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

A morphism of curves is said to be Galois if the corresponding extension of function fields is Galois.

Let $f:X\longrightarrow Y$ be a finite morphism of smooth projective connected curves over $\mathbf{C}$ (or Riemann surfaces if you prefer) with branch locus $B\subset Y$ and ramification locus $R\subset X$. There exists a finite morphism $g:W\longrightarrow X$ of smooth projective curves such that the composition $f\circ g:W\longrightarrow Y$ is Galois. Take the Galois closure for example.

Can we say something about the branch locus of $g$? For example, when does it lie in $R$?

In my problem I would like to be able to choose $g$ such that the branch locus of $g$ lies in $R$. I have a feeling this is not always possible unfortunately.

The following might help actually. In my problem, $Y$ is the projective line and $f$ is a Belyi morphism. Thus, what I would like to see is that I can choose $g:W\longrightarrow X$ such that the composition $f\circ g$ is Belyi and Galois. Again, this seems unlikely to be possible.

share|improve this question
1  
The composition $f \circ g$ should be etale over the the complement $u$ of the branch locus of $f$ in $X$. This would imply that the branch locus of $g$ lies in the ramification locus of $f$. To prove the you could form the Galois closure of the restriction of $f$ to the preimage of $U$ inside the Galois category of etale coverings (SGA1... ) –  Holger Partsch Mar 5 '11 at 12:22
    
Ok. I'll look it up. –  Ariyan Javanpeykar Mar 6 '11 at 12:51
    
I guess Dmitri's answer is a special case of yours, right? –  Ariyan Javanpeykar Mar 6 '11 at 16:29

3 Answers 3

up vote 3 down vote accepted

This is to address the last part of your question -- about Belyi morphism. The answer is YES: you can always get $g: W\to X$ such that $f\circ g: W\to \mathbb CP^1$ is Belyi.

Indeed, $X\to \mathbb CP^1$ is Belyi if it ramifies only over $0,1,\infty$. Let us now conisder $\hat X=f^{-1}(\mathbb CP^1\setminus (0,1,\infty))$. Clearly, $f_*\pi_1(\hat X)$ is a finite index subgroup of $\pi_1(\mathbb CP^1\setminus (0,1,\infty))=F_2$. The map $f:X\to \mathbb CP^1$ is Galois iff $f_*\pi_1(\hat X)$ is normal in $F_2$.

Now, take a normal subgroup $N$ in $F_2$ of finite index, contained in $f_*(\pi_1(\hat X))$ and take the corresponding cover $\mathbb CP^1\setminus (0,1,\infty)$, call it $\hat W$. The completion $W$ of $\hat W$ is what you are looking for.

Added. In order to find a normal subgroup of finite index we use the following standard lemma (I forgot the name):

Lemma. Let $G$ be any group and $G_1$ be any finite index subgroup. Then there exists $N\subset G_1$ of finite index, and such that $N$ is normal in $G$.

Proof. $G$ is acting on the left on the finite set of cosets $G/G_1$. Let $N$ be the subgroup of $G$ that acts trivially on $G/G_1$. Clearly $N$ is normal in $G$ and the index of $N$ is at most $\#(G/G_1)!$

EDIT (by SK): fixed LaTeX

share|improve this answer
    
Why does there exist a normal subgroup N in F_2 of finite index, contained in f_*(pi_1(X))? –  Ariyan Javanpeykar Mar 6 '11 at 12:51
    
I mean f_*(pi_1(\hat{X})). –  Ariyan Javanpeykar Mar 6 '11 at 12:52

Your feeling is correct, in fact the branch locus of $\mathcal{g}$ usually does not lie in $R$.

For example, take a general projection $f \colon X \to L$, where $X \subset \mathbb{P}^2$ is a smooth cubic and $L$ is a general line. Since the class of $X$ is $3(3-1)=6$, it follows that there are six distinct tangent lines to $X$ through a general point of $\mathbb{P}^2$, so $f$ is branched in six points, with branching number $2$ (this means that around any of the six branching points the local monodromy is a transposition).

Scheme theoretically we have

$f^*B=2R+R'$,

where $R$ is the ramification divisor and $R'$ is a degree six divisor on $X$ where $f$ is not ramified.

Now take the double cover $g \colon W \to X$ such that $h=f \circ g \colon W \to L$ is the Galois closure of $f$. Since points lying in the same fiber of $h$ must have conjugate (hence isomorphic) stabilizers, it follows that $g$ is ramified precisely over $R'$, in particular it is unramified over $R$.

More generally, the same argument shows that if $g \colon W \to X$ is any finite cover such that $f \circ g \colon W \to L$ is Galois, then the branch locus of $g$ must contain $R'$.

share|improve this answer

As correctly awnsered by Dimitri, given a Belyi map $f:X\to Y$, there exists a finite cover $g:Z\to X$ such that the composition $h=f\circ g:Z\to Y$ is Belyi and Galois (this is true in the more general setting of finite covers of curves, namely, the Galois closure of a cover $X\to Y$ does not change the branch locus in $Y$). Working in characteristic $0$, the description of the branch locus $B'$ of $g$ essentially follows from Abhyankar's lemma: first of all, $B'$ is contained in the set $f^{-1}(\lbrace\infty,0,1\rbrace)\supset R$. Let $e_\infty$ be the lcm of the ramification indices of the points of $R$ lying in the fiber $f^{-1}(\infty)$. Then a point point $P\in f^{-1}(\infty)$ belongs to $B'$ if and only if its ramifiaction index is strictly less than $e_\infty$. The same applies also for the points in $f^{-1}(0)$ and $f^{-1}(1)$ and leads to a complete description of $B'$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thnx! So if I understand correctly, we know that the branch locus of g lies in f^{-1}(0,1,infty). Then, there is a simple criterion (which you describe) to decide which points in f^{-1}(0,1,infty) are branch points. And this is not in contradiction to Francesco's answer because his R' is contained in f^{-1}(0,1,infty), right? –  Ariyan Javanpeykar May 3 '11 at 8:12
    
You're welcome! And yes, you're right, no contradiction with the nice example of Francesco: the Galois closure of his degree 3 cover is ramified over 6 points (and not 3, but the criterion works in full generality), with ramification index 2 (the gcd of the ramification indices over each branch point). Therefore, g is unramified over R and ramifies exaclty over R'. –  Leonardo May 3 '11 at 12:01

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.