English

Fibration and classification of smooth projective toric varieties of low Picard number

Algebraic Geometry 2022-05-24 v3

Abstract

In this paper we show that a smooth toric variety XX of Picard number r3r\leq 3 always admits a nef primitive collection supported on a hyperplane admitting non-trivial intersection with the cone \Nef(X)\Nef(X) of numerically effective divisors and cutting a facet of the pseudo-effective cone \Eff(X)\Eff(X), that is \Nef(X)\Eff(X){0}\Nef(X)\cap\partial\overline{\Eff}(X)\neq\{0\}. In particular this means that XX admits non-trivial and non-big numerically effective divisors. Geometrically this guarantees the existence of a fiber type contraction morphism over a smooth toric variety of dimension and Picard number lower than those of XX, so giving rise to a classification of smooth and complete toric varieties with r3r\leq 3. Moreover we revise and improve results of Oda-Miyake by exhibiting an extension of the above result to projective, toric, varieties of dimension n=3n=3 and Picard number r=4r=4, allowing us to classifying all these threefolds. We then improve results of Fujino-Sato, by presenting sharp (counter)examples of smooth, projective, toric varieties of any dimension n4n\geq4 and Picard number r=4r=4 whose non-trivial nef divisors are big, that is \Nef(X)\Eff(X)={0}\Nef(X)\cap\partial\overline{\Eff}(X)=\{0\}. Producing those examples represents an important goal of computational techniques in definitely setting an open geometric problem. In particular, for n=4n=4, the given example turns out to be a weak Fano toric fourfold of Picard number 4.

Keywords

Cite

@article{arxiv.1507.00493,
  title  = {Fibration and classification of smooth projective toric varieties of low Picard number},
  author = {Michele Rossi and Lea Terracini},
  journal= {arXiv preprint arXiv:1507.00493},
  year   = {2022}
}

Comments

26 pages; 7 figures. Final version for pubblication in International Journal of Mathematics. Minor changes following referee's suggestions: in particular the proof of Lemma 3.2 has been rewritten to making it clearer