text:
# Classification of quadruple Galois canonical covers I

## Dedicated to Ignacio Sols.

## Introduction

Classification problems are of central importance in Algebraic Geometry. In the realm of algebraic surfaces, the geography of surfaces of general type, by far the largest class of surfaces, is much less charted and understood. An important sub-class of surfaces of general type are those whose canonical map is a cover of a simpler surface, most notably, a cover of a surface of minimal degree. In the seventies and eighties Horikawa and Konno (see \[Ho1\] , \[Ho3\] and \[K\] ) classified these covers when the degree of the cover is $`2`$ and $`3`$. In this article and in its sequel \[GP4\] we classify surfaces of general type whose canonical map is a quadruple Galois cover of a surface of minimal degree.

Covers of varieties of minimal degree have a ubiquitous presence in various contexts. They appear in the classification of surfaces of general type $`X`$ with small $`K_X^2`$ done by Horikawa (see \[Ho1\] , \[Ho2\] , \[Ho3\] and \[Ho4\] ) and play an important role in mapping the geography of surfaces of general type. They are also the chief source in constructing new examples of surfaces of general type as the work of various geometers illustrates (see also \[K\] , \[MP\] and \[T\] ). These covers occur as well in the study of linear series on important threefolds such as Calabi-Yau threefolds as the work in \[BS\] , \[GP1\] and \[OP\] shows. They also become relevant in the study of the canonical ring of a variety of general type as can be seen in results from \[GP2\] and \[Gr\] (see \[Pu\] for further motivation).

Compared to the canonical morphism of a curve, the canonical morphism of a surface is much more subtle and allows a much wider range of possibilities due to the existence of higher degree covers. The degree of the canonical morphism of a curve is bounded by $`2`$. In contrast, Beauville proved that the degree of the canonical morphism from a surface of general type $`X`$ onto a surface of minimal degree, or more generally, onto a surface with geometric genus $`p_g=0`$, is bounded by $`9`$ if $`\chi (X)31`$ (see \[Be\] ; see also \[Ga\] , where the bound is reduced to $`8`$ if $`p_g(X)132`$).

Surfaces of minimal degree are classically known to be linear $`^2`$, the Veronese surface in $`^5`$ and rational normal scrolls, which can be smooth (these include the smooth quadric hypersurface in $`^3`$) or singular (these are cones over a rational normal curve). As pointed out before the classification of the canonical covers of these surfaces is only complete when the degree of the cover is $`2`$ (see \[Ho1\] ) and $`3`$ (see \[Ho3\] and \[K\] ). Horikawa also studied quadruple covers of linear $`^2`$. The next step in this classification is the study of quadruple covers of an arbitrary surface of minimal degree.

In this work we classify all quadruple Galois canonical covers of smooth surfaces of minimal degree $`W`$. In \[GP4\] we classify quadruple Galois covers of $`W`$ when $`W`$ is singular. There are many interesting consequences of the classification done here and in \[GP4\] . Our classification yields, among other things, some striking contrasts with double and triple covers. Before we look at them we state the main result of this article:

###### \summary

Let $`X`$ be a canonical surface and let $`W`$ be a smooth surface of minimal degree. If the canonical bundle of $`X`$ is base-point-free and $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a quadruple Galois canonical cover, then $`W`$ is either linear $`^2`$ or a smooth rational normal scroll $`S(me,m)`$ with $`0e2`$ and $`me+1`$. Let $`G`$ be the Galois group of $`\phi `$.

A) If $`G=_2\times _2`$, then $`X`$ is the fiber product over $`W`$ of two double covers of $`W`$ branched along divisors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ and $`\phi `$ is the natural morphism from the fiber product to $`W`$. The divisors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ satisfy:

1) If $`W`$ is linear $`^2`$, then $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are quartic curves.

2) If $`W=S(me,m)`$, then either

2.1) $`D_12C_0+(2m+2)f`$ and $`D_24C_0+(2e+2)f`$; or

$`e=0`$ and

2.2) $`D_1(2m+2)f`$ and $`D_26C_0+2f`$; or

2.3) $`D_1(2m+4)f`$ and $`D_26C_0`$; or

2.4) $`D_12C_0+(2m+4)f`$ and $`D_24C_0`$.

B) If $`G=_4`$, then $`\phi `$ is the composition of two double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>Y`$ branched along a divisor $`D_2`$ and $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$, branched along the ramification of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}D_1`$ and with trace zero module $`p_1^{}𝒪_W(\frac{1}{2}D_1\frac{1}{4}D_2)`$. The divisors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ satisfy:

1) If $`W`$ is linear $`^2`$, $`D_1`$ is a conic and $`D_2`$ is a quartic curve.

2) If $`W=S(me,m)`$, then either

2.1) $`D_1(2me+1)f`$ and $`D_24C_0+(2e+2)f`$; or

$`e=0`$, and

2.2) $`D_1(2m+4)f`$, $`D_24C_0`$; or

2.3) $`D_13C_0`$, $`D_22C_0+4f`$ and $`m=1`$.

Conversely, if $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is either

I. the fiber product over $`W`$ of two double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X_2\mathrm{@}>p_2>>W`$, branched respectively along divisors $`D_2`$ and $`D_1`$ as described in A.1, A.2.1, A.2.2, A.2.3 or A.2.4; or

II. the composition of two double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>Y`$ branched along a divisor $`D_2`$ and $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$, branched along the ramification of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}D_1`$ and with trace zero module $`p_1^{}𝒪_W(\frac{1}{2}D_1\frac{1}{4}D_2)`$, with $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ as described in B.1, B.2.1, B.2.2 or B.2.3,

then $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a Galois canonical cover whose Galois group is $`_2\times _2`$ in case I and $`_4`$ in case II.

The above result is split inside the paper into Corollary 1.7 and Theorems 2.11, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 . We also construct families of examples to show the existence of all the cases that appear in the classification. A notable fact that is not mentioned in the statement of the theorem is that there exist families of smooth surfaces of general type $`X`$ for every case A.1, A.2.1, A.2.2, A.2.3 and A.2.4, (that is, all cases where $`G=_2\times _2`$). In comparison, we show that the quadruple cyclic canonical covers of smooth surfaces of minimal degree are always singular. We also show that quadruple cyclic canonical covers are non-simple cyclic.

One of the important implications of the main result of this article is the existence of families of quadruple canonical covers with unbounded geometric genus and the existence of families with unbounded irregularity. The unboundedness of the geometric genus is in sharp contrast with the situation of triple covers and the unboundedness of the irregularity is in sharp contrast with the situation of both double and triple covers. The geometric genus of canonical double covers is unbounded but they are all regular, and even simply connected surfaces. The geometric genus of canonical triple covers is bounded by $`5`$ (see \[K\] ) and are all regular. For quadruple Galois covers we show the existence of families of surfaces $`X`$ for each possible value of $`p_g(X)`$. Regarding irregularity, the classification shows that most of the quadruple Galois covers are regular. However, we do show that there exist families of surfaces with irregularity $`1`$ (cases A.2.4, B.2.2 and B.2.3) and, most importantly, families of surfaces $`X`$ for each possible value of $`q(X)`$ (cases A.2.2 and A.2.3).

The classification of quadruple covers provides other significant contrast with double and triple covers and brings out clearly the marked difference between even and odd degree covers. The only smooth targets of quadruple Galois canonical covers that occur are linear $`^2`$ and rational normal scrolls which correspond to only three Hirzebruch surfaces, namely $`𝔽_0`$, $`𝔽_1`$ and $`𝔽_2`$. In the case of canonical double covers, linear $`^2`$ and smooth rational scrolls corresponding to every Hirzebruch surface appear as image of the canonical morphism. In the case of canonical triple covers, the list is reduced drastically and the only possible smooth target is linear $`^2`$ (see also \[GP2\] , Proposition 3.3).

The classification of quadruple covers of singular targets (i.e., a cone over a rational normal curve) in \[GP4\] together with the results of Horikawa and Konno exhibit a striking pattern. Indeed we show that these form a bounded family with respect to both the geometric genus and irregularity as in the case of double and triples covers of singular targets. The results in this article and \[GP4\] predict a precise numerology that might hold for higher degree covers. The following facts make it clear what we mean: there do not exist canonical covers of odd degree of smooth scrolls (see \[GP2\] , Proposition 3.3) and there do not exist Galois canonical covers $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ of prime degree $`p>3`$ of surfaces $`W`$ of minimal degree if $`X`$ is regular or if $`W`$ is smooth (see Theorem 3.2 , Corollary 3.3 and \[GP2\] , Corollary 3.2). This motivates us to pose a general question (see Question 3.4 ) on the non-existence of higher, prime degree Galois canonical covers of surfaces of minimal degree.

The classification obtained in this article and in \[GP4\] has further applications. In \[GP5\] , we determine the ring generators of the quadruple covers classified here and in \[GP4\] . The results of \[GP5\] show that quadruple covers serve as examples and counter examples to some questions on graded rings and normal generation of linear systems on an algebraic surface.

Acknowledgements: We thank N. Mohan Kumar for generously sharing his time for some useful discussions and insightful comments. We are very grateful to Rita Pardini, who, after seeing an earlier version of this work, remarked that we had not treated the case of non-simple cyclic covers. It was after her comment that we proved the theorems on cyclic covers. Finally, we thank the referee of the announcement \[GP3\] of these results, who kindly made many suggestions, not only for the announcement, but also to improve the exposition of the present article and \[GP4\] .

## 1. Quadruple canonical covers of surfaces of minimal degree

Convention: We work over an algebraically closed field of charactheristic $`0`$.

Notation : We will follow these conventions:

1) Throughout this article, unless otherwise stated, $`W`$ will be an embedded smooth projective algebraic surface of minimal degree, i.e., whose degree is equal to its codimension in projective space plus $`1`$.

2) Throughout this article, unless otherwise stated, $`X`$ will be a projective algebraic normal surface with at worst canonical singularities. We will denote by $`\omega _X`$ the canonical bundle of $`X`$.

We recall the following standard notation:

3) By $`𝔽_e`$ we denote the Hirzebruch surface whose minimal section have self-intersection $`e`$. If $`e>0`$ let $`C_0`$ denote the minimal section of $`𝔽_e`$ and let $`f`$ be one of the fibers of $`𝔽_e`$. If $`e=0`$, $`C_0`$ will be a fiber of one of the families of lines and $`f`$ will be a fiber of the other family of lines.

4) If $`a,b`$ are integers such that $`0<ab`$, consider two disjoint linear subspaces $`^a`$ and $`^b`$ of $`^{a+b+1}`$. We denote by $`S(a,b)`$ the smooth rational normal scroll obtained by joining corresponding points of a rational normal curve in $`^a`$ and a rational normal curve of $`^b`$. Recall that $`S(a,b)`$ is the image of $`𝔽_e`$ by the embedding induced by the complete linear series $`|C_0+mf|`$, with $`a=me`$, $`b=m`$ and $`me+1`$. If $`a=b`$, the linear series $`|mC_0+f|`$ also gives a minimal degree embedding of $`𝔽_0`$, equivalent to the previous one by the automorphism of $`^1\times ^1=𝔽_0`$ swapping the factors. In this case our convention will always be to choose $`C_0`$ and $`f`$ so that, when $`W`$ is a smooth rational normal scroll, and $`W`$ is embedded by $`|C_0+mf|`$.

In this section we prove general results regarding quadruple canonical covers of surfaces of minimal degree:

###### \defcan

Let $`X`$ and $`W`$ be as in the previous notations. We will say that a surjective morphism $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a canonical cover of $`W`$ if $`X`$ is surface of general type whose canonical bundle $`\omega _X`$ is ample and base-point-free and $`\phi `$ is the canonical morphism of $`X`$.

###### \remcan

Although we have assumed $`X`$ to have canonical singularities, some results hold in greater generality. Precisely, if for the purpose of this remark we ignore Notation 2) above and $`X`$ is assumed to be a normal, locally Gorenstein surface instead then Definition 1.1 still makes sense and Theorems 2.11, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 hold. We can further relax the hypotheses on $`X`$ in the converse parts of Theorems 2.11, 3.5, 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 and they hold if $`X`$ is just assumed to be smooth in codimension $`1`$, since in that case these covers are Gorenstein.

###### \split

Let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a quadruple canonical cover of $`W`$. Let $`H=𝒪_W(1)`$. Then $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ is a vector bundle on $`W`$ and

$$\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_WE(\omega _WH^{})$$

with $`E`$ vector bundle over $`W`$ of rank $`2`$. If in addition $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ splits as sum of line bundles, then

$$\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_WL_1^{}L_2^{}(\omega _WH^{})$$

with $`L_1^{}L_2^{}=\omega _WH^{}`$.

Proof. Recall that by Definition 1.1 $`\phi `$ is finite, $`W`$ is smooth and $`X`$ is locally Cohen-Macaulay. Then $`\phi `$ is flat and hence $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ is a vector bundle over $`𝒪_W`$ of rank $`4`$. Moreover (see \[HM\] ), $`\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_WE^{}`$, where $`E^{}`$ is the trace zero module of $`\phi `$. From relative duality we have

$$\phi _{}\omega _X=(\phi _{}𝒪_X)^{}\omega _W.$$

On the other hand, by hypothesis, $`\omega _X=\phi ^{}H`$, hence, by projection formula,

$$\phi _{}\omega _X=\phi _{}𝒪_XH.$$

Then

$$\omega _W(\omega _W(E^{})^{})=H(E^{}H).$$

Since $`\omega _W=H`$ is not possible, for $`W`$ is a rational surface, $`E^{}=E(\omega _WH^{})`$, with $`E`$ vector bundle of rank $`2`$. If $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ splits, let $`E=L_1^{}L_2^{}`$. Then

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\omega _W(\omega _WL_1)(\omega _WL_2)H=\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }H(HL_1^{})(HL_2^{})\omega _W.\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Then taking the determinant of both sides of the equality gives $`(L_1^{}L_2^{})^2=(\omega _WH^{})^2`$. Since $`W`$ is either $`^2`$ or a Hirzebruch surface, then $`L_1^{}L_2^{}=\omega _WH^{}`$. ∎

Now we study in more detail the possible splittings of $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ depending on what surface $`W`$ is. We start with this observation about linear $`^2`$:

###### \regPtwo

Let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a canonical cover. If $`W`$ is linear $`^2`$, then $`X`$ is regular if and only if $`\phi _{}𝒪_W`$ splits as direct sum of line bundles.

Proof. By Proposition 1.3 we know that

$$\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_WE\omega _W(1).$$

Since $`W=^2`$, the intermediate cohomology of line bundles on $`W`$ vanishes so by projection formula $`H^1(\phi ^{}𝒪_W(k))=H^1(E(k))`$. By Kodaira vanishing and duality $`H^1(\phi ^{}𝒪_W(k))=0`$ except maybe if $`k=0,1`$. Then $`X`$ is regular if and only if $`H^1(E(k))=0`$ for all $`k`$, and by Horrock’s splitting Criterion, this is equivalent to the splitting of $`E`$. Thus $`X`$ is regular if and only if $`\phi _{}𝒪_Y`$ splits as direct sum of line bundles. ∎

The following proposition tells how the restriction of $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ to a smooth curve in $`|\omega _X|`$ splits:

###### \hypsplit

Let $`W`$ be a surface of minimal degree $`r`$, not necessarily smooth, let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a canonical cover of degree $`4`$ and let $`C`$ be a general smooth irreducible curve in $`|𝒪_W(1)|`$. If $`X`$ is regular, then

$$(\phi _{}𝒪_X)|_C=𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(r1)𝒪_^1(r1)𝒪_^1(2r2).$$

Proof. See \[GP2\] , Lemma 2.3 for details. ∎

Finally we describe more accurately the splitting of $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ in the case $`X`$ regular:

###### \splitwist

Let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a quadruple canonical cover. If $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ splits as a direct sum of line bundles, then:

1) If $`W`$ is linear $`^2`$, then

$$\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_^2𝒪_^2(2)𝒪_^2(2)𝒪_^2(4);$$

2) $`W`$ is not the Veronese surface; and

3) if $`W`$ is a rational normal scroll and $`X`$ is regular, then

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_W𝒪_W(C_0(m+1)f)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }𝒪_W(2C_0(e+1)f)𝒪_W(3C_0(m+e+2)f),\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

where $`2me`$ is the degree of $`W`$.

Proof. To prove 1) recall that by Proposition 1.4 $`X`$ is regular. Then by Proposition 1.5 the restriction of $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ to a line of $`W`$ is

$$𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(2)𝒪_^1(2)𝒪_^1(4)$$

so 1) is clear.

For 2) $`W`$ is isomorphic to $`^2`$ and $`𝒪_W(1)=𝒪_^2(2)`$. Then by Proposition 1.3 $`\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_^2E𝒪_^2(5)`$. Let $`C`$ be a smooth conic in $`W`$. If $`X`$ is irregular, then by Proposition 1.4 , $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ cannot split completely. If $`X`$ is regular, then according to Proposition 1.5

$$(\phi _{}𝒪_X)_C=𝒪_^1𝒪_^1(5)𝒪_^1(5)𝒪_^1(10).$$

Then if $`E=L_1^{}L_2^{}`$ with $`L_1`$ and $`L_2`$ line bundles, $`L_1^{}|_C=L_2^{}|_C=𝒪_^1(5)`$, but since $`C`$ is a conic the degrees of $`L_1|_C`$ and $`L_2|_C`$ are even integers, so we get a contradiction.

For 3) recall that $`\omega _W=𝒪_W(2C_0(e+2)f)`$ and that $`𝒪_W(1)=𝒪_W(C_0+mf)`$. Then it follows by assumption and Proposition 1.3 that

$$\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_WL_1^{}L_2^{}𝒪_W(3C_0(m+e+2)f),$$

and $`L_1L_2=𝒪_W(3C_0+(m+e+2)f)`$. Then, if we set $`L_1=𝒪_W(a_1C_0+b_1f)`$ and $`L_2=𝒪_W(a_2C_0+b_2f)`$, it follows that

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }a_1+a_2=3\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }b_1+b_2=m+e+2.\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

We show now that $`a_i1`$ for $`i=1,2`$. Since $`\phi `$ is induced by the complete linear series of $`\phi ^{}𝒪_W(C_0+mf)`$, then $`(1a_i)C_0+(mb_i)f`$ is non effective. Then, if $`a_i0`$, $`b_im+1`$. On the other hand, since $`X`$ is regular and $`H^1(L_i^{})H^1(\phi _{}𝒪_X)=0`$, it follows that $`H^1(𝒪_W(a_iC_0b_if))=0`$. Then, if $`a_i0`$, $`b_i1`$, hence $`m0`$, which is impossible, because $`me+11`$. Then, since $`a_1+a_2=3`$, $`a_i`$ is either $`1`$ or $`2`$. Let us set $`a_1=1`$. Then, since $`(1a_1)C_0+(mb_1)f`$ cannot be effective, $`b_1m+1`$. On the other hand, $`a_2=2`$, and since $`0=h^1(L_2^{})=h^1(𝒪_W(2C_0b_2f))=h^1(𝒪_W((b_2e2)f))=h^1(𝒪_^1(b_2e2))`$, then $`b_2e+1`$. Since $`b_1+b_2=m+e+2`$, then $`b_1=m+1`$ and $`b_2=e+1`$. ∎

The purpose of this paper is to study canonical quadruple Galois covers, and we will focus on them in the next sections. Meanwhile, Proposition 1.6 already yields a fact regarding these covers which is worth remarking. Note that a canonical Galois cover of the Veronese surface is flat, because the Veronese surface is smooth. Then, being $`\phi `$ flat and Galois, $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ splits completely, so we have this

###### \NoVer

There are no quadruple Galois canonical covers of the Veronese surface.

## 2. Quadruple Galois covers

In this section we start the study of the case when $`\phi `$ is a Galois, quadruple cover. We begin by setting up our definitions and recalling, without a proof, some useful facts on Galois extensions.

###### \defGal

Let $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>\mathrm{\Phi }>>𝔚`$ be a finite morphism between normal projective varieties $`𝔛`$ and $`𝔚`$ and let $`G`$ be a finite group acting on $`𝔛`$ so that $`𝔛/G=𝔚`$ and $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is in fact the projection from $`𝔛`$ to $`𝔛/G`$. We call $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>\mathrm{\Phi }>>𝔚`$ a Galois cover with group $`G`$.

###### \Galremtwo

In the previous definition of Galois cover we are not assuming $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ to be flat. However, a quadruple Galois canonical cover $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ of a smooth surface of minimal degree is flat, because $`W`$ is smooth, $`X`$ is locally Cohen-Macaulay and $`\phi `$ is finite.

###### \Galemma

Let $`AB`$ be a ring extension of integrally closed domains, let $`K`$ be the field of fractions of $`A`$ and let $`L`$ be the field of fractions of $`B`$. Let $`G`$ be a finite group. Then following are equivalent:

1) $`G`$ acts on $`B`$ and $`A=B^G`$.

2) $`KL`$ is a normal extension with Galois group $`G`$ and $`B`$ is the integral closure of $`A`$ in $`L`$.

Under the equivalent conditions 1) and 2), $`G`$ is the group of $`A`$-automorphisms of $`B`$.

Now we focus on Galois covers of degree $`4`$. We recall the algebra structure associated to such covers:

###### \Galquad

Let $`𝔛`$ and $`𝔜`$ be two algebraic varieties and let $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>p>>𝔜`$ be a flat, Galois cover of degree $`4`$.

1) If $`G=_4`$, then $`p_{}𝒪_𝔛`$ splits as

$$p_{}𝒪_𝔛=𝒪_𝔜L_i^{}L_1^{}L_i^{}$$

where the line bundles on $`𝔜`$, $`𝒪_𝔜,L_i^{},L_1^{}`$ and $`L_i^{}`$ are the eigenspaces of $`1,i,1`$ and $`i`$ respectively.

There exist effective Cartier divisors $`D_{11},D_{12},D_{23}`$ and $`D_{33}`$ on $`𝔜`$ such that $`D_{11}+D_{23}=D_{12}+D_{33}`$ and the following

$$\begin{array}{ccc}L_iL_i& =& L_1𝒪_Y(D_{11})\\ L_iL_1& =& L_i𝒪_Y(D_{12})\\ L_iL_i& =& 𝒪_Y(D_{11}+D_{23})\\ L_1L_1& =& 𝒪_Y(D_{12}+D_{23})\\ L_1L_i& =& L_i𝒪_Y(D_{23})\\ L_iL_i& =& L_1𝒪_Y(D_{33})\end{array}(\mathrm{2.4.1})$$

and the multiplicative structure of $`p_{}𝒪_𝔛`$ is as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }L_i^{}L_i^{}\mathrm{@}>D_{11}>>L_1^{}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_i^{}L_1^{}\mathrm{@}>D_{12}>>L_i^{}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_i^{}L_i^{}\mathrm{@}>D_{11}+D_{23}>>𝒪_𝔜\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_1^{}L_1^{}\mathrm{@}>D_{12}+D_{23}>>𝒪_𝔜\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_1^{}L_i^{}\mathrm{@}>D_{23}>>L_i^{}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_i^{}L_i^{}\mathrm{@}>D_{33}>>L_1^{}.\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

2) If $`G=_2\times _2`$, then $`p_{}𝒪_𝔛`$ splits as

$$p_{}𝒪_𝔛=𝒪_𝔜L_1^{}L_2^{}L_3^{},$$

where $`𝒪_𝔜`$, $`L_1^{}`$, $`L_2^{}`$ and $`L_3^{}`$ are eigenspaces and there exist effective Cartier divisors $`D_1`$, $`D_2`$ and $`D_3`$ such that $`L_i^2=𝒪_Y(D_j+D_k)`$ and $`L_jL_k=L_i𝒪_Y(D_i)`$ with $`ij`$, $`jk`$ and $`ki`$, and the multiplicative structure of $`p_{}𝒪_𝔛`$ is as follows:

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }L_i^{}L_i^{}\mathrm{@}>D_j+D_k>>𝒪_𝔜,\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_j^{}L_k^{}\mathrm{@}>D_i>>L_i^{}.\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Sketch of proof. The action of $`G`$ splits $`p_{}𝒪_𝔛`$ into line bundles. Precisely if $`G`$ is $`_4`$, they are the eigenspaces of the eigenvalues $`1,i,1`$ and $`i`$ of one generator of the group and if $`G`$ is $`_2\times _2`$ they are the intersection of the eigenspaces associated to one of the generators of $`G`$ with the eigenspaces of other generator of $`G`$. Then it is easy to trace to what eigenspace the product of elements of two eigenspaces goes. For instance, if $`G`$ is $`_4`$ it is clear that the product of two elements of $`L_i`$ is an element of $`L_1`$, the product of an element of $`L_i`$ and an element of $`L_1`$ is an element of $`L_i`$, etc. This yields the existence of the effective divisors mentioned in the statement and the description of the multiplicative structure, the relations among the divisors arising from the commutativity and associativity of the product. We refer to \[Pa\] and, for the bi-double case, to \[C\] ; see also \[HM\] . ∎

We recall also the definition of simple cyclic cover:

###### \defnrem

Let $`D`$ be an effective Cartier divisor on a variety $`𝔜`$ such that there exists a line bundle $`L`$ with $`L^n=𝒪_𝔜(D)`$. Consider the $`𝒪_𝔜`$-algebra $`𝒪_𝔜L^1L^2\mathrm{}L^{n+1}`$ with multiplication

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }L^{m_1}L^{m_2}L^{(m_1+m_2)}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\text{ if }0m_1+m_2n1,\text{ and }\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L^{m_1}L^{m_2}\mathrm{@}>D>>L^{(m_1+m_2)+n}\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }\text{ otherwise. }\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Then we say that $`𝔛=`$ Spec$`(𝒪_𝔜L^1\mathrm{}L^{n+1})`$ is a simple cyclic cover of degree $`n`$ branched along $`D`$. A simple cyclic cover of degree $`n`$ is Galois and its Galois group is $`_n`$. In particular, with the notation of Proposition 2.4 , a Galois cover $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>p>>𝔜`$ with group $`_4`$ is simple cyclic branched along $`D`$ if and only if $`D_{11}=D_{12}=0`$ and $`D_{23}=D_{33}=D`$ or $`D_{11}=D_{12}=D`$ and $`D_{23}=D_{33}=0`$

A quadruple Galois canonical cover over a smooth surface of minimal degree has the property that two of the eigenspaces (different from $`𝒪_𝔜`$) described in Proposition 2.4 have as tensor product the third one (see Proposition 1.3 .) This is a strong condition that simplifies the algebra structures of the covers. We see what this exactly means in the next two propositions. We start with the case when the Galois group is $`_2\times _2`$.

###### \bipro

Let $`𝔛`$ and $`𝔜`$ be algebraic varieties and let $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>p>>𝔜`$ be a flat Galois cover with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$. Let $`L_1,L_2,L_3,D_1,D_2`$ and $`D_3`$ be as in Proposition 2.4 , 2). If $`L_1L_2=L_3`$, then

1) $`𝔛`$ is the fiber product over $`𝔜`$ of the flat double covers $`𝔛_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>𝔜`$ and $`𝔛_2\mathrm{@}>p_2>>𝔜`$, which are branched respectively along $`D_2`$ and $`D_1`$ and have trace zero module $`L_1^{}`$ and $`L_2^{}`$ respectively, and $`p`$ is the natural map from the fiber product onto $`𝔜`$.

2) In particular, if $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a canonical cover of a smooth surface of minimal degree and $`\phi `$ is Galois with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$, then $`X`$ is the fiber product over $`W`$ of two double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X_2\mathrm{@}>p_2>>W`$ and $`\phi `$ is the natural map from the fiber product to $`W`$.

Proof. According to Proposition 2.4

$$p_{}𝒪_𝔛=𝒪_𝔜L_1^{}L_2^{}L_3^{}$$

and the $`𝒪_𝔜`$-algebra $`p_{}𝒪_𝔛`$ has three subalgebras $`𝒪_𝔜L_1^{}`$, $`𝒪_𝔜L_2^{}`$ and $`𝒪_𝔜L_3^{}`$, corresponding to three double covers $`𝔛_i\mathrm{@}>p_i>>𝔜`$ for $`i=1,2,3`$ which are branched along $`D_j+D_k`$ where $`ij`$, $`jk`$, $`ki`$. Since $`L_1L_2=L_3`$, then $`D_3=0`$, hence $`𝔛_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>𝔜`$ is branched along $`D_2`$ and $`𝔛_2\mathrm{@}>p_2>>𝔜`$ is branched along $`D_1`$. Then the algebra structure of $`p_{}𝒪_𝔛`$ described in Proposition 2.4 , 2) becomes the tensor product over $`𝒪_𝔜`$ of the algebras $`𝒪_𝔜L_1^{}`$ and $`𝒪_𝔜L_2^{}`$.

Now let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a canonical cover of degree $`4`$. If $`\phi `$ is Galois, by Proposition 2.4 , $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ splits as direct sum of line bundles. Then by Proposition 1.3 $`L_1L_2=L_3`$, so the statement follows from the first part of Proposition 2.6 .

###### \Galcyclic

Let $`𝔛`$ and $`𝔜`$ be algebraic varieties and let $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>p>>𝔜`$ be a flat Galois cover with Galois group $`_4`$ and let $`L_i,L_1,L_i,D_{11},D_{12},D_{23}`$ and $`D_{33}`$ be as in Proposition 2.4 . If $`L_{\tau (i)}L_{\tau (1)}=L_{\tau (i)}`$ for some permutation $`\tau `$ of $`\{i,1,i\}`$, then

1) either $`L_iL_1=L_i`$ (i.e., $`D_{12}=0`$) or $`L_1L_i=L_i`$ (i.e., $`D_{23}=0`$).

2) In the case $`L_iL_1=L_i`$, the cover $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>p>>𝔜`$ is the composition of a flat double cover $`𝔛^{}\mathrm{@}>p_1>>𝔜`$ branched along $`D_{23}`$ followed by a flat double cover $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>p_2>>𝔛^{}`$, branched along $`p_1^{}D_{11}`$ and the ramification locus of $`p_1`$. Moreover, the trace zero module of $`p_2`$ is $`p_1^{}L_i^{}`$ and the trace zero module of $`p_1`$ is $`L_1^{}`$. The surface $`𝔛^{}`$ is the quotient of $`𝔛`$ by the unique subgroup of index $`2`$ of $`_4`$. If $`L_1L_i=L_i`$ there exists an analogous decomposition of $`p`$.

3) Assume that $`𝔜`$ is locally Gorenstein. If $`L_iL_1=L_i`$, then $`𝔛`$ is locally Gorenstein and $`\omega _𝔛=p^{}(\omega _𝔜L_i).`$ If $`L_1L_i=L_i`$, then $`𝔛`$ is locally Gorenstein and $`\omega _𝔛=p^{}(\omega _𝔜L_i).`$

4) In particular, if $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a canonical cover of degree $`4`$ of a smooth surface of minimal degree and $`\phi `$ is Galois with Galois group $`_4`$, then $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a cover satisfying 1), 2) and 3) above and either $`L_i`$ or $`L_i`$ is isomorphic to $`\omega _W^{}(1)`$.

Proof. By assumption either

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }L_iL_1=L_i\text{ or }\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_iL_i=L_1\text{ or }\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_1L_i=L_i.\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`𝔛`$ is normal, $`L_iL_i=L_1`$ is not possible. Then either $`L_iL_1=L_i`$ or $`L_1L_i=L_i`$ so in Proposition 2.4 either $`D_{12}=0`$ or $`D_{23}=0`$. If, for example, $`D_{12}=0`$, then looking locally at the multiplicative structure of $`p_{}𝒪_X`$ yields the description of the trace zero module and branch loci given in 2). Now, $`L_1^{}`$ is the trace zero module of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}L_i^{}`$ is the trace zero module of $`p_2`$, so $`\omega _𝔛=p^{}(\omega _𝔜L_iL_1)=p^{}(\omega _𝔜L_i)`$. This proves 3). Finally, from Proposition 1.3 we know also that, if $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a canonical cover of degree $`4`$, then $`L_{\tau (i)}L_{\tau (1)}=L_{\tau (i)}`$ for some permutation $`\tau `$ of $`\{i,1,i\}`$, so $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ satisfies the hypothesis of the statement. Then by 1) either $`L_iL_1=L_i`$ or $`L_1L_i=L_i`$. We argue for instance in case $`L_iL_1=L_i`$. Since $`\omega _X=p^{}𝒪_W(1)`$, then 3) implies that $`L_i`$ is numerically equivalent to $`\omega _W^{}(1)`$, but since $`W`$ is either $`^2`$ or a Hirzebruch surface we have $`L_i=\omega _W^{}(1)`$. If $`L_1L_i=L_i`$ arguing similarly we obtain $`L_i=\omega _W^{}(1)`$. ∎

###### \Notarem

If $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a canonical cover of degree $`4`$ of a smooth surface of minimal degree and $`\phi `$ is Galois with group $`_4`$, then we rename $`\{L_i,L_1,L_1\}`$ as $`\{L_1,L_2,L_3\}`$ so that $`L_1L_2=L_3`$, $`L_2=L_1`$ and $`L_3=\omega _W^{}(1)`$. Then there exist effective Cartier divisors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ so that

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }L_1L_1=L_2𝒪_W(D_1)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_1L_2=L_3\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_1L_3=𝒪_W(D_1+D_2)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_2L_2=𝒪_W(D_2)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_2L_3=L_1𝒪_W(D_2)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }L_3L_3=L_2𝒪_W(D_1+D_2).\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

This is achieved if we set $`D_1=D_{11}`$ and $`D_2=D_{23}`$ in (2.4.1) in case $`L_1=L_i`$ and one can argue analogously if $`L_1=L_i`$. In particular $`\phi `$ is simple cyclic if and only if $`D_1=0`$.

Now we make two useful observations which are a sort of converses to Proposition 2.6 and Proposition 2.7 :

###### \biproconv

Let $`𝔛`$ and $`𝔜`$ be normal algebraic varieties.

1) If $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>p>>𝔜`$ is a morphism such that $`p`$ is the natural map onto $`𝔜`$ from the fiber product over $`𝔜`$ of two flat double covers $`𝔛_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>𝔜`$ and $`𝔛_2\mathrm{@}>p_2>>𝔜`$, then $`p`$ is a Galois cover with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$.

2) If in addition $`L_2^{}`$ and $`L_1^{}`$ are the trace zero modules of $`p_2`$ and $`p_1`$ respectively, then

$$p_{}𝒪_𝔛=𝒪_𝔜L_1^{}L_2^{}(L_1^{}L_2^{})$$

and, if $`𝔜`$ is locally Gorenstein, then $`𝔛`$ is locally Gorenstein and $`\omega _𝔛=p^{}(\omega _𝔜L_1L_2)`$.

Proof. Choosing suitable open sets $`U`$ and $`V`$ of $`𝔛`$ and $`𝔜`$ we can describe the structure of $`𝒪_𝔜`$-algebra of $`𝒪_𝔛`$ in local coordinates and see that $`_2_2`$ acts on $`𝒪_U`$ and its ring of invariants is $`𝒪_V`$. Then, since $`𝔛`$ and $`𝔜`$ are normal, by Lemma 2.3 the extension $`𝒦(X)/𝒦(Y)`$ is Galois with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$, and since since $`𝔛`$ and $`𝔜`$ are normal and $`p`$ is finite, $`𝒪_𝔛`$ is the integral closure of $`𝒪_𝔜`$ in $`𝒦(X)`$, so again by Lemma 2.3 the morphism $`p`$ is a Galois cover with group $`_2\times _2`$. The computation of the push-forward of $`𝒪_𝔛`$ and the computation of the canonical of $`𝔛`$ is straight-forward once we recall that the trace zero module of the double cover $`p_1`$ is $`L_1^{}`$ and using the fact that $`p=p_1p_2^{}`$, where $`p_2^{}`$ is another double cover with trace zero module $`p_1L_2^{}`$. ∎

###### \Galcycliconv

Let $`𝔛`$ and $`𝔜`$ be normal algebraic varieties.

1) If $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>p>>𝔜`$ is the composition of a flat double cover $`𝔛^{}\mathrm{@}>p_1>>𝔜`$ branched along a divisor $`D_2`$, followed by a flat double cover $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>p_2>>𝔛^{}`$, branched along the ramification locus of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}D_1`$, where $`D_1`$ is a divisor on $`𝔜`$, then $`p`$ is a Galois cover with Galois group $`_4`$.

2) If in addition $`L_2^{}`$ is the trace zero module of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}L_1^{}`$ is the trace zero module of $`p_2`$, then

$$p_{}𝒪_𝔛=𝒪_𝔜L_1^{}L_2^{}(L_1^{}L_2^{})$$

and, if $`𝔜`$ is locally Gorenstein, then $`𝔛`$ is locally Gorenstein and $`\omega _𝔛=p^{}(\omega _𝔜L_1L_2).`$

Proof. Let $`V`$ a smooth open set of $`𝔜`$ contained in $`𝔜D_1`$. Over $`V`$ the cover $`p`$ is a simple cyclic cover, and in particular, a Galois cover with Galois group $`_4`$. Arguing as in Proposition 2.9 we conclude that $`𝔛\mathrm{@}>p>>𝔜`$ is Galois with Galois group $`_4`$. The computation of the push-forward of $`𝒪_𝔛`$ and of the canonical bundle of $`𝔛`$ is straight-forward from the fact that $`p=p_1p_2`$ and the knowledge of the trace zero modules of $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$. ∎

In the remaining of the paper we will classify quadruple Galois canonical covers of smooth surfaces $`W`$ of minimal degree. A priori one could distinguish three cases: $`W`$ is linear $`^2`$, $`W`$ is the Veronese surface and $`W`$ is a smooth rational normal scroll. However, as pointed out in Corollary 1.7 , there are no canonical quadruple Galois covers of the Veronese surface, so we will have only to study the cases of $`W`$ being linear $`^2`$, dealt with in the next theorem, and of $`W`$ being a smooth rational normal scroll, dealt with in Section 3.

###### \strPtwo

Let $`W`$ be linear $`^2`$ and let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a canonical Galois cover of degree $`4`$.

1) If the Galois group of $`\phi `$ is $`_4`$, then $`\phi `$ is the composition of two flat double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$; the cover $`p_1`$ is branched along a quartic and the cover $`p_2`$ is branched along the ramification of $`p_1`$ and the pullback by $`p_1`$ of a conic and its trace zero module is $`p_1^{}𝒪_^2(2)`$.

2) If the Galois group of $`\phi `$ is $`_2\times _2`$ then $`X`$ is the fiber product over $`W`$ of two double covers of linear $`^2`$, each of them branched along a quartic, and $`\phi `$ is the natural map from the fiber product to $`W`$.

Conversely, let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a cover of linear $`^2`$.

1’) If $`\phi `$ is the composition of two flat double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$ as described in 1) above, then $`\phi `$ is a Galois canonical cover with group $`_4`$.

2’) If $`\phi `$ is the natural map to $`W`$ from the fiber product over $`W`$ of two double covers as described in 2) above, then $`\phi `$ is a Galois canonical cover with group $`_2\times _2`$.

Proof. By Proposition 2.4 the bundle $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ splits as a sum of line bundles. Now 1) and 2) follow from Proposition 1.6 , 1), Proposition 2.6 and Proposition 2.7 . Now we prove the converse. If $`\phi `$ is a cover as in 1’), then by Proposition 2.10 it is Galois with Galois group $`_4`$. Likewise if $`\phi `$ is a cover as in 2’), then by Proposition 2.9 it is Galois with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$. On the other hand, by Proposition 2.9 and Proposition 2.10 the canonical of $`X`$ is $`\phi ^{}𝒪_^2(1)`$, so $`X`$ is a surface of general type and $`\omega _X`$ is base-point-free. Finally to prove that $`\phi `$ is indeed the morphism induced by $`H^0(\omega _X)`$ we compare $`H^0(\phi ^{}𝒪_^2(1))`$ and $`H^0(𝒪_^2(1))`$ and see that they are equal. Indeed, to compute $`H^0(\phi ^{}𝒪_^2(1))`$ we push down $`\phi ^{}𝒪_^2(1)`$ to $`W`$, and since

$$\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_^2𝒪_^2(2)𝒪_^2(2)𝒪_^2(4)$$

by Proposition 2.9 and Proposition 2.10 , we obtain $`H^0(\phi ^{}𝒪_^2(1))=H^0(𝒪_^2(1))`$ as wished. ∎

We describe further the Galois covers appearing in Theorem 2.11 :

###### \Ptwosing

Let $`W`$ be linear $`^2`$ and let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a Galois canonical cover of degree $`4`$. Then,

1) the push-forward of $`𝒪_X`$ is as follows:

$$\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_^2𝒪_^2(2)𝒪_^2(2)𝒪_^2(4);$$

2) the surface $`X`$ is regular; and

3) if the Galois group of $`\phi `$ is $`_4`$, then $`X`$ is singular and the mildest possible set of singularities on $`X`$ consists of $`8`$ points of type $`A_1`$.

Proof. Claim 1) of the corollary has already been shown in the proof of Theorem 2.11 . Claim 2) is straight-forward form 1), since $`H^1(𝒪_X)=H^1(\phi ^{}𝒪_X)`$. To prove 3) just observe that $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ is branched along a quartic $`D_2`$ of $`^2`$ and $`p_2`$ along the ramification of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}D_1`$, where $`D_1`$ is a conic of $`^2`$. If $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are both smooth and meet transversaly then $`X_1`$ is smooth and the branch locus of $`p_2`$ has $`8`$ singular points of type $`A_1`$ so $`X`$ is smooth except at $`8`$ points, which are singularities of type $`A_1`$. ∎

We end the section by remarking the existence of examples of covers like those appearing in Theorem 2.11 :

###### \Ptwoexamples

Let $`W`$ be linear $`P^2`$.

1) There exist canonical covers $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ with Galois group $`_4`$ (that is, covers as in Theorem 2.11 , 1)) with $`8`$ singularities of type $`A_1`$ as only singularities.

2) There exist canonical covers $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$ (that is, covers as in Theorem 2.11 , 2)) with $`X`$ smooth.

Proof. We first deal with 1). By the converse part in Theorem 2.11 we just have to construct a composition of double covers $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$ and $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ branched along suitable divisors. Then, using the same notation of the proof of Corollary 2.12 and by the argument there, it suffices to choose $`D_1`$ a smooth quartic and $`D_2`$ a smooth conic of $`^2`$ meeting transversally. This is possible by Bertini. Now for 2) again by the converse part in Theorem 2.11 we just have to construct the fiber product $`\phi `$ of two double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>^2`$ and $`X_2\mathrm{@}>p_2>>^2`$ branched along suitable divisors $`D_2`$ and $`D_1`$, which are two quartics in this case. Then $`\phi =p_1p_2^{}`$ where $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2^{}>>X_1`$ is a double cover branched along $`p_1^{}D_1`$. If we choose $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ smooth and meeting tranversally (which again is possible by Bertini), then $`X_1`$ is smooth and so is the branch locus of $`p_2^{}`$, hence $`X`$ is also smooth. Note that one can construct examples of $`X`$ with worse singularities by allowing $`D_1+D_2`$ to have worse singularities. ∎

## 3. Galois covers of smooth rational normal scrolls

At the end of Section 2 we saw that quadruple Galois canonical covers of $`^2`$ can have Galois group $`_4`$ or $`_2\times _2`$, but, in the first case, they could not be simple cyclic. The same thing happens for the covers we study in this section and we start by showing that there do not exist simple cyclic quadruple canonical covers $`X`$ of smooth rational normal scrolls. This was known if $`X`$ is regular and $`W`$ is a surface of minimal degree, whether smooth or singular, as consequence of the non-existence of canonical simple cyclic covers of degree bigger than $`3`$ (see \[GP2\] ). In the next theorem we prove the non existence of simple cyclic covers of degree bigger than $`3`$ when $`X`$ is an arbitrary surface of general type and $`W`$ is a smooth rational scroll.

###### \scrbid

Let $`W`$ be a smooth rational normal scroll, let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a canonical cover of degree $`n`$. If $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a Galois cover and $`n4`$, then $`\phi `$ is not simple cyclic.

Proof. Let us assume $`\phi `$ is simple cyclic. Then

$$\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_WL^1\mathrm{}L^{n+1}.$$

Recall that $`W`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔽_e`$. On the one hand $`\omega _X=\phi ^{}𝒪_W(1)=\phi ^{}𝒪_W(C_0+mf)`$, with $`me+1`$. On the other hand, $`\omega _X=\phi ^{}(\omega _WL^{n+1})=\phi ^{}(𝒪_W(2C_0(e+2)f)L^{n+1})`$. Thus $`\phi ^{}L^{n+1}=\phi ^{}𝒪_W(3C_0+(m+e+2)f)`$, so $`L^{n+1}`$ and $`𝒪_W(3C_0+(m+e+2)f)`$ are numerically equivalent in $`W`$. Since $`W`$ is a Hirzebruch surface, $`L^{n+1}=𝒪_W(3C_0+(m+e+2)f)`$ and $`3`$ and $`m+e+2`$ are both multiple of $`n1`$. Since $`n4`$ by assumption, this makes $`n=4`$. In that case, since $`\phi `$ is induced by the complete series of $`𝒪_W(C_0+mf)`$, then $`𝒪_W((m\frac{1}{3}(m+e+2))f)`$ should be non effective, i.e., $`m\frac{1}{3}(m+e+2)<0`$, which is the same as $`2me2<0`$. Then, since $`me+1`$, we get the contradiction $`e<0`$ and $`\phi `$ cannot be simple cyclic. ∎

After Theorem 3.1 we summarize now the status of the existence of simple cyclic canonical covers in the following theorem. To see the scope of the result, we remark that Theorem 3.2 implies the non-existence of Galois canonical covers of prime degree $`p`$ of smooth scrolls, $`^2`$ or the Veronese surface, if $`p5`$. If in addition $`X`$ is regular, next theorem assures that, if $`p5`$, then there are no Galois canonical covers of prime degree $`p`$ of any surface of minimal degree.

###### \propnoprime

Let $`W`$ be a surface of minimal degree, not necessarily smooth, and let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a Galois canonical cover. If $`X`$ is regular or $`W`$ is smooth, and if $`\phi `$ is simple cyclic, then deg $`\phi 3`$.

Proof. If $`X`$ is regular, the result follows from \[GP2\] , Corollary 3.2. So we will assume that $`X`$ is irregular and $`W`$ smooth. The surface $`W`$ cannot be isomorphic to $`^2`$, for if it were, since $`\phi `$ is simple cyclic, $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ would split completely, and so $`X`$ would be regular. Thus $`W`$ is a smooth rational normal scroll. Then we conclude that deg$`\phi 3`$ by applying Theorem 3.1 . ∎

###### \cornoprime

Let $`W`$ be a surface of minimal degree, not necessarily smooth, and let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a Galois canonical cover. If $`X`$ is regular or $`W`$ is smooth and $`\phi `$ is a Galois canonical cover of prime degree, then deg $`\phi 3`$.

Proof. If deg$`\phi =p`$ is prime, then $`G`$ is cyclic of order $`p`$, so the stabilizer of any $`xX`$ is either $`\{id\}`$ or $`G`$, so $`\phi `$ is simple cyclic. ∎

These results hint towards a positive solution to the following very interesting question regarding Galois canonical covers of prime degree bigger than $`3`$.

###### \ques

If $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a Galois canonical cover of prime degree, is then deg $`\phi 3`$?

Theorem 3.1 showed that there does not exist simple cyclic canonical covers of degree bigger than $`3`$ of smooth rational normal scrolls. The construction of non-simple cyclic canonical covers of surfaces is not easy and there are not many examples, to the best of the authors knowledge. We now prove a classification theorem for non-simple cyclic canonical covers $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ of degree $`4`$, splitting the cases $`X`$ regular and $`X`$ irregular. Theorem 3.5 and Theorem 3.6 below and Proposition 3.11 show that they do exist, but, as Corollary 3.7 tells, they are always singular having at best singularities of type $`A_1`$.

###### \nosimcyclreg

Let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a Galois canonical cover of degree $`4`$ and Galois group $`_4`$ with $`X`$ regular and let $`W=S(me,m)`$ be a smooth rational normal scroll. Then $`\phi `$ is the composition of two flat double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$ which are as follows:

The cover $`p_1`$ is branched along a divisor $`D_2`$ on $`W`$.

The cover $`p_2`$ is branched along the ramification of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}D_1`$ and has trace zero module $`p_1^{}𝒪_Y(\frac{1}{2}D_1\frac{1}{4}D_2)`$, where $`D_1`$ is a divisor on $`W`$.

The scroll $`W`$ and the divisors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ satisfy:

1) $`W=S(me,m)`$, $`0e2`$, $`me+1`$, $`D_1(2me+1)f`$, $`D_24C_0+(2e+2)f`$

2) $`W=S(1,1)`$ (i.e., $`W`$ is a smooth quadric hypersurface in $`^3`$), $`D_13C_0`$ and $`D_22C_0+4f`$

Conversely, let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be the composition of two flat double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$ as described above, then $`\phi `$ is a Galois canonical cover of $`W`$ with Galois group $`_4`$ and $`X`$ is regular.

Proof. Proposition 2.7 , 4) says that $`\phi `$ is the composition of two double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ branched along a divisor $`D_2`$ and $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$, branched along the ramification of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}D_1`$ and, according to Notation-Remark 2.8 ,

$$\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_WL_1^{}L_2^{}L_3^{},$$

where $`L_2^{}`$ is the eigenspace for $`1`$, $`L_1^{}`$ is the eigenspace for either $`i`$ or $`i`$, $`L_3^{}`$ the eigenspace for $`i`$ or $`i`$ and $`L_1L_2=L_3`$. Moreover, $`L_3=\omega _W^{}(1)`$, $`L_1^2=L_2𝒪_W(D_1)`$, $`L_2^2=𝒪_W(D_2)`$, $`p_1^{}L_1^{}`$ is the trace zero module of $`p_2`$ and $`L_2^{}`$ is the trace zero module of $`p_1`$. From this we obtain that the trace zero module of $`p_2`$ is $`p_1^{}L_1^{}=p_1^{}𝒪_Y(\frac{1}{2}D_1\frac{1}{4}D_2)`$.

Now we show that $`W,D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ satisfy 1) or 2). Recall that $`W`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔽_e`$. Since $`X`$ is regular we can apply Proposition 1.6 , 3). Then, since $`L_3=\omega _W^{}(1)`$ we have either $`L_1^{}=𝒪_W(C_0(m+1)f),L_2^{}=𝒪_W(2C_0(e+1)f)`$ and $`L_3^{}=𝒪_W(3C_0(m+e+2)f)`$ or $`L_2^{}=𝒪_W(C_0(m+1)f),L_1^{}=𝒪_W(2C_0(e+1)f)`$ and $`L_3^{}=𝒪_W(3C_0(m+e+2)f)`$

Case 1: $`L_1^{}=𝒪_W(C_0(m+1)f),L_2^{}=𝒪_W(2C_0(e+1)f)`$. From the previous description, $`\phi `$ is the composition of $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$, where $`p_1`$ is a double cover branched along a divisor $`D_2`$ linearly equivalent to $`4C_0+(2e+2)f`$ and $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$, where $`p_2`$ is a double cover branched along the ramification of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}D_1`$, where $`D_1`$ is linearly equivalent to $`(2me+1)f`$. Recall that $`X`$ is normal, hence the components of $`D_1+D_2`$ have multiplicity $`1`$ and in particular, the fixed part of $`|4C_0+(2e+2)f|`$ contains $`C_0`$ with multiplicity at most $`1`$. Thus $`e2`$.

Case 2: $`L_2^{}=𝒪_W(C_0(m+1)f),L_1^{}=𝒪_W(2C_0(e+1)f)`$. Again from the description above, $`\phi `$ is the composition of $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$, where $`p_1`$ is a double cover branched along a divisor $`D_2`$ linearly equivalent to $`2C_0+(2m+2)f`$ and $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$, where $`p_2`$ is a double cover branched along the ramification of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}D_1`$, where $`D_1`$ is linearly equivalent to $`3C_0+(2em+1)f`$. Recall that $`X`$ is normal, hence the components of $`D_1+D_2`$ have multiplicity $`1`$ and, in particular, the fixed part of $`|3C_0+(2em+1)f|`$ contains $`C_0`$ with multiplicity at most $`1`$. Thus $`m1`$, and in fact $`m=1`$ and $`e=0`$. So finally, $`W=𝔽_0`$, $`D_1`$ is linearly equivalent to $`3C_0`$ and $`D_2`$ is linearly equivalent to $`2C_0+4f`$.

Now we prove the converse. By Proposition 2.10 the morphism $`\phi `$ is a Galois cover with group $`_4`$. Proposition 2.10 also tells us that $`\omega _X=\phi ^{}(\omega _WL_1L_2)`$. Since $`L_1L_2=𝒪_W(3C_0+(m+e+2)f)=\omega _W^{}(1)`$ in either 1) or 2), we have $`\omega _X=\phi ^{}𝒪_W(1)`$, so $`X`$ is a surface of general type with base-point-free canonical bundle. Now, again by Proposition 2.10 , in both 1) and 2) we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_W𝒪_W(C_0(m+1)f)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }𝒪_W(2C_0(e+1)f)𝒪_W(3C_0(m+e+2)f).\text{(3.5.1) }\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Then to see that $`\phi `$ is the canonical morphism of $`X`$ we compare $`H^0(\omega _X)`$$`=H^0(\phi ^{}𝒪_W(1))`$ and $`H^0(𝒪_W(1))`$. The group $`H^0(\phi ^{}𝒪_W(1))`$ can be computed pushing $`\phi ^{}𝒪_W(1)`$ down to $`W`$ and using (3.5.1) , and one sees at once that $`H^0(\omega _X)=H^0(𝒪_W(1))`$. Finally we see that $`H^1(𝒪_X)=0`$ also by pushing down to $`W`$ and using (3.5.1) . ∎

###### \nosimcyclirreg

Let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a canonical Galois cover of degree $`4`$ and Galois group $`_4`$ with $`X`$ irregular and let $`W=S(me,m)`$ be a smooth rational normal scroll. Then the irregularity of $`X`$ is $`q(X)=1`$ and $`W`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔽_0`$. Moreover, $`\phi `$ is the composition of two flat double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$ which are as follows:

The cover $`p_1`$ is branched along a divisor $`D_2`$ on $`W`$.

The cover $`p_2`$ is branched along the ramification of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}D_1`$ and has trace zero module $`p_1^{}𝒪_Y(\frac{1}{2}D_1\frac{1}{4}D_2)`$, where $`D_1`$ is a divisor on $`W`$.

The scroll $`W`$ and the divisors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ satisfy:

1) $`W=S(m,m)`$, $`m1`$, $`D_1(2m+4)f`$ and $`D_24C_0`$.

2) $`W=S(1,1)`$, $`D_16C_0`$ and $`D_24f`$.

Conversely, if $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is the composition of two double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$ as described above, then $`\phi `$ is a canonical Galois cover of $`W`$ with Galois group $`_4`$ and $`X`$ is irregular.

Proof. Using Proposition 2.7 , 4) and Notation-Remark 2.8 as in the proof of Theorem 3.5 we conclude that $`\phi `$ is the composition of two double covers. The first one is $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$, is branched along a divisor $`D_2`$ and has trace zero module $`L_2^{}`$. The second cover is $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$, is branched along the ramification of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}D_1`$ and has trace zero module $`p_1^{}L_1`$. Then $`L_1^2=L_2𝒪_W(D_1)`$, $`L_2^2=𝒪_W(D_2)`$ and moreover, $`L_1L_2=L_3=\omega _W^{}(1)`$. Recall that $`W=𝔽_e`$ and let $`L_1=𝒪_W(a_1C_0+b_1f)`$ and $`L_2=𝒪_W(a_2C_0+b_2f)`$. Then we have

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }a_1+a_2=3\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }b_1+b_2=m+e+2\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Since $`L_1^2L_2^{}=𝒪_W(D_1)`$ and $`L_2^2=𝒪_W(D_2)`$ are effective then $`a_22a_1`$, $`b_22b_1`$ and $`a_2,b_20`$. Then $`a_1,b_10`$ also. Moreover, $`a_1,b_11`$, otherwise we will contradict $`a_1+a_2=3`$ or $`b_1+b_2=m+e+2`$. We see that $`a_1`$ cannot be $`2`$. If $`a_1=2`$, then $`D_13C_0+(2b_1b_2)f`$, $`D_22C_0+2b_2f`$, $`L_1=𝒪_W(2C_0+b_1f)`$ and $`L_2=𝒪_W(C_0+b_2f)`$. Since $`X`$ is irregular, and $`H^1(𝒪_W)=H^1(L_2^{})=H^1(L_3^{})=0`$, then $`H^1(L_1^{})0`$. This implies $`b_1e`$. Then $`b_1+b_2=m+e+2`$ implies $`b_2m+2`$. On the other hand, since $`X`$ is normal, $`C_0`$ has at most multiplicity $`1`$ in the fixed part of $`|3C_0+(2b_1b_2)f|`$, and this implies $`2b_1b_22e0`$. Then we have $`2e(m+2)2e0`$, which is a contradiction. Then the only possibilities are $`a_1=1`$ or $`a_1=3`$

Case 1: $`a_1=1`$. Then $`a_2=2`$ and $`X`$ irregular implies $`b_2e`$, since $`L_2^{}`$ has to be special. The fact that $`X`$ is normal implies $`3e+2b_20`$, since $`D_2`$ cannot have $`2C_0`$ as a fixed component. Then $`b_2=e=0`$, and, summarizing, $`e=0,a_1=1,a_2=2,b_1=m+2,b_2=0`$. This implies $`D_1(2m+4)f`$ and $`D_24C_0`$.

Case 2: $`a_1=3`$. Then $`D_16C_0+(2b_1b_2)f`$, and since $`X`$ is normal, $`C_0`$ has at most multiplicity $`1`$ in the fixed part of $`|D_1|`$, hence $`2b_1b_25e0`$. Now since $`H^0(\phi ^{}𝒪_W(C_0+mf))=H^0(𝒪_W(C_0+mf))`$, we have that $`b_2>m`$, hence $`b_1<e+2`$. Then we get $`2e+4m5e=3em+4>0`$. But $`me+1`$, so this gives $`4e+3>0`$, hence $`e=0`$. In this case, $`b_1=1`$ and $`m1`$. Then $`b_2=m+12`$, and since $`D_1`$ is effective, $`b_2=2`$ and $`m=1`$. Summarizing, $`e=0`$, $`m=1`$, $`a_1=3`$, $`a_2=0`$, $`b_1=1`$ and $`b_2=2`$. Then $`D_16C_0`$ and $`D_24f`$.

Finally the irregularity of $`X`$ is $`h^1(𝒪_X)=h^1(\phi _{}𝒪_X)`$. We observe that the computation of $`a_1,a_2,b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ yields that $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ is

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }𝒪_W𝒪_W(C_0(m+2)f)𝒪_W(2C_0)𝒪_W(3C_0(m+2)f)\text{ or }\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }𝒪_W𝒪_W(3C_0f)𝒪_W(2f)𝒪_W(3C_03f)\text{ }(\mathrm{3.6.1})\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

so $`h^1(𝒪_X)=h^1(𝒪_W(2C_0))`$ or $`h^1(𝒪_X)=h^1(𝒪_W(2f))`$, and in both cases, equal to $`1`$. We prove now the converse. Proposition 2.10 implies that $`\phi `$ is Galois with Galois group $`_4`$. Now if $`L_2^{}`$ is the trace zero module of $`p_1`$ and $`p_1^{}L_1^{}`$ is the trace zero module of $`p_2`$, then $`L_1L_2=𝒪_W(\frac{1}{2}D_1+\frac{3}{4}D_2)`$. Then if $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are as in 1) or 2), $`L_1L_2=\omega _W^{}(1)`$. Then Proposition 2.10 implies also that $`\omega _X=\phi ^{}𝒪_W(1)`$, therefore $`X`$ is a surface of general type with base-point-free canonical bundle. Finally Proposition 2.10 tells us also that $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ is as in (3.6.1) so arguing like in the end of the proof of Theorem 3.5 we see that $`\phi `$ is the canonical morphism and $`X`$ is irregular. ∎

###### \nosimcyclsing

Let $`W`$ be a smooth rational scroll of degree $`r`$ and let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a Galois canonical cover with Galois group $`_4`$ (i.e., a cover like the ones classified in Theorem 3.5 and Theorem 3.6 ). Then $`X`$ is singular. Moreover,

1) if $`X`$ is regular, then the mildest possible set of singularities on $`X`$ consists of $`4(r+1)`$ singular points of type $`A_1`$ and

2) if $`X`$ is irregular the singularities of $`X`$ are exactly $`4(r+4)`$ points of type $`A_1`$.

Proof. The proof goes as the proof of Corollary 2.12 , 3). In this ocassion, $`D_1D_2=4(r+1)`$ if $`X`$ is regular (see Theorem 3.5 , 1) and 2)) and $`D_1D_2=4(r+4)`$ (see Theorem 3.6 , 1) and 2)). $`X`$ has the mildest possible set of singularities if $`X_1`$ is smooth and the branch locus of $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$ has the mildest possible set of singularities. This happens if $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are smooth and meet tranversally. In this case the branch locus of $`p_2`$ has only singularities of type $`A_1`$, and so does $`X`$. Now, if $`X`$ is irregular Theorem 3.6 together with the fact that $`X`$ is normal implies that $`D_1`$ is a union of distinct lines of one of the fibrations of $`^1\times ^1`$ and $`D_2`$ is a union of distinct lines of the other fibration, so $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are smooth and meet transversally in any case. ∎

Now we proceed to classify quadruple Galois canonical covers of smooth rational normal scrolls with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$. Having in account Proposition 2.6 we already know that they are the fiber product of two double covers. Thus to complete their description we will find out what the branch loci of the double covers are. We start with the case where $`X`$ is regular:

###### \strsmscreg

Let $`W=S(me,m)`$ be a smooth rational normal scroll. If $`X`$ is regular and $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a Galois canonical cover with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$, then $`X`$ is the fiber product over $`W`$ of two double covers of $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X_2\mathrm{@}>p_2>>W`$ and $`\phi `$ is the natural map from the fiber product to $`W`$. Let the branch divisors $`D_2`$, $`D_1`$ of $`p_1,p_2`$ be linearly equivalent to $`2a_2C_0+2b_2f`$ and $`2a_1C_0+2b_1f`$ respectively. Then $`0e2`$, $`me+1`$, $`a_1=1,a_2=2,b_1=m+1`$ and $`b_2=e+1`$.

Conversely, let $`W=S(m,me)`$ be such that $`0e2`$ and $`me+1`$ and let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be the natural map to $`W`$ from the fiber product over $`W`$ of two flat double covers $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ with branch divisors as described above. Then $`X`$ is regular and $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a Galois canonical cover with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$.

Proof. Since $`X`$ is regular, Proposition 1.6 , 3) yields

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_W𝒪_W(C_0(m+1)f)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }𝒪_W(2C_0(e+1)f)𝒪_W(3C_0(m+e+2)f).\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Then Proposition 2.6 tells us that $`X`$ is the fiber product over $`W`$ of two double covers of $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X_2\mathrm{@}>p_2>>W`$ with trace zero modules $`L_1^{}=𝒪_W(2C_0(e+1)f)`$ and $`L_2^{}=𝒪_W(C_0(m+1)f)`$ respectively, or equivalently, branched along divisors $`D_24C_0+2(e+1)f`$ and $`D_12C_0+2(m+1)f`$ respectively. Thus $`a_1=1,a_2=2,b_1=m+1`$ and $`b_2=e+1`$. Recall that $`W`$ is isomorphic to the Hirzebruch surface $`𝔽_e`$. Since $`W`$ is smooth, $`me+1`$, hence the only thing left to prove is $`e2`$. The covers $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ fit in the commutative diagram

$$\begin{array}{ccc}X& \mathrm{@}>p_1^{}>>& X_2\\ \mathrm{@}VVp_2^{}V& \mathrm{@}VVp_2V\\ X_1& \mathrm{@}>p_1>>& W\end{array}$$

where $`p_1^{}`$ and $`p_2^{}`$ are also double covers. Moreover the branch divisor of $`p_1^{}`$ is $`p_2^{}D_2`$. Suppose that $`e3`$. Then, since $`D_2`$ is linearly equivalent to $`4C_0+(2e+2)f`$, $`D_2`$ has $`2C_0`$ as a fixed component. Then the branch divisor of $`p_1^{}`$ is nonreduced, so $`X`$ is non-normal and we get a contradiction. Therefore $`e=0,1`$ or $`2`$.

To prove the converse assume now that $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is the natural map from the fiber product over a smooth scroll $`W=S(m,me)`$ of two double covers $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ of $`W`$, branched respectively along divisors $`D_2`$ linearly equivalent to $`2a_2C_0+2b_2f`$ and $`D_1`$ linearly equivalent to $`2a_1C_0+2b_1f`$. Assume in addition that $`0e2`$, $`a_1=1,a_2=2,b_1=m+1`$ and $`b_2=e+1`$. Then by Proposition 2.9 $`\phi `$ is a Galois cover with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_W𝒪_W(a_1C_0b_1f)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }𝒪_W(a_2C_0b_2f)𝒪_W((a_1+a_2)C_0(b_1+b_2)f).\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

A standard computation shows that none of the four direct summands of $`p_{}𝒪_X`$ have intermediate cohomology, hence $`H^1(𝒪_X)=0`$. On the other hand if $`L_2=𝒪_W(a_1C_0+b_1f)`$ and $`L_1=𝒪_W(a_2C_0+b_2f)`$, $`L_1L_2=𝒪_W(3C_0+(m+e+2)f)=\omega _W^{}(1)`$. Then by Proposition 2.9 $`\omega _X=\phi ^{}𝒪_W(1)`$ so $`X`$ is a surface of general type whose canonical bundle is base-point-free. The only thing left to be shown is that $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is the canonical morphism of $`X`$. For that it is enough to see that $`H^0(𝒪_W(1))=H^0(\omega _X)`$. But

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }H^0(\omega _X)=H^0(\phi ^{}𝒪_W(C_0+mf))=H^0(𝒪_W(C_0+mf))\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }H^0(𝒪_W((1a_1)C_0+(mb_1)f))H^0(𝒪_W((1a_2)C_0+(mb_2)f))\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }H^0(𝒪_W(1a_1a_2)C_0+(mb_1b_2)f)).\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

Now, because of the restrictions on $`a_1,a_2,b_1`$ and $`b_2`$, $`H^0(𝒪_W((1a_1)C_0+(mb_1)f))`$, $`H^0(𝒪_W((1a_2)C_0+(mb_2)f))`$ and $`H^0(𝒪_W(1a_1a_2)C_0+(mb_1b_2)f)`$ vanish. ∎

Now we go on to classify Galois quadruple covers with group $`_2\times _2`$ when $`X`$ is irregular:

###### \strsmscrirr

Let $`W`$ be a smooth rational normal scroll $`S(me,m)`$. If $`X`$ is irregular and $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a Galois canonical cover with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$, then $`X`$ is the fiber product over $`W`$ of two double covers of $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X_2\mathrm{@}>p_2>>W`$ and $`\phi `$ is the natural map from the fiber product to $`W`$. Let the branch divisors $`D_2`$, $`D_1`$ of $`p_1,p_2`$ be linearly equivalent to $`2a_2C_0+2b_2f`$ and $`2a_1C_0+2b_1f`$ respectively. Then $`e=0`$, $`m1`$ and one of the following happens:

1) $`a_1=0`$, $`a_2=3`$, $`b_1=m+1`$, $`b_2=1`$.

2) $`a_1=0`$, $`a_2=3`$, $`b_1=m+2`$, $`b_2=0`$.

3) $`a_1=1`$, $`a_2=2`$, $`b_1=m+2`$, $`b_2=0`$.

In addition, in case 1), $`q(X)=m`$; in case 2), $`q(X)=m+3`$; and in case 3), $`q(X)=1`$.

Conversely, let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be the natural map to $`W=S(m,m)`$ from the fiber product over $`W`$ of two flat double covers $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ with branch divisors satisfying 1), 2) or 3) above. Then $`X`$ is irregular and $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a Galois canonical cover with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$.

Proof. From Proposition 1.3 and Proposition 2.6 it follows that $`X`$ is the fiber product of two double covers branched along divisors $`D_22(a_2C_0+b_2f)`$ and $`D_12(a_1C_0+b_1f)`$ respectively, that

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_W𝒪_W(a_1C_0b_1f)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }𝒪_W(a_2C_0b_2f)𝒪_W((a_1+a_2)C_0(b_1+b_2)f)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

and that $`\omega _W(1)=𝒪_W((a_1+a_2)C_0(b_1+b_2)f)`$. Since $`\omega _W=𝒪_W(2C_0(e+2)f)`$, we obtain

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }a_1+a_2=3\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }b_1+b_2=m+e+2\text{(3.9.1) }\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

On the other hand since $`D_i`$ is effective and linearly equivalent to $`2(a_iC_0+b_if)`$, then $`a_i,b_i0`$. We set $`a_1=0,1`$ (in which case, $`a_2=3,2`$). Since $`\phi `$ is induced by the complete linear series $`\phi ^{}𝒪_W(C_0+mf)`$, then $`H^0(𝒪_W((1a_1)C_0+(mb_1)f))=0`$, hence $`b_1m+1`$ and from (3.9.1) , $`b_2e+1`$. Since both $`b_1`$ and $`b_2`$ are nonnegative, $`m+1b_1m+e+2`$ and $`0b_2e+1`$.

Now assume $`a_1=0`$. Then $`D_2`$ is linearly equivalent to $`6C_0+2b_2f`$. Assume also that $`e1`$. Then $`2C_0`$ is a fixed component of $`D_2`$, therefore by the argument made in the proof of Theorem 3.8 , $`X`$ would be nonnormal, hence, if $`a_1=0`$, then $`e=0`$. Then, we have two possibilities: first, $`b_1=m+1`$ and $`b_2=1`$, and second, $`b_1=m+2`$ and $`b_2=0`$. In the first case, $`q(X)=m`$. In the second case, $`q(X)=m+3`$.

Now assume $`a_1=1`$. Then $`D_2`$ is linearly equivalent to $`4C_0+2b_2f`$, and as we argued in the proof of Theorem 3.8 , if $`e3`$, $`X`$ would be nonnormal, hence $`0e2`$. Moreover, if $`b_2<\frac{3e}{2}`$, $`D_2`$ would have $`2C_0`$ as fixed component and $`X`$ would be nonnormal, hence $`b_2\frac{3e}{2}`$. Recall also that $`b_2e+1`$. Let us now assume that $`b_2=e+1`$. Then $`b_1=m+1`$ and in that case

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_W𝒪_W(C_0(m+1)f)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }𝒪_W(2C_0(e+1)f)𝒪_W(3C_0(m+e+2)f).\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

But then $`H^1(𝒪_W)`$, $`H^1(𝒪_W(C_0(m+1)f))`$, $`H^1(𝒪_W(2C_0(e+1)f))`$ and $`H^1(𝒪_W(3C_0(m+e+2)f))`$ all vanish, hence $`X`$ would be regular. Therefore $`\frac{3e}{2}b_2e`$. This implies that $`e=0`$ and $`b_2=0`$, in which case $`b_1=m+2`$. Then $`q(X)=1`$. With this we prove that $`W=S(m,m)`$ and that the only possibilities for $`a_i`$s, $`b_i`$s are 1), 2) and 3).

To prove the converse, assume now that $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is the fiber product over $`W`$ of two double covers $`p_1`$ and $`p_2`$ of $`W`$, branched respectively along divisors $`D_2`$ linearly equivalent to $`2a_2C_0+2b_2f`$ and $`D_1`$ linearly equivalent to $`2a_1C_0+2b_1f`$ satisfying one of the cases 1), 2) or 3). Then, by Proposition 2.9 , $`\phi `$ is a Galois cover with Galois group $`_2\times _2`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_W𝒪_W(a_1C_0b_1f)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }𝒪_W(a_2C_0b_2f)𝒪_W((a_1+a_2)C_0(b_1+b_2)f)\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

with $`a_1,a_2,b_1,b_2`$ satisfying 1), 2) or 3). Computing the cohomology of the four direct summands of $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ in each case shows that $`X`$ is always irregular. We are going to see that $`\omega _X=\phi ^{}𝒪_W(1)`$. This follows from Proposition 2.9 as in the proof of Theorem 3.8 . Then in particular $`\omega _X`$ is base-point-free and $`X`$ is a surface of general type. The only thing left to be shown is that $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is the canonical morphism of $`X`$. For that it is enough to see that $`H^0(𝒪_W(1))=H^0(\omega _X)`$. This follows because $`H^0(\omega _X)=H^0(\phi _{}\phi ^{}𝒪_W(1))`$, which is equal to $`H^0(𝒪_W(1))`$ by the same computation as in the proof of Theorem 3.8 .

In the next corollary of Theorems 3.5, 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 (see also Proposition 1.6 , 3) if $`X`$ is regular) we summarize the splitting of $`\phi _{}𝒪_X`$ if $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ is a Galois canonical cover of degree $`4`$ of a smooth rational normal scroll:

###### \splitscr

Let $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ be a canonical Galois cover of degree $`4`$, with Galois group $`G`$, of a smooth rational normal scroll isomorphic to $`𝔽_e`$ and embedded by $`|C_0+mf|`$.

1) If $`X`$ is regular, then $`e=0,1,2`$ and

$$\begin{array}{c}\text{ }\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_W𝒪_W(C_0(m+1)f)\text{ }\hfill \\ \text{ }𝒪_W(2C_0(e+1)f)𝒪_W(3C_0(m+e+2)f).\text{ }\hfill \end{array}$$

2) If $`X`$ is irregular, then $`e=0`$ and

2.1) $`\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_W𝒪_W(C_0(m+2)f)𝒪_W(2C_0)`$

$`𝒪_W(3C_0(m+2)f);\text{ or }`$

2.2) $`\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_W𝒪_W((m+1)f)𝒪_W(3C_0f)`$

$`𝒪_W(3C_0(m+2)f),\text{with }m=1\text{ if }G=_4\text{; or}`$

2.3) $`\phi _{}𝒪_X=𝒪_W𝒪_W((m+2)f)𝒪_W(3C_0)𝒪_W(3C_0(m+2)f),`$

and $`G=_2\times _2`$.

We end the section showing the existence of canonical covers like the ones classified in Theorems 3.5, 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 :

###### \exampcyc

There exist families of quadruple Galois canonical covers as in Theorem 3.5 and Theorem 3.6 which have singularities as mild as possible (see Corollary 3.7 ).

Proof. According to the converse part in Theorem 3.5 and Theorem 3.6 we just have to construct a composition of double covers $`X\mathrm{@}>p_2>>X_1`$ and $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ branched along suitable divisors. Let $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ be as in Theorem 3.5 and Theorem 3.6 . By the arguments of Corollary 2.12 and Proposition 2.13 , in order for $`X`$ to have singularities as mild as possible and, in any case, only $`A_1`$ singularities, it suffices to choose $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ smooth and meeting transversally. We see that such choice is indeed possible. For a cover as in Theorem 3.5 , 1), $`D_1(2me+1)f`$ and $`D_24C_0+(2e+2)f`$. Then we choose $`D_1`$ as the union of $`2me+1`$ different fibers. The divisor $`4C_0+(2e+2)f`$ is base-point-free if $`e=0,1`$ and if $`e=2`$ is $`(3C_0+6f)+C_0`$, with $`3C_0+6f`$ base-point-free and $`(3C_0+6f)C_0=0`$. Thus by Bertini $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ can be chosen smooth and intersecting transversally. For a cover like Theorem 3.5 , 2), both $`D_13C_0`$ and $`D_22C_0+4f`$ are base-point-free (recall that in this case $`W`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔽_0`$), so we can apply Bertini as before. Finally, in Theorem 3.6 $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are the union of distinct smooth lines belonging to the two fibrations of the ruled surface $`𝔽_0`$. Note that, if $`X`$ is regular, one can construct $`X`$ with worse singularities allowing $`D_1+D_2`$ to have worse singularities. ∎

###### \exampbid

There exist families of canonical Galois quadruple covers $`X\mathrm{@}>\phi >>W`$ as in Theorem 3.8 and Theorem 3.9 , 1), 2) and 3) with $`X`$ smooth.

Proof. Families satisfying Theorem 3.8 for $`W`$ isomorphic to $`𝔽_0`$ and $`𝔽_1`$ have been constructed in \[GP2\] , Examples 3.4 and 3.5 (see also \[Pe\] for an example of a bidouble cover of $`^1\times ^1`$) . To construct the remaining examples we argue as in Proposition 2.13 . By the converse part of Theorem 3.8 and Theorem 3.9 we just need to construct the fiber product of two double covers $`X_1\mathrm{@}>p_1>>W`$ and $`X_2\mathrm{@}>p_2>>W`$ branched along suitable divisors $`D_2`$ and $`D_1`$ satisfying the conditions in the statement of Theorem 3.8 and Theorem 3.9 . Precisely if we choose $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ smooth and meeting transversally, $`X`$ will be smooth. This can be achieved using Bertini once we study how the divisors $`D_1`$ and $`D_2`$ are in each case. Indeed, if we are in the situation of Theorem 3.8 when $`W`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔽_2`$, then $`D_12C_0+2(m+1)f`$ is very ample and $`D_2`$, since it is linearly equivalent to $`4C_0+6f`$ is of the form $`C_0+D_2^{}`$, with $`D_2^{}C_0=0`$ and $`D_2^{}`$ base-point-free.

In case Theorem 3.9 , 1), 2) and 3) recall that $`W`$ is isomorphic to $`𝔽_0`$. In case Theorem 3.9 , 1) $`D_12(m+1)f`$, hence it can be chosen as the union of $`2(m+1)f`$ distinct lines in one of the two fibrations of $`𝔽_0`$ and $`D_2`$ is linearly equivalent to $`6C_0+2f`$, which is very ample.

Finally in case Theorem 3.9 , 3), $`D_12C_0+2(m+2)f`$ is very ample and $`D_24C_0`$ can be chosen as the union of $`4`$ distinct lines of one of the fibrations of $`𝔽_0`$. Note that one can construct $`X`$ with worse singularities if $`D_1+D_2`$ is allowed to have worse singularities. ∎

## References

\[Be\] A. Beauville, L’application canonique pour les surfaces de type general, Inventiones Math. 55 (1979), 121-140.

\[BS\] M.C. Beltrametti and T. Szemberg, On higher order embeddings of Calabi-Yau threefolds, Arch. Math. (Basel) 74 (2000), 221-225.

\[C\] F. Catanese, On the moduli spaces of surfaces of general type. J. Differential Geom. 19 (1984), no. 2, 483–515.

\[GP1\] F.J. Gallego and B.P. Purnaprajna, Very ampleness and higher syzygies for Calabi-Yau threefolds, Math. Ann. 312 (1998), 133–149.

\[GP2\] F.J. Gallego and B.P. Purnaprajna, On the canonical ring of covers of surfaces of minimal degree, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 355 (2003), 2715-2732.

\[GP3\] F.J. Gallego and B.P. Purnaprajna, Classification of quadruple canonical covers: Galois case, to appear in C. R. Math. Acad. Sci. Soc. R. Can.

\[GP4\] F.J. Gallego and B.P. Purnaprajna, Classification of quadruple Galois canonical covers, II, preprint.

\[GP5\] F.J. Gallego and B.P. Purnaprajna, Ring generation for cyclic and quadruple canonical covers, in preparation.

\[Ga\] X. Gang, Algebraic surfaces with high canonical degree, Math. Ann, 274 (1986), 473-483.

\[Gr\] M.L. Green, The canonical ring of a variety of general type, Duke Math. J. 49 (1982), 1087–1113.

\[HM\] D. Hahn and R. Miranda, Quadruple covers of algebraic varieties, J. Algebraic Geom. 8 (1999), 1–30.

\[Ho1\] E. Horikawa, Algebraic surfaces of general type with small $`c_1^2`$, I, Ann. of Math. (2) 104 (1976), 357–387.

\[Ho2\] E. Horikawa, Algebraic surfaces of general type with small $`c_1^2`$, II, Invent. Math. 37 (1976), 121–155.

\[Ho3\] E. Horikawa, Algebraic surfaces of general type with small $`c_1^2`$, III, Invent. Math. 47 (1978), 209–248.

\[Ho4\] E. Horikawa, Algebraic surfaces of general type with small $`c_1^2`$, IV, Invent. Math. 50 (1978/79), 103–128.

\[K\] K. Konno, Algebraic surfaces of general type with $`c_1^2=3p_g6`$, Math. Ann. 290 (1991), 77–107.

\[MP\] M. Mendes Lopes and R. Pardini, Triple canonical surfaces of minimal degree, International J. Math. 11 (2000), 553–578.

\[OP\] K. Oguiso and T. Peternell, On polarized canonical Calabi-Yau threefolds, Math. Ann. 301 (1995), 237–248.

\[Pa\] R. Pardini, Abelian covers of algebraic varieties, J. Reine Angew. Math. 417 (1991), 191–213.

\[Pe\] U. Persson, Double coverings and surfaces of general type, Algebraic Geometry. (Lect. Notes Math., vol 687. 168-195) 687 (1978).

\[Pu\] B.P. Purnaprajna, Geometry of canonical covers with applications to Calabi-Yau threefolds, in Vector Bundles and Representation Theory, Eds. D. Cutkosky et al., Contemporary Mathematics Series AMS 322 (2003), 107–124.

\[T\] S. Tan, Surfaces whose canonical maps are of odd degrees, Math. Annalen, 292 (1992), 13-29.


format: text

text:
# Markovian solutions of inviscid Burgers equation

## 1. Introduction

We consider the inviscid Burgers equation $`_tu+_x(\frac{1}{2}u^2)=0`$ with random initial data $`u_0`$. Burgers equation has originally been introduced  as a 1D model of turbulence. Although it is now clear that it does not exhibit lots of features of “true” turbulence, we nevertheless still think it is a good equation on which one can try and find new methods to apply on Euler equation. Having this in mind, taking random initial data seems quite a natural problem. It is also physically relevant in the contexts of interface dynamics, of aggregation of particles , and some others. Burgers equation with a random force on the r.h.s. has also been studied, mainly as a “benchmark” to test methods designed for (Navier-Stokes) forced turbulence, many of which turn out to produce spurious predictions when applied to the simpler Burgers case. See  for instance.

The case of a Brownian initial data has already been investigated by Sinai . Carraro and Duchon  showed that Lévy processes are conserved by Burgers equation. They also obtained the explicit evolution equation for the characteristic function of the Lévy process solutions of Burgers. A noticeable point is that they made no use of the Hopf-Cole construction of the solution (Bertoin  recovered essentially the same result with Hopf-Cole).

We will essentially follow Carraro and Duchon : first we define what we call a statistical solution of Burgers equation, and write an infinite set of equations for the $`n`$-point functions of such solutions. We show that the assumption that the process is Feller (in space) for all time yields an evolution equation for the infinitesimal generator of this process. Conversely, a Feller process whose generator satisfies this equation is a statistical solution of Burgers equation. This will allow us to recover Carraro and Duchon’s result on Lévy processes, as a special case. Frachebourg and Martin’s explicit solution  in the case of an initial white noise velocity is also a particular solution to our equation.

## 2. Notations and definitions

A Markov process $`u(x)_{x𝐑}`$ can be characterized by its one point and its transition probabilities $`p_x(du)`$ and $`q_{x,y}(u,dv)`$ , $`x<y`$, that satisfy, $`x_0<\mathrm{}<x_k`$ and $`f_i`$ borelian positive, $`𝐄[_{i=0}^kf_i(u(x_i))]=`$

$$p_{x_0}(du_0)f_0(u_0)q_{x_0,x_1}(u_0,du_1)f_1(u_1)\mathrm{}q_{x_{k1},x_k}(u_{k1},du_k)f_k(u_k).$$

A Markov process is homogeneous if its transition probabilities $`q_{x,y}`$ depend on $`x`$ and $`y`$ only through $`yx`$. In this case, we write $`q_h`$ instead of $`q_{x,x+h}`$ .

A process $`u(x)_{x𝐑}`$ is stationary if and only if it is translation invariant : the law of $`(u_{x+x_1},\mathrm{},u_{x+x_n})`$ does not depend on $`x`$. Hence a Markov process is stationary if and only if it is homogeneous and its one point probability $`p_x(du)`$ does not depend on $`x`$.

If $`u`$ is a homogeneous Markov process, $`h>0`$, and $`f`$ is a continuous function vanishing at infinity, we put $`Q_hf(u)=f(v)q_h(u,dv)`$ .

A Feller process is a homogeneous Markov process such that for each $`f`$, for each $`h>0`$, $`Q_hf`$ is also continuous and vanishes at infinity, and $`lim_{h0}Q_hf=f`$ pointwise.

A Feller process always has a càdlàg version .

One can define the infinitesimal generator of a Feller process : it is the operator $`A`$, defined for all the functions $`f`$ such that the limit below exists, by

$$x𝐑,Af(x)=\underset{h0^+}{lim}\frac{Q_hf(x)f(x)}{h}$$

Formally, $`Q_h=\mathrm{exp}(hA)`$ , $`Q_h^{}:=dQ/dh=AQ_h`$ and an invariant measure $`p_0`$ satisfies $`{}_{}{}^{t}Ap_0=0`$ .

The

## 3. Statistical solutions of Burgers equation

We will closely follow  (see also ). Let $`E`$ be the space of càdlàg real functions equipped with the smallest $`\sigma `$-algebra $`𝒞(E)`$ such that for each $`x𝐑`$, $`uu(x)`$ is measurable. Let $`𝒟`$ be the set of real $`C^{\mathrm{}}`$ functions with compact support. A probability $`\mu `$ on $`E`$ is then characterized by its characteristic function

$$v𝒟_E\mathrm{exp}[i_𝐑u(x)v(x)𝑑x]𝑑\mu (u)=\widehat{\mu }(v).$$

Let $`u_0`$ : $`(\mathrm{\Omega },𝒜,P)E`$ be a random process, defined on some probability space, and let $`\mu _0:𝒞(E)[0,1]`$ denote its probability law. Assume $`u(x,t)`$ is a (weak) solution of Burgers equation with $`u(.,0)=u_0`$, $`u(.,t)E`$ for $`t>0`$, and everything makes sense in the following calculation : integrability, and differentiability with respect to $`t`$. Let $`\mu _t`$ denote the law of $`u(.,t)`$. Formally, one then gets for each $`v𝒟`$ :

$`_t\widehat{\mu }_t(v)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _E}_t\{\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle _𝐑}u(x)v(x)𝑑x]\}d\mu _t(u)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _E}_t\{\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle _𝐑}u(x,t)v(x)𝑑x]\}d\mu _0(u_0)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _E}\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle _𝐑}u(x,t)v(x)dx)]_t[i{\displaystyle _𝐑}u(x,t)v(x)dx]d\mu _0(u_0)`$
$`=`$ $`{\displaystyle _E}\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle _𝐑}u(x,t)v(x)𝑑x]i{\displaystyle _𝐑}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u(x,t)^2v^{}(x)𝑑x𝑑\mu _0(u_0)`$
$`=`$ $`i{\displaystyle _E}{\displaystyle _𝐑}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}u(x)^2v^{}(x)𝑑x\mathrm{exp}[i{\displaystyle _𝐑}uv]𝑑\mu _t(u)`$
Hence our definition of a statistical solution of Burgers equation :

###### Definition 1.

A statistical solution of Burgers equation is a set $`(\mu _t)_{t0}`$ of probabilities on $`(E,𝒞(E))`$ such that for any $`v𝒟`$,

(1)
$$_t\widehat{\mu }_t(v)=i_E_𝐑\frac{1}{2}u(x)^2v^{}(x)𝑑x\mathrm{exp}[i_𝐑uv]𝑑\mu _t(u)$$

Let us assume now that we have a statistical solution of Burgers equation, $`(\mu _t)_{t0}`$ , and that for all $`t`$, all the moments of $`\mu _t`$ are well defined. Then one can write

$$\mathrm{exp}[i_𝐑u(x)v(x)𝑑x]=\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{i^n}{n!}_{𝐑^n}\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}u(x_j)v(x_j)dx_j$$

Equation (1) thus becomes $`v𝒟`$,

(2)
$$\begin{array}{c}2\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{i^n}{n!}_{𝐑^n}_t𝐄[\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}u(x_j)v(x_j)]dx_j=\hfill \\ \hfill =i\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{i^n}{n!}_{𝐑^{n+1}}𝐄[\underset{j=1}{\overset{n}{}}u(x_j)v(x_j)u(x)^2v^{}(x)]𝑑xdx_j=\\ \hfill =i\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^n_{x_0<x_1<\mathrm{}<x_n}\underset{j=0}{\overset{n}{}}𝐄[u(x_j)\frac{v^{}(x_j)}{v(x_j)}\underset{k=0}{\overset{n}{}}u(x_k)v(x_k)]dx_k\end{array}$$

## 4. Evolution equation for Markov solutions

We are now looking for solutions such that at each time $`t`$, $`xu(x,t)`$ is a stationary Feller process (with respect to space $`x`$). We are going to show that for such processes, the infinite set of equations (2) is equivalent to an evolution equation for the infinitesimal generator of $`u`$.

We thus assume now that the solution $`xu(x,t)`$ is a stationary Feller process, with one point probability $`p(du,t)`$ and transition probability $`q_h(u_1,du_2,t)`$, the equation (2) becomes $`v𝒟`$ :

(3)
$$\begin{array}{c}2\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}_{x_1<\mathrm{}<x_n}𝑑x_1\mathrm{}𝑑x_nu_1v(x_1)\mathrm{}u_nv(x_n)\hfill \\ \hfill \times _t[p(du_1)q_{h_2}(u_1,du_2)\mathrm{}q_{h_n}(u_{n1},du_n)]\\ \hfill =i\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^n_{x_0<\mathrm{}<x_n}𝑑x_0\mathrm{}𝑑x_np(du_0)q_{h_1}(u_0,du_1)\mathrm{}q_{h_n}(u_{n1},du_n)\\ \hfill \times [u_0\frac{v^{}}{v}(x_0)+\mathrm{}+u_n\frac{v^{}}{v}(x_n)]u_0v(x_0)\mathrm{}u_nv(x_n)\\ \hfill =i\underset{n=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}i^n_{x_0<\mathrm{}<x_n}𝑑x_0\mathrm{}𝑑x_nu_0v(x_0)\mathrm{}u_nv(x_n)\\ \hfill \times p(du_0)q_{h_1}(u_0,du_1)\mathrm{}q_{h_n}(u_{n1},du_n)\\ \hfill \times \{u_1\frac{q_{h_2}^{}}{q_{h_2}}(u_1,du_2)+u_2[\frac{q_{h_3}^{}}{q_{h_3}}(u_2,du_3)\frac{q_{h_2}^{}}{q_{h_2}}(u_1,du_2)]+\mathrm{}+u_{n1}[\frac{q_{h_n}^{}}{q_{h_n}}(u_{n1},du_n)\frac{q_{h_{n1}}^{}}{q_{h_{n1}}}(u_{n2},du_{n1})]u_n\frac{q_{h_n}^{}}{q_{h_n}}(u_{n1},du_n)\}\end{array}$$

(by integrating by parts; we note $`h_j=x_jx_{j1}`$ and $`q_h^{}=q_h/h`$).

This equality is equivalent to the following infinite set of equations : $`n𝐍^{},x_1<\mathrm{}<x_n`$ :

(4)
$$\begin{array}{c}2_t𝐄[u(x_1)\mathrm{}u(x_n)]=\hfill \\ \hfill u_1\mathrm{}u_np(du_1)q_{h_2}(u_1,du_2)\mathrm{}q_{h_n}(u_{n1},du_n)\\ \hfill \times \{u_1\frac{q_{h_2}^{}}{q_{h_2}}(u_1,du_2)+u_2[\frac{q_{h_3}^{}}{q_{h_3}}(u_2,du_3)\frac{q_{h_2}^{}}{q_{h_2}}(u_1,du_2)]+\mathrm{}+u_{n1}[\frac{q_{h_n}^{}}{q_{h_n}}(u_{n1},du_n)\frac{q_{h_{n1}}^{}}{q_{h_{n1}}}(u_{n2},du_{n1})]u_n\frac{q_{h_n}^{}}{q_{h_n}}(u_{n1},du_n)\}\end{array}$$

One then gets the evolution equations for $`p`$, $`q`$ and $`A`$ by taking limits in which some of the $`x_i`$s are equal. If one makes every $`x_i`$ tend to $`x_1`$, the preceding set of equations gives formally, $`n𝐍^{}`$ :

$`2{\displaystyle _tp(du)u^n}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle p(du)(UAU^n+U^nAU)(u)}`$
where $`U^n`$ denotes the function $`uu^n`$.

If one makes some of the $`x_i`$s tend to $`x_1`$, and the others tend to $`x_2=x_1+h`$, one then gets $`n𝐍^{},k<n,x_1𝐑,h𝐑^+`$ :

(5)
$$\begin{array}{c}2_t𝐄[u(x_1)^ku(x_1+h)^{nk}]=p(du)\{UA(U^kQ_hU^{nk})+U^{k+1}Q_hAU^{nk}\hfill \\ \hfill +U^k[A(UQ_hU^{nk})AQ_hU^{nk+1}+Q_h(U^{nk}AU)Q_h(UAU^{nk})]\}(u)\end{array}$$

One then easily finds, if $`\eta `$ is in the domain of $`A`$ :

(6) $`2{\displaystyle _tp(du)\eta (u)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle p(du)[uA\eta (u)+\eta (u)AU(u)]}`$
$`2_tQ_h\eta `$ $`=`$ $`UAQ_h\eta +A(UQ_h\eta )Q_h(UA\eta )`$
$`AQ_h(U\eta )+Q_h(\eta AU)AUQ_h\eta `$
These two equalities sum up into one : $`\eta `$ in the domain of $`A`$,

(8)
$$2_tA\eta =UA^2\eta A^2(U\eta )+A(\eta AU)AUA\eta $$

or, introducing the operators $`M_U`$ and $`M_{AU}`$ defined as $`M_U\eta (u)=u\eta (u)`$ and $`M_{AU}\eta (u)=AU(u)\eta (u)`$ :

(9)
$$2_tA=M_UA^2A^2M_U+AM_{AU}M_{AU}A$$

If this latter equality holds, one can easily check that if $`{}_{}{}^{t}Ap=0`$ for all time, then $`p`$ verifies (6), and $`Q_h=\mathrm{exp}(hA)`$ verifies (4).

Hence a Feller statistical solution of (2) is solution of (6) and (4), which are equivalent to (9).

Conversely, it is a matter of simple algebra to check that (6) and (4) imply (2) : indeed one can then write for any $`x_1<\mathrm{}<x_n`$ (recall $`h_i=x_ix_{i1}`$) :

(10)
$$\begin{array}{c}2_tE[u(x_1)\mathrm{}u(x_n)]=2_tp(du)M_UQ_{h_2}\mathrm{}M_UQ_{h_n}U(u)\hfill \\ \hfill =2_tp(du)M_UQ_{h_2}\mathrm{}M_UQ_{h_n}U(u)\\ \hfill +2\underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}p(du)M_UQ_{h_2}\mathrm{}M_UQ_{h_{j1}}M_U_tQ_{h_j}M_UQ_{h_{j+1}}\mathrm{}M_UQ_{h_n}U(u)\\ \hfill =p(du)u[AM_UQ_{h_2}M_U\mathrm{}Q_{h_n}U(u)+Q_{h_2}M_U\mathrm{}Q_{h_n}U(u)AU(u)]\\ \hfill +\underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}p(du)M_UQ_{h_2}\mathrm{}M_U[M_UAQ_{h_j}\eta _j+A(UQ_{h_j}\eta _j)Q_{h_j}(UA\eta _j)\\ \hfill AQ_{h_j}(U\eta _j)+Q_{h_j}(\eta _jAU)AUA\eta _j]\end{array}$$

where $`\eta _j=M_UQ_{h_{j+1}}\mathrm{}M_UQ_{h_n}U`$. Many terms cancel, one gets

$$=p(du)u\underset{j=2}{\overset{n}{}}Q_{h_2}M_U\mathrm{}Q_{h_{j1}}M_U[M_UQ_{h_j}^{}Q_{h_j}^{}M_U]\eta _j$$

which is just one integration by parts away from (2).

Therefore, if $`u(x,t)`$ is a Feller process, it is a statistical solution of Burgers if and only if its infinitesimal generator is solution of (9). In some sense, the Feller assumption yields an exact closure of the infinite set (2). Of course, nothing guarantees the existence of solutions of (9), although we show later that the Brownian and white noise initial cases give formal solutions to it. Nevertheless, a close look at Bertoin’s proof using Hopf-Cole  makes us strongly suspect that the absence of positive jumps may be essential to guarantee the existence of solutions. This would also be reasonable from a physical point of view : solutions with positive jumps are unphysical.

## 5. The case of Lévy processes

We will see how one can recover formally the results of . The initial velocity $`u_0`$ is here supposed to be a Lévy process (which means that it has independent and stationary increments) of finite variance having no negative jumps. This covers in particular the case of $`u_0`$ Brownian. Such processes are characterized by their second exponent $`\varphi `$, defined by $`x<y,\lambda 𝐑^+`$ :

$$E\{\mathrm{exp}[\lambda (u_0(y)u_0(x))]\}=\mathrm{exp}[(yx)\varphi (\lambda )]$$

A Lévy process can be considered as a limit case of stationary Markov process (the one point distribution $`p`$ is replaced with Lebesgue measure). One can also formally define an infinitesimal generator by the relations : $`\lambda 𝐑^+`$,

$$Ae_\lambda =\varphi (\lambda )e_\lambda $$

where we have noted $`e_\lambda `$ the function $`u\mathrm{exp}(\lambda u)`$ (which of course is not in the domain of $`A`$ …). One can inject these relations into the evolution equation (9). Using $`ue_\lambda (u)=_\lambda e_\lambda (u)`$, and $`AU=`$ constant, one gets an evolution equation for $`\varphi `$ ; it turns out that this equation is also the Burgers equation :

(11)
$$2_t\varphi (\lambda )=_\lambda \varphi ^2$$

Carraro and Duchon  have checked that if $`\varphi _0`$ is the exponent of a Lévy process of finite variance with negative jumps, (11) has a smooth solution for all time $`t0`$, which is still the exponent of a homogeneous Lévy process with negative jumps.

Hence such Lévy processes are conserved by the Burgers equation. The Brownian case corresponds to $`\varphi _0(\lambda )=\lambda ^2/2`$, and this yields $`\varphi (\lambda ,t)=(1+\lambda t\sqrt{1+2\lambda t})/t^2`$.

## 6. Evolution equation for the jump process

The infinitesimal generator of an arbitrary Markov process can be written as the sum of three terms (see ) : a diffusion term, a drift term and a jump term :

$$Af(x)=a(x)f^{\prime \prime }(x)+b(x)f^{}(x)+n(x,dy)(f(y)f(x))$$

The measure $`n(x,dy)`$ represents the jump part of the process : it gives the number of jumps going from $`x`$ to $`y`$. In our case, all these coefficients will of course depend on time. To write an evolution equation for $`n`$ , we assume $`b=1/t`$ and $`a=0`$ for $`t>0`$ , and all jumps are negative. Equation (9) then yields an evolution equation for $`n`$ : $`x>y`$,

(12)
$$\begin{array}{c}2_tn(x,dy,t)=\frac{1}{t}(xy)(_xn(x,dy,t)_yn(x,dy,t))\hfill \\ \hfill +_{\mathrm{}}^xn(x,du,t)[(xy)n(u,dy,t)+(yu)n(x,dy,t)]\\ \hfill _{\mathrm{}}^y(xu)n(y,du,t)n(x,dy,t)\end{array}$$

## 7. The case of an initial white noise process

Frachebourg and Martin  have investigated the case of an initial white noise velocity. Using the Hopf-Cole construction, they obtain explicit formulas for the laws of $`u(x,t)`$ and its jumps. They actually rederived results about Brownian motion with a parabolic drift that had been previously established by Groeneboom  out of the Burgers context. Using Frachebourg and Martin’s results or Groeneboom’s paper, the infinitesimal generator in the case of an initial white noise process is found to be, in the case where $`<u_0(x)u_0(y)>=(1/8)\delta (xy)`$ :

$$Af(x)=\frac{1}{t}f^{}(x)+4_{\mathrm{}}^x(f(y)f(x))(xy)\frac{J(yt^{1/3})}{J(xt^{1/3})}I(xt^{1/3}yt^{1/3})𝑑y$$

where $`I`$ and $`J`$ are given by their Fourier and Laplace transforms in terms of the Airy function Ai :

(13) $`J(u)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\pi }}{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}}𝑑z{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{exp}(uz)}{2^{1/3}\text{Ai}(2^{1/3}z)}}`$
(14) $`2I(u)`$ $`=`$ $`(2\pi u^3)^{1/2}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\pi }}{\displaystyle _i\mathrm{}^i\mathrm{}}\mathrm{exp}(uz)({\displaystyle \frac{2^{2/3}\text{Ai}^{}(2^{1/3}z)}{\text{Ai}(2^{1/3}z)}}+(2z)^{1/2})`$
We have checked that the evolution equation (9) is indeed verified : it amounts to expressing convolutions like $`uIJ`$, $`uIuI`$, $`uIuJ`$ in terms of $`J^{}`$ and $`I^{}`$. It can be done using relations (13) and (14) and the fact that $`\text{Ai}^{\prime \prime }(x)=x\text{Ai}(x)`$.

## 8. Conclusion

We have heuristically shown that for Feller stationary processes, Burgers equation is equivalent to an evolution equation for their infinitesimal generators. It gives strong evidence that the Feller property is conserved by Burgers equation, although we suspect that the negativity of jumps in the initial velocity should be required. Our evolution equation provides an equation for the jump process, and this might lead to other exact statistical solutions of Burgers equation. The previous exact solutions concerning an initial Brownian or white noise velocity are both particular solutions of our equation.


text:
# Untitled Document

###

Analytical solution of Weyl neutrino wave equation in Kerr geometry is presented by making use of the two-spinor component spin-coefficient Newman-Penrose (NP) calculus. So far only asymptotic or approximate solutions have been found for the Weyl equation in this background. It is shown that neutrino current asymmetry is also present in this solution. PACS numbers:   0420, 0450

###

Earlier Chandrasekhar  has shown that the Weyl neutrino wave equation in Kerr geometrical background can be separated in oblate coordinates and an approximate solution has been found. Although Chandrasekhar has made use of the NP calculus as well we show here that he failed in finding a analytic solution for this problem because of an inapropriate choice of coordinates. As an astrophysicist he used the well known Boyer-Lindquist coordinates  suitable for black holes investigations. Here we show that the use of the powerful mathematical tool of NP calculus allied with the Vaidya-Patel  null coordinates help us to find an analytical solution for the problem using the simple and well known method of the separation of variables. This problem seems to be important for General Relativity (GR) and astrophysics since can avoid sometimes the use of complicated approximate methods such as numerical calculus , although this method is useful in many realistic situations. With our solution no need is made to solve the Teukolsky  equation for the specific case of spin-$`\frac{1}{2}`$ particles. We also show that neutrino asymmetric currents  are present in this solution. The neutrino equations

$$\mathrm{\Delta }\psi =(\gamma \pi )\psi $$
(.1)
$$\overline{\delta }\psi =(\alpha \mu )\varphi $$
(.2)
Here $`\psi `$ is the neutrino field obtained by making use of neutrino spinor

$$\psi ^A=(\psi )i^A$$
(.3)
where $`i^A`$ is a spinor basis dyad. From this tetrad we can obtain the following differential operators

$$\delta =\frac{\overline{\rho }}{\sqrt{2}}(iasinx\frac{}{u}+\frac{}{x}+icosecx\frac{}{y})$$
(.4)
$$\mathrm{\Delta }=\overline{\rho }\rho [\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\frac{}{r}+\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{}{u}+a\frac{}{y}]$$
(.5)
where we made use of the variables

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=r^2+a^2$$
(.6)
and

$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}=\frac{r^2+a^22mr}{2}$$
(.7)
Note that here the neutrino field $`\psi `$ depends on the null coordinate $`u`$ since although the Kerr metric  does not depend on u the neutrino is a wave and does depend on this coordinate. The spin coefficients appearing in the Weyl equation are given by

$$\alpha \pi =\overline{\beta }=\frac{cotx\rho }{2\sqrt{2}}$$
(.8)
and

$$\gamma \mu =[rm]\frac{\rho \overline{\rho }}{\sqrt{2}}$$
(.9)
Substitution of these operators into the Weyl equations yields the following system of PDE

$$iasinx\frac{\psi }{u}\frac{\psi }{x}+icscx\frac{\psi }{y}=cotx\rho \psi $$
(.10)
$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\frac{\psi }{r}+\mathrm{\Omega }\frac{\psi }{u}+a\frac{\psi }{y}=\frac{[rm]}{\sqrt{2}}\psi $$
(.11)
To obtain the solution let us make the following ansatz

$$\psi (u,r,x,y)=e^{i\mathrm{\Lambda }u}R(r,x,y)$$
(.12)
where c is a constant. This ansatz represents a plane wave representation. This ansatz reduces the partial differential equation to

$$(acsinxR+\frac{cotx}{2})R+\frac{R}{x}=icscx\frac{R}{y}$$
(.13)
$$\mathrm{{\rm Y}}\frac{R}{r}(ic\mathrm{\Omega }+mr)R=a\frac{R}{y}$$
(.14)
Let us now try to further reduce this system by making the separation of variables

$$R(r,x,y)=A(r)B(x)C(y)$$
(.15)
Substitution of this expression into the PDE yields

$$\frac{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}}{A}\frac{dA}{dr}(ic\mathrm{\Omega }+mr)=a\frac{dC}{dy}=c_0$$
(.16)
$$(c_0cscxacsinx\frac{cotx}{2})=\frac{1}{B}\frac{dB}{dx}$$
(.17)
where here $`c_0`$ represents the separation variables constant. These equations can be immeadiatly integrated and collecting them we finally obtain the neutrino wave function in Kerr geometry

$$\psi _{Kerr}(u,r,x,y)=\frac{1}{2}\frac{e^{acosxi[c_0y+c((ru)+ln\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^m+(2m^2ac_0)\mathrm{\Gamma })]}}{\mathrm{{\rm Y}}sin^{\frac{1}{2}}}$$
(.18)
where $`\mathrm{\Gamma }=\frac{arctan\frac{(rm)}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }}}}{\sqrt{\mathrm{\Theta }}}`$ where $`\mathrm{\Theta }=a^2m^2`$. By considering the neutrino current defined as

$$J^\mu =\psi \overline{\psi }l^\mu $$
(.19)
where $`l^\mu `$ is a tetrad leg of the tetrad frame $`(l^\mu ,n^\mu ,m^\mu ,\overline{m^\mu })`$. one obtains the following neutrino current in Kerr background

$$J^\mu =\mathrm{{\rm Y}}^2\frac{e^{a^2cos^2x}}{4sinx}l^\mu $$
(.20)
where to simplify the expression we consider $`c_0=0`$. One notices from this current that the neutrino asymmetry  is present in the Kerr background since the signe of the angular momentum density of the black hole $`a=\frac{J}{m}`$ changes the neutrino current. Since the Einstein-Weyl equation is known to be equivalent to the Einstein-Cartan-Weyl  ,the solution presented here can be useful in constructing solutions in spacetimes with torsion. In this case the neutrino current could be expressed in terms of the Cartan contortion as $`K_{\alpha \beta \lambda }=kϵ_{\alpha \beta \lambda \theta }J^\theta `$. To resume we have shown that a analytical solution of neutrino wave equations in Kerr geometry is possible by a proper choice of null coordinates used by Vaidya and Patel in the construction of Kerr radiative spacetimes, since this solution reduces to the Kerr solution in the constant mass case.

## Acknowledgements

###

I am very much indebt to Professors I.D. Soares and P.S.Letelier for helpful discussions on the subject of this paper. Special thanks go to Professor Jerry Griffiths for his kind attention and interest in our work. Grants from CNPq (Ministry of Science of Brazilian Government) and Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) are acknowledged.