2025-11-19T10:52:21.394822

Rigidity of projective symmetric manifolds of Picard number 1 associated to composition algebras

Chen, Fu, Li
To each complex composition algebra $\mathbb{A}$, there associates a projective symmetric manifold $X(\mathbb{A})$ of Picard number one, which is just a smooth hyperplane section of the following varieties ${\rm Lag}(3,6), {\rm Gr}(3,6), \mathbb{S}_6, E_7/P_7.$ In this paper, it is proven that these varieties are rigid, namely for any smooth family of projective manifolds over a connected base, if one fiber is isomorphic to $X(\mathbb{A})$, then every fiber is isomorphic to $X(\mathbb{A})$.
academic

Rigidity of projective symmetric manifolds of Picard number 1 associated to composition algebras

Basic Information

  • Paper ID: 2212.02799
  • Title: Rigidity of projective symmetric manifolds of Picard number 1 associated to composition algebras
  • Authors: Yifei Chen, Baohua Fu, Qifeng Li
  • Classification: math.AG (Algebraic Geometry)
  • Published Journal: Épijournal de Géométrie Algébrique (2023)
  • Paper Link: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.02799

Abstract

For each composition algebra AA, there exists an associated projective symmetric manifold X(A)X(A) of Picard number 1, which is a smooth hyperplane section of one of the following varieties: Lag(3,6)\text{Lag}(3,6), Gr(3,6)\text{Gr}(3,6), S6S_6, E7/P7E_7/P_7. This paper proves that these varieties are rigid, meaning that for any smooth projective family over a connected base, if one fiber is isomorphic to X(A)X(A), then every fiber is isomorphic to X(A)X(A).

Research Background and Motivation

Problem Background

  1. Importance of rigidity problems: Rigidity of smooth projective varieties is a central problem in algebraic geometry. A variety is called rigid if in any smooth projective family, whenever one fiber is isomorphic to the variety, all fibers are isomorphic to it.
  2. Limitations of known results: Although Hwang-Mok and others have proven that all rational homogeneous varieties of Picard number 1 except B3/P2B_3/P_2 are rigid, the rigidity problem remains open for more general symmetric varieties.
  3. Geometric significance of composition algebras: Composition algebras (C\mathbb{C}, CC\mathbb{C}\oplus\mathbb{C}, HC\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{C}}, OC\mathbb{O}_{\mathbb{C}}) hold important positions in algebraic geometry, and their corresponding symmetric manifolds possess rich geometric structures.

Research Motivation

This paper aims to extend rigidity theory from rational homogeneous varieties to a broader class of symmetric varieties, particularly projective symmetric manifolds of Picard number 1 associated with composition algebras.

Core Contributions

  1. Main theorem: Proves that for any composition algebra AA, the corresponding symmetric manifold X(A)X(A) is rigid.
  2. Technical innovation: Develops a new method for handling rigidity problems through reduction to families of surfaces.
  3. Geometric insight: Reveals the crucial role of involutions on symmetric manifolds in rigidity proofs.
  4. Unified treatment: Provides a unified rigidity proof framework for symmetric manifolds corresponding to four different composition algebras.

Detailed Methodology

Problem Statement

Prove that for a composition algebra ACA \neq \mathbb{C}, if π:XΔ\pi: \mathcal{X} \to \Delta is a smooth projective family with XtX(A)X_t \cong X(A) for all t0t \neq 0, then X0X(A)X_0 \cong X(A).

Core Strategy

1. Application of VMRT Theory

  • Utilizes the theory of varieties of minimal rational tangents (VMRT) to first establish invariance of VMRT
  • Reduces the problem to excluding equivariant compactifications via Kim-Park's results

2. Reduction to Surface Families

Key construction:

  • Selects a maximal torus HtAut0(Xt)H_t \subset \text{Aut}^0(X_t) of SO3(A)SO_3(A)
  • Considers a connected component YXY \subset \mathcal{X} of the fixed point locus of the torus action
  • Proves that YΔY \to \Delta is a smooth family of surfaces

Geometric properties:

  • For t0t \neq 0, YtY_t is isomorphic to the blowup of P2\mathbb{P}^2 at three coordinate points
  • The central fiber Y0Y_0 is an equivariant compactification of Ga2\mathbb{G}_a^2

3. Analysis of Involutions

Construction of involutions:

  • Utilizes the decomposition sl3(A)=so3(A)J3(A)0sl_3(A) = so_3(A) \oplus J_3(A)_0
  • Defines an involution θ\theta: identity on so3(A)so_3(A) and 1-1 on J3(A)0J_3(A)_0
  • Proves that this involution induces an involution Θ\Theta on X\mathcal{X}

Key properties:

  • Θ\Theta preserves the surface family YY
  • For t0t \neq 0, Θt\Theta_t exchanges boundary divisors: θ(Di)=Ei\theta(D_i) = E_i, θ(Ei)=Di\theta(E_i) = D_i

Technical Innovations

  1. Surface reduction technique: Reduces high-dimensional problems to two-dimensional cases by selecting appropriate torus actions.
  2. Mori cone analysis: Analyzes the extremal rays of the Mori cone of the central fiber using its concrete geometric structure.
  3. Involution contradiction: Proves that involutions cannot map extremal rays to non-extremal rays, thereby deriving a contradiction.

Experimental Setup

Theoretical Verification Framework

This paper is purely theoretical research, with results verified through:

  1. Explicit calculations: Computes relevant Lie groups and Lie algebras for each of the four composition algebras
  2. Geometric analysis: Provides detailed analysis of geometric properties of surface families
  3. Algebraic verification: Verifies geometric constructions through Picard group calculations

Key Calculations

Composition Algebras Correspondence Table

AASL3(A)SL_3(A)SO3(A)SO_3(A)Variety containing X(A)X(A)
C\mathbb{C}SL3SL_3SO3SO_3Lag(3,6)\text{Lag}(3,6)
CC\mathbb{C}\oplus\mathbb{C}SL3×SL3SL_3\times SL_3SL3SL_3Gr(3,6)\text{Gr}(3,6)
HC\mathbb{H}_{\mathbb{C}}SL6SL_6Sp6Sp_6S6S_6
OC\mathbb{O}_{\mathbb{C}}E6E_6F4F_4E7/P7E_7/P_7

Experimental Results

Main Results

Theorem 1.2: For any composition algebra AA, the variety X(A)X(A) is rigid.

Proofs of Key Lemmas

Lemma: Structure of the central fiber

Through detailed calculations, proves that:

  • Y0Y_0 is the blowup of P2\mathbb{P}^2 at three collinear points
  • The anti-canonical divisor is: KY0=3F0+2(F1+F2+F3)-K_{Y_0} = 3F_0 + 2(F_1 + F_2 + F_3)

Derivation of contradiction

Let {F0,F1,F2,F3}\{F_0, F_1, F_2, F_3\} be the irreducible components of the boundary of Y0Y_0. Then:

  • FiF_i (i=1,2,3i=1,2,3) generate the extremal rays of NE(Y0)\text{NE}(Y_0)
  • The involution Θ0\Theta_0 satisfies Θ0(F0+Fi)=Fi\Theta_0(F_0 + F_i) = F_i
  • But F0+FiF_0 + F_i is not an extremal ray, producing a contradiction

Development of Rigidity Theory

  1. Hwang-Mok theory: Establishes the VMRT framework and proves rigidity for most rational homogeneous varieties
  2. Pasquier-Perrin results: Discovers non-rigidity examples for B3/P2B_3/P_2
  3. Park's work: Proves rigidity of odd Lagrange Grassmannians

Theory of Symmetric Varieties

  1. Ruzzi's classification: Provides complete classification of projective symmetric varieties of Picard number 1
  2. Kim-Park's partial results: Proves invariance of VMRT and structure of automorphism groups

Conclusions and Discussion

Main Conclusions

This paper completely resolves the rigidity problem for projective symmetric manifolds of Picard number 1 associated with composition algebras, proving that all such manifolds are rigid.

Technical Significance

  1. Methodological innovation: Develops new techniques for handling high-dimensional rigidity problems through surface reduction
  2. Theoretical refinement: Extends rigidity theory from rational homogeneous varieties to a broader class of symmetric varieties

Limitations

  1. Specificity: The method heavily depends on special structures of composition algebras
  2. Generalizability: It remains unclear whether this method can be applied to other types of symmetric varieties

Future Directions

  1. More general symmetric varieties: Study rigidity of other symmetric varieties of Picard number 1
  2. Higher Picard number cases: Consider symmetric varieties with Picard number greater than 1
  3. Algorithmic implementation: Develop effective algorithms for computing rigidity

In-Depth Evaluation

Strengths

  1. Theoretical depth: Employs multiple profound theories in algebraic geometry (VMRT, symmetric varieties, Mori theory, etc.)
  2. Technical innovation: The surface reduction method possesses certain universality
  3. Completeness: Provides unified treatment of all four cases
  4. Rigor: Proofs are detailed and logically clear

Weaknesses

  1. Computational complexity: Extensive explicit calculations make the proof highly technical
  2. Generalization difficulty: The specificity of the method limits its applicability
  3. Geometric intuition: Certain key steps lack geometric intuitive explanations

Impact

  1. Theoretical contribution: Perfects rigidity theory for symmetric varieties
  2. Methodological value: Provides new technical approaches for similar problems
  3. Subsequent research: Establishes foundation for further research on deformation theory of symmetric varieties

Applicable Scenarios

This method is particularly suitable for rigidity research on geometric objects with rich symmetry and special algebraic structures.

References

The paper cites important literature in the field, including Hwang-Mok's VMRT theory, Ruzzi's classification of symmetric varieties, and Kim-Park's prior work, demonstrating comprehensive understanding and deep insight into related research.