ai,
@ai@cawfee.club avatar

@johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com@johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com @johncarlosbaez Can I ask what is the bigger picture that you and James Dolan have in mind with these examples? Or what led you to ask the question in the first place?

Given everything said so far, I believe the following:

Given an elliptic curve (over C) with complex multiplication, say E, the Neron-Severi group of E x E is a rank 4 lattice, by this question (which you commented on): https://mathoverflow.net/questions/152004/picard-number-of-principally-polarized-abelian-varieties . See also Section 3 in https://jep.centre-mersenne.org/item/10.5802/jep.5.pdf . If D is the endomorphism ring of E, then D is an order in an imaginary quadratic field, and GL(2, D) acts on the Neron-Severi group of E x E preserving the intersection pairing.

The same action can be constructed directly from D, by having GL(2, D) -> PGL(2, C) act on Minkowski space and hence on hyperbolic 3-space. This is an example of an arithmetic Kleinian group. Up to finite index considerations, it is a Bianchi group.

Bianchi group actions on hyperbolic 3-space are well-studied, as described in Subsection 2.2 of https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.6697 , see especially Figure 1 which shows a fundamental domain. I wonder whether the literature on fundamental domains of Bianchi group actions vindicates James Dolan's intuition that they are "slightly stubby voronoi regions for the quadratic integers in D."

A Bianchi group action on hyperbolic 3-space always has at least one cusp. (In fact, the set of cusps is in bijection with the class group of the imaginary quadratic field, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bianchi_group ) Since the Bianchi group acts via isometries, the presence of a cusp forces orbits to contain many points which lie on one horosphere.

Generalizing to abelian surfaces which are isogenous to E x E only introduces finite index complications, because the NS group is still a rank 4 lattice. But generalizing any further will decrease the rank of the NS group, by the MO question linked above.

There is a cool-looking paper which discusses this construction and claims to use hyperbolic group actions to prove a theorem about the nef cone: https://arxiv.org/pdf/0901.3361 (see discussion here https://mathoverflow.net/a/27353 ). I haven't looked in detail though

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • random
  • ngwrru68w68
  • rosin
  • GTA5RPClips
  • osvaldo12
  • love
  • Youngstown
  • slotface
  • khanakhh
  • everett
  • kavyap
  • mdbf
  • DreamBathrooms
  • thenastyranch
  • magazineikmin
  • megavids
  • InstantRegret
  • normalnudes
  • tacticalgear
  • cubers
  • ethstaker
  • modclub
  • cisconetworking
  • Durango
  • anitta
  • Leos
  • tester
  • provamag3
  • JUstTest
  • All magazines