I refer to Chapter II.3 of Rick Miranda - Algebraic curves and Riemann surfaces, which I understand says in Proposition II.3.9 that injective holomorphic maps $F: X \to Y$ between Riemann surfaces $X$ and $Y$, both of which are connected but not necessarily compact, are isomorphisms onto their images $F(X)$. (Connected is part of the definition of Riemann surfaces in this book. Not sure about other books.)

Question 1: Must (the underlying set of) a Riemann surface necessarily not be a singleton? I kind of assume this for the next questions 2 and 3.

Question 2: How is $F(X)$ necessarily a Riemann surface?

This is what I tried:

  1. $X$ is connected and so since $F$ is continuous (since holomorphic implies continuous), $F(X)$ is connected (since connectedness is preserved under continuity).

  2. $F$ is not constant: If $F$ were constant, then $F(X)$ is a singleton. Since $F$ is injective, we have that $X$ is a singleton if $F(X)$ is a singleton. I conclude $F$ is not constant if Riemann surfaces cannot be singletons (see Question 1).

  3. $X$ is of course open in itself, and so since $F$ is open (by Proposition II.3.8, which applies, assuming (2)), we have that $F(X)$ is open.

  4. $F(X)$ is Hausdorff and 2nd countable since these properties are inherited from $Y$.

  5. Finally, for the atlas, Miranda has a recipe for open connected subsets of Riemann surfaces to be Riemann surfaces.

Question 3: If we now suppose $X$ is compact, then is $F$ surjective?

This is what I tried:

  1. Proposition II.3.11 says that a non-constant holomorphic map with a compact domain is surjective has its image/range as compact.

  2. If Riemann surfaces cannot be singletons (see Question 1), then I think $F$ injective implies $F$ non-constant and therefore, Proposition II.3.11 is applicable.

Question 4: To possibly strengthen Question 1, must (the underlying sets of) Riemann surfaces be either uncountable or empty since Riemann surfaces are locally holomorphic/ homeomorphic/ diffeomorphic to open subsets of the complex plane $\mathbb C$?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ If $X=\{x\}$ then $\{x\}$ is the only chart around $x$, but there's no homeomorphism $\{x\}\to D$ where $D$ is the open unit disk in $\mathbb C$. $\endgroup$ Sep 5 '20 at 8:08
  • $\begingroup$ @RandyMarsh Right, that's what I thought. Thanks. Follow-up 1. post as answer for question 1? i'll upvote even if you don't answer the others. Follow-up 2. So this extends to non-empty countable i.e. Question 4 is answered affirmatively? Follow-up 3. Is that riemann surfaces are not singletons indeed relevant for answering questions 2 and 3 affirmatively? $\endgroup$ Sep 5 '20 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ Also, $X=\{x\}$ is compact, however the "smallest" compact Riemann surface is the Riemann sphere. $\endgroup$ Sep 5 '20 at 8:11
  • $\begingroup$ @RandyMarsh ummmm....ok thanks...i guess smallest is in the sense that riemann sphere is holomorphically embedded or something in every compact riemann surface? $\endgroup$ Sep 5 '20 at 8:46
  • $\begingroup$ Smallest in the sense of (topological) genus. It is the unique compact Riemann surface with genus $0$. $\endgroup$ Sep 5 '20 at 9:43
  1. Yes. If $X=\{x\}$ then $\{x\}$ is the only chart around $x$, but there's no homeomorphism $\{x\}\to D$ where $D$ is the open unit disk in $\mathbb C$.

  2. In general $F(X)$ will not be a Riemann surface. However, if $F$ is injective, then $F(X)$ will be: Let $w\in F(X)$, let $w=F(z)$ and $(U,\phi\colon U\to V)$ a chart around $z\in X$. Then $F(U)$ is an open neighbourhood of $w$ in $F(X)$ and the map $\phi\circ F^{-1}\colon F(U)\to V$ is a homeomorphism, hence a chart for $F(X)$. This, of course, fails when $F$ is not injective. The compatibility of charts is immediate from $(\phi_1\circ F^{-1})\circ(\phi_2\circ F^{-1})^{-1}=\phi_1\circ\phi_2^{-1}$ (when defined).

  3. Yes, this follows by Proposition 3.11.

  4. They have exactly the cardinality of $\mathbb C$. They must be uncountable and thus can't be empty. This is a general fact about connected Hausdorff manifolds, see e.g. https://mathoverflow.net/questions/67962/cardinality-of-connected-manifolds

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Randy Marsh! $\endgroup$ Sep 5 '20 at 9:49

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.