Higher Obstructions of Complex Supermanifolds

proof of this theorem, stated using the notion of ‘retractibility,’ can be found in [BER, Theorem 4.6.2, p. 158]. For completeness, we present a proof based on our formulation of isomorphisms of supermanifolds in Definition 2.5. As the proof is a little involved, we defer it to Appendix ?.

Let \mathfrak{X}^{(k)} be a (k-1)-split atlas and suppose \alpha(\phi) = \mathfrak{X}^{(k)}, for some non-zero \phi\in H^0\big(X, \mathcal{Q}^{(k-1)}_{(X, E)}\big). In assuming \mathfrak{X}^{(k)} is obstructed, it cannot represent the basepoint in \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}^{(k)}_{(X, E)}\big). Now by exactness of the sequence in (?)–(?) note, under \beta, that \mathfrak{X}^{(k)} will map to the basepoint in \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}^{(k-1)}_{(X, E)}\big). Hence it will map to the basepoint in \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}^{(2)}_{(X, E)}\big). Thus \mathfrak{X}^{(k)} is obstructed and strongly split. Hence \mathfrak{X}^{(k)} is exotic.

uppose H^0\big(X, \mathcal{Q}_{(X, E)}^{(k)}\big) = (0). Then from (?) we have the exact sequence of pointed sets

Unlike for rings or modules, an exact sequence as in (S) above need not imply \iota_*^{k+1} will be injective as a map of sets. But for \mathfrak{X}^{(k+1)}\in \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}_{(X, E)}^{(k+1)}\big) we can nevertheless conclude the following implication from exactness of (S):

Assume now that H^0\big(X, \mathcal{Q}_{(X, E)}^{(k)}\big) =(0) for all k. Then the implication (S) will hold for all k. Let \mathfrak{X}^{(k+1)}\in \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}_{(X, E)}^{(k+1)}\big) and suppose it maps to the basepoint in \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}_{(X, E)}^{(2)}\big). It will then follow from (S) that \mathfrak{X}^{(k+1)}= \{e\}. Hence \mathfrak{X}^{(k+1)} cannot be obstructed and so, by definition, cannot be exotic.

rom the exact sequence of sheaves of groups \mathcal{G}^{(k+1)}_{(X, E)} \rightarrow \mathcal{G}^{(k)}_{(X, E)} \rightarrow \mathcal{Q}^{(k)}_{(X, E)} we have the following piece of the long exact sequence on cohomology

In the direction (\Leftarrow) in the statement of this theorem, assume (F) is exact for all k\geq 2. Then either H^0\big(X, \mathcal{Q}^{(k)}_{(X, E)}\big) = (0) for all k\geq 2 or the map \alpha is constant, sending every \phi \in H^0\big(X, \mathcal{Q}^{(k-1)}_{(X, E)}\big) to the basepoint \{e\}. In either case, the proof of Proposition 3.10 will apply since we will obtain exact sequences in (S) for all k. In the direction (\Rightarrow), suppose (X, E) is a good model. We will show that \alpha is constant. Firstly, by definition we know that there will not exist any exotic atlases. Therefore, for any \phi\in H^0\big(X, \mathcal{Q}_{(X, E)}^{(k)}\big), the atlas \alpha(\phi) must be an unobstructed, k-split atlas, for otherwise it would be exotic by Lemma 3.9. Observe that as a result we have the following lifting \widetilde\alpha of \alpha, represented by the dashed arrow

The lifting \widetilde\alpha exists since the vertical maps in (F) are exact and unobstructedness of \alpha(\phi) means \omega_*\big(\alpha(\phi)\big) = 0. Hence from \phi we obtain a (k+1)-split atlas \widetilde \alpha(\phi). We claim that \widetilde\alpha(\phi) is also unobstructed. To see this note that (F) will commute and so \widetilde\alpha(\phi) will map to the basepoint in \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}^{(k)}_{(X, E)}\big). As such it will map to the basepoint in \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}^{(2)}_{(X, E)}\big) and so be split. This means, if \widetilde\alpha(\phi) were obstructed, it would be exotic, contradicting that (X, E) is a good model. Hence \widetilde\alpha(\phi) must be unobstructed. Applying this argument again to \widetilde\alpha(\phi) will show that \widetilde\alpha will itself lift to some \widetilde\alpha^\prime valued in \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}^{(k+3)}_{(X, E)}\big) and that to \phi will be associated an unobstructed, (k+2)-split atlas. We can proceed inductively now and keep lifting the map \alpha to get unobstructed, k^\prime-split atlases for any k^\prime> k, resulting in the commutative diagram

Since \mathcal{G}^{(k^\prime)}_{(X, E)} is trivial for k^\prime sufficiently large, commutativity of (F) requires \alpha map \phi to the basepoint \{e\} for all \phi. Thus \alpha is constant. This argument is independent of k\geq 2 and depends only on (X, E) being a good model. The theorem now follows.

t suffices to show h^0\big(X, \wedge^2\mathcal{E}\otimes T_X\big) = 0. Let X be a genus g Riemann surface. Assuming E is holomorphically split we can write E = L_{d_1}\oplus L_{d_2}\oplus L_{d_3}, for L_{d_i}\rightarrow X a line bundle on X of degree d_i. If L_{d_i} is non-negative, then d_i \geq 0. Note that \wedge^2E = L_{d_1+d_2} \oplus L_{d_1+d_3} \oplus L_{d_2+d_3}; and \deg \wedge^2E = 2\deg E = 2(d_1+d_2+d_3). With \deg T_X = 2 - 2g and the above description of \wedge^2E we see that h^0\big(\wedge^2\mathcal{E}\otimes T_X\big) = 0 when

These conditions are equivalent to \deg E < 3g-3 when d_i\geq 0 for each i.

rite \mathcal{E} = \mathcal{O}(d_1) \oplus\mathcal{O}(d_2)\oplus\mathcal{O}(d_3), where \mathcal{E} denotes the sheaf of sections of E. Then

In order to construct an exotic atlas for a supermanifold modelled on \big(\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}, E\big) it will be necessary for

=0pt

1. h^0\big(\mathcal{Q}^{(2)}_{(\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}, E)} \big)\neq 0 (by Proposition 3.10 and Remark 3.11) and

2. h^1\big(\mathcal{Q}_{(\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}, E)}^{(3)}\big) \neq0 (since \mathcal{G}^{(3)}_{(\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}, E)}\cong \mathcal{Q}_{(\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}, E)}^{(3)} here).

From Bott’s formula on the dimension of the cohomology of line bundles on projective space,(See, e.g., [OSS, p. 4].) both (i) and (ii) will be satisfied if and only if (d_1, d_2, d_3) = (-1,-1, -1). Now in this case, where (d_1, d_2, d_3) = (-1,-1, -1), we have by Serre duality

Upon observing H^1\big(\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{C}^1, \mathcal{Q}^{(3)}_{(\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}, E)}\big)\cong \check{H}^1\big(\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}, \mathcal{G}^{(3)}_{(\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{C}^1, E)}\big), the theorem will then follow from Lemma 5.4 applied to q = 3.

=-1 Let \mathcal{O}(d) denote the sheaf of sections of L_d so that \mathcal{E} = \oplus^q\mathcal{O}(d). We begin by proving (ii). We have generally \wedge^k\mathcal{E} = \oplus^{\binom{q}{k}}\mathcal{O}(kd). As such the obstruction sheaves are given by

Note that 2\leq k\leq q here. Evidently, if d< -1 the obstruction sheaves will be sums of line bundles of negative degree. Hence H^0\big(\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{C}^1, \mathcal{Q}_{(\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{C}^1, E)}^{(k)}\big) = (0). Part (ii) then follows from Proposition 3.10. As for part (i), firstly note that

We have \operatorname{{\mathcal A}ut} \mathcal{E}\!\subset\! \oplus^{q^2}\mathcal{O}(0) and \operatorname{{\mathcal A}ut}\wedge^\bullet \mathcal{E}\!\subset\! \oplus_{0\leq a\leq b\leq q}\mathcal{O}((b-a)d). Note in particular that b-a\geq 0. Regarding the sheaf \mathcal{G}_{(\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{C}^1, E)}^{(k)} observe that it can be realised as a subsheaf of \oplus_{0\leq a< b\leq q}\mathcal{O}((b-a)d) where now b-a \geq k-1. Therefore if d < 0:

for all k\geq 2. Now if d = -1 then h^0\big(\mathbb{P}^1_\mathbb{C}, \mathcal{Q}_{(\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{C}^1, E)}^{(2)}\big) =\binom{q}{2}\neq0 from (Remark). Since H^0\big(\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{C}^1, \mathcal{G}_{(\mathbb{P}_\mathbb{C}^1, E)}^{(2)}\big) = \{e\} from (Remark) we have the exact sequence

where \alpha is the boundary map from (?). In particular \alpha does not vanish and any atlas in its image will be exotic.

n genus one note that T_C = \mathcal{O}_C is a line bundle of degree zero. Hence we have a natural isomorphism \mathcal{Q}_{(C, E)}^{(2)} \cong \mathcal{Q}_{(C, E)}^{(3)}. The proposition now follows from the Riemann–Roch theorem.

et \mathfrak{X} be a supermanifold modelled on (X, E) and suppose its primary obstruction \omega_*(\mathfrak{X}) does not vanish. The map \omega_*\colon \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}^{(2)}_{(X, E)}\big) \rightarrow H^1\big(X, \mathcal{Q}_{(X, E)}^{(2)}\big) is a map of pointed sets, sending the basepoint \{e\}\in \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}^{(2)}_{(X, E)}\big) to the basepoint 0\in H^1\big(X, \mathcal{Q}_{(X, E)}^{(2)}\big). Since \omega_*(\mathfrak{X}) \neq 0, \mathfrak{X} cannot be split.

From Theorem 2.4 we know that \operatorname{Aut}(E) will act on \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}^{(2)}_{(X, E)}\big). Denote this action by \star. Our first claim is that the subgroup \mathbb{C}^\times\cdot 1_E will act trivially on the image of \operatorname{Aut}(E). To see this, let (U_i\rightarrow X) be an open cover and \phi \in \operatorname{Aut}(E). If \widetilde\phi_i\in \big(\operatorname{{\mathcal A}ut}\wedge^\bullet\mathcal{E}\big)(U_i) are local lifts of \phi_i, then

Now clearly any \lambda\cdot 1_E\in \mathbb{C}^\times \cdot 1_E< \operatorname{Aut}(E) will act by sending \phi_i \mapsto \lambda \phi_i. Hence,

The group \operatorname{Aut}(E) will act on \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}^{(2)}_{(X, E)}\big) and this action will induce an action on H^1\big(X, \mathcal{Q}_{(X, E)}^{(2)}\big). The action of \mathbb{C}^\times\cdot 1_E mentioned in Lemma A.2 is compatible with this induced \operatorname{Aut}(E) action. In particular we can conclude: for a supermanifold \mathfrak{X}\in \check{H}^1\big(X, \mathcal{G}^{(2)}_{(X, E)}\big) and any \lambda\cdot 1_E\in \mathbb{C}^\times\cdot1_E,

In comparing (Remark) and (Remark) we see that if \mathfrak{X} = \delta(\phi), we must have \omega_*\big(\mathfrak{X}\big) = 0. This proves Proposition A.1 from whence Theorem 2.12 follows.