Superspecial plane quintics with large automorphism groups

Ryo Ohashi

arXiv: 2605.29624v2 · PDF · 3 June 2026
Categories: math.AG, math.NT
Licence: CC BY 4.0 The site shows the text.

Abstract

In this paper, we study plane quintic curves whose automorphism groups have order greater than 10, as well as those with cyclic automorphism groups of order 8 and 10. The latter two cases are represented as one-parameter families, where their superspeciality can be explicitly described in terms of a truncation of certain Gaussian hypergeometric series. Applying this characterization, we determine the exact number of isomorphism classes of superspecial plane quintic curves with automorphism groups \cong \mathbb{Z}/10\mathbb{Z}. We also provide an efficient algorithm to enumerate such curves with automorphism groups \cong \mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z}, and provide the computational results for the range 13 < p < 10000.

Items 32

Theorem

Theorem 1.1

NXAA

The number of isomorphism classes of superspecial plane quintic curves with cyclic automorphism group of order 10 equals

\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (3p-27)/20 & \text{ if } p \equiv 9 \!\!\pmod{20},\\[-0.2mm] (3p-37)/20 & \text{ if } p \equiv 19 \!\!\pmod{20},\\[-0.2mm] 0 & \text{ otherwise} \end{array} \right.\vspace{-1.2mm}

in characteristic p > 13.

Proof (The proof of Theorem 1.1) of Theorem 1.1

We recall that every plane quintic curve with an automorphism group containing a subgroup isomorphic to \mathbb{Z}/10\mathbb{Z} is isomorphic to C_\lambda in (?) for some \lambda \neq 0,1. Hence, this theorem follows in the case p \not\equiv 4 \pmod{5} from Proposition 3.5(1). In the case p \equiv 4 \pmod{5}, it follows from Proposition 3.5(2) and Lemma 3.6 that there are exactly (3p-7)/10 values of \lambda \neq 0,1 for which C_\lambda is superspecial. Moreover, the number of those for which \hspace{-0.2mm}{\rm Aut}(C_\lambda) \cong \mathbb{Z}/10\mathbb{Z} is given by

\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} (3p-7)/10-2 & \text{ if } p\equiv 9 \!\!\pmod{20},\\[-0.2mm] (3p-7)/10-3 & \text{ if } p\equiv 19 \!\!\pmod{20}. \end{array} \right.\vspace{-0.8mm}

Indeed, by the discussion at the beginning of Section ? and the relation (?),

If \lambda = 9 \pm 4\sqrt{5}, then the automorphism group of C_\lambda has order 150. In this case C_\lambda\hspace{-0.1mm} corresponds to the plane quintic of Type 1, which is superspecial if and only if p \equiv 4 \pmod{5} by Proposition 3.1(1).
If \lambda = -1, then the automorphism group of C_\lambda\hspace{-0.1mm} is isomorphic to \mathbb{Z}/20\mathbb{Z}. In this case C_\lambda\hspace{-0.1mm} corresponds to the plane quintic of Type 4, which is superspecial if and only if p \equiv 19 \pmod{20} by Proposition 3.2(2).
Otherwise, the automorphism group of C_\lambda is isomorphic to \mathbb{Z}/10\mathbb{Z}.

By Lemma 3.3 and the relation (?), we have C_\lambda \cong C_{\lambda'} if and only if \lambda' \hspace{-0.1mm}\in\hspace{-0.1mm} \{\lambda,1/\lambda\}. Therefore, the number of isomorphism classes of superspecial curves C_\lambda with {\rm Aut}(C_\lambda) \cong \mathbb{Z}/10\mathbb{Z} is half of (Proof), as desired.

Uses Proposition 3.5, Lemma 3.6, Proposition 3.1, Proposition 3.2, Lemma 3.3

Theorem

Theorem 1.2

T9DS

For each characteristic p in the range 13 < p < 10000, there are no superspecial plane quintic curves with a cyclic automorphism group of order 8 if p \equiv 1,3,5 \pmod{8}. Also, the numbers of isomorphism classes of such curves for p \equiv 7 \pmod{8} are listed in Table ?.

Proposition

Proposition 2.1 (cf. )

0Q7X

The superelliptic curves Y^nZ^{m-n} = F(X,Z) and Y^nZ^{m-n} = G(X,Z) over K are isomorphic to each other if and only if F(X,Z) and G(X,Z) are equivalent under {\rm GL}_2(K).

Used by Proof, Proof

Theorem

Theorem 2.2 (cf. )

XNIE

The superelliptic curve given by y^n = f(x) is superspecial if and only if the x^{hp-k}-coefficients in f(x)^{(ip-j)/n} are equal to 0 for all integers (i,j,h,k) satisfying

1 \leq i,j < n, \quad 1 \leq h < mi/n, \quad 1 \leq k < mj/n,\ \text{ and }\ n \mid\hspace{-0.2mm} (ip-j),\vspace{-0.1mm}

where m \geq 3 is the degree of f(x).

Used by Proof

Corollary

Corollary 2.3 (cf. )

I23G

The set S in (?) is empty if one of the following conditions holds:

(i) p \equiv -1 \pmod{(m-1)n}, or
(ii) p \equiv m \pmod{(m-1)n} when n is a divisor of m+1.

Consequently, the superelliptic curve y^n = x^m - x is superspecial in each of these cases.

Used by Proof

Theorem

Theorem 2.4

UHLN

The superelliptic curve C_\lambda in (?) is superspecial if and only if the following conditions hold for every 4-tuple (i,j,h,k) \in T, where T is the set defined in (?):

If hp-k-\frac{ip-j}{n} \leq r\frac{ip-j}{n}, then
G^{((hp-k-\frac{ip-j}{n})/r)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{j}{n},\hspace{0.3mm}\frac{k}{r}-\frac{j}{nr},\hspace{0.5mm}1-\frac{j}{n}+\frac{k}{r}-\frac{j}{nr} \ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\vspace{-1.5mm}
If hp-k-\frac{ip-j}{n} > r\frac{ip-j}{n}, then
G^{(2\frac{ip-j}{n}-(hp-k-\frac{ip-j}{n})/r)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{j}{n},-\frac{k}{r}+\frac{2j}{n}+\frac{j}{nr},\hspace{0.5mm}1+\frac{j}{n}-\frac{k}{r}+\frac{j}{nr} \ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\vspace{-2.2mm}

Here, G^{(d)}(a,b,c \mid z) denotes the truncated Gaussian hypergeometric series defined in [OK, Definition 2.1.2], namely, we write

G^{(d)}(a,b,c \mid z) \coloneqq \sum_{\ell=0}^d \frac{(a\,;\ell)(b\,;\ell)}{(c\,;\ell)(1\,;\ell)}z^\ell\vspace{1.7mm}

where (x\,;0) = 1 and (x\,;\ell) = x(x+1) \cdots (x+\ell-1) for an integer \ell \geq 1.

Used by Example 2.5, Proof, Proof

Proof of Theorem 2.4

It follows from Theorem 2.2 that C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if, for all integers (i,j,h,k) satisfying the conditions

1 \leq i,j < n, \quad 1 \leq h < (2r+1)i/n, \quad 1 \leq k < (2r+1)j/n,\ \text{ and }\ n \mid\hspace{-0.2mm} (ip-j),\vspace{0.8mm}

the x^{hp-k}-coefficients in \{x(x^r-1)(x^r-\lambda)\}^{(ip-j)/n} are equal to 0. Since

\begin{aligned} (x^r-1)^{(ip-j)/n} &= \sum_{\ell_1=0}^{(ip-j)/n}\binom{(ip-j)/n}{\ell_1}(-1)^{(ip-j)/n-\ell_1}x^{r\ell_1}, \,\text{ and}\\[-0.3mm] (x^r-\lambda)^{(ip-j)/n} &= \sum_{\ell_2=0}^{(ip-j)/n}\binom{(ip-j)/n}{\ell_2}(-\lambda)^{(ip-j)/n-\ell_2}x^{r\ell_2}\\[-5.3mm] \end{aligned}

by the binomial theorem, one can expand \{x(x^r-1)(x^r-\lambda)\}^{(ip-j)/n} as

\sum_{\ell=0}^{2(ip-j)/n}\hspace{-0.4mm}\Biggl(\hspace{0.5mm}\sum_{\ell_1+\ell_2=\ell}\binom{(ip-j)/n}{\ell_1}\!\binom{(ip-j)/n}{\ell_2}(-1)^{(ip-j)/n-\ell_1}(-\lambda)^{(ip-j)/n-\ell_2}\hspace{-0.5mm}\Biggr)x^{(ip-j)/n+r\ell}.\vspace{-0.3mm}

Hence, for integers (i,j,h,k) satisfying (Proof), the x^{hp-k}-coefficient in \{x(x^r-1)(x^r-\lambda)\}^{(ip-j)/n} is non-zero only if there exists an integer \ell such that

hp-k = (ip-j)/n + r\ell \ \text{ with }\ 0 \leq \ell \leq 2(ip-j)/n,\vspace{-0.3mm}

which is equivalent to

r \mid \Bigl(hp-k-\frac{ip-j}{n}\Bigr) \text{ and } 0 \leq hp-k-\frac{ip-j}{n} \leq 2r\frac{ip-j}{n}.\vspace{0.4mm}

This is precisely the condition appearing in the definition of T.

For each (i,j,h,k) \in T, up to a sign, the x^{hp-k}-coefficient in (Proof) is given by

\sum_{\ell_1+\ell_2=(hp-k-\frac{ip-j}{n})/r}\!\binom{(ip-j)/n}{\ell_1}\!\binom{(ip-j)/n}{\ell_2}\lambda^{(ip-j)/n-\ell_2} = \sum_{\ell_1=\max(0,b-a)}^{\min(a,b)}\!\binom{a}{\ell_1}\!\binom{a}{b-\ell_1}\lambda^{a-b+\ell_1},\vspace{-0.6mm}

where we define

a \coloneqq \frac{ip-j}{n}\ \text{ and }\ b \coloneqq \frac{hp-k-\frac{ip-j}{n}}{r}.\vspace{0.8mm}

We divide the proof into two cases according to whether b \leq a or b > a:

If b \leq a, then a straightforward computation (cf. [OK, Lemma A.1]) leads to
\sum_{\ell_1=0}^b\!\binom{a}{\ell_1}\!\binom{a}{b-\ell_1}\lambda^{a-b+\ell_1} = \lambda^{a-b} \cdot \binom{a}{b}G^{(b)}(-a,-b,1+a-b \mid \lambda).\vspace{-1.1mm}
Also, we have
-a \equiv \frac{j}{n}, \quad -b \equiv \frac{k}{r} - \frac{j}{nr}, \ \text{ and }\ 1+a-b \equiv 1-\frac{j}{n}+\frac{k}{r} - \frac{j}{nr}\vspace{0.9mm}
modulo p, and thus the x^{hp-k}-coefficient in (Proof) vanishes if and only if
G^{(b)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{j}{n},\hspace{0.3mm}\frac{k}{r}-\frac{j}{nr},\hspace{0.5mm}1-\frac{j}{n}+\frac{k}{r}-\frac{j}{nr}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0\vspace{-0.4mm}
since b \leq a < p and \lambda \neq 0.
If b > a, then a straightforward computation (cf. [OK, Lemma A.1]) leads to
\sum_{\ell_1=b-a}^a\!\binom{a}{\ell_1}\!\binom{a}{b-\ell_1}\lambda^{a-b+\ell_1} = \binom{a}{2a-b}G^{(2a-b)}(-a,b-2a,1+b-a \mid \lambda).\vspace{-0.8mm}
Also, we have
-a \equiv \frac{j}{n}, \quad b-2a \equiv -\frac{k}{r}+\frac{2j}{n}+\frac{j}{nr}, \ \text{ and }\ 1+b-a \equiv 1+\frac{j}{n}-\frac{k}{r}+\frac{j}{nr}
modulo p, and thus the x^{hp-k}-coefficient in (Proof) vanishes if and only if
G^{(2a-b)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{j}{n},-\frac{k}{r}+\frac{2j}{n}+\frac{j}{nr},\hspace{0.5mm}1+\frac{j}{n}-\frac{k}{r}+\frac{j}{nr} \ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0\vspace{-0.9mm}
since 2a-b < a < p.

Combining these two cases, we obtain the desired assertion.

Uses Theorem 2.2

Example

Example 2.5

H9FN

Let C_\lambda be a genus-g hyperelliptic curve defined by the equation

C_\lambda: y^2 = x(x^g-1)(x^g-\lambda)\ \text{ with }\, \lambda \neq 0,1.\vspace{0.8mm}

In this case, the set T in (?) is given by

T = \left\{ \,(1,1,h,k) \in \mathbb{Z}^4\ \middle| \begin{array}{l} 1 \leq h,\hspace{-0.1mm}k \leq g,\ g \mid\hspace{-0.2mm} \bigl(hp-k -\hspace{-0.2mm} \frac{p-1}{2}\bigr),\\ 0 \leq hp-k-\hspace{-0.2mm}\frac{p-1}{2} \hspace{-0.2mm}\leq g(p-1) \end{array}\hspace{-1mm}\right\}.

Applying Theorem 2.4, the hyperelliptic curve C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if the following conditions hold:

If hp-k-\hspace{-0.2mm}\frac{p-1}{2} \hspace{-0.2mm}\leq \frac{g(p-1)}{2}, then
G^{((hp-k-\frac{p-1}{2})/g)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2},\hspace{0.3mm}\frac{k}{g}-\frac{1}{2g},\hspace{0.3mm}\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k}{g}-\frac{1}{2g} \ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\vspace{-1.6mm}
If hp-k-\hspace{-0.2mm}\frac{p-1}{2} \hspace{-0.2mm}> \frac{g(p-1)}{2}, then
G^{(p-1-(hp-k-\frac{p-1}{2})/g)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2},\hspace{0.3mm}1-\frac{k}{g}+\frac{1}{2g},\hspace{0.3mm}\frac{3}{2}-\frac{k}{g}+\frac{1}{2g} \ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\vspace{-0.8mm}

for every (1,1,h,k) \in T.

Uses Theorem 2.4

Proposition

Proposition 3.1

FJFO

The following statements hold:

(1) The Fermat quintic X^5+Y^5+Z^5 = 0 is superspecial if and only if p \equiv 4 \pmod{5}.
(2) The Hurwitz quintic X^4Y+Y^4Z+Z^4X = 0 is superspecial if and only if p \equiv 4,10,12 \pmod{13}.

Used by Proof

Proof of Proposition 3.1

(1) This is a direct consequence of [KW, Corollary 1] applied to the case m=5. (2) Applying [MS, Proposition 4.1] to the case n=4, we see that this curve is superspecial if and only if, for every (i,j) \in\hspace{-0.2mm} \{(0,0),(0,1),(1,0),(0,2),(1,1),(2,0)\} \eqqcolon U, the system of congruences

\left\{\, \begin{aligned} 4k-h+i &\equiv 0,\\[-1.2mm] 4(h-k)+k+j &\equiv p-1 \end{aligned} \right. \pmod{p}\vspace{-0.2mm}

has no integer solution (h,k) satisfying the inequality 0 \leq k \leq h \leq p-1. By solving (Proof) for each (i,j) \in U, we obtain

13h \equiv -3i-4j-4 \ \,\text{ and }\ 13k \equiv -4i-j-1 \pmod{p}.\vspace{1.2mm}

Therefore, for some integers s and t, we can write

h = \frac{sp-(3i+4j+4)}{13} \ \,\text{ and }\ k = \frac{tp-(4i+j+1)}{13}.\vspace{0.8mm}

The integer solution (h,k) satisfies 0 \leq h,k \leq p-1 if and only if s,t \in \{1,\dots,12\}. Equivalently, s and t are the smallest positive integers satisfying

\left\{\, \begin{aligned} sp &\equiv 3i+4j+4,\\[-1.2mm] tp &\equiv 4i+j+1 \end{aligned} \right. \pmod{13}.\vspace{-0.1mm}

Thus, these values are determined solely by (i,j) and p \bmod\hspace{-0.2mm} 13. Table ? below gives the corresponding values of (s,t) for each (i,j) \in U and p \bmod{13}.

The paper has a table here, which this page does not show.

Furthermore, the condition k \leq h is equivalent to (t-s)p \leq i-3j-3. For each (i,j) \in U, we obtain the following:

If t < s, then (t-s)p < -p < -13 < i-3j-3.
If s \leq t, then (t-s)p \geq 0 > i-3j-3.

This tells us that k \leq h holds if and only if t < s. Consequently, it suffices to determine whether s \leq t holds for all (i,j) \in U. By Table ?, this condition is satisfied if and only if p \equiv 4, 10, 12 \pmod{13}. This completes the proof.

Proposition

Proposition 3.2

Y3F7

The following statements hold:

(1) The plane quintic X^5+Y^4Z+YZ^4 = 0 is superspecial if and only if p \equiv 4 \pmod{5}.
(2) The plane quintic X^5+Y^5+XZ^4 = 0 is superspecial if and only if p \equiv 19 \pmod{20}.
(3) The plane quintic X^5+Y^4Z+XZ^4 = 0 is superspecial if and only if p \equiv 15 \pmod{16}.

Used by Proof, Proof

Proof of Proposition 3.2

First of all, we recall that the superelliptic curve y^n = x^m-x is superspecial if and only if the set S defined in (?) is empty. (1) This curve is isomorphic to y^5 = x^4-x via the map (X:Y:Z) = (-y:-x:1). Hence, it follows from Corollary 2.3 that it is superspecial if p \equiv 4,14 \pmod{15}, that is, if p \equiv 4 \pmod{5}. In all other cases, by taking 4-tuple (i,j,h,k) as

(i,j,h,k) \coloneqq \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \!(2,2,1,1) & \text{if } p \equiv 1 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{5},\\ \!(2,4,1,2) & \text{if } p \equiv 2 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{5},\\ \!(4,2,2,1) & \text{if } p \equiv 3 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{5}, \end{array} \right.\vspace{0.2mm}

we see that (i,j,h,k) \in S. Therefore, this curve is not superspecial. (2) This curve is isomorphic to y^5 = x^5-x via the map (X:Y:Z) =(\zeta^5x:\zeta y:1) where \zeta denotes a primitive 40th root of unity. Hence, it follows from Corollary 2.3 that it is superspecial if p \equiv 19 \pmod{20}. In all other cases, by taking 4-tuple (i,j,h,k) as

(i,j,h,k) \coloneqq \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \!(2,2,1,1) & \text{if } p \equiv 1 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{20},\\ \!(3,4,2,1) & \text{if } p \equiv 3 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{20},\\ \!(2,4,1,1) & \text{if } p \equiv 7 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{20},\\ \!(2,3,1,2) & \text{if } p \equiv 9 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{20},\\ \!(3,3,1,1) & \text{if } p \equiv 11 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{20},\\ \!(3,4,1,2) & \text{if } p \equiv 13 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{20},\\ \!(2,4,1,3) & \text{if } p \equiv 17 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{20}, \end{array} \right.\vspace{0.2mm}

we see that (i,j,h,k) \in S. Therefore, this curve is not superspecial.

(3) This curve is isomorphic to y^4 = x^5-x via the map (X:Y:Z) =(\zeta^4x:\zeta y:1) where \zeta denotes a primitive 32th root of unity. Hence, it follows from Corollary 2.3 that it is superspecial if p \equiv 15 \pmod{16}. In all other cases, by taking 4-tuple (i,j,h,k) as

(i,j,h,k) \coloneqq \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \!(1,1,1,1) & \text{if } p \equiv 1 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{16},\\ \!(1,3,1,3) & \text{if } p \equiv 3 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{16},\\ \!(3,3,1,2) & \text{if } p \equiv 5 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{16},\\ \!(1,3,1,2) & \text{if } p \equiv 7 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{16},\\ \!(2,2,1,1) & \text{if } p \equiv 9 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{16},\\ \!(1,3,1,1) & \text{if } p \equiv 11 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{16},\\ \!(3,3,2,1) & \text{if } p \equiv 13 \hspace{-2mm}\pmod{16}, \end{array} \right.\vspace{-0.1mm}

we see that (i,j,h,k) \in S. Therefore, this curve is not superspecial.

Uses Corollary 2.3

Lemma

Lemma 3.3

L2H9

Let C' be another plane quintic curve defined by X^5+Y^5+XZ^4+r'X^3Z^2 = 0 with r' \neq \pm 2. Then, the curve C in (?) is isomorphic to C' if and only if r^2 = r'^2.

Used by Proof, Proof, Proof

Proof of Lemma 3.3

Let

F(X,Z) \coloneqq X^5+rX^3Z^2+XZ^4 \ \text{ and }\ G(X,Z) \coloneqq X^5+r'X^3Z^2+XZ^4\vspace{0.7mm}

be binary forms of degree 5 in K[X,Z]. It is clear that C is isomorphic to the curve defined by Y^5 = F(X,Z) and that C' is isomorphic to the curve defined by Y^5 = G(X,Z). By Proposition 2.1, they are isomorphic to
each other if and only if F(X,Z) and G(X,Z) are equivalent under {\rm GL}_2(K). Rewriting

\begin{alignedat}{3} F(X,Z) &= X(X^2-\alpha Z^2)(X^2-\beta Z^2), & \quad & \alpha+\beta =-r,&\ &\alpha\beta = 1,\\[-1.3mm] G(X,Z) &= X(X^2-\alpha'\hspace{-0.3mm}Z^2)(X^2-\beta'\hspace{-0.3mm}Z^2), & \quad & \alpha'\hspace{-0.3mm}+\beta'\hspace{-0.3mm} =-r', &\ & \alpha'\hspace{-0.3mm}\beta'\hspace{-0.3mm} = 1, \end{alignedat}

it follows from [Ishii, Corollary 2.1.1] that F(X,Z) and G(X,Z) are equivalent under {\rm GL}_2(K) if and only if

\frac{\alpha}{\beta} + \frac{\beta}{\alpha} = \frac{\alpha'}{\beta'} + \frac{\beta'}{\alpha'}.\vspace{-0.7mm}

By using the relations \alpha+\beta=1, \alpha\beta=1, this condition is equivalent to

r^2-2 = \frac{(\alpha+\beta)^2-2\alpha\beta}{\alpha\beta} = \frac{(\alpha'+\beta')^2-2\alpha'\beta'}{\alpha'\beta'} = r'^2-2,

which simplifies to r^2 = r'^2, as desired.

Uses Proposition 2.1

Corollary

Corollary 3.4

Q605

If the plane quintic curve C in (?) is superspecial, then r^2 belongs to \mathbb{F}_{p^2}.

Proof of Corollary 3.4

Suppose that C is superspecial. As is well known (cf. [Ekedahl, Theorem 1.1]), any superspecial curve admits a model defined over \mathbb{F}_{p^2}. Hence C is isomorphic to its p^2-Frobenius twist

C^{(p^2)}\hspace{-0.2mm}: X^5+Y^5+r^{p^2}\hspace{-0.5mm}X^3Z^2 +XZ^4 = 0.\vspace{0.4mm}

By Lemma 3.3, this implies that r^2 = (r^{p^2})^2. It follows that (r^2)^{p^2} = r^2, and thus r^2 \in \mathbb{F}_{p^2}.

Uses Lemma 3.3

Proposition

Proposition 3.5

ADKT

For the superelliptic curve C_\lambda in (?), the following statements hold:

(1) If p \not\equiv 4 \pmod{5}, then there exists no \lambda \neq 1 such that C_\lambda is superspecial.
(2) If p \equiv 4 \pmod{5}, then C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if
G(\lambda) \coloneqq G^{((3p-7)/10)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{5},\frac{7}{10},\frac{11}{10}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0,\vspace{-0.7mm}
where G^{(d)}(a,b,c \mid z) is defined in (2.4).

Used by Proof

Proof of Proposition 3.5

We apply Theorem 2.4 for the case (n,r) = (5,2). In the following, we divide the proof according to the value of p \bmod{5}.

If p \equiv 1 \pmod{5}, then we see that (i,j,h,k) \coloneqq (3,3,1,1) lies in T, where T is the set in (?). Hence, it follows that C_\lambda is superspecial only if
G^{((p-1)/5)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{5},\frac{1}{5},\frac{3}{5}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\vspace{-0.6mm}
Since this left-hand side is equal to (1-\lambda)^{(p-1)/5} by the binomial theorem, there does not exist \lambda \neq 1 such that C_\lambda is superspecial.
If p \equiv 2 \pmod{5}, then we see that (i,j,h,k) \coloneqq (4,3,2,1) lies in T, where T is the set in (?). Hence, it follows that C_\lambda is superspecial only if
G^{((3p-1)/5)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{5},\frac{1}{5},\frac{3}{5}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\vspace{-0.6mm}
Since this left-hand side is equal to (1-\lambda)^{(3p-1)/5} by the binomial theorem, there does not exist \lambda \neq 1 such that C_\lambda is superspecial.
If p \equiv 3 \pmod{5}, then we see that (i,j,h,k) \coloneqq (3,4,1,2) lies in T, where T is the set in (?). Hence, it follows that C_\lambda is superspecial only if
G^{((p-3)/5)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{4}{5},\frac{3}{5},\frac{4}{5}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\vspace{-0.6mm}
Since this left-hand side is equal to (1-\lambda)^{(p-3)/5} by the binomial theorem, there does not exist \lambda \neq 1 such that C_\lambda is superspecial.
If p \equiv 4 \pmod{5}, then we see that the set T in (?) is given by T = \{(2,3,1,2),(3,2,2,1)\}. Therefore, it follows that C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if
G^{((3p-7)/10)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{5},\frac{7}{10},\frac{11}{10}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = G^{((p-1)/2)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{2}{5},\frac{1}{2},\frac{11}{10}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\vspace{-0.8mm}
On the other hand, a straightforward computation with Euler’s transformation formula yields
G^{((p-1)/2)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{2}{5},\frac{1}{2},\frac{11}{10}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = (1-\lambda)^{(p+1)/5}G^{((3p-7)/10)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{5},\frac{7}{10},\frac{11}{10}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$},\vspace{-0.9mm}
and hence, the two conditions above are equivalent since \lambda \neq 1. This tells us that C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if G(\lambda) = 0.

Combining these four cases, we obtain the desired assertion.

Uses Theorem 2.4

Lemma

Lemma 3.6

W6I1

If p \equiv 4 \pmod{5}, then the following statements hold:

(1) The degree of G(\lambda) is equal to (3p-7)/10.
(2) The roots of G(\lambda) are different from 0 and 1.
(3) The polynomial G(\lambda) does not have any multiple root.

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 3.6

(1) By definition, the degree of G(\lambda) is at most (3p-7)/10. The \lambda^{(3p-7)/10}-coefficient of G(\lambda) is

\frac{\bigl(\frac{3}{5}\,;\hspace{-0.2mm}\frac{3p-7}{10}\bigr)\hspace{-0.3mm}\bigl(\frac{7}{10}\,;\hspace{-0.2mm}\frac{3p-7}{10}\bigr)}{\bigl(\frac{11}{10}\,;\hspace{-0.2mm}\frac{3p-7}{10}\bigr)\hspace{-0.3mm}\bigl(1\,;\hspace{-0.2mm}\frac{3p-7}{10}\bigr)} \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p},

and hence G(\lambda) is of degree (3p-7)/10. (2) It is clear that the constant term of G(\lambda) is equal to 1, and hence G(0) = 1. In addition, it follows from the Chu-Vandermonde identity that

G(1) \equiv G^{((3p-7)/10)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{5},-\frac{3p-7}{10},\frac{11}{10}\ \middle|\ 1\right)$} = \frac{\bigl(\frac{1}{2}\,;\hspace{-0.2mm}\frac{3p-7}{10}\bigr)}{\bigl(\frac{11}{10}\,;\hspace{-0.2mm}\frac{3p-7}{10}\bigr)} \not\equiv 0 \pmod{p}.\vspace{-1.9mm}

This means that G(\lambda) does not have roots \lambda=0,1. (3) The Euler’s hypergeometric differential equation implies that \mathcal{D}G(\lambda)=0 where

\mathcal{D} \coloneqq 50z(1-z)\frac{d^2}{dz^2} + 5(11-23z)\frac{d}{dz}-21.\vspace{-0.3mm}

Assume that G(\lambda) has a multiple root at \lambda = \lambda_0. Since G(\lambda_0)=G'(\lambda_0)=0, the differential equation above yields G''(\lambda_0) = 0. Repeating this argument inductively, we see that all derivatives of G(\lambda) vanish at \lambda = \lambda_0. This contradicts the fact that G(\lambda) is a non-zero polynomial, and thus all roots of G(\lambda) are simple.

Remark

Remark 3.7

WBBM

One can also show that superspecial plane quintic curves whose automorphism groups contain a subgroup isomorphic to \mathbb{Z}/10\mathbb{Z} exist only if p \equiv 4 \pmod{5}, as follows. For a plane quintic curve C in (?), we choose \alpha,\beta \in K satisfying \alpha^5 = -4/(r^2-4) and \beta^2 = r^2-4. Then, there exists a morphism

C \longrightarrow H, \quad (X:Y:Z) \longmapsto \biggl(\frac{\alpha Y}{X},\frac{rX^2+2Z^2}{\beta X^2}\biggr) \eqqcolon (u,v),\vspace{-0.3mm}

where H is the genus-2 curve defined by v^2 = u^5+1. By [KNT, Corollary 2.8], if C is superspecial, then H must also be superspecial. Since H is superspecial if and only if p \equiv 4 \pmod{5}, we obtain the desired assertion.

Lemma

Lemma 3.8

2TYM

Let C' be another plane quintic curve defined by \hspace{-0.2mm}X^5+Y^4Z+XZ^4+r'\hspace{-0.2mm}X^3Z^2 = 0 with r' \neq \pm 2. Then, the curve C in (?) is isomorphic to C' if and only if r^2 = r'^2.

Used by Proof

Proof of Lemma 3.8

We see that C (resp. C') is isomorphic to the curve defined by Y^4Z = F(X,Z) (resp. Y^4Z = G(X,Z)) where

F(X,Z) \coloneqq X^5+rX^3Z^2+XZ^4 \ \text{ and }\ G(X,Z) \coloneqq X^5+r'X^3Z^2+XZ^4\vspace{0.9mm}

are binary forms of degree 5 in K[X,Z]. Hence, it follows from Proposition 2.1 that C and C' are isomorphic to each other if and only if F(X,Z) and G(X,Z) are equivalent under {\rm GL}_2(K). The remainder of the proof is exactly the same as that of Lemma 3.3.

Uses Proposition 2.1, Lemma 3.3

Proposition

Proposition 3.9

5J1K

If the plane quintic curve C in (?) is superspecial, then r+2 and r-2 are both squares in \mathbb{F}_{p^2}. In particular, r belongs to \mathbb{F}_{p^2}.

Proof of Proposition 3.9

We fix a root t \neq 0 of the equation t^{16}+rt^8+1 = 0. Then, the curve C in (?) is isomorphic to the superelliptic curve

C_\lambda: y^4 = x(x^2-1)(x^2-\lambda) \ \text{ with }\, \lambda \coloneqq t^{16}\vspace{1.2mm}

via the map (X:Y:Z) = (-tx:y:t^5). This curve admits the involution (x,y) \mapsto\hspace{-0.3mm} (x,-y), whose quotient curve is the genus-2 curve

H: v^2 = u(u^2-1)(u^2-\lambda)\vspace{1mm}

where u \coloneqq x,\,v \coloneqq y^2. It follows from [KNT, Corollary 2.8] that, if C is superspecial, then H is also superspecial. By [Ohashi, Main Theorem A(1)], the superspeciality of H implies that \hspace{-0.2mm}\sqrt{\lambda} = t^8 is a square in \mathbb{F}_{p^2}\hspace{-0.2mm}, which means that t^4 belongs to \mathbb{F}_{p^2}. Therefore, the values

r \pm 2 = -(t^8 \mp 2 + t^{-8}) = -(t^4 \mp t^{-4})^2

are squares in \mathbb{F}_{p^2}, since -1 is a square in \mathbb{F}_{p^2}.

Proposition

Proposition 3.10

LVQ5

For the superelliptic curve C_\lambda in (Proof), the following statements hold:

(1) If p \equiv 1 \pmod{8}, then C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if
\begin{aligned} G^{((p-1)/4)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((p-1)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{8},\frac{7}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = G^{((p-1)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{8},\frac{3}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$}\\[-0.2mm] = G^{((3p-3)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{3}{8},\frac{5}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((p-9)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{9}{8},\frac{11}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = G^{((3p-11)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{11}{8},\frac{13}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0. \end{aligned}
(2) If p \equiv 3 \pmod{8}, then C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if
\begin{aligned} G^{((p-3)/4)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{4}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((3p-1)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{8},\frac{7}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = G^{((p-3)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{8},\frac{9}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$}\\[-0.2mm] = G^{((p-3)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{3}{8},\frac{5}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((p-11)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{11}{8},\frac{13}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\\[-7.5mm] \end{aligned}
(3) If p \equiv 5 \pmod{8}, then C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if
\begin{aligned} G^{((p-1)/4)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((5p-1)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{8},\frac{3}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = G^{((p-5)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{8},\frac{7}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$}\\[-0.2mm] = G^{((3p-7)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{7}{8},\frac{9}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((5p-9)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{9}{8},\frac{11}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\\[-7.5mm] \end{aligned}
(4) If p \equiv 7 \pmod{8}, then C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if
G^{((p-3)/4)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{4}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = G^{((p-7)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{7}{8},\frac{9}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\vspace{-2.3mm}

Used by Remark 3.11

Proof of Proposition 3.10

(1) If p \equiv 1 \pmod{8}, then we see that the set T in (?) is given by

T = \{(1,1,1,1),(2,2,1,1),(2,2,2,2),(3,3,1,1),(3,3,1,3),(3,3,2,2),(3,3,3,1),(3,3,3,3)\}.

Therefore, it follows from Theorem 2.4 that C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if

\begin{aligned} G^{((p-1)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{8},\frac{7}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((p-1)/4)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$}\\[-0.2mm] = G^{((p-1)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{8},\frac{3}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((p-9)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{9}{8},\frac{11}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = G^{((5p-5)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{8},\frac{7}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$}\\[-0.2mm] = G^{((3p-11)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{11}{8},\frac{13}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((3p-3)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{3}{8},\frac{5}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\\[-6.5mm] \end{aligned}

Note that both (2,2,1,1) and (2,2,2,2) in T determine the second polynomial of the above equalities. Also, a straightforward computation with Euler’s transformation formula yields

G^{((5p-5)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{8},\frac{7}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = (1-\lambda)^{(p-1)/2}G^{((p-1)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{8},\frac{7}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$},\vspace{-1.1mm}

and hence, the first and fifth polynomial of the above equalities have the same roots since \lambda \neq 1. (2) If p \equiv 3 \pmod{8}, then we see that the set T in (?) is given by

T = \{(1,3,1,1),(1,3,1,3),(2,2,1,2),(2,2,2,1),(3,1,1,1),(3,1,3,1)\}.\vspace{-0.1mm}

Therefore, it follows from Theorem 2.4 that C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if

\begin{aligned} G^{((p-11)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{11}{8},\frac{13}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((p-3)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{3}{8},\frac{5}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = G^{((p-3)/4)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{4}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$}\\[-0.2mm] = G^{((p-3)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{8},\frac{9}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((3p-1)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{1}{8},\frac{7}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\\[-6.4mm] \end{aligned}

Note that both (2,2,1,2) and (2,2,2,1) in T determine the third polynomial of the above equalities. (3) If p \equiv 5 \pmod{8}, then we see that the set T in (?) is given by

T = \{(2,2,1,1),(2,2,2,2),(3,3,1,2),(3,3,2,1),(3,3,2,3),(3,3,3,2)\}.\vspace{-0.2mm}

Therefore, it follows from Theorem 2.4 that C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if

\begin{aligned} G^{((p-1)/4)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{4}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((p-5)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{8},\frac{7}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = G^{((5p-1)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{1}{8},\frac{3}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$}\\[-0.2mm] = G^{((5p-9)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{9}{8},\frac{11}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} &= G^{((3p-7)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{7}{8},\frac{9}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = 0.\\[-6.4mm] \end{aligned}

Note that both (2,2,1,1) and (2,2,2,2) in T determine the first polynomial of the above equalities. (4) If p \equiv 7 \pmod{8}, then we see that the set T in (?) is given by

T = \{(1,3,1,2),(2,2,1,2),(2,2,2,1),(3,1,2,1)\}.\vspace{-0.1mm}

Therefore, it follows from Theorem 2.4 that C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if

G^{((p-7)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{7}{8},\frac{9}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = G^{((p-3)/4)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{4},\frac{5}{4}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = G^{((5p-3)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{8},\frac{9}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$}.\vspace{-1mm}

Note that both (2,2,1,2) and (2,2,2,1) in T determine the second polynomial of the above equalities. Also, a straightforward computation with Euler’s transformation formula yields

G^{((5p-3)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{1}{4},\frac{3}{8},\frac{9}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$} = (1-\lambda)^{(p+1)/2}G^{((p-7)/8)}\scalebox{0.95}{$\displaystyle\left(\frac{3}{4},\frac{7}{8},\frac{9}{8}\ \middle|\ \lambda\right)$},\vspace{-1.1mm}

and hence, the first and third polynomial of the above equalities have the same roots since \lambda \neq 1.

Uses Theorem 2.4

Remark

Remark 3.11

HLHA

Applying Proposition 3.10 for the case (n,r) = (2,2), we see that the hyperelliptic curve H in (Proof) is superspecial if and only if h(\lambda)=0, where

h(\lambda) \coloneqq \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} G^{((p-1)/4)}(1/2,1/4,3/4 \mid \lambda) & \text{if }\, p \equiv 1 \!\!\pmod{4},\\ G^{((p-3)/4)}(1/2,3/4,5/4 \mid \lambda) & \text{if }\, p \equiv 3 \!\!\pmod{4}. \end{array} \right.\vspace{-0.7mm}

This coincides with the condition that the first polynomial vanishes in Proposition 3.10 for each case.

Uses Proposition 3.10

Theorem

Theorem 3.12

T9PA

Let G(\lambda) be the gcd of polynomials in Proposition 3.10 for each case. Then, the number of isomorphism classes of superspecial plane quintic curves with cyclic automorphism group of order 8 equals

\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \hspace{-0.3mm}\frac{1}{2}(\deg{G(\lambda)}-1) & \text{ if } p \equiv 15 \!\!\pmod{16},\\[0.5mm] \hspace{-0.3mm}\frac{1}{2}\hspace{-0.3mm}\deg{G(\lambda)} & \text{ otherwise} \end{array} \right.\vspace{-1mm}

in characteristic p > 13.

Proof of Theorem 3.12

Recall that every plane quintic curve with an automorphism group containing a subgroup isomorphic to \mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z} is isomorphic to C_\lambda in (Proof) for some \lambda \neq 0,1. By the definition of G(\lambda), the curve C_\lambda is superspecial if and only if G(\lambda)=0. Since G(\lambda) is separable and has no roots equal to 0 or 1, the number of \lambda \neq 0,1 for which C_\lambda is superspecial and {\rm Aut}(C_\lambda) \cong \mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z} is given by

\left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \hspace{-0.3mm}\deg{G(\lambda)}-1 & \text{ if } p\equiv 15 \!\!\pmod{16},\\[-0.2mm] \hspace{-0.3mm}\deg{G(\lambda)} & \text{ otherwise}. \end{array} \right.\vspace{-1mm}

Indeed, by the discussion at the beginning of Section ? and the relation (Proof),

If \lambda = -1, then the automorphism group of C_\lambda is isomorphic to \mathbb{Z}/16\mathbb{Z}. In this case C_\lambda corresponds to the plane quintic of Type 5, which is superspecial if and only if p \equiv 15 \pmod{16} by Proposition 3.2(3).
Otherwise, the automorphism group of C_\lambda is isomorphic to \mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z}.

By Lemma 3.8 and the relation (Proof), we have C_\lambda \cong C_{\lambda'} if and only if \lambda' \in \{\lambda,1/\lambda\}. Therefore, the number of isomorphism classes of superspecial curves C_\lambda with {\rm Aut}(C_\lambda) \cong \mathbb{Z}/8\mathbb{Z} is half of (Proof), as desired.

Uses Proof, Proposition 3.2, Lemma 3.8

Expectation

Expectation 4.1

47DN

If p \not\equiv 7 \pmod{8}, then there is no superspecial plane quintic curve with cyclic automorphism group of order 8 in characteristic p.

Source and licence

The text on this page is from arXiv:2605.29624v2 by Ryo Ohashi, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.

The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2605/2605.29624.jsonl.