Tag Archives: arxiv

“Every curve is a Teichmuller curve,” or “Why SL_2(Z) has the congruence subgroup property.”

Teichmüller curve in M_g, the moduli space of genus-g curves, is an algebraic curve V in M_g such that the inclusion V -> M_g induces an isometry between the constant-curvature metric on V and the restriction of the Teichmüller metric on M_g.

Alternatively:  the cotangent bundle of M_g, considered as a real manifold, admits a natural action of SL_2(R); the orbits are all copies of SL_2(R) / SO(2), or the upper half-plane.  Most of the time, when you project that hyperbolic plane H down to M_g, you get a dense orbit that wanders all over M_g.  But every once in a while, the fibers of the map H -> M_g are a lattice in H, and the image is actually an algebraic curve; that, again, is a Teichmüller curve.

Teichmüller curves are the subject of lots of recent research; for now, let me just say that they are interestingly canonical curves inside M_g.  Matt Bainbridge proved strong results about their intersection numbers in Hilbert modular surfaces.  McMullen classified Teichmuller curves in M_2, giving a very nice algebraic description of the 1-parameter families of genus-2 curves parametrized by Teichmüller curves.  (As far as I know, there’s no such description in higher genus.)  In a recent note, McMullen proved that they are all defined over number fields.

This leads one to ask:  which curves defined over algebraic number fields are Teichmüller curves?  This is the subject of a paper Ben McReynolds and I just posted to the arXiv, “Every curve is a Teichmüller curve.”  The title should be read birationally; what we prove is that every curve X over an algebraic number field is birational (over C) to a Teichmüller curve in some M_g.  (In the posted version, we prove the slightly weaker statement that X is birational to a Teichmüller curve in M_{g,n}), but we’ve since tweaked the argument to get the closed-surface version.)

So why does SL_2(Z) have the congruence subgroup property?  Especially given that it, y’know, doesn’t?

Here’s what I mean.  Let Gamma_{g,n} be the mapping class group of a genus-g surface with n punctures.  Then Gamma_{g,n} acts as a group of outer automorphisms of the fundamental group pi_{g,n} of the surface; and from this, you get an action of Gamma_{g,n} on the finite set


where G is a finite group and ~ is conjugacy.

By a congruence subgroup of Gamma_{g,n} let’s mean a stabilizer in this action.  Why this definition?  Well, when g = 1, n = 0, and G = Z/NZ, the stabilizer is just the standard congruence subgroup Gamma_0(N).  And you can easily check that the class of congruence subgroups of Gamma_{1,0} is cofinal with the usual class of congruence subgroups in SL_2(Z).

Now Gamma_{1,1} is also isomorphic to SL_2(Z), but the notion of “congruence subgroup of SL_2(Z)” afforded by this isomorphism is much more general than the usual one.  So much so that one gets the following, which is really the main point of my paper with Ben:

Every finite-index subgroup of Gamma_{1,1} containing the center and contained in Gamma(2) is a congruence subgroup.

It turns out that the finite covers of the moduli space M_{1,1} corresponding to such finite-index subgroups are always Teichmüller curves; since, by Belyi’s theorem, every curve over a number field can be so expressed, we get the desired result.

The italicized assertion above can be thought of as a very strong kind of “congruence subgroup property.”  Of course, CSP usually refers to the property that every finite-index subgroup contains a principal congruence subgroup.  That finite-index subgroups Gamma_{1,1} (and even Gamma_{1,n}) always contain congruence subgroups as defined above is a theorem of Asada, and it’s conjectured to be true for all g,n.  But the statement that every finite-index subgroup of a mapping class group is a congruence subgroup on the nose is substantially stronger, and I imagine it’s true only for (1,1) and the closely related case (0,4), which was proved, in somewhat different language, in the paper “Every curve is a Hurwitz space,” by Diaz, Donagi, and Harbater.  Our argument is very much inspired by theirs — it was to emphasize this debt that we gave our paper more or less the same title.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Back to school linkdump

  • Fellow O’s fan Tom Scocca explains why the Red Sox are the new Grateful Dead in the Boston Globe. (Previously on Quomodocumque:  why the Red Sox are John McCain.)
  • David Carlton is moving to Playdom to work for Steve Meretsky.  Steve Meretsky!  The guy who wrote Planetfall!
  • From Baseball Reference:  on August 18. 1998, the Braves got nine hits against the Giants, all doubles.  Will this feat ever be repeated?  About 20% of hits are doubles.  let’s say that for some ballparks, or some batting lineups, the chance a hit will be a double goes up to 1/4.  Then you might figure the chance of nine hits all being doubles would be (1/4)^9, about one in a quarter-million.  (If the chance of a double is 1 in 5, this goes down to one in two million.)  From that point of view, it’s not so shocking; there have been about three hundred thousand MLB games played this century, so why not?  Two problems.  1.  Doubles used to be a lot less common then they are now.  2.  If you hit nine doubles off a team’s pitching staff, it probably means they’re having a terrible day, and it probably means at some point you’re going to hit a home run.  I think a much better way to assess whether another team’s likely to match the Braves is to check how many times a team has managed eight doubles without a hit.  And nobody has.  Not seven, either, or six. And just five teams have had 5 doubles in a game with no other hits.  I think the Braves are safe here.   And I think this is a good example of a question where just looking at the data gives you a much more robust answer than a half-assed probability calculation.
  • Not a link:  based on the response to my question, tons of people follow the new postings on the arXiv. But hardly anyone follows it, as I do, in Google Reader — according to their stats, the RSS feed for math.AG has only 98 subscribers and math.NT just 83.
Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Should MathSciNet be a social network?

Jim Borger makes the following interesting suggestion in comments to the “Do you follow the arXiv?” thread:

What I think would be way better is if the MathSciNet sent out emails with abstracts of newly published papers. With some very basic filtering, based on which authors, subjects, key words, etc you like, they could probably keep the emails reasonably small. That would be much more useful than the archive digests. Then you could truly keep an eye on whatever fields you want without much effort.

This would presumably be easy to implement, given some kind of personal login to MathSciNet — but do you want MathSciNet keeping track of what abstracts you looked at, and which ones induced you to click through to the article?

The right way to do this, I guess, would involve allowing us to tag MathSciNet abstracts, so that overlaid on the AMS subject classification would be an emergent user-generated classification scheme which I’d expect to be much richer and more useful.  And it wouldn’t stop there — I imagine MathSciNet would keep track of everybody’s browsing in order to identify users with similar tastes, and make recommendations accordingly.  “People who looked up Deligne’s “Le Groupe Fondamental de la Droite Projective Moins Trois Points” also liked…”

Three questions:

  1. Would you be into this?
  2. Does Google Scholar already do this for people who use it while logged in to their Google accounts?  Is Google keeping track of my scholarly interests and ordering its Scholar search results accordingly, as it does for web search?
  3. Why doesn’t the arXiv allow tagging?  Or does it, and I can’t find it?  There are already links on each article page for bookmarking at CiteULike, del.icio.us, and digg, all places where you can tag; so arXived articles are tagged, but the tags are scattered across different services used by different populations.  Why not tag where most people read?

By the way, I really like Jim’s new paper “Lambda-rings and the field with one element.” Yes, another definition of the category of schemes over F_1; but this approach smells particularly good to me.  Here’s one thing I like.  As always, you have some notion of which Spec Z – schemes descend to Spec F_1, and what should be meant by “descent data.”  In Jim’s story, you can do the same thing starting with S-schemes, where S is an algebraic curve over some finite field F_q.  But the target of this construction is not, as you might initially think, F_q-schemes — rather, there’s another category, “F_1^S-schemes”, which lies between S-schemes and F_q-schemes.  In this category you have, e.g., some rank 1 Drinfel’d modules.  I take this to be saying that you can’t take the slogan “Spec Z is like an algebraic curve over Spec F_1” too seriously; maybe there just isn’t anything which is to Spec Z as Spec F_q is to S.

Tagged , , , , , , , ,

Reader survey: do you follow the arXiv?

For about a year now I’ve been following the math.AG and math.NT postings to the arXiv through Google Reader.  The good side of this is that you find out very quickly about papers in areas of special interest to you.  The downside, I guess, is that it can be sort of distracting; you sit down to work, you flip through the latest listings, maybe there’s one paper that’s interesting enough to read through the introduction and think about a bit, and before you know it the morning’s gone.

On balance, I like following the arXiv and intend to keep doing it.  But I have no sense of whether this is a standard practice, the way it used to be a standard practice (and maybe still is!) to go down to the library and flip through the latest issues of your favorite journals.

So:  do you follow the arXiv?  If so, what do you get out of it?

Tagged ,


We’re in a new era of mathematical publishing indeed; a paper posted yesterday on the arXiv cites a post from this blog as a reference.

The paper, by Strashimir Popvassiliev, constructs for every positive integer n a simple closed plane curve with exactly n inscribed squares. (It’s an old conjecture of Toeplitz that every simple closed plane curve contains at least one inscribed square.) This seems to speak against philosophy, mentioned by Denne in her guest post here, that “the reason” every curve has at least one inscribed square is because every curve has an odd number of inscribed squares.

I’m not sure Popvassiliev’s example really contradicts this philosophy. Surely the squares should be counted with multiplicity, in the appropriate sense. With a more naive notion of “counting” you can’t expect parity conditions to hold. For instance, you certainly want to say that a straight line intersects a smooth closed curve an even number of times. Naively, you might complain that a tangent line to a circle intersects the circle only once! But of course, it really crosses the curve twice; it’s just that the two crossings are at the same point.

Tagged , , , ,

The first link roundup of 2008

Just back from London and trying hard to dig out from the extra tasks that accumulate when you go away for a few days. In the meantime, here’s a few interesting links about which I have less than a full post’s worth to say:

  • The Tastee Diner, beloved greasy spoon of my childhood, grapples with Montgomery County’s new trans-fat ban.
  • The arXiv submission statistics for 2007 are up. This year I started using Google Reader to follow the arXiv, so that each day I see the new postings of number theory and algebraic geometry preprints. I had hoped that this would keep me commendably up-to-date, but in fact there are so many papers posted (about 2 a day in NT and 2.5 per day in AG) that I constantly find myself scrolling through the backlog, barely looking at most of the abstracts. Using an RSS feed is to treat the arXiv like a blog, but the problem is that the arXiv isn’t a blog — it’s not clear to me I get anything out of looking at a posted abstract for 30 seconds, which is about how long I think I spend on a blog post. What it is good for is storing links to preprints for future references; I’m experimenting with using Zotero for this. Have any of my mathy readers successfully worked Zotero into your routine?
  • The New York Times profiles Joseph Weisberg, ex-CIA agent and author of a new spy thriller. Only halfway through the article is it revealed that this is the same Joseph Weisberg who wrote the startlingly brilliant novel 10th grade. First-person first novels about the anxiety of high school life are usually pretty bad, right? But not this one — sharply observed and funny throughout. Best young adult novel I’ve read since I was a young adult.
Tagged , , , , , ,
%d bloggers like this: