Haupt–Kapovich theorem revisited rodion n. d´eev April 15, 2021 to Misha, Ilya, Vitali, and Katia Kapovich Abstract A theorem of O. Haupt, rediscovered by M. Kapovich and celebrated by his proof invoking Ratner theory, describes the set of de Rham coho- mology classes on a topological orientable surface, which can be realized by an abelian differential in some respective complex structure, in purely topological terms. We give a simplification of Kapovich’s proof and make an attempt to describe similarly pairs and triples of cohomology classes, which can be realized by abelian differentials in some complex structure. This leads to some interesting problems in algebraic geometry of curves, and gives an unexpected local description of the Teichm¨uller space. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Hejhal–Thurston‘holonomy’theorem 4 2a ThreeincarnationsofKodaira–Spencertensor . 4 2b Hejhal–Thurston theorem and polyperiod mappings . 7 2c Weak Hejhal–Thurstontheoremfor pairs andtriples . 8 2d Sheaf-theoretic appearance of the obscurant subspaces . .... 12 2e Counterexamples to the Hejhal–Thurston theorem for pairs and arXiv:2010.15359v2 [math.AG] 14 Apr 2021 triples ................................. 14 3 Input from the ergodic theory 15 3a Moore’stheorem ........................... 15 3b SL(2, R)-action on the total space of the Hodge bundle . 17 3c Ratnertheory............................. 18 4 Elliptic classes 19 4a Motivation:curvesontori. 19 4b Single elliptic class: Haupt–Kapovich condition . 21 4c Elliptic pairs . 24 4d sp(4, R)-action?............................ 27 1 rodion n. d´eev Haupt–Kapovich theorem revisited 5 Intrinsicgeometryoftheisoperiodiclocus 28 5a Flat structure on the isoperiodic foliation . 28 5b Lesser isoperiodic leaf in a greater isoperiodic leaf . 29 5c Sections of determinantal varieties and reciprocity law . 33 1 Introduction The problem which the Haupt–Kapovich theorem concerns is the following. Let S be a topological genus g > 1 orientable surface. Its first cohomology H1(S, C) is the complexification of a lattice endowed with an integral skew- symmetric form, the intersection pairing. If the complex structure I on the surface is fixed, making it into a complex curve, one can consider the space H1,0(S, I) of cohomology classes of holomorphic 1-forms. Whenever another complex structure is chosen, another H1,0 subspace in cohomology arises, so it of course cannot be reconstructed from the linear-algebraic data of topological origin on H1(S, C). But can the union of all the H1,0 subspaces for all possible complex structures be captured by topology? The answer is positive, and is given by the following Theorem (O. Haupt, 1920 [H], M. Kapovich, 2000 [K]). The union H1,0(S, I) H1(S, C) ⊂ I∈[TS of all the H1,0 subspace over all possible complex structures is precisely the subset of the classes [α] which satisfy the following conditions: 1. √ 1[α] [¯α] > 0, − ∧ C 2. Whenever the set of periods γ α is a lattice in , one has γ∈H1(S,Z) nR o √ 1[α] [¯α] greater than the covolume of this lattice. − ∧ Here TS stands for the Teichm¨uller space of complex structures on S modulo isotopy. The necessity of these conditions is obvious: the first follows from the fact that √ 1dz dz¯ is a positive volume form on a Riemannian surface; as for the second,− if∧α is a holomorphic representative, the multivalued integral z z0 α descends to a holomorphic mapping onto an elliptic curve, the quotient Rof C by the periods of α, and the degree of a map from a genus g > 1 curve onto an elliptic curve is at least two, so its area w. r. t. the class [α] is at least twice as the area of the elliptic curve, i. e. the covolume of the period lattice. However, the sufficiency of these conditions is nontrivial. Although it can be proved by elementary means (and this way has been proven by Haupt), a more elegant proof by Kapovich is based on the ergodic theory, especially the Ratner theorem. Since the subset of realizable classes is invariant under scaling, one may consider it as a question about characterization of linear subspaces, which fall –2– April 15, 2021 rodion n. d´eev Haupt–Kapovich theorem revisited into H1,0(S, I) for some complex structure I. Bogomolov noticed that a variant of this question turns out to be interesting: Problem. Describe the union Gr k,H1,0(S, I) Gr k,H1(S, C) T ⊂ I∈[S in terms of topology of S. In this paper, we slightly modify the proof of Kapovich in order to fit better for dealing with this problem. The paper is organized as follows. In the Section 2, we discuss the openness of the set of representable classes (or pairs, or triples). In the subsection 2a the notation is fixed and familiar facts about the Teichm¨uller space, Gauß–Manin connection, Kodaira–Spencer class for algebraic curves are recollected. In the subsection 2b, we introduce the polyperiod mappings, and restate an open- ness theorem due to Hejhal and Thurston, which is of great importance in the Kapovich’s paper. In the subsection 2c, a weaker version of Hejhal–Thurston theorem for pairs and triples of abelian differentials is proved, and the algebraic- geometric condition on the pairs in which this theorem fails, is outlined. In the subsection 2e, a geometric construction of certain examples of failure of Hejhal– Thurston theorem for pairs and triples is provided. The Section 3 invokes ergodic-theoretic considerations. Moore’s theorem implies that the sets of representable classes are dense, which in particular implies the Proposition 3.2, which is one of the main results of the paper. Theorem (Proposition 3.2). Let (S, I) be a complex curve of genus at least four, and τ H1,0(S, I) be a generic three-dimensional subspace. There exist a neighborhood⊂U Gris(3, 2g) in the isotropic Graßmannian w. r. t. the inter- section pairing containing⊂ τ s. t. for any τ ′ U there exists a unique complex structure I′ = I(τ ′) s. t. one has τ ′ H1,0(S,∈ I′). In other words, deformation of a generic triple of abelian differentials⊂ determines a unique local deforma- tion of a complex structure, so that the deformed cohomology classes would be represented by abelian differentials in the deformed complex structure. Then we remind of the famous SL(2, R)-action on the moduli space of abelian differentials, and exploit it to give a simplified version of Kapovich’s classifica- tion of orbits by the mean of Ratner theory. In the Section 4, the elliptic subspaces are studied, this allows us to finish our version of Kapovich’s proof (Proposition 4.7). In the end of the section, we formulate an analogue of the Haupt–Kapovich condition for elliptic pairs (Proposition 4.11). In the mean- time, we characterize possible number of nodes on a curve of given genus and given self-intersection on an abelian surface in a manner which resembles similar classical statement for plane curves due to Severi. In the Section 5, we describe some geometry of the isoperiodic locus with prospect on so-called lesser isoperiodic foliation defined in the subsection 2c (Definition 8), deducing from it certain higher-order Legendrian property for –3– April 15, 2021 rodion n. d´eev Haupt–Kapovich theorem revisited the Schottky locus (Proposition 5.11). There we also prove a statement similar to Proposition 3.2, but restricted to hyperelliptic curves: Theorem (Proposition 5.6). Let (S, I) be a hyperelliptic complex curve of genus at least three, and τ H1,0(S, I) be a generic two-dimensional subspace. There exists a neighborhood⊂ U Gris(2, 2g) containing τ s. t. for any τ ′ U there exists a unique hyperelliptic⊂ complex structure I′ = I(τ ′) s. t. one∈ has τ ′ H1,0(S, I′). In other words, deformation of a generic pair of abelian differ- entials⊂ determines a unique local deformation of a hyperelliptic complex struc- ture, so that the deformed cohomology classes would be represented by abelian differentials in the deformed complex structure. The following theorem, which seems to be new, follows from this construc- tion: Theorem (Corollary 5.9). Let C A2 be a generic pair of an abelian surface A2 and a curve C on it with no{ worse⊂ than} normal crossings. Then there exists a hyperelliptic curve on A2 in the same homology class [C]. This theorem is a sibling of Bogomolov–Mumford theorem on existence of rational curves on any K3 surface. After all, in the subsection 5c, we prove a statement about values of two holomorphic differentials at zeroes of a third, which is similar to the reciprocity law on curves for meromorphic functions, yet probably cannot be reduced to it. In what follows, we use italics when reminding the well-known definitions, and bold when introducing our own. 2 Hejhal–Thurston ‘holonomy’ theorem 2a Three incarnations of Kodaira–Spencer tensor This subsection is a reminder of what is widely known. For an introduction, see an excellent book [TrAG]. Shape operator of the Hodge bundle. Consider the space Cx(S) of tensors ∞ ∗ 2 I C (T S TS) satisfying I = IdTS with the usual topology on smooth sections∈ of a vector⊗ bundle. Any such− tensor gives rise to a complex structure since dim S = 2. The diffeomorphism group Diff(S) acts on this space via pullbacks. Definition 1. The quotient T(S) = Cx(S)/ Diff0(S) by the connected compo- nent of the diffeomorphism group is called the Teichm¨uller space. Fact. The Teichm¨uller space of a genus g surface is isomorphic, as a quotient of a Fr´echet manifold by a Fr´echet–Lie group, to a finite-dimensional smooth manifold of dimension 6g 6 (actually, an open ball).