Skip to main content
deleted 138 characters in body; deleted 11 characters in body; edited body
Source Link
Vesselin Dimitrov
  • 13.8k
  • 3
  • 56
  • 95

I thought it were obviousIt is a general fact that on any simple abelian variety, an effective divisor is ample. What is wrong with theThe following argument?

Let $A$ be the simple abelian variety and $D \subset A$ an effective divisor. Considerresult underlies the stabilizer $$ Z_D: \hspace{3cm} \{x \in A \mid x+D = D\}. $$ It is anusual algebraic subgroupproof of $A$, and hence it is finite. It is a standard fact that the finitenessprojectivity of $Z_D$ is equivalent to $D$ being ampleabelian varieties (the reverse being trivialdefined initially only as complete group varieties).

Reference for It is therefore rather standard; the latter fact: see, for example,first reference which comes to mind is Lemma 8.5.6 on page 253 in the abelian varieties chapter of the book Heights in diophantine geometry by Bombieri and Gubler, from which I quote literally. In virtually any proof of

Let A be an abelian variety and $D$ an effective divisor such that the subgroup $$ Z_D : \hspace{3cm} \{ a \in A \mid a + D = D \} $$ is finite. Then $D$ is ample on $A$.

If the projectivity of abelian varieties (defined initially asvariety complete group varieties), this fact$A$ is shown and used implicitysimple, if not stated explicitly.and (E.g.$D$ is non-zero, see J. S. Milne's 1986 article on abelian varieties inthen the $Z_D$ is Arithmetic geometrya fortiori. Also finite, I thinksince it should appear, explicitly, in Milne's course notes on abelian varieties, although I did not check thisis a proper algebraic subgroup of $A$; and it follows from the quoted Lemma 8.)5.6 that $D$ is ample.

ApplicationAn application. A surjective morphism $f: A \to Y$ from a simple abelian variety onto a positive-dimensional projective variety $Y$ is finite.A surjective morphism $f: A \to X$ from a simple abelian variety onto a positive-dimensional projective variety $X$ is finite.

Proof. Choose $H \subset Y$$H \subset X$ an ample divisor. The divisor $f^*H$ is effective on $A$, hence it is ample. This is equivalent to $f$ being finite.

I thought it were obvious that on any simple abelian variety, an effective divisor is ample. What is wrong with the following argument?

Let $A$ be the simple abelian variety and $D \subset A$ an effective divisor. Consider the stabilizer $$ Z_D: \hspace{3cm} \{x \in A \mid x+D = D\}. $$ It is an algebraic subgroup of $A$, and hence it is finite. It is a standard fact that the finiteness of $Z_D$ is equivalent to $D$ being ample (the reverse being trivial).

Reference for the latter fact: see, for example, Lemma 8.5.6 in the abelian varieties chapter of the book Heights in diophantine geometry by Bombieri and Gubler. In virtually any proof of the projectivity of abelian varieties (defined initially as complete group varieties), this fact is shown and used implicity, if not stated explicitly. (E.g., see J. S. Milne's 1986 article on abelian varieties in Arithmetic geometry. Also, I think it should appear, explicitly, in Milne's course notes on abelian varieties, although I did not check this.)

Application. A surjective morphism $f: A \to Y$ from a simple abelian variety onto a positive-dimensional projective variety $Y$ is finite.

Proof. Choose $H \subset Y$ an ample divisor. The divisor $f^*H$ is effective on $A$, hence it is ample. This is equivalent to $f$ being finite.

It is a general fact that on any simple abelian variety, an effective divisor is ample. The following result underlies the usual algebraic proof of the projectivity of abelian varieties (defined initially only as complete group varieties). It is therefore rather standard; the first reference which comes to mind is Lemma 8.5.6 on page 253 in the abelian varieties chapter of the book Heights in diophantine geometry by Bombieri and Gubler, from which I quote literally.

Let A be an abelian variety and $D$ an effective divisor such that the subgroup $$ Z_D : \hspace{3cm} \{ a \in A \mid a + D = D \} $$ is finite. Then $D$ is ample on $A$.

If the abelian variety $A$ is simple, and $D$ is non-zero, then the $Z_D$ is a fortiori finite, since it is a proper algebraic subgroup of $A$; and it follows from the quoted Lemma 8.5.6 that $D$ is ample.

An application. A surjective morphism $f: A \to X$ from a simple abelian variety onto a positive-dimensional projective variety $X$ is finite.

Proof. Choose $H \subset X$ an ample divisor. The divisor $f^*H$ is effective on $A$, hence it is ample. This is equivalent to $f$ being finite.

Source Link
Vesselin Dimitrov
  • 13.8k
  • 3
  • 56
  • 95

I thought it were obvious that on any simple abelian variety, an effective divisor is ample. What is wrong with the following argument?

Let $A$ be the simple abelian variety and $D \subset A$ an effective divisor. Consider the stabilizer $$ Z_D: \hspace{3cm} \{x \in A \mid x+D = D\}. $$ It is an algebraic subgroup of $A$, and hence it is finite. It is a standard fact that the finiteness of $Z_D$ is equivalent to $D$ being ample (the reverse being trivial).

Reference for the latter fact: see, for example, Lemma 8.5.6 in the abelian varieties chapter of the book Heights in diophantine geometry by Bombieri and Gubler. In virtually any proof of the projectivity of abelian varieties (defined initially as complete group varieties), this fact is shown and used implicity, if not stated explicitly. (E.g., see J. S. Milne's 1986 article on abelian varieties in Arithmetic geometry. Also, I think it should appear, explicitly, in Milne's course notes on abelian varieties, although I did not check this.)

Application. A surjective morphism $f: A \to Y$ from a simple abelian variety onto a positive-dimensional projective variety $Y$ is finite.

Proof. Choose $H \subset Y$ an ample divisor. The divisor $f^*H$ is effective on $A$, hence it is ample. This is equivalent to $f$ being finite.