Maths > Abelian varieties > Finiteness theorems and the Faltings height
The Faltings height and normed modules
Posted by Martin Orr on Saturday, 31 December 2011 at 15:31
In this post I shall give the definition of the Faltings height of an abelian variety over any number field.
Last time we did this over only, and we used two properties of 
: the integers are a PID and there is only one archimedean place.
To do things more generally, we will introduce the technology of normed modules and their degrees.
Normed modules
Let be the ring of integers of a number field.
We define a normed 
-module to be a projective 
-module 
of finite rank
together with a norm 
for each archimedean place 
of 
.
(A norm is a function satisfying 
if 
, 
if 
, and the triangle inequality.)
Our primary example of a normed module is the canonical module of the Néron model of an abelian variety:
let be an abelian variety of dimension 
and 
its Néron model.
Then 
is a projective 
-module of rank 1,
and we get a norm on 
as follows:
if 
then we can extend 
uniquely to a global canonical form 
on 
.
We define


We now define the degree of a normed module of rank 1, which gives us the Faltings height of an abelian variety. (It seems a bit odd to me to call this a degree, because I expect a degree to be an integer, but I believe that the justification comes from Arakelov intersection theory.)
If , then we simply choose a generator 
of 
(unique up to sign) and define 
to be 
.
Over other number fields, there are two problems with this definition. Firstly there may be more than one archimedean place, so which one do we choose? We simply take a sum over all of them.
More seriously, the module might not be principal, so there is no generator.
To get around this, we choose any 
at all, and add on a term that measures how far 
is from being a generator.
Specifically,

Here 
(which is 1 or 2).![\epsilon_v = [K_v : \mathbb{R}]](http://www.martinorr.name/blog/images/mathtex/1327.png)
Note that by the Chinese remainder theorem, we can write the first term of as a sum over the finite places of 
:

The expression for 
is independent of the choice of 
by the product formula for absolute values.
Faltings heights
We define the (unstable) Faltings height of an abelian variety using the degree of the canonical module of its Néron model:

![h(A/K) = \frac{1}{[K:\mathbb{Q}]} \deg \bigwedge^g T_e^\vee (\mathcal{A}/\mathcal{O}_K).](http://www.martinorr.name/blog/images/mathtex/1329.png)
The factor reduces the dependence on the base field ![1/[K:\mathbb{Q}]](http://www.martinorr.name/blog/images/mathtex/1330.png)
, but does not eliminate it.
Specifically, if 
is a normed 
-module, then we have

![\deg (M \otimes_{\mathcal{O}_K} \mathcal{O}_L) = [L:K] \deg M.](http://www.martinorr.name/blog/images/mathtex/1331.png)
However the Néron model of need not be the base change of the Néron model of 
, so that 
.
For example an elliptic curve with additive reduction may have good reduction after a finite extension of the base field.
We say that an abelian variety has semistable reduction if every reduction of its Néron model is a semiabelian variety, that is an extension of an abelian variety by a torus.
In the case of an elliptic curve, this is saying that it has good or multiplicative reduction everywhere.
We have the following two facts:
Fact 1. Any abelian variety
has semistable reduction over some finite extensionof.Fact 2. If
has semistable reduction, then the identity component of its Néron model is unchanged by finite extensions of the base field.
So we define the stable Faltings height to be 
for some finite extension 
such that 
has semistable reduction.
By fact 2 it does not matter which 
we pick, and the stable Faltings height is independent of the base field, so it is often more convenient than the unstable Faltings height.
Let

be a curve over a number field, and
its Jacobian variety. There are various notions of the height of
, and I'll let you choose your favourite one. Is there any link between the height of
, and the Faltings height of
?Allow me a moment of shameless self-advertising to the readership of Martin's blog.
Barinder Banwait, frequent commentator on Martin's blog, has setup his own blog at bbanwait.wordpress.com. He will be discussing Mazur's Isogeny Theorem, with a view towards the Uniform Boundedness Theorem. But he may not get there. Why not check out what the fuss is about?