A non-prorepresentable deformation functor

I've been teaching a topics course on deformation theory this semester; so far we've covered quite a few interesting things -- the Tian-Todorov theorem and Green-Lazarsfeld's generic vanishing theorem, for example.  I just wanted to use this post to record an easy and fun example that I wasn't able to find in the literature.  

Question: What is a good example of a smooth projective variety X over a field k such that the deformation function DefX is not pro-representable?  Here DefX:Art/kSets

is the functor sending a local Artin k-algebra A, with residue field k, to the set of isomorphism classes of flat A-schemes Y equipped with an isomorphism ϕ:YkX.

Answer: Let X=BlZ(P2), where Z is a set of 10 points lying on a line.

It's not totally obvious, of course, that this works.  The idea of the proof follows.  Given a variety X, we let DefAutX:Art/kSets

be the deformation functor sending a local Artin k-algebra A, with residue field k, to the set of isomorphism classes of triples Y,ψ,ϕ, where Y is a flat A-scheme, ϕ:YkX is an isomorphism of the special fiber of Y with X, and ψ:YY is an automorphism of Y which is the identity on Yk.

Proposition.  Let X be a proper variety.  The functor DefX is pro-representable if and only if the natural map DefAutXDefX is formally smooth.  (Here the natural map simply forgets the automorphism ψ.)

This is somewhat standard; it's an easy application of Schlessinger's criteria, for example.  One way of saying this is that given a small extension 0IBA0,

and a deformation Y of X to B, there's a long exact sequence of sets 0H0(X,TX)IAut0(Y)Aut0(YA)H1(X,TX)IDefX(B)DefX(A)H2(X,TX)I.

Here Aut0(Y) is the set of automorphisms of Y fixing Yk.  The fact that this is a long exact sequence means that the first four non-zero terms are an exact sequence of groups; that H1(X,TX)I acts transitively on the fibers of the map DefX(B)DefX(A), with kernel exactly the image of Aut0(YA); and that an element of DefX(A) lifts to an element of DefX(B) if and only if it maps to zero in H2(X,TX)I.  Now formal smoothness of the map  DefAutXDefX is the same as surjectivity of the map Aut0(Y)Aut0(YA) for all small extensions and all choices of Y.  This is the same as faithfulness of the action of H1(X,TX)I on the fibers of the map DefX(B)DefX(A), which is a restatement of Schlessinger's pro-representability criterion in our setting.

So why does our example X -- namely, P2 blown up at a bunch of points all lying on a line -- have non-prorepresentable deformation functor?  The point is that infinitesimal automorphisms of X are precisely infinitesimal automorphisms of P2 fixing the line .  But if one moves the points to general position, the infinitesimal automorphism group becomes trivial.  So the map DefAutXDefX is far from smooth.  Pretty easy and cool.

Is there a reference with examples like these?  I'm sure they're well-known, but I wasn't able to find any smooth proper examples in the literature.

Share