Oeljeklaus–Toma manifolds and arithmetic invariants

Abstract

We consider Oeljeklaus–Toma manifolds coming from number fields with precisely one complex place. Our general theme is to relate the geometry to the arithmetic. We show that just knowing the fundamental group allows us to recover the number field. We also show that this fails if there are more complex places. The first homology turns out to be related to an interesting ideal. We compute the volume in terms of the discriminant and regulator of the number field. Is there a conceptual reason for this? We explore this and see what happens if we (entirely experimentally) regard them as “baby siblings” of hyperbolic manifolds coming from number fields.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    The Snake Lemma is false for arbitrary non-abelian groups, but it does hold for the specific Diagram 4.5. The essential reason is that all kernels and cokernels in this diagram exist. This would not necessarily hold for a general diagram of non-abelian groups.

  2. 2.

    We had restricted our attention to this case in the entire text right from the beginning.

  3. 3.

    This paper seems to have been written in response to Wall’s study [23], [24]. Taking inspiration from Thurston’s geometries, Wall asks which 4-dimensional geometries (= nice simply connected Riemannian real manifolds whose isometry group acts transitively and admits lattices) possess a complex structure so that the isometry action is holomorphic. He finds that a complex structure often exists, often unique, but not always Kähler.

References

  1. 1.

    Brown, F.C.S.: Dedekind zeta motives for totally real number fields. Invent. Math. 194(2), 257–311 (2013)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Chinburg, T., Friedman, E., Jones, K.N., Reid, A.W.: The arithmetic hyperbolic 3-manifold of smallest volume. Ann. Scuola Norm. Super. Pisa Cl. Sci. (4) 30(1), 1–40 (2001)

  3. 3.

    Chinburg, T.: A small arithmetic hyperbolic three-manifold. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 100(1), 140–144 (1987)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Dragomir, S., Ornea, L.: Locally Conformal Kähler Geometry, Progress in Mathematics, vol. 155. Birkhäuser Boston Inc, Boston (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Dubickas, A.: Nonreciprocal units in a number field with an application to Oeljeklaus–Toma manifolds (with an appendix by Laurent Battisti). N. Y. J. Math. 20, 257–274 (2014)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Friedman, E.: Analytic formulas for the regulator of a number field. Invent. Math. 98(3), 599–622 (1989)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Gabai, D., Meyerhoff, R., Milley, P.: Minimum volume cusped hyperbolic three-manifolds. J. Am. Math. Soc. 22(4), 1157–1215 (2009)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Gromov, M.: Hyperbolic manifolds (according to Thurston and Jørgensen). In: Bourbaki Seminar, Vol. 1979/80, Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 842, , pp. 40–53. Springer, Berlin (1981)

  9. 9.

    Hasegawa, K.: Complex and Kähler structures on compact solvmanifolds. J. Symplectic Geom. 3(4), 749–767 (2005)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Inoue, M.: On surfaces of class \({{\rm VII}}_{0}\). Invent. Math. 24, 269–310 (1974)

    MathSciNet  Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Ishida, M.: Fundamental units of certain algebraic number fields. Abh. Math. Semin. Univ. Hambg. 39, 245–250 (1973)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Kasuya, H.: Vaisman metrics on solvmanifolds and Oeljeklaus–Toma manifolds. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 45(1), 15–26 (2013)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Mostow, G.: Factor spaces of solvable groups. Ann. Math. (2) 60, 1–27 (1954)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Oeljeklaus, K., Toma, M.: Non-Kähler compact complex manifolds associated to number fields. Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 55(1), 161–171 (2005)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Ornea, L., Vuletescu, V.: Oeljeklaus–Toma manifolds and locally conformally Kähler metrics. A state of the art. Stud. Univ. Babeş-Bolyai Math. 58(4), 459–468 (2013)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Parton, M., Vuletescu, V.: Examples of non-trivial rank in locally conformal Kähler geometry. Math. Z. 270(1–2), 179–187 (2012)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Stein, W., et al.: Sage Mathematics Software (Version 4.7.2), The Sage Development Team. http://www.sagemath.org

  18. 18.

    Skoruppa, N.-P.: Quick lower bounds for regulators of number fields. Enseign. Math. (2) 39(1–2), 137–141 (1993)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    The PARI Group, Bordeaux, PARI/GP version 2.7.0,2014. http://pari.math.u-bordeaux.fr/

  20. 20.

    Vaisman, I.: On locally conformal almost Kähler manifolds. Isr. J. Math. 24(3–4), 338–351 (1976)

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Vaisman, I.: Non-Kähler metrics on geometric complex surfaces. Rend. Semin. Mat. Univ. Politec. Torino 45(3), 117–123 (1989)

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Vuletescu, V.: LCK metrics on Oeljeklaus–Toma manifolds versus Kronecker’s theorem. Bull. Math. Soc. Sci. Math. Roum. (N.S.) 57(105)(2), 225–231 (2014)

    MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Wall, C.T.C.: Geometries and geometric structures in real dimension \(4\) and complex dimension \(2\). Geometry and topology (College Park, Md., 1983/84), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 1167, pp. 268–292. Springer, Berlin, (1985)

  24. 24.

    Wall, C.T.C.: Geometric structures on compact complex analytic surfaces. Topology 25(2), 119–153 (1986)

    MathSciNet  Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Victor Vuletescu for teaching me a lot of things, not all of them of mathematical nature. This note is a direct result of his inspiring ideas about the interplay of geometric and arithmetic conditions in Oeljeklaus–Toma manifolds. I also thank Chris Wuthrich for introducing me to SAGE. I would also like to thank the anonymous referee for a number of helpful remarks, which have led to a much clearer presentation.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to O. Braunling.

Additional information

The author was supported by the DFG GK1821 “Cohomological Methods in Geometry”.

Appendix

Appendix

Computer Code 1

The computations underlying Example 2 can be confirmed in an automated fashion by computer algebra systems. The following code is written for SAGE [17], largely using PARI/GP [19]. Firstly, we confirm that S was a generator of the group of units (up to torsion):

figurea

This computation can also be done by hand using the Minkowski bounds; but remember that this verification was actually not needed for the validity of the example. Next, we check the crucial fact that the order \(J_{i}\) is maximal, i.e. that it is the ring of integers:

figureb

Adapt the minimal polynomial for t to check both cases \(i=2,3\). Finally, we check that the compositum of the Galois closures has degree 216:

figurec

Of course it would not be particularly hard to perform this computation by hand, just a bit tedious.

Computer Code 2

We discuss the determination of the ideal J(U), Definition 1, by computer. We have used this for our Example 1. The following code runs through the number fields generated by the minimal polynomials \(Z^{3}-Z+h\), whenever these are irreducible, for \(h=1,\ldots ,9\). In this particular case these number fields have \(s=t=1\) real resp. complex places, so \(\mathcal {O}_{K}^{\times } \simeq \left\langle -1\right\rangle \times \mathbf {Z}\left\langle u\right\rangle \), where u is a fundamental unit. For these minimal polynomials the single real embedding of the fundamental unit always happens to be negative. This follows from Descartes’ Rule of Signs: The polynomial rewritten in \(-Z\) is \(-Z^{3}+Z+h\), which has precisely one sign change among its coefficients. Therefore, it must have a single negative real root. Hence, \(\mathcal {O} _{K}^{\times ,+}\simeq \mathbf {Z}\left\langle -u\right\rangle \) and the ideal \(J(\mathcal {O}_{K}^{\times ,+})\) is generated by the single elemet \(1-(-u)=1+u\) by Lemma 2.

figured

Note that SAGE always returns the unit group in the format so that U.gen(0) is the torsion generator and U.gen(1) the non-torsion generator. Hence, in this particular case the ideal J needs to be generated by 1+U.gen(1). This code can easily be adapted to similar computations. For example, for the polynomials \(Z^{7}-Z-h\) we will have \(s=1\) and \(t=3\) real resp. complex places. Any such polynomial has exactly one sign change in its coefficients, so by Descartes’ Rule it has precisely one positive real root. Hence, \(\mathcal {O}_{K}^{\times } =\{\pm 1\}\times \mathcal {O}_{K}^{\times ,+}\) and therefore \(J(\mathcal {O} _{K}^{\times ,+})\) is generated by the elements \(1-u\), where u runs through the generators of \(\mathcal {O}_{K}^{\times ,+}\), again by Lemma 2. Replace the definition of T by

T = [(1-U.gen(i)) for i in range(1,len(U.gens()))],

since we now will have several generators. We discard the generator at i=0 since this is again the torsion generator.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Braunling, O. Oeljeklaus–Toma manifolds and arithmetic invariants. Math. Z. 286, 291–323 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00209-016-1763-1

Download citation

Mathematics Subject Classification

  • 53C55