Vector bundles on blown-up Hopf surfaces

Matei Toma Matei Toma, UniversitΓ© de Lorraine, CNRS, IECL, F-54000 Nancy, France [email protected] https://iecl.univ-lorraine.fr/membre-iecl/toma-matei/
(Date: December 2011)
Abstract.

We show that certain moduli spaces of vector bundles over blown-up primary Hopf surfaces admit no compact components. These are the moduli spaces used by Andrei Teleman in his work on the classification of class V⁒I⁒I𝑉𝐼𝐼VIIitalic_V italic_I italic_I surfaces.

Key words and phrases:
compact complex surfaces, moduli spaces, Hopf surfaces, vector bundles
AMS Classification (2000): 32G13, 32J15.
Acknowledgement: I wish to thank the referee for his remarks which helped me to improve the exposition.

1. Introduction

Moduli spaces of holomorphic vector bundles over compact complex manifolds have been extensively studied. A case of particular interest, where much has been proved is the case when the base X𝑋Xitalic_X is a smooth projective surface [HL]. With respect to an ample polarization H𝐻Hitalic_H on X𝑋Xitalic_X one considers the moduli space β„³l⁒fs⁒(r,L,c2)subscriptsuperscriptβ„³π‘ π‘™π‘“π‘ŸπΏsubscript𝑐2\mathcal{M}^{s}_{lf}(r,L,c_{2})caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_r , italic_L , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) of slope-stable holomorphic vector bundles of rank rπ‘Ÿritalic_r, determinant L∈Pic⁒(X)𝐿Pic𝑋L\in\mbox{Pic}(X)italic_L ∈ Pic ( italic_X ) and second Chern class c2∈H4⁒(X,β„€)β‰…β„€subscript𝑐2superscript𝐻4𝑋℀℀c_{2}\in H^{4}(X,\mathbb{Z})\cong\mathbb{Z}italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_H start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 4 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X , blackboard_Z ) β‰… blackboard_Z. One issue about it, of capital importance for Donaldson theory for instance, is the existence of β€œmodular” compactifications. Two such compactifications of β„³l⁒fs⁒(r,L,c2)subscriptsuperscriptβ„³π‘ π‘™π‘“π‘ŸπΏsubscript𝑐2\mathcal{M}^{s}_{lf}(r,L,c_{2})caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_r , italic_L , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) have been constructed: the Gieseker compactification of semi-stable torsion free sheaves and the Uhlenbeck compactification of ideal Hermite-Einstein connections. Both are projective, although the second one is constructed in the framework of gauge theory.

In the more general case of a compact complex surface (X,g)𝑋𝑔(X,g)( italic_X , italic_g ) equipped with a Gauduchon metric, a degree function on Pic⁒(X)Pic𝑋\mbox{Pic}(X)Pic ( italic_X ) with respect to g𝑔gitalic_g may be defined, hence a (slope) stability notion for torsion-free coherent sheaves on X𝑋Xitalic_X [LT]. Under some supplementary condition, which essentially demands that every semi-stable sheaf with the given invariants is already stable, it was shown in [Tom01] that the moduli space β„³s⁒(r,L,c2)superscriptβ„³π‘ π‘ŸπΏsubscript𝑐2\mathcal{M}^{s}(r,L,c_{2})caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_r , italic_L , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) of stable torsion free sheaves with invariants (r,L,c2)π‘ŸπΏsubscript𝑐2(r,L,c_{2})( italic_r , italic_L , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is compact. This is a complex analytic space and provides a modular compactification of β„³l⁒fs⁒(r,L,c2)subscriptsuperscriptβ„³π‘ π‘™π‘“π‘ŸπΏsubscript𝑐2\mathcal{M}^{s}_{lf}(r,L,c_{2})caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_r , italic_L , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) which may be thought as an analogue of the Gieseker compactification. In general however β„³s⁒(r,L,c2)superscriptβ„³π‘ π‘ŸπΏsubscript𝑐2\mathcal{M}^{s}(r,L,c_{2})caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_r , italic_L , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) is not compact and this is related to the fact that the Uhlenbeck compactification, which always exists, may admit no compatible complex space structure.

The study of the moduli spaces of holomorphic vector bundles allowed Andrei Teleman in [Tel05], [Tel10] to make a breakthrough towards a complete classification of non-KΓ€hlerian compact complex surfaces. One of the main issues of his study was the lack of compactness of β„³s⁒(2,KX,0)superscriptℳ𝑠2subscript𝐾𝑋0\mathcal{M}^{s}(2,K_{X},0)caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 , italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 ) in his situation. The purpose of this note is to show the non-compactness of β„³s⁒(2,KX,0)superscriptℳ𝑠2subscript𝐾𝑋0\mathcal{M}^{s}(2,K_{X},0)caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 , italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 ) in the case when X𝑋Xitalic_X is a blown-up primary Hopf surface. The case of blown-up Hopf surfaces is particularly important in light of Teleman’s main result from [Tel10]. Indeed, it follows from loc. cit. that all minimal surfaces X𝑋Xitalic_X with b1⁒(X)=1subscript𝑏1𝑋1b_{1}(X)=1italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) = 1, b2⁒(X)=2subscript𝑏2𝑋2b_{2}(X)=2italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) = 2 are deformations of blown-up Hopf surfaces, still their complete classification is not yet available. In fact our non-compactness result was used by SchΓΆbel in [Sch08] via a deformation argument in order to describe β„³l⁒fs⁒(2,KX,0)subscriptsuperscriptℳ𝑠𝑙𝑓2subscript𝐾𝑋0\mathcal{M}^{s}_{lf}(2,K_{X},0)caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 , italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 ) when X𝑋Xitalic_X is a minimal surface with b1⁒(X)=1subscript𝑏1𝑋1b_{1}(X)=1italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) = 1, b2⁒(X)=1subscript𝑏2𝑋1b_{2}(X)=1italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) = 1. This type of argument is an indication that the part of Teleman’s program dealing with non-compactness phenomena should work also for b2⁒(X)>2subscript𝑏2𝑋2b_{2}(X)>2italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_X ) > 2.

2. Families of extensions

We consider a primary Hopf surface X𝑋Xitalic_X and X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG to be X𝑋Xitalic_X blown-up at points x1,…,xn∈Xsubscriptπ‘₯1…subscriptπ‘₯𝑛𝑋x_{1},...,x_{n}\in Xitalic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , … , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ italic_X, nβ‰₯1𝑛1n\geq 1italic_n β‰₯ 1. We shall denote by Ο€:X^β†’X:πœ‹β†’^𝑋𝑋\pi:\hat{X}\rightarrow Xitalic_Ο€ : over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG β†’ italic_X the blowing down morphism and by D1+…+Dnsubscript𝐷1…subscript𝐷𝑛D_{1}+...+D_{n}italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + … + italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the exceptional divisor. Vector bundles will not be distinguished from their sheaves of holomorphic sections. One has Pic⁒(X)β‰…β„‚βˆ—Pic𝑋superscriptβ„‚\mbox{Pic}(X)\cong\mathbb{C}^{*}Pic ( italic_X ) β‰… blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and Pic⁒(X^)Pic^𝑋\mbox{Pic}(\hat{X})Pic ( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ) is the product of Ο€βˆ—β’(Pic⁒(X))superscriptπœ‹Pic𝑋\pi^{*}(\mbox{Pic}(X))italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( Pic ( italic_X ) ) with the free abelian group generated by π’ͺ⁒(D1)π’ͺsubscript𝐷1\mathcal{O}(D_{1})caligraphic_O ( italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), …, π’ͺ⁒(Dn)π’ͺsubscript𝐷𝑛\mathcal{O}(D_{n})caligraphic_O ( italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). Therefore any invertible sheaf on X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG has the form Ο€βˆ—β’(L)⁒(D)superscriptπœ‹πΏπ·\pi^{*}(L)(D)italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L ) ( italic_D ) for some L∈Pic⁒(X)𝐿Pic𝑋L\in\mbox{Pic}(X)italic_L ∈ Pic ( italic_X ) and D=βˆ‘ai⁒Di𝐷subscriptπ‘Žπ‘–subscript𝐷𝑖D=\sum a_{i}D_{i}italic_D = βˆ‘ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, aiβˆˆβ„€subscriptπ‘Žπ‘–β„€a_{i}\in\mathbb{Z}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z. We shall write shortly L⁒(D)=Ο€βˆ—β’(L)⁒(D)𝐿𝐷superscriptπœ‹πΏπ·L(D)=\pi^{*}(L)(D)italic_L ( italic_D ) = italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L ) ( italic_D ) for it. In particular KX^=KX⁒(D1+…+Dn)subscript𝐾^𝑋subscript𝐾𝑋subscript𝐷1…subscript𝐷𝑛K_{\hat{X}}=K_{X}(D_{1}+...+D_{n})italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + … + italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ). For any rank two coherent sheaf E𝐸Eitalic_E on a compact complex surface X𝑋Xitalic_X one defines the discriminant:

Δ⁒(E):=12⁒(c2⁒(E)βˆ’14⁒c1⁒(E)2).assignΔ𝐸12subscript𝑐2𝐸14subscript𝑐1superscript𝐸2\Delta(E):=\frac{1}{2}\left(c_{2}(E)-\frac{1}{4}c_{1}(E)^{2}\right).roman_Ξ” ( italic_E ) := divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 2 end_ARG ( italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_E ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_E ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) .

Recall that for a torsion free coherent sheaf E𝐸Eitalic_E on a non-algebraic surface one always has

Δ⁒(E)β‰₯0.Δ𝐸0\Delta(E)\geq 0.roman_Ξ” ( italic_E ) β‰₯ 0 .
Proposition 2.1.

Let E^^𝐸\hat{E}over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG be a torsion free sheaf of rank two on X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG with det(E^)=KX^^𝐸subscript𝐾^𝑋\det(\hat{E})=K_{\hat{X}}roman_det ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) = italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and c2⁒(E^)=0subscript𝑐2^𝐸0c_{2}(\hat{E})=0italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) = 0. Then:

  1. (1)

    E^^𝐸\hat{E}over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG is locally free and Δ⁒(E^)=n8Ξ”^𝐸𝑛8\Delta(\hat{E})=\frac{n}{8}roman_Ξ” ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) = divide start_ARG italic_n end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG.

  2. (2)

    There are no torsion free sheaves F𝐹Fitalic_F of rank two on X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG with det(F)=KX^𝐹subscript𝐾^𝑋\det(F)=K_{\hat{X}}roman_det ( italic_F ) = italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and c2⁒(F)<0subscript𝑐2𝐹0c_{2}(F)<0italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ) < 0.

  3. (3)

    E^^𝐸\hat{E}over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG is the central term of an extension of the form

    0β†’KX^⁒(βˆ’D)βŠ—Lβˆ’1β†’E^β†’L⁒(D)β†’0,β†’0tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋𝐷superscript𝐿1β†’^𝐸→𝐿𝐷→00\rightarrow K_{\hat{X}}(-D)\otimes L^{-1}\rightarrow\hat{E}\rightarrow L(D)% \rightarrow 0,0 β†’ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG β†’ italic_L ( italic_D ) β†’ 0 ,

    where L∈Pic⁒(X)𝐿Pic𝑋L\in\mbox{Pic}(X)italic_L ∈ Pic ( italic_X ) and D=βˆ‘ai⁒Di𝐷subscriptπ‘Žπ‘–subscript𝐷𝑖D=\sum a_{i}D_{i}italic_D = βˆ‘ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with ai∈{0,1}subscriptπ‘Žπ‘–01a_{i}\in\{0,1\}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ { 0 , 1 }.

Proof.

It is clear that det(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))=KXsubscriptπœ‹^𝐸subscript𝐾𝑋\det(\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))=K_{X}roman_det ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) = italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. One has χ⁒(E^)=χ⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))βˆ’Ο‡β’(R1β’Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))≀χ⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))πœ’^πΈπœ’subscriptπœ‹^πΈπœ’superscript𝑅1subscriptπœ‹^πΈπœ’subscriptπœ‹^𝐸\chi(\hat{E})=\chi(\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))-\chi(R^{1}\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))\leq\chi(\pi_{% *}(\hat{E}))italic_Ο‡ ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) = italic_Ο‡ ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) - italic_Ο‡ ( italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) ≀ italic_Ο‡ ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ). By Riemann-Roch we compute χ⁒(E^)πœ’^𝐸\chi(\hat{E})italic_Ο‡ ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) and χ⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))πœ’subscriptπœ‹^𝐸\chi(\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))italic_Ο‡ ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) as follows

χ⁒(E^)=2⁒(χ⁒(π’ͺX^)βˆ’14⁒c1⁒(E^)⁒c1⁒(KX^)+18⁒c1⁒(KX^)2βˆ’Ξ”β’(E^))=0πœ’^𝐸2πœ’subscriptπ’ͺ^𝑋14subscript𝑐1^𝐸subscript𝑐1subscript𝐾^𝑋18subscript𝑐1superscriptsubscript𝐾^𝑋2Ξ”^𝐸0\chi(\hat{E})=2(\chi(\mathcal{O}_{\hat{X}})-\frac{1}{4}c_{1}(\hat{E})c_{1}(K_{% \hat{X}})+\frac{1}{8}c_{1}(K_{\hat{X}})^{2}-\Delta(\hat{E}))=0italic_Ο‡ ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) = 2 ( italic_Ο‡ ( caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - roman_Ξ” ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) = 0
χ⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))=2⁒(χ⁒(π’ͺX)βˆ’14⁒c1⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))⁒c1⁒(KX)+18⁒c1⁒(KX)2βˆ’Ξ”β’(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^)))=βˆ’2⁒Δ⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^)).πœ’subscriptπœ‹^𝐸2πœ’subscriptπ’ͺ𝑋14subscript𝑐1subscriptπœ‹^𝐸subscript𝑐1subscript𝐾𝑋18subscript𝑐1superscriptsubscript𝐾𝑋2Ξ”subscriptπœ‹^𝐸2Ξ”subscriptπœ‹^𝐸\chi(\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))=2(\chi(\mathcal{O}_{X})-\frac{1}{4}c_{1}(\pi_{*}(\hat{E% }))c_{1}(K_{X})+\frac{1}{8}c_{1}(K_{X})^{2}-\Delta(\pi_{*}(\hat{E})))=-2\Delta% (\pi_{*}(\hat{E})).italic_Ο‡ ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) = 2 ( italic_Ο‡ ( caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) - divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 4 end_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + divide start_ARG 1 end_ARG start_ARG 8 end_ARG italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - roman_Ξ” ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) ) = - 2 roman_Ξ” ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) .

Combining this with χ⁒(E^)=χ⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))βˆ’Ο‡β’(R1β’Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))≀χ⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))πœ’^πΈπœ’subscriptπœ‹^πΈπœ’superscript𝑅1subscriptπœ‹^πΈπœ’subscriptπœ‹^𝐸\chi(\hat{E})=\chi(\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))-\chi(R^{1}\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))\leq\chi(\pi_{% *}(\hat{E}))italic_Ο‡ ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) = italic_Ο‡ ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) - italic_Ο‡ ( italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) ≀ italic_Ο‡ ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) and with the inequality Δ⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))β‰₯0Ξ”subscriptπœ‹^𝐸0\Delta(\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))\geq 0roman_Ξ” ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) β‰₯ 0 we get

χ⁒(E^)=χ⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))=Δ⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))=0πœ’^πΈπœ’subscriptπœ‹^𝐸Δsubscriptπœ‹^𝐸0\chi(\hat{E})=\chi(\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))=\Delta(\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))=0italic_Ο‡ ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) = italic_Ο‡ ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) = roman_Ξ” ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) = 0

and

R1β’Ο€βˆ—β’(E^)=0.superscript𝑅1subscriptπœ‹^𝐸0R^{1}\pi_{*}(\hat{E})=0.italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) = 0 .

In particular Ο€βˆ—β’(E^)subscriptπœ‹^𝐸\pi_{*}(\hat{E})italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) has to be locally free since otherwise we would have Δ⁒((Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))∨∨)<0Ξ”superscriptsubscriptπœ‹^𝐸absent0\Delta((\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))^{\vee\vee})<0roman_Ξ” ( ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) < 0.

We also get an exact sequence on X𝑋Xitalic_X:

0β†’Ο€βˆ—β’(E^)β†’Ο€βˆ—β’(E^∨∨)β†’Ο€βˆ—β’(E^∨∨/E^)β†’0β†’0subscriptπœ‹^𝐸→subscriptπœ‹superscript^𝐸absentβ†’subscriptπœ‹superscript^𝐸absent^𝐸→00\to\pi_{*}(\hat{E})\to\pi_{*}(\hat{E}^{\vee\vee})\to\pi_{*}(\hat{E}^{\vee\vee% }/\hat{E})\to 00 β†’ italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) β†’ italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β†’ italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) β†’ 0

showing that E^∨∨/E^=0superscript^𝐸absent^𝐸0\hat{E}^{\vee\vee}/\hat{E}=0over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ∨ ∨ end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT / over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG = 0 and E^^𝐸\hat{E}over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG is locally free.

If F𝐹Fitalic_F were a torsion free sheaf of rank two on X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG with det(F)=KX^𝐹subscript𝐾^𝑋\det(F)=K_{\hat{X}}roman_det ( italic_F ) = italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and c2⁒(F)<0subscript𝑐2𝐹0c_{2}(F)<0italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ) < 0, then the same computations as before would give Δ⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(F))<0Ξ”subscriptπœ‹πΉ0\Delta(\pi_{*}(F))<0roman_Ξ” ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_F ) ) < 0, which is absurd.

Now c2⁒(Ο€βˆ—β’(E^))=0subscript𝑐2subscriptπœ‹^𝐸0c_{2}(\pi_{*}(\hat{E}))=0italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) ) = 0, hence Ο€βˆ—β’(E^)subscriptπœ‹^𝐸\pi_{*}(\hat{E})italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) cannot be stable with respect to any Gauduchon metric on X𝑋Xitalic_X. Otherwise there would exist some irreducible S⁒U⁒(2)π‘†π‘ˆ2SU(2)italic_S italic_U ( 2 )-valued representation of the fundamental group of X𝑋Xitalic_X which is cyclic infinite, cf. [Pla95]. But this is not the case. Thus Ο€βˆ—β’(E^)subscriptπœ‹^𝐸\pi_{*}(\hat{E})italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) admits some coherent subsheaf of rank one which implies that E^^𝐸\hat{E}over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG also admits one. This leads to the existence of an exact sequence of the form:

0β†’L1β†’E^β†’L2βŠ—β„Zβ†’0,β†’0subscript𝐿1β†’^𝐸→tensor-productsubscript𝐿2subscriptℐ𝑍→00\to L_{1}\to\hat{E}\to L_{2}\otimes\mathcal{I}_{Z}\to 0,0 β†’ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG β†’ italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ— caligraphic_I start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_Z end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ 0 ,

where L1subscript𝐿1L_{1}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, L2subscript𝐿2L_{2}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT are line bundles on X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG and Z𝑍Zitalic_Z is a locally complete intersection subspace of codimension two of X𝑋Xitalic_X. Now if Z𝑍Zitalic_Z were not empty the vector bundle F:=L1βŠ•L2assign𝐹direct-sumsubscript𝐿1subscript𝐿2F:=L_{1}\oplus L_{2}italic_F := italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ• italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT would have the same determinant as E^^𝐸\hat{E}over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG but a strictly lower second Chern class, which would contradict our second assertion. Thus Z𝑍Zitalic_Z must be empty.

We may write now L2=L⁒(D)subscript𝐿2𝐿𝐷L_{2}=L(D)italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_L ( italic_D ) for some L∈Pic⁒(X)𝐿Pic𝑋L\in\mbox{Pic}(X)italic_L ∈ Pic ( italic_X ) and D=βˆ‘ai⁒Di𝐷subscriptπ‘Žπ‘–subscript𝐷𝑖D=\sum a_{i}D_{i}italic_D = βˆ‘ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT, aiβˆˆβ„€subscriptπ‘Žπ‘–β„€a_{i}\in\mathbb{Z}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ blackboard_Z. Then L1=KX^⁒(βˆ’D)βŠ—Lβˆ’1subscript𝐿1tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋𝐷superscript𝐿1L_{1}=K_{\hat{X}}(-D)\otimes L^{-1}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and 0=c2⁒(E^)=c1⁒(KX^⁒(βˆ’D))⁒c1⁒(π’ͺ⁒(D))=βˆ’βˆ‘ai⁒(aiβˆ’1)0subscript𝑐2^𝐸subscript𝑐1subscript𝐾^𝑋𝐷subscript𝑐1π’ͺ𝐷subscriptπ‘Žπ‘–subscriptπ‘Žπ‘–10=c_{2}(\hat{E})=c_{1}(K_{\hat{X}}(-D))c_{1}(\mathcal{O}(D))=-\sum a_{i}(a_{i}% -1)0 = italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG ) = italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_D ) ) italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( caligraphic_O ( italic_D ) ) = - βˆ‘ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT - 1 ). The last sum vanishes if and only if each aisubscriptπ‘Žπ‘–a_{i}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is zero or one, which proves our last claim. ∎

We are thus interested in extensions of the type

0β†’KX^⁒(βˆ’D)βŠ—Lβˆ’1β†’E^β†’L⁒(D)β†’0β†’0tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋𝐷superscript𝐿1β†’^𝐸→𝐿𝐷→00\rightarrow K_{\hat{X}}(-D)\otimes L^{-1}\rightarrow\hat{E}\rightarrow L(D)\rightarrow 00 β†’ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG β†’ italic_L ( italic_D ) β†’ 0

as in Proposition 2.1.

Proposition 2.2.

Let L𝐿Litalic_L be an element of Pic⁒(X)Pic𝑋\mbox{Pic}(X)Pic ( italic_X ) and D=βˆ‘ai⁒Di𝐷subscriptπ‘Žπ‘–subscript𝐷𝑖D=\sum a_{i}D_{i}italic_D = βˆ‘ italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with ai∈{0,1}subscriptπ‘Žπ‘–01a_{i}\in\{0,1\}italic_a start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ∈ { 0 , 1 }. Then the dimension of the projective space of non-trivial extensions of L⁒(D)𝐿𝐷L(D)italic_L ( italic_D ) by KX^⁒(βˆ’D)βŠ—Lβˆ’1tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋𝐷superscript𝐿1K_{\hat{X}}(-D)\otimes L^{-1}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is βˆ’D2+Ο΅superscript𝐷2italic-Ο΅-D^{2}+\epsilon- italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_Ο΅, where Ο΅β‰₯0italic-Ο΅0\epsilon\geq 0italic_Ο΅ β‰₯ 0 when h0⁒(X;LβŠ—2)β‰ 0superscriptβ„Ž0𝑋superscript𝐿tensor-productabsent20h^{0}(X;L^{\otimes 2})\neq 0italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ; italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‰  0 or when D=0𝐷0D=0italic_D = 0 and h0⁒(X;KXβŠ—LβŠ—βˆ’2)β‰ 0superscriptβ„Ž0𝑋tensor-productsubscript𝐾𝑋superscript𝐿tensor-productabsent20h^{0}(X;K_{X}\otimes L^{\otimes-2})\neq 0italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ; italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‰  0. Otherwise Ο΅=βˆ’1italic-Ο΅1\epsilon=-1italic_Ο΅ = - 1. In particular the dimensions of the above spaces of extensions do not exceed nβˆ’1𝑛1n-1italic_n - 1, unless h0⁒(X;LβŠ—2)β‰ 0superscriptβ„Ž0𝑋superscript𝐿tensor-productabsent20h^{0}(X;L^{\otimes 2})\neq 0italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ; italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‰  0 or h0⁒(X;LβŠ—2)β‰ 0superscriptβ„Ž0𝑋superscript𝐿tensor-productabsent20h^{0}(X;L^{\otimes 2})\neq 0italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ; italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‰  0. If X𝑋Xitalic_X is not an elliptic surface, the maximal dimension for such a space is n𝑛nitalic_n and it is attained precisely when D=D1+…+Dn𝐷subscript𝐷1…subscript𝐷𝑛D=D_{1}+...+D_{n}italic_D = italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT + … + italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_n end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and h0⁒(LβŠ—2)β‰ 0superscriptβ„Ž0superscript𝐿tensor-productabsent20h^{0}(L^{\otimes 2})\neq 0italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βŠ— 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β‰  0.

Proof.

The dimension of the projective space of non-trivial extensions of L⁒(D)𝐿𝐷L(D)italic_L ( italic_D ) by KX^⁒(βˆ’D)βŠ—Lβˆ’1tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋𝐷superscript𝐿1K_{\hat{X}}(-D)\otimes L^{-1}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is computed as follows

dimExt1⁒(X^;L⁒(D),KX^⁒(βˆ’D)βŠ—Lβˆ’1)βˆ’1=h1⁒(X^;KX^⁒(βˆ’2⁒D)βŠ—Lβˆ’2)βˆ’1=dimensionsuperscriptExt1^𝑋𝐿𝐷tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋𝐷superscript𝐿11superscriptβ„Ž1^𝑋tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋2𝐷superscript𝐿21absent\dim\mbox{Ext}^{1}(\hat{X};L(D),K_{\hat{X}}(-D)\otimes L^{-1})-1=h^{1}(\hat{X}% ;K_{\hat{X}}(-2D)\otimes L^{-2})-1=roman_dim Ext start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ; italic_L ( italic_D ) , italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 1 = italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ; italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - 2 italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 1 =
h1⁒(X^;L2⁒(2⁒D))βˆ’1=βˆ’Ο‡β’(L2⁒(2⁒D))+h0⁒(X^;L2⁒(2⁒D))+h0⁒(X^;KX^⁒(βˆ’2⁒D)βŠ—Lβˆ’2)βˆ’1=superscriptβ„Ž1^𝑋superscript𝐿22𝐷1πœ’superscript𝐿22𝐷superscriptβ„Ž0^𝑋superscript𝐿22𝐷superscriptβ„Ž0^𝑋tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋2𝐷superscript𝐿21absenth^{1}(\hat{X};L^{2}(2D))-1=-\chi(L^{2}(2D))+h^{0}(\hat{X};L^{2}(2D))+h^{0}(% \hat{X};K_{\hat{X}}(-2D)\otimes L^{-2})-1=italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ; italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 italic_D ) ) - 1 = - italic_Ο‡ ( italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 italic_D ) ) + italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ; italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 italic_D ) ) + italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ; italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - 2 italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 1 =
βˆ’2⁒D2+D⁒c1⁒(KX^)+h0⁒(X;L2)+h0⁒(X^;KX^⁒(βˆ’2⁒D)βŠ—Lβˆ’2)βˆ’1=2superscript𝐷2𝐷subscript𝑐1subscript𝐾^𝑋superscriptβ„Ž0𝑋superscript𝐿2superscriptβ„Ž0^𝑋tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋2𝐷superscript𝐿21absent-2D^{2}+Dc_{1}(K_{\hat{X}})+h^{0}(X;L^{2})+h^{0}(\hat{X};K_{\hat{X}}(-2D)% \otimes L^{-2})-1=- 2 italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_D italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) + italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ; italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ; italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - 2 italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 1 =
βˆ’D2+h0⁒(X;L2)+h0⁒(X^;KX^⁒(βˆ’2⁒D)βŠ—Lβˆ’2)βˆ’1,superscript𝐷2superscriptβ„Ž0𝑋superscript𝐿2superscriptβ„Ž0^𝑋tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋2𝐷superscript𝐿21-D^{2}+h^{0}(X;L^{2})+h^{0}(\hat{X};K_{\hat{X}}(-2D)\otimes L^{-2})-1,- italic_D start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT + italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_X ; italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) + italic_h start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ; italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - 2 italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 2 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) - 1 ,

whence our claim. ∎

3. The main result

Definition 3.1.

A coarse family of vector bundles over an analytic space X𝑋Xitalic_X parameterized by an analytic space T𝑇Titalic_T is a family of isomorphy classes ([Et])t∈Tsubscriptdelimited-[]subscript𝐸𝑑𝑑𝑇([E_{t}])_{t\in T}( [ italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ] ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t ∈ italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of holomorphic vector bundles over X𝑋Xitalic_X together with a covering of T𝑇Titalic_T by open subsets Tisubscript𝑇𝑖T_{i}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT such that over each TiΓ—Xsubscript𝑇𝑖𝑋T_{i}\times Xitalic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Γ— italic_X there exists a holomorphic vector bundle β„°isubscriptℰ𝑖\mathcal{E}_{i}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT with β„°i|{t}Γ—Xβ‰…Etevaluated-atsubscriptℰ𝑖𝑑𝑋subscript𝐸𝑑\mathcal{E}_{i}|_{\{t\}\times X}\cong E_{t}caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT | start_POSTSUBSCRIPT { italic_t } Γ— italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β‰… italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT for all t∈Ti𝑑subscript𝑇𝑖t\in T_{i}italic_t ∈ italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We say that the coarse family is effective if the restricted families over the Tisubscript𝑇𝑖T_{i}italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT-s are effective in the usual sense.

Theorem 3.2.

Let X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG be the blow-up of a primary Hopf surface X𝑋Xitalic_X at n𝑛nitalic_n points and fix a Gauduchon metric g^^𝑔\hat{g}over^ start_ARG italic_g end_ARG on X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG. Let T𝑇Titalic_T be a compact irreducible analytic space parameterizing a coarse family of semi-stable rank 2222 vector bundles with determinant KX^subscript𝐾^𝑋K_{\hat{X}}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and vanishing second Chern class on (X^,g^)^𝑋^𝑔(\hat{X},\hat{g})( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_g end_ARG ). Suppose that a non-empty open part of T𝑇Titalic_T effectively parameterizes simple vector bundles. Then d⁒i⁒m⁒(T)<nπ‘‘π‘–π‘šπ‘‡π‘›dim(T)<nitalic_d italic_i italic_m ( italic_T ) < italic_n.

Proof. Let E^tsubscript^𝐸𝑑\hat{E}_{t}over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT be the vector bundles of the given coarse family. Under the above assumptions and notations we first prove that the vector bundles Et:=Ο€βˆ—β’(E^t)assignsubscript𝐸𝑑subscriptπœ‹subscript^𝐸𝑑E_{t}:=\pi_{*}(\hat{E}_{t})italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT := italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) are also organized in a coarse family over X𝑋Xitalic_X. For this it is enough to check that (i⁒dTiΓ—Ο€)βˆ—β’(β„°i^)subscript𝑖subscript𝑑subscriptπ‘‡π‘–πœ‹^subscriptℰ𝑖(id_{T_{i}}\times\pi)_{*}(\hat{\mathcal{E}_{i}})( italic_i italic_d start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Γ— italic_Ο€ ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG caligraphic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT end_ARG ) are locally free over TiΓ—Xsubscript𝑇𝑖𝑋T_{i}\times Xitalic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Γ— italic_X. This statement is local around a point (t,xj)∈TiΓ—X𝑑subscriptπ‘₯𝑗subscript𝑇𝑖𝑋(t,x_{j})\in T_{i}\times X( italic_t , italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) ∈ italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Γ— italic_X, so suppose for the moment that T=Ti𝑇subscript𝑇𝑖T=T_{i}italic_T = italic_T start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and X𝑋Xitalic_X are just small neighbourhoods of the points t𝑑titalic_t and x=xjπ‘₯subscriptπ‘₯𝑗x=x_{j}italic_x = italic_x start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_j end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. We may also assume that T𝑇Titalic_T is irreducible and non-singular. We view X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG as the zero set of a section of the pullback of π’ͺβ„™1⁒(1)subscriptπ’ͺsuperscriptβ„™11\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{1}}(1)caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 1 ) to TΓ—XΓ—β„™1𝑇𝑋superscriptβ„™1T\times X\times\mathbb{P}^{1}italic_T Γ— italic_X Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and consider some locally free extension β„°^β€²superscript^β„°β€²\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\prime}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT of β„°^^β„°\hat{\mathcal{E}}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_E end_ARG to TΓ—XΓ—β„™1𝑇𝑋superscriptβ„™1T\times X\times\mathbb{P}^{1}italic_T Γ— italic_X Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, cf. [Bu00] Lemma 2.2. Denote by p:TΓ—XΓ—β„™1β†’TΓ—X:𝑝→𝑇𝑋superscriptβ„™1𝑇𝑋p:T\times X\times\mathbb{P}^{1}\rightarrow T\times Xitalic_p : italic_T Γ— italic_X Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ italic_T Γ— italic_X the projection and by ΞΉπœ„\iotaitalic_ΞΉ the embedding of TΓ—X^𝑇^𝑋T\times\hat{X}italic_T Γ— over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG into TΓ—XΓ—β„™1𝑇𝑋superscriptβ„™1T\times X\times\mathbb{P}^{1}italic_T Γ— italic_X Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. From Proposition 2.1 it follows that the restriction of E^tsubscript^𝐸𝑑\hat{E}_{t}over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT to an exceptional divisor Disubscript𝐷𝑖D_{i}italic_D start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_i end_POSTSUBSCRIPT is isomorphic to π’ͺβŠ•π’ͺ⁒(βˆ’1)direct-sumπ’ͺπ’ͺ1\mathcal{O}\oplus\mathcal{O}(-1)caligraphic_O βŠ• caligraphic_O ( - 1 ). By semi-continuity the splitting type of β„°^β€²superscript^β„°β€²\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\prime}over^ start_ARG caligraphic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT over each vertical line will remain π’ͺβŠ•π’ͺ⁒(βˆ’1)direct-sumπ’ͺπ’ͺ1\mathcal{O}\oplus\mathcal{O}(-1)caligraphic_O βŠ• caligraphic_O ( - 1 ). Over TΓ—XΓ—β„™1𝑇𝑋superscriptβ„™1T\times X\times\mathbb{P}^{1}italic_T Γ— italic_X Γ— blackboard_P start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT we have an exact sequence:

0β†’β„°^′⁒(βˆ’1)β†’β„°^β€²β†’ΞΉβˆ—β’(β„°^)β†’0β†’0superscript^β„°β€²1β†’superscript^β„°β€²β†’subscriptπœ„^β„°β†’00\rightarrow\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\prime}(-1)\rightarrow\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\prime% }\rightarrow\iota_{*}(\hat{\mathcal{E}})\rightarrow 00 β†’ over^ start_ARG caligraphic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) β†’ over^ start_ARG caligraphic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ italic_ΞΉ start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG caligraphic_E end_ARG ) β†’ 0

whose push-forward through p𝑝pitalic_p gives:

0β†’pβˆ—β’(β„°^β€²)β†’(idTΓ—Ο€)βˆ—β’(β„°^)β†’R1⁒pβˆ—β’(β„°^′⁒(βˆ’1))β†’0.β†’0subscript𝑝superscript^β„°β€²β†’subscriptsubscriptidπ‘‡πœ‹^β„°β†’superscript𝑅1subscript𝑝superscript^β„°β€²1β†’00\rightarrow p_{*}(\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\prime})\rightarrow(\mbox{id}_{T}\times% \pi)_{*}(\hat{\mathcal{E}})\rightarrow R^{1}p_{*}(\hat{\mathcal{E}}^{\prime}(-% 1))\rightarrow 0.0 β†’ italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG caligraphic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ) β†’ ( id start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Γ— italic_Ο€ ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG caligraphic_E end_ARG ) β†’ italic_R start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_p start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG caligraphic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β€² end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( - 1 ) ) β†’ 0 .

Thus (idTΓ—Ο€)βˆ—β’(β„°^)subscriptsubscriptidπ‘‡πœ‹^β„°(\mbox{id}_{T}\times\pi)_{*}(\hat{\mathcal{E}})( id start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_T end_POSTSUBSCRIPT Γ— italic_Ο€ ) start_POSTSUBSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( over^ start_ARG caligraphic_E end_ARG ) will be locally free as an extension of locally free terms.

Consider now the rank 2222 vector bundles Etsubscript𝐸𝑑E_{t}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT over X𝑋Xitalic_X. In the proof of Proposition 2.1 we have seen that they cannot be stable with respect to any Gauduchon metric on X𝑋Xitalic_X. Thus each Etsubscript𝐸𝑑E_{t}italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT allows some destabilizing subsheaf in Pic⁒(X)Pic𝑋\mbox{Pic}(X)Pic ( italic_X ). The compactness of T𝑇Titalic_T will allow us to find such a destabilizing subsheaf in an uniform way:

Recall first that Pic⁒(X)β‰…β„‚βˆ—Pic𝑋superscriptβ„‚\mbox{Pic}(X)\cong\mathbb{C}^{*}Pic ( italic_X ) β‰… blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT and that the degree map on Pic⁒(X)Pic𝑋\mbox{Pic}(X)Pic ( italic_X ) with respect to a Gauduchon metric on X𝑋Xitalic_X corresponds to a positive constant times the logarithm of the absolute value defined on β„‚βˆ—superscriptβ„‚\mathbb{C}^{*}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, hence any two degree maps are proportional, [LT] 1.3.15. In fact we shall use the degree map induced by g^^𝑔\hat{g}over^ start_ARG italic_g end_ARG on Pic⁒(X)Pic𝑋\mbox{Pic}(X)Pic ( italic_X ) via the embedding Pic⁒(X)β†’Pic⁒(X^)β†’Pic𝑋Pic^𝑋\mbox{Pic}(X)\to\mbox{Pic}(\hat{X})Pic ( italic_X ) β†’ Pic ( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG ). We denote by Lwsubscript𝐿𝑀L_{w}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT the line bundle on X𝑋Xitalic_X which corresponds to wβˆˆβ„‚βˆ—π‘€superscriptβ„‚w\in\mathbb{C}^{*}italic_w ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT. The analytic subspace Z:={(t,w)∈TΓ—β„‚βˆ—|Hom⁒(Lw,Et)β‰ 0}assign𝑍conditional-set𝑑𝑀𝑇superscriptβ„‚Homsubscript𝐿𝑀subscript𝐸𝑑0Z:=\{(t,w)\in T\times\mathbb{C}^{*}\ |\ \mbox{Hom}(L_{w},E_{t})\neq 0\}italic_Z := { ( italic_t , italic_w ) ∈ italic_T Γ— blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT | Hom ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β‰  0 } is proper over β„‚βˆ—superscriptβ„‚\mathbb{C}^{*}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT but doesn’t cover β„‚βˆ—superscriptβ„‚\mathbb{C}^{*}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT, otherwise we would get subbundles Lwsubscript𝐿𝑀L_{w}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT of arbitrarily high degree whose pullbacks to X^^𝑋\hat{X}over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG would contradict the semi-stability of some E^tsubscript^𝐸𝑑\hat{E}_{t}over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT. Thus the projection of Z𝑍Zitalic_Z to β„‚βˆ—superscriptβ„‚\mathbb{C}^{*}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT is an analytic subspace of β„‚βˆ—superscriptβ„‚\mathbb{C}^{*}blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT contained in a punctured closed disc of β„‚β„‚\mathbb{C}blackboard_C. It follows the existence of a wβˆˆβ„‚βˆ—π‘€superscriptβ„‚w\in\mathbb{C}^{*}italic_w ∈ blackboard_C start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT with 2⁒d⁒e⁒g⁒(Lw)β‰₯d⁒e⁒g⁒(KX)2𝑑𝑒𝑔subscript𝐿𝑀𝑑𝑒𝑔subscript𝐾𝑋2deg(L_{w})\geq deg(K_{X})2 italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β‰₯ italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) and H⁒o⁒m⁒(Lw,Et)β‰ 0π»π‘œπ‘šsubscript𝐿𝑀subscript𝐸𝑑0Hom(L_{w},E_{t})\neq 0italic_H italic_o italic_m ( italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β‰  0 for all t∈T𝑑𝑇t\in Titalic_t ∈ italic_T.

The composition Lwβ†’Ο€βˆ—β’(Et)β†’E^tβ†’subscript𝐿𝑀superscriptπœ‹subscript𝐸𝑑→subscript^𝐸𝑑L_{w}\rightarrow\pi^{*}(E_{t})\rightarrow\hat{E}_{t}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ italic_Ο€ start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT βˆ— end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_E start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) β†’ over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT will factorize through a line bundle KX^⁒(βˆ’D)βŠ—Lβˆ’1tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋𝐷superscript𝐿1K_{\hat{X}}(-D)\otimes L^{-1}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT giving an extension

0β†’KX^⁒(βˆ’D)βŠ—Lβˆ’1β†’E^tβ†’L⁒(D)β†’0β†’0tensor-productsubscript𝐾^𝑋𝐷superscript𝐿1β†’subscript^𝐸𝑑→𝐿𝐷→00\rightarrow K_{\hat{X}}(-D)\otimes L^{-1}\rightarrow\hat{E}_{t}\rightarrow L(% D)\rightarrow 00 β†’ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( - italic_D ) βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT β†’ over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ italic_L ( italic_D ) β†’ 0

as in Proposition 2.1. Therefore there will be a nontrivial morphism Lwβ†’KXβŠ—Lβˆ’1β†’subscript𝐿𝑀tensor-productsubscript𝐾𝑋superscript𝐿1L_{w}\rightarrow K_{X}\otimes L^{-1}italic_L start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_w end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT βŠ— italic_L start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT - 1 end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT on X𝑋Xitalic_X, hence 2⁒d⁒e⁒g⁒(L)≀d⁒e⁒g⁒(KX)<02𝑑𝑒𝑔𝐿𝑑𝑒𝑔subscript𝐾𝑋02deg(L)\leq deg(K_{X})<02 italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_L ) ≀ italic_d italic_e italic_g ( italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_X end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ) < 0. From Proposition 2.2 it follows that dimension of the projective space of extensions of the above form is at most nβˆ’1𝑛1n-1italic_n - 1 in this case. Note also that the possible line bundles L𝐿Litalic_L appearing in such extensions run through a countable subset of Pic⁒(X)Pic𝑋\mbox{Pic}(X)Pic ( italic_X ).

Now each E^tsubscript^𝐸𝑑\hat{E}_{t}over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_t end_POSTSUBSCRIPT in our family is the middle term of such an extension. Using the effectivity hypothesis on our family and the universal property of the moduli space of simple sheaves, we see that the open part of T𝑇Titalic_T which effectively parameterizes simple vector bundles must be covered by the images of an at most countable number of spaces of extensions of dimensions less than n𝑛nitalic_n. This entails d⁒i⁒m⁒(T)<nπ‘‘π‘–π‘šπ‘‡π‘›dim(T)<nitalic_d italic_i italic_m ( italic_T ) < italic_n. ∎

The following corollary is an immediate consequence of our considerations and of the usual dimension estimate for β„³s⁒(r,L,c2)superscriptβ„³π‘ π‘ŸπΏsubscript𝑐2\mathcal{M}^{s}(r,L,c_{2})caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( italic_r , italic_L , italic_c start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ), [Tom01].

Corollary 3.3.

The moduli space β„³s⁒(2,KX^,0)superscriptℳ𝑠2subscript𝐾^𝑋0\mathcal{M}^{s}(2,K_{\hat{X}},0)caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 , italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 ) of stable torsion free sheaves of rank two, determinant KX^subscript𝐾^𝑋K_{\hat{X}}italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT and vanishing second Chern class on (X^,g^)^𝑋^𝑔(\hat{X},\hat{g})( over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG , over^ start_ARG italic_g end_ARG ) coincides with β„³l⁒fs⁒(2,KX^,0)subscriptsuperscriptℳ𝑠𝑙𝑓2subscript𝐾^𝑋0\mathcal{M}^{s}_{lf}(2,K_{\hat{X}},0)caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT start_POSTSUBSCRIPT italic_l italic_f end_POSTSUBSCRIPT ( 2 , italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 ), has dimension at least n𝑛nitalic_n and contains no compact component.

Remark that there are choices of Gauduchon metrics g^^𝑔\hat{g}over^ start_ARG italic_g end_ARG such that β„³s⁒(2,KX^,0)superscriptℳ𝑠2subscript𝐾^𝑋0\mathcal{M}^{s}(2,K_{\hat{X}},0)caligraphic_M start_POSTSUPERSCRIPT italic_s end_POSTSUPERSCRIPT ( 2 , italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT , 0 ) is not empty. Indeed it was shown in [Tel06] that there even exist metrics g^^𝑔\hat{g}over^ start_ARG italic_g end_ARG such that the central term of the unique β€œcanonical extension”

0β†’KX^β†’E^β†’π’ͺX^β†’0β†’0subscript𝐾^𝑋→^𝐸→subscriptπ’ͺ^𝑋→00\rightarrow K_{\hat{X}}\rightarrow\hat{E}\rightarrow\mathcal{O}_{\hat{X}}\rightarrow 00 β†’ italic_K start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ over^ start_ARG italic_E end_ARG β†’ caligraphic_O start_POSTSUBSCRIPT over^ start_ARG italic_X end_ARG end_POSTSUBSCRIPT β†’ 0

is stable.

References

  • [Bu00] Buchdahl, N. P.: Blowups and gauge fields, Pacific J. Math. 196 (2000), 69-111.
  • [HL] Huybrechts, D., Lehn, M.: The geometry of the moduli sapces of sheaves. Braunschweig, Friedr. Vieweg & Sohn (1997).
  • [LT] LΓΌbke, M., Teleman, A. The Kobayashi-Hitchin correspondence, World Scientific Publishing Co., Inc., River Edge, NJ, 1995
  • [Pla95] Plantiko, R. A rigidity property of class VII0subscriptVII0{\rm VII}_{0}roman_VII start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 0 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT surface fundamental groups. J. Reine Angew. Math. 465 (1995), 145-163.
  • [Sch08] SchΓΆbel, K. Moduli spaces of P⁒U⁒(2)π‘ƒπ‘ˆ2PU(2)italic_P italic_U ( 2 )-instantons on minimal class VII surfaces with b2=1subscript𝑏21b_{2}=1italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 58 (2008), no. 5, 1691-1722.
  • [Tel05] Teleman, A. Donaldson theory on non-KΓ€hlerian surfaces and class VII surfaces with b2=1subscript𝑏21b_{2}=1italic_b start_POSTSUBSCRIPT 2 end_POSTSUBSCRIPT = 1. Invent. Math. 162 (2005), no. 3, 493-521.
  • [Tel06] Teleman, A. The pseudo-effective cone of a non-KΓ€hlerian surface and applications. Math. Ann. 335 (2006), 965-989.
  • [Tel10] Teleman, A. Instantons and curves on class VII surfaces. Ann. of Math. 172 (2010), no. 3, 1749-1804.
  • [Tom01] Toma, M. Compact moduli spaces of stable sheaves over non-algebraic surfaces, Documenta Math. 6 (2001) 9-27.

Β