AUTOMORPHISMS OF HARBATER–KATZ–GABBER CURVES

arXiv:1509.02139v2 [math.AG] 2 Nov 2016

FRAUKE M. BLEHER*, TED CHINBURG**, BJORN POONEN†, AND PETER SYMONDS
Abstract. Let k be a perfect field of characteristic p > 0, and let G be a finite group. We
consider the pointed G-curves over k associated by Harbater, Katz, and Gabber to faithful
actions of G on k[[t]] over k. We use such “HKG G-curves” to classify the automorphisms of
k[[t]] of p-power order that can be expressed by particularly explicit formulas, namely those
mapping t to a power series lying in a Z/pZ Artin–Schreier extension of k(t). In addition,
we give necessary and sufficient criteria to decide when an HKG G-curve with an action of
a larger finite group J is also an HKG J-curve.

1. Introduction
Let k be a field, let k[[t]] be the power series ring, and let Aut(k[[t]]) be its automorphism
group as a k-algebra. When the characteristic of k is positive, Aut(k[[t]]) contains many interesting finite subgroups. One way to construct such subgroups is to start with an algebraic
curve X on which a finite group G acts with a fixed point x having residue field k; then
G acts on the completion ÔX,x of the local ring of x at X, and ÔX,x is isomorphic to k[[t]]
for any choice of uniformizing parameter t at x. In fact, results of Harbater [14, §2] and of
Katz and Gabber [19, Main Theorem 1.4.1] show that every finite subgroup G of Aut(k[[t]])
arises in this way. Their results connect the étale fundamental group of Spec(k((t))) to that
of P1k − {0, ∞}. See Section 4.C for further discussion. The value of this technique is that
one can study local questions about elements of Aut(k[[t]]) using global tools such as the
Hurwitz formula for covers of curves over k.
In this paper we use the above method to study two closely related problems when k is
a perfect field of characteristic p > 0, which we assume for the rest of this paper. The first
problem, described in Section 1.A, is to find explicit formulas for p-power-order elements σ of
Aut(k[[t]]). In particular, we study σ that are “almost rational” in the sense of Definition 1.1.
Our main result in this direction, Theorem 1.2, classifies all such σ.
The second problem, described in Sections 1.B and 1.C, is to study the full automorphism
group of the so-called Harbater–Katz–Gabber G-curves (HKG G-curves), which are certain
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 14H37; Secondary 14G17, 20F29.
*Supported by NSA Grant # H98230-11-1-0131 and NSF Grant # DMS-1360621.
**Supported by NSF Grants # DMS-1265290 and DMS-1360767, SaTC grant CNS-15136718 and a grant
from the Simons Foundation (338379 to Ted Chinburg).
†Supported by NSF Grants # DMS-1069236 and DMS-1601946 and a grants from the Simons Foundation
(340694 and 402472 to Bjorn Poonen).
1

curves X with a G-action as above. One reason for this study is that it turns out that
almost rational automorphisms arise from HKG G-curves X for which Aut(X) is strictly
larger than G. In fact, our Theorems 5.1(c) and 5.9 concerning such X are needed for our
proof of Theorem 1.2 on almost rational automorphisms of k[[t]].
For some other applications of HKG G-curves, e.g., to the problem of lifting automorphisms of k[[t]] to characteristic 0, see [4] and its references.
1.A. Finite-order automorphisms of k[[t]]. Every order p element of Aut(k[[t]]) is conjugate to t 7→ t(1 + ctm )−1/m for some c ∈ k × and some positive integer m prime to p (see [20,
Proposition 1.2], [21, §4], and Theorem 2.2).
The natural question arises whether there is an equally explicit description of automorphisms of order pn for n > 1. Each such automorphism is conjugate to t 7→ σ(t) for
some σ(t) ∈ k[[t]] that is algebraic over k(t) (see Corollary 4.11). In this case, the field
n
L := k(t, σ(t), . . . , σ p −1 (t)) ⊆ k((t)) is algebraic over k(t). When n > 1, we cannot have
L = k(t), because the group Autk (k(t)) ≃ PGL2 (k) has no element of order p2 . The next
simplest case from the point of view of explicit power series is the following:
Definition 1.1. Call σ ∈ Aut(k[[t]]) almost rational if the field L := k({σ(t) : σ ∈ G}) is a
Z/pZ Artin–Schreier extension of k(t); i.e., L = k(t, β) where β ∈ k((t)) satisfies ℘(β) = α
for some α ∈ k(t); here ℘ is the Artin–Schreier operator defined by ℘(x) := xp − x.
By subtracting an element of k[t−1 ] from β, we may assume that β ∈ tk[[t]] and hence
α ∈ k(t) ∩ tk[[t]]. Then we have an explicit formula for β, namely
β=−

∞
X

i

αp ,

i=0

and σ(t) is a rational function in t and β. This is the sense in which almost rational
automorphisms have explicit power series.
Prior to the present article, two of us found one explicit example of an almost rational σ
of order pn > p (and its inverse); see [5]. Our first main theorem describes all such σ up to
conjugacy.
Theorem 1.2. Suppose that σ is an almost rational automorphism of k[[t]] of order pn for
some n > 1. Then p = 2, n = 2, and there exists b ∈ k (unique modulo ℘(k) = {℘(a) : a ∈
k}) such that σ is conjugate to the order 4 almost rational automorphism
σb (t) :=

b2 t + (b + 1)t2 + β
,
b2 + t2

(1.3)

where β is the unique solution to β 2 − β = t3 + (b2 + b + 1)t2 in tk[[t]].
Remark 1.4. If k is algebraically closed, then ℘(k) = k, so Theorem 1.2 implies that all
almost rational automorphisms of order 4 lie in one conjugacy class in Aut(k[[t]]).
2

Remark 1.5. The example in [5] was
j

2

σ0 (t) = t + t +

∞ 2X
−1
X

j +2ℓ

t6·2

j=0 ℓ=0

2

= t + t + (t6 ) + (t12 + t14 ) + (t24 + t26 + t28 + t30 ) + · · ·
t
γ
=
+
1 + t (1 + t)2
P∞ 3
4 2i
satisfies γ 2 − γ = t3 + t4 . (If β is as in
over F2 , where the series γ :=
i=0 (t + t )
Theorem 1.2, then γ = β + t2 .) Zieve and Scherr communicated to us that the inverse of σ0
has a simpler series, namely
∞
∞
∞
X
X
X
i
i
j
σ1 (t) = t−2
(t3 + t4 )2 =
t3·2 −2 +
t2 −2 .
i=0

i=0

j=2

In general, the inverse of σb is σb+1 (Remark 5.14).

Remark 1.6. Let σ be any element of finite order in Aut(k[[t]]). Even if σ is not almost
P
rational, we can assume after conjugation that the power series σ(t) = i≥1 ai ti is algebraic
over k(t), as mentioned above. When k is finite, this implies that the sequence (ai ) is Turing
computable, and even p-automatic; i.e., there is a finite automaton that calculates ai when
supplied with the base p expansion of i [6, 7].
1.B. Harbater–Katz–Gabber G-curves. An order pn element of Aut(k[[t]]) induces an
injective homomorphism Z/pn Z −→ Aut(k[[t]]). Suppose that we now replace Z/pn Z with
any finite group G. Results of Harbater [14, §2] when G is a p-group, and of Katz and Gabber
[19, Main Theorem 1.4.1] in general, show that any injective α : G −→ Aut(k[[t]]) arises from
a G-action on a curve. More precisely, α arises from a triple (X, x, φ) consisting of a smooth
projective curve X, a point x ∈ X(k), and an injective homomorphism φ : G −→ Aut(X)
such that G fixes x: here α expresses the induced action of G on the completed local ring
ObX,x with respect to some uniformizer t. In Section 4.B we will define a Harbater–Katz–
Gabber G-curve (HKG G-curve) to be a triple (X, x, φ) as above with X/G ≃ P1k such that
apart from x there is at most one non-free G-orbit, which is tamely ramified if it exists. We
will sometimes omit φ from the notation.
HKG G-curves play a key role in our proof of Theorem 1.2. Our overall strategy is to
reduce Theorem 1.2 to the classification of certain HKG G-curves, and then to use geometric
tools such as the Hurwitz formula to complete the classification.
1.C. Harbater–Katz–Gabber G-curves with extra automorphisms. In this section,
(X, x) is an HKG G-curve and J is a finite group such that G ≤ J ≤ Aut(X). We do not
assume a priori that J fixes x. Let gX be the genus of X.
Question 1.7. Must (X, x) be an HKG J-curve?
3

The answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. Here we state our three main theorems in
this direction; we prove them in Section 7.
Theorem 1.8. We have that (X, x) is an HKG J-curve if and only if J fixes x.
When gX > 1, Theorem 1.10 below gives a weaker hypothesis that still is sufficient to
imply that (X, x) is an HKG J-curve. Let Jx be the decomposition group StabJ (x).
Definition 1.9. We call the action of J mixed if there exists σ ∈ J such that σ(x) 6= x
and σ(x) is nontrivially but tamely ramified with respect to the action of Jx , and unmixed
otherwise.
Theorem 1.10. If gX > 1 and the action of J is unmixed, then (X, x) is an HKG J-curve.
We will also answer Question 1.7 in an explicit way when gX ≤ 1, whether or not the
action of J is mixed.
Finally, if J is solvable, the answer to Question 1.7 is almost always yes, as the next
theorem shows. For the rest of the paper, k denotes an algebraic closure of k.
Theorem 1.11. If J is solvable and (X, x) is not an HKG J-curve, then one of the following
holds:
•
•
•
•

X ≃ P1 ;
p is 2 or 3, and X is an elliptic curve of j-invariant 0;
p = 3, and X is isomorphic over k to the genus 3 curve z 4 = t3 u − tu3 in P2 ; or
p = 2, and X is isomorphic over k to the smooth projective model of the genus 10
affine curve z 9 = (u2 + u)(u2 + u + 1)3 .

Each case in Theorem 1.11 actually arises. We prove a stronger version of Theorem 1.11
in Theorem 7.13 using the examples discussed in Section 6.

2. Automorphisms of k[[t]]
The purpose of this section is to recall some basic results about Aut(k[[t]]).
2.A. Groups that are cyclic mod p. A p′ -group is a finite group of order prime to p.
A finite group G is called cyclic mod p if it has a normal Sylow p-subgroup such that the
quotient is cyclic. Equivalently, G is cyclic mod p if G is a semidirect product P ⋊ C with
P a p-group and C a cyclic p′ -group. In this case, P is the unique Sylow p-subgroup of
G, and the Schur–Zassenhaus theorem [18, Theorem 3.12] implies that every subgroup of G
isomorphic to C is conjugate to C.
4

2.B. The Nottingham group. Any k-algebra automorphism σ of k[[t]] preserves the maximal ideal and its powers, and hence is t-adically continuous, so σ is uniquely determined by
P
specifying the power series σ(t) = n≥1 an tn (with a1 ∈ k × ). The map Aut(k[[t]]) −→ k ×
sending σ to a1 is a surjective homomorphism. The Nottingham group N (k) is the kernel of
P
this homomorphism; it consists of the power series t + n≥2 an tn under composition. Then
Aut(k[[t]]) is a semidirect product N (k) ⋊ k × . For background on N (k), see, e.g., [3].
If k is finite, then N (k) is a pro-p group. In general, N (k) is pro-solvable with a filtration
whose quotients are isomorphic to k under addition; thus every finite subgroup of N (k) is a
p-group. Conversely, Leedham-Green and Weiss, using techniques of Witt, showed that any
finite p-group can be embedded in N (Fp ); indeed, so can any countably based pro-p group [2].
The embeddability of finite p-groups follows alternatively from the fact that the maximal
pro-p quotient of the absolute Galois group of k((t−1 )) is a free pro-p group of infinite rank
[19, (1.4.4)].
On the other hand, any finite subgroup of k × is a cyclic p′ -group. Thus any finite subgroup
of Aut(k[[t]]) is cyclic mod p, and any finite p-group in Aut(k[[t]]) is contained in N (k).
2.C. Algebraic automorphisms of k[[t]]. Call σ ∈ Aut(k[[t]]) algebraic if σ(t) is algebraic
over k(t).
Proposition 2.1. The set Autalg (k[[t]]) of all algebraic automorphisms of k[[t]] over k is a
subgroup of Aut(k[[t]]).
Proof. Suppose that σ ∈ Autalg (k[[t]]), so σ(t) is algebraic over k(t). Applying another
automorphism τ ∈ Aut(k[[t]]) to the algebraic relation shows that σ(τ (t)) is algebraic over
k(τ (t)). So if τ is algebraic, so is σ ◦ τ . On the other hand, taking τ = σ −1 shows that t is
algebraic over k(σ −1 (t)). Since t is not algebraic over k, this implies that σ −1 (t) is algebraic
over k(t).

2.D. Automorphisms of order p. The following theorem was proved by Klopsch [20,
Proposition 1.2] and reproved by Lubin [21, §4] (they assumed that k was finite, but this
is not crucial). Over algebraically closed fields it was shown in [1, p. 211] by Bertin and
Mézard, who mention related work of Oort, Sekiguchi and Suwa in [22]. For completeness,
we give here a short proof, similar to the proofs in [20, Appendix] and [1, p. 211]; it works
over any perfect field k of characteristic p > 0.
Theorem 2.2. Every σ ∈ N (k) of order p is conjugate in N (k) to t 7→ t(1 + ctm )−1/m for
a unique positive integer m prime to p and a unique c ∈ k × . The automorphisms given by
(m, c) and (m′ , c′ ) are conjugate in Aut(k[[t]]) if and only if m = m′ and c/c′ ∈ k ×m .
Proof. Extend σ to the fraction field k((t)). By Artin–Schreier theory, there exists y ∈ k((t))
such that σ(y) = y + 1. This y is unique modulo k((t))σ . Since σ acts trivially on the
residue field of k[[t]], we have y ∈
/ k[[t]]. Thus y = ct−m + · · · for some m ∈ Z>0 and c ∈ k × .
5

Choose y so that m is minimal. If the ramification index p divided m, then we could subtract
from y an element of k((t))σ with the same leading term, contradicting the minimality of
m. Thus p ∤ m. By Hensel’s lemma, y = c(t′ )−m for some t′ = t + · · · . Conjugating by
the automorphism t 7→ t′ lets us assume instead that y = ct−m . Substituting this into
σ(y) = y + 1 yields c σ(t)−m = ct−m + 1. Equivalently, σ(t) = t(1 + c−1 tm )−1/m . Rename c−1
as c.
Although y is determined only modulo ℘(k((t))), the leading term of a minimal y is
determined. Conjugating σ in Aut(k[[t]]) amounts to expressing σ with respect to a new
uniformizer u = u1 t + u2 t2 + · · · . This does not change m, but it multiplies c by um
1 .
Conjugating σ in N (k) has the same effect, except that u1 = 1, so c is unchanged too. 
Remark 2.3. For each positive integer m prime to p, let Dispm : N (k) −→ N (k) be the map
sending t 7→ f (t) to t 7→ f (tm )1/m (we take the mth root of the form t + · · · ). This is an
injective endomorphism of the group N (k), called m-dispersal in [21]. It would be conjugation
by t 7→ tm , except that t 7→ tm is not in Aut(k[[t]]) (for m > 1). The automorphisms in
Theorem 2.2 may be obtained from t 7→ t(1 + t)−1 by conjugating by t 7→ ct and then
dispersing.
3. Ramification and the Hurwitz Formula
Here we review the Hurwitz formula and related facts we need later.
3.A. Notation. By a curve over k we mean a 1-dimensional smooth projective geometrically
integral scheme X of finite type over k. For a curve X, let k(X) denote its function field,
and let gX or gk(X) denote its genus. If G is a finite group acting on a curve X, then X/G
denotes the curve whose function field is the invariant subfield k(X)G .
3.B. The local different. Let G be a finite subgroup of Aut(k[[t]]). For i ≥ 0, define
the ramification subgroup Gi := {g ∈ G | g acts trivially on k[[t]]/(ti+1 )} as usual. Let
P
d(G) := ∞
i=0 (|Gi |−1) ∈ Z≥0 ; this is the exponent of the local different [24, IV, Proposition 4].

3.C. The Hurwitz formula. In this paragraph we assume that k is an algebraically closed
field of characteristic p > 0. Let H be a finite group acting faithfully on a curve X over k.
For each s ∈ X(k), let Hs ≤ H be the inertia group. We may identify ObX,s with k[[t]] and
Hs with a finite subgroup G ≤ Aut(k[[t]]); then define ds = ds (H) := d(Hs ). We have ds > 0
if and only if s is ramified. If s is tamely ramified, meaning that Hs is a p′ -group, then
ds = |Hs | − 1. The Hurwitz formula [15, IV, 2.4] is
X
2gX − 2 = |H|(2gX/H − 2) +
ds .
s∈X(k)

Remark 3.1. When we apply the Hurwitz formula to a curve over a perfect field that is not
algebraically closed, it is understood that we first extend scalars to an algebraic closure.
6

3.D. Lower bound on the different. We continue to assume that k is an algebraically
closed field of characteristic p > 0. The following material is taken from [24, IV], as interpreted by Lubin in [21]. Let G and the Gi be as in Section 3.B. An integer i ≥ 0 is a break
in the lower numbering of the ramification groups of G if Gi 6= Gi+1 . Let b0 , b1 , . . . be the
breaks in increasing order; they are all congruent modulo p. The group G0 /G1 embeds into
k × , while Gi /Gi+1 embeds in the additive group of k if i ≥ 1.
From now on, assume that G is a cyclic group of order pn with generator σ. Then G0 = G1
and each quotient Gi /Gi+1 is killed by p. Thus there must be exactly n breaks b0 , . . . , bn−1 .
If 0 ≤ i ≤ b0 , then Gi = G; if 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1 and bj−1 < i ≤ bj , then |Gi | = pn−j ; and if
bn−1 < i, then Gi = {e}. According to the Hasse–Arf theorem, there exist positive integers
i0 , . . . , in−1 such that bj = i0 + pi1 + · · · + pj ij for 0 ≤ j ≤ n − 1. Then
d(G) = (i0 + 1)(pn − 1) + i1 (pn − p) + · · · + in−1 (pn − pn−1 ).

(3.2)

The upper breaks b(j) we do not need to define here, but they have the property that in the
cyclic case, b(j) = i0 + · · · + ij for 0 ≤ j ≤ n − 1.
Local class field theory shows that p ∤ b(0) , that b(j) ≥ pb(j−1) for 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1, and
that if this inequality is strict then p ∤ b(j) ; this is proved in [24, XV, §2 Thm. 2] for
quasi-finite residue fields, and extended to algebraically closed residue fields in [4, Prop.
13.2]. Conversely, any sequence of positive numbers b(0) , . . . , b(n−1) that satisfies these three
conditions is realized by some element of order pn in Aut(k[[t]]) [21, Observation 5].
Thus i0 ≥ 1, and ij ≥ (p − 1)pj−1 for 1 ≤ j ≤ n − 1. Substituting into (3.2) yields the
following result.
Lemma 3.3. If G is cyclic of order pn , then
d(G) ≥

p2n + pn+1 + pn − p − 2
p+1

and this bound is sharp.
Remark 3.4. Lemma 3.3 is valid over any perfect field k of characteristic p, because extending
scalars to k does not change d(G).
4. Harbater–Katz–Gabber G-curves
Let k be a perfect field of characteristic p > 0.
4.A. Pointed G-curves.
Definition 4.1. A pointed G-curve over k is a triple (X, x, φ) consisting of a curve X, a
point x ∈ X(k), and an injective homomorphism φ : G −→ Aut(X) such that G fixes x. (We
will sometimes omit φ from the notation.)
7

Suppose that (X, x, φ) is a pointed G-curve. The faithful action of G on X induces a
faithful action on k(X). Since G fixes x, the latter action induces a G-action on the k-algebras
OX,x and ObX,x . Since Frac(OX,x ) = k(X) and OX,x ⊆ ObX,x , the G-action on ObX,x is faithful
too. Since x ∈ X(k), a choice of uniformizer t at x gives a k-isomorphism ObX,x ≃ k[[t]]. Thus
we obtain an embedding ρX,x,φ : G ֒→ Aut(k[[t]]). Changing the isomorphism ObX,x ≃ k[[t]]
conjugates ρX,x,φ by an element of Aut(k[[t]]), so we obtain a map
{pointed G-curves} −→ {conjugacy classes of embeddings G ֒→ Aut(k[[t]])}

(4.2)

(X, x, φ) 7−→ [ρX,x,φ ].

Also, G is the inertia group of X −→ X/G at x.
Lemma 4.3. If (X, x, φ) is a pointed G-curve, then G is cyclic mod p.
Proof. The group G is embedded as a finite subgroup of Aut(k[[t]]).



4.B. Harbater–Katz–Gabber G-curves.
Definition 4.4. A pointed G-curve (X, x, φ) over k is called a Harbater–Katz–Gabber G-curve
(HKG G-curve) if both of the following conditions hold:
(i) The quotient X/G is of genus 0. (This is equivalent to X/G ≃ P1k , since x maps to a
k-point of X/G.)
(ii) The action of G on X − {x} is either unramified everywhere, or tamely and nontrivially
ramified at one G-orbit in X(k) − {x} and unramified everywhere else.
Remark 4.5. Katz in [19, Main Theorem 1.4.1] focused on the base curve X/G as starting
curve. He fixed an isomorphism of X/G with P1k identifying the image of x with ∞ and the
image of a tamely and nontrivially ramified point of X(k) − {x} (if such exists) with 0. He
then considered Galois covers X −→ X/G = P1k satisfying properties as above; these were
called Katz–Gabber covers in [4]. For our applications, however, it is more natural to focus
on the upper curve X.
HKG curves have some good functoriality properties that follow directly from the definition:
• Base change: Let X be a curve over k, let x ∈ X(k), and let φ : G −→ Aut(X) be a
homomorphism. Let k ′ ⊇ k be a field extension. Then (X, x, φ) is an HKG G-curve
over k if and only if its base change to k ′ is an HKG G-curve over k ′ .
• Quotient: If (X, x, φ) is an HKG G-curve, and H is a normal subgroup of G, then
X/H equipped with the image of x and the induced G/H-action is an HKG G/Hcurve.
Example 4.6. Let P be a finite subgroup of the additive group of k, so P is an elementary
abelian p-group. Then the addition action of P on A1k extends to an action φ : P −→ Aut(P1k )
totally ramified at ∞ and unramified elsewhere, so (P1k , ∞, φ) is an HKG P -curve.
8

Example 4.7. Suppose that C is a p′ -group and that (X, x, φ) is an HKG C-curve. By
Lemma 4.3, C is cyclic. By the Hurwitz formula, X must have genus 0 since there are at
most two C-orbits of ramified points and all the ramification is tame. Moreover, X has
a k-point (namely, x), so X ≃ P1k , and C is a p′ -subgroup of the stabilizer of x inside
Aut(X) ≃ Aut(P1k ) ≃ PGL2 (k). It follows that after applying an automorphism of X = P1k ,
we can assume that C fixes the points 0 and ∞ and corresponds to the multiplication action
of a finite subgroup of k × on A1k . Conversely, such an action gives rise to an HKG C-curve
(P1k , ∞, φ).
The following gives alternative criteria for testing whether a pointed G-curve is an HKG
G-curve.
Proposition 4.8. Let (X, x, φ) be a pointed G-curve. Let P be the Sylow p-subgroup of G.
Then the following are equivalent:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

(X, x, φ) is an HKG G-curve.
(X, x, φ|P ) is an HKG P -curve.
The quotient X/P is of genus 0, and the action of P on X − {x} is unramified.
Equality holds in the inequality gX ≥ 1 − |P | + dx (P )/2.

Proof. Let C = G/P .
(iii)⇒(ii): Trivial.
(i)⇒(iii): By the quotient property of HKG curves, X/P is an HKG C-curve, so X/P ≃ P1k
by Example 4.7. At each y ∈ X(k) − {x}, the ramification index ey for the P -action divides
|P | but is prime to p, so ey = 1. Thus the action of P on X − {x} is unramified.
(ii)⇒(i): Applying the result (i)⇒(iii) to P shows that X −→ X/P is unramified outside
x. There is a covering P1k ≃ X/P −→ X/G, so X/G ≃ P1k . We may assume that C 6= {1}.
By Example 4.7, the cover X/P −→ X/G is totally tamely ramified above two k-points, and
unramified elsewhere. One of the two points must be the image of x; the other is the image
of the unique tamely ramified G-orbit in X(k), since X −→ X/P is unramified outside x.
(iii)⇔(iv): The Hurwitz formula (see Remark 3.1) for the action of P simplifies to the
inequality in (iv) if we use gX/P ≥ 0 and discard ramification in X − {x}. Thus equality
holds in (iv) if and only if gX/P = 0 and the action of P on X − {x} is unramified.

4.C. The Harbater–Katz–Gabber theorem. The following is a consequence of work of
Harbater [14, §2] when G is a p-group and of Katz and Gabber [19, Main Theorem 1.4.1]
when G is arbitrary.
Theorem 4.9 (Harbater, Katz–Gabber). The assignment (X, x, φ) 7→ ρX,x,φ induces a surjection from the set of HKG G-curves over k up to equivariant isomorphism to the set of
conjugacy classes of embeddings of G into Aut(k[[t]]).
9

Corollary 4.10. Any finite subgroup of Autk (k[[t]]) can be conjugated into Autk′ (k ′ [[t]]) for
some finite extension k ′ of k in k.
Proof. The subgroup is realized by some HKG curve over k. Any such curve is defined over
some finite extension k ′ of k.

Corollary 4.11. Any finite subgroup of Aut(k[[t]]) can be conjugated into Autalg (k[[t]]).
Proof. The subgroup is realized by some HKG curve X. By conjugating, we may assume
that the uniformizer t is a rational function on X. Then each power series σ(t) represents
another rational function on X, so σ(t) is algebraic over k(t).

5. Almost rational automorphisms
5.A. The field generated by a group of algebraic automorphisms. Let G be a finite
subgroup of Autalg (k[[t]]). Let L := k({σ(t) : σ ∈ G}) ⊆ k((t)). Then L is a finite extension
of k(t), so L ≃ k(X) for some curve X. The t-adic valuation on k((t)) restricts to a valuation
on L associated to a point x ∈ X(k). The G-action on k((t)) preserves L. This induces an
embedding φ : G −→ Aut(X) such that G fixes x, so (X, x, φ) is a pointed G-curve over k.
Theorem 5.1. Let G be a finite subgroup of Autalg (k[[t]]). Let L and (X, x, φ) be as above.
Let d := [L : k(t)].
(a) We have gX ≤ (d − 1)2 .

(b) If G is cyclic of order pn , then gX ≥

p(pn − 1)(pn−1 − 1)
. Moreover, if equality holds,
2(p + 1)

then (X, x, φ) is an HKG G-curve.
(c) Suppose that G is cyclic of order pn . Then
s
p(pn − 1)(pn−1 − 1)
d≥1+
.
2(p + 1)

(5.2)

In particular, if d ≤ p and n ≥ 2, then d = p = n = 2 and (X, x, φ) is an HKG
Z/4Z-curve of genus 1.
Proof.
(a) In [23, §2], a subfield F ⊆ L is called d-controlled if there exists e ∈ Z>0 such that
[L : F ] ≤ d/e and gF ≤ (e − 1)2 . In our setting, the G-action on k((t)) preserves L, so
[L : k(σ(t))] = d for every σ ∈ G. By [23, Corollary 2.2], L ⊆ L is d-controlled. Here
d/e = 1, so gL ≤ (e − 1)2 = (d − 1)2 .
(b) In the inequality gX ≥ 1 − |G| + dx (G)/2 of Proposition 4.8(iv), substitute |G| = pn
and the bound of Lemma 3.3. If equality holds, then Proposition 4.8(iv)⇒(i) shows that
(X, x, φ) is an HKG G-curve.
10

(c) Combine the upper and lower bounds on gX in (a) and (b). If d ≤ p and n ≥ 2, then
s
r
p(p2 − 1)(p − 1)
p
p≥d≥1+
= 1 + (p − 1)
≥ 1 + (p − 1) = p,
2(p + 1)
2
so equality holds everywhere. In particular, p = d, n = 2, and p/2 = 1, so d = p = n = 2.
Also, (b) shows that (X, x, φ) is an HKG G-curve, and gX = (d − 1)2 = 1.

Remark 5.3. Part (c) of Theorem 5.1 implies the first statement in Theorem 1.2, namely
that if σ is an almost rational automorphism of order pn > p, then p = n = 2. To complete
the proof of Theorem 1.2 we will classify in Section 5.B the σ when p = n = 2.
5.B. Almost rational automorphisms of order 4. In this section, k is a perfect field of
characteristic 2, and G = Z/4Z.
Definition 5.4. For a, b ∈ k, let Ea,b be the projective closure of
z 2 − z = w 3 + (b2 + b + 1)w 2 + a.

Let O ∈ Ea,b (k) be the point at infinity, and let φ : Z/4Z −→ Aut(Ea,b ) send 1 to the order 4
automorphism
σ : (w, z) 7−→ (w + 1, z + w + b).
Proposition 5.5. Each (Ea,b , O, φ) in Definition 5.4 is an HKG Z/4Z-curve over k.
Proof. The automorphism σ fixes O. Also, σ 2 maps (w, z) to (w, z + 1), so σ 2 fixes only O;
hence the G-action on Ea,b − {O} is unramified. Since Ea,b −→ Ea,b /G is ramified, the genus
of Ea,b /G is 0.

Proposition 5.6. Let k be a perfect field of characteristic 2. Let G = Z/4Z. For an HKG
G-curve (X, x, φ′ ) over k, the following are equivalent:
(i) The genus of X is 1.
(ii) The lower ramification groups for X −→ X/G at x satisfy |G0 | = |G1 | = 4, |G2 | =
|G3 | = 2, and |Gi | = 1 for i ≥ 4.
(iii) The ramification group G4 equals {1}.
(iv) There exist a, b ∈ k such that (X, x, φ′ ) is isomorphic to the HKG G-curve (Ea,b , O, φ)
of Definition 5.4.
Proof. Let g be the genus of X. Since G is a 2-group, |G0 | = |G1 | = 4.
(ii)⇒(i): This follows from the Hurwitz formula (see Remark 3.1)
X
2g − 2 = 4(−2) +
(|Gi | − 1).
i≥0

P
(i)⇒(ii): If g = 1, then the Hurwitz formula yields 0 = −8 + 3 + 3 + i≥2 (|Gi | − 1). Since
the |Gi | form a decreasing sequence of powers of 2 and include all the numbers 4, 2, and 1
(see Section 3.D), the only possibility is as in (ii).
11

(ii)⇒(iii): Trivial.
(iii)⇒(ii): The lower breaks (see Section 3.D) satisfy 1 ≤ b0 < b1 < 4. Since b0 ≡ b1
(mod 2), (ii) follows.
(iv)⇒(i): The formulas in [25, III.§1] show that Ea,b is an elliptic curve, hence of genus 1.
(i)⇒(iv): By [25, A.1.2(c)], an elliptic curve with an order 4 automorphism has j-invariant
1728 = 0 ∈ k. By [25, A.1.1(c)], it has an equation y 2 + a3 y = x3 + a4 x + a6 . Substituting
2
3
2
×
y 7→ y + a−1
be
3 a4 x leads to an alternative form y + a3 y = x + a2 x + a. Let u ∈ k
∗
0
1
−1
4
such that σ acts on H (X, Ω ) by multiplication by u . Then u = 1, so u = 1. By [25,
p. 49], σ has the form (x, y) 7→ (x + r, y + sx + t) for some r, s, t ∈ k. Since σ 2 6= 1, we have
s 6= 0. Conjugating by a change of variable (x, y) 7→ (ǫ2 x, ǫ3 y) lets us assume that s = 1.
The condition that (x, y) 7→ (x + r, y + x + t) preserves y 2 + a3 y = x3 + a2 x2 + a implies that
a3 = r = 1 and a2 = t2 + t + 1. Rename t, x, y as b, w, z.

Corollary 5.7. The HKG Z/4Z-curves that are minimally ramified in the sense of having
the smallest value of inf{i : Gi = {1}} are those satisfying the equivalent conditions in
Proposition 5.6.
Let ℘(x) := x2 −x be the Artin–Schreier operator in characteristic 2. The following lemma
is clear.
Lemma 5.8. Let L/K be a Z/2Z Artin–Schreier extension, so there exist a ∈ K and
b ∈ L − K such that ℘(b) = a. If x ∈ L − K satisfies ℘(x) ∈ K, then x ∈ b + K.
Theorem 5.9. Let k be a perfect field of characteristic 2. Let G = Z/4Z. Let X be the set
of HKG G-curves satisfying the equivalent conditions in Proposition 5.6. Then
(a) The map (4.2) restricts to a surjection from X to the set of conjugacy classes in
Aut(k[[t]]) containing an almost rational automorphism of order 4.
(b) Explicitly, Ea,b (made into an HKG G-curve as in Proposition 5.5) maps to the conjugacy
class of
b2 t + (b + 1)t2 + β
σb (t) :=
,
(5.10)
b2 + t2
P∞ 3
i
where β := i=0 (t + (b2 + b + 1)t2 )2 is the unique solution to β 2 − β = t3 + (b2 + b + 1)t2
in tk[[t]].
(c) For b, b′ ∈ k, the automorphisms σb , σb′ ∈ Aut(k[[t]]) are conjugate if and only if b ≡ b′
(mod ℘(k)).
Proof.
(a) First we show that each E0,b maps to a conjugacy class containing an almost rational
automorphism; the same will follow for Ea,b for a 6= 0 once we show in the proof of (c) that
Ea,b gives rise to the same conjugacy class as E0,b . Let P := (0, 0) ∈ E0,b (k). Composing w
with translation-by-P yields a new rational function wP = z/w 2 on E0,b ; define zP similarly,
so zP = 1 − z 2 /w 3. Since w has a simple zero at P , the function t := wP has a simple
12

zero at O. Also, σ j (t) ∈ k(E0,b ) = k(t, zP ), which shows that σ is almost rational since
zP2 − zP = wP3 + (b2 + b + 1)wP2 .
Now suppose that σ is any almost rational automorphism of order 4. Theorem 5.1(c) shows
that σ arises from an HKG Z/4Z-curve of genus 1, i.e., a curve as in Proposition 5.6(i).
(b) Again by referring to the proof of (c), we may assume a = 0. Follow the first half of
the proof of (a) for E0,b . In terms of the translated coordinates (wP , zP ) on E0,b , the order 4
automorphism of the elliptic curve is
(t, β) 7−→ σ((t, β) − P ) + P.
It is a straightforward but lengthy exercise to show that the first coordinate equals the
expression σb (t) in (5.10). One uses t = wP = z/w 2 , β = zP = 1 − z 2 /w 3, and the
formulas σ(w) = w + 1 and σ(z) = z + w + b. In verifying equalities in the field k(t, β),
one can use the fact that k(t, β) is the quadratic Artin–Schreier extension of k(t) defined by
β 2 − β = t3 + (b2 + b + 1)t2 .
(c) Let v := w 2 − w. Let Ob be the completion of the local ring of Ea,b at the point O at
b = k((w −1))(z −1 ). With respect to the discrete valuation on K,
b := Frac(O)
b
infinity, and let K
the valuations of w, z and v are −2, −3 and −4, respectively. With respect to the discrete
valuation on k((w −1 )), the valuation of w is −1 and the valuation of v is −2. We have
b G = k((v −1 )). Define w ′ , z ′ , v ′ , σ ′ , Ob′, and K
b ′ = k((w ′ −1 ))(z ′ −1 ) similarly for Ea′ ,b′ . By
K
definition of the map (4.2), Ea,b and Ea′ ,b′ give rise to the same conjugacy class if and only if
∼
∼
b −→
b ′.
there exists a G-equivariant continuous isomorphism Ob −→ Ob′ or equivalently α : K
K
It remains to prove that α exists if and only if b ≡ b′ (mod ℘(k)).
=⇒ : Suppose that α exists. Lemma 5.8 shows that α(w) = w ′ + f for some f ∈ k((v ′ −1 )).
Since α preserves valuations, f ∈ k[[v ′ −1 ]]. Since v ′ has valuation −2 in k((w ′−1 )), the
P
valuation of v ′ −1 in this field is 2. Therefore f ∈ k[[v ′ −1 ]] implies f = c + i≥2 fi w ′−i for
P
some c, fi ∈ k. Similarly, α(z) = z ′ +h for some h = i≥−1 hi w ′−i ∈ w ′ k[[w ′ −1 ]]. Subtracting
the equations
α(z)2 − α(z) = α(w)3 + (b2 + b + 1)α(w)2 + a
2

3

2

2

z ′ − z ′ = w ′ + (b′ + b′ + 1)w ′ + a′

yields
2

3

2

h2 − h = (w ′ + f )3 − w ′ + (b2 + b + 1)(w ′ + f )2 − (b′ + b′ + 1)w ′ + a − a′
2

(5.11)

2

= w ′ f + w ′f 2 + f 3 + ℘(b − b′ )w ′ + (b2 + b + 1)f 2 + a − a′
2

h2 − h ≡ (c + ℘(b − b′ ))w ′ + c2 w ′ + (f2 + c3 + (b2 + b + 1)c2 + a − a′ )
13

(mod w ′−1 k[[w ′−1 ]]).
(5.12)

Equating coefficients of w ′ yields h−1 = c2 . The G-equivariance of α implies
α(σ(z)) = σ ′ (α(z))
(z ′ + h) + (w ′ + f ) + b = (z ′ + w ′ + b′ ) + σ ′ (h)
h + f + b = b′ + σ ′ (h)
h−1 w ′ + h0 + c + b ≡ b′ + h−1 (w ′ + 1) + h0

−1

−1

(mod w ′ k[[w ′ ]])

(5.13)

b − b′ = h−1 − c = c2 − c = ℘(c).

⇐= : Conversely, suppose that b − b′ = ℘(c) for some c ∈ k. We must build a G∼
b −→
b ′ . Choose f := c + P fi w ′ −i in k[[v ′−1 ]]
equivariant continuous isomorphism α : K
K
i≥2
so that the value of f2 makes the coefficient of w ′ 0 in (5.12), namely the constant term, equal
to 0. The coefficient of w ′ 2 in (5.12) is c + ℘(℘(c)) = c4 . So (5.12) simplifies to
2

−1

−1

h2 − h ≡ c4 w ′ + c2 w ′ (mod w ′ k[[w ′ ]]).
P
Thus we may choose h := c2 w ′ + i≥1 hi w ′−i so that (5.11) holds. Define α : k((w −1)) −→
b −→ K
b ′ by
k((w ′ −1 )) by α(w) := w ′ + f . Equation (5.11) implies that α extends to α : K
setting α(z) := z ′ + h. Then α|k((w−1 )) is G-equivariant since (w ′ + 1) + f = (w ′ + f ) + 1. In
−1
b
other words, σ −1 α−1 σ ′ α ∈ Gal(K/k((w
))) = {1, σ 2}. If σ −1 α−1 σ ′ α = σ 2 , then
ασ 3 = σ ′ α

α(σ 3 (z)) = σ ′ (α(z))
α(z + w + b + 1) = σ ′ (z ′ + h)
(z ′ + h) + (w ′ + f ) + b + 1 = (z ′ + w ′ + b′ ) + σ ′ (h);
by the calculation leading to (5.13), this is off by 1 modulo w ′ −1 k[[w ′ −1 ]]. Thus σ −1 α−1 σ ′ α = 1
instead. In other words, α is G-equivariant.

Remark 5.14. Changing b to b + 1 does not change the curve Ea,b , but it changes σ to σ −1 .
Thus σ and σ −1 are conjugate in Aut(k[[t]]) if and only if 1 ∈ ℘(k), i.e., if and only if k
contains a primitive cube root of unity.
Combining Theorems 5.1(c) and 5.9 proves Theorem 1.2 (and a little more).
6. Constructions of Harbater–Katz–Gabber curves
In this section we construct some examples needed for the proofs of Theorems 1.11 and
7.13. Let k be an algebraically closed field of characteristic p > 0. Let (Y, y) be an HKG
H-curve over k. If the H-action on Y − {y} has a tamely ramified orbit, let S be that orbit;
otherwise let S be any H-orbit in Y − {y}. Let S ′ = S ∪ {y}. Let m, n ∈ Z≥1 . Suppose that
P
p ∤ n, that mn divides |S ′|, that the divisor s∈S ′ (s − y) is principal, and that for all s ∈ S ′ ,
the divisor m(s − y) is principal.
14

P
Choose f ∈ k(Y )× with divisor s∈S ′ (s − y). Let π : X −→ Y be the cover with k(X) =
k(Y )(z), where z satisfies z n = f . Let C := Aut(X/Y ), so C is cyclic of order n. Let x be
the point of X(k) such that π(x) = y. Let G := {γ ∈ Aut(X) : γ|k(Y ) ∈ H}.
Proposition 6.1. Let k, Y, H, S ′, n, X, C, G be as above.
(a) Every automorphism of Y preserving S ′ lifts to an automorphism of X (in n ways).
(b) The sequence 1 −→ C −→ G −→ H −→ 1 is exact.
(c) We have that (X, x) is an HKG G-curve.
Proof.
(a) Suppose that α ∈ Aut(Y ) preserves S ′ . Then div(αf /f ) = (|S| + 1)(α y − y), which is
n times an integer multiple of the principal divisor m(α y − y), so αf /f = g n for some
g ∈ k(Y )× . Extend α to an automorphism of k(X) by defining α z := gz; this is welldefined since the relation z n = f is preserved. Given one lift, all others are obtained by
composing with elements of C.
(b) Only the surjectivity of G −→ H is nontrivial, and that follows from (a).
(c) The quotient X/G is isomorphic to (X/C)/(G/C) = Y /H, which is of genus 0. In the
covers X −→ X/C ≃ Y −→ X/G ≃ Y /H, all the ramification occurs above and below
S ′ . The valuation of f at each point of S ′ is 1 mod n, so X −→ Y is totally ramified
above S ′ . Hence each ramified G-orbit in X maps bijectively to an H-orbit in Y , and
each nontrivial inertia group in G is an extension of a nontrivial inertia group of H by
C. Thus, outside the totally ramified G-orbit {x}, there is at most one ramified G-orbit
and it is tamely ramified.

Example 6.2. Let (Y, y) = (P1 , ∞), with coordinate function t ∈ k(P1 ). Let H ≤ PGL2 (F
!q )
1 Fq
be a group fixing ∞ and acting transitively on A1 (Fq ). (One example is H :=
.)
0 1
Let n be a positive divisor of q + 1. Then the curve z n = tq − t equipped with the point
above ∞ is an HKG G-curve, where G is the set of automorphisms lifting those in H. (Here
S ′ = P1 (Fq ), m = 1, and f = tq − t ∈ k(P1 ). Degree 0 divisors on P1 are automatically
principal.)
Example 6.3. Let p = 2. Let (Y, y) be the j-invariant 0 elliptic curve u2 + u = t3 with its
identity, so # Aut(Y, y) = 24 [16, Chapter 3, §6]. Let H be Aut(Y, y) or its Sylow 2-subgroup.
√
Then k(Y )( 3 t4 + t) is the function field of an HKG G-curve X, for an extension G of H
by a cyclic group of order 3. (Here S ′ = Y (F4 ), which is also the set of 3-torsion points on
Y , and m = n = 3, and f = t4 + t.) Eliminating t by cubing z 3 = t4 + t and substituting
t3 = u2 + u leads to the equation z 9 = (u2 + u)(u2 + u + 1)3 for X.
Example 6.4. Let p = 3. Let (Y, y) be the j-invariant 0 elliptic curve u2 = t3 − t with
its identity, so # Aut(Y, y) = 12 [16, Chapter 3, §5]. Let H be a group between Aut(Y, y)
15

√
and its Sylow 3-subgroup. Then k(Y )( u) is the function field of an HKG G-curve X, for
an extension G of H by a cyclic group of order 2. (Here S ′ is the set of 2-torsion points on
Y , and m = n = 2, and f = u.) Thus X has affine equation z 4 = t3 − t. (This curve is
isomorphic to the curve in Example 6.2 for q = 3, but |C| here is 2 instead of 4.)
7. Harbater–Katz–Gabber curves with extra automorphisms
We return to assuming only that k is perfect of characteristic p. Throughout this section,
(X, x) is an HKG G-curve over k, and J is a finite group such that G ≤ J ≤ Aut(X). Let
Jx be the decomposition group of x in J. Choose Sylow p-subgroups P ≤ Px ≤ PJ of
G ≤ Jx ≤ J, respectively. In fact, P ≤ G is uniquely determined since G is cyclic mod p by
Lemma 4.3; similarly Px ≤ Jx is uniquely determined.
7.A. General results.
Proof of Theorem 1.8. If (X, x) is an HKG J-curve, then J fixes x, by definition.
Now suppose that J fixes x. By Lemma 4.3, J is cyclic mod p. By Proposition 4.8(i)⇒(ii),
(X, x) is an HKG P -curve. Identify X/P with P1k so that x maps to ∞ ∈ X/P ≃ P1k .
Case 1: J normalizes G. Then J normalizes also the unique Sylow p-subgroup P of
G. In particular, P is normal in PJ . If a p-group acts on P1k fixing ∞, it must act by
translations on A1k ; applying this to the action of PJ /P on X/P shows that X/P −→ X/PJ
is unramified outside ∞. Also, X −→ X/P is unramified outside x. Thus the composition
X −→ X/P −→ X/PJ is unramified outside x. On the other hand, X/PJ is dominated by
X/P , so gX/PJ = 0. By Proposition 4.8(iii)⇒(i), (X, x) is an HKG J-curve.
Case 2: J is arbitrary. There exists a chain of subgroups beginning at P and ending
at PJ , each normal in the next. Ascending the chain, applying Case 1 at each step, shows
that (X, x) is an HKG curve for each group in this chain, and in particular for PJ . By
Proposition 4.8(ii)⇒(i), (X, x) is also an HKG J-curve.

Corollary 7.1. We have that (X, x) is an HKG Jx -curve and an HKG Px -curve.
Proof. Apply Theorem 1.8 with Jx in place of J. Then apply Proposition 4.8(i)⇒(ii).



Lemma 7.2. Among p′ -subgroups of Jx that are normal in J, there is a unique maximal
one; call it C. Then C is cyclic, and central in Jx .
Proof. Let C be the group generated by all p′ -subgroups of Jx that are normal in J. Then
C is another group of the same type, so it is the unique maximal one. By Lemma 4.3, Jx is
cyclic mod p, so Jx /Px is cyclic. Since C is a p′ -group, C −→ Jx /Px is injective. Thus C is
cyclic. The injective homomorphism C −→ Jx /Px respects the conjugation action of Jx on
each group. Since Jx /Px is abelian, the action on Jx /Px is trivial. Thus the action on C is
trivial too; i.e., C is central in Jx .

16

7.B. Low genus cases. Define A := Aut(X, x), so G ≤ A. By Theorem 1.8, (X, x) is an
HKG J-curve if and only if J ≤ A. When gX ≤ 1, we can describe A very explicitly.
Example 7.3. Suppose that gX = 0. Then (X, x) ≃ (P1k , ∞). Thus Aut(X) ≃ PGL2 (k),
and A is identified with the image in PGL2 (k) of the group of upper triangular matrices in
GL2 (k).
Example 7.4. Suppose that gX = 1. Then (X, x) is an elliptic curve, and Aut(X) ≃
X(k) ⋊A. Let A := Aut(Xk , x) be the automorphism group of the elliptic curve over k. Now
p divides |G|, since otherwise it follows from Example 4.7 that gX = 0. Thus G contains an
order p element, which by the HKG property has a unique fixed point. Since G ≤ A ≤ A,
the group A also contains such an element. By the computation of A (in [16, Chapter 3],
for instance), p is 2 or 3, and X is supersingular, so X has j-invariant 0. Explicitly:
• If p = 2, then A ≃ SL2 (F3 ) ≃ Q8 ⋊ Z/3Z (order 24), and G is Z/2Z, Z/4Z, Q8 , or
SL2 (F3 ).
• If p = 3, then A ≃ Z/3Z ⋊ Z/4Z (order 12), and G is Z/3Z, Z/6Z, or Z/3Z ⋊ Z/4Z.

Because of Corollary 7.1, the statement about G is valid also for Jx .

7.C. Cases in which p divides |G|. If p divides |G|, then we can strengthen Theorem 1.8:
see Theorem 7.6 and Corollary 7.7 below.
Lemma 7.5. If p divides |G| and G is normal in J, then J fixes x.
Proof. Ramification outside x is tame, so if p divides |G|, then x is the unique point fixed
by G. If, in addition, J normalizes G, then J must fix this point.

Theorem 7.6. If p divides |G|, then the following are equivalent:
(i) (X, x) is an HKG J-curve.
(ii) J fixes x.
(iii) J is cyclic mod p.

Proof.
(i)⇔(ii): This is Theorem 1.8.
(ii)⇒(iii): This is Lemma 4.3.
(iii)⇒(i): By Proposition 4.8(i)⇒(ii), (X, x) is an HKG P -curve. Again choose a chain
of subgroups beginning at P and ending at PJ , each normal in the next. Since J is cyclic
mod p, we may append J to the end of this chain. Applying Lemma 7.5 and Theorem 1.8
to each step of this chain shows that for each group K in this chain, K fixes x and (X, x) is
an HKG K-curve.

Corollary 7.7. If p divides |G|, then

(a) Px = PJ .

17

(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)

The prime p does not divide the index (J : Jx ).
If j ∈ Jx , then j Px = Px .
If j ∈
/ Jx , then j Px ∩ Px = 1.
If J contains a nontrivial normal p-subgroup A, then (X, x) is an HKG J-curve.

Proof.
(a) Since p divides |Px | and PJ is cyclic mod p, Corollary 7.1 and Theorem 7.6(iii)⇒(ii)
imply that PJ fixes x. Thus PJ ≤ Px , so Px = PJ .
(b) The exponent of p in each of |Jx |, |Px |, |PJ |, |J| is the same.
(c) By Lemma 4.3, Jx is cyclic mod p, so Px is normal in Jx .
(d) A nontrivial element of Px ∩ j Px would be an element of p-power order fixing both x and
jx, contradicting the definition of HKG Jx -curve.
(e) The group A is contained in every Sylow p-subgroup of J; in particular, A ≤ PJ = Px .
This contradicts (d) unless Jx = J. By Theorem 7.6(ii)⇒(i), (X, x) is an HKG Jcurve.

Lemma 7.8. Suppose that gX > 1. Let A ≤ J be an elementary abelian ℓ-subgroup for some
prime ℓ. Suppose that Px normalizes A. Then A ≤ Jx .
Proof. It follows from Example 4.7 that p divides |G|. If ℓ = p, then Px A is a p-subgroup of
J, but Px is a Sylow p-subgroup of J by Corollary 7.7(a), so A ≤ Px ≤ Jx .
Now suppose that ℓ 6= p. The conjugation action of Px on A leaves the group Ax = Jx ∩ A
invariant. By Maschke’s theorem, A = Ax × C for some other subgroup C normalized by
Px . Then Cx = 1. By Corollary 7.1, (X, x) is an HKG Px -curve. Since Px normalizes C, the
quotient X/C equipped with the image y of x and the induced Px -action is another HKG
Px -curve. Since Cx = 1, we have dx (Px ) = dy (Px ); thus Proposition 4.8(i)⇒(iv) implies that
gX = gX/C . Since gX > 1, this implies that C = 1. So A = Ax ≤ Jx .

7.D. Unmixed actions.
Proof of Theorem 1.10. By the base change property mentioned after Remark 4.5, we may
assume that k is algebraically closed. By Corollary 7.1, we may enlarge G to assume that
G = Jx .
First suppose that the action of G has a nontrivially and tamely ramified orbit, say Gy,
where y ∈ X(k). The Hurwitz formula applied to (X, G) gives
2gX − 2 = −2|G| + dx (G) + |G/Gy |(|Gy | − 1).

(7.9)

Since the action of J is unmixed, Jx and Jy are disjoint. The Hurwitz formula for (X, J)
therefore gives
2gX − 2 ≥ −2|J| + |J/G|dx (G) + |J/Jy |(|Jy | − 1).
18

(7.10)

Calculating |J/G| times the equation (7.9) minus the inequality (7.10) yields
(|J/G| − 1)(2gX − 2) ≤ |J/Jy | − |J/Gy | ≤ 0,
because Gy ≤ Jy . Since gX > 1, this forces J = G.
If a nontrivially and tamely ramified orbit does not exist, we repeat the proof while
omitting the terms involving y.

7.E. Mixed actions. Here is an example, mentioned to us by Rachel Pries, that shows that
Theorem 1.10 need not hold if the action of J is mixed.
Example 7.11. Let n be a power of p; assume that n > 2. Let k = Fn6 . Let X be the
curve over k constructed by Giulietti and Korchmáros in [11]; it is denoted C3 in [13]. Let
J = Aut(X ). Let G be a Sylow p-subgroup of J; by [11, Theorem 7], |G| = n3 . Then X is
an HKG G-curve by [13, Lemma 2.5 and proof of Proposition 3.12], and gX > 1 by [11, Thm.
2]. Taking σ in Definition 1.9 to be the automorphism denoted W̃ on [11, p. 238] shows that
the action of J on X is mixed. In fact, [11, Theorem 7] shows that J fixes no k-point of X ,
so the conclusion of Theorem 1.10 does not hold.
7.F. Solvable groups. Here we prove Theorem 1.11. If p does not divide |G|, then Example 4.7 shows that X ≃ P1k , so the conclusion of Theorem 1.11 holds. For the remainder of
this section, we assume that p divides |G|. In this case we prove Theorem 1.11 in the stronger
form of Theorem 7.13, which assumes a hypothesis weaker than solvability of J. We retain
the notation set at the beginning of Section 7, and let C denote the maximal p′ -subgroup of
Jx that is normal in J, as in Lemma 7.2.
Lemma 7.12. Suppose that gX > 1 and that (X, x) is not an HKG J-curve. If J contains
a nontrivial normal abelian subgroup, then C 6= 1.
Proof. The last hypothesis implies that J contains a nontrivial normal elementary abelian
ℓ-subgroup A for some prime ℓ. By Corollary 7.7(e), ℓ 6= p. By Lemma 7.8, A ≤ Jx . Thus
1 6= A ≤ C.

Theorem 7.13. Suppose that p divides |G| and (X, x) is not an HKG J-curve.

(a) Suppose that gX = 0, so Aut(X) ≃ Aut(P1k ) ≃ PGL2 (k). Then J is conjugate in PGL2 (k)
to precisely one of the following groups:
• PSL2 (Fq ) or PGL2 (Fq ) for some finite subfield Fq ≤ k (these groups are the same if
p = 2); note that PSL2 (Fq ) is simple when q > 3.
• If p = 2 and m is an odd integer at least 5 such that a primitive mth root of unity
!
ζ
0
ζ ∈ k satisfies ζ + ζ −1 ∈ k, the dihedral group of order 2m generated by
0 ζ −1
!
!
!
0 1
ζ + ζ −1 + 1 1
0 1
and
if ζ ∈ k, and generated by
and
if ζ ∈
/ k.
1 0
1
1
1 0
(The case m = 3 is listed already, as PSL2 (F2 ).)
19

• If p = 3 and F9 ≤ k, a particular copy of the alternating group A5 in PSL2 (F9 ) (all
such copies are conjugate in PGL2 (F9 )); the group A5 is simple.
Suppose, in addition, that J contains a nontrivial normal abelian subgroup; then p ∈
{2, 3} and |PJ | = p, and if J is conjugate to PSL2 (Fq ) or PGL2 (Fq ), then q = p.
(b) Suppose that gX = 1. Then p is 2 or 3, and the limited possibilities for X and Jx are
described in Example 7.4. The group J is a semidirect product of Jx with a finite abelian
subgroup T ≤ X(k).
(c) Suppose that gX > 1. Let C ≤ J be as in Lemma 7.2. Let Y = X/C, let y be the image
of x under X −→ Y , and let U = StabJ/C (y). If J/C contains a nontrivial normal
abelian subgroup (automatic if J is solvable), then one of the following holds:
i. p = 3, gX = 3, gY = 0, C ≃ Z/4Z, Px ≃ Z/3Z, (J : Jx ) = 4, and (X, x) is
isomorphic over k to the curve z 4 = t3 u − tu3 in P2 equipped with (t : u : z) =
(1 : 0 : 0), which is the curve in Example 6.2 with q = 3. Moreover,
PSL2 (F3 ) ≤ J/C ≤ PGL2 (F3 ).
ii. p = 2, gX = 10, gY = 1, C ≃ Z/3Z, Px ≃ Q8 , (J : Jx ) = 9, and (X, x) is isomorphic
over k to the curve in Example 6.3. The homomorphism J −→ J/C sends the
subgroups Jx ⊃ Px to subgroups Jx /C ⊃ Px C/C of U. Also, Px C/C ≃ Px ≃ Q8 and
U ≃ SL2 (Z/3Z), and U acts faithfully on the 3-torsion subgroup Y [3] ≃ (Z/3Z)2 of
the elliptic curve (Y, y). The group J/C satisfies
Y [3] ⋊ Q8 ≃ (Z/3Z)2 ⋊ Q8 ≤ J/C ≤ (Z/3Z)2 ⋊ SL2 (Z/3Z) ≃ Y [3] ⋊ U.
iii. p = 3, gX = 3, gY = 1, C ≃ Z/2Z, Px ≃ Z/3Z, (J : Jx ) = 4, and (X, x) is
isomorphic over k to the curve z 4 = t3 u − tu3 in P2 equipped with (t : u : z) =
(1 : 0 : 0) as in Example 6.4. The homomorphism J −→ J/C sends the subgroups
Jx ⊃ Px to subgroups Jx /C ⊃ Px C/C of U. Also Px C/C ≃ Px ≃ Z/3Z and
U ≃ Z/3Z ⋊ Z/4Z, and U/Z(U) acts faithfully on the group Y [2] ≃ (Z/2Z)2 . The
group J/C satisfies
Y [2] ⋊ Z/3Z = (Z/2Z)2 ⋊ Z/3Z ≤ J/C ≤ (Z/2Z)2 ⋊ (Z/3Z ⋊ Z/4Z) = Y [2] ⋊ U.
In each of i., ii., and iii., if (X, x) is the curve over k specified, from Examples 6.2–
6.4, then any group satisfying the displayed upper and lower bounds for J/C is actually
realized as J/C for some subgroup J ≤ Aut(X) satisfying all the hypotheses.
Proof.
(a) The groups listed in the statement of (a) are pairwise non-isomorphic, hence not
conjugate. Thus it remains to prove that J is conjugate to one of them. By Corollary 7.7(e),
J has no normal Sylow p-subgroup. We will show that every finite subgroup J ≤ PGL2 (k)
with no normal Sylow p-subgroup is conjugate to a group listed in (a). This would follow
20

immediately from [9, Theorem B], but [9] has not yet been published, so we now give a proof
not relying on it. We will use the exact sequence
det

1 −→ PSL2 (k) −→ PGL2 (k) −→ k × /k ×2 −→ 1.
Case 1: k is finite and J ≤ PSL2 (k). For finite k, the subgroups of PSL2 (k) up to
conjugacy were calculated by Dickson [8, §260]; see also [17, Ch.2 §8], [26, Ch.3 §6]. The
ones with no normal Sylow p-subgroup are among those listed in (a). (Dickson sometimes
lists two PSL2 (k)-conjugacy classes of subgroups of certain types, but his proof shows that
they map to a single PGL2 (k)-conjugacy class.)
Case 2: k is infinite and J ≤ PSL2 (k). Let Je be the inverse image of J under the finite
2
e
extension SL2 (k) ։ PSL2 (k). So Je is finite. The representation
! of J on k is absolutely
∗ ∗
irreducible, since otherwise Je would inject into the group
of 2 × 2 upper triangular
0 ∗
!
1
∗
invertible matrices over k, and Je would have a normal Sylow p-subgroup Je∩
, and J
0 1
would have one too, contrary to assumption. By [10, Theorem 19.3], this representation is
e Each trace is a sum of
definable over the field k0 generated by the traces of the elements of J.
roots of unity, so k0 is finite. Thus J is conjugate in PGL2 (k) to a subgroup J0 ≤ PGL2 (k0 ).
Conjugation does not change the determinant, so J0 ≤ PSL2 (k0 ). By Case 1, J0 is conjugate
to a group in our list, so J is too.
Case 3: k is finite or infinite, and J ≤ PGL2 (k), but J  PSL2 (k). If p = 2, then, since k
is perfect, k × = k ×2 , so PGL2 (k) = PSL2 (k). Thus p > 2. Let J ′ := J ∩ PSL2 (k). Then J/J ′
injects into k × /k ×2 , so p ∤ (J : J ′ ). The Sylow p-subgroups of J ′ are the same as those of J,
so J ′ has exactly one if and only if J has exactly one; i.e., J ′ has a normal Sylow p-subgroup
if and only if J has one. Since J does not have one, neither does J ′ . By Case 1, we may
assume that J ′ appears in our list.
The group J is contained in the normalizer NPGL2 (k) (J ′ ). We now break into cases according to J ′ . If J ′ is PSL2 (Fq ) or PGL2 (Fq ) for some subfield Fq ≤ k, then NPGL2 (k) (J ′ ) =
PGL2 (Fq ) by [8, §255] (the proof there works even if k is infinite), so J = PGL2 (Fq ), which
is in our list. Recall that p > 2, so J ′ is not dihedral. Thus the only remaining possibility
is that J ′ ≃ A5 ≤ PSL2 (F9 ) ≤ PGL2 (k). Let {1, a} be a subgroup of order 2 in the image
√
of J in k × /k ×2 and let J ′′ be its inverse image in J. Then J ′′ < PSL2 (k( a)), so J ′′ should
appear in our list, but |J ′′ | = 120 and there is no group of order 120 there for p = 3.
(b) In the notation of Example 7.4, let ψ : J −→ A be the projection. Let T := ker ψ ≤
X(k). Since X is supersingular, T is a p′ -group. Let J := ψ(J) ≤ A. Since G ≤ J ≤ A,
the group J is in the list of possibilities in Example 7.4 for G given p. Checking each case
shows that its Sylow p-subgroup P J := ψ(PJ ) is normal in J. The action of Aut(X) on X(k)
restricts to the conjugation action of J on the abelian group T , which factors through J, so
H 0 (P J , T ) = T P J = T PJ = 0, since PJ has a unique fixed point on X. Also, H i (P J , T ) = 0
21

for all i ≥ 1, since |P J | and |T | are coprime. Thus, by the Lyndon–Hochschild–Serre spectral
sequence applied to P J ⊳ J, we have H i (J, T ) = 0 for all i ≥ 1. Therefore the short exact
sequence 0 −→ T −→ J −→ J −→ 1 is split, and all splittings are conjugate. Let K be the
image of a splitting J −→ J. Then K contains a Sylow p-subgroup of J. Equivalently, some
conjugate K ′ of K contains PJ . Since K ′ ≃ J and P J is normal in J, the group PJ is normal
in K ′ . Since x is the unique fixed point of PJ , this implies that K ′ fixes x; i.e., K ′ ≤ Jx . On
the other hand, |K ′ | = |J| ≥ |Jx | since Jx ∩ T = {e}. Hence K ′ = Jx and J = T ⋊ Jx .
(c) We may assume that k is algebraically closed. By Theorem 1.8, (X, x) is an HKG Jx curve. Then (Y, y) is an HKG Jx /C-curve, but not an HKG J/C-curve since J/C does not
fix y. If gY > 1, then Lemma 7.12 applied to Y yields a nontrivial p′ -subgroup C1 ≤ Jx /C
that is normal in J/C, and the inverse image of C1 in J is a p′ -subgroup C2 ≤ Jx normal in
J with C2
C, contradicting the maximality of C. Thus gY ≤ 1. Since gX > 1, we have
C 6= 1. Let n = |C|. Let ζ be a primitive nth root of unity in k. Let c be a generator of C.
By Lemma 7.2, C is central in Jx , so Px C is a direct product. By Corollary 7.1, X is
an HKG Px -curve. Thus X/Px ≃ P1 , and the Px -action on X is totally ramified at x and
unramified elsewhere. The action of C on X/Px fixes the image of x, so by Example 4.7, the
curves in the covering X/Px −→ X/Px C have function fields k(z) ⊇ k(f ), where z n = f and
c
z = ζz. Powers of z form a k(X/Px C)-basis of eigenvectors for the action of c on k(X/Px ).
We may assume that the (totally ramified) image of x in X/Px is the point z = ∞. We
obtain a diagram of curves
♥♥
♥♥♥
♥
♥
♥
♥♥♥ C
w ♥♥
♥

Y ≃ X/C

❖❖❖
❖❖❖Px
❖❖❖
❖❖❖
'

X PPP
PPP totally ramified above z = ∞, unramified elsewhere
PPP
PPP
Px
PP(
X/Px ≃ P1z
♦
♦♦♦
♦
♦
♦♦♦
w♦♦♦ totally ramified above f = ∞, f = 0
C

X/Px C ≃ P1f
where the subscript on each P1 indicates the generator of its function field, and the group
labeling each morphism is the Galois group. The field k(X) is the compositum of its subfields
k(Y ) and k(X/Px ).
Let S be the preimage of the point f = 0 under Y −→ X/Px C, and let S ′ := S ∪ {y}.
Comparing the p-power and prime-to-p ramification on both sides of the diagram shows
that the point f = ∞ totally ramifies in X −→ Y −→ X/Px C, while the point f = 0 splits
completely into a set S of |Px | points of Y , each of which is totally ramified in X −→ Y . Thus
the extension k(X) ⊇ k(Y ) is Kummer and generated by the same z as above, and powers
of z form a k(Y )-basis of eigenvectors for the action of c on k(X). This extension is totally
ramified above S ′ and unramified elsewhere. The divisor of f on Y is S − |S|y = S ′ − |S ′ |y,
P
where S here denotes the divisor s∈S s, and so on.
22

Let j ∈ J. Since C ⊳ J, the element j acts on Y and preserves the branch locus S ′ of
X −→ Y . Since X −→ Y is totally ramified above S ′ , the automorphism j fixes x if and
only if it fixes y. Since Px acts transitively on S, and J does not fix x or y, the set S ′ is the
J-orbit of y. Thus
(J : Jx ) = |Jx| = |Jy| = |S ′ | = |Px | + 1.

Suppose that j ∈ J − Jx , so j y 6= y. Then the divisor of jf /f on Y is

S ′ − |S ′ | j y − (S ′ − |S ′ |y) = |S ′ |(y − j y),

which is nonzero. Since C is cyclic and normal, j −1 cj = cr for some r, and hence c (jz/z) =
jcr c
z/ z = ζ r−1 (jz/z). Thus jz/z is a ζ r−1-eigenvector, so jz/z = z r−1 g for some g ∈ k(Y )× .
Taking nth powers yields jf /f = f r−1 g n . The corresponding equation on divisors is
|S ′ |(y − jy) = (r − 1)(S ′ − |S ′|y) + n div(g).

(7.14)

Considering the coefficient of a point of S ′ − {y, j y} shows that r − 1 ≡ 0 (mod n). Then,
considering the coefficient of y shows that n divides |S ′ |, and dividing equation (7.14) through
by n shows that (|S ′ |/n)(y − j y) is div(f (r−1)/n g), a principal divisor. If, moreover, gY > 0,
then a difference of points on Y cannot be a principal divisor, so n 6= |S ′ |.
Case 1: gY = 0. Applying (a) to Y shows that p ∈ {2, 3} and any Sylow p-subgroup of
J/C has order p. Since C is a p′ -group, |PJ | = p too. By Corollary 7.7(a), Px = PJ , so
|Px | = p, and n divides |S ′ | = p + 1. Thus (p, n) is (2, 3), (3, 2), or (3, 4). The Hurwitz
formula for X −→ Y yields
X
2gX − 2 = n(2 · 0 − 2) +
(n − 1) = −2n + (p + 1)(n − 1).
s∈S ′

Only the case (p, n) = (3, 4) yields gX > 1. By (a), we may choose an isomorphism Y ≃ P1t
mapping y to ∞ such that the J/C-action on Y becomes the standard action of PSL2 (F3 )
or PGL2 (F3 ) on P1t . Then S ′ = Jy = P1 (F3 ). Then f has divisor S ′ − 4y = A1 (F3 ) − 3 · ∞
√
on P1 , so f = t3 − t up to an irrelevant scalar. Since k(X) = k(Y )( n f ), the curve X has
affine equation z 4 = t3 − t. This is the same as the q = 3 case of Example 6.2.
Case 2: gY = 1. Applying (b) (i.e., Example 7.4) to Y shows that either p is 2 and |Px |
divides 8, or p = 3 and |Px | = 3; also, Y has j-invariant 0. Also, n divides |S ′ | = |Px | + 1,
but n is not 1 or |S ′ |. Thus (p, n, |Px |, |S ′|) is (2, 3, 8, 9) or (3, 2, 3, 4). The Hurwitz formula
as before gives gX = 10 or gX = 3, respectively. Let m = |S ′ |/n. Since m(y − j y) is principal
for all j ∈ J, if y is chosen as the identity of the elliptic curve, then the J-orbit S ′ of y
is contained in the group Y [m] of m-torsion points. But in both cases, these sets have the
same size |S ′ | = m2 . Thus S ′ = Y [m].
If p = 2, the j-invariant 0 curve Y has equation u2 + u = t3 , and Y [3] − {y} is the set
√
of points with t ∈ F4 , so f = t4 + t up to an irrelevant scalar, and k(X) = k(Y )( 3 t4 + t).
Thus X is the curve of Example 6.3.
23

If p = 3, the j-invariant 0 curve Y has equation u2 = t3 − t, and Y [2] − {y} is the set of
√
√
points with u = 0, so f = u up to an irrelevant scalar, and k(X) = k(Y )( u) = k(t)( 4 t3 − t).
Thus X is the curve of Example 6.4.
Finally, Proposition 6.1 implies that in each of i., ii., and iii., any group satisfying the
displayed upper and lower bounds, viewed as a subgroup of Aut(Y ), can be lifted to a
suitable group J of Aut(X).

Remark 7.15. Suppose that (X, x) is not an HKG J-curve, gX > 1, and PJ is not cyclic or
generalized quaternion. Then [13, Theorem 3.16] shows that J/C is almost simple with socle
from a certain list of finite simple groups.
Acknowledgement
We thank the referee for suggestions on the exposition.
References
[1] J. Bertin and A. Mézard, Déformations formelles des revêtements sauvagement ramifiés de courbes
algébriques. Invent. Math. 141 (2000), no. 1, 195 – 238.
[2] R. Camina. Subgroups of the Nottingham group, J. Algebra 196, (1997), 101–113.
[3] R. Camina. The Nottingham group. In: New horizons in pro-p groups, pp. 205–221, Progr. Math., 184,
Birkhäuser Verlag, Boston, MA, 2000.
[4] T. Chinburg, R. Guralnick, D. Harbater. The local lifting problem for actions of finite groups on curves.
Annales scientifiques de l’ENS, 44, (2011), 537-605.
[5] T. Chinburg, P. Symonds. An element of order 4 in the Nottingham group at the prime 2.
arXiv:1009.5135v1
[6] G. Christol. Ensembles presque périodiques k-reconnaisables. Theoret. Comput. Sci. 9 (1979), 141–145.
[7] G. Christol, T. Kamae, M. Mendès-France, G. Rauzy. Suites algébriques, automates et substitutions.
Bull. Math. Soc. France 108 (1980), 401–419.
[8] L.E. Dickson, Linear Groups with an Exposition of the Galois Field Theory. Teubner, Leipzig, 1901.
[9] X. Faber. Finite p-irregular subgroups of PGL2 (k). arXiv:1112.1999v2.
[10] W. Feit. The Representation Theory of Finite Groups. North Holland, Amsterdam, 1982.
[11] M. Giulietti, G. Korchmáros. A new family of maximal curves over a finite field. Math. Ann. 343 (2009),
229–245.
[12] B. Green. Realizing deformations of curves using Lubin-Tate formal groups. Israel J. Math. 139 (2004),
139–148.
[13] R. Guralnick, B. Malmskog, R. Pries. The automorphism groups of a family of maximal curves. J.
Algebra 361 (2012), 92–106.
[14] D. Harbater. Moduli of p-covers of curves. Comm. Algebra 8 (1980), 1095–1122.
[15] R. Hartshorne. Algebraic geometry. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 52. Springer-Verlag, New
York-Heidelberg, 1977.
[16] D. Husemöller. Elliptic curves. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No. 111. Springer-Verlag, New YorkHeidelberg, 1987.
[17] B. Huppert. Endliche Gruppen I, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 134, Springer-Verlag,
New York-Heidelberg, 1967.
24

[18] I. M. Isaacs. Finite group theory. Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 92. American Mathematical
Society, Providence, 2008.
[19] N. M. Katz. Local-to-global extensions of representations of fundamental groups. Ann. Inst. Fourier
(Grenoble) 36 (1986), 69–106
[20] B. Klopsch. Automorphisms of the Nottingham group. J. Algebra 223 (2000), 37–56.
[21] J. Lubin. Torsion in the Nottingham group. Bull. London Math. Soc. 43 (2011), 547–560.
[22] F. Oort, T. Sekiguchi, and N. Suwa. On the deformation of Artin–Schreier to Kummer. Ann. Sci. École
Norm. Sup. (4) 22 (1989), no. 3, 345–375.
[23] B. Poonen. Gonality of modular curves in characteristic p. Math. Res. Letters 15 (2008), no. 2, 265–271.
[24] J.-P. Serre. Corps locaux. Publications de l’Institut de Mathématique de l’Université de Nancago, VIII
Actualités Sci. Indust., No. 1296. Hermann, Paris, 1962.
[25] J.H. Silverman. The arithmetic of elliptic curves. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, 106. Springer-Verlag,
New York, 1986.
[26] M. Suzuki. Group Theory. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 247, Springer-Verlag, New
York-Heidelberg, 1982.
Frauke M. Bleher, Department of Mathematics, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242,
U.S.A.
E-mail address: frauke-bleher@uiowa.edu
Ted Chinburg, Department of Mathematics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA
19104, U.S.A.
E-mail address: ted@math.upenn.edu
Bjorn Poonen, Department of Mathematics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, MA 02139, U.S.A.
E-mail address: poonen@math.mit.edu
Peter Symonds, School of Mathematics, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9PL, Manchester M13 9PL United Kingdom
E-mail address: Peter.Symonds@manchester.ac.uk

25

