Boundedness of ǫ-lc Complements on Surfaces

Caucher Birkar
2008-01-01
Abstract:Contents 1 Boundedness of ǫ-log canonical complements on surfaces 2 1. 1 Boundedness of ǫ-log canonical complements on surfaces 1.1 Introduction The concept of complement was introduced and studied by Shokurov [Sh1, Sh2]. He used complements as a tool in the construction of 3-fold log flips [Sh1] and in the classification of singularities and contractions [Sh2]. Roughly speaking a complement is a " good member " of the anti-pluricanonical linear system i.e. a general member of | − nK X | for some n > 0. In order, the existence of such member and the behaviour of the index n are the most important problems in complement theory. Below we give the precise definition of the " good member ". Throughout this paper we assume that the varieties involved are algebraic varieties over C. In this section the varieties are all surfaces unless otherwise stated. By a log pair (X/Z, B) we mean algebraic varieties X and Z equiped with a projective contraction X −→ Z and B is an R-boundary on X. When we write (X/P ∈ Z, B) we mean a log pair (X/Z, B) with a fixed point P ∈ Z; in such situation we may shrink Z around P without mentioning it. The pair (X/Z, B) is weak log Fano (WLF) if it has log canonical singularities (lc) and −(K X + B) is nef and big/Z and X is Q-factorial. For the basic definitions of the Log Minimal Model Program (LMMP), the main references are [KMM] and [KM]. And to learn more about the complement theory [Sh2] and [Pr] are the best.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?