Deforming Calabi-Yau Threefolds

This proof is simply a very minor modification of Kawamata’s proof of Ran’s T^1-lifting criterion in [[18]].

First, the map \xi_{n*} is defined as follows. An element of (Y_n,\psi_n) of T^1(X_n/A_n) induces a composed map Y_n\rightarrow X_n\rightarrow \alpha_{n-1,*}X_n=X_{n-1}, and hence a morphism \psi_{n-1}:Y_{n-1}:=\xi_{n*}Y_n\rightarrow X_{n-1} by (1.6).

As in [[18], pg. 185], we have a commutative diagram with exact rows:

Note that 1_{T^2}\otimes\epsilon_n is an isomorphism (here we need \operatorname{char} k=0, since \epsilon_n(t^{n+1})=(n+1)x^ny in B_n).

Put Y_{n-1}:=\epsilon_{n-1,*}X_n, so \alpha=(Y_{n-1},\psi_{n-1}). Note that we have a commutative diagram, again using (1.6),

sitting over the fibre square defining C_n=B_{n-1}\times_{A_{n-1}} A_n. Here

denotes the second projection. Thus by Remark 1.6, \epsilon_{n*}'X_n \cong Y_n\times_{X_{n-1}} X_n. Now

• \exists X_{n+1}\in D(A_{n+1}) such that D(\alpha_n)(X_{n+1})=X_n

• \Leftrightarrow \delta_1(X_n)=0

• \Leftrightarrow \delta_2(D(\epsilon'_n)(X_n))=0

• \Leftrightarrow \exists Y_n\in D(B_n) with D(\gamma_n)(Y_n)=D(\epsilon_n')(X_n)

• \Leftrightarrow \exists an object Y_n in \mathcal{D}(B_n) fitting into a commutative diagram

  \xymatrix@C=30pt { \gamma_{n*}Y_n\ar[r]\ar[d] & X_n\ar[d]\\ Y_{n-1}\ar[r]_{\psi_{n-1}}&X_{n-1} }

  sitting over the fibre square defining B_{n-1}\times_{A_{n-1}} A_n

• \Leftrightarrow \exists Y_n an object of \mathcal{D}(B_n) with morphisms \psi_n:Y_n\rightarrow X_n over \beta_n and \phi:Y_n\rightarrow Y_{n-1} over \xi_n yielding a commutative diagram

  \xymatrix@C=30pt { Y_n\ar[r]^{\psi_n}\ar[d]_{\phi}&X_n\ar[d]\\ Y_{n-1}\ar[r]_{\psi_{n-1}}&X_{n-1} }

  (Here, we use \xi_n is the composition \operatorname{pr}_1\circ\gamma_n where

  \operatorname{pr}_1:C_n=B_{n-1}\times_{A_{n-1}} A_n\rightarrow B_{n-1}

  is the first projection, as well as properties of cofibred categories.)

• \Leftrightarrow \exists\alpha'\in T^1(X_n/A_n) mapping to \alpha.

Since \Lambda is a hull for D_2, there is an induced map \Lambda\rightarrow S, unique only up to the induced map F_* on Zariski tangent spaces. Fix one such map. Now

and if we choose elements \alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_r\in \mathfrak{m}_S which along with \operatorname{im}{F_*}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee} generate \mathfrak{m}_S/\mathfrak{m}_S^2, we can define a map R=\Lambda[[x_1,\ldots,x_r]] \rightarrow S by x_i\mapsto \alpha_i. This map is surjective, and if its kernel is J, S\cong R/J. Furthermore, J\subseteq\mathfrak{m}_{\Lambda}R+\mathfrak{m}_R^2. Let D_0: {\bf C}_{\Lambda}\rightarrow {\bf Ens} be the functor pro-represented by the complete local \Lambda-algebra S=R/J. We will first prove:

We now follow some of the ideas of Kawamata in [[19]] to construct J'. Dualizing the sequence (Proof), we have

Let f_1,\ldots, f_t\in J be elements such that \phi(f_1),\ldots,\phi(f_t) generate \operatorname{ker} {F_*}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}, with t=\dim_k \operatorname{ker} {F_*}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}=\dim_k V. Set J' =(f_1,\ldots,f_t). There is a surjective map \mathfrak{m}_R/(\mathfrak{m}_R^2+J')\rightarrow \mathfrak{m}_R/(\mathfrak{m}_R^2+J) and the dimensions of these spaces are the same by construction, so we have equality.

The map J'/\mathfrak{m}_RJ'\smash{ \mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{i}} J/\mathfrak{m}_RJ induced by J'\subseteq J is an inclusion since

but \dim_k \operatorname{im}(\phi\circ i)=t. Thus dually the composition

is an isomorphism. Let D_0':{\bf C}_{\Lambda}\rightarrow {\bf Ens} be the functor pro-represented by R/J'. Clearly D_0 is a subfunctor of D_0', and for each n, we have a commutative diagram

This shows that an element of D_0(A_n) lifts to D_0(A_{n+1}) if and only if it lifts to D_0'(A_{n+1}). Since the choice of liftings is a principal homogeneous space over {(\mathfrak{m}_R/(\mathfrak{m}_R\Lambda+\mathfrak{m}_R^2))}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}\otimes (t^{n+1}) for both D_0 and D_0', we see inductively that D_0(A_n) =D_0'(A_n) for any \Lambda-algebra structure on A_n. Thus

for any \Lambda-algebra structure on k[[t]], and so

and we conclude that \operatorname{Supp}(R/J)=\operatorname{Supp}(R/J') as in the last paragraph of the proof of [[19], Thm. 1].(This is where the added hypothesis that k is algebraically closed is necessary.)

The change of rings spectral sequence ([[40], Thm. 10.74]) tells us that

Now \Omega^1_{X_n/A_n} is a flat \mathcal{O}_{X_n}-module away from Z\subseteq X_n, so {\rm Tor}^{\mathcal{O}_{X_n}}_q(\Omega^1_{X_n/A_n},\mathcal{O}_{X_m}) is supported on Z for q\ge 1. Since X_m is Cohen-Macaulay,

for p\le 1, q\ge 1. Thus

for i\le 2. The statement of the lemma for global Exts then follows from the local-global spectral sequence for Exts.

The change of rings spectral sequence yields

so the same argument as in the proof of Lemma 2.3 shows that

for i\le 2. Furthermore, since \mathcal{O}_{\hat X_m} is a flat \mathcal{O}_{X_m}-module,

which is T^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(X_m/A_m) by 2.1 for i=1. For i=2, m=0, this gives (b).

(c) follows from the usual statement of local duality if Z is dimension zero. Since X may not have isolated singularities, we use Alonso, Jeremı́ as and Lipman’s generalization of local duality [[1]]. By [[1], (0.3), (0.1), and (0.4.1)],

By the Grothendieck duality theorem of [[15]],

Putting these two isomorphisms together and taking cohomology of the two complexes, we have

For i=2, this yields the isomorphism

This isomorphism is compatible with the map

induced by the map \mathcal{O}_X\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\hat X} since [[1], (0.3)] also tells us that the following diagram is commutative:

where \alpha is induced by the natural map in the derived category {\bf R}{\underline\Gamma}_Z\Omega^1_X \rightarrow \Omega^1_X and \beta is induced by \mathcal{O}_X\rightarrow \mathcal{O}_{\hat X}.

The proof of [[28], Lem. 2.2] actually shows in general that the image of H^1(X,\mathcal{O}_X^*)\rightarrow H^1(X,\pi_*\Omega^1_{\tilde X}) generates the latter as a vector space, using only the hypothesis that \tilde X has rational singularities, which is true of any canonical singularity. Now the kernel and cokernel of \pi_*\Omega^1_{\tilde X}\rightarrow \tilde\Omega^1_X are supported on Z. If we can show furthermore that \operatorname{coker}(\pi_*\Omega^1_{\tilde X}\rightarrow \tilde \Omega^1_X) is supported on a finite set of points, then in fact H^1(\pi_*\Omega^1_{\tilde X})\rightarrow H^1(\tilde\Omega^1_X) is surjective and the lemma follows.

By [[38]], except for a finite number of dissident points, X is analytically isomorphic in a neighborhood of a point of Z to \Delta\times S, where \Delta is the germ of a curve and S is a germ of a du Val surface singularity, with resolution \pi':\tilde S\rightarrow S. Thus, in this neighborhood, \pi:\tilde X\rightarrow X looks like \pi:\Delta\times\tilde S \rightarrow \Delta\times S. Let p_1 and p_2 be the projections of \Delta\times S onto \Delta and S respectively. The map \pi_*\Omega^1_{\tilde X}\rightarrow \tilde \Omega^1_X is p_1^*\Omega^1_{\Delta}\oplus p_2^*\pi'_*\Omega^1_{\tilde S}\rightarrow p_1^*\Omega^1_{\Delta}\oplus p_2^*\tilde\Omega^1_S. Since S is a rational singularity, it follows from [[43]] that \pi_*\Omega^1_{\tilde S}\rightarrow \tilde \Omega^1_S is surjective. Thus \pi_*\Omega^1_{\tilde X}\rightarrow\tilde\Omega^1_X is surjective in this neighborhood, and so \operatorname{coker}(\pi_*\Omega^1_{\tilde X}\rightarrow\tilde\Omega^1_X) is concentrated on the dissident points of Z.

Since X is a germ, H^1(\pi_*\Theta_{\tilde X})=H^2(\pi_*\Theta_{\tilde X})=0. Thus the tangent space to \operatorname{Def}(\tilde X) is H^1(\Theta_{\tilde X})\cong H^0(R^1\pi_*\Theta_{\tilde X}) by the Leray spectral sequence. Similarly, H^2(\Theta_{\tilde X})=H^0(R^2\pi_*\Theta_{\tilde X}). Also, the tangent space to \operatorname{Def}(X) is

by [[42], Thm. 2]. The map H^1(\tilde X,\Theta_{\tilde X})\rightarrow H^1(\tilde X-E, \Theta_{\tilde X}) is the differential of \operatorname{Def}(\tilde X)\rightarrow \operatorname{Def}(X). Hence the exact sequence

is identical to

which yields the desired sequence. Elements of \mathcal{O}_{X,0} pull back to elements of \mathcal{O}_{\tilde X}, which then act on \Theta_{\tilde X}, and so H^1(\tilde X,\Theta_{\tilde X}) and H^1 (\tilde X-E,\Theta_{\tilde X}) are naturally \mathcal{O}_{X,0}-modules.

The Hodge theory of \tilde X is well-behaved above the middle dimension from [[31]]: in particular the spectral sequence

degenerates at the E_1 level for p+q>3. Thus as in the proof of [[4], 5.5], if \tilde X_n/A_n is a deformation of \tilde X over A_n, then H^2(\Omega^2_{\tilde X_n/A_n}) is a locally free A_n-module of rank \dim H^2(\Omega^2_{\tilde X}). Then, as a case of Ran’s “T^2-injecting” criterion [[36]], we see we have an exact sequence

with \phi injective, so that T^1(\tilde X_n/A_n)\rightarrow T^1(\tilde X_{n-1}/ A_{n-1}) is always surjective. Thus, by the T^1-lifting criterion, (Theorem 1.14) \operatorname{Def}(\tilde X) is smooth.

We split this into the hypersurface case and the codimension two complete intersection case, the former being simpler than the latter. First suppose (X,0) is a hypersurface singularity, so that T'\cong\mathcal{O}_{X,0}/I for some ideal I containing the jacobian ideal J. If some element of T' not in {\bf m}T' were annihilated by {\bf m}, we would then have a non-zero element of T'/{\bf m}T' killed by {\bf m}/{\bf m}^2 under the surjective multiplication map T'/{\bf m}T' \otimes {\bf m}/{\bf m}^2\rightarrow {\bf m}T'/{\bf m}^2T'. But \dim_{\mathbb{C}} T'/{\bf m}T' \le 1, so this is only possible if {\bf m}T'=0 and \dim_{\mathbb{C}} T'=1. Thus we just need to show that \dim_{\mathbb{C}} T'>1.

By Proposition 3.4, \operatorname{Def}(\tilde X) is smooth. On the other hand, the fibre of the miniversal space of X over a general point of D\subseteq \operatorname{Def}(X) has one ODP ([[44], §5]). I claim that in fact the image of \operatorname{Def}(\tilde X) in \operatorname{Def}(X) cannot contain any points corresponding to deformations of X to a non-singular germ or a germ with one ODP, and thus the codimension of the image of \operatorname{Def}(\tilde X) in \operatorname{Def}(X) is at least 2, from which we conclude \dim T'\ge 2. To show this claim, if the invariant k of (X,0) is at least one, then (\tilde X,0) contains some exceptional divisors, and thus by [[26], Lem. 3.1], any deformation of (\tilde X,0) does also. Since any deformation of (\tilde X,0) also has trivial canonical bundle, these divisors blow down to yield a singularity which is not an ODP. If k=0, \tilde X\rightarrow X is a small resolution, and the claim follows from [[29], Lem. (1.8)].

In the case that (X,0) is a codimension two complete intersection, let

be a factorization of \pi, with \pi_2 the blowing up of X at 0. By the argument of [[48], (1.5)], we have \operatorname{Ext}^1(\Omega^1_{X_1},\mathcal{O}_{X_1}) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^1(\pi_1^*\Omega^1_{X_1},\mathcal{O}_{\tilde X}), \operatorname{Ext}^1(\Omega^1_X,\mathcal{O}_X) \cong \operatorname{Ext}^1(\pi^*\Omega^1_X,\mathcal{O}_{\tilde X}), and the natural maps \pi^*\Omega^1_X \rightarrow \pi_1^*\Omega^1_{X_1}\rightarrow\Omega^1_{\tilde X} induce the maps on tangent spaces

Thus if

there is a surjection T'\rightarrow T''\rightarrow 0 and it is enough to show that T'/\mathfrak{m} T'\cong T''/\mathfrak{m} T'', T''\not=0, and any element not in {\bf m}T'' is not annihilated by {\bf m}. To do this, we consider X\subseteq Y=({\mathbb{C}}^5,0) and Y_1\rightarrow Y the blowing-up of the origin, X_1\subseteq Y_1 the proper transform of X in Y_1. We will first show that every infinitesimal deformation of X_1 is a deformation of X_1 inside of Y_1. We have an exact sequence

with \mathcal{I} the ideal sheaf of X_1\subseteq Y_1, which yields

Since \Omega^1_{Y_1}|_{X_1} is locally free, \operatorname{Ext}^1(\Omega^1_{Y_1}|_{X_1},\mathcal{O}_{X_1})=H^1(\Theta_{Y_1}|_{X_1}), and we have an exact sequence

Let F be the exceptional \mathbb{P}^4 of the blowing-up Y_1\rightarrow Y. Then using

the exact sequences

and

we see that H^1(\Theta_{Y_1})=0. To show that H^2(\Theta_Y\otimes \mathcal{I})=0, we use the Koszul resolution of \mathcal{I}

where \mathcal{L}_1,\mathcal{L}_2 and \mathcal{L}_3 are line bundles, with \mathcal{L}_1|_F\cong\mathcal{O}_F(-4), \mathcal{L}_2|_F\cong\mathcal{L}_3|_F\cong\mathcal{O}_F(-2). We then see as before that H^2((\mathcal{L}_2\oplus\mathcal{L}_3) \otimes\Theta_{Y_1})=0 and H^3(\mathcal{L}_1\otimes\Theta_{Y_1})=0. Thus H^2(\Theta_{Y_1}\otimes\mathcal{I})=0. To conclude, we have shown that \operatorname{Ext}^1(\Omega^1_{Y_1}|_{X_1},\mathcal{O}_{X_1})=0, and so any infinitesimal deformation of X_1 comes from an infinitesimal deformation of X_1 in Y_1.

Now a choice of g=(g_1,g_2)\in\mathcal{O}_{X,0}^2 gives a deformation \bar X/A_1 of X by the equations

Note that if \bar X/A_1 is normally flat along 0\times \operatorname{Spec} A_1 then (g_1,g_2)\in \mathfrak{m}^2\mathcal{O}_{X,0}^2. Indeed, since f_1=f_2=0 defines a rational Gorenstein singularity, the leading terms of f_1 and f_2 must be quadratic, and thus if (g_1,g_2)\not\in\mathfrak{m}^2\mathcal{O}_{X,0}^2, the blow-up of \bar X/A_1 at 0\times\operatorname{Spec} A_1 would not yield an exceptional divisor flat over A_1.

If we write T''=\mathcal{O}_{X,0}^2/I, with I\supseteq J, then (g_1,g_2)\in I if (g_1,g_2) yields a deformation \bar X/A_1 which lifts to a deformation \bar X_1/A_1 of X_1. Since \bar X_1/A_1 is equivalent to a deformation \bar X_1'/A_1\subseteq Y_1\times\operatorname{Spec} A_1, we can blow down this deformation to obtain a deformation \bar X'/A_1 equivalent to \bar X/A_1, which in particular is normally flat along 0\times\operatorname{Spec} A_1. Since two deformations of X given by (g_1,g_2) and (g_1',g_2') are equivalent if and only if they differ by an element (h_1,h_2)\in J, we must have (g_1+h_1,g_2+h_2)\in\mathfrak{m}^2\mathcal{O}_{X,0}^2 for some (h_1,h_2)\in J.

Now J\subseteq\mathfrak{m}\mathcal{O}_{X,0}^2, so if (g_1,g_2)\not\in\mathfrak{m}\mathcal{O}_{X,0}^2, we cannot have (g_1,g_2) \in I. Thus \dim_{\mathbb{C}}T''/\mathfrak{m} T''=2, and since \dim_{\mathbb{C}} T'/\mathfrak{m} T'\le 2, we must have the surjection T'/\mathfrak{m} T'\rightarrow T''/\mathfrak{m} T'' being an isomorphism, and T''\not=0.

If (g_1,g_2)\not\in\mathfrak{m}\mathcal{O}_{X,0}^2, but x_i(g_1,g_2)\in I for all i, then in particular for each i, there exists (h_1,h_2)\in J such that x_i(g_1,g_2)+(h_1,h_2)\in\mathfrak{m}^2\mathcal{O}_{X,0}^2, from which one easily sees that the leading (quadratic) terms of f_1 and f_2 have proportional partial derivatives, and hence must be proportional themselves, ruling out the possibility of having a del Pezzo surface as an exceptional divisor. Thus (g_1,g_2) is not annihilated by all elements of \mathfrak{m} in T''.

Following [[44], pg. 645], let D\subseteq (T^1,0) be the discriminant locus of F, C\subseteq (\mathcal{X},0) the critical locus. From [[44]], F|_C:C\rightarrow D is the normalization of D. If every fibre of F' is singular, the induced map \mathcal{S}'\rightarrow (T^1,0) factors through D. Since \mathcal{S}' is non-singular, in particular this map factors through C\rightarrow D, and thus the image of T in T^1 is contained in the image in T^1 of the tangent space T_{\mathcal{X},0} of (\mathcal{X},0) at 0 via F_*. Using the explicit equations for (\mathcal{X},0) and basis for T^1 given in 3.5, we see that the image of T_{\mathcal{X},0} in T^1 is a vector space W\subseteq T^1 given by a_1=\cdots=a_n=0. Again from the explicit description of T^1 in 3.5, W=\mathfrak{m} T^1, so the image of W in T' is a subspace V\subseteq \mathfrak{m} T'. Thus, we see that if F' only has singular fibres, the image of T is contained in {\bf m}T'.

Let P\in Z=\operatorname{Sing}(X) be a singular point of X which is not an ordinary double point. We will show that there is a deformation of X which smooths P. We have a diagram

\operatorname{Def}(X) is smooth by [[28]] or Theorem 2.2. The second vertical map arises as in the proof of Lemma 3.2. Thus to show that there is a deformation of X which smooths P\in X, it is enough to show by Lemma 3.7 that the image of the composed map

with E=\pi^{-1}(P) contains an element not in {\bf m}_PT'_P \subseteq T'_P\subseteq H^2_E(\tilde X,\Theta_{\tilde X}). Here {\bf m}_P is the maximal ideal of \mathcal{O}_{X,P}, and T'_P is the subspace of H^2_E(\tilde X,\Theta_{\tilde X}) given by Lemma 3.2 applied to the germ (X,P). To show this, it is enough to show that there is an element of \operatorname{ker}(H^2_E(\tilde X,\Theta_{\tilde X}) \smash{ \mathop{\longrightarrow}\limits^{\phi}} H^2(\tilde X,\Theta_{\tilde X})) not in {\bf m}_PT'_P.

To see this, first consider the dual map

Since H^1(\Omega^1_{\tilde X})\cong (\operatorname{Pic} \tilde X)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}{\mathbb{C}}, this map factors through \operatorname{Pic}(\tilde X,E)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}{\mathbb{C}}, where (\tilde X,E) denotes the germ of \tilde X at E. Now let E=\bigcup E_i, with E_i irreducible.

Claim: The map \operatorname{Pic}(\tilde X,E)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} {\mathbb{C}} \rightarrow \bigoplus H^1(\Omega^1_{E_i}) is injective.

Thus the composed map

must also be injective, as is then the composed map

Dually, we get that the composed map

is surjective. Now clearly \operatorname{Ext}^2_{\mathcal{O}_{\tilde X}}(\mathcal{O}_{E_i},\Theta_{\tilde X}) is annihilated by the maximal ideal {\bf m}_P\subseteq\mathcal{O}_{X,P} since \mathcal{O}_{E_i} is. Let W\subseteq \bigoplus \operatorname{Ext}^2_{\mathcal{O}_{\tilde X}}(\mathcal{O}_{E_i},\Theta_{\tilde X}) be a subspace mapping isomorphically via \phi to \operatorname{im}(\phi). Identifying W with its image in H^2_E(\Theta_{\tilde X}), we must then have H^2_E(\Theta_{\tilde X}) =W+\operatorname{ker}(\phi). W is annihilated by {\bf m}_P, and so W\cap T'_P\subseteq {\bf m}_PT'_P by Lemma 3.6; since T_P'\not=0, \operatorname{ker}(\phi) contains some elements not in {\bf m}_PT'_P.

By [[30]], there is a small deformation of \tilde X, \tilde\mathcal{X}\rightarrow\Delta, such that \tilde\mathcal{X}_t, t\not=0 is non-singular. If H is an ample Cartier divisor on X, \pi^* H is a nef and big divisor on \tilde X, and by [[28], Prop. 6.1, Thm. C], this divisor deforms to a relatively nef and big divisor on \tilde \mathcal{X}. Thus the morphism \pi deforms to a morphism \pi':\tilde \mathcal{X}\rightarrow \mathcal{X}, with \mathcal{X} a deformation of X. (It is possible this may introduce some new ordinary double points on \mathcal{X}_t.) \mathcal{X}_t still has isolated complete intersection canonical singularities, but has a crepant resolution \tilde\mathcal{X}_t\rightarrow\mathcal{X}_t, so we can apply Theorem 3.8.

We will now prove the theorem by constructing a deformation \mathcal{X}\rightarrow\Delta of X such that \operatorname{im}(\Delta\rightarrow \operatorname{Def}(X,Z)) is contained in the smoothing component given by item (3) of Definition 4.2, but

where X'\rightarrow X is the blow-up of X at the singular locus Z of X, with exceptional locus E'. It will then follow from Lemma 4.6 that Y=\mathcal{X}_t has only hypersurface singularities for t\not=0. By [[23], 12.1.11], Y is \mathbb{Q}-factorial. By Corollary 3.10, we can deform Y to something with only ordinary double points which is still \mathbb{Q}-factorial, and hence can be smoothed entirely by [[8]].

To show this, we will apply Theorems 2.2 and 1.16 to get dimension estimates of components of \operatorname{Def}(X) versus Def(X'). We adopt the following notation:

By Theorems 2.2 and 1.16, we have S\cong R/J for some ideal J\subseteq R. Furthermore, there is an ideal J'\subseteq J with \operatorname{Supp}(R/J)=\operatorname{Supp}(R/J'), \mathfrak{m}_R/(\mathfrak{m}_R^2+J)\cong \mathfrak{m}_R/(\mathfrak{m}_R^2+J') and J' is generated by s elements.

In addition, we set

By item (2) of Definition 4.2, \mathscr{D}' can be identified with a non-singular subscheme of \operatorname{Spec} R, and \operatorname{im} f\subseteq\mathscr{D}'.

Finally, let T_{\mathscr{B},0}, T_{\mathscr{D}',0} and T_{\tilde\mathscr{D},0} be the Zariski tangent spaces to \mathscr{B}, \mathscr{D}' and \tilde\mathscr{D} at their closed points. T_{\mathscr{B},0} and T_{\mathscr{D}',0} are contained in T=T_{\operatorname{Spec} R,0}=T^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\oplus V_0. Then f_*( T_{\tilde\mathscr{D},0})\subseteq T_{\mathscr{D}',0}, and by Lemma 3.2 f_*(T_{\tilde \mathscr{D},0}) is the kernel of the composed map T\rightarrow T^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\rightarrow T'.

Note that since \mathfrak{m}_R/(\mathfrak{m}_R^2+J)\cong \mathfrak{m}_R/(\mathfrak{m}_R^2+J'), T_{\mathscr{B},0}\cong T^1. Thus

since f_*(T_{\tilde\mathscr{D},0})\subseteq T_{\mathscr{D}',0} and Lemma 4.5 gives a surjection T^1\rightarrow T' with kernel f_*(T_{\tilde\mathscr{D},0})\cap T^1. Also, s=\dim T-\dim T_{\mathscr{B},0}=\dim f_*(T_{\tilde\mathscr{D},0})+\dim T'-\dim T_{\mathscr{B},0}. Then

On the other hand,

Thus \mathscr{B}\cap\mathscr{D}' is strictly contained in \mathscr{B}\cap\mathscr{C}. Thus there is a map \operatorname{Spec} k[[t]] \rightarrow \mathscr{B}\cap\mathscr{C} whose image is not contained in \mathscr{B}\cap \mathscr{D}'. This yields a small deformation \mathcal{X}\rightarrow\Delta which has the desired properties.

[[23], 12.1.6] gives a similar statement for rational cohomology, i.e. X \mathbb{Q}-factorial implies that

We can clearly replace \mathbb{Q} by {\mathbb{C}}, and since H^2(\mathcal{O}_{\tilde X})=0, H^2(\tilde X,{\mathbb{C}})=H^1(\tilde X,\Omega^1_{\tilde X}). Now R^i\pi_*\mathcal{O}_{\tilde X}=0 for i>0 since X has rational singularities. Thus by the spectral sequence

there is a natural map

yielding a commutative diagram

This gives the desired result.

First we claim that

That the first space contains the second is clear, since the first map factors through the second. Dualizing this statement, we need to prove that

The first surjects on the second, i.e. \operatorname{im}(p_1)\subseteq \operatorname{im}(p_2). To show equality, we need to show \operatorname{im}(p_1)\supseteq\operatorname{im}(p_2). Let \{E_i\} be the irreducible components of E. We have the diagram

Here, H^0(U, \Omega^1_{\tilde X})=H^0(U,\Omega^1_X)=0 by [[43]]. This shows that \operatorname{im}(\bigoplus {\mathbb{C}}E_i\rightarrow H^1(\Omega^1_{\tilde X})) \subseteq \operatorname{im}(H^1_E(\Omega^1_{\tilde X})\rightarrow H^1(\Omega^1_{\tilde X})), and thus by Lemma 4.4 and the hypothesis that X is \mathbb{Q}-factorial, \operatorname{im}(p_2) \subseteq \operatorname{im}(p_1).

Now diagram (Proof) is still valid in this situation, and we have by definition

so identifying T^1 with H^1(U,\Theta_X), (Proof) shows that

The result then follows.

Suppose that for general t\in\Delta, \mathcal{X}_t has worse than hypersurface singularities. \mathcal{X} must be singular at each point where \mathcal{X}_t has worse than hypersurface singularities, so we can assume there is a curve C\subseteq \mathcal{X} dominating \Delta along which \mathcal{X} is singular. By making a suitable base change, we can assume C is the image of a section \Delta\rightarrow\mathcal{X}. It is enough to show that \mathcal{X} is normally flat along C; this will permit us to blow up \mathcal{X} along C to obtain a deformation \mathcal{X}'\rightarrow \Delta of X'. To show that \mathcal{X} is normally flat along C, it is enough to show that the multiplicity of \mathcal{X}_t at C_t is constant for t\in\Delta. Indeed, \mathcal{X} is normally flat along C if the Hilbert-Samuel function of the point C_t\in\mathcal{X}_t is constant for t\in\Delta. For a rational Gorenstein non-cDV point, the exceptional locus upon blowing-up is a del Pezzo surface, and the Hilbert-Samuel function for a family of del Pezzo surfaces of the same degree is constant. To show that the multiplicity of \mathcal{X} along C is constant, it is enough to show the same thing for a general hyperplane section of \mathcal{X} containing C.

To this end, take a general hyperplane section of \mathcal{X} containing C; this yields a deformation \mathcal{S}\rightarrow\Delta of surface singularities, with \mathcal{S}_0 a general hyperplane section of \mathcal{X}_0=X. \mathcal{S}_0 is then a Gorenstein elliptic singularity, and the blowing up of \mathcal{S}_0 at P resolves the singularity, since (X,P) is good. In particular, if \tilde\mathcal{S}_0\rightarrow\mathcal{S}_0 is the blowing up of \mathcal{S}_0, then the exceptional locus is either a non-singular elliptic curve, a nodal rational curve, or a cuspidal rational curve. These are the singularities El(d), C(d) or Cu(d), where d is the multiplicity of the singularity, following the notation of [[49], §5]. \mathcal{S}_t must also have elliptic singularities. If the list of adjacencies given in [[49], §5], then \mathcal{S}_0 can only be adjacent to an elliptic singularity of the same multiplicity (these are the adjacencies Cu(d)\rightarrow C(d) and C(d)\rightarrow El(d) in Wahl’s notation). In the case at hand, Wahl’s list of adjacencies has been proved to be complete in [[27]]. Thus the multiplicity of the singularities of \mathcal{S}_t remain constant, proving the lemma.

If X has only ordinary double points, and C_1,\ldots,C_n are the exceptional curves of \pi, then the cohomology classes [C_1],\ldots,[C_n]\in H_2(\tilde X,\mathbb{Z}) coincide, since \pi is primitive, and thus unless n=1, there is a non-trivial linear dependence relation on [C_1],\ldots, [C_n]. Thus by [[8]], X is smoothable. If X does not have only ordinary double points, then let Z\rightarrow X be a (non-projective) small resolution of the ordinary double points of X. Then if C_1,\ldots,C_n\subseteq Z are the exceptional curves, [C_1],\ldots,[C_n]=0 in H_2(Z,\mathbb{Z}), and so by [[29], Thm. 2.5], X is smoothable.

Let \mathcal{I}_E be the ideal sheaf of E in \tilde X. If H^1(\Theta_E\otimes (\mathcal{I}_E/\mathcal{I}_E^2)^n)=H^1((\mathcal{I}_E/\mathcal{I}_E^2)^n)=0 for all n\ge 1, then [[9], Cor. to Satz 7], tells us that (\tilde X,E) is analytically isomorphic to an open neighborhood of E embedded in the normal bundle of E in \tilde X as the zero section. This will then give the theorem.

E is a del Pezzo surface of degree between 5 and 9, and \mathcal{I}_E/\mathcal{I}_E^2=\omega^{-1}_E. For a del Pezzo surface, H^1(\omega_E^{-n})=0 for all n\ge 1. If we show that H^1(\Theta_E)=0, then if H is a hyperplane section of E, the exact sequence

shows us that H^1(\Theta_E\otimes\omega^{-n}_E)=0 for all n\ge 1. Now E is \mathbb{P}^2, \mathbb{P}^1\times\mathbb{P}^1, or \mathbb{P}^2 blown up in 9-k points. In the first two cases, H^1(\Theta_E)=0 is immediate. In the other cases, H^1(\Theta_E) is the tangent space to \operatorname{Def}(E), and the moduli space of non-singular del Pezzo surfaces of degree \ge 5 consists of a single point (reduced since H^2(\Theta_E)\cong {H^0(\Omega^1_E\otimes\omega_E)}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}=0) by [[5], VII, 2]. Thus H^1(\Theta_E)=0.

(i) By Serre duality, {H^2(\Theta_E\otimes\omega_E^{-n})}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}\cong H^0( {{\Omega^1_E}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}\otimes\omega_E^{n+1}). If E is a normal del Pezzo surface and thus has only quotient singularities, then H^0({{\Omega^1_E}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee})=0 by Hodge theory. Since \omega_E^{-1} is effective, H^0({{\Omega^1_E}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}\otimes \omega_E^{n+1})=0 for all n\ge 0 also.

If E is non-normal, let n:\tilde E\rightarrow E be the normalization, so that \tilde E is a scroll. Then the map n^*\Omega^1_E\rightarrow \Omega^1_{\tilde E} yields a map {{\Omega^1_E}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}\rightarrow {{(n_*\Omega^1_{\tilde E})}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}\cong n_*\Omega^1_{\tilde E}, as is seen by applying duality for a finite morphism twice ([[16], III Ex. 6.10 b)] and [[39]]). Since {{\Omega^1_E}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee} is torsion-free, this map is injective, so H^0({{\Omega^1_E}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee})\subseteq H^0(\Omega^1_{\tilde E})=0. Thus the result still follows in this case.

(ii) If E is normal, then again H^2(\Omega^1_E)\cong H^2({{\Omega^1_E}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee})=0 by Hodge theory, and so (ii) follows. Now suppose E is not normal, with n:\tilde E\rightarrow E the normalization. We need to consider type (ii) (a) and (b) separately. If E is of type (a), n maps the section C_0 two-to-one to the singular curve l. Let \iota:C_0\rightarrow C_0 be the induced involution on C_0. \iota induces an involution \iota^*:n_*\Omega^1_{C_0}\rightarrow n_*\Omega^1_{C_0}. Let \mathcal{F}\subseteq n_*\Omega^1_{C_0} be the sheaf of anti-invariants of this involution. \mathcal{F} is the image of the map \delta':n_*\Omega^1_{C_0}\rightarrow n_*\Omega^1_{C_0} given by \delta'(\alpha)= \alpha-\iota^*(\alpha). Since n_*\Omega^1_{C_0}=n_*\mathcal{O}_{C_0}(-2)=\mathcal{O}_l(-2)\oplus \mathcal{O}_l(-1), in fact \mathcal{F}\cong\mathcal{O}_l(-1). Let \tau^1_E\subseteq\Omega^1_E be the torsion subsheaf of \Omega^1_E. We then have a complex

where \delta is the (surjective) composition of the surjective restriction map n_*\Omega^1_{\tilde E}\rightarrow n_*\Omega^1_{C_0} and \delta'. This sequence is exact at \Omega^1_E since n_*\Omega^1_{\tilde E} is torsion-free. It is exact at n_*\Omega^1_{\tilde E} where E has normal crossings by [[7], (1.5)], and thus this complex splits into exact sequences

and

with \tau' supported on points, from which we conclude that H^2(\Omega^1_E)=0 as desired, and (ii) follows in this case.

If E is of case (ii) (b), then we can follow a similar procedure. The normalization map n maps C_0 and f to the singular line l. Let \iota: C_0\coprod f\rightarrow C_0\coprod f be the induced involution interchanging these two lines. This induces \iota^*: n_*\Omega^1_{C_0\coprod f} \rightarrow n_*\Omega^1_{C_0\coprod f}; let \mathcal{F}\cong \Omega^1_l be the anti-invariant part. Again, \mathcal{F} is the image of \delta':n_*\Omega^1_{C_0\coprod f} \rightarrow n_*\Omega^1_{C_0\coprod f} given by \delta'(\alpha)=\alpha-\iota^*(\alpha). We still have the complex (Proof), and we finish the argument as before, noting now that the map H^1(\Omega^1_{\tilde E})\rightarrow H^1(\mathcal{F}) is surjective.

(iii) A nodal del Pezzo surface is easily seen to be smoothable: the local-global \operatorname{Ext} sequence yields

and since \operatorname{Def}(E) is smooth, any small deformation of a neighborhood of the rational double points of E is realised by a global deformation of E.

If E is not normal, then E is degree 7 of type (ii) (a) or (b). First suppose E\subseteq\mathbb{P}^7 is of type (ii) (a). Then there is a map p:E\rightarrow l taking a point x\in E to the point of l\subseteq E which is contained in the same ruling of E as x. Each fibre is a singular conic: a union of two \mathbb{P}^1’s or in two cases a doubled line. Each conic spans a plane, and thus E is contained in a three dimensional scroll. Abstractly, this scroll can be described as the image of the \mathbb{P}^2-bundle \mathbb{P}(p_*\mathcal{O}_E(1)) in \mathbb{P}^7. Note that p_*\mathcal{O}_E(1) is generated by global sections since \mathcal{O}_E(1) is. Since h^0(p_*\mathcal{O}_E(1))=h^0(\mathcal{O}_E(1))=8, p_*\mathcal{O}_E(1) must be a rank 3 vector bundle on l isomorphic to \mathcal{E}_{(a,b,c)}=\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(a)\oplus\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(b)\oplus\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^1}(c) with a,b,c\ge 0 and a+b+c+3=8. If t=c_1(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_{(a,b,c)})}(1)) and f is the class of a fibre of \mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_{(a,b,c)}), then \operatorname{Pic}\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_{(a,b,c)})=\mathbb{Z} t\oplus\mathbb{Z} f. In order for E\subseteq \mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_{(a,b,c)}) to be a conic bundle of degree 7, it must have class 2t-3f. The linear system |t| induces the map of \mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_{(a,b,c)}) into \mathbb{P}^7, and if |t| were not ample (i.e. one of a, b, or c were zero), it is easy to see that this would imply two different fibres of p were not disjoint. Thus (a,b,c)=(1,2,2) or (1,1,3). In the latter case, the linear system |2t-3f| has a fixed component given by t-3f, and so E\subseteq\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_{(1,2,2)}).

Now a non-singular del Pezzo surface E' of degree 7 also has a conic bundle structure, so an identical argument also shows that E'\subseteq\mathbb{P}(\mathcal{E}_{(1,2,2)}) and is in the same linear system |2t-3f|. Thus E is smoothable.

If E is of type (ii) (b), it is easy to see that it is a degenerate case of (ii) (a), and so this case is also smoothable. One can consult [[51]] for an explicit description of this degeneration.

We want to apply Theorem 4.3, so we need to verify the hypotheses of the theorem. First, since \pi corresponds to the contraction of an extremal ray corresponding to K_{\tilde X}+E, X is \mathbb{Q}-factorial by [[20], Prop. 5.1.6].

From now on we will assume that k\ge 5. If k\le 4, then X has only complete intersection singularities and we can apply Theorem 3.8. We have to show that the singularity of X is good.

Let P\in X be the singular point, with (\tilde X,E)\rightarrow (X,P) the resolution of the germ (X,P). We first consider deformations of the inclusion map i:E\rightarrow (\tilde X,E) of E into the germ (\tilde X,E). If we denote by T^1_i the tangent space to the deformation space of the triple ((\tilde X,E), E, i), there is an exact sequence by [[32]]

Here, by H^i(\Theta_{\tilde X}), we mean cohomology on the germ (\tilde X,E). Note that \tilde X is non-singular but E may not be. The composed maps d_1:T^1_i\rightarrow\operatorname{Ext}^1(\Omega^1_E,\mathcal{O}_E) and d_2:T^1_i\rightarrow H^1(\Theta_{\tilde X}) are the differentials of the maps \operatorname{Def}((\tilde X,E),E,i)\rightarrow \operatorname{Def}(E) and \operatorname{Def}((\tilde X,E),E,i)\rightarrow \operatorname{Def}(\tilde X,E) respectively.

Claim 1: d_1 and d_2 are surjective.

Claim 2: \operatorname{Def}((\tilde X,E), E, i) is unobstructed.

Thus, since d_2 is surjective by Claim 1, any deformation of (\tilde X,E) is of the form (\tilde X',E') with E' a deformation of E. Since d_1 is surjective, for any small deformation of E to E', there is a deformation (\tilde X',E') of (\tilde X,E). Thus in particular, if E is smoothable, the general deformation of (\tilde X,E) to (\tilde X',E') yields E' smooth. By Lemma 5.6 (iii), any of the possible del Pezzo surfaces under consideration are smoothable.

To summarize, (\tilde X,E) can be deformed to (\tilde X',E') with E' non-singular. So (X,P) can be deformed to (X',P') with (\tilde X',E')\rightarrow (X',P') the blow-up, and by Theorem 5.4, (X',P') is analytically isomorphic to a cone over a del Pezzo surface. By 5.5, (X',P') is smoothable unless E'\cong\mathbb{P}^2 or F_1. In this latter case, as it is easy to see that the only normal del Pezzo surfaces of degree 8 or 9 are \mathbb{P}^2, F_1, \mathbb{P}^1\times\mathbb{P}^1 or a quadric cone appropriately embedded, we must also have E\cong\mathbb{P}^2 or F_1.

If E is not \mathbb{P}^2 or F_1, then (X',P') is smoothable. Thus the general point in the image of \operatorname{Def}(\tilde X,E)\rightarrow \operatorname{Def}(X,P) is smoothable, so this image is contained in a smoothing component. The only remaining thing to check is that \operatorname{Def}(\tilde X,E)\rightarrow \operatorname{Def}(X,P) is an immersion. Thus we need to show that the differential of this map is injective. This differential is given by Lemma 3.2 to be the map H^0(R^1\pi_*\Theta_{\tilde X})\rightarrow H^2_Z(\Theta_X), and the kernel of this map is H^1_E(\Theta_{\tilde X})\cong {H^0(R^2\pi_*\Omega^1_{\tilde X})}^{\scriptscriptstyle \vee}, which is easily seen to be zero using similar methods as above via Lemma 5.6 (ii).