text:
# Line Bundles on Complex Tori and a Conjecture of Kodaira

## 1. A conjecture of Kodaira

A fundamental question in Kähler geometry asks whether any compact Kähler manifold can be realised as a deformation of a projective manifold. This is made more precise in the following

###### Definition 1.

A compact Kähler manifold $`X`$ can be approximated algebraically or is almost algebraic if there exists a complex manifold $`𝒳`$ and a surjective holomorphic submersion $`\pi :𝒳\mathrm{\Delta }`$ to the unit disc $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ such that $`𝒳_0X`$ and there is a sequence $`(t_k)`$ converging to $`0`$ such that all $`𝒳_{t_k}`$ are projective.

In \[Kod63\] Kodaira proved that every Kähler surface is almost algebraic, and it is by now a standard conjecture, known as the Kodaira conjecture, that this should be true also in higher dimensions.

One of the first things to try in higher dimensions is certainly to look at projective bundles over Kähler non algebraic manifolds (possibly starting with surfaces for the sake of simplicity). Essentially the Kodaira conjecture implies that holomorphic vector bundles over certain Kähler manifolds should survive on sufficiently many algebraic approximations. The idea is based on the following easy statement.

###### Proposition 2.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold which has a $`_r`$-bundle structure $`XA`$ over some complex torus $`A`$. Then for every deformation $`𝒳S`$ with $`𝒳_0X`$, the nearby fibers $`𝒳_t`$ have a $`_r`$-bundle structure $`𝒳_t𝒜_t`$ where $`𝒜`$ is a deformation of $`A`$ in a neighborhood of $`t=0`$. Moreover, if $`X=(V)`$ for some vector bundle $`V`$ on $`A`$, then $`𝒳_t=(V_t)`$ for a suitable deformation $`V_t𝒜_t`$ of $`VA`$.

###### Proof.

We look at the relative Albanese map $`\alpha :𝒳𝒜`$. Then $`𝒜S`$ is a deformation of tori such that $`\alpha _t:𝒳_t𝒜_t`$ is the Albanese map for each $`tS`$. Since $`\alpha _0`$ is a submersion, $`\alpha _t`$ should be also a submersion $`t`$ in a neighborhood $`US`$ of $`0`$, and the fibers of $`\alpha _t`$ are deformations of $`_r`$. Since $`_r`$ is undeformable, we conclude that $`\alpha _t:𝒳_t𝒜_t`$ is also a $`_r`$-bundle for small $`t`$. Now, the fact that $`𝒳_t=(V_t)`$ is equivalent to the fact that the relative anticanonical bundle $`K_{𝒳_t/𝒜_t}^1`$ has an $`(r+1)`$-root $`L_t`$ on $`𝒳_t`$, in which case $`V_t=(\alpha _t)_{}(L_t)`$. However, the obstruction for a line bundle to have an $`(r+1)`$-root lies in $`H^2(𝒳_t,/(r+1))`$. This is a discrete locally constant coefficient system, so if the obstruction vanishes for $`t=0`$, it must also vanish on the connected component of $`0`$ in $`US`$. ∎

Proposition 2 actually holds for arbitrary projective bundles over compact Kähler manifolds; the proof is slightly more involved and is given in the last section. Proposition 2 however is sufficient for our purposes.

In view of this, it is natural to look at the following potential candidate for a counter-example: Start with a $`3`$-dimensional complex torus with Picard number $`\rho (A)3`$. Let $`L_iNS(A)`$ be (numerical equivalence classes of) linearly independent holomorphic line bundles over $`A`$. Let $`U^9`$ be a neighborhood of $`[A]`$ in the universal deformation space of $`A`$. As explained in the next section, every $`L_i`$ determines a $`3`$-codimensional subspace $`V_i=V(L_i)`$ in $`U`$ such that $`c_1(L_i)`$ is $`(1,1)`$, i.e. $`L_i`$ is a holomorphic line bundle on $`A^{}`$ if and only if $`[A^{}]V_i.`$

Now we make the following Assumption:
The intersection of the $`V_i`$’s has the expected dimension 0, i.e.

$$()V_1V_2V_3\text{contains }\{A\}\text{ as an isolated point}.$$

Then consider the $`6`$-dimensional manifold

$$Y=(𝒪_AL_1)\times _A(𝒪_AL_2)\times _A(𝒪_AL_3).$$

This is a $`_1^3`$-bundle over $`A`$ with projection $`\pi :YA.`$ In each subspace $`(𝒪_AL_i)`$ there is a section $`Z_i`$ at infinity given by the direct summand $`𝒪_A`$. This gives a section $`Z`$ of $`\pi `$ by selecting over every $`aA`$ the point $`(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$, where $`\{x_i\}=Z_i\pi ^1(a)`$.

###### Proposition 3.

The blow up $`\sigma :XY`$ of $`ZY`$ is rigid in the sense that there is no positive-dimensional family of deformations of $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Notice that, denoting by $`_1^3(x)`$ the blow up of $`_1^3`$ in one point, $`X`$ is a $`_1^3(x)`$-bundle over $`A`$. So let $`(X_t)`$ be a deformation of $`X=X_0`$ over the $`1`$-dimensional unit disc $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. The first step is to proof that, possibly after shrinking $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$, every $`X_t`$ is a $`_1^3(x)`$-bundle over its ($`3`$-dimensional) Albanese torus $`A_t`$. In fact, $`q(X_t)=3`$ for all $`t`$ and the Albanese map $`\alpha _t`$ is smooth for small $`t`$. In order to prove that $`\alpha _t`$ is a $`_1^3(x)`$ bundle, it suffices to show that $`_1^3(x)`$ is rigid, i.e. every small deformation of $`_1^3(x)`$ is again $`_1^3(x)`$.

In fact, let $`Z=_1^3(x)`$ for simplicity of notations. Let $`\tau :Z_1^3`$ be the blow-up map with exceptional divisor $`E_2`$. Then there is an exact sequence

$$0T_Z\tau ^{}T_{_1^3}T_E(1)0.$$

Since $`dimH^0(T_{_1^3})=9`$, $`dimH^0(T_Z)=6`$, $`H^0(T_E(1))=3`$ and $`H^1(\tau ^{}T_{_1^3})=0`$, by taking cohomology of the above exact sequence it follows

$$H^1(T_Z)=0,$$

in particular $`Z`$ is rigid.

Let $`𝒳`$ be the total space of $`(X_t)`$ and let $`\pi :𝒳𝒜`$ be the relative Albanese map for $`𝒳\mathrm{\Delta }`$. Then $`𝒜\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a torus bundle; let $`A_t`$ be the fiber over $`t`$, so that $`A=A_0.`$ Now the exceptional divisor $`D`$ of $`\sigma `$ moves in $`𝒳`$. This is easy to see by considering $`D\pi ^1(a)=_2`$ for $`aA`$. In fact, the normal bundle of this $`_2`$ is $`𝒪(1)𝒪`$, so that the $`_2`$ moves and forces $`D`$ to move. Therefore one obtains a fiberwise blow-down $`𝒳𝒴`$ inducing the birational map $`\sigma :XY`$. Of course there is a factorisation $`𝒳𝒴𝒜`$ and $`𝒴𝒜`$ is a $`_1^3`$-bundle. Again let $`Y_t`$ be the fiber over $`t`$. Next it is shown that it is possible to write

$$Y_t=Y_{1,t}\times _{A_t}Y_{2,t}\times _{A_t}Y_{3,t}$$

with $`_1`$-bundles $`Y_{i,t}/A_t`$, and this can be done simultaneously, i.e. the $`(Y_{i,t})`$ form a family $`𝒴_i`$. The most economic way to do that is to note that the relative Picard number $`\rho (𝒴/𝒜)`$ equals $`3`$ since $`\rho (Y_0/A_0)=3`$ (this is a product situation). By taking relative extremal contractions in the sense of Mori theory one gets a tower of three $`_1`$-bundles. Of course there are three choices of the first one and then two choices for the second since the situation is completely symmetric in $`i`$. (This situation could possibly lead to some monodromy action $`\pi _1(A_t)𝔖_3`$, but since such actions are discrete and depend continuoulsly on $`t`$, the fact that we have a non twisted product for $`t=0`$ implies that we have no such twist for $`t`$ arbitrary). The last contraction will provide the space $`𝒴_i`$ for the appropriate $`i`$. Now consider the canonical map

$$Y_tY_{1,t}\times _{A_t}Y_{2,t}\times _{A_t}Y_{3,t}.$$

Then this map is immediately seen to be an isomorphism.

Since $`Y_{i,t}`$ is a $`_1`$-bundle over $`A_t`$ and since it is has a section by construction, it follows

$$Y_{i,t}=(E_{i,t})$$

with a rank 2-bundle $`E_{i,t}`$ (normalized such that $`E_{0,t}=𝒪_{A_0}L_i`$), and the $`E_{i,t}`$ form a holomorphic rank 2-bundle $`_i`$ over $`𝒜`$. Since the section at infinity in $`Y_0`$ deforms by construction to sections in $`Y_t`$, one obtains a global quotient $`_i𝒢_i0`$ such that $`𝒢_i|A_0=𝒪_{A_0}`$. By changing $`_i`$ appropriately, one may assume that $`𝒢_i=𝒪_𝒜`$. Let $`_i`$ be the kernel of $`_i𝒪_𝒜`$. Then $`_i|A_0=L_i`$. But this implies that there is a deformation of $`A=A_0`$ such that all three line bundles $`L_i`$ remain holomorphic. But the assumption

$$V_1V_2V_3=\{A\}$$

implies that there is no such (nontrivial) deformation of $`A`$. ∎

It is therefore a very natural question to ask whether these rigid $`6`$-dimensional Kähler manifolds are projective or not. If they were not projective, we would get counter-examples to the Kodaira conjecture. Unfortunately (in view of getting easy counter-examples!), Theorem 3 of the next section tells us that a complex torus $`A`$ verifying Assumption (\*) for some triple of holomorphic line bundles $`L_i`$ is always an abelian variety.

## 2. Holomorphic line bundles on complex tori

Let $`X`$ be a complex torus of dimension $`g`$. As explained in \[BL99\], \[LB92\] $`X`$ admits a period matrix of the form $`(\tau ,\mathrm{𝟏}_g)`$ with $`\tau M_g()`$, the $`g\times g`$-matrices with entries in $``$ such that $`\mathrm{det}(\mathrm{Im}\tau )0`$. Conversely every such matrix is the period matrix of a complex torus.

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^g:=V`$ denotes the lattice generated by the columns of $`(\tau ,\mathrm{𝟏}_g)`$ the Néron-Severi group of $`X`$ may be described as

$$NS(X)=\{E=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ {}_{}{}^{t}B& C\end{array}\right)M_{2g}()|\begin{array}{c}A\mathrm{and}C\mathrm{alternating},\mathrm{and}\hfill \\ AB\tau +{}_{}{}^{t}\tau {}_{}{}^{t}B+{}_{}{}^{t}\tau C\tau =0\hfill \end{array}\}.$$

The equality ensures that the alternating form $`E`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-form, cf. \[BL99, p. 10\].

###### Theorem 4.

Let $`X`$ be a 3-dimensional complex torus with period matrix $`(\tau ,\mathrm{𝟏}_3)`$ and let $`E_1E_2E_3NS(X)`$ be a rank 3 subgroup of the Néron-Severi group $`NS(X)`$ of $`X`$ generated by $`E_1,E_2,E_3NS(X)`$. Then there is a sequence $`(X_n)`$ of 3-dimensional complex tori with period matrices $`(\tau _n,\mathrm{𝟏}_3)`$ such that

* the $`\tau _n`$ converge to $`\tau `$ for $`n\mathrm{}`$,
* $`E_1E_2E_3NS(X_n)`$ and
* $`X_n`$ is a complex abelian variety.

As a first step towards a proof, $`E=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ {}_{}{}^{t}B& C\end{array}\right)`$ may be considered as an element of the free abelian group $`^{15}`$: the matrices $`A=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& a_1& a_2\\ a_1& 0& a_3\\ a_2& a_3& 0\end{array}\right)`$ and $`C=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& c_1& c_2\\ c_1& 0& c_3\\ c_2& c_3& 0\end{array}\right)`$ are alternating, and $`B=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}b_1& b_2& b_3\\ b_4& b_5& b_6\\ b_7& b_8& b_9\end{array}\right)`$ is arbitrary. Since $`kENS(X)`$ implies $`ENS(X)`$, condition (ii) is equivalent to

$$E_1E_2E_3NS(X_n)_{},$$

and $`E_1E_2E_3`$ may be interpreted as a $``$-rational point in the Grassmannian $`G(3,15)`$.

For a given 3-dimensional subspace $`E_1E_2E_3^{15}`$ the equations $`A_iB_i\tau +{}_{}{}^{t}\tau {}_{}{}^{t}B_{i}^{}+{}_{}{}^{t}\tau C_i\tau =0`$, $`i=1,2,3`$ imply algebraic relations between the entries of

$$\tau =\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\tau _1& \tau _2& \tau _3\\ \tau _4& \tau _5& \tau _6\\ \tau _7& \tau _8& \tau _9\end{array}\right):$$

Since the $`A_iB_i\tau +{}_{}{}^{t}\tau {}_{}{}^{t}B_{i}^{}+{}_{}{}^{t}\tau C_i\tau `$ are alternating matrices, the number of these relations can be reduced to 9 ($`i=1,2,3`$):

$$()\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill 0& =& a_{i1}b_{i1}\tau _2b_{i2}\tau _5b_{i3}\tau _8+b_{i4}\tau _1+b_{i5}\tau _4+b_{i6}\tau _7\hfill \\ & & +c_{i1}(\tau _1\tau _5\tau _2\tau _4)+c_{i2}(\tau _1\tau _8\tau _2\tau _7)+c_{i3}(\tau _4\tau _8\tau _5\tau _7)\hfill \\ \hfill 0& =& a_{i2}b_{i1}\tau _3b_{i2}\tau _6b_{i3}\tau _9+b_{i7}\tau _1+b_{i8}\tau _4+b_{i9}\tau _7\hfill \\ & & +c_{i1}(\tau _1\tau _6\tau _3\tau _4)+c_{i2}(\tau _1\tau _9\tau _3\tau _7)+c_{i3}(\tau _4\tau _9\tau _6\tau _7)\hfill \\ \hfill 0& =& a_{i3}b_{i4}\tau _3b_{i5}\tau _6b_{i6}\tau _9+b_{i7}\tau _2+b_{i8}\tau _5+b_{i9}\tau _8\hfill \\ & & +c_{i1}(\tau _2\tau _6\tau _3\tau _5)+c_{i2}(\tau _2\tau _9\tau _3\tau _8)+c_{i3}(\tau _5\tau _9\tau _6\tau _8).\hfill \end{array}$$

So there is an algebraic subset $`U_{E_1,E_2,E_3}`$ of $`^9=^3\times ^3`$ such that $`U_{E_1,E_2,E_3}\{\tau ^9:\mathrm{det}(\mathrm{Im}\tau )0\}`$ describes all $`\tau `$’s with $`E_1E_2E_3NS(X_\tau )_{}`$ where $`X_\tau `$ is the complex torus corresponding to the period matrix $`(\tau ,\mathrm{𝟏}_3)`$. In particular, the union of all these $`U_{E_1,E_2,E_3}`$ is an algebraic family $`UG(3,15)\times ^9`$. Let $`\overline{U}G(3,15)\times ^9`$ denote the projective closure of $`U`$.

The heart of the proof is now a careful analysis of this family $`\overline{U}`$, especially of the fibers over $``$-rational points of $`G(3,15)`$. If they always contain an (analytically) dense subset of $`\tau `$’s such that $`X_\tau `$ is a complex abelian variety, the theorem will follow.

The first observation is that all coefficients in the equations of $`()`$ are rational. Hence, $``$ is the field of definition of $`\overline{U}`$, i.e. there exists a $``$-scheme $`\overline{U}_{}`$ such that $`\overline{U}=\overline{U}_{}\times _{}\mathrm{Spec}`$. In particular, every fiber of $`\overline{U}`$ over a $``$-rational point of $`G(3,15)`$ has $``$ as field of definition, too.

Next, one computes a fiber $`\overline{U}_{E_1,E_2,E_3}`$ of $`\overline{U}`$ with sufficiently general entries in the matrices $`E_1,E_2,E_3`$. This can be done with the computer algebra program Macaulay2 (\[GS\], \[EGSS02\]). Setting

$$A_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 2\\ 0& 2& 0\end{array}\right),B_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 0\\ 1& 1& 2\\ 1& 1& 2\end{array}\right),C_1=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$

$$A_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 2\\ 1& 0& 1\\ 2& 1& 0\end{array}\right),B_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 1& 1& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),C_2=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\\ 0& 1& 0\end{array}\right),$$

$$A_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 1& 2\\ 1& 0& 1\\ 2& 1& 0\end{array}\right),B_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}1& 1& 1\\ 1& 2& 1\\ 1& 2& 1\end{array}\right),C_3=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}0& 0& 1\\ 0& 0& 0\\ 1& 0& 0\end{array}\right),$$

(the matrix entries were chosen by a random number generator) and using the following Macaulay2 script

```
   k = QQ;
   PT = k[t_0..t_9];

   A1 = matrix(PT,{{0, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 2}, {0, -2, 0}});
   B1 = matrix(PT,{{1,1,0},{1,1,2},{1,1,2}});
   C1 = matrix(PT,{{0,1,0},{-1,0,0},{0,0,0}});

   A2 = matrix(PT,{{0,1,2},{-1,0,1},{-2,-1,0}});
   B2 = matrix(PT,{{0,0,0},{1,1,1},{0,1,0}});
   C2 = matrix(PT,{{0,0,0},{0,0,1},{0,-1,0}});

   A3 = matrix(PT,{{0,1,2},{-1,0,1},{-2,-1,0}});
   B3 = matrix(PT,{{1,1,1},{1,2,1},{1,2,1}});
   C3 = matrix(PT,{{0,0,1},{0,0,0},{-1,0,0}});

   gent = genericMatrix(PT,t_1,3,3);

   s1 = matrix(PT,{{t_0,0,0},{0,t_0,0},{0,0,t_0}});
   s2 = s1*s1;

   Q1 = A1*s2 - B1*gent*s1 + transpose(gent)*transpose(B1)*s1 +\
   transpose(gent)*C1*gent;

   Q2 = A2*s2 - B2*gent*s1 + transpose(gent)*transpose(B2)*s1 +\
   transpose(gent)*C2*gent;

   Q3 = A3*s2 - B3*gent*s1 + transpose(gent)*transpose(B3)*s1 +\
   transpose(gent)*C3*gent;
   Q = Q1|Q2|Q3;
   --- Q contains the 9 relations between the t_i’s homogenized with \
   respect to t_0

   q = saturate(ideal(flatten Q), ideal(t_0))
   --- saturation with t_0 removes all components on the hyperplane\
   t_0 = 0
   betti q

```

one gets 8 linear and 1 quadratic equation describing the projective closure of $`U_{E_1,E_2,E_3}`$:

```
   t_7+3/5t_8+8/5t_9
   t_6-3/20t_8+1/10t_9
   t_5-3/5t_8+2/5t_9
   t_4+1/2t_8+t_9
   t_3-1/20t_8-3/10t_9
   t_2+3/10t_8+9/5t_9
   t_1-3/10t_8+1/5t_9
   t_0-1/4t_8-3/2t_9
   t_8^2-48t_8t_9-172/3t_9^2

```

Since the quadratic generator has discriminant $`24^2+4\frac{172}{3}>0`$ which is not the square of a rational number, this is a $``$-irreducible 0-dimensional scheme of degree 2; over $``$ it consists of two points.

Unfortunately, these equations may cut out too much, since the projective closure of a fiber may be less than the fiber of the projective closure of a family. To deal with this problem one has to do a little detour: First one looks at the (inhomogeneous) ideal of the whole family $`U`$:

```
   k = QQ;
   P = k[t_0..t_9];
   PE = k[e_0..e_11,f_0..f_11,g_0..g_11];
   PT = P ** PE;

   A1 = matrix(PT,{{0, e_0, e_1}, {-e_0, 0, e_2}, {-e_1, -e_2, 0}});
   B1 = matrix(PT,{{e_3,e_4,e_5},{e_6,e_7,e_8},{e_9,e_10,e_11}});
   C1 = matrix(PT,{{0,1,0},{-1,0,0},{0,0,0}});

   A2 = matrix(PT,{{0, f_0, f_1}, {-f_0, 0, f_2}, {-f_1, -f_2, 0}});
   B2 = matrix(PT,{{f_3,f_4,f_5},{f_6,f_7,f_8},{f_9,f_10,f_11}});
   C2 = matrix(PT,{{0,0,0},{0,0,1},{0,-1,0}});

   A3 = matrix(PT,{{0, g_0, g_1}, {-g_0, 0, g_2}, {-g_1, -g_2, 0}});
   B3 = matrix(PT,{{g_3,g_4,g_5},{g_6,g_7,g_8},{g_9,g_10,g_11}});
   C3 = matrix(PT,{{0,0,1},{0,0,0},{-1,0,0}});

   gent = genericMatrix(PT,t_1,3,3);

   Q1 = A1 - B1*gent + transpose(gent)*transpose(B1) +\
   transpose(gent)*C1*gent;
   Q2 = A2 - B2*gent + transpose(gent)*transpose(B2) +\
   transpose(gent)*C2*gent;
   Q3 = A3 - B3*gent + transpose(gent)*transpose(B3) +\
   transpose(gent)*C3*gent;

   Q = Q1|Q2|Q3;
   q = ideal flatten Q;

```

The projective closure of $`U`$ may be determined by computing a Groebner basis of this ideal with respect to a monomial order refining the order by degree in the $`t_i`$’s and then homogenizing the generators with respect to $`t_0`$ (\[Eis95, 15.31\]). This computation is too complicated for the whole Groebner basis, but it is already enough to look at the first few elements which are added to the original generators:

```
   gbasis = gb(q,PairLimit=>31);

   hgbasis = homogenize(gens gbasis,t_0,{1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1, 0,0,0,\
   0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0, 0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,\
   0,0});

```

Evaluation at $`(E_1,E_2,E_3)`$

```
   f = map(PT,PT,matrix(PT, {{t_0,t_1,t_2,t_3,t_4,t_5,t_6,t_7,t_8,\
   t_9, 0,0,2,1,1,0,1,1,2,1,1,2, 1,2,1,0,0,0,1,1,1,0,1,0, 1,2,1,1,\
   1,1,1,2,1,1,2,1}}));

   genfibre = ideal f(hgbasis);

   betti gb genfibre

```

shows that the fibre $`(\overline{U})_{E_1,E_2,E_3}`$ is contained in a scheme cut out by 8 linear and 1 quadratic equation, so

$$(\overline{U})_{E_1,E_2,E_3}=U_{E_1,E_2,E_3}.$$

One can get further informations about $`\overline{U}`$ from the homogenized equations collected in hgbasis. Since the projective closure of a fiber is equal to the fiber of the projective closure on an open subset they contain 9 equations describing the fibers of $`\overline{U}`$ over an open subset around $`(E_1,E_2,E_3)`$. Furthermore the command

```
   transpose leadTerm hgbasis

```

shows that all of these equations contain $`t`$-variables. Hence each of these fibers is cut out by 9 non-constant equations, so it is not empty. Consequently, no fiber is empty.

Turning to the fibers of $`\overline{U}`$ over $`^9=^3\times ^3`$ (resp. $`^9`$) one sees immediately that these are non-empty linear subspaces. Hence $`\overline{U}`$ is connected. Finally, $`U`$ is regular, as may be shown by deriving the equations in $`()`$ with respect to the $`a_{ij}`$’s. Taken all these facts together it follows that $`U`$ and hence $`\overline{U}`$ is irreducible. So by Stein factorization every $`0`$-dimensional fiber is of degree 2.

Now it is easy to prove for these 0-dimensional fibers over $``$-rational points that they describe period matrices $`\tau `$ belonging to complex abelian varieties: Since the fibers are $``$-rational, too, the entries of $`\tau `$ are elements of a field extension of $``$ of degree 2. The defining equations of the Néron-Severi group show that then $`NS(X_\tau )`$ is a $`152\times 3=9`$-dimensional $``$-vector space. But a 3-dimensional complex torus with maximal Picard number 9 is algebraic (cf. \[BL99\]).

What about the higher dimensional fibers ? Consider the $``$-rational map $`\varphi :G(3,15)\mathrm{Hilb}^2(_{}^9)`$ whose existence is the essence of the arguments used above. Let

be the resolution of the singularities of $`\varphi `$ by blowing up $``$-regular centers. This is possible by the Hironaka package, see \[Hir64\], \[BM97\] or \[HLOQ97\]. Now the theorem is a consequence of the following

###### Lemma 5.

Let $`ZY`$ be an embedding of $``$-regular $``$-schemes, let $`zZ`$ be a $``$-rational point and let $`\varphi :\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ be the blow up of $`Y`$ with center $`Z`$. Then the $``$-rational points are dense on the fiber $`\varphi ^1(z)`$.

###### Proof.

This is almost trivial: Choose a $``$-regular sequence $`(f_1,\mathrm{},f_s,f_{s+1},\mathrm{},f_t)`$ in the local ring $`𝒪_{Y,z}`$ such that $`\text{m}_{Z,z}=(\overline{f}_{s+1},\mathrm{},\overline{f}_t)𝒪_{Z,z}`$ and $`\text{m}_{Y,z}=(f_1,\mathrm{},f_t)`$. The blowing up of $`\mathrm{Spec}𝒪_{Y,z}`$ with center $`\mathrm{Spec}𝒪_{Z,z}`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{Proj}𝒪_{Y,z}[f_{s+1},\mathrm{},f_t]=(\mathrm{Spec}𝒪_{Y,z}\times _{}^{ts1})/V(T_if_jT_jf_i),$$

and the fiber over z is $`_{}^{ts1}`$. ∎

Apply the lemma on $`\varphi `$: If $`[E_1E_2E_3]=[W]G(3,15)`$ is a $``$-rational point then $`\pi ^1([W])G`$ will contain an analytically dense subset of $``$-rational points, and the same will be true of the image $`\overline{\varphi }(\pi ^1([W]))\mathrm{Hilb}^2(_{}^9)`$. But $``$-rational points in $`\mathrm{Hilb}^2(_{}^9)`$ describe pairs of points corresponding to abelian varieties, and all pairs in $`\overline{\varphi }(\pi ^1([W]))`$ map surjectively on the fiber over $`[W]`$ in $`\overline{U}`$. Hence this fiber contains a dense open subset of period matrices $`\tau `$ such that $`X_\tau `$ is an abelian variety.
Remark. Some words about the Macaulay2 computations: Since all the relevant equations and varieties are defined over $``$ and also the operations applied to them like taking the projective closure work over $``$, these calculations give exact results.

## 3. Modifications and a general setting for counter-examples

Of course the construction in section 1 possibly could be modified in several ways and then might lead to a counter-example to Kodaira’s conjecture.

First we show that in the setup before Proposition 2 - of course now without Assumption (\*) - the variety $`X`$ from Proposition 2 can be approximated algebraically. In deed in that situation (using the old terminology), $`V_1V_2V_3`$ contains other complex tori than $`A`$. Then theorem 4 assures the existence of a sequence $`\left\{A_n\right\}_nV_1V_2V_3`$ of abelian varieties converging to $`A`$. The following lemma shows that this implies $`X`$ almost algebraic:

###### Lemma 6.

Let $`E=\left(\begin{array}{cc}A& B\\ {}_{}{}^{t}B& C\end{array}\right)M_{2g}()`$ be a skew symmetric matrix with integral entries and let

$$V=\left\{\tau M_3()\right|AB\tau +{}_{}{}^{t}\tau {}_{}{}^{t}B+{}_{}{}^{t}\tau C\tau =0;det\mathrm{Im}\tau 0\}^9$$

be the set of period matrices $`\tau `$ such that $`X_\tau `$ is a complex torus with $`ENS(X_\tau )`$.

Let $`𝒳=V\times ^g/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau `$ be the family of these tori $`X_\tau `$ where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau =(\tau ,\mathrm{𝟏}_g)`$ is the lattice belonging to $`X_\tau =^g/\mathrm{\Lambda }_\tau `$. Then every $`\tau _0V`$ has an open neighborhood $`UV`$ such that there exists a holomorphic line bundle $`_U`$ on $`𝒳_U`$ such that $`c_1(_\tau )=E`$ for all $`\tau U`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\pi :𝒳V`$ be the projection of $`𝒳`$ onto $`V`$. By taking direct images with respect to $`\pi `$ and deriving the long exact sequence from $`0𝒪_𝒳𝒪_𝒳^{}1`$ one obtains the sequence

$$R^1\pi _{}𝒪_𝒳^{}R^2\pi _{}R^2\pi _{}𝒪_𝒳.$$

The skew symmetric matrix $`E`$ gives a section of $`R^2\pi _{}`$ which is mapped to 0 in $`R^2\pi _{}𝒪_𝒳`$ since $`ENS(X_\tau )`$ for all $`\tau V`$. Hence $`E`$ is the image of a section in $`R^1\pi _{}𝒪_𝒳^{}`$. Take an open neighborhood $`U`$ of $`\tau _0`$ such that the section restricted to $`U`$ is a cohomology class in $`H^1(𝒳_{|\pi ^1(U)},𝒪_𝒳^{})`$. This class gives the line bundle $`_U`$. ∎

Next, consider the following more general setting: Take an $`n`$-dimensonal complex torus $`A`$ and $`k`$ vector bundles $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_k`$ over $`A`$ of rank $`r_1,\mathrm{},r_kn`$. Let $`Y`$ be the $`(n+r_1+\mathrm{}+r_k)`$-dimensional manifold

$$(𝒪_AE_1)\times _A\mathrm{}\times _A(𝒪_AE_k).$$

This a $`(^{r_1}\times \mathrm{}\times ^{r_k})`$-bundle over $`A`$ with projection $`\pi :YA`$. In each subspace $`(𝒪_AE_i)`$ there is a section $`Z_i`$ at infinity given by the direct summand $`𝒪_A`$. This gives a section $`Z`$ of $`\pi `$ by selecting over every $`aA`$ the point $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_k)`$, where $`\{x_i\}=Z_i\pi ^1(a)`$. Let $`\sigma :XY`$ be the blow up of $`ZY`$.
Similar arguments as in section 1 show

###### Proposition 7.

If there is a positive-dimensional family of deformations of $`X`$ then there will also exist a deformation family of complex tori $`\left\{A_t\right\}_{t\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ such that $`A=A_0`$ and all vector bundles $`E_1,\mathrm{},E_k`$ remain holomorphic on $`A_t`$. $`\mathrm{}`$

The condition on the vector bundles to remain holomorphic requires some further explanations: Let $`E`$ be a vector bundle of rank $`r`$ over an $`g`$-dimensional torus $`A`$. Then the Chern classes $`c_i(E)`$ are $`(i,i)`$-classes in $`H^{2i}(A,)=^{2i}\mathrm{Hom}(\mathrm{\Lambda },)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^g=:V`$ is a (non-degenerate) lattice such that $`A=V/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since $`H^{i,i}(A,)=^i\mathrm{Hom}_{}(V,)\times ^i\mathrm{Hom}_\overline{}(V,),`$ the $`(i,i)`$-classes in $`H^{2i}(A,)`$ may be interpreted as a real valued alternating form $`F`$ on $`^iV`$ such that

$$F(i\mathrm{\Phi },i\mathrm{\Psi })=F(\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Psi })\mathrm{and}F(\stackrel{i}{}\mathrm{\Lambda },\stackrel{i}{}\mathrm{\Lambda }).$$

As in the case of $`(1,1)`$-classes these conditions induce relations between $`F`$ (written in terms of a base of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$) and the period matrix $`\tau `$. In a family $`\left\{A_t\right\}_{t\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ of complex tori these relations must be satisfied for $`\tau _t`$, $`t0`$, if a holomorphic vector bundle $`E`$ on $`A_0`$ still has a holomorphic structure on $`A_t`$.

But the existence problem for vector bundles of higher rank with prescribed Chern classes is much more difficult than in the case of line bundles. On (non-algebraic) complex tori this problem is completely solved only in dimension 2 and rank 2 \[Tom99\], \[TT02\]. Consequently, to construct a counter-example to Kodaira’s conjecture with vector bundles of higher rank it is not enough to give a set of Chern classes and to prove that these classes can be Chern classes only for isolated period matrix. On the other hand if there is a positive family of such period matrices there may be still a counter-example depending on the existence of vector bundles with these Chern classes only on isolated members of the families.

Finally the two simplest cases of this general setting are considered.

### 3.1. Line bundles in arbitrary dimensions

Let $`X`$ be a complex torus of dimension $`g`$ given by the period matrix $`(\tau ,\mathbf{1}_g)`$. By the characterization of the Néron-Severi group in the last section a skew symmetric matrix $`EM_{2g}()`$ is a $`(1,1)`$-form iff the entries of $`\tau `$ satisfy $`\left(\begin{array}{c}g\\ 2\end{array}\right)`$ equations. Consequently, 3 skew symmetric matrices $`E_1,E_2,E_3M_{2g}()`$ should determine at most a finite number of $`g\times g`$ period matrices $`\tau `$ such that $`E_1,E_2,E_3`$ are first Chern classes of line bundles on $`X_\tau `$.

As in the last section, for given $`g`$ one can choose random entries for $`E_1,E_2,E_3`$ and compute the locus $`V(E_1)V(E_2)V(E_3)`$ of $`\tau `$’s as above. But already in dimension 4 this locus turns out to be empty for randomly chosen entries. This means that only special triples of matrices belong to the Néron-Severi group of a complex torus, and it seems difficult to find one such that furthermore the above locus consists of isolated points. And then one has still to prove that the period matrices in this locus determine a non-algebraic complex torus.

### 3.2. Rank 2 vector bundles in dimension 3

This is the simplest case with vector bundles of rank $`>1`$. Unfortunately, by Poincaré duality

$$H^{2,2}(X,)H^{1,1}(X,),H^{3,1}(X,)H^{0,2}(X,),H^{1,3}(X,)H^{2,0}(X,)$$

and the equations for a skew symmetric matrix in $`M_{2g}()`$ to be a $`(2,2)`$-form do not differ from those for $`(1,1)`$-forms. Hence in this case a counter-example may be found only by closer considering the question for which complex tori exist rank 2 vector bundles with given Chern classes.

Of course more difficult settings starting with rank 2 vector bundles on 4-dimensional complex tori may give positive results. On the other hand the examples above give enough evidence to turn around one’s point of view, into an attempt to prove Kodaira’s conjecture (at least in these special cases).

## 4. Deformations of Projective Bundles

In this final section we generalize Proposition 2:

###### Theorem 8.

Let $`X`$ be a compact Kähler manifold which has a $`_r`$-bundle structure $`XY`$ over some compact Kähler manifold $`Y`$. Then for every deformation $`𝒳S`$ with $`𝒳_0X`$, the nearby fibers $`𝒳_t`$ have a $`_r`$-bundle structure $`𝒳_t𝒴_t`$ where $`𝒴`$ is a deformation of $`Y`$ in a neighborhood of $`t=0`$. Moreover, if $`X=(V)`$ for some vector bundle $`V`$ on $`A`$, then $`𝒳_t=(V_t)`$ for a suitable deformation $`V_t𝒜_t`$ of $`VA`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`q:𝒞𝒯`$ be the irreducible component of the cycle space relative to $`\pi :𝒳S`$ containing the fibers of $`XY.`$ So $`𝒯`$ parametrizes deformations of the $`_r`$ to nearby fibers $`X_y.`$ Since the normal bundle in $`𝒞`$ to these projective spaces is trivial, it follows immediately that (possibly after shrinking $`S`$) $`𝒯`$ is smooth. Let $`p:𝒞X`$ denote the projection and notice that there is another canonical projection $`r:𝒯S`$ realizing $`𝒯`$ as a family $`(T_s).`$ We will also consider $`𝒞_s=q^1(T_s)`$ with projection $`q_s`$ to $`T_s.`$ Now $`q_0`$ is a $`_r`$bundle. Therefore for small $`s`$ also the maps $`q_s`$ are first submersions and second projective bundles (since projective space is locally rigid). Having in mind that $`p_0:𝒞_0X_0`$ is an isomorphism, we see that $`p`$ is an isomorphism so that all $`X_t`$ are projective bundles for small $`t.`$
The vector bundle statement finally is proved just as in Proposition 2. ∎


format: text

text:
# Group Objects and Internal Categories

## 1. Groups Within a Category

Let $`𝒞`$ be a category with finite products. For this it is necessary and sufficient that $`𝒞`$ have pairwise products (i.e. for any 2 objects $`C,DOb(𝒞)`$, there is a product $`C\times D`$) and a terminal object, which we shall denote by $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$. Examples of suitable categories include $`\text{Set},\text{Grp},\text{Top}`$ and Ab.

Let $`G`$ be an object of $`𝒞`$. Then $`G\times G`$ is also an object of $`𝒞`$. Suppose we can find a morphism $`m:G\times GG`$ such that the diagram

commutes. Now, $`m`$ is a binary operation and if we temporarily think in terms of elements we see that the diagram ensures that the operation is associative. For example, take $`𝒞=\text{Set}`$; then $`G`$ is a set and $`(id_G\times m)(a,b,c):=(a,bc)`$ for $`a,b,cG`$, etc. We may take this diagram as a general definition of associativity, even for categories in which the objects do not have elements. Therefore $`G,m`$ gives us an abstract semigroup in $`𝒞`$. It is often convenient, in categories such as Set, to think in terms of the elements and their images under the given morphisms111Sometimes it is actually more confusing to think in terms of elements, for example when dealing with opposite categories., but in fact the definitions are much more general.

Suppose we also have a morphism $`e:\mathrm{𝟏}G`$ from the terminal object to $`G`$, such that

commutes222Note that the isomorphisms $`\mathrm{𝟏}\times GGG\times \mathrm{𝟏}`$ follow automatically from the definition of the product and the fact that $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is a terminal object (so there is a unique arrow $`G\mathrm{𝟏}`$).. Then $`e`$ acts as an identity for $`G`$. For example, in Set, the terminal object $`\mathrm{𝟏}`$ is a singleton and so $`e`$ picks out an element of $`G`$ which acts as the identity under the “multiplication” $`m`$.

Hence an object $`G`$ with morphisms $`m,e`$ as above can be thought of as a monoid in $`𝒞`$. In fact we can define (see MacLane \[10, section 3.6\]) a monoid in $`𝒞`$ to be precisely a triple $`G,m,e`$ such that the above diagrams commute. In the case of Set, the monoids thus given correspond exactly to monoids in the classical, i.e. non-categorical, sense. It is clear that, given any classical monoid (written multiplicatively), we can define $`m`$ by $`m(x,y):=xy`$ and if $`1`$ denotes the identity element, we define $`e:1`$ (taking $`\mathrm{𝟏}=\{\}`$). Conversely, given any categorical monoid in Set, the morphism $`m`$ gives a well-defined associative binary operation for which $`e()`$ is an identity.

To get from here to groups it remains to define inverses. Again we must do this using morphisms, as the objects in our category need not have elements. Let $`i`$ be a morphism $`GG`$ such that

commutes, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }:GG\times G`$ is the diagonal morphism (i.e. $`p\mathrm{\Delta }=q\mathrm{\Delta }=id_G`$, where $`p,q`$ are the projections from the product to its components). In Set, if $`gG`$ then $`\mathrm{\Delta }(g)=(g,g)`$ and the commutativity of the diagram gives $`m(i(g),g)=e()`$, so $`i(g)`$ is a left inverse for $`g`$. We can also replace $`i\times id_G`$ in the diagram with $`id_G\times i`$, which would give $`i(g)`$ as a right inverse for $`g`$. Thus to get a two-sided inverse for each element in $`G`$, we may stipulate that $`i`$ should exist so that both diagrams commute.

We are now in a position to define a *group object* in $`𝒞`$ to be an ordered quadruple $`G,m,e,i`$ with morphisms defined as above. In Set, the group objects are just groups in the classical sense, as we have seen. In Top, each set $`G`$ is a topological space and all maps are continuous, so the group objects are topological groups. In the category of differentiable manifolds333The morphisms are smooth maps of class $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$, i.e.they are infinitely differentiable., the group objects are Lie groups. In Grp, the objects are themselves groups; in this case, the group objects are abelian groups. Why?

Firstly, every abelian group is a group object in Grp. Suppose $`A`$ is an abelian group. Then it consists of a set $`A`$ together with an associative, commutative binary operation with an identity and inverses. We can view the binary operation as a map $`m:A\times AA`$ and the identity can be considered as a map $`e:\mathrm{𝟏}A`$ which selects the identity element; similarly there is a map $`i:AA`$ which takes each element in $`A`$ to its inverse. These maps then clearly satisfy the diagrams given above, so that $`A,m,e,i`$ is a group object in Set. However, $`A`$ is a group, so it is an object of Grp. It remains to show that $`m,e,i`$ are group homomorphisms and hence morphisms in Grp. Now $`A\times A`$ is a direct product of groups so its multiplication is defined componentwise. Writing $``$ for the multiplication in $`A\times A`$ we thus have

$$(x,y)(x^{},y^{}):=(m(x,x^{}),m(y,y^{})).$$

We now get

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill m((x,y)(x^{},y^{}))& =& m(m(x,x^{}),m(y,y^{}))\hfill & =& (x+x^{})+(y+y^{})\hfill \\ & =& (x+y)+(x^{}+y^{})\hfill & =& m(m(x,y),m(x^{},y^{})).\hfill \end{array}$$

Note that here we switched notation, writing $`m(x,y)=x+y`$, so that the associativity and commutativity could be visualised more easily. Comparing the left and right hand ends of this chain of equalities shows that $`m`$ is a homomorphism, as required. The other two are, fortunately, easier to write down. We have $`e:\{\}A`$; now $`\{\}`$ is the trivial group. Thus we get $`e()=e()=id_A=m(id_A,id_A)=m(e(),e())`$ and hence $`e`$ is a homomorphism from the trivial group. Finally, $`i:AA`$. We have (again writing additively for convenience) $`i(a+b)=(a+b)=(a)+(b)=i(a)+i(b)`$, so this too is a homomorphism. Since these maps are all homomorphisms, they exist in Grp and hence we get that $`A,m,e,i`$ is a group object in Grp, as required.

Conversely, suppose we have a group object $`G,m,e,i`$ in Grp. We must show that $`G`$ is an abelian group. Now $`G`$, being a group, already has an operation which we shall write as $`xy`$. This is associative, with inverses and an identity, but not necessarily commutative. We have a second operation defined by the homomorphism $`m`$, which we shall write as $`xy:=m(x,y)`$. $`G`$ has an identity, denoted444Note that we are using $`1_G`$ to denote the identity element in the group $`G`$ and $`id_G`$ to denote the identity homomorphism $`GG`$. Similar notation is applied throughout. $`1_G`$, under $``$ ; it also has an identity under $``$ given by $`e:\mathrm{𝟏}G`$. Since $`e`$ is a homomorphism and $``$ is the identity element of the group $`\{\}`$, we deduce that $`e()=1_G`$. Now, for $`x,y,z,wG`$, we have $`m(x,y)m(z,w)=m((x,y)(z,w))`$, since $`m`$ is a homomorphism. But, by definition of the product $``$ in $`G\times G`$, this is just $`m(xz,yw)`$. Hence, switching notation, we get the *interchange law*:

$$(xy)(zw)=(xz)(yw).$$

Using this, we get:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill xy& =& (x1_G)(1_Gy)\hfill & =& (x1_G)(1_Gy)\hfill & =& xy\hfill \\ & =& (1_Gx)(y1_G)\hfill & =& (1_Gy)(x1_G)\hfill & =& yx.\hfill \end{array}$$

Hence $`G,`$ is abelian, as required. Note also that the first line shows that the operation given by $`m`$ is necessarily the same as the group operation already defined on $`G`$.

### Group Actions

Having formulated groups within Set, we can also formulate group actions by means of suitable diagrams. Let $`G,m,e,i`$ be a group and $`X`$ a set. Then a (left) action of $`G`$ on $`X`$ is given by a map $`n:G\times XX`$ such that the following diagrams commute:

In the usual notation for (left) group actions, the first of these diagrams gives $`{}_{}{}^{g}({}_{}{}^{g^{}}x)={}_{}{}^{(gg^{})}x`$, while the second gives $`{}_{}{}^{1_G}x=x`$. Hence the action so defined is just a group action in the usual sense and indeed the two sorts of action are entirely equivalent.

A similar construction can be made for group objects in other categories. For instance in Top, we get continuous actions of topological groups on spaces. The definition of an action did not make use of the group inverses, so we can talk about more general monoid actions using the same definition. One case worth mentioning is in the category Ab, where a monoid $`M,m,e`$ relative to the tensor product, $``$, and the “terminal object” $``$ gives us a ring555Note that this is not the monoid object defined above, since $``$ is not the product (defined as a limit) in Ab, nor is $``$ a terminal object. However $`Ab,,.`$ forms a monoidal category, so the given diagrams work with $`\times ,\mathrm{𝟏}`$ replaced by $`,`$ respectively. See MacLane \[10, introduction, ch. 7\]. In this case the action of $`M`$ on an abelian group $`A`$ makes $`A`$ into a left $`M`$-module.

Right actions of groups (and monoids) can be defined similarly with a map $`X\times GX`$. These are not intrinsically different from left actions, but the notation of right actions (for example, $`x^g`$) is sometimes more natural.

## 2. Other Structures

In the same way that we have defined groups, we could define other structures such as rings and lattices within a category by giving suitable morphisms and commutative diagrams. This can, in principle, be done for any algebraic structure that is defined in terms of operations satisfying specified properties expressed by equations.

Also, we can dualize the construction of group objects by reversing all the arrows in the given diagrams and replacing products by coproducts and terminal objects by initial objects. This gives us an operation $`w:CCC`$ such that the diagram

commutes (giving “co-associativity”). Similar analogues exist to the other diagrams given earlier, noting that we now have $`\eta :CI`$ (where $`I`$ is the initial object of $`𝒞`$). In place of the diagonal morphism in the inverses diagram, we use a morphism $`:CCC`$ which maps both copies of an element in the coproduct to the same element in $`C`$. This definition gives us a *cogroup object* in $`𝒞`$ (see Rotman \[16, chapter 11\] for more details). In a similar way we could dualize any of the other algebraic structures within a category, to get comonoids, corings, colattices, etc.

These dual constructions do not seem to correspond to any standard algebraic structures with which I am familiar (although presumably a cogroup in $`\text{Set}^{op}`$ would correspond to a group in Set, etc.). They do find uses in modern mathematics, however. A quick search of the MathSciNet database666http://klymene.mpim-bonn.mpg.de/mathscinet/  reveals a number of papers on cogroups and corings (although only one mentioning colattices). Putting together coalgebra and algebra structures, along with some further conditions yields Hopf Algebras, which in turn can be extended to give quantum groups .

## 3. Internal Categories

Just as groups and other algebraic structures can be defined in a category by giving suitable objects and morphisms, we can sometimes build categories within a category. Let $`𝒞`$ be a finitely complete category (in fact, it is sufficient for $`𝒞`$ to have pullbacks). Suppose there are objects $`A,OOb(𝒞)`$ and morphisms

such that $`se=id_O=te`$. We can consider $`A`$ as a collection of directed edges, $`O`$ as a collection of vertices and the maps $`s,t,e`$ as giving respectively the source and target vertices of each edge and a loop at each vertex. Thus $`A,O,s,t,e`$ specifies an internal reflexive directed graph (or “digraph”) in $`𝒞`$.

Recall that every (small) category has an underlying digraph and conversely a reflexive digraph can be turned into a category by considering vertices as objects and edges as morphisms and specifying a composition (this may necessitate adding further edges). The loops given by the reflexive property become identity morphisms on each object. Similarly we now seek to extend our internal digraph in $`𝒞`$ to an internal category by defining a suitable composition.

We can form the pullback square:

The pullback object $`A{}_{t}{}^{}\times _{s}^{}A`$ can be considered as the collection of all composable pairs of morphisms. In a category such as Set or Grp where the objects have elements and the product is an ordered set of elements (possibly with some algebraic structure imposed) we get $`A{}_{t}{}^{}\times _{s}^{}A=\{(f,g)A\times A:tf=sg\}`$. In order to form a category (with objects $`O`$ and morphisms $`A`$) inside $`𝒞`$, we need to define a composition $`m:A{}_{t}{}^{}\times _{s}^{}AA`$ which is associative and respects identities; note in particular that $`m`$ is also a morphism in $`𝒞`$.

I shall formulate internal categories for a category $`𝒞`$ in which the objects contain elements we can work with, although in principle they could be formulated for more general categories. In particular, we can describe pullbacks in terms of their elements, as above. Define the morphism $`m`$ as in the previous paragraph so that $`t(m(f,g)):=tg,s(m(f,g)):=sf`$. It will be convenient to write $`gf`$ for $`m(f,g)`$. Now, using the maps $`tm:A{}_{t}{}^{}\times _{s}^{}AO`$ and $`s:AO`$, we can form the pullback object $`(A{}_{t}{}^{}\times _{s}^{}A){}_{t}{}^{}\times _{s}^{}A`$, which in terms of elements is the set $`\{(f,g,h)A\times A\times A:tf=sg,t(gf)=sh\}`$. Similarly we can form the pullback object $`A{}_{t}{}^{}\times _{s}^{}(A{}_{t}{}^{}\times _{s}^{}A)=\{(f,g,h)A\times A\times A:tf=s(hg),tg=sh\}`$. Since $`s(hg)=sg`$ and $`t(gf)=tg`$ we deduce that these two pullback objects are in fact equal. Hence we can form the diagram

To get associativity of composition we now just require that this diagram commute.

Our final requirement for a category is that the composition respect identities. The morphism $`e:OA`$ selects the identity arrow $`id_x`$ for each object $`x`$ in $`O`$. If $`fA`$ with $`sf=x,tf=y`$ then we need $`id_yf=f=fid_x`$. Now, using the composite map $`te=id_O`$ we can form the pullback $`O{}_{id_O}{}^{}\times _{s}^{}A=\{(x,f):x=sf\}`$. Similarly with $`se=id_O`$ we get $`A{}_{t}{}^{}\times _{id_O}^{}O=\{(f,y):tf=y\}`$. These pullbacks have obvious projections onto A, namely $`p:O{}_{id_O}{}^{}\times _{s}^{}AA`$ with $`p(x,f)=f`$ and $`q:A{}_{t}{}^{}\times _{id_O}^{}OA`$ with $`q(f,y)=f`$. These are clearly bijective, since we can define inverses $`p^1(f):=(sf,f),q^1(f):=(f,tf)`$. Then $`pp^1(f)=f=id_A(f)`$ and $`p^1p(x,f)=(sf,f)=(x,f)=id_{O{}_{id_O}{}^{}\times _{s}^{}A}`$, so $`p`$ is an isomorphism; similarly for $`q`$. Using these maps we express our requirement for identities in the commutativity of the following diagram:

Thus an internal category in $`𝒞`$ is defined to be a sextuple $`C=A,O,s,t,e,m`$ where $`A,O`$ are objects (giving respectively the morphisms and the objects of the internal category) and $`s,t,e,m`$ are morphisms satisfying the given diagrams. These represent the category axioms, hence the internal categories in Set are just ordinary small categories. In Grp, an internal category is a small category in which both the objects and the morphisms form groups and all the structure maps are homomorphisms. Suppose $`A`$ has multiplication $`\mu _A`$ and $`O`$ has multiplication $`\mu _O`$. Then for $`s`$ to be a homomorphism means that the following diagram commutes:

and similarly for the other morphisms. We can define a multiplication on $`C`$ as
$`\mu :C\times CC`$ with $`\mu =\mu _O`$ on objects and $`\mu =\mu _A`$ on arrows. Then it is straightforward to check that $`\mu `$ is a functor on $`C`$. Similarly, since both $`O`$ and $`A`$ are groups, these have multiplicative identities and inverses and so we can build functors $`\epsilon :\mathrm{𝟎}C`$ (where $`\mathrm{𝟎}`$ is the terminal object in Cat, i.e. the one-object discrete category) and $`\iota :CC`$ which pick out respectively an identity object and arrow and inverses for multiplication. But $`C`$ is a small category, so it is an object of Cat and the functors are all morphisms of Cat, hence from our internal category we have constructed a group object777The associativity of multiplication follows immediately from its functoriality. in Cat. Conversely, given a group object, $`G`$, in Cat we have sufficient data to reconstruct $`G`$ as an internal category in Grp (essentially the above process in reverse). Hence internal categories in Grp are equivalent to group objects in Cat.

### Interlude

Suppose $`A,O`$ are groups with homomorphisms such that $`se=id_O`$. Then $`s`$ is an epimorphism since if $`a,b:OB`$ with $`as=bs`$, then $`ase=bsea=b`$. We call $`s`$ a *split epimorphism* and $`e`$ a *splitting* of $`s`$ (note that $`e`$ is itself a monomorphism, by much the same proof). This definition does not use any specific properties of groups or homomorphisms, so it is valid in any category.

Given two groups $`C,G`$ with a left $`G`$-action on $`C`$, we can form a group $`CG=\{(c,g):cC,gG\}`$ with multiplication $`(c,g)(c^{},g^{}):=(c{}_{}{}^{g}c_{}^{},gg^{})`$. This is like the direct product of $`C`$ and $`G`$, except that the component of multiplication in $`C`$ is “twisted” by the $`G`$-action. The group $`CG`$ is called the *semidirect product* of $`C`$ by $`G`$.

Now let us return to the split epimorphism $`s:AO`$ and its splitting $`e`$. For each $`aA`$, we can write $`a=ke(x)`$, where $`k=a(es(a))^1\mathrm{Ker}s`$ and $`x=s(a)`$. Suppose $`a^{}=k^{}e(x^{})`$. Then $`aa^{}=ke(x)k^{}e(x^{})=ke(x)k^{}(e(x))^1e(x)e(x^{}).`$ We can define an action of $`O`$ on $`\mathrm{Ker}s`$ by $`{}_{}{}^{x}k:=e(x)k(e(x))^1`$ (since $`e`$ is a homomorphism, we can of course rewrite $`(e(x))^1`$ as $`e(x^1)`$). We can then write $`aa^{}=k{}_{}{}^{x}k_{}^{}e(xx^{})`$. Note that unless brackets indicate otherwise, $`x`$ acts only on the symbol to its immediate right (and similarly for morphisms). There is a map $`\varphi :A\mathrm{Ker}sO,\varphi (ke(x))=(k,x)`$. Now $`\varphi (aa^{})=\varphi (k{}_{}{}^{x}k_{}^{}e(xx^{}))=(k{}_{}{}^{x}k_{}^{},xx^{})=(k,x)(k^{},x^{})=\varphi (a)\varphi (a^{})`$, so $`\varphi `$ is a homomorphism. Also, there is an obvious inverse $`\varphi ^1:\mathrm{Ker}sOA,\varphi ^1(k,x):=ke(x)`$, which is also a homomorphism. Hence $`\varphi `$ is an isomorphism and we have established that $`A\mathrm{Ker}sO`$.

Let $`:CG`$ be a morphism of groups. Then $`C,G,`$ is a *crossed module* (of groups) if there is a (left) $`G`$-action on $`C`$ such that the following two properties hold for all $`c,dC,gG`$:

1. $`{}_{}{}^{g}c=gcg^1`$
2. $`{}_{}{}^{c}d=cdc^1`$

The first property is known as *equivariance* of $``$ with respect to the action (see \[6, p. 220\]) and the second is called the *Peiffer identity* (see \[13, p. 250\])888Note that neither of these names for the crossed module axioms is consistently applied in the literature. Most authors seem content just to number the axioms.. For example, if $`NG`$ then the inclusion $`NG`$ gives a crossed module with the trivial action. Further generic examples of crossed modules may be found in . An immediate consequence of the crossed module axioms is that $`\mathrm{Ker}`$ is abelian, while the image is a normal subgroup of $`G`$.

### Crossed Modules and Internal Categories

We shall show that crossed modules of groups are equivalent to internal categories in Grp. In other words, given any crossed module, we can construct an internal category and vice versa.

Let $`C,G,`$ be a crossed module. Since $`G`$ acts on $`C`$, we can form the semidirect product $`CG`$ as defined above and define maps $`s,t:CGG`$ and $`e:GCG`$ by $`s(c,g):=g,t(c,g):=cg`$ and $`e(g):=(1_C,g)`$. Then $`s`$ is clearly a homomorphism. Also,

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}\hfill t((c,g)(d,h))& =& t(c{}_{}{}^{g}d,gh)\hfill & =& (c{}_{}{}^{g}d)gh\hfill & =& cgdg^1gh\hfill \\ & =& cgdh\hfill & =& t(c,g)t(d,h)\hfill & & \end{array}$$

and $`e(gh)=(1_C,gh)=(1_C,g)(1_C,h)=e(g)e(h)`$ so $`t`$ and $`e`$ are also homomorphisms (for $`e`$ we implicitly used the fact that the action of $`G`$ on $`C`$ determines a map $`G\text{Aut}(C)`$ and hence $`{}_{}{}^{g}1_{C}^{}=1_C,gG`$). Furthermore, for all $`gG,se(g)=s(1_C,g)=g=id_G(g)`$ and $`te(g)=t(1_C,g)=(1_C)g=g`$ so $`se=te=id_G`$, i.e. $`s`$ and $`t`$ are split epimorphisms with common splitting $`e`$.

We have thus constructed an internal (reflexive) digraph . The elements can be pictured as follows:

Vertices correspond to elements of $`G`$ and edges to elements of $`CG`$. The source and target vertices of a given edge $`(c,g)`$ are given by $`s(c,g)`$ and $`t(c,g)`$ respectively and $`e(g)`$ gives a loop on vertex $`g`$. There is an obvious composition of edges:

Thus we define $`(c^{},cg)(c,g):=(c^{}c,g)`$ (note that $`s(c^{},cg)=cg=t(c,g)`$). Since $``$ is a homomorphism, we have $`(c^{}c)=c^{}c`$ as required.

To get an internal category we now just require that $``$ be a homomorphism. In other words, we need

(1)
$$((c^{},cg)(d^{},dh))((c,g)(d,h))=((c^{},cg)(c,g))((d^{},dh)(d,h))$$

This is the familiar interchange law (see page 4). Evaluating the two sides separately, we get:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill \text{LHS}& =& (c^{}{}_{}{}^{cg}d_{}^{},cgdh)(c{}_{}{}^{g}d,gh)\hfill & =& (c^{}{}_{}{}^{cg}d_{}^{}c{}_{}{}^{g}d,gh)\hfill \\ & =& (c^{}c{}_{}{}^{g}d_{}^{}c^1c{}_{}{}^{g}d,gh)\hfill & =& (c^{}c{}_{}{}^{g}d_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{g}d,gh)\hfill \\ & =& (c^{}c{}_{}{}^{g}(d^{}d),gh)\hfill & & \end{array}$$

and

$$\text{RHS}=(c^{}c,g)(d^{}d,h)=(c^{}c{}_{}{}^{g}(d^{}d),gh)$$

whence equality. Therefore $``$ is indeed a homomorphism and so we have constructed an internal category in Grp.

Conversely, suppose that we have an internal category $`\text{},`$. We have seen that $`A\mathrm{Ker}sO`$ with $`O`$ acting on $`\mathrm{Ker}s`$ by $`{}_{}{}^{x}k:=e(x)ke(x^1)`$ for $`xO,k\mathrm{Ker}s`$. Objects of the category are the elements of $`O`$ while morphisms are of the form $`(k,x)`$ with $`k\mathrm{Ker}s,xO`$. The maps $`s,t`$ give respectively the source and target objects of each morphism (note that the $`x`$ in $`(k,x)`$ is effectively a label to show the source of the morphism), while $`e`$ gives the identity arrow for each object.

Define $`:\mathrm{Ker}sO`$ to be the restriction of $`t`$ to $`\mathrm{Ker}s`$, i.e.$`=t|_{\mathrm{Ker}s}`$. Then $``$ is automatically a homomorphism, since $`t`$ is one. For any $`k\mathrm{Ker}s,xO`$, we have $`({}_{}{}^{x}k)=t({}_{}{}^{x}k)=t(e(x)ke(x^1))`$ by definition. But $`t`$ is a homomorphism so this is the same as $`te(x)tkte(x^1)=xt(k)x^1`$ (since $`te=id_O`$) $`=xkx^1`$. Hence $``$ is equivariant with respect to the action. It remains to verify the Peiffer identity. We know that composition is a morphism and hence with the multiplication in $`\mathrm{Ker}sO`$ it satisfies the interchange law, i.e.we have:

$$((k^{},(k)x)(l^{},(l)y))((k,x)(l,y))=((k^{},(k)x)(k,x))((l^{},(l)y)(l,y)).$$

Evaluating the two sides of this equation gives:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \text{LHS}& =& (k^{}{}_{}{}^{kx}l_{}^{},kxly)(k{}_{}{}^{x}l,xy)\hfill \\ & =& (k^{}{}_{}{}^{kx}l_{}^{}k{}_{}{}^{x}l,xy)\hfill \end{array}$$

(this composition is defined since $`(k{}_{}{}^{x}l)xy=k{}_{}{}^{x}lxy=kxlx^1xy=kxly`$ by equivariance) and

$$\text{RHS}=(k^{}k,x)(l^{}l,y)=(k^{}k{}_{}{}^{x}(l^{}l),xy).$$

Since the two sides are equal, we know that their first components must be equal. So we have

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill k^{}{}_{}{}^{(kx)}l_{}^{}k{}_{}{}^{x}l& =& k^{}{}_{}{}^{k}({}_{}{}^{x}l_{}^{})k{}_{}{}^{x}l\hfill \\ & =& k^{}k{}_{}{}^{x}(l^{}l)\hfill \\ & =& k^{}k{}_{}{}^{x}l_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{x}l\hfill \\ & =& k^{}k{}_{}{}^{x}l_{}^{}k^1k{}_{}{}^{x}l.\hfill \end{array}$$

Cancelling on both sides and writing $`m={}_{}{}^{x}l_{}^{}\mathrm{Ker}s`$, we get $`{}_{}{}^{k}m=kmk^1`$, which is the Peiffer identity as required. Hence $`\mathrm{Ker}s,O,`$ is a crossed module with the action arising from the semidirect product $`\mathrm{Ker}sO`$.

We have shown that crossed modules of groups are equivalent to internal categories in Grp. We saw earlier that these are in turn equivalent to group objects in Cat and hence have arrived at a result proved by Brown and Spencer  in the 1970s, namely that crossed modules of groups are equivalent to group objects in Cat (they did not go via internal categories of groups but went directly between the two using a functor). In fact, they went slightly further and showed that if a category is equipped with a group structure it must in fact be a groupoid and hence the group objects in Cat are the same as the group objects in Grpd, the category of groupoids. Thus they proved the equivalence of crossed modules of groups and group objects in the category of groupoids.

Since doing this work I have gained access to the new edition of MacLane’s seminal volume , which now includes some material on internal categories as well as on group objects and other internal algebraic structures. The reader may also find it useful to consult the following sources, which treat various aspects of this area .