Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Suppose $A$ is a complex abelian variety. Then $A$ is a complex torus $\mathbb C^g/\Lambda$ where $\Lambda$ is a lattice. On the other hand abelian varieties over $\mathbb C_p$ can have good reduction. But $\mathbb C$ and $\mathbb C_p$ are isomorphic... so, shouldn't abelian varieties over $\mathbb C_p$ be of the form $\mathbb C_p^g/\Lambda$ where $\Lambda$ is now a lattice in $\mathbb C_p$? But then abelian varieties over $\mathbb C_p$ with good reduction wouldn't exist...

share|cite|improve this question
$\mathbb C$ and $\mathbb C_p$ are isomorphic... as what? – Brenin Feb 8 '14 at 14:44
@Brenin They're isomorphic as fields. They're both algebraically closed fields of characteristic $0$ and cardinality $2^{\aleph_0}$. – Alex Youcis Feb 8 '14 at 21:35
In $\mathbb C_p$ there is no lattice of positive rank ! The $p$-adic uniformization uses $({\mathbb C}_p^*)^g$ instead. – Cantlog Feb 9 '14 at 16:14

Probably the reason is that a lattice in $\mathbb C$ (i.e. a discrete subgroup of $\mathbb C$) is not a discrete subgroup of $\mathbb C_p$ (due to the fact that the norms of the two fields are different!)

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.