Let $k$ be an algebraic closure of a finite field, $\ell \neq \mathrm{Char}(k)$ be prime, $S/k$ a smooth projective geometrically connected surface and $C/k$ a smooth ample connected hypersurface section of $S$. Let $\mathscr{A}/S$ be an Abelian scheme.

Are there good cases when the injection $\mathscr{A}(S)/\ell^n \hookrightarrow \mathscr{A}(C) /\ell^n$ is surjective?

If $\mathrm{rk} \mathscr{A}(C) = 0$, this holds true since the $\ell^n$-torsion subgroups of $\mathscr{A}(S)$ and $\mathscr{A}(C)$ are (always) isomorphic. $\mathrm{rk} \mathscr{A}(C) = 0$ is e.g. the case if $C \cong \mathbf{P}^1_k$ and $\mathscr{A}/C$ is constant.

[Edit: Note that if $X$ is like $S$, but of arbitrary dimension, and $Y$ a smooth ample hypersurface section of dimension $\geq 2$, $\mathrm{rk} \mathscr{A}(X) = \mathrm{rk} \mathscr{A}(Y)$.]


I recommend that you look at my joint paper with Tom Graber.

MR3114946 Pending
Graber, Tom(1-CAIT); Starr, Jason Michael(1-SUNYS)
Restriction of sections for families of abelian varieties. (English summary) A celebration of algebraic geometry, 311–327,
Clay Math. Proc., 18, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2013.
14K12 (14C05)

In particular, surjectivity frequently fails. For instance, starting with $X$ the projective linear system of plane cubics containing one specified point, and denoting by $\mathcal{A}$ the universal plane cubic over $X$ (with its specified point as the "origin"), let $S$ be a general linear $2$-plane inside $X$, and let $C$ be a general line inside $S$. Then $C$ gives a pencil of plane cubics that has 9 base points (one of which is our specified point). These base points give lots of rational points in $\mathcal{A}(C)$, and these need not lift (of course your base field is "small", so this might take some work to completely justify).

What Tom and I do show is that, if you use "line pairs" rather than "lines", and if you allow $C$ to be a "sufficiently general" line pair, then the restriction map is a bijection.

  • $\begingroup$ Are there problems as $k$ is not uncountable? $\endgroup$ – TKe Jul 7 '14 at 13:19
  • $\begingroup$ @TimoKeller For the counterexample, I think there are no problems with $k$ being countable. However, you are quite correct that, in the last paragraph, "sufficiently general" almost certainly does require that $k$ is uncountable. $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Jul 7 '14 at 17:52
  • $\begingroup$ Do we need it for Lemma 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3; and Theorem 1.2(ii)? $\endgroup$ – TKe Jul 7 '14 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ @TimoKeller: Yes, I think you need uncountability for all of the arguments in that paper (unfortunately). $\endgroup$ – Jason Starr Jul 9 '14 at 20:14

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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