I'm sorry for the quantity of questions I'm asking, but I would like to solve once and for all many doubts I have on equivalent definitions of the moduli space of Riemann surfaces.

Definition 1: The Moduli space of Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ is

$\mathcal{M}_g:=\{$ Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ }/isomorfisms $\qquad$ ($\mathcal{M}_g$ here is just as a set)

I know that, for $g\ge 2$, we have this equivalent definition of $\mathcal{M}_g$:

Definition 2: $\mathcal{M}_g:=\{$hyperbolic metrics on $S_g$}/isometry $\qquad S_g$ is the oriented topological surface of genus $g$.

I've been told that, for $g\ge 2$, definition 1 and 2 are equivalent because of the Uniformization theorem, which says that a simply connected Riemann surface has conformal class of curvature 1 or 0 or -1. For what I've understood, for any Riemann surface $X$ of genus $g\ge 2$ we consider the universal cover $\widetilde{X}$ which is of conformal type -1 (is the hyperbolic plane $\mathbb{H}$) and the hyperbolic metric descends on $X$.

Question 1: Why is the conformal type of $\widetilde{X}$ -1? Why can't it be spheric or flat?

Question 2: Given an isomorphism class of Riemann surfaces, (i.e. a complex structure, up to isomorphism) how do I get (or compute, if you prefer) the hyperbolic metric? Given the hyperbolic metric, how do I get the complex structure?

I've also found this other definition for $g\ge 2$:

Definition 3: $\mathcal{M}_g:=\{$hyperbolic metrics on $S_g$}/orientation preserving diffeomorphisms

which brings me directly to the next question:

Question 3: Why are definition 2 and 3 equivalent? I.e why is it the same to consider hyperbolic metrics up to isometries or up to just orientation preserving diffeomorphisms?

Now I want to consider the case $g=1$. I've found this definition:

Definition 4: $\mathcal{M}_1:=\{$flat metrics on $S_1\}/$action of $\mathbb{R}^+\times Diffeo^+(S_1)$

I guest this too must be a conseguence of the Uniformization theorem, but I can't really get it:

Question 4: Why can't the universal cover of a Riemann surface of genus 1 be spheric or hyperbolic?

I know that the Riemann surface $X_\tau:=\mathbb{C}/(\mathbb{Z}+\tau\mathbb{Z})$, $\tau\in \mathbb{H}$, is isomorphic to $X_\eta$, $\eta\in\mathbb{H}$ if and only if there are integer numbers $a,b,c,d$ with $ad-bc=1$ such that $\eta=\frac{a\tau +b}{c\tau +d}$

Question 5: Given an isomorphism class of Riemann surfaces of genus 1, (and so by the above observation, an orbit of $\mathbb{H}$ by the action of $PSL(2,\mathbb{Z})$) how do I get (or compute, if you prefer) the flat metric? Given the flat metric, how do I get the complex structure?

Thank you very much!


Question 1: We know that from the uniformization theorem, the Riemann surface is covered by either one of these:

$$\tilde M = \mathbb S^2 , \mathbb C, \ \text{or }\mathbb H.$$

Then for any Riemann surface $M$, $M$ is biholomorphic to $\tilde M/\Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is a subgroup of bilomorphism on $\tilde M$ and each $F\in \Gamma$ has no fixed points.

Hence the only Riemann surface that is covered by $\mathbb S^2$ is $\mathbb S^2$ itself: the reason is that all bihomorphisms (indeed, all orientation-preserving map) on $\mathbb S^2$ must have a fixed point. This forces $\Gamma = \{I\}$ and $M \cong \mathbb S^2$.

For $\mathbb C$, you can check that all biholomorphism $F:\mathbb C \to \mathbb C$ are rotations and translations. As rotations must have fixed points, all Riemann surfaces covered by $\mathbb C$ are biholomorphic to $\mathbb C/\Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is a group of translation on $\mathbb C^2$. Then one can see that $M$ has to be a torus.

In particular, the above discussion shows that any surfaces of genus $\ge 2$ cannot be covered by $\mathbb S^2$ or $\mathbb C$. Thus by the uniformization theorem, they are covered by $\mathbb H$. (I haven't excluded the possibility that some genus one Riemann surfaces is covered by $\mathbb H$, which is your question 4: that can be ruled out after introducing the metric)

Question 2 and 5 First we show that given a Riemann surface, one can construct a metric with constant curvature.

Fix a Riemann surface $M$, we know that it is biholomorphic to $\tilde M/\Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is a subgroup of biholomorphism. If we happen to find a metric on $\tilde M$ so that all biholomorphisms (without fixed points) are oriented isometries, then the metric on $\tilde M$ "descends" to $\tilde M/\Gamma$ and thus to $M$.

Indeed we have such a metric: For $\mathbb C$, we use the usual Euclidean metric. It is obvious that all translations are isometries. For $\mathbb H$, one can check that all biholomophisms are of the form

$$ z\mapsto \frac{az+b}{cz+d}, \ \text{where }a, b, c, d\in \mathbb R, ad-bc >0.$$

One can show that (see here) if we introduce the metric

$$ds^2 = \frac{1}{y^2} (dx^2 + dy^2),$$

then all such biholomorphisms are isometries. One can also calculate that this metric has constant curvature $-1$.

To sum up, if a Riemann surface $M$ is covered by $\mathbb C$ (resp. $\mathbb H$), then $M$ can be given a metric of constant curvature $0$ (resp. $-1$) so that $\mathbb C \to M$ (resp. $\mathbb H \to M$) is a local isometry.

Question 4 Now we can see that a genus one Riemann surfaces cannot be covered by $\mathbb H$: if not, it has a metric with $-1$ curvature. Then by the Gauss Bonnet theorem,

$$0 = 2-2g = \frac{1}{2\pi} \int_M K d\mu = - \frac{1}{2\pi} \text{Area}(M) \neq 0,$$

which is a contradiction.

Back to Question 2 and 5 Now we answer the other part of the question 2 and 5: Given a metric $g$ of constant curvature on $M$, how to construct on $M$ a complex structure?

Let $\tilde M$ be an universal cover of $M$. Then as $\pi : \tilde M \to M$ is a local diffeomorphism, one can pullbacks the metric to the universal cover $\tilde M$. Thus $M \cong \tilde M/\Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is a group of isometries on $\tilde M$.

However, all simply connected Rieamnnian surfaces with constant curvature are classified. They are nothing but $\mathbb S^2, \mathbb C$ and $\mathbb H$. (with the obvious metrics). Thus one can define a complex structure on $M$ by that of $\tilde M$.

To sum up a little bit, we have:

  • Given a Riemann surfaces, we can construct a metric of constant curvature on $M$.

  • Given a surface with Riemannian metric $g$ of constant curvature, one can construct a complex structure.

One can check that this process are inverse to each other, thus

$\{$all Riemann surfaces$\} \leftrightarrow \{$all oriented Riemannian surfaces with constant curvature$\}$

As we have introduced the metric in a way that biholomorphism without fixed points corresponds to oriented isomtries, we have the equivalence of definition one and two.

Question 3 I am a bit skeptical about even the definition, given a hyperbolic metric $h$, and an arbitrary oriented diffeomorphism $f$, $f^*h$ might not be a hyperbolic metric.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ To your skepticism of Question 3, if $f:M\to M$ is a diffeomorphism of smooth manifolds, and $M$ carries a Riemannian metric $g$, then by definition $f$ is an isometry mapping $(M,f^*g)\to (M,g)$. $\endgroup$ – Neal Sep 3 '16 at 6:07

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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