Maths > Abelian varieties > The Masser-Wüstholz isogeny theorem
The Masser-Wüstholz isogeny theorem
Posted by Martin Orr on Wednesday, 25 April 2012 at 14:09
Let and 
be two isogenous abelian varieties over a number field 
.
Can we be sure that there is an isogeny between them of small degree, where "small" is an explicit function of 
and 
?
In particular, our bound should not depend on 
; this means that the bound will imply Finiteness Theorem I, and hence the Shafarevich, Tate and Mordell conjectures.
The Masser-Wüstholz isogeny theorem answers this question, at least subject to a minor condition on polarisations (I think that this was removed in a later paper of Masser and Wüstholz but it is not too important anyway -- when deducing Finiteness Theorem I you can remove the polarisation issue with Zarhin's Trick).
Theorem. (Masser, Wüstholz 1993) Let
andbe principally polarised abelian varieties over a number field. Suppose that there exists some isogeny. Then there is an isogenyof degree at mostwhereandare constants depending only on the dimension of.
We will prove this using the Masser-Wüstholz period theorem which I discussed last time.
Proof of the isogeny theorem
Recall from last time that in order to obtain an isogeny of bounded degree between a subvariety of and a subvariety of 
, it suffices to have a non-split subvariety of bounded degree in 
.
The central idea of the proof is that we will use the period theorem, along with the assumption that 
and 
are isogenous, to construct such a non-split subvariety.
Actually we will construct a non-split subvariety of 
, of degree 
say.
Once we have done this, it is easy to finish the proof:
by the lemma from last time, there are non-zero subvarieties 
and 
and an isogeny 
of degree at most 
.
If we suppose that is simple, then we must have 
and at least one of the projections 
is an isogeny.
Because the degree of 
is bounded, so is the degree of 
and hence 
is the desired isogeny 
of bounded degree.
If is not simple, then we can do something similar to get an isogeny 
where 
and 
of bounded degree; then we quotient out by 
and 
and induct.
Finding a non-split subvariety
It remains to show that for any isogenous abelian varieties and 
, there is a non-split subvariety 
with degree bounded polynomially by 
, 
and ![[K:\mathbb{Q}]](http://www.martinorr.name/blog/images/mathtex/1216.png)
.
Choose a non-zero period and a basis 
for 
.
Let 
be the period 
of 
.
Let be the smallest abelian subvariety of 
whose tangent space contains 
.
Now the period theorem gives a bound for the degree of 
, and the assumption that 
is isogenous to 
implies that 
is non-split.
To prove the latter, let be any isogeny 
.
There are integers 
such that

Then 
must be contained in

Any subvariety of 
with a non-trivial projection to 
is non-split.
(Observe that the degree of may be really big, and the degree of 
is related to the degree of 
, so the degree of 
may be big.
But this is OK because we are not using 
to say anything about the degree of 
- that comes from the period theorem.)
Bounding the degree of the subvariety
The period theorem tells us that
where ![\deg_{\lambda \times \mu^{2g}} C \leq c \max([k:\mathbb{Q}], h_F(A \times B^{2g}), H(\tilde{\omega}, \tilde{\omega}))^\kappa](http://www.martinorr.name/blog/images/mathtex/1226.png)
and 
are principal polarisations of 
and 
, and 
is the Hermitian form associated with the polarisation 
of 
.
We want to remove from this bound, by bounding it in terms of the other quantities.
Let us write

This is a norm on the real vector space 
.
We have
so it will suffice to show that we can choose 
and 
with bounded lengths.
The only condition that we have put on is that it is a period i.e. in the lattice 
.
A fundamental domain for this lattice has volume 1 with respect to our chosen metric (this is equivalent to the polarisation 
being principal) and so Minkowski's theorem gives an upper bound for the length of the smallest period, depending only on the dimension 
:


With regard to , they must be a basis for 
.
Again this lattice has covolume 1 and so by Minkowski's theorem, there is a basis such that

for a constant 
depending only on 
.
An upper bound for the product does not imply an upper bound for the individual lengths (or for 
) but we can deduce such a bound if we also have a lower bound for the 
.
The following such bound can be deduced from a refinement of Masser's Matrix Lemma.
Lemma. Let
be a principally polarised abelian variety defined over a number field. There is a constantdepending only onsuch that every non-zero periodofsatisfies
Finishing the proof
Combining the above, we get that the isogeny of least degree satisfies

(The constants ![\deg f \leq c \max([K:\mathbb{Q}], h_F(A \times B^{2g}))^\kappa.](http://www.martinorr.name/blog/images/mathtex/1243.png)
and 
are different in different inequalities in this post.)
However this bound depends on , which we wanted to avoid.
We use a basic fact about the Faltings height: if there is an isogeny 
, then

So we get that

It might seem silly that we want to bound ![\deg f \leq c \max([K:\mathbb{Q}], h(A) + \log \deg f)^\kappa.](http://www.martinorr.name/blog/images/mathtex/1246.png)
and we have just introduced it on the right hand side, but it is only a polynomial in 
so with a bit of rearrangement we can absorb it into the constant.
![c \max([K:\mathbb{Q}], h(A))^\kappa](http://www.martinorr.name/blog/images/mathtex/1196.png)



![\lVert \omega \rVert_\mu \geq c_3 ([K:\mathbb{Q}] h(B))^{-1/2}.](http://www.martinorr.name/blog/images/mathtex/1242.png)
"Any subvariety of

with a non-trivial projection to
is non-split". Why is this? Are you using that
is simple?Right at the end, "So we get that...": Are you claiming that

?No. I use that

so any split subvariety contained in
is in fact contained in
. Since
is finite, the subvariety is contained in
i.e. has trivial projection to
.Again no. I confusingly left out some steps. We use the fact that

so
then we can hide the constants in the big constant
.