2

I came upon a Lemma, which stated that the Blow-Up of an algebraic Curve $C \in \mathbb{C}[x,y]$ in a singular point $p$ of $C$ is non singular in $p$. For the proof the author referred to the Jacobian, after expressing the Blow-Up as a variety $\mathbb{V} = (f(x,y), xx_1-yx_0=0)$, where the $f$ denotes the defining equation of the curve, and $xx_1-yx_0$ the defining equation of the Blow-Up. Then the Jacobian is: \begin{pmatrix} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} & \frac{\partial f}{\partial y} &0&0\\ x_1 & -x_0 & x & -y \end{pmatrix}

I know that a point is non singular in a point $p$, if the rank of the the Jacobian in $p$ is $n-d$, where $n$ is the number of variables, and $d$ the dimension of the Variety. But the Jacobian in this example has rank 1, although I thought $n=4$, and $d =1$. Can somebody help with this proof, or am I missing something?

EDIT: I figured it out, since we are only looking at the Matrix in $p$, which is 2-dimensional, our Variety has two variables, so $n=2$. Now it all makes sense!

1 Answers1

3

A single blow-up will not always resolve the singularity. The following two examples are exercises from chapter I of Hartshorne (undoubtedly covered in many other books as well).

  • Blowing up the singularity at the origin of a tacnode $x^2=x^4+y^4$ amounts to substituting $x=yt$ and cancelling the common factor. This gives us the equation $t^2=y^2t^4+y^2$, and that curve still has an ordinary double point as solving for $y$ gives $y=\pm t/\sqrt{t^4+1}$ (implying two branches through the origin with tangents of slopes $\pm1$).
  • Blowing up a higher order cusp of $y^3=x^5$ at the origin with the substitution $y=xt$ leads to the usual cusp $t^3=x^2$.

You see that in both cases above, another blowing up will resolve the singularity. IIRC a finite number of blowings up will always do. But, as we saw, a single one will not necessarily suffice.

Jyrki Lahtonen
  • 140,891
  • I'm a bit rusty, but IIRC if you define blowing up more generally, then the answer, again, changes. See this and this. And, for heaven's sake wait for somebody who actually knows this stuff :-) – Jyrki Lahtonen May 16 '19 at 09:31
  • Thank you! I figured out my problem, actually I just thought the wrong way. – Gecko1111 May 16 '19 at 18:08