text:
# Families of nodal curves on projective threefolds and their regularity via postulation of nodes

## Introduction

The theory of families of singular curves with fixed invariants (e.g. geometric genus, singularity type, number of irreducible components, etc.) and which are contained in a projective variety $`X`$ has been extensively studied from the beginning of Algebraic Geometry and it actually receives a lot of attention, partially due to its connections with other fields of geometry and physics. Indeed, the interest about this arguments has grown essentially for two reasons: on the one hand, the theory of strings of nuclear physicists deals with enumerative geometry for rational curves contained in some projective threefolds; on the other hand, the study of singular curves is naturally related with the hyperbolic geometry of complex projective varieties.

Nodal curves play a central role in the subject of singular curves. Families of irreducible and $`\delta `$-nodal curves on a given projective variety $`X`$ are usually called Severi varieties of irreducible, $`\delta `$-nodal curves in $`X`$. The terminology "Severi variety" is due to the classical case of families of nodal curves on $`X=^2`$, which was first studied by Severi (see ).

The case in which $`X`$ is a smooth projective surface has recently given rise to a huge amount of literature (see, for example, , , , , , , , , ,  just to mention a few. For a detailed chronological overview, the reader is referred for example to Section 2.3 in  and to its bibliography). This depends not only on the great interest in the subject, but also because for a Severi variety $`V`$ on an arbitrary projective variety $`X`$ there are several problems concerning $`V`$ like non-emptyness, smoothness, irreducibility, dimensional computation as well as enumerative and moduli properties of the family of curves it parametrizes.

On the contrary, in higher dimension only few results are known. Precisely, on the one hand we have non-emptyness and enumerative results for some classes of varieties, which are relevant for applications; on the other hand, some other results of non-emptyness and smoothness are given only for families of nodal curves in projective spaces (see e.g.  and ).

Therefore, we feel some lack of systematic studies for what should be the next relevant case, from the point of view of Algebraic Geometry: families of nodal curves on projective threefolds.

The purpose of this paper is twofold: first, we introduce a new method to determine when a given (non-empty) Severi variety on a smooth projective threefold $`X`$ is smooth and of the expected dimension \- regular, for short - at a given point (for details, see Definition 2.11); then, we apply this method to find geometric and numerical sufficient conditions for the regularity property of Severi varieties.

In general, a natural approach to the regularity problem is to use deformation theory of nodal curves in a smooth ambient variety. In the surface case, if $`V_{\text{O}_S(D),\delta }`$ denotes the Severi variety of irreducible and $`\delta `$-nodal curves in the linear system $`|\text{O}_S(D)|`$ on a smooth projective surface $`S`$, it is well known that, when $`V_{\text{O}_S(D),\delta }\mathrm{}`$, its expected codimension in $`|\text{O}_S(D)|`$ is $`\delta `$; moreover, if $`[C]V_{\text{O}_S(D),\delta }`$ parametrizes a curve $`C`$ whose set of nodes is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, the Zariski tangent space at $`[C]`$ is

$$T_{[C]}(V_{\text{O}_S(D),\delta })H^0(S,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/S}\text{O}_S(D))/<C>,$$

where $`\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/S}`$ denotes the ideal sheaf of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`S`$ (see, for example, ). Thus, since the relative obstruction space is contained in $`H^1(S,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/S}\text{O}_S(D))`$, the regularity of $`V_{\text{O}_S(D),\delta }`$ at $`[C]`$ holds iff $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ imposes independent conditions to $`|\text{O}_S(D)|`$; in particular, a sufficient condition for the regularity at $`[C]`$ is $`h^1(S,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/S}\text{O}_S(D))=0`$.

In the threefold case, one obtains a partially similar organization for curves which are zero-loci of sections of a rank-two vector bundle $``$ on $`X`$, so that $`(H^0(X,))`$ (which plays the same role of $`|\text{O}_S(D)|`$) somehow gives a projective space dominating a subvariety in which the curves move. As in the surface case, if $`𝒱_\delta ()`$ denotes the subscheme of $`(H^0(X,))`$ parametrizing global sections whose zero-loci are irreducible and $`\delta `$-nodal curves in $`X`$, with a little abuse of terminology we shall always use the term Severi variety to refer to $`𝒱_\delta ()`$. In several cases \- e.g. when $``$ is a stable and aCM rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ (for definitions, see ) - this is not an abuse, since $`𝒱_\delta ()`$ actually parametrizes irreducible nodal curves on $`X`$ (see Lemma 4.3 in ).

###### Notation 0.1.

In the sequel, we write $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$ to intend that the global section $`sH^0(X,)`$ determines the corresponding point $`[s]`$ of the scheme $`𝒱_\delta ()`$. We also denote by $`C_s`$ (or simply $`C`$, when this does not create ambiguity) the zero-locus of the given section $`s`$, i.e. $`C=V(s)X`$.

As in the surface case, when $`𝒱_\delta ()`$ is not empty then its expected codimension is $`\delta `$ (see Proposition 2.10); however, if $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$ and if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denotes the set of nodes of the corresponding curve $`C_sX`$, now we have

$$T_{[s]}(𝒱_\delta ())H^0(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X})/<s>,$$

so the latter is the tangent space at $`[s]`$ to a subscheme of $`(H^0(X,))`$ of a higher expected codimension.

We thus present a systematic study of equisingular deformation theory for the elements parametrized by $`𝒱_\delta ()`$ on $`X`$. Precisely in the following result, which is the core of the paper, we introduce a new cohomological description of the tangent space $`T_{[s]}(𝒱_\delta ())`$.

Theorem (see Theorem 3.4) Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective threefold. Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ and let $`\delta `$ be a positive integer. Let

$`𝒱_\delta ():=`$ $`\{[s](H^0())|C_s:=V(s)X\mathrm{is}\mathrm{irreducible}`$
$`\mathrm{with}\mathrm{only}\delta \mathrm{nodes}\mathrm{as}\mathrm{singularities}\}.`$
Consider $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$ and denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the set of nodes of the corresponding curve $`C_sX`$. Let

$$𝒫:=_X()\stackrel{\pi }{}X$$

be the projective space bundle together with its natural projection $`\pi `$ on $`X`$ and denote by $`\text{O}_𝒫(1)`$ its tautological line bundle. Let $`T_{C_s}^1`$ be the first cotangent sheaf of $`C_s`$ (see (3.1)) and let

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^1:=_X(T_{C_s}^1)𝒫$$

be the zero-dimensional subscheme of $`𝒫`$ of length $`\delta `$, determined by the surjection $`T_{}^{1}{}_{C_s}{}^{}0`$. Denote by $`\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1/𝒫}`$ the ideal sheaf of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ in $`𝒫`$. Then

* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ is a set of $`\delta `$ rational double points for the divisor $`D_s|\text{O}_𝒫(1)|`$, corresponding to the given section $`sH^0(X,)`$, and
* the subsheaf of $``$, defined by

$$^\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\pi _{}(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)),$$

is such that its global sections (modulo the one dimensional subspace $`<s>`$) parametrize first-order deformations of $`sH^0(X,)`$ which are equisingular.

In particular, we have

$$\frac{H^0(X,^\mathrm{\Sigma })}{<s>}T_{[s]}(𝒱_\delta ())T_{[s]}((H^0()))\frac{H^0(X,)}{<s>}.$$

We want to briefly remark that the above result can be the starting point for the characterization of tangent spaces to such families on a smooth projective $`n`$-fold $`Y`$, with $`n4`$. The main difference from the threefold case is that one should work inside a suitable incidence variety $`_Y()\times _Y(^{})`$, where $`rank()=n1`$.

By using the above characterization of $`T_{[s]}(𝒱_\delta ())`$, we are able to determine geometric and numerical sufficient conditions for the regularity of $`𝒱_\delta ()`$ at the point $`[s]`$.

Indeed, we first prove the following:

Theorem (see Theorem 4.5) Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective threefold. Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle, $`L`$ be a very ample line bundle and $`k0`$ and $`\delta >0`$ be integers. If

$$()\delta k+1,$$

then $`𝒱_\delta (L^k)`$ is smooth and of the expected dimension (i.e. regular) at each point.

Therefore, the above result determine sufficient conditions in order that $`𝒱_\delta (L^k)`$ is regular everywhere. Observe also that the bound $`()`$ is uniform, i.e. it does not depend on the postulation of the nodes of the curves related to the elements parametrized by $`𝒱_\delta (L^k)`$; furthermore, the bound is almost-sharp, as one can deduce from Example 3.2 in  and from our Remarks 5.21 and 5.38. We also stress that the above result generalizes what proved in , mainly because our approach more generally holds for families of nodal curves on smooth projective threefolds but also because, even in the case of $`X=^3`$, main subject of , our bounds are effective and not asymptotic as Proposition 3.1 in .

After this, in §5 we focus on the case of $`X^r`$ either a Fano or a Calaby-Yau threefold, with $`L=\text{O}_X(1)`$, and we "stratify" the regularity property in terms of the postulation of nodes. Precisely, by using the notion of local positivity of line bundles on $`X`$, the machinery of Seshadri constants as in ,  and  and the fundamental tool of the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem, we determine some upper-bounds for the number $`\delta `$, which are cubic polynomials in the integer $`k`$, such that if the $`\delta `$ nodes of a curve $`C=V(s)`$ are in very general position on $`X`$ (see Definition 5.8), then the point $`[s]`$ is regular for $`𝒱_\delta (\text{O}_X(k))`$ (see Theorem 5.9 and Corollary 5.15). Furthermore, when the nodes of $`C`$ are assumed to be points in very general position on an irreducible divisor of $`X`$ having at worst log-terminal singularities or to lie on a l.c.i and subcanonical curve in $`X`$, we determine upper-bounds on $`\delta `$ which are, respectively, quadratic and linear polynomials in the integer $`k`$ implying the regularity of the point $`[s]`$ (see Theorems 5.25, 5.28, 5.36 and Corollaries 5.26, 5.37).

We conclude the paper by focusing on the case $`X=^3`$ and by studying interesting geometric properties of space curves determined by elements in $`𝒱_\delta (\text{O}_X(k))`$.

The paper consists of six sections. In Section 1, we recall some terminology and notation. Section 2 contains fundamental definitions and technical details which are useful for our proofs. Section 3 contains our main result (see Theorem 3.4), which gives a cohomological description of the tangent space $`T_{[s]}(𝒱_\delta ())`$. In Section 4, we prove our uniform and effective result for the regularity of $`𝒱_\delta ()`$ at each point (see Theorem 4.5). Section 5 is devoted to the study of the regularity property of $`𝒱_\delta ()`$ in terms of the postulation of nodes of the zero-loci of the elements it parametrizes. We conclude with Section 6, where we consider some geometric properties and biliaison relation of space curves determined by elements in $`𝒱_\delta ()`$.

Acknowledgments: Part of this paper was prepared during my permanence at the Department of Mathematics of the University of Illinois at Chicago (February - May 2001). Therefore, my deepest gratitude goes to L. Ein, not only for the organization of my visit, but mainly for all I have learnt from him, for having suggested me to approach this problem as well as for the valuable talks we had together. I am greatful to my collegues (and friends) G. Bini, N. Budur and T. de Fernex, for all they organized during my permanence and with whom I had some informal - but fundamental - talks. My warm thanks go to the Departments of Mathematics of the Universities of Illinois at Chicago and of Michigan at Ann Arbor for making my period of study and researches enjoyable, lively and productive. I am indebted to L. Chiantini, C. Ciliberto and the first referee of this paper for their remarks concerning Proposition 6.11. My very special thanks go to GNSAGA-INdAM and to V. Barucci, A. F. Lopez and E. Sernesi for their confidence and their support during my period in U.S.A.

## 1. Notation and Preliminaries

We work in the category of algebraic $``$-schemes. $`Y`$ is a *$`m`$-fold* if it is a reduced, irreducible and non-singular scheme of finite type and of dimension $`m`$. If $`m=1`$, then $`Y`$ is a (smooth) curve; $`m=2`$ and $`3`$ are the cases of a (non-singular) surface and threefold, respectively. If $`Z`$ is a closed subscheme of a scheme $`Y`$, $`\text{I}_{Z/Y}`$ denotes the *ideal sheaf* of $`Z`$ in $`Y`$, $`𝒩_{Z/Y}`$ the normal sheaf of $`Z`$ in $`Y`$ whereas $`𝒩_{Z/Y}^{}\text{I}_{Z/Y}/\text{I}_{Z/Y}^2`$ is the conormal sheaf of $`Z`$ in $`Y`$. As usual, $`h^i(Y,):=\text{dim}H^i(Y,)`$.

Given $`Y`$ a projective scheme, $`\omega _Y`$ denotes its dualizing sheaf. When $`Y`$ is a smooth variety, then $`\omega _Y`$ coincides with its canonical bundle and $`K_Y`$ denotes a canonical divisor s.t. $`\omega _Y\text{O}_Y(K_Y)`$. Furthermore, $`𝒯_Y`$ denotes its tangent bundle whereas $`\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1`$ denotes its cotangent bundle.

If $`D`$ is a reduced curve, $`p_a(D)=h^1(\text{O}_D)`$ denotes its arithmetic genus, whereas $`g(D)=p_g(D)`$ denotes its *geometric genus*, the arithmetic genus of its normalization.

Consider $`Y`$ a projective $`m`$-fold. $`Div(Y)`$ denotes the set of (Cartier) divisors and $``$ the linear equivalence on $`Div(Y)`$, whereas $`Pic(Y)`$ denotes the Picard scheme of line bundles on $`Y`$. On the other hand, as in , $`F_1(Y)`$ denotes the free abelian group generated by the set of all integral curves in $`Y`$. Denoted by $``$ the *intersection pairing* on $`Y`$ and by $``$ the numerical equivalence on $`Y`$, we have

$$A^1(Y)=(Div(Y)/)_{},\mathrm{and}A_1(Y)=(F_1(Y)/)_{}.$$

Recall that an element $`BDiv(Y)`$ is said to be nef, if $`BD0`$ for each irreducible curve $`D`$ on $`Y`$. A nef divisor $`B`$ is said to be big if $`B^m>0`$. By Kleiman’s criterion (see, for example, ), a nef divisor $`B`$ is in the closure of the ample divisor cone $`P^0(Y)`$, which is the cone in $`A^1(Y)`$ generated by the ample divisors on $`Y`$. When $`Y`$ is a surface, in some literature, the ample divisor cone is also denoted by $`N^+(Y)`$ (see, for example,  and ).

Let $`Y`$ be a projective $`m`$-fold and $``$ be a rank-$`r`$ vector bundle on $`Y`$; $`c_i()`$ denotes the *$`i^{th}`$-Chern class* of $``$, $`1ir`$. As in  \- Sect. II.7 - $`_Y()`$ denotes the projective space bundle on $`Y`$, defined as $`Proj(Sym())`$. There is a surjection $`\pi ^{}()\text{O}_{_Y()}(1)`$, where $`\text{O}_{_Y()}(1)`$ is the tautological line bundle on $`_Y()`$ and where $`\pi :_Y()Y`$ is the natural projection morphism. Recall that $``$ is said to be an ample (resp. nef) vector bundle on $`Y`$ if $`\text{O}_{_Y()}(1)`$ is an ample (resp. nef) line bundle on $`_Y()`$.

When $`Y`$ is a projective, normal variety of dimension $`m`$, the word divisor is used for Weil divisor, i.e. a formal linear combination of codimension-one subvarieties. A $``$-divisor ($``$-divisor, resp.) on $`Y`$ is a finite formal linear combination $`D=_ia_iD_i`$ with rational (real, resp.) coefficients; when the coefficients are in $``$, $`D`$ is an integral divisor. $`D`$ is a $``$-Cartier divisor if some multiple of $`D`$ is an (integral) Cartier divisor (recall that, when $`X`$ is smooth, any $``$-divisor is $``$-Cartier). The round-up of $`D`$ and the integral part of $`D`$ are, respectively, the integral divisors $`D=_ia_iD_i`$ and $`[D]=_i[a_i]D_i`$ where, as usual, for $`x`$ one denotes by $`x`$ the least integer greater than or equal to $`x`$ and by $`[x]`$ the greatest integer smaller than or equal to $`x`$. The fractional part of $`D`$ is $`\{D\}=D[D]`$. Since there is a $``$-valued intersection theory for $``$-Cartier $``$-divisors, one can extend the notion of ampleness and nefness to $``$-divisors. Similarly, $`D`$ is big if $`nD`$ is integral and big, for some positive $`n`$. $`D=_ia_iD_i`$ has simple normal crossings if each $`D_i`$ is smooth and if $`D`$ is defined in a neighborhood of any point by an equation in local analytic coordinates of the type $`z_1\mathrm{}z_k=0`$, with $`km`$. A boundary divisor $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is an effective divisor whose support has simple normal crossings and such that $`[\mathrm{\Delta }]=0`$.

If $`Y`$ is a projective normal variety and if $`D`$ is a $``$-divisor on $`Y`$, a log-resolution of the pair $`(Y,D)`$ is a proper birational mapping $`\mu :Y^{}Y,`$ where $`Y^{}`$ is smooth and such that the divisor $`\mu ^{}(D)+Exc(\mu )`$ has simple normal crossing support (here $`Exc(\mu )`$ denotes the sum of the $`\mu `$-exceptional divisors). If $`(Y,D)`$ is such that $`K_Y+D`$ is $``$-Cartier and if $`\mu `$ is a log-resolution of the pair, then,

$$K_{Y^{}/Y}\mu ^{}(D):=K_Y^{}\mu ^{}(K_Y+D)\underset{i}{}a_iE_i,$$

where the $`E_i`$’s are distinct irreducible divisors (not necessarily all $`\mu `$-exceptionals) and where the coefficients $`a_i`$’s are called the discrepancies. The pair $`(Y,D)`$ is called log-terminal (resp. Kawamata log-terminal) if $`a_i>1`$ for each $`E_i`$ $`\mu `$-exceptional (resp. for each $`E_i`$). Since $`K_{Y^{}/Y}`$ is always $`\mu `$-exceptional, $`Y`$ is said to have at worst log-terminal singularities if the pair $`(Y,0)`$ is log-terminal.

To conclude, we also recall one of the most important vanishing theorem for $``$-divisors - the Kawamata-Viehweg theorem - which will be frequently used in the sequel.

Theorem (Kawamata-Viehweg, see, for example, , page 146) Let $`Y`$ be a smooth, projective variety of dimensione $`m`$, let $`D`$ be a big and nef $``$-divisor, whose fractional part has simple normal crossing support. Then

$$H^i(Y,\text{O}_Y(K_Y+D)=(0),\mathrm{for}i>0.$$

When $`Y`$ is a surface, the same conclusion holds even without the hypothesis on the fractional part of $`D`$.

## 2. Basic definitions and fundamental properties

In this section we introduce some fundamental definitions and remarks concerning the study of families of curves on smooth projective threefolds. For generalities, the reader is referred to , Chapter IV.

###### Definition 2.1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective threefold and let $``$ be a rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$. Let $`s`$ be a global section of $``$. The zero-locus of $`s`$, denoted by $`V(s)`$, is the closed subscheme of $`X`$ defined by the exact sequence

$$^{}\stackrel{s^{}}{}\text{O}_X\text{O}_{V(s)}0,$$

where $`s^{}`$ is the dual map of the section $`s`$.

If $`codim_X(V(s))=2`$, then $`Ker(s^{})=L^{}`$ is a line bundle on $`X`$ such that $`c_1()=^2()L`$. This yields the Koszul sequence of $`(,s)`$:

(2.2)
$$0\text{O}_X\text{I}_{V(s)}L0.$$

###### Remark 2.3.

When $`Pic(X)`$ (e.g $`X=^3`$ or $`X`$ either a prime Fano or a complete intersection Calabi Yau threefold) one can use this isomorphism to identify line bundles on $`X`$ with integers. In particular, if $`A`$ denotes the ample generator class of $`Pic(X)`$ over $``$ and if $``$ is a rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ such that $`c_1()=nA`$, we can also write $`c_1()=n`$ with no ambiguity.

We recall well-known results concerning the correspondence between curves and global sections of vector bundles on a smooth projective threefold.

###### Theorem 2.4.

(Serre) Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective threefold. A curve $`DX`$ occurs as the zero-locus of a global section of a rank-two vector bundle $``$ on $`X`$ if and only if $`D`$ is locally complete intersection and its dualizing sheaf $`\omega _D`$ is isomorphic to the restriction to $`D`$ of $`\omega _XM`$, for some line bundle $`M`$ on $`X`$ such that

(2.5)
$$h^1(X,M^{})=h^2(X,M^{})=0.$$

Furthermore, such a curve $`D`$ is a complete intersection in $`X`$ iff $``$ splits.

###### Proposition 2.6.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective threefold and let $``$ be a rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$. If $``$ is globally generated, then the zero-locus of a general section of $``$, if not empty, is non-singular of codimension two.

###### Proof.

This is a particular case of standard results - extending Bertini’s theorem - concerning degeneracy-loci of generic morphisms between vector bundles on $`X`$. ∎

From what recalled above, if $`X`$ is a smooth projective threefold and if $``$ is a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$, it is not restrictive if from now on we assume that the zero-locus of the general section of $``$ is a smooth, irreducible curve $`D`$ in $`X`$. By the Koszul sequence (2.2), we find the geometric genus of $`D`$ in terms of the Chern classes of $``$ and of the invariants of $`X`$. Precisely

(2.7)
$$2g(D)2=2p_a(D)2=deg(c_1()\omega _X\text{O}_D).$$

This integer is easily computable when, for example, $`X`$ is a general complete intersection threefold. In particular, when $`X=^3`$, by Remark 2.3, if we put $`c_i=c_i()`$, we have

(2.8)
$$deg(D)=c_2\mathrm{and}g(D)=p_g(D)=\frac{1}{2}(c_2(c_14))+1,$$

i.e. $`D`$ is subcanonical of level $`(c_14)`$.

Take now $`(H^0())`$; from our assumptions on $``$, the general point of this projective space parametrizes a global section whose zero-locus is a smooth, irreducible curve in $`X`$. Given a positive integer $`\delta `$, one can consider the subset

(2.9) $`𝒱_\delta ():=`$ $`\{[s](H^0())|C_s:=V(s)X\mathrm{is}\mathrm{irreducible}`$
$`\mathrm{with}\mathrm{only}\delta \mathrm{nodes}\mathrm{as}\mathrm{singularities}\};`$
therefore, any element of $`𝒱_\delta ()`$ determines a curve in $`X`$ whose arithmetic genus $`p_a(C_s)`$ is given by (2.7) and whose geometric genus is $`g=p_a(C_s)\delta `$.

$`𝒱_\delta ()`$ is a locally closed subscheme of the projective space $`(H^0())`$ and it is usually called the Severi variety of global sections of $``$ whose zero-loci are irreducible, $`\delta `$-nodal curves in $`X`$ (see ); this is because such schemes are the natural generalization of the (classical) Severi varieties of irreducible and $`\delta `$-nodal curves in linear systems on smooth, projective surfaces (see , , , , , , ,  and , just to mention a few).

###### Proposition 2.10.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective threefold, $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ and $`\delta `$ be a positive integer. Then

$$expdim(𝒱_\delta ())=\{\begin{array}{cc}h^0(X,)1\delta ,\mathrm{if}\delta h^0(X,)1=dim((H^0())),\hfill & \\ 1,\mathrm{if}\delta h^0(X,).\hfill & \end{array}$$

###### Proof.

If $`𝒱_\delta ()=\mathrm{}`$, then $`dim(𝒱_\delta ())=1`$. On the other hand, when $`𝒱_\delta ()\mathrm{}`$, consider the set

$$𝒰_\delta (H^0())\times (X^\delta \underset{1ij\delta }{}\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,j}),$$

where $`X^\delta `$ is the $`\delta `$-Cartesian product of $`X`$, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,j}`$ are the diagonals in $`X^\delta `$ and where

$$𝒰_\delta :=\{([s];p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta )|C=V(s)X\mathrm{is}\mathrm{an}\mathrm{irreducible}\mathrm{curve}\mathrm{with}\mathrm{only}\mathrm{nodes}\mathrm{at}\mathrm{the}p_i^{}s\}.$$

Since $`X`$ is smooth, for an arbitrary $`pX`$ we consider $`U=U_p`$ an affine open subscheme of $`X`$ containing $`p`$, with $`(x_1^{(p)},x_2^{(p)},x_3^{(p)})`$ local coordinates in $`U_p`$, such that $`s|_{U_p}=(f_1^{(p)},f_2^{(p)})`$, where $`f_i^{(p)}\text{O}_X(U_p)`$. Define the closed subscheme

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝒦_\delta :=& \{([s];p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta )(H^0())\times (X^\delta _{1ij\delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,j})|s(p_i)=0\mathrm{and}\hfill \\ & rank(J(s)(p_i))1,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}i\delta \},\hfill \end{array}$$

where, for an arbitrary $`pX`$, $`J(s)(p)`$ is the Jacobian matrix of $`s`$ at the point $`p`$. By definition,

$$\begin{array}{cc}𝒦_\delta :=& \{([s];p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta )|s(p_i)=((\frac{}{x_1^{(p_i)}}\frac{}{x_2^{(p_i)}})(s))(p_i)=\hfill \\ & ((\frac{}{x_1^{(p_i)}}\frac{}{x_3^{(p_i)}})(s))(p_i)=((\frac{}{x_2^{(p_i)}}\frac{}{x_3^{(p_i)}})(s))(p_i)=0,\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}i\delta \}.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`𝒰_\delta `$ is contained in $`𝒦_\delta `$ as an open dense subscheme and since $`𝒦_\delta `$ is cut out by at most $`4\delta `$ independent equations, then

$$\begin{array}{cc}dim(𝒰_\delta )=dim(𝒦_\delta )\hfill & dim((H^0())\times (X^\delta _{1ij\delta }\mathrm{\Delta }_{i,j}))4\delta =\hfill \\ & =h^0(X,)1+3\delta 4\delta =h^0(X,)1\delta .\hfill \end{array}$$

Denoting by $`\pi _1`$ the restriction to $`𝒰_\delta `$ of the projection onto the first factor of the product $`(H^0())\times X^\delta `$, we have $`\pi _1(𝒰_\delta )=𝒱_\delta ()`$. We conclude by observing that $`\pi _1`$ is finite onto its image. ∎

Assumption: From now on, we shall use Notation 0.1. Moreover, given $`X`$ and $``$ as in Proposition 2.10, we shall always assume $`𝒱_\delta ()\mathrm{}`$ and $`\delta \mathrm{min}\{h^0(X,)1,p_a(C)\}`$ (the latter is because we want $`C=V(s)`$ to be irreducible).

By Proposition 2.10, we can state the following fundamental definition.

###### Definition 2.11.

Let $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$, with $`\delta \mathrm{min}\{h^0(X,)1,p_a(C)\}`$. Then $`[s]`$ is said to be a regular point of $`𝒱_\delta ()`$ if:

* $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$ is a smooth point, and
* $`dim_{[s]}(𝒱_\delta ())=expdim(𝒱_\delta ())=h^0(X,)1\delta `$, i.e.

$$dim_{[s]}(𝒱_\delta ())=dim((H^0()))\delta .$$

The goal of the next section is to present a cohomological description of the tangent space $`T_{[s]}(𝒱_\delta ())`$ which will translate the regularity property of the point $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$ into the surjectivity of some maps among vector spaces of sections of suitable sheaves on the threefold $`X`$.

## 3. Description of the tangent space $`T_{[s]}(𝒱_\delta ())`$ and regularity

As before, let $`X`$ be a smooth projective threefold and let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$. Let $`\delta `$ be a positive integer and consider $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$. From now on in this section, let $`C`$ be the curve in $`X`$ which is the zero-locus of the given $`s`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote its set of $`\delta `$ nodes.

Since $`C`$ is local complete intersection in $`X`$, its normal sheaf $`𝒩_{C/X}`$ is a rank-two vector-bundle (see ). Precisely, $`𝒩_{C/X}|_C`$. Let $`T_C^1`$ be the first cotangent sheaf of $`C`$, i.e. $`T_C^1xt^1(\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1,\text{O}_C)`$, where $`\mathrm{\Omega }_C^1`$ is the sheaf of K$`\ddot{a}`$hler differentials of the nodal curve $`C`$ (for details, see ). We have the exact sequence

(3.1)
$$0𝒩_C^{}𝒩_{C/X}\stackrel{\gamma }{}T_C^10,$$

where $`𝒩_C^{}`$ is defined as the kernel of the natural surjection $`\gamma `$ (see, for example, ). Since nodal points are planar singularities, one has

* $`T_{C,p}^1=0`$ and $`𝒩_{C,p}^{}𝒩_{C/X,p}\text{O}_{C,p}^{\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}}`$, when $`pC`$ is a smooth point,
* $`T_{C,p}^1`$ and $`𝒩_{C,p}^{}(\underset{¯}{m}_p\text{O}_{C,p})\text{O}_{C,p}`$, when $`p`$ is a node of $`C`$ ($`\underset{¯}{m}_p`$ denotes the maximal ideal at the point $`p`$).

Therefore, $`T_C^1`$ is a sky-scraper sheaf supported on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, such that $`T_C^1_{i=1}^\delta _{(i)}`$.

By using (3.1), the goal of this section is to construct a subsheaf $`^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ fitting in the following exact diagram:

(3.2) $`\begin{array}{ccccccc}& 0& & 0& & & \\ & & & & & & \\ \hfill 0& \text{I}_{C/X}& \stackrel{}{}& \text{I}_{C/X}& & 0\hfill & \\ & & & & & \hfill & \\ \hfill 0& ^\mathrm{\Sigma }& & & & T_C^1\hfill & \hfill 0\\ & & & & & ^{}\hfill & \\ \hfill 0& 𝒩_C^{}& & |_C& & T_C^1\hfill & \hfill 0\\ & & & & & \hfill & \\ & 0& & 0& & 0\hfill & \hfill .\end{array}`$
Observe that, from the commutativity of diagram (3.2), $`H^0(X,^\mathrm{\Sigma })/<s>`$ parametrizes the first-order deformations of the section $`s`$ in $`H^0(X,)`$ which are equisingular; indeed, these are exactly the global sections of $``$ which go to zero at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in the composition

(3.3)
$$|_CT_C^1\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma }0.$$

In the following result, which is the core of the entire paper, we construct the sheaf $`^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by using some projective space-bundle arguments.

###### Theorem 3.4.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective threefold. Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ and let $`\delta `$ be a positive integer. As in (2.9), let

$`𝒱_\delta ()=`$ $`\{[s](H^0())|C_s:=V(s)X\mathrm{is}\mathrm{irreducible}`$
$`\mathrm{with}\mathrm{only}\delta \mathrm{nodes}\mathrm{as}\mathrm{singularities}\}.`$
Fix $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$ and let $`C=V(s)X`$. Denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ the set of nodes of $`C`$. Let

$$𝒫:=_X()\stackrel{\pi }{}X$$

be the projective space bundle together with its natural projection $`\pi `$ on $`X`$ and denote by $`\text{O}_𝒫(1)`$ its tautological line bundle. Let

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^1:=_X(T_C^1)𝒫$$

denote the zero-dimensional subscheme of $`𝒫`$ of length $`\delta `$, determined by the surjection (3.3). Denote by $`\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1/𝒫}`$ the ideal sheaf of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ in $`𝒫`$. Then

* $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ is a set of $`\delta `$ rational double points for the divisor $`D_s|\text{O}_𝒫(1)|`$, corresponding to the given section $`sH^0(X,)`$, and
* the subsheaf of $``$, defined by

(3.5)
$$^\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\pi _{}(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)),$$

is such that its global sections (modulo the one dimensional subspace $`<s>`$) parametrize first-order deformations of $`sH^0(X,)`$ which are equisingular.

In particular, we have

(3.6)
$$\frac{H^0(X,^\mathrm{\Sigma })}{<s>}T_{[s]}(𝒱_\delta ())T_{[s]}((H^0()))\frac{H^0(X,)}{<s>}.$$

###### Proof.

To naturally define the sheaf $`^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and the diagram (3.2), we consider the smooth, projective fourfold

$$𝒫:=_X()\stackrel{\pi }{}X,$$

together with its tautological line bundle $`\text{O}_𝒫(1)`$ such that $`\pi _{}(\text{O}_𝒫(1))`$. From

$$0\text{O}_X\stackrel{s}{},$$

we also have

$$0\text{O}_𝒫\stackrel{s}{}\text{O}_𝒫(1).$$

Therefore, the nodal curve $`CX`$ corresponds to a divisor $`D_s|\text{O}_𝒫(1)|`$ on the fourfold $`𝒫`$. Take also

$$𝔽:=_C^1=𝒫roj(\text{O}_C[\xi _0,\xi _1])\stackrel{\pi _1}{}C$$

which is a ruled surface in $`𝒫`$. We want to study some geometric properties of $`D_s`$ and of $`𝔽`$. Let $`p\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$. Take $`U_pX`$ an affine open set containing $`p`$, where the vector bundle $``$ trivializes. Choose local coordinates $`\underset{¯}{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ on $`U_p^3`$ such that $`\underset{¯}{x}(p)=(0,0,0)`$ and such that the global section $`s`$ is

$$s|_{U_p}=(x_1x_2,x_3).$$

Then

$$\text{O}_C(U_p)[x_1,x_2,x_3]/(x_1x_2,x_3),$$

and

$$\text{O}_𝔽(\pi _1^1(U_p))[x_1,x_2,x_3,\frac{\xi _1}{\xi _0}]/(x_1x_2,x_3).$$

Therefore, the surface $`𝔽`$ is singular along the lines in $`=_{i=1}^\delta L_i=\pi _1^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })=\pi ^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. For what concerns $`D_s|\text{O}_𝒫(1)|`$, since $`U_p`$ trivializes $``$, then $`𝒫|_{U_p}U_p\times ^1.`$ Taking homogeneous coordinates $`[u,v]^1`$,we have $`\text{O}_𝒫(U_p)[x_1,x_2,x_3,u,v].`$ Thus,

$$\text{O}_{D_s}(U_p)[x_1,x_2,x_3,u,v]/(ux_1x_2+vx_3).$$

By standard computations, we see that $`D_s`$ has a rational double point along the line $`\pi ^1(p)=\pi _1^1(p)`$ which belongs to the singular locus of $`𝔽𝒫`$.

Globally speaking, by using (3.3), we can state that the divisor $`D_s𝒫`$ is singular along the locus

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }^1:=_X(T_C^1)𝒫=_X(),$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a set of $`\delta `$ rational double points for $`D_s`$, each line of $`=\pi ^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ containing only one of such $`\delta `$ points. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1𝒫`$ is a closed immersion, we have the natural exact sequence

(3.7)
$$0\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)\text{O}_𝒫(1)\text{O}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1}0,$$

which is defined by restricting $`\text{O}_𝒫(1)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$. By the definition of tautological line bundle, we have:

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & \pi ^{}()& & \pi ^{}(\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma })& 0\\ & & & & & & \\ \hfill 0& \text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)& & \text{O}_𝒫(1)& & \text{O}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1}& 0\\ & & & & & & \\ & 0& & 0& & 0& .\end{array}$$

Since

$$\pi _{}(\text{O}_𝒫(1)),\pi _{}(\text{O}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1})=\pi _{}(\text{O}_{\pi ^1(\mathrm{\Sigma }^1)})=\pi _{}(\pi ^{}(\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma }))\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

and since we have $`\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, by applying $`\pi _{}`$ to the exact sequence (3.7), we get $`^1\pi _{}(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1))=0`$. Thus, we define

$$^\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\pi _{}(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)),$$

which gives (3.5), so that

(3.8)
$$0^\mathrm{\Sigma }\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma }0,$$

as well as diagram (3.2), holds. ∎

We remark that (3.6) gives a completely general characterization of the tangent space $`T_{[s]}(𝒱_\delta ())`$ on $`X`$. Furthermore, we have:

###### Corollary 3.9.

With assumptions as in Theorem 3.4, from (3.8) we get

(3.10)
$$[s]𝒱_\delta ()\mathrm{is}\mathrm{regular}H^0(X,)\stackrel{\alpha _X}{}H^0(X,\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma })H^0(𝒫,\text{O}_𝒫(1))\stackrel{\alpha _𝒫}{}H^0(𝒫,\text{O}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1}).$$

###### Proof.

It follows from Proposition 2.10 and from Theorem 3.4. ∎

Note that, on the one hand, the map $`\alpha _X`$ in (3.10) is not defined by restricting the global sections of $``$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ because (3.8) - i.e. the second row of diagram (3.2) - does not coincide with the restriction sequence

$$0\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X}|_\mathrm{\Sigma }0;$$

precisely, we have

(3.11)
$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& 0& & 0& & 0& \\ & & & & & & \\ \hfill 0& \text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X}& & ^\mathrm{\Sigma }& & \text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma }& \hfill 0\\ & ^{}& & & & & \\ \hfill 0& \text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X}& & & & |_\mathrm{\Sigma }\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2& \hfill 0\\ & & & & & & \\ & 0& & \text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma }& & \text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma }& \hfill 0;\\ & & & & & & \\ & & & 0& & 0& \end{array}$$

On the other hand, the exact sequence (3.7) on the fourfold $`𝒫`$ is equivalent to (3.8), by the Leray isomorphisms, but it is more naturally defined by restricting the line bundle $`\text{O}_𝒫(1)`$ to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$. Therefore, the map $`\alpha _𝒫`$ in (3.10) is a classical restriction map.

To better understand the map $`\alpha _X`$, we also want to give a local description of (3.8).

Local description: let $`pSing(C)=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and take, as before, $`U_pX`$ an affine open set containing $`p`$, where the vector bundle $``$ is trivial. Take local coordinates $`\underset{¯}{x}=(x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ on $`U_p^3`$ such that $`\underset{¯}{x}(p)=(0,0,0)`$ and such that the global section $`s`$, whose zero-locus is $`C`$, is $`s|_{U_p}=(x_1x_2,x_3).`$ Since $`C=V(x_1x_2,x_3)Spec([x_1,x_2,x_3])U_p`$, around the node $`\underset{¯}{x}(p)=\underset{¯}{0}`$ the map

$$()𝒯_^3|_C\stackrel{J(s)}{}𝒩_{C/^3}T_C^1$$

is given by

$$J(s):=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{f_1}{x_1}& \frac{f_1}{x_2}& \frac{f_1}{x_3}\\ \frac{f_2}{x_1}& \frac{f_2}{x_2}& \frac{f_2}{x_3}\end{array}\right)=\left(\begin{array}{ccc}x_2& x_1& 0\\ 0& 0& 1\end{array}\right).$$

From the fact that $`\mathrm{rank}(J(s)|_{\underset{¯}{0}})=1`$, it follows that $`coker(J(s)|_{\underset{¯}{0}})`$. Let $`s(x_1,x_2,x_3)=s|_{U_p}=(x_1x_2,x_3)`$; if $`\sigma (x_1,x_2,x_3)`$ is a section of $`^\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ over $`U_p`$ then, by definition,

$$s_ϵ(x_1,x_2,x_3):=s(x_1,x_2,x_3)+ϵ\sigma (x_1,x_2,x_3)$$

is a first-order deformation of $`s`$ which determines equisingular zero-loci. Then, by $`()`$,

$$\sigma (x_1,x_2,x_3)=J(s)\underset{¯}{u},$$

where $`\underset{¯}{u}=\underset{¯}{u}(x_1,x_2,x_3)=(u_1(x_1,x_2,x_3),u_2(x_1,x_2,x_3),u_3(x_1,x_2,x_3))`$. To see this, consider

$$()s(\underset{¯}{x}+ϵ\underset{¯}{u})|_{\underset{¯}{0}}(s(\underset{¯}{x})+ϵJ(s)\underset{¯}{u})|_{\underset{¯}{0}}(modϵ^2)=\left(\begin{array}{c}x_1x_2\\ x_3\end{array}\right)+ϵ\left(\begin{array}{c}x_2u_1+x_1u_2\\ u_3\end{array}\right)(modϵ^2);$$

thus

$$s_ϵ(\underset{¯}{x})s(\underset{¯}{x}+ϵ\underset{¯}{u})(modϵ^2).$$

Moreover, since $`U_p`$ is a trivializing open subset for $``$, we have that $`()`$ becomes

$$\begin{array}{cccc}\text{O}_C^3& \stackrel{J(s)}{}& \text{O}_C^2& \hfill T_C^1\\ (e_1,e_2,e_3)& & (e_1^{},e_2^{})& \hfill .\end{array}$$

Since $`Im(J(s))=<x_2e_1^{},x_1e_1^{},e_2^{}>`$, then $`e_2^{}`$ goes to zero in $`T_C^1`$ so the deformations in $`()`$ are actually equisingular.

Observe that, by (3.10) and by using some results in , one can immediately determine some conditions for the regularity of $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$. Indeed, if $``$ is a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ which generates the $`0`$-jets at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta \}`$ (equiv. which separates the points of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$), then by definition we have

$$H^0(X,)\underset{i=1}{\overset{\delta }{}}_{(i)}^2.$$

This implies the regularity conditions (3.10), as it immediately follows by considering the last two columns of (3.11). In such a case $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$, such that $`C=V(s)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$, is therefore a regular point. From Proposition 3.1 in , we deduce:

###### Proposition 3.12.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth, projective threefold. Let $`𝒢`$ be a nef rank-two vector bundle and $`L`$ be a big and nef line bundle on $`X`$. Consider the rank-two vector bundle

$$:=𝒢\omega _Xdet(𝒢)\text{O}_X(L)$$

whose general section is assumed to be a smooth curve in $`X`$. Take $`\delta `$ be a positive integer and consider $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta \}`$ be the set of nodes of $`C=V(s)`$. Let $`ϵ(L,p)`$ denote the Seshadri constant of the line bundle $`L`$ at the point $`p`$ (for precise definition see Remark 3.13 or Definition 5.3). Assume either

$$ϵ(L,p_j)>3\delta ,p_j\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

or

$$L^3>(ϵ(L,p_j))^3\mathrm{and}ϵ(L,p_j)3\delta ,p_j\mathrm{\Sigma }.$$

Then, the global sections of $``$ separate $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. In particular, $`𝒱_\delta ()`$ is regular at $`[s]`$.

###### Proof.

One applies the effective non-vanishing Theorem 2.2 in  taking $`L_j=\frac{1}{\delta }L`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.13.

Take e.g. $`X^r`$ a smooth threefold, whose hyperplane section is denoted by $`H`$. Consider the line bundle $`\text{O}_X(kH)`$, where $`k`$ is a positive integer, and take $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta \}X`$. Denote by $`\mu _j`$ the blowing-up of $`X`$ at the point $`p_j`$. Then, by definition,

$$ϵ(\text{O}_X(kH),p_j):=\mathrm{Sup}\{ϵ_0|\mu _j^{}(kH)ϵE_j\mathrm{is}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{nef}\mathrm{divisor}\mathrm{on}Bl_{p_j}(X)\},$$

where $`E_j`$ denotes the $`\mu _j`$-exceptional divisor. Equivalently,

$$ϵ(\text{O}_X(kH),p_j):=\mathrm{𝐼𝑛𝑓}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }X}\{\frac{kH\mathrm{\Gamma }}{mult_{p_j}(\mathrm{\Gamma })}\}$$

where the infimum is taken over all reduced and irreducible curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$ passing through $`p_j`$. Since $`H`$ is very ample on $`X`$, then the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ \- as a curve in $`^r`$ \- is such that $`deg(\mathrm{\Gamma })mult_q(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$, for each $`q\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Therefore, the numerical conditions in Proposition 3.12 give

$$\delta \frac{k}{3},$$

which is a linear bound on the admissible number of nodes of $`C=V(s)`$ in order to have that $`[s]𝒱_\delta (𝒢\omega _Xdet(𝒢)\text{O}_X(kH))`$ is a regular point.

However, the conditions on Seshadri constants are of local nature and the results that one can deduce are strictly related to the postulation of the chosen points. In the next section, we shall discuss one of our results, which determines conditions on the vector bundle $``$ and a uniform upper-bound on the number of nodes $`\delta `$ such that each point of the scheme $`𝒱_\delta ()`$ is regular.

## 4. Some uniform regularity results for $`𝒱_\delta (L^k)`$

From now on, let $`X`$ be a smooth projective threefold, $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$, $`L`$ be a very ample line bundle on $`X`$ and $`k0`$, $`\delta >0`$ be integers. With notation as in Section 3, we shall always take

$$=L^k$$

and consider the scheme $`𝒱_\delta (L^k)`$ on $`X`$. By using Theorem 3.4 and Corollary 3.9, here we determine conditions on the vector bundle $``$ and on the integer $`k`$ and uniform upper-bounds on the number of nodes $`\delta `$ implying that each point of $`𝒱_\delta (L^k)`$ is regular. We need before the following result.

###### Proposition 4.1.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective threefold, $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ and L be a very ample line bundle on $`X`$. Take $`k>0`$ such that $`L^k`$ separates $`\delta `$ distinct given points $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta \}`$, i.e. the restriction map

(4.2)
$$H^0(X,L^k)\stackrel{\rho _k}{}H^0(\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma })$$

is surjective. Thus, if $`[s]𝒱_\delta (L^k)`$ determines a nodal curve $`C`$ in $`X`$ such that $`Sing(C)=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, then $`[s]𝒱_\delta (L^k)`$ is a regular point.

###### Proof.

Since $``$ is globally generated on $`X`$, the evaluation morphism

$$H^0(X,)\text{O}_X\stackrel{ev}{}$$

is surjective. This means that, for each $`pX`$, there exist global sections $`s_1^{(p)},s_2^{(p)}H^0(X,)`$ such that

$$s_1^{(p)}(p)=(1,0),s_2^{(p)}(p)=(0,1)\text{O}_{X,p}^2.$$

Condition (4.2) means there exist global sections $`\sigma _1,\mathrm{},\sigma _\delta H^0(X,L^k)`$ s. t.

$$\sigma _i(p_j)=\underset{¯}{0}^\delta ,\mathrm{if}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{j},\mathrm{and}\sigma _i(p_i)=(0,\mathrm{},\stackrel{ith}{1},\mathrm{},0),\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}1}i\delta .$$

Therefore, from our hypotheses, it immediately follows that

$$H^0(X,L^k)H^0(\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)^{2\delta }.$$

If we take $`𝒫=_X(L^k)\stackrel{\pi }{}X`$ and if we consider, as in (3.5), $`(L^k)^\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\pi _{}(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }^1/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1))`$, from diagram (3.11), we get

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H^0(L^k)& & H^0(\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma }^2)^{2\delta }\hfill \\ ^\mu & & \hfill \\ H^0(\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma })& \stackrel{}{}& H^0(\text{O}_\mathrm{\Sigma })^\delta .\hfill \\ & & \hfill \\ & & 0\hfill \end{array}$$

thus $`\mu `$ is surjective. By (3.10) and by the local description of $`\alpha _X`$, one can conclude. ∎

###### Remark 4.3.

With the previous result, the regularity condition (3.10) translates into the surjectivity of the restriction map $`\rho _k`$ in (4.2), which is a natural restriction map of line bundles on the threefold $`X`$.

The following more general proposition gives an effective and uniform bound on the number $`\delta =|\mathrm{\Sigma }|`$, in terms of the integer $`k`$, in order to have the surjectivity of the map $`\rho _k`$.

###### Proposition 4.4.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective $`m`$-fold, $`L`$ be a very ample line bundle and $`k`$ be a positive integer. Then, $`L^k`$ separates any set $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`\delta `$ distinct point of $`X`$ with $`\delta k+1`$. In particular, the map $`\rho _k`$ in (4.2) is surjective, for each such $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`L`$ is very ample on $`X`$, for every $`p_1p_2X`$, there exists a section $`s_{1,2}H^0(X,L)`$ such that

$$s_{1,2}(p_1)=1\mathrm{and}s_{1,2}(p_2)=0.$$

If $`p_3X`$ is such that $`p_3p_1,p_2`$, there exists $`s_{1,3}H^0(X,L)`$ such that

$$s_{1,3}(p_1)=1\mathrm{and}s_{1,3}(p_3)=0.$$

Then

$$\sigma :=s_{1,2}s_{1,3}H^0(X,L^2)$$

is such that

$$\sigma (p_1)=1,\sigma (p_2)=0,\sigma (p_3)=0.$$

With analogous computations, it follows that $`L^2`$ separates three points of $`X`$. Recursively, $`L^k`$ separates $`k+1`$ distinct points in $`X`$. ∎

Finally, we have the main result of this section.

###### Theorem 4.5.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth projective threefold, $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$, $`L`$ be a very ample line bundle on $`X`$ and $`k0`$ and $`\delta >0`$ be integers. If

(4.6)
$$\delta k+1,$$

then $`𝒱_\delta (L^k)`$ is regular at each point.

###### Proof.

If $`k=0`$, then $`\delta =1`$; therefore, by the hypothesis on $``$, it follows that

$$H^0()H^0(\text{O}_p^2)$$

is surjective, for each $`pX`$. By the definition of $`\alpha _X`$, this implies that $`𝒱_1()`$ is regular at each point.

When $`k>0`$, the statement follows from Theorem 3.4, Propositions 4.1, 4.4 and from Remark 4.3. ∎

###### Remark 4.7.

Observe that the bound (4.6) is uniform, i.e. it does not depend on the postulation of nodes of the curves which are zero-loci of sections parametrized by $`𝒱_\delta (L^k)`$. We remark that Theorem 4.5 generalizes what proved by Ballico and Chiantini in  mainly because, by the characterization given in our Theorem 3.4, our approach more generally holds for families of nodal curves on smooth projective threefolds but also because, even in the case of $`X=^3`$, main subject of , our result is effective and not asymptotic as Proposition 3.1 in . Furthermore, Ballico and Chiantini showed that in the asymptotical case, i.e. with $`k>>0`$, the bound $`\delta k+1`$ is almost sharp. Indeed, they constructed an example of a non regular point $`[s]𝒱_{k+4}(\text{O}_^3(k+1)\text{O}_^3(k+4))`$ whose corresponding curve $`C`$ has its $`(k+4)`$ nodes lying on a line $`L^3`$; they also showed that, when the points are moved so that they are in general position and no longer aligned, then $`[s]`$ is regular.

Thanks to Theorem 4.5, the same example works not only in the asymptotic case but for each $`k3`$ proving the almost-sharpness of the bound (4.6).

In the next section, we also discuss some other examples of nodal curves on smooth projective threefolds which determine non-regular points of some $`𝒱_\delta (L^k)`$ (see Remarks 5.21 and 5.38).

## 5. Regularity results via Seshadri constants and postulation of nodes

For simplicity, from now on, we focus on the case of $`X^r`$ a smooth threfold, with $`L=\text{O}_X(1)`$ its hyperplane bundle (thus, $`L^k`$ will be denoted by $`\text{O}_X(k)`$ and $`L^k`$ by $`(k)`$). As already observed in the previous section, given $`X^r`$ a smooth threefold, $``$ a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ and $`\delta >0`$, $`k0`$ two integers, Theorem 4.5 determines sufficient conditions in order that each point of the scheme $`𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is regular, for every non-negative integer $`k`$. Using a local analysis, we can determine some other regularity results which take into account the postulation of nodes of the curves related to the elements parametrized by $`𝒱_\delta ((k))`$. Precisely, let $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, $`C=V(s)`$ and denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$ its set of nodes. Our aim is to find some conditions on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ which determine finer estimates on the admissible number $`\delta `$ of nodes in order to get the regularity of the point $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$.

###### Remark 5.1.

By Proposition 4.1 and by Remark 4.3 a sufficient condition for the regularity of $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is to show

(5.2)
$$h^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X}\text{O}_X(k))=0.$$

Observe that, if $`\omega _X^{}\text{O}_X(k)`$ is a big and nef line bundle on $`X`$ then, by the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem, (5.2) is exactly equivalent to the surjectivity of the map $`\rho _k`$ in (4.2), so it implies the regularity of $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$. In the sequel we will be concerned in finding some sufficient conditions implying (5.2); we shall focus on the case when $`X`$ is a Fano or a Calabi-Yau threefold and, in particular, when $`X=^3`$.

First of all, we have to recall the following general definitions from ,  and .

###### Definition 5.3.

Let $`L`$ be a nef line bundle on an $`n`$-dimensional projective variety $`Y`$. Let $`pY`$ and let $`b_1:Y_1Y`$ denote the blowing-up of $`Y`$ at $`p`$. The Seshadri constant of $`L`$ at $`p`$, $`ϵ(L,p)`$, is defined as

(5.4)
$$ϵ(L,p):=\mathrm{Sup}\{ϵ_0|b_1^{}(L)ϵE\mathrm{is}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{nef}\mathrm{divisor}\mathrm{on}Y_1\},$$

where $`E`$ denotes the $`b_1`$-exceptional divisor. Equivalently,

(5.5)
$$ϵ(L,p):=\mathrm{𝐼𝑛𝑓}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }Y}\{\frac{L\mathrm{\Gamma }}{mult_p(\mathrm{\Gamma })}\},$$

where the infimum is taken over all reduced and irreducible curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }Y`$ passing through $`p`$.

More generally, if $`\delta `$ is an integer greater than $`1`$ and if $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta Y`$ are $`\delta `$ distinct points then, denoting by $`b_\delta :Y_\delta Y`$ the blowing-up of $`Y`$ along the given points, the multiple point Seshadri constant at $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta `$ is defined as

(5.6)
$$ϵ(L,p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta ):=\mathrm{Sup}\{ϵ_0|b_\delta ^{}(L)ϵ\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^\delta E_i\mathrm{is}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{nef}\mathrm{divisor}\mathrm{on}Y_\delta \},$$

where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^\delta E_i`$ is the $`b_\delta `$-exceptional divisor. As before, one also has

(5.7)
$$ϵ(L,p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta ):=\mathrm{𝐼𝑛𝑓}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }Y}\{\frac{L\mathrm{\Gamma }}{\mathrm{\Sigma }_{i=1}^\delta mult_{p_i}(\mathrm{\Gamma })}\},$$

where the infimum is taken over all integral curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }Y`$ s.t. $`\mathrm{\Gamma }\{p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta \}\mathrm{}`$.

###### Definition 5.8.

Let $`Y`$ be a projective variety of dimension $`n`$ and $`\delta 2`$ be a positive integer. Let $`Y^{(\delta )}`$ denote the $`\delta `$-Cartesian product of $`Y`$ minus the diagonals. If $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta )Y^{(\delta )}`$, the points $`p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta `$ are called general points of $`Y`$ if $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta )`$ is outside a Zarisky closed subset of $`Y^{(\delta )}`$ and very general points of $`Y`$ if $`(p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta )`$ is outside the union of countably many proper subvarieties of $`Y^{(\delta )}`$.

Before stating our next result, we recall that from our assumptions in §2 (see Definition 2.11 and above) the integer $`\delta `$ is always assumed to be $`\delta min\{h^0((k))1,p_a(C)\}`$.

###### Theorem 5.9.

Let $`X^r`$ be a smooth threefold such that $`deg(X)=d`$, $`\omega _X\text{O}_X(m)`$ for some integers $`d>0`$ and $`m0`$. Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ and let $`k0`$ and $`\delta >0`$ be integers. Let $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, $`C=V(s)`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote its set of nodes. Assume either

(i) $`k+m>3`$, when $`\delta =1`$, or

(ii) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a set of $`\delta 2`$ very general points on $`X`$ and

* $`k+m>\frac{6}{\sqrt[3]{d}}`$, when $`d<8`$ and $`\delta 5`$;
* $`k+m>max\{\frac{36}{deg(C)},\frac{18}{\sqrt[3]{25d}}\}`$, when $`d<8`$ and $`6\delta <min\{h^0((k)),\frac{1}{6}(k+m)deg(C),\delta _0^{(k)}\}`$, where $`\delta _0^{(k)}`$ is a root of the polynomial $`F_{k,m,d}(\delta ):=27\delta ^3(k+m)^3d(\delta 1)^2`$ such that $`F_{k,m,d}(\delta )<0`$ on the connected interval $`[6,\delta _0^{(k)})`$;
* $`k+m>3`$, when $`d8`$ and $`\delta d2`$;
* $`k+m>max\{\frac{6(d2)}{deg(C)},\frac{3(d2)}{\sqrt[3]{d(d2)^2}}\}`$ when $`d8`$ and $`d2\delta <min\{h^0((k)),\frac{1}{6}(k+m)deg(C),\delta _0^{(k)}\}`$, where $`\delta _0^{(k)}`$ is a root of the polynomial $`F_{k,m,d}(\delta ):=27\delta ^3(k+m)^3d(\delta 1)^2`$ such that $`F_{k,m,d}(\delta )<0`$ on the connected interval $`[d2,\delta _0^{(k)})`$.

Then, in each case, $`[s]`$ is a regular point of $`𝒱_\delta ((k))`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`b_\delta :Y_\delta X`$ be the blowing-up of $`X`$ along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. From our assumptions on $`X`$ and from Leray’s isomorphism, it follows that

$$H^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X}(k))=H^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X}(k+m)\omega _X)H^1(Y_\delta ,\omega _{Y_\delta }\text{O}_{Y_\delta }((k+m)b_\delta ^{}(H)3B)),$$

where $`B=_{i=1}^\delta E_i`$ is the $`b_\delta `$-exceptional divisor. Therefore, if $`(k+m)b_\delta ^{}(H)3B`$ is a big and nef divisor, by the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem, $`H^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X}(k))=(0)`$, which implies the regularity of $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ (see Remark 5.1).

Let $`\overline{ϵ}=ϵ(\text{O}_X(1),\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ denote the multiple point Seshadri constant of the very ample line bundle $`\text{O}_X(1)`$ at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; then

$$(k+m)b_\delta ^{}(H)3B=\frac{3}{\overline{ϵ}}(b_\delta ^{}(H)\overline{ϵ}B)+(k+m\frac{3}{\overline{ϵ}})b_\delta ^{}(H).$$

Observe that the first summand in the right hand side is nef, by definition of $`\overline{ϵ}`$, whereas the second is big and nef as soon as $`\overline{ϵ}>\frac{3}{k+m}`$.

We want to show that our hypotheses imply that the Seshadri constant $`\overline{ϵ}`$ is always greater than $`\frac{3}{k+m}`$; so the statement will be proved.

(i) If $`\delta =1`$, then $`\overline{ϵ}=ϵ(\text{O}_X(1),p)1`$, for each $`pX`$, since $`\text{O}_X(1)`$ is very ample. Therefore, since $`k+m>3`$ implies $`\frac{3}{k+m}<1`$, we have $`h^1(X,\text{I}_{\{p\}/X}(k))=0`$, for each $`pX`$.

(ii) For $`\delta 2`$, we can consider Theorem 1.1 in . For $`L`$ a big and nef line bundle on $`X`$, the author denotes by $`ϵ(L;\delta )`$ the Seshadri constant of $`L`$ at very general $`\delta `$ points of $`X`$, whereas, by $`ϵ(L;1)`$ the Seshadri constant of $`L`$ at a very general point of $`X`$. In the threefold case with $`L=\text{O}_X(1)`$, K$`\ddot{u}`$chle’s result gives

(5.10)
$$ϵ(\text{O}_X(1);\delta )M:=\mathrm{min}\{ϵ(\text{O}_X(1);1),\frac{\sqrt[3]{d}}{2},\frac{\sqrt[3]{d(\delta 1)^2}}{\delta }\},$$

where $`ϵ(\text{O}_X(1);1)1`$, since $`\text{O}_X(1)`$ is very ample. By assumption, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a set of very general points on $`X`$, thus $`\overline{ϵ}=ϵ(\text{O}_X(1);\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ coincides with $`ϵ(\text{O}_X(1);\delta )`$. Therefore, to prove that $`\overline{ϵ}>\frac{3}{k+m}`$ we reduce to showing that our numerical hypotheses imply

(5.11)
$$\frac{3}{k+m}<M.$$

Observe that, when $`d8`$ and $`\delta d3`$, we have $`M1`$, since all the real numbers in the brackets in (5.10) are greater than or equal to $`1`$. Since $`k+m>3`$, then (5.11) trivially holds.

In the other cases, we find that:

* $`ϵ(\text{O}_X(1);1)`$ is always greater than or equal to $`1`$, since $`\text{O}_X(1)`$ is very ample;
* $`\frac{\sqrt[3]{d}}{2}<1`$ iff $`d<8`$;
* $`\frac{\sqrt[3]{d(\delta 1)^2}}{\delta }<1`$ if $`\delta d2`$, when $`d3`$, or if $`\delta 2`$, when $`1d2`$;
* $`\frac{\sqrt[3]{d(\delta 1)^2}}{\delta }<\frac{\sqrt[3]{d}}{2}`$ iff $`\delta 6`$.

Therefore, considering all the above inequalities, we find that

$$M=\{\begin{array}{ccc}\frac{\sqrt[3]{d}}{2}\hfill & \mathrm{if}& d<8\mathrm{and}\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}\delta 5,\hfill \\ \frac{\sqrt[3]{d(\delta 1)^2}}{\delta }\hfill & \mathrm{if}& \mathrm{either}d8\mathrm{and}\delta d2\hfill \\ & & \mathrm{or}d<8\mathrm{and}\delta 6.\hfill \end{array}$$

In all these cases we have $`M<1`$.

When $`M=\frac{\sqrt[3]{d}}{2}`$, (5.11) holds as soon as $`k+m>\frac{6}{\sqrt[3]{d}}`$. On the other hand, when $`M=\frac{\sqrt[3]{d(\delta 1)^2}}{\delta }`$, we want

(5.12)
$$\frac{3}{k+m}<\frac{\sqrt[3]{d(\delta 1)^2}}{\delta }.$$

Since this case occurs when $`d8`$, $`\delta d2`$ and when $`d<8`$, $`\delta 6`$, we impose

(5.13)
$$\frac{3(d2)}{\sqrt[3]{d(d3)^2}}<k+m,\mathrm{when}d8,$$

and

(5.14)
$$\frac{18}{\sqrt[3]{25d}}<k+m,\mathrm{when}d<8.$$

Observe that (5.12) is equivalent to asking that the polynomials

$$F_{k,m,d}(\delta ):=27\delta ^3d(k+m)^3(\delta 1)^2$$

satisfy the inequalities $`F_{k,m,d}(\delta )<0`$. By (5.13) and (5.14), we have that

$$F_{k,m,d}(d2)<0,\mathrm{when}d8,$$

$$F_{k,m,d}(6)<0,\mathrm{when}d<8.$$

Therefore each cubic polynomial $`F_{k,m,d}(\delta )`$ has (at least) one root which is greater than $`d2`$, when $`d8`$, and greater than $`6`$, when $`d<8`$, respectively. Denote by $`\delta _0^{(k)}`$ the root of $`F_{k,m,d}(\delta )`$ s.t.

$$F_{k,m,d}(\delta )<0,\delta [d2,\delta _0^{(k)}),\mathrm{when}d8,$$

$$F_{k,m,d}(\delta )<0,\delta [6,\delta _0^{(k)}),\mathrm{when}d<8,$$

respectively. Thus, in such ranges of values for $`\delta `$, (5.11) automatically holds.

On the other hand, since $`[s]𝒱_\delta ()`$, then, $`CX`$ is an irreducible curve having nodes at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; thus, by definition of multiple point Seshadri constant - see (5.7) - we have $`\frac{deg(C)}{mult_\mathrm{\Sigma }(C)}>\frac{3}{k+m}`$, i.e. $`\delta <\frac{1}{6}(k+m)deg(C)`$. Therefore, when $`\delta d2`$, we have $`(k+m)>\frac{6(d2)}{deg(C)}`$, whereas $`\delta 6`$ gives $`(k+m)>\frac{36}{deg(C)}`$. ∎

When, in particular, $`X=^3`$ we can simplify the previous result.

###### Corollary 5.15.

Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`^3`$. Denote by $`c_i`$ the $`i^{th}`$-Chern class of $``$. Let $`k`$ and $`\delta `$ be integers such that $`k0`$ and $`\delta >0`$. Let $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote the set of nodes of the curve $`C^3`$ corresponding to $`s`$. Assume that

(i) $`k0`$, when $`\delta =1`$;

(ii) $`k3`$, when:

* $`\delta =2`$,
* $`3\delta 5`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a set of very general points in $`^3`$,
* $`3c_1+c_2+4>0`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a set of very general points in $`^3`$ and $`6\delta <min\{h^0((k)),\frac{1}{6}(k+4)(k^2+c_1k+c_2),\delta _0^{(k)}\}`$, where $`\delta _0^{(k)}`$ is a positive root of the polynomial $`F_{k,}(\delta ):=27\delta ^3(k+4)^3(\delta 1)^2`$ such that $`F_k(\delta )<0`$ on the connected interval $`[6,\delta _0^{(k)})`$.

Then, in each case, $`[s]`$ is a regular point of $`𝒱_\delta ((k))`$.

###### Proof.

As in the proof of Theorem 5.9, it suffices to show that the multiple point Seshadri constant $`\overline{ϵ}:=ϵ(\text{O}_X(1);\mathrm{\Sigma })>\frac{3}{k+4}`$.

If $`\delta =1`$, $`\overline{ϵ}=ϵ(\text{O}_X(1);p)=1`$ for each $`p^3`$, since there exist lines in $`^3`$. Thus, for each $`k0`$ we have $`\overline{ϵ}>\frac{3}{k+4}`$;

If $`\delta =2`$, then $`\overline{ϵ}=ϵ(\text{O}_X(1);p_1,p_2)\frac{1}{2}`$ for $`(p_1,p_2)(^3)^{(2)}`$ (as in Definition 5.8), since for all $`p_1p_2`$ there exists the line $`L_{p_1,p_2}=<p_1,p_2>`$. Therefore, if $`k3`$, $`\overline{ϵ}>\frac{3}{k+4}`$;

For $`\delta 3`$ we can use the same procedure of Theorem 5.9 observing that $`ϵ(\text{O}_X(1);\mathrm{\Sigma })=ϵ(\text{O}_X(1);\delta )`$, by assumption on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and that $`ϵ(\text{O}_X(1),\delta )M:=\mathrm{min}\{1,\frac{1}{2},\frac{\sqrt[3]{(\delta 1)^2}}{\delta }\}.`$

###### Remark 5.16.

Observe that the polynomials $`F_k(\delta )`$ in Corollary 5.15 asymptotically give the upper-bounds $`\delta <\frac{(k+4)^3}{27}`$ (equivalently $`k>3\sqrt[3]{\delta }4`$ ). Therefore, we have a cubic polynomial in the indeterminate $`k`$ which bounds the admissible number of nodes of $`C`$. The same occurs with the inequalities $`\delta <h^0(X,(k))`$ and $`\delta <\frac{1}{6}(k+4)(k^2+c_1k+c_2)`$. Similar situation for the polynomials $`F_{k,m,d}(\delta )`$ in Theorem 5.9. Therefore, we have cubic upper-bounds on $`k`$ for $`\delta `$ to get regularity results for the point $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$. This depends on the fact that the computations are related to Seshadri constants of very ample line bundles at very general points on a $`3`$-dimensional variety.

###### Remark 5.17.

At this point, on the one hand we have Theorem 4.5 which gives uniform bounds on the admissible number $`\delta `$ of nodes in order that each point of the Severi variety $`𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ on a threefold $`X`$ is regular; morover, these uniform upper-bounds only depend on the number of nodes and not on their configurations in $`X`$. On the other hand, Theorem 5.9 determines sufficient conditions for the regularity of a point $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, having assumed that the nodes of $`C=V(s)`$ are in very general position on $`X`$. Therefore, there are intermidiate cases which are very interesting to study. Precisely, if $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, we want to find conditions for its regularity assuming that a (not necessarily proper) subset of the nodes of $`C`$ lies on a proper subscheme of $`X`$.

Given $`X^r`$ a smooth threefold, $``$ a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ and $`k`$ and $`\delta `$ positive integers, consider $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$. From now on, $`C`$ will denote the irreducible curve determined by $`s`$, whose set of nodes is $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$, as well as $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ will denote a (not necessarily proper) subset of nodes of $`C`$.

###### Proposition 5.18.

Let $`X^r`$ be a smooth threefold and let $`H`$ denote its hyperplane section. Let $`S_aX`$ be an irreducible divisor such that $`S_aaH`$ on $`X`$, for some positive integer $`a`$. Let $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, $`C=V(s)`$ and assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$ lies on $`S_aSing(S_a)`$. Assume also that

$$h^1(X,\text{O}_X(ka))=h^1(X,\text{O}_X(k))=h^2(X,\text{O}_X(ka))=0$$

(e.g, when $`X`$ is arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay). Then, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ does not impose independent conditions to the complete linear system in $`|\text{O}_{S_a}(k)|`$ on $`S_a`$, $`[s]`$ cannot be a regular point for $`𝒱_\delta ((k))`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`S_aaH`$ on $`X`$, we have the ideal sequence

(5.19)
$$0\text{O}_X(ka)\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k)\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/S_a}(k)0.$$

Therefore, by the hypotheses on $`X`$, $`H^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k))H^1(S_a,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/S_a}(k))`$ which implies the statement. ∎

In particular,

###### Corollary 5.20.

Let $`S_a^3`$ be an irreducible (not necessarily smooth) surface of degree $`a`$. Let $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, $`C=V(s)`$ and assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$ is such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0S_aSing(S_a)`$. Then, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ does not impose independent conditions to the complete linear system $`|\text{O}_{S_a}(k)|`$ on $`S_a`$, $`[s]`$ is not a regular point for $`𝒱_\delta ((k))`$.

###### Remark 5.21.

Observe that, with Proposition 5.18 and Corollary 5.20, one can easily construct many examples of non-regular points $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, corresponding to nodal curves on a smooth projective threefold $`X`$, by translating the problem to linear systems on surfaces $`SX`$ not separating a given set of smooth points in $`S`$.

On the other hand, one can also find some conditions on $`\delta _0=|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|`$ ensuring that, if $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is not regular, the failure of the regularity property depends on the behaviour of the nodes in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. Indeed, since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, we have

(5.22)
$$0\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X}(k)\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k)\text{O}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}(k)0.$$

Taking $`X`$ as in Proposition 5.18 and assuming that $`h^1(S_a,\text{O}_{S_a}(k))=0`$ (e.g, for $`X=^3`$), then if we have some conditions implying that $`|\text{O}_{S_a}(k)|`$ separates $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ on $`S_a`$, by (5.22) we have

$$H^0(\text{O}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}(k))H^1(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X}(k)).$$

Therefore, a possibly non-zero element in $`H^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X}(k))`$ is induced by an element in $`H^0(\text{O}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}(k))`$.

To get some effective results, we can use several approaches. First of all, we want to consider the case when $`S_aX`$ is a smooth irreducible divisor in $`X`$, which is linearly equivalent to $`aH`$ on $`X`$. As in Theorem 5.9, our aim is to show that if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0S_a`$ is a set of very general points on $`S_a`$, then we get a quadratic upper-bound on $`k`$ for the admissible number $`\delta _0=|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|`$ in order that the complete linear system $`|\text{O}_{S_a}(k)|`$ separates $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ on $`S_a`$.

###### Proposition 5.23.

Let $`X^r`$ be a smooth threefold of degree $`d`$ and let $`H`$ denote its hyperplane section. Assume that $`\omega _X\text{O}_X(m)`$, for some integer $`m0`$. Let $`S_a`$ be a smooth irreducible divisor such that $`S_aaH`$ on $`X`$, for some positive integer $`a`$. Denote by $`H_{S_a}`$ the hyperplane section of $`S_a^r`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0S_a`$ be a set of $`\delta _0`$ distinct points on $`S_a`$. Given $`k`$ a non-negative integer, assume that:

(i) $`k+m>a+2`$, when either

* $`\delta _0=1`$, or
* $`ad4`$ and $`2\delta _0<\frac{ad+\sqrt{ad(ad4)}}{2}`$,

(ii) $`k+m>a+\frac{4}{\sqrt{ad}}`$, when either

* $`ad<4`$ and $`2\delta _0<\frac{(k+ma)^2+\sqrt{(k+ma)^2ad((k+ma)^2ad16)}}{8}`$, or
* $`ad4`$ and $`\frac{ad+\sqrt{ad(ad4)}}{2}\delta _0<\frac{(k+ma)^2+\sqrt{(k+ma)^2ad((k+ma)^2ad16)}}{8}`$.

Then,

(5.24)
$$h^1(S_a,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/S_a}(k))=0.$$

###### Proof.

Let $`b_{\delta _0}:\stackrel{~}{S}_aS_a`$ be the blowing-up of $`S_a`$ along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}H^1(S_a,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/S_a}(k))=& H^1(S_a,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/S_a}(k+ma)\omega _{S_a})\hfill \\ & H^1(\stackrel{~}{S}_a,\omega _{\stackrel{~}{S}_a}\text{O}_{\stackrel{~}{S}_a}((k+ma)b_{\delta _0}^{}(H_{S_a})2B))(),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`B=_{j=1}^{\delta _0}E_j`$ is the $`b_{\delta _0}`$-exceptional divisor. Let $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}=ϵ(\text{O}_{S_a}(1),\mathrm{\Sigma }_0)`$ be the multiple point Seshadri constant of $`\text{O}_{S_a}(1)`$ at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, then

$$(k+ma)b_{\delta _0}^{}(H_{S_a})2B=\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}}(b_{\delta _0}^{}(H_{S_a})\stackrel{~}{ϵ}B)+(k+ma\frac{2}{\stackrel{~}{ϵ}})b_{\delta _0}^{}(H_{S_a}).$$

Therefore, if $`\stackrel{~}{ϵ}>\frac{2}{k+ma}`$ (with $`ak+m`$) by the Kawamata-Viehweg vanishing theorem we get the desired vanishing in $`()`$.

If $`\delta _0=1`$, then $`ϵ(\text{O}_{S_a}(1);p)1`$ for each $`pS_a`$, since $`\text{O}_{S_a}(1)`$ is very ample. Therefore, if $`k+m>a+2`$, the vanishing in $`()`$ holds.

If $`\delta _02`$, by Theorem 1.1 in , if $`ϵ(\text{O}_{S_a}(1);\delta _0)`$ denotes the multiple point Seshadri constant of $`\text{O}_{S_a}(1)`$ at $`\delta _0`$ very general points of $`S_a`$, then

$$ϵ(\text{O}_{S_a}(1);\delta _0)M:=\mathrm{min}\{ϵ(\text{O}_{S_a}(1);1),\frac{\sqrt{ad}}{2},\frac{\sqrt{ad(\delta _01)}}{\delta _0}\}.$$

By straightforward computations, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0S_a`$ is a set of $`\delta _0`$ very general points on $`S_a`$ and if our numerical hypotheses hold, then the vanishing in $`()`$ holds. ∎

As a consequence of Proposition 5.18, Remark 5.21 and Proposition 5.23, we have the following:

###### Theorem 5.25.

Let $`X^r`$ be a smooth threefold of degree $`d`$ and let $`\text{O}_X(1)`$ denote its hyperplane bundle. Assume that $`\omega _X\text{O}_X(m)`$, for some $`m0`$. Let $`S_a`$ be a smooth irreducible divisor on $`X`$, such that $`S_a|\text{O}_X(a)|`$ on $`X`$, for some $`a>0`$. Let $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, where $``$ is a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ and $`\delta `$ and $`k`$ two positive integers. If $`C=V(s)`$ and if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$, assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lies on $`S_a`$. Assume further that

$$H^1(X,\text{O}_X(ka))=H^1(X,\text{O}_X(k))=H^2(X,\text{O}_X(ka))=(0)$$

and that the numerical hypotheses in Proposition 5.23 hold. Then, if $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is not a regular point, the failure of the regularity property depends on the points in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$.

In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is a regular point.

###### Proof.

From our assumptions, by Proposition 5.18 we get that

$$H^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k))H^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/S_a}(k)).$$

Now, from Proposition 5.23 and from the exact sequence (5.22), it follows that

$$H^0(\text{O}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}(k))H^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/X}(k)),$$

i.e. if there exists a non-zero obstruction, it is induced by an element in $`H^0(\text{O}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}(k))`$. ∎

When $`X=^3`$, the above results reduce to:

###### Corollary 5.26.

Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`^3`$ and let $`k`$ and $`\delta `$ be positive integers. Let $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ and let $`C=V(s)`$ with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lies on a smooth surface $`S_a`$ of degree $`a`$ and let $`\delta _0`$ be the cardinality of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. Assume that the points in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ are in very general position on $`S_a`$ and that the following conditions hold:

(i) $`k>a2`$, when either

* $`a1`$ and $`\delta _0=1`$, or
* $`a4`$ and $`2\delta _0<\frac{a+\sqrt{a(a4)}}{2}`$,

(ii) $`k>a4+\frac{4}{\sqrt{a}}`$, when either

* $`a<4`$ and $`2\delta _0<\frac{(k+4a)^2a+\sqrt{(k+4a)^2a((k+4a)^2a16)}}{8}`$, or
* $`a4`$ and $`\frac{a+\sqrt{a(a4)}}{2}\delta _0<\frac{(k+4a)^2a+\sqrt{(k+4a)^2a((k+4a)^2a16)}}{8}`$.

Then, $`H^1(^3,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/^3}(k))=(0)`$. In particular, if $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ fails to be a regular point, the failure of the regularity property depends on the nodes in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is a regular point.

Since we are interested in very general points, we can generalize the previous approach by assuming that $`S_a=S`$ is not necessarily smooth. Indeed in general, if $`\mu :\stackrel{~}{S}S`$ denotes a resolution of singularities for $`S`$, given $`L`$ a Weil divisor on $`S`$, we have

(5.27)
$$ϵ(L;\mu (p_1),\mathrm{},\mu (p_\delta ))=ϵ(\mu ^{}(L);p_1,\mathrm{},p_\delta ),$$

since around the $`p_i`$’s $`\mu `$ is an isomorphism. Therefore, we can more generally consider $`S`$ to be a normal surface with sufficiently mild singularities.

For simplicity, we shall discuss the case of $`S^3`$ of degree $`a`$; the case $`SX^r`$, where $`X`$ a smooth threefold, is a straightforward generalization.

###### Theorem 5.28.

Let $`S^3`$ be an irreducible surface of degree $`a`$ having at worst log-terminal singularities and denote by $`H`$ the hyperplane section of $`S`$. Suppose that $`K_S`$ is a $``$-Cartier divisor of index $`r`$, such that $`rK_S\alpha H`$, for some $`\alpha `$. Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`^3`$, $`k`$ a positive integer and let $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$. Let $`C=V(s)`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a set of very general points in $`S`$. Assume further that

(i) $`k>2+\frac{\alpha }{r}`$, when either

* $`a1`$ and $`\delta _0=1`$, or
* $`a>4`$ and $`2\delta _0<\frac{a+\sqrt{a(a4)}}{2}`$,

(ii) $`k>\frac{4}{\sqrt{a}}+\frac{\alpha }{r}`$, when $`a4`$ and $`\delta _0=2`$,

(iii) $`k>\frac{4r}{\sqrt{a}}+\frac{\alpha }{r}`$, when either

* $`a4`$ and $`3\delta _0<\frac{a(rk\alpha )^2+\sqrt{a(rk\alpha )^2((a(rk\alpha )^216r^2)}}{8r^2}`$, or
* $`a>4`$ and $`\frac{a+\sqrt{a(a4)}}{2}\delta _0<\frac{a(rk\alpha )^2+\sqrt{a(rk\alpha )^2((a(rk\alpha )^216r^2)}}{8r^2}`$.

Then, if $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is not a regular point, the failure of the regularity property depends on the nodes in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is a regular point.

###### Proof.

Let $`\mu :YS`$ be a log-resolution of the pair $`(S,0)`$ (see $`\mathrm{\S }`$ 1). Then

$$K_Y+\mathrm{\Delta }\mu ^{}(K_S)+P,$$

where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a boundary divisor and $`P`$ is an integral, effective and $`\mu `$-exceptional divisor on $`Y`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0S`$ is a set of very general point on $`S`$, then $`\mu ^{}(\mathrm{\Sigma }_0)=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is a set of very general points on $`Y`$. Let $`b_{\delta _0}:\stackrel{~}{Y}Y`$ be the blowing-up of $`Y`$ along $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}`$ and denote by $`F_{\delta _0}:\stackrel{~}{Y}S`$ the composition $`F_{\delta _0}=b_{\delta _0}\mu `$. Since, by hypothesis, $`rK_S\alpha H`$ then

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill h^1(S,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/S}(k))& =\hfill & h^1(S,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/S}((k\frac{\alpha }{r})H+K_S))\hfill \\ & =\hfill & h^1(Y,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{}/Y}\text{O}_Y(((k\frac{\alpha }{r})\mu ^{}(H)+K_Y+\mathrm{\Delta })))\hfill \\ & =\hfill & h^1(\stackrel{~}{Y},\text{O}_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}(K_{\stackrel{~}{Y}}+b_{\delta _0}^{}(\mathrm{\Delta })+(k\frac{\alpha }{r})F_{\delta _0}^{}(H)2B)),\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`B=_{i=1}^{\delta _0}E_i`$ is the $`b_{\delta _0}`$-exceptional divisor. Since, by (5.27), $`\overline{ϵ}=ϵ(\mu ^{}(\text{O}_S(1)),\mathrm{\Sigma }_0^{})=ϵ(\text{O}_S(1),\mathrm{\Sigma }_0)`$, then

$$(k\frac{\alpha }{r})F_{\delta _0}^{}(H)2B=(k\frac{\alpha }{r}\frac{2}{\overline{ϵ}})F_{\delta _0}^{}(H)+\frac{2}{\overline{ϵ}}(F_{\delta _0}^{}(H)\overline{ϵ}B)$$

is big and nef if $`k\frac{\alpha }{r}>\frac{2}{\overline{ϵ}}`$, i.e. if $`\overline{ϵ}>\frac{2r}{rk\alpha }`$. At this point, we can apply the same computations as in Proposition 5.23 and in Theorem 5.25. ∎

###### Remark 5.29.

As observed in Remark 5.16 for sets of points in very general position on a threefold, from Corollary 5.26 and Theorem 5.28 we see that, when $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is assumed to be a set of very general points lying on a smooth surface in $`^3`$ or on a normal surface with at worst log-terminal singularities, there are some upper-bounds on the number of admissible points in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ such that an element $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, whose zero-locus $`C`$ has nodes at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, is a regular point. Such upper-bounds are quadratic polynomials in $`k`$; this reflects the fact that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is assumed to be a set of very general points lying on a $`2`$-dimensional subscheme. Indeed, all the computations are related to multiple point Seshadri constants of very ample line bundles on such schemes.

Looking back at Proposition 5.23, at Theorem 5.28 and at Corollary 5.26, we want to study how the upper-bounds on $`\delta _0=|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|`$ vary when we drop the hypothesis that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ is a set of very general points on $`S`$. To get some effective results, we can apply the techniques in , for smooth surfaces, and their generalizations in , for normal surfaces. These techniques are both generalizations of Reider’s theorem (see ).

We first recall some standard and useful definitions (see (0.1) in ).

###### Definition 5.30.

Let $`S`$ be a smooth projective surface. A line bundle $`L`$ on $`S`$ is said to be $`k`$-very ample, $`k0`$, if the restriction map

$$H^0(S,L)H^0(Z,\text{O}_Z(L))$$

is surjective for any $`Zilb^{k+1}(S)`$.

As an immediate consequence of the definition, we have the following generalization of Proposition 4.4 to the surface case.

###### Lemma 5.31.

If $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_k`$ are very ample line bundles on $`S`$, $`L_1\mathrm{}L_k`$ is $`k`$-very ample.

###### Proof.

See Lemma 0.1.1 in . ∎

###### Corollary 5.32.

Let $`X^r`$ be a smooth threefold and let $`\text{O}_X(1)`$ denote its hyperplane bundle. Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$ and let $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, where $`k`$ and $`\delta `$ are positive integers. Let $`C=V(s)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$ and assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lies on a smooth divisor $`SX`$, whose hyperplane section is denoted by $`H_S`$. Assume further that

$$h^1(X,\text{O}_X(k))=h^1(X,\text{I}_{S/X}(k))=h^2(X,\text{I}_{S/X}(k))=0.$$

Then, if $`\delta _0k+1`$, we have $`h^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k))=0`$. Therefore, if $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ fails to be a regular point, the failure of the regularity property depends on the nodes in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, then $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is regular.

###### Proof.

Since $`\text{O}_S(kH_S)=\text{O}_S(H_S)^k`$ and since $`\text{O}_S(H_S)`$ is very ample on $`S`$, then $`\text{O}_S(kH_S)`$ is $`(\delta _01)`$-very ample if $`k\delta _01`$. One concludes by using Proposition 5.18 and Remark 5.21. ∎

###### Remark 5.33.

Observe that, since there is no assumption on the postulation of points in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, we refind a uniform and linear upper-bound on $`\delta _0`$ as we determined in Proposition 4.4 and in Theorem 4.5 for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$, where $`X`$ a smooth, projective threefold.

###### Proposition 5.34.

Let $`X^r`$ be a smooth threefold of degree $`d`$ and let $`\text{O}_X(1)`$ denote its hyperplane bundle. Assume that $`\omega _X\text{O}_X(m)`$ for some non-negative integer $`m`$. Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$, $`k`$ and $`\delta `$ be positive integers and $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$. Let $`C=V(s)`$, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$ and assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ lies on a smooth irreducible divisor $`SaH`$ on $`X`$. Denote by $`H_S`$ the hyperplane section of $`S`$. Assume further that

$$()h^1(X,\text{O}_X(ka))=h^1(X,\text{O}_X(k))=h^2(X,\text{O}_X(ka))=0.$$

If $`k+m>a`$ and if $`\delta _0\frac{k+ma}{2}deg(D)`$, for each curve $`D`$ on $`S`$, then $`h^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k))=0`$.

If, in particular, $`NS(S)[H_S]`$, then $`h^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k))=0`$ when $`\delta _0\frac{ad(k+ma)}{2}`$.

Therefore, if $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ fails to be a regular point, the failure of the regularity property depends on the behaviour of the nodes in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, then $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is a regular point.

###### Proof.

Consider $`L=\text{O}_S(kH_SK_S)=\text{O}_S(k+ma)`$. Since $`k+m>a`$, $`L`$ is very ample on $`S`$ and $`LD=(k+ma)deg(D)`$, for each curve $`D`$ on $`S`$. By Theorem 2.1 and Corollary 2.3 in , if $`\delta _0\frac{k+ma}{2}deg(D)`$, then

$$H^0(S,\text{O}_S(k))=H^0(S,\text{O}_S(K_S+L))H^0(\text{O}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0}),$$

for $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0ilb^{\delta _0}(S)`$. Since $`L`$ is very ample on $`S`$, by the Kodaira vanishing and by the surjectivity above, we have that $`h^1(S,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/S}(k))=0`$. From our assumption $`()`$, it follows that $`h^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k))=0`$. ∎

###### Remark 5.35.

Observe that Proposition 5.34 applies, in particular, to general surfaces in $`^3`$ of degree $`a4`$.

By adapting the procedure of Theorem 3 in  to our situation, one can easily extends to the case of $`S`$ a normal surface and prove analogous results. For brevity sake, the interested reader is referred to .

We conclude this section by studying the case when, given $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ and $`C=V(s)`$, some nodes of $`C`$ are assumed to be on a given curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$. As expected, we find some linear bounds in $`k`$ for the number of admissible nodes of $`C`$ lying on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ in order that $`\text{O}_X(k)`$ separates such points on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Precisely, we have:

###### Theorem 5.36.

Let $`X^r`$ be a smooth threefold and let $`\text{O}_X(1)`$ denote its hyperplane bundle. Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`X`$, $`k`$ and $`\delta `$ be positive integers. Consider $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ and let $`C=V(s)`$. Take $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$, $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|=\delta _0`$, a (not necessarily proper) subset of its nodes. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ lies on a local complete intersection curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }X`$ such that its dualizing sheaf is $`\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }\text{O}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(e)`$, for some $`e`$. Assume that $`h^1(\text{O}_X(k))=0`$ and that:

(i) $`k>e`$,

(ii) $`h^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }/X}(k))=0`$, and

(iii) $`\delta _0<deg(\text{O}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(ke))`$.

Then $`h^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k))=0`$. Therefore, if $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ fails to be a regular point, the failure depends on the behaviour of the nodes in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, then $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is a regular point.

###### Proof.

Consider the ideal sequence

$$0\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }/X}(k)\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k)\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)0.$$

Since $`h^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }/X}(k))=0`$, then

$$h^1(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k))h^1(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)).$$

A sufficient condition will be therefore the vanishing $`h^1(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k))=0`$. As in , consider that $`H^1(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k))^{}\mathrm{Hom}(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)),\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma })`$.

Assume, by contradiction, that $`h^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/X}(k))0`$; then a non zero-element corresponds to a non-zero sheaf morphism

$$\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)\stackrel{\phi }{}\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }.$$

Since $`\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)\text{O}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(k)`$ is a torsion-free (but not locally free) sheaf on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of rank one, $`\phi `$ is an injective sheaf morphism. Thus,

$$0\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k)\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma }\underset{¯}{t}0,$$

where $`\underset{¯}{t}`$ is a torsion sheaf on $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$. Therefore, if $`\chi ()`$ denotes the Euler characteristic,

$$0\chi (\underset{¯}{t})=\chi (\omega _\mathrm{\Gamma })\chi (\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k))=p_a(\mathrm{\Gamma })1\chi (\text{O}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(k))+\delta _0,$$

i.e. $`\delta _0\chi (\text{O}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(k))p_a(\mathrm{\Gamma })+1=deg(\text{O}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(ke))>0`$, since $`k>e`$ by assumption. Therefore, if $`h^1(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/\mathrm{\Gamma }}(k))0`$, $`\delta _0`$ must be greater than or equal to $`deg(\text{O}_\mathrm{\Gamma }(ke))`$, which contradicts our hypotheses. ∎

###### Corollary 5.37.

Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`^3`$, $`k`$ and $`\delta `$ be positive integers. Consider $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ and let $`C=V(s)`$. Take $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$ a subset of the nodes of $`C`$ s.t $`|\mathrm{\Sigma }_0|=\delta _0`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$ lies on a complete intersection curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b^3`$ of degree $`b`$ such that $`\omega _{\mathrm{\Gamma }_b}\text{O}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_b}(e)`$, for some $`e`$. Assume that $`k>e`$ and that $`\delta _0<b(ke)`$. Then $`h^1(X,\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }_0/^3}(k))=0`$.

Therefore, if $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ fails to be a regular point, the failure depends on the behaviour of the nodes in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$. In particular, if $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=\mathrm{\Sigma }_0`$, then $`[s]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ is a regular point.

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_b`$ is a complete intersection, then $`h^1(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }/^3}(k))=0`$, for each $`k`$. Moreover, $`deg(\text{O}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_b}(ke))=b(ke)`$. ∎

###### Remark 5.38.

Observe that, with Theorem 5.36 and Corollary 5.37, one can very easily construct several examples of curves on a threefold $`X`$ or, more specifically, in $`^3`$ which correspond to non-regular points of $`𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, proving the almost-sharpness of our bounds. For example, Corollary 5.37 gives a complete generalization of Example 3.2 in . The authors considered $`=\text{O}_^3(1)\text{O}_^3(4)`$ and $`\delta =k+4`$, with $`k>>0`$; they constructed a curve $`C^3`$, corresponding to a point $`[s]𝒱_{k+4}((k))`$, with $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_0=\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$ is the set of its $`(k+4)`$ nodes lying on a line $`L`$ and they showed that $`[s]`$ is not a regular point of $`𝒱_\delta ((k))`$. Such an example is a particular case of our result; indeed, to hope the regularity of $`[s]`$ one should impose that the number of nodes lying on $`L`$ must be $`\delta _0<1(k(2))=k+2`$. Observe also that our Corollary 5.37 holds not only for $`k>>0`$ but for effective values of $`k`$ and, furthermore, that we can substitute the line $`L`$ with any other complete intesection curve in $`^3`$.

## 6. Some geometric properties of space curves parametrized by $`𝒱_\delta ((k))`$

From now on, we shall consider only curves in $`^3`$. Let $`[s_0]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, where $``$ is a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`^3`$ and where $`k`$ and $`\delta `$ are positive integers. Let $`C=V(s_0)^3`$ and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ denote the set of nodes of $`C`$.

The aim of this section is to study some interesting geometric properties of the curves determined by elements in $`𝒱_\delta ((k))`$. Precisely, given an integer $`h>0`$, we can consider smooth curves $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^3`$, which are defined as zero-loci of suitable global sections $`s_hH^0(^3,(k+h))`$; then, we want to study geometric properties of the pairs $`(C,\mathrm{\Gamma }_h)`$, $`h`$, expecially from the liaison relation point of view. From Rao’s paper (), we know that $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ lie in the same liaison class, for each $`h>0`$. Indeed, since such curves correspond to global sections of twists of the same vector bundle $``$, by the Koszul exact sequences in $`^3`$, their Rao’s modules are isomorphic up to the shift of $`h`$, i.e.

(6.1)
$$M(C)=\underset{t}{}H^1(C,\text{I}_{C/^3}(t))\underset{t}{}H^1(\mathrm{\Gamma }_h,\text{I}_{C/^3}(h+t))=M(\mathrm{\Gamma }_h).$$

One can be more precise by recalling the following terminology.

###### Definition 6.2.

(see Def. 1.1 in ) Let $`V_1,V_2^3`$ be two subschemes which are locally Cohen-Macaulay and equidimensional of codimensione two. Denote by $`_l`$ the relation of (geometric) linkage in $`^3`$. Then $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ are in the same even liaison class if

$$V_1_lZ_1_l\mathrm{}_lZ_{2k+1}_lV_2,$$

for some schemes $`Z_i^3`$. In such a case, $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ are said to be evenly linked. The resulting equivalence relation is called biliaison.

By (6.1) and by Lemma 1.6 in , we immediately observe that the curves $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ lie in the same biliaison class, apart from some particular cases. Indeed, since $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ are both subcanonical curves in $`^3`$, it may happen that $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ are directly (so oddly) linked in $`^3`$ (see ). However, when this last situation occurs, there are strong restrictions not only on the vector bundle $``$ but also on the numerical characters of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ (degree, genus and postulation); precisely, one has at most three possible cases for $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ (for details, the reader is referred to the original paper ).

Here we are interested in analyzing the geometric properties that $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ share, for each $`h>0`$, particularly towards the biliaison relation between $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ (i.e. with general choices of $``$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$).

By recalling Remark 2.3, a first result is the following.

###### Theorem 6.3.

Let $``$ be a globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`^3`$ and denote by $`c_1`$ the first Chern class of $``$. Let $`k`$ and $`\delta `$ be positive integers such that $`\delta k+1`$. Let $`[s_0]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$ correspond to an irreducible, nodal curve $`C^3`$, whose set of nodes is denoted by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Take $`h1`$ an integer such that

(6.4)
$$k+hc_1.$$

Then, there always exist:

* a smooth, irreducible curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h^3`$ simply passing through $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h=V(s_h)`$, where $`[s_h](H^0((k+h))`$,
* a normal surface $`S_{k,h}^3`$ of degree $`d_{k,h}=c_1+2k+h`$ containing both $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$.

###### Proof.

As in Theorem 3.4, we consider the smooth projective fourfold $`𝒫=_^3((k))`$, together with the surjective morphism $`\pi :𝒫^3`$ and with the tautological line bundle $`\text{O}_𝒫(1)`$. Thus the curve $`C`$, which is the zero-locus of the global section $`s_0H^0((k))`$, corresponds to an effective divisor $`D_0|\text{O}_𝒫(1)|`$.

(i) Given $`h>0`$, we first want to construct a section $`s_hH^0((k+h))`$, which corresponds to a divisor $`D_h|\text{O}_𝒫(1)\pi ^{}(\text{O}_^3(h))|`$ simply vanishing along the lines of the scheme $`=_{i=1}^\delta L_i:=\pi ^1(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$. Such a divisor will correspond to the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ we want to determine.

Recall that the divisor $`D_0`$ corresponding to $`C`$ is singular having $`\delta `$ rational double points at $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (see the proof of Theorem 3.4). Assume for a moment that the sheaf

(6.5)
$$\text{I}_{/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)\pi ^{}(\text{O}_^3(h))$$

is globally generated on $`𝒫`$ (we shall show this fact later on in this proof); thus, the scheme $``$ coincides with the base locus of the linear system $`|\text{I}_{/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)\pi ^{}(\text{O}_^3(h))|`$. Since $`H^0((k))H^0((k+h))`$, for a general $`\sigma H^0(\text{O}_^3(h))`$ the global section $`s_0\sigma H^0((k+h))`$ behaves as $`s_0`$ around the points in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$; moreover, since $`\pi _{}(\text{O}_𝒫(1)\pi ^{}(\text{O}_^3(h)))(k+h)`$, if

$$B:=\mathrm{Base}\mathrm{scheme}(|\text{I}_{/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)\pi ^{}(\text{O}_^3(h))|)$$

then $`=B`$ as schemes, which means that each line $`L_i`$ is reduced in $`B`$.

We want to show that the general element of $`|\text{I}_{/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)\pi ^{}(\text{O}_^3(h))|`$ is smooth along $``$. Denote by $`D_h`$ the general divisor of $`|\text{I}_{/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)\pi ^{}(\text{O}_^3(h))|`$; since we assumed that the sheaf in (6.5) is globally generated, then

$$𝒩_{/D_h}^{}\text{O}_𝒫(D_h)\frac{\text{I}_{/𝒫}}{\text{I}_{/𝒫}^2}\text{O}_𝒫(1)\pi ^{}(\text{O}_^3(h))$$

is globally generated. Since we have $`D_h𝒫`$, we get

(6.6)
$$0\text{O}_{D_h}𝒩_{D_h/𝒫}^{}\text{O}_𝒫(D_h)𝒩_{/𝒫}^{}\text{O}_𝒫(D_h)𝒩_{/D_h}^{}\text{O}_𝒫(D_h)0.$$

Fix $`L=L_{i_0}`$, for some $`1i_0\delta `$, and restrict (6.6) to $`L`$; therefore we have

(6.7)
$$\text{O}_L𝒩_{/𝒫}^{}\text{O}_L(D_h)𝒩_{/D_h}^{}\text{O}_L(D_h)0.$$

Since $`𝒩_{/𝒫}^{}\text{O}_L(D_h)`$ is a globally generated rank-three vector bundle on the line $`L`$, there exists a global section nowhere vanishing on $`L`$; this implies that (6.7) is exact and that $`𝒩_{/𝒫}^{}\text{O}_L(D_h)`$ is locally free on $`L`$. So it is $`𝒩_{/𝒫}^{}|_L`$. Since we have $`LD_h`$, then also $`𝒩_{L/D_h}^{}`$ is locally free. Therefore, since $`L`$ is smooth in $`𝒫`$, we have

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & 0& & & \\ & & & & & & \\ & 𝒩_{D_h/𝒫}^{}|_L& & \mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒫|_{D|_L}}^1& & \mathrm{\Omega }_{D_h}^1|_L& 0\\ & & & & & ^\alpha & \\ 0& 𝒩_{L/𝒫}^{}& & \mathrm{\Omega }_{𝒫|_L}^1& & \mathrm{\Omega }_L^1\text{O}_^1(2)& 0\\ & & & & & ^{}& \\ & 𝒩_{L/D_h}^{}& & 0& & 0& \\ & & & & & & \\ & 0& & & & & \end{array}$$

By the Snake lemma, $`ker(\alpha )𝒩_{L/D_h}^{}`$ is locally free on $`L`$. This implies that $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{D_h}^1|_L`$ is locally free on $`L`$, i.e. the general element of $`|\text{I}_{/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)\pi ^{}(\text{O}_^3(h))|`$ is smooth on $`L`$.

To complete the proof, we only have to show that the sheaf in (6.5) is actually globally generated on $`𝒫`$. Observe that $`\text{I}_{/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)\pi ^{}(\text{O}_^3(h))`$ is globally generated iff $`\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/^3}(k+h)`$ is globally generated on $`^3`$. Since a sufficient condition for the global generation of $`\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/^3}(k+h)`$ is its $`0`$-regularity as a sheaf on $`^3`$, observe that $`\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/^3}(k+h)`$ is $`0`$-regular iff

(6.8)
$$h^1(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/^3}(k+h1))=h^2(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/^3}(k+h2))=h^3(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/^3}(k+h3))=0.$$

From the Griffiths vanishing result (see , page 107), it follows that

(6.9)
$$h^1((k+h1))=h^2((k+h2))=h^3((k+h3))=0,$$

since $``$ is globally generated and since $`k+hc_1=det()`$ by assumption. Therefore, from the exact sequence

$$0\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/^3}(k+h)(k+h)(k+h)|_\mathrm{\Sigma }0$$

and from (6.9), the last two equalities in (6.8) hold. It only remains to show that $`h^1(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/^3}(k+h1))=0`$. To this aim, take

$$\begin{array}{cccccc}0\hfill & H^0(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/^3}(k+h1))\hfill & \hfill & H^0((k+h1))\hfill & \stackrel{\alpha _{k+h1}}{}& H^0((k+h1)|_\mathrm{\Sigma })\hfill \\ & & \hfill & H^1(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/^3}(k+h1))\hfill & & 0.\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`\delta k+1`$ by assumption, then

$$H^0((k))\stackrel{\alpha _k}{}H^0((k)|_\mathrm{\Sigma })$$

is surjective; therefore, $`\alpha _{k+h1}`$ is surjective since $`h1`$, i.e. $`H^1(\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Sigma }/^3}(k+h1))=(0)`$.

(ii) After having constructed the curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$, which corresponds to the general element of $`|\text{I}_{/𝒫}\text{O}_𝒫(1)\pi ^{}(\text{O}_^3(h))|`$, take $`s_hH^0((k+h))`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h=V(s_h)`$. We can consider the rank-two vector bundle morphism

$$\tau =(s_0,s_h):\text{O}_^3\text{O}_^3(h)(k),$$

where $`s_0H^0((k))`$ is such that $`C=V(s_0)`$. The degeneration locus of the morphism $`\tau `$ is a surface $`S_{k,h}=V(det(\tau ))`$, where $`det(\tau )H^0(^3,det()\text{O}_^3(2k+h))`$. Therefore, $`S_{k,h}`$ is a surface of degree $`d_{k,h}=c_1+2k+h`$ containing both $`C=V(s_0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h=V(s_h)`$. Its singular locus is determined by the condition $`rank(\tau )<1`$; therefore, by the construction of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ in (i), we immediately observe that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }Supp(C\mathrm{\Gamma }_h)=Sing(S_{k,h})`$. ∎

For each $`k`$ and $`h`$ as in (6.4), the surface $`S_{k,h}`$ constructed in Theorem 6.3 is the most "natural" surface in $`^3`$ containing both curves $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$. One can very easily deduce some biliaison properties of $`C`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ on $`S_{k,h}`$. We first recall the following more general definition from .

###### Definition 6.10.

Let $`V_1`$, $`V_2`$ be schemes of equidimension one without embedded components which are evenly linked in $`^3`$. $`V_2`$ is said to be obtained from $`V_1`$ by an elementary biliaison of height $`h`$, for some $`h`$, if there exists a surface $`S^3`$ containing $`V_1`$ and $`V_2`$ such that $`V_2V_1+hH`$ as generalized divisor on $`S`$, where $`H`$ is the plane section of $`S`$. This is equivalent to saying there exist surfaces $`T_1`$, of degree $`t_1`$ containing $`V_1`$, and $`T_2`$, of degree $`t_2`$ containing $`V_2`$, such that $`t_2=t_1+h`$ and the scheme $`W_1`$ linked to $`V_1`$ by $`T_1S`$ is equal to the scheme $`W_2`$ linked to $`V_2`$ by $`T_2S`$ (see Proposition 4.3 (b) in  or  pg. 276)

Thus, we can state the following:

###### Proposition 6.11.

Let $`[s_0]𝒱_\delta ((k))`$, with $``$ a non-splitting, globally generated rank-two vector bundle on $`^3`$ and with $`k`$ and $`\delta `$ positive integers such that $`\delta k+1`$. Let $`C=V(s_0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }=Sing(C)`$. Then, for each integer $`h1`$ as in (6.4), each curve $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ as in Theorem 6.3 (i) is obtained from $`C`$ by an elementary biliaison of height $`h`$ on the surface $`S_{k,h}`$

###### Proof.

For simplicity of notation, we denote by $`S`$ the surface $`S_{k,h}`$ and by $`c_1`$ the first Chern class of $``$. Denote by $`𝒢`$ the cokernel of the map

$$\tau =(s_0,s_h):\text{O}_^3\text{O}_^3(h)(k),$$

where $`s_0H^0((k))`$ and $`s_hH^0((k+h))`$ are such that $`C=V(s_0)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h=V(s_h)`$. By the diagram

(6.12) $`\begin{array}{ccccccc}& & & & & 0\hfill & \\ & & & & & \hfill & \\ \hfill 0& \text{O}_^3& & \text{O}_^3\text{O}_^3(h)& & \text{O}_^3(h)\hfill & \hfill 0\\ & & & ^\tau & & ^{det(s_h)}\hfill & \\ \hfill 0& \text{O}_^3& \stackrel{s_0}{}& (k)& & \text{I}_{C/^3}(c_1+2k)\hfill & \hfill 0\\ & & & & & \hfill & \\ & & & 𝒢& & \text{I}_{C/S}(c_1+2k)\hfill & \\ & & & & & \hfill & \\ & & & 0& & 0\hfill & \hfill ,\end{array}`$
we see that $`𝒢\text{I}_{C/S}(c_1)`$. Reversing the roles of $`s_0`$ and $`s_h`$ in diagram (6.12), we similarly find that $`𝒢\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h/S}(c_1+h)`$. Hence, we get $`\text{I}_{C/S}\text{I}_{\mathrm{\Gamma }_h/S}(h)`$; since $``$ is non-splitting, neither $`C`$ nor $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ can be equivalent to multiples of the hyperplane sections of $`S`$. Thus, by Definition 6.10, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_h`$ is obtained by an elementary biliason of height $`h`$ on $`S`$. ∎