text:
# Non-rationality of a three-dimensional Fano variety of index 2 and degree 1.

## 1. Preliminaries.

Let $`U`$ be a non-singular three-dimensional Fano variety of index 2 and degree 1. It is often called "the double cone over the Veronese surface" by the reason given in section 3. We suppose

$$Pic(U)=H,$$

where $`H`$ is the class of ample divisors with conditions $`dim|H|=2`$, $`K_V=2H`$, and $`H^3=1`$. Let $`C`$ be an effective curve of (arithmetical) genus 1 and degree 1, i.e., $`p_a(C)=1`$ and $`CH=1`$, and $`l`$ the class of $`C`$ in $`A^2(U)`$. Then $`A^2(U)=l`$, $`[H]^2=l`$, and there exists a 2-dimensional family $`𝒫`$ of effective curves of this class. General elements of $`𝒫`$ are non-singular, but $`𝒫`$ contains a 1-dimensional sub-family of rational curves with nodes or cusps.

For any $`C𝒫`$, the linear system $`|HC|`$ is a pencil consisting of del Pezzo surfaces of degree 1. Since $`C`$ is the complete intersection of any 2 elements of $`|HC|`$, the blow-up $`\phi _C:U_CU`$ has a natural projection $`\rho _C:U_C^1`$, which is a Mori fibration in del Pezzo surfaces of degree 1. Let us note that if $`C`$ has a node, the corresponding $`U_C`$ has the simplest double point (given by the equation $`x^2+y^2+z^2+w^2=0`$ in some local coordinates), and if $`C`$ has a cusp, $`U_C`$ has a unique singular point of type $`x^2+y^2+z^2+w^3=0`$.

We recall that, by definition, a birational map $`\chi :VV^{}`$ between two Mori fibrations $`\rho :VS`$ and $`\rho ^{}:V^{}S^{}`$ defines the same Mori structure (or that $`V/S`$ and $`V^{}/S^{}`$ are birational over base), if

* in case $`dimS=dimS^{}>0`$, there exists a birational map $`\psi `$ such that $`\rho ^{}\chi =\psi \rho `$,
* in case $`dimS=dimS^{}=0`$ ($`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are $``$-Fano varieties), $`V`$ and $`V^{}`$ are isomorphic to each other (whence $`\chi Bir(V)`$).

This determines an equivalence relation for Mori fibrations, and for any threefold $`X`$ we define its set of Mori (fiber) structures $`𝒮(X)`$ as

$$𝒮(X)=\left\{\text{Mori fibrations birational to }X\right\}/\left\{\text{birational over base}\right\}$$

Remark that the set of Mori structures is a birational invariant. We are ready to formulate the main result.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`U`$ be a non-sungular Fano threefold of index 2 and degree 1. Then

$$𝒮(U)=\left\{U\right\}\left\{U_C^1\text{, where }C𝒫\right\}.$$

In particular, $`U`$ has a unique model of Fano variety and has no structures of conic bundles, $`Bir(U)=Aut(U)`$, and $`U`$ is not rational. In general, $`Bir(U)_2`$.

Some attempts to study birational geometry of $`U`$ were undertaken in , , and , using the maximal singularity method. In  it is shown that linear systems on $`U`$ may have maximal singularities only at curves from $`𝒫`$, and some cases of maximal singularities over points are dealt. Note that $`|HC|`$ for $`C𝒫`$ gives an example of a linear system without fixed components with a maximal singularity along $`C`$. The author of  tried to complete the work but failed in excluding maximal singurarities over singular points of curves from $`𝒫`$ (see  for details). In , the previous results were re-proved in a more regular way, and finally the following assertion was achieved: if a linear system $`𝒟`$ without fixed components has a maximal singularity at $`B_0`$, then either $`B_0`$ is a curve from $`𝒫`$, or $`B_0`$ is the singular point of some $`C𝒫`$ for the corresponding maximal valuation on $`U`$ given by a weighted blow-up of type $`(1,1,N)`$, $`2N5`$, in nodal case and $`(1,1,2)`$ in cuspidal case (theorem 3.1 in ).

In order to complete proving theorem 1.1, we have to exclude maximal singularities over points of $`U`$ and, if $`𝒟`$ has a maximal singularity along $`C𝒫`$, jump onto $`U_C/^1`$. On $`U_C`$, one needs to show that the strict transform of $`𝒟`$ must not have super-maximal singularities, and then we are done.

The paper is organized as follows. In section 2, we recall some recent results of M.Kawakita that allow to simplify much the usual argumentation in the maximal singularities method. Section 3 contains the description of geometry of $`U`$ and $`U_C/^1`$. Section 4 deals with cases $`(1,1,N)`$ over points mentioned above. We exclude super-maximal singularities over non-sungular points of $`U_C/^1`$ in section 5, and over singular points in section 6. The last section contains the conclusion.

We assume that all required statements of the maximal singularities method (see  for reference) and the Sarkisov program () are known.

Acknowledgment. The present paper was written during my stay at the Max-Planck Institute for Mathematics in Bonn. I am very grateful to the Institute for the kind support and hospitality.

## 2. Maximal singularities and weighted blow-ups.

Let $`𝒟`$ be a linear system without fixed components on a threefold $`V`$. We assume $`V`$ to be in the Mori category. Suppose that $`𝒟`$ has a maximal singularity, i.e., there exists a discrete valuation $`𝔳`$ centered at a point or a curve on $`V`$ such that the log pair $`K_V+\frac{1}{m}𝒟`$ is not canonical with respect to $`𝔳`$, where $`m`$ is the adjunction threshold of $`𝒟`$. The argumentation of  shows that there exists a divisorial contraction $`\phi :V^{}V`$ in the Mori category such that the exceptional divisor $`E^{}`$ of $`\phi `$ also defines a maximal singularity of $`𝒟`$. The corresponding discrete valuation $`𝔳_{div}`$ has two main properties. First, $`Center_V𝔳_{div}Center_V𝔳`$. Second, we may suppose that the minimal discrepancy of the log pair $`K_V+\frac{1}{m}𝒟`$ corresponds to $`𝔳_{div}`$. In other words, if $`\psi :WV`$ is a log resolution with exceptional divisors $`\{E_1,E_2,\mathrm{}\}`$, and $`E_1`$ corresponds to $`𝔳_{div}`$, then in the equation

$$K_W+\frac{1}{m}\psi _{}^1𝒟=\psi ^{}\left(K_V+\frac{1}{m}𝒟\right)+a(W,K_V+\frac{1}{m}𝒟,E_i)E_i$$

we have $`a(W,K_V+\frac{1}{m}𝒟,E_1)a(W,K_V+\frac{1}{m}𝒟,E_i)`$ for all $`i`$. Brief explanations can be also found in section 2 of .

Recently the following remarkable results were achieved (, theorem 2.2, and , theorem 2.5):

###### Theorem 2.1.

Let $`X`$ be the germ of a three-dimensional variety, and $`\phi :YX`$ is a divisorial contraction in the Mori category to a point $`B_0X`$. Then:

i) if $`B_0`$ is a smooth point of $`X`$, $`\phi `$ is the weighted blow-up with weights $`(1,L,N)`$ in suitable local coordinates $`[x,y,z]`$ on $`X`$, where $`LN`$ are coprime integers;

ii) if $`B_0`$ is a singular point of $`X^4`$ given by $`xy+z^2+w^2=0`$ in suitable local coordinates, $`\phi `$ is the weighted blow-up with $`wt(x,y,z,w)=(1,1,1,1)`$;

iii) if $`B_0`$ is a singular point of $`X^4`$ given by $`xy+z^3+w^2=0`$ in suitable local coordinates, $`\phi `$ is the weighted blow-up with $`wt(x,y,z,w)=(1,1,1,1)`$ or $`wt(x,y,z,w)=(1,5,2,3)`$.

In other words, if $`𝒟`$ has a maximal singularity over a point $`B_0V`$, we can always assume that there exists a maximal singularity over $`B_0`$ which is realized as a divisorial contraction in the Mori category, and if $`B_0`$ is one of the listed above, this contraction is inverse to the corresponding weighted blow-up.

The assertion i)  of theorem 2.1 has the following interpretation. Let $`𝔳`$ be any geometrical discrete valuation centered at a smooth point $`B_0V`$, and $`\phi _1:V_1V`$ be the blow-up of $`B_0`$ with the exceptional divisor $`E_1V_1`$, $`E_1^2`$. Denote by $`B_1E_1`$ the center of $`𝔳`$ on $`V_1`$. If $`B_1`$ is also a point, we blow up $`V_1`$ at $`B_1`$ with the exceptional divisor $`E_2V_2`$, and so on, until for some $`L1`$ we obtain $`B_L`$ is a curve on $`E_LV_L`$. In the maximal singularities method we can always suppose that $`B_L`$ is a line on $`E_L^2`$. Then blowing up $`B_L`$, we obtain $`\phi _{L+1}:V_{L+1}V_L`$ with the exceptional divisor $`E_{L+1}𝔽_2`$. Now $`B_{L+1}`$ has to be a section of $`E_{L+1}`$ that covers $`B_L`$, and we proceed with this way, each time blowing up sections of exceptional divisors that are ruled surfaces. Finally, we must stop at $`E_N`$ which realizes $`𝔳`$.

We introduce the oriented graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔳)`$ as follows. It consists of $`N`$ vertices $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$, and there is an arrow $`ji`$, if $`j>i`$ and $`B_{j1}E_i^{j1}`$, where leading indices mean the strict transform on the corresponding $`V_i`$’s. Note that there are always arrows $`i+1i`$ since $`B_iE_i`$ by choosing the resolution of $`𝔳`$.

The statement i) of theorem 2.1 means that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔳_{div})`$ is a chain, i.e., only arrows $`i+1i`$ exist. Moreover, the numbers $`L`$ and $`N`$ are the same as in the theorem. Finally, for $`i>L`$, $`B_i`$ does not intersect the minimal section of the ruled surface $`E_i`$.

From the last assertion we can deduice the following proposition:

###### Lemma 2.2.

For $`L<i<N`$, we have $`E_i𝔽_{i+1L}`$, $`𝒩_{E_i|V_i}=𝒪_{E_i}(s_if_i)`$, $`E_{i1}^i|_{E_i}=s_i`$, and $`𝒩_{B_i|V_i}𝒪(1)𝒪(i+1L)`$, where $`s_i`$ and $`f_i`$ are the classes of the minimal section and a fiber of $`E_i`$. Viewing $`B_i`$ as a curve on $`E_i`$, we obtain $`B_is_i+(i+1L)f_i`$.

Proof. Direct calculation, starting from $`E_{L+1}`$. Use the fact that $`B_i`$ does not intersect the minimal section of $`E_i`$. ∎

The valuation $`𝔳_{div}`$ defines the numbers $`\nu _i=mult_{B_{i1}}𝒟^{i1}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},N`$. Since $`K_V+\frac{1}{m}𝒟`$ is not canonical with respect to $`𝔳`$, we obtain the Nöther-Fano inequality in the form

$$\nu _1+\nu _2+\mathrm{}+\nu _N>m(L+N).$$

Recall that $`m`$ is the adjunction threshold. For example, if $`𝒟|nH|`$ is a linear system on the double cone over the Veronses surface $`U`$, then $`m=\frac{n}{2}`$, and we have $`\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _N>\frac{n}{2}(L+N)`$.

## 3. Geometric constructions.

Equation and construction of $`U`$. It is easy to observe that $`U`$ can be realized as a hypersurface of degree 6 in the weighted ptojective space $`=(1,1,1,2,3)`$. Let $`[p,x,y,z,w]`$ be the coordinates in $``$ with $`wt(p,x,y,z,w)=(1,1,1,2,3)`$. Since $`U`$ does not pass through the singular points $`(0,0,0,1,0)`$ and $`(0,0,0,0,1)`$ of $``$, the equation of $`U`$ has to contain monomials $`w^2`$ and $`z^3`$. Suppose that $`B_0=(1,0,0,0,0)`$, and $`B_0`$ is the singular point of $`l_0𝒫`$. We assume that the "hyperplanes" $`T=\{x=0\}`$ and $`\{y=0\}`$ cut out $`l_0`$, and $`T`$ is tangent to $`U`$ at $`B_0`$. To avoid complicating the notation, we keep $`[x,y,z,w]`$ as the corresponding coordinates in the affine part $`\{p0\}`$ of $``$.

Suppose that $`B_0`$ is the node of $`l_0`$. Then the equation of $`U`$ can be chosen in the form

$$w^2+z^3+z^2f_2(x,y)+zf_4(x,y)+x+f_6(x,y)=0,$$

where $`\mathrm{deg}f_ii`$, $`f_2(0,0)0`$, $`f_4(0,0)=f_6(0,0)=0`$, and the minimal degree of monomials in $`f_6`$ is not less than 2 (i.e., $`f_6`$ does not contain a linear part).

If $`B_0`$ is the cusp on $`l_0`$, we may assume the equation of $`U`$ to be in the form

$$w^2+z^3+zf_4(x,y)+x+f_6(x,y)=0,$$

where $`f_4`$ and $`f_6`$ satisfy the same requirements as before.

Being restricted to $`U`$, the projection $`(1,1,1,2)`$ gives a morphism of degree 2 $`U\stackrel{2:1}{}(1,1,1,2)`$ branched over a surface of degree 6. We can view $`(1,1,1,2)`$ as the cone in $`^6`$ over the Veronese surface in $`^5`$. This is why $`U`$ is often called "the double cone over the Veronese surface".

Construction of the corresponding del Pezzo fibrations. Let $`C𝒫`$, and $`V=U_CU`$ the blow-up of $`C`$. Recall that $`C`$ is the complete intersection of any two elements from $`|HC|`$. The natural projection $`\rho :V^1`$ realizes $`V`$ as a Mori fibrations on del Pezzo surfaces of degree 1. We see that $`V`$ is always Gorenstein, all fibers of $`\rho :V^1`$ are irreducible and reduced, and

$$Pic(V)=[K_V]F,$$

where $`F`$ is the class of a fiber. $`V`$ is non-singular if $`C`$ is non-singular, $`V`$ has an ordinary double point in the fiber corresponding to $`T|HC|`$ (as before, $`T`$ is the tangent section of $`U`$ at $`B_0`$) if $`C`$ has a node, and $`V`$ has a double point with a local equation $`ab+c^2+d^3=0`$ if $`C`$ has a cusp.

Another construction of $`\rho :V^1`$ can be achieved as follows (see , section 2.1, the case $`n_1=0`$, $`n_2=1`$, $`n_3=2`$.). Let $`X=𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣_^1𝒪𝒪𝒪(1)𝒪(2)`$ with the natural projection $`\pi :X^1`$. Denote by $`M`$ the class of the tautological bundle on $`X`$, by $`L`$ the class of a fiber, by $`t_0`$ the class of minimally twisted sections (i.e., $`t_0`$ has an effective representative and $`t_0M=0`$), and by $`p`$ the class of a line in a fiber of $`\pi :X^1`$. Consider a hypersurface $`Q2M2L`$ which is fibered over $`^1`$ into non-degenerated two-dimensional quadric cones. Denote by $`t_b`$ the section of $`X/^1`$ that consists of the vertices of the cones. The class of $`t_b`$ is exactly $`t_0`$. Let $`R_Q`$ be the restriction of some effective divisor $`R3M`$ to $`Q`$. Finally, take the double cover $`\phi :V\stackrel{2:1}{}Q`$ branched over $`R_Q`$. We obtain a variety fibered into del Pezzo surfaces of degree 1 over $`^1`$. It is not very difficult to see that $`V^1`$ is isomorphic to $`U_C`$ for some $`C𝒫`$ under the suitable choice of $`R_Q`$, and $`\rho =\pi \phi `$.

Let $`s_b=\phi ^1(t_b)`$. Then $`s_b`$ is a section of $`\rho `$, and $`s_b`$ cuts out the base point of the anticanonical linear system on each fiber. It can be defined also as

$$s_b=Bas|K_V+lF|$$

for $`l0`$. We define $`s_0=\frac{1}{2}\phi ^{}(t_0)`$ and $`f=\frac{1}{2}\phi ^{}(p)`$. It is easy to see that $`s_bs_0`$. Note that

$$NE(V)=\overline{NE(V)}=_+s_0_+f.$$

Denote by $`G_V`$ the unique effective element of $`|K_V2F|`$. The divisor $`G_V`$ is exceptional for the blow-up $`V=U_CU`$ and isomorphic to $`C\times ^1`$. In  it was shown that $`K_V^22s_0+3f`$ and $`s_0(K_V)=1`$. Clearly, $`fF=0`$ and $`s_0F=f(K_V)=1`$.

Relations between divisors on $`U`$ and $`V=U_C^1`$. Let $`\phi _C:V=U_CU`$ be the blow-up of $`C𝒫`$. Suppose that $`𝒟|aH\mu C|`$. In other words, $`𝒟`$ consists of divisors of the class $`aH`$ that have the multiplicity $`\mu `$ along $`C`$. Let $`𝒟_V=(\phi _C)_{}^1|n(K_V)+mF|`$ be the strict transform of $`𝒟_U`$ on $`V`$. Then it is easy to compute that

$$\begin{array}{c}n=a\mu ,\hfill \\ m=2\mu a,\hfill \end{array}$$

i.e., $`𝒟_V|(a\mu )(K_V)+(2\mu a)F|`$.

## 4. Excluding infinitely near singularities on $`U`$.

Let $`l_0𝒫`$, $`B_0`$ the singular point of $`l_0`$. As it follows from theorem 3.1.2 of , we have to consider the case of infinitely near maximal singularities over $`B_0`$ that are realized by the weighted blow-up with weights either $`(1,1,N)`$, $`2N5`$, if $`B_0`$ is a node, or $`(1,1,2)`$, if $`B_0`$ is a cusp. In all these cases we assume that $`\mu =mult_{l_0}𝒟\frac{n}{2}`$, where $`𝒟|nH|`$ is a linear system without fixed components.

Following to section 2, weighted blow-ups of type $`(1,1,N)`$ can be resolved as follows. We blow up the point $`B_0`$, and the exceptional divisor (say, $`E_1`$) contains the next center $`B_1`$, which must be a line. We blow up $`B_1`$ with a ruled surface $`E_2`$ as the exceptional divisor, and this is all if $`N=2`$. Otherwise, there exists a section $`B_2E_2E_1^2`$ which is the next center. We blow up it, and so on. As in the end of section 2, we denote $`\nu _i=mult_{B_{i1}}𝒟^{i1}`$, $`\nu _1\nu _2\mathrm{}>\frac{n}{2}`$. The corresponding Nöther-Fano inequalities are given by

(4.1)
$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _N>\frac{n}{2}\left(1+N\right).$$

The nodal case. As it is shown in section 3, we may choose local coordinates $`[x,y,z,w]`$ such that the local equation of $`U`$ near $`B_0=(0,0,0,0)`$ is

$$w^2+z^3+z^2f_2(x,y)+zf_4(x,y)+x+f_6(x,y)=0,$$

where $`\mathrm{deg}f_ii`$, $`f_2(0,0)0`$, $`f_4(0,0)=f_6(0,0)=0`$, $`f_6`$ does not contain a linear part, and $`T=\{x=0\}`$ is the tangent space to $`U`$ at $`B_0`$. We set $`T_U=T|_U|HB_0|=|Hl_0|`$.

Let $`\phi _1:U_1U`$ be the blow-up of $`B_0`$, $`E_1^2`$ the exceptional divisor, $`l_0^1`$ the strict transform of $`l_0`$ on $`U_1`$ (leading indices usually mean the strict transform on the corresponding floor of the chain of blow-ups), $`\{P,P^{}\}=l_0^1E_1`$ (clearly, $`PP^{}`$), $`e_1E_1`$ the line joining $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$. The situation is given by figure 1. Note that except for $`T_U`$, the strict transform of any element $`S|Hl_0|`$ on $`U_1`$ cuts out the line $`e_1`$ on $`E_1`$.

It is easy to observe from the equation of $`U`$ that the singular point of $`T_U`$ at $`B_0`$ is exactly $`A_k`$, $`1k5`$. Respectively, the restriction $`T_U^1|_{E_1}`$ is either a non-singular conic that passes through $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$, or a couple of lines that contain $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$ and have their common point outside of $`e_1`$ (thus they are different from $`e_1`$). In the latter case $`T_U^1`$ may have a singular point in the common point of the couple of the lines, but anyway $`T_U^1`$ is non-singular along $`l_0^1`$.

The possible situation is exhausted by the following cases:

* neither $`P`$ nor $`P^{}`$ is contained in $`B_1`$;
* $`e_1=B_1`$;
* $`PB_1e_1`$ and $`B_1SuppT_U^1|_{E_1}`$;
* $`PB_1e_1`$, $`T_U^1|_{E_1}`$ is a conic, and $`B_1`$ is tangent to $`T_U^1|_{E_1}`$ at $`P`$;
* other cases when $`PB_1e_1`$.

Note that in all cases except for $`e_1=B_1`$ we have the inequality

(4.2)
$$\nu _1\nu _2+\mu ,$$

which arises from the intersection of a general line in $`E_1`$ through the point $`P^{}`$ and an element from $`𝒟`$. Now we deal separately with the listed cases.

The case C). Consider the family of divisors $`=\{z=ay,a0\}`$. Clearly, $`|2H|`$ with non-singular $`K3`$ surfaces as general elements. Then, $`^1`$ has no base curves on $`U_1`$, so its elements cover $`E_1`$. Choose general elements $`S`$ and $`D𝒟`$, and consider the curve $`C=T_US`$. Clearly, $`C2l`$, $`CD`$, $`C`$ has a double point at $`B_0`$, and $`C^1B_1\mathrm{}`$. Thus

$$2n=DC2\nu _1+\nu _2.$$

Since $`\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _N>n\left(1+\frac{N}{2}\right)`$ from the Nöther-Fano inequality, we see that $`N=2`$ or $`N=3`$ are impossible. In order to exclude the cases $`N>3`$, apply the inequality 4.2. We have

$$2n2\nu _1+\nu _22\mu +3\nu _2>2\mu +\frac{3}{2}n,$$

hence $`\mu <\frac{n}{4}`$.

Now let us proceed with the way which we will use repeatedly in the sequel. Choose general elements $`S|Hl_0|`$ and $`D𝒟`$. $`S`$ is a non-singular del Pezzo surface of degree 1. Set

$$D|_S=\mu l_0+C,$$

where the components of the residual curve $`C`$ do not contain $`l_0`$. We resolve the maximal valuation over $`B_0`$ in the way given in section 2. Thus, we have the blow-ups $`\phi _i:U_iU_{i1}`$, $`U_0=U`$, of the centers $`B_{i1}E_{i1}`$. In our case, $`B_0`$ is a point, the other $`B_i`$’s are curves. As it has been mentioned, the corresponding oriented graph has no incidencies and $`B_iE_{i1}^i=\mathrm{}`$ for $`i2`$. We put $`e_i=E_i|_{S^i}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_i=B_iS^i`$ for $`i1`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i=mult_{\stackrel{~}{B}_{i1}}D^{i1}|_{S^{i1}}`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}D|_S=\mu l_0+C,\hfill \\ D^1|_{S^1}=\mu l_0^1+C^1+m_1e_1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill \\ D^{N1}|_{S^{N1}}=\mu l_0^{N1}+m_1e_1^{N1}+\mathrm{}+m_{N1}e_{N1},\hfill \end{array}$$

where the numbers $`m_i`$ satisfy the relations

(4.3)
$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i=nu_i+m_i.$$

Note that $`\stackrel{~}{B}_ie_{i1}^i`$. Set $`\alpha _i=mult_{\stackrel{~}{B}_i}C^i`$, $`\alpha _0\alpha _1\mathrm{}`$, and let

$$k=\mathrm{max}\{i:\stackrel{~}{B}_{i1}l_0^{i1}\}.$$

Then we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1=2\mu +\alpha _0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_2=\mu +\alpha _1+m_1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_k=\mu +\alpha _{k1}+m_{k1}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Moreover, one deduices that

$$2\alpha _0+\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{k1}(D|_S\mu l_0)l_0=n\mu .$$

Suppose that $`k<N`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k+1}=\alpha _k+m_k`$. Thus

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1+\mathrm{}+\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k+1}=(k+1)\mu +\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _i+\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}m_i.$$

Using (4.3) and the inequality

$$\underset{i=0}{\overset{k}{}}\alpha _i2\alpha _0+\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{k1}n\mu ,$$

we obtain

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _{k+1}(k+1)\mu +n\mu =n+k\mu .$$

Since $`\mu \frac{n}{2}`$, we get

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _{k+1}\frac{n}{2}(k+1),$$

which is impossible because $`\nu _i>\frac{n}{2}`$ for all $`i`$. Hence $`k=N`$. Arguing as before, we see that

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _N(N+1)\mu +n\mu =n+N\mu .$$

Using the estimation $`\mu <\frac{n}{4}`$, one has

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _N<n\left(1+\frac{N}{4}\right).$$

It only remains to compare it with the Nöether-Fano inequality (4.1), and we get the contradiction.

The case B). In this case $`e_1=B_1`$. We repeat the argumentation of the previous case with minor changes. Let $`=|Hl_0|`$, $`\phi _1:U_1U`$ the blow-up of $`B_0`$. For general $`S`$, $`S^1|_{E_1}=e_1`$. We set

$$\begin{array}{c}D|_S=\mu l_0+C,\hfill \\ D^1|_{S^1}=\mu l_0^1+C^1+m_1e_1,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`m_1=\nu _2`$ since $`e_1=B_1`$. Let $`\phi _2:U_2U_1`$ be the blow-up of $`B_1`$, $`E_2𝔽_2`$ the exceptional divisor with $`s_2`$ and $`f_2`$ as the classes of the minimal section and a fiber respectively. Note that $`E_1^2|_{E_2}`$ cuts out the minimal section of $`E_2`$, the pencil $`^2|_{E_2}|s_2+2f_2|`$ has two base points, say, $`Q`$ and $`Q^{}`$, outside of the minimal section.

We resolve the valuation as in section 2. Let

$$k=\mathrm{max}\left\{i:B_{i1}l_0^{i1}\mathrm{}\right\}.$$

Clearly, $`k3`$. For $`i2`$, let $`\stackrel{~}{B}_i`$ be any of the intersection points $`S^iB_i`$. We see that $`\stackrel{~}{B}_kl_0^k`$. Then, for $`i2`$,

$$D^i|_{S^i}=\mu l_0^i+C^i+m_2e_2^i+m_3e_3^i+\mathrm{}+m_ie_i,$$

where $`e_i=E_i|_{S^i}`$. The important observation is that $`m_2=0`$.

Suppose that $`k<N`$. We have

$$\begin{array}{c}\nu _1+\nu _2=2\mu +\alpha _0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_3=\mu +\alpha _2,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_4=\mu +\alpha _3+m_3,\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_k=\mu +\alpha _{k1}+m_{k1},\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k+1}=\alpha _k+m_k,\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i=mult_{\stackrel{~}{B}_{i1}}D^{i1}|_{S^{i1}}=\nu _i+m_i`$ and $`\alpha _i=mult_{\stackrel{~}{B}_i}C^i`$. Since $`\mu \frac{n}{2}`$ and $`\alpha _0+\alpha _2+\mathrm{}+\alpha _kn\mu `$, we get a contradiction:

$$\frac{n}{2}(k+1)<\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _{k+1}n+(k1)\mu \frac{n}{2}(k+1).$$

Suppose that $`k=N`$. Arguing as before, we see that

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _NN\mu +\alpha _0+\alpha _2+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{N1}n+(N1)\mu \frac{n}{2}(N+1),$$

and this contradicts to the Nöther-Fano inequality (4.1).

The case A). As it has been mentioned above, in this case we have $`\nu _1\nu _2+\mu `$. Denote $`\stackrel{~}{B}_1=B_1e_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}_1`$ is different from both $`P`$ and $`P^{}`$. We set

$$\begin{array}{c}D|_S=\mu l_0+C,\hfill \\ D^1|_{S^1}=\mu l_0^1+C^1+m_1e_1.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\stackrel{~}{B}_1l_0^1`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1=2\mu +\alpha _0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_2=\alpha _1+m_1,\hfill \end{array}$$

and $`\alpha _0+\alpha _1n\mu `$ (we keep the notation of the previous cases). Thus,

$$2\nu _2+\mu \nu _1+\nu _22\mu +\alpha _0+\alpha _1n+\mu ,$$

whence $`n<2\nu _2n`$, a contradiction.

The case E). It is easy to compute that

$$𝒩_{l_0^1|U_1}𝒪(1)𝒪(3).$$

Let $`\phi _2:U_2U_1`$ be the blow-up of $`l_0^1`$ (not $`B_1`$!!), $`E_2𝔽_2`$ the exceptional divisor with $`s_2`$ and $`f_2`$ as the classes of the minimal section and a fiber. We see that

$$D^2|_{E_2}\mu s_2+(3\mu +n2\nu _1)f_2.$$

By the condition, $`T_U^1|_{E_1}`$ and $`B_1`$ are transversal to each other at $`P`$. Since $`T_U^2`$ cuts out the minimal section of $`E_2`$, we deduice that $`B_1^2`$ intersects $`E_2`$ outside of the minimal section, and at this point $`D^2|_{E_2}`$ has the multiplicity not less than $`\nu _2`$. Thus

$$3\mu +n2\nu _1\nu _2,$$

and since $`\nu _1\nu _2+\mu `$, we get

$$n+\mu 3\nu _2>\frac{3}{2}n,$$

i.e., $`\mu >\frac{n}{2}`$, a contradiction.

The case D). As in the case E), we first blow-up $`l_0^1`$, but now $`B_1^2E_2s_2`$. Set $`\mu ^{}=mult_{s_2}D^2`$, $`\mu ^{}\mu `$. Then,

$$𝒩_{s_2|U_2}𝒪(1)𝒪(2),$$

and let $`\phi _3:U_3U_2`$ be the blow-up of $`s_2`$, $`E_3`$ the exceptional divisor with the minimal section $`s_3`$ and a fiber $`f_3`$. We obtain the situation like in the previous case: $`B_1^3T_U^3=\mathrm{}`$, $`T_U^3|_{E_3}=s_3`$, so $`D^3|_{E_3}`$ has the multiplicity not less than $`\nu _2`$ at the point $`B_1^3E_3`$. Since

$$D^3|_{E_3}\mu ^{}s_3+(2\mu ^{}+\mu +n2\nu _1)f_3,$$

and $`\mu ^{}\mu `$, we get the inequality $`3\mu +n2\nu _1\nu _2`$, i.e., the same as in the case E).

The cuspidal case. Let $`B_0`$ be the cuspidal point of $`l_0𝒫`$. As it is shown in section 3, we can define $`U`$ locally by

$$w^2+z^3+zf_4(x,y)+x+f_6(x,y)=0,$$

where $`\mathrm{deg}f_ii`$, $`f_i(0,0)=0`$, $`f_6`$ has no the linear part, $`B_0=(0,0,0,0)`$, $`l_0=\{x=y=0\}`$, and $`T_U=\{x=0\}`$. We see that $`T_U`$ has at $`B_0`$ one of the following du Val singularities: $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$, $`D_4`$, $`E_6`$, $`E_7`$, or $`E_8`$.

As in the nodal case, let $`\phi _1:U_1U`$ be the blow-up of $`B_0`$, $`E_1`$ the exceptional divisor, and $`P=l_0^1E_1`$. The strict transforms of divisors from $`|Hl_0|\{T_U\}`$ cut out a line $`e_1`$ on $`E_1`$. Then, $`T_U^1`$ is non-singular along $`l_0^1`$, and $`T_U^1|_{E_1}`$ is one of the following:

* a non-singular conic that is tangent to $`e_1`$ at $`P`$, if $`B_0`$ is $`A_1`$-point on $`T_U`$;
* a couple of lines that are different from $`e_1`$ and have their common point at $`P`$, in the case $`A_2`$;
* a double line that is different from $`e_1`$ and pass through $`P`$, in the other cases.

We have the following possibilities:

* $`B_1e_1`$ and $`PB_1`$;
* $`B_1=e_1`$;
* $`PB_1`$ and $`B_1SuppT_U^1|_{E_1}`$;
* $`PB_1e_1`$, $`B_1SuppT_U^1|_{E_1}`$, and $`T_U^1|_{E_1}`$ consists of lines;
* $`PB_1e_1`$ and $`T_U^1|_{E_1}`$ is a non-singular conic.

The case A) was excluded in . The argumentation of the cases B)–E) of the nodal situation works in the caspidal situation as well, we only give some remarks. One keeps the notation of the corresponding cases.

First, there are no changes in the cases C), D), and E). Then, in the case B), let $`Q=l_0^2E_2`$; $`Q`$ is not contained in the minimal section. Elements from $`^2|_{E_2}`$ (except for $`T_U^2`$) are all tangent to each other at $`Q`$. Suppose that $`B_2`$ is also tangent to them at $`Q`$ (if not, the argumentation of the case $`k<N`$ works). Then, for a general $`S`$, $`S^3`$ cuts out a double fiber of $`E_3`$, along which it has a double point. We can always assume that $`B_3`$ does not pass through the singular point of $`S^3`$. Since $`B_3`$ is also tangent to $`S^3`$, we will have the analoguos situation on $`U_4`$, and so on. Anyway, we may always assume $`S^i`$ to be non-singular at the point $`\stackrel{~}{B}_i=S^iB_i`$. There are no other changes in this case.

So, taking into account the results of , we proved the following proposition:

###### Proposition 4.1.

Suppose that a linear system $`𝒟`$ on $`U`$ has no maximal curves. Then $`𝒟`$ has no maximal singularities over points.

## 5. Excluding super-maximal singularities over non-singular points.

In this section we assume the reader to be more or less familiar with the "super-maximal" modification of the method of maximal singularities (see ). All denotations are close to those in .

Let $`V`$ be the blow-up of a curve from $`𝒫`$ on $`U`$, $`\rho :V^1`$ the corresponding fibered structure, $`s_0`$ and $`f`$ are the classes of effective generators of 1-dimensional cycles on $`V`$, and $`\{G_V\}=|K_V2F|`$ (see section 3).

Consider a linear system $`𝒟|n(K_V)+mF|`$, $`m0`$, without fixed components, and general elements $`D_1,D_2𝒟`$. Then

$$D_1D_2n^2s_0+(3n^2+2mn)f,$$

and we set

$$D_1D_2=Z^h+\underset{t^1}{}Z_t^v,$$

where $`Z^h`$ and $`Z_t^v`$ are horizontal and vertical (over $`t^1`$) effective 1-cycles.

We recall that $`𝒟`$ has no maximal singularities over curves (, ). Assume $`𝒟`$ has a super-maximal singularity. Then we have

(5.1)
$$m<\underset{t^1}{}\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝔳}{Center𝔳F_t}}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{e(𝔳)}{𝔳(F_t)},$$

where $`e(𝔳)=𝔳(𝒟)\delta _𝔳`$, $`\delta _𝔳`$ is the canonical multiplicity with respect to $`𝔳`$, and $`=\{𝔳:e(𝔳)>0\}`$ is the (finite) set of maximal valuations of $`𝒟`$.

Let $`A`$ be the number of elements in $``$, and define $`\mathrm{deg}Z^h=Z^hF`$, $`\mathrm{deg}Z_t^v=2Z_t^v(K_V)`$. Then

$$\underset{t^1}{}\mathrm{deg}Z_t^v6n^2+4mn<\underset{t^1}{}\left(\frac{6n^2}{A}+4n\underset{\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{𝔳}{Center𝔳F_t}}{\mathrm{max}}\frac{e(𝔳)}{𝔳(F_t)}\right).$$

Thus, there exist $`t^1`$ and $`𝔳`$ such that

$$\mathrm{deg}Z_t^v<\frac{6n^2}{A}+4n\frac{e(𝔳)}{𝔳(F_t)}.$$

Consider the graph $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\mathrm{\Gamma }(𝔳)`$ (see section 2). Suppose it consists of $`N`$ vertices, the vertices $`\{1,\mathrm{},L\}`$ correspond to points (i.e., $`B_0,\mathrm{},B_{L1}`$ are points), and the others correspond to curves. We denote by $`r_i`$ the number of all paths in $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ from $`N`$ to $`i`$, and define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=_{i=1}^Lr_i`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1=_{i=L+1}^Nr_i`$. Let

$$L^{}=\mathrm{max}\{1iL:B_{i1}F_t^{i1}\}$$

and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}=_{i=1}^L^{}r_i`$; clearly, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}𝔳(F_t)`$, and we have

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}\mathrm{deg}Z_t^v<\frac{6n^2}{A}+4ne(𝔳).$$

Put $`m_i^h=mult_{B_{i1}}\left(Z^h\right)^{i1}`$ and $`m_i^v=mult_{B_{i1}}\left(Z_t^v\right)^{i1}`$. Then we have the quadratic inequality

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}r_im_i^h+\underset{i=1}{\overset{L^{}}{}}r_im_i^v\frac{(2n\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+n\mathrm{\Sigma })1+e(𝔳))^2}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+\mathrm{\Sigma }_1}4n^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+4ne(𝔳).$$

Note that $`m_i^h\mathrm{deg}Z^hn^2`$. Taking into account (5.1), we obtain

$$n^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+\frac{6n^2}{A}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}>4n^2\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,$$

hence

$$\frac{2}{A}>\frac{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}}1,$$

which yields $`A=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}>\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$.

Thus, it is shown that $`𝒟`$ only consists of valuations centered over points in $`F_t`$. This allows us to re-write the super-maximal condition for $`𝔳`$ in the form

$$e(𝔳)>m𝔳(F_t).$$

Let $`B_0=Center_V𝔳`$. We change the denotation $`F_t`$ for the "central" fiber (i.e., that contains the super-maximal singularity), denoting it by $`F_0`$. The anticanonical linear system on $`F_0`$ contains a unique element, say, $`l_0`$, that passes through $`B_0`$.

We summarize the known results as follows (we assume $`B_0`$ to be a non-singular point of $`V`$):

* $`𝒟`$ may only have maximal singularities over points in $`F_0`$, and at least one of the maximal singularities is super-maximal;
* $`B_0`$ is necessarily contained in a section of the class $`s_0`$, thus $`B_0G_V`$ and $`l_0=G_VF_0`$ (, §2.2);
* $`B_0`$ is a non-singular point of $`F_0`$, $`B_0Bas|K_{F_0}|`$, and $`l_0`$ has a double point (node or cusp) at $`B_0`$ (, lemma 2.8);
* we have the following inequality for $`𝔳`$: $`_{i=1}^Nr_i\nu _i>2n\mathrm{\Sigma }_0+n\mathrm{\Sigma }_1+m\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$, where $`\nu _i=mult_{B_{i1}}𝒟^{i1}`$;
* always $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}>\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$.

Note that if $`VU`$ is the blow-up of a curve $`C𝒫`$, then $`l_0C`$ and $`G_V=^1\times C`$. Whence $`C`$, and thus $`l_0`$ and $`V`$ itself, must be singular.

We can say a bit more about the situation. Since $`B_0=Center_V𝔳`$, $``$ has to contain a discrete valuation that defines a maximal singularity over $`B_0`$ and can be realized by a divisorial extraction (i.e., a wheighted blow-up, see section 2). We denote such a discrete valuation by $`𝔳_{div}`$.

We have three possible cases:

* $`𝔳_{div}`$ is super-maximal (for example, $`𝔳_{div}=𝔳`$) and $`B_0`$ is a non-singular point of $`V`$;
* $`𝔳_{div}`$ is not super-maximal (thus $`𝔳_{div}𝔳`$), $`B_0`$ is non-singular;
* $`B_0`$ is the singular point of $`V`$.

The latter case is studied in the next section. Here we show that the first two cases are impossible. One can always assume $`e(𝔳_{div})e(𝔳)`$, so in the case B $`𝔳_{div}(F_0)>𝔳(F_0)`$, and we have the weak super-maximal condition for $`𝔳_{div}`$:

$$e(𝔳_{div})>m𝔳(F_0).$$

The case A: $`𝔳_{div}`$ is super-maximal. We may assume that $`𝔳_{div}=𝔳`$.

Suppose first that $`B_0`$ is a nodal point of $`l_0`$. As it is mentioned in section 2, $`𝔳`$ can be realized as the weighted blow-up with weights $`(1,L,N)`$, $`L<N`$, or as a chain of blow-ups with centers $`B_0,\mathrm{},B_{N1}`$, where $`B_0,\mathrm{},B_{L1}`$ are points and $`B_L,\mathrm{},B_{N1}`$ are curves, with the conditions $`B_iE_{i1}^i`$ for all $`i`$ and $`B_iE_{i1}^i=\mathrm{}`$ for $`i>L`$. One uses the latter realization. We set

$$L^{}=\mathrm{max}\{1iL:B_{i1}F_0^{i1}\}$$

and

$$k=\mathrm{max}\{1iL:B_{i1}l_0^{i1}\}.$$

Clearly, $`L^{}𝔳(F_0)`$ and $`kL^{}`$. Since $`r_i=1`$ for all $`i`$, we have the super-maximality condition in the form

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\nu _i>n(N+L)+mL^{}.$$

Choose general elements $`D_1,D_2𝒟`$, and let $`D_1D_2=Z^h+Z^v`$, where $`Z^h`$ and $`Z^v`$ are horizontal and vertical 1-cycles. $`Z^v`$ contains the 1-cycle $`Z_0^v`$ that lies in $`F_0`$, and let

$$Z_0^v=\alpha l_0+\stackrel{~}{Z}_0^v,$$

where $`l_0Supp\stackrel{~}{Z}_0^v`$. Define the multiplicities $`m_i^h=mult_{B_{i1}}(Z^h)^{i1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i^v=mult_{B_{i1}}(\stackrel{~}{Z}_0^v)^{i1}`$ for $`1iL`$. We obtain the quadratic inequality in the form

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}m_i^h+\alpha (k+1)+\underset{i=1}{\overset{L^{}}{}}\stackrel{~}{m}_i^v>\frac{\left(n(L+N)+mL^{}\right)^2}{N}4n^2L+4mnL^{}.$$

Since $`m_i^h\mathrm{deg}Z^hn^2`$ and $`\alpha +\stackrel{~}{m}_i^v\mathrm{deg}Z^v3n^2+2mn`$, we deduice

$$n^2L+\alpha +3n^2L^{}+2mnL^{}>4n^2L+4mnL^{},$$

whence

$$\alpha >3n^2(LL^{})+2mnL^{}.$$

But $`\alpha 3n^2+2mn`$, hence $`L=L^{}`$. Moreover, the same arguments show that $`k=L^{}`$. Thus, in what follows, we suppose that $`k=L^{}=L`$. In particular, $`B_iF_0^i\mathrm{}`$ for all $`i`$.

Now we show that $`B_LF_0^L`$. Assume the converse. Set $`e_i=E_iF_0^i`$, and choose a point $`\stackrel{~}{B}_Le_L`$ outside of $`e_{L1}^Ll_0^L`$. Clearly, $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_{L+1}\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}mult_{\stackrel{~}{B}_L}(D^L|_{F_0^L})\nu _{L+1}`$. For a general $`D𝒟`$ we set

$$D|_{F_0}=\mu l_0+C|n(K_{F_0})|,$$

where $`\mu n`$ and $`l_0SuppC`$. Define $`\alpha _i=mult_{B_i}C^i`$ for $`i<L`$, $`\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_L=mult_{\stackrel{~}{B}_L}C^L`$, $`m_i=ord_{e_i}(D^i|_{F_0^i})`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i=mult_{B_{i1}}(D^{i1}|_{F_0^{i1}})`$. Then we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1=2\mu +\alpha _0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_2=\mu +\alpha _1+m_1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_L=\mu +\alpha _{L1}+m_{L1},\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{L+1}=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_L+m_L.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since

$$\alpha _0+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{L1}+\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_L2\alpha _0+\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{L1}(D|_S\mu l_0)l_0=n\mu $$

and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i=\nu _i+m_i`$ for $`1iL`$, we obtain

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _{L+1}(L+1)\mu +n\mu (L+1)n,$$

which contradicts to the condition $`\nu _i>n`$ for all $`i`$.

Thus, we assume that $`B_LF_0^L`$. We define the points $`\stackrel{~}{B}_i=B_iF_0^i`$, $`0iN1`$. Suppose that $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i=mult_{\stackrel{~}{B}_{i1}}(D^{i1}|_{F_0^{i1}})`$, $`1iN`$, the numbers $`m_i`$, $`\alpha _i`$, $`\mu `$ are defined as before. Set

$$k^{}=\mathrm{max}\{1iN:\stackrel{~}{B}_{i1}l_0^{i1}\}.$$

Clearly, $`k^{}k=L^{}=L`$. Assume that $`k^{}<N`$. Then we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1=2\mu +\alpha _0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_2=\mu +\alpha _1+m_1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_k^{}=\mu +\alpha _{k^{}1}+m_{k^{}1},\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k^{}+1}=\stackrel{~}{\alpha }_k^{}+m_k^{},\hfill \end{array}$$

and since

$$\alpha _0+\mathrm{}+\alpha _k^{}2\alpha _0+\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{k^{}1}n\mu ,$$

we get a contradiction:

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _{k^{}+1}(k^{}+1)\mu +n\mu (k^{}+1)n.$$

Thus, $`k^{}=N`$. We repeat the arguments to obtain

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _N(N+1)\mu +n\mu (N+1)n,$$

but this is impossible because of the super-maximality condition

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _N>n(L+N)+mL^{}(N+1)n.$$

The important remark is that we have used the Nöther-Fano inequality, not the super-maximality condition.

So, $`B_0`$ has to be a cusp of $`l_0`$. It is easy to observe that nothing changes in the cuspidal case, the above argumentation does work. In fact, this case is even simpler since $`B_2`$ avoids $`l_0^2`$ (note that $`l_0^2E_1^2\mathrm{}`$).

The case B: $`𝔳_{div}`$ is not super-maximal. Since $`𝔳_{div}`$ is not super-maximal, one has $`e(𝔳_{div})m𝔳_{div}(F_0)`$ . We may always assume that $`e(𝔳_{div})>e(𝔳)`$. Since $`𝔳`$ is super-maximal, that is, $`e(𝔳)>m𝔳(F_0)`$, we obtain two important inequalities:

$$\begin{array}{c}e(𝔳_{div})>m𝔳(F_0),\hfill \\ 𝔳_{div}(F_0)>𝔳(F_0).\hfill \end{array}$$

Suppose that $`𝔳_{div}`$ is realized by the weighted blow-up with weights $`(1,L,N)`$. Taking into account the scheme of resolution of weighted blow-up, we have the centers $`B_0,\mathrm{},B_{N1}`$, where $`B_0,\mathrm{},B_{L1}`$ are points and $`B_L,\mathrm{},B_{N1}`$ are curves. Set

$$k=\mathrm{max}\{1iL:B_{i1}l_0^{i1}\}.$$

We repeat the arguments of the case A to argue that $`B_LF_0^L`$. Moreover, due to the remark at the end of the case A, that is, that we have not needed the super-maximality condition, we also argue that $`k<L`$. We show that $`B_kF_0^k`$ for $`k<L`$. Assume the converse, that is, $`B_kF_0^kl_0^k`$. Restricting $`𝒟`$ to $`F_0`$ and using the denotations of $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }_i`$, $`\mu `$, $`\alpha _i`$, and so on, in the same way as above, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1=2\mu +\alpha _0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_2=\mu +\alpha _1+m_1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_k=\mu +\alpha _{k1}+m_{k1},\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k+1}=\alpha _k+m_k,\hfill \end{array}$$

whence

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _{k+1}(k+1)\mu +\alpha _0+\mathrm{}+\alpha _k(k+1)\mu +n\mu (k+1)n,$$

which is impossible. Thus we have

$$𝔳_{div}(F_0)=k<L,$$

and since $`𝔳_{div}(F_0)>𝔳(F_0)1`$, then $`k2`$.

Let $`Z_0^v=\alpha l_0+\stackrel{~}{Z}_0^v`$, and let $`m_i^h`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{m}_i^v`$ be defined as above. One uses the weak super-maximality condition

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\nu _i>n(L+N)+m𝔳(F_0)$$

to obtain the quadratic inequality in the form

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{L}{}}m_i^h+(k+1)\alpha +\underset{i=1}{\overset{k}{}}\stackrel{~}{m}_i^v>\frac{\left(n(L+N)+m𝔳(F_0)\right)^2}{N}.$$

Remark that

$$2\stackrel{~}{m}_1^v+\stackrel{~}{m}_2^v+\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{m}_k^v\stackrel{~}{Z}_0^vl_03n^2+2mn\alpha ,$$

and the more so

$$\stackrel{~}{m}_1^v+\stackrel{~}{m}_2^v+\mathrm{}\stackrel{~}{m}_k^v3n^2+2mn\alpha .$$

Moreover,

$$m_1^h+\mathrm{}+m_k^hZ^hF_0n^2.$$

Thus we get

$$\frac{L}{k}n^2+k\alpha +3n^2+2mn>4n^2L+4mn𝔳(F_0)+n^2\frac{\left((NL)\frac{m}{n}𝔳(F_0)\right)^2}{N},$$

hence

$$k\alpha >n^2\left(4L\frac{L}{k}3\right)+2mn\left(2𝔳(F_0)1\right)+n^2\frac{\left((NL)\frac{m}{n}𝔳(F_0)\right)^2}{N}.$$

We observe that $`\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _k(k+1)\mu +\alpha _0+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{k1}(k+1)n`$, and then

$$\theta _k\stackrel{\mathrm{def}}{=}\frac{\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _k}{kn}\frac{k+1}{k}.$$

Clearly,

$$n\theta _k\frac{1}{N}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\nu _i,$$

and we deduice from the weak super-maximal condition that

$$NL>\frac{2\theta _k}{\theta _k1}L+\frac{1}{\theta _k1}\frac{m}{n}𝔳(F_0).$$

Combining this and the estimation for $`\theta _k`$ with the quadratic inequality, one gets

$$\alpha >n^2\left(\frac{(k+2)L}{k}\frac{3}{k}\right)+mn\left(\frac{(k+1)^2}{k^2}𝔳(F_0)\frac{2}{k}\right).$$

Recall that $`Lk+1`$. Thus we have

$$\alpha >n^2\left(\frac{k^2+3k+1}{k}\right)+mn\left(𝔳(F_0)+\frac{2𝔳(F_0)}{k}+\frac{𝔳(F_0)}{k^2}\frac{2}{k}\right),$$

and the condition $`\alpha 3n^2+2mn`$ yields

$$𝔳(F_0)=1.$$

Note that the argumentation is the same in the nodal and in the cuspidal cases.

Now we turn back to the super-maximal valuation $`𝔳`$. All denotations ($`\nu _i`$, $`B_i`$, $`E_i`$, and so on) are related to $`𝔳`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}𝔳(F_0)=1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0<2\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$, we have $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}=1`$. Thus $`L=1`$ and $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_{N1}`$ are curves. It is known that $`B_{L+1}E_L^{L+1}=\mathrm{}`$ and $`B_iE_{i1}^i`$ for all $`i>L`$. In our case $`L=1`$, thus $`B_2E_1^2=\mathrm{}`$, $`E_2𝔽_2`$. Denote by $`s_i`$ and $`f_i`$ the minimal sections and fibers of the corresponding ruled surfaces $`E_i`$. We see that $`B_2s_2+2f_2`$ and $`B_is_i`$ for all $`i>1`$. Set

$$l=\mathrm{max}\{3iN:B_{i1}E_{i2}^{i1}=\mathrm{}\}.$$

Assume that $`l<N`$. Then $`B_ls_l+bf_l`$, where $`b>l`$. Indeed, from lemma 2.2 for the case $`L=1`$ it follows that $`E_i𝔽_i`$ for $`il`$. Take into account that $`E_{l1}^l|_{E_l}=s_l`$, thus $`B_ls_l\mathrm{}`$ and $`b>l`$. It is easy to compute that

$$D^l|_{E_l}\nu _ls_l+(\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _l)f_l.$$

Since $`\nu _{l+1}B_lD^l|_{E_l}`$, we get

$$(l+1)\nu _{l+1}b\nu _{l+1}\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _l.$$

Set

$$k=\mathrm{max}\{1iN1:B_{i1}l_0^{i1}\mathrm{}\}.$$

Assume that $`k<l`$. Restricting $`𝒟`$ to $`F_0`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\stackrel{~}{\nu }_1=2\mu +\alpha _0,\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_2=\mu +\alpha _1+m_1,\hfill \\ \mathrm{}\hfill \\ \stackrel{~}{\nu }_{k+1}=\alpha _k+m_k.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`2\alpha _0+\alpha _1+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{k1}n\mu `$, we get

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _{k+1}(k+1)\mu +n\mu (k+1)n,$$

which is impossible because of the inequalities $`\nu _i>n`$ for all $`i`$. Thus $`kl`$ and

$$\stackrel{~}{\nu }_l=\mu +\alpha _{l1}+m_{l1}.$$

We obtain

$$\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _l(l+1)\mu +n\mu (l+1)n.$$

Combining this estimation with $`(l+1)\nu _{l+1}\nu _1+\mathrm{}+\nu _l`$, we get a contradiction:

$$\nu _{l+1}n.$$

Thus, we obtain $`l=N`$. In other words, the valuation $`𝔳`$ corresponds to a weighted blow-up. In the case A it is shown that this is impossible. We proved the following result:

###### Proposition 5.1.

The linear system $`𝒟|n(K_V)+mF|`$, $`m0`$, has no super-maximal singularities over the non-singular part of $`V`$.

## 6. Excluding super-maximal singularities over the singular point.

It remains to exclude super-maximal singularities over the point $`B_0`$ which is the singular point of $`V/^1`$. Let $`𝔳`$ be a maximal valuation with the center at $`B_0`$ which is a super-maximal at the same time, that is, the inequality

$$e(𝔳)>m𝔳(F_0)$$

holds, where $`F_0`$ is the fiber that contains $`B_0`$. As before, there exists a maximal valuation $`𝔳_{div}`$ which is a divisorial extraction in the Mori category, $`Center_V𝔳_{div}=B_0`$. We may always assume that $`e(𝔳_{div})e(𝔳)`$. Hence $`𝔳_{div}`$ satisfies the weak super-maximal condition $`e(𝔳_{div})>m𝔳(F_0)`$. In particular, one has always

$$e(𝔳_{div})>m.$$

As it follows from Kawakita’s theorem 2.1, only the following cases are possible:

* $`B_0`$ is the simplest double point, that is, it is locally defined by $`xy+zw=0`$, and $`𝔳_{div}`$ is realized by the blow-up of $`B_0`$;
* $`B_0`$ is defined by $`xy+z^3+w^2=0`$ and $`𝔳_{div}`$ is realized by the blow-up of $`B_0`$;
* $`B_0`$ is defined by $`xy+z^3+w^2=0`$ and $`𝔳_{div}`$ is realized by the weighted blow-up with weights $`(1,5,2,3)`$.

Now we argue that the first two cases are impossible. Let $`\gamma _1:U_1U`$ be the blow up of $`B_0`$, $`E_1`$ the exceptional divisor. In the first two cases $`E_1`$ realizes $`𝔳_{div}`$, and either $`E_1^1\times ^1`$ if $`B_0`$ is the simplest double point, or $`E_1`$ is isomorphic to a quadric cone in $`^3`$ (in the second case). Remark that $`U_1`$ is non-singular. For a general $`D𝒟|n(K_V+mF)|`$ we set

$$D^1=\gamma _1^{}(D)\nu _1E_1.$$

The Nöther-Fano inequality has the form $`\nu _1>n`$. Choose a general curve $`C|2(K_{F_0})B_0|`$. Then $`C`$ is singular at $`B_0`$ and $`C^1E_1=2`$. We get a contradiction immediately: $`0D^1C^1=2n2\nu _1<0`$.

In what follows we assume that $`B_0`$ is locally defined by $`xy+z^3+w^2=0`$, $`𝔳_{div}`$ corresponds to the third case and satisfies $`e(𝔳_{div})>m`$.

The valuation $`𝔳_{div}`$ can be geometrically realized as follows (see , lemma 5.2). Let $`\psi _1:V_1V`$ be the blow-up of the point $`B_0`$. The exceptional divisor $`E_1`$ is isomorphic to a quadric cone in $`^3`$. The center of $`𝔳_{div}`$ on $`V_1`$ is a point $`B_1E_1`$ lying outside of the vertex of the cone. By $`e_1E_1`$ we denote the generator of the cone that passes through $`B_1`$ (see figure 2). Let $`\psi _2:V_2V_1`$ be the blow-up of $`B_1`$, $`E_2^2`$ the exceptional divisor. Then $`B_2=Center_{V_2}𝔳_{div}`$ is a line in $`E_2`$ that passes through the point $`e_1^2E_2`$ and does not contained in $`E_1^2`$. The exceptional divisor $`E_3`$ of the blow-up $`\psi _3:V_3V_2`$ of $`B_2`$ realizes $`𝔳_{div}`$.

We set $`\nu _i=mult_{B_{i1}}𝒟^{i1}`$. Observe that $`2\nu _1\nu _2\nu _3`$. We assume that $`\nu _1n`$, otherwise we get the situation of the first two cases. The weak super-maximal condition for $`𝔳_{div}`$ has the form

$$\nu _1+\nu _2+\nu _3>4n+m.$$

We assume that $`V`$ is obtained by the blow-up $`\phi :VU`$ of a curve $`l𝒫`$ on $`U`$, and $`l`$ has a cusp at a point $`P_0`$. The birational morphism $`\phi `$ can be also realized as follows (see figure 3). Let $`\gamma _1:U_1U`$ be the blow-up of $`P_0`$, $`L_1^2`$ the exceptional divisor. The strict transform $`l^1`$ of the curve $`l`$ on $`V_1`$ is tangent to $`L_1`$ at a point $`P_1`$. The tangent direction to $`l^1`$ at $`P_1`$ defines a line $`r_1L_1`$. Let $`\gamma _2:U_2U_1`$ be the blow-up of $`l^1`$, $`L_2`$ the exceptional divisor. The strict transform $`L_1^2`$ of $`L_1`$ on $`V_2`$ becomes isomorphic to a quadric cone that is blown up at some point outside of the vertex of the cone, and $`r_1^2`$ is the $`(1)`$-curve of $`L_1^2`$. Note that $`L_1^2`$ is tangent to $`L_2`$ along the fiber $`v^+`$.

Let us turn back to $`V`$ for instance. We recall that the exceptional divisor $`G_V`$ of the morphism $`\phi `$ is isomorphic to $`l\times ^1`$ (see section 3). Hence $`G_V`$ is singular along a section $`s`$ of $`V^1`$. This section has the class $`s_0`$. Now let $`\psi _1:V_1V`$ be the blow-up of $`B_0`$, $`E_1`$ the exceptional divisor. As it is mentioned above, $`E_1`$ is isomorphic to a quadric cone in $`^3`$. The divisor $`G_V^1`$ is tangent to $`E_1`$ along the generator $`v`$. Remark that $`s^1`$ intersects $`E_1`$ outside of the vertex of the cone.

Finally, there exists a flop $`\epsilon :V_1U_2`$ centered at $`s^1`$. We observe that the flop $`\epsilon ^1`$ is centered at $`r_1^2`$. The birational map $`\epsilon `$ maps $`E_1`$ onto $`L_1^2`$, $`v`$ onto $`v^+`$, and $`G_V^1`$ onto $`L_2`$.

It is worth to give an explicite equation for $`V`$ in a neighborhood of the point $`B_0`$. As in section 3, we assume that $`U`$ is defined by the equation

$$w^2+z^3+zf_4(x,y)+x+f_6(x,y)=0$$

in a neighborhood of the point $`P_0=(0,0,0,0)`$, the polynomials $`f_i`$ satisfy the same conditions as before. The blow-up $`\phi `$ is given by $`x=ty`$, so we have for $`V`$

$$w^2+z^3+zf_4(ty,y)+ty+f_6(ty,y)=0.$$

We observe that $`B_0=(0,0,0,0)`$, $`G_V=\{y=0\}`$, the fiber $`F_0=\{t=0\}`$, and $`s=\{w=z=y=0\}`$.

We assume that $`𝒟_V=𝒟|n(K_V+mF)|`$. Denote by $`𝒟_U`$ the strict transform of $`𝒟_V`$ on $`U`$, by $`𝒟_{U_1}`$ the strict transform on $`U_1`$, and so on. Suppose that $`𝒟_U|aH|`$, and let $`\mu =mult_l𝒟_U`$ and $`\nu ^{}=mult_{P_0}𝒟_U`$. It is easy to compute that

$$\begin{array}{c}a=2n+m,\hfill \\ \mu =n+m,\hfill \\ \nu ^{}=\nu _1+\mu =\nu _1+n+m.\hfill \end{array}$$

There are the following possibilities:

* $`e_1=v`$ and $`B_1=s^1E_1`$ (see figures 2 and 3);
* $`e_1=v`$ and $`B_1s^1`$;
* $`B_1E^1G_V^1`$ (that is, $`e_1v`$).

We deal with them separately.

The case A: $`e_1=v`$ and $`B_1=s^1E_1`$. The divisor $`G_V`$ is cut out by the hypersurface $`\{y=0\}`$. In the local coordinates $`[w,z,t]`$ the equation $`\{w^2+z^3=0\}`$ defines $`G_V`$. According to the construction of $`V`$ via double covering, we see that $`G_V`$ is a double cover of a quadric $`G^1\times ^1`$ with the ramification divisor $`3p+p^{}`$, where $`p`$ and $`p^{}`$ have the class $`(1,0)`$ on $`G`$ and $`pp^{}`$. The quadric $`G`$ has the local coordinates $`[z,t]`$. We assume that $`p`$ is defined by the equation $`p=\{z=0\}`$. Remark that $`s`$ lies over $`p`$. Consider a curve $`\stackrel{~}{C}G`$ of the class $`(1,2)`$ defined by the equation $`\{z=at^2\}`$ for some $`a0`$. Let $`C`$ be the pre-image of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ on $`G_V`$. Thus, $`C`$ is locally defined by the equations $`\{y=w^2+a^3t^6=0\}`$. Using the equation for $`V`$, it is easy to check that $`C^1`$ has a double point at the point $`s^1E_1`$, and $`C^2`$ also has a double point at $`s^2E^2`$ (see figure 2 and note that $`e_1=v`$ and $`B_1=s^1E_1`$ in the considered case). Taking into account that $`C`$ has the class $`2s+2f`$ on $`V`$, for a general $`D𝒟_V`$ we obtain

$$D^2C^2=4n+2m2\nu _12\nu _20,$$

hence $`\nu _1+\nu _22n+m`$. Since $`\nu _32n`$, we get a contradiction with the super-maximal condition:

$$4n+m\nu _1+\nu _2+\nu _3>4n+m.$$

The case B: $`e_1=v`$ and $`B_1s^1`$. For the curves $`v`$ and $`v^+`$, we define

$$\eta =mult_v𝒟_{V_1}=mult_{v^+}𝒟_{U_2}.$$

Since $`B_1s^1`$, the flop $`\epsilon :V_1U_2`$ is a local isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`B_1`$, and we denote the image of $`B_1`$ on $`U_2`$ by $`B_1`$ to avoid complicating the notation. Thus, the picture of the blow-up of $`B_1`$ given by figure 2 can be transfered to $`U_2`$.

It is easy to compute that $`𝒩_{v^+|U_2}𝒪𝒪(1)`$. We blow up the point $`B_1`$ and then the strict transform of $`v^+`$, and denote by $`\phi ^{}:U^{}U_2`$ the composition of these blow-ups. Let $`E^{}`$ be the exceptional divisor that corresponds to the blow-up of the strict transform of $`v^+`$. We see that $`E^{}𝔽_1`$, and denote by $`s^{}`$ and $`f^{}`$ the minimal section and a fiber of $`E^{}`$. We have

$$𝒟_U^{}|_E^{}|\eta s^{}+(2\eta +\mu \nu _2)f^{}|.$$

Moreover, the strict transform of $`L_2`$ on $`U^{}`$ cut out the minimal section $`s^{}`$. Thus, comparing the situation with figure 2, we see that the strict transform of the curve $`B_2`$ intersects $`E^{}`$ at a point lying outside of the minimal section. Consequently, $`𝒟_U^{}|_E^{}`$ has the multiplicity not less than $`\nu _3`$ at this point. We obtain

$$2\eta +\mu \nu _2\nu _3,$$

or $`2\eta +\mu \nu _2+\nu _3`$. Since $`\nu _1n`$ and $`\nu _1+\nu _2+\nu _3>4n+m`$, we get $`\nu _2+\nu _3>3n+m`$. Taking into account that $`\mu =n+m`$, we obtain $`2\eta >2n`$, that is, $`\eta >n`$.

Hence the linear system $`𝒟_{V_1}`$ has the multiplicity $`\eta >n`$ along one of the generators of the cone $`E_1`$ (this generator is $`v`$ in our case), which yields $`E_1Bas𝒟_{V_1}`$ because $`\nu _1n`$. Thus we get a contradiction.

The case C: $`B_1E_1G_V^1`$. In this case we have $`e_1v`$. Consequently, $`V_1`$ and $`U_1`$ are isomorphic in a neighborhood of the point $`B_1`$. To avoid complicating the notation, by $`B_1`$ and $`e_1`$ we denote the image of $`B_1`$ and the strict transform of $`e_1`$ on $`U_1`$ respectively. Note that $`e_1`$ becomes the line in $`L_1`$ that passes through $`B_1`$ and $`P_1`$, and $`e_1r_1`$. We set $`\eta =mult_{e_1}𝒟_{U_1}`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }=mult_{P_1}𝒟_{U_1}`$.

It is easy to compute that $`𝒩_{e_1|U_1}𝒪(1)𝒪(1)`$. On $`U_1`$, let us first blow up the points $`B_1`$ and $`P_1`$ and then the strict transform of $`e_1`$. We denote by $`U^{}U_1`$ the composition of these blow-ups, by $`E^{}`$ the exceptional divisor lying over $`e_1`$, and by $`s^{}`$ and $`f^{}`$ the minimal section and a fiber of $`E^{}`$.

We see that $`E^{}𝔽_2`$, the strict transform of $`L_1`$ cuts out the minimal section $`s^{}`$ on $`E^{}`$. The strict transforms of the curves $`l^1`$ and $`B_2`$ intersect $`E^{}`$ at two points that lie outside of the minimal section and does not lie in the same fiber. Thus at these points $`𝒟_U^{}|_E^{}`$ has the multiplicities not less than $`\mu `$ and $`\nu _3`$ respectively. Taking into account that

$$𝒟_{U_1}|_E^{}|\eta s^{}+(3\eta +\nu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu _2)|,$$

where $`\nu ^{}=\nu _1+n+m=mult_{P_0}𝒟_U`$, we obtain

$$3\eta +\nu ^{}\stackrel{~}{\nu }\nu _2\mu +\nu _3.$$

But $`\stackrel{~}{\nu }\mu `$, $`\nu _2+\nu _3>3n+m`$, and $`\mu =n+m`$, thus we get $`\eta >m`$. We get the contradiction exactly as in the case B.

So, the following proposition is proved:

###### Proposition 6.1.

Linear systems on $`V`$ have no super-maximal singularities over the singular point of $`V`$.

## 7. Conclusion.

We are ready to finish proving theorem 1.1. Let $`\rho ^{}:V^{}S^{}`$ be a Mori fibration, $`\chi :UV^{}`$ a birational map. Consider the complete linear system $`𝒟^{}=|n^{}(K_V^{})+\rho ^{}(L^{})|`$ on $`V^{}`$. We assume that $`𝒟^{}`$ is very ample and $`L^{}Pic(S^{})`$ is an ample divisor.

Denote by $`𝒟`$ the strict transform of $`𝒟^{}`$ on $`U`$. Suppose that $`𝒟|aH|`$. It follows from proposition 4.1 that either $`K_V+\frac{2}{a}𝒟`$ is canonical, and then $`\chi `$ is an isomorphism by , theorem 4.2, or $`𝒟`$ has a maximal singularity over a curve $`l𝒫`$. In the latter case, let $`\mu =mult_l𝒟`$ and $`\phi :V=U_lU`$ the blow up of $`l`$. We have

$$𝒟_V=\phi _{}^1𝒟|(a\mu )(K_V)+(2\mu a)F|.$$

Observe that $`2\mu a>0`$. Propositions 5.1 and 6.1 together with the results of , section 2.2, show that $`𝒟_V`$ has no maximal singularities over curves or super-maximal singularities over points. Thus $`a\mu =n^{}`$, and from , theorem 4.2, it follows that the composition $`\chi \phi :VV^{}`$ is birational over the base. Theorem 1.1 is proved.

Remark that theorem 1.1 completes studying the birational classification problem for non-singular Mori fibrations in del Pezzo surfaces of degree 1. Indeed, theorem 2.6 together with corollary 2.10 in , proposition 2.12 in , and theorem 1.1 of the present paper exhaust all possible sets of Mori structures $`𝒮`$ for varieties of the indicated type. It only remains to recall that $`𝒮`$ is a birational invariant that uniquely defines the birational class.


format: text

text:
# Realistic Decoherence Free Subspaces

## I Introduction

The very same mechanism responsible for the potential improvements on computation speed using quantum mechanics, is the one which greatly hinders immediate technical implementation. *Entanglement* between different subsystems is essential for the production of the states used in information processingNC ; at the same time, as these qubits can not be completely isolated from its environment, entanglement with the environmental degrees of freedom is a general feature. The deleterious effect of this coupling is usually called *decoherence*Dec . Therefore much effort has been devoted to finding ways around decoherence in quantum computation, such as error correcting codescodes , dynamical decouplingdynadeco  and computation in decoherence free subspacesDFS ; DFS2 ; Zanardi . Experimental observations of decoherence free evolution have been reportedScience1 ; Science2 . Many physical implementations have been proposed including cavity QEDCQED , ions trapsIon , nuclear magnetic resonanceNMR  and semiconductor quantum dotsQDots . From the theoretical point of view, recent work has been mainly on proving the existence of DF subspaces, in general related to symmetries of the system which are preserved by the interaction with the environment, on searching for mechanisms of dynamical creation of DFSWL , and on the analysis of their robustnessBLW . More realistic modelsZanardi  are scarce, and fail to provide insight on the effects of slightly relaxing the conditions necessary for the existence of DFS.

In the present work we consider the case of N independent oscillators linearly coupled to a single environment, and show that the existence of strict decoherence free subspaces can be obtained under the following two conditions: degeneracy of the oscillators, and separability of the coupling with the environment. Both can be viewed as consequences of symmetries: the first involving only the system, and the second the interaction. The exact form of the spectral density and the temperature of the environment are immaterial in what concerns the existence of DFS, since they really decouples from the environment. Master equations for the evolution of the reduced density matrix of the system are derived with and without the Born-Markov approximation, and only the coefficients vary from one case to the other. For two independent oscillators we solve the dynamics of the reduced density and explicit the decoherence free subspace. Also in the case of two harmonic oscillators we study the effect of relaxing the degeneracy and separability conditions. We verify that there is no more DFS, but there remains a long leaved mode, which we call *weak decoherence mode*, and its counterbalance, a *strong decoherence mode* also appear. The time scales for the duration of these components are derived in terms of the appropriate parameters. We analyze these findings in the context of the robustness proof for DFS presented in Ref. BLW .

This contribution is organized as follows: in section II an introduction to the concept of decoherence free subspaces is given, in section III the model with oscillators is described, and the decoherence free modes are exhibited. A short discussion of the classical counterpart of decoherence free modes is made. Section IV is devoted to the derivation of master equations. In section V we discuss in details the case of two harmonic oscillators. As a simplifying tool, we introduce the notion of *superoperator*. The section VI discuss the case of small departures from the degeneracy and separability conditions, and shows that despite the fact that the concept of DFS is no more applicable, there remains a *weak decoherence mode* which can be useful for quantum information storing. We give some concluding remarks. Some intermediate calculations have been relegated to the appendix.

## II A quick way to decoherence free subspaces

The notion of decoherence free subspaces (DFS) can be easily captured by considering a special coupling between a system and its environment. Consider a system with its autonomous Hamiltonian $`\widehat{𝐇}_S`$, an environment described by $`\widehat{𝐇}_E`$, and the interaction between them given by $`\widehat{𝐇}_I`$. The complete Hamiltonian is then

$$\widehat{𝐇}=\widehat{𝐇}_S+\widehat{𝐇}_E+\widehat{𝐇}_I.$$
(1)
Suppose the interaction term can be written in the form $`\widehat{𝐇}_I=\widehat{𝐀}_S\widehat{𝐁}_E`$, with $`\widehat{𝐀}_S`$ (resp. $`\widehat{𝐁}_E`$) acting only on the system (resp. environment) degrees of freedom. We will call this a *separability condition*. Any common eigenvector $`|a`$ of $`\widehat{𝐀}_S`$ and $`\widehat{𝐇}_S`$ (with eigenvalues $`a`$ and $`h_a`$) does not get entangled with the environment, since in this case

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{𝐇}|a|ϵ& =\left(\widehat{𝐇}_S|a\right)|ϵ+|a\left(\widehat{𝐇}_E|ϵ\right)+\left(\widehat{𝐀}_S|a\right)\left(\widehat{𝐁}_E|ϵ\right)\hfill \\ & =|a\left(h_a+\widehat{𝐇}_E+a\widehat{𝐁}_E\right)|ϵ.\hfill \end{array}$$
(2)
By linearity, any common eigenspace of $`\widehat{𝐀}_S`$ and $`\widehat{𝐇}_S`$ is a DFS of the system.

Degeneracy is generally originated by symmetry. Therefore, if one finds a symmetric system where interaction with the environment preserves this symmetry, then any eigenspace of the system is a DFS.

In the language of Ref. DFS2 , $`\widehat{𝐀}_S`$ is the only *error generator*, and (common) eigenspaces of (all) error generators are DFS. An important distinction that we make is to consider as DFS only the common eigenspaces of $`\widehat{𝐀}_S`$ and $`\widehat{𝐇}_S`$, i.e.: the system Hamiltonian should not take the state out of a DFS.

## III A model with oscillators

We now present a different situation in which DFS can be achieved. The system will consist of $`N`$ identical harmonic oscillators (frequency $`\omega `$, annihilation operators $`\widehat{𝐚}_i`$, we use $`\mathrm{}=1`$). The environment will be modelled as a huge set of harmonic oscillators (frequencies $`\omega _k`$, annihilation operators $`\widehat{𝐛}_k`$). Linear coupling will be considered and the rotating wave approximation applied. This model is both: simple enough to be studied in details and general enough to keep the characteristic behaviour of the problem. It is also adequated to make the link with experimental implementations: one can consider vibronic states of $`N`$ ions trapped together, a system in which (approximate) DFS has already been demonstratedScience2 ; comm , or modes of distinct cavitiesSwitch , or even, for $`N=2`$, two degenerated modes of one cavity. The Hamiltonian to be considered is

$$\widehat{𝐇}=\omega \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{𝐚}_i^{}\widehat{𝐚}_i+\underset{k}{}\omega _k\widehat{𝐛}_k^{}\widehat{𝐛}_k+\underset{i,k}{}(g_{ik}^{}\widehat{𝐚}_i^{}\widehat{𝐛}_k+g_{ik}\widehat{𝐚}_i\widehat{𝐛}_k^{}).$$
(3)
As in the previous model, we need an additional assumption on the form of the interaction. Assume the coupling constants $`g_{ik}`$ can be factorized as $`G_iD_k`$. This can be interpreted as supposing that all oscillators feel the environment in the same way, possibly with only a difference in strength, which depends only on the oscillator itself, not on the environment (the most usual models consider $`G_i=G`$, which is a special form of the here proposed model). With this factorizability hypothesis, one can rewrite the Hamiltonian (3) as

$$\widehat{𝐇}=\omega \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{𝐚}_i^{}\widehat{𝐚}_i+\underset{k}{}\omega _k\widehat{𝐛}_k^{}\widehat{𝐛}_k+\underset{k}{}\left(D_k^{}(\underset{i}{}G_i^{}\widehat{𝐚}_i^{})\widehat{𝐛}_k+D_k(\underset{i}{}G_i\widehat{𝐚}_i)\widehat{𝐛}_k^{}\right).$$
(4)
By defining the collective operators

$$\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}=\frac{_iG_i^{}\widehat{𝐚}_i^{}}{_i|G_i|^2},\widehat{𝐀}_1=\frac{_iG_i\widehat{𝐚}_i}{_i|G_i|^2},$$
(5)
it takes the form

$$\widehat{𝐇}=\omega \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{𝐚}_i^{}\widehat{𝐚}_i+\underset{k}{}\omega _k\widehat{𝐛}_k^{}\widehat{𝐛}_k+\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\underset{k}{}c_k\widehat{𝐛}_k+\widehat{𝐀}_1\underset{k}{}c_k^{}\widehat{𝐛}_k^{},$$
(6)
where it is clear that only the collective mode $`\widehat{𝐀}_1`$ is coupled to the environment (in the above formula $`c_k=_i|G_i|^2D_k^{}`$). One can consider the mode $`\widehat{𝐀}_1`$ as the first of a new set of normal modes $`\left\{\widehat{𝐀}_i\right\}`$, and the remaining modes thus constitute an infinite dimensional DFS. With this new set of variables, the Hamiltonian is finally written as

$$\widehat{𝐇}=\omega \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{𝐀}_i^{}\widehat{𝐀}_i+\underset{k}{}\omega _k\widehat{𝐛}_k^{}\widehat{𝐛}_k+\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\underset{k}{}c_k\widehat{𝐛}_k+\widehat{𝐀}_1\underset{k}{}c_k^{}\widehat{𝐛}_k^{}.$$
(7)
While the situation in the previous section is completely quantum mechanical, the present model does have a classical analog, because the manipulation above can also be done with classical oscillators. In fact, there is a very old classical situation to which this analysis can be applied: synchronization of pendular clocks. It is known that two clocks in the same wall tend to synchronize in anti-phase. Each clock can be considered as an oscillator, and their coupling to the environment can be considered in terms of the two normal modes (phase and anti-phase modes). The in phase mode couples (much more) strongly to the environment, and this causes the synchronization.

Another consistent analogy of the above model is with the superradiance in the Dicke modelDicke . In this case, $`N`$ two-level atoms are coupled to one field mode. In the regime in which the atoms are collectively coupled to the field (i.e.: the field does not distinguish which atom has emitted), the radiative process can be stronger compared to individual emissions (due to interference). The counterpart of this process is the subradiance, i.e.: other collective states with weaker emission than the individual contributions (destructive interference). DFS can thus be compared to subradiant states of the system.

## IV Master equation

As one usually does not have control on the environment degrees of freedom, the natural approach to this problem is to study the reduced dynamics of the $`N`$ oscillators. A long but straightforward procedurealamos  can be applied to derive the master equation

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{dt}=& \frac{1}{i\mathrm{}}[\widehat{𝐇}_0,\widehat{\rho }]+\left(\lambda +ϵ\right)\left(2\widehat{𝐀}_1\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{𝐀}_1\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}^{}\widehat{𝐀}_\mathrm{𝟏}\right)\hfill \\ & +ϵ\left(2\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝐀}_1\widehat{𝐀}_1\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝐀}_1\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\right),\hfill \end{array}$$
(8)
where

$$\widehat{𝐇}_0=\mathrm{}\omega \underset{i=2}{\overset{N}{}}\widehat{𝐀}_i^{}\widehat{𝐀}_i+\mathrm{}(\omega +\delta )\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{𝐀}_1.$$
(9)
The real functions $`\lambda ,\delta ,ϵ`$ are implicitly defined in terms of the auxiliary function $`\eta (t)`$

$$\eta (t)=\mathrm{exp}\left(_0^t\lambda (t^{})𝑑t^{}iwti_0^t\delta (t^{})𝑑t^{}\right),$$
(10)
which satisfies the integrodifferential equation

$$\dot{\eta }+i\omega \eta +_0^t𝑑\tau \underset{k}{}|c_k|^2\mathrm{e}^{i\omega _k(t\tau )}\eta (\tau )=0,$$
(11)
subject to the initial condition $`\eta (0)=1`$. Moreover, considering the environment in thermal equilibrium, we have

$$ϵ(t)=\frac{|\eta (t)|^2}{2}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\underset{k}{}\frac{|c_k|^2n_k(\beta )}{|\eta (t)|^2}\left|_0^t𝑑\tau e^{i\omega _k(t\tau )}\eta (\tau )\right|^2\right),$$
(12)
where $`n_k(\beta )`$ is the mean excitation number for the $`k^{\text{th}}`$ mode of the environment at inverse temperature $`\beta =1/k_BT`$. If the usual Born-Markov approximations hold, then $`\delta (t)=0`$, $`\lambda (t)=_ik_i:=k`$, and $`ϵ=k\overline{n}`$, where $`k_i`$ characterize the Markovian evolution when only the $`i^{\text{th}}`$ original oscillator is coupled to the bath, and $`\overline{n}`$ is the environment mean number of thermal excitations at frequency $`\omega `$. In this case the master equation simplifies to

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \frac{d\widehat{\rho }}{dt}=& i\omega \underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}[\widehat{𝐀}_i^{}\widehat{𝐀}_i,\widehat{\rho }]+k\left(\overline{n}+1\right)\left(2\widehat{𝐀}_1\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{𝐀}_1\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{𝐀}_1\right)\hfill \\ & +k\overline{n}\left(2\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝐀}_1\widehat{𝐀}_1\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{\rho }\widehat{\rho }\widehat{𝐀}_1\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\right).\hfill \end{array}$$
(13)
As one should expect by eq. (7), the master equation above describes the dissipative evolution of the collective mode $`\widehat{𝐀}_1`$, and the independent unitary evolution of the remaining modes $`\widehat{𝐀}_i`$, $`i2`$. It also should be noted that the damping constant $`k`$ of mode $`\widehat{𝐀}_1`$ is larger (in general, much larger, for large $`N`$) than the individual constants $`k_i`$ of the modes $`\widehat{𝐚}_i`$. This should be compared to the superradiance analogy discussed at section III.

## V Two oscillators in a dissipative environment

From now on, we especialize to the case of two harmonic oscillators ($`N=2`$). The collective modes can thus be written as

$$\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}=\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\widehat{𝐚}_2^{},\widehat{𝐀}_2^{}=\mathrm{sin}(\theta )\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )\widehat{𝐚}_2^{},$$
(14)
with $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =G_2/G_1`$ (this quotient can be taken as a positive number, if necessary, by redefining the mode $`\widehat{𝐚}_2`$). If Markovian approximation is made, this relation takes the form $`\mathrm{tan}\theta =\sqrt{k_2/k_1}`$. The expression (14) can be considered as giving $`\left\{\widehat{𝐀}_i^{}\right\}`$ by applying a rotation operator $`\left(\theta \right)`$ on the set $`\left\{\widehat{𝐚}_i^{}\right\}`$. It is usual to call an operator which acts on operators a *superoperator*. Thus, $`\left(\theta \right)`$ is a *rotation superoperator*. It is convenient to represent superoperators using the algebraic relations among the operators in which they act on, and a useful notation is to introduce a dot ($``$) in the position where the operator to be acted on must be placed. For example, $`[\widehat{𝐀},]\widehat{𝐁}=[\widehat{𝐀},\widehat{𝐁}]`$, and $`[\widehat{𝐀},]^2\widehat{𝐁}=[\widehat{𝐀},[\widehat{𝐀},\widehat{𝐁}]]`$. With this convention in mind one can verify that

$$\left(\theta \right)=\mathrm{exp}\left\{\theta [\widehat{𝐚}_1\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2\widehat{𝐚}_1^{},]\right\}.$$
(15)
Superoperators are very useful to study time evolution. As one can define an evolution operator $`\widehat{𝐔}\left(t\right)`$ by $`\widehat{𝐔}\left(t\right)|\psi \left(0\right)=|\psi \left(t\right)`$, the *evolution superoperator* is defined by $`𝒰\left(t\right)\widehat{\rho }\left(0\right)=\widehat{\rho }\left(t\right)`$. One completely solves the time evolution of a system by writing its evolution superoperator. The equation (8) can be solved by the superoperator

$$𝒰\left(t\right)=e^{iwt[\widehat{𝐀}_2^{}\widehat{𝐀}_2,]}ve^{\left(1v\right)\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{𝐀}_1}e^{x\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{𝐀}_1}e^{x^{}\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}\widehat{𝐀}_1}e^{z\widehat{𝐀}_1\widehat{𝐀}_1^{}}$$
(16)
where the coefficients $`v(t)`$, $`x(t)`$ and $`z(t)`$ can be given in terms of the functions $`\eta (t)`$, eq. (10), and $`𝒩(t)`$,

$$𝒩(t)=_0^t𝑑\tau ϵ(\tau )\left|\frac{\eta (\tau )}{\eta (t)}\right|^2,$$
(17)
as follows

$$v(t)=\frac{1}{1+𝒩(t)},x(t)=\mathrm{ln}\frac{\eta (t)}{\sqrt{1+𝒩(t)}},z(t)=1\frac{\left|\eta (t)\right|^2}{1+𝒩(t)}.$$

If the Markovian limit is applied, the preceding formulas reduce to

$$v=\frac{1}{1+\overline{n}(1e^{2(k_1+k_2)t})},x=\mathrm{ln}\frac{e^{(i\omega k_1k_2)t}}{\sqrt{1+\overline{n}(1e^{2(k_1+k_2)t})}},z=\frac{(\overline{n}+1)(1e^{2(k_1+k_2)t})}{1+\overline{n}(1e^{2(k_1+k_2)t)})}.$$
(18)
The evolution superoperator $`𝒰\left(t\right)`$ can be expressed in terms of the original mode operators $`\widehat{𝐚}_i`$ by using the rotation superoperator $`\left(\theta \right)`$ in the following way

$$𝒰(t)=e^{\theta [\widehat{𝐚}_1\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2\widehat{𝐚}_1^{},]}e^{i\omega t[\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2,]}ve^{\left(1v\right)\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_1}e^{x\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_1}e^{x^{}\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_1}e^{z\widehat{𝐚}_1\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}}e^{\theta [\widehat{𝐚}_1\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2\widehat{𝐚}_1^{},]}.$$
(19)
Since the second collective mode is effectively decoupled from the environment, any density operator in the Hilbert space of this mode, times the asymptotic density operator of the coupled collective mode, provided it exists, will experience a unitary evolution. For simplicity we will further on restrict ourselves to the zero temperature case. Any density operator of the form (kets $`|m,n`$ refer to the original modes $`\widehat{𝐚}_i`$):

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\rho }& =\underset{n,m}{}\frac{\rho _{n,m}}{n!m!}\left(\widehat{𝐀}_2^{}\right)^n|0,00,0|\left(\widehat{𝐀}_2\right)^m\hfill \\ & =\underset{n,m}{}\frac{\rho _{n,m}}{n!m!}\left(\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta +\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^n|0,00,0|\left(\widehat{𝐚}_1\mathrm{sin}\theta +\widehat{𝐚}_2\mathrm{cos}\theta \right)^m\hfill \\ & =\underset{n,m,n_1,m_1}{}\rho _{n,m}\frac{\sqrt{n!m!}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{n+mn_1m_1}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{n_1+m_1}}{\sqrt{(nn_1)!n_1!(mm_1)!m_1!}}\hfill \\ & \times |n_1,nn_1m_1,mm_1|,\hfill \end{array}$$
(20)
will be protected against dissipation and decoherence. In fact, applying the evolution superoperator to an initial density matrix of this form, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{\rho }(t)& =\underset{n,m,n_1,m_1}{}e^{i\omega t(nm)}\rho _{n,m}\frac{\sqrt{n!m!}(\mathrm{sin}\theta )^{n+mn_1m_1}(\mathrm{cos}\theta )^{n_1+m_1}}{\sqrt{(nn_1)!n_1!(mm_1)!m_1!}}\hfill \\ & \times |n_1,nn_1m_1,mm_1|,\hfill \end{array}$$
(21)
as one must expect.

Now, we use the evolution superoperator on the initial operator density

$$\widehat{\rho }\left(0\right)=\left(\mathrm{cos}\alpha \right|1,0+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha |0,1\left)\right(\mathrm{cos}\alpha 1,0|+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha 0,1\left|\right),$$
(22)
which can be viewed as a one photon Fock state of the mode given by the creation operator

$$\widehat{𝐀}^{}(\alpha ,\varphi )=\mathrm{cos}\alpha \widehat{𝐚}_1^{}+e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha \widehat{𝐚}_2^{},$$
(23)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\varphi `$ can be compared to Stokes parameters describing polarization. We will obtain how the dissipative properties of the mode $`(\alpha ,\varphi )`$ depend on these parameters. As this is a natural way for experimentally test DFSScience2 , in the next section a more realistic situation is discussed. The above state asymptotically approaches the rank $`2`$ density operator given by

$$\widehat{\rho }_t\mathrm{}=P|\psi \psi \left|+\left(1P\right)\right|0,00,0|$$
(24)
where the state $`|\psi `$ depends only on the individual decay rates $`k_i`$,

$$|\psi =\frac{\sqrt{k_2}|1,0\sqrt{k_1}|0,1}{\sqrt{k_1+k_2}}$$
(25)
and the weight $`P`$ of this state is given by

$$P=\psi \left|\widehat{\rho }\left(0\right)\right|\psi =\left|\frac{\sqrt{k_2}\mathrm{cos}\alpha \sqrt{k_1}e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}\alpha }{\sqrt{k_1+k_2}}\right|^2.$$
(26)
Observe that varying $`\alpha `$ and $`\varphi `$ we can go from total preservation to total leakage. For example, if we set $`\mathrm{tan}(\alpha )=\sqrt{k_1/k_2}`$, and $`\varphi =0`$ then the full state will leak to the ground state $`|0,0`$, since in this case $`\alpha =\theta `$ and the initial photon was in the “superradiant” mode $`\widehat{𝐀}_1`$. On the other hand, if we set $`\mathrm{tan}(\alpha )=\sqrt{k_2/k_1}`$, and $`\varphi =0`$ then the initial state will be exactly equal to $`|\psi `$ (one photon in mode $`\widehat{𝐀}_2`$), and will persist at all times with probability 1 (aside for an unimportant global phase). All other combinations will go to the density operator (24), which can be considered as an ensemble of pure state $`|\psi `$ with probability $`P`$ and the ground state $`|0,0`$ with probability $`1P`$. One can define the asymptotic fidelity, $`F_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha ,\varphi )`$, which is the overlap between the initial and asymptotic density matrices. In the above example it is given by

$$F_{\mathrm{}}(\alpha ,\varphi )=\left|\frac{(\sqrt{k_2}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\sqrt{k_1}e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ))(\sqrt{k_2}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\sqrt{k_1}e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\alpha ))}{k_1+k_2}\right|^2.$$
(27)
## VI Effects of more Realistic Modeling

We remark that the results above were obtained under a number of assumptions, which will be relaxed below. Notice that the use of the rotating wave approximation (RWA) is not essential in obtaining the decoupled mode: any interaction linear in the field operators would be as good (provided the other assumptions hold). Had we chosen an interaction linear in the identical oscillators but nonlinear on the environmental operators we would have obtained also a decoupled collective mode. In these cases, however, the complication would be only of technical nature leading to (much) more complex dynamics.

Another important hypothesis to obtain DFS is that of identical frequencies of the original main oscillators. Of course, any interaction between them would destroy the symmetry upon which the existence of DFS rests. On the other hand, we have assumed that the oscillator-environment coupling satisfies $`g_{ik}=G_iD_k`$, which amounts to a separable coupling. It is not an easy task to find realizations of such interactions in nature given its nonlocal character. However, it might be a good approximation in special circumstances, as e.g. optical cavities. A particular consequence of the separability hypothesis can be seen writing the master equation, in the zero temperature limit, in terms of the original oscillators (with different frequencies for generality)

$`_0`$ $`=`$ $`(i\omega _1k_1)\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_1+(i\omega _1k_1)\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_1+2k_1\widehat{𝐚}_1\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}+`$ (28)
$`(i\omega _2k_2)\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2+(i\omega _2k_2)\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2+2k_2\widehat{𝐚}_2\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}+`$
$`k_3(2\widehat{𝐚}_1\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\widehat{𝐚}_1\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\widehat{𝐚}_1)+k_{3}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(2\widehat{𝐚}_2\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2).`$
The new quantity $`k_3`$ appears since we consider the same environment interacting with both oscillators. These terms can be considered as an interaction between the oscillators mediated by the environment. If the separability condition is fulfilled, $`\left|k_3\right|^2=k_1k_2`$, and if the oscillators are identical, eq. (28) is the same as eq. (13). The other limit case is to consider both oscillators interacting independently with the environment. In this situation, the independence of the phases of the interaction coefficients $`g_{ik}`$ will make their net effect on $`k_3`$ null, and the eq. (28) will just describe two independent damped harmonic oscillators. Our interest is to study the above equation when the conditions for the existence of DFS are almost satisfied, i.e. $`\left|k_3\right|^2k_1k_2`$ and $`\omega _1\omega _2`$. It must be noted that, by Cauchy-Schwarz inequality,$`\left|k_3\right|^2k_1k_2`$.

We should point out that we are not using the usual approach of perturbation theory, of adding a small perturbation $`\epsilon \widehat{𝐇}^{}`$. In Ref. BLW , the authors have shown that DFS are robust up to order $`\epsilon `$ in the perturbation, and all orders in time, so our approach must be connected to second order (in $`\epsilon `$) perturbation.

The explicit solution to this problem is given in the appendix. As is expected, there is no DFS without the separability and degeneracy assumptions, but if we are close to this conditions, we can obtain states much more robust to decoherence and dissipation than others. As in the previous section, consider the one photon states of eq. (22). Then we can define a *weak decoherence mode* (WD), which tends to the DFS when degeneracy and separability are approximated, and a *strong decoherence mode* (SD) which is analogous to the superradiant mode $`\widehat{𝐀}_1`$. We want to explore the slight deviations from separability and degeneracy, so we define $`\delta k`$ and $`\delta \omega `$ by

$$\delta k=\sqrt{k_1k_2}\left|k_3\right|,2\delta \omega =\omega _2\omega _1,$$
(29)
and consider $`\delta \omega \omega _i`$ and $`\delta kk_i`$.

As in the previous section, varying the parameters of the initial state (22) can be interpreted as varying the mode of the initial photon. In the regime discussed above we obtain:

$$\widehat{𝐀}_{\stackrel{\text{SD}}{\text{WD}}}^{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_1+k_2}}\left(\sqrt{k_{\stackrel{1}{2}}}\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\pm \sqrt{k_{\stackrel{2}{1}}}e^{\pm i\frac{\delta \omega }{k}}\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\right),$$
(30)
which must be compared to eq. (23). The new parameter $`k`$ is a kind of effective mean damping, and in the regime here discussed can be considered as $`k\left(k_1+k_2\right)/2`$. Each mode has its own damping constant, and this two are the extrema. Explictly we have

$$k_{WD}=\frac{2\delta k\sqrt{k_1k_2}}{k_1+k_2}\delta k,$$
(31)
for the weak decoherence mode, and

$$k_{SD}=k_1+k_22k$$
(32)
for the strong decoherence mode. One must note that while $`k_{SD}`$ is of the same order as the individual damping constants $`k_i`$, the value of $`k_{WD}`$ can be much lower. In the experiment with ionsScience2  it was exactly this lowering of the damping constant that was exhibited as an evidence of decoherence “free” subspaces. In the same experiment, one can see that the difference in damping constants is much larger in the situation with an engineered noise applied, since in this case the interaction with the environment is much closer to the separability condition.

## VII Concluding Remarks

We have studied decoherence and dissipation free modes for systems of harmonic oscillators. We discussed sufficient conditions for their existence. Although theoretically simple, these conditions are very difficult to be implemented in practical experiments. So we studied the slight deviations of this conditions, and instead of decoherence free subspaces, we obtained *weak decoherence modes*. This suggests that weak decoherence subspaces can be used to store quantum information for times much larger than individual carriers would be able to, even without being rigorous DFS.

We compare DFS to the so called super and subradiance effects of a maser. In fact, when in the last section we compare the damping constants for weak and strong decoherence (eqs. (31) and (32)), this effect mimmimics interference problem, where we are comparing the maximum and the minimum of a certain quantity in which interference effects are recorded (in this case, the damping constant).

It is important to stress that larger deviations of the rigorous conditions for DFS preclude the existence of even weakly decoherence subspaces, by making the decoherence time scales for such states smaller. However, one can conjecture that this kind of mechanism is so general that whenever an experiment obtain quantum mechanical results, it is testing some kind of DFS (e.g. the fullerenes experimentArnetal ).

###### Acknowledgements.

We gratefully acknowledge comments from A. N. Salgueiro. This work was partly funded by FAPESP, CNPq and PRONEX (Brazil), and Colciencias, DINAIN (Colombia). K.M.F.R. gratefully acknowledges the Instituto de Física, Universidade de São Paulo, for their hospitality and PRONEX for partial support.

## Appendix: Realistic model of two oscillators in details

The evolution superoperator for eq.(28) can be expressed asSonia

$`𝒰\left(t\right)`$ $`=`$ $`e^{j_1(t)\widehat{𝐚}_1\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}}e^{j_2(t)\widehat{𝐚}_2\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}}e^{z(t)\widehat{𝐚}_2\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}}e^{z^{}(t)\widehat{𝐚}_1\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}}e^{q(t)\widehat{𝐚}_1\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}}e^{q^{}(t)\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2}e^{m_2(t)\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2}e^{m_2^{}(t)\widehat{𝐚}_2^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2}`$ (33)
$`e^{m_1(t)\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_1}e^{m_1^{}(t)\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_1}e^{q(t)\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2}e^{q^{}(t)\widehat{𝐚}_1^{}\widehat{𝐚}_2}`$
where

$`R={\displaystyle \frac{k_2+k_1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{i\left(\omega _2+\omega _1\right)}{2}},c=k_2k_1+i\left(\omega _2\omega _1\right),r=\sqrt{c^2+4k_3^2},\mathrm{\Delta }_\pm =c\pm r`$ (34)
$`q(t)=2k_3\left(1e^{rt}\right)\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_+e^{rt}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\right)^1\text{for}r0`$ (35)
$`e^{m_1(t)}={\displaystyle \frac{e^{Rt}}{2r}}e^{\frac{rt}{2}}\left(\mathrm{\Delta }_+e^{rt}\mathrm{\Delta }_{}\right),e^{m_2(t)}=e^{2Rt}e^{m_1(t)}`$ (36)
$`j_2(t)=\left(1+|q(t)|^2\right)\left(\left|e^{m_2(t)}\right|^2\right)1`$ (37)
$`j_1(t)=\left|e^{m_1(t)}+q(t)^2e^{m_2(t)}\right|^2+\left(|q(t)|^2\right)\left(\left|e^{m_2(t)}\right|^2\right)1`$ (38)
$`z(t)=q(t)e^{\left(m_1^{}(t)+m_2(t)\right)}q^{}(t)\left(1+|q(t)|^2\right)\left|e^{m_2(t)}\right|^2.`$ (39)
In this calculation neither the separability nor the degeneracy (even approximated) conditions have been used so far. For the sake of comparison we use the same initial condition of section V (eq. (22)). In the general case its time evolution is also given by

$$\widehat{\rho }(t)=P(t)|\psi (t)\psi (t)\left|+(1P(t))\right|0,00,0|$$
(40)
but now the state $`|\psi (t)`$ is,

$$|\psi (t)=\frac{(\mathrm{cos}(\theta )M_{}(t)+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\varphi }Q(t))|1,0+(\mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\varphi }M_+(t)+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )Q(t))|0,1}{\sqrt{P(t)}},$$
(41)
and its coefficient is given by

$$P(t)=\left|\mathrm{cos}(\theta )M_{}(t)+\mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\varphi }Q(t)\right|^2+\left|\mathrm{sin}(\theta )e^{i\varphi }M_+(t)+\mathrm{cos}(\theta )Q(t)\right|^2,$$
(42)
where the functions $`M_\pm (t)`$ and $`Q(t)`$ are given by

$$M_\pm (t)=\frac{e^{Rt}}{2}\left(e^{rt/2}(1\frac{c}{r})+e^{rt/2}(1\pm \frac{c}{r})\right),Q(t)=\frac{k_3}{r}e^{Rt}\left(e^{rt/2}e^{rt/2}\right).$$
(43)
Now, we assume slight deviations from degeneracy and separability, that is, $`\omega _1=\omega \delta \omega `$, $`\omega _2=\omega +\delta \omega `$, $`k_3=\sqrt{k_1k_2}\delta k`$, with $`\delta \omega \omega `$, $`\delta k\sqrt{k_1k_2}`$. Then, the state $`|\psi (t)`$ can be approximated as

$$|\psi (t)=e^{i\omega t}\left(\frac{\zeta _1|1,0+\xi _1|0,1}{\sqrt{P(t)}}e^{(k_1+k_2)t}+\frac{\zeta _2|1,0+\xi _2|0,1}{\sqrt{P(t)}}e^{\frac{2\delta k\sqrt{k_1k_2}}{k_1+k_2}t}\right),$$
(44)
where $`\zeta _i,\xi _i`$ do not have any temporal dependence and are given by

$`\zeta _{\stackrel{1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(k_{\stackrel{1}{2}}i\delta \omega )\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )\pm \sqrt{k_1k_2}\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )e^{i\varphi }}{k_1+k_2}},`$ (45)
$`\xi _{\stackrel{1}{2}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(k_{\stackrel{2}{1}}\pm i\delta \omega )e^{i\varphi }\mathrm{sin}(\alpha )\pm \sqrt{k_1k_2}\mathrm{cos}(\alpha )}{k_1+k_2}}.`$ (46)
In the general case it is not possible to find initial conditions which are completely decoherence free. Nor it is possible to find two orthogonal subspaces with very different characters in what decoherence is concerned. However, we can choose the initial condition as to have a minimal component either in a strong decoherence (SD) or in a weak decoherence (WD) subspaces, by choosing, e.g.

$$tan(\alpha )_{\stackrel{\text{SD}}{\text{WD}}}=\pm \sqrt{\frac{k_{\stackrel{2}{1}}}{k_{\stackrel{1}{2}}}},\varphi _{\stackrel{\text{SD}}{\text{WD}}}=\pm \frac{\delta \omega }{k},$$
(47)
where $`k`$ is some average dissipation constant. The corresponding states, apart from a phase, can be written as

$$|\psi _{\stackrel{\text{SD}}{\text{WD}}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{k_1+k_2}}\left(\sqrt{k_{\stackrel{1}{2}}}|1,0\pm \sqrt{k_{\stackrel{2}{1}}}e^{\pm i\delta \omega /k}|0,1\right).$$
(48)
If $`\delta \omega k_1,k_2`$ the phase can be ignored. Moreover, if $`k_1=k_2`$ then we have $`k=k_1=k_2`$ and the phase can be unaunambiguously determined. The weak decoherence wavefunction defines a mode which is robust against decoherence. The damping constant of this mode can be read from eq. (44) as the value given in eq. (31). Analogously for the strong decoherence mode, with damping constant given by eq. (32).