We start with an overview of heights on projective spaces and varieties to give a hint about their role in attacking finiteness problems of abelian varieties. We then try to explain the motivation for introducing the Faltings height on abelian varieties and do explicit computation in the case of elliptic curves. Finally we include a direct proof of the finiteness theorems of elliptic curves. Our main sources are [1], [2] and [3]. See also [4] and [5]. This is a note prepared for the Faltings' Theorem seminar at Harvard.
Heights on projective spaces and projective varietiesLet us start by reviewing several basic properties of heights on projective spaces. The general scheme of height functions is a measurement of "arithmetic complexity". For a rational number
, we can write it as
for two integers
without common divisors, and define the height of
as
It will be troublesome to draw a graph of this "function" defined on
. Nevertheless, the definition matches our intuition: the larger
is, the more complicated
is.
More intrinsically, let
be a number field. Set the absolute values:
satisfies
for
and
is the real or complex absolute value for
real or complex.
, where
. It takes the value
on the uniformizer
.Note that by the product formula,
for
, thus we know that
does not depend on the choice of homogeneous coordinates
. Because for
,
if and only if
, it is easy to check that
generates the ideal
, where
are relative prime integral ideals of
, then
This definition of heights extends to projective spaces
of dimension
in an obvious way.
. We define the relative height
the absolute height
and the logarithmic height
Note that for a finite extension
,
, therefore the absolute height and the logarithmic height do not depend on the choice of
.
The following is a prototype of a finiteness result under the bounded height condition.
and
, there are only finitely many points
satisfying
and
. In particular, for any number field
, there are only finitely many points
with bounded height.
and let
be the Galois conjugates of
. Then the minimal polynomial of
is of the form
Note that the heights of the
's are all the same, therefore the coefficient of
is bounded by
for some constant
not depending on
. So these coefficients are rational numbers with bounded heights, therefore there are only finitely many choices of the coefficients, hence finitely many choices of
.
¡õ
Here comes a neat corollary of the Northcott's property.
for some
. Then
, hence
. Conversely, suppose
, then
for every
. By the Northcott's, some
and
have to be same, which implies
is a root of unity.
¡õ
, called the canonical height (or Neron-Tate height) attached to every rational point on an abelian variety over
. It measures the arithmetic complexity of the point: for example,
if and only if
is a torsion point analogously.
Slightly more generally, given a projective variety
, the embedding
associates with every point
a height
using the height on the projective space
. The height thus obtained does depend on the choice of the projective embedding, nevertheless, it turns out to be uniquely determined up to a bounded function. From the previous theorem, we know that over a number field
, there are only finitely many points in
with bounded heights.
Finiteness of abelian varieties and Modular HeightsOne of the key steps in proving Faltings' theorem is to prove the finiteness theorems of abelian varieties.
be an abelian variety over a number field
. Then there are only finitely many isomorphism classes of abelian varieties over
isogenous to
.
of dimension
having good reduction outside a finite set of places
.
Carl has showed the implication
So it remains to show Finiteness I. Faltings' argument involves the usage of "heights":
Height I There are only finitely many isomorphism classes of polarized abelian varieties
over
of dimension
,
with semistable reduction everywhere and bounded "heights".
Height II The "height" is bounded in every isogeny class of abelian varieties over
.
Assuming these two parts, then together with the semistable reduction theorem (every abelian variety has semistable reduction after a finite extension), we can easily deduce Finiteness I.
To possibly show the finiteness statement like Height I, we would like to associate a height to each abelian variety using Northcott's property. A natural option is to view an abelian variety as a point in the Siegel moduli variety and attach the height of that point to the corresponding abelian varieties. This motivates the notion of modular heights.
be a polarized abelian variety over
of dimension
and degree
. Let
be the Siegel modular variety with its canonical projective embedding. Then associated with
we have a point
.We define the modular height of
to be
.
be a constant. Then there are only finitely many isomorphism classes of polarized abelian varieties
over
of dimension
, degree
having semistable reduction everywhere and
.
,
are all isomorphic over
but not isomorphic over
. These
's have the same
-invariant, hence
are the same.
To clarify the proof, we recall the following lemma without proof.
be a polarized abelian variety. Then
is finite.
, an automorphism of
acting on
trivially must be the identity.
-isomorphism classes of such
is finite. So we need to show that given a polarized abelian variety
with semistable reduction everywhere, there are only finitely many
-isomorphism classes
with semistable reduction everywhere which are isomorphic to
over
. We shall show that there exists a finite extension
such that all these
are actually isomorphic to
over
. Then
's are parametrized by
, which is finite, since
and
(by the previous lemma) are finite. This completes the proof.
It remains to construct such an
. Because
,
have semistable reduction everywhere and they are isomorphic over a finite extension of
, we know that
,
have the same set
of places of bad reduction. Fix a prime
, then
is an extension of degree
and is unramified outside
by Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich's criterion. Therefore by Hermite's theorem, the compositum field
of all
's must be a finite extension of
. We claim that all
's are isomorphic to
over
. Let
be an isomorphism over
. Then for any
,
is an automorphism of
which leaves
fixed, therefore is the identity by the previous lemma. So the isomorphism
is actually defined over
.
¡õ
It would be wonderful to show Height II for the modular height, unfortunately, it is not clear how
changes under isogeny. Faltings introduced what is now known as the Faltings height
to attack Finiteness II. It turns out miraculously that the Faltings height can be proved to change only slightly under isogeny, and thus Height II is true for
. More precisely,
be an abelian variety over
having semistable reduction everywhere. Then
is bounded in the isogeny class of
.
Finally, to combine the Height I result for
and Height II result for
, one needs a comparison theorem between
and
: the boundedness of one of them implies the boundedness of the other.
,
,
such that for abelian varieties
over
with semistable reduction everywhere,
Now the road-map for proving Finiteness I is

Height II (using the results of Raynaud and Tate on
-divisible groups) and the comparison theorem (using the compactified Siegel modular variety over
) are the hardest parts of the whole proof and will occupy most of the remaining semester. In the rest of this talk, I will prove the comparison theorem for the case of elliptic curves, to somehow convince you that it is a reasonable thing to expect. If time permits, I will show Finiteness I for elliptic curves using a different argument, taking advantage of Siegel's theorem on integral points on elliptic curves.
Metrized line bundles and the Faltings heightWe shall now motivate the definition of the Faltings height, which already showed up in Dick's introduction and also in Carl's talk. Suppose we have a complex elliptic curve
for some period lattice
. Intuitively,
is more complicated if
is more complicated, so we may attempt to define the height of
as
where
is the fundamental domain for
. However, this quantity is not well defined for a given isomorphism class: for example, scaling
gives isomorphic elliptic curves, but
is different. Notice that fixing the period lattice is equivalent to fixing a canonical choice for a differential
:
If
is defined over
, this canonical choice can be made using the minimal Weierstrass equation
The differential
is then well defined up to multiplication by
and the period lattice is uniquely determined by the isomorphism class of
. In this case, 
We are using the crucial fact that
is a PID to define the minimal Weierstrass equation. In general, for
defined over a number field
, its ring of integers
is not necessarily a PID and a minimal Weierstrass equation does not exist. To obtain a canonical choice of the differential, we need the Neron models George talked about last time. Let
be the Neron model of
. Then the sheaf of Neron differentials
is locally free of rank 1. So the pull back
by the zero section
gives us a projective
- module of rank 1. Because
is a PID, this module is actually a free module of rank 1. Therefore it has a canonical generator up to sign, which is exactly the above differential
. For a number field
, the same construction gives a projective
-module of rank 1, where
is the ring of integers of
. When
is not a PID,
is not necessarily free and we cannot take a global generator, but only a bunch of local generators for each finite place. This motivates us to define the notion of metrized line bundles, introduced by Arakelov.
be the ring of integers of
. A metrized line bundle on
is a pair
, where
is a line bundle on
(i.e. a projective
-module of rank 1) and for each
,
is a norm on the real or complex vector space
.
, suppose
, we set
if
for
. For
, we denote
. The height of a metrized line bundle
is defined to be
for any
. It is well-defined by the product formula. The degree of
is defined to be
. When
and
is the generator of
, one then recovers that
(one thinks of
as the area
).
Now let us come back to the case of abelian varieties. Let
be an abelian variety of dimension
over
. Let
be the Neron model of
. Then the sheaf of Neron differentials
is locally free of rank
on
. So the top wedge power
is a locally free sheaf of rank 1 on
. Pulling back by the zero section
, we obtain a line bundle
. We specify the norm for every
by 
be the metrized line bundle on
described above. The Faltings height of
is defined to be
. However, by the semistable stable reduction theorem, the Neron model does not change after base change to some finite field extension. We thus define the stable Faltings height to be the Faltings height
, for any
such that
has semistable stable reduction everywhere.
Comparison of heights for elliptic curvesWe first give an explicit formula of the Faltings height
.
be an elliptic curve. Suppose
for
. Then
where
is the minimal discriminant and
is the modular discriminant function.
be any Weierstrass equation of
. We shall utilize the invariance of the section
of
under the change of coordinates to calculate the Faltings height locally. For
, let
be the Neron differential at
, then by the invariance of
, we know that
where
is the minimal discriminant of
at
. So for
,
Hence the local contribution at
is
and the total nonarchimedean contribution is
. For
, let
be the Weierstrass equation given by
and
then by the invariance of
, we know that
We compute
therefore the local contribution at
is
and the total archimedean contribution is
This completes the proof.
¡õ
Using the previous explicit expression, now we can prove the comparison theorem of the Faltings height and the modular height for elliptic curves.
such that for elliptic curves
with semistable reduction everywhere,
, we can suitably choose
such that
, so that
. Hence
implies that
Using the
-expansion of
, one also knows that
Therefore
Also from
we obtain
Plugging into the explicit formula of the Faltings height gives
Since
has semistable reduction everywhere, we know that
if and only if
dividing
and in this case
. Thus
So it remains to show that
which I shall leave it as an exercise using the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality.
¡õ
Finiteness theorems for elliptic curvesFinally, we shall utilize Siegel's theorem on the integral points of elliptic curves to give a completely different direct proof of Finiteness I for elliptic curves.
be an (affine) elliptic curve,
be a finite set containing
and
be the ring of
-integers. Then the set of integral points
is finite.
Siegel's proof uses techniques from Diophantine approximations, which we do not get into here. We will deduce Finiteness I from the even stronger Shafarevich's theorem for elliptic curves. The following cute proof is due to Shafarevich.
be a finite set containing
. Then there are only finitely many isomorphism classes
having good reduction outside
.
so that
contains all places over 2 and 3 and also
is a PID. Then for every
, we have a minimal Weierstrass equation
If further
has good reduction outside
, we know the discriminant
. Suppose we have an infinite sequence of elliptic curves
having good reduction outside
. Since the
-unit group
is finitely generated, we know that
is a finite group. So we can find an infinite subsequence (still denoted by
), such that
are in the same class of
. In other words,
for a fixed
. From
, we know that
has
-solutions
. Therefore by Siegel's theorem, there are only finitely many possibilities for
and
. Moreover, each of the identities
,
gives a
-isomorphism
via
,
.
¡õ
. Then there are only finitely many elliptic curves
which are isogenous to
.
and
are isogenous over
. Then they have the same set of places of good reduction by Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich (the induced map
is an isomorphism of
-modules for all
's prime to the characteristic of the residue field and the degree of the isogeny). The result then follows from Shafarevich's theorem.
¡õ
[1]Heights and elliptic curves, Arithmetic geometry (Storrs, Conn., 1984), Springer, 1986, 253--265.
[2]Abelian Varieties (v2.00), Available at www.jmilne.org/math/.
[3]The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves (Graduate Texts in Mathematics), Springer, 2010.
[4]Heights in Diophantine Geometry (New Mathematical Monographs), Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[5]Diophantine Geometry: An Introduction (Graduate Texts in Mathematics), Springer, 2000.