The Jacobian of a finite graph is a finite abelian group whose cardinality is equal to the number of spanning trees of . In this earlier post, I discussed a family of combinatorial bijections between elements of and the set of spanning trees of . I also discussed the fact that for plane graphs, these Bernardi bijections come from a natural simply transitive action of on (or, more precisely, a natural isomorphism class of such actions).
In the present post, I’d like to discuss a different family of simply transitive actions of on discovered by myself, Spencer Backman (a former student of mine), and Chi Ho Yuen (a current student of mine). One virtue of our construction is that it generalizes in a natural way from graphs to regular matroids. (We will mostly stick to the graphical case in this post, but will insert some comments about extensions to regular and/or oriented matroids. A regular matroid can be thought of, rather imprecisely, as the smallest natural class of objects which contain graphs and admit a duality theory generalizing duality for planar graphs. Regular matroids are special cases of the more general concept of oriented matroids.)
One of the main new ideas in [BBY] (as we will henceforth refer to our paper) is to use the torsor as an intermediate object rather than . The latter is canonically isomorphic (as a -torsor) to the set of break divisors on ; the former is isomorphic to the circuit-cocircuit reversal system, which we now introduce.
I plan to write several posts related to the Riemann-Roch Theorem for Graphs, which was published several years ago in this paper written jointly with Serguei Norine. In this post I want to explain the statement of the theorem, give some anecdotal background, and mention a few applications which have been discovered in recent years.
The Riemann-Roch Theorem
The (classical) Riemann-Roch Theorem is a very useful result about analytic functions on compact one-dimensional complex manifolds (also known as Riemann surfaces). Given a set of constraints on the orders of zeros and poles, the Riemann-Roch Theorem computes the dimension of the space of analytic functions satisfying those constraints. More precisely, if denotes the set of constraints and is the dimension of the space of analytic functions satisfying those constraints, then the Riemann-Roch theorem asserts that
where is the genus (“number of holes”) of the Riemann surface , is the total number of constraints, and is the “canonical divisor” on . See the Wikipedia page for much more information.
Before formulating the combinatorial analogue of this result which Norine and I discovered, I want to briefly reminisce about how this result came about. In the summer of 2006, my Georgia Tech REU (Research Experience for Undergraduates) student Dragos Ilas worked on a graph-theoretic conjecture which I had made some time earlier. Dragos spent eight weeks working on the problem and compiled a lot of experimental evidence toward my conjecture. He gave a talk about the problem one Friday toward the end of the summer in an REU Mini-Conference that I was organizing at Georgia Tech. Serguei Norine (then a postdoc working with my colleague Robin Thomas) was in the audience. On Monday morning, Serguei knocked on my office door and showed me an extremely clever proof of my conjecture. I told Serguei about my real goal, which was to prove a graph-theoretic analogue of the Riemann-Roch theorem. I outlined what I had in mind and within a week, we had exactly the kind of Riemann-Roch formula that I had hoped for… thanks in large part to Serguei’s amazing combinatorial mind! Continue reading
My new Georgia Tech colleague Joe Rabinoff and I recently posted this paper to the arXiv, entitled The skeleton of the Jacobian, the Jacobian of the skeleton, and lifting meromorphic functions from tropical to algebraic curves. In this post I will attempt to give some context and background for that paper.
Suppose is an algebraic variety over a complete non-Archimedean field . For simplicity of exposition, I will assume throughout that is algebraically closed and that the value group is nontrivial. The set of points possesses a natural (Hausdorff) analytic topology, but is totally disconnected and not even locally compact in this topology. This is bad for all sorts of reasons. Over the years there have been many attempts at “fixing” this problem, beginning with the Tate-Grothendieck theory of rigid analytic spaces. One of the most successful and elegant solutions to the problem is Berkovich’s theory of non-Archimedean analytic spaces. One can associate to , in a natural and functorial way, an analytic space which contains as a dense subspace but has much nicer topological properties. For example, is a locally compact Hausdorff space which is locally contractible, and is arcwise connected if is connected. As in the theory of complex analytic spaces, is compact if and only if is proper. For much more information about Berkovich analytic spaces, see for example these course notes of mine.
One of the nice features of Berkovich’s theory (established in full generality only very recently, by Hrushovski and Loeser) is that the space always admits a deformation retraction onto a finite polyhedral complex . In general, there is no canonical choice for . However, in certain special cases there is, e.g. when is a curve of positive genus or is an abelian variety. (More generally, the existence of canonical skeleta is closely tied in with the Minimal Model Program in birational algebraic geometry, see for example this recent paper of Mustata and Nicaise.) For the rest of this post, I will focus on the special cases of curves and abelian varieties. Continue reading