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.

Let $X$ be a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve defined over a number field, and let $D$ a divisor on $X$. To these data, we can associate a height function on the $\Bbb{\overline{Q}}$-rational points of $X$ $$ \operatorname{ht}_D: X(\Bbb{\overline{Q}}) \rightarrow \Bbb{R} $$ as follows. Write $D=D_1- D_2$, with $D_1,D_2$ very ample divisors on $X$, and let $\phi_{D_1},\phi_{D_2}: X \hookrightarrow \Bbb{P}^n$ be embeddings determined by $D_1,D_2$. Then $$ \operatorname{ht}_D(P):=\operatorname{ht}_{D_1}(P)-\operatorname{ht}_{D_2}(P):=\operatorname{h}(\phi_{D_1}(P))-\operatorname{h}(\phi_{D_2}(P)) $$ where $\operatorname{h}: \Bbb{P}^n \rightarrow \Bbb{R}$ is the usual height function on projective space. One can check that, up to a bounded function, $\operatorname{ht}_D$ does not depend on the choices of $D_1,D_2$.

Now I know that if $\deg(D) >0$, the height function $\operatorname{ht}_D$ is bounded from below, and if $\deg(D) < 0$, then $\operatorname{ht}_D$ is bounded from above.

$\textbf{Question:}$ What happens if $\deg(D)=0$? Is there a curve $X$ as above and a divisor $D$, with $\deg(D)=0$ such that $\operatorname{ht}_D$ is not bounded from below/above?

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 0 down vote accepted

The question as to whether $\operatorname{ht}_D$ for a degree zero divisor $D$ is bounded depends on the class of $D$ in the Picard group of $X$.

Theorem: Let $X$ be a smooth, projective curve over a number field, and $D$ a divisor on $X$. Then $\operatorname{ht}_D$ is bounded, if and only if $D$ is a torsion element of the Picard group $\operatorname{Pic}(X)$ of $X$.

More generally, the theorem is true for an arbitrary smooth, projective variety.

The "if" part is clear, and the only if part is proved in

J.-P. Serre, Lectures on the Mordell-Weil Theorem, Theorem 3.11.

The most important fact for the proof seems to be that the Jacobian of $X$ is principally polarised, i.e. it is isomorphic to its dual abelian variety.

The above theorem is somewhat interesting in my opinion, partly because it resembles the well-known result that on an abelian variety $A$ a point is a torsion point, if and only if its Néron-Tate height (associated to an ample, symmetric divisor) vanishes.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.