1. Introduction
Before recalling the definition of the Terracini loci of the embedded variety
[
1,
2,
3,
4,
5,
6,
7], we recall its main motivation, which comes from the Terracini Lemma [
8], in one of the scenarios in which it has real-world applications (tensor decomposition and low-rank approximation of tensors). It also finds a huge number of applications in signal processing [
9,
10].
Consider the vector space
of all complex tensors of format
,
. Consider the projective space
, where
. Fix a positive integer
x. There is an
-dimensional variety
, known as the Segre embedding of the multiprojective space
. Take
. There is a bijection, up to a scalar, between rank 1 decompositions of
T with
x addenda and sets
such that
and the equivalence class of
T is in the linear span of
S. There is a variety
W (the abstract
x-secant variety of the embedded variety
X), a map
, and
associated with
S. If the differential of
at
is injective, then the rank 1 decomposition of
T corresponding to
S is locally unique (up to the scalars and the permutation of the addenda), and the rank 1 decomposition is even stable under small perturbations of
T and the addenda. The dimension of the kernel of the differential of
at
is the defect
of
S. If
S is general, then
is the defect of the
-secant variety. Thus, if
and
S is general, then the set of all tensors with tensor rank at most
x forms a variety of dimension less than the expected one. The same setup works for rank 1 decompositions of forms and partially symmetric tensors [
9,
10].
For a partial history of the notion of Terracini loci and the main references not used or quoted in our paper, see the introduction in [
7]. We point out that the Terracini loci are entangled not only with the secant varieties but also with the uniqueness problem of the rank 1 decomposition (for Grassmannians, see [
6]; for spinor varieties, see [
5]). In the case of Veronese varieties (case of cubic forms), L. Chiantini and F. Gesmundo worked in the opposite direction: a uniqueness or non-uniqueness result [
4] (Th. 1.1) helped them prove a result on the concise part of the Terracini set [
4] (Th. 5.1). In [
11], N. Vannieuwenhoven used a Jacobian matrix (the one whose rank says if a set is Terracini or not) for the uniqueness of the tensor decomposition. Terracini loci appeared in [
12], which considered the numerical sensitivity of join decompositions to perturbation, namely the condition number for general join decompositions (the distance to a set of ill-posed points in a supplementary product of Grassmannians) with many examples coming from tensor decompositions. These papers show that in many important cases, to test if a finite set is Terracini is a linear algebra problem for which there are fast algorithms.
Now, we can define the Terracini loci and their defects.
Let be an integral and non-degenerate n-dimensional variety defined over an algebraically closed field with characteristic 0. Let denote the set of all smooth points of X. The set is a non-empty open and dense subset of X for the Zariski topology of X (even for the Euclidean topology of if ). For each infinite set W and each let , denote the set of all such that . For each , let (or just ) denote the closed subscheme of X, with as its ideal sheaf. We have and , where denotes the linear span and is the embedded tangent space of X at p. Fix . Set . We say that S is Terracini and write if and . Note that is a zero-dimensional scheme of degree and hence if and only if the scheme is linearly dependent. We have . We write instead of when there is no danger of misunderstandings. We say that S is minimally Terracini and write if and for all .
1.1. Minimality and the Defect
Minimality is a key property of Terracini sets. Its formal introduction [
1,
3] was prompted by a detailed study of two-point and three-point Terracini loci for the Segre embedding of a multiprojective space, i.e., the setup on tensors just described [
2]. In [
2] (§6), there is a classification of all Terracini sets
S with “maximal” defect
(maximal with respect to all multiprojective spaces with the same dimension).
The following definition of weak minimality seems to capture the importance of the defect .
Definition 1. Let be an integral and non-degenerate variety. An element is said to be weakly minimal(resp. semi-minimal, resp. almost minimal) if for all (resp. and for all and for all such that , resp. and for all ).
Note that if , then weak minimality is equivalent to minimality. We construct Terracini sets S with a prescribed defect (Theorems 3–5).
1.2. Linear Projections
Many examples, e.g., Veronese varieties, Segre varieties, and Segre–Veronese varieties, are studied for certain linearly normal embeddings because these linearly normal examples are the ones that are interesting for applications in additive decompositions of forms, tensors, and partially symmetric tensors, respectively. However, sometimes we have less data, e.g., a smaller linear space of forms or a subspace of the set of all tensors. Of course, all these cases fit in the general set-up of a projective non-degenerate variety
, but if we do not add the information coming from the linearly normal embedding uniquely determined by the original embedding, the results one would obtain would be very weak. We prove several results related to linear projections of the Veronese embeddings (Propositions 2 and 3) and curves (Theorems 6–8). One of the key points of this paper is to distinguish between very different types of linear projections. We provide the details in
Section 2 and only state here the main different cases (
outer projections and
inner projections). For outer projections, we give a further condition that allows us to define a more restrictive class of Terracini loci. These Terracini loci deserve a notation,
. We can easily use cohomological tools to handle them. We hope that they will be used by other mathematicians.
1.3. Outline of this Paper
In
Section 2, we give our preferred setup for linear projections and discuss a particular class of outer projections, which we hope will become a standard cohomological tool.
In
Section 3, we consider linearly normal embeddings of Segre–Veronese varieties and outer projections of Veronese varieties. In some papers on Veronese varieties or Segre–Veronese varieties, there is an assumption of concision for Terracini loci [
2,
3]. With this assumption, the minimal non-empty Terracini set is often different (higher) from the non-concise one (see [
3] (Th. 1.1(iii), Th. 1.5) for Veronese varieties and [
7] (Prop. 7.4 and Th. 7.10) for Segre–Veronese varieties). In
Section 3, we translate the two different definitions and use [
7] (Prop. 7.4) to obtain the first non-empty Terracini set with the concision requirement. Then, we consider outer linear projections of Veronese varieties and show that for this type of outer projection, our cohomology tools work very well. We leave to the interested reader the extension of this part to other homogeneous varieties. Then, we consider the question of whether a single minimal Terracini set uniquely determines the embedding, as was the case with the Veronese embeddings [
3] (Th. 3.1(i)).
Section 4 contains several results on linear projections and the existence of Terracini sets with a fixed defect (Theorems 2–5).
In
Section 5, we study outer linear projections of curves (see
Section 2 for the notations used here; even without them, the reader can see the type of results we are able to prove). Fix the degree
d of a non-degenerate curve
. We prove that
for all
, while there are some smooth
X with
(Proposition 7). To prove the existence of
X with
, we use outer linear projections of rational normal curves. In Theorems 6–8, we give criteria for the non-emptiness of Terracini loci. For instance, Theorem 8 gives (under certain assumptions in terms of the degree of the curve and its genus) the first integer
x such that
. In this case, every element of
is minimal.
In
Section 6, we consider the Terracini loci for Hirzebruch surfaces. For these surfaces, we describe when the Terracini loci for 2 points are non-empty (Proposition 8), and in many cases, we describe the maximal minimal Terracini locus (Theorem 9) and hence the defect of its elements.
In
Section 8, we raise and discuss five open questions.
Many thanks to the referees who improved the presentation of this paper.
2. A Preferred Setup for Linear Projections
Recall that we work over an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0.
For an integer , let denote the set of all k-dimensional linear subspaces of . The variety (called a Grassmannian) is a smooth and connected projective variety. Moreover, and .
Let Y be an integral and non-degenerate n-dimensional variety and be a very ample line bundle in Y. The complete linear system induces an embedding , . Fix a linear subspace such that . Fix a positive integer x and . We say that is Terracini for and write if and . We say that is minimal and write if and for all . Of course, if and x is the minimal integer such that , then S is minimal. In a similar way, we define when is weakly minimal for . Sometimes, (Example 3). Sometimes, (Example 2). However, in most cases, the Terracini sets for are computable (for low x), and they are rather tame.
The pair induces a rational map , where . There is a non-empty open set U of Y such that U is a morphism on U, and the closure of is a non-degenerate variety uniquely determined by the pair . The variety is also obtained from by the linear projection from a subspace with . The projective linear subspace W corresponds to a linear subspace with , and V is obtained from (resp. is obtained from V) by taking the left (resp. right) kernel for the non-degenerate pairing . However, may be bad if u is not an embedding (sometimes, even of lower dimension). Since V is uniquely determined by W and vice versa, there is a bijection between the linear projections of the embedded variety and the elements . Since is an irreducible variety, we can speak about the general linear projection of into (Theorems 2, 6, 7, and 8).
The first distinction is between outer linear projections and inner linear projections. However, this is not a dichotomy if . If , a linear projection is either inner or outer, but if , a linear projection may be neither inner nor outer.
First, assume , i.e., that W is a point. The linear projection is said to be outer (resp. inner) if (resp. ).
Now, we make no assumption on r. The linear projection is said to be an outer projection if . Assume that W is an outer projection. Since , the restriction of to is a morphism . By the definition of linear projection, the assumption , and the projectivity of implies that is a finite morphism, i.e., it maps closed sets to closed sets and its fibers are finite. In particular, . A point is an element of if and only if ramifies at .
Now, we consider again the case , but we assume , say , for some . Let and . If and , then , and so S is Terracini if and only if . If , we have . To obtain this, we do not need to assume . We generalize this case in the following way (and call them inner projections). Fix a closed subscheme . Take . Note that . Thus, for inner projections, we can use cohomological tools in the other sections of our paper. For inner projections, we write if we also impose that .
If , a general linear projection of is an outer projection. If , a general linear projection of is neither an outer projection nor an inner projection, but this case is not interesting because if .
In general, among the inner projections (for fixed
and a fixed
r), the notion of
general inner projections is not well defined. Consider the set of all inner projections coming from a zero-dimensional scheme
. We fix the integer
. If
, the set
of all degree
a zero-dimensional subschemes of
is an irreducible variety [
13,
14], and hence we are allowed to consider its general element. For
, this is not true unless
a is very low [
13], and hence we make a further assumption about the zero-dimensional scheme
A: that it is smoothable, i.e., that it is a flat limit of a family of elements of
. For arbitrary
n, let
denote the set of all degree
a smoothable subschemes of
. The set
is an irreducible variety of dimension
. Since
, a general degree
a smoothable zero-dimensional scheme is just a general subset of
with cardinality
a.
As in the case of any
, we often use the notion of the critical schemes of
[
3] (Def. 2.9). In the case of inner projections, we state it in the following way.
Remark 1. Take . Choose any and assume . A critical scheme Z of S is a zero-dimensional scheme such that , each connected component of Z has degree at most 2, , and for all . Such schemes exist because for each , the scheme is a union of degree 2 schemes with p as their reduction, and if does not impose independent conditions to a subspace of , then there is such a scheme v, which imposes at most 1 condition to .
Remark 2. Take and such that . Then, ∅ is a critical scheme of S.
4. Linear Projection and the Existence of Terracini Sets with a Fixed Defect
Let
be an integral and non-degenerate variety. The tangential variety
is the closure in
of the union of all lines
that are tangent to
X at at least at one smooth point of
X, i.e., it is the closure in
of the union of all linear spaces
,
. The set
is an irreducible variety containing
X and
. For any integral and non-degenerate variety
and any positive integer
s, the
s-secant variety of
W is the closure of the union of all
,
. In
Section 5, we use
to prove the emptiness of
for some pair
when
V is general.
Example 1. Fix integers . There is a smooth, rational, and non-degenerate degree d curve and a set such that and is contained in a line. Note that S is weakly minimal, it is neither minimal nor almost minimal.
Example 2. We have if and only , where is the variety obtained in the definition of linear projection. This is never the case if V comes from an outer projection. Now, assume . We have if and only if is a cone and the inner projection is a projection from the vertex of the cone. This is never the case if Y is smooth and . For , the equality may hold also for a smooth Y. Take (one of the Hirzebruch surfaces described in Section 6), embedded in by the linear system . The curve is a line, and projecting from it, i.e., with , the variety is a smooth conic. Remark 3. Take a smooth Y and a very ample line bundle . Let be the embedding associated with . The tangential variety is the union of all lines tangent to at least one point of . Take and consider the outer linear projection for the space V associated with some . We have if and only if .
Remark 4. Take any linear projection and call the linear subspace associated with the projection. Fix . Since , we have .
Remark 5. Take . Take any . If , then . Now, assume that A contains a non-empty Cartier divisor D. We have . For any , we have . Note that if .
Proposition 5. Assume with , A is zero-dimensional, and . Let Z be a critical scheme of S. Then, the following points hold:
- (a)
Either or .
- (b)
.
Proof. Assume the existence of
. Since
, we have
. The minimality of
S gives
, concluding the proof of part (a). The proof of part (b) is similar to the one for
given in [
3] (Lemma 2.11). □
Easy examples show that the “worst” outer projections have , even for low x and with V of low codimension in . The following general result shows that general outer projections are well behaved. This result can even be stated in the scenario of a general integral and non-degenerate variety , without requiring that X is linearly normal.
Theorem 2. Fix an integer . Let be an integral and projective variety. Set and let γ be the maximum of all dimensions of the Zariski tangent spaces of points . Set . Assume and for all . Fix an integer . Let be a general linear subspace of dimension . Let denote the linear projection from W. Then, , is an embedding, and for all .
Proof. Since and W is general, . Since and W is general, is an embedding. Fix a positive integer and . From the definitions of linear projections and Terracini loci, it is sufficient to prove that and . Since , we have . Thus, , and hence . Hence, for all . □
If we fix positive integers
n and
r (and, perhaps, also an integral and non-degenerate
n-dimensional variety
) for any positive integer
x and any
, we have
For fixed
n and
r, by (
2), any two of the integers
,
, and
x determine the third one. If we impose that
, then
and
. Now, we fix
n,
r, and the integer
and study the set of pairs
for which there are
X and
such that
. The same question can be studied for a fixed
X or a fixed class of pairs
, e.g., all Veronese embeddings of
. Another invariant not linked to (
2) is the positive integer
.
Proposition 6. Fix the integers , , , , , and linear spaces such that and . Then, there is a smooth and non-degenerate rational curve and such that , , and .
Proof. Fix an integer . Let be a degree d rational normal curve. Fix and such that . Set , , , and . We have and . Take a general linear space such that and a general linear subspace such that and . Take a general linear space such that and . Let denote the linear projection from V. As shown in the proof of Theorem 5 (see below), it follows that , is an embedding, and satisfies the conditions of Proposition 6. □
The following result is a huge generalization of a single example (for each
n) given in [
1] (Example 1).
Theorem 3. Fix integers n, r, and m such that , , and . Let Y be any smooth n-dimensional variety. Then there is a non-degenerate embedding and such that .
Proof. Fix a very ample line bundle on Y and any integer . Let denote the embedding by the complete linear system . Set . For any and any positive integer a, let denote the closed subscheme of X with as its ideal sheaf. The scheme is a zero-dimensional subscheme of X with as its reduction and . Since and is very ample, for each such that , we have . Since , for each distinct points of X, we have , and in particular, . Fix such that and a degree m zero-dimensional subscheme of . Set . Since , we have . Fix a general linear subspace such that . Let denote the linear projection from L. Since L is general and L has codimension at least 2 in E, then , and hence and are well defined, and . Since , (resp. ) is the connected component of the scheme-theoretical intersection of with p (resp. q) as its reduction. Since and is very ample, we see that , and is an embedding of X into . Since is an n-dimensional linear subspace of and is a -dimensional linear subspace, we have . Let be a general linear subspace of dimension . Let be the linear projection from V. Since and X is smooth, v induces an embedding of , and hence an embedding j of Y. Since has dimension and V is general, , we have with . Since and , we have . Thus, . □
With a few modifications of the proof of Theorem 3, we prove the following result, in which, of course, for , we are forced to drop the minimality condition in the statement.
Theorem 4. Fix integers , , and . Write with and . Let Y be an n-dimensional projective manifold. Then, there is a non-degenerate embedding and such that .
Proof. Fix a very ample line bundle on Y and any integer . Let denote the embedding by the complete linear system . For any and , we write instead of . Since and is very ample, for each such that , we have . Since , for each distinct points of X, we have , and in particular, . Set . Fix such that and set . Since , . Fix a general linear subspace such that . We first do the linear projection from L and then a general linear projection in . □
Remark 6. Let X be an integral projective variety. Let γ be the maximal dimension of the Zariski tangent spaces of the points of X. Thus, if and only if X is smooth. Theorems 3 and 4 can be easily extended to the case of an arbitrary, even singular, variety X by replacing the assumption with the assumption . If , then at the end of the proofs of both theorems, the two linear projections, from L and from V, are embeddings. This is the only modification needed. However, note that in our definition, a Terracini set must be contained in the smooth locus of X.
Remark 7. The proofs of Theorems 4 and 5, as well as Remark 6 (even prescribing X with some restriction on r depending on the singularities of X, if any), show that everything allowed by (2) is realized by some (non-linearly normal) embedding in the case . The following theorem shows that in many cases,
, generalizing the case of Veronese embeddings ([
3], Th. 1.1).
Theorem 5. Fix a positive integer and an integral n-dimensional projective variety Y. Let γ denote the maximum dimension of the Zariski tangent space of a point of X. Fix an integer . Then, there is an embedding such that for all .
Proof. Fix a very ample line bundle on Y such that and take a general . By the generality of M, M is not contained in the singular locus of X, and hence a general point of M is a smooth point of X. Set and let denote the embedding of Y induced by the complete linear system . Set . Note that , and hence there is a hyperplane H of such that is the scheme-theoretical intersection of and H. Let be a general linear subspace of dimension . Let denote the linear projection from V.
Claim 1: and is an embedding.
Proof of Claim 1: Note that is a hyperplane, , of . Since , we have . Since M is a general element of the very ample linear system , and the set is isomorphic to , the set is an integral -dimensional variety whose Zariski tangent spaces have dimension at most . Since V is general in H and , (and hence ), and is an embedding. Since , is a morphism. We first check that is injective. Let denote the union of the lines of spanned by 2 points of X. The set is an irreducible variety of dimension at most . Note that the map is injective if and only if . Obviously, . Since we took M to be general, we have . Since V has codimension in H, V is general in H, , and , . Let be the union of all Zariski tangent spaces of X. If X is singular, may be reducible, but all its irreducible components have dimension at most . Note that if and only if is a local embedding. Obviously, . Since M is general in , every irreducible component of has dimension at most . Since V is general in H, . Thus, is an injective local embedding, i.e., it is an embedding.
Set . is an embedding. By the choice of V, there is a hyperplane of such that is the double of the Cartier divisor M. Since M is general, is an open subset U of M. Fix any finite set . Since the double of is a hyperplane section of , . Hence, if , we have . □
5. Outer Linear Projections of Curves
Remark 8. If is an integral and non-degenerate curve and H is any hyperplane, then , where denotes the scheme-theoretical intersection. Thus, if .
Let
be an integral and non-degenerate curve. Then,
and
if and only if
X is a rational normal curve. No rational normal curve has a Terracini set ([
3], Lemma 3.4). This is the explanation for the assumption
in the next proposition.
Proposition 7. Fix integers . If d is odd, assume . We have for all integral and non-degenerate curves of degree d and all . There is a non-degenerate degree d smooth rational curve such that .
Proof. Remark 8 gives the first statement. Let be a smooth rational normal curve. We have . Fix a set such that . Let be the degree zero-dimensional scheme such that and each connected component of Z has degree 2. If d is even, then is a hyperplane. Let be a general linear subspace of dimension . Let denote the linear projection from V. With only notational modifications, the proof of Theorem 5 gives , that is a smooth and rational degree d curve, and that . □
Remark 9. If , then for all non-degenerate integral curves of degree d. Fix an integer . Among the non-degenerate degree smooth curves , there are the canonical models of non-hyperelliptic curve of genus . We claim that there are canonically embedded curves with . Indeed, to prove this claim, it is sufficient to take a genus curve with a “general” theta-series, i.e., such that there is with and for all .
Lemma 1. Let be an integral and non-degenerate curve. For any positive integer s, the variety has dimension .
Proof. The variety
obviously has dimension 2 (if
), but we can observe this using the fact that the tangent space of
at its general point is the linear space
for a general
and applying [
16]. Fix a general
. By the Terracini Lemma ([
8], Cor. 1.10) and the previous observation,
is the general tangent space of
. We have
. Since
S is general, [
16] gives
. □
Theorem 6. Fix integers , , and . Let be an integral and non-degenerate curve. Let γ be the maximal dimension of a Zariski tangent space of X and assume . Assume for all . Take a general and let denote the linear projection from W. Then, , is an embedding, and for all .
Proof. By [
16], we have
for a general
. Remark 6 gives that
is an embedding. Hence,
and
, two crucial equalities by our definition of Terracini loci. Fix any
. It is sufficient to prove that
. By assumption,
. Thus, it is sufficient to prove that
. Since
, this is true (for all
S) by Lemma 1 and the assumption
. □
Theorem 7. Let X be a smooth curve of genus g. Fix integers , , and . Assume . Take a degree d line bundle on X. We have , is very ample, and for all for a general such that .
Proof. Since
,
is very ample. Since
,
, and hence
. Fix
and a general
. Since
, we have
, and hence
. By assumption,
. Since
A is general in
, [
16] gives
. Apply Theorem 6. □
Theorem 8. Fix integers , , and set . Let X be a smooth curve of genus g. Take a degree d line bundle on X. We have , is very ample, for all , , and is finite for a general such that . Moreover, .
Proof. Note that . Let , denote the embedding induced by . Take a general such that . Thus, V corresponds to a linear subspace with . Theorem 7 applied to the integer gives . By Lemma 1, the variety has dimension . Since W is general and of codimension , . The set is finite with cardinality . The definition of ) involves closure twice, first in the definition of and then in the definition of the x-secant variety. However, the generality of W implies that each of these points of intersection corresponds to an element with . We obtain . Since for all , . □
6. On the Hirzebruch Surfaces
For all integers
, let
denote the Hirzebruch surface with a section
h of a ruling with
, where
denotes the self-intersection number of
h. The Picard group
of
is isomorphic to
, where
f is the class of a fiber of the ruling of
with
and
([
17], Ch. V, §2). Note that for all
, we have
(intersection number). The ruling of
is not unique in the case
because
, and in this case, we take
h and
f as fibers of the two rulings of
. The line bundle
is very ample if and only if
and
([
17], V.2.18). Note that very ampleness and ampleness coincide ([
17], V.2.18). By the theorem of Bertini, if
and
, a general
is smooth and irreducible. By the adjunction formula, every element of
has arithmetic genus
. For all
and
, we have
For all
,
, and
, let
(resp.
) denote the set
(resp.
), where
,
, is the image of the embedding of
induced by the complete linear system
.
Obviously, and , in which the two isomorphisms are induced by the exchange of the two factors of .
Proposition 8. Assume . If , assume . Then, the following statements hold:
- (a)
if and only if .
- (b)
and .
- (c)
Assume b is even. Then, contains a non-empty open subset of , and for all .
Proof. Fix .
To prove part (a), just take any with . Note that , and , while .
Now, we prove part (b). Take such that . We have . Since , we obtain . We have and . Recall that and . Thus, the long cohomology exact sequence of the residual exact sequence of F gives . Thus, . Since is very ample, S is minimal, proving part (b).
Assume
b is even. The
s-secant variety of
is defective if and only if
[
18]. Thus,
contains a non-empty open subset of
. The semicontinuity theorem for cohomology gives
for all
. Thus,
for all
. □
Theorem 9. Fix integers , , and such that . If , assume . If , assume . Set . Then, , has an irreducible component of dimension , and for all .
Proof. By [
1] (Prop. 1), we have
for all
.
Note that
for every
. The very ample line bundle
is not secant defective [
18], i.e.,
for a general
.
Set
. Recall that any
has arithmetic genus
. For any integer
t such that
, let
denote the set of all integral and nodal
with exactly
t nodes. By [
19,
20],
is an integral and smooth quasi-projective variety of dimension
.
(a) Fix a general
. Since
is not secant defective,
and
. Fix a general
. Since
A is general and
C is general in
, a dimensional count gives that
C has exactly
singular points and, by [
21] (Prop. 4.4), it is nodal and irreducible (the irreducibility would also follow from a few residual exact sequences). Thus,
C is a general element of
.
Claim 1: There is .
Proof of Claim 1: Using several residual sequences and the generality of
A, we have that each element of
is irreducible. By [
21] and the irreducibility of each
[
20], each integral curve
of geometric genus
is contained in
. Since each
is irreducible, ref. [
19] implies that
for all
. Thus, it is sufficient to find
with geometric genus
. Let
B denote the set-theoretic base locus of
. Assume for the moment
and take
. Since
, we have
, and hence
T exists. Now, assume
. If there is a non-nodal
, then
, concluding the proof in this case. Let
be the blowing up of
at
A. Since each element of
is nodal with
A as its singular locus, the strict transform of the elements of
form a two-dimensional linear system
W of the smooth curve on
Q. Since each element of
is nodal, the self-intersection of each element of
W is the integer
. Let
denote the scheme-theoretic base locus of
W. Since
is irreducible,
, and
A is general, the connected components of
contained in a multiple of any exceptional divisor of
are the same for all exceptional divisors of
. Thus,
. With a sequence of blowings-up of
Q, we obtain a smooth surface
and a two-dimensional base-point-free linear system
on
such that all elements of
are smooth curves of genus
. This base-point-free linear system induces a morphism
. Since
is not isomorphic to
,
u is not an isomorphism. Since
is algebraically simply connected, there is
and a degree 2 connected zero-dimensional scheme, such that
and
. The existence of
v implies the existence of an element of
singular at
p, which is a contradiction.
(b) Fix a general and set . We have . Since , we have . Since , we have . Thus, . Let denote the set of all , . By Claim 1 of step (a), . Since is irreducible, is irreducible. Set . Since C is general in , . Hence, . Assume that S is not minimal and take such that and . Set and . We assume to have defined the set , with for all i and if . We take any such that . Set . We have . Since , we have for all i. In the next step (b1), we prove that a certain permutation group is 2-transitive.
(b1) First, assume
. Set
,
. By assumption,
and
. Let
be general elements of
and
a general element of
. Set
. By [
19] and the irreducibility of
,
, and (since
T has
a irreducible components),
T may be partially smoothed to an element of
smoothing
nodes of
T, say
), with the only restriction that
is connected (called
unassigned nodes in [
19]). With this connectedness assumption, we want to prove that by moving
and the set
E of unassigned nodes, the monodromy group
G of the remaining
nodes is 2-transitive.
We first check that G is transitive. Fix nodes such that . First, assume that they are both contained in the intersection of 2 elements of , say and (the same proof works if one of the components is ). We fix and move . To exchange u and v, it is sufficient to have , i.e., . Now, assume that for some i, but the second irreducible component containing u, say , is different from the second irreducible component of containing v. In this case, we interchange u and v just by moving and so that at the end, and . If u and v are on four different irreducible components, we first perform the construction just done to reduce this case to the case of three components. To prove the 2-transitivity of G, it is sufficient to have , i.e., . If , we may use a similar construction because and .
(b2) By step (b1), the monodromy group G of the finite map is at least 2-transitive. Thus, for all such that , and for all such that . Since G is 1-transitive, Claim 1 gives , and hence . Let be the minimal positive integer such that . Thus, for all . Since , we have . By the definition of , the point imposes only two independent conditions to . Since G is 2-transitive, the union of the two double points of gives at most four conditions to . Thus , is a contradiction. □