We start with an overview of heights on projective spaces and varieties to give a hint about their role in attacking finiteness problems of abelian varieties. We then try to explain the motivation for introducing the Faltings height on abelian varieties and do explicit computation in the case of elliptic curves. Finally we include a direct proof of the finiteness theorems of elliptic curves. Our main sources are [1], [2] and [3]. See also [4] and [5]. This is a note prepared for the Faltings' Theorem seminar at Harvard.
Heights on projective spaces and projective varietiesLet us start by reviewing several basic properties of heights on projective spaces. The general scheme of height functions is a measurement of "arithmetic complexity". For a rational number 
, we can write it as 
 for two integers 
 without common divisors, and define the height of 
 as 
 It will be troublesome to draw a graph of this "function" defined on 
. Nevertheless, the definition matches our intuition: the larger 
 is, the more complicated 
 is.
More intrinsically, let 
 be a number field. Set the absolute values:
 satisfies 
 for 
 and 
 is the real or complex absolute value for 
 real or complex.
, where 
. It takes the value 
 on the uniformizer 
.Note that by the product formula, 
 for 
, thus we know that 
 does not depend on the choice of homogeneous coordinates 
. Because for 
, 
 if and only if 
, it is easy to check that
 generates the ideal 
, where 
 are relative prime integral ideals of 
, then  
This definition of heights extends to projective spaces 
 of dimension 
 in an obvious way.
. We define the relative height 
 the absolute height 
 and the logarithmic height 
 Note that for a finite extension 
, 
, therefore the absolute height and the logarithmic height do not depend on the choice of 
.
The following is a prototype of a finiteness result under the bounded height condition.
 and 
, there are only finitely many points 
 satisfying 
 and 
. In particular, for any number field 
, there are only finitely many points 
 with bounded height.
 and let 
 be the Galois conjugates of 
. Then the minimal polynomial of 
 is of the form 
 Note that the heights of the 
's are all the same, therefore the coefficient of 
 is bounded by 
 for some constant 
 not depending on 
. So these coefficients are rational numbers with bounded heights, therefore there are only finitely many choices of the coefficients, hence finitely many choices of 
.
¡õ
Here comes a neat corollary of the Northcott's property.
 for some 
. Then 
, hence 
. Conversely, suppose 
, then 
 for every 
. By the Northcott's, some 
 and 
 have to be same, which implies 
 is a root of unity.
¡õ
, called the canonical height (or Neron-Tate height)  attached to every rational point on an abelian variety over 
. It measures the arithmetic complexity of the point: for example, 
 if and only if 
 is a torsion point analogously.
Slightly more generally, given a projective variety 
, the embedding 
 associates with every point 
 a height 
 using the height on the projective space 
. The height thus obtained does depend on the choice of the projective embedding, nevertheless, it turns out to be uniquely determined up to a bounded function. From the previous theorem, we know that over a number field 
, there are only finitely many points in 
 with bounded heights.
Finiteness of abelian varieties and Modular HeightsOne of the key steps in proving Faltings' theorem is to prove the finiteness theorems of abelian varieties.
 be an abelian variety over a number field 
. Then there are only finitely many isomorphism classes of abelian varieties over 
 isogenous to 
.
 of dimension 
 having good reduction outside a finite set of places 
.
Carl has showed the implication
So it remains to show Finiteness I. Faltings' argument involves the usage of "heights":
Height I There are only finitely many isomorphism classes of polarized abelian varieties 
 over 
 of dimension 
, 
 with semistable reduction everywhere and bounded "heights".
Height II The "height" is bounded in every isogeny class of abelian varieties over 
.
Assuming these two parts, then together with the semistable reduction theorem (every abelian variety has semistable reduction after a finite extension), we can easily deduce Finiteness I.
To possibly show the finiteness statement like Height I, we would like to associate a height to each abelian variety using Northcott's property. A natural option is to view an abelian variety as a point in the Siegel moduli variety and attach the height of that point to the corresponding abelian varieties. This motivates the notion of modular heights.
 be a polarized abelian variety over 
 of dimension 
 and degree 
. Let 
 be the Siegel modular variety with its canonical projective embedding. Then associated with 
 we have a point 
.We define the modular height of 
 to be 
.
 be a constant. Then there are only finitely many isomorphism classes of polarized abelian varieties 
 over 
 of dimension 
, degree 
 having semistable reduction everywhere and 
.
, 
 are all isomorphic over 
 but not isomorphic over 
. These 
's have the same 
-invariant, hence 
 are the same.
To clarify the proof, we recall the following lemma without proof.
 be a polarized abelian variety. Then
 is finite.
, an automorphism of 
 acting on 
 trivially must be the identity.
-isomorphism classes of such 
 is finite. So we need to show that given a polarized abelian variety 
 with semistable reduction everywhere, there are only finitely many 
-isomorphism classes 
 with semistable reduction everywhere which are isomorphic to 
 over 
. We shall show that there exists a finite extension 
 such that all these 
 are actually isomorphic to 
 over 
. Then 
's are parametrized by 
, which is finite, since 
 and 
 (by the previous lemma) are finite. This completes the proof.
It remains to construct such an 
.  Because 
, 
 have semistable reduction everywhere and they are isomorphic over a finite extension of 
, we know that 
, 
 have the same set 
 of places of bad reduction. Fix a prime 
, then 
 is an extension of degree  
 and is unramified outside 
 by Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich's criterion. Therefore by Hermite's theorem, the compositum field 
 of all 
's must be a finite extension of 
. We claim that all 
's are isomorphic to 
 over 
. Let 
 be an isomorphism over 
. Then for any 
, 
 is an automorphism of 
 which leaves 
 fixed, therefore is the identity by the previous lemma. So the isomorphism 
 is actually defined over 
.
¡õ
It would be wonderful to show Height II for the modular height, unfortunately, it is not clear how 
 changes under isogeny. Faltings introduced what is now known as the Faltings height 
 to attack Finiteness II. It turns out miraculously that the Faltings height can be proved to change only slightly under isogeny, and thus Height II is true for 
. More precisely,
 be an abelian variety over 
 having semistable reduction everywhere. Then 
 is bounded in the isogeny class of 
.
Finally, to combine the Height I result for 
 and Height II result for 
, one needs a comparison theorem between 
 and 
: the boundedness of one of them implies the boundedness of the other.
, 
, 
 such that for abelian varieties 
 over 
 with semistable reduction everywhere, 
Now the road-map for proving Finiteness I is

Height II (using the results of Raynaud and Tate on 
-divisible groups) and the comparison theorem (using the compactified Siegel modular variety over 
) are the hardest parts of the whole proof and will occupy most of the remaining semester. In the rest of this talk, I will prove the comparison theorem for the case of elliptic curves, to somehow convince you that it is a reasonable thing to expect. If time permits, I will show Finiteness I for elliptic curves using a different argument, taking advantage of Siegel's theorem on integral points on elliptic curves.
Metrized line bundles and the Faltings heightWe shall now motivate the definition of the Faltings height, which already showed up in Dick's introduction and also in Carl's talk. Suppose we have a complex elliptic curve 
 for some period lattice 
. Intuitively, 
 is more complicated if 
 is more complicated, so we may attempt to define the height of 
 as 
 where 
 is the fundamental domain for 
. However, this quantity is not well defined for a given isomorphism class: for example, scaling 
 gives isomorphic elliptic curves, but 
 is different. Notice that fixing the period lattice is equivalent to fixing a canonical choice for a differential 
: 
 If 
 is defined over 
, this canonical choice can be made using the minimal Weierstrass equation 
 The differential 
 is then well defined up to multiplication by 
 and the period lattice is uniquely determined by the isomorphism class of 
. In this case, 
We are using the crucial fact that 
 is a PID to define the minimal Weierstrass equation. In general, for 
 defined over a number field 
, its ring of integers 
 is not necessarily a PID and a minimal Weierstrass equation does not exist. To obtain a canonical choice of the differential, we need the Neron models George talked about last time. Let 
 be the Neron model of 
. Then the sheaf of Neron differentials 
 is locally free of rank 1. So the pull back 
 by the zero section 
 gives us a projective 
- module of rank 1. Because 
 is a PID, this module is actually a free module of rank 1. Therefore it has a canonical generator up to sign, which is exactly the above differential 
. For a number field 
, the same construction gives a projective 
-module of rank 1, where 
 is the ring of integers of 
. When 
 is not a PID, 
 is not necessarily free and we cannot take a global generator, but only a bunch of local generators for each finite place. This motivates us to define the notion of metrized line bundles, introduced by Arakelov.
 be the ring of integers of 
. A metrized line bundle on 
 is a pair 
, where 
 is a line bundle on 
 (i.e. a projective 
-module of rank 1) and for each 
, 
 is a norm on the real or complex vector space 
.
, suppose 
, we set 
 if 
 for 
. For 
, we denote 
. The height of a metrized line bundle 
 is defined to be 
 for any 
. It is well-defined by the product formula. The degree of 
 is defined to be 
. When 
 and 
 is the generator of 
, one then recovers that 
 (one thinks of 
 as the area 
).
Now let us come back to the case of abelian varieties. Let 
 be an abelian variety of dimension 
 over 
. Let 
 be the Neron model of 
. Then the sheaf of Neron differentials 
 is locally free of rank 
 on 
. So the top wedge power 
 is a locally free sheaf of rank 1 on 
. Pulling back by the zero section 
, we obtain a line bundle 
. We specify the norm for every 
 by 
 be the metrized line bundle on 
 described above. The Faltings height of 
 is defined to be 
. However, by the semistable stable reduction theorem, the Neron model does not change after base change to some finite field extension. We thus define the stable Faltings height to be the Faltings height 
, for any 
 such that 
 has semistable stable reduction everywhere.
Comparison of heights for elliptic curvesWe first give an explicit formula of the Faltings height 
.
 be an elliptic curve. Suppose 
 for 
. Then 
 where 
 is the minimal discriminant and 
 is the modular discriminant function.
 be any Weierstrass equation of 
. We shall utilize the invariance of the section 
 of 
 under the change of coordinates to calculate the Faltings height locally. For 
, let 
 be the Neron differential at 
, then  by the invariance of 
, we know that 
 where 
 is the minimal discriminant of 
 at 
. So for 
,  
 Hence the local contribution at 
 is 
 and the total nonarchimedean contribution is 
. For 
, let 
 be the Weierstrass equation given by 
 and 
 then by the invariance of 
, we know that 
 We compute 
 therefore the local contribution at 
 is 
 and the total archimedean contribution is 
 This completes the proof.
¡õ
Using the previous explicit expression, now we can prove the comparison theorem of the Faltings height and the modular height for elliptic curves.
 such that for elliptic curves 
 with semistable reduction everywhere, 
, we can suitably choose 
 such that 
, so that 
. Hence 
 implies that 
 Using the 
-expansion of 
, one also knows that 
 Therefore 
 Also from 
 we obtain 
 Plugging into the explicit formula of the Faltings height gives
  Since 
 has semistable reduction everywhere, we know that 
 if and only if 
 dividing 
 and in this case 
. Thus 
 So it remains to show that 
 which I shall leave it as an exercise using the arithmetic-geometric mean inequality.
¡õ
Finiteness theorems for elliptic curvesFinally, we shall utilize Siegel's theorem on the integral points of elliptic curves to give a completely different direct proof of Finiteness I for elliptic curves.
 be an (affine) elliptic curve, 
 be a finite set containing 
 and 
 be the ring of 
-integers. Then the set of integral points 
 is finite.
Siegel's proof uses techniques from Diophantine approximations, which we do not get into here. We will deduce Finiteness I from the even stronger Shafarevich's theorem for elliptic curves. The following cute proof is due to Shafarevich.
 be a finite set containing 
. Then there are only finitely many isomorphism classes 
 having good reduction outside 
.
 so that 
 contains all places over 2 and 3 and also 
 is a PID. Then for every 
, we have a minimal Weierstrass equation 
 If further 
 has good reduction outside 
, we know the discriminant 
. Suppose we have an infinite sequence of elliptic curves 
 having good reduction outside 
. Since the 
-unit group 
 is finitely generated, we know that 
 is a finite group. So we can find an infinite subsequence (still denoted by 
), such that 
 are in the same class of 
. In other words, 
 for a fixed 
. From 
, we know that 
 has 
-solutions 
. Therefore by Siegel's theorem, there are only finitely many possibilities for 
 and 
. Moreover, each of the identities 
, 
 gives a 
-isomorphism 
 via 
, 
.
¡õ
. Then there are only finitely many elliptic curves 
 which are isogenous to 
.
 and 
 are isogenous over 
. Then they have the same set of places of good reduction by Neron-Ogg-Shafarevich (the induced map 
 is an isomorphism of 
-modules for all 
's prime to the characteristic of the residue field and the degree of the isogeny). The result then follows from Shafarevich's theorem.
¡õ
[1]Heights and elliptic curves, Arithmetic geometry (Storrs, Conn., 1984), Springer, 1986, 253--265.
[2]Abelian Varieties (v2.00), Available at www.jmilne.org/math/.
[3]The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves (Graduate Texts in Mathematics), Springer, 2010.
[4]Heights in Diophantine Geometry (New Mathematical Monographs), Cambridge University Press, 2007.
[5]Diophantine Geometry: An Introduction (Graduate Texts in Mathematics), Springer, 2000.