This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

\psset

unit=0.5cm,linewidth=0.05

Section Rings of \mathbb{Q}-Divisors on Genus 11 Curves

Michael Cerchia, Jesse Franklin, Evan O’Dorney
(2024)
Abstract

We compute generators and relations for the section ring of a rational divisor on an elliptic curve. Our technique generalizes the work of O’Dorney (in genus zero) and Voight–Zureick-Brown (for specific divisors arising from the study of stacky curves). For effective divisors supported on at most two points, we give explicit descriptions of the generators and the leading terms of the relations for a minimal presentation. As in the genus zero case, the generators are parametrized by best lower approximations to the coefficients, but there are added wrinkles. Following Landesman, Ruhm and Zhang we can bound the degrees of generators for the section ring of an effective divisor supported at any finite number of points.

1 Motivation

Let CC be an algebraic curve (smooth, projective) over a field 𝕜\Bbbk, which we will take to be algebraically closed for convenience, although this assumption is not necessary. Let DD be a \mathbb{Q}-divisor on CC. We denote by H0(D)H^{0}(D) (short for H0(C,D)H^{0}(C,D)) the 𝕜\Bbbk-vector space of rational functions ff on CC such that divf+D\operatorname{div}f+D is effective. Our aim in this paper is to understand the generators and relations of the section ring

SD=d0H0(dD),S_{D}=\bigoplus_{d\geq 0}H^{0}(dD),

where the ring structure comes from the multiplication map :H0(dD)×H0(eD)H0((d+e)D)\cdot\colon H^{0}(dD)\times H^{0}(eD)\to H^{0}((d+e)D). We will find it convenient to introduce a bookkeeping variable uu and write

SD=d0udH0(dD).S_{D}=\bigoplus_{d\geq 0}u^{d}H^{0}(dD).

To exclude degenerate cases, we assume that DD is ample (that is, degD>0\deg D>0).

Section rings, most notably the canonical ring where the divisor D=KCD=K_{C} is a canonical divisor, are widely used to produce embeddings of a curve into (weighted) projective spaces. With a theory of general \mathbb{Q}-divisors, one can compute log canonical rings of stacky curves CC, as in [VZB22], where the support of the log divisor (the cusps of CC) consists of stacky points. This is useful to number theorists who consider log canonical rings of modular curves, such as in the Drinfeld setting [Fra23]. Another application of our generalization is the case of non-tame stacky curves, such as [VZB22, Remark 5.3.115.3.11] where the characteristic of the ground field divides the order of the stabilizer of some point on the curve. In particular, a work in progress by Kobin and Zureick-Brown studies modular forms mod p=2p=2 and 33, exploiting the phenomenon that elliptic curves with j=0j=0 have extra automorphisms in characteristic 22 or 33. In these characteristics, modular curves are wild and their log-canonical rings are not addressed by [VZB22]; Kobin and Zureick-Brown rely very heavily on the explicit computations of [O’D15] and of the present paper. Additionally, our paper “finishes” this line of inquiry, in the sense that we do not expect there to be any nice answer to this type of question for small-degree divisors on higher-genus stacky curves.

Our work is organized similarly to [O’D15]. First, we discuss the case of a divisor D=αPD=\alpha P supported at one point. We find that most of the generators of the section ring SDS_{D} are indexed by the best lower approximations to α\alpha, just as in the genus 0 case; but there can be up to three exceptional generators depending on whether the fractional part {1/α}\{-1/\alpha\} lies within various subintervals ([0,1/3)[0,1/3), [1/3,1/2)[1/3,1/2), etc.) within the unit interval [0,1)[0,1) (Section 2).

Next we consider the two-point effective case D=α(1)P(1)+α(2)P(2)D=\alpha^{(1)}P^{(1)}+\alpha^{(2)}P^{(2)}, α(k)>0\alpha^{(k)}>0. Here the section ring combines the flavor of the one-point cases from genera 0 and 11 (Section 3).

We would also like to address ineffective divisors (such as α(1)P(1)α(2)P(2)\alpha^{(1)}P^{(1)}-\alpha^{(2)}P^{(2)}) and divisors supported at more than two points. However, a complete description of the section ring is more elusive in these cases, and at the moment we merely offer interesting examples and conjectures (Section 4). Thanks to [LRZ16] there are upper bounds for the degrees of generators and relations for a large family of \mathbb{Q}-divisors supported at an arbitrary number of points on curves of all genera. However, not every possible \mathbb{Q}-divisor is covered by the existing theory of [VZB22] and [LRZ16], hence our work.

1.1 Main results

For our readers’ convenience we state our main theorems here, slightly simplified for readability.

For comparison, here is the result of the last author from [O’D15] concerning the one-point case on 1\mathbb{P}^{1}:

Theorem 1.1 ([O’D15], Theorem 4).

Let D=α()D=\alpha(\infty) be a \mathbb{Q}-divisor supported on one point of 1\mathbb{P}^{1}. Denote by tt a coordinate on 1\mathbb{P}^{1} having a simple pole at this point. Let

0=c0d0<c1d1<<crdr=α0=\frac{c_{0}}{d_{0}}<\frac{c_{1}}{d_{1}}<\cdots<\frac{c_{r}}{d_{r}}=\alpha

be the nonnegative best lower approximations to α\alpha. Then SDS_{D} has a minimal presentation consisting of the r+1r+1 generators fi=tciudif_{i}=t^{c_{i}}u^{d_{i}} and (r2)\binom{r}{2} relations of the form

gij=fifjfhijaij(i<hij<j)orgij=fifjfhijaijfhij+1bij(i<hij<hij+1<j)g_{ij}=f_{i}f_{j}-f_{h_{ij}}^{a_{ij}}\;(i<h_{ij}<j)\quad\text{or}\quad g_{ij}=f_{i}f_{j}-f_{h_{ij}}^{a_{ij}}f_{h_{ij}+1}^{b_{ij}}\;(i<h_{ij}<h_{ij}+1<j) (1.1)

for each (i,j)(i,j) with ji+2j\geq i+2, with some positive integers aija_{ij} and bijb_{ij}.

In general, we show that the section ring on an elliptic curve CC has a very similar form to that on 1\mathbb{P}^{1}, with necessary modifications owing to the issue that there is no rational function of degree 11 on CC. Unlike the genus 0 case, where the relations are explicit binomials, here the relations have lower-order terms depending in a complicated way on the particular elliptic curve CC chosen. Hence we content ourselves with determining the leading terms, and in particular the degrees, of the relations.

Theorem 1.2 (see Theorems 2.3, 2.7).

Let CC be an elliptic curve with a marked point \infty, and denote by tct_{c} (c0,c1c\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0},c\neq 1) a function whose polar divisor is c()c(\infty). For D=α()D=\alpha(\infty) a \mathbb{Q}-divisor supported at this point, let

0=c0d0<c1d1<<crdr=α0=\frac{c_{0}}{d_{0}}<\frac{c_{1}}{d_{1}}<\cdots<\frac{c_{r}}{d_{r}}=\alpha

be the nonnegative best approximations to α\alpha. Then:

  1. ((a))

    SDS_{D} has a minimal generating set consisting of the functions

    • fi=tciudif_{i}=t_{c_{i}}u^{d_{i}} for i1i\neq 1 (observe that c1/d1c_{1}/d_{1} is always the unique best lower approximation with numerator 11, and therefore inadmissible here);

    • f(b)=t2u2/αf_{\mathrm{(b)}}=t_{2}u^{\lceil 2/\alpha\rceil} if {1/α}[0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[0,1/2);

    • f(c)=t3u3/αf_{\mathrm{(c)}}=t_{3}u^{\lceil 3/\alpha\rceil} if {1/α}[0,1/3)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[0,1/3);

    • f(d)=tc1+c2ud1+d2f_{\mathrm{(d)}}=t_{c_{1}+c_{2}}u^{d_{1}+d_{2}} if {1/α}(0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha\}\in(0,1/2).

  2. ((b))

    With respect to a suitable term ordering, a Gröbner basis for the relations of SDS_{D} consists of relations with the following leading terms:

    • All products fifjf_{i}f_{j}, where 3ir,0ji2,j13\leq i\leq r,0\leq j\leq i-2,j\neq 1, except possibly f3f0f_{3}f_{0};

    • All products fif(b)f_{i}f_{\mathrm{(b)}}, fif(c)f_{i}f_{\mathrm{(c)}}, and fif(d)f_{i}f_{\mathrm{(d)}}, where 3ir3\leq i\leq r, if the respective generator f(b)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}, f(c)f_{\mathrm{(c)}}, f(d)f_{\mathrm{(d)}} exists;

    • At most six additional relations, according to whether {1/α}\{-1/\alpha\} lies in various intervals.

  3. ((c))

    Moreover, the Gröbner basis is also minimal, except for at most one relation whose leading term has degree 33 or 44, the remaining relations having quadratic leading terms.

Our next theorem generalizes this to a two-point effective divisor:

Theorem 1.3 (see Theorems 3.2, 3.5, 3.9).

Let D=α(1)(P(1))+α(2)(P(2))D=\alpha^{(1)}(P^{(1)})+\alpha^{(2)}(P^{(2)}) be an effective \mathbb{Q}-divisor on an elliptic curve CC supported on two points P(k)P^{(k)}, with α(1)α(2)\alpha^{(1)}\geq\alpha^{(2)}. Let

0=c0(k)d0(k)<c1(k)d1(k)<<cr(k)(k)dr(k)(k)=α(k)0=\frac{c_{0}^{(k)}}{d_{0}^{(k)}}<\frac{c_{1}^{(k)}}{d_{1}^{(k)}}<\cdots<\frac{c_{r^{(k)}}^{(k)}}{d_{r^{(k)}}^{(k)}}=\alpha^{(k)}

be the best lower approximations to α(k)\alpha^{(k)}. Then:

  1. ((a))

    SDS_{D} has a minimal system of generators of the following forms:

    • fi(k)=tci(k)(k)udi(k)f_{i}^{(k)}=t_{c_{i}^{(k)}}^{(k)}u^{d_{i}^{(k)}} for k{1,2}k\in\{1,2\} and i=0,2,3,,r(k)i=0,2,3,\ldots,r^{(k)} (including f0=f0(1)=f0(2)=uf_{0}=f_{0}^{(1)}=f_{0}^{(2)}=u);

    • f(b)=t2(1)u2/α(1)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}=t_{2}^{(1)}u^{\lceil 2/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil} if {1/α(1)}[0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[0,1/2);

    • f(c)=t3(1)u3/α(1)f_{\mathrm{(c)}}=t_{3}^{(1)}u^{\lceil 3/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil} if {1/α(1)}[0,1/3)[1/2,2/3)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[0,1/3)\cup[1/2,2/3) and 1/α(2)>1/α(1)\lceil 1/\alpha^{(2)}\rceil>\lceil 1/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil;

    • f(d)=tc1(1)+c2(2)(1)ud1(1)+d2(1)f_{\mathrm{(d)}}=t_{c_{1}^{(1)}+c_{2}^{(2)}}^{(1)}u^{d_{1}^{(1)}+d_{2}^{(1)}}, if {1/α(1)}(0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in(0,1/2) and 1/α(2)>1/α(1)\lceil 1/\alpha^{(2)}\rceil>\lceil 1/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil;

    • fw=wud1(2)f_{w}=wu^{d_{1}^{(2)}}.

  2. ((b))

    With respect to a suitable term ordering, a Gröbner basis for the relations of SDS_{D} consists of relations with the following leading terms:

    • All products fi(k)fj(k)f_{i}^{(k)}f_{j}^{(k)}, where k{1,2}k\in\{1,2\}, 3ir(k),0ji2,j13\leq i\leq r^{(k)},0\leq j\leq i-2,j\neq 1, except possibly f3(1)f0(1)f_{3}^{(1)}f_{0}^{(1)};

    • All products fwfi(k)f_{w}f_{i}^{(k)}, where i3i\geq 3, k{1,2}k\in\{1,2\};

    • All products fif(b)f_{i}f_{\mathrm{(b)}}, fif(c)f_{i}f_{\mathrm{(c)}}, and fif(d)f_{i}f_{\mathrm{(d)}}, where k{1,2}k\in\{1,2\}, i4ki\geq 4-k, if the respective generator f(b)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}, f(c)f_{\mathrm{(c)}}, f(d)f_{\mathrm{(d)}} exists;

    • At most nine additional relations, according to whether {1/α(1)}\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\} lies in various intervals and whether 1/α(1)=1/α(2)\lceil 1/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil=\lceil 1/\alpha^{(2)}\rceil or not.

  3. ((c))

    Moreover, the Gröbner basis is also minimal, except for at most one relation whose leading term has degree 33 or 44, the remaining relations having quadratic leading terms.

Finally, as a corollary to Lemma 4.4(c) of [LRZ16], we obtain a bound on the generator and relation degrees for arbitrary effective \mathbb{Q}-divisors:

Theorem 1.4.

Let

D=i=1nα(i)(P(i))D=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\alpha^{(i)}(P^{(i)})

be an effective divisor on a genus 11 curve CC, with the coefficients α(i)=a(i)/b(i)\alpha^{(i)}=a^{(i)}/b^{(i)} in reduced form and the distinct points P(i)P^{(i)} ordered so that

α(1)α(n).\alpha^{(1)}\geq\cdots\geq\alpha^{(n)}.

Then the section ring SDS_{D} is generated in degrees at most

B=max{3b(1),b(2),,b(n)},B=\max\{3b^{(1)},b^{(2)},\ldots,b^{(n)}\},

with relations in degrees at most 2B2B.

These bounds are achievable: see Examples 2.1 and 5.1.

1.2 Acknowledgements

This project grew out of the AMS Mathematical Research Communities: Explicit Computations with Stacks conference in June 2023. We thank the organizers, and we further thank John Voight, Robin Zhang and David Zureick-Brown for helpful conversations.

2 The one-point case

Fix an elliptic curve CC with a marked point \infty. We denote by tit_{i} a function on CC whose polar divisor is i()i(\infty). We recall that tit_{i} exists for i2{0}i\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 2}\cup\{0\}; if CC is given by a Weierstrass equation y2+a1xy+a3y=x3+a2x2+a4x+a6y^{2}+a_{1}xy+a_{3}y=x^{3}+a_{2}x^{2}+a_{4}x+a_{6}, then we may take

ti={xi/2,i evenx(i3)/2y,i odd.t_{i}=\begin{cases}x^{i/2},&\text{$i$ even}\\ x^{(i-3)/2}y,&\text{$i$ odd.}\end{cases}

In this section, we take a divisor D=α()D=\alpha(\infty) and study the generators and relations of the resulting section ring SDS_{D}. Observe that there must be at least three generators and one relation (if SDS_{D} were freely generated, it would yield a birational isomorphism of CC to some n\mathbb{P}^{n}, which is impossible).

Example 2.1.

Let D=()D=(\infty) consist of a single point with multiplicity 11. Then SDS_{D} has generators uu, x=u2t2x=u^{2}t_{2}, y=u3t3y=u^{3}t_{3} in degrees 11, 22, and 33, respectively, and a single degree 66 relation

y2+a1uxy+a3u3y=x3+a2u2x2+a4u4x+a6u6,y^{2}+a_{1}uxy+a_{3}u^{3}y=x^{3}+a_{2}u^{2}x^{2}+a_{4}u^{4}x+a_{6}u^{6},

a homogenization of the usual Weierstrass equation of the elliptic curve CC. These generators are shown diagrammatically in Figure 1, where we plot degree on the horizontal axis and pole order on the vertical axis. We use bullets for generators, open dots for other elements of SDS_{D}, and ++’s to emphasize the nonexistence of elements in SDS_{D} having a simple pole at \infty.

\drawline(0,0)(4.8,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,4.8) \drawline(0,0)(4.5,4.5) uuxxyy++++
Figure 1: The section ring of D=(P)D=(P), which has three generators

In the following, we use without comment the following well-known characterization of the principal divisors on an elliptic curve CC:

Fact 2.2.

([Sil09, Corollary III.3.5\mathrm{III}.3.5]) A divisor D=nP(P)D=\sum n_{P}(P) on an elliptic curve is a principal divisor if and only if nP=0\sum n_{P}=0 (as integers) and (nPP)=0\sum(n_{P}P)=0 (in the elliptic curve group law).

2.1 Generators

Theorem 2.3.

Let D=α()D=\alpha(\infty) be a \mathbb{Q}-divisor on an elliptic curve CC supported at a single point \infty. Let

0=c0d0<c1d1<<crdr=α0=\frac{c_{0}}{d_{0}}<\frac{c_{1}}{d_{1}}<\cdots<\frac{c_{r}}{d_{r}}=\alpha

be the nonnegative best approximations to α\alpha. Then SDS_{D} has a minimal generating set consisting of functions f=tcudf=t_{c}u^{d} for the following pairs (d,c)(d,c):

  1. ((a))

    (d,c)=(di,ci)(d,c)=(d_{i},c_{i}) for i1i\neq 1 (observe that c1/d1c_{1}/d_{1} is always the unique best lower approximation with numerator 11, and therefore inadmissible here);

  2. ((b))

    (d,c)=(d(b),c(b))=(2/α,2)(d,c)=(d_{\mathrm{(b)}},c_{\mathrm{(b)}})=(\lceil 2/\alpha\rceil,2) if {1/α}[0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[0,1/2);

  3. ((c))

    (d,c)=(d(c),c(c))=(3/α,3)(d,c)=(d_{\mathrm{(c)}},c_{\mathrm{(c)}})=(\lceil 3/\alpha\rceil,3) if {1/α}[0,1/3)[1/2,2/3)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[0,1/3)\cup[1/2,2/3);

  4. ((d))

    (d,c)=(d(d),c(d))=(d1+d2,c1+c2)(d,c)=(d_{\mathrm{(d)}},c_{\mathrm{(d)}})=(d_{1}+d_{2},c_{1}+c_{2}) if {1/α}(0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha\}\in(0,1/2).

We denote each relevant lattice point by vi=(di,ci)v_{i}=(d_{i},c_{i}), and the corresponding generator of the section ring by fi=tciudif_{i}=t_{c_{i}}u^{d_{i}}, where ii ranges over an index set II containing {0,2,3,,r}\{0,2,3,\ldots,r\} as well as the special symbols b, c, and d in the cases in which they appear.

Proof.

First, we transform the problem to finding generators for a certain semigroup. Observe that a 𝕜\Bbbk-basis for SDS_{D} is given by

{tcud:(d,c)M}\{t_{c}u^{d}:(d,c)\in M\} (2.1)

where MM is the monoid

M={(d,c)2:0cαd,c1}.M=\{(d,c)\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}:0\leq c\leq\alpha d,c\neq 1\}.

For v=(d,c)Mv=(d,c)\in M a vector, let fv=tcudf_{v}=t_{c}u^{d} be the corresponding element of SDS_{D}. We cannot construct an isomorphism of SDS_{D} with the monoid ring 𝕜[M]\Bbbk[M] in this way, but the objects are closely related, and we will use the combinatorial structure of MM to probe the algebraic structure of SDS_{D}.

Note that, owing to the grading by dd, MM is an atomic monoid, that is, every element is a (not necessarily unique) sum of irreducibles. Consequently, MM has a unique minimal generating set, namely the irreducibles. Suppose that the following combinatorial lemmas about MM are proved:

Lemma 2.4.

The irreducibles of MM are exactly the pairs (d,c)(d,c) in the statement of the theorem.

Lemma 2.5.

Let (d,c)(d,c) be an irreducible of MM. Then any element (d,c)M(d,c^{\prime})\in M with c>cc^{\prime}>c has a unique atomic decomposition.

Let us show that these two lemmas imply the statement of the theorem. Let 𝒫\mathcal{P} be the set of irreducibles of MM. Since 𝒫\mathcal{P} generates MM, the corresponding generating set {fv:v𝒫}\{f_{v}:v\in\mathcal{P}\} generates a subring SSDS^{\prime}\subseteq S_{D} containing elements tc(d)udt^{(d)}_{c}u^{d} for all (d,c)M(d,c)\in M (where tc(d)t^{(d)}_{c} is a function on CC with a pole of order cc at \infty, possibly depending on dd). These elements span SDS_{D} as a 𝕜\Bbbk-vector space, so S=SDS^{\prime}=S_{D}.

Now we show that each generator fv=tcudf_{v}=t_{c}u^{d} is necessary. Let SSDS^{\prime}\subseteq S_{D} be the subring generated by the fvf_{v^{\prime}}, vvv^{\prime}\neq v, and suppose for the sake of contradiction that fvSf_{v}\in S^{\prime}. Write

fv=a1f1++akfk,f_{v}=a_{1}f_{1}+\cdots+a_{k}f_{k},

where ai𝕜a_{i}\in\Bbbk and the fiSdeg=df_{i}\in S^{\prime}_{\deg=d} are distinct products of the generators of SS^{\prime}. Since vMv\in M is irreducible, no fif_{i} can have a pole of order exactly cc, so two of them, say f1f_{1} and f2f_{2}, must have a common larger order c>cc^{\prime}>c to cancel the poles out. But by Lemma 2.5, this is impossible. ∎

Proof of Lemma 2.4.

To understand the structure of MM, we compare it to the simpler monoid

M0={(d,c)2:0cαd}M_{0}=\{(d,c)\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}:0\leq c\leq\alpha d\}

in which the condition c1c\neq 1 has been omitted. This monoid controls the structure of the section ring for the corresponding situation in genus zero, and in the course of proving [O’D15, Theorem 4], it was shown that the irreducibles of M0M_{0} are precisely the vectors (di,ci)(d_{i},c_{i}) determined by the best lower approximations ci/dic_{i}/d_{i}.

Since MM0M\subset M_{0}, all such vectors remain irreducible in MM if they lie in MM. Thus the vectors of type a in Theorem 2.3 are irreducible. For types b and c, note that these are the simplest vectors in MM with cc-coordinate 22 and 33, respectively, and cannot be decomposed, since MM has no elements with cc-coordinate 11. Thus they must be added unless they already appeared in type a. For type b, we have that c/d=2/2/αc/d=2/\lceil 2/\alpha\rceil is a best lower approximation (necessarily the second one c2/d2c_{2}/d_{2}) if and only if

22/α\displaystyle\frac{2}{\lceil 2/\alpha\rceil} >11/α\displaystyle>\frac{1}{\lceil 1/\alpha\rceil}
21α\displaystyle 2\left\lceil\frac{1}{\alpha}\right\rceil >2α\displaystyle>\left\lceil\frac{2}{\alpha}\right\rceil
2α+2{1α}\displaystyle\frac{2}{\alpha}+2\left\{-\frac{1}{\alpha}\right\} >2α+{2α}\displaystyle>\frac{2}{\alpha}+\left\{-\frac{2}{\alpha}\right\}
2{1α}\displaystyle 2\left\{-\frac{1}{\alpha}\right\} >{2α}.\displaystyle>\left\{-\frac{2}{\alpha}\right\}. (2.2)

Since

{2x}={2{x}{x}<1/22{x}1{x}1/2,\{2x\}=\begin{cases}2\{x\}&\{x\}<1/2\\ 2\{x\}-1&\{x\}\geq 1/2,\end{cases}

the inequality (2.2) holds exactly when {1/α}1/2\{-1/\alpha\}\geq 1/2, so the generator of type b is needed whenever {1/α}<1/2\{-1/\alpha\}<1/2. For type c, an analogous computation shows that {1/α}\{-1/\alpha\} must lie in the range [0,1/3)[1/2,2/3)[0,1/3)\cup[1/2,2/3) for 3/3/α3/\lceil 3/\alpha\rceil not to have already appeared as a best lower approximation.

Finally, for type d, note that if 1/α-1/\alpha is an integer, then there is no c2/d2c_{2}/d_{2} because c1/d1=αc_{1}/d_{1}=\alpha is the last approximation; while if {1/α}1/2\{-1/\alpha\}\geq-1/2, then c2=2c_{2}=2 as we found above, so c1+c2=3c_{1}+c_{2}=3, which pole order was already covered in types a and c. So we only need to consider type d in the case {1/α}(0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha\}\in(0,1/2). Here c23c_{2}\geq 3 and c3c_{3} (if it exists) is greater than 1+c21+c_{2}, so the only irreducibles that could possibly appear in a decomposition of v=(d1+d2,c1+c2)v=(d_{1}+d_{2},c_{1}+c_{2}) are

(d0,c0)=(1,0),(2/α,2),(3/α,3),(d2,c2).(d_{0},c_{0})=(1,0),\quad(\lceil 2/\alpha\rceil,2),\quad(\lceil 3/\alpha\rceil,3),\quad(d_{2},c_{2}).

The last generator (d2,c2)(d_{2},c_{2}) may be eliminated immediately since the difference v(d2,c2)=(d1,1)v-(d_{2},c_{2})=(d_{1},1) lies outside MM. That leaves three generators lying in the submonoid

v0v1=(1,0),(d1,1)=(d0,c0),(d1,c1)={(d,c)2:0cc1d1d}\angle v_{0}v_{1}=\langle(1,0),(d_{1},1)\rangle=\langle(d_{0},c_{0}),(d_{1},c_{1})\rangle=\left\{(d,c)\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}:0\leq c\leq\frac{c_{1}}{d_{1}}d\right\}

of M0M_{0} determined by the first two best lower approximations of α\alpha. But vv lies outside v0v1\angle v_{0}v_{1} since c2/d2>c1/d1c_{2}/d_{2}>c_{1}/d_{1}, so vv is irreducible in MM. This completes the proof that the claimed generators are irreducible and distinct.

It remains to prove that there are no other irreducibles, that is, any nonzero vector vMv\in M not among the ones listed is reducible in MM. As an element of M0M_{0}, any vv lies in some angle vivi+1\angle v_{i}v_{i+1} and so can be decomposed as a positive integer linear combination

v=a(di,ci)+b(di+1,ci+1)v=a(d_{i},c_{i})+b(d_{i+1},c_{i+1})

of two consecutive generators of M0M_{0}. If i2i\geq 2, then these are also generators of MM, so we only need to consider two cases:

Case 2.5.1.

i=0i=0. Then (d0,c0)=(1,0)(d_{0},c_{0})=(1,0) is already a generator of MM. We must have b1b\neq 1 since vMv\in M, so bb can be written as a sum of 22’s and 33’s, which yields an expression for vv in terms of the generators of types a, b, and c.

Case 2.5.2.

i=1i=1, so

v=a(d1,c1)+b(d2,c2).v=a(d_{1},c_{1})+b(d_{2},c_{2}). (2.3)

We may assume that aa and bb are nonzero, or else we could have taken i=0i=0 or i=2i=2 respectively (in the latter case, allowing a zero coefficient on a possibly nonexistent (d3,c3)(d_{3},c_{3})). If a1a\neq 1, note that each term individually belongs to MM, so vv is reducible. So a=1a=1 and b1b\geq 1, and

v=(d1+d2,c1+c2)+(b1)(d2,c2)v=(d_{1}+d_{2},c_{1}+c_{2})+(b-1)(d_{2},c_{2})

is either reducible or a generator of type d. ∎

Proof of Lemma 2.5.

Now let v=(d,c)v=(d,c) be an irreducible of MM. We wish to prove that any element v=(d,c)Mv^{\prime}=(d,c^{\prime})\in M lying above vv has a unique atomic decomposition. By the previous lemma, vv is of one of the four types in Theorem 2.3; we handle each type in turn. In Figure 2, we illustrate the various cases that can occur.

\drawline(0,0)(4.5,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,6.3) \drawline(0,0)(4.5,6.3) aabbccaadd++++4/3α<3/24/3\leq\alpha<3/2
\drawline(0,0)(4.5,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,7.2) \drawline(0,0)(4.5,7.2) aabbaadd++++3/2α<5/33/2\leq\alpha<5/3
\drawline(0,0)(4.5,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,7.7) \drawline(0,0)(4.5,7.7) aabbaaddaa++++5/3α<25/3\leq\alpha<2
\drawline(0,0)(4.5,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,9) \drawline(0,0)(3.7,8.5) aaaacc++++2α<5/22\leq\alpha<5/2
\drawline(0,0)(4.5,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,8.5) \drawline(0,0)(3.1,8.5) aaaaccaa++++5/2α<35/2\leq\alpha<3
\drawline(0,0)(4.5,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,8.5) \drawline(0,0)(1.8,8.5) aaaa\vdotsaa++++α3\alpha\geq 3
Figure 2: Cases covered by Lemma 2.5, where a generator of MM has a point of MM directly above it. The bullets indicate generators, annotated with their type (items ad of Theorem 2.3).

In type a, c/dc/d is a best lower approximation to α\alpha. Then c/dc^{\prime}/d must also be a best lower approximation to α\alpha, so vv^{\prime} is also irreducible (note that this can only occur if d=1d=1 and α3\alpha\geq 3).

In type b, for there to be even one point v=(2/α,3)v^{\prime}=(\lceil 2/\alpha\rceil,3) in MM above the given point v=(2/α,2)v=(\lceil 2/\alpha\rceil,2), we must have the inequality

3α2α.\frac{3}{\alpha}\leq\left\lceil\frac{2}{\alpha}\right\rceil. (2.4)

As the ceiling augments its argument by less than 11, we must have α>1\alpha>1, so vv is either (1,2)(1,2) or (2,2)(2,2). The first case can be excluded as vv is of type a rather than b. There remains the possibility that v=(2,2)v=(2,2) and v=(2,3)v^{\prime}=(2,3), which appears for 3/2α<23/2\leq\alpha<2 and is also irreducible (of type a). (Points with c4c^{\prime}\geq 4 cannot occur here, as then we would have had α2\alpha\geq 2 and (1,2)M(1,2)\in M.)

In type c, we analogously find that α>1\alpha>1 and vv is either (2,3)(2,3) or (3,3)(3,3). Then:

  • If v=(2,3)v=(2,3), we must have 2α<32\leq\alpha<3, and vv^{\prime} is either (2,4)(2,4) or (2,5)(2,5). The vector v=(2,4)=2(1,2)v^{\prime}=(2,4)=2(1,2) has a unique atomic decomposition. If α5/2\alpha\geq 5/2, then v=(2,5)v^{\prime}=(2,5) is also admissible and irreducible (of type a).

  • If v=(3,3)v=(3,3), we must have 4/3α<3/24/3\leq\alpha<3/2 to get the unique possible v=(3,4)Mv^{\prime}=(3,4)\in M; this vv^{\prime} is irreducible (of type a).

For type d, we first note that, since c2/d2c_{2}/d_{2} is the best lower approximation following c1/d1=1/d1c_{1}/d_{1}=1/d_{1}, we have

c2d2=c2c2d11α<c21(c21)d11.\frac{c_{2}}{d_{2}}=\frac{c_{2}}{c_{2}d_{1}-1}\leq\alpha<\frac{c_{2}-1}{(c_{2}-1)d_{1}-1}. (2.5)

For a point v=(d1+d2,c1+c2+1)v^{\prime}=(d_{1}+d_{2},c_{1}+c_{2}+1) to appear above vv in MM, we must have

αc1+c2+1d1+d2=c2+2d1(c2+1)1.\alpha\geq\frac{c_{1}+c_{2}+1}{d_{1}+d_{2}}=\frac{c_{2}+2}{d_{1}(c_{2}+1)-1}. (2.6)

Combining (2.5) and (2.6) yields

c2+2d1(c2+1)1<c21(c21)d11\displaystyle\frac{c_{2}+2}{d_{1}(c_{2}+1)-1}<\frac{c_{2}-1}{(c_{2}-1)d_{1}-1}
which simplifies to
(c21)d1<3.\displaystyle(c_{2}-1)d_{1}<3.

Accordingly, c2c_{2} and d1d_{1} must have their minimum possible values c2=2c_{2}=2 and d1=1d_{1}=1. We have v=(3,4)v=(3,4), 5/3α<25/3\leq\alpha<2, and v=(3,5)v^{\prime}=(3,5), which is irreducible of type a, completing the proof. ∎

2.2 Relations

We turn our attention to understanding a set of relations for the section ring SDS_{D}. We again begin by looking at the genus 0 case. In Theorem 1.1, we have (r2)\binom{r}{2} relations among the r+1r+1 generators, each led by a different quadratic monomial. These form a minimal basis for the relation ideal, as well as a Gröbner basis with respect to several of the commonly used term orders, including the grevlex order chosen by default in programs such as Sage and also used in the literature, such as in [VZB22]. Having a Gröbner basis is desirable for computations, especially if the Gröbner basis is also minimal.

In the genus 11 case, as one might expect, things are a bit more involved, and it is good to choose the term order judiciously so that the Gröbner basis is as nearly minimal as possible. The term order we use is as follows:

Definition 2.6.

Let {vi}iI\{v_{i}\}_{i\in I} be the generators of MM as computed in Theorem 2.3, and let {fi}iI\{f_{i}\}_{i\in I} be the corresponding generators of SDS_{D}. Order the index set II in increasing degree dd and, within each degree, ordered in increasing pole order cc; the order of the generators is therefore

f0f(b)f(c),\displaystyle f_{0}\prec f_{\mathrm{(b)}}\prec f_{\mathrm{(c)}}, {1/α}\displaystyle\{-1/\alpha\} =0\displaystyle=0
f0f(b)f(c)f2f(d)f3,\displaystyle f_{0}\prec f_{\mathrm{(b)}}\prec f_{\mathrm{(c)}}\prec f_{2}\prec f_{\mathrm{(d)}}\prec f_{3}\prec\cdots, {1/α}\displaystyle\{-1/\alpha\} (0,1/3)\displaystyle\in(0,1/3)
f0f(b)f2f(d)f3,\displaystyle f_{0}\prec f_{\mathrm{(b)}}\prec f_{2}\prec f_{\mathrm{(d)}}\prec f_{3}\prec\cdots, {1/α}\displaystyle\{-1/\alpha\} [1/3,1/2)\displaystyle\in[1/3,1/2)
f0f2f(c)f3,\displaystyle f_{0}\prec f_{2}\prec f_{\mathrm{(c)}}\prec f_{3}\prec\cdots, {1/α}\displaystyle\{-1/\alpha\} [1/2,2/3)\displaystyle\in[1/2,2/3)
f0f2f3,\displaystyle f_{0}\prec f_{2}\prec f_{3}\prec\cdots, {1/α}\displaystyle\{-1/\alpha\} [2/3,1).\displaystyle\in[2/3,1).

Given two distinct monomials

m(1)=iviai(1)andm(2)=viai(2),m^{(1)}=\prod_{i}v_{i}^{a_{i}^{(1)}}\quad\text{and}\quad m^{(2)}=v_{i}^{a_{i}^{(2)}},

where ii ranges over the indices of all the generators in Theorem 2.3, we declare that either m(1)m^{(1)} is lower than m(2)m^{(2)}, written m(1)m(2)m^{(1)}\prec m^{(2)}, or the reverse m(1)m(2)m^{(1)}\succ m^{(2)} as follows:

  1. 1.

    First we compare degrees: if

    iai(1)di<iai(2)di,\sum_{i}a_{i}^{(1)}d_{i}<\sum_{i}a_{i}^{(2)}d_{i},

    then m(1)m(2)m^{(1)}\prec m^{(2)}.

  2. 2.

    Then we compare pole orders: if the degrees are equal but

    iai(1)ci<iai(2)ci,\sum_{i}a_{i}^{(1)}c_{i}<\sum_{i}a_{i}^{(2)}c_{i},

    then m(1)m(2)m^{(1)}\prec m^{(2)}.

  3. 3.

    If the degrees and pole orders are equal, we compare exponents of the generators, starting from the highest: if ai(1)<ai(2)a_{i}^{(1)}<a_{i}^{(2)} but aj(1)=aj(2)a_{j}^{(1)}=a_{j}^{(2)} for fjfif_{j}\succ f_{i}, then m(1)m(2)m^{(1)}\prec m^{(2)}.

We can now state our main theorem. As in [VZB22], we cannot list the relations in full detail, but at least we can provide the leading terms.

Theorem 2.7.

Let D=α()D=\alpha(\infty) be a 11-point divisor. Denote the generators of type a in Theorem 2.3 by

fi=uditci,i=0,2,3,,r,f_{i}=u^{d_{i}}t_{c_{i}},\quad i=0,2,3,\ldots,r,

and denote the exceptional generators of type b, c, and d by f(b)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}, f(c)f_{\mathrm{(c)}}, and f(d)f_{\mathrm{(d)}}, respectively. Then a Gröbner basis of the relations of SDS_{D} has the following leading terms:

  1. 1.

    All products fifjf_{i}f_{j}, where 3ir,0ji2,j13\leq i\leq r,0\leq j\leq i-2,j\neq 1, except possibly f3f0f_{3}f_{0} (see below);

  2. 2.

    All products fif(b)f_{i}f_{\mathrm{(b)}}, fif(c)f_{i}f_{\mathrm{(c)}}, and fif(d)f_{i}f_{\mathrm{(d)}}, where 3ir3\leq i\leq r, if these exceptional generators exist;

  3. 3.

    Additional relations, according to the value of {1/α}\{-1/\alpha\} which also controls the generators:

    {1/α}\{-1/\alpha\}\in Exc. gens. Leading terms of relations
    {0}\{0\} f(b),f(c)f_{\mathrm{(b)}},f_{\mathrm{(c)}} f(c)2f_{\mathrm{(c)}}^{2}
    (0,1/3)(0,1/3) f(b),f(c),f(d)f_{\mathrm{(b)}},f_{\mathrm{(c)}},f_{\mathrm{(d)}} f(c)2,f(b)f(d),f(c)f(d),f(d)2,f0f(d),f0f2f_{\mathrm{(c)}}^{2},f_{\mathrm{(b)}}f_{\mathrm{(d)}},f_{\mathrm{(c)}}f_{\mathrm{(d)}},f_{\mathrm{(d)}}^{2},f_{0}f_{\mathrm{(d)}},f_{0}f_{2}
    [1/3,1/2)[1/3,1/2) f(b),f(d)f_{\mathrm{(b)}},f_{\mathrm{(d)}} f02f22,f0f(d),f(b)f(d),f(d)2\boxed{f_{0}^{2}f_{2}^{2}},f_{0}f_{\mathrm{(d)}},f_{\mathrm{(b)}}f_{\mathrm{(d)}},f_{\mathrm{(d)}}^{2}
    [1/2,2/3)[1/2,2/3) f(c)f_{\mathrm{(c)}} f(c)2f_{\mathrm{(c)}}^{2}
    [2/3,1)[2/3,1) f0f32\boxed{f_{0}f_{3}^{2}}, omit f0f3f_{0}f_{3}

Moreover, the relations comprising the Gröbner basis are all minimal, with the possible exception of the two cases with a non-quadratic leading term (boxed):

  • The relation with the quartic leading term f02f22f_{0}^{2}f_{2}^{2} is never minimal.

  • The relation with the cubic leading term f0f32f_{0}f_{3}^{2} is minimal if and only if {1/α}\{-1/\alpha\} belongs to the subinterval [2/3,3/4)[2/3,3/4).

The relations for SDS_{D} are closely connected with those of the associated monoid MM. Recall from the previous subsection that MM has a minimal generating set {vi}iI\{v_{i}\}_{i\in I}. Let FF be the free commutative monoid on |I|\lvert I\rvert generators {v~i}iI\{\tilde{v}_{i}\}_{i\in I} (isomorphic to 0|I|\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}^{\lvert I\rvert}), and let π\pi be the projection map

π:F\displaystyle\pi:F M\displaystyle\to M
v~i\displaystyle\tilde{v}_{i} vi.\displaystyle\mapsto v_{i}.

To complete a presentation of MM is to find a (preferably finite) list of relations

Rj:ejejR_{j}\colon e_{j}\sim e_{j}^{\prime}

such that M=F/{Rj}jM=F/\{R_{j}\}_{j}, that is, such that the relation generated by the RjR_{j} is precisely

eeπ(e)=π(e).e\sim e^{\prime}\iff\pi(e)=\pi(e^{\prime}).

To do this systematically, we make the following definition:

Definition 2.8.

If vMv\in M, the minimal decomposition of vv is the sum

MD(v)=iaiv~iF\operatorname{MD}(v)=\sum_{i}a_{i}\tilde{v}_{i}\in F

such that π(MD(v))=v\pi(\operatorname{MD}(v))=v and MD(v)\operatorname{MD}(v) is minimal with respect to the order from Definition 2.6 on elements of FF.

Remark 2.9.

It is evident from the dd-grading on MM that only finitely many such decompositions exist. Also, since vv is fixed, the first two steps of Definition 2.6 may be skipped when comparing decompositions.

Definition 2.10.

The Gröbner basis of MM consists of the relations

vMD(π(v))v\sim\operatorname{MD}(\pi(v))

for all vectors vv satisfying the following two conditions:

  1. 1.

    vMD(π(v))v\neq\operatorname{MD}(\pi(v));

  2. 2.

    If w<Fvw<_{F}v (that is, v=w+zv=w+z with 0zF0\neq z\in F), then w=MD(π(w))w=\operatorname{MD}(\pi(w)).

Such a vector vFv\in F is called a relation leader for MM.

Remark 2.11.

It is easy to see that the Gröbner basis forms a presentation of MM as a quotient of FF. Indeed, the relation leaders give the leading terms of a Gröbner basis of the monoid algebra 𝕜[M]\Bbbk[M] as a quotient of the free algebra 𝕜[F]\Bbbk[F] (adapting Definition 2.6 appropriately to define a term order on 𝕜[F]\Bbbk[F]).

The proof of Theorem 2.7 rests on the following combinatorial lemma:

Lemma 2.12.

The relation leaders for MM are exactly the vectors v=iIaiv~iv=\sum_{i\in I}a_{i}\tilde{v}_{i} corresponding to each of the monomials iIfi\prod_{i\in I}f_{i} claimed to be a leading term of a relation for SDS_{D} in Theorem 3.2.

Given this lemma, the proof of the theorem is not so hard:

Proof of Theorem 2.7.

Given a relation leader vFv\in F, let

v=iaiv~iandMD(π(v))=ibiv~i.v=\sum_{i}a_{i}\tilde{v}_{i}\quad\text{and}\quad\operatorname{MD}(\pi(v))=\sum_{i}b_{i}\tilde{v}_{i}.

We get that ifiai\prod_{i}f_{i}^{a_{i}} and ifibi\prod_{i}f_{i}^{b_{i}} have the same degree and pole order, so their difference (after suitably scaling) has a pole of lower order and can be written in terms of the other generators to get a relation rvr_{v} in the relation ideal of SDS_{D}. Since we compare monomials with reference to their pole orders, the leading term of rvr_{v} is ifiai\prod_{i}f_{i}^{a_{i}}.

Now, given any element fSDf\in S_{D} expressed as a polynomial in the generators fif_{i}, we can apply monomial multiples of the relations rvr_{v} to remove any relation leaders from the leading term, until either the entire sum vanishes (verifying that f=0f=0 in SDS_{D}) or the leading term is a minimal decomposition MD((d,c))\operatorname{MD}((d,c)), verifying that ff is a nonzero element of leading degree dd with a pole of order cc. This shows that the rvr_{v} form a Gröbner basis.

It remains to determine which of the relations in the Gröbner basis are minimal. Note that if v=v~i+v~jv=\tilde{v}_{i}+\tilde{v}_{j} has Hamming weight 22, then rvr_{v}, which has a quadratic leading term fifjf_{i}f_{j}, must be minimal because there are no relations with a term of fif_{i} or fjf_{j} alone to generate this relation (or else fif_{i}, respectively fjf_{j}, would not be a generator).

This leaves the two boxed relations. The relation with quartic leading term f02f22f_{0}^{2}f_{2}^{2}, in case {1/α}[1/3,1/2)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[1/3,1/2), has the form

f02f22=f(b)3+lower-order poles,f_{0}^{2}f_{2}^{2}=f_{\mathrm{(b)}}^{3}+\text{lower-order poles,}

but since

2v0+2v2=v0+v(b)+v(d)=3v(b),2v_{0}+2v_{2}=v_{0}+v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+v_{\mathrm{(d)}}=3v_{\mathrm{(b)}},

this relation can be derived by subtracting those led by f(b)f(d)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}f_{\mathrm{(d)}} and f0f(d)f_{0}f_{\mathrm{(d)}} after multiplying by f0f_{0} and f(b)f_{\mathrm{(b)}} respectively to cancel the f0f(b)f(d)f_{0}f_{\mathrm{(b)}}f_{\mathrm{(d)}} term. Hence this relation is never minimal.

We now turn to the relation with cubic leading term f0f32f_{0}f_{3}^{2}. The corresponding relation in MM is

v0+2v3=3v2v_{0}+2v_{3}=3v_{2} (2.7)

If {1/α}[3/4,1)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[3/4,1), then there is a vector v4=2v3v2Mv_{4}=2v_{3}-v_{2}\in M, and the relation (2.7) is not minimal, even in MM:

v0+2v3=v0+v2+v4=3v2.v_{0}+2v_{3}=v_{0}+v_{2}+v_{4}=3v_{2}.

Translating from MM to SDS_{D}, we find correspondingly that the relation with leading term f0f32f_{0}f_{3}^{2} can be generated by the relations led by f2f4f_{2}f_{4} and f0f4f_{0}f_{4}.

On the other hand, if {1/α}[2/3,3/4)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[2/3,3/4), then 2v3v2M2v_{3}-v_{2}\notin M, and there are no relations having a term of f32f_{3}^{2} or f0f3f_{0}f_{3}, hence no way to decompose the relation with leading term f0f32f_{0}f_{3}^{2}. ∎

Proof of Lemma 2.12.

Let v=(d,c)Mv=(d,c)\in M. If vvivi+1v\in\angle v_{i}v_{i+1} for i2i\geq 2, then we have a decomposition v=aivi+ai+1vi+1v=a_{i}v_{i}+a_{i+1}v_{i+1} with aj0a_{j}\geq 0. We claim that this is a minimal decomposition. Suppose not; let v=jbjvjv=\sum_{j}b_{j}v_{j} be a lesser one. We must have bj=0b_{j}=0 for ji+1j\leq i+1. If bi+1<ai+1b_{i+1}<a_{i+1}, then the difference vbi+1vi+1v-b_{i+1}v_{i+1} would be outside v0vi\angle v_{0}v_{i} and thus not expressible as a sum of generators preceding vi+1v_{i+1}, all of which are within that angle. So bi+1=ai+1b_{i+1}=a_{i+1}. Similarly, if bi<ai+1b_{i}<a_{i+1}, then the difference vbi+1vi+1biviv-b_{i+1}v_{i+1}-b_{i}v_{i} would be outside v0vi\angle v_{0}v_{i} and thus not expressible as a sum of generators preceding vi+1v_{i+1}, all of which are within that angle. So bi=vib_{i}=v_{i} and hence all other bib_{i} are 0.

We now compute the minimal decompositions of vectors in v0v2\angle v_{0}v_{2}. The generators needed are some subset of

v0,v(b),v(c),v2,v(d),v3v_{0},v_{\mathrm{(b)}},v_{\mathrm{(c)}},v_{2},v_{\mathrm{(d)}},v_{3}

in the various cases. The resulting minimal decompositions are shown in Table 1. Each individual decomposition is not hard to prove minimal. The pattern of the decompositions is as follows: the generating sets {v0,v(b)}\{v_{0},v_{\mathrm{(b)}}\}, {v(b),2}\{v_{\mathrm{(b)}},2\}, or (if {1/α}1/2\{-1/\alpha\}\geq 1/2) {v0,v2}\{v_{0},v_{2}\} generates a sublattice of index 22 inside the appropriate angle. If the desired vector vv lies in this sublattice as tested by the parity of a1a_{1}, its minimal decomposition is an integer combination of those two generators; otherwise there is need for a single copy of v(c)v_{\mathrm{(c)}}, v(d)v_{\mathrm{(d)}}, or v3v_{3}.

{1α}\left\{-\dfrac{1}{\alpha}\right\}\in Generators Minimal decompositions
{0}\{0\}
v0v_{0}
v(b)=2v1v_{\mathrm{(b)}}=2v_{1}
v(c)=3v1v_{\mathrm{(c)}}=3v_{1}
a1v1+a0v0={a12v(b)+a0v0,a10 evenv(c)+a132v(b)+a0v0,a13 odda_{1}v_{1}+a_{0}v_{0}=\begin{dcases*}\frac{\vphantom{A^{2}}a_{1}}{2}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+a_{0}v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 0$ even\\ v_{\mathrm{(c)}}+\frac{a_{1}-3}{2}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+a_{0}v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 3$ odd\end{dcases*}
(0,1/3)(0,1/3)
v0v_{0}
v(b)=2v1v_{\mathrm{(b)}}=2v_{1}
v(c)=3v1v_{\mathrm{(c)}}=3v_{1}
v2v_{2}
v(d)=v1+v2v_{\mathrm{(d)}}=v_{1}+v_{2}
a1v1+a0v0={a12v(b)+a0v0,a10 evenv(c)+a132v(b)+a0v0,a13 odda_{1}v_{1}+a_{0}v_{0}=\begin{dcases*}\frac{a_{1}}{2}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+a_{0}v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 0$ even\\ v_{\mathrm{(c)}}+\frac{a_{1}-3}{2}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+a_{0}v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 3$ odd\end{dcases*}
a2v2+a1v1={a2v2+a12v(b),a10 evenv(d)+(a21)v2,a1=1a2v2+v(c)+a132v(b),a13 odda_{2}v_{2}+a_{1}v_{1}=\begin{dcases*}a_{2}v_{2}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}v_{\mathrm{(b)}},&$a_{1}\geq 0$ even\\ v_{\mathrm{(d)}}+(a_{2}-1)v_{2},&$a_{1}=1$\\ a_{2}v_{2}+v_{\mathrm{(c)}}+\frac{a_{1}-3}{2}v_{\mathrm{(b)}},&$a_{1}\geq 3$ odd\end{dcases*}
[1/3,1/2)[1/3,1/2)
v0v_{0}
v(b)=2v1v_{\mathrm{(b)}}=2v_{1}
v2=3v1v0v_{2}=3v_{1}-v_{0}
v(d)=v1+v2v_{\mathrm{(d)}}=v_{1}+v_{2}
a1v1+a0v0={a12v(b)+a0v0,a10 evenv2+a132v(b)+(a0+1)v0,a13 odda_{1}v_{1}+a_{0}v_{0}=\begin{dcases*}\frac{a_{1}}{2}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+a_{0}v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 0$ even\\ v_{2}+\frac{a_{1}-3}{2}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+(a_{0}+1)v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 3$ odd\end{dcases*}
a2v2+a1v1={a2v2+a12v(b),a10 evenv(d)+(a21)v2,a1=1(a2+1)v2+a132v(b)+v0,a13 odda_{2}v_{2}+a_{1}v_{1}=\begin{dcases*}a_{2}v_{2}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}v_{\mathrm{(b)}},&$a_{1}\geq 0$ even\\ v_{\mathrm{(d)}}+(a_{2}-1)v_{2},&$a_{1}=1$\\ (a_{2}+1)v_{2}+\frac{a_{1}-3}{2}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 3$ odd\end{dcases*}
[1/2,2/3)[1/2,2/3)
v0v_{0}
v2=2v1v0v_{2}=2v_{1}-v_{0}
v(c)=3v1v0v_{\mathrm{(c)}}=3v_{1}-v_{0}
a1v1+a0v0={a12v2+(a12+a0)v0,a10 evenv(c)+a132v2+(a132+a0)v0,a13 odda_{1}v_{1}+a_{0}v_{0}=\begin{dcases*}\frac{a_{1}}{2}v_{2}+\left(\frac{a_{1}}{2}+a_{0}\right)v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 0$ even\\ v_{\mathrm{(c)}}+\frac{a_{1}-3}{2}v_{2}+\left(\frac{a_{1}-3}{2}+a_{0}\right)v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 3$ odd\end{dcases*}
a2v2+a1v1={(a2+a12)v2+a12v0,a10 evenv(c)+(a2+a112)v2+a112v0,a11 odda_{2}v_{2}+a_{1}v_{1}=\begin{dcases*}\left(a_{2}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}\right)v_{2}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 0$ even\\ v_{\mathrm{(c)}}+\left(a_{2}+\frac{a_{1}-1}{2}\right)v_{2}+\frac{a_{1}-1}{2}v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 1$ odd\end{dcases*}
[2/3,1)[2/3,1)
v0v_{0}
v2=2v1v0v_{2}=2v_{1}-v_{0}
v3=3v12v0v_{3}=3v_{1}-2v_{0}
a1v1+a0v0={a12v2+(a12+a0)v0,a10 evenv3+a132v2+(a132+a0)v0,a13 odda_{1}v_{1}+a_{0}v_{0}=\begin{dcases*}\frac{a_{1}}{2}v_{2}+\left(\frac{a_{1}}{2}+a_{0}\right)v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 0$ even\\ v_{3}+\frac{a_{1}-3}{2}v_{2}+\left(\frac{a_{1}-3}{2}+a_{0}\right)v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 3$ odd\end{dcases*}
a2v2+a1v1={(a2+a12)v2+a12v0,a10 evenv3+(a2+a132)v2+a1+12v0,a11 odda_{2}v_{2}+a_{1}v_{1}=\begin{dcases*}\left(a_{2}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}\right)v_{2}+\frac{a_{1}}{2}v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 0$ even\\ v_{3}+\left(a_{2}+\frac{a_{1}-3}{2}\right)v_{2}+\frac{a_{1}+1}{2}v_{0},&$a_{1}\geq 1$ odd\end{dcases*}
Table 1: Minimal decompositions of vectors of MM in v0v2\angle v_{0}v_{2}

Looking over the minimal decompositions that we have found, we immediately see that the sums vi+vjv_{i}+v_{j}, where i3i\geq 3 and 0ji20\leq j\leq i-2, do not appear and therefore are relation leaders, with one exception: if {1/α}[2/3,1)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[2/3,1), then v0+v3v_{0}+v_{3} is the minimal decomposition of v1+v2v_{1}+v_{2}. The same argument applies to the sums vi+vjv_{i}+v_{j} where i3i\geq 3 and jj is one of the special symbols b, c, and d. It remains only to check sums of v0v_{0}, v(b)v_{\mathrm{(b)}}, v(c)v_{\mathrm{(c)}}, v(d)v_{\mathrm{(d)}}, v2v_{2}, and (if {1/α}[2/3,1)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[2/3,1)) v3v_{3}, and in each case we get the desired result:

  • For {1/α}=0\{-1/\alpha\}=0, as the only generators are f0f_{0}, f(b)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}, and f(c)f_{\mathrm{(c)}}, there will only be one relation leader, namely 2v(c)2v_{\mathrm{(c)}}. Any decomposition with at most one copy of v(c)v_{\mathrm{(c)}} is minimal by our computations.

  • For {1/α}(0,1/3)\{-1/\alpha\}\in(0,1/3), any decomposition not containing the relation leaders 2v(c)2v_{\mathrm{(c)}}, v(b)+v(d)v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+v_{\mathrm{(d)}}, v(c)+v(d)v_{\mathrm{(c)}}+v_{\mathrm{(d)}}, 2v(d)2v_{\mathrm{(d)}}, v0+v(d)v_{0}+v_{\mathrm{(d)}}, or v0+v2v_{0}+v_{2} is of one of the forms

    a0v0+a(b)v(b),a0v0+a(b)v(b)+v(c),\displaystyle a_{0}v_{0}+a_{\mathrm{(b)}}v_{\mathrm{(b)}},\quad a_{0}v_{0}+a_{\mathrm{(b)}}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+v_{\mathrm{(c)}},
    a(b)v(b)+a2v2,a(b)v(b)+a2v2+v(c),a2v2+v(d)\displaystyle a_{\mathrm{(b)}}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+a_{2}v_{2},\quad a_{\mathrm{(b)}}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+a_{2}v_{2}+v_{\mathrm{(c)}},\quad a_{2}v_{2}+v_{\mathrm{(d)}}

    and hence is minimal.

  • For {1/α}[1/3,1/2)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[1/3,1/2), any decomposition not containing the relation leaders 2v(c)2v_{\mathrm{(c)}}, v(b)+v(d)v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+v_{\mathrm{(d)}}, v(c)+v(d)v_{\mathrm{(c)}}+v_{\mathrm{(d)}}, 2v(d)2v_{\mathrm{(d)}}, v0+v(d)v_{0}+v_{\mathrm{(d)}}, or 2v0+2v22v_{0}+2v_{2} is of one of the forms

    a0v0+a(b)v(b),a0v0+a(b)v(b)+v2,\displaystyle a_{0}v_{0}+a_{\mathrm{(b)}}v_{\mathrm{(b)}},\quad a_{0}v_{0}+a_{\mathrm{(b)}}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+v_{2},
    a(b)v(b)+a2v2,a(b)v(b)+a2v2+v0,a2v2+v(d)\displaystyle a_{\mathrm{(b)}}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+a_{2}v_{2},\quad a_{\mathrm{(b)}}v_{\mathrm{(b)}}+a_{2}v_{2}+v_{0},\quad a_{2}v_{2}+v_{\mathrm{(d)}}

    and hence is minimal.

  • For {1/α}[1/2,2/3)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[1/2,2/3), any decomposition not containing the relation leader 2v(c)2v_{\mathrm{(c)}} is of one of the forms

    a0v0+a2v2,a0v0+a2v2+v(c)\displaystyle a_{0}v_{0}+a_{2}v_{2},\quad a_{0}v_{0}+a_{2}v_{2}+v_{\mathrm{(c)}}

    and hence is minimal.

  • For {1/α}[2/3,1)\{-1/\alpha\}\in[2/3,1), any decomposition not containing the relation leader v0+2v3v_{0}+2v_{3} is of one of the forms

    a0v0+a2v2,a0v0+a2v2+v3,a2v2+a3v3\displaystyle a_{0}v_{0}+a_{2}v_{2},\quad a_{0}v_{0}+a_{2}v_{2}+v_{3},\quad a_{2}v_{2}+a_{3}v_{3}

    and hence is minimal.

This completes the proof of the lemma. ∎

3 The effective two-point case

Let D=α(1)(P(1))+α(2)(P(2))D=\alpha^{(1)}(P^{(1)})+\alpha^{(2)}(P^{(2)}) be an effective \mathbb{Q}-divisor on an elliptic curve CC supported on two points P(k)P^{(k)}. In this section, we study the structure of the associated section ring SDS_{D}. We may assume that α(1)α(2)\alpha^{(1)}\geq\alpha^{(2)} since the roles of the points P(k)P^{(k)} may be interchanged.

3.1 Generators

For c0c\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}, c1c\neq 1, and for i{1,2}i\in\{1,2\}, denote by tc(k)t_{c}^{(k)} a function on CC whose polar divisor is c(P(i))c(P^{(i)}). Also, let ww be the function on CC whose polar divisor is P(1)+P(2)P^{(1)}+P^{(2)}. (Such a function is unique up to scaling and adding constants.) Note the following:

Lemma 3.1.

Let D=a(1)(P(1))+a(2)(P(2))D=a^{(1)}(P^{(1)})+a^{(2)}(P^{(2)}) be a nonzero effective \mathbb{Z}-divisor supported at two points. The linear system of functions H0(D)H^{0}(D) has dimension a(1)+a(2)a^{(1)}+a^{(2)}, with a basis as follows:

  • {1,t2(1),,ta(1)(1)}\{1,t_{2}^{(1)},\ldots,t_{a^{(1)}}^{(1)}\} if a(1)>a(2)=0a^{(1)}>a^{(2)}=0;

  • {1,t2(2),,ta(2)(2)}\{1,t_{2}^{(2)},\ldots,t_{a^{(2)}}^{(2)}\} if a(2)>a(1)=0a^{(2)}>a^{(1)}=0;

  • {1,w,t2(1),,ta(1)(1),t2(2),,ta(2)(2)}\{1,w,t_{2}^{(1)},\ldots,t_{a^{(1)}}^{(1)},t_{2}^{(2)},\ldots,t_{a^{(2)}}^{(2)}\} if a(1)a^{(1)} and a(2)a^{(2)} are positive.

Proof.

The dimension of H0(D)H^{0}(D) is given by the Riemann–Roch theorem. We check that the claimed functions are linearly independent because they have different orders at \infty, so they must form a basis. ∎

We now state the generators of the section ring. Our description generalizes the one-point case (Theorem 2.3):

Theorem 3.2.

Let D=α(1)(P(1))+α(2)(P(2))D=\alpha^{(1)}(P^{(1)})+\alpha^{(2)}(P^{(2)}) be an effective \mathbb{Q}-divisor on an elliptic curve CC supported on two points P(k)P^{(k)}, with α(1)α(2)\alpha^{(1)}\geq\alpha^{(2)}. Let

0=c0(k)d0(k)<c1(k)d1(k)<<cr(k)(k)dr(k)(k)=α(k)0=\frac{c_{0}^{(k)}}{d_{0}^{(k)}}<\frac{c_{1}^{(k)}}{d_{1}^{(k)}}<\cdots<\frac{c_{r^{(k)}}^{(k)}}{d_{r^{(k)}}^{(k)}}=\alpha^{(k)}

be the best lower approximations to α(k)\alpha^{(k)}. Notice that the denominators

d1(k)=1/α(k)d_{1}^{(k)}=\left\lceil 1/\alpha^{(k)}\right\rceil

satisfy d1(1)d1(2)d_{1}^{(1)}\leq d_{1}^{(2)}.

Then SDS_{D} has a minimal system of generators of the following forms:

  1. ((a))

    fi(k)=tci(k)(k)udi(k)f_{i}^{(k)}=t_{c_{i}^{(k)}}^{(k)}u^{d_{i}^{(k)}} for k{1,2}k\in\{1,2\} and i=0,2,3,,r(k)i=0,2,3,\ldots,r^{(k)} (including f0=uf_{0}=u for i=0i=0)

  2. ((b))

    f(b)=t2(1)u2/α(1)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}=t_{2}^{(1)}u^{\lceil 2/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil} if {1/α(1)}[0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[0,1/2);

  3. ((c))

    f(c)=t3(1)u3/α(1)f_{\mathrm{(c)}}=t_{3}^{(1)}u^{\lceil 3/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil} if {1/α(1)}[0,1/3)[1/2,2/3)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[0,1/3)\cup[1/2,2/3) and 1/α(2)>1/α(1)\lceil 1/\alpha^{(2)}\rceil>\lceil 1/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil;

  4. ((d))

    f(d)=tc1(1)+c2(2)(1)ud1(1)+d2(1)f_{\mathrm{(d)}}=t_{c_{1}^{(1)}+c_{2}^{(2)}}^{(1)}u^{d_{1}^{(1)}+d_{2}^{(1)}}, if {1/α(1)}(0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in(0,1/2) and 1/α(2)>1/α(1)\lceil 1/\alpha^{(2)}\rceil>\lceil 1/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil;

  5. ((e))

    fw=wud1(2)f_{w}=wu^{d_{1}^{(2)}}.

Proof.

Lemma 3.1 suggests the following strategy. Write D=D(1)+D(2)D=D^{(1)}+D^{(2)} where

D(k)=α(k)P(k).D^{(k)}=\alpha^{(k)}P^{(k)}.

Then, as a 𝕜\Bbbk-vector space,

SD=SD(1)+SD(2)+𝕜[u]ud1(2)w,S_{D}=S_{D^{(1)}}+S_{D^{(2)}}+\Bbbk[u]u^{d_{1}^{(2)}}w, (3.1)

because ww is the only basis element for any graded piece unH0(nD)u^{n}H^{0}(nD) of SDS_{D} that does not already appear in either SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}} or SD(2)S_{D^{(2)}}, and it first appears in degree 1/α(2)=d1(2)\lceil 1/\alpha^{(2)}\rceil=d_{1}^{(2)}. Hence we can get a generating set for SDS_{D} by aggregating generating sets for SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}} and SD(2)S_{D^{(2)}} and adjoining the single added generator ud1(2)wu^{d_{1}^{(2)}}w. We must then pare this set down to a minimal generating set. From the general theory of graded algebras, the degrees of the minimal generators are uniquely determined; but the generators themselves and their pole orders at the P(k)P^{(k)}) are not. Observe that the generator wud1(2)wu^{d_{1}^{(2)}} is minimal, as it is the lowest-degree element in SDS_{D} that does not lie in the subring SD(1)SD(2)S_{D^{(1)}}S_{D^{(2)}} generated by functions with poles at only one of the two given points P(k)P^{(k)}.

A generator of type a in each SD(k)S_{D^{(k)}} (the labeling coming from Theorem 2.3) will always remain minimal in SDS_{D}, as there is no way to get a pole of order cj(k)c_{j}^{(k)} by combining elements of lower degrees, by definition of best lower approximation. We consider the other types in turn.

We first claim that the generators of types b, c, and d in SD(2)S_{D^{(2)}}, if any, are never minimal in SDS_{D} and can be removed. By the proof of Theorem 2.3, all of these correspond to vectors (d,c)(d,c) that are minimal generators of the monoid

M(2)={(d,c)2:0cα(2)d,c1}M^{(2)}=\{(d,c)\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}:0\leq c\leq\alpha^{(2)}d,c\neq 1\}

but not of the simpler monoid

M0(2)={(d,c)2:0cα(2)d}.M_{0}^{(2)}=\{(d,c)\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}:0\leq c\leq\alpha^{(2)}d\}.

But SDS_{D}, unlike SD(2)S_{D^{(2)}}, contains homogeneous elements ff achieving every vector

(d,c)=(degf,ordP(2)f)(d,c)=(\deg f,-{\operatorname{ord}}_{P^{(2)}}f)

in M0(2)M_{0}^{(2)}: take wudwu^{d} if c=1c=1, and otherwise take the appropriate element of SD(2)S_{D^{(2)}}. Consequently, given a generator gSDg\in S_{D} whose associated vector (d,c)=(degg,ordP(2)g)(d,c)=(\deg g,-{\operatorname{ord}}_{P^{(2)}}g) is reducible in M0(2)M_{0}^{(2)}, we can multiply elements of SDS_{D} of lower degrees to achieve the pole order cc and subtract this from gg to leave a pole of lower order. This lower order can again be achieved by a product of generators besides gg (note that generators of types b, c, and d always appear in distinct degrees, referring to Lemma 2.5 and Figure 2), and continuing this way, we arrive at a function with no pole at P(2)P^{(2)}, that is, an element of SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}}. Hence gg is a polynomial in the other generators of SDS_{D}.

We now investigate under what conditions the generators of types b, c, and d in SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}} remain minimal in SDS_{D}. For b, the generator f(b)=t2(1)u2/α(1)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}=t_{2}^{(1)}u^{\lceil 2/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil} of degree d=2/α(1)d=\lceil 2/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil is the first appearance in SDS_{D} of a function with a double pole at P(1)P^{(1)}. By assumption, there is no other generator of SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}} with a double pole in this degree, so the only way to eliminate it is to multiply two functions of lower degree with simple poles at P(1)P^{(1)}. The first function of this sort is

fw2=wu1/α(2)wu1/α(2)f_{w}^{2}=wu^{\lceil 1/\alpha^{(2)}\rceil}\cdot wu^{\lceil 1/\alpha^{(2)}\rceil} (3.2)

of degree

21α(2)21α(1)=2α(1)=d,2\left\lceil\frac{1}{\alpha^{(2)}}\right\rceil\geq 2\left\lceil\frac{1}{\alpha^{(1)}}\right\rceil\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{=}}\left\lceil\frac{2}{\alpha^{(1)}}\right\rceil=d,

the starred equality holding since {1/α(1)}[0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[0,1/2). So the only way that this generator can be non-minimal is if equality holds, and in particular, SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}} and SD(2)S_{D^{(2)}} look alike up to degree dd. But the unique product (3.2) in this degree has double poles at both P(1)P^{(1)} and P(2)P^{(2)}, and since we already threw out the generator t2(2)udt_{2}^{(2)}u^{d} of type b in SD(2)S_{D^{(2)}}, there is no way to cancel out the double pole at P(2)P^{(2)}. Hence the generator f(b)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}, if it appears in SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}}, always remains minimal in SDS_{D}, as claimed.

Next, we look at type c. Here we have a generator f(c)=t3(1)u3/α(1)f_{\mathrm{(c)}}=t_{3}^{(1)}u^{\lceil 3/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil} of degree d=3/3/α(1)d=3/\lceil 3/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil, which is the least degree in which there appears a triple pole at α(1)\alpha^{(1)}. To cancel out this pole, we must multiply two elements of lower degree with a single and a double pole at P(1)P^{(1)}. The first function of this sort is

wu1/α(2)t2(1)u2/α(1)={fwf(b),{1/α(1)}[0,1/2)fwf2(1),{1/α(1)}[1/2,1)wu^{\lceil 1/\alpha^{(2)}\rceil}\cdot t_{2}^{(1)}u^{\lceil 2/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil}=\begin{cases}f_{w}f_{\mathrm{(b)}},&\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[0,1/2)\\ f_{w}f_{2}^{(1)},&\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[1/2,1)\end{cases} (3.3)

of degree

1α(2)+2α(1)1α(1)+2α(1)=3α(1)=d,\left\lceil\frac{1}{\alpha^{(2)}}\right\rceil+\left\lceil\frac{2}{\alpha^{(1)}}\right\rceil\geq\left\lceil\frac{1}{\alpha^{(1)}}\right\rceil+\left\lceil\frac{2}{\alpha^{(1)}}\right\rceil\stackrel{{\scriptstyle*}}{{=}}\left\lceil\frac{3}{\alpha^{(1)}}\right\rceil=d, (3.4)

the starred equality holding since {1/α(1)}[0,1/3)[1/2,2/3)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[0,1/3)\cup[1/2,2/3). Again, the generator is therefore minimal unless equality holds. If equality holds, then the function (3.3) has a triple pole at P(1)P^{(1)} as well as a simple pole at P(2)P^{(2)} which can be canceled by adding the appropriate multiple of wudwu^{d}, yielding an element of SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}} with the desired triple pole. Accordingly, the generator gg of type c is minimal if and only if equality does not hold in (3.4), as claimed.

Finally, suppose SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}} has a generator of type d, which is of the form f(d)=tc(1)udf_{\mathrm{(d)}}=t_{c}^{(1)}u^{d} where

d=d1(1)+d2(1),c=c1(1)+c2(1)=1+c2(1)d=d_{1}^{(1)}+d_{2}^{(1)},\quad c=c_{1}^{(1)}+c_{2}^{(1)}=1+c_{2}^{(1)}

Note that this is only the second degree, after d2(1)d_{2}^{(1)}, in which SDS_{D} is strictly larger than the subring S=S1/d1(1)P(1)+α(2)P(2)S^{\prime}=S_{1/d_{1}^{(1)}P^{(1)}+\alpha^{(2)}P^{(2)}} where the pole order at P(1)P^{(1)} is limited by the first best lower approximation 1/d1(1)1/d_{1}^{(1)}. To eliminate f(d)f_{\mathrm{(d)}}, we must multiply two elements of lower degree at least one of which lies outside SS^{\prime}. Hence we must use

f=tc2(1)ud2(1),f=t_{c_{2}^{(1)}}u^{d_{2}^{(1)}},

a generator of SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}} of type a. We must multiply it by an element hh of degree d1(1)d_{1}^{(1)} with at least a simple pole at P(1)P^{(1)}. But a double pole at P(1)P^{(1)} does not appear until degree 2/α(1)2d1(1)1\lceil 2/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil\geq 2d_{1}^{(1)}-1, which is too high unless d1(1)=1d_{1}^{(1)}=1 and α(1)2\alpha^{(1)}\geq 2, and here there cannot be a generator of type d, because then the generator t3(1)u2t_{3}^{(1)}u^{2} is of type a or c rather than d. So hh must have a simple pole at P(1)P^{(1)}, which only happens when the generator h=wud1(2)h=wu^{d_{1}^{(2)}} has low enough degree, namely when

1α(2)=1α(1).\left\lceil\frac{1}{\alpha^{(2)}}\right\rceil=\left\lceil\frac{1}{\alpha^{(1)}}\right\rceil. (3.5)

We can then multiply fhf\cdot h to get a function in degree dd with the desired pole order cc at P(1)P^{(1)} and a simple pole at P(2)P^{(2)}, which can be canceled by adding the appropriate multiple of wudwu^{d}. Accordingly, the generator f(d)f_{\mathrm{(d)}} is minimal if and only if equality does not hold in (3.5), as claimed. ∎

3.2 Relations

In this section we state and prove the relations among the generators in the effective two-point case. It will be noted that, in Theorem 3.2, the form of the generators is quite different depending on whether (3.5) holds or not. This bifurcation in turn affects the term order we choose and the form of the relations, and hence we divide the statement and proof into two.

3.2.1 The unequal ceilings case

In this section we assume that

1α(2)<1α(1).\left\lceil\frac{1}{\alpha^{(2)}}\right\rceil<\left\lceil\frac{1}{\alpha^{(1)}}\right\rceil. (3.6)
Definition 3.3.

Let D=α(1)P(1)+α(2)P(2)D=\alpha^{(1)}P^{(1)}+\alpha^{(2)}P^{(2)} be an effective \mathbb{Q}-divisor on CC supported at two points, and assume (3.6). We order the generators of SDS_{D}

  1. (1)

    first by pole order at P(2)P^{(2)},

  2. (2)

    then by degree,

  3. (3)

    then by pole order at P(1)P^{(1)}.

We order the monomials in the generators of SDS_{D}

  1. (1)

    first by pole order at P(2)P^{(2)},

  2. (2)

    then by degree,

  3. (3)

    then by pole order at P(1)P^{(1)},

  4. (4)

    then by the exponents of the generators, starting with the highest generator.

Remark 3.4.

By sorting first by pole order at P(2)P^{(2)}, we ensure that the generators of the subring SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}}, and monomials therein, appear first in the ordering, and in the same order as in the 11-point case (Definition 2.6). For instance, if {1/α(1)}(0,1/3)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in(0,1/3), the ordering of the generators is

u=f0f(b)f(c)f2(1)f(d)f3(1)fr(1)(1)fwf2(2)fr(2)(2).u=f_{0}\prec f_{\mathrm{(b)}}\prec f_{\mathrm{(c)}}\prec f_{2}^{(1)}\prec f_{\mathrm{(d)}}\prec f_{3}^{(1)}\prec\cdots\prec f_{r^{(1)}}^{(1)}\prec f_{w}\prec f_{2}^{(2)}\prec\cdots\prec f_{r^{(2)}}^{(2)}.
Theorem 3.5.

With this term order, a Gröbner basis for the relation ideal of SDS_{D} has the following leading terms:

  1. 1.

    The same leading terms of the relations among the fi(1)f_{i}^{(1)}, f(b)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}, f(c)f_{\mathrm{(c)}}, and f(d)f_{\mathrm{(d)}} that obtain in the one-point case for SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}} in Theorem 2.7;

  2. 2.

    ufi(2)u\cdot f_{i}^{(2)}, i2i\geq 2;

  3. 3.

    fwfi(2)f_{w}\cdot f_{i}^{(2)}, i3i\geq 3;

  4. 4.

    fi(2)fj(2)f_{i}^{(2)}\cdot f_{j}^{(2)}, ij+2i\geq j+2;

  5. 5.

    All products f(1)f(2)f^{(1)}f^{(2)} where f(1)f^{(1)} is of one of the forms fi(1)f_{i}^{(1)} (i2i\geq 2), f(b)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}, f(c)f_{\mathrm{(c)}}, or f(d)f_{\mathrm{(d)}} and f(2)f^{(2)} is of one of the forms fj(2)f_{j}^{(2)} (j2j\geq 2) or fwf_{w}.

Remark 3.6.

For the curious reader, this is the case in which we get the maximum of nine exceptional relations claimed in Theorem 1.3: six in SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}} from the case of Theorem 1.2 where {1/α}(0,1/3)\{-1/\alpha\}\in(0,1/3), plus the three added ones with leading terms fwf(b)f_{w}f_{\mathrm{(b)}}, fwf(c)f_{w}f_{\mathrm{(c)}}, and fwf(d)f_{w}f_{\mathrm{(d)}}.

Proof.

Because we ordered the generators of SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}} (the “old” generators) before all others (the “new” generators), the Gröbner basis for the relations among the old generators is unchanged from the one-point case. We call these the “old” relations.

A 𝕜\Bbbk-basis for the quotient space SD/SD(1)S_{D}/S_{D^{(1)}} consists of one function f(d,c)(2)f_{(d,c)}^{(2)} of degree dd having pole order cc at P(2)P^{(2)}, for each (d,c)(d,c) with 1cα(2)d1\leq c\leq\alpha^{(2)}d. Note that c=1c=1 need not be excluded now. Consequently, the relations between the new generators closely parallel the genus zero case. For (d,c)(d,c) in the angle vi(2)vi+1(2)\angle v_{i}^{(2)}v_{i+1}^{(2)}, the minimal monomial achieving degree dd and pole order cc is a product of the appropriate powers of the two consecutive generators fi(2)f_{i}^{(2)} and fi+1(2)f_{i+1}^{(2)}, where f1(2)f_{1}^{(2)} must be replaced by fwf_{w}. Consequently, any product of two nonconsecutive new generators, or of a new and an old generator, is the leading term of a relation (a “new” relation).

The new relations are all minimal because their leading terms are quadratic. It remains to consider whether an old, minimal relation can become non-minimal when the new generators and relations are added. (An old, non-minimal relation obviously remains non-minimal here.) Referring to Theorem 2.7, there was only one case where a relation with a non-quadratic leading term was nonetheless minimal: the case {1/α(1)}[2/3,3/4)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[2/3,3/4). Here there are generators u=f0,f2(1),f3(1)u=f_{0},f_{2}^{(1)},f_{3}^{(1)} corresponding to best lower approximations

c0d0=1,c2d2=22n1,c3d3=33n2\frac{c_{0}}{d_{0}}=1,\quad\frac{c_{2}}{d_{2}}=\frac{2}{2n-1},\quad\frac{c_{3}}{d_{3}}=\frac{3}{3n-2}

(letting n=d1=1/α(1)n=d_{1}=\lceil 1/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil). The relation in question has leading term uf3(1)2u{f_{3}^{(1)}}^{2}, so if it is not minimal, then some other relation must have a term of uf3(1)uf_{3}^{(1)} or f3(1)2{f_{3}^{(1)}}^{2} to cancel it out. We claim there is no relation having either of these terms. This is clear for f3(1)2{f_{3}^{(1)}}^{2} because its pole order of 66 at P(1)P^{(1)} is the largest possible in degree 6n46n-4, except possibly ordP(1)(f4(1))=7\operatorname{ord}_{P^{(1)}}(f_{4}^{(1)})=-7 when n=1n=1, and no other monomial achieves this pole order. As to uf3uf_{3}, we observe that the only possible monomials in degree 3n13n-1 having a pole of order at least 33 at P(1)P^{(1)} are

uf3,f2(1)2,f2(1)f3(1),f3(1)2,f4(1).uf_{3},\quad{f_{2}^{(1)}}^{2},\quad f_{2}^{(1)}f_{3}^{(1)},\quad{f_{3}^{(1)}}^{2},\quad f_{4}^{(1)}. (3.7)

(since f2(1)fwf_{2}^{(1)}f_{w}, the first monomial of this sort outside SD(1)S_{D^{(1)}}, has degree at least (2n1)+(n+1)>3n1(2n-1)+(n+1)>3n-1). The functions (3.7) have poles of distinct orders 3,4,5,6,73,4,5,6,7 at P(1)P^{(1)} and thus cannot figure in any relation, completing the proof. ∎

3.2.2 The equal ceilings case

In this section we assume that

1α(1)=1α(2).\left\lceil\frac{1}{\alpha^{(1)}}\right\rceil=\left\lceil\frac{1}{\alpha^{(2)}}\right\rceil. (3.8)
Definition 3.7.

Let D=α(1)P(1)+α(2)P(2)D=\alpha^{(1)}P^{(1)}+\alpha^{(2)}P^{(2)} be an effective \mathbb{Q}-divisor on CC supported at two points, and assume (3.8). We order the generators of SDS_{D} in the following way:

u=f0fw[f(b)]f2(1)fr(1)(1)f2(2)fr(2)(2),u=f_{0}\prec f_{w}\prec\big{[}f_{\mathrm{(b)}}\big{]}\prec f_{2}^{(1)}\prec\cdots\prec f_{r^{(1)}}^{(1)}\prec f_{2}^{(2)}\prec\cdots\prec f_{r^{(2)}}^{(2)},

with the brackets because f(b)f_{\mathrm{(b)}} appears only when {1/α(1)}[0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[0,1/2). We order monomials in the generators by the exponents of the generators, largest first (i.e. lex order).

Remark 3.8.

Note the absence of comparison of degrees or pole orders in this term order, in contrast to Definition 3.3. It would be desirable to use a more uniform term order for all effective two-point divisors, but this leads to difficulties such as a profusion of cases and a heightened number of non-minimal relations in the Gröbner basis.

Theorem 3.9.

With this term order, a Gröbner basis for the relation ideal of SDS_{D} has the following leading terms:

  1. ((a))

    If {1/α(1)}[0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[0,1/2):

    1. 1.

      f(b)2f_{\mathrm{(b)}}^{2};

    2. 2.

      ufi(k)uf_{i}^{(k)}, i2i\geq 2, k{1,2}k\in\{1,2\};

    3. 3.

      fwfi(k)f_{w}f_{i}^{(k)}, i3i\geq 3, k{1,2}k\in\{1,2\};

    4. 4.

      f(b)fi(k)f_{\mathrm{(b)}}f_{i}^{(k)}, i2i\geq 2, k{1,2}k\in\{1,2\};

    5. 5.

      fi(k)fj(k)f_{i}^{(k)}f_{j}^{(k)}, ij+2i\geq j+2, k{1,2}k\in\{1,2\};

    6. 6.

      fi(1)fj(2)f_{i}^{(1)}f_{j}^{(2)}, i2i\geq 2, j2j\geq 2.

  2. ((b))

    If {1/α(1)}[1/2,1)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[1/2,1):

    1. 1.

      f2(1)fw2\boxed{f_{2}^{(1)}f_{w}^{2}};

    2. 2.

      ufi(1)uf_{i}^{(1)}, i3i\geq 3;

    3. 3.

      ufi(2)uf_{i}^{(2)}, i2i\geq 2;

    4. 4.

      fwfi(k)f_{w}f_{i}^{(k)}, i3i\geq 3, k{1,2}k\in\{1,2\};

    5. 5.

      fi(k)fj(k)f_{i}^{(k)}f_{j}^{(k)}, ij+2i\geq j+2, k{1,2}k\in\{1,2\};

    6. 6.

      fi(1)fj(2)f_{i}^{(1)}f_{j}^{(2)}, i2i\geq 2, j2j\geq 2.

Moreover, the relations comprising the Gröbner basis are all minimal, with the possible exception of the one with a cubic leading term (boxed), which is minimal if and only if

{1/α(1)}[1/2,2/3)and{1/α(2)}[0,1/2).\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[{1}/{2},{2}/{3})\quad\text{and}\quad\{-1/\alpha^{(2)}\}\in[0,{1}/{2}).
Proof.

The proof of this theorem is somewhat different from the preceding ones owing to the different term order. Let n=1/α(1)=1/α(2)n=\lceil 1/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil=\lceil 1/\alpha^{(2)}\rceil, and define the subdivisors

D\displaystyle D^{\prime} =22/α(1)P(1)+1nP(2)={1nP(1)+1nP(2),{1/α(1)}[0,1/2)22n1P(1)+1nP(2),{1/α(1)}[1/2,1)\displaystyle=\frac{2}{\lceil 2/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil}P^{(1)}+\frac{1}{n}P^{(2)}=\begin{cases}\frac{1}{n}P^{(1)}+\frac{1}{n}P^{(2)},\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[0,1/2)\\ \frac{2}{2n-1}P^{(1)}+\frac{1}{n}P^{(2)},\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[1/2,1)\end{cases}
D′′\displaystyle D^{\prime\prime} =22/α(1)P(1)+α(2)P(2).\displaystyle=\frac{2}{\lceil 2/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil}P^{(1)}+\alpha^{(2)}P^{(2)}.

The significance of the resulting filtration of the section rings SDSD′′SDS_{D^{\prime}}\subseteq S_{D^{\prime\prime}}\subseteq S_{D} is that

  1. ((a))

    SDS_{D^{\prime}} is generated by the lowest three generators: uu, fwf_{w}, and either f(b)f_{\mathrm{(b)}} ({1/α(1)}[0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[0,1/2)) or f2(1)f_{2}^{(1)} ({1/α(1)}[1/2,1)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[1/2,1));

  2. ((b))

    SD′′S_{D^{\prime\prime}} is generated by SDS_{D^{\prime}} and the remaining generators fi(1)f_{i}^{(1)};

  3. ((c))

    SDS_{D} is generated by SD′′S_{D^{\prime\prime}} and the remaining generators fi(2)f_{i}^{(2)}.

These claims are not hard to show. For brevity, we focus on the case {1/α(1)}[1/2,1)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[1/2,1), the other being analogous. Here SDS_{D} has a relation because the element f2(1)fw2f_{2}^{(1)}f_{w}^{2}, with degree and pole orders (d,c(1),c(2))=(4n1,4,2)(d,c^{(1)},c^{(2)})=(4n-1,4,2), can be expressed as a linear combination of terms f2(1)2u{f_{2}^{(1)}}^{2}u (4n1,4,0)(4n-1,4,0), fw2u2n1f_{w}^{2}u^{2n-1} (4n1,2,2)(4n-1,2,2), and elements with lower pole orders (namely f2(1)fwun,f2(1)u2n,fwu3n1f_{2}^{(1)}f_{w}u^{n},f_{2}^{(1)}u^{2n},f_{w}u^{3n-1}, and u4n1u^{4n-1}). Applying this relation, we can express any polynomial in the first three generators as a linear combination of terms fwiujf_{w}^{i}u^{j}, f2(1)iuj{f_{2}^{(1)}}^{i}u^{j}, and f2(1)ifwuj{f_{2}^{(1)}}^{i}f_{w}u^{j}. Specifically, in degree dnd\geq n, we have the elements

fwiudni,\displaystyle f_{w}^{i}u^{d-ni}, 0\displaystyle 0 idn\displaystyle\leq i\leq\frac{d}{n} (3.9)
f2(1)iud(2n1)i,\displaystyle{f_{2}^{(1)}}^{i}u^{d-(2n-1)i}, 1\displaystyle 1 id2n1\displaystyle\leq i\leq\frac{d}{2n-1}
f2(1)ifwud(2n1)i,\displaystyle{f_{2}^{(1)}}^{i}f_{w}u^{d-(2n-1)i}, 1\displaystyle 1 idn2n1.\displaystyle\leq i\leq\frac{d-n}{2n-1}.

Comparing pole orders shows these are all linearly independent, and the number of them is

1+dn+d2n1+dn2n1\displaystyle 1+\left\lfloor\frac{d}{n}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor\frac{d}{2n-1}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor\frac{d-n}{2n-1}\right\rfloor =1+dn+d2n1+dn+1/22n1\displaystyle=1+\left\lfloor\frac{d}{n}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor\frac{d}{2n-1}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor\frac{d-n+1/2}{2n-1}\right\rfloor
=dn+d2n1+d2n1+12\displaystyle=\left\lfloor\frac{d}{n}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor\frac{d}{2n-1}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor\frac{d}{2n-1}+\frac{1}{2}\right\rfloor
=dn+2d2n1\displaystyle=\left\lfloor\frac{d}{n}\right\rfloor+\left\lfloor\frac{2d}{2n-1}\right\rfloor
=dim(SD)deg=d,\displaystyle=\dim(S_{D^{\prime}})_{\deg=d},

so in fact (3.9) are a basis for SDS_{D^{\prime}}, so there are no more generators or relations needed.

The generation of the quotient spaces SD′′/SDS_{D^{\prime\prime}}/S_{D^{\prime}} and SD/SDS_{D}/S_{D^{\prime}} follows the genus zero case: a 𝕜\Bbbk-basis is indexed by combinations (d,c(k))(d,c^{(k)}) of degree and pole order at the respective point with

22/α(1)d\displaystyle\frac{2}{\lceil 2/\alpha^{(1)}\rceil}d <c(1)α(1)d,\displaystyle<c^{(1)}\leq\alpha^{(1)}d, k\displaystyle\quad k =1(for SD′′/SD)\displaystyle=1\ (\text{for }S_{D^{\prime\prime}}/S_{D^{\prime}})
1nd\displaystyle\frac{1}{n}d <c(2)α(2)d,\displaystyle<c^{(2)}\leq\alpha^{(2)}d, k\displaystyle\quad k =2(for SD/SD′′),\displaystyle=2\ (\text{for }S_{D}/S_{D^{\prime\prime}}),

and each (d,c(k))(d,c^{(k)}) is minimally achieved by a product of consecutive generators fi(k)afi+1(k)b{f_{i}^{(k)}}^{a}{f_{i+1}^{(k)}}^{b}, where fwf_{w} stands in for both f1(1)f_{1}^{(1)} and f1(2)f_{1}^{(2)}. Consequently, any product of two generators not of this type is the leading term of a relation, as claimed.

It remains to determine whether the relation with the cubic, boxed leading term f2(1)fw2f_{2}^{(1)}f_{w}^{2} (degree 4n14n-1) is minimal. We divide into cases by the values of the {1/α(i)}\{-1/\alpha^{(i)}\}, as claimed in the theorem.

If {1/α(1)}[2/3,1)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[2/3,1), that is, α(1)3/(3n2)\alpha^{(1)}\geq 3/(3n-2), there is a best lower approximation c3(1)/d3(1)=3/(3n2)c_{3}^{(1)}/d_{3}^{(1)}=3/(3n-2) giving a generator f3(1)f_{3}^{(1)} in degree 3n23n-2 with a triple pole at P(1)P^{(1)}. Using the relations

R1\displaystyle R_{1} =f3(1)u+\displaystyle=f_{3}^{(1)}u+\cdots
R2\displaystyle R_{2} =f3(1)fw+,\displaystyle=f_{3}^{(1)}f_{w}+\cdots,

we take a linear combination R=fwR1uR2R=f_{w}R_{1}-uR_{2}, causing the leading terms f3(1)fwuf_{3}^{(1)}f_{w}u to cancel. Observe that R1R_{1} has a term f2(1)fwf_{2}^{(1)}f_{w}, the only possible monomial in degree 4n14n-1 with a triple pole at P(1)P^{(1)} below f3(1)uf_{3}^{(1)}u in the term ordering. So RR has a term f2(1)fw2f_{2}^{(1)}f_{w}^{2}. All other terms of fwR1f_{w}R_{1} and uR2uR_{2}, except the leading terms which cancel, are lower in the term ordering (namely f2(1)fwun,f2(1)u2n,fwu3n1f_{2}^{(1)}f_{w}u^{n},f_{2}^{(1)}u^{2n},f_{w}u^{3n-1}, and u4n1u^{4n-1}). So we have achieved a relation RR with the desired leading term, showing that the boxed Gröbner basis element is not minimal.

Similarly, if {1/α(2)}[1/2,1)\{-1/\alpha^{(2)}\}\in[1/2,1), that is, α(2)2/(2n1)\alpha^{(2)}\geq 2/(2n-1), there is a best lower approximation c2(2)/d2(2)=2/(2n1)c_{2}^{(2)}/d_{2}^{(2)}=2/(2n-1) giving a generator f2(2)f_{2}^{(2)} in degree 2n12n-1 with a double pole at P(2)P^{(2)}. Using the relations

R1\displaystyle R_{1} =f2(2)u+\displaystyle=f_{2}^{(2)}u+\cdots
R2\displaystyle R_{2} =f2(2)f2(1)+,\displaystyle=f_{2}^{(2)}f_{2}^{(1)}+\cdots,

we form a combination

R=f2(1)R1uR2cu2n1R1,R=f_{2}^{(1)}R_{1}-uR_{2}-cu^{2n-1}R_{1},

where the first two terms have canceling leading terms f2(2)f2(1)uf_{2}^{(2)}f_{2}^{(1)}u, and the constant cc is chosen to cancel out the term f2(2)u2nf_{2}^{(2)}u^{2n} which may appear in uR2uR_{2}. The highest remaining term is f2(1)fw2f_{2}^{(1)}f_{w}^{2}, which must appear with a nonzero coefficient because fw2f_{w}^{2} is the only other term in R1R_{1} that can have a double pole at P(1)P^{(1)}. So, again, the boxed Gröbner basis element is not minimal.

Finally, if {1/α(1)}[1/2,2/3)\{-1/\alpha^{(1)}\}\in[{1}/{2},{2}/{3}) and {1/α(2)}[0,1/2)\{-1/\alpha^{(2)}\}\in[0,{1}/{2}), we claim that the boxed Gröbner basis element is minimal. If not, it arises by canceling the leading terms of other relations, so there must be a monomial in the generators of degree 4n14n-1 divisible by two different leading terms of relations. We have degf2(2)3n1\deg f_{2}^{(2)}\geq 3n-1, degf3(2)4n2\deg f_{3}^{(2)}\geq 4n-2, and degf3(1)5n3\deg f_{3}^{(1)}\geq 5n-3, so we can restrict our sights to uu, fwf_{w}, f2(1)f_{2}^{(1)}, and f2(2)f_{2}^{(2)}. The only relations among these have leading terms uf2(2)uf_{2}^{(2)}, fwf2(2)f_{w}f_{2}^{(2)}, and f2(1)fw2f_{2}^{(1)}f_{w}^{2}, all of which have degree at least 4n14n-1, so this is impossible. ∎

Remark 3.10.

The structure of the ring is somewhat simpler in this case and much more nearly symmetric between α(1)\alpha^{(1)} and α(2)\alpha^{(2)}.

4 The subtle behavior of the ineffective two-point case

It would be desirable to extend the results of this paper to ineffective two-point divisors DD having positive multiplicity at one point and negative at the other. However, in this situation, the section ring depends on the choice of curve CC and divisor DD in a much more subtle way.

Example 4.1.

Let D=4P(1)P(2)D=4P^{(1)}-P^{(2)}. In degree 11, we have three generators t2ut_{2}u, t3ut_{3}u, t4ut_{4}u. In degree 22, the question arises of whether the six pairwise products u2titju^{2}t_{i}t_{j} of the generators fill the six-dimensional space

(SD)deg=2=u2t3,t4,t5,t6,t7,t8.\left(S_{D}\right)_{\deg=2}=u^{2}\cdot\left\langle t_{3},t_{4},t_{5},t_{6},t_{7},t_{8}\right\rangle.

In fact they do. If there were a linear relation among these products, a consideration of zero and pole orders at the P(k)P^{(k)} shows that it would have to have the form

t32=ct2t4,c𝕜×,t_{3}^{2}=ct_{2}t_{4},\quad c\in\Bbbk^{\times},

but the two sides do not have the same divisor. Hence degree 11 generates degree 22, and in particular t3t_{3} is a linear combination of the products titjt_{i}t_{j}, 2ij42\leq i\leq j\leq 4. In fact, we can be more explicit:

Taking y=t3y=t_{3} and x=t2x=t_{2} as coordinates, we get a Weierstrass equation of the curve

C:y2+a1xy+a3y=x3+a2x2+a4x+a6C:y^{2}+a_{1}xy+a_{3}y=x^{3}+a_{2}x^{2}+a_{4}x+a_{6}

where P(1)P^{(1)} is the point at \infty and P(2)P^{(2)} is the origin (0,0)(0,0). We must have

  • a6=0a_{6}=0 since (0,0)(0,0) lies on CC;

  • a4=0a_{4}=0 since yy has a double zero at (0,0)(0,0);

  • a30a_{3}\neq 0 since CC is nonsingular at (0,0)(0,0);

  • a20a_{2}\neq 0 or else yy would have a triple zero at (0,0)(0,0).

Then

t4=x2a3a2y,t_{4}=x^{2}-\frac{a_{3}}{a_{2}}y,

and the curve’s equation can be written as

t3=1a3(t2t4a3a2t2t3+a2t22t32),t_{3}=\frac{1}{a_{3}}\left(t_{2}t_{4}-\frac{a_{3}}{a_{2}}t_{2}t_{3}+a_{2}t_{2}^{2}-t_{3}^{2}\right),

showing that indeed t3t2t4,t32,t2t3,t22t_{3}\in\left\langle t_{2}t_{4},t_{3}^{2},t_{2}t_{3},t_{2}^{2}\right\rangle. Note that t3t_{3}’s pole of order 33 at P(1)P^{(1)} arises from canceling functions with poles of order 66, 66, 55, and 44.

Example 4.2.

Let pp and qq be coprime positive integers. By the Euclidean algorithm, there are positive integers aa and bb such that aqbp=1aq-bp=1. Let P(1)P^{(1)} and P(2)P^{(2)} be points whose difference is not torsion, and consider the divisor

D=apP(1)bqP(2)D=\frac{a}{p}P^{(1)}-\frac{b}{q}P^{(2)}

of degree 1/(pq)1/(pq). For d>0d>0, the dimension of (SD)deg=d(S_{D})_{\deg=d} is

dim(SD)deg=d=max{0,adpbdq1}.\dim(S_{D})_{\deg=d}=\max\left\{0,\left\lfloor\frac{ad}{p}\right\rfloor-\left\lceil\frac{bd}{q}\right\rceil-1\right\}.

We recognize the right side as the number of ways of writing dpqd-pq in the form xp+yqxp+yq where x,y0x,y\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}. The least degree in which there is any element is d=pqd=pq. For pqd<2pqpq\leq d<2pq, the degrees in which SDS_{D} is nonzero are of the form d=pq+kd=pq+k where kk belongs to the Frobenius (symmetric, two-generated) semigroup

p,q={xp+yq:x,y0},\left\langle p,q\right\rangle=\{xp+yq:x,y\in\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}\},

and due to the degree bound pqd<2pqpq\leq d<2pq, none of these can generate each other. This yields an intricate pattern of generators and relations.

4.1 A conjecture on generators

Suppose that P(1)P^{(1)} and P(2)P^{(2)} are two points on CC such that P(1)P(2)P^{(1)}-P^{(2)} is not a torsion class in the Picard group (the generic case). For c0c\geq 0, let tct_{c} denote the unique function (up to scaling) on CC with

div(tc(1))=c(P(1))+(c1)(P(2))+(cP(1)(1c)P(2)),\operatorname{div}(t_{c}^{(1)})=-c(P^{(1)})+(c-1)(P^{(2)})+(cP^{(1)}\oplus(1-c)P^{(2)}),

where \oplus denotes addition in the group law on CC, as opposed to formal addition of divisors. Observe that if c2c\geq 2, then

ordP(1)tc=candordP(2)tc=c1.\operatorname{ord}_{P^{(1)}}t_{c}=-c\quad\text{and}\quad\operatorname{ord}_{P^{(2)}}t_{c}=c-1.
Lemma 4.3.

Let D=α(1)(P(1))α(2)(P(2))D=\alpha^{(1)}(P^{(1)})-\alpha^{(2)}(P^{(2)}) be a \mathbb{Z}-divisor on an elliptic curve supported at two points, where α(1)>α(2)0.\alpha^{(1)}>\alpha^{(2)}\geq 0. Then H0(D)H^{0}(D) has dimension α(1)α(2)\alpha^{(1)}-\alpha^{(2)} with a basis consisting of the functions

  • {1,t2,,tα(1)}\{1,t_{2},\ldots,t_{\alpha^{(1)}}\} if α(2)=0\alpha^{(2)}=0;

  • {tα(2)+1,,tα(1)}\{t_{\alpha^{(2)}+1},\ldots,t_{\alpha^{(1)}}\} if α(2)>0\alpha^{(2)}>0.

Proof.

Since degD=α(1)α(2)1\deg D=\alpha^{(1)}-\alpha^{(2)}\geq 1, the Riemann-Roch theorem gives us the dimension h0(D)h^{0}(D). We check that the claimed functions belong to H0(D)H^{0}(D) and have different pole orders at P(1)P^{(1)}, so they must form a basis. ∎

\drawline(0,0)(2,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,6) \drawline(0,0)(1.2,6) ++5P(1)5P^{(1)}
\drawline(0,0)(2,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,6) \drawline(0,0)(1.2,6) \drawline(0,0)(2.2,2.2) ++5P(1)P(2)5P^{(1)}-P^{(2)}
\drawline(0,0)(2,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,6) \drawline(0,0)(1.2,6) \drawline(0,0)(2.4,4.8) ++5P(1)2P(2)5P^{(1)}-2P^{(2)}
\drawline(0,0)(2.1,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,10.5) \drawline(0,0)(2.1,10.5) \drawline(0,0)(2.1,6.3) ++5P(1)3P(2)5P^{(1)}-3P^{(2)}
\drawline(0,0)(3.1,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,15.5) \drawline(0,0)(3.1,15.5) \drawline(0,0)(3.1,12.4) +++5P(1)4P(2)5P^{(1)}-4P^{(2)}
Figure 3: Example bases for SDS_{D} with DD as in Lemma 4.3

Let D=α(1)(P(1))α(2)(P(2))D=\alpha^{(1)}(P^{(1)})-\alpha^{(2)}(P^{(2)}) be a \mathbb{Q}-divisor supported at the two points P(k)P^{(k)}, and suppose that α(1)>α(2)>0\alpha^{(1)}>\alpha^{(2)}>0 so that SDS_{D} is non-trivial. Since P(1)P(2)P^{(1)}-P^{(2)} is not torsion, H0(dD)H^{0}(dD) does not contain any function ff of degree dd with ordP(1)(f)=dα(2)\operatorname{ord}_{P^{(1)}}(f)=\lceil d\alpha^{(2)}\rceil. Accordingly, we mark the points (d,dα(2))(d,\lceil d\alpha^{(2)}\rceil) in the monoid M={(d,c)2:dα(2)cdα(1)}M^{\prime}=\{(d,c)\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}:d\alpha^{(2)}\leq c\leq d\alpha^{(1)}\} by a ‘+’ in our examples.

Conjecture 4.4.

Let D=α(1)(P(1))α(2)(P(2))D=\alpha^{(1)}(P^{(1)})-\alpha^{(2)}(P^{(2)}) be an ineffective (α(1)>α(2)>0\alpha^{(1)}>\alpha^{(2)}>0) \mathbb{Q}-divisor on an elliptic curve CC supported at two points P(k),P^{(k)}, where P(1)P(2)P^{(1)}-P^{(2)} is not a torsion class in the Picard group (the generic case). Let

0=c0(1)d0(1)<c1(1)d1(1)<<cr(1)dr(1)=α(1);0=c0(2)d0(2)>c1(2)d1(2)>>cs(2)ds(2)=α(2)0=\frac{c_{0}^{(1)}}{d_{0}^{(1)}}<\frac{c_{1}^{(1)}}{d_{1}^{(1)}}<\cdots<\frac{c_{r}^{(1)}}{d_{r}^{(1)}}=\alpha^{(1)};~{}0=\frac{c_{0}^{(2)}}{d_{0}^{(2)}}>\frac{c_{1}^{(2)}}{d_{1}^{(2)}}>\cdots>\frac{c_{s}^{(2)}}{d_{s}^{(2)}}=\alpha^{(2)}

be the best lower approximations to α(1)\alpha^{(1)} and the best upper approximations to α(2)\alpha^{(2)} respectively. Let M={(d,c)2:dα(2)+1cdα(1)}.M=\{(d,c)\in\mathbb{Z}^{2}:d\alpha^{(2)}+1\leq c\leq d\alpha^{(1)}\}.

Then SDS_{D} has a minimal system of generators of the following forms:

  1. ((a))

    tcj(1)udj(1),t_{c_{j}^{(1)}}u^{d_{j}^{(1)}}, for j=s(2)+1,,r(1)j=s^{(2)}+1,\ldots,r^{(1)} if cj(1)>dj(2)α(2)c_{j}^{(1)}>\lceil d_{j}^{(2)}\alpha^{(2)}\rceil for some jj;

  2. ((b))

    tcj(2)+1udj(2),t_{c_{j}^{(2)}+1}u^{d_{j}^{(2)}}, for j=2,,s(2)j=2,\ldots,s^{(2)} if such a generator has not already appeared and no (dj(2),cj(2)+n)M(d_{j}^{(2)},c_{j}^{(2)}+n)\in M with n2n\geq 2 is (at least) two distinct nonnegative linear combinations of (d,c)M(d,c)\in M with d<dj(2)d<d_{j}^{(2)};

  3. ((c))

    tcj(2)+2udj(2),t_{c_{j}^{(2)}+2}u^{d_{j}^{(2)}}, for j=3,,s(2)j=3,\ldots,s^{(2)} if all of the following conditions are met:

    • cj(2)+2dj(2)α(1),c_{j}^{(2)}+2\leq d_{j}^{(2)}\alpha^{(1)},

    • (dj(2),cj(2)+2)(d_{j}^{(2)},c_{j}^{(2)}+2) is not a nonnegative linear combination of any (d,c)M(d,c)\in M with d<dj(2),d<d_{j}^{(2)}, and

    • no point (dj(2),cj(2)+n)M(d_{j}^{(2)},c_{j}^{(2)}+n)\in M for n3n\geq 3 is (at least) two distinct nonnegative linear combinations of (d,c)M(d,c)\in M with d<dj(2).d<d_{j}^{(2)}.

Remark 4.5.

Each type of generator in Conjecture 4.4 is minimal because of how we have defined them. As in [O’D15], Theorems 2.3 and 3.2 and [LRZ16], no best lower approximation to α(1)\alpha^{(1)} comes from combining functions in lower degrees, and by definition no generator of type (b){\mathrm{(b)}} or (c){\mathrm{(c)}} corresponds to a linear combination of other generators, nor some difference of functions as in the proof of Theorem 3.2. For examples of DD with sufficiently large degrees we can use Magma to determine the degrees of minimal generators for SDS_{D} including Example 4.6 which has the subtle behavior of Example 4.2, and generators from Conjecture 4.4 seem to give a basis.

However, it is difficult to verify this conjecture rigorously, especially in cases such as Example 4.2 with small degree, as Magma needs to check for generators in such large degrees as to be computationally prohibitive. Even if Conjecture 4.4 is true, the question remains of whether we can find a simpler description of the generators which does not rely on manually working out every possible linear combination of vectors in the monoid MM while successively adding generators in the order indicated by Definition 2.6.

\drawline(0,0)(7,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,19) \drawline(0,0)(7.1,18.3) \drawline(0,0)(7,1) aaccaaaabbbbbbbbbbbbcc+++++++
Figure 4: Generators for SDS_{D} labeled according to Conjecture 4.4 when D=135P(1)17P(2).D=\frac{13}{5}P^{(1)}-\frac{1}{7}P^{(2)}.
Example 4.6.

Let D=23P(1)35P(2).D=\frac{2}{3}P^{(1)}-\frac{3}{5}P^{(2)}. This is an example of the behavior discussed in Example 4.2. Up to degree 60,60, Magma computes generators for SDS_{D} in degrees:

15,18,20,21,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,37.15,18,20,21,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,37.
\drawline(0,0)(37,0) \drawline(0,0)(0,25) \drawline(0,0)(37,24.67) \drawline(0,0)(37,22.2) abbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbb++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Figure 5: Generators for SDS_{D} labeled according to Conjecture 4.4 where D=23P(1)35P(2).D=\frac{2}{3}P^{(1)}-\frac{3}{5}P^{(2)}.

5 Arbitrary effective \mathbb{Q}-divisors

For divisors supported by more than two points, generators and relations often occur in high degrees, and it is difficult to explicitly describe the canonical ring. Thanks to [LRZ16] we are able to determine inductive presentations of such rings for effective \mathbb{Q}-divisors, similar to the main inductive theorem in Voight–Zureick-Brown [VZB22, 8.3.18.3.1].

Example 5.1.

As in [VZB22, Example 5.7.75.7.7] let D=12P1+12P2D^{\prime}=\frac{1}{2}P_{1}+\frac{1}{2}P_{2}, and following [VZB22, Example 5.7.95.7.9] let D=D+12P3=12P1+12P2+12P3D=D^{\prime}+\frac{1}{2}P_{3}=\frac{1}{2}P_{1}+\frac{1}{2}P_{2}+\frac{1}{2}P_{3}. Then degD=3/2\deg D=3/2. By the Generalized Max Noether Theorem [VZB22, Lemma 3.1.4], H0(C,2D)H0(C,(d2)D)H0(C,dD)H^{0}(C,2D)\otimes H^{0}(C,(d-2)D)\to H^{0}(C,dD) is surjective for d>5d>5, so all generators occur in degree <5<5.

More precisely, in [VZB22] it is computed that SDS_{D^{\prime}} is generated in degrees 11, 22, and 44 while SDS_{D} is generated in degrees 11, 22, and 22. The square of the last degree-22 generator of SDS_{D} is the degree-44 generator for SD.S_{D^{\prime}}.

So the minimal presentations have the form SD=𝕜[u,x1,x2]/IDS_{D}=\Bbbk[u,x_{1},x_{2}]/I_{D} and SD=𝕜[u,x1,x22]/IDS_{D^{\prime}}=\Bbbk[u,x_{1},x_{2}^{2}]/I_{D^{\prime}}, where IDI_{D}, IDI_{D^{\prime}} are the relation ideals. In particular, SDS_{D} is generated over SDS_{D^{\prime}} by x2x_{2}.

A powerful result which allows one to compute an inductive presentation of the section ring of a general \mathbb{Q}-divisor on an elliptic curve is [LRZ16, Lemma 4.44.4]. We paraphrase the result, which is of independent interest, in the terminology of this document for reference. We then use it to prove Theorem 1.4 by verifying that our general \mathbb{Q}-divisors satisfy the hypotheses of the lemma.

If DD is a divisor on a curve CC, PP is a point on CC, and ff is a rational function on CC, we define, following [LRZ16],

ordPD(f)=ordP(f)+ordP(D),\operatorname{ord}_{P}^{D}(f)=\operatorname{ord}_{P}(f)+\operatorname{ord}_{P}(D),

so that fH0(D)f\in H^{0}(D) if and only if ordPD(f)0\operatorname{ord}_{P}^{D}(f)\geq 0 for all points PP.

Lemma 5.2 ([LRZ16, Lemma 4.44.4]).

Let CC be a curve (of any genus) and let DD^{\prime} be an effective \mathbb{Q}-divisor on CC. Suppose that PP is not a basepoint of dDdD^{\prime} for any d,d\in\mathbb{N}, i.e. we can choose generators u=f0,f1,,fmu=f_{0},f_{1},\ldots,f_{m} of SDS_{D^{\prime}} with deg(u)=1,\deg(u)=1, and ordPD(fi)=0\operatorname{ord}_{P}^{D^{\prime}}(f_{i})=0 for 0im0\leq i\leq m.

Suppose that D=D+abP\displaystyle{D=D^{\prime}+\frac{a}{b}P} for some a,a, bb\in\mathbb{N} such that ab\frac{a}{b} is reduced and

h0(C,dD)=h0(C,dD)+dab for all d.h^{0}(C,\lfloor dD\rfloor)=h^{0}(C,\lfloor dD^{\prime}\rfloor)+\Big{\lfloor}d\cdot\frac{a}{b}\Big{\rfloor}\quad\text{ for all }d\in\mathbb{N}. (5.1)

Then

  1. ((a))

    SDS_{D} is generated over SDS_{D^{\prime}} by some elements g1,,gng_{1},\ldots,g_{n} whose degrees di=deg(gi)d_{i}=\deg(g_{i}) and pole orders ci=ordPD(gi)c_{i}=-{\operatorname{ord}}_{P}^{D^{\prime}}(g_{i}) satisfy cici+1ac_{i}\leq c_{i+1}\leq a and didi+1bd_{i}\leq d_{i+1}\leq b for all ii.

  2. ((b))

    Choose a monomial ordering \prec on 𝕜[u=f0,f1,,fm]\Bbbk[u=f_{0},f_{1},\ldots,f_{m}] such that

    ordu(f)<ordu(h)fh.\operatorname{ord}_{u}(f)<\operatorname{ord}_{u}(h)\Rightarrow f\prec h.

    Equip 𝕜[f0,,fm]\Bbbk[f_{0},\ldots,f_{m}] with the graded PP-lexicographic order from [LRZ16, Definition 4.24.2] and equip 𝕜[g1,,gn]𝕜[f0,,fm]\displaystyle{\Bbbk[g_{1},\ldots,g_{n}]\otimes\Bbbk[f_{0},\ldots,f_{m}]} with the block order from [LRZ16, Definition 2.192.19]. Let II^{\prime} denote the ideal of relations of

    𝕜[f0,,fm]SD\Bbbk[f_{0},\ldots,f_{m}]\to S_{D^{\prime}}

    and let II denote the ideal of relations of

    𝕜[f0,,fm,g1,,gn]SD.\Bbbk[f_{0},\ldots,f_{m},g_{1},\ldots,g_{n}]\to S_{D}.

    Then

    in(I)=in(I)𝕜[f0,,fm,g1,,gn]+Ui:1in+V,\operatorname{in}_{\prec}(I)=\operatorname{in}_{\prec}(I^{\prime})\Bbbk[f_{0},\ldots,f_{m},g_{1},\ldots,g_{n}]+\langle U_{i}:1\leq i\leq n\rangle+\langle V\rangle,

    where V={figj:1im,1jn}\displaystyle{V=\{f_{i}g_{j}:1\leq i\leq m,1\leq j\leq n\}} and UiU_{i} is the set of monomials of the form j=1igjej\prod_{j=1}^{i}g_{j}^{e_{j}} with ej0e_{j}\in\mathbb{N}_{\geq 0} such that

    1. (a)

      j=1iejcjci+1,\sum_{j=1}^{i}e_{j}c_{j}\leq c_{i+1},

    2. (b)

      there does not exist (e1,,ei)(e1,,ei)(e^{\prime}_{1},\ldots,e^{\prime}_{i})\neq(e_{1},\ldots,e_{i}) with all ejeje^{\prime}_{j}\leq e_{j} and j=1iejcjci+1,\sum_{j=1}^{i}e^{\prime}_{j}c_{j}\geq c_{i+1}, and

    3. (c)

      there does not exist some r<ir<i such that j=1rejcj>cr+1.\sum_{j=1}^{r}e_{j}c_{j}>c_{r+1}.

  3. ((c))

    Let τ=maxidegfi\tau=\max_{i}\deg f_{i}. Then SDS_{D} is generated over SDS_{D^{\prime}} in degrees up to bb, with II generated over II^{\prime} in degrees up to max{2b,b+τ}\max\{2b,b+\tau\}.

Remark 5.3.

Note that the condition h0(C,D)1h^{0}(C,\lfloor D^{\prime}\rfloor)\geq 1 from the original statement of [LRZ16, Lemma 4.44.4] is automatic any for effective \mathbb{Q}-divisor DD on a genus 11 curve CC since we have h0(C,D)=max{degD,1}h^{0}(C,\lfloor D\rfloor)=\max\{\deg\lfloor D\rfloor,1\}. Also, for uu we can take the usual uu in the definition of the section ring.

Proof of Theorem 1.4.

Now let

D=i=1na(i)b(i)(P(i))D=\sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{a^{(i)}}{b^{(i)}}\big{(}P^{(i)}\big{)}

be an effective divisor, with α(1)α(n)\alpha^{(1)}\geq\cdots\geq\alpha^{(n)}. We prove that the section ring SDS_{D} is generated in degrees at most

B=max{3b(1),b(2),,b(n)},B=\max\{3b^{(1)},b^{(2)},\ldots,b^{(n)}\},

with relations in degrees at most 2B2B.

In the base case n=1n=1, we are claiming that the section ring SDS_{D} of a divisor D=(a/b)PD=(a/b)P is generated in degrees at most B=3bB=3b with relations in degrees at most 6b6b. The generator bound follows from Theorem 2.3, observing that the exceptional generator (c){\mathrm{(c)}} has degree at most 3b/a3b\lceil 3b/a\rceil\leq 3b. The relation bound is automatic for relations with quadratic leading terms. By Theorem 2.7, the only other minimal relation has leading term f0f32f_{0}f_{3}^{2} and degree 1+2d33b<6b1+2d_{3}\leq 3b<6b, completing the proof of the base case.

To prove the induction step, we must verify that the subdivisor

D=i=1n1a(i)b(i)(P(i))D^{\prime}=\sum_{i=1}^{n-1}\frac{a^{(i)}}{b^{(i)}}\big{(}P^{(i)}\big{)}

and the point P=P(n)P=P^{(n)} satisfy the hypotheses of Lemma 5.2. That PP is not a basepoint of dDdD^{\prime} is automatic for us, because either

  • dD=0\lfloor dD^{\prime}\rfloor=0, and the constant 1H0(dD)1\in H^{0}(dD^{\prime}) has no basepoints, or

  • degdD=1\deg\lfloor dD^{\prime}\rfloor=1, and the constant 1H0(dD)1\in H^{0}(dD^{\prime}) has a basepoint PiPP_{i}\neq P, or

  • degdD2\deg\lfloor dD^{\prime}\rfloor\geq 2, and the linear system H0(dD)H^{0}(dD^{\prime}) is basepoint-free by Fact 2.2.

As to (5.1), the hypothesis α1αn\alpha_{1}\geq\cdots\geq\alpha_{n} ensures that dD=0\lfloor dD\rfloor=0 exactly when d<1/α1d<\lceil 1/\alpha_{1}\rceil. If this condition holds, then (5.1) reduces to 1=1+01=1+0, which is true. Otherwise, (5.1) reduces to

degdD1=(degdD1)+degdabP,\deg\lfloor dD\rfloor-1=(\deg\lfloor dD^{\prime}\rfloor-1)+\deg\left\lfloor d\cdot\frac{a}{b}\cdot P\right\rfloor,

which is also true. Thus Lemma 5.2 applies.

By induction, SDS_{D^{\prime}} is generated in degrees at most

B=max{3b(1),b(2),,b(n1)},B^{\prime}=\max\{3b^{(1)},b^{(2)},\ldots,b^{({n-1})}\},

with relations in degrees at most 2B2B^{\prime}. Accordingly, SDS_{D} is generated over SDS_{D^{\prime}} in degrees at most b(n)b^{(n)}, so generated over 𝕜\Bbbk in degrees at most

max{B,b(n)}=B.\max\{B^{\prime},b^{(n)}\}=B.

The relation ideal II is generated over its counterpart II^{\prime} in degrees at most

max{2b(n),b(n)+τ}max{2b(n),b(n)+B},\max\{2b^{(n)},b^{(n)}+\tau\}\leq\max\{2b^{(n)},b^{(n)}+B^{\prime}\},

and since II^{\prime} is generated in degrees at most 2B2B^{\prime}, the degrees of all relations are bounded by

max{2b(n),b(n)+B,2B}=2B,\max\{2b^{(n)},b^{(n)}+B^{\prime},2B^{\prime}\}=2B,

as desired. ∎

References

  • [Fra23] Jesse Franklin, The geometry of Drinfeld modular forms, 2023, https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.19623.
  • [LRZ16] Aaron Landesman, Peter Ruhm, and Robin Zhang, Spin canonical rings of log stacky curves, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 66 (2016), no. 6, 2339–2383. MR 3580174
  • [O’D15] Evan O’Dorney, Canonical rings of \mathbb{Q}-divisors on 1\mathbb{P}^{1}, Ann. Comb. 19 (2015), no. 4, 765–784. MR 3415011
  • [Sil09] Joseph H. Silverman, The arithmetic of elliptic curves, second ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 106, Springer, Dordrecht, 2009. MR 2514094
  • [VZB22] John Voight and David Zureick-Brown, The canonical ring of a stacky curve, Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 277 (2022), no. 1362, v+144. MR 4403928