text:
# R-mode oscillations of rapidly rotating Newtonian stars — A new numerical scheme and its application to the spin evolution of neutron stars

## I Introduction

About 110 years ago, Bryan analyzed oscillations of self-gravitating and spheroidal liquids and obtained the period equations for oscillation modes whose frequencies are proportional to the angular velocity . These modes are similar to those which were investigated for rotating realistic compressible stars and named r-modes by Papaloizou & Pringle  (see also e.g. ).

It is only very recently that the r-mode has been rediscovered from a standpoint of its strong instability and intensively studied. For sufficiently rapidly rotating stars whose oscillations are coupled to gravitational radiation, instability induced by gravitational radiation was discovered by Chandrasekhar  and by Friedman & Schutz . Thus it is called the CFS instability (for reviews, see e.g. ). Andersson  has pointed out that the r-mode oscillations suffer from the CFS instability and play a very important role in a first few years after formation of neutron stars.

In subsequent studies by many authors (e.g. ), it has become clear that the r-mode oscillations make newly born neutron stars significantly unstable by gravitational radiation emission for a temperature range around $`10^9`$ K. For the CFS instability of the f-mode oscillations, the effect of viscosity stabilizes neutron stars almost all range of the temperature. Consequently the angular velocity would be affected only slightly and would become 90-95% of the Keplerian angular velocity.

Contrast to the CFS instability of f-modes, the CFS instability of r-modes will not be stabilized for a certain range of the temperature $`T`$ of neutron stars, i.e., roughly around $`T10^{810}`$ K, even if there exists viscosity. This may be explained by the weakness of bulk viscosity damping because the volume expansion rate of the r-mode oscillation is small. Also the critical rotational frequency of the star from which the instability sets in is zero, in contrast to the case of the f-modes. It leads to the enhancement of the instability as well. Due to the effect of the r-mode instability, neutron stars which have been born with $`T10^{11}`$ K will lose most of their angular momentum in only one year and settle down to slowly rotating configurations. This time scale is determined from that of cooling of newly born neutron stars down to $`T10^9`$ K. Thus there exist critical angular velocities for neutron stars above which no stable configurations exist for each value of the temperature.

This sets a severe limit to the scenario of evolution of newly born neutron stars, in particular, to that of millisecond pulsars. From the observational point of view, the rotational periods of neutron stars were considered to be rather long (see e.g. ), although from the angular momentum considerations of the progenitors of neutron stars they could be shorter than $`10`$ ms. Therefore, some mechanism which sets limit to the rotational periods of neutron stars has been required and looked for. From the significant feature of the r-mode instability, it could be the promising one which explains the observational results.

However, we should note that almost all results mentioned above have been obtained from stability analysis of slowly rotating stars except two works by Bryan  and Lindblom & Ipser . For example, Lockitch & Friedman  have introduced the slow rotation approximation to get eigenfrequencies and eigenfunctions of the classical r-modes and generalized r-modes for polytropic stars (about generalized r-modes, see also ), and Andersson, Kokkotas, & Schutz  have also analyzed slowly rotating equilibrium configurations to estimate the spin evolution of young neutron stars. As for the results of  and those of , Maclaurin spheroids were analyzed. Since realistic stars are not incompressible fluid and newly born neutron stars might be rotating with very short periods, it would be desirable to investigate r-mode oscillations of rapidly rotating and compressible stars.

In the previous Letter paper , we have shown some representative results of the classical r-mode oscillations of rapidly rotating polytropic stars with the polytropic index $`N=1`$. Those results have been obtained by developing a new scheme to handle r-mode oscillations of rapidly rotating polytropic stars in Newtonian gravity. In this paper, we will explain the new scheme in detail and show classical r-mode oscillations of rotational equilibrium configurations for a wide range of $`N`$ and $`m`$.

The numerical scheme is an extended version of the one which was used to analyze f-mode instability by Yoshida & Eriguchi . After computing r-mode oscillations for equilibrium sequences of several rotating polytropes, we will calculate time scales of evolution due to dissipation by taking account of the effect of viscosity and gravitational radiation and obtain critical curves for the r-mode instability in the temperature – rotational frequency plane by following the analysis method proposed by Ipser & Lindblom . In the same plane, we can also draw “evolutionary curves” due to cooling by using the standard modified URCA process or other mechanisms.

Our newly developed scheme for the oscillations of rotating stars will be explained in Section 2. In Section 3, we will show our computational results for the classical r-mode oscillations of rotating polytropes. Time scales of evolution due to gravitational radiation as well as viscosity will be calculated by using the eigenfrequencies and eigenfunctions of r-mode oscillations. By using these time scales we will be able to get critical curves for the r-mode instability and the ‘evolutionary’ curves for hot young neutron stars. Finally, in Section 4, we will discuss the uncertain issues included in our analysis, and some other important problems which we will have to treat carefully in the future.

## II Scheme of linear perturbations for uniformly rotating polytropes

### A Equilibrium states

In this paper we will treat uniformly rotating polytropes in the framework of Newtonian gravity. Axisymmetric equilibrium configurations of rapidly rotating Newtonian stars are obtained by solving the hydrostatic equation, Poisson’s equation and the equation of state as follows:

$$\frac{1}{\rho _0}p_0=\varphi _0+r\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{\Omega }^2\stackrel{}{e}_R,$$
(1)
$$\mathrm{}\varphi _0=4\pi G\rho _0,$$
(2)
$$p_0=K\rho _0^{1+\frac{1}{N}},$$
(3)
where $`p_0`$, $`\rho _0`$, $`\varphi _0`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$, $`\stackrel{}{e}_R`$, $`G`$, $`K`$ and $`N`$ are the density, the pressure, the gravitational potential, the angular velocity, a unit vector in the R direction of the cylindrical polar coordinate ($`R,\phi ,z`$), the gravitational constant, the polytropic constant, and the polytropic index, respectively. Through this paper, the spherical polar coordinates $`(r,\theta ,\phi )`$ are used.

In order to handle properly the boundary condition of the potential at infinity, the potential is transformed into the integral representation by using the Green’s function. These equations are solved by applying the method developed in .

In actual computations we have obtained three polytropic equilibrium sequences with $`N=0.5,1.0`$, and $`1.5`$. The mesh number in this paper is $`(r\times \theta )=(32\times 11)`$. Here equidistant mesh sizes in $`r`$\- and $`\theta `$-directions are used.

### B Linear perturbations of uniformly rotating and axisymmetric polytropes

Once equilibrium configurations are obtained, we can proceed to analysis of linear perturbations of equilibrium states. Basic equations for the perturbed states can be written as follows. We will express Eulerian perturbations by using $`\delta `$, say $`\delta g`$ for the physical quantity $`g`$. Since in this paper rotating polytropes will be employed, the linearized equations need to be treated separately for $`N=0`$ and $`N0`$ cases.

#### 1 Basic equations for $`N0`$ polytropes

For $`N0`$ polytropes, the linearized equations of the continuity and the linearized equations of motion are written as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _1}{t}}+{\displaystyle \frac{\delta u_1}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\delta u_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{r}}\delta u_1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_1}{\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{\theta }}\delta v_1`$ (4)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\mathrm{cot}\theta \delta v_1+\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \rho _1}{\phi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta w_1}{\phi }}=0,`$ (5)
$$\frac{\delta u_1}{t}+\left(1+\frac{1}{N}\right)\frac{}{r}(\rho _0^{\frac{1}{N}1}\delta \rho _1)+\frac{\delta \varphi _1}{r}+\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{\delta u_1}{\phi }2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta w_1=0,$$
(6)
$$\frac{\delta v_1}{t}+\left(1+\frac{1}{N}\right)\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{\theta }(\rho _0^{\frac{1}{N}1}\delta \rho _1)+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\delta \varphi _1}{\theta }+\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{\delta v_1}{\phi }2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta w_1=0,$$
(7)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta w_1}{t}}+\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{N}}\right){\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho _0^{\frac{1}{N}1}\delta \rho _1)}{\phi }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta \varphi _1}{\phi }}+2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta u_1`$ (8)
$`+2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta v_1+\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\delta w_1}{\phi }}=0.`$ (9)
Here perturbed quantities of the density, three components of the velocity, $`(u,v,w)`$ in the spherical coordinates, the gravitational potential are expressed as $`\delta \rho _1,\delta u_1,\delta v_1,\delta w_1`$ and $`\delta \varphi _1`$, respectively. We have made use of the relation between the perturbed pressure, $`\delta p_1`$, and the perturbed density as follows:

$$\delta p_1=\left(1+\frac{1}{N}\right)K\rho _0^{1/N}\delta \rho _1.$$
(10)
Since the unperturbed states are axisymmetric and stationary, all perturbed quantities can be expressed by using the expansion as follows:

$`\delta \rho _1(r,\theta ,\phi ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\mathrm{exp}(i(\sigma tm\phi ))\rho _m(r,\theta ),`$ (11)
$`\delta u_1(r,\theta ,\phi ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\mathrm{exp}(i(\sigma tm\phi ))u_m(r,\theta ),`$ (12)
$`\delta v_1(r,\theta ,\phi ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\mathrm{exp}(i(\sigma tm\phi ))v_m(r,\theta ),`$ (13)
$`\delta w_1(r,\theta ,\phi ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\mathrm{exp}(i(\sigma tm\phi ))w_m(r,\theta ),`$ (14)
$`\delta \varphi _1(r,\theta ,\phi ,t)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{m}{}}\mathrm{exp}(i(\sigma tm\phi ))\varphi _m(r,\theta ),`$ (15)
where $`\sigma ,\rho _m,u_m,v_m,w_m`$ and $`\varphi _m`$ are the oscillation frequency and the expansion coefficients of corresponding quantities, respectively.

When we define the physical quantities

$`\delta \rho `$ $``$ $`\rho _m,`$ (16)
$`\delta u_r`$ $``$ $`iu_m,`$ (17)
$`\delta v_\theta `$ $``$ $`iv_m,`$ (18)
$`\delta w_\phi `$ $``$ $`w_m,`$ (19)
$`\delta \varphi `$ $``$ $`\varphi _m,`$ (20)
and apply the above expansion, the perturbed equations become as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\delta u_r}{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{r}}\delta u_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{r}}\delta u_r+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\theta }{\theta }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _0}}{\displaystyle \frac{\rho _0}{\theta }}\delta v_\theta `$ (21)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\mathrm{cot}\theta \delta v_\theta +m\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _0}}\delta \rho +{\displaystyle \frac{m}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }}\delta w_\phi =\sigma {\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _0}}\delta \rho ,`$ (22)
$$\left(1+\frac{1}{N}\right)\frac{}{r}(\rho _0^{\frac{1}{N}1}\delta \rho )\frac{\delta \varphi }{r}m\mathrm{\Omega }\delta u_r+2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta w_\phi =\sigma \delta u_r,$$
(23)
$$\left(1+\frac{1}{N}\right)\frac{1}{r}\frac{}{\theta }(\rho _0^{\frac{1}{N}1}\delta \rho )\frac{1}{r}\frac{\delta \varphi }{\theta }+m\mathrm{\Omega }\delta v_\theta +2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta w_\phi =\sigma \delta v_\theta ,$$
(24)
$$\left(1+\frac{1}{N}\right)\frac{m\rho _0^{\frac{1}{N}1}\delta \rho }{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }+\frac{m}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }\delta \varphi +2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta u_r+2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta v_\theta +m\mathrm{\Omega }\delta w_\phi =\sigma \delta w_\phi .$$
(25)
#### 2 Basic equations for $`N=0`$ polytropes

For $`N=0`$ polytropes, we can follow the same procedure as that for $`N0`$ polytropes by choosing the pressure perturbation as one of the unknown quantities instead of the density perturbation. The final equations can be written as follows:

$$\frac{\delta u_r}{r}+\frac{2}{r}\delta u_r+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\delta v_\theta }{\theta }+\frac{1}{r}\mathrm{cot}\theta \delta v_\theta +\frac{m}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }\delta w_\phi =0,$$
(26)
$$\frac{1}{\rho _0}\frac{\delta p}{r}\frac{\delta \varphi }{r}+m\mathrm{\Omega }\delta u_r+2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta w_\phi =\sigma \delta u_r,$$
(27)
$$\frac{1}{\rho _0}\frac{1}{r}\frac{\delta p}{\theta }\frac{1}{r}\frac{\delta \varphi }{\theta }+m\mathrm{\Omega }\delta v_\theta +2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta w_\phi =\sigma \delta v_\theta ,$$
(28)
$$\frac{1}{\rho _0}\frac{m\delta p}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }+\frac{m}{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }\delta \varphi +2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta u_r+2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta \delta v_\theta +m\mathrm{\Omega }\delta w_\phi =\sigma \delta w_\phi .$$
(29)
#### 3 Compatibility conditions

Instead of solving the basic equations derived above, we make use of the compatibility relations among the equations of motion, in particular, the compatibility equations between Eqs. (23) and (25) and between Eqs. (23) and (24) for $`N0`$ models or those between Eqs. (27) and (29) and between Eqs. (27) and (28) for $`N=0`$ models. They can be written both for $`N0`$ and $`N=0`$ cases as follows:

$`{\displaystyle \frac{2r\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta u_r}{r}}`$ $`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2r\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta }{m}}{\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\theta }{r}}+{\displaystyle \frac{r\mathrm{sin}\theta }{m}}(m\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{\delta w_\phi }{r}}`$ (31)
$`+\left[(m\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma )+{\displaystyle \frac{2}{m}}\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \right]\delta u_r+{\displaystyle \frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }}{m}}\mathrm{sin}\theta \mathrm{cos}\theta \delta v_\theta +(3\mathrm{\Omega }{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma }{m}})\mathrm{sin}\theta \delta w_\phi =0,`$
$`r(m\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{\delta v_\theta }{r}}+2r\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{cos}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\delta w_\phi }{r}}(m\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma ){\displaystyle \frac{\delta u_r}{\theta }}2\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta {\displaystyle \frac{\delta w_\phi }{\theta }}`$ (32)
$`+(m\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma )\delta v_\theta =0.`$ (33)
#### 4 Perturbed gravitational potential

The perturbed gravitational potential can be expressed by using the integral form as follows:

$`\delta \varphi =4\pi G{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(nm)!}{(n+m)!}}P_n^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta )P_n^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})`$ (34)
$`\times {\displaystyle _0^{r_s(\theta ^{})}}dr^{}r^2f_n(r,r^{})\delta \rho `$ (35)
$`4\pi G{\displaystyle \underset{n,m}{}}{\displaystyle _0^{\frac{\pi }{2}}}𝑑\theta ^{}\mathrm{sin}\theta ^{}{\displaystyle \frac{(nm)!}{(n+m)!}}P_n^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta )P_n^m(\mathrm{cos}\theta ^{})`$ (36)
$`\times f_n(r,r_s(\theta ^{}))\rho _0(r_s(\theta ^{}),\theta ^{})\delta r_s(\theta ^{}),`$ (37)
where $`r_s(\theta )`$ is the surface radius of the equilibrium configuration and $`\delta r_s`$ is the change of the surface. Here, functions $`f_n(r,r^{})`$ are defined as

$$f_n(r,r^{})=\{\begin{array}{cc}\frac{1}{r}(\frac{r^{}}{r})^n\hfill & (r^{}<r),\hfill \\ \frac{1}{r^{}}(\frac{r}{r^{}})^n\hfill & (r^{}r),\hfill \end{array}$$
(38)
and $`P_n^m`$’s are associated Legendre polynomials.

It is noted that the boundary conditions for the gravitational potential, i.e. regularity condition throughout the space and the flatness at infinity, are automatically included in this integral representation.

#### 5 Boundary conditions on the stellar surface

Since the perturbed gas must flow along the perturbed surface, the boundary condition for the flow velocity on the surface (for $`N0`$ configurations) or that for the surface (for $`N=0`$ configurations) can be expressed as follows:

$$\frac{\rho _0}{r}\delta u_r+\frac{1}{r}\frac{\rho _0}{\theta }\delta v_\theta +(m\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma )\delta \rho =0,$$
(39)
for $`N0`$ polytropes, or

$$\delta u_r+\frac{\delta v_\theta }{r_s}\frac{dr_s}{d\theta }+(m\mathrm{\Omega }\sigma )\delta r_s=0,$$
(40)
for $`N=0`$ polytropes.

For $`N=0`$ polytropes, since the unknown quantity $`\delta r_s`$ has to be solved in addition to other physical quantities, we need to include the following relation which is satisfied on the surface:

$$\delta p_s=\left(\frac{p_0}{r}\right)|_s\delta r_s=\rho _0\left[\left(\frac{\varphi _0}{r}\right)r_s\mathrm{sin}^2\theta \mathrm{\Omega }^2\right]|_s\delta r_s.$$
(41)
#### 6 Solving scheme

Our basic equations and boundary conditions are Eqs. (22), (25), (31), (33), and (39) for $`N0`$ polytropes and Eqs. (26), (29), (31), (33), (40), and (41) for $`N=0`$ polytropes, although we will not show the results for $`N=0`$ polytropes in this paper.

In order to handle the surface boundary conditions as precisely as possible, we introduce surface–fitted coordinates as follows (see e.g. ):

$`r^{}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{r}{r_s(\theta )}},`$ (42)
$`\theta ^{}`$ $``$ $`\theta .`$ (43)
We choose equidistantly spaced mesh points on the $`r^{}`$\- and $`\theta ^{}`$-coordinates. The basic equations expressed in the new coordinate system are discretized on these mesh points. The derivatives with respect to $`r^{}`$ and $`\theta ^{}`$ are replaced by the central difference scheme with the second order accuracy for the most mesh points except for those near the surface and the equatorial plane. The derivatives with respect to $`r^{}`$ near the surface and those with respect to $`\theta ^{}`$ near the equator are replaced by difference schemes with higher order accuracy.

Instead of solving the eigenvalue problem directly, we add one more condition to the basic equations of the system and solve for all the unknown quantities simultaneously by using the Newton-Raphson iteration scheme. Since we focus only on the classical r-mode in this paper, we adopt the following condition as the additional equation:

$$\delta v_\theta =1.0,\text{on the equatorial surface}.$$
(44)
## III Numerical Results

We have computed equilibrium sequences of uniformly rotating polytropes with $`N=0.5,1.0`$ and $`1.5`$ by starting from spherical models to terminal models which are configurations just before shedding mass from the equatorial surface. By using these equilibrium models, classical r-mode oscillations for $`m=2,3`$ and $`4`$ modes have been solved and eigenfrequencies and eigenfunctions have been obtained. In the actual numerical computations, the mesh number in $`(r^{},\theta ^{})`$ coordinates is the same as that used in obtaining the equilibrium configurations, i.e. $`(r^{}\times \theta ^{})=(32\times 11)`$.

### A Eigenfrequencies and eigenfunctions of the r-mode oscillations

In Figs. 1–3, the eigenvalue of the $`m=2`$ r-mode is plotted against the dimensionless angular velocity of the equilibrium configurations for $`N=1.0,1.5.`$ and $`0.5`$ polytropes, respectively. In these figures, the eigenfrequency $`\sigma `$ is normalized by using the angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and the angular velocity is normalized as $`\mathrm{\Omega }/\sqrt{4\pi G\rho _c}`$. Here $`\rho _c`$ is the central density of the star.

Since classical r-mode oscillations of polytropes have been investigated by using the slow rotation approximation to the third order of the angular velocity in , we can compare our results with theirs. As seen from these figures except Fig. 3, the relative errors between the numerical results and those of the approximate results are 0.4% for the slowest configurations. It is natural that for rather rapid rotational models difference becomes larger because the assumption of slow rotation is violated.

Fig. 4 shows the eigenfrequencies of $`N=1.0`$ rotating polytropes for different values of $`m`$. From this figure, it is clear that the behaviors of the eigenfrequency along the rotational sequence for different values of $`m`$ are almost the same. This is also found for $`N=0`$ incompressible configurations, i.e. for Maclaurin spheroids . In Fig. 5, the eigenfrequencies of $`N=0.5,1.0`$ and $`1.5`$ polytropes for $`m=3`$ perturbations are plotted.

In Figs. 6–7, we have plotted the profile of the perturbed quantities, ($`\delta u_r`$, $`\delta v_\theta `$, $`\delta w_\phi `$, $`\delta \rho `$), against the radial distance normalized by the stellar radius, i.e. $`r^{}`$. Figs. 6 and 7 display the distributions of the r-mode oscillation of the polytropes with $`N=1.0`$ for $`r_p/r_e=0.99`$ and $`r_p/r_e=0.71`$ models, respectively. Here $`r_p`$ and $`r_e`$ are the polar radius and the equatorial radius, respectively.

### B CFS instability

In order to analyze the stability due to dissipative mechanisms such as gravitational radiation and viscosity, there are several schemes to include the dissipative forces. A direct method is to solve the perturbed equations of motion in which the forces due to gravitational radiation and viscosity are taken into account . Another method is to evaluate the time scales of the system change due to gravitational radiation and viscosity  (see also ). Although two methods are essentially the same, the formulation of the latter method is very simple. Thus in this paper we will follow the Ipser-Lindblom method.

In their method, the time derivative of the energy of the oscillation mode plays an important role. The energy of the mode, $`E(t)`$, as measured in the rotating frame can be expressed as

$$E(t)=\frac{1}{2}\left[\rho _0\delta v^a\delta v_a^{}+\left(\frac{\delta p}{\rho _0}\delta \varphi \right)\delta \rho ^{}\right]d^3x,$$
(45)
where  represents complex conjugation. From this definition and by using the perturbed continuity, the perturbed equations of motion with the dissipative forces and the perturbed Poisson’s equation, we can get the following expression for the time derivative of the mode energy in the rotating frame:

$$\frac{dE}{dt}\frac{dE_{gr}}{dt}+\frac{dE_s}{dt}+\frac{dE_b}{dt},$$
(46)
where

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_{gr}}{dt}}`$ $``$ $`\sigma (\sigma m\mathrm{\Omega }){\displaystyle \underset{l2,lm}{}}N_l\sigma ^{2l}\left(\left|\delta D_{lm}\right|^2+\left|\delta J_{lm}\right|^2\right),`$ (47)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_s}{dt}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle 2\eta \delta \sigma ^{ab}\delta \sigma _{ab}^{}d^3x},`$ (48)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{dE_b}{dt}}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \zeta \left|\delta \mathrm{\Theta }\right|^2d^3x}.`$ (49)
Here $`N_l,D_{lm},J_{lm},\eta ,\zeta ,\sigma _{ab}`$ and $`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ are a coupling constant, the mass multipole, the mass current multipole, the coefficient of shear viscosity, the coefficient of bulk viscosity, the shear and the expansion, respectively. They are defined as:

$`N_l`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{4\pi G}{c^{2l+1}}}{\displaystyle \frac{(l+1)(l+2)}{l(l1)[(2l+1)!!]^2}},`$ (50)
$`D_{lm}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle r^l\rho Y_l^md^3x},`$ (51)
$`J_{lm}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{c}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{l+1}}{\displaystyle r^l(\rho \stackrel{}{v})(\stackrel{}{r}\times Y_l^m)d^3x},`$ (52)
$`\sigma _{ab}`$ $``$ $`_{(a}v_{b)}{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Theta }}{3}}\delta _{ab},`$ (53)
$`\mathrm{\Theta }`$ $``$ $`_cv^c,`$ (54)
where $`c`$ is the speed of light and a round bracket in the subscript means symmetrization among indices.

For slowly rotating Newtonian stars, the eigenfrequency to the first order of the angular velocity is expressed as

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{slow}}=\left(m\frac{2m}{l(l+1)}\right)\mathrm{\Omega }.$$
(55)
From this eigenfrequency for slowly rotating Newtonian stars, the coefficient of the energy dissipation rate due to gravitational radiation Eq. (47), i.e. the first term in the righthand side of Eq. (46), becomes positive as follows:

$$\sigma _{\mathrm{slow}}(\sigma _{\mathrm{slow}}m\mathrm{\Omega })=\frac{2m^2(l1)(l+2)}{l^2(l+1)^2}\mathrm{\Omega }^2>0.$$
(56)
Consequently, since the time derivative of the energy dissipation due to gravitational radiation becomes positive, gravitational radiation makes the system unstable by growing the perturbation.

On the other hand, as seen from the second and third terms in the righthand side of Eq. (46), viscosity works as a stabilizing factor for the system. Therefore, if we compare the time scale of gravitational radiation and that of viscosity, we will be able to conclude the stability of the system.

The time scale of the system change due to dissipation can be defined as the inverse of the imaginary part of the mode eigenfrequency, $`\tau _r`$ as follows:

$$\frac{1}{\tau _r}=\frac{\dot{E}_{gr}+\dot{E}_s+\dot{E}_b}{2E}\frac{1}{\tau _{gr}}+\frac{1}{\tau _s}+\frac{1}{\tau _b},$$
(57)
where $`\dot{}=d/dt`$. Positive values of $`\tau _r^1`$ imply that the effect of gravitational radiation emission overcomes the stabilization effect due to viscosity. In other words, the system is in an unstable state. Therefore, the critical condition which divides stable and unstable configurations can be defined by the following equation:

$$\frac{1}{\tau _r}=0.$$
(58)
In order to evaluate the time scales we need to know the viscosity coefficients at high density regions. As for the origin of the viscosity, we adopt the same mechanisms as . The shear viscosity is owing to neutron-neutron or electron-electron collisions in the neutron matter when the temperature of the star is not so high. On the other hand, for high temperature regions, the bulk viscosity which is due to the energy generation caused by compression of the neutron star matter because the time scale to balance between $`\beta `$-decay and inverse $`\beta `$-decay is longer than that of the dynamical perturbed motion of the star is dominant. The coefficients of each viscosity are written as follows :

$`\eta _{nn}`$ $`=`$ $`2.0\times 10^{18}\rho _{15}^{9/4}T_9^2\text{g}\text{cm}^1\text{s}^1,`$ (59)
$`\eta _{ee}`$ $`=`$ $`6.0\times 10^{18}\rho _{15}^2T_9^2\text{g}\text{cm}^1\text{s}^1,`$ (60)
$`\zeta `$ $`=`$ $`6.0\times 10^{25}\rho _{15}^2(\sigma m\mathrm{\Omega })^2T_9^6\text{g}\text{cm}^1\text{s}^1,`$ (61)
where

$`\rho _{15}`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{\rho }{10^{15}\text{g}\text{cm}^3}},`$ (63)
$`T_9`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{T}{10^9\text{K}}}.`$ (64)
For lower temperature regions, we need to consider only electron-electron collisions for the coefficient of shear.

### C Evolution of hot young neutron stars

In this paper we will choose the polytropic constant $`K`$ so that the mass and the radius of the star become $`M=1.4M_{}`$ and $`R12.5`$km in the spherical limit. We will call this star a canonical neutron star. If we specify the polytropic index, the value of the polytropic constant $`K`$ is uniquely determined.

#### 1 Critical curve for the r-mode instability

The critical condition (58) depends on the structure of the unperturbed configuration, the eigenfunctions of the perturbed state, the eigenfrequency and the temperature. Since we assume the polytropic relation for the canonical neutron stars and consider only classical r-modes, the structure of the equilibrium state, the eigenfunctions and the eigenfrequency are all determined by specifying the angular velocity in addition to the polytropic index $`N`$ and the mode number $`m`$. Thus the critical condition can be considered to be a function of the angular velocity and the temperature as well as $`N`$ and $`m`$. In other words, once we specify the values of $`N`$ and $`m`$, the critical condition can be expressed as a critical curve on the temperature – rotational frequency plane.

#### 2 ‘Evolutionary’ curve for the stellar spin

It is not easy to follow realistic evolution of neutron stars by considering the effect of gravitational loss and viscosity as well as the effect of cooling due to neutrino loss. Thus we will choose a different approach.

Once cooling mechanisms are specified, we can estimate cooling time scales of the neutron star. In this paper, we assume that the standard modified URCA process is dominant in the initial stage of the neutron star formation . For this process, the effective cooling time scale is a function of the stellar temperature and defined by

$$\tau _{\mathrm{cool}}=\left[\frac{d\mathrm{ln}T_9}{dt}\right]^1=\frac{6t_c}{T_9^6},$$
(65)
where $`t_c`$ is a cooling time for the modified URCA process, typically $``$ 1y.

Since the neutron stars evolve due to radiation of gravitational wave and neutrino loss, we can define a critical state where the time scales of two mechanisms are the same as follows:

$$\tau _r=\tau _{\mathrm{cool}}.$$
(66)
Since this state is also a function of the rotational frequency and the temperature if $`N`$ and $`m`$ are specified, we can draw an ‘evolutionary’ curve of the stellar spin, whose meaning is made clear in the following discussion, on the rotational frequency–temperature plane.

#### 3 Spin evolution of canonical neutron stars

In Figs. 8–12, critical curves for the classical r-modes instability are drawn in the rotational frequency, $`f`$, and the temperature plane for different values of $`N`$ and $`m`$. Above these solid curves, the instability due to gravitational wave emission overcomes the stabilizing effect of viscosity and consequently neutron stars become unstable.

In these figures, the evolutionary curves of the stellar spin are also shown by dashed curves. Above these curves, cooling time scale of each cooling mechanism is longer than the instability time scale. It implies that in this region the neutron stars evolve nearly downwards by losing the angular momentum but keeping the temperature constant. In the region below these curves, the stars sweep leftwards due to neutrino loss by keeping the rotational frequency almost constant.

Suppose we fix a cooling mechanism of the star. It is certain that neutron stars are born with high temperature with $`T10^{11}`$ K. Concerning the rotational frequency of the newly born neutron stars, they may not rotate so rapidly compared with the rotational frequency of the Kepler limit  but may rotate with certain rotational frequencies above the minimum value of the critical curve. It implies that such newly born neutron stars are clearly located below the critical curve at the right side of the $`T`$$`f`$ plane. Since this region is also below the evolutionary curve, cooling stars move almost horizontally to leftwards on this plane.

During the evolution due to cooling, the stars come to and cross the critical curve. Once they come into the regions above the critical curve, the r-mode instability due to gravitational radiation loss starts working significantly. As a result, the stars would evolve downwards vertically. However, the stars are still located below the evolutionary curve and the time scale of cooling is smaller than that of the instability. Therefore, due to this cooling effect, the stars move to leftwards almost horizontally on the plane. Eventually the stars go across the evolutionary curve. As soon as they cross the curve, the instability works efficiently and the stars move downwards vertically. If they cross the evolutionary curve once more, the cooling effect becomes dominant again and the stars will evolve horizontally. Consequently we can consider that the stars evolve almost along the evolutionary curve of the cooling mechanism being considered. In this sense we can regard the evolutionary curves as curves along which the spin evolution of a cooling star takes place.

As seen from Figs. 8–12, the evolutionary curves are located above the critical curves. This means that the evolution mentioned above will come to an end because they go out of the unstable region of the gravitational radiation and reach the lower left part of the $`T`$$`f`$ plane. Consequently, the neutron stars will settle down to the states with the rotational frequencies corresponding to the minimum values of the corresponding evolutionary curve for each cooling channel.

In Figs. 8–10, we show the critical and evolutionary curves for $`m=2`$, $`m=3`$ and $`m=4`$ modes, respectively. From these figures, the minimum values of critical curves are about 100Hz, 200Hz, and 300Hz for the $`m=2`$, $`m=3`$, and $`m=4`$, respectively. Therefore we can see that the instability of the $`m=2`$ mode dominates other modes with higher values of $`m`$.

In Figs. 11–12, we show the critical and evolutionary curves of polytropes with $`N=0.5`$ and $`N=1.5`$ for the $`m=2`$ r-mode. These results are almost the same as the result of $`N=1.0`$ polytropes. It means that the classical r-mode instability depends little on the compressibility. This agrees with the result of  in which they conclude that the instability is insensitive to the equation of state. In particular, the smallest values of the rotational frequency of the critical curves seem to be determined uniquely irrespective of the polytropic index as far as the value of $`m`$ is the same. Thus we can conclude that neutron stars will settle down to states with a unique rotational frequency, i.e. around 100Hz.

As a summary, neutron stars which are born with high temperature ($`10^{11}K`$) and rather rapid rotational frequency (a few times of 100Hz) will be spun down to about 100Hz by the effect of the gravitational instability on a quite short time scale.

## IV Discussion

In this paper we have developed a new numerical method for solving the r-mode oscillations of rapidly rotating compressible stars. By using the obtained eigenfrequencies and eigenfunctions, we have calculated the condition for occurrence of the gravitational radiation induced instability. By combining the cooling of the neutron stars and the instability, we have confirmed the evolutionary scenario of hot young neutron stars proposed from the slow rotation approximation, in particular, considerable spin down of the neutron stars with rather high rotation rates of initial spins on a very short time scale (e.g. ). The shortness of the spin down time scale implies that this mechanism would, effectively, result in “birth of slowly rotating neutron stars” because it would be difficult to observe the very initial stage with rather high rotational frequencies during one or so years just after the formation of neutron stars. This might be the reason of observational data of nonexistence of pulsars with very short initial spin periods .

It should be noted that our analysis has been carried out under some restricted assumptions. First, we have formulated the problem in the framework of Newtonian gravity. In order to get quantitatively correct values we have to use general relativity, although it is considerably difficult to solve oscillations of not only the matter but also the gravitational field. At the moment, no one has succeeded in treating the perturbations of the gravitational field of axisymmetric configurations except obtaining neutral points for f-mode oscillations . Concerning the r-mode oscillations in general relativity, there arises another problem. Since there is the frame dragging, the effective angular velocity cannot be uniform any more. Some authors suggest that this may make the problem a singular eigenvalue problem  (see also ).

Second, we have to treat the realistic equation of state for the neutron star matter instead of simplified equations of state such as polytropes. However, as has been known from the slow rotation approximation  and as we have shown for rapidly rotating models in this paper, there arise little differences of the oscillations of polytropes with different polytropic indices. Therefore, even if we treat the realistic equation of state, the situation would not change drastically as far as the classical r-modes are concerned.

Third, there is some uncertainty about the cooling process. Although the modified URCA process has been taken as the standard mechanism of the neutron star cooling, there are some other mechanisms which would contribute to cooling of neutron stars. Therefore, we have computed evolutionary curves by introducing several possible cooling mechanisms. Fig. 13 shows such curves for several cooling processes: the neutrino bremsstrahlung, the quark $`\beta `$ decay, the pion condensation, and the direct URCA cooling model, beside the modified URCA process. In our calculations, the time scale of the direct URCA process is taken from  and those of other processes are taken from  (see also ). As seen from this figure, other cooling mechanisms give obviously different evolutionary curves or “evolutionary paths”. Concerning the minimum values of the evolutionary curves, however, differences among different cooling processes are rather small. In other words, the final rotational frequencies depend weakly on the cooling mechanisms. Consequently the final rotational frequencies would be around 50 $``$ 180Hz as far as the scenario mentioned above works for the hot young neutron stars.

Fourth, the assumption that neutron stars rotate uniformly is also uncertain. Since we are dealing with the very beginning of the neutron star formation stages, newly born neutron stars may rotate differentially, although they will soon settle down to uniform rotation on a time scale of several years. The r-mode oscillations of differentially rotating stars are another problem. There may arise a corotation point within the star and the similar problem as that in general relativity needs to be solved.

In addition to these problems, we have to discuss the following crucial issues which may play a more important role in realistic formation and evolution of neutron stars than the above mentioned things.

The superfluidity is one of the most important but poorly understood physics about the realistic neutron stars. Some authors (e.g. ) have suggested that the effect of the superfluid might suppress the r-mode instability completely in the low temperature regions, while other authors have assumed that this effect might not be strong enough  (see also ). In this paper, we assume that the superfluidity will not work effectively. In fact, since the realistic neutron star matter cannot be examined by any present experiments on the earth, the only way to estimate this effect may be the comparison between the theoretical works and the observational data.

The existence of a solid crust may be another important factor for the r-mode instability. Bildsten & Ushomirsky  have suggested that the existence of the solid crust whose thickness is $``$ 1 km would work as a stabilizing factor of the r-mode instability and that the minimum rotational frequency might be 40% of that of the Kepler limit. However, it is not clear whether or not the solid crust has formed only in a year or so from the formation of the neutron star. Furthermore, it is uncertain about the transition region from the fluid to the solid. Thus we have not taken the effect of the crust into our considerations in this paper.

The most important factor concerning the neutron star evolution may be the presence of the magnetic field. There is a high possibility that hot young neutron stars might spin down by the effect of the magnetic field and/or that neutron stars might be born with rather slow rotation rates because the angular momentum is transferred by the effect of the magnetic field from the core to the envelope during the evolution of the massive stars (e.g. ). Inclusion of magnetic fields may change the r-mode characteristics itself. For instance, magnetic braking may enhance the instability by increasing the amplitude of the mode . Also suggested is that the CFS instability by the Alfvén wave radiation may exist for stars with strong magnetic fields. On the other hand it is argued  that the drifting fluid motion produced by the r-mode may generate strong toroidal magnetic fields. This may suppress the growth of the r-mode amplitude. Therefore, the realistic evolution of the neutron stars have to be studied by including the r-mode instability as well as the effect of magnetic fields in the future.


format: text

text:
# On the genus of a maximal curve

## 1. Introduction

An $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve $`𝒳`$ of genus $`g`$ is defined to be a projective, geometrically irreducible, non-singular algebraic curve defined over $`𝐅_{q^2}`$ such that the number of its $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational points attains the Hasse-Weil upper bound, namely

$$\mathrm{\#}𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})=q^2+1+2qg.$$

$`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves especially those with large genus are currently investigated also in connection with coding theory and cryptography based on Goppa’s method \[30, Ch. 4, Sect. 7\]. It is well known that $`gq(q1)/2`$, see , and that $`g`$ reaches this upper limit if and only if $`𝒳`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic to the Hermitian curve, see . In  it is proven that

(1.1)
$$\text{either}g(q1)^2/4,\text{or}g=q(q1)/2.$$

For $`q`$ odd, $`g=(q1)^2/4`$ occurs if and only if $`𝒳`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic to the non-singular model of the plane curve of equation $`y^q+y=x^{(q+1)/2}`$, see \[15, Thm. 3.1\]. For $`q`$ even, a similar result is obtained in  under an extra-condition that $`𝒳`$ has a particular Weierstrass point: $`g=(q1)^2/4=q(q2)/4`$ if and only if $`𝒳`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic to the non-singular model of the plane curve of equation $`y^{q/2}+\mathrm{}+y^2+y=x^{q+1}`$. These results together with some evidences coming from , ,  make it plausible that only few $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves can have genus close to the upper limit. As a matter of fact, in the range

$$(q1)(q3)/8g<(q1)^2/4,$$

only twelve examples up to $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphisms are known to exist and the spectrum of their genera is listed below:

1. $`g=(q^2q+4)/6`$ for $`q0,1,2(mod3)`$, see Remark 3.4;
2. $`g=(q^2q2)/6`$ for $`q2(mod3)`$, see \[12, Thm. 6.2\] or \[21, Thm. 5.1\];
3. $`g=((q1)(q2)/6`$ for $`q0,2(mod3)`$, see the case $`N=4`$ in (2.8), and Sect. 4.1;
4. $`g=(q^22q+5)/8`$ for $`q0,1,3(mod4)`$, see Remark 4.10;
5. $`g=(q1)(q3)/8`$ for $`q0,1,3(mod4)`$, see the case $`N=5`$ in (2.8), and Sect. 4.2.

Theorem 3.1 in this paper together with (1.1) prove the following result, see Corollary 3.3:

(1.2)
$$\text{either}g(q^2q+4)/6,\text{or}g=(q1)^2/4,\text{or}g=q(q1)/2.$$

This result is the best possible since the upper bound in (1.2) cannot be improved as it is attained by the curves cited in (I) for every $`q`$. In other words the third largest genus of an $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve equals $`g=(q^2q+4)/6`$ independently of $`q`$; by contrast, the fourth largest genus might heavily depend on $`q`$. The above examples also show that the gap between the first and second as well as the second and third largest genus is approximately constant times $`q^2`$, while the gap between the third and forth is only $`1`$ for $`q2(mod3)`$, and at most constant times $`q`$ for $`q0(mod3)`$.

The essential idea of the proof of Theorem 3.1 is to show that every $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of genus $`g>(q^2q+4)/6`$ has a non-singular model $`𝒳`$ over $`𝐅_{q^2}`$ embedded in $`𝐏^3(\overline{𝐅}_{q^2})`$ such that $`𝒳`$ has degree $`q+1`$ and lies on an $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational quadratic cone $`𝒬`$ whose vertex $`V`$ belongs to $`𝒳`$. This idea will be worked out using the “natural embedding theorem”, see \[37, Thm. 2.5\], together with Weierstrass point theory, Castelnuovo’s genus bound, Halphen’s theorem and some other tools. Actually, for $`q`$ even the vertex $`V`$ is a particular $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational Weierstrass point of $`𝒳`$, since the order-sequence of $`𝒳`$ at $`V`$ (i.e. the possible intersection numbers of $`𝒳`$ with hyperplanes at $`V`$) turns out to be $`(0,1,(q+2)/2,q+1)`$. Similarly for $`q`$ odd, an $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational Weierstrass point with order-sequence $`(0,1,(q+1)/2,q+1)`$ is shown to exist. An $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational point of $`𝒳`$ with such a particular order-sequence forces $`𝒳`$ to have genus $`(q1)^2/4`$ as noticed in \[37, Remark 2.6(1)\]. Then, the already quoted characterization theorems from , and  will be applied to complete the proof of Theorem 3.1. It should be noted that Theorem 3.1 improves both \[17, Prop. 2.5\] and the main result in .

Curves with genera as in (III) and (V) above turn out be extremal in $`𝐏^4(\overline{𝐅}_{q^2})`$ and in $`𝐏^5(\overline{𝐅}_{q^2})`$ respectively, as such genera are Castelnuovo’s numbers $`c_0(q+1,r)`$, $`r=4,5`$, see (2.1). Extremal curves in zero characteristic have been widely investigated, see, for instance,  and the references therein. Several relevant properties of extremal curves are known to hold true in positive characteristic thanks to Rathmann’s work  (see also ). For the present purpose, the key result on extremal curves is Lemma 2.3 stated in Sect. 2.1. Indeed, this lemma together with other results will give both the non-existence of $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves of genus $`(q1)(q2)/3`$ for $`q1(mod3)`$, and a characterization of a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve with such a genus for $`q2(mod3)`$, $`q11`$; see Theorem 4.5. Under two additional hypotheses, namely the curve is naturally embedded in $`𝐏^5(\overline{𝐅}_{q^2})`$ and $`char(𝐅_{q^2})5`$, the aforementioned key result will also be an essential ingredient in characterizing $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves of genus $`(q1)(q3)/8`$ for $`q1,3(mod4)`$, $`q11`$; see Theorem 4.9. This theorem is related to a previous characterization of plane $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves of degree $`(q+1)/2`$ stated in . Also, in view of the results in Sect. 4.1 and \[2, Proof of Prop. 2.4\], it seems plausible that any two $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves of genus $`q(q3)/6`$ for $`q0(mod3)`$ are $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic. On the contrary, due to the examples in \[1, Sect. 5\], no similar result for curves of genus $`q(q4)/8`$, $`q0(mod4)`$ can hold. For a further interesting question related to these matters, see Remark 2.14.

The genera in (I) and (IV) above coincide with Halphen’s number $`c_1(q+1,r)`$, $`r=3,4`$, see (2.2). Extensions of results around Halphen’s theorem from zero characteristic to positive characteristic are also possible again by Rathmann’s work  and Ballico’s paper . Unfortunately, we do not have so far a classification theorem for $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves with such genera. What we currently know in this direction is that extremal curves lie on special surfaces such as scrolls, see e.g. \[4, Ch. III, Thm. 2.5\], and that curves with enough large degree and genus equal to Halphen’s number are Cohen-Macaulay curves lying on Castelnuovo surfaces, see the main theorem in . These facts together with the general form of the above mentioned “natural embedding theorem” stating that every $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve is naturally embedded in a high-dimensional projective space over $`𝐅_{q^2}`$ as a curve of degree $`q+1`$ contained in a Hermitian variety of degree $`q+1`$, see \[37, Thm. 3.4\], seem to be a good starting point of a classification project for such $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves.

Finally, we stress that (1.2) provides evidence for the following conjecture.

###### Conjecture.

With notation as in (2.1) and (2.2), there is no $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of genus $`g`$ such that

$$c_1(q+1,r)<g<c_0(q+1,r).$$

## 2. Background

Our purpose in this section is to recall some results concerning upper bounds on the genus of curves, Weierstrass Point Theory and Frobenius orders as well as some results on maximal curves.

Convention. The word curve will mean a projective, geometrically irreducible, non-singular algebraic curve.

### 2.1. Castelnuovo’s genus bound and Halphen’s theorem

Throughout this sub-section, $`𝒳`$ denotes a curve defined over an algebraically closed field $`𝐅`$. Let $`𝒟`$ be an $`r`$-dimensional, $`r2`$, base-point-free linear series of degree $`d`$ defined on $`𝒳`$; $`𝒟`$ is assumed to be simple, that is $`𝒳`$ is birational to $`\pi (𝒳)`$, where $`\pi `$ denotes a morphism associated to $`𝒟`$. Castelnuovo showed that the genus $`g`$ of $`𝒳`$ is upper bounded by a function depending on $`r`$ and $`d`$. More precisely, let $`ϵ`$ be the unique integer with $`0ϵr2`$ and $`d1ϵ(mod(r1))`$, and define Castelnuovo’s number $`c_0(d,r)`$ by

(2.1)
$$c_0(d,r):=\frac{d1ϵ}{2(r1)}(dr+ϵ).$$

###### Lemma 2.1.

(Castelnuovo’s genus bound for curves in projective spaces, , \[4, p. 116\], \[33, IV, Thm. 6.4\], \[3, Thm. 3.3\], \[38, Cor. 2.8\])

$$gc_0(d,r,ϵ).$$

###### Remark 2.2.

$$c_0(d,r,ϵ)\{\begin{array}{cc}(d1(r1)/2)^2/2(r1)\hfill & \text{for }r\text{ odd,}\hfill \\ (d1(r1)/2)^21/4)/2(r1)\hfill & \text{for }r\text{ even.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Curves with genus equal to Castelnuovo’s number have several remarkable properties; see e.g. , \[14, Ch. 3\], \[4, Ch. 3, Sect. 2\]. We will use the following one, which is in fact implicitly contained in the proof of Castelnuovo’s genus bound taking into account the Riemann-Roch theorem; see e.g. \[3, p. 361 and Lemma 3.5\].

###### Lemma 2.3.

Assume $`g=c_0(d,r)`$, and define $`ϵ^{}`$ by $`d=m(r1)+ϵ^{}`$ with $`ϵ^{}\{2,\mathrm{},r\}.`$ If $`m2.`$, then:

1. the dimension of the linear series $`2𝒟`$ is $`3r1;`$
2. there exists a base-point-free $`(ϵ^{}2)`$-dimensional complete linear series $`𝒟^{}`$ of degree $`(ϵ^{}2)(m+1)`$ such that $`(m1)𝒟+𝒟^{}`$ is the canonical linear series.

The following theorem going back to Halphen improves Castelnuovo’s genus bound for certain curves in $`𝐏^3(𝐅)`$.

###### Lemma 2.4.

(Halphen’s theorem, \[31, Thm. 3.1\], \[14, Thm. 3.13\], ) Assume $`d7`$, and $`d=17`$ or $`d25`$ when $`char(𝐅)>0`$. If $`𝒳`$ is embedded in $`𝐏^3(𝐅)`$, then $`𝒳`$ lies on a quadric surface provided that

$$g>c_1(d,3):=(d^23d+6)/6.$$

###### Remark 2.5.

For a historical account of Halphen’s theorem, see \[33, p. 349\] or Introduction in  and . The proof in characteristic $`0`$ due to Eisenbud and Harris \[14, Thm. 3.13\] depends on the Uniform Position Principle applied to the generic hyperplane section of $`𝒳`$, and it still works verbatim in positive characteristic.

Halphen’s theorem extends to certain curves in $`𝐏^r(𝐅)`$ for $`r4`$, and it turns out to be very useful when one looks for a bound $`c_\alpha (d,r)`$ for the genus of a curve of degree $`d`$ in $`𝐏^r(𝐅)`$ not lying on any irreducible surface of degree less than $`r+\alpha 1`$. For our purpose, the smallest case $`\alpha =1`$ is needed:

###### Lemma 2.6.

(\[14, Thm. 3.22\], \[38, Cor. 2.8\]) Suppose that $`𝒳`$ is a curve in $`𝐏^r(𝐅)`$ of degree $`d`$ and genus $`g`$. Assume

$$d\{\begin{array}{cc}36r\hfill & \text{if }r6\text{,}\hfill \\ 288\hfill & \text{if }r=7\text{,}\hfill \\ 2^{r+1}\hfill & \text{if }r8\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

Then $`𝒳`$ lies on a surface of degree less than or equal to $`r1`$ provided that

(2.2)
$$g>c_1(d,r):=\frac{d1ϵ_1}{2r}(dr+ϵ_1+1)+\{\begin{array}{cc}0\hfill & \text{if }ϵ_1r2\hfill \\ 1\hfill & \text{if }ϵ_1=r1\hfill \end{array},$$

where $`ϵ_1`$ is the unique integer such that $`0ϵ_1r1`$ and $`d1ϵ_1(modr).`$

Notice that (2.2) for $`r=3`$ coincides with the formula in Lemma 2.4. A full account of results related to Halphen’s theorem is found in the already mentioned , , as well as in  and .

### 2.2. Weierstrass Point Theory and Frobenius orders

Our reference in this sub-section is Stöhr-Voloch’s paper . Let $`𝒳`$ be a curve defined over an algebraically closed field $`𝐅`$ of characteristic $`p`$, $`g`$ its genus, and $`𝒟`$ an $`r`$-dimensional, $`r1`$, simple base-point-free linear series of degree $`d`$ defined on $`𝒳`$. The $`(𝒟,P)`$-order sequence of $`P𝒳`$ is the strictly increasing sequence $`j_0(P)=0<j_1(P)<\mathrm{}<j_r(P)`$ enumerating the set $`\{v_P(D):D𝒟\}`$, with $`v_P(D)`$ being the weight of the divisor $`D`$ at $`P`$, see \[41, p. 3\]. If $`\pi `$ is a morphism associated to $`𝒟`$, then

$$𝒟=\{\pi ^{}(H):H\text{ hyperplane in }𝐏^r(𝐅)\},$$

and the $`(𝒟,P)`$-order sequence consists of all possible intersection numbers of $`𝒳`$ with hyperplanes at $`P`$ in the usual order whenever $`𝒳𝐏^r(𝐅)`$. Furthermore, the $`(𝒟,P)`$-order sequence is the same for all but finitely many points \[41, pp. 4-6\]. and each of the exceptional points is called a $`𝒟`$-Weierstrass point of $`𝒳`$. According to \[41, p. 6\], there exists a divisor $`R=R_𝒟`$ on $`𝒳`$, the so-called ramification divisor, with support consisting of all $`𝒟`$-Weierstrass points of $`𝒳`$ and degree

(2.3)
$$\mathrm{deg}(R)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{r}{}}ϵ_i(2g2)+(r+1)d,$$

where $`ϵ_0=0<ϵ_1=1<\mathrm{}<ϵ_r`$ is the $`𝒟`$-order sequence of $`𝒳`$, that is the $`(𝒟,P)`$-order sequence at a general (i.e. a non $`𝒟`$-Weierstrass) point $`P𝒳`$. It should be noted that the well known Weierstrass points of $`𝒳`$ appear in this context as the Weierstrass points of the canonical linear series on $`𝒳`$ in which case

$$H(P):=𝐍_0\{j_i(P)+1:i=0,\mathrm{},g1\}$$

is a numerical semigroup whose elements are called Weierstrass non-gaps at $`P`$. The strictly increasing sequence enumerating $`H(P)`$ is usually denoted by $`(m_i(P):i=0,1,\mathrm{})`$.

A general rule to compute the $`(𝒟,P)`$-orders and $`v_P(R)`$ is given by the following lemma.

###### Lemma 2.7.

(\[41, p. 5, Thm. 1.5\])

1. $`j_i(P)ϵ_i`$ for each $`P`$ and each $`i;`$
2. $`v_P(R)_{i=0}^r(j_i(P)ϵ_i),`$ and equality holds if and only if $`\mathrm{det}(\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{j_i(P)}{ϵ_k}\right))0(modp).`$

To every point $`P𝒳`$ there is attached the flag of osculating subspaces of $`𝐏^r(𝐅)`$ relative to a morphism $`\pi `$ associated to $`𝒟`$. For each $`i`$, $`0ir1`$, the $`i`$th osculating space $`L_i(P)`$ of $`𝒳`$ at $`P`$ (with respect to $`\pi `$) is the $`i`$-dimensional subspace in $`𝐏^r(𝐅)`$ defined as the intersection of all hyperplanes $`H`$ in $`𝐏^r(𝐅)`$ satisfying $`v_P(\pi ^{}(H))j_{i+1}(P)`$. Clearly, $`L_0(P)=\{\pi (P)\}L_1(P)\mathrm{}L_{r1}(P)`$. Also, $`L_i(P)`$ is uniquely determined by $`𝒟`$ up to projective equivalence because any two morphisms associated to $`𝒟`$ are projectively equivalent. We will refer to $`L_1(P)`$ and $`L_{r1}(P)`$ as the tangent line and osculating hyperplane of $`𝒳`$ at $`P`$, respectively.

###### Lemma 2.8.

(\[41, Proof of Thm. 1.1\]) Let $`H`$ be a hyperplane in $`𝐏^r(𝐅)`$, and $`i\{0,\mathrm{},r1\}`$. Then $`HL_i(P)`$ if and only if $`v_P(\pi ^{}(H))j_{i+1}(P)`$.

In the case where $`𝐅`$ is the algebraic closure of a finite field $`𝐅_{\mathrm{}}`$ with $`\mathrm{}`$ elements, and both $`𝒳`$ and $`𝒟`$ are defined over $`𝐅_{\mathrm{}}`$, one can also define the so-called $`𝐅_{\mathrm{}}`$-Frobenius divisor $`S=S_{𝒟,\mathrm{}}`$ associated do $`𝒟`$, see \[41, p. 9\], whose degree is given by

(2.4)
$$\mathrm{deg}(S)=\underset{i=0}{\overset{r1}{}}\nu _i(2g2)+(\mathrm{}+r)d,$$

where $`\nu =0<\mathrm{}<\nu _{r1}`$ is a suitable subsequence of the $`𝒟`$-order sequence \[41, Prop. 2.1\].

###### Lemma 2.9.

(\[41, Prop. 2.4(a), Cor. 2.6\])

$$v_P(S)\underset{i=1}{\overset{r}{}}(j_i(P)\nu _{i1})$$

provided that $`P𝒳(𝐅_{\mathrm{}})`$. In particular $`𝒳(𝐅_{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{Supp}(S).`$

### 2.3. $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves

Throughout this sub-section, $`𝒳`$ denotes an $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of genus $`g`$. Whenever concepts and results apply from previous sub-sections, the field $`𝐅`$ will be the algebraic closure $`\overline{𝐅}_{q^2}`$ of $`𝐅_{q^2}`$. A deep result depending on the zeta function is the so-called Fundamental Equivalence on divisors \[15, Cor.1.2\]:

(2.5)
$$qP+\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)(q+1)Q,P𝒳,Q𝒳(𝐅_{q^2}),$$

where $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳`$ denotes the Frobenius morphism on $`𝒳`$ relative to $`𝐅_{q^2}`$. As a consequence, $`𝒳`$ is equipped with the base-point-free linear series

$$𝒟_𝒳:=|(q+1)P_0|,P_0𝒳(𝐅_{q^2}),$$

which is independent of the choice of the point $`P_0`$ in $`𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, and has projective dimension $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)`$ at least 2. Note that (2.5) is equivalent to

(2.6)
$$\pi ^{}(L_{r1}(P))=qP+\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P),$$

$`\pi `$ being a morphism associated to $`𝒟_𝒳`$. Set $`N:=\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)`$. The following result shows that $`𝒳`$ has a non-singular model over $`𝐅_{q^2}`$ given by a curve in $`𝐏^N(\overline{𝐅}_{q^2})`$ of degree $`q+1`$.

###### Lemma 2.10.

(Natural embedding theorem, \[37, Thm. 2.5\], \[15, Prop. 1.9\]) The linear series $`𝒟_𝒳`$ is very ample; i.e. any morphism associated to $`𝒟_𝒳`$ is a close embedding. Equivalently, $`q`$ is a Weierstrass non-gap at any point of $`𝒳.`$

The natural embedding theorem together with Castelnuovo’s genus bound (Lemma 2.1) and its corollary stated in Remark 2.2 provide a very useful upper bound on the genus $`g`$ of $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves, namely

(2.7)
$$g\{\begin{array}{cc}(q(N1)/2)^2/2(N1)\hfill & \text{for odd }N\text{,}\hfill \\ (q(N1)/2)^21/4)/2(N1)\hfill & \text{for even }N\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

###### Corollary 2.11.

1. () $`gq(q1)/2;`$
2. (\[40, Prop. 3\]) If $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)3`$, then $`g(q1)^2/4;`$

We point out that Lemma 2.10 together with Corollary 2.11 yields the following lemma that strengthens the Rück-Stichtenoth’s characterization of the Hermitian curve

###### Lemma 2.12.

(\[17, Thm. 2.4\]) For a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve $`𝒳`$ of genus $`g`$, the following statements are equivalent:

1. $`g>(q1)^2/4;`$
2. $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=2;`$
3. $`𝒳`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic to the Hermitian curve of equation $`Y^qZ+YZ^q=X^{q+1};`$
4. $`g=q(q1)/2.`$

As a consequence, we have the following result

###### Corollary 2.13.

() The genus $`g`$ of a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve satisfies either

$$g(q1)^2/4\text{or}g=q(q1)/2.$$

###### Remark 2.14.

Castelnuovo’s number $`c_0(q+1,N)`$ in (2.1) is attained by an $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve in the cases $`qN2,0(mod(N1))`$. The existence of such a curve $`𝒳`$ is strongly related to the existence of a point $`P_1𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ such that $`m`$ is a Weierstrass non-gap at $`P_1`$ satisfying $`m(N1)q+1()`$. Since $`m_N(P_1)=q+1`$ and $`m_{N1}(P_1)=q`$ by Lemma 2.15(2), if $`m`$ is a Weierstrass non-gap at $`P_1`$, then $`m`$ must satisfy $`m(N1)q`$. Hence, property $`()`$ occurs when either $`m(N1)=q+1(_1)`$ or $`m(N1)=q(_2)`$. The smallest possibilities for $`N`$ are investigated in the sequel, namely $`N=3`$ in Sect. 3 while $`N\{4,5\}`$ in Sect. 4.

In case $`(_1)`$, $`g=c_0(q+1,N)=(q1)((q+1)/(N1)1)/2`$ by \[37, Remark 2.6(1)\]. There exists just one $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve (up to $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphism) satisfying $`(_1)`$, namely the non-singular $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-model of the plane curve of equation $`y^q+y=x^{(q+1)/(N1)}`$ \[15, Thm. 2.3\].

In case $`(_2)`$, $`g=c_0(q+1,N)=q(q(N1))/2(N1)`$ by \[37, Remark 2.6(1)\]. van der Geer and van der Vlugt, see \[26, Thm. 3.1\] and \[27, Remark 5.2\], by means of fibre product of certain Artin-Schreier $`p`$-extensions of the projective line showed that such curves do exist. Garcia and Stichtenoth, see \[20, Sect. V, Ex. E\], noticed that such curves admit a plane model of type

(2.8)
$$F(y)=f(x),$$

where $`F𝐅_{q^2}[Y]`$ is a $`p`$-linear polynomial of degree $`q/(N1)`$ whose linear coefficient is different from zero, and where $`f𝐅_{q^2}[X]`$ is a polynomial of degree $`q+1`$. Here $`P_1`$ is the unique point over $`x=\mathrm{}`$. For $`N1=p`$, see also \[18, Ex. 1.2\] and \[28, Prop. 3.5\]. Unlike the previous case, several pairwise non $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves satisfying $`(_2)`$ are known to exist; see \[1, Sect. 5\]. It has been conjectured \[15, p. 46\] that a plane $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-model for a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve satisfying $`(_2)`$ has equation of type (2.8) with $`f(x)=x^{q+1}`$. Conversely, the following question arises: Determine the polynomials $`F`$ and $`f`$ such that such that the plane curve of equation (2.8) has an $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal non-singular model. Examples of such curves arise for instance in , , and . Examples of $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves defined by (2.8), where either $`F`$ or $`f`$ are $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational functions, can be found in  and .

Finally, some results on Weierstrass Point Theory and Frobenius orders with respect to the linear series $`𝒟_𝒳`$. With the same notation as in Sect. 2.2, Lemma 2.10 together with (2.5) forces the first $`N`$ non-gaps at $`P𝒳`$ to have the following behaviour:

(2.9)
$$m_1(P)<\mathrm{}<m_{N1}(P)=q<m_N(P).$$

Furthermore,

###### Lemma 2.15.

(\[15, Thm. 1.4, Prop. 1.5(ii)(iii)\])

1. $`j_1(P)=1`$ for any $`P;`$ $`j_N(P)=q+1`$ if $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2}),`$ and $`j_N(P)=q`$ otherwise;
2. $`j_{Ni}(P)+m_i(P)=q+1`$ for $`i=0,\mathrm{},N,`$ provided that $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2});`$
3. $`qm_i(P)`$ is a $`(𝒟_𝒳,P)`$-order for $`i=0,\mathrm{},N1,`$ provided that $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2});`$
4. $`ϵ_N=\nu _{N1}=q;`$
5. $`\nu _1=1`$ if $`N3.`$

Then, we have one of the main features of the linear series $`𝒟_𝒳`$, namely

$$𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})\mathrm{Supp}(R_{𝒟_𝒳}).$$

###### Lemma 2.16.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of genus $`g`$. Set $`N:=\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)`$.

1. If $`𝒳`$ is hyperelliptic, then $`q2N2.`$
2. The curve $`𝒳`$ is hyperelliptic provided that either $`j_{N1}(P)=j_N(P)2`$ for $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, or $`j_{N1}(P)=j_N(P)1`$ otherwise.
3. If there exists $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ with $`j_{N1}(P)=j_N(P)1`$, then $`q=N1`$.

###### Proof.

If $`𝒳`$ is hyperelliptic, $`m_1(P)=g+1`$ at a general point $`P`$. Then from (2.9), $`m_{N1}(P)=g+N1=q`$ and so $`g=qN+1`$. On the other hand $`\mathrm{\#}𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})2(q^2+1)`$ and maximality of $`𝒳`$ yields $`2gq`$. From these computations (1) follows. Let $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ such that $`j_{N1}(P)\{q1,q\}`$. Then from Lemma 2.15(2) we have $`m_1(P)\{2,1\}`$ and so either $`𝒳`$ is hyperelliptic or $`m_N=N=q+1`$. Finally, let $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ such that $`j_{N1}(P)=q1`$. Then from (2.5), $`(q1)P+DqP+\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)`$ with $`P\mathrm{Supp}(D)`$, so that $`DP+\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)`$; i.e. $`𝒳`$ is hyperelliptic. ∎

###### Lemma 2.17.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve so that $`j_{N1}(P)=N1`$ for every point $`P𝒳`$, where $`N=\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)`$. Then

$$(N1)N(g1)=(q+1)(qN).$$

###### Proof.

The set of $`𝒟_𝒳`$-Weierstrass points of $`𝒳`$ coincides with the set of $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational points, and $`v_P(R_{𝒟_𝒳})=1`$ for $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$; cf. Lemmas 2.15(1), 2.7. Hence the result follows from (2.3) taking into account the maximality of $`𝒳`$. ∎

## 3. On maximal curves embedded in a quadric surface

The Rück-Stichtenoth theorem together with \[17, Thm. 2.4\], stated in the previous section as Lemma 2.12, gives a complete classification of $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves of genus $`g>(q1)^2/4`$. The objective of this section is to obtain a similar theorem valid for $`(q^2q+4)/6<g(q1)^2/4`$. Notation and terminology are the same as in Sect. 2.

###### Theorem 3.1.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of genus $`g`$, and $`\pi `$ a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-morphism associated to $`𝒟_𝒳`$. Assume $`q7`$. Then the following conditons are equivalent:

1. $`(q^2q+4)/6<g(q1)^2/4;`$
2. $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=3,`$ $`\pi (𝒳)`$ lies on a quadric surface in $`𝐏^3,`$ and $`g(q^22q+3)/6`$ whenever $`q3,5(mod6);`$
3. $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=3,\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=8,`$ and $`g(q^22q+3)/6`$ whenever $`q3,5(mod6);`$
4. $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=3`$ and there exists $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ such that $`j_2(P)=(q+1)/2`$ if $`q`$ is odd, or $`j_2(P)=(q+2)/2`$ otherwise;
5. $`𝒳`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic to the non-singular $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-model of either $`y^q+y=x^{(q+1)/2}`$ if $`q`$ is odd, or $`y^{q/2}+y^{q/4}+\mathrm{}+y^2+y=x^{q+1}`$ otherwise.
6. $`g=(q1)^2/4`$ if $`q`$ is odd or $`g=q(q2)/4`$ otherwise. In particular the genus $`g`$ equals Castelnuovo’s number $`c_0(q+1,3).`$

Under stronger hypotheses, this theorem was partially proved in \[17, Prop. 2.5\] for $`q`$ odd, and in  for $`q`$ even.

###### Remark 3.2.

For $`q=2,3,4,5`$ the spectrum of the genera of $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves is $`\{0,1\},\{0,1,3\},\{0,1,2,6\},\{0,1,2,3,4,10\}`$, respectively; see \[21, Remark 6.1\].

From Theorem 3.1 and Remark 3.2, Corollary 2.13 can be strengthen as follows:

###### Corollary 3.3.

The genus $`g`$ of a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve satisfies either

$$g(q^2q+4)/6\text{or}g=\frac{(q1)^2}{4}\text{or}g=(q1)q/2.$$

###### Remark 3.4.

$`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves of genus $`(q^2q+4)/6`$ do exist as the following examples show, see , \[13, Thm. 2.1\]:

1. If $`q2(mod3)`$, the non-singular $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-model of $`x^{(q+1)/3)}+x^{2(q+1)/3}+y^{q+1}=0`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal and has genus $`(q^2q+4)/6`$.
2. If $`q1(mod3)`$, the non-singular $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-model of $`y^qyx^{2(q1)/3}+x^{(q1)/3}=0`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal and has genus $`(q^2q)/6`$.
3. If $`q=p^t0(mod3)`$, the non-singular $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-model of $`y^q+y+(_{i=1}^tx^{q/p^i})^2=0`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal and has genus $`(q^2q)/6`$.

It may be that no further infinite family exists. Also, each of the above curves is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-covered by the Hermitian curve via a suitable morphism of degree $`3,`$ and it would be of interest to prove or disprove uniqueness of some (perhaps all) of these examples.

###### Remark 3.5.

In searching quantitative results for the number of $`𝐅_{\mathrm{}}`$-rational points of a curve of genus $`g`$, the maximum number $`N_{\mathrm{}}(g)`$ of $`𝐅_{\mathrm{}}`$-rational points on such curves play an important role; see e.g. . Corollary 3.3 excludes certain values for $`N_{q^2}(g)`$ whenever $`(q^2q+4)/6<g<(q1)^2/4`$ or $`(q1)^2/4<g<q(q1)/2`$. More precisely, for such values of $`g`$, we have $`N_{q^2}(g)<q^2+1+2qg`$. A similar resuly follows from Theorem 4.5(a). Hence from deeper results due to J.P. Serre and K. Lauter one can deduce $`N_{q^2}(g)q^2+1+2qgm`$, where $`m\{1,2,3\}`$, cf. . One can also obtain improvements on some entries in the tables of loc. cit. For instance, we have $`N_{64}(11)238`$, $`N_{81}(13)314`$, $`N_{81}(15)350`$, while the upper bounds in the tables are respectively 241, 316, 352. It should be noted that the above considerations will extend to a more general case, once the conjecture stated in the introduction has been proved.

In proving Theorem 3.1, we will need some technical results concerning $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal $`𝒳`$ with $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=3`$.

###### Lemma 3.6.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve with $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=3`$, and $`\pi `$ a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-morphism associated to $`𝒟_𝒳`$. Assume $`q4.`$

1. $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)8`$.
2. If $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=8`$, then $`\pi (𝒳)`$ lies on a quadric surface in $`𝐏^3(\overline{𝐅}_{q^2})`$.
3. The quadric surface $`𝒬`$ in part (2) is uniquely determinated by the property $`\pi (𝒳)𝒬`$, and it is defined over $`𝐅_{q^2}.`$

###### Proof.

(1) Let $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ and set $`m_i:=m_i(P)`$. From Lemma 2.15(2), $`m_2=q`$ and $`m_3=q+1`$. Then, as $`2m_1m_2=q`$ and $`q4`$, it is easy to see that there are at least 8 positive Weierstrass non-gaps in $`[m_1,2m_3]`$ and so $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)8`$.

(2) See \[33, p. 352\].

(3) If $`\pi (𝒳)`$ lies on $`𝒬`$, then $`\pi (𝒳)`$ also lies on $`𝐅r(𝒬)`$, where $`𝐅r`$ is the Frobenius collination on $`𝐏^3(\overline{𝐅}_{q^2})`$ relative to $`𝐅_{q^2}`$. Clearly $`𝒬=𝐅r(𝒬)`$ if and only if $`𝒬`$ is defined over $`𝐅_{q^2}`$. It this were not the case in our situation, then $`𝒳`$ would be contained in the intersection of two distinct quadrics, contradicting the hypothesis $`q+1=\mathrm{deg}(\pi (𝒳))4`$ by the Bézout theorem. ∎

###### Lemma 3.7.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve with $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=3`$, $`\pi `$ a morphism associated to $`𝒟_𝒳`$, and $`P𝒳`$. Suppose that $`\pi (𝒳)`$ lies on a quadric surface $`𝒬`$ in $`𝐏^3(\overline{𝐅}_{q^2})`$, and that $`q5`$. Then

1. $`j_2(P)\{2,j_3(P)/2,(j_3(P)+1)/2\};`$
2. $`j_2(P)>2`$ if and only if the tangent line $`L_1(P)`$ of $`𝒳`$ at $`P`$ lies on $`𝒬;`$
3. either $`q`$ is even, $`j_2(P)=q/2`$ and $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ or $`q`$ is odd, $`j_2(P)=(q+1)/2`$ and $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ provided that $`j_2(P)>2`$ and that $`𝒬`$ is non-singular at $`\pi (P).`$

###### Proof.

Set $`j_i:=j_i(P)`$, $`i=0,\mathrm{},3`$. Let $`x_0=1,x_1,x_2,x_3`$ be $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational functions on $`𝒳`$, such that $`v_P(x_i)=j_i`$. Up to a projective collineation in $`𝐏^3(\overline{𝐅}_{q^2})`$, we can assume $`\pi =(x_0:x_1:x_2:x_3)`$. Let $`(X_0,\mathrm{},X_3`$) be coordinates in $`𝐏^3(\overline{𝐅}_{q^2})`$ such that each $`x_i`$ is the pull-back via $`\pi `$ of $`X_i/X_0`$ restricted to $`\pi (𝒳)`$. Then $`\pi (P)=(1:0:0:0)`$ and $`L_1(P)`$ is given by $`X_2=X_3=0`$; see \[41, proof of Thm. 1.1\]. Let the quadric $`𝒬`$ have homogeneous equation

$`F(X_0,X_1,X_2,X_3)=`$ $`a_{00}X_0^2+a_{01}X_0X_1+a_{02}X_0X_2+a_{03}X_0X_3+a_{11}X_1^2+a_{12}X_1X_2+`$
$`a_{13}X_1X_3+a_{22}X_2^2+a_{23}X_2X_3+a_{33}X_3^2.`$
Then $`a_{00}=0`$ because of $`F(\pi (P))=0`$. Furthermore, $`x_1,x_2`$ and $`x_3`$ are related in the function field over $`\overline{𝐅}_{q^2}`$ of $`𝒳`$ by $`F(1,x_1,x_2,x_3)=0`$. In addition, the valuation at $`P`$ of the functions $`x_1,x_2,x_3,x_1^2,x_1x_2,x_1x_3,x_2^2,x_2x_3,x_3^2`$ are respectively

(3.1)
$$1,j_2,j_3,2,j_2+1,j_3+1,2j_2,j_3+j_2,2j_3.$$

Hence, $`a_{01}=0`$.

(1) $`j_2+1<j_3`$ by Lemma 2.16 and the hypothesis $`q5`$. So from the inequalities

$$2j_2<j_2+1<j_3<j_3+1<j_3+j_2<2j_3$$

and (3.1) we obtain part (1).

(2) We have from (3.1) that $`j_2>2`$ if and only if $`a_{11}=0`$. Now, as $`F(X_0,X_1,0,0)=a_{11}X_1^2`$, the last condition is equivalent to $`L_1(P)𝒬`$ and the result follows.

(3) If $`j_2>2`$, from the proof of part (1) we get $`a_{11}=a_{02}=a_{12}=0`$. An easy computation shows then that $`𝒬`$ is non-singular at $`\pi (P)`$ if and only if $`a_{03}0`$. Therefore $`2j_2=j_3`$, and the result follows from Lemma 2.15(1). ∎

###### Proposition 3.8.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve and $`\pi `$ a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-morphism associated to $`𝒟_𝒳`$. Suppose that $`q`$ is even, $`q>4`$, and that $`\pi (𝒳)`$ lies on a quadric $`𝒬`$ in $`𝐏^3(\overline{𝐅}_{q^2})`$. Then

1. $`𝒬`$ is a cone;
2. the vertex $`V`$ of $`𝒬`$ belongs to $`\pi (𝒳)`$; if $`V=\pi (\stackrel{~}{V})`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{V}𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ and $`j_2(\stackrel{~}{V})=(q+2)/2.`$

###### Proof.

General properties of quadrics of a $`3`$-dimensional projective space over a finite field can be found in . Here we will use the following properties: Let $`P𝒬`$ be a non-singular point of $`𝒬`$ and denote by $`T_P𝒬`$ the tangent plane of $`𝒬`$ at $`P`$.

* If $`P\pi (𝒳)`$, then $`T_P𝒬L_1(P)`$;
* Let $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_1`$ be lines such that $`P\mathrm{}𝒬`$, and $`\mathrm{}_1T_P𝒬`$. If $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1`$, then $`T_P𝒬`$ is generated by $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_1`$;
* There exist lines $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_1`$ such that $`P\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1`$, and $`𝒬T_P𝒬=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1`$;

If $`𝒬`$ is non-singular, then

* No two tangent hyperplanes of $`𝒬`$ at different points coincide.

To simplify our notation we shall identify $`𝒳`$ and $`\pi (𝒳)`$, according to Lemma 2.10.

(1) Since $`𝒳`$ is non-degenerate, $`𝒬`$ is irreducible. Then $`𝒬`$ is a cone if and only if $`𝒬`$ is singular, as this case can only occur when $`𝒬`$ has just one singular point.

Suppose that $`𝒬`$ is non-singular. Then from Lemma 3.7(3), $`j_2(Q)=2`$ for each $`Q𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$. Note that there exists $`P𝒳𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ such that $`j_2(P)>2`$; in fact, otherwise Lemma 2.17 would yield $`6(g1)=(q+1)(q3)`$; but then $`q`$ would be odd, a contradiction. Hence $`j_2(P)=q/2`$ by Lemma 3.7(3). Let $`Q_1𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$. We have $`Q_1L_1(P)`$, as $`𝒳L_1(P)𝒳L_2(P)=\{P,\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)\}`$ (cf. (2.6)), and hence the plane $`H=H_{Q_1}`$ generated by $`L_1(P)`$ and $`Q_1`$ is well defined. Then $`HL_2(P)`$, and the intersection divisor of $`𝒳`$ and $`H`$ becomes

(3.2)
$$𝒳H=\frac{q}{2}P+D,$$

where $`D=D_{Q_1}`$ is a divisor on $`𝒳`$ of degree $`(q+2)/2`$ with $`Q_1\mathrm{Supp}(D)`$, and $`P\mathrm{Supp}(D)`$. In addition, Lemma 3.7(2) assures the existence of a line $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_{Q_1}`$ such that

(3.3)
$$𝒬H=L_1(P)\mathrm{}.$$

Actually, the line $`\mathrm{}`$ is defined over $`𝐅_{q^2}`$. In fact, $`𝒬`$ is defined over $`𝐅_{q^2}`$ by Lemma 3.6(3), and $`Q_1𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})L_1(P)`$ implies that $`Q_1\mathrm{}`$.

###### Claim 1.

$`𝒳\mathrm{}𝒳(𝐅_{q^2}).`$

Proof of Claim 1. If there exists $`Q𝒳\mathrm{}𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, then $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(Q)\mathrm{}`$ as $`\mathrm{}`$ is defined over $`𝐅_{q^2}`$. Thus $`\mathrm{}L_2(Q)`$, and hence $`\mathrm{}𝒳\{Q,\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(Q)\}`$. It follows $`Q_1\mathrm{}`$, but this is a contradiction.

###### Claim 2.

If $`Q\mathrm{Supp}(D)\{\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)\}`$, then $`Q𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ and $`v_Q(D)=1.`$

Proof of Claim 2. Since $`\mathrm{Supp}(D)\{\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)\}\mathrm{}𝒳`$, we have $`Q𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ by Claim 1. Now if $`v_Q(D)2`$, then $`HL_1(Q)`$ by $`j_2(Q)=2`$ and Lemma 2.8. Also, $`\mathrm{}L_1(Q)`$ because $`L_1(Q)𝒬`$ by Lemma 3.7(2). Therefore the plane $`H`$ is generated by the lines $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`L_1(Q)`$, and hence $`H=T_{Q_1}𝒬`$. Let $`\mathrm{}_1`$ be the line defined by $`Q_1\mathrm{}_1`$, and $`𝒬T_{Q_1}𝒬=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1`$. From (3.3), we infer that $`L_1(P)=\mathrm{}_1`$ and so $`Q_1L_1(P)`$, but this is a contradiction.

###### Claim 3.

$`\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)\mathrm{Supp}(D).`$

Proof of Claim 3. Suppose on the contrary that $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)\mathrm{Supp}(D)`$. Equivalently, $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)L_1(P)`$ by Claim 1. Then $`v_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)}(D)=1`$. In fact, using a similar argument to that in the proof the previous claim, one can show that $`v_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)}(D)1`$ together with $`L_1(P)L_1(\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P))`$ implies $`H=T_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)}𝒬`$ in contradiction with (2.6). Hence, for each $`Q𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, the divisor $`D`$ in (3.2) may also be written as $`D=D_Q=\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)+D_Q^{}`$ in such a way that (3.3) holds true, $`\mathrm{Supp}(D_Q^{})𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, and $`\mathrm{deg}(D_Q^{})=q/2`$. Notice that $`H_Q`$ is generated by $`L_1(P)`$ and $`Q^{}`$ $`()`$ where $`Q^{}`$ is any point of $`\mathrm{Supp}(D_Q^{})`$. Now let $`Q_1,Q_2𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ such that $`Q_2\mathrm{Supp}(D_{Q_1}^{})`$. Then $`\mathrm{Supp}(D_{Q_1}^{})\mathrm{Supp}(D_{Q_2}^{})=\mathrm{}`$, otherwise $`H_{Q_1}=H_{Q_2}`$ by $`()`$. This yields that $`q/2`$ must divide the number of $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational points of $`𝒳`$, which is a contradiction because $`\mathrm{\#}𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})=q^2+1+2gq`$ is an odd number.

So far we have shown that each $`Q_1𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ gives rise to a plane $`H_{Q_1}`$, to a line $`\mathrm{}=\mathrm{}_{Q_1}`$, and to a divisor $`D=D_{Q_1}`$ such that (3.2) and (3.3) hold with $`D=Q_1+Q_2+\mathrm{}+Q_{(q+2)/2}`$ being the sum of $`(q+2)/2`$ $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational points. Notice that $`\mathrm{Supp}(D)=𝒳\mathrm{}`$. Let $`\mathrm{}_1`$ be chosen in such a way that $`Q_1\mathrm{}_1`$ and that

(3.4)
$$𝒬T_{Q_1}𝒬=\mathrm{}\mathrm{}_1.$$

Clearly, $`\mathrm{}_1`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational, and thus $`𝒳\mathrm{}_1𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ as in the proof of Claim 1. Therefore

(3.5)
$$𝒳T_{Q_1}𝒬=2Q_1+Q_2+\mathrm{}+Q_{(q+2)/2}+D^{},$$

where $`D^{}`$ is a divisor on $`𝒳`$ of degree $`(q2)/2`$ such that $`Q_1\mathrm{Supp}(D^{})𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$.

###### Claim 4.

$`\mathrm{Supp}(D)\mathrm{Supp}(D^{})=\mathrm{}`$, and $`v_S(D^{})=1`$ for each $`S\mathrm{Supp}(D^{}).`$

Proof of Claim 4. Let $`S\mathrm{Supp}(D^{})`$. Suppose on the contrary that $`S=Q_i`$ for some $`i`$. Then $`T_{Q_1}𝒬`$ contains $`L_1(Q_i)`$ which is different from $`\mathrm{}`$ as $`j_2(Q_i)=2`$. Hence $`T_{Q_1}𝒬`$ is generated by $`L_1(Q_i)`$ and $`\mathrm{}`$. These lines also generate $`T_{Q_i}𝒬`$ and so $`i=1`$ contradicting $`Q_1\mathrm{Supp}(D^{})`$.

Finally suppose on the contrary that $`v_S(D_2)2`$. Replacing $`\mathrm{}`$ by $`\mathrm{}_1`$, the above argument shows that $`T_S𝒬=T_{Q_1}𝒬`$, whence $`S=Q_1`$ follows, again a contradiction.

Therefore, to each $`Q_1`$ we have associated two lines $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`\mathrm{}_1`$ such that both (3.4) and (3.5) hold where $`D^{}`$ is a divisor of degree $`(q2)/2`$, $`\mathrm{Supp}(D^{})𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, and $`\mathrm{Supp}(D)\mathrm{Supp}(D^{})=\{Q_1\}`$. As it is well-known, $`𝒬`$ has just two families of lines contained in $`𝒬`$ and any two lines of the same family are disjoint. This implies again that $`\mathrm{\#}𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ must be a multiple of $`q/2`$, contradicting the $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximality of $`𝒳`$.

(2) As $`q`$ is even, from Lemma 2.17 there exists $`P𝒳`$ such that $`j_2(P)>2`$. Suppose that $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$. From $`j_2(P)P+D(q+1)P_0`$, we find that $`j_2(P)\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)+\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(D)(q+1)P_0`$ and so $`j_2(\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P))=j_2(P)>2`$. Therefore $`L_1(P)L_1(\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)𝒬`$ by Lemma 3.7(2), and hence $`VL_1(P)L_1(\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P))`$. Now, since $`V`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational by Lemma 3.6(3), we have $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)V`$, and hence $`L_1(\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P))`$ is generated by $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)`$ and $`V`$; in particular $`L_1(\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P))L_2(P)`$ and thus $`1=v_{\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)}(𝒳L_2(P))j_2(\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P))`$ by Lemma 2.8, a contradiction.

Therefore $`P`$ must be $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational and hence $`𝒬`$ must have a singularity at $`P`$ by Lemma 3.7(3). Then $`P=V`$ and $`j_2(P)=(q+2)/2`$ by Lemma 3.7(1) and the assumption of $`q`$ being even. ∎

Proof of Theorem 3.1. $`\text{(1)}\text{(2)}:`$ From the hypothesis on $`g`$, $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=3`$ follows by (2.7) and Lemma 2.12. Since $`c_1(q+1,3)`$ in Lemma 2.4 is equal to $`(q^2q+4)/6`$, that lemma together with Lemma 2.10 shows that $`\pi (𝒳)`$ lies on a quadric provided that $`q\{7,8,9,11,13,17,19,23\}`$.

Assume $`q=8`$. Then $`g>(q^2q+4)/6=10`$. By virtue of Lemma 3.6(1)(2), it is enough to show that $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)8`$. Suppose on the contrary that $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)9`$. Then from Lemma 2.1 and Remark 2.2, $`g(q1)(q2)/4=10.5`$ follows, a contradiction.

Now, let $`q`$ be odd, $`q7`$. Our goal is to show that the second positive $`𝒟_𝒳`$-order $`ϵ_2`$ (see sections 2.2, 2.3) is equal to two. In fact, if this is the case, then the Generic Order of Contact Theorem \[34, Thm. 3.5\] yields that the curve $`𝒳`$ (that is $`\pi (𝒳)`$ by previous identification) is reflexive. Reflexivity forces the monodromy group of $`𝒳`$ to be isomorphic to the symmetric group $`S_{q+1}`$, see (\[7, p. 264\], \[38, Cor. 2.2\]). Hence the points of a general hyperplane section of $`𝒳`$ lie in uniform position \[38, Cor. 1.8\]. Then Lemma 2.4 holds true; see Remark 2.5.

Suppose on the contrary that $`ϵ_2>2`$. Let $`S`$ be the $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-Frobenius divisor associated to $`𝒟_𝒳`$. From Lemmas 2.9, 2.7(1), 2.15(4)(5), $`v_P(S)ϵ_2+14`$ for any $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$. Then by (2.4) and the $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximality of $`𝒳`$, $`(3q1)(2g2)(q+1)(q^24q1)`$. On the other hand, $`2g2>(q+1)(q2)/3`$ by hypothesis, and thus $`5q+5<0`$, a contradiction.

$`\text{(3)}\text{(2)}:`$ This follows from Lemma 3.6(2).

$`\text{(2)}\text{(4)}:`$ Let $`q`$ be odd. There exists $`P𝒳`$ such that $`j_2(P)>2`$, otherwise $`g`$ would be equal to $`(q^22q+3)/6`$ by Lemma 2.17. If such a point $`P𝒳`$ should not be in $`𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, then by Lemma 3.7(3) both $`P`$ and $`\mathrm{𝐅𝐫}_𝒳(P)`$ would be singular points of the quadric, a contradiction. Therefore $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ and hence $`j_2(P)=(q+1)/2`$ by Lemma 3.7(1). If $`q`$ is even, the result follows from Proposition 3.8(2).

$`\text{(4)}\text{(5)}:`$ From Lemma 2.15(2) and the hypothesis, $`m_1(P)=(q+1)/2`$ for $`q`$ is odd, and $`m_1(P)=q/2`$ for $`q`$ even. In the odd case, $`(\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)1)m_1(P)=q+1`$, and (5) follows from \[15, Thm. 2.3\]. In the even case, $`(\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)1)m_1(P)=q`$, and hence $`g=q(q2)/4`$ by \[37, Remark 2.6(1)\]. Then (5) follows from the main result in .

The implications (5)$``$(6), (6)$``$(1), and (5)$``$(3) are trivial.

## 4. On $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves whose genus equals Castelnuovo’s number

In this section we investigate certain $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves whose genus equals Castelnuovo’s number $`c_0(q+1,N)`$ for $`N\{4,5\}`$.

### 4.1. The case $`q1,2(mod3)`$

The main result is Theorem 4.5 which provides a complete description of $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves of genus $`g=(q1)(q2)/6`$, $`q1,2(mod3)`$, $`q11`$: Such $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves can only exist for $`q2(mod3)`$, and they are $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic to the non-singular $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-model of the plane curve of equation

(4.1)
$$y^q+y=x^{(q+1)/3}.$$

To do this let $`𝒳`$ denote an $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of genus $`g=(q1)(q2)/6`$ with $`q1,2(mod3)`$, equipped with the linear series $`𝒟_𝒳`$ as defined before. The first step is to compute the dimension of $`𝒟_𝒳`$.

###### Lemma 4.1.

$`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=4.`$ In particular, $`g=c_0(q+1,4).`$

###### Proof.

From (2.7) and Lemma 2.12, $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)\{3,4\}`$. Suppose on the contrary that $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=3`$. If $`ϵ_2=2`$, (2.3) becomes $`\mathrm{deg}(R)=(3+q)(2g2)+4(q+1)`$, while $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximality of $`𝒳`$ implies $`\mathrm{deg}(R)q^2+1+2gq`$ as $`v_P(R)1`$ for every $`P𝐅_{q^2}(𝒳)`$. But then $`g(q^22q+3)/6`$ contradicting the hypothesis on $`g`$. If $`ϵ_2>2`$, then $`ϵ_25`$ by the $`p`$-adic criteriom \[41, Cor. 1.9\] and $`q0(mod3)`$. Replacing the ramification divisor $`R`$ by the Frobenius divisor $`S`$ in the previous argument yields again a contradiction. In fact, (2.4) reads currently $`\mathrm{deg}(S)=(1+q)(2g2)+(q^2+3)(q+1)`$, while $`\mathrm{deg}(S)(q^2+1+2gq)(ϵ_2+1)`$ by the $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximality of $`𝒳`$ and the lower bound $`v_P(S)ϵ_2+1`$ for $`P𝐅_{q^2}(𝒳)`$ which has been shown in the proof of Theorem 3.1. Taking $`ϵ_25`$ into account, this gives $`(5q1)(2g2)(q+1)(q^26q3)`$, whence $`2q^23q+130`$ follows for $`g=(q1)(q2)/6`$; a contradiction. ∎

We take advantage of the current hypothesis that the genus of $`𝒳`$ is equal to Castelnuovo’s number $`c_0(q+1,4)`$ by means of Lemma 2.3(1). Indeed, this lemma implies that $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=11`$ which allows to compute the possibilities for $`(𝒟_𝒳,P)`$-orders. To show how to do this, set $`j_i=j_i(P)`$ and denote by $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P`$ the set of $`(2𝒟_𝒳,P)`$-orders. Then $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_P`$ contains both the following sets $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1`$ and $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2`$:

(4.2) $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_1:=`$ $`\{0,1,2,j_3,j_4,j_4+1,j_4+j_2,j_4+j_3,2j_4\}`$
$`\mathrm{\Sigma }_2:=`$ $`\{j_2,j_2+1,j_3+1,2j_2,j_3+j_2,2j_3\},`$
where $`j_4=q+1`$ for $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, and $`j_4=q`$ otherwise (cf. Lemma 2.15(1)).

###### Lemma 4.2.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve and $`P𝒳`$ a point with $`j_2(P)=2`$. If $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=4`$, $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=11`$, and $`q9`$, then $`j_3(P)=3`$.

###### Proof.

The hypothesis on $`q`$ together with Lemma 2.16 implies that

(4.3)
$$j_3<j_42\text{ for }P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})\text{ and }j_3<j_41\text{ otherwise}.$$

Suppose $`j_3>3`$. If $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, from (4.2) and (4.3)

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_P=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\{3,j_3+1,j_3+2\},$$

and $`2j_2,2j_3\mathrm{\Sigma }_P`$. Thus $`j_3=2j_2=4`$ so that $`2j_3=8=j_4=q+1`$; i.e. $`q=7`$. If $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ and $`j_3>4`$, from (4.2) and (4.3) we have

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_P=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\{3,4,j_3+1\},$$

and $`(j_3+2,2j_3)\{(q,q+1),(q,q+2),(q+1,q+2)`$. Then $`j_34`$, a contradiction. Finally, if $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ and $`j_3=4`$, then (4.2) together with (4.3) gives

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_P=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\{3,5,6,8\}.$$

Hence $`j_4=q=8`$, and this completes the proof. ∎

The previous lemma together with Lemma 2.17 gives the following result.

###### Corollary 4.3.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve such that $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=4`$ and $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=11`$. Assume $`q9`$. If $`j_2(P)=2`$ for any $`P𝒳,`$ then $`q1,2(mod3)`$ and $`g=(q^23q+8)/12.`$

Now, we investigate the case $`j_2(P)>2`$ for some $`P𝒳`$.

###### Lemma 4.4.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve and $`P𝒳`$ a point with $`j_2(P)>2`$. Suppose that $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=4,`$ $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=11,`$ and that $`q7`$.

1. If $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ and $`g>(q2)q/8`$ for $`q`$ even, then either $`q2(mod3),j_2(P)=(q+1)/3,j_3(P)=(2q+2)/3`$; or $`q0(mod3),j_2(P)=(q+3)/3,j_3(P)=(2q+3)/3;`$
2. If $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, then either $`q1(mod3),j_2(P)=(q+2)/3,j_3(P)=(2q+1)/3;`$ or $`q0(mod3),j_2(P)=q/3,j_3(P)=2q/3;`$ or $`q`$ is odd, $`j_2(P)=(q1)/2,`$ $`j_3(P)=(q+1)/2;`$ or $`q`$ is even, $`j_2(P)=q/2,j_3(P)=(q+2)/2.`$

###### Proof.

Suppose first that $`j_3>j_2+1`$. According to (4.2) and (4.3) we have only three possibilities, namely

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_P=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\{j_2,j_2+1,j_3+1\},$$

and $`(j_3+j_2,2j_3)\{(j_4,j_4+1),(j_4,j_4+j_2),(j_4+1,j_4+j_2)\}`$. The first one cannot actually occur by $`j_3j_2+1`$; from the second one $`j_40(mod3)`$, $`j_2=j_4/3`$, $`j_3=2j_4/3`$ follow, while the third one gives $`j_41(mod3)`$, $`j_2=(j_4+2)/3`$, and $`j_3=(2j_4+1)/3`$.

Suppose next that $`j_3=j_2+1`$. Then $`2j_2\{j_3,j_3+1\}`$ by $`j_2>2`$. Moreover, $`2j_2j_4+1`$; otherwise $`j_2=(j_4+1)/2,j_3=(j_4+3)/2`$ and from (4.2) and (4.3) we would have

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_P=\mathrm{\Sigma }_1\{j_2,j_3+1,j_4+2,j_4+3\}$$

which implies $`j_4+j_2=j_4+3`$; whence $`j_4=5`$ and so $`q5`$. If $`2j_2=j_4`$, then $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$; otherwise $`j_3=(q+3)/2`$ and hence $`m_1=(q1)/2`$ by Lemma 2.15(2), and this would imply $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)5`$. Finally, assume that $`2j_2\{j_3,j_3+1,j_4,j_4+1\}`$. Then from (4.2) and (4.3)

$$\mathrm{\Sigma }_P=\{j_2,j_3+1,2j_2\},$$

and $`j_3+j_2\{j_4,j_4+1\}`$. If $`j_3+j_2=j_4+1`$, then $`2j_2=j_4`$, whence $`j_3+j_2=j_4`$. Then $`j_2=(j_41)/2`$ and $`j_3=(j_4+1)/2`$. We claim that $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$. In fact, otherwise $`j_2=q/2`$, $`j_3=(q+2)/2`$ and hence $`m_1=q/2`$, $`m_2=(q+2)/2`$ by Lemma 2.15(2) which yields $`g(q2)q/8`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Theorem 4.5.

Assume $`q11`$.

1. If $`q1(mod3),`$ there is no $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of genus $`(q1)(q2)/6.`$
2. If $`q2(mod3),`$ the following statements are equivalent for a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve $`𝒳`$ of genus $`g`$:

(a) $`g=(q1)(q2)/6;`$

(b) $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2}),mH(P)`$ such that $`3m=q+1;`$

(c) $`𝒳`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic to the non-singular $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-model of the curve (4.1).

###### Proof.

(1) Suppose on the contrary that $`𝒳`$ is an $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of genus $`g=(q1)(q2)/3`$ with $`q1(mod3)`$. Since $`q+1=\frac{q1}{3}3+2`$, we have $`g=c_0(q+1,3)`$ by Lemma 4.1. Hence, Lemma 2.3 implies that $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=11`$ and that $`\frac{q4}{3}𝒟_𝒳`$ is the canonical linear series on $`𝒳`$. Then

(4.4)
$$a_1i_1+\mathrm{}+a_{(q4)/3}i_{(q4)/3}+1H(P),$$

where the $`i_j`$’s are $`(𝒟_𝒳,P)`$-orders, and the $`a_j`$’s are non-negative integers such that $`_ja_j(q4)/3`$. We choose then $`P𝒳`$ with $`j_2(P)>2`$ according to Corollary 4.3. By Lemma 4.4, $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$. Thus, we have to analyze three cases. As before, $`m_i=m_i(P)`$ stands for the $`i`$th Weierstrass non-gap at $`P`$. Recall that $`m_3=q`$ by (2.9)).

Case 1: $`j_2(P)=(q+2)/3,j_3(P)=(2q+1)/3`$. From Lemma 2.15(3), $`\{qm_2,qm_1\}\{1,(q+2)/3,(2q+1)/3\}`$. We have that $`qm_1=(q+2)/3`$, since otherwise $`m_1=(q1)/3`$ and hence $`qm_4`$, a contradiction. Thus $`m_1=(2q2)/3`$. However this leads again to a contradiction since, by (4.4), $`(q7)/3+(q+2)/3+1=(2q2)/3`$ does not belong to $`H(P)`$.

Case 2: $`q`$ odd, $`j_2(P)=(q1)/2,j_3(P)=(q+1)/2`$. From (4.4), $`2j_2(P)+1=q`$ does not belong to $`H(P)`$, a contradiction.

Case 3: $`q`$ even, $`j_2(P)=q/2,j_3(P)=(q+2)/2`$. Arguing as in Case 1 we have either $`m_1=q/21`$ or $`m_1=q/2`$. In the former case, $`q2H(P)`$ and thus Lemma 2.15(3) implies $`j_2(P)=2`$. Since this is not admitted currently, the latter case can only occur. Then $`m_1=q/2`$ and $`m_2=q1`$. Now, as $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=11`$, from (2.5) $`m_9=2q`$ follows. Since a similar result to Lemma 2.15(3) holds, namely $`2qm_i`$ is a $`(2𝒟_𝒳,P)`$-order for $`i=0,\mathrm{},9`$, and the set of $`(2𝒟_𝒳,P)`$-orders is

$$\{0,1,2,q/2,(q+2)/2,(q+4)/2,q,q+1,q+2,3q/2,3q/2,2q\},$$

we conclude that $`2qm_4=q/2+2`$; whence $`m_4=3q/22`$. Finally from (4.4), $`\mathrm{}:=\frac{q4}{3}(q/2+1)+1H(P)`$. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{}=m_4+\frac{q10}{6}m_2H(P)`$, a contradiction.

(2) $`\text{(a)}\text{(b)}:`$ In virtue of Lemma 4.1, we have $`g=c_0(q+1,4)`$. By $`q+1=\frac{q2}{3}3+3`$, Lemma 2.3 shows that $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=11`$ and that $`\frac{q5}{3}𝒟_𝒳+𝒟^{}`$ is the canonical linear series, where $`𝒟^{}`$ is a base-point-free 1-dimensional linear series of degree $`(q+1)/3`$. Let $`P𝒳`$ and assume $`j_2(P)>2`$ according to Corollary 4.3. If $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, from Lemma 4.4(1) the result follows. Otherwise, $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, and we have two possibilities according as $`q`$ is odd or even (Lemma 4.4(2)).

Case 1: $`q`$ is odd $`j_2(P)=(q1)/2`$, $`j_3(P)=(q+1)/2`$. A similar property to (4.4) holds, namely $`\delta +1H(P)`$ for any $`(\frac{q5}{3}𝒟_𝒳,P)`$-order $`\delta `$. Hence $`2j_2(P)=1=q`$ is not in $`H(P)`$, a contradiction.

Case 2: $`q`$ is even, $`j_2(P)=q/2`$, $`j_3(P)=(q+2)/2`$. From the Case 3 in the proof of part (1), we have $`m_1=q/2`$. Notice that the degree $`(q+1)/3`$ of the above linear series $`𝒟^{}`$ is coprime to $`m_1`$. Then by the well known Riemann’s inequality for the genus $`g`$ applied to $`𝒟^{}`$ and the linear series corresponding to $`m_1`$ we obtain $`g(q2)^2/6`$, a contradiction.

The implication (b)$``$(c) is a special case of \[15, Thm. 2.3\] while (c)$``$(a) is trivial. ∎

### 4.2. The case of $`(q1)(q3)/8`$, $`q`$ odd

The main result is Theorem 4.9 which is analogous to Theorem 4.5. It states that for $`p5`$ and $`q`$ large enough, the non-singular $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-model of the curve of equation

(4.5)
$$y^q+y=x^{(q+1)/4},q3(mod4),$$

together with the Fermat curve of degree $`(q+1)/2`$

(4.6)
$$x^{(q+1)/2}+y^{(q+1)/2}+1=0.$$

are the unique $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves of genus $`g=(q1)(q3)/8`$ provided that $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=5`$ holds. The extra-condition on $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)`$ is assumed since the argument in Lemma 4.1 only proves that $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)\{4,5\}`$. Then $`g=c_0(q+1,5)`$, and once again we take advantage of the hypothesis on the genus by means of Lemma 2.3.

The above two curves are in fact not isomorphic even over $`\overline{𝐅}_{q^2}`$; see \[11, Remark 4.1\]. The curve in (4.6) was characterized in  as the unique (up to $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphism) plane $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of degree $`(q+1)/2`$ provided that $`q`$ is odd and $`q11`$.

As $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=14`$ by Lemma 2.3(1), we are able again to compute the possibilities for the sequence of $`(𝒟_𝒳,P)`$-orders for $`P𝒳`$. The proofs of the following two results will be omited since they are similar to those of Lemmas 4.2, 4.4, and Corollary 4.3. By Lemma 2.15(1) $`j_1(P)=1`$ and either $`j_5(P)=q+1`$ if $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, or $`j_5(P)=q`$ otherwise.

###### Lemma 4.6.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve and $`P𝒳`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=5,\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=14,`$ and that $`q11.`$

1. If $`j_3(P)=3`$, then $`j_4(P)=4.`$
2. Let $`j_2(P)=2`$ but $`j_3(P)>3`$. If $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2}),`$ then $`q`$ is odd, $`j_3(P)=(q+1)/2,`$ and $`j_4(P)=(q+3)/2.`$ If $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2}),`$ then $`q`$ is even, $`j_3(P)=q/2,`$ and $`j_4(P)=(q+2)/2.`$
3. Let $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ and $`j_2(P)>2.`$ Assume $`g>(q2)^2/9`$ if $`q2(mod3)`$ and $`g>(q3)q/9`$ if $`q0(mod3).`$ Then either $`q3(mod4),j_2(P)=(q+1)/4,j_3(P)=2(q+1)/4,j_4(P)=3(q+1)/4,`$ or $`q0(mod4),j_2(P)=(q+4)/4,j_3(P)=(2q+4)/4,j_4(P)=(3q+4)/4.`$
4. Let $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ and $`j_2(P)>2.`$ Then either $`q1(mod4),j_2(P)=(q+3)/4,`$ $`j_3(P)=(2q+2)/4,j_4(P)=(3q+1)/4,`$ or $`q0(mod4),`$ $`j_2(P)=q/4,`$ $`j_3(P)=2q/4,`$ $`j_4(P)=3q/4,`$ or $`q1(mod3),`$ $`j_2(P)=(q1)/3,`$ $`j_3(P)=(q+2)/3,`$ $`j_4(P)=(2q+1)/3,`$ or $`q0(mod3),j_2(P)=q/3,j_3(P)=(q+3)/3,2q/3.`$

###### Corollary 4.7.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of genus $`g`$. Assume that $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=5,`$ $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=14,`$ and that $`q11`$. If $`j_3(P)=3`$ for every $`P𝒳,`$ then $`q0,4(mod5)`$ and $`g=(q^24q+15)/20.`$

###### Corollary 4.8.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of genus $`(q1)(q3)/8`$ with $`q`$ odd. Assume $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=5`$ and $`q11`$. Then:

1. $`𝒳`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic to the non-singular $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-model of (4.5) if and only if there exists $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ with $`j_2(P)>2;`$
2. $`𝒳`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic to (4.6) if and only if there exists $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$ with $`j_2(P)=2,`$ and $`j_3(P)>3.`$

###### Proof.

(1) Let $`P`$ be the unique point over $`x=\mathrm{}`$. It is straightforward to check that $`m_3(P)=3(q+1)/4`$. Hence $`j_2(P)=(q+1)/4`$ by Lemma 2.15(2). Conversely, from Lemma 4.6(3) we have $`j_4(P)=3(q+1)/4`$ and so $`m_1(P)=(q+1)/4`$ by Lemma 2.15(3). Now, the result follows from \[15, Thm. 2.3\].

(2) We have $`𝒟_𝒳=2𝒟`$, where $`𝒟`$ is the linear series cut out by lines on $`𝒳`$ (\[11, Thm. 3.5\]) and hence every $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-rational inflexion point $`P`$ (\[11, Lemma 3.6\]) satisfies both $`j_2(P)=2`$ and $`j_3(P)>3`$. Conversely, from Lemmas 4.6(2), 2.15(2) we obtain both $`m_1(P)=(q1)/2`$ and $`m_2(P)=(q+1)/2`$. Hence the result from \[11, Thm. 1.1\]. ∎

###### Theorem 4.9.

Let $`𝒳`$ be a $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curve of genus $`g=(q1)(q3)/8`$ with $`q`$ odd. Assume $`\mathrm{dim}(𝒟_𝒳)=5,`$ and $`p5.`$

1. If $`q1(mod4)`$ and $`q17,`$ then $`𝒳`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic to the Fermat curve (4.6).
2. If $`q3(mod4)`$ and $`q19,`$ then $`𝒳`$ is $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-isomorphic to either (4.6) or the non-singular $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-model of(4.5).

###### Proof.

We have already observed that $`g=c_0(q+1,5)`$ and thus $`\mathrm{dim}(2𝒟_𝒳)=14`$. In particular, by Corollary 4.7 there exists $`P𝒳`$ with $`j_3(P)>3`$.

(1) Let $`q1(mod4)`$. If $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, then Lemma 4.6(2)(3) yields $`j_2(P)=2`$ and the result follows from Corollary 4.8(2). To show that this is actually the only possible case, assume on the contrary that $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$. Note that $`𝒦:=\frac{q5}{4}𝒟_𝒳`$ is the canonical linear series by Lemma 2.3(2), and hence that $`\delta +1H(P)`$ for any $`(𝒦,P)`$-order $`\delta `$. Recall that $`m_4=q`$ by (2.9). Now, Lemma 4.6 together with $`p5`$ leads to the following two cases.

Case 1: $`j_2(P)=(q+3)/4,j_3(P)=(2q+2)/4,j_4(P)=(3q+1)/4.`$ Here, $`\{qm_3,qm_2,qm_1\}\{1,(q+3)/4,(2q+2)/4,(3q+1)/4\}`$ by Lemma 2.15(3). Thus $`m_1=(2q2)/4,m_2=(3q3),m_3=q1`$. Now, $`\delta =(q9)/4+(3q+1)/4=q2`$ is a $`(𝒦,P)`$-order and hence $`q1H(P)`$, a contradiction.

Case 2: $`q1(mod3),j_2(P)=(q1)/3,j_3(P)=(q+2)/3,j_4(P)=(2q+1)/3.`$ Here, $`\delta =3j_2(P)`$ is a $`(𝒦,P)`$-order (as $`(q5)/43`$) and so $`q`$ cannot belong to $`H(P)`$, a contradiction.

(2) $`q3(mod4).`$ As above, if we show that $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, the result will follow from Corollary 4.8. If $`P𝒳(𝐅_{q^2})`$, Lemma 4.6(2)(4) together with $`p5`$ yields $`j_2(P)=(q1)/3`$. Now, Lemma 2.3(2) implies that $`\delta +1H(P)`$ for every $`(\frac{q7}{4}𝒟_𝒳,P)`$-order $`\delta `$. On the other hand, as $`(q7)/43`$, $`3j_2(P)+1=qH(P)`$, a contradiction. ∎

###### Remark 4.10.

As pointed out in Introduction, $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves of genus $`g=(q^22q+5)/8`$ do exist. This genus equals Halphen’s number $`c_1(4,q+1)`$, cf. (2.2). So far, the following examples are known:

1. For $`q0(mod4)`$, curves of genus $`(q^22q)/8`$ belong to a family of $`𝐅_{q^2}`$-maximal curves constructed by van der Geer and van der Vlugt, see \[25, Prop. 5.2(ii)\], via fibre products of certain Artin-Schreier $`p`$-extensions of the projective line. See also \[21, Thm. 3.3\]. It seems plausible that a plane model for such a curve may be obtained from the proof of \[19, Prop. 1.1\].
2. For $`q1(mod4)`$, curves of genus $`(q1)^2/8`$ have been constructed as a quotient of the Hermitian curve $``$ by a subgroup of the automorphism group of $``$; see \[13, Prop. 3.3(3)\].
3. For $`q3(mod4)`$, curves of genus $`(q^22q+5)/8`$ have been constructed in a similar way as in (II) above; see \[13, Prop. 3.3(3)(1)\] or \[21, Ex. 5.10\].

For the curves mentioned in (ii) and (iii), no plane model seems to be available in the literature.