Abstract:Given a smooth plane curve $\overline{C}$ of genus $g\geq 3$ over an algebraically closed field $\overline{k}$, a field $L\subseteq\overline{k}$ is said to be a \emph{plane model-field of definition for $\overline{C}$} if $L$ is a field of definition for $\overline{C}$, i.e. $\exists$ a smooth curve $C'$ defined over $L$ where $C'\times_L\overline{k}\cong \overline{C}$, and such that $C'$ is $L$-isomorphic to a non-singular plane model $F(X,Y,Z)=0$ in $\mathbb{P}^2_{L}$.
{In this short note, we construct a smooth plane curve $\overline{C}$ over $\overline{\mathbb{Q}}$, such that the field of moduli of $\overline{C}$ is not a field of definition for $\overline{C}$, and also fields of definition do not coincide with plane model-fields of definition for $\overline{C}$.} As far as we know, this is the first example in the literature with the above property, since this phenomenon does not occur for hyperelliptic curves, replacing plane model-fields of definition with the so-called hyperelliptic model-fields of definition.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?
The problem that this paper attempts to solve is about the relationship between the field of definition and the field of moduli of smooth plane curves. Specifically, the author explores the following questions:
1. **Whether the field of moduli can be used as the field of definition**: Given a smooth plane curve \(C\), whether its field of moduli must be its field of definition. The field of moduli refers to the intersection of all fields of definition, and the field of definition refers to the smallest field in which the curve can be defined.
2. **The relationship between the field of definition and the field of definition of the plane model**: Are there certain situations where the field of definition is inconsistent with the so - called "field of definition of the plane model"? The field of definition of the plane model refers to the smallest field in which the curve can not only be defined but also be represented as a non - singular plane model \(F(X, Y, Z)=0\).
### Main contributions of the paper
In this paper, the author shows the existence of the above problems by constructing specific examples. They construct a smooth plane curve \(C\) such that:
- The field of moduli \(K_C\) is not the field of definition.
- The field of definition is not the field of definition of the plane model.
This is the first time that an example with the above properties has been given in the literature. For hyperelliptic curves, this phenomenon does not occur because some results have shown that the field of moduli of hyperelliptic curves is usually the field of definition, and the field of definition is usually also the field of definition of the hyperelliptic model.
### Specific examples
The paper uses the example of the Hessian group \(\text{Hess}_{18}\), which is a group of order 18. By choosing appropriate parameters \(u\) and \(v\), the author constructs a specific smooth plane curve \(C\) whose equation is as follows:
\[ c_{\varphi^2}\varphi^2 - 6c_{\varphi\psi}\varphi\psi - 18c_{\psi^2}\psi^2+\chi = 0\]
where:
- \(\varphi = XYZ\)
- \(\psi = X^3 + Y^3+Z^3\)
- \(\chi=(XY)^3+(YZ)^3+(XZ)^3\)
By choosing appropriate \(u\) and \(v\) such that \(L = K(\sqrt{u},\sqrt{v})\) cannot be embedded in a quaternion extension, thus ensuring that the field of moduli \(K_C = Q(\zeta_3)\) is not the field of definition.
Furthermore, the author further proves that there exists a twisted curve \(C'\) such that \(L\) is not the field of definition of the plane model of \(C'\), but the field of moduli is still \(Q(\zeta_3)\).
### Summary
This paper shows the possible complex relationships between the field of moduli and the field of definition of smooth plane curves through specific mathematical constructions and provides the first such example. This is of great significance for understanding the geometric and arithmetic properties of algebraic curves.