format: text

text:
# Rationality criteria for motivic zeta-functions

## 1. Introduction

Let $`X`$ be a variety over a finite field $`𝔽`$ and $`\mathrm{Sym}^nX=X^n/S_n`$, the variety of effective zero-cycles on $`X`$ of degree $`n`$ (where by convention, $`S^0X=\mathrm{Spec}𝔽`$). A celebrated theorem of B. Dwork asserts that the zeta-function

$$Z_X(t)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}|\mathrm{Sym}^n(X)(𝔽)|t^n$$

is a rational function in $`t`$. Kapranov asked \[Ka\] whether this rationality lifts to the Grothendieck ring of varieties over $`𝔽`$. Explicitly, let $`K_0[𝒱_𝔽]`$ denote the ring of $``$-combinations of isomorphism classes of $`𝔽`$-varieties modulo the cutting-and-pasting relation

$$[X]=[Y]+[XY]$$

for closed $`𝔽`$-subvarieties $`YX`$. Is the motivic zeta-function

$$\zeta _X(t)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}[\mathrm{Sym}^n(X)]t^n$$

always rational as a power series in $`K_0[𝒱_𝔽]`$? More generally, is this true for varieties over a general field $`K`$, for example, $`K=`$? If so, this would give a fundamentally new proof of Dwork’s theorem, one that does not depend on Frobenius at all. Kapranov observed that it is true when $`X`$ is a curve. (See Theorem 3.7 below for a statement and proof over $``$.)

In \[LaLu\], we proved that $`\zeta _X(t)`$ is not rational when $`X`$ is a complex projective non-singular surface with geometric genus $`2`$. In this paper we return to the problem and give a simple necessary and sufficient condition on complex surfaces for $`\zeta _X(t)`$ to be rational:

###### Theorem 1.1.

A complex surface $`X`$ has rational motivic zeta function if and only if it has Kodaira dimension $`\mathrm{}`$.

The notion of rationality needs some explanation (see §2 below). Theorem 3.9 asserts rationality in the strong sense when Kodaira dimension is $`\mathrm{}`$, and Theorem 7.6 denies rationality in the weak sense when Kodaira dimension is $`0`$. The methods for proving rationality and irrationality are entirely different. The fact that they meet in the middle to give a necessary and sufficient condition appears as a minor miracle, made possible by the classification of surfaces. By contrast, in dimension $`3`$, the rationality problem seems wide open.

There are two main ideas in this paper. The first is to probe rationality by means of new motivic measures, i.e. field-valued points of $`\mathrm{Spec}K_0[𝒱_{}]`$. In \[LaLu\], we showed that any multiplicative function on the set of stable birational equivalence classes of non-singular complex projective varieties defines a motivic measure. In particular, we constructed a measure $`\mu _1`$, with values in the fraction field of the group ring of the multiplicative group of integer power series $`(1+s[[s]])^\times `$, characterized by the formula

$$\mu _1([Z])=\left[\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}dim\mathrm{\Gamma }(Z,\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^i)s^i\right]$$

for $`Z`$ a (connected) non-singular projective variety. In the current paper, we introduce a set of measures $`\mu _n`$ indexed by positive integers $`n`$, characterized by

(1.1)
$$\mu _n([Z])=\left[\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}dimH^0(Z,\mathrm{\Psi }^n\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^i)s^i\right],$$

where $`n`$ denotes the $`n`$th Adams operation. The point of this generalization is that it allows us to work with higher plurigenera in much the way that we worked with geometric genus in \[LaLu\]. If for some $`n`$, $`\mu _n(\zeta _X(t))`$ is irrational, then of course $`\zeta _X(t)`$ itself is irrational. For singular $`Z`$, the right hand side of (1.1) does not make sense, and indeed the left hand side is generally not of the form $`[P]`$ for any power series $`P(1+s[[s]])^\times `$. However, in the special case $`Z=\mathrm{Sym}^nX`$, $`dimX=2`$, it turns out that $`\mu _n([Z])=\mu _n([\mathrm{Hilb}^nX])`$, where $`\mathrm{Hilb}^nX`$ is the Hilbert scheme of points on $`X`$. (The fact that $`\mathrm{Hilb}^nX`$ is non-singular is another way in which dimension $`2`$ is special.) Our task, therefore, is to prove that if the $`m`$th plurigenus of $`X`$ is positive, then

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\left[\underset{j=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}dimH^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^iX,\mathrm{\Psi }^m\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Hilb}^iX}^j)s^j\right]t^i$$

is irrational.

The other main idea in this paper is to make systematic use of $`\lambda `$-ring ideas and techniques (see §4 for a brief review of this theory). We have already noted the appearance of Adams operations. This is somewhat delicate: we cannot work in the usual $`K(X)`$ since the global section functor is not well-defined there. Instead, we need to prove that the ring of virtual vector bundles modulo split exact sequences is a special $`\lambda `$-ring (see §5). Also significant is the idea that the motivic zeta-function (or better, its inverse) should be regarded as the universal $`\lambda `$-homomorphism. This is true only formally since $`K_0[𝒱_{}]`$ is not a special $`\lambda `$-ring. It is nonetheless suggestive, since the universal $`\lambda `$-homomorphism sends every virtually finite element to a rational power series. For a special $`\lambda `$-ring the virtually finite elements form a $`\lambda `$-subring which in many interesting cases is the whole ring. This interpretation of the zeta-function suggests on the one hand that we should seek motivic measures which are $`\lambda `$-homomorphisms and on the other that it may be natural to replace the Grothendieck ring of varieties by its specialization, i.e., its maximal quotient which is a special $`\lambda `$-ring (see §8).

E. Looijenga has called our attention to certain formal analogies between the problem of rationality of zeta-functions of complex surfaces $`X`$, and Severi’s conjecture, disproved by D. Mumford \[Mu\], which predicted that the group of $`0`$-cycles modulo rational equivalence on $`X`$ would be finite-dimensional. Each statement can be understood as bounding the complexity of symmetric powers of $`X`$. In each case, global holomorphic $`2`$-forms provide the obstruction to this boundedness. However, there is an essential difference. A conjecture of S. Bloch \[Bl\] asserts that when $`H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }_X^2)=0`$, the group of degree zero $`0`$-cycles should be isomorphic to the Albanese variety of $`X`$. This has been settled by Bloch, A. Kas, and D. Lieberman \[BKL\] for Kodaira dimension $`<2`$, so there are examples of surfaces in which the two notions of boundedness diverge. In particular, the use of plurigenera in this paper does not seem to have a counterpart in the world of $`\mathrm{CH}^2`$.

Throughout this paper, a variety will be a reduced separated scheme of finite type over $``$. The class $`[X]K_0[𝒱_{}]`$ of a variety $`X`$ will sometimes be written without brackets when it seems unlikely to lead to any confusion.

## 2. Rationality criteria for power series

In this paper we will be concerned with the rationality of power series with coefficients in a commutative ring $`A`$. It is not entirely clear how such rationality should be defined when $`A`$ is not an integral domain (and we know \[Po\] that the Grothendieck ring of varieties has zero-divisors). We consider several possible definitions:

###### Definition 2.1.

A power series $`f(t)A[[t]]`$ is globally rational if and only if there exist polynomials $`g(t),h(t)A[t]`$ such that $`f(t)`$ is the unique solution of $`g(t)x=h(t)`$.

###### Definition 2.2.

A power series $`f(t)=_ia_it^iA[[t]]`$ is determinantally rational if and only if there exist integers $`m`$ and $`n`$ such that

$$det\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_i& a_{i+1}& \mathrm{}& a_{i+m}\\ a_{i+1}& a_{i+2}& \mathrm{}& a_{i+m+1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ a_{i+m}& a_{i+m+1}& \mathrm{}& a_{i+2m}\end{array}\right)=0$$

for all $`i>n`$.

It is classical \[E.B\] that Definition 2.1 is equivalent to Definition 2.2 when $`A`$ is a field. This suggests a third possible definition:

###### Definition 2.3.

A power series $`fA[[t]]`$ is pointwise rational if and only if for all homomorphisms $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ from $`A`$ to a field, $`\mathrm{\Phi }(f)`$ is rational by either of the two previous definitions.

These definitions are related by the following proposition:

###### Proposition 2.4.

Any globally rational power series is determinantally rational, and any determinantally rational power series is pointwise rational. Neither converse holds for a general coefficient ring $`A`$. All three conditions are equivalent when $`A`$ is an integral domain.

Proof. Suppose $`g(t)=_i^kb_it^i,h(t)=_i^{\mathrm{}}c_it^iA[[t]]`$ and $`f(t)=_ia_it^i`$ is the unique solution to $`g(t)x=h(t)`$. Since $`f(t)+a`$ is not a solution when $`a0`$ is a constant, the annihilator of the ideal $`(b_0,b_1,\mathrm{},b_k)`$ of coefficients of $`g`$ is $`(0)`$. Setting $`m=k`$, $`n=\mathrm{}`$ in Definition 2.2,

$$\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_i& a_{i+1}& \mathrm{}& a_{i+m}\\ a_{i+1}& a_{i+2}& \mathrm{}& a_{i+m+1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ a_{i+m}& a_{i+m+1}& \mathrm{}& a_{i+2m}\end{array}\right)\left(\begin{array}{c}b_k\\ b_{k1}\\ \mathrm{}\\ b_0\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{c}0\\ 0\\ \mathrm{}\\ 0\end{array}\right)$$

for $`i>\mathrm{}k`$. Left multiplying both sides by the matrix of cofactors, we conclude that the determinant of the above matrix annihilates the $`b`$-column vector, which means that it is $`0`$.

To see that the converse does not hold, consider $`A=[x]/(x^2)`$. As $`A`$ is countable, the set of globally rational power series over $`A`$ is countable. However, any power series of the form $`f(t)=xg(t)`$ satisfies Definition 2.2 when $`m=1`$.

Suppose $`f(t)=_ia_it^i`$ satisfies Definition 2.2. The same is then true for $`\mathrm{\Phi }(f)`$, which is a power series over a field. For fields, however, the determinantal condition implies rationality.

To see that the converse does not hold, consider

$$A=[x_1,x_2,\mathrm{}]/(x_1^2,x_2^2,\mathrm{})$$

in infinitely many variables $`x_i`$. Every homomorphism from $`A`$ to a field factors through the augmentation. Therefore, $`f(t)=_{i=1}^{\mathrm{}}x_it^i`$ is pointwise rational. However, the determinant

$$det\left(\begin{array}{cccc}a_i& a_{i+1}& \mathrm{}& a_{i+m}\\ a_{i+1}& a_{i+2}& \mathrm{}& a_{i+m+1}\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ a_{i+m}& a_{i+m+1}& \mathrm{}& a_{i+2m}\end{array}\right)$$

is never zero since it has a non-trivial $`x_ix_{i+2}x_{i+4}\mathrm{}x_{i+2m}`$ coefficient.

Finally, when $`A`$ is an integral domain, we let $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ denote the inclusion map from $`A`$ to its fraction field $`F`$. If $`f(t)`$ is pointwise rational, it must be rational as a power series in $`F[[t]]`$. Therefore, $`g(t)f(t)=h(t)`$ for polynomials $`g(t),h(t)F[t]`$, $`g(t)0`$. Clearing denominators, we may assume $`g(t),h(t)A[t]`$. As $`A[t]`$ is an integral domain, $`f(t)`$ is globally rational. ∎

The following lemma will be useful in §3:

###### Lemma 2.5.

If $`f(t)1+tA[[t]]`$ is globally (resp. pointwise) rational, the same is true of $`f(t)^1`$.

Proof. If $`f(t)`$ is the unique solution of $`g(t)x=h(t)`$, then $`g(t)`$ is not a zero-divisor in $`A[[t]]`$, and $`f(t)`$ is invertible, so again not a zero-divisor. Therefore $`h(t)=f(t)g(t)`$ is not a zero divisor, and $`f(t)^1`$ is the unique solution of $`h(t)x=g(t)`$. The pointwise case is trivial. ∎

In \[Ka\], the rationality of motivic zeta functions is discussed in pointwise terms. To give the strongest possible results, we generally prove rationality globally and irrationality pointwise. To do the latter, we make free use of the determinantal formulation of rationality for power series over fields.

Consider a free abelian group $`G`$ and its group ring $`[G]`$. This ring is isomorphic to the ring of Laurent polynomials, hence is a domain. Let $`F`$ be its field of fractions. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ the collection of power series $`g_it^iF[[t]]`$, where $`g_iG`$ or $`g_i=0`$. The following proposition gives a rationality criterion for power series in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$.

###### Proposition 2.6.

Let $`f(t)=g_it^i\mathrm{\Theta }`$ be a power series in $`F[[t]]`$. Then $`f(t)`$ is rational if and only if there exists $`n1`$, $`i_0`$ and a sequence $`\{h_iG\}`$ periodic with period $`n`$ such that for $`i>i_0`$ we have $`g_{i+n}=h_ig_i`$.

Proof. If there exist $`n`$, $`i_0`$, and $`h_i`$ as above, then

$$f(t)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{i_0}{}}g_it^i+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{g_{i_0+i}}{1h_it^n}$$

is a rational function with denominator of degree $`mn^2`$.

For the converse, by assumption there exists a polynomial

$$q(t)=a_mt^m+a_{m1}t^{m1}+\mathrm{}+a_0F[t]$$

such that $`q(t)f(t)`$ is a polynomial. Clearing denominators, we may assume $`a_i[G]`$ for all $`i`$. Let $`CG`$ be the collection $`\alpha \beta ^1`$ where $`\alpha `$, $`\beta `$ are group elements which have non-zero coefficient in some $`a_j`$, $`0jm`$. Then for $`i>i_0`$

(2.1)
$$a_0g_{i+m}=a_1g_{i+m1}+\mathrm{}+a_mg_i$$

and in particular

(2.2)
$$g_{i+m}g_iC\mathrm{}g_{i+m1}C\{0\}$$

###### Definition 2.7.

A power series $`p(x)=\alpha _it^i\mathrm{\Theta }`$ is compact (or $`(m,K)`$-compact) if there exists a finite set $`KG`$ such that for nonzero $`\alpha _i`$, $`\alpha _j`$ such that $`|ij|m`$ we have $`\alpha _i\alpha _j^1K`$.

Case 1. Assume that $`f(t)`$ is compact. Fix $`i>i_0`$. Using the compactness of $`f(t)`$ we can find $`n1`$ and $`hG`$ such that

$$(g_{i+n},g_{i+n+1},\mathrm{},g_{i+n+m1})=h(g_i,g_{i+1},\mathrm{},g_{i+m1}).$$

Then (2.1) implies

$$(g_{j+n},g_{j+n+1},\mathrm{},g_{j+n+m1})=h(g_j,g_{j+1},\mathrm{},g_{j+m1})$$

for all $`ji`$, which proves the proposition in this case. Note that we can bound $`n`$ by some function $`\varphi (m,|K|)`$.

Case 2. This is the general case. It follows from (2.2) that there exists an integer $`r`$, $`1rm`$ and compact power series $`f_1(t),\mathrm{},f_r(t)`$ in $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ such that $`f(t)=f_j(t)`$. We choose the minimal such $`r`$ and corresponding series $`f_j(t)=g_i^jt^i`$ for $`j=1,2,\mathrm{},r`$.

###### Lemma 2.8.

The power series $`f_j(t)`$ simultaneously satisfy the recurrence relations (2.1) for coefficients with indices contained in arbitrarily long intervals.

Proof. We use the minimality of $`r`$. If $`r=1`$ we are in Case 1 and there is nothing to prove. Assume $`r2`$. The minimality of $`r`$ implies (and actually is equivalent to) the following:

For every finite subset $`SG`$ there exist infinitely many intervals $`I`$ of length $`m+1`$ such that for any nonzero $`g_{i_1}^k`$, $`g_{i_2}^l`$ with $`i_1,i_2I`$ and $`kl`$ we have $`g_{i_1}^k(g_{i_2}^l)^1S`$.

In particular, we can find such an interval $`I=(i,i+1,\mathrm{},i+m)`$ for the set $`S=C`$ so that $`i>i_0`$. Then the recurrence relation (2.1) implies the same relation for coefficients $`g_i^j,\mathrm{},g_{i+m}^j`$ for all $`j=1,\mathrm{},r`$. To get a long interval $`J`$, say of length $`sm`$ on which this recurrence holds for all $`j`$ we proceed as follows: let $`KG`$ be finite, such that each $`f_j(t)`$ is $`(m,K)`$-compact; take $`S=CK^{2s}`$ and let $`I=(i,i+1,\mathrm{},i+m)`$ be a corresponding interval such that $`i>i_0`$. Then we can take $`J=(i,i+1,\mathrm{},i+sm)`$. This proves the lemma. ∎

We now complete the proof of the proposition as follows: Choose a sufficiently long interval $`J(i_0,\mathrm{})`$ as in the proof of last lemma. Then repeating the argument in Case 1 for each $`j=1,\mathrm{},r`$ we find $`n_j1`$ and $`h_j^{}G`$ such that

$$(g_{i+n_j}^j,g_{i+n_j+1}^j,\mathrm{},g_{i+n_j+m1}^j)=h_j^{}(g_i^j,g_{i+1}^j,\mathrm{},g_{i+m1}^j)$$

as long as $`[i+n_j+m]J`$. Now take $`n=n_1\mathrm{}n_r`$ and put

$$h_i=\{\begin{array}{cc}(h_j^{})^{n/n_j},\text{if }iJ\text{ and }g_i^j0,\hfill & \\ 1,\text{if }iJ\text{ and all }g_i^j=0.\hfill & \end{array}$$

It follows that $`g_{i+n}=h_ig_i`$ as long as the indices stay in the interval $`J`$.

The recurrence (2.1) implies that there exists a linear operator $`T`$ such that

$$(g_{i+n},g_{i+n+1},\mathrm{},g_{i+n+m})=T^n(g_i,g_{i+1},\mathrm{},g_{i+m})$$

for all $`ii_0`$. We claim that the relation $`g_{i+n}=h_ig_i`$ holds in fact for all $`iinf(J)`$. Indeed, this follows from the following simple fact in linear algebra: Let $`V`$ be a $`d`$-dimensional vector space and $`0vV`$; assume that we have two linear operators $`A`$ and $`B`$ in $`V`$, such that $`A^lv=B^lv`$ for $`l=1,\mathrm{},d1`$. Then $`A^lv=B^lv`$ for all $`l0`$. ∎

## 3. Rationality theorems

In this section we describe several classes of varieties which have rational zeta-functions, notably rational and ruled surfaces and linear algebraic groups. These are rather special cases, and indeed we suspect that except in dimension 1, rationality is the exception rather than the rule. Some evidence for this point of view is given in the discussion of irrationality theorems in §7.

###### Lemma 3.1.

If $`X`$ is a variety and $`Y`$ a closed subvariety with complement $`U`$, then if any two of $`\zeta _X(t)`$, $`\zeta _Y(t)`$, and $`\zeta _U(t)`$ are globally (resp. pointwise) rational, then the third is so as well.

Proof. Stratifying $`\mathrm{Sym}^nX`$ according to how many points land in $`Y`$, we obtain

(3.1)
$$[\mathrm{Sym}^nX]=\underset{i+j=n}{}[\mathrm{Sym}^iY\times \mathrm{Sym}^jU]=\underset{i+j=n}{}[\mathrm{Sym}^iY][\mathrm{Sym}^iU].$$

It follows that $`\zeta _X(t)=\zeta _Y(t)\zeta _U(t)`$.

By Lemma 2.5, not only are the two specified zeta-functions globally (resp. pointwise) rational, the same is true of their reciprocals. The product of rational zeta-functions is again rational, and the lemma follows. ∎

In particular, the disjoint union of varieties with globally rational zeta-functions again has a globally rational zeta-function. This shows in particular that zero-dimensional varieties have globally rational zeta-functions. Also, a stratified variety has such a zeta-function as long as all of its strata do.

###### Lemma 3.2.

If $`X`$ is any variety, and $`EX`$ is a vector bundle of rank $`r`$, then

$$[E]=[X][𝔸^r].$$

Proof. Vector bundles are locally trivial in the Zariski topology, so there exists a dense open subset $`UE`$ over which $`E`$ restricts to a trivial bundle. If $`Y`$ denotes the complement of $`U`$ and $`E_U`$ and $`E_Y`$ the pull-back of $`E`$ to $`U`$ and $`Y`$ respectively, then applying Lemma 3.1 to $`E_YE`$ and $`YX`$, it suffices to prove the proposition for $`Y`$ and $`U`$, and for $`U`$, $`E_U=U\times 𝔸^r`$. The lemma follows by Noetherian induction. ∎

The following proposition is due to B. Totaro \[Go\]:

###### Proposition 3.3.

If $`X`$ is any variety, $`EX`$ is a vector bundle of rank $`r`$, and $`n`$ is any positive integer, then $`[\mathrm{Sym}^nE]=[\mathrm{Sym}^nX][𝔸^1]^{rn}`$. Equivalently, $`\zeta _E(t)=\zeta _X(𝔸^rt)`$.

###### Corollary 3.4.

If $`X`$ is a variety such that $`\zeta _X(t)`$ is globally (resp. pointwise) rational, and $`EX`$ is a vector bundle, then $`\zeta _E(t)`$ is globally (resp. pointwise) rational.

###### Corollary 3.5.

For all non-negatve integers $`n`$, $`𝔸^n`$ is rational.

###### Corollary 3.6.

If $`X`$ is a variety and $`PX`$ is a projective space bundle of rank $`r`$ which is locally trivial in the Zariski topology, then

$$\zeta _P(t)=\zeta _X(t)\zeta _X(𝔸^1t)\mathrm{}\zeta _X(𝔸^nt).$$

In particular, $`\zeta _^r(t)`$ is rational for all $`r`$.

Proof. By Noetherian induction, it suffices to consider the case $`P=X\times ^r`$. The corollary then follows immediately from the stratification of $`^r`$ with strata $`𝔸^i`$, $`0ir`$.∎

We come now to the main positive result in the subject.

###### Theorem 3.7.

(Kapranov) If $`X`$ is any one-dimensional variety, then $`\zeta _X(t)`$ is globally rational.

Proof. Let $`X`$ be a $`1`$-dimensional variety. The singular locus $`Y`$ is either empty or zero-dimensional. In the latter case, the rationality question reduces to the case of $`XY`$, so without loss of generality we may assume $`X`$ is non-singular. If $`X`$ has more than one component, it suffices to prove that each one has a rational zeta-function, so without loss of generality we may assume $`X`$ is connected and therefore irreducible. Let $`\overline{X}`$ denote the unique projective non-singular curve containing $`X`$ as an open subvariety. As $`\overline{X}X`$ is empty or zero-dimensional, without loss of generality we may assume that $`X`$ is projective and non-singular.

Let $`g`$ be the genus of $`X`$. Let $`x_0`$ denote a base point of $`X`$ and $`J`$ denote the Jacobian variety $`\mathrm{Jac}^0(X)`$. For non-negative $`n2g1`$, the morphism $`X^nJ`$ mapping

$$(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)nx_0+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_i$$

factors through $`\mathrm{Sym}^nX`$ realizing it as a projective space bundle of rank $`ng`$ over $`J`$. The closed immersion $`X^nX^{n+1}`$ sending $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ to $`(x_0,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ induces a closed $`J`$-immersion $`\mathrm{Sym}^nX\mathrm{Sym}^{n+1}(X)`$; the complement is a vector bundle of rank $`n+1g`$ over $`J`$. By Lemma 3.2,

$$[\mathrm{Sym}^{n+1}X][\mathrm{Sym}^nX]=[X][𝔸^1]^{n+1g}.$$

This implies that

(3.2)
$$\zeta _X(t)(1t)(1𝔸^1t)$$

is a polynomial of degree $`2g`$. ∎

###### Corollary 3.8.

If $`X`$ is an algebraic surface, the global (resp. pointwise) rationality of $`\zeta _X(t)`$ depends only on the birational equivalence class of $`X`$.

Proof. If $`X_1`$ and $`X_2`$ are two such surfaces and $`U`$ is a surface which is isomorphic to dense open subvarieties of each, then setting $`Y_i=X_iU`$,

$$\zeta _{X_i}(t)=\zeta _U(t)\zeta _{Y_i}(t).$$

By Theorem 3.7, $`\zeta _{Y_i}(t)`$ is globally (therefore also pointwise) rational, so by Lemma 3.1, each $`\zeta _{X_i}(t)`$ is rational if and only if $`\zeta _U(t)`$ is so.∎

###### Theorem 3.9.

If $`X`$ is a surface with Kodaira dimension $`\mathrm{}`$, then $`\zeta _X(t)`$ is globally rational.

Proof. There are two cases: rational surfaces and birationally ruled surfaces. In each case, we may choose any variety in the given birational equivalence class. For rational surfaces, we use $`𝔸^2`$, which has a globally rational zeta-function by Corollary 3.5. A ruled surfaces is a projective line bundle over a curve. By the Tsen-Lang theorem, such a $`^1`$-bundle is Zariski-locally trivial, and by Theorem 3.7 and Corollary 3.6, the motivic zeta-function of a ruled surface is globally rational. ∎

###### Theorem 3.10.

If $`X`$ is a linear algebraic group, its zeta-function is globally rational.

Proof. The components of an algebraic group $`G`$ are isomorphic to one another as varieties, so

$$\zeta _G(t)=\zeta _G^{}(t)^{[G:G^{}]},$$

where $`G^{}`$ denotes the identity component of $`G`$. We therefore assume that $`G`$ is connected. Let $`U`$ denote the unipotent radical $`G`$ and $`H=G/U`$. Then $`U`$ is isomorphic to a subgroup of the unitriangular matrices $`n\times n`$ matrices \[A.B\] 4.8. The logarithm map therefore defines an isomorphism of varieties between $`U`$ and its Lie algebra, which means that $`U`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔸^{dimU}`$. The existence of Levi decompositions gives a an isomorphism $`G\stackrel{~}{}U\times H`$, so it suffices to prove that $`\zeta _H(t)`$ is globally rational.

Let $`B`$ denote a Borel subgroup of $`H`$, $`T`$ a maximal torus of $`B`$, and $`V`$ the unipotent radical of $`B`$. Decomposition into Schubert cells gives a stratification of the flag variety $`H/B`$ in which every stratum is isomorphic to $`𝔸^k`$ for some $`k`$ with pre-image $`VwBH`$ isomorphic to $`𝔸^k\times B𝔸^{k+dimV}\times T`$ \[A.B\] 14.12. It therefore suffices to prove that $`\zeta _T(t)`$ is rational.

We use induction on $`d=dimT`$. The rationality is trivial for $`d=0`$. Now,

$$𝔾_m^d\times 𝔸^1𝔾_m^d=𝔾_m^{d+1},$$

so by Corollary 3.4 the rationality of $`\zeta _{𝔾_m^d}(t)`$ implies that of $`\zeta _{𝔾_m^{d+1}}(t)`$.

## 4. Lambda rings

In this section, we develop some basic definitions and facts connected with the notion of $`\lambda `$-ring. A good reference for this material is the first section of \[AT\]

###### Definition 4.1.

A $`\lambda `$-structure on a commutative ring $`A`$ is an infinite sequence $`\lambda ^0,\lambda ^1,\lambda ^2,\mathrm{},`$ of maps $`AA`$ such that

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \lambda ^0(x)& =& 1\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda ^1(x)& =& x\hfill \\ \hfill \lambda ^n(x+y)& =& _{i+j=n}\lambda ^i(x)\lambda ^j(y).\hfill \end{array}$$

A $`\lambda `$-ring is a commutative ring endowed with a $`\lambda `$-structure. We call a ring homomorphism between $`\lambda `$-rings which commutes with $`\lambda `$-operations a $`\lambda `$-homomorphism.

The prototype of a $`\lambda `$-ring is the Grothendieck group of finite dimensional vector spaces over a field. Of course, explicitly the ring here is $``$. More generally, one can look at Grothendieck groups of finitely generated projective modules over a ring or finite rank vector bundles over variety or over a topological space. In each case, $`\lambda ^i`$ should be regarded as the $`i`$th exterior power operation. For example, in the first case, $`\lambda ^i(n)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n}{i}\right)`$.

###### Example 4.2.

Consider the polynomial ring $`[s]`$. If we identify $``$ with the ring of virtual finite dimensional vector spaces, then $`[s]`$ is identified with the ring of isomorphism classes of $``$-graded virtual finite dimensional vector spaces. Using this identification define the $`\lambda `$-structure on $`[s]`$ as follows:

$$\lambda ^i(Vs^p)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Sym}^iVs^{ip},\text{ if }p\text{ is even,}\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^iVs^{ip},\text{ if }p\text{ is odd.}\hfill & \end{array}$$

Here $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{Sym}`$ have their usual meanings for ordinary virtual vector spaces:

$`\mathrm{\Lambda }^k(VW)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i+j=k}{}}(1)^j\mathrm{\Lambda }^iV\mathrm{Sym}^jW;`$
$`\mathrm{Sym}^k(VW)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i+j=k}{}}(1)^j\mathrm{Sym}^iV\mathrm{\Lambda }^jW.`$
Note that the sign conventions for $`\lambda ^i`$ are those one expects for symmetric powers of virtual super vector spaces.

###### Example 4.3.

Let $`A`$ be a $`\lambda `$-ring and $`MA`$ a multiplicative submonoid closed under the $`\lambda `$-operations. Consider the corresponding monoid ring $`[M]`$. (Note that it is not a subring of $`A`$). Then $`[M]`$ has a natural $`\lambda `$-structure given by

$$\lambda ^i([m])=[\lambda ^im].$$

###### Example 4.4.

Let us combine the two previous examples. Let $`M[s]`$ be the multiplicative monoid, which consists of polynomials with constant term 1. Then $`[M]`$ is a $`\lambda `$-ring. This example will be important to us since our motivic measures will take their values in $`[M]`$. We will also need the following lemma.

###### Lemma 4.5.

The monoid $`M`$ is a free commutative monoid. The ring $`[M]`$ is a polynomial ring, hence an integral domain.

Proof. The ring $`[s]`$ is factorial and any element of $`M`$ is a unique product of elements of $`M`$, which are prime in $`[s]`$ (the only unit in $`M`$ is 1). Thus $`M`$ is isomorphic to the monoid $``$, where the summation is over all prime elements of $`[s]`$ which are in $`M`$. Hence $`[M]`$ is a polynomial ring, so it is an integral domain. ∎

###### Example 4.6.

By (3.1), the Grothendieck ring of varieties $`K_0[𝒱_K]`$ has a natural $`\lambda `$-ring structure for any field $`K`$. Indeed, put $`\lambda ^i[X]:=[\mathrm{Sym}^iX]`$. Then

$$\lambda _t([X])=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^i[X]t^i=\zeta _X(t).$$

For any commutative ring $`A`$ there is a natural $`\lambda `$-ring structure on the set $`1+tA[[t]]`$. The operation of addition in this ring is given by the multiplication of power series. Multiplication ($``$) and the $`\lambda `$-operations ($`\mathrm{\Lambda }^i`$) are given by universal polynomials which are uniquely characterized by the identities

(4.1)
$$\left\{\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}(1+a_it)\right\}\left\{\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1+b_jt)\right\}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1+a_ib_jt)$$

and

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^k\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1+a_it)=\underset{S\{1,\mathrm{},n\},|S|=k}{}(1+t\underset{jS}{}a_j).$$

Equation (4.1) implies that the polynomial expressing the $`t^p`$ coefficient of $`_ix_it^i_jy_jt^j`$ in terms of $`x_i`$ and $`y_j`$ lies in the ideal

$$(x_{m+1},x_{m+2},\mathrm{},y_{n+1},y_{n+2},\mathrm{})$$

whenever $`p>mn`$. This implies that the product of two polynomials in $`1+tA[[t]]`$ is again a polynomial, regardless of whether the polynomials split into linear factors. As $``$ distributes over the usual multiplication of power series, $`f(t)g(t)`$ is a ratio of polynomials in $`1+tA[[t]]`$ if $`f(t)`$ and $`g(t)`$ are.

If $`A`$ has a $`\lambda `$-structure then the map

$$\lambda _t:A1+tA[[t]],\lambda _t(a)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\lambda ^iat^i$$

is an additive group homomorphism.

###### Definition 4.7.

An element $`aA`$ is finite dimensional if $`\lambda _t(a)`$ is a polynomial, and the dimension of $`a`$ is the degree of this polynomial. A difference of finite dimensional elements is virtually finite. A $`\lambda `$-ring is finite dimensional if all of its elements are virtually finite.

###### Definition 4.8.

We say $`A`$ is a special $`\lambda `$-ring if the homomorphism of additive groups $`\lambda _t`$ is a $`\lambda `$-homomorphism. In this case, we will call $`\lambda `$ the universal $`\lambda `$-homomorphism.

For example, the Grothendieck group of vector spaces (or projective modules or vector bundles) is a special $`\lambda `$-ring. Moreover, $`1+tA[[t]]`$ is always special, regardless of whether or not $`A`$ is so. On the other hand, Examples 4.2, 4.4, and 4.6 are not special, and neither is Example 4.3 in general, even if $`A`$ happens to be so. Special $`\lambda `$-rings are characterized by identities of the form

(4.2)
$$\lambda ^n(xy)=P_n(x,\lambda ^2x,\mathrm{},\lambda ^nx,y,\mathrm{},\lambda ^ny)$$

and

(4.3)
$$\lambda ^m\lambda ^nx=Q_{m,n}(x,\lambda ^2x,\mathrm{},\lambda ^{mn}x)$$

for certain universal polynomials $`P_n`$, $`Q_{m,n}`$. Equation (4.2) guarantees that $`\lambda _t`$ is a ring homomorphism and (4.3) guarantees it respects $`\lambda `$-structures.

###### Lemma 4.9.

For any $`\lambda `$-ring $`A`$ there exists a universal pair consisting of a special $`\lambda `$-ring $`B`$ and a $`\lambda `$-homomorphism $`AB`$ such that every $`\lambda `$-homomorphism from $`A`$ to a special $`\lambda `$-ring $`C`$ factors through $`B`$.

Proof. If $`C`$ is a special $`\lambda `$-ring and $`\mathrm{\Phi }:AB`$ a $`\lambda `$-homomorphism, then for all $`x,yA`$,

$$\begin{array}{c}\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ^n(xy))=\lambda ^n\mathrm{\Phi }(xy)=\lambda ^n(\mathrm{\Phi }(x)\mathrm{\Phi }(y))\hfill \\ \hfill =P_n(\mathrm{\Phi }(x),\mathrm{},\lambda ^n\mathrm{\Phi }(x),\mathrm{\Phi }(y),\mathrm{},\lambda ^n\mathrm{\Phi }(y))\\ \hfill =P_n(\mathrm{\Phi }(x),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ^nx),\mathrm{\Phi }(y),\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Phi }(\lambda ^ny))\\ \hfill =\mathrm{\Phi }(P_n(x,\mathrm{},\lambda ^nx,y,\mathrm{},\lambda ^ny)),\end{array}$$

so

(4.4)
$$\lambda ^n(xy)P_n(x,\mathrm{},\lambda ^nx,y,\mathrm{},\lambda ^ny)\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

Similarly,

(4.5)
$$\lambda ^m\lambda ^nxQ_{m,n}(x,\mathrm{},\lambda ^{mn}x)\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }.$$

Let $`I`$ denote the $`\lambda `$-ideal in $`A`$ generated by elements of type (4.4) and (4.5). Thus $`I\mathrm{ker}\mathrm{\Phi }`$. Conversely, if $`B=A/I`$, (4.4) and (4.5) imply (4.2) and (4.3) respectively. Thus, the quotient map $`AB`$ is universal.∎

We call the ring $`B`$, the specialization of $`A`$.

Next we say a few words about the relationship between symmetric and exterior powers. In the case that $`A`$ is the Grothendieck group of vector spaces (resp. projective modules, resp. vector bundles), one-dimensional spaces (resp. invertible ideals, resp. line bundles) correspond to elements $`a`$ such that $`\lambda _t(a)=1+at`$. If $`b=a_1+\mathrm{}+a_n`$, where each $`a_i`$ satisfies this condition,

$$\lambda _t(b)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\lambda _t(a_i)=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1+a_it).$$

Thus,

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}(1+a_it+a_i^2t^2+\mathrm{})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{1}{1a_it}=\lambda _t(b)^1.$$

We therefore define $`\sigma ^n(x)`$ as the $`n`$th coefficient of $`\lambda _t(x)^1`$ for all $`xA`$. We note that if

(4.6)
$$\sigma _t(x)=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\sigma ^n(x)t^n=\lambda _t(x)^1,$$

then

$$\sigma _t(x+y)=\lambda _t(x+y)^1=\lambda _t(x)^1\lambda _t(y)^1=\sigma _t(x)\sigma _t(y).$$

We conclude that

$`\sigma ^0(x)`$ $`=1`$
$`\sigma ^1(x)`$ $`=x`$
$`\sigma ^n(x+y)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i+j=n}{}}\sigma ^i(x)\sigma ^j(y),`$
so the $`\sigma ^n`$ give a new $`\lambda `$-ring structure on $`R`$ which we call the opposite structure to $`\{\lambda ^n\}`$.

Several remarks on this construction are in order. The automorphism on the multiplicative group of power series with constant term $`1`$ given by $`f(t)f(t)^1`$ is an involution, so the opposite of the opposite of a $`\lambda `$-structure is the structure itself. By (4.6), an element is virtually finite with respect to a $`\lambda `$-structure if and only if it is virtually finite with respect to the opposite structure. The opposite of a special $`\lambda `$-ring need not be special. For example, in $``$, which is special with respect to $`\{\lambda ^n\}`$, $`\sigma ^n(r)=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{r+n1}{n}\right)`$, so the $`\{\sigma ^n\}`$ counterpart of the identity (4.2) for $`n=2`$, namely

$$\sigma ^2(xy)=y^2\sigma ^2x+x^2\sigma ^2y2(\sigma ^2x)(\sigma ^2y)$$

does not hold.

The Newton polynomials, giving power sums in terms of elementary symmetric functions, allow us to define the Adams operations $`\mathrm{\Psi }^n:AA`$ on any $`\lambda `$-ring. In fact, we need these operations only for vector bundles over algebraic varieties, where they have been extensively studied.

## 5. Special $`\lambda `$-ring $`\overline{K}(X)`$

Let $`X`$ be a variety. It is well known that the usual $`K`$-theory (of algebraic vector bundles) associates to $`X`$ a special $`\lambda `$-ring $`K(X)`$. We will need to consider a different Grothendieck group $`\overline{K}(X)`$ of vector bundles, so that the functor of global sections descends to a group homomorphism

$$H^0:\overline{K}(X)K[\mathrm{Vect}].$$

So let us take $`\overline{K}(X)`$ to be the abelian group generated by isomorphism classes of algebraic vector bundles on $`X`$ with relations

$$[P]=[M]+[N],$$

whenever the vector bundles $`MN`$ and $`P`$ are isomorphic. Note that we do not impose relations coming from general short exact sequences as in the usual $`K`$-theory. The $``$ operation makes $`\overline{K}(X)`$ a ring and the $`\lambda `$-operations are defined in the usual way using the exterior powers:

$$\lambda ^i[P]=[\mathrm{\Lambda }^iP].$$

###### Theorem 5.1.

The $`\lambda `$-ring $`\overline{K}(X)`$ is special.

Proof. The traditional way to prove that $`K(X)`$ is a special $`\lambda `$-ring uses the splitting principle, which, in fact, is equivalent to the $`\lambda `$-ring (in which every element is of finite dimension) being special \[FL\] Ch. 1. The usual method of splitting an algebraic vector bundle produces only a short exact sequence and therefore is not applicable to our group $`\overline{K}(X)`$. We will prove the identities (4.2) and (4.3) in $`\overline{K}(X)`$ by showing that for any $`x,y\overline{K}(X)`$ there exists a $`\lambda `$-homomorphism from a special $`\lambda `$-ring to $`\overline{K}(X)`$ such that $`x,y`$ are contained in the image. For this we need a free special $`\lambda `$-ring on two generators.

First recall the free special $`\lambda `$-ring on one generator. It has two standard descriptions: as a ring of symmetric functions (in an infinite number of variables), and as a direct sum of representation rings of the symmetric group. It is the second description which is useful for our purposes, so we recall it.

Let $`R_n`$ be the representation ring of the symmetric group $`S_n`$, with the convention that $`S_0=\{e\}`$. That is, $`R_n`$ is a free $``$-module with basis consisting of isomorphism classes of irreducible (complex) representations of $`S_n`$. Put

$$R:=\underset{n0}{}R_n.$$

Thus $`R`$ has a $``$-basis consisting of pairs $`(n,\omega )`$, where $`n`$ is a natural number and $`\omega `$ is an irreducible representation of $`S_n`$. The ring structure is uniquely determined by the requirement that

$$(n_1,\omega _1)(n_2,\omega _2)=(n_1+n_2,\mathrm{Ind}_{S_{n_1}\times S_{n_2}}^{S_{n_1+n_2}}\omega _1\omega _2).$$

The trivial $`S_0=\{e\}`$-module is the unit in the ring $`R`$. The $`\lambda `$-ring structure is defined as follows. Fix a basis element $`(n,\omega )`$ and a positive integer $`r`$. Consider the obvious action of the wreath product $`S_n^rS_r`$ on $`\omega ^r`$ and let $`\mathrm{Sign}(S_r)`$ be the sign representation of $`S_r`$. Then $`\omega ^r\mathrm{Sign}(S_r)`$ is a left $`S_n^rS_r`$-module.

Then

$$\lambda ^r(n,\omega )=(rn,\mathrm{Ind}_{S_n^rS_r}^{S_{rn}}\omega ^r\mathrm{Sign}(S_r)).$$

The special $`\lambda `$-ring $`R`$ is generated by the element $`(1,)`$: the elements $`\{\lambda ^r(1,)r1\}`$ are algebraically independent in $`R`$. The ring $`R`$ is free in the following sense: given a special $`\lambda `$-ring $`Q`$ and an element $`xQ`$ there exists a $`\lambda `$-homomorphism $`f:RQ`$ such that $`f((1,))=x`$.

Consider the special $`\lambda `$-ring $`R^2:=R_{}R`$. It is the free special $`\lambda `$-ring on two generators in the obvious sense. Naturally $`R^2`$ has a $``$-basis consisting of elements $`((n_1,n_2),\omega _1\omega _2)`$, where $`\omega _i`$ is an irreducible representation of $`S_{n_i}`$, $`i=1,2`$; we regard $`\omega _1\omega _2`$ as a $`S_{n_1}\times S_{n_2}`$ representation in the usual way. The $`\lambda `$-operations are similar to those in $`R`$:

$$\lambda ^r((n_1,n_2),\omega _1\omega _2)=((rn_1,rn_2),\mathrm{Ind}_{(S_{n_1}^r\times S_{n_2}^r)S_r}^{S_{rn_1}\times S_{rn_2}}\omega _1^r\omega _2^r\mathrm{Sign}(S_r)).$$

Let $`M`$, $`N`$ be (virtual) vector bundles on $`X`$. Consider $`M^{n_1}N^{n_2}`$ as a (virtual) right $`S_{n_1}\times S_{n_2}`$-module. We define the homomorphism $`\theta :R^2\overline{K}(X)`$ as follows.

$$\theta ((n_1,n_2),\omega _1\omega _2)=(M^{n_1}N^{n_2})_{S_{n_1}\times S_{n_2}}(\omega _1\omega _2).$$

This is a ring homomorphism. We only need to check that the $`\lambda `$-operations correspond under $`\theta `$; that is, we need to compare

$`\theta (\lambda ^r((n_1,n_2),`$ $`\omega _1\omega _2))`$
$`=(M^{rn_1}`$ $`N^{rn_2})_{S_{rn_1}\times S_{rn_2}}`$
$`([S_{rn_1}\times S_{rn_2}]_{(S_{n_1}^r\times S_{n_2}^r)S_r}(\omega _1^r\omega _2^r\mathrm{Sign}(S_r)))`$
$`=(M^{rn_1}`$ $`N^{rn_2})_{(S_{n_1}^r\times S_{n_2}^r)S_r}(\omega _1^r\omega _2^r\mathrm{Sign}(S_r))`$
and

$$\begin{array}{cc}& \mathrm{\Lambda }^r(\theta ((n_1,n_2),\omega _1\omega _2))\hfill \\ \hfill =& \mathrm{\Lambda }^r((M^{n_1}N^{n_2})_{S_{n_1}\times S_{n_2}}(\omega _1\omega _2))\hfill \\ \hfill =& ((M^{rn_1}N^{rn_2})_{S_{n_1}^r\times S_{n_2}^r}(\omega _1^r\omega _2^r))_{S_r}\mathrm{Sign}(S_r).\hfill \end{array}$$

The following lemma implies the two are isomorphic.

###### Lemma 5.2.

Let $`G`$ be a group, $`P`$, $`Q`$ – right and left $`G`$-modules respectively. Consider the space $`(P_GQ)^r=P^r_{G^r}Q^r`$ as a right $`S_r`$-module. There is a canonical isomorphism of right $`S_r`$-modules

(5.1)
$$\alpha :P^r_{G^r}Q^r\stackrel{}{}P^r_{G^rS^r}(Q^r[S_r]).$$

In particular there is a canonical isomorphism of vector spaces

(5.2)
$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^r((P_GQ)^r)\stackrel{}{}P^r_{G^rS^r}(Q^r\mathrm{Sign}(S_r)).$$

Proof of the lemma. Indeed,

$$\alpha :xyxy1,$$

and

$$p_1\mathrm{}p_rq_1\mathrm{}q_r\tau p_{\tau (1)}\mathrm{}p_{\tau (r)}q_{\tau (1)}\mathrm{}q_{\tau (r)}$$

define mutually inverse $`S_r`$-linear maps. This proves (5.1). Tensoring both sides over $`S_r`$ with $`\mathrm{Sign}(S_r)`$, we get (5.2) and therefore the proposition. ∎

So we have constructed a contravariant functor

$$\overline{K}:\{\text{Varieties}\}\{\text{Special }\lambda \text{-rings}\}.$$

The Adams operations $`\mathrm{\Psi }^n`$ are defined in $`\overline{K}(X)`$ in the usual way: these are certain universal polynomials with integer coefficients in the operations $`\lambda ^i`$. We have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^n[]=[^n],$$

if $``$ is a line bundle. Since the $`\lambda `$-ring $`\overline{K}(X)`$ is special, the $`\mathrm{\Psi }^n`$ are $`\lambda `$-homomorphisms (see \[AtiTa\], Section 5).

Note that we have a well defined group homomorphism

$$H^0:\overline{K}(X)K_0[\mathrm{Vect}].$$

## 6. Motivic measures $`\mu _n`$

Consider the ($`\lambda `$-) ring $`[M]`$ as in Example 4.4. We will freely consider elements of the monoid $`M`$ either as polynomials with integer coefficients or as (isomorphism classes of) graded vector spaces.

For a smooth connected projective variety $`X`$ of dimension $`d`$ define

$$\mu _n(X):=1+h_n^1(X)s+\mathrm{}+h_n^d(X)s^d[M],$$

where

$$h_n^i(X)=dimH^0(X,\mathrm{\Psi }^n\mathrm{\Omega }_X^i).$$

We constructed the measure $`\mu =\mu _1`$ in our previous paper \[LaLu\]. Explicitly

$$\mu (X)=1+h^{1,0}(X)s+\mathrm{}+h^{d,0}(X)s^d$$

for a smooth projective irreducible $`X`$ of dimension $`d`$.

###### Proposition 6.1.

For each $`n1`$ we have

i) $`\mu _n(X)=\mu _n(\stackrel{~}{X})`$ if $`X`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ are birational,

ii) $`\mu _n(X\times Y)=\mu _n(X)\mu _n(Y),`$

iii) $`\mu _n(^k)=1`$ for all $`k0`$.

###### Corollary 6.2.

The mapping $`\mu _n`$ extends (uniquely) to a ring homomorphism

$$\mu _n:K_0[𝒱_{}]/(𝔸^1)[M].$$

Indeed, this follows from \[LaLu\], Theorem 2.3.

To prove the proposition, we need the following lemma:

###### Lemma 6.3.

Let $`X`$ and $`Y`$ be varieties and $`E`$ and $`F`$ vector bundles on $`X`$ and $`Y`$ respectively. Then

$$H^0(X\times Y,p^{}Eq^{}F)=H^0(X,E)H^0(Y,F).$$

Proof. By the projection formula $`p_{}(p^{}Eq^{}F)=Ep_{}q^{}F`$, where $`p_{}q^{}F`$ is the trivial bundle on $`X`$ with fiber $`H^0(Y,F)`$. Hence

$`H^0(X\times Y,p^{}Eq^{}F)`$ $`=H^0(X,p_{}(p^{}Eq^{}F))`$
$`=H^0(X,Ep_{}q^{}F)=H^0(X,E)H^0(Y,F).`$
Proof of proposition.

i) Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }^n`$ is a polynomial in operations $`\lambda ^j`$, it suffices to prove that $`H^0(X,(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^i)^n))=H^0(\stackrel{~}{X},(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\stackrel{~}{X}}^i)^n)`$. But this is well known (the proof is the same as that of \[Ha\] II 8.19).

ii) Consider the projections $`X\stackrel{p}{}X\times Y\stackrel{q}{}Y`$. We have

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\times Y}^1=p^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1q^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1.$$

Hence

$$\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\times Y}^m=\underset{i+j=m}{}p^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^iq^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j.$$

As $`\overline{K}(X)`$ is a special $`\lambda `$-ring,

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{\Psi }^n\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\times Y}^m& =\underset{i+j=m}{}\mathrm{\Psi }^np^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^i\mathrm{\Psi }^nq^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j\hfill \\ & =\underset{i+j=m}{}p^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^n\mathrm{\Omega }_X^iq^{}\mathrm{\Psi }^n\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j.\hfill \end{array}$$

It follows that

$$H^0(X\times Y,\mathrm{\Psi }^n\mathrm{\Omega }_{X\times Y}^m)=\underset{i+j=m}{}H^0(X,\mathrm{\Psi }^n\mathrm{\Omega }_X^i)H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Psi }^n\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^j),$$

i.e. $`\mu _n(X\times Y)=\mu _n(X)\mu _n(Y)`$.

iii) Since $`^k`$ is birational to $`(^1)^k`$, by i),ii) above it suffices to prove that $`\mu _n(^1)=1`$. We have

$$\mathrm{\Psi }^n\mathrm{\Omega }_^1^i=\{\begin{array}{cc}𝒪_^1,\text{ if }i=0\text{,}\hfill & \\ 𝒪_^1(2n),\text{ if }i=1\text{,}\hfill & \\ 0,\text{ if }i>1\text{.}\hfill & \end{array}$$

and therefore $`\mu _n(^1)=1M`$. This proves the proposition. ∎

###### Proposition 6.4.

Let $`X`$ be a variety of dimension $`2`$. Then

$$\mu (\mathrm{Sym}^mX)=\lambda ^m(\mu (X)).$$

Proof. The class of $`X`$ in $`K_0[𝒱_{}]`$ is a linear combination of classes of smooth projective varieties of dimension 0,1 and 2. Thus we may assume that $`X`$ is smooth projective. If $`dimX=0`$ the assertion is trivial. We will prove the assertion in case $`dimX=2`$ (the case of curves is similar and simpler since $`\mathrm{Sym}^nX`$ is smooth if $`dimX=1`$). So let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface.

We will use the smooth variety $`\mathrm{Hilb}^mX`$—the Hilbert scheme of zero-dimensional subschemes of $`X`$. It follows immediately from the main theorem of L. Goettsche \[Go\] that the classes of $`\mathrm{Hilb}^mX`$ and $`\mathrm{Sym}^mX`$ are equal in $`K_0[𝒱_{}]/[𝔸^1]`$. In particular,

$$\mu _n(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX)=\mu _n(\mathrm{Sym}^mX).$$

By Lemma 7.4 below $`H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX}^i)=H^0(X^m,\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^m}^i)^{S_m}`$. Thus we need to prove the following equality in $`M`$:

$$\begin{array}{c}1+H^0(X^m,\mathrm{\Omega }^1)^{S_m}s+\mathrm{}+H^0(X^m,\mathrm{\Omega }^{2m})^{S_m}s^{2m}\hfill \\ \hfill =\lambda ^m(1+H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }^1)s+H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }^2)s^2).\end{array}$$

Recall from Example 4.2 that

$$\lambda ^j(Vs^i)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Sym}^j(V)s^{ij},\text{if }i\text{ is even},\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^j(V)s^{ij},\text{if }i\text{ is odd}.\hfill & \end{array}$$

Let $`_iV_is^iM`$ be a graded vector space. Then

$$\lambda ^m\left(\underset{i}{}V_is^i\right)=\underset{i}{}\underset{j_1n_1+\mathrm{}+j_kn_k=i}{}\lambda ^{n_1}(V_{j_1})\mathrm{}\lambda ^{n_k}(V_{j_k})s^i.$$

Let us prove the following general lemma. Let $`Y`$ be a smooth projective variety and $`F`$ a vector bundle on $`Y`$ of rank $`r`$. Fix $`m1`$ and denote by $`p_i:Y^mY`$ the projection to the $`i`$th factor. Put $`F_i:=p_i^{}F`$, $`:=F_1\mathrm{}F_m`$.

###### Lemma 6.5.

There is a natural isomorphism of graded vector spaces

$$\underset{j}{}H^0(Y^m,\mathrm{\Lambda }^j())^{S_m}s^j=\lambda ^m\left(\underset{j}{}H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Lambda }^jF)s^j\right).$$

Proof. We have

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}()=\underset{(j_1,\mathrm{},j_m)}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_1}F_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_m}F_m,$$

By Lemma 6.3,

$$H^0(Y^m,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_1}F_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_m}F_m)\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}H^0(Y^m,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_i}F_i)\underset{i=1}{\overset{m}{}}H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_i}F).$$

Put $`_{j_1\mathrm{}j_m}=\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_1}F_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_m}F_m`$. Consider the $`S_m`$-action on the sheaf $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}()`$. The sheaves $`_{j_1\mathrm{}j_m}`$ and $`_{j_1^{}\mathrm{}j_m^{}}`$ are in the same $`S_m`$-orbit if and only if the multisets $`\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_m\}`$ and $`\{j_1^{},\mathrm{},j_m^{}\}`$ are equal. For each multiset $`\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_m\}`$ choose a representative $`(j_1,\mathrm{}j_m)`$ of the corresponding $`S_m`$-orbit. Put $`G_{j_1\mathrm{}j_m}=\mathrm{Stab}_{S_m}(j_1,\mathrm{}j_m)`$. Then

$$W=H^0(Y^m,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{})^{S_m}=\underset{\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_m\}}{}H^0(Y^m,_{j_1\mathrm{}j_m})^{G_{j_1\mathrm{}j_m}}.$$

Consider the space

$$H^0(Y^m,_{j_1\mathrm{}j_m})^{G_{j_1\mathrm{}j_m}}=(_sH^0(Y^m,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_s}F_s))^{G_{j_1\mathrm{}j_m}}.$$

Assume for simplicity of notation that the multiset $`\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_m\}`$ contains $`k`$ different elements:

$$j_1=\mathrm{}=j_{t_1}j_{t_1+1}=\mathrm{}=j_{t_1+t_2}\mathrm{}=j_{t_1+\mathrm{}+t_k}.$$

Then $`G_{j_1\mathrm{}j_m}=S_{t_1}\times \mathrm{}\times S_{t_k}`$. For example, the subgroup $`S_{t_1}`$ acts by permuting factors in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_1}F_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_1}F_{t_1}`$. A transposition of two factors in this tensor product corresponds to a product of $`j_1`$ transpositions on the level of $`^{j_1t_1}`$. Therefore,

$$H^0(Y^m,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_1}F_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_{t_1}}F_{t_1})^{S_{t_1}}\{\begin{array}{cc}\mathrm{Sym}^{t_1}H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_1}F),\text{ if }j_1\text{ is even,}\hfill & \\ \mathrm{\Lambda }^{t_1}H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{j_1}F),\text{ if }j_1\text{ is odd,}\hfill & \end{array}$$

The space $`H^0(Y^m,_{j_1\mathrm{}j_m})^{G_{j_1\mathrm{}j_m}}`$ is the tensor product of $`k`$ factor of the form $`\mathrm{Sym}^{t_p}H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{l_p}F)`$ (if $`l_p`$ is even) or $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{t_p}H^0(Y,\mathrm{\Lambda }^{l_p}F)`$ (if $`l_p`$ is odd). Also the degree of this space is equal to $`_sj_s`$. This proves the lemma. ∎

Now apply the lemma with $`Y=X`$ and $`F=\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1`$ to get the proposition. ∎

###### Remark 6.6.

Unfortunately, the assertion of the last proposition is no longer true if we replace the measure $`\mu `$ by $`\mu _n`$ for $`n2`$. A counter example is provided by a smooth projective curve of genus $`2`$. Indeed, then $`\mathrm{Sym}^mX`$ is stably birational to the Jacobian of $`X`$ and hence $`\mu _n(\mathrm{Sym}^mX)=\mu (\mathrm{Sym}^mX)`$. On the other hand it is clear that $`\mu _n(X)`$ and hence $`\lambda ^m(\mu _n(X))`$ depends on $`n`$.

###### Question 6.7.

Is $`\mu :K_0[𝒱_{}][M]`$ is a $`\lambda `$-homomorphism? It seems likely to us that the answer is affirmative. We could prove it if we knew that for any smooth projective variety $`Z`$ and any $`m1`$ the class of $`\mathrm{Sym}^mZ`$ is equal in $`K_0[𝒱_{}]/[𝔸^1]`$ to the class of a resolution of $`\mathrm{Sym}^mZ`$. So one might generalize and ask the following question. Let $`X`$ be a non-singular complex projective variety with an action by a finite group $`G`$, and $`Y`$ a non-singular projective variety birationally equivalent to $`X/G`$. Is it always true that

$$[X/G][Y](mod[𝔸^1])\mathrm{?}$$

## 7. Irrationality theorems

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface. Let $`m1`$ be an integer and $`\mathrm{Hilb}^mX`$ be the Hilbert scheme of zero-dimensional subschemes of $`X`$ of length $`m`$. It is well known that the natural (Hilbert-Chow) morphism $`g:\mathrm{Hilb}^mX\mathrm{Sym}^mX`$ is a resolution of singularities which is a semismall map (\[Na\] 1.15, 6.10). It follows immediately from the main theorem of L. Gottsche \[Go\] that the classes of $`\mathrm{Hilb}^mX`$ and $`\mathrm{Sym}^mX`$ are equal in $`K_0[𝒱_{}]/[𝔸^1]`$. Thus for all $`n1`$

$$\mu _n(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX)=\mu _n(\mathrm{Sym}^mX).$$

Let us introduce some notation. Consider the pullback diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Y& \stackrel{f}{}& X^m\\ \pi & & \pi \\ \mathrm{Hilb}^mX& \stackrel{g}{}& \mathrm{Sym}^mX,\end{array}$$

where the vertical arrows are quotient morphisms by the $`S_m`$-action. Let $`\mathrm{Sym}^mX_{}`$ denote the open subspace of $`\mathrm{Sym}^mX`$ consisting of all multisets $`\{x_1,\mathrm{},x_m\}`$ in which at least $`m1`$ points are distinct. Pulling back the previous diagram to $`\mathrm{Sym}^mX_{}`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}Y_{}& \stackrel{f}{}& X_{}^m\\ \pi & & \pi \\ \mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{}& \stackrel{g}{}& \mathrm{Sym}^mX_{}.\end{array}$$

Denote by $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ the intersection of the “fat” diagonal $`\mathrm{\Delta }X^m`$ with $`X_{}^m`$. Then $`Y_{}`$ is the blowup of $`X_{}^m`$ along the smooth subvariety $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ which is of codimension 2. So $`Y_{}`$ is smooth. Let $`EY_{}`$ be the exceptional divisor. The map $`\pi :Y_{}\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{}`$ is unramified away from $`E`$ and has ramification of degree 2 along $`E`$. Since the map $`g`$ is semismall, the complement of the open subset $`\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{}\mathrm{Hilb}^mX`$ has codimension $`2`$. Hence also $`YY_{}`$ has codimension $`2`$ in $`Y`$.

Finally, let $`\mathrm{Sym}_+^mX`$ be the image of $`X^m\mathrm{\Delta }`$. We pull back the previous diagram to $`\mathrm{Sym}_+^mX`$:

(7.1)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}Y_+& \stackrel{f}{}& X_+^m\\ \pi & & \pi \\ \mathrm{Hilb}^mX_+& \stackrel{g}{}& \mathrm{Sym}^mX_+.\end{array}$$

The vertical maps $`\pi `$ are étale and the horizontal maps $`f,g`$ are isomorphisms. The complement of the open subset $`X_+^mX^m`$ has codimension 2.

###### Lemma 7.1.

For any $`m,n1`$ we have

$$H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX}^1)^n)H^0(X^m,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^m}^1)^n)^{S_m}.$$

Proof. Consider the diagram (7.1). We have

$$\begin{array}{c}H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX}^1)^n)H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_+,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_+}^1)^n)\hfill \\ \hfill =H^0(Y_+,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y_+}^1)^n)^{S_m}=H^0(X_+^m,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X_+^m}^1)^n)^{S_m}.\end{array}$$

Moreover,

$$H^0(X_+^m,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X_+^m}^1)^n)^{S_m}=H^0(X^m,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^m}^1)^n)^{S_m},$$

since $`X_+^m`$ has complement of codimension 2 in $`X^m`$. ∎

###### Lemma 7.2.

For any $`m,n1`$ we have

$$H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX,\omega _{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX}^n)=H^0(X^m,\omega _{X^m}^n)^{S_m}.$$

Proof. It suffices to prove that

$$H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{},\omega _{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{}}^n)=H^0(X_{}^m,\omega _{X_{}^m}^n)^{S_m}.$$

We have the natural injective maps

$$\alpha :\pi ^{}\omega _{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{}}\omega _Y_{},\beta :f^{}\omega _{X_{}^m}\omega _Y_{}.$$

It suffices to prove that $`im(\alpha )=im(\beta )`$. Indeed,

$$H^0(Y_{},\pi ^{}\omega _{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{}})^{S_m}=H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{},\omega _{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{}}).$$

Both $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are surjective away from $`E`$. So it remains to analyze the maps $`g`$ and $`\pi `$ near $`E`$.

Choose a point $`p=(a_1,a_2=a_1,a_3,\mathrm{},a_m)\mathrm{\Delta }_{}`$ and $`qg^1(p)`$. There exist local (analytic) coordinates $`x_1,x_2,\mathrm{},x_{2m}`$ near $`p`$ and local coordinates $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_{2m}`$ near $`q`$ so that

$$g^{}(x_1)=y_1,g^{}(x_2)=y_1y_2,g^{}(x_3)=y_3,\mathrm{}g^{}(x_{2m})=y_{2m}.$$

Then $`y_1=0`$ is the local equation of $`E`$. Thus

$$g^{}(dx_1\mathrm{}dx_{2m})=y_1dy_1\mathrm{}y_{2m}$$

and

$$\beta ((dx_1\mathrm{}dx_{2m})^n)=y_1^n(dy_1\mathrm{}y_{2m})^n,$$

so that $`im(\beta )=\omega _Y_{}^n(nE)`$. Similarly, we can define local coordinates $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_{2m}`$ near $`\pi (q)\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{}`$, so that

$$\pi ^{}(z_1)=y_1^2,\pi ^{}(z_2)=y_2,\mathrm{}\pi ^{}(z_{2m})=y_{2m}.$$

Therefore

$$g^{}(dz_1\mathrm{}dz_{2m})=2y_1dy_1\mathrm{}dy_{2m}$$

and

$$\alpha ((dz_1\mathrm{}dz_{2m})^n)=2^ny_1^n(dy_1\mathrm{}y_{2m})^n.$$

That means $`im(\alpha )=\omega _Y_{}(nE).`$

###### Lemma 7.3.

For any $`m,n1`$ we have

$$H^0(X^m,\omega _{X^m}^n)^{S_m}=\mathrm{Sym}^mH^0(X,\omega _X^n).$$

Proof. Let $`p_i:X^mX`$ denote the projection on the $`i`$th factor. Then

$$\omega _{X^m}^n=(p_1^{}\omega _X\mathrm{}p_m^{}\omega _X)^np_1^{}\omega _X^n\mathrm{}p_m^{}\omega _X^n,$$

and hence

$$H^0(X^m,\omega _{X^m}^n)=H^0(X,\omega _X^n)^m.$$

The $`S_m`$-action permutes the factors and

$$H^0(X^m,\omega _{X^m}^n)^{S_m}=\mathrm{Sym}^mH^0(X,\omega _X^n),$$

since $`dimX`$ is even. ∎

###### Lemma 7.4.

For any $`m,i1`$ we have

$$H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX}^i)=H^0(X^m,\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^m}^i)^{S_m}.$$

Proof. Since $`Y_{}`$ is a blowup of $`X_{}^m`$ along a smooth subvariety we have $`H^0(Y_{},\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^{}^i)=H^0(X_{}^m,\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^m}^i)`$. Also $`H^0(X_{}^m,\mathrm{\Omega }_{X_{}^m}^i)=H^0(X^m,\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^m}^i)`$, since $`X_{}^m`$ has complement of codimension $`2`$ in $`X^m`$. Thus we must show that

$$H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX,\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX}^i)=H^0(Y_{},\mathrm{\Omega }_Y_{}^i)^{S_m}.$$

Let $`qY_{}`$, $`G_q=\mathrm{Stab}(q)S_m`$. It suffices to show that

$$(\pi ^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{}})_q=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y_{},q})^{G_q}.$$

If $`qY_+`$, then $`G_q=1`$ and $`(\pi ^1\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX_{}})_q=(\mathrm{\Omega }_{Y_{},q}).`$ Suppose $`qE`$ and hence $`G_q=/2`$. Consider local coordinates $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_{2m}`$ at $`q`$ and local coordinates $`z_1,\mathrm{},z_{2m}`$ at $`\pi (q)`$ as in the proof of Lemma 7.2 above, so that

$$\pi ^{}(z_1)=y_1^2,\pi ^{}(z_2)=y_2,\mathrm{}\pi ^{}(z_{2m})=y_{2m}.$$

An element $`y_1^kdy_1`$ is $`G_q`$-invariant if and only if $`k`$ is odd. The lemma follows. ∎

###### Proposition 7.5.

Fix integers $`n,i1`$. Then the absolute value of the integer $`h_n^i(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX)`$ is bounded independently of $`m`$.

Proof. Recall that $`h_n^i(Z)=H^0(Z,\mathrm{\Psi }^n\mathrm{\Omega }_Z^i)`$. The Adams operation $`\mathrm{\Psi }^n`$ is a polynomial in the operations $`\lambda ^i`$. Hence it suffices to prove that for all $`n0`$, the dimension of the space $`H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX}^1)^n)`$ is bounded independently of $`m`$. By Lemma 7.1 above

$$H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX}^1)^n)H^0(X^m,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^m}^1)^n)^{S_m}.$$

We will prove that $`dimH^0(X^m,(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^m}^1)^n)^{S_m}`$ is bounded independently of $`m`$.

Let $`p_i:X^mX`$ be the projection to the $`i`$th factor. Denote $`F_i=p_i^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^m}^1=_{i=1}^mF_i`$ and

$$(\mathrm{\Omega }_{X^m}^1)^n=\underset{i_1,\mathrm{},i_n\{1,\mathrm{},m\}}{}F_{i_1}\mathrm{}F_{i_n}.$$

The $`S_m`$-action permutes the summands $`F_{i_1}\mathrm{}F_{i_n}`$ and the orbits correspond to partitions $`P`$ of the set $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$. Thus

$$H^0(X^m,\mathrm{\Omega }^n)^{S_m}=\underset{P}{}H^0(X^m,F_P)^{\mathrm{Stab}(P)},$$

Where $`F_P`$ is one of the summands in the orbit, corresponding to $`P`$. Fix a partition $`P`$. Assume for simplicity of notation that $`P`$ divides $`\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ into $`k`$ segments $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_k`$, where $`a<b`$ for each $`aP_s`$, $`bP_t`$ if $`s<t`$. Let $`\alpha _i=|P_i|`$. Then

$$H^0(X^m,F_P)=H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }^{\alpha _1})\mathrm{}H^0(X,\mathrm{\Omega }^{\alpha _k}).$$

Therefore $`dimH^0(X^m,F_P)`$ is bounded independently of $`m`$. ∎

###### Theorem 7.6.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective surface of Kodaira dimension $`0`$. Then the zeta-function $`\zeta _X(t)`$ is not pointwise rational.

Proof. Let $`F`$ denote the field of fractions of $`[M]`$. We will show that there exists $`n1`$ such that the power series

$$1+\underset{m=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\mu _n(\mathrm{Sym}^mX)t^mF[[t]]$$

is not rational.

First we claim that there exists $`n1`$ such that

$$h_n^{2d}(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX)=dimH^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX,\omega _{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX}^n)>0$$

for all $`m1`$. Indeed, by our assumption on $`X`$ there exists $`n1`$, such $`H^0(X,\omega ^n)0`$ and by Lemmas 7.2 and 7.3,

$$H^0(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX,\omega _{\mathrm{Hilb}^mX}^n)=\mathrm{Sym}^mH^0(X,\omega _X^n)$$

for all $`m1`$. Fix one such $`n`$ and consider the motivic measure $`\mu _n:K_0[𝒱_{}][M]F`$. We have $`\mu _n(\mathrm{Sym}^mX)=\mu _n(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX)`$. It follows that $`\mu _n(\mathrm{Sym}^mX)M`$ is a polynomial with constant term 1 and leading term $`h_n^{2d}(\mathrm{Hilb}^mX)s^{2d}`$.

Consider the group completion $`G`$ of the monoid $`M`$. By Lemma 4.5, $`G`$ is a free abelian group. Hence we may apply Proposition 2.6 to the power series $`1+_{m=1}^{\mathrm{}}\mu _n(\mathrm{Sym}^mX)t^m`$. Denote $`g_m=\mu _n(\mathrm{Sym}^mX)M`$. Assume that this power series is rational. Then there exist $`k,i1`$ and an element $`gG`$ such that

$$g_{i+(\alpha +1)k}=gg_{i+\alpha k}$$

for all $`\alpha 0`$. The element $`g`$ is a rational function in $`s`$. Since all coefficients $`g_m`$ are nonzero polynomials in $`s`$ it follows that $`g`$ is also a nonzero polynomial. Note that $`g`$ in not a monomial since the degrees of the polynomials $`g_m`$ grow and their constant term is 1. But then the coefficients of fixed powers of $`s`$ in the $`g_m`$ cannot stay bounded, which contradicts Proposition 7.5. ∎

## 8. The special Grothendieck $`\lambda `$-ring of varieties.

As pointed out in Example 4.6, the symmetric power operations $`\mathrm{Sym}^n`$ define a $`\lambda `$-ring structure on the Grothendieck ring $`K_0[𝒱_{}]`$. The zeta-function $`\zeta _X(t)`$ looks formally like a universal $`\lambda `$-homomorphism, but in fact it is not a ring homomorphism at all. To see this, it suffices to note that $`\zeta _X(t)`$ is a ratio of polynomials with constant term 1 for every curve $`X`$; thus (4.1) implies that $`\zeta _X(t)\zeta _Y(t)`$ is rational, while Theorem 7.6 implies $`\zeta _{X\times Y}(t)`$ is irrational whenever $`X`$ and $`Y`$ both have positive genus.

Let $`\{\lambda ^n\}`$ denote the $`\lambda `$-structure opposite to $`\{\mathrm{Sym}^n\}`$. This seems to be the natural choice of $`\lambda `$-structure on $`K_0[𝒱_{}]`$ insofar as $`X\mathrm{Sym}^nX`$ behaves like a symmetric power map, for instance on cohomology. The choice does not affect which classes are virtually finite, but it will make a difference when we specialize, since, as we have seen, specialization does not commute with taking opposites.

###### Lemma 8.1.

If $`X`$ is a variety over $``$ whose image in $`K_0[𝒱_{}]`$ is virtually finite, then $`\zeta _X(t)`$ is globally rational.

Proof. Let $`[X]=yz`$, where $`y`$ and $`z`$ are finite. As $`\lambda _t`$ is a ring homomorphism,

$$\zeta _X(T)=\lambda _t([X])^1=\lambda _t(y)^1\lambda _t(z)$$

is globally rational in $`K_0[𝒱_{}]`$. ∎

We have the following variant of Theorem 3.7:

###### Proposition 8.2.

The class of any $`1`$-dimensional variety in $`K_0[𝒱_{}]`$ is virtually finite.

Proof. If $`Y`$ is a closed subvariety of $`X`$ with complement $`U`$, then if any two of $`X`$, $`Y`$, and $`U`$ are virtually finite, the third is so as well. A point $`Z`$ is finite dimensional (in fact $`1`$-dimensional in the $`\lambda `$-ring sense). Thus, we reduce exactly as in the proof of Theorem 3.7 to the case of a single projective non-singular curve $`X`$. Now,

$$\lambda _t([^1])=(1+t)(1+[𝔸^1]t),$$

so $`^1`$ is $`2`$-dimensional. Writing $`X=^1(^1X)`$, (3.2) implies

$$\lambda _t(^1X)=(1+t)(1+𝔸^1t)\lambda _t(X)^1=(1+t)(1+𝔸^1t)\zeta _X(t)K_0[𝒱_K][t].$$

The proposition follows.∎

###### Corollary 8.3.

The virtual finiteness of a complex surface $`X`$ depends only on the birational class of $`X`$.

###### Definition 8.4.

We call the specialization of the Grothendieck ring $`K_0[𝒱_K]`$ with respect to $`\lambda ^n`$ the Grothendieck $`\lambda `$-ring of $`K`$ and denote it $`K_0[𝒱_K]_\sigma `$. The image of $`\zeta _X(t)`$ in $`K_0[𝒱_K]_\sigma `$ will be denoted $`\zeta _{X\sigma }(t)`$

In any special $`\lambda `$-ring, the set of virtually finite elements is clearly a $`\lambda `$-subring. In particular, we have:

###### Proposition 8.5.

For every $`X/`$ which is virtually finite in $`K_0[𝒱_{}]`$ and every positive integer $`n`$, $`\mathrm{Sym}^nX`$ is again virtually finite in $`K_0[𝒱_{}]`$.

Proof. The identities relating symmetric and exterior powers show that $`\mathrm{Sym}^nX`$ lies in the $`\lambda `$-subring of $`K_0[𝒱_{}]_\sigma `$ generated by $`X`$. ∎

###### Proposition 8.6.

Every principally polarized abelian surface $`X/`$ is virtually finite in $`K_0[𝒱_{}]_\sigma `$.

Proof. It is well known that every principally polarized abelian variety of dimension $`3`$ is a product of Jacobian varieties. (We do not know who first made this observation, but it is an immediate consequence of Torelli’s theorem and Baily’s theorem \[Ba\].) It suffices, therefore, to prove that the Jacobian $`J`$ of a genus $`2`$ curve $`X`$ is virtually finite. The map $`\mathrm{Sym}^2XJ`$ is a birational equivalence, so the proposition follows from Corollary 8.3. ∎

We remark that the fact that sufficiently high symmetric powers of a non-singular projective curve are projective space bundles over its Jacobian variety does not immediately imply virtual finiteness of Jacobians, since it is not obvious that the virtual finiteness of a projective space bundle or even a vector bundle over a given variety implies the virtual finiteness of that variety. However, it is easy to prove the pointwise rationality of $`\zeta _{J\sigma }(t)`$ for Jacobians $`J`$.

###### Question 8.7.

Is $`\zeta _{A\sigma }(t)`$ rational (globally or pointwise) for all abelian varieties $`A`$?

More optimistically, we might ask:

###### Question 8.8.

Is $`\zeta _{X\sigma }(t)`$ rational for all varieties $`X`$? Is $`K_0[𝒱_{}]_\sigma `$ finite dimensional in the sense of Definition 4.7?