Skip to main content
MathOverflow

Return to Question

added 57 characters in body
Source Link
David Roberts ♦
David Roberts ♦
  • 35.5k
  • 11
  • 124
  • 349

For an Abelian scheme over a ring of integers in a number field, Faltings'Faltings has a theorem that describes how the Faltings' height changes through an isogeny. There are multiple references for this statement and proof. See page 7 ofProposition 4.1 in the notes Faltings height by Daniele Agostini (thispdf), for instance.

I am interested in the analogous statement over curves over a finite field, in particular when the isogeny has degree a power of $p$, the characteristic of the finite field.

Is any such statement true in this case and if so, what's a reference?

For an Abelian scheme over a ring of integers in a number field, Faltings' has a theorem that describes how the Faltings' height changes through an isogeny. There are multiple references for this statement and proof. See page 7 of this, for instance.

I am interested in the analogous statement over curves over a finite field, in particular when the isogeny has degree a power of $p$, the characteristic of the finite field.

Is any such statement true in this case and if so, what's a reference?

For an Abelian scheme over a ring of integers in a number field, Faltings has a theorem that describes how the Faltings' height changes through an isogeny. There are multiple references for this statement and proof. See Proposition 4.1 in the notes Faltings height by Daniele Agostini (pdf), for instance.

I am interested in the analogous statement over curves over a finite field, in particular when the isogeny has degree a power of $p$, the characteristic of the finite field.

Is any such statement true in this case and if so, what's a reference?

edited body; edited title
Source Link
Asvin
Asvin
  • 7.7k
  • 2
  • 21
  • 52

Falting's Faltings' height theorem for isogenies over finite fields

For an Abelian scheme over a ring of integers in a number field, Falting'sFaltings' has a theorem that describes how the Falting'sFaltings' height changes through an isogeny. There are multiple references for this statement and proof. See page 7 of this, for instance.

I am interested in the analogous statement over curves over a finite field, in particular when the isogeny has degree a power of $p$, the characteristic of the finite field.

Is any such statement true in this case and if so, what's a reference?

Falting's height theorem for isogenies over finite fields

For an Abelian scheme over a ring of integers in a number field, Falting's has a theorem that describes how the Falting's height changes through an isogeny. There are multiple references for this statement and proof. See page 7 of this, for instance.

I am interested in the analogous statement over curves over a finite field, in particular when the isogeny has degree a power of $p$, the characteristic of the finite field.

Is any such statement true in this case and if so, what's a reference?

Faltings' height theorem for isogenies over finite fields

For an Abelian scheme over a ring of integers in a number field, Faltings' has a theorem that describes how the Faltings' height changes through an isogeny. There are multiple references for this statement and proof. See page 7 of this, for instance.

I am interested in the analogous statement over curves over a finite field, in particular when the isogeny has degree a power of $p$, the characteristic of the finite field.

Is any such statement true in this case and if so, what's a reference?

Source Link
Asvin
Asvin
  • 7.7k
  • 2
  • 21
  • 52

Falting's height theorem for isogenies over finite fields

For an Abelian scheme over a ring of integers in a number field, Falting's has a theorem that describes how the Falting's height changes through an isogeny. There are multiple references for this statement and proof. See page 7 of this, for instance.

I am interested in the analogous statement over curves over a finite field, in particular when the isogeny has degree a power of $p$, the characteristic of the finite field.

Is any such statement true in this case and if so, what's a reference?