A Galois Correspondence for Coverings of

Riemann Orbifolds
Jack Kelly
Abstract
The goal of this note is to establish the Galois correspondence for Rie-
mann orbifolds.
Introduction
We will always assume that Riemann surfaces under consideration are con-
nected. A holomorphic map of Riemann surfaces f : X Y is called a covering
if every point y Y has a connected neighbourhood U such that f restricted to
each connected component of f
1
(U) is a biholomorphism onto U. Such maps
are necessarily local homeomorphisms. One can describe all coverings of Y up
to isomorphism as follows. First, there is a unique (up to isomorphism) covering
p :

Y Y by a simply-connected Riemann surface

Y. It is called the univer-
sal covering. This is already interesting because according to the uniformization
theorem a simply connected Riemann surface is biholomorphic to one of the
three domains: the open unit disk, the complex plane, or the Riemann sphere.
Therefore Riemann surfaces Y split into three classes according to the type of
the uniformization

Y. In order to describe all possible coverings one studies the
group of so called deck transformations of the universal covering. Deck trans-
formations are biholomorphisms g :

Y

Y such that g p = g. In other words,
they act brewise. Deck transformations form a group under composition. In
the view of above mentioned universality this group is often called
1
(Y), the
fundamental group of the Riemann surface Y. But in this note we prefer the
notation Aut(p) since it is useful to keep in mind the covering map p. Next,
for a subgroup Aut(p) one can dene the quotient Riemann surface \

Y
and there is a natural covering \

Y Y. One can show that coverings of this

type with
1
and
2
are isomorphic if and only if the subgroups
1
and
2
are
conjugate inside Aut(p). Moreover, every covering of Y is isomorphic to one of
those.
1
2 [Spring,
Such description of coverings of a given Riemann surface is called the Galois
correspondence. It was originally invented in a purely algebraic setting, in order
to describe extensions of a eld by studying their groups of symmetries. Actually,
one could pass to this situation by associating to a Riemann surface its eld of
meromorphic functions. But we prefer the geometric approach since it is more
visual speaking of Riemann surfaces.
In this note we will prove the Galois correspondence for more general type
of coverings, namely branched coverings.
Denition 0.1. Let f : X Y be a non-constant holomorphic map of Riemann
surfaces, and let x X. The ramication index of f at a point x X is dened as
e
f
(x) = min|n : f
(n)
(x) ,= 0|.
One has e
f
(x) = 1 if and only if there is a neighborhood U of x on which f
is a biholomorphism onto f (U). So local homeomorphisms are maps that have
e
f
(x) = 1 for all x. We want maps similar to coverings but which are allowed to
ramify on a discrete set. One way of accomplishing this is through proper maps.
A holomorphic map f : X Y is said to be proper if for any K Y compact,
f
1
(K) is compact. If C is the set of ramied points of f , then B = f (C) is
discrete, and is called the set of branch points of f . Putting X
0
= X \ f
1
(B) and
Y
0
= Y \ B we nd that f [
X
0 : X
0
Y
0
is a d to 1 covering map for some integer
d. However, we also want to consider to 1 maps, and to accomplish this we
use the following denition.
Denition 0.2. A surjective holomorphic map of Riemann surfaces f : X Y is
called a branched covering if
1. The set B = f (|x X [ e
f
(x) > 1|) a is discrete
2. f [
X
0 : X
0
Y
0
, where X
0
= X \ f
1
(B), Y
0
= Y \B is a covering of Riemann
surfaces.
3. Given any y Y there is a neighborhood U of y such that each connected
component of f
1
(U) maps onto U by a proper map.
As soon as one considers branched coverings it is natural to generalize from
Riemann surfaces to Riemann orbifolds.
Denition 0.3. [Milnor(2006)] A Riemann orbifold is a pair (Y, ) where Y is a
Riemann surface and : Y N is a ramication function which takes the value
(z) = 1 except at isolated points.
2012] 3
Riemann orbifolds can be thought of as Riemann surfaces with a set of sin-
gular points. An orbifold covering is then dened as follows
Denition 0.4. [Milnor(2006)] Let (X, ), (Y, ) be Riemann orbifolds. A covering
of orbifolds f : (X, ) (Y, ) is a branched covering map f : X Y such that
e
f
(x)(x) = ( f (x)).
The structure of this note is as follows. In Section 1 we introduce the group
of deck transformations of a branched covering and show that it acts properly
discontinuously. On the other hand, for a group acting properly discontinu-
ously on a Riemann surface X one can construct the quotient Riemann surface
\X. We discuss this construction in Section 2. Further in Section 3 we show
that X \X is a branched covering and its deck group is . Section 4 is de-
voted to Riemann orbifolds. In section 5 we introduce the universal covering
and prove the Galois correspondence. In section 6 we give an application of this
correspondence.
Acknowledgements. We would like to thank Dr. Masha Vlasenko who kindly
agreed to supervise this project, and without whose guidance, help and enthusi-
asm this would have been impossible.
1. Branched Covering Maps
Let us give some examples of coverings. Consider a Riemann surface C

=
C\ |0|.
Example 1.1. Let n be a positive integer. The map
C

z z
n
is a covering. Every point has n preimages, so one says it is a covering of degree n.
It is a general topological observation that all bers f
1
( y) of a covering will
have the same number of points, either nite or innite. The number of points
in bers is called the degree of the covering.
Example 1.2. The map
C C

z e
2iz
is a covering of innite degree. Since C is simply-connected, this map gives us the
universal covering of C

.
4 [Spring,
Example 1.3. The map
C C
z z
n
is proper, and is therefore a branched covering. It ramies at z = 0 and the rami-
cation index is e(0) = n.
Observe that every covering is a branched covering, just there is no ramica-
tion. And from every branched covering f : X Y one can get a covering by
throwing away branch points and their preimages, i.e. f : X
0
Y
0
in the nota-
tion of Denition 0.2. The degree f is dened to be the degree of the covering
f : X
0
Y
0
. In other words, the number of points in the ber f
1
( y) is still the
same for all y Y
0
and this number is the degree. The degree of the branched
covering in Example 1.3 is n, all points z ,= 0 have exactly n preimages while 0
has only one preimage.
Denition 1.4. Let f : X Y be a holomorphic map. By Aut(X) we denote the
group of biholomorphisms : X X with the operation of composition. The group
of deck transformations Aut( f ) of f is the subgroup of those Aut(X) which act
brewise, i.e.
Aut( f ) = | : X X [ f = f |.
Denition 1.5. A group is said to act properly discontinuously on a Riemann
surface X if for each x, y X there are open neighobrhoods U, V of x, y respectively
such that the set | [.U V ,= | is nite.
We shall be interested in Aut( f ) where f is a branched covering map. In this
case we have the following
Proposition 1.6. Let f : X Y be a branched covering map of Riemann surfaces.
Then the deck group Aut( f ) acts properly discontinuously on X.
In order to prove this statement, we need the following observation.
Proposition 1.7. Let f : X Y, h, g : Z X be holomorphic maps satisfying
f g = f h . Suppose x X is an unramied point of f , and that for some z Z,
h(z) = g(z) = x. Then h = g.
Proof. Let U be a neighborhood of x such that f maps U biholomorphically
onto f (U). Put V = h
1
(U) g
1
(U). This is non-empty since, z V. Now
f h[
V
= f g[
V
and since f [
U
is a bijective, it follows that h[
V
= g[
V
. Since h and
g are holomorphic and equal on an open set, they must be equal everywhere.
2012] 5
Proof of Proposition 1.6. This proof only makes use of part (3) of the denition of
branched covering map. Let x, y X. If p(x) ,= p( y) then, since Y is Hausdorff
it is trivial to nd neighboruhoods U, V around x, y respectively such that for
any , .U V = . Suppose p(x) = p( y) and let W be a neighbourhood
of p(x) such that each connected component of p
1
(W) maps onto W by a
proper map. Let U be the connected component of p
1
(W) containing x, and
V the connected component containing y. Now suppose for some Aut( f ),
.U V ,= . Since .U is mapped (on)to U by p and it is connected, it is
contained in a connected component. It follows that .U V. Since the ramied
points of p are discrete we may pick some u U which is unramied. Consider
the set S = |.u[ Aut( f ) and .U V|. Now, S is contained in the bre of
p(u) under the restriction p[
V
. This set is compact, since it is the preimage of
a compact set under a proper map. It must also be discrete, since p is a non-
constant holomorphic map. Since discrete, compact sets are nite this bre, and
therefore S, must be nite. So S = |
1
.u, . . . ,
n
.u|. Therefore, if .UV ,= then
.U V, so .u =
i
.u for some i. Since u is unramied, =
i
by Proposition
1.7 . Therefore | [.UV ,= | = |
1
, . . . ,
n
| which is nite as required.
2. Properly Discontinuous Group Actions
We shall now discuss the Riemann surface structure on

X where X is a Rie-
mann surface and a group of automorphisms acting properly discontinuously
on it. Here we make use of Mirandas book [Miranda(1995)], which deals with
the case of a nite group action. However, as is mentioned in [Miranda(1995)],
this can be modied easily to work for properly discontinuous group actions;
and almost every proof in this section is essentially identical to the corresponding
proof in [Miranda(1995)], with nite replaced by properly discontinuous. Usu-
ally, when is a group acting on a set X we shall denote by the quotient map
X

X, by [x] the orbit of a point x X and by Stab(x) = | [.x = x| the

stabilizer of x in . Note that if acts properly discontinuously, then Stab(x) is
nite, since we can choose a neighbourhood U of x such that | [.UU ,= |
is nite. If we are considering one subgroup
/
,
/
will mean the quotient
map X
/

X, [x]
/
the
/
orbit of X and Stab
/
(x) the
/
stabilizer of x X. On
occasion we will be dealing with more than two subgroups, and in this instance
we shall use the notations

, [x]

, Stab

(x).
The following are technical propositions, which will facilitate the construc-
tion of neighbourhoods in

X. Firstly we have a standard topological fact:

Lemma 2.1. Let be a group of automorphisms acting properly discontinuously
on a Riemann surface X. Then the quotient topology on

X is Hausdorff.
6 [Spring,
Lemma 2.2. Let be a group of automorphisms acting properly discontinuously on
a Riemann surface X. The points of X with non-trivial stabilizers do not accumulate.
In particular they form a discrete set.
Proof. [Miranda(1995)] Suppose there is a sequence (x
n
)

n=1
converging to x
such that each x
i
has a nontrivial element
i
xing it. Let U be a neighborhood
of x such that S = | : .UU ,= | is nite. Since for sufciently large m, x
m
will
be contained in U, we can assume without loss of generality that the sequence is
in U. For each m,
m
.x
m
= x
m
, so
m
S. Since S is nite it is possible to choose
a subsequence of (x
n
) such that each element of the subsequence is xed by the
same non-trivial . But this subsequence also converges to x, so by continuity
must then x x as well. Since is holomorphic either its set of xed points is
discrete, or it is the identity, a contradiction.
Lemma 2.3. Let be a group of automorphisms acting properly discontinuously
on a Riemann surface X. For each x X there is an open neighborhood U of x such
that
1. U is invariant under Stab(x)
2. U (.U) = for every / Stab(x)
3. no point of U except x is xed by any non-trivial element of
4. the natural map q : Stab(x)

X induced by sending a point in U to its

orbit is a homeomorphism onto its image in

X.
Proof. [Miranda(1995)] Choose a neighborhood V of x such that S = | :
.V V ,= | is nite. Clearly Stab(x) S since for Stab(x), x .V V.
Let S \ Stab(x) = |
1
, . . . ,
n
| be the elements of S which do not x x. Since X
is Hausdorff, we can nd for each i open neighbrohoods V
i
V of x and W
i
of

i
.x with V
i
W
i
= . Clearly,
1
i
W
i
is an open neighborhood of x for each i.
Put R
i
= V
i
(
1
i
.W
i
), R =
n
i=1
R
i
and
U =

Stab(x)
.R
R and therefore U are nite intersections of open sets containing x and are
therefore open neighbourhoods of x. Also, acting on U by Stab(x) will just
2012] 7
permute the sets in the intersection dening U. It follows that for Stab(x),
.U = U proving (1).
For part (2) observe that if , S then since U V, by assumption .U U =
. For
i
S \ Stab(x), note that R
i
(
i
.R
i
) V
i
W
i
= so R (
i
.R) = and
U
i
(U) = for each i.
For part (3), since the set of points with non-trivial stabilizer has no accu-
mulation points, by Lemma 2.2 we may choose V at the beginning of this proof
such that no point of V \ |x| has non-trivial stabilizer. Then clearly, no point of
U \ |x| has non-trivial stabilizer.
For part (4), let denote the quotient map X

X and
Stab(x)
the quotient
map U Stab(x)

U. It is a topological fact that these maps are both open and

continuous. Since [
U
= q
Stab(x)
, q must also be open and continuous. It
remains to check that it is injective.If [u] = [v] then u = v for some U.
But then v U .U so from part (3) Stab(x). So [u]
Stab(x)
= [v]
Stab(x)
. It
follows that q is injective.
Any neighbourhood of x which satises the conditions of Lemma 2.3 will be
called an ideal neighborhood of x. Lemma 2.3 therefore says that any point x
has an ideal open neighbourhood, Also observe that using local compactness of
X, one can use a completely analogous construction to show that any x X has
an ideal compact neighbourhood.
We now note an interesting fact which was mentioned earlier. Let D be the
set of points in X with non-trivial stabilizer. This is discrete by Lemma 2.2, so
X \ D is a Riemann surface. Now, for , Stab(x) = Stab(x)
1
. So if x has
trivial stabilizer then x does as well. Therefore acts on X \ D. Moreover, for
x X \ D we can choose a neighborhood U of x such that U .U ,= = i
by Lemma 2.3 (2), and therefore acts freely and properly discontinuously on
X \ D.
Lemma 2.4. Suppose X, Y, Y
/
are Riemann surfaces, f : X Y, f
/
: X Y
/
are
surjective holomorphic functions. If g : Y Y
/
is a map such that g f = f
/
, then
g is holomorphic.
Proof. Let V Y
/
be open. Then g
1
(V) = f ( f
/1
(V)). f ( f
/1
(V)) is open
since f
/
is continuous and f is open. Therefore g is continuous. Let y
0
= f (x
0
)
where x
0
is not a ramied point. Then in some neighborhood V of x
0
f is an
isomorphism onto the open set f (V) with inverse f [
1
V
. So for x f (V), g(x) =
g f f [
1
V
(x). Hence g is holomorphic at f (x). If x is a ramied point, then
there is a neighborhood V around x such that for all u V \ |x| f is unramied
at u. f maps this neighborhood onto on an open neighborhood f (V) of f (x).
8 [Spring,
Now for all u ,= x, g is holomorphic at f (u). Therefore g is holomorphic in
f (V) \|f (x)|. By continuity of g at f (x) and the Riemann extension theorem g
must be holomorphic in all of f (V). So g is holomorphic in a neighborhood of
each point of Y, and is therefore everywhere holomorphic.
Theorem 2.5. Let be a group of automorphisms acting properly discontinuously
on a Riemann surface X, and endow

X with the quotient topology. There is a

(unique) complex structure on

X such that it is a Riemann surface, and : X

X is holomorphic map. Moreover, the ramication index e

(x) of at a point x
is equal to [Stab(x)[.
Proof. [Miranda(1995)] Let [x]

X and let U be an ideal neighbourhood of

x. By shrinking U if necessary, we may also assume U is the domain of some
coordinate z : U centred at x.
Suppose rst that n = [Stab(x)[ = 1. Then by Lemma 2.3 [
U
is a homeo-
morphism from U onto an open neighbourhood of [x] in

X and = z [
1
U
is a chart centred at [x].
Now suppose n 2. Dene
h : U , y
Stab(x)
(z ( y))
Note that h has ramication index n at x, and that h is Stab(x) invariant. There-
fore it lifts to a well-dened continuous map h on Stab(x)

U satisfying h q = h
where q : Stab(x)

X is the natural map. Since h, q are open, h is open.

Moreover it is 1 to 1 since h is n-to-1 near p,
Stab(x)
is n-to-1 away from p and
h
Stab(x)
= h. Therefore it is a homeomorphism. Also by Lemma 2.3 (3) q
is a homeomorphism onto some open neighbourhood W of [x]. Let q
1
be the
inverse map. Then h q
1
is a chart centred at [x].
Now, since points with non-trivial stabilizers are discrete, we may choose
charts covering

X. such that no two charts constructed in the n 2 case meet.

If two charts are constructed in the n = 1 case then they are clearly compatible,
since the original charts on X are compatible.
Suppose one chart
1
: U
1
is constructed in the n = 1 case, and another

2
: U
2
in the n 2 case. For i = 1, 2 let U
i
be the neighbourhood in
X from which U
i
is constructed. Then U
i
is and ideal neighbourhood of some
point x
i
X, and there are corresponding local coordinates z
i
centred at x
i
with
domain U
i
. The chart on
1
is just z
1
[
1
U
1
. The chart
2
is h q
1
where h is
the lift of
Stab(x
2
)
(z
2
( y)) to Stab(x
2
)

U
2
. and q : Stab(x
2
)

U
2

X is the
2012] 9
natural map, which maps homeomorphically onto U
2
. We then have

2

1
1
(x)
= h q
1
[
U
1
z
1
1
(x)
= h q
1
(z
1
1
(x)])
= h([z
1
1
(x)]
Stab(x
2
)
)
= h([z
1
1
(x))
=
Stab(x
2
)
(z
2
(z
1
1
(x)))
Therefore
2

1
1
=
Stab(x
2
)
z
2
z
1
1
Each is a holomorphic function
on X, so z
2
z
1
1
and thereofre
Stab(x
2
)
z
2
z
1
1
is holomorphic. Its
inverse is holomorphic by the inverse function theorem. The charts are therefore
compatible.
That the quotient map is holomorphic is clear. Moreover, its ramication in-
dex at a point x is the same as that of h which is [Stab(x)[. If there is some
other Riemann surface structure on

X such that the quotient map is holomor-

phic then using Lemma 2.4, the identity will be holomorphic. Therefore, the
structures will be the same.
3. Branched Covering Maps Constructed as Quotients
Here our goal is to prove the following statement.
Proposition 3.1. Let be a group acting properly discontinuously on a Riemann
surface X. Then : X

X is a branched covering. The deck group is itself, i.e.

Aut() = .
In fact we shall rst check the more general statement that for any subgroup

/
of , the natural map
/

X is a branched covering map.

Lemma 3.2. Let be a group of automorphisms acting properly discontinuously
on a Riemann surface X, and let
/
be a subgroup. The map
q :
/

X, [x]
/
[x]
is a branched covering map.
Proof. First note that by Theorem 2.5 both

X and
/

X are Riemann surfaces,

and by Lemma 2.4, q is holomorphic. Next, since = q
/
and ramication
indices multiply, we have
e
q
([x]
/
) =
[Stab(x)[
[Stab
/
(x)[
10 [Spring,
Since Stab
/
(x) Stab(x), ramied points of q are points of the form [x]
/
where
Stab
/
(x) ,= Stab(x).
Let x X and let U be an ideal open neighbourhood of x. (U) is an open
neighborhood of [x] = q([x]
/
). Suppose for some [y]
/
we have [y] = q([y]
/
)
(U) \ |[x]|. Then y = .u for some u U \ |x| and some . Now
Stab(u) = |i| since U is ideal. Therefore Stab( y) = Stab(u)
1
= |i|. Then
automatically Stab
/
( y) = Stab( y) = |i|. So [y]
/
is an unramied point of q. It
follows that no point of (U) \ |[x]| is the image of a ramied point of q
/
, i.e.
no point of (U) \ |[x]| is a branch point. Hence, the set of branch points is
discrete.
Our next goal is to show that when we throw away branch points, we get
a covering map. Consider an ideal neighbourhood U of x. Then (U) is an
open neighbourhood of [x]. The claim is that when [x] is not a branch point,
this neighbourhood is evenly covered by q. First we must check what are the
connected connected component of q
1
()(U), and we claim they are of the
form
/
(.U) for some . Clearly such sets are connected, since they are
the continuous image of a connected set. q also maps each of them onto (U),
so they are contained in q
1
()(U). Now, if q([y]
/
) = [y] (U) then y =
.u for some and u U, and so [y]
/
= [.u]
/

/
(.U). Therefore,
q
1
()(U) is the union of the sets
/
(.U). It remains to check that if two
sets
/
(
1
.U),
/
(
2
.U) have non-empty intersection then they are equal. This
occurs precisely when there are some u
1
, u
2
U and some
/

/
such that

1
.u
1
=
2
.u
2
. But then
1
2

/

1
.u
1
U
1
2

/

2
.U. Since U is ideal,
1
2

/

2

Stab(x). Hence
1
2

/

1
.U = U, and
/
(
2
.U) =
/
(
/

1
.U) =
/
(
1
.U). We
have therefore shown that two sets
/
(
1
.U) and
/
(
2
.U) are either disjoint
or equal. It follows that indeed, each component of q
1
()(U) is of the form

/
(.U).
Suppose [x] is not a branch point of q. Then, no point of the bre q
1
([x]) =
|[.x]
/
: | is a ramied point of q. In particular for each , Stab
/
(.x) =
Stab(.x) = Stab(x)
1
= Stab
/
(x)
1
. Suppose u
1
, u
2
U and q([.u
1
]
/
) =
q([.u
2
]
/
), so [u
1
] = [u
2
] i.e. u
1
= u
2
for some . But since U is an
ideal neighbourhood, Stab(x) = Stab
/
(x). Now
1
Stab
/
(x)
1
=
Stab
/
(.x), so
1
= for some Stab
/
(.x). Therefore .u
1
= .u
2
=
u
2
and [.u
1
]
/
= [.u
2
]
/
= [.u
2
]
/
. The restriction of q to each component
is therefore injective, so it is indeed a homeomorphism, as required.
Finally we must check the 3rd condition for q to be a branched covering. Let
K be an ideal compact neighbourhood of x. By shrinking, we may assume K
is contained in an ideal open nieghbourhood. Then by a similar argument as
before, the connected components of q
1
((K)) will again be given by (.K).
Such sets are clearly compact since they are the images of compact sets. Since
any continuous map from a compact set to a Hausdorff set is proper, the restric-
2012] 11
tion of q to
/
(.K) is proper.
In particular, the quotient map in Proposition 3.1 is a branched covering map.
Let us now compute the deck group.
Proof of Proposition 3.1. Clearly Aut(). Now, suppose Aut(). Let x
X be such that [Stab(x)[ = 1, so x is an unramied point of . Now ((x)) =
(x) so (x) = (x) for some . But since x is unramied, the stabilizer of
x is trivial by Proposition 1.7, so = .
4. Orbifolds and Orbifold Coverings
In this section we shall prove some technical details about Riemann orbifolds,
which allow us to extend some of our results about branched covering maps
to results about orbifold coverings. If (X, ), (Y, ) are Riemann orbifolds, and
f : X Y is holomorphic and non-constant, we say that g is compatible with the
orbifold structures (X, ), (Y, ) if e
f
(z)(z) = ( f (z)), or that it is a map of Rie-
mann orbifolds. A homomorphism of orbifold coverings is a homomorphism of
the underlying branched coverings which is compatible with the orbifold struc-
tures, and a deck transformation of an orbifold covering f : (X, ) (Y, ) is an
orbifold automorphism of (X, ) such that f = f . However the following
proposition implies that if f : (X, ) (Y, ), f
/
: (X
/
,
/
) (Y, ) are orbifold
coverings, and : X X
/
is a homomorphism of the underlying branched cover-
ings, then is a homomorphism of the orbifold coverings. In particular the deck
group of an orbifold covering is the same as the deck group of the underlying
branched covering map.
Proposition 4.1. Let (Y, ), (S
/
,
/
), (S
//
,
//
) be Riemann orbifolds. Suppose g :
S
/
S
//
, f : S S
/
, and g f : S S
//
are holomorphic.
1. If f : (Y, ) (S
/
,
/
), g f : (Y, ) (S
//
,
//
) are comptaible, then g is
compatible.
2. If g : (S
/
, ) (S
//
,
/
), g f : (Y, ) (S
//
,
//
) are compatible, then f
compatible.
Proof. We have
1.
//
(g( f (x))) = e
gf
(x)(x) = e
g
( f (x))e
f
(x)(x) = e
g
( f (x))
/
( f (x)x)
2.
//
(g( f (x))) = e
gf
(x)(x) = e
g
( f (x))e
f
(x)(x) =

/
( f (x))
(x)
e
f
(x)(x) =
e
f
(x)
/
( f (x))
12 [Spring,
The deck group of a branched covering map acts properly discontinuously,
so the deck group of an orbifold cover will act properly discontinuously on the
underlying Riemann surface. The question that naturally arises now, is, for a
group of orbifold automorphisms of a Riemann orbifold (X, ) acting properly
discontinuously on X, does there exist an orbifold structure on

X such that
the quotient map is an orbifold covering? The answer is yes. We already know
that there is a Riemann surface structure on

X such that the quotient map

is holomorphic (Theorem 2.5). Moreover, this map is then a branched cover-
ing map by Theorem 3.1. If y = .x, then Stab( y) = Stab(x)
1
. There-
fore [Stab( y)[ = [Stab(x)[. Moreover, ( y) = (g.x) = (x). Hence the map
:

X N, [x] (x)[Stab(x)[ is well-dened. Moreover, since the rami-

cation index of at a point x is [Stab(x)[, we have ([x]) = (x)[Stab(x)[ =
(x)e

(x). So (

X, ) is a Riemann orbifold such that is an orbifold covering.

This lead us to the following denition:
Denition 4.2. Let (X, ) be a Riemann orbifold and let be a group of auto-
morphisms acting properly discontinuously on X. The quotient Reimann orbifold is
then dened as (

X, ) where
:

X N, [x] (x)[Stab(x)[
Theorem 4.3. Let (X, ) be a Riemann orbifold and let be a group acting prop-
erly discontinuously on X. The quotient orbifold (

X, ) is the unique orbifold

structure on

X such that the quotient map is an orbifold covering.

Proof. By Theorem 2.5 there is a unique Riemann surface structure on

X such
that is holomorphic. is clearly the unique map such that : (X, )
(

X, ) is an orbifold covering.
Henceforth, when (X, ) is a Riemann orbifold, and a group of automor-
phisms acting properly discontinuously on it,

X will denote the quotient orb-

ifold.
5. The Galois Correspondence
In order to state the Galois correspondence for a Riemann orbifold (Y, ) we
need to introduce the universal covering orbifold
(

Y, ) (Y, ).
A covering of orbifolds f : (

Y, ) (Y, ) is said to be regular, if Aut( f ) acts

transitively on bres of f , that is, f (x) = f ( y) if and only if there is some
2012] 13
Aut( f ) such that y = .x. A covering of orbifolds f : (

Y, ) (Y, )
is said to be universal if

Y is simply connected, 1 and f is regular. Ac-
cording to the uniformization theorem for Riemann orbifolds (see Theorem A.2
in [Milnor(2006)]), the only cases when an orbifold (Y, ) does not have a uni-
versal covering are when Y is a Riemann sphere with one ramication point or
two ramication points with different ramication indices. Henceforth we shall
assume all orbifolds admit a universal covering. Note that the composition of
an orbifold isomorphism with a universal covering is a universal covering. In
particular, if an orbifold admits a universal covering then every orbifold in its
isomorphism class does as well. The terminology universal covering is due to
the following property (Lemma E.2 in [Milnor(2006)]):
Proposition 5.1. f : (X, ) (Y, ) is a covering map between orbifolds if and
only if it lifts to a biholomorphism

f :

X

Y.
If p :

Y (Y, ) is a universal covering, then q
/
= p

f
1
:

Y (X, )
is a universal covering of (X, ). This observation is a part of the following
statement.
Lemma 5.2. Assume the universal covering p :

Y (Y, ) is xed.
1. For every covering f : (X, ) (Y, ) it is possible to choose a universal
covering q :

Y (X, ) so that f q = p. It follows that Aut(q) Aut(p) is
a subgroup. Moreover, if q
/
:

Y (X, ) is another universal covering such
that f q
/
= p, then Aut(q) and Aut(q
/
) are conjugate inside of Aut(p).
2. Suppose f : (X, ) (Y, ) and f
/
: (X
/
,
/
) (Y, ) are two coverings, and
h : (

Y, ) (X, ), h
/
: (

Y, ) (X
/
,
/
) are universal coverings satisfying
f h = f
/
h
/
= p. Then f and f
/
are isomorphic coverings if and only if the
corresponding subgroups Aut(h), Aut(h
/
) are conjugate inside of Aut(p), i.e.
there is Aut(p) such that Aut(h) = Aut(h
/
)
1
.
For a particularly important example of a universal covering, consider a sim-
ply connected Riemann surface

Y and a group of automorphisms acting prop-
erly discontinuously on it. Then the quotient map :

Y (

Y, ) where 1,
is a universal orbifold covering.
Lemma 5.3. Let (Y, ) be a Riemann orbifold with a universal orbifold covering
p : (

Y, ) (Y, ), and let Aut(p). Then there is a unique orbifold covering

p

Y Y
such that p

= p. Moreover p
Aut(p)
: Aut(p)

Y Y is an isomorphism of
orbifolds.
14 [Spring,
Proof. According to Proposition 1.6, Aut(p) and hence also act properly dis-
continuously on

Y. Therefore we can consider the quotient orbifold (\

Y, )
with ([y]

) = [St ab

( y)[ as in Denition 4.2. Dene

p

Y Y, [x]

p(x)
If [x]

= [y]

then x = y for some . Since Aut(p), p(x) = p(y) =

p( y). Therefore p

is a well-dened map. Moreover, p

(x) = p

([x]

) =
p(x). Therefore it is surjective. Moreover by Proposition 2.4 , p

is holomorphic
and by Lemma 4.1 it is compatible with the orbifold structures.
We will now verify that p
Aut(p)
is an isomorphism such that p
Aut(p)
q = p

,
(where q :

Y Aut(p)

Y, [y]

[y]
Aut(p)
) and then use this to show that p

is a branched covering map. We have found that p

Aut(p)
is a surjective holomor-
phic map. To see that it is injective, suppose p
Aut(p)
([x]
Aut(p)
) = p
Aut(p)
([y]
Aut(p)
).
Therefore, p(x) = p( y). Since p is regular, Aut(p) acts transitively on bres, so
there is some Aut(p) such that y = .x. But then [x]
Aut(p)
= [y]
Aut(p)
so
p
Aut(p)
is indeed injective.
To see that p

is a branched covering consider the natural map q :

Y
Aut(p)

Y and note that for [x]

we have p
Aut(p)
q([x]

) = p
Aut(p)
([x]
Aut(p)
) =
p(x) = p

([x]

). Therefore p
Aut(p)
q = p

. It is clear that the composition of an

isomorphism and a branched covering map is again a branched covering map.
Since we already know q is a branched covering map, p

is as well.
Theorem 5.4 (The Galois Correspondence). Let (Y, ) be a Riemann orbifold
with universal cover p :

Y Y. There is a natural 1 1 correspondence be-
tween isomorphism classes of orbifold coverings of (Y, ) and conjugacy classes of
subgroups in Aut(p).
Proof. After Lemma 5.2 we clearly have a well-dened map sending the iso-
morphism class of f : (X, ) (Y, ) into the conjugacy class of the subgroup
= Aut(h) of Aut(p) where h : (

Y, ) (X, ) is a universal covering such that

f h = p. Our goal is therefore to construct the inverse map.
Consider an arbitrary Aut(p). We take as our inverse the map which
sends the conjugacy class of to the isomorphism class of the covering p

Y (Y, ) from Lemma 5.3. To check that this is well-dened, consider a

conjugate subgroup
/
=
1
of Aut(p). By Lemma 5.3 the maps

/ are
universal coverings of

Y and
/

Y respectively such that p

= p

/ = p.
By Proposition 3.1 the deck groups of these two universal coverings are ,
/
respectively. Then by virtue of Lemma 5.2 (2) there is an isomorphism of the
coverings p

and p

/
(explicitly, this isomorphism is given by [x]

[.x]

/ ).
Therefore, our map is well-dened.
2012] 15
We now have two well-dened maps. Let us check that they are mutually
inverse. Let f : (X, ) (Y, ) be a covering, let h : (

Y, ) (X, ) be a
universal covering such that f h = p, and put = Aut(h). By Lemma 5.3 the
map h

Y (X, ) is an isomorphism. To check that it is an isomorphism of

the coverings p

Y (Y, ) and f : (X, ) (Y, ), note that for any [x]

we have f h

([x]

) = f (h(x)) = p(x) = p

([x]

) as required. It follows that

the composition of our map of conjugacy classes with our map of isomorphism
classes sends the isomorphism class of f to the conjugacy class of , and then
sends this to the isomorphism class of p

, which is the same as the isomorphism

class of f . Hence it is the identity.
Now let Aut(p). By Lemma 5.3,

is a universal covering of

Y such
that p

= p. Moreover, Aut(

) = by Proposition 3.1. Hence, the compo-

sition of our map of isomorphism classes with our map of conjugacy classes rst
sends the conjugacy class of to the isomorphism class of p

, and then sends

this back to the conjugacy class of . Hence it is also the identity. The two maps
are therefore mutually inverse, as required.
6. Modular Parametrizations of Families of Elliptic Curves
An application of this correspondence appears in the theory of modular functions
and families of elliptic curves. A comprehensive treatment of modular forms
can be found in [Milne(b)], and a treatment of elliptic curves can be found in
[Milne(a)].
Denition 6.1. An elliptic curve over a eld K is a pair (C, O) where C is a smooth,
irreducible projective cubic curve over K and O C.
Any such curve over a eld with characteristic not equal to 2 or 3 is isomor-
phic to one of the form
|Y
2
Z = X
3
+aX Z
2
+ bZ
3
|, O = (0 : 1 : 0)
which satises
= 4a
3
+27b
2
,= 0
called the Weierstrass form of the curve
Let E = |Y
2
Z = X
3
+aX Z
2
+ bZ
3
, | be (the Weierstrass form of) an elliptic
curve. Its j-invariant is dened to be
j(E) = 1728
4a
3
4a
3
+27b
2
One has the following theorem.
16 [Spring,
Theorem 6.2. Two elliptic curves over a eld K are isomorphic as algebraic vari-
eties over K, the algebraic closure of K if and only if they have the same j-invariant.
Over C an elliptic curve can be given a natural structure as a compact Rie-
mann surface. Let = |z C : Im(z) > 0| denote the upper half-plane and for
z denote by
z
the lattice |Zz +Z|. As a Riemann surface, an elliptic curve
is canonically isomorphic to a quotient surface C

z
for some z . Moreover,
two elliptic curves E

= C

z
, E
/

= C

z
/ are isomorphic as algebraic varieties if
and only if z
/
=
az+b
cz+d
for some a, b, c, d Z such that ad bc = 1.
The group
= |

a b
c d

: a, b, c, d Z : ad bc = 1|

|I , I |
is called the modular group and the map z
az+b
cz+d
denes an action of this group
on . Now let j : C be the map which assigns to z the j-invariant of the
elliptic curve isomorphic to C

z
. By our previous remarks this map is invariant
under the action of . It also turns out that it is holomorphic on and satises
lim
z
j(z) = . These three properties mean that j is what we call a modular
function for the group .
Denition 6.3. Let
/
be a subgroup of nite index. A meromorphic function
t on is said to be a modular function for the group
/
if for all
/

/
t
/
= t
and for all , lim
z
t(.z) exists in C.
A family of elliptic curves is simply an elliptic curve over C(t), the eld of
rational functions over C in one variable. This curve then has a j-invariant
which is a rational function, which we denote by J(t). We say that a family with
j-invariant J admits a modular parametrization, if there is a subgroup
/
of
of nite index and a modular function t for
/
such that J(t(z)) = j(z). As an
example, consider the family
X
3
+Y
3
+ Z
3
+ t XY Z = 0, O = (0 : 1 : 1)
The rational j-invariant of this family is J(t) =
t
3
(t
3
216)
3
(27+t
3
)
3
. A modular
parametrization of this family is given by
(
z
3
)
3
(3z)
3
3 where is the Dedekind
eta function given by
(z) = e
iz
12

n1
(1 e
2iz
)
with corresponding modular group
(3) = |i

a b
c d

: a d 1, b c 0 mod 3|
2012] 17
We want to know when it is possible to nd a modular parametrization for
a family of elliptic curves. This problem can be solved by applying the Galois
Correspondence, using the fact that acts properly discontinuously on and
that the function j denes a universal orbifold covering. We state without proof
the solution.
Theorem 6.4. Let E
t
be a family of elliptic curves with rational j-invariant J(t).
This family admits a modular parametrization if and only if J is surjective, e
J
(x)[3
for all x J
1
(0), e
J
(x)[2 for all x J
1
(1728) and e
J
(x) = 1 for all x
J
1
(C\ |0, 1728|)
Write R(t) =
P(t)
Q(t)
where P, Q are coprime polynomials. If R(t) = w then
the ramication index of R at t is simply the mutliplicty of t as a root of the
polynomial P(t) wQ(t). Therefore, the theorem can be stated as:
Theorem 6.5. Let E
t
be a family of elliptic curves with rational j-invariant J(t) =
P(t)
Q(t)
where P, Q are coprime polynomials. This family admits a modular parametriza-
tion if and only if J is surjective and P(t) only has roots of multiplicty 1 or
3, P(t) 1728Q(t) only has roots of multiplicty 1 or 2 and for all other w,
P(t) wQ(t) only has roots of multiplicity 1
References
[McMullen()] Curtis T. McMullen. Complex Dynamics and Renormaliza-
tion. URL http://www.math.harvard.edu/~ctm/papers/home/
text/papers/real/book.pdf.
[Milne(a)] J.S. Milne. Elliptic Curves. a. URL http://www.jmilne.org/
math/Books/ectext0.pdf.
[Milne(b)] J.S. Milne. Modular Functions and Modular Forms. b. URL http:
//www.jmilne.org/math/CourseNotes/MF110.pdf.
[Milnor(2006)] J. Milnor. Dynamics in One Complex Variable. (AM-160): Third
Edition. (AM-160). Princeton University Press, 2006. ISBN 9780691124889.
URL http://books.google.ie/books?id=DsthOelUMlkC.
[Miranda(1995)] R. Miranda. Algebraic Curves and Riemann Surfaces. American
Mathematical Society, 1995. ISBN 9780821802687. URL http://books.
google.ie/books?id=qjg6GOQaHNEC.
[Thurston(1997)] William P. Thurston. The Geometry and Topology of
Three-Manifolds. 1997. URL http://pi.unl.edu/~mbrittenham2/
classwk/990s08/public/thurston.notes.pdf/6a.pdf.