Subgroups of odd order in the real plane Cremona group
Egor Yasinsky*

arXiv:1509.08136v4 [math.AG] 22 Mar 2018

Steklov Mathematical Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences
8 Gubkina st., Moscow, Russia, 119991

Abstract. In this paper we describe conjugacy classes of finite subgroups of odd order in the
group of birational automorphisms of the real projective plane.

1. Introduction
Consider a projective space P𝑛k over an arbitrary field k. Recall that the Cremona group Crn (k)
is the group of its birational automorphisms. From algebraic point of view the Cremona group over
k is the group of k-automorphisms of the field k(𝑥1 , . . . , 𝑥𝑛 ) of rational functions in 𝑛 independent
variables.
The classification of finite subgroups in Cremona groups is a classical problem which goes back
to E. Bertini’s work on involutions in Cr2 (C). He discovered three types of conjugacy classes, which
are now known as de Jonquières, Geiser and Bertini involutions. However, Bertini’s classification
was incomplete and his proofs were not rigorous. The next step was made in 1895 by S. Kantor and
A. Wiman who gave a description of finite subgroups in Cr2 (C). Their list was quite comprehensive,
but not precise in several respects.
The modern approach started with the works of Yu. I. Manin and V. A. Iskovskikh who
discovered the deep connection between conjugacy classes of finite subgroups in the plane Cremona
group and classification of 𝐺-minimal rational surfaces (𝑆, 𝐺) and 𝐺-equivariant birational maps
between them. This approach was taken by L. Bayle and A. Beauville in their work on involutions
[BaBe00]. The classification was generalised by T. de Fernex for subgroups of prime order [dFe04].
Finite abelian subgroups in Cr2 (C) were classified by J. Blanc in [Bla09]. Finally, the most precise
description of conjugacy classes of arbitrary finite subgroups in Cr2 (C) was given by I. V. Dolgachev
and V. A. Iskovskikh in [DI09a].
Much less is known in the case when the ground field k is not algebraically closed or 𝑛 > 3.
Some results about the existence of birational automorphisms of prime order in Cr2 (k) for any
perfect field k were obtained by Dolgachev and Iskovskikh in [DI09b]. Similar questions, including
a Minkowski-style bound for the orders of the finite subgroups in Cr2 (k), are discussed in J.-P.
Serre’s works [Ser08], [Ser09]. The generators for various subgroups of Cr2 (R) were studied by
J. Blanc and F. Mangolte in [BlMa13]. As for the case 𝑛 > 3, there are only partial results on
classification of finite subgroups in Cr3 (C) (see, for example, [Pro12], [Pro15]).
In this paper we work in the category of schemes defined over R together with regular morphisms of schemes. In other words, a regular morphism for us is a rational map defined at all
complex points. The group of automorphisms of a scheme 𝑋 in such a category is denoted by
Aut(𝑋). One can also consider the category with the same objects and morphisms defined as
follows: we say that there is a morphism 𝑓 : 𝑋 99K 𝑌 if 𝑓 is a rational map defined at all real
*yasinskyegor@gmail.com

Keywords: Cremona group, conic bundle, del Pezzo surface, automorphism group.
1

2

points of 𝑋. Automorphisms in such a category are called birational diffeomorphisms and the
corresponding group is denoted by Aut(𝑋(R)). Clearly, Aut(𝑋) ⊂ Aut(𝑋(R)). In recent years,
birational diffeomorphisms of real rational projective surfaces have been studied intensively (see,
for example, [HM09], [KM09]). In particular, prime order birational diffeomorphisms of the sphere,
i.e. elements of the group Aut(𝑆(R)), where 𝑆 = {[𝑤 : 𝑥 : 𝑦 : 𝑧] ∈ P3R : 𝑤2 = 𝑥2 + 𝑦 2 + 𝑧 2 }, were
studied in [Rob15].
In this work we classify all subgroups of odd order in the real plane Cremona group. Our
main results are the following two theorems.
Theorem 1.1. Any finite subgroup of odd order in Cr2 (R) is conjugate to a subgroup of the
automorphism group of some real del Pezzo surface 𝑋. More precisely, one of the following holds:
(1) rk Pic(𝑋)𝐺 = 1, and 𝑋 is R-rational;
(2) rk Pic(𝑋)𝐺 = 2, 𝑋 ∼
= P1R × P1R and 𝐺 can be written as a direct product of at most two
cyclic groups.
The next theorem gives the details about finite groups arising in the case (1) of Theorem 1.1.
It also provides an answer to the question which of those groups are linearizable, i.e. conjugate in
Cr2 (R) to subgroups of Aut(P2R ) = PGL3 (R) (see subsection 2.2 for precise definitions).
Theorem 1.2. Let 𝑋 be a real R-rational del Pezzo surface, and 𝐺 ⊂ Aut(𝑋) be a group of odd
order, such that rk Pic(𝑋)𝐺 = 1. Then one of the following cases holds:
2
= 9, 𝐺 is a cyclic subgroup of PGL3 (R);
∙ 𝐾𝑋
2
∙ 𝐾𝑋 = 8, 𝐺 is cyclic and linearizable;
2
∙ 𝐾𝑋
= 6, 𝐺 ∼
= (Z/𝑛Z × Z/𝑚Z) o (Z/3Z) for some odd integers 𝑛, 𝑚 ≥ 1; this group is
linearizable if and only if 𝑛 = 𝑚 = 1;
2
= 5, 𝐺 ∼
∙ 𝐾𝑋
= Z/5Z and is linearizable.
Moreover, all the possibilities listed above actually occur.
Remark 1.3. It may be interesting to notice that Theorem 1.2 with a slight modification is valid
if we replace the R-rationality assumption by a weaker one, namely 𝑋(R) ̸= ∅. The only new
cases obtained are del Pezzo surfaces of degree 2 and 3 with non-connected real loci (hence these
are not R-rational), and the group Z/3Z acting minimally on them (see Example 5.5 and Remark
5.8).
This paper is organised as follows. Section 2 recalls notation and background results from
the theory of rational surfaces and equivariant minimal model program. In Section 3 we prove
Theorem 1.1. In Section 4 we prove Theorem 1.2 for del Pezzo surfaces of high degree. In particular,
we show that there is an infinite series of non-linearizable subgroups of odd order in Cr2 (R) and
give an example of two non-conjugate embeddings of (Z/3Z)2 into Cr2 (R). In Section 5 we prove
Theorem 1.2 for del Pezzo surfaces of low degree. Our methods here are less geometric (namely,
we use the Weyl groups). Finally, for the reader’s convenience, some information about conjugacy
classes in the Weyl groups is included in Appendix A.
Acknowledgments. This work was performed in Steklov Mathematical Institute and supported
by the Russian Science Foundation under grant 14-50-00005. The author would like to thank his
advisor Yuri Prokhorov for numerous useful discussions. The author is also grateful to Jérémy
Blanc, Frédéric Mangolte, Constantin Shramov, Andrey Trepalin and the anonymous referee for
their useful remarks.

3

2. Preliminaries
Throughout the paper 𝑋 denotes geometrically smooth projective real algebraic surface, and
𝑋C denotes its complexification:
𝑋C = 𝑋 ×Spec R Spec C.
Note that there is a natural Galois group Γ = Gal(C/R) = ⟨𝜎⟩2 action on 𝑋C (here and later 𝜎 is
an antiholomorphic involution on 𝑋C , while ⟨𝑎⟩𝑛 denotes a cyclic group of order 𝑛 generated by
𝑎). As usual, 𝑋(C) denotes the set of complex points of 𝑋, and 𝑋(R) = 𝑋(C)𝜎 is its real part
(with the Euclidean topology). Consider the canonical projection
pr : 𝑋C → 𝑋.
Let 𝑝 ∈ 𝑋 be a closed point. Then either pr−1 (𝑝) = 𝑝 or pr−1 (𝑝) = {𝑝, 𝜎(𝑝)}. An exceptional curve
(or (−1)-curve) on a complex surface 𝑆 is a curve 𝐿 such that 𝐿 ∼
= P1C and 𝐿2 = −1. A curve 𝐸
on real surface 𝑋 is said to be exceptional if:
(i): either pr−1 (𝐸) = 𝐿 is exceptional on 𝑋C and 𝐿 = 𝜎(𝐿);
(ii): or pr−1 (𝐸) = 𝐿 + 𝜎(𝐿), 𝐿 is exceptional on 𝑋C and 𝐿 ∩ 𝜎(𝐿) = ∅.
Recall that a surface 𝑋 is said to be R-minimal if any birational R-morphism 𝑋 → 𝑌 to smooth
projective real surface 𝑌 is an isomorphism. As in the complex case, one can show that any
birational morphism 𝑋 → 𝑌 is a composition of blowdowns, i.e. there is a sequence of contractions
of exceptional curves (in the sense of the previous definition). It follows that a surface is R-minimal
if and only if it has no exceptional curves [Man86, Chapter III, Theorem 21.8].
2.1. Rational 𝐺-surfaces. In the following definitions the ground field k is an arbitrary perfect
field.
Definition 2.1. A geometrically rational surface2 𝑋 is a smooth projective surface over k such
that 𝑋k = 𝑋 ×Spec k Spec k is birationally isomorphic to P2k . Geometrically rational surface 𝑋 is
called k-rational if it is k-birational to P2k .
Definition 2.2. Let 𝐺 be a finite group. A 𝐺-surface is a triple (𝑋, 𝐺, 𝜄), where 𝑋 is a surface over
k and 𝜄 : 𝐺 ˓→ Autk (𝑋) is a faithful 𝐺-action. A morphism of 𝐺-surfaces (𝑋1 , 𝐺, 𝜄1 ) → (𝑋2 , 𝐺, 𝜄2 )
(or 𝐺-morphism) is a morphism 𝑓 : 𝑋1 → 𝑋2 such that for each 𝑔 ∈ 𝐺 the following diagram
commutes:
𝑋1
𝜄1 (𝑔)



𝑓

𝑓

/

𝑋2


𝜄2 (𝑔)

/ 𝑋2
𝑋1
Rational maps and birational maps of 𝐺-surfaces are defined in a similar way. We will often omit
𝜄 from the notation and refer to the pair (𝑋, 𝐺) or simply 𝑋, if no confusion arises.

Definition 2.3. A 𝐺-surface (𝑋, 𝐺) is called minimal (we also say that 𝑋 is 𝐺-minimal) if any
birational 𝐺-morphism 𝑋 → 𝑋 ′ of 𝐺-surfaces is an isomorphism.
Remark 2.4. If 𝐺 = {id} then 𝐺-minimal surface is just a k-minimal surface in the sense of the
theory of minimal models.
2Note

that many authors use the word “rational” to mean “geometrically rational”.

4

Definition 2.5. Let 𝑓 : 𝑋 → 𝐵 be a 𝐺-morphism of 𝐺-surface (𝑋, 𝐺), where 𝐵 is a curve. This
morphims is said to be relatively 𝐺-minimal if for any decomposition
𝑔

ℎ

𝑓 : 𝑋 −→ 𝑋 ′ −→ 𝐵,
where ℎ is a 𝐺-morphism and 𝑔 is a birational 𝐺-morphism, 𝑔 is in fact an isomorphism.
Definition 2.6. We say that a smooth 𝐺-surface (𝑋, 𝐺) admits a conic bundle structure, if there
is a 𝐺-morphism 𝜋 : 𝑋 → 𝐶, where 𝐶 is a smooth curve and each scheme fibre is isomorphic to a
reduced conic in P2k .
Remark 2.7. Let 𝜋 : 𝑋 → 𝐶 be a geometrically rational conic bundle over a field k. If 𝑐 denotes
2
the number of its singular fibres over k, then by Noether’s formula we have 𝐾𝑋
= 8 − 𝑐.
Definition 2.8. A del Pezzo surface is a smooth projective surface 𝑋 with ample anticanonical
2
divisor class −𝐾𝑋 . The degree 𝑑 of a del Pezzo surface 𝑋 is the self-intersection number 𝐾𝑋
.
Remark 2.9. It is well known that a del Pezzo surface over an algebraically closed field k is
isomorphic either to P1k × Pk1 or Pk2 blown up in 9 − 𝑑 points in general position [Man86, Chapter
IV, Theorem 24.4].
Definition 2.10. Let 𝑛 ∈ Z≥0 . The 𝑛-th Hirzebruch surface (or rational ruled surface) F𝑛 is the
projectivisation of a vector bundle E ∼
= OP1k ⊕ OP1k (−𝑛).
2.2. Regularization of finite group action. Let (𝑋, 𝐺) be a rational 𝐺-surface. A birational
map 𝜓 : 𝑋 99K P2k yields an injective homomorphism
𝑖𝜓 : 𝐺 → Cr2 (k), g ↦→ 𝜓 ∘ g ∘ 𝜓 −1 .
We say that 𝐺 is linearizable if there is a birational map 𝜓 : 𝑋 99K P2k such that 𝑖𝜓 (𝐺) ⊂
PGL3 (k). If (𝑋 ′ , 𝐺) is another rational 𝐺-surface with birational map 𝜓 ′ : 𝑋 ′ 99K P2k , then
the subgroups 𝑖𝜓 (𝐺) and 𝑖𝜓′ (𝐺) are conjugate if and only if 𝐺-surfaces (𝑋, 𝐺) and (𝑋 ′ , 𝐺) are
birationally isomorphic. In other words, a birational isomorphism class of 𝐺-surfaces defines a
conjugacy class of subgroups of Cr2 (k) isomorphic to 𝐺.
It can be shown that any conjugacy class is obtained in this way. In fact, the modern approach
to classification of finite subgroups in the Cremona group is based on the following result [DI09b,
Lemma 6].
Lemma 2.11. Let 𝐺 ⊂ Cr2 (k) be a finite subgroup. Then there exists a k-rational smooth projective surface 𝑋, an injective homomorphism
𝜄 : 𝐺 → Autk (𝑋)
and a birational 𝐺-equivariant k-map 𝜓 : 𝑋 99K P2k , such that
𝐺 = 𝜓 ∘ 𝜄(𝐺) ∘ 𝜓 −1
Of course, the 𝐺-surface (𝑋, 𝐺, 𝜄) can be replaced by a minimal k-rational 𝐺-surface, so there
is a natural bijection between the conjugacy classes of finite subgroups 𝐺 ⊂ Cr2 (k) and birational
isomorphism classes of minimal smooth k-rational 𝐺-surfaces (𝑋, 𝐺). The following result is of
crucial importance. Its proof can be found in [Isk79, Theorem 1G], [DI09b, Theorem 5].
Theorem 2.12. Let (𝑋, 𝐺) be a minimal geometrically rational 𝐺-surface over a perfect field k.
Then one of the following two cases occurs:

5

C: 𝑋 admits a conic bundle structure with Pic(𝑋)𝐺 ∼
= Z2 ;
D: 𝑋 is a del Pezzo surface with Pic(𝑋)𝐺 ∼
= Z.
We will also need an important criterion of k-rationality, which is due to V. A. Iskovskikh.
For more details we refer the reader to [Isk96, §4].
Theorem 2.13. A minimal geometrically rational surface 𝑋 over a perfect field k is k-rational if
and only if the following two conditions are satisfied:
(i): 𝑋(k) ̸= ∅;
2
(ii): 𝑑 = 𝐾𝑋
≥ 5.
From now on we set k = R. Denote by 𝑄𝑟,𝑠 the smooth quadric hypersurface
.
{[𝑥1 : . . . : 𝑥𝑟+𝑠 ] : 𝑥21 + . . . + 𝑥2𝑟 − 𝑥2𝑟+1 − . . . − 𝑥2𝑟+𝑠 = 0} ⊂ P𝑟+𝑠−1
R
The description of minimal geometrically rational real surfaces with real point is essentially due
to A. Comessatti [Com12]. Modern proofs can be found in [Man67], [Isk79], [Pol97], [Kol97].
Theorem 2.14. Let 𝑋 be a minimal geometrically rational real surface with 𝑋(R) ̸= ∅. Then
one and exactly one of the following cases occurs:
(1) 𝑋 is R-rational: it is isomorphic to P2R , to the quadric 𝑄3,1 or to a real Hirzebruch surface
F𝑛 , 𝑛 ̸= 1;
(2) 𝑋 is a del Pezzo surface of degree 1 or 2 with 𝜌(𝑋) = 1;
(3) 𝑋 admits a minimal conic bundle structure 𝜋 : 𝑋 → P1 with even number of singular fibers
𝑐 ≥ 4 and 𝜌(𝑋) = 2.
Remark 2.15. Here is a simple but important observation. The condition 𝑋(R) ̸= ∅ implies
that Pic(𝑋C )Γ = Pic(𝑋), where Γ = Gal(C/R) is the Galois group [Silh89, I, 4.5]. In particular,
rk Pic(𝑋C )Γ×𝐺 = rk Pic(𝑋)𝐺 .
Summary. To sum up, let 𝐺 be a finite subgroup of odd order in Cr2 (R). Then we may assume
that 𝐺 acts on a R-rational surface 𝑋 making 𝑋 a 𝐺-minimal surface (in fact, in Sections 4 and
2
2
5 we will need only that 𝑋(R) ̸= ∅, except the cases 𝐾𝑋
= 3 and 𝐾𝑋
= 2).

2.3. A bit of group theory. The following facts are well-known. We include some proofs for
completeness and the reader’s convenience.
Lemma 2.16. Let 𝐺 be a finite group of odd order. Then every faithful projective representation
̃︀ ∼
𝜃 : 𝐺 → PGL𝑛 (R), 𝑛 ≥ 2, can be lifted to a faithful representation 𝜃̃︀ : 𝐺
= 𝐺 → SL𝑛 (R).

6

Proof. Since PGL𝑛 (R) ∼
= SL𝑛 (R) for odd 𝑛, we will assume that 𝑛 is even. Consider the following
commutative diagram:
1
/

1
/

1

1



/

{±1}

/

SL𝑛 (R)

1





GL𝑛 (R)


/

R*
det

/

1

/

/

1
/

1

R+


R*

𝛾

1

/



PSL𝑛 (R)


1

𝛼

/



PGL𝑛 (R)


1

/



{±1}


1

Since 𝐺 ⊂ PGL𝑛 (R) is of odd order, we have 𝐺 ∼
= 𝛼−1 (𝐺) ⊂ PSL𝑛 (R). The group 𝛾 −1 ∘ 𝛼−1 (𝐺) is
twice larger than 𝐺; however, we can find an isomorphic lift of 𝐺 as a Hall subgroup therein. 
We use Lemma 2.16 to describe all subgroups of odd order in PGL𝑘 (R) for 𝑘 = 2, 3, 4.
Proposition 2.17. Let 𝐺 be a finite group of odd order 𝑛.
(1) If 𝐺 ⊂ PGL2 (R) then 𝐺 is a cyclic group generated by a single matrix
(︃
)︃
2𝜋
cos 2𝜋
sin
𝑛
𝑛
𝑅2 (2𝜋/𝑛) =
2𝜋
2𝜋
− sin 𝑛 cos 𝑛
(2) If 𝐺 ⊂ PGL3 (R) then 𝐺 is a cyclic group generated by a single matrix
⎛
⎞
1
0
0
⎜
⎟
𝑅3 (2𝜋/𝑛) = ⎝0 cos 2𝜋
sin 2𝜋
𝑛
𝑛 ⎠
0 − sin 2𝜋
cos 2𝜋
𝑛
𝑛
(3) If 𝐺 ⊂ PGL4 (R), then 𝐺 can be written as a direct product of at most two cyclic groups of
odd orders.
Proof. Applying Lemma 2.16, we may assume that 𝐺 ⊂ GL𝑘 (R), 𝑘 = 2, 3, 4, in the corresponding
cases above. Moreover, we may assume that 𝐺 ⊂ SO𝑘 (R), 𝑘 = 2, 3, 4, since every real representation of a finite group is equivalent to an orthogonal one and 𝐺 is of odd order. Recall that
any finite subgroup of SO2 (R) is cyclic, while any finite subgroup of SO3 (R) is either cyclic, or
dihedral, or one of the symmetry groups of Platonic solids A4 , S4 or A5 . Now (1) is obvious and
to conclude with (2) it remains to notice that the cyclic group of order 𝑛 acts as rotations in a
plane, fixing the axis perpendicular to that plane.
In order to prove (3), we use a well-known fact that SO4 (R) is a double cover of SO3 (R) ×
SO3 (R) [Hat02, Chapter 3, §3D]. Hence, 𝐺 ⊂ SO3 (R) × SO3 (R). Let 𝜋𝑖 be the projection on the
𝑖th component. Then 𝐺 ⊆ 𝜋1 (𝐺) × 𝜋2 (𝐺), where 𝜋𝑖 (𝐺) ⊂ SO3 (R) are cyclic groups of odd order.
Thus 𝐺 itself can be written as a direct product of at most two cyclic groups.


7

3. The conic bundle case
In this section we prove Theorem 1.1. We first recall what is an elementary transformation of
a Hirzebruch surface.
An elementary transformation of a comlex Hirzebruch surface F𝑛 is the following birational
transformation. Let 𝜐 : 𝑌 → F𝑛 be the blow-up of a point 𝑝 on a fiber 𝐹 , 𝐹̃︀ is a strict transform
̃︀𝑛 is a strict transform of the (−𝑛)-section 𝐶𝑛 ⊂ F𝑛 and 𝐸 is the exceptional divisor. We
of 𝐹 , 𝐶
have (𝐹̃︀)2 = (𝜐 * 𝐹 − 𝐸)2 = 𝐹 2 − 1 = −1. Then there is a morphism 𝜓 : 𝑌 → 𝑍 blowing down 𝐹̃︀
̃︀2 = 𝐶 2 = −𝑛 and 𝐶
̃︀𝑛 intersects 𝐹̃︀ transversely in exactly one point.
(over C). If 𝑝 ∈
/ 𝐶𝑛 , then 𝐶
𝑛
𝑛
̃︀𝑛 )2 = −𝑛 + 1 and 𝑍 ∼
̃︀2 = 𝐶 2 − 1 = −𝑛 − 1, 𝐶
̃︀𝑛 ∩ 𝐹̃︀ = ∅, so
Thus 𝜓(𝐶
= F𝑛−1 . If 𝑝 ∈ 𝐶𝑛 , then 𝐶
𝑛
𝑛
2
̃︀𝑛 ) = −𝑛 − 1 and 𝑍 ∼
𝜓(𝐶
= F𝑛+1 . The following commutative diagram illustrates these birational
transformations:
𝑌
𝜓

𝜐

{

F𝑛


P1

/

(

𝑍 = F𝑛+1 or F𝑛−1


P1

Note that over R we can blow up either a real point or two imaginary conjugate points. For
example, the blow-up of two conjugate imaginary points 𝑝, 𝑝 ∈
/ 𝐶𝑛 ⊂ F𝑛 with 𝑛 > 0 followed
by the contraction of the strict transform of the fibres passing through 𝑝, 𝑝, gives a birational
map F𝑛 99K F𝑛−2 . An analogous procedure for a real point 𝑞 ∈ F𝑛 (R) gives a birational map
F𝑛 99K F𝑛−1 .
Remark 3.1. In the language of Sarkisov program these elementary transformations are both
Sarkisov links of type II between two Mori fibrations. For more details on factorization of birational
maps see [Isk96], [Cor95] and [Pol97] (for the case of real rational surfaces).
Now we are ready to prove Theorem 1.1.
Proof of Theorem 1.1. Let 𝑋 be a surface of type (C) (see Theorem 2.12). Since 𝑋 is assumed to
be R-rational, we have 𝑋(R) ̸= ∅. Thus 𝐶(R) ̸= ∅ and 𝐶 ∼
= P1R .
We may assume that 𝑋 is relatively minimal. Indeed, suppose that there is an exceptional
curve 𝐸 whose irreducible components are contained in singular fibers of 𝜋. We have the following
two cases: (a) 𝐸 is a real irreducible component of some singular fiber 𝐸 + 𝐸 ′ ; (b) 𝐸 = 𝐹 + 𝜎(𝐹 ),
𝐹 ∩ 𝜎(𝐹 ) = ∅, where 𝐹 + 𝑁1 and 𝜎(𝐹 ) + 𝑁2 are two different singular fibers. Note that 𝐺minimality of 𝑋 implies that there exists 𝑔 ∈ 𝐺 such that 𝑔(𝐸) = 𝐸 ′ in the case (a), and
𝑔(𝐹 ) = 𝑁1 or 𝑔(𝜎(𝐹 )) = 𝑁1 in the case (b). In both cases 𝑔 has an even order, so we obtain a
contradiction (cf. [DI09a, Lemma 5.6]). Indeed, in the case (a) we have 𝑔(𝐸 ′ ) = 𝐸 (as 𝑔 respects
the intersection product), 𝑔 2 (𝐸 ′ ) = 𝐸 ′ and ord 𝑔 = 2𝑛 + 1 implies 𝐸 = 𝑔 2𝑛+1 (𝐸) = 𝑔 2𝑛 (𝐸 ′ ) = 𝐸 ′ , a
contradiction. Now consider the case when 𝑔(𝜎(𝐹 )) = 𝑁1 (if 𝑔(𝐹 ) = 𝑁1 , we argue as above). Then
𝑔(𝑁2 ) = 𝐹 , 𝜎(𝑁2 ) = 𝑁1 , so 𝑔(𝑁1 ) = 𝑔(𝜎(𝑁2 )) = 𝜎(𝑔(𝑁2 )) = 𝜎(𝐹 ). Thus 𝑔 2 (𝑁1 ) = 𝑔(𝜎(𝐹 )) = 𝑁1
and ord 𝑔 = 2𝑛 + 1 implies 𝜎(𝐹 ) = 𝑔 2𝑛+1 (𝜎(𝐹 )) = 𝑔 2𝑛 (𝑁1 ) = 𝑁1 , a contradiction.

8

Therefore 𝜌(𝑋) = 2 and 𝐺 acts trivially on Pic(𝑋). If 𝑋 is not minimal, then there is a
birational morphism 𝑋 → 𝑋 ′ , where 𝑋 ′ is a del Pezzo surface [Isk79, Theorem 4]. Since 𝐺 acts
trivially on Pic(𝑋), this morphism is 𝐺-equivariant and the assertion follows.
Now let 𝑋 be a minimal surface. Theorem 2.14 shows that 𝑋 ∼
= F𝑛 , 𝑛 ̸= 1. Denote by 𝐺′
′
∼
the image of 𝐺 in Aut(𝐶) = PGL2 (R). Since 𝐺 is of odd order, 𝐺 has to be a cyclic group by
Proposition 2.17. Suppose that 𝑛 > 0. We have only two possibilities.
1. 𝐺′ ̸= {id}. Then we have two 𝐺′ -fixed points 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 = 𝜎(𝑝1 ) ∈ 𝐶C ∼
= P1C , corresponding to
𝐺-invariant fibres 𝐹1 and 𝐹2 = 𝜎(𝐹1 ). Making 𝐺-equivariant elementary transformations centered
at two complex conjugate 𝐺-fixed points 𝑞𝑖 ∈ 𝐹𝑖 not lying on the exceptional (−𝑛)-section, we
obtain a surface 𝑋 ′ ∼
= F𝑛−2 . Proceeding in this way, we come either to F1 , being not 𝐺-minimal,
or F0 ∼
= P1R × P1R .
2. 𝐺′ = {id}. Then 𝐺 acts by automorphisms of fibres, which are P1R , so it has two complex
conjugate fixed points on each fiber (recall that the order of 𝐺 is odd). One of these points lies on
the (−𝑛)-section 𝐶𝑛 , while the other lies on some 𝑛-section. However, the (−𝑛)-section is clearly
Γ-invariant and intersects each fiber in exactly one point. So, this case does not occur (as complex
conjugate points cannot lie both on the same fiber and the (−𝑛)-section).
Therefore, we may assume that 𝑛 = 0, i.e. 𝑋 ∼
= P1R × P1R . Now we are going to study automorphisms of P1R × P1R .
Proposition 3.2. Assume that 𝑋 ∼
= P1R × P1R and Pic(𝑋)𝐺 ∼
= Z2 . Then
⟨︀
⟩︀ ⟨︀
⟩︀
𝐺 ⊆ 𝑅2 (2𝜋/𝑙) × 𝑅2 (2𝜋/𝑚)
for some 𝑙, 𝑚 ∈ N (see Proposition 2.17 for the notation).
Proof. Recall that
Aut(P1R × P1R ) = (PGL2 (R) × PGL2 (R)) o Z/2Z.
As the order of 𝐺 is odd, 𝐺 ⊂ PGL2 (R) × PGL2 (R). Let
𝜋𝑖 : PGL2 (R) × PGL2 (R) → PGL2 (R), 𝑖 = 1, 2,
be the projection on the 𝑖th component. Then 𝐺 ⊆ 𝜋1 (𝐺) × 𝜋2 (𝐺) and the assertion follows from
Proposition 2.17.

Corollary 3.3. If the conditions of Proposition 3.2 are satisifed, then 𝐺 is a product of at most
two cyclic groups.
Theorem 1.1 now is proved.

2
4. del Pezzo surfaces with 𝐾𝑋
≥5

Throughout the next two sections 𝑋 will denote a real del Pezzo surface with 𝑋(R) ̸= ∅. We
shall additionally assume that 𝑋 is R-rational in Proposition 5.4 (see Remark 1.3). Note that this
2
automatically holds if 𝐾𝑋
≥ 5 by Iskovskikh’s Theorem 2.13.
As we already mentioned in Section 2, if 𝑋 is a del Pezzo surface, then 𝑋C is isomorphic to
one of the following surfaces: P2C , P1C × P1C , or P2C blown up in 𝑟 ≤ 8 points in general position. We
2
have 𝑑 = 𝐾𝑋
= 9 − 𝑟.

9

The following simple lemma will be useful for us.
Lemma 4.1. Let 𝑋 be a real del Pezzo surface containing a 𝐺-invariant exceptional curve. Then
rk Pic(𝑋)𝐺 > 1.
Proof. Suppose that rk Pic(𝑋)𝐺 = 1. Denote by 𝐸 a 𝐺-invariant exceptional curve. By definition,
either 𝐸 = 𝐿 is a real (−1)-curve, or 𝐸 = 𝐿+𝜎(𝐿), where 𝐿 is exceptional on 𝑋C and 𝐿∩𝜎(𝐿) = ∅.
Then either 𝐿 ∼ −𝑎𝐾𝑋 , or 𝐿 + 𝜎(𝐿) ∼ −𝑎𝐾𝑋 . Clearly, none of the cases occurs, as 𝐸 2 = −1 in
the first case and 𝐸 2 = −2 in the second one.

Remark 4.2. A del Pezzo surface of degree 7 is never 𝐺-minimal. Indeed, there are three exceptional divisors on this surface forming a chain. The middle one is always defined over R and
𝐺-invariant, so we can contract it.
The number of (−1)-curves on del Pezzo surfaces is classically known [Man86, Chapter IV,
Theorem 26.2]. Since this information will be used throughout the paper, we provide it in Table 1.
Table 1. (−1)-curves on del Pezzo surfaces
𝑑
1
2 3 4 5 6
# of (−1)-curves 240 56 27 16 10 6
4.1. Birational maps between del Pezzo surfaces. We will need the following result about
birational maps between two del Pezzo surfaces. It is probably well-known to experts, but we
provide the proof for the sake of completeness.
Lemma 4.3. Let 𝑋 be a del Pezzo surface.
(1) Let 𝜐 : 𝑋 → 𝑍 be a birational morphism. Then 𝑍 is a del Pezzo surface.
(2) Let 𝜋 : 𝑌 → 𝑋 be the blow-up of any point 𝑝 ∈ 𝑋. Assume that the following conditions
2
> 1; (ii) 𝑝 does not lie on any (−1)-curve; (iii) additionally, 𝑝 does
are satisfied: (i) 𝐾𝑋
2
not lie on the ramification divisor of the double cover 𝜙|−𝐾𝑋 | : 𝑋 → P2C when 𝐾𝑋
= 2.
2
2
Then 𝑌 is a del Pezzo surface with 𝐾𝑌 = 𝐾𝑋 − 1.
Proof. For (1) see [Man86, Chapter IV, Corollary 24.5.2]. Let us prove (2). We have 𝐾𝑌 =
2
𝜋 * 𝐾𝑋 +𝐸, where 𝐸 is the exceptional divisor. Obviously, 𝐾𝑌2 = 𝐾𝑋
−1 > 0. By the Riemann–Roch
theorem, dim |−𝐾𝑌 | ≥ 𝐾𝑌2 > 0. Suppose that there is an irreducible curve 𝐶 ⊂ 𝑌 with 𝐾𝑌 ·𝐶 ≥ 0
and put 𝑅 = 𝜋(𝐶). If 𝑅 is nonsingular at 𝑝, then 𝐶 = 𝜋 * 𝑅 − 𝐸, so
𝐾𝑌 · 𝐶 = (𝜋 * 𝐾𝑋 + 𝐸)(𝜋 * 𝑅 − 𝐸) = 𝜋 * 𝐾𝑋 · 𝜋 * 𝑅 − 𝐸 2 = 𝐾𝑋 · 𝑅 + 1 ≤ 0,
where the last inequality is caused by ampleness of −𝐾𝑋 . We see that 𝐾𝑌 · 𝐶 = 0, 𝐾𝑋 · 𝑅 = −1.
By the Hodge index theorem, 𝐶 2 < 0, so by the adjunction formula 𝐶 2 = −2 and 𝐶 ∼
= P1C . This
means that 𝑅 is a (−1)-curve, a contradiction.
Now let 𝑝 be a singular point of 𝑅. Note that 𝑅 must be a component of some divisor 𝜋* (𝑅′ )
where 𝑅′ ∈ | − 𝐾𝑌 |. It is easy to see that 𝑅 = 𝜋* (𝑅′ ) and 𝑝𝑎 (𝑅) = 1, so 𝑝 is either an ordinary
double point or a cusp. Therefore,
𝐶 = 𝜋 * 𝑅 − 2𝐸 ∼ 𝜋 * (−𝐾𝑋 ) − 2𝐸 = −𝐾𝑌 − 𝐸.

10
2
Thus −𝐾𝑌 · 𝐶 = 𝐾𝑌2 − 1 ≥ 0. It follows that 𝐾𝑌 · 𝐶 = 0, 𝐾𝑌2 = 1 and 𝐾𝑋
= 2. We see that
𝜙|−𝐾𝑋 | (𝑅) touches the branch curve at 𝜙|−𝐾𝑋 | (𝑝), a contradiction.


4.2. The Weyl groups. There is a powerful tool for studying the geometry of del Pezzo surfaces,
namely the Weyl groups. For convenience of the reader we recall definitions and basic facts (see
[Man86], [Dol12]).
Let 𝑋C be a complex del Pezzo surface of degree 𝑑 ≤ 6, obtained by blowing up P2C in 𝑟 = 9−𝑑
points. The group Pic 𝑋C ∼
= Z𝑟+1 has a basis 𝑒0 , 𝑒1 , . . . , 𝑒𝑟 , where 𝑒0 is the pull-back of the class
of a line on P2C , and 𝑒𝑖 are the classes of exceptional curves. Put
∆𝑟 = {𝑠 ∈ Pic(𝑋C ) : 𝑠2 = −2, 𝑠 · 𝐾𝑋C = 0}.
⊥
Then ∆𝑟 is a root system in the orthogonal complement to 𝐾𝑋
⊂ Pic(𝑋C ) ⊗ R. As usual, one
C
⊥
can associate with ∆𝑟 the Weyl group 𝒲(∆𝑟 ). By definition, 𝒲(∆𝑟 ) is the subgroup of O(𝐾𝑋
)
C
generated by reflections through the hyperplanes orthogonal to the roots 𝑠 ∈ ∆𝑟 . Depending on
degree 𝑑, the type of ∆𝑟 and the size of 𝒲(∆𝑟 ) are the following:

Table 2. The Weyl groups
𝑑
1
2
3
4
5
6
∆𝑟
E8
E7
E6
D5
A4
A1 × A2
14
5
2
10
4
7
4
7
3
|𝒲(∆𝑟 )| 2 · 3 · 5 · 7 2 · 3 · 5 · 7 2 · 3 · 5 2 · 3 · 5 2 · 3 · 5
12
Moreover, there are natural homomorphisms
𝜌 : Aut(𝑋C ) → 𝒲(∆𝑟 ), 𝜂 : Γ = Gal(C/R) → 𝒲(∆𝑟 ),
where 𝜌 is an injection for 𝑑 ≤ 5. We denote by 𝑔 * the image of 𝑔 ∈ Γ × 𝐺 in the corresponding
Weyl group.
Denote by E𝑟 the sublattice of Pic(𝑋C ) generated by the root system ∆𝑟 . For an element
𝑔 * ∈ 𝒲(∆𝑟 ) denote by tr(𝑔 * ) its trace on E𝑟 . To determine whether a finite group Γ × 𝐺 acts
minimally on 𝑋C , we use the well-known formula from the character theory of finite groups
∑︁
1
rk Pic(𝑋C )Γ×𝐺 = 1 +
tr(𝑔 * ).
(1)
|Γ × 𝐺| 𝑔∈Γ×𝐺
∑︀
Thus the group Γ × 𝐺 acts minimally on 𝑋C if and only if 𝑔∈Γ×𝐺 tr(𝑔 * ) = 0. On the other hand,
by the Lefschetz fixed point formula (see [Hat02, Chapter 2, §2C]) for any ℎ ∈ 𝐺 we have,
Eu(𝑋Cℎ ) = tr(ℎ* ) + 3,

(2)

where here and later we denote by Eu(·) the topological Euler characteristic.
Remark 4.4. Note that a cyclic group always has a fixed point on a complex rational variety.
This follows from the holomorphic Lefschetz fixed-point formula.
Denote by Sp(𝑔 * ) the set of eigenvalues of 𝑔 * . For a cyclic group Γ × 𝐺 ∼
= ⟨𝑔⟩𝑛 of order 𝑛 it
is very easy to determine whether this group acts minimally on 𝑋C .
Lemma 4.5. A del Pezzo surface 𝑋 is ⟨𝑔⟩𝑛 -minimal if and only if 1 ∈
/ Sp(𝑔 * ).

11

Proof. According to the formula (1), we have to show that the sum of the traces tr(𝑔 *𝑘 ) adds up
to 0 if and only if 1 ∈
/ Sp(𝑔 * ). Let 𝜆1 , . . . , 𝜆𝑟 be the eigenvalues of 𝑔 * . We have
𝑛−1
∑︁
𝑘=0

It remains to notice that

∑︀𝑛−1
𝑘=0

*𝑘

tr(𝑔 ) =

𝑛−1 ∑︁
𝑟
∑︁
𝑘=0 𝑖=1

𝜆𝑘𝑖

=

𝑟 ∑︁
𝑛−1
∑︁

𝜆𝑘𝑖 .

𝑖=1 𝑘=0

𝜆𝑘𝑖 equals 𝑛 for 𝜆𝑖 = 1 and 0 otherwise.



4.3. del Pezzo surfaces of degree 9. Let 𝑋 be a real del Pezzo surface of degree 9. Then 𝑋
is a Severi-Brauer variety of dimension 2. As 𝑋(R) ̸= ∅, we have 𝑋 ∼
= P2R and 𝐺 ⊂ PGL3 (R).
Applying Proposition 2.17, we obtain the following
Proposition 4.6. Let 𝑋 be a real del Pezzo surface of degree 9 and 𝐺 be a subgroup of odd order
𝑛 in the automorphism group of 𝑋. Then 𝐺 ⊂ PGL3 (R) and 𝐺 is isomorphic to a cyclic group of
order 𝑛, generated by 𝑅3 (2𝜋/𝑛) (see Proposition 2.17 (2)).
4.4. del Pezzo surfaces of degree 8. In this subsection 𝑋 denotes a real del Pezzo surface of
degree 8. We shall assume that 𝑋C ∼
= P1C × P1C (the other surface of degree 8, the blow up of P2R
at one point, is never 𝐺-minimal), so either 𝑋 ∼
= 𝑄3,1 or 𝑋 ∼
= 𝑄2,2 [Kol97, Lemma 1.16].
Proposition 4.7. Let 𝑋 be a real del Pezzo surface of degree 8 with Pic(𝑋)𝐺 ∼
= Z, where 𝐺 is a
group of odd order. Then 𝐺 is linearizable (and hence is cyclic).
Proof. Since 𝐺 is of odd order, the two components of 𝑋C ∼
= P1C × P1C are exchanged by the
𝐺
∼
Galois group only. Thus Pic(𝑋) = Pic(𝑋) = Z and 𝑋 is R-minimal. Theorem 2.14 shows, that
𝑋 ∼
= 𝑄3,1 , so 𝑋(R) is homeomorphic to a sphere S2 . Suppose that 𝐺 has a real fixed point 𝑝.
Blowing it up and contracting the strict transforms of the lines passing through 𝑝, we see that our
group 𝐺 is conjugate to a subgroup of PGL3 (R). Thus, 𝐺 must be cyclic by Proposition 2.17.
It remains to explain why 𝐺 always has a real fixed point. First, let us notice that 𝐺 is a
direct product of at most two cyclic groups. Indeed, any automorphism of 𝑋 is a restriction of a
projective automorphism of P3R , so we can identify automorphisms of 𝑋 with elements of PGL4 (R).
By Proposition 2.17, our group 𝐺 is a direct product of two cyclic groups, say 𝐺1 ∼
= ⟨𝑔1 ⟩ and
𝐺2 ∼
= ⟨𝑔2 ⟩.
Applying the topological Lefschetz fixed point formula, we see that
∑︁
Eu((S2 )𝑔1 ) =
tr𝐻𝑘 (S2 ,R) 𝑔1* = tr𝐻0 (S2 ,R) 𝑔1* + tr𝐻2 (S2 ,R) 𝑔1* = 2
𝑘≥0

Here we denote by 𝑔1* the induced action on homology. Note that tr𝐻0 (S2 ,R) 𝑔1* = 1 as S2 is pathconnected, and tr𝐻2 (S2 ,R) 𝑔1* = 1 since 𝑔1 has an odd order, hence preserves orientation of S2 . Thus,
(S2 )𝑔1 consists of two points, say 𝑝 and 𝑝′ . Then 𝐺2 acts on the set {𝑝, 𝑝′ } and the action is trivial,
because the order of 𝐺2 is odd.

Example 4.8. One can explicitly write the action of a cyclic group 𝐺 on the quadric 𝑋 ∼
= 𝑄3,1 =
2
2
2
2
{[𝑥 : 𝑦 : 𝑧 : 𝑤] : 𝑥 + 𝑦 + 𝑧 = 𝑤 } as
[𝑥 : 𝑦 : 𝑧 : 𝑤] ↦→ [𝑥 cos 𝜃 + 𝑦 sin 𝜃 : −𝑥 sin 𝜃 + 𝑦 cos 𝜃 : 𝑧 : 𝑤].
This is obviously a rotation around 𝑧-axis that fixes two points (the North and the South poles)
on the sphere.

12

4.5. del Pezzo surfaces of degree 6. In this subsection 𝑋 denotes a real del Pezzo surface
of degree 6. Recall that 𝑋C is isomorphic to the surface obtained by blowing up P2C in three
noncollinear points 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , 𝑝3 . The set of (−1)-curves on 𝑋C consists of six curves: the exceptional
divisors of blow-up 𝑒𝑖 = 𝜋 −1 (𝑝𝑖 ) and the strict transforms of the lines 𝑑12 = 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , 𝑑13 = 𝑝1 , 𝑝3 ,
𝑑23 = 𝑝2 , 𝑝3 . In the anticanonical embedding 𝑋C ˓→ P6C these exceptional curves form a hexagon of
lines. We denote this hexagon by Σ. Obviously, Aut(𝑋C ) preserves Σ, so there is a homomorphism
𝜌 : Aut(𝑋C ) → Aut(Σ) ∼
= 𝒟6 ∼
= S3 × Z/2Z,
where 𝒟6 ∼
= 𝒲(A1 × A2 ) is a dihedral group of order 12 and S3 is a symmetric group on 3 letters.
The kernel Ker(𝜌) is isomorphic to the torus 𝑇 ∼
= (C* )2 (it comes from an automorphism of P2C ,
that fixes all the points 𝑝𝑖 ). In fact, one can show that Aut(𝑋C ) ∼
= 𝑇 o 𝒟6 . Put 𝐺𝑇 = 𝐺 ∩ 𝑇 ,
̂︀
𝐺 = 𝜌(𝐺). Then we get a short exact sequence
𝜌

̂︀ −→ 1
1 −→ 𝐺𝑇 −→ 𝐺 −→ 𝐺

(⋆)

Proposition 4.9. Let 𝑋 be 𝐺-minimal real del Pezzo surface of degree 6, where the order of 𝐺 is
̂︀ ∼
odd. Then 𝐺
= Z/3Z and the exact sequence (⋆) splits, i.e. 𝐺 ∼
= 𝐺𝑇 o (Z/3Z).
̂︀ ̸= id, since 𝑋 is not R-minimal by Theorem 2.14. Thus 𝐺
̂︀ ∼
Proof. Note that 𝐺
= Z/3Z. Now let
̂︀
us show that the exact sequence (⋆) splits. To construct a splitting map 𝜉 : 𝐺 → 𝐺, it suffices
̂︀ ∼
to find ℎ ∈ 𝐺 such that 𝜌(ℎ) generates 𝐺
= Z/3Z and ℎ3 = id (then one can put 𝜉(𝜌(ℎ)) = ℎ).
̂︀ Let us then show that
Since 𝜌 is surjective, we can easily find ℎ ∈ 𝐺 such that 𝜌(ℎ) generates 𝐺.
3
ℎ = id automatically. Pick up any point 𝑞 ∈ 𝑋(C) which is fixed by ℎ (such a point always exists
by Remark 4.4) and blow it up. Note that 𝑞 ∈
/ Σ, so by Lemma 4.3, the obtained surface is a del
Pezzo surface of degree 5. Moreover, it has 3 disjoint (−1)-curves forming one ⟨ℎ⟩-orbit. Blowing
this orbit down, we get 3 points on the diagonal of P1C × P1C which are fixed by ℎ3 . It follows that
ℎ3 = id. Proposition 4.9 now is proved.

From now on, until the end of this section, we assume that 𝑋 satisfies the conditions of Proposition 4.9. Clearly, 𝜂(Γ) = Z/2Z (otherwise all (−1)-curves are real, while there is a disconnected
orbit of the 𝐺-action on the set of these curves). There are three principally distinct ways of the
Galois group Γ action on the hexagon (see Fig. 1). Since neither the action of type (A) nor the

(a)

(b)

(c)

Figure 1. Galois group acting on the set of exceptional curves
action of type (B) commutes with (Z/3Z)-action, the complex conjugation acts as in Fig. 1c. Then
𝜎 * (𝑒0 ) = 2𝑒0 − 𝑒1 − 𝑒2 − 𝑒3 = −𝐾𝑋 − 𝑒0 , 𝜎 * (𝑒0 − 𝑒𝑖 ) = −𝐾𝑋 − 𝑒0 − (𝑒0 − 𝑒𝑗 − 𝑒𝑘 ) = 𝑒0 − 𝑒𝑖 , so

13

the pencil of conics |𝑒0 − 𝑒𝑖 | defines a map 𝜙𝑖 : 𝑋 → P1R over R. The product map 𝜙1 × 𝜙2 × 𝜙3
embeds 𝑋 into P1R × P1R × P1R and the image is a divisor of 3-degree (1,1,1). Hence
2
{︁
}︁
∑︁
𝑋 = [𝑥1 : 𝑥2 ] × [𝑦1 : 𝑦2 ] × [𝑧1 : 𝑧2 ] ∈ P1R × P1R × P1R : F =
𝑎𝑖𝑗𝑘 𝑥𝑖 𝑦𝑗 𝑧𝑘 = 0, 𝑎𝑖𝑗𝑘 ∈ R . (⋆⋆)
𝑖,𝑗,𝑘=1

According to [Old37, Theorem 2], any binary trilinear form F is equivalent over R (i.e. there is a
nondegenerate change of variables on each factor) to one of the following canonical forms:
(a): 𝑥1 𝑦1 𝑧1 + 𝑥2 𝑦2 𝑧2 ;
(b): 𝑥1 𝑦1 𝑧1 + 𝑥2 𝑦1 𝑧2 + 𝑥2 𝑦2 𝑧1 ;
(c): 𝑥1 𝑦1 𝑧1 + 𝑥1 𝑦2 𝑧2 + 𝑥2 𝑦1 𝑧2 − 𝑥2 𝑦2 𝑧1 ;
(d): 𝑥1 𝑦1 𝑧1 + 𝑥1 𝑦2 𝑧2 ;
(e): 𝑥1 𝑦1 𝑧1 .
It is easy to check that forms (b), (d), (e) define singular surfaces, while (a) and (c) are smooth.
On the other hand, all (−1)-curves on the surface (a) are real, contradicting our observation that
Γ acts as in Fig. 1c. Thus, we may assume that 𝑋 is given by the equation (c).
Remark 4.10. Let us clarify the topology of 𝑋(R). A real del Pezzo surface of degree 6 is
isomorphic to one of the following surfaces: P2R blown up at 𝑎 > 0 real points and 𝑏 ≥ 0 pairs of
conjugate points for some 𝑎 + 2𝑏 = 3 (then 𝑋(R) ≈ #(𝑎 + 1)RP2 ), 𝑄3,1 blown up at a pair of
conjugate points (so 𝑋(R) ≈ S2 ), or 𝑄2,2 blown up at a pair of conjugate points (then 𝑋(R) ≈
T2 = S1 × S1 ) [Kol97, Proposition 5.3]. As we saw earlier, the complex conjugation acts on the set
of (−1)-curves as in Fig. 1c. This immediately gives 𝑋(R) ≈ T2 . Indeed, 𝑋 does not dominate P2R
since there are no real (−1)-curves on 𝑋. On the other hand, 𝑋(R) cannot be a sphere because
otherwise there would be two pairs of conjugate intersecting (−1)-curves (as in Fig. 1a).
Proposition 4.11. Assume the conditions of Proposition 4.9 are satisfied. Then
𝐺∼
= (Z/𝑛Z × Z/𝑚Z) o (Z/3Z)
for some odd integer numbers 𝑛, 𝑚 ≥ 1. This group is linearizable if and only if 𝑛 = 𝑚 = 1.
Proof. Recall that there is a single isomorphism class of complex del Pezzo surfaces of degree 6,
since any three non-collinear points on P2C are PGL3 (C)-equivalent. Thus, we can view 𝑋C as a
surface in P1C × P1C × P1C defined by the equation 𝑥1 𝑦1 𝑧1 = 𝑥2 𝑦2 𝑧2 . It is a compactification of the
standard torus 𝑇 = (C* )2 = {(𝜆1 , 𝜆2 , 𝜆3 ) ∈ (C* )3 : 𝜆1 𝜆2 𝜆3 = 1} whose real form3, which we denote
by 𝑇R , is SO2 (R)×SO2 (R) (see Remark 4.10; on the tori over reals see [Vos98, 10.1]). In particular,
𝐺𝑇 ∼
= Z/𝑛Z × Z/𝑚Z for some odd integer numbers 𝑛, 𝑚.
Now let us prove the second part of the Proposition. Assume that 𝐺 is linearizable. Then 𝐺
is a cyclic group (see Proposition 4.6), so 𝐺𝑇 must be a cyclic group of order coprime to 3, and the
̂︀ on 𝐺𝑇 must be trivial. It is clear from the description above that there are exactly three
action of 𝐺
̂︀
𝐺-fixed points on the torus 𝑇 (C), namely the fixed points of the transformation 𝜆1 ↦→ 𝜆2 ↦→ 𝜆3 .
Thus, 𝐺𝑇 ∼
= Z/3Z. In particular, we see that 𝐺 is not cyclic, hence not linearizable.
Now assume that 𝑛 = 𝑚 = 1, i.e. 𝐺 ∼
= Z/3Z and a generator of 𝐺 acts on Σ “rotating” it by
2𝜋/3. Let us denote this generator by 𝜏 . We claim that 𝜏 has a real fixed point. Clearly, a fixed
3Recall

that if a pair (𝑋, 𝜎) of a complex projective variety and an antiholomorphic involution 𝜎 on 𝑋 is given,
then 𝑌 = 𝑋/⟨𝜎⟩ is a scheme over R such that 𝑌C ∼
= 𝑋. This scheme 𝑌 is called a real form of 𝑋.

14

point cannot lie on Σ, since 𝜏 rotates the hexagon by 2𝜋/3. Besides, 𝐺 has a zero-dimensional
fixed point locus on 𝑋C (otherwise, the curve of fixed points meets Σ, which is an ample divisor).
Applying the Lefschetz fixed point formula, we obtain
Eu(𝑋C𝜏 )

=

4
∑︁

(−1)𝑘 tr𝐻 𝑘 (𝑋,R) (𝜏 * ) = tr𝐻 0 (𝑋,R) (𝜏 * ) + trPic(𝑋C ) (𝜏 * ) + tr𝐻 4 (𝑋,R) (𝜏 * ) = 2 + trPic(𝑋C ) (𝜏 * ).

𝑘=0

As 𝜏 acts by 𝑒0 ↦→ 𝑒0 , 𝑒1 ↦→ 𝑒2 , 𝑒2 ↦→ 𝑒3 , 𝑒3 ↦→ 𝑒1 , we have trPic(𝑋C ) (𝜏 * ) = 1 and Eu(𝑋C𝜏 ) = 3. Since
the fixed point locus is zero-dimensional, the number of fixed points equals the Lefschetz number.
Finally, at least one of those three fixed points must be real.
Denote by 𝑌 the blow-up of this point. By Lemma 4.3, 𝑌 is a del Pezzo surface of degree 5.
Topologically, each blowing up at a real point is connected sum with RP2 , so 𝑌 (R) ≈ T2 #RP2 by
Remark 4.10. Since 𝑌 (R) is nonorientable and Eu(T2 #RP2 ) = Eu(T2 ) + Eu(RP2 ) − 2 = −1, we
get 𝑌 (R) ≈ #3RP2 . Note that there are 3 disjoint real (−1)-curves after blow-up. Blowing them
down, we obtain a del Pezzo surface 𝑍 of degree 8 either with 𝑍(R) ≈ S2 (then 𝑌 is isomorphic to
𝑍∼
= 𝑄3,1 blown up at 3 real points), or 𝑍(R) ∼
= T2 (then 𝑌 is isomorphic to 𝑍 ∼
= 𝑄2,2 ∼
= P1R × P1R
blown up at one real point and a pair of complex conjugate). In the first case, as we saw earlier,
𝐺 has a real fixed point on 𝑄3,1 . The second case is just impossible4 since 𝐺 must fix all 3 points
on the diagonal of 𝑍 ∼
= 𝑄2,2 (𝐺 cannot switch complex conjugate points), hence must be trivial.
So, 𝐺 has a real fixed point on 𝑍 ∼
= 𝑄3,1 . Blowing it up and contracting the strict transforms of
the lines passing through it, we conjugate 𝐺 to a subgroup of PGL3 (R).

Remark 4.12 (Two non-conjugate embeddings of (Z/3Z)2 into Cr2 (R)). We have the following two actions of the group 𝐺 ∼
= (Z/3Z)2 on the real rational surfaces 𝑋 and 𝑌 :
1: 𝑋 is a conic bundle P1R × P1R with rk Pic(𝑋)𝐺 = 2 (case (2) of Theorem 1.1);
̂︀
2: 𝑌 is a real del Pezzo of degree 6 with rk Pic(𝑌 )𝐺 = 1 (corresponding to the case when 𝐺
acts trivially on 𝐺𝑇 ).
The images of 𝐺 under these embeddings are not conjugate in Cr2 (R). It can be deduced from the
classification of links [Isk96, Theorem 2.6]. Namely, we need a link of type (I) or (III) starting at
a point of degree 3, but the cited theorem shows that there are no such links.
Example 4.13. There is an infinite series of non-linearizable subgroups of odd order in Cr2 (R).
For example, take 𝐺𝑇 to be the group of points of order 𝑛 in 𝑇R (R) ∼
= SO2 (R) × SO2 (R). Clearly,
̂︀ The whole group 𝐺 ∼
this group is isomorphic to (Z/𝑛Z)2 and normalized by 𝐺.
= (Z/𝑛Z)2 o(Z/3Z)
is not linearizable by Proposition 4.11.
Example 4.14. Let us give an explicit example of an automorphism 𝜏 ∈ Aut(𝑋) such that
⟨𝜏 ⟩ ∼
= Z/3Z acts minimally on the surface 𝑋 given by the polynomial (c). Namely, consider the
map
𝜏0 ∈ Aut(P1R × P1R × P1R ), 𝜏0 : [𝑥1 : 𝑥2 ] × [𝑦1 : 𝑦2 ] × [𝑧1 : 𝑧2 ] ↦→ [𝑦1 : 𝑦2 ] × [𝑧1 : −𝑧2 ] × [𝑥1 : −𝑥2 ]
and denote by 𝜏 its restriction to 𝑋. Let 𝐿±
𝑘 denote the equations of the two (complex conjugate)
singular fibres of the conic bundle obtained by projecting to the 𝑘-th factor in (⋆⋆). The equations
𝐿±
𝑘 are:
𝐿±
1 : 𝑦1 𝑧1 + 𝑦2 𝑧2 ± 𝑖(𝑦1 𝑧2 − 𝑦2 𝑧1 ) = 0;
4Basically,

it is already clear from the configuration of lines on 𝑌 .

15

𝐿±
2 : 𝑥1 𝑧1 + 𝑥2 𝑧2 ± 𝑖(𝑥1 𝑧2 − 𝑥2 𝑧1 ) = 0;
𝐿±
3 : 𝑥1 𝑦1 − 𝑥2 𝑦2 ± 𝑖(𝑥1 𝑦2 + 𝑥2 𝑦1 ) = 0.
±
±
±
±
±
It is immediately checked that 𝜏 3 = id, 𝜏 (𝐿±
1 ) = 𝐿2 , 𝜏 (𝐿2 ) =
√𝐿3 and 𝜏 (𝐿3 ) = 𝐿1 . The fixed
locus consists of three points [𝑡 : 1] × [𝑡 : 1] × [−𝑡 : 1], 𝑡 ∈ {0, ± 3}.
4.6. del Pezzo surfaces of degree 5. In this subsection 𝑋 denotes a real del Pezzo surface of
degree 5. Recall that 𝑋C is the blow-up of P2C at four points 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 , 𝑝3 , 𝑝4 in general position. Let
𝑒𝑖 be the exceptional divisor over the point 𝑝𝑖 and 𝑑𝑖𝑗 be the proper transform of the line passing
through the points 𝑝𝑖 and 𝑝𝑗 . It is classically known that Aut(𝑋C ) ∼
= 𝒲(A4 ) ∼
= S5 [Dol12, 8.5.4].
∼
∼
Thus either 𝐺 = Z/3Z, or 𝐺 = Z/5Z.
Proposition 4.15. Let 𝐺 ∼
= Z/3Z. Then 𝑋 is not 𝐺-minimal.
Proof. Recall that there are exactly ten (−1)-curves on 𝑋C . We claim that there is exactly one
𝐺-invariant (−1)-curve on 𝑋 (in particular, this curve is real). Indeed, one can see it on the graph
of exceptional curves on 𝑋C . The incidence graph of the set of these 10 lines is the famous Petersen
graph (see Fig. 2a for its «3D» form). Our group 𝐺 ∼
= Z/3Z acts on this tetrahedron by simply
rotating it. It remains to use Lemma 4.1.
d12
d34

e1

e2

d13

d24
e4

d14
(a) “3D” form

e3
d23

(b) “Classic” form

Figure 2. Graph of (−1)-curves on del Pezzo surface of degree 5

Lemma 4.16. Let 𝑋 be a real del Pezzo surface of degree 5 and 𝑔 ∈ Aut(𝑋) be an automorphism
of order 5 acting minimally on 𝑋. Then 𝑔 has exactly two fixed points on 𝑋C and these points do
not lie on the (−1)-curves on 𝑋C .
Proof. The ⟨𝑔⟩5 -minimality assumption implies that all the (−1)-curves on 𝑋 are real, since the
total number of real (−1)-curves can be equal to 2, 4 or 10 [Kol97, Corollary 5.4]. Now look at
the Petersen graph Fig. 2b. One can check that the five (−1)-curves from each ⟨𝑔⟩5 -orbit form a
pentagon (there are no 𝑔-invariant (−1)-curves). Without loss of generality, we may assume that
these orbits are {𝑒1 , 𝑑14 , 𝑑23 , 𝑒2 , 𝑑12 } and {𝑑13 , 𝑒4 , 𝑒3 , 𝑑24 , 𝑑34 }. Obviously, 𝑔 permutes (−1)-curves
in the following way: 𝑒1 ↦→ 𝑑14 = 𝑒0 − 𝑒1 − 𝑒4 , 𝑒2 ↦→ 𝑑12 = 𝑒0 − 𝑒1 − 𝑒2 , 𝑒3 ↦→ 𝑑24 = 𝑒0 − 𝑒2 − 𝑒4 ,
𝑒4 ↦→ 𝑒3 . In particular, if a fixed point exists, then it cannot lie on any (−1)-curve. If 𝑒0 ↦→ 𝑤, then

16

𝐾𝑋C = −3𝑒0 + 𝑒1 + 𝑒2 + 𝑒3 + 𝑒4 = −3𝑤 + (𝑒0 − 𝑒1 − 𝑒4 ) + (𝑒0 − 𝑒1 − 𝑒2 ) + (𝑒0 − 𝑒2 − 𝑒4 ) + 𝑒3 (since
the canonical class is 𝑔-invariant), so 𝑒0 ↦→ 𝑤 = 2𝑒0 − 𝑒1 − 𝑒2 − 𝑒4 . Therefore, trPic(𝑋C ) (𝑔 * ) = 0. As
in the previous section, it is easy to see that the fixed point locus is discrete. It remains to apply
the Lefschetz fixed point formula:
Eu(𝑋C𝑔 ) = tr𝐻 0 (𝑋,C) (𝑔 * ) + tr𝐻 4 (𝑋,C) (𝑔 * ) = 2

Lemma 4.17. Let 𝑋 be a del Pezzo surface of degree 5 and 𝜋 : 𝑌 → 𝑋 is the blow-up of two
points 𝑞1 , 𝑞2 ∈ 𝑋 lying neither on any exceptional curve, nor on any conic (by a conic we mean a
conic in the anticanonical embedding of 𝑋). Then 𝑌 is a del Pezzo surface of degree 3.
Proof. To show that −𝐾𝑌 is ample, we use the Nakai–Moishezon criterion. First, note that
2
(−𝐾𝑌 )2 = 𝐾𝑋
− 2 = 3. By Riemann-Roch,
1
dim | − 𝐾𝑌 | ≥ ((−𝐾𝑌 )2 − (−𝐾𝑌 · 𝐾𝑌 )) = 𝐾𝑌2 = 3,
2
so | − 𝐾𝑌 | =
̸ ∅. Assume that there is an irreducible curve 𝐶 ⊂ 𝑌 with −𝐾𝑌 · 𝐶 ≤ 0. Clearly,
there exists a linear system ℒ ⊂ | − 𝐾𝑌 | of dimension ≥ 2 such that 𝐶 ⊆ 𝐹 , where 𝐹 is the fixed
part of ℒ. Let ℳ = ℒ − 𝐹 be the mobile part. Note that 𝐶 * Exc(𝜋) (since every exceptional
curve has positive intersection with −𝐾𝑌 ), so 𝐶 ′ = 𝜋* 𝐶 is a curve. Put ℒ′ = 𝜋* ℒ, 𝐹 ′ = 𝜋* 𝐹 ,
ℳ′ = 𝜋* ℳ. Then ℒ′ = 𝐹 ′ + ℳ′ ⊂ | − 𝐾𝑋 | and 𝐶 ′ ⊆ 𝐹 ′ ⊂ Bs(ℒ′ ). Obviously, 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 ∈ Bs(ℒ′ )∖𝐶 ′ .
Thus Bs(ℒ′ ) ⊂ 𝑋 ∩ P2 (we identify 𝑋 with its anticanonical model in P5 ). But the homogeneous
ideal of 𝑋 is generated by five linearly independent quadrics [Dol12, 8.5.2], so 𝑝1 , 𝑝2 lie on the
curve of degree ≤ 2, a contradiction.

Now we are ready to prove the main result of this section.
Proposition 4.18. Let 𝑋 be a real del Pezzo surface of degree 5 and 𝐺 ⊂ Aut(𝑋) is a subgroup
of order 5 acting minimally on 𝑋. Then 𝐺 is linearizable.
Proof. According to Lemma 4.16 𝐺 has two fixed points on 𝑋C not lying on the (−1)-curves.
Denote these points by 𝑞1 and 𝑞2 , and let 𝑌 be the blown up surface Bl𝑞1 ,𝑞2 (𝑋). We claim that 𝑌
is a del Pezzo surface of degree 3. According to Lemma 4.17, we have to show that these points
do not lie on any conic.
Suppose that 𝑞1 , 𝑞2 ∈ 𝑄, where 𝑄 is a conic. Note that 𝑄 is unique. Indeed, assume that
𝑞1 , 𝑞2 ∈ 𝑄 ∩ 𝑄′ , where 𝑄′ is another conic. Blowing up 𝑋 at 𝑞1 , we get a del Pezzo surface
𝑋 ′ of degree 4 with 3 lines forming a triangle (possibly degenerated). On the other hand, it is
well-known that there cannot be such triangles on 𝑋 ′ (a del Pezzo surface of degree 4 is a complete
intersection of two quadrics in P4 [Dol12, Theorem 8.6.2]) . Finally, 𝑄 is obviously Γ × 𝐺-invariant,
so 𝑄 ∼ −𝑎𝐾𝑋C , 𝑎 ∈ Z. Multiplying by −𝐾𝑋C , we get 5𝑎 = −𝐾𝑋C · 𝑄 = 2, which is impossible.
If 𝑞1 = 𝜎(𝑞2 ), then we have a smooth real cubic surface 𝑌 = Bl𝑞1 ,𝑞2 (𝑋) with two skew complex
conjugate 𝐺-invariant lines, say ℓ1 and ℓ2 . It is classically known that such a surface is 𝐺-birational
to a del Pezzo surface 𝑄3,1 via birational map
𝜙 : ℓ1 × ℓ2 99K 𝑌, (𝑝1 , 𝑝2 ) ↦→ third intersection point 𝑌 ∩ 𝑝1 𝑝2 .

(3)

17

Finally, the obtained action of 𝐺 on 𝑄3,1 is linearizable by Proposition 4.7. Now assume that
𝑞1 , 𝑞2 ∈ 𝑋(R) and let 𝑋 ⊂ P(𝑉 ), where 𝑉 is a 6-dimensional vector space. Then we have a
commutative diagram
𝑋
𝜋



P2R

𝑔

𝑔
̃︀

/

/

𝑋


𝜋

P2R

where 𝑔 is a generator of 𝐺, 𝜋 is the projection from P(𝑇𝑞1 𝑋) and 𝑔̃︀ is an automorphism of
P2R ∼
= P(𝑉 /𝑇𝑞1 ) induced by 𝑔. It is not hard to show that 𝜋 is birational, see [BeBl04]. So, 𝐺 is
linearizable.

Example 4.19 (see [dFe04] or [BeBl04]). Let 𝑋 be a surface obtained from P2R by blowing up
four real points 𝑝1 = [1 : 0 : 0], 𝑝2 = [0 : 1 : 0], 𝑝3 = [0 : 0 : 1], 𝑝4 = [1 : 1 : 1]. Consider the
transformation 𝑔 ∈ Aut(𝑋) of order 5 defined as the lift to 𝑋 of the birational map
𝑔0 : P2R 99K P2R , 𝑔0 : [𝑥 : 𝑦 : 𝑧] ↦→ [𝑥(𝑧 − 𝑦) : 𝑧(𝑥 − 𝑦) : 𝑥𝑧].
√
This map has exactly two real fixed points [𝛼 : 1 : 𝛼2 ], where 𝛼 = (1 ± 5)/2 (which give us two
real fixed points on 𝑋). It can be checked that 𝑔 is conjugate by some real involution to the linear
automorphism of P2R (see [BeBl04] for explicit formulas).
2
≤4
5. del Pezzo surfaces with 𝐾𝑋

In the next four sections we use the known classification of conjugacy classes in the Weyl
groups. These classes are indexed by Carter graphs5. In particular, the Carter graph determines
⊥
the characteristic polynomial of an element from a given class and its trace on 𝐾𝑋
.
C
5.1. del Pezzo surfaces of degree 4. Again, consider representation in the Weyl group:
𝜂 × 𝜌 : Γ × 𝐺 → 𝒲(D5 ) ∼
= (Z/2Z)4 o S5 .
Proposition 5.1. Let 𝑋 be a real del Pezzo surface of degree 4 and 𝐺 ⊂ Aut(𝑋) be a subgroup
of odd order. Then rk Pic(𝑋)𝐺 > 1.
Proof. Assume that rk Pic(𝑋)𝐺 = 1. Since the order of 𝐺 is odd, either 𝐺 ∼
= Z/3Z or 𝐺 ∼
= Z/5Z.
It is well known that the number 𝑁 of real (−1)-curves on a real del Pezzo surface of degree 4
can be equal to 0, 4, 8 or 16 [Wall87, Table 2]. However, under our assumptions on 𝑋, we have
𝑁 = 0 (otherwise there exists 𝐺-invariant (−1)-curve, contradicting Lemma 4.1). In particular,
𝜂(Γ) ̸= id. On the other hand, 𝜎 * ̸= id implies that 𝐺  Z/5Z, as there are no elements of order
10 in 𝒲(D5 ) (see [DI09a, Section 6.4, Table 3]).
It remains to consider the case 𝐺 = ⟨𝑔⟩3 ∼
= Z/3Z. The only conjugacy class of elements of order
3 in 𝒲(D5 ) is the class of type 𝐴2 [DI09a, Section 6.4, Table 3], so Sp(𝑔 * ) = {1, 1, 1, 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 } (here
and later 𝜔𝑛 denotes a primitive 𝑛-th root of unity). As 𝑔 * and 𝜎 * commute, they are simultaneously
diagonalizable and Sp(𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)* = {±1, ±1, ±1, ±𝜔3 , ±𝜔 3 } (as for the sign combination, note that a
priori we require only that the corresponding minimal polynomial has real coefficients). However,
there are no involutions in 𝒲(D5 ) which act as −id in E5 . Moreover, since 𝑋C is ⟨𝑔 ∘ 𝜎⟩-minimal,
5We

follow the terminology of [DI09a] and refer the reader to the original paper [Car72] for details. All tables of
conjugacy classes in sections 5.2-5.4 and Appendix A are cribbed from [Car72].

18

1∈
/ Sp(𝑔∘𝜎)* by Lemma 4.5. Thus Sp(𝑔∘𝜎)* = {−1, −1, −1, 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 }, and tr(𝑔∘𝜎)* = −4. However,
Table 3 from the loc. cit. shows that there are no such elements of order 6 in 𝒲(D5 ).

5.2. del Pezzo surfaces of degree 3. Throughout this subsection 𝑋 denotes a real del Pezzo
surface of degree 3. Recall that 𝑋 is a cubic surface in P3R . Since the linear system |−𝐾𝑋 | = |𝒪𝑋 (1)|
is 𝐺-invariant, any automorphism of 𝑋 is a restriction of a projective automorphism, so we may
identify automorphisms of 𝑋 with elements of PGL4 (R).
For real del Pezzo surfaces of degree 3 one can prove the followning useful lemma (note that,
unlike Lemma 4.1, it deals with (−1)-curves on a complex surface):
Lemma 5.2. Let 𝑋 be a real del Pezzo surface of degree 3 and suppose that there is a 𝐺-invariant
(−1)-curve on 𝑋C . Then 𝑋 is not 𝐺-minimal.
Proof. Assume that the contrary holds and 𝐿 ⊂ 𝑋C is such a curve. By Lemma 4.1, it suffices to
consider the case 𝐿 ̸= 𝜎(𝐿). Note that 𝐿 ∩ 𝜎(𝐿) ̸= ∅ (otherwise we have a 𝐺-invariant exceptional
curve 𝐿 + 𝜎(𝐿) on 𝑋). Denote by Π the 𝐺-invariant plane in P3C spanned by 𝐿 and 𝜎(𝐿). Then
Π∩𝑋C = {𝐿, 𝜎(𝐿), 𝑀 } where 𝑀 is a real line. Obviously, 𝑀 must be 𝐺-invariant which contradicts
the 𝐺-minimality assumption.

According to Proposition 2.17, 𝐺 can be written as a direct product of at most two cyclic
groups. On the other hand, there is an injective homomorphism
𝜌 : 𝐺 → 𝒲(E6 ),
hence |𝐺| = 3𝑘 5𝑙 , 𝑘 ≤ 4, 𝑙 ≤ 1. If 𝑘 = 0, then there exists a 𝐺-invariant (−1)-curve on 𝑋C (as the
total number of (−1)-curves is 27). Thus 𝑋 is not 𝐺-minimal by Lemma 5.2. Note that there are
no elements of order 15 (hence 𝑙 = 0), 27 and 81 in 𝒲(E6 ). We see that 𝐺 is isomorphic to one of
the following groups:
Z/3Z, (Z/3Z)2 , Z/9Z, (Z/9Z)2 , Z/3Z × Z/9Z.
Denote by diag[𝛼 : 𝛽 : 𝛾 : 𝛿] the projective automorphism
[𝑥 : 𝑦 : 𝑧 : 𝑤] ↦→ [𝛼𝑥 : 𝛽𝑦 : 𝛾𝑧 : 𝛿𝑤],

𝛼, 𝛽, 𝛾, 𝛿 ∈ C* .

Let 𝑔 ∈ PGL4 (R) be an element of order 3. Denote by Fix(𝑔, 𝑌 ) the fixed locus of 𝑔, viewed as an
automorphism of 𝑌 , where 𝑌 is P3C or 𝑋C . Obviously, Fix(𝑔, 𝑋C ) = Fix(𝑔, P3C ) ∩ 𝑋C .
Proposition 5.3. Let 𝑋 be a real 𝐺-minimal del Pezzo surface of degree 3. Then 𝐺 is not
isomorphic to any of the following groups: (Z/3Z)2 , Z/9Z, (Z/9Z)2 , Z/3Z × Z/9Z.
Proof. It is well-known that a smooth cubic surface over R has 𝑁 = 3, 7, 15 or 27 real lines (see
e.g. [Silh89, VI, 5.4], although the result goes back to L. Schläfli and L. Cremona). Clearly, 𝑁 ̸= 7
under our assumptions on 𝑋 (otherwise there would be at least one 𝐺-invariant (−1)-cuve on 𝑋).
Suppose that 𝐺 is isomorphic to one of the groups listed above. Let us consider the remaining
cases for 𝑁 .
Case 𝑁 = 3. We may assume that there are no 𝐺-invariant lines on 𝑋. Thus we have
a 𝐺-orbit consisting of 3 real lines, say ℓ1 , ℓ2 , ℓ3 . Denote by 𝐺0 the stabilizer subgroup of ℓ1 .
Obviously, 𝐺0 is nontrivial and stabilizes the whole orbit (because 𝐺 is abelian). Since 𝑋 is 𝐺minimal, the lines ℓ1 , ℓ2 , ℓ3 cannot be disjoint, so they either determine a triangle, or intersect at
a single Eckardt point. Let us show that in both cases 𝑔0 must be trivial.

19

Indeed, in both cases we have a projective automorphism 𝑔0 which stabilizes a real line, say
ℓ1 , and fixes a real point 𝑝 = ℓ1 ∩ ℓ2 . Restricting 𝑔0 to ℓ1 , we get an automorphism ℎ = 𝑔0 |ℓ1 of P1R
with a real fixed point. Thus either ℎ has order 2 and we obtain a contradiction (the order of ℎ
must divide the order of 𝑔0 ), or ℎ fixes ℓ1 pointwise. In the latter case ℎ fixes ℓ2 pointwise too (𝐺
is abelian and ℓ1 , ℓ2 lie in the same orbit), so 𝑔0 fixes pointwise the plane in P3R spanned by ℓ1 and
ℓ2 , hence must be a reflection.
Therefore 𝐺0 ∼
= {id} and 𝐺 ∼
= Z/3Z, a contradiction.
Case 𝑁 = 15. Consider the action of 𝐺 on the set of real lines on 𝑋. It is easy to see that
there must be a 𝐺-orbit of cardinality 3 (or a 𝐺-invariant line). As we saw in the previous case,
this is impossible.
Case 𝑁 = 27. Then the Galois group Γ acts trivially on Pic(𝑋C ) and 𝑋C is a 𝐺-minimal
surface. Take 𝑔 ∈ 𝐺. If the order of 𝑔 is 9, then tr(𝑔 * ) = 0 (there is a single conjugacy class in
𝒲(E6 ), see Table 3). If the order of 𝑔 is 3, then tr(𝑔 * ) ≥ 0. In fact, Table 3 shows that the only
negative value of tr(𝑔 * ) is −3, so Eu(Fix(𝑔, 𝑋C )) = 0. Clearly, Fix(𝑔, 𝑋C ) is an elliptic curve, and
Fix(𝑔, P3C ) is a plane, so 𝑔 has an eigenvalue of multiplicity 3. Since the eigenvalues of 𝑔 are not
all equal to ±1, its
∑︀characteristic polynomial cannot belong to R[𝑡], a contradiction.
We see that 𝑔∈𝐺 tr(𝑔 * ) ̸= 0 (as tr(id* ) ̸= 0). So, 𝑋C is not 𝐺-minimal, a contradiction.

Proposition 5.4. Let 𝑋 be a real R-rational del Pezzo surface of degree 3, and 𝐺 ∼
= Z/3Z. Then
𝑋 is not 𝐺-minimal.
Proof. Let 𝑔 be a generator of 𝐺. Table 3 shows that tr(𝑔 * ) ∈ {−3, 0, 3}. As we saw above,
tr(𝑔 * ) ̸= −3, as 𝑔 is defined over R. In the remaining two cases we see from the same table that
𝑔 has some eigenvalues equal to 1, so the complex involution 𝜎 maps nontrivially to 𝒲(E6 ) by
Lemma 4.5.
Table 3. Elements of order 2, 3, 6 and 9 in 𝒲(E6 )
Order Carter graph
Characteristic polynomial
2
𝐴1
𝑝1 (𝑡 − 1)5
2
𝐴21
𝑝21 (𝑡 − 1)4
2
𝐴31
𝑝31 (𝑡 − 1)3
2
𝐴41
𝑝41 (𝑡 − 1)2
3
𝐴2
(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 1)4
3
𝐴22
(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡 − 1)2
3
𝐴32
(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)3
6
𝐸6 (𝑎2 )
(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡2 − 𝑡 + 1)2
6
𝐷4
(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡3 + 1)(𝑡 − 1)2
6
𝐴1 × 𝐴5
(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡5 + 𝑡4 + 𝑡3 + 𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)
6
𝐴21 × 𝐴2
(𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 1)2
6
𝐴1 × 𝐴2
(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 1)3

tr
4
2
0
−2
3
0
−3
1
1
−2
−1
1

20

𝐴1 × 𝐴22
𝐴5
𝐸6 (𝑎1 )

6
6
9

(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡 − 1)
−2
(𝑡5 + 𝑡4 + 𝑡3 + 𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 1) 0
𝑡6 + 𝑡3 + 1
0

Consider the case tr(𝑔 * ) = 3 first. We have Sp(𝑔 * ) = {1, 1, 1, 1, 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 }, so, as in the previous
section, we get Sp(𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)* = {±1, ±1, ±1, ±1, ±𝜔3 , ±𝜔 3 }. Since 𝑋C is ⟨𝑔 ∘ 𝜎⟩-minimal,
Sp(𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)* = {−1, −1, −1, −1, ±𝜔3 , ±𝜔 3 },
by Lemma 4.5. Thus tr(𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)* ∈ {−3, −5}. Table 3 shows that there are no such elements in
𝒲(E6 ).
Now let tr(𝑔 * ) = 0. In this case Sp(𝑔 * ) = {1, 1, 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 , 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 }. We have the following possibilities for Sp(𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)* :
Eigenvalues
Characteristic polynomial
tr(𝜏 ∘ 𝜎)*
−1, −1, 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 , 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3
(𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)2
−4
2 2
2
−1, −1, −𝜔3 , −𝜔 3 , 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3
(𝑡 + 1) (𝑡 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 𝑡 + 1)
−2
−1, −1, −𝜔3 , −𝜔 3 , −𝜔3 , −𝜔 3
(𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡2 − 𝑡 + 1)2
0
Thus (𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)* belongs to the class 𝐴1 × 𝐴5 . Moreover, Sp(𝜎 * ) = {−1, −1, −1, −1, 1, 1}, and 𝜎 *
belongs to the class 𝐴41 . It can be shown that there are exactly 3 real (−1)-curves on 𝑋 in this case,
and 𝑋(R) ≈ S2 ⊔ RP2 [Wall87, Table 2]. In particular, 𝑋 is not R-rational, a contradiction.

Next example shows that the R-rationality condition in Proposition 5.4 cannot be omitted.
Example 5.5. Let 𝑆𝛼 be the cubic surface in P3R given by the equation
𝛼𝑥30 + 𝑥31 + 𝑥32 + 𝑥33 − (𝑥0 + 𝑥1 + 𝑥2 + 𝑥3 )3 = 0
It can be shown that for 1/16 < 𝛼 < 1/4 the set of real points 𝑆𝛼 (R) is not connected and
homeomorphic to S2 ⊔ RP2 (one can find a detailed study of the topology of 𝑆𝛼 (R) and lines on
𝑆𝛼 in [PT08]). In particular, 𝑆𝛼 are not R-rational for such 𝛼’s. There are only 3 real lines on 𝑆𝛼
which are given by the equations
ℓ1 : 𝑥0 = 𝑥1 + 𝑥2 = 0,

ℓ2 : 𝑥0 = 𝑥2 + 𝑥3 = 0,

ℓ3 : 𝑥0 = 𝑥1 + 𝑥3 = 0.

These lines form a triangle:
ℓ1 ∩ ℓ2 = [0 : 1 : −1 : 1], ℓ1 ∩ ℓ3 = [0 : −1 : 1 : 1], ℓ2 ∩ ℓ3 = [0 : −1 : −1 : 1].
The cyclic permutation of the coordinates 𝑔 : 𝑥1 ↦→ 𝑥2 ↦→ 𝑥3 induces the permutation of lines:
ℓ1 ↦→ ℓ2 ↦→ ℓ3 . Besides, there are no disjoint complex conjugate lines on 𝑆𝛼 . Indeed, otherwise 𝑆𝛼
is birationally trivial over R (via the map (3) in Proposition 4.18) and 𝑆𝛼 (R) must be connected.
So, 𝑆𝛼 is 𝑔-minimal.

21

5.3. del Pezzo surfaces of degree 2. In this subsection 𝑋 denotes a real del Pezzo surface of
degree 2. Recall that the anticanonical map
𝜙|−𝐾𝑋 | : 𝑋 → P2R
is a double cover branched over a smooth quartic 𝐵 ⊂ P2R . The Galois involution 𝛾 of the double
cover is called the Geiser involution. Let 𝐹 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) = 0 be the equation of 𝐵. Then 𝑋 can be
given by the equation
𝑤2 = 𝐹 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧)
in the weighted projective space P(1, 1, 1, 2).
Remark 5.6. Recall that we denoted by E7 the sublattice in Pic(𝑋C ) generated by the root
system E7 . It is known that the Geiser involution 𝛾 acts as the minus identity in E7 [DI09a, 6.6].
Moreover, rk Pic(𝑋C )𝛾 = 1, so a del Pezzo surface 𝑋C of degree 2 is always 𝛾-minimal.
It is clear that 𝐵 should be invariant with respect to any automorphism of 𝑋, so there exists
a homomorphism
𝜒 : Aut(𝑋) → Aut(𝐵),
whose kernel is ⟨𝛾⟩. In fact, one can easily see that Aut(𝐵) ∼
= Aut(𝑋)/⟨𝛾⟩. As 𝐺 has odd order,
we have 𝐺 ⊂ Aut(𝐵) ⊂ PGL3 (R), so 𝐺 is cyclic by Proposition 2.17.
Denote by 𝑔 a generator of 𝐺 whose order equals 𝑛. Choose coordinates in such a way that
the action of 𝑔 on 𝐻 0 (𝑋, −𝐾𝑋 ) ⊗R C ∼
= C3 has the form
(𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) ↦→ (𝑥, 𝜔𝑛𝑘 𝑦, 𝜔𝑛−𝑘 𝑧), 0 < 𝑘 < 𝑛.
If 𝑛 ≥ 5, then 𝐹 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) is a linear combination of the monomials 𝑥4 , 𝑥2 𝑦𝑧 and 𝑦 2 𝑧 2 , so 𝐵 is
singular at the point [0 : 1 : 0]. Therefore, it remains to consider the case
𝐺 = ⟨𝑔⟩3 ∼
= Z/3Z.
Denote by 𝐵 ′ the quotient curve 𝐵/𝐺. Then, by Riemann–Hurwitz formula, we have
(︃
)︂)︃
∑︁ (︂
1
2 − 2𝑔(𝐵) = |𝐺| 2 − 2𝑔(𝐵 ′ ) −
1−
,
|
stab
𝑥|
𝑥∈𝐵
where stab 𝑥 denotes the stabilizer subgroup of a point 𝑥 ∈ 𝐵. Let 𝑁 be the number of points on
𝐵 fixed by 𝐺. Since 𝑔(𝐵) = 3 and 𝐺 ∼
= Z/3Z, we have
𝑁 = 5 − 3𝑔(𝐵 ′ ),
so either 𝑁 = 2, or 𝑁 = 5. Obviously, an element 𝑔 ∈ PGL3 (R) of order 3 cannot have five
(possibly nonreal) fixed points, so it remains to consider the first case 𝑁 = 2.
Note that there is the third fixed point 𝑝 ∈
/ 𝐵(C) (which is real). It means that we have 4
fixed points on 𝑋C in total.
Recall that there is a homomorphism
𝜂 × 𝜌 : Γ × 𝐺 → 𝒲(E7 ).
Lemma 5.7. Let 𝑋 be a real 𝐺-minimal del Pezzo surface of degree 2 with 𝑋(R) ̸= ∅, where the
order of 𝐺 is odd. Then 𝜂(Γ) ̸= id.

22

Proof. Assuming that 𝜂(Γ) = id, we get rk Pic(𝑋C )𝐺 = 1. Let 𝐸1 , 𝐸2 , . . . , 𝐸𝑠 be 𝑠 (−1)-curves on
𝑋C , forming an orbit of 𝐺. Then 𝐸1 + . . . + 𝐸𝑠 = 𝑎𝐾𝑋C , 𝑎 ∈ Z, so
𝑠
𝑠
∑︁
∑︁
2
(−1) = −𝑠.
2𝑎 = 𝑎𝐾𝑋C =
(𝐸𝑖 · 𝐾𝑋C ) =
𝑖=1

𝑖=1

It follows that 𝑠 is even, hence |𝐺| is even too, a contradiction.



Lemma 5.7 shows that the complex conjugation 𝜎 ∈ Γ gives a nontrivial element 𝜎 * ∈ 𝒲(E7 ).
It means that (𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)* is an element of order 6 in 𝒲(E7 ). All 17 classes of elements of order 6 in
𝒲(E7 ) are listed in Table 6 (see Appendix A). Since 1 ∈
/ Sp(𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)* by Lemma 4.5, there are in
*
fact only four possibilities for (𝑔 ∘ 𝜎) :
Table 4. Possibilities for (𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)*
Carter graph
Characteristic polynomial
tr(𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)*
𝐴5 × 𝐴2
(𝑡5 + 𝑡4 + 𝑡3 + 𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)
−2
3
3
4
𝐷4 × 𝐴1
(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)
−4
3
2
𝐷6 (𝑎2 ) × 𝐴1
(𝑡 + 1) (𝑡 + 1)
−1
2
2 3
𝐸7 (𝑎4 )
(𝑡 − 𝑡 + 1) (𝑡 + 1)
2
Since 𝑔 has exactly 4 fixed points on 𝑋C , we have tr 𝑔 * = 1 by the Lefschetz fixed point
formula (2). According to Table 6, such 𝑔 * belongs to the class 𝐴22 and
Sp(𝑔 * ) = {1, 1, 1, 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 , 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 }.
As 𝑋C is 𝑔 ∘ 𝜎-minimal, we have the following possibilities for Sp(𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)* by Lemma 4.5:
Eigenvalues
Characteristic polynomial
tr(𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)*
−1, −1, −1, 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 , 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3
(𝑡 + 1)3 (𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)2
−5
3 2
2
−1, −1, −1, 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 , −𝜔3 , −𝜔 3
(𝑡 + 1) (𝑡 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 𝑡 + 1)
−3
3 2
2
−1, −1, −1, −𝜔3 , −𝜔 3 , −𝜔3 , −𝜔 3
(𝑡 + 1) (𝑡 − 𝑡 + 1)
−1
Comparing it with the data of Table 4, we see that (𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)* belongs to the class 𝐷6 (𝑎2 ) × 𝐴1 .
⊥
The complex conjugation 𝜎 acts on 𝐾𝑋
as minus identity, so it coincides with the Geiser involution
C
𝛾. It follows from Remark 5.6 that 𝑋 is R-minimal. Therefore, 𝑋 is not R-rational by Theorem
2.13.
2
Remark 5.8. As in the case 𝐾𝑋
= 3, the R-rationality condition cannot be omitted. Namely,
there exists a real del Pezzo surface 𝑋 of degree 2 with a minimal action of Z/3Z such that 𝑋 is
not R-rational. To construct such a surface, consider seven different real points [1 : 0 : 0], [0 : 1 : 0],
[0 : 0 : 1], [𝑎 : 𝑏 : 𝑐], [𝑏 : 𝑐 : 𝑎], [𝑐 : 𝑎 : 𝑏], [1 : 1 : 1] on P2R in general position. Let 𝑔 ∈ Aut(P2R ) be
a cyclic permutation of coordinates. Then our set of points is 𝑔-invariant, and their blow-up is a
R-rational del Pezzo surface of degree 2 with an action of 𝐺 = Z/3Z. Note that all (−1)-curves
on 𝑋 are real. Assume that 𝑋 is given by 𝑤2 = 𝐹 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧) in P(1, 1, 1, 2). Consider the surface 𝑋 ′ ,
given by 𝑤2 = −𝐹 (𝑥, 𝑦, 𝑧). Then 𝑋 ′ is a real del Pezzo surface of degree 2 with 𝜎 * = 𝛾 * in 𝒲(E7 ).

23

It is minimal over R (in particular, 𝐺-minimal), hence not rational over R by Theorem 2.14. It is
known that 𝑋 ′ (R) ≈ ⊔4S2 , and 𝐵(R) consists of four ovals, see [Kol97] or [Wall87].
5.4. del Pezzo surfaces of degree 1. In this subsection 𝑋 denotes a real del Pezzo surface of
degree 1. The linear system | − 𝐾𝑋 | has a single base point 𝑞 and determines a rational map
𝜙 : 𝑋 99K 𝑆 = P1R . Blowing 𝑞 up, we get the following commutative diagram:
̃︀
𝑋
𝜙
̃︀

𝜋

𝑋


𝜙

/



𝑆

where 𝜙
̃︀ is an elliptic pencil. The linear system | − 2𝐾𝑋 | has no base points and exhibits 𝑋 as a
double cover of a quadratic cone 𝑄 ⊂ P3R ramified over the vertex of 𝑄 and a smooth curve 𝑄 ∩ 𝑌 ,
where 𝑌 is a cubic surface. The corresponding Galois involution 𝛽 is called the Bertini involution.
Remark 5.9. One can show that the Bertini involution 𝛽 acts as the minus identity in E8 and a
del Pezzo surface 𝑋C of degree 1 is always 𝛽-minimal.
Note that 𝑞 must be real and it is a fixed point for any automorphism group 𝐺 ⊂ Aut(𝑋C ).
It follows that there is the natural faithful representation
𝐺 → GL(𝑇𝑞 𝑋) ∼
= GL2 (R),
so 𝐺 is a cyclic group of odd order. The tables of conjugacy classes in 𝒲(E8 ) show that the order
of 𝐺 can be equal to 3, 5, 7, 9 or 15 [Car72, Table 11].
Every singular member of the linear system |−𝐾𝑋C | is an irreducible curve of arithmetic genus
1. Therefore, it is a rational curve with a unique singularity which is either a node or a simple
cusp. Denote by 𝑛cusp the number of cuspidal curves 𝑍cusp and by 𝑛node the number of nodal curves
𝑍node in | − 𝐾𝑋C |.
Lemma 5.10. We have
𝑛node + 2𝑛cusp = 12.
̃︀C . Namely,
Proof. All that we need is to compute the topological Euler characteristic of 𝑋
̃︀C ) = 𝑛node Eu(𝑍node ) + 𝑛cusp Eu(𝑍cusp ) = 𝑛node + 2𝑛cusp .
Eu(𝑋
On the other hand,
̃︀C ) = Eu(𝑋C ) + 1 = Eu(P2C ) + 8 + 1 = 12.
Eu(𝑋

The action of 𝐺 on the pencil | − 𝐾𝑋 | induces the action on 𝑆 = P1R . This gives us the natural
homomorphism 𝜇 : 𝐺 → Aut(𝑆) = PGL2 (R). Consider two cases.
Case 𝜇(𝐺) = id. Since 𝑆 can be naturally identified with P(𝑇𝑞 𝑋), the image of 𝐺 in GL(𝑇𝑞 𝑋)
consists of scalar matrices. Obviously, this is impossible because the order of 𝐺 is odd.
Case 𝜇(𝐺) ̸= id. There are exactly two conjugate imaginary fixed points on 𝑆C ∼
= P1C (since
the order of 𝜇(𝐺) is not 2). These points correspond to complex conjugate 𝐺-invariant curves 𝐶
and 𝜎(𝐶) = 𝐶 in the linear system | − 𝐾𝑋C |. We have three different cases.

24

̂︀ → 𝐶. Then the cyclic
a) Let 𝐶 and 𝐶 be nodal curves. Consider the normalization 𝜈 : 𝐶
−1
−1
1
̂︀ ∼
group 𝐺 has three fixed points 𝜈 (node) and 𝜈 (𝑞) on 𝐶
= PC . Hence, 𝐺 acts trivially on 𝐶, a
contradiction.
b) Now let 𝐶 and 𝐶 be cuspidal curves. Put 𝑛cusp = 𝑛′cusp + 2. Then 𝑛node + 2𝑛′cusp = 8, so
we have the following possibilities for a pair (𝑛node , 𝑛′cusp ):
(0, 4), (2, 3), (4, 2), (6, 1), (8, 0).
It is obvious that none of these cases occurs, as the curves of the same singularity type must be
exchanged by 𝐺.
c) Finally, let 𝐶 and 𝐶 be smooth elliptic curves. It is well-known that the order of any
automorphism of an elliptic curve, preserving the group structure, divides 24. Thus 𝐺 = ⟨𝑔⟩3 ∼
=
Z/3Z. There are exactly 3 fixed points on each curve and {𝑞} = 𝐶(R) = 𝐶(R) is the only real
point fixed by 𝐺. Note that we have 5 fixed points in total. By the Lefschetz fixed point formula,
tr(𝑔 * ) = # Fix𝑋C (𝑔) − 3 = 2.
To find a specific type of action, we turn to the tables of conjugacy classes in 𝒲(E8 ). Now we are
interested in elements of order 3.
Table 5. Elements of order 3 in 𝒲(E8 )
⊥
Carter graph Characteristic polynomial Trace on 𝐾𝑋
C
𝐴2
(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 1)6
5
𝐴22
(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡 − 1)4
2
𝐴32
(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)3 (𝑡 − 1)2
−1
4
2
4
𝐴2
(𝑡 + 𝑡 + 1)
−4

We see that 𝑔 * belongs to the class 𝐴22 and
Sp(𝑔 * ) = {1, 1, 1, 1, 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 , 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 }.
According to Lemma 4.5, a surface 𝑋C is not ⟨𝑔⟩-minimal for such 𝑔. Thus 𝜂(Γ) ̸= id and we are
looking for elements of order 6 in 𝒲(E8 ). Note that there are only 3 possibilities for Sp(𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)* :
Eigenvalues
Characteristic polynomial
tr(𝑔 ∘ 𝜎)*
−1, −1, −1, −1, 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3 , 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3
(𝑡 + 1)4 (𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)2
−6
−1, −1, −1, −1, −𝜔3 , −𝜔 3 , 𝜔3 , 𝜔 3
(𝑡 + 1)4 (𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡2 − 𝑡 + 1)
−4
4 2
2
−1, −1, −1, −1, −𝜔3 , −𝜔 3 , −𝜔3 , −𝜔 3
(𝑡 + 1) (𝑡 − 𝑡 + 1)
−2
In Table 7 (see Appendix A) we list the conjugacy classes of elements of order 6 in 𝒲(E8 ).
It turns out that only the third case in the table above actually occurs. Such an element belongs
⊥
to the class 𝐷42 . Moreover, we get that the complex involution acts on 𝐾𝑋
as minus identity,
C
i.e. coincides with the Bertini involution. It follows that 𝑋 is R-minimal. Finally, according to
Theorem 2.13, 𝑋 fails to be rational over R.
2
2
We close this section by proving that, unlike the cases 𝐾𝑋
= 2 and 𝐾𝑋
= 3, we do not really
need 𝑋 to be rational over R, and may only assume 𝑋(R) ̸= ∅.

25

Proposition 5.11. Let 𝑋 be a real del Pezzo surface of degree 1 with 𝑋(R) ̸= ∅ and 𝐺 ⊂ Aut(𝑋)
is a subgroup of odd order. Then 𝑋 is not 𝐺-minimal.
Proof. Clearly, it is sufficient to prove that 𝐺 = Z/3Z cannot act minimally on 𝑋. Assume the
contrary. As it was shown above, there is a single real fixed point 𝑞 ∈ 𝑋 (the base point of the
elliptic pencil). Moreover, 𝑋 has to be minimal over R. According to [Kol97, Theorem 6.8], we
have
𝑋(R) ≈ RP2 ⊔ 4S2 .
Obviously, at least one sphere must be 𝐺-invariant. On the other hand, any continuous map
of odd order from S2 to itself has a fixed point and the same is true for any continuous map
RP2 → RP2 (see e.g. [Hat02, Chapter 2, §2C]). Therefore, there are at least two real fixed points,
a contradiction.


26

Appendix A. Conjugacy classes in some Weyl groups
Notation. We denote by 𝑝𝑘 a polynomial of the form 𝑡𝑘 + 𝑡𝑘−1 + . . . + 𝑡 + 1.
Table 6. Elements of order 2, 3 and 6 in 𝒲(E7 )
Order Carter graph
Characteristic polynomial
2
𝐴1
𝑝1 (𝑡 − 1)6
2
𝐴21
𝑝21 (𝑡 − 1)5
2
(𝐴31 )′
𝑝31 (𝑡 − 1)4
2
(𝐴31 )′′
𝑝31 (𝑡 − 1)4
2
(𝐴41 )′
𝑝41 (𝑡 − 1)3
2
(𝐴41 )′′
𝑝41 (𝑡 − 1)3
2
𝐴51
𝑝51 (𝑡 − 1)2
2
𝐴61
𝑝61 (𝑡 − 1)
2
𝐴71
𝑝71
3
𝐴2
𝑝2 (𝑡 − 1)5
3
𝐴22
𝑝22 (𝑡 − 1)3
3
𝐴32
𝑝32 (𝑡 − 1)
6
𝐴2 × 𝐴1
𝑝2 𝑝1 (𝑡 − 1)4
6
𝐴2 × 𝐴21
𝑝2 𝑝21 (𝑡 − 1)3
6
𝐷4
(𝑡3 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 1)3
6
𝐴2 × 𝐴31
𝑝2 𝑝31 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
𝐴22 × 𝐴1
𝑝22 𝑝1 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
(𝐴5 )′
𝑝5 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
(𝐴5 )′′
𝑝5 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
𝐷4 × 𝐴1
(𝑡3 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
(𝐴5 × 𝐴1 )′
𝑝5 𝑝1 (𝑡 − 1)
′′
6
(𝐴5 × 𝐴1 )
𝑝5 𝑝1 (𝑡 − 1)
2
3
6
𝐷4 × 𝐴1
(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)3 (𝑡 − 1)
6
𝐷6 (𝑎2 )
(𝑡3 + 1)2 (𝑡 − 1)
6
𝐸6 (𝑎2 )
(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡2 − 𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡 − 1)
6
𝐴5 × 𝐴2
𝑝 5 𝑝2
3
3
6
𝐷4 × 𝐴1
(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)4
6
𝐷6 (𝑎2 ) × 𝐴1
(𝑡3 + 1)2 (𝑡 + 1)
6
𝐸7 (𝑎4 )
(𝑡2 − 𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡3 + 1)

27

Table 7. Elements of order 6 in 𝒲(E8 )
Order Carter graph
Characteristic polynomial
6
𝐴2 × 𝐴1
𝑝2 𝑝1 (𝑡 − 1)5
6
𝐴2 × 𝐴21
𝑝2 𝑝21 (𝑡 − 1)4
6
𝐷4
(𝑡3 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 1)4
6
𝐴2 × 𝐴31
𝑝2 𝑝31 (𝑡 − 1)3
6
𝐴22 × 𝐴1
𝑝22 𝑝1 (𝑡 − 1)3
6
𝐴5
𝑝5 (𝑡 − 1)3
6
𝐷4 × 𝐴1
(𝑡3 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡 − 1)3
6
𝐴2 × 𝐴41
𝑝2 𝑝41 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
𝐴22 × 𝐴21
𝑝22 𝑝21 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
(𝐴5 × 𝐴1 )′
𝑝5 𝑝1 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
(𝐴5 × 𝐴1 )′′
𝑝5 𝑝1 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
𝐷4 × 𝐴21
(𝑡3 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)3 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
𝐷4 × 𝐴2
𝑝2 (𝑡3 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 1)2
6
𝐷6 (𝑎2 )
(𝑡3 + 1)2 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
𝐸6 (𝑎2 )
(𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡2 − 𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡 − 1)2
6
𝐴32 × 𝐴1
𝑝32 𝑝1 (𝑡 − 1)
6
𝐴5 × 𝐴21
𝑝5 𝑝21 (𝑡 − 1)
6
𝐴5 × 𝐴2
𝑝5 𝑝2 (𝑡 − 1)
3
3
6
𝐷4 × 𝐴1
(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)4 (𝑡 − 1)
6
𝐷6 (𝑎2 ) × 𝐴1
(𝑡3 + 1)2 (𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 1)
6
𝐸6 (𝑎2 ) × 𝐴1 (𝑡2 − 𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 − 1)
6
𝐸7 (𝑎4 )
(𝑡2 − 𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡3 + 1)(𝑡 − 1)
6
𝐴5 × 𝐴2 × 𝐴1
𝑝5 𝑝2 𝑝1
4
3
6
𝐷4 × 𝐴1
(𝑡 + 1)(𝑡 + 1)5
6
𝐷42
(𝑡3 + 1)2 (𝑡 + 1)2
6
𝐸6 (𝑎2 ) × 𝐴2
𝑝2 (𝑡2 − 𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡2 + 𝑡 + 1)
6
𝐸7 (𝑎4 ) × 𝐴1
𝑝1 (𝑡2 − 𝑡 + 1)2 (𝑡3 + 1)
6
𝐸8 (𝑎8 )
(𝑡2 − 𝑡 + 1)4

28

References
[BaBe00] L. Bayle, A. Beauville, Birational involutions of P2 , Asian J. Math. 4 (2000), no.1, 11–17.
[BeBl04] A. Beauville, J. Blanc, On Cremona transformations of prime order, C.R. Acad. Sci. Paris Ser. I 339
(2004), no. 4, 257–259.
[Bla09]
J. Blanc, Linearisation of finite Abelian subgroups of the Cremona group of the plane, Groups Geom.
Dyn. 3 (2009), no. 2, 215–266.
[BlMa13] J. Blanc and F. Mangolte, Cremona groups of real surfaces, Proceedings of GABAG2012, (2013).
[Car72] R.W. Carter, Conjugacy classes in the Weyl group, Composito Mathematica, vol. 25 (1972), 1–59.
[Com12] A. Comessatti, Fondamenti per la geometria sopra superfizie razionali dal punto di vista reale, Math.
Ann. 73 (1912), 1–72.
[Cor95] A. Corti, Factoring birational maps of threefolds after Sarkisov, Journal of Algebraic Geometry, vol. 4
(1995), 223–254.
[dFe04] T. de Fernex, On planar Cremona maps of prime order, Nagoya Math J., vol. 174 (2004), 1–28.
[DI09a] I.V. Dolgachev, V.A. Iskovskikh, Finite subgroups of the plane Cremona group, Algebra, arithmetic, and
geometry: in honor of Yu. I. Manin, Progr. Math., vol. 269 (2009), Birkhauser Boston, Inc., Boston,
MA., 443–558.
[DI09b] I.V. Dolgachev, V.A. Iskovskikh, On elements of prime order in the plane Cremona group over a perfect
field, Int. Math. Res. Notices (2009), no. 18, 3467–3485.
[Dol12] I. V. Dolgachev, Classical Algebraic Geometry: A Modern View, Cambridge University Press, 1st edition,
(2012).
[Hat02] A. Hatcher, Algebraic Topology, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002).
[HM09] J. Huisman, F. Mangolte, The group of automorphisms of a real rational surface is n-transitive, Bull.
Lond. Math. Soc. 41.3 (2009), pp. 563–568.
[Isk79]
V. A. Iskovskikh, Minimal models of rational surfaces over arbitrary fields, Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser.
Mat., 43:1 (1979), 19–43.
[Isk96]
V. A. Iskovskikh, Factorization of birational maps of rational surfaces from the viewpoint of Mori theory,
Uspekhi Mat. Nauk, 51:4(310) (1996), 3–72.
[Kol97] J. Kollár, Real Algebraic Surfaces, Notes of the 1997 Trento summer school lectures, (preprint).
[KM09] J. Kollár, F. Mangolte, Cremona transformations and diffeomorphisms of surfaces, Adv. Math. 222.1
(2009), pp. 44–61.
[Man67] Yu. I. Manin, Rational surfaces over perfect fields. II, Mat. Sb., 72(114):2 (1967), 161–192.
[Man86] Yu. I. Manin, Cubic forms: Algebra, geometry, arithmetic, North-Holland Mathematical Library, 4, Ed.
2, North-Holland Publishing Co., Amsterdam, (1986).
[Old37] R. Oldenburger, Real canonical binary trilinear forms, American Journal of Mathematics, vol. 59, no. 2
(1937), 427–435.
[PT08]
I. Polo-Blanco, J. Top, Explicit Real Cubic Surfaces, Canad. Math. Bull., vol. 51 (1), (2008), pp. 125–133
[Pol97]
Yu. M. Polyakova, Factoring birational maps of rational surfaces over the field of real numbers, Fundam.
Prikl. Mat. 3:2 (1997), 519–547.
[Pro12] Yu. G. Prokhorov, Simple finite subgroups of the Cremona group of rank 3, J. Algebraic Geom. 21 (2012),
563–600.
[Pro15] Yu. G. Prokhorov, On G-Fano threefolds, Izv. RAN. Ser. Mat., 79:4 (2015), 159–174
[Rob15] M. F. Robayo, Prime order birational diffeomorphisms of the sphere, Annali della Scuola normale superiore di Pisa, Classe di scienze, 2015, S. to appear.
[Ser08]
J.-P. Serre, Le groupe de Cremona et ses sous-groupes finis, Seminaire Bourbaki, no. 1000 (2008), 75–100.
[Ser09]
J.-P. Serre, A minkowski-style bound for the orders of the finite subgroups of the Cremona group of rank
2 over an arbitrary field, Mosc. Math. J. 9:1 (2009), 183–198.
[Silh89] R. Silhol, Real Algebraic Surfaces, Springer, (1989).
[Vos98] V. E. Voskresenskii, Algebraic Groups and Their Birational Invariants, Transl. of Math. Monographs,
179, Amer. Math. Soc. (1998).
[Wall87] C. T. C. Wall, Real forms of smooth del Pezzo surfaces, J. Reine Angew. Math., 375/376 (1987), 47–66.

