MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

The Bolza curve B double covers the Riemann sphere with branching at the vertices of a regular octahedron. An affine model is given by the locus of $y^2=x^5-x$. How does one show that B does not admit an anticonformal fixedpointfree involution?

share|cite|improve this question
Peter and katz, you are right, I deleted my answer. – Alexandre Eremenko Mar 7 '13 at 22:23

Here is a reasoning which uses (as Peter's one) the fact that on every hyperelliptic curve the hyper-elliptic involution $\sigma$ commutes with every conformal self-map (since hyper-elliptic involution is unique).

Suppose $\sigma_1$ is an orientation reversing fixed point free involution of $B$. Then since $\sigma\sigma_1=\sigma_1\sigma$ the action of $\sigma_1$ on $B$ descends to an orientation reversing involution (call it $\sigma_2$) on $\mathbb CP^1=B/\sigma_1$. Clearly $\sigma_2$ permutes $6$ vertices of the octahedron and it does not fix any of them. So $\sigma_2$ is the central symmetry of (octahedral) $\mathbb CP^1$. Now, take on $\mathbb CP^1$ any big circle $S^1$ (invariant under $\sigma_2$) that does not pass through the vertices. Let $S'^1$ be its preimage on $B$. $S'^1$ is a circle the double covers $S^1$ (because $S^1$ splits $6$ vertices on $\mathbb CP^1$ into two groups of $3$ verities). Since $\sigma_2$ makes the half-turn of $S^1$ it follows that $\sigma_1$ makes a quoter turn of $S'^1$. So it is not an involution of $B$. Contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer

Let $\mathbb C(x,y)$ be the function field of the curve $B$. From $y^2=x^5-x$ we obtain that each element in $\mathbb C(x,y)$ has the form $A(x)+yB(x)$ with rational functions $A$ and $B$. Identify the conformal automorphisms of $B$ with the $\mathbb C$-automorphisms of $\mathbb C(x,y)$.

Thus any conformal automorphism of $B$ has the form $(x,y)\mapsto (R(x)+yU(x),V(x)+yS(x))$ with rational functions $R,S,U,V$. Now it is well known that the hyperelliptic involution $(x,y)\mapsto (x,-y)$ of a hyperelliptic curve commutes with all conformal automorphisms. (The reason for that is that $\mathbb C(x)$ is the unique degree $2$ rational subfield of $\mathbb C(x,y)$.) Writing out what it means that the hyperelliptic involution commutes with conformal automorphisms yields $U=V=0$.

An anti-conformal automorphism is the composition of a map as above and complex conjugation, so it has the form $$\sigma: (x,y)\mapsto (R(\bar x),\bar yS(\bar x))$$ Assuming that $\sigma$ is an involution yields the necessary condition $$R(\bar R(x))=x,$$ where $\bar R$ arises from $R$ by complex conjugation of the coefficients.

In particular, $R$ has degree $1$, so it is a linear fractional map.

As $(R(x),yS(x))$ is on the curve when $(x,y)$ is on the curve, we get $$(x^5-x)S(x)^2=R(x)^5-R(x).$$

Looking at degrees and poles shows that either $R(x)=\gamma(x-\alpha)$ or $R(x)=\gamma/(x-\alpha)$ for some $\alpha$ with $\alpha^5=\alpha$ and $\gamma\in\mathbb C$.

In the first case, degrees tell us that $S(x)$ is a constant $\delta$. Upon replacing $x$ by $x+\alpha$ we get $$((x+\alpha)^5-(x+\alpha))\delta^2=\gamma^5 x^5-\gamma x.$$ Comparing at $x^4$ yields $\alpha=0$. So $R(x)=\gamma x$. But then $R(0)=S(0)=0$, and $(0,0)$ is a fixed point of $\sigma$.

In the second case we have $R(x)=\gamma/(x-\alpha)$. This forces $S(x)=\delta/(x-\alpha)^3$ for some $\delta$. Again, replacing $x$ with $x+\alpha$ and clearing denominators yields $\alpha=0$. We obtain $R(x)=\gamma/x$. From $R(\bar R(x))=x$ we get $\gamma/\bar\gamma=1$, so $\gamma$ is real.

Easy calculations yield $\gamma^4=1$, so $\gamma=\pm1$, and $S(x)=\delta/x^3$ with $\delta^2=-\gamma$. So $$ \sigma: (x,y)\mapsto (-\delta^2/\bar x,\delta\bar y/\bar x^3)$$ with $\delta^2=\pm1$.

We compute $$\sigma^2:(x,y)\mapsto (x,-\frac{\delta}{\bar\delta}y).$$

As $\sigma^2=1$, we get $\delta^2=-1$. But then $(1,0)$ is a fixed point of $\sigma$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks, Peter, this is tremendous. I wonder if one could write down something simpler. We have an argument at (see section 8), but it is a bit involved. Will keep thinking. – Mikhail Katz Mar 9 '13 at 20:05

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.