Rationality of Seshadri constants on general blow ups of \(\mathbb{P}^2\) (Q1985764)

In the paper under review, the authors study weakly submaximal curves and rationality questions for the Seshadri constants of ample line bundles on the blow-ups of the complex projective plane. The Seshadri constant for a nef line bundle \(L\) on a smooth complex projective variety \(X\) at a given point \(x \in X\) is defined as \[ \varepsilon(X,L;x) =\mathrm{inf}_{x \in C} \frac{L.C}{\mathrm{mult}_{x}(C)}, \] where the infimum is taken over all irreducible and reduced curves passing through \(x\). Moreover, let us define the global Seshadri constant by \[ \varepsilon(X,L) =\mathrm{inf}_{x \in X} \, \varepsilon(X,L;x). \] Now we focus on the setting of the present paper. Let \(p_{1},\dots, p_{s} \in \mathbb{P}^{2}\) be very general points and let \(f: X \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{2}\) be the blowing up at \(p_{1},\dots, p_{s}\) with the exceptional divisors \(E_{1},\dots, E_{s}\). Denote by \(H\) the pull-back of \(\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{2}}(1)\) and consider an \(\mathbb{R}\)-divisor \(L(\mu)\) of the form \(\mu L- \mathbb{E} := \mu L - \sum_{i=1}^{s}E_{i}\). Firstly, the authors discuss the following question. Question: Using the notation as above, let \(\mu \in \mathbb{Q}\) and suppose that \(L(\mu)\) is ample, is \(\varepsilon(X, L(\mu))\) rational? In order to approach this problem the authors study weakly submaximal curves and the so-called submaximality threshold. We say that a curve \(C\) in \(X\) satisfying \[ \frac{L.C}{\mathrm{mult}_{x}(C)} \leq \sqrt{L^{2}} \] is called a weakly submaximal curve for an ample line bundle \(L\) with respect to a given point \(x \in X\). The main result devoted to weakly submaximal curves can be formulated as follows. Theorem A: Let \(s \geq 1\) and \(\mu \in \mathbb{R}\). Then we have 1) For any \(s\), \(L(\mu)\) admits a weakly submaximal curve for all \(\mu \geq \sqrt{s+1}\). 2) If \(s=10\), then \(L(\mu)\) admits a weakly submaximal curve for all \(\mu\geq 77/24\). 3) If \(s=11\), then \(L(\mu)\) admits a weakly submaximal curve for all \(\mu\geq 4 - \sqrt{3}/3\). 4) If \(s=13\), then \(L(\mu)\) admits a weakly submaximal curve for all \(\mu \geq \frac{1}{6}(26 - \sqrt{13})\). We say that a real number \(\mu_{0} \geq \sqrt{s}\) is called the submaximality threshold for \(s\) if 1) \(L(\mu)\) does not admit a weakly submaximal curve for \(\mu < \mu_{0}\), and 2) \(L(\mu)\) does admit a weakly submaximal curve for \(\mu \geq \mu_{0}\). In order to formulate a result devoted to submaximality thresholds, we need to present a modified SHGH conjecture. Conjecture: Let \(f : X \rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{2}\) be the blowing up at \(s\geq 0\) very general points. Suppose that \(d\geq 1, t\geq 1\), and \(m_{1},\dots, m_{s} \geq 0\) are the integers such that \[ \binom{d+2}{2} - \sum_{i=1}^{s} \binom{m_{i}+1}{2} \leq \max \bigg\{ \binom{t+1}{2} - 2,0 \bigg\}, \] then any curve \(C \in |dH - m_{1}E_{1} - \dots - m_{s}E_{s}|\) which has a point of multiplicity \(t\) is non-reduced. Theorem B. Suppose that the above Conjecutre holds. Let \(s\geq 10\), then the submaximality threshold \(\mu_{0}\) for \(s\) exists and, for example, \(\mu_{0} = \frac{77}{24}\) provided that \(s=10\).