text:
# Cyclic covers of the projective line, their jacobians and endomorphisms

## 1. Introduction

As usual, $`𝐙,𝐐,𝐂`$ denote the ring of integers, the field of rational numbers and the field of complex numbers respectively. Let $`p`$ be an odd prime. Recall that $`p`$ is called a Fermat prime if $`p=2^{2^r}+1`$ for some positive integer $`r`$; e.g., $`3,5,17,257`$ are Fermat prime.

Let us fix a primitive $`p`$th root of unity

$$\zeta _p𝐂.$$

Let $`𝐐(\zeta _p)`$ be the $`p`$th cyclotomic field. It is well-known that $`𝐐(\zeta _p)`$ is a CM-field. If $`p`$ is a Fermat prime then the only CM-subfield of $`𝐐(\zeta _p)`$ is $`𝐐(\zeta _p)`$ itself, since the Galois group of $`𝐐(\zeta _p)/𝐐`$ is a cyclic $`2`$-group, whose only element of order $`2`$ acts as the complex conjugation. All other subfields of $`𝐐(\zeta _p)`$ are totally real.

Let $`f(x)𝐂[x]`$ be a polynomial of degree $`n4`$ without multiple roots. Let $`C_{f,p}`$ be a smooth projective model of the smooth affine curve

$$y^p=f(x).$$

It is well-known (, pp. 401–402, , Prop. 1 on p. 3359, , p. 148) that the genus $`g(C_{f,p})`$ of $`C_{f,p}`$ is $`(p1)(n1)/2`$ if $`p`$ does not divide $`n`$ and $`(p1)(n2)/2`$ if it does. The map

$$(x,y)(x,\zeta _py)$$

gives rise to a non-trivial birational autmorphism

$$\delta _p:C_{f,p}C_{f,p}$$

of period $`p`$.

Let $`J^{(f,p)}=J(C_{f,p})`$ be the jacobian of $`C_{f,p}`$; it is an abelian variety, whose dimension equals $`g(C_{f,p})`$. We write $`\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})`$ for the ring of endomorphisms of $`J^{(f,p)}`$. By functoriality, $`\delta _p`$ induces an automorphism of $`J^{(f,p)}`$ which we still denote by $`\delta _p`$; it is known (, p. 149, , p. 448)) that

$$\delta ^{p1}+\mathrm{}+\delta _p+1=0$$

in $`\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})`$. This gives us an embeddding

$$𝐙[\zeta _p]𝐙[\delta _p]\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})$$

(, p. 149, , p. 448)).

Our main result is the following statement.

###### Theorem 1.1.

Let $`K`$ be a subfield of $`𝐂`$ such that all the coefficients of $`f(x)`$ lie in $`K`$. Assume also that $`f(x)`$ is an irreducible polynomial in $`K[x]`$ of degree $`n5`$ and its Galois group over $`K`$ is either the symmetric group $`𝐒_n`$ or the alternating group $`𝐀_n`$. Then $`𝐙[\delta _p]`$ is a maximal commutative subring in $`\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})`$.

If $`p`$ is a a Fermat prime (e.g., $`p=3,5,17,257`$) then

$$\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})=𝐙[\delta _p]𝐙[\zeta _p].$$

When $`p=3`$ one may obtain an additional information about Hodge classes on self-products of the corresponding trigonal jacobian.

###### Theorem 1.2.

Let $`K`$ be a subfield of $`𝐂`$ such that all the coefficients of $`f(x)`$ lie in $`K`$. Assume also that $`f(x)`$ is an irreducible polynomial in $`K[x]`$ of degree $`n5`$ and its Galois group over $`K`$ is either the symmetric group $`𝐒_n`$ or the alternating group $`𝐀_n`$. If $`3`$ does not divide $`n1`$ then:

1. Every Hodge class on each self-product of $`J^{(f,3)}`$ could be presented as a linear combination of products of divisor classes. In particular, the Hodge conjecture is true for each self-product of $`J^{(f,3)}`$.
2. If $`K`$ is a number field containing $`\sqrt{3}`$ then every Tate class on each self-product of $`J^{(f,3)}`$ could be presented as a linear combination of products of divisor classes. In particular, the Tate conjecture is true for each self-product of $`J^{(f,3)}`$.

###### Example 1.3.

The polynomial $`x^nx1𝐐[x]`$ has Galois group $`𝐒_n`$ over $`𝐐`$ (, p. 42). Therefore the ring of endomorphism (over $`𝐂`$) of the jacobian $`J(C^{(n,3)})`$ of the curve $`C^{(n,3)}:y^3=x^nx1`$ is $`𝐙[\zeta _3]`$ if $`n5`$.

If $`n=3k1`$ for some integer $`k2`$ then all Hodge classes on each self-products of $`J(C^{(n,3)})`$ could be presented as linear combinations of products of divisor classes. In particular, the Hodge conjecture is true for all these self-products. Notice that $`J(C^{(n,3)})`$ is an abelian variety defined over $`𝐐`$ of dimension $`n1=3k2`$.

###### Remarks 1.4.

1. If $`f(x)K[x]`$ then the curve $`C_{f,p}`$ and its jacobian $`J^{(f,p)}`$ are defined over $`K`$. Let $`K_a𝐂`$ be the algebraic closure of $`K`$. Clearly, all endomorphisms of $`J^{(f,p)}`$ are defined over $`K_a`$. This implies that in order to prove Theorem 1.1, it suffices to check that $`𝐙[\delta _p]`$ is a maximal commutative subring in the ring of $`K_a`$-endomorphisms of $`J^{(f,p)}`$ or equivalently, that $`𝐐[\delta _p]`$ is a maximal commutative $`𝐐`$-subalgebra in the algebra of $`K_a`$-endomorphisms of $`J^{(f,p)}`$.
2. Assume that $`p=3`$ and $`𝐙[\delta _3]=\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,3)})`$. The endomorphism algebra $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})=\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})𝐐`$ is the imaginary quadratic field $`𝐐(\delta _3)𝐐(\sqrt{3})`$.

There are exactly two embeddings

$$\sigma ,\overline{\sigma }:𝐐(\delta _3)K_a𝐂$$

and they are complex-conjugate. We have

$$𝐐(\delta _3)_𝐐𝐂=𝐂𝐂.$$

By functoriality, $`𝐐(\delta _3)`$ acts on the $`𝐂`$-vector space $`H^{1,0}(J^{(f,3)})=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,3)})`$ of differentials of the fist kind. This action gives rise to a splitting of the $`𝐐(\delta _3)_𝐐𝐂=𝐂𝐂`$-module

$$H^{1,0}(J^{(f,3)})=H_\sigma ^{1,0}H_{\overline{\sigma }}^{1,0}.$$

The dimensions $`n_\sigma :=\mathrm{dim}_𝐂(H_\sigma ^{1,0})`$ and $`n_{\overline{\sigma }}:=\mathrm{dim}_𝐂(H_{\overline{\sigma }}^{1,0})`$ are called the multiplicities of $`\sigma `$ and $`\overline{\sigma }`$ respectively. Clearly, $`n_\sigma `$ (resp. $`n_{\overline{\sigma }}`$) coincides with the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $`\sigma (\delta _3)`$ (resp. $`\overline{\sigma }(\delta _3)`$) of the induced $`𝐂`$-linear operator

$$\delta _3^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,3)})\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,3)}).$$

By a theorem of Ribet (, Th. 3 on p. 526), if the multiplicities $`n_\sigma `$ and $`n_{\overline{\sigma }}`$ are relatively prime and $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,3)})=𝐐(\delta _3)`$ then every Hodge class on each self-product of $`J^{(f,3)}`$ could be presented as a linear combination of products of divisor classes. Therefore, the assertion (i) of Theorem 1.2 would follow from Theorem 1.1 (with $`p=3`$) if we know that the multiplicities $`n_\sigma `$ and $`n_{\overline{\sigma }}`$ are relatively prime while $`3`$ does not divide $`n1`$.
3. One may easily check that $`n_\sigma `$ (resp. $`n_{\overline{\sigma }}`$) coincides with the multiplicity of the eigenvalue $`\sigma (\delta _3)`$ (resp. $`\overline{\sigma }(\delta _3)`$) of the induced $`𝐂`$-linear operator

$$\delta _3^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{(f,3)})\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{(f,3)}).$$

## 2. Permutation groups and permutation modules

Let $`B`$ be a finite set consisting of $`n5`$ elements. We write $`\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$ for the group of permutations of $`B`$. A choice of ordering on $`B`$ gives rise to an isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Perm}(S)𝐒_n.$$

We write $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$ for the only subgroup in $`\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$ of index $`2`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$ is normal and isomorphic to the alternating group $`𝐀_n`$. It is well-known that $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$ is a simple non-abelian group of order $`n!/2`$. Let $`G`$ be a subgroup of $`\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$.

Let $`𝐅`$ be a field. We write $`𝐅^B`$ for the $`n`$-dimensional $`𝐅`$-vector space of maps $`h:BF`$. The space $`𝐅^B`$ is provided with a natural action of $`\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$ defined as follows. Each $`s\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$ sends a map $`h:B𝐅_2`$ into $`sh:bh(s^1(b))`$. The permutation module $`𝐅^B`$ contains the $`\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$-stable hyperplane

$$(𝐅^B)^0=\{h:B𝐅\underset{bB}{}h(b)=0\}$$

and the $`\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$-invariant line $`𝐅1_B`$ where $`1_B`$ is the constant function $`1`$. The quotient $`𝐅^B/(𝐅^B)^0`$ is a trivial $`1`$-dimensional $`\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$-module.

Clearly, $`(𝐅^B)^0`$ contains $`𝐅1_B`$ if and only if $`\mathrm{char}(𝐅)`$ divides $`n`$. If this is not the case then there is a $`\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$-invariant splitting

$$𝐅^B=(𝐅^B)^0𝐅1_B.$$

Clearly, $`𝐅^B`$ and $`(𝐅^B)^0`$ carry natural structures of $`G`$-modules. Their (Brauer) characters depend only on characteristic of $`F`$.

Let us consider the case of $`F=𝐐`$. Then the character of $`𝐐^B`$ sends each $`gG`$ into the number of fixed points of $`g`$ (, ex. 2.2,p.12); it takes on values in $`𝐙`$ and called the permutation character of $`B`$. Let us denote by $`\chi =\chi _B:G𝐐`$ the character of $`(𝐐^B)^0`$.

It is known that the $`𝐐[G]`$-module $`(𝐐^B)^0`$ is absolutely simple if and only if $`G`$ acts doubly transitively on $`B`$ (, ex. 2.6, p. 17). Clearly, $`1+\chi `$ is the permutation character. In particular, $`\chi `$ also takes on values in $`𝐙`$.

Now, let us consider the case of $`𝐅=𝐅_p`$.

If $`pn`$ then let us define the $`\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$-module

$$(𝐅_p^B)^{00}:=(𝐅_p^B)^0/(𝐅_p1_B).$$

If $`p`$ does not divide $`n`$ then let us put

$$(𝐅_p^B)^{00}:=(𝐅_p^B)^0.$$

###### Remark 2.1.

Clearly, $`\mathrm{dim}_{𝐅_p}((𝐅_p^B)^{00})=n1`$ if $`n`$ is not divisible by $`p`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}_{𝐅_p}((𝐅_p^B)^{00})=n2`$ if $`pn`$. In both cases $`(𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$ is a faithful $`G`$-module. One may easily check that if the $`𝐅_p[G]`$-module $`(𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$ is absolutely simple then the $`𝐐[G]`$-module $`(𝐐^B)^0`$ is also absolutely simple and therefore $`G`$ acts doubly transitively on $`B`$.

Let $`G^{(p)}`$ be the set of $`p`$-regular elements of $`G`$. Clearly, the Brauer character of the $`G`$-module $`𝐅_p^B`$ coincides with the restriction of $`1+\chi _B`$ to $`G^{(p)}`$. This implies easily that the Brauer character of the $`G`$-module $`(𝐅_p^B)^0`$ coincides with the restriction of of $`\chi _B`$ to $`G^{(p)}`$.

###### Remark 2.2.

Let us denote by $`\varphi _B=\varphi `$ the Brauer character of the $`G`$-module $`(𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$. One may easily check that $`\varphi _B`$ coincides with the restriction of $`\chi _B`$ to $`G^{(p)}`$ if $`p`$ does not divide $`n`$ and with the restriction of $`\varphi _B1`$ to $`G^{(p)}`$ if $`pn`$. In both cases $`\varphi _B`$ takes on values in $`𝐙`$.

###### Example 2.3.

Suppose $`n=p=5`$ and $`G=\mathrm{Alt}(B)𝐀_5`$. Then in the notations of , p. 2 and , p. 2 $`\chi _B=1+\chi _4`$ and the restriction of $`\varphi _B1`$=$`\chi _41`$ to $`G^{(5)}`$ coincides with absolutely irreducible Brauer character $`\phi _2`$. This implies that the $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$-module $`(𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$ is absolutely simple.

The following elementary assertion is based on Lemma 7.1 on p. 52 of  and Th. 9.2 on p. 145 of . (The case of $`p=2`$ is Lemma 5.1 of ).

###### Lemma 2.4.

Assume that $`G`$ acts doubly transitively on $`B`$. If $`p`$ does not divide $`n`$ then $`\mathrm{End}_G((𝐅_p^B)^0)=𝐅_p`$. In particular, if the $`G`$-module $`(𝐅_p^B)^0`$ is semisimple then it is absolutely simple.

###### Proof.

It suffices to check that $`\mathrm{dim}_{𝐅_p}(\mathrm{End}_G((𝐅_p^B)^0))1`$. Itn order to do that, recall that the double transitivity implies that $`\mathrm{dim}_{𝐅_p}(\mathrm{End}_G((𝐅_p^B)))=2`$ (Lemma 7.1 on p. 52 of ). Now the desired inequality follows easily from the existence of the $`G`$-invariant splitting

$$𝐅_p^B=(𝐅_p^B)^0𝐅_p1_B.$$

###### Remark 2.5.

Assume that $`n=\mathrm{\#}(B)`$ is divisible by $`p`$. Let us choose $`bB`$ and let $`G^{}:=G_b`$ be the stabilizer of $`b`$ in $`G`$ and $`B^{}=B\{b\}`$. Then $`n^{}=\mathrm{\#}(B^{})=n1`$ is not divisible by $`p`$ and there is a canonical isomorphism of $`G^{}`$-modules

$$(𝐅_p^B^{})^{00}(𝐅_p^B)^{00}$$

defined as follows. First, there is a natural $`G^{}`$-equivariant embedding $`𝐅_p^B^{}𝐅_p^B`$ which could be obtained by extending each $`h:B^{}𝐅_p`$ to $`B`$ by letting $`h(b)=0`$. Second, this embedding identifies $`(𝐅_p^B^{})^0`$ with a hyperplane of $`(𝐅_p^B)^0`$ which does not contain $`1_B`$. Now the composition

$$(𝐅_p^B^{})^{00}=(𝐅_p^B^{})^0(𝐅_p^B)^0(𝐅_p^B)^0/(𝐅_p1_B)=(𝐅_p^B)^{00}$$

gives us the desired isomorphism. This implies that if the $`G_b`$-module $`(𝐅_p^B^{})^{00}`$ is absolutely simple then the $`G`$-module $`(𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$ is also absolutely simple.

For example, if $`G=\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$) then $`G_b=\mathrm{Perm}(B^{})`$ (resp. $`\mathrm{Alt}(B^{})`$) and therefore the $`\mathrm{Perm}(B^{})`$-modules (resp. $`\mathrm{Alt}(B^{})`$-modules $`(𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$ and $`(𝐅_p^B^{})^{00}`$ are isomorphic. We use this observation in order to prove the following statement.

The following assertion goes back to Dickson.

###### Lemma 2.6.

Assume that $`G=\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$ or $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$. Then the $`G`$-module $`(𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$ is absolutely simple.

###### Proof.

In light of Example 2.3, we may assume that $`(n,p)(5,5)`$. In light of Remark 2.5 we may assume that $`p`$ does not divide $`n`$ and therefore

$$(𝐅_p^B)^{00}=(𝐅_p^B)^0.$$

The natural representation of $`\mathrm{Perm}(B)=𝐒_n`$ in $`(𝐅_p^B)^0`$ is irreducible (, Th. 5.2 on p. 133).

Since $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$ is normal in $`\mathrm{Perm}(B)`$, the $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$-module $`(𝐅_p^B)^0`$ is semisimple, thanks to Clifford’s theorem (, §49, Th. 49.2). Since $`n5`$, the action of $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)𝐀_n`$ on $`B\{1,\mathrm{},n\}`$ is doubly transitive. Applying Lemma 2.4, we conclude that the $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$-module $`(𝐅_p^_f)^0`$ is absolutely simple. (See also .) ∎

## 3. Cyclic covers and jacobians

Throughout this paper we fix a prime $`p`$ and assume that $`K`$ is a field of characteristic zero. We fix its algebraic closure $`K_a`$ and write $`\mathrm{Gal}(K)`$ for the absolute Galois group $`\mathrm{Aut}(K_a/K)`$. We also fix in $`K_a`$ a primitive $`p`$th root of unity $`\zeta `$.

Let $`f(x)K[x]`$ be a separable polynomial of degree $`n4`$. We write $`_f`$ for the set of its roots and denote by $`L=L_f=K(_f)K_a`$ the corresponding splitting field. As usual, the Galois group $`\mathrm{Gal}(L/K)`$ is called the Galois group of $`f`$ and denoted by $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$ permutes elements of $`_f`$ and the natural map of $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$ into the group $`\mathrm{Perm}(_f)`$ of all permutations of $`_f`$ is an embedding. We will identify $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$ with its image and consider it as a permutation group of $`_f`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$ is transitive if and only if $`f`$ is irreducible in $`K[x]`$. Therefore the $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$-module $`(𝐅_p^_f)^{00}`$ is defined. The canonical surjection

$$\mathrm{Gal}(K)\mathrm{Gal}(f)$$

provides $`(𝐅_p^_f)^{00}`$ with canonical structure of the $`\mathrm{Gal}(K)`$-module via the composition

$$\mathrm{Gal}(K)\mathrm{Gal}(f)\mathrm{Perm}(_f)\mathrm{Aut}((𝐅_p^_f)^{00}).$$

Let us put

$$V_{f,p}=(𝐅_p^_f)^{00}.$$

Let $`C=C_{f,p}`$ be the smooth projective model of the smooth affine $`K`$-curve

$$y^p=f(x).$$

So, $`C`$ is a smooth projective curve defined over $`K`$. The rational function $`xK(C)`$ defined a finite cover $`\pi :C𝐏^1`$ of degree $`p`$. Let $`B^{}C(K_a)`$ be the set of ramification points. Clearly, the restriction of $`\pi `$ to $`B^{}`$ is an injective map $`\pi :B^{}𝐏^1(K_a)`$, whose image is the disjoint union of $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`_f`$ if $`p`$ does not divide $`\mathrm{deg}(f)`$ and just $`_f`$ if it does. We write

$$B=\pi ^1(_f)=\{(\alpha ,0)\alpha _f\}B^{}C(K_a).$$

Clearly, $`\pi `$ is ramified at each point of $`B`$ with ramification index $`p`$. We have $`B^{}=B`$ if and only if $`n`$ is divisible by $`p`$. If $`n`$ is not divisible by $`p`$ then $`B^{}`$ is the disjoint union of $`B`$ and a single point $`\mathrm{}^{}:=\pi ^1(\mathrm{})`$; in addition, the ramification index of $`\pi `$ at $`\pi ^1(\mathrm{})`$ is also $`p`$. If $`p`$ does divide $`n`$ then $`\pi ^1(\mathrm{})`$ consists of $`p`$ unramified points denoted by $`\mathrm{}_1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}_p`$. This implies that the inverse image $`\pi ^{}(n(\mathrm{}))=n\pi ^{}(\mathrm{})`$ of the divisor $`n(\mathrm{})`$ is always divisible by $`p`$ in the divisor group of $`C`$. Using Hurwitz’s formula, one may easily compute genus $`g=g(C)=g(C_{p,f})`$ of $`C`$ (, pp. 401–402, , Prop. 1 on p. 3359, , p. 148). Namely, $`g`$ is $`(p1)(n1)/2`$ if $`p`$ does not divide $`p`$ and $`(p1)(n2)/2`$ if it does. See §1 of  for an explicit description of a smooth complete model of $`C`$ (when $`n>p`$).

Assume that $`K`$ contains $`\zeta `$. There is a non-trivial birational automorphism of $`C`$

$$\delta _p:(x,y)(x,\zeta y).$$

Clearly, $`\delta _p^p`$ is the identity map and the set of fixed points of $`\delta _p`$ coincides with $`B^{}`$.

Let $`J^{(f,p)}=J(C)=J(C_{f,p})`$ be the jacobian of $`C`$. It is a $`g`$-dimensional abelian variety defined over $`K`$ and one may view $`\delta _p`$ as an element of

$$\mathrm{Aut}(C)\mathrm{Aut}(J(C))\mathrm{End}(J(C))$$

such that

$$\delta _p\mathrm{Id},\delta _p^p=\mathrm{Id}$$

where $`\mathrm{Id}`$ is the identity endomorphism of $`J(C)`$. Here $`\mathrm{End}(J(C))`$ stands for the ring of all $`K_a`$-endomorphisms of $`J(C)`$. As usual, we write $`\mathrm{End}^0(J(C))=\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$ for the corresponding $`𝐐`$-algebra $`\mathrm{End}(J(C))𝐐`$.

###### Lemma 3.1.

$`\mathrm{Id}+\delta _p+\mathrm{}+\delta _p^{p1}=0`$ in $`\mathrm{End}(J(C))`$. Therefore the subring $`𝐙[\delta _p]\mathrm{End}(J(C))`$ is isomorphic to the ring $`𝐙[\zeta _p]`$ of integers in the $`p`$th cyclotomic field $`𝐐(\zeta _p)`$. The $`𝐐`$-subalgebra

$$𝐐[\delta _p]\mathrm{End}^0(J(C))=\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})$$

is isomorphic to $`𝐐(\zeta _p)`$.

###### Proof.

See , p. 149, , p. 448. ∎

###### Remarks 3.2.

1. Assume that $`p`$ is odd and $`n=\mathrm{deg}(f)`$ is divisible by $`p`$ say, $`n=pm`$ for some positive integer $`m`$. Then $`n5`$.

Let $`\alpha K_a`$ be a root of $`f`$ and $`K_1=K(\alpha )`$ be the corresponding subfield of $`K_a`$. We have

$$f(x)=(x\alpha )f_1(x)$$

with $`f_1(x)K_1[x]`$. Clearly, $`f_1(x)`$ is a separable polynomial over $`K_1`$ of odd degree $`pm1=n14`$. It is also clear that the polynomials

$$h(x)=f_1(x+\alpha ),h_1(x)=x^{n1}h(1/x)K_1[x]$$

are separable of the same degree $`pm1=n14`$.

The standard substitution

$$x_1=1/(x\alpha ),y_1=y/(x\alpha )^m$$

establishes a birational isomorphism between $`C_{f,p}`$ and a superelliptic curve

$$C_{h_1}:y_1^p=h_1(x_1)$$

(see , p. 3359). But $`\mathrm{deg}(h_1)=pm1`$ is not divisible by $`p`$. Clearly, this isomorphism commutes with the actions of $`\delta _p`$. In particular, it induces an isomorphism of $`𝐙[\delta _p]`$-modules $`J^{(f,p)}(K_a)`$ and $`J^{(h_1,p)}(K_a)`$ which commutes with the action of $`\mathrm{Gal}(K_1)`$.
2. Assume, in addition, that $`f(x)`$ is irreducible in $`K[x]`$ and $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$ acts $`s`$-transitively on $`_f`$ for some positive integer $`s2`$. Then the Galois group $`\mathrm{Gal}(h_1)`$ of $`h_1`$ over $`K_1`$ acts $`s1`$-transitively on the set $`_{h_1}`$ of roots of $`h_1`$. In particular, $`h_1(x)`$ is irreducible in $`K_1[x]`$.

It is also clear that if $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)=𝐒_n`$ or $`𝐀_n`$ then $`\mathrm{Gal}(h_1)=\mathrm{SS}_{n1}`$ or $`𝐀_{n1}`$ respectively.

Let us put $`\eta =1\delta _p`$. Clearly, $`\eta `$ divides $`p`$ in $`𝐙[\delta _p]𝐙[\zeta _p]`$, i.e., there exists $`\eta ^{}𝐙[\delta _p]`$ such that

$$\eta \eta ^{}=\eta ^{}\eta =p𝐙[\delta _p].$$

By a theorem of Ribet  the $`𝐙_p`$-Tate module $`T_p(J^{(f,p)})`$ is a free $`𝐙_p[\delta _p]`$-module of rank $`2g/(p1)=n1`$ if $`p`$ does not divide $`n`$ and $`n2`$ if $`p`$ does. Let $`J^{(f,p)}(\eta )`$ be the kernel of $`\eta `$ in $`J^{(f,p)}(K_a)`$. Clearly, $`J^{(f,p)}(\eta )`$ is killed by multiplication by $`p`$, i.e., it may be viewed as a $`𝐅_p`$-vector space. It follows from Ribet’s theorem that

$$\mathrm{dim}_{𝐅_p}J^{(f,p)}(\eta )=\frac{2g}{p1}.$$

In addition, $`J^{(f,p)}(\eta )`$ carries a natural structure of Galois module. Notice that

$$\eta ^{}(J_p^{(f,p)})J^{(f,p)}(\eta )$$

where $`J_p^{(f,p)}`$ is the kernel of multiplication by $`p`$ in $`J^{(f,p)}(K_a)`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ be the centralizer of $`\delta _p`$ in $`\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ commutes with $`\eta `$ and $`\eta ^{}`$. It is also clear that the subgroup $`J^{(f,p)}(\eta )`$ is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$-stable. This observation leads to a natural homomorphism

$$\kappa :\mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{End}_{𝐅_p}(J^{(f,p)}(\eta )).$$

I claim that its kernel coincides with $`\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Indeed, assume that $`u(J^{(f,p)}(\eta ))=\{0\}`$ for some $`u\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This implies that $`u\eta ^{}=\eta ^{}u`$ kills $`J_p^{(f,p)}`$. This implies, in turn, that there exists $`v\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})`$ such that

$$u\eta ^{}=\eta ^{}u=pv=vp.$$

Clearly, $`v`$ commutes with $`\eta `$ and therefore with $`\delta _p=1\eta `$, i.e., $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Since $`p=\eta \eta ^{}=\eta ^{}\eta `$,

$$u\eta ^{}=v\eta \eta ^{}$$

and therefore $`u=v\eta `$. On the other hand, it is clear that $`\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }\eta `$ kills $`J^{(f,p)}(\eta )`$. Therefore the natural map

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }/\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }\mathrm{End}_{𝐅_p}(J^{(f,p)}(\eta ))$$

is an embedding; further we will identify $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }`$ with its image in $`\mathrm{End}_{𝐅_p}(J^{(f,p)}(\eta ))`$.

###### Theorem 3.3 (Prop. 6.2 in , Prop. 3.2 in ).

There is a canonical isomorphism of the $`\mathrm{Gal}(K)`$-modules

$$J^{(f,p)}(\eta )V_{f,p}.$$

###### Remark 3.4.

Clearly, the natural homomorphism $`\mathrm{Gal}(K)\mathrm{Aut}_{𝐅_p}(V_{f,p})`$ coincides with the composition

$$\mathrm{Gal}(K)\mathrm{Gal}(f)\mathrm{Perm}(_f)\mathrm{Aut}((𝐅_p^_f)^{00})=\mathrm{Aut}_{𝐅_p}(V_{f,p}).$$

The following assertion is an immediate corollary of Lemma 2.6.

###### Lemma 3.5.

Assume that $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)=𝐒_n`$ or $`𝐀_n`$. If $`n5`$ then the $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$-module $`V_{f,p}`$ is absolutely simple.

###### Theorem 3.6.

Assume that $`p>2`$ and $`n4`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐐=\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐐`$ be the centralizer of $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$ in $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$. Then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐐`$ could not be a central simple $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$-algebra of dimension $`(2g/(p1))^2`$ where $`g`$ is genus of $`C_{f,p}`$.

###### Proof.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐐`$ is a central simple $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$-algebra of dimension $`(2g/(p1))^2`$. We need to arrive to a contradiction. We start with the following statement.

###### Lemma 3.7.

Assume that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐐`$ is a central simple $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$-algebra of dimension $`(2g/(p1))^2`$. Then there exist a $`(p1)/2`$-dimensional abelian variety $`Z`$ over $`K_a`$, a positive integer $`r`$, an embedding

$$𝐐(\zeta _p)𝐐(\delta _p)\mathrm{End}^0(Z)$$

and an isogeny $`\varphi :Z^rJ^{(f,p)}`$ such that the induced isomorphism

$$\mathrm{Mat}_r(\mathrm{End}^0(Z))=\mathrm{End}^0(Z^r)\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)}),u\varphi u\varphi ^1$$

maps identically

$$𝐐(\delta _p)\mathrm{End}^0(Z)\mathrm{Mat}_r(\mathrm{End}^0(Z))=\mathrm{End}^0(Z^r)$$

onto

$$𝐐(\delta _p)\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)}).$$

(Here $`\mathrm{End}^0(Z)\mathrm{Mat}_r(\mathrm{End}^0(Z))`$ is the diagonal embedding.) In particular, $`Z`$ and $`J^{(f,p)}`$ are abelian varieties of CM-type over $`K_a`$.

###### Proof of Lemma 3.7.

Clearly, there exist a positive integer $`r`$ and a central division algebra $`H`$ over $`𝐐(\delta _p)𝐐(\zeta _p)`$ such that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐐\mathrm{Mat}_r(H)`$. This imples that there exist an abelian variety $`Z`$ over $`K_a`$ with

$$𝐐(\delta _p)H\mathrm{End}^0(Z)$$

and an isogeny $`\varphi :Z^rJ^{(f,p)}`$ such that the induced isomorphism $`\mathrm{End}^0(Z^r)\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$ maps identically

$$𝐐(\delta _p)\mathrm{End}^0(Z)\mathrm{End}^0(Z^r)$$

onto $`𝐐(\delta _p)\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$. We still have to check that

$$2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}(Z)=p1.$$

In order to do that let us put $`g^{}=g/r`$. Then $`\mathrm{dim}_{𝐐(\delta _p)}(H)=(\frac{2g^{}}{p1})^2`$ and therefore $`\mathrm{dim}_𝐐(H)=\frac{(2g^{})^2}{p1}`$. Since $`H`$ is a division algebra and $`\mathrm{char}(K_a)=0`$, the number $`\frac{(2g^{})^2}{p1}`$ must divide $`2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}(Z)=2g^{}`$. This means that $`2g^{}`$ divides $`p1`$. On the other hand,

$$𝐐(\delta _p)H\mathrm{End}^0(Z).$$

This implies that $`p1=[𝐐(\delta _p):𝐐]`$ divides $`2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}(Z)`$ and therefore $`2\mathrm{d}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{m}(Z)=p1.`$

Now let us return to the proof of Theorem 3.6. Recall that $`n4`$. We write $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(X)`$ for the space of differentials of first kind for any smooth projective variety $`X`$ over $`K_a`$. Clearly, $`\varphi `$ induces an isomorphism $`\varphi ^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,p)})\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Z^r)=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Z)^r`$ which commutes with the natural actions of $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$. Since $`\mathrm{dim}(Z)=\frac{p1}{2}`$, we have $`\mathrm{dim}_{K_a}(\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Z))=\frac{p1}{2}`$. Therefore, the induced $`K_a`$-linear automorphism

$$\delta _p^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Z)\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Z)$$

has, at most, $`\frac{p1}{2}`$ distinct eigenvalues. Clearly, the same is true for the action of $`\delta _p`$ in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(Z)^r`$. Since $`\varphi `$ commutes with $`\delta _p`$, the induced $`K_a`$-linear automorphism

$$\delta _p^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,p)})\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,p)})$$

has, at most, $`\frac{p1}{2}`$ distinct eigenvalues.

On the other hand, let $`P_0`$ be one of the $`\delta _p`$-invariant points (i.e., a ramification point for $`\pi `$) of $`C_{f,p}(K_a)`$. Then

$$\tau :C_{f,p}J^{(f,p)},P\mathrm{cl}((P)(P_0))$$

is an embedding of $`K_a`$-algebraic varieties and it is well-known that the induced map

$$\tau ^{}:\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,p)})\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{f,p})$$

is a $`K_a`$-linear isomorphism obviously commuting with the actions of $`\delta _p`$. (Here $`\mathrm{cl}`$ stands for the linear equivalence class.) This implies that $`\delta _p`$ has, at most, $`\frac{p1}{2}`$ distinct eigenvalues in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{f,p})`$.

One may easily check that $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{f,p})`$ contains differentials $`dx/y^i`$ for all positive integers $`i<p`$ satisfying $`ni(p+1)`$ if $`p`$ does not divide $`n`$ (, Th. 3 on p. 403; see also , Prop. 2 on p. 3359). Since $`n4`$ and $`p3`$, we have $`ni(p+1)`$ for all $`i`$ with $`\frac{p1}{2}ip1`$. Therefore the differentials $`dx/y^i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{f,p})`$ for all $`i`$ with $`\frac{p1}{2}ip1`$; clearly, they all are eigenvectors of $`\delta _p`$ with eigenvalues $`\zeta ^i`$ respectively. (Recall that $`\zeta K_a`$ is a primitive $`p`$th root of unity and $`\delta _p`$ is defined in §1 by $`(x,y)(x,\zeta y)`$.) Therefore $`\delta _p`$ has in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{f,p})`$, at least, $`\frac{p+1}{2}`$ distinct eigenvalues. Contradiction.

Now assume that $`p`$ divides $`n`$. Then $`n5`$. By Remark 3.2, $`C_{f,p}`$ is birationally isomorphic over $`K_a`$ to a curve $`C_1=C_{h_1,p}:y_1^p=h_1(x_1)`$ where $`h_1(x_1)K_a[x_1]`$ is a separable polynomial of degree $`n1`$; in addition, one may choose this isomorphism in such a way that it commutes with the actions of $`\delta _p`$ on $`C_{f,p}`$ and $`C_{h_1,p}`$. This implies that $`\delta _p`$ has, at most, $`\frac{p1}{2}`$ distinct eigenvalues in $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{h_1,p})`$.

On the other hand, $`n14`$ and $`n1`$ is not divisible by $`p`$. Recall that $`\mathrm{deg}(h_1)=n1`$. We conclude, as above, that for all $`i`$ with $`\frac{p1}{2}ip1`$ the differentials $`dx_1/y_1^i\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{h_1,p})`$. Now, the same arguments as in the case of $`p`$ not dividing $`n`$ lead to a contradiction. ∎

###### Theorem 3.8.

Suppose $`n4`$ and $`p>2`$. Assume that $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$ is a maximal commutative subalgebra in $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$. Then:

1. The center $``$ of $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$ is a CM-subfield of $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$;
2. If $`p`$ is a Fermat prime then $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})=𝐐(\delta _p)𝐐(\zeta _p)`$ and therefore $`\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})=𝐙[\delta _p]𝐙[\zeta _p]`$.

###### Proof.

Clearly, $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$. Since $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$ is a CM-field, $``$ is either a totally real field or a CM-field. If $`p`$ is a Fermat prime then each subfield of $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$ (distinct from $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$ itself) is totally real. Therefore, (ii) follows from (i).

In order to prove (i), let us assume that $``$ is totally real. We are going to arrive to a contradiction which proves (i). Replacing, if necessary, $`K`$ by its subfield finitely generated over the rationals, we may assume that $`K`$ (and therefore $`K_a`$) is isomorphic to a subfield of the field $`𝐂`$ of complex numbers. Since the center $``$ of $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{f,p})`$ is totally real, the Hodge group of $`J^{(f,p)}`$ must be semisimple. This implies that the pair $`(J^{(f,p)},𝐐(\delta _p))`$ is of Weil type (), i.e., $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,p)})`$ in such a way that for each embedding

$$\sigma :𝐐(\delta _p)𝐂$$

the corresponding multiplicity

$$n_\sigma =\frac{\mathrm{dim}(J^{(f,p)})}{[𝐐(\delta _p):𝐐]}.$$

Now assume that $`p`$ does not divide $`n`$. We have

$$\frac{\mathrm{dim}(J^{(f,p)})}{[𝐐(\delta _p):𝐐]}=\frac{g(C_{f,p})}{p1}=\frac{(n1)}{2}$$

and therefore

$$n_\sigma =\frac{(n1)}{2}.$$

Since the multiplicity $`n_\sigma `$ is always an integer, $`n`$ is odd. Therefore $`n5`$. Let us consider the embedding $`\sigma `$ which sends $`\delta _p`$ to $`\zeta `$. Elementary calculations (, Th. 3 on p. 403) show that for all integers $`i`$ with

$$0in1\frac{(n+1)}{p}$$

the differentials $`x^idx/y^{p1}\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{f,p})`$; clearly, they constitute a set of $`K_a`$-linearly independent eigenvectors of $`\delta _p`$ with eigenvalue $`\zeta `$. In light of the $`\delta _p`$-equivariant isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,p)})\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{f,p}),$$

we conclude that

$$\frac{(n1)}{2}=n_\sigma [n1\frac{(n+1)}{p}]+1.$$

This implies that $`\frac{(n1)}{2}>n1\frac{(n+1)}{p}`$. It follows easily that $`n<\frac{p+2}{p2}5`$ and therefore $`n<5`$. This gives us the desired contradiction when $`p`$ does not divide $`n`$.

Now assume that $`p`$ divides $`n`$. Then $`n5`$ and $`n14`$. Again, as in the proof of Theorem 3.6, the usage of Remark 3.2 allows us to apply the already proven case (when $`p`$ does not divide $`n1`$) to $`C_{h_1,p}`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(h_1)=n1`$. ∎

###### Remark 3.9.

Let us keep the notations and assumptions of Theorem 3.8. Assume, in addition that $`p=3`$. Then $`𝐐(\delta _3)=𝐐(\zeta _3)`$ is an imaginary quadratic field and there are exactly two embeddings $`𝐐(\delta _3)K_a`$ which, of course, are complex-conjugate. In this case one could compute explicitly the corresponding multiplicities.

Indeed, first assume that $`3`$ does not divide $`n`$. Then $`n=3ke`$ for some $`k,e𝐙`$ with $`3>e>0`$. Since $`n4>3`$, we have $`k2`$. By Prop. 2 on p. 3359 of , the set

$$\{x^idx/y,0i<k1;x^jdx/y^2,0j<2k1[\frac{2e}{3}]\}$$

is a basis of $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{(f,3)})`$. It follows easily that it is an eigenbasis with respect to the action of $`\delta _3`$. This implies easily that $`𝐐(\delta _3)`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,3)})=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(C_{(f,3)})`$ with multiplicities $`k1`$ and $`2k1[\frac{2e}{3}]`$.

Assume now that $`n=3k`$ is divisible by $`3`$. Then as in the proof of Theorem 3.6, the usage of Remark 3.2 allows us to reduce the calculation of multiplicities to the case of $`C_{h_1,3}`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}(h_1)=n1`$. More precisely, we have $`n=3k`$ and $`n1=3k1`$, i.e., $`e=1`$ and $`k2`$. This implies that $`𝐐(\delta _3)`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,3)})=\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(h_1,3)})`$ with multiplicities $`k1`$ and $`2k1`$.

It follows that if $`n=3k`$ or $`n=3k1`$ then

$$\mathrm{dim}(J^{(f,3)})=3k2$$

and the imaginary quadratic field $`𝐐(\delta _3)`$ acts on $`\mathrm{\Omega }^1(J^{(f,3)})`$ with mutually prime multiplicities $`k1`$ and $`2k1`$. Since $`𝐐(\delta _3)`$ coincides with $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,3)})`$, a theorem of Ribet (, Th. 3 on p. 526) implies that the Hodge group of $`J^{(f,3)}`$ is as large as possible. More precisely, let $`K^{}K`$ be a subfield which admits an embedding into $`𝐂`$ and such that $`f(x)K^{}[x]`$ (such a subfield always exists). Then one may consider $`C_{f,3}`$ as a complex smooth projective curve and $`J^{(f,3)}`$ as a complex abelian variety, whose endomorphism algebra coincides with $`𝐐(\delta _3)𝐐(\zeta _3)=𝐐(\sqrt{3})`$. Then the Hodge group of $`J^{(f,3)}`$ coincides with the corresponding unitary group of $`H_1(J^{(f,3)}(𝐂),𝐐)`$ over $`𝐐(\zeta _3)`$. In particular, all Hodge classes on all self-products of $`J^{(f,3)}`$ could be presented as linear combinations of exterior products of divisor classes. As was pointed out in , pp. 572–573, the same arguments work also for Tate classes if say, $`K^{}`$ is a number field and all endomorphisms of $`J^{(f,3)}`$ are defined over $`K^{}`$. (If $`\sqrt{3}K^{}`$ then all endomorphisms of $`J^{(f,3)}`$ are defined over $`K^{}`$ because $`\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,3)})=𝐙[\delta _3]`$ and $`\delta _3`$ is defined over $`K^{}(\zeta _3)=K^{}(\sqrt{3})`$.)

## 4. Representation theory

###### Definition 4.1.

Let $`V`$ be a vector space over a field $`F`$, let $`G`$ be a group and $`\rho :G\mathrm{Aut}_F(V)`$ a linear representation of $`G`$ in $`V`$. We say that the $`G`$-module $`V`$ is very simple if it enjoys the following property:

If $`R\mathrm{End}_F(V)`$ be an $`F`$-subalgebra containing the identity operator $`\mathrm{Id}`$ such that

$$\rho (\sigma )R\rho (\sigma )^1R\sigma G$$

then either $`R=F\mathrm{Id}`$ or $`R=\mathrm{End}_F(V)`$.

###### Remark 4.2.

1. Clearly, the $`G`$-module $`V`$ is very simple if and only if the corresponding $`\rho (G)`$-module $`V`$ is very simple. It is known (, Rem. 2.2(ii)) that a very simple module is absolutely simple.
2. If $`G^{}`$ is a subgroup of $`G`$ and the $`G^{}`$-module $`V`$ is very simple then the $`G`$-module $`V`$ is also very simple.

###### Theorem 4.3.

Suppose a field $`F`$, a positive integer $`N`$ and a group $`H`$ enjoy the following properties:

* $`F`$ is either finite or algebraically closed;
* $`H`$ is perfect, i.e., $`H=[H,H]`$;
* Each homomorphism from $`H`$ to $`\mathrm{SS}_N`$ is trivial;
* Let $`N=ab`$ be a factorization of $`N`$ into a product of two positive integers $`a`$ and $`b`$. Then either each homomorphism from $`H`$ to $`\mathrm{PGL}_a(F)`$ is trivial or each homomorphism from $`H`$ to $`\mathrm{PGL}_b(F)`$ is trivial.

Then each absolutely simple $`H`$-module of $`F`$-dimension $`N`$ is very simple. In other words, in dimension $`N`$ the properties of absolute simplicity and supersimplicity over $`F`$ are equivalent.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`N>1`$. Let $`V`$ be an absolutely simple $`H`$-module of $`F`$-dimension $`N`$. Let $`R\mathrm{End}_F(V)`$ be an $`F`$-subalgebra containing the identity operator $`\mathrm{Id}`$ and such that

$$uRu^1RuH.$$

Clearly, $`V`$ is a faithful $`R`$-module and

$$uRu^1=RuH.$$

Step 1. By Lemma 7.4(i) of , $`V`$ is a semisimple $`R`$-module.

Step 2. The $`R`$-module $`V`$ is isotypic. Indeed, let us split the semisimple $`R`$-module $`V`$ into the direct sum

$$V=V_1\mathrm{}V_r$$

of its isotypic components. Dimension arguments imply that $`r\mathrm{dim}(V)=N`$. It follows easily from the arguments of the previous step that for each isotypic component $`V_i`$ its image $`sV_i`$ is an isotypic $`R`$-submodule for each $`sH`$ and therefore is contained in some $`V_j`$. Similarly, $`s^1V_j`$ is an isotypic submodule obviously containing $`V_i`$. Since $`V_i`$ is the isotypic component, $`s^1V_j=V_i`$ and therefore $`sV_i=V_j`$. This means that $`s`$ permutes the $`V_i`$; since $`V`$ is $`H`$-simple, $`H`$ permutes them transitively. This gives rise to the homomorphism $`H\mathrm{SS}_r`$ which must be trivial, since $`rN`$ and therefore $`\mathrm{SS}_r`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{SS}_N`$. This means that $`sV_i=V_i`$ for all $`sH`$ and $`V=V_i`$ is isotypic.

Step 3. Since $`V`$ is isotypic, there exist a simple $`R`$-module $`W`$ and a positive integer $`d`$ such that $`VW^d`$. We have

$$d\mathrm{dim}(W)=\mathrm{dim}(V)=N.$$

Clearly, $`\mathrm{End}_R(V)`$ is isomorphic to the matrix algebra $`\mathrm{Mat}_d(\mathrm{End}_R(W))`$ of size $`d`$ over $`\mathrm{End}_R(W)`$.

Let us put

$$k=\mathrm{End}_R(W).$$

Since $`W`$ is simple, $`k`$ is a finite-dimensional division algebra over $`F`$. Since $`F`$ is either finite or algebraically closed, $`k`$ must be a field. In addition, $`k=F`$ if $`F`$ is algebraically closed and $`k`$ is finite if $`F`$ is finite. We have

$$\mathrm{End}_R(V)\mathrm{Mat}_d(k).$$

Clearly, $`\mathrm{End}_R(V)\mathrm{End}_F(V)`$ is stable under the adjoint action of $`H`$. This induces a homomorphism

$$\alpha :H\mathrm{Aut}_F(\mathrm{End}_R(V))=\mathrm{Aut}_F(\mathrm{Mat}_d(k)).$$

Since $`k`$ is the center of $`\mathrm{Mat}_d(k)`$, it is stable under the action of $`H`$, i.e., we get a homomorphism $`H\mathrm{Aut}(k/F)`$, which must be trivial, since $`H`$ is perfect and $`\mathrm{Aut}(k/F)`$ is abelian. This implies that the center $`k`$ of $`\mathrm{End}_R(V)`$ commutes with $`H`$. Since $`\mathrm{End}_H(V)=F`$, we have $`k=F`$. This implies that $`\mathrm{End}_R(V)\mathrm{Mat}_d(F)`$ and

$$\alpha :H\mathrm{Aut}_F(\mathrm{Mat}_d(F))=\mathrm{GL}(d,F)/F^{}=\mathrm{PGL}_d(F)$$

is trivial if and only if $`\mathrm{End}_R(V)\mathrm{End}_H(V)=F\mathrm{Id}`$. Since $`\mathrm{End}_R(V)\mathrm{Mat}_d(F)`$, $`\alpha `$ is trivial if and only if $`d=1`$, i.e. $`V`$ is an absolutely simple $`R`$-module.

It follows from the Jacobson density theorem that $`R\mathrm{Mat}_m(F)`$ with $`dm=N`$. This implies that $`\alpha `$ is trivial if and only if $`R\mathrm{Mat}_N(F)`$, i.e., $`R=\mathrm{End}_𝐅(V)`$.

The adjoint action of $`H`$ on $`R`$ gives rise to a homomorphism

$$\beta :H\mathrm{Aut}_F(\mathrm{Mat}_m(F))=\mathrm{PGL}_m(F).$$

Clearly, $`\beta `$ is trivial if and only if $`R`$ commutes with $`H`$, i.e. $`R=F\mathrm{Id}`$.

It follows that we are done if either $`\alpha `$ or $`\beta `$ is trivial. Now one has only to recall that $`N=dm`$. ∎

###### Corollary 4.4.

Let $`p`$ be a prime, $`V`$ a vector space over $`𝐅_p`$ of finite dimension $`N`$. Let $`H\mathrm{Aut}(V)`$ be a non-abelian simple group. Suppose that the $`H`$-module $`V`$ is absolutely simple and $`H`$ is not isomorphic to a subgroup of $`\mathrm{SS}_N`$. Then the $`H`$-module $`V`$ is very simple if one of the following conditions holds:

1. $`N`$ is a prime;
2. $`N=8`$ or twice a prime. In addition, $`H`$ is not isomorphic to $`PSL_2(𝐅_p)`$ and either $`H`$ is not isomorphic to $`𝐀_5`$ or $`p`$ is not congruent to $`\pm 1`$ modulo $`5`$;
3. $`\mathrm{\#}(H)((p^{[\sqrt{N}]}1)^{[\sqrt{N}]})/(p1)`$
4. $`\mathrm{\#}(H)(p^N1)/(p1)`$.

###### Proof.

Let us split $`N`$ into a product $`N=ab`$ of two positive integers $`a`$ and $`b`$. In the case (i) either $`a`$ or $`b`$ is $`1`$ and the target of the corresponding projective linear group $`\mathrm{PGL}_1(𝐅_p)=\{1\}`$. In the case (ii) either one of the factors is $`1`$ and we are done or one of the factors is $`2`$ and it suffices to check that each homomorphism from $`H`$ to $`\mathrm{PGL}_2(𝐅_p)`$ is trivial. Since $`H`$ is simple, each non-trivial homomorphism $`\gamma :H\mathrm{PGL}_2(𝐅_p)`$ is an injection, whose image lies in $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(𝐅_p)`$. In other words, $`\gamma (H)`$ is a subgroup of $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(𝐅_p)`$ isomorphic to $`H`$. Since $`H`$ is not isomorphic to $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(𝐅_p)`$, the subgroup $`\gamma (H)`$ is proper and simple non-abelian. It is known (, Th. 6.25 on p. 412 and Th. 6.26 on p. 414) that each proper simple non-abelian subgroup of $`\mathrm{PSL}_2(𝐅_p)`$ is isomorphic to $`𝐀_5`$ and such a subgroup exists if and only if $`p`$ is congruent to $`\pm 1`$ modulo $`5`$. This implies that such $`\gamma `$ does not exist and settles the case (ii). In order to do the case (iii) notice that one of the factors say, $`a`$ does not exceed $`[\sqrt{N}]`$. This implies easily that the order of $`\mathrm{GL}_a(𝐅_p)`$ does not exceed $`((p^{[\sqrt{N}]}1)^{[\sqrt{N}]})`$ and therefore the order of $`\mathrm{PGL}_a(𝐅_p)`$ does not exceed $`((p^{[\sqrt{N}]}1)^{[\sqrt{N}]})/(p1)`$. Hence, the order of $`H`$ is strictly greater than the order of $`\mathrm{PGL}_a(𝐅_p)`$ and therefore there are no injective homomorphisms from $`H`$ to $`\mathrm{PGL}_a(𝐅_p)`$. Since $`H`$ is simple, each homomorphism from $`H`$ is either trivial or injective. This settles the case (iii). The case (iv) follows readily from the case (iii).

###### Corollary 4.5.

Suppose $`n5`$ is an integer, $`B`$ is an $`n`$-element set. Suppose $`p=3`$. Then the $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$-module $`(𝐅_3^B)^{00}`$ is very simple.

###### Proof.

By Lemma 2.6, $`(𝐅_3^B)^{00}`$ is absolutely simple and $`N=\mathrm{dim}_{𝐅_3}((𝐅_3^B)^{00})`$ is either $`n1`$ or $`n2`$. The group $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)𝐀_n`$ is a simple non-abelian group, whose order $`n!/2`$ is greater than the order of $`𝐒_{n1}`$ and the order of $`𝐒_{n2}`$. Therefore each homomorphism from $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$ to $`𝐒_N`$ is trivial. On the other hand, one may easily check that

$$n!/2>3^{n1}/2>(3^N1)/(31)$$

for all $`n5`$. Now one has only to apply Corollary 4.4(iv) to $`H=\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$ and $`p=3`$. ∎

###### Corollary 4.6.

Suppose $`p>3`$ is a prime, $`n8`$ is a positive integer, $`B`$ is an $`n`$-element set. Then the $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$-module $`(𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$ is very simple.

###### Proof.

Recall that $`N=\mathrm{dim}_{𝐅_p}((𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$ is either $`n1`$ or $`n2`$. In both cases

$$[\sqrt{N}]1<[n/3].$$

Clearly, $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)𝐀_n`$ is perfect and every homomorphism from $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$ to $`𝐒_N`$ is trivial.

We are going to deduce the Corollary from Theorem 4.3 applied to $`F=𝐅_p`$ and $`H=\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$. In order to do that let us consider a factorization $`N=ab`$ of $`N`$ into a product of two positive integers $`a`$ and $`b`$. We may assume that $`a>1,b>1`$ and say, $`ab`$. Then

$$a1[\sqrt{N}]1<[n/3].$$

Let

$$\alpha :𝐀_n\mathrm{Alt}(B)\mathrm{PGL}_a(𝐅_p)$$

be a group homomorphism. We need to prove that $`\alpha `$ is trivial. Let $`\overline{𝐅}_p`$ be an algebraic closure of $`𝐅_p`$. Since $`\mathrm{PGL}_a(𝐅_p)\mathrm{PGL}_a(\overline{𝐅}_p)`$, it suffices to check that the composition

$$𝐀_n\mathrm{Alt}(B)\mathrm{PGL}_a(𝐅_p)\mathrm{PGL}_a(\overline{𝐅}_p)$$

which we continue denote by $`\alpha `$, is trivial.

Let

$$\pi :\stackrel{~}{𝐀}_n𝐀_n$$

be the universal central extension of the perfect group $`𝐀_n`$. It is well-known that $`\stackrel{~}{𝐀}_n`$ is perfect and the kernel (Schur’s multiplier) of $`\pi `$ is a cyclic group of order $`2`$, since $`n8`$. One could lift $`\alpha `$ to the homomorphism

$$\alpha ^{}:\stackrel{~}{𝐀}_n\mathrm{GL}_a(\overline{𝐅}_p).$$

Clearly, $`\alpha `$ is trivial if and only if $`\alpha ^{}`$ is trivial. In order to prove the triviality of $`\alpha ^{}`$, let us put $`m=[n/3]`$ and notice that $`𝐀_n`$ contains a subgroup $`D`$ isomorphic to $`(𝐙/3𝐙)^m`$ (generated by disjoint $`3`$-cycles). Let $`D^{}`$ be a Sylow $`3`$-subgroup in $`\pi ^1(D)`$. Clearly, $`\pi `$ maps $`D^{}`$ isomorphically onto $`D`$. Therefore, $`D^{}`$ is a subgroup of $`\stackrel{~}{𝐀}_n`$ isomorphic to $`(𝐙/3𝐙)^m`$.

Now, let us discuss the image and the kernel of $`\alpha ^{}`$. First, since $`\stackrel{~}{𝐀}_n`$ is perfect, its image lies in $`\mathrm{SL}_a(\overline{𝐅}_p)`$, i.e., one may view $`\alpha ^{}`$ as a homomorphism from $`\stackrel{~}{𝐀}_n`$ to $`\mathrm{SL}_a(\overline{𝐅}_p)`$. Second, the only proper normal subgroup in $`\stackrel{~}{𝐀}_n`$ is the kernel of $`\pi `$. This implies that if $`\alpha ^{}`$ is nontrivial then its kernel meets $`D^{}`$ only at the identity element and therefore $`\mathrm{SL}_a(\overline{𝐅}_p)`$ contains the subgroup $`\alpha ^{}(D^{})`$ isomorphic to $`(𝐙/3𝐙)^m`$. Since $`p3`$, the group $`\alpha ^{}(D^{})`$ is conjugate to an elementary $`3`$-group of diagonal matrices in $`\mathrm{SL}_a(\overline{𝐅}_p)`$. This implies that

$$ma1.$$

Since $`m=[n/3]`$, we get a contradiction which implies that our assumption of the nontriviality of $`\alpha ^{}`$ was wrong. Hence $`\alpha ^{}`$ is trivial and therefore $`\alpha `$ is also trivial. ∎

###### Theorem 4.7.

Suppose $`n5`$ is a positive integer, $`B`$ is an $`n`$-element set, $`p`$ is a prime. Then the $`\mathrm{Alt}(B)`$module $`(𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$ is very simple.

###### Proof.

The case of $`p=2`$ was proven in , Ex. 7.2. The case of $`p=3`$ was done in Corollary 4.5. So, we may assume that $`p5`$. In light of Corollary 4.6 we may assume that $`n<8`$, i.e., $`5n7`$.

Assume that $`np`$. Then $`p`$ does not divide $`n`$ and $`n1`$ is either a prime or twice a prime. Therefore

$$N=\mathrm{dim}_{𝐅_p}((𝐅_p^B)^{00})=n1$$

is either a prime or twice a prime. Now the very simplicity of $`(𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$ follows from the cases (i) and (ii) of Corollary 4.4.

Assume now that $`n=p`$. Then either $`n=p=5`$ or $`n=p=7`$. In both cases

$$N=\mathrm{dim}_{𝐅_p}((𝐅_p^B)^{00})=n2$$

is a prime. Now the very simplicity of $`(𝐅_p^B)^{00}`$ follows from Corollary 4.4(i).

## 5. Jacobians and endomorphisms

Recall that $`K`$ is a field of characteristic zero, $`f(x)K[x]`$ is a polynomial of degree $`n5`$ without multiple roots, $`_fK_a`$ the set of its roots, $`K(_f)`$ its splitting field,

$$\mathrm{Gal}(f)=\mathrm{Gal}(K(_f)/K)\mathrm{Perm}(_f).$$

###### Remark 5.1.

Assume that $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)=\mathrm{Perm}(_f)`$ or $`\mathrm{Alt}(_f)`$. Taking into account that $`\mathrm{Alt}(_f)`$ is non-abelian simple, $`\mathrm{Perm}(_f)/\mathrm{Alt}(_f)𝐙/2𝐙`$ and $`K(\zeta )/K`$ is abelian, we conclude that the Galois group of $`f`$ over $`K(\zeta )`$ is also either $`\mathrm{Perm}(_f)`$ or $`\mathrm{Alt}(_f)`$. In particular, $`f`$ remains irreducible over $`K(\zeta )`$. So, in the course of the proof of main results from Introduction we may assume that $`\zeta K`$.

###### Theorem 5.2.

Let $`p`$ be an odd prime and $`\zeta K`$. If the $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$-module $`(𝐅_p^_f)^{00}`$ is very simple then $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$ coincides with its own centralizer in $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$ and the center of $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$ is a CM-subfield of $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$. In particular, if $`p`$ is a Fermat prime then $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})=𝐐(\delta _p)`$ and $`\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})=𝐙[\delta _p]`$.

Combining Theorems 5.2, Remark 5.1, Theorem 4.7 and Remark 4.2(ii), we obtain the following statement.

###### Corollary 5.3.

Let $`p`$ be an odd prime. If $`f(x)K[x]`$ is an irreducible polynomial of degree $`n5`$ and $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)=𝐒_n`$ or $`𝐀_n`$ then $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$ is a maximal commutative subalgebra in $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$ and the center of $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$ is a CM-subfield of $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$. In particular, if $`p`$ is a Fermat prime then $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})=𝐐(\delta _p)`$ and $`\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})=𝐙[\delta _p]`$.

###### Proof of Theorem 5.2.

Recall that $`J^{(f,p)}`$ is a $`g`$-dimensional abelian variety defined over $`K`$.

Since $`J^{(f,p)}`$ is defined over $`K`$, one may associate with every $`u\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})`$ and $`\sigma \mathrm{Gal}(K)`$ an endomorphism $`{}_{}{}^{\sigma }u\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})`$ such that

$${}_{}{}^{\sigma }u(x)=\sigma u(\sigma ^1x)xJ^{(f,p)}(K_a).$$

Let us consider the centralizer $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ of $`\delta _p`$ in $`\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})`$. Since $`\delta _p`$ is defined over $`K`$, we have $`{}_{}{}^{\sigma }u\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ for all $`u\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. Clearly, $`𝐙[\delta _p]`$ sits in the center of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and the natural homomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙_p\mathrm{End}_{𝐙_p[\delta _p]}T_p(J^{(f,p)})$$

is an embedding. Here $`T_p(J^{(f,p)})`$ is the $`𝐙_p`$-Tate module of $`J^{(f,p)}`$ which is a free $`𝐙_p[\delta _p]`$-module of rank $`\frac{2g}{p1}`$. Notice that

$$J^{(f,p)}(\eta )=T_p(J^{(f,p)})/\eta T_p(J^{(f,p)}).$$

Recall also that (Theorem 3.3 and Remark 3.4)

$$J^{(f,p)}(\eta )=(𝐅_p^_f)^{00}$$

and $`\mathrm{Gal}(K)`$ acts on $`(𝐅_p^_f)^{00}`$ through

$$\mathrm{Gal}(K)\mathrm{Gal}(f)\mathrm{Perm}(_f)\mathrm{Aut}((𝐅_p^_f)^{00}).$$

Since the $`\mathrm{Gal}(f)`$-module $`(𝐅_p^_f)^{00}`$ is very simple, the $`\mathrm{Gal}(K)`$-module $`J^{(f,p)}(\eta )`$ is also very simple, thanks to Remark 4.2(i). On the other hand, if an endomorphism $`u\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ kills $`J^{(f,p)}(\eta )=\mathrm{ker}(1\delta _p)`$ then one may easily check that there exists a unique $`v\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})`$ such that $`u=v\eta `$. In addition, $`v\mathrm{\Lambda }`$. This implies that the natural map

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }_{𝐙[\delta _p]}𝐙[\delta _p]/(\eta )\mathrm{End}_{𝐅_p}(J^{(f,p)}(\eta ))$$

is an embedding. Let us denote by $`R`$ the image of this embedding. We have

$$R:=\mathrm{\Lambda }/\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙_p/\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙_p\mathrm{End}_{𝐅_p}(J^{(f,p)}(\eta )).$$

Clearly, $`R`$ contains the identity endomorphism and is stable under the conjugation via Galois automorphisms. Since the $`\mathrm{Gal}(K)`$-module $`J^{(f,p)}(\eta )`$ is very simple, either $`R=𝐅_p\mathrm{Id}`$ or $`R=\mathrm{End}_{𝐅_p}(J^{(f,p)}(\eta ))`$. If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }=R=𝐅_p\mathrm{Id}`$ then $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ coincides with $`𝐙[\delta _p]`$. This means that $`𝐙[\delta _p]`$ coincides with its own centralizer in $`\mathrm{End}(J^{(f,p)})`$ and therefore $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$ is a maximal commutative subalgebra in $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$.

If $`\mathrm{\Lambda }/\eta \mathrm{\Lambda }=R=\mathrm{End}_{𝐅_p}(J^{(f,p)}(\eta ))`$ then, by Nakayama’s Lemma,

$$\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐙_p=\mathrm{End}_{𝐙_p[\delta _p]}T_p(J^{(f,p)})\mathrm{Mat}_{\frac{2g}{p1}}(𝐙_p[\delta _p]).$$

This implies easily that the $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$-algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐐=\mathrm{\Lambda }𝐐\mathrm{End}^0(X)`$ has dimension $`(\frac{2g}{p1})^2`$ and its center has dimension $`1`$. This means that $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐐`$ is a central $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$-algebra of dimension $`(\frac{2g}{p1})^2`$. Clearly, $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐐`$ coincides with the centralizer of $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$ in $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$. Since $`\delta _p`$ respects the theta divisor on the jacobian $`J^{(f,p)}`$, the algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐐`$ is stable under the corresponding Rosati involution and therefore is semisimple as a $`𝐐`$-algebra. Since its center is the field $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$, the $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$-algebra $`\mathrm{\Lambda }_𝐐`$ is central simple and has dimension $`(\frac{2g}{p1})^2`$. By Theorem 3.6, this cannot happen. Therefore $`𝐐(\delta _p)`$ is a maximal commutative subalgebra in $`\mathrm{End}^0(J^{(f,p)})`$. ∎

Proof of main results. Clearly, Theorem 1.1 follows readily from Corollary 5.3. Theorem 1.2 follows readily from Corollary 5.3 combined with Remark 3.9.


format: text

text:
# Linear Coasting in Cosmology and SNe Ia

Abstract

A strictly linear evolution of the cosmological expansion scale factor is a characteristic feature in several classes of alternative gravity theories as also in the standard (big-bang) model with specially chosen equations of state of matter. Such an evolution has no free parameters as far as the classical cosmological tests are concerned and should therefore be easily falsifiable. In this article we demonstrate how such models present very good fits to the current supernovae 1a data. We discuss the overall viability of such models.

Large scale homogeneity and isotropy observed in the universe suggests the following \[Friedman-Robertson-Walker (FRW)\] form for the spacetime metric:

$$ds^2=dt^2a(t)^2[\frac{dr^2}{1kr^2}+r^2(d\theta ^2+sin^2\theta d\varphi ^2)]$$
(1)
Here $`k=\pm 1,0`$ is the curvature constant. In standard “big-bang” cosmology, the scale factor $`a(t)`$ is determined by the equation of state of matter and Einstein’s equations. The form for the scale factor determines the response of a chosen model to the three classical cosmological tests, viz: (1) The galaxy number count as a function of redshift; (2) The angular diameter of “standard” objects (galaxies) as a function of redshift; and finally (3) The apparent luminosity of a “standard candle” as a function of redshift. The first two tests are marred by evolutionary effects and for this reason have fallen into disfavour as reliable indicators of a viable model. However, the discovery of Supernovae type Ia \[SNe Ia\] as reliable standard candles has raised hopes of elevating the status of the third test to that of a precision measurement that could determine the viability of a cosmological model. The main reason for regarding these objects as reliable standard candles are their large luminosity, small dispersion in their peak luminosity and a fairly accurate modeling of their evolutionary features. Recent measurements on 42 high redshift SNe Ia’s reported in the supernovae cosmology project  together with the observations of the 16 lower redshift SNe Ia’s of the Callan-Tollolo survey  have been used to determine the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$. The data eliminates the “minimal inflationary” prediction defined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$. The data can however, be used to assess a “non-minimal inflationary cosmology” defined by $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }0`$$`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }+\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$. The maximum likelihood analysis following from such a study has yielded the values $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0.28\pm 0.1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.72\pm 0.1`$ .

In this article we explore the concordance of the SNe Ia data with a FRW cosmology in which the scale factor evolves linearly with time: $`a(t)t`$. The motivation for such an endeavour comes from several reasons. First of all, such a cosmology does not suffer from the horizon problem. Horizons occur in models with $`a(t)t^\alpha `$ for $`\alpha <1`$. Secondly, linear evolution of the scale factor is supported in alternative gravity theories (eg. non-minimally coupled scalar tensor theories) where it turns out to be independent of the matter equation of state. The scale factor in such theories does not constrain the matter density parameter thereby curing the flatness problem. Further the age estimate of the ($`a(t)t`$) universe, deduced from a measurement of the Hubble parameter, is given by $`t_o=(H_o)^1`$. This is $``$ 50% greater than the age inferred from the same measurement in standard (cold) matter dominated cosmology (without the cosmological constant). This would make the age estimate comfortably concordant with age estimates of old clusters. Finally, a linear coasting cosmology, independent of the equation of state of matter, is a generic feature in a class of models that attempt to dynamically solve the Cosmological constant problem . Such models have a scalar field non-minimally coupled to the large scale scalar curvature of the universe. With the evolution of time, the non-minimal coupling diverges, the scale factor quickly approaches linearity and the non-minimally coupled field acquires a stress energy that cancels the vacuum energy in the theory.

There have been other gravity models that also account for a linear evolution of the scale factor. Notable among such models is a recent idea of Allen  in which such a scaling results in an $`SU(2)`$ cosmological instanton dominated universe. Yet another possibility derives from the Weyl gravity theory of Manheim and Kazanas . Here again the FRW scale factor approaches a linear evolution at late times.

What makes the above ideas particularly appealing is a recent demonstration  of primordial nucleosynthesis not to be an impediment for a linear coasting cosmology. For the currently favoured value of 65 km /sec /Mpc for the Hubble parameter, it follows that for baryon entropy ratio $`\eta 5\times 10^9`$ we can get just the right amount of Helium $`23.8\%`$. Besides, one also gets a primordial metallicity quite close to the lowest observed metallicities. The only problem that one has to contend with is the significantly low yields of deuterium in such a cosmology. However, as pointed out in , the amount of Helium produced is quite sensitive to $`\eta `$ in such models. In an inhomogeneous universe, therefore, one can have the helium to hydrogen ratio to have a large variation. Deuterium can be produced by a spallation process much later in the history of the universe . If one considers spallation of a helium deficient cloud onto a helium rich cloud, it is easy to produce deuterium as demonstrated by Epstein - but without overproduction of Lithium. This result can be used to soften nucleosynthesis constraints on a general power law cosmology.

Finally we must mention that within the framework of standard cosmology there are rather strong constraints on the allowable equations of state. Perlmutter et al  have demonstrated that a general equation of state: $`P=w\rho `$ in standard cosmology, is constrained to $`w2/3`$. Linear coasting, possible in standard cosmology for $`w=1/3`$ as also for empty models, would therefore appear to be disfavoured. However, as pointed out in , such a linear coasting, though a bit improbable, is definitely not ruled out. Any mechanism for dimming the high redshift SNe Ia by .15 magnitude would make linear coasting concordant. This is not at all discouraging - considering the fact that the intrinsic uncertainty in the luminosity for most high redshift objects is in excess of .15. Further, as reported in this article, statistical measures of fit such as the $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom for a linear coasting cosmology turn out to be comparable to the best fits reported in  $`1.17`$. In any case the results presented in this article would be of interest for alternative gravity models mentioned earlier.

A coasting cosmology and Type Ia Supernovae

In this section we explore the concordance of a linear coasting cosmology with the recent extra-galactic Type Ia supernovae apparent magnitude - redshift data .

The apparent magnitude of an object is related to the luminosity distance $`d_L`$ by the following relation,

$$m=25+M+5logd_L$$
(2)
with $`d_L`$ defined as

$$d_L=a_or(1+z)$$
(3)
Here r is the comoving radial coordinate. In the standard model,

$`D_L(z;\mathrm{\Omega }_M,\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda })`$ $``$ $`d_LH_o`$ (5)
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{c(1+z)}{\sqrt{|\kappa |}}}`$
$`\text{S}(\sqrt{|\kappa |}{\displaystyle _0^z}{\displaystyle \frac{dz^{}}{\sqrt{[(1+z^{})^2(1+\mathrm{\Omega }_Mz^{})z^{}(2+z^{})\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }]}}})`$
where for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }>1`$, $`\text{S(x)}=sin(x)`$ and $`\kappa =1\mathrm{\Omega }_M\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$; for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }<1`$, $`\text{S(x)}=sinh(x)`$ and $`\kappa `$ as above; and for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M+\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=1,\text{S(x)}=x`$ and $`\kappa =1`$ . In the low redshift limit, this equation reduces to the usual linear Hubble relation between m and $`log(cz)`$

$$m(z)=+5log(cz),$$
(6)
where $`=M5log(H_o)+25`$ This quantity can be measured from the apparent magnitude and redshift of low- redshift samples of the standard candle independent of $`H_o`$. Using this value on recent measurements on 42 high redshift SNe Ia’s reported in the supernovae cosmology project  together with the observations of the 16 lower redshift SNe Ia’s of the Callan-Tollolo survey , one can determine the cosmological parameters $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M`$. The data eliminates the “minimal inflationary” prediction $`\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_M=1`$ .

To explore the concordance of a linear coasting cosmology, we consider a power law cosmology with the scale factor $`a(t)=\overline{k}t^\alpha `$, with $`\overline{k},\alpha `$ arbitrary constants. The expression for the luminousity distance is easily seen to be

$$d_L=(\frac{\alpha }{H_o})^\alpha (1+z)\text{S}[\frac{1}{(1\alpha )}(\frac{\alpha }{H_o})^{1\alpha }(1(1+z)^{1\frac{1}{\alpha }})]$$
(7)
It is straightforward to discover the following relation between the apparent magnitude $`m(z)`$, the absolute magnitude $`M`$ and the redshift $`z`$ of an object for such a cosmology:

$$m(z)=+5logH_o+5log(\frac{\alpha }{H_o})^\alpha (1+z)\text{S}[\frac{1}{(1\alpha )}(\frac{\alpha }{H_o})^{1\alpha }(1(1+z)^{1\frac{1}{\alpha }})]$$
(8)
The above equations have simple forms in the the $`\alpha 1`$ limit:

$$m(z)=+5logH_o+5log[\frac{(1+z)}{H_o}\text{S}(log(1+z))]$$
(9)
For example for an open $`k=1`$, model the above exact expression reduces to:

$$m(z)=5log(\frac{z^2}{2}+z)+$$
(10)
Figure ‘1’  sums up the Supernova Cosmology project data for supernovae with redshifts between 0.18 and 0.83 together with the set from the Calan / Tololo supernovae, at redshifts below 0.1.

To get an estimate of the goodness of concordance, we fitted the value of $``$ using the low redshift data set . The value comes out to be $`=3.325`$ and confirms the results of Perlmutter et al .

Next we used the 54 SN 1a data described by Perlmutter et al.  to obtain the value of the parameter $`\alpha `$ in eqn(8) by minimizing $`\chi ^2`$:

$$\chi ^2=\mathrm{\Sigma }\frac{[m_B(z_i)m_{Bi}]^2}{\sigma _{mBi}^2}$$
(11)
The summation is over all the data points. Here $`m_B(z_i)`$ and $`m_{Bi}`$ are respectively the theoretical and observed values for the apparent magnitude of a supernova and $`\sigma _{mBi}`$ the corresponding errors are displayed in tables I & II of reference . For $`\alpha =1`$ exactly, the limiting form for eqn(8), i.e. eqn(9) is used. The best fit turns out to be $`\alpha =1.001`$, $`k=1`$. We used standard Monte-Carlo method to generate $`10^4`$ data sets with a normal distribution around each data point consistent with the error bars for each of the supernovae. The best fit $`\alpha `$ for each of the data sets was determined and the results are displayed in the histograms (Figures ‘3(a, b, c)’). Table I sums up the results for all $`k=0,\pm 1`$ values. Figure 2 shows the hubble diagram corresponding to the best fit values of $`\alpha `$ for $`k=\pm 1,0`$ in a power law cosmology. We find that linear coasting can not be eliminated for any of the models though the best fit is for the open model with $`\alpha =1.001\pm 0.043`$, and $`\chi _\nu ^2`$ (the minimum $`\chi ^2`$ per degree of freedom) 1.18. This is comparable to the corresponding values (1.17) reported by Perlmutter et al for non-minimal inflationary cosmology parameter estimations. Thus a linear coasting is accommodated even in the 68% confidence region. This finds a passing mention in the analysis of Perlmutter  who noted that the curve for $`(\mathrm{\Omega }_\mathrm{\Lambda }=\mathrm{\Omega }_M=0`$ (for which the scale factor would have a linear evolution) is “practically identical to $`\mathrm{𝐛𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐟𝐢𝐭}`$ plot for an unconstrained cosmology”.

Acknowledgments

We thank Shiv K.Sethi and Tarun Deep Saini for many helpful discussions.


text:
# 1 Introduction

## 1 Introduction

One question of intrinsic interest in any gauge theory is the construction of local gauge-invariant operators since these form a complete set of observables of the theory. This question has been addressed in several recent works  in the context of noncommutative gauge theories. In these theories the construction of gauge-invariant operators is made somewhat nontrivial by the fact that simple analogues of local gauge-invariant operators of commutative gauge theories, taken over to the noncommutative case, are not local, but are integrated over all of space. It turns out, however, that more general gauge-invariant operators do exist and were constructed in . The set of gauge-invariant operators in noncommutative gauge theories constructed in this work has been further discussed in . Furthermore, operators presented in  have the desirable property that they reproduce the corresponding local operators in ordinary commutative gauge theories at scales large compared to the noncommutativity scale.

In this note we exploit the connection  of the matrix model to noncommutative gauge theories (emphasized recently by Seiberg ) to present a particularly simple construction of local gauge-invariant operators in these theories. The matrix model has an underlying $`U(N)`$ gauge symmetry and it is easy to write operators invariant under this symmetry. Dp-branes arise in the matrix model as classical solutions in the limit of large $`N`$ and the $`U(N)`$ gauge symmetry of the matrix model reappears on the branes as the noncommutative gauge symmetry. Because of this connection $`U(N)`$-invariant operators of the matrix model reappear as gauge-invariant operators on the branes. This fact directly leads to a simple construction of local gauge-invariant operators in noncommutative gauge theories.

## 2 Dp-branes in Matrix Model

The dynamical variables in the matrix model  are nine $`N\times N`$ hermitian matrices $`X^I`$, $`I=1,2,\mathrm{},9`$. Time-independent bosonic classical solutions are determined by extremizing the potential Tr$`[X^I,X^J]^2`$, which gives the equation of motion

$`[X_J,[X^I,X^J]]=0.`$ (1)
In the large N limit Dp-branes correspond to the solutions of this equation given by

$`X^i`$ $`=`$ $`x^i,i=1,2,\mathrm{},p,`$
$`X^I`$ $`=`$ $`0,I=p+1,\mathrm{},9.`$ (2)
where

$`[x^i,x^j]=i\theta ^{ij},`$ (3)
The rank of the matrix $`\theta `$ is $`p`$ for Dp-branes so that one has maximal noncommutativity. Also note that in the matrix model $`p`$ is even.

Expanding $`X^I`$ around the above classical solution gives a noncommutative gauge theory on the branes. If the classical solution represents $`Q`$ Dp-branes, one gets a $`U(Q)`$ noncommutative gauge theory.

Let us parameterize the fluctuations as

$`X^i=x^i+\theta ^{ij}\widehat{A}_j(x^i)`$ (4)
We have written the fluctuations as dependent on $`x^i`$ because we can expand it in terms of a complete set of operators. An example, in the large N limit, is the Weyl basis defined by the exponential operators $`g(\alpha )=\mathrm{exp}i\alpha _ix^i`$. We also have the scalar fluctuations $`\varphi ^a=X^{a+p},a=1,2,\mathrm{},9p`$.

Now, the time independent $`U(N)`$ gauge symmetry of the matrix model 111In the IKKT matrix model  this will be the full gauge symmetry acts on $`X^I`$ as $`X^IUX^IU^{}`$. This action descends on the fluctuations $`\widehat{A}_i`$ on the branes as $`U(Q)`$ noncommutative gauge symmetry

$`\widehat{A}_iU\widehat{A}_iU^{}+iU\overline{}_iU^{}`$ (5)
where

$$\overline{}_i=i\theta _{ij}^1adx_j$$
(6)
provided we transfer, as above, the $`U(N)`$ transformation of the background to the fluctuation. Here $`\theta ^1`$ is the inverse of the matrix $`\theta `$.

The transformation of the fluctuation in (5) is indeed a gauge transformation because the second term can be understood as a parallel transport  defined in terms of the derivative operator of the non-commutative gauge theory. From here it is clear that the gauge group of the non-commutative gauge theory is inherited from the large N limit of the matrix model, and also the definition (6) makes it clear that translations are generated by $`U(\mathrm{})`$ rotations. Thus, we see that the set of gauge-invariant operators on the branes is identical to and directly inherited from the gauge-invariant operators in the matrix model. Also gauge invariant operators are necessarily translation invariant.

## 3 Gauge Invariant Operators

Gauge-invariant operators are very easy to construct in the matrix model because its $`U(N)`$ gauge symmetry is linearly realized on the dynamical variables $`X^I`$. Thus, the matrix trace of an arbitrary function of $`X^I`$ is gauge-invariant. A complete set of gauge-invariant operators is given by $`\mathrm{Tr}(X^{I_1}\mathrm{}X^{I_n})`$ where $`nN`$, since for $`nN`$ the trace can be rewritten in terms of traces of fewer number of matrices. In the large $`N`$ limit, which is what we need in the Dp-brane classical background, it is more convenient to consider the operators

$`\widehat{O}_k=e^{ik.X}.`$ (7)
Traces of products of these operators for different values of $`k`$ can be used to generate all the above gauge-invariant operators for finite $`N`$. For example,

$$\mathrm{Tr}[X^I,X^J]^2=2(_I_{}^{}{}_{J}{}^{}_J_{}^{}{}_{I}{}^{})^2\mathrm{Tr}(e^{ik.X}e^{ik^{}.X})|_{k=k^{}=0},$$

where $``$ and $`^{}`$ are derivatives with respect to $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$. That is, all the gauge-invariant operators of the matrix model are contained in the set of operators

$`\widehat{O}_{kk^{}\mathrm{}}=e^{ik.X}e^{ik^{}.X}\mathrm{}`$ (8)
By the correspondence of the matrix model $`U(N)`$ gauge symmetry with the noncommutative gauge symmetry on the branes discussed above, then, this set of operators must reproduce all the gauge-invariant operators in the noncommutative gauge theory on the branes. In the rest of this note we will show that this is indeed the case.

### 3.1 Straight and Curved Wilson lines

Traces of operators of the type in (7) can be given the interpretation of straight Wilson lines in the noncommutative gauge theory on the branes. To see how that comes about, let us write

$`\widehat{O}_k`$ $`=`$ $`e^{ik.X}`$ (9)
$`=`$ $`e^{i\frac{k}{n}.X}e^{i\frac{k}{n}.X}\mathrm{}(n\mathrm{factors}).`$
At the end we will take the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$. Here we will restrict ourselves to $`k_I`$ with non-zero components only in the brane directions. The more general case is treated in the next sub-section. Let us now use (4) to write, in an obvious notation,

$`e^{i\frac{k}{n}.X}`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iϵ\theta ^1.x+iϵ.\widehat{A}(x)}`$
$`=`$ $`e^{iϵ\theta ^1.x}e^{iϵ.\widehat{A}(x)+o(ϵ^2)}`$
where $`ϵ=\frac{k}{n}\theta `$. Using this in (9), we get

$`\widehat{O}_k`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iϵ\theta ^1.x}e^{iϵ.\widehat{A}(x)+o(ϵ^2)}e^{iϵ\theta ^1.x}e^{iϵ.\widehat{A}(x)+o(ϵ^2)}\mathrm{}(n\mathrm{factors})`$ (10)
$`=`$ $`e^{iϵ.\widehat{A}(x+ϵ)+o(ϵ^2)}e^{iϵ.\widehat{A}(x+2ϵ)+o(ϵ^2)}\mathrm{}e^{iϵ.\widehat{A}(x+nϵ)+o(ϵ^2)}e^{inϵ\theta ^1.x}`$
In arriving at the last line above we have used the fact that the adjoint action of $`x`$ generates a translation by virtue of the algebra (3). In the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$, the product of operators involving the gauge field in the last line gives the Wilson line operator $`U(x,x+k\theta )`$ along a straight line path given by the vector $`k\theta `$. Thus the gauge-invariant operator Tr$`\widehat{O}_k`$ of the matrix theory translates into the Wilson line Tr$`U(x,x+k\theta )e^{ik.x}`$ in the noncommutative gauge theory on the branes.

Upto a phase, the more general operators $`\widehat{O}_{kk^{}\mathrm{}}`$ given in (8) can similarly be interpreted in the noncommutative gauge theory on the branes as Wilson line operators along a general curved path determined by the straight line segments given by the vectors $`k\theta `$, $`k^{}\theta `$, etc. That is,

$`\widehat{O}_{kk^{}\mathrm{}}=U(x,x+k\theta )U(x+k\theta ,x+(k+k^{})\theta )\mathrm{}e^{ik.x}e^{ik^{}.x}\mathrm{}`$ (11)
An example of such a Wilson line has been shown in Fig. 1. Since any continuous curve can be approximated by straight line segments one can easily construct the Wilson line corresponding to an arbitrary open curve.

Fig. 1: Polygonal Wilson line

Note that if $`x_i`$ is a brane background then so is $`x_i+a_iI`$ where $`I`$ is the identity operator and $`a_i`$ is a real number. This fact immediately implies that the expectation value of $`Tr\widehat{O}_{kk^{}\mathrm{}}`$ conserves momentum and is non-zero only if the sum $`k+k^{}+\mathrm{}.=0`$.

### 3.2 Generalised Wilson Lines

Let us now consider the more general situation of arbitrary $`k_I`$, i.e. $`k_I=(k_i,s_a)`$ where $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},p`$ and $`a=1,2,\mathrm{},9p`$. In this case proceeding after eqn. (9), we have

$$e^{i\frac{k}{n}.X}=e^{iϵ\theta ^1.x+iϵ^i\widehat{A}(x)_i+i\frac{s_a}{n}\widehat{\varphi }_a(x)}$$

where as before $`ϵ^i=\frac{k_j}{n}\theta ^{ji}`$. Thus the analogue of (10) is

$`\widehat{O}_k`$ $`=`$ $`e^{iϵ^i\widehat{A}_i(x+ϵ)+i\frac{s_a}{n}\widehat{\varphi }_a(x+ϵ)+o(\frac{1}{n^2})}e^{iϵ^i\widehat{A}_i(x+2ϵ)+i\frac{s_a}{n}\widehat{\varphi }_a(x+2ϵ)+o(\frac{1}{n^2})}`$ (12)
$`\mathrm{}e^{iϵ^i\widehat{A}_i(x+nϵ)+i\frac{s_a}{n}\widehat{\varphi }_a(x+nϵ)+o(\frac{1}{n^2})}e^{inϵ\theta ^1.x}`$
In the limit $`n\mathrm{}`$ this gives rise to a modified Wilson line operator $`U_s(x,x+k\theta )`$ along the straight line path given by the vector $`k\theta `$. The path is now characterized by the additional ‘internal’ quantities $`s_a,s_a^{},\mathrm{}.`$. These generalized Wilson line operators are similar to those introduced by Maldacena  in the context of AdS/CFT. It would be nice to understand the connection more quantitatively.

### 3.3 Operators Dual to the Closed String Modes

When the sum of momenta $`(k+k^{}+\mathrm{})`$ vanishes, the operator $`\widehat{O}_{kk^{}\mathrm{}}`$ corresponds, on the branes, to a closed Wilson loop (untraced), which was defined e.g. in  with $`ϵ_i^m=(k^m\theta )_i`$ being the length of the mth loop segment. One can let $`m\mathrm{}`$ and $`k^m0`$ for fixed $`\theta `$ in such a way that the polygonal loop becomes a continuous curve with no net momentum. Of course, in general one also includes here operators that traverse the geometrical loop several times.

Now, a special class of operators arises when an operator, which corresponds to one or more closed Wilson loops, is present anywhere in the product of exponentials that defines the general operator $`\widehat{O}_{kk^{}\mathrm{}}`$. On the branes, such an operator corresponds to a Wilson line with a closed polygon loop somewhere along it. An example of such a Wilson line with a single closed loop is shown in Fig 2. In the case of a single closed loop, the position of the loop along the Wilson line does not matter. This is because we are dealing with the trace of the operator (8) in which a certain sequence of momenta adds up to zero.

Fig. 2: Wilson line with an attached closed loop

The above constructions are easily generalized to continuous curves. If the open curve is a straight line specified by a fixed momentum and the closed loop is vanishingly small, the Wilson line generates the gauge-invariant operators that have recently been discussed in  as candidate operators dual to supergravity modes. As an example, consider the following operator

$`\widehat{O}_{k_1kk^{}k^{\prime \prime }k_2}=e^{ik_1.X}e^{ik.X}e^{ik^{}.X}e^{ik^{\prime \prime }.X}e^{ik_2.X}`$ (13)
where $`(k+k^{}+k^{\prime \prime })=0`$ and $`k`$ and $`k^{}`$ are small, though $`k_1`$ and $`k_2`$ need not be small. Writing $`k^{\prime \prime }=(k+k^{})`$ we have

$`e^{ik.X}e^{ik^{}.X}e^{i(k+k^{}).X}=1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}[k.X,k^{}.X]+O(k^3).`$ (14)
Thus we get

$`\widehat{O}_{k_1kk^{}k^{\prime \prime }k_2}=e^{ik_1.X}e^{ik_2.X}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}k_Ik_J^{}e^{ik_1.X}[X^I,X^J]e^{ik_2.X}+O(k^3).`$ (15)
It is also instructive to note that if $`(k+k^{}+k^{\prime \prime })`$ were non-zero in $`\widehat{O}_{k_1kk^{}k^{\prime \prime }k_2}`$ (open loop), then we could have defined $`\widehat{O}_{k_1kk^{}k^{\prime \prime }pqk_2}`$ such that $`p+q=0`$ and $`k+k^{}+k^{\prime \prime }+p=0`$. This is just the same as $`\widehat{O}_{k_1kk^{}k^{\prime \prime }k_2}`$ but now can be interpreted as a closed loop placed along an open line. Taking the trace would once more move the loop anywhere along the open line. This simple example is illustrative of the fact that in many cases of interest (though not all) open Wilson lines are equivalent to straight Wilson lines with loops attached.

If the loop is not small, Wilson lines of the above type with fixed momentum (Fig. 3) would then seem to correspond to the full closed string in the dual theory. This is the analogue of closed Wilson loop in ordinary gauge theory and reduces to it in the limit of vanishing noncommutativity ($`\theta 0`$). It would be interesting to compute the expectation value of the Wilson loop in the large $`\theta `$ limit using Maldacena duality, much in the same spirit the calculation is done in the absence of the B-field. Also since Wilson loops create electric flux lines, it would be of interest to study the connection with the work of  in the case of the $`D_3`$ branes.

Fig. 3: Large Wilson loop attached to a Wilson line of momentum $`k`$