Montana Math

DOUBLE COVERS OF SMOOTH QUADRIC THREEFOLDS WITH
ARTIN–MUMFORD OBSTRUCTIONS TO RATIONALITY
ALEXANDRA KUZNETSOVA
arXiv:2304.09955v1 [math.AG] 19 Apr 2023
Abstract. We study obstructions to rationality on a nodal Fano threefold M that is a double cover of
a smooth quadric threefold branched over an intersection with a quartic threefold in P4 . We prove that
if M admits an Artin–Mumford obstruction to rationality then it lies in one of three explicitly described
families. Moreover, a general element of any of these families admits an Artin–Mumford obstruction to
rationality. Only one of these three families was known before; other two families of nodal Fano threefolds
with obstructions to rationality are new.
1. Introduction
Assume that a smooth projective complex threefold M f admits a non-trivial torsion subgroup in the
3 f f
cohomology group H (M , Z). Artin and Mumford showed in [AM72] that in this situation the variety M
is not rational. They used this criterion to construct one of the first examples of a unirational non-rational
variety. It was a resolution of singularities Mf of a nodal quartic double solid M i.e. a double cover of P3
branched along a quartic surface. More precisely, the quartic surface in the example of Artin and Mumford
is a symmetroid: a zero locus of the determinant of a symmetric 4 × 4 matrix of linear forms over P3 .
Endrass in [End99] studied all nodal quartic double solids M which admit an Artin–Mumford obstruction
f, Z) contains a non-trivial torsion subgroup where M
to rationality i.e. varieties M such that the group H 3 (M f
is a resolution of singularities of M . He proved that the only family of such threefolds is the one constructed
by Artin and Mumford. A similar class of Fano threefolds is the class of sextic double solids. The question
whether special examples of them admit obstructions to rationality is also interesting. They were studied
in [Kuz22], where four families of nodal sextic double solids with Artin–Mumford obstructions to rationality
were constructed such that any nodal sextic double solid with such obstruction lies in one of these families.
The classifications of nodal double solids with Artin–Mumford obstructions to rationality were obtained
using the approach developed by Endrass in [End99]. We formulate the method in a more general setting
than it is necessary for double solids for our future purposes.
Let X be a smooth threefold such that integral cohomology groups of X are torsion-free and H 3 (X, Z) = 0,
let π : M → X be a double cover branched along a nodal surface B ⊂ X and let M f be a resolution of
singularities of M . Endrass suggested to study special subsets of singular points on B called 2δ -even sets
of nodes where δ = 0 or 1, see Definition 2.4. Such sets of nodes have nice geometric properties; they
were first introduced in [Cat81] and [Bea80] and then studied in [CC97], [End98], [CT07], [CCC+ 22]. The
set of 2δ -even sets of nodes on B forms a finite group and one can construct an embedding of the torsion
subgroup T ⊂ H 3 (M f, Z) to this group, see [End99, Lemma 1.2]. Thus, if M admits an Artin–Mumford
obstruction to rationality then the surface B contains a 2δ -even set of nodes. A useful construction of a nodal
surface in X with a δ2 -even set of nodes was suggested by Barth.
Example 1.1 ([Bar80]). Let X be a smooth threefold and let O X (1) be an ample divisor on X. Let E be a
vector bundle on X and let Φ be an element of the group H 0 (X, S 2 E(d + δ)) ⊂ HomX (E ∨ (−d − δ), E) which
induces an embedding of sheaves Φ : E ∨ (−d − δ) ֒→ E. Then by [Bar80] under a certain condition on the
degree of E and on Φ we can define a surface B(Φ) of degree d in X and a 2δ -even set of nodes w(Φ) on B(Φ)
in the following way:
(1.2) B(Φ) = {det (Φ : E ∨ (−d − δ) → E) = 0} ; w(Φ) = {corank (Φ : E ∨ (−d − δ) → E) = 2} .
Moreover, if the vector bundle S 2 E(d + δ) is globally generated then there exists a non-empty Zariski open
subset U ⊂ H 0 (X, S 2 E(d + δ)) such that for any Φ ∈ U all singularities of the surface B(Φ) are nodes and
the singular locus of B(Φ) coincides with w(Φ).
1
2 ALEXANDRA KUZNETSOVA
Note that in the case when X is a projective space, E = O P3 (−2)⊕4 and δ = 1 this construction gives a
quartic symmetroid as in Artin and Mumford’s example of a nodal quartic double solid with an obstruction
to rationality.
Vice versa, Casnati and Catanese proved that if X = P3 and B is a nodal surface in P3 of degree d with
δ
a 2 -evenset of nodes w ⊂ B then there exists a vector bundle E on P3 and an element Φ ∈ H 0 (P3 , S 2 E(d+δ))
such that B = B(Φ) and w = w(Φ) as in (1.2), see [CC97] and [CC98].
The Casnati and Catanese theorem was used in [Kuz22] for the classification of nodal sextic double solids
with Artin–Mumford obstructions to rationality. The classification proceeds as follows. Given a nodal double
solid M we consider its branching locus B which is a nodal surface in P3 of degree 6. If B contains a 2δ -even
set of nodes w then using the Casnati and Catanese theorem we construct a vector bundle E on P3 and an
element Φ ∈ H 0 (P3 , S 2 E(d + δ)) such that B = B(Φ) and w = w(Φ). Then in terms of E and Φ we can
describe in which situations M admits an Artin–Mumford obstruction to rationality. In this paper we are
going to use this method again in order to study obstructions to rationality for a new class of threefolds.
Let Q ⊂ P4 be a smooth complex quadric threefold and let B ⊂ Q be a nodal surface which is a com-
plete intersection of Q with a quartic hypersurface in P4 . Consider the double cover π : M → Q branched
along the surface B. Then M is a nodal Fano threefold of index 1 and genus 3. An example of a Fano
threefold of this type with 20 nodes and an Artin–Mumford obstruction to rationality was introduced
in [PS16, Proposition 5.8]; see also [IKP14, Remark 4.3]. Our goal is to construct new examples of such
varieties.
We begin with the study of 2δ -even sets of nodes on the surface B. In order to simplify the situation we
consider only minimal 2δ -even set of nodes w i.e. such that w does not contain a proper 2δ -even subset of
nodes. This is sufficient for our purposes since any δ2 -even set of nodes on a nodal surface is a disjoint union
of several minimal 0-even and 21 -even sets of nodes. Our first result is the following generalization of the
Casnati and Catanese result [CC97] to the case of quadric threefolds.
Theorem 1.3. Let Q ⊂ P4 be a smooth quadric threefold and let B ⊂ Q be a nodal surface which is a
complete intersection of Q with a quartic hypersurface in P4 . If B contains a non-empty minimal δ2 -even
set of nodes w, then there exist a vector bundle E on Q and an element Φ ∈ H 0 (Q, S 2 E(4 + δ)) such
that B = B(Φ) and w = w(Φ). More precisely, we have one of the following situations:
δ=0: (E1) |w| = 16 and E = OQ (−1)⊕2 ⊕ OQ (−2);
(E2) |w| = 20 and E = OQ (−1) ⊕ S(−1);
(E3) |w| = 24 and E = S(−1)⊕2 ;
δ=1: (O1) |w| = 12 and E = OQ (−1) ⊕ OQ (−2);

(O2) |w| = 20 and E = OQ (−2)⊕4 ;
(O3) |w| = 20 and E = S(−1).
Moreover, in all these cases there exists a non-empty Zariski open subset U ⊂ H 0 (X, S 2 E(d + δ)) such that
for any Φ ∈ U the surface B is nodal and the singular locus of B equals w(Φ).
The idea of the proof of Casnati and Catanese theorem [CC97] is to associate to a δ2 -even set of nodes w
on a surface B ⊂ P3 a sheaf F and to construct a special free resolution of F . Then the vector bundle E
and the map Φ can be defined in terms of this resolution. In order to construct this resolution Casnati and
Catanese use Horrocks theorem as proved by Walter in [Wal96, Theorem 0.4] which claims that if E is a
vector bundle on the projective space Pm then there exists a unique decomposition of E into a direct sum of
a vector bundle Syz(E) and several line bundles on Pm ; moreover, the vector bundle Syz(E) depends only
on the intermediate cohomology groups of all twists of E in the sense that it is a unique bundle with no
summands of rank 1 and such that H i (Pm , Syz(E)(n)) = H i (Pm , E(n)) for all n ∈ Z and all 1 6 i 6 m − 1.
The proof of Theorem 1.3 is similar to the one in [CC97]. We consider the surface B with a 2δ -even set of
nodes w, associate a sheaf F to this set and get E and Φ from a special resolution of F . However, there are
certain differences in proofs since the Horrocks theorem is not true on a quadric threefold. One can check
that if E1 = Ω1P4 |Q ⊕ TP4 (−2)|Q and E2 = S 2 S where S is the spinor bundle on the quadric threefold Q,
DOUBLE QUADRICS WITH ARTIN–MUMFORD OBSTRUCTIONS TO RATIONALITY 3
then the intermediate cohomology groups of E1 (n) and E2 (n) are same for all n ∈ Z though none of these
vector bundles has summands of rank 1 and they are not isomorphic. Thus, there is no hope to construct
a universal vector bundle Syz(E1 ). The crucial reason why the Walter’s proof of the Horrocks criterion can
not be extended to a quadric threefold is that the graded algebra which defines it is singular unlike the case
of the projective space.
Therefore, in some cases its is quite difficult to show that we can construct a resolution of the necessary
type and we need to study properties of 2δ -even sets of nodes on B in detail in order to do it. This is
the reason why we need to assume minimality of the 2δ -even set of nodes w on B in Theorem 1.3. This
assumption implies in particular that |w| 6 28. The most difficult part of the theorem is to show that a
minimal 21 -even set can not consist of 28 nodes; we prove this fact in Section 5 by contradiction, constructing
a vector bundle E and a section Φ ∈ H 0 (B, S 2 E(5)) which could define a surface B(Φ) with such set of
nodes and then showing that a surface constructed in this way must have singularities worse than nodes, see
Section 5.
The description of complete intersections of quadric and quartic threefolds with minimal δ2 -even sets of
nodes given in Theorem 1.3 allows us to study Artin–Mumford obstructions to rationality of double covers
of the smooth quadric threefold branched along them. This leads us to the main result of this paper.
Corollary 1.4. Let Q ⊂ P4 be a smooth quadric hypersurface and let M be the double cover of Q branched
along a nodal surface B ⊂ Q of degree 8. If M admits an Artin–Mumford obstruction to rationality then B
is a surface with a minimal 2δ -even set of nodes from one of the cases (E2), (E3) or (O2) of Theorem 1.3.
Moreover, the double cover of Q branched along a general surface B(Φ) from one of these three cases
admits an Artin–Mumford obstruction to rationality.
Thus, we get three families of nodal Fano threefolds of index 1 and genus 3 with Artin–Mumford obstruc-
tions to rationality. The family (O2) is the one described in [PS16, Proposition 5.8]. The other two families
of examples are new.
By [IP96, Section 2.1] all smooth double covers of quadric threefolds branched along its intersection with
a quartic hypersurface in P4 are non-rational. In view of [Voi15] Corollary 1.4 gives a new proof of the fact
that a very general Fano threefold of this type is stably non-rational, see also [PS16, Remark 5.9]. Moreover,
since double covers of this type form a subfamily in the family of Fano threefolds of index 1 and genus 3 whose
general element is a quartic threefold we get also that a very general quartic threefold is stably non-rational
as it was shown in [CTP16].
The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we recall the properties of smooth quadric threefolds
and vector bundles on them. We also define 2δ -even sets of nodes on complete intersections of quadric and
quartic threefolds and study their properties. In next three sections we prove special cases of Theorem 1.3.
In Section 3 we deal with minimal 0-even sets of nodes, then in Section 4 we study minimal 12 -even sets of
at most 20 nodes and in Section 5 we prove that a 21 -even set of 28 nodes can not be minimal. Finally, in
Section 6 we complete the proof of Theorem 1.3 and prove Corollary 1.4.
Acknowledgements. I am very grateful to Costya Shramov for suggesting the problem, his interest in
this work and many useful discussions.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Spinor bundles. Let Q be a smooth quadric hypersurface in P4 . The spinor bundle S on Q is a natural
generalization of the notion of universal bundle on a Grassmannian variety. In order to define it consider the
Grassmannian Gr(2, 4), by Plücker it can be embedded to P5 and the image is a smooth quadric hypersurface
of dimension 4. Consider Q as a hyperplane section of Gr(2, 4). If we denote by U the tautological vector
bundle on Gr(2, 4), then the spinor bundle S on the quadric Q can be defined as follows:
S = U |Q .
The vector bundle S on a smooth quadric threefold satisfies the following properties.
Lemma 2.1. [Ott88], [Ott89] Let Q ⊂ P4 be a smooth quadric threefold and let S be the spinor bundle on Q.
Then the following assertion are true.
s
(1) The sequence 0 → S − → O ⊕4 → S(1) → 0 is exact and S ∨ ∼
Q = S(1).
(2) Dimensions of cohomology groups of the spinor bundle S are as follows:


 2n(n + 1)(n + 2)

 , if i = 0 and n > 0;

 3
i
h (Q, S(n)) = −2n(n + 1)(n + 2)

 , if i = 3 and n 6 −2;

 3

0, otherwise.
(3) If E is a vector bundle on Q such that H 1 (Q, E(n)) = H 2 (Q, E(n)) = 0 for all n ∈ Z, then
M M
E= S(i)⊕mi ⊕ OQ (j)⊕kj ,
i∈Z j∈Z
where mi and kj are non-negative integers for

Lall i, j ∈ Z. L
(4) Let E be a vector bundle on Q such that E = i∈Z S(i)⊕mi ⊕ j∈Z OQ (j)⊕kj for some non-negative
integers mi and kj . Then one has h1 (Q, E ⊗ S(n + 1)) = h2 (Q, E ⊗ S(n)) for all n ∈ Z.
Proof. The first and the second assertions follow from the construction of the spinor bundle. The third
assertion is a generalization of the Horrocks criterion to the case quadrics proved in [Ott89, Theorem 3.5].
The fourth assertion follows from the long exact sequence of cohomology groups of the exact sequence from
the first assertion tensored by E(n).
By the next lemma one can construct a map from the spinor bundle to a sheaf F if its cohomology groups
satisfy a certain condition.
Lemma 2.2. Let F be a coherent sheaf on a smooth quadric threefold Q ⊂ P4 such that H 1 (Q, F ) = 0. Fix
a one-dimensional subspace U ⊂ H 1 (Q, S ⊗F ). Then there exists a map ϕ : S → F such that the induced
map
IdS ⊗ ϕ : H 1 (Q, S ⊗ S) → H 1 (Q, S ⊗F )
is an embedding and the image of IdS ⊗ ϕ coincides with U .
Proof. Consider the short exact sequence from the first point of Lemma 2.1 and tensor it by F . We get a
new short exact sequence on Q. Consider its the long exact sequence of cohomology groups:
δ
· · · → H 0 (Q, S(1) ⊗ F ) −
→ H 1 (Q, S ⊗F ) → H 1 (Q, F )⊕4 → · · ·
By assumption the group H 1 (Q, F ) vanishes; thus, the connecting homomorphism δ is surjective. Choose
a non-zero element ϕ in δ −1 (U ). Since H 0 (Q, S(1) ⊗ F ) ∼
= HomQ (S, F ) this element defines a map. By
construction this map has the property described in the assertion.
2.2. Geometry of a nodal intersection of a quadric and quartic threefolds. Consider a smooth
quadric hypersurface Q and a quartic hypersurface V4 in P4 such that the intersection B = Q ∩ V4 is a
an irreducible reduced nodal surface. Denote by ι : B → Q the embedding of the surface B to Q and by
σ: Be → B the blow-up of B in Sing(B); it is a crepant resolution of singularities of B.
Lemma 2.3. Let B be a nodal complete intersection of a smooth quadric hypersurface Q and a quartic
e be the blow-up of B in Sing(B). Then the Picard group Pic(B)
hypersurface in P4 and let B e is torsion-free.
Proof. By [Tyu70, Theorem 1] one can construct a smooth 1-dimensional family π : B → T such that the
fiber over the point 0 ∈ T is isomorphic to B e and a fiber Bt is a smooth complete intersection of a quadric
and quartic hypersurfaces in P4 for all t ∈ T \ {0}. Thus, the surface B e is deformationally equivalent to Bt
e
where t 6= 0. In particular, this implies that B is diffeomorphic to Bt .
By the universal coefficient theorem the torsion subgroup of H 2 (Bt , Z) equals the torsion subgroup of the
homology group H1 (Bt , Z) which vanishes by the Lefschetz hyperplane theorem. Thus, the group H 2 (Bt , Z)
e Z). Finally, the exponential exact sequence implies the result.
is torsion-free and so is the group H 2 (B,
e For a
Denote by H the inverse image of the divisor class of a hyperplane section of P4 to the surface B.
node p on the surface B denote by Ep the exceptional divisor of σ : B e → B over this point. Then H and Ep
for all nodes p ∈ Sing(B) are classes of Cartier divisors on the surface B.
δ
Definition 2.4. We say that the set w of nodes on the nodal surface B is a 2 -even set of nodes on B
for δ = 0 or 1 if X
Ew = δH + e
Ep ∈ 2 Pic(B).
p∈w
A δ2 -even set of nodes w on B is called minimal if w does not contain a proper non-empty subset w′ which
′
also is a δ2 -even set of nodes on B for δ ′ = 0 or 1.
e Then one can define the following sheaf
In view of Lemma 2.3 there exists a unique divisor E2w in Pic(B).
on the surface B:
Ew
F = π∗ OBe − .
2
We call F the sheaf associated to the 2δ -even set of nodes w; it encodes many properties of the surface B and
the set of nodes w, see [CC97]. In particular, by construction F is a reflexive sheaf on B, its rank equals 1
in all points of B except w where it equals 2. In order to simplify notation sometimes we also denote by F
its direct image ι∗ F to Q. We say that F fits into a symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution if there exists
a vector bundle E on Q and an element Φ ∈ H 0 (Q, S 2 E(4 + δ)) such that the following sequence is exact:
Φ
(2.5) 0 → E ∨ (−4 − δ) −
→ E → F → 0.
Fix a 2δ -even set of nodes w on a nodal complete intersection of a quadric and quartic threefolds in P4 . Then
the sheaf F associated to w has the following properties.
hypersurface in P4 , let w be a 2δ -even set of nodes and let F be the sheaf associated to w. Then the following
assertions are true:
(1) The support of the sheaf F equals B and its projective dimension on the quadric threefold Q is 1.
(2) hi (B, F (n)) = hn−i (B, F (δ + 1 − n)) for all 0 6 i 6 2 and all n ∈ Z.
(3) hi (B, F ⊗ S(n)) = hn−i (B, F ⊗ S(δ + 2 − n)) for all 0 6 i 6 2 and all n ∈ Z.
(4) h1 (B, F (−n)) = 0 for all n > 0.
(5) If w is a minimal 2δ -even sets of nodes, then h1 (B, F ) = 0.
(6) χ(F (n)) = (2n − δ)(2n − δ − 2) − |w| 4 + 6.
(7) χ(F ⊗ S(n)) = 8n(n − 2 − δ) + 16 + 10δ − |w| 2 .
(8) E xt Q (ι∗ F , OQ ) ∼
= ι∗ F (5).
Proof. The first assertion is analogous to [CC97, Lemma 1.1]. The second and third assertions follow from
e and [Cat81, Remark 2.15]. The proof of the fourth assertion is analogous to
the Serre duality on the surface B
one in [CC97, Section 3]. The fifth assertion follows from [Bea80, Lemma 2]. In order to prove next assertions
note that the Todd class of the surface B e and the Chern characters of vector bundles σ ∗ (ι∗ (S)), O e (nH)
B
and O Be (−Ew /2) are as follows:
e = 1 − 1 H + 3 H 2;
td(B)
2 4
ch(σ ∗ (ι∗ (S))) = 2 − H;
n2 2
ch(O Be (nH)) = 1 + nH + H ;
2 ! !
1 X 1 X
2
ch O Be (−Ew /2) = 1 − δH + Ep + δH + Ep2 .
2 p∈w
8 p∈w
Using the Hirzebruch–Riemann–Roch formula we prove the sixth and seventh assertion. The last assertion
follows from the Grothendieck duality for the embedding ι : B → Q, see e.g. [Har66, Theorem III.11.1].
The next asserion describes how look intersections of 2δ -even sets of nodes on the surface B with lines and
planes in the projective space P4 .
hypersurface in P4 and let w be a 21 -even set of nodes on B. Then the following assertions are true:
(1) If L ⊂ B is a line in P4 then |L ∩ w| is odd. There is no line L ⊂ B such that L contains w.

(2) If H 0 (B, F (1)) 6= 0 then there is no line L ⊂ B such that |L ∩ w| > 9.
(3) If H 0 (B, F (1)) 6= 0 and |w| > 12 then there is no plane quadric curve C ⊂ B such that C ∩ Sing(B)
contains w.
Proof. Denote by L e the proper preimage of L to B.
e Then L
e is an effective divisor on B
e with the following
intersection properties:
e · H = 1;
L e · Ep = 1 for all p ∈ L ∩ w;
L e · Ep = 0 for all p ∈ w \ L.
L
Also by adjunction formula we can compute that Le 2 = −3. Since w is a 1 -even set of nodes on B such
P 2
0 e The intersection of
that H (B, F (1)) 6= 0 then D = (H − p∈w Ep )/2 is an effective Cartier divisor on B.
e
two divisor classes L and D is as follows:
e · D = 1 − |L ∩ w| .
L
2
This number should be an integer, since it is an intersection of two Cartier divisors on a smooth surface;
thus, |L ∩ w| is odd. By Lemma 2.6 the order of an even set of nodes is even; thus, the first assertion is
proved.
P
Assume now that |L ∩ w| > 9. Denote by Dn,m the divisor D − nL e−m
p∈L∩w Ep . Then the following
inequalitites are true for all p ∈ L ∩ w and all m > 0:
e= 1 − |L ∩ w|
D2m,m · L + 3m − |L ∩ w|m < 0;
2
e = 1 − |L ∩ w| + 3m + 3 − |L ∩ w|m < 0;
D2m+1,m · L
2
D2m+2,m · Ep = −1 < 0.
Assume that the divisor D2m,m is effective. Since it intersects an irreducible curve L e negatively it should
e e negatively;
contain L as an irreducible component. Thus, the divisor D2m+1,m is effeciive; it also intersects L
e
thus, it also contains L as an irreducible component. Then the divisor D2m+2,m is effective and it intersects
an irreducible curve Ep negatively for all p ∈ L ∩ w. Therefore, the divisor D2m+2,m+1 is effective.
Since by assumption the divisor D0,0 = D is effective we show by induction that D2m,m is effective for
all m > 0. However, it can not be true since D2m,m · H < 0 for sufficiently big m. Thus, we get the second
assertion.
Now let C ⊂ B be a plane curve of degree 2 lying on B and containing w. Then C is either a conic or a
union of two lines. Consider the case when the curve C = L1 ∪ L2 is a union of two lines.
Then by the first assertion of this lemma lines L1 and L2 are distinct. By Lemma 2.6 the order of w is
either 12 or at least 20. The second option is impossible by the second assertion of this lemma. Thus, one
can suppose that |L1 ∩ w| = 7 and |L2 ∩ w| = 5 and that the set L1 ∩ L2 ∩ w is empty.
Denote by L e 1 and L
e 2 the proper preimages of lines L1 and L2 to B.
e One can check that L e1 · L
e 2 = 1. As
P e Then we have the following
before fix the divisor D = (H − p∈w Ep )/2, it is an effective divisor class on B.
inequalitites:
e 1 = −3;
D·L e 1) · L
(D − L e 2 = −1;
f1 − L
(D − L f2 ) · L
f1 = −1; f1 − L
(D − 2L f2 ) · L
f2 = −1.
f1 − 2L
Since D is effective, this computation implies that the divisor D′ = D − 2L f2 is also effective. However,
′ ′
we have D · H = 0; thus, P the effective divisor D should be supported on exceptional locus of the blow-
up σ. Thus, we have D′ = p∈Sing(B) ap Ep where numbers ap are integers. However, D′ · Ep = −3 for any
point p ∈ w; thus, ap can not be an integer. This leads us to a contradiction.
The case when C is a smooth plane quadric curve is analogous. Thus, we get the third assertion.
Lemma 2.8 (see [JR97, Proposition 4.2]). Let B be a nodal complete intersection of a smooth quadric
hypersurface Q and a quartic hypersurface in the projective space P4 and let w be a 2δ -even set of nodes
on B. Then h0 (B, F (1)) 6 2.
Proof. This assertion is similar to one in the paper by Jaffe and Ruberman [JR97, Proposition 4.2]; here we
adjust their proof to our situation.
Denote by πw : SP e e
w → B the double cover of the smooth surface B branched along the smooth even
divisor Ew = δH + p∈w Ep . Denote by OQ (1), OB (1), O Be (1) and OSw (1) the inverse images of the line
bundle O P4 (1) to Q, B, Be and Sw respectively.
e By the adjunction formula the genus
A general element H ∈ | O e (1)| is a smooth curve on the surface B.
B
−1
of this curve equals 9. Let C be the curve πw (H) on the surface Sw . The curve C is smooth, it is an element
of the linear system | OSw (1)| and by Hurwitz formula its genus equals g(C) = 17 + 4δ.
One has H 0 (Sw , OSw (1)) ∼ e O e (1))⊕H 0 (B,
= H 0 (B, B
e O e (H −Ew )/2). We can assume that h0 (B, F (1)) > 0;
B
0 0 e
therefore, we have h (Sw , OSw (1)) > h (B, OBe (1)). Thus, since the linear system | OBe (1)| induces the
e → P(H 0 (B,
morphism ϕ| OBe (1)| : B e O e (1))) which is birational to its image then by [JR97, Lemma 3.1] so
B
is the morphism ϕ| OSw (1)| : Sw → P(H 0 (Sw , O Sw (1))). If we denote by O C (1) the inverse image of the line
bundle O Sw (1) then the linear system | OC (1)| also induces a birational map to its image:
ϕC = ϕ| OC (1)| : C → P(H 0 (C, O C (1))).
0
Therefore, ϕC (C) is a non-degenerate curve
j in P(H (C, k O C (1))) of degree 16 and of genus 17 + 4δ. Fix
0 deg(ϕC (C))−1
numbers r = h (C, O C (1)) − 1 and m = r−1 and ǫ = deg(ϕC (C)) − 1 − m(r − 1). Then there
exists a Castelnuovo bound for the genus of the smooth curve C, see [ACGH85, page 116]:
m(m − 1)
g(C) 6 (r − 1) + mǫ.
2
Therefore, we get that r 6 5. This implies that h0 (C, O C (1)) 6 6 and since C is the zero locus of a section
of OSw (1) we get that h0 (Sw , O Sw (1)) 6 7. Moreover, we have the following inequality:
e O e (1)) + h0 (B,
h0 (B, O B (1)) + h0 (B, F (1)) = h0 (B, e O e (H − Ew )) = h0 (Sw , OSw (1)) 6 7.
B B
The surface B is a complete intersection of a quadric and quartic threefolds in P4 ; thus, h0 (B, O B (1)) = 5
and this implies that h0 (B, F (1)) 6 2.
2.3. Cokernel of a map between vector bundles. Let X be a smooth variety, let A and B be vector
bundles of same ranks on X and let Φ be an embedding of sheaves Φ : A → B. Let B be the determinantal
variety B = {det(Φ) = 0}. By construction the support of the cokernal Coker(Φ) coincides with B as
schemes. We study the influence of the geometric properties of the variety B on the map Φ.
In view of the following assertion if Φ maps a direct summand of A isomorphically to a direct summand
of B then B can be realized as a support of the cokernel of another embedding.
Lemma 2.9. Let A1 , A2 , B1 and B2 are vector bundles on a smooth variety X and let Φij ∈ HomX (Ai , Bj )
be maps for all i = 1, 2 and j = 1, 2 such that Φ = (Φij ) : A1 ⊕ A2 → B1 ⊕ B2 is an embedding of sheaves.
If Φ11 is an isomorphism then there exists Φ′22 ∈ Hom(A2 , B2 ) such that B = {det(Φ′22 ) = 0}.
Proof. Let iA1 : A1 → A1 ⊕A2 and iB1 : B1 → B1 ⊕B2 be embeddings of the first summand to the direct sum.
Let πAj : A1 ⊕ A2 → Aj and πBj : B1 ⊕ B2 → Bj be projections from the direct sum to the j-th summand.
Denote by α the following map:
α = iB1 + Φ12 ◦ Φ−1
11 : B1 → B1 ⊕ B2 .
Then the following diagram is commutative:

iA1
A1 A1 ⊕ A2
(2.10) Φ11 Φ
α
B1 B1 ⊕ B2
This implies that Φ induces a map between cokernels of iA1 and α. Note that Coker(iA1 ) ∼
= A2 . Moreover,
one has Coker(α) ∼= B2 since the following sequence is exact:
α β
0 B1 B1 ⊕ B2 B2 0
Here β denotes the map πB2 ◦ (IdB1 ⊕B2 + Φ12 ◦ Φ−111 ◦ πB1 ). Therefore, the commutative diagram (2.10)
induces the embedding of sheaves Φ′22 : A2 → B2 such that the following diagram commutes:
iA1 πA2
0 A1 A1 ⊕ A2 A2 0
Φ11 Φ Φ′22
α β
0 B1 B1 ⊕ B2 B2 0
Since Φ11 is an isomorphism the snake lemma implies that Coker(Φ) is isomorphic to Coker(Φ′22 ). Therefore,
the supports of these sheaves are isomorphic and we get the result.
The next assertion shows that if B is an irreducible scheme then there is an additional condition on the
map Φ.
Lemma 2.11. Let A1 , A2 , B1 and B2 are vector bundles on a smooth variety X and let Φij ∈ HomX (Ai , Bj )
be maps for all i = 1, 2 and j = 1, 2 such that Φ = (Φij ) : A1 ⊕ A2 → B1 ⊕ B2 is an embedding of sheaves.
If Φ21 : A1 → B2 is a zero map and deg(A1 ) 6= deg(B1 ) then rk(A1 ) 6 rk(B1 ) and in the case of the
equality one has that either B = {det(Φ11 ) = 0} or B is reducible or non-reduced.
Proof. The map Φ defines an embedding and Φ21 is zero. Thus, Φ11 should also be an embedding. Thus,
we get the inequality on ranks of bundles A1 and B1 .
Assume now that rk(A1 ) = rk(B1 ). Then there exist a map Φ′22 ∈ HomX (A2 , B2 ) such that the following
diagram commutes:
0 A1 A1 ⊕ A2 A2 0
Φ11 Φ Φ′22
0 B1 B1 ⊕ B2 B2 0
Then by snake lemma we conclude that either Φ11 is an isomorphism or the cokernel of Φ is supported on
the union of supportes of the cokernels of Φ11 and Φ′22 . This implies the result.
2.4. Defect of a set of points. We start with a definition of an invariant of a finite set of points in a
smooth quadric threefold Q ⊂ P4 .
Definition 2.12. Let Q be a smooth quadric threefold in P4 and let w ⊂ Q is a finite set of points. Denote
by Iw the sheaf of ideals of the set of points w. Then the defect of w is the following number:
d(w) = h0 (Q, Iw (3)) − (h0 (Q, OQ (3)) − |w|) = h0 (Q, Iw (3)) − 30 + |w|.
The defect shows how the dimension of the space of divisors in the linear system | OQ (3)| passing through
the set of points w differs from the expected dimension. The defect has the following useful property.
Lemma 2.13 ([Kuz22, Lemma 4.6]). Let w be a set of points on a smooth quadric threefold Q and let w′
be its subset. Then d(w′ ) 6 d(w).
Let B be a nodal complete intersection of a smooth quadric hypersurface Q and a quartic hypersurface
in the projective space P4 . Assume that w1 and w2 are a δ21 -even and a δ22 -even sets of nodes on B then one
can define a new set of nodes w1 + w2 on B which we call the sum of w1 and w2 . Namely, we set
w1 + w2 = w1 ∪ w2 \ w1 ∩ w2 .
One can check that if δ = δ1 + δ2 mod 2, then w1 + w2 is a 2δ -even set of nodes on B. Denote by CB the
group which elements are 2δ -even sets of nodes on B and this addition. Since all non-zero elements of CB
are of order 2 we get that the number |CB | is a power of 2.
The following assertion relates the defect of the singular locus of a nodal surface and the order of the
group CB .
Theorem 2.14 ([Cyn02, Corollary 2]). Let B be a nodal complete intersection of a smooth quadric hyper-
surface Q and a quartic hypersurface in the projective space P4 and let CB be the group of even sets of nodes
on B. Then the double cover of Q branched along B admits an Artin–Mumford obstruction to rationality if
one has the following inequality:
|CB | > 2d(Sing(B)) ,
where d(Sing(B)) is the defect of the set Sing(B) of singular points in B.
The next assertion geves a relation between defects of 2δ -even sets of nodes on the nodal surface B with
the defect of all singular points of B.
Theorem 2.15 ([Kuz22, Corollary 4.10]). Let Q be a smooth quadric threefold and let B be a nodal surface
in Q. If for any non-zero 2δ -even set of nodes w ∈ CB one has d(w) > 1 then |CB | = 2d(Sing(B)) .
In view of Theorem 2.14 this assertion implies that if the double cover of a smooth quadric threefold Q
branched along a nodal surface B has an Artin–Mumford obstruction to rationality then there is a non-
empty 2δ -even set of nodes w ⊂ B which defect vanishes.
Finally, the next assertion explains how to compute the defect of a 2δ -even set of nodes on B using a
symmetric Casnati–Catanese exact sequence.
Theorem 2.16 ([Józ78, Theorem 3.1]). Let B be a nodal complete intersection of a smooth quadric hyper-
surface Q and a quartic hypersurface in the projective space P4 and let w be a 2δ -even set of nodes on B.
If the sheaf F associated to w fits into a symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution (2.5) then the sheaf of
ideals Iw (3) has the following free resolution on Q:
0 → Λ2 E ∨ (−5 − δ) → sl(E)(−1) → S 2 E(3 + δ) → Iw (3) → 0.
Here by sl(E) we denote the vector bundle of traceless endomorphisms of E.
3. Minimal 0-even sets of nodes

In this section we describe 0-even sets of nodes on a nodal complete intersection B of a smooth quadric
hypersurface Q with a quartic hypersurface in P4 . The idea is to fix a 0-even set of nodes w ⊂ B, then
to consider the sheaf F associated to w, see (2.2), and finally, to construct a Casnati–Catanese symmetric
resolution (2.5) for F .
Let w be a minimal non-empty 0-even set of nodes. Denote by ν the number |w|/4. In view of our
assumptions and Lemma 2.6 the dimensions of cohomology groups of the sheaf F (n) are as follows:
Table 1
hi (Q, F (−2)) hi (Q, F (−1)) hi (Q, F ) hi (Q, F (1)) hi (Q, F (2)) hi (Q, F (3))
i=2 30 − ν 14 − ν 6−ν 0 0 0
i=1 0 0 0 0 0 0
i=0 0 0 0 6−ν 14 − ν 30 − ν
This implies, in particular, that the sheaf F (3) is Mumford–Castelnuovo regular i.e. H 0 (B, F (3)) generates
the sheaf F (3). Denote by x the dimension of the cohomology group H 1 (Q, S ⊗F ). Then by Lemma 2.6
dimensions of cohomology groups of the sheaf S ⊗F (n) are as follows:
Table 2
hi (Q, S ⊗F (−1)) hi (Q, S ⊗F ) hi (Q, S ⊗F (1)) hi (Q, S ⊗F (2)) hi (Q, S ⊗F (3))

i=2 40 − 2ν 16 − 2ν + x x 0 0
i=1 0 x 2x + 2ν − 8 x 0
i=0 0 0 x 16 − 2ν + x 40 − 2ν
The Serre duality induces a non-degenerate alternating form on H 1 (Q, S ⊗F (1)). Denote by W a maximal
isotropic subspace of H 1 (Q, S ⊗F (1)).
Then the dimension
of W equals x+ ν − 4. Denote by Espin the vector
bundle H 0 (Q, S ⊗F (2)) ⊗ S(−2) ⊕ W ⊗ S(−1) . Then Espin is isomorphic to S(−2)⊕x ⊕ S(−1)⊕x+ν−4
and by Lemma 2.2 there is a map of vector bundles:
ϕspin : Espin → F .
L
Consider a graded algebra A = n∈Z H 0 (Q, F (n))/Im(ϕspin ) where by Im(ϕspin ) we mean the graded
L
ideal ϕ∗spin 0 0
n∈Z H (Q, Espin (n)) . Since H (Q, F (n)) vanishes for all n 6 0 and since F (3) is Mum-
ford–Castelnuovo regular the algebra A is generated by elements in H 0 (Q, F (1))⊕H 0 (Q, F (2))⊕H 0 (Q, F (3)).
Choose the minimal set of graded generators of A (i.e. any element from the set of generators lie in a graded
component of A) and assume that this set contains exactly mi elements of H 0 (Q, F (i)) for i = 1, 2 and 3.
Denote by Elin the vector bundle O Q (−1)⊕m1 ⊕ OQ (−2)⊕m2 ⊕ OQ (−3)⊕m3 . Note that by construction we
get m1 = h0 (Q, F (1)) = 6 − ν. Then the set of generators we have choosen define the map from Elin to F :
ϕlin : Elin → F .
Denote by E and ϕ the vector bundle Espin ⊕ Elin and the inverse image map ϕ = ϕspin ⊕ ϕlin .
Lemma 3.1. Let E be a vector bundle S(−2)⊕x ⊕ S(−1)⊕x+ν−4 ⊕ OQ (−1)⊕6−ν ⊕ OQ (−2)⊕m2 ⊕ OQ (−3)⊕m3
and let the map ϕ : E → F be as defined above. Then ϕ is surjective and satisfies the following properties:
(1) the map ϕ : H 0 (Q, E(n)) → H 0 (Q, F (n)) is surjective for all n ∈ Z and this map is an isomorphism
for n = 1;
(2) the map ϕ : H 1 (Q, S ⊗E(n)) → H 1 (Q, S ⊗F (n)) is an isomorphism for n = 2, an embedding to the
cohomology group H 1 (Q, S ⊗F (1)) which image equals W , and zero for all n 6= 1 or 2.
By construction the map ϕ∗ : H 0 (Q, E(n)) → H 0 (Q, F (n)) is surjective for any n ∈ Z. Therefore, ϕ is a
surjective map of sheaves. Denote by K the kernel of the map ϕ and by Φ its embedding to E; we get an
exact sequence:
Φ ϕ
(3.2) 0→K−
→E −
→ F → 0.
Further we study properties of the sheaf K. We start with the following assertion.
Lemma 3.3. Let E be a vector bundle S(−2)⊕x ⊕ S(−1)⊕x+ν−4 ⊕ OQ (−1)⊕6−ν ⊕ OQ (−2)⊕m2 ⊕ OQ (−3)⊕m3
where m1 , m2 and m3 are choosen in a minimal way and let the map ϕ : E → F be as defined above.
Then m3 = 0 and K = Ker(ϕ) is isomorphic to E ∨ (−4).
Proof. Since the projective dimension of F equals 1 by Lemma 2.6 we get that K is a vector bundle. By
Lemma 3.1 we get that H 0 (Q, K(n)) = 0 for all n 6 1 and that H 1 (Q, K(n)) = H 2 (Q, K(n)) = 0 for
all n ∈ Z. Thus, by [Ott89, Theorem 3.5] the bundle K is isomorphic to the following:
M M
(3.4) K= S(−i)⊕si ⊕ OQ (−j)⊕nj ,
i>1 j>2
where si and nj are non-negative integers for i 6 −1 and j 6 −2. By Lemma 2.1 this implies that
h1 (Q, K(n + 1)) = h2 (Q, K(n)) for all n ∈ Z.
Consider the long exact sequence of cohomology groups for the exact sequence (3.2) tensored by S(n):
0 → H 0 (Q, K ⊗ S(n)) → H 0 (Q, E ⊗ S(n)) → H 0 (Q, F ⊗ S(n)) → H 1 (Q, K ⊗ S(n)) → H 1 (Q, E ⊗ S(n)) →
→ H 1 (Q, F ⊗ S(n)) → H 2 (Q, K ⊗ S(n)) → H 2 (Q, E ⊗ S(n)) → H 2 (Q, F ⊗ S(n)) → . . .
From this exact sequence we get that H 0 (Q, K ⊗ S(n)) and H 1 (Q, K ⊗ S(n)) vanish for all n 6 0. The
groups H 0 (Q, K ⊗ S(1)) and H 0 (Q, K ⊗ S(2)) also vanish by (3.4); thus, if we fix n = 1 then by Lemma 3.1
we get that h1 (Q, K ⊗ S(1)) = x. Thus, we get that s1 = x in (3.4).
If we fix n = 2 the long exact sequence of cohomology groups implies that h1 (Q, K ⊗ S(2)) = x + ν − 4.
Moreover, one can see that H 2 (Q, K ⊗ S(n)) vanishes for n > 2. Thus, s2 = x + ν − 4 and si = 0 for all
i > 3 in (3.4).
Since the ranks of bundles E and K are equal and by Lemma 3.1 we get the following equalities:
X
4x + 2ν − 8 + nj = rk(K) = rk(E) = 4x + ν − 2 + m2 + m3 ;
4x − ν + n2 + 14 = h0 (Q, K(2)) + h0 (Q, F (2)) = h0 (Q, E(2)) = 4x − ν + m2 + 14;
20x + 3ν + 14 + 5n2 + n3 = h0 (Q, K(3)) + h0 (Q, F (3)) = h0 (Q, E(3)) = 20x + 2ν − 20 + 5m2 + m3 .
This implies that n2 = m2 and n3 = m3 − ν + 6 and nj = 0 for all j > 3. Finally, since the map from K to E
is an embedding and groups HomQ (S(−1), OQ (−3)), HomQ (S(−2), OQ (−3)) and HomQ (OQ (−2), OQ (−3))
vanish and since the choice of numbers mi was minimal we get by Lemma 2.9 that m3 = 0. This implies the
result.
The resolution (3.2) that we constructed is minimal in the sense that there is no subbundles K0 ⊂ K
and E0 ⊂ E such that the restriction Φ|K0 : K0 → E0 is an isomorphism of vector bundles. Therefore, we
obtain the following condition for parameters of E.
hypersurface V4 in P4 , let w be a minimal 0-even set of 4ν nodes on B and let the embedding Φ : K → E be
as in Lemma 3.3. Then we have the following restrictions for numbers m2 , x and ν:
(1) 8 − 2ν 6 2x 6 5 − ν;
(2) m2 6 ν − 3;
(3) 4 6 ν 6 6.
Proof. The groups HomQ (S(−1), V) vanish for V = S(−2) and OQ (−2). Since HomQ (S(−1), S(−1)) is
generated by the identity by the minimality of the resolution of F we get that Φ(S(−1)⊕x ) is a subsheaf
of O Q (−1)⊕6−ν . Therefore, 2x 6 6 − ν. Moreover, in the case of equality by Lemma 2.11 we get that the
surface B is reducible or the choice of mi was not minimal which contradicts the assumption. Finally, the
number x + ν − 4 also should be positive. Thus, we get the first restriction.
The second restriction follows from the irreducibility of B and the fact that Φ(S(−1)⊕x ⊕ OQ (−2)⊕m2 )
is a subsheaf of O Q (−1)⊕6−ν ⊕ S(−1)⊕x+ν−4 . Finally, the third condition is an implication of the first one
and the fact that the number 6 − ν is non-negative and Lemma 2.8.
hypersurface in P4 , let w be a minimal 0-even set of 4ν nodes on B and let the embedding Φ : K → E be as in
Lemma 3.3. Then there exists an element Φ′ ∈ H 0 (Q, S 2 E(4)) such that Φ′ defines an embedding E ∨ (−4) → E
and Coker(Φ′ ) ∼
= F.
Proof. Apply the functor H om Q (−, OQ (−4)) to the Casnati–Catanese resolution (3.2) as in Lemma 3.3;
we get the following diagram:
Φ ϕ
0 K E F 0
(3.7) s2 s1 s0
∨ Φ∨ ∨ ψ
0 E (−4) K (−4) F 0
By construction of F there exists an isomorphism s0 : F → E xt 1Q (F , OQ (−4)). If one can construct iso-

morphisms s1 : E → K∨ (−4) and s2 : K → E ∨ (−4) such that the diagram commutes and s2 = s∨ 1 then we
set Φ′ = s−1
1 ◦ Φ ∨
and get the result. So our goal is to construct such maps s 1 and s 2 .
By construction E = Espin ⊕ Elin and by Lemma 3.3 bundles K and E are isomorphic; thus, there is a
splitting K = Kspin ⊕ Klin such that Kspin and Klin are isomorphic to Espin and Elin respectively. Then the
map ψ : K∨ (−4) is a direct sum ψ = ψspin ⊕ ψlin of a spinor and a linear components ψspin : Kspin
∨
(−4) → F
∨
and ψlin : Klin (−4) → F .
The map ϕ : Espin → F is defined by the linear maps ϕ : H 1 (Q, Espin ⊗ S(n)) → H 1 (Q, F ⊗ S(n)) for n = 1
and 2. Note that by Lemma 2.2 and the long exact sequence of cohomology groups for the sequences in
∨
diagram (3.7) one can construct an isomorphism sspin : Espin → Kspin (−4) such that the following diagram
commutes for all n ∈ Z:
ϕspin
H 1 (Q, Kspin ⊗ S(n)) H 1 (Q, Espin ⊗ S(n)) H 1 (Q, F ⊗ S(n))
s∨
spin
sspin s0
H 1 (Q, Espin
∨
(−4) ⊗ S(n)) H 1 (Q, Kspin
∨
(−4) ⊗ S(n)) ψspin
H 1 (Q, F ⊗ S(n))
L
Recall that ϕlin is defined by a minimal set of generators of the algebra A = n∈Z H 0 (Q, F (n))/Im(ϕspin ).
L
Fix the image of this set of generators of the algebra A′ = n∈Z H 0 (Q, F (n))/Im(ψspin ). This identification
∨
defines a map slin : Elin → Klin (−4).
Set s1 = sspin ⊕ slin ; it is an isomorphism from E to K∨ (−4). Moreover, if we set s2 = s∨ 1 then the
diagram (3.7) is commutative. This finishes the proof.
Corollary 3.8. Let B be a nodal complete intersection of a smooth quadric hypersurface Q and a quartic
hypersurface
in the projective space P4 and let w be a minimal
non-empty 0-even set of nodes on the surface B.
Then B = det (Φ : E (−4) → E) = 0| Φ ∈ H 0 (Q, S 2 E(4)) and the following 4 cases are possible:
∨
(E1) |w| = 16 and E = OQ (−1)⊕2 ⊕ O Q (−2), d(w) = 1;

(E2) |w| = 20 and E = S(−1) ⊕ OQ (−1), d(w) = 0;
⊕2
(E3) |w| = 24 and E = S(−1) , d(w) = 0.
Moreover, if one take a general element Φ of H 0 (Q, S 2 E(4)) as in (E1 - E3) then B = {det(Φ) = 0} is
a nodal complete intersection of Q and a quartic hypersurface in P4 and the even set w is the set of all
singularities of B.
Proof. Let w be a minimal non-empty 0-even set of nodes on the surface B. Consider the Casnati–Catanese
resolution (3.2) constructed in the beginning of this section and replace Φ by Φ′ as in Lemma 3.6. Using
Lemmas 3.3 and 3.5 we argue case by case.
If ν = 4 then |w| = 16 and x = 0 and m2 6 2. The case m2 = 2 is excluded since B is an irreducible
surface. Thus, we get the case (E1).
If ν = 5 then |w| = 20 and x = 0. Since the resolution is minimal and HomQ (S(−2), OQ (−2)) = 0 we
get that the only summand of K which maps with non-zero image to O Q (−2)⊕m2 is O Q (−3). Therefore,
m2 6 1 and the case of the equality is excluded by by Lemma 2.11 since B is an irreducible surface. Thus,
we get the case (E2).
If ν = 6 then |w| = 24 and x = 0. Since the resolution is minimal and HomQ (S(−2), OQ (−2)) = 0 we get
that Φ(K) is a subsheaf of S(−1)⊕2 . Thus, m2 = 0 and we get the case (E3).
The defect in all cases we compute by Theorem 2.16. The last assertion follows from the modification of
Bertini theorem [Bar80, Lemma 4].
1
4. Minimal 2 -even sets of no more than 20 nodes
1
In this section we study 2 -evensets of nodes on a nodal complete intersection B of a smooth quadric
hypersurface Q with a quartic hypersurface in P4 . Fix a 12 -even set of nodes w ⊂ B such that |w| 6 20 and
consider the sheaf F defined in (2.2). Our goal is to construct a Casnati–Catanese symmetric resolution for
the sheaf F .
In the case when |w| 6 20 we have the following condition on the cohomology groups of the sheaf F .
hypersurface V4 in the projective space P4 and let w be a minimal non-empty 21 -even set of nodes on the
surface B. If |w| 6 20 then H 1 (B, F (1)) = 0.
Proof. By Lemma 2.6 if |w| 6 20 then either |w| = 4 or 12 or 20. Fix a non-zero section of the sheaf F (1); it
e O e ( H−Ew )). Then s2 is an element in H 0 (B,
defines a non-zero element s in the group H 0 (B, e O e (H − Ew ))
B 2 B
1
so the 2 -even set of nodes w lies on the intersection of the surface B with a hyperplane section H in P4 .
By Lemma 2.8 we get that h0 (B, F (1)) 6 2. This implies that if |w| = 4 then H 1 (B, F (1)) vanishes.
Assume that h0 (B, F (1)) = 2 then there exists a two-dimensional space of hyperplanes which contain the
set of nodes w. Let H1 and H2 be two elements in this space. Thus, w lies on the intersection H1 ∩H2 ∩Q∩V4 .
Therefore, either H1 ∩ H2 ∩ Q is a curve on B or w contains no more than 8 nodes. The first option is
impossible by Lemma 2.7. Thus, if |w| = 12 or 20 we get that h0 (B, F (1)) 6 1. This implies that if |w| = 12
then H 1 (B, F (1)) vanishes.
Let w be an even set of 20 nodes. By the previous argument we conclude that h0 (B, F (1)) 6 1. Assume
that this is an equality. Consider the multiplication map:
m : H 0 (B, F (1)) ⊗ H 0 (B, O B (1)) → H 0 (B, F (2))
On the one hand, since h0 (B, F (1)) = 1 the map m is an embedding; otherwise there exists a non-zero
section in H 0 (B, O B (1)) which vanishes on B. On the other hand, in view of Lemma 2.6 the dimension of the
cohomology group H 0 (B, F (2)) equals 4 which is less that h0 (B, OB (1)) = 5. Thus, we get a contradiction;
therefore, both numbers h0 (B, F (1)) and h1 (B, F (1)) are zero.
By Lemma 2.6 we get that |w| ≡ 4 mod 8. Let µ be an integer such that |w| = 8µ + 4. Then by
Lemma 4.1 we get the following table of cohomology groups of F in the case when |w| 6 20.
Table 3
hi (Q, F (−1)) hi (Q, F ) hi (Q, F (1)) hi (Q, F (2)) hi (Q, F (3)) hi (Q, F (4))
i=2 20 − 2µ 8 − 2µ 2−µ 0 0 0
i=1 0 0 0 0 0 0
i=0 0 0 2−µ 8 − 2µ 20 − 2µ 40 − 2µ
This implies, in particular, that the sheaf F (4) is Mumford–Castelnuovo regular i.e. H 0 (B, F (4)) generates
the sheaf F (4). Denote by x and y dimensions of cohomology groups H 1 (Q, S ⊗F ) and H 1 (Q, S ⊗F (1))
respectively. Then by Lemma 2.6 dimensions of cohomology groups of the sheaf S ⊗F (n) are as follows:
Table 4
hi (Q, S ⊗F (−1)) hi (Q, S ⊗F ) hi (Q, S ⊗F (1)) hi (Q, S ⊗F (2)) hi (Q, S ⊗F (3))

i=2 56 − 4µ 24 − 4µ + x 8 − 4µ − x + y x 0
i=1 0 x y y x
i=0 0 0 x 8 − 4µ − x + y 24 − 4µ + x

Denote by Espin the vector bundle H 0 (Q, S ⊗F (3)) ⊗ S(−3) ⊕ H 0 (Q, S ⊗F (2)) ⊗ S(−2) . Then Espin is
isomorphic to S(−3)⊕x ⊕ S(−2)⊕y and by Lemma 2.2 there is a map of vector bundles:
ϕspin : Espin → F .
L 0
Consider a graded algebra A = n∈Z H (Q, F (n))/Im(ϕspin ) where by Im(ϕspin ) we mean the graded
L
ideal ϕ∗spin 0 0
n∈Z H (Q, Espin (n)) . Since H (Q, F (n)) vanishes for all n 6 0 and since F (4) is Mum-
ford–Castelnuovo regular the algebra A is generated by elements in first, second, third and fourth graded
components. Choose the minimal set of graded generators of A (i.e. any element from the set of generators
lie in a graded component of A) and assume that this set contains exactly mi elements of H 0 (Q, F (i))
for i = 1, 2, 3 and 4. Denote by Elin the vector bundle O Q (−1)⊕m1 ⊕OQ (−2)⊕m2 ⊕OQ (−3)⊕m3 ⊕OQ (−4)⊕m4 .
Note that by construction we get m1 = h0 (Q, F (1)) = 2 − µ. Then the set of generators we have choosen
define the map from Elin to F :
Denote by E and ϕ the vector bundle Espin ⊕ Elin and the inverse image map ϕ = ϕspin ⊕ ϕlin .
Lemma 4.2. Let E = S(−3)⊕x ⊕ S(−2)⊕y ⊕ OQ (−1)⊕2−µ ⊕ OQ (−2)⊕m2 ⊕ O Q (−3)⊕m3 ⊕ OQ (−4)⊕m4 and
let the map ϕ : E → F be as defined above. Then ϕ is surjective and satisfies the following properties:
(1) the map ϕ : H 0 (Q, E(n)) → H 0 (Q, F (n)) is surjective for all n ∈ Z and this map is an isomorphism
for n = 1;
(2) the map ϕ : H 1 (Q, S ⊗E(n)) → H 1 (Q, S ⊗F (n)) is an isomorphism for n = 2 and 3 and zero for all
n 6= 2 or 3.
By construction the map ϕ∗ : H 0 (Q, E(n)) → H 0 (Q, F (n)) is surjective for any n ∈ Z. Therefore, ϕ is a
surjective map of sheaves. Denote by K the kernel of the map ϕ and by Φ its embedding to E; we get an
exact sequence:
Φ ϕ
(4.3) 0→K−
→E −
→ F → 0.
Further we study properties of the sheaf K. We start with the following assertion.
Lemma 4.4. Let E = S(−3)⊕x ⊕ S(−2)⊕y ⊕ OQ (−1)⊕2−µ ⊕ OQ (−2)⊕m2 ⊕ O Q (−3)⊕m3 ⊕ OQ (−4)⊕m4 and
let the map ϕ : E → F be as defined above. If we denote by z = 4x + 3µ − 2 then
K = S(−1)⊕x ⊕ S(−2)⊕y ⊕ OQ (−2)m2 −z ⊕ O Q (−3)m3 +z ⊕ OQ (−4)⊕m4 +2−µ .
Proof. Since the projective dimension of F equals 1 by Lemma 2.6 we get that K is a vector bundle. By
Lemma 4.2 we get that H 0 (Q, K(n)) = 0 for all n 6 1 and that groups H 1 (Q, K(n)) and H 2 (Q, K(n)) vanish
for all n ∈ Z. Thus, by [Ott89, Theorem 3.5] the bundle K is isomorphic to the following:
M M
(4.5) K= S(−i)⊕si ⊕ OQ (−j)⊕nj ,
i>1 j>2
where si and nj are non-negative integers for i 6 −1 and j 6 −2. By Lemma 2.6 this implies that
h1 (Q, K(n + 1)) = h2 (Q, K(n)) for all n ∈ Z.
Consider the long exact sequence of cohomology groups for the exact sequence (4.3) tensored by S(n):
0 → H 0 (Q, K ⊗ S(n)) → H 0 (Q, E ⊗ S(n)) → H 0 (Q, F ⊗ S(n)) → H 1 (Q, K ⊗ S(n)) → H 1 (Q, E ⊗ S(n)) →
→ H 1 (Q, F ⊗ S(n)) → H 2 (Q, K ⊗ S(n)) → H 2 (Q, E ⊗ S(n)) → H 2 (Q, F ⊗ S(n)) → . . .
From this exact sequence we get that H 0 (Q, K⊗S(n)) and H 1 (Q, K⊗S(n)) vanish for all n 6 0. Substituting
n = 0, 1 and 2 we get that s1 = x and s2 = y by Lemma 4.2.
Consider the long exact sequence of cohomology groups for the exact sequence (4.3) twisted by 2. It
implies that n2 = m2 − 4x − 3µ + 2. Then by the long exact sequence for K ⊗ S(3) we get that s3 = 0.
Consider the long exact sequence of cohomology groups for the exact sequence (4.3) twisted by 3. It
implies that n3 = m3 + 4x + 3µ − 2. Then by the long exact sequence for K ⊗ S(j) we get that sj = 0
for j > 4.
Computing the rank of K and considering the the exact sequence (4.3) twisted by 4 we get n4 = m4 + 2 − µ
and nj vanishes for all j > 5. This finishes the proof.
hypersurface 4
in P , let w be a minimal 12 -even set of 8µ + 4 nodes on the surface B. If |w| is at most 20
then B = det (Φ : E (−4) → E) = 0| Φ ∈ H 0 (Q, S 2 E(5)) where the map Φ does not split into a direct sum
∨
of two maps of proper vector subbundles of E. Moreover, the following 3 cases are possible:
(O1) |w| = 12 and E = O Q (−1) ⊕ O Q (−2), d(w) = 1;
⊕4
(O2) |w| = 20 and E = O Q (−2) , d(w) = 0;
⊕4
(O3) |w| = 20 and E = S(−2) ⊕ OQ (−2) , d(w) = 1.
Moreover, if one take a general element Φ in H 0 (Q, S 2 E(4)) as in (O1) or (O2) then B = {det(Φ) = 0}
is a nodal complete intersection of Q and a quartic hypersurface in P4 and the even set w is the set of all
singularities of B.
Proof. By Lemma 4.1 we get that in our case groups H 1 (B, F (n)) vanish for all n ∈ Z. Then we construct
the surjective map ϕ : E → F as in Lemma 4.2. We denote by Φ : K → E the kernel of ϕ. By Lemma 4.4
and the minimality of the choice of numbers m1 , m2 , m3 and m4 we get that x = m4 = 0 and µ = 1 or 2.
By Lemmas 2.9 and 2.11 we get that K ∼ = E ∨ (−5) and that E is a vector bundle as in the case (O1) if
µ = 1 and as in the case (O2) and (O3) if µ = 2. One can replace Φ by an element in H 0 (Q, S 2 E(5)) by the
analogous argument as in Lemma 3.6. We compute the defects by Theorem 2.16. The last assertion follows
from the modification of Bertini theorem [Bar80, Lemma 4].
Note that a surface we get in the point (O2) can be obtained as a zero locus of a section of the vector
bundle S 2 E(5) defined in the point (O3) if we allow Φ to split into a direct sum IdS(−2) ⊕ Φ′ , where Φ′
is a section of the bundle S 2 E ′ (5) and E ′ is as in the point (O2). However, the defects in these two cases
differ, that is why we divide them in two different options. Later we will show that in the case (O3) one can
construct a simpler symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution, see Lemma 6.1.
1
5. Minimal 2 -even sets of 28 nodes
Our goal in this section is to prove the following result.
Theorem 5.1. Let B be a nodal complete intersection of a smooth quadric hypersurface Q and a quartic
hypersurface in P4 . Then B contains no minimal 12 -even set of 28 nodes.
The proof of theorem is quite long, here we give its approximate plan. By contradiction we assume
that there exists a nodal surface B of the necessary type with a minimal 21 -even set of 28 nodes w. We
denote by F the sheaf associated to w and construct a symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution for F . The
construction involves several steps. First, we consider a map from the quadric threefold Q to P3 and construct
a symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution of the direct image of the sheaf F to P3 . We manage to do it using
a very powerful results on the structure of vector bundles on projective spaces such as generalized Horrocks
criterion developed in [Wal96]. This helps us to deduce new properties of the sheaf F and to construct a free
resolution of F on Q which is not symmetric though. However, using properties of the sheaf F provided by
this resolution we finally construct the necessary resolution for F . This allows us to find a one-dimensional
subscheme in B such that the rank of F equals at least 2 along it; so we get a contradiction and conclude
the result.
5.1. Push forward of F to P3 . Choose a point x ∈ P4 \ Q and let p : P4 99K P3 be a rational projection
from the point x to a hyperplane in P4 . Then the restricted map p : Q → P3 is a finite morphism of degree 2.
Consider the direct image p∗ F of the sheaf F to P3 . This sheaf has the following property.
hypersurface in P4 , let w be a 21 -even set of nodes on B. If p : Q → P3 is a double cover induce by a
projection from P4 to a hyperplane then one has the following isomorphism for any m ∈ Z:
E xt 1 3 (p∗ F (m), OP3 ) ∼
P = p∗ F (6 − m).
Proof. Let A, B and C be sheaves on P3 , Q and B respectively. Denote by ι : B → P3 the embedding of
the surface. We use the Grothendieck duality in a way described in [Har66, Theorem III.11.1]. By the
Grothendieck duality for the the morphism p one has the following isomorphism for all 0 6 j 6 3:
∼ E xt j (B, p∗ A(1)).
E xt j 3 (p∗ (B), A) =
P Q
It is true since the relative canonical bundle ωQ/P3 equals O Q (1). Moreover, by the Grothendieck duality for
the embedding ι : B → Q one has the following isomorphism for all 1 6 k 6 3:
E xt k (ι∗ C, B) ∼
Q = E xt k−1 (C, ι∗ B(4)).
B
e → B is the minimal resolution of singularities of B. Denote by πw : Sw → B
Recall that σ : B e the double
P
cover of B branched along the divisor H + q∈w Eq . By construction (σ ◦ πw )∗ O Sw = O B ⊕F . The
multiplication map O Sw ⊗ OSw → OSw induces following non-degenerate pairing:
F ⊗ F → OB (1).
∼
Therefore, there is an isomorphism F (1) = H om B (F , O B ). This fact and the above arguments proves the
following isomorphisms:
E xt 1P3 (p∗ (ι∗ F (m)), O P3 ) ∼
= p∗ E xt 1Q (ι∗ F (m), O Q (1)) ∼
= p∗ (ι∗ H om B (F (m), O B (5))) ∼
= p∗ (ι∗ F (6 − m)).
Here for more accuracy we destinguish sheaves F on B and ι∗ F on Q. This chain of isomorphisms implies
the necessary result.
The cohomology groups of the direct image p∗ F are related to those ones of the sheaf F . Namely, the
following assetion is true.
hypersurface in P4 , let w be a minimal 21 -even set of 28 nodes on B and let p : Q → P3 be a double cover
induce by a projection from P4 to a hyperplane. Then
H j (P3 , p∗ F (n)) ∼
= H j (Q, F (n))
for all 0 6 j 6 2 and all n ∈ Z. Moreover, H 1 (P3 , p∗ F (1)) ∼
= C2 and H 0 (P3 , p∗ F (1)) = 0 and p∗ F (3) is a
Castelnuovo–Mumford regular sheaf.
Proof. The isomorphism H j (P3 , p∗ F (n)) ∼
= H j (Q, F (n)) is true because higher direct images of the finite
cover p vanish. Thus, it suffices to show that h1 (B, F (1)) = 2. By Lemma 2.6 it is equivalent to the fact
that h0 (B, F (1)) = 0. Since by Lemma 2.6 one has h0 (Q, F (2)) = 2 the proof of the latter fact is analogues
to the proof of Lemma 4.1. Finally, p∗ F (3) is Castelnuovo–Mumford regular by Lemma 2.6.
By Serre duality on P3 and Lemma 5.2 there is a non-degenerate pairing on cohomology groups of p∗ F :
H 1 (P3 , p∗ F (1)) ⊗ H 1 (P3 , p∗ F (1)) → C .
Denote by U the one-dimensional isotropic subspace of H 1 (P3 , p∗ F (1)) with respect to this pairing. Then
by [Wal96] there exists a map of sheaves on P3
ϕΩ : Ω1P3 (−1) → p∗ F ,
such that this map induces embeddings between the first cohomology groups of all twists of sheaves Ω1P3 (−1)
and p∗ F , and moreover, ϕΩ (H 1 (P3 , ΩL
1 1 3
P3 )) = U ⊂ H (P , F (1)).
0
Consider a graded algebra A = n∈Z H (Q, F (n))/Im(ϕΩ ) where by Im(ϕΩ ) we mean the graded
∗
L 0 3 1 0
ideal ϕΩ n∈Z H (P , ΩP3 (n − 1)) . Since H (Q, F (n)) vanishes for all n 6 1 and since p∗ F (3) is Mum-
ford–Castelnuovo regular the algebra A is generated by elements in the second and third graded components.
Choose a minimal set of graded generators of A (i.e. any element from the set of generators lie in a graded
component of A) and assume that this set contains exactly mi elements of H 0 (Q, F (i)) for i = 2 and 3.
Denote by Elin the vector bundle O Q (−2)⊕m2 ⊕ OQ (−3)⊕m3 . Note that by construction and Lemma 2.6 we
get m2 = h0 (P3 , F (2)) = 2. Then this set of generators defines the map from Elin to F :
Denote by E and ϕ the vector bundle Ω1P3 (−1) ⊕ Elin
and the map ϕ = ϕΩ ⊕ ϕlin : E → F . The construction
of the vector bundle E and the sheaf map ϕ has the following properties.
Lemma 5.4. Let E = Ω1P3 (−1) ⊕ OQ (−2)⊕2 ⊕ OQ (−3)⊕m3 and let the map ϕ : E → p∗ F be as defined above.
Then ϕ is surjective and satisfies the following properties:
(1) the map ϕ : H 0 (P3 , E(n)) → H 0 (P3 , p∗ F (n)) is surjective for all n ∈ Z and this map is an isomor-
phism for n 6 2;
(2) the map ϕ : H 1 (P3 , E(n)) → H 1 (P3 , F (n)) is an embedding of an isotropic subspace for n = 1.
Now we show that p∗ F fits into a symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution, this is the main result of
Section 5.1.
Proposition 5.5 (c.f. [CC97, Theorem 0.3]). Let B be a nodal complete intersection of a smooth quadric
hypersurface Q and a quartic hypersurface in P4 , let w be a minimal 21 -even set of 28 nodes on the surface B
and let p : Q → P3 be a double cover induce by a projection from P4 to a hyperplane. Then the sheaf p∗ F
fits into the following exact sequence
Φ ϕ
0 → E ∨ (−6) −
→E −
→ p∗ F → 0,
where E is the vector bundle Ω1P3 (−1) ⊕ OP3 (−2)⊕2 and Φ ∈ H 0 (P3 , S 2 E(6)) ⊂ HomP3 (E ∨ (−6), E).
Proof. Consider the kernel of the map ϕ : E → p∗ F as in Lemma 5.4. It is a vector bundle since the projective
dimension of p∗ F equals one of F . One can easily check that h1 (P3 , Ker(ϕ)(n)) vanishes for all n and
( ∨
2 3
U , if n = 2;
H (P , Ker(ϕ)(n)) =
0, otherwise.
The intermediate cohomology groups of all twists of a given vector bundle defines it up to line summands
by [Wal96, Theorem 0.4]. Note that the vector bundle TP3 (−5) has the same intermediate cohomology groups
as Ker(ϕ). Therefore, we get that Ker(ϕ) is the vector bundle of the following form:
M
Ker(ϕ) = TP3 (−5) ⊕ O P3 (−i)⊕ni .
i>3
where ni are non-negative integers for i > 3. By Lemma 4.2 we get that m4 = n3 = 0, n4 = 2 and ni = 0
for all i > 5. Thus, we get a vector bundle E is as in the assertion and Ker(ϕ) ∼
= E ∨ (−6). The existence of
the symmetric map between Ker(ϕ) and E such that the cokernel equals p∗ F is analogous to the proof of
Lemma 3.6.
The main result of this step of the proof of Theorem 5.1 is the fact that ϕ : Ω1P3 (−1) ⊕ OP3 (−2)⊕2 → p∗ F
is a surjective map. In particular, we will not use that fact that the map Φ is symmetric. However, the
simplest way to prove this fact is to construct a resolution using methods developed in [Wal96] and [CC97];
thus, the symmetricity of the map Φ : E ∨ (−6) → E follows immediately.
5.2. A non-symmetric resolution of F . Consider the Euler exact sequence for the cotangent bundle
of P4 . The inverse image of this exact sequence to the hypersurface Q remains a short exact sequence. Twist
this exact sequence by O Q (−1) and apply the functor HomQ (−, F ) to it. We get the following long exact
sequence.
δ
→ Ext1Q (O Q (−1), F ) → Ext1Q (O Q (−2)⊕5 , F ) → . . .
· · · → HomQ (Ω1P4 (−1)|Q , F ) −
Since Ext1Q (OQ (−2)⊕5 , F ) ∼
= H 1 (Q, F (2)) = 0 by Lemma 2.6 the connecting homomorphism δ is surjective.
Thus, since ExtQ (O Q (−1), F ) ∼
1
= H 1 (Q, F (1)) = C2 there exists a map
α′ : Ω1P4 (−1)|⊕2
Q → F,
such that α′ : H 1 (Q, Ω1P4 (n − 1)|⊕2 1 ′′

Q ) → H (Q, F (n)) is an isomorphism for all n ∈ Z. Denote by α the map
α′′ : O Q (−2)⊕2 → F .
from the vector bundle OQ (−2)⊕2 to F such that α′′ : H 0 (Q, OQ ) → H 0 (Q, F (2)) is an isomorphism. Denote
by M the vector bundle Ω1P4 (−1)|⊕2
Q ⊕ O Q (−2)
⊕2
and by α = α′ ⊕ α′′ : M → F the direct product of two
maps defined above.
hypersurface in P4 , let w be a minimal 21 -even set of 28 nodes on the surface B and let M be a vector
bundle Ω1P4 (−1)|⊕2
Q ⊕ O Q (−2)
⊕2
. Then the map of sheaves α : M → F constructed above is surjective.
Proof. Let p : Q → P3 be a double cover induced by a projection from P4 to a hyperplane. Consider the
direct image of the map α to P3 :
p∗ α : p∗ M = Ω1P3 (−1)⊕2 ⊕ OP3 (−2)⊕12 ⊕ OP3 (−3)⊕2 → p∗ F .
Our goal is to show that the map ϕ constructed in Proposition 5.5 factors through p∗ α.
Since p is a finite morphism, one has H i (P3 , p∗ M(n)) ∼ = H i (Q, M(n)). By construction of M we
1 3 ∼
have H (P , M(1)) = H (Q, F (1)) = U ⊕ U . Therefore, there exists a map β ′ : Ω1P3 (−1) ⊗ U → M which
1 ∨
induces an embedding of the first cohomology groups of all twists, one can construct it by the Euler exact
sequence or by [Wal96, Theorem 0.4].
Consider the map p∗ α : p∗ M → p∗ F and the multiplication map s : OP3 (−2)⊗H 0 (Q, F (2)) → p∗ F . Both
these maps are defined by surjective maps on zeroth cohomology groups after a twist by OP3 (2). This, there
exists a map of vector bundles β ′′ : O P3 (−2) ⊗ H 0 (Q, F (2)) → p∗ M such that s = p∗ α ◦ β ′′ .
Denote by β the direct sum of maps of vector bundles β = β ′ ⊕ β ′′ : Ω1P3 ⊕ O P3 (−2)⊕2 → p∗ M. Then we
get that β is an embedding and that the following diagram commutes:
p∗ α
Ω1P3 (−1)⊕2 ⊕ O P3 (−2)⊕12 ⊕ OP3 (−3)⊕2 p∗ F
β
ϕ
Ω1P3 (−1) ⊕ OP3 (−2)⊕2 p∗ F
Here the map ϕ is as in Proposition 5.5. Thus, ϕ is a surjective map of sheaves then so is p∗ α; and therefore,
so is α. This finishes the proof.
In the next assertion we construct a non-symmetric resolution of the sheaf F .

hypersurface in P4 , let w be a minimal 21 -even set of 28 nodes on the surface B. Then there exists the
following resolution for the sheaf F :
α
(5.8) 0 → S(−2)⊕4 ⊕ OQ (−3)⊕2 → Ω1P4 (−1)|⊕2
Q ⊕ O Q (−2)
⊕2
−
→ F → 0.
Proof. By Lemma 5.6 the map α is surjective. Thus, Ker(α) is a vector bundle since the projective dimension
of F equals 1. Moreover, by construction of the map α we have
H i (Q, Ker(α)(n)) = 0,
for all i = 1 or 2 and n ∈ Z. Thus, by [Ott89, Theorem 3.5] this implies that Ker(α) is a direct sum
of several twists of spinor bundles and line bundles. Since α(n) induces the surjective maps on zeroth
cohomology groups for all n ∈ Z one can compute:
rk(Ker(α)) = 10; h0 (Q, Ker(α)(2)) = 0; h0 (Q, Ker(α)(3)) = 18.
These computations imply the result.
Lemma 5.7 implies the following condition on cohomology groups of the sheaf F .
hypersurface in P4 , let w be a minimal 12 -even set of 28 nodes on the surface B. Then

i
4, if i = 1;
h (Q, F ⊗ S(2)) =
0, otherwise.
Proof. The result follows from the exact sequence (5.8).
5.3. Symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution for F . Recall that U is a one-dimensional isotropic sub-
space of H 1 (Q, F (1)) with respect to the Serre pairing on B. By the Euler exact sequence there exists a
map of sheaves:
ψ ′ : Ω1P4 (−1)|Q → F .
which induces the embedding onto the subspace U ⊂ H 1 (Q, F (1)) on the first cohomology groups of the
twist of sheaves Ω1P4 (−1)|Q and p∗ F by O Q (1). Denote by ψ ′′ : OQ (−2)⊕2 → F the map of sheaves such
that ψ ′′ : H 0 (Q, O⊕2 0 1
Q ) → H (Q, F (2)) is an isomorphism. Let E be the vector bundle ΩP4 (−1)|Q ⊕ O Q (−2)
⊕2
and ψ be the direct product of two maps:

(5.10) ψ = ψ ′ ⊕ ψ ′′ : E = Ω1P4 (−1)|Q ⊕ OQ (−2)⊕2 → F .
We use here the same notation as in Section 5.1 for a different vector bundle. However, since in this section
we never refer to that one we hope that this abuse of notation does not lead to a misunderstanding. Note also
that the map ψ ′′ coincides with the map α′′ constructed in Section 5.2. Then the map ψ has the following
properties.
hypersurface in P4 , let w be a minimal 12 -even set of 28 nodes on the surface B and let ψ : E → F be the
map (5.10). Then
(1) The map ψ is surjective.
(2) The map ψ : H 0 (Q, E(2)) → H 1 (Q, F (2)) is an isomorphism.
(3) The map ψ : H 1 (Q, E(1)) → H 1 (Q, F (1)) is an embedding onto the subspace U ⊂ H 1 (Q, F (1)).
(4) There is an embedding γ : E → Ω1P4 (−1)|⊕2Q ⊕ O Q (−2)
⊕2
such that ψ = α ◦ γ where α is the map
defined as in Lemma 5.6.
Proof. The proof of the surjectivity of ψ is analogous to the proof of Lemma 5.6. The second and third
assertions follow from the construction of ψ. The map γ exists since the constructions of α and ψ are
analogous.
Denote by Ψ : K → E the kernel of the surjective map of sheaves ψ. Thus, we get the following short
exact sequence:
Ψ ψ
(5.12) 0→K−
→E −
→ F → 0.
The sheaf K has the following properties.
hypersurface in P4 , let w be a minimal 12 -even set of 28 nodes on the surface B and let K be the kernel of
the map ψ defined in (5.10). Then K is vector bundle and for all 0 6 i 6 3 one has the following equalities:
ExtiQ (O Q (−2), K) = 0;
ExtiQ (S(−1), K) = 0.
Proof. Apply the functor HomQ (O Q (−2), −) to the exact sequence (5.12). We get the following long exact
sequence of derived functors:
0 → HomQ (O Q (−2), K) → H 0 (Q, Ω1P4 (1)|Q ⊕ O ⊕2 0 1
Q ) → H (Q, F (2)) → ExtQ (O Q (−2), K) → . . .
By Lemma 5.11 the map of cohomology groups H 0 (Q, Ω1P4 (1)|Q ⊕ O⊕2 0
Q ) → H (Q, F (2)) is an isomorphism.
Thus, groups ExtiQ (OQ (−2), K) vanish for all 0 6 i 6 3.
Also by Lemma 5.11 there is the embedding γ : E → Ω1P4 (−1)|⊕2
Q ⊕ OQ (−2)
⊕2
such that α = ψ ◦ γ. Then γ
⊕4 ⊕2
induces the map γKer : K → S(−2) ⊕OQ (−3) between kernels of maps ψ and α. Since γ is an embedding
then so is γKer .
Apply the functor HomQ (S(−1), −) to both exact sequences (5.8) and (5.12). The map γ induces the
following commutative diagram:
ψ⊗IdS(2)
H 1 (Q, E ⊗ S(2)) H 1 (Q, F ⊗ S(2))
γ⊗IdS(2)
H 1 (Q, (Ω1P4 |⊕2

Q ⊕ O Q (−2)
⊕2
) ⊗ S(2)) α⊗IdS(2)
H 1 (Q, F ⊗ S(2))
The map α ⊗ IdS(2) : H 1 (Q, Ω1P4 |Q ⊗ S(1)⊕2 ⊕ S ⊕2 )) → H 1 (Q, F ⊗ S(2)) is surjective; this follows from
Lemma 5.7 and the fact that H 2 (Q, (S(−2)⊕4 ⊕ O Q (−3)⊕2 ) ⊗ S(2)) = 0. Then the commutativity of the
diagram implies that the map ψ ⊗ IdS(2) is also surjective; thus, it is an isomorphism. Then the result follows
by Corollary 5.9.
Now we finally can construct a symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution for the sheaf F .
hypersurface in P4 and let w be a minimal 21 -even set of 28 nodes on the surface B. Then F fits into a
symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution (2.5) where E = Ω1P4 (−1)|Q ⊕ O⊕2
Q (−2).
Proof. The proof of this assertion uses derived categories of coherent sheaves on varieties and the notion of
full exceptional collections in them. We refer to [Huy06] for all necessary definitions and facts.
Denote by Db (Q) the bounded derived category of the category of coherent sheaves on the smooth quadric
threefold Q. Consider the following full exceptional collection in Db (Q):
hO Q (−3), TP4 (−4)|Q , OQ (−2), S(−1)i.
By Lemma 5.13 we get that the kernel K of the map ψ defined in (5.10) is orthogonal to elements OQ (−2)
and S(−1) of this collection. Thus, K lies in the derived subcategory of the category Db (Q) generated
by vector bundles OQ (−3) and TP4 (−4)|Q . Since Ext1Q (OQ (−3), TP4 (−4)|Q ) vanishes this implies that K
a direct sum of several copies of these two bundles. Computing cohomology groups of K from the exact
sequence (5.12) we conclude that it is as follows:
K = TP4 (−4)|Q ⊕ OQ (−3)⊕2 = E ∨ (−5).
Now it remains to show that Ψ can be replaced by an element from the subgroup H 0 (Q, S 2 E(5)) of the
group Hom(E ∨ (−5), E). The proof of this fact is analogous to the proof of Lemma 3.6. This finishes the
construction of a symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution.
5.4. Proof of Theorem 5.1. In this section we consider we study properties of symmetric maps between
vector bundles TP4 (−4)|Q and Ω1P4 (−1)|Q . Then we use these results in order to prove that there is no
minimal 12 -even sets of 28 nodes on a complete intersection of a smooth quadric hypersurface and a quartic
hypersurface in P4 .
By [Ott88, Example 1.5] we get that the cotangent bundle to the smooth quadric threefold Q is isomorphic
to S 2 S. Since the normal bundle of Q in P4 equals OQ (2) we see that bundles Ω1P4 (−1)|Q and TP4 (−4)|Q fit
into the following exact sequences:
a
→ S 2 S(−1) → 0;
0 → OQ (−3) → Ω1P4 (−1)|Q −
(5.15) b
0 → S 2 S(−2) −
→ TP4 (−4)|Q → OQ (−2) → 0.
Given a map from Ω1P4 (−1)|Q to TP4 (−4)|Q we can consider the map from S 2 S(−2) to S 2 S(−1) which arises
as a composition with maps in these exact sequences.
Lemma 5.16. Let Φ : Ω1P4 (−1)|Q → TP4 (−4)|Q be a map of sheaves on a smooth quadric threefold Q. Then
there exists a hyperplane section Π of Q such that the composition a ◦ ψ ◦ b vanishes along Π.
Proof. The dimension of the space HomQ (S 2 S(−2), S 2 S(−1)) equals 5. On the other hand, one can con-
struct a 5-dimensional space of maps from S 2 S(−2) to S 2 S(−1); namely, to each section l ∈ H 0 (Q, O(1))
one can associate a multiplication of a local section of S 2 S(−2) by the linear form l. Therefore, all elements
of the group HomQ (S 2 S(−2), S 2 S(−1)) can be constructed this way.
The composition a ◦ ψ ◦ b lies in HomQ (S 2 S(−2), S 2 S(−1)); thus, it is a multiplication by a linear form l.
Then it vanishes along the hyperplane section Π = {l = 0}.
Now we are ready to prove Theorem 5.1.
Proof of Theorem 5.1. Assume that there exists a nodal surface B which is a complete intersection of a
smooth quadric threefold Q a quartic threefold in P4 such that B contains a minimal 12 -even set of 28
nodes. Then by Corollary 5.14 one can construct a symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution for the sheaf F
associated to w. More precisely, take E = Ω1P4 (−1) ⊕ O Q (2) then there exists Φ ∈ H 0 (Q, S 2 E(5)) such
that B = B(Φ) and w = w(Φ).
Let a : Ω1P4 |Q (−1) → S 2 S(−1) and b : S 2 S(−2) → TP4 |Q (−4) be morphisms of vector bundles as in (5.15).
Denote by a′ : E → S 2 S(−1) and by b′ : S 2 S(−2) → E ∨ (−5) direct sums of a and b respectively with zero
maps.
By Lemma 5.16 there exists a hyperplane section Π ⊂ Q such that the composition a′ ◦ Φ ◦ b′ is a zero map
along Π. Thus, after a restriction to Π we get that there exist φ ∈ HomQ (S 2 S(−2)|Π , OΠ (−3) ⊕ OΠ (−2)⊕2 )
and ψ ∈ HomQ (O Π (−2) ⊕ O Π (−3)⊕2 )) such that the following diagram commutes:
b′
0 S 2 S(−2)|Π TP4 |Π (−4) ⊕ OΠ (−3)⊕2 OΠ (−2) ⊕ O Π (−3)⊕2 0
φ Φ|Π ψ
⊕2 a′
0 OΠ (−3) ⊕ O Π (−2) Ω1P4 |Π (−1) ⊕2
⊕ OΠ (−2) 2
S S(−1)|Π 0
Since the morphism Φ|Π is symmetric we get that φ = ψ ∨ (−5). Since B is an irreducible surface of degree
8 in P4 , the morphism Φ is injective in a general point of the hyperplane Π. Therefore, maps ψ and φ are
also morphisms of sheaves of rank 3 in a general point of Π. Therefore, kernels of φ, Φ and ψ vanish and by
the snake lemma we have an exact sequence of cokernels:
0 → Coker(φ) → F |Π → Coker(ψ) → 0.
Since maps φ and ψ are dual up to a twist their ranks decrease on a same scheme C = {det(φ) = 0}. Note
that C can not be empty since vector bundles S 2 S(−2)|Π and O Π (−3) ⊕ OΠ (−2)⊕2 are not isomorphic.
Moreover, dim(C) = 1. Thus, ranks of sheaves Coker(φ) and Coker(ψ) are at least 1 along C. This implies
that for any point x ∈ C the rank of the sheaf F in the point x equals at least 2. Thus, the sheaf F does
not satisfy the expected properties and we get a contradiction.
6. Proofs of Theorem 1.3 and Corollary 1.4

In this section we complete proofs of our main results. By the next assertion there exists an easier
resolution for the sheaf F in the case (O3) of Corollary 4.6.
hypersurface in P4 , let w be a minimal 21 -even set of 20 nodes on the surface B. If we have the case (O3) of
Corollary 4.6, then F fits into a symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution (2.5) where E = S(−1).
Moreover, if one take a general element Φ in H 0 (Q, S 2 E(5)), then B = B(Φ) is a nodal complete inter-
section of Q and a quartic hypersurface in P4 and w is the set of all singularities of B.
Proof. By construction of a symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution in Corollary 4.6 and by Lemma 2.9 the
restriction of the map Φ to the subbundle S(−2) composed with the projection of E to the direct sum-
mand S(−2) is a zero map. Denote by α : S(−2) → OQ (−2)⊕4 the restriction of Φ to the subbundle S(−1)
composed with the projection of E to the direct summand OQ (−1)⊕4 . Thus, we get the following commu-
tative diagram:
0 S(−2) S(−2) ⊕ OQ (−3)⊕4 OQ (−3)⊕4 0
α Φ β
0 O Q (−2)⊕4 S(−2) ⊕ OQ (−2)⊕4 S(−2) 0
Since Φ is a symmetric map here β : O Q (−3)⊕4 → S(−2) is the map dual up to a twist to α. Thus, ranks of
maps α and β in all points of Q are equal. Moreover, since α is an embedding of sheaves then in a general
point of Q ranks of α and β equal 2.
The support of the cokernel of β is either empty or it is a line in the quadric threefold Q ⊂ P4 or it is a
hyperplane section of Q. Since the surface B is irreducible and the rank of F is greater than 1 only along a
finite set w by the snake lemma we get that the cokernel of β vanishes. Thus, the rank of the map β equals 2
in all points of Q and so does the rank of α.
Therefore, α is an embedding of vector bundles. Thus, it coinsides with the map s: S(−2) → O Q (−2)⊕4
described in Lemma 2.1. Then the cokernel of the map α equals S(−1) and the kernel of the map β
equals S(−3). Thus, by the snake lemma we get that F fits into the following exact sequence:
Φ′
0 → S(−3) −→ S(−1) → F → 0.
Since the map Φ is symmetric we get that so is the map Φ′ ; i.e. it lies in the subgroup H 0 (Q, S 2 E ′ (5))of the
group HomQ (E ′∨ (−5), E ′ ) where E ′ = S(−1). Thus, we get a new symmetric Casnati–Catanese resolution
for the sheaf F . Finally, since the vector bundle S 2 E ′ (5) is globally generated then by [Bar80, Lemma 4] we
get the last assertion of the lemma.
We are ready to prove the classification of minimal 2δ -even sets of nodes on a nodal complete intersection
of a smooth quadric threefold and a quartic threefold in P4 .
Proof of Theorem 1.3. Let B be a nodal complete intersection of a smooth quadric hypersurface Q and a
quartic hypersurface in P4 and let w be a minimal δ2 -even set of nodes on B. If δ = 0 then by Corollary 3.8
there exists a vector bundle E on Q and an element Φ ∈ H 0 (Q, S 2 E(4)) such that B = B(Φ) and w = w(Φ)
and E one of the vector bundles as in cases (E1 - E4). Thus, Theorem 1.3 is proved in the case of 0-even
sets of nodes.
Now assume that w is a minimal 21 -even set of nodes on B. Then by Lemma 2.6 the order of the set
of nodes w is |w| = 8µ + 4. If |w| > 36 then by [Bea80, p. 210] we get that the 21 -even set of nodes w
is not minimal. A 21 -even set of 28 nodes on B also can not be minimal by Theorem 5.1. Then the only
remaining case is |w| 6 20. By Corollary 4.6 and Lemma 6.1 we get the result and the proof of the theorem
is finished.
Now we establish three families of double covers of a smooth quadric branched along a nodal surface of
degree 8 which admit Artin–Mumford obstructions to rationality.
Proof of Corollary 1.4. Assume that π : M → Q is a double cover of a smooth quadric threefold Q branched
along a nodal surface B which is a complete intersection of Q with a quartic threefold in P4 . If M has an
Artin–Mumford obstruction to rationality, then by Theorems 2.14 and 2.15 there exists a non-empty 21 -even
set of nodes w on B such that the defect of w equals 0. By Lemma 2.13 we can assume that w is minimal.
By Theorem 1.3 we get that there exists a vector bundle E and an element Φ ∈ H 0 (Q, S 2 E(4 + δ)) such
that B = B(Φ). Moreover, E is as in cases (E1 – E3) and (O1 – O3). Using Theorem 2.16 we compute the
defects of 2δ -even sets of nodes in each case. The only cases when the defect vanish are (E2), (E3) and (O2).
Finally, by [Bar80, Lemma 4] we get the second assertion of Corollary 1.4. This finishes the proof.
References
[ACGH85] E. Arbarello, M. Cornalba, P. A. Griffiths, and J. Harris. Geometry of algebraic curves. Vol. I, volume 267 of
Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften [Fundamental Principles of Mathematical Sciences]. Springer-
Verlag, New York, 1985.
[AM72] M. Artin and D. Mumford. Some elementary examples of unirational varieties which are not rational. Proc. London
Math. Soc. (3), 25:75–95, 1972.
[Bar80] W. Barth. Counting singularities of quadratic forms on vector bundles. In Vector bundles and differential equations
(Proc. Conf., Nice, 1979), volume 7 of Progr. Math., pages 1–19. Birkhäuser, Boston, Mass., 1980.
[Bea80] A. Beauville. Sur le nombre maximum de points doubles d’une surface dans P3 (µ(5) = 31). In Journées de
Géometrie Algébrique d’Angers, Juillet 1979/Algebraic Geometry, Angers, 1979, pages 207–215. Sijthoff & Noord-
hoff, Alphen aan den Rijn—Germantown, Md., 1980.
[Cat81] F. Catanese. Babbage’s conjecture, contact of surfaces, symmetric determinantal varieties and applications. Invent.
Math., 63, no. 3:433–465, 1981.
[CC97] G. Casnati and F. Catanese. Even sets of nodes are bundle symmetric. J. Differential Geom., 47, no. 2:237–256,
1997.
[CC98] G. Casnati and F. Catanese. Errors in the paper: “Even sets of nodes are bundle symmetric” [J. Differential Geom.
47 (1997), no. 2, 237–256; MR1601608 (99h:14044)]. J. Differential Geom., 50, no. 2:415, 1998.
[CCC+ 22] F. Catanese, Y. Cho, S. Coughlan, D. Frapporti, A. Verra, and M. Kiermaier. Varieties of nodal surfaces, coding
theory and discriminants of cubic hypersurfaces, 2022.
[CT07] F. Catanese and F. Tonoli. Even sets of nodes on sextic surfaces. J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS), 9, no. 4:705–737,
2007.
[CTP16] J.-L. Colliot-Thélène and A. Pirutka. Hypersurfaces quartiques de dimension 3: non-rationalité stable. Ann. Sci.
Éc. Norm. Supér. (4), 49(2):371–397, 2016.
[Cyn02] S. Cynk. Cohomologies of a double covering of a non-singular algebraic 3-fold. Math. Z., 240(4):731–743, 2002.
[End98] St. Endraß. Minimal even sets of nodes. J. Reine Angew. Math., 503:87–108, 1998.
[End99] St. Endraß. On the divisor class group of double solids. Manuscripta Math., 99, no. 3:341–358, 1999.
[Har66] R. Hartshorne. Residues and duality. Lecture Notes in Mathematics, No. 20. Springer-Verlag, Berlin-New York,
1966. Lecture notes of a seminar on the work of A. Grothendieck, given at Harvard 1963/64, With an appendix by
P. Deligne.
[Huy06] D. Huybrechts. Fourier-Mukai transforms in algebraic geometry. Oxford Mathematical Monographs. The Clarendon
Press, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.
[IKP14] A. Iliev, L. Katzarkov, and V. Przyjalkowski. Double solids, categories and non-rationality. Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc.
(2), 57, no 1:145–173, 2014.
[IP96] V. A. Iskovskikh and A. V. Pukhlikov. Birational automorphisms of multidimensional algebraic manifolds. volume 82,
pages 3528–3613. 1996. Algebraic geometry, 1.
[Józ78] T. Józefiak. Ideals generated by minors of a symmetric matrix. Comment. Math. Helv., 53, no. 4:595–607, 1978.
[JR97] D. B. Jaffe and D. Ruberman. A sextic surface cannot have 66 nodes. J. Algebraic Geom., 6, no. 1:151–168, 1997.
[Kuz22] A. Kuznetsova. Non-rational sextic double solids. Math. Z., 301(4):4015–4036, 2022.
[Ott88] G. Ottaviani. Spinor bundles on quadrics. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 307(1):301–316, 1988.
[Ott89] G. Ottaviani. Some extensions of Horrocks criterion to vector bundles on Grassmannians and quadrics. Ann. Mat.
Pura Appl. (4), 155:317–341, 1989.
[PS16] V. Przyjalkowski and K. Shramov. Double quadrics with large automorphism groups. Tr. Mat. Inst. Steklova,
294:167–190, 2016. English version published in Proc. Steklov Inst. Math. 294 (2016), no. 1, 154–175.
[Tyu70] G. N. Tyurina. Resolution of singularities ofplane deformations of double rational points. Funktsional. Anal. i
Prilozhen., 4:77–83, 1970.
[Voi15] C. Voisin. Unirational threefolds with no universal codimension 2 cycle. Invent. Math., 201, no. 1:207–237, 2015.
[Wal96] Ch. H. Walter. Pfaffian subschemes. J. Algebraic Geom., 5, no. 4:671–704, 1996.
Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

Email address: sasha.kuznetsova.57@gmail.com

Montana Math

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Montana Math

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DOUBLE COVERS OF SMOOTH QUADRIC THREEFOLDS WITH

ARTIN–MUMFORD OBSTRUCTIONS TO RATIONALITY

δ=1: (O1) |w| = 12 and E = OQ (−1) ⊕ OQ (−2);

(2) Dimensions of cohomology groups of the spinor bundle S are as follows:

where mi and kj are non-negative integers for

(1) If L ⊂ B is a line in P4 then |L ∩ w| is odd. There is no line L ⊂ B such that L contains w.

Then the following diagram is commutative:

3. Minimal 0-even sets of nodes

hi (Q, S ⊗F (−1)) hi (Q, S ⊗F ) hi (Q, S ⊗F (1)) hi (Q, S ⊗F (2)) hi (Q, S ⊗F (3))

By construction of F there exists an isomorphism s0 : F → E xt 1Q (F , OQ (−4)). If one can construct iso-

(E1) |w| = 16 and E = OQ (−1)⊕2 ⊕ O Q (−2), d(w) = 1;

hi (Q, S ⊗F (−1)) hi (Q, S ⊗F ) hi (Q, S ⊗F (1)) hi (Q, S ⊗F (2)) hi (Q, S ⊗F (3))

such that α′ : H 1 (Q, Ω1P4 (n − 1)|⊕2 1 ′′

In the next assertion we construct a non-symmetric resolution of the sheaf F .

and ψ be the direct product of two maps:

H 1 (Q, (Ω1P4 |⊕2

6. Proofs of Theorem 1.3 and Corollary 1.4

0 O Q (−2)⊕4 S(−2) ⊕ OQ (−2)⊕4 S(−2) 0

Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow, Russia

You might also like