Alphabeta Math
ExampleConstruction: Literature-sourcedVerification: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck pass
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Total and strict transform of a line through the origin

Example

Let k be a field and let L=V(y)⊆Ak2 be the line through the origin, of multiplicity m=1 at the origin. Let π ⁣:Bl⁡0Ak2→Ak2 be the blowup of the origin with exceptional curve E, and let L′ be the strict transform of L. Then the total transform is π∗L=L′+E, the full preimage L′∪E, while the strict transform is only the closure of the part of the preimage away from the origin. The line L′ is isomorphic to L and meets E transversally in the single point of E corresponding to the direction of L; in the other chart the strict transform has no points, because that chart meets L only at the origin.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A field k, the line L=V(y)⊆Ak2 through the origin, the blowup π ⁣:Bl⁡0Ak2→Ak2 with exceptional curve E, and the strict transform L′ of L.

[A1]

Choice. The Axiom of Choice is inherited from the blowup construction; no further choice enters the two explicit charts below. (The Axiom of Choice).

[F1]

Total transform of a Cartier divisor: The total transform is the Cartier pullback, with associated line bundle the pulled-back line bundle.

[F2]

Strict transform of a closed subscheme: The strict transform of a closed subscheme under a blowup is the scheme-theoretic closure of the inverse image of the complement of the center; in a chart where the ideal of the exceptional divisor is invertible, it is the closed subscheme cut by the saturation of the inverse-image ideal by that ideal.

[F3]

Total transform equals strict transform plus multiplicity times the exceptional divisor: If C is a reduced curve on a regular surface S with finite positive multiplicity m at a closed point p with dim⁡OS,p=2, and π ⁣:S′→S is the blowup of p with exceptional curve E and strict transform C′, then π∗C=C′+mE as effective Cartier divisors on S′; equivalently, the strict transform is defined by dividing a local equation of the total transform by the m-th power of an exceptional equation on each chart.

[F4]

The blowup of the plane at the origin as an incidence scheme: For the blowup of Ak2 at the origin the two standard charts are Spec⁡k[x,y][y/x]=Spec⁡k[x,y/x] and Spec⁡k[x/y,y], each isomorphic to Ak2; the exceptional curve E is cut by x in the first chart and by y in the second, and its two affine-line chart pieces glue to E≅Pk1.

[F5]

Strict-transform equation by removing the maximal exceptional power: In the chart y=xs of the blowup of the origin, the total transform of a plane curve equation f of multiplicity m at the origin is the m-th power of an exceptional equation times the strict transform: substituting y=xs one has f(x,xs)=xmg(x,s) with g(0,s) the leading form evaluated at (1,s), which is nonzero and hence not divisible by x, and the strict transform is cut by g in this chart.

Verification

1.1A1F2F3F4F5given

In the first chart of [F4] write s=y/x, so the chart ring is k[x,s] with y=xs and the exceptional curve is E=V(x); the line L has local equation f=y at the origin, and f(x,xs)=xs=x⋅s with x∤s, so by [F5] the total transform is cut by x⋅s and the strict transform is cut by s, the divided equation of multiplicity m=1. The preimage of L∖{0} is the locus {s=0, x≠0} of this chart, whose closure is L′=V(s)≅Spec⁡k[x], and E=V(x); hence π∗L=(x)+(s)=E+L′ as effective Cartier divisors, in agreement with [F3], and π restricts on L′=V(s) to (x,s)↦(x,xs)=(x,0), an isomorphism onto L.

2.1F2F4step 1.1

In the second chart of [F4] write t=x/y, so the chart ring is k[y,t] with x=yt and E=V(y); the line L is V(y), whose pullback there is E itself with no residual factor, so no point of the strict transform lies in this chart. Indeed (y):y∞=(1), so the defining saturated ideal is the unit ideal and the strict-transform chart is empty.

3.1F2F4step 1.1step 2.1

The two chart computations glue: steps 1.1 and 2.1 give L′ as the closed subscheme cut by s in the first chart and by the unit ideal in the second, and these descriptions agree on the overlap, where L′ is empty; hence L′ is the closure of the preimage of L∖{0} and is isomorphic to L through π. In the first chart L′=V(s) and E=V(x) meet in the single reduced point V(x,s), the point of E with chart coordinate s=0, which is exactly the direction of L; the two curves are the coordinate axes there, so they are regular with distinct tangent lines and meet transversally with contact order one.

4.1F1F3step 1.1step 2.1step 3.1∎

Collecting the results: π∗L=L′+E with multiplicity one along E, the strict transform L′ is isomorphic to L and meets E transversally in the single point of E corresponding to the direction of L, the strict transform has no points in the second chart, and the total transform L′∪E is the full preimage of L. This is exactly the assertion of the statement.

Depends on

Used by

Nothing in the library uses this result yet.

Dependency tree · two levels

33 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources