text:
# Zariski-van Kampen theorem for higher homotopy groups.

## 1 Introduction

The classical Zariski-van Kampen theorem expresses the fundamental group of the complement of a plane algebraic curve in $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^2`$ as a quotient of the fundamental group of the intersection of this complement and a generic element of a pencil of lines (cf. ,  and ). The latter group is always free and the quotient is taken by the normal closure of a set of elements described in terms of the monodromy action arising as a result of moving the above generic element around the special elements of the pencil. This theorem is the main tool for the study of the fundamental groups of the complements of plane algebraic curves (cf. ).

The purpose of the present paper is to describe a high dimensional generalization of this theorem. Let $`V`$ be a hypersurface of $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+1}`$ having degree $`d`$ and the dimension of its singular locus equal to $`k`$. It is shown in  that, if $`nk2`$, $`\pi _1(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+1}V)=𝐙/d𝐙`$ and $`\pi _i(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+1}V)=0`$ for $`2ink1`$. Moreover the group $`\pi _{nk}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+1}V)`$ depends on the local type and the position of the singularities of $`V`$. The latter homotopy group is called the *first non trivial (higher) homotopy group* of the complement to $`V`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+1}`$. Since by the Zariski-Lefschetz hyperplane section theorem (cf. ), for a generic linear subspace $`H`$ of codimension $`k`$ in $`\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+1}`$ one has $`\pi _{nk}(\mathrm{𝐂𝐏}^{n+1}V)=\pi _{nk}(HHV)`$, it is enough to consider only the key case when $`V`$ has only isolated singularities. This remark reduces also the case $`nk=1`$ to the Zariski-van Kampen theorem mentioned above.

An analogue of the Zariski-van Kampen theorem for higher homotopy groups of the complement to hypersurfaces with isolated singularities in $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ was given in . There it was shown that, for a generic hyperplane $`L`$, the homotopy group $`\pi _n(𝐂^{n+1}V)`$ is the quotient of $`\pi _n(LLV)`$ by a $`\pi _1(LLV)`$-submodule which depends not just on the monodromy around the singular members of the pencil containing the hyperplane section but also on certain “degeneration operators” on the homotopy groups of the special members of the pencil.

The present work proposes a different approach to a high dimensional Zariski-van Kampen theorem. It is based on the systematic use of homotopy variation operators introduced below. Homological variation operators were considered in  for a generalization of the second Lefschetz theorem (cf. \[10, Chap. V, §8, Théorème VI\],  and ). From this point of view the main result of this paper can also be viewed as a homotopy second Lefschetz theorem.

The main result of the paper is the following (restated as Theorem 7.1 below):

###### Theorem.

Let $`V`$ be a hypersurface in $`𝐏^{n+1}`$ with $`n2`$ having only isolated singularities. Consider a pencil $`(L_t)_{t𝐏^1}`$ of hyperplanes in $`𝐏^{n+1}`$ with the base locus $``$ transversal to $`V`$. Denote by $`t_1`$, …, $`t_N`$ the collection of those $`t`$ for which $`L_tV`$ has singularities. Let $`t_0`$ be different from either of $`t_1`$, …, $`t_N`$. Let $`\gamma _i`$ be a good collection (cf. Definition 3.2) of paths in $`𝐏^1`$ based in $`t_0`$. Let $`eV`$ be a base point. Let $`𝒱_i`$ be the variation operator (cf. section 5) corresponding to $`\gamma _i`$. Then inclusion induces an isomorphism:

$$\pi _n(𝐏^{n+1}V,e)\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}\pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)/\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{im}𝒱_i.$$

For $`n=1`$, this statement reduces to the classical Zariski-van Kampen theorem as we explain it in Remark 7.2 below. But our proof does not work in the case $`n=1`$. Thus we shall suppose $`n2`$ in this article.

The paper is organized as follows. We start, in section 2, by describing in detail several pencils of hyperplanes associated with a hypersurface $`V`$ with isolated singularities. We also review some vanishing results and homological description of the homotopy groups of the complements of hypersurfaces from . In sections 3, 4 and 5 we describe the monodromies, the degeneration operators and homotopy variation operators. Section 6 describes the crucial relationship between homotopy variation and degeneration operators. The last section contains the announced theorem (theorem 7.1). Two proofs are given, one deriving it from the quoted theorem of  and another from that of .

Most of the work for this paper was done during several visits by the first author to the University of Provence, to which he expresses his gratitude for warm hospitality. Both authors would like to thank Lê Dũng Tráng, David Trotman and Bernard Teissier for reading parts of the manuscript and making valuable comments.

Here is some notation we shall use throughout the paper.

###### Notation 1.1.

1. The ground field in this paper is always $`𝐂`$ so we shall omit ‘$`𝐂`$’ from our notation of complex projective space which becomes $`𝐏^n`$ for the $`n`$-dimensional one.
2. All inclusion maps will be denoted by “$`\mathrm{incl}`$” and any canonical surjection from a set to a quotient of it by “$`\mathrm{can}`$”. In diagrams, we shall use the same letter for a map and any other map obtained from it by restriction of the source or the target.
3. All homology groups will be singular homology groups with integer coefficients. Given a continuous map $`f:XY`$ between topological spaces, we shall denote by $`f_{}`$ the induced homomorphism $`H_n(X)H_n(Y)`$, whatever be the integer $`n`$, and by $`f_{}`$ the induced homomorphisms $`C_n(X)C_n(Y)`$ between chain groups. If $`X^{}X`$ and $`f(X^{})Y^{}Y`$, we shall write $`\overline{f}_{}`$ for the induced homomorphisms $`H_n(X,X^{})H_n(Y,Y^{})`$. If $`xX`$ and $`y=f(x)Y`$, we shall denote by $`f_\mathrm{\#}`$ the induced maps $`\pi _n(X,x)\pi _n(Y,y)`$ for $`n0`$ and, if $`xX^{}`$ and $`y=f(x)Y^{}`$, by $`\overline{f}_\mathrm{\#}`$ the induced maps $`\pi _n(X,X^{},x)\pi _n(Y,Y^{},y)`$ for $`n1`$. All boundary operators in homology or homotopy will be designated by $``$. All absolute Hurewicz homomorphisms will be denoted by $`\chi `$ and the relative ones by $`\overline{\chi }`$.
4. Given an absolute cycle $`\xi `$, we shall write $`[\xi ]_X`$ for its homology class in a space $`X`$ containing it and, if $`\eta `$ is a chain contained in $`X`$ with boundary contained in $`X^{}X`$, we shall denote by $`[\eta ]_{(X,X^{})}`$ its homology class in $`X`$ modulo $`X^{}`$. If $`\xi ^{}`$ is an(other) absolute cycle contained in $`X`$, we shall write ‘$`\xi \xi ^{}\text{ in X}`$’ to mean that $`\xi `$ is homologous to $`\xi ^{}`$ in $`X`$. The homotopy class of a loop $`\gamma `$ will be denoted by $`\overline{\gamma }`$, the space in which this class has to be taken being made clear by the context.
5. The singular locus of the algebraic hypersurface $`V`$ will be designated by $`V_{\mathrm{sing}}`$.
6. In a blow up, the total transform of a subset $`E`$ of the blown up space will be denoted by $`\widehat{E}`$ and its strict transform by $`E^{\mathrm{}}`$.

## 2 Preliminaries

### 2.1 General setup

Let $`V`$ be a closed algebraic hypersurface of $`(n+1)`$-dimensional complex projective space $`𝐏^{n+1}`$, with only *isolated singularities*. Let $`d`$ be its degree. We suppose $`n2`$ for the reasons explained in the introduction and we suppose $`d2`$, the case $`d=1`$ being trivial (and appearing as a combursome exceptional case in what follows). Let $`M`$ be a projective $`(n1)`$-plane transverse to $`V`$ (that is avoiding the singular points of $`V`$ and transverse to the non-singular part of $`V`$). Let $`L`$ be the pencil of hyperplanes with base locus $`M`$, that is, the set of projective hyperplanes of $`𝐏^{n+1}`$ containing $`M`$. We want to compute the homotopy groups of $`𝐏^{n+1}V`$ with the help of its sections by the elements of $`L`$.

We take homogeneous coordinates $`(x_1:\mathrm{}:x_{n+1}:x_{n+2})`$ on $`𝐏^{n+1}`$, so chosen that $`M`$ is defined by the equations

$$x_{n+1}=x_{n+2}=0.$$

We then have a one-to-one parametrization of the elements of pencil $`L`$ by the elements of $`𝐏^1`$ as follows. Given also homogeneous coordinates on $`𝐏^1`$, for each $`t=(\lambda :\mu )𝐏^1`$, the hyperplane $`L_t`$ of $`𝐏^{n+1}`$ with parameter $`t`$ is defined by the equation

$$\lambda x_{n+1}+\mu x_{n+2}=0.$$

We shall thus consider $`L`$ as being the parametrized family $`(L_t)_{t𝐏^1}`$. The transversality of $`M`$ to $`V`$ entails the following claim.

###### Claim 2.1.

The given choice of the axis $`M`$ of pencil $`L=(L_t)_{t𝐏^1}`$ is generic. All the members of this pencil are transverse to $`V`$ except a finite number of them, say $`L_{t_1}`$, …, $`L_{t_N}`$. Each $`L_{t_i}`$ is transverse to $`V`$ except at a *finite* number of points, which may be singular points of $`V`$ or tangency points of $`L_{t_i}`$ to the non-singular part of $`V`$, and moreover none of them belongs to $`M`$.

###### Proof.

This is a consequence of \[4, Corollaire 10.18, Corollaire 10.19 combined with Proposition 10.20 and Corollaire 10.17\]. The quoted results apply when stratifying $`V`$ by its singular part $`V_{\mathrm{sing}}`$ and non-singular part $`VV_{\mathrm{sing}}`$. This is indeed a Whitney stratification of $`V`$ by Lemma 19.3 of , since $`V_{\mathrm{sing}}`$ is $`0`$-dimensional. ∎

Thus, pencil $`(L_t)_{t𝐏^1}`$ looks like a stratified version of the “Lefschetz pencils” of  but each $`L_{t_i}V`$ may have more than one singularity and these singularities may be of any kind.

Our goal is to define variation and degeneration operators on homotopy. Each of those depends on a choice of $`L_{t_i}`$ for some fixed index $`i`$ and a loop $`\gamma _i`$ running once around $`t_i`$ in the parameter space $`𝐏^1`$ and surrounding none of the points $`t_1`$, …, $`t_N`$ besides $`t_i`$. The main technical tool is an interpretation of the relevant homotopy groups as the homology groups of universal coverings which was used in . This material is discussed in the last part of this section (cf. 2.4 below). The universal covers are obtained as restrictions of a ramified cover of $`𝐏^{n+1}`$ by a hypersurface $`W`$ of $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ viewed in the next subsection. The rest describes the classical blowing up construction in our framework which we use to get rid of the base points of the pencils as will be needed for the definition of degeneration operators.

### 2.2 A ramified cover of $`𝐏^{n+1}`$

In the homogeneous coordinates of $`𝐏^{n+1}`$ chosen in section 2.1, let

$$f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+1},x_{n+2})=0$$

be an equation of $`V`$ where $`f`$ is a homogeneous reduced polynomial of degree $`d`$.

Now, in $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ with homogeneous coordinates $`(x_0:x_1:\mathrm{}:x_{n+1}:x_{n+2})`$, let $`A`$ be the point of coordinates $`(1:0:\mathrm{}:0:0)`$. Let us consider the projection with center $`A`$

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \mathrm{pr}:𝐏^{n+2}\{A\}& 𝐏^{n+1}\hfill \\ \hfill (x_0:x_1:\mathrm{}:x_{n+1}:x_{n+2})& (x_1:\mathrm{}:x_{n+1}:x_{n+2}).\hfill \end{array}$$

Let $`W`$ be the hypersurface of $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ given by the equation

$$x_0^d+f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+2})=0.$$

We have $`AW`$. Thus $`\pi =\mathrm{pr}_{|W}`$ is well defined. The following is a classical result.

###### Claim 2.2.

The map $`\pi :W𝐏^{n+1}`$ is a holomorphic $`d`$-fold covering of $`𝐏^{n+1}`$ totally ramified along $`V`$.

We consider also the embedding

$$j:𝐏^{n+1}𝐏^{n+2}(x_1:\mathrm{}:x_{n+2})(0:x_1:\mathrm{}:x_{n+2}),$$

the image of which is the projective hyperplane $`j(𝐏^{n+1})𝐏^{n+2}`$ given by $`x_0=0`$. We have

$$Wj(𝐏^{n+1})=j(V)=\pi ^1(V),$$
(2.1)
each of these subsets of $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ having equations equivalent to

$$x_0=f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n+2})=0.$$

The following claim is also easy to check from the equations.

###### Claim 2.3.

The singular points of $`W`$ are the images by $`j`$ of the singular points of $`V`$.

Hypersurface $`W`$ supports a natural pencil, the elements of which are the branched covers of the elements of pencil $`L`$ and which can be explicitly described as follows. Let $``$ be the projective $`n`$-plane of $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ defined by the same equations as $`M`$ in $`𝐏^{n+1}`$, that is

$$x_{n+1}=x_{n+2}=0$$

and let $`=(_t)_{t𝐏^1}`$ be the pencil of hyperplanes of $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ with base locus $``$. Here, with the same homogeneous coordinates on $`𝐏^1`$ as in section 2.1, for each $`t=(\lambda :\mu )𝐏^1`$, the hyperplane $`_t`$ of $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ is defined by the same equations as $`L_t`$ in $`𝐏^{n+1}`$, that is

$$\lambda x_{n+1}+\mu x_{n+2}=0.$$

As a consequence we have

$$\pi ^1(M)=W\text{and}\pi ^1(L_t)=_tW\text{for any }t𝐏^1$$
(2.2)
and also

$$j(𝐏^{n+1})=j(M)\text{and}_tj(𝐏^{n+1})=j(L_t)\text{ for any }t𝐏^1.$$

Unramified covers of $`𝐏^{n+1}V`$ and of its sections by $`L_t`$ and $`M`$ are given by Claim 2.2. They can be specified thanks to 2.1 and 2.2 as follows.

###### Claim 2.4.

Map $`\pi `$ induces the following holomorphic unramified $`d`$-fold coverings:

(i) $`Wj(V)`$ $`𝐏^{n+1}V,`$
(ii) $`_t(Wj(V))`$ $`L_tL_tV\text{for any }t𝐏^1,`$
(iii) $`(Wj(V))`$ $`MMV.`$
It is worth noticing that pencil $``$ is good with respect to $`W`$ and $`j(V)`$ as $`L`$ was good with respect to $`V`$. To make this precise, we first stratify $`W`$. The following claim is proved using again \[17, Lemma 19.3\].

###### Claim 2.5.

The partition

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }=\{j(V_{\mathrm{sing}}),j(VV_{\mathrm{sing}}),Wj(V)\}$$

of $`W`$ is an algebraic Whitney stratification.

The statement analogous to Claim 2.1 is then the following. It is a consequence of Claim 2.1 that can be checked on the equations.

###### Claim 2.6.

The base locus $``$ of $``$ is transverse to the strata of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and so is $`_t`$ for all $`t𝐏^1`$ distinct from $`t_1`$, …, $`t_N`$. Each $`_{t_i}`$ is transverse to $`Wj(V)`$, non-transverse to $`j(V_{\mathrm{sing}})`$ wherever it meets this finite set and transverse to $`j(VV_{\mathrm{sing}})`$ except at the points $`j(x)`$ corresponding to the finite number of points $`x`$ where $`L_{t_i}`$ is tangent to the non-singular part of $`V`$.

### 2.3 Blowing up the cover

The homotopical degeneration and variation operators we want will be obtained by considering homological counterparts on the cover dealt with in the preceding subsection. But the definition of the homological degeneration operators will in turn require to blow up this cover along the base locus of the pencil we considered. In fact we do it first for the ambient space $`𝐏^{n+2}`$. Let

$$\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}=\{(x,\tau )𝐏^{n+2}\times 𝐏^1x_\tau \}$$

be the blow up of $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ along $``$. It is given by the equation

$$\tau _1x_{n+1}+\tau _2x_{n+2}=0$$

which is separately homogeneous in the homogeneous coordinates $`(x_0:x_1:\mathrm{}:x_{n+1}:x_{n+2})`$ of $`x`$ and $`(\tau _1:\tau _2)`$ of $`\tau `$. This is an $`(n+1)`$-dimensional complex analytic compact connected submanifold of $`𝐏^{n+2}\times 𝐏^1`$.

The restrictions to $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}`$ of the projections of $`𝐏^{n+2}\times 𝐏^1`$ onto its first and second factors give respectively the blowing down morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and projection $`P`$:

$$𝐏^{n+2}\stackrel{\Phi }{}\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}\stackrel{𝑃}{}𝐏^1.$$

These are holomorphic mappings and $`P`$ is submersive.

For any subset $`𝐏^{n+2}`$, we shall, following Notation 1.1, item 6, denote by $`\widehat{}`$ its total transform, that is

$$\widehat{}=\mathrm{\Phi }^1().$$

If $``$, then its total transform has a product structure:

$$\widehat{}=\times 𝐏^1\text{for any }$$
(2.3)
and the restrictions of $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ and $`P`$ to $`\widehat{}`$ coincide with the first and second projections. In particular, $`\widehat{}=\times 𝐏^1`$. The blowing down morphism induces an analytic isomorphism from $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}\widehat{}`$ onto $`𝐏^{n+2}`$. We shall be interested in the total transform $`\widehat{W}`$ of the cover $`W`$ of the preceding subsection.

For each $`t𝐏^1`$, we consider the strict transform of $`_t`$ which we denote by $`_t^{\mathrm{}}`$ following Notation 1.1, item 6. We have

$$_t^{\mathrm{}}=_t\times \{t\}=P^1(t).$$
(2.4)
The blowing down morphism induces an analytic isomorphism from $`_t^{\mathrm{}}`$ onto $`_t`$ and hence an analytic isomorphism

$$_t^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{}\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}_t\text{for any }𝐏^{n+2}.$$
(2.5)
At this point it will be convenient to introduce some abbreviations to save space in diagrams.

###### Notation 2.7.

We shall designate by $`E^{}`$ the intersection of a subspace $`E`$ of $`𝐏^{n+1}`$ (resp. $`𝐏^{n+2}`$, $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}`$) with $`𝐏^{n+1}V`$ (resp. $`Wj(V)`$, $`\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)}`$). For instance, $`L_t^{}=L_tL_tV`$, $`^{}=(Wj(V))`$, $`_t^{\mathrm{}}=_t^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ and even $`\widehat{W}^{}=\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)}`$. We shall denote by $`P^{}`$ the restriction of projection $`P`$ to $`\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)}`$.

### 2.4 Homological description of homotopy groups

We obtain relevant homotopy groups of the base spaces of the covers of Claim 2.4 as homology groups of their total spaces except in some exceptional cases where we shall content ourselves with a morphism from a subgroup of the fundamental group of the base space onto the first homology group of the total space.

###### Lemma 2.8.

We use Notation 2.7. Let $`eM^{}`$ and $`\epsilon \pi ^1(e)^{}`$ be base points.

1. If $`n2`$, there are isomorphisms $`\eta `$ and $`\alpha _t`$, for $`t𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$, defined by composition as follows:

$`\eta `$ $`:\pi _n(𝐏^{n+1}V,e)\stackrel{\pi _\mathrm{\#}^1}{\stackrel{}{}}\pi _n(Wj(V),\epsilon )\stackrel{𝜒}{\stackrel{}{}}H_n(Wj(V)),`$
$`\alpha _t`$ $`:\pi _n(L_t^{},e)\stackrel{\pi _\mathrm{\#}^1}{\stackrel{}{}}\pi _n(_t^{},\epsilon )\stackrel{𝜒}{\stackrel{}{}}H_n(_t^{}),`$
where the arrows labeled $`\chi `$ are Hurewicz isomorphisms and the arrows labeled $`\pi _\mathrm{\#}^1`$ are the inverses of isomorphisms induced by the projections of the coverings of Claim 2.4 (which all are restrictions of map $`\pi `$). Furthermore, for any $`t𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$, the following diagram is commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_n(_t^{})& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_{}}{}& H_n(Wj(V))\\ \alpha _t& & \eta & & \\ \pi _n(L_t^{},e)& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_\mathrm{\#}}{}& \pi _n(𝐏^{n+1}V,e)\end{array}$$

(following Notation 1.1, item 2, all inclusion maps are denoted by $`\mathrm{incl}`$).
2. If $`n3`$, there are isomorphisms $`\beta _i`$, for $`1iN`$, and $`\gamma `$ defined by composition as follows:

$`\beta _i`$ $`:\pi _{n1}(L_{t_i}^{},e)\stackrel{\pi _\mathrm{\#}^1}{\stackrel{}{}}\pi _{n1}(_{t_i}^{},\epsilon )\stackrel{𝜒}{\stackrel{}{}}H_{n1}(_{t_i}^{}),`$
$`\gamma `$ $`:\pi _{n1}(M^{},e)\stackrel{\pi _\mathrm{\#}^1}{\stackrel{}{}}\pi _{n1}(^{},\epsilon )\stackrel{𝜒}{\stackrel{}{}}H_{n1}(^{}),`$
where isomorphisms $`\chi `$ and $`\pi _\mathrm{\#}^1`$ are as in item (i). Furthermore, for $`1iN`$, the following diagram is commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_{n1}(^{})& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_{}}{}& H_{n1}(_{t_i}^{})\\ \gamma & & \beta _i& & \\ \pi _{n1}(M^{},e)& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_\mathrm{\#}}{}& \pi _{n1}(L_{t_i}^{},e).\end{array}$$
(2.6)
3. When $`n=2`$, the projections of the coverings considered in item (ii) induce isomorphisms

$`\pi _1(_{t_i}^{},\epsilon )`$ $`\stackrel{\pi _\mathrm{\#}}{\stackrel{}{}}G_i\pi _1(L_{t_i}^{},e),`$
$`\pi _1(^{},\epsilon )`$ $`\stackrel{\pi _\mathrm{\#}}{\stackrel{}{}}H\pi _1(M^{},e),`$
where $`G_i`$ is, for $`1iN`$, a subgroup of index $`d`$ of $`\pi _1(L_{t_i}^{},e)`$ and $`H`$ a subgroup of index $`d`$ of $`\pi _1(M^{},e)`$ (the latter is free of rank $`d1`$). One can then define homomorphisms $`\beta _i`$, for $`1iN`$, and $`\gamma `$ by composition as follows:

$`\beta _i`$ $`:G_i\stackrel{\pi _\mathrm{\#}^1}{\stackrel{}{}}\pi _1(_{t_i}^{},\epsilon )\stackrel{𝜒}{}H_1(_{t_i}^{}),`$
$`\gamma `$ $`:H\stackrel{\pi _\mathrm{\#}^1}{\stackrel{}{}}\pi _1(^{},\epsilon )\stackrel{𝜒}{}H_1(^{}),`$
where the Hurewicz homomorphisms $`\chi `$ are here abelianizations. Homomorphisms $`\beta _i`$, for $`1iN`$, and $`\gamma `$ are thus onto. Furthermore, for $`1iN`$, the image of $`H`$ by the natural map $`\mathrm{incl}_\mathrm{\#}:\pi _1(M^{},e)\pi _1(L_{t_i}^{},e)`$ is included in $`G_i`$ and the following diagram is commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_1(^{})& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_{}}{}& H_1(_{t_i}^{})\\ \gamma & & \beta _i& & \\ H& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_\mathrm{\#}}{}& G_i.\end{array}$$
(2.7)

###### Proof.

Let $`EB`$ be one of the unramified coverings of Claim 2.4. Its projection is a restriction of map $`\pi `$. It induces an isomorphism from the fundamental group of $`E`$ onto a subgroup of index $`d`$ of the fundamental group of $`B`$ and isomorphisms of $`k`$-th homotopy groups for $`k2`$. But these vanish for $`2kn1`$ (this range may be empty) if $`B=𝐏^{n+1}V`$ because $`V`$ is a hypersurface with isolated singularities (see \[12, Lemma 1.5\]). The same is true if $`B=L_t^{}=L_tL_tV`$ with $`tt_i`$ for $`1iN`$ because, by Claim 2.1, $`L_tV`$ is a non-singular hypersurface of $`L_t𝐏^n`$ (\[12, Lemma 1.1\]). On the other hand, the $`k`$-th homotopy groups vanish for $`2kn2`$ (a range which may be empty) if $`B=L_{t_i}^{}`$ with $`1iN`$ because then $`L_{t_i}V`$ is, still by Claim 2.1, a hypersurface with isolated singularities of $`L_{t_i}𝐏^n`$. And the same is true if $`B=M^{}`$ because $`M`$ was chosen transverse to $`V`$ so that $`MV`$ is a non-singular hypersurface of $`M𝐏^{n1}`$.

If moreover $`E`$ is simply connected, that is to say the cover universal, then the Hurewicz homomorphism $`\chi :\pi _n(E,\epsilon )H_n(E)`$ in the first two cases and $`\chi :\pi _{n1}(E,\epsilon )H_{n1}(E)`$ in the last two will be an isomorphism due to the Hurewicz isomorphism theorem. By the next lemma, this indeed happens for the values of $`n`$ listed in the first two items of the statement. In the cases of the last item, $`\chi `$ is an epimorphism of abelianization. Besides when $`n=2`$, $`M^{}`$ is a projective line minus $`d`$ points and its fundamental group is free of rank $`d1`$. In the same case, the image of $`H`$ by the natural map from $`\pi _1(M^{},e)`$ to $`\pi _1(L_{t_i}^{},e)`$ is contained in $`G_i`$ because the projections of the coverings commute with inclusions. As to the commutativity of the diagrams, it results from this and the functoriality of the Hurewicz homomorphisms. ∎

###### Lemma 2.9.

1. If $`n2`$, the first covering of Claim 2.4 is a universal covering and so is the second one if $`tt_i`$ for $`1iN`$.
2. If $`n3`$, the third covering of Claim 2.4 is a universal covering and so is the second covering with $`t=t_i`$ for $`1iN`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`EB`$ be one of these coverings. According to the nature of base space $`B`$ as discussed in the proof of Lemma 2.8, it is pathwise connected and its fundamental group is $`𝐙/d𝐙`$ when $`n2`$ in the first two cases there considered and when $`n3`$ in the last two (notice that all involved hypersurfaces have degree $`d`$). Thus, for the appropriate range of $`n`$, this group has the same number of elements as the fiber. The lemma then follows once it is verified that the total space $`E`$ is pathwise connected. This can be seen from the irreducibility of $`W`$, $`_tW`$ and $`W`$ or from the fact that, above a neighbourhood of a regular point of $`V`$, each of the coverings has a local model which is a product of the cover associated with $`zz^d`$ and a disk of appropriate dimension. ∎

We shall also have to consider relative homotopy groups for the variation operators.

###### Lemma 2.10.

Let $`e`$ and $`\epsilon `$ be base points as in Lemma 2.8. If $`n2`$ and $`t𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$, there are homomorphisms $`\overline{\alpha }_t`$ defined by composition as follows (we use Notation 2.7):

$$\overline{\alpha }_t:\pi _n(L_t^{},M^{},e)\stackrel{\overline{\pi }_\mathrm{\#}^1}{\stackrel{}{}}\pi _n(_t^{},^{},\epsilon )\stackrel{\overline{\chi }}{}H_n(_t^{},^{}),$$

where $`\overline{\chi }`$ is the relative Hurewicz homomorphism and $`\overline{\pi }_\mathrm{\#}^1`$ the inverse of an isomorphism induced by the projection of the second covering of Claim 2.4. Homomorphisms $`\overline{\chi }`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_t`$ are epimorphisms if $`n=2`$ and isomorphisms if $`n3`$. Furthermore, for $`n3`$ and $`t𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$, the following diagram, where $`\gamma `$ is the isomorphism defined in Lemma 2.8, item (ii) is commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_n(_t^{},^{})& \stackrel{}{}& H_{n1}(^{})\\ \overline{\alpha }_t& & \gamma & & \\ \pi _n(L_t^{},M^{},e)& \stackrel{}{}& \pi _{n1}(M^{},e).\end{array}$$
(2.8)
When $`n=2`$, the image of the boundary homomorphism from $`\pi _2(L_t^{},M^{},e)`$ to $`\pi _1(M^{},e)`$ is contained in the subgroup $`H`$ defined in Lemma 2.8, item (iii) and the following diagram, where $`\gamma `$ is the homomorphism defined there, is commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_2(_t^{},^{})& \stackrel{}{}& H_1(^{})\\ \overline{\alpha }_t& & \gamma & & \\ \pi _2(L_t^{},M^{},e)& \stackrel{}{}& H.\end{array}$$
(2.9)
###### Proof.

Map $`\pi `$ induces the projection of the covering $`_t^{}L_t^{}`$ and we have $`\pi ^1(M^{})=^{}`$ by 2.1 and 2.2. That $`\overline{\pi }_\mathrm{\#}`$ is then an isomorphism is a general fact about pairs of fibered spaces (cf. \[14, 7.2.8\]). We now come to the relative Hurewicz homomorphism $`\overline{\chi }`$. If $`n2`$ and $`t𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$, spaces $`^{}`$ and $`_t^{}`$ are path-connected as seen in the proof of Lemma 2.9. Furthermore, the same lemma and the vanishing of higher homotopy groups stated in the proof of Lemma 2.8 give then that $`\pi _k(^{},\epsilon )=0`$ for $`0kn2`$ and $`\pi _k(_t^{},\epsilon )=0`$ for $`1kn1`$, hence $`\pi _k(_t^{},^{},\epsilon )=0`$ for $`1kn1`$ by the homotopy exact sequence. The relative Hurewicz theorem (cf. \[14, 7.5.4\]) then applies and gives that the Hurewicz homomorphism $`\overline{\chi }`$ induces an isomorphism onto $`H_n(_t^{},^{})`$ from the quotient of $`\pi _n(_t^{},^{},\epsilon )`$ obtained by identifying each element with its images by the action of $`\pi _1(^{},\epsilon )`$. But, by Lemma 2.9, this fundamental group is trivial if $`n3`$. When $`n=2`$, the image of $`:\pi _2(L_t^{},M^{},e)\pi _1(M^{},e)`$ is contained in $`H`$ because boundary homomorphisms commute with those induced by $`\pi `$ and $`\overline{\pi }_\mathrm{\#}`$ is onto as we have seen. As furthermore boundary operators commute with Hurewicz homomorphisms (cf. \[14, 7.4.3\]), the last two diagrams are commutative. ∎

Finally the following lemma will be useful while computing homology in the universal coverings.

###### Lemma 2.11.

We have the following vanishing of homology groups.

1. $`H_k(Wj(V))=0`$ for $`1kn1`$.
2. $`H_k\left(_t(Wj(V))\right)=0`$ for $`1kn1`$ if $`tt_i`$ for $`1iN`$.
3. $`H_k\left(_{t_i}(Wj(V))\right)=0`$ for $`1kn2`$ and $`1iN`$.
4. $`H_k\left((Wj(V))\right)=0`$ for $`1kn2`$.

###### Proof.

This also results from Lemma 2.9, the vanishing of higher homotopy groups stated in the proof of Lemma 2.8 and the Hurewicz isomorphism theorem. ∎

Note that the last two assertions are empty if $`n=2`$.

## 3 Monodromies

The homological degeneration and variation operators which we must define at the universal covering level involve monodromies around the exceptional hyperplanes in the cover $`Wj(V)`$ and its blow up $`\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)}`$. These in turn are linked with a fibration structure of $`\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)}`$ outside of the exceptional hyperplanes, a structure we shall also directly use for the degeneration operator.

###### Claim 3.1.

The restriction of $`P`$ to $`(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})_{i=1}^N_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the projection of a fiber bundle over $`𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$. This bundle has $`(Wj(V))\times (𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\})`$ as a trivial subbundle of it. The fibers over $`t𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$ are $`_t^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ and $`(Wj(V))\times \{t\}`$.

###### Proof.

This results from the fact that, by Claim 2.6, $``$ is transverse to the strata of a Whitney stratification of $`W`$ for which $`Wj(V)`$ is a union of strata: see \[5, Corollary 3.12\]. The quoted Corollary rests on the Thom-Mather first isotopy theorem. ∎

Notice however that there is not a similar fibration for $`Wj(V)`$ because its sections by pencil $`(L_t)_{t𝐏^1}`$ are pinched together along axis $`M`$. Nevertheless we shall obtain monodromies also there, using the isomorphisms from $`_t^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ to $`_t(Wj(V))`$ that, by (2.5), the blowing down morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ induces.

We shall consider the monodromies above a special set of loops in the parameter space $`𝐏^1`$. We choose a base point $`t_0`$ in $`𝐏^1`$ distinct from points $`t_1`$, …, $`t_N`$ and consider a *good* system of generators $`(\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i)_{1iN}`$ of the fundamental group $`\pi _1(𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\},t_0)`$ (cf.  and \[12, Definition 2.1\]). Recall that in such a system each loop $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ is based at $`t_0`$ and is the boundary of a subset $`D_i`$ of $`𝐏^1`$ homeomorphic to a disk with $`t_i`$ as an interior point. Moreover $`D_iD_j=\{t_0\}`$ for $`ij`$. If the $`D_i`$ are suitably chosen, a presentation of $`\pi _1(𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\},t_0)`$ is given by these generators and the relation $`\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_1\mathrm{}\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_N=1`$. A standard method to construct such a system is to obtain it as the homotopy classes $`\overline{\gamma }_i=\overline{\mathrm{\Gamma }}_i`$ of parametrized loops $`\gamma _i:[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$ as described in the following definition.

###### Definition 3.2.

Let $`t_0`$ be a base point in $`𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$, …, $`\mathrm{\Delta }_N`$ be closed disks about $`t_1`$, …, $`t_N`$ mutually disjoint and not containing $`t_0`$. For $`1iN`$, let $`\delta _i`$ be a path connecting $`t_0`$ to a point $`d_i`$ of the boundary $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Each $`\delta _i`$ is required not to meet any of the previous disks except that the end of $`\delta _i`$ touches $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Moreover paths $`\delta _1`$, …, $`\delta _N`$ are required not to meet together except at their origin. For $`1iN`$, let $`\omega _i`$ be a loop based at $`d_i`$ and running once counter-clockwise around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Finally, for $`1iN`$, consider the loops $`\gamma _i=\delta _i\omega _i\delta _i^{}`$, where $``$ designates concatenation and where $`\delta _i^{}`$ is the path opposite to $`\delta _i`$. We denote by $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$ the homotopy class of $`\gamma _i`$ in $`𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$.

We shall obtain the wanted monodromies with the help of some special isotopies above these loops.

###### Lemma 3.3.

For $`1iN`$, there are isotopies

$`G_i`$ $`:_{t_0}(Wj(V))\times [\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]Wj(V),`$
$`\widehat{G}_i`$ $`:_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})\times [\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)}`$
such that

1. $`G_i(x,0)=x`$ for any $`x_{t_0}(Wj(V))`$,
2. $`G_i(.,s)`$ is a homeomorphism from $`_{t_0}(Wj(V))`$ onto $`_{\gamma _i(s)}(Wj(V))`$ for any $`s[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]`$,
3. $`G_i(y,s)=y`$ for any $`y(Wj(V))`$ and $`s[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]`$,
4. $`\widehat{G}_i(v,0)=v`$, for any $`v_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$,
5. $`\widehat{G}_i(.,s)`$ is a homeomorphism from $`_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ onto $`_{\gamma _i(s)}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ for any $`s[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]`$,
6. $`\widehat{G}_i((y,t_0),s)=(y,\gamma _i(s))`$ for any $`y(Wj(V))`$ and $`s[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]`$.

Moreover, $`G_i`$ and $`\widehat{G}_i`$ can be asked to fit together by making commutative the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})\times [\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]& \stackrel{\widehat{G}_i}{}& \widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)}\\ \mathrm{\Phi }\times \mathrm{id}_{[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]}& & \mathrm{\Phi }& & \\ _{t_0}(Wj(V))\times [\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]& \stackrel{G_i}{}& Wj(V).\end{array}$$
(3.1)
(recall that the blowing down morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ induces an isomorphism between $`_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ and $`_{t_0}(Wj(V))`$; following Notation 1.1, item 2, all maps induced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ are denoted here by the same letter).

###### Proof.

This follows in a standard manner from Claim 3.1, starting from $`\widehat{G}_i`$ and then going down to $`G_i`$ thanks to the isomorphism between $`_t^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ and $`_t(Wj(V))`$: cf. \[5, Lemmas 4.1 and 4.2\]. The statements for points (II) and (ÎÎ) in  are weaker than here but the proof given in  is valid for the stronger form. ∎

It must be noticed that isotopies $`G_i`$ and $`\widehat{G}_i`$ are not uniquely determined by loop $`\gamma _i`$. But, if diagram (3.1) is commutative, one of them determines the other.

The ending stage of these isotopies will be the geometric monodromies we want. Lemma 3.3 implies the following.

###### Lemma 3.4.

For $`1iN`$, we have homeomorphisms

$`H_i`$ $`:_{t_0}(Wj(V))_{t_0}(Wj(V)),`$
$`\widehat{H}_i`$ $`:_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)}),`$
defined by setting

$$H_i(x)=G_i(x,1)\text{and}\widehat{H}_i(v)=\widehat{G}_i(v,1).$$

These homeomorphisms leave fixed the points of $`(Wj(V))`$ and $`(Wj(V))\times \{t_0\}`$ respectively. Moreover, if diagram (3.1) is commutative, so is the following:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})& \stackrel{\widehat{H}_i}{}& _{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})\\ \mathrm{\Phi }& & \mathrm{\Phi }& & \\ _{t_0}(Wj(V))& \stackrel{H_i}{}& _{t_0}(Wj(V)).\end{array}$$
(3.2)
###### Definition 3.5.

We shall call $`H_i`$ a *geometric monodromy of $`_{t_0}(Wj(V))`$ relative to $`(Wj(V))`$ above $`\gamma _i`$*. Similarly for $`\widehat{H}_i`$.

Notice that, like the isotopies giving rise to them, these geometric monodromies are not uniquely determined by the choice of loop $`\gamma _i`$. However we have the following invariance property.

###### Lemma 3.6.

Given an index $`i`$ with $`1iN`$, another choice of loop $`\gamma _i`$ within the same homotopy class $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$ in $`𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$ and another choice of isotopies $`G_i`$ and $`\widehat{G}_i`$ above $`\gamma _i`$, provided they satisfy conditions (I)-(III) and (Î)-(ÎÎÎ) respectively, would lead to geometric monodromies which are isotopic to $`H_i`$ and $`\widehat{H}_i`$ through isotopies in $`_{t_0}(Wj(V))`$ and $`_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ leaving pointwise fixed the subsets $`(Wj(V))`$ and $`(Wj(V))\times \{t_0\}`$ respectively. This is true even if the new loop has not the special form described in Definition 3.2.

###### Proof.

Concerning $`\widehat{G}_i`$, this is the classical invariance property of geometric monodromies with an enhancement about fixed points given by the trivial subbundle of Claim 3.1. A similar property holds for $`G_i`$ since it can be associated to an isotopy $`\widehat{G}_i`$ making diagram (3.1) commutative. ∎

Thus, though geometric monodromy $`H_i`$ is not uniquely defined, its isotopy class in $`_{t_0}(Wj(V))`$ relative to $`(Wj(V))`$ is unique and wholly determined by homotopy class $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$. This isotopy class can be called *the* geometric monodromy of $`_{t_0}(Wj(V))`$ relative to $`(Wj(V))`$ *associated to $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$*. Similarly for $`\widehat{H}_i`$.

The isomorphisms $`H_i`$ and $`\overline{H}_i`$ of $`H_k(_{t_0}(Wj(V))`$ and $`H_k(_{t_0}(Wj(V)),(Wj(V)))`$ induced by $`H_i`$ depend only on this isotopy class. Similarly for the algebraic monodromies induced by $`\widehat{H}_i`$. In particular, to obtain them, we could use geometric monodromies arising from maps $`G_i`$ and $`\widehat{G}_i`$ satisfying to the looser requirements of Lemma 3.6. For instance monodromies above the loops $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_i`$ described before Definition 3.2. Or even geometric monodromies not satisfying to the commutativity of diagram (3.2); the corresponding diagrams at the homology and relative homology levels would still be commutative.

Nevertheless, for convenience in our forthcoming constructions, we shall henceforth use special geometric monodromies $`H_i`$ and $`\widehat{H}_i`$ as we have constructed above, which are associated with a special set of loops as given in Definition 3.2 and which are linked together by the commutative diagram (3.2).

## 4 The degeneration operator

In \[12, section 2\], homotopical degeneration operators are introduced for generic pencils of hyperplane sections of the complement in $`𝐂^{n+1}`$ of a hypersurface with isolated singularities (including at infinity).

The purpose of this section is to define projective analogs of these for pencil $`(L_t)_{t𝐏^1}`$, acting on the $`(n1)`$-th homotopy group of each $`L_{t_i}L_{t_i}V`$ when $`n3`$ and on some subgroup of the fundamental group of each when $`n=2`$. According to section 2.4, these homotopy groups are, when $`n3`$, canonically identified with the homology groups of $`d`$-fold covers introduced there and hence it is enough to define a homological degeneration operator on these homology groups. This also works when $`n=2`$ thanks to the morphisms of Lemma 2.8, item (iii) and still the isomorphisms of item (i).

### 4.1 Homological degeneration operator on the cover

Suppose $`n2`$. For each $`i`$, with $`1iN`$, we define such an operator $`D_i`$ so that the following diagram is commutative, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is a disk about $`t_i`$ as described in Definition 3.2, and where arrows labeled $`\tau _i`$, $`\mathrm{wn}_i`$ and $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}`$ are to be defined in the remainder of this section:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_n\left(P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})\right)& \stackrel{\underset{}{\mathrm{wn}_i}}{}& H_n\left(_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})\right)/\mathrm{im}(\widehat{H}_i\mathrm{id})\\ \tau _i& & \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}& & \\ H_{n1}\left(_{t_i}(Wj(V))\right)& \stackrel{D_i}{}& H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)/\mathrm{im}(H_i\mathrm{id}).\end{array}$$
(4.1)
The arrow labeled $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}`$ is easily defined as follows. The blowing down morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ induces an isomorphism between $`_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ and $`_{t_0}(Wj(V))`$ (by (2.5)) which gives an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ between the $`n`$-th homology groups of these spaces. This in turn factorizes into an isomorphism $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}`$ as indicated on the diagram thanks to the commutativity of diagram (3.2). Recall that, by the invariance property of Lemma 3.6, isomorphisms $`H_i`$ and $`\widehat{H}_i`$ depend only on the homotopy class $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$ of Definition 3.2.

The arrow labeled $`\mathrm{wn}_i`$ arises from the Wang sequence of the fibration of Claim 3.1 restricted to the part above the circle $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. This is detailed below.

The arrow labeled $`\tau _i`$ is essentially a tube map in the Poincaré residue sequence for the complement of $`_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ in $`\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)}`$. Details are also given below.

Operator $`D_i`$ depends only on homotopy class $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$. This will be easy to see after the comparison between the degeneration and variation operators made in section 6 (see Corollary 6.4).

#### Definition of isomorphism $`\mathrm{wn}_i`$

To define $`\mathrm{wn}_i`$, we use the Wang sequence of the fibration indicated above. In this sequence we want to use the fiber above $`t_0`$ of the fibration of Claim 3.1, though $`t_0`$ is outside of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, and the monodromy $`\widehat{H}_i`$ above the loop $`\gamma _i`$ of Definition 3.2 instead of the monodromy above $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$.

For this purpose, let us get monodromy $`\widehat{H}_i`$ in three steps, following the decomposition $`\gamma _i=\delta _i\omega _i\delta _i^{}`$ given in Definition 3.2. Let $`\widehat{H}_i^{}:_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ be a geometric monodromy above $`\omega _i`$ defined in the same way as $`\widehat{H}_i`$, using Lemmas 3.4 and 3.3 but replacing parameter $`t_0`$ by the base point $`d_i`$ of $`\omega _i`$ and loop $`\gamma _i`$ by loop $`\omega _i`$ wherever they occur. Also let $`\widehat{H}_i^{\prime \prime }:_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}}(\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)})`$ be a homeomorphism obtained with the same definitions, this time replacing $`\gamma _i`$ by $`\delta _i`$. If $`\widehat{H}_i^{}`$ is constructed using isotopy $`\widehat{G}_i^{}`$ and $`\widehat{H}_i^{\prime \prime }`$ using $`\widehat{G}_i^{\prime \prime }`$, we can build $`\widehat{H}_i`$ from $`\widehat{G}_i=\widehat{G}_i^{\prime \prime }\widehat{G}_i^{}\widehat{G}_i^{\prime \prime }`$, where operations on isotopies parallel those on paths, each isotopy taking the fiber up in the place it was left by the former. This is a legal choice for $`\widehat{G}_i`$ since it can easily been verified that it satisfies to the conditions of Lemma 3.3. With this setting for $`\widehat{G}_i`$, the corresponding geometric monodromy $`\widehat{H}_i`$ is decomposed as

$$\widehat{H}_i=\widehat{H}_i^{\prime \prime 1}\widehat{H}_i^{}\widehat{H}_i^{\prime \prime }.$$
(4.2)
As loop $`\omega _i`$ runs once around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, the monodromy $`\widehat{H}_i^{}`$ above $`\omega _i`$ fits into the Wang sequence of the fibration above $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ we consider. We embed this sequence into the following diagram where it appears as the upper line (we use Notation 2.7):

$$\begin{array}{ccccccc}H_n(_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}})& \stackrel{\widehat{H}_i^{}\mathrm{id}}{}& H_n(_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}})& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_{}}{}& H_n(P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i))& & H_{n1}(_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}}).\\ \widehat{H}_i^{\prime \prime }& & \widehat{H}_i^{\prime \prime }& & & & & & \\ H_n(_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}})& \stackrel{\widehat{H}_i\mathrm{id}}{}& H_n(_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}})& & & & \end{array}$$
(4.3)
It is commutative by (4.2). But $`H_{n1}(_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}})=0`$ because this group is isomorphic to $`H_{n1}(_{d_i}(Wj(V))`$ which vanishes when $`n2`$ (cf. (2.5) and Lemma 2.11). Thus the inclusion map induces an isomorphism

$$H_n(_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}})/\mathrm{im}(\widehat{H}_i^{}\mathrm{id})\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}H_n(P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)).$$

Then, by commutativity of diagram (4.3), homeomorphism $`\widehat{H}_i^{\prime \prime }`$ followed by inclusion induces also an isomorphism

$$H_n(_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}})/\mathrm{im}(\widehat{H}_i\mathrm{id})\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}H_n(P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)).$$
(4.4)
The isomorphism $`\mathrm{wn}_i`$ appearing in diagram (4.1) is the inverse of this one.

#### Definition of homomorphism $`\tau _i`$

Homomorphism $`\tau _i`$ is defined as a tube map in a Poincaré residue sequence (also named Leray or Thom-Gysin sequence) through the following diagram where we still use Notation 2.7:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}H_{n1}(_{t_i}^{})& & & & \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{}& & & & & & \\ H_{n1}(_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}})& \stackrel{\underset{}{T_i}}{}& H_{n+1}(\widehat{W}^{},\widehat{W}^{}_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}})& & \\ & & \mathrm{incl}_{}& & & & \\ & & H_{n+1}(P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i),P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}})& & \\ & & \mathrm{incl}_{}& & & & \\ & & H_{n+1}(P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i),P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i))& \stackrel{}{}& H_n(P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)).\end{array}$$
(4.5)
Homomorphism $`\tau _i`$ is obtained by overall composition from the upper left to the lower right end of the diagram (reversing isomorphisms when necessary). The arrow labeled $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ is an isomorphism induced by the blowing down morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (see (2.5)). Following our general convention, arrows labeled $`\mathrm{incl}_{}`$ are induced by inclusion. The upper one is an excision isomorphism. The lower one is also an isomorphism because $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is a strong deformation retract of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\{t_i\}`$ and the spaces $`P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)`$ and $`P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ are the parts over $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\{t_i\}`$ of the locally trivial fibration of Claim 3.1, so that the inclusion of the former into the latter is a homotopy equivalence (see \[4, proof of Lemme 4.4\]).

The significant arrow is the one labeled $`T_i`$ which is a Leray (or Thom-Gysin) isomorphism. Such an isomorphism arises whenever one removes a closed submanifold $`P`$ from a Hausdorff paracompact complex manifold $`N`$. If $`P`$ has pure complex codimension $`c`$ in $`N`$, this is an isomorphism from $`H_{k2c}(P)`$ onto $`H_k(N,NP)`$ holding for any $`k`$, with the convention that $`H_{k2c}(P)=0`$ for $`k<2c`$ (cf. \[4, Annexe\]). Here we apply it with $`N=\widehat{W}^{}`$, $`P=_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`c=1`$ and $`k=n+1`$. We must verify that these settings satisfy the above conditions on $`N`$, $`P`$ and $`c`$.

First, $`\widehat{W}^{}=\widehat{W}\widehat{j(V)}`$ is the total transform of $`Wj(V)`$ when blowing $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ up (cf. section 2.3). But $`Wj(V)`$ is a submanifold of $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ by Claim 2.3 and the $`n`$-plane $``$ along which $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ is blown up is, by Claim 2.6, transverse to $`Wj(V)`$. It follows that the total transform $`\widehat{W}^{}`$ of $`Wj(V)`$ is a submanifold of $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}`$ (cf. \[4, (5.5.1)\]). It is Hausdorff paracompact since $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}`$ is a subspace of $`𝐏^{n+2}\times 𝐏^1`$ which is metrizable.

Second, we have $`_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}=_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{W}^{}`$ and $`_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is the strict transform of $`_{t_i}`$, a member of the pencil $``$ with base locus $``$ introduced in section 2.3. As $`_{t_i}`$ is, by Claim 2.6, also transverse to $`Wj(V)`$, it follows that $`_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is transverse in $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}`$ to the total transform $`\widehat{W}^{}`$ of $`Wj(V)`$ (cf. \[4, (5.5.2)\]). But $`_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a closed submanifold of $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}`$ of pure complex codimension $`1`$ as it follows from (2.4) and the fact that $`P`$ is a submersion. Hence $`_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a closed submanifold of $`\widehat{W}^{}`$ of pure complex codimension $`1`$. The conditions of validity of the Leray isomorphism are thus checked.

This completes the definition of homomorphism $`\tau _i`$ and hence of the homological degeneration operator $`D_i`$ at the $`d`$-fold cover level.

### 4.2 Homotopical degeneration operator

For each $`i`$, with $`1iN`$, the isomorphism $`\alpha _{t_0}`$ and the homomorphisms $`\beta _i`$ of Lemma 2.8 will allow us, if $`n2`$, to define a homotopical degeneration operator $`𝒟_i`$ from the homology operator $`D_i`$ constructed at the $`d`$-fold level in the preceding subsection.

We first define monodromies on $`\pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)`$ as the pull-backs of the monodromies on $`H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)`$ by isomorphism $`\alpha _{t_0}`$.

###### Definition 4.1.

Let $`e`$ be a base point in $`MMV`$ as in Lemma 2.8. If $`n2`$ and for $`1iN`$, monodromy $`h_{i\mathrm{\#}}`$ is defined by the commutativity of the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)& \stackrel{\underset{}{H_i}}{}& H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)\\ \alpha _{t_0}& & \alpha _{t_0}& & \\ \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)& \stackrel{\underset{}{h_{i\mathrm{\#}}}}{}& \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e).\end{array}$$
(4.6)
As $`H_i`$ depends only on the homotopy class $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$ of Definition 3.2, so does monodromy $`h_{i\mathrm{\#}}`$.

###### Remark 4.2.

In fact $`h_{i\mathrm{\#}}`$ is indeed induced on the $`n`$-th homotopy group by a geometric monodromy $`h_i`$ of $`L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V`$ as the notation suggests. Such a monodromy is obtained in the same way as $`H_i`$ was defined from isotopy $`G_i`$, by using an isotopy $`g_i`$ satisfying to conditions similar to those given for $`G_i`$ in Lemma 3.3. This exists by \[5, Lemma 4.1\]. Then $`h_i`$ satisfies to an invariance property similar to that of Lemma 3.6 and induces an automorphism of $`\pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)`$ depending only on $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$. But $`h_i`$ and $`H_i`$ can be chosen so that they commute with the covering projection $`\pi `$. To do this, one starts from $`g_i`$ and defines $`G_i`$ as a lift of $`g_i`$ by $`\pi `$ satisfying to the initial condition (I) of Lemma 3.3. Then one can see that $`G_i`$ satisfies also automatically to conditions (II) and (III) thanks to the similar conditions satisfied by $`g_i`$. The corresponding geometric monodromies $`h_i`$ and $`H_i`$ commute with $`\pi `$ as desired. This fact together with the functoriality of the Hurewicz homomorphisms entail that the induced automorphism $`h_{i\mathrm{\#}}`$ of $`\pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)`$ makes diagram (4.6) commutative (recall the definition of $`\alpha _{t_0}`$ in Lemma 2.8). Hence this $`h_{i\mathrm{\#}}`$ coincides with the one of Definition 4.1.

If $`n2`$ and for $`1iN`$, commutative diagram (4.6) allows to define in turn an isomorphism $`\overline{\alpha _{t_0}}`$ making commutative the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)& \stackrel{\mathrm{can}}{}& H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)/\mathrm{im}(H_i\mathrm{id})\\ \alpha _{t_0}& & \overline{\alpha _{t_0}}& & \\ \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)& \stackrel{\mathrm{can}}{}& \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)/\mathrm{im}(h_{i\mathrm{\#}}\mathrm{id}).\end{array}$$
(4.7)
Then, if $`n3`$ and for $`1iN`$, isomorphism $`\beta _i`$ of Lemma 2.8, item (ii) together with this isomorphism $`\overline{\alpha _{t_0}}`$ lead from homological operator $`D_i`$ to the homotopical degeneration operator $`𝒟_i`$ we are looking for. This is done by asking the following diagram to be commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_{n1}\left(_{t_i}(Wj(V))\right)& \stackrel{D_i}{}& H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)/\mathrm{im}(H_i\mathrm{id})\\ \beta _i& & \overline{\alpha _{t_0}}& & \\ \pi _{n1}(L_{t_i}L_{t_i}V,e)& \stackrel{𝒟_i}{}& \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)/\mathrm{im}(h_{i\mathrm{\#}}\mathrm{id}).\end{array}$$
(4.8)
When $`n=2`$, isomorphism $`\overline{\alpha _{t_0}}`$ and this time homomorphism $`\beta _i`$ of Lemma 2.8, item (iii) lead to an operator $`𝒟_i`$ defined on the subgroup $`G_i`$ introduced there, by asking the following diagram to be commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_1\left(_{t_i}(Wj(V))\right)& \stackrel{D_i}{}& H_2\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)/\mathrm{im}(H_i\mathrm{id})\\ \beta _i& & \overline{\alpha _{t_0}}& & \\ G_i& \stackrel{𝒟_i}{}& \pi _2(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)/\mathrm{im}(h_{i\mathrm{\#}}\mathrm{id}).\end{array}$$
(4.9)
Like $`D_i`$, operator $`𝒟_i`$ depends only on the homotopy class $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$ of Definition 3.2.

## 5 The variation operator

In \[5, section 4\] homological variation operators are defined for generic pencils of hyperplane sections of a quasi-projective variety. They are analogous to the classical variation operator associated with the Milnor fibration of an isolated singularity (see \[2, chapter 2\]). In our situation they give homological variation operators for pencil $`(L_t)_{t𝐏^1}`$, defined on the $`n`$-th relative homology group of $`L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V`$ modulo $`MMV`$ and associated with each special member $`L_{t_i}`$ of the pencil, more precisely with the homotopy class $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$ in $`𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$ of a loop $`\gamma _i`$ surrounding $`t_i`$ in the parameter space as in Definition 3.2.

In this section we want to define, when $`n2`$, homotopical analogs of these,

$$𝒱_i:\pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,MMV,e)\pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)$$

associated with $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$ for $`1iN`$, where $`e`$ is a base point in $`MMV`$.

As for the degeneration operators, we shall go to the $`d`$-fold cover level and use homological variation operators defined there,

$$V_i:H_n(_{t_0}(Wj(V)),(Wj(V)))H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)$$

associated, for $`1iN`$, with the homotopy classes $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$ of Definition 3.2.

We recall the definition and properties of operator $`V_i`$ as given in \[5, section 4\], which in fact hold with $`n1`$.

For any relative $`n`$-cycle $`\mathrm{\Xi }`$ on $`_{t_0}(Wj(V))`$ modulo $`(Wj(V))`$, one defines

$$V_i([\mathrm{\Xi }]_{(_{t_0}(Wj(V)),(Wj(V)))})=[H_i(\mathrm{\Xi })\mathrm{\Xi }]_{_{t_0}(Wj(V))}$$
(5.1)
using Notation 1.1, items 3 and 4. Due to the fact that $`H_i`$ leaves the points of $`(Wj(V))`$ fixed (Lemma 3.4), the chain $`H_i(\mathrm{\Xi })\mathrm{\Xi }`$ is actually an absolute cycle and the correspondence $`\mathrm{\Xi }H_i(\mathrm{\Xi })\mathrm{\Xi }`$ induces a homomorphism $`V_i`$ at the homology level (\[5, Lemmas 4.6 and 4.8\]). Thanks to the invariance property expressed by Lemma 3.6, this homomorphism depends only on homotopy class $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$ (\[5, Lemma 4.8\]).

Now, if $`n2`$ and for $`1iN`$, isomorphism $`\alpha _{t_0}`$ of Lemma 2.8 and homomorphism $`\overline{\alpha }_{t_0}`$ of Lemma 2.10 lead from $`V_i`$ to the wanted homotopical variation operator $`𝒱_i`$ by asking the following diagram to be commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_n(_{t_0}(Wj(V)),(Wj(V)))& \stackrel{V_i}{}& H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)\\ \overline{\alpha }_{t_0}& & \alpha _{t_0}& & \\ \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,MMV,e)& \stackrel{𝒱_i}{}& \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e).\end{array}$$
(5.2)
As $`V_i`$ depends only on the homotopy class $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$ of Definition 3.2, so does operator $`𝒱_i`$.

###### Remark 5.1.

The homological variation operators

$$v_i:H_n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,MMV)H_n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V)$$

we talked about at the beginning of the section are given by a formula similar to 5.1 using the monodromies $`h_i`$ considered in Remark 4.2. The homotopical variation operators $`𝒱_i`$ we have defined here are linked to those by Hurewicz homomorphisms as is shown in the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,MMV,e)& \stackrel{𝒱_i}{}& \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)\\ \overline{\chi }& & \chi & & \\ H_n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,MMV)& \stackrel{v_i}{}& H_n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V).\end{array}$$

The commutativity of this diagram is a consequence of the commutativity of the diagram (5.2) defining $`𝒱_i`$, of the definitions of homomorphisms $`\alpha _{t_0}`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_{t_0}`$ occurring there (see Lemmas 2.8 and 2.10), of the functoriality of Hurewicz homomorphisms and of the commutation of monodromies $`h_i`$ and $`H_i`$ with the covering projection $`\pi `$ as stated in Remark 4.2.

We end this section by noticing that the homotopical variation operator $`𝒱_i`$ when restricted to absolute cycles acts like the variation $`h_{i\mathrm{\#}}\mathrm{id}`$ of the homotopical monodromy associated with $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$. This is specified by the following lemma.

###### Lemma 5.2.

If $`n2`$ then, for $`1iN`$, the following diagram is commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_\mathrm{\#}}{}& \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,MMV,e)\\ & & 𝒱_i& & \\ & & \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e).\end{array}$$
(5.3)
###### Proof.

This will follow from the commutativity of the corresponding homology diagram at the $`d`$-fold covering level:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_{}}{}& H_n(_{t_0}(Wj(V)),(Wj(V)))\\ & & V_i& & \\ & & H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right).\end{array}$$
(5.4)
Indeed, diagrams (5.3) and (5.4) are linked together by homomorphisms $`\alpha _{t_0}`$ and $`\overline{\alpha }_{t_0}`$ and one can use the commutativity of diagrams (2.8), (5.2) and (4.6) and the injectivity of $`\alpha _{t_0}`$. The commutativity of diagram (5.4) can be checked in turn by a straightforward computation at the chain level using formula (5.1). ∎

## 6 The link between degeneration and variation operators

In this section we make the link between the degeneration operators $`𝒟_i`$ defined in section 4 and the variation operators $`𝒱_i`$ defined in section 5. As a side result, we shall obtain the invariance property for degeneration operators $`D_i`$ and hence $`𝒟_i`$, stated in section 4.

The main result is the following.

###### Proposition 6.1.

Using Notation 2.7, we have, for $`1iN`$, the following commutative diagram if $`n3`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\pi _{n1}(M^{},e)& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_\mathrm{\#}}{}& \pi _{n1}(L_{t_i}^{},e)& \stackrel{𝒟_i}{}& \pi _n(L_{t_0}^{},e)/\mathrm{im}(h_{i\mathrm{\#}}\mathrm{id})\\ & & & & \mathrm{can}& & \\ \pi _n(L_{t_0}^{},M^{},e)& & & & \pi _n(L_{t_0}^{},e).\end{array}$$

If $`n=2`$, then:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}H& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_\mathrm{\#}}{}& G_i& \stackrel{𝒟_i}{}& \pi _2(L_{t_0}^{},e)/\mathrm{im}(h_{i\mathrm{\#}}\mathrm{id})\\ & & & & \mathrm{can}& & \\ \pi _2(L_{t_0}^{},M^{},e)& & & & \pi _2(L_{t_0}^{},e),\end{array}$$

where groups $`H`$ and $`G_i`$ are defined in Lemma 2.8, item (iii) and homomorphisms $`\mathrm{incl}_\mathrm{\#}`$ and $``$ are well defined by the same reference and Lemma 2.10.

Before proving this result, we state a corollary relating the images of the considered operators.

###### Corollary 6.2.

If $`n2`$, then, for $`1iN`$,

$$\mathrm{im}𝒟_i=\mathrm{im}𝒱_i/\mathrm{im}(h_{i\mathrm{\#}}\mathrm{id}).$$

This makes sense since $`𝒟_i`$ takes its values in $`\pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)/\mathrm{im}(h_{i\mathrm{\#}}\mathrm{id})`$ while $`𝒱_i`$ takes its values in $`\pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)`$ with an image containing $`\mathrm{im}(h_{i\mathrm{\#}}\mathrm{id})`$ by Lemma 5.2.

###### Proof of Corollary 6.2.

The inclusion $`\mathrm{im}𝒟_i\mathrm{im}𝒱_i/\mathrm{im}(h_{i\mathrm{\#}}\mathrm{id})`$ is clear from the diagrams of Proposition 6.1. The reverse inclusion will also be clear from it, once proved the following lemma. ∎

###### Lemma 6.3.

The homomorphisms $``$ and $`\mathrm{incl}_\mathrm{\#}`$ in the diagrams of Proposition 6.1 are surjective.

###### Proof.

The case $`n=2`$ forces us to go into the $`d`$-fold covers. It is then more economical to treat the general case thus. Covering projection $`\pi `$ induces an isomorphism from $`\pi _n(_{t_0}^{},^{},\epsilon )`$ onto $`\pi _n(L_{t_0}^{},M^{},e)`$ (see Lemma 2.10) and isomorphisms from $`\pi _{n1}(^{},\epsilon )`$ and $`\pi _{n1}(_{t_i}^{},\epsilon )`$ onto $`\pi _{n1}(M^{},e)`$ when $`n3`$ (resp. $`H`$ when $`n=2`$) and $`\pi _{n1}(L_{t_i}^{},e)`$ (resp. $`G_i`$ when $`n=2`$) (see Lemma 2.8). It will then be enough to prove that homomorphisms $`:\pi _n(_{t_0}^{},^{},\epsilon )\pi _{n1}(^{},\epsilon )`$ and $`\mathrm{incl}_\mathrm{\#}:\pi _{n1}(^{},\epsilon )\pi _{n1}(_{t_i}^{},\epsilon )`$ are surjective. This is the case for homomorphism $``$ due to the homotopy exact sequence of the pair $`(_{t_0}^{},^{})`$ and to the fact that $`\pi _{n1}(_{t_0}^{},\epsilon )`$ is trivial if $`n3`$ as noticed in the proof of Lemma 2.8 and also when $`n=2`$ by Lemma 2.9. As to homomorphism $`\mathrm{incl}_\mathrm{\#}`$, it is surjective due to the Lefschetz hyperplane section theorem for non-singular quasi-projective varieties (cf. \[8, 1.1.3\] or \[6, II.5.1\]) when applied to hyperplane $`_{t_i}`$ cutting the quasi-projective variety $`_{t_i}^{}=_{t_i}(Wj(V))`$ which is non-singular and of pure dimension $`n`$ by Claim 2.3 and Claim 2.6. For the validity of the quoted theorem, hyperplane $``$ must fulfill some condition of genericity. By \[9, Lemma of the Appendix\], or \[6, the remark ending the proof of II.5.1\], it is enough that $``$ be transverse to all the strata of a Whitney stratification of $`_{t_i}W`$ having $`_{t_i}j(V)`$ as a union of strata. But, thanks to the transversality of $``$ to the strata of the stratification $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`W`$ defined in Claim 2.5, the trace of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ on $`_{t_i}`$ can be refined into such a stratification of $`_{t_i}W`$ (cf. \[4, lemme 11.3\]). ∎

The sequel of this section will be devoted to the proof of Proposition 6.1 and to the result on the invariance of operator $`D_i`$ mentioned above.

#### Proof of Proposition 6.1

We shall go up to the homology of $`d`$-fold coverings and consider for $`n2`$ the following homology diagram which corresponds at this level to the diagrams of Proposition 6.1. It also uses Notation 2.7.

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}H_{n1}(^{})& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_{}}{}& H_{n1}(_{t_i}^{})& \stackrel{D_i}{}& H_n(_{t_0}^{})/\mathrm{im}(H_i\mathrm{id})\\ & & & & \mathrm{can}& & \\ H_n(_{t_0}^{},^{})& & & & H_n(_{t_0}^{}).\end{array}$$
(6.1)
It will be enough to show that this diagram is commutative since it is linked to the first or second diagram of Proposition 6.1, according to whether $`n3`$ or $`n=2`$, by the commutative diagrams (2.8) or (2.9) (right-hand parts), (2.6) or (2.7), (4.8) or (4.9), (5.2) and (4.7), and since the homomorphism $`\overline{\alpha _{t_0}}`$ (defined by (4.7)) linking the upper right corners of these two diagrams is injective.

Before proving the commutativity of diagram 6.1, we first treat the invariance property for operators $`D_i`$ mentioned in section 4.1.

###### Corollary 6.4.

For $`n2`$ and $`1iN`$, operator $`D_i`$ depends only on the homotopy class $`\overline{\gamma }_i`$ of Definition 3.2.

###### Proof.

As we saw in section 5, the same invariance property holds for operator $`V_i`$. Then, the commutativity of diagram (6.1) implies the assertion for $`D_i`$ because, as we shall see, the arrows labeled $``$ and $`\mathrm{incl}_{}`$ are surjective. The surjectivity of homomorphism $``$ results from the homology exact sequence of the pair $`(_{t_0}^{},^{})`$ and the fact that $`H_{n1}(_{t_0}^{})=0`$ if $`n2`$ by Lemma 2.11. The homomorphism induced by inclusion $`\mathrm{incl}_{}`$ is surjective due to the Lefschetz hyperplane section theorem for non-singular quasi-projective varieties with the same justification as in the proof of Lemma 6.3 but this time applied to homology. ∎

The commutativity of diagram 6.1 is a consequence of the following. On one hand, the bundle of Claim 3.1 has a trivial subbundle preserved by the isotopy built in section 3 which has a trivial form on it, allowing thus the very definition of the homological variation operators. On the other hand, this subbundle extends to a product $`^{}\times 𝐏^1`$ which is transverse to each $`_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$, so that the tube maps entering in the definition of the homological degeneration operators have also a trivial form when restricted to $`^{}\times 𝐏^1`$. These two facts lead to the link between operators $`V_i`$ and $`D_i`$ expressed by the commutativity of diagram 6.1. In fact similar considerations come up in the proof of Proposition 4.13 of  and our assertion will be obtained along the same lines.

More precisely, we imbed diagram (6.1) in a larger one, putting the following diagram on its top (we still use Notation 2.7):

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}H_n(^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_i)& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_{}}{}& H_n(P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i))& \stackrel{\underset{}{\mathrm{wn}_i}}{}& H_n(_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}})/\mathrm{im}(\widehat{H}_i\mathrm{id})\\ \kappa _i& & \tau _i& & \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}& & \\ H_{n1}(^{})& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_{}}{}& H_{n1}(_{t_i}^{})& \stackrel{D_i}{}& H_n(_{t_0}^{})/\mathrm{im}(H_i\mathrm{id}).\end{array}$$
(6.2)
The right-hand square is just diagram (4.1), which defines $`D_i`$, and homomorphism $`\kappa _i`$ is given by the formula

$$\kappa _i(z)=(1)^{n1}z\times [\omega _i]_{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}\text{for }zH_{n1}(^{})\text{,}$$
(6.3)
using the cross-product by the fundamental class $`[\omega _i]_{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}`$ of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$, the loop $`\omega _i`$ of Definition 3.2 being this time considered as a $`1`$-cycle.

Now, to prove the commutativity of diagram 6.1, it will be enough to show that diagram (6.2) is commutative as well as the following diagram which is the outer square of the big diagram obtained by putting diagrams (6.1) and (6.2) on top of each other:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}H_n(^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_i)& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_{}}{}& H_n(P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i))& \stackrel{\underset{}{\mathrm{wn}_i}}{}& H_n(_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}})/\mathrm{im}(\widehat{H}_i\mathrm{id})\\ \kappa _i& & & & \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}& & \\ H_{n1}(^{})& & & & H_n(_{t_0}^{})/\mathrm{im}(H_i\mathrm{id})\\ & & & & \mathrm{can}& & \\ H_n(_{t_0}^{},^{})& & & & H_n(_{t_0}^{}).\end{array}$$
(6.4)
##### Proof of the commutativity of diagram (6.2)

The right-hand square of this diagram is commutative since it is the commutative diagram (4.1) defining $`D_i`$. To see the commutativity of the left-hand square, let us consider again diagram (4.5) through which homomorphism $`\tau _i`$ was defined. There is an analogous diagram obtained by restricting to $``$ or $`\widehat{}`$ in order to take advantage of the product structure $`\widehat{}=\times 𝐏^1`$. Here is this diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}H_{n1}(^{})& & & & \\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{}& & & & & & \\ H_{n1}(^{}\times \{t_i\})& \stackrel{\underset{}{T_i^{}}}{}& H_{n+1}(^{}\times 𝐏^1,^{}\times (𝐏^1\{t_i\}))& & \\ & & \mathrm{incl}_{}& & & & \\ & & H_{n+1}(^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_i,^{}\times (\mathrm{\Delta }_i\{t_i\}))& & \\ & & \mathrm{incl}_{}& & & & \\ & & H_{n+1}(^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_i,^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_i)& \stackrel{}{}& H_n(^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_i).\end{array}$$
(6.5)
As in dagram (4.5), the top isomorphism is induced by the blowing down morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (see (2.3)), the upper arrow labeled $`\mathrm{incl}_{}`$ is an excision isomorphism and the lower one is an isomorphism since $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ is a deformation retract of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i\{t_i\}`$. The arrow labeled $`T_i^{}`$ is again a Leray isomorphism. The conditions of validity would be easy to check directly but they will also follow from a naturality property we shall consider in a moment.

Each space occurring in diagram (6.5) is contained in the corresponding space of diagram (4.5). This is clear for $`^{}_{t_i}^{}`$ since $`_{t_i}`$ and it can be seen, using (2.3) and (2.4), that all other spaces of (6.5) are the intersections of the corresponding spaces of (4.5) with $`\widehat{}=\times 𝐏^1`$. Thus diagram (6.5) is linked to diagram (4.5) by homomorphisms induced by inclusions. All resulting squares are commutative. This simply follows from the commutativity of the corresponding diagrams of maps or from the functoriality of the boundary homomorphism, except for the commutativity of the following diagram which deserves to be commented on:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_{n1}(_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}})& \stackrel{\underset{}{T_i}}{}& H_{n+1}(\widehat{W}^{},\widehat{W}^{}_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}})\\ \mathrm{incl}_{}& & \mathrm{incl}_{}& & \\ H_{n1}(^{}\times \{t_i\})& \stackrel{\underset{}{T_i^{}}}{}& H_{n+1}(^{}\times 𝐏^1,^{}\times (𝐏^1\{t_i\})).\end{array}$$
(6.6)
The commmutativity of this diagram results from the following naturality property for the Leray isomorphism. With the same notation and hypotheses as in the exposition we gave of it two paragraphs after diagram (4.5), suppose that $`N^{}`$ is a closed complex submanifold of $`N`$ transverse to $`P`$ and let $`P^{}=N^{}P`$. Then the validity conditions are also satisfied for a Leray isomorphism from $`H_{k2c}(P^{})`$ onto $`H_k(N^{},N^{}P^{})`$ and the diagram formed by the two Leray isomorphisms and the homomorphisms induced by inclusions is commutative (cf. \[4, Annexe\]). Applying these facts with $`N=\widehat{W}^{}`$, $`P=_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$, $`c=1`$, $`k=n+1`$ as before and $`N^{}=^{}\times 𝐏^1`$, we find diagram (6.6) since $`^{}\times \{t_i\}=(^{}\times 𝐏^1)_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ (still by (2.3) and (2.4). But we must verify that this setting for $`N^{}`$ satisfies the conditions above.

Let us come back to the third paragraph after diagram (4.5) where we checked the conditions of validity of the Leray isomorphism $`T_i`$. The properties which gave us that $`\widehat{W}^{}`$ is a submanifold of $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}`$ give also, by the same reference, that $`\widehat{W}^{}`$ is transverse to $`\widehat{}`$ in $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}`$. Hence $`\widehat{}\widehat{W}^{}=^{}\times 𝐏^1`$ is a submanifold of $`\widehat{W}^{}`$. It is closed since $`\widehat{}`$ is closed in $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}`$. Next, the properties which gave us that $`_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is transverse to $`\widehat{W}^{}`$ in $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}`$ give in fact, by the same reference, that $`_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ is transverse to $`\widehat{}\widehat{W}^{}`$ in $`\widehat{𝐏}^{n+2}`$. As $`\widehat{W}^{}`$ contains $`\widehat{}\widehat{W}^{}`$, it follows that $`\widehat{}\widehat{W}^{}=^{}\times 𝐏^1`$ is transverse to $`_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}\widehat{W}^{}=_{t_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`\widehat{W}^{}`$ (cf. \[4, proof of Lemme 9.2 (iii)\]). The conditions for the natural behavior of the Leray isomorphisms $`T_i`$ and $`T_i^{}`$ are thus checked and the commutativity of diagram (6.6) is proved.

Thus diagrams (6.5) and (4.5) are linked in a commutative diagram by homomorphisms induced by inclusions. Let $`\tau _i^{}`$ be the homomorphism obtained by overall composition from the upper left to the lower right end of diagram (6.5). As homomorphism $`\tau _i`$ is obtained in the same manner in diagram (4.5), we get the commutativity of the left square of diagram (6.2) but with $`\kappa _i`$ replaced by $`\tau _i^{}`$. The commutativity of the original diagram will then follow from the next lemma.

###### Lemma 6.5.

The homomorphism $`\tau _i^{}`$ defined above is equal to the homomorphism $`\kappa _i`$ defined in (6.3).

###### Proof.

This is due to the product structure of the spaces in diagram (6.5), especially to the behavior of the Leray isomorphism in such a case. With the same notation as in the presentation of this isomorphism two paragraphs after diagram (4.5), suppose that $`N=Q\times R`$ where $`Q`$ and $`R`$ are complex Hausdorff paracompact manifolds with $`R`$ of pure complex dimension $`c`$ and suppose that $`P=Q\times \{r\}`$ with $`rR`$. Then the conditions of validity hold for a Leray isomorphism $`T`$ from $`H_{k2c}(Q\times \{r\})`$ onto $`H_k(Q\times R,Q\times RQ\times \{r\})`$ and this isomorphism takes the following special form. If $`z^{\mathrm{}}H_{k2c}(Q\times \{r\})`$ corresponds to $`zH_{k2c}(Q)`$ by the canonical identification of $`Q`$ to $`Q\times \{r\}`$, then $`T(z^{\mathrm{}})=z\times w`$ where $`wH_{2c}(R,R\{r\})`$ is the fundamental class defining the canonical orientation of $`R`$ about $`r`$ (cf. \[4, Annexe\]). Here we are in this special case for $`T_i^{}`$, with $`Q=^{}`$, $`R=𝐏^1`$, $`r=t_i`$, $`c=1`$ and $`k=n+1`$. Remember indeed that $``$ is transverse to $`Wj(V)`$ in $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ so that $`^{}=(Wj(V))`$ is a submanifold of $`𝐏^{n+2}`$. Thus the Leray isomorphism $`T_i^{}`$ has the explicit expression

$$T_i^{}(z^{\mathrm{}})=z\times u_i\text{for }zH_{n1}(^{})$$
(6.7)
where $`z^{\mathrm{}}`$ corresponds to $`z`$ by the canonical identification of $`^{}`$ to $`^{}\times \{t_i\}`$ and where $`u_iH_2(𝐏^1,𝐏^1\{t_i\})`$ is the fundamental class defining the canonical orientation of $`𝐏^1`$ about $`t_i`$.

Now $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(z^{\mathrm{}})=z`$ by the remark following (2.3). Besides, we can take a representative $`\mathrm{\Omega }_i`$ of $`u_i`$ which is a relative $`2`$-cycle of $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$ modulo $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Then, by functoriality of the cross-product, the composition of the two $`\mathrm{incl}_{}`$ isomorphisms of diagram (6.5) gives an isomorphism, we still denote by $`\mathrm{incl}_{}`$, such that

$$\mathrm{incl}_{}(z\times [\mathrm{\Omega }_i]_{(\mathrm{\Delta }_i,\mathrm{\Delta }_i)})=z\times u_i.$$

Combining these facts with (6.7), we find that, for $`zH_{n1}(^{})`$,

$$\tau _i^{}(z)=(z\times [\mathrm{\Omega }_i]_{(\mathrm{\Delta }_i,\mathrm{\Delta }_i)})=(1)^{n1}z\times [\mathrm{\Omega }_i]_{(\mathrm{\Delta }_i,\mathrm{\Delta }_i)}.$$

But, by the special choice of $`\omega _i`$ in Definition 3.2,

$$[\mathrm{\Omega }_i]_{(\mathrm{\Delta }_i,\mathrm{\Delta }_i)}=[\omega _i]_{\mathrm{\Delta }_i}$$

and the equality $`\tau _i^{}=\kappa _i`$ follows. ∎

This concludes the proof of the commutativity of the left part and hence of the whole of diagram (6.2).

##### Proof of the commutativity of diagram (6.4)

It will be convenient to concentrate our work to the bundle $`P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)`$ which already was used to define isomorphism $`\mathrm{wn}_i`$ in section 4.1. We hence shall express variation $`V_i`$ by means of a variation operator $`V_i^{}`$ above the loop $`\omega _i`$ of Definition 3.2 which runs once counter-clockwise around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. Recal that $`d_i`$ is the base point of $`\omega _i`$. We still use Notation 2.7.

###### Definition 6.6.

We define a homological variation operator

$$V_i^{}:H_n(_{d_i}^{},^{})H_n(_{d_i}^{})$$

in the same way as $`V_i`$ was defined in formula (5.1) but replacing $`_{t_0}^{}`$ by $`_{d_i}^{}`$ and monodromy $`H_i`$ by a monodromy $`H_i^{}`$ above $`\omega _i`$.

Just as $`V_i`$ depends only on the homotopy class of $`\gamma _i`$ in $`𝐏^1\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_N\}`$, operator $`V_i^{}`$ depends only on the homotopy class of $`\omega _i`$. Therefore operator $`V_i^{}`$ is specified by the requirement that $`\omega _i`$ runs once counter-clockwise around $`\mathrm{\Delta }_i`$. The monodromy $`H_i^{}:_{d_i}^{}_{d_i}^{}`$ must of course be defined in the same way as monodromy $`H_i`$, using Lemmas 3.4 and 3.3 but replacing parameter $`t_0`$ by the base point $`d_i`$ of $`\omega _i`$ and loop $`\gamma _i`$ by loop $`\omega _i`$ wherever they occur (just as we did for the monodromy $`\widehat{H}_i^{}`$ at the blow up level in the definition of isomorphism $`\mathrm{wn}_i`$ in section 4.1). It will be moreover convenient to have $`H_i^{}`$ and $`\widehat{H}_i^{}`$ linked together by the analog of diagram (3.2). This is obtained by asking the commutativity of the analog of diagram (3.1) in Lemma 3.3 when building the isotopies leading to $`H_i^{}`$ and $`\widehat{H}_i^{}`$. Now, to make the link with $`V_i`$, we choose the monodromy $`H_i`$ defining $`V_i`$ by following the same process as we did for $`\widehat{H}_i^{}`$ in the definition of isomorphism $`\mathrm{wn}_i`$, so that we obtain a formula analogous to (4.2),

$$H_i=H_i^{\prime \prime 1}H_i^{}H_i^{\prime \prime },$$
(6.8)
where $`H_i^{\prime \prime }`$ is a homeomorphism from $`_{t_0}^{}`$ onto $`_{d_i}^{}`$ arising from an isotopy above the path $`\delta _i`$ of Definition 3.2. As above, we shall ask $`H_i^{\prime \prime }`$ to be linked to the homeomorphism $`\widehat{H}_i^{\prime \prime }`$ of formula (4.2) by a diagram similar to diagram (3.2). We notice that $`H_i^{\prime \prime }`$ leaves fixed the points of $`^{}`$ since the isotopy above $`\delta _i`$ giving rise to it satisfies condition (III) of Lemma 3.3. Following Notation 1.1, item 3, we denote by $`\overline{H}_i^{\prime \prime }`$ the isomorphism induced by $`H_i^{\prime \prime }`$ between $`H_n(_{t_0}^{},^{})`$ and $`H_n(_{d_i}^{},^{})`$ to distinguish it from the isomorphism $`H_i^{\prime \prime }`$ induced between $`H_n(_{t_0}^{})`$ and $`H_n(_{d_i}^{})`$. The link between $`V_i`$ and $`V_i^{}`$ is then given by the next lemma.

###### Lemma 6.7.

The following diagram is commutative:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_n(_{d_i}^{},^{})& \stackrel{V_i^{}}{}& H_n(_{d_i}^{})\\ \overline{H}_i^{\prime \prime }& & H_i^{\prime \prime }& & \\ H_n(_{t_0}^{},^{})& \stackrel{V_i}{}& H_n(_{t_0}^{}).\end{array}$$

###### Proof.

This is a straightforward check using the definitions of $`V_i`$ and $`V_i^{}`$ and formula (6.8). ∎

Next, we make, as earlier, a reduction to the bundle $`P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)`$ for the right-hand side of diagram (6.4), this time by going back to the definition of isomorphism $`\mathrm{wn}_i`$. We consider the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_n(P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i))& & \\ \mathrm{incl}_{}& & \\ H_n(_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}})& \stackrel{\underset{}{\widehat{H}_i^{\prime \prime }}}{}& H_n(_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}})& \stackrel{\mathrm{can}}{}& H_n(_{t_0}^{\mathrm{}})/\mathrm{im}(\widehat{H}_i\mathrm{id})\\ \mathrm{\Phi }_{}& & \mathrm{\Phi }_{}& & \overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}& & \\ H_n(_{d_i}^{})& \stackrel{\underset{}{H_i^{\prime \prime }}}{}& H_n(_{t_0}^{})& \stackrel{\mathrm{can}}{}& H_n(_{t_0}^{})/\mathrm{im}(H_i\mathrm{id}).\end{array}$$
(6.9)
The upper triangle is commutative by the very definition of isomorphism $`\mathrm{wn}_i`$ (cf. (4.3) and (4.4)). The right-hand square is commutative by the definition of $`\overline{\mathrm{\Phi }_{}}`$ given after diagram (4.1). Finally, the left-hand square is also commutative, since we took care of defining $`H_i^{\prime \prime }`$ and $`\widehat{H}_i^{\prime \prime }`$ coherently.

Finally, we come to the left side of diagram (6.4). We have the following diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}& & H_{n1}(^{})\\ & & & & \\ H_n(_{t_0}^{},^{})& \stackrel{\underset{}{\overline{H}_i^{\prime \prime }}}{}& H_n(_{d_i}^{},^{}).\end{array}$$
(6.10)
It is commutative due to the fact that $`H_i^{\prime \prime }`$ leaves fixed the points of $`^{}`$ as already pointed out.

Using now the commutativity of the diagram of Lemma 6.7 and of diagrams (6.9) and (6.10) and taking into account that some of the arrows, as indicated, are isomorphisms, we see that we only need to prove that the following diagram commutes once reversed the isomorphism labeled $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}H_n(^{}\times \mathrm{\Delta }_i)& \stackrel{\mathrm{incl}_{}}{}& H_n(P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i))\\ \kappa _i& & \mathrm{incl}_{}& & \\ H_{n1}(^{})& & H_n(_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}})\\ & & \mathrm{\Phi }_{}& & \\ H_n(_{d_i}^{},^{})& \stackrel{V_i^{}}{}& H_n(_{d_i}^{}).\end{array}$$
(6.11)
To show this, we shall work at the chain level and use a cross-product defined at this level as in \[5, Notation 4.5\]. Let $`c_i:_{d_i}^{}_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}}`$ be the inverse isomorphism of the one induced by $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. It will be convenient to denote $`c_i(\mathrm{\Gamma })`$ by $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ for any singular chain $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ of $`_{d_i}^{}`$. Then using Notation 1.1, items 4 and 3, the commutativity of diagram (6.11), with arrow $`\mathrm{\Phi }_{}`$ reversed, amounts to the following homology: for any relative $`n`$-cycle $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ on $`_{d_i}^{}`$ modulo $`^{}`$,

$$(1)^{n1}\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \omega _i(H_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{\Gamma })^{\mathrm{}}\text{in }P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i).$$
(6.12)
To prove this homology, first observe that

$$(H_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })\mathrm{\Gamma })^{\mathrm{}}=H_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma })^{\mathrm{}}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}=\widehat{H}_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}$$

since we have ensured that $`H_i^{}`$ and $`\widehat{H}_i^{}`$ commute with the blowing down morphism. Homology (6.12) will then be given by the isotopy $`\widehat{G}_i^{}`$ giving rise to $`\widehat{H}_i^{}`$. More precisely, if $`\iota `$ is the $`1`$-simplex of $`[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]`$ consisting of the identity map, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \iota `$ is a chain of $`_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}}\times [\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]`$ to which we can apply $`\widehat{G}_i^{}`$, obtaining a chain of $`\widehat{W}^{}`$, in fact of $`P^1(\mathrm{\Delta }_i)`$ by condition (ÎÎ) of Lemma 3.3 (where $`t_0`$ must be replaced by $`d_i`$ and $`\gamma _i`$ by $`\omega _i`$). We shall show that

$$\widehat{G}_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \iota )=\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \omega _i(1)^{n1}(\widehat{H}_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}).$$
(6.13)
Here is the computation; it can already be found in \[5, p. 540\] in the course of the proof of \[5, Proposition 4.13\] but no result is stated there which we could refer to. We have

$$\widehat{G}_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \iota )=\widehat{G}_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \iota )+(1)^n\widehat{G}_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \iota ).$$

Concerning the first term of this sum, observe that $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}`$ is a chain of $`^{}\times \{d_i\}`$ and that the restriction of $`\widehat{G}_i^{}`$ to $`(^{}\times \{d_i\})\times [\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]`$ coincides with that of $`\mathrm{\Phi }\times \omega _i`$ by condition (ÎÎÎ) of Lemma 3.3. Then

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{G}_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \iota )& =(\mathrm{\Phi }\times \omega _i)_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \iota )=\mathrm{\Phi }_{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})\times \omega _i(\iota )\hfill \\ & =\mathrm{\Gamma }\times \omega _i.\hfill \end{array}$$

As to the second term of the sum above, let $`\widehat{0}`$ and $`\widehat{1}`$ be the $`0`$-simplices of $`[\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]`$ with respective values $`0`$ and $`1`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \iota =\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \widehat{1}\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \widehat{0}`$, a difference of chains of $`_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}`$ and $`_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\}`$. But, if $`\varpi `$ is the projection of $`_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}}\times [\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0},1]`$ onto the first factor, the restriction of $`\widehat{G}_i^{}`$ to $`_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\}`$ is the same as the restriction of $`\varpi `$ to the same space, by condition (Î) of Lemma 3.3. And the restriction of $`\widehat{G}_i^{}`$ to $`_{d_i}^{\mathrm{}}\times \{\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}\}`$ is the same as the restriction of $`\widehat{H}_i^{}\varpi `$, by the definition of $`\widehat{H}_i^{}`$ in Lemma 3.4. Hence

$$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill \widehat{G}_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \iota )& =\widehat{G}_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \widehat{1})\widehat{G}_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \widehat{0})\hfill \\ & =\widehat{H}_i^{}(\varpi _{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \widehat{1}))\varpi _{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\times \widehat{0})\hfill \\ & =\widehat{H}_i^{}(\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{\Gamma }^{\mathrm{}}\hfill \end{array}$$

since the chain cross-product we have considered has the property that, for any spaces $`E`$ and $`F`$, the projection $`\varpi :E\times FE`$ acts as $`\varpi _{}(\gamma \times \sigma )=\gamma `$ for every chain $`\gamma `$ of $`E`$ and every $`0`$-simplex $`\sigma `$ of $`F`$ (cf. \[5, Notation 4.5\]).

This shows equality (6.13), proving homology (6.12) and hence the commutativity of diagram (6.11). The commutativity of diagram (6.4), which was reduced to the former, follows.

#####

The commutativity of diagrams (6.2) and (6.4) implies that of diagram (6.1) and hence proves Proposition 6.1.∎

## 7 A generalization of the Zariski-van Kampen theorem to higher homotopy

We give here a projective version of the van Kampen type theorem of \[12, Theorem 2.4\] using the above defined homotopy variation operators (see section 5) instead of the degeneration operators of . In fact we shall give two proofs of this result. One is based on an affine version of the Zariski-van Kampen type theorem from  and the other depends on Theorem 5.1 from .

###### Theorem 7.1.

Let $`V`$ be a hypersurface in $`𝐏^{n+1}`$ with $`n2`$ having only isolated singularities. Consider a pencil $`(L_t)_{t𝐏^1}`$ of hyperplanes in $`𝐏^{n+1}`$ with the base locus $``$ transversal to $`V`$. Denote by $`t_1`$, …, $`t_N`$ the collection of those $`t`$ for which $`L_tV`$ has singularities. Let $`t_0`$ be different from either of $`t_1`$, …, $`t_N`$. Let $`\gamma _i`$ be a good collection, in the sense of Definition 3.2, of paths in $`𝐏^1`$ based in $`t_0`$. Let $`eV`$ be a base point. Let $`𝒱_i`$ be the variation operator corresponding to $`\gamma _i`$. Then inclusion induces an isomorphism:

$$\pi _n(𝐏^{n+1}V,e)\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}\pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)/\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{im}𝒱_i.$$

##### First Proof.

We apply Theorem 5.1 of  to the non-singular quasi-projective variety $`Wj(V)`$ in $`𝐏^{n+2}`$ (cf. section 2.2). The base locus $``$ of the pencil $`(_t)_{t𝐏^1}`$ is transversal to the Whitney stratification $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ of $`W`$ adapted to $`j(V)`$ (cf. Claim 2.6). Hence  gives the following isomorphism induced by inclusion:

$$H_n(Wj(V))\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}H_n\left(_{t_0}(Wj(V))\right)/\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\mathrm{im}V_i$$

where the $`V_i`$ are the homological variation operators defined in section 5.

Recall (Lemma 2.8) that we have an isomorphism $`\eta `$:

$$H_n(Wj(V))\stackrel{}{\stackrel{}{}}\pi _n(𝐏^{n+1}V,e).$$

Now the result follows using the isomorphism $`\alpha _{t_0}`$ and the commutative diagrams of Lemma 2.8, and the definition of $`𝒱_i`$ by means of $`V_i`$ from section 5.∎

##### Second Proof.

Let $`𝐂_{t_0}^n`$ denote the affine part of $`L_{t_0}`$ (that is $`L_{t_0}M`$). The group $`\pi _n(𝐂_{t_0}^n𝐂_{t_0}^nV)`$, as in \[12, section 1\], will be viewed as a module over $`𝐙[\pi _1(𝐂_{t_0}^n𝐂_{t_0}^nV)]=𝐙[s,s^1]`$. We can use the affine monodromy of $`𝐂_{t_0}^n𝐂_{t_0}^nV`$ which is a restriction of the projective one. For $`1iN`$, there is a commutative diagram:

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\pi _n(𝐂_{t_0}^n𝐂_{t_0}^nV)& \stackrel{h_i}{}& \pi _n(𝐂_{t_0}^n𝐂_{t_0}^nV)\\ s^d1& & s^d1& & \\ \pi _n(𝐂_{t_0}^n𝐂_{t_0}^nV)& \stackrel{h_i}{}& \pi _n(𝐂_{t_0}^n𝐂_{t_0}^nV)\\ & & & & \\ \mathrm{coker}(s^d1)& \stackrel{h_i}{}& \mathrm{coker}(s^d1)\\ a_{}& & a_{}& & \\ \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V)& \stackrel{h_i}{}& \pi _n(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V),\end{array}$$

where $`a_{}`$ is an isomorphism of $`𝐙[s,s^1]`$-modules (cf. Lemma 1.13 in ). Hence $`a_{}`$ identifies the image of the affine monodromy with the image of the projective one. A similar diagram yields the equality of the images of degeneration operators. Now the theorem follows from Proposition 6.1.∎

###### Remark 7.2.

We presented Theorem 7.1 as a generalization of the classical Zariski-van Kampen theorem. However the latter concerns the case $`n=1`$ and our definition of the homotopy variation operators does not make sense in this case. But, as $`M`$ is then reduced to a point, Lemma 5.2 makes it natural to consider that in this case $`𝒱_i`$ should be nothing more than $`h_{i\mathrm{\#}}\mathrm{id}`$. This in turn does not make sense since $`\pi _1(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)`$ is not commutative but amounts to saying that the only identifications to make are of each $`x`$ of $`\pi _1(L_{t_0}L_{t_0}V,e)`$ with each $`h_{i\mathrm{\#}}(x)`$. Our theorem then actually reduces to the classical Zariski-van Kampen theorem. Nevertheless our proof does not work in the case $`n=1`$. The statements generalize, but not the proofs.