2
$\begingroup$

I'm reading this paper with the following situation (Beginning of section 2 on page 3):

Let $X$ be a compact Riemann surface of genus $g$ with a finite group $G$ acting on that curve. We write the quotient curve $X/G$ as $X_G$ and the genus of the quotient as $g_0$. Let the cover $X\to X_G$ be branched at $r$ places, $q_1, \cdots, q_r$. The signature of the cover is an $(r+1)$-tuple $$[g_0; s_1, s_2,\cdots , s_r]$$ where the $s_i$ are the ramification indices of the covering at the branch points.

Denoting the map $X\to X_G$ by $f$, by the Riemann-Hurwitz formula $$2(g-1)=2\deg(f)(g_0-1)+\sum_{i=1}^r(s_i-1) $$

Since the left side is even and the degree term is even, it cannot be the case that $r$ is odd with all the $e_i$'s even. But in many tables in the paper, (Eg page 9 where $G$ is taken to be Aut$(X)$ ), there are instances like $$[0; 2,4,6] $$ which should be impossible by the parity argument above. Am I misreading something? If someone could clarify where I am off, I'd be really grateful. The only thing I can think of is that somehow the action of the group is bad so that the quotient map above is not complex analytic to make the Riemann-Hurwitz formula inapplicable. Is this the case?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ @reuns That isn't quite true. The first paragraph of page 7 says that they use a source of many curves up to a certain genus rather than just modular curves. Besides, how do you resolve the apparent contradiction I see? $\endgroup$ – RKD Sep 18 '17 at 3:37
  • $\begingroup$ I don't, I'm trying to understand what they are talking about. They analyse Galois covers $Y \to X$ and its automorphism group $G$ (what is $X$ and $Y$ ?) from which they obtain a regular representation of $G$ decomposed in irreducible representations, they look at their degree and multiplicity to obtain $\mathbb{C}^g /\Lambda \simeq \prod_{j=1}^m A_j^{e_j}$ where $A_j$ are abelian varieties. $\endgroup$ – reuns Sep 18 '17 at 3:41
  • $\begingroup$ Where are you reading $X$ and $Y$? The usual situation is a complex curve $X$ with automorphism group $G$ and $X_G$ is the quotient of $X$ by the $G$ action and $X\to X_G$ the quotient map (as in my post). $\endgroup$ – RKD Sep 18 '17 at 3:45
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe they work in magma with affine algebraic curves and they didn't mention the ramification at $\infty$ because it can be deduced from the others $\endgroup$ – reuns Sep 18 '17 at 4:00
  • $\begingroup$ I agree there is something strange I can't see. On the other hand I believe the quotient always exists, for $V = \text{Spec}(R)$ this is just $\text{Spec}(R^G)$ and, so if $X$ is projective one can cover it by two affines open (e.g $V_1 = X \backslash O_1, V_2 = X \backslash O_2$ where $O_1, O_2$ are orbits with no fixed points) and glue $V_1/G$ and $V_2/G$ along $(V_1 \cap V_2)/G$. $\endgroup$ – Nicolas Hemelsoet Sep 18 '17 at 6:09
0
$\begingroup$

Whenever we have a map $X\to X_G$, we have to be careful to decide whether we are using ramification points (which live in $X$) or branch points (which live in $X_G$). The Riemann-Hurwitz formula above has a summation over ramification points. There is another version of it using branch points $y_1,\cdots y_k$ with multiplicity $r_i$, which when specialized to a group action as above can be written as

$$2(g(X)-2)=|G|(2g(X_G)-2)+|G|\sum_{i=1}^k(1-\frac{1}{r_i}) $$

which can essentially be derived from the above form by studying the stabilizers of the $G$ action on $X$.

So the example cited above with $|G|=240$ and $g=21$ is actually feasible with signature $[0;2,4,6]$. The mistake the OP (aka I) was making was conflating the notions of ramification points and branch points.

$\endgroup$

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.