Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Work over an algebraically closed field ($\mathbb C$, if you prefer) and fix $g\geq 2$. By $M_g$ I mean, of course, the moduli space of smooth projective curves of genus $g$. I know it is in general not proper.

Question 1. Is it non proper for every $g$? And if not, what is an example of a proper $M_g$?

The motivation for the above question is an argument I read on some lecture notes. This is how I understood it: let us consider the (injective) Torelli morphism $M_g\to A_g$ (defined by $[C]\mapsto [J(C)]$), where $A_g$ is the moduli space of PPAVs. Then, if $M_g$ were proper, its image would coincide with the Torelli locus $T_g\subset A_g$. But $T_g$ contains products of PPAVs, and no such product can be the Jacobian of a curve. Contradiction.

Now I'm lost.

Question 2,3. How to see that $T_g$ contains products of PPAVs? And why a product is not the Jacobian of any curve?

Also, in passing, where can I find a clean definition of the theta divisor on a PPAV? I am confused about this point.

Thanks in advance.

share|improve this question
1  
See page 3 and page 4 in Dan Edidin's amazing notes on the moduli space of curves: math.missouri.edu/~edidin/Papers/mfile.pdf –  Harry Nov 5 '12 at 23:02
1  
Another related reference is Matthieu Romagny's notes on models of curves: perso.univ-rennes1.fr/matthieu.romagny/articles/… –  Harry Nov 5 '12 at 23:03
    
@Harry: Thanks for the references! The first one is very nice. There is an example showing that $M_3$ is not complete, but I still wonder if the argument in my question says that $M_g$ is never complete... –  Brenin Nov 6 '12 at 21:49

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Question 1: $M_g$ ($g\ge 2$) is never proper. A quick explanation is that $M_g$ is irreducible and has a compactification whose boundary is given by the singular stable curves of genus $g$. The boundary is non-empty because for any $g\ge 2$, there exists a singular stable curve of genus $g$ (attach a smooth projective curve of genus $1$ transversally to a smooth projective of genus $g-1$), so $M_g$ is different from its compactification, hence is not proper.

A more elementary way to see the non-properness is to use the valuative criterion. Consider the hyperelliptic curve of genus $g$ defined by $$ y^2=(x^2-t)(x^{2g}-1)$$ over $\mathbb C((t))$. Then over any finite extension of $\mathbb C[[t]]$ (necessarily of the form $\mathbb C[[t^{1/n}]$), the morphism $$\mathrm{Spec}( \mathbb C((t^{1/n})))\to M_g $$ can't extend to $\mathrm{Spec}(\mathbb C[[t^{1/n}]])$, because the curve $$ y^2=(x^2-t_n)(x^{2g}-1), \quad t_n=t^{1/n}$$ has bad reduction. We have to prove this for all finite extension of $\mathbb C[[t]]$ because $M_g$ is a coarse moduli space.

Question 2: If $C_1, ..., C_n$ are projective smooth curves of positive genus, form a chain with $C_i$ intersecting transversally $C_{i+1}$ at exactly one point. The stable curve $C$ obtained this way can be deformed to a smooth projective $X$. The Jacobian $C$ (equal to the product of the Jacobians of the $C_i$'s) deformes to the Jacobian of $X$. This shows that $\prod_i \mathrm{Jac}(C_i)$ is a limit of Jacobians, hence belongs to $T_g$.

For the rest of the questions, I don't have a satisfactory answer to offer.

share|improve this answer
1  
Thank you for your super concrete answer! When you say that the curve over $\mathbb C((t_n))$ has bad reduction do you mean it has a singular point over that field? I am sorry I know this term only for elliptic curves. –  Brenin Sep 8 '13 at 20:06
    
@atricolf: sorry for not being precise. In fact the curve is defined over the DVR $\mathbb C[[t]]$ and the closed fiber is singular. If $M_g$ were proper, then the initial curve would have good reduction over some $\mathbb C[[t_n]]$ by the coarse moduli space interpretation. In fact, the equation $y^2=(x^2-t)(x^{2g}-1)$ defines a singular stable curve, this imples that it can't have good reduction over any extension. –  Cantlog Sep 8 '13 at 21:59
    
Today I have been thinking about your answer and I almost get it. You have been very clear but I need a final help. For me "coarse" means that $\mathbb C$-points in $M_g$ correspond to isomorphism classes of smooth curves over $\mathbb C$, and there is a universal natural transformation $\mathfrak M_g\to \textrm{Hom}(-,M_g)$ where $\mathfrak M_g$ is the moduli functor. How do you use this to prove that $f:M_g\to\textrm{Spec}\,\mathbb C$ is not proper? Summing up, I cannot visualize the usual "square" in the valuative criterion. –  Brenin Sep 9 '13 at 16:27
    
The usual square doesn't work for a <b>coarse</b> moduli space, because the latter is ... not fine. This means that a morphism $S\to M_g$ does not define a smooth curve over $S$, but only over some finite extension of $S$. You can search for a survey text of Matthieu Romagny on models of algebraic curves. Ah I see Harry already gave the link. –  Cantlog Sep 9 '13 at 19:10

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.