There is serious flaw in the following argument, but I have yet to see what it is:

Let $C$ be a genus $g$ hyperelliptic curve in an abelian variety $A$ (over an algebraically closed field with characteristic $\neq$2), such that the automorphism $-1$ of $A$ descends to the hyperelliptic involution on $C$. The 2:1 projection $C\to \mathbb{P}^1$ is just the image of $C$ in the Kummer variety of $A$, that is $\mbox{Km}(A)=A/\pm$, and so $C$ contains $2g+2$ 2-torsion points of $A$. Let $2_A$ be the morphism multiplication by 2 on $A$, and let $C'=2_A(C)$. This is a (possibly singular) curve on $A$, and the image of $C'$ in $\mbox{Km}(A)$ is also rational (since it is the image of $2_{\mbox{Km}(A)}$ restricted to the projection of $C$ in $\mbox{Km}(A)$). If we take the normalization of $C'$, let's say $\pi:N\to C'$, then we get a map $C\to N$, that lifts $2_A:C\to C'$. Now, $N$ is hyperelliptic and if $g\geq 2$, we must have that $g_N$ (the genus of $N$) is less than $g$, unless the map $C\to N$ is an isomorphism. The map can never be an isomorphism, given that the $2g+2$ torsion points on $C$ all go to 0 in $C'$, and above each point in $C'$ there are at most 2 points in $N$.

One very false implication of this reasoning is that if $C$ is of genus 2, for example, and $A$ is the jacobian of $C$, then $N$ would have to be an elliptic curve! This would mean that every 2-dimensional abelian variety is isogenous to the product of elliptic curves, which is very very false!

What's wrong with this argument?


1 Answer 1


It is true that $C$ contains some $2$-torsion points of $A$. If $P'\in C'$ is the image of $P\in C$, then for all $2$-torsion points $t\in A[2]$, $P+t\in A$ also maps to $P'$, but $P+t\notin C$ in general. So $C\to C'$ needs not be of degree $>1$.

Suppose $C$ has no other automorphism than the hyperelliptic involution and $C\to A$ is the embedding of $C$ into its Jacobian given by $P\mapsto [P-P_0]$. Let's show that $C\to C'$ is birational.

First for any $t\in A[2]$ non-zero, we have $C+t\ne C$ because otherwise the translation by $t$ would be an automorphism of $C$ of order 2 without fixed point, so a non-trivial automorphism different from the hyperelliptic involution.

So $C\cap (C+t)$ is finite and $\cup_{t\in A[2], t\ne 0 } C\cap (C+t)$ is finite. Let $P\in C$ be a point not in this finite set. If $P, Q$ map to the same point in $C'$, then $2P\sim 2Q$, so $[P-Q]=t\in A[2]$. If $Q\ne P$, then $Q\not\sim P$ and $t\ne 0$. When $C$ is identified with its image in $A$, this means $P\in Q+t \in C\cap (C+t)$, contradiction.

  • $\begingroup$ Ok, perfect. Now, one thing I'm still not quite getting (from my reasoning) is the following: We know that $C$ has 2g+2 points fixed by the hyperelliptic involution, and so when we identify $C$ with its image in $A$, we get that $C$ has $2g+2$ 2-torsion points of $A$. From what you just said, $C$ is the normalization of $C'$ (assuming $C$ doesn't have non-trivial automorphisms, etc.). So, for example, composing the map $C'\to\mathbb{P}^1$ with the map $C\to C'$ gives us a generically $2:1$ map between non-singular curves, however there is a point in $\mathbb{P}^1$ that has $2g+2$ preimages! $\endgroup$
    – rfauffar
    Feb 26, 2013 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ The normalization map may have arbitrary large number of premiages. For example, start with a smooth curve $C$, identify $n>>0$ points in $C$ to get a singular curve $C'$. Then the identified point has $n$ preimages. Also, the image of $C'$ in Kummer is not necessarily a smooth rational curve. $\endgroup$
    – user18119
    Feb 26, 2013 at 12:42
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, great! That's my mistake, assuming that the rational curve was smooth! Thanks so much, terrific answer! $\endgroup$
    – rfauffar
    Feb 26, 2013 at 13:00

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.