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
and
be principally polarised abelian varieties over a number field
. Suppose that there exists some isogeny
. Then there is an isogeny
of degree at most
where
and
are 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
.
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
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 constant
depending only on
such that every non-zero period
of
satisfies
Finishing the proof
Combining the above, we get that the isogeny of least degree satisfies
(The constants
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
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.
"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
.