text:
# Rationality properties of manifolds containing quasi-lines

## Introduction

Classical examples of rational projective manifolds are given by usually elementary, sometimes ingenious, geometric constructions of linear systems, yielding birational maps (e.g. projections from subvarieties). Related to the Lüroth problem in dimension at least three, several fairly sophisticated techniques for proving non-rationality of some Fano manifolds have been developped (see e.g. ). Using deformation theory of rational curves, Kollár, Miyaoka and Mori introduced in  the very useful class of rationally connected varieties, generalizing the classes of both rational and Fano manifolds. Rational connectedness admits several convenient characterizations and is invariant under deformations and birational isomorphism. It is therefore natural to try to understand rationality within the larger class of rationally connected manifolds.

Let $`X`$ be a complex projective manifold of dimension $`n2`$. $`X`$ is rationally connected if two general points of it may be joined by a rational curve. Equivalently, $`X`$ contains a smooth rational curve with ample normal bundle, see , . A smooth rational curve $`YX`$ is called a quasi-line (see ) if its normal bundle is isomorphic to $`_1^{n1}𝒪_^1(1)`$. $`X`$ is called strongly-rational (see ) if there exists a birational map $`\phi :X^n`$ which is an isomorphism from an open subset $`U`$ onto an open subset $`V`$, whose complement in $`^n`$ is at least $`2`$-codimensional. Note that strongly-rational manifolds contain quasi-lines (the pull-back of a line contained in $`V`$ gives rise to a quasi-line on $`X`$). Therefore we have the diagram:

In the first section we quote from  and  two rather general classes of examples of rational manifolds. Moreover, we prove a new rationality criterion, Theorem 1.3.

In Section 2 we show that any rationally connected manifold, after being suitably blown-up, contains quasi-lines, Theorem 2.3. Note that, in a similar vein, by , rational manifolds become strongly-rational after suitable blowing-ups. The proof of Theorem 2.3 applies to show the existence of almost-lines, i.e. quasi-lines $`Y`$ such that $`DY=1`$ for some divisor $`D`$ on $`X`$. This completes Theorem 2.1 from .

In Section 3 we use quasi-lines to characterise rationality and to define, for each rationally connected manifold $`X`$, a birational numerical invariant, denoted $`e(X)`$. We first introduce and compute for some examples, the number $`e(X,Y)`$ of quasi-lines from a given family that pass through two general points of $`X`$; for instance, when $`X`$ is a smooth cubic threefold in $`^4`$ and $`Y`$ is a general conic, $`e(X,Y)=6`$, see Proposition 3.2. Then, $`e(X)`$ represents the minimum among $`e(X^{},Y^{})`$, where $`X^{}`$ is obtained from $`X`$ by a sequence of blowing-ups with smooth centers. In Theorem 3.4, we prove that $`X`$ is rational if and only if $`e(X)=1`$. However, note that $`e(X)`$ seems to be very difficult to compute. In order to get the rationality via quasi-lines, the key is to show that $`e(X,Y)=1`$ for a certain quasi-line $`Y`$, see Proposition 3.1.

Section 4 contains a convenient characterization of strongly-rational manifolds, Theorem 4.2. As a consequence we show in Theorem 4.5 that strongly-rational manifolds are stable with respect to small deformations. Note that such an invariance property is not expected to hold for rational manifolds.

Section 5 relates the preceding results to formal geometry. To each quasi-line $`YX`$ we associate a “local” invariant denoted $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$. It depends only on the formal completion $`\widehat{X}|_Y`$. Theorem 5.1 shows that $`e(X,Y)=\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)b(X,Y)`$, where $`b(X,Y)=[K(\widehat{X}|_Y):K(X)]`$. Here $`K(X)`$ is the field of rational functions on $`X`$ and $`K(\widehat{X}|_Y)`$ is the field of formal rational functions of $`X`$ along $`Y`$, see . As applications of this formula we give various examples of instances when the formal completion of $`X`$ along the quasi-line $`Y`$ determines $`(X,Y)`$ up to isomorphism. They include the case mentioned above of a general conic on a cubic threefold, Corollary 5.9.

In the last section we address the basic question: Does the local invariant $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$ depend only on the field $`K(\widehat{X}|_Y)`$? A positive answer would have nice consequences, e.g. a completely new proof of the non-rationality of the smooth cubic threefold in $`^4`$.

In the Appendix, we show via a toric calculation, that a certain useful property of quasi-lines does not hold in general.

We shall work over the field of complex numbers. Unless otherwise stated, we follow the usual conventions and notation in Algebraic Geometry (see e.g. ).

## 1 Some rational varieties

Let $`X^N`$ be a projective manifold of dimension $`n2`$. In dimension two, the famous Castelnuovo criterion characterizes rationality by the vanishing of two numbers which are birational invariants of $`X`$; in particular, rationality and rational connectedness are equivalent. For $`n3`$, deciding the rationality of $`X`$ may be a quite difficult problem. Rationally connected manifolds, which are easier to understand, form a much larger class than rational ones.

Many examples of rational manifolds come from more precise biregular classification statements. We would like to exemplify this principle by two rather general results. To state them we recall some numerical invariants of $`X`$.

We denote by $`g`$ the sectional genus of $`X`$, that is the genus of the curve got by intersecting $`X`$ with $`n1`$ general hyperplanes in $`^N`$. We let $`d`$ be the degree of $`X`$. Finally, let $`q=:h^1(X,𝒪_X)`$ be the irregularity of $`X`$.

###### Theorem 1.1

Assume that $`d2g1`$ and $`q=0`$. Then $`X`$ is rational, unless $`X`$ is a cubic hypersurface, $`n3`$.

This statement is a consequence of the precise biregular classification, given in , Corollaries 8, 9 and 10, of all manifolds satisfying conditions $`d2g1`$, $`n3`$. The classification, due to Fujita, of the so called “del Pezzo manifolds”, is also used. It corresponds to the case $`g=1`$, which includes the exception in the statement of Theorem 1.1. Note that the bound $`d2g1`$ is sharp. Indeed, the quartic threefold in $`^4`$ and the complete intersection of a quadric and a cubic in $`^5`$ satisfy $`d=2g2`$. However, they are known, as well as the cubic threefold of $`^4`$, to be non-rational. See e.g.  for a discussion of these very delicate results.

The previous theorem shows that, for fixed sectional genus, regular manifolds of “high” degree are rational. On the other hand, many examples of manifolds of “small” degree are known to be rational. Moreover, note that deciding the rationality property is particularly difficult when $`X`$ is a Fano manifold with $`b_2(X)=1`$. In this direction, we quote the following recent result:

###### Theorem 1.2

(cf. ) Let $`X^N`$ be non-degenerate and assume that $`dN`$. Then one of the following holds:

* $`X`$ is Fano and $`b_2(X)=1`$, or
* $`X`$ is rational.

The bound $`dN`$ is clearly the best possible one. A hypersurface of degree $`N+1`$ is neither rational, nor Fano. Again, the rationality comes a posteriori, using a classification result. In fact, manifolds as in (ii) may be completely described: There are 6 infinite series and 14 “sporadic” examples, see .

Next we prove a result that allows one to deduce the rationality directly from the existence of a suitable rational submanifold of $`X`$. To the best of our knowledge, this theorem seems to have been overlooked in the classical literature. Our proof depends on Hironaka’s desingularisation theory from  and on basic properties of rationally connected manifolds (cf. ).

###### Theorem 1.3

Let $`X`$ be a projective variety and $`|D|`$ a complete linear system of Cartier divisors on it. Let $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_s|D|`$ and put $`W_i=:D_1\mathrm{}D_i`$ for $`1is`$. Assume that for all $`i`$, $`W_i`$ is smooth, irreducible and has dimension $`ni`$. Assume moreover that there is a divisor $`E`$ on $`W=:W_s`$ and a linear system $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|E|`$ such that

* $`\phi _\mathrm{\Lambda }:W^{ns}`$ is birational, and
* $`|D|_WE|\mathrm{}`$.

Then $`X`$ is rational.

###### Proof.

We proceed by induction on $`s`$. We explain the case $`s=1`$, the general induction step being completely similar. So, let $`W|D|`$ be a smooth, irreducible Cartier divisor such that $`\phi _\mathrm{\Lambda }:W^{n1}`$ is birational for $`\mathrm{\Lambda }|E|`$, $`E\mathrm{Div}(W)`$ and $`|D|_WE|\mathrm{}`$. Note that $`W`$ is contained in the smooth locus of $`X`$. So, replacing $`X`$ by its desingularisation, we may assume $`X`$ to be smooth. As $`W`$ is rational, it is in particular rationally connected; so by , there is some smooth rational curve $`YW`$ with ample normal bundle. We have $`YE>0`$ since E moves and $`Y(D|_WE)0`$ by condition (ii). It follows that $`YD>0`$. Looking at the standard exact sequence of normal bundles, we get that $`N_{Y|X}`$ is ample. So, again by , $`X`$ is rationally connected and, in particular, $`q(X)=h^1(X,𝒪_X)=0`$. The standard exact sequence:

$$0𝒪_X𝒪_X(D)𝒪_W(D)0,$$

shows that $`dim|D|=dim|D|_W|+1dim|E|+1n`$. Choose a pencil $`(W,W^{})|D|`$, containing $`W`$, such that $`W^{}|_W=E_0+E_1`$, with $`E_1\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`E_00`$. Now, by the theory in , we may use blowing-ups with smooth centers contained in $`WW^{}`$, such that, after taking the proper transforms of the elements of our pencil, to get:

(a) $`\mathrm{supp}(E_0)`$ has normal crossing;

(b) $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is base-points free (so $`\phi :W^{n1}`$ is a birational morphism).
Next, by blowing-up the components of $`\mathrm{supp}(E_0)`$, we may also suppose that $`E_0=0`$, i.e. $`D|_W`$ is linearly equivalent to $`E`$. Now, using the previous standard exact sequence and the fact that $`q(X)=0`$, it follows that $`|D|`$ is base-points free. But we have that $`D^n=(D|_W)_W^{n1}=1`$, so $`\phi _{|D|}`$ is a birational morphism onto $`^n`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Example 1.4

Let $`X^{n+d2}`$ be a non-degenerate projective variety of dimension $`n2`$ and degree $`d3`$. Then $`X`$ is rational, unless it is a smooth cubic hypersurface, $`n3`$.

Indeed, we may assume $`X`$ to be smooth; otherwise, use a projection from a singular point. We may also suppose that $`X`$ is linearly normal (if not, use again a projection from one of its points). One sees easily that such a linearly normal, non-degenerate manifold $`X^{n+d2}`$ has anticanonical divisor linearly equivalent to $`n1`$ times the hyperplane section, i.e. they are exactly the so called “classical del Pezzo manifolds”. They were classified by Fujita in a series of papers, see e.g.  for a survey of his argument. As Fujita’s proof is quite long and difficult, we show how Theorem 1.3 above may be used to prove directly the rationality of $`X`$ if $`d4`$. Consider the surface $`W`$ got by intersecting $`X`$ with $`n2`$ general hyperplanes. Note that $`W`$ is a non-degenerate, linearly normal surface of degree $`d`$ in $`^d`$, so it is a del Pezzo surface. As such, $`W`$ is known to admit a representation $`\phi :W^2`$ as the blowing-up of $`9d`$ points (in general position). Let $`LW`$ be the pull-back via $`\phi `$ of a general line in $`^2`$. It is easy to see that $`L`$ is a cubic rational curve in the embedding of $`W`$ into $`^d`$. So, for $`d4`$, $`L`$ is contained in a hyperplane of $`^d`$. This shows that the conditions of Theorem 1.3 are fulfilled for $`X`$, $`|D|`$ being the system of hyperplane sections. We also see that Theorem 1.3 is sharp, as the previous argument fails exactly for the case of cubics.

In the remaining of this section we slightly generalize the fibration Theorem 1.12 in . As a consequence we get a rationality criterion, Corollary 1.9; it was this criterion that led us to formulate Theorem 1.3. It will be convenient to refer to a couple $`(X,Y)`$, where $`Y`$ is a smooth rational curve with ample normal bundle, as to a model, cf. . Talking about a model $`(X,Y)`$, we shall often replace $`(X,Y)`$ by $`(X,Y^{})`$, where $`Y^{}`$ is a deformation of $`Y`$ (we write $`Y^{}Y`$). A morphism of models, $`(X,Y)(X^{},Y^{})`$, is a morphism $`XX^{}`$ that maps $`Y`$ isomorphically to $`Y^{}`$.

Firstly, we recall the above mentioned fibration theorem:

###### Theorem 1.5 (cf. , 1.12)

Let $`(X,Y)`$ be a model and let $`D`$ be a divisor such that $`DY=1`$ and $`dim|D|=:s1`$. Then there exists $`Y^{}Y`$ and a diagram of models

such that

* $`\sigma `$ is a sequence of blowing-ups,
* $`\phi `$ is surjective, with connected fibres,
* any smooth fibre of $`\phi `$ is rationally connected,
* $`l^s`$ is a line and $`Z=\phi ^1(l)`$ is smooth, and
* $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}`$ is a section for $`\phi |_Z`$.

Next, we generalize it to the case when $`DY2`$. To see this, we observe the behaviour of the normal bundle of the curve when $`X`$ is blown-up at a point lying on the curve.

###### Lemma 1.6

Let $`CX`$ be a smooth curve, $`pC`$ a point and $`\sigma :\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ the blowing-up of $`X`$ at $`p`$. If $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ is the strict transform of $`C`$, then

$$N_{\stackrel{~}{C}|\stackrel{~}{X}}\sigma ^{}(N_{C|X}𝒪_C(p)).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`\{U_\alpha \}`$ be a covering of $`C`$ with open subsets of $`X`$, $`pU_0`$. Let $`(u_1^\alpha ,\mathrm{},u_n^\alpha )`$ be local coordinates on $`U_\alpha `$ such that $`u_1^\alpha ,\mathrm{},u_{n1}^\alpha `$ are local equations for $`C`$, and $`u_n`$ is a local equation for $`p`$ along $`C`$. If

$$u_i^\alpha =\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}h_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }u_j^\beta \text{for every}i=1,\mathrm{},n1$$

on $`U_\alpha U_\beta `$, then $`c^{\alpha \beta }=(h_{ij}^{\alpha \beta }|_C)`$ represents the transition function for $`N_{C|X}`$, from $`U_\alpha `$ to $`U_\beta `$. The open covering $`\{U_\alpha \}`$ induces an open covering $`\{V_\alpha \}`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$: for $`\alpha 0`$, $`V_\alpha =U_\alpha `$. For $`\alpha =0`$, the open subset $`V_0`$ is an open subset with local coordinates $`(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _{n1},u_n^0)`$ such that $`u_i^0=u_n^0\xi _i`$. It follows that $`N_{\stackrel{~}{C}|\stackrel{~}{X}}`$ is given by the transition functions $`c^{\alpha \beta }`$, if $`\alpha 0`$ and $`\beta 0`$, and by $`\frac{1}{u_n^0}c^{0\beta }`$ if not. But the constant function $`1`$ and $`\frac{1}{u_n^0}`$ are transition functions of $`𝒪_C(p)`$ relative to the covering $`\{U_\alpha \}`$, hence the result.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Now we can rephrase Theorem 1.5 as follows:

###### Theorem 1.7

Let $`(X,Y)`$ be a model such that $`N_{Y|X}=_1^{n1}𝒪_Y(a_j)`$ with $`a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1}`$, and let $`D`$ be a divisor such that $`DY=:d>0`$ with $`a_1d`$ and $`dim|D|d`$. Then, there is $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ a blow-up of $`X`$ and a diagram of models

$$(Z,\stackrel{~}{Y}^{})(\stackrel{~}{X},\stackrel{~}{Y}^{})\stackrel{\phi }{}(^{dim|D|d+1},l)$$

such that

* $`\phi `$ is surjective, with connected fibres,
* any smooth fibre of $`\phi `$ is rationally connected,
* $`Z=\phi ^1(l)`$ is smooth, and
* $`\stackrel{~}{Y}^{}`$ is a section for $`\phi |_Z`$.

###### Proof.

We may suppose that $`|D|`$ is free from fixed components and that $`Y`$ does not meet the base locus of $`|D|`$. Indeed, for the latter, a general deformation of $`Y`$ avoids a closed subset of codimension $`2`$ and in the decomposition of its normal bundle, $`a_1d`$ (the function $`\mathrm{min}a_j`$ is upper-semicontinuous, see , Lemma II.3.9.2). We continue by blowing up $`d1`$ points on $`Y`$. We take $`X^{}`$ to be the new variety and $`Y^{}`$ the strict transform of $`Y`$; then by the above lemma $`(X^{},Y^{})`$ is a model. Moreover, the divisors linearly equivalent to $`D`$ through the $`d1`$ points determine a linear system $`|D^{}|`$ on $`X^{}`$. We have $`D^{}Y^{}=1`$ and $`dim|D^{}|1`$, so Theorem 1.5 applies.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 1.8

Let $`(X,Y)`$ be a model with $`N_{Y|X}=_1^{n1}𝒪_Y(a_j)`$, $`a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1}`$ and let $`D`$ be a divisor such that $`0<DY=:da_1`$ and $`dim|D|n+d1`$. Then $`X`$ is rational.

Finally, we state the following corollary from which Theorem 1.3 stemmed.

###### Corollary 1.9

Let $`X`$ be a projective variety and $`|D|`$ a complete linear system of Cartier divisors on it. Let $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_s|D|`$ and put $`W_i=:D_1\mathrm{}D_i`$ for $`1is`$. Assume that for all $`i`$, $`W_i`$ is smooth, irreducible and has dimension $`ni`$. Assume moreover that there is a divisor $`E`$ on $`W=:W_s`$ and a smooth rational curve $`YW`$ such that:

* $`N_{Y|W}_1^{s1}𝒪_^1(a_i)`$, $`0<da_1\mathrm{}a_{s1}`$, where $`d=:EY`$,
* $`dim|E|s+d1`$, and
* $`|D|_WE|\mathrm{}`$.

Then $`X`$ is rational.

###### Proof.

We proceed as in the proof of Theorem 1.3. After suitable blowing-ups we get $`DY=d`$ and $`dim|D|n+d1`$. So the above corollary applies.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 2 Existence of quasi-lines and a first application

In this section we show that a rationally connected manifold, up to blowing it up along smooth subvarieties, contains quasi-lines. The proof depends on the following considerations about elementary transforms, which may be of some independent interest.

If $`M`$ is a smooth variety and $`VM`$ a vector bundle, then we shall use the classical convention for the projective space that is most suitable for the present work. Accordingly, the associated projective bundle of $`V`$ will be $`P(V)=\mathrm{𝐏𝐫𝐨𝐣}(\mathrm{Sym}V^{})`$.

Let $`C`$ be a smooth curve, $`VC`$ a vector bundle of rank $`n`$ and $`\pi :P(V)C`$ the corresponding projection. If $`F`$ is a fibre of $`P(V)`$, $`\pi (F)=c`$, and $`LF`$ a hyperplane, the elementary transform of $`P(V)`$ with center $`L`$, denoted by $`\mathrm{elm}_LP(V)`$, is the projective bundle $`P^{}`$ over $`C`$ constructed as follows:

1) Denote by $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ the blow-up of $`P=P(V)`$ along $`L`$, and by $`\sigma `$ the projection from $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ to $`P`$. The exceptional divisor $`E`$ of $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ is $`P(N_{L|P})`$, a $`^1`$-bundle over $`L`$. The fibre $`(\pi \sigma )^1(c)`$ is the sum of two effective Cartier divisors

$$(\pi \sigma )^1(c)=\stackrel{~}{F}+E.$$

They intersect in the hyperplane of $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ that corresponds to $`L`$. On $`E`$, this intersection is the exceptional divisor, when $`E`$ is seen as the blow-up of $`^{n1}`$ at a point.

2) The normal bundle of $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$ is $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{F}}(1)`$, hence there is a contraction $`\sigma ^{}:\stackrel{~}{P}P^{}`$ that sends $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ to a point:

$`P^{}`$ maps to $`C`$ with all fibers isomorphic to $`^{n1}`$. It follows that $`P^{}`$ is a projective bundle.

The construction of $`\mathrm{elm}_LP(V)`$ is a generalization of the elementary transforms of geometrically ruled surfaces. In this case, if the base curve is the projective line, the elementary transform can be described more precisely: The Hirzebruch surface $`P(𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(d))`$ is transformed either in the surface $`P(𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(d+1))`$, or the surface $`P(𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(d1))`$, depending on whether or not the point $`L`$ lies on the distinguished section (see ). The next proposition is an analogous result in arbitrary dimensions.

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`V=𝒪_^1(a_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_^1(a_n)`$, with $`a_1\mathrm{}a_n`$. If $`L`$ is a general hyperplane in a fibre of $`P(V)^1`$, then $`\mathrm{elm}_LP(V)=P(V^{})`$, where

$$V^{}=𝒪_^1(a_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_^1(a_{n1})𝒪_^1(a_n1).$$

###### Proof.

If $`W`$ is a sub-bundle of $`V`$, with quotient bundle $`Q`$, there is a canonical embedding $`i`$ of $`P(W)`$ in $`P(V)`$. For $`W`$ of rank $`n1`$, $`P(W)`$ is an effective divisor. Taking $`\pi _{}`$ on the exact sequence

$$0𝒪_V(1)𝒪_V(P(W))𝒪_V(1)𝒪_V(1)𝒪_W0,$$

we have

$$0\pi _{}(𝒪_V(1)𝒪_V(P(W))V^{}W^{}0.$$

It follows that $`𝒪_V(P(W))𝒪_V(1)\pi ^{}Q`$, and restricting to $`P(W)`$, that

$$𝒪_W(P(W))𝒪_W(1)(\pi i)^{}Q.$$

We shall call splitting divisors, the divisors $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, $`1in`$, corresponding to the sub-bundles

$$W_i=𝒪_^1(a_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_^1(a_{i1})𝒪_^1(a_{i+1})\mathrm{}𝒪_^1(a_n)V.$$

These $`n`$ divisors have empty set-theoretic intersection and

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)^n=c_1^n(𝒪_V(1)𝒪_V(a_iF))=(a_1+\mathrm{}+a_n)+na_i,$$
(1)
for any $`1in`$. It is obvious that giving a projective bundle over $`^1`$ is equivalent to giving $`n`$ $`1`$-codimensional projective sub-bundles with an empty intersection. The splitting type of the bundle can be restored, up to tensoring with a line bundle, from the self intersection numbers (1).

Claim: Any sufficiently general hyperplane $`LF`$ is cut out by a projective sub-bundle $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ linearly equivalent to $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$.

It is sufficient to show that the restriction $`H^0(P(V),𝒪_V(\mathrm{\Delta }_n))H^0(F,𝒪_F(1))`$ is surjective. The dimension

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h^1(P(V),𝒪_V(\mathrm{\Delta }_nF))& =h^1(P(V),𝒪_V(1)𝒪_V((a_n1)F))\hfill \\ & =h^1(^1,\pi _{}(𝒪_V(1)𝒪_V((a_n1)F)))\hfill \\ & =h^1(^1,_{i=1}^n𝒪_^1(a_i+a_n1)F))\hfill \\ & =h^0(^1,_{i=1}^n𝒪_^1(a_ia_n1)F))\hfill \end{array}$$

vanishes, since $`a_ia_n`$ for all $`i`$, and the surjection follows. If $`p_nF`$ is the intersection of the fibre $`F`$ with the section that corresponds to $`𝒪_^1(a_n)V`$, then $`\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ does not pass through $`p_n`$, contrary to the other $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$’s.

Let $`L`$ be a general hyperplane in $`F`$, with $`p_nL`$, let $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_n`$ be the projective sub-bundle that corresponds to $`L`$, and let $`P^{}=\mathrm{elm}_LP`$. We reconstruct the vector bundle corresponding to $`P^{}`$ from the $`n`$ $`1`$-codimensional sub-bundles $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1^{},\mathrm{},\mathrm{\Delta }_{n1}^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }^{}=\sigma ^{}(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }})`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}`$ the strict transform of $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{P}`$, and the same for $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},n1`$. Let $`b_1,b_2,\mathrm{},b_n`$ be $`n`$ integers such that $`(\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{})^n=(b_1+\mathrm{}+b_n)+nb_i`$ and $`(\mathrm{\Delta }^{})^n=(b_1+\mathrm{}+b_n)+nb_n`$. Then $`P^{}=P(𝒪_^1(b_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_^1(b_n))`$, and since for every $`1in1`$, $`\sigma ^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i`$ and $`(\sigma ^{})^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}=\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i+\stackrel{~}{F}`$, we have that

$$(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)^n=(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Delta }}_i)^n=((\sigma ^{})^{}\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{}\stackrel{~}{F})^n=(\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{})^n+(1)^n\stackrel{~}{F}^n=(\mathrm{\Delta }_i^{})^n1.$$

These relations together with (1) provide a linear system of $`n1`$ equations, $`n`$ unknowns and of rank $`n1`$. Now $`b_i=a_i`$ for $`1in1`$, and $`b_n=a_n1`$ is one solution, the others being obtained from this one by translations.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 2.2

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective $`n`$-fold and $`YX`$ be a smooth rational curve with normal bundle $`N_{Y|X}=𝒪_Y(a_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_Y(a_{n1})`$, where $`a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1}`$. If $`ZX`$ is a general, smooth, $`2`$-codimensional subvariety intersecting $`Y`$ in a point, $`X^{}=\mathrm{Bl}_ZX`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ the strict transform of $`Y`$, then

$$N_{\stackrel{~}{Y}|X^{}}=𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}(a_1)\mathrm{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}(a_{n1}1).$$

###### Proof.

We need to compare the normal bundles of $`Y`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$. Accordingly, we first look for a comparison of the corresponding projective bundles. These are exceptional divisors of the blow-ups of $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ along $`Y`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$, respectively. Throughout the proof, the exceptional divisor of the blow-up along the subvariety $`S`$ will be denoted by $`P_S`$, and the strict transform of a subvariety $`S`$ on a blow-up by $`\stackrel{~}{S}`$. Hence, in the next diagram, we want to compare the exceptional divisors $`P_Y\mathrm{Bl}_YX`$ and $`P_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\mathrm{Bl}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}X^{}`$.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}P_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\mathrm{Bl}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}X^{}& \stackrel{\sigma ^{}}{}& X^{}\\ & & \rho & & \\ P_Y\mathrm{Bl}_YX& \stackrel{\sigma }{}& X\end{array}$$

Claim: $`P_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}=\mathrm{elm}_LP_Y`$, where $`L`$ is a hyperplane in one of the fibres of $`P_Y`$.

To justify the claim, let $`FP_Y`$ be the fibre over the intersection point $`\{x_0\}=ZYY`$, let $`L`$ be the hyperplane cut out by $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ on $`F`$ (actually on $`P_Y`$), and let $`ϵ:X^{\prime \prime }\mathrm{Bl}_YX`$ be the blowing-up along $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$. The fibre of $`\stackrel{~}{P}_Y`$ above $`x`$ has two components: $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. Moreover, $`\stackrel{~}{P}_Y`$ and $`P_{\stackrel{~}{Z}}`$ intersect along $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$. We first notice that there is a morphism $`u:X^{\prime \prime }X^{}`$. Indeed, $`(\sigma ϵ)^1(Z)`$ is a Cartier divisor, and from the universal property of the blowing-up $`\rho `$, we obtain $`u`$. Further, the universal property is used for $`\sigma ^{}`$ to imply that the natural birational map from $`X^{\prime \prime }`$ to $`\mathrm{Bl}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}X^{}`$ is defined at any point of $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ not lying on $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$.

We restrict $`v`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{P}_Y`$. Since $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ is now a divisor, it follows that the restriction (for which we use the same symbol $`v`$) is defined at the generic point of $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$, and establishes an isomorphism $`\stackrel{~}{P}_Y\stackrel{~}{F}P_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}\{x_0^{}\}`$. Here $`x_0^{}`$ is the point of intersection of $`P_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$ with the strict transform of the fibre of $`P_Z`$ over $`x_0`$. Using the Zariski Main Theorem, we conclude that $`v`$ is a morphism that contracts $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ to $`x_0^{}`$. The definition of the elementary transforms gives the claim.

Now by Proposition 2.1, the vector bundle that corresponds to $`P_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}`$ is determined up to tensoring with a line bundle. To finish the proof of the lemma, we apply the adjunction formula to obtain that $`\mathrm{deg}N_{Y|X}=\mathrm{deg}N_{\stackrel{~}{Y}|X^{}}1`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Theorem 2.3

Let $`X`$ be a rationally connected variety and $`YX`$ a smooth rational curve with ample normal bundle. Then there exists a sequence of blowing-ups with smooth $`2`$-codimensional centers $`\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ such that the strict transform $`\stackrel{~}{Y}`$ becomes a quasi-line.

###### Proof.

We blow-up different well-chosen $`2`$-codimensional smooth subvarieties such that, by Lemma 2.2, the strict transform of $`Y`$ becomes a quasi-line.  $`\mathrm{}`$

We end this section by presenting an application of the above theorem. Let us recall from  the following definition. A quasi-line $`YX`$ is called an almost-line if there is a divisor $`D\mathrm{Div}(X)`$ such that $`DY=1`$. The main reason for introducing this notion was the theorem below, proved in :

###### Theorem 2.4 (2.1 in )

Let $`X`$ be a projective manifold of dimension at least two, $`YX`$ a closed, smooth, connected curve with ample normal bundle and $`Y(1)`$ the first infinitesimal neighbourhood of $`Y`$ in $`X`$. The following conditions are equivalent:

* The natural restriction map $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)\mathrm{Pic}(Y(1))`$ is surjective.
* $`Y`$ is an almost-line.

For a discussion of the history and motivation of condition (i) reference  may be consulted. Theorem 2.4 is completed by the next proposition, a consequence of Theorem 2.3. The proposition shows that, at least birationally, the situation described in (i) occurs precisely when $`X`$ is rationally connected.

###### Proposition 2.5

Let $`X`$ be a rationally connected projective manifold. Then there is a morphism $`\sigma :X^{}X`$ which is a composition of blowing-ups with smooth $`2`$-codimensional centers, such that $`X^{}`$ contains an almost-line.

###### Proof.

We proceed as in the proof of Theorem 2.3. If $`YX`$ is a smooth rational curve with $`N_{Y|X}=_1^{n1}𝒪_Y(a_j)`$, $`a_1\mathrm{}a_{n1}`$ and $`a_{n1}>1`$, the quasi-line $`Y`$ constructed in loc. cit. is actually an almost-line. Indeed, if $`E`$ is the exceptional locus of the last blowing-up, we have $`EY=1`$. If $`a_{n1}=1`$ (i.e. $`Y`$ is already a quasi-line), we take $`f:^1Y`$ to be a degree-b covering, with $`b2`$. Applying Theorem II 3.14 in , we get that a general deformation of $`f`$ is an embedding with ample normal bundle, of numerical type $`b_1\mathrm{}b_{n1}`$ and such that $`b_{n1}2`$. So the previous argument applies to give the desired conclusion.  $`\mathrm{}`$

The smooth cubic threefold $`X^4`$ is an example of a rationally connected manifold that does not contain almost-lines. To see this, let $`YX`$ be a quasi-line. By the adjunction formula $`K_XY=4`$, and since $`K_X2H`$, $`Y`$ is a conic. But the Picard group is generated by the hyperplane section $`H`$, hence $`Y`$ is not an almost-line. After blowing-up one line $`lX`$, $`\mathrm{Bl}_lX`$ becomes a conic bundle, $`\pi :\mathrm{Bl}_lX^2`$. The pull-back of a general line in $`^2`$ is a surface $`S`$ isomorphic to $`^2`$ blown-up at $`6`$ points. The surface $`S`$ contains a section $`Y`$ for $`\pi |_S`$ with self intersection $`1`$. $`Y`$ is an almost-line on $`\mathrm{Bl}_lX`$.

## 3 Rationality via quasi-lines

In this section we wish to discuss some conditions under which a rationally connected manifold is actually rational.

We start by reviewing a construction that involves the Hilbert scheme associated to a rational curve on $`X`$, and the universal family of this Hilbert scheme; see , or  Section 3. Let $`X`$ be a projective manifold and $`YX`$ a quasi-line. Consider the Hilbert scheme which corresponds to the Hilbert polynomial (for a certain polarisation) of $`Y`$ in $`X`$. Since $`H^1(Y,N_{Y|X})=H^1(^1,_1^{n1}𝒪_^1(1))=0`$, the Hilbert scheme is smooth at $`[Y]`$, and $`[Y]`$ lies on a unique irreducible component, $``$, of this Hilbert scheme. We denote by $`𝒴`$ the universal family over $``$, and by $`\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ the two projections.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒴& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }}{}& X\\ \pi & & \\ \end{array}$$

For each $`h`$, the curve $`Y_h=\mathrm{\Phi }(\pi ^1(h))`$ satisfies $`[Y_h]=h`$, and the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to $`\pi ^1(h)`$ is an isomorphism onto $`Y_h`$. In addition, there exists a neighbourhood of $`[Y]`$ in $``$ such that for each closed point $`h`$ in this neighbourhood, the curve $`Y_h`$ is a quasi-line.

For $`xY`$, we consider the closed subscheme $`\pi (\mathrm{\Phi }^1(x))`$ of $``$; it contains a closed point $`h`$ if and only if the curve $`Y_h`$ passes through $`x`$. If $`_x`$ is the ideal sheaf of $`x`$ in $`Y`$, then the tangent space to $`\pi (\mathrm{\Phi }^1(x))`$ at $`[Y]`$ is identified with the space of global sections of $`N_{Y|X}_x`$. Since $`N_{Y|X}_x(n1)𝒪_^1`$ and $`H^1`$ is trivial, the tangent space is isomorphic to $`^{n1}`$ and the subscheme is smooth at $`[Y]`$. Let $`_x`$ be the unique irreducible component that contains $`[Y]`$. We shall use the same notation $`\pi `$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ for the above projections restricted to the universal family $`𝒴_x_x`$.

###### Notation 1

Let $`Y`$ be a quasi-line on $`X`$. The number of quasi-lines from the family determined by $`Y`$ and passing through two general points of $`X`$ will be denoted by $`e(X,Y)`$, cf. .

The number of quasi-lines from the family passing through one general point of $`X`$ and tangent to a general tangent vector at that point will be denoted by $`e_0(X,Y)`$.

To see that these numbers are indeed finite, we take $`\xi `$ a $`0`$-dimensional subscheme of length $`2`$ in $`Y`$ in such a way that $`\{x\}\mathrm{supp}(\xi )`$. The closed subscheme $`_\xi `$ of curves through $`\xi `$ is contained in $`_x`$ and, as before, its tangent space at $`[Y]`$ is identified with $`H^0(Y,N_{Y|X}_\xi )`$. This space of global sections is trivial, and this implies the finiteness of the number of quasi-lines through $`\xi `$. Notice that the degree of $`\mathrm{\Phi }:𝒴_xX`$ is equal to $`e(X,Y)`$.

Recall that a model is a couple $`(X,Y)`$ with $`YX`$ a smooth rational curve with ample normal bundle.

###### Proposition 3.1

Let $`(X,Y)`$ be a model with $`Y`$ a quasi-line. Then the following assertions hold:

* If $`e_0(X,Y)=1`$, then $`X`$ is a unirational variety.
* If $`e(X,Y)=1`$, then $`X`$ is a rational variety.

###### Proof.

Let $`xY`$ be a fixed point. Let $`\sigma :\mathrm{Bl}_xXX`$ be the blow-up of $`X`$ at $`x`$ and $`E`$ be the exceptional divisor. In the diagram

the map $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ contracts the divisor $`=\mathrm{\Phi }^1(x)`$. This divisor is the image of the natural section $`s:_x𝒴_x`$ that maps a point $`h_x`$ to the point $`x`$ on the fibre $`Y_h`$ of the universal family. Since both $`_x`$ and $`\pi `$ are generically smooth, the rational map $`\sigma ^1\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is defined at a general point of $``$. It follows that $`\sigma ^1\mathrm{\Phi }`$ maps $``$ to $`E`$.

The fact that the restriction of the map $`\sigma ^1\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to $``$ gives a birational isomorphism to $`E`$ means precisely that $`e_0(X,Y)=1`$. As $`𝒴_x`$ is birationally isomorphic to $`\times ^1`$, (i) is proved.

To see (ii), we first show that the restriction of the rational map $`\sigma ^1\mathrm{\Phi }:E`$ is dominant. This comes from the fact that the map is generically finite, since a point $`yY`$ is sent to the point of $`E`$ that corresponds to the tangent vector of $`YX`$ at $`x`$. Since $`e(X,Y)=1`$, $`\sigma ^1\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is birational and by the Zariski Main Theorem, it follows that its restriction to $``$ is also birational. Thus $`𝒴_x`$ is rational and so is $`X`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

When $`(X,Y)`$ is a model with $`Y`$ a quasi-line, the preceding argument gives the inequality

$$e_0(X,Y)e(X,Y).$$

This inequality may be strict. To see how this is so, we use the model $`(X,Y)`$, constructed in  Example 2.7, and some results to be established in Section 5 concerning the behaviour of $`e`$ and $`e_0`$ under étale covers along $`Y`$, see the proof of Theorem 5.1. $`X`$ is the desingularisation of the toric quotient of $`^n`$ by the cyclic group of order $`n+1`$ and $`Y`$ is a quasi-line isomorphic to the image of a line in $`^n`$. $`e_0(X,Y)`$ is preserved by étale covers over $`Y`$ and $`e(X,Y)`$ is equal to $`e(^n,\text{line})`$ multiplied by the degree of the projection map. Hence $`e_0(X,Y)=e_0(^n,\text{line})=1`$ and $`e(X,Y)=n+1`$.

Another example of a model with the distinguished curve a quasi-line for which the numbers $`e`$ and $`e_0`$ can be explicitly computed is given by the proposition below.

###### Proposition 3.2

Let $`X^4`$ be a smooth cubic threefold and let $`𝒬`$ be the family of all conics lying on $`X`$. Then:

* $`𝒬`$ is an irreducible family of dimension $`4`$.
* A conic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ corresponding to a general point of $`𝒬`$ is a quasi-line.
* $`e_0(X,\mathrm{\Gamma })=e(X,\mathrm{\Gamma })=6`$.

###### Proof.

It is a classical fact that the family $`𝒟`$ of lines contained in $`X`$ is a smooth, irreducible surface and that there are $`6`$ lines passing through a general point of $`X`$, see e.g. , 266-270. Let $`G(3,5)`$ be the Grassmannian of planes in $`^4`$. The incidence $`\{(l,P)lP\}𝒟\times G(3,5)`$ is irreducible and has dimension $`4`$. The projection of this incidence on the second factor is birational on its image which identifies to $`𝒬`$. Hence (i).

(ii) was first proved by Oxbury in . See also , Theorem 3.2 for a more conceptual argument.

To prove (iii), we consider $`l`$ a general line in $`^4`$ and $`\{x,x^{},y\}`$ the intersection of $`l`$ with $`X`$. Clearly, there is a bijection between lines contained in $`X`$ and passing through $`y`$ and conics contained in $`X`$ and passing through $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$. Hence $`e(X,\mathrm{\Gamma })=6`$. In a similar vein, let $`x`$ be a general point of $`X`$, $`v`$ a general tangent vector at $`x`$ and $`y`$ the other point of intersection of the line, $`l_{x,v}`$ determined by $`v`$, with $`X`$. For every line contained in $`X`$ and passing through $`y`$, the plane spanned by this line and $`l_{x,v}`$ cuts out a residual conic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ through $`x`$ and tangent to $`v`$. This shows that $`e_0(X,\mathrm{\Gamma })=6`$, too.  $`\mathrm{}`$

The considerations made at the beginning of this section, together with Theorem 2.3, allow us to introduce the definition below.

###### Definition 3.3

Let $`X`$ be a rationally connected projective manifold. We denote by $`e(X)`$ the minimum of $`e(X^{},Y^{})`$ for all models $`(X^{},Y^{})`$, where $`\sigma :X^{}X`$ is a composition of blowing-ups with smooth centers, and $`Y^{}`$ is a quasi-line on $`X^{}`$.

The number $`e(X)`$ leads to a characterization of rational manifolds inside the class of rationally connected ones.

###### Theorem 3.4

Let $`X`$ be a rationally connected projective manifold.

* The number $`e(X)`$ is a birational invariant of $`X`$.
* $`X`$ is rational if and only if $`e(X)=1`$.

###### Proof.

(i) Let $`\phi :X_1X_2`$ be a birational isomorphism between two rationally connected projective manifolds. Let $`\sigma :X^{}X_2`$ be a composition of blowing-ups and let $`Y^{}X^{}`$ be a quasi-line such that $`e(X_2)=e(X^{},Y^{})`$. Let $`\mu =\sigma ^1\phi :X_1X^{}`$. By , there is $`\rho :XX_1`$ which is a composition of blowing-ups such that $`\mu \rho :XX^{}`$ is a birational morphism. Let $`YX`$ be the inverse image by $`\mu \rho `$ of a general deformation of $`Y^{}`$. We have $`e(X_2)=e(X^{},Y^{})=e(X,Y)e(X_1)`$. The opposite inequality follows by symmetry.

(ii) Clearly $`e(^n)=1`$, so if $`X`$ is rational, then $`e(X)=1`$ by (i). The converse follows from Proposition 3.1.  $`\mathrm{}`$

The number $`e(X)`$ seems to be very difficult to compute. On one hand, its definition involves arbitrary blowing-ups of $`X`$; on the other hand, even for fixed $`X`$, there are in general infinitely many families of quasi-lines $`Y`$ on $`X`$ and it is not at all clear how to compute the minimum of all numbers $`e(X,Y)`$. To circumvent this, we shall introduce in Section 5 a “local version” of $`e(X)`$, denoted $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$. It is associated to a given quasi-line $`Y`$ and it is easier to compute. However, it is an open problem whether or not $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$ leads to a birational invariant. We refer to the discussion in the last section.

## 4 Strongly-rational manifolds

The aim of this section is to give a convenient characterization of strongly-rational manifolds, such that later on we can establish their stability with respect to small smooth deformations. We shall need the following result from , which is also a particular case of Theorem 1.5.

###### Theorem 4.1 (4.4 in )

$`X`$ is strongly-rational if and only if $`X`$ contains a quasi-line $`YX`$ and a divisor $`D`$ with $`DY=1`$ and $`dim|D|n`$.

The argument for the converse is by induction on $`n=dimX`$. It eventually says that the linear system $`|D|`$ has dimension $`n`$ and corresponds to the hyperplanes of the projective space.

###### Theorem 4.2

A manifold $`X`$ is strongly-rational if and only if

1) $`X`$ contains a quasi-line $`Y`$,

2) there exists a point $`xX`$ smooth on every curve $`Y^{}Y`$ passing through it, and

3) $`e(X,Y)=1`$.

###### Proof.

If $`X`$ is strongly-rational, then $`X`$ contains an open subset $`U`$ isomorphic to an open subset $`V`$ of the projective space, whose complement is at least $`2`$-codimensional. Conditions 1) and 3) follow by taking $`Y`$ to be the image of a line on $`V`$.

For 2), we consider a general point $`xU`$, a curve $`Y`$ as above, and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ the linear system of divisors that pass through $`x`$ and correspond to hyperplanes of $`^n`$. Clearly $`x`$ is an isolated base point of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If this base locus reduces to $`x`$, then, for every $`Y_x`$, we can choose a divisor $`D\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ which avoids a point in each irreducible component of $`Y`$. Hence $`(DY)_x=1`$, for $`DY=1`$. Thus $`Y`$ is smooth at $`x`$. To finish the proof, we need to deal with the case when $`\mathrm{Bs}\mathrm{\Lambda }\{x\}`$. To do this, we consider $`\sigma :X^{}X`$, the blow-up of $`X`$ along $`\mathrm{Bs}\mathrm{\Lambda }\{x\}`$ and $`x^{}X^{}`$ such that $`\sigma (x^{})=x`$. A quasi-line $`Y_0X`$ that does not meet the center of the blowing-up gives a quasi-line $`Y_0^{}`$ in $`X^{}`$, and hence, the Hilbert scheme $`_x^{}^{}`$. As above, we obtain the result that every $`[Y^{}]_x^{}^{}`$ is smooth at $`x^{}`$. Now, to descend the result to $`X`$, the Chow scheme will be used; it has the advantage of possesing the functorial property that comes from the push-forward of cycles, unlike the Hilbert scheme.

Let $`𝒞h_x(X)`$ be the irreducible component that corresponds to $`Y_0`$, of the Chow scheme of cycles through $`x`$, and similarly, $`𝒞h_x^{}(X^{})`$ to $`Y_0^{}`$. If we take $`\stackrel{~}{}_x_x`$ to be the normalisation of $`_x`$, then the fundamental class of an element in $`\stackrel{~}{}_x`$ provides us with a natural morphism $`f:\stackrel{~}{}_x𝒞h_x(X)`$ that is birational and surjective. From the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{^{}}_x^{}& \stackrel{f^{}}{}& 𝒞h_x^{}(X^{})\\ & & \sigma _{}& & \\ \stackrel{~}{}_x& \stackrel{f}{}& 𝒞h_x(X)\end{array}$$

it follows that for any $`[Y]𝒞h_x(X)`$, the curve that corresponds to it is smooth at $`x`$. This smoothness and Theorem I.6.5 in  imply that the morphism from the universal family to the Chow scheme, $`p:𝒞_x𝒞h_x(X)`$, is smooth at every point of the distinguished section. Then, from the commutative diagram,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{𝒴}_x& & 𝒞_x\\ \stackrel{~}{\pi }& & p& & \\ \stackrel{~}{}_x& \stackrel{f}{}& 𝒞h_x(X)\end{array}$$

it follows that $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }`$ is smooth at every point of $`\stackrel{~}{}`$, and consequently the same holds for $`𝒴_x_x`$.

To prove the converse, we start with some remarks. The first one is that the hypotheses give rise to the diagram

with $`\sigma `$ being the blowing-up of $`x`$, $`E`$ the exceptional divisor, $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ a birational morphism and $`s`$ an isomorphism. To see that $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}`$ is a morphism, it is sufficient to show that $``$ is a Cartier divisor (see the lemma hereafter), and to apply the universal property of a blowing-up.

The second remark is that if $`F𝒴_x`$ is a general fibre of $`\pi `$ and $`yF(F)`$ is any point, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is a local isomorphism at $`y`$. Indeed, if it is not, from the Zariski Main Theorem, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(\mathrm{\Phi }(y))`$ is positive dimensional. Moreover $`\mathrm{\Phi }(y)=x^{}x`$, hence there are infinitely many quasi-lines through $`x`$ and $`x^{}`$, which is impossible.

The third remark is that there exists an effective divisor $`DX`$ such that $`DY=1`$. Indeed, if $`HE^{n1}`$ is a general hyperplane, we look at $`D=\mathrm{\Phi }((\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Phi }}|_{}s\pi )^{}H)`$. Then, the multiplicity of $`x`$ on $`D`$ is given by

$$\mathrm{mult}_x(D)=(1)^{n2}(\sigma |E)_{}(\stackrel{~}{D}E^{n1})=H^{n1}=1,$$
(2)
hence the point $`x`$ is smooth on $`D`$. As a consequence of the previous remark, a general deformation of $`Y`$ through $`x`$ meets $`D`$ only at $`x`$ and the intersection is transverse. We conclude that $`DY=1`$.

The fourth remark is that for a general point $`pE`$ and general hyperplanes $`H_1,\mathrm{},H_{n1}`$ through $`p`$, if $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_{n1}`$ are the divisors on $`X`$ corresponding to the $`H_i`$’s as in (2), then the $`D_i`$’s cut out a quasi-line transversely. It is sufficient to justify this on $`𝒴_x`$, since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is birational. On $`𝒴_x`$, this is obvious from the generic smoothness of $`\pi `$.

The last remark is that $`dim|D|n`$. Clearly $`dim|D|n1`$. If equality existed, $`|D|`$ would consist only of divisors that come from hyperplanes of $`E`$. Using the above results, the point $`x`$ would be an isolated base point of the linear system $`|D|`$ and $`x`$ would be smooth on a general divisor. Let $`ϵ:X^{}X`$ be the blow-up of $`X`$ along $`B`$<sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1In fact we sytematically apply Hironaka’s result to obtain a base-point free linear system through blowing-ups with smooth centers., the base locus of $`|D|`$ minus $`x`$, and let $`|D^{}|`$ be the strict transform of $`|D|`$. By Bertini, it would follow that a general divisor in $`|D^{}|`$ is smooth. Let $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_{n1}|D|`$ be general divisors. Their intersection locus would contain a quasi-line $`Y`$ and perhaps some other closed subset disjoint from $`Y`$, and would be transverse along $`Y`$. Now $`Y`$ is disjoint from $`B`$, hence $`Y^{}=ϵ^1(Y)`$ is a quasi-line on $`X^{}`$ and in a neighbourhood of $`Y^{}`$, the strict transforms $`D_1^{},\mathrm{},D_{n1}^{}`$ would also intersect transversely along $`Y^{}`$. From $`H^1(X^{},𝒪_X^{})=0`$ and the exact sequence

$$0𝒪_X^{}𝒪_X^{}(D^{})𝒪_{D_1^{}}(D^{})0,$$

it would follow that $`dim|D^{}|_{D_1^{}}|=n2`$, and using the exact sequence of normal bundles

$$0N_{Y^{}|D_1^{}}N_{Y^{}|X^{}}𝒪_Y^{}(1)0,$$

that $`Y^{}`$ is a quasi-line on $`D_1^{}`$. As we have noticed, $`D_1^{}`$ is smooth, hence $`H^1(D_1^{},𝒪_{D_1^{}})=0`$, and we could pursue the restriction procedure. After $`n2`$ steps, we would arrive at a smooth, regular surface $`S`$, together with a rational curve $`Y^{}S`$ such that $`(Y^{})^2=1`$ and $`dim|Y^{}|1`$. By Riemann-Roch, this would be impossible.

At this point, we invoke Theorem 4.1 and obtain that $`X`$ is strongly-rational.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.3

Let $`𝒴\stackrel{\pi }{}`$ be a flat morphism of schemes of relative dimension $`1`$, with $``$ integral and $``$ a section. Then $``$ is a Cartier divisor on $`𝒴`$ if and only if $``$ intersects each fibre in a smooth point of the fibre.

###### Proof.

The “only if” part is clear. For the converse, let us suppose that for every $`e`$, the local ring $`𝒪_{\pi ^1(\pi (e)),e}`$ is a discrete valuation ring and let us note $`A=𝒪_{,\pi (e)}`$, $`B=𝒪_{𝒴,e}`$ the local rings with $`𝔪`$ and $`𝔫`$ the maximal ideals. We have the commutative diagram

with $`I=_{,e}`$. Hence, the exact sequence of $`A`$-modules

$$0IBB/I0$$

splits. Tensoring with $`A/𝔪`$ over $`A`$, the sequence remains exact and gives the injection

$$0I_AA/𝔪=I/𝔪IB/𝔪B.$$

But $`B/𝔪B`$ is a discrete valuation ring, hence $`I/𝔪I`$ is a principal ideal. The inclusion $`𝔪I𝔫I`$ implies that $`I/𝔪I`$ surjects onto $`I/𝔫I`$, that $`I/𝔫I`$ is principal, and applying Nakayama’s Lemma, that $`I`$ is principal. It remains to be shown that $`I`$ is generated by a nonzero divisor in $`B`$. Since $`B/IA`$ is a domain, $`I`$ is a prime ideal, and the next lemma ends the proof.  $`\mathrm{}`$

We are grateful to Lucian Bădescu for pointing out the next lemma to the first named author.

###### Lemma 4.4

Let $`B`$ be a local Noetherian ring. If $`IB`$ is a principal prime ideal of height $`1`$, then $`I`$ is generated by a nonzero divisor.

###### Proof.

Let $`I=(b)`$ and let $`\beta B`$ such that $`\beta b=0`$. Then either $`\beta I`$, or $`\beta I`$. In the former case, considering the localisation $`B_I`$, we get $`b=0`$, a contradiction. In the second case, $`\beta =\beta _1b`$. The same argument applied to $`\beta _1`$ yields $`\beta _1=\beta _2b`$, i.e. $`\beta I^2`$. We may continue the process as long as $`\beta _nI`$ and, if this happens, infer that $`\beta I^n`$, for every positive integer $`n`$. By the Krull Intersection Theorem, $`\beta =0`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

In the sequel, we shall refer to the set-up

where $`𝒳`$ is a smooth variety, $`B`$ a smooth affine curve and $`p`$ is a proper and smooth morphism, as to a small deformation of the smooth projective variety $`X_0`$.

###### Theorem 4.5

Strongly-rational varieties are stable with respect to small deformations.

Note that such a property is not expected to hold for rational manifolds. Indeed, several examples of smooth rational cubic four-folds in $`^5`$ are known to exist, but the general one is expected to be non-rational.

###### Proof.

We shall show that the three conditions of Theorem 4.2 are stable with respect to small deformations. For the first one the result is well known, see e.g.  Proposition 3.10, and the following lemmas deal with the remaining two conditions.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.6

Condition 2) is stable with respect to small deformations.

###### Proof.

Let $`p:𝒳B`$ be a small deformation of $`X_0`$. $`X_0`$ contains a point $`x`$ and a quasi-line $`Y`$ through $`x`$, such that every other $`Y^{}_x`$ is smooth at $`x`$.

After a base change, if necessary, we can assume that $`𝒳B`$ has a section $`s`$ through $`x`$. If $`𝓗_s`$ is the relative Hilbert scheme over $`B`$, of quasi-lines through some point of $`s(B)`$, we have the diagram

which over $`0B`$, becomes

Every fibre of $`\pi _0`$ is smooth at the point of intersection with $`_0`$.

Let $`𝒰𝓨_s`$ be the subset of those $`y𝓨_s`$ at which $`\pi `$ is smooth. Since $`\pi `$ is flat, $`𝒰`$ is an open subset. The hypothesis yields $`_0𝒰`$, and since $`q\pi `$ is proper, $`𝓨_s𝒰`$ is sent onto a closed subset of $`B`$. We conclude that $`_b`$ is contained in $`𝒰`$ for every $`b`$ in a neighbourhood of $`0`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Lemma 4.7

Condition 3) is stable with respect to small deformations.

###### Proof.

We consider a small deformation and the diagram above. As before, when restricted to $`0`$, it becomes

$$\begin{array}{ccc}𝒴_0& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Phi }_0}{}& X_0\\ & & \\ _0\end{array}$$

with $`\mathrm{\Phi }_0`$ a birational morphism. To see that $`\mathrm{\Phi }_b`$ is birational in a neighbourhood of $`0`$, one may consider a smooth curve $`C𝒳`$ through $`x`$, the intersection of general very ample divisors that contain $`x`$, and its pre-image $`C^{}𝓨_s`$. The restrictions $`p|_C:CB`$ and $`(q\pi )|_C^{}:C^{}B`$ are proper and quasi-finite, and hence finite. Consequently $`\mathrm{\Phi }|_C^{}:C^{}C`$ is finite. But the fibre above $`x`$ has length $`1`$ and the result is established.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 5 Quasi-lines and formal geometry

If $`Y`$ is a closed subscheme of $`X`$, the theory of formal functions of $`X`$ along $`Y`$ was developped by Zariski and Grothendieck as an algebraic substitute for a complex tubular neighbourhood of $`Y`$ in $`X`$. $`\widehat{X}|_Y`$ denotes the formal completion of $`X`$ along $`Y`$, which is the ringed space with topological space $`Y`$ and sheaf of rings $`𝒪_{\widehat{X}|_Y}=\underset{}{lim}𝒪_X/^n`$. $``$ is the sheaf of ideals defining $`Y`$ in $`X`$.

In , Hironaka and Matsumura have introduced and studied $`K(\widehat{X}|_Y)`$, the ring of formal rational functions of $`X`$ along $`Y`$. In good cases it is a field that contains the field $`K(X)`$ of rational functions of $`X`$. We recall the following definitions from : $`Y`$ is G2 in $`X`$ if $`K(\widehat{X}|_Y)`$ is a field and the field extension $`K(X)K(\widehat{X}|_Y)`$ is finite. $`Y`$ is G3 in $`X`$ if the inclusion $`K(X)K(\widehat{X}|_Y)`$ is an isomorphism.

###### Notation 2

If $`Y`$ is G2 in $`X`$, we denote by $`b(X,Y)`$ the degree of the field extension $`K(X)K(\widehat{X}|_Y)`$.

We also recall the following two results that will be repeatedly used in the sequel. They are stated in the particular case of quasi-lines, which is enough for our purposes. Since the normal bundle of a quasi-line $`YX`$ is ample, $`Y`$ is G2 in $`X`$, see .

###### 1The Hartshorne-Gieseker construction (see , Theorem 4.3)

If $`YX`$ is a quasi-line, then there is a morphism of models $`(X^{},Y^{})(X,Y)`$ of degree $`b(X,Y)`$, étale along $`Y^{}`$, and such that $`Y^{}`$ is G3 in $`X^{}`$.

###### 2Gieseker’s Theorem (see )

Let $`(X_i,Y_i)`$ be two models with $`Y_iX_i`$ a quasi-line, $`i=1,2`$. Assume that $`Y_i`$ is G3 in $`X_i`$ and $`\widehat{X}_1|_{Y_1}\widehat{X}_2|_{Y_2}`$ as formal schemes. Then there are Zariski open subsets $`U_iX_i`$ containing $`Y_i`$ and an isomorphism $`U_1U_2`$ that sends $`Y_1`$ to $`Y_2`$.

The following definition is similar to Definition 3.3. Here, for a given quasi-line, we consider étale neighbourhoods instead of its Zariski neighbourhoods.

###### Definition 1

Let $`YX`$ be a quasi-line. The number $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$ is the minimum of $`e(X^{},Y^{})`$, where $`X^{}`$ is a projective manifold, $`Y^{}X^{}`$ is a quasi-line, $`f:X^{}X`$ is a generically finite morphism, étale along $`Y^{}`$, and $`f(Y^{})=Y`$.

The following result shows a useful relationship between the geometry of quasi-lines and formal geometry. It will play a key role in the sequel.

###### Theorem 5.1

If $`YX`$ is a quasi-line, then

$$e(X,Y)=\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)b(X,Y).$$

###### Proof.

We first show that if $`f:(X^{},Y^{})(X,Y)`$ is a generically finite morphism of models, with $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ quasi-lines, étale along $`Y^{}`$, then $`e(X,Y)=\mathrm{deg}fe(X^{},Y^{})`$. Let $`y^{}Y^{}`$ be a fixed point and let $`y=f(y^{})`$. For $`xX`$ a general point, we denote by $`x_1^{},\mathrm{},x_d^{}`$ the points of the fibre over $`x`$, where $`d=\mathrm{deg}f`$. We consider the quasi-lines on $`X^{}`$ equivalent to $`Y^{}`$, that pass through $`y^{}`$ and $`x_i^{}`$, for some $`1id`$. Their images on $`X`$ are quasi-lines through $`y`$ and $`x`$, and are equivalent to $`Y`$. The induced map on Chow schemes $`f_{}:𝒞h_y^{}(X^{})𝒞h_y(X)`$ is injective when restricted to the open sets parametrising quasi-lines. This comes from the fact that the considered quasi-lines on $`X^{}`$ do not intersect the ramification divisor of $`f`$. It follows that this restriction of $`f_{}`$ is also surjective, giving the equality.

Next we choose an $`f`$ as above, such that $`e(X^{},Y^{})=\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$. We claim that $`Y^{}`$ is G3 in $`X^{}`$. We can apply the Hartshorne-Gieseker construction to get $`g:(X^{\prime \prime },Y^{\prime \prime })(X^{},Y^{})`$ as above, with $`\mathrm{deg}g=b(X^{},Y^{})`$. Then, by the previous step,

$$\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)=e(X^{},Y^{})=b(X^{},Y^{})e(X^{\prime \prime },Y^{\prime \prime }),$$

and from the definition of $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$ it follows that $`b(X^{},Y^{})=1`$.

To finish the proof we consider the following diagram associated to $`f`$,

and conclude that $`\mathrm{deg}f=b(X,Y)`$. Note that the right vertical isomorphism comes from the fact that $`f`$ being étale along $`Y^{}`$, induces an isomorphism between $`\widehat{X}|_Y`$ and $`\widehat{X^{}}|_Y^{}`$, see , Lemma 4.5.  $`\mathrm{}`$

The next corollary shows that $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$ depends only on the formal completion of $`X`$ along $`Y`$.

###### Corollary 5.2

Let $`(X,Y)`$ and $`(X^{},Y^{})`$ be two models with $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ quasi-lines. If $`\widehat{X}|_Y\widehat{X^{}}|_Y^{}`$ as formal schemes, then $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)=\stackrel{~}{e}(X^{},Y^{})`$.

###### Proof.

We use Hartshorne-Gieseker’s construction and suppose that $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ are G3. As the formal completions are isomorphic, it follows that $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ have isomorphic Zariski neighbourhoods, by Gieseker’s Theorem. Hence $`e(X,Y)=e(X^{},Y^{})`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Corollary 5.3

Let $`YX`$ be a quasi-line. Then

$$e_0(X,Y)\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)e(X,Y).$$

###### Proof.

The second inequality comes directly from the theorem. As for the first one, it is enough to notice, as in the proof of the above theorem, that $`e_0(X,Y)`$ is preserved by étale covers over $`Y`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

The connection between $`e(X,Y)`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$ gives the following characterisation of the G3 property.

###### Corollary 5.4

Let $`YX`$ be a quasi-line. $`Y`$ is G3 in $`X`$ if and only if $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)=e(X,Y)`$. In particular, if $`e_0(X,Y)=e(X,Y)`$, then $`Y`$ is G3.

As a very special case, a quasi-line $`YX`$ with $`e(X,Y)=1`$ is G3. This generalizes the fact, first noticed by Hironaka, that a line in the projective space is G3.

It is easy to see that when $`X`$ has dimension $`2`$ and $`YX`$ is a quasi-line, the formal completion $`\widehat{X}|_Y`$ is isomorphic to $`\widehat{^2}|_{\text{line}}`$. However, in higher dimensions, the situation is completely different, as shown by the following example. See also .

###### Example 5.5

Let $`E`$ be a vector bundle over $`^2`$ associated to the exact sequence

$$0𝒪_^2(1)E𝒥_{p,q}(2)0,$$

where $`p`$ and $`q`$ are two distinct points in $`^2`$. Note that, $`p`$ and $`q`$ fixed, $`E`$ lives in a $`2`$-dimensional family. Let $`YP(E)`$ be the quasi-line, lying over a line in $`^2`$, given by the construction in , Proposition 4.2. We claim that for two models of this type, $`(P(E),Y)`$ and $`(P(E^{}),Y^{})`$, the isomorphism $`\widehat{P(E)}|_Y\widehat{P(E^{})}|_Y^{}`$ holds only if the bundles $`E`$ and $`E^{}`$ are isomorphic.

To justify the claim, we note that by the following lemma, $`e(P(E),Y)=e(P(E^{}),Y^{})=1`$. Hence, by Corollary 5.4, $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ are G3 in $`P(E)`$ and $`P(E^{})`$, respectively. By Gieseker’s result, there exist open subsets $`UP(E)`$ and $`U^{}P(E^{})`$ and an isomorphism $`\phi :UU^{}`$, such that $`\phi (Y)=Y^{}`$. Moreover, the complements of $`U`$ and $`U^{}`$ are at least $`2`$-codimensional by Lemma 4.4 in , and $`\phi `$ induces an isomorphism on the Picard groups. The formula for the canonical class shows that $`\phi ^{}𝒪_{P(E^{})}(1)=𝒪_{P(E)}(1)`$. Using the exact sequence that defines the vector bundles, we infer that $`\phi `$ is an isomorphism outside the fibers over the fixed points $`p`$ and $`q`$. Now, if $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ are the pull-backs of a line in $`^2`$ on $`P(E)`$ and $`P(E^{})`$ respectively, standard computations with intersection numbers show that $`\phi ^{}𝒪_{P(E^{})}(D^{})=𝒪_{P(E)}(D)`$. Here we use that a general $`D`$ avoids the indeterminacy locus of $`\phi `$. It follows that $`\phi `$ is an isomorphism between the two projective bundles over $`^2`$. As the Chern classes of the two vector bundles are the same, the claim is proved.

###### Lemma 5.6

Let $`(X,Y)`$ be a model with $`Y`$ a quasi-line, $`E`$ be a rank $`r2`$ vector bundle over $`X`$ and $`\pi :P(E)X`$ the canonical projection. If there exists $`Y^{}P(E)`$ a quasi-line that projects isomorphically onto $`Y`$, then $`e(P(E),Y^{})=e(X,Y)`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`x^{}Y^{}P(E)`$ and $`x=\pi (x^{})`$. Consider the induced map $`\pi _{}:𝒞h_x^{}(P(E))𝒞h_x(X)`$. The open subset of $`\pi _{}^1([Y])`$ that corresponds to quasi-lines through $`x^{}`$ is irreducible of dimension $`r1`$. This follows from Proposition 4.1. in : these quasi-lines correspond to lines in a certain $`^r`$, passing through a given point. In particular, there is only one such curve passing through a second point.

Now, let $`x^{\prime \prime }`$ be a general point of $`P(E)`$. The choice of $`x^{\prime \prime }`$ implies that any quasi-line from the family determined by $`Y^{}`$ that passes through $`x^{}`$ and $`x^{\prime \prime }`$ is mapped by $`\pi `$ to a quasi-line equivalent to $`Y`$ and passing through $`x`$ and $`\pi (x^{\prime \prime })`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

The above lemma allows us to give a similar example with a rank $`r`$ vector bundle over $`^r`$.

###### Example 5.7

Let $`r2`$, $`X=P(T_^r^{})`$ and $`YX`$ be an almost-line as in , Proposition 4.2. Let also $`X^{}`$ be the projective space of dimension $`2r1`$, and $`Y^{}X^{}`$ be a line. $`Y`$ is G3 in $`X`$, but the formal completions $`\widehat{X}|_Y`$ and $`\widehat{X^{}}|_Y^{}`$ are not isomorphic<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2For $`r=2`$, this was proved in  by an ad-hoc argument. Herbert Kurke informed the first named author that he independently proved the assertion about the formal completions by a completely different method..

Indeed, by the above lemma, $`e(X,Y)=1`$. Hence $`Y`$ is G3 in $`X`$ by Corollary 5.4. If the formal completions were isomorphic, by Gieseker’s result, $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ would have isomorphic Zariski neighbourhoods. The complements of these neighbourhoods would be at least $`2`$-codimensional by Lemma 4.4 in , hence $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ would have isomorphic Picard groups. This is absurd.

This example is relevant in connection with the following proposition:

###### Proposition 5.8

Let $`X`$ be a projective manifold. The following conditions are equivalent:

* $`X`$ is strongly-rational;
* $`X`$ contains a curve $`Y`$ in such a way that

(a) $`\widehat{X}|_Y`$ is isomorphic (as formal schemes) to $`\widehat{^n}|_{\text{line}}`$, and

(b) $`Y`$ is G3 in $`X`$.

The equivalence follows from Gieseker’s result, using the fact that a line in $`^n`$ is G3. The Example 5.7 shows that at least for $`n`$ odd, $`n3`$, there are models $`(X,Y)`$ with $`dimX=n`$ that satisfy condition (b), but not condition (a). On the other hand, the examples constructed in , 2.7 satisfy condition (a), but not (b). So the two conditions, both very hard to verify in practice, are independent.

Our last corollary is a kind of “formal Torelli theorem” for cubic threefolds.

###### Corollary 5.9

Let $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ be smooth cubic threefolds in $`^4`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}X^{}`$ be general conics. If $`\widehat{X}|_\mathrm{\Gamma }\widehat{X^{}}|_\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$, then there exists an isomorphism $`\phi :XX^{}`$ such that $`\phi (\mathrm{\Gamma })=\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$.

###### Proof.

We have noticed in Proposition 3.2 that such a conic is a quasi-line with $`e_0(X,\mathrm{\Gamma })=e(X,\mathrm{\Gamma })=6`$. We apply Corollary 5.4 to deduce that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ are G3. By Gieseker’s result, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{}`$ have isomorphic Zariski neighbourhoods. As $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ are Fano manifolds with $`b_2=1`$, the birational isomorphism extends to an isomorphism, see e.g. , Proposition 1.17.  $`\mathrm{}`$

## 6 Some questions

A first question arises from the fact that we do not know of any example of a quasi-line $`YX`$ for which $`e_0(X,Y)<\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$, cf. Corollary 5.3. Note that if equality holds, then $`b(X,Y)`$ is constant in the family of quasi-lines determined by $`Y`$. In particular, if $`Y`$ is G3, then every $`Y^{}Y`$ is G3.

More importantly, we would like to ask the following:

###### 3Question

If $`YX`$ is a quasi-line, is $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$ determined by the field of formal rational functions $`K(\widehat{X}|_Y)`$?

More precisely, if two models have $`K(\widehat{X}|_Y)K(\widehat{X^{}}|_Y^{})`$ as $``$-extensions, does it follow that $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)=\stackrel{~}{e}(X^{},Y^{})`$? The question may be reformulated as follows: If $`(X,Y)`$ and $`(X^{},Y^{})`$ are two models with $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$ quasi-lines which are G3 in $`X`$ and $`X^{}`$ respectively, and $`X`$ is birational to $`X^{}`$, is it true that $`e(X,Y)=e(X^{},Y^{})`$? The equivalence of the two formulations comes from the Hartshorne-Gieseker construction. We note that a positive answer to this question would be analogous to the birational invariance of $`e(X)`$ established in Theorem 3.4. However, $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$ is much easier to compute than $`e(X)`$.

A relevant particular case of the above problem concerns rational manifolds.

###### 4Question

Let $`X`$ be a rational projective manifold and $`YX`$ be a quasi-line, G3 in $`X`$. Is it true that $`e(X,Y)=1`$?

This question appears as a natural converse of the facts proved in Proposition 3.1 and in Corollary 5.4: If $`e(X,Y)=1`$, then $`X`$ is rational and $`Y`$ is G3 in $`X`$.

Recall from the proof of Corollary 5.9 that a general conic $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ lying on a smooth cubic threefold $`X^4`$ is a quasi-line, is G3 in $`X`$ and has $`e(X,\mathrm{\Gamma })=6`$. It follows that a positive answer to the above question would yield a completely new proof of the non-rationality of $`X`$.

The simple example below points out the difficulty in constructing a counterexample to the above question. Consider $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ a conic in $`^3`$, a fixed point $`p\mathrm{\Gamma }`$, a general line $`l`$ and a general smooth curve $`C`$ both meeting $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Take $`X`$ to be the blow-up of $`^3`$ with center $`p`$, $`l`$ and $`C`$. The proper transform of the conic becomes a quasi-line $`Y`$. Remark that $`\stackrel{~}{e}(X,Y)`$ is independent of the choice of the curve $`C`$, the formal completion $`\widehat{X}|_Y`$ being the same. When $`C`$ is a line, we easily find out that $`e(X,Y)=1`$. However, when $`C`$ is irrational, $`e(X,Y)`$ must be greater than one. This comes from the proof of Proposition 3.1: If $`e(X,Y)=1`$, the exceptional divisor lying over $`C`$ should be rational. Hence, in this case, $`Y`$ is not G3 in $`X`$.

## Appendix: a toric example

If $`(X,Y)`$ is a model, with $`Y`$ an almost-line, one may ask the following question, related to the hypothesis of Theorem 1.5 (see , Remark 1.14): Can we find a linear system $`|D|`$ on $`X`$ such that $`DY=1`$ and $`dim|D|1`$? We reconsider a basic example from , 2.7, in order to prove, via a toric calculation, that the answer to the above question is, in general, no.

We refer to  for basic notions on toric varieties and recall here the following facts we shall need about Cartier divisors on the toric variety $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a fan in the lattice $`N^n`$:

1) The closure of the orbit corresponding to a ray in the fan is an irreducible, effective, toric Weil divisor on the variety.

2) Let $`D=_ia_iD_i`$ be a toric Weil divisor, where $`i`$ runs over the rays in the fan, $`D_i`$ is the closure of an orbit corresponding to the $`i^{th}`$ ray, $`\rho _iN=v_i_+`$, and $`a_i`$. $`D`$ is a Cartier divisor if and only if the map $`\psi _D(v_i)=a_i`$ can be extended to a piecewise $``$-linear map on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$.

3) The Picard group for a toric variety is spanned by the classes of the toric divisors.

4) Let $`D`$ be a Cartier toric divisor and $`\psi _D`$ be its associated piecewise $``$-linear map. The dimension of the space of global sections of $`𝒪_{X(\mathrm{\Sigma })}(D)`$ equals the number of integer points in the polyhedron

$$P_D=\{uN^{}u\psi _D\}.$$

5) Let $`f:X(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)X(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)`$ be a toric map, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_iN_i`$, $`i=1,2`$. Giving a toric map is equivalent to giving a lattice homomorphism $`\text{f}:N_1N_2`$ such that $`\text{f}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_1)\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$. The pull-back of a toric Cartier divisor $`D_2`$ on $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma }_2)`$ is the toric Cartier divisor characterised by the piecewise $``$-linear map $`\psi _{D_2}\text{f}`$.

The example we are considering is the following: Let $`U_{n+1}`$ be the cyclic group of order $`n+1`$ acting on $`^n`$ by $`\zeta [x_0,x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]=[x_0,\zeta x_1,\mathrm{},\zeta ^nx_n]`$, and let $`\pi `$ be the quotient map $`^nX=^n/U_{n+1}`$. The projective space and $`X`$ are toric varieties, and $`\pi `$ is a toric map. To see this, let $`N`$ be the canonical lattice in $`^n`$ spanned by $`e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_n`$ over $``$, and let $`N^{}N`$ be the sub-lattice spanned by $`(n+1)e_1,e_2,\mathrm{},e_n`$. The vectors $`v_1=(n+1)e_12e_23e_3\mathrm{}ne_n`$, $`v_i=e_i`$ for $`i=2,\mathrm{},n`$ and $`v_{n+1}=(n+1)e_1+e_2+2e_3+\mathrm{}+(n1)e_n`$ form the fans $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{}N^{}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_NN`$, with maximal cones the $`n+1`$ simplicial cones. Then the projective space is the toric variety $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{})`$ and $`X=X(\mathrm{\Sigma }_N)`$. The quotient $`N/N^{}U_{n+1}`$ acts naturally on $`X(\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{})`$, the action being the one considered above. The toric map induced by the inclusion $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$ is the quotient map.

Let $`H^n`$ be the hyperplane corresponding to the piecewise $``$-linear map $`\psi _H(v_j)=\delta _{2j}`$ defined on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N^{}`$. This map is not the restriction of a piecewise $``$-linear map on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$. But, if we consider the open subset $`UX`$ corresponding to the sub-fan $`\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the union of all the rays in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$, then $`\psi _H`$ defines a divisor $`D`$ on $`U`$. We note by $`\psi _D=\psi _H|_\mathrm{\Delta }`$ the map associated to $`D`$.

###### 5Lemma A.1

$`h^0(U,𝒪_U(D))=1`$.

###### Proof.

We have to count the number of integer points in the polyhedron $`P_D`$. Since

$$P_DN^{}=\{u=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}\alpha _je_j^{}u\psi _D\}N^{}$$

and $`u\psi _D`$ is equivalent to

$$\{\begin{array}{ccccc}\hfill (n+1)\alpha _1& & \hfill _2^nj\alpha _j& & 0\hfill \\ & & \hfill \alpha _2& & 1\hfill \\ & & \hfill \alpha _j& & 0\text{for every }j3\hfill \\ \hfill (n+1)\alpha _1& +& \hfill _2^n(j1)\alpha _j& & 0,\hfill \end{array}$$

we conclude that $`P_DN^{}=\{0\}`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

###### Remark 1

The open subset $`UX`$ equals $`X`$ minus its $`n+1`$ singular points and $`\pi ^1(U)`$ is the projective space minus the fixed points for the $`U_{n+1}`$-action. Moreover $`\pi ^{}𝒪_U(D)=𝒪_^n(H)|_{\pi ^1(U)}`$, and since

$$H^0(\pi ^1(U),𝒪_^n(H)|_{\pi ^1(U)})=H^0(^n,𝒪_^n(H))$$

as $`U_{n+1}`$-representations, the space of global sections for $`𝒪_U(D)`$ is isomorphic to the $`U_{n+1}`$ trivial sub-representation of $`H^0(^n,𝒪_^n(H))`$ which is $`1`$-dimensional.

Let $`\stackrel{~}{X}X`$ be a toric desingularization of $`X`$ obtained by taking a smooth sub-division $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N`$.

###### 6Lemma A.2

If $`\psi _{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$ is a piecewise $``$-linear extension of $`\psi _D`$ to $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}N`$, then the space of global sections of $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}(\stackrel{~}{D})`$ is of dimension $`1`$.

###### Proof.

This is clear, since from $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_N\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ and $`\psi _{\stackrel{~}{D}}|_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_N}=\psi _D`$, we infer that $`P_{\stackrel{~}{D}}P_D`$.  $`\mathrm{}`$

Going back to the problem of finding effective divisors $`\stackrel{~}{D}`$ on $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{D}g^{}Y=1`$, where $`Y`$ is the almost line $`\pi (L)U`$, $`L=\{x_0=x_1,x_2=x_3,x_j=0\text{ otherwise}\}`$, the answer is the following:

###### 7Corollary A.3

If $`\stackrel{~}{D}\stackrel{~}{X}`$ is a divisor such that $`\stackrel{~}{D}g^{}Y=1`$, then $`h^0(\stackrel{~}{X},𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{X}}(\stackrel{~}{D})1`$.

###### Proof.

We have the following commutative diagram,

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\stackrel{~}{^n}& \stackrel{f}{}& ^n\\ \stackrel{~}{\pi }& & \pi & & \\ \stackrel{~}{X}& \stackrel{g}{}& X\end{array}$$

where $`\stackrel{~}{^n}`$ is the toric variety $`X(\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N^{})`$, with $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N^{}`$ the fan spanned by $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ in $`N^{}`$. Then

$$n=\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}(\stackrel{~}{D}g^{}Y)=\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{D}nf^{}L,$$

hence $`\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{D}f^{}L=1`$. Since $`f_{}f^{}L=L`$, it follows that $`f_{}\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{D}=H`$ and that the function $`\psi _{\stackrel{~}{\pi }^{}\stackrel{~}{D}}`$ defined on $`\stackrel{~}{\mathrm{\Sigma }}_N^{}`$ should send to $`1`$ exactly one of the $`n+1`$ vectors $`v_j`$, $`j=1,\mathrm{},n+1`$, and to $`0`$ the remaining $`n`$. Hence, the piecewise $``$-linear map $`\psi _{\stackrel{~}{D}}`$, modulo an $`SL(n,)`$ transformation, is the map in lemma A.2, and the result follows from that lemma.  $`\mathrm{}`$

### Acknowledgement

The first named author is grateful to the Department of Mathematics of the University of Angers for several pleasant and fruitful visits. He also acknowledges partial financial support from the grant EURROMMAT of the EU.

Paltin Ionescu

Department of Mathematics

University of Bucarest

14, Academiei Street

RO-70109 Bucharest, Romania

and

Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian Academy

P.O.Box 1-764

RO-70700 Bucharest, Romania

e-mail: Paltin.Ionescu@imar.ro

Daniel Naie

Department of Mathematics

Université d’Angers

2, bd. Lavoisier

FR-49045 Angers, France

e-mail: Daniel.Naie@univ-angers.fr


format: text

text:
# Towards the entropy of gravity time-dependent models via the Cardy-Verlinde formula

## I Introduction

The concept of entropy for cosmological models has many subtleties. One usually starts by demanding that the thermodynamic system described by the corresponding time-dependent model satisfies the first law of thermodynamics. Then, one considers a specific equation of state and imposes compatibility between field equations and the first law of thermodynamics. As a result one usually obtains explicit expressions for the thermodynamic variables (temperature and entropy) of the model. In a further step, the question is addressed about the physical relevance of the state variables, the equation of state linking them, and the thermodynamic variables. In the case of a simple Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW) universe this procedure can successfully be performed kolb , yielding physically reasonable thermodynamic and state variables.

Recently, a new approach has been proposed by Verlinde ver  who noticed a formal relationship between the field equations for a FRW cosmology and the thermodynamic formulas of conformal field theory (CFT). Although at first sight this seems to be only a remarkable coincidence, a deeper analysis seems to link these results with the novel conceptual ideas inherent in the holographic principle.

The conceptual origin of the holographic principle was settled in the 70’s by Bekenstein bek  and Hawking haw , who formulated the second law of thermodynamics for black holes and the process of particle creation by black holes, respectively. These ideas were implemented in the context of quantum field theories, specially in quantum gravity and cosmology by t’Hooft thooft  and Susskind and Fischler suss ; fissus . The holographic principle is a statement about the counting of the quantum states of a physical system. It states that the degrees of freedom contained in a given spatial volume can be encoded on its boundary and that the density on the boundary does not exceed one degree of freedom per Planck area. This is inspired by the behavior of black hole entropy, that the number of degrees of freedom of a gravitating system in a region $`L`$ of space is the same as that of a system on the boundary of $`L`$. This assumption has as a consequence also that the number of degrees of freedom should grow only slower than volume. These restrictions are essentially non local and would require ultimately profound reformulations of our description of fields and their interactions.

The main ideas of the holographic principle have been used recently in the context of gravity, string theory, and CFT’s. In particular, the Cardy formula Cardy , which allows the counting of quantum states in a two-dimensional conformal field theory, has been generalized by Verlinde ver  to include arbitrary spacetime dimensions and determine the density of states. This result is now commonly referred to as the Cardy-Verlinde formula. Verlinde also proposed that a closed universe has a Casimir contribution to its energy and entropy and that the Casimir energy is bounded from above by the Bekenstein-Hawking energy. Only for the case of a radiation dominated universe this bound leads to a unification of the Bekenstein and Hubble entropy bounds for weakly and strongly self-gravitating universes, respectively. Furthermore, the Cardy-Verlinde formula turns out to coincide with the Friedman equation at the moment when the bound on the Casimir energy becomes saturated. These results give rise to the natural question: Is this formal merging between the Friedman formula, the Cardy entropy and the holographic principle only a remarkable coincidence or is it the manifestation of a profound physical property of gravity time-dependent models, CFT’s and the holographic principle? To answer this question it is then natural to try to generalize these fundamental conceptions to more general physical configurations. In this context, Wang et al. WAS  have generalized the Cardy-Verlinde formula to the case of universes with a cosmological constant, Nojiri et al. quantum  have found quantum bounds for that formula, Youm youm  has generalized the entropy formula to include perfect fluids with a general barotropic equation of state, Brevik and Odintsov brod ; brev  considered generalizations with a constant bulk viscosity. A more extensive list of recent works can be found in youm .

The question we would like to answer is if the previous results can be generalized to any dimension and various time-dependent metric components. In this paper, we restrict ourselves to the analysis, in Section II, of the Bianchi type IX cosmological model with a perfect fluid as source. As is well known, this model reduces to the closed FRW model in the isotropic limit. In Section III, we use the first law of thermodynamics together with the energy conservation law in order to obtain an expression for the entropy which turns out to be a generalization of the Cardy-Verlinde entropy formula. Then, in Section IV, we assume the validity of the Cardy entropy formula and show that it represents the Hamiltonian constraint of the field equations, when the Virasoro operator and the central charge are defined in a suitable way. This allows us to propose definitions of the Bekenstein, Bekenstein-Hawking and Hubble entropies, which turn out to depend explicitly on the cosmological anisotropies. We compare the results given in these last two sections and discuss the validity of the Cardy-Verlinde formula for cosmological models with different expansion factors. Section V is devoted to conclusions.

## II The Bianchi type IX model

As a particular case of a gravity time-dependent model, let us consider the general line element for the Bianchi type IX cosmological model bianchi

$$ds^2=dt^2e^{2\mathrm{\Omega }}\left[e^{2X+2Y}(\omega ^1)^2+e^{2X2Y}(\omega ^2)^2+e^{4X}(\omega ^3)^2\right],$$
(1)
where $`\mathrm{\Omega },X,`$ and $`Y`$ are functions of the time $`t`$ only and

$$\omega ^1=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{sin}x^3dx^1+\mathrm{sin}x^1\mathrm{cos}x^3dx^2),$$
(2)
$$\omega ^2=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}x^3dx^1+\mathrm{sin}x^1\mathrm{sin}x^3dx^2),$$
(3)
$$\omega ^3=\frac{1}{2}(\mathrm{cos}x^1dx^2+dx^3),$$
(4)
where $`(x^1,x^2,x^3)`$ are the Euler angles of $`SO(3)`$. In order to write the corresponding field equations in a form more suitable for our analysis, we introduce the scale factors

$$a_1=e^{\mathrm{\Omega }+X+Y},a_2=e^{\mathrm{\Omega }+XY},a_3=e^{\mathrm{\Omega }2X},$$
(5)
with their corresponding Hubble parameters $`H_i=\dot{a}_i/a_i(i=1,2,3)`$. Using then the relationships $`H_1+H_2+H_3=3\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, $`H_1+H_22H_3=6\dot{X}`$, and $`H_1H_2=2\dot{Y}`$, we can write the Hamiltonian constraint as

$$\frac{1}{3}(H_1H_2+H_1H_3+H_2H_3)+\frac{1}{a_1^2}\left(1+\frac{1}{3}ϵ^2\right)=\frac{8}{3}\pi G\rho ,$$
(6)
with

$$ϵ^2=1\frac{a_3^2}{a_2^2}2\left(1\frac{a_1^2}{a_2^2}\right)\frac{a_2^2}{a_3^2}\left(1\frac{a_1^2}{a_2^2}\right)^2.$$
(7)
Furthermore, the remaining dynamical equations can be put in the form

$`\dot{H}_1+\dot{H}_3+H_1^2+H_3^2+H_1H_3+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2}{a_2^2a_3^2}}3{\displaystyle \frac{a_2^2}{a_1^2a_3^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^2}{a_1^2a_2^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1^2}}2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_2^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_3^2}}=8\pi Gp,`$ (8)
$`\dot{H}_2+\dot{H}_3+H_2^2+H_3^2+H_2H_33{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2}{a_2^2a_3^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2^2}{a_1^2a_3^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^2}{a_1^2a_2^2}}2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_2^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_3^2}}=8\pi Gp,`$ (9)
$`\dot{H}_1+\dot{H}_2+H_1^2+H_2^2+H_1H_2+{\displaystyle \frac{a_1^2}{a_2^2a_3^2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{a_2^2}{a_1^2a_3^2}}3{\displaystyle \frac{a_3^2}{a_1^2a_2^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_1^2}}+2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_2^2}}2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{a_3^2}}=8\pi Gp,`$ (10)
where $`\rho `$ is the matter density, $`p`$ its pressure, and $`G`$ denotes Newton’s gravitational constant. An overdot represents differentiation with respect to the time $`t`$.

From the dynamical field equations (8)-(10) we obtain the energy-momentum conservation law which in this case is given by

$$\dot{\rho }3\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}(\rho +p)=0.$$
(11)
For a barotropic equation of state $`p=\omega \rho `$ the last equation can be integrated and yields

$$\rho =\rho _0e^{3(1+\omega )\mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(12)
where $`\rho _0`$ is a constant.

## III The entropy from the first law of thermodynamics

Let us now suppose that the Bianchi type IX model satisfies the first law of thermodynamics, $`TdS=dE+pdV`$, where $`T`$ is the temperature of the universe and $`S`$ is the total entropy contained inside the volume $`V`$. For a comoving volume element of unit coordinate volume and physical volume $`v`$, from the first law of thermodynamics we obtain

$$\dot{s}=\frac{v}{T}\left[\dot{\rho }+(p+\rho )\frac{\dot{v}}{v}\right],$$
(13)
where $`s`$ is the entropy density per comoving volume. A reasonable way for defining the physical volume is as $`v=a_1a_2a_3=e^{3\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, an expression which coincides with the physical volume of the Friedman-Robertson-Walker universe due to the special form of the anisotropies in the Bianchi type IX model. This assumption is supported also by the fact that the total volume of the universe turns out to be $`V=\sqrt{h}d^3x=\frac{1}{8}e^{3\mathrm{\Omega }}\mathrm{sin}x_1d^3x`$, where $`h`$ is the determinant of the spatial part of the line element (1). Therefore, we can write $`V=\kappa v=\kappa e^{3\mathrm{\Omega }}`$, where $`\kappa `$ is a constant resulting from the previous integral. From Eq.(13) and the energy-momentum conservation law (11) it follows that the entropy density remains invariant ($`\dot{s}=0`$) during the evolution, i.e., the expansion is adiabatic. Furthermore, the first law of thermodynamics can be integrated for $`s`$ and yields kolb

$$s=\frac{e^{3\mathrm{\Omega }}}{T}(p+\rho )+s_0,$$
(14)
where $`s_0`$ is an additive constant.

Following Verlinde’s approach ver  we represent the total energy $`E=\rho V`$ as the sum of an extensive energy $`E_E(S,V)`$ and a sub-extensive energy $`E_C(S,V)`$

$$E=E_E+\frac{1}{2}E_C,$$
(15)
where $`E_C`$ is the Casimir energy which is defined as the violation of the Euler identity:

$$E_C=3(E+pVTS).$$
(16)
Under a scale transformation $`S\lambda S`$ and $`V\lambda V`$ the components of the energy behave as $`E_E(\lambda S,\lambda V)=\lambda E_E(S,V)`$ and $`E_C(\lambda S,\lambda V)=\lambda ^{1/3}E_C(S,V)`$.

Introducing the expression for the entropy (14) into Eq.(16) we obtain

$$E_C=3\frac{s_0}{ss_0}(p+\rho )V,$$
(17)
or

$$E_C=3\kappa \frac{s_0\rho _0}{ss_0}(1+\omega )e^{3\omega \mathrm{\Omega }},$$
(18)
for a universe satisfying a barotropic equation of state. Therefore, the behavior of the Casimir energy during the evolution in time is given by $`E_Ce^{3\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$. On the other hand, we see from Eq.(12) that the total energy of the system is given by $`E=\kappa \rho _0e^{3\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and, consequently, the extensive energy behaves similarly, $`E_Ee^{3\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$.

The total entropy $`S`$ of the universe should be related to the energy in such a way that the adiabaticity condition derived above holds. Therefore, if we associate the entropies $`S_E`$ and $`S_C`$ to the extensive and Casimir energy, respectively, from the energy behavior given above we conclude that only the expressions $`S_EE_Ee^{3\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ and $`S_CE_Ce^{3\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}`$ satisfy this condition. Furthermore, taking into account the behavior of the energies under a scale transformation one can derive their dependence in terms of the entropy. These expressions can be written in a convenient form as

$$E_E=\frac{\alpha }{4\pi }e^{3\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}S^{1+\omega },E_C=\frac{\beta }{2\pi }e^{3\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}S^{1/3+\omega },$$
(19)
where $`\alpha `$ and $`\beta `$ are arbitrary constants (In CFT’s one has that $`\sqrt{\alpha \beta }=3`$ as a consequence of the AdS/CFT correspondence). Then, the total entropy is related to the energy as youm

$$S=\left[\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{\alpha \beta }}e^{3\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}\sqrt{2E_EE_C}\right]^{\frac{3}{2+3\omega }}.$$
(20)
This expression for $`S`$ represents the generalization of the original Cardy-Verlinde formula to the case of an anisotropic Bianchi IX model, and reduces to it only in the case of a radiative universe $`(\omega =1/3)`$ in accordance to the results in ver .

Equation (20) defines the total entropy of a universe described by a Bianchi type IX model. It resembles the entropy for a FRW universe. One could wonder where the time-dependent scale factors of the Bianchi model are present in this expression. In fact, they are not. The reason is that in the analysis based upon the first law of thermodynamics, the explicit form of the total volume $`V`$ and the physical volume $`v`$ is crucial and, as we have shown, they do not depend explicitly on the functions $`X`$ and $`Y`$ which determine the three different rates of expansion.

Notice that for a fixed value of $`E`$ and positive $`\omega `$ the entropy (20) has a maximum value so that the bound

$$S\left[\frac{2\pi }{\sqrt{\alpha \beta }}Ee^{3\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}\right]^{\frac{3}{2+3\omega }},$$
(21)
holds. This becomes the Bekenstein bound, $`SS_B`$ with $`S_B=\frac{2\pi }{3}Ee^\mathrm{\Omega }`$ for a radiation dominated universe with $`\omega =1/3`$ and normalization factor $`\sqrt{\alpha \beta }=3`$. It seems therefore appropriate to introduce

$$S_B^{flt}=\left[\frac{2\pi }{3}Ee^{3\omega \mathrm{\Omega }}\right]^{\frac{3}{2+3\omega }},$$
(22)
as the Bekenstein entropy which bounds the total entropy of the Bianchi type IX cosmological model. The superscript “$`flt`$” means that this expression for the entropy has been obtained by using the first law of thermodynamics, and will be helpful when comparing it with a different expression which will be derived in the next section. If we insert into Eq.(22) the expression for the total energy, we find that $`S_B^{flt}`$ remains constant during the cosmological evolution. Hence, the Bekenstein entropy represents a constant bound for the total entropy of the system.

## IV The entropy from CFT

The universal validity of the Cardy entropy formula

$$S_C=2\pi \sqrt{\frac{c}{6}\left(L_0\frac{c}{24}\right)},$$
(23)
for CFT’s has been proposed in ver  by using a definition of the central charge $`c`$ in terms of the Casimir energy. We intentionally use here the notation $`S_C`$ for the Cardy entropy in order to distinguish it from the entropy $`S`$ derived in the last section by means of the first law of thermodynamics. Let us assume here that this entropy formula is valid for the Bianchi type IX model. Then, independently of the equation of state governing the evolution of this cosmological model, it can easily be seen that the Hamiltonian constraint (6) coincides with Eq.(23) if the eigenvalue $`L_0`$ of the Virasoro operator and the central charge $`c`$ are chosen as

$$L_0=\frac{1}{3}E\frac{a_1}{\sqrt{1+ϵ^2/3}},c=\frac{3}{\pi G}\frac{V}{a_1}\sqrt{1+ϵ^2/3},$$
(24)
Furthermore, the Cardy entropy is related to the Hubble parameters as

$$S_C=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}G}\sqrt{H_1H_2+H_1H_3+H_2H_3}V.$$
(25)
Notice that the explicit values given in Eqs.(24)-(25) can formally be obtained by applying the transformation

$$H\frac{1}{\sqrt{3}}\sqrt{H_1H_2+H_1H_3+H_2H_3},a\frac{a_1}{\sqrt{1+ϵ^2/3}},$$
(26)
on the Hubble parameter $`H`$ and the scale factor $`a`$ of the isotropic FRW spacetime. Written in this form, this transformation seems to indicate the presence of a preferred direction determined by an inhomogeneity in $`a_1`$. However, similar expressions can be written for $`a_2`$ and $`a_3`$ (with the corresponding changes in the definition of $`ϵ^2`$) and, therefore any of the directions could have been chosen. The specific direction chosen in order to perform the transformation (26) is only a matter of conventions. Also, it should be mentioned that once we assume that the Cardy formula (23) is valid for the Bianchi type IX model, and we demand that it represents the field equation (6), then the identification of $`L_0`$ and $`c`$ given in (24) is unique (modulo the convention mentioned above).

In a similar manner, the Hamiltonian constraint (6) can be rewritten as the Verlinde formula

$$S_H^22S_{BH}S_B+S_{BH}^2=0,$$
(27)
where the Bekenstein, $`S_B`$, the Hubble, $`S_H`$, and the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, $`S_{BH}`$, are given by

$$S_B=\frac{2\pi }{3}\frac{Ea_1}{\sqrt{1+ϵ^2/3}},$$
(28)
$$S_{BH}=\frac{1}{2G}\frac{V}{a_1}\sqrt{1+ϵ^2/3},$$
(29)
$$S_H=\frac{1}{2\sqrt{3}G}\sqrt{H_1H_2+H_1H_3+H_2H_3}V.$$
(30)
Then, by analogy with the cases studied in other works (see youm  for a list of references) in which the relationship between the Cardy formula and the field equations has been investigated, we propose expressions (28)-(30) as the definitions of the entropies for the Bianchi type IX model. In the isotropic limit ($`ϵ^2=0)`$ we recover the corresponding entropies for the FRW model.

Eq.(27) has exactly the same Pythagorean form as that found for the FRW model ver . This allows us to represent the dynamical evolution of the entropies by a circle of radius $`S_B`$ which, in contrast to the FRW case, is not constant but changes as time evolves. As a consequence, the dynamical evolution of any of the entropies defined in Eqs.(28)-(30), which is governed by the field equations (8)-(10), is no longer determined by the remaining entropies but depends on the specific characteristics of the fluid. For instance, from Eqs.(28) and (29) and using the field equations (8)-(10) in the form (11) one can show that

$$\frac{d}{dt}(S_BS_{BH})=3(\omega 1)\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}S_BS_{BH}.$$
(31)
On the other hand, from Eq.(27) we obtain

$$\dot{S}_H=\frac{S_{BH}}{S_H}[3(\omega 1)\dot{\mathrm{\Omega }}S_B\dot{S}_{BH}].$$
(32)
The last two equations determine the dynamical behavior of the entropies which will then depend on the specific value of $`\omega `$. The case $`\omega =1`$ can easily be solved, however it is not of particular interest in this work.

To get some insight into the structure of these entropies, one can calculate the approximate contribution for the special case in which one has only two different time-dependent metric components. This can be reached by considering $`X`$ as an infinitesimal quantity ($`X<<1`$) and assuming $`Y=0`$. Then we have

$$S_B^a=S_B^i\left(1+\frac{5}{2}X^2\right),$$
(33)
$$S_{BH}^a=S_{BH}^i\left(1\frac{5}{2}X^2\right),$$
(34)
$$S_H^a=S_H^i\left(1\frac{\dot{X}^2}{2H^2}\right),$$
(35)
where the superscripts $`a`$ and $`i`$ denote the corresponding ‘anisotropic” and ‘isotropic” quantities, respectively.

The first thing one can notice is that, due to the anisotropies, the Bekenstein entropy given in Eq.(28) does not remain constant during the evolution in time \[cf. also Eq.(33)\]. This differs from the result obtained in the last section for the Bekenstein entropy $`S_B^{flt}`$ which is a constant that only depends on the type of fluid (i.e., it depends on $`\omega `$). Nevertheless, both entropies (22) and (28) reduce in the limiting case $`X=0,Y=0,\omega =1/3`$ to the Bekenstein entropy of a radiation dominated FRW universe.

In terms of the Hubble entropy, $`S_H`$, and the Bekenstein-Hawking energy, $`E_{BH}`$, which are defined as

$$S_H=S_C,E_{BH}=\frac{3}{4\pi G}\frac{V}{a_1^2}(1+ϵ^2/3),$$
(36)
Eq.(23) for the Bianchi type IX model can be identified with the cosmological Cardy formula

$$S_H=\frac{2\pi }{3}\frac{a_1}{\sqrt{1+ϵ^2/3}}\sqrt{E_{BH}(2EE_{BH})}.$$
(37)
In a radiation dominated FRW universe the Cardy-Verlinde formula (20) coincides with the cosmological Cardy formula (37), with $`E_{BH}`$ playing the role of the Casimir energy $`E_C`$. This is not true in our general case. Whereas the functional dependence in the cosmological Cardy formula (37) is dictated by the square root of the energies, independently of the equation of state, this functional dependence in the Cardy-Verlinde formula (20) is different for each equation of state and becomes a square root only for $`\omega =1/3`$. Let us therefore consider only the case of a radiation dominated Bianchi IX universe, for which the Cardy-Verlinde formula (20) reads (we take $`\sqrt{\alpha \beta }=3`$ and use the relationship $`E_E=(2EE_C)/2`$)

$$S=\frac{2\pi }{3}e^\mathrm{\Omega }\sqrt{E_C(2EE_C)},$$
(38)
and for this case let us investigate the cosmological bound on the Casimir energy

$$E_CE_{BH}$$
(39)
postulated by Verlinde ver . From Eq.(18) we see that $`E_Ce^\mathrm{\Omega }`$ while the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy behaves like $`E_{BH}e^{\mathrm{\Omega }2X2Y}(1+ϵ^2/3)`$, according to Eq.(36). Thus, the Verlinde energy bound (39) can be satisfied, but a difference appears in the saturation. Consider, for instance, the approximate case ($`Y=0,X<<1`$). Using the approximate expression (34) we get $`E_{BH}^a=(3/4\pi G)e^\mathrm{\Omega }(18X^2)=E_{BH}^i(18X^2)<E_{BH}^i`$. On the other hand, according to Eq.(18) $`E_C^a=E_C^i`$. Since the bound $`E_C^iE_{BH}^i`$ holds and becomes saturated for a specific size of an expanding universe, then the bound $`E_C^aE_{BH}^a`$ will be the generalization of the isotropic case. However, because $`E_{BH}^a=E_{BH}^i(18X^2)`$, the previous relation, for the anisotropic case means that the bound would become saturated for a larger size, compared with the isotropic case, of the expanding universe. At the saturation point $`E_C^a=E_{BH}^a`$, however, the Cardy-Verlinde formula (38) does not coincide with the cosmological Cardy formula (37), because of the presence of the various scale factors entering the last formula. In fact, for the approximate case we obtain that $`S_H=S(1+5/2X^2)`$ and the coincidence breaks down.

## V Conclusions

In this work we have pursued the definition of the entropies associated with gravity time-dependent models. These entropies have been found for the Bianchi type IX model. Since this model is considered the anisotropic generalization of the closed FRW model, it should give us the modified entropies due to the presence of several time-dependent metric components. First, we assumed that the universes described by this model satisfy the first law of thermodynamics. The resulting entropy is given in Eq.(20) and represents a generalization of the Cardy-Verlinde formula for these models. Remarkably, this entropy remains constant during the evolution of time as a consequence of the energy conservation law and the assumed first law of thermodynamics.

Secondly, we assume the universal validity of the Cardy entropy formula and show that it coincides with the Hamiltonian constraint of the field equations. This allows us to consider the cosmological Cardy formula (37) and define the Bekenstein, Bekenstein-Hawking and Hubble entropies. The first obvious consequence is that these entropies do depend on the different metric components.

The straightforward generalization of the Verlinde energy bound for the anisotropic radiative case ($`E_C^aE_{BH}^a`$) indicates that the saturation takes place for a universe larger than the one in the corresponding isotropic case. We also have shown that the Cardy-Verlinde formula (38) and the cosmological Cardy formula (37) do not coincide when the bound is saturated $`(E_C^a=E_{BH}^a)`$.

An elegant AdS/CFT prescription has been proposed sav  (see also fquev  for a review) in which starting with a Schwarzschild AdS<sub>5</sub> metric and specifying the location of a brane in parametric form one can induce a 4-dimensional FRW radiation universe metric on the brane. In youm1  and youm2  this approach has been generalized to include the cases of asymptotically flat and asymptotically AdS charged black holes. This has shed new light on Verlinde’s proposal and on the coincidence between the CFT entropy formulae and the FRW equations at the horizon. The case of models with various scale factors has been less explored. Nevertheless, a geometric braneworld description of the Bianchi VI<sub>-1</sub> model was obtained in wool  from other solutions found to the vacuum Einstein equations with negative cosmological constant in 5-dimensions. However, generalized entropies have not been investigated and it is not clear if they could be defined for this case. On the other hand, as mentioned above, the Bianchi IX model contains the closed FRW model in the isotropic limit and one can study the influence of several metric components on the entropies. Nonetheless, the search for a higher dimensional static metric by means of which one could get the Bianchi IX model on the brane is a matter of future work.

On the other hand, in this work we have analyzed only the Bianchi type IX model. It seems reasonable to expect that the results obtained here can be generalized to include other Bianchi type A models mike . Moreover, the results presented here can, in principle, be generalized to any number of dimensions with several time-dependent metric components. However, the entropy expresions (20) and (22) reduce to the original Cardy-Verlinde formula only for a radiative universe. A next step would be to try to extend the kind of results obtained here for various gravity time-dependent components to their study in relation with more general matter fields quantum ; youm ; brod ; brev . This would allow the study of other physical interesting systems like SD-branes gutstro , the kind of objects that are constructed by means of time-dependent metric components and that arise naturally in string theory.

###### Acknowledgements.

We would like to thank M. P. Ryan for helpful discussions. This work was supported by DGAPA-UNAM grant IN112401, CONACyT-Mexico grants 36581-E, 37851-E, and sabbatical grant 020331 (O. O.). L. P. was supported by a UNAM-DGEP Graduate Fellowship.