22

If X is a variety over the complex numbers, one reasonable thing to do is to consider the associated analytic space $X_{an}$ and to take the topological Euler characteristic of that.

Is there a purely algebraic way to obtain this number?

If X is non-singular then one might define it as the integral of the top Chern class of its tangent bundle.

The reason I ask is that I'm currently reading Joyce's survey on Donaldson-Thomas invariants and I wanted to know if by any chance he were using some more sophisticated notion.

On related note: if X is a non-proper scheme over C, why is its Euler characteristic well-defined?

babubba
  • 1,953
  • 1
    If X is e.g. smooth projective you can use Hodge decomposition. – Kevin H. Lin Aug 10 '10 at 18:46
  • 10
  • You can use étale cohomology to get a purely algebraic definition. (You can also use algebraic de Rham cohomology as Kevin suggests which has an extension to the singular non-proper case).

  • On way of seeing that the Euler characteristic is well-defined is to use the fact that $X$ is homotopy equivalent to a finite complex. (You can also use the finiteness theorem for cohomology of constructible sheaves.)

  • – Torsten Ekedahl Aug 10 '10 at 19:07
  • 2
    Yet another approach to the finiteness of the Betti numbers (which proves much more). Complex algebraic varieties can be compactified in the following way : let $X$ be such a variety, then there exists $\bar{X}$ smooth projective in which $X$ is a dense Zariski open and $D=\bar{X}-X$ is a strict normal crossing divisor in $\bar{X}$. You can then relate the cohomology groups of $X$ to those of $\bar{X}$ and $D$ (which are finite dimensional) in De Rham theory by using logarithmic differential forms : see e.g. the treatment of this in Claire Voisin's book on Hodge theory. – Simon Pepin Lehalleur Aug 11 '10 at 07:58
  • @Torsten Ekedahl and Kevin Lin: Is using the algebraic de Rham complex to obtain the Euler characteristic just an application of GAGA or is there something I'm missing? – babubba Aug 11 '10 at 23:25
  • 3
    @angoleirovero: There is a little bit more than (classical) GAGA. First there is Grothendieck's result that for any (proper or not) smooth variety the algebraic de Rham cohomology is equal to the analytic one. Second for singular ones one embeds the variety (when it is possible) into a smooth and takes the de Rham cohomology of the formal completion of the variety in the ambient one. – Torsten Ekedahl Aug 12 '10 at 04:21