Instruction: Write an abstract for the following acadamic paper.

Input:
Paper: we have recorded the flight of a fly during take off and landing using digital high speed photography . it is shown that the dynamics of flexible wings are different for these procedures . during this observation fly flew freely in a big box and it was not tethered .
Abstract: in this fluid dynamics video , we demonstrated take off and landing of a fly . the deformation of wings is in focus in this video .

Paper: an abelian cover is a finite morphism @xmath0 of varieties which is the quotient map for a generically faithful action of a finite abelian group @xmath1 . this means that for every component @xmath7 of @xmath2 the @xmath1-action on the restricted cover @xmath8 is faithful . the paper @xcite contains a comprehensive theory of such covers in the case when @xmath2 is smooth and @xmath3 is normal . the covers are described in terms of the _ building data _ consisting of branch divisors @xmath9 ranging over cyclic subgroups @xmath10 , and line bundles @xmath11 with @xmath12 ranging over the character group of @xmath1 . this collection must satisfy the _ fundamental relations_.    here , we extend this theory to the case of singular varieties . namely , we allow @xmath3 and @xmath2 to be varieties satisfying serre s condition @xmath4 and having double crossing singularities in codimension 1 , which we abbreviate to g.d.c . for `` generically double crossings '' ( see  [ ssec : ysmooth ] for the precise definition ) . our interest in this case lies in applications to the moduli theory . such non - normal abelian covers appear in our work @xcite where we explicitly construct compactifications of moduli spaces of some campedelli and burniat surfaces by adding stable surfaces on the boundary . `` stable surfaces '' here are in the sense of @xcite : they have slc ( semi log canonical ) singularities and ample canonical class .    in this paper , we give a comprehensive treatment of the situation . in section  [ ssec : ysmooth ] we show that the theory of standard covers of @xcite has a very natural extension to the case when @xmath2 is still smooth but @xmath3 is possibly g.d.c .. in section  [ ssec : ynormal ] we extend it to the case of normal base by an @xmath4-fication trick . in section  [ ssec : ynonnormal ] we prove that a cover with non normal @xmath2 can be obtained by gluing a cover over the normalization @xmath13 , and we spell out which additional data must be specified .    in section  [ sec : geometry ] we study the singularities of covers . we determine the conditions for @xmath3 to have slc singularities , to be cohen - macaulay , and we determine the index of the canonical divisor in the situations appearing in common applications .    in section  [ sec : z2-covers ] we treat in detail the special case when the group @xmath1 is @xmath14 and @xmath15 , as in @xcite . we restrict ourselves to the situation where the base @xmath2 is smooth or has two smooth branches meeting transversally , and the components of branch divisors and the double locus are smooth and have distinct tangent directions at the points of intersection , i.e. locally they look like a collection of lines in the plane . in this situation , we give a complete classification of the covers and the singularities of @xmath3 . the answer is contained in nine tables . some of these covers appear on the boundary of moduli of campedelli and burniat surfaces , but the full list is longer . @xmath1 denotes a finite abelian group . we work with equidimensional varieties defined over an algebraically closed field @xmath16 whose characteristic does not divide the order of @xmath1 . we denote by @xmath17 the group @xmath18 of characters of @xmath1 , and we write it multiplicatively . the abbreviations _ lc _ and _ slc _ stand for _ log canonical _ and _ semi log canonical_. ( cf .  [ sec : geometry ] for the definitions ) . @xmath19 , @xmath20 , etc . denote the normalization of @xmath3 , @xmath21 , etc . we use the additive and multiplicative notation for line bundles and divisors interchangeably . linear equivalence will be denoted by @xmath22 . the first author was partially supported by nsf under dms 0901309 . the second author wishes to thank miles reid and angelo vistoli for several useful communications . we also thank the referee for many useful comments and corrections . part of this work was done while both authors were visiting msri in the spring of 2009 . this project was partially supported by the italian prin 2008 project _ geometria delle variet algebriche e dei loro spazi di moduli_. the second author is a member of gnsaga of indam . we recall some basic facts about serre s condition @xmath4 and the @xmath4-fication of a coherent sheaf . for a comprehensive treatment , the reader may consult @xcite , where the latter appears under the name `` @xmath23-closure '' . all varieties below are assumed to be reduced , equidimensional , but possibly reducible . let @xmath24 be a coherent sheaf on @xmath3 all of whose associated components are irreducible components of @xmath3 . then there exists a unique _ @xmath4-fication _ , or _ saturation in codimension 2 _ , a coherent sheaf defined by @xmath25    the sheaf @xmath26 is @xmath4 , and @xmath24 is @xmath4 iff the map @xmath27 is an isomorphism . in particular , for @xmath28 one obtains the @xmath4-fication @xmath29 , which is dominated by the normalization of  @xmath3 .    on a normal variety @xmath3 , an @xmath4-sheaf is the same as a _ reflexive sheaf _ , satisfying @xmath30 , see @xcite . further , reflexive sheaves of rank 1 are the same as _ divisorial sheaves _ , isomorphic to @xmath31 for some weil divisor @xmath32 , see e.g. ( * ? ?  1 ) . on a smooth ( or factorial ) variety weil divisors are the same as cartier divisors , and rank 1 @xmath4 sheaves are the same as invertible sheaves . let @xmath1 be a finite abelian group . an _ abelian cover _ with galois group @xmath1 , or _ @xmath1-cover _ , is a finite morphism @xmath0 of varieties which is the quotient map for a generically faithful action of a finite abelian group @xmath1 . this means that for every component @xmath7 of @xmath2 the @xmath1-action on the restricted cover @xmath33 is faithful . an _ isomorphism _ of @xmath1-covers @xmath34 , @xmath35 is an isomorphism @xmath36 such that @xmath37 . the @xmath1-action on @xmath3 with @xmath38 is equivalent to a decomposition : @xmath39 where @xmath1 acts on @xmath40 via the character @xmath12 . if @xmath41 is galois then each @xmath40 has rank 1 : if @xmath42 is a general closed point , then @xmath1 acts freely on @xmath43 , so it acts on @xmath44 as the regular representation . thus , @xmath45 is @xmath46-dimensional for every @xmath12 . when the sheaves @xmath40 are locally free , it is customary to write @xmath47 , with @xmath11 a line bundle . [ lem : flatness - and - cm ]    1 . the sheaf @xmath48 is @xmath49 for some @xmath50 iff every @xmath40 is @xmath49 . 2 .   if @xmath51 is flat then @xmath3 is cm iff @xmath2 is cm . if @xmath2 is smooth and @xmath3 is @xmath4 then @xmath41 is flat and @xmath3 is cm . \(1 ) is clear by definition of depth . \(2 ) @xmath41 is flat iff every @xmath52-module @xmath40 is invertible . then each @xmath40 is cm iff @xmath52 is . \(3 ) on a smooth variety every divisorial sheaf is invertible , and so flat . now ( 2 ) applies . a @xmath1-cover @xmath51 , where @xmath3 and @xmath2 are @xmath4 varieties , is determined by its restriction to the complement of a closed subset of codimension @xmath5 :    [ lem : remove - codim2 ] let @xmath2 be an @xmath4 variety , @xmath53 an open subset with @xmath54 , and @xmath55 a @xmath1-cover with @xmath56 an @xmath4 variety . then there exist a unique @xmath4 variety @xmath3 and a @xmath1-cover @xmath51 whose restriction to @xmath57 is @xmath58 .    for the existence , we take @xmath59 , where @xmath60 is the inclusion . then @xmath61 , where each @xmath40 is a rank 1 @xmath4-sheaf . the algebra structure on @xmath48 is defined as follows . for an open set @xmath62 and sections @xmath63 , @xmath64 , their product is @xmath65 since @xmath66 and @xmath40 is saturated in codimension 2 . thus , @xmath67 is an @xmath4 variety with a finite morphism to @xmath2 . the @xmath17-grading on @xmath48 defines the @xmath1-action on @xmath3 . by construction , the eigenspace @xmath68 for the trivial character is @xmath69 . therefore , @xmath38 . uniqueness follows from the uniqueness of the @xmath4-fication .    given a @xmath1-cover @xmath51 and an irreducible subset @xmath70 , we define the _ inertia subgroup _ @xmath71 of @xmath72 to be the subgroup of @xmath1 consisting of the elements that fix @xmath73 pointwise , or , equivalently since @xmath1 is abelian , that fix an irreducible component of @xmath73 pointwise . the _ branch locus _ @xmath74 of @xmath41 is the set of points of @xmath2 whose inertia subgroup is not trivial ( notice that we regard @xmath74 simply as a set , without giving it a scheme structure ) . if @xmath41 is flat , then @xmath74 is a divisor by ( * ? ? ? if @xmath75 is an irreducible divisor of @xmath2 such that @xmath3 is generically smooth along @xmath76 , then the natural representation @xmath77 of @xmath78 on the tangent space @xmath79 at the generic point of an irreducible component @xmath80 of @xmath76 is faithful , hence @xmath81 is cyclic ( cf . @xcite ) . notice that @xmath77 does not depend on the choice of the component @xmath80 of @xmath76 since @xmath1 is abelian .      in this section we recall , in a form which is convenient for our later applications , the definition of standard abelian covers , a class of flat abelian covers that can be constructed from a collection of line bundles and effective divisors on the target variety ( cf . @xcite , @xcite ) . the prototypical example is the classical construction of a double cover of a variety @xmath2 from the data of an effective divisor @xmath32 on @xmath2 and a line bundle @xmath82 such that @xmath83 . let @xmath2 be a variety . a set of _ building data for a standard @xmath1-cover _ @xmath51 consists of the following :    * irreducible effective cartier divisors @xmath84 ( possibly not distinct ) , * for each @xmath85 a pair @xmath86 , where @xmath87 is a cyclic subgroup of @xmath1 of order @xmath88 and @xmath89 is a generator of the group of characters @xmath90 , * line bundles @xmath11 , for @xmath91 . moreover we assume that these data satisfy the so called _ fundamental relations _ : @xmath92 where for a character @xmath12 we write @xmath93 , with @xmath94 , and we define @xmath95 $ ] . observe that @xmath96 is equal either to @xmath97 or to @xmath46 . we call the divisors @xmath85 , together with the pairs @xmath98 , the _ branch data _ of the cover . an equivalent way of describing the branch data , and therefore the building data , is to give for each pair @xmath99 , with @xmath100 a cyclic subgroup and @xmath101 a generator , the divisor @xmath102 . this is the notation used in @xcite . [ rem : branchdata ] if the group @xmath103 has no @xmath104-torsion , where @xmath105 , then the branch data determine the building data by ( * ? ? ? 2.1 ) . in general , the branch data are enough to determine the local geometry of the cover ( cf . proposition [ prop : bdata ] , ( 2 ) ) .    when @xmath106 , it is enough to associate with every divisor @xmath85 a nonzero element @xmath107 , the generator of @xmath87 . also , the definition of @xmath108 is simpler : @xmath109 is equal to 1 if @xmath110 and it is equal to 0 otherwise . we now explain how to construct a @xmath1-cover from a set of building data . choose @xmath111 such that @xmath17 is the direct sum of the cyclic subgroups generated by the @xmath112 . denote by @xmath113 the order of @xmath112 and write @xmath114 and @xmath115 . by ( * prop.2.1 ) for @xmath116 there exist isomorphisms : @xmath117 notice that the coefficients @xmath118 in the above formula are integers . using formulae ( 2.15 ) of @xcite and the isomorphisms @xmath119 above , one constructs for each pair @xmath120 of non trivial characters an isomorphism @xmath121 such that for every @xmath122 the following diagram commutes ( we set @xmath123 ) : @xmath124 where @xmath125 and the maps are induced by the @xmath126 in the obvious way . we denote by @xmath127 the maps induced by composing @xmath126 with the inclusion @xmath128 . by the commutativity of diagram , the collection of maps @xmath129 defines on @xmath130 a commutative and associative algebra structure compatible with the @xmath1-action defined by letting @xmath1 act trivially on @xmath131 and via the character @xmath12 on @xmath132 for @xmath133 . we define @xmath134 with the natural map @xmath135 to be a _ standard @xmath1-cover _ associated with the given set of building data . notice that , since the @xmath132 are locally free , @xmath41 is flat and @xmath3 is @xmath4 if @xmath2 is . @xmath3 can be described locally above a point @xmath42 as follows . up to shrinking @xmath2 , we may assume that all the @xmath11 are trivial and that the @xmath85 are defined by equations @xmath136 . if we denote by @xmath137 a coordinate on @xmath132 , @xmath138 , then @xmath3 is given inside the vector bundle @xmath139 by the following set of equations : @xmath140 where the @xmath141 are nowhere vanishing regular functions and for @xmath142 we set @xmath143 . for @xmath144 , denote by @xmath145 the order of @xmath12 and write @xmath146 , with @xmath147 . eliminating between the equations , one gets @xmath148 where @xmath149 is a nowhere vanishing function . it follows immediately that @xmath3 is a variety : indeed , using the decomposition of @xmath150 into @xmath1-eigenspaces , we may assume that a nilpotent element is locally of the form @xmath151 for some character @xmath12 and some regular function @xmath152 . then by , @xmath153 for some @xmath154 only if @xmath155 . using the local equations , one can also show the following :    [ lem : inertia ] notation as above . let @xmath156 be a standard @xmath1-cover and @xmath42 be a point . the inertia subgroup @xmath157 of @xmath158 is equal to @xmath159 . since the question is local on @xmath2 , we may assume that @xmath3 is given by the equations . let @xmath160 be a point lying above @xmath158 . then by the coordinate @xmath161 does not vanish iff @xmath162 for every @xmath163 such that @xmath164 . since an element @xmath165 fixes @xmath166 if and only if for every @xmath167 such that @xmath168 the coordinate @xmath161 vanishes , this remark proves the claim . given a set of building data , the construction of the standard @xmath1-cover @xmath51 depends of course on the choice of the characters @xmath169 and of the isomorphims @xmath119 . assume that @xmath170 are another set of characters of @xmath1 such that @xmath17 is the direct sum of the cyclic subgroups generated by the @xmath171 . let @xmath172 be the order of @xmath171 , @xmath173 ; then by the multiplication maps for @xmath174 isomorphisms @xmath175 , where @xmath176 and @xmath177 . by the associativity and commutativity of the multiplication the algebra structure defined on @xmath178 by the @xmath179 is the same as that induced by the @xmath119 . hence it is enough to analyze to what extent the isomorphism class of @xmath41 depends on the  @xmath119 :    [ prop : bdata ]    1 .   _ ( global case ) . _ if @xmath180 , then the building data determine @xmath51 up to isomorphism of @xmath1-covers . 2 .   in general , given two standard covers @xmath181 , @xmath182 , with the same building data , there exists an tale cover @xmath183 such that , after base change with @xmath183 , @xmath184 and @xmath185 give isomorphic @xmath1-covers . \(2 ) we use the notation introduced above . let @xmath186 , @xmath187 be two @xmath188-algebra structures on @xmath189 given by isomorphisms @xmath119 , respectively @xmath190 . the isomorphisms @xmath119 , @xmath190 differ by an automorphism of @xmath191 , namely by multiplication by an element @xmath192 . this automorphism is induced by an automorphism of @xmath193 iff @xmath194 has a @xmath113-th root @xmath195 . so , up to taking an tale cover , one can assume that the roots @xmath196 exist . by formulae ( 2.15 ) of @xcite , the @xmath196 can be used to define for all @xmath91 automorphisms @xmath197 of @xmath198 that commute with the isomorphisms @xmath126 and @xmath199 .    to prove statement ( 1 ) , just observe that if @xmath180 no base change is necessary to construct the isomorphism above . [ rem : local ] let @xmath51 be a @xmath1-cover with branch data @xmath200 , let @xmath42 and let @xmath136 be local equations for @xmath85 near @xmath158 . combining proposition [ prop : bdata ] with the local equations , we see that , up to passing to an tale cover of @xmath201 , @xmath3 is defined locally near @xmath158 by the equations : @xmath202      here we find conditions for a @xmath1-cover of a smooth variety to be standard . we keep the notation of the previous section . [ defn : hurwitz ] let @xmath2 be a smooth variety and let @xmath51 be a standard @xmath1-cover with building data @xmath11 , @xmath85 , @xmath98 . by lemma [ lem : inertia ] the branch locus @xmath74 of @xmath41 is the support of the divisor @xmath203 . we define the _ hurwitz divisor _ of @xmath41 as the @xmath204-divisor @xmath205 . notice that the support of @xmath32 is equal to @xmath74 . we say that a variety is _ _ ( has _ double crossings _ ) if every point is either smooth or analytically isomorphic to @xmath206 . we say that a variety is _ _ ( has _ generically double crossing_s ) if it is d.c . outside a closed subset of codimension @xmath5 the following result generalizes the main result of @xcite :    [ thm : structure ] let @xmath51 be a @xmath1-cover such that @xmath2 is smooth and @xmath3 is @xmath4 . then :    1 . @xmath3 is normal iff @xmath41 is standard and every component of the hurwitz divisor @xmath32 has multiplicity @xmath207 . 2 .   assume that @xmath41 is standard . then @xmath3 is g.d.c . iff every component of @xmath32 has multiplicity @xmath208 . 3 .   assume that @xmath3 is g.d.c .. then @xmath41 is standard iff for every irreducible divisor @xmath75 of @xmath2 such that @xmath3 is singular above @xmath75 one has @xmath209 for some @xmath210 .    in the case @xmath106 , which is of special interest to us because of the applications in @xcite , theorem [ thm : structure ] reads :    [ cor : structurez2 ] let @xmath51 be a @xmath6-cover such that @xmath2 is smooth and @xmath3 is @xmath4 . then :    1 . @xmath3 is normal iff @xmath41 is standard and every component of @xmath32 has multiplicity @xmath207 . 2 .   @xmath3 is g.d.c . iff @xmath41 is standard and every component of @xmath32 has multiplicity @xmath208 . let @xmath51 be a standard @xmath1-cover with @xmath2 smooth and @xmath3 g.d.c . and let @xmath75 be a component of the branch divisor @xmath74 . by lemma [ lem : inertia ] , we have @xmath211 . the pairs ( subgroup , character ) corresponding to @xmath75 can be determined as follows :    * assume that @xmath75 has multiplicity @xmath207 in the hurwitz divisor @xmath32 . then there is precisely one index @xmath163 with @xmath212 . in this case , @xmath213 and the character @xmath89 is given by the action of @xmath87 on the tangent space to @xmath3 at the generic point of an irreducible component of @xmath76 ( cf . @xcite ,  1 and  2 ) . * assume that @xmath75 has multiplicity @xmath214 in @xmath32 . then there are precisely two indices @xmath215 and @xmath216 such that @xmath217 and @xmath218 and @xmath219 have order 2 . so either @xmath220 or @xmath221 . in the latter case the proof of theorem [ thm : structure ] shows that @xmath218 and @xmath219 are generated by the elements of @xmath81 that interchange the two branches of @xmath3 at a general point of @xmath76 . statement ( 1 ) is @xcite , thm . 2.1 and cor.3.1 . so consider the non - normal case . the cover @xmath41 is flat since @xmath2 is smooth and @xmath3 is @xmath4 , hence we write as usual @xmath222 . the cover is standard if and only if there exist branch data @xmath85 , @xmath98 such that for every @xmath223 the zero divisor of the multiplication map @xmath224 is equal to @xmath225 , where the @xmath226 are defined in  [ ssec : standard ] . notice that @xmath3 , being @xmath4 , is non - normal if and only if it is singular in codimension 1 . fix a component @xmath75 of @xmath32 such that @xmath3 is singular above @xmath75 . write @xmath227 . the cover @xmath41 factors as @xmath228 and @xmath75 is not contained in the branch locus of the map @xmath229 , hence @xmath230 is generically smooth over @xmath75 . it follows that there is an element of @xmath231 that exchanges the two branches of @xmath3 at a general point of @xmath76 . let @xmath232 be the normalization , let @xmath233 be the induced @xmath1-cover , let @xmath234 be the pair ( subgroup , character ) corresponding to @xmath75 for the cover @xmath235 and let @xmath236 be the order of @xmath237 ( if @xmath235 is not branched on @xmath75 , we take @xmath237 and @xmath238 to be trivial ) . since the normalization map @xmath232 is @xmath1-equivariant , we have a short exact sequence : @xmath239    we consider the @xmath231-covers @xmath240 and @xmath241 and we study the algebras @xmath242 and @xmath243 , where @xmath244 is an irreducible component of the inverse image of @xmath75 in @xmath245 . we denote by @xmath246 a local parameter . we distinguish three cases :    in this case @xmath247 , and @xmath3 is given locally by @xmath248 , where @xmath249 . let @xmath101 be a generator that restricts to @xmath238 on @xmath237 . the algebra @xmath250 is generated by elements @xmath251 such that : @xmath252 where @xmath253 and @xmath231 acts on @xmath254 via the character @xmath77 and on @xmath255 via the character @xmath256 . the eigenspace corresponding to @xmath257 is generated by @xmath258 for @xmath259 , and by @xmath260 for @xmath261 . since the inclusion @xmath262 is @xmath1-equivariant , @xmath263 is generated by elements of the form @xmath264 for suitable @xmath265 . since @xmath231 fixes @xmath266 pointwise , by the argument in the proof of lemma [ lem : inertia ] @xmath267 is contained in the subalgebra @xmath268 of @xmath250 generated by @xmath269 @xmath270 is also generated by @xmath271 , with the only relation @xmath272 , hence @xmath273 is g.d.c . and the map @xmath274 is an isomorphism . so @xmath275 .    in this case @xmath236 is even and @xmath276 . we denote by @xmath101 a character that restricts to @xmath238 on @xmath237 and by @xmath277 the character such that @xmath278 . @xmath250 is generated by @xmath251 such that : @xmath279 where @xmath253 and @xmath231 acts on @xmath254 via the character @xmath77 and on @xmath255 via the character @xmath277 . arguing as in the previous case , one checks that @xmath263 is generated by : @xmath280 @xmath267 can also be generated by @xmath281 with the only relation @xmath272 .    for @xmath282 , denote by @xmath283 the order of vanishing on @xmath75 of the multiplication map @xmath284 . using the above analysis and arguing as in the proof of ( 2.1 ) , one obtains the following rules , up to exchanging @xmath285 and @xmath286 :    * @xmath287 if @xmath288 , + @xmath289 otherwise . * for @xmath182 , write @xmath290 , where @xmath291 or @xmath46 and @xmath292 . then : + @xmath287 if @xmath293 , @xmath294 , + @xmath295 if @xmath296 , @xmath297 , @xmath298 , + @xmath299 $ ] in the remaining cases . * for @xmath182 , write @xmath300,where @xmath291 or @xmath46 and @xmath292 . then : + @xmath287 if @xmath293 , @xmath294 , + @xmath295 if @xmath296 , @xmath297 , @xmath298 + @xmath301 $ ] in the remaining cases .    in the above analysis the group @xmath302 appears in case ( a ) and case ( c ) for @xmath303 . in case ( a ) , the cover @xmath41 is standard : @xmath75 appears twice among the branch data , both times with label @xmath231 . in case ( c ) , @xmath41 is standard for @xmath303 : @xmath75 appears twice among the branch data , with labels @xmath304 and @xmath305 corresponding to the subgroups of order 2 of @xmath231 distinct from @xmath237 . moreover , it is not difficult to check that in case ( b ) and in case ( c ) for @xmath306 the cover is not standard . so we have proven ( 3 ) and also that every component of the hurwitz divisor @xmath32 of a standard g.d.c . cover has multiplicity @xmath307 . vice versa , assume that @xmath41 is standard and @xmath75 appears in @xmath32 with multiplicity @xmath208 . if the multiplicity is @xmath207 then the cover is normal over @xmath75 . if the multiplicity is equal to @xmath46 , then @xmath75 appears twice among the branch data , and the corresponding subgroups @xmath308 and @xmath309 have order 2 . if @xmath310 , then the cover is given over the generic point of @xmath75 by the equation @xmath311 , with @xmath312 a unit ; so it is g.d.c . if @xmath313 , then the cover is given by the equations @xmath314 , @xmath315 , with @xmath316 and @xmath317 units . these equations are equivalent to @xmath318 , so the cover is g.d.c .. this completes the proof of ( 2 ) . let @xmath51 be a @xmath1-cover such that @xmath2 is normal and @xmath3 is @xmath4 . let @xmath57 be the nonsingular locus of @xmath2 . then the restriction @xmath55 is a @xmath1-cover , and by lemma  [ lem : remove - codim2 ] @xmath41 is the unique @xmath4-extension of @xmath58 to @xmath2 . thus the theory in the normal case is the immediate extension of the nonsingular case . we record the changes :    1 .   the sheaves @xmath40 are no longer invertible but they are @xmath4 , i.e. in this case reflexive , divisorial sheaves . the multiplication maps are @xmath319 2 . the branch divisors @xmath320 are weil divisors . otherwise , the same fundamental relations between @xmath40 and @xmath320 must hold . one has to be careful that the morphism @xmath41 may be not flat ; indeed , it is flat iff all @xmath40 are invertible . also , for a singular @xmath2 the branch locus may have non - divisorial components . let @xmath321 $ ] , @xmath322 acting by @xmath323 , @xmath324 , and let @xmath2 be the quotient @xmath325 $ ] , a quadratic cone . then @xmath41 is ramified only over the vertex @xmath326 of the cone . the divisors @xmath320 are zero . the eigensheaves are @xmath327 and @xmath328 , the divisorial sheaf corresponding to a line @xmath329 through the vertex . @xmath328 is also isomorphic to the @xmath52-submodule of @xmath48 generated by @xmath166 and @xmath158 . the fundamental relation in this case is @xmath330 . now we assume that @xmath2 is a non normal g.d.c . and @xmath4 variety . let @xmath21 be the divisorial part of the singular locus of @xmath2 , let @xmath331 be the normalization , let @xmath332 be the inverse image of @xmath21 in @xmath13 and let @xmath333 be the normalization . since @xmath2 is g.d.c . , there is a biregular involution @xmath334 on @xmath335 induced by the degree 2 map @xmath336 . ( if the components of @xmath2 are smooth , then @xmath335 is a union of several pairs of varieties , exchanged by the involution @xmath334 . in general , some components of @xmath337 map to themselves ) . consider a commutative diagram :    where @xmath3 and @xmath338 are g.d.c . and @xmath4 varieties , the vertical arrows are @xmath1-covers , @xmath339 is a cover as in the previous section , and @xmath340 is a birational morphism . we denote by @xmath341 the preimages of @xmath342 in @xmath343 , and by @xmath344 the normalization of @xmath345 . @xmath346 \ar[dd ] \ar@(ul , dl)[]_{j }     & & b ' \ar[rr ] \ar[dd ] \ar@{^(->}[dr ]     & & b \ar@{^(->}[dr ] \ar[dd ] \\    & & & & & x ' \ar[rr ] \ar[dd ]     & & x \ar[dd ] \\    & & \wt{c ' } \ar[rr ] \ar@(ul , dl)[]_{\iota }     & & c ' \ar[rr ] \ar@{^(->}[dr ]     & & c \ar@{^(->}[dr ] \\    & & & & & \wy \ar^{\nu}[rr ]     & & y } \ ] ]    we first give two constructions for the cover @xmath0 starting with @xmath347 and the appropriate data for the double locus . one construction proceeds by @xmath4-fication of the `` nice '' part . the second one is by a gluing procedure , and the result is very convenient for computing the invariants of @xmath3 . finally , we show that indeed every @xmath0 comes from these constructions . [ thm : glue ] suppose we are given    1 . @xmath2 , @xmath13 , @xmath332 , @xmath348 , 2 .   a @xmath1-cover @xmath339 , with @xmath338 an @xmath4 and g.d.c . variety ,    let @xmath349 be the induced cover and let @xmath350 be its normalization . then @xmath338 can be glued to a cover @xmath0 with @xmath3 g.d.c . and @xmath4 if and only if it is generically smooth along @xmath345 , and there exists an involution @xmath351 that covers the involution @xmath352 and commutes with the action of @xmath1 on @xmath344 . assume that @xmath3 exists . then the map @xmath353 induces an involution @xmath354 as required . in addition , if @xmath338 were not generically smooth along a component @xmath75 of @xmath345 , then @xmath3 would have generically at least three branches along the image of @xmath75 . thus these two conditions on @xmath338 are necessary for the existence of  @xmath3 . next we show that they are also sufficient . we start by identifying the `` bad locus '' . it includes the singular locus of @xmath13 , the intersection of branch divisors between themselves and with @xmath332 . the image of this bad locus in @xmath2 has codimension @xmath355 . let @xmath57 be its complement , and restrict all varieties and covers to @xmath57 . the condition that the involution @xmath354 commutes with the @xmath1-action implies that for any irreducible component @xmath75 of @xmath345 the subgroup @xmath231 of elements of @xmath1 that fix @xmath75 pointwise is the same as the supgroup of elements that fix @xmath356 pointwise . since @xmath338 is generically smooth along @xmath345 , one has ( cf . @xcite ) @xmath357 for some @xmath50 and , working tale - locally , @xmath231 acts locally by @xmath358 near @xmath75 and by @xmath359 near @xmath356 for some primitive root @xmath360 and @xmath361 . here @xmath362 , @xmath363 . we glue @xmath364 along @xmath365 to obtain a variety @xmath56 with a finite morphism to @xmath57 . the @xmath1-action extends to @xmath56 , because @xmath354 commutes with the @xmath1-action , and is of the type ( smooth ) @xmath366 ( compatible action of curves ) , where `` compatible '' means that , working tale - locally , @xmath367 acts on @xmath206 by @xmath368 , @xmath369    over the double locus we have @xmath370/(xy)$ ] and the ring of @xmath371-invariants is @xmath372/(uv)$ ] , where @xmath373 and @xmath374 . thus , @xmath56 has only normal crossings and @xmath375 is a @xmath1-cover .    finally , we apply lemma  [ lem : remove - codim2 ] to obtain an @xmath4 and g.d.c . cover @xmath0 by taking @xmath4-fication . we obtain @xmath3 by gluing @xmath338 along the involution @xmath376 , i.e. as the pushout of the following commutative diagram :    since all varieties are affine over @xmath2 , @xmath48 is the fiber product of the corresponding diagram of @xmath52-algebras , in which we identify sheaves with their pushforwards on  @xmath2 . we can rewrite this fiber product diagram by saying that @xmath48 is the kernel in the exact sequence @xmath377 further , we have @xmath378 where @xmath379 is the alternating part ( if @xmath380 then @xmath381 ) , and the image of @xmath382 contains @xmath383 . hence , we have induced exact sequences @xmath384 the thus defined variety @xmath3 is @xmath4 by the next lemma  [ lem : sings - after - gluing ] , since @xmath385 is a subsheaf of @xmath379 and so obviously does not have embedded primes . it is g.d.c . again by looking in codimension 1 as in the previous proof . the @xmath1-action on @xmath338 descends to a @xmath1-action on @xmath3 since @xmath354 commutes with the @xmath1-action on @xmath344 and by construction the subalgebra of @xmath1-invariants is the algebra of @xmath386 glued along @xmath387 , i.e. @xmath52 .    the varieties @xmath3 obtained in the two proofs coincide , since they both have finite morphisms to @xmath2 , are both @xmath4 and they coincide over an open subset @xmath388 with @xmath389 . [ warn : glue ] it may happen that there is no covering involution of @xmath345 but only of its normalization @xmath390 . then the double locus of @xmath3 is obtained from @xmath391 by some additional gluing in codimension 1 ( codimension 2 for @xmath3 ) . as a consequence , branches of @xmath3 may not be @xmath4 . but the variety @xmath3 is @xmath4 . @xcite contains multiple examples of this phenomenon .    on the other hand , the involution @xmath354 need not be unique . for instance , if @xmath165 has order 2 , then @xmath392 is another involution satisfying the assumptions for gluing . the next example shows that gluing via different involutions can give rise to non isomorphic covers . [ ex : pinch ]    let @xmath393 . the normalization of @xmath2 is the map @xmath394 defined by @xmath395 . here @xmath396 , @xmath397 and the involution @xmath334 of @xmath335 is given by @xmath398 . let @xmath399 and let @xmath400 be the trivial @xmath401 cover , given by the projection on the coordinates @xmath402 . the @xmath401-action is @xmath403 and @xmath404 . there are two involutions of @xmath344 that lift @xmath334 , namely @xmath405 and @xmath406 . the cover @xmath407 obtained by gluing via @xmath408 is obviously the trivial @xmath401-cover . we describe the cover @xmath409 obtained by gluing via @xmath410 following the second proof of theorem [ thm : glue ] . the map @xmath411 corresponds to the inclusion @xmath412\to \bk[s,\epsilon]/(\epsilon^2 - 1]$ ] and the map @xmath413 corresponds to the surjection @xmath414/(\epsilon^2 - 1 ) \to   \bk[s,\epsilon]/(\epsilon^2 - 1]$ ] . the fiber product of these two ring maps can be identified with @xmath415/(\epsilon^2 - 1)\subset \bk[s , t,\epsilon]/(\epsilon^2 - 1)$ ] . the map @xmath416/(x^2-y^2)$ ] defined by @xmath417 , @xmath418 , @xmath419 is an isomorphism , hence @xmath420 is the union of two copies of @xmath421 glued along a line . the cover @xmath409 is given by @xmath422 and the @xmath401-action on @xmath3 is given by @xmath423 , thus @xmath424 is the only branch point . so the ramification locus of a standard @xmath1-cover has always pure codimension 1 but this not true for the @xmath1-covers obtained from a standard cover by gluing and the analogue of lemma [ lem : inertia ] does not hold . [ lem : sings - after - gluing ] with the notations as in the 2nd proof by gluing , assume that @xmath338 is @xmath49 for some @xmath425 . then @xmath3 is @xmath49 iff @xmath385 is @xmath426 . we use the cohomological interpretation of depth using local cohomology @xcite ( alternatively and equivalently one can use @xmath427 ) . a sheaf @xmath186 satisfies @xmath49 iff for every irreducible subvariety @xmath428 one has @xmath429 for all @xmath430 . looking at the long exact sequence of cohomologies corresponding to the short exact sequence  , we get @xmath431 for all @xmath432 . the statement now follows . we spell out theorem [ thm : glue ] in a special case , which is of interest to us because of the applications in @xcite . [ ex:2surfaces ] take @xmath106 . for simplicity of exposition , we assume that @xmath433 is the g.d.c . union of two smooth projective surfaces that intersect along a smooth rational curve @xmath21 , but all our considerations generalize straightforwardly to the case of a g.d.c . surface with smooth components whose double locus is a union of smooth rational curves . we have @xmath434 , hence an @xmath4 and g.d.c . @xmath1-cover @xmath339 is the disjoint union of @xmath4 and g.d.c . covers @xmath435 , @xmath182 . by corollary [ cor : structurez2 ] , the covers @xmath436 are standard . we denote by @xmath437 , @xmath438 the branch data of @xmath436 , @xmath182 . we write @xmath439 , @xmath440 and @xmath441 . we denote by @xmath442 the generator of subgroup @xmath443 . an involution @xmath354 of @xmath344 as in theorem [ thm : glue ] exists if and only if there is an isomorphism @xmath444 compatible with the @xmath1-action . this is equivalent to the following conditions :    1 . @xmath445 , 2 .   for @xmath446 , denote by @xmath447 the intersection multiplicity at @xmath158 of @xmath448 with @xmath449 , @xmath450 and by @xmath451 the intersection multiplicity at @xmath158 of @xmath452 with @xmath453 , @xmath454 . then : + @xmath455    indeed , ( 1 ) follows immediately by the fact that @xmath354 commutes with the action of @xmath1 . in addition , by the normalization algorithm of @xcite condition ( 2 ) is equivalent to requiring that the branch data of the normalizations @xmath456 and @xmath457 of the @xmath458-coverings of @xmath459 induced by @xmath184 and @xmath185 are the same . since @xmath21 is smooth rational , the branch data are enough to determine the building data ( cf . remark [ rem : branchdata ] ) . since @xmath21 is projective , the building data determine the cover up to isomorphism by proposition [ prop : bdata ] . assume that the gluing conditions are satisfied . giving an involution of @xmath344 that commutes with the @xmath1 action is the same as giving an isomorphism of @xmath1-covers @xmath460 . then any other such map @xmath461 is equal to @xmath462 for some @xmath165 and the automorphism of @xmath463 defined by @xmath464 if @xmath465 and @xmath466 if @xmath467 induces an isomorphism of the cover of @xmath2 obtained by gluing via @xmath468 with the one obtained by gluing via @xmath461 . so in this case all the possible involutions give isomorphic covers . [ thm : the - reverse ] vice versa , every @xmath1-cover @xmath0 with g.d.c . @xmath4 varieties @xmath469 is obtained via the gluing construction of theorem  [ thm : glue ] . given @xmath0 and the normalization @xmath470 , let @xmath471 be the fiber product @xmath472 . we define @xmath338 as @xmath473 . thus , @xmath338 is @xmath4 by definition , and it maps to @xmath13 . by the universality of taking the reduced part and @xmath4-fication , there is an induced @xmath1-action on @xmath338 . by the universal property of @xmath1-quotients , we also have a morphism @xmath474 . we claim that it is an isomorphism . it is enough to check this in codimension one over the double locus . we claim that generically over the double locus of @xmath2 , the cover is ( smooth ) @xmath366 ( admissible action of curves ) , where `` admissible '' means that , working tale - locally , @xmath3 is given by @xmath206 , and the action is @xmath368 , @xmath369 for some primitive root @xmath360 and @xmath361 . indeed , let @xmath78 be the subgroup of elements that restrict to the identity on an irreducible component @xmath75 of the double locus of @xmath3 . then on the normalization on both branches we have the same subgroup for the preimages @xmath244 and @xmath475 . since generically @xmath476 are smooth , @xmath477 for some @xmath478 ( note that one possibly has @xmath479 ) .    thus , tale locally the morphism @xmath0 can be written as @xmath480/(uv)\to \bk[x , y]/(xy ) ,       \qquad      u\mapsto x^n,\   v\mapsto y^n,\ ] ] where @xmath1 acts as @xmath368 , @xmath369 , @xmath360 , @xmath361 . computing , we get that @xmath471 corresponds to ( smooth)@xmath481/(xy , y^n ) \oplus \bk[x , y]/(xy , x^n)$ ] , and @xmath338 to @xmath482\oplus    \bk[y]$ ] . the quotient @xmath483 is then @xmath484\oplus \bk[v]$ ] , i.e. @xmath13 . this proves that @xmath485 is an isomorphism outside a closed subset of codimension @xmath355 . since both are finite over @xmath2 and @xmath4 , @xmath277 is an isomorphism . let @xmath245 be a variety , let @xmath486 , @xmath487 , be effective weil divisors on @xmath3 , possibly reducible , and let @xmath488 be rational numbers with @xmath489 . set @xmath490 . [ defn : lc ] assume that @xmath245 is a _ normal _ variety . then @xmath245 has a canonical weil divisor @xmath491 defined up to linear equivalence . the pair @xmath492 is called _ log canonical _ if    1 . @xmath493 is @xmath494-cartier , i.e. some positive multiple is a cartier divisor , and 2 . every prime divisor of @xmath245 has multiplicity @xmath208 in @xmath495 and for every proper birational morphism @xmath496 with normal @xmath497 , in the natural formula @xmath498 one has @xmath499 . here , @xmath500 are the irreducible exceptional divisors of @xmath501 , the pullback @xmath502 is defined by extending @xmath494-linearly the pullback on cartier divisors , @xmath503 is the strict preimage of @xmath495 . the coefficients @xmath504 are called _ discrepancies_. for the non - exceptional divisors , already appearing on @xmath245 , one defines @xmath505 . + if @xmath506 , then @xmath245 has a resolution of singularities @xmath496 such that @xmath507 is a normal crossing divisor ; then it is sufficient to check the condition @xmath508 for this morphism @xmath501 only . a pair @xmath492 is called _ semi log canonical _ if    1 . @xmath245 satisfies serre s condition @xmath4 , 2 . @xmath245 is g.d.c . , and no divisor @xmath486 contains any component of the double locus of @xmath245 , 3 . some multiple of the weil @xmath494-divisor @xmath493 , well defined thanks to the previous condition , is cartier , and 4 .   denoting by @xmath509 the normalization , the pair @xmath510 is log canonical . [ lem : adjunction ] let @xmath511 be a finite morphism of degree @xmath145 between equidimensional @xmath4 varieties . assume that either @xmath512 , or @xmath152 is galois and @xmath513 does not divide @xmath145 . let @xmath57 be an open subset and denote by @xmath514 the induced cover . assume that :    * @xmath515 and both @xmath56 and @xmath57 are d.c . , * there exist effective @xmath516-divisors @xmath517 of @xmath3 and @xmath518 of @xmath2 , not containing any component of the double locus , such that @xmath519 , where @xmath520 is the restriction of @xmath518 to @xmath57 and @xmath521 is the restriction of @xmath517 to @xmath56 .    then :    1 . @xmath522 is @xmath516-cartier iff so is @xmath523 . 2 .   the pair @xmath524 is slc iff so is the pair @xmath525 . \(1 ) let @xmath526 be the inclusion map . if the sheaf @xmath527 is invertible then we have a homomorphism @xmath528 which is an isomorphism outside of codimension 2 . so it must be an isomorphism by the @xmath4 condition . similarly , if the sheaf @xmath529 is invertible then the sheaf @xmath530 is isomorphic to the norm of @xmath531 , so is invertible . \(2 ) assume first that @xmath3 and @xmath2 are normal . in the case this statement , due to shokurov , is very well known . we recall the proof because usually it is only stated and proved in characteristic zero . let @xmath532 be some partial resolution with normal @xmath533 , @xmath338 be the normalization of @xmath534 , and let @xmath535 , @xmath536 be the induced maps . pick an irreducible divisor @xmath537 on @xmath533 , and let @xmath75 be an irreducible divisor on @xmath338 over it . by our condition on @xmath513 , the field extension @xmath538 is separable , and if @xmath539 , @xmath540 are uniformizing parameters in the dvrs @xmath541 and @xmath542 , then one has @xmath543 for a unit @xmath312 and some integer @xmath544 dividing @xmath145 and hence coprime to @xmath513 .    then riemann - hurwitz formula applies and says that generically along @xmath537 and @xmath75 one has @xmath545 . comparing this to the identity @xmath546 and the definition of the log discrepancy , one obtains that @xmath547 . thus , @xmath548 @xmath549 @xmath550 . this proves that @xmath551 is lc iff @xmath524 is lc . now consider the general g.d.c . let @xmath552 be the normalization . we have @xmath553 and similarly for @xmath2 . thus , the double loci appear in the divisors @xmath554 , @xmath555 with coefficient 1 . by the riemann - hurwitz formula again , for the normalizations we still have @xmath556 . we conclude by applying the normal case . we now extend definition [ defn : hurwitz ] of hurwitz divisor to the case of a g.d.c . base @xmath2 :    [ defn : hurwitz2 ] let @xmath51 be a @xmath1-cover of @xmath4 and g.d.c . varieties . for a prime weil divisor @xmath557 , we define @xmath558 as follows :    * if @xmath75 is contained in the double locus of @xmath2 , then @xmath559 ; * if @xmath75 is not contained in the double locus of @xmath2 , but @xmath76 is contained in the double locus of @xmath3 , then @xmath560 , * if @xmath75 is not contained in the double locus of @xmath2 , @xmath76 is not contained in the double locus of @xmath3 and @xmath104 is the ramification order of @xmath41 at @xmath75 , then @xmath561 . we define the hurwitz divisor @xmath32 of @xmath41 to be the @xmath204-divisor @xmath562 . notice that if @xmath0 is a standard @xmath1-cover with @xmath3 g.d.c . this definition coincides with definition [ defn : hurwitz ] by theorem [ thm : structure ] . note that @xmath32 does not contain any components of the double locus of @xmath2 . [ prop : interesting - case ] let @xmath51 be a @xmath1-cover as in definition [ defn : hurwitz2 ] and let @xmath32 be the hurwitz divisor of @xmath41 , let @xmath339 be the corresponding @xmath4 and g.d.c . @xmath1-cover ( cf.   [ ssec : ynonnormal ] ) then    1 . @xmath563 is @xmath516-cartier iff so is @xmath564 , and then @xmath565 . 2 .   @xmath3 is slc iff so is the pair @xmath566 . recall that @xmath567 and @xmath568 are coprime by assumption . so lemma [ lem : adjunction ] applies and we may assume that @xmath2 is d.c .. we need to show that @xmath569 this is equivalent to the following equality for the cover @xmath570 , where @xmath19 is the normalization of @xmath338 ( and of @xmath3 ) : @xmath571 in view of definition [ defn : hurwitz2 ] the formula follows easily by the usual hurwitz formula .      by lemma  [ lem : flatness - and - cm ] , a @xmath1-cover over a smooth base is cm . here , we give a partial generalization of this case to the case of a non - normal base . we use the notations of theorem  [ thm : glue ] and the exact sequence . [ prop : cm ] assume that @xmath338 is cm ( for example , @xmath13 is smooth ) . then @xmath3 is cm iff the sheaf @xmath385 is cm . immediate by lemma  [ lem : sings - after - gluing ] . using proposition [ prop : cm ] it is not hard to give examples of abelian covers @xmath0 such that @xmath2 is cm and g.d.c . , and @xmath3 is g.d.c . and @xmath4 but not cm :    [ ex : noncm ] we take @xmath572 and assume @xmath573 ; for any prime @xmath574 one can construct similar examples with @xmath575 and @xmath576 . let @xmath433 be the union of 2 copies of @xmath577 glued transversally along a plane @xmath21 . let @xmath578 and @xmath579 be distinct lines on @xmath21 and for @xmath182 let @xmath580 be a quadric that restricts to @xmath581 on @xmath21 . for a generic choice , @xmath85 is a quadric cone with vertex @xmath582 and the points @xmath583 , @xmath584 and @xmath585 are distinct . let @xmath586 be the double cover of @xmath7 branched on @xmath85 and let @xmath587 . then @xmath338 is gorenstein , has an ordinary double point over @xmath583 and @xmath584 and no other singularity . write @xmath588 and @xmath440 ; then @xmath589 is the union of two copies of @xmath590 glued transversally along @xmath591 and @xmath592 is the trivial @xmath401-cover . hence there exists an involution @xmath354 of @xmath344 that commutes with the @xmath401-action , and by theorem [ thm : glue ] @xmath338 can be glued to an @xmath4 and g.d.c . cover @xmath0 . locus of @xmath3 is the complement of the preimage of @xmath593 .    in the exact sequence each term splits under the @xmath1-action and the maps are compatible with the splitting , so we get two exact sequences , one for each character of @xmath1 . since @xmath594 and @xmath401 acts on @xmath379 by switching the two summands , the sequence for the nontrivial character is : @xmath595 where @xmath596 ( resp . @xmath597 ) is the antiinvariant summand of @xmath598 ( resp . of @xmath379 ) . by definition , the map @xmath599 factorizes as @xmath600 . hence , @xmath601 coincides with @xmath602 , the maximal ideal of @xmath603 in @xmath21 , and therefore it is not @xmath4 . it follows by proposition [ prop : cm ] that @xmath3 is not cm over @xmath603 . let @xmath604 be a point distinct from @xmath603 ; in a neighbourhood of @xmath605 we have @xmath606 , thus @xmath607 is not @xmath516-cartier . since @xmath2 is gorenstein , it follows that @xmath608 is not @xmath516-cartier either , hence @xmath563 is not @xmath516-cartier by proposition [ prop : interesting - case ] . all the statements in this section are tale local , so we often pass to a smaller neighbourhood of a point without explicit mention of the fact .    for convenience , we write `` @xmath563 '' to denote the divisorial sheaf @xmath609 ( recall that @xmath3 is gorenstein in codimension 1 and @xmath4 ) . we also use the additive notation @xmath607 for the sheaf @xmath610 . we consider the following situation :    * @xmath2 is a normal variety and @xmath21 is a reduced effective divisor on @xmath2 such that @xmath611 is cartier ; * @xmath51 is a standard g.d.c . @xmath1-cover ( so @xmath3 is automatically @xmath4 by lemma [ lem : flatness - and - cm ] ) . we assume that @xmath3 is generically smooth over @xmath21 and we denote by @xmath495 the preimage of @xmath21 in @xmath3 . so @xmath495 is also a reduced effective divisor . let @xmath32 be the hurwitz divisor of @xmath41 ; then we have : @xmath612 thus , if @xmath145 is the exponent of @xmath1 , then the divisor @xmath613 is cartier ( recall that the divisors @xmath85 are cartier by the definition of a standard cover in section  [ ssec : standard ] ) and thus @xmath614 is also cartier . fix a point @xmath42 ; the purpose of this section is to compute the cartier index of @xmath615 at a point @xmath160 such that @xmath616 . here we are interested mainly in the case @xmath617 , but the case of a pair is needed in the next section to treat the case @xmath2 non - normal .    in order to state our result we need some notation . we label the branch data @xmath618 , @xmath619 , in such a way that @xmath620 iff @xmath621 . since the question is local on @xmath2 we may assume that @xmath164 for every @xmath163 . consider the map @xmath622 . by lemma [ lem : inertia ] the image of this map is the inertia subgroup @xmath157 ; we denote by @xmath623 the kernel . we let @xmath624 be the character @xmath625 . since the group @xmath1 is finite abelian , the map @xmath626 is surjective . so the character @xmath627 is the pullback of a character of @xmath157 iff it is the pullback of a character of @xmath1 . [ prop : index - normal ] notation and assumptions as above . + the cartier index of @xmath615 at @xmath166 is equal to the order of @xmath628 .    in particular , @xmath615 is cartier iff @xmath627 is the pull back of a character @xmath167 . since the question is local , we may assume that the line bundles @xmath11 , @xmath629 and @xmath630 are trivial . the map @xmath631 is tale , hence up to replacing @xmath2 by @xmath632 we may assume that @xmath633 , or , equivalently , that @xmath634 . we denote by @xmath635 local equations of @xmath84 near @xmath158 . by remark [ rem : local ] , up to passing to an tale cover of @xmath2 we may assume that @xmath3 is given by : @xmath636 the equations : @xmath637 define inside @xmath638 a @xmath639-cover @xmath640 ( @xmath639 acts on @xmath641 via the character @xmath89 ) , the _ maximal totally ramified cover _ of @xmath2 with branch data @xmath642 ( here we regard @xmath87 as a subgroup of @xmath639 ) . since @xmath2 is g.d.c . by assumption and @xmath0 and @xmath640 have the same hurwitz divisor , @xmath643 is also g.d.c . by theorem [ thm : structure ] . for every @xmath167 , write @xmath644 , with @xmath645 for @xmath619 ; then setting @xmath646 defines a map @xmath647 which is the quotient map for the action of the kernel @xmath623 of @xmath648 . the map @xmath574 is unramified in codimension 1 and @xmath649 consists of just one point @xmath650 . denote by @xmath651 the preimage of @xmath21 ( and of @xmath495 ) in @xmath643 ; observe that @xmath652 pulls back to @xmath615 on @xmath3 and to @xmath653 on @xmath643 . if @xmath654 is a generator of @xmath630 then @xmath655 is generated by the residue @xmath656 on @xmath643 of the rational differential form : @xmath657 thus @xmath655 is invertible and @xmath1 acts on the local generator @xmath658 via the character @xmath659 . set @xmath660 . the map @xmath661 is unramified in codimension 1 and @xmath658 descends on @xmath245 to a generator of @xmath662 , where @xmath663 is the image of @xmath651 . the map @xmath664 is a cyclic cover with galois group @xmath665 with the following properties :    * it is unramified in codimension 1 and the preimage of @xmath166 consists only of one point , * the pull back of @xmath666 is a line bundle on which the galois group acts via a primitive character . it follows that @xmath664 is a canonical cover and that the cartier index of @xmath615 at @xmath166 is equal to @xmath667 $ ] . [ cor : gor - smooth ] let @xmath668 be a standard abelian with @xmath3 and @xmath2 g.d.c . and @xmath2 gorenstein , let @xmath42 and let @xmath160 be a point such that @xmath616 . then @xmath3 is gorenstein at @xmath166 iff the character @xmath669 descends to a character @xmath12 of @xmath157 . @xmath3 is cohen - macaulay by lemma [ lem : flatness - and - cm ] and @xmath563 is cartier by proposition [ prop : index - normal ] . corollary [ cor : gor - smooth ] is proven in @xcite under the assumption that @xmath3 is normal and @xmath2 is smooth . here we consider the problem of determining the cartier index of @xmath563 at a point @xmath160 of a @xmath1-cover @xmath0 with @xmath2 non - normal of cartier index 1 . the situation is much more complicated than in the case @xmath2 normal and we are able to give only a partial answer , that is however sufficient for the applications in @xcite . the main difficulty is that one does not know how to write down an analogue of the maximal totally ramified cover used in the proof of proposition [ prop : index - normal ] . we consider the following setup :    * @xmath670 , where @xmath7 is irreducible for @xmath173 , is a g.d.c . and @xmath4 variety ; @xmath671 is the normalization , * @xmath51 is an @xmath4 and g.d.c . @xmath1-cover obtained by gluing a cover @xmath672 such that @xmath673 is standard for every @xmath163 , * @xmath42 and @xmath160 are points such that @xmath616 ; we assume that @xmath158 lies on every component of the branch locus of @xmath41 . we denote by @xmath618 , @xmath619 the branch data of the standard cover @xmath674 and we assume that @xmath85 is contained in the preimage @xmath332 of the double locus of @xmath2 if and only if @xmath621 . consider the map @xmath622 . as in the case @xmath2 normal , we denote by @xmath675 the character @xmath625 . then :    [ prop : index - non - normal ] in the above setup , if @xmath563 is cartier , then :    1 . @xmath564 is @xmath204-cartier , 2 . @xmath669 is the pullback of a character @xmath167 . \(1 ) follows immediately by proposition [ prop : interesting - case ] . \(2 ) for every @xmath173 denote by @xmath676 ( resp . @xmath677 ) the preimage of the double locus of @xmath2 in @xmath678 ( resp . in @xmath679 ) . let @xmath167 be the character via which @xmath1 acts on @xmath680 at @xmath166 . let @xmath681 be a point that maps to @xmath166 and let @xmath682 be the image of @xmath683 in @xmath678 . since @xmath563 pulls back to @xmath684 on @xmath679 , the inertia subgroup @xmath685 acts on @xmath686 via the restriction of @xmath12 . set @xmath687 and let @xmath688 be the restriction of @xmath669 to @xmath689 ; the map @xmath690 is a surjection by lemma [ lem : inertia ] . by the proof of proposition [ prop : index - normal ] @xmath12 pulls back on @xmath689 to @xmath688 . since @xmath691 , it follows that @xmath12 pulls back to @xmath669 on @xmath639 . we now prove a partial converse of proposition [ prop : index - non - normal ] . assume that for every component @xmath678 of @xmath13 the map @xmath692 induces a homeomorphism @xmath693 onto its image ( this is always true up to an tale cover ) . then we associate to @xmath201 an incidence graph @xmath694 as follows :     the vertices of @xmath694 are indexed by the branches of @xmath201 ,     the edges are indexed by the components of the double locus @xmath21 of @xmath2 ,     the edge corresponding to a component @xmath75 of @xmath21 connects the vertices corresponding to the two branches of @xmath2 through @xmath75 . [ prop : index - graph ] in the above setup , assume that :    1 . the graph @xmath694 is a tree , 2 . @xmath695 is cartier and there exists @xmath104 such that @xmath696 is cartier and @xmath697 , 3 . @xmath669 is the pullback of a character @xmath167 . then @xmath563 is cartier . let @xmath698 the restriction of the double locus @xmath332 of @xmath386 and let @xmath677 be the preimage of @xmath590 . let @xmath699 be the only point that maps to @xmath42 ; let @xmath700 and @xmath701 be defined as in the proof of proposition [ prop : index - non - normal ] .    by assumption ( 3 ) , the divisor @xmath684 is cartier by proposition [ prop : index - normal ] . by the following lemma [ lem : character ] , up to replacing @xmath201 by an tale neighbourhood we may assume that for @xmath173 the sheaf @xmath702 is trivial and has a generator @xmath136 on which @xmath1 acts via @xmath12 . by proposition [ prop : interesting - case ] , there exists a local generator @xmath654 of @xmath703 near @xmath166 . for every @xmath163 , by lemma [ lem : character ] , @xmath654 pulls back on @xmath679 to @xmath704 where @xmath705 is a nowhere vanishing regular function on @xmath678 . up to passing to an tale cover of @xmath2 we may assume that @xmath705 has an @xmath104-th root @xmath706 for every @xmath163 . so we may replace @xmath136 by @xmath707 and assume that @xmath654 pulls back to @xmath708 for every @xmath163 . now let @xmath62 be an open set such that @xmath709 is d.c . and the complement of @xmath709 has codimension @xmath710 . let @xmath75 be an irreducible component of the double locus @xmath21 of @xmath2 and let @xmath711 , @xmath712 be the components of @xmath2 that contain @xmath75 . choose an irreducible component @xmath537 of the inverse image of @xmath75 in @xmath709 . it makes sense to compare @xmath713 and @xmath714 along @xmath537 , since they both restrict to local generators of @xmath715 . since @xmath716 , there exists @xmath717 such that @xmath718 along @xmath537 . since @xmath1 acts on @xmath713 and @xmath714 via the same character @xmath12 and @xmath1 acts transitively on the components of the preimage of @xmath75 , @xmath719 depends only on @xmath75 . so @xmath720 represents a class in @xmath721 . since @xmath694 is a tree , we can find @xmath722 such that the local generators @xmath723 glue to give a local generator @xmath658 of @xmath724 on which @xmath1 acts via @xmath12 . we complete the proof of proposition [ prop : index - graph ] by proving the following :    [ lem : character ] let @xmath725 be a standard @xmath1-cover with building data @xmath726 . let @xmath727 be a point and let @xmath231 be the inertia subgroup of @xmath255 . let @xmath82 be a @xmath1-linearized line bundle of @xmath245 , let @xmath728 be a point that maps to @xmath255 and let @xmath729 be the character via which @xmath231 acts on @xmath730 . then :    1 . let @xmath167 be such that @xmath731 ; then , up to replacing @xmath732 by an tale neighbourhood of @xmath255 , there exists a generator @xmath656 of @xmath82 such that @xmath1 acts on @xmath656 via the character @xmath12 ; 2 . @xmath656 is uniquely determined by @xmath12 up to multiplication by a nowhere vanishing regular function of @xmath732 . \(2 ) assume that @xmath733 are generators of @xmath82 on which @xmath1 acts via the character @xmath12 . then @xmath734 is a regular @xmath231-invariant function on @xmath245 , so it is a function on @xmath732 . \(1 ) we break the proof into three steps . let @xmath210 be a generator of @xmath82 near @xmath254 . the group @xmath231 acts on the vector space @xmath735 of local sections of @xmath82 spanned by the elements @xmath736 , @xmath737 . @xmath735 is finite - dimensional , and decomposes under the @xmath1-action as a direct sum of eigenspaces . since @xmath738 and @xmath739 , there exists an eigenvector @xmath740 such that @xmath741 . since @xmath1 acts on @xmath730 via @xmath12 , @xmath658 belongs to the eigenspace corresponding to @xmath12 . consider the factorization @xmath742 . the map @xmath743 is an @xmath231-cover such that the preimage of @xmath255 consists of one point @xmath744 . the subgroup @xmath623 acts freely on @xmath245 , hence @xmath82 descends to an @xmath231-linearized line bundle @xmath531 on @xmath497 . then by step 1 there exists a local generator @xmath745 of @xmath531 near @xmath746 such that @xmath231 acts on @xmath745 via @xmath277 . pulling back to @xmath245 we get a generator @xmath654 of @xmath82 on which @xmath231 acts via @xmath277 and @xmath623 acts trivially . denote by @xmath747 the restriction of @xmath12 to @xmath623 , so that @xmath748 . consider the factorization @xmath749 . the map @xmath750 is a tale @xmath623-cover . so there exists a nowhere vanishing function @xmath152 on @xmath751 such that @xmath623 acts on @xmath152 via the character @xmath277 . thus @xmath1 acts on @xmath752 via the character @xmath12 . choose a finite abelian group @xmath623 with a surjective map @xmath753 that extends the inclusion @xmath754 and let @xmath755 be the kernel of @xmath756 . by proposition [ prop : bdata ] , up to replacing @xmath732 by an tale neighbourhood of @xmath255 , we may also assume ( cf . ) that @xmath757 is given inside @xmath758 by the equations : @xmath759 where @xmath760 is a local equation for @xmath85 , @xmath619 . the branch data for @xmath245 can be interpreted in an obvious way as branch data for a @xmath761-cover . letting @xmath762 be the @xmath761-cover given by the equations analogous to , we have @xmath763 by construction . let @xmath764 be the pull back of @xmath82 to @xmath765 . @xmath764 has a natural @xmath761-linearization and @xmath231 is a direct summand of @xmath761 , hence by step 2 there exists a generator @xmath766 of @xmath764 on which @xmath761 acts via the character @xmath767 of @xmath761 induced by @xmath12 . since @xmath755 acts freely on @xmath765 and @xmath768 by construction , @xmath766 descends to a generator @xmath658 of @xmath82 on @xmath245 on which @xmath1 acts via @xmath12 . in this section we make a detailed study of @xmath6-covers of surfaces . we use freely the notation introduced in  [ ssec : ynormal ] . in particular , we refer the reader to the commutative diagram  ( [ big - diagram ] ) and theorem  [ thm : glue ] .      * @xmath2 is a g.d.c . surface with smooth irreducible components @xmath769 . the irreducible components @xmath770 of the double curve @xmath21 of @xmath2 are smooth , @xmath2 is d.c . at the smooth points of @xmath21 and it is analytically isomorphic to the cone over a cycle of rational curves at the singular points of @xmath21 . in particular , @xmath2 is gorenstein . * @xmath106 and @xmath51 is a @xmath1-cover with @xmath3 g.d.c . and @xmath4 , obtained as in theorem [ thm : glue ] by gluing a cover @xmath771 such that for every @xmath772 the restricted cover @xmath435 is standard with building data @xmath773 , @xmath774 . * the @xmath775 and the components of the double curve @xmath332 are `` lines '' of @xmath2 , namely they are smooth and meet pairwise transversally . * the intersection points of the support of the hurwitz divisor @xmath32 of @xmath41 with the double curve @xmath21 of @xmath2 are smooth points of @xmath21 . * @xmath564 ( or , equivalently , @xmath32 , since @xmath2 is gorenstein ) is @xmath776-cartier and the pair @xmath566 is slc , so that by proposition [ prop : interesting - case ] @xmath3 is slc and @xmath563 is @xmath776-cartier . recall that , since we assume that the components of @xmath777 and of @xmath332 are lines , the pair @xmath566 is slc iff on @xmath13 the divisor @xmath778 has components of multiplicity @xmath208 and has multiplicity @xmath779 at every point . * for every @xmath42 that is singular for @xmath21 , label the components @xmath780 of @xmath2 containing @xmath158 in such a way that for every @xmath781 the surfaces @xmath7 and @xmath782 meet along an irreducible curve @xmath783 containing @xmath158 ( the indices are taken modulo @xmath784 ) and let @xmath107 be the generator of the inertia subgroup of @xmath783 . by theorem [ thm : glue ] , for every @xmath163 we have @xmath785 . we assume that the natural map @xmath786 is an isomorphism for every @xmath781 . + these conditions imply that the fibre of @xmath0 over @xmath158 consists of @xmath787 points . at each of these points @xmath3 is analytically isomorphic to the cone over a cycle of @xmath784 smooth rational curves .            to compute the cohomology of @xmath790 , we are going to write down explicitly in the above situation the sequences in the second proof of theorem [ thm : glue ] ( as usual we push forward to @xmath2 all the sheaves ) . since all the maps are @xmath1-equivariant , the sequences split as sums of exact sequences : @xmath791 where @xmath12 varies in @xmath17 and @xmath1 acts in @xmath40 , @xmath792 and @xmath793 via @xmath12 . to describe the sheaves @xmath792 and @xmath793 , we need to introduce some more notation . given a component @xmath794 of @xmath21 we denote by @xmath795 the generator of the inertia subgroup of @xmath794 and by @xmath796 and @xmath797 the two components of @xmath2 that contain @xmath794 . we denote by @xmath798 ( resp . @xmath799 , @xmath800 ) the preimages of @xmath794 in @xmath3 ( resp . @xmath801 ) and by @xmath802 the common normalization of @xmath798 , @xmath799 , @xmath800 ( cf . example [ ex:2surfaces ] ) . in the following commutative diagram :      * we identify @xmath806 with @xmath807 and for every @xmath808 we restrict @xmath809 to @xmath794 , * for every @xmath810 with @xmath811 , we label each point of @xmath812 with the image of @xmath813 in @xmath803 . the same can be done of course for @xmath814 . let @xmath815 be a point such that @xmath777 has multiplicity 1 at the points of @xmath386 that map to @xmath158 ( since we assume that @xmath816 is cartier , the multiplicity of @xmath777 is the same at all points lying over @xmath158 ) . recall that by assumption @xmath2 is d.c . at @xmath158 ; denote by @xmath817 @xmath818 the elements of @xmath1 associated to the two branch lines of @xmath819 containing @xmath158 and by @xmath820 , @xmath821 the elements of @xmath1 associated to the two branch lines of @xmath822 containing @xmath158 . we have @xmath823 modulo @xmath824 ( cf . example [ ex:2surfaces ] ) . then @xmath825 is singular over @xmath158 iff @xmath817 and @xmath818 are both different from @xmath824 , namely iff there exists a character @xmath12 with @xmath826 and @xmath827 . for each @xmath167 and @xmath828 such that @xmath826 we denote by @xmath829 the set of points @xmath830 such that @xmath827 , and we take @xmath829 to be the empty set if @xmath831 . we define in a similar way @xmath832 by considering the cover @xmath833 . we have the following :            in our setup , the map @xmath845 is the disjoint union of two copies of @xmath846 that are switched by the involution @xmath354 . so by lemma [ lem : data - c ] the first sequence in can be rewritten as : @xmath847 in addition , if @xmath794 is a component of @xmath21 contained in @xmath796 and @xmath797 , then again by lemma [ lem : data - c ] the image of the map @xmath848 is equal to @xmath849 , so we have an exact sequence : @xmath850 where the cokernel @xmath851 is concentrated on the set @xmath840 . using the description of the singularities of @xmath3 at these points given in  [ ssec : setup - z2 ] , one checks that @xmath851 has length 1 at points @xmath158 such that @xmath841 is trivial and it is 0 elsewhere , so @xmath852 . [ rem : inertia ] let @xmath446 be a smooth point , let @xmath75 be the irreducible component of @xmath21 that contains @xmath158 and let @xmath853 , @xmath854 be the two components of @xmath2 that contain @xmath75 . let @xmath231 the subgroup of @xmath1 generated by the inertia subgroups of @xmath75 and of the components of @xmath32 that contain @xmath158 . of course one has @xmath855 , but in the present setup equality actually holds . indeed , if @xmath856 is a non trivial character , then by proposition [ prop : fchi ] the second sequence in can be written near @xmath158 as @xmath857 , where @xmath858 is given by @xmath859 . by lemma [ lem : inertia ] , there exist @xmath860 , @xmath182 , that correspond to functions on @xmath679 that do not vanish at any point of @xmath861 . up to multiplying , say , @xmath862 by a nowhere vanishing regular function on @xmath853 we can arrange that @xmath863 . so @xmath137 corresponds to a function on @xmath3 that is nonzero near @xmath861 and on which @xmath1 acts via the character @xmath12 . it follows that @xmath864 acts freely on @xmath861 , i.e. that @xmath865 . we say that a point @xmath446 is _ relevant _ iff either it is singular for @xmath21 or there exists @xmath828 , @xmath12 with @xmath826 such that @xmath866 . observe that , in view of the assumptions of [ ssec : setup - z2 ] , by proposition [ prop : index - graph ] and by the description of singularities of  [ subsec : sings - red - base ] the set of relevant points can be described intrinsically as the set of points of @xmath21 over which @xmath3 is gorenstein but not d.c ..            [ ex1 ] let @xmath871 , let @xmath872 be the nonzero elements of @xmath1 and for @xmath873 let @xmath874 be the nonzero character such that @xmath875 . let @xmath876 , @xmath877 and let @xmath2 be the surface obtained by gluing @xmath853 and @xmath854 along a smooth rational curve @xmath21 which is of type @xmath878 on @xmath853 and is a line on @xmath854 . fix three distinct points @xmath879 . for @xmath873 , let @xmath880 be the union of a fibre and a section through @xmath881 and let @xmath882 be a pair of lines through @xmath883 ( the index @xmath354 varies in @xmath884 ) . in the picture below @xmath853 is represented on the left and @xmath854 on the right , the curve @xmath21 is shown in green , red lines correspond to @xmath885 , black lines to @xmath886 and blue lines to @xmath887 .        for @xmath182 , we let @xmath435 be the standard @xmath1-cover with branch data @xmath888 , @xmath813 , @xmath889 . solving , we get @xmath890 and @xmath891 , @xmath889 , where @xmath892 denotes the subsheaf of @xmath893 corresponding to the character @xmath112 . notice that the line bundles @xmath892 have no cohomology , hence in particular @xmath894 .    by @xcite , for @xmath182 the normalization of the cover of @xmath21 induced by @xmath436 is the trivial @xmath1-cover . so by theorem [ thm : glue ] , we can glue @xmath895 to a cover @xmath51 . by we have : @xmath896 the curve @xmath21 is smooth and the points @xmath897 and @xmath603 are relevant points with @xmath898 , so corollary [ cor : chi ] gives : @xmath899+[g : h_{y_2}]+[g : h_{y_3}]=1 + 1 - 4 + 1 + 1 + 1=1.\ ] ] for @xmath142 , we have an isomorphism @xmath900 , hence @xmath901 has no cohomology in degree @xmath902 and the exact sequence : @xmath903 implies that @xmath904 for @xmath902 . next we compute the cohomology of the sheaves @xmath40 . by proposition [ prop : fchi ] , for @xmath889 we have @xmath905 . so gives an exact sequence : @xmath906 therefore @xmath907 for @xmath889 and thus @xmath908 . as in the previous example , let @xmath871 and for @xmath911 let @xmath435 be the @xmath1-cover branched on the colored lines in the picture . for every @xmath163 , two of the sheaves @xmath912 are @xmath913 and the remaining one is @xmath914 . so the @xmath915 have no cohomology and @xmath916 . it s easy to check using theorem [ thm : glue ] that the cover @xmath917 can be glued to a @xmath1-cover @xmath51 . the normalization @xmath918 of the induced cover of the double curve @xmath21 is the disjoint union of 6 smooth rational curves , each mapping 2-to-1 onto a component of @xmath21 . the only relevant point is the singular point @xmath158 of @xmath21 . so applying and corollary [ cor : chi ] , we get : @xmath919 let @xmath920 be the irreducible components of @xmath21 . for @xmath142 , as in the proof of corollary [ cor : chi ] we have an exact sequence : @xmath921 which gives @xmath922 for @xmath902 . by proposition [ prop : fchi ] , for @xmath923 the sheaf @xmath924 is isomorphic to the direct sum of two copies of @xmath925 , hence it has no higher cohomology . so by we have @xmath926 for @xmath902 and therefore @xmath908 . we wish describe the singularities of a @xmath6-cover @xmath927 as in  [ ssec : setup - z2 ] . since the question is local , we fix @xmath42 and we study @xmath3 locally above @xmath2 in the tale topology . by the assumptions in  [ ssec : setup - z2 ] , the singularities of @xmath3 over a point @xmath42 lying on @xmath928 components of @xmath2 are degenerate cusps such that the exceptional divisor of its minimal semiresolution is a cycle of @xmath784 rational curves ( cf . * def . 4.20 ) ) . so it is enough to analyze two cases :      all the singularities listed in tables  [ tab : reduced - lines][tab : r - d12non ] , actually occur on some stable surface of general type . to give examples of the singularities that appear when the base @xmath2 of the cover is smooth , one can take @xmath106 , @xmath929 , a set of generators @xmath930 of @xmath1 , @xmath931 , and lines @xmath932 through a point @xmath933 such that the pair @xmath934 is lc . if @xmath935 , define @xmath936 , where @xmath937 is a general curve of even degree and for @xmath938 let @xmath320 be a general curve of odd degree . the divisors @xmath320 so defined are the branch data for a @xmath1-cover @xmath939 ( equations are easily seen have a solution in this case ) . by proposition [ prop : interesting - case ] the surface @xmath3 is slc and it is of general type as soon as the the degree of the hurwitz divisor @xmath32 is @xmath940 . there is only one point @xmath160 that maps to @xmath158 and all the singularities listed in tables 1 , 2 and 3 with can be realized as @xmath941 in this way and @xmath942 ( for the definition of @xmath231 , see below ) . the singularities with @xmath943 can be obtained by taking a double cover @xmath944 , branched on the sum of @xmath154 lines through @xmath158 and a general curve of degree @xmath145 such that @xmath945 is even and @xmath946 . we let @xmath949 be the branch data of @xmath41 . we may assume that @xmath164 for every @xmath163 . so by the condition that @xmath32 is slc we have @xmath931 and no three of the @xmath85 coincide . whenever the @xmath85 are not all distinct , we assume @xmath950 . all the possible cases are listed in tables  [ tab : reduced - lines ] ,  [ tab : one - double - line ] ,  [ tab : two - double - lines ] below . the first digit in the label given to each case is equal to the number @xmath154 of components through @xmath158 , followed by @xmath951 if @xmath950 and by @xmath952 if @xmath950 and @xmath953 ( obviously this case occurs only for @xmath954 ) . so , for instance , a label of the form @xmath955 , where @xmath104 is any positive integer , means that @xmath158 belongs to three components of @xmath32 , two of which coincide . * @xmath956 : the order of the subgroup @xmath231 the subgroup generated by @xmath930 . * _ relations : _ describes the relations between @xmath957 . for instance , @xmath958 means @xmath959 . * _ singularity : _ the notations are mostly standard . @xmath960 denotes a cyclic singularity @xmath961 with weights 1,1 . @xmath962 denotes an arrangement consisting of four disjoint @xmath963-curves @xmath964 and of a smooth rational curve @xmath75 intersecting each of the @xmath965 transversely at one point . the self intersection @xmath966 is given in the table . in the non - normal case ( tables 2 and 3 ) we use the notations of @xcite , where kollr and shepherd - barron classified all slc surface singularities over  @xmath967 . we work in any characteristic @xmath968 but only the singularities from the list in @xcite appear . `` deg.cusp@xmath969 '' means a degenerate cusp ( cf . * def . 4.20 ) ) such that the exceptional divisor in the minimal semiresolution has @xmath154 components . * @xmath334 : the index of @xmath160 . it is equal to 1 if all the relations have even length and it is equal to 2 otherwise ( cf . proposition [ prop : index - normal ] ) . * @xmath19 : denotes the normalization of @xmath3 ( the entries refer to the cases in table  1 ) . * @xmath970 : @xmath971 is the inverse image in @xmath972 of the double curve @xmath973 of @xmath3 and @xmath974 is the image of @xmath973 in @xmath2 . the symbol @xmath975 denotes the germ of a smooth curve , and @xmath976 is the seminormal curve obtained by gluing @xmath154 copies of @xmath975 at one point . the notation @xmath977 means that the map restricts to a degree @xmath504 map on the @xmath163-th component of @xmath976 ( we do not specify the @xmath504 when they are all equal to 1 ) . * @xmath978 : is the minimal semiresolution of @xmath3 . we write `` d.c . '' when @xmath978 has only normal crossings and `` pinch '' if it has also pinch points . * we always assume @xmath979 . indeed , the cover @xmath41 factors as @xmath980 . by lemma [ lem : inertia ] the map @xmath184 is tale near @xmath158 , while for every @xmath981 the fiber @xmath982 consists only of one point . since @xmath1 acts transitively on each fiber of @xmath41 , it is enough to describe the singularity of @xmath3 above any point @xmath983 . * the cover @xmath3 is normal at @xmath166 iff @xmath984=0 $ ] . it is nonsingular at @xmath166 iff either @xmath985 or @xmath986 , @xmath987 , @xmath988 . assume that @xmath3 is not normal , and let @xmath75 be an irreducible divisor that appears in @xmath32 with multiplicity 1 . this means that , say , @xmath989 and @xmath990 . the normalization of @xmath3 along @xmath75 is a @xmath1-cover of @xmath2 with branch data @xmath991 , for @xmath992 , and , if @xmath993 , @xmath994 ( cf . @xcite ) . * the cover @xmath3 is said to be _ simple _ if the @xmath995 is a basis of @xmath956 ( for instance , @xmath3 is simple if the @xmath996 are all equal ) . in this case @xmath3 is a complete intersection and it is very easy to write down equations for it ( see case @xmath997 below ) . * the double curve @xmath973 maps onto the divisors that appear in @xmath32 with multiplicity @xmath214 . since for a semismooth surface the double curve is locally irreducible , @xmath3 is never semismooth in the cases @xmath998 . in addition , if @xmath3 is semismooth then the pull back @xmath971 of @xmath973 to the normalization is smooth . using this remark , it is easy to check that @xmath3 is never semismooth in the cases @xmath999 , either . * in order to compute the minimal semiresolution @xmath978 , we consider the blow up @xmath1000 of @xmath2 at @xmath158 , pull back @xmath3 and normalize along the exceptional curve @xmath537 to get a cover @xmath1001 . the branch locus of @xmath1002 is supported on a d.c . divisor and , by construction , the singularities of @xmath1003 are only of type @xmath46 , @xmath776 or @xmath1004 . looking at the tables , one sees that either @xmath1003 is semismooth or it has points of type @xmath1005 or @xmath1006 ( cf . table  [ tab : reduced - lines ] ) . in the former case @xmath1003 is the minimal semiresolution . in the latter case , blowing up @xmath1007 at the non semismooth points and taking base change and normalization along the exceptional divisor , one gets a semismooth cover @xmath1008 . the semiresolution @xmath1009 is minimal , except in cases @xmath1010 , @xmath1011 . in these cases the minimal semiresolution @xmath978 is obtained by contracting the inverse image in @xmath1012 of the exceptional curve of the blow up @xmath1000 .      by remark ( 2 ) above , the normalization @xmath972 is an @xmath231-cover with branch data @xmath1013 , @xmath1014 and @xmath1015 . so @xmath1016 acts on @xmath3 without fixed points and @xmath3 is the disjoint union of two copies of the cover @xmath1017 . we choose local parameters @xmath1018 on @xmath2 such that @xmath950 is given by @xmath1019 , @xmath1020 is defined by @xmath1021 and @xmath1022 by @xmath1023 . the cover @xmath3 is defined tale locally above @xmath158 by the following equations : @xmath1024 in particular @xmath3 is a complete intersection ( see remark ( 3 ) above ) . the element @xmath996 acts on @xmath1025 as multiplication by @xmath1026 . the double curve @xmath973 is the inverse image of @xmath1019 , hence it is defined by @xmath1027 and the map @xmath1028 is given by @xmath1029 , so @xmath973 is isomorphic to @xmath1030 , with each component mapping @xmath776-to-@xmath46 to @xmath1031 . the curve @xmath971 is the inverse image of @xmath1032 in @xmath972 , so it has two connected components , each isomorphic to @xmath1030 , that are glued together in the map @xmath1033 .    to compute the minimal semiresolution , consider the blow up @xmath1000 of @xmath2 at @xmath158 and the cover @xmath1002 obtained by pulling back @xmath1034 and normalizing along the exceptional curve @xmath537 . the branch data for @xmath1003 are @xmath1035 and , for @xmath1036 , @xmath1037 , where @xmath1038 indicates the strict transform . the cover is singular precisely above @xmath1039 and it is easy , using the local equations , to check that it is d.c . there . so @xmath1003 is the minimal semiresolution of @xmath3 . the exceptional divisor is the inverse image @xmath75 of @xmath537 in @xmath3 . applying the normalization algorithm to the restricted cover @xmath1040 , one sees that the normalization @xmath1041 of @xmath75 is the union of two smooth rational curves @xmath1042 and @xmath1043 . the map @xmath1044 identifies the two points of @xmath1042 that lie over the point @xmath1045 with the corresponding two points of @xmath1043 . hence @xmath1003 is the minimal semiresolution of @xmath3 and the singularity is a degenerate cusp solved by a cycle of two rational curves .    as in the previous case , @xmath972 and @xmath971 can be computed by the normalization algorithm . one obtains that @xmath972 is the disjoint union of two copies of @xmath1046 and @xmath971 is the disjoint union of two copies of @xmath975 . this singularity is the quotient of a cover @xmath56 of type @xmath1047 by the element @xmath1048 . since this element has odd length , the index @xmath334 of @xmath3 at @xmath166 is equal to 2 . since the only fixed point of @xmath1049 on @xmath3 is @xmath1050 , the double curve @xmath973 is the quotient of the double curve @xmath1051 of @xmath56 . the two components of @xmath1051 are identified by @xmath1049 , thus @xmath973 is irreducible and maps @xmath776-to-@xmath46 onto @xmath1032 .    to compute the minimal semiresolution , again we blow up @xmath1000 at @xmath158 and consider the cover @xmath1002 obtained by pull back and normalization along the exceptional curve @xmath537 . as usual , we denote by @xmath1052 the strict transform on @xmath1007 of a curve @xmath75 of @xmath2 . the branch data for @xmath1003 are @xmath1053 , @xmath1054 , @xmath1055 , @xmath1056 , and @xmath1057 . so @xmath1003 has normal crossings over @xmath1058 , it has four @xmath948 points over the point @xmath1059 and it is smooth elsewhere ( cf . tables 1 and 2 ) . we blow up at @xmath1060 and take again pull back and normalization along the exceptional curve @xmath1061 . we obtain a cover @xmath1062 which is d.c . over the strict transform @xmath1063 of @xmath1064 and has no other singularity , so @xmath1065 is a semismooth resolution . let @xmath1066 denote the strict transform on @xmath1067 of the exceptional curve @xmath537 of the first blow up . arguing as in case @xmath997 , one sees that inverse image of @xmath1066 is the union of two smooth rational curves @xmath1068 and @xmath1069 that intersect transversely precisely at one point of the double curve , and the inverse image of @xmath1061 consists of 4 disjoint curves @xmath1070 . all these curves pull back to -2 curves on the normalization of @xmath1012 and , up to relabeling , @xmath1071 and @xmath1072 form two disjoint @xmath1073 configurations . so @xmath1074 is the minimal semiresolution of @xmath3 . in the notation of @xcite[def . 4.26 ] , @xmath1012 is obtained by gluing two copies of @xmath1075 along @xmath975 .      here we repeat the local analysis of the previous section for the case in which @xmath433 is d.c . , keeping as far as possible the same notations . so we fix @xmath446 , where @xmath21 is the double curve of @xmath2 , and describe @xmath3 locally over @xmath158 . we assume that @xmath0 is obtained by gluing standard covers @xmath435 , @xmath182 , such that @xmath158 lies on all the components of the hurwitz divisor @xmath32 . we let @xmath1076 be the union of the branch data of @xmath184 and @xmath185 such that @xmath85 is distinct from the double curve @xmath21 of @xmath2 ( hence @xmath1077 ) . we denote by @xmath1049 the generator of the inertia subgroup of @xmath21 for @xmath184 and @xmath185 . by remark [ rem : inertia ] the inertia subgroup @xmath157 is equal to @xmath1078 , so up to an tale cover we may assume that @xmath979 and that @xmath634 . since @xmath32 is @xmath204-cartier , there are the same number of @xmath85 on @xmath853 and on @xmath854 . we order them so that all components on @xmath853 come first . recall that @xmath931 by the assumption that @xmath566 is slc . the cases in the tables are labeled @xmath537 ( `` tale '' ) if @xmath1079 and @xmath80 ( `` ramified '' ) if @xmath1080 . the first digit of the label is the number @xmath154 of branch lines through @xmath158 . it is followed by @xmath951 if @xmath950 and by @xmath952 if @xmath950 and @xmath953 . for instance , in the cases e@xmath1081 the map @xmath41 is generically tale over @xmath21 and there are four branch lines @xmath1082 with @xmath950 , and @xmath1083 . the singularities that we get here are non - normal , and as in ( * ? ? ? 4.21 , 4.23 ) they turn out to be either semismooth or degenerate cusps in the gorenstein case and @xmath401-quotients of these otherwise . the tables here contain the same columns as those of  [ subsec : sings - smooth - base ] plus an extra one , denoted @xmath12 : this is the contribution of @xmath158 in the formula for @xmath1084 of corollary [ cor : chi ] ( recall @xmath1085 ) . by propositions [ prop : index - non - normal ] and [ prop : index - graph ] the index @xmath334 is equal to 1 if all relations have even length when reduced modulo @xmath1049 and it is equal to 2 otherwise . the analysis of the singularities in the reducible case is similar to the case @xmath2 smooth . one blows up @xmath2 at the point @xmath158 and takes pull back and normalization of @xmath3 along the exceptional divisor . repeating this process , if necessary , one obtains a semiresolution @xmath1086 . if @xmath56 is not minimal , then the minimal semiresolution @xmath1087 is obtained by blowing down the @xmath1088-curves of @xmath56 . the normalization @xmath1089 is equal to @xmath1090 , where @xmath1091 is the normalization of @xmath679 . the branch data of @xmath1092 are @xmath1093 , @xmath1094 , so @xmath1095 is tale locally the disjoint union of four copies of the cover @xmath1096 . @xmath1097 is tale locally the disjoint union of two copies @xmath1017 . the image @xmath974 of the double curve @xmath973 is equal to @xmath1098 . the preimage in @xmath1095 of @xmath974 is the disjoint union of four copies of @xmath1030 . the preimage of @xmath974 in @xmath1099 is equal to two copies of @xmath1030 . hence @xmath1100 . each component of @xmath1101 maps 2-to-1 onto its image . the map @xmath1102 identifies in pairs the four components of the preimage of @xmath1032 and the eight components of the preimage of @xmath21 . so @xmath973 is @xmath1103 , with two components mapping 2-to-1 onto @xmath1032 and four components mapping 2-to-1 onto @xmath21 .    to compute the semiresolution , blow up @xmath42 to get @xmath1000 let @xmath1104 and @xmath1105 be the irreducible components of the exceptional divisor . let @xmath1106 be the @xmath1-cover obtained from @xmath0 by taking pull back and normalizing along @xmath1066 and @xmath1061 . denoting by @xmath1038 the strict transform on @xmath1007 , the branch data of @xmath1107 are : @xmath1108 , @xmath1109 , @xmath1053 , @xmath1110 , @xmath1111 , @xmath1112 , @xmath1113 . so @xmath1003 is d.c . by the tables of  [ subsec : sings - smooth - base ] and it is therefore the semiresolution @xmath978 of @xmath3 . the preimage of @xmath1066 is the union of four smooth rational curves meeting in pairs over the point @xmath1114 . the preimage of @xmath1061 is the disjoint union of two rational curves , which together with the components of the preimage of @xmath1066 form a cycle of six rational curves . the singularity @xmath160 is gorenstein by proposition [ prop : index - graph ] hence it is `` deg.cusp@xmath1115 '' . this is a @xmath401-quotient of r@xmath1116 and it is not gorenstein by proposition [ prop : index - non - normal ] . the normalization @xmath1089 is equal to @xmath1090 , where @xmath1117 is the normalization of @xmath1118 . the branch data of @xmath1119 are @xmath1120 , @xmath1094 , so @xmath1095 is tale locally the disjoint union of two copies of the cover @xmath1096 . the image @xmath974 of the double curve @xmath973 is equal to @xmath1098 . the preimage in @xmath1121 of @xmath974 is the disjoint union of two copies of @xmath1030 . the preimage of @xmath974 in @xmath1099 is @xmath1030 . hence @xmath1122 . each component of @xmath1101 maps 2-to-1 onto its image in @xmath974 . the map @xmath1102 identifies glues two itself each of the two components of the preimage of @xmath1032 and it identifies in pairs the four components of the preimage of @xmath21 . so @xmath973 is @xmath1123 , with two components mapping 1-to-1 onto @xmath1032 and two components mapping 2-to-1 onto @xmath21 .    to compute the semiresolution , blow up @xmath42 to get @xmath1000 let @xmath1104 and @xmath1105 be the irreducible components of the exceptional divisor . let @xmath1106 be the @xmath1-cover obtained from @xmath0 by taking pull back and normalizing along @xmath1066 and @xmath1061 . denoting by @xmath1038 the strict transform on @xmath1007 , the branch data of @xmath1107 are : @xmath1124 , @xmath1125 , @xmath1126 , @xmath1110 , @xmath1111 , @xmath1112 , @xmath1127 . by the tables of  [ subsec : sings - smooth - base ] , @xmath1003 has two pinch points over the point @xmath1128 and is at most d.c . elsewhere , hence it is equal to the minimal semiresolution @xmath1129 . the preimage of @xmath1066 is a pair of smooth rational curves meeting over the point @xmath1130 . the preimage of @xmath1061 is a smooth rational curve , meeting each component of the preimage of @xmath1066 at a point lying over @xmath1131 . in the notation of @xcite[def . 4.26 ] , @xmath978 is a chain consisting of copy of @xmath1132 ( namely the second component of @xmath978 ) in the middle and two copies of @xmath1133 with @xmath975 pinched at the ends . barbara fantechi and rita pardini , _ automorphisms and moduli spaces of varieties with ample canonical class via deformations of abelian covers _ , comm . algebra * 25 * ( 1997 ) , no .  5 , 14131441 . mr 1444010 ( 98c:14028 )              miles reid , _ canonical @xmath1134-folds _ , journes de gometrie algbrique dangers , juillet 1979/algebraic geometry , angers , 1979 , sijthoff & noordhoff , alphen aan den rijn , 1980 , pp .  273310 . mr 605348 ( 82i:14025 )
Abstract:

Answer: an abelian cover is a finite morphism @xmath0 of varieties which is the quotient map for a generically faithful action of a finite abelian group @xmath1 . abelian covers with @xmath2 smooth and @xmath3 normal were studied in @xcite .    here we study the non - normal case , assuming that @xmath3 and @xmath2 are @xmath4 varieties that have at worst normal crossings outside a subset of codimension @xmath5 . special attention is paid to the case of @xmath6-covers of surfaces , which is used in @xcite to construct explicitly compactifications of some components of the moduli space of surfaces of general type .