Structure of The Group of Points
By the definitions, an abelian variety is a group variety. Its group of points can be proven to be commutative.
For C, and hence by the Lefschetz principle for every algebraically closed field of characteristic zero, the torsion group of an abelian variety of dimension g is isomorphic to (Q/Z)2g. Hence, its n-torsion part is isomorphic to (Z/nZ)2g, i.e. the product of 2g copies of the cyclic group of order n.
When the base field is an algebraically closed field of characteristic p, the n-torsion is still isomorphic to (Z/nZ)2g when n and p are coprime. When n and p are not coprime, the same result can be recovered provided one interprets it as saying that the n-torsion defines a finite flat group scheme of rank 2g. If instead of looking at the full scheme structure on the n-torsion, one considers only the geometric points, one obtains a new invariant for varieties in characteristic p (the so-called p-rank when n = p).
The group of k-rational points for a global field k is finitely generated by the Mordell-Weil theorem. Hence, by the structure theorem for finitely generated abelian groups, it is isomorphic to a product of a free abelian group Zr and a finite commutative group for some non-negative integer r called the rank of the abelian variety. Similar results hold for some other classes of fields k.
Read more about this topic: Abelian Variety
Famous quotes containing the words structure of, structure, group and/or points:
“The verbal poetical texture of Shakespeare is the greatest the world has known, and is immensely superior to the structure of his plays as plays. With Shakespeare it is the metaphor that is the thing, not the play.”
—Vladimir Nabokov (1899–1977)
“I really do inhabit a system in which words are capable of shaking the entire structure of government, where words can prove mightier than ten military divisions.”
—Václav Havel (b. 1936)
“Instead of seeing society as a collection of clearly defined “interest groups,” society must be reconceptualized as a complex network of groups of interacting individuals whose membership and communication patterns are seldom confined to one such group alone.”
—Diana Crane (b. 1933)
“The dominant metaphor of conceptual relativism, that of differing points of view, seems to betray an underlying paradox. Different points of view make sense, but only if there is a common co-ordinate system on which to plot them; yet the existence of a common system belies the claim of dramatic incomparability.”
—Donald Davidson (b. 1917)