Maths > Abelian varieties > The Masser-Wüstholz isogeny theorem
The Masser-Wüstholz period theorem
Posted by Martin Orr on Friday, 30 March 2012 at 12:20
I wanted to write a post about the Masser-Wüstholz isogeny theorem, which gives a quantitative version of Finiteness Theorem I. But it turned out to be too long so for today I will focus on the main ingredient in the proof of the isogeny theorem: the Masser-Wüstholz period theorem.
The period theorem gives a bound for the degree of the smallest abelian subvariety of a fixed abelian variety having a given period of
in its tangent space.
In this post I will explain the statement of the period theorem, in particular defining the degree of a (polarised) abelian variety, and give some properties of the degree which will be used in the proof of the isogeny theorem.
Period Theorem. (Masser, Wüstholz 1993) Let
be an abelian variety defined over a number field
with a principal polarisation
. For any non-zero period
of
, the smallest abelian subvariety
of
whose tangent space contains
satisfies
where
and
are constants depending only on
.
Masser and Wüstholz gave a value for of
where
.
For myself, I am only interested in the existence of such a bound, but work has been done on improving it.
If I correctly understand a recent preprint of Gaudron and Rémond, they show that
suffices.
Periods
Let be an abelian variety of dimension
.
A period of is an element of the kernel of the exponential map
.
Let
denote this kernel; recall that
is a lattice in the complex vector space
.
One of the ways of interpreting a polarisation is as a positive definite Hermitian form on
.
This gives us the quantity
on the right hand side of the period theorem.
The degree of a polarised abelian variety
Let be an abelian variety of dimension
and
a polarisation of
.
There are two notions of degree of
, which differ by a factor of
.
First we define what Masser and Wüstholz call the normalised degree .
This is the volume of a fundamental domain for
in
,
measured using the norm
.
An equivalent way of defining the normalised degree is as the square root of the degree of , viewed as an isogeny
.
The unnormalised degree comes from interpreting the polarisation as an ample line bundle on
.
Intersection theory gives a general notion of the degree of any line bundle on a projective variety.
The two degrees are related by the Riemann-Roch theorem for abelian varieties:
For our purposes it will be convenient to work always with the normalised degree. I stated the period theorem with the unnormalised degree because that is the standard statement, but of course we can replace it by the normalised degree if we want.
The degree of the graph of an isogeny
Let and
be two polarised abelian varieties.
For the rest of this post we will consider degrees of subvarieties
of
.
I shall write
with no subscript to mean the normalised degree of
polarised by the restriction of
.
Note that ,
and
(the last relation would not be true with unnormalised degrees - there is a factor depending on the dimensions).
Suppose that there is an isogeny of degree
.
Then the graph of
is an abelian subvariety
of
.
We can bound its degree from below by the degree of the isogeny
.
Lemma.
Proof. Let
,
be the projections
and
. Note that
is an isomorphism and
.
We get polarisations
and
on
. Let
,
be the real parts of the associated Hermitian forms, which we may interpret as positive-definite symmetric matrices.
We have
so it will suffice to prove that
Recall that
means the degree of
with respect to the restriction of
, which is given by
. So we have
Thus the lemma follows from the fact that
for any positive-definite symmetric real matrices
and
. This inequality is left as an exercise for the reader.
From subvarieties to isogenies
When can we reverse the process of going from an isogeny to its graph?
That is, when does an abelian subvariety of tell us something about an isogeny?
Some choices of subvariety such as
are clearly of no use, so we introduce the following definition.
Definition. We say that a subvariety of
is split if it has the form
for some
and
.
Suppose that there is a non-split abelian subvariety .
First if
and
are simple, then the projections
and
must be isogenies so
and
are isogenous.
We would like to show that there is an isogeny whose degree is bounded by a function of
.
There is an isogeny
such that
.
Then
, where
.
By the above lemma, and
are bounded above by
so there is an isogeny
of degree at most
Dropping the assumption that and
are simple we can prove the following:
Lemma. If
has a non-split abelian subvariety
then there are non-zero abelian subvarieties
and
and an isogeny
such that
where
.