MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $k$ be a field. We say that the isogeny theorem holds over $k$ if, for any abelian variety $A$ over $k$, there are only finitely many $k$-isomorphism classes of abelian varieties $B$ over $k$ which are $k$-isogenous to $A$.

Here are some examples of fields for which the isogeny theorem hold.

  1. $k$ is a finite field.
  2. $k$ is a number field (Faltings)

Does the isogeny theorem hold for $k$ a function field over an algebraically closed field of characteristic zero?

Does the isogeny theorem hold for $k$ a function field over a finite field?

In the number field case, by results of Serre-Tate, the Shafarevich conjecture for abelian varieties implies the isogeny theorem.

Does a similar implication hold over $\mathbf C(t)$? (Of course, the naive analogue of the Shafarevich conjecture is false, but Faltings proves a "correct" version in his paper: Arakelov's theorem for abelian varieties.)

share|cite|improve this question
A related question is… – Mike Lowrey Dec 20 '12 at 20:00
I should also mention that this question was inspired by… – Mike Lowrey Dec 20 '12 at 20:00
For a function field over a finite fields, Zarhin proves the isogeny theorem, if one restricts the discussion to isogenies of degree prime to $p$ (otherwise, compositions of relative Frobenius morphisms give a counterexample). See "Isogenies of abelian...", Math USSR Sbornik Vol. 24 (1974), no. 3. For a finitely generated field over a number field the theorem holds by work of Faltings, if I am not mistaken. See the book by Faltings-Wüstholz on the Mordell conjecture (I don't have it at hand). – Damian Rössler Dec 20 '12 at 21:15
I think I understand how to deduce the isogeny theorem for fields of finite type over $\mathbf{Q}$ by a standard specialization argument. The question still remains open for $\mathbf{C}(t)$, I believe. Do note that we have Mordell (Manin's theorem) and "Shafarevich" (Faltings-Arakelov-Parshin) for this field. – Mike Lowrey Dec 20 '12 at 23:25
If you want a sensible answer over $\mathbb{C}(t)$ you'll need some non-isotriviality hypothesis. – Felipe Voloch Dec 21 '12 at 0:16

Over $\mathbb{C}(T)$ the Isogeny theorem doesn't hold, even if you throw away isotrivial components.

In his paper "Arakelov's theorem for Abelian Varieties" Faltings proves the following analogue of Shafarevich:

Let $B$ be complete smooth complex curve and $S\subset B$ a finite subset of points, and $f:X\rightarrow B\backslash{S}$ a family of Abelian varieties. Let $G$ be the fundamental group of $B\backslash{S}$. Fix a point $p\in B\backslash S$ so that we get an action of $G$ on $H_1(X_p,\mathbb{Z})$ by monodromy. Now, say $X$ satisfies (A) if $$End(X)=End_{G}(H_1(X_p,\mathbb{Z})).$$ Note that the LHS also injects into the RHS.

Faltings proves there are finitely many isomorphisms classes $X$ satisfying (A) of a fixed dimension, and he also gives an example of an 8-dimensional family $X$ which doesn't satisfy (A). Now we'll use this $X$ to give a negative answer to the Isogeny theorem:

By a standard argument (see Milne's Abelian Varieties online notes, Chapter IV, Theorem 2.5) if both $X$ and $X\times X$ have at most finitely many isogenous abelian varieties up to isomorphism, by an isogeny of degree a power of some prime $l$, then $$End(X)\otimes\mathbb{Q}_l=End_G(H_1(X_p,\mathbb{Z})\otimes\mathbb{Q}_l)$$ where the second endomorphism ring is as $\mathbb{Q}_l$ vector spaces. However, the latter is false for our $X$ by assumption, since taking group invariants commutes with base change over fields, hence either $X$ or $X\times X$ don't satisfy the isogeny theorem.

$\textbf{However},$ if $X$ is a family of abelian varieties over the generic point of $B$ which extends to a family away from $S$ (in other words, it only has bad reduction at points of $S$) then every abelian varietiy isogenous to $X$ shares this property, since good reduction is an isogeny invariant. Hence the isogeny therem is true for all $X$ satisfying (A), and this includes all $X$ of dimension at most 3 by a theorem of Deligne (see Hodge II, 4.4.13), as long as you insist $X$ has no isotrivial subvarieties.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.