THE LIPMAN–ZARISKI CONJECTURE IN LOW GENUS
PATRICK GRAF

arXiv:1801.05753v1 [math.AG] 17 Jan 2018

Cadê vióla? Cadê meu bem?
Abstract. We prove the Lipman–Zariski conjecture for complex surface singularities of genus one, and also for those of genus two whose link is not a
rational homology sphere. As an application, we characterize complex 2-tori as
the only normal compact complex surfaces whose smooth locus has trivial tangent bundle. We also deduce that all complex-projective surfaces with locally
free and generically nef tangent sheaf are smooth, and we classify them.

1. Introduction
The Lipman–Zariski conjecture asserts that a complex algebraic variety X with
locally free tangent sheaf TX is necessarily smooth. Here TX = H om Ω1X , OX
is the dual of the sheaf of Kähler differentials. It is known that such an X is
at least normal [Lip65, Thm. 3]. Moreover, if the conjecture fails then there is
a counterexample with isolated singularities [Bec78, Sec. 8, p. 519]. Finally, the
conjecture holds if the singular locus of X has codimension ≥ 3 [Fle88, Corollary].
Taken together, these results show that it suffices to consider the case of normal
surface singularities.
A natural approach to the Lipman–Zariski conjecture is to study it under additional assumptions on the singularities of X. A well-known and interesting class of
singularities is given by the class of rational singularities. For these, the conjecture is
already known in any dimension, since rational Gorenstein singularities are canonical
and the conjecture is true even more generally for log canonical singularities [Dru14,
Thm. 1.1], [GK14, Cor. 1.3]. In this paper we deal with surface singularities that
are “not too far” from being rational, in the sense that their (geometric) genus is
low. Recall that the genus pg (X, 0) of a surface singularity (X, 0) is the dimension
of R1 f∗ OY , for a resolution f : Y → X (see Definition 2.3).
Theorem 1.1 (Lipman–Zariski conjecture in low genus). Let (X, 0) be a normal
complex surface singularity. Assume that either
(1.1.1) pg (X, 0) ≤ 1, or
(1.1.2) pg (X, 0) = 2 and for some log resolution f : Y → X, the exceptional locus
E = Exc(f ) is not a tree of rational curves.
Then the Lipman–Zariski conjecture holds for (X, 0). That is, if TX is free, then
(X, 0) is smooth.
Remark. The condition on E in (1.1.2) does not depend on the choice of resolution,
since it is equivalent to the link of (X, 0) not being a rational homology sphere (see
Proposition 3.3).
Date: January 17, 2018.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 14B05, 14J17, 32S25, 13N05.
Key words and phrases. Lipman–Zariski conjecture, surface singularities, compact surfaces with
trivial tangent sheaf, surfaces with generically nef tangent sheaf.
1

2

PATRICK GRAF

Remark. There exist Gorenstein surface singularities of genus 1 which are not log
canonical, hence to which [Dru14, GK14] do not apply. On the other hand, somewhat
surprisingly at first sight, by contracting a tree of rational curves one can obtain
singularities of arbitrarily high genus. Examples of this type are given in Section 6.
Corollaries. As an application, we study a global version of the Lipman–Zariski
conjecture. Namely, assume that X is a compact complex surface with globally free
tangent sheaf. Does it follow that X is smooth? Note that we may equivalently
assume X to be a normal compact complex surface whose smooth locus Xreg has
trivial tangent bundle.
Partial answers have been given by Ballico [Bal06, Thm. 2] and Biswas–Gurjar–
Kolte [BGK14, Thm. 1.2]. Our main result enables us to settle this question completely, even under weaker assumptions. Recall that a (reduced and connected)
compact complex space X is called almost homogeneous if its automorphism group
acts with a dense open orbit. This is equivalent to the tangent sheaf TX being
globally generated at some point.
Corollary 1.2 (Global LZ conjecture, I). Let X be an almost homogeneous compact
complex surface such that TX is locally free. Then X is smooth.
An immediate consequence is
Corollary 1.3 (Global LZ conjecture, II). Let X be a compact complex surface such
⊕2
. Then X is a complex 2-torus.
that TX ∼
= OX
Remark. The almost homogeneous smooth compact complex surfaces have been
classified by Potters [Pot69]. Also, a compact Kähler manifold (of arbitrary dimension) with trivial tangent bundle is necessarily a complex torus by [Wan54, Cor. 2].
This fails if the Kähler condition is dropped, the historically first example being the
Iwasawa manifold. It also fails in positive characteristic [MS87].
If X is projective, we can weaken the assumptions on TX further. Recall that
a vector bundle E on a normal projective variety X of dimension n is said to be
generically nef (with respect to some polarization) if there exist ample line bundles
H1 , . . . , Hn−1 on X with the following property: Let C ⊂ X be a curve cut out by
general elements of the linear system |mi Hi |, for mi ≫ 0. Then the restriction E |C
is nef. Generic ampleness is defined similarly.
Corollary 1.4 (Global LZ conjecture, III). Let X be a complex-projective surface
such that TX is locally free and generically nef. Then X is smooth. More precisely,
one of the following holds.
(1.4.1) X ∼
= P2 .
(1.4.2) X is a (possibly empty) blowup of a rational ruled surface.
(1.4.3) X is a (possibly empty) blowup of a ruled surface over an elliptic curve C
such that all fibres of the map X → C are reduced.
(1.4.4) X is an abelian or a bi-elliptic surface.
(1.4.5) X is a projective K3 surface or an Enriques surface.
Conversely, for the surfaces in the above list, the tangent bundle is: (1.4.1) ample,
(1.4.2) generically ample, (1.4.4) nef, (1.4.3) and (1.4.5) generically nef.
Under the stronger assumption of generic ampleness, the first part of Corollary 1.4
has been proved by Ballico [Bal06, Thm. 1].
2. Notation and basic facts
We work over the field of complex numbers C. The sheaf of Kähler differentials
of an algebraic variety or reduced complex space X is denoted Ω1X . The tangent

THE LIPMAN–ZARISKI CONJECTURE IN LOW GENUS

3

‹
‹


sheaf, its dual, is denoted TX := H om Ω1X , OX . If Z ⊂ X is a closed subset,
then TX (− log Z) ⊂ TX denotes the subsheaf of derivations stabilizing the ideal
sheaf of Z (geometrically, this means vector fields tangent to Z at every point of Z).
The canonical sheaf of X is denoted ωX . If X is normal and pV∈ N, the sheaf of
reflexive differential p-forms is defined to be the double dual of p Ω1X . We denote

Vp 1 
[p]
ΩX , and it is isomorphic to i∗ ΩpX ◦ , where i : X ◦ ֒→ X is the
it by ΩX :=
inclusion of the smooth locus.
Definition 2.1 (Resolutions). A resolution of singularities of an algebraic variety or
reduced complex space X is a proper birational/bimeromorphic morphism f : Y →
X, where Y is smooth.
(2.1.1) We say that the resolution is projective if f is a projective morphism. That
is, f factors as Y ֒→ X × Pn → X, where the first map is a closed embedding
and the second one is the projection.
(2.1.2) A log resolution is a resolution whose exceptional locus E = Exc(f ) is a
simple normal crossings divisor, i.e. a normal crossings divisor with smooth
components.
(2.1.3) A resolution is said to be strong if it is an isomorphism over the smooth
locus of X.
Fact 2.2 (Functorial resolutions). Let X be a normal algebraic variety or complex
space. Then there exists a projective1 strong log resolution f : Y → X, called the
functorial resolution, such that f∗ TY (− log E) is reflexive. This means that for any
vector field ξ ∈ Γ (U, TX ), U ⊂ X open, there is a unique vector field

ξe ∈ Γ f −1 (U ), TY (− log E)

which agrees with ξ wherever f is an isomorphism.

Fact 2.2 is proven in [Kol07, Thms. 3.36 and 3.45], but concerning the reflexivity of
f∗ TY (− log E) see also [GK14, Thm. 4.2]. If X is a surface, the functorial resolution
is also known as the minimal good resolution. Mapping ξ 7→ ξe gives a sheaf map
∼
TX −→ f∗ TY (− log E), which by adjointness [Har77, Ch. II, Sec. 5, p. 110] can also
be regarded as a map of sheaves on Y ,
f ∗ : f ∗ TX −→ TY (− log E).

We will call both maps the pullback map on vector fields.
Definition 2.3 (Geometric genus). Let (X, 0) be a normal surface singularity, and
let f : Y → X be a resolution. The (geometric) genus pg (X, 0) is defined to be
the dimension of the stalk (R1 f∗ OY )0 . Alternatively, choosing the representative
X of the germ (X, 0) to be Stein, pg (X, 0) := dimC H1 (Y, OY ). This definition is
independent of the choice of f .
3. Proof of Theorem 1.1
Let (X, 0) be a normal surface singularity and f : Y → X a log resolution with
reduced exceptional divisor E ⊂ Y . Our proof relies on the following special case
of a result by Steenbrink and van Straten, which in turn ultimately stems from the
Steenbrink vanishing theorem [Ste85, Thm. 2.b)].
Theorem 3.1 ([SvS85, Cor. 1.4]). The map
.
[1]
d
ΩX f Ω1 −−−
−→ ωX /f∗ ωY (E)
∗ Y

induced by the exterior derivative is injective.



1If X is a complex space, then projectivity of f is only guaranteed over compact subsets of X.

4

PATRICK GRAF

Lemma 3.2 (Trees of rational curves). Let C be a proper connected reduced curve
with simple normal crossings. The following are equivalent.
(3.2.1) C is a tree of rational curves, that is, every irreducible component of C is
isomorphic to P1 and the dual graph of C does not contain any cycles.
(3.2.2) H1 (C, OC ) = 0.
(3.2.3) H1 (C, Q) = 0.
Sn
Proof. Write`
C = i=1 Ci for the decomposition into irreducible components and
n
let ν : C ν = i=1 Ci → C be the normalization map. By the long exact sequence
associated to
M
0 −→ OC −→ ν∗ OC ν −→
CP −→ 0,
P ∈Csg

we deduce that

h1 (C, OC ) =

(3.2.4)
1

n
X

h1 (Ci , OCi ) + #(Csg ) − n + 1 .
|
{z
}
i=1
≥ 0, C connected

Hence if h (C, OC ) is zero, then each Ci is rational and #(Csg ) = n − 1, that is, C
is a tree. Conversely, if C is a tree of rational curves, then h1 (C, OC ) = 0 by (3.2.4).
This shows that (3.2.1) ⇔ (3.2.2).
For “(3.2.1) ⇔ (3.2.3)”, one argues similarly, using instead the sequence
M
0 −→ QC −→ ν∗ QC ν −→
QP −→ 0,
P ∈Csg

where QC denotes the constant sheaf.



Proposition 3.3 (Exceptional trees of rational curves). Let (X, 0) be a normal
surface singularity. The following are equivalent.
(3.3.1) There exists a log resolution f : Y → X such that E is a tree of rational
curves.
(3.3.2) For any log resolution f : Y → X, E is a tree of rational curves.
(3.3.3) The link L of (X, 0) is a rational homology sphere.
Recall that a 3-manifold M is said to be a rational homology sphere if
(

Q, i = 0 or 3,
3
∼
Hi (M, Q) = Hi S , Q =
0, otherwise

for all 0 ≤ i ≤ 3.

Proof of Proposition 3.3. Let f : Y → X be any log resolution, with E = f −1 (0).
We have a natural continuous map L → E. By [Mum61, p. 235], the induced map
H1 (L, Z) → H1 (E, Z) is surjective with finite kernel. Hence H1 (L, Q) → H1 (E, Q)
is an isomorphism. By Lemma 3.2, it follows that E is a tree of rational curves if
and only if H1 (L, Q) = 0. Since in any case L is a compact connected orientable
3-manifold, H1 (L, Q) = 0 in turn is equivalent to L being a rational homology
sphere.

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Let {v1 , v2 } be a basis of TX , i.e. v1 , v2 ∈ H0 (X, TX ) give
[1]
⊕2 ∼
an isomorphism OX
−→ TX . Let {α1 , α2 } be the dual basis of ΩX , defined by
αi (vj ) = δij . Furthermore, we may and will assume that f : Y → X is the functorial
resolution.
Claim 3.4. We have dim ωX /f∗ ωY (E) ≤ 1.

THE LIPMAN–ZARISKI CONJECTURE IN LOW GENUS

5

Proof. Consider the short exact sequence
.
0 −→ f∗ ωY (E) f∗ ωY −→ ωX /f∗ ωY −→ ωX /f∗ ωY (E) −→ 0.
|
{z
}
=:K

By [KM98, Prop. 4.45(6)], we have dim ωX /f∗ ωY = pg (X, 0). Hence in case (1.1.1),
we are done. In case (1.1.2), it suffices to show K 6= 0. For this, consider the residue
sequence
0 −→ ωY −→ ωY (E) −→ ωE −→ 0.
1
Since R f∗ ωY = 0 by Grauert–Riemenschneider vanishing [Kol07, Thm. 2.20.1],
K = H0 (E, ωE ). This is Serre dual to H1 (E, OE ), as E is Cohen–Macaulay. By
Lemma 3.2, the latter space is nonzero.

By Claim 3.4, the images of dα1 and dα2 in ωX /f∗ ωY (E) are linearly dependent.
Possibly interchanging α1 and α2 , we may assume that there is a relation
dα1 + λ · dα2 = 0 ∈ ωX /f ω (E)
∗ Y

for some λ ∈ C. This means that d(α1 + λα2 ) extends to Y with logarithmic poles.
Then by Theorem 3.1, α1 +λα2 extends to Y without poles. Setting v2′ := −λv1 +v2 ,
the basis {v1 , v2′ } of TX has as its dual basis {α1 + λα2 , α2 }. Replacing v2 by v2′ ,
we may assume the following.
Additional Assumption 3.5. The reflexive 1-form α1 extends to Y without poles.

Now vi and α1 extend to vei ∈ H0 (Y, TY ) and α
e1 ∈ H0 Y, Ω1Y , respectively. We
have that α
e1 (e
v1 ) = 1 on Y \ E, hence this holds on all of Y . It follows that the
vector field ve1 does not have any
v1 = 0} ⊂ α
e1 (e
v1 ) = 0 = ∅.
 zeros, since {e
But ve1 ∈ H0 Y, TY (− log E) , that is, ve1 is tangent to each irreducible component
Ei ⊂ E at every point of Ei . In particular, ve1 vanishes at the singular points of E.
It follows that E is a smooth irreducible curve (or empty, in which case (X, 0) is
smooth and we are done). Furthermore it carries the nowhere vanishing vector field
ve1 |E , i.e. E is an elliptic curve. Writing down the discrepancy formula
KY = f ∗ KX + a(E, X) · E

and intersecting with E, we get 0 = (KY + E) · E = (a(E, X) + 1) · E 2 . Hence
a(E, X) = −1, as E 2 < 0, and thus (X, 0) is a log canonical singularity. From here,
there are several ways to conclude that (X, 0) is in fact smooth:
◦ For log canonical singularities, the Lipman–Zariski conjecture is known by [Dru14,
Thm. 1.1] or by [GK14, Cor. 1.3].

◦ In the surface case, the above result is essentially contained in [SvS85]: We have
ωX /f ω (E) = 0 by the definition of log canonical singularities, and then Theo∗ Y
rem 3.1 tells us that all reflexive 1-forms on X extend to Y . Now one may argue
as in [SvS85, (1.6)].
◦ Alternatively, there is also a completely elementary argument, which we give in
Proposition 3.6 below.

Using either of these arguments, the proof of Theorem 1.1 is finished.
Proposition 3.6 (Elementary case of the LZ conjecture). Let (X, 0) be an ndimensional normal isolated log canonical singularity such that for the functorial
resolution f : Y → X, the exceptional locus is irreducible. Then the Lipman–Zariski
conjecture holds for (X, 0).
Proof. Let E ⊂ Y be the exceptional locus of f , a smooth projective variety. We
make a case distinction according to whether the tangent sheaf TE is globally generated or not.

6

PATRICK GRAF

Case 1: TE is not globally generated. Let F ( TE be the subsheaf generated
by H0 (E, TE ). The restriction map ρ : TY (− log E) → TE is surjective, hence G :=
ρ−1 (F ) ( TY (− log E) also is a proper subsheaf. By construction, the pullback
map of vector fields TX → f∗ TY (− log E) factors via f∗ G . By adjointness, also
f ∗ : f ∗ TX → TY (− log E) factors via G . Since G is a proper subsheaf, this shows
⊕n
is free, taking determinants we obtain a
that f ∗ is not surjective. As TX ∼
= OX
map

(3.6.1)
det(f ∗ ) : OY → OY − (KY + E)

which is likewise non-surjective (hence zero) along E. It therefore factors via a map

OY −→ OY − (KY + 2E) ,

which is furthermore isomorphic outside of E. This immediately implies that the
discrepancy a(E, X) ≤ −2, contradicting the assumption that (X, 0) is log canonical.
Case 2: TE is globally generated. The existence of the map det(f ∗ ) from (3.6.1)
shows that a(E, X) ≤ −1, which implies a(E, X) = −1 as (X, 0) is assumed to be
log canonical. Then KE = (KY + E)|E = (f ∗ KX )|E = 0 and by Lemma 3.7 below,
⊕(n−1)
is trivial. Consider now the residue sequence for E ⊂ Y and its
TE ∼
= OE
restriction to E,
(3.6.2)

0

/ Ω1
Y

/ Ω1 (log E)
Y

0


/ Ω1
E


/ Ω1 (log E)
Y

E

/ OE

/0

/ OE

/ 0.

By [GK14, Lemma 3.5], the extension class of the first line of (3.6.2) is c1 (OY (E)) ∈
H1 Y, Ω1Y . The extension class of the second line is then c1 (OE (E)) ∈ H1 E, Ω1E ,
which is nonzero by the Negativity Lemma [KM98, Lemma 3.39]. Thus the sequences
in (3.6.2) do not split. In particular, the dual of the lower-row sequence
0

/ OE

/ TY (− log E)

ρE
E

⊕(n−1)
/ TE ∼
= OE

/0

does not split. It follows that the map of global sections

H0 (E, ρE ) : H0 E, TY (− log E) E → H0 (E, TE )

is not surjective. The rest of the argument proceeds exactly as in Case 1: Let
F ( TE be the proper subsheaf generated by the image of H0 (E, ρE ), and set
G := ρ−1 (F ). The pullback map factorizes as TX → f∗ G → f∗ TY (− log E). It
follows that a(E, X) ≤ −2 and we arrive at a contradiction.

Lemma 3.7 (Criterion for triviality). Let X be a projective variety and E a rank r
vector bundle on X with trivial determinant, det E ∼
= OX . If E is globally generated
⊕r
at some point x ∈ X, then E ∼
.
= OX
Proof. Taker sections s1 , . . . , sr ∈ H0 (X, E ) which generate E at x, i.e. the images of
the si in Ex mx Ex form a basis of that vector space. Then s1 ∧· · ·∧sr ∈ H0 (X, det E )
is nonzero, hence nowhere vanishing. It follows that the sections si generate E
⊕r
everywhere. The map OX
→ E defined by them is thus an isomorphism.

4. Proof of Corollary 1.4
Let X be a projective surface with locally free and generically nef tangent sheaf.
We want to show that X is smooth and classify the possibilities for X. Since the
proof of smoothness involves some nested case distinctions, it may be a little hard
to follow. For the reader’s convenience, the structure of the argument is therefore
depicted in Fig. 1.

THE LIPMAN–ZARISKI CONJECTURE IN LOW GENUS

Consider h0 X, R1 f∗ OS

7



· · · = 1: done by (1.1.1) – Case A
· · · = 2: Consider |Xsg |
· · · = 1: Consider Exc(f )
. . . not a tree of rational curves: done by (1.1.2) – Case B
. . . tree of rational curves: get −2 = KS · F = 0 E – Case C
· · · = 2: done by (1.1.1) – Case D
Figure 1. Structure of Step 1 in the proof of Corollary 1.4
Step 1: X is smooth. By [Lip65, Thm. 3], X is normal. We may assume that
X is not smooth, otherwise we are done. Let f : S → X be the minimal resolution,
i.e. KS is f -nef (equivalently, f does not contract any (−1)-curves).

‹

Claim 4.1. The Kodaira dimension κ(S) = −∞, and κ(X, KX ) ≤ 0. If H0 (X, ωX ) 6=
0, then ωX ∼
= OX .
Proof. Since TX is generically nef and ωX = det(TX ) , we have KX ·H ≤ 0 for some
ample divisor H on X. Consequently, κ(S) ≤ κ(X, KX ) ≤ 0. If κ(X, KX ) = −∞,
we are done. If κ(X, KX ) = 0, then KX · H ≥ 0, so KX · H = 0 and KX is torsion.
By [KM98, Cor. 4.3], we have
KS = f ∗ KX + E ∼Q E
with E ≤ 0 an anti-effective f -exceptional divisor. If E = 0, then the singularities of
X are canonical, hence X is smooth [Dru14, Thm. 1.1], [GK14, Cor. 1.3]. So, E 0
and we again arrive at κ(S) = κ(S, E) = −∞. The last statement is clear.

Claim 4.2. The Leray spectral sequence associated to f∗ OS yields a five-term sequence

0 −→ H1 (X, OX ) −→ H1 (S, OS ) −→ H0 X, R1 f∗ OS −→
| {z }
|
{z
}
dim ≤ 1

2

⇒ dim ≤ 2

2

−→ H (X, OX ) −→ H (S, OS ),
| {z }
| {z }
dim ≤ 1

=0


where the dimensions are as shown. In particular, h0 X, R1 f∗ OS ≤ 2.

Proof. By Claim 4.1 and Serre duality on both S and X, we have h2 (S, OS ) =
h0 (S, ωS ) = 0 and h2 (X, OX ) = h0 (X, ωX ) ≤ 1. It remains to show that h1 (S, OS ) ≤
1. The surface S is a blowup of either P2 or a ruled surface over a curve C, say of
genus g. In the first case, H1 (S, OS ) = 0 and we are done. In the second case, let
π : S → C be the natural map, and pick a general sufficiently ample divisor H on
X. Let HS be its strict transform on S. Since H misses the singular points of X,
we see that HS ∼
= TX H is nef. The differential of π restricted
= H and that TS HS ∼
to HS ,
(dπ) HS : TS HS −→ (π ∗ TC ) HS ,
shows that (π ∗ TC ) HS = (π|HS )∗ TC contains a line bundle of non-negative degree,
hence has non-negative degree itself. Consequently, deg TC = 2 − 2g ≥ 0, which
implies g ≤ 1. But h1 (S, OS ) = h1 (C, OC ) = g. This finishes the proof.


8

PATRICK GRAF

Since the singularities of X are isolated, the following formula holds:
X

h0 X, R1 f∗ OS =
pg (X, x).
x∈Xsg

Furthermore, rational singularities cannot occur by (1.1.1). This leaves us with the
following possibilities (cf. Fig. 1):
◦ Case A: X has exactly one singular point, which is of genus one.
◦ Case B: X has exactly one singular point, which is of genus two. Exc(f ) is not a
tree of rational curves.
◦ Case C: Same as Case B, but Exc(f ) is a tree of rational curves.
◦ Case D: X has exactly two singular points. Both of them are of genus one.
In Cases A and D, (1.1.1) implies that X is smooth, and we are done. In Case B we
use (1.1.2) instead. Case C will be excluded by a more careful analysis.
Indeed, note that by Claim 4.2, it can happen that h0 X, R1 f∗ OS = 2 only if
both H1 (S, OS ) and H2 (X, OX ) are one-dimensional. The non-vanishing of H1 (S, OS )
means that S is a blowup of a ruled surface over an elliptic curve C, hence comes
equipped with a natural map π : S → C. On the other hand, by Claim 4.1 the
non-vanishing H2 (X, OX ) 6= 0 implies ωX ∼
= OX , hence KS has a representative

(not necessarily effective) whose support is contained in Exc(f ). But π Exc(f ) is
a point, since every component of Exc(f ) is a rational curve, while C is elliptic.
This clearly implies that KS · F = 0, where F ⊂ S is a general fibre of π. On the
other hand, F ∼
= P1 and F 2 = 0, so KS · F = −2 by adjunction. We arrive at a
contradiction, showing that Case C in fact cannot occur. This finishes the proof of
the first part of Corollary 1.4, namely that X is smooth.
Step 2: Classification. It remains to classify all smooth projective surfaces X
with TX generically nef. To this end, let X be such a surface and let f : X → X0 be
a minimal model, i.e. X0 does not contain any (−1)-curves. Since TX is generically
nef, we have κ(X) ≤ 0.
◦ If κ(X) = −∞, then either X0 ∼
= P2 or π0 : X0 → C is a ruled surface over a
curve C of genus g. By the argument in the proof of Claim 4.2, it follows that
g ≤ 1. If X0 ∼
= P2 , then either f is an isomorphism and we are in Case (1.4.1), or
f is not an isomorphism and Case (1.4.2) occurs. If X0 is ruled and g = 0, we are
likewise in Case (1.4.2). If g = 1 and π : X → X0 → C has a non-reduced fibre,
let H ⊂ X be a general sufficiently ample divisor. In every point where H meets
a non-reduced component of a fibre of π, the map
(dπ)

H

: TX

H

−→ (π ∗ TC )

H

∼
= OH

is not surjective. This shows that TX H is not nef, as it has a line bundle quotient of negative degree. Consequently, all fibres of π are reduced and we are in
Case (1.4.3).
◦ If κ(X) = 0, we claim that X = X0 is already minimal. Otherwise, as KX0 ∼Q 0,
the canonical divisor of X would be effective and nonzero. Then KX · H >
0 for any H ample on X, contradicting the generic nefness of TX . By the
Kodaira–Enriques classification [BHPV04, Table 10 on p. 244], this accounts for
Cases (1.4.4) and (1.4.5).
Conversely, we need to show that the above surfaces enjoy the positivity properties
claimed in Corollary 1.4.
◦ Case (1.4.1): If X ∼
= P2 , the tangent bundle is ample by the Euler sequence.

THE LIPMAN–ZARISKI CONJECTURE IN LOW GENUS

9

◦ Case (1.4.2): Let π0 : X0 → P1 be a rational ruled surface such that X is a blowup
of X0 . Let C0 ⊂ X0 be a section of π0 with C02 = −n ≤ 0, and let F ⊂ X0 be a
fibre of π0 . Consider the relative tangent sheaf sequence of π : X → X0 → P1 ,
0 −→ TX/P1 −→ TX −→ Q −→ 0,
∗

where Q ⊂ π TP1 is the image of dπ. Since a general sufficiently ample H ⊂ X
misses the finitely many singular points of the torsion-free sheaf TX/P1 , restricting
to H preserves injectivity:
(4.2.1)

0 −→ TX/P1

H

−→ TX

H

−→ Q

H

−→ 0.

We will show that for a suitable choice of H, both the kernel and the cokernel in
(4.2.1) are ample line bundles.
Clearly TX/P1 and f ∗ TX0 /P1 agree outside the f -exceptional set. Also the line
bundle TX0 /P1 is easily calculated to equal 2 C0 + nF , in divisor notation. Hence
TX/P1 equals f ∗ (2 C0 + nF ) + E, for some (not necessarily effective) f -exceptional
divisor E on X. Let A be ample on X0 , and set Hℓ := H + ℓ · f ∗ A for ℓ ≥ 0. Then

c1 (TX/P1 ) · Hℓ = deg TX/P1 H + ℓ · (2 C0 + nF ) · A,
|
{z
}
{z
}
|
>0

indep. of ℓ

which is positive for ℓ ≫ 0. We see that up to replacing H by Hℓ , the line bundle
TX/P1 H is ample.
For Q H , the argument is similar. The sheaf Q agrees with π ∗ TP1 outside the
f -exceptional set, so it equals f ∗ (2 F ) + E ′ for some f -exceptional divisor E ′ .
Therefore

c1 (Q) · Hℓ = deg Q H + ℓ · (2 F ) · A
| {z }
| {z }
indep. of ℓ

>0

is positive for ℓ ≫ 0.
Picking ℓ sufficiently large for both of the above arguments to work, the sheaf
TX H is exhibited by (4.2.1) as an extension of ample bundles. Thus it is ample
itself [Laz04, Prop. 6.1.13].
◦ Case (1.4.3): This case is completely analogous to the previous one, hence we only
give a sketch of the proof. We keep the same notation as before. The analogue of
(4.2.1) reads
0 −→ TX/C

H

−→ TX

H

−→ (π ∗ TC ) H −→ 0.
| {z }
∼
=OH

To justify surjectivity on the right-hand side, note that by assumption the fibres
of π are reduced and
 so there are only finitely many x ∈ X which are singular
points of π −1 π(x) . These are exactly the points where dπ fails to be surjective,
and they are missed by the general ample divisor H.
Since TX0 /C still equals 2 C0 +nF , exactly the same calculation as above shows
that TX/C H has positive degree, for suitable choice of H. It follows that TX H
is nef, being an extension of nef bundles.
◦ Case (1.4.4): The tangent bundle of an abelian surface is trivial, in particular it
is nef. A bi-elliptic surface X admits a finite étale map γ : E1 × E2 → X from
a product of elliptic curves E1 , E2 . The pullback γ ∗ TX ∼
= TE1 ×E2 is trivial, in
particular nef. Then also TX itself is nef [Laz04, Prop. 6.1.8].
◦ Case (1.4.5): Let H ⊂ X be a general sufficiently ample divisor. By [Miy87,
Cor. 6.4], the restriction of the cotangent bundle Ω1X H is nef. As c1 (X) = 0, also
its dual TX H is nef.
This finishes the proof of Corollary 1.4.


10

PATRICK GRAF

5. Proof of Corollaries 1.2 and 1.3
Proof of Corollary 1.2. Assume that X is almost homogeneous, and let f : S → X
be the functorial resolution. Then also S is almost homogeneous, as H0 (S, TS ) =
H0 (X, TX ). According to [Pot69, Main Theorem], the surface S is one of the following:
(5.1.1) the projective plane P2 , a rational ruled surface, or a blowup thereof,
(5.1.2) a projective bundle PC (E ) → C over an elliptic curve C, where the vector
bundle E either
◦ decomposes as L ⊕ OC for some L ∈ Pic◦ (C), or
◦ it is the unique non-trivial extension 0 → OC → E → OC → 0,
(5.1.3) an abelian Hopf surface, i.e. a surface with universal covering C2 \ {0} and
abelian fundamental group,
(5.1.4) a complex 2-torus.
Claim 5.2. We have h2 (X, OX ) ≤ 1, and equality holds if and only if ωX ∼
= OX .
‹

Proof. By Serre duality, h2 (X, OX ) = h0 (X, ωX ). Since TX is globally generated
at some point, its determinant ωX has a nonzero section. Therefore, as soon as

h0 (X, ωX ) 6= 0, it follows that ωX ∼
= OX .
We treat each case in Potters’ list separately.
spectral sequence associated to f∗ OS (see Claim 4.2)
◦ In case (5.1.1), the Leray

yields h0 X, R1 f∗ OS ≤ 1, using Claim 5.2. Arguing as in the proof of Corollary 1.4, we conclude by (1.1.1) that X is smooth.

◦ In case (5.1.2), we get h0 X, R1 f∗ OS ≤ 2. We can still argue as in Case C of the
proof of Corollary 1.4 to obtain smoothness of X.

◦ In case (5.1.3), note that S does not contain any negative curves, as b2 (S) = 0
[BHPV04, Thm. 18.4]. Hence f is an isomorphism and X = S is smooth.

◦ In case (5.1.4), S does not contain any negative curves since it is homogeneous.
Again, f is an isomorphism and X is smooth.
This ends the proof of Corollary 1.2.

Proof of Corollary 1.3. This follows immediately from Corollary 1.2 and the
fact that in Potters’ list, (5.1.4) is the only case which has trivial tangent sheaf.
(Alternatively, one may also appeal to the Kodaira–Enriques classification.)

6. Two examples of surface singularities
Example 6.1. We give an example of a normal Gorenstein surface singularity (X, 0)
of genus pg (X, 0) = 1 which is not log canonical. Consider a star-shaped tree of five
smooth rational curves C0 + · · · + C4 in a smooth surface Y , having the following
intersection matrix (empty entries are zero):


−2 1
1
1
1
 1 −3





−3
(6.1.1)
1

1

−3
1
−3

Such a configuration clearly exists, e.g. by starting with C0 the zero section of the
line bundle OP1 (2), blowing up four distinct points on C0 , and then blowing up two
more points on each of the exceptional curves. A short calculation shows that (6.1.1)
is negative definite, hence the curves C0 + · · · + C4 ⊂ Y can be blown down to the
desired normal singularity (X, 0) by [Gra62, p. 367].

THE LIPMAN–ZARISKI CONJECTURE IN LOW GENUS

11

The fundamental cycle Z of this singularity (i.e. the unique minimal nonzero
effective relatively anti-nef exceptional divisor) is easily seen to be Z = 2 C0 + C1 +
· · · + C4 . It satisfies χ(Z) = 0, while χ(Z ′ ) = 1 > 0 for 0 < Z ′ < Z. Hence (X, 0) is
minimally elliptic in the sense of [Lau77, Def. 3.2]. Then by [Lau77, Thm. 3.10], the
genus pg (X, 0) = 1 and (X, 0) is Gorenstein. Furthermore, by [Lau77, Thm. 3.4(2)]
we have KY = −Z. In particular, the discrepancy a(X, C0 ) = −2 and so (X, 0) is
not log canonical.
Example 6.2. Fix any integer g ≥ 0. We give an example of a normal surface
singularity (X, 0) which is obtained by contracting a tree of rational curves and with
genus pg (X, 0) ≥ g. Consider a tree of smooth rational curves C0 + · · · + Cg+3 ⊂ Y ,
having the following intersection matrix for some d ≥ 1:


−2 1
1 ···
1
 1 −d



1

−d
Ag,d = 
 ∈ R(g+4)×(g+4)
 ..

.
..
 .

1
−d

This can be constructed in a similar way as in the previous example. We claim
that for d ≥ g + 3, the matrix Ag,d is negative definite. To this end, we will use
the criterion given by Proposition 6.3 below. Consider v = (g + 2, 1, . . . , 1) ∈ Rg+4 .
Then Ag,d · v = (−g − 1, g + 2 − d, . . ., g + 2 − d). For d ≥ g + 3, this has only negative
entries and we may apply the criterion.
Contracting C0 + · · · + Cg+3 yields a singularity (X, 0). For Z = 2 C0 + C1 + · · · +
Cg+3 , we have a short exact sequence
0 −→ OC0 (−Zred ) −→ OZ −→ OZred −→ 0.
{z
}
|
∼
=OP1 (−g−1)


So χ(Z, OZ ) = χ P1 , OP1 (−g − 1) + χ(Zred , OZred ) = −g + 1 and H0 (Z, OZ ) = C.
It follows that dim H1 (Z, OZ ) = g and hence pg (X, 0) ≥ g, as desired.

The following matrix-theoretic result is used e.g. in [Gra62] without a reference.
For the reader’s convenience, we provide a proof.

Proposition 6.3 (Criterion for positive definiteness). Let A = (aij ) be a real symmetric n × n-matrix with non-positive off-diagonal entries. The following are equivalent:
(6.3.1) The matrix A is positive definite.
(6.3.2) There exists a vector v ∈ (R+ )n such that also Av ∈ (R+ )n .
Proof. “(6.3.1) ⇒ (6.3.2)”: Let A = LLT be the Cholesky decomposition of A, where
L is lower triangular and has positive diagonal entries. It is easy to see that L has
non-positive off-diagonal entries since A does. Thus L−1 has all entries non-negative,
and then the same is true of A−1 = L−T L−1 . It follows that v = A−1 · (1, . . . , 1) has
the desired properties.
“(6.3.2) ⇒ (6.3.1)”: It suffices to show that det(A) > 0, since we can run the same
argument on the leading principal minors of A and then apply Sylvester’s criterion.
Write v = (v1 , . . . , vn ). Replacing A by A · diag(v1 , . . . , vn ), we may assume that
v = (1, . . . , 1). Note that here we lose symmetry of A, but this is not a problem.
The condition Av ∈ (R+ )n , combined with aij ≤ 0 for i 6= j, easily implies that A is
strictly diagonally dominant and that aii > 0 for all i. Let D = diag(a11 , . . . , ann ) be
the diagonal matrix containing the diagonal entries of A. Connect A and D by the
line segment A(t) = (1 − t)A + tD for 0 ≤ t ≤ 1. Obviously, all the A(t) are strictly
diagonally dominant, hence invertible. As det A(1) = det D = a11 · · · ann > 0 and
det A(t) is continuous in t, it follows that det A = det A(0) > 0, as desired.


12

PATRICK GRAF

References
E. Ballico: Compact normal complex surfaces with locally free and non-negative tangent sheaf, Int. J. Pure Appl. Math. 29 (2006), no. 3, 311–316. ↑ 2
[BHPV04] W. P. Barth, K. Hulek, C. A. M. Peters, and A. Van de Ven: Compact complex
surfaces, second ed., Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete. 3. Folge. A
Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas.
3rd Series. A Series of Modern Surveys in Mathematics], vol. 4, Springer-Verlag, Berlin,
2004. ↑ 8, 10
[Bec78]
J. Becker: Higher derivations and integral closure, Amer. J. Math. 100 (1978), no. 3,
495–521. ↑ 1
[BGK14] I. Biswas, R. V. Gurjar, and S. U. Kolte: On the Zariski-Lipman conjecture for
normal algebraic surfaces, J. Lond. Math. Soc. 90 (2014), no. 1, 270–286. ↑ 2
[Dru14]
S. Druel: The Zariski–Lipman conjecture for log canonical spaces, Bull. London Math.
Soc. 46 (2014), no. 4, 827–835. ↑ 1, 2, 5, 7
[Fle88]
H. Flenner: Extendability of differential forms on non-isolated singularities, Invent. Math. 94 (1988), no. 2, 317–326. ↑ 1
[GK14]
P. Graf and S. J. Kovács: An optimal extension theorem for 1-forms and the
Lipman-Zariski Conjecture, Documenta Math. 19 (2014), 815–830. ↑ 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7
[Gra62]
H. Grauert: Über Modifikationen und exzeptionelle analytische Mengen, Math. Annalen 146 (1962), 331–368. ↑ 10, 11
[Har77]
R. Hartshorne: Algebraic geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 52,
Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977. ↑ 3
[Kol07]
J. Kollár: Lectures on resolution of singularities, Annals of Mathematics Studies,
vol. 166, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2007. ↑ 3, 5
[KM98]
J. Kollár and S. Mori: Birational geometry of algebraic varieties, Cambridge Tracts
in Mathematics, vol. 134, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998. ↑ 5, 6, 7
[Lau77]
H. B. Laufer: On minimally elliptic singularities, Amer. J. Math. 99 (1977), no. 6,
1257–1295. ↑ 11
[Laz04]
R. Lazarsfeld: Positivity in Algebraic Geometry II, Ergebnisse der Mathematik und
ihrer Grenzgebiete, 3. Folge, vol. 49, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2004. ↑ 9
[Lip65]
J. Lipman: Free Derivation Modules on Algebraic Varieties, Amer. J. Math. 87 (1965),
no. 4, 874–898. ↑ 1, 7
[MS87]
V. B. Mehta and V. Srinivas: Varieties in positive characteristic with trivial tangent
bundle, Compositio Math. 64 (1987), no. 2, 191–212, With an appendix by Srinivas and
M. V. Nori. ↑ 2
[Miy87]
Y. Miyaoka: The Chern Classes and Kodaira Dimension of a Minimal Variety, Advanced Studies in Pure Mathematics, Algebraic Geometry, Sendai 1985, vol. 10, 1987,
pp. 449–476. ↑ 9
[Mum61] D. Mumford: The topology of normal singularities of an algebraic surface and a
criterion for simplicity, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1961), no. 9, 5–22. ↑ 4
[Pot69]
J. Potters: On almost homogeneous compact complex analytic surfaces, Invent. Math.
8 (1969), 244–266. ↑ 2, 10
[Ste85]
J. H. M. Steenbrink: Vanishing theorems on singular spaces, Astérisque 130 (1985),
330–341. ↑ 3
[SvS85]
J. H. M. Steenbrink and D. van Straten: Extendability of holomorphic differential
forms near isolated hypersurface singularities, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 55
(1985), 97–110. ↑ 3, 5
[Wan54] H.-C. Wang: Complex parallisable manifolds, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 5 (1954), 771–
776. ↑ 2
[Bal06]

Lehrstuhl für Mathematik I, Universität Bayreuth, 95440 Bayreuth, Germany
E-mail address: patrick.graf@uni-bayreuth.de
URL: www.graficland.uni-bayreuth.de

