ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

arXiv:1410.8065v3 [math.AG] 30 Sep 2015

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL
Abstract. We study special linear systems of surfaces of P3 interpolating nine
points in general position having a quadric as fixed component. By performing
degenerations in the blown-up space, we interpret the quadric obstruction in
terms of linear obstructions for a quasi-homogeneous class. By degeneration
we also prove a Nagata type result for the blown-up projective plane in points
that implies a base locus lemma for the quadric. As an application we establish
Laface-Ugaglia Conjecture for linear systems with multiplicities bounded by
8 and for homogeneous linear systems with multiplicity m and degree up to
2m + 1.

1. Introduction
The theory of linear systems is a classical object of study which is related to
secant varieties, polynomial interpolation and to several interesting recently discovered applications. Even if linear systems have been studied for more than a
century, basic questions, such as the dimensionality problem, are still open in general.
We denote by L = Ln,d (m1 , . . . , ms ) the linear system of hypersurfaces of degree
d in Pn interpolating s points in general position with multiplicities respectively
m1 , . . . , ms . A linear system is said to be non-special if it has the (affine) expected
dimension, which is edim(L) = max(vdim(L), 0), where the (affine) virtual dimension vdim(L) is defined as


 X
s 
n + mi − 1
n+d
.
vdim(L) =
−
n
n
i=1
Special linear systems are those that have dimension strictly higher than the
expected one and the speciality of the system is the difference
dim(L) − edim(L) = h1 (L) ≥ 0.

In general, computing the dimension of the linear systems is a challenging task.
In order to classify the special linear systems, one has to understand first what
are the obstructions, namely what are the varieties that, whenever contained with
multiplicity in the base locus of L, generate speciality. In [3, 4] these obstructions
are named special effect varieties.
The well-known Alexander-Hirschowitz Theorem ([1], see also [7, 30]), which
concerns the case of linear systems with double points in Pn , provides a list of
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary: 14C20. Secondary: 14J70, 14J26.
Key words and phrases. Fat points, degeneration techniques, Laface-Ugaglia Conjecture, base
locus, quadric surface.
The first author is partially supported by MIUR and INDAM. The second author is a member
of the Simion Stoilow Institute of Mathematics of the Romanian Academy. The third author is
supported by the Research Foundation - Flanders (FWO).
1

2

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

special systems where the special effect varieties are linear cycles (when d = 2), a
rational normal curve (when d = 3) or a quadric hypersurface (when d = 4).
For higher multiplicities, the planer case has been deeply investigated by many
authors. For n = 2, the famous Segre-Harbourne-Gimigliano-Hirschowitz Conjecture states that the obstructions are given by (−1)-curves [19, 23, 24, 32] (see also
[14, 11, 12]).
For the higher dimensional case, in [5, 18] the authors extensively studied the
linear special effect varieties in Pn . In particular, knowing the exact contribution
to the speciality of any multiple linear cycle contained in the base locus allows to
introduce the notion of linear expected dimension, (see [5, Definition 3.2]). We say
that a system is linearly non-special whenever its dimension is equal to the linear
expected dimension. This happens exactly when the only special effect varieties
are linear cycles.
The authors devote the paper [6] to the investigation of linear systems in Pn
with n + 3 base points having non linear obstructions. More precisely, the rational
normal curve through the points is a special effect curve.
It is a well-known fact that Cremona reduced linear systems of P3 do not contain
rational normal curves in their base locus. Laface and Ugaglia conjectured [27] that
for a Cremona reduced linear system the only special effect varieties are lines and
quadric surfaces determined by nine points. The conjecture of Laface-Ugaglia is
known to be true if the number of points is less or equal than eight [15], and when
the maximal multiplicity of the points is five [2].
In this paper we study linear systems in P3 with at least nine fat points in general
position for which the quadric hypersurface through nine of the base points, namely
the fixed surface Q := L3,2 (19 ), is a special effect variety.
The first step is to prove a base locus lemma for quadric surfaces. Even a weak
base locus lemma is not obvious to obtain. In fact, such results can be obtained
as a consequence of Nagata type results, i.e. theorems which prove emptiness, for
linear systems in P2 with ten points. In Section 4 we establish a base locus lemma
for the quadric surface through nine points (see Theorem 4.1) for a particular class
of linear systems in P3 . In order to prove this result, we study the emptiness of
linear systems with ten points in P2 , via a suitable degeneration technique inspired
by [10, 13].
The next step is to classify the special linear systems whose special effect varieties
are quadrics. In particular, we focus on the case of (Cremona reduced) linear
systems with nine points in P3 , which is the first case where the speciality is not
due only to linear obstructions.
Our goal is to understand precisely how much the quadric surface in the base
locus contributes to the speciality of the system. Differently than in the linear case,
to give a formula which computes exactly the contribution to the speciality seems
difficult in general (see Remark 5.5 for more details).
Hence we focus first on some particular classes of linear systems, that are the
homogeneous and the quasi-homogeneous ones.
The first case we study is given by the quasi-homogeneous linear systems
L3,2m (m8 , a), for 1 ≤ a ≤ m. This class of systems behaves surprisingly well,
indeed we are able to find an easy formula which relates the speciality with the
multiplicity of the quadric in the base locus, see Theorem 3.1. The proof of this result is based on a degeneration argument, which allows to reduce the “mysterious”

ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

3

contribution of the quadric to the sum of two contributions given by linear special
effect varieties in the degenerated systems.
We recall that in literature various degeneration arguments have been used to
prove non-speciality results of linear systems in the plane [11, 12, 17] and in higher
dimension [26, 30].
In the case of degree 2m + 1, the relation between the speciality and the quadric
becomes less clear even in the homogeneous case. However in Theorem 4.10 we
classify all the special homogeneous linear systems with nine points of multiplicity
m and degree 2m + 1. In order to prove this result we apply the emptiness results
mentioned above and proved in Section 4.1.
In the last section, as an application of Theorems 3.1 and 4.10, we show that the
Laface-Ugaglia Conjecture holds for linear systems of any degree and nine points
of multiplicity at most 8. In order to complete this proof as well as the proof
of Theorem 4.10, some of the computations are made by means of the computer
algebra system Macaulay2 [22].
We want to point out finally that the quadric hypersurfaces are sporadic special
effect varieties. Indeed, it is expected (see e.g. the Fröberg-Iarrobino Conjecture for
homogeneous linear systems, [9, Conjecture 4.8]) that they give contribution to the
speciality of a linear system only in P3 and P4 . We think that the understanding
of the case of linear systems in P3 with nine points is the initial step in order to
investigate the special systems obstructed by a quadric.
This article is organized as follows. In Section 2 we give a brief description of
the tools that we will use to prove our results.
In Section 3 we classify the case L3,2m (m8 , a) and we give a geometric interpretation, via degenerations, of the quadric as special effect surface.
In Section 4 we completely classify the case L3,2m+1 (m9 ); the main results are
Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 4.2.
In Section 5, we prove that Laface-Ugaglia Conjecture holds for linear systems
with 9 base points of multiplicities mi ≤ 8.
Acknowledgements. The authors would like to thank the referee for his/her
many useful comments.
2. Preliminaries
In this preliminary section we collect general results and techniques that will be
used throughout the paper. We point out that by dimension of a linear system L
we mean the affine dimension dim(L) = h0 (L), and not the projective dimension.
2.1. Degenerations. A natural approach to the dimensionality problem of linear systems is via degenerations. Degenerations allow to move the multiple base
points of a linear system in special position and compute the dimension via a semicontinuity argument.
In [11, 12] Ciliberto and Miranda exploited a degeneration of the plane, originally proposed by Ran [31] to study higher multiplicity interpolation problems for
planar linear systems with general multiple base points. This approach consists
in degenerating the plane to a reducible surface, with two components intersecting
along a line, and simultaneously degenerating the linear system to a limit linear
system which is somewhat easier than the original one. In particular this degeneration argument allows to use induction either on the degree or on the number of

4

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

imposed multiple points. This method was generalized by the third author to the
higher dimensional cases of Pn [30] and of (P1 )n with Laface [26].
Let X ⊆ PN be a variety, let ∆ be a complex disc with center at the origin and
let X → ∆ be a 1-dimensional embedded degeneration of X to the union of two
varieties X 1 , X 2 , i.e. a 1-parameter family {Xt }t∈∆ such that Xt ∼
= X, t 6= 0, and
X0 = X 1 ∪ X 2 . Let Lt := L be a line bundle on the general fibre.
A limit L0 of Lt is a line bundle on X0 obtained as fibred product of a line bundle
L1 on X 1 and a line bundle L2 on X 2 over the intersection of the restricted line
bundles L1 |Y and L2 |Y . This provides a recursive formula for the dimension of L0
in terms of the dimensions of the involved linear systems on the two components:
dim(L0 ) = dim(L̂2 ) + dim(L̂1 ) + dim(L1 |Y ∩ L2 |Y ),
where L̂i is the kernel of the restriction map Li → Li |Y , i = 1, 2. Upper semicontinuity implies the inequality dim(Lt ) ≤ dim(L0 ).
2.2. Linear systems on Q ∼
= P1 ×P1 . In order to study the base locus of linear sys3
tems on P through 9 general points, we want to understand their restrictions to the
quadric surface Q = L3,2 (19 ) ∼
= P1 × P1 . The restriction of L = L3,d (m1 , . . . , m9 )
will be the linear series of curves of bidegree (d, d) on Q with 9 multiple points in
general position, that we will denote as
LP1 ×P1 ,(d,d) (m1 , . . . , m9 ).

Not very much is known about such linear systems: Giuffrida, Maggioni, and
Ragusa were among the first to study linear systems on a quadric surface in [20],
see e.g. [21]. As far as we know the only cases completely classified are those of
double points [33] and triple points [25].
The following result allows to transform linear systems of given bidegree on the
quadric P1 × P1 with multiple base points to linear systems on P2 with multiple
base points, and vice-versa, by means of cut-and-sew of polygons.
The image of P2 blown-up at two points via the embedding given by the linear
system L2,d1 +d2 −m (d1 − m, d2 − m) based at two torus-invariant points (e.g. two
coordinate points) is a toric projective surface whose defining polytope is combinatorially equivalent to the pentagon obtained by the triangle (d1 + d2 − m)∆ by
cutting two triangles (d1 − m)∆ and (d2 − m)∆ from two corners, where ∆ is the
2-simplex of R2 , see Figure 1 on the left hand side.
Notice that the same polytope can be obtained from the rectangle [0, d1 ] ×
[0, d2 ] ⊂ R2 by cutting off the triangle m∆ from a corner. This interprets the
above toric surface as the embedding of P1 × P1 via the linear system of curves of
bidegree (d1 , d2 ) with a point of multiplicity m, that is LP1 ×P1 ,(d1 ,d2 ) (m), see Figure
1 on the right hand side.
In other terms, this is the birational map that factors in the blow-up of P2 at
two points and the blow-down of the (-1)-line joining them.
This proves the following result.
Lemma 2.1. If m ≤ d1 , d2 , then the following equality holds

dim(LP1 ×P1 ,(d1 ,d2 ) (m, m1 , . . . , ms )) = dim(L2,d1 +d2 −m (d1 −m, d2 −m, m1 , . . . , ms )).

Remark 2.2. In [8, Theorem 1.1] the authors show how to convert linear systems
ni
on products of projective spaces
interpolating multiple points into linear sysP P
ni
tems in the projective space P
interpolating multiple points and multiple linear

ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

d1 − m

5

m
m

d2

d2

d1

d2 − m

d1

Figure 1. Two equivalent polytopes
subspaces, and back. We point out that the case m = 0 in Lemma 2.1 falls into
those equivalences, in the particular case of P1 × P1 and P2 .
2.3. Cremona transformations. We recall that the standard Cremona transformation of Pn is the birational transformation defined by the following rational map:
−1
Cr : (x0 : · · · : xn ) → (x−1
0 : · · · : xn ).

This map induces an action on the Picard group of the n-dimensional space blownup at s points. Let L = Ln,d (m1 , . . . , ms ) be a linear system based on s points
in general position; we can assume, without loss of generality, that the first n + 1
points are the coordinate points. The Cremona action on L is described by the
following rule (see for example [16, 27]). Set
then
and

c := m1 + · · · + mn+1 − (n − 1)d,
Cr(L) = Ln,d−c (m1 − c, . . . , mn+1 − c, mn+2 , . . . , ms )

dim(L) = dim(Cr(L)).
We will use this transformations in the cases n = 2, 3 to reduce the computation
of the dimension of a linear system L to the computation of the dimension of its
Cremona transform Cr(L) that has lower degree and multiplicities whenever c > 0.
If c ≤ 0 we will say that the linear system L is Cremona reduced.
2.4. Computing with Macaulay2. In this paper we will need to perform some
explicit computation in order to complete our classifications. In particular the
proofs of Proposition 4.9, Lemma 4.11, Lemma 5.7 and Theorem 5.8 are computer
aided. We perform these computations by means of the computer algebra system
Macaulay2. The procedure we use consists essentially in checking that several
square matrices, randomly chosen, have maximal rank. We work over a field of
characteristic 31991 and the proofs hold also in characteristic zero.
We use two scripts (one for linear systems in P2 and one in P3 ) available at this
url http://dipmat.univpm.it/~brambilla/NinePointsP3.html, which allow to
compute the dimension and the speciality of a linear system with given degree and
multiplicities.

6

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

3. Quasi-homogeneous linear systems L3,2m (m8 , a)

In this section we describe a class of special linear systems in P3 with nine base
points for which the quadric surface Q is the only special effect variety. We employ
a double degeneration argument, similar to the one employed in [30] for linear
systems with arbitrary general double points, that is based on the degeneration
of the space described in Section 2.1. The linear system will degenerate into one
that has only linear special effect varieties, and that is therefore understood by the
results in [5, 18].
Fix non-negative integers a, m. Consider the quasi-homogeneous linear system
in P3
(3.1)

L(m, a) := L3,2m (m8 , a).

The main result of this section is the following.
Theorem 3.1. If 1 ≤ a ≤ m, the linear system (3.1) satisfies
dim(L(m, a)) = m − a + 1,

  
a+1
a
1
h (L(m, a)) =
+
,
3
2
hence it is special if and only if 2 ≤ a ≤ m. Moreover the only special effect variety
for L(m, a) is the quadric through nine points which is contained in the base locus
with exact multiplicity a.
It was proved already in [28, Section 5] that for a = m the linear system (3.1) has
one element, that is the m-multiple of the quadric through the 9 points. This also
implies that if a > m, the linear system (3.1) is empty. The case a = 0 was proved
to be non-special in [15]. So the remaining cases to explore are 1 ≤ a ≤ m − 1; for
the sake of completeness we include here the proof of the case a = m as well.
Theorem 3.1, shows that the linear system (3.1) is special with dimension being
a linear function of m and a. The only special effect variety is the quadric through
the nine points which is contained with multiplicity a in the base locus and moreover, quite surprisingly, its contribution to the speciality, namely h1 (L(m, a)) only
depends on the multiplicity of containment of the quadric.
Remark 3.2. If we define q(L(m, a)) := χ(L(m, a)|Q ) to be the Euler characteristic
of the restriction of L(m, a) to the quadric, (see (5.1) in Section 5), then one can
easily check the following:


a+1
q(L(m, a)) = 1 −
< 0 iff a ≥ 2, and q(L) = 0 if a = 1.
2
This in particular shows that Theorem 3.1 has the following immediate consequence:
Corollary 3.3. Laface-Ugaglia Conjecture (see Conjecture 5.1 in Section 5) is true
for any quasi-homogeneous linear system of the form (3.1).
3.1. Degeneration of the blown-up P3 at 9 points. In this section we give a
detailed description of the degeneration techniques that we will employ to prove
Theorem 3.1.

ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

7

3.1.1. First degeneration. Consider the trivial family V = P3 × ∆ → ∆ with fibres
Vt ∼
= P3 , t ∈ ∆. The blow-up of a point p0 ∈ V0 produces a flat morphism X 0 → ∆
with general fibre Xt0 ∼
= P3 and central fibre X00 = F ∪ P, where F ∼
= Blp0 P3 is
3
∼
the pull-back of V0 and P = P is the exceptional divisor in the total space X 0 .
The two components F and P meet transversally along a surface Y ∼
= P2 that, as
a divisor, belongs to the exceptional class of F and to the hyperplane class of P.
More precisely, if E0 := P|F denotes the exceptional divisor of p0 ∈ V0 , H F the
hyperplane class of F and H P that of P, with H P ∼ E0 , we have Pic(F) = hH F , E0 i
and Pic(P) = hH P i.
We choose 7 general points on F and 2 points on P and we consider them as
limits of 9 general points in the general fibre Xt0 . More precisely, for t ∈ ∆ let
{p1 (t) . . . , p9 (t)} be a general collection of points and assume that p1 (0), . . . , p7 (0) ∈
F while p8 (0) and p9 (0) ∈ P. Consider Xe0 the blow-up of X 0 along the horizontal
et0 , t ∈ ∆
curves {pi (t)}t∈∆ , with exceptional divisors Ei , i = 1, . . . , 9. Denote by X
the fibres of the new family. Write also Ei := Ei |Xe 0 , for t ∈ ∆, i = 1, . . . , 9.
t
et0 ∼
The general fibre is X
= Blp1 ,...,p9 (P3 ), the blow-up of P3 at 9 general points, so
et ) = hH, E1 , . . . , . . . , E9 i. The central fibre is described by Pic(F) =
that Pic(X
F
hH , E0 , E1 , . . . , E7 i and Pic(P) = hH P , E8 , E9 i, where by abuse of notation F and
P are also the pull-backs in Xe0 of the components of X00 .
3.1.2. Second degeneration. We further specialize the points by sending a point
from each component of X00 to the intersection. More precisely, consider the trivial
family X 00 := X00 × ∆0 and, on each fibre over s ∈ ∆0 , take a collection of general
points {p1 (s), . . . , p7 (s)} ⊂ F and {p8 (s), p9 (s)} ⊂ P such that, on the central fibre,
p1 (0) and p9 (0) ∈ F ∩ P.
Consider Xe00 the blow-up of X 00 along the horizontal curves {pi (s)}s∈∆0 , with Ei
exceptional divisors, i = 1, . . . , 9. The components of the fibres are described by
e 0 (see Section 3.1.1). We use the
the same Picard groups as the components of X
0
symbols F0 and P0 to denote the pull-backs of the components of the central fibre
over ∆0 , X000 , and the symbol Y0 for their intersection. Notice that Y0 ∼
= Blp1 ,p9 (P2 )
is a plane blown-up at two points.
The combination of the two above subsequent degenerations produces a degene 00 = F0 ∪ P0 intersecting
eration of Blp1 ,...,p9 (P3 ) to the union of blown-up spaces X
0
along a blown-up plane Y0 .
3.1.3. Intersection table on the central fibre. Notice that, as a divisor on F0 (or on
P0 ), the surface Y0 is represented by the class E0 − E9 (resp. H P − E1 ).
One can compute the restrictions of any divisor on F0 or on P0 to Y0 , by means
of the following intersection table for the generators of the Picard groups:
• H P |Y0 =: h,
• E1 |Y0 =: e1 ,
• E2 |Y0 = 0,
and
• H F |Y0 = 0,
• E0 |Y0 = −h,
• Ei |Y0 = 0, i = 3, . . . , 8,
• E9 |Y0 =: e9 .
In this notation we have Pic(Y0 ) = hh, e1 , e9 i.

8

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

3.2. The limit linear system. Let L ⊂ |OP3 (d)| be a linear system of degree-d
surfaces in P3 with nine assigned multiple points in general position. Let D be the
corresponding divisor in the blown-up space Blp1 ,...,p9 (P3 ).
In the notation of Section 3.1.1, consider on X 0 the twisted line bundle OX 0 (d) ⊗
OX 0 (−δP). It restricts to OP3 (d) on Xt0 and, for t = 0, to OF (dHF − δE0 ) on F and
to OP (δH P ) on P. By following the first degeneration we can consider the linear
system Lt = L ⊂ |OP3 (d)| on Xt0 ∼
= P3 and its limit L00 on X00 . We denote by D00
e0 .
the corresponding divisor class in the blown-up central fibre X
0
By following the second degeneration and blowing-up the nine points on each
fibre (see Section 3.1.2), we obtain the limit divisor D000 in the blown-up central fibre
X̃000 that is given by divisors DF0 and DP0 on the two components. We consider
the restriction maps to Y0 , DF0 → RF0 := DF0 |Y0 and DP0 → RP0 := DP0 |Y0 and
denote by D̂F0 and D̂P0 the kernels respectively. Let R0 := RF0 ∩ RP0 denote the
intersection of the restricted divisors.
Lemma 3.4. In the notation of above, for i ≥ 0 we have

e 00 , D00 ) = hi (P0 , D̂P0 ) + hi (F0 , D̂F0 ) + hi (Y0 , R0 ).
hi (X
0
0

Proof. Notice first of all that the assertion holds if we replace hi by χ, the Euler
characteristic. The equality holds for i = 0 by construction. Indeed, the divisor D000
e 00 , or its associated line bundle, is obtained as fibred product of DF0 and DP0
on X
0
over R0 , see Section 2.1. Finally, since all cohomology groups with i ≥ 2 vanish,
the assertion holds for i = 1.

Lemma 3.5. In the notation of above, we have
e00 , D00 ) ≤ hi (X
e000 , D000 ), i = 0, 1.
hi (Blp1 ,...,ps (Pn ), D) ≤ hi (X
Proof. The inequalities hold for i = 0 by the property of upper semi-continuity of
e 0 , D0 ) = χ(X
e 00 , D00 ) and all
the two degenerations. As χ(Blp1 ,...,p9 (P3 ), D) = χ(X
0
0
0
0
higher cohomology groups vanish, the inequalities hold for i = 1 as well.

Remark 3.6. The above construction as well as Lemma 3.4 and Lemma 3.5 is potentially applicable in a more general context for linear systems in any Pn and with
arbitrary number of points and multiplicities by choosing different specializations
and twists, as it was done for instance by the last author in [30]. Nevertheless, it
is not easy to find a good degeneration in general.
3.3. Proof of Theorem 3.1. In order to prove the theorem, we need the following
result.
Proposition 3.7. The following linear systems are non-special with dimension
equal to the virtual dimension: L3,2m (m + 1, m6 , m − 1), L3,2m−1 (m4 , (m − 1)4 ).
This can be easily deduced from [15] where the authors deal with Cremona
reduced linear systems with eight base multiple points. However, we include the
proof here for the sake of completeness.
Proof. One can easily check that vdim(L3,2m (m+1, m6 , m−1)) = 0. The statement
is obviously true for m = 1. By performing two subsequent Cremona transformations of P3 (see Section 2.3) we reduce from m to m − 1. Hence we conclude by
induction on m.

ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

9

Similarly, one proves that dim(L3,2m−1 (m4 , (m−1)4 )) = vdim(L3,2m−1 (m4 , (m−
1) )) = 0 by induction on m.

4

Proof of Theorem 3.1. Let Q = L3,2 (19 ) be the quadric surface through the nine
base points. The obvious inclusion of linear systems L − aQ ⊆ L implies the
inequality dim(L − aQ) ≤ dim(L). But L − aQ = L3,2(m−a) ((m − a)8 ) and, by
Proposition 3.7, dim(L3,2(m−a) ((m − a)8 )) = vdim(L3,2(m−a) ((m − a)8 )) = m − a +
1 ≥ 1. Hence m − a + 1 ≤ dim(L(m, a)).
We prove the inverse inequality by degeneration. Let D denote the divisor in
Blp1 ,...,p9 (P3 ) corresponding to L(m, a):
D = 2mH − m

8
X
i=1

Ei − aE9 .

In the notation of Section 3.2, now with d = 2m, choose δ = m. In the space Xe00 of
the second degeneration, we have the following divisors on the components of the
e 00 :
central fibre X
0
DF0 = 2mH F − mE0 − m

7
X

Ei ,

i=1

DP0 = mH P − mE8 − aE9 .
We consider the restriction maps to Y0 , and we obtain the following kernel divisors
D̂F0 = 2mH F − (m + 1)E0 − (m − 1)E1 − m

7
X

Ei ,

i=2

D̂P0 = (m − 1)H P − mE8 − (a − 1)E9 .
Firstly, on the component F0 of the central fibre we have the following. By
Proposition 3.7, we obtain that both DF0 and D̂F0 are non-special, so that the first
cohomology groups vanish; moreover, the second is non-effective, namely h0 = 0.
e 00 we have the following. The
Secondly, on the exceptional component of X
0

P0
divisor D is (only) linearly obstructed and has h1 (DP0 ) = a+1
caused by a
3
P0
line of multiplicity
a, see [5]. Moreover the kernel D̂ is non-effective and has

h1 (D̂P0 ) = a+1
,
see
[18].
3
The above implies that both DF0 and DP0 cut the complete linear series on the
intersection Y0 of the components. Using Sections 3.1.3 and 3.2 and the notation
there introduced, we have
RP0 = mh − ae9 ,

RF0 = mh − me1 .

Since RF0 and RP0 meet transversally on Y0 , their intersection is given by
R0 = mh − me1 − ae9 .

One computes h0 (R0 ) = m−a+1 and h1 (R0 ) = a2 , the speciality being given by a
0
00
line of multiplicity a, see [5].
 Finally, by Lemma 3.4 we obtain h (D0 ) = m − a + 1
a+1
a
0
00
and h (D0 ) = 3 + 2 . Now we conclude the proof of the first part of the
theorem by upper semi-continuity, see Lemma 3.5.

10

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

To prove the last sentence of the theorem, we simply notice that the linear system
L(m, a) splits as follows:
L(m, a) = aQ + L3,2(m−a) ((m − a)8 ).

The second addend in the right hand side is the moving part of L and is non-special
by Proposition 3.7. This concludes the proof.

Remark 3.8. In the proof of Theorem 3.1, we argued that the speciality of L(m, a)
is given by aQ and equals the speciality of the limit D000 that, using Lemma 3.4, is
given by a line of multiplicity a in the base locus of D̂P0 and a line of multiplicity
a in the base locus of R0 .
A geometric interpretation is the following. Let us denote by LP0 ,m the matching
linear system defined by the matching conditions imposed by RF0 to RP0 , so that
we have the following exact sequence of sheaves
0 → |D̂P0 | → LP0 ,m → |R0 | → 0.
The emptiness of |D̂P0 | implies that the limit linear system |D000 | is the matching
linear system; it is of the form L3,m (m, m, a) where the second and third points,
p8 , p9 , are general in P0 , while the first point, p1 , is on the intersection and is the
one giving the matching.
In particular, if we follow the quadric Q = L(1, 1) in the degeneration process, by
simply setting m = a = 1 in the above, we see that its limit is given by a matching
linear system on P0 of the form L3,1 (1, 1, 1), based at the points p8 , p9 and p1 of the
central fibre as above. This linear system has only one element that is the plane
spanned by the three points. This plane is the special effect variety for the limit of
L(m, a); itis contained with multiplicity a in the base locus and it contributes by
a+1
+ a2 to the speciality.
3
A weak base locus lemma for the quadric Q in the case of L(m, a) is just an easy
application of Lemma 2.1. Indeed to prove that Q is contained in the base locus of
L(m, a) with multiplicity at least a, it is enough to show that for every m and a,
the restriction L(m, a)|Q is empty and this is equivalent to prove that L2,3m (m9 , a)
is empty, which is a well-known fact.
In the next section we will see that in general to obtain such a result is extremely
difficult, mostly because of the very little knowledge of linear systems on P1 × P1 .
4. Homogeneous linear systems L3,2m+1 (m9 )
In this section we consider linear systems with nine points of multiplicity m and
degree 2m + 1. For this class of linear system it is more difficult to understand
the relation between the speciality and the presence of the quadric as special effect
variety. Even to compute the multiplicity of containment of the quadric in the base
locus is not an obvious task. The main result of this section is in fact a vanishing
result for linear systems in P2 which allows to deduce a base locus lemma for the
quadric.
Given a linear system L = L3,d (m1 , . . . , ms ) with s ≥ 9, let Q be the unique
quadric surface through the first nine points. Consider the restriction exact sequence
(4.1)

0 → L − Q → L → L|Q → 0.

ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

11

The linear system L|Q is contained in the linear system of the curves of bidegree (d, d) in Q ∼
= P1 × P1 ⊂ P3 with nine multiple points and denoted by
LP1 ×P1 ,(d,d) (m1 , . . . , m9 ) as in Section 2.2.
By Lemma 2.1 we know that the system LP1 ×P1 (d,d) (m1 , . . . , m9 ) has the same
dimension as the system L2,2d−m1 (d−m1 , d−m1 , m2 , . . . , ms ) in P2 and in particular
the first system is empty if and only if the second one is.
The main part of this chapter is devoted to prove, via degeneration techniques,
emptiness results for linear systems in P2 with ten multiple points. As a straightforward consequence of Theorem 4.2 below, we obtain the following (weak) base
locus lemma for the quadric. Let α be any positive integer.
Theorem 4.1 (Quadric base locus lemma). Let L = L3,2m+α (m9 , m10 . . . , ms ) be
a non-empty linear system. If m > 9α, then the quadric Q through the first nine
points is contained in the base locus of L.
We remark that a major difference between the quadric through nine points in
P3 and the linear cycles in Pn is in the geometry of their normal bundles. For the
last ones the normal bundles are toric bundles so we understand their cohomology
groups [5, 18] while for the first one the cohomological information is highly nontrivial.
4.1. Emptiness of linear systems with ten points in P2 . The goal of this
section is to find a good bound for m to have emptiness of certain linear systems in
P2 . More precisely we will prove the following result, which implies Theorem 4.1.
Theorem 4.2. The linear system L = L2,3m+2α ((m + α)2 , m8 ) is empty for any
m > 9α.
We will prove this result via degeneration techniques similar to the ones introduced in Section 3.1. More precisely, we will simultaneously degenerate the
blown-up projective plane at ten points in general position and the line bundle L.
Even though this technique was applied before in [10, 13] for homogeneous linear
systems with ten points, we will present here in detail our approach.
4.1.1. The first degeneration. By blowing-up a point in the central fibre of a trivial
family of projective planes over a disc, ∆, one obtains a new family, call it X → ∆.
The fibre over zero, X0 , decomposes as the union of two surfaces, a projective plane
denoted by P and the Hirzebruch surface F1 , call it F. In this notation P represents
the exceptional divisor of the blown-up point, while F is the proper transform of the
central fibre of the original family. We will denote by E the curve of intersection
between P and F.
Consider now ten points on the general fibre of the trivial family of planes, such
that four of them collide in the zero fibre. Correspondingly, on the central fibre
of X , we place six points on F and four points on P and we consider them as ten
limit points of general points on Xt . Blowing-up these ten sections of X creates a
new family X 0 → ∆. The fibre over zero consists of two surfaces, P0 and F0 , that
intersect along a double curve, E. The component P0 represents a blown-up plane
at four general points, F0 represents the blown-up ruled surface F1 , at six general
points while the double curve E is the negative section on the component F0 and
also represents the class of a line on P0 . The general fibre Xt0 is the blown-up
projective plane at ten general points.

12

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

Remark 4.3. We point out that colliding four points in the zero fibre works well
for the analysis of linear systems with ten points. In general, by colliding s0 points
from a collection of s general points, one produces a degeneration of the blown-up
projective plane at s general points, i.e. the general fibre Xt0 , to the union of two
surfaces (for any choice of s0 and s). The components of the central fibre are: P0
that is a blown-up plane at s0 general points, and F0 that is the blown-up ruled
surface F1 at s − s0 general points, the two surfaces meeting along a double curve.
4.1.2. The second degeneration. This degeneration was first introduced in [13], we
provide the construction of the degeneration together with the limit bundles computation for the sake of completeness. The interested reader should also consult
[10]. We denote by C the unique (−1)-curve on F passing through six points that
meets the double curve E in two points p1 and p2 , at the form L3 (2, 16 ). We consider the family obtained in Section 4.1.1, X 0 → ∆, and we blow-up twice the cubic
C on F and then contract the first exceptional divisor created. In this way, we will
obtain a new family X 00 → ∆ whose general fibre is still a plane blown-up at ten
points and whose special fibre over the origin becomes the union of four surfaces.
We abuse notations and denote by F and P the surfaces of the central fibre in the
second degeneration and by S and T the exceptional divisors created by the double
blow-up of C.
The first blow-up of C in the threefold X 0 creates as exceptional divisor a Hirzebruch surface F1 , that we will denote by T. The rational curve C represents the
intersection between T and F. In particular, C represents the (−1)-curve of T,
while Gi represent the fibre class on T, see Figure 2.
The second blow-up of C in X , creates the exceptional divisor S that is isomorphic to P1 × P1 and blows-up the surface P twice. Denote by F1 and F2 the
exceptional divisors introduced on P. Notice that the proper transforms of G1 and
G2 become (−2)-curves. We abuse the notation and denote by Gi to be these
proper transforms with self-intersection (−2).
Since the normal bundle of S has bidegree (−1, −1) one can contract the ruling
direction of S. Blowing-down S will affect the surfaces of the central fibre as follows.
On the surface F the cubic C will get contracted, T will become a projective plane,
while on P the (−1)-curves, F1 and F2 , will get identified. In [10, 13] this operation
is called a 2-throw of C on P, see again Figure 2.
4.1.3. Degenerating the line bundles. We will now describe limits of line bundles on
P2 via the double degeneration. The limit bundles are bundles in the central fibre,
X000 , of the family X 00 → ∆ that agree on the intersection of the double curves.

Remark 4.4. The double blow-up of C in X affected the surface P by creating two
pairs of points that are infinitely near. We will use the notation of [13] [m1 , m2 ],
to indicate a fat point with multiplicity m1 and an infinitely near fat point with
multiplicity m2 . More precisely, we adopt the notation [m1 , m2 ] to denote m2 F1 +
m1 (F1 + G1 ).
Remark 4.5. In this section, as in Section 3.2, we will describe limits of divisors,
and not limits of linear systems. This difference is emphasized in Remark 4.4.
In particular, Proposition 4.6 should be understood as describing all possible limit
divisors D in the linear system L2,d ((m+α)2 , m8 ) on the central fibre X000 . However,
in order to simplify the language and also to be consistent with notation previously
used in [10, 13], in this section we abuse notations and we use the linear system

ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

F

F
b.u.

C

E

P2

b.u.

C

@ C
@
P1

13

@ C
@

T
G1

G2

−1

−1

S

G1

F2
 −1
C

T

−2

P

E

F1C
−1 C

P



G2
−2

P

E
F

@
@

b.d.

−1

−1

S

F1

F2

P
−2
G1

A −2

 T AAG2

Figure 2. The 2-throw operation of the double curve C.
terminology. We must also emphasize now that this degeneration is different than
the one we exploited in Section 3.2. More precisely, only the first degeneration
of the blown-up projective space P3 , described in Sections 3.2 and 4.1.1 coincide.
In Section 3.2 this degeneration was denoted by Xe0 while in Section 4.1.1 it was
denoted by X 0 . However, in Section 3.2 the second degeneration was obtained by
specializing points on the intersection of the two components while in Section 4.1.2
the second degeneration is obtained from flopping a negative curve. In order to
highlight this major difference we choose different notations. More precisely even if
both represent degenerations of blown-up projective projective spaces (P3 in Section
3.2 and P2 here) we will denote them by Xe00 and X 00 in Sections 3.2 and Sections
4.1.2 respectively.
We will now determine all possible limit bundles of the linear system
L2,d ((m + α)2 , m8 )
on the general fibre.
• The line bundle on P must be of the form Lδ (m4 , [a, b], [a, b]), where δ, a, b
represent the twisting parameters. This line bundle meets the 4 times
blown-up line δ − 2a − 2b times, see Remark 4.7 below. The system on F is
of the form LF = L2,t (δ − 2a − 2b, y 4 , y 02 ), for some t, y, y 0 . The assumption
that LF doesn’t meet the cubic C implies that the degree of LF has to be
even, write t = 2e. Indeed 0 = LF · C = 3t − 2δ + 4a + 4b − 4y − 2y 0 .
Moreover, because y = m − a − b and y 0 = m − a − b + α, then one can
check that
δ = 3e − 3m + 5a + 5b − α.
• Consider the intersection of S and F that is a fibre on S and the cubic
on F. Note that LS is a horizontal bundle so it must have bidegree (b, 0).

14

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

Moreover, LT meets a fibre a − b times and does not meet the negative
section B. Hence
LT = L2,a−b .

• The last parameter to be determined is e. We compute it by observing that
the limit bundle should have degree d, that is the degree on the bundle on
the general fibre. By pulling-back a line in the plane we get a line on P, a
fibre on F, a fibre on T and a fibre on S. Therefore, the intersection number
with all the bundles from above will have to add up to d. We obtain
d − 3(a + b)
.
2
Solving this system of linear equations we obtain
e=


LF = L2,d−3a−3b


3(a + b)
3d
− 3m −
− α, (m − a − b)4 , (m − a − b + α)2 .
2
2

The surface S will be contracted in the ruling direction. This last blow-down will
affect the surface F by contracting the cubic C to a point by performing a series
of Cremona transformations to LF , see Section 2.3. After contracting the surface S
the bundle on F becomes

4 
2 !
d a+b
d a+b
LF = L2,3m− d − 3(a+b) +α 0, 2m − −
+ α , 2m − −
.
2
2
2
2
2
2
The zero multiplicity of LF represents the image of the cubic after the Cremona
transformations. Since we are contracting the surface S we will simply ignore this
multiplicity. We recall that contracting the cubic on F will also affect the surface
on P by identifying the two last (−1)-curves created on P, namely F1 and F2 .
For the future analysis we will work with the normalization of P, so we will
consider F1 and F2 disjoint as before. We obtain the following result.
Proposition 4.6. All limits of the bundle Ld ((m + α)2 , m8 ) are of the following
form, for some choice of the parameters a and b:

• LP = L2, 3d −3m+ a+b −α m4 , [a, b], [a, b] ,
2
2

d
a+b 2
4
• LF = L2,3m− d − 3(a+b) +α (2m − d2 − a+b
2 + α) , (2m − 2 − 2 ) ,
2
2
• LT = L2,a−b .
Remark 4.7. We describe here how our degeneration method works. The choice of
the number of points that one collides in the central fibre in the first degeneration (in
this case is four, see Section 4.1.1) determines at each step of the degeneration the
(−1)-curves that one must flop in order to obtain better ratios for proving emptiness
or non-speciality results. In the analysis of linear systems with ten points both
approaches of proving emptiness or non-speciality lead to the same degeneration,
see [10] and [13].
d
such that for
Namely, in any degeneration one computes a fixed limit ratio m
any choice of the twisting parameters, all line bundles on the central fibre are nonempty. But this ratio satisfies the Nagata bound, so one of the linear systems
is special. According to Segre-Harbourne-Gimigliano-Hirschowitz Conjecture this
effective linear system is special because of the existence of a negative curve. In
the first degeneration this curve is precisely the special cubic passing through seven

ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

15

points, denoted by C, that distinguishes by splitting off the line bundle on P. To
d
improve the limit ratio, m
, one needs to flop the curve creating speciality.
In general, if the curve creating speciality of one of the linear systems of the
central fibre intersects the double curve E once, then one performs a one-throw as
explained in [13]. In other words, by blowing-up the curve creating speciality, the
exceptional divisor introduced is a ruled surface isomorphic to P1 × P1 , so one can
contract the other ruling.
However in our case, the special curve is the cubic C intersecting the double
curve E twice. It follows by the general intersection theory that the exceptional
divisor created after the first blow-up, denoted by T, is a Hirzebruch surface F1 that
can not be contracted. So a second blow-up is necessary creating two infinitely near
points; the new exceptional divisor, denoted by S, is the ruled surface P1 × P1 . This
can be seen by intersection theory of surfaces in P3 . This affects the double curve of
intersection, transforming E to the strict transform of a line blown-up four times.
Finally, the fibre direction of S can be blown-down. This blow-down simplifies the
geometry of F but it increases the difficulty of the study of the linear system on P.
We would like to point our that each degeneration is uniquely determined by
the number of points we decide to collide in the first step, the degree and multiplicities of the linear system. In this case the same degeneration as in [10] and [13]
can be applied, but for the sake of simplicity the computations that lead to this
degeneration were omitted.
We study now the effectivity of LP and LF for d = 3m + 2α and m ≥ 8α. Notice
that by substituting d = 3m + 2α we obtain the following bundles on P and F:

LP = L2, 3m + a+b +2α m4 , [a, b], [a, b] ,
2
2

4 
2 !
m a+b
m a+b
LF = L2, 3m − 3(a+b)
−
,
−
−α
.
2
2
2
2
2
2
Remark 4.8. The following two statements are obvious.
• The linear system on T, LT = L2,a−b , is nonempty if and only if a ≥ b.
• The linear system on F, LF is non-empty if any only if a + b ≤ m.
We will now analyse the linear system on P. We denote by Qi the four quartics
L4 (23 , 1, [1, 1]2 ) on P and we see that these (−1)-curves split off the system if
m ≥ 8α. Indeed,
LP Qi = L2, 3m + a+b +2α (m4 , [a, b], [a, b]) L2,4 (23 , 1, [1, 1]2 ) =
2


4

2


3m a + b
+
+ 2α − 3 · 2 · m − m − 2a − 2b = 8α − m.
2
2

We further apply a series of four Cremona transformations to the linear system LP (which contains 8 base points p1 , . . . , p8 ) based respectively at the points
{p1 , p2 , p3 }, {p4 , p5 , p8 }, {p4 , p6 , p7 } and {p1 , p2 , p3 }. Note that this series of Cremona transformations contracts the four quartics to a point at the same time.
Cr(LP ) = L2, a+b − 5m +18α ((8α−m)4 , [a−m+4α, b−m+4α], [a−m+4α, b−m+4α]).
2

2

For m ≥ 8α the exceptional divisors corresponding to the first four points are
(−1)-curves that split off the system. These exceptional divisors represent the

16

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

four quadrics; we will remove them and forget the zero multiplicities created. The
residual system is
L0 P = L2, a+b − 5m +18α ([a − m + 4α, b − m + 4α], [a − m + 4α, b − m + 4α])
2

2

It is obvious that LP is empty if and only if L0 P is empty.
We are now ready to prove the main result of this section.
Proof of Theorem 4.2. We want to prove that L = L2,3m+2α ((m+α)2 , m8 ) is empty
for m > 9α.
We assume by contradiction that there are some values of the parameters a and
b for which both linear systems LP and LF are non-empty in the central fibre of the
degeneration. If LP is non-empty then the degree of L0 P is positive. In particular
a + b ≥ 5m − 36α.

On the other hand, since LF is non-empty, by Remark 4.8, we must have
a + b ≤ m.

These two inequalities lead to a contradiction, hence the linear system
L2,3m+2α ((m + α)2 , m8 ) is empty.

In particular, Theorem 4.2 gives the following consequence.
Proposition 4.9. If m ≥ 8, then the linear system L2,3m+2 ((m+1)2 , m8 ) is empty.
Proof. First, we check cases m = 8, 9 by computer. For m ≥ 10 we apply Theorem
4.2 with α = 1.

4.2. Classification of homogeneous linear systems L3,2m+1 (m9 ). We are now
in position to prove the complete classification of homogeneous linear systems in
P3 of degree 2m + 1 and with nine points.
Theorem 4.10. A linear system L = L3,2m+1 (m9 ) is special if and only if m ≥ 9.
In particular we have:
• dim(L3,2m+1 (m9 )) = vdim(L3,2m+1 (m9 )) for m ≤ 8;
• dim(L3,2m+1 (m9 )) = 60 for m ≥ 7;
• the quadric Q through the nine base points is in the base locus of L with
multiplicity m − 7, for any m ≥ 8.
Before proceeding with the proof of this classification result, we state the following lemma, that is an easy consequence of Proposition 4.9.
Lemma 4.11. The linear system L2,3m+2 ((m + 1)2 , m8 ) satisfies:

dim(L2,3m+2 ((m + 1)2 , m8 )) = χ(LP1 ×P1 ,(2m+1,2m+1) (m9 ))

for m ≤ 8 and it is empty for m ≥ 8.
Proof. We check by computer the statement for m ≤ 7. For m ≥ 8 we use Proposition 4.9.

By Lemma 2.1, the previous lemma has the following straightforward consequence.
Corollary 4.12. The linear system LP1 ×P1 ,(2m+1,2m+1) (m9 ) is non-special for every m ≥ 1 and it is empty for m ≥ 8.

ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

17

Proof of Theorem 4.10. The restriction exact sequence (4.1) gives in this case:
0 → L3,2(m−1)+1 ((m − 1)9 ) → L3,2m+1 (m9 ) → LP1 ×P1 ,(2m+1,2m+1) (m9 ) → 0.

By using induction on m ≥ 1 and Corollary 4.12, we deduce that the linear
system is non-special if and only if m ≤ 8 (notice that if m = 8 we have
χ(LP1 ×P1 ,(17,17) (89 )) = 0). In order to prove that the quadric is contained in the
base locus of L with multiplicity m − 7, it is enough to use Corollary 4.12 and to
notice that dim(L3,15 (79 )) 6= dim(L3,13 (69 )).

A straightforward consequence of Theorem 4.10 is the following:
Corollary 4.13. Conjecture 5.1 holds for any homogeneous linear system with nine
points of multiplicity m and degree d ≤ 2m + 1.
5. Proof of Laface-Ugaglia Conjecture for linear systems with 9
points and multiplicities bounded by 8
Let L = L3,d (m1 , . . . , m9 ) be the linear system of degree d hypersurfaces of P3
with 9 general multiple points of multiplicities m1 , . . . , m9 . In this section we will
assume that d ≥ m1 ≥ m2 ≥ . . . ≥ m9 . Let Q = L3,2 (19 ) be the unique quadric
surface through the nine base points. We adopt the following notation

9 
X
mi + 1
.
(5.1)
q(L) = χ(L|Q ) = (d + 1)2 −
2
i=1
Laface and Ugaglia formulated their conjecture in [27, Conjecture 4.1] and [29,
Conjecture 6.3]. Following the definition of linear speciality introduced in [5], we
can reformulate this conjecture in the following way.
Conjecture 5.1 (Laface-Ugaglia Conjecture). Given a Cremona reduced linear
system L in P3 , we have
(1) if q(L) ≤ 0, then dim(L) = dim(L − Q);
(2) if q(L) > 0, then L is linearly non-special.

Remark 5.2. Since L is Cremona reduced, i.e. m1 + m2 + m3 + m4 ≤ 2d, it does not
contain any plane in the base locus. Hence Conjecture 5.1 says that if q(L) > 0,
then L is special if and only if m1 + m2 − d ≥ 2 and in this case:
X mi + mj − d + 1
dim(L) = ldim(L) = χ(L) +
,
3
i,j
where ldim denotes the affine linear dimension, see [18, Definition 1.2].
Remark 5.3. If q(L) ≤ 0 and dim(L) = dim(L − Q), from the exact sequence (4.1)
we obtain that
h1 (L) = h1 (L − Q) − q(L).
This means that the quadric Q is a special effect surface for the linear system L.

Remark 5.4. We point out that a quadric surface in the base locus can give speciality
even if it is contained with multiplicity one. Consider for instance the linear system
L = L3,8 (47 , 32 ) for which dim(L) = 6, h1 = −q(L) = 1. This system contains in
its base locus the quadric Q through the nine points, but does not contain 2Q.
This behaviour is different from the case of linear special effect varieties, for which
any linear cycle of dimension l contributes to the speciality only if its multiplicity
in the base locus is at least l + 1.

18

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

Remark 5.5. Notice that when a linear system L has a quadric surface as special
effect variety, computing h1 (L) is quite difficult in general. In fact the quasihomogeneous systems classified in Section 3 form a very special family for which
we understand completely the situation, but this is not the case in general.
Let L be a linear system with q(L) ≤ 0. Assume that
• q(L − kQ) ≤ 0 for any 0 ≤ k ≤ k and q(L − (k + 1)Q) > 0,
• L − kQ restricts to non-special linear systems on the quadric Q, for any
0 ≤ k ≤ k.

Then, by using Remark 5.3, we get the following formula:
(5.2)

h1 (L) = −

k
X
k=0

q(L − kQ).

By using (5.2) in the case of quasi-homogeneous systemsL3,2m(m8 , a) and using
Remark 3.2, we recover exactly the formula h1 (L) = a+1
+ a2 of Theorem 3.1.
3
In this case k = a.
The problem in general is to determine the value of k. Let us see an example:
if L = L3,13 (8, 68 ), then q(L) = −8, q(L − q) = −4, q(L − 2Q) = −1, while
q(L − 3Q) = 1 > 0, hence we have h1 (L) = 8 + 4 + 1 = 13 and in this case k = 2.
Remark 5.6. Given two vectors v = (m1 , . . . , ms ) and v 0 = (m01 , . . . , m0s ) in Ns , we
write v 0 ≤ v if and only if m0i ≤ mi for any 1 ≤ i ≤ s.
It is easy to see that if a linear system Ln,d (v) is non-special and non-empty,
then also any linear system Ln,d (v 0 ) is non-special and non-empty for any vector
v 0 ≤ v.
Now we establish Laface-Ugaglia Conjecture for any linear system with nine
points of multiplicities bounded by 8. We start with a lemma whose proof is
essentially computational.
Lemma 5.7. If a linear system L = L3,d (m1 , . . . , m9 ) is such that m = max(mi ) ≤
8 and d < 2m, then it satisfies Conjecture 5.1.
Proof. First of all it is clear that if d < m the system is empty, so we assume d ≥ m.
Assume that L is Cremona reduced, that is
(5.3)

m1 + m2 + m3 + m4 ≤ 2d.

Now if d = m, then by (5.3) we have that m1 = m and m2 < m. Therefore
P9
by applying [5, Theorem 5.3], we have that if i=1 mi ≤ 3d + 2 then L is linearly
non-special. Hence we can also assume
(5.4)

9
X

mi > 3d + 2.

i=1

For any m ≤ 8, only the following systems satisfy conditions (5.3) and (5.4):
L3,6 (6, 28 ) and L3,7 (7, 3, 27 ). It is easy to check that these two systems are linearly
non-special.
Assume now that d ≥ m + 1. We know, by [2], that Laface-Ugaglia Conjecture
is true for any linear system with multiplicities bounded by 5. So we can assume
6 ≤ m ≤ 8.

ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

Moreover, by applying again [5, Theorem 5.3], we have that if
then L is linearly non-special. Hence we can also assume
(5.5)

9
X

19

P9

i=1

mi ≤ 3d + 3

mi > 3d + 3.

i=1

Now we list all the possible linear systems which satisfy conditions (5.3) and
(5.5), for any 5 ≤ m ≤ 8 and any m + 1 ≤ d ≤ 2m − 1. Then we prove that all
the cases in the list satisfy the conjecture using the following procedure. For any
degree we start to check the cases L = L3,d (m1 , . . . , m8 ) = L3,d (v) for the largest
vectors v. We compute dim(L) by means of the computer system Macaulay2 as
explained in Section 2.4.
If L is non-special and non-empty, then by Remark 5.6, also the linear system
L3,d (v 0 ) is non-special and non-empty, for any vector v 0 ≤ v ∈ Z9 , hence we greatly
reduce the number of cases to be checked.
If L is linearly non-special, then we apply [5, Lemma 5.5 and Remark 5.6] and
[9, Theorem 1.2] and we obtain again that any system L3,d (v 0 ), for v 0 ≤ v ∈ Z9 ,
is linearly non-special. Hence we further reduce the number of cases to be checked
and we obtain at the end the lists contained in Tables 1, 2, 3. Notice that in the
tables the special and linearly non-special systems are marked with ∗. By applying
this procedure we complete the proof of the lemma.

We give now the main result of this section:
Theorem 5.8. Conjecture 5.1 is true for any linear system L3,d (m1 , . . . , m9 ) such
that m = max(mi ) ≤ 8.
Proof. If the degree d ≤ 2m − 1 the result follows from Lemma 5.7.
If d = 2m, by Theorem 3.1, we know that the quasi homogeneous linear systems
L3,2m (m8 , a) are special if and only if 2 ≤ a ≤ m and they satisfy Conjecture 5.1.
Arguing as in Lemma 5.7, in order to complete the proof we need to check all linear
systems satisfying (5.3) and (5.5) for any 6 ≤ m ≤ 8.
The list of these cases (reduced by Remark 5.6) is contained in Table 4 and we
checked all of them by computer.
Now if d ≥ 2m+1, by Theorem 4.10 the linear system L3,2m+1 (m9 ) is non-special
and non-empty. Hence any homogeneous linear system L3,d (m9 ) for d ≥ 2m + 1 is
also non-special and non-empty.
Finally we deduce that any (non-homogeneous) linear system L3,d (m1 , . . . , m9 )
with mi ≤ m is non-special and non-empty, by Remark 5.6. This completes the
proof.

5.1. Future directions. We conclude this paper by pointing out possible future
directions (both theoretical and computational) in establishing Laface-Ugaglia Conjecture for nine points. On the one hand, one can introduce further degenerations
of P2 in order to obtain a better bound in the base locus lemma, Theorem 4.1. On
the other hand, the combination of the results of Section 4 and of similar computerbased computations as the one performed in this section could improve the bound
on the multiplicities of Theorem 5.8.

20

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

5.2. Tables. The linear systems marked with ∗ in Table 1 , Table 2 and Table 3 are
linearly non-special, namely their dimension equals the linear expected dimension.
All other linear systems have the quadric surface through nine points as special
effect component, namely it splits off the system and gives speciality.
Table 1. The case m = 6
degree
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
9
9
9
9
8

(m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 , m5 , m6 , m7 , m8 , m9 )
(6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
(6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4)
(6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
(6, 6, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
(6, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(6, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(6, 6, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
(6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3)
(6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(6, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(6, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)

q
3
2
-3
21
10
9
28
3
-1
18
16
8

h0
28
22
10
76
40
35
80
14
5
50
42
20

h1
0
0
3
0
0
1
1
0
1
1
4
1

q
0
5
4
-1
-7
22
9
8
32
1
-4
20
38
18
37
8
27
26
23
16
15
5

h0
28
42
36
22
10
98
49
43
112
15
5
70
110
60
105
28
74
70
58
38
35
9

h1
0
0
0
1
10
0
0
1
1
0
5
1
2
4
4
1
2
4
10
2
4
8

Table 2. The case m = 7
degree
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
10
9
9
8

(m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 , m5 , m6 , m7 , m8 , m9 )
(7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6)
(7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5)
(7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4)
(7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5)
(7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6)
(7, 7, 7, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
(7, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
*(7, 7, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
*(7, 7, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
(7, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 4)
(7, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
*(7, 6, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(7, 6, 6, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(7, 7, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(7, 7, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(7, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(7, 5, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
* (7, 6, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(7, 7, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(7, 4, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(7, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(7, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)

ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

21

Table 3. The case m = 8
degree
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
14
14
14
14
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
12
12
12
12
11
11
11
11
11
10
10
10
9

(m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 , m5 , m6 , m7 , m8 , m9 )
(8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6)
(8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7)
(8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6)
(8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 5)
(8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6)
(8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7)
(8, 8, 8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6)
(8, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6)
*(8, 8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6)
*(8, 8, 7, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
*(8, 8, 8, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
(8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5)
(8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4)
(8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5)
(8, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6)
*(8, 7, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
*(8, 7, 7, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(8, 8, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
*(8, 8, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(8, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5, 5)
*(8, 6, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(8, 7, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(8, 8, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(8, 5, 5, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(8, 6, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(8, 6, 5, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(8, 7, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(8, 8, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(8, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4, 4)
*(8, 5, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(8, 6, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)
*(8, 4, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3)

q
3
-4
2
1
-5
-12
22
7
6
35
57
4
3
-2
-8
21
44
19
43
7
31
30
27
18
17
36
34
30
5
24
22
12

h0
52
28
44
37
22
10
120
56
49
147
203
34
28
15
5
91
154
79
148
35
105
100
85
56
52
98
90
74
14
56
50
21

h1
0
4
0
0
6
22
0
0
1
1
3
0
0
2
13
1
2
4
4
1
2
4
10
2
4
5
10
20
8
5
10
11

22

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

Table 4. The case d = 2m
(m1 , m2 , m3 , m4 , m5 , m6 , m7 , m8 , m9 )
(6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5, 5)
(6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 4)
(6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5, 5)
(6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 4, 4)
(6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 3)
(6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 4)
(6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 6, 5, 5)
(7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6, 6)
(7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 5)
(7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6, 6)
(7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 5, 4)
(7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 5, 5)
(7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 3)
(7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 4)
(7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 5)
(7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7, 6, 6)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7, 7)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 6)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7, 7)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 6, 6)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 5)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 6)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7, 7)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 5)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 6, 6)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 3)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 4)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 5)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 6)
(8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 8, 7, 7)

q
4
3
-2
2
1
-3
-8
1
0
-6
4
-1
2
-2
-7
-13
5
4
-3
3
2
-4
-11
1
-5
3
-1
-6
-12
-19

h0
35
29
16
23
18
11
6
36
29
16
37
23
26
18
1
6
69
61
36
53
46
29
16
38
23
35
26
18
11
6

h1
0
0
2
0
0
3
13
0
0
8
0
1
0
2
10
26
0
0
3
0
0
4
19
0
6
0
1
8
22
45

References
[1] J. Alexander, A. Hirschowitz, Polynomial interpolation in several variables, J. Algebraic
Geom. 4(2), 201–222 (1995).
[2] E. Ballico, M.C. Brambilla, F. Caruso, M. Sala, Postulation of general quintuple fat point
schemes in P3 , J. Algebra 363 (2012), 113–139.
[3] C. Bocci, Special effect varieties in higher dimension, Collectanea Mathematica (2005) Volume: 56, Issue: 3, page 299-326; ISSN: 0010-0757
[4] C. Bocci, Special Effect Varieties and (−1)-Curves, Rocky Mountain J. Math. Volume 40,
Number 2 (2010), 397-419
[5] M.C. Brambilla, O. Dumitrescu and E. Postinghel, On a notion of speciality of linear systems
in Pn , Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 367 (2015), 5447-5473
[6] M.C. Brambilla, O. Dumitrescu and E. Postinghel, On the effective cone of Pn blown-up at
n + 3 points, arXiv:1501.04094 (2015).
[7] M.C. Brambilla and G. Ottaviani, On the Alexander-Hirschowitz theorem, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 212 (2008), no. 5, 1229–1251.

ON LINEAR SYSTEMS OF P3 WITH NINE BASE POINTS

23

[8] M. V. Catalisano, A. V. Geramita, A. Gimigliano, Higher secant varieties of Segre-Veronese
varieties, in Projective varieties with unexpected properties (2005),81–107.
[9] K. Chandler, The geometric interpretation of Fröberg-Iarrobino conjectures on infinitesimal
neighbourhoods of points in projective space, J. Algebra 286 (2005), no. 2, 421–455.
[10] C. Ciliberto, O. Dumitrescu, R. Miranda, and J. Roé, Emptiness of homogeneous linear
systems with ten general base points, in Classification of algebraic varieties, EMS Ser. Congr.
Rep., Eur. Math. Soc., Zürich (2011), 189–195.
[11] C. Ciliberto and R. Miranda, Degenerations of Planar Linear Systems, J.Reine Angew. Math.
501 (1998), 191-220.
[12] C. Ciliberto and R. Miranda, Linear Systems of Plane Curves with Base Points of Equal
Multiplicity, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 352 (2000), 4037-4050.
[13] C. Ciliberto and R. Miranda, Homogeneous interpolation on ten points, Journal of Algebraic
Geometry 20 (2011), 685-726.
[14] C. Ciliberto, Geometrical aspects of polynomial interpolation in more variables and of Waring’s problem, European Congress of Mathematics, Vol. I (Barcelona, 2000), 289–316, Progr.
Math., 201, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2001.
[15] C. De Volder and A. Laface, On linear systems of P3 through multiple points, J. Algebra 310
(2007), no. 1, 207–217.
[16] I. Dolgachev, Weyl groups and Cremona transformations, Singularities, Part 1 (Arcata,
Calif., 1981), 283–294, Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 40, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI,
(1983)
[17] O. Dumitrescu, Plane curves with prescribed triple points: a toric approach, Comm. in Alg.,
vol.41, Issue 5, May 2013, pag. 1626-1635.
[18] O. Dumitrescu and E. Postinghel, Vanishing theorems for linearly obstructed divisors,
arXiv:1403.6852 (2014).
[19] A. Gimigliano, On linear systems of plane curves, Ph.D. Thesis, Queen’s University, Canada
(1987)
[20] S. Giuffrida, R. Maggioni, and A. Ragusa, On the postulation of 0-dimensional subschemes
on a smooth quadric, Pacific J. Math. 155 (1992), no. 2, 251–282.
[21] E. Guardo, A. Van Tuyl, Fat points in P1 × P1 and their Hilbert functions, Canad. J. Math.
56 (2004), no. 4, 716–741.
[22] D. Grayson, M. Stillman, Macaulay 2, a software system for research in algebraic geometry,
available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/.
[23] B. Harbourne, The geometry of rational surfaces and Hilbert functions of points in the plane,
Can. Math. Soc. Conf. Proc. 6, 95–111 (1986)
[24] A. Hirschowitz, Une conjecture pour la cohomologie des diviseurs sur les surfaces rationnelles
génériques, J. Reine Angew. Math. 397, 208–213 (1989)
[25] A. Laface, On linear systems of curves on rational scrolls, Geom. Dedicata 90 (2002), 127–
144.
[26] A. Laface and E. Postinghel, Secant varieties of Segre-Veronese embeddings of (P1 )r , Math.
Ann. 356, no.4 (2013), 1455–1470.
[27] A. Laface and L. Ugaglia, On a class of special linear systems on P3 , Trans. Amer. Math.
Soc. 358 (2006), no. 12, 5485–5500 (electronic).
[28] A. Laface and L.Ugaglia, On multiples of divisors associated to Veronese embeddings with
defective secant variety, Bull. Belg. Math. Soc. Simon Stevin 16 (2009), no. 5, Linear systems
and subschemes, 933–942.
[29] A. Laface and L. Ugaglia, Standard classes on the blow-up of Pn at points in very general
position, Comm. in Alg., vol. 40, 2012, pag. 2115-2129.
[30] E. Postinghel, A new proof of the Alexander-Hirschowitz interpolation theorem, Ann. Mat.
Pura Appl. (4) 191 (2012), no. 1, 77-94.
[31] Z. Ran, Enumerative geometry of singular plane curves, Inventiones Math. 97 (1989), 447–
465.
[32] B. Segre, Alcune questioni su insiemi finiti di punti in geometria algebrica, Atti Convegno
Intern. di Geom. Alg. di Torino, 15–33 (1961)
[33] A. Van Tuyl, An appendix to a paper of M. V. Catalisano, A. V. Geramita and A.
Gimigliano. The Hilbert function of generic sets of 2-fat points in P1 × P1 : Higher secant varieties of Segre-Veronese varieties in Projective varieties with unexpected properties
(2005), 109–112.

24

MARIA CHIARA BRAMBILLA, OLIVIA DUMITRESCU, AND ELISA POSTINGHEL

E-mail address: brambilla@dipmat.univpm.it
Università Politecnica delle Marche, via Brecce Bianche, I-60131 Ancona, Italy
E-mail address: dumitrescu@math.uni-hannover.de
Institut für Algebraische Geometrie GRK 1463, Welfengarten 1, 30167 Hannover,
Germany
E-mail address: elisa.postinghel@wis.kuleuven.be
KU Leuven, Department of Mathematics, Celestijnenlaan 200B, 3001 Heverlee, Belgium

