How to visualize the Riemann-Roch theorem from complex analysis or geometric topology...



How to visualize the Riemann-Roch theorem from complex analysis or geometric topology considerations?


Riemann-Roch as an index theoremWhich Riemann surfaces arise from the Riemann existence theorem?A geometric characterization for arithmetic genusFaltings-Riemann-Roch TheoremGeometric interpretation for fourth coeficient of the polynomial for Hirzebruch–Riemann–Roch theoremHirzebruch-Riemann-Roch theorem for Riemann surfaces with boundaryHow to visualize a Witt vector?How to visualize the Frobenius endomorphism?How to visualize finiteness of class number?How to visualize local complete intersection morphisms?













13












$begingroup$


As the question title asks for, how do others visualize the Riemann-Roch theorem with complex analysis or geometric topology considerations? That is all Riemann would have had back in the day, and he reminds me of Thurston in the sense he just drew a picture and then the proof popped out. Nowadays most formulations of Riemann-Roch are couched in algebraic language and do not invoke any geometric intuition for the complex plane, so I am asking here. Bonus points for pictures.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Did you take a look at the original papers of Riemann and Roch?
    $endgroup$
    – Mere Scribe
    20 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "he reminds me of Thurston in the sense he just drew a picture and then the proof popped out" - citation needed
    $endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    13 hours ago
















13












$begingroup$


As the question title asks for, how do others visualize the Riemann-Roch theorem with complex analysis or geometric topology considerations? That is all Riemann would have had back in the day, and he reminds me of Thurston in the sense he just drew a picture and then the proof popped out. Nowadays most formulations of Riemann-Roch are couched in algebraic language and do not invoke any geometric intuition for the complex plane, so I am asking here. Bonus points for pictures.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Did you take a look at the original papers of Riemann and Roch?
    $endgroup$
    – Mere Scribe
    20 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "he reminds me of Thurston in the sense he just drew a picture and then the proof popped out" - citation needed
    $endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    13 hours ago














13












13








13


12



$begingroup$


As the question title asks for, how do others visualize the Riemann-Roch theorem with complex analysis or geometric topology considerations? That is all Riemann would have had back in the day, and he reminds me of Thurston in the sense he just drew a picture and then the proof popped out. Nowadays most formulations of Riemann-Roch are couched in algebraic language and do not invoke any geometric intuition for the complex plane, so I am asking here. Bonus points for pictures.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




As the question title asks for, how do others visualize the Riemann-Roch theorem with complex analysis or geometric topology considerations? That is all Riemann would have had back in the day, and he reminds me of Thurston in the sense he just drew a picture and then the proof popped out. Nowadays most formulations of Riemann-Roch are couched in algebraic language and do not invoke any geometric intuition for the complex plane, so I am asking here. Bonus points for pictures.







ag.algebraic-geometry gt.geometric-topology riemann-surfaces intuition






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday







Get Off The Internet

















asked yesterday









Get Off The InternetGet Off The Internet

335219




335219












  • $begingroup$
    Did you take a look at the original papers of Riemann and Roch?
    $endgroup$
    – Mere Scribe
    20 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "he reminds me of Thurston in the sense he just drew a picture and then the proof popped out" - citation needed
    $endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    13 hours ago


















  • $begingroup$
    Did you take a look at the original papers of Riemann and Roch?
    $endgroup$
    – Mere Scribe
    20 hours ago






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    "he reminds me of Thurston in the sense he just drew a picture and then the proof popped out" - citation needed
    $endgroup$
    – Yemon Choi
    13 hours ago
















$begingroup$
Did you take a look at the original papers of Riemann and Roch?
$endgroup$
– Mere Scribe
20 hours ago




$begingroup$
Did you take a look at the original papers of Riemann and Roch?
$endgroup$
– Mere Scribe
20 hours ago




1




1




$begingroup$
"he reminds me of Thurston in the sense he just drew a picture and then the proof popped out" - citation needed
$endgroup$
– Yemon Choi
13 hours ago




$begingroup$
"he reminds me of Thurston in the sense he just drew a picture and then the proof popped out" - citation needed
$endgroup$
– Yemon Choi
13 hours ago










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















12












$begingroup$

I'll try to give this a shot, but I'm coming from an algebraic geometry perspective. In the case of curves, it's not so clear to me what the line between algebraic geometry and complex geometry is, so I'm not sure if what I'm saying is what you're looking for. Anyways, let's assume that our curve $C$ is not hyperelliptic because I want to use the canonical embedding because embeddings are easier to visualize for me. The Riemann-Roch theorem says for a divisor $D$ on $C$ that
$$
h^0(D)=1-g+deg(D)+h^0(K-D)
$$

We know that $H^0(K-D)$ is measuring sections of the canonical divisor $K$ that vanish on $D$. But in the canonical embedding, $H^0(C,K)=H^0(mathbb{P}^{g-1},mathcal{O}(1))$. Hence, sections of the canonical divisor are just linear homogeneous polynomials on a projective space. Therefore, $H^0(K-D)$ is just hyperplanes in the canonical embedding that contain $D$. Now consider the linear span of $D$, which is some projective space $mathbb{P}^kcong text{Span}(D)$. The linear polynomials that vanish on $D$ are the same as the linear polynomials vanishing on its span, $mathbb{P}^{k}$, and we can compute the number of these. There are $g-1-k$ of them. Plugging back into Riemann-Roch, we get
$$
h^0(D)=deg D-dim text{Span}(D)
$$

I think this statement is more amenable to visualizing because the right hand side just asks you to place a bunch of points on a curve in projective space, and then take their linear span. I have no idea if this is how Riemann thought about it, but it's certainly geometric. If you want to read more, I learned about this from Geometry of Algebraic Curves Volume 1 by Arbarello, Cornalba, Griffiths, and Harris.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    9












    $begingroup$

    Complex geometric view of Riemann Roch for a curve $C$:



    The essential Riemann Roch problem is the computation of the dimension of the vector space $H^0(D)$ where $D$ is an effective divisor on $C$. The first and most fundamental case is that for the canonical divisor $K$, whose dimension is $dim H^0(K) = g = operatorname{genus}(C)$. Geometrically this says that the Jacobian variety $J(C) = H^0(K)^*/H_1(C; mathbb{Z})$ of the curve is a compact complex torus of dimension $g$. Then the geometry of the RR problem for the general case of an effective divisor $D$ of degree $d$, is encoded by the Abel-Jacobi map $C^{(d)} to J(C)$, from the $d$-fold symmetric product of the curve to the Jacobian. This is based on the theorem of Abel, which says the fiber of this map containing $D$, is exactly the projective space built on the vector space $H^0(D)$, i.e. the fiber is the linear series $|D|$. Thus $dim H^0(D) = 1 + dim |D| = 1 + $ dimension of the fiber containing $D$.



    Since the Abel map is holomorphic, this implies that $dim |D| geq dim C^{(d)} - dim J(C) = d-g$. Thus $dim H^0(D) - 1 geq d -g$, or $dim H^0(D) geq 1-g+d$, which is the “weak” Riemann Roch theorem, i.e. the version usually attributed to Riemann.



    Then Roch’s augmentation computes the rank of the derivative of the Abel map. I.e. using the fact that by definition the canonical map on the curve, mentioned in Samir Canning's answer, is essentially the derivative of the Abel map, it follows that the linear rank of the Abel map, i.e. the rank of its derivative at $D$, equals (one more than) the dimension of the span of the points of $D$ in canonical space, i.e. $g - dim H^0(K-D)$. Roch’s result is that the derivative of the Abel map collapses only tangent vectors along the fiber, so that this rank also equals the non linear rank, i.e. $d - dim |D|$. Thus we have $d-dim |D| = g-dim H^0(K-D)$, hence $dim H^0(D) = 1 + dim |D| = 1-g+d + dim H^0(K-D)$, which is the full Riemann-Roch theorem.



    Thus looking at the Abel map $C^{(d)} to J(C)$, the RR problem is the computation of the dimension of the fibers, and the RRT says that the dimension of the fiber of the Abel map through $D$, equals the dimension of the fiber i.e. of the kernel, of the derivative of the Abel map at $D$. This equality (after adding one to both sides) is expressed in the second formula in Samir's answer, i.e. the geometric RRT. I.e. Samir's discussion essentially explains why the right hand side of his formula equals (one plus) the nullity of the derivative of the Abel map, and I have tried to motivate why it should equal the left hand side, i.e. (one plus) the dimension of |D|. Put another way, RRT just says the fiber of the Abel map through D is isomorphic to |D| as (non singular) schemes, which is just a slight strengthening of Abel's theorem.



    This point of view is explained in the classic paper of Mattuck and Mayer, where it is used to give a proof of RRT, modulo the existence of the Jacobian variety. https://eudml.org/doc/83304






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$





















      7












      $begingroup$

      Here is my "visual" coming from the complex (and functional) analysis perspective, due to a novel proof by Taubes. For a holomorphic line bundle $E$ over a genus $g$ surface $C$, the RR theorem states that $ind_mathbb{C}(barpartial)=c_1(E)+1-g$.



      Because the index of a Fredholm operator over a closed manifold does not change if we perturb by a 0th order (compact) operator, $ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial)=ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial+rB)$ for every $rinmathbb{R}_+$ and generic section $BinGamma(E^2otimes T^{0,1}C)$. Here $B$ acts as a complex anti-linear map in order to define the perturbation of $barpartial:Gamma(E)toGamma(Eotimes T^{0,1}C)$.



      Now we can visualize the (co)kernel of our perturbed operator as $rtoinfty$, because the elements of the (co)kernel localize/concentrate around the zeros of $B$. Thus $ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial)=# B^{-1}(0)$.



      Now we can visualize and appeal to the "geometry" of characteristic classes and sections of bundles: $# B^{-1}(0)=c_1(E^2otimes T^{0,1}C)$, which equals $2c_1(E)+chi(C)$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        I'm too lazy to draw pictures, but it's possible!
        $endgroup$
        – Chris Gerig
        17 hours ago











      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      });
      });
      }, "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function() {
      var channelOptions = {
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "504"
      };
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
      createEditor();
      });
      }
      else {
      createEditor();
      }
      });

      function createEditor() {
      StackExchange.prepareEditor({
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      convertImagesToLinks: true,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: 10,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader: {
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      },
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324169%2fhow-to-visualize-the-riemann-roch-theorem-from-complex-analysis-or-geometric-top%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes








      3 Answers
      3






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      12












      $begingroup$

      I'll try to give this a shot, but I'm coming from an algebraic geometry perspective. In the case of curves, it's not so clear to me what the line between algebraic geometry and complex geometry is, so I'm not sure if what I'm saying is what you're looking for. Anyways, let's assume that our curve $C$ is not hyperelliptic because I want to use the canonical embedding because embeddings are easier to visualize for me. The Riemann-Roch theorem says for a divisor $D$ on $C$ that
      $$
      h^0(D)=1-g+deg(D)+h^0(K-D)
      $$

      We know that $H^0(K-D)$ is measuring sections of the canonical divisor $K$ that vanish on $D$. But in the canonical embedding, $H^0(C,K)=H^0(mathbb{P}^{g-1},mathcal{O}(1))$. Hence, sections of the canonical divisor are just linear homogeneous polynomials on a projective space. Therefore, $H^0(K-D)$ is just hyperplanes in the canonical embedding that contain $D$. Now consider the linear span of $D$, which is some projective space $mathbb{P}^kcong text{Span}(D)$. The linear polynomials that vanish on $D$ are the same as the linear polynomials vanishing on its span, $mathbb{P}^{k}$, and we can compute the number of these. There are $g-1-k$ of them. Plugging back into Riemann-Roch, we get
      $$
      h^0(D)=deg D-dim text{Span}(D)
      $$

      I think this statement is more amenable to visualizing because the right hand side just asks you to place a bunch of points on a curve in projective space, and then take their linear span. I have no idea if this is how Riemann thought about it, but it's certainly geometric. If you want to read more, I learned about this from Geometry of Algebraic Curves Volume 1 by Arbarello, Cornalba, Griffiths, and Harris.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        12












        $begingroup$

        I'll try to give this a shot, but I'm coming from an algebraic geometry perspective. In the case of curves, it's not so clear to me what the line between algebraic geometry and complex geometry is, so I'm not sure if what I'm saying is what you're looking for. Anyways, let's assume that our curve $C$ is not hyperelliptic because I want to use the canonical embedding because embeddings are easier to visualize for me. The Riemann-Roch theorem says for a divisor $D$ on $C$ that
        $$
        h^0(D)=1-g+deg(D)+h^0(K-D)
        $$

        We know that $H^0(K-D)$ is measuring sections of the canonical divisor $K$ that vanish on $D$. But in the canonical embedding, $H^0(C,K)=H^0(mathbb{P}^{g-1},mathcal{O}(1))$. Hence, sections of the canonical divisor are just linear homogeneous polynomials on a projective space. Therefore, $H^0(K-D)$ is just hyperplanes in the canonical embedding that contain $D$. Now consider the linear span of $D$, which is some projective space $mathbb{P}^kcong text{Span}(D)$. The linear polynomials that vanish on $D$ are the same as the linear polynomials vanishing on its span, $mathbb{P}^{k}$, and we can compute the number of these. There are $g-1-k$ of them. Plugging back into Riemann-Roch, we get
        $$
        h^0(D)=deg D-dim text{Span}(D)
        $$

        I think this statement is more amenable to visualizing because the right hand side just asks you to place a bunch of points on a curve in projective space, and then take their linear span. I have no idea if this is how Riemann thought about it, but it's certainly geometric. If you want to read more, I learned about this from Geometry of Algebraic Curves Volume 1 by Arbarello, Cornalba, Griffiths, and Harris.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          12












          12








          12





          $begingroup$

          I'll try to give this a shot, but I'm coming from an algebraic geometry perspective. In the case of curves, it's not so clear to me what the line between algebraic geometry and complex geometry is, so I'm not sure if what I'm saying is what you're looking for. Anyways, let's assume that our curve $C$ is not hyperelliptic because I want to use the canonical embedding because embeddings are easier to visualize for me. The Riemann-Roch theorem says for a divisor $D$ on $C$ that
          $$
          h^0(D)=1-g+deg(D)+h^0(K-D)
          $$

          We know that $H^0(K-D)$ is measuring sections of the canonical divisor $K$ that vanish on $D$. But in the canonical embedding, $H^0(C,K)=H^0(mathbb{P}^{g-1},mathcal{O}(1))$. Hence, sections of the canonical divisor are just linear homogeneous polynomials on a projective space. Therefore, $H^0(K-D)$ is just hyperplanes in the canonical embedding that contain $D$. Now consider the linear span of $D$, which is some projective space $mathbb{P}^kcong text{Span}(D)$. The linear polynomials that vanish on $D$ are the same as the linear polynomials vanishing on its span, $mathbb{P}^{k}$, and we can compute the number of these. There are $g-1-k$ of them. Plugging back into Riemann-Roch, we get
          $$
          h^0(D)=deg D-dim text{Span}(D)
          $$

          I think this statement is more amenable to visualizing because the right hand side just asks you to place a bunch of points on a curve in projective space, and then take their linear span. I have no idea if this is how Riemann thought about it, but it's certainly geometric. If you want to read more, I learned about this from Geometry of Algebraic Curves Volume 1 by Arbarello, Cornalba, Griffiths, and Harris.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          I'll try to give this a shot, but I'm coming from an algebraic geometry perspective. In the case of curves, it's not so clear to me what the line between algebraic geometry and complex geometry is, so I'm not sure if what I'm saying is what you're looking for. Anyways, let's assume that our curve $C$ is not hyperelliptic because I want to use the canonical embedding because embeddings are easier to visualize for me. The Riemann-Roch theorem says for a divisor $D$ on $C$ that
          $$
          h^0(D)=1-g+deg(D)+h^0(K-D)
          $$

          We know that $H^0(K-D)$ is measuring sections of the canonical divisor $K$ that vanish on $D$. But in the canonical embedding, $H^0(C,K)=H^0(mathbb{P}^{g-1},mathcal{O}(1))$. Hence, sections of the canonical divisor are just linear homogeneous polynomials on a projective space. Therefore, $H^0(K-D)$ is just hyperplanes in the canonical embedding that contain $D$. Now consider the linear span of $D$, which is some projective space $mathbb{P}^kcong text{Span}(D)$. The linear polynomials that vanish on $D$ are the same as the linear polynomials vanishing on its span, $mathbb{P}^{k}$, and we can compute the number of these. There are $g-1-k$ of them. Plugging back into Riemann-Roch, we get
          $$
          h^0(D)=deg D-dim text{Span}(D)
          $$

          I think this statement is more amenable to visualizing because the right hand side just asks you to place a bunch of points on a curve in projective space, and then take their linear span. I have no idea if this is how Riemann thought about it, but it's certainly geometric. If you want to read more, I learned about this from Geometry of Algebraic Curves Volume 1 by Arbarello, Cornalba, Griffiths, and Harris.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered 19 hours ago









          Samir CanningSamir Canning

          2621110




          2621110























              9












              $begingroup$

              Complex geometric view of Riemann Roch for a curve $C$:



              The essential Riemann Roch problem is the computation of the dimension of the vector space $H^0(D)$ where $D$ is an effective divisor on $C$. The first and most fundamental case is that for the canonical divisor $K$, whose dimension is $dim H^0(K) = g = operatorname{genus}(C)$. Geometrically this says that the Jacobian variety $J(C) = H^0(K)^*/H_1(C; mathbb{Z})$ of the curve is a compact complex torus of dimension $g$. Then the geometry of the RR problem for the general case of an effective divisor $D$ of degree $d$, is encoded by the Abel-Jacobi map $C^{(d)} to J(C)$, from the $d$-fold symmetric product of the curve to the Jacobian. This is based on the theorem of Abel, which says the fiber of this map containing $D$, is exactly the projective space built on the vector space $H^0(D)$, i.e. the fiber is the linear series $|D|$. Thus $dim H^0(D) = 1 + dim |D| = 1 + $ dimension of the fiber containing $D$.



              Since the Abel map is holomorphic, this implies that $dim |D| geq dim C^{(d)} - dim J(C) = d-g$. Thus $dim H^0(D) - 1 geq d -g$, or $dim H^0(D) geq 1-g+d$, which is the “weak” Riemann Roch theorem, i.e. the version usually attributed to Riemann.



              Then Roch’s augmentation computes the rank of the derivative of the Abel map. I.e. using the fact that by definition the canonical map on the curve, mentioned in Samir Canning's answer, is essentially the derivative of the Abel map, it follows that the linear rank of the Abel map, i.e. the rank of its derivative at $D$, equals (one more than) the dimension of the span of the points of $D$ in canonical space, i.e. $g - dim H^0(K-D)$. Roch’s result is that the derivative of the Abel map collapses only tangent vectors along the fiber, so that this rank also equals the non linear rank, i.e. $d - dim |D|$. Thus we have $d-dim |D| = g-dim H^0(K-D)$, hence $dim H^0(D) = 1 + dim |D| = 1-g+d + dim H^0(K-D)$, which is the full Riemann-Roch theorem.



              Thus looking at the Abel map $C^{(d)} to J(C)$, the RR problem is the computation of the dimension of the fibers, and the RRT says that the dimension of the fiber of the Abel map through $D$, equals the dimension of the fiber i.e. of the kernel, of the derivative of the Abel map at $D$. This equality (after adding one to both sides) is expressed in the second formula in Samir's answer, i.e. the geometric RRT. I.e. Samir's discussion essentially explains why the right hand side of his formula equals (one plus) the nullity of the derivative of the Abel map, and I have tried to motivate why it should equal the left hand side, i.e. (one plus) the dimension of |D|. Put another way, RRT just says the fiber of the Abel map through D is isomorphic to |D| as (non singular) schemes, which is just a slight strengthening of Abel's theorem.



              This point of view is explained in the classic paper of Mattuck and Mayer, where it is used to give a proof of RRT, modulo the existence of the Jacobian variety. https://eudml.org/doc/83304






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                9












                $begingroup$

                Complex geometric view of Riemann Roch for a curve $C$:



                The essential Riemann Roch problem is the computation of the dimension of the vector space $H^0(D)$ where $D$ is an effective divisor on $C$. The first and most fundamental case is that for the canonical divisor $K$, whose dimension is $dim H^0(K) = g = operatorname{genus}(C)$. Geometrically this says that the Jacobian variety $J(C) = H^0(K)^*/H_1(C; mathbb{Z})$ of the curve is a compact complex torus of dimension $g$. Then the geometry of the RR problem for the general case of an effective divisor $D$ of degree $d$, is encoded by the Abel-Jacobi map $C^{(d)} to J(C)$, from the $d$-fold symmetric product of the curve to the Jacobian. This is based on the theorem of Abel, which says the fiber of this map containing $D$, is exactly the projective space built on the vector space $H^0(D)$, i.e. the fiber is the linear series $|D|$. Thus $dim H^0(D) = 1 + dim |D| = 1 + $ dimension of the fiber containing $D$.



                Since the Abel map is holomorphic, this implies that $dim |D| geq dim C^{(d)} - dim J(C) = d-g$. Thus $dim H^0(D) - 1 geq d -g$, or $dim H^0(D) geq 1-g+d$, which is the “weak” Riemann Roch theorem, i.e. the version usually attributed to Riemann.



                Then Roch’s augmentation computes the rank of the derivative of the Abel map. I.e. using the fact that by definition the canonical map on the curve, mentioned in Samir Canning's answer, is essentially the derivative of the Abel map, it follows that the linear rank of the Abel map, i.e. the rank of its derivative at $D$, equals (one more than) the dimension of the span of the points of $D$ in canonical space, i.e. $g - dim H^0(K-D)$. Roch’s result is that the derivative of the Abel map collapses only tangent vectors along the fiber, so that this rank also equals the non linear rank, i.e. $d - dim |D|$. Thus we have $d-dim |D| = g-dim H^0(K-D)$, hence $dim H^0(D) = 1 + dim |D| = 1-g+d + dim H^0(K-D)$, which is the full Riemann-Roch theorem.



                Thus looking at the Abel map $C^{(d)} to J(C)$, the RR problem is the computation of the dimension of the fibers, and the RRT says that the dimension of the fiber of the Abel map through $D$, equals the dimension of the fiber i.e. of the kernel, of the derivative of the Abel map at $D$. This equality (after adding one to both sides) is expressed in the second formula in Samir's answer, i.e. the geometric RRT. I.e. Samir's discussion essentially explains why the right hand side of his formula equals (one plus) the nullity of the derivative of the Abel map, and I have tried to motivate why it should equal the left hand side, i.e. (one plus) the dimension of |D|. Put another way, RRT just says the fiber of the Abel map through D is isomorphic to |D| as (non singular) schemes, which is just a slight strengthening of Abel's theorem.



                This point of view is explained in the classic paper of Mattuck and Mayer, where it is used to give a proof of RRT, modulo the existence of the Jacobian variety. https://eudml.org/doc/83304






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  9












                  9








                  9





                  $begingroup$

                  Complex geometric view of Riemann Roch for a curve $C$:



                  The essential Riemann Roch problem is the computation of the dimension of the vector space $H^0(D)$ where $D$ is an effective divisor on $C$. The first and most fundamental case is that for the canonical divisor $K$, whose dimension is $dim H^0(K) = g = operatorname{genus}(C)$. Geometrically this says that the Jacobian variety $J(C) = H^0(K)^*/H_1(C; mathbb{Z})$ of the curve is a compact complex torus of dimension $g$. Then the geometry of the RR problem for the general case of an effective divisor $D$ of degree $d$, is encoded by the Abel-Jacobi map $C^{(d)} to J(C)$, from the $d$-fold symmetric product of the curve to the Jacobian. This is based on the theorem of Abel, which says the fiber of this map containing $D$, is exactly the projective space built on the vector space $H^0(D)$, i.e. the fiber is the linear series $|D|$. Thus $dim H^0(D) = 1 + dim |D| = 1 + $ dimension of the fiber containing $D$.



                  Since the Abel map is holomorphic, this implies that $dim |D| geq dim C^{(d)} - dim J(C) = d-g$. Thus $dim H^0(D) - 1 geq d -g$, or $dim H^0(D) geq 1-g+d$, which is the “weak” Riemann Roch theorem, i.e. the version usually attributed to Riemann.



                  Then Roch’s augmentation computes the rank of the derivative of the Abel map. I.e. using the fact that by definition the canonical map on the curve, mentioned in Samir Canning's answer, is essentially the derivative of the Abel map, it follows that the linear rank of the Abel map, i.e. the rank of its derivative at $D$, equals (one more than) the dimension of the span of the points of $D$ in canonical space, i.e. $g - dim H^0(K-D)$. Roch’s result is that the derivative of the Abel map collapses only tangent vectors along the fiber, so that this rank also equals the non linear rank, i.e. $d - dim |D|$. Thus we have $d-dim |D| = g-dim H^0(K-D)$, hence $dim H^0(D) = 1 + dim |D| = 1-g+d + dim H^0(K-D)$, which is the full Riemann-Roch theorem.



                  Thus looking at the Abel map $C^{(d)} to J(C)$, the RR problem is the computation of the dimension of the fibers, and the RRT says that the dimension of the fiber of the Abel map through $D$, equals the dimension of the fiber i.e. of the kernel, of the derivative of the Abel map at $D$. This equality (after adding one to both sides) is expressed in the second formula in Samir's answer, i.e. the geometric RRT. I.e. Samir's discussion essentially explains why the right hand side of his formula equals (one plus) the nullity of the derivative of the Abel map, and I have tried to motivate why it should equal the left hand side, i.e. (one plus) the dimension of |D|. Put another way, RRT just says the fiber of the Abel map through D is isomorphic to |D| as (non singular) schemes, which is just a slight strengthening of Abel's theorem.



                  This point of view is explained in the classic paper of Mattuck and Mayer, where it is used to give a proof of RRT, modulo the existence of the Jacobian variety. https://eudml.org/doc/83304






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  Complex geometric view of Riemann Roch for a curve $C$:



                  The essential Riemann Roch problem is the computation of the dimension of the vector space $H^0(D)$ where $D$ is an effective divisor on $C$. The first and most fundamental case is that for the canonical divisor $K$, whose dimension is $dim H^0(K) = g = operatorname{genus}(C)$. Geometrically this says that the Jacobian variety $J(C) = H^0(K)^*/H_1(C; mathbb{Z})$ of the curve is a compact complex torus of dimension $g$. Then the geometry of the RR problem for the general case of an effective divisor $D$ of degree $d$, is encoded by the Abel-Jacobi map $C^{(d)} to J(C)$, from the $d$-fold symmetric product of the curve to the Jacobian. This is based on the theorem of Abel, which says the fiber of this map containing $D$, is exactly the projective space built on the vector space $H^0(D)$, i.e. the fiber is the linear series $|D|$. Thus $dim H^0(D) = 1 + dim |D| = 1 + $ dimension of the fiber containing $D$.



                  Since the Abel map is holomorphic, this implies that $dim |D| geq dim C^{(d)} - dim J(C) = d-g$. Thus $dim H^0(D) - 1 geq d -g$, or $dim H^0(D) geq 1-g+d$, which is the “weak” Riemann Roch theorem, i.e. the version usually attributed to Riemann.



                  Then Roch’s augmentation computes the rank of the derivative of the Abel map. I.e. using the fact that by definition the canonical map on the curve, mentioned in Samir Canning's answer, is essentially the derivative of the Abel map, it follows that the linear rank of the Abel map, i.e. the rank of its derivative at $D$, equals (one more than) the dimension of the span of the points of $D$ in canonical space, i.e. $g - dim H^0(K-D)$. Roch’s result is that the derivative of the Abel map collapses only tangent vectors along the fiber, so that this rank also equals the non linear rank, i.e. $d - dim |D|$. Thus we have $d-dim |D| = g-dim H^0(K-D)$, hence $dim H^0(D) = 1 + dim |D| = 1-g+d + dim H^0(K-D)$, which is the full Riemann-Roch theorem.



                  Thus looking at the Abel map $C^{(d)} to J(C)$, the RR problem is the computation of the dimension of the fibers, and the RRT says that the dimension of the fiber of the Abel map through $D$, equals the dimension of the fiber i.e. of the kernel, of the derivative of the Abel map at $D$. This equality (after adding one to both sides) is expressed in the second formula in Samir's answer, i.e. the geometric RRT. I.e. Samir's discussion essentially explains why the right hand side of his formula equals (one plus) the nullity of the derivative of the Abel map, and I have tried to motivate why it should equal the left hand side, i.e. (one plus) the dimension of |D|. Put another way, RRT just says the fiber of the Abel map through D is isomorphic to |D| as (non singular) schemes, which is just a slight strengthening of Abel's theorem.



                  This point of view is explained in the classic paper of Mattuck and Mayer, where it is used to give a proof of RRT, modulo the existence of the Jacobian variety. https://eudml.org/doc/83304







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  edited 13 hours ago

























                  answered 17 hours ago









                  roy smithroy smith

                  9,55316464




                  9,55316464























                      7












                      $begingroup$

                      Here is my "visual" coming from the complex (and functional) analysis perspective, due to a novel proof by Taubes. For a holomorphic line bundle $E$ over a genus $g$ surface $C$, the RR theorem states that $ind_mathbb{C}(barpartial)=c_1(E)+1-g$.



                      Because the index of a Fredholm operator over a closed manifold does not change if we perturb by a 0th order (compact) operator, $ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial)=ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial+rB)$ for every $rinmathbb{R}_+$ and generic section $BinGamma(E^2otimes T^{0,1}C)$. Here $B$ acts as a complex anti-linear map in order to define the perturbation of $barpartial:Gamma(E)toGamma(Eotimes T^{0,1}C)$.



                      Now we can visualize the (co)kernel of our perturbed operator as $rtoinfty$, because the elements of the (co)kernel localize/concentrate around the zeros of $B$. Thus $ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial)=# B^{-1}(0)$.



                      Now we can visualize and appeal to the "geometry" of characteristic classes and sections of bundles: $# B^{-1}(0)=c_1(E^2otimes T^{0,1}C)$, which equals $2c_1(E)+chi(C)$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        I'm too lazy to draw pictures, but it's possible!
                        $endgroup$
                        – Chris Gerig
                        17 hours ago
















                      7












                      $begingroup$

                      Here is my "visual" coming from the complex (and functional) analysis perspective, due to a novel proof by Taubes. For a holomorphic line bundle $E$ over a genus $g$ surface $C$, the RR theorem states that $ind_mathbb{C}(barpartial)=c_1(E)+1-g$.



                      Because the index of a Fredholm operator over a closed manifold does not change if we perturb by a 0th order (compact) operator, $ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial)=ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial+rB)$ for every $rinmathbb{R}_+$ and generic section $BinGamma(E^2otimes T^{0,1}C)$. Here $B$ acts as a complex anti-linear map in order to define the perturbation of $barpartial:Gamma(E)toGamma(Eotimes T^{0,1}C)$.



                      Now we can visualize the (co)kernel of our perturbed operator as $rtoinfty$, because the elements of the (co)kernel localize/concentrate around the zeros of $B$. Thus $ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial)=# B^{-1}(0)$.



                      Now we can visualize and appeal to the "geometry" of characteristic classes and sections of bundles: $# B^{-1}(0)=c_1(E^2otimes T^{0,1}C)$, which equals $2c_1(E)+chi(C)$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$













                      • $begingroup$
                        I'm too lazy to draw pictures, but it's possible!
                        $endgroup$
                        – Chris Gerig
                        17 hours ago














                      7












                      7








                      7





                      $begingroup$

                      Here is my "visual" coming from the complex (and functional) analysis perspective, due to a novel proof by Taubes. For a holomorphic line bundle $E$ over a genus $g$ surface $C$, the RR theorem states that $ind_mathbb{C}(barpartial)=c_1(E)+1-g$.



                      Because the index of a Fredholm operator over a closed manifold does not change if we perturb by a 0th order (compact) operator, $ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial)=ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial+rB)$ for every $rinmathbb{R}_+$ and generic section $BinGamma(E^2otimes T^{0,1}C)$. Here $B$ acts as a complex anti-linear map in order to define the perturbation of $barpartial:Gamma(E)toGamma(Eotimes T^{0,1}C)$.



                      Now we can visualize the (co)kernel of our perturbed operator as $rtoinfty$, because the elements of the (co)kernel localize/concentrate around the zeros of $B$. Thus $ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial)=# B^{-1}(0)$.



                      Now we can visualize and appeal to the "geometry" of characteristic classes and sections of bundles: $# B^{-1}(0)=c_1(E^2otimes T^{0,1}C)$, which equals $2c_1(E)+chi(C)$.






                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$



                      Here is my "visual" coming from the complex (and functional) analysis perspective, due to a novel proof by Taubes. For a holomorphic line bundle $E$ over a genus $g$ surface $C$, the RR theorem states that $ind_mathbb{C}(barpartial)=c_1(E)+1-g$.



                      Because the index of a Fredholm operator over a closed manifold does not change if we perturb by a 0th order (compact) operator, $ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial)=ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial+rB)$ for every $rinmathbb{R}_+$ and generic section $BinGamma(E^2otimes T^{0,1}C)$. Here $B$ acts as a complex anti-linear map in order to define the perturbation of $barpartial:Gamma(E)toGamma(Eotimes T^{0,1}C)$.



                      Now we can visualize the (co)kernel of our perturbed operator as $rtoinfty$, because the elements of the (co)kernel localize/concentrate around the zeros of $B$. Thus $ind_mathbb{R}(barpartial)=# B^{-1}(0)$.



                      Now we can visualize and appeal to the "geometry" of characteristic classes and sections of bundles: $# B^{-1}(0)=c_1(E^2otimes T^{0,1}C)$, which equals $2c_1(E)+chi(C)$.







                      share|cite|improve this answer












                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer










                      answered 18 hours ago









                      Chris GerigChris Gerig

                      9,45425190




                      9,45425190












                      • $begingroup$
                        I'm too lazy to draw pictures, but it's possible!
                        $endgroup$
                        – Chris Gerig
                        17 hours ago


















                      • $begingroup$
                        I'm too lazy to draw pictures, but it's possible!
                        $endgroup$
                        – Chris Gerig
                        17 hours ago
















                      $begingroup$
                      I'm too lazy to draw pictures, but it's possible!
                      $endgroup$
                      – Chris Gerig
                      17 hours ago




                      $begingroup$
                      I'm too lazy to draw pictures, but it's possible!
                      $endgroup$
                      – Chris Gerig
                      17 hours ago


















                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


                      • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                      But avoid



                      • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                      • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                      Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                      To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f324169%2fhow-to-visualize-the-riemann-roch-theorem-from-complex-analysis-or-geometric-top%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      Post as a guest















                      Required, but never shown





















































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown

































                      Required, but never shown














                      Required, but never shown












                      Required, but never shown







                      Required, but never shown







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Benedict Cumberbatch Contingut Inicis Debut professional Premis Filmografia bàsica Premis i...

                      Monticle de plataforma Contingut Est de Nord Amèrica Interpretacions Altres cultures Vegeu...

                      Escacs Janus Enllaços externs Menú de navegacióEscacs JanusJanusschachBrainKing.comChessV