{"id":481,"date":"2006-10-26T20:40:01","date_gmt":"2006-10-27T00:40:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=481"},"modified":"2017-09-24T19:00:24","modified_gmt":"2017-09-24T23:00:24","slug":"finite-generation-of-the-canonical-ring","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=481","title":{"rendered":"Finite Generation of the Canonical Ring"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>The last few weeks have seen the appearance of two papers giving very different proofs of a quite important result in algebraic geometry, resolving a question that had been open for a very long time, and in the process helping to make progress in the classification of higher dimensional projective algebraic varieties.  Readers should be warned that this doesn&#8217;t have anything to do with physics, and my knowledge of this kind of mathematics is highly shaky, so I&#8217;m relying largely on second-hand information from people much better informed than myself.<\/p>\n<p>The theorem in question concerns the &#8220;canonical ring&#8221; of a smooth projective algebraic variety X, which is the graded ring R(X) defined by<br \/>\n$$R(X)=\\oplus_{n=0}^\\infty H^0(X, nK)$$<br \/>\nHere K is the canonical line bundle (top exterior power of the cotangent bundle) of X, nK is its n&#8217;th tensor power, and $H^0(X, nK)$  is the space of holomorphic sections of the bundle nK.  This is also called the <a href=\"http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Pluricanonical_ring\">pluricanonical ring.<\/a><\/p>\n<p>The new theorem says that this graded ring is finitely generated, and this implies quite a few facts about projective algebraic varieties of any dimension.  In particular it implies the main goal of the &#8220;minimal model program&#8221; (also known as the <a href=\"http:\/\/www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk\/Biographies\/Mori.html\">Mori<\/a> program) for classifying higher dimensional algebraic varieties.<\/p>\n<p>A proof of this theorem was <a href=\"http:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/math.AG\/9908078\">claimed<\/a> back in 1999 by Hajime Tsuji, but it appears that there are problems with this proof.  The arXiv preprint went through many revisions, but was never refereed and published.  A couple weeks ago, a group of four algebraic geometers (Caucher Birkar, Paolo Cascini, Christopher Hacon and James McKernan) posted a <a href=\"http:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/math.AG\/0610203\">preprint<\/a> on the arXiv claiming a proof.  Yesterday, Yum-Tong Siu, a well-known complex geometer from Harvard, posted another <a href=\"http:\/\/arxiv.org\/abs\/math.AG\/0610740\">preprint<\/a>, giving a very different, more analytical, proof of this theorem.  Siu notes that he has been lecturing on this proof for over a year, first at last year&#8217;s Seattle <a href=\"http:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=226\">conference on Algebraic Geometry<\/a>.<\/p>\n<p>The mathematicians involved in creating these two proofs are well-known experts, and it seems likely that both proofs are correct.  Given that there are two of a quite different nature, it now seems extremely likely that this theorem has been proved.<\/p>\n<p>For more detailed explanations of this result and its implications, I&#8217;m afraid that you&#8217;re likely to require someone who knows a lot more about algebraic geometry than I do. Perhaps some of my more expert readers here can help out.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The last few weeks have seen the appearance of two papers giving very different proofs of a quite important result in algebraic geometry, resolving a question that had been open for a very long time, and in the process helping &hellip; <a href=\"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/?p=481\">Continue reading <span class=\"meta-nav\">&rarr;<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=481"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/481\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":9554,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/481\/revisions\/9554"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.math.columbia.edu\/~woit\/wordpress\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}