format: text

text:
# A new family of surfaces with 𝑝_𝑔=0 and 𝐾²=3

## 1. Introduction

The knowledge of surfaces of general type with $`p_g=0`$ continues to be scarce in spite of much progress in surface theory. A minimal surface of general type with $`p_g=0`$ satisfies $`1K^29`$ and examples for all possible values for $`K^2`$ are known (see, e.g., \[BPV\], Ch. VII, §11).

In recent years we have undertaken to study surfaces with $`p_g=0`$ by looking at their bicanonical map, which is generically finite onto a surface for $`K^2>1`$ (cf. \[X1\]). When the bicanonical map is not birational, this approach works and it has allowed us to obtain some classification results and also, in some cases, information on the moduli space (see for instance \[MP2\], \[MP4\], \[Pa2\]).

The first step in describing a class of surfaces with non birational bicanonical map is to analyze the bicanonical image. In \[MP3\] the following theorem has been proved:

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`S`$ be a minimal surface of general type such that $`p_g(S)=0`$, $`K_S^23`$, and let $`\phi :SZ^{K_S^2}`$ be the bicanonical map of $`S`$. If $`\phi `$ is not birational, then either

i) $`Z`$ is a rational surface,

or

ii) $`K_S^2=3`$, $`\phi `$ is a morphism of degree 2 and $`Z^3`$ is an Enriques sextic.

No example of case ii) of the Theorem above appears in the literature. Indeed, the known examples of minimal surfaces of general type with $`p_g=0`$ and $`K_S^2=3`$ are the examples of Burniat and Inoue (\[Bu\], \[In\], see also \[Pe\]), the examples due independently to J.H. Keum and D. Naie (\[Ke\], \[Na\]) and the recent examples due to F. Catanese (\[Ca\]). The degree of the bicanonical map of all these surfaces is equal to 4 (cf.\[MP3\], \[MP2\]), although the Keum-Naie examples are in fact double covers of nodal Enriques surfaces and their bicanonical map factorizes through the covering map, as in case ii) of Theorem 1.1.

In this paper not only we show the existence of surfaces satisfying condition ii), but we give an explicit construction of all such surfaces and we prove that the corresponding subset of the moduli space of surfaces of general type is irreducible and uniruled of dimension 6. The closure of this subset contains the Keum-Naie surfaces (see Proposition 7.5), whose fundamental group is known to be isomorphic to $`_2^2\times _4`$ (cf. \[Na\]). Hence the fundamental group of all the surfaces in case ii) of Theorem 1.1 is also isomorphic to $`_2^2\times _4`$ (see Corollary 7.4).

Our description of surfaces satisfying condition ii) is based on a very detailed study of the normalization of their bicanonical images. These are polarized Enriques surfaces of degree 6 with 7 nodes, satisfying some additional conditions (see Proposition 2.1 and the setting of §3). The analysis and construction of these Enriques surfaces form the bulk of this paper. The main tools we use are the classification of linear systems on an Enriques surface, the analysis of the configuration of singular fibres of certain elliptic pencils, the code associated to the nodes of the surface and the corresponding Galois cover (cf. \[DMP\]).

The plan of the paper is as follows: Section 2 explains the relation between the surfaces satisfying condition ii) of Theorem 1.1 and a certain class of polarized Enriques surfaces $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ with 7 nodes; in Section 3 some properties of these Enriques surfaces are established and some examples are described; in Section 4 we make a very detailed study of the singular fibres of the elliptic pencils of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and we determine the code associated to the nodes of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; in Section 5 we describe a construction yielding pairs $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ and prove that all such pairs are obtained in that way; in Section 6 we introduce and study a quasi-projective variety parametrizing the isomorphism classes of pairs $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ and finally in Section 7 we apply the previous results to describe the family of surfaces satisfying condition ii) of Theorem 1.1.

Notation and conventions: We work over the complex numbers. A node of a surface is an ordinary double point, namely a singularity analytically isomorphic to $`x^2+y^2+z^2=0`$. The exceptional divisor of the minimal resolution of a node is a curve $`C^1`$ such that $`C^2=2`$. A curve with these properties is called $`2`$curve, or nodal curve.

We say that a projective surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with canonical singularities is minimal, of general type, Enriques …if the minimal resolution of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is minimal, of general type, Enriques …. Our standard reference for Enriques surfaces is \[CD\], and we use freely its terminology.

Given an automorphism $`\sigma `$ of a variety $`X`$, we say that a map $`f:XY`$ is composed with $`\sigma `$ if $`f\sigma =f`$. If $`G`$ is a finite group, a $`G`$cover is a finite map $`f:XY`$ of normal varieties together with a faithful $`G`$action on $`X`$ such that $`f`$ is isomorphic to the quotient map $`XX/G`$. If $`G=_2`$, then we say that $`f`$ is a double cover. Contrary to what is often done (cf. for instance \[Pa1\]), we do not require that $`f`$ be flat.

We denote linear equivalence by $``$ and numerical equivalence by $`_{num}`$. The group of line bundles modulo numerical equivalence on a variety $`Y`$ is denoted by $`\mathrm{Num}(Y)`$.

Acknowledgements. The present collaboration takes place in the framework of the european contract EAGER, no. HPRN-CT-2000-00099. It was partially supported by the 1999 Italian P.I.N. “Geometria sulle Varietà Algebriche” and by the “Financiamento Plurianual” of CMAF. The first author is a member of CMAF and of the Departamento de Matemática da Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa and the second author is a member of GNSAGA of CNR.

We are indebted to Igor Dolgachev, Barbara Fantechi and Marco Manetti for useful discussions whilst writing this paper.

## 2. Surfaces with $`p_g=0`$ and $`K^2=3`$ and Enriques surfaces

As explained in the introduction, the bulk of this paper is a very detailed study of a class of polarized Enriques surfaces with 7 nodes. In this section we explain the relation between such Enriques surfaces and a class of minimal surfaces of general type with non birational bicanonical map. Let $`S`$ be a minimal surface of general type with $`p_g(S)=0`$ and $`K_S^2=3`$. We denote by $`\phi :S^3`$ the bicanonical map of $`S`$ and we assume that $`S`$ has an involution $`\sigma `$ such that:

a) $`\phi `$ is composed with $`\sigma `$;

b) the quotient surface $`T:=S/\sigma `$ is birational to an Enriques surface.

We denote by $`X`$ the canonical model of $`S`$. Abusing notation, we denote by the same letter the involution induced by $`\sigma `$ on $`X`$.

###### Proposition 2.1.

In the above setting:

1. the quotient surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:=X/\sigma `$ is an Enriques surface with 7 nodes;
2. the quotient map $`\pi :X\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is branched on the nodes of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and on a divisor $`B`$ with negligible singularities, contained in the smooth part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$;
3. $`B`$ is ample and $`B^2=6`$;
4. the bicanonical system $`|2K_X|=\pi ^{}|B|`$ is base point free;
5. the degree of the bicanonical map of $`S`$ (and $`X`$) is either 2 or 4.

###### Proof.

Since the bicanonical map $`\phi `$ of $`S`$ factorizes through $`\sigma `$, by \[MP2, Prop. 2.1\] the isolated fixed points of $`\sigma `$ are 7. The quotient surface $`T:=S/\sigma `$ has 7 nodes, which are the images of the isolated fixed points of $`\sigma `$. The quotient map $`ST`$ is branched on the nodes and on a smooth divisor $`B_0`$ contained in the smooth part of $`T`$. By Lemma 7 of \[X2\] and the Remark following it, there exists a birational morphism $`r:T\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is an Enriques surface with 7 nodes, such that the exceptional curves of $`r`$ are contained in the smooth part of $`T`$ and the divisor $`B:=r(B_0)`$ has negligible singularities. Let $`SX^{}\stackrel{\pi ^{}}{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ be the Stein factorization of the induced map $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. The map $`\pi ^{}:X^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ is a double cover branched on the nodes of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and on the divisor $`B`$. The singularities of $`X^{}`$ occur above the singularities of $`B`$, hence they are canonical and there is a birational morphism from $`X^{}`$ to the canonical model $`X`$ of $`S`$. More precisely, there is a commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X^{}& & X\\ \pi ^{}& & \pi & & \\ \mathrm{\Sigma }^{}& & \mathrm{\Sigma }\end{array}$$

where the horizontal arrows represent birational morphisms and $`\pi `$, $`\pi ^{}`$ are the quotient maps for the involutions induced by $`\sigma `$ on $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$.

By adjunction we have $`2K_X^{}=\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}(2K_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}+B)=\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}B`$, hence $`B`$ is nef and $`B^2=6`$. Since the bicanonical map of $`X^{}`$ factorizes through $`\pi ^{}`$, we actually have $`|2K_X^{}|=\pi _{}^{}{}_{}{}^{}|B|`$. The same argument as in the proof of \[MP3, Thm. 5.1\] shows that the system $`|B|`$ is free. Thus $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},B)`$ is a pair as in the setting of §3 and we can apply Corollary 3.3, which is proven in §3, showing that $`B`$ is ample. It follows that the horizontal maps in the above diagram are isomorphisms and we can identify $`X`$ with $`X^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. The system $`|B|`$, being free, is not hyperelliptic, therefore by \[Co, Prop. 5.2.1\] either it is birational or it has degree 2. Hence the degree of the bicanonical map of $`X`$ and $`S`$ has degree either 2 or 4. This completes the proof. ∎

The previous Proposition has a converse:

###### Proposition 2.2.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be an Enriques surface with 7 nodes and let $`\pi :X\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be a double cover branched on the nodes of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and on a divisor $`B`$ such that:

a) $`B`$ is ample and $`B^2=6`$;

b) $`B`$ is contained in the smooth part of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and it has negligible singularities.

Then $`X`$ is the canonical model of a minimal surface $`S`$ of general type with $`p_g(S)=0`$ and $`K_S^2=3`$ and the bicanonical map of $`S`$ factorizes through the map $`S\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.
Condition a) can be replaced by:

a’) $`|B|`$ is free and $`B^2=6`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that conditions a) and b) are satisfied.
The singular points of $`X`$ lie above the singularities of $`B`$. Since $`B`$ has negligible singularities, the singularities of $`X`$ are canonical and one has $`2K_X=\pi ^{}B`$. Since $`B`$ is ample, $`K_X`$ is also ample and $`X`$ is the canonical model of a surface $`S`$ of general type. One has $`K_S^2=K_X^2=\frac{1}{2}B^2=3`$. To compute the birational invariants $`\chi (S)`$ and $`p_g(S)`$, we consider the minimal resolution of singularities $`\eta :Y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the flat double cover $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{X}Y`$ obtained from $`\pi `$ by taking base change with $`\eta `$. The surface $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ has canonical singularities and it is birational to $`X`$ and $`S`$. The branch locus of $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ consists of the inverse image $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ of $`B`$ and of the $`2`$curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ that are exceptional for $`\eta `$. So $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is given by a relation $`2L\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$, where $`L`$ is a line bundle on $`Y`$. A standard computation gives $`\chi (S)=\chi (\stackrel{~}{X})=\chi (Y)+\chi (L^1)=1`$. By Kawamata–Viehweg vanishing one has $`h^i(K_Y+L)=0`$ for $`i>0`$, hence $`p_g(S)=p_g(\stackrel{~}{X})=h^0(K_Y+L)=\chi (K_Y+L)=0`$.

Since the singularities of the branch divisor $`B`$ of $`\pi `$ are negligible, it is well known that the smooth minimal model $`S`$ of $`X`$ can be obtained by repeatedly blowing up $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ at the singular points of $`B`$ and taking base change and normalization. Hence the involution of $`S`$ induced by $`\sigma `$ has the same number of isolated base points as $`\sigma `$, that is 7, and the bicanonical map factorizes through it by \[MP2, Prop. 2.1\].

If a’) holds, then $`B`$ is ample by Corollary 3.3, and so condition a’) implies condition a). ∎

## 3. Enriques surfaces with 7 nodes: examples

Recall that for Enriques surfaces we adopt the notation and the terminology of \[CD\]. Our notation for the singular fibres of an elliptic pencil is the same as in \[BPV\], Ch. V, §7.

In this section we consider the following situation:

Set–up: $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a nodal Enriques surface with 7 nodes, $`|B|`$ is a base point free linear system of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that $`B^2=6`$. We denote by $`\eta :Y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the minimal desingularization and by $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ the disjoint nodal curves contracted by $`\eta `$, and we set $`\stackrel{~}{B}:=\eta ^{}B`$. Furthermore, we assume that there exists $`L\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7=2L`$.

###### Remark 3.1.

The choice of this set–up is suggested by the results of the previous section. Indeed, the condition that the class $`\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ be divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$ means that, given a curve $`\stackrel{~}{B}|\stackrel{~}{B}|`$, there exists a double cover $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{X}Y`$ branched on the union of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is disjoint from $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ (recall that $`\stackrel{~}{B}N_i=0`$) and it has at most negligible singularities, then the surface $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ has canonical singularities, occurring above the singularities of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},7`$, one has $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}N_i=2C_i`$, where $`C_i`$ is a $`1`$curve contained in the smooth part of $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$. If we denote by $`X`$ the surface obtained by contracting the $`C_i`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ induces a double cover $`\pi :X\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ branched over the image $`B`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and over the nodes of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. By Proposition 2.2, $`X`$ is the canonical model of a minimal surface of general type with $`p_g=0`$ and $`K^2=3`$ and the bicanonical map of $`X`$ factorizes through $`\pi `$.

Notice that, since $`Y`$ is an Enriques surface, the line bundle $`L+K_Y`$ also satisfies the relation $`2(L+K_Y)\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$, so that a pair $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ as in the set–up determines two non-isomorphic double covers of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with the same branch locus.

In order to describe some examples, we need to prove first some general facts.

###### Proposition 3.2.

There exist three elliptic half-pencils $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1,\stackrel{~}{E}_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$ on $`Y`$ such that:

1. $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i\stackrel{~}{E}_j=1`$ for $`ij`$;
2. $`|\stackrel{~}{B}|=|\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2+\stackrel{~}{E}_3|`$

###### Proof.

Notice that the system $`|\stackrel{~}{B}|`$, being base point free, is not hyperelliptic. Hence, if $`|\stackrel{~}{B}|`$ is not as stated, then by Proposition 5.2.1 and Theorem 5.3.6 of \[Co\] there are the following possibilities:

* $`|\stackrel{~}{B}|=|2\stackrel{~}{E}_0+\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\theta _2|`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_0\stackrel{~}{E}_1=\stackrel{~}{E}_0\theta _2=1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1\theta _2=0`$
* $`|\stackrel{~}{B}|=|3\stackrel{~}{E}_0+2\theta _0+\theta _1|`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_0\theta _0=\theta _0\theta _1=1`$,$`\stackrel{~}{E}_0\theta _1=0`$

where $`\stackrel{~}{E}_m`$ are elliptic half-pencils and $`\theta _m`$ are nodal curves, $`m=0,1,2`$. Consider the nodal curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ and recall that $`\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$.

In case 1), suppose first that $`\theta _2`$ is not one of the curves $`N_i`$. Since $`N_i\stackrel{~}{B}=0`$, necessarily the curves $`\theta _2,N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ are disjoint and so by Lemma 4.2 of \[MP3\] the divisor $`\theta _2+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$. Hence also $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$ is divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$, a contradiction. So $`\theta _2`$ is one of the curves $`N_i`$, say $`\theta _2=N_7`$. Then there exists $`L\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$ such that $`D=\stackrel{~}{E}_1+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_6=2L`$ and we get $`D^2=12`$ and $`L^2=3`$, contradicting the fact that the intersection form on an Enriques surface is even.

Consider now case 2). As in case 1), if neither of the curves $`\theta _0,\theta _1`$ is one of the nodal curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$, we conclude that the half-pencil $`\stackrel{~}{E}_0`$ is divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$, a contradiction. If $`\theta _1`$ is one of the curves $`N_i`$, we also arrive at a contradiction as in case 1). Finally suppose that $`\theta _0`$ is one of the curves $`N_i`$, say $`N_7`$. Then $`\stackrel{~}{E}_0(N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7)=1`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{E}_0\stackrel{~}{B}=2`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is not divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$, a contradiction.

So $`|\stackrel{~}{B}|`$ is as stated. ∎

###### Corollary 3.3.

The divisor $`B`$ is ample on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Proof.

Denote by $`_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ the set of irreducible curves $`C`$ of $`Y`$ with $`\stackrel{~}{B}C=0`$. By \[CD, Cor. 4.1.1\], $`_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ is a finite set and the corresponding classes are independent in $`\mathrm{Num}(Y)`$. By Proposition 3.2, we can write $`\stackrel{~}{B}=\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2+\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$, where the $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$ are elliptic half–pencils. If we denote by $`V`$ the subspace of $`\mathrm{Num}(Y)`$ spanned by the classes of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1,\stackrel{~}{E}_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$, then the classes of the curves of $`_{\stackrel{~}{B}}`$ belong to $`V^{}`$, which has dimension 7. So we have $`_{\stackrel{~}{B}}=\{N_1,\mathrm{},N_7\}`$ and $`B=\eta _{}\stackrel{~}{B}`$ is ample on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. ∎

The following is a partial converse to Proposition 3.2:

###### Lemma 3.4.

Let $`Y`$ be a smooth Enriques surface containing 7 disjoint nodal curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$. Assume that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1,\stackrel{~}{E}_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$ are elliptic half pencils on $`Y`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i\stackrel{~}{E}_j=1`$ if $`ij`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_iN_j=0`$ for every $`i,j`$. If we set $`\stackrel{~}{B}:=\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2+\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Num}(Y)`$.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`\mathrm{Num}(Y)`$ is an even unimodular lattice of rank 10.
Let $`M`$ be the sublattice of $`\mathrm{Num}(Y)`$ spanned by the classes of $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$. The discriminant of $`M`$ is equal to 3, hence $`M`$ is primitive. Let $`M^{}`$ be the sublattice spanned by the classes of the $`N_i`$ and by the class of $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$. The primitive closure of $`M^{}`$ is $`M^{}`$ and the code $`W`$ associated to the set of classes $`\stackrel{~}{B},N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ is naturally isomorphic to the quotient group $`M^{}/M^{}`$. Computing discriminants one gets:

$$2^83=disc(M^{})=disc(M^{})2^{2dimW}=disc(M)2^{2dimW}=32^{2dimW},$$

namely $`dimW=4`$. Using the fact that the intersection form on $`Y`$ is even, it is easy to check that the elements of $`W`$ have weight divisible by 4. Since $`W`$ has length 8, this implies that $`W`$ is the extended Hamming code (see, e.g., \[Li\]), and in particular it contains the vector of weight 8, i.e., $`\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Num}(Y)`$. ∎

For $`i=1,2,3`$, we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i^{}`$ the unique effective divisor in $`|\stackrel{~}{E}_i+K_Y|`$ and we write $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|=|2\stackrel{~}{E}_i|=|2\stackrel{~}{E}_i^{}|`$. Thus $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ is an elliptic pencil with double fibres $`2\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$ and $`2\stackrel{~}{E}_i^{}`$. The classes $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$ are nef, hence $`\stackrel{~}{B}N_j=0`$ implies $`\stackrel{~}{E}_iN_j=0`$ for every $`i,j`$ and therefore for $`i=1,2,3`$ $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ induces an elliptic pencil $`|F_i|=|2E_i|=|2E_i^{}|`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`E_i=\eta _{}\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$, $`E_i^{}=\eta _{}\stackrel{~}{E}_i^{}`$ and $`B=E_1+E_2+E_3`$.

###### Example 3.5.

This example appears in \[Na\] and in an unpublished paper by J. Keum (\[Ke\]). One considers an Enriques surface $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ with 8 nodes as in Example 1 of \[MP3\]. The surface $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ has two isotrivial elliptic pencils $`|F_1|`$ and $`|F_2|`$ with $`F_1F_2=4`$. The system $`|F_1+F_2|`$ gives a degree 2 morphism onto a Del Pezzo quartic in $`^4`$ such that the nodes of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ are mapped to smooth points (cf. \[Na, §2\]). We take $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be the surface obtained by resolving one of the nodes $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and we denote by $`C`$ the corresponding nodal curve. We denote by the same letter the pull–backs of $`|F_1|`$, $`|F_2|`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and we set $`B:=F_1+F_2C`$. By the above discussion, the system $`|B|`$ is free and it gives a degree 2 map onto a Del Pezzo cubic in $`^3`$. By \[MP3, Lemma 4.2\], the class of $`N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7+C`$ is divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$, hence the class of $`\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is also divisible by 2.

Let $`2E_i`$ be a double fibre of $`F_i`$, $`i=1,2`$. By Riemann–Roch there exists an effective divisor $`E_3E_1+E_2C`$. We have $`E_3^2=0`$ and $`E_1E_3=E_2E_3=1`$. We claim that $`E_3`$ is an elliptic half-pencil, so that $`BE_1+E_2+E_3`$ as predicted by Proposition 3.2.

We now work on the non singular surface $`Y`$ and, as usual, we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ the pull back on $`Y`$ of a divisor $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`G_i|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$, $`i=1,2`$, be the fibre containing $`C`$. By the description of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ given in \[MP3\], $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ are fibres of type $`I_0^{}`$ and the divisor $`G_3:=G_1+G_22C`$ is an elliptic configuration of type $`I_2^{}`$. It follows that $`|G_3|`$ is an elliptic pencil and that $`2\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$ is a double fibre of $`|G_3|`$.

###### Example 3.6.

Let $`𝒞^3`$ be the Cayley cubic, defined by $`x_1x_2x_3+x_0x_2x_3+x_0x_1x_3+x_0x_1x_2=0`$. The singularities of $`𝒞`$ are 4 nodes, that occur at the coordinate points and form an even set. The 6 lines joining the nodes are of course contained in $`𝒞`$. We label these lines by $`e_1,e_1^{},e_2,e_2^{},e_3,e_3^{}`$ in such a way that for $`i=1,2,3`$ $`e_i,e_i^{}`$ is a pair of skew lines and $`e_1,e_2,e_3^{}`$ are coplanar. The surface $`𝒞`$ contains 3 more lines $`l_1,l_2,l_3`$, contained in the plane $`x_0+x_1+x_2+x_3=0`$. An elementary geometric argument shows that, up to a permutation of the indices, we may assume that the line $`l_i`$ meets $`e_i,e_i^{}`$ and it does not meet $`e_j,e_j^{}`$ for $`ij`$. For $`i=1,2,3`$ we denote by $`|f_i|`$ the moving part of the linear system cut out on $`𝒞`$ by the planes containing the line $`l_i`$. The general $`f_i`$ is a smooth conic, hence one has $`K_𝒞f_i=2`$, $`f_i^2=0`$ and $`f_if_j=2`$ for $`ij`$. The singular fibres of $`|f_i|`$ are $`2e_i`$, $`2e_i^{}`$ and $`l_j+l_k`$, where $`i,j,k`$ is a permutation of $`1,2,3`$.

Consider a curve $`D|𝒪_𝒞(2)|`$ such that $`D`$ is contained in the smooth part of $`𝒞`$ and it has at most simple singularities. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the double cover of $`𝒞`$ branched on $`D`$ and on the four nodes of $`𝒞`$. The surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ has canonical singularities, occurring over the singular points of $`D`$. Standard computations (cf. the proof of Proposition 2.2) show that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is an Enriques surface and that the pull back of the system of hyperplanes of $`^3`$ is a complete system $`|B^{}|`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`B_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=6`$. For $`i=1,2,3`$, we consider on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the system $`|F_i|`$ obtained by pulling back $`|f_i|`$. The system $`|F_i|`$ is an elliptic pencil, with double fibres $`2E_i`$ and $`2E_i^{}`$, where $`E_i`$, $`E_i^{}`$ are the pull backs of $`e_i`$, and $`e_i^{}`$, respectively. For $`ij`$ one has $`E_iE_j=1`$. Furthermore, $`B^{}E_1+E_2+E_3^{}`$.

Figure 3.6

We consider now a special case of the above construction: we take $`D`$ to be the union of the section $`H_0`$ of $`𝒞`$ with the plane $`x_0+x_1+x_2+x_3=0`$ and of the section $`H`$ with a general hyperplane tangent to $`𝒞`$. So $`H`$ has an ordinary double point at the tangency point and is smooth elsewhere and $`H`$ and $`H_0`$ intersect transversely at 3 points. The surface $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ thus obtained has 7 nodes, occurring above the singularities of $`H_0+H`$. As usual we denote by $`\eta :Y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the minimal resolution and by $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ the exceptional curves of $`\eta `$. The strict transform on $`Y`$ of the line $`l_i`$ is a nodal curve $`A_i`$. It is not difficult to check that one can relabel the curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ in such a way that $`N_7`$ corresponds to the singularity of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ above the double point of $`H`$ and the incidence relations of the set of curves $`A_1,A_2,A_3,N_1,\mathrm{},N_6`$ are as shown in the dual graph in Figure 3.6

As usual we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i^{}`$, $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$, $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{}`$ the pull backs on $`Y`$ of $`E_i`$, $`E_i^{}`$, $`F_i`$, $`B^{}`$. The singular fibre $`G_i`$ of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ corresponding to the fibre $`l_j+l_k`$ of $`|f_i|`$ is of type $`I_2^{}`$. More precisely, we have $`G_1=N_2+N_3+N_5+N_6+2(A_3+A_2+N_1)`$, $`G_2=N_1+N_3+N_4+N_6+2(A_3+A_1+N_2)`$, $`G_3=N_1+N_2+N_4+N_5+2(A_1+A_2+N_3)`$. By Lemma 3.4, one of the classes $`B^{}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ and $`B^{}+K_Y+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is divisible by $`2`$ in $`\mathrm{Num}(Y)`$. We will show later (Corollary 4.5) that the second case actually occurs. Hence we set $`B:=B^{}+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

Examples 3.5 and 3.6 share the common feature that either the system $`|B|`$ or the system $`|B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$ is not birational. The next example shows that this does not happen in general.

###### Example 3.7.

By deforming Example 1 we show the existence of a pair $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ such that both $`|B|`$ and $`|B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$ are birational .

We start with a pair $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0,B_0)`$ as in Example 3.5. The Kuranishi family $`p:𝒴U`$ of the minimal resolution $`Y_0`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is smooth of dimension 10 by \[BPV, Thm. VIII.19.3\]. We may assume that $`U`$ is contractible and that the family $`𝒴`$ is differentiably trivial. Hence for every fibre $`Y_t:=p^1(t)`$ the inclusion $`Y_t𝒴`$ induces an isomorphism $`H^2(Y_t,)\stackrel{}{}H^2(𝒴,)`$. The Leray spectral sequence gives $`h^1(𝒴,𝒪_𝒴)=h^2(𝒴,𝒪_𝒴)=0`$, hence by the exponential sequence every integral cohomology class of $`𝒴`$ comes from a unique holomorphic line bundle. In particular, there exist line bundles $`\stackrel{~}{_1},\stackrel{~}{_2},\stackrel{~}{_3},𝒩_1,\mathrm{},𝒩_7,𝒞`$ that restrict on the central fibre $`Y_0`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1,\stackrel{~}{E}_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$, $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7,C`$, respectively. We set $`\stackrel{~}{}:=\stackrel{~}{_1}+\stackrel{~}{_2}+\stackrel{~}{_3}`$ and for $`tU`$ we denote by $`\stackrel{~}{B}_t`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_{i,t}`$, $`N_{i,t}`$, $`C_t`$ the restrictions to $`Y_t`$ of the above bundles. Obviously, the class of $`\stackrel{~}{B}_t+N_{1,t}+\mathrm{}+N_{7,t}`$ is divisible by 2 in $`H^2(Y_t,)`$ for every $`tU`$.

By \[BW, Theorem 3.7\], the subset $`U_1`$ of $`U`$ where the classes $`N_{i,t}`$ are effective and irreducible is smooth of dimension 3, while the subset $`U_2`$ of $`U_1`$ where also $`C_t`$ is effective is smooth of dimension $`2`$. Since $`C_t\stackrel{~}{E}_{1,t}+\stackrel{~}{E}_{2,t}\stackrel{~}{E}_{3,t}`$, by \[CD, Thm. 4.7.2\] the system $`\stackrel{~}{B}_t`$ is birational for $`tU_1U_2`$. On the other hand, by semicontinuity we may assume that $`\stackrel{~}{B}_t+K_{Y_t}`$ is birational for every $`tU`$, since it is birational on the central fibre $`Y_0`$. So the required example can be obtained by taking $`Y_t`$ with $`tU_1U_2`$ and by blowing down the nodal curves $`N_{1,t},\mathrm{},N_{7,t}`$.

## 4. Enriques surfaces with 7 nodes: codes and singular fibres

We keep the set–up and the notation of the previous section.
Here we make a detailed study of the code associated to the nodal curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ and of the singular fibres of the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$. These results are needed in the following section, where we give a construction of all the pairs $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ as in the set–up of §3.

We denote by $`V`$ and $`V_{num}`$, respectively, the code and the numerical code associated to $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ (cf. \[MP3, §2\]). Namely, $`V`$ is the kernel of the map $`_2^7\mathrm{Pic}(Y)/2\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$ that maps $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)`$ to the class of $`x_1N_1+\mathrm{}+x_7N_7`$. The code $`V_{num}`$ is defined in analogous way, replacing $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$ by $`\mathrm{Num}(Y)`$. Clearly, $`V`$ is a subcode of $`V_{num}`$ of codimension $`1`$. We say that a divisor $`D`$ is even if it is divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$. In particular, if $`D=x_iN_i`$ then $`D`$ is even if and only if $`(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)V`$ (we denote by the same letter the integer $`x_i`$ and its class in $`_2`$).

###### Lemma 4.1.

$`dimV_{num}=3`$.

###### Proof.

Since the determinant of the matrix $`(\stackrel{~}{E}_i\stackrel{~}{E}_j)_{i,j=1\mathrm{}3}`$ is equal to 2, the classes $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1,\stackrel{~}{E}_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$ span a primitive sublattice $`L`$ of rank 3 of $`\mathrm{Num}(Y)`$. If $`L^{}`$ is the sublattice spanned by the classes $`N_1,\mathrm{}N_7`$, then $`V_{num}`$ is isomorphic to the quotient group $`L^{}/L^{}`$. So we have

$$2^7=disc(L^{})=2^{2dimV_{num}}disc(L^{})=2^{2dimV_{num}}disc(L),$$

namely $`dimV_{num}=3`$.

###### Lemma 4.2.

The linear system $`|B|`$ separates the nodes of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

###### Proof.

This follows by \[CD, Lemma 4.6.3\]. ∎

###### Lemma 4.3.

Denote by $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_7`$ the image points of $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ via the system $`|\stackrel{~}{B}|`$. If $`N_1+N_2+N_3+N_4`$ is an even divisor, then $`P_5,P_6,P_7`$ are collinear.

###### Proof.

Notice first of all that the points $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_7`$ are distinct by Lemma 4.2.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is even by assumption, there exists $`M\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$ such that $`2M\stackrel{~}{B}N_5N_6N_7`$. Set $`M^{}:=M+K_Y`$. Since $`M^2=M_{}^{}{}_{}{}^{2}=0`$, there exist effective divisors $`D|M|`$ and $`D^{}|M^{}|`$. So the linear system $`|\stackrel{~}{B}N_5N_6N_7|`$ contains two distinct divisors $`2D`$ and $`2D^{}`$, hence it has positive dimension. This means that $`P_5,P_6,P_7`$ lie on a line. ∎

###### Proposition 4.4.

The code $`V`$ has dimension 2.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 4.1, to show that $`dimV=2`$ it is enough to show that $`VV_{num}`$. So assume by contradiction that $`V=V_{num}`$. Since $`dimV=3`$ and all the elements of $`V`$ have weight 4, $`V`$ is isomorphic to the Hamming code (see, e.g., \[Li\]). By the definition of the Hamming code, the set of indices $`\{1,\mathrm{},7\}`$ is in one-to-one correspondence with the nonzero vectors of $`_2^3`$. The vectors corresponding to distinct indices $`i_1`$, $`i_2`$, $`i_3`$ span a plane of $`_2^3`$ if and only if there is $`v=(x_1,\mathrm{},x_7)V\{0\}`$ such that $`x_{i_1}=x_{i_2}=x_{i_3}=0`$. By Lemma 4.3, this happens if and only if the points $`P_{i_1},P_{i_2},P_{i_3}`$ lie on a line in $`^3`$. Hence the points $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_7`$ form a configuration isomorphic to the finite plane $`^2(_2)`$. Since the line through two of the $`P_i`$ contains a third point of the set, it is easy to check that $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_7`$ lie in a plane. On the other hand, it is well known that the plane $`^2(_2)`$ cannot be embedded in $`^2()`$. So we have a contradiction and the proof is complete. ∎

We are now able to complete the description of Example 3.6:

###### Corollary 4.5.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the surface of Example 3.6. Then $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{}+K_Y+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$.

###### Proof.

In the notation of Example 3.6 we have $`G_1=2(A_2+A_3+N_1)+N_2+N_3+N_5+N_62\stackrel{~}{E}_1`$, hence $`N_2+N_3+N_5+N_6`$ is an even divisor. The same argument shows that the divisors $`N_1+N_2+N_4+N_5`$ and $`N_1+N_3+N_4+N_6`$ are also even. By Proposition 4.4 these are the only non zero elements of $`V`$.

By Lemma 3.4 we know that one of the classes $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{}+K_Y+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is even. Assume by contradiction that $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is even. Pulling back to $`Y`$ the section of $`𝒞`$ with $`H_0`$ we get $`\stackrel{~}{B}^{}2(A_1+A_2+A_3+N_1+N_2+N_3)+N_4+N_5+N_6`$. Hence it follows that $`N_1+N_2+N_3+N_7`$ is also an even divisor, a contradiction. ∎

The next result describes the possible configurations of singular fibres of the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ and relates them to the properties of the systems $`|B|`$ and $`|B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$.

###### Theorem 4.6.

The possible configurations of fibres with singular support of the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ are the following:

* up to a permutation of the indices, the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_2|`$ are isotrivial with 2 fibres of type $`I_0^{}`$, while $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_3|`$ has a fibre of type $`I_2^{}`$ and two fibres of type $`I_2`$ or $`{}_{2}{}^{}I_{2}^{}`$.
In this case the system $`|B|`$ has degree 2 and the system $`|B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$ is birational.
* each of the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ has a fibre of type $`I_2^{}`$ and two fibres of type $`I_2`$ or $`{}_{2}{}^{}I_{2}^{}`$. The dual graph of the set of nodal curves that form the $`I_2^{}`$ fibres is the same as in Figure 3.6.
In this case $`|B|`$ is birational and $`|B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$ has degree 2.
* each of the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ has a fibre of type $`I_0^{}`$ and three fibres of type $`I_2`$ or $`{}_{2}{}^{}I_{2}^{}`$.
In this case the systems $`|B|`$ and $`|B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$ are both birational.

###### Remark 4.7.

The proof of Theorem 4.6 below actually shows more, namely that case 1) of Theorem 4.6 corresponds exactly to Example 3.5 (cf. Lemma 4.10) and that case 2) corresponds exactly to Example 3.6.

The proof of Theorem 4.6 is somewhat involved and requires some auxiliary lemmas.

###### Lemma 4.8.

Assume that for $`ij`$, the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_j|`$ on $`Y`$ have singular fibres of type $`I_0^{}`$ or $`I_2^{}`$, $`G_i=2C_i+N_{i_1}+\mathrm{}+N_{i_4}`$, respectively $`G_j=2C_j+N_{j_1}+\mathrm{}+N_{j_4}`$.
Then $`C_iC_j=0`$ and the set $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_4\}\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_4\}`$ consists of two elements.

###### Proof.

The curve $`C_i`$ is irreducible if $`G_i`$ is of type $`I_0^{}`$ and it is a chain of 3 nodal curves if $`G_i`$ is of type $`I_2^{}`$. One has: $`4=\stackrel{~}{F}_i\stackrel{~}{F}_j=G_iG_j=2C_iG_j`$, namely $`C_i(2C_j+N_{j_1}+\mathrm{}+N_{j_4})=2`$. We remark that $`C_iN_{j_t}`$ is equal to 1 if $`j_t\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_4\}`$, and it is equal to 0 otherwise. Since there are 7 of the $`N_i`$, one has $`C_i(N_{j_1}+\mathrm{}+N_{j_4})>0`$. So either we have $`C_iC_j=0`$ and $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_4\}\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_4\}`$ consists of two elements, or $`C_iC_j=1`$ and $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_4\}=\{j_1,\mathrm{},j_4\}`$.

Assume by contradiction that we are in the second case. This implies in particular that $`C_i`$ and $`C_j`$ are not both irreducible. Assume that $`C_i`$ is irreducible. Then $`C_j`$ is a chain of 3 nodal curves $`C_j=A_1+N+A_2`$ such that each of the “end” curves $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$ meets exactly two of the curves $`N_{i_1},\mathrm{},N_{i_4}`$ and the “central” curve $`N`$ is one of the $`N_i`$. In fact, if $`N`$ were not one of the $`N_i`$, then the classes of $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7,N,A_1,A_2`$, being independent, would be a basis of $`H^2(Y,)`$, against the Index Theorem. Furthermore, from $`C_iC_j=1`$ it follows that $`C_i`$ is equal to $`A_1`$ or $`A_2`$, a contradiction, since $`C_i`$ meets all the curves $`N_{i_1},\mathrm{},N_{i_4}`$. So we have $`C_j=A_1+N+A_2`$ as above and, with an analogous notation, $`C_i=B_1+N^{}+B_2`$, where $`N^{}`$ is again one of the $`N_i`$.

Observe that $`\theta C_i1`$ for every irreducible curve $`\theta `$. Since $`N^{}`$ and $`N`$ are different from $`N_{i_1},\mathrm{},N_{i_4}`$, the relations $`N^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_j=0`$, $`N\stackrel{~}{F}_i=0`$ give: $`N^{}C_j=NC_i=0`$ and $`1=C_iC_j=(A_1+A_2)C_i`$, hence, say, $`A_1C_i=1`$, $`A_2C_i=0`$. So we can assume that $`A_1=B_1`$, while $`A_2`$ is disjoint from $`C_i`$ and $`B_2`$ is disjoint from $`C_j`$. Say that $`A_1=B_1`$ meets the curves $`N_{i_1}`$ and $`N_{i_2}`$. Then the connected divisor $`\mathrm{\Delta }=N_{i_1}+N_{i_2}+A_1+N+N^{}`$ is orthogonal to both $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{F}_j`$, so its support is contained in both in $`G_i`$ and $`G_j`$. If $`NN^{}`$, then the intersection form on the components of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is semidefinite, hence by Zariski’s Lemma $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the support of both $`G_i`$ and $`G_j`$, but this is impossible. Hence $`N=N^{}`$, but this contradicts the fact that $`A_2`$ and $`C_i`$ are disjoint. ∎

###### Lemma 4.9.

1. The fibres with reducible support that occur in the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ can be of the following types: $`I_2`$, $`{}_{2}{}^{}I_{2}^{}`$, $`I_0^{}`$, $`I_2^{}`$;
2. each pencil $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ has at least a fibre of type $`I_0^{}`$ or $`I_2^{}`$;
3. a fibre of type $`I_0^{}`$ of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ contains 3 or 4 of the $`N_i`$, each with multiplicity 1, and a fibre of type $`I_2^{}`$ contains 4 of the $`N_i`$ with multiplicity 1 and one with multiplicity 2.

###### Proof.

We recall first of all that the multiple fibres of an elliptic pencil are of type $`mI_k`$, $`k0`$ (\[BPV\], Ch. V, §7) and that the multiple fibres of an elliptic pencil on an Enriques surface are precisely two double fibres (\[BPV\], Ch. VIII). The nodal curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ are contained in fibres of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$. For every singular fibre $`F_s`$ of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$, we denote by $`r(F_s)`$ the number of irreducible curves contained in $`F_s`$ and different from $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$. Since the subspace orthogonal to the class of $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ in $`H^2(Y,)`$ has dimension 9, Zariski’s Lemma implies that $`8+_{F_s}(r(F_s)1)9`$, namely $`r(F_s)2`$ for every singular fibre $`F_s`$ of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ and there is at most one singular fibre $`F_s`$ with $`r(F_s)=2`$. This shows that the possible types are $`{}_{m}{}^{}I_{2}^{}`$, $`{}_{m}{}^{}I_{3}^{}`$, $`{}_{m}{}^{}I_{4}^{}`$, $`I_0^{}`$, $`I_1^{}`$, $`I_2^{}`$, $`III`$, $`IV`$ and that, except possibly one, the fibres with reducible support are of type $`{}_{m}{}^{}I_{2}^{}`$, $`III`$ or $`I_0^{}`$. On the other hand, we have $`12=c_2(Y)=_{F_s\mathrm{singular}}e(F_s)`$, hence the quantity $`_{F_s\mathrm{reducible}}e(F_s)`$ is $`12`$. Using this remark and the fact that the 7 curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ are contained in fibres of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ it is easy to show that types $`{}_{m}{}^{}I_{3}^{}`$, $`I_1^{}`$, $`III`$ and $`IV`$ cannot occur and that the fibres cannot all be of type $`{}_{m}{}^{}I_{2}^{}`$ or $`{}_{m}{}^{}I_{4}^{}`$. This proves (ii).

Now assume that, say, $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1|`$ has a fibre $`G_1`$ of type $`I_4`$ (or $`{}_{2}{}^{}I_{4}^{}`$). Then $`G_1`$ contains two of the $`N_i`$, hence we can write the support of $`G_1`$ as $`C_1+C_2+N_1+N_2`$, where $`C_1C_2=0`$, $`C_iN_j=1`$. Assume that $`C_1\stackrel{~}{E}_2=0`$. Then the connected fundamental cycle $`C_1+N_1+N_2`$ is contained in a reducible fibre $`G_2`$ of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_2|`$. Since $`C_1N_i=0`$ for $`i>2`$, the fibre $`G_2`$ is necessarily of type $`I_4`$ (or $`{}_{2}{}^{}I_{4}^{}`$). Since $`r(G_1)=r(G_2)=2`$ by the above discussion and by (ii) it follows that both $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_2|`$ have fibres $`G_1^{}`$, respectively $`G_2^{}`$, of type $`I_0^{}`$ and that the nodal curves appearing with multiplicity 1 in $`G_1^{}`$ and $`G_2^{}`$ are a subset of $`\{N_3,\mathrm{},N_7\}`$, contradicting Lemma 4.8. This shows that the intersection numbers $`C_1\stackrel{~}{E}_2,C_1\stackrel{~}{E}_3,C_2\stackrel{~}{E}_2,C_2\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$ are all strictly positive. Since $`4=(\stackrel{~}{E}_2+\stackrel{~}{E}_3)\stackrel{~}{F}_1=(\stackrel{~}{E}_2+\stackrel{~}{E}_3)G_1C_1\stackrel{~}{E}_2+C_1\stackrel{~}{E}_3+C_2\stackrel{~}{E}_2+C_2\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$, these numbers are all equal to 1. So the class of $`C_1C_2`$ is orthogonal to $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7,\stackrel{~}{E}_1,\stackrel{~}{E}_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$. Since the classes of $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7,\stackrel{~}{E}_1,\stackrel{~}{E}_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$ are a basis of $`H^2(Y,)`$, the class $`C_1C_2`$ is numerically equivalent to 0. On the other hand, we have $`(C_1C_2)^2=4`$, a contradiction. This finishes the proof of (i).

Statement (iii) follows by examining the admissible types of fibres, recalling that $`r(F_s)2`$ for every singular fibre $`F_s`$. ∎

###### Lemma 4.10.

Assume that there exists a nodal curve $`CY`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1C=N_1C=\mathrm{}=N_7C=0`$. Then we have case 1) of Theorem 4.6.

###### Proof.

By \[MP3, Lemma 4.2\], the divisor $`C+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$. Hence $`C\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$ is even for $`i=1,2,3`$. The curve $`C`$ is contained in a fibre of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1|`$, hence $`C(\stackrel{~}{E}_2+\stackrel{~}{E}_3)=C\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{B}\stackrel{~}{F}_1=4`$.

On the other hand, since $`\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is also even, the divisor $`\stackrel{~}{B}+C`$ is even and so $`(\stackrel{~}{B}+C)^2=4+2\stackrel{~}{B}C`$ is divisible by 8. Hence we have $`\stackrel{~}{B}C=2`$. From $`2=\stackrel{~}{B}C=C\stackrel{~}{E}_2+C\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$, it follows, say, $`C\stackrel{~}{E}_2=0`$, $`C\stackrel{~}{E}_3=2`$. Now, as in the proof of Lemma 4.9, we consider the contributions to $`c_2(Y)`$ and to the Picard number of $`Y`$ of the various types of singular fibres. Since there are 8 disjoint nodal curves contained in the fibres of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_2|`$, one sees that the only possibility is that the fibres with singular support of both pencils are two fibres of type $`I_0^{}`$ and that each fibre of type $`I_0^{}`$ contains four of the curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7,C`$, each with multiplicity 1. Recall that an elliptic pencil with 2 fibres of type $`I_0^{}`$ on an Enriques surface is isotrivial.

By Lemma 4.8 we can label the curves $`N_i`$ in such a way that the singular fibres of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1|`$ are $`N_1+N_2+N_3+N_4+2A_1`$ and $`N_5+N_6+N_7+C+2A_2`$ and the singular fibres of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_2|`$ are $`N_1+N_2+N_5+N_6+2B_1`$ and $`N_3+N_4+N_7+C+2B_2`$.

Computing intersection numbers, one sees that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_3_{num}\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2C`$, namely $`\stackrel{~}{E}_3\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2C`$ or $`\stackrel{~}{E}_3\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2C+K_Y`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{B}+C`$ is even, we conclude that $`\stackrel{~}{E}_3\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2C`$. Hence the system $`|\stackrel{~}{B}|`$ is equal to $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1+\stackrel{~}{F}_2C|`$ and it has degree 2 by \[CD, Thm. 4.7.2\]. Looking at the adjunction sequence for $`C`$, one gets $`0=h^0(C+K_Y)=h^0(\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2\stackrel{~}{E}_3^{})=0`$, hence $`|\stackrel{~}{B}+K_Y|`$ is birational again by \[CD, Thm. 4.7.2\].

Now $`\stackrel{~}{F}_3\stackrel{~}{F}_1+\stackrel{~}{F}_22CN_5+N_6+N_7+2A_2+N_3+N_4+N_7+2B_2`$, hence $`N_3+N_4+N_5+N_6+2(A_2+N_7+B_2)`$ is a fibre of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_3|`$ of type $`I_2^{}`$. Thus Lemma 4.9 and the formula $`12=c_2(Y)=_{F_s}e(F_s)`$ imply that the remaining fibres with singular support are two fibres of type $`I_2`$ or $`{}_{2}{}^{}I_{2}^{}`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 4.6.

By Lemma 4.10, we may assume that every nodal curve disjoint from $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ satisfies $`C\stackrel{~}{E}_i>0`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$. Hence none of the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ can have two fibres of type $`I_0^{}`$. By Lemma 4.9 and its proof one sees that in principle the possible configurations of fibres with reducible support are:

1. one fibre of type $`I_0^{}`$ and three fibres of type $`I_2`$ or $`{}_{2}{}^{}I_{2}^{}`$;
2. one fibre of type $`I_2^{}`$ and two fibres of type $`I_2`$ or $`{}_{2}{}^{}I_{2}^{}`$.

Notice that in both cases all the fibres with singular support are reducible.

Assume that, say, $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1|`$ has a fibre $`G_1`$ of type $`I_2^{}`$. By Lemma 4.9, (iii), $`G_1`$ contains five of the $`N_i`$ and two more components $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$. Each of the curves $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ meets 3 of the $`N_i`$ and there is only one of the $`N_i`$ that intersects both. We set $`\lambda _2=2A_2+_i(A_2N_i)N_i`$ and $`\lambda _3=2A_3+_i(A_3N_i)N_i`$. One has $`\lambda _2^2=\lambda _3^2=2`$ and $`G_1=\lambda _2+\lambda _3`$. Since $`2=\stackrel{~}{E}_2G_1=2\stackrel{~}{E}_2(A_2+A_3)`$, we may assume $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2A_2=1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2A_3=0`$. Since by Corollary 3.3 the curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ are the only nodal curves orthogonal to $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1,\stackrel{~}{E}_2,\stackrel{~}{E}_3`$, we have also $`\stackrel{~}{E}_3A_3=1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{E}_3A_2=0`$. The support of $`\lambda _3`$, being connected and orthogonal to $`\stackrel{~}{E}_2`$, is contained in a fibre $`G_2`$ of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_2|`$. Since $`A_3`$ meets precisely three of the $`N_i`$, by Lemma 4.9 the fibre $`G_2`$ is also of type $`I_2^{}`$ and we can write as above $`G_2=\lambda _1+\lambda _3`$, where $`\lambda _1=2A_1+_i(A_1N_i)N_i`$, with $`A_1`$ a nodal curve different from the $`N_i`$ and such that $`A_1\stackrel{~}{E}_3=0`$, $`A_1\stackrel{~}{E}_1=1`$. Notice that the three nodal curves $`A_1`$, $`A_2`$ and $`A_3`$ are distinct. The same argument shows that $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are contained in fibres of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_3|`$ of type $`I_2^{}`$. By the proof of Lemma 4.9 each pencil $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ has at most one fibre of type $`I_2^{}`$, hence $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are contained in the same fibre $`G_3`$ and $`G_3=\lambda _1+\lambda _2`$. Assume that the curve $`N_i`$ that appears with multiplicity $`2`$ in $`G_1`$ and $`G_2`$ is the same, say $`N_7`$. Then $`N_7`$ is a component of $`\lambda _1`$, $`\lambda _2`$ and $`\lambda _3`$ and Lemma 4.8 implies that, up to a permutation of $`1,\mathrm{},6`$ the incidence relations between the curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7,A_1,A_2,A_3`$ are given by the dual graph of Figure 4 below.

Figure 4

The divisor $`A_1+A_2+A_3+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ is simply connected, hence its inverse image in the K3 cover of $`Y`$ consists of two disjoint divisors isomorphic to it. It is easy to check that the intersection matrix of the components of these divisors is nondegenerate of type $`(2,18)`$, but this contradicts the Index Theorem. So, up to a permutation of the indices, $`G_1`$ contains $`N_1`$ with multiplicity 2, $`G_2`$ contains $`N_2`$ with multiplicity 2 and $`G_3`$ contains $`N_3`$ with multiplicity 2. Using Lemma 4.8 again, one shows that, up to a permutation of the indices, $`N_7`$ is not contained in $`G_1`$, $`G_2`$, $`G_3`$ and the incidence relations between $`A_1,A_2,A_3,N_1,\mathrm{},N_6`$ are given by the dual graph in Figure 3.6. Computing intersection numbers, one checks that $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$ and the divisor $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\lambda _3`$ are numerically equivalent. The argument used to prove Corollary 4.5 shows that they are not linearly equivalent, hence $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\lambda _3\stackrel{~}{B}+K_Y`$. Now the system $`|\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\lambda _3|`$ has degree 2 by Theorem 7.2 of \[Co\] and $`|\stackrel{~}{B}|`$ is birational. This settles case 2).

We are left with the case in which each of the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ has a fibre of type $`I_0^{}`$ and 3 fibres of type $`I_2`$ or $`{}_{2}{}^{}I_{2}^{}`$. We recall that by \[Co, Prop. 5.2.1\] and \[CD, Thm. 4.7.2\] $`|\stackrel{~}{B}|`$ has degree 2 if $`|\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2\stackrel{~}{E}_3|`$ is nonempty and it is birational otherwise. Assume that there is $`\mathrm{\Delta }|\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2\stackrel{~}{E}_3|`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{E}_1\mathrm{\Delta }=\stackrel{~}{E}_2\mathrm{\Delta }=0`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{E}_3\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$, all the components of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ are nodal curves contained in fibres of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_2|`$ and there is a component $`\theta `$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with $`\theta \stackrel{~}{E}_3>0`$, but this cannot happen because of the configuration of reducible fibres of the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$. Since this argument is purely numerical it shows also that $`|\stackrel{~}{B}+K_Y|`$ is birational. ∎

## 5. Enriques surfaces with 7 nodes: a general construction

Here we describe a construction giving pairs $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ as in the set-up of §3 and we prove that all such pairs can be obtained that way.

###### Construction 5.1.

Consider the following automorphisms of the projective line $`^1`$:

$$(x_0,x_1)\stackrel{e_1}{}(x_0,x_1);(x_0,x_1)\stackrel{e_2}{}(x_1,x_0).$$

The subgroup $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ generated by $`e_1`$ and $`e_2`$ is isomorphic to $`_2^2`$; we set $`e_3:=e_1+e_2`$. The action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ can be lifted to the line bundle $`𝒪_^1(2)`$. Two such liftings differ by a character of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, hence for any chosen lifting a basis of eigenvectors of $`H^0(^1,𝒪_^1(2))`$ is given by:

$$s(x_0,x_1):=x_0^2+x_1^2,d(x_0,x_1):=x_0^2x_1^2,p(x_0,x_1)=x_0x_1.$$

Denote by $`G`$ the subgroup of automorphisms of $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ generated by the elements:

$$(e_1,e_1,1),(e_1,1,e_1),(e_2,e_2,e_2).$$

The group $`G`$ is isomorphic to $`_2^3`$. We denote by $`G_0`$ the subgroup of index 2 generated by $`(e_1,e_1,1)`$ and $`(e_1,1,e_1)`$. The fixed locus of the nonzero elements of $`G_0`$ has dimension 1, while the fixed locus of the elements of $`GG_0`$ has dimension 0.

Notice that, although the action of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`^1`$ does not lift to a linear representation on the space $`H^0(𝒪_^1(1))`$, the action of $`G`$ on $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ is induced by a linear representation on $`H^0(𝒪_{^1\times ^1\times ^1}(1,1,1))`$. Hence it is possible to lift the $`G`$action to the line bundle $`𝒪_{^1\times ^1\times ^1}(1,1,1)`$ and, compatibly, to all its multiples. Notice also that the possible $`G`$actions on $`𝒪_{^1\times ^1\times ^1}(1,1,1)`$ differ by a character of $`G`$, and thus they all induce the same action on $`𝒪_{^1\times ^1\times ^1}(2,2,2)`$. Denoting the homogeneous coordinates on $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ by $`x=(x_0,x_1)`$, $`y=(y_0,y_1)`$, $`z=(z_0,z_1)`$, under this action the space $`H^0(𝒪_{^1\times ^1\times ^1}(2,2,2))`$ decomposes into eigenspaces as follows:

$$T_0:=<s(x)s(y)s(z),s(x)d(y)d(z),d(x)s(y)d(z),$$

$$d(x)d(y)s(z),p(x)p(y)p(z)>;$$

$$T_1:=<s(x)s(y)d(z),s(x)d(y)s(z),d(x)s(y)s(z),d(x)d(y)d(z)>;$$

$$T_2:=<s(x)s(y)p(z),p(x)p(y)s(z),d(x)d(y)p(z)>;$$

$$T_3:=<s(x)p(y)p(z),p(x)s(y)s(z),p(x)d(y)d(z)>;$$

$$T_4:=<p(x)s(y)d(z),p(x)d(y)s(z),d(x)p(y)p(z)>;$$

$$T_5:=<s(x)p(y)s(z),p(x)s(y)p(z),d(x)p(y)d(z)>;$$

$$T_6:=<s(x)d(y)p(z),p(x)p(y)d(z),d(x)s(y)p(z)>;$$

$$T_7:=<s(x)p(y)d(z),p(x)d(y)p(z),d(x)p(y)s(z)>.$$

The subspace $`T_0`$ corresponds to the trivial character and the subspace $`T_1`$ corresponds to the character orthogonal to $`G_0`$. The system $`|T_0|`$ is base point free, while for $`i>0`$ the base locus of the system $`|T_i|`$ is nonempty and it contains the fixed locus of some element of $`GG_0`$.

Let $`Z|T_0|`$ be general. By Bertini’s theorem $`Z`$ is a smooth surface. The elements $`(e_1,1,e_1)`$, $`(1,e_1,e_1)`$ and $`(e_1,e_1,1)`$ act on $`Z`$ fixing 8 points each and the remaining nonzero elements of $`G`$ act freely on $`Z`$. By the adjunction formula, $`Z`$ is a K3 surface, hence the quotient surface $`Z/G`$ is a nodal Enriques surface with 6 nodes. For $`i=1,2,3`$, the projection on the $`i`$th factor $`^1\times ^1\times ^1^1`$ induces an elliptic pencil on $`Z`$, which in turn gives an elliptic pencil $`|F_i|=|2E_i|`$ on $`Z/G`$. A standard argument shows that for $`ij`$ one has $`E_iE_j=1`$.

Assume now that $`Z`$ has 8 nodes that form a $`G`$orbit and no other singularities. Then the quotient surface $`Z/G`$ has an extra node, which is the image of the 8 nodes of $`G`$. By Lemma 3.4 either $`E_1+E_2+E_3`$ or $`E_1+E_2+E_3+K_{Z/G}`$ is a divisor $`B`$ as in the set-up of §3.

Set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:=Z/G`$ and denote by $`\pi :Z\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the quotient map. Notice that $`\pi ^{}B\pi ^{}(B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is isomorphic to $`𝒪_Z(2,2,2)`$ and $`\pi ^{}H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ and $`\pi ^{}H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ are eigenspaces of $`H^0(Z,𝒪_Z(2,2,2))`$. So, considering the dimensions, they correspond to the restrictions to $`Z`$ of $`T_0`$ and $`T_1`$. We will show later (Lemma 6.3) that the restriction of $`T_0`$ is equal to $`\pi ^{}H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ and the restriction of $`T_1`$ is equal to $`\pi ^{}H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$.

The fact that Construction 5.1 can actually be performed, namely that there exists $`Z`$ as required, is a consequence of the following Theorem and of the examples given in §3.

###### Theorem 5.2.

Let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ be a pair as in the set-up of §3. Then $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ can be obtained from Construction 5.1.

###### Proof.

Let $`V`$ be the code associated with the nodes of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, which is isomorphic to $`_2^2`$ by Proposition 4.4. By \[DMP\], Prop. 2.1 and Remark 2, there is a Galois cover $`\pi _0:Z_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with Galois group $`\mathrm{Hom}(V,^{})_2^2`$ branched on the 6 nodes of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that appear in $`V`$. The map $`Z_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ can be factorized as $`ZZ_1\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where both maps are double covers branched on a set of 4 nodes. By \[MP3, Prop. 3.1\], $`Z_1`$ is a nodal Enriques surface with 6 nodes, hence, by ib., $`Z_0`$ is an Enriques surface with 4 nodes. Let $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the K3-cover of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and consider the following cartesian diagram:

(5.1)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}Z& & Z_0\\ p& & \pi _0& & \\ K& & \mathrm{\Sigma }\end{array}$$

The surface $`Z`$ is a K3 surface with 8 nodes and the map $`ZZ_0`$ is the K3-cover of $`Z_0`$. The composite map $`\pi :Z\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a Galois cover with Galois group isomorphic to $`_2^3`$. Notice (cf. \[DMP\], proof of Prop. 2.1 and Remark 2) that, although the cover $`\pi _0:Z_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is not uniquely determined (in fact there are four different possibilities), the cover $`\pi :Z\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ does not depend on the choice of $`Z_0`$.

For the reader’s convenience the proof is broken into steps.

Step 1: For $`i=1,2,3`$ there exist elliptic pencils $`|C_i|`$ on $`Z`$ such that $`\pi ^{}F_i4C_i`$.

Since $`\pi `$ is unramified in codimension 1, if $`F_i|F_i|`$ is general then $`\pi ^{}F_i`$ is a disjoint union of linearly equivalent elliptic curves. Hence, to prove the statement it is enough to show that $`\pi ^{}F_i`$ has 4 connected components. Let $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{Z}Y`$ the Galois cover obtained from $`\pi `$ by taking base change with the minimal desingularization $`Y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and, as usual, denote by $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ the elliptic pencil of $`Y`$ induced by $`|F_i|`$. By Theorem 4.6 the pencil $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ has a fibre $`G_i`$ of type $`I_0^{}`$ or $`I_2^{}`$. We write $`G_i=2A_i+N_1^i+\mathrm{}+N_4^i`$. By the results of §4, the nonzero elements of $`V`$ correspond to the even sets $`N_1^i+\mathrm{}+N_4^i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. So by the definition of $`Z`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ (cf. also \[DMP, §2\]) we have the following formula:

$$\stackrel{~}{\pi }_{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Z}}=𝒪_YK_Y(_{i=1,2,3}𝒪_Y(A_i\stackrel{~}{E}_i))(_{i=1,2,3}𝒪_Y(A_i\stackrel{~}{E}_i^{})).$$

The restriction of the line bundles $`𝒪_Y(K_Y)`$, $`𝒪_Y(A_i\stackrel{~}{E}_i)`$ and $`𝒪_Y(A_i\stackrel{~}{E}_i^{})`$ to a general $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ is trivial, hence $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ has at least 4 connected components. So for $`i=1,2,3`$ we can write $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}F_im_i\stackrel{~}{C}_i`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i`$ is a smooth connected elliptic curve and $`m_i=4`$ or $`m_i=8`$. Notice that $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i\stackrel{~}{C}_j2`$ for $`ij`$, since otherwise the product of the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_i|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_j|`$ would give a birational map $`\stackrel{~}{Z}^1\times ^1`$. On the other hand, for $`ij`$ we have $`32=\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_i\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_j=m_im_j\stackrel{~}{C}_i\stackrel{~}{C}_j16\stackrel{~}{C}_i\stackrel{~}{C}_j`$, hence $`m_i=m_j=4`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i\stackrel{~}{C}_j=2`$. Finally, the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_i|`$ induce pencils $`|C_i|`$ on $`Z`$ such that $`\pi ^{}F_i4C_i`$.

Step 2: The product of the pencils $`|C_1|`$, $`|C_2|`$ and $`|C_3|`$ defines an embedding $`\psi :Z^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ such that $`\psi (Z)`$ is a divisor of type $`(2,2,2)`$. We remark that $`D=C_1+C_2+C_3`$ is ample on $`Z`$, since by Step 1 $`2D=\pi ^{}B`$ and $`B`$ is ample on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by Corollay 3.3.

We let $`ϵ:WZ`$ be the minimal desingularization, we denote by $`N_1^{},\mathrm{},N_8^{}`$ the exceptional curves of $`ϵ`$ and we set $`\stackrel{~}{D}:=ϵ^{}D`$, $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i:=ϵ^{}C_i`$. The divisor $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ is nef and big and the $`N_i^{}`$ are the only irreducible curves that have intersection equal to 0 with $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{D}^2=12`$, by Reider’s Theorem and by the fact that the intersection form on a K3 surface is even, if two points $`x,yW`$ are not separated by $`|\stackrel{~}{D}|`$, then there exists an effective connected divisor $`Ax,y`$ such that either: a) $`A^2=2`$, $`A\stackrel{~}{D}=0`$, or b) $`A^2=0`$, $`A\stackrel{~}{D}=1`$ or c) $`A^2=0`$, $`A\stackrel{~}{D}=2`$. Possibility a) corresponds to the case when both $`x`$ and $`y`$ belong to one of the curves $`N_i^{}`$. Recall that the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_i|`$ have no multiple fibres, because the double fibres of the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ disappear when one takes the K3 cover (actually, it is not hard to prove that any elliptic fibration on a K3 has no multiple fibres). In case b) one would have, say, $`A\stackrel{~}{C}_1=A\stackrel{~}{C}_2=0`$, namely $`A`$ would be a fibre of both $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_1|`$ and $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_2|`$, which is impossible. If $`A^2=0`$ and $`A\stackrel{~}{D}=2`$, then we have, say, $`A\stackrel{~}{C}_1=0`$ and $`A`$ is a fibre of $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_1|`$. But in this case $`A\stackrel{~}{D}=4`$, a contradiction.

The above discussion shows that the map $`\psi `$ is one-to-one onto its image and that the differential of $`\psi `$ at every smooth point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is nonsingular. In particular the image of $`\psi `$ is an hypersurface with at most isolated singularities, hence it is normal. It follows that $`\psi `$ is an isomorphism. The fact that the image is a divisor of type $`(2,2,2)`$ is a consequence of the fact that $`C_iC_j=2`$ if $`ij`$.

Step 3: There exist coordinates on $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ such that the surface $`\psi (Z)`$ is an element of the linear system $`|T_0|`$ defined in Construction 5.1 and the action of the Galois group of $`Z\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ coincides with the group action defined there.

Denote by $`G`$ the Galois group of $`\pi `$. By the definition of the map $`\psi `$, the three copies of $`^1`$ in $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ can be naturally identified with (the dual of) the linear systems $`|C_1|`$, $`|C_2|`$ and $`|C_3|`$, hence $`G`$ acts on $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ and the embedding $`\psi :Z^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ is $`G`$equivariant with respect to the given actions. We have seen in Step 1 that for every $`i=1,2,3`$ there is a nonzero $`g_iG`$ such that $`g_i`$ acts trivially on $`|C_i|`$. Since the fixed locus of $`g_i`$ on $`|C_1|\times |C_2|\times |C_3|`$ has positive dimension and $`Z`$ is ample, $`g_i`$ has fixed points on $`Z`$. Since by construction the cover $`\pi :Z\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ factorizes through the K3 cover $`K\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, it follows that $`g_1`$, $`g_2`$, $`g_3`$ do not generate $`G`$. On the other hand $`g_i`$ must act non trivially on $`|C_j|`$ for $`ji`$, since otherwise the fixed locus of $`g_i`$ on $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ would be a divisor and $`g_i`$ would fix a curve of $`Z`$ pointwise. Hence $`G_0:=\{1,g_1,g_2,g_3\}`$ is a subgroup of $`G`$ isomorphic to $`_2^2`$. Fix $`hGG_0`$. For every $`i`$ we can choose homogeneous coordinates on $`^1=|C_i|`$ such that, using the notation of Construction 5.1, the nonzero element of $`G_0/g_i`$ acts as $`e_1`$ and $`h`$ acts as $`e_2`$. With respect to these coordinates we have: $`g_1=(1,e_1,e_1)`$, $`g_2=(e_1,1,e_1)`$, $`g_3=(e_1,e_1,1)`$, $`h=(e_2,e_2,e_2)`$, namely the $`G`$action on $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ is the same as in Construction 5.1 and the surface $`Z`$, being $`G`$invariant, belongs to one of the linear systems $`|T_i|`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},7`$. In addition, each of the nonzero elements of $`G_0`$ fixes 8 points of $`Z`$ and the elements of $`GG_0`$ act freely on $`Z`$. This is the same as saying that $`Z`$ is in general position with respect to the fixed loci of all the elements, hence, as we have remarked in Construction 5.1, $`Z`$ must be an element of $`|T_0|`$.

## 6. Enriques surfaces with 7 nodes: a parametrization

The aim of this section is to construct a quasi-projective variety parametrizing the isomorphism classes of pairs $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ as in the set up of §3 and to study the geometry of this space. In addition, we show the existence of a tautological family on a finite Galois cover of the parametre space. This tautological family admits a section and a simultaneous resolution.

These results are used in the next section to describe the subset of the moduli space of surfaces with $`p_g=0`$ and $`K^2=3`$ consisting of the surfaces $`S`$ that have an involution $`\sigma `$ such that: 1) the quotient surface $`S/\sigma `$ is birational to an Enriques surface; 2) the bicanonical map $`\phi `$ of $`S`$ is composed with $`\sigma `$.

We use all the notation from the previous sections. For a pair $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ as in the set–up of §3 we denote as usual by $`\eta :Y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the minimal desingularization and by $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ the exceptional curves of $`\eta `$. In addition we assume that $`N_7`$ is the nodal curve that does not appear in the code $`V`$ associated to $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ (cf. §4).

Denote by $`𝒩`$ the subset of $`|T_0|`$ consisting of the surfaces $`Z`$ that satisfy the following conditions:

a) $`Z`$ is in general position with respect to the fixed loci of the elements of $`G`$;

b) $`Z`$ has 8 nodes that form a $`G`$orbit and no other singularities. The set $`𝒩`$ is clearly open in the set of singular surfaces of $`|T_0|`$ and it is nonempty by the results of the previous section, hence it is a quasi-projective variety of dimension 3. We denote by $`(^1\times ^1\times ^1)\times 𝒩`$ the incidence variety, consisting of the pairs $`(P,Z)`$ such that $`P`$ is a singular point of $`Z`$ and we denote by $`p_1`$, $`p_2`$ the projections of $``$ onto the two factors. There is a natural $`G`$action on $``$, which is free by the definition of $`𝒩`$, and the map $`p_2:𝒩`$ is the quotient map with respect to this $`G`$action.

The first goal of this section is to study the geometry of $`𝒩`$. We have the following:

###### Theorem 6.1.

The variety $`𝒩`$ is smooth, irreducible of dimension 3 and unirational.

The proof that $`𝒩`$ is smooth is completely elementary (cf. Lemma 6.2 below), but proving the irreducibility requires a series of intermediate results.

###### Lemma 6.2.

The variety $`𝒩`$ is smooth of dimension 3.

###### Proof.

Since the incidence variety $``$ is a topological covering of $`𝒩`$, it is enough to prove that $``$ is smooth of dimension 3. This can be easily seen by means of a local computation, using the fact that the linear system $`|T_0|`$ has no base points and the fact that for a pair $`(P,Z)`$ in $``$ the point $`P`$ is an ordinary double point of $`Z`$. ∎

###### Lemma 6.3.

Assume that the pair $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ is obtained from $`Z𝒩`$ using Construction 5.1 and let $`\pi :Z\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the quotient map. Then:

$$\pi ^{}H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)=T_1|_Z;\pi ^{}H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma })=T_0|_Z.$$

###### Proof.

We have already remarked in Construction 5.1 that $`H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ and $`H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ pull back to $`T_0|_Z`$ and $`T_1|_Z`$. So we only need to decide which is which.

Let $`sT_0|_Z`$ be general, let $`D`$ be the divisor of zeros of $`s`$ and let $`\overline{D}`$ be the image of $`D`$ in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. The divisor $`\overline{D}`$ is smooth and it is numerically equivalent to $`B`$. Let $`f:XZ`$ be the double cover branched on $`D`$. Denote by $`L`$ the total space of the line bundle $`𝒪_Z(1,1,1)`$, by $`p:LZ`$ the projection and by $`z`$ the tautological section of $`p^{}𝒪_Z(1,1,1)`$. Then $`X`$ is isomorphic to the hypersurface $`\{z^2p^{}s=0\}L`$ and the $`G`$action on $`L`$ (cf. Construction 5.1) preserves $`X`$. Hence the $`G`$action on $`Z`$ lifts to $`X`$ and we have a commutative diagram:

(6.1)
$$\begin{array}{ccc}X& & Z\\ q& & \pi & & \\ \overline{X}& & \mathrm{\Sigma }\end{array}$$

where $`q:X\overline{X}:=X/G`$ is the quotient map. By commutativity of the diagram, the map $`\overline{X}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a double cover branched on $`\overline{D}`$ and on a subset of the 6 nodes of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ that are the images of the fixed points of the $`G`$action on $`Z`$. As before, let $`\eta :Y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the minimal desingularization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Set $`\stackrel{~}{D}=\eta ^{}\overline{D}`$ and denote by $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_k`$ the nodal curves of $`Y`$ corresponding to the nodes of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ where $`\overline{X}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ ramifies. The class of $`\stackrel{~}{D}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_k`$ is divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$, hence its self-intersection, which is equal to $`62k`$, is divisible by 8. Since $`k6`$, it follows that $`k=3`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ were linearly equivalent to $`\stackrel{~}{B}`$, then $`N_4+N_5+N_6+N_7`$ would be divisible by 2 in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$, contradicting the fact that $`N_7`$ does not appear in the code $`V`$ associated with the curves $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$. So we must have $`\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{B}+K_Y`$, and thus $`T_0|_Z=\pi ^{}H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. ∎

###### Lemma 6.4.

The curve $`N_7`$ is not contained in a double fibre of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$, for $`i=1,2,3`$.

###### Proof.

Assume by contradiction that $`N_7`$ is contained in a double fibre of, say, $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1|`$. Then, by Theorem 4.6, $`N_7`$ is contained in a fibre $`2A`$ of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1|`$ with $`A`$ of type $`I_2`$. The cover $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }:\stackrel{~}{Z}Y`$ obtained from $`\pi :Z\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by taking base change with $`\eta :Y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is étale over $`A`$. More precisely, by Step 1 of the proof of Theorem 5.2 the divisor $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^1(A)`$ is the disjoint union of 2 connected curves, each mapping to $`A`$ with Galois group $`_2^2`$, but this is impossible since the fundamental group of $`A`$ is cyclic. ∎

###### Lemma 6.5.

Assume that $`|K_\mathrm{\Sigma }+B|`$ is birational and let $`\psi :\mathrm{\Sigma }^3`$ be the corresponding morphism. Set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}:=\mathrm{\Sigma }(E_1E_1^{}\mathrm{}E_3^{})`$.

Then the restricted map $`\psi |_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\psi (\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Proof.

The map $`\psi `$ is a morphism onto a sextic of $`^3`$. The divisor $`B`$ is ample by Corollary 3.3, hence $`K_\mathrm{\Sigma }+B`$ is also ample and $`\psi :\mathrm{\Sigma }\psi (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is the normalization map. For $`i=1,2,3`$, the supports $`E_i`$, $`E_i^{}`$ of the double fibres of $`|F_i|`$ are mapped $`2`$to$`1`$ onto distinct lines $`L_i`$, $`L_i^{}`$ which are double for $`\psi (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. The general curve of $`|K_\mathrm{\Sigma }+B|`$ is smooth of genus 4, hence the general section $`C`$ of $`\psi (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ has geometric genus 4. Since $`C`$ has arithmetic genus 10 and it has at least 6 singular points $`CL_1,\mathrm{},CL_3^{}`$, it follows that $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_3^{}`$ are the only $`1`$dimensional components of the singular locus of $`\psi (\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Since $`K_\mathrm{\Sigma }+BE_1+E_2+E_3^{}\mathrm{}E_1^{}+E_2^{}+E_3^{}`$, the inverse image of $`\psi (\mathrm{\Sigma })(L_1\mathrm{}L_3^{})`$ is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. The surface $`\psi (\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})=\psi (\mathrm{\Sigma })(L_1\mathrm{}L_3^{})`$ is normal, since it is an hypersurface and it is smooth in codimension 1. It follows that the map $`\psi |_\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}:\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\psi (\mathrm{\Sigma }^{})`$ is an isomorphism. ∎

We denote by $`𝒩_0𝒩`$ the set of surfaces $`Z`$ such that $`|T_0|`$ induces a birational map $`Z/G^3`$. By Lemma 6.3 $`Z𝒩_0`$ if and only if the system $`|K_\mathrm{\Sigma }+B|`$ is birational, where $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ is the pair obtained from $`Z`$ by Construction 5.1. The set $`𝒩_0`$ is open in $`𝒩`$.

###### Proposition 6.6.

The set $`𝒩_0`$ is dense in $`𝒩`$.

###### Proof.

Since the proof is lengthy, we describe first the underlying idea, which is instead quite simple.

Let $`Z𝒩`$ be a point. Denote by $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ the pair obtained from $`Z`$ by Construction 5.1 and denote by $`Z\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the $`G`$cover defined in the proof of Theorem 5.2. Let $`Y`$ be the minimal desingularization of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, let $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ be the corresponding nodal curves on $`Y`$ and let $`\stackrel{~}{Z}Y`$ be the $`G`$cover obtained from $`\pi :Z\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by taking base change with $`\eta `$. As in Example 3.7, consider the restriction $`𝒴_1(U_1,0)`$ of the Kuranishi family of $`Y`$ to the subset where the classes of $`N_1,\mathrm{},N_7`$ stay effective. We show by standard arguments that one can construct a $`G`$cover $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}𝒴_1`$ such that the fibre over $`0U_1`$ of the induced family of surfaces $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}U_1`$ is $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$. Then, using the theory of \[BW\] and a criterion for the birationality of a linear system of degree 6 on an Enriques surface, we show that for general $`tU_1`$ the surface $`Z_t`$ obtained by contracting the inverse images of the $`N_i`$ in the fibre $`\stackrel{~}{Z}_t`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ is an element of $`𝒩_0`$.

We start by constructing the family $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}U_1`$. We recall that the base of the Kuranishi family of $`Y`$ is smooth of dimension 10 by \[BPV, Thm. VIII.19.3\]. Thus the set $`U_1`$ is smooth of dimension 3 by \[BW, Thm. 2.14\]. Arguing as in Example 3.7, one sees that, after possibly shrinking $`U_1`$, the building data of the $`G`$cover $`\stackrel{~}{Z}Y`$ can be extended to the total space $`𝒴_1`$. Hence we have a $`G`$cover $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}:\stackrel{~}{𝒵}𝒴_1`$ that specializes to $`\stackrel{~}{Z}Y`$ at the point $`0U_1`$. The induced map $`q:\stackrel{~}{𝒵}U_1`$ has smooth fibres.

For $`i=1,2,3`$, we denote by $`|\stackrel{~}{C}_i|`$ the pull back to $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ of the elliptic pencil $`|C_i|`$ defined in Step 1 of the proof of Theorem 5.2. We claim that $`\stackrel{~}{C}_i`$ can be extended to a line bundle $`𝒞_i`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$. After possibly shrinking $`U_1`$ again, we may assume that $`U_1`$ is contractible and that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}U_1`$ is diffeomorphic to the product family $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\times U_1`$. Hence the inclusion $`\stackrel{~}{Z}\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ induces an isomorphism $`H^2(\stackrel{~}{𝒵},)\stackrel{}{}H^2(\stackrel{~}{Z},)`$. Recall that a cohomology class comes from a (holomorphic) line bundle on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ if and only if it goes to zero under the map $`ob:H^2(\stackrel{~}{𝒵},)H^2(\stackrel{~}{𝒵},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒵}})`$ induced by the exponential sequence. Arguing as in Example 3.7, one shows that there exists a line bundle $`\stackrel{~}{}_i`$ on $`𝒴_1`$ that restricts to $`\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ on $`Y`$, hence $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Pi }}^{}\stackrel{~}{}_i`$ induces the class of $`\pi ^{}(\stackrel{~}{F}_i)`$ and $`ob(\pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_i)=0`$. Since we have $`4\stackrel{~}{C}_i\pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ by definition, $`ob(\stackrel{~}{C}_i)=\frac{1}{4}ob(\pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_i)=0`$ and the claim is proven.

Notice that the line bundle representing a given cohomology class is unique up to isomorphism, since $`H^1(\stackrel{~}{𝒵},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{𝒵}})=0`$, as one can check by using the Leray spectral sequence. The cohomology class of $`𝒞_i`$ is $`G`$invariant, since the class of $`4\stackrel{~}{C}_i=\pi ^{}\stackrel{~}{F}_i`$ is invariant and $`H^2(\stackrel{~}{Z},)`$ has no torsion. Thus for every $`gG`$ there is an isomorphism $`g^{}𝒞_i𝒞_i`$. Using this isomorphism, every $`gG`$ can be lifted to an automorphism of $`𝒞_i`$. Hence we have a short exact sequence:

$$0^{}G_iG0,$$

where $`G_i`$ is the group of automorphisms of $`𝒞_i`$ that lift an element of $`G`$. Since $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Z},C_i)=2`$ and $`h^j(\stackrel{~}{Z},C_i)=0`$ for $`j>0`$, we may assume by the semicontinuity theorem that $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{Z}_t,𝒞_i|_{\stackrel{~}{Z}_t})=2`$ for all $`tU_1`$. Hence for $`i=1,2,3`$, the sheaf $`q_{}𝒞_i`$ is a rank 2 vector bundle on $`U_1`$. We set $`𝒫_i:=\mathrm{Proj}(q_{}𝒞_i)`$. By the above exact sequence, $`G`$ acts on $`𝒫_i`$ and the natural map $`\mathrm{\Psi }:\stackrel{~}{𝒵}𝒫_1\times 𝒫_2\times 𝒫_3`$ is $`G`$equivariant. We remark that the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ to $`t=0`$ is the composition of the map $`\stackrel{~}{Z}Z`$ with the map $`\psi `$ defined in Step 2 of the proof of Theorem 5.2. The image of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒵}`$ is a divisor relatively of type $`(2,2,2)`$. Fix homogeneous coordinates on $`|C_1|\times |C_2|\times |C_3|`$ as in Step 3 of the proof of Theorem 5.2, namely such that the $`G`$action is the one described in Construction 5.1. By Step 3 of the proof of Theorem 5.2, in these coordinates $`\psi (Z)`$ is an element of $`|T_0|`$.

We want to construct a local trivialization $`𝒫_1\times 𝒫_2\times 𝒫_3\stackrel{}{}U_1\times (^1\times ^1\times ^1)`$ that coincides for $`t=0`$ with the chosen isomorphism $`|C_1|\times |C_2|\times |C_3|^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ and such that the $`G`$action on $`𝒫_1\times 𝒫_2\times 𝒫_3`$ corresponds fibrewise to the $`G`$action on $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ defined in Construction 5.1. We do this by finding trivializations of $`𝒫_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$, such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=<e_1,e_2>`$ acts as in Construction 5.1. Start with any local trivialization and then choose homogeneous coordinates on $`^1`$ such that the fixed locus of $`e_1`$ is $`x_0x_1=0`$ (this is possible since we are working in the analytic category). In these coordinates the action of $`e_1`$ is represented by $`(x_0,x_1)(x_0,x_1)`$. Now $`e_1`$ exchanges the fixed points of $`e_2`$, which therefore have homogeneous coordinates $`(a(t),b(t))`$, $`(a(t),b(t))`$, with $`a`$, $`b`$ nowhere vanishing functions on $`U_1`$ such that $`a(0)=b(0)`$. Changing coordinates to $`x_0^{}=b(t)x_0`$, $`x_1^{}=a(t)x_1`$, the fixed locus of $`e_2`$ is defined by $`(x_0^{})^2(x_1^{})^2=0`$ and the action of $`e_2`$ is induced by $`(x_0^{},x_1^{})(x_1^{},x_0^{})`$. Finally, using an automorphism of $`^1`$ that induces the identity on the group $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, one can obtain that for $`t=0`$ the coordinates agree with the chosen ones. Now $`\mathrm{\Psi }(\stackrel{~}{𝒵})`$ is defined inside $`U_1\times (^1\times ^1\times ^1)`$ by an equation $`F(t,x,y,z)`$ such that for fixed $`\overline{t}U_1`$ $`F(\overline{t},x,y,z)`$ is a $`G`$invariant homogeneous polynomial of type $`(2,2,2)`$ and $`F(0,x,y,z)=0`$ is the equation of $`\psi (Z)`$. Furthermore, the proof of Theorem 5.2 implies that for every $`tU_1`$ the surface $`F(t,x,y,z)=0`$ is an element of $`𝒩`$.

Assume now that $`Z𝒩_0`$. By Lemma 6.3, the system $`|B+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$ is not birational. The configuration of reducible fibres of the pencils $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$ on $`Y`$ is described in Theorem 4.6, 2). By the proof of Theorem 4.6, the components of the reducible fibres of the elliptic pencils can be labelled in such a way that their dual diagram is the one given in Figure 3.6 and $`F_iA_j=2\delta _{i,j}`$. In the notation of the proof of Theorem 4.6, we have $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2+\lambda _3\stackrel{~}{B}+K_Y`$ and $`\lambda _1+\lambda _2\stackrel{~}{F}_3`$. Then we have $`N_1+N_2+N_6+2A_3=\lambda _3\stackrel{~}{B}+K_Y\stackrel{~}{F}_3\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2\stackrel{~}{E}_3+K_Y`$. We denote by $`\stackrel{~}{}_i`$ the line bundle on $`𝒴_1`$ that extends $`\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$, $`i=1,2,3`$. By \[Co, Prop. 5.2.1\] and \[CD, Thm. 4.7.2\], the system $`|K_{Y_t}+\stackrel{~}{B}_t|`$ is not birational if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{}_{1,t}+\stackrel{~}{}_{2,t}\stackrel{~}{}_{3,t}+K_{Y_t}`$ is effective. Again by \[BW, Thm. 3.7\], the subset $`U_2`$ of the base $`U`$ of the Kuranishi family of $`Y`$ where $`\stackrel{~}{}_{1,t}+\stackrel{~}{}_{2,t}\stackrel{~}{}_{3,t}+K_{Y_t}`$, $`𝒩_{3,t}`$, $`𝒩_{4,t}`$, $`𝒩_{5,t}`$, $`𝒩_{7,t}`$ are effective is smooth of dimension 2 in a neighbourhood of $`t=0`$. Hence $`U_1U_2`$ is nonempty and for $`tU_1U_2`$ the surface $`F(t,x,y,z)=0`$ is an element of $`𝒩_0`$. This proves that $`𝒩_0`$ is dense in $`𝒩`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 6.1.

The variety $`𝒩`$ is smooth of dimension 3 by Lemma 6.2. By Lemma 6.6, to complete the proof it suffices to show that $`𝒩_0`$ is irreducible and unirational.

Denote by $`_0`$ the restriction to $`𝒩_0`$ of the incidence variety $``$ and denote again by $`p_1:_0^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ and $`p_2:_0𝒩_0`$ the projections. The map $`p_2`$ is an étale $`G`$cover by construction. We prove the theorem by showing that $`p_1`$ is injective.

Let $`Pp_1(_0)`$ be a point. The fibre $`p_1^1(P)`$ is a (nonempty) open subset of the linear subsystem of $`|T_0|`$ consisting of the surfaces which are singular at $`P`$. Assume that $`p_1^1(P)`$ has positive dimension and let $`Z`$, $`Z^{}`$ be two distinct surfaces in $`p_1^1(P)`$, let $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ be the pair obtained from $`Z`$ by Construction 5.1 and let $`\eta :Y\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the minimal resolution. Recall that the image of $`P`$ is the node of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ corresponding to the nodal curve $`N_7`$ of $`Y`$ that does not appear in the code $`V`$. Denote by $`D`$ the divisor on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=Z/G`$ induced by the restriction of $`Z^{}`$ to $`Z`$. By Lemma 6.3, $`DB+K_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. It is not difficult to check that the pull back $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ of $`D`$ to $`Y`$ vanishes on $`N_7`$ of order at least 2. Hence $`h^0(Y,K_Y+\stackrel{~}{B}2N_7)>0`$ and the restriction map $`H^0(Y,K_Y+\stackrel{~}{B}N_7)H^0(N_7,𝒪_{N_7}(2))`$ is not surjective. This is a contradiction to Lemma 6.5, since $`Z`$ is an element of $`𝒩_0`$. ∎

Let $`𝒵(^1\times ^1\times ^1)\times 𝒩`$ be the universal family. The group $`G`$ acts on $`𝒵`$ preserving the fibres of $`𝒵𝒩`$, hence we can take the quotient and obtain a family $`𝔖:=𝒵/G𝒩`$, which is easily seen to be flat. We can also define a polarization $``$ on $`𝔖`$ as follows: we modify the $`G`$action on the line bundle $`𝒪_{^1\times ^1\times ^1}(2,2,2)`$ considered in Construction 5.1 by multiplying it with the nontrivial character of $`G`$ orthogonal to the subgroup $`G_0`$. The effect of this choice is that the $`G`$invariant sections now correspond to the subspace $`T_1`$. Denote by $`Bs^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ the base locus of the system $`|T_1|`$. The restriction of $`𝒪_{^1\times ^1\times ^1}(2,2,2)`$ to $`(^1\times ^1\times ^1)Bs`$ is generated at every point by global sections which are invariant for the chosen linearization, hence it is the pull back of a line bundle $`\overline{}`$ from the quotient $`((^1\times ^1\times ^1)Bs)/G`$. One can check that, by the definition of $`𝒩`$, the family $`𝒵`$ is contained in $`(^1\times ^1\times ^1Bs)\times 𝒩`$. Hence the projection onto the first factor induces a map $`𝔖(^1\times ^1\times ^1Bs)/G`$. We let $``$ be the pull back of $`\overline{}`$ via this map. For every $`t𝒩`$ the elements of $`T_1`$ give global sections of the restriction $`B_t`$ of $``$ to the fibre $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ of $`𝔖`$ at $`t`$. By Construction 5.1 and Lemma 6.3, $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t,B_t)`$ is a pair as in the set-up of §3 and by Theorem 5.2 all pairs $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ occur as $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t,B_t)`$ for some $`tN`$.

A simultaneous resolution of a flat family $`𝒮U`$ of normal projective surfaces is a flat family $`𝒴U`$ with a map $`𝒴𝒮`$ over $`U`$ such that for every $`tU`$ the restricted map $`Y_tS_t`$ is the minimal resolution of the singularities of $`S_t`$.

###### Proposition 6.7.

The family $`𝔖𝒩`$ admits a simultaneous resolution $`𝒴𝒩`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the family $`𝒵((^1\times ^1\times ^1)Bs)\times 𝒩`$. Let $`\widehat{}(^1\times ^1\times ^1)Bs`$ be the blow up of the union of the fixed loci of the nonzero elements of $`G`$ and denote by $`𝒵^{}\widehat{}\times 𝒩`$ the pull back of $`𝒵`$. There is an induced $`G`$action on $`𝒵^{}`$ with the property that the fixed loci of all the elements are (possibly empty) divisors. Denote by $`Disc\widehat{}\times 𝒩`$ the set of singular points of the fibres of $`𝒵^{}`$, i.e. the inverse image of the incidence variety $`(^1\times ^1\times ^1)\times 𝒩`$. By the definition of $`𝒩`$, the set $``$ does not meet the exceptional locus of the blow up, hence $`Disc`$ is isomorphic to $``$ and, in particular, it is smooth. The group $`G`$ acts freely on $`Disc`$ and the induced map $`Disc𝒩`$ is the quotient by this action. By blowing up $`Disc`$ inside $`\widehat{}\times 𝒩`$ and taking the strict transform pf $`𝒵^{}`$ one obtains a family $`𝒵^{\prime \prime }`$ with an induced $`G`$action. The fibre of $`𝒵^{\prime \prime }`$ over a point $`t𝒩`$ is the blow up at the isolated fixed points of $`G`$ of the minimal resolution of the fibre $`Z_t`$ of $`𝒵`$ at $`t`$. We set $`𝒴:=𝒵^{\prime \prime }/G`$. Since $`G`$ acts fibrewise, we have an induced map $`𝒴𝒩`$. The family $`𝒴𝒩`$ is smooth, and hence flat, since both the base $`𝒩`$ and the fibres are smooth. By construction, there is a natural map $`𝒴𝔖`$, commuting with the projections onto $`𝒩`$, which restricts to the minimal desingularization $`Y_t\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ for every $`t𝒩`$. ∎

###### Lemma 6.8.

The family of smooth surfaces $`𝒴𝒩`$ admits a section $`Sec𝒴`$.

###### Proof.

Consider the family $`𝒵(^1\times ^1\times ^1)\times 𝒩`$. For every $`t𝒩`$ the curve $`C:=\{(1,1,1,1)\}\times ^1`$ meets $`Z_t`$ transversally at two smooth points. Indeed, the intersection number of $`C`$ and $`Z_t`$ is equal to 2 and the set $`CZ_t`$ is invariant under the action of the element $`(e_2,e_2,e_2)`$ of $`G`$. Since $`(e_2,e_2,e_2)`$ acts freely on $`Z_t`$ by the definition of $`𝒩`$, the only possibility is that $`CZ_t`$ consists of two distinct points, that are not fixed by any element of $`G`$. The intersection of $`𝒵`$ with the subvariety $`C\times 𝒩`$ is an étale bisection of $`𝒵𝒩`$. The image of this bisection in $`𝔖=𝒵/G`$ is a section of $`𝔖𝒩`$ that intersects every fibre $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_t`$ at a smooth point, and we take its inverse image in $`𝒴`$ as the required section $`Sec`$. ∎

We recall briefly from \[Mu, Ch. 0, §5\] (see also \[Gr\]) the main facts about relative Picard schemes.

Given a family $`𝒳T`$, one defines the relative Picard functor from the category of schemes over $`T`$ to the category of sets. Given a scheme $`T^{}T`$ , the relative Picard functor associates to $`T^{}`$ the quotient of the group of isomorphism classes of line bundles on $`𝒳\times _TT^{}`$ by the subgroup of the classes of line bundles pulled back from $`T^{}`$. If $`𝒳T`$ admits a section, one can define the relative Picard functor also by taking the isomorphism classes of “normalized” line bundles, namely of the line bundles whose restriction to the pull back over $`T^{}`$ of the given section is trivial. If $`𝒳T`$ is flat and projective with reduced irreducible fibres and it admits a section, then the relative Picard functor is represented by a group scheme $`\mathrm{Pic}_{𝒳/T}T`$. Therefore by Lemma 6.8 we can consider the scheme $`\mathrm{Pic}_{𝒴/𝒩}𝒩`$, where $`𝒴`$ is the family defined in Proposition 6.7. Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ the pull back to $`𝒴`$ of the line bundle $``$ that we have previously defined on $`𝔖`$ and denote by $`Ex`$ the exceptional divisor of the simultaneous resolution $`𝒴𝔖`$. The line bundle $`\stackrel{~}{}𝒪_𝒴(Ex)`$ defines a section $`b:𝒩\mathrm{Pic}_{𝒴/𝒩}`$. We define $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}\mathrm{Pic}_{𝒴/𝒩}`$ to be the inverse image of $`b(𝒩)`$ via the multiplication by 2 map $`\mathrm{Pic}_{𝒴/𝒩}\mathrm{Pic}_{𝒴/𝒩}`$. So $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ is closed in $`\mathrm{Pic}_{𝒴/𝒩}`$ and the natural map $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}𝒩`$ is an étale double cover. A point of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ determines a pair $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ together with a solution $`L\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$ of the linear equivalence $`2L\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$.

We are finally ready to construct varieties that parametrize the isomorphism classes of pairs $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ and the isomorphism classes of triples $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B,L)`$ as above. We do this by taking the quotient of $`𝒩`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ by a suitable finite group.

Let $`St(G)`$ be the subgroup of $`\mathrm{Aut}(^1\times ^1\times ^1)`$ consisting of the elements $`\gamma `$ such that $`\gamma G\gamma ^1=G`$. It is easy to verify that $`St(G)`$ is a finite group. The group $`St(G)`$ permutes the $`G`$eigenspaces $`T_0,\mathrm{},T_7`$ of $`H^0(𝒪_{^1\times ^1\times ^1}(2,2,2))`$. Since $`T_0`$ is the only eigenspace of dimension 5 and $`T_1`$ is the only eigenspace of dimension 4, it follows that $`St(G)`$ preserves $`T_0`$ and $`T_1`$. In view of this observation, it follows from the definitions given so far that $`St(G)`$ acts on $`𝒩`$, on the families $`𝒵`$, $`𝔖`$ and $`𝒴`$ and on the line bundle $``$ on $`𝔖`$, and that all these actions are compatible. Clearly, the action of $`St(G)`$ on $`𝒴`$ maps to itself the exceptional divisor $`Ex`$ and therefore we also have an action of $`St(G)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$.

###### Theorem 6.9.

1. The set of isomorphism classes of pairs $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ as in the set up of §3 is in one-to-one correspondence with the quasiprojective variety $`𝒩/St(G)`$;
2. The set of isomorphism classes of triples $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B,L)`$, where $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ is a pair as above and $`L\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$ satisfies $`2L\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$, is in one-to-one correspondence with the quasi-projective variety $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}/St(G)`$.

###### Remark 6.10.

One can formulate a suitable moduli problem for pairs $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ and for triples $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B,L)`$ and it is very likely that the spaces $`𝒩/St(G)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}/St(G)`$ are the corresponding coarse moduli spaces. Since we are mainly interested in the applications to surfaces of general type with $`p_g=0`$, we will not pursue this any further.

###### Proof of Theorem 6.9.

We only give the proof of (i), the proof of (ii) being very similar. As we have already remarked, every pair $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ is isomorphic to $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t,B_t)`$ for some $`t𝒩`$. In addition, it is clear from the construction that if $`\gamma `$ is an element of $`St(G)`$ then for every $`t𝒩`$ the pairs corresponding to $`t`$ and $`\gamma t`$ are isomorphic. On the other hand, assume that $`t,t^{}𝒩`$ give isomorphic pairs $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }^{},B^{})`$. The $`G`$covers $`Z\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`Z^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ are defined intrinsically, hence the isomorphism lifts to an isomorphism $`ZZ^{}`$. We notice that, up to the ordering, the pencils $`|F_i|`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the pencils $`|F_i^{}|`$ on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ are determined by $`B`$, respectively $`B^{}`$. Indeed, at least one of the systems $`|B|`$ or $`|K_\mathrm{\Sigma }+B|`$ maps $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ birationally onto a singular sextic in $`^3`$ and the double fibres of the elliptic pencils $`|F_i|`$ are the inverse images of the 6 double lines of the sextic (see \[CD, Ch.IV, §9\]). Hence, up to a permutation of the factors of $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ (which is an element of $`St(G)`$), we may assume that for $`i=1,2,3`$ the isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ maps $`|F_i|`$ to $`|F_i^{}|`$. It follows from the proof of Theorem 5.2 that the isomorphism $`ZZ^{}`$ is induced by an automorphism of $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ compatible with the $`G`$action, namely by an element of $`St(G)`$. ∎

Since $`𝒩`$ is irreducible by Theorem 6.1, the variety $`𝒩/St(G)`$ is also irreducible. The variety $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$, being an étale double cover of $`𝒩`$, either is irreducible or it is the disjoint union of two components isomorphic to $`𝒩`$. We close this section by showing that, in any case, taking the quotient of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ by $`St(G)`$ we get an irreducible variety.

###### Proposition 6.11.

The variety $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}/St(G)`$ is irreducible.

###### Proof.

The variety $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$, being an étale cover of $`𝒩`$, is smooth by Lemma 6.2 and thus $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}/St(G)`$ is normal. So, to prove that $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}/St(G)`$ is irreducible it suffices to show that it is connected. We do this by showing that there exist a point $`t`$ in $`𝒩`$ and an automorphism $`\gamma St(G)`$ such that $`\gamma t=t`$ but $`\gamma `$ exchanges the two points of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ lying over $`t`$. This amounts to finding a pair $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ such that there exists an automorphism $`h`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ with $`h^{}BB`$ and such that the induced automorphism of $`Y`$ exchanges the two solutions in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$ of the relation $`2L\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$. Indeed by Theorem 5.2 such a pair is isomorphic to $`(\mathrm{\Sigma }_t,B_t)`$ for some $`t`$. Moreover, $`h`$ induces an automorphism $`h^{}`$ of $`Z`$, since $`Z`$ is defined intrinsically. As we have observed in the proof of Theorem 6.9, the set of pencils $`|F_1|`$, $`|F_2|`$, $`|F_3|`$ is determined uniquely by $`B`$, hence it is preserved by $`h`$. It follows that $`h^{}`$ is compatible with the embedding $`Z|C_1|\times |C_2|\times |C_3|`$ (cf. proof of Theorem 5.2, Step 2). In other words, if we identify $`|C_1|\times |C_2|\times |C_3|`$ with $`^1\times ^1\times ^1`$ as in the proof of Theorem 5.2, then $`h^{}`$ is induced by an element $`\gamma `$ of $`St(G)`$. The pair $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ that we construct is a special instance of Example 3.5 (cf. also \[MP3\]).

So we let $`_2^2=\{1,e_1,e_2,e_3\}`$ act on a product $`D_1\times D_2`$ of elliptic curves by $`(x,y)\stackrel{e_1}{}(x,y+b)`$, $`(x,y)\stackrel{e_2}{}(x+a,y)`$, where $`aD_1`$ and $`bD_2`$ are nonzero elements of order 2. The quotient surface $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ is an Enriques surface with $`8`$ nodes and has two elliptic pencils $`|F_1|`$, $`|F_2|`$ such that $`F_1F_2=4`$, induced by the projections of $`D_1\times D_2`$ onto the two factors. One of the double fibres of $`|F_1|`$ occurs over the image in $`^1=D_1/_2^2`$ of the points $`0`$ and $`a`$ and the other one occurs over the image of the remaining $`2`$torsion points $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$. The fibres over the image in $`^1`$ of the fixed points of $`xx+a`$ map contain 4 nodes each and they give rise two fibres of type $`I_0^{}`$ on the resolution $`Y`$ of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$. Now we assume in addition that $`D_1`$ admits an automorphism $`\tau `$ of order 4 fixing the origin $`0`$. The fixed locus of $`\tau `$ consists of the origin and of another point of order $`2`$. Hence we may take $`a`$ in the above construction to be a fixed point of $`\tau `$. We observe that $`\tau `$ exchanges the points $`a_1`$ and $`a_2`$. Consider the automorphism $`h_0:D_1\times D_2D_1\times D_2`$ defined by $`(x,y)(\tau x+a_1,y)`$. The automorphism $`h_0`$ commutes with the elements of $`_2^2`$, hence it induces an automorphism $`\overline{h}`$ of the quotient surface $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$, that clearly maps each fibre of $`|F_2|`$ to itself. The square of the map $`x\tau x+a_1`$ is equal to the map $`xx+a`$. Thus $`x\tau x+a_1`$ has order 4 and it fixes 2 points, that are necessarily also fixed points of $`xx+a`$. Hence $`\overline{h}`$ maps to itself each of the fibres with 4 nodes of $`|F_1|`$ and it induces the identity on one of them. On the other hand, $`\overline{h}`$ exchanges the two double fibres of $`|F_1|`$. We let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the surface obtained by resolving one of the singular points of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ that are fixed by $`\overline{h}`$, we denote by $`C`$ the exceptional curve of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\overline{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and we set $`B:=|F_1+F_2C|`$, where we omit to denote pull backs. Clearly, $`\overline{h}`$ induces an automorphism $`h`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and an automorphism of $`Y`$ that we also denote by $`h`$. As usual we denote by $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$, $`i=1,2`$, the pull back of $`|F_i|`$ to $`Y`$ and by $`2\stackrel{~}{E}_i`$, $`2\stackrel{~}{E}_i^{}`$ the double fibres of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_i|`$. Furthermore we let $`C_1`$ and $`C_2`$ be the multiple components of the two fibres of type $`I_0^{}`$ of $`|\stackrel{~}{F}_1|`$. Then the solutions in $`\mathrm{Pic}(Y)`$ of the relation $`2L\stackrel{~}{B}+N_1+\mathrm{}+N_7`$ are the linear equivalence classes of $`3\stackrel{~}{E}_1+\stackrel{~}{E}_2C_1C_2C`$ and of $`3\stackrel{~}{E}_1^{}+\stackrel{~}{E}_2C_1C_2C`$. It is clear by the above description that these classes are exchanged by $`h`$. ∎

## 7. A new family of surfaces with $`p_g=0`$ and $`K^2=3`$

In this section we apply the previous results to the study of the moduli of surfaces of general type with $`p_g=0`$ and $`K^2=3`$. We refer the reader to M. Manetti’s Ph.D. thesis \[Ma\] for an excellent survey of the known results on this moduli space.

We keep the notation from the previous sections. Also we let $``$ be the moduli space of (canonical models) of surfaces of general type with $`p_g=0`$ and $`K^2=3`$, and we denote by $``$ the subset of $``$ consisting of the canonical surfaces whose bicanonical map is composed with an involution $`\sigma `$ such that the quotient surface $`X/\sigma `$ is birational to an Enriques surface. Notice that, if $`X`$ belongs to $``$, then, by Theorem 2.1, $`X/\sigma `$ is in fact a nodal Enriques surface with 7 nodes.

###### Theorem 7.1.

The set $``$ is constructible.
The closure $`\overline{}`$ of $``$ in $``$ is irreducible and uniruled of dimension $`6`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝒩`$, $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ be the spaces introduced in §6 and let $`\stackrel{~}{q}:\stackrel{~}{𝒴}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ be the family obtained by pulling back the family $`𝒴𝒩`$ defined in Proposition 6.7. We denote again by $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`Ex`$ the pullbacks on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}`$ of the corresponding objects of $`𝒴`$. By Lemma 6.8, the family $`𝒴𝒩`$ has a section $`Sec`$, that induces a section of $`\stackrel{~}{q}`$ that we denote again by $`Sec`$. Up to tensoring with a line bundle pulled back from $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$, we may also assume that the line bundle $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ is normalized with respect to the section $`Sec`$, namely that its restriction to $`Sec`$ is trivial. Then, if we denote by $``$ the pull back to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}`$ of the normalized Poincaré line bundle on $`𝒴\times _𝒩\mathrm{Pic}_{𝒴/𝒩}`$, we have the equivalence relation $`2\stackrel{~}{}+Ex`$. By the semicontinuity theorem, the sheaf $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{}\stackrel{~}{}`$ is a rank 4 vector bundle on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$. We let $`𝒱`$ be the total space of $`\stackrel{~}{q}_{}\stackrel{~}{}`$ and we consider the family $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}\times _{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}𝒱𝒱`$. We denote again by $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and $`Ex`$ the pull backs to $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}\times _{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}𝒱`$ of the corresponding line bundles/divisors of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}`$. Let $`Taut`$ be the zero locus on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}\times _{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}𝒱`$ of the tautological section of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$ and let $`q_1:𝒱\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ be the natural map. The fibre at $`v𝒱`$ of $`Taut𝒱`$ is a curve $`B_v`$ contained the fibre $`Y_{q_1(v)}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ at $`q_1(v)`$. We say that $`v`$ is admissible if $`B_v`$ is contained in the smooth part of $`Y_{q_1(v)}`$ and it has at most negligible singularities. We denote by $`𝒱_{ad}𝒱`$ the set of admissible points. It is easy to see that $`𝒱_{ad}`$ is a dense open subset of $`𝒱`$. We denote by $`𝒮`$ the double cover of $`\stackrel{~}{𝒴}\times _{\stackrel{~}{𝒩}}𝒱_{ad}`$ given by the relation $`2Taut+Ex`$. By Theorem 2.2, the fibre $`S_v`$ of $`𝒮𝒱_{ad}`$ over a point $`v𝒱_{ad}`$ is a surface with canonical singularities, whose canonical model belongs to $``$. Conversely, by Theorem 2.1 every surface of $``$ is the canonical model of some surface $`S_v`$. Finally, we denote by $`p:𝒳𝒱_{ad}`$ the relative canonical model of $`𝒮𝒱_{ad}`$. By a result of Iitaka (\[Ii\]) the plurigenera $`p_m(S_v)`$ are constant as functions of $`v`$. Hence $`p_{}\omega _{𝒳/𝒱_{ad}}^m`$ is a vector bundle and, by the results of Bombieri, for $`m5`$ the relative $`m`$canonical map embeds $`𝒳`$ into $`(p_{}\omega _{𝒳/𝒱_{ad}}^m)`$. This means that locally over $`𝒱_{ad}`$ one can realize $`𝒳`$ as a family of subvarieties of a fixed projective space with constant Hilbert polynomial. Since the space $`𝒱_{ad}`$ is smooth by Lemma 6.2, the family $`𝒳𝒱_{ad}`$ is flat by \[Ha, Ch. III, Thm. 9.9\]. By the properties of moduli spaces, the family $`𝒳`$ induces a morphism $`\mathrm{\Psi }:𝒱_{ad}`$ whose image is $``$. This proves that $``$ is constructible. The map $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ factorizes through the natural map $`𝒱_{ad}(𝒱)`$. The image $`\overline{𝒱_{ad}}`$ of $`𝒱_{ad}`$ in $`(𝒱)`$ is a dense open set. Arguing as in the proof of Theorem 6.9 one sees that the action of $`St(G)`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{𝒩}`$ lifts to an action on $`\overline{𝒱_{ad}}`$ such that the quotient $`\overline{𝒱_{ad}}/St(G)`$ parametrizes the isomorphisms classes of pairs $`(X,\sigma )`$. Hence the map $`\overline{𝒱_{ad}}`$ factorizes through the quotient map $`\overline{𝒱_{ad}}\overline{𝒱_{ad}}/St(G)`$ and the latter map has finite fibres, since a surface of general type $`X`$ has finitely many automorphisms. The fibres of the natural map $`\overline{𝒱_{ad}}/St(G)\stackrel{~}{𝒩}/St(G)`$ are irreducible of dimension 3, hence $`\overline{𝒱_{ad}}/St(G)`$ is irreducible of dimension 6 by Proposition 6.11 and it is uniruled, since $`\overline{𝒱_{ad}}`$ is an open set in a $`^3`$bundle. This remark completes the proof. ∎

###### Remark 7.2.

With some extra work, one can show that, given a surface $`X`$, the involution $`\sigma `$ is uniquely determined. Hence the map $`\overline{𝒱_{ad}}/St(G)`$ in the proof of Theorem 7.1 is actually bijective.

###### Remark 7.3.

The main question left open by Theorem 7.1 is whether $`\overline{}`$ is an irreducible component of $``$. To answer this question one has to consider for $`X`$ the natural map of functors $`Def(X,\sigma )Def(X)`$, where $`Def(X)`$ denotes deformations of $`X`$ and $`Def(X,\sigma )`$ denotes deformations of $`X`$ with an involution extending $`\sigma `$. One needs to decide whether this map is surjective for a general $`X`$. To show that this is indeed the case, it is enough to exhibit one surface $`X`$ such that the map $`Def(X,\sigma )Def(X)`$ is smooth, and smoothness can in turn be checked by means of an infinitesimal computation. Unfortunately, although we can show that for a smooth $`X`$ the functor $`Def(X,\sigma )`$ is smooth, we have not been able to prove the smoothness of $`Def(X,\sigma )Def(X)`$. Notice that, since the expected dimension of $`Def(X)`$ is equal to 4, Theorem 7.1 implies that the obstruction space $`T_X^2`$ of $`Def(X)`$ has dimension $`2`$ at every point of $``$.

###### Corollary 7.4.

Let $`S`$ be a smooth surface such that the canonical model of $`S`$ is in $``$. Then:

$$\pi _1(S)_2^2\times _4.$$

###### Proof.

Since blowing up does not change the fundamental group of a smooth surface, we may assume that $`S`$ is minimal. By Theorem 7.1, all the minimal surfaces whose canonical model is in $``$ have the same fundamental group, so the statement follows by \[Na, Thm. 3.1\]. ∎

###### Proposition 7.5.

If $`X`$, then the bicanonical map $`\phi `$ of $`X`$ is a morphism of degree either 2 or 4. The subset $`_{d4}`$ consisting of the surfaces for which $`\mathrm{deg}\phi =4`$ is a closed subset of $``$ of codimension 1 and its closure $`\overline{_{d4}}`$ is irreducible.

###### Proof.

The fact that $`\phi `$ is a morphism of degree 2 or 4 is immediate by Proposition 2.1. Since $`\mathrm{deg}\phi `$ is a semicontinuous function of $`X`$, the set $`_{d4}`$ is clearly closed in $``$ and it is a proper subset of $``$ by Examples 3.6 and 3.7. To show the last part of the statement one proceeds as in the proof of Theorem 7.1 by constructing a $`5`$dimensional family of surfaces that maps onto $`_{d4}`$ with finite fibres. By Theorem 4.6, Propositions 2.1 and 2.2, the fibres of this family are the double covers $`X\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ an Enriques surface with 7 nodes, branched on the nodes and on a divisor $`B`$ with negligible singularities, and such that the pair $`(\mathrm{\Sigma },B)`$ is as in Example 3.5. We omit the explicit construction of this family, which is standard by the classification of Enriques surfaces with 8 nodes given in \[MP3\]. ∎

| Margarida Mendes Lopes | Rita Pardini |
| --- | --- |
| CMAF | Dipartimento di Matematica |
| Universidade de Lisboa | Università di Pisa |
| Av. Prof. Gama Pinto, 2 | Via Buonarroti 2 |
| 1649-003 Lisboa, PORTUGAL | 56127 Pisa, ITALY |
| mmlopes@ptmat.ptmat.fc.ul.pt | pardini@dm.unipi.it |