Counting points and counting curves on varieties — Tribute to Daniel Perrin

$\require{enclose}\def\VarC{\mathrm{Var}_{\mathbf C}}\def\KVarC{K_0\VarC}$
Daniel Perrin is a French algebraic geometer who turned 70 last year. He his also well known in France for his wonderful teaching habilities. He was one of the cornerstones of the former École normale supérieure de jeunes filles, before it merged in 1985 with the rue d'Ulm school. From this time remains a Cours d'algèbre which is a must for all the students (and their teachers) who prepare the agrégation, the highest recruitment process for French high schools. He actually taught me Galois theory (at École normale supérieure in 1990/1991) and Algebraic Geometry (the year after, at Orsay). His teaching restlessly stresses  the importance of examples. He has also been deeply involved in training future primary school teachers, as well as in devising the mathematical curriculum of high school students: he was responsible of the report on geometry. It has been a great honor for me to be invited to lecture during the celebration of his achievements that took place at Orsay on November, 23, 2016.

Diophantine equations are a source of numerous arithmetic problems. One of them has been put forward by Manin in the 80s and consists in studying the behavior of the number of solutions of such equations of given size, when the bound grows to infinity. A geometric analogue of this question considers the space of all curves with given degree which are drawn on a fixed complex projective, and is interested in their behavior when the degree tends to infinity. This was the topic of my lecture and is the subject of this post.

Let us first begin with an old problem, apparently studied by Dirichlet around 1840, and given a rigorous solution by Chebyshev and Cesáro around 1880: the probability that two integers be coprime is equal to $6/\pi^2$. Of course, there is no probability on the integers that has the properties one would expect, such as being invariant by translation, and the classical formalization of this problem states that the numbers of pairs $(a,b)$ of integers such that $1\leq a,b\leq n$ and $\gcd(a,b)=1$ grows as $n^2 \cdot 6/\pi^2$ when $n\to+\infty$,

This can be proved relatively easily, for example as follows. Without the coprimality condition, there are $n^2$ such integers. Now one needs to remove those pairs both of which entries are multiples of $2$, and there are $\lfloor n/2\rfloor^2$ of those, those where $a,b$ are both multiples of $3$ ($\lfloor n/3\rfloor^2$), and then comes $5$, because we have already removed those even pairs, etc. for all prime numbers. But in this process, we have removed twice the pairs of integers both of which entries are multiples of $2\cdot 3=6$, so we have to add them back, and then remove the pairs of integers both of which are multiples of $2\cdot 3\cdot 5$, etc. This leads to the following formula for
the cardinality $C(n)$ we are interested in:

$\displaystyle
 C(n) = n^2 - \lfloor\frac n2\rfloor^2 - \lfloor \frac n3\rfloor^2-\lfloor \frac n5\rfloor^2 - \dots
+ \lfloor \frac n{2\cdot 3}\rfloor^2+\lfloor\frac n{2\cdot 5}\rfloor^2+\dots
- \lfloor \frac n{2\cdot 3\cdot 5} \rfloor^2 - \dots $.

Approximating $\lfloor n/a\rfloor$ by $n/a$, this becomes

$\displaystyle
C(n) \approx  n^2 - \left(\frac n2\right)-^2 - \left (\frac n3\right)^2-\left( \frac n5\rfloor\right)^2 - \dots
+ \left (\frac n{2\cdot 3}\right)^2+\left(\frac n{2\cdot 5}\right)^2+\dots
- \left (\frac n{2\cdot 3\cdot 5} \right)^2 - \dots $

which we recognize as

$\displaystyle
C(n)\approx n^2 \left(1-\frac1{2^2}\right) \left(1-\frac1{3^2}\right)\left(1-\frac1{5^2}\right) \dots
=n^2/\zeta(2)$,

where $\zeta(2)$ is the value at $s=2$ of Riemann's zeta function $\zeta(s)$. Now, Euler had revealed the truly arithmetic nature of $\pi$ by proving in 1734 that $\zeta(2)=\pi^2/6$. The approximations we made in this calculation can be justified, and this furnishes a proof of the above claim.

We can put this question about integers in a broader perspective if we recall that the ring $\mathbf Z$ is a principal ideal domain (PID) and study the analogue of our problem in other PIDs, in particular for $\mathbf F[T]$, where $\mathbf F$ is a finite field; set $q=\operatorname{Card}(\mathbf F)$. The above proof can be adapted easily (with simplifications, in fact) and shows that number of pairs $(A,B)$ of monic polynomials of degrees $\leq n$ such that $\gcd(A,B)=1$ grows as $q^n(1-1/q)$ when $n\to+\infty$. The analogy becomes stronger if one observes that $1/(1-1/q)$ is the value at $s=2$ of $1/(1-q^{1-s})$, the Hasse-Weil zeta function of the affine line over $\mathbf F$.

What can we say about our initial question if we replace the ring $\mathbf Z$ with the PID $\mathbf C[T]$? Of course, there's no point in counting the set of pairs $(A,B)$ of coprime monic polynomials of degree $\leq n$ in $\mathbf C[T]$, because this set is infinite. Can we, however, describe this set? For simplicity, we will consider here the set $V_n$ of pairs of coprime monic polynomials of degree precisely $n$. If we identify a monic polynomial of degree $n$ with the sequence of its coefficients, we then view $V_n$ as a subset of $\mathbf C^{n}\times\mathbf C^n$. We first observe that $V_n$ is an Zariski open subset of $\mathbf C^{2n}$: its complement $W_n$ is defined by the vanishing of a polynomial in $2n$ variables — the resultant of $A$ and $B$.

When $n=0$, we have $V_0=\mathbf C^0=\{\mathrm{pt}\}$.

Let's look at $n=1$: the polynomials $A=T+a$ and $B=T+b$ are coprime if and only if $a\neq b$;
consequently, $V_1$ is the complement of the diagonal in $\mathbf C^2$.

For $n=2$, this becomes more complicated: the resultant of the polynomials $T^2+aT+b$ and $T^2+cT+d$ is equal to $a^2d-abc-adc+b^2-2bd+bc^2+d^2$; however, it looks hard to guess some relevant properties of $V_n$ (or of its complement) just by staring at this equation. In any case, we can say that $V_2$ is the complement in $\mathbf C^4$ of the union of two sets, corresponding of the degree of the gcd of $(A,B)$. When $\gcd(A,B)=2$, one has $A=B$; this gives the diagonal, a subset of $\mathbf C^4$ isomorphic to $\mathbf C^2$; the set of pairs of polynomials $(A,B)$ whose gcd has degree $1$ is essentially $\mathbf C\times V_1$: multiply a pair $(A_1,B_1)$ of coprime polynomials of degree $1$ by an arbitrary polynomial of the form $(T-d)$.
Consequently,
\begin{align}V_2&=\mathbf C^4 - \left( \mathbf C^2 \cup \mathbf C\times V_1\right)\\
&= \mathbf C^4 - \left( \enclose{updiagonalstrike}{\mathbf C^2}\cup \left(\mathbf C\times (\mathbf C^2-\enclose{updiagonalstrike}{\mathbf C})\right)\right)\\
&=\mathbf C^4-\mathbf C^3
\end{align}
if we cancel the two $\mathbf C^2$ that appear. Except that this makes no sense!

However, there is a way to make this computation both meaningful and rigorous, and it consists in working in the Grothendieck ring $\KVarC$ of complex algebraic varieties. Its additive group is generated by isomorphism classes of algebraic varieties, with relations of the form $[X]=[U]+[Z]$ for every Zariski closed subset $Z$ of an algebraic variety $X$, with complement $U=X-Z$. This group has a natural ring structure for which $[X][Y]=[X\times Y]$. Its unit element is the class of the point, $[\mathbf A^0]$ if one wishes. An important element of this ring $\KVarC$ is the class $\mathbf L=[\mathbf A^1]$ of the affine line. The natural map $e\colon \VarC\to \KVarC$ given by $e(X)=[X]$ is the universal Euler characteristic: it is the universal map from $\VarC$ to a ring such that $e(X)=e(X-Z)+e(Z)$ and $e(X\times Y)=e(X)e(Y)$, where $X,Y$ are complex varieties and $Z$ is a Zariski closed subset of $X$.

In particular, it generalizes the classical Euler characteristic, the alternate sum of the dimensions of the cohomology groups (with compact support, if one wishes) of a variety. A subtler invariant of $\KVarC$ is given by mixed Hodge theory: there exists a unique ring morphism $\chi_{\mathrm H}\KVarC\to\mathbf Z[u,v]$ such that for every complex variety $X$, $\chi_{\mathrm H}([X])$ is the Hodge-Deligne polynomial of $X$. In particular, if $X$ is projective and smooth, $\chi_{\mathrm H}([X])=\sup_{p,q} \dim h^q(X,\Omega^p_X) u^pv^q$. If one replaces the field of complex numbers with a finite field $\mathbf F$, one may actually count the numbers of $\mathbf F$-points of $X$, and this furnishes yet another generalized Euler characteristic.

The preceding calculation shows that $e(V_0)=1$, $e(V_1)=\mathbf L^2-\mathbf L$ and $e(V_2)=\mathbf L^4-\mathbf L^3$; more generally, one proves by induction that $e(V_n)=\mathbf L^{2n}-\mathbf L^{2n-1}$ for every integer $n\geq 0$.

Equivalently, one has $e(W_n)=\mathbf L^{2n-1}$ for all $n$. I have to admit that I see no obvious reason for the class of $W_n$ to be equal to that of an affine space. However, as Ofer Gabber and Jean-Louis Colliot-Thélène pointed out to me during the talk, this resultant is the difference of two homogeneous polynomials $p-q$ of degrees $d=2$ and $d+1=3$; consequently, the locus it defines is a rational variety — given $a,b,c$, there is generically a unique $t$ such that $p-q$ vanishes at $(at,bt,ct,t)$.

These three results have a common interpretation if one brings in the projective line $\mathbf P_1$. Indeed, pairs $(a,b)$ of coprime integers (up to $\pm1$) correspond to rational points on $\mathbf P_1$, and if $\mathbf F$ is a field, then pairs $(A,B)$ of coprime polynomials in $\mathbf F[T]$ correspond (up to $\mathbf F^\times$) to elements of $\mathbf P_1(\mathbf F(T))$.
In both examples, the numerical datum $\max(|a|,|b|)$ or $\max(\deg(A),\deg(B))$ is called the height of the corresponding point.

In the case of the ring $\mathbf Z$, or in the case of the ring $\mathbf F[T]$ where $\mathbf F$ is a finite field, one has an obvious but fundamental finiteness theorem: there are only finitely many points of $\mathbf P_1$ with bounded height. In the latter case, $\mathbf C[T]$, this naïve finiteness does not hold. Nevertheless, if one sees $\mathbf P_1(\mathbf C(T))$ as an infinite dimensional variety — one needs infinitely many complex numbers to describe a rational function, then the points of bounded height constitute what is called a bounded family, a “finite dimensional” constructible set.

The last two examples have a common geometric interpretation. Namely, $\mathbf F(T)$ is the field of functions of a projective smooth algebraic curve $C$ over $\mathbf F$; in fact, $C$ is the projective line again, but we may better ignore this coincidence. Then a point $x\in\mathbf P_1(\mathbf F(T))$
corresponds to a morphism $\varepsilon_x\colon C\to\mathbf P_1$, and the formula $H(x)=\deg(\epsilon_x^*\mathscr O(1))$ relates the height $H(x)$ of $x$ to the degree of the morphism $\varepsilon_x$.

Since the notion of height generalizes from $\mathbf P_1$ to projective spaces $\mathbf P_n$ of higher dimension (and from $\mathbf Q$ to general number fields), this suggests a general question. Let $V\subset\mathbf P_n$ be a projective variety over a base field $k$ hat can one say about the set of points $x\in V(k)$ such that $H(x)\leq B$, when the bound $B$ grows to $\infty$?
The base field $k$ can be either a number field, or the field of functions $\mathbf F(C)$ of a curve $C$ over a finite field $\mathbf F$, or the field of functions $\mathbf C(C)$ of a curve over the complex numbers. In the last two cases, the variety can even be taken to be constant, deduced from a variety $V_0$ over $\mathbf F$ or $\mathbf C$.

1. When $k$ is a number field, this set is a finite set; how does its cardinality grows? This is a question that Batyrev and Manin have put forward at the end of the 80s, and which has attracted a lot of attention since.
2. When $k=\mathbf F(C)$ is a function field over a finite field, this set is again a finite set; how does its cardinality grows? This question has been proposed by Emmanuel Peyre by analogy with the question of Batyrev and Manin.
3. When $k=\mathbf C(C)$ is a function field over $\mathbf C$, this set identifies with a closed subscheme of the Grothendieck-Hilbert scheme of $V$; what can one say about its geometry, in particular about its class in $\KVarC$? Again, this question has been proposed by Emmanuel Peyre around 2000.

In a forthcoming post, I shall recall some results on these questions, especially the first one, and in particular explain an approach based on the Fourier summation formula. I will then explain a theorem proved with François Loeser where we make use of Hrushovski–Kazhdan's motivic Fourier summation formula in motivic integration to prove an instance of the third question.

The Poisson summation formula, Minkowski's first theorem, and the density of sphere packings

I opened by accident a paper by Henry Cohn and Noam Elkies, New upper bounds on sphere packings I, Annals of Mathematics, 157 (2003), 689–714, and I had the good surprise to see a beautiful application of the Poisson summation formula to upper bounds for the density of sphere packings.

In fact, their argument is very close to a proof of the first theorem of Minkowski about lattice points in convex bodies which I had discovered in 2009. However, a final remark in their paper, appendix C, shows that this proof is not really new. Anyway, the whole story is nice enough to prompt me to discuss it in this blog.

1. The Poisson formula

I first recall the Poisson formula: let $f\colon\mathbf R^n\to \mathbf R$ be a continuous function whose Fourier transform $\hat f$ is integrable, let $L$ be a lattice in $\mathbf R^n$, and let $L'$ be the dual lattice of $L$. Then, 

\[ \sum_{x\in L} f(x) = \frac1{\mu(\mathbf R^n/L)}\sum_{y\in L'} \hat f(y). \]

In fact, one needs a bit more about $f$ that the above hypotheses (but we'll ignore this in the sequel). For example, it is sufficient that $f(x)$ and $\hat f(x)$ be bounded from above by a multiple of $1/(1+\| x\|)^{n+\epsilon}$, for some strictly positive real number $\epsilon$.

2. Minkowski's first theorem

Let $B$ a closed symmetric convex neighborhood of $0$. Minkowski's first theorem bounds from below the cardinality of $B\cap L$. A natural idea would be to apply the Poisson summation formula to the indicator function $f_B$ of $B$. However, $f_B$ is not continuous, so we need to replace $f_B$ by some function $f$ which satisfies the following properties:

• $f\leq f_B$, so that $\#(B\cap L)= \sum_{x\in L} f_B(x)\geq \sum_{x\in L} f(x) $;
• $\hat f\geq 0$, so that $\sum_{y\in L'} \hat f(y) \geq \hat f(0)$.

The second condition suggest to take for $f$ a function of the form $g*\check g$, so that $\hat f=|\hat g| ^2$. Then, the first condition will hold outside of $B$ if $g$ is supported in $\frac12 B$. Let's try $g=cf_{B/2}$ for some positive real number $c$. For all $x\in\mathbf R^n$,  

\[ f(x) \leq f(0) =c^2 \int_{\mathbf R^n} f_{B/2}(x) f_{B/2}(-x) = c^2 \mu(B/2) = c^2 \mu(B)/2^n. \]

It suffices to choose $c=(2^n/\mu(B))^{1/2}$.

On the other hand, 

\[ \hat g(0) = \int_{\mathbf R^n} f_{B/2}(x) = \mu(B/2)=c\mu(B)/2^n=1/c. \]

Finally, the Poisson formula implies

$\displaystyle \#(B\cap L) \geq \sum_{x\in L} f(x)  = \frac1{\mu(\mathbf R^n/L)} \sum_{y\in L'}\hat f(y)  \geq \frac1{\mu(\mathbf R^n/L)} \hat f(0) $

$\displaystyle = \frac1{\mu(\mathbf R^n/L)} | \hat g(0)|^2  = \frac{\mu(B)}{2^n}\mu(\mathbf R^n/L).$

This is exactly Minkowski's first theorem!

Of course, one may consider apply this argument to other functions $f$. In the case where $B$ is an Euclidean ball, a natural choice consists in taking a Gaussian $f(x)=a\exp(-b\|x\|^2)$, since then $\hat f$ has the same form. This is what has essentially been done by Schoof and van der Geer in their paper Effectivity of Arakelov divisors and the analogue of the theta divisor of a number field, Selecta Math. New Ser. 6 (2000), 377–398, and Damian Rössler independently. Indeed, up to normalization factors, the left hand side of the Poisson summation formula is then interpreted as the exponential of the $h^0$ of a line bundle over an arithmetic curve, and the Poisson summation formula itself is the analogue of Serre's duality theorem in Arakelov geometry. As Jean-Benoît Bost explained to me, Gaussian functions provide an inequality for $\#(B\cap L)$ which is sharper than Minkowski's first theorem. The details of the computation can be found in my notes about Arakelov geometry (beware, these are mostly a work in slow progress). I have not tried to look for optimal functions beyond that case.

3. The theorem of Cohn-Elkies

We consider a sphere packing, that is a set of points in $\mathbf R^n$ with mutual distances at least 1,

and we want to bound from above its density, that is the ratio of volume occupied by balls of radius $1/2$ centered at these spheres. One may think of a lattice packing, the particular case where the centers of these spheres are exactly the points of a lattice $L$ or, more generally, of periodic packing when the centers of the spheres are finitely many translates $v_1+L,\dots,v_N+L$ of  a lattice $L$. In fact, Cohn and Elkies argue that it suffices to study such periodic packings (repeating periodically an arbitrarily large part of the sphere packing), so we shall do like them and assume that our sphere packing is periodic. 

Now, let $f$ be a real valued function on $\mathbf R^n$ satisfying the following properties:

• $f$ is continuous, integrable on $\mathbf R^n$ as well as its Fourier transform.
• $f(0)>0$ and $f(x)\leq 0$ for $\| x\|\geq 1$;
• $\hat f(x)\geq 0$ for all $x$.

Then, the density $\Delta$ of the sphere packing satisfies 

\[ \Delta \leq 2^{-n} \mu(B) \frac{f(0)}{\hat f(0)}, \]

where $\mu(B)$ is the volume of the unit ball.

We assume that no difference $v_i-v_j$ is a point of the lattice $L$ (otherwise, we can exclude one translate from the list). With the above notation, the fundamental parallelepiped of the lattice contains exactly $N$ balls of radius $1/2$, hence 

\[ \Delta= 2^{-n}\mu(B) \frac N{\mu(\mathbf R^n/L)}. \]

For any $v\in\mathbf R^n$, the Poisson summation formula for $x\mapsto f(x+v)$ writes

\[ \sum_{x\in L} f(x+v) = \frac1{\mu(L)} \sum_{y\in L'} e^{2\pi i \langle v,y\rangle} \hat f(y), \]

hence

$\displaystyle \sum_{1\leq j,k\leq N} \sum_{x\in L} f(x+v_j-v_k)  = \frac1{\mu(L)} \sum_{y\in L'}\hat f(y)  \sum_{j,k=1}^N e^{2\pi i \langle v_j-v_k,y\rangle}$ 

$\displaystyle = \frac1{\mu(L)} \sum_{y\in L'}\hat f(y) \left| \sum_{j=1}^N e^{2\pi i \langle v_j,y\rangle} \right|^2.$

All terms of the right hand side are positive or null, so that we can bound it from below by

the term for $y=0$, hence

\[ \sum_{1\leq j,k\leq N} \sum_{x\in L} f(x+v_j-v_k) \geq N^2 \frac{\hat f(0)}{\mu(\mathbf R^n/L)}. \]

Now, there is a sphere of our packing centered at $x+v_j$, and another at $v_k$,

so that $\| x+v_j-v_k\|\geq 1$ unless $x+v_j=v_k$, that is $v_k-v_j=x$ hence $x=0$ and $v_j=v_k$. In the first case, the value of $f$ at $x+v_j-v_k$ is negative or null; in the latter, it equal $f(0)$. Consequently, the left hand side of the previous inequality is at most $Nf(0)$.  Finally, $\displaystyle N f(0) \geq N^2 \hat f(0)/\mu(\mathbf R^n/L)$, hence the desired inequality.

The Poisson summation formula, arithmetic and geometry

François Loeser and I just uploaded a paper on arXiv about Motivic height zeta functions. That such a thing could be possible is quite funny, so I'll take this opportunity to break a long silence on this blog.

In Diophantine geometry, an established and important game consists in saying as much as possible of the solutions of diophantine equations. In algebraic terms, this means proving qualitative or quantitative properties of the set of integer solutions of polynomial equations with integral coefficients. In fact, one can only understand something by making the geometry more apparent; then, one is interested in integral points of schemes $X$ of finite type over the ring $\mathbf Z$ of integers. There are in fact two sub-games: one in which one tries to prove that such solutions are scarce, for example when $X$ is smooth and of general type (conjecture of Mordell=Faltings's theorem, conjecture of Lang) ; the other in which one tries to prove that there are many solutions —then, one can even try to count how many solutions there are of given height, a measure of their size. There is a conjecture of Manin predicting what would happen, and our work belongs to this field of thought.

Many methods exist to understand rational points or integral points of varieties. When the scheme carries an action of an algebraic group, it is tempting to try to use harmonic analysis. In fact, this has been done since the beginnings of Manin's conjecture when Franke, Manin, Tschinkel showed that when the variety is a generalized flag variety ($G/P$, where $G$ is semi-simple, $P$ a parabolic subgroup, for example projective spaces, grassmannians, quadrics,...), the solution of Manin's question was already given by Langlands's theory of Eisenstein series. Later, Batyrev and Tschinkel proved the case of toric varieties, and again with Tschinkel, I studied the analogue of toric varieties when the group is not a torus but a vector space. In these two cases, the main idea consists in introducing a generating series of our counting problem, the height zeta function, and establishing its analytic properties. In fact, this zeta function is a sum over rational points of a height function defined on the adelic space of the group, and the Poisson summation formula rewrites this sum as the integral of the Fourier transform of the height function over the group of topological characters. What makes the analysis possible is the fact that, essentially, the trivial character carries all the relevant information; it is nevertheless quite technical to establish what happens for other characters, and then to check that the behavior of the whole integral is indeed governed by the trivial character.

In mathematics, analogy often leads to interesting results. The analogy between number fields and function fields suggests that diophantine equations over the integers have a geometric analogue, which consists in studying morphisms from a curve to a given variety. If the ground field of the function field is finite, the dictionary goes quite far; for example, Manin's question has been studied a lot by Bourqui who established the case of toric varieties. But when the ground field is infinite, it is no more possible to count solutions of given height since they will generally be infinite.

However, as remarked by Peyre around 2000, all these solutions, which are morphisms from a curve to a scheme, form themselves a scheme of finite type. So the question is to understand the behavior of these schemes, when the height parameter grows to infinity. In fact, in an influential but unpublished paper, Kapranov had already established the case of flag varieties (without noticing)! The height zeta function is now a formal power series whose coefficients are algebraic varieties; one viewes them as elements of the Grothendieck ring of varieties, the universal ring generated by varieties with addition given by cutting-and-pasting, and multiplication given by the product of varieties. This ring is a standard tool of motivic integration (as invented by Kontsevich and developed by Denef and Loeser, and many people since). That's why this height zeta function is called motivic.

What we proved with François is a rationality theorem for such a motivic height function, when the variety is an equivariant compactification of a vector group. This means that all this spaces of morphisms, indexed by some integer, satisfy a linear dependence relation in the Grothendieck ring of varieties! To prove this result, we rely crucially on an analogue of the Poisson summation formula in motivic integration, due to Hrushovski and Kazhdan, which allows us to perform a similar analysis to the one I had done with Tschinkel in a paper that appeared last year in Duke Math. J.

Many things remain puzzling. The most disturbing is the following. If you read Tate's thesis, or Weil's Basic Number Theory, you'll see that the Riemann Roch formula and Serre's duality theorem for curves over finite fields are consequences of the Poisson summation formula in harmonic analysis. In motivic integration, things go the other way round: if one unwinds all the definitions (we explain this in our paper with François), the motivic Poisson summation formula boils down to the Riemann-Roch and Serre theorems. So, in principle, our proof could be understood just from these two theorems. But this is not clear at all how to do this directly: passing through the looking-glass to go computing our height zeta function in the Fourier world appears to be non-trivial and efficient...