5
$\begingroup$

I often see the moduli spaces $\mathcal{M}_g$, or at least the coarse moduli space, of Riemann surfaces of genus $g$ described as the set of isomorphism classes of Riemann surfaces of genus $g$.

Obviously, the moduli space has more structure than a set. However, the book I have been following immediately goes on to call $\mathcal{M}_g$ a variety.

How do we go from $\mathcal{M}_g$ being a set to $\mathcal{M}_g$ being a variety?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Are you reading Rick Miranda's book? $\endgroup$ – Tanner Strunk Apr 6 '17 at 13:39
6
$\begingroup$

Your book is being extremely sneaky! This in fact a highly nontrivial construction. One good source to read about it is the end of Chapter I in the book Moduli of Curves by Joe Harris and Ian Morrison.

Curiously, long before anyone constructed $M_g$, Riemann was happily computing that its dimension equals $3g-3$. Riemann's argument is very nicely explained by user Brenin in another question on this site, which I can't find just at the moment.

The first construction of $M_g$, if I remember correctly, is due to Bers around 1950. This construction is analytic: it shows that the Teichmueller space $T_g$ is an open subset of $\mathbf C^{3g-3}$, and $M_g$ is then a quotient of $T_g$ by a discrete group action.

The first purely algebraic construction of $M_g$ was then given by Mumford in the early 1960s, using Geometric Invariant Theory. The idea here is that all smooth curves of genus $g$ can be embedded in a projective space $\mathbf P^N$ of fixed dimension (depending on $g$). So one can consider the corresponding component of the Hilbert scheme of $\mathbf P^N$; the moduli space $M_g$ is then the quotient of (an open subset of) this component by the action of the group $SL(N+1)$.

Anyway, the moral is: $M_g$ is not easy!

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you! Knowing that this fact is nontrivial is already very useful! $\endgroup$ – user7090 Feb 23 '17 at 0:29
  • $\begingroup$ @bertram: Right, except the first was not Bers, but Rauch. Rauch used periods of abelian differentials, unlike Bers who came in a bit later. One more curiosity: Bers was so impressed by Mumford's work that he found an alternative way to prove that $M_g$ is quasiprojective in the early 70s. $\endgroup$ – Moishe Kohan Feb 23 '17 at 4:54
  • $\begingroup$ @MoisheCohen: thanks, that's interesting to know. Can you give a reference for Rauch's work? $\endgroup$ – bertram Feb 23 '17 at 5:47
  • $\begingroup$ Rauch's work is discussed in great detail in Earl's article in: Hershel M. Farkas, Isaac Chavel (eds.): Differential geometry and complex analysis: a volume dedicated to the memory of Harry Ernest Rauch, Springer, 1985. Rauch's papers: On the transcendental moduli of algebraic Riemann surfaces, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 41 (1955), 42–49. On the moduli of Riemann surfaces, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 41 (1955), 236–238. A more detailed version is in: Weierstrass points, branch points, and moduli of Riemann surfaces, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 12 (1959), 543–560. $\endgroup$ – Moishe Kohan Feb 23 '17 at 17:47
  • $\begingroup$ Here's a link to the question you mention: math.stackexchange.com/q/513970 $\endgroup$ – Richard D. James Jan 18 '19 at 4:50

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.