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

I'm trying to understand Belyi's theorem, as presented here: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/29785/1/b45h1koe.pdf

He defines a curve $X$ over a field $C$ to be a smooth projective geometrically connected integral separated scheme of dimension 1 with a morphism $p : X\rightarrow\text{Spec}(C)$ of finite type. (Essentially a variety over $K$)

Further, if $X/C$ is a curve over $C$ and $\sigma\in\text{Aut}(C)$, we define $X^\sigma/C$ to have exactly the same underlying scheme as $X/C$, but whose structure morphism is twisted by $\sigma$. Ie, if $p : X\rightarrow\text{Spec}(C)$ is the structure morphism for $X/C$, then $p^\sigma : X\rightarrow\text{Spec}(C)\stackrel{\text{Spec}(\sigma)}{\longrightarrow}\text{Spec}(C)$ is the structure morphism for $X^\sigma/C$.

In particular, this means that the function fields of $X/C$ and $X^\sigma/C$ are literally the same, so that a morphism between $X/C$ and $X^\sigma/C$ is an $\textit{auto}$morphism of the scheme $X$ (that is compatible with the different structure morphisms), and so induces an $\textit{auto}$morphism of its function field.

Now, let $X$ be a curve over a field $C$, and let $t\in K(X)$ be a morphism to $\mathbb{P}^1_C$. Let $Q$ be a point on $\mathbb{P}^1_C$ above which $t$ is unramified, and let $P\in X$ be any preimage of $Q$ under $t$. Now, in the middle of page 260 in the paper, he defines $U(X,t,P)$ to be the subgroup of $\text{Aut}(C)$ such that there is an isomorphism $f_\sigma : X^\sigma\rightarrow X$ such that $f_\sigma(P^\sigma) = P$ and a certain diagram commutes. (I can only refer you to the diagram in middle of page 260 through the link provided above). Here, he defines $P^\sigma$ as the point on $X^\sigma$ corresponding to $P$, by which he presumably means exactly the same point of $P$, but viewed as a point on $X^\sigma$.

I understand why there can be at most one such isomorphism $f_\sigma$ for each $\sigma$, but what I don't understand is why the automorphism induced on $K(X)$ by $f_\sigma$ fixes $t$. Specifically, when he says:

"Thus, mapping $\sigma$ to the automorphism of the function field $K(X)$ induced by $f_\sigma$ yields an action of $U(X,t,P)$ on $K(X)$ by $C$-semilinear field automorphisms which fix $t\in K(X)$"

As I understand, the automorphism $f_\sigma$ induces is defined by sending any $g\in K(X)$ to $f^*g = g\circ f$, but on $t$, we have $f^*t = t\circ f$, which by the commutative diagram is $\text{Proj}(\sigma)\circ t^\sigma$. However, he never defines $t^\sigma$, and I can only assume that it's the "twin" of $t$ living on $K(X^\sigma) = K(X)$. But since $\text{Proj}(\sigma)$ is not (generally) the identity, there's no way that $f^*t$ can equal $t$.

I apologize for asking such a long question, but I've been stuck on this detail for many hours now, and feel like it's probably a very simple, though subtle fact that I'm missing.

thanks

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

So apparently the way to see this is to first note that while the function fields of $X$ and $X^\sigma$ have the ``same'' function field, the same element, viewed as a function in one function field, is not the same that element viewed as a function in the other function field.

In short, the best way to note that the automorphism induced by $f_\sigma$ indeed does fix $t$ is to look at the induced diagram on the stalks at the generic point.

share|improve this answer
    
If someone else votes up this answer, it will not be bumped to the front page by MOUser again. –  Steven Gubkin May 29 '12 at 20:50
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.