format: text

text:
# Towards Characterizing Morphisms Between High Dimensional Hypersurfaces

## Survey of the Literature

Classically, algebraic geometry has sought to classify varieties. Recently focus has expanded to include the classification of morphisms between algebraic varieties. Our goal in this paper is to shed some light on what type of morphisms can occur between hypersurfaces. Let us give some results from the literature.

In , Paranjape and Srinivas show that every nonconstant morphism between smooth quadric hypersurfaces in $`^n`$ is an isomorphism for $`n4`$.

Schuhmann shows in  that the degree of a morphism from a smooth hypersurface of degree $`d`$ in $`^4`$ to a smooth quadric threefold is bounded from above in terms of $`d`$. For $`d=3`$ she obtains a very good bound on the degree of possible morphisms and proves that every morphism from a smooth cubic threefold to a smooth quadric threefold is constant.

Amerik proves in  that the degree of a morphism from a smooth hypersurface in $`^n`$ to a smooth quadric hypersurface in $`^n`$ is bounded from above for $`n4`$ using a different argument than .

Beauville shows in  that every endomorphism of a smooth hypersurface in $`^n`$ of dimension at least 2 and degree at least 3 is an automorphism. For this he uses a Hurwitz-type inequality from . We will generalize this inequality in Section 1.

## Main Results and Point of View

The main result of this paper is the following Theorem, which we prove in Section 2.

### Theorem 2

*Assume the base field is algebraically closed of characteristic zero. Let $`f:XY`$ be a morphism of hypersurfaces in $`^n`$, $`n4`$. If $`Y`$ is nonsingular and of general type, then there is a morphism $`F:^n^n`$ such that $`f=F|_X`$ and $`F^1(Y)=X`$.*

The proof of Theorem 2, and our study of morphisms between hypersurfaces in general, relies on the following definition.

### Definition

Let $`f:XY`$ be a morphism of projective $`k`$-varieties with specified very ample invertible sheaves $`𝒪_X(1)`$ and $`𝒪_Y(1)`$ such that $`f^{}𝒪_Y(1)=𝒪_X(m)`$. Assume $`X`$ is positive dimensional so that there is a unique such $`m`$. We will refer to $`m`$ as the *polynomial degree* of $`f`$, because $`f`$ is given by polynomials of degree $`m`$.

As a consequence of the Grothendieck-Lefschetz Theorem on the Picard group, every morphism $`f:XY`$ between hypersurfaces of dimension at least 3 has a polynomial degree, cf. Lemma 2.1. We will see that the conclusion of Theorem 2 is equivalent to the following statement: $`\mathrm{deg}Y`$ divides $`\mathrm{deg}X`$ with quotient equal to the polynomial degree of $`f`$.

In light of this restatement, our first goal will be to bound the polynomial degree of possible morphisms between two given hypersurfaces. To do this, we generalize the Hurwitz-Type Inequality of  in the case of morphisms between complete intersections. This inequality gives good bounds on the polynomial degree of possible morphisms between hypersurfaces of high degree. In particular, if $`f:XY`$ is a morphism between hypersurfaces in $`^n`$ and $`Y`$ is nonsingular of degree at least $`n+2`$, i.e. Y is of general type, then the bound on the polynomial degree of $`f`$ is good enough to prove Theorem 2.

### Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my advisor, A. Johan de Jong, for his enumerable insights, gentle corrections, and tireless enthusiasm during every stage of this project. Thanks also to Roya Beheshti for helpful conversations about mapping surfaces to threefolds, which lead to Proposition 2.5.

## 1. A Hurwitz-Type Inequality

In this section the ground field is algebraically closed of arbitrary characteristic. The main result of this section is the following Theorem.

### Theorem 1.

*Let $`X`$ be a complete intersection variety in $`^n`$ and $`Y`$ a nonsingular projective variety of the same dimension as $`X`$. Fix a very ample invertible sheaf $`𝒪_Y(1)`$ on $`Y`$. If $`f:XY`$ is a morphism such that $`f^{}𝒪_Y(1)=𝒪_X(m)`$ for some positive integer $`m`$ and the extension of function fields $`k(Y)k(X)`$ is separable, then*

$$f^{}c_{\text{top}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(2)\right)c_{\text{top}}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)\right).$$

Theorem 1 is more general than the Hurwitz-Type Inequality of  in the sense that we do not assume the ground field has characteristic zero or that $`X`$ is smooth. However, it is less general in the sense that we assume $`X`$ is a complete intersection.

It is worth noting that Theorem 1 can fail if $`Y`$ is singular. For example, $`Y`$ could be the image of a hyperplane in $`^n`$.

Also note that if $`X`$ is singular, then $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)`$ is not locally free. However, the top Chern class $`c_{top}(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m))`$ is defined via a finite locally free resolution of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)`$, such as the conormal sequence for $`X^n`$.

We give some preliminary lemmas before proving Theorem 1.

###### Lemma 1.1.

If $`X^n`$ is a positive dimensional complete intersection and $`f:X^N`$ is a morphism such that $`f^{}𝒪_^N(1)=𝒪_X(m)`$ for some positive integer $`m`$, then $`f`$ extends to a rational map $`F:^n^N`$ defined on a Zariski open set containing $`X`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _c`$ be the homogeneous polynomials that generate the homogeneous ideal of $`X`$, where $`c`$ is the codimension of $`X`$ in $`^n`$. Let $`\xi _i`$ have degree $`d_i`$, and let $`X_i:=V(\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _i)`$ so that $`X=X_c\mathrm{}X_0=^n`$. The morphism $`f`$ is given by sections $`f_0,\mathrm{},f_NH^0(X_c,𝒪_{X_c}(m))`$. To lift $`f`$ from $`X_c`$ to a rational map on $`X_{c1}`$ we need to see that the restriction map

$$H^0(X_{c1},𝒪_{X_{c1}}(m))H^0(X_c,𝒪_{X_c}(m))$$

is surjective. So it suffices to check that $`H^1(X_{c1},I(m))=0`$, where $`I𝒪_{X_{c1}}`$ is the ideal sheaf of $`X_c`$ in $`X_{c1}`$. Since $`I=𝒪_{X_{c1}}(d_c)`$ is a twisted structure sheaf and $`X_{c1}`$ is a complete intersection in $`^n`$ of dimension at least 2,

$$H^1(X_{c1},I(m))=0.$$

So the global sections $`f_i`$ lift from $`𝒪_{X_c}(m)`$ to $`𝒪_{X_{c1}}(m)`$. Continuing, we lift the $`f_i`$ to global sections $`F_i`$ of $`𝒪_^n(m)`$. Set $`F=(F_0,\mathrm{},F_N):^n^N`$, and note that $`F`$ is undefined on $`V(F_1,\mathrm{},F_N)`$, which is disjoint from $`X`$ because $`F|_X=f`$ is a morphism. ∎

The following positivity result essentially appears in .

###### Lemma 1.2.

Consider the following fiber square

$$\begin{array}{ccc}W& & V\\ & & \\ S& \stackrel{\rho }{}& T\end{array}$$

where $`\rho :ST`$ is a regular imbedding of varieties of codimension $`i`$ and $`V`$ is a $`k`$-dimensional variety. If $`N_ST`$ is globally generated, then

$$\rho ^{}[V]=\underset{j}{}\mu _j[R_j]+P$$

where the $`R_j`$ are the reduced structures on the $`(ki)`$-dimensional irreducible components of $`W`$, the $`\mu _j`$ are positive integers, and $`P`$ is an effective $`(ki)`$-cycle on $`W`$.

###### Proof.

We apply a positivity result to the Basic Construction in \[7, Chapter 6\].

Let $`N`$ be the pullback of $`N_ST`$ to $`W`$. Then $`N`$ is a globally generated vector bundle of rank $`i`$ on $`W`$, and the normal cone $`N_WVN`$ is a purely $`k`$-dimensional closed subscheme of $`N`$. If $`\sigma `$ is the zero section of $`N`$, then $`\rho ^{}[V]`$ is defined to be $`\sigma ^{}[N_WV]`$. Recall that $`[N_WV]`$ is the sum of the $`k`$-cycles associated to the irreducible components of $`N_WV`$ taken with appropriate multiplicities.

If $`Z_j`$ is a $`(ki)`$-dimensional irreducible component of $`W`$, then $`N_WV`$ has an irreducible component $`C_j`$ that dominates $`Z_j`$. If $`R_j`$ is the reduced structure on $`Z_j`$, then $`N|_{R_j}`$ is the reduced structure on $`C_j`$ because $`N|_{R_j}`$ is reduced and irreducible, $`dimC_j=k=dimN|_{R_j}`$, and $`N|_{R_j}`$ contains the reduced structure $`(C_j)_{\text{red}}`$. So by definition, $`[C_j]=\mu _j[N|_{R_j}]`$, where $`\mu _j`$ is the length of the stalk of $`𝒪_{C_j}`$ at the generic point of $`C_j`$. Therefore $`\sigma ^{}[C_j]=\mu _j[R_j]`$ because $`\sigma ^{}[N|_{R_j}]=[R_j]`$. This accounts for the term $`\mu _j[R_j]`$ in the formula for $`\rho ^{}[V]`$.

Moreover, $`\sigma ^{}`$ takes effective cycles to effective cycles because $`N`$ is globally generated, cf. \[7, Theorem 12.1(a)\]. So if $`C`$ is an irreducible component of $`N_WV`$ other than one of the $`C_j`$ described above, then $`\sigma ^{}[C]`$ is effective. These other components $`C`$ account for $`P`$. ∎

###### Lemma 1.3.

Let $`E`$ be a globally generated vector bundle over a variety $`X`$. Let $`KE`$ be a closed subscheme with $`dimK<\mathrm{rank}E`$. Then there is a section $`\sigma `$ of $`E`$ such that $`\sigma (X)K`$ is empty.

###### Proof.

Since $`E`$ is globally generated, there is a surjective morphism of vector bundles $`\pi :X\times 𝔸^{h^0}E`$, where $`h^0:=h^0(X,E)`$. All the fibers of $`\pi `$ are affine spaces of the same dimension. So $`dim\pi ^1(K)=dimK+(h^0\mathrm{rank}E)`$. In other words, $`h^0dim\pi ^1(K)=\mathrm{rank}(E)dimK>0`$, whence there is a constant global section $`\tau `$ of $`X\times 𝔸^{h^0}`$ over $`X`$ that does not intersect $`\pi ^1(K)`$. Take $`\sigma =\pi \tau `$. ∎

###### Lemma 1.4.

Let $`0LEF0`$ be a short exact sequence of vector bundles on a complete variety $`X`$ such that $`\mathrm{rank}F=dimX`$. If $`E`$ is globally generated, then for any morphism of vector bundles $`i:LE`$ we have

$$\sigma ^{}[i(L)]c_{\text{top}}(F)$$

where $`\sigma `$ is the zero section of $`E`$ and $`i(L)`$ is the scheme-theoretic image of $`i:LE`$. Equality holds if $`i`$ is a closed immersion.

###### Proof.

First assume that $`i`$ is the given closed immersion $`LE`$. Consider the fiber diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}& & L& & X\\ & & i& & \tau \\ X& \stackrel{\sigma }{}& E& \stackrel{\varphi }{}& F\end{array}$$

where $`\tau `$ is the zero section and $`\varphi `$ is the quotient map. Calculate

$`\sigma ^{}[i(L)]`$ $`=\sigma ^{}\varphi ^{}[X]`$
$`=(\varphi \sigma )^{}[X]`$
$`=c_{top}(F).`$
If $`i:LE`$ is any closed immersion of vector bundles on $`X`$ with quotient bundle $`F_i`$, then the last statement of the lemma follows from

$$c_{top}(F)=\left\{\frac{c(E)}{c(L)}\right\}_0=c_{top}(F_i).$$

Now assume that $`i:LE`$ is any morphism of vector bundles on $`X`$. If $`dimi(L)<dimL`$, then $`\sigma ^{}[i(L)]=0`$. So $`\sigma ^{}[i(L)]c_{top}(F)`$ because $`F`$ is globally generated, cf. \[7, Theorem 12.1(a)\]. Therefore, we may assume $`dimi(L)=dimL`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be the zero section of $`E\times 𝔸^1`$ over $`X\times 𝔸^1`$, and let $`\sigma _t:=\mathrm{\Sigma }|_{X\times t}`$ be the zero section of $`E\times t`$ over $`X\times t`$. Let $`x_t:X\times tX\times 𝔸^1`$ and $`e_t:E\times tE\times 𝔸^1`$ be the inclusion maps. These maps fit together in the following fiber square.

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X\times t& \stackrel{\sigma _t}{}& E\times t\\ x_t& & e_t\\ X\times 𝔸^1& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Sigma }}{}& E\times 𝔸^1\end{array}$$

Therefore, $`x_t^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}\alpha =\sigma _t^{}e_t^{}\alpha `$ for any cycle $`\alpha `$ on $`E\times 𝔸^1`$.

Let $`i_0=i`$, and let $`i_1`$ be the given closed immersion $`LE`$ with quotient $`F`$. Consider the morphism

$`I:L\times 𝔸^1`$ $`E\times 𝔸^1`$
$`(v,t)`$ $`ti_1(v)+(1t)i_0(v)`$
of vector bundles on $`X\times 𝔸^1`$, and let $`i_t=I|_{L\times t}:L\times tE\times t`$. Let $`Z`$ denote the scheme-theoretic image of $`I`$, and define

$$\lambda _t:=x_t^{}\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}[Z]=\sigma _t^{}e_t^{}[Z].$$

Since $`i_t:LE`$ is a closed immersion for all $`t`$ in some neighborhood of $`1𝔸^1`$, $`i_1(L)=e_1^1(Z)`$. So $`e_1^{}[Z]=[i_1(L)]`$, which implies $`\lambda _1=\sigma _1^{}[i_1(L)]`$.

Note that $`i_0(L)`$ is an irreducible component of $`e_0^1(Z)`$ because $`i_0(L)e_0^1(Z)`$ and

$$dime_0^1(Z)+1=dimZ=dimi_0(L)+1.$$

So by Lemma 1.2, $`e_0^{}[Z]=[i_0(L)]+P`$ for some effective cycle $`P`$. Therefore,

$$\lambda _0=\sigma _0^{}[i_0(L)]+\sigma _0^{}P$$

and $`\sigma _0^{}P`$ is an effective 0-cycle because $`E`$ is globally generated.

If $`\alpha `$ is any cycle on $`X\times 𝔸^1`$, then since $`X\times 𝔸^1𝔸^1`$ is proper, the degree of the restriction $`x_t^{}\alpha `$ of $`\alpha `$ to the fiber $`X\times t`$ does not depend on $`t`$, cf. \[7, Proposition 10.2\]. Take $`\alpha =\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}[Z]`$ to see that the 0-cycles $`\lambda _t`$ on $`X`$ all have the same degree. Now we can calculate

$`\mathrm{deg}\sigma _0^{}[i_0(L)]`$ $`\mathrm{deg}\lambda _0`$
$`=\mathrm{deg}\lambda _1`$
$`=\mathrm{deg}\sigma _1^{}[i_1(L)]`$
$`=c_{top}(F).`$
### Proof of Theorem 1.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a morphism of projective varieties. Assume $`X`$ is a complete intersection in $`^n`$ and $`Y`$ is nonsingular of the same dimension as $`X`$. Fix a very ample invertible sheaf $`𝒪_Y(1)`$ on $`Y`$ with corresponding projective embedding $`Y^N`$. Assume $`f^{}𝒪_Y(1)=𝒪_X(m)`$ for some positive integer $`m`$, which implies that $`f`$ is finite and surjective. Assume also that $`f`$ is a separable morphism.

By Lemma 1.1, there is a rational map $`F:^n^N`$ defined on a Zariski open subset of $`^n`$ containing $`X`$ such that $`f=F|_X`$. This extended map $`F`$ induces a morphism $`f^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_^N^1|_Y)\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X`$, which gives the following commutative diagram of sheaves on $`X`$:

(1.1)
$$\begin{array}{ccccccccc}0& & f^{}(I_Y/I_Y^2(2))& & f^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_^N^1|_Y(2))& & f^{}(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(2))& & 0\\ & & & & & & & & \\ 0& & I_X/I_X^2(2m)& & \mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X(2m)& & \mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)& & 0\end{array}$$

where $`I_X𝒪_^n`$ and $`I_Y𝒪_^N`$ are the ideal sheaves of $`X`$ and $`Y`$. The bottom row is exact because $`I_X`$ is the ideal sheaf of a reduced complete intersection.

To apply our intersection-theoretic lemmas, we transform diagram (1.1) of sheaves on $`X`$ into a diagram of schemes over $`X`$ by applying the covariant functor

$`\mathrm{\Phi }:\{\text{coherent sheaves on}X\}`$ $`\{\text{schemes of finite type over}X\}`$
$``$ $`\mathrm{Spec}\left(\mathrm{Sym}_{𝒪_X}[\mathrm{Hom}_{𝒪_X}(,𝒪_X)]\right)`$
where $`\mathrm{Sym}_{𝒪_X}()`$ denotes the symmetric algebra of an $`𝒪_X`$-module. If $``$ is a locally free sheaf, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }()`$ is the vector bundle whose sheaf of sections is $``$. Apply $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to diagram (1.1), and denote the resulting diagram of $`X`$-schemes by

(1.2)
$$\begin{array}{ccccc}L_Y& \stackrel{i_Y}{}& E_Y& & F_Y\\ & & \psi & & \\ L_X& \stackrel{i_X}{}& E_X& & F_X\end{array}$$

Note that every scheme in (1.2) is a vector bundle on $`X`$, except for $`F_X`$ if $`X`$ is singular. Also note that $`i_Y`$ is a closed immersion because $`Y`$ is nonsingular, and that $`E_X`$, $`E_Y`$ are generated by global sections because $`\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1(a)`$ is globally generated for $`a2`$.

Let $`\sigma `$ be the zero section of $`E_Y`$ so that $`\psi \sigma `$ is the zero section of $`E_X`$. By Lemma 1.4,

(1.3)
$$f^{}c_{top}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(2)\right)=\sigma ^{}[i_Y(L_Y)].$$

Let $`i_X(L_X)`$ be the scheme-theoretic image of $`i_X:L_XE_X`$. By equation (1.3), it suffices to show

(1.4) $`\sigma ^{}[i_Y(L_Y)]`$ $`(\psi \sigma )^{}[i_X(L_X)]`$
(1.5) $`c_{top}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)\right).`$
To prove (1.4) it is enough to show $`\psi ^{}[i_X(L_X)]=[i_Y(L_Y)]+P_Y`$ for some effective cycle $`P_Y`$ on $`E_Y`$. Indeed, $`\sigma ^{}P_Y`$ is effective because $`E_Y`$ is globally generated, whence

$`\sigma ^{}[i_Y(L_Y)]`$ $`\sigma ^{}[i_Y(L_Y)]+\sigma ^{}P_Y`$
$`=\sigma ^{}\psi ^{}[i_X(L_X)]`$
$`=(\psi \sigma )^{}[i_X(L_X)].`$
Consider the fiber diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccccc}\psi ^1(i_X(L_X))& & E_Y\times _Xi_X(L_X)& & i_X(L_X)\\ & & & & \\ E_Y& \stackrel{\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi }{}& E_Y\times _XE_X& \stackrel{\pi _2}{}& E_X\end{array}$$

where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi `$ is the graph of $`\psi `$. Then $`\psi =\pi _2\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi `$, whence

$`\psi ^{}[i_X(L_X)]`$ $`=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi ^{}\pi _2^{}[i_X(L_X)]`$
$`=\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi ^{}[E_Y\times _Xi_X(L_X)].`$
Since $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi `$ is a section of the vector bundle $`E_Y\times _XE_X`$ over $`E_Y`$

$$\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi ^{}(N)E_Y\times _XE_X$$

where $`N`$ is the normal bundle of $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_\psi (E_Y)`$ in $`E_Y\times _XE_X`$. Therefore, $`N`$ is globally generated because $`E_X`$ is globally generated over $`X`$. So it suffices by Lemma 1.2 to show that $`i_Y(L_Y)`$ is an irreducible component of $`\psi ^1(i_X(L_X))`$.

By the assumption that $`k(Y)k(X)`$ is a separable field extension, the stalk of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{X/Y}^1`$ at the generic point of $`X`$ is $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{k(X)/k(Y)}^1=0`$. Hence there is some nonempty open $`U`$ in $`X`$ such that the restriction of $`f^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1`$ to $`U`$ is an isomorphism of locally free sheaves. So when diagram (1.1) is restricted to $`U`$, the morphism $`f^{}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(2)\right)\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)`$ becomes an isomorphism. Hence $`F_YF_X`$ is an isomorphism when restricted to $`U`$. It follows that $`\psi ^1(i_X(L_X))`$ and $`i_Y(L_Y)`$ coincide over $`U`$. Therefore, $`i_Y(L_Y)`$ is an irreducible component of $`\psi ^1(i_X(L_X))`$. This establishes equation (1.4).

To prove equation (1.5), it suffices by Lemma 1.4 to show that there is a closed immersion $`L_XE_X`$ of vector bundles, i.e. that there is a morphism of locally free sheaves $`I_X/I_X^2\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X`$ with empty degeneracy locus.

Let $`X`$ be cut out by homogeneous polynomials $`\xi _1,\mathrm{},\xi _c`$ where $`c`$ is the codimension of $`X`$ in $`^n`$. Let $`a_i=\mathrm{deg}\xi _i`$ so that

$$I_X/I_X^2\underset{i=1}{\overset{c}{}}𝒪_X(a_i).$$

By decreasing $`n`$ if necessary, we assume $`a_i2`$ for each $`a_i`$. If $`c=0`$, then there is nothing to prove, so assume $`c>0`$. We will construct a morphism $`𝒪_X(a_i)\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X`$ with empty degeneracy locus one summand at a time.

Since $`a_12`$, the locally free sheaf $`\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X(a_1)`$ is globally generated. By Lemma 1.3, the rank $`n`$ vector bundle $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X(a_1)\right)`$ has a section that avoids the zero section. Hence there is a morphism $`\sigma _1:𝒪_X\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X(a_1)`$ with empty degeneracy locus. Tensoring $`\sigma _1`$ with $`𝒪_X(a_1)`$ gives a morphism $`\varphi _1:𝒪_X(a_1)\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X`$ with empty degeneracy locus. If $`c=1`$, we are done.

If $`c2`$, then let $`\varphi _1^{}:𝒪_X(a_2a_1)\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X(a_2)`$ denote the morphism obtained from $`\varphi _1`$ by tensoring with $`𝒪_X(a_2)`$. Since $`n>nc+1`$ and the image of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\varphi _1^{})`$ has dimension $`nc+1`$, Lemma 1.3 implies that there is a section of $`\mathrm{\Phi }\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X(a_2)\right)`$ that avoids the image of $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\varphi _1^{})`$. In other words, there is a morphism $`\sigma _2:𝒪_X\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X(a_2)`$ such that

$$\varphi _1^{}\sigma _2:𝒪_X(a_2a_1)𝒪_X\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X(a_2)$$

has empty degeneracy locus. If $`\varphi _2:𝒪_X(a_2)\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X`$ is obtained from $`\sigma _2`$ by tensoring with $`𝒪_X(a_2)`$, then tensoring the above morphism with $`𝒪_X(a_2)`$ yields a morphism

$$\varphi _1\varphi _2:𝒪_X(a_1)𝒪_X(a_2)\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X$$

with empty degeneracy locus.

Continuing like this, we obtain a morphism $`\varphi _i:𝒪_X(a_i)\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_X`$ with empty degeneracy locus. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.

## 2. Morphisms Between Hypersurfaces

We will apply Theorem 1 to the case of hypersurfaces in $`^n`$. We fix the notation and assumptions of the following discussion for the rest of the paper.

Let $`f:X_dY_e`$ be a nonconstant morphism of hypersurfaces of the indicated degrees in $`^n`$, $`n4`$. Assume $`X`$ is integral and $`Y`$ is nonsingular. We also assume $`e3`$ because the inequality of Chern classes in Theorem 1 only gives good information in this range.

The Grothendieck-Lefschetz Theorem, \[9, Theorem 4.3.2\], states that $`\mathrm{Pic}X`$ is generated by $`𝒪_X(1)`$. Therefore, $`f^{}𝒪_Y(1)=𝒪_X(m)`$ for some nonnegative integer $`m`$. Since $`f`$ is not constant, the polynomial degree $`m`$ of $`f`$ is positive.

As $`f^{}𝒪(1)`$ is ample, $`f`$ is finite. Therefore, $`f`$ induces a finite extension of function fields. We assume that the extension $`k(Y)k(X)`$ is separable.

Now we introduce a hypersurface $`H`$ that will be central to our study of $`f:XY`$. By Lemma 1.1, the morphism $`f:XY`$ of Theorem 2 extends to a rational map $`F:^n^n`$ defined at all but finitely many points away from $`X`$. Since $`e3`$, $`Y`$ is not the image of a hyperplane in $`^n`$, because the only smooth variety that is the image of a morphism from a projective space is projective space itself, cf. . Therefore, $`Y`$ is not the image of $`F:^n^n`$. Hence, $`F`$ is dominant because its image is irreducible and contains $`Y`$. It follows that $`F^1(Y)`$ is a hypersurface in $`^n`$. Since $`XF^1(Y)`$, we may define the hypersurface $`H`$ in $`^n`$ as the difference of divisors

$$H:=F^1(Y)X.$$

We will study $`H`$ because $`F^1(Y)=X`$ if and only if $`H=0`$ as a divisor on $`^n`$, i.e. $`H`$ is empty.

### 2.1. First Calculations

The ground field will be algebraically closed of arbitrary characteristic in this subsection. We will derive closed formulas for $`c_{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)\right)`$ and $`f^{}c_{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(2)\right)`$. So consider the short exact sequences

$$0𝒪_X(d)\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1\mathrm{\Omega }_X^10$$

$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1𝒪_^n(1)^{n+1}𝒪_^n0$$

Let $`h:=c_1(𝒪_X(1))`$, and calculate the total Chern class of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1`$ to be

$`c\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(1h)^{n+1}}{1dh}}`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{i}}\right)(h)^i\right)\left({\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}(dh)^j\right)`$
The $`i^{\text{th}}`$ Chern class of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1`$ is therefore given by

$$c_i\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1\right)=h^i\underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}(1)^j\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{j}\right)d^{ij}$$

The usual calculation with Chern roots shows

(2.1) $`c_{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}c_i(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1)(2mh)^{n1i}`$
(2.2) $`=h^{n1}{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n1}{}}}{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{i}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{j}}\right)d^{ij}(2m)^{n1i}`$
Notice that for each pair of integers $`a,b`$ such that $`a0`$, $`b0`$, and $`a+bn1`$, the monomial $`d^{a+1}(2m)^b`$ has coefficient $`(1)^N\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{N}\right)`$ in (2.2), where $`N=n1ab`$. Therefore, we introduce the notation

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_N(x,y):=x^N+x^{N1}y+\mathrm{}+xy^{N1}+y^N$$

and use the observation $`h^{n1}=d`$ to obtain

$$c_{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)\right)=d\underset{k=0}{\overset{n1}{}}(1)^k\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{k}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1k}(d,2m).$$

We continue the calculation of $`c_{n1}(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m))`$ as follows.

$`c_{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^k\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{k}}\right)d\left({\displaystyle \frac{d^{nk}(2m)^{nk}}{d2m}}\right)`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{d2m}}\{{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{i}}\right)d^{n+1i}`$
$`d{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{j}}\right)(2m)^{nj}\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2m)(d2m)}}\{2m{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{i}}\right)d^{n+1i}`$
$`d{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{j}}\right)(2m)^{n+1j}\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{(2m)(d2m)}}\{2m{\displaystyle \underset{i=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}}(1)^i\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{i}}\right)d^{n+1i}`$
$`d{\displaystyle \underset{j=0}{\overset{n+1}{}}}(1)^j\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{j}}\right)(2m)^{n+1j}`$
$`+(1)^{n+1}(d2m)\}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2m(d1)^{n+1}d(2m1)^{n+1}+(1)^{n+1}(d2m)}{2m(d2m)}}`$
Introducing $`x=2m1`$ and $`y=d1`$, we calculate $`c_{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)\right)`$ to be

$`c_{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)\right)`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{(x+1)y^{n+1}(y+1)x^{n+1}+(1)^{n+1}(yx)}{(x+1)(yx)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{xy(y^nx^n)+(y^{n+1}x^{n+1})+(1)^{n+1}(yx)}{(x+1)(yx)}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{xy\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(x,y)+\mathrm{\Phi }_n(x,y)+(1)^{n+1}}{x+1}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{xy\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(x,y)+x\left(\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(x,y)+\frac{y^n}{x}\right)+(1)^{n+1}}{x+1}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{x(y+1)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(x,y)+y^n+(1)^{n+1}}{x+1}}.`$
Therefore we obtain the formula

(2.3)
$$\overline{)c_{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)\right)=\frac{d(2m1)\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(2m1,d1)+(d1)^n+(1)^{n+1}}{2m}}$$

By taking $`m=1`$ and substituting $`e`$ for $`d`$ in formula (2.3), we have a formula for $`c_{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(2)\right)`$. Therefore, we can use the equations

$$f^{}c^{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(2)\right)=\mathrm{deg}fc^{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(2)\right)\text{and}\mathrm{deg}f=\frac{dm^{n1}}{e}$$

to derive the following formula for $`f^{}c_{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(2)\right)`$

(2.4)
$$\overline{)f^{}c_{n1}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(2)\right)=\frac{dm^{n1}}{e}\left(\frac{e\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(1,e1)+(e1)^n+(1)^{n+1}}{2}\right)}$$

We will need the following polynomial fact in the proof of Proposition 2.2.

###### Lemma 2.1.

If $`x`$, $`y`$ are positive real numbers with $`x3`$, $`N3`$ is an integer, and $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N(y,2)>(x+1)^N+1`$, then $`y>x`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N(y,2)`$ increases with respect to $`y`$ it suffices to show that if $`x3`$, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }_N(x,2)(x+1)^N+1`$. Notice that the coefficients of the polynomial $`P(x)=(x+1)^N+1\mathrm{\Phi }_N(x,2)`$ have only one sign change. So by Descarte’s rule of signs, $`P(x)`$ has only one positive real root. Therefore, since $`P(0)<0`$, it suffices to check that $`P(3)0`$. One easily checks this for $`N3`$. ∎

###### Proposition 2.2.

In the notation established at the beginning of this Section:
(1) For each triple $`(d,e,n)`$ there is an integer $`M=M(d,e,n)`$ such that $`mM`$.
(2) $`de`$.
(3) If $`d=e`$, then $`m=1`$.
(4) If $`e5`$, then $`d1>m(e2)`$.

### Remarks

If the base field is $``$ and $`X`$ is nonsingular, then (2) has the following proof, which is independent of Theorem 1. There is an injection of singular cohomology rings $`H^{}(Y,)H^{}(X,)`$. So in this case, (2) can be proved by computing the dimension of the middle cohomology groups of $`X`$ and $`Y`$.

Part (3) is a generalization of the result in  that in characteristic zero every endomorphism of a smooth hypersurface of degree at least 3 and dimension at least 2 is an automorphism. We only assume $`X`$ and $`Y`$ have the same degree, not that $`X=Y`$, and we do not assume characteristic zero, only that the morphism is separable. The case $`n=3`$ can be checked without much work using Theorem 1.

Part (4) will be needed for the proof of Theorem 2.

###### Proof.

Theorem 1 states (2.3) $``$ (2.4). Dividing both sides of this inequality by $`dm^{n1}`$ results in

$$\frac{2m1}{2m}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(\frac{d1}{m},\frac{2m1}{m})+\frac{d1}{d}\frac{1}{2m}\left(\frac{d1}{m}\right)^{n1}+\frac{(1)^{n+1}}{2m^nd}$$

$$\frac{1}{2}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(e1,1)+\frac{(e1)^n+(1)^{n+1}}{2e}$$

Using $`\frac{d1}{d}<1`$, combine the first two terms in the above inequality to see

$`\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}({\displaystyle \frac{d1}{m}},2)`$ $`>{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(e1,1)+{\displaystyle \frac{(e1)^n+(1)^{n+1}}{2e}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{(e1)^n1}{(e1)1}}\right)+{\displaystyle \frac{(e1)^n+(1)^{n+1}}{2e}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{2(e1)^{n+1}e+(1)^{n+1}(e2)}{2(e2)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{(e1)^{n+1}(e1)}{e(e2)}}.`$
Since we assume $`e3`$, this implies

(2.5)
$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{n1}(\frac{d1}{m},2)>(e1)^{n1}+1.$$

Suppose $`m`$ were not bounded from above. Taking the limit of (2.5) as $`m\mathrm{}`$ shows $`2^{n1}(e1)^{n1}+1`$. This contradiction proves (1).

To prove (4), notice that if $`e5`$, then Lemma 2.2 and inequality (2.5) imply that $`\frac{d1}{m}>e2`$.

If $`m=1`$, then $`d=e`$, as follows. Use Lemma 1.1 to extend $`f`$ to a rational map $`F:^n^n`$ with $`F^{}𝒪(1)=𝒪(1)`$. The image of $`F`$ is a linear subspace of $`^n`$ that contains $`Y`$, namely $`^n`$ itself. So $`F`$ is an automorphism of $`^n`$, and $`d=e`$.

To prove (2) and (3) we assume $`m2`$ and prove $`d>e`$. If $`e5`$, then $`d>e`$ by (4). The cases $`e=3`$ and $`e=4`$ can be checked by hand in case $`n=4`$, and it suffices to check (2) and (3) for the case $`n=4`$ because the upper bounds on $`m`$ given by the inequality of Theorem 1 improve as $`n`$ increases. ∎

###### Corollary 2.3.

Let $`f:XY`$ be a nonconstant separable morphism of hypersurfaces in $`^n`$, $`n4`$, such that $`Y`$ is nonsingular and $`\mathrm{deg}X=\mathrm{deg}Y3`$. There is an automorphism $`F:^n^n`$ such that $`f=F|_X`$.

###### Proof.

By Proposition 2.2(3), $`f^{}𝒪_Y(1)=𝒪_X(1)`$. By Lemma 1.1, there is a rational map $`F:^n^n`$ such that $`f=F|_X`$. Since $`F^{}𝒪(1)=𝒪(1)`$, the image of $`F`$ is a linear subspace of $`^n`$ containing $`Y`$. So $`F`$ is in fact an automorphism. ∎

### 2.2. Hypersurfaces of General Type

We now assume the ground field is algebraically closed of characteristic zero. The purpose of this subsection is to prove the following Theorem.

Theorem 2. *Assume the base field is algebraically closed of characteristic zero. Let $`f:XY`$ be a morphism of hypersurfaces in $`^n`$, $`n4`$. If $`Y`$ is nonsingular and of general type, then there is a morphism $`F:^n^n`$ such that $`f=F|_X`$ and $`F^1(Y)=X`$.*

The proof will rely on Proposition 2.4 below, which is an inequality that will bound the polynomial degree $`m`$ of $`f`$ from below.

To prove Theorem 2, we focus our attention on the hypersurface $`H:=F^1(Y)X`$ in $`^n`$ defined at the beginning of Section 2. In particular, we wish to show that $`H`$ is the $`0`$ divisor, i.e. that $`F^1(Y)=X`$.

Define $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ to be an irreducible component of a general hyperplane section of $`H`$, taken with its reduced structure. Then $`F`$ is defined at every point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ because $`F`$ is undefined at only finitely many points in $`^n`$. We will analyze the morphism $`F|_\mathrm{\Sigma }:\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$ using the following Proposition.

###### Proposition 2.4.

Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ be an integral hypersurface in $`^{n1}`$ and $`Y`$ be a smooth hypersurface in $`^n`$, $`n4`$. Let $`\delta =\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, and $`e=\mathrm{deg}Y`$. If $`g:\mathrm{\Sigma }Y`$ is a morphism with $`g^{}𝒪_Y(1)=𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(m)`$ for some positive integer $`m`$, then

$$n\delta +m(en)0.$$

###### Proof.

First we claim that there is a canonical morphism

(2.6) $`{\displaystyle \stackrel{n2}{}}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }^o`$
that is an isomorphism on the nonsingular locus of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$, where $`\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }^o`$ is the dualizing sheaf of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Let $`I`$ denote the ideal sheaf of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in $`^n`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a reduced local complete intersection in $`^n`$, there is a short exact sequence

(2.7)
$$0I/I^2\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^10.$$

Therefore the morphism

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:\left(\stackrel{2}{}I/I^2\right)\stackrel{n2}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\stackrel{n}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

$$\xi _1\xi _2d\overline{\varphi }_1\mathrm{}d\overline{\varphi }_{n2}d\xi _1d\xi _2d\varphi _1\mathrm{}d\varphi _{n2}$$

is well-defined. Using the formula

$$\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }^o\left(\stackrel{2}{}I/I^2\right)^1\stackrel{n}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_\mathrm{\Sigma }$$

tensor $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ with the dual of the invertible sheaf $`^2I/I^2`$ to obtain the morphism (2.6). This is an isomorphism when restricted to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{reg}`$, because all the sheaves in (2.7) are locally free on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_{reg}`$.

Since $`g^{}𝒪_Y(1)=𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(m)`$ is ample, $`g`$ has finite fibers. So the canonical morphism $`g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^1`$ is a surjection at the generic point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ by the characteristic zero assumption of this subsection. By taking exterior powers and composing with (2.6), we obtain a composite morphism

$$\stackrel{n2}{}g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1\stackrel{n2}{}\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Sigma }^1\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }^o$$

that is a surjection at the generic point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is a hypersurface in $`^{n1}`$ of degree $`\delta `$, $`\omega _\mathrm{\Sigma }^o=𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(\delta n)`$. So dualizing the above morphism gives the exact sequence

(2.8)
$$0𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(n\delta )\stackrel{n2}{}g^{}T_Y.$$

This is an injection because it is an injection at the generic point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(n\delta )`$ is torsion-free. Tensoring (2.8) with $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(m(en)1)`$ and applying the formula $`^{n2}T_Y=\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(K_Y)`$ yields the exact sequence

(2.9)
$$0𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(n\delta +m(en)1)\left(g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1\right)(m1).$$

Tensoring with $`𝒪_Y(K_Y)=𝒪_Y(n+1e)`$, the conormal sequence for $`Y`$ in $`^n`$ and the Euler sequence for $`^n`$ give the following short exact sequences, respectively:

(2.10)
$$0𝒪_Y(n+12e)\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1𝒪_Y(K_Y)\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(K_Y)0$$

(2.11)
$$0\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1𝒪_Y(K_Y)𝒪_Y(ne)^{n+1}𝒪_Y(n+1e)0$$

Tensor (2.10) and (2.11) with $`𝒪_Y(en)`$, apply $`g^{}`$, then tensor with $`𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(1)`$ to obtain the following short exact sequences:

(2.12)
$$0𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(m(1e)1)\left(g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1\right)(m1)\left(g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1\right)(m1)0$$

(2.13)
$$0\left(g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1\right)(m1)𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(1)^{n+1}𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(m1)0$$

Since $`H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(1))=0`$, (2.13) yields $`H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },\left(g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1\right)(m1))=0`$. Therefore (2.12) implies $`H^0(\mathrm{\Sigma },\left(g^{}\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1\right)(m1))=0`$ because $`H^1(\mathrm{\Sigma },𝒪_\mathrm{\Sigma }(m(1e)1))=0`$. Hence $`n\delta +m(en)1<0`$ by (2.9), as desired. ∎

### Proof of Theorem 2.

Suppose that $`F^1(Y)X`$. Then $`H`$ is not empty, and Proposition 2.4 implies

$$n+m(en)\mathrm{deg}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mathrm{deg}H=emd.$$

Therefore $`dn(m1)`$. If $`Y`$ is of general type, i.e. $`en+2`$, then Proposition 2.2(4) implies $`d>mn`$. This contradiction finishes the proof.

### Remark

Suppose the ground field $`k`$ has positive characteristic. If the characteristic is large, say $`\text{char}k>\alpha `$, where $`\alpha :=\frac{emd}{e}m^{n2}`$, then the morphism $`F|_\mathrm{\Sigma }:\mathrm{\Sigma }F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$ is separable. Indeed, the Grothendieck-Lefschetz Theorem, \[9, Theorem 4.3.2\], implies that the divisor $`F(\mathrm{\Sigma })Y`$ is the intersection of $`Y`$ with another hypersurface. So one can check that $`\mathrm{deg}F|_\mathrm{\Sigma }\alpha `$ by applying the projection formula to $`F|_\mathrm{\Sigma }F(\mathrm{\Sigma })`$.

It follows that if $`\text{char}k>\alpha `$, then the proof of Proposition 2.4 is still valid. Hence, Theorem 2 will also hold in positive characteristic if char $`k>\alpha `$.

###### Corollary 2.5.

If $`f:XY`$ is a nonconstant morphism between hypersurfaces in $`^n`$, $`n4`$, such that $`Y`$ is nonsingular and of general type, then $`\mathrm{deg}Y`$ divides $`\mathrm{deg}X`$ with quotient $`m`$ such that $`f^{}𝒪_Y(1)=𝒪_X(m)`$.

###### Proof.

By Theorem 2, there is a morphism $`F:^n^n`$ such that $`X=F^1(Y)`$ and $`F^{}𝒪(1)=𝒪(m)`$. It follows that $`X`$ is a hypersurface of degree $`m\mathrm{deg}Y`$. ∎

### 2.3. Hypersurfaces Not of General Type

The ground field will have characteristic zero unless indicated otherwise. We will show that if $`3en+1`$ and $`d`$ is not too much larger than $`e`$, then the conclusion of Theorem 2 still holds. The following definition will be central to our point of view.

### Definition

If $`Z`$ is any scheme and $`F:Z^n`$ is a rational map given by sections $`F_0,\mathrm{},F_n`$ of some line bundle on $`Z`$, then let *indet$`(F)`$* denote the scheme of common vanishing of the $`F_i`$ in $`Z`$:

$$indet(F):=V(F_0,\mathrm{},F_n)Z.$$

###### Lemma 2.6.

Using the notation at the beginning of Section 2:
(1) If $`H0`$, then $`\mathrm{deg}H=emde`$. This holds for $`e2`$.
(2) If $`p\mathrm{indet}(F)`$, then $`H`$ has order at least $`e`$ at $`p`$, regardless of the characteristic of the ground field.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`p\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is a reduced closed point. If $`Y=V(G)`$ for a homogeneous polynomial $`G=G(y_0,\mathrm{},y_n)`$ of degree $`e`$, then $`F^1(Y):=V(G(F_0,\mathrm{},F_n))`$ has order at least $`e`$ at $`p`$ because the $`F_i`$ are all zero at $`p`$. But $`F^1(Y)=X+H`$, and $`p`$ is not contained in $`X`$. So $`H`$ has order at least $`e`$ at $`p`$. This proves (2), and it proves (1) in case $`F`$ is not defined at some point of $`H`$.

If $`F|_H`$ is a morphism, then (1) follows from Proposition 2.2(2) in case $`e3`$. And in the case $`e=2`$, we need only see that $`d1`$. However, Lazarsfeld shows in  that if a smooth variety $`Y`$ is the image of a morphism from a projective space, then $`Y`$ is itself a projective space. ∎

###### Proposition 2.7.

If $`m=1,2`$, then the conclusion of Theorem 2 holds, i.e. there is a morphism $`F:^n^n`$ such that $`f=F|_X`$ and $`X=F^1(Y)`$.

###### Proof.

If $`m=1`$, then the image of $`F:^n^n`$ is a linear subspace that contains $`Y`$. So $`F`$ is an automorphism of $`^n`$, and $`d=e`$.

Suppose $`m=2`$ and $`d2e`$. Then $`X`$ and $`H`$ both have degree $`e`$ by Lemma 2.6 and Proposition 2.2(2). If $`e3`$, then $`m=1`$ by Proposition 2.2(3), which is a contradiction. If $`e=2`$, then $`m=1`$ because every nonconstant morphism of smooth quadrics in $`^n`$ is an isomorphism for $`n4`$, cf. . This contradiction shows $`d=2e`$ after all. ∎

###### Proposition 2.8.

Fix $`d`$, $`e`$, $`m`$ with $`e3`$, and assume one of the following three conditions holds:
(i) $`d<e^2`$
(ii) $`d>(m1)^2`$
(iii) $`me`$
Then the conclusion of Theorem 2 holds for $`n`$ sufficiently large.

###### Proof.

Using Theorem 1 and formulas (2.3) and (2.4), let $`n`$ tend to infinity and get $`d1m(e1)`$. If $`H0`$, then $`emde`$ by Lemma 2.6(1). Together, these two inequalities contradict each of the three conditions above. ∎

### Examples in Characteristic Zero.

Theorem 1 gives an upper bound on the polynomial degree $`m`$ of $`f`$ whenever $`e3`$. Using these explicit upper bounds, along with Proposition 2.4 and Lemma 2.6(1), one can check that the conclusion of Theorem 2 holds for the following cases in $`^4`$:

$`e=3`$ $`d4`$
$`e=4`$ $`d10`$
$`e=5`$ $`d=1,\mathrm{},23,25,26,29`$
### Examples in Positive Characteristic.

Theorem 1 and formulas (2.3), (2.4) hold in arbitrary characteristic. So we may compute upper bounds on the polynomial degree $`m`$ of $`f`$ in positive characteristic as well.

If $`emd`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}H=1`$, then $`F|_H`$ is a morphism by Lemma 2.6(2). This is impossible because $`Y`$ is not the image of a morphism from $`^{n1}`$, as shown in . So if $`H0`$, then $`\mathrm{deg}H>1`$.

Using the fact $`emd>1`$ and the explicit upper bounds on $`m`$ that we obtain from Theorem 1, we see that the conclusion of Theorem 2 holds for the following cases in $`^4`$:

$`e=3`$ $`d3`$
$`e=4`$ $`d8`$
$`e=5`$ $`d=1,\mathrm{},11,14`$
$`e=6`$ $`d=1,\mathrm{},14,17,18`$
$`e=7`$ $`d=1,\mathrm{},17,20,21,22,27`$
### Question

One can ask if the general type hypothesis of Theorem 2 is too strong. The results of Section 2.3 seem to indicate that this is indeed the case. To be precise, if $`f:XY`$ is a nonconstant separable morphism of hypersurfaces in $`^n`$, $`n4`$, such that $`Y`$ is nonsingular of degree at least 2, is it true that there is an endomorphism $`F:^n^n`$ such that $`f=F|_X`$ and $`X=F^1(Y)`$?


text:
# Extrinsic Radio Variability of JVAS/CLASS Gravitational Lenses

## 1 Introduction

Cosmological Cold–Dark–Matter (CDM) simulations predict the existence of condensed structures in the halos around massive galaxies (e.g. Klypin et al. 1999; Moore et al. 1999), if the initial power-spectrum does not cut off at small scales and dark matter is cold and not self-interacting. However, observationally, we see at most the high-mass tail of these structures in the form of dwarf galaxies. This raises the question of where most of their less massive ($`10^610^9`$ M) counterparts are located. Either (i) these CDM structures have not formed – in conflict with CDM predictions – or (ii) they consist predominantly of dark-matter and baryons have been blown out, preventing star formation altogether, or (iii) baryons are present but have not condensed inside their potential well to form visible stars. If either one of the latter two is the case, the only way to detected them is through their gravitational effect, in particular through dynamics and lensing.

The initial suggestion by Mao & Schneider (1998) that anomalous flux-ratios in the lens system B1422+231 can be caused by small-scale mass substructure in the lens galaxy, was recently extended to a larger – although still limited – sample of gravitational-lens systems with fold and cusp images (Metcalf & Madau 2001; Keeton 2001; Chiba 2002; Metcalf & Zhao 2002; Dalal & Kochanek 2002; Bradač et al. 2002; Keeton et al. 2002). In particular, analyses have focused on the so called normalized “cusp relation”, which says that $`R_{\mathrm{cusp}}\mathrm{\Sigma }\mu _i/\mathrm{\Sigma }|\mu _i|0`$, for the magnifications $`\mu _i`$ of the three merging images of a source well inside the cusp (Blandford 1990; Schneider & Weiss 1992). A similar relation holds for the two fold images. These relations are only two of many (in fact $`\mathrm{}`$) scaling laws (Blandford 1990). Because globular clusters and dwarf-galaxies are too few in number to explain the rate of anomalous flux-ratios and cusp relations, this could be used as an argument in favor of CDM substructure as the dominant cause of these apparent anomalies (e.g. Kochanek & Dalal 2003).

If the observed violations of the cusp relation (i.e. $`R_{\mathrm{cusp}}0`$), as discussed above, are due to substructure on mass scales of $`10^6`$ to $`10^9`$ M, the effect should be the same for radio and optical flux ratios (if the latter are available), and it should be constant in time. However, another possible explanation is microlensing of stellar mass objects in combination with a smoothly distributed (dark) matter component (Schechter & Wambsganss 2002). This one does not require the optical and radio flux ratios to behave in the same way, and in particular it predicts the optical flux ratios to change over time scales of years. Finally, there is also the possibility that the flux-density and surface brightness distribution of lensed radio images are affected by the ionized ISM in the lens galaxy and/or our Galaxy, also leading to changes in the apparent value of the cusp relation.

Hence, before one can confidently accept the detection CDM substructure, it requires rigorous testing to see whether observed flux ratios correspond to magnification ratios or whether they can be affected by propagation effects (or microlensing). Here, we make the first coordinated attempt to test the effects of propagation on the observed radio fluxes of lensed images.

In Sections 2 and 3 we present the first results of our MERLIN Key-Project (Biggs et al. 2003) to search for extrinsic variability between fold and cusp images (i.e. close multiple images), based on their flux-density curves. A discussion and conclusions are given in Sect.4.

## 2 MERLIN 5–GHz Data

MERLIN 5–GHz data were obtained between Feb 21 and Nov 7 2001. A total of 41 epochs of 24 hours each were obtained, on average once per week. Eight lens systems were observed (i.e. Table 1 plus B1608+656 and B1600+434) of which seven are four-image systems and one is a double. The data acquisition and reduction is described in Biggs et al. (2003), which also presents the flux-density curves of all the lensed images.

In this paper, we focus on the flux-ratio curves. This approach has several advantages when looking for extrinsic variability. The dominant errors on flux-density curves in the radio are those resulting from residual noise in the maps and from multiplicative errors as a result of erroneous flux calibration. Because multiplicative errors are equal for each of the lensed images, they disappear in the flux-ratio curves (not corrected for the time-delays) which should therefore be flat and dominated by noise in the absence of variability.

All presented lens systems also have small time-delays between cusp/fold images ($``$1 d) compared to the time between observations and the time-scale of intrinsic variability as seen in the flux-density curves (Biggs et al. 2003). Hence, intrinsic flux-density variations should effectively occur simultaneously in fold and cusp images and thus disappear in the flux-ratio curves. Throughout this paper we therefore assume that (i) due to the small time-delays between fold/cusp images, intrinsic variability does not affect the flux-ratio curves, (ii) systematic flux-density errors are multiplicative and also do not affect the flux-ratio curves, and (iii) extrinsic variability does not correlate between lensed images.

We exclude the double B1600+434 and the quad B1608+656 from our analysis, which both have non-negligible time-delays (i.e. several weeks to months; see Fassnacht et al. 1999a, 2002; Koopmans et al. 2000; Burud et al. 2000).

## 3 Results

### 3.1 Normalized Flux-ratio Curves

In Fig.1 the resulting flux-ratio curves of all images are shown with respect to image A which is often the brightest image. We follow the labeling of these images as published in the literature (e.g. Biggs et al. 2003). Each flux-ratio curve has been normalized to unity by dividing them through the average flux-ratio of all 41 epochs. The errors are the square root of the sum of the two fractional (noise) errors on the flux-densities squared. The flux-density errors are determined from the rms in the residual maps (i.e. the radio maps with the lensed images subtracted).

In Table 1, we list (i) the average flux-ratios and the rms scatter for each image pair, (ii) the reduced–$`\chi ^2`$ values, by assuming that each normalized flux-ratio should be unity in the case of no extrinsic variability and under the assumptions mentioned in Sect.2, and (iii) the values of $`R_{\mathrm{cusp}}`$ (see Mao & Schneider 1998; Keeton et al. 2002), which we discuss further in Sect.4.

### 3.2 Evidence for Extrinsic Variability

To test for extrinsic variability in the lensed images, on time-scales less than the monitoring period of 8.5 month, we introduce the following method:

Let us designate the normalized light curves of the individual cusp/fold images as $`a_nA/A`$, $`b_nB/B`$ and $`c_nC/C`$, where their average flux-densities over the 41 epochs are $`A`$, $`B`$ and $`C`$, respectively111We use the notation $`A`$, $`B`$, $`C`$ and $`a_n`$, $`b_n`$, $`c_n`$ to indicate both the light curves as a whole, as well as their individual flux-density values.

First, the points $`(a_n,b_n,c_n)`$ are plotted in a three-dimensional Cartesian space, such that multiplicative errors and intrinsic flux-density variations (the latter because of the negligible time-delays) move points parallel to the vector $`(1,1,1)`$.

Second, each point $`(a_n,b_n,c_n)`$ is projected on to a two-dimensional plane that is normal to the vector $`(1,1,1)`$. Hence, the projected points will not move on that plane, either because of intrinsic flux-density variations or multiplicative errors. Both of these are movements perpendicular to the plane and thus translate to the same projected point.

Third, if one defines the $`x`$–axis, $`\widehat{x}`$, of this two-dimensional plane to be the projected $`a`$–axis, $`\widehat{a}`$, of the three-dimensional space, and $`\widehat{y}`$ to be perpendicular to $`\widehat{x}`$ in the same normal plane, one finds the following simple mapping:

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`(2a_nb_nc_n)/\sqrt{6}`$
$`y`$ $`=`$ $`(b_nc_n)/\sqrt{2}`$ (1)
or in polar coordinates

$`r^2`$ $`=`$ $`x^2+y^2`$
$`\theta `$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{arctan}(x,y).`$ (2)
Because $`\widehat{a}`$ projects on to $`\widehat{x}`$, any uncorrelated extrinsic variations in image A will only result in a movement of a point along $`\widehat{a}`$ and thus only along the $`\widehat{x}`$ axis.

Because the 1–$`\sigma `$ errors on the normalized flux-densities $`a_n`$, $`b_n`$ and $`c_n`$ are known from the observations, one can calculate the corresponding expected 1–$`\sigma `$ errors on $`x`$ and $`y`$.

$`\sigma _x^2`$ $`=`$ $`2/3\sigma _a^2+1/6\sigma _b^2+1/6\sigma _c^2`$
$`\sigma _y^2`$ $`=`$ $`1/2\sigma _b^2+1/2\sigma _c^2`$ (3)
and similarly

$`\sigma _r^2`$ $`=`$ $`((2a_nb_nc_n)^2\sigma _a^2+(2b_nc_na_n)^2\sigma _b^2+(2c_na_nb_n)^2\sigma _c^2)/(9r^2).`$ (4)
Notice that the scatter in $`x`$ will be a combination of the scatter in $`a_n`$, $`b_n`$ and $`c_n`$, if each image behaves independently.

On the other hand,

$$\chi _r^2=\frac{1}{\mathrm{DOF}}\underset{i}{}(r_i/\sigma _{r,i})^2$$
(5)
is a direct estimator of the significance of the presence of extrinsic variability on time-scales of $`<`$8.5 month, irrespective of the image(s) it occurs in. In other words, it does not tell us which image or images exhibit extrinsic variability, only that extrinsic variability is present if $`\chi _r^2`$ is significantly larger than unity.

The significance of extrinsic variability in individual image is far more difficult to assess. However, we can estimate the level of extrinsic variability in image A, for example, by knowing that the expected variance in that image, due to noise and in the absence of extrinsic variability, should be

$$\mathrm{E}\{\sigma _a^2\}3/2\mathrm{var}(x)1/2\mathrm{var}(y).$$
(6)
If the observed value of $`\sigma _a^2=(_i^N\sigma _{a,i}^2)/N`$ is smaller than $`\mathrm{E}\{\sigma _a^2\}`$, the difference is due to extrinsic variability with an estimated variance of

$$\mathrm{var}(a_{\mathrm{ext}})\mathrm{E}\{\sigma _a^2\}\sigma _a^2.$$
(7)
The same procedure can be repeated for each of the other images. In Table 2, we have listed the values of $`\chi _r^2`$ and the values of $`\mathrm{var}(a_{\mathrm{ext}},b_{\mathrm{ext}},c_{\mathrm{ext}})`$, if larger than zero (note that $`\mathrm{E}\{\sigma _a^2\}`$ is an estimate and could therefore be smaller than $`\sigma _a^2`$ when measured from a finite set of observations).

Finally, we further discuss whether correlations between the flux measurements of the merging images could potentially occur. We note, however, that $`\sigma _{a/b/c}`$ are noise errors as determined from residual maps, i.e. the original maps after we subtract of the best-fit model of the lensed images. The residual radio maps are consistent with noise maps. Since the images are separated by many beam sizes (i.e. resolution elements), the flux measurements of images A, B and C – even though measured from the same map – are independent, except for the multiplicative errors as explained previously. Hence there should be no effect of measurement correlations in Eq.(3) or (4), which could skew our results.

Hence, the technique discussed above is explicitly designed to separate the effects of multiplicative errors, extrinsic variability and noise, and should also be free of measurement correlations. For example, if one were to cross correlate (e.g. using the Spearmann rank correlation) the flux-ratio curves (Fig.1) of a single lens system with each other, one would find that they correlate strongly, even in the absence of extrinsic variability. The reason being that the same noise variations in image A would be introduced in both $`(B/A)_\mathrm{n}`$ and $`(C/A)_\mathrm{n}`$. A Spearman rank correlation on flux-ratio curves without extrinsic variability but with similar noise properties and number of epochs confirms this. However, one notices from equations 3 and 4 that any multiplicative error does not affect $`\sigma _{x/y}^2`$ or $`\sigma _r^2`$ (where it cancels out) or the projection on the plane that we defined in equations 1 and 2, as previously discussed. In addition, one finds from equations 1, 2 and 4 that if there is no extrinsic variability, $`\chi _r^21`$, whereas the presence of extrinsic variability implies $`\chi _r^2>1`$. Hence, $`\chi _r^2`$ is indeed independent from multiplicative errors and therefore the correct estimator of the significance of the presence of extrinsic variability, in the (shown) absence of measurement correlations.

### 3.3 Individual Lens Systems

Here, we discuss each case, based on their reduced $`\chi ^2`$ values. Image D is not considered because of its faintness and larger inferred time-delay compared with the other images.

#### 3.3.1 All systems, except B2045+265

Based on the relatively low values of $`\chi _r^2`$ and the estimated levels of extrinsic variability (Table 2) for the images of B0128+437, B1359+154 and B1422+231 and B1555+375, and the remaining possibility that some minor undetected additive errors could be present, the evidence for extrinsic variability in these four systems is not totally convincing. We exclude these from further discussion.

In the case of B0712+472, the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ values of the $`(B/A)_\mathrm{n}`$ flux-ratio curves and also $`\chi _r^2`$ seem more significant. In Fig.1 we see that a large number of epochs are deviant over the entire observing season. Deviations of the $`(C/A)_\mathrm{n}`$ flux-ratio curve from unity are less significant, probably because image C has a larger fractional error than images A and B. Even though there is some evidence in this system for extrinsic variability between the two fold images, we conservatively regard it also as weak and we will concentrate our discussion on B2045+265. In Sect.4, however, we further discuss what a possible reason for some of the higher values of $`\chi _r^2`$ and extrinsic variability can be.

#### 3.3.2 B2045+265

In Tables 1 and 2, we see that (i) both the $`(B/A)_\mathrm{n}`$ and $`(C/A)_\mathrm{n}`$ flux-ratio curves have very high values of the reduced $`\chi ^2`$, reflected also in large rms values, (ii) the estimated rms values of extrinsic variability and the value of $`\chi _r^2`$ are very large, and (iii) a visual inspection of the $`(B/A)_\mathrm{n}`$ and $`(C/A)_\mathrm{n}`$ flux-ratio curves shows changes of up to $``$40% on time scales of several months. Because the time delays between the cusp images are only a fraction of a day (Fassnacht et al. 1999b), residual intrinsic source variability can not cause these variations.

A more quantitative analysis based on the structure function (e.g. Simonetti et al. 1985) of the flux-ratio curves (indicated by $`R(t)`$) is shown in Fig.2. The structure function $`<D^{(1)}(\tau )>=<[R(t+\tau )R(t)]^2>`$ quantifies the average rms fluctuations (squared) between two points on the same flux-ratio curve, separated by a time lag $`\tau `$. A lower value of $`<D^{(1)}(\tau )>`$ means a stronger correlation (assuming no errors). Fig.2 shows that, even though $`<D^{(1)}(\tau )>`$ fluctuates considerably, it continues to increase toward longer lags. Around $`\tau 150`$ d, the rms suddenly decreases considerably, suggesting possible long-term correlated variations in the flux-ratios on that time-scale. If $`<D^{(1)}(\tau )>`$ increases beyond $`\tau 200`$ days, flux-density variations of several tens of percent on a time-scale of $`1`$ yr could be present as well. However, we note that the overlap of the flux-ratio curves becomes smaller for longer lags and consequently the errors become larger. Longer observations are required to make stronger statements about the longer time lags. Even so, similar fluctuations of the structure function are seen in other scintillating sources (e.g. Dennett-Thorpe & de Bruyn 2003).

Several reliability checks of the extrinsic variations of the cusp images of B2045+265 are called for: First we note that the lensed images are of roughly equal brightness and – within a factor about two – as bright as the images in B0128+437, B1359+154, B0712+472 and B1555+375. Hence there is no indication that the observed flux-ratio variations are related to the faintness or brightness of the lensed images. Second, there are no problems with the closeness between the cusp images ($`0.3^{\prime \prime }`$) and the separation of their flux densities because of the high resolution of the MERLIN radio maps ($``$50 mas). Hence the fluxes of the three images are fully independent. Third, we have calculated the Spearman rank correlation coefficients ($`r_\mathrm{S}`$) between each of its images A, B and C and those of the other five lens systems. This leads to 45 independent values of $`r_\mathrm{S}`$ (i.e. noise does not introduce correlation in this case), which on average should tend to zero. We find $`<r_\mathrm{S}>`$=0.0024 and an rms of 0.153. The theoretical expectation value of the rms value is $`1/\sqrt{N1}`$=0.151, where $`N=45`$ in our case. Hence, we recover the expectation values of both the average and rms. This shows that any correlation between the images can not be the result of obvious systematic errors in the data-reduction process, in the creation of the flux-ratio curves, or in our analysis.

Hence, we confidently conclude that the cusp images of B2045+265 show strong evidence for the presence of extrinsic variability.

## 4 Discussion & Conclusions

We have presented the flux-ratio curves of six gravitational lens systems, each composed of 41 epochs taken over a period of 8.5 months in 2001 with MERLIN at 5 GHz, as part of a MERLIN Key-Project. The systems were chosen to have merging cusp or fold images, such that the time-delays between these images are negligible ($``$1 d) compared to the time-scale of intrinsic variability and the rate at which the light curves are sampled. The flux-ratio curves should therefore be void of intrinsic variability and multiplicative errors. The main goal of our program was to find additional cases of extrinsic variability other than radio-microlensing in B1600+434 (Koopmans & de Bruyn 2000, 2003).

We find some statistical evidence for extrinsic variability in all six lens systems, based on reduced $`\chi _r^2`$ values larger than unity (Sect.3.2; Tables 1 & 2). Residual intrinsic variations – due to the finite time delays – or small additive error are unlikely to be the cause of this, but can not fully be excluded yet. The high resolution of MERLIN also ensures negligible correlations between the fluxes of the merging images. The evidence for B0128+437, B1359+154, B1422+231 and B1555+375 is fairly marginal. The case for B0712 is stronger, however, and this object clearly deserves further study. The best case is B2045+265, which we discuss further below.

Even though radio-microlensing cannot be excluded, we think at this point that Galactic scintillation is the more likely cause of some of the higher values of $`\chi ^2`$ (Tables 1 & 2). Indeed, all compact extragalactic radio sources should show refractive scintillation at some level. At wavelengths of 5 GHz and for image sizes $``$1 mas, the expected rms fluctuations due to scintillation, in a typical line-of-sight out of the Galactic plane, are a few percent (e.g. Walker 1998, 2001), which are comparable to the observed flux-density errors.

One gravitational lens systems, B2045+265, shows unambiguous evidence for extrinsic variability, based on the reduced $`\chi ^2`$ values significantly larger than unity (Tables 1 & 2) and visually apparent long-term variations in its flux-ratio curves (Fig.1). One possible explanation for the variations is radio microlensing similar to B1600+434 (Koopmans & de Bruyn 2000, 2003). However, because B2045+265 has a Galactic latitude $`b10^{}`$ and is the lowest Galactic latitude system in our sample, Galactic refractive scintillation is the more likely explanation.

To examine this, first we naively use the revised electron-density model of our Galaxy by Cordes & Lazio (2003). This model gives a scattering measure of $`8\times 10^4`$ kpc m-20/3, an angular broadening at 5 GHz of 50 $`\mu `$as and a transition frequency of 22 GHz between the weak and strong scattering regimes. If we choose the source size to be 250 $`\mu `$as, we find a modulation index of 7% (from Walker 1998, 2001) or an rms scatter of $``$10% in the flux-ratio curves (as observed; Table 1), and a typical variability time-scale of $``$1 week for an effective transverse velocity (i.e. the velocity of the ISM, earth, local and solar peculiar motions combined) of the medium of 50 km s-1. Note however that the time-scale of variability might vary with time of the year due to the earth’s motion (e.g. Dennett-Thorpe & de Bruyn 2000, 2002).

Refractive scintillation could therefore explain the observed extrinsic variations up to a time-scale of possibly several weeks in B2045+265 for reasonable lensed-images sizes. However, the structure function shows correlated variations on time-scales that are much longer. These could either indicate modification(s) of the Kolmogorov spectrum of density fluctuations that was assumed in the above calculation or a very low transverse velocity of the medium, i.e. 10 km s-1. If there is more power in the spectrum on larger scales, or a cutoff on smaller scales, fluctuations will become stronger on longer time scales (e.g. Blandford et al. 1986; Romani, Narayan & Blandford 1986; Goodman et al. 1987). Such large-scale electron density waves might also explain the apparent fluctuations in the observed structure function (Fig.2).

On further examination, however, we find that B2045+265 is very close, if not seen through, the Cygnus “superbubble” region (see Fig.6 in Fey, Spangler & Mutel 1989), making our analysis based on the model in Cordes & Lazio (2003) rather uncertain. This region has considerably enhanced scattering measures and if this is the case for B2045+265 as well, it would strongly support Galactic scintillation as the cause of the observed flux-density variations. The complexity of such regions, where turbulence in the ionized ISM presumably originates, could be the reason why we see large-amplitude fluctuations in the flux ratios with time scales that are not expected from simple Kolmogorov turbulence models (see also e.g. J1819+3845; Dennett-Thorpe & de Bruyn 2000, 2002).

Finally, it is interesting to note that B2045+265 has the strongest and most significant violation of the cusp relation of all known lens systems (Keeton et al. 2003). Even so, the values of $`R_{\mathrm{cusp}}`$ of the systems discussed in this paper (see Table 1) agree with those in Keeton et al. (2003). However, the strong observed variations in the flux-ratio curves should caution against the use of both flux-ratios and values of $`R_{\mathrm{cusp}}`$ (Sect.1) – derived from single-epoch observations – even if the inferred time-delays are only a few hours!

Whether the violation of the cusp relation in B2045+265, averaged over 8.5 months (Table 1), and Galactic refractive scintillation and/or scattering is completely coincidental, is not clear at this point. At any instant in time, however, large scale electron-density fluctuations in the Galactic ISM can focus or defocus the images with long time scales of variability – as is apparent from our observations – probably even more so toward regions of enhanced turbulence (i.e. the Cygnus region). CDM substructure mostly focuses the images. It is interesting to note that B0712+472, probably the system with second-best evidence for extrinsic variability in our sample, also has a low Galactic latitude $`b=+23^{}`$.

While the observations reported in this paper do not contradict the exciting conclusion that CDM substructure might have been detected within the central regions of lens galaxies, they do suggest that extrinsic, refractive effects are also of importance and that it is imperative to carry out further, multi-frequency monitoring to distinguish them from achromatic, gravitational effects.

LVEK acknowledges the support from an STScI Fellowship grant. RDB is supported by an NSF grant AST–0206286. MERLIN is a National Facility operated by the University of Manchester at Jodrell Bank Observatory on behalf of PPARC. LVEK thanks Chris Kochanek and Neal Dalal for suggestions that improved the presentation of this work. We thank the referee for helping to clarify the manuscript.

Fig. 1.— Continued

Fig. 1.— Continued