text:
# Intermittency in Plasma Turbulence

## 1 Introduction

The statistics of turbulent fluid flows can be characterised by the Probability Distribution Function (PDF) of velocity differences $`\delta u_r=u(x+r)u(x)`$ over varying scales $`r`$ (see  and references therein). At large scales the PDF is approximately gaussian, as the scale decreases, the wings of the distribution become increasingly stretched, so that large deviations from the average value are present. This phenomenon is usually ascribed to intermittency. The way the PDF departs from the gaussian is very interesting because this has to do with models for intermittency in turbulence. If we introduce a scaling for fluctuations, namely $`\delta u_rr^h`$ as the fluid equations indicate, a change of scale $`rlr`$ (with $`l>0`$) leads to

$$\delta u_{lr}=l^h\delta u_r$$

This is interpreted as an equality in law , that is the right–hand–side has the same statistical properties as the left–hand–side. It can be easily shown that if $`h`$ is unique, that is in a pure self–similar (fractal) situation, the standardized variables $`\delta u_r/\delta u_r^2^{1/2}`$ have the same PDF for all scales $`\tau `$. On the contrary me must invoke the multifractal theory (or some other models) to describe intermittency, by conjecturing the presence of an entire range of values of $`h`$.

Intermittency has been observed some time ago and deeply investigated in fluid flows , and more recently also in Magnetohydrodynamic (MHD) flows (see for example ). In particular, experimental studies carried out in MHD flows deal mainly by analyses of satellite measurements of solar wind fluctuations , or by using high resolution 2D numerical simulations  and Shell Models . All these analysis deal with the scaling exponents of structure functions, aimed to show that they follow anomalous scaling laws which can be compared with the usual energy cascade models for turbulence.

The non gaussian nature of PDF in MHD solar wind turbulence has been evidenced by Marsch and Tu , followed by quantitative analysis made by Sorriso–Valvo et al. . In fact, in order to investigate the properties of intermittency through the analysis of non gaussian character of PDF, it would be necessary to quantify the departure of PDF from gaussian statistics and to analyse how this departure depends on the scale $`\tau `$. In this work we present two models, introduced earlier to describe intermittency in fluid flows. Both models describe the evolution of PDF with $`\tau `$, by allowing some free parameters to evolve with the scale $`\tau `$. We then analyse some data of plasma turbulence coming from very different situations. First of all we show that both models are able to capture time intermittency observed in a discrete model which describes the MHD turbulent cascade (Section 3), then we show that also intermittency in real MHD turbulence, say the turbulence observed in the Solar Wind (Section 4) and magnetic turbulence as observed in a fusion device (Section 5), is described by the models. We will describe intermittency in plasma turbulence through the scaling laws of the characteristic parameters of both models. Finally (Section 6) we discuss the results we have obtained.

## 2 Models for PDF

As stated above, in this section we briefly introduce two models which describe the scaling evolution of PDF, trying to describe intermittency through the scale variation of characteristic parameters. We consider the model based on a log–normal energy cascade proposed by Castaing et al. ; the second model describes the PDF through a sequence of stretched exponentials and can be formally derived through the theory of extreme deviations .

### 2.1 The energy cascade model

Because of the idea of self–similarity underlying the energy cascade process in turbulence, Castaing and co–workers  introduced a model which tries to characterize the behaviour of the PDFs through the scaling law of a parameter describing how the shape of the PDF changes in going towards small scales . In its simplest form the model can be introduced by saying that the PDF of the increments $`\delta \psi `$ (representing here both velocity and magnetic fluctuations) at a given scale $`\tau `$, is made by a convolution of the typical Gaussian distribution $`P_G(\delta \psi ,\sigma )=(\sqrt{2\pi }\sigma )^1\mathrm{exp}(\delta \psi ^2/2\sigma ^2)`$, with a function $`G_\tau (\sigma ,\lambda )`$ which represents the weight of the gaussian distribution characterized by the standard deviation $`\sigma `$:

$$P_\tau (\delta \psi ,\lambda )=G_\tau (\sigma ,\lambda )P_G(\delta \psi ,\sigma )𝑑\sigma ,$$
(1)
where $`\lambda `$ is a parameter representing the width of $`G_\tau `$.

In the usual approach where the energy cascade is introduced through a fragmentation process, $`\sigma `$ is directly related to the local energy transfer rate $`ϵ`$. In a self–similar situation, where the energy cascade generates only a scaling variation of $`\sigma =\delta \psi ^2^{1/2}`$ according to the classical Kolmogorov’s picture , $`G_\tau (\sigma )`$ reduces to a Dirac function $`G_\tau (\sigma )=\delta (\sigma \sigma _0)`$. In this case from eq. (1) a Gaussian distribution $`P_\tau (\delta \psi )=P_G(\delta \psi ,\sigma _0)`$ is retained. On the contrary when the cascade is not strictly self–similar, the width of the distribution $`G_\tau `$ is different from zero. In this way the scaling behaviour of the parameter $`\lambda `$ (which takes into account the height of the PDFs wings) can be used to characterize intermittency.

### 2.2 A model coming from Extreme Deviations Theory

Recently Frisch and Sornette , have built up a more general fragmentation model which is based on the extreme deviations theory (EDT), which yield non–gaussian PDF as the number of fragments increases. Let us consider a series of random events $`x_i`$, independent and distributed according to a probability density $`p(x)`$. According to the central limit theorem, the sum $`y=_{i=1}^nx_i`$ is distributed according to a gaussian function, that is fluctuations $`y/n`$ are $`O(n^{1/2})`$. On the contrary EDT deals with events where fluctuations are $`O(1)`$, with a finite value $`n`$ of fragments and large values of $`y`$. The theory allows us to recover the asymptotic shape of the PDF $`P_n(y)`$ starting from $`p(x)`$. The authors  consider the general case where $`p(x)=\mathrm{exp}[f(x)]`$, and $`f(x)`$ is differentiable and increases quite rapidly as $`x\mathrm{}`$. Assuming that the second derivative is positive $`f^\mathrm{"}(x)>0`$ and that $`x^2f^\mathrm{"}(x)\mathrm{}`$ (for large $`x`$), the asymptotic form for the PDF of $`y`$ is given by

$$P_n(y)\mathrm{exp}[nf(x/n)].$$

The probability conditioned on $`x_i`$ whose sum is $`y`$, is localized for large $`y`$ in a “democratic” manner near the value for which $`y/nx_ix_2\mathrm{}x_n`$. If during the fragmentation process the fragments have probability $`p(x)\mathrm{exp}(Cx^\gamma )`$ with $`\gamma >0`$, and $`y=\mathrm{log}S`$, where $`S=w_1w_2\mathrm{}w_n`$ (that is $`x_i=\mathrm{log}w_i`$), then

$$P(S)\mathrm{exp}(CnS^{\gamma /n}).$$

From the turbulence point of view, if at the scale $`\tau `$ the value of each $`\delta \psi `$ is due to the product of fragments derived from structures at larger scale, from EDT we must expect a PDF as a stretched exponential

$$P(\delta \psi )\mathrm{exp}\left[\beta (\tau )|\delta \psi |^{\mu (\tau )}\right]$$
(2)
where $`\beta (\tau )`$ and $`\mu (\tau )`$ are the parameter we must fix from data.

With these models in mind we will discuss now what kind of results are obtained for plasma turbulence.

## 3 A shell model for MHD turbulence

Turbulence is a phenomenon in which chaotic dynamics and power law statistics coexist. In general, due to the high Reynolds numbers involved in realistic situations, direct numerical simulations of 3D turbulence is not possible. In order to avoid this problem and in order to capture the gross features of turbulence, an alternative approach can be followed by investigating reduced models of turbulence, such as shell models . In these models the wave vector domain is spaced exponentially through $`k_n=k_02^n`$ ($`n=1,\mathrm{},N`$) and the nonlinear dynamics is reproduced by using a single complex variable for each $`n`$–th shell, that is $`u_n(t)`$ for the velocity field and $`b_n(t)`$ for the magnetic field. The quadratic nonlinear interactions between modes are then recovered by imposing that: i) the dynamical equations for each shell variable must contain the same quadratic terms of the original equations; ii) the quadratic invariants of equations must be correctly preserved in the inviscid case; iii) the nonlinear coupling occur between nearest or next nearest shells, modeling local interactions in the $`k`$ space. By using these criteria an MHD shell model which is the analogous of the GOY model for hydrodynamics is easily obtained (see  and  for a complete review on shell models):

$`{\displaystyle \frac{du_n}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`ik_n[(u_{n+1}u_{n+2}b_{n+1}b_{n+2}){\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(u_{n1}u_{n+1}b_{n1}b_{n+1})+`$
$``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{8}}(u_{n2}u_{n1}b_{n2}b_{n1})]^{}\nu k_n^2u_n+f_n`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{db_n}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`ik_n[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(u_{n+1}b_{n+2}b_{n+1}u_{n+2})+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(u_{n1}b_{n+1}b_{n1}u_{n+1})+`$
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{6}}(u_{n2}b_{n1}b_{n2}u_{n1})]^{}\eta k_n^2b_n+g_n`$
where $`\nu `$ and $`\eta `$ are respectively the kinematic viscosity and the resistivity, and $`f_n`$ and $`g_n`$ are forcing terms. Equations (3) and (3), in the inviscid and unforced case, conserve the total energy

$$E(t)=\frac{1}{2}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}\left(|u_n|^2+|b_n|^2\right)$$

the cross–helicity

$$H_c(t)=\frac{1}{4}\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}Re\left(u_nb_n^{}\right)$$

and the magnetic helicity

$$H(t)=\underset{n=1}{\overset{N}{}}(1)^n\frac{|b_n|^2}{k_n}$$

Apart for other features, shell models share with original equations scaling laws of the structure functions $`S_p(n)=|x_n|^pk_n^{\zeta _p}`$ where $`x_n`$ is either $`u_n`$ and $`b_n`$. Scaling exponents $`\zeta _p`$ deviates from the linear Kolmogorov scaling as a consequence of the intermittency in the dynamical system.

We solved numerically the system of equations for the shell model, by using the following set of parameters: $`N=23`$ shells, $`\nu =\eta =10^9`$, the integration step $`dt=5\times 10^5`$. The forcing term acts only on the velocity variables (i.e. $`g_n=0`$) at large scales ($`n=1,2`$), the magnetic field being generated by a kind of dynamo effect which is at work in the MHD shell model . The forcing, which is assumed to be random, is calculated according to a Langevin equation $`df_n/dt=f_n\tau _0+\theta `$, where $`\tau _0`$ is the characteristic time of the largest scales, and $`\theta `$ is a gaussian white-noise. PDFs for both the velocity and magnetic variables have been obtained and are shown in figures 1 and 3 for different shells. As it can be seen PDFs depends on the scale $`\mathrm{}_nk_n^1`$. They are almost Gaussian at the large scales (small shells $`k_n`$) and are increasingly non–Gaussian at small scales (large shells $`k_n`$).

In order to make a quantitative analysis of the energy cascade leading to the process just described, we have tried to fit the distributions by using, for the model (1), the log–normal ansatz

$$G_\tau \left(\sigma \right)d\sigma =\frac{1}{\lambda (\tau )\sqrt{2\pi }}\mathrm{exp}\left[\frac{\mathrm{ln}^2(\sigma /\sigma _0)}{2\lambda ^2(\tau )}\right]d(\mathrm{ln}\sigma )$$
(5)
even if also other functions gives rise to results not really different. The parameter $`\sigma _0`$ represents the most probable value of $`\sigma `$, while $`\lambda ^2(\tau )=(\mathrm{\Delta }\mathrm{ln}\sigma )^2`$ is the width of the log–normal distribution of $`\sigma `$.

We have fitted the expression (1) on the PDFs obtained in the shell model for both velocity and magnetic intensity, and we have obtained the corresponding values of the parameter $`\lambda ^2`$. The values of the parameters $`\sigma _0`$, which do not display almost any variation with $`\mathrm{}_n`$ are reported in table 1. In figure 1 we plot, as full lines, the curves relative to the fit. As can be seen the scaling behaviour of PDFs in all cases is very well described by the function (1). From the fit, at each scale $`\mathrm{}_n`$, we get a value for the parameter $`\lambda ^2(\mathrm{}_n)`$, and in figure 2 we report the scaling behaviour of $`\lambda ^2(\mathrm{}_n)`$.

The scaling evolution of PDFs have been analysed also using the stretched exponential model $`P(\delta x_{\mathrm{}})\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\delta x_{\mathrm{}})^\mu ]`$; the results of the fit are displayed in figure 3 as a full line. The parameters $`\mu `$ found from the fit are shown in figure 4 as a function of the scale $`\mathrm{}_n`$, for both $`x_\mathrm{}_n=u_n`$ and $`x_\mathrm{}_n=b_n`$. As can be seen, a power law $`\mu (\mathrm{}_n)\mathrm{}_n^a`$ is found in a very wide range for the magnetic field; the range is less wide in the case of the velocity field, for wich a saturation of $`\mu `$ is reached. The minima values for $`\mu `$ are reported in the table 2, together with the exponents $`a`$ found for the power laws.

As we will show in the next two Sections, both models are able to capture intermittency also for turbulence in non homogeneous situations, namely the Solar Wind and a fusion plasma. To avoid superpositions we describe for the Solar Wind only the results obtained with log–normal ansatz, while for the fusion plasma we describe only the results obtained with the stretched exponentials, even if in both 1 and 2 the reader can find the characteristic parameters obtained through the fit of both models for both samples.

## 4 Solar Wind Observations

The satellite observations of both velocity and magnetic field in the interplanetary space, offer us an almost unique possibility to gain information on the turbulent MHD state in a very large scale range, say from $`1`$ AU (Astronomical Unit) down to $`10^3`$ km. Here we limit to analyse only plasma measurements of the bulk velocity $`V(t)`$ and magnetic field intensity $`B(t)`$. We based our analysis on plasma measurements as recorded by the instruments on board Helios 2 during its primary mission in the inner heliosphere. The analysis period refers to the first four months of 1976 when the spacecraft orbited from $`1`$ AU, on day 17, to $`0.29`$ AU on day 108. The original data were collected in $`81s`$ bins and we choose a set of subintervals of two days each. The subintervals were selected separately within low speed regions and high speed regions selected in a standard way according to a threshold velocity . For each subinterval we calculated the velocity and magnetic increments at a given scale $`\tau `$ through $`\delta V_\tau =V(t+\tau )V(t)`$ and $`\delta B_\tau =B(t+\tau )B(t)`$, which represent characteristic fluctuations across eddies at the scale $`\tau `$. Then we normalize each variable to the standard deviation within each subinterval $`\delta v_\tau =\delta V_\tau /\delta V_\tau ^2^{1/2}`$ and $`\delta b_\tau =\delta B_\tau /\delta B_\tau ^2^{1/2}`$ (where brackets represent average within each subinterval at the scale $`\tau `$). We calculate the PDFs at 11 different scales logarithmically spaced $`\tau =\mathrm{\Delta }t\mathrm{\hspace{0.33em}2}^n`$, where $`n=0,1,\mathrm{},10`$ and $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=81s`$. We collect the number of events within each bins by using $`31`$ bins equally spaced in the range within $`3`$ times the standard deviation of the total sample. Before we mixed the different subperiods belonging to a given class (high or low speed streams), we tested for the fact that the gross features of PDFs shape does not change in different subintervals. Then our results for high and low speed streams are representative of what happens at the PDFs.

The results are shown in figures 5 and 6, where we report the PDFs of both velocity and magnetic intensity for both the high speed streams and the slow speed streams. At large scales the PDFs are almost Gaussian, and the wings of the distributions grow up as the scale becomes smaller. This is true in all cases, say for both types of wind. Stronger events at small scales have a probability of occurrence greater than that they would have if they were distributed according to a gaussian function. This behaviour is common for intermittency as currently observed in fluid flows  and in the solar wind turbulence .

A quantitative analysis of the energy cascade has been made by using the log–normal ansatz  (5). We have fitted the expression (1) on the experimental PDFs for both velocity and magnetic intensity, and we have obtained the corresponding values of the parameter $`\lambda ^2`$. The values of the parameters $`\sigma _0`$, which again do not display almost any variation with $`\tau `$ are reported in table 1. In figures 5 and 6 we plot, as full lines, the curves relative to the fit. As can be seen the scaling behaviour of PDFs in all cases is very well described by the function (1). From the fit, at each scale $`\tau `$, we get a value for the parameter $`\lambda ^2(\tau )`$, and in figure 7 we report the scaling behaviour of $`\lambda ^2(\tau )`$ for both high and low speed streams. Starting from a very low value at the scales of about $`1`$ day, $`\lambda ^2`$ increases abruptly to $`\lambda ^210^1`$ at about $`2`$ hours, and finally a scaling law starts to become evident up to $`\mathrm{\Delta }t=81`$ sec. In this last range, which corresponds roughly to what is usually called the “Alfvénic range”, we fitted the parameter with a power law $`\lambda ^2(\tau )\tau ^\alpha `$. The values of $`\alpha `$ obtained in the fitting procedure and the corresponding range of scales, are reported in the table 1. In the same table, we report the values of the maximum value of $`\lambda ^2(\tau )`$ in the range of fit, namely $`\lambda _{max}^2`$, which is an indication for the strenght of the intemittency .

Looking at figure 7 and at $`\lambda _{max}^2`$, it can be seen that both in fast and in slow streams magnetic field intensity is more intermittent than bulk velocity (values of $`\lambda ^2`$ are at least two times larger for magnetic field intensity than for velocity). The same indications comes from 2D MHD direct simulations , and in different analysis of solar wind intermittency . The values of $`\lambda ^2(\tau )`$ are more or less the same for magnetic field intensity both in fast and in slow wind. This is due to the fact that magnetic field intensity fluctuations are related to compressive fluctuations, which should have the same nature in both types of wind. The bulk velocity fluctuations on the contrary are more intermittent at small scales ($`81`$ sec) in the fast wind and at large scale ($`1`$ hour) in the slow wind. From table 1 it appears that the value of $`\alpha `$ is not universal, a result which has also been found in fluid flows . The fact that the value of $`\alpha `$ for the velocity fluctuations in slow wind is the same as the value of $`\alpha `$ for magnetic field intensity suggests that intermittent structures in slow wind are perhaps mainly associated with compressive fluctuations. On the contrary the different value of $`\alpha `$ found in fast wind evidences a different nature of velocity fluctuations in fast wind, perhaps related to the fact that such fluctuations are mainly incompressible. This result is in agreement with what has been found by Veltri and Mangeney . These authors found that in fast wind the more intermittent structures are tangential discontinuities with almost no variation in magnetic field intensity, while in slow wind the most intermittent structures are shock waves, which display the same behaviour in bulk velocity and magnetic field intensity.

## 5 The Reverse Field Pinch: RFX experiment

In this section we report evidences for the presence of intermittency in another type of magnetized fluid, namely a plasma of interest for controlled thermonuclear fusion research, confined in reversed field pinch (RFP) configuration.

The RFP is a toroidal configuration of magnetic fields which is proposed as an alternative to the tokamak for confining fusion grade plasmas . The configuration is characterized by toroidal and poloidal magnetic field components of comparable magnitude (in a tokamak the field is mainly toroidal). The configuration is a near–minimum energy state to which a plasma relaxes under proper constraints . The toroidal field changes sign in the outer part of the plasma, a feature which gives the name to the configuration. Such field reversal, which improves the MHD stability of the configuration, is spontaneously generated by the plasma, and is maintained against resistive diffusion by the dynamo process . This is achieved through the action and nonlinear coupling of several resistive magnetohydrodynamic modes, which give rise to a high level of magnetic turbulence (of the order of 1% of the average field in present day experiments, i.e. two orders of magnitude larger than in tokamaks). This high fluctuation level makes the RFP very suited for the study of MHD turbulence properties, mainly for their magnetic part. The magnetic turbulence has been demonstrated to be the main cause of energy and particle transport in the RFP core, whereas at the edge its contribution is still under investigation. In this region the electrostatic turbulence has been proved to give an important contribution to the particle transport .

The measurements have been obtained in the RFX experiment, which is the largest RFP presently in operation (major radius $`2`$ m, minor radius $`0.457`$ m) . RFX is designed to reach a plasma current of $`2`$ MA, and currents up to $`1`$ MA have been obtained up to now. The measurements were performed in low currents discharges ($`300`$ kA) using a magnetic probe inserted in the edge plasma. The probe consists of a coil housed in a boron nitride measuring head. The coil measures the time derivative $`_tB`$ of the radial component $`B(t)`$ of the magnetic field. The radial direction in this case goes from the core plasma to the edge. The sampling frequency of the measurements is $`2`$ MHz. Measurements have been collected at different values of the probe insertion $`X=r/a`$ into the plasma, $`X=0`$ being the position of the inner convolution of the RFX graphite first wall, $`r`$ being the probe radial position and $`a`$ being the radius of the ring. Different measurements are also identified through a shot number. In RFX two different components of the magnetic fluctuations can be identified: a localised and stationary magnetic perturbation, originated by the tearing modes responsible for the dynamo which tend to be phase–locked and locked to the wall , and an high frequency broadband activity, which is investigated here. All measurements presented were made away from the stationary perturbation.

We calculated the characteristic magnetic fluctuations at the scale $`\tau `$, namely $`\delta B(\tau )=B(t+\tau )B(t)`$. For each position within the device, we can study the statistical behaviour of fluctuations at different scales $`\tau `$. In figure 8 we report the PDFs of $`\delta b_\tau =\delta B_\tau /\delta B_\tau ^2^{1/2}`$ at different scales for a given value of $`X`$. As it can be seen the PDFs do not collapse to a single curve, but follow the usual characteristic scaling behaviour evidenced also in solar wind measurements. This behaviour is visible for all the values of the insertion $`X`$. A fit to the PDFs we obtained has been made by using a stretched exponential, namely $`P(\delta b_\tau )\mathrm{exp}[\beta (\delta b_\tau )^\mu ]`$, and their scaling behaviour is then investigated by looking at the scaling laws of both the parameters $`\beta (\tau ,X)`$ and $`\mu (\tau ,X)`$. The parameter $`\mu `$ follows a power law in a certain range of scales, that is: $`\mu (\tau ,X)\tau ^{a(X)}`$, even near the external wall (figure 5).

The scaling exponent $`a(X)`$ (see table 2) remains near to the value $`0.1`$ in the different shots, and the range of scales where a scaling for the parameter $`\mu (\tau ,X)`$ is visible is larger for measurements near the first wall with respect to measurements inside the device. The “strenght” of the intermittency effects can be compared for the different insertion values $`X`$, by comparing the minimum values found for the exponent $`\mu (\tau )`$ in each shot. As can be seen from the table (2), such values increase going toward the core, showing that the intermittency is stronger near the wall .

## 6 Discussion and conclusions

The departure from gaussianity of the PDFs of fields increments is well known in fluid turbulence, and has been pointed out in MHD plasmas. The data presented in this paper clearly confirm this peculiar behavior, showing that intermittency strongly affects the scaling behavior of MHD turbulence. The analysis of data with the two models presented here has a duplex interest: i) it is an experimental test for the theoretical models; ii) it gives a quantitative characterization of intermittency in different physical systems, leading to the the possibility of a comparison between them.

For the first point, we showed and discussed in detail here the results obtained when we used the log–normal model to describe intermittency in the solar wind turbulence, and the stretched exponential model to describe intermittency in RFX plasma. However it can be shown that both models are able to capture the scaling behavior of PDFs in both the solar wind and RFX experiments, just as in the case of the MHD shell model. Very good fits are obtained, and very close values of the $`\chi ^2`$ are found in both cases . In table 1 we report the results relative to the fit of PDFs obtained in RFX plasma (namely the shot number 8414) with the model by Castaing et al. . Other samples give similar results. In table 2 we report the results obtained when we fit the PDFs calculated with the dataset of the solar wind turbulence, with the stretched exponential model.

Concerning the second point, we first observe that the two models give consistent results. The similar role played by $`\lambda _{max}^2`$ in the log–normal model and $`\mu _{min}`$ in the stretched exponential model, as well as the slopes of the power-low scaling of $`\lambda ^2`$ and $`\mu `$, is evident. We can thus look at such parameters to compare the intermittency of the magnetic field in both experimental datasets we analysed. As a first comparison we can observe, looking directely at the PDFs shape of magnetic fluctuations, that intermittency in solar wind is stronger than in the RFX experiment plasma. The values of both parameters $`\lambda _{max}^2`$ and $`\mu _{min}`$ (see tables 1 and 2) confirm such result. Clear scaling laws are found for the parameters of both models, so that it seems difficult to prefer one model with respect to the other on the basis of our analysis.

Even if the experimental results we presented do not give indications wheter one model is better than the other in fitting experimental results, the stretched exponential is a more flexible function with respect to (1). This is only a ”technical” consideration and does not involve a theoretical preference. From our experience the code developed for the fit with the stretched exponential is more performant then the code developed by using the log–normal model. It is however worthwhile to compare intermittency found in real datasets with time intermittency found in the simplified models for MHD turbulence. Looking at the PDFs in figures 1, 3, 5 and 6, we can realise that intermittency in the shell model is similar to that obtained in the solar wind, that is turbulence in the shell model is more intermittent than turbulence in RFX plasma. Furthermore looking at the values of $`\mu _{min}`$, it can be seen that magnetic turbulence in the solar wind is more intermittent than in the shell model, while for the velocity the intermittency is comparable in both cases.

To conclude we would like to remark that numerical simulations of MHD equations in 2D configurations  display strong intermittency which has been successfully described by the model introduced by Castaing et al. .

## Acknowledgements

We are grateful to H. Rosenbauer and R. Schwenn for making the Helios plasma data available to us.

## References


format: text

text:
# On real structures of rigid surfaces

## §0. Introduction

One of the principal settings in real algebraic geometry is to fix a deformation class of complex varieties and to study, inside this class, the varieties which can be equipped with a real structure (and then investigate their topological, as well as other invariant under real deformations, properties). Those, which are maximal with respect to the Smith-Thom bound, are of a special interest (since they have spectacular topological properties, see, for example, the survey \[DK\]; for surfaces this bound is reproduced below in Section 5). Thus, two natural questions arise: does any complex deformation class of compact complex varieties contain a real variety; and does any complex deformation class containing real varieties contain a maximal one? Up to our knowledge, in dimension $`2`$ the both questions remained open till now. We show that the response to the both questions is in negative. In our examples the varieties are surfaces which are rigid, where the latter means that the moduli space of complex structures on the underlying smooth manifold is $`0`$-dimensional. Moreover, in our examples they are strongly rigid, i.e., the quotient of the moduli space by the canonical complex conjugation (which replaces a complex structure of the surface by the complex conjugated one, and thus holomophic functions by anti-holomophic ones; the orientation of the underlying smooth 4-manifold is preserved) is merely a point. It is worth noticing that in the first of our examples the moduli space consists of two conjugated points, in the second one it reduces to one real point, see the remarks in Section 4. Besides, the two conjugated surfaces in the first example give one more counterexample to ”Dif=Def” problem (earliest counterexamples were constructed by Manetti in \[Ma\]). In fact, in all our examples the surfaces are of general type and with $`c_1^2=3c_2`$ (they are the so-called Miyaoka-Yau surfaces; the fact that they are strongly rigid and, moreover, unique in their homotopy type up to holomorphic and anti-holomorphic diffeomorphisms is well known, see, for example, \[BPV\]). Following F. Hirzebruch \[H\] we construct such rigid surfaces as (finite abelian) Galois coverings of the (blown-up) projective plane branched along arrangements of lines. We start from giving in Sections 1 and 2 their explicit construction via the orbit spaces of the Ferma covering. In Section 3 we study the group of automorphisms and anti-automorphisms of the constructed surfaces. In Section 4 three main examples are treated. In Section 5 we consider fake projective planes (that is, the surfaces of general type with $`c_2=3`$ and $`c_1^2=9`$). We prove that they have no anti-holomorphic diffeomorphisms and, in particular, can not be equiped with a real structure. This section contains also several remarks on other related topics.

Acknowledgements. We are grateful to Y. Miyaoka for stimulating our interest to the real geometry of rigid surfaces and T. Delzant for useful proposals during the preparation of this publication. The first author is grateful to F. Catanese for an intersting discussion of the deformation problems in real algebraic geometry.

## §1. Galois coverings of the plane branched over an arrangement of lines

By a Galois covering of a smooth algebraic variety $`Y`$ we mean a finite morphism $`f:XY`$ of a normal algebraic variety $`X`$ to $`Y`$ such that the function fields imbedding $`(Y)(X)`$ induced by $`f`$ is a Galois extension. As is well known, a finite morphism $`f:XY`$ is a Galois covering with Galois group $`G`$ if and only if $`G`$ coincides with the group of covering transformations and the latter acts transitively on every fiber of $`f`$. Besides, a finite branched covering is Galois if and only if the unramified part of the covering (i.e., the restriction to the complements of the ramification and branch loci) is Galois. In addition, a branched covering is determined up to isomorphism by its unramified part and, moreover, a covering morphism from the unramified part of one branched covering to the unramified part of another one induces a covering morphism between these branched coverings if the extension of the morphism of underlying varieties to the branch loci is given. Let us recall also that an unramified covering is Galois with Galois group $`G`$ if and only if it is a covering associated with an epimorphism of the fundamental group of the underlying variety to $`G`$, and, in particular, the Galois coverings with abelian Galois group $`G`$ are in one-to-one correspondence with epimorphisms to $`G`$ of the first homology group with integral coefficients. All these results are well known and their most nontrivial part can be deduced, for example, on the Grauert-Remmert existence theorem \[G-R\] (a detailed exposition of the basic results on branched coverings is found, f.e., in \[N\]).

In what follows we have deal only with coverings of the complex projective plane $`^2`$ ramified over an arrangement of lines $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_n`$. Similarly to general abelian Galois coverings, a Galois covering $`g:Y^2`$ of $`^2`$ with abelian Galois group $`G`$ branched along $`L`$ is determined uniquely by an epimorphism $`\phi :H_1(^2L,)G`$, and it exists for any such an epimorphism. Since $`H_1(^2L,)^{n1}`$, there exists, in particular, a covering $`g_{u(m)}:Y_{u(m)}^2`$ corresponding to the natural epimorphism $`\phi :H_1(^2L,)H_1(^2L,/m)=H_1(^2L,)(/m)`$ . We call it Ferma covering . The following statement is also an immediate consequence of the general results on branched coverings recalled in the beginning of this Section.

###### Proposition 1.0

If $`g:Y^2`$ is a Galois covering with Galois group $`G(/m)^k`$ branched along $`L`$, then $`kn1`$ and for any epimorphism $`H_1(^2L)G`$ there exists a unique Galois covering $`f:Y_{u(m)}Y`$ inducing this epimorphism and such that $`g_{u(m)}=gf`$ . ∎

In what follows we have deal with Galois coverings whose Galois group is $`G(/m)^k`$, and we construct them in a way described in the above proposition.

The simple loops $`\lambda _i,1in,`$ around the lines $`L_i`$ generate $`H_1(^2L,)^{n1}`$. They are subject to the relation

$$\lambda _1+\mathrm{}+\lambda _n=0,$$

and without loss of generality we can assume that the universal covering $`g_{u(m)}:Y_{u(m)}^2`$ is determined by the epimorphism $`\phi :H_1(^2L,)(/m)^{n1}`$ sending $`\lambda _n`$ to $`(m1,\mathrm{},m1)`$ and $`\lambda _i`$ with $`1in1`$ to $`(0,\mathrm{},0,1,0,\mathrm{},0)`$ with $`1`$ in the $`i`$-th place. We choose an additional line $`L_{\mathrm{}}^2`$ in general position with respect to $`L`$ and introduce affine coordinates $`(x_1,x_2)`$ in $`^2=^2L_{\mathrm{}}`$. Let $`l_i(x_1,x_2)=0`$ be a linear equation of $`L_i^2`$. Put $`z_i=(l_il_n^{m1})^{1/m}`$, $`1in1`$. Then the function field $`K_{u(m)}=(Y_{u(m)})=(x_1,x_2,z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1})`$ of $`Y_{u(m)}`$ is the abelian extension of the function field $`k=(x_1,x_2)`$ of $`^2`$ of degree $`m^{n1}`$ with Galois group

$$G=\{\gamma =(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)(/m)^n\gamma _i0(\text{mod}m)\}(/m)^{n1}.$$

(In other words, the pull-back of $`^2L_{\mathrm{}}`$ in $`Y_{u(m)}`$ is naturally isomorphic to the normalization of the affine subvariety of $`^{n+1}`$ given in coordinates $`x_1,x_2,z_1,\mathrm{},z_{n1}`$ by equations $`z_1^m=l_1l_n^{m1},\mathrm{}z_{n1}^m=l_{n1}l_n^{m1}`$.)

For a multi-index $`a=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _{n1})`$, $`0\alpha _im1`$, we put

$$z^a=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}z_i^{\alpha _i}.$$

The action of $`\gamma =(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)G`$ on $`K_{u(m)}`$ is given by

$$\gamma (z^a)=\mu ^{(\gamma ,a)}z^a,$$

where

$$(\gamma ,a)=\underset{j=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\gamma _j\alpha _j$$

and $`\mu =e^{2\pi i/m}`$ is the $`m`$-th root of the unity. Thus,

$$K_{u(m)}=\underset{0\alpha _im1}{}(x_1,x_2)z^a$$

is a decomposition of the vector space $`K_{u(m)}`$ over $`(x_1,x_2)`$ into a finite direct sum of degree $`1`$ representations of $`G`$.

Let $`\phi :H_1(^2L,)(/m)^k`$ be an epimorphism given by $`\phi (\lambda _i)=(\alpha _{i,1},\mathrm{},\alpha _{i,k})`$, where $`\alpha _{1,j}+\mathrm{}+\alpha _{n,j}0\text{mod}m`$ for every $`j=1,\mathrm{},k`$, and let $`g:Y^2`$ be the corresponding Galois covering. Then, by Proposition 1.0, there exists a unique Galois covering $`f:Y_{u(m)}Y`$. It determines the inclusion $`f^{}:(Y)K_{u(m)}`$ of the function field $`(Y)`$ of $`Y`$ into the function field $`K_{u(m)}=(Y_{u(m)})`$. Clearly, $`(Y)`$ is the subfield $`K_\phi =(x_1,x_2,w_1,\mathrm{},w_k)`$ of $`K_{u(m)}`$, where $`w_j=z_1^{\alpha _{1,j}}\mathrm{}z_{n1}^{a_{n1,j}}`$, and

$$\text{Gal}(K_{u(m)}/K_\phi )=\{(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _n)G\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\alpha _{i,j}\gamma _i0\text{mod}m,\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}1}jk\}.$$

By construction, $`Y`$ is a normal surface with isolated singularities. The singular points of $`Y`$ can appear only over the $`r`$-fold points of $`L`$ with $`r2`$, i.e., over points lying on $`r`$ lines $`L_{i_1},\mathrm{},L_{i_r}`$ of the arrangement.

In what follows we call $`r`$ elements of $`(/m)^k`$ linear independent over $`/m`$ if they generate in $`(/m)^k`$ a subgroup isomorphic to $`(/m)^r`$ (and thus admitting $`(/m)^{kr}`$ as its complement).

###### Lemma 1.1

Let $`p`$ be a $`2`$-fold point of $`L`$ and $`\phi (\lambda _{i_1})`$ and $`\phi (\lambda _{i_2})`$ are linear independent over $`/m`$ in $`(/m)^k`$. Then the surface $`Y`$ is non-singular at each point of $`f^1(p)`$.

Proof. Let $`p=L_{i_1}L_{i_2}`$. Choose a small round neighborhood $`U`$ of $`p`$ in $`^2`$ and local analytic coordinates $`y_1,y_2`$ in $`U`$ such that $`y_j=0`$ is an equation of $`L_{i_j}`$. Then, $`H_1(U(L_{i_1}L_{i_2}),)`$. At any point $`qg^1(p)`$ the germ $`VU`$ of the covering $`Y^2`$ is a $`G^{}`$-covering, where $`G^{}`$ is the image of $`H_1(U(L_{i_1}L_{i_2}),)`$ under the composition $`\phi i_{}`$ of $`\phi `$ with the inclusion homomorphism $`i_{}:H_1(U(L_{i_1}L_{i_2}),)H_1(^2L,)`$. Moreover, this $`G^{}`$-covering is determined by $`\phi i_{}`$. Identifying $`\phi (\lambda _{i_1})`$, $`\phi (\lambda _{i_2})`$ with the standard generators of $`(/m)^2`$ we get an isomorphism between $`VU`$ and the covering determined by equations $`z_1^m=y_1,z_2^m=y_2`$. Thus, $`V`$ is nonsingular. ∎

In our further examples, to resolve the singularities of $`Y`$ over the $`r`$-fold points of $`L`$ with $`r3`$, we blow up all these points. Let $`\sigma :\stackrel{~}{^2}^2`$ be this blow up, $`L_i^{}`$ the strict transform of $`L_i`$, $`E_p`$ the line blown up over a $`r`$-fold point $`p`$, and $`\epsilon _pH_1(\stackrel{~}{^2}\sigma ^1(L),)=H_1(^2L,)`$ a simple loop around $`E_p`$.

The identification $`H_1(\stackrel{~}{^2}\sigma ^1(L),)=H_1(^2L,)`$ composed with $`\phi `$ provides an epimorphism $`\phi :H_1(\stackrel{~}{^2}\sigma ^1(L),)(/m)^k`$. Let consider the associated Galois covering $`f:X\stackrel{~}{^2}`$.

The proof of the following statements is straightforward (to establish the relation given by the first statement it is sufficient to consider a generic line pencil; the second statement follows from Lemma 1.1).

###### Lemma 1.2

Let $`p=L_{i_1}\mathrm{}L_{i_r}`$ be an $`r`$-fold point of $`L`$. Then $`\epsilon _p=\lambda _{i_1}+\mathrm{}+\lambda _{i_r}`$.∎

###### Lemma 1.3

If for each $`r`$-fold point $`p=L_{i_1}\mathrm{}L_{i_r}`$ of $`L`$ with $`r3`$ the pairs $`\phi (\epsilon _p)`$ and $`\phi (\lambda _{i_j})`$, $`1jr`$, are linear independent over $`/m`$ in $`(/m)^k`$, then $`X`$ is nonsingular. ∎

As a consequence, the constructed surface $`X`$ is a resolution of singularities of $`Y`$. Indeed, the covering $`f`$ is included in the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X& \stackrel{\pi }{}& Y\\ f& & g& & \\ \stackrel{~}{^2}& \underset{\sigma }{}& ^2.\end{array}$$

with a regular map $`\pi `$ (clearly, it is continuous, and thus its regularity follows, for example, from regularity on $`Xf^1(\sigma ^1(L))`$).

## §2. $`(/5)^2`$-Galois coverings branched over the arrangement of lines dual to the inflection points of a smooth cubic

We use the notation of §1.

Let $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_9`$ be an arrangement of nine lines in $`^2`$ dual to the nine inflection points of a smooth cubic $`C`$ in the dual plane. Let $`t_r`$ ($`r2`$) be the number of $`r`$-fold points of $`L`$, i.e., the number of points lying on exactly $`r`$ lines of the arrangement. As is well-known (and easy to check using the group law on the cubic), in this arrangement $`t_3=12`$, $`t_r=0`$ if $`r3`$, and exactly four singular points of $`L`$ lie on each $`L_i`$, $`1i9`$. (Note that the arrangement of lines dual to the inflection points of a smooth cubic is rigid, i.e., any such arrangement can be transformed to another by a linear transformation of the projective plane.)

If $`C`$ is a cubic given by $`x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3=0`$, then the lines $`L_1,\mathrm{}L_9`$ are given by equations

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L_1=\{x_1x_3=0\},& L_2=\{x_1\mu ^2x_3=0\},& L_3=\{x_1+\mu x_3=0\},\\ L_4=\{x_2\mu ^2x_3=0\},& L_5=\{x_2x_3=0\},& L_6=\{x_2+\mu x_3=0\},\\ L_7=\{x_1+\mu x_2=0\},& L_8=\{x_1\mu ^2x_2=0\},& L_9=\{x_1x_2=0\}.\end{array}$$

where $`\mu =e^{\pi i/3}`$.

The intersection of three distinct lines $`L_i,L_j,L_k`$ is nonempty if and only if $`(i,j,k)T`$, where

$`T=`$ $`\{(1,2,3),(4,5,6),(7,8,9),(1,4,7),(2,5,8),(3,6,9),`$
$`(1,5,9),(3,5,7),(1,6,8),(3,4,8),(2,4,9),(2,6,7)\}.`$
Denote by $`p_{i,j,k}`$, $`(i,j,k)T`$, the point of intersection of $`L_i,L_j,L_k`$.

Consider a Galois covering $`g:Y^2`$ with Galois group $`G(/5)^2`$ branched along $`L`$ and determined by an epimorphism $`\phi :H_1(^2L,)G`$.

Denote by $`\sigma :\stackrel{~}{^2}^2`$ the blow up with the centers at all the $`3`$-fold points $`p_{i,j,k},(i,j,k)T`$, by $`E_{i,j,k}`$ the exceptional divisor over $`p_{i,j,k}`$, and by $`L_i^{}`$ the strict transform of $`L_i`$. Let $`\epsilon _{i,j,k}H_1(\stackrel{~}{^2}\sigma ^1(L),)H_1(^2L,)`$ correspond to a simple loop around $`E_{i,j,k}`$.

The epimorphism $`\phi :H_1(\stackrel{~}{}^2\sigma ^1(L),)(/5)^2`$ determines a Galois covering $`f:X\stackrel{~}{}^2`$. Pose $`C_i=f^1(L_i^{})`$ and $`D_{i,j,k}=f^1(E_{i,j,k})`$.

In what follows we assume that the epimorphism $`\phi :H_1(\stackrel{~}{}^2\sigma ^1(L),)(/5)^2`$ satisfies the following condition

(S) $`\phi (\epsilon _{i_1,i_2,i_3})`$ and $`\phi (\lambda _{i_j})`$, $`j=1,2,3`$, are linear independent over $`/5`$ for each triple $`(i_1,i_2,i_3)T`$ .

From this assumption it follows that $`f`$ is ramified with ramification index 5 in each $`C_i`$ and each $`D_{i,j,k}`$. Further, according to Lemma 1.3, $`X`$ is non-singular under this assumption.

###### Lemma 2.1

Under above assumptions

###### Demonstration Proof

($`i`$) There are 4 triple points of $`L`$ on each $`L_i`$. Thus, $`(L_i^{},L_i^{})=3`$. On the other hand

$$\mathrm{deg}f(L_i^{},L_i^{})=(f^{}(L_i^{}),f^{}(L_i^{}))=(5C_i,5C_i)=25C_i^2.$$

Therefore, $`C_i^2=3`$.

Proof of ($`ii`$) is similar to ($`i`$).

($`iii`$) The 3-canonical class of $`\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ is $`3K_{\stackrel{~}{}^2}=L_i`$.

By the pull-back formula

$$K_X=f^{}(K_{\stackrel{~}{}^2})+4(C_i+D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}),$$

and, hence,

$$3K_X=7C_i+12D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}.$$
$`2.1`$
Thus, we have

$`9K_X^2`$ $`=49{\displaystyle C_i^2}+144{\displaystyle D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}^2}+168{\displaystyle (C_i,D_{i_1,i_2,i_3})}=`$
$`=49(3)9+144(1)12+16849.`$
Therefore, $`K_X^2=333`$.

By $`(2.1)`$,

$$(C_i,K_X)=9\text{and}(D_{i_1,i_2,i_3},K_X)=3,$$
$`2.2`$
and $`(iv)`$ follows from the adjunction formula. ∎

###### Lemma 2.2

$`X`$ is a surface of general type with ample canonical class.

###### Demonstration Proof

According to the Moisheson-Nakai criterion it is sufficient to show that $`(K_X,C)>0`$ for any algebraic curve $`CX`$. It follows from (2.1) and (2.2) that $`(K_X,C)0`$ for any curve $`C`$. Assume that there is an irreducible curve $`C`$ such that $`(K_X,C)=0`$. Then the intersection of $`C`$ and the effective divisor $`3K_X=7C_i+12D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}`$ is empty. Therefore the curve $`\sigma (f(C))`$ doesn’t meet any line $`L_i`$, $`i=1,\mathrm{},9`$. But it is impossible. ∎

###### Lemma 2.3

The Euler characteristic $`e(X)`$ of $`X`$ is equal to $`111`$, and, in particular, it satisfies the relation $`K_X^2=3e(X)`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

From $`e(\stackrel{~}{}^2)=15`$ and $`e(L_i)=e(E_{i_1,i_2,i_3})=2`$ we deduce, by additivity of the Euler characteristic, that

$`e(X)`$ $`=25e(\stackrel{~}{}^2(C_iD_{i_1,i_2,i_3}))+5{\displaystyle }e(C_iD_{i_1,i_2,i_3})+`$
$`+5{\displaystyle }e(D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}C_i)+{\displaystyle }(C_i,D_{i_1,i_2,i_3})=`$
$`=25(1592122+94)+59(24)+512(23)+94=111.`$
The relation $`K_X^2=3e(X)`$ now follows from Lemma 2.1 (iii). ∎

###### Corollary 2.1

$`X`$ is a strongly rigid surface (i.e., a surface whose moduli space reduces to $`X`$ and $`\overline{X}`$ or merely to $`X`$, where $`\overline{X}`$ stands for the complex conjugated surface). ∎

## §3. Automorphisms of the coverings

Let $`f:X\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ be a $`(/5)^2`$-Galois covering considered in §2. Denote by $`\mathrm{Kl}`$ the group of holomorphic and anti-holomorphic diffeomorphisms $`XX`$. Clearly, if $`\mathrm{Kl}`$ contains at least one anti-holomorphic element, the holomorphic elements form in $`\mathrm{Kl}`$ a subgroup $`\mathrm{Aut}`$ of index $`2`$. In other words, there is a short exact sequence $`1\mathrm{Aut}\mathrm{Kl}H1`$, where $`H=/2`$ or $`0`$. We denote by $`\mathrm{kl}:\mathrm{Kl}H`$ the homomorphism of this sequence. Recall that, by definition, a real structure is an anti-holomorphic involution and note that $`H`$ can be nontrivial even for varieties without real structure.

The group $`\mathrm{Kl}`$ acts most naturally on $`X\times \overline{X}`$, $`X\overline{X}`$ ($`\overline{X}`$ is the surface complex conjugated to $`X`$), and the associated to them groups like $`\mathrm{Div}`$, $`\mathrm{Pic}`$, and $`H^{}`$, as well as on $`(X\times \overline{X})`$ and $`(X\overline{X})`$ (where the latter is not a field, since $`X\overline{X}`$ is not reducible). There are different ways to extract from these actions an action of $`\mathrm{Kl}`$ extending the action of $`\mathrm{Aut}`$ on $`(X)`$, $`\mathrm{Div}(X)`$, $`\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$, and $`H^{}(X)`$. We choose the one which better fits to the needs of the present investigation. In addition, it is the one traditionally used in algebraic geometry.

To extend the action of $`\mathrm{Aut}(X)`$ on $`(X)`$ to that of $`\mathrm{Kl}(X)`$, we associate with an anti-holomorphic diffeomorphism $`h`$ the $``$-anti-linear map $`h^!:(X)(X)`$ defined by $`h^!(f)(x)=\overline{f(h(x))}`$, $`f(X)`$, $`xX()`$. The action $`h^!`$ on holomorphic differential forms is defined in a way that

$$h^!(df)=dh^!(f).$$

An anti-holomorphic diffeomorphism $`h`$ defines an action on $`\mathrm{Div}(X)`$ : if $`C\mathrm{Div}(X)`$ is given by local equations $`(U_\alpha ,f_\alpha )`$, then $`h(C)`$ is given by $`(h^1(U_\alpha ),\overline{f_\alpha h})`$. We have

$$h^1(\mathrm{div}f)=\mathrm{div}h^!(f),f(X).$$
$`3.1`$
According to (3.1), $`h:\mathrm{Div}(X)\mathrm{Div}(X)`$ induces an action $`h^!:\mathrm{Pic}(X)\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$. Clearly, the canonical class $`K_X\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ is invariant under $`h^!`$ for any $`h\mathrm{Kl}`$; here, and further, we put $`h^!=h^{}`$ for $`h\text{Aut}X`$. The intersection number is also preserved by any $`h\mathrm{Kl}`$ (it is may be worth noting that the action on the Neron-Severi subgroup of $`H^{}(X)`$ associated with $`h^!:\mathrm{Pic}(X)\mathrm{Pic}(X)`$ is not the usual $`h^{}`$ but $`h^{}`$, if $`h\mathrm{Kl}\mathrm{Aut}`$).

We say that $`h\mathrm{Kl}X`$ is lifted from $`\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ if there exists $`\stackrel{~}{h}\mathrm{Kl}\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ such that the following diagram is commutative

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X& \stackrel{h}{}& X\\ f& & f& & \\ \stackrel{~}{^2}& \underset{\stackrel{~}{h}}{}& \stackrel{~}{^2}.\end{array}$$

###### Proposition 3.1

Every $`h\mathrm{Kl}(X)`$ is lifted from $`\stackrel{~}{}^2`$. In particular, if $`X`$ has a real structure then for a proper chosen real structure of $`\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ the covering $`f`$ is defined over $``$.

###### Lemma 3.1

Let $`h\mathrm{Kl}(X)`$. Then $`h`$ leaves fixed the sets $`C_i`$ and $`D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Assume that $`h(C_{i_0})C_i`$ for some $`i_0`$. Then

$$(h(C_{i_0}),C_i)=a,a0.$$

It follows from the difference of genera $`g(C_{i_0})g(D_{i_1,i_2,i_3})`$ that $`h(C_{i_0})D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}`$. Therefore,

$$(h(C_{i_0}),D_{i_1,i_2,i_3})=b,b0.$$

Since $`h^!(K_X)=K_X`$, then by Lemma 2.1 and the adjunction formula,

$$(h(C_{i_0}),K_X)=(C_{i_0},K_X)=9.$$

Thus, in accordance with $`(2.1)`$ and $`(2.2)`$, we should have

$$7a+12b=27$$

for some non-negative integers $`a`$ and $`b`$, which is impossible.

The proof that $`h(D_{i_1,i_2,i_3})_{(i_1,i_2,i_3)T}D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}`$ for every $`(i_1,i_2,i_3)T`$ is similar. ∎

###### Demonstration Proof of Proposition 3.1

The second statement is a straightforward consequence of the first one. To prove the latter it is sufficient to show that $`h`$ acts on the fibers of $`f`$, i.e., that for almost any $`p\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ one can find $`q\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ such that $`h(f^1(p))=f^1(q)`$.

Let us fix a point $`p_{i_0,j_0,k_0}^2`$. Since $`C_{i_0}`$ and $`C_{j_0}`$ meet $`D_{i_0,j_0,k_0}`$, then $`h(C_{i_0})`$ and $`h(C_{j_0})`$ meet $`h(D_{i_0,j_0,k_0})`$. The curve $`C_{i_0}`$ (respectively, $`C_{j_0}`$) intersects 3 other curves $`D_{i_r,j_r,k_r}`$, $`r=1,2,3`$, (respectively, $`D_{i_r,j_r,k_r}^{}`$, $`r=1,2,3`$) distinct from $`D_{i_0,j_0,k_0}`$. Thus, $`h(C_{i_0})`$ (respectively, $`h(C_{j_0})`$) intersects each of $`h(D_{i_r,j_r,k_r})`$, $`r=1,2,3`$, (respectively, $`h(D_{i_r,j_r,k_r}^{})`$, $`r=1,2,3`$).

By Lemma 3.1, $`h(C_{i_0})=C_i`$ and $`h(C_{j_0})=C_j`$ for some $`i`$ and $`j`$. We have

$$\mathrm{div}f^{}(l_{i_0}l_{j_0}^1)=5(C_{i_0}+\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}D_{i_r,j_r,k_r})5(C_{j_0}+\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}D_{i_r,j_r,k_r}^{})$$

and

$$\mathrm{div}f^{}(l_il_j^1)=5(h(C_{i_0})+\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}h(D_{i_r,j_r,k_r}))5(h(C_{j_0})+\underset{r=1}{\overset{3}{}}h(D_{i_r,j_r,k_r}^{})).$$

Therefore, there is a constant $`k_{i_0,j_0}`$ such that

$$h^!(f^{}(l_il_j^1))=k_{i_0,j_0}f^{}(l_{i_0}l_{j_0}^1).$$
$`3.2`$
Let us choose another point $`p_{i_0,j_0,k_0}^{}^2`$, $`p_{i_0^{},j_0^{},k_0^{}}L_{i_0^{}}L_{j_0^{}}`$ and consider the curves $`C_{i_0^{}}`$, $`C_{j_0^{}}`$, and their images $`h(C_{i_0^{}})=C_i^{}`$, $`h(C_{j_0^{}})=C_j^{}`$. Arguing as above, we conclude that there exists a constant $`k_{i_0^{},j_0^{}}`$ such that

$$h^!(f^{}(l_i^{}l_j^{}^1))=k_{i_0^{},j_0^{}}f^{}(l_{i_0^{}}l_{j_0^{}}^1).$$
$`3.3`$
Since every $`p\stackrel{~}{}^2D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}`$ can be given as the intersection of fibers of two linear rational functions $`l_{i_0}l_{j_0}^1`$ and $`l_{i_0^{}}l_{j_0^{}}^1`$, it follows from $`(3.2)`$ and $`(3.3)`$ that for any $`p\stackrel{~}{}^2D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}`$ we have $`h(f^1(p))=f^1(q)`$ for some $`q\stackrel{~}{}^2`$. ∎

## §4. Three examples

Example I. A non real rigid surface.

Let $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_9`$ be an arrangement of nine lines in $`^2`$ dual to the nine inflection points of a smooth cubic $`C`$ in the dual plane (see §2), and let $`f:X_1\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ be the Galois covering associated with the epimorphism $`\phi _1:H_1(^2L,)(/5)^2`$ given by

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\phi _1(\lambda _1)=(1,1),& \phi _1(\lambda _2)=(1,0),& \phi _1(\lambda _3)=(1,1),\\ \phi _1(\lambda _4)=(3,3),& \phi _1(\lambda _5)=(3,0),& \phi _1(\lambda _6)=(0,1),\\ \phi _1(\lambda _7)=(0,1),& \phi _1(\lambda _8)=(0,2),& \phi _1(\lambda _9)=(1,1),\end{array}$$

see §1 (note that $`\phi _1(\lambda _i)=0mod5`$).

###### Proposition 4.1

The surface $`X_1`$ is smooth and strongly rigid. The group $`\mathrm{Kl}(X_1)`$ coincides with the covering transformations group $`G=/5\times /5`$. In particular, there does not exist neither a real structure nor even an anti-holomorphic diffeomorphism on $`X_1`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

The surface $`X_1`$ is smooth due to Lemma 1.3. According to Lemmas 2.1, 2.3 we have $`K_{X_1}^2=333`$ and $`e(X_1)=111`$, and the rigidity statement follows from Corollary 2.1.

Consider, now, any $`c\mathrm{Kl}(X_1)`$. By Proposition 3.1, $`c`$ is lifted from $`\stackrel{~}{}^2`$, i.e., there is $`\stackrel{~}{c}\mathrm{Kl}(\stackrel{~}{}^2)`$ such that $`fc=\stackrel{~}{c}f.`$

As in §1, consider affine coordinates $`x_1,x_2`$ in $`^2=^2L_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the linear equations $`l_i(x_1,x_2)=0`$ of $`L_i^2`$. The function field $`(X_1)`$ of $`X_1`$ is identified with the sub-field

$$K_{\phi _1}=(x_1,x_2,w_1,w_2)$$

of $`K_{u(5)}`$, where $`w_1=l_1l_2l_3l_4^3l_5^3l_9`$ and $`w_2=l_1l_3l_4^3l_6l_7l_8^2l_9`$, so that

$$K_{\phi _1}=\underset{a\mathrm{pr}A_1}{}(x_1,x_2)z^a$$
$`4.1`$
is a subspace of the vector space

$$K_{u(m)}=\underset{a\mathrm{pr}A}{}(x_1,x_2)z^a$$

over $`(x_1,x_2)`$, where

$$A=\{\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _9)^9\mathrm{\hspace{0.17em}0}\alpha _i4\text{and}\alpha _i=0mod5\},$$

$`\text{pr}:A\overline{A}(/5)^8`$ is the projection given by $`\text{pr}(\alpha )=(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _8)`$ for $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _9)`$, and $`A_1A`$ consists from $`0=(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0)`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cccc}(1,1,1,3,3,0,0,0,1),& (2,2,2,1,1,0,0,0,2),& (3,3,3,4,4,0,0,0,3),& (4,4,4,2,2,0,0,0,4),\\ (1,0,1,3,0,1,1,2,1),& (2,0,2,1,0,2,2,4,2),& (3,0,3,4,0,3,3,1,3),& (4,0,4,2,0,4,4,3,4),\\ (2,1,2,1,3,1,1,2,2),& (4,2,4,2,1,2,2,4,4),& (1,3,1,3,4,3,3,1,1),& (3,4,3,4,2,4,4,3,3),\\ (3,1,3,4,3,2,2,4,3),& (1,2,1,3,1,4,4,3,1),& (4,3,4,2,4,1,1,2,4),& (2,4,2,1,2,3,3,1,2),\\ (4,1,4,2,3,3,3,1,4),& (3,2,3,4,1,1,1,2,3),& (2,3,2,1,4,4,4,3,2),& (1,4,1,3,2,2,2,4,1),\\ (0,1,0,0,3,4,4,3,0),& (0,2,0,0,1,3,3,1,0),& (0,3,0,0,4,2,2,4,0),& (0,4,0,0,2,1,1,2,0).\end{array}$$

The diffeomorphism $`c`$ induces an action $`c^!`$ on $`(X_1)`$ such that the restriction of $`c^!`$ to the subfield $`(\stackrel{~}{}^2)=(^2)`$ coincides with $`\stackrel{~}{c}^!`$ (see Section 3). By Lemma 3.1, the sets $`C_i`$ and $`D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}`$ are invariant under the action of $`c`$. Therefore the set $`L_i`$ is invariant under the action of $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$. Thus, $`c^!`$ acts on the set of the one-dimensional subspaces $`(x_1,x_2)z^a`$, $`a\mathrm{pr}A_1`$, of $`K_{\phi _1}`$, and, thus, induces an action on $`A_1`$. We denote the latter action by $`c^!`$ also. For $`aA_1`$ denote by $`r_i(a),i/5,`$ the number of coordinates of $`a`$ equal $`i`$.

###### Lemma 4.1

The functions $`r_i`$ are invariant under the action of $`c^!`$, i.e., $`r_i(\alpha )=r_i(\beta )`$ for $`\beta =c^!(\alpha )`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

For each $`j`$, $`1j9`$ the coordinate $`\alpha _j`$ of $`\alpha =(\alpha _1,\mathrm{},\alpha _9)A_1`$ is congruent modulo 5 to the order of zero along $`C_j`$ of any of the functions in $`C(x_1,x_2)z^a`$, $`a=\mathrm{pr}\alpha `$. It remains to note that due to Lemma 3.1 $`c`$ interchanges the curves $`C_j`$. ∎

By Lemma 4.1, the action of $`c^!`$ on $`A_1`$ is determined by a permutation $`\pi `$ of $`1,\mathrm{},9`$.

Consider $`\alpha =(1,1,1,3,3,0,0,0,1)`$ and $`\beta =(1,0,1,3,0,1,1,2,1)`$. It is easy to see that $`\alpha `$ is the unique element in $`A_1`$ with $`r_0=3,r_1=4,r_2=0,r_3=2,r_4=0`$. Respectively, $`\beta `$ is the unique element in $`A_1`$ with $`r_0=2,r_1=5,r_2=1,r_3=1,r_4=0`$. Thus, by Lemma 4.1, $`c^!(\alpha )=\alpha `$ and $`c^!(\beta )=\beta `$. Since $`r_2(\beta )=1`$ and $`r_3(\beta )=1`$, we have $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_4)=L_4`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_8)=L_8`$. Further, $`r_3(\alpha )=2`$ implies $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_5)=L_5`$ and $`r_0(\beta )=2`$ implies $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_2)=L_2`$.

The above invariance properties of $`L_2`$, $`L_4`$, $`L_5`$, $`L_8`$ mean that these lines are invariant under the action of $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$. Hence, the points $`p_{2,4,9}=L_2L_4`$, $`p_{2,5,8}=L_5L_8`$, $`p_{4,5,6}=L_4L_5`$ and $`p_{3,4,8}=L_4L_8`$ are fixed points of $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$.

Since $`r_0(\alpha )=3`$, there remain two possibilities: either $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_6)=L_7`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_7)=L_6`$, or $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_6)=L_6`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_7)=L_7`$.

If $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_6)=L_7`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_7)=L_6`$, then their intersection point $`p_{2,6,7}`$ is a fixed point. This is impossible. Indeed, in this case $`L_6`$ passes through two different fixed points $`p_{2,6,7}`$ and $`p_{4,5,6}`$, so should satisfy $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_6)=L_6`$.

If $`L_6`$ and $`L_7`$ are invariant lines, then all lines $`L_i`$ with $`1i9`$, should be invariant. In fact, since $`L_5`$ and $`L_7`$ are invariant lines, their intersection point $`p_{3,5,7}`$ is a fixed point. Then, $`L_3`$ is an invariant line, since $`L_3`$ passes through two fixed points $`p_{3,4,8}`$ and $`p_{3,5,7}`$. Therefore, the intersection points $`p_{3,6,9}`$ of $`L_3`$ and $`L_6`$, $`p_{1,2,3}`$ of $`L_2`$ and $`L_3`$, $`p_{1,4,7}`$ of $`L_4`$ and $`L_7`$, and $`p_{7,8,9}`$ of $`L_7`$ and $`L_8`$ are also fixed points. It implies, that $`L_1`$ and $`L_9`$, which go, respectively, through $`p_{1,2,3}`$, $`p_{1,4,7}`$ and $`p_{3,6,9}`$, $`p_{7,8,9}`$ are invariant under the action of $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$. 0 As we have proved, the nine inflection points of $`C`$, which is a smooth cubic, are fixed under the action induced on $`^2`$ by $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$. Therefore, if $`\stackrel{~}{c}\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{}^2)`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{c}=\mathrm{Id}`$ and, hence, $`c`$ is a covering transformation. If $`\stackrel{~}{c}\mathrm{Aut}(\stackrel{~}{}^2)`$, then $`\stackrel{~}{c}^2\mathrm{Aut}\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ is the indentity, and so $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ induces a real structure on $`^2`$ such that all inflection points of a smooth cubic $`C`$ are real with respect to this structure, but it is impossible. ∎

###### Corollary 4.1

The moduli space of complex structures on the underlying smooth 4-manifold consists of two distinct points $`X_1`$ and $`\overline{X}_1`$. In particular, $`X_1`$ and $`\overline{X}_1`$ give a counterexample to ”Dif=Def” problem <sup>1</sup><sup>1</sup>1First counter examples to ”Dif=Def” problem were given by Manetti in \[Ma\]..

Remark 4.1. One can deduce from Proposition 4.1 and the Mostow strong rigidity (using the Smith inequality for transformations of prime order and group cohomology arguments) that $`X_1`$ has no any nonindentical diffeomorphism of order $`5`$.

Remark 4.2. The irregularity of $`X_1`$ is equal to zero. It follows, for example, from \[Is\].

Example II. A non maximal rigid surface.

Now, suppose that the cubic $`C`$ is given by $`x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3=0`$ and that the lines $`L_1,\mathrm{},L_9`$ are numbered as in Section 2. In particular, under this choice, $`L_1,L_5`$, and $`L_9`$ are real. Let $`f:X_2\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ be the Galois covering associated with the epimorphism $`\phi _2:H_1(^2L,)(/m)^2`$ given by $`\phi _2(\lambda _i)=(a_{i,1},a_{i,2})`$, where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\phi _2(\lambda _1)=(0,1),& \phi _2(\lambda _2)=(1,0),& \phi _2(\lambda _3)=(1,0),\\ \phi _2(\lambda _4)=(0,1),& \phi _2(\lambda _5)=(1,0),& \phi _2(\lambda _6)=(0,1),\\ \phi _2(\lambda _7)=(1,2),& \phi _2(\lambda _8)=(1,2),& \phi _2(\lambda _9)=(0,3).\end{array}$$

###### Proposition 4.2

The surface $`X_2`$ is smooth and strongly rigid. It can be equipped with a real structure. Such a structure is unique, up to conjugation by covering transformations, and not maximal rm (where the latter means that $`dimH_i(X_2();`$ $`/2)<dimH_i(X_2();/2)).`$ The group $`\mathrm{Kl}(X_2)`$ is a semi-direct product of the group $`\mu _2/2`$ of order 2 and the covering transformations group $`G/5\times /5`$. This $`/2`$-extension is defined by relations $`s\gamma s^1=\gamma ^1`$, $`\gamma G`$, $`s\mu _2`$, $`s1`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

As in the proof of Proposition 4.1, $`X_2`$ is smooth due to Lemma 1.3. According to Lemmas 2.1, 2.3 we have $`K_{X_2}^2=333`$ and $`e(X_2)=111`$, and the rigidity statement follows from Corollary 2.1.

As above, we identify the function field $`(X_2)`$ of $`X_2`$ with subfield $`K_{\phi _2}=(x_1,x_2,w_1,w_2)`$ of $`K_{u(5)}`$, where $`w_1=l_2l_3l_5l_7l_8`$ and $`w_2=l_1l_4l_6l_7^2l_8^2l_9^3`$. Then

$$K_{\phi _2}=\underset{a\mathrm{pr}A_2}{}(x_1,x_2)z^a$$

is a subspace of the vector space

$$K_{u(m)}=\underset{a\mathrm{pr}A}{}(x_1,x_2)z^a$$

over $`(x_1,x_2)`$, where $`A`$ and $`\mathrm{pr}`$ are the same as in the previous example and where $`A_2`$ consists from $`(0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0)`$ and

$$\begin{array}{cccc}(0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0),& (0,2,2,0,2,0,2,2,0),& (0,3,3,0,3,0,3,3,0),& (0,4,4,0,4,0,4,4,0),\\ (1,0,0,1,0,1,2,2,3),& (2,0,0,2,0,2,4,4,1),& (3,0,0,3,0,3,1,1,4),& (4,0,0,4,0,4,3,3,2),\\ (1,1,1,1,1,1,3,3,3),& (2,2,2,2,2,2,1,1,1),& (3,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,4),& (4,4,4,4,4,4,2,2,2),\\ (1,2,2,1,2,1,4,4,3),& (2,4,4,2,4,2,3,3,1),& (3,1,1,3,1,3,2,2,4),& (4,3,3,4,3,4,1,1,2),\\ (1,3,3,1,3,1,0,0,3),& (2,1,1,2,1,2,0,0,1),& (3,4,4,3,4,3,0,0,4),& (4,2,2,4,2,4,0,0,2),\\ (1,4,4,1,4,1,1,1,3),& (2,3,3,2,3,2,2,2,1),& (3,2,2,3,2,3,3,3,4),& (4,1,1,4,1,4,4,4,2).\end{array}$$

Pose $`\alpha =(0,1,1,0,1,0,1,1,0)`$ and $`\beta =(1,0,0,1,0,1,2,2,3)`$ and consider any $`c\text{Kl}(X_2)`$, $`c\mathrm{Id}`$. The considerations as in the proof of Proposition 4.1 show that the line $`L_9`$ and each the unions $`L_7L_8`$, $`L_1L_4L_6`$, and $`L_2L_3L_5`$ are invariant under the action of $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$.

It is impossible that $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_7)=L_7`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_8)=L_8`$. In fact, otherwise, $`\stackrel{~}{c}(p_{1,4,7})=p_{1,4,7}`$, since the arrangement $`L_1L_4L_6L_7L_8`$ has only two $`3`$-fold points $`p_{1,4,7}`$ and $`p_{1,6,8}`$. It would imply $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_6)=L_6`$, which together with $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_9)=L_9`$ implies that $`L_1`$, and hence $`L_4`$ and subsequantly all the lines, are invariant under the action of $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$, which contredicts to $`\stackrel{~}{c}\mathrm{Id}`$.

So, the only possibility is $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_7)=L_8`$ and $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_8)=L_7`$. Since the pair of the $`3`$-fold points $`\{p_{2,5,8},p_{3,5,7}\}`$ of $`L_2L_3L_5L_7L_8`$ is invariant under $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$, the line $`L_5`$ is invariant while $`L_2`$ and $`L_3`$ are permuted. The same arguments show that $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_1)=L_1`$, $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_4)=L_6`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{c}(L_6)=L_4`$.

Such an action of $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$ on $`L=L_i`$ is the one induced by the standard complex conjugation on $`\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ (see Section 2 or use the unicity) and thus coincides with it. It lifts to a real structure $`s`$ on $`X_2`$; in fact, $`X_2`$ can be seen as the minimal desingularization of the projective closure of the real surface given by equations

$`w_1^5=`$ $`(x_1^2+x_1+1)(x_21)(x_1^2+x_1x_2+x_2^2),`$
$`w_2^5=`$ $`(x_11)(x_2^2+x_2+1)(x_1^2+x_1x_2+x_2^2)^2(x_1x_2)^3.`$
This real surface is not maximal, since its real part is homeomorphic to $`^2`$ with four blown up points (it is easy to check that there are only four real points among the blown up points $`p_{i,j,k}`$, $`\{i,j,k\}T`$). Since each $`c\mathrm{Kl}(X_2)`$ is determined, up to composition with covering transformations, by $`\stackrel{~}{c}`$, the group $`\mathrm{Kl}(X_2)`$ is generated by $`s`$ and the covering transformations. The commutation relations $`s\gamma =\gamma ^1s`$ follow from the above equations. These relations imply that each $`s\gamma `$ is a real structure and that these real structures are all equivalent. ∎

Remark 4.3. The surfaces in the both examples considered have the same $`K^2`$ and $`e`$. Thus, they belong to the same Hilbert scheme and provide an example of a Hilbert scheme whose connected components have different properties with respect to the existence of real structures on the surfaces repersenting these components. Note also that contrary to the first example in the second one the moduli space reduces to one point, which is real (and, moreover, corresponds to a surface with a real structure).

Example III. A rigid surface with two non-equivalent real structures.

Here, we call two structures equivalent if they can be transformed one into another by an automorphism of the surface.

Let $`L=L_1\mathrm{}L_6`$ be a complete quadrilateral. Note that two complete quadrilaterals are projectively equivalent. In this arrangement $`t_2=3`$, $`t_3=4`$, and $`t_r=0`$ for $`r4`$. After suitable numbering, we can assume that the set of $`2`$-fold points consists of $`\{L_1L_4,L_2L_5,L_3L_6\}`$ and the set of $`3`$-fold points of $`\{L_1L_2L_6,L_2L_3L_4,L_1L_3L_6,L_4L_5L_6\}.`$

Let $`f:X_3\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ be the Galois covering associated with the epimorphism $`\phi _3:H_1(^2L,)(/5)^2`$ given by $`\phi _3(\lambda _i)=(a_{i,1},a_{i,2})`$, where

$$\begin{array}{ccc}\phi _3(\lambda _1)=(1,0),& \phi _3(\lambda _2)=(1,0),& \phi _3(\lambda _3)=(1,2),\\ \phi _3(\lambda _4)=(0,1),& \phi _3(\lambda _5)=(0,1),& \phi _3(\lambda _6)=(2,1),\end{array}$$

and $`\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ is the blow up of $`^2`$ at the $`3`$-fold points of $`L`$. As above, denote by $`\sigma :\stackrel{~}{^2}^2`$ the blow up with the centers at the $`3`$-fold points, by $`E_{i,j,k}`$ the exceptional divisor over the $`3`$-fold point $`p_{i,j,k}`$, and by $`L_i^{}`$ the strict transform of $`L_i`$. Pose $`C_i=f^1(L_i^{})`$ and $`D_{i,j,k}=f^1(E_{i,j,k})`$.

As in §1, consider affine coordinates $`x_1,x_2`$ in $`^2=^2L_{\mathrm{}}`$ and the linear equations $`l_i(x_1,x_2)=0`$ of $`L_i^2`$. Then, by Lemma 1.3, $`X_3`$ is isomorphic to the minimal desingularization of the projective closure of the surface given by equations

$`w_1^5=`$ $`l_1l_2l_3l_6^2,`$ $`4.2`$$`4.3`$
$`w_2^5=`$ $`l_3^2l_4l_5l_6.`$
The computations as in the proof of Lemmas 2.1 and 2.2 show that $`X_3`$ is a surface of general type with $`K_{X_3}^2=45`$ and $`e(X_3)=15`$. Therefore $`X_3`$ is a strongly rigid surface.

###### Lemma 4.3

Let $`h\mathrm{Kl}(X_3)`$. Then $`h`$ leaves fixed the set $`(C_i)(D_{i_1,i_2,i_3})`$.

Proof is similar to that of Lemma 3.1.

###### Proposition 4.3

Every $`h\mathrm{Kl}(X_3)`$ is lifted from $`\stackrel{~}{}^2`$. In particular, if $`X_3`$ has a real structure then for a proper chosen real structure of $`\stackrel{~}{}^2`$ the covering $`f`$ is defined over $``$.

Proof is similar to that of Proposition 3.1.

###### Proposition 4.4

The surface $`X_3`$ can be equipped with 2 non-equivalent real structures.

###### Demonstration Proof

Consider two real structures of $`^2`$. For the first one, all the lines of $`L`$ are real, and for the second one, the lines $`L_3`$, $`L_6`$ are real and the lines $`L_1`$, $`L_2`$, respectively $`L_4`$ and $`L_5`$, are complex conjugated. Then these two real structures induce two real structures on $`X_3`$, since in the both cases the polynomials in $`(4.2)`$ and $`(4.3)`$ are defined over $``$.

These two real structures of $`X_3`$ are non-equivalent. Indeed, by Lemma 4.3, each automorphism of $`X_3`$ leaves fixed the set $`(C_i)(D_{i_1,i_2,i_3})`$ while, on one hand, all the curves $`C_i`$ and $`D_{i_1,i_2,i_3}`$ are real with respect to the first real structure, but, on the other hand, only $`C_3`$ and $`C_6`$ (among $`C_1\mathrm{},C_6`$) are real curves with respect to the second real structure.

## §5. Non reality of fake projective plane and remarks

A. We call a surface of general type with $`p_g=q=0`$ and $`K^2=9`$ a fake projective plane. The existence of fake projective planes was proved by D. Mumford \[Mu\].

###### Theorem 5.1

A fake projective plane has no anti-holomorphic diffeomorphisms.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`X`$ be a fake projective plane. Then (see \[Mi\], \[Y\]), the universal covering space of $`X`$ is a ball.

First, let us show that there is no an anti-holomorphic involution on $`X`$.

So, assume that $`X`$ can be equipped with a real structure and denote by $`X_{}`$ the real point set of $`X`$. According to the Lefschetz trace formula applied to the involution defining the structure, $`e(X_{})=1`$. Thus, $`X_{}`$ is in nonempty and contains at least one component diffeomorphic either to sphere or real projective plane. To lift the real structure to the universal covering pick a point $`p`$ on such a component and identify the points of the universal covering with homotopy classes of the paths starting at $`p`$. The real part of the covering covers (without ramification) the chosen real component of $`X`$. On the other hand, since the universal covering space is a ball, its real part has no compact components.

From the above it follows now that if there exists an anti-holomrphic diffeomorphism $`h`$, then its order can not be $`2n`$, where $`n`$ is odd. In fact, if $`n`$ is odd, then $`h^n`$ is the anti-holomorphic involution. Thus, Theorem 5.1 follows from the following Lemma.

###### Lemma 5.1

The group $`\text{Aut}X`$ have no elements of even order.

###### Demonstration Proof of Lemma

Assume that there is $`h\text{Aut}X`$ of order 2. One dimensional components $`C`$ of the fixed point set of $`h`$ are nonsingular. By Enoki-Hirzebruch \[BHH\] relative proportionality,

$$e(C)=2C^2.$$

Thus $`C=\mathrm{}`$, since otherwise $`C^2>0`$ and $`e(C)<0`$ (the latter inequalities can be deduced, for example, from $`C=rK`$ with positive $`r`$).

Since $`dimH^i(X,)=1`$ for $`i=0,2,4`$ and $`0`$ for $`i=1,3`$, the topological Lefschetz trace formula shows that the number of fixed points of $`h`$ should be equal to 3 for any nontrivial holomorphic automorphism without one dimensional components in the fixed point set. Next, applying the holomorphic Lefschetz formula to such a $`h`$ (of order 2), we get

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{3}{}}\frac{1}{det(IdD_i)}=1,$$

where $`D_i,i=1,2,3,`$ are the Jacobi matrices of $`h`$ at its fixed points. On the other hand, $`det(IdD_i)=4`$ at each fixed point, and thus the Lefschetz formula turns into $`\frac{3}{4}=1`$, i.e., we get a contradiction, which proves the Lemma and finishes the proof of Theorem 5.1. ∎

###### Corollary 5.1

For any fake projective plane $`X`$ the moduli space of complex structures on the underlying smooth 4-manifold consists of two distinct points $`X`$ and $`\overline{X}`$.

B. Arguments used in the proof of Theorem 5.1 to exclude anti-holomorphic involutions can be replaced by the following general result.

###### Theorem 5.2

If $`X`$ is a compact complex Kähler surface of negative sectional curvature, then for any real structure the real part of $`X`$ has no real component diffeomorphic to sphere, real projective plane, torus or Klein bottle.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`p:BX`$ be the universal covering. According to Cartan-Hadamard theorem, $`B`$ is diffeomorphic to $`^4`$. Each connected component $`M`$ of the pull back $`p^1(F)`$ of a real component $`F`$ of $`X`$ is a real component of some real structure on $`B`$. Hence, by Smith theorem, $`M`$ has the homology of a point and, hence, it is diffeomorphic to $`^2`$. This excludes sphere and real projective plane as $`F`$ and gives the injectivity of $`\pi _1(F)\pi _1(X)`$. It remains to note that $`\pi _1(X)`$, as the fundamental group of a compact manifold of negative curvature, contains no subgroup isomorphic to $``$, see \[P\]. ∎

It may be interesting to compare this observation with Kollàr conjecture (and Viterbo theorem, see \[Kh\]) according to which an algebraic variety of dimension $`3`$ is of general type as soon as one of its real components, with respect to some real structure, is hyperbolic.

C. Miyaoka-Yau surfaces can provide interesting examples related to the ”Ragsdale bound”, i.e., examples of real surfaces $`X`$ with $`\beta _1^{}=dimH_1(X_{},/2)`$ close or above $`h^{1,1}(X)`$. (First examples with $`\beta _1^{}>h^{1,1}(X)`$ were found in early 80th by I. Itenberg \[It\].) Recall that a real surface $`X`$ is called maximal (or $`M`$-surface), if the Smith bound (see, f.e., the survey \[DK\])

$$\beta _i^{}\beta _i^{}=2+4(h^{1,0}+\nu )+2h^{2,0}+h^{1,1},$$
$`5.1`$
where $`\nu `$ is the rank of the $`2`$-torsion in $`H_1(X;)`$ and $`\beta _i^{}=dimH_i(X;/2)`$, turns into equality.

By the Lefschetz formula, for any real surface

$$\beta _0^{}\beta _1^{}+\beta _2^{}=1+\mathrm{tr}P^{1,1},$$
$`5.2`$
where $`P^{1,1}`$ is the primitive part of $`H^{1,1}`$ (which is, in fact, of codimension $`1`$ in $`H^{1,1}`$). Hence, for an $`M`$-surface

$$\beta _1^{}=1+2(h^{1,0}+\nu )+h^{2,0}+p_{}^{1,1},$$
$`5.3`$
where $`p_{}^{1,1}`$ stands for the dimension of the anti-invariant part of the action of the real structure in $`P^{1,1}`$. On the other hand, for Miyaoka-Yau surfaces

$$3(2+2h^{2,0}h^{1,1})=24h^{1,0}+2h^{2,0}+h^{1,1}$$

and thus

$$h^{1,1}=h^{2,0}+h^{1,0}+1.$$
$`5.4`$
Finally, for any maximal real Miyaoka-Yau surface

$$\beta _1^{}=h^{1,1}+p_{}^{1,1}+h^{1,0}+2\nu .$$
$`5.5`$
It implies that either for all maximal real Miyaoka-Yau surfaces with $`h^{1,0}=0`$ it holds $`p_{}^{1,1}=\nu =0`$ (which would be strange) or there are (maximal) real Miyaoka-Yau surfaces with $`h^{1,0}=0`$ and $`\beta _1^{}>h^{1,1}`$ (which is more plausible).

The next propositions show that if maximal real Miyaoka-Yau surfaces of general type exist their topology should be very restricted. Note also that Theorem 5.2 provides a below bound on $`|e(F)1|`$ for the real components $`F`$ of $`X`$, while the more traditional results give the upper bounds of $`|e(X_{})1|`$ where $`X_{}`$ is the whole real point set (see, f.e., the survey \[DK\]).

###### Proposition 5.1

There is no any maximal real Miyaoka-Yau surface with $`h^{2,0}3`$.

###### Demonstration Proof

Let $`X`$ be a maximal real Miyaoka-Yau surface. Denote by $`k`$ the number of connected components of $`X_{}`$. By (5.2),

$$2k\beta _1^{}=1+p_+^{1,1}p_{}^{1,1}.$$
$`5.6`$
Substituting $`\beta _1^{}`$ from $`(5,5)`$ into $`(5.6)`$, and via $`(5.4)`$, we have

$$2k=h^{1,1}+h^{1,0}+2\nu +p_+^{1,1}+1$$
$`5.7`$
By Theorem 5.2, $`dimH_1(S;/2)3`$ for any connected component $`S`$ of $`X_{}`$ (the theorem is applied, since the unviversal covering of $`X`$ is a ball, see \[Mi\],\[Y\]). Therefore $`\beta _1^{}3k`$ and, by $`(5.2)`$ and $`(5.7)`$

$$2p_{}^{1,1}h^{1,1}+h^{1,0}+2\nu +3p_+^{1,1}+3$$

or, equivalently,

$$h^{1,1}h^{1,0}+2\nu +5p_+^{1,1}+5$$
$`5.8`$
and

$$h^{2,0}2\nu +5p_+^{1,1}+4.$$

Therefore $`h^{2,0}4`$. ∎

###### Proposition 5.2

Let $`X`$ be a maximal real Miyaoka-Yau surface. Then there are at least 3 connected components of $`X_{}`$ diffeomorphic to a sphere with 3 points blown up.

###### Demonstration Proof

Denote by $`k_3`$ the number of connected components of $`X_{}`$ diffeomorphic to a sphere with 3 points blown up. Then, by Theorem 5.2, $`dimH_1(S;/2)4`$ for all other connected components $`S`$ of $`X_{}`$. Therefore $`\beta _1^{}4kk_3`$. It follows from $`(5.5)`$ and $`(5.7)`$ that in this case we should have the following inequality

$$h^{1,1}+h^{1,0}+2\nu +p_{}^{1,1}2h^{1,1}+2h^{1,0}+4\nu +2p_+^{1,1}+2k_3$$

which contradicts to $`h^{1,1}>p_{}^{1,1}`$ if $`k_3<3`$. ∎

D. The Miyaoka-Yau surfaces are quasi-simple in the following sense: two real structures of such a surface are conjugated by an automorphism, if and only if they are conjugated by a diffeomorphism.<sup>2</sup><sup>2</sup>2In general, the real quasi-simplicity of a deformation class of varieties should mean that two real structures are real deformation equivalent, if and only if they are conjugated by a diffeomorphism. This follows from Mostow strong rigidity and the fact that the only isometry of a compact hyperbolic riemannian manifold acting identically on the fundamental group is the identity map. (Note, that two real structures are conjugated by an element of $`\mathrm{Aut}`$ as soon as they are conjugated by an element of $`\mathrm{Kl}`$.)

Added in proof. Using the nonreal surface constructed in Section 4 or fake projective planes (see Section 5), one can obtain examples of varieties $`X`$ of any dimension $`3`$ having the same property, i.e., examples such that $`X`$ and $`\overline{X}`$ belong to distinct connceted components of the moduli space. It is sufficient to consider products of these surfaces with tori. The statement on the components of the moduli space will then follow from the well known properties of the Albanese map and Siu’s rigidity theorem.

F. Catanese informed us that he also constructed examples of surfaces where the complex conjugation interchanges the components of their moduli space. His surfaces are covered by the bi-disc $`D\times D^2`$.