Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Intersection theory

Intersection theory is a branch of algebraic geometry that studies the intersections of subvarieties within an ambient variety, providing tools to define and compute intersection multiplicities, cycles, and products in structures such as Chow groups or cohomology rings.^[1] It formalizes the notion of how two subvarieties "meet," accounting for both transverse and non-transverse cases through refined invariants like the intersection product, which endows the Chow ring with a ring structure.^[2] The theory originated in classical enumerative geometry during the 19th century, with foundational results such as Bézout's theorem, which states that two plane curves of degrees d_1 and d_2 intersect in exactly d_1 d_2 points, counting multiplicity and points at infinity, under generic conditions in projective space.^[3] Pioneering work by mathematicians like Chasles, Schubert, and Zeuthen addressed enumerative problems, such as determining the number of conics tangent to five given conics (3,264) or cubics tangent to nine lines (33,616), laying the groundwork for rigorous intersection calculus.^[3] In the 20th century, the theory was modernized through the development of algebraic cycles and rational equivalence by Chow in the 1940s, followed by Fulton's comprehensive scheme-theoretic framework in the 1980s, which eliminated reliance on classical tools like the moving lemma and extended the theory to singular varieties.^[1]^[4] Key concepts include Chow groups, which classify cycles modulo rational equivalence, and the intersection product, enabling computations via pushforwards and pullbacks under morphisms; these structures connect algebraic geometry to topology through isomorphisms with cohomology rings on smooth projective varieties.^[2] Notable applications span enumerative geometry—such as counting lines on cubic surfaces (27 lines) or conics through points—moduli spaces of curves, singularity theory, and even string theory via Gromov-Witten invariants.^[3]^[1] The theory's influence persists in contemporary research, including equivariant and motivic extensions, underscoring its role in bridging classical and modern algebraic geometry.^[2]

Overview

Definition and motivation

Intersection theory provides a mathematical framework for quantifying the intersections of geometric objects, such as subvarieties in algebraic geometry or submanifolds in topology, by assigning invariants like intersection numbers or classes in associated rings.^[5] This approach addresses the need to measure how these objects "meet" in a rigorous way, extending beyond simple point counting to account for geometric complexities like tangencies and higher-dimensional overlaps.^[6] The motivation for intersection theory stems from longstanding problems in enumerative geometry, where one seeks to count solutions to geometric conditions—such as the number of plane curves of a given degree passing through specified points—but encounters issues with multiplicities when intersections are not transverse.^[7] In topology, similar challenges arise in defining linking numbers or self-intersections of cycles in manifolds, necessitating invariants that capture topological intersections independently of embeddings.^[8] These invariants enable the computation of global properties, such as degrees of maps or Euler characteristics, through local intersection data.^[9] A basic prerequisite for understanding intersection theory includes knowledge of smooth manifolds from differential topology, singular homology from algebraic topology, and algebraic varieties from algebraic geometry, as intersections are often analyzed within these structures.^[8] For a simple illustration, consider two distinct lines in the Euclidean plane, which intersect transversely at a single point; their intersection number is defined to be 1, reflecting the minimal transverse case without multiplicity.^[5] In specific contexts, realizations like the topological intersection form on homology groups or the Chow ring for algebraic cycles provide concrete tools for these computations.^[10]^[6]

Historical development

Intersection theory originated in 19th-century enumerative geometry, addressing problems of counting intersections of algebraic curves and surfaces, with foundational results such as Bézout's theorem and pioneering work by Chasles, Schubert, and Zeuthen on problems like the number of conics tangent to five given conics.^[3] Topological aspects were pioneered by Henri Poincaré in his 1895 paper "Analysis Situs," where he introduced the concept of intersection numbers for cycles on manifolds, providing a topological measure of how submanifolds intersect, which laid the groundwork for understanding duality in homology.^[11] This was further developed in his 1904 supplement, where he refined these ideas to establish Poincaré duality, linking intersection numbers to the topology of closed orientable manifolds.^[12] In the 1920s and 1930s, Solomon Lefschetz advanced the topological aspects of intersection theory through his work on homology and fixed-point theorems. Lefschetz's 1923 fixed-point theorem generalized Poincaré's ideas, using intersection numbers to count fixed points of maps on manifolds via traces on homology groups.^[13] He also introduced the intersection form on the middle homology of 4-manifolds in the 1930s, a bilinear form capturing self-intersection properties that became central to topological intersection theory.^[6] Building on classical foundations, the mid-20th century saw further developments in algebraic intersection theory, beginning with André Weil's contributions in the 1940s. In his 1946 "Foundations of Algebraic Geometry," Weil developed intersection multiplicities and reciprocity laws for divisors on algebraic varieties over arbitrary fields, bridging classical projective geometry with modern algebraic structures.^[14] Jean-Pierre Serre built on this in the 1950s with his introduction of coherent sheaves in "Faisceaux algébriques cohérents" (1955), enabling intersection products via sheaf cohomology and refining multiplicity computations for non-transverse intersections. Around the same time, Wei-Liang Chow and others developed the Chow ring in the early 1950s, a structure formalizing intersections of cycles modulo rational equivalence on projective varieties.^[6] Alexander Grothendieck's work in the 1960s revolutionized the field by reformulating intersection theory in the language of schemes and K-theory. Starting in the late 1950s, Grothendieck introduced algebraic K-theory to study coherent sheaves and their intersections, culminating in the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch theorem (1958), which provided a universal transformation for pushforwards in intersection settings. His scheme-theoretic approach, detailed in foundational texts from the early 1960s, unified arithmetic and geometric intersections, while his 1966 International Congress of Mathematicians talk outlined the standard conjectures on algebraic cycles, positing homological equivalence as sufficient for intersection properties and motivating the theory of motives.^[15] The modern synthesis of intersection theory emerged in the 1980s, with William Fulton's 1984 book "Intersection Theory" serving as a comprehensive reference that integrated topological and algebraic developments into a general framework for arbitrary schemes.^[5] Fulton's treatment encompassed refined intersection products, excess intersection formulas, and applications to blow-ups, drawing on Grothendieck's foundations. Subsequent advances in the 1980s and 2000s incorporated motives and derived categories, with Grothendieck's standard conjectures influencing higher K-theory and motivic cohomology, though many remain open.^[6]

Topological intersection theory

Basic intersection numbers

In topological intersection theory, the basic intersection number provides a way to quantify the algebraic intersection of cycles in a compact oriented manifold. To define it, one first requires the cycles to intersect transversally. Two submanifolds \alpha and \beta of a manifold M intersect transversally if, at every intersection point p \in \alpha \cap \beta, the tangent spaces satisfy T_p \alpha + T_p \beta = T_p M. This condition ensures that the intersection is a submanifold of the expected dimension \dim \alpha + \dim \beta - \dim M. For cycles representing homology classes in singular homology, transversality can be achieved by perturbing one cycle slightly via a homotopy, as generic perturbations place intersections in general position, resulting in a finite set of isolated points when \dim \alpha + \dim \beta = \dim M.^[8] For two transverse cycles \alpha and \beta in a compact oriented n-manifold M with \dim \alpha + \dim \beta = n, the intersection number [\alpha] \cdot [\beta] is defined as the algebraic count of their intersection points:

[\alpha] \cdot [\beta] = \sum_{p \in \alpha \cap \beta} \varepsilon_p,

where \varepsilon_p = \pm 1 is the local intersection sign at p, determined by whether the orientation induced on T_p M by the direct sum T_p \alpha \oplus T_p \beta matches the orientation of M. If the orientations agree, \varepsilon_p = +1; otherwise, \varepsilon_p = -1. This number is well-defined on homology classes since it is invariant under deformations that preserve transversality.^[8] The intersection number satisfies several key properties. It is bilinear over \mathbb{Z}, meaning [k\alpha + \alpha'] \cdot [\beta] = k [\alpha] \cdot [\beta] + [\alpha'] \cdot [\beta] and similarly for the second argument. It is skew-commutative: [\alpha] \cdot [\beta] = (-1)^{\dim \alpha \cdot \dim \beta} [\beta] \cdot [\alpha]. Additionally, it is invariant under homotopies of the cycles that maintain transversality, making it a topological invariant. These properties arise from the local nature of the signs and the additivity of the sum over intersections. Poincaré duality enables the extension of these numbers to pairings between homology and cohomology groups.^[8] In three-dimensional manifolds, the linking number provides a special case of the intersection number. For two disjoint oriented closed curves [\alpha, \beta](/page/Alpha_Beta) \subset M^3, the linking number \mathrm{lk}([\alpha, \beta](/page/Alpha_Beta)) is defined as the intersection number [\alpha] \cdot [\Sigma], where \Sigma is a compact oriented surface (Seifert surface) bounded by \beta. This counts the signed crossings of \alpha through \Sigma, and it is symmetric up to sign: \mathrm{lk}(\alpha, \beta) = -\mathrm{lk}(\beta, \alpha).^[16] A representative example occurs with two closed curves on the torus T^2 = S^1 \times S^1. Consider the meridional curve \alpha (wrapping once around the first factor) and the longitudinal curve \beta (around the second factor); they intersect transversally at one point with positive local sign, yielding [\alpha] \cdot [\beta] = 1. More generally, for curves of types (p, q) and (r, s) (winding p times meridionally and q longitudinally, etc.), the intersection number equals the determinant ps - qr, which coincides with the degree of the induced map from the curves' parametrizations to S^1 \times S^1. This illustrates how intersection numbers capture winding relations on surfaces.^[16]

The intersection form on manifolds

In the context of topological intersection theory, the intersection form on a closed oriented manifold provides a fundamental bilinear pairing that encodes global topological information through duality. For a closed oriented $4k-manifold M, the intersection form Q: H^{2k}(M; \mathbb{Z}) \times H^{2k}(M; \mathbb{Z}) \to \mathbb{Z}is defined byQ(\alpha, \beta) = \langle \alpha \cup \beta, [M] \rangle, where \cupdenotes the [cup product](/page/Cup_product) in [cohomology](/page/Cohomology),\langle -, - \rangleis the pairing with the fundamental class[M] \in H_{4k}(M; \mathbb{Z}), and the form arises naturally from [Poincaré duality](/page/Poincaré_duality), which identifies H^{2k}(M; \mathbb{Z})with the dual ofH_{2k}(M; \mathbb{Z})via cap products with[M]$.^[17]^[18] This pairing extends the basic notion of intersection numbers between homology classes to a symmetric bilinear structure on the middle-dimensional cohomology, reflecting the manifold's self-intersection properties. The intersection form possesses several key properties derived from the underlying duality theorems. It is unimodular, meaning its matrix representation with respect to a basis has determinant \pm 1, which follows directly from Poincaré duality ensuring the pairing is non-degenerate.^[19] For even dimensions like $4k, the form is symmetric, Q(\alpha, \beta) = Q(\beta, \alpha), whereas in odd middle dimensions it is skew-symmetric; classification of such forms over \mathbb{Z}

for &#36;4

-manifolds (the k=1 case) is determined by invariants including the rank (dimension of the free part of H^{2k}(M; \mathbb{Z})), the signature (difference between positive and negative eigenvalues of the real extension), and parity (even if all self-intersections Q(\alpha, \alpha) are even integers, odd otherwise).^[20]^[17] Poincaré-Lefschetz duality underpins the intersection form by relating cohomology and homology via cap and cup products. Specifically, for cohomology classes \alpha \in H^p(M; \mathbb{Z}) and \beta \in H^q(M; \mathbb{Z}) with p + q = n = \dim M, the cap product \alpha \cap \beta \in H_{n-p}(M; \mathbb{Z}) satisfies \langle \alpha \cap \beta, [M] \rangle = \langle \alpha, \beta \cup \mathrm{PD}([M]) \rangle, where \mathrm{PD}: H_n(M; \mathbb{Z}) \to H^n(M; \mathbb{Z}) is the Poincaré dual; in the middle dimension, this yields the intersection form as Q(\alpha, \beta) = \langle \alpha \cap \mathrm{PD}(\beta), [M] \rangle, dualizing geometric intersections of submanifolds to algebraic operations on chains.^[21]^[22] This formulation highlights how the form captures transversal intersections modulo boundaries, with the cup product providing a computable algebraic representative. Representative examples illustrate the diversity of intersection forms. For the complex projective plane \mathbb{CP}^2, a simply connected $4-manifold, the second cohomology H^2(\mathbb{CP}^2; \mathbb{Z}) \cong \mathbb{Z}is generated by the class of a line, yielding the odd unimodular formQ = \langle 1 \ranglewith self-intersection+1

.[](https://math.uchicago.edu/~dannyc/courses/4manifolds_2018/4_manifolds_notes.pdf) In contrast, the K3 surface, a simply connected compact &#36;4

-manifold with trivial canonical bundle, has H^2(K3; \mathbb{Z}) \cong \mathbb{Z}^{22} and an even unimodular intersection form Q = E_8(-1)^{\oplus 2} \oplus H^{\oplus 3}, where E_8(-1) is the negative definite E_8 lattice and H is the hyperbolic plane \begin{pmatrix} 0 & 1 \\ 1 & 0 \end{pmatrix}, giving signature -16 and rank $22$.^[23]^[24] A significant application of the intersection form is Rokhlin's theorem, which imposes constraints on spin structures. For a closed smooth spin $4-manifold M, the signature \sigma(Q)of the intersection form satisfies\sigma(Q) \equiv 0 \pmod{16}, linking the form's algebraic invariants to differential-topological obstructions via the \hat{A}-genus and index theory. This result, sharp as seen in the K3 surface example where \sigma = -16

, underscores the form's role in classifying &#36;4

-manifolds up to homeomorphism.

Intersection theory in algebraic geometry

Cycles and rational equivalence

In algebraic geometry, an algebraic cycle of codimension k on a variety X over an algebraically closed field is defined as a formal \mathbb{Z}-linear combination \sum n_i V_i, where each n_i \in \mathbb{Z} and each V_i is an irreducible subvariety of X of codimension k.^[4] The set of all such cycles forms a free abelian group Z^k(X), generated by the irreducible subvarieties of codimension k.^[4] This construction provides the basic building blocks for intersection theory, allowing the study of subvarieties through linear combinations that capture geometric relations. Rational equivalence is an equivalence relation on the groups Z^k(X) introduced to identify cycles that can be "deformed" into one another via rational families. Specifically, two cycles Z, Z' \in Z^k(X) are rationally equivalent if there exists a cycle \Gamma \in Z^k(X \times \mathbb{P}^1) such that Z - Z' = [ \Gamma_0 ] - [ \Gamma_1 ], where \Gamma_t denotes the fiber of \Gamma over the point t \in \mathbb{P}^1 (with points 0 and 1).^[25] This relation is generated by differences of divisors of rational functions on subvarieties of X, and it preserves codimension while being compatible with the algebraic structure of X.^[4] The Chow groups are the quotients CH^k(X) = Z^k(X) / \sim_{\mathrm{rat}}, where \sim_{\mathrm{rat}} denotes rational equivalence; these groups are graded by codimension, yielding the Chow ring \mathrm{CH}(X) = \bigoplus_k \mathrm{CH}^k(X).^[25] The Chow groups admit a filtration by dimension (since codimension k corresponds to dimension \dim X - k) and exhibit functoriality under proper morphisms f: Y \to X, via a pushforward f_*: \mathrm{CH}^k(Y) \to \mathrm{CH}^k(X) that preserves the equivalence relation.^[4] For example, on projective space \mathbb{P}^n, the Chow groups are \mathrm{CH}^k(\mathbb{P}^n) \cong \mathbb{Z} [H]^k, where H is the class of a hyperplane, generated by powers of the hyperplane class up to codimension n.^[4] Algebraic cycles map to homology classes via the cycle class map \mathrm{cl}: Z^k(X) \to H_{2(\dim X - k)}(X(\mathbb{C}), \mathbb{Z}) (assuming X is defined over \mathbb{C}), which factors through rational equivalence to induce a map on Chow groups.^[4] However, rational equivalence is a finer relation than homological equivalence, as rationally equivalent cycles are homologically equivalent, but the converse does not hold in general, allowing Chow groups to distinguish more refined geometric structures than singular homology.^[4]

The moving lemma

The moving lemma is a cornerstone of intersection theory in algebraic geometry, enabling the deformation of cycles within their rational equivalence classes to achieve proper intersections. Specifically, for a smooth projective variety X over an algebraically closed field and cycles \alpha \in Z_r(X), \beta \in Z_s(X), there exists a cycle \alpha' \in Z_r(X) rationally equivalent to \alpha such that \alpha' intersects \beta properly, meaning that for every irreducible component Z of \alpha' and W of \beta, either \dim(Z \cap W) = \dim Z + \dim W - \dim X or Z \cap W = \emptyset.^[26] This formulation extends naturally to the setting of cycles A on X and B on Y by considering the product space X \times Y, which is smooth if X and Y are; here, one can find A' rationally equivalent to A and B' rationally equivalent to B such that A' \times B' intersects a given cycle on X \times Y properly, with codimensions adding appropriately.^[2] A proof sketch relies on embedding X into projective space \mathbb{P}^N and using generic linear projections. One projects \alpha via a general linear subspace \Lambda of complementary dimension to deform it rationally; by induction on dimension, this ensures the deformed cycle intersects \beta properly, leveraging the projection formula for cycles. Alternatively, for quasi-projective varieties, the proof employs Bertini's theorem applied to sections of an ample line bundle on the support of \alpha, deforming components to avoid unwanted intersections with \beta.^[26]^[2] The primary consequence of the moving lemma is that it allows the definition of an intersection product on the Chow groups A_*(X) without requiring initial transversality: given [\alpha], [\beta] \in A_*(X), choose \alpha' as above, define [\alpha] \cdot [\beta] = [\alpha' \cap \beta], and verify independence from the choice of representative via rational equivalence. This extends to relative settings over curves, where cycles can be moved properly in families, facilitating computations in enumerative geometry.^[27] A representative example occurs on a smooth projective surface S, where a curve cycle C \subset S (dimension 1) may initially pass through a point p \in S with multiplicity greater than 1, failing proper intersection. By the moving lemma, there exists C' \sim_{\mathrm{rat}} C such that C' intersects the 0-cycle $$ transversely at distinct points, yielding the intersection number \deg(C' \cap ) = C \cdot without singularities.^[2] While effective over algebraically closed fields of characteristic zero, the moving lemma fails in positive characteristic without modifications, as Bertini's theorem does not hold in general for hypersurface sections, requiring alternative approaches like generic projections avoiding characteristic divisors or Frobenius techniques to ensure proper deformations.^[3]

Intersection products and multiplicities

In algebraic geometry, the intersection product on the Chow groups of a smooth projective variety X provides a way to multiply cycle classes. For cycle classes \alpha \in \mathrm{CH}^k(X) and \beta \in \mathrm{CH}^l(X), their product \alpha \cdot \beta \in \mathrm{CH}^{k+l}(X) is defined by first using the moving lemma to represent \alpha and \beta by cycles whose supports intersect properly, meaning the dimension of the intersection equals the expected value \dim X - k - l. The product is then the class of the sum over the components of the intersection, each weighted by its local intersection multiplicity. The local intersection multiplicity at a point p \in Z \cap W, where Z and W are subvarieties of X intersecting properly at p, quantifies the "order of contact" and is given by \mathrm{mult}_p(Z, W) = \sum_{i \geq 0} (-1)^i \length(\Tor_i^{\mathcal{O}_{X,p}}(\mathcal{O}_{Z,p}, \mathcal{O}_{W,p})), where \length denotes the length as an \mathcal{O}_{X,p}-module. Equivalently, in local coordinates where Z and W are defined by ideals generated by regular sequences f_1, \dots, f_k and g_1, \dots, g_l respectively, with k + l = \dim X - \dim(Z \cap W), the multiplicity is \dim_{\mathbb{C}} \mathbb{C}[x_1, \dots, x_n]_p / (f_1, \dots, f_k, g_1, \dots, g_l). This definition satisfies properties such as positivity and invariance under rational equivalence.^[28] When the intersection is not proper, meaning \dim(Z \cap W) > \dim X - \codim Z - \codim W, the excess intersection formula refines the naive intersection class using sheaf theory. Specifically, if i: Z \to X and j: W \to X are regular embeddings, the refined product [Z] \cdot [W] in \mathrm{CH}_*(Z \cap W) is given by [Z \cap W] + higher terms involving the Chern classes of the excess bundle, which is the quotient of the conormal sheaf of Z \cap W in W by the pullback of the conormal sheaf of Z in X. More precisely, if q: C_Z W \to Z \cap W is the projection from the normal cone of Z in W, then the class is c(E) \cap [Z \cap W], where E is the excess normal bundle \ker(N_{Z \cap W / W} \to i^* N_{Z/X}). This allows computation even when dimensions exceed expectations, such as in self-intersections or when subvarieties share components.^[29] A concrete example occurs with two curves in \mathbb{P}^3: consider the twisted cubic curve C_1 parametrized by [s^3 : s^2 t : s t^2 : t^3] and a line C_2 that is tangent to it at the point [1:0:0:0], such as the line joining [1:0:0:0] and a point where the tangent direction matches. Their intersection at this point has multiplicity 2, computed via the resultant of the defining equations after dehomogenization or by evaluating the Tor length in the local ring, reflecting the shared tangent direction. The intersection product satisfies key properties that make the Chow groups into a graded ring. It is associative: (\alpha \cdot \beta) \cdot \gamma = \alpha \cdot (\beta \cdot \gamma) for \alpha \in \mathrm{CH}^k(X), \beta \in \mathrm{CH}^l(X), \gamma \in \mathrm{CH}^m(X). It is graded commutative up to sign: \alpha \cdot \beta = (-1)^{kl} \beta \cdot \alpha. Additionally, the projection formula holds: for a proper morphism f: Y \to X and \alpha \in \mathrm{CH}_*(Y), \beta \in \mathrm{CH}_*(X), we have f_*(\alpha \cdot f^*\beta) = f_*(\alpha) \cdot \beta. These ensure compatibility with pullbacks and pushforwards, enabling applications in enumerative problems.

The Chow ring

The Chow ring of an algebraic variety X, denoted A(X) or CH^*(X), is the graded ring formed by the direct sum \bigoplus_k CH^k(X), where CH^k(X) is the Chow group of codimension-k algebraic cycles on X modulo rational equivalence, and the multiplication is given by the intersection product of cycles.^[4] The ring is graded commutative, with the product \alpha \cdot \beta = (-1)^{kl} \beta \cdot \alpha for \alpha \in CH^k(X) and \beta \in CH^l(X), and the unit element is the class of X itself in CH^0(X).^[4] This structure captures the algebraic geometry of intersections on X, extending the additive groups of Chow classes to a multiplicative framework.^[30] Fulton's axiomatic approach defines the intersection product via three key properties: the moving axiom, which allows deforming cycles to achieve proper intersections while preserving rational equivalence; the excess intersection axiom, which provides a refined formula for intersections where the expected dimension is not met, involving normal cone deformations; and the specialization axiom, which ensures compatibility under flat families or deformations.^[4] These axioms guarantee that the resulting ring structure on the Chow groups is unique up to isomorphism for any variety, independent of choices in the construction.^[4] For the projective space \mathbb{P}^n, the Chow ring is A(\mathbb{P}^n) \cong \mathbb{Z} / (h^{n+1}), where h is the class of a hyperplane in codimension 1, and the grading is by \deg h = 1.^[4] More generally, for a smooth projective variety X over \mathbb{Q}, the Chow ring A(X) \otimes \mathbb{Q} is generated by the Chern classes of vector bundles on X.^[6] The pushforward map in Chow groups induces a degree homomorphism \deg: A_{\dim X}(X) \to \mathbb{Z}, obtained by pushing cycles of dimension \dim X forward to a point, which corresponds to the classical topological degree in the homology analogy.^[4] The Chow ring relates to the Grothendieck group K_0(X) of vector bundles on X through the \gamma-filtration, where the associated graded pieces recover the Chow groups via the Chern character.^[4] Fulton's Riemann-Roch theorem without denominators expresses the pushforward in K_0 in terms of the Todd class and intersection products in the Chow ring, avoiding holomorphic forms and providing a purely algebraic statement.^[4]

Self-intersection classes

In intersection theory, the self-intersection class of a subvariety Z \subset X of codimension k in a smooth variety X is defined as the product [Z] \cdot [Z] \in CH^{2k}(X) in the Chow ring, where this product is understood via the refined intersection theory on the normal cone C_Z X or, when applicable, deformation to the normal bundle N_{Z/X}.^[31] For a smooth subvariety Z, the self-intersection class admits an explicit formula: [Z]^2 = c_k(N_{Z/X}) \cap [Z], where c_k denotes the top Chern class of the normal bundle.^[31] This expression arises from the self-intersection axiom in Fulton's refined theory, where the intersection [Z] \cdot [Z] is refined to a class on Z via the Gysin map from the normal cone, coinciding with the normal bundle in the smooth case. Geometrically, the self-intersection class encodes the "obstruction" or intrinsic intersection behavior of Z with itself, measuring how points of Z are counted with multiplicity under infinitesimal deformations within X; it vanishes in codimension exceeding \dim X, but in general captures the embedding's rigidity or thickness. A representative example occurs for a line L \subset \mathbb{P}^2, where the normal bundle N_{L/\mathbb{P}^2} \cong \mathcal{O}_L(1) has top Chern class of degree 1, yielding self-intersection degree [L]^2 = 1.^[32] Similarly, for a smooth projective curve C of genus g, the self-intersection of its canonical class [K_C] \in CH^1(C) is the degree \deg K_C = 2g - 2, obtained via the adjunction formula relating the canonical bundle to the genus.^[33] A focal case is the self-intersection of the diagonal subvariety \Delta \subset X \times X, which has codimension \dim X and normal bundle isomorphic to the pullback of the tangent bundle TX; its refined self-intersection class [\Delta] \cdot [\Delta] in CH^{2 \dim X}(X \times X) is represented by the structure sheaf of the scheme-theoretic intersection, involving Tor terms from the resolution of \mathcal{O}_\Delta. The geometric significance emerges in the Grothendieck-Riemann-Roch theorem, where the pushforward under the projection X \times X \to X of this self-intersection relates directly to the Todd class td(X), providing the multiplicative characteristic class that generalizes the Hirzebruch-Riemann-Roch formula \chi(X, F) = \int_X ch(F) \cdot td(X) for coherent sheaves F.^[34] This connection underscores how self-intersections of diagonals encode global topological invariants like Euler characteristics through algebraic cycle classes.^[35]

Blow-ups and resolution

In algebraic geometry, the blow-up of a scheme X along a coherent ideal sheaf \mathcal{I} \subset \mathcal{O}_X is defined as the scheme \mathrm{Bl}_\mathcal{I} X = \mathrm{Proj}_X \bigoplus_{d \geq 0} \mathcal{I}^d, equipped with the natural projection morphism \pi: \mathrm{Bl}_\mathcal{I} X \to X.^[36] This morphism is proper and birational, and the inverse image \pi^{-1}(\mathcal{I}) \cdot \mathcal{O}_{\mathrm{Bl}_\mathcal{I} X} is an invertible sheaf corresponding to the exceptional divisor E, which is an effective Cartier divisor.^[36] The support Z = V(\mathcal{I}) of the ideal sheaf is the closed subscheme along which the blow-up occurs, and the exceptional divisor is given by E = \pi^{-1}(Z), with fibers over points of Z forming the projectivization \mathbb{P}(\mathrm{Sym}(\mathcal{I}/\mathcal{I}^2)^\vee) of the conormal sheaf when the embedding is regular.^[36] The pullback \pi^* induced by the blow-up morphism preserves intersection products rationally in the Chow groups. Specifically, for cycles \alpha and \beta on X, the pullback satisfies \pi^*(\alpha \cdot \beta) = \pi^*\alpha \cdot \pi^*\beta up to rational equivalence.^[37] On the blow-up \mathrm{Bl}_\mathcal{I} X, which is a \mathbb{P}^r-bundle over Z (where r is the codimension), the self-intersection of the exceptional divisor [E] relates to the tautological bundle via [E]^2 = -[\mathrm{PD}(\pi^* \mathcal{O}(1))] \cdot [E], where \mathrm{PD} denotes the Poincaré dual class and \mathcal{O}(1) is the relative ample line bundle on the projective bundle.^[37] This reflects the negative self-intersection arising from the geometry of the projective fibers. Blow-ups are a key tool for resolving singularities in algebraic varieties. By iteratively blowing up along suitable centers (such as singular loci or non-normal-crossing components), one obtains a resolution of singularities: a proper birational morphism \rho: \tilde{X} \to X where \tilde{X} is smooth and the exceptional locus has simple normal crossings. In characteristic zero, Hironaka's theorem guarantees the existence of such a resolution for any variety over a field of characteristic zero, achievable through a finite sequence of blow-ups along regular centers. A concrete example is the blow-up of the projective plane \mathbb{P}^2 at a point p. The resulting surface \mathrm{Bl}_p \mathbb{P}^2 is a del Pezzo surface of degree 8, with exceptional divisor E \cong \mathbb{P}^1 having self-intersection [E]^2 = -1.^[38] This negative self-intersection ensures that E is a rigid exceptional curve, and the anticanonical class -K_{\mathrm{Bl}_p \mathbb{P}^2} = \pi^*(-K_{\mathbb{P}^2}) - E remains ample, highlighting the variety's Fano property post-blow-up.^[38] For proper morphisms \pi: Y \to X, the pushforward and pullback operations in intersection theory satisfy the projection formula: \pi_*(\pi^* \alpha \cdot \beta) = \alpha \cdot \pi_* \beta for \alpha \in A^k(X) and \beta \in A_*(Y), where A_* denotes the Chow group.^[37] This compatibility allows intersections on the blow-up to be pushed forward to compute refined numbers on the base, preserving rational equivalence and facilitating computations in singular settings after resolution.^[37]

Extensions and applications

Enumerative geometry

Enumerative geometry employs intersection theory to solve problems of counting the number of geometric objects, such as curves or surfaces, that satisfy specified incidence conditions like passing through given points or intersecting given subvarieties in projective space. Classical results often rely on the intersection product in the Chow ring to compute these numbers rigorously, assuming general position of the conditions. For instance, the number of conics passing through 5 general points in the projective plane \mathbb{P}^2 is 1; this follows from the fact that the parameter space of conics is \mathbb{P}^5, and the 5 point conditions correspond to 5 general hyperplane sections whose intersection has degree 1.^[6] Similarly, in \mathbb{P}^3, the number of lines intersecting 4 general lines is 2, computed as the degree of the product of 4 copies of the Schubert class \sigma_{1,0} in the Chow ring of the Grassmannian \mathrm{Gr}(2,4).^[6] The assumption of general position is justified by Bertini's theorem, which states that for a projective morphism with irreducible fibers, the general member of the family intersects a fixed ample divisor properly and with the expected dimension. In the context of intersection theory, this ensures that the imposed conditions lead to transverse intersections of the expected codimension. A key generalization is the Kleiman-Bertini theorem, which extends Bertini to the intersection of two families of subvarieties: for general members of ample families over a projective scheme, their scheme-theoretic intersection has the expected dimension and is equidimensional. This theorem underpins many enumerative computations by guaranteeing that generic choices yield the predicted counts without excess components or multiplicities.^[39] Modern enumerative geometry extends these classical counts using Gromov-Witten invariants, which are defined as virtual intersection numbers on the moduli space \overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,k}(X,\beta) of stable maps from genus-g curves with k marked points to a projective variety X of class \beta. These invariants generalize classical intersection numbers by incorporating virtual fundamental classes to handle non-transverse or obstructed situations, particularly for pseudoholomorphic curves in symplectic geometry and algebraic stable maps. For example, the Gromov-Witten invariant \langle \mathrm{pt}^{3d-1} \rangle_{0,d}(\mathbb{P}^2) counts the number of rational degree-d curves in \mathbb{P}^2 passing through $3d-1 general points, yielding the Kontsevich-Manin numbers N_d, which satisfy recursive relations derived from degeneration to nodal curves. In \mathbb{P}^3, the analogous invariant \langle \mathrm{pt}^{2d} \rangle_{0,d}(\mathbb{P}^3) counts rational degree-d curves through $2d general points, with computations often involving localization on toric varieties or relations to quantum cohomology.^[40] Such invariants refine classical enumerative problems through quantum corrections, particularly in the context of mirror symmetry and string theory, where higher-genus contributions account for worldsheet instantons of genus greater than zero. These higher-genus Gromov-Witten invariants modify the classical counts by including terms that reflect multiple covers and higher topology, providing a more complete picture of curve enumerations in Calabi-Yau manifolds used in physical models. For instance, on quintic threefolds, genus-zero invariants count rational curves through points, while genus-one terms offer corrections essential for matching mirror symmetry predictions.^[40] Classical Schubert calculus on Grassmannians also facilitates enumerative counts involving higher-degree objects via the Chow ring structure, which is generated by Schubert classes with relations given by the Pieri and Giambelli formulas. An illustrative computation arises in determining the number of lines in \mathbb{P}^3 intersecting 4 general degree-d curves, which is $2d^4; this is the intersection number of the classes d \sigma_{1,0} (the class for intersecting a degree-d curve) raised to the fourth power in A^*(\mathrm{Gr}(2,4)). This approach extends to more complex incidences, linking linear spaces to higher-degree curves through pullbacks and pushforwards in intersection theory.^[6]

Connections to other fields

Intersection theory, originally developed in algebraic geometry and topology, finds significant extensions in symplectic geometry through the theory of Gromov-Witten invariants. These invariants are defined by counting pseudoholomorphic curves in a symplectic manifold, providing a refinement of the algebraic intersection numbers when the manifold admits a compatible Kähler structure.^[41] In particular, J-holomorphic curves, which are holomorphic with respect to an almost complex structure compatible with the symplectic form, allow for the computation of symplectic invariants that generalize and sometimes correct the enumerative counts from algebraic geometry. In arithmetic geometry, intersection theory is generalized to arithmetic varieties over number fields, incorporating both Archimedean and non-Archimedean places through arithmetic Chow groups. These groups combine algebraic cycles with metrics at infinite places and measures at finite places, enabling the definition of intersection products that yield arithmetic intersection numbers.^[42] A key application arises on abelian varieties, where the Néron-Tate height pairing serves as an intersection form on the Mordell-Weil group, pairing points via a quadratic form that regulates their arithmetic height and connects to the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture.^[43] This pairing extends classical intersection theory by accounting for the arithmetic geometry over the ring of integers. The motivic perspective further unifies these developments by embedding intersection theory into Voevodsky's triangulated categories of motives over a field, where motives of varieties are constructed using correspondences and transfers. In this framework, intersection products correspond to tensor products of motive objects, preserving homological and numerical equivalences.^[44] The standard conjectures on algebraic cycles posit that numerical equivalence coincides with homological equivalence in these categories, implying deep relations between intersection multiplicities and motivic cohomology groups. Connections to algebraic K-theory are established via Adams operations on the Grothendieck group K_0(X) and the Chern character, which maps K_0(X) \otimes \mathbb{Q} isomorphically to the rational Chow ring A^*(X) \otimes \mathbb{Q}. The Adams operations \psi^k act as power operations compatible with the Chern character, allowing intersection-theoretic data to inform K-theoretic invariants and vice versa.^[45] An illustrative example occurs in étale cohomology of arithmetic surfaces, where l-adic intersection numbers provide finite-place contributions to arithmetic intersection pairings, complementing the Archimedean components and facilitating computations in the arithmetic Chow groups.^[42]

References

[1]
[PDF] Intersection Theory in Algebraic Geometry and Applications
Jul 13, 2018 · This three part series will focus on the basics of intersection theory in algebraic geometry. An emphasis.
[2]
[PDF] INTERSECTION THEORY IN ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY 1. 1/27/20
Jan 27, 2020 · Definition. A projective manifold is a closed complex submanifold of CPN . Theorem. (Chow) Any projective manifold is cut out by polynomial ...
[3]
[PDF] Intersection theory, characteristic classes, and algebro-geometric ...
Dec 31, 2020 · Intersection Theory is a venerable branch of Algebraic Geometry, with roots grounded in the very origin of the subject and many ramifications ...
[4]
Intersection Theory - SpringerLink
The aim of this book is to develop the foundations of this theory, and to indicate the range of classical and modern applications.
[5]
Intersection Theory | SpringerLink
Jun 29, 2013 · The aim of this book is to develop the foundations of intersection theory, and to indicate the range of classical and modern applications.
[6]
[PDF] 3264 & All That Intersection Theory in Algebraic Geometry
Page 1. 3264 & All That. Intersection Theory in Algebraic Geometry c David Eisenbud and Joe Harris. Page 2. Page 3. Contents. Preface xv. Chapter 0 Introduction.
[7]
[PDF] Motivating Intersection Theory via Enumerative Geometry
Apr 27, 2015 · How many points lie on two distinct conics? Each conic is a degree 2 curve in projective space so they intersect in. 2 · 2 = 4 points. Traves.
[8]
[PDF] Victor Guillemin - Alan Pollack - UCSB Math
In Chapter 3 we reconstruct intersection theory to include orientations. The Euler characteristic is defined as a self-intersection number and shown to vanish ...
[9]
[PDF] Intersection theory - University of Notre Dame
Oct 31, 2011 · INTERSECTION THEORY. 3. A co-orientation on a closed submanifold S ⊂ M is by definition an orientation on the normal bundle. TSM. Thus, an ...
[10]
[PDF] 2.4 Intersection theory
Intersection theory also allows us to define the degree of a map modulo 2. ... For an n-manifold M, the set TM has a natural topology and smooth structure which.
[11]
[PDF] Poincar´e and Analysis Situs, the beginning of algebraic topology
Sep 3, 2012 · In 1895 Henri Poincaré published his topological work 'Analysis Situs'. ... cal intersection numbers. He also claimed the independence under ...
[12]
[PDF] INTERSECTION HOMOLOGY THEORY
Poincart, in his 1895 paper which founded modern algebraic topology ([18], p. 218; corrected in [19]), studied the intersection of an i-cycle V and a j-cycle W ...
[13]
Solomon Lefschetz | Biographical Memoirs: Volume 61
In his first proof of the fixed-point theorem in 1923 (1923, 1), Lefschetz made the additional assumption that X is an orientable closed n-manifold. One can ...
[14]
[PDF] The Riemann Hypothesis over Finite Fields - James Milne
Sep 14, 2015 · His proof makes use of the general theory of intersection multiplicities in Weil's Foundations. Intersection multiplicities in which one of ...
[15]
Coherent sheaf - Wikipedia
The fundamental technical tool in algebraic geometry is the cohomology theory of coherent sheaves. Although it was introduced only in the 1950s, many ...
[16]
Algebraic K-theory - Wikipedia
K-theory was discovered in the late 1950s by Alexander Grothendieck in his study of intersection theory on algebraic varieties. In the modern language, ...
[17]
[PDF] Proceedings 3 - International Mathematical Union
It was in- troduced by Grothendieck in order to obtain a cohomology theory which one could use to state Weil's analogues to the Riemann Hypo- thesis for higher ...
[18]
[PDF] Algebraic Topology - Cornell Mathematics
This book was written to be a readable introduction to algebraic topology with rather broad coverage of the subject. The viewpoint is quite classical in ...
[19]
[PDF] Notes on 4-manifolds - UChicago Math
Jan 30, 2019 · Intersection forms. If W is a closed, oriented 4-manifold, the intersection pairing on H2(W;Z) is the quadratic form defined by cup product:.
[20]
[PDF] The stable classification of 4-manifolds Notes from the lectures of ...
4 The Intersection form of a 2k-manifold. 7. The intersection form on a closed oriented 4k-dimensional manifold M is defined to be: Free(H2k(M)) ⊗ Free(H2k ...
[21]
[PDF] Algorithms in 4-manifold topology - School of Mathematics & Statistics
note that it follows from Poincaré duality that the intersection form is unimodular if and only if. X is closed or if ∂X is an integral homology 3-sphere.
[22]
[PDF] Four Manifold Topology
Feb 13, 2019 · A closed smooth 4-manifold X is called irreducible if in any smooth splitting X = X1#X2 one. Xi is a homotopy sphere. For d ≥ 4, the surface V ( ...
[23]
[PDF] Cup product and intersections - Berkeley Math
Mar 15, 2011 · This requires the following lemmas about intersection theory in X × X. Recall first that for any topological spaces X and Y there is a homology.
[24]
[PDF] Cup product and intersection - Brandeis
Mar 28, 2005 · The theorem says roughly that on a manifold, cup product is Poincaré dual to intersection of submanifolds. In my opinion, this is the most ...
[25]
[PDF] Basic Properties of K3 Surfaces
Feb 5, 2020 · Thus, the intersection form has rank 22, even type, and the dimension of the positive and negative eigenspaces are 3 and 19 respectively. Thus, ...Missing: parity | Show results with:parity
[26]
[PDF] Lecture 8 Essential Example: the K3 Surface - SUSTech Topology
Apr 29, 2021 · Let X be a K3 surface. Then. (a) H2(X;Z) = 22;. (b) QX = (−E8)⊕2 ⊕ H⊕3. Proof. We only prove (a), while the proof of (b) uses some ...
[27]
[PDF] Rochlin's theorem
Let M be a closed, oriented smooth spin. 4-manifold. Then the signature of M is divisible by 16. The theorem is also sharp: an example of a spin 4-manifold with.
[28]
[PDF] Rochlin's theorem on signatures of spin 4-manifolds via algebraic ...
If M4 is a smooth spin closed 4-manifold, then σ(M4) ≡ 0 (mod 16). Remark ... such that ∞ ∉ Mk (including the empty manifold) modulo the equivalence relation of.
[29]
On Equivalence Classes of Cycles in an Algebraic Variety - jstor
3, November, 1956. Printed in U.S.A.. ON EQUIVALENCE CLASSES OF CYCLES IN AN ALGEBRAIC VARIETY*. BY WET-LIANG CHOW. (Received December 30, ...Missing: original | Show results with:original
[30]
Section 43.24 (0B0D): Moving Lemma—The Stacks project
The moving lemma states that given an r-cycle \alpha and an s-cycle \beta there exists \alpha ', \alpha ' \sim _{rat} \alpha such that \alpha ' andMissing: XB YX × Y smooth
[31]
https://math.stanford.edu/~vakil/245/245class17.pdf
[32]
https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1641510/self-intersection-number-in-projective-space
[33]
[PDF] Fulton.Laz.Positivity.Excess.Intersection.pdf
We give several simple applications and related results, including a lower bound for the of a proper intersection, generalizing a classical result for curves on ...
[34]
Section 43.26 (0B0G): Chow rings—The Stacks project
- **Definition of Chow Ring**: For a nonsingular projective variety $X$, the Chow ring $CH^*(X)$ is defined with groups $CH^c(X) = CH_{\dim X - c}(X)$, where $CH^c(X)$ is the Chow group of codimension $c$ cycles, using rational equivalence.
[35]
[PDF] INTERSECTION THEORY CLASS 17
Nov 17, 2004 · Answer: Excess intersection formula. For any α ∈ AkY00, i! (α) = ce(q∗E) ∩ (i0)!
[36]
Self-intersection number in Projective Space - Math Stack Exchange
Feb 5, 2016 · Consider a line L in the projective plane CP2: it has self-intersection number 1 since all other lines cross it once: one can push L off to L′, ...Self-intersection number of a complex curve in complex projective ...Geometric motivation for negative self-intersectionMore results from math.stackexchange.com
[37]
[PDF] on the arithmetic self-intersection number of the dualizing sheaf for ...
In this article we improve the upper bound for the arithmetic self-intersection number of the dualizing sheaf of the minimal regular model for the Fermat curves ...
[38]
[PDF] Intersection Theory
More specifically, the basic goal is to understand intersections of subvarieties in a given ambient variety.
[39]
[PDF] 18.726 Algebraic Geometry - MIT OpenCourseWare
Hirzebruch noticed that the Euler characteristic aspect of Riemann-Roch could be general ized to handle arbitrary vector bundles on arbitrary smooth varieties ...
[40]
[PDF] FOUNDATIONS OF ALGEBRAIC GEOMETRY CLASSES 49 AND 50
May 23, 2006 · I'll start by defining the blow-up using the universal property. The disadvantage of starting here is that this definition won't obviously be ...
[41]
[PDF] INTERSECTION THEORY CLASS 8
Oct 18, 2004 · INTERSECTION THEORY CLASS 8. RAVI VAKIL. CONTENTS. 1. Proof of key result of Chapter 2. 1. 1.1. Crash course in blowing up. 1. 1.2. Back to the ...
[42]
https://www.numdam.org/article/PMIHES_1990__72__93_0.pdf
[43]
A general homological Kleiman--Bertini theorem - MSP
Speiser's result implies that the generic intersection gW ∩Y, for g ∈ U, is also smooth. We also give a more general homological version of this. For simplicity ...
[44]
Curve-Counting and Mirror Symmetry
For example, someone wishing to study the number of conics passing through five points in the plane might form a moduli space ℳ in which each point corresponds ...
[45]
[PDF] Symplectic Gromov-Witten invariants
Gromov-Witten (GW) invariants have a rather interesting and involved history, with connections to gauge theory, quantum field theory, symplectic geometry and.
[46]
[PDF] Arithmetic intersection theory - Numdam
Feb 2, 2020 · This paper describes an intersection theory for arithmetic varieties which generalizes the work of Arakelov and others on arithmetic ...
[47]
[PDF] arXiv:1809.06791v2 [math.NT] 3 Apr 2019
Apr 3, 2019 · EXPLICIT ARITHMETIC INTERSECTION THEORY AND COMPUTATION OF NÉRON-TATE HEIGHTS ... Tate pairing on polarized abelian varieties, Ann. of Math ...
[48]
[PDF] Triangulated categories of motives over a field.
Triangulated categories of motives over a field. 1 Introduction. (k) generated by “motives” of smooth varieties.
[49]
[PDF] Lecture 14 Comparing K-theory and the Chow groups
There is a “Chern character” map from K-theory to Chow. The Grothendieck–. Riemann–Roch theorem implies that it becomes an inverse after tensoring with. Q.