Quotients of Calabi-Yau Generalized Fermat manifolds and Log Enriques varieties

Since \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_\varphi(Y)=\emptyset, we obtain that the Lefschetz number L(\varphi) is zero and so by the holomorphic Lefschetz fixed-point formula we have

Since Y is a CY manifold, we have that H^0(Y,\Omega_Y^{j})=0 for all 0<j<\dim Y. Then

This finally gives

so that \varphi^*v_Y=(-1)^{\dim Y+1}v_Y.

The proof of (i) is well known and it follows e.g. from [kollar-mori, Theorem 5.21, (1)] and from our Remark 2.9.

If we assume that \dim Y is even, then by Lemma 2.7 we have that \varphi^*v_Y=-v_Y, so that k must be an even number and observe that

We obtain that

and, in a similar way:

and since v_Y^{\otimes 2} is never zero (otherwise v_Y would also vanish at some point and this is not the case), we obtain that 2K_X\thicksim0. Since Y is a CY variety, we have that

and, as before, we have an identification

Hence, H^0\left(X,\Omega_X^{[j]}\right)=0 for all 0<j\leq \dim X and in particular q(X)=0. By Definition 2.8, we obtain that X is a Log Enriques variety of CY type and index 2. This shows (ii).

On the other hand, if we assume that \dim Y is an odd number and proceed as above, we obtain that \varphi^*v_Y=v_Y so that K_X\thicksim 0 and H^0\left(X,\Omega_X^{[j]}\right)=0 for all 0<j< \dim X. We then conclude that X is a CY variety, proving (iii).

Since X is smooth, \pi is étale by Remark 2.9 (ii) and hence \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^s}(Y)=\emptyset for all 1\leq s\leq k-1. Then, writing \varphi^*v_Y=\varepsilon\, v_Y this gives \varepsilon^s=(-1)^{\dim Y+1} for all 1\leq s\leq k-1, by Lemma 2.7. Note that \varepsilon=-1 when s=1, since otherwise Proposition 2.11 (iii) would give that X is a CY variety. Assume now that k\geq 3. Then s=2 lies in the above range and yields 1=\varepsilon^2=-1, which is a contradiction. Therefore k=2 and X has index 2 by Proposition 2.11 (ii). See also [BNWS, Proposition 2.1, (2)] for a proof using the holomorphic Euler characteristic.

By Proposition 3.4, the locus of fixed points of \varphi on M is the disjoint union of the non-empty sets F_\ell(m_\varphi), over those \ell \in \mathbb{Z}/k\mathbb{Z} with \#L_\ell(m_\varphi) \geq n-d+1. We count the connected components of each F_\ell(m_\varphi) separately.

Assume first that \#L_\ell(m_\varphi) > n-d+1. Again by Proposition 3.4, F_\ell(m_\varphi) is a GFM of positive dimension \#L_\ell(m_\varphi) + d - n - 1 \geq 1, hence irreducible by Proposition 3.2, and in particular connected. Therefore c_\ell = 1.

Now, assume that \#L_\ell(m_\varphi) = n-d+1. Then F_{\ell}(m_\varphi) has dimension \#L_{\ell}(m_\varphi) + d - n - 1 = 0, so it is a finite set of isolated points, each of which is its own connected component. We show that \#F_{\ell}(m_\varphi) = k^{n-d}, so that F_{\ell}(m_\varphi) contributes exactly c_{\ell} = k^{n-d} connected components. We establish this claim by applying Bézout’s theorem, as follows.

Write L_{\ell} (m_{\varphi}) = \{i_1,\ldots,i_{n+1-d}\} and introduce new coordinates y_1 = x_{i_1}, \ldots, y_{n+1-d} = x_{i_{n+1-d}} for the variables whose indices belong to L_{\ell}(m_{\varphi}). Since \#L_{\ell}(m_{\varphi})= n+1-d, then

with homogeneous coordinates [y_1:\cdots:y_{n+1-d}].

The variety M is defined in \mathbb{P}^n by exactly n-d homogeneous equations of degree k (see (?)):

where we put \lambda_{0,j} = 1 for all j. Upon restricting to \widetilde{F}_{\ell}(m_{\varphi}) (that is, setting x_i = 0 for all i \notin L_{\ell}(m_{\varphi})), each equation in (?) becomes a homogeneous polynomial of degree k in the variables y_1, \ldots, y_{n+1-d}. We thus obtain a system

of n-d equations of degree k in \mathbb{P}^{n-d}, whose solution set is precisely F_\ell(m_{\varphi}) = \widetilde{F}_{\ell}(m_{\varphi}) \cap M.

We verify that this system is a zero-dimensional complete intersection in \mathbb{P}^{n-d}, i.e., that the n-d hypersurfaces \{g_i = 0\} intersect in finitely many points. Indeed, since \Lambda \in X_{n,d}, the n+1 hyperplanes are in general position, which means that every (d+1)\times(d+1) minor of the matrix of coefficients M(q_1,\ldots,q_{n+1}) is nonzero. This general position condition ensures that the restrictions g_0,\ldots,g_{n-d-1} form a regular sequence in the polynomial ring \mathbb{C}[y_1,\ldots,y_{n+1-d}], so their common zero locus in \mathbb{P}^{n-d} has dimension

as required.

Since we have n-d hypersurfaces of degree k in \mathbb{P}^{n-d} forming a zero-dimensional complete intersection, Bézout’s theorem gives that their intersection consists of exactly k^{n-d} points counted with multiplicity. Since M is nonsingular and the intersection is transverse at every point (again by the general position condition on \Lambda), the fixed locus is also smooth and all multiplicities are equal to 1, so F_\ell(m_{\varphi}) consists of exactly k^{n-d} points.

Each of these k^{n-d} points is an isolated point of F_{\ell}(m_{\varphi}), hence a connected component. Therefore F_{\ell}(m_{\varphi}) contributes with c_{\ell} = k^{n-d} connected components as we wanted to show. Combining both cases gives the formula.

The "if" direction is [HHAL, Proposition 2, (3)]. For the converse, it follows from a direct computation using the adjunction formula and the properties of the Hodge numbers of complete intersections in the projective space.

The definition of \varphi shows \#L_{\ell}(m_{\varphi})=t< n-d+1, for each \ell=0,\ldots, k-1 and so by Proposition 3.4, we obtain that \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_\varphi(M)=\emptyset.

If \psi is another automorphism with empty fixed locus such that there is an l\in \{0,\dots,k-1\} with \#L_l(m_\psi)<t. Now, since n+1=tk by the Calabi–Yau condition, there exists an l'\in\{0,\ldots, k-1\} such that \#L_{l'}(m_\psi)>t. This contradicts the fact that \psi has empty fixed locus (see Proposition 3.4).

Recall that by Remark 4.2 the automorphism \varphi has order k. Let s\in S, then \gcd(k,s)=s and so o(\varphi^s)=k/s. Observe now that

where \xi_k is a primitive k-root of unity. So that we get for each \ell=0,\ldots, k-1.

recall that here s>1 and t\geq 1. Observe that since k is not prime, and s\geq 2, the equality holds if and only if t=1 and s=2. By Proposition 3.4, \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^s}(M) is non-empty and the fixed locus in \ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}^n is the disjoint union

We set V_i^{(s)}:=\ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}_{i}^{st-1}\cap M. Then

Therefore, for every s\in S, the set of fixed points in M is given by

where \dim V_i^{(s)}= t(s-1)-1 and V_i^{(s)}\cap V_j^{(s)}=\emptyset, for i\not=j since the \ensuremath{\mathbb{P}}_i^{st-1} are disjoint. Moreover, by Proposition 3.4 and Proposition 3.5, every V_i^{(s)} is a generalized GFM of type (t(s-1)-1;\,k,\,ts-1).

Recall that by Remark 4.2 the automorphism \varphi has order k. If we assume that k is prime, then we have \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^s}(M) is empty for every s\in S (see Remark 4.4). Hence, \pi:M\to M/\langle\varphi\rangle is an étale morphism proving (i).

On the other hand, if k is not a prime number then we obtain that \ensuremath{\operatorname{codim}}(\ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^s}(M))\geq 2 for every s\in S (see Remark 4.6), then \pi:M\to M/\langle\varphi\rangle is a quasi-étale morphism.

Recall that by Remark 4.2 the automorphism \varphi has order k. By Proposition 4.7, the quotient map \pi\colon M\to M/\langle\varphi\rangle is quasi-étale, so Proposition 2.11 applies. If d is even, part (ii) gives that M/\langle\varphi\rangle is a Log Enriques variety of CY type and index two, and if d is odd, part (iii) gives that it is a CY variety.

For smoothness, by Remark 2.9 (ii) the quotient M/\langle\varphi\rangle is smooth if and only if \pi is étale, and by Remark 4.4 this happens if and only if k is prime. This equivalence holds for any d. In particular, if d is odd, then M/\langle\varphi\rangle is a CY manifold if and only if k is prime, which proves (ii). If d is even, then k is even by Remark 3.7 (i) (see also Proposition 2.11), so k is prime if and only if k=2. This completes the proof of (i), which is consistent with Corollary 2.12 and Example 4.10 below.

To prove (i), set \ell=\gcd(s,r). Then

Now, assume that \ell\geq 2 and that there exists q\in \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^\ell}(M). Then, we have

and similarly we obtain that \varphi^{r}(q)=q. This proves (i).

Finally, assume that \gcd(s,r)=1. Then, there exist a,b\in \ensuremath{\mathbb{Z}} such that as + br = 1. If q \in \mathrm{Fix}_{\varphi^s}(M) \cap \mathrm{Fix}_{\varphi^r}(M), we have

contradicting that \mathrm{Fix}_{\varphi}(M) = \emptyset, and this proves (ii).

The inclusion \langle \varphi^s \rangle \subseteq \ensuremath{\operatorname{Stab}}(q) follows from the definition of \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^s}(M). For the other inclusion, let \varphi^j(q)=q for any 1 \leq j \leq k - 1, and set \ell := \gcd(j, k). Note that \ell\geq 2, otherwise if \ell = 1 then Remark 4.4 gives \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^j}(M) = \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi}(M) = \emptyset, contradicting \varphi^j(q) = q. Hence \ell \in S, and again by Remark 4.4, we obtain that \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^j}(M) = \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^{\ell}}(M)\neq\emptyset. In particular q \in \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^{\ell}}(M) with \ell \in S.

Now, we show that s \mid \ell. Since q \in \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^s}(M) \cap \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^{\ell}}(M) with s, \ell \in S, if \gcd(s, \ell) = 1 then Lemma 5.1, (ii) gives \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^s}(M) \cap \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^{\ell}}(M) = \emptyset, contradicting q lying in both. Hence \gcd(s, \ell) \neq 1, and in particular \gcd(s, \ell) \in S divides both s and \ell. By minimality of s, we have s \leq \gcd(s, \ell) and since \gcd(s, \ell) divides s, we obtain \gcd(s, \ell) = s, that is, s \mid \ell.

Therefore s \mid \ell = \gcd(j, k) and \ell \mid j, which means \varphi^j \in \langle \varphi^s \rangle. This shows \ensuremath{\operatorname{Stab}}(q) \subseteq \langle \varphi^s \rangle, completing the proof of the first claim.

Finally, we know that M is smooth at q and \ensuremath{\operatorname{Stab}}(q) = \langle \varphi^s \rangle acts linearly on the tangent space T_q M \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}^d, by [Kollar_Sing, Section 3.17 and Claim 3.17.1] we have the isomorphism

By Lemma 5.4 the stabilizer of q in the full group is \ensuremath{\operatorname{Stab}}_{\langle\varphi\rangle}(q)=\langle\varphi^{s(q)}\rangle. Since \langle\varphi^s\rangle\subseteq\langle\varphi\rangle, we obtain

As s and s(q) both divide k, so does \ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q)). Moreover \ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q))\geq s>1, so either \ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q))\in S or \ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q))=k. If \ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q))=k then \langle\varphi^{\ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q))}\rangle is trivial, the action of \langle\varphi^s\rangle is free near q, and its image in the quotient is a smooth point. If \ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q))\in S, then s(q)\mid\ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q)) gives \varphi^{\ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q))}(q)=q, so q\in\ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^{\ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q))}}(M). Since M is smooth at q, the finite group \ensuremath{\operatorname{Stab}}_{\langle\varphi^s\rangle}(q)=\langle\varphi^{\ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q))}\rangle acts linearly on T_qM\cong\ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}^d, and by [Kollar_Sing, Section 3.17], we obtain

Recall that by Remark 4.2 the automorphism \varphi has order k=4. First observe that by using the Calabi–Yau assumption, we obtain that n=3 and d=2 (see Remark 3.7). Then, M=X_4 is the Fermat quartic, so that we could give a proof using Example 2.13 (1), but we use Theorem 5.7 to follow the same strategy as in the general case. Note that s=2 is the unique divisor of k i.e s\in S and by Proposition 4.3, we obtain that v_2=\dim(\ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^2}(M))=t(s-1)-1=0.

Recall the \varphi can be written as follows:

thus, we have that

By ?, the action of \varphi on the volume form is \varphi^* v_{X_4}=-v_{X_4} so that \varphi^2 leaves it invariant. At q\in\ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^2}(X_4) in local coordinates we can write \varphi^2 in the diagonal form (see Remark 5.6)

One computes then the age of \varphi^2 as:

so by Theorem 5.7 the quotient \ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}^2/\langle \varphi^2\rangle has canonical singularities (as expected since \varphi^2 is a symplectic involution on a K3 surface). Since \varphi has empty fixed locus, we have s(q) = 2 for every q \in \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^2}(M), and hence by Lemma 5.4 \left(M/\left\langle\varphi\right\rangle, \pi(q)\right) is isomorphic to (\mathbb{A}^2/\langle\varphi^2\rangle, 0). Therefore M/\langle\varphi\rangle has canonical singularities.

Recall that by Remark 4.2 the automorphism \varphi has order k. The assertion about the smoothness of the quotients is given in Proposition 4.8. Now, assume that k is not a prime number that means that S is non empty. Let s \in S and q \in \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^s}(M). By Remark 5.6, the action of \varphi^s on T_qM \cong \ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}^d can be diagonalized as

where \xi is a primitive o(\varphi^s)-th root of unity, v_s=\dim\left(\ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^s}(M)\right), and 1\leq\sigma_i\leq o(\varphi^s)-1 for every i. We can assume that the the smallest residue mod o(\varphi^s) is [\sigma_i]=\sigma_i for all i=1,\ldots d-v_s. This gives:

since d=t(k-1)-1, v_s=t(s-1)-1 and (k-s)/k\geq \frac{1}{2}. We distinguish two cases:
Case 1. If ts>2 then \alpha^s_1>1.
Case 2. If ts=2, the only possibility is t=1 and s=2, since we are assuming that S is non empty. Then, we obtain \frac{2(k-2)}{k}\geq 1. If we assume that \frac{2(k-2)}{k}=1, then k=4 and we get d=2, which is not possible by assumption. Therefore \frac{2(k-2)}{k}>1 and thus \alpha^s_1>1.
One can then repeat a similar computation for j=2,\dots ,o(\varphi^s)-1, since the action of (\varphi^s)^j can be diagonalized locally in the same way, and we get that all the ages \alpha^s_j>1.

Finally, by Lemma 5.4, we have that \ensuremath{\operatorname{Stab}}(q)=\langle\varphi^s\rangle, for every q \in \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^s}(M) whose index is s\in S. Hence, (M/\langle\varphi\rangle, \pi(q)) is isomorphic to (\mathbb{A}^{d}/\langle\varphi^s\rangle, 0) and thus the singularity of M/\langle\varphi\rangle at \pi(q) coincides with that of \ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}^{d-v_s}/\langle\varphi^s\rangle at the origin, which is terminal by the above computations and by Theorem 5.7. Since \varphi has empty fixed locus, the singular points of M/\langle\varphi\rangle arise only from \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^s}(M), where s\in S. We conclude that M/\langle\varphi\rangle has terminal singularities whenever (d,k)\neq(2,4).

The same conclusion holds for each quotient M/\langle\varphi^s\rangle with s\in S. Indeed, by Lemma 5.5, for a point q\in \ensuremath{\operatorname{Fix}}_{\varphi^{s(q)}}(M) where s(q) is its index, the stabilizer of q in \langle\varphi^s\rangle is \langle\varphi^{\gamma}\rangle with \gamma=\ensuremath{\operatorname{lcm}}(s,s(q)), and we have two cases:

• (i) If \gamma=k, then \langle\varphi^{\gamma}\rangle is trivial and the image of q is a smooth point of M/\langle\varphi^s\rangle.

• (ii) If \gamma\in S, then the singularity of M/\langle\varphi^s\rangle at \pi(q) is isomorphic to that of \ensuremath{\mathbb{A}}^{d-v_{\gamma}}/\langle\varphi^{\gamma}\rangle at the origin. Its \ensuremath{\operatorname{age}} can be computed in the same way as before with \gamma in place of s, so \alpha^{\gamma}_j>1 for all 1\leq j\leq o(\varphi^{\gamma})-1 whenever (d,k)\neq(2,4). Hence M/\langle\varphi^s\rangle has terminal singularities whenever (d,k)\neq(2,4).

Finally, for every 1\leq s\leq k-1 we have \langle\varphi^s\rangle=\langle\varphi^{\gcd(s,k)}\rangle with \gcd(s,k)=1 or \gcd(s,k)\in S, so M/\langle\varphi^s\rangle equals either M/\langle\varphi\rangle or M/\langle\varphi^{\gamma}\rangle for some \gamma\in S. This concludes the proof.

The proof of this theorem follows from Example 2.13, Proposition 4.8, Proposition 5.8 and Proposition 5.9.

This follows from Proposition 5.9, the proofs of Lemma 2.7 and Proposition 2.11, and Example 2.13.

We may assume that X\not= \emptyset, so that \dim X =d\geq 0, or equivalently n-c>-1, which gives n+1>c. Since the dimension of R_{1,0} is invariant under deformation, also the one of J_{1,0} is, and we can choose F of a specific form. We let

and store the coefficients in a (n+1)\times c matrix \Lambda=(\lambda_{ij}). We may assume that any c\times c minor of \Lambda is not degenerate, and that any \lambda_{ij}\not=0. In this case (f_1,\dots,f_c) determine a smooth complete intersection, as explained in ?. The vector space J_{1,0} is generated by elements of the form x_i\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_k} or z_j\frac{\partial F}{\partial z_l}. Assume that

for a_{ik},b_{jl}\in \mathbb{C}. This gives

which, factoring the z_j’s, implies

for any j=1,\dots,c. This gives immediately a_{ik}\lambda_{kj}=0 whenever i\not=k and, since \lambda_{kj}\not=0, we get a_{ik}=0. We form the matrices A=(a_{ik}) and B=(b_{lj}) of sizes (n+1)\times(n+1) and c\times c, respectively. We have just observed that A is diagonal, so we let a_i=a_{ii}. We are left with the equality

that clearly gives

for any i=0,\dots, n, j=1,\dots,c. This can be reinterpreted as the matrix equation 2A\Lambda= -\Lambda B. Since A is diagonal, this means that if r_i is the i-th row of \Lambda, then r_i B= -2 a_i r_i and hence it is an eigenvector of B. Denote by \mu_i the dimension of the eigenspace V_i of B relative to -2a_i. Then \sum_{i=1}^k \mu_i=c, where k is the number of distinct a_i’s, and in particular \mu_i\leq c. Let m_i be the number of row vectors of \Lambda belonging to V_i. We want to prove k=1, for this assume by contradiction that k>1. This implies \mu_i<c and that m_i\leq \mu_i. In fact, if m_i\geq \mu_i+1 then we can choose \mu_i+1\leq c independent row vectors in V_i of dimension \mu_i, which is not possible. This gives n+1=\sum_{i=1}^k m_i\leq \sum_{i=1}^k \mu_i=c, which is a contradiction since c<n+1. In conclusion, k=1 and B has only one eigenvalue. Since it has a basis of eigenvectors, we can assume that it is diagonal B=bI_{c}. This gives r_i b=-2a_ir_i for any i, hence A=aI_{n+1} and b=-2a.

Observe that b_2(X)=b_2(S)+1>1 by Lemma 6.3 and the fact that b_2(S)>0 since S is projective. On the other hand, if X'=Y'/\langle\varphi\rangle for \varphi\in \ensuremath{\operatorname{Aut}}(Y'), then H^*(X',\mathbb{Q})\cong H^*(Y',\mathbb{Q})^{\varphi^*} where the right hand side denotes the space of \varphi^*-invariant classes. This implies that b_2(X')\leq b_2(Y')=1 by Lemma 6.1 (notice that equality is in fact attained whenever \varphi is restriction of a projective transformation). This immediately gives b_2(X)\not =b_2(X'), implying that X and X' cannot be deformation equivalent by Ehresmann’s Lemma.

Since the morphism Y\to X is étale, of degree 2 by Corollary 2.12, there is an involution \varphi \in \ensuremath{\operatorname{Aut}}(Y) such that X=Y/\langle\varphi\rangle. We have H^*(X,\mathbb{Z})\cong H^*(Y,\mathbb{Z})^{\varphi^*}, which implies b_2(Y)\geq b_2(X)=11 by Lemma 6.3 and the fact that b_2(E)=10 for an Enriques surface. For a complete intersection Y' we have b_2(Y')=1 by Lemma 6.1, and since b_2(Y')\not=b_2(Y) we deduce that Y' and Y cannot be deformation equivalent.

We follow the proof of [hayashi2015universal, Theorem 3.2]. Recall that since \omega_{Y'}\cong \mathcal{O}_{Y'} then T_{Y'}\cong \Omega_{Y'}^{2n-1}. Moreover, \omega_{X'} is not trivial but \omega_{X'}^{\otimes 2}\cong \mathcal{O}_{X'} so that T_{X'}\cong \Omega_{X'}^{2n-1}\otimes \omega_{X'}. Denote by \pi \colon Y'\to X' the covering map, then

From Y'\cong \operatorname{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_{X'}\oplus \omega_{X'}) we deduce

which combined with the previous isomorphisms gives

from which we deduce the statement.

We make use of the Jacobian ring, hence we refer to results and notation of ?, noticing that the ambient space in this case has dimension 4n+1 instead of n. In this case we have that Y'\subset \mathbb{P}^{4n+1} is complete intersection of 2n+1 quadrics, hence d=4n+1 and c=2n+1. Moreover, Y' is CY so that m=0 and in this case we have an isomorphism

We write a basis of R_{1,0} to compute the dimension of H^{1,2n-1}(Y')=H_{prim}^{1,2n-1}(Y'), where the equality holds since 2n-1\not=1 for n\geq2, and then determine the invariant part for the action of \varphi to get h^{1,2n-1}(X').

A basis of S_{1,0} is given by monomials of the form x_ix_jz_k, and it has cardinality (2n+1)\binom{4n+3}{2}. Recall that \deg (\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_i})=(1,-1) and \deg(\frac{\partial F}{\partial z_k})=(0,2), so that a basis of the graded part J_{1,0} is given by elements of the form x_j\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_i}, or z_j\frac{\partial F}{\partial z_i}. There are (4n+2)^2+(2n+1)^2 such elements, but by Lemma 6.2 there is precisely one linear dependence relation between them. Hence, we have

We now determine the monomials in S_{1,0} that are invariant under the action of \varphi, observing that \varphi^*(\Omega_{x}\wedge\Omega_z)=-\Omega_{x}\wedge\Omega_z since \varphi acts as -1 on 2n+1 variables, and \varphi^*(F)=F. Hence, invariant cohomology classes correspond to anti-invariant monomials. We determine the invariant monomials modulo J and then deduce the number of anti-invariant monomials modulo J.

Monomials that are not invariant are of the form x_ix_jz_k with i\in \{0,\dots,2n\} and j\in\{2n+1,\dots,4n+2\}, hence the invariant monomials are (2n+1)\binom{4n+3}{2}-(2n+1)(2n+1)^2=(2n+2)(2n+1)^2, where (2n+1)^2 corresponds to the anti-invariant monomials x_ix_j. The invariant elements in J_{1,0} are of the form x_i\frac{\partial F}{\partial x_j}, or z_k\frac{\partial F}{\partial z_h} with i,j\in \{0,\dots,2n\}, or i,j\in\{2n+1,\dots,4n+2\}, and k,h\in \{1,\dots,2n+1\}. We have a total of 2(2n+1)^2+(2n+1)^2=3(2n+1)^2 elements, with a relation of dependence as before (which is invariant). Hence we have

invariant monomials in R_{1,0}, and

which can be rewritten as

From this the relation h^{1,2n-1}(Y')=2h^{1,2n-1}(X')+1 is clear. By Lemma 6.10, h^1(X',T_{X'})=h^{1,2n-1}(Y')-h^{1,2n-1}(X') which then equals to h^{1,2n-1}(X')+1=2n(4n^2+2n-1)=(2n-1)(2n+1)^2+1.