BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

arXiv:1112.2161v5 [math.AG] 3 Jan 2013

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG
Abstract. We prove that strongly F -regular and F -pure singularities satisfy Bertini-type
theorems (including in the context of pairs) by building upon a framework of Cumino,
Greco and Manaresi (compare with the work of Jouanolou and Spreafico). We also prove
that F -injective singularities fail to satisfy even the most basic Bertini-type results.

1. Introduction
The study of projective varieties with “mild” (such as rational or log canonical) singularities is ubiquitous throughout higher dimensional complex algebraic geometry. However,
the classes of singularities that are so mild in characteristic zero, frequently exhibit much
more pathological behavior in positive characteristic. This is largely a consequence of the
failure of Kodaira-type vanishing theorems. However, there are classes of singularities with
origins in commutative algebra (i.e. tight closure theory) and representation theory (i.e.
Frobenius splitting theory) which seem better behaved in characteristic p > 0. These are
the so called F -singularities.
In the study of varieties with mild singularities in characteristic zero, one of the more
common tools is Bertini’s theorem. In particular, by cutting by general hyperplanes, many
questions can be studied on smaller dimensional (presumably simpler) varieties. Thus,
the fact that “mild” singularities remain “mild” after cutting by general hyperplanes, is
critical. It is therefore natural to ask whether F -singularities are preserved when cut by
general hyperplane sections.
In this paper we show that strongly F -regular and sharply F -pure singularities satisfy
Bertini’s second theorem (see Corollary 3.4 for a precise statement). In particular, they are
preserved after taking general hyperplane sections. We state our result in a special case
first.
Corollary 6.7. Suppose that X is a projective variety over an algebraically closed field k.
If X is F -pure (respectively strongly F -regular) then so is a general hyperplane section of a
very ample line bundle.
In particular, if X is (globally) F -split, then a general hyperplane section is (locally)
F -split. We actually obtain a stronger statement which is written below.
Theorem 6.1. Suppose that X is a variety over an algebraically closed field k, let ∆ ≥ 0
be a Q-divisor on X, and let φ : X −→ Pnk be a k-morphism with separably generated (not
necessarily algebraic) residue field extensions. Suppose either
(i) (X, ∆) is strongly F -regular, or
(ii) (X, ∆) is sharply F -pure, or
(iii) ∆ = 0, X is not necessarily normal, and X is F -pure.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 14F18, 13A35, 14E15, 14J17, 14B05.
Key words and phrases. F -regular, F -pure, F -rational, F -injective, Bertini.
The first author was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS #1064485.
The second author was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS #1068946.
1

2

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG

Then there exists a nonempty open subset U of (Pnk )∨ , the dual projective space of hyperplanes, such that for each hyperplane H ∈ U ,

(i) φ−1 (H), ∆|φ−1 (H) is strongly F -regular.

(ii) φ−1 (H), ∆|φ−1 (H) is sharply F -pure.
(iii) φ−1 (H) is F -pure.
Parts (i) and (ii) of this result also extends to triples (R, ∆, at ) by Remark 6.2.
Strongly F -regular and sharply F -pure singularities are the moral equivalent of log terminal and log canonical singularities respectively, and so Theorem 6.1 should be viewed as
an analog of [KM98, Lemma 5.17]. The proof is an application of the axiomatic framework
for proving Bertini-type theorems laid out in [CGM86], cf. [Jou83, Spr98]. We also rely
heavily on standard ideas for base change for F -singularities; cf. [HH94a].
We mention that related questions have been studied before for strongly F -regular pairs
in [MY09, Example 4.7]. In that work, Mustaţă and Yoshida gave an example where general
sections of a linear system behaved badly, and in particular, did not satisfy any version of
Theorem 6.1. However, their example had inseparable residue field extensions even though
the extension of fraction fields was separably generated. In particular, their example demonstrates that we cannot weaken the hypothesis of Theorem 6.1 to only requiring separably
generated residue field extensions only for the function field extension of the varieties. See
Remark 8.4 for details.
Via F -inversion of adjunction applied to Theorem 6.1, we obtain the following corollary
which should be compared with [KM98, Lemma 5.17]:
Corollary 6.10. Suppose that X is a variety over an algebraically closed field k, let ∆ ≥ 0
be a Q-divisor on X. Let φ : X −→ Pnk be a k-morphism with separably generated (not
necessarily algebraic) residue field extensions. Fix a general element H of (Pnk )∨ . Then:
(i) If (X, ∆) is sharply F -pure then (X, ∆ + φ−1 (H)) is also sharply F -pure.
(ii) If (X, ∆) is strongly F -regular, then (X, ∆ + φ−1 (H)) is divisorially F -regular1 in
the sense of [HW02].
(iii) If (X, ∆) is strongly F -regular, then (X, ∆ + εφ−1 (H)) is strongly F -regular for all
1 > ε ≥ 0.
It is also natural to ask whether F -rational and F -injective singularities satisfy Bertini’s
second theorem. We however show that F -injective singularities cannot satisfy Bertini’s
second theorem, see Section 7. We do not know how F -rationality behaves.
Theorem 7.5. There exists a projective surface which is F -injective, except possibly at
finitely many points, whose general hyperplane section is not F -injective.
This example is based upon the study of weak normality and general hyperplane sections
as developed in [CGM89].
Remark 1.1. We should point out that this paper is about global Bertini theorems. A
local Bertini theorem relates singularities at a point x of a variety X with singularities
of general hypersurfaces through x. Note that F -regular singularities do not satisfy local
Bertini theorems, since for example, if x ∈ X is an F -regular but non-regular point of a
surface X and H is any hypersurface through x ∈ X, then H is not even normal. Indeed,
if H was normal, it would be regular and thus x ∈ X would be regular as well.
1The term “divisorially F -regular” singularities unfortunately corresponds to “purely log terminal” sin-

gularities [Tak08].

BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

3

Acknowledgements:
The authors would like to thank Florian Enescu for discussions on the history of base
change problems for F -singularities and for comments on an earlier draft of this paper. We
are indebted to all of the referees, Alberto Fernandez Boix and Kazuma Shimomoto for
numerous helpful comments on a previous draft of this paper. We would like to thank Mel
Hochster for some very inspiring discussions, especially on properties described (A1) and
(A1P) below. We would like to thank Sándor Kovács for pointing out to us [Kol11]. We
would like to thank Shunsuke Takagi for some discussions on the problem in general. Finally
we would like to thank Kevin Tucker for useful discussions on base change problems and for
comments on a previous draft of this paper. The authors also thank Anton Geraschenko,
Thomas Nevins, and ulrich for providing some references to [Spr98] and [Jou83] on
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/67326/.
2. Background and notation
Throughout this paper, all schemes are separated and all rings and schemes are of characteristic p > 0 and F -finite. It should be noted that F -finite rings are always excellent
[Kun76] and possess dualizing complexes [Gab04]. Additionally, any scheme essentially of
finite type over a perfect field is F -finite, and so since we are interested in schemes of finite
type over algebraically closed fields, it is harmless to work in this setting. We will pay special care that we do not depart from the F -finite setting in various base-change statements.
We also note that when we discuss a variety, it is always of finite type over an algebraically
closed field.
Given a property P of local rings, we say that a scheme X satisfies P if all of its stalks
satisfy the property. Such a property is called a local property of schemes.
Definition 2.1. Suppose that k is a field and that X −
→ Spec k is a map of schemes. We
say that X is geometrically P if for every finite extension k′ ⊇ k, we have Xk′ := X ×k k′
is P.
The reason we restrict to finite extensions is that we do not want to leave the category
of F -finite schemes. We could just as easily define geometrically P by requiring that
the Xk′ satisfy P for finitely generated extensions k′ ⊇ k (this would be more general
than finite extensions but less general than arbitrary extensions). For example, note that
Fp (x1 , x2 , . . . , xn ) is F -finite, but Fp (x1 , x2 , . . . ) is not F -finite.
When dealing with a ring R of characteristic p > 0, we use F e : R −
→ R to denote the
e-iterated Frobenius map on R. When R is reduced (a setting in which we will always
e
reside), we use F∗e R and R1/p interchangeably to denote the ring R viewed as a module
e
over itself via F e (i.e. r · x = r p x). The advantage of the latter notation is that it helps us
distinguish elements from R and F∗e R.
Finally, we also recall the following generic freeness result which we will use several times.
Theorem 2.2 ((Generic Freeness, Theorem 14.4 in [Eis95])). Suppose that S is a Noetherian domain and T is a finitely generated S-algebra. If M is a finitely generated T -module,
then there exists a nonzero element c ∈ S such that M [c−1 ] is a free S[c−1 ]-module.
2.1. Definitions of F -singularities. We recall various definitions of F -singularities.
Definition 2.3 ((strong F -regularity)). Suppose that (R, m) is an F -finite reduced local
ring of characteristic p > 0. We say that R is strongly F -regular if, for each c ∈ R not in
17→c1/q

any minimal prime of R, there exists q = pe such that the R-linear map R −−−−→ R1/q
splits, or equivalently, for each c ∈ R not in any minimal prime of R, there exists q = pe

4

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG
17→c1/q

such that the R-linear map (R −−−−→ R1/q ) ⊗R E is injective, where E is the injective hull
of the residue field of R.
Definition 2.4 ((F -purity)). Suppose that (R, m) is an F -finite reduced local ring of characteristic p > 0. We say that R is F -pure if R ֒→ R1/p splits, or equivalently, (R ֒→ R1/p )⊗R E
is injective, where E is the injective hull of the residue field of R.
Definition 2.5 ((F -injectivity)). Suppose that (R, m) is an F -finite local ring of charac→ Hmi (F∗e R)
teristic p > 0. We say that R is F -injective if the Frobenius map F : Hmi (R) −
is injective for every i ≥ 0. Dually, R is F -injective if for each i ∈ Z, the ith cohomology of
the Grothendieck-trace map
q
q
→ hi ω R
hi (F∗e ωR ) −
q
is surjective for all e > 0 (or equivalently some e > 0). Here ωR is a dualizing complex for
R.
Remark 2.6. It is worth remarking that F -injective rings are automatically reduced. Indeed,
suppose that 0 6= f ∈ R is a nilpotent element. Set J = AnnR (f ) and suppose that
Q is a minimal prime containing J. First consider f /1 ∈ RQ . If f /1 = 0, then f is
killed by an element of R \ Q ⊆ R \ AnnR (f ), which is impossible. Thus we know that
0 6= f /1 ∈ RQ . Furthermore, we notice that AnnRQ (f /1) is QRQ -primary. In particular,
0
(RQ ) ⊆ RQ . Now, some iterate of
Qn RQ ⊆ AnnRQ (f /1). But then 0 6= f /1 ∈ HQR
Q
0
(RQ ) −
→
Frobenius kills f /1 since f was nilpotent. Therefore the Frobenius map F : HQR
Q
q
q
0
0
0
→ h (ωRQ ) is not
HQRQ (F∗ RQ ) is not injective. By local duality, the map h (F∗ ωRQ ) −
surjective. It follows immediately that RQ is not F -injective and thus R is also not F injective.
Definition 2.7 ((F -rationality)). We say that (R, m) is F -rational if it is Cohen-Macaulay
and there is no non-zero submodule J ( ωR such that the Grothendieck-trace map Φ :
F∗e ωR −
→ ωR satisfies Φ(F∗e J) ⊆ J. In other words, if ωR is simple under the action of Φ
and R.
All of these notions extend to not-necessarily-local rings (and schemes) by requiring the
condition at every point. In the F -finite case, they are all known to be open conditions.
We now mention a generalization of F -purity and strong F -regularity to pairs. We will not
review basic facts about the formalism of Q-divisors in this paper. Instead we suggest the
reader see [KM98], [HW02] or [ST11] for a discussion of Q-divisors in this context.
Definition 2.8. A pair, denoted (R, ∆) (or (X, ∆)) is the combined information of a normal
ring R (respectively, a normal scheme X) and an effective Q-divisor ∆ ≥ 0.
Definition 2.9 ((strong F -regularity for pairs)). A pair (R, ∆), with R local, is said to be
strongly F -regular if for each nonzero c ∈ R , the composition
→ F∗e (R(⌈(pe − 1)∆⌉))
R −
→ F∗e R −
1 7→
c
7→ c
splits for some2 e > 0 .
Remark 2.10. For strong F -regularity, it is sufficient to obtain a splitting for a single c
such that Supp(∆) ⊆ V (c) and Spec R[c−1 ] is regular. See Lemma 2.15 below for a slight
variation on this statement.
2equivalently, all e ≫ 0 or infinitely many e > 0

BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

5

Definition 2.11 ((sharp F -purity for pairs)). A pair (R, ∆) is said to be sharply F -pure
if the composition
R −
→ F∗e R −
→ F∗e (R(⌈(pe − 1)∆⌉))
1 7→
1
7→ 1
splits for some3 e > 0.
Remark 2.12. Notice that a sharply F -pure (respectively strongly F -regular) pair (R, ∆ 6=
0), R is by definition normal. In particular, geometrically sharply F -pure pairs are geometrically normal as well.
We also recall a common characterization of (sharply) F -pure pairs essentially taken from
[HW02].
Lemma 2.13 ((Proposition 2.4(1) in [HW02])). Suppose that (R, m) is an F -finite normal
d-dimensional local ring and ∆ is a Q-divisor on X = Spec R. Then (R, ∆) is sharply
F -pure, if and only if there exists an e > 0 such that the composition
ER ∼
= Hmd (ωR )
∼
= Hmd (OX (KX ))
−→ Hmd (F∗e OX (pe KX ))
−→ Hmd (F∗e OX (pe KX + ⌈(pe − 1)∆⌉))
∼
= Hmd (F∗e OX (KX + ⌈(pe − 1)(KX + ∆)⌉))
is injective.
Proof. This is essentially contained in [HW02, Proposition 2.4(1)] but we give a brief proof
here for the convenience of the reader. By Matlis/local-duality [Har66], the injectivity above
is equivalent to the surjectivity of a composition:
F∗e OX (−⌈(pe − 1)(KX + ∆)⌉) −
→ F∗e OX ((1 − pe )KX ) −
→ OX
If this composition is surjective, we may choose an element z ∈ F∗e OX (−⌈(pe −1)(KX +∆)⌉)
sent to 1 ∈ OX and notice that the submodule generated by z is isomorphic to F∗e OX . This
is our splitting, the factorization above guarantees that our splitting is of the desired form.
For the converse direction, notice that
OX (KX ) −
→ F∗e OX (pe KX ) −
→ F∗e (OX (pe KX + ⌈(pe − 1)∆⌉))
splits and then apply Hmd (•).



Remark 2.14. We now enumerate some basic properties of pairs:
(1) One can see that the pair (R, ∆) is sharply F -pure if and only if the evaluation (at
1) map
HomR (F∗e (R(⌈(pe − 1)∆⌉), R) −
→R
is surjective for some e > 0. And since surjectivity is a local property, one can check
sharp F -purity locally at maximal ideals of R.
(2) It follows from (i) that if (Rp , ∆|Spec(Rp ) ) is strongly F -regular (or sharply F -pure)
for some p ∈ Spec(R), then there is an open neighborhood U of p in Spec(R) such
that (Rp′ , ∆|Spec(Rp′ ) )) is strongly F -regular (or sharply F -pure) for each p′ ∈ U .
(3) If (pe − 1)∆ is an integral Weil divisor and (R, ∆) is sharply F -pure, then it is easy
to see that the map R −
→ F∗e (R((pe − 1)∆)) splits. This holds because this map can
e
be used to factor a map that does indeed split (just as if R −
→ R1/p splits then so
does R −
→ R1/p ).
3equivalently, infinitely many e > 0 or all sufficiently divisible e > 0

6

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG

We will use the following characterization of strong F -regularity via sharp F -purity.
Lemma 2.15 ((Lemma 5.9(a) in [HH94a], Corollary 3.10 in [SS10])). Suppose that R and
∆ are as above and Γ > 0 is any other Q-divisor whose support contains the locus where
(R, ∆) is not strongly F -regular. If (R, ∆ + Γ) is sharply F -pure, then (R, ∆) is strongly
F -regular.
We also remind the reader that in many cases, the divisor ∆ in sharply F -pure pairs can
be assumed to be in a particularly nice form.
Lemma 2.16 ((Proposition 3.12 in [SS10])). Suppose that (R, ∆) is sharply F -pure. Then
there exists a divisor ∆′ ≥ ∆ such that (R, ∆′ ) is sharply F -pure and such that KR + ∆′
is Q-Cartier with index not divisible by p > 0. Additionally, one can arrange e > 0 such
that (pe − 1)∆′ is integral and that HomR (F∗e R((pe − 1)∆′ ), R) ∼
= F∗e R((1 − pe )(KR + ∆′ ))
e
e
is isomorphic to F∗ R as an F∗ R-module.
We also will need a weak global generalization of this statement stated below.
Lemma 2.17. Suppose that (X, ∆) is sharply F -pure. Then there exists a ∆′ ≥ ∆ such
that (X, ∆′ ) is sharply F -pure and that (pe −1)∆′ is an integral Weil divisor for some e > 0.
Proof. The fact that (X, ∆) is sharply F -pure is equivalent to requiring that the evaluationat-1 map:
H omOX (F∗e OX (⌈(pe − 1)∆⌉), OX ) −
→ OX
is a surjective map of sheaves for some e > 0 (if it holds at a point, it holds in a neighborhood
for all sufficiently divisible e). Set ∆′ = pe1−1 ⌈(pe −1)∆⌉. The result follows immediately. 
Finally, we recall some well known properties of F -singularities of pairs.
Lemma 2.18 ((Corollary 3.10, Lemma 3.5, Theorem 3.9 in [SS10])). Suppose that (R, ∆)
is a strongly F -regular pair.
(a) If Γ > 0 is any other Q-divisor, then for all 1 ≫ ε > 0, we have that (R, ∆ + εΓ) is
also strongly F -regular.
(b) For all 1 > s ≥ 0, we have that (R, s∆) is strongly F -regular4.
(c) If (R, ∆ + Γ) is sharply F -pure and (R, ∆) is strongly F -regular, then (R, ∆ + εΓ)
is strongly F -regular for all 1 > ε ≥ 0.
2.2. Pulling back Weil divisors under flat maps. We will repeatedly pull back Weil
divisors under flat maps in this paper and so it is important that we briefly discuss this
process.
Suppose that R −
→ S is a flat map of normal domains corresponding to f : Spec S −
→
Spec R. Suppose that M is any finitely generated reflexive R-module (i.e. the natural map
is an isomorphism M ∼
= HomR (HomR (M, R), R)), then M ⊗R S is also S-reflexive. This is
easy since M ⊗R S ∼
= HomR (HomR (M, R), R) ⊗R S ∼
= HomS (HomS (M ⊗R S, S), S) because
S is R-flat.
Recall that an effective integral Weil divisor on Spec R is simply a choice of a rank-1
reflexive R-module M with a choice of a map R −
→ M (up to multiplication by a unit
of R). Tensoring such a module by S gives us a map S −
→ M ⊗R S and so determines
an effective Weil divisor on Spec S, in particular we have a map f ∗ from div(Spec R) to
div(Spec S). If D and E are effective divisors corresponding to reflexive sheaves M and
N respectively, then D + E corresponds to (M ⊗ N )∨∨ (where •∨ denotes HomR (•, R)).
4The analogous statement also holds for sharp F -purity

BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

7

It follows that f ∗ (D + E) corresponds to f ∗ D + f ∗ E. The same formulas hold for antieffective divisors which correspond to inclusions M ⊆ R. Finally, a similar set of arguments
yield that f ∗ (−D) = −f ∗ (D) and so in general, we have a group homomorphism: f ∗ :
div(Spec R) −
→ div(Spec S).
We can extend this to Q-divisors formally. However, we should point out that if D is a
Q-divisor on Spec R, then ⌈f ∗ D⌉ ≤ f ∗ ⌈D⌉. To see this, write ⌈D⌉ = D + B where B is an
effective Q-divisor. It follows that f ∗ ⌈D⌉ = f ∗ D + f ∗ B and since f ∗ B is still effective, the
claim follows.
2.3. Divisors on fibers. Finally, suppose that Y −
→ X is a map of finite type where X
is a variety over an algebraically closed field, Y is geometrically normal over X (meaning
that every fiber is geometrically normal in the sense of Definition 2.1), and ∆ is a Q-divisor
on Y . Then for an open dense set of points s ∈ X, Ys is normal and we obtain divisors
∆s = ∆|Ys on the fibers Ys . To see this claim, it is harmless to assume that X is regular and
∆ is an integral prime Cartier divisor (by removing the singular locus of Y and working by
linearity). But then the claim follows directly from generic freeness [Eis95, Theorem 14.4]
(assume that O∆ is free over OX ). We now also present an alternate way to restrict Weil
divisors that we will certainly use.
Lemma 2.19. With notation as above, if M is a rank-1 reflexive module on Y , then for
an open dense set of fibers Ys , Ms = M ⊗OX k(s) is a rank-1 reflexive module on Ys .
It follows immediately that if M corresponds to a Weil divisor D then Ms corresponds
to D|Ys =: Ds . This lemma also follows from [Kol11, Theorem 2].
Proof. Without loss of generality we may assume that X = Spec B is regular and that
Y = Spec R is normal. Fix N such that M = HomR (N, R). By generic freeness, replacing X = Spec B with an open subset, we may assume that M , N , R, as well as
X
(N, R) are all B-free. Fix a point s ∈ X. By replacing B by
Ext0R (N, R), . . . , Extdim
R
Bs , which is B localized at s (which is flat) and R by R ⊗B Bs , we may assume that s is
generated by a regular sequence x1 , . . . , xn ∈ B.
We know that
(2.19.1)

q
q
∼
R HomR (N, R) ⊗L
R R/hx1 , . . . , xn i = R HomR (N, R/hx1 , . . . , xn i)

by [Har66, Chapter II, 5.14]. Taking zeroth cohomology of the left side is computed by
i
TorR
i (ExtR (N, R), R/hx1 , . . . , xn i) for i = 0, . . . , n. But these are zero for i > 0 since
i
ExtR (N, R) is B-free for i = 1, . . . , n (and hence x1 , . . . , xn form a regular sequence on it).
Thus
q
∼
h0 (R HomR (N, R) ⊗L
R R/hx1 , . . . , xn i) = HomR (N, R) ⊗ R/hx1 , . . . , xn i.

Taking zeroth cohomology of Equation 2.19.1 then yields:
M ⊗R R/hx1 , . . . , xn i ∼
= HomR (N, R) ⊗R R/hx1 , . . . , xn i ∼
= HomR (N, R/hx1 , . . . , xn i).
But
HomR (N, R/hx1 , . . . , xn i) ∼
= HomR/hx1 ,...,xn i (N/hx1 , . . . , xn i, R/hx1 , . . . , xn i).
It then follows that M |Ys = M ⊗R R/hx1 , . . . , xn i is reflexive which is what we wanted to
prove.


8

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG

3. Restating Cumino-Greco-Manaresi for pairs
In [CGM86], the authors developed a framework for proving Bertini-theorems for classes
of singularities in characteristic p > 0. The idea of the proof is the same as in related
results contained in [Jou83] and similar ideas have appeared in a number of other expositions as well, also see [Zar44, Sei50]. For an excellent historical survey of the origins of
Bertini’s theorem see [Kle98]. The framework of Cumino-Greco-Manaresi is convenient for
our purpose however. We note that these ideas were further developed in [Spr98] in the
case of non-algebraically closed fields (and in other directions). However, we work in the
algebraically closed case for simplicity, although several of the results of this paper do hold
more generally with no additional work cf. [Spr98, Corollaries 4.3, 4.5].
We recall the following axioms for a local property P in case of locally Noetherian
schemes. These are taken directly from Cumino-Greco-Manaresi [CGM86], cf. [Spr98]:
(A1) whenever φ : Y −
→ Z is a flat morphism with regular fibers and Z is P, then Y is
P too;
(A2) let φ : Y −
→ S be a morphism of finite type, where Y is excellent and S is integral with generic point5 η; if Yη is geometrically P, then there exists an open
neighborhood U of η in S such that Ys is geometrically P for each s ∈ U .
(A3) P is open on schemes of finite type over a field.
Remark 3.1. For a partial list of properties satisfying (A2) (with citations to EGA), see
[GW10, Appendix E].
Cumino, Greco, and Manaresi proved in [CGM86] that, once a property P on an algebraic
variety V over an algebraically closed field satisfies the three axioms (A1), (A2) and (A3),
then the Second Theorem of Bertini holds for P. More precisely,
Theorem 3.2 ((Theorem 1 in [CGM86])). Let X be a scheme of finite type over an algebraically closed field k, let φ : X −→ Pnk be a morphism with separably generated (not
necessarily algebraic) residue field extensions. Suppose X has a local property P verifying
(A1) and (A2). Then there exists a nonempty open subset U of (Pnk )∨ such that φ−1 (H)
has the property P for each hyperplane H ∈ U .
Remark 3.3. In the above statement, and throughout the paper, we use (Pnk )∨ to denote
the dual-projective space of hyperplanes of Pnk .
The following corollaries follow easily.
Corollary 3.4 ((Second Theorem of Bertini, Corollary 1 in [CGM86])). Let V be an algebraic variety over k = k̄, and let S be a finite dimensional linear system on V . Assume
that the rational map V 99K Pn corresponding to S induces (whenever defined) separably
generated field extensions. Let P be a property satisfying (A1), (A2), and (A3). Then the
general element of S, considered as a subscheme of V , has the property P but perhaps at
the base points of S and at the points of V which are not P.
Also, whenever P satisfies the three axioms (A1), (A2) and (A3), then P is preserved
by the general hyperplane section.
Corollary 3.5 ((Corollary 2 in [CGM86])). Let V ⊆ Pn be a closed subscheme and let
P be a local property satisfying (A1) and (A2). Then if V is P, the general hyperplane
section of V is P. If moreover P satisfies (A3), then the P-locus of V is preserved by
the general hyperplane section; that is for the general hyperplane section H of Pn one has
P(V ∩ H) ⊇ P(V ) ∩ H.
5The point corresponding to the zero ideal locally.

BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

9

This result even holds if V is contained in a hyperplane H of Pn , since the linear system
of hyperplanes on Pn restricts to the complete linear system of hyperplanes on H.
In this paper, we will prove the Second Theorem of Bertini for classes of F -singularities
for pairs. To this end, we have to modify Cumino-Greco-Manaresi’s axioms for pairs as
follows:
(A1P) Let φ : Y −
→ Z be a flat morphism with regular fibers and ∆ be a Q-divisor on Z.
If (Z, ∆) is P, then (Y, φ∗ ∆) is P too.
(A2P) Let κ : Y −
→ Z be a morphism of finite type of F -finite schemes, where Z is an
integral scheme with generic point η. Fix a Q-divisor6 ∆ on Y such that (Yη , ∆η )
is geometrically P. Then there exists an open neighborhood U of η in Z such that
(Ys , ∆s ) is geometrically P for each s ∈ U .
(A3P) P is an open condition for pairs (Y, ∆) of finite type over an F -finite field.
Remark 3.6. Note that built into (A2P) is the requirement that (Ys , ∆s ) makes sense. In
particular, we require that ∆s can be interpreted as a Q-divisor on Ys (of course this holds
for an open dense set of points on Z since κ is generically flat.)
Following the strategy in [CGM86], we need only to establish
Theorem 3.7. Let X be a normal scheme of finite type over an algebraically closed field
k, let ∆ be a Q-divisor on X, and let φ : X −→ Pnk be a morphism with separably generated
(not necessarily algebraic) residue field extensions. Suppose (X, ∆) has a local property P
verifying (A1P) and
(A2P). Then there exists a nonempty open subset U of (Pnk )∨ such that

φ−1 (H), ∆|φ−1 (H) has the property P for each hyperplane H ∈ U .

Proof. The following proof is taken directly from [CGM86]. All we add is the divisor pair.
Let Z be the reduced closed subscheme of Pnk ×k (Pnk )∨ obtained by taking the closure of
the set

(x, H) ∈ x ∈ H .
We claim that the projection map β : Z −
→ Pnk is flat. Indeed, it is clearly generically flat,
and since it is finite type it is flat at some closed point. But for any z ∈ Z, OZ,z is certainly
→ OZ,z is
isomorphic to that of any other z. Furthermore, the inclusion of rings OPnk ,β(z) −
also independent of the choice of z, up to isomorphism. Thus β is flat in general.
Just as in [CGM86], we form a commutative diagram:
Y := X ×Pnk Z

◆◆◆
◆◆◆
ρ ◆◆◆◆
&

γ

σ

/ Z
rr _
r
r
π rrr
r
r
r
xrr

(Pn )∨ o
Pn ×k (Pn )∨
k



X

φ

π′

k

k


/ Pn
k

We describe each map appearing above.
• σ is the projection.
• π ′ is the projection and thus so is π.
• ρ = π ◦ σ.
• γ is the projection. Note that γ is flat since it is a base change of the projection
Z−
→ Pnk .
6If ∆ 6= 0 we assume Y is normal, otherwise we make no such assumption.
η

10

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG

For each hyperplane H ⊆ Pnk viewed also as a point in (Pnk )∨ , we have
φ−1 (H) ∼
= σ −1 (π −1 (H)) = ρ−1 (H).
We obtain a divisor ∆Y on Y := X ×Pnk Z. Therefore we want to show that for a dense open
set of points of (Pnk )∨ , that the fibers of ρ, which yield pairs (Ys , (∆Y )s ), satisfy property
P. Set η to be the generic point of (Pnk )∨ . By (A2P), we merely need to show that the
generic fiber7 (Yη , (∆Y )η ) is geometrically P. Therefore, we only need to show that for
each finite field extension K over k(η), that (YK , (∆Y )K ) is P.
Consider the following composition which we denote by q:
γ

→X
→ X ×Pnk Z −
→ X ×Pnk Zη −
YK = Yη ×k(η) K = (X ×Pnk Zη ) ×k(η) K −
where the final map is the projection. Notice that this map is flat since each map in the
composition is flat. In [CGM86], Cumino, Greco and Manaresi proved that q has regular
fibers. Thus by (A1P), the pair (YK , q ∗ ∆) = (YK , (∆Y )K ) is P. This completes the
proof.

4. (A1P) for sharply F -pure and strongly F -regular pairs
The property (A1) has been heavily studied for F -singularities. In this section, we generalize these results to pairs. First however, we review some history. Such problems were first
studied in [HH94a, Section 7] where it was shown that F -regularity is well behaved in many
cases (and the same arguments imply that F -purity is equally well behaved). In [Vél95],
Vélez showed that F -rationality behaved well for smooth morphisms. In [Ene00, Has01],
F. Enescu and M. Hashimoto independently proved a variant of (A1) for morphisms with
geometrically F -rational fibers (instead of regular fibers). However, without the geometric
hypothesis on the fiber, it is unknown whether (A1) holds for F -rational singularities. Even
worse, in [Ene09, Section 4], F. Enescu showed that F -injectivity can fail to satisfy (A1),
more about this will be discussed in Section 7 below. Additional discussion of base change
problems for F -singularities can be found in [Abe01, BS02, AE03].
The following theorem of Hochster and Huneke will be crucial to our proof of (A1P) for
sharp F -purity. We originally learned this material from the exposition given in [Hoc07,
Pages 167–175].
Theorem 4.1 ((Lemma 7.10 in [HH94a])). Let (R, m, K) −→ (S, n, L) be an arbitrary flat
local morphism.
(1) If z ∈ n is not a zero-divisor on S/mS, then z is not a eradicator on S and R −→
S/zS is again a (faithfully) flat local homomorphism.
(2) More generally, if y1 , . . . , yt ∈ n form a regular sequence on S/mS, then they form a
regular sequence in S and R −→ S/(y1 , . . . , yt ) is again a faithfully flat local homomorphism. The elements y1 , . . . , yt also form an S-sequence on S ⊗R M for every
nonzero finitely generated R-module M.
(3) Suppose that M has finite length over R with V = AnnM (m), and that S/mS is zerodimensional with socle Q. Then we have an injection Q ⊗K V −→ S/mS ⊗K V ∼
=
S ⊗R V −→ S ⊗R M , under which Q ⊗K V is sent onto the socle in S ⊗R M .
(4) If the closed fiber S/mS is Gorenstein, y1 , . . . , yt ∈ n are elements in S whose
images in S/mS form a system of parameters, Ia = (y1a , . . . , yta ), then ES (L) ∼
=
7in other words, the fiber of the generic point

BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

11

(lima S/Ia ) ⊗R ER (K), where the map S/Ia −→ S/Ia+1 is induced by multiplication
−→
by y1 · · · yt . In other words, if I = (y1 , . . . , yt )S then
ES (L) ∼
= ER (K) ⊗R H t (S).
I

Recall the following definition of canonical modules (when the ring is not necessarily
Cohen-Macaulay) from [HH94b].
Definition 4.2. Let (R, m, K) be a d-dimensional equidimensional Noetherian local ring.
A finitely generated R-module ω is called a canonical module of R if it is isomorphic to
Hmd (R)∨ .
More generally, when R is not necessarily local, an R-module ω is called a canonical
module of R if ωP is a canonical module of RP for each prime ideal P of R.
The following theorem on the behavior of canonical modules under flat extensions is
certainly known to experts, but we do not know of a proof in the generality we need, cf.
[BH93, Theorem 3.3.14(a)], [Har77, Chapter V, Section 9].
Lemma 4.3. Let ϕ : R −→ S be a flat ring homomorphism with Gorenstein fibers between
Noetherian equidimensional rings. Assume that R admits a canonical module ωR , then
ωR ⊗R S is also a canonical module of S.
Proof. It suffices to show that for each prime ideal q of S, the module ωp ⊗Rp Sq is a
canonical module of Sq where p = q ∩ R. Without loss of generality, we may assume that
ϕ : (R, m, K) −
→ (S, n, L) is a flat local homomorphism with Gorenstein fibers and ωR is a
canonical module of R. Since a module is a canonical module if and only if its completion
is a canonical module of the completion of the ring, we may assume that R and S are
complete. Then it suffices to show that HomS (ωR ⊗R S, ES ) is isomorphic to the top local
cohomology module of S. Choose a system of parameters x1 , . . . , xd of R (assuming that
dim(R) = d) and elements y = y1 , . . . , yt in S whose images in S/mS form a system of
parameters (assuming that dim(S/mS) = t), then we have
HomS (ωR ⊗R S, ES ) ∼
= HomR (ωR , HomS (S, ES ))
= HomR (ωR , ES )
t
∼
(S))
= HomR (ωR , ER ⊗R Hhyi
We claim that, for each finitely generated R-module M , a flat R-module F , and an Rmodule N , we have HomR (M, N ⊗R F ) ∼
= HomR (M, N ) ⊗R F , and we reason as follows (or
simply cite [Har66, Chapter II, Proposition 5.14]). It is clear that our claim is true when
F is a free R-module. Then since each flat R-module is a direct limit of free modules and
HomR (M, −) commutes with direct limits, our claim follows. By Remark 4.4(ii) we know
t (S) is a flat R-module, and hence we have
that Hhyi
t
(S))
HomS (ωR ⊗R S, ES ) ∼
= HomR (ωR , ER ⊗R Hhyi
t
∼
(S)
= HomR (ωR , ER ) ⊗R Hhyi
t
∼
(S)
= Hmd (R) ⊗R Hhyi

∼
= Hnd+t (S)
This proves that ωR ⊗R S is a canonical module of S.



Remark 4.4. Let R, S, y1 , . . . , yt be as in Theorem 4.1(iv), let x1 , . . . , xd ∈ m be elements of
S and let M (and N ) be an R-module (an S-module).

12

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG

(1) It is straightforward to check that
n
t
n+t
(M ⊗R N ),
H(x
(M ) ⊗R H(y
(N ) ∼
= H(x
1 ,...,xn )
1 ,...,yt )
1 ,...,xn ,y1 ,...,yt )

and the isomorphism is given by
α
β
α⊗β
⊗
7→ a
.
xa1 · · · xan y1b · · · ytb
x1 · · · xan y1b · · · ytb
In particular, if we assume that S/mS is regular and y1 , . . . , yt form a regular system
of parameters of S/mS and u is a socle generator of ER (K) ∼
= Hmdim R (ωR ), then the
1
image of u ⊗ y1 ···yt in ES (L), under the isomorphism
dim(R)
t
ER (K) ⊗R HIt (S) ∼
(ωR ) ⊗R Hhy
(S)
= Hm
1 ,...,yt i
dim(R)+t
∼
(ωR ⊗R S)
= Hn
dim(S)
∼
(ωS ) (because of Lemma 4.3)
= Hn
∼
= ES (L),

is also a socle generator of ES (L).
S/(y1a , . . . , yta ),
(2) Since each S/(y1a , . . . , yta ) is flat over R by Theorem 4.1(ii) and HIt (S) ∼
= lim
a
−
→
one can see that HIt (S) is also a flat R-module.
Lemma 4.5. Let R, S be F -finite normal rings. Assume that f : Y = Spec(S) −→
Spec(R) = X is a flat morphism with regular fibers and that ∆ is an effective Q-divisor on
X = Spec R. If (X, ∆) is sharply F -pure, so is (Y, f ∗ ∆).
Proof. Without loss of generality, we may assume that (R, m) and (S, n) are local and
that f is a local and so faithfully flat morphism. Additionally, by making ∆ larger if
needed, we may assume that (pe − 1)∆ is integral and (pe − 1)(KX + ∆) is Cartier and
HomR (F∗e R((pe − 1)∆), R) ∼
= F∗e R((1 − pe )(KX + ∆)) by Lemma 2.16.
We have the following composition
ER ∼
= Hmd (R(KR ))
−
→ Hmd (F∗e R(pe (KR )))
−
→ Hmd (F∗e R(pe (KR ) + (pe − 1)∆))
∼
= F∗e ER
= Hmd (F∗e R(KR )) ∼
where the last isomorphism follows since (pe − 1)(KR + ∆) ∼ 0. Because (R, ∆) is sharply
F -pure, this composition is injective by Lemma 2.13. By assumption (S/m, n/m) is regular
and local and so there exists a regular sequence y = y1 , . . . , yt ∈ S whose images in S/m
form a regular system of parameters.
Now, we also have the following diagram:
d (R(K ))
Hm
R

/

d (F e R(pe K ))
Hm
R
∗

/

d (F e R(pe K +(pe −1)∆))
Hm
R
∗





d (R(K ))⊗ H t (S)
Hm
R
R hyi

/

d (F e R(pe K ))⊗ e H t (F e S)
Hm
R
F∗ R hyi
∗
∗

∼

/

d (F e R(pe K +(pe −1)∆))⊗ e H t (F e S)
Hm
R
F∗ R hyi
∗
∗

∼


d+t
HmS+hyi
(S(KS ))

∼

/


d+t
HmS+hyi
(F∗e S(pe KS ))


/

d+t
HmS+hyi
(F∗e S(pe KS +(pe −1)f ∗ ∆))

1
and the later maps are
where the first vertical map is induced by sending x 7→ x ⊗ y1 ...y
t
1
induced by sending x 7→ x ⊗ pe pe . The second row of vertical maps are isomorphisms
y1 ...yt

BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

13

by Remark 4.4 and Lemma 4.3. Now choose a socle generator z ∈ Hmd (R(KR )) ∼
= ER . The
d+t
(S(KS )) ∼
vertical composition sends it to a socle generator for HmS+hyi
= ES by Remark
4.4. In particular, it follows that the left vertical map is injective. We claim that the right
vertical map is also injective. But this follows since Hmd (F∗e R(pe KR + (pe − 1)∆)) ∼
= F∗e ER
e −1
e
p
and one can compose the right vertical map with a multiplication by y1
. . . yt p −1 to
obtain the Frobenius pushforward of the left vertical map.
→ Hmd (F∗e R(pe KR + (pe − 1)∆)) is injective by
Note that the top row Hmd (R(KR )) −
d+t
(F∗e S(pe KS + (pe −
hypothesis, and thus so is the composition Hmd (R(KR )) −
→ HmS+hyi
1)f ∗ ∆)). It follows that the map
(4.5.1)

d+t
d+t
(F∗e S(pe KS + (pe − 1)f ∗ ∆))
(S(KS )) −
→ HmS+hyi
HmS+hyi

sends the (unique) socle generator to a non-zero element. Therefore the map in Equation
4.5.1 is injective which proves that (S, f ∗ ∆) is sharply F -pure by Lemma 2.13.

Corollary 4.6. Strongly F -regular and sharply F -pure pairs satisfy (A1P).
Proof. By Lemma 4.5, we already have shown that sharply F -pure pairs satisfy (A1P).
Choose Γ a Cartier divisor on Spec R containing the support of ∆ and such that (Spec R) \
Supp(Γ) is regular. We may choose ε > 0 such that (R, ∆ + εΓ) is sharply F -pure and
thus (S, f ∗ ∆ + εf ∗ Γ) is also sharply F -pure. Now, since the fibers of R −
→ S are regular,
Spec S \ f ∗ Γ is also regular by [Mat89, Theorem 23.7]. Thus (S, f ∗ ∆) is strongly F -regular
by Lemma 2.15.

Remark 4.7. It would be natural to try to generalize the proof of Lemma 4.5 to the context
of F -rational or F -injective singularities. In particular, it is natural to try to use local
cohomology modules of the rings instead of injective hulls of residue fields. The problem is
that the socle need not to be 1-dimensional.
We also give a proof that (A1) holds for F -finite F -pure rings. This was known to
experts and indeed follows directly from the same argument that was used to prove [HH94a,
Theorem 7.3]. We include the following argument for completeness however.
Proposition 4.8 ((Theorem 7.3 in [HH94a])). Let R and S be rings. Assume that f :
Spec(S) −→ Spec(R) is a flat morphism with regular fibers and that R is F -pure. Then S
is F -pure as well. In particular, (A1) holds for P =“F -purity”.
Proof. The proof is similar to the one above. In particular we may assume that (R, m) and
(S, n) are local and that f is a local morphism. By assumption (S/m, n/m) is regular and
local and so there exists a regular sequence y = y1 , . . . , yt ∈ S whose images in S/m form a
regular system of parameters. Since R is F -pure, there exists an injective map ER −
→ F∗e ER
(in the F -finite case, this is the dual to a Frobenius splitting, in the general case see [Sha10,
Theorem 3.2]). Consider now the following diagram
ER 



/ F e ER
∗



t (S)
ER ⊗R Hhyi

where the vertical arrows are z 7→ z ⊗

φ


/ F e ER ⊗F e R H t (F e S)
∗
∗
hyi ∗

1
y1 ...yt

and z 7→ z ⊗

1
e
e
y1p ...ytp

respectively. These
t (S) ∼ E , it
vertical maps are injective by the same argument as above. Since ER ⊗R Hhyi
= S
is sufficient to show that the bottom horizontal map is injective. Arguing as in the previous

14

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG

case, we see that if z ∈ ER is a socle generator of ER , then its image z ′ ∈ ES also generates
the S-socle. But then φ(z ′ ) 6= 0 from the commutative diagram.

5. (A2) for F -singularities
In this section we prove the (A2) property for F -injective and F -pure singularities. We
also prove the (A2P) property for sharply F -pure pairs. As far as we are aware, this property
has only previously been explored in the special case of Gorenstein F -pure singularities in
[SZ09, Theorem 4.4].
We begin by proving that (A2P) holds for sharply F -pure pairs.
Proposition 5.1. The condition (A2P) holds for P = sharp F -purity for pairs (R, ∆)
such that there exists e > 0 with (pe − 1)∆ an integral Weil divisor.
Proof. The statement is local so suppose that Z = Spec B and Y = Spec R. By inverting
an element of B, we may also assume that B is regular and that HomB (F∗e B, B) is free of
rank 1 as a B-module. We may also assume that B −
→ R is flat. Set η to be the generic
point of Z.
We notice that (A2) holds for normality by [Gro66, Corollaire 9.9.5]. Recall that for
us, if ∆ 6= 0, then sharp F -purity implies normality, see Remark 2.12. In particular, if
∆η 6= 0, we may assume that since the generic fiber8 pair is geometrically sharply F -pure,
it is geometrically normal as well. It follows that if ∆η 6= 0, by shrinking Z = Spec B if
necessary, we may assume all the fibers are geometrically normal.
We fix the e > 0 that was given to us by hypothesis. Now, because (R ⊗B Bη , ∆η ) is
geometrically sharply F -pure, we know that the composition
(R ⊗B F∗e Bη ) −
→ F∗e (R ⊗B F∗e Bη ) −
→ F∗e (R((pe − 1)∆) ⊗B F∗e Bη )
splits by Remark 2.14(iii). But this composition can also be factored as
(R ⊗B F∗e Bη )
−
→ F∗e (R ⊗B Bη )
−
→ F∗e (R((pe − 1)∆) ⊗B Bη )
−
→ F∗e (R((pe − 1)∆) ⊗B F∗e Bη )
and so
(R ⊗B F∗e Bη ) −
→ F∗e (R((pe − 1)∆) ⊗B Bη )
also splits. Therefore, there exists a surjective map ψ : F∗e (R ⊗B Bη ) −
→ (R ⊗B F∗e Bη ) which
factors through F∗e (R((pe − 1)∆) ⊗B Bη ).
It immediately follows that there exists an element u ∈ B \ {0} such that ψ is the base
change with ⊗B[u−1 ] Bη of a map ψ ′
F∗e (R ⊗B B[u−1 ]) −
→ F∗e (R((pe − 1)∆) ⊗B B[u−1 ]) −
→ R ⊗B (F∗e B[u−1 ]).
We may assume that ψ ′ is also surjective. Set U = Spec B[u−1 ] ⊆ Spec B = Z. For any
s ∈ U set L ⊇ k(s) to be a finite extension of the residue field and tensor ψ ′ by ⊗F∗e B F∗e L
which yields:
(5.1.1)

F∗e (R ⊗B L) −
→ F∗e (R((pe − 1)∆) ⊗B L) −
→ R ⊗B (F∗e L).

which is also surjective by the right-exactness of tensor. Choose any nonzero (and thus
→
→ L. Tensoring with R produces a surjective map R ⊗B (F∗e L) −
surjective map) F∗e L −
→ R ⊗B L, which
R ⊗B L. Finally, composing with (5.1.1) yields a surjection F∗e (R ⊗B L) −
completes the proof.

8The fiber over the generic point.

BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

15

Corollary 5.2. (A2) holds for F -finite F -pure rings (even in the not necessarily normal
case).
Proof. This follows by exactly the same argument as in Proposition 5.1.



Now we move on to (A2) for F -injective singularities.
Proposition 5.3. The condition (A2) holds for F -injective singularities.
Proof. Again we assume that Y = Spec R, Z = Spec B and B ⊆ R is flat with B a regular
domain. Consider the chain of finite maps:
R ⊗B F∗e B −
→ F∗e (R ⊗B B) = F∗e R −
→ F∗e (R ⊗B F∗e B).
Since R ⊗B Bη is geometrically F -injective (over Bη ), the induced maps




q
q
→ hi ωR⊗B F∗e Bη
hi ωF∗e (R⊗B F∗e Bη ) −
are surjective for each i ∈ Z. It follows that the map




q
q
→ hi ωR⊗B F∗e Bη
hi ωF∗e Rη −

is also surjective for every i. Choose u ∈ B such that




q
q
→ hi ωR⊗B F∗e B[u−1 ]
hi ωF∗eR⊗B B[u−1 ] −

is also surjective.
Additionally,
2.2, we may
 assume that


 by using generic freeness, Theorem

q
q
q
i
i
i
∼
each h ωF eR⊗B B[u−1 ] = h ωF eR⊗ e F e B[u−1 ] and each h ωR⊗B F eB[u−1 ] is F∗e B[u−1 ]F∗ B ∗
∗
∗
∗
free (note that F e R⊗B B[u−1 ] ∼
= F e R⊗F eB F e B[u−1 ] since inverting u gives the same module
∗

∗

∗

∗

as inverting u to a power). Choose a point s ∈ U = Spec B[u−1 ] and a finite extension
q
q
→ hi (ωRL ) is
L ⊇ k(s). Set RL = R ⊗B L. It is now sufficient to show that hi (F∗e ωRL ) −
surjective. To this end, we now replace B by Bs and R by R ⊗B Bs . We use s to denote
the unique maximal ideal of B.
Since R is a finitely generated B-algebra, we may find a polynomial ring A = B[y1 , . . . , yt ]
with a surjection A ։ R = A/I. Since B is regular, so is A. Hence,




q
q
i+dim B+t
i+dim B+t
(R ⊗B F∗e B, A).
(F∗e R, A) and hi ωR⊗B F∗eB ∼
hi ωF∗eR ∼
= ExtA
= ExtA

Thus we know that ExtiA (F∗e R, A) and ExtiA (R ⊗B F∗e B, A) are free F∗e B-modules for all i
(and so also free B-modules by [Kun69]).
Claim 5.3.1. Set d = dim B = dim Bs . Then we have a commutative diagram:




q
∼
/ hi+d ω q e
hi ωF∗e R ⊗F∗e B F∗e L o
F (R⊗B L)
∗

hi



q
ωR⊗B F∗e B ⊗F∗e B F∗e L o

∼

/

hi+d


 
q
ωR⊗B F∗e L .

where the vertical maps are the Grothendieck trace maps.
of claim. We first want to establish the Claim when L = k(s). Since B = Bs is local, we see
that s is generated by a regular system of parameters. By induction on d = dim(B) (which
is the number of generators of s), we may assume that s is generated by x. Since R is flat
·x
over B, the short exact sequence 0 −
→ F∗e B −
→ F∗e B −
→ F∗e k(s) −
→ 0 induces a short exact
·x
e
e
e
sequence 0 −
→ R ⊗B F∗ B −
→ R ⊗B F∗ B −
→ R ⊗B F∗ k(s) −
→ 0 (here the multiplication by

16

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG

e
x is actually by the corresponding element of F∗e B ∼
= B, or if we identify F∗e B with B 1/p
e
this is multiplication by x1/p ). We have the following commutative diagram

·x

/ F eR
∗O

0

/ F eR
∗O

α

α

/ R ⊗B F e B
∗

0

/ F e (R/hxi)
∗
O

·x

/0

β

/ R ⊗B F e B
∗

/ R ⊗B F e k(s)
∗

/0

e

→ F∗e R is given by r ⊗ b 7→ br p (the Radu-André map) and
where α : R ⊗B F∗e B −
β : R ⊗B F∗e k(s) = R ⊗B F∗e (B/hxi) −
→ F∗e (R/hxi)
e

is defined as r ⊗ (b + (x)) 7→ br p + (x). Applying HomA (−, A) to this diagram, we have the
following commutative diagram
0

0
/

/

ExtiA (F∗e R,A)
x ExtiA (F∗e R,A)

/ Exti+1 (F e (R/hxi), A)
∗
A

/0




/ Exti+1 (R ⊗B F e k(s), A)
∗
A

/0

ExtiA (R⊗B F∗e B,A)
x ExtiA (R⊗B F∗e B,A)

e
where in the above diagram, we have 0 at the right end in both rows since both Exti+1
A (F∗ (R/hxi), A)
i+1
and ExtA (R ⊗B F∗e k(s), A) are free B-module and hence x is regular on both modules.
L

We have proved that ωR⊗B k(s) is quasi-isomorphic to (ωR ) ⊗B k(s)[d]. In particular, we
have proved the statement for L = k(s).
For each finite extension k(s) ⊂ L, tensor the above diagram with ⊗A L[y1 , . . . , yt ] (which
is flat over k(s)[y1 , . . . , yt ]). The Claim follows for L.

q

q

Now we return to the main proof. It follows from the right exactness of tensor that




q
q
→ hi ωR⊗B F∗e L
hi ωF∗e (R⊗B L) −

is surjective for all i. But





q
q
→ hi ωR⊗B L
hi ωR⊗B F∗e L −

is clearly surjective (in fact split since R ⊗B L −
→ R ⊗B F∗e L is split). Composing these
surjective maps proves the proposition for F -injectivity.

6. Statement of our main theorem and corollaries
In this section we state our main results:
Theorem 6.1. Suppose that X is a variety over an algebraically closed field k, let ∆ ≥ 0
be a Q-divisor on X, and let φ : X −→ Pnk be a k-morphism with separably generated (not
necessarily algebraic) residue field extensions. Suppose either
(i) (X, ∆) is strongly F -regular, or
(ii) (X, ∆) is sharply F -pure, or
(iii) ∆ = 0, X is not necessarily normal, and X is F -pure.
Then there exists a nonempty open subset U of (Pnk )∨ such that for each hyperplane H ∈ U ,

(i) φ−1 (H), ∆|φ−1 (H) is strongly F -regular.

(ii) φ−1 (H), ∆|φ−1 (H) is sharply F -pure.

BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

17

(iii) φ−1 (H) is F -pure.
Proof. In the case that ∆ = 0, the result for F -purity follows immediately from Proposition
4.8, Corollary 5.2 and [CGM86] in the form of Theorem 3.2 (again, note we never have to
leave the F -finite setting). We now handle the case for sharp F -purity. It is clear that it is
harmless to reduce to the case where X is affine and then use Lemma 2.17 to replace ∆ by
∆′ ≥ ∆ such that (pe − 1)∆′ is an integral Weil divisor. Then the result for sharp F -purity
is an immediate corollary of [CGM86] in the form of Theorem 3.7, combined with Corollary
4.6 and Proposition 5.1.
Now we move on to strong F -regularity. Fix D ≥ 0 a Weil divisor on X such that X \ D
is non-singular and such that Supp(D) ⊇ Supp(∆). Fix ε > 0 such that (X, ∆ + εD) is
strongly F -regular and so in particular sharply F -pure. It follows that there exists an open
subset U ⊆ (Pnk )∨ such that φ−1 (H), (∆ + εD)|φ−1 (H) is sharply F -pure for all H ∈ U .


But then it follows that φ−1 (H), ∆|φ−1 (H) is strongly F -regular by Lemma 2.15.

Remark 6.2. Indeed, it is easy to deduce the above result also for triples (X, ∆, at ). Let us
briefly explain how: by working on sufficiently small affine charts, the fact that (X, ∆, at ) is
sharply F -pure implies that (X, ∆ + pe1−1 D) is also sharply F -pure for some Cartier divisor
e
D corresponding to a section of a⌈t(p −1)⌉ by [Sch10] (critically using the sufficiently small
affine charts). Theorem 6.1 then implies that the pair




1
−1
D|φ−1 (H)
φ (H), ∆|φ−1 (H) +
pe − 1
e

is sharply F -pure. But a⌈t(p −1)⌉ |φ−1 (H) certainly contains the section corresponding to
D|φ−1 (H) and so the proof is complete. Using the same argument as in Theorem 6.1, one
can also obtain the result for strongly F -regular triples.
Since it is easy to see that sharp F -purity and strongly F -regularity are themselves open
conditions (i.e. , satisfy (A3P)), at least in the F -finite case, we obtain:
Corollary 6.3 (Second Theorem of Bertini, Corollary 1 in [CGM86]). Let V be an algebraic
variety over k = k̄, and let S be a finite dimensional linear system on V . Further assume
that ∆ ≥ 0 is a Q-divisor9 on V . Assume that the rational map V 99K Pn corresponding to
S induces (whenever defined) separably generated field extensions. Then for the general element H of S, (H, ∆|H ) is also sharply F -pure (respectively, (H, ∆|H ) is strongly F -regular,
respectively ∆ = 0 and H is F -pure), except perhaps at the base points of S and at the
points of (V, ∆) which are not sharply F -pure (respectively, strongly F -regular, respectively
F -pure).
Proof. This follows immediately from Theorem 6.1 just as in [CGM86].



It also follows that the sharply F -pure locus is preserved by general hyperplane sections.
Corollary 6.4 ((Corollary 2 in [CGM86])). Let V ⊆ Pnk be a normal subscheme where
k = k, let ∆ ≥ 0 a Q-divisor on V . Then if (V, ∆) is sharply F -pure (respectively, strongly
F -regular, respectively F -pure and ∆ = 0), for the general hyperplane section H of V ,
we have (H, ∆|H ) is sharply F -pure (respectively, strongly F -regular, respectively F -pure).
Moreover, even if not, the sharply F -pure-locus (respectively, the strongly F -regular locus,
respectively the F -pure locus) of (V, ∆) is preserved by the general hyperplane section. For
example, in the sharply F -pure case, this means that:


The sharply F -pure locus of (X, ∆) ∩ H ⊆ The sharply F -pure locus of (H, ∆|H ) .
9If ∆ 6= 0, then we assume that V is normal.

18

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG

Remark 6.5. By F -inversion of adjunction, [HW02, Theorem 4.9] or [Sch09a, Main Theorem,
cf. Proposition 7.2], in the case that KV + ∆ is Q-Cartier with index not divisible by p > 0,
one sees that one has “=” instead of “⊆” in the above theorem.
We formulate several somewhat less technical corollaries.
Corollary 6.6. Suppose that X is a normal projective variety over an algebraically closed
field k and that ∆ ≥ 0 is a Q-divisor on X. Suppose that H corresponds to a general global
section of a very ample line bundle on X. Then if (X, ∆) has sharply F -pure (respectively
strongly F -regular) singularities, then so does (H, ∆|H ).
Corollary 6.7. Suppose that X is a projective variety over an algebraically closed field k.
Suppose that H corresponds to a general global section of a very ample line bundle on X.
Then if X has F -pure (respectively strongly F -regular) singularities, then so does H.
In particular, we point out that our main result has something to say in the case of
Frobenius split varieties.
Corollary 6.8. Suppose that X is a projective Frobenius split variety over an algebraically
closed field k. Suppose that H corresponds to a general section of a very ample line bundle
on X. Then H is locally Frobenius split (in other words, F -pure).
Remark 6.9. It need not be that H is globally Frobenius split in the above Corollary. For
example, consider X = Proj k[x, y, z, w]/hx4 + y 4 + z 4 + w4 i ⊆ P3 in characteristic p = 1
mod 4. It is easy to see that this is Frobenius split but no general hyperplane section can
be Frobenius split since a general hyperplane section has positive Kodaira dimension. To
see this last claim, note that if H is a general hyperplane section of X, it is a smooth degree
4 hypersurface in P2 (in other words, a curve of genus 3).
We include another easy corollary which mimics common results in birational geometry,
[KM98, Lemma 5.17].
Corollary 6.10. Suppose that X is a variety over an algebraically closed field k, let ∆ ≥ 0
be a Q-divisor on X. Let φ : X −→ Pnk be a morphism with separably generated (not
necessarily algebraic) residue field extensions. Fix a general element H of (Pnk )∨ . Then:
(i) If (X, ∆) is sharply F -pure then (X, ∆ + φ−1 (H)) is also sharply F -pure.
(ii) If (X, ∆) is strongly F -regular, then (X, ∆ + φ−1 (H)) is divisorially F -regular10 in
the sense of [HW02].
(iii) If (X, ∆) is strongly F -regular, then (X, ∆ + εφ−1 (H)) is strongly F -regular for all
1 > ε ≥ 0.
Proof. We prove (i) first. We can assume X is affine and then use Lemma 2.16 to choose
∆′ ≥ ∆ such that KX + ∆′ is Q-Cartier with index not divisible by p and also such that
(X, ∆′ ) is sharply F -pure. We know that (φ−1 (H), ∆′ |φ−1 (H) ) is sharply F -pure and so by F adjunction in the form of [HW02, Theorem 4.9] or [Sch09a, Main Theorem, cf. Proposition
7.2], we see that (X, ∆′ + φ−1 (H)) is sharply F -pure near φ−1 (H). But it is also F -pure
away from φ−1 (H) by assumption. The result follows.
The proof of statement (ii) is exactly the same as (i) but we must use [SS10, Theorem
4.3] instead of Lemma 2.16. Finally, part (iii) follows from (i) and Lemma 2.18(c).

Finally, we include a consequence to cyclic covers of Corollary 6.10 and also one of the
main results of [ST10]. For a brief introduction to ramified cyclic covers, see [KM98, Section
2.4].
10The term “divisorially F -regular” unfortunately corresponds to purely log terminal singularities [Tak08].

BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

19

Corollary 6.11. Suppose that (X, ∆) is a normal projective sharply F -pure pair (respectively, strongly F -regular pair) such that KX + ∆ is Q-Cartier. Fix L to be an ample line
bundle and suppose that L n is very ample, n is not divisible by p and H corresponds to a
general section of L n . Let f : Y −→ X be the induced cyclic cover of X ramified along H.
Then (Y, f ∗ ∆) is also sharply F -pure (respectively, strongly F -regular).
Proof. First note that Y is normal since H is general and the index is not divisible by p.
Certainly (X, ∆ + H) is sharply F -pure by Corollary 6.10. Thus by [ST10, Theorem 6.26],
(Y, f ∗ ∆ + f ∗ H − Ramf ) is sharply F -pure (note that trace is surjective since f : Y −
→X
is a finite map of order n with p 6 | n). Here Ramf is the ramification divisor of f (note
that f is tamely ramified by construction). Set G to be the integral divisor on Y such that
G = n1 f ∗ H. It follows that f ∗ H = nG and also that Ramf = (n − 1)G since f is tamely
ramified.
Thus (Y, f ∗ ∆ + f ∗ H − Ramf ) = (Y, f ∗ ∆ + G) is sharply F -pure which certainly implies
that (Y, f ∗ ∆) is sharply F -pure as desired. For strong F -regularity, note that f : Y −
→X
is finite étale outside of G and H. In particular, (Y, f ∗ ∆ + G) is already strongly F -regular
outside of G. Thus (Y, f ∗ ∆) is strongly F -regular by Lemma 2.15.

7. Weak normality and failure of Bertini’s second theorem for F -injective
singularities
It is natural to ask whether (A1) is satisfied for F -rationality or F -injectivity. For F injectivity, it is known to fail by [Ene09, Section 4]. However, this does not a priori imply
that Bertini’s second theorem fails for F -injectivity. However, in this section we prove that
Bertini’s second theorem does not hold for F -injective singularities even over an algebraically
closed field. This is surprising because Du Bois singularities, the characteristic zero analog
of F -injective singularities, are easily seen to satisfy Bertini’s second theorem.
Definition 7.1 (([AB69, Yan85])). Suppose that (R, m) is a reduced local ring of characteristic p > 0. We say that (R, m) is weakly normal if for any z ∈ K(R), the total ring of
fractions of R, such that z p ∈ R, then z ∈ R as well. We say that (R, m) is (WN1) if it is
weakly normal and if the normalization morphism R −
→ RN is unramified in codimension
1.
Recall that an extension of local rings (R, m) ⊆ (S, n) is unramified if
(i) m · S = n and
(ii) R/m ⊆ S/n is separable.
We will see shortly that F -injective singularities can fail to be (WN1). First we recall the
picture for F -pure singularities:
Theorem 7.2 ((Lemma 4.6 in [Sch09b], cf. Proposition 5.31 in [HR76] and [GW77])).
F -finite F -injective rings R are weakly normal. If R is 1-dimensional, then the converse
also holds.
Now we prove that F -pure singularities are always (WN1).
Theorem 7.3. If R is F -finite and F -pure, then R is (WN1). Conversely, if R is 1dimensional, F -finite and (WN1), then it is also F -pure.
Proof. We prove the first statement. Without loss of generality, we may assume that (R, m)
is local of dimension 1 and so RN is semilocal of dimension 1. Set (S, n) to be the localization
of RN at an arbitrary maximal ideal over m. Since R is F -pure and thus seminormal, the

20

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG

conductor is radical in both R and RN . In particular, c = m. Then mS = cS is also radical
and thus must be the maximal ideal n. We need to show that R/m ⊆ S/n is separable.
Since R is F -finite and F -pure, we may choose a surjective map ϕ : F∗e R −
→ R extending
→ RN by [BK05, Exercise 1.2.E(4)]. The conductor c of
to a surjective map ϕN : F∗e RN −
R ⊆ RN is ϕ-compatible and so we have a commutative diagram:
F∗e (S/n)
O

/ S/n
O

F∗e (RN /m)
O

/ RN /m
O

F∗e (R/m)

?
/ R/m

?

where the vertical compositions are injective. The horizontal maps are non-zero (since
they are surjective). But non-zero p−e -linear maps cannot extend over inseparable field
extensions by [ST10, Example 5.1]. This completes the proof of the forward direction.
For the converse, we fix some notation. Note that we may assume that (R, m) is local.
Set k = R/m and L = RN /mRN . Note that L is a product of fields since R −
→ RN is an
N
unramified map of 1-dimensional rings, in particular mR is radical. Fix a surjective map
→ k. Since R is (WN1), every field making up L is a finite separable extension
ψ : F∗e k −
→ L by [ST10].
of k. In particular, we have a unique extension of ψ to L, ψ ′ : F∗e L −
Since R is 1-dimensional, RN is regular, and so by [Fed83, Lemma 1.6], there exists a map
→ RN such that ϕ′ induces ψ ′ by modding out by mRN . Note that ϕ′ is
ϕ′ : F∗e RN −
surjective since ψ ′ is.
Set C to be the pullback of the diagram
 N
R −
→ (RN /mRN ) ← k ,

[Fer03]. The maps ϕ′ , ψ ′ and ψ glue together to induce a surjective map ϕ : F∗e C −
→ C, in
particular C is F -pure. Indeed, it is easy to see that ϕ is surjective since ϕ induces ψ by
modding out by m. By the universal property of pullback, we have a natural map R −
→ C.
Furthermore, by construction, cf. [Fer03], this map is a bijection on points which is an
isomorphism outside of the maximal ideal. Furthermore, the residue field of C is k as well
proving that R −
→ C is weakly subintegral [Yan85]. Since R is weakly normal, we see that
R = C and so R is F -pure as desired.

We now prove that F -injective singularities do not satisfy Bertini-type theorems. Our
method of proof is the same as that of [CGM89]. There the authors prove that if a weakly
normal scheme satisfies Bertini’s theorem (perhaps iterated several times), then it must
necessarily be (WN1).
Proposition 7.4. If X is a projective surface over an algebraically closed field of characteristic p > 0 which is F -injective, except possibly at isolated points, but which fails to
be (WN1). Then a general hyperplane section is not F -injective (even though such a hyperplane misses the non-F -injective points). In particular, the second theorem of Bertini,
Corollary 3.4, fails for F -injective singularities.
Proof. First we comment that the existence of isolated points which are not F -injective is
relatively harmless. General hyperplanes will miss these points. Such examples are also
much easier to construct.

BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

21

Now we prove the Proposition. Suppose a general hyperplane H was F -injective. Then
H is weakly normal by Theorem 7.2, since we are working over an algebraically closed field,
H is also F -pure by [GW77, Theorem 1.1]. Hence by Theorem 7.3, H must be (WN1).
However, according to [CGM89, Theorem 1], H being (WN1) will imply that X is (WN1).
We have obtained our desired contradiction since X is not (WN1).

Such surfaces are easy to construct. Indeed, take any weakly normal surface X which is
not (WN1). Since F -injective is the same as weakly normal in dimension 1, X is F -injective
except possibly at isolated points. Such surfaces were constructed in [CGM89, Corollary
4]. Since F -injectivity satisfies (A2) and (A3), we have obtained another proof that F injectivity must fail to satisfy (A1) by [CGM86, Theorem 1]. We finally point out that
F. Enescu’s example in [Ene09, Section 4] is also not (WN1) (and fails to satisfy (A1)) but
is not finite type over an algebraically closed field. In conclusion, we obtain the following:
Theorem 7.5. There exists a projective surface which is F -injective except possibly at
finitely many points whose general hyperplane section is not F -injective.
Remark 7.6. It would be natural to try to find a projective F -injective surface which is F injective everywhere but not (WN1) and so also fails to satisfy Bertini’s second theorem. Let
us briefly describe why we have failed to find such an object. Via gluing constructions, cf.
[Fer03], it is not difficult to construct varieties that are proper over an algebraically closed
field, are F -injective but not (WN1). Explicitly, glue two curves on a surface together, one
via the identity, the other by a generically inseparable map. However, we were unable to
prove that such an example is projective over an algebraically closed field. In particular, we
were unable to construct a surface which is projective, F -injective, and not (WN1) although
we believe such a surface should exist.
Remark 7.7. It would be natural to try to find a variety of dimension ≥ 3 which is F injective but such that a general hyperplane section is not F -injective. We do not know
how to construct such examples however. A natural place to look would be to try to glue
together two curves on a projective threefold – one by the identity and the other by an
inseparable map. This would yield a non-S2 scheme though.
8. Further questions and remarks
The second theorem of Bertini is not true for F -injective singularities as the previous
section demonstrated. However, we can ask:
Question 8.1. Does the second theorem of Bertini hold for F -rational singularities? What
about for normal, or better yet (WN1), F -injective singularities? Does (A1) hold for F rational or normal F -injective singularities?
We can also ask:
Question 8.2. How does the classical notion of F -purity for pairs (sometimes called weak
F -purity) as defined in [HW02] behave under restriction to general hyperplane sections?
It would also be natural to try to generalize the results of this paper to test ideals.
Question 8.3. Suppose that (X, ∆) is a pair where X is normal and projective. If H is a
general member of a very ample linear system (or more generally of a linear system whose
map induces separably generated residue field extensions), is it true that τ (X, ∆) ⊗ OH =
τ (H, ∆|H )?

22

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG

Remark 8.4. Note that this question was studied before in [MY09, Example 4.7]. There
they considered a family Spec k[x, y, s] −
→ Spec k[s] and the pair (k[x, y, s], (xp + y p s)t ).
By choosing 1 > t ≥ 1/p, one might even expect that this example contradicts our main
theorem, Theorem 6.1. We explain why this is not the case.
Consider the point η = hxp + sy p i ∈ Spec k[x, y, s] (or η = hxp + sy p , y − λi for 0 6= λ ∈ k).
Note that η lies over the generic point γ of Spec k[s]. The residue field of k[x, y, s]η contains
a pth root of s and in particular, k(γ) ⊆ k(η) not separable. Thus there is hope that
Question 8.3 also might have a positive answer.
One can of course ask the same question for adjoint type ideals [Tak08, Tak10, Sch09a]
and for non-F -pure ideals [FST11].
Finally, based upon Remark 7.6 we ask:
Question 8.5. Does there exist a projective surface over an algebraically closed field which
is F -injective and not (WN1)?

References
[Abe01]
[AE03]
[AB69]
[BS02]
[BK05]

I. M. Aberbach: Extension of weakly and strongly F-regular rings by flat maps, J. Algebra 241
(2001), no. 2, 799–807. 1843326 (2002f:13008)
I. M. Aberbach and F. Enescu: Test ideals and base change problems in tight closure theory,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), no. 2, 619–636 (electronic). 1932717 (2003g:13003)
A. Andreotti and E. Bombieri: Sugli omeomorfismi delle varietà algebriche, Ann. Scuola
Norm. Sup Pisa (3) 23 (1969), 431–450. MR0266923 (42 #1825)
A. Bravo and K. E. Smith: Behavior of test ideals under smooth and étale homomorphisms, J.
Algebra 247 (2002), no. 1, 78–94. MR1873384 (2002m:13007)
M. Brion and S. Kumar: Frobenius splitting methods in geometry and representation theory, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 231, Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 2005. MR2107324
(2005k:14104)

[BH93]

W. Bruns and J. Herzog: Cohen-Macaulay rings, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics,
vol. 39, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993. MR1251956 (95h:13020)
[CGM86] C. Cumino, S. Greco, and M. Manaresi: An axiomatic approach to the second theorem of
Bertini, J. Algebra 98 (1986), no. 1, 171–182. 825140 (87k:14008)
[CGM89] C. Cumino, S. Greco, and M. Manaresi: Hyperplane sections of weakly normal varieties in
positive characteristic, Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 106 (1989), no. 1, 37–42. 953739 (89k:14014)
[Eis95]
D. Eisenbud: Commutative algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 150, Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1995, With a view toward algebraic geometry. 1322960 (97a:13001)
[Ene00] F. Enescu: On the behavior of F-rational rings under flat base change, J. Algebra 233 (2000),
no. 2, 543–566. 1793916 (2001j:13007)
[Ene09] F. Enescu: Local cohomology and F-stability, J. Algebra 322 (2009), no. 9, 3063–3077. 2567410
(2011b:13050)

[Fed83]
[Fer03]
[FST11]

[Gab04]
[GW10]

[GW77]

R. Fedder: F -purity and rational singularity, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 278 (1983), no. 2, 461–
480. MR701505 (84h:13031)
D. Ferrand: Conducteur, descente et pincement, Bull. Soc. Math. France 131 (2003), no. 4,
553–585. MR2044495 (2005a:13016)
O. Fujino, K. Schwede, and S. Takagi: Supplements to non-lc ideal sheaves, Higher Dimensional Algebraic Geometry, RIMS Kôkyûroku Bessatsu, B24, Res. Inst. Math. Sci. (RIMS), Kyoto,
2011, pp. 1–47.
O. Gabber: Notes on some t-structures, Geometric aspects of Dwork theory. Vol. I, II, Walter
de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, Berlin, 2004, pp. 711–734.
U. Görtz and T. Wedhorn: Algebraic geometry I. Schemes. With examples and exercises.,
Advanced Lectures in Mathematics. Wiesbaden: Vieweg+Teubner. vii, 615 p. EUR 59.95 , 2010
(English).
S. Goto and K. Watanabe: The structure of one-dimensional F -pure rings, J. Algebra 49
(1977), no. 2, 415–421. MR0453729 (56 #11989)

BERTINI THEOREMS FOR F -SINGULARITIES

[Gro66]

23

A. Grothendieck: Éléments de géométrie algébrique. IV. Étude locale des schémas et des morphismes de schémas. III, Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. (1966), no. 28, 255. 0217086 (36
#178)

[HW02]

N. Hara and K.-I. Watanabe: F-regular and F-pure rings vs. log terminal and log canonical
singularities, J. Algebraic Geom. 11 (2002), no. 2, 363–392. MR1874118 (2002k:13009)
[Har66] R. Hartshorne: Residues and duality, Lecture notes of a seminar on the work of A. Grothendieck,
given at Harvard 1963/64. With an appendix by P. Deligne. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, No.
20, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1966. MR0222093 (36 #5145)
[Har77] R. Hartshorne: Algebraic geometry, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1977, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 52. MR0463157 (57 #3116)
[Has01] M. Hashimoto: Cohen-Macaulay F-injective homomorphisms, Geometric and combinatorial aspects of commutative algebra (Messina, 1999), Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., vol. 217,
Dekker, New York, 2001, pp. 231–244. 1824233 (2002d:13007)
[Hoc07] M. Hochster: Foundations of tight closure theory, lecture notes from a course taught on the
University of Michigan Fall 2007 (2007).
[HH94a] M. Hochster and C. Huneke: F -regularity, test elements, and smooth base change, Trans.
Amer. Math. Soc. 346 (1994), no. 1, 1–62. 1273534 (95d:13007)
[HH94b] M. Hochster and C. Huneke: Indecomposable canonical modules and connectedness, Commutative algebra: syzygies, multiplicities, and birational algebra (South Hadley, MA, 1992), Contemp.
Math., vol. 159, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1994, pp. 197–208. MR1266184 (95e:13014)
[HR76] M. Hochster and J. L. Roberts: The purity of the Frobenius and local cohomology, Advances
in Math. 21 (1976), no. 2, 117–172. MR0417172 (54 #5230)
[Jou83] J.-P. Jouanolou: Théorèmes de Bertini et applications, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 42,
Birkhäuser Boston Inc., Boston, MA, 1983. 725671 (86b:13007)
[Kle98] S. L. Kleiman: Bertini and his two fundamental theorems, Rend. Circ. Mat. Palermo (2) Suppl.
(1998), no. 55, 9–37, Studies in the history of modern mathematics, III. 1661859 (99m:14001)
[Kol11] J. Kollár: Hulls and husks, arXiv:0805.0576.
[KM98] J. Kollár and S. Mori: Birational geometry of algebraic varieties, Cambridge Tracts in Mathematics, vol. 134, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1998, With the collaboration of C. H.
Clemens and A. Corti, Translated from the 1998 Japanese original. MR1658959 (2000b:14018)
[Kun69] E. Kunz: Characterizations of regular local rings for characteristic p, Amer. J. Math. 91 (1969),
772–784. MR0252389 (40 #5609)
[Kun76] E. Kunz: On Noetherian rings of characteristic p, Amer. J. Math. 98 (1976), no. 4, 999–1013.
MR0432625 (55 #5612)

[Mat89]

H. Matsumura: Commutative ring theory, second ed., Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 8, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989, Translated from the Japanese by
M. Reid. MR1011461 (90i:13001)
[MY09] M. Mustaţă and K.-I. Yoshida: Test ideals vs. multiplier ideals, Nagoya Math. J. 193 (2009),
111–128. MR2502910
[Sch09a] K. Schwede: F -adjunction, Algebra Number Theory 3 (2009), no. 8, 907–950.
[Sch09b] K. Schwede: F -injective singularities are Du Bois, Amer. J. Math. 131 (2009), no. 2, 445–473.
MR2503989

[Sch10]
[SS10]
[ST10]
[ST11]
[Sei50]
[Sha10]
[SZ09]

K. Schwede: A refinement of sharply F -pure and strongly F -regular pairs, J. Commut. Algebra
2 (2010), no. 1, 91–109. 2607103 (2011c:13007)
K. Schwede and K. E. Smith: Globally F -regular and log Fano varieties, Adv. Math. 224
(2010), no. 3, 863–894. 2628797 (2011e:14076)
K. Schwede and K. Tucker: On the behavior of test ideals under finite morphisms,
arXiv:1003.4333, to appear in J. Algebraic Geom.
K. Schwede and K. Tucker: A survey of test ideals, arXiv:1104.2000, to appear in the proceedings volume Progress in Commutative Algebra published by de Gruyter.
A. Seidenberg: The hyperplane sections of normal varieties, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 69 (1950),
357–386. 0037548 (12,279a)
R. Y. Sharp: An excellent F -pure ring of prime characteristic has a big tight closure test element,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 362 (2010), no. 10, 5455–5481. 2657687 (2011h:13005)
K. Shimomoto and W. Zhang: On the localization theorem for F -pure rings, J. Pure Appl.
Algebra 213 (2009), no. 6, 1133–1139. 2498803 (2010d:13006)

24

KARL SCHWEDE, WENLIANG ZHANG

[Spr98]
[Tak08]
[Tak10]
[Vél95]
[Yan85]
[Zar44]

M. L. Spreafico: Axiomatic theory for transversality and Bertini type theorems, Arch. Math.
(Basel) 70 (1998), no. 5, 407–424. 1612610 (99f:14008)
S. Takagi: A characteristic p analogue of plt singularities and adjoint ideals, Math. Z. 259 (2008),
no. 2, 321–341. MR2390084 (2009b:13004)
S. Takagi: Adjoint ideals along closed subvarieties of higher codimension, J. Reine Angew. Math.
641 (2010), 145–162. 2643928 (2011f:14032)
J. D. Vélez: Openness of the F-rational locus and smooth base change, J. Algebra 172 (1995),
no. 2, 425–453. MR1322412 (96g:13003)
H. Yanagihara: On an intrinsic definition of weakly normal rings, Kobe J. Math. 2 (1985),
no. 1, 89–98. MR811809 (87d:13007)
O. Zariski: The theorem of Bertini on the variable singular points of a linear system of varieties,
Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 56 (1944), 130–140. 0011572 (6,186a)

Department of Mathematics, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA,
16802, USA
E-mail address: schwede@math.psu.edu
Department of Mathematics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, 48109, USA
E-mail address: wlzhang@umich.edu

