, ,

We work over

C

, and fix the dimension/genus

g > 1

. Let

ℋ_{g}

be the Siegel upper half-space — the set of all

g \times g

period matrices

τ

, i.e.

symmetric complex

g \times g

matrices with positive definite imaginary part.

Each such

τ

corresponds to an abelian variety

X_{τ} : = C^{g} / τ Z^{g} + Z^{g}

, and the moduli space

A_{g}

of principally polarized abelian varieties (ppavs) is then the quotient of

ℋ_{g}

by a certain action of the symplectic group

Sp (2 g, Z)

A ppav is called irreducible if it is not isomorphic to a product of two lower-dimensional ppavs (with polarization). For convenience we denote by

A i r r g

the moduli space of irreducible ppavs of genus

g

. When in the following we say “abelian variety”, we actually mean a ppav.

Denoting

e (x) : = exp (π i x)

, for a period matrix

τ

and a vector

z \in C^{g}

we define the theta function with characteristics

ɛ, δ \in (Z / 2 Z)^{g}

, thought of as vectors consisting of zeros and ones, to be

θ [\begin{matrix} ɛ \\ δ \end{matrix}] (τ, z) : = \sum_{m \in Z^{g}} e [(m + \frac{ɛ}{2}, τ (m + \frac{ɛ}{2})) + 2 (m + \frac{ɛ}{2}, z + \frac{δ}{2})],

where

(\cdot, \cdot)

denotes the scalar product. A theta function with characteristics is even or odd as a function of

z

depending on whether the scalar product

(ɛ, δ)

is even or odd.

We denote by

θ (τ, z) : = θ [\begin{matrix} 0 \\ 0 \end{matrix}] (τ, z)

the classical Riemann's theta function. Theta functions with characteristics are, up to a constant factor, just the values of Riemann's theta function of a shifted argument:

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} θ (τ, z + \frac{τ ɛ + δ}{2}) = \sum_{m \in Z^{g}} e [(m, τ m) + 2 (m, z + \frac{τ ɛ + δ}{2})] \\ = \sum_{m \in Z^{g}} e [(m + \frac{ɛ}{2}, τ (m + \frac{ɛ}{2})) + 2 (m + \frac{ɛ}{2}, z + \frac{δ}{2}) - (\frac{ɛ}{2}, τ \frac{ɛ}{2}) - (ɛ, z + \frac{δ}{2})] \\ = (- 1)^{(ɛ, δ)} e [- \frac{1}{4} (ɛ, τ ɛ) - (ɛ, z)] θ [\begin{matrix} ɛ \\ δ \end{matrix}] (τ, z) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1)

Thus instead of thinking of a characteristic

[\begin{matrix} ɛ \\ δ \end{matrix}]

as two integer vectors it sometimes is better to think of it as the point

\frac{τ ɛ + δ}{2}

of order two on the abelian variety

X_{τ}

We further define theta functions of the second order to be

Θ [ɛ] (τ, z) : = θ [\begin{matrix} ɛ \\ 0 \end{matrix}] (2 τ, 2 z) .

For a fixed

τ

the theta functions, as functions of the variable

z

, are sections of certain bundles on the abelian variety

X_{τ}

, which is to say that if the variable

z

is translated by a vector of the lattice

τ Z^{g} + Z^{g}

, theta functions multiply by a certain number. In fact it is known that all theta functions of the second order are sections of the same bundle, denoted

2 Θ

, and transform as follows:

\begin{matrix} Θ [ɛ] (τ, z + e_{j} + τ e_{k}) = e (- 2 (e_{k}, τ e_{k}) - 4 (e_{k}, z)) Θ [ɛ] (τ, z), \end{matrix}

(2)

where we denote by

e_{k}

the basis vector for the

k

'th direction in

C^{g}

Theta functions of the second order form a basis for the sections of

2 Θ

over

X_{τ}

. The square of any theta function with characteristics is also a section of

2 Θ

, and thus is expressible as a linear combination of theta functions of the second order. In fact a slightly more general formula, Riemann's bilinear addition theorem, holds:

\begin{matrix} θ [\begin{matrix} ɛ \\ δ \end{matrix}] (z) θ [\begin{matrix} ɛ \\ δ \end{matrix}] (w) = \sum_{σ \in (Z / 2 Z)^{g}} (- 1)^{(δ, σ)} Θ [σ + ɛ] (\frac{z + w}{2}) Θ [σ] (\frac{z - w}{2}) . \end{matrix}

(3)

For a fixed

τ

the map

z \to {Θ [ɛ] (τ, z)}_{a l l ɛ}

defines the Kummer embedding

K : X_{τ} / \pm 1 \to P^{2^{g} - 1}

. This map is well-defined since all theta functions of the second order are sections of the same line bundle, and are even in

z

The values of theta functions at

z = 0

are called the associated theta constants. Theta constants of the second order are modular forms of weight one half with respect to a certain finite index normal subgroup

Γ (2, 4) \subset Sp (2 g, Z)

, which is to say that if we act upon

τ

by some

γ \in Γ (2, 4)

, then

Θ [ɛ] (γ τ) = k (γ, τ) Θ [ɛ] (τ)

, where

k

is some multiplier depending on

γ

and

τ

, but independent of

ɛ

. Thus letting

A_{g} (2, 4) : = ℋ_{g} / Γ (2, 4)

, we see that theta constants of the second order define a map

T h : A_{g} (2, 4) \to P^{2^{g} - 1}

, which is known to be generically injective for all genera, and injective for

g \leq 3

. The level moduli space

A_{g} (2, 4)

is a finite cover of

A_{g}

Let us denote by

J_{g} \subset A_{g}

the locus of Jacobians of Riemann surfaces of genus

g

, and by

ℐ_{g} \subset J_{g}

the locus of Jacobians of hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces. The question of characterizing

J_{g}

within

A_{g}

is called the Schottky problem, and that of characterizing

ℐ_{g}

— the Schottky problem for the hyperelliptics. More precisely, one takes the preimages

J_{g} (2, 4)

and

ℐ_{g} (2, 4)

J_{g}

and

ℐ_{g}

, respectively, under the covering map

π : A_{g} (2, 4) \to A_{g}

, and asks to describe

T h (J_{g} (2, 4))

and

T h (ℐ_{g} (2, 4))

inside

T h (A_{g} (2, 4))

. The question of describing

T h (A_{g} (2, 4)) \subset P^{2^{g} - 1}

, i.e. determining all the relations in the subring of the ring of modular forms generated by theta constants is also of interest, but we will not discuss it here. Notice that

J_{g}

and

ℐ_{g}

are irreducible, while

J_{g} (2, 4)

and

ℐ_{g} (2, 4)

have many irreducible components. We refer the reader to [I] for more details on theta functions, and to [Gr] for more details on the Schottky problem.

We will always think of a curve

C

embedded in its Jacobian by the Abel-Jacobi map

A : C \to J (C)

with some choice of the basis for the space of holomorphic differentials and of the starting point

P

made.

This choice will be made explicitly when necessary. To avoid technical difficulties in the following sections, it will often be easier to work with the universal cover

\tilde{C}

of a curve

C

and the universal cover

C^{g}

of the abelian variety

X_{τ}

, and later take the automorphy properties of theta functions into account. The abelian variety will be fixed throughout, and thus we will often omit

τ

from the notations for theta functions and constants.

In this work we first prove the conjecture of Buchstaber and Krichever stated in [BK2] that the validity of a certain

g

-dimensional addition formula developed there and in [BK1] characterizes Jacobians, but only up to additional components (i.e. that the locus of Jacobians is an irreducible component of the locus where the addition formula is satisfied), and then proceed to obtain from this some explicit identities for theta functions of hyperelliptic curves, using the explicit coefficients for the addition formula from [BK2] .

In [M] , theorem 9.1, and references therein Mumford showed that the hyperelliptic locus is characterized by a certain set of vanishing and non-vanishing conditions for theta constants with characteristics (the idea goes back at least to Thomae,see [T] ). In [P] Poor showed that on

A i r r g

Mumford's vanishing conditions by themselves (without the non-vanishing) define precisely the hyperelliptic locus, i.e. that there are no extra components. However, it is still not known how to obtain an ideal-theoretic description of the closure of

T h (ℐ_{g})

inside

T h (A_{g})

. It is known that if the vanishing holds and we also have some vanishing instead of non-vanishing, the abelian variety must be reducible, but then it does not necessarily have to be a limit of hyperelliptic Jacobians. Thus it would be interesting to study our equations on the reducible locus. It would also be very interesting to compare Mumford's equations to ours, but we have not been able to achieve this yet. We would also like to refer to a recent work [SM] for a further discussion of these issues as well as a description of components of

ℐ_{g}^{2, 4}

as locally complete intersections.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Igor Krichever for bringing to our attention and explaining to us [BK1] and [BK2] and the conjectural characterization of Jacobians by the addition formula, which got this work started, Robert Gunning for helpful discussions on addition formulas for theta functions and multisecants, and Emma Previato for valuable discussions of the equations for Kummer and modular varieties.

We would like to especially thank Giuseppe Pareschi and Mihnea Popa, the authors of related recent preprint [PP] (see remark 4 for details), for pointing out that the assumption of theorem 3 in the published version of this paper was too weak, and thus that some general position assumption was needed. The current text is the corrected version of the paper (the mistake was that lemma 4 was false), and the appropriate erratum is to appear in print shortly.

I owe a debt of gratitude to Professor Yum-Tong Siu for teaching me and sharing with me his insights and ideas in moduli theory. It is an honor for me to dedicate this paper to Professor Yum-Tong Siu on the occasion of his 60th birthday.

2 Addition formula and multisecants

From [BK2] we know the following addition formula (called “formula” to distinguish it from Riemann's addition “theorem”):

Fact 1 ([BK2] , theorem 1). Let

P : = A_{0}, A_{1}, \dots, A_{g}, Q : = A_{g + 1} \in \tilde{C} \subset C^{g}

, and denote by

R : = K - \sum_{i = 1}^{g} A_{i}

the vector of Riemann constants shifted by

- \sum A_{i}

. Then for all

x, y \in C^{g}

the following identity is satisfied:

\frac{θ (Q + x + y + R) θ (P + R)}{θ (Q + R) θ (P + x + y + R)} =

= \frac{θ (Q + x + R) θ (P + R)}{θ (Q + R) θ (P + x + R)} \cdot \frac{θ (Q + y + R) θ (P + R)}{θ (Q + R) θ (P + y + R)}

- \sum_{k = 1}^{g} \frac{θ (Q + R + A_{k} - P) θ (Q + R - A_{k} + P + x + y)}{θ^{2} (Q + R) θ (P + x + y + R) θ (2 A_{k} - P + R)}

\cdot \frac{θ (R + A_{k} + x) θ (P + R)}{θ (P + x + R)} \cdot \frac{θ (R + A_{k} + y) θ (P + R)}{θ (P + y + R)} .

Though this formula may look formidable, it is very explicit and is written entirely in terms of theta functions. In the following, we take the Abel-Jacobi map to start at

P

, so that

P = 0 \in C^{g}

. Upon cancellations and multiplication by the common denominators, the above formula becomes simply

θ (Q + x + y + R) θ (Q + R) θ (x + R) θ (y + R)

= θ (x + y + R) θ (R) θ (Q + x + R) θ (Q + y + R)

- \sum_{k = 1}^{g} \frac{θ (R) θ (Q + A_{k} + R) θ (Q - A_{k} + x + y + R) θ (A_{k} + x + R) θ (A_{k} + y + R)}{θ (2 A_{k} + R)} .

To see that this is in fact equivalent to Gunning's general multisecant formula from [Gu2] (see Poor's work [P] for an in-depth discussion) we use Riemann's bilinear addition theorem for the last two factors of each term. Denoting

z : = \frac{x + y}{2}

and

w : = \frac{x - y}{2}

, notice that the half-difference is always simply

\frac{x - y}{2}

, so we will have a common factor of

Θ [σ] (w)

, and the resulting equation will be

0 = \sum_{σ} [θ (Q + 2 z + R) θ (Q + R) Θ [σ] (z + R) - θ (2 z + R) θ (R) Θ [σ] (Q + z + R)

\begin{matrix} + \sum_{k = 1}^{g} \frac{θ (R) θ (Q + A_{k} + R) θ (Q - A_{k} + 2 z + R) Θ [σ] (A_{k} + z + R)}{θ (2 A_{k} + R)}] Θ [σ] (w) \end{matrix}

(4)

In the above the coefficient in the square brackets does not depend on

w

, so we have an equation

\sum_{σ} b_{σ} Θ [σ] (w) = 0 \forall w

, where the coefficients

b_{σ}

do not depend on

w

. Since theta functions of the second order are a basis for sections of

2 Θ

and thus linearly independent, it means that all coefficients

b_{σ}

must be zero. Then since

b_{σ}

actually are some functions of

z

multiplied by

Θ [σ] (A_{i} + z + R)

(

i

here ranges from

0

g + 1

, i.e.

includes

P

and

Q

), we have

\forall σ, \forall z \sum_{i = 0}^{g + 1} c_{i} (z, A_{i}) Θ [σ] (A_{i} + z + R) = 0

for appropriate

c_{i}

's.

Since

R

does not depend on

z

, in the above we can shift

z

R

and redefine the

c_{i}

to see that the addition formula of [BK2] implies the existence for any

z

of some complex numbers

c_{i}

, not all simultaneously zero, such that for some fixed

A

's lying on the image

A (C) \subset J (C)

we have

\begin{matrix} \sum_{i = 0}^{g + 1} c_{i} (z) K (A_{i} + z) = 0 \forall z \in C^{g}, \end{matrix}

(5)

which is equivalent to saying that the

g + 2

points

K (A_{i} + z)

lie on a

g

-plane in

P^{2^{g} - 1}

. In fact Gunning proves a more general theorem (with a different and seemingly much more complicated expression for

c_{i}

's in terms of the prime form):

Fact 2 ([Gu2] , theorem 2). For any curve

C

of genus

g

, for any

1 \leq m \leq g

and for any points

x_{1}, \dots, x_{m}, A_{0}, \dots, A_{m + 1} \in A (C)

the

m + 2

points

K (A_{i} + \sum x - \sum A)

are collinear, i.e. lie on the intersection of the Kummer variety of

C

with an

m

-plane in the projective space

P^{2^{g} - 1}

In particular since the

g

'th symmetric power of the curve is its Jacobian,

S^{g} (A (C)) = J (C)

, the case

m = g

of this theorem is formula ( 5 ), while the case

m = 1

is the case of a family of trisecant lines. It is shown in [Gu1] that the existence of a family of trisecants characterizes Jacobians among irreducible ppavs.

3 Characterizing Jacobians by families of multisecants

We will now show that Buchstaber-Krichever's addition formula and Gunning's multisecant formula weakly characterize Jacobians.

Theorem 3. Let

X

be an irreducible principally polarized abelian variety of dimension

g

, and let

A_{0}, \dots, A_{g + 1}

be distinct points of

X

. Suppose that

\forall z \in X

the

g + 2

points

K (A_{i} + z)

are linearly dependent. Assume moreover the following general position condition: that there exist some

k

and

l

such that for

y : = - \frac{A_{k} + A_{l}}{2}

the linear span of the points

K (A_{i} + y)

for

i = 0 \dots g + 1

is of dimension precisely

g + 1

, and not less.

Then

X

is the Jacobian of some curve

C

, and all

A_{i} \in A (C)

Proof. Assume

g \geq 4

, otherwise the theorem is trivial. Working in the spirit of Gunning's work [Gu1] , we reduce the theorem to the case of the trisecant.

Since the rank of the

(g + 2) \times 2^{g}

matrix

K (A_{i} + y)

is equal to exactly

g + 1

, it means that there exists unique

\vec{c} (y) \in P^{g + 1}

such that

\sum c_{i} (y) K (A_{i} + y) = 0

. Moreover, since we have

A_{k} + y = - (A_{l} + y)

and thus

K (A_{k} + y) = K (A_{l} + y)

, we must then have

p : = \vec{c} (y) = 1_{k} - 1_{l}

, where

1_{i}

denotes the basis vector of

C^{g}

in the

i

'th direction. Since the rank of

K (A_{i} + y)

is equal to

g + 1

, the rank of

K (A_{i} + z)

must be equal to

g + 1

identically in a neighborhood of

y

, and thus for all

z

sufficiently close to

y

there is a unique projective solution

\vec{c} (z)

\sum c_{i} (z) K (A_{i} + z) = 0

We will show that the differential

d \vec{c} : T_{y} C^{g} \to T_{p} P^{g + 1}

is of maximal rank. This will then imply that locally near

p

the image

\vec{c} (C^{g})

is of dimension

g

and thus locally the preimage of any coordinate plane

P^{2} \subset P^{g + 1}

containing

p

is at least one-dimensional. Then we have a one-dimensional family of trisecants of the Kummer variety, and by Welters' [We] infinitesimal version of Gunning's trisecant criterion from [Gu1] ,

X

is a Jacobian of some curve

C

with the points

A_{i}, A_{k}, A_{l}

lying on

A (C)

. Thus we see that all

A_{i}

lie on

A (C)

For contradiction, suppose that the rank of

d \vec{c} |_{y}

is not maximal, i.e.

that there is some vector

v \in C^{g}

such that we have

\frac{\partial}{\partial v} c_{i} (z) |_{y} = λ c_{i} (y)

for some constant

λ

independent of

i

— this means that the derivative

\frac{\partial}{\partial v}

of the projective point

\vec{c}

is zero.

Let us take the derivative

\frac{\partial}{\partial v}

of ( 5 ) at

y

\begin{matrix} \sum_{i = 0}^{g + 1} {\frac{\partial c_{i} (z)}{\partial v} K (A_{i} + z) + c_{i} (z) \frac{\partial K}{\partial v} (A_{i} + z) |}_{y} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = λ (K (A_{k} + y) - K (A_{l} + y)) + (\frac{\partial K}{\partial v} (A_{k} + y) - \frac{\partial K}{\partial v} (A_{l} + y)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = 2 \frac{\partial K}{\partial v} (A_{k} + y) = 0, \end{matrix}

because

A_{k} + y = - (A_{l} + y)

, theta functions are even and their derivatives are odd. But this then implies that

\frac{\partial K}{\partial v} (A_{k} + y) = 0

, which is impossible by Wirtinger's theorem unless

A_{k} + y = \frac{A_{k} - A_{l}}{2}

is a point of order two in

X

. If this is the case, though, it would mean that

A_{k} - A_{l} = 0 \in X

, which contradicts the assumption that all

A_{i}

are distinct. Thus we have arrived at a contradiction and showed that the differential

d \vec{c} : T_{y} C^{g} \to T_{P} P^{g + 1}

is injective. □

Remark 4. In their recent preprint [PP] Pareschi and Popa prove the following statement.

Castelnuovo-Schottky lemma ([PP] ). Let

A_{0} \dots A_{n} \in X

be a set of points in

θ

-general position imposing only

g + 1

conditions on

| 2 Θ |_{a}

for

a

general. Then if

n \geq g + 1

X

is the Jacobian of some curve

C

, and moreover

A_{i} \in A (C)

All sections of

| 2 Θ |_{a}

are scalar products

v \cdot K (z + a)

for some

2^{g}

-dimensional vector

v

, and the condition for a section to vanish at

A_{i}

is simply that

v \cdot K (A_{i} + a) = 0

. Thus the points imposing only

g + 1

conditions on

| 2 Θ |_{a}

means that for general

a

the rank of the

(n + 1) \times 2^{g}

matrix

K (A_{i} + a)

is equal to

g + 1

, which is the collinearity condition of our theorem 3.

The

θ

-general position means that for any

g + 1

points

p_{1} \dots p_{g}, p_{g + 1}

among

{A_{i}}

there exists some translate

a \in X

such that

θ (p_{i} + a) = 0 \neq θ (q + a)

— this is different from our rank condition.

Since both our theorem 3 and the Castelnuovo-Schottky lemma characterize Jacobians, these assumptions must be equivalent, but we do not know a way to derive one from the other directly.

With more work it can also be shown that Gunning's addition formula for all other values of

m

also serves to characterize Jacobians:

Proposition 5. Let

X

be an irreducible principally polarized abelian variety of dimension

g

, and let

A_{0}, \dots, A_{m + 1}

be different points of

X

. Suppose that the

m + 2

points

K (A_{i} + z)

are linearly dependent for any

z \in M

, where the set

M \subset X

is at least

m

-dimensional at the point

y = - \frac{A_{k} + A_{k}}{2}

for some

k

and

j k

(i.e. has a non-degenerate

m

-jet at

y

). Assume moreover that the rank of the

(m + 2) \times 2^{g}

matrix

K (A_{i} + y)

is equal to precisely

m + 1

. Then

X

is the Jacobian of some curve.

Proof. We again study the local situation near $y$ and work with the germ of $M$ at this point. Then we want to show that $d \vec{c}$ is injective on $T_{y} \tilde{M}$ . But since $d \vec{c}$ is non-degenerate on $T_{y} C^{g}$ , it is also non-degenerate on a subspace, and we are done. □

Remark 6. By imitating Gunning's proof of the trisecant theorem in [Gu1] it seems to be also possible to show that if

M

m

-dimensional at some point, not necessarily

- \frac{A_{i} + A_{j}}{2}

and under some general position assumption, then

X

a Jacobian. However, as we do not need this result in what follows, and the proof would be technically rather complicated, we will not give it.

In [Gu2] Gunning shows that for a Jacobian

X

with fixed

A

's the coefficients

c_{i}

in ( 5 ) are unique up to scaling and expressible in terms of the Klein-Gunning prime form. The Klein-Gunning prime form expression is rather hard to deal with (see [P] for a detailed discussion and computations); however, the expression for

c_{i}

obtained in formula ( 4 ) seems more amenable.

Equation ( 4 ) includes, however, both theta functions of the second order and the classical Riemann's theta function with zero characteristic.

Let us use the addition theorem once again for the last two factors of the type

θ (\dots) θ (\dots)

in each term. We then get for all

σ

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \sum_{ɛ} Θ [ɛ] (Q + z + R) Θ [ɛ] (z) Θ [σ] (z + R) - Θ [ɛ] (z + R) Θ [ɛ] (z) Θ [σ] (Q + z + R) \\ + \sum_{k, ɛ} \frac{θ (R)}{θ (2 A_{k} + R)} Θ [ɛ] (Q + z + R) Θ [ɛ] (z - A_{k}) Θ [σ] (A_{k} + z + R) = 0 . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(6)

Since all the transformations that we have done so far are equivalencies, we do not lose any information, unless all the coefficients

c_{i}

in the formula above are identically zero — in which case the projective point

\vec{c} (z)

is never defined.

Since the coefficients in ( 5 ) are unique, they must be exactly the ones given by formula ( 6 ), and thus formula ( 6 ) is satisfied if and only if the collinearity condition ( 5 ) is satisfied.

Proposition 7. With the same assumptions and notations as above, identity ( 6 ) characterizes Jacobians among all irreducible abelian varieties.

4 Addition formula for the hyperelliptic case

Formula ( 6 ) we obtained is in terms of theta functions evaluated at different points. In the classical approach to the Schottky problem (see [S] for the origins and [F] , [Gr] for a review) one wants to characterize the Jacobian locus by some algebraic relations among theta constants.

Thus it would be nice if for some special values of

z, P, Q

and

A

's the addition formula yielded such equations.

However, from the transformation rule ( 2 ) for theta functions it is easy to see that if a vector

v

is not a point of order two, then

Θ [ɛ] (z + v)

is not a section of the bundle

2 Θ

and thus cannot be expressed as a linear combination of theta functions of the second order. Thus we only have a reasonable hope of getting from ( 6 ) some equations for theta constants if we are so lucky that all the “shifts” of

z

that appear there are points of order two. In particular, this means that the points

A_{i} + z + R

must be of order two for all

i

Now suppose that indeed both

A_{i} + z + R

and

A_{j} + z + R

for

i \neq j

are points of order two on

J (C)

. Then their difference,

A_{i} - A_{j}

, is also of order two, so we have

2 A_{i} - 2 A_{j} = 0 \in J (C)

. By Abel's theorem this then means that there is a function

f

C

whose divisor is equal to

2 A_{i} - 2 A_{j}

, i.e. with a double pole at

A_{j}

and holomorphic on

C - {A_{j}}

. Since the existence of such a function characterizes hyperelliptic curves, it means that

C

then has to be hyperelliptic. For the hyperelliptic curves it is known (see, for example, [M] ) that if we take

P = 0

to be the image of one of the Weierstrass points, then the other

2 g + 1

Weierstrass points will also map to points of order two on the Jacobian. Thus let us assume that all

A

's and

Q

in formula 6 are chosen to be points of order two, i.e. that we are dealing with a hyperelliptic curve, and let us rewrite the addition formula in this case. Denote

Q = \frac{τ α_{0} + β_{0}}{2}

A_{k} = \frac{τ α_{k} + β_{k}}{2}

and

R = \frac{τ α + β}{2}

— in fact

R

is expressible in terms of

A

's and Riemann constants, but we will deal with this later.

Now we rewrite formula ( 6 ) for these

A

's and

Q

. In doing this, we need to be extra careful to remember that we are actually working on

\tilde{C}

and

C^{g}

, as not to omit any important automorphy factors. Indeed, from the automorphy properties of

θ

it follows that

\frac{θ (R)}{θ (2 A_{k} + R)} = \frac{θ (\frac{τ α + β}{2})}{θ (τ α_{k} + β_{k} + \frac{τ α + β}{2})} = e [(α_{k}, τ α_{k}) + (α, τ α_{k})] .

Also for any integers

a

and

b

it follows from ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) that

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} Θ [δ] (τ, z + \frac{τ a + b}{2}) = θ [\begin{matrix} δ \\ 0 \end{matrix}] (2 τ, 2 z + τ a + b) \\ = θ (2 τ, 2 z + τ δ + τ a) e [\frac{1}{2} (δ, τ δ) + 2 (δ, z) + (δ, τ a) + (δ, b)] \\ = θ [\begin{matrix} δ + a \\ 0 \end{matrix}] (2 τ, 2 z) e [- \frac{1}{2} (δ + a, τ (δ + a)) - 2 (δ + a, z)] \\ \cdot e [\frac{1}{2} (δ, τ δ) + 2 (δ, z) + (δ, τ a) + (δ, b)] \\ = (- 1)^{(δ, b)} e [- \frac{1}{2} (a, τ a) - 2 (a, z)] Θ [δ + a] (τ, z) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(7)

When we substitute this into ( 6 ) notice that as functions of

z

all terms are actually sections of the same bundle,

6 Θ

, as each is cubic in theta functions of the second order. Thus the

e [(*, z)]

factors must cancel everywhere. Also evaluating at

z = 0

and noticing that all terms are modular forms in

τ

with respect to

Γ (2, 4)

of the same weight, we expect the factors

e [(*, τ *)]

to cancel as well. A trivial but tedious computation confirms this, and we arrive at

Proposition 8. An irreducible abelian variety

X_{τ}

with some points

P = 0, Q, A_{1}, \dots, A_{g}

with

A_{i} = \frac{τ α_{k} + β_{k}}{2} \in C^{g}

is the Jacobian of a hyperelliptic curve

C

, and

P, Q, A_{i} \in A (\tilde{C}) \subset C^{g}

if and only if the following is satisfied for all

σ \in (Z / 2 Z)^{g}

and for all

z \in C^{g}

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \sum_{ɛ} (- 1)^{(ɛ, β + β_{0})} Θ [ɛ + α + α_{0}] (z) Θ [ɛ] (z) Θ [σ + α] (z) \\ = & \sum_{e, k} (- 1)^{(ɛ, β + β_{0} + β_{k}) + (σ, β_{k})} Θ [ɛ + α + α_{0}] (z) Θ [ɛ + α_{k}] (z) Θ [σ + α + α_{k}] (z) \\ + & \sum_{ɛ} (- 1)^{(ɛ, β) + (σ, β_{0})} Θ [ɛ + α] (z) Θ [ɛ] (z) Θ [σ + α + α_{0}] (z) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(8)

and not all the coefficients in front of the Kummer images (i.e. in front of the last theta function factor, for

σ

varying) appearing here are identically zero in

z

5 Cubic equations for the hyperelliptic locus

To make formula ( 8 ) entirely explicit, we now need to pick some specific way to map a hyperelliptic curve into its Jacobian, and pick some

g + 2

Weierstrass points on it in a certain way. This is indeed a very classical construction.

Let us think of a hyperelliptic curve sitting on a skewer that intersects it in precisely the

2 g + 2

Weierstrass points. Label them

p_{1}, \dots, p_{2 g + 2}

going from left to right along the skewer. Then pick for the basis of the cycles

a_{i}

to be the loop around the

i

'th handle, passing through points

p_{2 i - 1}

and

p_{2 i}

, and

b_{i}

to be the loop around the

i

'th hole, passing through

p_{2 i}

and

p_{2 i + 1}

. Then thinking of the skewer as being the

x

axis and the whole picture being that of

y^{2} = \prod (x - p_{i})

, we can compute the images of

p_{i}

in the Jacobian. Indeed, let us use

p_{1}

as the starting point, so that

A (p_{1}) = 0

. Then we see that

A (p_{2}) = \frac{e_{1}}{2}

A (p_{3}) = \frac{τ e_{1} + e_{1}}{2}

A (p_{4}) = \frac{τ e_{1} + e_{1}}{2} + \frac{e_{1} + e_{2}}{2} = \frac{τ e_{1} + e_{2}}{2} + e_{1}

A (p_{5}) = \frac{τ (e_{1} + e_{2}) + e_{2}}{2} + e_{1}

, and in general we have

A (p_{2 i}) = \frac{τ s_{i - 1} + e_{i}}{2} + s_{i - 1}

and

A (p_{2 i + 1}) = \frac{τ s_{i} + e_{i}}{2} + s_{i - 1}

for

1 \leq i \leq g

, while

A (p_{2 g + 2}) = \frac{τ s_{g}}{2}

(where for convenience we have denoted

s_{k} : = \sum_{i = 1}^{k} e_{i}

For our purposes let us choose

P : = 0 = A (p_{1})

Q : = A (p_{2})

and

A_{k} : = A (p_{2 k + 2})

for

1 \leq k \leq g

. We now need to compute the vector

R

, i.e to compute the vector of Riemann constants and subtract from it the sum of

A

's. The result is certainly classical:

R = Q = A (p_{2})

To prove this one can note that by definition

R

is the unique vector such that

θ (A (p) + R)

as a function of

p \in C

has precisely

g

zeroes at

A^{- 1} (A_{k})

, i.e. at

p_{2 k + 2}

. To check that this is the case we note that

A (p_{2}) + A (p_{2 i})

is always odd, as a theta characteristic, so that even Riemann's theta function will vanish at the point

A (p_{2}) + A (p_{2 i})

, while

A (p_{2}) + A (P_{2 i + 1})

is even; thus

R = A (p_{2})

Let us now substitute all this into formula ( 8 ). We have

α = α_{0} = 0

β = β_{0} = e_{1}

α_{k} = s_{k}

and

β_{k} = e_{k + 1}

, where we understand

e_{g + 1}

to be zero. Since all theta functions of the second order are periodic with respect to

z \to z + e_{i}

, the additional integer shifts by

s_{i}

do not matter, and finally ( 8 ) yields

Theorem 9. An irreducible period matrix

τ \in ℋ_{g}

is the period matrix of a hyperelliptic Jacobian with the basis of cycles chosen as above if and only if the following cubic identity for theta functions of the second order is satisfied for all

σ \in (Z / 2 Z)^{g}

and for all

z \in X_{τ}

(and thus for all

z \in C^{g}

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \sum_{ɛ} Θ [ɛ] (z) Θ [ɛ] (z) Θ [σ] (z) \\ = & \sum_{ɛ} \sum_{k = 0}^{g} (- 1)^{(ɛ + σ, e_{k + 1})} Θ [ɛ] (z) Θ [ɛ + s_{k}] Θ [σ + s_{k}] (z), \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(9)

where we understand

e_{g + 1}

to be zero, and asumme moreover that not all the coefficients appearing in front of

Θ [σ + s_{k}] (z)

and

Θ [σ] (z)

are identically zero in

z

To check that this makes sense let us do the computations in low genus and see what we get. To simplify formulas, we write

[ɛ]

for

Θ [ɛ] (z)

. We order the

ɛ

for summation of the terms of ( 9 ) lexicographically to keep track of where we are.

Genus 2: We do not expect to get any meaningful equations, as any irreducible abelian variety of dimension two is a hyperelliptic Jacobian, so our characterization should be vacuous. We verify this; here is what formula ( 9 ) yields for

σ = 00

\begin{matrix} [00] [00] [00] + [01] [01] [00] + [10] [10] [00] + [11] [11] [00] \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & [00] [00] [00] + [01] [01] [00] - [10] [10] [00] - [11] [11] [00] \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & [00] [10] [10] - [01] [11] [10] + [10] [00] [10] - [11] [01] [10] \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & [00] [11] [11] + [01] [10] [11] + [10] [01] [11] + [11] [00] [11] \end{matrix}

and all the terms cancel. A similar computation shows that the identity is also trivial for all other choices of

σ

Genus 3: Here we have

dim J_{3} = dim A_{3} = 6

, while

dim ℐ_{3} = 5

, so we should have a non-trivial identity. Indeed let us choose

σ = 000

and write down ( 9 ) in this case; after multiple cancellations and dividing by two it becomes simply

\begin{matrix} Θ [000] (z) Θ [101] (z) Θ [101] (z) + Θ [011] (z) Θ [101] (z) Θ [110] (z) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & Θ [010] (z) Θ [101] (z) Θ [111] (z) + Θ [001] (z) Θ [100] (z) Θ [101] (z), \end{matrix}

which using formula ( 3 ) is equivalent to

\begin{matrix} Θ [101] (z) \cdot θ [\begin{matrix} 101 \\ 111 \end{matrix}] (2 z) \cdot θ [\begin{matrix} 101 \\ 111 \end{matrix}] (0) = 0 . \end{matrix}

(10)

Choosing a different

σ

yields a different equation: in general we get

Θ [101 + σ] (z) \cdot θ [\begin{matrix} 101 \\ 111 \end{matrix}] (2 z) \cdot θ [\begin{matrix} 101 \\ 111 \end{matrix}] (0)

. All of these equations together are equivalent to

θ [\begin{matrix} 101 \\ 111 \end{matrix}] (0) = 0

, since theta functions of the second order never all vanish simultaneously and

θ [\begin{matrix} 101 \\ 111 \end{matrix}] (2 z)

cannot be identically zero in

z

. Now to actually characterize

ℐ_{3} \subset A_{3}

we need to get rid of the condition “that the basis of cycles is chosen as above” in theorem 9 . But choosing a different basis of cycles means acting on the period matrix by a symplectic transformation. Since theta constants are modular with respect to

Γ (2, 4)

, conjugating equation ( 10 ) by any

γ \in Γ (2, 4)

would not change it, so we only need to act by the finite group

Sp (2 g, Z) / Γ (2, 4)

. It is well known that the action of this group is transitive on the set of even theta characteristics (see [I] ), so we can get the vanishing of a theta constant with any even characteristic.

Proposition 10. An irreducible abelian variety of genus 3 is a hyperelliptic Jacobian if it has a vanishing theta constant with even characteristic. This is known classically, see [M] .

Genus 4: here the situation is more interesting: Mumford's conditions include some non-vanishing, so getting the explicit equations for the closure of

T h (ℐ_{4}) \subset T h (A_{4})

, without any inequalities serving to cut off the extra components inside the reducible locus, would be interesting.

For the case of

σ = 0000

the equation we get from ( 9 ) after cancellations becomes the following cubic (we have rearranged the terms lexicographically and omitted square brackets):

\begin{matrix} 0000 \cdot 1001 \cdot 1001 + 0000 \cdot 1010 \cdot 1010 + 0000 \cdot 1011 \cdot 1011 + 0000 \cdot 1101 \cdot 1101 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0011 \cdot 1101 \cdot 1110 + 0101 \cdot 1000 \cdot 1101 + 0101 \cdot 1011 \cdot 1110 + 0110 \cdot 1010 \cdot 1100 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0111 \cdot 1001 \cdot 1110 + 0111 \cdot 1011 \cdot 1100 = 0001 \cdot 1000 \cdot 1001 + 0001 \cdot 1100 \cdot 1101 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0010 \cdot 1000 \cdot 1010 + 0010 \cdot 1101 \cdot 1111 + 0011 \cdot 1000 \cdot 1011 + 0100 \cdot 1010 \cdot 1110 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0100 \cdot 1011 \cdot 1111 + 0101 \cdot 1001 \cdot 1100 + 0101 \cdot 1010 \cdot 1111 + 0110 \cdot 1001 \cdot 1111, \end{matrix}

while for example for

σ = 0001

we get

\begin{matrix} 0000 \cdot 1000 \cdot 1001 + 0000 \cdot 1100 \cdot 1101 + 0010 \cdot 1001 \cdot 1010 + 0011 \cdot 1001 \cdot 1011 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0011 \cdot 1100 \cdot 1110 + 0100 \cdot 1000 \cdot 1101 + 0100 \cdot 1011 \cdot 1110 + 0101 \cdot 1010 \cdot 1110 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0101 \cdot 1011 \cdot 1111 + 0111 \cdot 1000 \cdot 1110 = 0001 \cdot 1000 \cdot 1000 + 0001 \cdot 1010 \cdot 1010 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0001 \cdot 1011 \cdot 1011 + 0001 \cdot 1100 \cdot 1100 + 0010 \cdot 1100 \cdot 1111 + 0100 \cdot 1001 \cdot 1100 \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} 0100 \cdot 1010 \cdot 1111 + 0110 \cdot 1000 \cdot 1111 + 0110 \cdot 1010 \cdot 1101 + 0111 \cdot 1011 \cdot 1101 . \end{matrix}

Neither of these cubics is equal to

Θ [δ] (z) θ [\begin{matrix} α \\ β \end{matrix}] (2 z) θ [\begin{matrix} α \\ β \end{matrix}] (0)

for any

α, β, δ

. However, from theorem 9 we see that

Proposition 11. The vanishing of the full set of

16

cubics similar to the ones above, for all

σ

, identically in

z

characterizes a component of

T h (ℐ_{4} (2, 4)) \subset T h (A_{4}^{i r r} (2, 4))

By Mumford's and Poor's results such a component is also determined by identical vanishing of some set of theta constants with characteristics.

Thus the vanishing of our 16 cubics should imply, for irreducible abelian varieties, the vanishing of some theta constants with characteristics and vice versa, but we are now unable to see this directly.

The difficulty in doing so is not only due to the fact that the cubic equations are very complicated. Indeed, thinking of each cubic

f_{σ}

, evaluated at

z = 0

, as a polynomial on

P^{15}

with zero locus

Z (f_{σ})

, we can only say that

\cap_{σ} Z (f_{σ}) \cap T h (A_{4}^{i r r} (2, 4))

is contained in the common zero locus of some quadrics (which are by ( 3 ) the expressions for theta constants with characteristics in terms of theta constants of the second order) on

T h (A_{4}^{i r r} (2, 4))

. It may in fact not be the case that the whole

\cap Z (f_{σ})

is contained in the zero locus of these quadrics in

P^{15}

. Thus to be able to see the relation of the vanishing of our cubics to the vanishing of theta constants with characteristics, we may need to know the equations for the closure of

T h (A_{4}^{i r r} (2, 4)) \subset P^{15}

, which are not known.

The above discussion was for just one component of

T h (ℐ_{4} (2, 4))

, which projects to just one component of

ℐ_{4} \subset A_{4}

. The equations for the other components corresponding to different choices of the basis of cycles on the curve are of course obtained by acting on the set of 16 cubics by elements of

Sp (8, Z) / Γ (2, 4)

Final remark. It seems likely that in any genus evaluating equations ( 9 ) only at

z = 0

for all

σ

should yield the defining set of equations for a component of

T h (ℐ_{g} (2, 4))

. Indeed using ( 7 ) it can be easily shown that if these are satisfied, then ( 9 ) is satisfied for

z

being any point of order two. Thus both sides of ( 9 ) are sections of

6 Θ

that agree at all points of order two, and one would hope that then they agree everywhere and give the same function of

z

, so that ( 9 ) is true identically and we can apply theorem 9 . References

Buchstaber, V.M., Krichever, I.M.: Vector addition theorems and Baker-Akhiezer functions. Teor. i Mat. Fizika 94 (1993), no. 2, 200–212.
Buchstaber, V.M., Krichever, I.M.: Multidimensional vector addition theorems and the Riemann theta functions. Internat. Math. Res. Notices 1996, no. 10, 505–513.
Igusa, J.-I.: Theta functions. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Band 194. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg, 1972.
Farkas, H.: Schottky-Jung theory, Theta functions — Bowdoin 1987, 459–483
Grushevsky, S.: Effective Schottky problem, Ph.D. Dissertation, Harvard University, 2002
Gunning, R. C.: Some curves in abelian varieties. Invent. Math. 66 (1982), no. 3, 377–389.
Gunning, R. C.: Some identities for abelian integrals. Amer. J. Math. 108 (1986), no. 1, 39–74.
Mumford, D.: Tata lectures on Theta II. Progress in Math. vol. 43, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1984
Poor, C.: The hyperelliptic locus, Duke Math. J. 76 (1994) 3, 809–884
Pareschi, G., Popa, M. Castelnuovo theory and the geometric Schottky problem, preprint math.AG/0407370
Salvati Manni, R.: Modular forms vanishing on the hyperelliptic locus, Japan. J. Math. (N.S.) 29 (2003), no. 1, 135–142
Schottky, F.: Zur Theorie der Abelschen Functionen vor vier Variablen. J. Reine Angew. Math. 102 (1888), 304–352
Thomae, J.: Beitrag zur Bestimmung von $θ (0, 0, \dots, 0)$ durch die Klassenmoduln algebraischer Funktionen, J. Reine Angew. Math. 71 (1870), 201–222
Welters, G.: A criterion for Jacobi varieties. Ann. of Math. (2) 120 (1984), no. 3, 497–504
Wirtinger, W.: Untersuchungen über Thetafunktionen. Leipzig: Teubner 1895

Mathematics Department, Princeton University, Fine Hall, Washington Road, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA E-mail address : sam@math.princeton.edu

Samuel Grushevsky