8
$\begingroup$

I am trying to understand Umemura's Theorem for expressing the roots of any algebraic equation by higher genus theta functions. The original paper can be found here: Umemura, H.: Resolution of algebraic equations by theta constants. In: Mumford, D. (Ed.): Tata Lectures on Theta II, Birkhäuser, Boston/Basel/Stuttgart 1984. I apologize if the answers are quite straightforward for those familiar with the theorem.

R. Bruce King states the theorem as follows in his book "Beyond the Quartic Equation":

Let $f(x) = a_{0}x^{n} + a_{1}x^{n-1} + ... + a_{n} = 0$ with $a_{0} \neq 0$ be an algebraic equation irreducible over a certain subfield of the complex numbers. Then a root of this equation, $x_{k}$ can be expressed by the following equation involving theta

functions of zero argument:

$x_{k} = \left( \theta \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & ... & 0 \\ 0 & ... & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)(\Omega) \right)^{4} \left( \theta \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} 1 & 1 & 0 & ... & 0 \\ 0 & ... & 0 & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)(\Omega) \right)^{4} + \left( \theta \left( \begin{array}{ccc} 0 & ... & 0 \\ 0 & ... & 0 \end{array} \right)(\Omega) \right)^{4} \left( \theta \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & 1 & 0 & ... & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & ... & 0\end{array} \right)(\Omega) \right)^{4} - \frac{\left( \theta \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 0 & 0 & ... & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & ... & 0 \end{array} \right)(\Omega) \right)^{4} \left( \theta \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} 0 & 1 & 0 & ... & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & ... & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)(\Omega) \right)^{4} }{2 \left( \theta \left( \begin{array}{cccc} 1 & 0 & ... & 0 \\ 0 & ... & 0 & 0 \end{array} \right)(\Omega) \right)^{4} \left( \theta \left( \begin{array}{ccccc} 1 & 1 & 0 & ... & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 0 & ... & 0 \end{array} \right)(\Omega) \right)^{4}}$\

where $\Omega$ is the period matrix derived from one of the following hyperelliptic integragls:

$u(a) = \int_1^a \frac{dx}{\sqrt{x(x-1)f(x)}}$ for odd degree of $f(x)$ and

$u(a) = \int_1^a \frac{dx}{\sqrt{x(x-1)(x-2)f(x)}}$ for even degree of $f(x)$.

The theta function is defined as follows:

For row vectors $m_{1}, m_{2} \in \mathbb{R}^g, z \in \mathbb{C}^g$ and a symmetric $g \times g$ matrix $\tau$ with positive definite imaginary part, we define the theta function $\theta \left( \begin{array}{c} m_{1} \\ m_{2} \end{array} \right)(z, \tau) = \Sigma_{\xi \in \mathbb{Z}^g} e(\frac{1}{2}(\xi + m_{1})\tau^{T}(\xi + m_{1}) + (\xi + m_{1})^{T}(z + m_{2}))$ where $e(x) = e^{2 \pi i x}$. We write $\theta \left( \begin{array}{c} m_{1} \\ m_{2} \end{array} \right)(\tau)$ for $\theta \left( \begin{array}{c} m_{1} \\ m_{2} \end{array} \right)(0, \tau)$.

My question about the definition are as follows: the equation gives a matrix, how can this be equal to a scalar root of an algebraic equation? The answer appears to be from Theorem 8.1 in the paper, but I can't understand it and would be grateful if someone could.

Finally, my question that may or may not be of mathematical interest is: can every root of an algebraic equation be found in this manner and can we then conclude that a number algebraic iff it satisfies Umemura's equation?

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I found the original paper of Umemura online so have edited the question to take this into account. I am still struggling to understand, but I think everything is there, if someone would be kind enough to explain. $\endgroup$ Dec 12, 2013 at 15:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I apologise, no one seems interested in this question. But for completeness sake, in answer to the first question, it seems that for Riemann Theta functions we define $n \cdot \Omega \cdot n = \Sigma_{i, j = 1}^{g} \Omega_{ij}n_{i}n_{j}$ giving a scalar, where $n \in \mathbb{Z}^{g}$ and $\Omega \in \mathbb{C}^{g \times g}$. I assume $(\xi + m_{1})^{T}(z + m_{2})$ is just the dot product also giving a scalar. $\endgroup$ Dec 13, 2013 at 12:13
  • $\begingroup$ Why does the equation give a matrix? It seems to me to give a scalar. $\endgroup$
    – Fan Zheng
    Feb 19, 2017 at 1:31
  • $\begingroup$ But I'm confused for two different reasons: 1. How do you get $x_k$ for a different $k$? 2. In all invocation of the $\theta$ function, $m_1$ is always in $\mathbb{Z}^g$, so do we still need $m_1$ in this case? It seems that it can be absorbed by a change of variable $\xi+m_1\mapsto\xi$. $\endgroup$
    – Fan Zheng
    Feb 19, 2017 at 1:34

1 Answer 1

1
$\begingroup$

There is an obvious typo in the exponent: you need to transpose the first $(\xi + m_1)$. Then the exponent is a scalar, so theta function evaluates to a scalar as well.

I think $x_k$ is also a typo too. In my copy of Umemura's paper, the theorem is stated as follows.

Theorem 2. Let $$a_0X^n + a_1 X^{n-1} + \cdots + a_n = 0, a_0 \neq 0, a_i \in \mathbb{C}, (0 \leq i \leq n)$$ be an algebraic equation irreducible over a certain subfield of $\mathbb{C}$, then a root of the algebraic equation (above) is given (*), where $\Omega$ is the period matrix of a hyperelliptic curve $C: Y^2 = F(X)$ with $F(X) = X(X-1)(a_0X^n + a_1 X^{n-1} + \cdots + a_n)$ for $n$ odd and $F(X) = X(X-1)(X-2)(a_0X^n + a_1 X^{n-1} + \cdots + a_n)$ for $n$ even.

Here, (*) is the expression on the righthand side you typed for $x_k$. Note that the period matrix $\Omega$ is well-specified after you order the roots. In that paper, a specific order is given for this.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.