I promised to say a little more about why I think the result of Habegger’s recent paper, ” Small Height and Infinite Non-Abelian Extensions,” is so cool.

First of all: we say an algebraic extension K of Q has the *Bogomolov property* if there is no infinite sequence of non-torsion elements x in K^* whose absolute logarithmic height tends to 0. Equivalently, 0 is isolated in the set of absolute heights in K^*. Finite extensions of Q evidently have the Bogomolov property (henceforth: (B)) but for infinite extensions the question is much subtler. Certainly itself doesn’t have (B): consider the sequence On the other hand, the maximal abelian extension of Q is known to have (B) (Amoroso-Dvornicich) , as is any extension which is totally split at some fixed place p (Schinzel for the real prime, Bombieri-Zannier for the other primes.)

Habegger has proved that, when E is an elliptic curve over Q, the field Q(E^tors) obtained by adjoining all torsion points of E has the Bogomolov property.

What does this have to do with gonality, and with my paper with Chris Hall and Emmanuel Kowalski from last year?

Suppose we ask about the Bogomolov property for extensions of a more general field F? Well, F had better admit a notion of absolute Weil height. This is certainly OK when F is a global field, like the function field of a curve over a finite field k; but in fact it’s fine for the function field of a complex curve as well. So let’s take that view; in fact, for simplicity, let’s take F to be C(t).

What does it mean for an algebraic extension F’ of F to have the Bogomolov property? It means that there is a constant c such that, for every finite subextension L of F and every non-constant function x in L^*, the absolute logarithmic height of x is at least c.

Now L is the function field of some complex algebraic curve C, a finite cover of P^1. And a non-constant function x in L^* can be thought of as a nonzero principal divisor. The logarithmic height, in this context, is just the number of zeroes of x — or, if you like, the number of poles of x — or, if you like, the *degree* of x, thought of as a morphism from C to the projective line. (Not necessarily the projective line of which C is a cover — a new projective line!) In the number field context, it was pretty easy to see that the log height of non-torsion elements of L^* was bounded away from 0. That’s true here, too, even more easily — a non-constant map from C to P^1 has degree at least 1!

There’s one convenient difference between the geometric case and the number field case. The lowest log height of a non-torsion element of L^* — that is, the least degree of a non-constant map from C to P^1 — already has a name. It’s called the *gonality* of C. For the Bogomolov property, the relevant number isn’t the log height, but the absolute log height, which is to say the gonality divided by [L:F].

So the Bogomolov property for F’ — what we might call the *geometric Bogomolov property* — says the following. We think of F’ as a family of finite covers C / P^1. Then

(GB) There is a constant c such that the gonality of C is at least c deg(C/P^1), for every cover C in the family.

What kinds of families of covers are geometrically Bogomolov? As in the number field case, you can certainly find *some* families that fail the test — for instance, gonality is bounded above in terms of genus, so any family of curves C with growing degree over P^1 but bounded genus will do the trick.

On the other hand, the family of modular curves over X(1) *is* geometrically Bogomolov; this was proved (independently) by Abramovich and Zograf. This is a gigantic and elegant generalization of Ogg’s old theorem that only finitely many modular curves are hyperelliptic (i.e. only finitely many have gonality 2.)

At this point we have actually more or less proved the geometric version of Habegger’s theorem! Here’s the idea. Take F = C(t) and let E/F be an elliptic curve; then to prove that F(E(torsion)) has (GB), we need to give a lower bound for the curve C_N obtained by adjoining an N-torsion point to F. (I am slightly punting on the issue of being careful about other fields contained in F(E(torsion)), but I don’t think this matters.) But C_N admits a dominant map to X_1(N); gonality goes down in dominant maps, so the Abramovich-Zograf bound on the gonality of X_1(N) provides a lower bound for the gonality of C_N, and it turns out that this gives exactly the bound required.

What Chris, Emmanuel and I proved is that (GB) is true in much greater generality — in fact (using recent results of Golsefidy and Varju that slightly postdate our paper) it holds for *any* extension of C(t) whose Galois group is a perfect Lie group with Z_p or Zhat coefficients and which is ramified at finitely many places; not just the extension obtained by adjoining torsion of an elliptic curve, for instance, but the one you get from the torsion of an abelian variety of arbitrary dimension, or for that matter any other motive with sufficiently interesting Mumford-Tate group.

**Question: **Is Habegger’s theorem true in this generality? For instance, if A/Q is an abelian variety, does Q(A(tors)) have the Bogomolov property?

**Question:** Is there any invariant of a number field which plays the role in the arithmetic setting that “spectral gap of the Laplacian” plays for a complex algebraic curve?

A word about Habegger’s proof. We know that number fields are a lot more like F_q(t) than they are like C(t). And the analogue of the Abramovich-Zograf bound for modular curves over F_q is known as well, by a theorem of Poonen. The argument is not at all like that of Abramovich and Zograf, which rests on analysis in the end. Rather, Poonen observes that modular curves in characteristic p have lots of supersingular points, because the square of Frobenius acts as a scalar on the l-torsion in the supersingular case. But having a lot of points gives you a lower bound on gonality! A curve with a degree d map to P^1 has at most d(q+1) points, just because the preimage of each of the q+1 points of P^1(q) has size at most d. (You just never get too old or too sophisticated to whip out the Pigeonhole Principle at an opportune moment….)

Now I haven’t studied Habegger’s argument in detail yet, but look what you find right in the introduction:

The non-Archimedean estimate is done at places above an auxiliary prime number p where E has good supersingular reduction and where some other technical conditions are met…. In this case we will obtain an explicit height lower bound swiftly using the product formula, cf. Lemma 5.1. The crucial point is that supersingularity forces the square of the Frobenius to act as a scalar on the reduction of E modulo p.

Yup! There’s no mention of Poonen in the paper, so I think Habegger came to this idea independently. Very satisfying! The hard case — for Habegger as for Poonen — has to do with the fields obtained by adjoining p-torsion, where p is the characteristic of the supersingular elliptic curve driving the argument. It would be very interesting to hear from Poonen and/or Habegger whether the arguments are similar in that case too!