Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $\pi :C\rightarrow \mathbb{P}^{1}$ be a cyclic cover of degree $m$ of $\mathbb{P}^{1}$. So $C$ has an action of $\mathbb{Z}/m\mathbb{Z}$. Let $\xi$ be a primitive $m$-th root of unity. Consider the cohomology group $V_{\mathbb{Q}}=H^{1}(C,\mathbb{Q})$. In the book "Cylic covers, Calabi-Yau manifolds and complex multiplication" (by Jan Christian Rohde) page 80, we read: "In general there is no $\mathbb{Q}(\xi)$-structure on $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{Q})$ which turnes $H^{1}(C,\mathbb{Q})$ into a $\mathbb{Q}(\xi)$-vector space " and then he gives a direct sum decomposition with different $\mathbb{Q}(\xi^{r})$-structures. But in many books and articles on this subject it is just claimed that $V_{\mathbb{Q}}$ has an induced action of $\mathbb{Q}(\xi)$(Like: de Jong and Noot : "Jacobians with complex multiplication"). Which one is true? However, my second question is: even if there is an action of $\mathbb{Q}(\xi)$, I think we then must have two different $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space structures on $V_{\mathbb{Q}}$. The first one is the usual one and one coming from $\mathbb{Q}\hookrightarrow \mathbb{Q}(\xi)$. Since if $dim_{\mathbb{Q}}V_{\mathbb{Q}}=g$, then by the induced action from $\mathbb{Q}\hookrightarrow \mathbb{Q}(\xi)$, it's dimension should be $dim_{\mathbb{Q}}V_{\mathbb{Q}}=m dimV_{\mathbb{Q}(\xi)}$ ($V_{\mathbb{Q}(\xi)}$ means $V_{\mathbb{Q}}$ as a $\mathbb{Q}(\xi)$-vector space ). But this two in general do not agree ($2g=g (C)$ and in general is not even divisible by $m$). So the $\mathbb{Q}$-structures should be different. Is this true? Can one give a good explanation of this?

share|improve this question
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I think you will find that the space is a $\mathbb Q[x]/(x^m-1)$, which is a product of fields, including $\mathbb Q(\xi)$, where $\xi$ is a primitive $m$th root of unit. Thus it decomposes as a sum of vector spaces over different fields. There is no reason that $\mathbb Q(\xi)$ should be the only field, and thus no reason why $g$ should be a multiple of $\phi(m)$ - and indeed, we can easily construct examples where it is not. I hope the examples you found used square brackets instead of round ones!

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks but I did not get your meaning by the last sentence! As far as I know: $\mathbb{Q}(\xi)=\mathbb{Q}[\xi]$. And also, $\mathbb{Q}[x]/{x^{m}}$ is just an $m$-times product of $\mathbb{Q}$. –  Darius Math Sep 6 '13 at 16:14
    
$Q(\xi)$ is the field extenction generated by a primitive $m$th root of unity. $\mathbb Q[x]/(x^m-1)$ is not a field, since it has zero divisors: $(x-1)(\sum_{k=1}^{m-1} x^k)=0$. The first is a $\phi(m)$-dimensional vector space over $\mathbb Q$, and the second is $m$-dimensional. –  Will Sawin Sep 6 '13 at 16:21
    
Of course I did not claim $\mathbb{Q}[x]/(x^{m}-1)$ is a field, but it is not equal to $\mathbb{Q}[\xi]$, my meaning was that $\mathbb{Q}[\xi]=\mathbb{Q}[x]/ \Phi_{m-1}(x)=\mathbb{Q}(\xi)$ is a field. And it is normally said that there is an action of this on the cohomology. But now this should give (at least) two $\mathbb{Q}$-vector space structures. –  Darius Math Sep 6 '13 at 16:27
    
There is an action of that on the cohomology when $m$ is prime, or in certain other special cases. I think the references you see are either in those cases, or using notation where $\mathbb Q[\xi]\neq \mathbb Q(\xi)$. But the second vector space structure does not exist in general. –  Will Sawin Sep 6 '13 at 17:20
    
When you write $\mathbb{Q}[x]/x^m$, do you really want $x$ to be nilpotent? –  S. Carnahan Sep 6 '13 at 18:41
show 1 more comment

I think I just found my answer. The Jacobians in the family are equipped with an action of the group ring $\mathbb{Z}[\xi_{m}]$. So the action on $V_{\mathbb{Q}}$ is that of the group ring $\mathbb{Q}[\xi_{m}]=\prod_{d|m} K_{d}$. So it is a module over this group ring and not just a vector space.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.