The proof of Theorem 13.5 in "Lectures on Riemann Surfaces" by Otto Forster begins by saying

Set $U_1:={\mathbb P}^1 \backslash \infty$ and $U_2:={\mathbb P}^1 \backslash 0$. Since $U_1 = {\mathbb C}$ and $U_2$ is biholomorphic to ${\mathbb C}$, it follows from (13.4) that $H^1(U_i, {\cal O})=0$.

In "1.5 Examples of Riemann Surfaces" in the book the maps $\phi_i:U_i \rightarrow {\mathbb C}, i=1,2$ are defined as follows:

$\phi_1$ is the identity map and $$ \phi_2(z) := \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} 1/z & \mbox{for} \; z \in {\mathbb C}^*\\ 0 & \mbox{for} \; z = \infty \end{array} \right. $$

But, It seems to me that $\phi_2$ cannot be biholomorphic at $\infty$, because since $\phi_2'(z)=-1/z^2$,

$$ \lim_{z\rightarrow \infty} \phi_2'(z) = 0. $$

Could someone point out where I made a mistake ?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, the limit is correct. But how does this produce any contradiction? $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jan 13 '12 at 8:43
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I thought that $\phi_2'(\infty)\neq 0$ is a necessary condition for the existense of the holomorphic inverse mapping of$\phi_2$ at $\infty$. $\endgroup$ – Aki Jan 13 '12 at 9:49

The "paradox" you are asking about is extremely interesting and I can only congratulate you on the dynamic way you are studyng mathematics.

1) The first confusing point is that for a holomorphic function $\phi$ on an open subset $U$ of a manifold, in your case $\phi_2$ and $U_2$ , the naïve notion of derivative $\phi'(a)$ at a point $a\in U$ as a number does not work: you would get different numbers according to the chart you use.
The correct notion is that of a linear form on the tangent space $$ d_a\phi:T_a (U) \to T_{\phi(a)} \mathbb R = \mathbb R $$
The recipe for computing $d_a\phi$ is to choose a chart $w$ in a neighbourhood of $a$, to consider the composed function $\phi_w=\phi \circ w^{-1}$ and to decree that we have $$ d_a\phi (t\cdot \frac {\partial}{\partial w}) =t\cdot \phi_w'(w(a)) \quad (t\in \mathbb R) $$
If you do that in your situation with $U=U_2, a=\infty, \phi=\phi_2=w$, you will find completely tautologically that $d_\infty (\phi_2):T_\infty (\mathbb P^1)\to \mathbb R $ is given by $d_a\phi_2 (t\cdot \frac {\partial}{\partial w})= t$, since $(\phi_2)_w=\phi_2 \circ w^{-1}$ is the identity.

2) The second confusing point is that you are not allowed to calculate $d_\infty\phi_2$ by means of the chart $\phi_1=z$ since its domain does not contain infinity: $\infty\notin U_1=dom(\phi_1)=\mathbb C$.

3) In the language of divisors (introduced on page 127 of your book) the divisor of the global meromorphic differential form $dw\in \Gamma ( \mathbb P^1, \Omega_X ^1 \otimes_{\mathcal O_X} \mathcal M_X)$ is $div(w)=-2\cdot (0)$ and for $dz\in \Gamma ( \mathbb P^1, \Omega_X ^1 \otimes_{\mathcal O_X} \mathcal M_X)$ it is $div(z)=-2\cdot (\infty)$.
Both results confirm that the line bundle of holomorphic $1$-forms on $\mathbb P^1$, a Riemann surface of genus $g=0$, has degree $2g-2=2\cdot0-2=-2$.

  • $\begingroup$ But $\phi_2$ is a chart for $U_2$, isn't it? The only condition we need is that $\phi_2$ is a homeomorphism and the transition map $\phi_1 \circ \phi_2^{-1}$ is biholomorphic, and these hold. $\endgroup$ – Zhen Lin Jan 13 '12 at 11:41
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Dear @Zhen Lin, you are absolutely right: I had mixed up two charts in my preceding answer. I have edited my post now and I am very, very grateful to you for your attentive reading. Thanks a lot! $\endgroup$ – Georges Elencwajg Jan 13 '12 at 18:11
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your detailed explanation. Then, I made a mistake in using the chart $(U_1,z)$ to evaluate the function $\phi_2$. And, each chart $\psi:U \rightarrow V$ on any Riemann surface is biholomorphic since $\psi \circ \psi^{-1} = \mbox{id}_V$ is biholomorphic. Am I right ? $\endgroup$ – Aki Jan 15 '12 at 7:46

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.