Conceptual understanding of the Gross-Zagier theorem. - MathOverflow most recent 30 from http://mathoverflow.net2013-05-25T09:50:32Zhttp://mathoverflow.net/feeds/question/16315http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.5/rdfhttp://mathoverflow.net/questions/16315/conceptual-understanding-of-the-gross-zagier-theoremConceptual understanding of the Gross-Zagier theorem.Regenbogen2010-02-24T22:40:22Z2010-05-16T14:28:15Z
<p>The Gross-Zagier paper "Heegner points and derivatives of $L$-series", is really computational and hard to plow through. It seems it is futile to read it as such and one must look for a more conceptual understanding.</p>
<p>The more conceptual attempts I know are the following:</p>
<p>$1$. The work of Kolyvagin on Birch-Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture, in which he re-proves part of Gross-Zagier using Euler systems. The problem with this is that some of the original Gross-Zagier is still needed for getting the results on BSD conjecture(if I understand things correctly. Please point out if I am wrong).</p>
<p>$2$. The volume of Darmon and Zhang published by MSRI, in which they attempt a $p$-adic theory. Again this is going away from the original complex analytic case. Again please correct me if I am wrong.</p>
<p>So I am wondering whether anybody published a more conceptual approach to the complex analytic Gross-Zagier theorem. I would be grateful for any references.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/16315/conceptual-understanding-of-the-gross-zagier-theorem/16362#16362Answer by Emerton for Conceptual understanding of the Gross-Zagier theorem.Emerton2010-02-25T04:09:55Z2010-02-25T04:09:55Z<p>Some comments, too extensive to fit into the comment box:</p>
<p>(1) There is a fairly recent reworking of at least some parts of the proof in
the book "Heegner points and Rankin $L$-series", MSRI Publ. 49. (Brian Conrad
in particular has a paper in there reworking the deformation theory arguments.)</p>
<p>(2) The theorem is a computation: one computes the height of the Heegner point,
using Neron-Tate local heights, and relates the answer (a sum of contributions from
each place) to a corresponding expression for the derivative. </p>
<p>(3) It is Kolyvagin's work which shows that if the Heegner point is non-zero,
then it generates the Mordell-Weil group (up to finite index); so if you want
motivation for the truth of Gross--Zagier, you can think of it as being a consequence
of BSD + Kolyvagin. (This may be ahistorical, though.)</p>
<p>(4) Historically, Birch was the one who computed Heegner points on elliptic curves,
and found that they were generators of the Mordell--Weil group (up to finite index)
precisely when the rank was one. This was a big source of encouragement for Gross
(as he explained at one point when I was in grad school), because it meant that
there <I>should</I> be a relation between the derivative at 1 and the height of the
Heegner point, and one just had to find it.</p>
<p>(5) The arithmetico-geometric parts of Gross--Zagier are wonderful; I wouldn't at all
think of it as futile to study them. I've not studied the analytic parts, but no doubt they're equally wonderful. </p>
<p>(6) You might start with the Crelle paper of Gross--Zagier, which essentially treats the
case of level one. Since the modular curve of level one has genus 0, the height is necessarily zero, and so one gets a very nice formula relating the sum of the finite local heights to the archimedean local height. And one can prove the same formula another way,
using a special case of the analytic arguments that in the general setting compute the
derivative. The fact that the same formula is obtained these two different ways is a special case of the general Gross--Zagier formula; but it may be simpler to understand the two sides and the comparison between them in this level one setting.</p>
<p>(7) As far as I understand, Kato says nothing in the analytic rank one case.
For BSD in this case, one needs Gross--Zagier plus Kolyvagin.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/16315/conceptual-understanding-of-the-gross-zagier-theorem/16380#16380Answer by unknown (google) for Conceptual understanding of the Gross-Zagier theorem.unknown (google)2010-02-25T09:41:18Z2010-05-15T09:28:37Z<p>Indeed, there is a conceptual understanding of this via "incoherent Siegel-Weil Formula",cft S.Kudla `s papers.See also the last section of recent preprint of Gan-Gross-Prasad.</p>
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/16315/conceptual-understanding-of-the-gross-zagier-theorem/16383#16383Answer by Olivier for Conceptual understanding of the Gross-Zagier theorem.Olivier2010-02-25T10:54:50Z2010-02-25T10:54:50Z<p>In my current (no very deep) understanding, there are two possible ways to make the proof of the Gross-Zagier more conceptual.</p>
<p>The first is to recognize in each terms of the equation products of local terms which are local linear functionals. Now, a famous theorem of Saito and Tunnell states that such linear functionals live in a dimension 1 vector space. So there are proportional and the Gross-Zagier amounts to specifying the factor of proportionality. This requires a large amount of representation theory, but I think now this program has been completed. Using Gross-Prasad conjecture in place of Saito-Tunnell, GZ can apparently be extended widely.</p>
<p>The second is to observe that the $p$-adic variant of GZ is in fact easier to prove (this is because $p$-adic heights naturally factor through the first Bloch-Kato cohomology group). Conceptually, this is maybe not so surprising because Heegner points verify the distribution relations of an Euler system, so they are naturally linked to the $p$-adic $L$-function. Hence, to prove the Gross-Zagier theorem, all there is to do is to relate the special value of the derivative of the $p$-adic $L$-function to the value of the derivative of the complex $L$-function. But here is the rub: as far as I know, proving that the derivative of the $p$-adic $L$-function interpolates $p$-adically the derivative of the $L$-function is more or less equivalent to showing that the $p$-adic height pairing is not degenerate. So this looks hopeless.</p>