,
* $`L^24k`$ and there exists no effective divisor $`D`$ satisfying the conditions $`()`$ below:

$`2D^2\stackrel{i)}{}L.DD^2+k+1\stackrel{ii)}{}2k+2`$
$`()`$ $`\text{with equality in i) if and only if }L2D\text{ and }L^24k+4,`$
$`\text{and equality in ii) if and only if }L2D\text{ and }L^2=4k+4.`$

Furthermore, if $`L`$ is not $`k`$-very ample (equivalently $`k`$-spanned), then among all divisors satisfying $`()`$, we can always find a smooth curve, and all smooth curves satisfying $`()`$ will contain a $`0`$-dimensional scheme of degree $`k+1`$ where the $`k`$-spannedness fails (more precisely $`L_{|D}`$ is not $`k`$-spanned).

The corresponding result for Enriques surfaces is the following, which in the $`k`$-very ample case is similar to a result obtained independently by Szemberg in \[Sz\]. Our approach is slightly different.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`L`$ be a big and nef line bundle on an Enriques surface and $`k0`$ an integer. The following conditions are equivalent:

* $`L`$ is $`k`$-very ample,
* $`L`$ is $`k`$-spanned,
* there exists no divisor $`D>0`$ satisfying $`D^2=2`$, $`D.Lk1`$, or $`D^2=0`$, $`D.Lk+1`$.

So, unlike in the $`K3`$ case, the $`k`$-very ampleness of $`L`$ is governed by divisors with self-intersection $`0`$ and $`2`$. However, we will see that divisors satisfying similar conditions as the conditions $`()`$ play an important role also for Enriques surfaces.

We will say that a divisor $`D`$ on a $`K3`$ surface satisfies the conditions $`()`$ if it satisfies the conditions $`()`$ and in addition $`D^20`$ and $`(L^2,D^2)(4k+2,k)`$.

Also recall that by a result of Green and Lazarsfeld \[G-L\] all smooth curves in a base point free linear system on a $`K3`$ surface have the same Clifford index (see Section 8 for more details). The same is not true for the gonality (see Remark 1.7 below).

###### Theorem 1.3.

Let $`L`$ be a globally generated, big line bundle on a $`K3`$ surface and $`k1`$ an integer. Denote by $`c`$ the Clifford index of all smooth curves in $`|L|`$. The following conditions are equivalent:

* $`L`$ is birationally $`k`$-very ample,
* $`L`$ is birationally $`k`$-spanned,
* $`L^24k`$ and there exists no effective divisor $`D`$ satisfying the conditions $`()`$,
* $`L^24k`$ and there exists no smooth curve $`D`$ satisfying the conditions $`()`$,
* the minimal gonality of a smooth curve in $`|L|`$ is $`k+2`$,
* $`ck`$, and there exists a smooth curve in $`|L|`$ having gonality $`c+2`$; or $`c=k1`$ and all smooth curves in $`|L|`$ have gonality $`c+3`$ (in which case, $`L2D+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`D`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are smooth curves satisfying $`D^2=k`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=2`$ and $`D.\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$),
* there exists no smooth curve $`C`$ in $`|L|`$ containing a $`0`$-dimensional subscheme of degree $`k+1`$ where the $`k`$-spannedness of $`L_{|C}\omega _C`$ fails,
* there exists no rank $`2`$ vector bundle $`E`$ on $`S`$ generated by its global sections satisfying $`H^1(E)=H^2(E)=0`$, $`\mathrm{det}E=L`$ and $`c_2(E)k+1`$.

The paper is organized as follows.

In Section 2 we fix notation and gather some results of Saint-Donat that will be needed in the rest of the paper. Then we prove in Section 3 that if $`L^24k`$ and $`S`$ is $`K3`$, or $`L^24k+4`$ and $`S`$ is Enriques, and $`L+K_S`$ is not $`k`$-very ample (resp. not $`k`$-spanned), there exists a divisor $`D`$ containing some (resp. some curvilinear) 0-dimensional scheme $`𝒵`$ of degree $`k+1`$ where the $`k`$-very ampleness (resp. $`k`$-spannedness) fails and satisfying certain numerical conditions (which are $`()`$ in the $`K3`$ case).

In Section 4 we treat the Enriques case and give the proof of Theorem 1.2.

The rest of the paper will deal with $`K3`$ surfaces and the proofs of Theorems 1.1 and 1.3.

We first show, in Section 5, that it is always possible to find a smooth curve among all divisors satisfying $`()`$.

In Section 6 we conclude the proof of Theorem 1.1 by using such a smooth curve to show that $`L`$ is not $`k`$-spanned (and hence not $`k`$-very ample). We also investigate more closely the case $`L^2<4k`$. In any case we explicitly construct $`0`$-dimensional schemes of degree $`k+1`$ where the $`k`$-spannedness of $`L`$ fails. This explicit construction will be needed in Section 7, where we show that the existence of any divisor satisfying $`()`$ will in fact imply that $`L`$ fails to be $`k`$-spanned on any Zariski-open subset of $`S`$, but if the only divisors $`D`$ satisfying $`()`$ are those satisfying the special conditions $`D^22`$ or $`(L^2,D^2)=(4k+2,k)`$, then $`L`$ is in fact birationally $`k`$-spanned, even though it is not $`k`$-spanned. This shows the equivalence of parts a)-d) in Theorem 1.3.

In Section 8 we discuss the Clifford index and gonality of curves in $`|L|`$, relying upon results in \[G-L\] and \[C-P\], and finish the proof of Theorem 1.3.

###### Remark 1.4.

Note that in \[DR2\] Di Rocco showed that if $`L`$ is a $`k`$-very ample line bundle of degree $`4k+4`$ on a surface $`S`$ and $`k2`$, then $`(S,L)`$ belongs to a certain list of pairs (\[DR2, Table 2\] 111Note that in this list the case of Enriques surfaces and line bundles of degrees $`4k+4`$ are missing \[DR3\]. ), and all the line bundles in the list are proved to be $`k`$-very ample, except for the $`K3`$ and Enriques cases. Thus, the results in this paper also complete the description of $`k`$-very ample line bundle of degree $`4k+4`$ on a surface, for $`k2`$.

###### Remark 1.5.

Conditions for birational $`k`$-very ampleness and birational $`k`$-spannedness can most probably be found for the other surfaces of Kodaira dimension zero, but as far as we can see, the connections to Clifford index and gonality of smooth curves in $`|L|`$ are not obtained as easily as in the $`K3`$ case. In general, it would be interesting to know whether there are connections between birational $`k`$-very ampleness and birational $`k`$-spannedness and the Clifford index and gonality of smooth curves in $`|L|`$ for other surfaces than $`K3`$s.

###### Remark 1.6.

Note that for $`k=0`$ and $`1`$ we retrieve the special results of Saint-Donat concerning criteria for spannedness and very ampleness of line bundles on $`K3`$ surfaces. Denoting by $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L`$ the morphism defined by the complete linear system $`|L|`$, when $`L`$ is spanned, we get the well-known result that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_L`$ is not birational if and only if all smooth curves in $`|L|`$ are hyperelliptic.

###### Remark 1.7.

The only example known where the smooth curves in a base point free linear system $`|L|`$ on a $`K3`$ surface do not have constant gonality, is the famous Donagi-Morrison example \[Do-Mo, (2.2)\]. If $`L`$ is ample, Ciliberto and Pareschi \[C-P\] have showed that this is indeed the only such example, but the question remains open for the cases where $`L`$ is not ample.

In addition to the Donagi-Morrison example, the only other example known of exeptional curves in a base point free linear system on a $`K3`$ surface is an example of Eisenbud, Lange, Martens and Schreyer (see Remark 8.7). This example appears in a natural way in our treatment of birational $`k`$-very ampleness and birational $`k`$-spannedness (it is the second case of part f) in Theorem 1.3), and in Section 8 we show that this is the only example of a base point free linear system on a $`K3`$ surface where all smooth curves are exceptional.

Unfortunately, we are not able, by our treatment, to “explain” the Donagi-Morrison example in terms of birational $`k`$-very ampleness and birational $`k`$-spannedness, nor to treat the question of the constancy of gonality of the smooth curves in $`|L|`$ when $`L`$ is not ample. Those would be very interesting questions to treat.

Acknowledgements. I would like to thank S. Di Rocco, C. Hacon, P. Belkale, R. Piene for useful conversations, and H. Terakawa for interesting correspondence. Thanks are also due to the Department of Mathematics at the University of Utah for its hospitality and wonderful atmosphere during the time a considerable part of this work was done.

Finally, I would like to thank the referee for informing me about the paper of Szemberg \[Sz\] and T. Szemberg himself for useful comments during the writing of the final version of this paper.

## 2. Notation and Background Material

We use standard notation from Algebraic Geometry.

The ground field is the field of complex numbers. All surfaces are smooth algebraic surfaces.

By a curve on a surface $`S`$ is always meant an irreducible curve (possibly singular), i.e. a prime divisor. Line bundles and divisors are used with little or no distiction, as well as the multiplicative and additive notation. Linear equivalence of divisors is denoted by $``$, and numerical equivalence by $``$. Note that on a $`K3`$ surface linear and numerical equivalence is the same.

If $`L`$ is any line bundle on a surface, $`L`$ is said to be numerically effective, or simply nef, if $`L.C0`$ for all curves $`C`$ on $`S`$. In this case $`L`$ is said to be big if $`L^2>0`$.

If $``$ is any coherent sheaf on a variety $`V`$, we shall denote by $`h^i()`$ the complex dimension of $`H^i(V,)`$, and by $`\chi ()`$ the Euler characteristic $`(1)^ih^i()`$.

If $`D`$ is any divisor on a surface $`S`$, Riemann-Roch for $`D`$ is $`\chi (𝒪_S(D))=\frac{1}{2}D.(DK_S)+\chi (𝒪_S)`$, where $`K_S`$ is the canonical bundle of $`S`$.

If $`D`$ is any effective divisor on $`S`$, and $``$ any line bundle on $`D`$, Riemann-Roch yields $`\chi ()=\mathrm{deg}+\chi (𝒪_D)=\mathrm{deg}\frac{1}{2}D(D+K_S)`$.

By an Enriques surface is meant a surface $`S`$ with $`H^1(𝒪_S)=0`$ and such that the canonical bundle $`K_S`$ satisfies $`K_S\simeq ̸𝒪_S`$, and $`K_S^2𝒪_S`$. Recall that we also have $`h^0(K_S)=h^1(K_S)=h^2(𝒪_S)=0`$, $`h^2(K_S)=h^0(𝒪_S)=1`$ and $`\chi (𝒪_S)=1`$.

By a $`K3`$ surface is meant a surface $`S`$ with trivial canonical bundle and such that $`H^1(𝒪_S)=0`$. In particular $`h^2(𝒪_S)=1`$ and $`\chi (𝒪_S)=2`$.

We will make use of the following results of Saint-Donat on line bundles on $`K3`$ surfaces. The first result will be used repeatedly, without further mention.

###### Proposition 2.1.

\[SD, Cor. 3.2\] A complete linear system on a $`K3`$ surface has no base points outside of its fixed components.

###### Proposition 2.2.

\[SD, Prop. 2.6\] Let $`L`$ be an invertible sheaf on a $`K3`$ surface $`S`$ such that $`|L|\mathrm{}`$ and such that $`|L|`$ has no fixed components. Then either

* $`L^2>0`$ and the generic member of $`|L|`$ is an irreducible curve of arithmetic genus $`L^2/2+1`$. In this case $`h^1(L)=0`$, or
* $`L^2=0`$, then $`L𝒪_S(kE)`$, where $`k`$ is an integer $`1`$ and $`E`$ is an irreducible curve of arithmetic genus 1. In this case $`h^1(L)=k1`$ and every member of $`|L|`$ can be written as a sum $`E_1+\mathrm{}+E_k`$, where $`E_i|E|`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},k`$.

Note that by Bertini the generic members in $`|L|`$ and $`|E|`$ are smooth.

###### Lemma 2.3.

\[SD, 2.7\] Let $`L`$ be a nef line bundle on a $`K3`$ surface $`S`$. Then $`|L|`$ is not base point free if and only if there exist smooth irreducible curves $`E`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and an integer $`k2`$ such that

$$LkE+\mathrm{\Gamma },E^2=0,\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=2,E.\mathrm{\Gamma }=1.$$

In this case, every member of $`|L|`$ is of the form $`E_1+\mathrm{}+E_k+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`E_i|E|`$ for all $`i`$.

The following result was mentioned in the introduction. For $`k`$-very ampleness and $`k2`$, it is proved in \[Ba-So, Cor. 3.2\]. The proof for the $`k`$-spanned case and $`k0`$ is not much more involved and therefore left to the reader.

###### Proposition 2.4.

Let $`L`$ be a big and nef line bundle on a smooth surface $`S`$ of Kodaira dimension zero. If $`L`$ is $`k`$-spanned and $`L^24k+4`$, then either $`S`$ is a $`K3`$ surface and $`L^2=4k`$, $`4k+2`$ or $`4k+4`$, or $`S`$ is an Enriques surface and $`L^2=4k+4`$.

## 3. Numerical Conditions if $`k`$-very ampleness or $`k`$-spannedness is not Fulfilled

We will now consider the case where $`S`$ is a $`K3`$ surface and $`L^24k`$, or $`S`$ is an Enriques surface and $`L^24k+4`$, and $`K_SL`$ fails to be $`k`$-very ample or $`k`$-spanned.

The following result is due to Beltrametti, Francia and Sommese.

###### Proposition 3.1.

Let $`L`$ be a nef and big line bundle on a surface $`S`$ and let $`𝒵`$ be any $`0`$-dimensional subscheme of $`S`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}𝒵=k+1`$. Assume that the map

$$H^0(K_SL)H^0(K_SL𝒪_𝒵)$$

is not onto, and for any proper subscheme $`𝒵^{}`$ of $`𝒵`$, the map

$$H^0(K_SL)H^0(K_SL𝒪_𝒵^{})$$

is onto.

Then there exists a rank 2 vector bundle $`E`$ on $`S`$ fitting into the exact sequence

(1)
$$0𝒪_SEL𝒥_𝒵0,$$

and such that the coboundary map of the exact sequence tensorized with $`K_S`$,

$$\delta :H^1(LK_S𝒥_𝒵)H^2(K_S)H^0(𝒪_S)𝐂,$$

is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

This follows from the first part of the proof of \[Be-So2, Thm. 2.1\] and from \[Ty, (1.12)\]. ∎

###### Corollary 3.2.

We have $`h^1(EK_S)h^1(𝒪_S)`$ and $`h^2(EK_S)=0`$. In particular, if $`S`$ is $`K3`$ or Enriques, we have $`h^1(EK_S)=h^2(EK_S)=0`$ (with $`K_S𝒪_S`$ in the $`K3`$ case).

###### Proof.

The first assertion is immediate from the short exact sequence above (tensorized with $`K_S`$), the second follows from the short exact sequence

$$0LK_S𝒥_𝒵LK_SLK_S𝒪_𝒵0,$$

and the fact that $`h^1(LK_S𝒪_𝒵)=h^2(LK_S)=0`$. ∎

Note that from the sequence (1) we get $`c_1(E)^2=L^2`$ and $`c_2(E)=\mathrm{deg}𝒵=k+1`$.

The approach in \[B-F-S\] and \[Be-So2\] is now based upon the fact that when $`L^24k+5`$, we have $`c_1(E)>4c_2(E)`$. By the well-known Bogomolov stability criterion (\[Bo\], \[Re\]) one can then put $`E`$ in a suitable exact sequence. Since in our cases $`L^24k+4`$, we need a different approach. Note that by our assumptions that $`L^24k`$ in the $`K3`$ case and $`L^24k+4`$ in the Enriques case, we have $`c_1(E)^24c_2(E)4`$ and $`c_1(E)^24c_2(E)0`$ in the $`K3`$ and Enriques case, respectively.

We will need the following result by Donagi and Morrison.

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`E`$ be a nonsimple, rank $`2`$ vector bundle on a surface $`S`$. There exist line bundles $`M`$, $`N`$ and a zero-dimensional subscheme $`AS`$ such that $`E`$ fits in an exact sequence

$$0NEM𝒥_A0$$

and either

* $`NM`$, or
* $`A=\mathrm{}`$ and the sequence splits.

###### Proof.

This follows the lines of the proof of \[Do-Mo, Lemma 4.4\], by noting that the assumption that $`S`$ be a $`K3`$ is unnecessary. ∎

Now we prove the result which enables us to avoid the use of Bogomolov stability.

###### Proposition 3.4.

Let $`E`$ be a vector bundle of rank two on a $`K3`$ surface (resp. an Enriques surface) satisfying $`c_1(E)^24c_2(E)4`$ (resp. $`c_1(E)^24c_2(E)0`$). Then there exist line bundles $`M`$, $`N`$ and a zero-dimensional subscheme $`AS`$ such that $`E`$ fits in an exact sequence

(2)
$$0NEM𝒥_A0$$

and either

* $`NM`$, or
* $`A=\mathrm{}`$ and the sequence splits.

###### Proof.

For a vector bundle of rank $`e`$ on a surface $`S`$ Riemann-Roch gives

$$\chi (EE^{})=(e1)(c_1(E))^22ec_2(E)+e^2\chi (𝒪_S).$$

From our assumptions we get $`\chi (EE^{})4`$ for both the $`K3`$ and the Enriques case, whence $`h^0(EE^{})+h^0(K_SEE^{})4`$. In the $`K3`$ case, since $`K_S`$ is trivial, we get $`h^0(EE^{})2`$, and we are done by Lemma 3.3. So we will stick to the Enriques case.

If $`h^0(EE^{})2`$, we are again done by Lemma 3.3. So we can assume $`h^0(K_SEE^{})3`$ for the rest of the proof.

Pick any non-zero section $`\alpha :EK_SE`$ in $`H^0(K_SEE^{})\mathrm{Hom}(E,K_SE)`$. Define $`\alpha ^{}:=K_S\alpha `$ and consider the composite morphism

$$\alpha ^{}\alpha :EEK_{S}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}E.$$

Then we have three possibilities:

* $`\alpha ^{}\alpha `$ is zero,
* $`\alpha ^{}\alpha `$ is a non-zero multiple of the identity,
* $`\alpha ^{}\alpha `$ is not a multiple of the identity.

In case iii), $`\alpha ^{}\alpha `$ gives a non-trivial endomorphism of $`E`$, whence $`E`$ is non-simple and we are done again.

In case ii) both $`\alpha `$ and $`\alpha ^{}`$ have constant rank two, whence $`EEK_S`$ and $`h^0(EE^{})=h^0(K_SEE^{})3`$, and we are done again.

In case i), $`\alpha `$ must drop rank. Since $`\mathrm{det}\alpha \mathrm{Hom}(L,L)H^0(L)𝐂`$ and $`\alpha `$ is not zero, $`\alpha `$ has constant rank equal to one, whence $`\mathrm{ker}\alpha =:N`$ is a line bundle and we can write $`\mathrm{Im}\alpha =M𝒥_A`$, where $`M:=(\mathrm{Im}\alpha )^{}`$ is a line bundle and $`A`$ is a zero-dimensional subscheme in of $`S`$. In other words we have an exact sequence

$$0NEM𝒥_A0.$$

Since $`\alpha ^{}\alpha =0`$, we have $`\mathrm{Im}\alpha \mathrm{ker}\alpha NK_S`$, whence $`NK_SM^{}`$ has a section, and $`N+K_SM`$. From the short exact sequence above we get $`c_1(E)=M+N`$ and $`c_2(E)=M.N+\mathrm{deg}A`$, whence

$$(MN)^2=c_1(E)^24M.Nc_1(E)^24c_2(E)0.$$

By Riemann-Roch either $`NM0`$ or $`MN0`$. If $`MN>0`$, we would get the absurdity $`K_SMN>0`$, whence $`NM0`$, and we are done. ∎

###### Remark 3.5.

Actually, one can get a similar result in the case $`c_1(E)^24c_2(E)=2`$ on an Enriques surface. In fact, the whole argument goes through, except if $`h^0(EE^{})=0`$, $`h^1(EE^{})=1`$ and $`h^2(EE^{})=0`$. Such a vector bundle is called exceptional and by H. Kim \[Ki\] it sits in a non-split short exact sequence

$$0𝒪_S(D)E𝒪_S(D+\mathrm{\Gamma }+K_S)0,$$

for some divisors $`D`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=2`$, $`h^0(\mathrm{\Gamma })=1`$ and $`h^0(\mathrm{\Gamma }+K_S)=0`$. If $`E`$ is a vector bundle obtained as in Proposition 3.1, we have $`D>0`$.

We leave to the reader to work out the details.

Note that since $`L`$ is nef, we have $`N.LM.L`$ in case (a), and in case b) we can also assume this by symmetry. We will use this in the proof of the next result, which is parallell to \[B-F-S, Prop. 1.4\], but slightly different, due to the different hypotheses.

###### Lemma 3.6.

With the same assumptions and notation as in Proposition 3.1, assume furthermore that $`S`$ is a $`K3`$ surface and $`L^24k`$, or that $`S`$ is an Enriques surface and $`L^24k+4`$. Let $`E`$ be the rank $`2`$ vector bundle and $`M`$, $`N`$ the line bundles obtained as above and fitting in the sequences (1) and (2).  Then the following conditions are satisfied (with $`K_S=0`$ in the $`K3`$ case):

* The sequence $`NEL𝒥_𝒵`$ obtained from  (1) and (2) is nontrivial.
* $`|M|`$ contains an effective divisor D containing $`𝒵`$.
* $`N>0`$ and $`H^1(M+K_S)=H^2(M)=H^2(M+K_S)=H^2(N)=0`$. Furthermore $`M^2=D^22`$.
* $`NM0`$ if $`S`$ is Enriques, or if $`S`$ is $`K3`$ and either $`L^24k+2`$ or $`L^2=4k`$ and $`A\mathrm{}`$.
* $`(L2D).L0`$.
* $`L.D\mathrm{deg}𝒵D^2`$, with equality if and only if $`A=\mathrm{}`$.
* $`D^2\frac{1}{2}L.D`$, with equality if and only if $`L2D`$.
* $`D^2\mathrm{deg}𝒵`$, with equality if and only if $`L2D`$ and $`L^2=4k+4`$.
* $`L.D2\mathrm{deg}𝒵`$, with equality if and only if $`L2D`$ and $`L^2=4k+4`$.
* If $`(L.D)^2=L^2D^2`$, then $`L\lambda D`$, for some $`\lambda 𝐐`$, $`2\lambda 1+\mathrm{deg}𝒵/D^2.`$

###### Proof.

* First we need to show that $`h^0(N)=0`$. Note that $`N`$ is non-trivial, since otherwise $`N.L=M.L=L^2=0`$. Assume, to get a contradiction, that $`|N|`$ contains an effective member $`N_0`$. Then, since $`|L|`$ contains an effective member (because it is big and nef) and $`LMN_0`$, $`|M|`$ contains an effective member $`M_0`$. But then $`L.M_0L.N=L.N_00`$ contradicts that $`L`$ is big and nef.

If the composition $`NEL𝒥_𝒵`$ is zero, then $`N\mathrm{ker}(EL𝒥_𝒵)`$, so $`N=𝒪_S(D^{})`$ for some $`D^{}0`$, contradicting the fact that $`h^0(N)=0`$.
* Tensorizing the sequences (1) and (2) with $`N^1`$ and taking cohomology, we get $`0H^0(EN^1)H^0(M𝒥_𝒵)`$.
* We first prove that $`N>0`$. This is clear if we are in case a) of Lemma 3.4, since we have proved that $`M>0`$. So we can assume that $`A=\mathrm{}`$ in sequence (2). Since $`LM+N`$ by (1) and $`N.LM.L`$, we find $`N^2M^2`$. From (1) and (2) we find $`N.M=c_2(E)=k+1`$, so $`N^2\frac{1}{2}(L^22M.N)1`$ if $`S`$ is $`K3`$ and $`N^20`$ , if $`S`$ is Enriques. In both cases, since $`N`$ is non-trivial, by Riemann-Roch either $`|N|`$ or $`|N|`$ contains an effective member. So $`N>0`$, since we have proved that $`h^0(N)=0`$. By Serre duality $`h^2(N)=h^0(K_SN)=0`$.

The exact sequence (3.4) gives rise to an exact sequence

$$0NK_SEK_SMK_S\tau 0,$$

where $`\tau `$ is a torsion sheaf supported on a finite set. Taking cohomology and using that $`H^1(EK_S)=H^2(EK_S)=H^2(NK_S)=0`$, it follows that $`H^1(MK_S)=H^2(MK_S)=0`$. Clearly we also have $`h^2(M)=h^0(K_SM)=0`$. By Riemann-Roch

$$\chi (MK_S)=h^0(MK_S)=\frac{1}{2}M^2+\chi (𝒪_S),$$

whence $`M^2=D^22`$ in both the $`K3`$ and Enriques case.
* Since this is clear when we are in case (a) of Lemma 3.4, we can assume we are in case (b) of that lemma, and hence that $`\mathrm{deg}A=0`$. From (2) we get $`(NM)^2=L^24k4`$. By our assumptions, we get $`(NM)^20`$ if $`S`$ is Enriques and $`(NM)^22`$ if $`S`$ is $`K3`$, so by Riemann-Roch either $`NM0`$ or $`MN0`$. By symmetry, we can assume $`NM0`$.
* This is $`(NM).L0`$ rewritten.
* By (1) and (2) we have $`c_2(E)=(LD).D+\mathrm{deg}A=\mathrm{deg}𝒵`$.
* By Hodge Index Theorem $`L^2D^2(L.D)^2`$, with equality if and only if $`(D.L)L(L^2)D`$, which means that $`DaL`$ for some $`a𝐐^+`$ (since $`L^20`$ and $`D>0`$, one has $`D.L0`$). But since $`LD+N`$, this gives $`NbL`$ for some $`b𝐐^+`$. Combining this with v) we get $`2(D.L)D^2(L.D)^2`$, with equality if and only if $`DaL`$, $`NbL`$ and $`D.L=N.L`$. This means that $`a=b=1/2`$ and $`L2D`$.
* Immediate from vi) and vii).
* Immediate from vi) and viii).
* This follows from v) and vi).

As a consequence, we have

###### Proposition 3.7.

With the same assumptions and notation as in Proposition 3.1, assume furthermore that $`S`$ is a $`K3`$ surface and $`L^24k`$, or that $`S`$ is an Enriques surface and $`L^24k+4`$.

Then there exists an effective divisor $`D`$ passing through $`𝒵`$ and such that

(3)
$$L.Dk1D^2\stackrel{i)}{}\frac{1}{2}L.D\stackrel{ii)}{}k+1$$

with equality in i) if and only if $`L2D`$ and $`L^24k+4`$, and equality in ii) if and only if $`L2D`$ and $`L^2=4k+4`$.

Furthermore $`L2D0`$ if $`L^24k+2`$.

As a special case, we get that if $`L+K_S`$ is not $`k`$-very ample, then there exists an effective divisor $`D`$ as above.

The numerical conditions in (3) can also be formulated as

$`2D^2\stackrel{i)}{}L.DD^2+k+1\stackrel{ii)}{}2k+2`$
$`()`$ $`\text{with equality in i) if and only if }L2D\text{ and }L^24k+4,`$
$`\text{and equality in ii) if and only if }L2D\text{ and }L^2=4k+4.`$
if $`S`$ is a $`K3`$ surface, and as

$`(\mathrm{\#})`$ $`2D^2\stackrel{i)}{}L.DD^2+k+1\stackrel{ii)}{}2k+2`$
$`\text{with equality in i) or ii) if and only if }L2D\text{ and }L^2=4k+4.`$
if $`S`$ is an Enriques surface.

## 4. $`k`$-spannedness Failing on an Enriques Surface

In this section we will study the Enriques case. Given a divisor satisfying $`(\mathrm{\#})`$, we will give an explicit construction of $`0`$-dimensional schemes where the $`k`$-spannedness of $`L+K_S`$ fails.

First of all, note (in both the Enriques and $`K3`$ cases) that if $`D`$ is an effective divisor satisfying the conditions $`(\mathrm{\#})`$ or $`()`$ for $`k=k_0`$, and the middle inequality is strict, then $`D`$ will satisfy the same conditions for $`k=k_01`$. So if $`D`$ is a divisor satisfying the conditions $`(\mathrm{\#})`$ for the smallest integer $`k_0`$, then $`D`$ will have to satisfy $`D.L=D^2+k_0+1`$.

Recall the following result due to Cossec and Dolgachev \[C-D, p. 134\]:

###### Theorem 4.1.

Let $`D`$ be an effective divisor with $`D^2>0`$ on an Enriques surface. There exists a divisor $`f>0`$ satisfying $`f^2=0`$ and $`f.D\sqrt{D^2}`$.

As a consequence, we get:

###### Lemma 4.2.

Assume $`D`$ is an effective divisor satisfying the numerical conditions $`(\mathrm{\#})`$ for an integer $`k=k_0`$ and that there are no divisors satisfying the conditions for any integer $`k<k_0`$.

Then $`D`$ is of one of the following types:

* $`D^2=2`$, $`D.L=k_01`$,
* $`D^2=0`$, $`D.L=k_0+1`$,
* $`D^2=2`$, $`L2D`$, $`k_0=1`$,
* $`D^2=4`$, $`L2D`$, $`k_0=3`$,

and if $`D`$ is as in iii) or iv), then $`DE_1+E_2`$, where $`E_1^2=E_2^2=0`$ and $`E_1.L=E_2.L=k_0+1`$.

###### Proof.

We clearly must have $`D^22`$. Also note that the result is clear for $`k_01`$, so we will assume $`k_02`$.

The divisor $`D`$ has to be nef if $`D^20`$. Indeed, if there existed a curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.D<0`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.L=0`$ (see the proof of Claim 2 in Proposition 5.1 below) and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ would satisfy the conditions $`(\mathrm{\#})`$ for $`k=1`$, a contradiction.

If $`D^22`$, then by Theorem 4.1 we can find an $`f>0`$ such that $`f^2=0`$ and such that $`(Df)^2D^22\sqrt{D^2}0`$ and $`(Df).DD^2\sqrt{D^2}>0`$. By Riemann-Roch and the nefness of $`D`$, we have that $`A:=Df>0`$. Since $`L.D=L.f+L.A2k_0+2`$, we must have $`L.f=L.A=k_0+1`$, $`A^2=0`$, $`D^2=2`$ or $`4`$ and $`L.D=D^2+k_0+1=2k_0+2`$, whence $`L2D`$ and $`k_0=1`$ or $`3`$ respectively. ∎

We will now prove

###### Proposition 4.3.

Let $`L`$ be a big and nef line bundle on an Enriques surface $`S`$ satisfying $`L^24k_0+4`$. Assume there exists a divisor $`D`$ satisfying the numerical conditions $`(\mathrm{\#})`$ for an integer $`k=k_0`$ and that there are no divisors satisfying the conditions for any integer $`k<k_0`$ (so that, in particular, $`D`$ must be as in i)-iv) in Lemma 4.2 above).

Define $`F:=LD`$ and $`F_D:=F𝒪_D`$. Then the generic section of $`F_D`$ will define a zero dimensional curvilinear scheme of degree $`k_0+1`$ where the $`k_0`$-spannedness of $`(L+K_S)_D:=(L+K_S)𝒪_D`$ fails.

###### Proof.

The numerical conditions above give $`D^2k_0+1`$, with equality if and only if $`L2D`$. Note also that $`F.D=k_0+1`$

Since $`D^2k_0+1`$, we get by Riemann-Roch on $`D`$,

$$h^0(F_D)k_0+1\frac{1}{2}D^2\frac{1}{2}k_0+\frac{1}{2}>0.$$

Any non-zero section $`s`$ in $`H^0(F_D)`$ gives a short exact sequence (after tensorising with the dualising sheaf $`\omega _D^{}:=K_S𝒪_D(D)`$)

$$0\omega _D^{}(L+K_S)_DG0,$$

where $`G`$ is a torsion sheaf supported on the zero-scheme of $`s`$, so $`\mathrm{length}G=\mathrm{deg}F_D=k_0+1`$.

Now $`h^1((L+K_S)_D)=h^0(F_D)=0`$ and $`h^1(\omega _D^{})=h^0(𝒪_D)>0`$, so $`(L+K_S)_D`$ fails to be $`k_0`$-very ample on the zero scheme of $`s`$. To show that $`(L+K_S)_D`$ is not even $`k_0`$-spanned, we can assume $`k_02`$.

If $`D`$ is as in case iv) of Lemma 4.2, then $`FD\frac{1}{2}L`$ is nef. If $`|F|`$ is not base point free, then since $`F^2=D^2=4`$, there exists by Proposition 3.7 an effective divisor $`B`$ satisfying $`B^2=0`$ and $`B.F=1`$. But this would imply $`B.L=2`$, and $`B`$ would satisfy the conditions $`(\mathrm{\#})`$ for $`k=1<k_0`$, a contradiction. So $`|F|`$ is base point free and the zero scheme of a generic section of $`F_D`$ is curvilinear. Hence we are done.

By Lemma 4.2, what remains are the cases where $`D`$ is as in i) or ii). In particular, $`L.Dk_0+1`$.

We will show that $`D`$ is reduced and that $`F_D`$ is base point free on $`D`$. It then follows that the zero scheme of a generic section of $`F_D`$ is curvilinear, which will complete the proof.

If $`D`$ is reduced and irreducible, then since $`\mathrm{deg}F_D=k_0+12p_a(D)=D^2+2`$, we have that $`F_D`$ is base point free on $`D`$ (see e.g. \[C-F, Prop. 2.3\]).

So assume $`D=_{i=1}^nD_i`$, for an integer $`n2`$, with all $`D_i>0`$. Then $`L.D=_{i=1}^nL.D_ik_0+1`$, and since none of the $`D_i`$ can satisfy the conditions $`(\mathrm{\#})`$ for any $`k<k_0`$ by assumption, we easily find $`k_0=2`$ or $`3`$, $`n3`$, $`D^2=0`$, $`L.D=k_0+1`$, $`D_i^2=2`$ and $`L.D_i1`$ for all $`i`$. Since $`D^2=0`$, we have that $`D`$ is nef, as in the proof of Lemma 4.2, whence $`D.D_i=0`$ for all $`i`$. This gives $`\mathrm{deg}F_{D_i}=(LD).D_i1>2p_a(D_i)`$. By \[C-F, Prop. 2.3\] again, $`F_D`$ is base point free on $`D`$.

Since $`D_i^2=2`$ for all $`i`$ (and any decomposition), $`D`$ is reduced. ∎

###### Remark 4.4.

Note that one can argue in the same way (i.e. show that $`L+K_S`$ fails to be $`k`$-very ample on any section of $`F_D`$ and show that a generic such section is curvilinear) in the case $`L^24k+5`$ for surfaces of Kodaira dimension zero in general, and get a simpler proof of \[Te2, Thm. 5\]. Actually, this approach gives the stronger result that if $`L`$ is a big and nef divisor on any surface $`S`$ satisfying $`L^24k+5`$ and there exists an effective divisor $`D`$ satisfying $`L.Dk1D^2<L.D/2<k+1`$ and $`D.K_S0`$, then $`K_S+L`$ is not $`k`$-spanned (here we leave some verifications to the reader). So Del Pezzo surfaces will for instance also be included. Note that $`k`$-very ample line bundles on Del Pezzo surfaces have been completely characterized in \[DR1\].

Since $`L`$ and $`L+K_S`$ are numerically equivalent, we have shown for $`L^24k+4`$, that $`L`$ is $`k`$-very ample if and only if it is $`k`$-spanned if and only if there are no divisors satisfying the conditions $`(\mathrm{\#})`$. And among these divisors, we can always find one satisfying the conditions i) and ii) in Lemma 4.2, by the last statement in that lemma.

To finish the proof of Theorem 1.2, it suffices to note that if $`L^24k+2`$, there exists by Theorem 4.1 an $`f>0`$ satisfying $`f^2=0`$ and $`f.L\sqrt{4k+2}k+1`$.

Note that we have also proved the following:

###### Corollary 4.5.

If $`L`$ is a line bundle on an Enriques surface satisfying $`L^24k+4`$ and $`L`$ is $`(k1)`$-very ample but not $`k`$-very ample, then any $`0`$-dimensional scheme $`𝒵`$ where the $`k`$-very ampleness of $`L`$ fails is contained in an effective divisor $`D`$ satisfying one of the conditions i)-iv) in Lemma 4.2, and any such divisor $`D`$ will contain $`0`$-dimensional schemes where the $`k`$-spannedness of $`L`$ fails.

As a consequence of Theorem 4.1, a line bundle of degree $`4k+4`$ cannot be $`k`$-very ample unless $`k=0`$, as remarked also by T. Szemberg in \[Sz\].

However, our approach shows that also for $`L^2=4k+4`$ and $`k1`$, any (minimal, in the sense of Proposition 3.1) $`0`$-dimensional scheme $`𝒵`$ where the $`k`$-very ampleness of $`L`$ fails, is contained in a divisor $`D`$ satisfying the conditions above. (By Remark 3.5 a similar result holds for $`L^2=4k+2`$.)

As an easy example, a line bundle of degree $`8`$ is not very ample (as was already known to Okonek \[Ok\]), and Corollary 4.5 shows that (if $`L`$ is base point free) each length $`2`$ scheme $`𝒵`$ that $`L`$ fails to separate actually lies on a divisor $`D>0`$ satisfying i) $`D^2=2`$, $`D.L=0`$, or ii) $`D^2=0`$, $`L.D=2`$, or iii) $`D^2=2`$, $`L2D`$. Conversely, given such a divisor, Proposition 4.3 shows how to explicitly find $`0`$-dimensional schemes of length $`2`$ that $`L`$ does not separate. By Theorem 4.1 a divisor of type ii) above always exists. The existence of a divisor of type i) corresponds to $`L`$ contracting rational curves, whereas the existence of a divisor of the type iii) is crucial to determine whether $`\varphi _L`$ is birational or not (see \[Co, Lemma 5.2.7\]).

The next step in the paper is to prove the corresponding result to Proposition 4.3 when $`S`$ is a $`K3`$ surface and $`L^24k`$. Because of the weaker conditions, we will use a different approach and start by finding smooth curves satisfying the conditions $`()`$.

## 5. Smooth Curves Satisfying the Conditions $`()`$

For the rest of the paper, we will consider the case where $`S`$ is a $`K3`$ surface.

We will now show that we can always find a smooth irreducible curve among the divisors satisfying $`()`$. We will actually prove a stronger result, which we will need in the next sections.

Recall that we commented in the beginning of the previous section that if $`k_0`$ is the smallest integer such that there exists a divisor $`D`$ satisfying $`()`$, then $`D`$ will have to satisfy $`L.D=D^2+k_0+1`$.

In exactly the same way it follows that if $`D`$ is any divisor with $`D^20`$ satisfying the numerical conditions $`()`$ for $`k=k_0`$ and there are no divisors with non-negative self-intersection satisfying the numerical conditions $`()`$ for $`k<k_0`$, then $`D`$ will have to satisfy $`L.D=D^2+k_0+1`$.

With this in mind we prove

###### Proposition 5.1.

Let $`S`$ be a $`K3`$ surface and $`L`$ a big and nef line bundle on $`S`$, with $`L^24k_0`$ for an integer $`k_00`$. Assume there is a divisor $`D`$ satisfying the numerical conditions $`()`$ for $`k=k_0`$.

* If $`D^22`$, there exists a smooth rational curve $`D_0`$ satisfying the conditions $`()`$ for $`k=k_0`$.
* If $`D^20`$ and furthermore there exists no divisor with non-negative self-intersection satisfying $`()`$ for $`k<k_0`$ (so that, in particular, $`L.D=D^2+k_0+1`$), there exists a smooth curve $`D_0`$ satisfying $`0D_0^2D^2`$, $`L.D_0=D_0^2+k_0+1`$ and the conditions $`()`$ for $`k=k_0`$, and furthermore such that $`F:=LD_0`$ satisfies $`h^0(F)h^0(D_0)`$.

Proof. If $`D^22`$, $`D`$ must have at least one smooth rational curve $`D_0`$ as its component. Since $`L`$ is nef, this curve will clearly satisfy $`L.D_0L.D`$, so we get

$$4=2D_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}<L.D_0L.DD^2+k+1D_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+k+1=k1,$$

so $`D_0`$ is the desired curve. This proves a).

In case b), we first show with the help of three claims that we can reduce to the case where $`L^22D.L`$, $`H^1(D)=0`$ and $`D`$ is nef 222Note that the two first properties are fulfilled if $`D`$ is a divisor obtained as in Lemma 3.6..

Claim 1. We can assume $`L^22D.L`$ (equivalently $`F^2D^2`$ or $`F.LD.L`$).

###### Proof of claim.

From $`()`$ we have $`2D.L4k_0+4`$. If equality holds, then $`L2D`$, so we have $`L^2=2D.L`$. If $`2D.L4k_0`$, or $`L^24k_0+2`$, we also have $`L^22D.L`$. So we only have the case $`2D.L=4k_0+2`$ and $`L^2=4k_0`$ left. Since $`L`$ is big, we must have $`k_01`$, and from $`L.D=D^2+k_0+1`$, we get $`D^2=k_0`$, whence $`k_02`$. We have $`L^22D.L=2`$, which is equivalent to $`D.L=F.L+2`$ or $`L^2=2F.L+2`$, for $`F:=LD`$. Since $`LD+F`$ we also get $`D^2=F^2+2`$. In particular $`F^20`$. By Hodge Index $`F^2L^2(F.L)^2`$, whence $`2F^2<F.L`$. Furthermore

$$F.L=D.L2=D^2+k_01=F^2+k_0+12k_0,$$

so we can interchange $`D`$ with $`F`$. ∎

Claim 2. We can assume $`D`$ is nef.

###### Proof of claim.

If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a smooth rational curve (necessarily contained in the base locus of $`|D|`$) such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.D<0`$, define $`D^{}:=D\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then we have $`D^{}.LD.L\frac{1}{2}L^2`$, whence by Hodge Index $`2D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}L.D^{}`$, with equality if and only if $`L2D^{}`$.

Furthermore we have

$$D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=D^22D.\mathrm{\Gamma }+\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=D^22D.\mathrm{\Gamma }2D^2,$$

whence

$$D^{}.LD.L=D^2+k_0+1D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+k_0+1.$$

From the last equation combined with $`2D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}L.D^{}`$, we get $`D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_0+1`$, with equality if and only if $`L2D^{}`$.

By the assumption that there exists no divisor with non-negative self-intersection satisfying $`()`$ for $`k<k_0`$, we see that we must have $`D^{}.L=D.L`$ and $`D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=D^2`$. Combining all this, we see that we can exchange $`D`$ with $`D^{}`$, and since $`|D^{}|`$ has one base divisor less than $`|D|`$, we are done by induction on the number of base components of $`|D|`$, counted with multiplicities. ∎

Claim 3. We can assume that $`h^1(D)=0`$.

###### Proof of claim.

By choosing $`D`$ as in Claim 2, it follows by Proposition 2.2 and Lemma 2.3 that $`h^1(D)=0`$, unless when $`DlE`$, for an integer $`l2`$ and $`E`$ a smooth elliptic curve. But in this case $`L.E=\frac{1}{l}L.D=\frac{1}{l}(k_0+1)`$, so $`E`$ would satisfy the conditions $`()`$ for some $`k<k_0`$, contrary to our assumptions. ∎

###### Rest of proof of Proposition 5.1b).

By Proposition 2.2 and Lemma 2.3, choosing $`D`$ according to the claims above, the generic member of $`|D|`$ is a smooth curve of genus $`1`$, unless

$$DlE+\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where $`E`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ are smooth irreducible curves satisfying $`E^2=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=2`$ and $`E.\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$ and $`l2`$ an integer.

By the conditions $`()`$, we have $`L.D2k_0+2`$, so we get

$$E.L\frac{1}{l}D.L\frac{2(k_0+1)}{l}k_0+1,$$

and $`E`$ will satisfy the conditions $`()`$ for some $`kk_0`$, so we either have a contradiction, or $`E`$ is the desired smooth curve.

We now choose a smooth curve $`D_0`$ as above and we must show that $`F:=LD_0`$ has the desired property.

Since $`F^2D_0^20`$, by Riemann-Roch either $`F0`$ or $`F0`$. Since $`F.LD_0.L=k_0+1>0`$, we have $`F>0`$. By Riemann-Roch again, using $`h^1(D_0)=0`$:

$$h^0(F)=\frac{1}{2}F^2+2+h^1(F)\frac{1}{2}D^2+2=h^0(D).$$

This concludes the proof of Proposition 5.1

## 6. $`k`$-spannedness Failing on $`K3`$ Surfaces

We now conclude the proof of Theorem 1.1 by explicitly constructing, in the next two propositions, $`0`$-dimensional curvilinear schemes where the $`k`$-spannedness of $`L`$ fails, given the assumptions that $`L^2<4k`$ or that $`L^24k`$ and the existence of a divisor satisfying the conditions $`()`$ above.

We will make use of the following result by Beltrametti and Sommese:

###### Theorem 6.1.

\[Be-So1, (1.2)\] If $`L`$ is a special $`k`$-spanned line bundle on a smooth curve of genus $`g`$, then $`g2k+1`$.

We first study the case $`L^2<4k`$ more thoroughly.

###### Proposition 6.2.

Let $`L`$ be a globally generated, big line bundle on a $`K3`$ surface $`S`$ satisfying $`L^2<4k`$ for an integer $`k1`$. Then any smooth curve $`C|L|`$ will contain a base point free complete linear system $`|A|`$ of dimension $`1`$ and of degree $`l+1`$, for an integer $`1lk`$, such that the $`l`$-very ampleness of $`L`$ fails on each member of $`|A|`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`C`$ be any smooth curve in $`|L|`$. Then $`g(C)=\frac{1}{2}L^2+12k`$, so by Theorem 6.1, $`L_C:=L𝒪_C=\omega _C`$ is not $`k`$-spanned on $`C`$. So there exists a $`0`$-dimensional subscheme $`𝒵`$ of $`C`$ of degree $`l+1`$, for some integer $`1lk`$, such that the map

$$H^0(\omega _C)H^0(\omega _C𝒪_𝒵)$$

arising from the short exact sequence

$$0\omega _C𝒪_C(𝒵)\omega _C\omega _C𝒪_𝒵0$$

is not surjective.

Taking cohomology and using Serre duality, this is equivalent to

$$h^1(\omega _C𝒪_C(𝒵))=h^0(𝒪_C(𝒵))2.$$

It is also clear that we can pick a minimal such $`𝒵`$, i.e. with the property that the map

$$H^0(\omega _C)H^0(\omega _C𝒪_𝒵^{})$$

is surjective for all proper subschemes $`𝒵^{}`$ in $`𝒵`$. Then $`|𝒪_C(𝒵)|`$ will be base point free, for if not, we would by removing base points, get a contradiction to the minimality of $`𝒵`$. ∎

###### Proposition 6.3.

With the same assumptions and notation as in Proposition 5.1, define $`F:=LD_0`$. Then, for all smooth curves $`D_0^{}`$ in $`|D_0|`$ the line bundle $`F_{D_0^{}}:=F𝒪_{D_0^{}}`$ has the property that the $`k_0`$-spannedness of $`L_{D_0^{}}:=L𝒪_{D_0^{}}`$ fails on any member of $`|F_{D_0^{}}|`$.

###### Proof.

This follows the first lines of the proof of Proposition 4.3. Since $`D_0`$ is smooth, any member of $`|F_{D_0}|`$ will automatically be a curvilinear scheme where the $`k_0`$-spannedness of $`L`$ fails. ∎

This concludes the proof of Theorem 1.1.

In the sequel we will need the following observation.

###### Lemma 6.4.

With the same notation and assumptions as in Proposition 6.3, assume furthermore that $`L`$ is generated by its global sections (so that in particular $`k_01`$) and that $`D^20`$ (and hence $`D_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}0`$).

Then $`h^0(F_{D_0^{}})2`$ for any smooth curve $`D_0^{}`$ in $`|D_0|`$.

If furthermore $`(L^2,D^2)(4k_0+2,k_0)`$, then $`|F_{D_0^{}}|`$ is base point free for any smooth curve $`D_0^{}`$ in $`|D_0|`$.

###### Proof.

First note that if $`(L^2,D^2)(4k_0+2,k_0)`$, then the smooth curve $`D_0`$ constructed as in Proposition 5.1 will also satisfy $`(L^2,D_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(4k_0+2,k_0)`$.

To alleviate notation, we will work with $`D_0`$. We first prove the statement that $`h^0(F_{D_0})2`$.

If $`L2D_0`$ and $`L^2=4k_0+4`$, then $`F_{D_0}\omega _{D_0}`$ and $`h^0(\omega _{D_0})=\frac{1}{2}k_0+\frac{3}{2}2`$.

In the other cases, since we can assume that $`D_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_0`$, we get by Riemann-Roch that $`h^0(F_{D_0})k_0+1\frac{1}{2}D_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}k_0+1\frac{1}{2}k_0>1`$.

Next we treat the question of the base point freeness of $`|F_{D_0}|`$.

Case I: $`L2D_0`$.

In this case, since $`g(D_0)2`$, we clearly have that $`F_{D_0}\omega _{D_0}`$ is base point free.

Case II: $`L^2=4k_0`$, $`L\sim ̸2D_0`$.

Since $`L^2=F^2+D_0^2+2k_0+2`$ and $`F^2D_0^2`$, we must have $`D_0^2k_01`$. Then

$$\mathrm{deg}F_{D_0}=k_0+1D_0^2+2=2g(D_0),$$

so $`|F_{D_0}|`$ is base point free 333In fact, one can also prove that $`|F|`$ is base point free on $`S`$ in this case..

Case III: $`L^24k_0+2`$, $`L\sim ̸2D_0`$.

In this case we have

$$(FD_0)^2=L^24k_042,$$

so by Riemann-Roch again, either $`|FD_0|`$ or $`|D_0F|`$ contains an effective member (recall that we are assuming $`F\sim ̸D_0`$).

If $`F.L>D_0.L`$, then $`|FD_0|`$ contains an effective member. If $`F.L=D_0.L`$, then since $`F\sim ̸D_0`$, and the argument for finding the smooth curve $`D_0`$ in Proposition 5.1 is symmetric, we can assume that it is $`|FD_0|`$ that contains an effective member.

Letting $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the (possibly zero) base divisor of $`|F|`$, we can write

$$FD_0+D_1+\mathrm{\Delta },$$

for some divisor $`D_10`$.

If either $`D_0.D_1>0`$ or $`\mathrm{\Delta }.D_02`$, we have

$$\mathrm{deg}𝒪_X(F)𝒪_{D_0}D_0^2+2=2g(D_0),$$

so $`𝒪_X(F)`$ is base point free on $`D_0`$, and we are done.

We now investigate the case $`D_0.D_1=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }.D_0=1`$, separating it into the two cases $`D_1=0`$ and $`D_1>0`$.

Case IIIa): $`D_1=0`$.

This gives $`FD_0+\mathrm{\Delta }`$ and $`L2D_0+\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Since $`L`$ is nef, we must have $`L.\mathrm{\Delta }=2D_0.\mathrm{\Delta }+\mathrm{\Delta }^20`$, whence $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=2`$.

Since $`D_0`$ is irreducible of non-negative self-intersection, the support of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ can only meet $`D_0`$ once, so there has to exist a smooth rational curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, occurring as a component of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of multiplicity one, such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.D=1`$.

Again, since $`L`$ is nef, we must have $`L.(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{\Delta }.(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{\Delta }^2\mathrm{\Delta }.\mathrm{\Gamma }0`$. This gives $`\mathrm{\Delta }.\mathrm{\Gamma }\mathrm{\Delta }^2=2`$. We then calculate

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma })^2=42\mathrm{\Delta }.\mathrm{\Gamma }0.$$

If $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, then $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ would be contained in the base locus of $`|F|`$, whence the contradiction $`(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Gamma })^2<0`$.

So $`\mathrm{\Delta }=\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, and we calculate $`(L_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},D_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})=(4k_0+2,k_0)`$. Since we easily see that if $`(L^2,D^2)(4k_0+2,k_0)`$, then the smooth curve $`D_0`$ constructed as in Proposition 5.1 will also satisfy $`(L_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2},D_{0}^{}{}_{}{}^{2})(4k_0+2,k_0)`$, we get that we are in the particular case $`(L^2,D^2)=(4k_0+2,k_0)`$ above.

Case IIIb): $`D_1>0`$.

Since $`D_0.D_1=0`$ and $`|D_0|`$ is base point free, we can pick two effective divisors respectively in $`|D_0|`$ and $`|D_1|`$ which do not meet. Their sum is then an effective divisor in $`|F\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ which is not 1-connected, whence $`h^1(F\mathrm{\Delta })>0`$.

By Proposition 2.2, this means that $`F\mathrm{\Delta }lE`$, for an integer $`l2`$ and $`E`$ a smooth elliptic curve, and all members of $`|F\mathrm{\Delta }|`$ would be a sum of elliptic curves in $`|E|`$. Hence $`D_0E`$ and we can write $`L(l+1)E+\mathrm{\Delta }`$, with $`E.\mathrm{\Delta }=D_0.\mathrm{\Delta }=1`$. But then $`L.E=1`$, and this contradicts the spannedness of $`L`$ by Theorem 1.1. ∎

## 7. Birational $`k`$-very ampleness and Birational $`k`$-spannedness

We have now found criteria for a big and nef line bundle $`L`$ on a $`K3`$ surface or Enriques surface $`S`$ to be $`k`$-very ample or equivalently $`k`$-spanned. But we still have not addressed the question about “how much” $`L`$ fails to be $`k`$-very ample or $`k`$-spanned. Is it possible to find a Zariski-open subset of $`S`$ where $`L`$ is $`k`$-very ample (resp. $`k`$-spanned), or does the $`k`$-very ampleness (resp. $`k`$-spannedness) of $`L`$ fail in such a “bad” way that such an open set is impossible to find ?

These questions motivate our further discussion and the following definition:

###### Definition 7.1.

Let $`L`$ be a globally generated line bundle on a smooth connected surface $`S`$ and $`k1`$ an integer.

$`L`$ is birationally $`k`$-very ample (resp. birationally $`k`$-spanned), if there exists a non-empty Zariski-open subset of $`S`$ where $`L`$ is $`k`$-very ample (resp. $`k`$-spanned).

Recall that if $`L`$ is $`0`$-very ample (i.e. generated by global sections), then the complete linear system $`|L|`$ defines a morphism $`S𝐏^{h^0(L)1}`$. If $`L`$ is ($`1`$-)very ample, this morphism is an embedding, and if $`L`$ is birationally ($`1`$-)very ample, this morphism is birational.

We will say that a divisor $`D`$ on a $`K3`$ surface satisfies the conditions $`()`$ for some integer $`k1`$, if $`D`$ satisfies $`D^20`$, $`(L^2,D^2)(4k+2,k)`$ and the conditions $`()`$ above. From the results in the previous paragraph, we get the following:

###### Proposition 7.2.

Let $`L`$ be a spanned and big line bundle on a $`K3`$ surface. If $`L^2<4k`$ or there exists an effective divisor $`D`$ satisfying the conditions $`()`$, $`L`$ is not birationally $`k`$-spanned.

###### Proof.

We showed in the previous paragraph that given any of the assumptions above there exists a complete linear system on $`S`$ (being either $`|L|`$ or $`|D_0|`$) of dimension $`1`$, where the generic member is a smooth curve each containing a base point free linear system of dimension $`1`$ such that $`L`$ fails to be $`k`$-spanned on each member of this linear system. Since any Zariski-closed proper subset of $`S`$ will contain at most finitely many of these curves and intersect the rest of them in a finite number of points, the assertion follows. ∎

What we have to consider now, is what happens in the case where there exist divisors $`D`$ satisfying $`()`$ and $`D^2<0`$ or $`(L^2,D^2)=(4k+2,k)`$.

###### Lemma 7.3.

Let $`L`$ be a globally generated, big line bundle on a $`K3`$ surface $`S`$ satisfying $`L^24k_0`$ for an integer $`k_00`$. If the only divisors satisfying $`()`$ for $`k=k_0`$ have negative self-intersection, then $`L`$ is birationally $`k_0`$-very ample.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`𝒵`$ is any $`0`$-dimensional subscheme of $`S`$ of length $`l+1`$, for an integer $`lk_0`$, such that the map

$$H^0(L)H^0(L𝒪_𝒵)$$

is not onto, but for any proper subscheme $`𝒵^{}`$ of $`𝒵`$, the map

$$H^0(L)H^0(L𝒪_𝒵^{})$$

is onto, then by the results in Section 3, there exists an effective divisor $`D`$ containing $`𝒵`$ and satisfying the numerical conditions $`()`$ for $`k=l`$, and also $`D^22`$ and $`h^1(D)=0`$. By our assumptions, the divisor $`D`$ must satisfy $`D^2=2`$ and consequently by Riemann-Roch, $`h^0(D)=1`$, whence $`D`$ is supported on a union of smooth rational curves. In addition any such rational curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must satisfy $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.LD.Ll1k_01`$.

This means that any $`0`$-dimensional subscheme of $`S`$ where the $`k_0`$-very ampleness of $`L`$ fails, must have some points in common with a smooth rational curve of degree $`k_0+1`$ (with respect to $`L`$). Since the number of such curves is finite by standard arguments, $`L`$ will be $`k_0`$-very ample on the complement of the set of such curves, which is a Zariski-open subset of $`S`$. ∎

The case when $`(L^2,D^2)=(4k+2,k)`$ is a bit more involved. By the conditions $`()`$ we see that such a divisor $`D`$ must satisfy $`D.L=2k+1`$.

###### Lemma 7.4.

Let $`D`$ and $`L`$ be effective divisors on a $`K3`$ surface satisfying $`L2D0`$, $`L^2=4k+2`$, $`D^2=k`$ and $`D.L=2k+1`$, for an integer $`k2`$. Assume furthermore that there are no divisors satisfying the conditions $`()`$. Then

$$L2D+\mathrm{\Gamma },$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a smooth curve satisfying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.D=1`$.

###### Proof.

We calculate $`(L2D)^2=2`$. From Riemann-Roch and the fact that $`L2D0`$, we get that $`L2D\mathrm{\Delta }`$ for some effective divisor $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Delta }^2=2`$. We calculate $`\mathrm{\Delta }.D=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }.L=0`$. Since $`L`$ is nef, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ has to be supported on a union of smooth rational curves.

If there exists a smooth rational curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, occurring as a component of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.D=1`$ (and necessarily $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.L=0`$), we get

$$L^2(2D+\mathrm{\Gamma })^2=(4k+2)^2=(L.(2D+\mathrm{\Gamma }))^2,$$

whence $`L2D+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ by Hodge index theorem.

So it is sufficient to prove the existence of such a curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Delta }.D=1`$, there has to exist a smooth rational curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ satisfying $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.D1`$. If $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.D2`$, define $`D^{}:=D+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Then we have $`D^{}.L=D.L\frac{1}{2}L^2`$, whence by Hodge index $`2D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}L.D^{}`$. We also get $`D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}D^2+2`$, whence $`D^{}.L<D_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}+k_0+1`$. By the assumptions that there are no divisors $`D`$ satisfying $`()`$, we must have $`D.\mathrm{\Gamma }=1`$, and we are done. ∎

###### Proposition 7.5.

Let $`L`$ be a globally generated, big line bundle on a $`K3`$ surface $`S`$ satisfying $`L^24k_0`$ for an integer $`k_00`$. If there are no divisors $`D`$ satisfying the conditions $`()`$ for $`k=k_0`$, then any $`0`$-dimensional subscheme of $`S`$ where the $`k_0`$-very ampleness of $`L`$ fails, has some point in common with a smooth rational curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.Lk_0+1`$. Hence $`L`$ is birationally $`k_0`$-very ample.

###### Proof.

If $`𝒵`$ is any $`0`$-dimensional subscheme of $`S`$ of length $`l+1`$, for an integer $`lk_0`$, such that the map

$$H^0(L)H^0(L𝒪_𝒵)$$

is not onto, but for any proper subscheme $`𝒵^{}`$ of $`𝒵`$, the map

$$H^0(L)H^0(L𝒪_𝒵^{})$$

is onto, then by the results in Section 3 again, there exists an effective divisor $`D`$ containing $`𝒵`$ and satisfying the numerical conditions $`()`$ for $`k=l`$, $`D^22`$ and $`h^1(D)=0`$. By our assumptions, we must either have $`D^2=2`$ or $`(L^2,D^2)=(4k_0+2,k_0)`$ and $`l=k_0`$. In the first case, we are done as in the proof of Lemma 7.3. So we must treat the second case. We will actually show that in this case $`𝒵`$ will meet a smooth rational curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.L=0`$.

By Lemma 3.6, iv), we have $`L2D0`$, and by our assumptions on $`L^2`$ and $`D^2`$, we must have $`L.D=D^2+k_0+1`$, whence $`A=\mathrm{}`$ in Lemma 3.6 and the exact sequence (2).

By Lemma 7.4, we have $`L2D+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a smooth rational curve such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.D=1`$. Define $`F:=LDD+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$.

Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.F=1`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ must be a base component of $`F`$. From this it follows that $`h^0(F)=h^0(D)`$, and since $`h^1(D)=0`$ and one calculates $`F^2=D^2`$, we get from Riemann-Roch that $`h^1(F)=0`$.

Tensorising the exact sequences (1) and (2) by $`𝒪_X(F)`$ and $`𝒪_X(D)`$, respectively, and using $`H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma })=H^1(F)=0`$ and Serre duality, we find $`h^0(𝒪_X(D)𝒥_𝒵)=1`$ and $`h^0(𝒪_X(F)𝒥_𝒵)=2`$ respectively.

The latter equality means that we can choose two distinct elements $`F_1`$ and $`F_2`$ in $`|F|`$ both containing $`𝒵`$ (scheme-theoretically). But since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a base component of $`|F|`$, we must have $`F_1=D_1+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`F_2=D_2+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, for two distinct elements $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ of $`|D|`$. If $`𝒵`$ meets $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, we are done. If not, we would have both $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ containing $`𝒵`$ (scheme-theoretically). But this contradicts the fact that $`h^0(𝒪_X(D)𝒥_𝒵)=1`$. ∎

This concludes the proof of the equivalence of parts a)-d) in Theorem 1.3.

## 8. The Clifford Index and Gonality of Smooth Curves in $`|L|`$

We briefly recall the definition and some properties of gonality and Clifford index of curves. Let $`C`$ be a smooth irreducible curve of genus $`g2`$. We denote by $`g_d^r`$ a linear system of dimension $`r`$ and degree $`d`$ and say that $`C`$ is $`k`$-gonal (and that $`k`$ is its gonality) if $`C`$ posesses a $`g_k^1`$ but no $`g_{k1}^1`$. In particular, we call a $`2`$-gonal curve hyperelliptic and a $`3`$-gonal curve trigonal. We denote by $`\mathrm{gon}C`$ the gonality of $`C`$. Note that if $`C`$ is $`k`$-gonal, all $`g_k^1`$’s must necessarily be base point free and complete.

If $`A`$ is a line bundle on $`C`$, then the Clifford index of $`A`$ is the integer

$$\mathrm{Cliff}A=\mathrm{deg}A2(h^0(A)1).$$

The Clifford index of $`C`$ itself is defined as

$$\mathrm{Cliff}C=\mathrm{min}\{\mathrm{Cliff}A|h^0(A)2,h^1(A)2\}.$$

Clifford’s theorem then states that $`\mathrm{Cliff}C0`$ with equality if and only if $`C`$ is hyperelliptic and $`\mathrm{Cliff}C=1`$ if and only if $`C`$ is trigonal or a smooth plane quintic.

At the other extreme, we get from Brill-Noether theory (cf. \[ACGH, V\]) that the gonality of $`C`$ satisfies $`\mathrm{gon}C\frac{g+3}{2}`$, whence $`\mathrm{Cliff}C\frac{g1}{2}`$. For the general curve of genus $`g`$, we have $`\mathrm{Cliff}C=\frac{g1}{2}`$.

We say that a line bundle $`A`$ on $`C`$ contributes to the Clifford index of $`C`$ if $`h^0(A),h^1(A)2`$ and that it computes the Clifford index of $`C`$ if in addition $`\mathrm{Cliff}C=\mathrm{Cliff}A`$.

Note that $`\mathrm{Cliff}A=\mathrm{Cliff}\omega _CA^1`$.

The Clifford dimension of $`C`$ is defined as

$$\mathrm{min}\{h^0(A)1\text{ }|\text{ }A\text{ computes the Clifford index of }C\}.$$

A line bundle $`A`$ which achieves the minimum and computes the Clifford index, is said to compute the Clifford dimension. A curve of Clifford index $`c`$ is $`(c+2)`$-gonal if and only if it has Clifford dimension $`1`$. For a general curve $`C`$, we have $`\mathrm{gon}C=c+2`$.

###### Lemma 8.1.

\[C-M, Theorem 2.3\] The gonality $`k`$ of a smooth irreducible projective curve $`C`$ satisfies

$$\mathrm{Cliff}C+2k\mathrm{Cliff}C+3.$$

The curves satisfying $`\mathrm{gon}C=\mathrm{Cliff}C+3`$ are conjectured to be very rare and called exceptional (cf. \[Ma, (4.1)\]).

###### Lemma 8.2.

\[M-P, Prop. 1.2\] A smooth irreducible projective curve $`C`$ is $`k`$-gonal if and only if $`K_C`$ is $`(k2)`$-very ample but not $`(k1)`$-very ample.

Recall also the result of Green and Lazarsfeld \[G-L\], which states that if $`L`$ is a base point free line bundle on a $`K3`$ surface $`S`$, then $`\mathrm{Cliff}C`$ is constant for all smooth irreducible $`C|L|`$, and if $`\mathrm{Cliff}C<\frac{g1}{2}`$, then there exists a line bundle $`M`$ on $`S`$ such that $`M_C:=M𝒪_C`$ computes the Clifford index of $`C`$ for all smooth irreducible $`C|L|`$. (Note that since $`(LM)𝒪_C\omega _CM_{C}^{}{}_{}{}^{1}`$, the result is symmetric in $`M`$ and $`LM`$.)

It turns out that we can choose $`M`$ so that it satisfies certain properties. We will need the following result in the sequel.

###### Lemma 8.3.

Let $`L`$ be a base point free line bundle on a $`K3`$ surface $`S`$ with $`L^2=2g22`$. Let $`c`$ be the Clifford index of any smooth curve in $`|L|`$.

If $`c<\frac{g1}{2}`$, then there exists a smooth curve $`D`$ on $`S`$ satisfying $`0D^2c+2`$, $`2D^2D.L`$ (either of the latter two inequalities being an equality if and only if $`L2D`$) and

$$\mathrm{Cliff}C=\mathrm{Cliff}(𝒪_S(D)𝒪_C)=D.LD^22$$

for any smooth curve $`C|L|`$.

###### Proof.

It follows from the proof of the main theorem in \[G-L\], as worked out by Martens in \[Ma, (2.3)\], that we can choose the line bundle $`M`$ above so that $`M𝒪_C`$ and $`(LM)𝒪_C`$ compute the Clifford index of $`C`$ and furthermore $`h^0(M)=h^0(M_C)2`$, $`h^0(LM)=h^0(\omega _CM_C^1)=h^1(M_C)2`$, $`h^1(M)=h^1(LM)=0`$ and such that either $`|M|`$ or $`|LM|`$ is base point free (any one of them by our choice, but not necessarily both at the same time, unless $`L`$ is ample 444Here in fact there is a slight malformulation in Cor. 2.3 in \[Ma\], where it seems as if one can choose both $`|M|`$ and $`|LM|`$ to be base point free at the same time, which is not the case.).

By symmetry, we can assume $`M.L(LM).L`$, or equivalently $`2M.LL^2`$, and we will choose $`M`$ to be base point free. Since $`h^1(M)=0`$, it follows from Proposition 2.2 again that the generic member of $`|M|`$ is a smooth irreducible curve $`D`$ of genus $`0`$. Combining $`2D.LL^2`$ with the Hodge index theorem, we get $`2D^2D.L`$, with equality if and only if $`L2D`$.

Furthermore, by the exact cohomology sequence associated to the standard short exact sequence

$$0𝒪_S(DC)𝒪_S(D)𝒪_S(D)𝒪_C0,$$

and using that $`h^1(DC)=h^1(LM)=0`$, we get from Riemann-Roch

$$h^0(𝒪_S(D)𝒪_C)=h^0(D)=\frac{1}{2}D^2+2,$$

so

$$\mathrm{Cliff}C=\mathrm{deg}(𝒪_S(D)𝒪_C)2(h^0(D)1)=D.LD^22.$$

Since $`2D^2D.L`$ we finally get $`c=D.LD^22D^22`$. ∎

###### Remark 8.4.

From the exact sequence above it follows that if $`D`$ is any divisor such that $`h^0(D),h^0(LD)>0`$, then $`h^0(𝒪_S(D)𝒪_C)h^0(D)`$, $`h^1(𝒪_S(D)𝒪_C)h^0(LD)`$ and  $`\mathrm{Cliff}(𝒪_S(D)𝒪_C)D.LD^22`$.

We have the following result

###### Lemma 8.5.

Let $`L`$ be a globally generated and big line bundle on a $`K3`$ surface and denote by $`c`$ the Clifford index of any smooth curve in $`|L|`$. Let $`k_1`$ be the smallest integer such that the conditions $`()`$ are fulfilled for an integer $`k1`$ and a divisor $`D`$ satisfying $`D^20`$, and $`k_2`$ be the smallest integer such that $`L^2<4k_2`$. Define $`k_0:=\mathrm{min}\{k_1,k_2\}`$

Then $`c=k_01`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`g=\frac{1}{2}L^2+1`$ be the genus of all the smooth curves in $`|L|`$.

If $`L^2<4k_2`$, then we have

$$\frac{g1}{2}=\frac{L^2}{4}<k_2,$$

whence $`ck_21`$.

If $`k_1`$ is the smallest integer such that the conditions $`()`$ are fulfilled for an integer $`k1`$ and a divisor $`D`$ satisfying $`D^20`$, then by Proposition 5.1 we can find a smooth curve $`D_0`$ satisfying $`()`$ for $`k=k_1`$ with equality in the middle and such that $`h^0(F)h^0(D_0)2`$ and $`h^1(D_0)=0`$, where $`F:=LD_0`$. Let $`C`$ be any smooth curve in $`|L|`$. From Remark 8.4 we have

$$\mathrm{Cliff}(𝒪_C(D_0))D_0.CD_0^22=k_11,$$

whence $`ck_11`$ again.

We now prove the opposite inequality.

If $`c=\frac{g1}{2}`$, we have $`L^2=4c`$ or $`4c+2`$, whence $`k_2=c+1`$.

If $`c<\frac{g1}{2}`$, there exists by Lemma 8.3 a smooth curve $`D`$ satisfying $`0D^2c+2`$, $`2D^2D.L`$ with equality if and only if $`L2D`$, and also $`c=D.LD^22`$. But this means that $`D`$ satisfies the conditions $`()`$ for $`k=c+1`$, whence $`k_1c+1`$. ∎

The following proposition investigates the particular case $`(L^2,D^2)=(4k+2,k)`$ apperaring in the conditions $`()`$.

###### Proposition 8.6.

Let $`L`$ be a spanned and big line bundle on a $`K3`$ surface and denote by $`c`$ the Clifford index of all smooth curves in $`|L|`$. Then the following two conditions are equivalent:

* $`L2D+\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, where $`D`$ is an effective divisor and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ is a smooth curve satisfying $`D^2=k`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^2=2`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.D=1`$, for an integer $`k1`$ and there are no divisors satisfying the conditions $`()`$,
* $`c=k1`$ and all smooth curves in $`|L|`$ have gonality $`c+3`$ (equivalently, all smooth curves in $`|L|`$ have Clifford dimension $`>1`$).

###### Proof.

Given i), by Remark 8.4 we have $`cD.LD^22=k1`$. Since there are no divisors satisfying the conditions $`()`$, we must have equality.

By Lemma 8.1, we have $`k+1\mathrm{gon}Ck+2`$. We saw in the proof of Proposition 7.5 that if $`𝒵`$ is any $`0`$-dimensional scheme where the $`k`$-spannedness of $`L`$ fails, then $`𝒵`$ has a point in common with $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. But $`\mathrm{\Gamma }.L=0`$, whence $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ does not intersect any smooth curve in $`|L|`$ and $`L_{|C}\omega _C`$ is $`(k+1)`$-spanned for all smooth $`C|L|`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{gon}Ck+2`$ by Lemma 8.2.

Conversely, given ii), the curves in $`|L|`$ cannot have general Clifford index, so $`c=k1<\frac{L^2}{4}`$, whence $`L^24k`$ and by Lemma 8.5 there exists a divisor and, a posteriori, a smooth curve $`D`$ satisfying the conditions $`()`$ and $`D^20`$.

Assume $`D`$ satisfies the conditions $`()`$ as well (i.e. $`(L^2,D^2)(4k+2,k)`$). In the proof of Lemma 6.4 we proved that the line bundle $`F_D`$ is base point free on $`D`$, where $`F:=LD`$ and $`F_D:=F𝒪_D`$ as usual. Furthermore, since $`F`$ computes the Clifford index of any smooth curve in $`|L|`$, one sees that $`h^1(F)=0`$ and that the possibly empty base locus $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ of $`|F|`$ must satisfy $`\mathrm{\Delta }.L=0`$. Hence, by \[C-P, Lemma 2.2\], we have that there exists a smooth curve in $`|L|`$ of gonality $`F.D=k+1=c+2`$, a contradiction.

Therefore, $`(L^2,D^2)=(4k+2,k)`$ and there are no divisors satisfying $`()`$. By Lemma 7.4, $`L`$ has the desired form. ∎

###### Remark 8.7.

The example above is essentially the same as the one treated in \[E-L-M-S, Thm. 4.3\], where the authors prove that all smooth curves in $`|L|`$ are exceptional under the stronger hypothesis that $`\mathrm{Pic}S𝐙D𝐙\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. We have proved this under the weaker hypothesis that there are no divisors satisfying $`()`$ and also proved that this is the only example of a complete linear system on a $`K3`$ surface where all smooth curves are exceptional.

It should be noted, however, that the authors in \[E-L-M-S\] also prove that the Clifford dimension of all smooth curves in $`|L|`$ is $`\frac{1}{2}D^2+1=\frac{1}{2}k+1`$, a statement which is absent in our treatment.

Now the equivalence of parts e)-g) with a)-d) in Theorem 1.3 follows rather easily.

It is clear from Lemma 8.2 that the conditions e) and g) are equivalent. The equivalence between d) and f) follows from Lemma 8.5 and Proposition 8.6, and the equivalence between e) and f) follows from Proposition 8.6.

What remains now is condition h). There are two approaches here: one is to study the vector bundles $`E`$ appearing in Section 3, the other is to study vector bundles naturally arising from the study of line bundles on smooth curves on $`K3`$ surfaces. We will follow the second approach. For details we refer to \[La\], \[G-L\] and \[C-P\].

Let $`C`$ be a smooth curve on a $`K3`$ surface $`S`$. Recall that if $`A`$ is a line bundle on $`C`$ with the property that both $`A`$ and $`\omega _CA^1`$ are generated by their global sections, then one can associate to the pair $`(C,A)`$ a vector bundle $`E(C,A)`$ of rank $`h^0(A)`$ as follows. Thinking of $`A`$ as a coherent sheaf on $`S`$, we get a short exact sequence

$$0F(C,A)H^0(A)_𝐂𝒪_SA0$$

of $`𝒪_S`$-modules, where $`F(C,A)`$ is locally free (since $`A`$ is locally isomorphic to $`𝒪_C`$ and hence has homological dimension one over $`𝒪_S`$).

The vector bundle $`E(C,A):=F(C,A)^{}`$ will have rank $`h^0(A)`$ and the following properties: $`H^1(E(C,A))=H^2(E(C,A))=0`$, $`\mathrm{det}E(C,A)=L`$, $`c_2(E(C,A))=\mathrm{deg}A`$ and $`E(C,A)`$ is generated by its global sections.

Note that if $`A`$ is any line bundle on $`C`$ computing the Clifford index or the gonality of $`C`$, then $`A`$ will satisfy the conditions that both $`A`$ and $`\omega _CA^1`$ are generated by their global sections, and we can carry out the construction of the vector bundle $`E(C,A)`$ above.

Also recall that if $`E`$ is any vector bundle on $`S`$ generated by its global sections and satisfying $`H^1(E)=H^2(E)=0`$, then $`E=E(C,A)`$ for some pairs $`(C,A)`$, where $`C`$ is a smooth curve in $`|\mathrm{det}E|`$ and $`A`$ is a line bundle on $`C`$ satisfying $`h^0(A)=\mathrm{rank}E`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}A=c_2(E)`$ \[C-P, Lemma 1.2\].

Now the equivalence between e) and h) in Theorem 1.3 follows immediately. Indeed, the existence of a smooth curve in $`|L|`$ of gonality $`k+1`$ is equivalent to the existence of a rank two vector bundle $`E`$ generated by its global sections and satisfying $`H^1(E)=H^2(E)=0`$, $`\mathrm{det}E=L`$ and $`c_2(E)k+1`$.

This concludes the proof of Theorem 1.3.

Mathematics Subject Classification: 14J28.

Key words: Line bundles, $`K3`$ surfaces, Enriques surfaces, $`k`$-very ampleness, $`k`$-spannedness, Clifford index, gonality.

E-mail: andreask@mi.uib.no.