Friday, 1 December 2006

Is there a way to define Hecke operators "inherently" as certain endomorphisms of the Jacobian?

Philip remarks that he wants to define the Hecke operator as an endomorphism of the Jacobian of "any Riemann surface XX such that the endomorphism ring is defined over mathbfQmathbfQ", and at the same time he wants the Hecke operator to reduce to rmFrobp+prmFrob1prmFrobp+prmFrob1p. I think that for a generic Riemann surface XX, the endomorphism ring is mathbfZmathbfZ. However, rmFrobp+rmVerprmFrobp+rmVerp is very unlikely to be an integer, so for a general XX it is highly unlikely that there exists an element of rmEnd(X)rmEnd(X) that lifts rmFrobp+rmVerprmFrobp+rmVerp. (I'm using rmVerprmVerp to denote the dual of Frobenius.)



Here is another closely related point. When AA is an abelian variety with good reduction at a prime pp, there is a natural map rmEnd(A)tormEnd(AmathbfFp)rmEnd(A)tormEnd(AmathbfFp). (See my remark here). I think this map is injective (consider the induced map on Tate modules at some good prime ellell). Thus you could define the Hecke operator TpTp to be the unique (if it exists!) lift of rmFrobp+rmVerprmFrobp+rmVerp. That's intrinsic and makes no reference to any moduli space.

No comments:

Post a Comment