3

Given an irreducible smooth complex-projective curve $X$, I will say that a subgroup $\Gamma< SL(2, {\mathbb R})$ weakly uniformizes $X$ if [corrected] there exists a nonconstant holomorphic map from ${\mathbb H}^2/\Gamma$ to $X$.

One formulation of the Shumura-Taniyama conjecture is that if $X$ is (the set of complex points of) an elliptic curve defined over ${\mathbb Q}$, then there exists a congruence-subgroup $\Gamma< SL(2, {\mathbb Z})$ which weakly uniformizes $X$.

(I learned this from the paper by Barry Mazur "Number theory as a gadfly, but misremembered the statement.)

Question: What if we remove the assumption that $X$ is elliptic: Does this result still hold?

Remark. 1. One reformulation of Belyi's theorem is that if $X$ is a complex-projective curve over $\bar{\mathbb Q}$ then $X$ is uniformized by a finite index subgroup $\Gamma$ of $SL(2, {\mathbb Z})$, in the sense that ${\mathbb H}^2/\Gamma$ is biholomorphic to an open (and dense) subset of $X$.

  1. I am a topologist, not a number-theorist, so my interest in this question is purely casual.

Update. (Thanks to a comment by François Brunault). The paper

Baker, Matthew H.; González-Jiménez, Enrique; Gonzáles, Josep; Poonen, Bjorn, Finiteness results for modular curves of genus at least 2, Am. J. Math. 127, No. 6, 1325-1387 (2005). ZBL1127.11041.

contains some results suggesting that the answer is strongly negative, i.e. that for each genus $\ge 2$ only finitely many curves over ${\mathbb Q}$ are weakly uniformized by congruence subgroups of $SL(2, {\mathbb Z})$. They conjecture this finiteness property under the extra assumption that the holomorphic map is a morphism defined over ${\mathbb Q}$. I have no feel for how strong this restriction is. They prove this conjecture under certain extra assumptions.

Moishe Kohan
  • 9,664
  • 2
    I don't think your statement of the Shimura-Taniyama conj is correct. Rademacher's conjecture (proven by Dennin) says that there are only finitely many congruence subgps of a given genus. Since there are inf. many elliptic curves over $\mathbb{Q}$, they can't all be isom to a congruence modular curve. This also of course implies that the statement for general $X$ is also false... – Will Chen Mar 06 '21 at 17:24
  • 2
    ... The modularity theorem says that every elliptic curve over $\mathbb{Q}$ admits a congruence modular curve as a branched cover (so the elliptic curve is isogenous to a factor of the jacobian of the modular curve). In all but finitely many cases the modular curve has higher genus. – Will Chen Mar 06 '21 at 17:32
  • 2
    The curves of genus $g \geq 2$ which can be uniformised by (congruence) modular curves have been studied by Baker, Gonzalez-Jimenez, Gonzalez, Poonen: http://www-math.mit.edu/~poonen/papers/finiteness.pdf Essentially, for a given genus $\geq 2$, there are only finitely many such curves, in contrast with elliptic curves. – François Brunault Mar 06 '21 at 17:42
  • 2
    Will Chen is completely right - the correct claim replaces "biholomorphic" with "admits a nonconstant/surjective holomorphic map". – Will Sawin Mar 06 '21 at 18:46
  • 1
    I'm sorry to hijack the conversation but I was curious about a related problem: in this comment JS Milne mentions that a version of modularity does not hold even if we consider Shimura varieties in place of modular curves. However looking at the referenced paper of Blasius I was not able to decipher an argument for that. Can anyone clarify that or point to a reference which discusses it in more detail? – Wojowu Mar 06 '21 at 21:40
  • 1
    Both Wills are right (don’t forget Riemann extension!) of course! Maybe the OP is after something like Prop. 1.2 of Bogomolov-Tschinkel’s “Unram. Corr.s” ( https://arxiv.org/pdf/math/0202223.pdf )? Also @Wojowu I’m guessing you’re referring to Thm. 2 in Blasius’s “abs. Hodge conj.” paper — I think Milne’s pt. is that the geom. consequence (“isog. factor of Jac.”) can’t hold over all num. fields cause the isog. factors of Alb.s of Shim. var.s all come from Jac.s of Shim. curves (and Shim. curves are def. over a tot. real field, so some power must be \Qbar-isog. to all its Gal(\Qbar/F) conj.s). – alpoge Mar 06 '21 at 22:17
  • 1
    @alpoge I can only understand about a third of your comment, but what I can decipher seems very interesting. Would you mind writing it in a slightly less abbreviated form? – David Loeffler Mar 06 '21 at 22:44
  • @DavidLoeffler I hope I didn’t say anything dumb... Sorry if so!!! To be honest I didn’t think through the condition over a general totally real field F that carefully but if I’m not mistaken if an (I guess I should say non-CM somewhere) abelian variety A/\Qbar is a \Qbar-isogeny factor of the Jacobian of a modular curve, then it’s a so-called building block and I think the standard reference is Pyle’s thesis https://math.berkeley.edu/~ribet/pyle_thesis.pdf under Ribet. Being a building block implies the abelian variety is \Q-isogenous to all its Gal(\Qbar/\Q)-conjugates, for example. – alpoge Mar 06 '21 at 22:54
  • (I should’ve taken A to be \Qbar-simple above.) I believe the Albert classification arguments one uses to characterize the K-isogeny factors (K any number field) of a GL_2-type abelian variety go through over a general number field and tell you that a GL_2-type abelian variety over K is either isotypic (i.e. a power of a K-simple GL_2-type abelian variety) or else a product of powers of CM abelian varieties, so if A/\Qbar is non-CM, \Qbar-simple, and occurs as a \Qbar-isogeny factor of an F-simple GL_2-type abelian variety B over a totally real F, then B is \Qbar-isogenous to a power of A. – alpoge Mar 06 '21 at 23:03
  • So that’s what I was imagining applying to the isogeny factors of the Jacobian of a Shimura curve — example: if a non-CM elliptic curve E/\Qbar is a \Qbar-isogeny factor of the Jacobian of a modular curve, then factoring that Jacobian into \Q-simple factors, it’s then a \Qbar-isogeny factor of one of those \Q-simple factors, let’s say B (which is now of GL_2-type over \Q). Those Albert classification arguments mean that B/\Qbar is \Qbar-isogenous to E^n for some n, and since B is defined over \Q it follows that E^n is \Qbar-isogenous to all its Gal(\Qbar/\Q)-conjugates. Something like that... – alpoge Mar 06 '21 at 23:12
  • (I guess I should also clarify that e.g. Pyle’s definition of GL_2-type differs from my usage in that for me an abelian variety $A/K$ is of GL_2-type over $K$ iff there is a number field $E$ of degree $\dim{A}$ and an embedding $E\to \End_K(A)\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}} \mathbb{Q}$ of $E$ into its algebra of $K$-endomorphisms. Pyle’s definition requires $K = \mathbb{Q}$. I think maybe some people use a different definition where $E$ is allowed to be a product of number fields? But under my conventions $J_0(N)$ is not of GL_2-type over $\mathbb{Q}$, though its $\mathbb{Q}$-simple factors are.) – alpoge Mar 06 '21 at 23:27
  • @WillChen: You are absolutely right, I misremembered the statement. It is corrected now. – Moishe Kohan Mar 07 '21 at 08:02
  • @alpoge Another reference is Guitart-Quer: https://arxiv.org/abs/0905.2550 They use a more general definition of GL_2-type. – François Brunault Mar 07 '21 at 08:25
  • @FrançoisBrunault I've probably misunderstood but it seems they also force an abelian variety of $\mathrm{GL}_2$-type to be defined over $\mathbb{Q}$! But indeed that's a good reference. Also there is the thesis of Chenyan Wu at Columbia under Shou-wu Zhang: https://academiccommons.columbia.edu/doi/10.7916/D8RF621W , and of course Ribet's original works. Unfortunately everyone is either eventually working over $\mathbb{Q}$ or a totally real field so they don't work out the Albert classification argument in full generality. Sooner or later there'll be something online that does that... – alpoge Mar 07 '21 at 09:11

0 Answers0