On the Geometry of the Moduli Space
of Real Binary Octics
Kenneth Chu
Department of Mathematics
University of Utah
chu@math.utah.edu
October 18, 2005
The Moduli Space of Stable Real Octics
. – p.1/22
The Moduli Space of Stable Real Octics
Intention: To produce a non-arithmetic lattice in Isom(RH5 ).
. – p.1/22
The Moduli Space of Stable Real Octics
Intention: To produce a non-arithmetic lattice in Isom(RH5 ).
MsR,cubic surfaces
. – p.1/22
The Moduli Space of Stable Real Octics
Intention: To produce a non-arithmetic lattice in Isom(RH5 ).
MsR,cubic surfaces ∼
=
5
[
i=1
ΓiR,cs \RH4
| {z }
cs
MR,
i
. – p.1/22
The Moduli Space of Stable Real Octics
Intention: To produce a non-arithmetic lattice in Isom(RH5 ).
MsR,cubic surfaces ∼
=
5
[
i=1
ΓiR,cs \RH4 ∼
= ΓR,cs \RH4 .
| {z }
cs
MR,
i
. – p.1/22
The Moduli Space of Stable Real Octics
Intention: To produce a non-arithmetic lattice in Isom(RH5 ).
MsR,cubic surfaces ∼
=
5
[
i=1
ΓiR,cs \RH4 ∼
= ΓR,cs \RH4 .
| {z }
cs
MR,
i
Hope same phenomenon will occur with MsR,binary octics , i.e.
MR
s
. – p.1/22
The Moduli Space of Stable Real Octics
Intention: To produce a non-arithmetic lattice in Isom(RH5 ).
MsR,cubic surfaces ∼
=
5
[
i=1
ΓiR,cs \RH4 ∼
= ΓR,cs \RH4 .
| {z }
cs
MR,
i
Hope same phenomenon will occur with MsR,binary octics , i.e.
?
∼
MR
s =
4
[
i=0
5
ΓR
\RH
| i {z }
MR
s,i
. – p.1/22
The Moduli Space of Stable Real Octics
Intention: To produce a non-arithmetic lattice in Isom(RH5 ).
MsR,cubic surfaces ∼
=
5
[
i=1
ΓiR,cs \RH4 ∼
= ΓR,cs \RH4 .
| {z }
cs
MR,
i
Hope same phenomenon will occur with MsR,binary octics , i.e.
MR
s
?
∼
=
4
[
i=0
5
ΓR
\RH
i
| {z }
?
∼
= ΓR \RH5 .
MR
s,i
. – p.1/22
Summary of New Results
. – p.2/22
Summary of New Results
MR
s
?
∼
=
4
S
?
5 ∼
ΓR
= ΓR \RH5 .
i \RH
i=0 | {z }
MR
s,i
. – p.2/22
Summary of New Results
?
∼
MR
s =
4
S
?
5 ∼
ΓR
= ΓR \RH5 .
i \RH
i=0 | {z }
MR
s,i
i
0
1
2
3
4
# real points
8
6
4
2
0
# cx. conj. pairs
0
1
2
3
4
. – p.2/22
Summary of New Results
?
∼
MR
s =
4
S
?
5 ∼
ΓR
= ΓR \RH5 .
i \RH
i=0 | {z }
MR
s,i
i
0
1
2
3
4
# real points
8
6
4
2
0
# cx. conj. pairs
0
1
2
3
4
R
1. ΓR
0 , . . . , Γ3 have been found explicitly.
. – p.2/22
Summary of New Results
?
∼
MR
s =
4
S
?
5 ∼
ΓR
= ΓR \RH5 .
i \RH
i=0 | {z }
MR
s,i
i
0
1
2
3
4
# real points
8
6
4
2
0
# cx. conj. pairs
0
1
2
3
4
R
1. ΓR
0 , . . . , Γ3 have been found explicitly. Each is a finite-index subgroup
of an arithmetic reflection subgroup PAi ⊂ PIsom(RH5 ).
. – p.2/22
Summary of New Results
?
∼
MR
s =
4
S
?
5 ∼
ΓR
= ΓR \RH5 .
i \RH
i=0 | {z }
MR
s,i
i
0
1
2
3
4
# real points
8
6
4
2
0
# cx. conj. pairs
0
1
2
3
4
R
1. ΓR
0 , . . . , Γ3 have been found explicitly. Each is a finite-index subgroup
of an arithmetic reflection subgroup PAi ⊂ PIsom(RH5 ). The Coxeter
diagrams of A0 , . . . , A3 have been worked out.
. – p.2/22
Summary of New Results
?
∼
MR
s =
4
S
?
5 ∼
ΓR
= ΓR \RH5 .
i \RH
i=0 | {z }
MR
s,i
i
0
1
2
3
4
# real points
8
6
4
2
0
# cx. conj. pairs
0
1
2
3
4
R
1. ΓR
0 , . . . , Γ3 have been found explicitly. Each is a finite-index subgroup
of an arithmetic reflection subgroup PAi ⊂ PIsom(RH5 ). The Coxeter
diagrams of A0 , . . . , A3 have been worked out.
2. ΓR
4 is narrowed down to one of two possibilities.
. – p.2/22
Summary of New Results
?
∼
MR
s =
4
S
?
5 ∼
ΓR
= ΓR \RH5 .
i \RH
i=0 | {z }
MR
s,i
i
0
1
2
3
4
# real points
8
6
4
2
0
# cx. conj. pairs
0
1
2
3
4
R
1. ΓR
0 , . . . , Γ3 have been found explicitly. Each is a finite-index subgroup
of an arithmetic reflection subgroup PAi ⊂ PIsom(RH5 ). The Coxeter
diagrams of A0 , . . . , A3 have been worked out.
2. ΓR
4 is narrowed down to one of two possibilities. One of these
possibilities is shown to be a finite-index subgroup of an arithmetic
subgroup in PIsom(RH5 ) and its Coxeter diagram has been worked
out.
. – p.2/22
Summary of New Results
?
∼
MR
s =
4
S
?
5 ∼
ΓR
= ΓR \RH5 .
i \RH
i=0 | {z }
MR
s,i
i
0
1
2
3
4
# real points
8
6
4
2
0
# cx. conj. pairs
0
1
2
3
4
R
1. ΓR
0 , . . . , Γ3 have been found explicitly. Each is a finite-index subgroup
of an arithmetic reflection subgroup PAi ⊂ PIsom(RH5 ). The Coxeter
diagrams of A0 , . . . , A3 have been worked out.
2. ΓR
4 is narrowed down to one of two possibilities. One of these
possibilities is shown to be a finite-index subgroup of an arithmetic
subgroup in PIsom(RH5 ) and its Coxeter diagram has been worked
out.
3. (The A-C-T construction of) MR
s cannot admit a real hyperbolic
orbifold structure:
. – p.2/22
Summary of New Results
?
∼
MR
s =
4
S
?
5 ∼
ΓR
= ΓR \RH5 .
i \RH
i=0 | {z }
MR
s,i
i
0
1
2
3
4
# real points
8
6
4
2
0
# cx. conj. pairs
0
1
2
3
4
R
1. ΓR
0 , . . . , Γ3 have been found explicitly. Each is a finite-index subgroup
of an arithmetic reflection subgroup PAi ⊂ PIsom(RH5 ). The Coxeter
diagrams of A0 , . . . , A3 have been worked out.
2. ΓR
4 is narrowed down to one of two possibilities. One of these
possibilities is shown to be a finite-index subgroup of an arithmetic
subgroup in PIsom(RH5 ) and its Coxeter diagram has been worked
out.
3. (The A-C-T construction of) MR
s cannot admit a real hyperbolic
orbifold structure: Points in the stratum ∆0,1 are not locally real
hyperbolic (modulo a finite group of isometries).
. – p.2/22
Strategy
1. Start with
. – p.3/22
Strategy
1. Start with
Ms
∼
=
PΓ\CH5
[Deligne-Mostow]
. – p.3/22
Strategy
1. Start with
`
Ms
∼
=
PΓ\CH5
[Deligne-Mostow]
k
´
CP8 − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, C)
. – p.3/22
Strategy
1. Start with
`
Ms
∼
=
PΓ\CH5
[Deligne-Mostow]
k
´
CP8 − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, C)
5
2. A-C-T observed: Periods (in CH ) of real octics lie in
S
χ∈?
RH5χ ⊂ CH5 .
. – p.3/22
Strategy
1. Start with
`
Ms
∼
=
PΓ\CH5
[Deligne-Mostow]
k
´
CP8 − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, C)
5
2. A-C-T observed: Periods (in CH ) of real octics lie in
S
χ∈?
So,
RH5χ ⊂ CH5 .
. – p.3/22
Strategy
1. Start with
`
Ms
∼
=
PΓ\CH5
[Deligne-Mostow]
k
´
CP8 − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, C)
5
2. A-C-T observed: Periods (in CH ) of real octics lie in
S
χ∈?
So,
RH5χ ⊂ CH5 .
MR
s
k
”
“
8
R
RP − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, R)
. – p.3/22
Strategy
1. Start with
`
∼
=
Ms
PΓ\CH5
[Deligne-Mostow]
k
´
CP8 − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, C)
5
2. A-C-T observed: Periods (in CH ) of real octics lie in
S
χ∈?
So,
MR
s
k
∼
= PΓ
-(
`
χ∈?
RH5χ
!,
≈
RH5χ ⊂ CH5 .
)
=: PΓ\Ks
”
“
8
R
RP − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, R)
. – p.3/22
Strategy
1. Start with
`
∼
=
Ms
PΓ\CH5
[Deligne-Mostow]
k
´
CP8 − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, C)
5
2. A-C-T observed: Periods (in CH ) of real octics lie in
S
χ∈?
So,
MR
s
∼
= PΓ
k
-(
`
χ∈?
RH5χ
!,
≈
RH5χ ⊂ CH5 .
)
=: PΓ\Ks
”
“
8
R
RP − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, R)
‘
is to undo PGL(2, C)-quotienting.
. – p.3/22
Strategy
1. Start with
`
∼
=
Ms
PΓ\CH5
[Deligne-Mostow]
k
´
CP8 − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, C)
5
2. A-C-T observed: Periods (in CH ) of real octics lie in
S
χ∈?
So,
MR
s
k
∼
= PΓ
-(
`
χ∈?
RH5χ
!,
≈
RH5χ ⊂ CH5 .
)
=: PΓ\Ks
”
“
8
R
RP − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, R)
‘
is to undo PGL(2, C)-quotienting. ≈ is to impose PGL(2, R)-quotienting.
. – p.3/22
Strategy
1. Start with
`
∼
=
Ms
PΓ\CH5
[Deligne-Mostow]
k
´
CP8 − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, C)
5
2. A-C-T observed: Periods (in CH ) of real octics lie in
S
χ∈?
So,
MR
s
∼
= PΓ
k
-(
`
χ∈?
RH5χ
!,
≈
RH5χ ⊂ CH5 .
)
=: PΓ\Ks
”
“
8
R
RP − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, R)
‘
is to undo PGL(2, C)-quotienting. ≈ is to impose PGL(2, R)-quotienting.
3. Study the geometry of PΓ\Ks
. – p.3/22
Strategy
1. Start with
`
∼
=
Ms
PΓ\CH5
[Deligne-Mostow]
k
´
CP8 − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, C)
5
2. A-C-T observed: Periods (in CH ) of real octics lie in
S
χ∈?
So,
MR
s
k
∼
= PΓ
-(
`
χ∈?
RH5χ
!,
≈
RH5χ ⊂ CH5 .
)
=: PΓ\Ks
”
“
8
R
RP − ∆≥4 /PGL(2, R)
‘
is to undo PGL(2, C)-quotienting. ≈ is to impose PGL(2, R)-quotienting.
3. Study the geometry of PΓ\Ks =: A-C-T construction of the moduli
space of stable real binary octics.
. – p.3/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
. – p.4/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Let p(x) ∈ P0 .
. – p.4/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Let p(x) ∈ P0 . Define Xp to be the completion of
4
(x, y) ∈ C
y − p(x) = 0
2
. – p.4/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Let p(x) ∈ P0 . Define Xp to be the completion of
4
(x, y) ∈ C
y − p(x) = 0
2
Xp is a Riemann surface
. – p.4/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Let p(x) ∈ P0 . Define Xp to be the completion of
4
(x, y) ∈ C
y − p(x) = 0
2
π
Xp is a Riemann surface and the map Xp → C : (x, y) 7→ x is a quadruple
cyclic covering of CP1 branched over the 8 distinct roots of p(x).
. – p.4/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Let p(x) ∈ P0 . Define Xp to be the completion of
4
(x, y) ∈ C
y − p(x) = 0
2
π
Xp is a Riemann surface and the map Xp → C : (x, y) 7→ x is a quadruple
cyclic covering of CP1 branched over the 8 distinct roots of p(x). Each
ramification point has ramification index 4. Riemann-Hurwitz ⇒ genus(Xp )
= H 1,0 (Xp ) = 9 and rankZ H 1 (Xp , Z) = dimC H 1 (Xp , C) = 2 · 9 = 18.
. – p.4/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Let p(x) ∈ P0 . Define Xp to be the completion of
4
√
σ
(x, y) ∈ C
y − p(x) = 0 =: Xp −→ Xp : (x, y) 7→ (x, −1y).
2
π
Xp is a Riemann surface and the map Xp → C : (x, y) 7→ x is a quadruple
cyclic covering of CP1 branched over the 8 distinct roots of p(x). Each
ramification point has ramification index 4. Riemann-Hurwitz ⇒ genus(Xp )
= H 1,0 (Xp ) = 9 and rankZ H 1 (Xp , Z) = dimC H 1 (Xp , C) = 2 · 9 = 18.
. – p.4/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Let p(x) ∈ P0 . Define Xp to be the completion of
4
√
σ
(x, y) ∈ C
y − p(x) = 0 =: Xp −→ Xp : (x, y) 7→ (x, −1y).
2
π
Xp is a Riemann surface and the map Xp → C : (x, y) 7→ x is a quadruple
cyclic covering of CP1 branched over the 8 distinct roots of p(x). Each
ramification point has ramification index 4. Riemann-Hurwitz ⇒ genus(Xp )
= H 1,0 (Xp ) = 9 and rankZ H 1 (Xp , Z) = dimC H 1 (Xp , C) = 2 · 9 = 18.
Let Λ(Xp ) := Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z).
. – p.4/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Let p(x) ∈ P0 . Define Xp to be the completion of
4
√
σ
(x, y) ∈ C
y − p(x) = 0 =: Xp −→ Xp : (x, y) 7→ (x, −1y).
2
π
Xp is a Riemann surface and the map Xp → C : (x, y) 7→ x is a quadruple
cyclic covering of CP1 branched over the 8 distinct roots of p(x). Each
ramification point has ramification index 4. Riemann-Hurwitz ⇒ genus(Xp )
= H 1,0 (Xp ) = 9 and rankZ H 1 (Xp , Z) = dimC H 1 (Xp , C) = 2 · 9 = 18.
Let Λ(Xp ) :=
σ 2 + 1 = 0.
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z).
σ∗
Then, Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ(Xp ) satisfies
. – p.4/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Let p(x) ∈ P0 . Define Xp to be the completion of
4
√
σ
(x, y) ∈ C
y − p(x) = 0 =: Xp −→ Xp : (x, y) 7→ (x, −1y).
2
π
Xp is a Riemann surface and the map Xp → C : (x, y) 7→ x is a quadruple
cyclic covering of CP1 branched over the 8 distinct roots of p(x). Each
ramification point has ramification index 4. Riemann-Hurwitz ⇒ genus(Xp )
= H 1,0 (Xp ) = 9 and rankZ H 1 (Xp , Z) = dimC H 1 (Xp , C) = 2 · 9 = 18.
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z).
σ∗
Let Λ(Xp ) :=
Then, Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ(Xp ) satisfies
√
2
σ + 1 = 0. Hence Λ(Xp ) becomes a Z[ −1]-module
. – p.4/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Let p(x) ∈ P0 . Define Xp to be the completion of
4
√
σ
(x, y) ∈ C
y − p(x) = 0 =: Xp −→ Xp : (x, y) 7→ (x, −1y).
2
π
Xp is a Riemann surface and the map Xp → C : (x, y) 7→ x is a quadruple
cyclic covering of CP1 branched over the 8 distinct roots of p(x). Each
ramification point has ramification index 4. Riemann-Hurwitz ⇒ genus(Xp )
= H 1,0 (Xp ) = 9 and rankZ H 1 (Xp , Z) = dimC H 1 (Xp , C) = 2 · 9 = 18.
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z).
σ∗
Let Λ(Xp ) :=
Then, Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ(Xp ) satisfies
√
2
σ + 1 = 0. Hence Λ(Xp ) becomes a Z[ −1]-module via
√
− −1 · φ := σ ∗ (φ).
. – p.4/22
Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Let p(x) ∈ P0 . Define Xp to be the completion of
4
√
σ
(x, y) ∈ C
y − p(x) = 0 =: Xp −→ Xp : (x, y) 7→ (x, −1y).
2
π
Xp is a Riemann surface and the map Xp → C : (x, y) 7→ x is a quadruple
cyclic covering of CP1 branched over the 8 distinct roots of p(x). Each
ramification point has ramification index 4. Riemann-Hurwitz ⇒ genus(Xp )
= H 1,0 (Xp ) = 9 and rankZ H 1 (Xp , Z) = dimC H 1 (Xp , C) = 2 · 9 = 18.
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z).
σ∗
Let Λ(Xp ) :=
Then, Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ(Xp ) satisfies
√
2
σ + 1 = 0. Hence Λ(Xp ) becomes a Z[ −1]-module via
√
− −1 · φ := σ ∗ (φ).
FACT:
√
∼
Λ(Xp ) = Z[ −1]6 .
. – p.4/22
Hermitian Form on Λ(Xp )
. – p.5/22
Hermitian Form on Λ(Xp )
Consider the embedding
Λ(Xp )
k
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z)
. – p.5/22
Hermitian Form on Λ(Xp )
Consider the embedding
Λ(Xp )
֒→
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z) ⊗Z C
k
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z)
. – p.5/22
Hermitian Form on Λ(Xp )
Consider the embedding
Λ(Xp )
֒→
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z) ⊗Z C
∼
=
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , C)
k
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z)
. – p.5/22
Hermitian Form on Λ(Xp )
Consider the embedding
Λ(Xp )
k
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z)
֒→
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z) ⊗Z C
∼
=
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , C)
k
1 √
1
√
(X
,
C)
⊕
H
(Xp , C)
Hσ=−
p
σ= −1
−1
. – p.5/22
Hermitian Form on Λ(Xp )
Consider the embedding
Λ(Xp )
k
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z)
֒→
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z) ⊗Z C
∼
=
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , C)
k
1 √
1
√
(X
,
C)
⊕
H
(Xp , C)
Hσ=−
p
σ= −1
−1
↓
1
√
Hσ=−
(Xp , C)
−1
. – p.5/22
Hermitian Form on Λ(Xp )
Consider the embedding
Λ(Xp )
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z) ⊗Z C
֒→
∼
=
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , C)
k
k
1 √
1
√
(X
,
C)
⊕
H
(Xp , C)
Hσ=−
p
σ= −1
−1
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z)
↓
1
√
Hσ=−
(Xp , C)
−1
Computations show
0
B
B
B
B
B
@
1
√
Hσ=−
(Xp , C)
−1
|
{z
k
}
0,1
1,0
√
√
(X)
⊕
H
(X)
Hσ=−
σ=− −1
−1
(+)
(−−−−−)
√
h
, (α, β) 7−→ 2 −1
′
Z
Xp
1
C
C
C
α∧β C ∼
= C1,5
C
A
. – p.5/22
Hermitian Form on Λ(Xp ) (cont’d)
. – p.6/22
Hermitian Form on Λ(Xp ) (cont’d)
Λ(Xp ) =
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z)
֒→
1
√
Hσ=−
(Xp , C) ,
−1
′
h
∼
= C1,5
. – p.6/22
Hermitian Form on Λ(Xp ) (cont’d)
Λ(Xp ) =
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z)
֒→
1
√
Hσ=−
(Xp , C) ,
−1
′
h
∼
= C1,5
The pullback Hermitian form on Λ(Xp ) is given by:
√
h(ξ, η) = − Ω(ξ, σ(η)) − −1 Ω(ξ, η),
where Ω(ξ, η) := h ξ ∪ η , Xp i.
. – p.6/22
Hermitian Form on Λ(Xp ) (cont’d)
Λ(Xp ) =
Hσ12 =−1 (Xp , Z)
֒→
1
√
Hσ=−
(Xp , C) ,
−1
′
h
∼
= C1,5
The pullback Hermitian form on Λ(Xp ) is given by:
√
h(ξ, η) = − Ω(ξ, σ(η)) − −1 Ω(ξ, η),
where Ω(ξ, η) := h ξ ∪ η , Xp i.
√
Computations show (Λ(Xp ) , h) is abstractly isometric to Λ := Z[ −1]6 ,
equipped with
2
4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
2
5⊕4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
2
5⊕4
1−
0
√
1+
−1
√
0
−1
3
5
. – p.6/22
2
Explanation of 4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
5
. – p.7/22
2
Explanation of 4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
5
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a nodal octic has
√
Z[ −1]-rank one
. – p.7/22
2
Explanation of 4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
5
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a nodal octic has
√
Z[ −1]-rank one and is generated by a vector of norm -2.
. – p.7/22
2
Explanation of 4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
5
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a nodal octic has
√
Z[ −1]-rank one and is generated by a vector of norm -2.
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a cuspidal octic is an
orthogonal summand of Λ(Xp ) ∼
=Λ
. – p.7/22
2
Explanation of 4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
5
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a nodal octic has
√
Z[ −1]-rank one and is generated by a vector of norm -2.
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a cuspidal octic is an
√
∼
orthogonal summand of Λ(Xp ) = Λ of Z[ −1]-rank two
. – p.7/22
2
Explanation of 4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
5
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a nodal octic has
√
Z[ −1]-rank one and is generated by a vector of norm -2.
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a cuspidal octic is an
√
∼
orthogonal summand of Λ(Xp ) = Λ of Z[ −1]-rank two with inherited
√
Z[ −1]-Hermitian form:


√
 Z[ −1]2 , 
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2


. – p.7/22
2
Explanation of 4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
5
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a nodal octic has
√
Z[ −1]-rank one and is generated by a vector of norm -2.
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a cuspidal octic is an
√
∼
orthogonal summand of Λ(Xp ) = Λ of Z[ −1]-rank two with inherited
√
Z[ −1]-Hermitian form:


√
 Z[ −1]2 , 
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2


OUTLINE OF PROOF
Local “pictorial” computations of the intersection form of the vanishing 1-homology of
H1,σ2 =−1 (Xp , Z) over a coalescing two-point or three-point configurations,
. – p.7/22
2
Explanation of 4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
5
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a nodal octic has
√
Z[ −1]-rank one and is generated by a vector of norm -2.
The vanishing cohomology corresponding to a cuspidal octic is an
√
∼
orthogonal summand of Λ(Xp ) = Λ of Z[ −1]-rank two with inherited
√
Z[ −1]-Hermitian form:


√
 Z[ −1]2 , 
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2


OUTLINE OF PROOF
Local “pictorial” computations of the intersection form of the vanishing 1-homology of
H1,σ2 =−1 (Xp , Z) over a coalescing two-point or three-point configurations, i.e. the
intersection form of the vanishing 1-homology of
y 4 = x2 − ǫ2
and
y 4 = x3 − ǫ3 ,
as ǫ
→ 0, ǫ ≥ 0.
. – p.7/22
“Fiberwise” Summary
p ∈ P0
. – p.8/22
“Fiberwise” Summary
p ∈ P0
8
>
>
<
>
>
:
quadruple cyclic covering Xp
of CP1 branched at roots of p
with cyclic action Xp
σ
→ Xp of order 4
. – p.8/22
“Fiberwise” Summary
p ∈ P0
8
>
>
<
>
>
:
quadruple cyclic covering Xp
of CP1 branched at roots of p
with cyclic action Xp
σ
→ Xp of order 4
“
”
√
1
Z[ −1]-lattice Λ(Xp ) := Hσ2 =−1 (X, Z) , h
. – p.8/22
“Fiberwise” Summary
p ∈ P0
8
>
>
<
>
>
:
quadruple cyclic covering Xp
of CP1 branched at roots of p
with cyclic action Xp
σ
→ Xp of order 4
“
”
√
1
Z[ −1]-lattice Λ(Xp ) := Hσ2 =−1 (X, Z) , h ∼
=Λ
. – p.8/22
“Fiberwise” Summary
p ∈ P0
8
>
>
<
>
>
:
quadruple cyclic covering Xp
of CP1 branched at roots of p
with cyclic action Xp
σ
→ Xp of order 4
“
”
√
1
Z[ −1]-lattice Λ(Xp ) := Hσ2 =−1 (X, Z) , h ∼
=Λ
Recall
Λ ⊗Z[√−1] C ∼
= C1,5 = C1+,5− ,
. – p.8/22
“Fiberwise” Summary
8
>
>
<
p ∈ P0
>
>
:
quadruple cyclic covering Xp
of CP1 branched at roots of p
with cyclic action Xp
σ
→ Xp of order 4
“
”
√
1
Z[ −1]-lattice Λ(Xp ) := Hσ2 =−1 (X, Z) , h ∼
=Λ
Recall
2
4
Λ ⊗Z[√−1] C ∼
= C1,5 = C1+,5− ,
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
2
5⊕4
√
and Λ := Z[ −1]6 equipped with
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
2
5⊕4
1−
0
√
1+
−1
√
0
−1
3
5
. – p.8/22
“Fiberwise” Summary
8
>
>
<
p ∈ P0
>
>
:
quadruple cyclic covering Xp
of CP1 branched at roots of p
with cyclic action Xp
σ
→ Xp of order 4
“
”
√
1
Z[ −1]-lattice Λ(Xp ) := Hσ2 =−1 (X, Z) , h ∼
=Λ
Recall
2
4
Λ ⊗Z[√−1] C ∼
= C1,5 = C1+,5− ,
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
2
5⊕4
√
and Λ := Z[ −1]6 equipped with
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
2
5⊕4
1−
0
√
1+
−1
√
0
−1
3
5
1,0
√
(Xp ) is a positive 1-dimensional subspace of
Recall also Hσ=−
−1
“
1
√
Hσ=−
(Xp , C) ,
−1
h
”
∼
= C1,5 = C1+,5− .
. – p.8/22
“Fiberwise” Summary
8
>
>
<
p ∈ P0
>
>
:
quadruple cyclic covering Xp
of CP1 branched at roots of p
with cyclic action Xp
σ
→ Xp of order 4
“
”
√
1
Z[ −1]-lattice Λ(Xp ) := Hσ2 =−1 (X, Z) , h ∼
=Λ
Recall
2
4
Λ ⊗Z[√−1] C ∼
= C1,5 = C1+,5− ,
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
2
5⊕4
√
and Λ := Z[ −1]6 equipped with
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
2
5⊕4
1−
0
√
1+
−1
√
0
−1
3
5
1,0
√
(Xp ) is a positive 1-dimensional subspace of
Recall also Hσ=−
−1
“
Hence,
1
√
Hσ=−
(Xp , C) ,
−1
1,0
√
Hσ=−
(Xp )
−1
h
∈ CH
”
“
∼
= C1,5 = C1+,5− .
1
√
Hσ=−
(Xp , C)
−1
”
∼
= CH5
. – p.8/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ,
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ, where two such isometries are
√
“projectively equivalent” if one is a Z[ −1]-unit scalar multiple of the other.
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ, where two such isometries are
√
“projectively equivalent” if one is a Z[ −1]-unit scalar multiple of the other.
F0 is the space of all framed smooth forms, and we get a natural
projection map F0 → P0 , which is in fact an unbranched covering.
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ, where two such isometries are
√
“projectively equivalent” if one is a Z[ −1]-unit scalar multiple of the other.
F0 is the space of all framed smooth forms, and we get a natural
projection map F0 → P0 , which is in fact an unbranched covering.
GL(2, C)-action
cohomology.
on P0 naturally extends to F0 via induced action on
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ, where two such isometries are
√
“projectively equivalent” if one is a Z[ −1]-unit scalar multiple of the other.
F0 is the space of all framed smooth forms, and we get a natural
projection map F0 → P0 , which is in fact an unbranched covering.
GL(2, C)-action
on P0 naturally extends to F0 via induced action on
√
cohomology. Let G := GL(2, C)/h±1, ± −1i.
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ, where two such isometries are
√
“projectively equivalent” if one is a Z[ −1]-unit scalar multiple of the other.
F0 is the space of all framed smooth forms, and we get a natural
projection map F0 → P0 , which is in fact an unbranched covering.
GL(2, C)-action
on P0 naturally extends to F0 via induced action on
√
cohomology. Let G := GL(2, C)/h±1, ± −1i. Then G acts freely on F0 .
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ, where two such isometries are
√
“projectively equivalent” if one is a Z[ −1]-unit scalar multiple of the other.
F0 is the space of all framed smooth forms, and we get a natural
projection map F0 → P0 , which is in fact an unbranched covering.
GL(2, C)-action
on P0 naturally extends to F0 via induced action on
√
cohomology. Let G := GL(2, C)/h±1, ± −1i. Then G acts freely on F0 .
FACTS
1. Let PΓ be the Deck transformation group of the covering F0 → P0 . Then we know
PΓ ⊆ PIsom(Λ),
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ, where two such isometries are
√
“projectively equivalent” if one is a Z[ −1]-unit scalar multiple of the other.
F0 is the space of all framed smooth forms, and we get a natural
projection map F0 → P0 , which is in fact an unbranched covering.
GL(2, C)-action
on P0 naturally extends to F0 via induced action on
√
cohomology. Let G := GL(2, C)/h±1, ± −1i. Then G acts freely on F0 .
FACTS
1. Let PΓ be the Deck transformation group of the covering F0 → P0 . Then we know
PΓ ⊆ PIsom(Λ), since for each p ∈ P0 , Λ(Xp ) is abstractly isometric to Λ and each
Deck transformation must preserve Λ(Xp ).
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ, where two such isometries are
√
“projectively equivalent” if one is a Z[ −1]-unit scalar multiple of the other.
F0 is the space of all framed smooth forms, and we get a natural
projection map F0 → P0 , which is in fact an unbranched covering.
GL(2, C)-action
on P0 naturally extends to F0 via induced action on
√
cohomology. Let G := GL(2, C)/h±1, ± −1i. Then G acts freely on F0 .
FACTS
1. Let PΓ be the Deck transformation group of the covering F0 → P0 . Then we know
PΓ ⊆ PIsom(Λ), since for each p ∈ P0 , Λ(Xp ) is abstractly isometric to Λ and each
Deck transformation must preserve Λ(Xp ). Clearly, PΓ\F0 ∼
= P0 .
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ, where two such isometries are
√
“projectively equivalent” if one is a Z[ −1]-unit scalar multiple of the other.
F0 is the space of all framed smooth forms, and we get a natural
projection map F0 → P0 , which is in fact an unbranched covering.
GL(2, C)-action
on P0 naturally extends to F0 via induced action on
√
cohomology. Let G := GL(2, C)/h±1, ± −1i. Then G acts freely on F0 .
FACTS
1. Let PΓ be the Deck transformation group of the covering F0 → P0 . Then we know
PΓ ⊆ PIsom(Λ), since for each p ∈ P0 , Λ(Xp ) is abstractly isometric to Λ and each
Deck transformation must preserve Λ(Xp ). Clearly, PΓ\F0 ∼
= P0 .
2. F0 is also the covering corresponding to the kernel of the representation
ρ
π1 (P0 , p0 ) −→ PIsom(Λ(Xp0 )),
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ, where two such isometries are
√
“projectively equivalent” if one is a Z[ −1]-unit scalar multiple of the other.
F0 is the space of all framed smooth forms, and we get a natural
projection map F0 → P0 , which is in fact an unbranched covering.
GL(2, C)-action
on P0 naturally extends to F0 via induced action on
√
cohomology. Let G := GL(2, C)/h±1, ± −1i. Then G acts freely on F0 .
FACTS
1. Let PΓ be the Deck transformation group of the covering F0 → P0 . Then we know
PΓ ⊆ PIsom(Λ), since for each p ∈ P0 , Λ(Xp ) is abstractly isometric to Λ and each
Deck transformation must preserve Λ(Xp ). Clearly, PΓ\F0 ∼
= P0 .
2. F0 is also the covering corresponding to the kernel of the representation
ρ
π1 (P0 , p0 ) −→ PIsom(Λ(Xp0 )), where p0 ∈ P0 is some fixed smooth octic. PΓ is thus
also the monodromy group of the representation ρ.
. – p.9/22
Construction of F0 = Domain(Period Map) −→ P0
A framed smooth form over p ∈ P0 is a “projective equivalence class” of
∼
an (abstract) isometry of Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ, where two such isometries are
√
“projectively equivalent” if one is a Z[ −1]-unit scalar multiple of the other.
F0 is the space of all framed smooth forms, and we get a natural
projection map F0 → P0 , which is in fact an unbranched covering.
GL(2, C)-action
on P0 naturally extends to F0 via induced action on
√
cohomology. Let G := GL(2, C)/h±1, ± −1i. Then G acts freely on F0 .
FACTS
1. Let PΓ be the Deck transformation group of the covering F0 → P0 . Then we know
PΓ ⊆ PIsom(Λ), since for each p ∈ P0 , Λ(Xp ) is abstractly isometric to Λ and each
Deck transformation must preserve Λ(Xp ). Clearly, PΓ\F0 ∼
= P0 .
2. F0 is also the covering corresponding to the kernel of the representation
ρ
π1 (P0 , p0 ) −→ PIsom(Λ(Xp0 )), where p0 ∈ P0 is some fixed smooth octic. PΓ is thus
also the monodromy group of the representation ρ.
3. In fact, PΓ = PIsom(Λ).
. – p.9/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→
⊗Z[√−1]
C
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
FACTS
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
FACTS
1. The period map is equivariant with respect to the actions of PΓ on F0
(via Deck transformations ↔ change of basis of projectivized frames)
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
FACTS
1. The period map is equivariant with respect to the actions of PΓ on F0
(via Deck transformations ↔ change of basis of projectivized frames) and on CH5
(via isometries).
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
FACTS
1. The period map is equivariant with respect to the actions of PΓ on F0
(via Deck transformations ↔ change of basis of projectivized frames) and on CH5
(via isometries). It is also (G y F0 )-invariant.
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
FACTS
1. The period map is equivariant with respect to the actions of PΓ on F0
(via Deck transformations ↔ change of basis of projectivized frames) and on CH5
(via isometries). It is also (G y F0 )-invariant.
S
2. Let H := r∈R CH(r ⊥ ) ⊂ CH5 , where R is the set of all vectors in
Λ of norm -2.
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
FACTS
1. The period map is equivariant with respect to the actions of PΓ on F0
(via Deck transformations ↔ change of basis of projectivized frames) and on CH5
(via isometries). It is also (G y F0 )-invariant.
S
2. Let H := r∈R CH(r ⊥ ) ⊂ CH5 , where R is the set of all vectors in
Λ of norm -2. FACT: the period map maps F0 onto CH5 − H and
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
FACTS
1. The period map is equivariant with respect to the actions of PΓ on F0
(via Deck transformations ↔ change of basis of projectivized frames) and on CH5
(via isometries). It is also (G y F0 )-invariant.
S
2. Let H := r∈R CH(r ⊥ ) ⊂ CH5 , where R is the set of all vectors in
Λ of norm -2. FACT: the period map maps F0 onto CH5 − H and it
maps F0 /G biholomorphically onto CH5 − H.
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
FACTS
1. The period map is equivariant with respect to the actions of PΓ on F0
(via Deck transformations ↔ change of basis of projectivized frames) and on CH5
(via isometries). It is also (G y F0 )-invariant.
S
2. Let H := r∈R CH(r ⊥ ) ⊂ CH5 , where R is the set of all vectors in
Λ of norm -2. FACT: the period map maps F0 onto CH5 − H and it
maps F0 /G biholomorphically onto CH5 − H.
3. We now have
M0 ↔ P0 /G
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
FACTS
1. The period map is equivariant with respect to the actions of PΓ on F0
(via Deck transformations ↔ change of basis of projectivized frames) and on CH5
(via isometries). It is also (G y F0 )-invariant.
S
2. Let H := r∈R CH(r ⊥ ) ⊂ CH5 , where R is the set of all vectors in
Λ of norm -2. FACT: the period map maps F0 onto CH5 − H and it
maps F0 /G biholomorphically onto CH5 − H.
3. We now have
M0 ↔ P0 /G ∼
= (PΓ\F0 ) /G
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
FACTS
1. The period map is equivariant with respect to the actions of PΓ on F0
(via Deck transformations ↔ change of basis of projectivized frames) and on CH5
(via isometries). It is also (G y F0 )-invariant.
S
2. Let H := r∈R CH(r ⊥ ) ⊂ CH5 , where R is the set of all vectors in
Λ of norm -2. FACT: the period map maps F0 onto CH5 − H and it
maps F0 /G biholomorphically onto CH5 − H.
3. We now have
M0 ↔ P0 /G ∼
= (PΓ\F0 ) /G ↔ PΓ\ (F0 /G)
. – p.10/22
The Period Map F0 → CH5
5
⊗Z[√−1]
F0 −→ CH = CH Λ
h
i
f
1,0
√ (Xp ))
Λ(Xp ) → Λ 7−→ f (Hσ=−
−1
C
FACTS
1. The period map is equivariant with respect to the actions of PΓ on F0
(via Deck transformations ↔ change of basis of projectivized frames) and on CH5
(via isometries). It is also (G y F0 )-invariant.
S
2. Let H := r∈R CH(r ⊥ ) ⊂ CH5 , where R is the set of all vectors in
Λ of norm -2. FACT: the period map maps F0 onto CH5 − H and it
maps F0 /G biholomorphically onto CH5 − H.
3. We now have
5
∼
∼
M0 ↔ P0 /G = (PΓ\F0 ) /G ↔ PΓ\ (F0 /G) = PΓ\ CH − H .
. – p.10/22
(Relevant Properties of the) Fox Completion Fs → Ps
. – p.11/22
(Relevant Properties of the) Fox Completion Fs → Ps
The Fox completion Fs ⊃ F0 “fills up” the gaps in F0 in such a way that:
. – p.11/22
(Relevant Properties of the) Fox Completion Fs → Ps
The Fox completion Fs ⊃ F0 “fills up” the gaps in F0 in such a way that:
1. the points of Fs − F0 “lie above” Ps − P0 , the stable but non-smooth
octics.
. – p.11/22
(Relevant Properties of the) Fox Completion Fs → Ps
The Fox completion Fs ⊃ F0 “fills up” the gaps in F0 in such a way that:
1. the points of Fs − F0 “lie above” Ps − P0 , the stable but non-smooth
octics. Elements of Fs are called framed stable forms,
. – p.11/22
(Relevant Properties of the) Fox Completion Fs → Ps
The Fox completion Fs ⊃ F0 “fills up” the gaps in F0 in such a way that:
1. the points of Fs − F0 “lie above” Ps − P0 , the stable but non-smooth
octics. Elements of Fs are called framed stable forms,
2. the actions G y F0 and PΓ y F0 extend to Fs ,
. – p.11/22
(Relevant Properties of the) Fox Completion Fs → Ps
The Fox completion Fs ⊃ F0 “fills up” the gaps in F0 in such a way that:
1. the points of Fs − F0 “lie above” Ps − P0 , the stable but non-smooth
octics. Elements of Fs are called framed stable forms,
2. the actions G y F0 and PΓ y F0 extend to Fs ,
3. the period map F0 → CH5 extends to Fs “ CH5 ,
. – p.11/22
(Relevant Properties of the) Fox Completion Fs → Ps
The Fox completion Fs ⊃ F0 “fills up” the gaps in F0 in such a way that:
1. the points of Fs − F0 “lie above” Ps − P0 , the stable but non-smooth
octics. Elements of Fs are called framed stable forms,
2. the actions G y F0 and PΓ y F0 extend to Fs ,
3. the period map F0 → CH5 extends to Fs “ CH5 , holomorphically,
. – p.11/22
(Relevant Properties of the) Fox Completion Fs → Ps
The Fox completion Fs ⊃ F0 “fills up” the gaps in F0 in such a way that:
1. the points of Fs − F0 “lie above” Ps − P0 , the stable but non-smooth
octics. Elements of Fs are called framed stable forms,
2. the actions G y F0 and PΓ y F0 extend to Fs ,
3. the period map F0 → CH5 extends to Fs “ CH5 , holomorphically,
equivariantly,
. – p.11/22
(Relevant Properties of the) Fox Completion Fs → Ps
The Fox completion Fs ⊃ F0 “fills up” the gaps in F0 in such a way that:
1. the points of Fs − F0 “lie above” Ps − P0 , the stable but non-smooth
octics. Elements of Fs are called framed stable forms,
2. the actions G y F0 and PΓ y F0 extend to Fs ,
3. the period map F0 → CH5 extends to Fs “ CH5 , holomorphically,
equivariantly, and surjectively,
. – p.11/22
(Relevant Properties of the) Fox Completion Fs → Ps
The Fox completion Fs ⊃ F0 “fills up” the gaps in F0 in such a way that:
1. the points of Fs − F0 “lie above” Ps − P0 , the stable but non-smooth
octics. Elements of Fs are called framed stable forms,
2. the actions G y F0 and PΓ y F0 extend to Fs ,
3. the period map F0 → CH5 extends to Fs “ CH5 , holomorphically,
equivariantly, and surjectively,
4. PΓ\Fs ∼
= Ps and Fs /G ∼
= CH5 .
. – p.11/22
(Relevant Properties of the) Fox Completion Fs → Ps
The Fox completion Fs ⊃ F0 “fills up” the gaps in F0 in such a way that:
1. the points of Fs − F0 “lie above” Ps − P0 , the stable but non-smooth
octics. Elements of Fs are called framed stable forms,
2. the actions G y F0 and PΓ y F0 extend to Fs ,
3. the period map F0 → CH5 extends to Fs “ CH5 , holomorphically,
equivariantly, and surjectively,
4. PΓ\Fs ∼
= Ps and Fs /G ∼
= CH5 .
The Deligne-Mostow Construction of Ms
Ms ↔ Ps /G = (PΓ\Fs ) /G ↔ PΓ\ (Fs /G) ∼
= PΓ\CH5
. – p.11/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 }
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R ,
f
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R , then
f
χp,f := f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 : Λ → Λ is an IAAI of Λ.
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R , then
f
χp,f := f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 : Λ → Λ is an IAAI of Λ.
If [f1 ] and [f2 ] are framed smooth forms over the same p ∈ P0R ,
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R , then
f
χp,f := f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 : Λ → Λ is an IAAI of Λ.
If [f1 ] and [f2 ] are framed smooth forms over the same p ∈ P0R , then χp,f1 and χp,f2
belong to the same Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class of IAAI’s of Λ.
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R , then
f
χp,f := f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 : Λ → Λ is an IAAI of Λ.
If [f1 ] and [f2 ] are framed smooth forms over the same p ∈ P0R , then χp,f1 and χp,f2
belong to the same Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class of IAAI’s of Λ. Thus [χp ] := [χp,f ] is a
well-defined Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class, depending only on p, not on [f ].
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R , then
f
χp,f := f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 : Λ → Λ is an IAAI of Λ.
If [f1 ] and [f2 ] are framed smooth forms over the same p ∈ P0R , then χp,f1 and χp,f2
belong to the same Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class of IAAI’s of Λ. Thus [χp ] := [χp,f ] is a
well-defined Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class, depending only on p, not on [f ].
Let (p1 , [f1 ]), (p2 , [f2 ]) be ordered pairs with p1 , p2 ∈ P0R and [f1 ], [f2 ] being framed smooth
forms over p1 , p2 respectively.
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R , then
f
χp,f := f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 : Λ → Λ is an IAAI of Λ.
If [f1 ] and [f2 ] are framed smooth forms over the same p ∈ P0R , then χp,f1 and χp,f2
belong to the same Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class of IAAI’s of Λ. Thus [χp ] := [χp,f ] is a
well-defined Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class, depending only on p, not on [f ].
Let (p1 , [f1 ]), (p2 , [f2 ]) be ordered pairs with p1 , p2 ∈ P0R and [f1 ], [f2 ] being framed smooth
forms over p1 , p2 respectively. If p1 , p2 are of the same topological type,
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R , then
f
χp,f := f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 : Λ → Λ is an IAAI of Λ.
If [f1 ] and [f2 ] are framed smooth forms over the same p ∈ P0R , then χp,f1 and χp,f2
belong to the same Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class of IAAI’s of Λ. Thus [χp ] := [χp,f ] is a
well-defined Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class, depending only on p, not on [f ].
Let (p1 , [f1 ]), (p2 , [f2 ]) be ordered pairs with p1 , p2 ∈ P0R and [f1 ], [f2 ] being framed smooth
forms over p1 , p2 respectively. If p1 , p2 are of the same topological type, i.e. one can be
deformed to the other via smooth real octics,
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R , then
f
χp,f := f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 : Λ → Λ is an IAAI of Λ.
If [f1 ] and [f2 ] are framed smooth forms over the same p ∈ P0R , then χp,f1 and χp,f2
belong to the same Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class of IAAI’s of Λ. Thus [χp ] := [χp,f ] is a
well-defined Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class, depending only on p, not on [f ].
Let (p1 , [f1 ]), (p2 , [f2 ]) be ordered pairs with p1 , p2 ∈ P0R and [f1 ], [f2 ] being framed smooth
forms over p1 , p2 respectively. If p1 , p2 are of the same topological type, i.e. one can be
deformed to the other via smooth real octics, then we can deform (p1 , [f1 ]) to some
(p2 , [f2′ ]).
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R , then
f
χp,f := f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 : Λ → Λ is an IAAI of Λ.
If [f1 ] and [f2 ] are framed smooth forms over the same p ∈ P0R , then χp,f1 and χp,f2
belong to the same Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class of IAAI’s of Λ. Thus [χp ] := [χp,f ] is a
well-defined Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class, depending only on p, not on [f ].
Let (p1 , [f1 ]), (p2 , [f2 ]) be ordered pairs with p1 , p2 ∈ P0R and [f1 ], [f2 ] being framed smooth
forms over p1 , p2 respectively. If p1 , p2 are of the same topological type, i.e. one can be
deformed to the other via smooth real octics, then we can deform (p1 , [f1 ]) to some
(p2 , [f2′ ]). Noting that IAAI(Λ) is a lattice in IAAI(Λ ⊗ C) = IAAI(C1,5 ),
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R , then
f
χp,f := f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 : Λ → Λ is an IAAI of Λ.
If [f1 ] and [f2 ] are framed smooth forms over the same p ∈ P0R , then χp,f1 and χp,f2
belong to the same Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class of IAAI’s of Λ. Thus [χp ] := [χp,f ] is a
well-defined Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class, depending only on p, not on [f ].
Let (p1 , [f1 ]), (p2 , [f2 ]) be ordered pairs with p1 , p2 ∈ P0R and [f1 ], [f2 ] being framed smooth
forms over p1 , p2 respectively. If p1 , p2 are of the same topological type, i.e. one can be
deformed to the other via smooth real octics, then we can deform (p1 , [f1 ]) to some
(p2 , [f2′ ]). Noting that IAAI(Λ) is a lattice in IAAI(Λ ⊗ C) = IAAI(C1,5 ), we see
p1 , p2 ∈ P0R of same topological type =⇒ [χp1 ] := [χp1 ,f1 ] = [χp2 ,f ′ ] = [χp2 ,f2 ] =: [χp2 ].
2
. – p.12/22
p ∈ P0R
Involutive Anti-isometry κp of Λ(Xp )
κ
If p ∈ P0R , then complex conjugation CP1 → CP1 : x 7→ x induces an antiholomorphic
involution κp on Xp := { (x, y) ∈ C2 | y 4 − p(x) = 0 } via (x, y) 7→ ( x , y ).
κp in turn induces an involutive (antilinear) anti-isometry (IAAI) κp on Λ(Xp ).
»
–
If Λ(Xp ) −→ Λ is a framed smooth form over p ∈ P0R , then
f
χp,f := f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 : Λ → Λ is an IAAI of Λ.
If [f1 ] and [f2 ] are framed smooth forms over the same p ∈ P0R , then χp,f1 and χp,f2
belong to the same Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class of IAAI’s of Λ. Thus [χp ] := [χp,f ] is a
well-defined Isom(Λ)-conjugacy class, depending only on p, not on [f ].
Let (p1 , [f1 ]), (p2 , [f2 ]) be ordered pairs with p1 , p2 ∈ P0R and [f1 ], [f2 ] being framed smooth
forms over p1 , p2 respectively. If p1 , p2 are of the same topological type, i.e. one can be
deformed to the other via smooth real octics, then we can deform (p1 , [f1 ]) to some
(p2 , [f2′ ]). Noting that IAAI(Λ) is a lattice in IAAI(Λ ⊗ C) = IAAI(C1,5 ), we see
p1 , p2 ∈ P0R of same topological type =⇒ [χp1 ] := [χp1 ,f1 ] = [χp2 ,f ′ ] = [χp2 ,f2 ] =: [χp2 ].
2
FACT: Converse holds.
. – p.12/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C)
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C) via
H 1 (Xp , C)
φ
−→
7−→
H 1 (Xp , C)
(κp )∗ (φ)
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C) via
H 1 (Xp , C)
φ
−→
7−→
H 1 (Xp , C)
(κp )∗ (φ)
This involution preserves both Hodge decomposition
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C) via
H 1 (Xp , C)
φ
−→
7−→
H 1 (Xp , C)
(κp )∗ (φ)
This involution preserves both Hodge decomposition and the σ-eigenspaces of H 1 (Xp , C).
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C) via
H 1 (Xp , C)
φ
−→
7−→
H 1 (Xp , C)
(κp )∗ (φ)
This involution preserves both Hodge decomposition and the σ-eigenspaces of H 1 (Xp , C).
It turns out that κp restricts to an IAAI on
Λ(Xp )
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C) via
H 1 (Xp , C)
φ
−→
7−→
H 1 (Xp , C)
(κp )∗ (φ)
This involution preserves both Hodge decomposition and the σ-eigenspaces of H 1 (Xp , C).
It turns out that κp restricts to an IAAI on
Λ(Xp ) ⊗Z[√−1] C
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C) via
H 1 (Xp , C)
φ
−→
7−→
H 1 (Xp , C)
(κp )∗ (φ)
This involution preserves both Hodge decomposition and the σ-eigenspaces of H 1 (Xp , C).
It turns out that κp restricts to an IAAI on
1
√
(Xp , C)
Λ(Xp ) ⊗Z[√−1] C ∼
= Hσ=−
−1
|
{z
}
C1,5 =C1+,5−
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C) via
H 1 (Xp , C)
φ
−→
7−→
H 1 (Xp , C)
(κp )∗ (φ)
This involution preserves both Hodge decomposition and the σ-eigenspaces of H 1 (Xp , C).
It turns out that κp restricts to an IAAI on
0,1
1,0
1
√
√
√
⊕
H
(X
,
C)
(Xp , C),
=
H
(X
,
C)
Λ(Xp ) ⊗Z[√−1] C ∼
= Hσ=−
p
p
−1
σ=− −1
σ=− −1
|
{z
} |
{z
} |
{z
}
C1,5 =C1+,5−
(+)
(−−−−−)
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C) via
H 1 (Xp , C)
φ
−→
7−→
H 1 (Xp , C)
(κp )∗ (φ)
This involution preserves both Hodge decomposition and the σ-eigenspaces of H 1 (Xp , C).
It turns out that κp restricts to an IAAI on
0,1
1,0
1
√
√
√
⊕
H
(X
,
C)
(Xp , C),
=
H
(X
,
C)
Λ(Xp ) ⊗Z[√−1] C ∼
= Hσ=−
p
p
−1
σ=− −1
σ=− −1
|
{z
} |
{z
} |
{z
}
C1,5 =C1+,5−
(+)
(−−−−−)
thereby preserving each summands.
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C) via
H 1 (Xp , C)
φ
−→
7−→
H 1 (Xp , C)
(κp )∗ (φ)
This involution preserves both Hodge decomposition and the σ-eigenspaces of H 1 (Xp , C).
It turns out that κp restricts to an IAAI on
0,1
1,0
1
√
√
√
⊕
H
(X
,
C)
(Xp , C),
=
H
(X
,
C)
Λ(Xp ) ⊗Z[√−1] C ∼
= Hσ=−
p
p
−1
σ=− −1
σ=− −1
|
{z
} |
{z
} |
{z
}
C1,5 =C1+,5−
(+)
(−−−−−)
thereby preserving each summands.
1,0
√
Thus, Hσ=−
(Xp , C) ∈ CH (Λ(Xp ) ⊗ C) is fixed by [κp ].
−1
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C) via
H 1 (Xp , C)
φ
H 1 (Xp , C)
−→
(κp )∗ (φ)
7−→
This involution preserves both Hodge decomposition and the σ-eigenspaces of H 1 (Xp , C).
It turns out that κp restricts to an IAAI on
0,1
1,0
1
√
√
√
⊕
H
(X
,
C)
(Xp , C),
=
H
(X
,
C)
Λ(Xp ) ⊗Z[√−1] C ∼
= Hσ=−
p
p
−1
σ=− −1
σ=− −1
|
{z
} |
{z
} |
{z
}
C1,5 =C1+,5−
(+)
(−−−−−)
thereby preserving each summands.
1,0
√
Thus, Hσ=−
(Xp , C) ∈ CH (Λ(Xp ) ⊗ C) is fixed by [κp ].
−1
f
Hence, for a given framed smooth form [Λ(Xp ) → Λ] over p ∈ P0R , its period
1,0
5
√
f (Hσ=−
(X
,
C))
∈
CH
= CH (Λ ⊗ C) is fixed by the projective class
p
−1
[χp ] = [f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 ] ∈ PIAAI(Λ).
. – p.13/22
“Real” Octics Have “Real” Periods
κp
Xp → Xp also induces an anti-linear involution on H 1 (Xp , C) via
H 1 (Xp , C)
φ
H 1 (Xp , C)
−→
(κp )∗ (φ)
7−→
This involution preserves both Hodge decomposition and the σ-eigenspaces of H 1 (Xp , C).
It turns out that κp restricts to an IAAI on
0,1
1,0
1
√
√
√
⊕
H
(X
,
C)
(Xp , C),
=
H
(X
,
C)
Λ(Xp ) ⊗Z[√−1] C ∼
= Hσ=−
p
p
−1
σ=− −1
σ=− −1
|
{z
} |
{z
} |
{z
}
C1,5 =C1+,5−
(+)
(−−−−−)
thereby preserving each summands.
1,0
√
Thus, Hσ=−
(Xp , C) ∈ CH (Λ(Xp ) ⊗ C) is fixed by [κp ].
−1
f
Hence, for a given framed smooth form [Λ(Xp ) → Λ] over p ∈ P0R , its period
1,0
5
√
f (Hσ=−
(X
,
C))
∈
CH
= CH (Λ ⊗ C) is fixed by the projective class
p
−1
[χp ] = [f ◦ κp ◦ f −1 ] ∈ PIAAI(Λ).
We call an element x ∈ CH5 a real period if x ∈ Fix([χp ]) for some χp ∈ IAAI(Λ) arising as
described above.
. – p.13/22
Real Periods Lie on Copies of RH5 ⊂ CH5
. – p.14/22
Real Periods Lie on Copies of RH5 ⊂ CH5
1. For each χ ∈ IAAI(Λ), the metric on Λ restricts to a metric on the
Z-module Fix(χ) ∼
= Z6 of signature (1+, 5−).
. – p.14/22
Real Periods Lie on Copies of RH5 ⊂ CH5
1. For each χ ∈ IAAI(Λ), the metric on Λ restricts to a metric on the
Z-module Fix(χ) ∼
= Z6 of signature (1+, 5−). Thus
Fix(χ) ⊗Z
R ∼
= R1,5 = R1+,5− ,
. – p.14/22
Real Periods Lie on Copies of RH5 ⊂ CH5
1. For each χ ∈ IAAI(Λ), the metric on Λ restricts to a metric on the
Z-module Fix(χ) ∼
= Z6 of signature (1+, 5−). Thus
Fix(χ) ⊗Z
R ∼
= R1,5 = R1+,5− ,
and
RH (Fix(χ) ⊗Z R)
∼
= RH5
. – p.14/22
Real Periods Lie on Copies of RH5 ⊂ CH5
1. For each χ ∈ IAAI(Λ), the metric on Λ restricts to a metric on the
Z-module Fix(χ) ∼
= Z6 of signature (1+, 5−). Thus
Fix(χ) ⊗Z
R ∼
= R1,5 = R1+,5− ,
and
RH (Fix(χ) ⊗Z R)
∼
= RH5
CH Λ ⊗Z[√−1] C
∼
= CH5
∩
∩
. – p.14/22
Real Periods Lie on Copies of RH5 ⊂ CH5
1. For each χ ∈ IAAI(Λ), the metric on Λ restricts to a metric on the
Z-module Fix(χ) ∼
= Z6 of signature (1+, 5−). Thus
Fix(χ) ⊗Z
R ∼
= R1,5 = R1+,5− ,
and
RH (Fix(χ) ⊗Z R)
∼
= RH5
CH Λ ⊗Z[√−1] C
∼
= CH5
∩
∩
2. Hence, the periods of real octics lie on copies of real hyperbolic
space RH5 within CH5 .
. – p.14/22
The Allcock-Carlson-Toledo Construction of MRs
. – p.15/22
The Allcock-Carlson-Toledo Construction of MRs
R
:=
P(P
MR
s ) / PGL(2, R)
s
. – p.15/22
The Allcock-Carlson-Toledo Construction of MRs
R
R
)
/
PGL
(2,
R)
↔
P
:=
P(P
MR
s / GL(2, R)
s
s
. – p.15/22
The Allcock-Carlson-Toledo Construction of MRs
R
R
)
/
PGL
(2,
R)
↔
P
:=
P(P
MR
s / GL(2, R)
s
s
↔ PsR / ( GL(2, R)/h±1i )
. – p.15/22
The Allcock-Carlson-Toledo Construction of MRs
R
R
)
/
PGL
(2,
R)
↔
P
:=
P(P
MR
s / GL(2, R)
s
s
↔ PsR / ( GL(2, R)/h±1i ) =: PsR /GR
. – p.15/22
The Allcock-Carlson-Toledo Construction of MRs
R
R
)
/
PGL
(2,
R)
↔
P
:=
P(P
MR
s / GL(2, R)
s
s
↔ PsR / ( GL(2, R)/h±1i ) =: PsR /GR
o .
n
GR
↔
PΓ \ preimage of PsR under Fs → Ps
. – p.15/22
The Allcock-Carlson-Toledo Construction of MRs
R
R
)
/
PGL
(2,
R)
↔
P
:=
P(P
MR
s / GL(2, R)
s
s
↔ PsR / ( GL(2, R)/h±1i ) =: PsR /GR
o .
n
GR
↔
PΓ \ preimage of PsR under Fs → Ps
n
o.
=:
PΓ \ FsR
GR
. – p.15/22
The Allcock-Carlson-Toledo Construction of MRs
R
R
)
/
PGL
(2,
R)
↔
P
:=
P(P
MR
s / GL(2, R)
s
s
↔ PsR / ( GL(2, R)/h±1i ) =: PsR /GR
o .
n
GR
↔
PΓ \ preimage of PsR under Fs → Ps
n
o.
=:
PΓ \ FsR
GR
o
/n
↔ PΓ
FsR /GR
. – p.15/22
The Allcock-Carlson-Toledo Construction of MRs
R
R
)
/
PGL
(2,
R)
↔
P
:=
P(P
MR
s / GL(2, R)
s
s
↔ PsR / ( GL(2, R)/h±1i ) =: PsR /GR
o .
n
GR
↔
PΓ \ preimage of PsR under Fs → Ps
n
o.
=:
PΓ \ FsR
GR
o
/n
↔ PΓ
FsR /GR

,
- 


a
∼

RH5[χ] 
≈
= PΓ


R
[χ]∈PIAAI (Λ)
. – p.15/22
The Allcock-Carlson-Toledo Construction of MRs
R
R
)
/
PGL
(2,
R)
↔
P
:=
P(P
MR
s / GL(2, R)
s
s
↔ PsR / ( GL(2, R)/h±1i ) =: PsR /GR
o .
n
GR
↔
PΓ \ preimage of PsR under Fs → Ps
n
o.
=:
PΓ \ FsR
GR
o
/n
↔ PΓ
FsR /GR

,
- 


a
∼

RH5[χ] 
≈
= PΓ


R
[χ]∈PIAAI (Λ)
=: PΓ \ Ks
. – p.15/22
The Allcock-Carlson-Toledo Construction of MRs
R
R
)
/
PGL
(2,
R)
↔
P
:=
P(P
MR
s / GL(2, R)
s
s
↔ PsR / ( GL(2, R)/h±1i ) =: PsR /GR
o .
n
GR
↔
PΓ \ preimage of PsR under Fs → Ps
n
o.
=:
PΓ \ FsR
GR
o
/n
↔ PΓ
FsR /GR

,
- 


a
∼

RH5[χ] 
≈
= PΓ


R
[χ]∈PIAAI (Λ)
=: PΓ \ Ks =:
R
A-C-T construction of Ms
. – p.15/22
Uniformizations of MRs,i (i = 0, . . . , 4)
. – p.16/22
Uniformizations of MRs,i (i = 0, . . . , 4)
Recall: MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ
-(
‘
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
RH5[χ]
!,
≈
)
.
. – p.16/22
Uniformizations of MRs,i (i = 0, . . . , 4)
Recall: MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ
FACTS
-(
‘
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
RH5[χ]
!,
≈
)
.
1. There are either 6 (or 7) PΓ = PIsom(Λ)-conjugacy classes of IAAI’s of Λ.
. – p.16/22
Uniformizations of MRs,i (i = 0, . . . , 4)
Recall: MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ
FACTS
-(
‘
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
RH5[χ]
!,
≈
)
.
1. There are either 6 (or 7) PΓ = PIsom(Λ)-conjugacy classes of IAAI’s of Λ. Five of
them correspond to κCP1 ,
. – p.16/22
Uniformizations of MRs,i (i = 0, . . . , 4)
Recall: MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ
FACTS
-(
‘
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
RH5[χ]
!,
≈
)
.
1. There are either 6 (or 7) PΓ = PIsom(Λ)-conjugacy classes of IAAI’s of Λ. Five of
them correspond to κCP1 , and the remaining one to the antipodal map on CP1 .
. – p.16/22
Uniformizations of MRs,i (i = 0, . . . , 4)
Recall: MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ
FACTS
-(
‘
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
RH5[χ]
!,
≈
)
.
1. There are either 6 (or 7) PΓ = PIsom(Λ)-conjugacy classes of IAAI’s of Λ. Five of
them correspond to κCP1 , and the remaining one to the antipodal map on CP1 .
2. PΓ obviously acts transitively on the collection of the copies RH5χ , where all the χ
belong to one PΓ-conjugacy class;
. – p.16/22
Uniformizations of MRs,i (i = 0, . . . , 4)
Recall: MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ
FACTS
-(
‘
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
RH5[χ]
!,
≈
)
.
1. There are either 6 (or 7) PΓ = PIsom(Λ)-conjugacy classes of IAAI’s of Λ. Five of
them correspond to κCP1 , and the remaining one to the antipodal map on CP1 .
2. PΓ obviously acts transitively on the collection of the copies RH5χ , where all the χ
belong to one PΓ-conjugacy class; equivalently, the corresponding octics have the
same topological type.
. – p.16/22
Uniformizations of MRs,i (i = 0, . . . , 4)
Recall: MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ
-(
‘
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
FACTS
RH5[χ]
!,
≈
)
.
1. There are either 6 (or 7) PΓ = PIsom(Λ)-conjugacy classes of IAAI’s of Λ. Five of
them correspond to κCP1 , and the remaining one to the antipodal map on CP1 .
2. PΓ obviously acts transitively on the collection of the copies RH5χ , where all the χ
belong to one PΓ-conjugacy class; equivalently, the corresponding octics have the
same topological type.
It should now be clear that
∼
MR
s,i =
StabPΓ (FixΛ (χi ))
| {z }
-
RH5χi , i = 0, . . . , 4,
Z6
where RH5χi := RH (FixΛ (χi ) ⊗Z R) ∼
= RH5 ,
. – p.16/22
Uniformizations of MRs,i (i = 0, . . . , 4)
Recall: MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ
-(
‘
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
FACTS
RH5[χ]
!,
≈
)
.
1. There are either 6 (or 7) PΓ = PIsom(Λ)-conjugacy classes of IAAI’s of Λ. Five of
them correspond to κCP1 , and the remaining one to the antipodal map on CP1 .
2. PΓ obviously acts transitively on the collection of the copies RH5χ , where all the χ
belong to one PΓ-conjugacy class; equivalently, the corresponding octics have the
same topological type.
It should now be clear that
∼
MR
s,i =
StabPΓ (FixΛ (χi ))
| {z }
-
RH5χi , i = 0, . . . , 4,
Z6
where RH5χi := RH (FixΛ (χi ) ⊗Z R) ∼
= RH5 , and StabPΓ (FixΛ (χi )) can be described by the
following abstract isomorphism:
91
˛
08
˛
<
˛ A extends to some =
R
A
Γi := StabPΓ (FixΛ (χi )) ∼
= P @ A ∈ Isom (FixΛ (χi )) ˛˛
:
˛ element of Isom(Λ) ;
. – p.16/22
Fix(χ0 ), . . . , Fix(χ4 )
. – p.17/22
Fix(χ0 ), . . . , Fix(χ4 )
Fix(χ0 )
Fix(χ1 )
Fix(χ3 )
∼
=
∼
=
∼
=
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −1, −1)
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −1, −2)
diag(1, −1, −1, −2, −2, −2)
. – p.17/22
Fix(χ0 ), . . . , Fix(χ4 )
Fix(χ0 )
Fix(χ1 )
∼
=
∼
=
Fix(χ3 )
∼
=
Fix(χ2 )
∼
=
∼
=
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −1, −1)
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −1, −2)
diag(1, −1, −1, −2, −2, −2)
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −2, −2)
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −2, −2)
. – p.17/22
Fix(χ0 ), . . . , Fix(χ4 )
Fix(χ0 )
Fix(χ1 )
2
Fix(χ4 ) ∼
=4
|
0
1
3
∼
=
∼
=
Fix(χ3 )
∼
=
Fix(χ2 )
∼
=
∼
=
2
6
6
1
5⊕6
6
6
0
4
−2
0
1
1
{z
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −1, −1)
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −1, −2)
diag(1, −1, −1, −2, −2, −2)
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −2, −2)
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −2, −2)
0
1
−2
−1
1
0
−1
lattice, det=−4
−2
2
−2
6
6 −2
1
6
7
6
6 1
1 7
7
7 or 6
6
0 7
6 0
5
6
6 0
−2
4
}
−2
|
3
−2
1
0
0
3
0
0
3
−2
0
0
−2
1
−6
0
0
−4
0
0
1
0
2 −1
{z
0
det=−4
−2
3
7
−4 7
7
7
2 7
7
7
1 7
7
0 7
5
−4
}
. – p.17/22
Fix(χ0 ), . . . , Fix(χ4 )
Fix(χ0 )
Fix(χ1 )
2
Fix(χ4 ) ∼
=4
0
1
|
3
∼
=
∼
=
Fix(χ3 )
∼
=
Fix(χ2 )
∼
=
∼
=
2
6
6
1
5⊕6
6
6
0
4
−2
0
1
1
{z
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −1, −2)
diag(1, −1, −1, −2, −2, −2)
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −2, −2)
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −2, −2)
0
1
−2
−1
1
0
−1
lattice, det=−4
NON-COMMENSURABILITY
diag(1, −1, −1, −1, −1, −1)
−2
2
−2
6
6 −2
1
6
7
6
6 1
1 7
7
7 or 6
6
0 7
6 0
5
6
6 0
−2
4
}
−2
|
3
−2
1
0
0
3
0
0
3
−2
0
0
−2
1
−6
0
0
−4
0
0
1
0
2 −1
{z
0
det=−4
−2
3
7
−4 7
7
7
2 7
7
7
1 7
7
0 7
5
−4
}
Isom(Fix(χ0 ))
fi Isom(Fix(χ1 ))
Isom(Fix(χ0 ))
fi Isom(Fix(χ3 ))
Isom(Fix(χ1 ))
fi Isom(Fix(χ2 ))
Isom(Fix(χ1 ))
fi Isom(Fix(χ4 ))
Isom(Fix(χ2 ))
fi Isom(Fix(χ3 ))
Isom(Fix(χ3 ))
fi Isom(Fix(χ4 ))
. – p.17/22
MRs ↔ PΓ\Ks Is Not Real Hyperbolic
. – p.18/22
MRs ↔ PΓ\Ks Is Not Real Hyperbolic
Recall again:
- 


MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ

a
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
,
RH5[χ] 
≈



. – p.18/22
MRs ↔ PΓ\Ks Is Not Real Hyperbolic
Recall again:
- 


MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ

a
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
,
RH5[χ] 
≈



We check the local quotient structure of PΓ\Ks stratum by stratum.
. – p.18/22
MRs ↔ PΓ\Ks Is Not Real Hyperbolic
Recall again:
- 


MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ

a
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
,
RH5[χ] 
≈



We check the local quotient structure of PΓ\Ks stratum by stratum.
NEGATIVE RESULT
Points in PΓ\Ks corresponding to the stratum ∆0,1
R (of real octics having one
(real) triple point and no other singularities) can not admit a local real hyperbolic
orbifold structure.
. – p.18/22
MRs ↔ PΓ\Ks Is Not Real Hyperbolic
Recall again:
- 


MR
s ↔ PΓ\Ks = PΓ

a
[χ]∈PIAAIR (Λ)
,
RH5[χ] 
≈



We check the local quotient structure of PΓ\Ks stratum by stratum.
NEGATIVE RESULT
Points in PΓ\Ks corresponding to the stratum ∆0,1
R (of real octics having one
(real) triple point and no other singularities) can not admit a local real hyperbolic
orbifold structure. Hence PΓ\Ks itself cannot be a real hyperbolic orbifold.
. – p.18/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyerpbolic
. – p.19/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyerpbolic
A point in ∆0,1
R can be locally described by p0,0 (x), where
pa0 ,a1 (x) = (x3 + a1 x + a0 ) · r(x), a0 , a1 ∈ R.
. – p.19/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyerpbolic
A point in ∆0,1
R can be locally described by p0,0 (x), where
pa0 ,a1 (x) = (x3 + a1 x + a0 ) · r(x), a0 , a1 ∈ R.
We thus examine the vanishing (σ 2 = −1)-homology of
y 4 = x3 + a1 x + a0 , as a0 , a1 → 0,
. – p.19/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyerpbolic
A point in ∆0,1
R can be locally described by p0,0 (x), where
pa0 ,a1 (x) = (x3 + a1 x + a0 ) · r(x), a0 , a1 ∈ R.
We thus examine the vanishing (σ 2 = −1)-homology of
y 4 = x3 + a1 x + a0 , as a0 , a1 → 0,
preserved by the action induced by x 7→ x.
. – p.19/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyerpbolic
A point in ∆0,1
R can be locally described by p0,0 (x), where
pa0 ,a1 (x) = (x3 + a1 x + a0 ) · r(x), a0 , a1 ∈ R.
We thus examine the vanishing (σ 2 = −1)-homology of
y 4 = x3 + a1 x + a0 , as a0 , a1 → 0,
preserved by the action induced by x 7→ x.
2
Computations show that Λ0 = 4
IAAI’s,
say χ1 and χ2 .
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
5 has two conjugacy classes of
. – p.19/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyerpbolic
A point in ∆0,1
R can be locally described by p0,0 (x), where
pa0 ,a1 (x) = (x3 + a1 x + a0 ) · r(x), a0 , a1 ∈ R.
We thus examine the vanishing (σ 2 = −1)-homology of
y 4 = x3 + a1 x + a0 , as a0 , a1 → 0,
preserved by the action induced by x 7→ x.
2
Computations show that Λ0 = 4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
5 has two conjugacy classes of
say χ1 and χ2 . We expect this since a real triple point is the limit of two kinds of
smooth real 3-point configurations, namely 3 distinct real points, and one real point plus 1
complex conjugate pair.
IAAI’s,
. – p.19/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyerpbolic
A point in ∆0,1
R can be locally described by p0,0 (x), where
pa0 ,a1 (x) = (x3 + a1 x + a0 ) · r(x), a0 , a1 ∈ R.
We thus examine the vanishing (σ 2 = −1)-homology of
y 4 = x3 + a1 x + a0 , as a0 , a1 → 0,
preserved by the action induced by x 7→ x.
2
Computations show that Λ0 = 4
−2
√
1 − −1
1+
√
−1
−2
3
5 has two conjugacy classes of
say χ1 and χ2 . We expect this since a real triple point is the limit of two kinds of
smooth real 3-point configurations, namely 3 distinct real points, and one real point plus 1
complex conjugate pair. So, the local geometry of PΓ\Ks at a point in ∆0,1
R is given by
IAAI’s,
Fix(χ1 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ1 ))
[
Fix(χ2 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ2 ))
, subject to certain gluing.
. – p.19/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyperpbolic (Cont’d)
. – p.20/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyperpbolic (Cont’d)
Local quotient at a point in ∆0,1
R is given by:
Fix(χ1 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ1 ))
[
Fix(χ2 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ2 ))
,
. – p.20/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyperpbolic (Cont’d)
Local quotient at a point in ∆0,1
R is given by:
Fix(χ1 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ1 ))
[
Fix(χ2 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ2 ))
,
1. The two individual quotients above are
R2 /(Z/2 × Z/2) = a 90◦ -wedge,
and
R2 /D4 = a 45◦ -wedge.
. – p.20/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyperpbolic (Cont’d)
Local quotient at a point in ∆0,1
R is given by:
Fix(χ1 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ1 ))
[
Fix(χ2 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ2 ))
,
1. The two individual quotients above are
R2 /(Z/2 × Z/2) = a 90◦ -wedge,
and
R2 /D4 = a 45◦ -wedge.
2. The edges of the above wedges glue “pairwise.”
. – p.20/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyperpbolic (Cont’d)
Local quotient at a point in ∆0,1
R is given by:
Fix(χ1 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ1 ))
[
Fix(χ2 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ2 ))
,
1. The two individual quotients above are
R2 /(Z/2 × Z/2) = a 90◦ -wedge,
and
R2 /D4 = a 45◦ -wedge.
2. The edges of the above wedges glue “pairwise.” =⇒ local angle is
135◦ = 3π/4.
. – p.20/22
Why Points in ∆R0,1 Are Not Hyperpbolic (Cont’d)
Local quotient at a point in ∆0,1
R is given by:
Fix(χ1 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ1 ))
[
Fix(χ2 )
StabIsom(Λ0 ) (Fix(χ2 ))
,
1. The two individual quotients above are
R2 /(Z/2 × Z/2) = a 90◦ -wedge,
and
R2 /D4 = a 45◦ -wedge.
2. The edges of the above wedges glue “pairwise.” =⇒ local angle is
135◦ = 3π/4.
OBSERVATION: Points in ∆0,1
R can NOT be real hyperbolic because the
local anlge does not add up to 2π/n, for some integer n > 0.
. – p.20/22
Ongoing Work & Future Directions ...
. – p.21/22
Ongoing Work & Future Directions ...
1. Prove that two representatives of IAAI’s of Λ whose fixed lattice are
isometric to Fix(χ2 ) are in fact conjugates.
. – p.21/22
Ongoing Work & Future Directions ...
1. Prove that two representatives of IAAI’s of Λ whose fixed lattice are
isometric to Fix(χ2 ) are in fact conjugates.
2. Identify PΓR
4.
. – p.21/22
Ongoing Work & Future Directions ...
1. Prove that two representatives of IAAI’s of Λ whose fixed lattice are
isometric to Fix(χ2 ) are in fact conjugates.
2. Identify PΓR
4.
3. Study the topology of MR
0,i : fundamental and higher homotopy
groups.
. – p.21/22
Ongoing Work & Future Directions ...
1. Prove that two representatives of IAAI’s of Λ whose fixed lattice are
isometric to Fix(χ2 ) are in fact conjugates.
2. Identify PΓR
4.
3. Study the topology of MR
0,i : fundamental and higher homotopy
groups.
4. Complete the examination of the local geometry of PΓ\Ks .
. – p.21/22
Ongoing Work & Future Directions ...
1. Prove that two representatives of IAAI’s of Λ whose fixed lattice are
isometric to Fix(χ2 ) are in fact conjugates.
2. Identify PΓR
4.
3. Study the topology of MR
0,i : fundamental and higher homotopy
groups.
4. Complete the examination of the local geometry of PΓ\Ks .
We do know that Ks is (obviously) a metric space and PΓ acts on it by isometries,
. – p.21/22
Ongoing Work & Future Directions ...
1. Prove that two representatives of IAAI’s of Λ whose fixed lattice are
isometric to Fix(χ2 ) are in fact conjugates.
2. Identify PΓR
4.
3. Study the topology of MR
0,i : fundamental and higher homotopy
groups.
4. Complete the examination of the local geometry of PΓ\Ks .
We do know that Ks is (obviously) a metric space and PΓ acts on it by isometries,
properly discontinuously,
. – p.21/22
Ongoing Work & Future Directions ...
1. Prove that two representatives of IAAI’s of Λ whose fixed lattice are
isometric to Fix(χ2 ) are in fact conjugates.
2. Identify PΓR
4.
3. Study the topology of MR
0,i : fundamental and higher homotopy
groups.
4. Complete the examination of the local geometry of PΓ\Ks .
We do know that Ks is (obviously) a metric space and PΓ acts on it by isometries,
properly discontinuously, hence with closed orbits.
. – p.21/22
Ongoing Work & Future Directions ...
1. Prove that two representatives of IAAI’s of Λ whose fixed lattice are
isometric to Fix(χ2 ) are in fact conjugates.
2. Identify PΓR
4.
3. Study the topology of MR
0,i : fundamental and higher homotopy
groups.
4. Complete the examination of the local geometry of PΓ\Ks .
We do know that Ks is (obviously) a metric space and PΓ acts on it by isometries,
properly discontinuously, hence with closed orbits. PΓ\Ks is thus itself a metric space.
. – p.21/22
Ongoing Work & Future Directions ...
1. Prove that two representatives of IAAI’s of Λ whose fixed lattice are
isometric to Fix(χ2 ) are in fact conjugates.
2. Identify PΓR
4.
3. Study the topology of MR
0,i : fundamental and higher homotopy
groups.
4. Complete the examination of the local geometry of PΓ\Ks .
We do know that Ks is (obviously) a metric space and PΓ acts on it by isometries,
properly discontinuously, hence with closed orbits. PΓ\Ks is thus itself a metric space.
Speculation:
PΓ\Ks is some kind of an orbit space by a negatively curved, non-locally-symmetric space. These were
once conjectured not to exist. But Mostow-Siu [1980] first constructed such compact Käher (complex)
surface (hence of real dimension 4). Gromov-Thurston [1987] constructed examples of any real
dimension ≥
4.
. – p.21/22
THE END
THANK YOU!
. – p.22/22