Uniform Manin-Mumford for a family of genus 2 curves
Laura DeMarco, Holly Krieger, Hexi Ye

TL;DR
This paper develops a strategy to establish uniform bounds on common points of height zero for pairs of height functions, applying it to prove conjectures related to torsion points and the Manin-Mumford conjecture for genus 2 curves.
Contribution
It introduces a new general method for uniform bounds on height zero points and applies it to prove a conjecture for torsion points and uniform Manin-Mumford bounds for genus 2 curves.
Findings
Proved a conjecture of Bogomolov, Fu, and Tschinkel on torsion points.
Established uniform bounds for genus 2 curves over a7a7.
Provided new quantitative bounds on common height zero points.
Abstract
We introduce a general strategy for proving quantitative and uniform bounds on the number of common points of height zero for a pair of inequivalent height functions on We apply this strategy to prove a conjecture of Bogomolov, Fu, and Tschinkel asserting uniform bounds on the number of common torsion points of elliptic curves in the case of two Legendre curves over . As a consequence, we obtain two uniform bounds for a two-dimensional family of genus 2 curves: a uniform Manin-Mumford bound for the family over , and a uniform Bogomolov bound for the family over
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Uniform Manin-Mumford for a family of genus 2 curves
Laura DeMarco
Laura DeMarco
Department of Mathematics
Northwestern University
2033 Sheridan Road
Evanston, IL 60208
USA
,
Holly Krieger
Holly Krieger
Department of Pure Mathematics and Mathematical Statistics
University of Cambridge
Cambridge CB3 0WB
UK
and
Hexi Ye
Hexi Ye
Department of Mathematics
Zhejiang University
Hangzhou, 310027
China
Abstract.
We introduce a general strategy for proving quantitative and uniform bounds on the number of common points of height zero for a pair of inequivalent height functions on We apply this strategy to prove a conjecture of Bogomolov, Fu, and Tschinkel asserting uniform bounds on the number of common torsion points of elliptic curves in the case of two Legendre curves over . As a consequence, we obtain two uniform bounds for a two-dimensional family of genus 2 curves: a uniform Manin-Mumford bound for the family over , and a uniform Bogomolov bound for the family over
1. Introduction
In this article, we use the Arakelov-Zhang intersection of adelically-metrized line bundles on to prove a uniform Manin-Mumford bound for a two-dimensional family of genus 2 curves over . The Manin-Mumford Conjecture, proved by Raynaud [Ra], asserts the following: Let be any smooth complex projective curve of genus , any point, the Abel-Jacobi embedding of into its Jacobian based at , and the set of torsion points of the Jacobian. Then
[TABLE]
In the case of genus the curve is hyperelliptic, and the fixed points of the hyperelliptic involution provide geometrically natural choices of base point for the Abel-Jacobi map. We show there is a uniform bound on the number of torsion images under such a map, provided the curve is also bielliptic, meaning that it admits a degree-two branched cover of an elliptic curve.
Theorem 1.1**.**
There exists a uniform constant such that
[TABLE]
for all smooth, bielliptic curves over of genus 2 and all Weierstrass points on .
The curves satisfying the hypothesis of Theorem 1.1 form a complex surface in the moduli space of genus 2 curves. These are also characterized by the property that their Jacobians admit real multiplication by the real quadratic order of discriminant 4. Further details on are given in Section 9.
Remark 1.2**.**
We do not give an explicit value for the of Theorem 1.1, but this bound can be made effective by estimating the continuity constants of Section 4. Poonen showed that there are infinitely many curves for which is at least 22, taking to be a Weierstrass point on [Po, Theorem 1]. More recently, Stoll found an example with for Weierstrass point [St]; the curve is defined over . We know of no curve and point satisfying .
The question of uniformity in (1.1) was raised by Mazur in [Ma] who asked if a bound could be given that depends only on the genus of the curve . Quantitative bounds on torsion points on curves have been obtained when the curve is defined over a number field, notably by Coleman [Co], Buium [Bu], Hrushovski [Hr], and more recently by Katz, Rabinoff, and Zureick-Brown [KRZB]. By quantifying the -adic approach to (1.1), these authors achieve bounds for general families of curves; however, these bounds all involve dependence on field of definition or the choice of a prime for the family of curves, so are not uniform for families over or .
Our new technique which yields Theorem 1.1 is a quantification of the approach of Szpiro, Ullmo, and Zhang [SUZ, Ul, Zh1] to proving (1.1), utilizing adelic equidistribution theory. We first reduce to the setting where the curve is defined over . Over , we build on the proof of the quantitative equidistribution theorem for height functions on of Favre and Rivera-Letelier [FRL1].
In fact, we deduce Theorem 1.1 from a case of the following conjecture, discussed by Bogomolov and Tschinkel [BT] and stated formally as [BFT, Conjectures 2 and 12], which asserts uniform bounds on common torsion points for pairs of elliptic curves. By a standard projection of an elliptic curve over , we mean any degree-two quotient that identifies a point and its inverse . Note that has a simple critical point at each of the four elements of the 2-torsion subgroup .
Conjecture 1.3**.**
[BFT]** There exists a uniform constant such that
[TABLE]
for any pair of elliptic curves over and any pair of standard projections for which .
Note that if , then is isomorphic to and . The finiteness of the set , under the assumption that , follows from the main theorem of Raynaud in [Ra]; indeed, the diagonal in lifts to a (singular) curve via with normalization of genus [BT].
We prove Conjecture 1.3 in the case of maximal overlap of the 2-torsion points; i.e., when
[TABLE]
This setting corresponds to the case where the (normalization of the) curve in has genus 2. By fixing coordinates on , it suffices to work with the Legendre family of elliptic curves
[TABLE]
with and the standard projection on . (See Corollary 8.2.)
Theorem 1.4**.**
There exists a uniform constant such that
[TABLE]
for all in , for the curves defined by (1.2) and projection .
To prove Theorem 1.4, we introduce a general strategy for bounding the number of common height-zero points for any pair of distinct height functions that arise from continuous, semipositive, adelic metrics on the line bundle . There is a natural Arakelov-Zhang pairing between any two such heights, given by the intersection number of the associated metrized line bundles. Our heights are normalized so this intersection number, which we denote by , will satisfy
[TABLE]
Details on these heights and the pairing are given in Section 2. The value of provides a notion of distance between the two heights (as was observed by Fili in [Fi]). It follows from equidistribution [CL1, FRL1, BR] that
[TABLE]
for any infinite sequence of distinct points such that as , suggesting that large numbers of common zeroes between and will imply that and are close. However, this measure of closeness between two heights is not generally uniform in families of heights, because the rate of equidistribution is not uniform. Nevertheless, by bounding the height pairing from below, we can obtain an upper bound on the number of common zeroes for certain families.
In the context of Theorem 1.4, we consider the family of height functions on induced from the Néron-Tate canonical height on the elliptic curve , for ; its zeroes are precisely the elements of . We implement this general strategy by proving three bounds on the intersection pairing . We prove a uniform lower bound on the pairing:
Theorem 1.5**.**
There exists such that
[TABLE]
for all .
We also prove an asymptotic lower bound for parameters and with large height:
Theorem 1.6**.**
There exist constants such that
[TABLE]
for all in . Here is the naive logarithmic height on .
We find an upper bound that depends on the number of common zeroes of and as well as the heights of the parameters and :
Theorem 1.7**.**
For all , there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
for all and in , where .
The three theorems combine to give a uniform bound on the number of common zeroes of and for all in .
Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 follow from estimates on the local height functions and the local equilibrium measures on the -adic Berkovich projective line at each place of a number field containing and , computed using the dynamical Lattès map induced by multiplication by on a Legendre curve . The non-archimedean contributions to turn out to be straightforward to compute for these heights. Significant technical issues arise when is archimedean and both parameters are tending to the singularity set for this family; we resolve these issues by appealing to the theory of degenerations of complex dynamical systems on , in which a family of complex rational maps degenerates to a non-archimedean dynamical system acting on a Berkovich space, as in the work of DeMarco-Faber [DF1] and Favre [Fa], using the formalism of hybrid space as discussed by Boucksom-Jonsson in [BJ].
For Theorem 1.7, we expand upon the quantitative equidistribution results of Favre-Rivera-Letelier [FRL1] and Fili [Fi] to analyze the rates of convergence of measures supported on finite sets of zeroes of a height to the associated equilibrium measures at each place . To do so requires control on the modulus of continuity of the local heights, and again we rely on estimates from the hybrid space to treat the cases where a parameter is tending to one of the singularities for the family .
Although Theorem 1.5 alone was not enough to prove Theorem 1.4, it implies a uniform bound of a different sort, when combined with Zhang’s inequality on the essential minimum of a height function [Zh2]:
Proposition 1.8**.**
Choose any satisfying for the of Theorem 1.5. Then the set
[TABLE]
is finite for each pair .
The complete proof of Theorem 1.4, however, gives more: we obtain a uniform bound on the size of the set defined in Proposition 1.8 (see Theorem 8.1). This in turn provides a uniform version of the Bogomolov Conjecture for the associated family of genus 2 curves. The Bogomolov Conjecture was proved for each individual curve over in [Ul, Zh1]. To state our result precisely, we fix ample and symmetric line bundles on the family of Jacobians for the genus 2 curves defined over that we consider in Theorem 1.1. Specifically, we take for the isogeny of Proposition 9.1, with the line bundle associated to the divisor , where is the identity element of .
Theorem 1.9**.**
There exist constants and such that
[TABLE]
for all smooth curves over of genus 2 admitting a degree-two map to an elliptic curve and all Weierstrass points on , where is the Néron-Tate canonical height on the Jacobian .
Finally, we mention that we implement this general strategy towards uniform boundedness in a follow-up article [DKY] in another setting, providing a uniform bound on the number of common preperiodic points for distinct polynomials of the form with .
Remark 1.10**.**
We have chosen to work with the Arakelov-Zhang pairing to measure proximity of the two height functions, with in , but there are other choices we could have made. For example, Kawaguchi and Silverman in [KS] study
[TABLE]
It turns out that the two quantities are comparable for this family of heights. The upper bound can be seen as a corollary of arithmetic equidistribution and (1.3), and therefore holds for any pair of normalized heights coming from continuous, semipositive adelic metrics on . A lower bound of the form for real constants , and for all in , is a consequence of Theorem 1.6, when combined with [KS, Theorem 1]. However, such a lower bound does not hold for all pairs of heights coming from metrics on . A comparison of these two pairings is addressed further in [DKY], for the canonical heights associated to morphisms of .
Outline of the paper. We fix our notation and provide background in Section 2. Sections 3, 4, and 5 provide the estimates on local height functions and local measures needed to prove all of our theorems. Theorem 1.6 is proved in Section 6, and from it we deduce Theorem 1.5 and Proposition 1.8. A generalization of Theorem 1.7 is proved in Section 7 which treats points of small height, not only of height 0. We prove Theorem 1.4 in Section 8 and finally Theorems 1.1 and 1.9 in Section 9.
Acknowledgements. We thank the American Institute of Mathematics, where the initial work for this paper took place as part of an AIM SQuaRE. Special thanks go to Ken Jacobs, Mattias Jonsson, Curt McMullen, and Khoa Nguyen for helpful discussions. We would also like to thank the anonymous referees for their many suggestions and careful reading of the article. During the preparation of this paper, L. DeMarco was supported by the National Science Foundation (DMS-1600718), H. Krieger was supported by Isaac Newton Trust (RG74916), and H. Ye was partially supported by ZJNSF (LR18A010001) and NSFC (11701508).
2. Heights, measures, and energies
This section develops the background and notation needed for the proofs that follow. Throughout, is a number field and its set of places.
2.1. The canonical height
Fix . Let be the Legendre elliptic curve and the projection defined by . The multiplication-by-two endomorphism on descends via to a morphism of degree 4 on given by
[TABLE]
The canonical height on the elliptic curve
[TABLE]
can be defined via the projection and the iteration of as where
[TABLE]
is the dynamical canonical height defined by
[TABLE]
Here, is the (logarithmic) Weil height on . Note that for all , and
[TABLE]
The height has a local decomposition as follows: for any number field containing , and for each place , there exists a local height function such that
[TABLE]
for all , where
[TABLE]
The local heights can be chosen to extend continuously to , where is the completion (w.r.t. ) of an algebraic closure of the completion , and to satisfy
[TABLE]
as .
2.2. Local heights and escape rates
To compute the local heights, we will often express the maps of (2.1) in homogeneous coordinates, as
[TABLE]
for and in . As observed in [BR, Chapter 10], its escape-rate function
[TABLE]
where , satisfies
[TABLE]
for and any choice of lift of to . In particular, we may take
[TABLE]
as a local height for .
The elliptic curves and and are isomorphic, with the following transformation formulas for the local heights:
Proposition 2.1**.**
Fix any number field and . Then, for all , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let be the automorphism . Then
[TABLE]
for all iterates, proving the first equality. Similarly, let . Then
[TABLE]
for all iterates, proving the second equality. The final equality follows from the logarithmic homogeneity of . ∎
2.3. The Berkovich projective line
Let be a number field. For each , let denote the Berkovich affine line over . For non-archimedean , the points of come in four types. The Type I points in are, by definition, the elements of the field . The Type II points are in one-to-one correspondence with disks with rational, and these are the branch points for the underlying tree structure on . The Type III points correspond to disks with irrational. (We will not need the Type IV points in this article.) A Type II or III point corresponding to will be denoted by . The Gauss point is the Type II point identified with the unit disk. The Berkovich projective line is the one-point compactification of , which is a canonically-defined path-connected compact Hausdorff space containing as a dense subspace. If is archimedean, then and .
For each there is a distribution-valued Laplacian operator on . The function on extends naturally to a continuous real valued function , and the Laplacian is normalized such that
[TABLE]
on , where is the Lebesgue probability measure on the unit circle when is archimedean, and is a point mass at the Gauss point of when is non-archimedean. A probability measure on is said to have continuous potentials if with continuous. The function for is unique up to the addition of a constant. See [BR, Chapter 5] for more details. Note that the Laplacian used here is the negative of the one appearing in [PST] and [BR], but agrees with the usual Laplacian (up to a factor of ) at the archimedean places.
For non-archimedean, we set
[TABLE]
The hyperbolic distance on gives it the structure of a metrized -tree and satisfies
[TABLE]
for any and any . We will say that a probability measure on is an interval measure if it is the uniform distribution on an interval with respect to the linear structure induced from the hyperbolic metric .
2.4. Canonical measures and good reduction
For each Legendre elliptic curve with in a number field and each , the local height of (2.4) extends to define a continuous and subharmonic function on with logarithmic singularity at . We have
[TABLE]
on , where is the canonical probability measure for the dynamical system at [FRL1], [BR, Theorem 10.2].
For archimedean , the measure is the unique -invariant measure on achieving the maximal entropy . It is the push-forward of the Haar measure on via the projection introduced in §2.1. See, for example, [Mi] for a dynamical discussion of the maps on the Riemann sphere.
For non-archimedean , if the curve and the map have good reduction, the measure is the point mass supported on the Gauss point . The map has potential good reduction, meaning that it has good reduction under a suitable change of coordinates on , if and only if the measure is supported at a single Type II point in . In general, the support of is equal to the Julia set of in .
Recall that the -invariant of the elliptic curve over is given by
[TABLE]
For and non-archimedean , the map has potential good reduction at if and only if the curve has potential good reduction at . This equivalence can be proved via equidistribution of torsion points on at all places [BPe, Theorem 1] (thus implying that the measure will also be supported at a single point of ) or via a direct calculation showing that the Julia set of is a singleton if and only if .
2.5. The height as an adelic metric
Suppose . The height on , introduced in §2.1, is induced from an adelic metric on , in the sense of Zhang [Zh2]. Fixing coordinates on and a section of with , then a metric can be defined at each place of by setting
[TABLE]
for the function of (2.3). The height satisfies
[TABLE]
for all in . Writing as with a constant at each place of , we may compute that
[TABLE]
because is the projection of the origin of .
2.6. The intersection pairing
For these heights coming from the Legendre family of elliptic curves, with , we have
[TABLE]
Indeed, any height coming from an adelic metric on is uniquely determined, up to an additive constant, by the associated curvature distributions; see, for example, the construction of a height function from the measures in [FRL1]. For heights of the form , at each archimedean place of a number field containing , the curvature distribution on is the push-forward of the Haar measure on by ; it therefore has a greater density at the four branch points of , and thus determines .
There is a well-defined intersection number between any pair of such heights, as in [Zh2] (see also [CL2]); more precisely, it is the arithmetic intersection number of the two associated adelically metrized line bundles. By the non-degeneracy of this height pairing and (2.7),
[TABLE]
as computed in [PST].
To define the pairing , we fix sections and of such that their divisors do not intersect. Given and in a number field , and a place of , we set
[TABLE]
The integral is over the Berkovich analytification of , over the field . The metrics satisfy
[TABLE]
and is the associated curvature distribution.
The height pairing is then defined as
[TABLE]
which is independent of the choices of and . This pairing is easily seen to be symmetric, and since for all , it can be expressed as
[TABLE]
when .
As for all from (2.8), note that
[TABLE]
by combining (2.10) and (2.6). The pairing can be rewritten as:
[TABLE]
The advantage of working with (2.12) is the following local version of the non-degeneracy property (2.8):
Proposition 2.2**.**
[FRL1, Propositions 2.6 and 4.5]** Let be a number field and . For any , the local energy
[TABLE]
is non-negative; it is equal to [math] if and only if .
Proposition 2.3**.**
Let , and fix . We have
[TABLE]
Proof.
Given measures and , the local energy can be expressed as
[TABLE]
for any continuous potential of the signed measure , because for some constant . We have
[TABLE]
for , such that and is a potential for the measure . Therefore, . Similarly, we have for , so . ∎
2.7. Measures and mutual energy
Suppose that and are signed measures on with trace measures for which the function on . The mutual energy of and is defined in [FRL1] by
[TABLE]
This definition extends to the non-archimedean setting by replacing with the Hsia kernel based at the point at . In this way, for , a pairing is defined similarly as
[TABLE]
See [FRL1, §4.4] and [BR, Chapter 4].
For measures of total mass 0 with continuous potentials on we have
[TABLE]
for any choice of continuous potential for . Further, with equality if and only if [FRL1, Propositions 2.6 and 4.5]. Note that Proposition 2.2 is a special case of this fact. Indeed, in this notation, the local energy defined in Proposition 2.2 is given by
[TABLE]
at each place of a number field containing and , for the canonical measures introduced in §2.4.
The mutual energy of (2.13) and (2.14) can also be defined for discrete measures. If is any finite set in a number field , and , then denote by the probability measure supported equally on the elements of . Then
[TABLE]
by the product formula.
2.8. A metric on the space of adelic heights
The height pairing gives rise to a metric on the space of continuous, semipositive, adelic metrics on [Fi, Theorem 1]. Given a number field and any collection of probability measures on with continuous potentials for which at all but finitely many places (where is a point mass supported on the Gauss point), then there is a unique metric on with curvature distributions given by , normalized such that its associated height function satisfies [FRL1]. The height pairing between any two such heights is computed as
[TABLE]
Fili observed that a distance between and can be defined by
[TABLE]
Indeed, we have already seen that if and only if because of the non-degeneracy of the mutual energy at each place. Furthermore, satisfies a triangle inequality: at each place, the mutual energy induces a non-degenerate, symmetric, bilinear form on the vector space of measures of mass 0 with continuous potentials on , and so the triangle inequality for follows from an triangle inequality.
3. Non-archimedean energy
Throughout this section, we fix a number field and a non-archimedean place , and provide a lower bound on the non-archimedean local energy defined in Proposition 2.2:
Theorem 3.1**.**
For we have
[TABLE]
Equality holds for with .
3.1. Measure and escape rate for
Proposition 3.2**.**
Suppose and . Then has good reduction at if and only if . If , then fails to have potential good reduction at , and the canonical measure on of is the interval measure supported on
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Proposition 2.1, it suffices to treat the cases with . By [FRL2, §5.1], and the action of on is by a tent map of degree 2. That is,
[TABLE]
The proposition follows. ∎
We may now compute the local height on , which is locally constant away from the interval .
Proposition 3.3**.**
Suppose is non-archimedean and . The escape-rate function satisfies
[TABLE]
for all .
Proof.
Let be the continuous extension of the expression on the right hand side of the formula (3.1) to . By Proposition 3.2, is the interval measure corresponding to , and a direct computation shows that
[TABLE]
Thus it suffices to show that and agree at a single point. For any with , define , so that
[TABLE]
Inductively,
[TABLE]
Consequently,
[TABLE]
∎
A similar application of Proposition 3.2 yields
Proposition 3.4**.**
Suppose is non-archimedean and . The escape-rate function satisfies
[TABLE]
for all .
3.2. Proof of Theorem 3.1 for
We compute the local energy by cases.
Case (1): and . Recall the local energy can be expressed as
[TABLE]
Therefore by Proposition 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4,
[TABLE]
Case (2): and . Without loss of generality, we assume that . By Proposition 3.2 and 3.3,
[TABLE]
Case (3): and . In this case, has good reduction, so is a point mass supported on the Gauss point . Hence
[TABLE]
Case (4): The remaining cases reduce to the above three by the symmetry relations of Proposition 2.3. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.1 under the assumption that .
3.3. Measure and escape rate for
Proposition 3.5**.**
Suppose is non-archimedean. The canonical measure on of is the interval measure corresponding to the interval with
[TABLE]
For with , has potential good reduction, and is supported on a single point in .
Proof.
We proceed as in the computations of [FRL2, §5.1], though the authors had assumed for simplicity that the residue characteristic of their field is not 2. If , the interval is totally invariant by , and
[TABLE]
for . Thus is the interval measure on . The cases or can then be deduced from Proposition 2.1.
For all with , we have , so has potential good reduction. ∎
Following the proofs of Propositions 3.3 and 3.4, from Proposition 3.5 we obtain
Proposition 3.6**.**
Suppose is non-archimedean. We have
[TABLE]
for with , and
[TABLE]
for with .
3.4. Proof of Theorem 3.1 for
We compute as in the case where .
Case (1): with and . Proposition 3.6 yields
[TABLE]
Case (2): and . Again by Proposition 3.6,
[TABLE]
Case (3): , and . Let be the support of . For any with ,
[TABLE]
Hence . Let with , and let . From the recursive formula (3.2), inductively we have . Consequently
[TABLE]
for with , and then for . Moreover, as , the function is increasing at a constant rate along the ray , with respect to the hyperbolic metric. Therefore . Hence by Propositions 3.5 and 3.6,
[TABLE]
Here we have used and for the last inequality.
Of course, for and for , we have
[TABLE]
Case (4): The remaining cases reduce to the above three by the symmetry relations of Proposition 2.3. This completes the proof of Theorem 3.1.
4. Archimedean places and the hybrid space
In this section, we provide some of the estimates we need to control the archimedean contributions to the height pairings. Throughout this section, we assume our parameter is complex. We let denote the probability measure on which is the push forward of the Haar measure on the Legendre elliptic curve via . This measure is also the unique measure of maximal entropy for the dynamical system defined by the Lattès map
[TABLE]
as noted in [Mi, §7]. We study degenerations of the probability measures and their potentials as . (The cases of and are similar.) To this end, we consider the action of sending to on the complex surface , where is the punctured unit disk. We make use of the hybrid space , in which the Berkovich projective line over the field of formal Laurent series creates a central fiber of over in the unit disk . We appeal to the topological description of the hybrid space from [BJ] and the associated dynamical degenerations described in [Fa].
4.1. The family of Lattès maps and their escape rates
In homogeneous coordinates on , recall that the maps may be presented as
[TABLE]
for . They have escape-rate functions
[TABLE]
as in (2.3).
View the families and as maps and defined over the field , and consider the non-archimedean absolute value on satisfying . Let denote the completion of with respect to this absolute value. Let denote a (minimal) complete and algebraically closed field containing . The non-archimedean escape rate on is defined as in (2.3). Since it is given for by the following formula, exactly as in Proposition 3.4:
[TABLE]
The function extends naturally to the Berkovich space ; away from the point at , it is a continuous potential for the equilibrium measure of .
The potential and the measure are invariant under the action of on . They descend to define a function and probability measure – that we will also denote by and – on the quotient Berkovich line (see [Be, §4.2] for details on this quotient map). As computed in Proposition 3.2, the measure is supported on the interval , and it is uniform with respect the linear structure from the hyperbolic metric.
4.2. Convergence of measures
The family acts on the product space sending to . It extends meromorphically to , or indeed to any model complex surface which is isomorphic to over and has a simple normal crossings divisor as its central fiber.
Fixing a surface and letting , the degeneration of the measures of maximal entropy for – or indeed for any meromorphic family of rational maps on – to the central fiber of is now well understood. In [DF1, DF2], the limit of the measures is computed for any choice of model , and a relation is shown between these limits and the non-archimedean measure . In particular, if we define the annulus
[TABLE]
for , , and real numbers , then
[TABLE]
as . This follows from [DF1, Theorem B] (allowing for changes of coordinates on and base changes, passing to covers of the punctured disk ) or from the computations described in [DF2, Theorem D] (taking to be a vertex set in the interval ). Another proof is described below in §4.3. In particular, this convergence implies:
Lemma 4.1**.**
Given any and integer , there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all and .
Taking in Lemma 4.1, we observe that for any given , there is a such that we also have
[TABLE]
for all .
4.3. Convergence in the hybrid space
In [Fa], Favre gives an alternate proof of (4.10) by showing that
[TABLE]
weakly in the hybrid space [Fa, Theorem B]. The hybrid space consists of replacing the central fiber in the models above with the Berkovich line , carrying an appropriate topology. The convergence of measures follows from the convergence of their potentials to the potential of the measure in the Berkovich line. We describe this convergence here, as we will use it for proving our main result.
Let denote the Lebesgue measure on the unit circle in , normalized to have total length 1. Let denote a continuous potential on for the measure . Explicitly, in local coordinates , we can take
[TABLE]
with as in (4.1). In [Fa], Favre proves that the function
[TABLE]
extends to define a continuous function on , taking the values of a potential of the limiting measure on the central fiber. Here is the delta mass on the Gauss point of the Berkovich line . More precisely, we consider the function
[TABLE]
for , similar to the formula for in (4.5). This function extends continuously to all of ; it is Galois invariant over ; and it descends to the quotient . Favre’s theorem implies that the function of (4.14) extends continuously to , coinciding with over :
Proposition 4.2**.**
Given any , there exists , such that
[TABLE]
for all , for all , and all for which
[TABLE]
Proof.
Recall that the absolute value on induces a continuous function on the Berkovich space that we will also denote by . We use the standard absolute value on , extended to a continuous function .
The topology on is such that annuli of the form
[TABLE]
are open for any choice of , as are the Berkovich disks of the form
[TABLE]
for any . The topology on is such that an annular set of the form
[TABLE]
is an open neighborhood of on the central fiber for any and any . Similarly, the disk-like sets
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
are open for any , and allowing and to vary provides open neighborhoods at [math] and respectively in the central fiber. See [BJ, §2.2 and Definition 4.9] for details on the hybrid topology. Note in particular that the hybrid topology restricted to the central fiber induces the usual (weak) Berkovich topology.
By the continuity statement of [Fa, Theorem 2.10] and exhibiting as a uniform limit of model functions ([Fa, Section 4.3] provides the details in the dynamical case) the function extends to define a continuous function on , taking the values of on the central fiber. Let denote the closed segment in between [math] and . We may by compactness cover by finitely many neighborhoods on which As the values of depend only on the values of on , each open neighborhood of a point in the interior of contains an open interval in , and is constant near [math] and , we may assume these neighborhoods are annular or disk-like as defined above. Thus we obtain a uniform as claimed. ∎
As , we also have a uniform continuity statement for when is bounded from above:
Proposition 4.3**.**
Given any and , there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all , for all , and all for which
[TABLE]
4.4. Discrete measures and regularizations
Let be any finite set in . Denote by the probability measure supported equally on the elements of , and for , denote by the probability measure supported equally and uniformly on circles of radius about each element of .
Proposition 4.4**.**
For every , there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all and any finite set in and any
[TABLE]
Proof.
For any and any , let be the probability measure supported on the circle of radius around . Recall that
[TABLE]
For each fixed , the function is a potential for in , and therefore, there exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
Now let be any finite set in . Then, assuming , we have
[TABLE]
because the function is harmonic away from the unit circle on .
By Proposition 4.3, there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all satisfying
[TABLE]
and all and any . Shrinking if needed, we have
[TABLE]
for and all , by Proposition 4.2.
Let be the compact subset of consisting of all with and and . Over , the family of potentials is uniformly continuous. So there exists such that
[TABLE]
whenever and for all . Here, represents the chordal distance on . Furthermore, we may take such that we also have
[TABLE]
for all with , and all . Thus
[TABLE]
for any choice of finite set , , and .
Now assume that . We will consider three cases. First, suppose . Choose any such that
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
for all . This is equivalent to
[TABLE]
for all with . Combined with (4.23) and setting , this implies that
[TABLE]
for such pairs and .
Second, suppose that . By shrinking further if necessary, we have , and therefore if and , with , we also have . Applying the convergence (4.23) where , for all we have
[TABLE]
for satisfying and for all .
Third, for , by the convergence (4.24),
[TABLE]
for all and and .
Together these three cases yield
[TABLE]
for any choice of finite set and all , with .
If , the arguments above go through by replacing with , as
[TABLE]
by Proposition 2.1. It follows that
[TABLE]
for any choice of finite set , , and , with and as above.
For near , more care is needed, as
[TABLE]
by Proposition 2.1. Setting ,
[TABLE]
From (4.23), we have
[TABLE]
for , , and
[TABLE]
for any choice of . Thus,
[TABLE]
for all satisfying
[TABLE]
with and any . As in (4.24), we also have
[TABLE]
for and , because for all , from the formula given in (4.5). The choice of in (4.25) is similar. It follows that
[TABLE]
for any choice of finite set and all , with .
Let to complete the proof. ∎
5. Archimedean energy
As in Section 4, assume is a complex parameter, with on the push-forward of the Haar measure on , and a potential for on . In this section we provide estimates on the archimedean local energy (introduced in Proposition 2.2)
[TABLE]
for as one or both of the parameters tends to 0, 1, or . We treat three cases separately: where only one parameter escapes into a cusp, where both parameters escape into a cusp, and where the two parameters head to two different cusps. By the symmetry established in Proposition 2.3, we focus on the case where tends to 0.
Throughout, we work in hybrid space and make use of the convergence of potentials to and measures to as , as proved in [Fa, Theorem B] and explained in §4.3.
5.1. A single escaping parameter
Theorem 5.1**.**
Given and any compact set , there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all satisfying and all .
Proof.
Recall that for any , we have defined in (4.13) and . For any pair , the local energy satisfies
[TABLE]
Fix and suppose that is compact. The functions are uniformly bounded for all and all , so there is a such that
[TABLE]
for all and all . We can also find a small such that
[TABLE]
for all . By Proposition 4.2, (shrinking if needed)
[TABLE]
for all and , and
[TABLE]
for all and all . Consequently,
[TABLE]
Finally, by the weak convergence of and convergence of to , we can shrink again such that
[TABLE]
for all . Recalling the formula for from (4.18), we have
[TABLE]
since the measure is the uniform distribution on the interval in the coordinates, as described in §4.1. Therefore,
[TABLE]
for all and all . ∎
5.2. Both parameters escaping to the same cusp
Theorem 5.2**.**
Given , there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all satisfying , where .
For each real number , consider the function
[TABLE]
for all . Note that from (4.18). As with , each extends naturally to a function on the Berkovich projective line and is a potential of the measure , where is interval measure on and is the delta-mass at the Gauss point .
For each the non-archimedean local energy is given by
[TABLE]
as computed in Theorem 3.1 (in the case ).
For and in , if both and are close to one of the three cusps, we can estimate the archimedean local energy in terms of the non-archimedean pairing using the degeneration description in hybrid space. We first prove a special case of Theorem 5.2:
Proposition 5.3**.**
Given and , there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all satisfying , where .
This proposition is an immediate consequence of the weak convergence of measures in the hybrid space, and the convergence of potentials as described in §4.3. We give the details to clarify how the bound is used.
Proof.
Fix and .
For and in the punctured unit disk , and for any , consider
[TABLE]
viewed as functions on the fiber in the hybrid space. By Proposition 4.2, there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all , , and all . In particular,
[TABLE]
for all and all . It follows that
[TABLE]
in the hybrid space as and tend to 0 with and , uniformly in for . This is because the annulus
[TABLE]
for each fixed , and , can be written in terms of as
[TABLE]
whenever . Therefore,
[TABLE]
for all , as a consequence of (5.4). In particular,
[TABLE]
for all and all .
Recall that the measures on the fiber over converge weakly in to the measure on the central fiber. For each with , let denote the measure associated to but viewed in the fiber . The measures converge to the measure as with , and this convergence can also be made uniform in with . That is, by Lemma 4.1, for any there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all and each . Note that this implies that
[TABLE]
Therefore, we also have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all . Thus, the measure on small sub-annuli of the annulus is controlled uniformly for all .
Putting all the pieces together,
[TABLE]
is within of
[TABLE]
for all sufficiently small and all with , for any . ∎
Here is an equivalent restatement of Theorem 5.2, expressed in terms of the growth of :
Theorem 5.4**.**
Given , there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all satisfying , where .
Comparing Theorem 5.4 to the statement of Proposition 5.3, we see that we lose the ability to bound the energy within a uniform when becomes large.
Proof of Theorems 5.4 and 5.2.
Fix .
As in the proof of Proposition 5.3, we make use of the weak convergence of measures and convergence of the potentials in the hybrid space as . Recalling the formula for from (4.18), we have
[TABLE]
since the measure is the uniform distribution on the interval in the coordinates, as described in §4.1.
Choose satisfying . There is a such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all . Thus, for with and , we have
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all . By shrinking further if necessary, we appeal to the weak convergence of measures in the hybrid space to deduce that
[TABLE]
for all .
Now fix , and recall that , so that
[TABLE]
for all . For this , we can find a such that Proposition 5.3 is satisfied for all with . Choose any , and we obtain the theorem for .
Now suppose . We will estimate
[TABLE]
for all and any with by estimating the two integrals separately.
As shown above,
[TABLE]
for all and with , and
[TABLE]
for all and . Writing the first integral as
[TABLE]
it follows that
[TABLE]
for all and .
Write the second integral as
[TABLE]
As is bounded by , we have
[TABLE]
for all . On the other hand, we have
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
for all from (5.8).
We conclude that
[TABLE]
for all sufficiently large and all . On the other hand, we also have
[TABLE]
for all by our choice of , so the theorem is proved. ∎
5.3. Parameters escaping to different cusps
Theorem 5.5**.**
Given , there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all satisfying and , where .
Proof.
The proof is nearly identical to that of Theorem 5.2, working in the hybrid space over a unit disk that we will parameterize by . For fixed , and any satisfying , consider the functions
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
in the fiber .
As computed in Proposition 3.3, the limit of as with is
[TABLE]
As , the measures on will to converge the canonical measure for the map on the Berkovich projective line, working over the field ; the measure is uniformly distributed on the interval .
As with , , we have
[TABLE]
for , exactly as in (5.5). The non-archimedean local energy is computed in Theorem 3.1 as
[TABLE]
We conclude as in the proof of Theorem 5.2 that, for all given , there exists such that
[TABLE]
for all and . This completes the proof of Theorem 5.5. ∎
6. Proof of Theorems 1.5 and 1.6
In this section, we first prove Theorem 1.6, which states there exist constants such that
[TABLE]
for all in . We then use this lower bound to prove Theorem 1.5 and Proposition 1.8.
6.1. Balancing local contributions
Fix any such that
[TABLE]
Fix , and let be any number field containing and . We split the places into “good” and “bad” subsets, depending on the pair and the choice of . Let be the set of places with
[TABLE]
and set . We further decompose into its archimedean () and non-archimedean () places.
Lemma 6.1**.**
There exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
for any choice of and in and for all .
Proof.
Let
[TABLE]
and let be the minimum of the ’s from Theorems 5.2 and 5.5 for this choice of . Let be the of Theorem 5.1 for the compact set
[TABLE]
in . Let be the minimum of and , and let be any real number larger than .
Now fix and any number field containing and , and fix a place . If for , we have
[TABLE]
As , if , then
[TABLE]
and therefore, by Theorem 5.2, if additionally , then we have
[TABLE]
If and for some , then by Theorem 5.5
[TABLE]
if , and , we have by Theorem 5.1 that
[TABLE]
Combining the above inequalities with the symmetry relations of Proposition 2.3, we obtain
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 6.2**.**
There is a constant such that
[TABLE]
for any .
Proof.
Fix and and any number field containing them. For the non-archimedean places , by Theorem 3.1, we have
[TABLE]
and thus
[TABLE]
Now choose any integer so that is larger than the of Lemma 6.1, for each archimedean . We have
[TABLE]
for all . With the naive logarithmic height on , we set
[TABLE]
Then, we have
[TABLE]
For the last inequality, we use the facts that for nonzero and
[TABLE]
∎
6.2. Proof of Theorem 1.6
We begin with a standard lemma.
Lemma 6.3**.**
There is a constant , such that
[TABLE]
for . Here the is the naive logarithmic height on .
Proof.
Consider the birational transformation defined in affine coordinates by , with inverse
[TABLE]
of degree . There exists a constant such that
[TABLE]
outside of the indeterminacy set for in [HS, Theorem B.2.5]. The indeterminacy set for is . Therefore, letting for some point , we obtain
[TABLE]
for all in . In other words,
[TABLE]
∎
Now fix in . From Lemma 6.2, we know there is a constant (independent of and ) such that
[TABLE]
for any . Replacing in inequality (6.2) with , for , we also have
[TABLE]
Combining this with Proposition 2.3, we find that
[TABLE]
Consequently, by adding the inequalities (6.2) and (6.3), we have
[TABLE]
Observe that there is a constant from Lemma 6.3 such that
[TABLE]
Since is uniformly bounded over all pairs , we may combine the above inequality with the previous to conclude that
[TABLE]
In other words,
[TABLE]
and the proof of Theorem 1.6 is complete by taking and . ∎
Remark 6.4**.**
If we set , the constant in Theorem 1.6 can be taken to be .
6.3. Proof of Theorem 1.5
We will use Theorem 1.6 to deduce a uniform lower bound on the height pairing for all in .
Suppose there exist parameters such that
[TABLE]
Fix . For each , choose a number field containing and . By assumption and non-negativity of the local energies (Proposition 2.2), there is such that for all , the archimedean contribution to the pairing is less than ; that is, for ,
[TABLE]
recalling that now depends on .
Let be the set of archimedean places in such that , noting that for , we have
[TABLE]
Recall that the local energy is continuous in and , and it vanishes if and only if . So there exists a , depending only on , so that, for each and for each place , one of the following must hold:
- (1)
2. (2)
3. (3)
4. (4)
Note that we can take as . We may then, for each , choose a subset of for which and satisfy the same one of the four conditions at all places , and such that
[TABLE]
We conclude by the product formula that
[TABLE]
It then follows from the triangle inequality, combined with shrinking our choice of , that we have . The inequality of Theorem 1.6 implies that as well, a contradiction. This completes the proof of Theorem 1.5.
6.4. Proof of Proposition 1.8
Fix a number field , and fix in . Let denote the adelic metric on the line bundle associated to the height . Let denote the line bundle equipped with the metric ; its associated height function is
[TABLE]
Zhang’s inequality on the essential minimum of a height function implies that
[TABLE]
along any infinite sequence of distinct points [Zh2, Theorem 1.10]. In particular, the set
[TABLE]
is finite for any choice of .
By the linearity of the intersection pairing, we see that
[TABLE]
Therefore, we may choose any for the of Theorem 1.5, and the proposition is proved.
7. Proof of Theorem 1.7
Fix any such that for the of Theorem 1.5. Recall from Proposition 1.8 that the set
[TABLE]
is finite for every pair . Note that so that for all in and all . In this section, we prove the following generalization of Theorem 1.7.
Theorem 7.1**.**
Let be chosen so that for the of Theorem 1.5. For all , there exists a constant so that
[TABLE]
for all in , for the set defined by (7.1).
Note that Theorem 1.7 follows from Theorem 7.1 by setting .
7.1. Adelic measures and heights associated to a finite set
Fix a number field , and suppose that is a finite set in which is -invariant. Let be a collection of positive real numbers
[TABLE]
with for all but finitely many . For archimedean and , we let denote the Lebesgue probability measure on the circle of radius centered at the point . We then set
[TABLE]
Similarly, for each non-archimedean , we let denote the probability measure distributed uniformly on the points in over all . Then is an adelic measure in the sense of [FRL1]. It gives rise to a unique height on associated to a continuous and semipositive adelic metric on with curvature distributions given by and satisfying
[TABLE]
Its local heights are given by
[TABLE]
for and suitable constants ; taking
[TABLE]
gives (7.2).
Remark 7.2**.**
The height will generally not admit sequences of “small” points, meaning sequences with . In fact, for any choices of and such that , the essential minimum of is positive.
7.2. An upper bound on the height pairing
Now suppose that and lie in . Recall that and respectively denote the measure and height associated to the curve . By the triangle inequality for the distance function of §2.8, we have
[TABLE]
for any choice of and . By symmetry and bilinearity of the mutual energy,
[TABLE]
for . For fixed , writing the local height for as for yields
[TABLE]
from (2.11). Therefore,
[TABLE]
Recall from §2.7 that is the probability measure on distributed equally on the elements of for each . By [FRL1, Lemma 4.11] and [Fi, Lemma 12], we have
[TABLE]
It follows that
[TABLE]
with the final equality following from (2.16).
Proposition 7.3**.**
Suppose lies in a number field . Assume that is a finite, -invariant set of points. Then
[TABLE]
for any choice of with for all but finitely many .
Proof.
The height of is computed as
[TABLE]
and therefore we may add to the right hand side of (7.4). ∎
7.3. Proof of Theorem 7.1
Fix so that Proposition 1.8 is satisfied for all in . Now fix in and a number field containing and . Set
[TABLE]
so is a finite, -invariant set with
[TABLE]
for . At each non-archimedean place of , we set
[TABLE]
Now fix . For each archimedean , we set
[TABLE]
where the constant is from Proposition 4.4. Let ; observe that for all but finitely many , and
[TABLE]
For non-archimedean , the explicit form of the measure (described in Section 3) implies that
[TABLE]
for this choice of , because the potentials for are constant on disks of radius .
We thus obtain from Proposition 7.3 that
[TABLE]
for , where denotes the non-archimedean places and the archimedean places.
We have for that
[TABLE]
for by Proposition 4.4.
Since the logarithmic Weil height satisfies , we thus obtain
[TABLE]
for . Since for , this inequality becomes
[TABLE]
for .
By the triangle inequality (7.3), we have
[TABLE]
so
[TABLE]
Fix any , and choose . Since , we can find a large constant satisfying
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
The inequality (7.6) then yields
[TABLE]
concluding the proof of Theorem 7.1.
8. Proof of Theorem 1.4
In this section, we deduce Theorem 1.4 from Theorems 1.5, 1.6, 1.7 for algebraic values of and ; we then extend the result to hold for parameters in , via a specialization argument. In fact, we prove the following stronger result over :
Theorem 8.1**.**
There exist constants and so that
[TABLE]
for all in .
8.1. Proof of Theorem 8.1
Let be as in Theorem 1.5 so that
[TABLE]
for all in . Fix
[TABLE]
so that, from Proposition 1.8, the set
[TABLE]
is finite for all in . Let be the naive logarithmic height on . Fix for the of Theorem 1.6 and such that
[TABLE]
Suppose that satisfy . Then for , there exists by Theorem 7.1 a constant such that
[TABLE]
On the other hand, by Theorem 1.6 and the choice of , we have
[TABLE]
Therefore
[TABLE]
and so
[TABLE]
for , from (8.1).
Suppose now that satisfy . Set , and find a constant as in Theorem 7.1 so that
[TABLE]
and thus, since , we have
[TABLE]
We conclude that
[TABLE]
providing a uniform bound also for and satisfying . This completes the proof of Theorem 8.1.
8.2. Specialization: proof of Theorem 1.4
We implement a standard specialization argument to deduce Theorem 1.4 from Theorem 8.1. Note that the division polynomials for the Legendre curve have coefficients in ; see, for example, [Si, Exercise 3.7]. Let be the uniform bound obtained in Theorem 8.1, so that
[TABLE]
for all . Assume that there exist with
[TABLE]
and transcendental. If then for all as it is a root of a division polynomial. It follows that there is at least one non-algebraic point , as only are torsion images for all [DWY, Proposition 1.4].
Now let
[TABLE]
where , and assume that is transcendental. Because it is a torsion image for both parameters, and therefore also the field
[TABLE]
are of transcendence degree one. Consequently is isomorphic to a function field for a number field and an algebraic curve defined over . Via the identification of with , there exists an algebraic point with distinct specializations for and
[TABLE]
The division relations in imply that the specializations and have at least common torsion images, contradicting (8.2). Therefore, we must have
[TABLE]
for all , and the proof of Theorem 1.4 is complete.
8.3. Common torsion images
We obtain the following immediate corollary of Theorem 1.4, which is a special case of Conjecture 1.3. Recall that a standard projection from elliptic curve to is any degree-two branched cover that identifies each point with its inverse .
Corollary 8.2**.**
There exists a uniform bound such that
[TABLE]
for any pair of elliptic curves over and any pair of standard projections for which
[TABLE]
Proof.
By fixing coordinates on , we may assume that . For each the composition is again a standard projection and satisfies . Therefore, we may assume that for the origin of , . Putting each into Legendre form now shows that the corollary follows from Theorem 1.4. ∎
9. Proof of Theorems 1.1 and 1.9
Throughout this section, we let denote the hypersurface in the moduli space consisting of all genus 2 curves over that admit a degree-two map to an elliptic curve; see, e.g., [SV] for details on . The surface consists of all whose Jacobians admit real multiplication by the real quadratic order of discriminant 4, as explained in the proof of [Mc, Theorem 4.10].
For any smooth, compact, genus 2 curve over , and for any Weierstrass point on ,
[TABLE]
as the difference of two Weierstrass points is torsion. On the other hand, any curve of genus has for all but finitely many , by Baker and Poonen [BP], so an Abel-Jacobi map based at a Weierstrass point has in this sense a large number of torsion images.
In this section we deduce Theorem 1.1 from Corollary 8.2, providing a uniform upper bound on for all in . We also deduce Theorem 1.9 from Theorem 8.1.
9.1. Genus 2 curve from a pair of elliptic curves
Suppose that and are standard projections on elliptic curves such that
[TABLE]
as in Corollary 8.2. Recall that standard projections are degree-two branched covers such that for all points , and so they have simple critical points at the four points of . Consider the diagonal , and lift to a curve via . Let normalize , noting that the degree four map has branch locus , with each branch point the image of two points in , each of multiplicity two. By Riemann-Hurwitz, the genus of is 2, and by construction, the curve is in in . Note that maps to both of the elliptic curves and with degree 2.
9.2. A pair of elliptic curves from a genus 2 curve
Here we observe that every arises from the construction described in §9.1. In particular, admitting a degree-two branched cover to an elliptic curve implies that also admits a second degree-two branched cover . The proof of the following proposition shows how the curve arises:
Proposition 9.1**.**
Every is the lift of the diagonal under a product of standard projections on elliptic curves for which
[TABLE]
Moreover, there is a Weierstrass point and a degree-four isogeny such that
[TABLE]
where is the diagonal in , is the Jacobian of , and is the Abel-Jacobi embedding associated to .
Proof.
As noted by [SV] and attributed to Jacobi [Ja], each curve has an affine model
[TABLE]
where the polynomial on the right has non-zero discriminant. admits degree two maps and to elliptic curves with affine presentation
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
respectively, defining a map . For each of these curves, the -coordinate projection is standard, so and are standard projections for and respectively. The projection ramifies over and ramifies over , where are the distinct, nonzero roots of . Thus
[TABLE]
Define , noting that for , we have
[TABLE]
Thus , where is the diagonal.
Fix , and equip each with a group structure such that the identity lies above . Observe that the -involution on induces the hyperelliptic involution on . In particular, the Weierstrass points on are the six preimages of under . Choose such that , so that is Weierstrass and factors as for some isogeny . The nontrivial elements of the kernel of are precisely the three -torsion points in which are differences of Weierstrass points mapping to the same point in the diagonal . Thus is degree four as claimed, completing the proof. ∎
9.3. Proof of Theorem 1.1
Fix . From Proposition 9.1, we have elliptic curves and and a Weierstrass point such that
[TABLE]
for a pair of standard projections satisfying . Given any other Weierstrass point , we have , so we conclude that
[TABLE]
where is the constant of Corollary 8.2.
9.4. Proof of Theorem 1.9
Fix , defined over . From Proposition 9.1 there is a pair in and an isogeny of degree 4 so that is the diagonal in , where and is a Weierstrass point on . Recall from §2.1 that the Néron-Tate canonical height on on satisfies
[TABLE]
for all and each .
Let
[TABLE]
be a divisor on where denotes the identity element of , and let be the associated line bundle. Let on , and let be the associated Néron-Tate canonical height on . By the functoriality of canonical heights [HS, Theorem B.5.6], we have
[TABLE]
where in . Restricting to the points , so that in , the theorem now follows from Theorem 8.1.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[BR] Matthew Baker and Robert Rumely. Potential theory and dynamics on the Berkovich projective line , volume 159 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2010.
- 2[B Pe] Matthew Baker and Clayton Petsche. Global discrepancy and small points on elliptic curves. Int. Math. Res. Not. 61 (2005), 3791–3834.
- 3[BP] Matthew Baker and Bjorn Poonen. Torsion packets on curves. Compositio Math. 127 (2001), 109–116.
- 4[Be] Vladimir Berkovich. Spectral theory and analytic geometry over non-Archimedean fields , volume 33 of Mathematical Surveys and Monographs . American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1990.
- 5[BFT] Fedor Bogomolov, Hang Fu, and Yuri Tschinkel. Torsion of elliptic curves and unlikely intersections. Preprint, ar Xiv:1706.01586 .
- 6[BT] Fedor Bogomolov and Yuri Tschinkel. Algebraic varieties over small fields. In Diophantine geometry , volume 4 of CRM Series , pages 73–91. Ed. Norm., Pisa, 2007.
- 7[BJ] Sébastien Boucksom and Mattias Jonsson. Tropical and non-Archimedean limits of degenerating families of volume forms. J. Éc. polytech. Math. 4 (2017), 87–139.
- 8[Bu] Alexandru Buium. Geometry of p 𝑝 p -jets. Duke Math. Journal. 82 (1996), no. 2, 349–367.
