format: text

text:
# Morphisms from Quintic Threefolds to Cubic Threefolds are Constant

## Introduction

The author shows in  that if $`f:XY`$ is a morphism of hypersurfaces in $`^4`$ such that $`\mathrm{deg}Y=3`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}X4`$, then $`f`$ is either constant or $`\mathrm{deg}X=3`$ and $`f`$ is an isomorphism. The purpose of this paper is to extend this result by proving the following theorem.

### Theorem 1

*If $`f:XY`$ is a morphism of hypersurfaces in $`^4`$ over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero such that $`\mathrm{deg}X=5`$, $`\mathrm{deg}Y=3`$, and $`Y`$ is nonsingular, then $`f`$ is constant.*

The motivation for investigating such morphisms to cubic hypersurfaces is the expectation that if $`f:XY`$ is a morphism between hypersurfaces in $`^n`$, $`n4`$, such that $`Y`$ is nonsingular of degree at least 2, then $`\mathrm{deg}Y`$ divides $`\mathrm{deg}X`$ with quotient $`q`$, and $`f`$ is given by polynomials of degree $`q`$, i.e. $`f^{}𝒪_Y(1)=𝒪_X(q)`$. This result is proven in  when $`\mathrm{deg}Yn+2`$. It is also proven in some cases where $`3\mathrm{deg}Yn+1`$. The fact that morphisms from quintic threefolds to cubic threefolds are necessarily constant is the first nontrivial case of morphisms to cubics.

## 1. Outline of Proof

Throughout the paper, the base field will be algebraically closed of characteristic zero, and $`f:XY`$ will denote a nonconstant morphism of hypersurfaces in $`^4`$, such that $`\mathrm{deg}X=5`$, $`\mathrm{deg}Y=3`$, and $`Y`$ is nonsingular.

The Grothendieck-Lefschetz Theorem, \[9, Theorem 4.3.2\], states that $`\mathrm{Pic}X`$ is generated by $`𝒪_X(1)`$. So $`f^{}𝒪_Y(1)=𝒪_X(m)`$ for some positive integer $`m`$. In terms of $`m`$, \[15, Theorem 1\] states that $`\mathrm{deg}f^{}c_\text{3}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_Y^1(2)\right)\mathrm{deg}c_\text{3}\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_X^1(2m)\right)`$. By computing the Chern classes in this inequality, one checks that $`m3`$.

We claim there is a rational map $`F:^4^4`$ undefined at only finitely many points disjoint from $`X`$ such that $`f=F|_X`$. To see this, consider the short exact sequence

$$H^0(^4,𝒪_^4(m))H^0(X,𝒪_X(m))H^1(^4,𝒪_^4(m5))$$

Since $`H^1(^4,𝒪_^4(m5))=0`$, the sections of $`𝒪_X(m)`$ that define $`f:X^4`$ lift to $`^4`$ and define a rational map $`F:^4^4`$, as claimed.

We introduce a hypersurface $`H`$ in $`^4`$ that will play a key role. Lazarsfeld proves in  that $`^k`$ is the only smooth $`k`$-dimensional variety that is the image of a morphism from $`^k`$. In particular, $`Y`$ is not the image of a morphism from $`^3`$. It follows by considering a general hyperplane in $`^4`$ that the image of $`F:^4^4`$ is not $`Y`$. So $`F`$ is dominant because the image of $`F`$ is irreducible and contains $`Y`$. Hence $`F^1(Y)=X+H`$ for some hypersurface $`H`$ of degree $`3m5`$.

This shows $`m1`$. We see that $`m2`$ as follows. Suppose $`m=2`$. Then $`H`$ is a hyperplane in $`^4`$. Therefore $`F|_H:HY`$ is not a morphism. Let $`pH`$ be a point of indeterminacy of $`F`$. This means that $`F=(F_0,\mathrm{},F_4)`$ for homogeneous polynomials $`F_i`$ of degree 2 that all vanish at $`p`$. If $`Y`$ is defined by the homogeneous cubic polynomial $`G=G(y_0,\mathrm{},y_4)`$, then $`F^1(Y)=XH`$ is defined by the homogeneous sextic polynomial $`G(F_0,\mathrm{},F_4)`$. Since the $`F_i`$ all vanish at $`p`$ and $`G`$ is homogeneous of degree 3, $`G(F_0,\mathrm{},F_4)`$ vanishes to order at least 3 at $`p`$. In other words, $`p`$ is a triple point of $`F^1(Y)=XH`$. This is impossible because $`p`$ is contained in the hyperplane $`H`$ but not contained in $`X`$. Therefore, $`m2`$.

It is considerably more difficult to check that $`m=3`$ is also not possible. That task will occupy us for the remainder of the paper. We focus our attention on the degree 4 hypersurface $`H`$ and the rational map $`F|_H:HY`$.

We prove Theorem 1 by considering the various possibilities for $`H`$. If $`H`$ contains many copies of $`^2`$, then we will use the resulting maps $`^2Y`$, which would be given by degree 3 polynomials. So our first task is to classify such morphisms from $`^2`$. This is done in Section 2. Then we return to the map $`HY`$ in Section 3 and work through several cases using the geometry of rational maps from threefolds to three dimensional cubics.

## 2. Morphisms from $`^2`$ to Cubic Threefolds

Let $`g:^2Y`$ be a morphism given by degree 3 polynomials, i.e. $`g^{}𝒪_Y(1)=𝒪_^2(3)`$. The purpose of this section is to prove the following result about $`g`$.

### Theorem 2

*We can choose coordinates $`x_0,x_1,x_2`$ on $`^2`$ and coordinates on $`^4`$ such that*

$$g=(x_0^3,x_1^3,x_2^3,x_0x_1x_2,0):^2Y^4.$$

Let $`S`$ be the image of $`g`$. Since $`Y`$ is nonsingular, $`SY`$ is a Cartier divisor. So by the Grothendieck-Lefschetz Theorem, \[9, Theorem 4.3.2\], $`S`$ is the zero locus $`V(s)`$ of a section $`sH^0(Y,𝒪_Y(a))`$ for some $`a>0`$. To see that $`S`$ is the scheme-theoretic intersection of $`Y`$ with another hypersurface $`Y^{}`$ in $`^4`$, consider the following piece of a long exact sequence of cohomology groups.

$$H^0(^4,𝒪_^4(a))H^0(Y,𝒪_Y(a))H^1(^4,𝒪_^4(a3))$$

Since $`H^1(^4,𝒪_^4(a3))=0`$, $`s`$ is the image of some $`s^{}H^0(^4,𝒪_^4(a))`$. So $`S=V(s^{})Y`$. Take $`Y^{}:=V(s^{})`$.

Calculate $`g^{}c_1(𝒪_Y(1))^2`$ to be $`9=\mathrm{deg}g\mathrm{deg}S`$ to see that $`3=\mathrm{deg}g\mathrm{deg}Y^{}`$. Hence we will break the proof of Theorem 2 into two cases depending on whether $`\mathrm{deg}Y^{}=3`$ or $`\mathrm{deg}Y^{}=1`$. First, we recall the following result from , which we will use repeatedly.

###### Proposition 2.1.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ be the space of lines on the smooth cubic threefold $`Y`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a complete nonsingular surface that does not contain a rational curve.

### Case 1

Assume $`Y^{}`$ has degree 3. We will derive a contradiction.

By assumption, $`g:^2S`$ has degree 1, so it is a finite birational morphism. Our strategy is to analyze the double point class $`𝔻(g)`$ of $`g:^2Y`$. See \[7, Section 9.3\] for the construction and computation of $`𝔻(g)`$. The construction will be used implicitly in the proof of Proposition 2.6 and Corollary 2.7. Following , we calculate the double point class of $`g`$:

$`𝔻(g)`$ $`=g^{}g_{}[^2]c_1(g^{}T_Y)+c_1(T_^2)`$
$`=g^{}c_1(𝒪_Y(3))g^{}c_1(𝒪_Y(2))+c_1(𝒪_^2(3))`$
$`=c_1(𝒪_^2(6)).`$
An important fact for our purposes is that the construction of the cycle $`𝔻(g)`$ not only gives a 1-cycle modulo rational equivalence, it actually constructs a Weil divisor in $`^2`$. We will denote this Weil divisor by $`D(g)`$ and consider it as a closed subscheme of $`^2`$. This notation differs slightly from  in that we use $`D(g)`$ to denote a divisor, not just a set. Roughly speaking, $`D(g)`$ is the curve in $`^2`$ consisting of the closed points $`x`$ such that either $`g(x)=g(y)`$ for some $`yx`$ or such that $`T_x^2T_{g(x)}Y`$ is not injective. The scheme structure of $`D(g)`$ comes from the fact that an integral curve $`D`$ in $`D(g)`$ will appear with multiplicity if for a general point $`xD`$ there is more than one other point $`y^2`$ with $`g(x)=g(y)`$ or if $`g`$ ramifies to high order along $`D`$.

The following result tells us that the image of $`D(g)`$ under $`g`$ is equal to the singular locus of $`S`$ as a set.

###### Lemma 2.2.

Let $`g:VW`$ be a finite surjective birational morphism of varieties with $`V`$ regular. Then for $`wW`$ a closed point, $`w`$ is a nonsingular point of $`W`$ if and only if the scheme-theoretic preimage $`g^1(w)`$ is a single reduced point.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`g^1(w)`$ is a single reduced point $`v`$. Let $`DW`$ be a general curve in $`W`$ through $`w`$ such that $`D`$ is a local complete intersection in $`W`$ at $`w`$ and

$$dimT_wWdimT_wD=dimW1.$$

By assumption, the pullback of the maximal ideal of $`w`$ generates the maximal ideal of $`v`$. So the curve $`C:=g^1(D)`$ is nonsingular at $`v`$ because $`C`$ is cut out near $`v`$ by the $`dimV1`$ equations that define $`D`$ near $`w`$. The morphism $`g|_C`$ is an isomorphism in a neighborhood of $`v`$ because $`g^1(w)=v`$ and $`g|_C`$ is birational in a neighborhood of $`v`$. So $`D`$ is regular at $`w`$, whence $`W`$ is too by the above equation.

Conversely, suppose $`w`$ is a regular closed point of $`W`$. Let $`A`$ be the ring of regular functions on an open affine $`U`$ of $`W`$ containing $`w`$, and let $`B`$ be the ring of regular functions on the open affine $`g^1(U)`$. Let $`mA`$ be the maximal ideal corresponding to the point $`w`$, and let $`M`$ denote the multiplicative set $`Am`$. Then $`M^1B`$ is the integral closure of $`A_m=M^1A`$ in its field of fractions. But $`A_m`$ is integrally closed because it is regular. Therefore $`M^1B=A_m`$, whence $`M^1B`$ is a local ring whose maximal ideal is generated by $`m`$. In other words, $`g^1(w)`$ is a single reduced point. ∎

Now let $`CS`$ denote the image of $`D(g)`$ with its reduced structure:

$$C:=g(D(g))_{\text{red}}$$

By Lemma 2.2, $`C`$ is the maximal reduced curve contained in the singular locus of $`S`$. We will rule out the case $`\mathrm{deg}Y^{}=3`$ by comparing $`D(g)`$ to $`g^1(C)`$, where $`g^1(C)`$ denotes the scheme-theoretic preimage. So our strategy is to compare the multiplicity of integral curves in $`D(g)`$ and $`g^1(C)`$.

###### Lemma 2.3.

There is a cubic hypersurface $`Y^{\prime \prime }`$ in $`^4`$ such that $`S=YY^{\prime \prime }`$, and $`Y^{\prime \prime }`$ is singular along $`C`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\{Y_t\}`$ be the pencil of cubic hypersurfaces spanned by $`Y`$ and $`Y^{}`$. Since $`Y_tY=S`$ so long as $`Y_tY`$, it suffices to show that one of the $`Y_t`$ is singular along $`C`$.

Let $`C_0`$ be an irreducible component of $`C`$. For every point $`pC_0`$ we have $`T_pS=T_pY`$ because $`S`$ is singular at $`p`$. Therefore $`T_pS=T_pY_t`$ for $`t`$ general, and there is a unique $`t`$, say $`t_p`$, such that $`Y_{t_p}`$ is singular at $`p`$. Only finitely many of the $`Y_t`$ are singular, so one of the $`Y_t`$, say $`Y_{t_0}`$, is singular at infinitely many points of $`C_0`$. Hence $`Y_{t_0}`$ is singular along $`C_0`$.

If $`C_1`$ is another irreducible component of $`C`$, then $`C_0`$ and $`C_1`$ meet at some point $`p`$ because $`C_0`$ and $`C_1`$ are both images of curves in $`^2`$. If $`Y_{t_1}`$ is singular along $`C_1`$, then $`Y_{t_0}`$ and $`Y_{t_1}`$ are both singular at $`p`$, so $`Y_{t_0}=Y_{t_1}`$. The Lemma follows. ∎

We now assume $`Y^{}`$ to be singular along $`C`$.

###### Lemma 2.4.

The scheme-theoretic preimage $`g^1(C)`$ does not contain a curve of degree 6 or more.

###### Proof.

Let $`G^{}=G^{}(y_0,\mathrm{},y_4)`$ be the homogeneous equation for $`Y^{}`$ in $`^4`$. Set $`C_i:=SV(\frac{G^{}}{y_i})`$ and $`D_i:=g^1(C_i)`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},4`$. The $`D_i`$ are all degree 6 plane curves containing $`g^1(C)`$. So it suffices to show that the $`D_i`$ are not all equal.

Suppose they were. Then the equations for the $`D_i`$ in $`H^0(^2,𝒪_^2(6))`$ are all scalar multiples of each other. These equations are the images of the partials $`\frac{G^{}}{y_i}`$ under the composition

$$H^0(^4,𝒪_^4(2))\stackrel{\rho }{}H^0(S,𝒪_S(2))\stackrel{g^{}}{}H^0(^2,𝒪_^2(6))$$

where $`\rho `$ is restriction. This composition is an injection because $`S`$ is not contained in a quadric. So the $`\frac{G^{}}{y_i}`$ are also scalar multiples of each other, say $`\frac{G^{}}{y_i}=\alpha _i\frac{G^{}}{y_0}`$ for scalars $`\alpha _i`$. By Euler’s formula,

$$3G^{}=\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}y_i\frac{G^{}}{y_i}=\frac{G^{}}{y_0}\underset{i=0}{\overset{4}{}}\alpha _iy_i$$

which implies $`Y^{}`$ is not integral. So $`S=YY^{}`$ is not integral. This contradiction finishes the proof. ∎

Now we make several observations, which we list in the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 2.5.

(1) If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^4`$ is any 2-plane, then $`g^1(\mathrm{\Lambda }S)`$ does not contain a curve of degree 3 or more.
(2) For $`C^{}C`$ any curve, the secant variety of $`C^{}`$ is contained in $`Y^{}`$.
(3) Every curve in $`C`$ that lies in a hyperplane is a plane curve.
(4) $`C`$ does not contain a conic curve.
(5) For every $`x^2`$, $`g`$ induces a nonzero map $`T_x^2T_{g(x)}Y`$.

###### Proof.

(1) follows from the fact that the preimage of every hyperplane containing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a distinct degree 3 curve in $`^2`$. The preimages are distinct because $`S`$ is not contained in a hyperplane, which is our assumption for Case 1.
(2) holds because every line meeting $`Y^{}`$ at two singular points is contained in $`Y^{}`$, and $`Y^{}`$ is singular along $`C^{}`$.
(3) follows from (2) because $`Y^{}`$ does not contain a hyperplane. This is because $`\mathrm{deg}Y^{}=3`$ and $`YY^{}=S`$ is integral.
(4) Suppose $`C^{}C`$ is a conic curve. Then $`g^1(C^{})`$ contains a curve of degree at least 2 because lines in $`^2`$ map to either lines or cubics. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is the 2-plane containing $`C^{}`$, then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }Y^{}`$ by (2). So $`\mathrm{\Lambda }S=\mathrm{\Lambda }Y`$ is a degree 3 plane curve consisting of $`C^{}`$ and a line. This line is the image of a curve in $`^2`$. Therefore, $`g^1(\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ contains a curve of degree at least 3, contradicting (1).
(5) If $`T_x^2T_{g(x)}Y`$ is the zero map, then every line in $`^2`$ through $`x`$ maps to either a line or a cuspidal plane cubic with cusp at $`g(x)`$. In particular, the image of every line in $`^2`$ through $`x`$ is contained in $`T_{g(x)}Y`$, which is impossible by the assumption for this subsection that $`S`$ is not contained in a hyperplane. ∎

We will describe the integral curves $`D`$ that might occur in $`D(g)`$ in terms of their multiplicity in $`D(g)`$ and in the scheme-theoretic preimage $`g^1g(D)`$. For this purpose, we recall the following definition.

### Definition

If $`D`$ is an integral curve contained in a one dimensional scheme $`Z`$, then $`mult_DZ`$ will denote the length of the Artin ring obtained by localizing $`O_Z`$ at the generic point of $`D`$.

###### Proposition 2.6.

If $`DD(g)`$ is an integral curve with $`n:=\mathrm{deg}g|_D`$, then one of the following four cases holds:

* $`n=1`$$`\mathrm{mult}_Dg^1g(D)=2`$$`\mathrm{mult}_DD(g)=1`$, $`D`$ is a nonsingular conic, and $`D`$ is the only integral curve in $`g^1g(D)`$.
* $`n=1`$$`\mathrm{mult}_Dg^1g(D)=1`$$`\mathrm{mult}_DD(g)=1`$, and $`g^1g(D)`$ contains two distinct nonsingular conics $`D`$, $`D^{}`$.
* $`n=2`$$`\mathrm{mult}_Dg^1g(D)=1`$$`\mathrm{mult}_DD(g)=1`$, $`D`$ is a nonsingular conic, and $`g(D)`$ is a singular plane cubic.
* $`n=3`$$`\mathrm{mult}_Dg^1g(D)=1`$$`\mathrm{mult}_DD(g)=2`$, and $`D`$, $`g(D)`$ are both lines.

###### Proof.

We calculate $`\mathrm{mult}_DD(g)`$ as follows. First suppose that $`g`$ is unramified along every curve in $`g^1g(D)`$ in the sense that $`T_x^2T_{g(x)}Y`$ is injective for $`x`$ a general point on any irreducible curve in $`g^1g(D)`$. In this case, if $`D_1,\mathrm{},D_r`$ are the distinct integral curves contained in $`g^1g(D)`$, then

(2.1)
$$\mathrm{mult}_DD(g)=1+\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}\mathrm{deg}g|_{D_i}$$

because the number of preimage points of a general point in $`g(D)`$ is the sum of the $`\mathrm{deg}g|_{D_i}`$. On the other hand, if $`D`$ is the only integral curve contained in $`g^1g(D)`$ and $`g`$ is simply ramified along $`D`$ in the sense that $`2D`$ is contained in $`g^1g(D)`$ but $`3D`$ is not, then

(2.2)
$$\mathrm{mult}_DD(g)=1.$$

These are the only cases that will arise in our discussion here. See \[7, Section 9.3\] for the construction of the Weil divisor $`D(g)`$ representing $`𝔻(g)`$.

We claim that if $`DD(g)`$ is a line, then $`g(D)`$ is a line too. So suppose $`DD(g)`$ is a line. By Lemma 2.5(3), $`g(D)`$ is not a twisted cubic. So it suffices to show that $`g(D)`$ is not a plane cubic. If it were, then by Lemma 2.5(2), $`Y^{}`$ contains the 2-plane $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ spanned by $`g(D)`$. Choose any hyperplane $`\mathrm{\Gamma }`$ containing $`g(D)`$, and let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }:=\mathrm{\Gamma }Y^{}`$. If $`p\mathrm{\Gamma }Y^{}`$ is a singular point of $`Y^{}`$ away from $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$, then $`\mathrm{\Gamma }Y^{}`$ contains the cone $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ over $`g(D)`$ with vertex $`p`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{\Sigma }_p\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ both have degree 3, no such $`p`$ can exist. In particular, $`C\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. By Lemma 2.5(1), $`g^1(C)`$ is either $`D`$, $`D`$ with multiplicity 2, or $`D`$ and another line. So $`D(g)`$ will have respectively degree 0, 1, or 2, according to the formulas for $`\mathrm{mult}_DD(g)`$ above. However, $`\mathrm{deg}D(g)=6`$. So $`g(D)`$ is not a plane cubic. Therefore, if $`DD(g)`$ is a line, then $`g(D)`$ is too.

Now let $`DD(g)`$ be any integral curve. Using $`(n1)DD(g)`$ and taking degrees, we obtain the inequality $`(n1)\mathrm{deg}D6`$. The projection formula yields $`3\mathrm{deg}D=n\mathrm{deg}g(D)`$. Therefore, if $`n2`$, then

(2.3)
$$\frac{n}{3}\mathrm{deg}g(D)=\mathrm{deg}D\frac{6}{n1}.$$

This shows $`n3`$ because the left hand side is an integer. Now we analyze what happens for each value $`n=1,2,3`$.

Suppose $`n=3`$, so that $`\mathrm{deg}D=\mathrm{deg}g(D)3`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}D=3`$, then Lemma 2.5(1) and (3) imply that $`g(D)`$ is neither a plane cubic nor a twisted cubic. So $`\mathrm{deg}g(D)2`$. By Lemma 2.5(4), $`\mathrm{deg}D2`$. So $`D`$, $`g(D)`$ are lines, as claimed in Case (4).

To see $`\mathrm{mult}_Dg^1g(D)=1`$, suppose $`2Dg^1g(D)`$. By Lemma 2.5(5), for $`xD`$ a general point, the map $`T_x^2T_{g(x)}Y`$ has rank 1. Choose $`pg(D)`$ general so that $`(g|_D)^1(p)`$ consists of three distinct points $`x_1,x_2,x_3D`$. Through each $`x_i`$ there is a unique line $`l_i`$ in $`^2`$ such that $`T_{x_i}l_iT_pS`$ is the zero map. Each $`g(l_i)`$ is either a line through $`p`$ or a cuspidal plane cubic with cusp at $`p`$. In both cases, $`g(l_i)`$ is contained in $`T_pY`$. Now the degree 3 curve $`g^1(T_pY)`$ contains $`2D+l_1+l_2+l_3`$. This contradiction proves $`\mathrm{mult}_Dg^1g(D)=1`$.

To show $`\mathrm{mult}_DD(g)=2`$, it suffices by formula (2.1) to show there is no integral curve $`D^{}g^1g(D)`$ other than $`D`$. If $`D^{}`$ were such a curve, then $`\mathrm{deg}g|_D^{}=3\mathrm{deg}D^{}`$ because $`g(D)`$ is a line. So for $`pg(D)`$ a general point, $`g^1(p)`$ would contain 3 points on $`D`$ and $`3\mathrm{deg}D^{}`$ points on $`D^{}`$. There would be $`9\mathrm{deg}D^{}`$ lines joining one of the points on $`D`$ to one of the points on $`D^{}`$, and these lines would map to either lines through $`p`$ or nodal plane cubics with node at $`p`$. These image curves would be contained in $`T_pY`$, so we would have the impossible situation that these $`9\mathrm{deg}D^{}`$ lines would all be contained in the degree 3 plane curve $`g^1(T_pY)`$. So there is no $`D^{}`$, and $`\mathrm{mult}_DD(g)=2`$. This gives Case (4).

Suppose $`n=2`$. If $`2Dg^1g(D)`$, then $`2Dg^1C`$, which implies $`2\mathrm{deg}D<6`$ by Lemma 2.4. By formula (2.3), $`g(D)`$ can not be a line. So $`D`$ is not a line, from above. Hence $`\mathrm{deg}D=2`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}g(D)=3`$ by (2.3) and the fact $`\mathrm{deg}D<3`$. Since $`g(D)`$ has degree 3 and can not be a twisted cubic, $`g(D)`$ is a singular plane cubic. By Lemma 2.5(1), $`2D`$ can not be contained in $`g^1g(D)`$, so $`\mathrm{mult}_Dg^1g(D)=1`$. Likewise, $`D`$ is the only integral curve contained in $`g^1g(D)`$, so $`\mathrm{mult}_DD(g)=1`$ by formula (2.1). This gives Case (3).

Suppose $`n=1`$. By (2.3), $`\mathrm{deg}g(D)=3\mathrm{deg}D`$. Since $`g(D)`$ is not a line, $`D`$ is not a line. So $`\mathrm{deg}g(D)6`$. If $`D^{}`$ is another integral curve contained in $`g^1g(D)`$, then $`D^{}D(g)`$. By Cases (3) and (4), $`\mathrm{deg}g|_D^{}=1`$ because $`\mathrm{deg}g(D^{})6`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{deg}D^{}=3\mathrm{deg}g(D)=\mathrm{deg}D`$.

If $`D`$ is the only integral curve in $`g^1g(D)`$, then $`2Dg^1g(D)`$ because $`DD(g)`$ and $`n=1`$. By Lemma 2.4, $`g^1g(D)`$ does not contain a curve of degree 6. So the only possibility is $`\mathrm{mult}_Dg^1g(D)=2`$ and $`\mathrm{deg}D=2`$ because $`\mathrm{deg}D>1`$. Since $`D`$ is integral, $`D`$ is a nonsingular conic. This gives Case (1) by formula (2.2).

The same reasoning shows that if $`D^{}`$ is another integral curve in $`g^1g(D)`$, then the maximal curve contained in $`g^1g(D)`$ is $`D+D^{}`$, and $`D`$, $`D^{}`$ are both nonsingular conics. This gives Case (2) by formula (2.1). ∎

###### Corollary 2.7.

There are distinct lines $`l_1,l_2,l_3`$ in $`^2`$ such that

$$D(g)=2l_1+2l_2+2l_3$$

and the $`g(l_i)`$ are distinct lines in $`S`$.

###### Proof.

In cases (1), (2), (3) of Proposition 2.6, $`D`$ has multiplicity 1 in $`D(g)`$. So if $`D(g)`$ does not contain a line, then $`D(g)`$ is reduced and $`D(g)g^1(C)`$. This contradicts Lemma 2.4. So $`D`$ contains a line $`D`$. If $`L=g(D)`$ is the image line of $`D`$, then $`D`$ is the only curve contained in $`g^1L`$ by Case (4) of Proposition 2.6.

Now suppose $`D^{}D`$ is another integral curve in $`D(g)`$. We will show that $`D^{}`$ is also a line. So suppose $`\mathrm{deg}D^{}>1`$. Then $`g(D^{})`$ is not a line by Proposition 2.6. Since $`D`$ and $`D^{}`$ meet at a point, so do $`L=g(D)`$ and $`g(D^{})`$. If $`g(D^{})`$ is contained in a hyperplane, then by Lemma 2.5(3), $`g(D^{})`$ is contained in a 2-plane. So either $`L`$ and $`g(D^{})`$ are contained in the same 2-plane, which is impossible by Lemma 2.5(1), or the curve $`Lg(D^{})`$ spans a hyperplane, which is impossible by Lemma 2.5(3). So $`g(D^{})`$ is not contained in a hyperplane.

Let $`pg(D^{})`$ be a general point, and let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ be the 2-plane spanned by $`p`$ and $`L`$. Since the cubic $`Y^{}`$ is singular along $`L`$ and at $`p`$, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ is contained in $`Y^{}`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_pS=\mathrm{\Lambda }_pY`$ is equal to $`L+Q_p`$ for some conic curve $`Q_p`$ contained in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$.

If $`L`$ is contained in $`Q_p`$, then $`2L`$ is contained in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_pY`$. So for every point $`qL`$, $`T_q\mathrm{\Lambda }_p=T_q2LT_qY`$. Since $`g(D^{})`$ is not contained in any hyperplane, there is no hyperplane that contains $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ for every $`pg(D^{})`$. Therefore, $`dimT_qY=4`$ for every $`qL`$ because $`T_q\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ is contained in $`T_qY`$ for $`pg(D^{})`$ a general point. Since $`Y`$ is nonsingular, one concludes that $`L`$ is not contained in $`Q`$.

If $`Q_p`$ is not a double line, then $`g^1Q_p`$ contains a curve of degree at least 2. This is impossible by Lemma 2.5(1), because $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_p`$ contains $`L`$ and $`Q_p`$. So for every $`pg(D^{})`$, $`Q_p=2L_p`$ for some line $`L_pL`$.

Therefore, $`g(D^{})`$ parametrizes a one dimensional family of lines on $`Y`$. By Proposition 2.6, every curve in $`D(g)`$ is rational, so $`g(D^{})`$ is rational. However, the space of lines on $`Y`$ does not contain a rational curve by Proposition 2.1.

This proves that every integral curve in $`D(g)`$ is a line, and every line in $`D(g)`$ occurs with multiplicity 2 by Proposition 2.6. ∎

###### Proposition 2.8.

The case $`\mathrm{deg}Y^{}=3`$ does not occur.

###### Proof.

We will use the $`l_i`$ from Corollary 2.7 to give an explicit formula for $`g`$ and derive a contradiction using this formula.

Let $`L_i:=g(l_i)`$. Each of the $`L_i`$ intersect the other two, but they are not all contained in a plane by Lemma 2.5(1). So they all meet at some point $`p`$ in $`S`$, and $`T_pY`$ is the unique hyperplane containing all the $`L_i`$.

I claim the $`l_i`$ do not all meet at a point $`x`$. So suppose there were such a point $`x`$, and note $`g(x)=p`$. By Lemma 2.5(5), at most one of the $`g|_{l_i}`$, say $`g|_{l_1}`$, ramifies at $`x`$. Therefore there are points $`x_2l_2`$ and $`x_3l_3`$ different from $`x`$ such that $`g(x_2)=g(x_3)=p`$, and $`g`$ maps the line $`l_{23}`$ containing $`x_2`$ and $`x_3`$ to either a line or a nodal plane cubic with node at $`p`$. In particular, $`g(l_{23})`$ is contained in $`T_pY`$. Now the degree 3 curve $`g^1(T_pY)`$ contains $`l_1+l_2+l_3+l_{23}`$, which is impossible. So the $`l_i`$ do not all meet at $`x`$.

Let $`x_{ij}:=l_il_j`$, and note $`g(x_{ij})=p`$. If $`g|_{l_1}`$ is not ramified at either $`x_{12}`$ or $`x_{13}`$, then there is a point $`x^{}`$ on $`l_1`$ different from $`x_{12}`$, $`x_{13}`$ such that $`g(x^{})=p`$, and the line from $`x^{}`$ to $`x_{23}`$ gives a contradiction just as the line $`l_{23}`$ did above. Hence each $`g|_{l_i}`$ ramifies at exactly one of the $`x_{ij}`$. So the scheme-theoretic preimage $`g^1(p)`$ consists of three copies of $`\mathrm{Spec}k[ϵ]/(ϵ^2)`$, one supported at each of the $`x_{ij}`$. The scheme $`g^1(p)`$ is contained in the scheme $`l_1+l_2+l_3`$, but with no two copies of $`\mathrm{Spec}k[ϵ]/(ϵ^2)`$ contained in the same $`l_i`$ because $`(g|_{l_i})^1(p)`$ has length 3, as $`g|_{l_i}`$ is a morphism of degree 3 of nonsingular curves, and is therefore flat. Hence, we can choose homogeneous coordinates $`x_0,x_1,x_2`$ on $`^2`$ such that $`l_i=V(x_{i1})`$ and

$$g^1(p)=V(x_0^2x_1,x_1^2x_2,x_2^2x_0,x_0x_1x_2).$$

There is a 3 dimensional space of hyperplanes in $`^4`$ containing $`p`$, and these hyperplanes pull back to the linear system of cubics on $`^2`$ spanned by

$$x_0^2x_1,x_1^2x_2,x_2^2x_0,x_0x_1x_2.$$

Set $`p=(0,0,0,0,1)`$ so that for a suitable choice of coordinates $`y_0,\mathrm{},y_4`$ on $`^4`$ we have

(2.4)
$$g=(x_0^2x_1,x_1^2x_2,x_2^2x_0,x_0x_1x_2,g_4):^2^4$$

for some homogeneous polynomial $`g_4`$ of degree 3.

Since $`g^1V(y_3)=l_1+l_2+l_3`$, one sees that $`T_pY=V(y_3)`$. So if $`G`$ is the homogeneous equation for $`Y`$, then

(2.5)
$$G=y_4^2y_3+y_4G_2+G_3$$

where $`G_i=G_i(y_0,\mathrm{},y_3)`$ is homogeneous of degree $`i`$.

By equation (2.4), the fact that $`g`$ is defined at $`(1,0,0)^2`$ tells us that $`x_0^3`$ has nonzero coefficient in $`g_4`$. Considering equation (2.4), we see that $`x_0^7x_1x_2`$ has nonzero coefficient in $`g^{}(y_4^2y_3)`$. Since $`g(^2)Y`$, $`g^{}G`$ is the zero polynomial, so $`x_0^7x_1x_2`$ has nonzero coefficient in $`g^{}(y_4G_2+G_3)`$ by equation (2.5). The highest power of $`x_0`$ that can appear in $`g^{}G_3`$ is $`x_0^6`$ by (2.4). Therefore, $`x_0^7x_1x_2`$ has nonzero coefficient in $`g^{}(y_4G_2)`$.

The highest power of $`x_0`$ that can appear in a monomial of $`g^{}G_2`$ is $`x_0^4`$, and this necessarily occurs in the monomial $`g_0^2=x_0^4x_1^2`$. So if $`x_0^7`$ appears in a monomial of $`g^{}(y_4G_2)=g_4g^{}G_2`$, then that monomial is $`x_0^7x_1^2`$, not $`x_0^7x_1x_2`$. This contradiction shows that $`\mathrm{deg}Y^{}3`$. ∎

### Case 2

By Proposition 2.8, the image of $`g:^2Y`$ is the surface $`S:=YY^{}`$, where $`Y^{}`$ is a hyperplane in $`^4`$. We will derive a contradiction, thus proving Theorem 2.

The morphism $`\delta :YY^{}`$ sending a point $`p`$ to the hyperplane $`T_pY`$ is given by an ample invertible sheaf on $`Y`$, since $`𝒪_Y(1)`$ generates $`\mathrm{Pic}Y`$ by the Grothendieck-Lefschetz Theorem, \[9, Theorem 4.3.2\]. So $`\delta `$ is a finite morphism. In other words, no hyperplane in $`^4`$ can be tangent to $`Y`$ at infinitely many points. Therefore $`S`$ is a cubic surface with isolated singularities.

For $`sS`$ a general closed point, let $`\{E_t\}`$ be a general pencil of hyperplane sections of $`S`$ containing $`s`$, and let $`E_t^{}:=g^1(E_t)`$. Then $`E_t`$ and $`E_t^{}`$ are both smooth plane cubics for $`t^1`$ general.

Since $`g:^2S`$ has degree 3, we can set $`g^1(s)=\{a,b,c\}`$. Then $`(E_t^{},a)(E_t,s)`$ is an isogeny of elliptic curves of degree 3 for $`t`$ general. Note that $`b`$ is a 3-torsion point of $`E_t^{}`$.

Let $`E^{}^1\times ^2`$ and $`E^1\times S`$ be the total spaces of the families $`\{E_t^{}\}`$ and $`\{E_t\}`$ over the base $`^1`$, and consider the diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}E^{}& & ^2\\ g^{}& & g\\ E& & S\end{array}$$

where $`g^{}`$ is the restriction of $`\text{id}_^1\times g`$ to $`E^{}^1\times ^2`$.

Let $`\zeta `$ be the generic point of $`^1`$, and let $`E_\zeta ^{}`$, $`E_\zeta `$ be the fibers of $`E^{}`$, $`E`$ over $`\zeta ^1`$. Then $`A:=\zeta \times a`$ and $`B:=\zeta \times b`$ are $`\zeta `$-valued points of $`E_\zeta ^{}`$, and $`B`$ is a 3-torsion point of the elliptic curve $`(E_\zeta ^{},A)`$. Hence $`PP+B`$ gives an automorphism of $`E_\zeta ^{}`$ over $`E_\zeta `$ of order 3 that extends to some birational self-map $`\psi :E^{}E^{}`$ of $`E^{}`$ over $`E`$. In other words, $`g^{}=g^{}\psi `$ as rational maps. The horizontal arrows in the diagram above are birational morphisms. So $`\psi `$ induces an order 3 birational self-map $`\varphi :^2^2`$ of $`^2`$ such that $`g=g\varphi `$ as rational maps. Therefore $`\varphi `$ is an automorphism of $`^2`$ by the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.9.

If $`\varphi :^2^2`$ is a birational map and $`g:^2S`$ is a dominant morphism to a surface $`S`$ such that $`g\varphi =g`$ as rational maps, then $`\varphi `$ extends to an automorphism of $`^2`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`U^2`$ be the domain of definition of $`\varphi `$. Then $`U`$ is the compliment of finitely many points in $`^2`$, and $`\mathrm{Pic}U`$ is generated by $`𝒪_U(1)`$, the restriction of $`𝒪_^2(1)`$ to $`U`$. From $`g\varphi =g`$ it follows that $`\varphi ^{}g^{}𝒪_S(1)=g^{}𝒪_S(1)|_U`$. In other words, $`\varphi ^{}𝒪_^2(3)=𝒪_U(3)`$. Therefore $`\varphi ^{}𝒪_^2(1)=𝒪_U(1)`$.

Since $`\varphi `$ is dominant, $`\varphi :U^2`$ is given by three linearly independent sections $`\sigma _0,\sigma _1,\sigma _2`$ of $`𝒪_U(1)`$, and these sections are the restriction to $`U`$ of sections $`\tau _0,\tau _1\tau _2`$ of $`𝒪_^2(1)`$. The $`\tau _i`$ are linearly independent, and hence there is no point where they all vanish. So $`\varphi `$ extends to the automorphism $`(\tau _0,\tau _1,\tau _2)`$ of $`^2`$. ∎

Since $`\varphi `$ has order 3, its matrix is one of the following after being placed in Jordan form and scaling:

$$\varphi =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& & \\ & \rho & \\ & & \rho \end{array}\right]\text{or}\varphi =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& & \\ & \rho & \\ & & \rho ^2\end{array}\right]$$

where $`\rho ^3=1`$, $`\rho 1`$. Fix an identification of $`Y^{}`$ with $`^3`$ so that we can write $`g:^2SY^{}`$ as $`(g_0,\mathrm{},g_3)`$ for some degree 3 polynomials $`g_i`$. Then $`(g_0,\mathrm{},g_3)=(\varphi ^{}g_0,\mathrm{},\varphi ^{}g_3)`$. So each of the $`g_i`$ are eigenvectors of $`\varphi ^{}:H^0(^2,𝒪(3))H^0(^2,𝒪(3))`$ with the same eigenvalue.

Suppose

$$\varphi =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& & \\ & \rho & \\ & & \rho \end{array}\right]$$

Then the following are a basis for each of the eigenspaces of $`\varphi ^{}`$:

$`1:`$ $`x_0^3,x_1^3,x_2^3,x_1^2x_2,x_1x_2^2`$
$`\rho :`$ $`x_0^2x_1,x_0^2x_2`$
$`\rho ^2:`$ $`x_0x_1^2,x_0x_2^2,x_0x_1x_2`$
Since $`S`$ is not a 2-plane in $`^3`$, the eigenspace containing the $`g_i`$ has dimension at least 4. So the $`g_i`$ all have eigenvalue 1.

Now consider the morphism

$$h=(x_0^3,x_1^3,x_2^3,x_1^2x_2,x_1x_2^2):^2^4.$$

The image surface $`S^{}`$ of $`h`$ is a cone over a twisted cubic curve $`T^{}`$ with vertex $`(1,0,0,0,0)`$. The morphism $`g:^2Y^{}^3`$ is the morphism $`h`$ followed by projection $`\pi _p`$ from some point $`p`$. Projection maps lines to lines, so the image $`S`$ of $`g`$ is a cone over some cubic plane curve $`T`$. The curve $`T`$ is singular because it is the image of a rational twisted cubic curve. Therefore, $`S`$ is singular along a line. We already saw that $`S`$ has only finitely many singularities. This contradiction rules out the first possibility for $`\varphi `$.

Therefore

$$\varphi =\left[\begin{array}{ccc}1& & \\ & \rho & \\ & & \rho ^2\end{array}\right]$$

So the following are bases for the eigenspaces of $`\varphi ^{}`$:

$`1:`$ $`x_0^3,x_1^3,x_2^3,x_0x_1x_2`$
$`\rho :`$ $`x_0^2x_1,x_0x_2^2,x_1^2x_2`$
$`\rho ^2:`$ $`x_0^2x_2,x_0x_1^2,x_1x_2^2`$
The eigenspace containing the $`g_i`$ has dimension at least 4. So $`g:^2Y^{}=^3`$ is the morphism $`(x_0^3,x_1^3,x_2^3,x_0x_1x_2)`$. Embed $`Y^{}`$ in $`^4`$ as $`V(y_4)`$ so that $`g:^2^4`$ has the form claimed in Theorem 2.

## 3. Morphisms from Quintic to Cubic Threefolds

In Section 3.1 we discuss preimages of lines on $`Y`$ under the rational map $`HY`$. Section 3.2 gives some information about $`H`$ in case it has a component that does not map dominantly onto $`Y`$. In Section 3.3, we consider the various possibilities for $`H`$ and rule them out case by case. When $`H`$ is integral, the results of Section 3.1 will be the main tool. When $`H`$ is more degenerate, Theorem 2 will play a central role.

### 3.1. Preimages of Lines on $`Y`$

First we will prove a basic fact about how the dualizing sheaf of a curve behaves under normalization. Then we will discuss the family of lines on $`Y`$ and what can be said about the preimage in $`H`$ of a general line in $`Y`$. The main result is Corollary 3.6.

###### Lemma 3.1.

Let $`C`$ be a projective Gorenstein scheme of pure dimension 1 that is reduced at the generic point of one of its irreducible components $`C^{}`$. If $`\nu :\stackrel{~}{C}C^{}`$ is the normalization map of the reduced structure on $`C^{}`$ and $`N`$ is the number of points $`p\stackrel{~}{C}`$ such that the map of local rings $`𝒪_{C,\nu (p)}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C},p}`$ fails to be an isomorphism, then

$$\mathrm{deg}\nu ^{}\omega _C^o\mathrm{deg}\omega _{\stackrel{~}{C}}+N.$$

If $`N=0`$, then equality holds.

###### Proof.

Following \[10, Ex. 3.7.2\], we compute

$`\omega _{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\nu _{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}},\omega _C^o)`$
$`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\nu _{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}},𝒪_C)_{𝒪_C}\omega _C^o`$
as $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$-modules. Since $`\omega _{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ and $`\omega _C^o`$ are invertible, $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\nu _{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}},𝒪_C)`$ is an invertible sheaf of $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$-modules. So it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\nu _{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}},𝒪_C)`$ is isomorphic to an ideal sheaf in $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$ corresponding to a closed subscheme of $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$ supported at the points where $`\nu :\stackrel{~}{C}C`$ fails to be an isomorphism.

Consider the map of local rings

$$A:=𝒪_{C,\nu (p)}B:=𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C},p}$$

for some closed point $`p\stackrel{~}{C}`$. We will show that $`\mathrm{Hom}_A(B,A)`$ is an ideal in $`B`$ and is the unit ideal if and only if $`AB`$ is an isomorphism.

Note that $`B`$ is the normalization of $`A/P`$ in its field of fractions, where $`PA`$ is the prime ideal of $`C^{}C`$. Consider the map of $`B`$-modules

$$\mathrm{\Phi }:\mathrm{Hom}_A(B,A)B$$

that sends $`\psi \mathrm{Hom}_A(B,A)`$ to the equivalence class $`\overline{\psi (1)}`$ of $`\psi (1)`$ in $`A/P`$, which injects into $`B`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\psi )=0`$, then $`\psi (1)P`$, whence $`\psi (B)`$ is contained in the ideal $`PA`$. In other words, $`\psi `$ is a local section of the $`𝒪_C`$-module $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\nu ^{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}},𝒪_C)`$ defined in a neighborhood of $`\nu (p)`$ in $`C`$ such that $`\psi `$ vanishes on the reduced structure of $`C^{}`$. If we consider $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\nu ^{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}},𝒪_C)`$ as an $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$-module, then $`\psi `$ is a local section defined on a neighborhood of $`p`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{C}`$, and $`\psi `$ vanishes at all but finitely many points in the neighborhood. Since $`\mathrm{Hom}_C(\nu ^{}𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}},𝒪_C)`$ is an invertible $`𝒪_{\stackrel{~}{C}}`$-module, $`\psi =0`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an injection of $`B`$-modules, whence $`\mathrm{Hom}_A(B,A)`$ is realized as an ideal in $`B`$. It remains to check that $`AB`$ is an isomorphism if and only if $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is.

If $`AB`$ is an isomorphism, then $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is clearly an isomorphism. Conversely, suppose $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is an isomorphism. Then there is some $`\psi \mathrm{Hom}_A(B,A)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Phi }(\psi )=1`$, i.e. $`\psi (1)1P`$. Therefore $`\psi (1)`$ is a unit in $`A`$ because $`A`$ is local. Hence $`\mathrm{\Psi }:\mathrm{Hom}_A(B,A)A`$ given by $`\psi \psi (1)`$ is surjective because it is a morphism of $`A`$-modules. Note that $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ factors as $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ followed by $`AB`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Psi }`$ is surjective and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is injective, we conclude that $`AB`$ is injective. And since $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is surjective, $`AB`$ is surjective. ∎

###### Lemma 3.2.

There are only finitely many closed points $`pY`$ such that there are infinitely many lines on $`Y`$ through $`p`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose not. Then there is a curve $`CY`$ such that for every point $`pC`$ there are infinitely many lines on $`Y`$ through $`p`$. So for every $`pC`$ there is an irreducible component $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ of $`YT_pY`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ is a cone over a plane curve with vertex $`p`$.

Recall from  or  that the family $`\mathrm{\Delta }_1`$ of lines on $`Y`$ is an irreducible surface, so a dimension count shows that every line on $`Y`$ lies on one of the surfaces $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ for some $`pC`$. Also recall from  that a general line $`L`$ in $`Y`$ has normal bundle $`N_{L/Y}=𝒪_L𝒪_L`$.

Fix a general line $`L`$ on $`Y`$, lying on $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$. There is some 2-plane $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ that is tangent to $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ at every point of $`L`$ on account of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_p`$ being a cone. Therefore $`T_q\mathrm{\Lambda }T_qY`$ for every $`qL`$. It follows from Nakayama’s Lemma that these pointwise inclusions give an injection $`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }|_LT_Y|_L`$ of $`𝒪_L`$-modules. Note that $`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }|_L=𝒪_L(1)𝒪_L(2)`$, and consider the normal bundle sequence

$$0T_LT_Y|_L\stackrel{\varphi }{}𝒪_L𝒪_L0.$$

By the above description of $`T_\mathrm{\Lambda }|_L`$, the composition

$$T_\mathrm{\Lambda }|_LT_Y|_L\stackrel{\varphi }{}𝒪_L𝒪_L$$

is the zero morphism. So $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi `$ has rank at least 2, contradicting $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi =T_L`$. ∎

We will need the following modification of \[14, Lemma 2.1\].

###### Lemma 3.3.

Let $`g:ZY`$ be a morphism from a purely 3 dimensional separated scheme of finite type over the ground field. If $`L`$ is a general line on $`Y`$, then $`g^1(L)`$ has pure dimension 1.

Moreover, if $`Z`$ is integral and $`g`$ is dominant, then $`g^1(L)`$ is singular at only finitely many points. In other words, $`g^1(L)`$ is reduced at the generic point of each irreducible component.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝔽`$ be the total space of the family of lines on $`Y`$ with base $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$. From , $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is a smooth surface, and there is some open subscheme $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$ in $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ with preimage $`𝔽_0`$ in $`𝔽`$ such that $`𝔽_0`$ is a locally trivial fiber bundle over $`\mathrm{\Delta }_0`$, whose fibers are lines in $`Y`$.

Let $`Z_0`$ be the union of the surfaces in $`Z`$ that are mapped to points in $`Y`$, let $`Z_1`$ be the union of the curves on $`Z`$ that are mapped to points in $`Y`$, and let $`Z_2`$ be the set of points in $`Z`$ at which $`g`$ fails to induce an injection on tangent spaces. Note that $`Z_2`$ contains the singular locus of $`Z`$.

Note that $`g(Z_0)`$ has dimension at most 1, and $`g(Z_1)`$ has dimension at most 2. Since the canonical morphism $`𝔽_0Y`$ is dominant, a general line will meet $`g(Z_1)`$ in only finitely many points. Also, if a general line meets $`g(Z_0)`$, then $`g(Z_0)`$ is a curve such that for every point $`pg(Z_0)`$ there are infinitely many lines on $`Y`$ through $`p`$. This contradicts Lemma 3.2. So a general line does not meet $`g(Z_0)`$. Therefore, $`g^1(L)`$ has pure dimension 1 for $`L`$ a general line on $`Y`$.

Now suppose that $`Z`$ is integral and $`g`$ is dominant. Then $`dimg(Z_i)i`$ for $`i=0,1,2`$. We use the characteristic zero assumption of this section to get $`dimg(Z_2)2`$. So a general line will meet $`g(Z_2)`$ in only finitely many points, and will not meet $`g(Z_0)`$ and $`g(Z_1)`$ at all. Hence $`g^1(L)`$ is nonsingular away from the preimage of $`Lg(Z_2)`$, which consists of only finitely many points. ∎

### 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 3.4.

Take $`F`$ is as in the definition, and let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{Z}Z`$ be the blowup of $`Z`$ in $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$. Then there is a canonical morphism $`F:\stackrel{~}{Z}^n`$ such that $`\stackrel{~}{F}=F\pi `$ as rational maps. Moreover, if $`p\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is a closed point, then $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ induces a closed immersion of $`\pi ^1(p)`$ into $`^n`$.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`\stackrel{~}{Z}`$ is isomorphic to the closure of the graph of $`F`$, $`\mathrm{\Gamma }_FZ\times ^n`$. Thus projection onto $`^n`$ induces the desired morphism $`\stackrel{~}{F}:\stackrel{~}{Z}^n`$. If $`p\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is a closed point, then $`\pi ^1(p)`$ is a closed subscheme of $`p\times ^n`$, which maps isomorphically onto $`^n`$ by projection. ∎

###### Lemma 3.5.

If $`p\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is a closed point, then $`pH`$ is a point of order at least 3.

###### Proof.

Let $`F=(F_0,\mathrm{},F_4)`$, and let $`Y`$ have homogeneous equation $`G`$. Since the $`F_i`$ vanish at $`p`$ and $`G`$ has degree 3, $`G(F_0,\mathrm{},F_4)`$ vanishes to order at least 3 at $`p`$. In other words, $`pF^1(Y)`$ is a point of order at least 3. But $`p`$ is contained in $`H`$ and not $`X`$. The lemma follows. ∎

If $`L`$ is a general line in $`Y`$ with $`L:=V(\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3)`$ for some linear forms $`\xi `$ on $`^4`$, then define

$`F^1(L)`$ $`:=V(F^{}\xi _1,F^{}\xi _2,F^{}\xi _3)`$
$`C`$ $`:=F^1(L)H`$
$`D`$ $`:=F^1(L)X`$
If $`\stackrel{~}{H}H`$ is the blowup of $`H`$ at the indeterminacy scheme $`\mathrm{indet}(F|_H)`$ and $`h:\stackrel{~}{H}Y`$ is the resulting morphism, then Lemma 3.3 says that $`h^1(L)`$ is purely one dimensional, so the same holds for $`C`$. Lemma 3.3 implies $`D`$ is also purely one dimensional. So $`F^1(L)`$ is a complete intersection in $`^4`$.

###### Lemma 3.6.

With $`C`$ as above, $`\omega _C^o=𝒪_C(1)`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`F^1(L)`$ is the complete intersection of three cubic hypersurfaces in $`^4`$,

$`\omega _{F^1(L)}^o`$ $`=𝒪_{F^1(L)}(5+3+3+3)`$
$`=𝒪_{F^1(L)}(4).`$
Following \[10, Ex. 3.7.2\], compute

$`\omega _C^o`$ $`=\mathrm{Hom}_{F^1(L)}(𝒪_C,\omega _{F^1(L)}^o)`$
$`=\mathrm{Hom}_{F^1(L)}(𝒪_C,𝒪_{F^1(L)})𝒪_{F^1(L)}(4).`$
Therefore, if $`I_C,I_D𝒪_{F^1(L)}`$ denote the ideals of $`C,DF^1(L)`$, then it suffices to carry out the following computation

(3.1) $`\mathrm{Hom}_{F^1(L)}(𝒪_C,𝒪_{F^1(L)})`$ $`(0:I_C)`$
(3.2) $`I_D`$
(3.3) $`𝒪_C(CD)`$
(3.4) $`𝒪_C(5).`$
The isomorphism (3.1) is given by $`\psi \psi (1)`$.

To see (3.2), note that $`D`$ is Cohen-Macaulay since it is a local complete intersection in $`X`$ and $`X`$ is C.M., as $`L`$ is a l.c.i. in $`Y`$. It follows that $`C`$ and $`D`$ are linked because $`F1(L)`$ is Gorenstein, cf. \[6, Theorem 21.23\].

To see (3.3), we will show that

$$I_D\frac{I_D+I_C}{I_C}$$

is an isomorphism of $`𝒪_C`$-modules, i.e. $`I_DI_C=0`$. So let $`a`$ be a local section of $`I_DI_C`$, which is necessarily supported on $`CD`$. We will show $`a=0`$.

Let $`A=𝒪_{F^1(L),p}`$ for some closed point $`pCD`$ with maximal ideal $`m`$. Let $`b`$ denote the image of $`a`$ in $`A`$. Some power of $`m`$ annihilates $`b`$ because $`b`$ is supported at $`p`$. Therefore $`m`$ is the annihilator of some nonzero multiple of $`b`$, provided $`b0`$. So $`m`$ is an associated prime ideal of $`A`$. But $`A`$ is C.M. and one dimensional, so every associated prime is minimal. Hence $`b=0`$ after all. Therefore $`a=0`$ because its localization is zero at every point.

The isomorphism (3.4) follows from $`CD=CX`$. ∎

###### Corollary 3.7.

If $`C:=F^1(L)H`$ is reduced at the generic point of an irreducible component $`C^{}`$, then $`C^{}`$ is either a smooth plane conic disjoint from the rest of $`C`$, or $`C^{}`$ is a line meeting the rest of $`C`$ at only one point.

###### Proof.

This is immediate from Lemma 3.1 and Lemma 3.5 because the degree of the dualizing sheaf of a smooth curve is at least $`2`$. ∎

### 3.2. A Multiplicity Result

The following result holds in arbitrary characteristic and will be used in the next subsection.

###### Lemma 3.8.

Let $`Z`$ be the reduced structure on an irreducible component of $`H`$. Assume $`md`$. If $`F|_Z:ZY`$ is not dominant, then $`2ZH`$ as divisors in $`^n`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`F`$ does not map $`Z`$ dominantly onto $`Y`$. Then $`Z`$ is covered by curves that are mapped to points under $`F`$. So suppose that $`CZ`$ is an integral curve with $`F(C)=(1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ for simplicity, and let $`I𝒪_^n`$ be the ideal sheaf of $`C`$. If $`F=(F_0,\mathrm{},F_n)`$, then $`F_iH^0(^n,I(m))`$ for $`i>0`$. We show that $`H`$ is singular along $`C`$.

Let $`KH^0(^n,I(emd))`$ be the homogeneous equation for $`H`$. Let $`I^{(2)}𝒪_^n`$ be the ideal such that $`I/I^{(2)}=(I/I^2)/\text{torsion}`$. Then $`K`$ induces a section $`\overline{K}H^0(^n,I/I^{(2)}(emd))`$. We will show $`\overline{K}=0`$.

If $`G=G(y_0,\mathrm{},y_n)`$ is the homogeneous equation of $`Y`$, then we can write $`G=y_0^{e1}G_1+\mathrm{}+y_0G_{e1}+G_e`$ where the $`G_i=G_i(y_1,\mathrm{},y_n)`$ are homogeneous of degree $`i`$. So the homogeneous equation of $`F^1(Y)=X+H`$ is

(3.5)
$$F^{}G=F_0^{e1}F^{}G_1+F_0^{e2}F^{}G_2+\mathrm{}$$

where $`F^{}G=G(F_0,\mathrm{},F_n)`$.

Let $`D`$ be the Cartier divisor $`V(F_0^{e1})C`$ on $`C`$. Note that $`D`$ is disjoint from $`X`$ because $`D`$ is supported on $`CV(F_0,\mathrm{},F_n)`$ and $`V(F_0,\mathrm{},F_n)`$ is disjoint from $`X`$. So from (3.5) it follows that $`\overline{K}`$ restricts to the zero section on $`D`$ because $`F_0^{ei}F^{}G_i`$ restricts to zero on $`C`$ for $`i2`$, and $`F_0^{e1}`$ restricts to zero on $`D`$.

Tensor the exact sequence

$$0𝒪_C(D)𝒪_C𝒪_D0$$

with $`I/I^{(2)}(emd)`$ and use $`𝒪_C(D)=𝒪_C(m(e1))`$ to obtain

$$I/I^{(2)}(md)\stackrel{\tau }{}I/I^{(2)}(emd)\stackrel{\rho }{}I/I^{(2)}𝒪_D(emd)0$$

To see that $`\tau `$ is an injection, note that $`\tau `$ is multiplication by $`F_0^{e1}`$, which is a unit in the local ring of almost all the points of $`C`$. Therefore $`\tau `$ could only have torsion elements in its kernel. But $`I/I^{(2)}(emd)`$ is a torsion-free sheaf. So $`\tau `$ is injective.

Since $`\rho (\overline{K})=0`$, $`\overline{K}`$ is the image of a section

$$\stackrel{~}{K}H^0(C,I/I^{(2)}(md)).$$

From the conormal sequence of $`C`$ in $`^n`$, we get a morphism $`I/I^{(2)}(md)\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_C(md)`$ that is an injection on the regular locus of $`C`$, and is therefore an injection because $`I/I^{(2)}(md)`$ is torsion-free.

The sheaf $`\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_C(md)`$ has no nonzero global sections because of the injection $`\mathrm{\Omega }_^n^1|_C(md)𝒪_^n(md1)^{n+1}`$ from the Euler sequence. Therefore, $`I/I^{(2)}(md)`$ has no nonzero global sections. So $`\stackrel{~}{K}=0`$, whence $`\overline{K}=0`$. Therefore $`KH^0(^n,I^{(2)})`$, which implies $`H`$ is singular along $`C`$. Since $`Z`$ is covered by such curves, $`H`$ is singular at every point of $`Z`$. This is only possible if $`2ZH`$ as divisors. ∎

### 3.3. Morphisms from Quintic to Cubic Threefolds

Recall the decomposition $`F^1(Y)=X+H`$ from Section 1. We will consider the various possibilities for $`H`$ and rule them out one at a time, thus proving Theorem 1.

###### Proposition 3.9.

$`H`$ does not contain a hyperplane in $`^4`$ that maps dominantly onto $`Y`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`ZH`$ is a hyperplane that maps dominantly onto $`Y`$. If we restrict $`F`$ to any $`^2`$ contained in $`Z`$, then $`F|_^2`$ is described by Theorem 2. In particular, $`F(^2)`$ is the intersection of $`Y`$ with a hyperplane tangent to $`Y`$ at 3 points. The family of 2-planes contained in $`Z`$ and the family of tangent planes to $`Y`$ both have dimension 3, so a general tangent plane to $`Y`$ is tangent to $`Y`$ at 3 points. However, since $`Y`$ is a nonsingular hypersurface, a general tangent plane to $`Y`$ is tangent at only one point, cf. \[5, Lemma 5.15\]. ∎

###### Corollary 3.10.

If $`K`$ is a hyperplane contained in $`H`$, then $`2KH`$, and we can choose coordinates $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_4`$ on the $`^4`$ containing $`K`$ such that $`K=V(x_4)`$ and $`F|_K`$ is given by the formula

$$F|_K=(x_0^3,x_1^3,x_2^3,x_0x_1x_2,0)$$

###### Proof.

By Lemma 3.7 and Proposition 3.8, $`2KH`$.

Since $`F|_K`$ is not dominant and $`K^3`$, $`F|_K`$ can not be a morphism. Choose a point $`p`$ in the indeterminacy locus of $`F|_K`$. Let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{K}K`$ be the blowup of $`K`$ at the indeterminacy scheme $`\mathrm{indet}(F|_K)`$, so that the rational map $`F|_K`$ extends to a morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }:\stackrel{~}{K}S`$, where $`S`$ is the image surface of $`K`$ under $`F`$. By Lemma 3.4, $`\pi ^1(p)`$ maps isomorphically onto $`S`$ under the morphism $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$. So for $`sS`$ a general point, $`\mathrm{\Phi }^1(s)`$ is a curve in $`\stackrel{~}{K}`$ that meets $`\pi ^1(p)`$. Therefore the preimage of $`s`$ under $`F|_K`$ is a curve in $`K`$ through $`p`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is any 2-plane in $`K`$ disjoint from $`\mathrm{indet}(F|_K)`$, then $`F|_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is described by Theorem 2. In particular, for $`sS`$ any nonsingular point, the preimage of $`s`$ in $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ consists of three reduced points. Therefore the preimage of $`s`$ in $`K`$ consists of three distinct lines that are reduced away from $`\mathrm{indet}(F|_K)`$. Indeed, if the preimage of $`s`$ in $`K`$ contained a curve other than a line, we could choose $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ such that $`F|_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(s)`$ was not 3 reduced points by choosing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ to be tangent to $`F|_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(s)`$ at a point but not contain any component of $`F|_\mathrm{\Lambda }^1(s)`$.

So there is a two parameter family of lines in $`K`$ that are mapped by $`F`$ to points in $`S`$. Every such line meets $`\mathrm{indet}(F|_K)`$, which consists of finitely many points. So there is some point $`p\mathrm{indet}(F|_K)`$ such that there is a two parameter family of lines in $`K`$ through $`p`$ that are each mapped to a point in $`S`$ under $`F`$.

A line $`L`$ is mapped to a point by $`F`$ exactly when the scheme $`L\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ has length 3 because $`F^{}𝒪(1)=𝒪(3)`$. Since a general line in $`^4`$ through $`p`$ meets $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ in a scheme of length 3, the same holds for every line through $`p`$. So every line through $`p`$ is mapped to a point. Therefore, $`F|_K`$ is determined by $`F|_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for any 2-plane $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ in $`K`$ not containing $`p`$. Theorem 2 determines $`F|_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. If one takes $`p=V(x_0,x_1,x_2)`$ and $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=V(x_3)`$, where $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_3`$ are homogeneous coordinates on $`K`$, then $`F|_K`$ has the desired form. ∎

###### Proposition 3.11.

$`H`$ is not equal to $`Q+2K`$ for an integral quadric $`Q`$ and a hyperplane $`K`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`H=Q+2K`$. By Corollary 3.9, $`F|_K`$ factors through projection from some point $`pK`$. By Lemma 3.5, $`H`$ has order at least 3 at every point in $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$. So every point in $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is in $`KQ`$. Hence, $`p`$ is the only point in $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ because it is the only point on $`K`$ where $`F`$ is undefined.

The map $`F|_Q`$ is dominant by Lemma 3.7. Let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{Q}Q`$ be the blowup of $`Q`$ at the indeterminacy scheme $`\mathrm{indet}(F|_Q)`$, and let $`q:\stackrel{~}{Q}Y`$ be the resulting morphism extending $`F|_Q`$. Apply Lemma 3.3 to $`q`$ to see that for $`L`$ a general line, $`q^1(L)`$ is reduced at the generic point of each of its irreducible components, whence the same is true for $`C_Q:=F^1(L)Q`$.

By Lemma 3.4, $`q`$ is a closed immersion when restricted to $`\pi ^1(p)`$. Since $`q(\pi ^1(p))`$ is an effective divisor on $`Y`$, it is ample by the Grothendieck-Lefschetz Theorem,\[9, Theorem 4.3.2\]. So every line in $`Y`$ meets $`q(\pi ^1(p))`$. Therefore, $`C_Q`$ has an irreducible component $`C_1`$ containing the point $`p`$. By the same argument, $`F^1(L)K`$ has an irreducible component $`C_2`$ that contains $`p`$. Since $`L`$ is a general line on $`Y`$, which is covered by lines, $`L`$ is not contained in the image of $`KQ`$. So $`C_1C_2`$. By Lemma 3.6, $`\omega _C^o=𝒪_C(1)`$. Since $`C`$ has more than one irreducible component than contains $`p`$, Lemma 3.1 shows that every irreducible component of $`C_Q`$ that contains $`p`$ is a line because the dualizing sheaf of every smooth curve is at least $`2`$. So $`Q`$ is covered by lines through $`p`$, and these lines are parametrized by a general hyperplane section $`Q^3`$ of $`Q`$. Because the line $`LY`$ is general, $`dimQ^3=2`$, and $`dim\mathrm{\Delta }=2`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the space of lines on $`Y`$, we conclude that every general line on $`Q`$ through $`p`$ maps to a line on $`Y`$. Hence the rational map $`F|_Q:QY`$ induces a rational map $`Q^3\mathrm{\Delta }`$. However, $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ does not contain a rational curve by Proposition 2.1. This contradiction finishes the proof. ∎

###### Lemma 3.12.

If $`L`$ is a line in $`^4`$ such that $`L\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is nonempty and is not a single reduced point, then $`L`$ is contained in $`H`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`L`$ intersects $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$. Then $`L\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is zero dimensional, so its structure sheaf has finite dimension $`\lambda `$ over the ground field $`k`$. So the rational map $`F|_L`$ is given by $`𝒪_^1(3\lambda )`$ after $`F|_L`$ is extended over the points of indeterminacy. The intersection $`L\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is a single reduced point exactly when $`\lambda =1`$.

If $`\lambda =2`$, then $`F`$ maps $`L`$ isomorphically onto a line. This is impossible if $`L`$ is not contained in $`H`$ because $`L`$ would meet $`X`$ in a scheme of length 5 while $`F(L)`$ would meet $`Y`$ in a scheme of length 3. If $`\lambda =3`$, then $`F(L)`$ is a point in $`Y`$, so $`LH`$. This completes the proof because $`\lambda 3`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.13.

$`H`$ is not $`2K_1+2K_2`$ for distinct hyperplanes $`K_1`$ and $`K_2`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`H=2K_1+2K_2`$. According to the formula of Corollary 3.10, there are points $`p_iK_i`$ such that $`F|_{K_i}`$ factors through projection from $`p_i`$, and the tangent space to the indeterminacy scheme $`\mathrm{indet}(F|_{K_i})`$ at $`p_i`$ is equal to the tangent space of $`K_i`$ at $`p_i`$.

We claim $`p_1p_2`$. Indeed, if $`p=p_1=p_2`$, then $`T_pK_1T_pK_2`$ because the $`K_i`$ are distinct hyperplanes. So $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ would have a four dimensional tangent space at $`p`$. But now every line in $`^4`$ through $`p`$ meets $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ in a scheme that is nonreduced at $`p`$. So Lemma 3.12 implies that every line in $`^4`$ through $`p`$ is contained in $`H`$. This is impossible because $`H`$ is not all of $`^4`$, so $`p_1p_2`$.

Let $`L`$ be the line containing $`p_1,p_2`$. By Lemma 3.5, $`H`$ has order at least 3 at both $`p_i`$, so $`p_1,p_2K_1K_2`$. Therefore, $`LK_1K_2`$, so that $`L`$ meets $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ in a scheme of length 6, which is impossible because $`L\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ can have length at most 3. ∎

###### Proposition 3.14.

$`H`$ does not contain a hyperplane.

###### Proof.

The only case left to rule out is $`H=4K`$. So suppose $`H=4K`$. We will lift the polynomials that give $`F|_K`$ from $`K`$ to its second infinitesimal neighborhood $`2K`$ and then derive a contradiction.

Using Corollary 3.10, we choose homogeneous coordinates $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_4`$ on $`^4`$ such that $`K=V(x_4)`$ and

(3.6)
$$F=(x_0^3+x_4q_0,x_1^3+x_4q_1,x_2^3+x_4q_2,x_0x_1x_2+x_4q_3,x_4q_4)$$

for some homogeneous polynomials $`q_i`$ of degree 2 in the $`x_i`$. Let $`y_0,\mathrm{},y_4`$ be homogeneous coordinates on the target $`^4`$. Since $`YY^{}`$ is the image of $`K=V(x_4)`$ we see $`Y^{}=V(y_4)`$, and $`YY^{}=V(y_4,y_0y_1y_2y_3^3)`$. So $`Y`$ is given by the equation

$$G:=y_0y_1y_2y_3^3+y_4G_2$$

for some homogeneous $`G_2`$ of degree 2 in the $`y_i`$.

Since $`2KH`$, $`x_4^2`$ divides the pullback

$`F^{}G`$ $`=(x_0^3+x_4q_0)(x_1^3+x_4q_1)(x_2^3+x_4q_2)`$
$`(x_0x_1x_2+x_4q_3)^3+x_4q_4F^{}G_2`$
$`=x_4(q_0x_1^3x_2^3+q_1x_0^3x_2^3+q_2x_0^3x_1^33q_3x_0^2x_1^2x_2^2+q_4F^{}G_2)`$
$`+x_4^2(\text{other terms})`$
Therefore $`x_4`$ divides

(3.7)
$$q_0x_1^3x_2^3+q_1x_0^3x_2^3+q_2x_0^3x_1^33q_3x_0^2x_1^2x_2^2+q_4F^{}G_2$$

Using the notation $`_i:=\frac{}{y_i}`$, the partial derivatives of $`G`$ are

$`_0G`$ $`=y_1y_2+y_4_0G_2`$
$`_1G`$ $`=y_0y_2+y_4_1G_2`$
$`_2G`$ $`=y_0y_1+y_4_2G_2`$
$`_3G`$ $`=3y_3^2+y_4_3G_2`$
$`_4G`$ $`=G_2+y_4_4G_2`$
It follows that $`V(y_0y_1,y_0y_2,y_1y_2,y_3,y_4,G_2)`$ is empty because it is contained in the singular locus of $`Y`$. Hence $`V(G_2)`$ does not contain the point $`(1:0:0:0:0)`$. In other words, $`y_0^2`$ appears with nonzero coefficient in $`G_2`$. Therefore by equation (3.6), $`x_0^6`$ has nonzero coefficient in $`F^{}G_2`$.

Moreover, $`q_4F^{}G_2`$ is the only term in formula (3.7) in which $`x_0^6`$ can occur because the $`q_i`$ have degree 2. Since (3.7) is zero (mod $`x_4`$), the $`x_0^6`$ term in (3.7) disappears when considered (mod $`x_4`$). This can only happen if $`x_4`$ divides $`q_4`$. Further consideration of (3.7) shows that there are scalars $`a_0,a_1,a_2`$ such that the following equations hold (mod $`x_4`$):

$`q_0`$ $`a_0x_0^2`$
$`q_1`$ $`a_1x_1^2`$
$`q_2`$ $`a_2x_2^2`$
$`q_3`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}(a_0x_1x_2+a_1x_0x_2+a_2x_0x_1)`$
$`q_4`$ $`0`$
Therefore, equation (3.6) yields

$`F_0`$ $`=x_0^3+a_0x_4x_0^2+x_4^2h_0`$
$`F_1`$ $`=x_1^3+a_1x_4x_1^2+x_4^2h_1`$
$`F_2`$ $`=x_2^3+a_2x_4x_2^2+x_4^2h_2`$
$`F_3`$ $`=x_0x_1x_2+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}x_4(a_0x_1x_2+a_1x_0x_2+a_2x_0x_1)+x_4^2h_3`$
$`F_4`$ $`=x_4^2h_4`$
for some homogeneous linear polynomials $`h_i`$ in $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_4`$.

As $`H=4K`$ is contained in $`F^1(Y)`$, $`x_4^4`$ divides

$$F^{}G=F_0F_1F_2F_3^3+F_4F^{}G_2.$$

Since $`F^{}G`$ has degree 9, the monomial $`x_0^6x_4^4`$ can not appear with nonzero coefficient in $`F^{}G`$. On the other hand, the monomial $`x_0^6`$ does have nonzero coefficient in $`F^{}G_2`$. So $`x_0^6`$ must appear in a monomial with nonzero coefficient in

$$F^{}GF_4F^{}G_2=F_0F_1F_2F_3^3.$$

However, by the formulas for $`F_0,\mathrm{},F_3`$ given above, the highest power of $`x_0`$ that can appear is $`x_0^5`$. This contradiction finishes the proof. ∎

###### Lemma 3.15.

Every point $`p\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is a point of order 3 on $`H`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`T_p`$ denote the tangent space of the indeterminacy scheme $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ at some closed point $`p\mathrm{indet}(F)`$. If $`L`$ is a line in $`^4`$ tangent to $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ at $`p`$, then $`L`$ is contained in $`H`$ by Lemma 3.12. Proposition 3.14 asserts that $`H`$ does not contain a hyperplane, so $`T_p`$ can have dimension at most 2.

By Lemma 3.5, $`H`$ has order at least 3 at $`p`$. So we only have to rule out the case $`\mathrm{ord}_pH=4`$.

Suppose $`p\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is a point of order 4 in $`H`$, so that $`H`$ is a cone over $`p`$. Let $`\pi :\stackrel{~}{}^4^4`$ be the blowup of $`^4`$ at $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$, and let $`\stackrel{~}{F}:\stackrel{~}{}^4Y`$ be the resulting morphism that extends $`F`$. Let $`E_p=\pi ^1(p)`$ be the preimage of the reduced point $`p`$. Since the dimension of $`T_p`$ is at most 2, if $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$ are two general lines in $`^4`$ through $`p`$, then the scheme $`l_1l_2`$, which is contained in a 2-plane, meets $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ in the reduced point $`p`$. So the strict transform of $`l_1l_2`$ is the blowup of $`l_1l_2`$ at $`p`$, which is the scheme-theoretic intersection $`l_1l_2`$. Therefore the strict transform of $`l_1l_2`$ is the disjoint union of the strict transforms $`\stackrel{~}{l}_1`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{l}_2`$ of $`l_1`$ and $`l_2`$. In particular, a general line $`l`$ in $`^4`$ through $`p`$ determines a point on $`E_p`$, and distinct general lines yield distinct points in $`E_p`$. Hence $`E_p`$ has an irreducible component $`E_p^{}`$ that is the birational image of the space $`^3`$ of lines in $`^4`$ through $`p`$.

If $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ is the strict transform of a general line $`l`$ in $`^4`$ through $`p`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ meets $`\stackrel{~}{F}^1(Y)`$ in a scheme of length 6. Indeed, the morphism $`\stackrel{~}{F}|_{\stackrel{~}{l}}`$ is given by sections of the line bundle $`𝒪_^1(2)`$ because the rational map $`F|_l`$ is given by $`𝒪_^1(3)`$ and has indeterminacy scheme equal to a single reduced point. When the indeterminacy is resolved the resulting line bundle is $`𝒪_^1(2)`$. The Cartier divisor $`\stackrel{~}{F}^1(Y)`$ is the pullback of the degree 3 divisor $`Y`$. So $`\stackrel{~}{F}^1(Y)`$ has intersection product 6 with the curve $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$.

Moreover, $`E_p^{}`$ maps onto $`Y`$, as follows. If $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ is the strict transform of $`H`$ in $`\stackrel{~}{}^4`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$ intersects $`E_p`$ in a scheme of dimension 2. In particular, $`E_p^{}`$ is not contained in $`E_p\stackrel{~}{H}`$. For $`l`$ a general line in $`^4`$ through $`p`$, $`l`$ only meets $`H`$ at $`p`$ because $`H`$ is a cone over $`p`$. So the strict transform $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ of $`l`$ does not meet $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$.

Since $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ meets the strict transform $`\stackrel{~}{X}`$ of $`X`$ in a scheme of length 5 and $`\stackrel{~}{l}`$ does not meet $`\stackrel{~}{H}`$, the other point of $`\stackrel{~}{l}\stackrel{~}{F}^1(Y)`$ lies in $`E_p`$ and therefore in $`E_p^{}`$. So $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ maps $`E_p^{}`$ isomorphically onto $`Y`$ because $`\stackrel{~}{F}`$ gives a closed embedding of $`E_p`$ into $`^4`$ by Lemma 3.4. This is a contradiction because $`E_p^{}`$ is rational and $`Y`$ is not. Therefore every point $`p\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is a point of order 3. ∎

###### Proposition 3.16.

$`H`$ is not $`2Q`$ for an integral quadric $`Q`$.

###### Proof.

By \[15, Proposition 2.2(2)\], $`Y`$ is not the image of a morphism from a hypersurface in $`^4`$ of degree 2, so $`F|_Q`$ is not a morphism. Let $`p\mathrm{indet}F`$ be a closed point. If $`H=2Q`$, then every closed point in $`Q`$ has order 2 or 4 in $`H`$. By Lemma 3.5, $`p`$ is a point on $`H`$ of order at least 3. So $`p`$ has order 4, which is impossible by Lemma 3.15. We conclude $`H2Q`$. ∎

###### Proposition 3.17.

$`H`$ is not $`Q_1+Q_2`$ for distinct integral quadrics $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`H=Q_1+Q_2`$. By Lemma 3.8, the $`Q_i`$ map dominantly onto $`Y`$. Therefore, by Lemma 3.3 applied to the blowups of $`Q_1`$ and $`Q_2`$ at the indeterminacy schemes of $`F|_{Q_1}`$ and $`F|_{Q_2}`$, for $`L`$ a general line in $`Y`$, $`C:=F^1(L)H`$ is reduced at the generic point of each of its irreducible components.

By Lemma \[15, Proposition 2.2(2)\], $`F|_{Q_1}`$ can not be a morphism because $`\mathrm{deg}Y>2`$. Pick $`p\mathrm{indet}(F|_{Q_1})`$. By Lemma 3.15, $`p`$ is a point of order 3 in $`H`$, so $`Q_2`$ contains $`p`$. I claim that $`C`$ has an irreducible component contained in each of the $`Q_i`$ through $`p`$. Indeed, if $`\pi _i:\stackrel{~}{Q}_iQ_i`$ is the blowup at $`\mathrm{indet}(F|_{Q_i})`$, and $`q_i:\stackrel{~}{Q}_iY`$ is the resulting morphism, then a general line $`L`$ in $`Y`$ will meet $`q_i(\pi _i^1(p))`$. So the preimage of $`L`$ in $`Q_i`$ passes through $`p`$.

Therefore, by Corollary 3.7, the connected component of $`C`$ containing $`p`$ is the union of two lines through $`p`$, one line contained in $`Q_1`$ and the other in $`Q_2`$. But now each of the $`Q_i`$ contain a two parameter family of lines through $`p`$ because $`Y`$ is covered by a two parameter family of lines. So both the $`Q_i`$ are cones over $`p`$, so that $`p`$ is a point of order 4 in $`H`$. This contradicts Lemma 3.15. ∎

The following Lemma will be needed to analyze the preimage in $`H`$ of a general line in $`Y`$ in the case where $`H`$ is integral.

###### Lemma 3.18.

Let $`\pi :𝔽B`$ be a projective morphism with $`B`$ integral. Suppose $`\sigma :B𝔽`$ is a section of $`\pi `$, and for each $`bB`$ the connected component $`𝔽_b`$ of $`\pi ^1(b)`$ that contains $`\sigma (b)`$ is irreducible. Then $`_b𝔽_b`$ is an irreducible component of $`𝔽`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝔽\stackrel{\pi ^{}}{}B^{}\stackrel{g}{}B`$ be the Stein factorization of $`\pi `$. So $`\pi ^{}`$ has connected fibers, and $`g`$ is finite. Then $`\pi ^{}\sigma `$ is a section of $`g`$, and $`(\pi ^{})^1(\pi ^{}\sigma )(b)=𝔽_b`$. Notice that $`(\pi ^{}\sigma )(B)`$ is an irreducible component of $`B^{}`$ because they have the same dimension. Since $`(\pi ^{})^1(\pi ^{}\sigma (B))`$ has irreducible fibers $`𝔽_b`$ and $`B`$ is irreducible, $`(\pi ^{})^1(\pi ^{}\sigma (B))=_b𝔽_b`$ is irreducible. ∎

The only case left to rule out is when $`H`$ is integral.

###### Theorem 3.19.

$`H`$ is not integral.

###### Proof.

Suppose $`H`$ is integral. By Lemma 3.8, $`F|_H`$ is dominant because $`H`$ has multiplicity 1 in $`F^1(Y)`$. However, $`F|_H`$ can not be a morphism, because if it were then Table 1 in the Appendix would imply that the polynomial degree $`m`$ of $`F`$ would be at most 2, not 3. Choose $`p\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ a reduced point.

Let $`L`$ be a general line in $`Y`$, cut out by the linear forms $`\xi _1,\xi _2,\xi _3`$ in $`^4`$. Define

$`F^1(L)`$ $`:=V(F^{}\xi _1,F^{}\xi _2,F^{}\xi _3)`$
$`C(L)`$ $`:=F^1(L)H`$
$`D(L)`$ $`:=F^1(L)X`$
By Lemma 3.3, $`C=C(L)`$ and $`D=D(L)`$ are reduced at the generic point of each of their irreducible components, and

Since the linear forms $`F^{}\xi _i`$ vanish on the indeterminacy scheme $`\mathrm{indet}(F):=V(F_0,\mathrm{},F_4)`$, $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is contained in $`F^1(L)=CD`$. Therefore, $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is contained in $`C`$ because $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ does not intersect $`D`$, as $`D`$ is contained in $`X`$. By Corollary 3.7, the connected component of $`C`$ that contains $`p`$ is either a smooth quadric curve or the union of two lines meeting at some point. According to Lemma 3.15, $`p`$ is triple point on $`H`$, so that $`H`$ is not a cone over $`p`$. By Corollary 3.7, the connected component of $`C`$ that contains $`p`$ is a plane conic. Since $`H`$ is not a cone over $`p`$, $`Y`$ has a two dimensional family of lines, and $`L`$ is a general line on $`Y`$, the connected component of $`C`$ that contains $`p`$ is a smooth plane conic.

Let $`B`$ be an open subscheme of the space of lines in $`Y`$ such that for every $`LB`$, every component of $`C(L)`$ that meets $`\mathrm{indet}(F)`$ is a smooth plane conic. For $`LB`$, $`F^1(L)`$ has degree 27, and $`D(L)`$ has degree 15. So $`C(L)`$ has degree 12 and is the disjoint union of 6 reduced plane conics.

Choose a general $`L_0B`$, and let $`C_1(L_0),\mathrm{},C_6(L_0)`$ be the connected components of $`C(L_0)`$. Let $`\zeta _i:=C_i(L_0)\mathrm{indet}(F)`$, and let $`\lambda (\zeta _i)`$ denote the length of the zero dimensional scheme $`\zeta _i`$. The polynomial degree of $`F`$ is $`m=3`$, $`C_i(L_0)`$ has degree 2, and $`L_0`$ has degree 1. So the restriction $`C_i(L_0)L_0`$ of $`F`$ to $`C_i(L_0)`$ has degree $`6\lambda (\zeta _i)`$. Therefore $`\mathrm{deg}F|_H`$ is the sum of the $`\mathrm{deg}F|_{C_i(L_0)}`$:

(3.8)
$$\mathrm{deg}F|_H=\underset{i=1}{\overset{6}{}}6\lambda (\zeta _i).$$

Now number the $`C_i(L_0)`$ so that $`\lambda (\zeta _1)\mathrm{}\lambda (\zeta _6)`$, and let $`p`$ be a closed point of $`\zeta _1`$. Let $`𝔽B\times H`$ be the total space of the family $`\pi :𝔽B`$ whose fiber over $`LB`$ is $`C(L)`$. The closed subscheme $`B\times p𝔽`$ is a section of $`\pi `$. So

$$𝔽_1:=\underset{LB}{}C_1(L)$$

is an irreducible component of $`𝔽`$ by Lemma 3.18.

Notice that there is a morphism $`𝔽B_H`$, where $`B_H`$ is the space of quadric plane curves in $`H`$ that contain $`p`$, given by sending a point $`(L,x)𝔽B\times H`$ to the irreducible component of $`C(L)`$ that contains $`x`$. The fibers of $`𝔽B_H`$ are one dimensional and $`dim𝔽=3`$. So the image in $`B_H`$ of the intersections of the various irreducible components of $`𝔽`$ has dimension at most 1. Hence there is at most a one dimensional space of lines in $`Y`$ such that $`C(L)`$ has a component corresponding to a point in $`B_H`$ whose fiber in $`𝔽`$ lies in more than one irreducible component. So by generality of $`L_0B`$, $`𝔽_1`$ is the only irreducible component of $`𝔽`$ that has nonempty fiber over the point $`C_1(L_0)B_H`$. Therefore, the irreducible component $`𝔽_1`$ of $`𝔽`$ did not depend on the choice of $`p\zeta _1`$ because for any $`p\zeta _1`$ the connected component of $`C(L_0)`$ that contains $`p`$ is $`C_1(L_0)`$.

Since $`𝔽_1`$ did not depend on the choice of $`p\zeta _1`$, for every line $`LB`$, the component $`C_1(L):=\pi ^1([L])𝔽_1`$ of $`C(L)`$ that is contained in $`𝔽_1`$ has the property that $`C_1(L)\mathrm{indet}(F)=\zeta _1`$. This is because for every $`q\zeta _1`$, $`B\times q`$ is contained in $`𝔽_1B\times H`$.

Consider the composite morphism $`\varphi :𝔽_1H\stackrel{F|_H}{}Y`$. Let $`yY`$ be a general point. There are six lines $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_6`$ on $`Y`$ through $`y`$, and $`\varphi ^1(L_i)=C_1(L_i)`$. By counting preimage points of $`y`$ we see that $`\mathrm{deg}\varphi `$ is the sum of the degrees of the $`C_1(L_i)L_i`$:

(3.9)
$$\mathrm{deg}\varphi =\underset{i=6}{\overset{6}{}}6\lambda (\zeta _1).$$

Since $`\mathrm{deg}\varphi \mathrm{deg}F|_H`$, equations (3.8) and (3.9) show that all the $`\lambda (\zeta _i)`$ are equal by maximality of $`\lambda (\zeta _1)`$. Therefore $`𝔽_1H`$ is a birational morphism.

Let $`p\mathrm{indet}(F)`$. By Lemma 3.15, $`p`$ is a triple point on $`H`$, and so $`H`$ is rational. Therefore $`𝔽_1`$ is rational and dominates the surface $`B`$. However, $`B`$ does not contain a rational curve by Proposition 2.1. This contradiction shows that $`H`$ can not be integral. ∎