Pub Symmetries of Compact Riemann Surfaces

Lecture Notes in Mathematics 2007
Editors:
J.-M. Morel, Cachan
F. Takens, Groningen
B. Teissier, Paris
Emilio Bujalance · Francisco Javier Cirre
José Manuel Gamboa · Grzegorz Gromadzki
Symmetries of Compact
Riemann Surfaces
123
Emilio Bujalance José Manuel Gamboa
Facultad de Ciencias, UNED Universidad Complutense Madrid
Matemáticas Fundamentales Facultad de Matemáticas, UCM
C/ Senda del Rey 9 Departamento de Álgebra
28040 Madrid Plaza de las Ciencias 3
Spain 28040 Madrid
ebujalance@mat.uned.es Spain
jmgamboa@mat.ucm.es
Francisco Javier Cirre
Facultad de Ciencias, UNED Grzegorz Gromadzki
Matemáticas Fundamentales University of Gdansk
C/ Senda del Rey 9 Department of Mathematics
28040 Madrid Wita Stwosza 57
Spain 80-952 Gdansk
jcirre@mat.uned.es Poland
greggrom@mat.ug.edu.pl
ISBN: 978-3-642-14827-9 e-ISBN: 978-3-642-14828-6

DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-14828-6
Springer Heidelberg Dordrecht London New York
Lecture Notes in Mathematics ISSN print edition: 0075-8434

ISSN electronic edition: 1617-9692
Library of Congress Control Number: 2010935187
Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 30F, 14H, 20H, 20D, 57M
c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is
concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting,
reproduction on microfilm or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication
or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9,
1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Violations
are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, etc. in this publication does not
imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective
laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
Cover design: SPi Publisher Services
Printed on acid-free paper
springer.com
To Álvaro and my grandchildren
To my family
To Belén, Álvaro and Irene
To the memory of my parents
Preface
The content of this monograph is situated in the intersection of important branches

of mathematics like the theory of one complex variable, algebraic geometry, low
dimensional topology and, from the point of view of the techniques used, combi-
natorial group theory. The main tool comes from the Uniformization Theorem for
Riemann surfaces, which relates the topology of Riemann surfaces and holomorphic
or antiholomorphic actions on them to the algebra of classical cocompact Fuchsian
groups or, more generally, non-euclidean crystallographic groups. Foundations of
this relationship were established by A. M. Macbeath in the early sixties and devel-
oped later by, among others, D. Singerman.
Another important result in Riemann surface theory is the connection between
Riemann surfaces and their symmetries with complex algebraic curves and their real
forms. Namely, there is a well known functorial bijective correspondence between
compact Riemann surfaces and smooth, irreducible complex projective curves. The
fact that a Riemann surface has a symmetry means, under this equivalence, that the
corresponding complex algebraic curve has a real form, that is, it is the complexifi-
cation of a real algebraic curve. Moreover, symmetries which are non-conjugate in
the full group of automorphisms of the Riemann surface, correspond to real forms
which are birationally non-isomorphic over the reals. Furthermore, the set of points
fixed by a symmetry is homeomorphic to a projective smooth model of the real form.
The monograph consists of an extensive Introduction, a compilation of basic
results in the Preliminaries, four principal Chapters and a short Appendix on asym-
metric Riemann surfaces. After the Preliminaries, in Chap. 2, we focus our attention
on the quantitative results concerning upper bounds for the number of conjugacy
classes of symmetries. We divide our study into three cases, according to the na-
ture of the set of points fixed by the symmetries. Namely we distinguish whether
this set is empty or not and, accordingly, consider just symmetries with fixed points,
just symmetries without fixed points and finally hybrid configurations allowing both
types of symmetries simultaneously.
Chapter 3 can be seen as a variation on the classical Harnack theorem, that
states that the set of points fixed by a symmetry of a Riemann surface of genus
g has at most g + 1 connected components, all of them being closed Jordan
curves, called ovals in Hilbert’s terminology introduced in the nineteenth century.
We first deal with the problem of finding the total number of ovals of a specified
vii
viii Preface
number of non-conjugate symmetries. We next consider the same problem for all
the symmetries (conjugate or not) of a Riemann surface. We finally deal with the
total number of ovals of a pair of symmetries in terms of the order of its product and
the genus of the surface.
The monograph is actually devoted to the symmetries of Riemann surfaces of
genus at least two since they are the ones uniformized by the hyperbolic plane. The
theory of symmetries of the remaining surfaces, that is, the Riemann sphere and the
tori, is well-known for a long time but, for the sake of completeness and the reader’s
convenience, we devote the main part of Chap. 4 to this subject. We also outline the
classification of the symmetry types of hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces as being the
double covers of the Riemann sphere.
Finally, Chap. 5 is dedicated to the symmetries of Riemann surfaces with large
groups of automorphisms. Such surfaces are important since on the one hand they
are determined by a 2-generator presentation of their groups of automorphisms, and
on the other hand they can be defined over the algebraic numbers due to the cele-
brated theorem of Belyi from the late seventies. Furthermore, by a recent result of
B. Köck and D. Singerman, these algebraic numbers can be chosen to be reals if
the surface is symmetric. The foundations for the study of symmetries of such sur-
faces were established by Singerman, who found necessary and sufficient algebraic
conditions in terms of the mentioned above generating pair for such a surface to
be symmetric. In the first section, apart from Singerman’s proof, we give formulae
to compute the number of ovals of these symmetries, to which we refer as Singer-
man symmetries. Using these formulae we deal, in the next two sections, with the
significant families of Macbeath-Singerman and Accola-Maclachlan and Kulkarni
surfaces. Finally we describe the symmetries of the last two families by means of
algebraic formulae.
Acknowledgments. The authors are very grateful to the three referees for their very
helpful, deep and accurate comments concerning the first version of the monograph.
We are also very grateful to Dr Ewa Kozłowska-Walania for her careful reading of
the final version and the number of conspicuous and helpful comments.
Emilio Bujalance is partially supported by Spanish MTM2008-00250.
Francisco Javier Cirre is partially supported by Spanish MTM2008-00250.
José Manuel Gamboa is partially supported by Spanish MTM2008-00272, Proyecto
Santander Complutense PR34/07-15813 and GAAR Grupos UCM 910444.
Grzegorz Gromadzki is supported by the Sabbatical Grant SAB2005-0049 of the
Spanish Ministry of Education and by the Research Grant NN201 366436 of the
Polish Ministry of Sciences and Higher Education.
Madrid, Gdańsk, Emilio Bujalance

April 2010 Francisco Javier Cirre
José Manuel Gamboa
Grzegorz Gromadzki
Contents
1 Preliminaries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 NEC Groups and Their Signatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Normal Subgroups of NEC Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Centralizers of Reflections. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
1.4 Uniformization and Automorphism Groups of Riemann
and Klein Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
1.4.1 Maximal NEC Groups .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
1.4.2 Teichmüller Spaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.5 Symmetric Riemann Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
1.5.1 Algebraic Conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2 On the Number of Conjugacy Classes of Symmetries

of Riemann Surfaces .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.1 Conjugacy Classes of Involutions in 2-Groups . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
2.2 Symmetries with Non-Empty Set of Fixed Points . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
2.3 Symmetries with Empty Set of Fixed Points . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2.4 Symmetries of Surfaces Admitting a Fixed Point Free Symmetry . . . . . 31
3 Counting Ovals of Symmetries of Riemann Surfaces . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

3.1 Enumeration of Ovals of Symmetries at Large . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2 Total Number of Ovals of Non-Conjugate Symmetries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.3 Total Number of Ovals of all Symmetries of a Riemann Surface.. . . . . . 41
3.4 Total Number of Ovals of a Couple of Symmetries . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4 Symmetry Types of Some Families of Riemann Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

4.1 Symmetry Type of the Riemann Sphere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.2 Symmetry Types of Tori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.2.1 Symmetric Tori . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.3 Symmetry Types of Hyperelliptic Riemann Surfaces . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4.3.1 A Geometric Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
4.3.2 An Example .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
ix
x Contents
5 Symmetry Types of Riemann Surfaces with a Large Group

of Automorphisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.1 Some General Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.2 Symmetry Types of Macbeath–Singerman Surfaces . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
5.3 Symmetry Types of Accola–Maclachlan and Kulkarni Surfaces . . . . . . .110
5.3.1 Number of Ovals of the Symmetries .. . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .110
5.3.2 Separating Character of the Symmetries.. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .120
5.4 Algebraic Formulae for the Symmetries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .125
6 Appendix . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
6.1 Compact Riemann Surfaces Without Symmetries .. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .145
References .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .151
Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .157
Introduction
By a symmetry σ of a compact Riemann surface S we mean an antianalytic

involution σ : S → S. A Riemann surface which admits a symmetry is called sym-
metric. Under the well known functorial bijective correspondence between compact
Riemann surfaces and smooth, irreducible, complex projective curves, symmet-
ric surfaces correspond to curves definable over the field R of real numbers. If
σ : S → S is a symmetry then the pair (S, σ) is usually called a real algebraic
curve, see the foundational monograph [4] by Alling and Greenleaf to justify this
definition. Some topological features of the real curve (S, σ) can be obtained from
its associated symmetry σ. For instance, the set of real points of the curve is home-
omorphic to the fixed point set Fix(σ) of the symmetry. In addition, symmetries
which are non-conjugate within the full group Aut(S) of automorphisms of S cor-
respond to real curves which are non-isomorphic over the real numbers but are
isomorphic over the complex numbers.
With a language closer to the one we will use here, let us show an example of two
non-birationally R-isomorphic real algebraic curves whose complexifications are
birationally C-isomorphic. Let us consider for t = 0, 1, the degree 3 homogeneous
polynomial
Ft (x, y, z) = y 2 z − x(x2 + (−1)t z 2 ).
An easy computation shows that at any point in the complex projective plane P2 (C),
the partial derivatives of Ft are not simultaneously zero. So, for t = 0, 1, each set
St = {[x : y : z] ∈ P2 (C) : Ft (x, y, z) = 0}
admits a structure of compact Riemann surface. In fact, S0 and S1 are birationally

C-isomorphic as complex algebraic curves via the isomorphism
ϕ : S0 → S1 ; [x : y : z] → [ξx : ξ 4 y : ξ 3 z],
where ξ = eiπ/4 . However, their sets of R-rational points, that is, the real curves
S0 (R) and S1 (R), are not birationally R-isomorphic. Indeed, both are smooth but
S0 (R) is connected while S1 (R) has two connected components. The paper [32] by
Cirre and Gamboa presents many other examples of non-isomorphic real algebraic
curves with isomorphic complexifications.
xi
xii Introduction
These phenomena lead naturally to the following problems we deal with in this
monograph:
(1) Is a complex smooth algebraic curve C definable over the reals?
(2) Assume that this question has an affirmative answer. How many non-
birationally R- isomorphic real algebraic curves admit C as its complexification?
The projective smooth models of such real curves are usually called the real
forms of C.
(3) What can be said about the topology of the real forms of C?
The expository work by Gromadzki [51] can be understood as the first attempt to
survey the known answers to these questions. Because of the methods to be used, it
seems convenient to translate these questions into a more suitable language. To that
end we use the terminology introduced at the beginning. In particular, the first of the
above problems reads off: is a compact Riemann surface symmetric?
Let σ and τ be symmetries of the compact Riemann surface S. The pairs (S, σ)
and (S, τ ) are real forms of S; they are said to be isomorphic if there exists an
automorphism ϕ of S such that σ = ϕ ◦ τ ◦ ϕ−1 . In this way the second problem
to be treated is the counting of the number of conjugacy classes of symmetries
with respect to the group Aut(S) of analytic and antianalytic automorphisms of
the Riemann surface S.
Finally, the topological type of a symmetry σ of S is determined, together with
the genus of S, by the number of connected components, or ovals (in the nineteenth
century Hilbert’s terminology) of the fixed point set Fix(σ) = {p ∈ S : σ(p) = p}
and the connectedness character of its complement S \ Fix(σ) in S. More precisely,
the triple (g, k, ε) is said to be the topological type of a symmetry σ of a genus
g surface S if the set Fix(σ) has k connected components, and ε = 1 or ε = 0
according to whether S \Fix(σ) is connected or not. We say that σ is non-separating
if ε = 1 and separating otherwise.
A classical result due to Harnack [59] and Weichold [127] states that the nec-
essary and sufficient conditions for a triple to be admissible, that is, to be the
topological type of some symmetry σ, are the following:
1≤k ≤g+1 if ε = 0 with g + 1 ≡ k (mod 2);

0≤k≤g if ε = 1.
The pair (k, ε) is usually codified by the symbol +k if ε = 0 and −k if ε = 1. It

is called the species of the symmetry σ and denoted by sp(σ).
It has to be mentioned that the orbit space Xσ = S/σ of the compact Riemann
surface S under the symmetry σ is usually called a compact Klein surface. The
fixed point set Fix(σ) is homeomorphic to the topological boundary of Xσ . Both
are in fact homeomorphic to the set of real points of the projective smooth irre-
ducible real algebraic curve associated to the symmetry σ. If this set is empty then
we say that the corresponding real curve (S, σ) is purely imaginary. These pairs cor-
respond to complex algebraic curves which can be defined over the reals but have
no R-rational points. It is well known that the set S \ Fix(σ) is either connected or
Introduction xiii
it has two connected components. In the first case, i.e., if σ is non-separating, then
the orbit space Xσ = S/σ is non-orientable, while in the separating case Xσ is
orientable.
An expository account of the functorial correspondence between real algebraic
curves and Klein surfaces can be found in [45], see also the condensed versions
[103, 104] by Natanzon.
As we shall see throughout this monograph, a fundamental component to ap-
proach the problems mentioned above is the knowledge of the full automorphism
group Aut(S) of the analytic and antianalytic automorphisms of S and its subgroup
Aut+ (S) consisting of the analytic ones. Moreover, to determine the topology of
a given symmetry σ of S, the centralizer C(Aut(S), σ) of σ in Aut(S) plays a
fundamental role. Although automorphism groups do not constitute the core of this
work, we will need them very frequently. It is worth mentioning that the factor group
C(Aut(S), σ)/σ is isomorphic to the group of automorphisms of the Klein sur-
face S/σ . There is a vast literature concerning groups of automorphisms of such
surfaces. Among them we should mention [22], [58], [79]–[90], [93], the pioneering
papers [114] and [40] and the exceptionally complete work [105].
We now describe briefly the content of this monograph. We also quote the con-
tributions of different authors to the development of the employed techniques and
related topics.
Although in Chap. 4 we study the symmetries of the sphere and the tori, we
will mainly be concerned with compact Riemann surfaces of genus bigger than one.
By the Uniformization Theorem, such a surface S can be presented as the orbit
space of the hyperbolic plane H under the action of a surface Fuchsian group Γ.
Moreover, using covering theory, it can be proved that each automorphism group
of S = H/Γ is a factor group Λ/Γ, where Λ is a non-euclidean crystallographic
(NEC in short) group containing Γ as a normal subgroup. The key point now is
that the algebraic structure of both Fuchsian and NEC groups is well known and
this is why we devote Sect. 1.1 to the presentation of some basic facts about these
groups.
The above shows that in order to move ahead with the combinatorial approach
of the study of symmetries of Riemann surfaces it is essential to understand the
relation between the presentations of two NEC groups Γ and Λ, where the first is a
normal subgroup of the second one. This task is mainly due to E. Bujalance, who
developed in a series of papers [10–12] at the beginning of the eighties, an efficient
method to solve this problem based on surgery of fundamental regions. It is also
worth mentioning the article by J. A. Bujalance [27] concerning this problem. These
results appear, without proofs, in Sect. 1.2.
One of the main elements in the combinatorial approach to the study of symme-
tries of compact Riemann surfaces is the analysis of the centralizers of hyperbolic
reflections in NEC groups. Singerman found in his Ph. D. Thesis [115], see also
[119], the isomorphism type of centralizers of reflections in NEC groups. Going a
bit more into the details of Singerman’s proof, explicit generators of these groups
can be obtained, see the papers [48, 51] by G. Gromadzki. We present them in
Sect. 1.3.
xiv Introduction
Section 1.4 concerns uniformization of compact Riemann and Klein surfaces by

means of Fuchsian and NEC groups, respectively, and its consequences. We pay
special attention to the explanation of the notions of maximal Fuchsian or NEC
groups and maximal signatures, and the relation between them. Although we have
not included proper proofs of the results we will be using throughout the monograph,
for which the reader is referred to [22, Chap. 5], we present carefully the main
concepts.
To finish this preliminary chapter, we explain the basics about symmetries in
Sect. 1.5. We recall the notions of topological type and species of a symmetry
and the classical Harnack-Weichold necessary and sufficient conditions for a given
triple to be the topological type of some symmetry. We also approach the prob-
lem of deciding whether a Riemann surface is symmetric. This depends, in general,
on its analytic type. However, there is an exception, pointed out by Singerman,
who showed in [118] that if the group Aut+ (S) of analytic automorphisms of S
is large enough then the symmetrical character of S depends only on the group
Aut+ (S). Moreover, Singerman obtained a necessary and sufficient condition for
the surface S to be symmetric and here we provide a slightly different proof of his
criterion.
Surfaces S with large analytic automorphism group Aut+ (S) are rather special
and, perhaps, the most interesting ones. In particular they are Belyi surfaces since
Aut+ (S) can be uniformized by a triangle Fuchsian group. This implies, by Belyi’s
Theorem, see [7], that S can be defined by polynomial equations whose coefficients
are algebraic numbers. Furthermore, by the recent results of Köck and Singerman
[66] and Köck and Lau [67] on symmetric Riemann surfaces with large group of
automorphisms, these algebraic numbers can be chosen to be real.
Chapter 2 is devoted to quantitative aspects of the theory; we deal with the
problem of finding the number of conjugacy classes of symmetries of Riemann sur-
faces. The study of symmetries that fix points comes back to the seminal work of
Natanzon [95] who proved, using deep topological methods, that a Riemann sur-
√
face of genus g has at most 2( g + 1) non-conjugate symmetries that fix points.
Moreover, he showed that this upper bound is attained for each value g of the form
g = (2n−1 − 1)2 . Later on, Bujalance, Gromadzki and Singerman proved in [24]
that these are the only values of g for which Natanzon’s bound is sharp. Moreover, if
the bound is attained then all the symmetries are non-separating. In the same article
the authors found an upper bound for the number of conjugacy classes of separating
symmetries of a surface of genus g.
At a first sight this bound seems to be a strictly increasing function of the
genus, but later on it was discovered that this is so only up to some extent. Indeed,
Gromadzki and Izquierdo proved in [53] that a Riemann surface of even genus has
at most four non-conjugate symmetries that fix points. This result was extended to
surfaces of odd genus by Bujalance, Gromadzki and Izquierdo in [23]. In that paper,
and for each odd genus, the authors found sharp upper bounds for the number of
such symmetries. We reprove these results in Sect. 2.2 of this chapter.
The search of an upper bound for the number of conjugacy classes of fixed point
free symmetries is much more involved. In Sect. 2.3 we provide an upper bound
Introduction xv
valid for those surfaces which have no symmetry with fixed points. The bound,
which depends only on the 2-adic part of g − 1, was obtained originally in [18] and
it was shown to be attained for infinitely many values of g.
Finally, in Sect. 2.4 we obtain an upper bound for the number of conjugacy
classes of symmetries of a genus g surface allowing both fixed point free symmetries
and symmetries with ovals. Once more it turns out that this bound depends only on
the 2-adic part of g − 1.
Chapter 3 deals with several enumerations of ovals of the symmetries of a
Riemann surface. Section 3.1 is crucial for the rest of the monograph; its main result
allows us to find the number of ovals of a symmetry of a Riemann surface S from the
algebraic structure of the full automorphism group Aut(S) and from the topologi-
cal type of the action of Aut(S) on S. It was originally established in [49]. As we
mentioned, a Riemann surface of even genus has at most four non-conjugate sym-
metries and, as an application of the result just quoted, Gromadzki and Izquierdo
found in [54] the maximal total number of ovals of such extremal configuration of
symmetries.
The problem of finding the maximal number of ovals of a fixed number k of non-
conjugate symmetries of a Riemann surface of genus g has been investigated by
many authors throughout the years. However, it has been solved in its full generality
just recently [56]. The first results, concerning low values of k, were obtained by
Natanzon in [96, 100, 105], where he showed that an upper bound for such number
is 2g + 2k−1 for k = 2, 3, 4 and characterized the pairs (g, k) for which this bound
is attained.
Later on, Singerman in [121] showed that for each non-negative integer k there
exist infinitely many values of g for which there exists a Riemann surface of genus
g admitting k non-conjugate symmetries having 2g − 2 + 2k−3(9 − k) ovals in total.
In his work, Singerman also conjectured that this is in fact the best possible upper
bound. This was shown by Gromadzki in [50] to be false for k > 9 by showing
that, for k ≥ 9, the maximal possible number of ovals is 2g − 2 + 2r−3 (9 − k),
where r is the smallest positive integer for which k ≤ 2r−1 . Moreover, this bound
is attained, for arbitrary k ≥ 9, for infinitely many values of g. Later on Natanzon
proved in [107] that Singerman’s conjecture is true under the additional assumption
that the symmetries are separating. The presentation of these results is the main goal
of Section 3.2.
It is worth mentioning that Singerman’s conjecture was found to be true for k = 9
in [50] and it was conjectured to be also true for k in range 5 ≤ k ≤ 8. This has
recently been answered in the affirmative by Gromadzki and Kozłowska-Walania
in [56].
Section 3.3 concerns the total number of ovals of all symmetries of a Riemann
surface. Recall that a simple closed curve on a Riemann surface S is said to be an
oval of S if it is an oval of some symmetry of S. Let S be the number of ovals of
S and let ν(g) be the maximum of S where S runs over all Riemann surfaces of
genus g. Using topological methods, Natanzon proved in [105] that ν(g) ≤ 42(g−1),
and Gromadzki improved this bound in [49] by using combinatorial methods. We
present the complete proofs of these results in this section.
xvi Introduction
Finally, Sect. 3.4 is devoted to the study of pairs of symmetries of Riemann

surfaces. A lot of work has been done in this topic, and we include in this section
some of the most relevant results. Once more the first and fundamental steps in this
kind of questions are due to Natanzon, who classified topologically in [102] pairs of
commuting symmetries.
Natanzon in [105] and later on Bujalance, Costa and Singerman in [21], found
an upper bound for the total number of ovals of two symmetries in terms of the
genus of the surface and the order of their product. A finer bound, which involves
the number of points fixed by the product of these symmetries, has been obtained
by Gromadzki and Kozłowska-Walania in [55].
On the other hand, it was proved in [21] that two symmetries σ1 and σ2 of a
genus g Riemann surface S having k1 and k2 ovals, where k1 + k2 ≥ g + 3, always
commute. In a recently published paper by Kozłowska-Walania [69], this bound has
been proved to be optimal to guarantee the commutativity of each pair of symmetries
of S, with one exception in each genus g > 2.
Another interesting result concerning pairs of symmetries was obtained by
Bujalance and Costa, who calculated in [19] upper bounds for the degree of hyper-
ellipticity of the product of two commuting symmetries. These upper bounds vary
according to the separating character of the symmetries and they depend just on the
numbers of their ovals. A nice improvement has been published by Kozłowska-
Walania in [68], where the upper bounds for the degree of hyperellipticity are
substituted by its precise values.
Izquierdo and Singerman showed in [63] that the existence of a symmetry whose
number of ovals is extremal, that is, either 0 or g + 1 where g is the genus of the
surface, imposes restrictions on the number of ovals of any other symmetry of the
same surface. They also found extra restrictions if the separating character of the
symmetries is considered. Later on, Costa and Izquierdo [34] showed that for every
admissible triple (g, k, ε) there exists a genus g surface admitting symmetries σ
and τ with topological types (g, k, ε) and (g, 1, 1), respectively. This result has a
deep consequence: the locus of symmetric Riemann surfaces of fixed genus g ≥ 2
is a connected subspace of the moduli space Mg of Riemann surfaces of genus g.
Of course this result is not new, but what is new is its proof. Klein conjectured it and
Seppälä provided a modern and complete proof in [111] by using strong deformation
of curves.
The study of the number of connected components of distinguished subspaces of
Mg is a recurrent theme in algebraic geometry. In fact the connectedness of the most
important subspaces is rather exceptional, as it was shown, for example, by Buser,
Seppälä and Silhol in [28]. In this article the authors study the subset of the moduli
space of stable curves of genus bigger than one consisting of curves admitting a
given finite group as a group of analytic automorphisms. They prove that this subset
is always compact, is not connected in general, and it is connected for the group of
order 2. In the same vein, it is worth mentioning that in the already quoted paper
[34], Costa and Izquierdo proved the disconnectedness of the subspace of p-gonal
Riemann surfaces of genus g for fixed values of p and g. This extends an earlier
theorem by Gross and Harris [59] only valid for p = 3.
Introduction xvii
The class of p-gonal surfaces has attracted the interest of many authors. In what
concerns symmetries, we quote here the result of Costa and Izquierdo in [35] where
they study the symmetries of cyclic p-gonal Riemann surfaces by means of Fuchsian
and NEC groups. To finish, it is worth mentioning the paper by Bujalance, Costa and
Gromadzki [20], where the behaviour of symmetries with maximal number of ovals
under non-ramified coverings is studied.
Chapter 4 is devoted to the presentation of classical selected examples. To begin
with, we study the Riemann sphere Σ in Sect. 4.1. It is elementary to show that the
maps σ1 : z → z̄ and σ2 : z → −1/z̄ are symmetries of Σ and that they are the only
ones, up to analytic conjugation. Section 4.2 is devoted to classify the symmetries
of the tori, for which we follow closely the approach by Alling [3]. Each torus is
presented as the orbit space C/L for a suitably arranged lattice L. The symmetrical
character of the torus and the topological type of its symmetries are expressed in
terms of the lattice L. As it is classical, the analysis requires the cases of square or
hexagonal lattices to be treated separately.
In Section 4.3 we explain how the complete classification of the symmetries of
hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces was obtained by the authors of this monograph in
their previous work [14]. This work is too extensive even to be completely summa-
rized here, but we explain an example in detail, showing how both the combinatorial
approach and the use of algebraic equations, combined with a topological method,
are fruitful in this case.
In Chap. 5 we deal with symmetries of surfaces S whose group of analytic au-
tomorphisms Aut+ (S) is large enough. Following [52], we call these symmetries
Singerman symmetries. As mentioned above, the symmetrical character of such sur-
faces depends only on Aut+ (S). In Sect. 5.1 we give formulae for the number of
ovals of the symmetries of such surfaces in terms of the orders of the isotropy groups
of some automorphisms acting on Aut+ (S), and the orders of some distinguished
elements in Aut+ (S). These results constitute a fundamental component in the de-
velopment of the next sections of this chapter.
The understanding of the symmetries of the so called Macbeath-Singerman sur-
faces is the goal of Sect. 5.2. These are genus g surfaces admitting the projective
special linear group PSL(2, q), where q is a prime power, as its group of analytic
automorphisms of the maximal order 84(g − 1). Klein [65] was the first to discover
the existence of such surfaces, as he showed that the group of analytic automor-
phisms of the genus 3 surface
S = {[x : y : z] ∈ P2 (C) : x3 y + y 3 z + z 3 x = 0},
known as the Klein quartic, is the projective special group PSL(2, 7) of order 168.
Macbeath [72] proved much later the existence of a unique Riemann surface of
genus 7 on which the group PSL(2, 8) of order 504 acts as its full group of analytic
automorphisms.
Following ideas of Singerman from [118], we show that all Macbeath-Singerman
surfaces are symmetric. We also determine the number of symmetries they admit,
which we call Macbeath-Singerman symmetries, and the topological type of each
xviii Introduction
of them. Remarkably, all of them are non-separating. These results were proved
for the first time by Broughton, Bujalance, Costa, Gamboa and Gromadzki in [8].
The proof we present here is quite different and relies heavily on the results of the
previous section of this chapter.
In the 1960’s, Accola [1] and Maclachlan [77] proved, independently, that for
every integer g ≥ 2 there is a compact Riemann surface Xg of genus g whose
automorphism group has order 8g + 8. It is called the Accola-Maclachlan surface
and it is defined by the polynomial equation y 2 = x2g+2 −1. The result is interesting
as 8g + 8 is the largest order of an automorphism group that can be attained for
every genus g. Much later, Kulkarni [70] considered the question of uniqueness of
the surfaces attaining this bound. It turns out that the Accola-Maclachlan surface Xg
is the unique one if g ≡ 0, 1, 2 (mod 4) and g sufficiently large. However, for large
enough g ≡ 3 (mod 4), Kulkarni also proved that, in addition to Xg , there exists
exactly one other surface, called Kulkarni surface, of genus g whose automorphism
group also has order 8g + 8.
In Sect. 5.3 we show that these surfaces are symmetric and, moreover, we deter-
mine the number of conjugacy classes of symmetries they admit and the topological
type of each of them. As in the example of Sect. 5.2, the proof proposed here re-
lies on the results in Sect. 5.1 and it is quite different from the original one which
appeared in [9].
It must be pointed out that the examples selected to this chapter are in some
sense exceptional because it has been possible to decide successfully the separating
character of each symmetry. But, of course, they are not the only ones. In their
paper [2], Akbas and Singerman not only calculated the number of ovals of the
symmetries of the modular surfaces X0 (N ) = H/Γ0 (N ), but also showed that they
are separating for N = 2, 3, 5, 7, 13 and non-separating for all other primes N .
The situation is slightly worse for the symmetries of the modular surfaces X(N ) =
H/Γ(N ). All of them are non-separating in case N ≡ 3 (mod 4) is prime but, as
far as we know, there is no general answer for primes N ≡ 1 (mod 4).
Another interesting example, that we do not explain in the monograph, is due to
Tyszkowska [126], who obtained sharp upper bounds for the number of ovals of the
symmetries of the Belyi surfaces admitting PSL(2, p) as its group of automorphisms.
Section 5.4 is devoted to finding polynomial equations of the sets of points fixed
by the symmetries of families of Riemann surfaces studied in the precedent ones.
The key point is the Galois theory of finite coverings, as explained to the authors by
P. Turbek. In fact Turbek is responsible for the original finding of equations of the
symmetries of the Accola-Maclachlan surfaces occurring in [9], but in this mono-
graph we have chosen a more geometrical approach. However, the presentation of
the part of this section concerning defining equations of the sets of points fixed by
the symmetries of the Kulkarni surfaces follows closely Turbek’s article [124].
It is convenient to explain a little bit the method employed. We begin with a plane
model of our Riemann surface S, possibly with singularities, defined as the zero set
in C2 of a polynomial P ∈ C[X, Y ]. A symmetry σ of S can be seen as an involution
of the quotient field EP of the coordinate ring C[X, Y ]/(P ) of S. We look for a
different polynomial Q ∈ R[X, Y ] which also defines S. Then the quotient fields
Introduction xix
EP and EQ are isomorphic via a birational isomorphism, say ϕ : EP → EQ . With

respect to these new coordinates, the symmetry σ = ϕ−1 ◦ σ ◦ ϕ acts as complex
conjugation:
σ (i) = −i ; σ (X) = X ; σ (Y ) = Y,
√
where i = −1. Observe that the fixed points of σ are the real solutions of the
equation Q(X, Y ) = 0.
We finish this work about symmetries with a few words about asymmetric sur-
faces, that is, surfaces admitting no symmetry. Such surfaces have recently played
an important role in the study of deformations and moduli of complex surfaces, as
in the paper [29] by Catanese, where the author finds a counterexample to a conjec-
ture of Friedman and Morgan relating diffeomorphisms and deformations of such
complex surfaces.
Let Mg be the moduli space of complex isomorphism classes of complex alge-
braic curves of genus g ≥ 2. Since Mg is a quasiprojective variety defined in some
projective space Pn (C) by means of polynomials with real (in fact rational) coeffi-
cients, complex conjugation induces an anticonformal involution σg∗ : Mg → Mg .
Let MR g be the complex moduli space of real algebraic curves of genus g, which con-
sists of complex isomorphism classes of complex algebraic curves that are defined
by real polynomials. It is clear that the set Fix(σg∗ ) of points fixed by σg∗ contains
MR R
g but, as observed by Clifford Earle in [40], the inclusion Mg ⊂ Fix(σg ) is
∗
proper. The asymmetric curves are precisely those whose isomorphism classes oc-
cur in the difference Fix(σg∗ ) \ MR g . Seppälä showed in [110] that every asymmetric
curve is in fact a covering of a real algebraic curve.
It is classical that for any integer g > 2 there exists a compact Riemann surface
of genus g whose group of analytic automorphisms is trivial. Indeed, Greenberg
proved in [47] that outside a proper analytic subset of the Teichmüller space, all
compact Riemann surfaces of genus g ≥ 3 have the identity as its only analytic
automorphism. However, it is not easy to construct examples of such surfaces. It
is worth mentioning the paper by Mednykh [91] who constructed, for each pair of
integers (p, r), where p > 3 is prime and r ≥ 2p, a fundamental region of a Fuchsian
group which uniformizes a compact Riemann surface of genus g = (p− 1)(r − 1)/2
with trivial automorphism group.
Later on, Everitt in [42] found new examples for all g > 2, using Schreier
coset graphs for subgroups of triangle groups. Combining covering theory with
Galois theory of algebraic function fields in one variable, Turbek [123, 125] pro-
vided defining equations of compact Riemann surfaces with trivial group of analytic
automorphisms.
In the same vein, Earle in [40] was the first to find examples of pseudo-real
Riemann surfaces, that is, surfaces without symmetries but with orientation revers-
ing automorphisms. Later on, Bujalance and Turbek constructed in [26] algebraic
equations of the elements of an infinite family of pseudo-real Riemann surfaces. The
construction we present in Chap. 6 is a particular case of the one in [26].
More recently, Bujalance, Conder and Costa in [17] have shown that there exist
pseudo-real Riemann surfaces of genus g for each g ≥ 2 and, furthermore, that the
xx Introduction
maximum number of automorphisms of such a surface is 12(g − 1). This bound

turns out to be sharp for infinitely many values of g.
Another instance of pseudo-real surfaces occurs in [13], where Riemann surfaces
of even genus g with an orientation reversing automorphism of order 2g are studied.
These surfaces constitute a family of real dimension three and “most” (but not all)
of them are asymmetric. In fact, a defining algebraic equation depending on three
real parameters can be given for each such surface and it turns out that those which
are symmetric depend just on two parameters.
Chapter 1
Preliminaries
In this chapter we present some preliminary results concerning, mostly, the

representation of a compact Riemann S as the orbit space of the hyperbolic plane H
under the action of a surface Fuchsian group Γ. This is a consequence of the Uni-
formization Theorem for Riemann surfaces. The main point here is that if S = H/Γ
is symmetric then its full automorphism group Aut(S) is a factor group Λ/Γ where
Λ is a proper NEC group containing Γ as a normal subgroup.
We will recall the algebraic structure of NEC groups, which is codified by their
signatures, and emphasize the relation between the signatures of a pair of NEC
groups Γ and Λ, where the first one is a normal subgroup of the second one.
Special attention will be paid to maximal signatures and maximal NEC groups,
since they are closely related to full automorphism groups of surfaces. Of course,
this chapter also contains the basics about the main protagonists of this monograph,
namely, symmetric surfaces and their symmetries.
1.1 NEC Groups and Their Signatures
The Uniformization Theorem for Riemann surfaces says that every compact Rie-
mann surface S of genus bigger than one is the orbit space of the hyperbolic plane
H under the action of a certain subgroup of the group Aut+ (H) of analytic self-
homeomorphisms of H. Since H is simply connected, every analytic automorphism
of S can be lifted to an analytic self-homeomorphism of H. Analogously, every ori-
entation reversing automorphism of S (a symmetry, for instance) can be lifted to an
antianalytic self-homeomorphism of H. We start this section with a description of
the group Aut(H) of analytic and antianalytic self-homeomorphisms of H.
As a trivial consequence of the maximal modulus principle, it follows that
Aut(H) is the following disjoint union:

az + b
Aut(H) = f :z→
with {a, b, c, d} ⊂ R and ad − bc > 0 ∪
cz + d

az̄ + b
∪ f :z→ with {a, b, c, d} ⊂ R and ad − bc < 0 .
cz̄ + d
E. Bujalance et al., Symmetries of Compact Riemann Surfaces, 1

Lecture Notes in Mathematics 2007, DOI 10.1007/978-3-642-14828-6 1,

2 1 Preliminaries
The elements of Aut(H) are called automorphisms of H. The first set of this union
is the subgroup Aut+ (H) of analytic automorphisms of H. It consists of the orien-
tation preserving hyperbolic isometries of H, while the orientation reversing ones
are those in the second set.
Let GL(2, R) be the group of 2 × 2 non-singular matrices with real entries. It is
clear that the mapping

ab
GL(2, R) → Aut(H) ; A = → fA
cd
where ⎧
⎪ az + b
⎪
⎪ cz + d if det A > 0,
⎨
fA : H → C ; z →
⎪
⎪
⎪
⎩ az̄ + b if det A < 0,
cz̄ + d
is a group epimorphism. Its kernel {λI2 : λ ∈ R∗ }, where I2 is the identity matrix,
is the center C(GL(2, R)) of GL(2, R). Therefore we identify Aut(H) with the
factor group PGL(2, R) = GL(2, R)/C(GL(2, R)). Consequently, Aut(H) is a
topological group and it makes sense to talk about its discrete subgroups.
Definitions 1.1.1. Let Γ be a subgroup of Aut(H).
(1) We say that Γ is a non-euclidean crystallographic group (shortly, NEC group)
if it is a discrete subgroup and the orbit space H/Γ is compact.
(2) An NEC group Γ is said to be a Fuchsian group if it is contained in Aut+ (H).
Otherwise Γ is said to be a proper NEC group.
(3) Given a proper NEC group Γ, its subgroup Γ+ = Γ ∩ Aut+ (H), consisting of
its orientation preserving elements, is called its canonical Fuchsian subgroup.
Obviously, [Γ : Γ+ ] = 2, and Γ+ is the unique subgroup of index 2 in Γ
contained in Aut+ (H).
If Γ is an NEC group then the orbit space H/Γ can be endowed with a dianalytic
structure, see [4, Theorem 1.8.4]. A fundamental region for Γ can be constructed as
a convex bounded hyperbolic polygon with a finite number of sides. A modification
of the region and a suitable labelling of the edges provides the following canonical
surface symbol:
(+) α1 β1 α1 β1 . . . αg βg αg βg ξ1 ξ1 . . . ξr ξr ε1 γ10 . . . γ1s1 ε1 . . . εk γk0 . . . γksk εk
if H/Γ is orientable, or
(−) α1 α∗1 . . . αg α∗g ξ1 ξ1 . . . ξr ξr ε1 γ10 . . . γ1s1 ε1 . . . εk γk0 . . . γksk εk
otherwise. A primed edge is paired to the corresponding unprimed edge by means

of an orientation preserving automorphism while a starred edge is paired to the
corresponding unstarred edge through an orientation reversing automorphism.
1.1 NEC Groups and Their Signatures 3
Taking into account the surface symbol, it is possible to obtain the following
presentation of the group Γ:
generators:
– x1 , . . . , xr (elliptic elements),
– c10 , . . . , c1s1 , . . . , ck0 , . . . , cksk (reflections),
– e1 , . . . , ek (orientation preserving elements, usually hyperbolic and in some
cases elliptic),
– a1 , b1 , . . . , ag , bg (hyperbolic translations) in case (+),
– d1 , . . . , dg (glide reflections) in case (−),
and relations:
– xmi
i
= 1 for i = 1, . . . , r,
– cisi = e−1i ci0 ei for i = 1, . . . , k,
– c2ij−1 = c2ij = (cij−1 cij )nij = 1 for i = 1, . . . , k and j = 1, . . . , si ,
– x1 · · · xr e1 · · · ek a1 b1 a−1 −1 −1 −1
1 b1 · · · ag bg ag bg = 1 in case (+),
2 2
– x1 · · · xr e1 · · · ek d1 · · · dg = 1 in case (−).
Throughout the monograph, a set of generators as the above one will be called a
set of canonical generators of Γ.
The first presentations for NEC groups appeared in [128] and their structure was
clarified by the introduction of signatures in [73].
Definitions 1.1.2. Let g, k be non-negative integers and let mi for i = 1, . . . , r,
and nij for i = 1, . . . , k and j = 1, . . . , si , be integers ≥ 2.
(1) An abstract signature is a collection of symbols and non-negative integers of
the form
s = (g; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {(n11 , . . . , n1s1 ), . . . , (nk1 , . . . , nksk )}). (1.1)
The non-negative integer g is called the orbit genus of s. If the sign “+”
appears then we write sign(s) = “+”; otherwise sign(s) = “−”. The inte-
gers m1 , . . . , mr are called the proper periods of s and the nij are called the
link periods of the period cycle (ni1 , . . . , nisi ). An empty set of proper periods,
(i.e., r = 0), will be denoted by [−], an empty period cycle (i.e., si = 0) by
(−), and the fact that s has no period cycles (i.e., k = 0) by {−}.
(2) Given an NEC group Γ with the above presentation, the signature (1.1) is de-
fined as its signature s(Γ), the sign of s(Γ) being “+” in the case (+) and “−”
otherwise. The orbit genus of s(Γ) is usually called the orbit genus of Γ.
(3) Since a Fuchsian group contains no orientation reversing elements, its signa-
ture has no period cycles and its sign is always “+”. Hence we may drop such
data and in the sequel the signature of a Fuchsian group will be represented
simply by
(g; m1 , . . . , mr ).
Signatures of the form (0; k, , m), that we abbreviate as [k, , m], are called
triangle Fuchsian signatures. Fuchsian groups with such signatures are called
triangle Fuchsian groups.
4 1 Preliminaries
(4) A signature of the form s = (0; +; [−]; {(n1 , . . . , ns )}) will be abbreviated
as (n1 , . . . , ns ), when no confusion can arise. If s = 3 then s is called trian-
gle NEC signature. NEC groups with these signatures are called triangle NEC
groups.
In the obvious manner, a presentation of an NEC group Γ can be read from its
signature. In fact, signatures give a procedure to classify NEC groups up to isomor-
phism, as it was proved by Macbeath [73] and Wilkie [128].
Proposition 1.1.3. Let Γ be an NEC group with signature s = s(Γ) as in (1.1). Let
Γ be another NEC group with signature
s = s(Γ ) = (g ; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {(n11 , . . . , n1s1 ), . . . , (nk 1 , . . . , nk s )}).

k
Let us write Ci = (ni1 , . . . , nisi ) and Ci = (ni1 , . . . , nis ). Then Γ and Γ are
i
isomorphic as abstract groups if and only if
(1) sign(s) = sign(s ),
(2) g = g , r = r , k = k and si = si for i = 1, . . . , k,
(3) mi = mϕ(i) for a permutation ϕ of {1, . . . , r},
(4) if sign(s) = “+” then there exists a permutation φ of {1, . . . , k} such that one
of the following conditions holds true:
(4a) Ci is a cyclic permutation of Cφ(i) for each i ∈ {1, . . . , k} or
(4b) Ci is a cyclic permutation of the inverse of Cφ(i) for each i ∈ {1, . . . , k},
(5) if sign(s) = “−” then there exists a permutation φ of {1, . . . , k} such that
Ci is a cyclic permutation of either Cφ(i) or of the inverse of Cφ(i) , for each
i ∈ {1, . . . , k}.
If the sign is “+” then the corresponding period cycles are all paired in the same
way (either all directly or all inversely). If the sign is “−” then some period cycles
may be paired directly and some inversely.
In addition to this algebraic information, the signature of an NEC group Γ also
provides topological information about the canonical projection H → H/Γ, see
Proposition 1.1.4 below.
Let Γ be an NEC group and consider the canonical projection f : H → H/Γ. At
each point p ∈ H, the map f behaves locally as z → z m (see [4, Sect. 5] for a more
rigorous statement). The integer m is the ramification index of f at p; we say that
f is ramified at p if m > 1. The ramified points of f are precisely those fixed by
orientation preserving elements of Γ. The elliptic elements of Γ fixing p constitute a
cyclic group, whose order is the ramification index of f at such a point. Moreover, it
turns out that all the points in the same fiber as p have the same ramification index.
We say that f (p) is a branch point of f with branching order m. The next result
collects the topological interpretation of s(Γ), as proved by Wilkie in [128].
Proposition 1.1.4. Let Γ be an NEC group with signature (1.1) and let S = H/Γ.
Then:
(1) g is the topological genus of S.
1.1 NEC Groups and Their Signatures 5
(2) sign(s(Γ)) = “+” if and only if S is orientable.

(3) The integers m1 , . . . , mr are the branching orders with respect to the canonical
projection H → H/Γ of the r conic points lying in the interior of S.
(4) The integer k is the number of connected components of the boundary of S.
(5) The integers ni1 , . . . , nisi are the branching orders with respect to the canon-
ical projection H → H/Γ of the si corner points lying on the i-th connected
component of the boundary of S.
For simplicity, g, k and “ ± ” are called the topological data of the projection
H → H/Γ, whilst the integers mi and nij are its branching data. This proposition
shows that the knowledge of the topological and branching data of the projection
H → H/Γ is equivalent to that of the signature of Γ.
The next lemma gives the relation between the elements of finite order in an NEC
group (reflections and elliptic isometries) and a set of canonical generators. It is well
known but, for the sake of completeness, we present a proof here.
Lemma 1.1.5. Any reflection of an NEC group is conjugate to one of its canonical
reflections. Any elliptic element is conjugate either to a power of some of its canon-
ical elliptic generators or to a power of the product of two consecutive canonical
reflections.
Proof. Let be the axis of a reflection c in an NEC group Γ. Then there exists γ ∈ Γ
for which γ () meets an edge of a given fundamental region F of Γ. Since γ () is
the set of fixed points of γ cγ −1 , the last is a canonical reflection, which proves the
first part of the statement. Similarly, if p is the fixed point of an elliptic element
x then γ (p) ∈ F for some γ ∈ Γ and, on the other hand, it is the fixed point of
xγ = γ xγ −1 . Therefore γ (p) is a vertex of F and xγ is a power of some canon-
ical elliptic generator of Γ or a power of the product of two consecutive canonical
reflections.

Remark 1.1.6. It follows from the presentation of an NEC group that the number
of conjugacy classes of reflections associated to a period cycle with v > 0 even link
periods is v. If the period cycle is empty or all its link periods are odd then all
reflections associated to such period cycle are pairwise conjugate.
Definition 1.1.7. Let s be an abstract signature as given in (1.1) and define η = 2
if sign(s) = “+” and η = 1 otherwise. The area of s is defined to be
⎛ ⎞
r k si
1 1 1 ⎠
Area(s) = 2π ⎝ηg + k − 2 + 1− + 1− .
i=1
m i 2 i=1 j=1
n ij
Part (1) in the following result justifies this definition, see [22].
Theorem 1.1.8. Let Γ be an NEC group with signature s(Γ).
(1) The hyperbolic area of any fundamental region for Γ is Area(s(Γ)). It makes
sense to call area of the NEC group Γ to such common value. We denote it by
Area(Γ).
6 1 Preliminaries
(2) The signature s is the signature of some NEC group Γ if and only if Area(s) > 0
and sign(s) = “+” if g = 0.
(3) If Γ is a subgroup of finite index of an NEC group Γ then Γ is also an NEC
group and the so called Hurwitz–Riemann formula holds:
Area(Γ ) = Area(Γ)[Γ : Γ ].
In what follows we shall say that an abstract signature s is an NEC (respectively

Fuchsian) signature if it is the signature of an NEC (respectively Fuchsian) group.
1.2 Normal Subgroups of NEC Groups
A fundamental tool in the combinatorial study of compact Riemann surfaces and

their automorphisms is the relation between the signature of an NEC group and
the signatures of its normal subgroups of finite index. In a series of papers [10–12]
written at the beginning of the eighties, E. Bujalance developed a method to deal
with this problem based on surgery of fundamental regions. It is also worth men-
tioning the article by J. A. Bujalance [27], where normal subgroups of even index
are considered, and the papers by Hoare [60] and Singerman [116], who employed
a rather different approach. We refer the interested reader to [22], where unified
proofs together with the references to the original papers can be found.
Throughout this section we shall assume that Γ and Λ are NEC groups with Γ a
normal subgroup of Λ of index N. The signature of Λ will have the general form
given in (1.1). Our goal is to determine the signature of Γ, which clearly depends
on how Γ is embedded in Λ. We will describe the relations between the signs, the
sets of proper periods and the sets of period cycles of s(Λ) and s(Γ). Once we
know them, the relation between the orbit genera of both groups is a straightforward
consequence of the Hurwitz–Riemann formula.
To deal with the problem of finding the links between the signs we need to in-
troduce some notions. A canonical generator of Λ not belonging to Γ is said to be a
proper generator of Λ with respect to Γ. An element of Λ which is expressable as a
composition of proper generators of Λ is said to be a word of Λ with respect to Γ.
Finally, such a word is said to be orientable if it represents an orientation preserving
element and non-orientable otherwise. With these definitions at hand we can state
the following result.
Theorem 1.2.1. With the above notations, we have:
(1) If N is odd then the signs of s(Λ) and s(Γ) coincide.
(2) If N is even then s(Γ) has sign “ − ” if and only if Γ contains either a glide
reflection of the canonical generators of Λ or a non-orientable word in Λ.
Concerning the sets of proper periods the following theorem holds.

1.2 Normal Subgroups of NEC Groups 7
Theorem 1.2.2. Let {(cij−1 , cij ) : i ∈ I, j ∈ Ji } be the set of all pairs of consecu-
tive canonical reflections in Λ \ Γ. Let let qij be the order of the image in Λ/Γ of the
product cij−1 cij , for i ∈ I and j ∈ Ji , and let p denote the order of the image in
Λ/Γ of the canonical elliptic generator x of Λ corresponding to the proper period
m . Then the proper periods of s(Γ) are the following:
. . . .ij., nij /qij : = 1, . . . , r, i ∈ I, j ∈ Ji ].

. . . , m /p , nij /qij , .N/2q
[m /p , N/p
Finally we shall present results concerning the sets of period cycles. If N is odd
then all reflections of Λ belong to Γ, which makes things much easier.
Theorem 1.2.3. Let N be odd. Then each period cycle C = (n1 , . . . , ns ) of s(Λ)
induces N/ period cycles of s(Γ), all of them having the form
(n1 , . . . , ns , . . ., n1 , . . . , ns ),
where is the order in Λ/Γ of the image of the canonical hyperbolic generator of Λ
corresponding to the period cycle C.
The case of even N is more involved and we divide it into two subcases.
Theorem 1.2.4. Let N be even, let C = (n1 , . . . , ns ) be one of the period cycles
of s(Λ) and let be defined as in the previous theorem. Assume that all canonical
reflections corresponding to C belong to Γ. Then C produces N/ period cycles in
s(Γ) of the form
(n1 , . . . , ns , . . ., n1 , . . . , ns )
if the sign of s(Λ) is “ − ”. If the sign is “+” then there exists a non-negative integer
N1 ≤ N/ such that C produces N1 period cycles in s(Γ) of the above form and
N/ − N1 period cycles in s(Γ) of the form
(ns , . . . , n1 , . . ., ns , . . . , n1 ).
The last result deals with the remaining case, that is, not all reflections of a given
period cycle of s(Λ) belong to Γ.
Theorem 1.2.5. Let N be even, let C = (n1 , . . . , ns ) be a non-empty period cycle
of s(Λ) and let {e, c0 , . . . , cs } be the set of canonical generators of Λ corresponding
to C. Assume that the set
J = {(i, j) ∈ {1, . . . , s} × {0, . . . , s − 1} : i ≤ j, ci−1 , cj+1 ∈ Γ, ci , . . . , cj ∈ Γ}
is not empty. Denote by n(i, j) the order of the image of ci−1 cj+1 in Λ/Γ. Then,
for each pair (i, j) ∈ J, the numbers ni and nj are even and s(Γ) has N/2n(i, j)
period cycles, each of them consisting of n(i, j) copies of the periods
nj+1 /2, nj , nj−1 , . . . , ni+1 , ni /2, ni+1 , . . . , nj ,
where the quotients nj+1 /2 and ni /2 are omitted if they are equal to 1.
8 1 Preliminaries
Remark 1.2.6. The proper periods and period cycles of s(Γ) are exactly those
induced by the ones of s(Λ) and described in the above theorems. There are no
more proper periods or period cycles in s(Γ).
An immediate consequence of the above results is the following corollary, originally
proved by Singerman [119]. We provide a different proof which, however, is not a
consequence of the above results. The corollary is essential in the study of symmet-
ric Riemann surfaces since, up to certain extent, it describes how the symmetry type
of a Riemann surface S (see Definition 1.5.5) depends just on the topological data
of the action on S of the group Aut+ (S) of all analytic automorphisms of S, see
Sect. 1.5.1.
Corollary 1.2.7. If
s(Γ) = (g; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {(n11 , . . . , n1s1 ), . . . , (nk1 , . . . , nksk )})
is the signature of the NEC group Γ then the signature of its canonical Fuchsian
subgroup Γ+ is
s(Γ+ ) = (ηg + k − 1; m1 , m1 , . . . , mr , mr , n11 , . . . , n1s1 , . . . , nk1 , . . . , nksk ),
where η = 2 if sign(s(Γ)) = “+” and η = 1 otherwise.
Proof. We have to look for conjugacy classes in Γ+ of elliptic elements of Γ. Let

γ ∈ Γ \ Γ+ . Each canonical elliptic element xi of Γ and its conjugate xγi belong
to Γ+ and they are not conjugate there. Indeed, let p be the fixed point of xi
γ + −1
and assume that xα i = xi for some α ∈ Γ . Then p is fixed by α γ and there-
fore α−1 γ = xm i for some m ∈ Z, a contradiction. Furthermore, for each δ ∈ Γ,
the element xδi is conjugate in Γ+ either to xi or to xγi , according to whether δ
belongs to Γ+ or not. Moreover, cij−1 cij ∈ Γ+ and for any γ ∈ Γ \ Γ+ we have
(cij−1 cij )γ = (cij cij−1 )γcij−1 . Finally, the orbit genus of Γ+ can be calculated
using the Hurwitz–Riemann formula. So the result follows.

Remark 1.2.8. Corollary 1.2.7 also follows directly from a more general result of
Singerman [116] about the relation between the signatures of two Fuchsian groups
Λ1 and Λ2 , where Λ1 is a subgroup of Λ2 but not necessarily a normal one.
1.3 Centralizers of Reflections
In order to classify topologically a symmetry σ of a compact Riemann surface we

will have to count the number of connected components of the set of points fixed
by σ. To that end, the description of centralizers of reflections in an NEC group
plays a crucial role, see Theorem 3.1.1. Singerman found in his Ph. D. Thesis [115]
the isomorphism type of centralizers of reflections in NEC groups. In this section
we show how to find explicit generators for these centralizers.
1.3 Centralizers of Reflections 9
Lemma 1.3.1. Let c0 , . . . , cs , e be a set of canonical generators corresponding to a

period cycle (n1 , . . . , ns ) of an NEC group Λ. If all ni are even then the centralizer
C(Λ, ci ) of ci in Λ equals

(1) ci ⊕ (ci−1 ci )ni /2 ∗ (ci ci+1 )ni+1 /2 = Z2 ⊕ (Z2 ∗ Z2 ) if s = 0, i = 0,
(2) c0 ⊕ (ecs−1 e−1 c0 )ns /2 ∗ (c0 c1 )n1 /2 = Z2 ⊕ (Z2 ∗ Z2 ) if s = 0, i = 0,
(3) c0 ⊕ e = Z2 ⊕ Z if s = 0.
Proof. Observe that in each case the centralizer C(Λ, ci ) contains the group in the
statement. We shall prove the converse inclusions. For i = 0, let γ i−1 , γ i , γ i+1 be
the edges of a fundamental region F corresponding to ci−1 , ci , ci+1 . Let be the
hyperbolic line containing γ i . Then for λ ∈ Λ, the product λci λ−1 is a reflection
with axis λ(). So Λ centralizes ci if and only if λ() = , or equivalently, if and only
if λ(F) is adjacent to . The element (ci−1 ci )ni /2 (ci ci+1 )ni+1 /2 is the composition
of two half-turns with respect to the ends of γ i and so it is a hyperbolic isometry
with axis and whose translation length equals twice the hyperbolic length of γ i .
Now, composing some power of (ci−1 ci )ni /2 (ci ci+1 )ni+1 /2 with ci (ci ci+1 )ni+1 /2
we produce an element λ ∈ Λ such that λ(F) is an arbitrary face adjacent to and
lying on the same side as F with respect to . On the other hand, composing this last
with ci we produce an element μ ∈ Λ such that μ(F) is an arbitrary face adjacent to
and lying on the opposite side as F with respect to .
The case i = 0 is similar; actually one must repeat the above arguments for the
triple of reflections ecs−1 e−1 , c0 , c1 .
For s = 0, the orientation preserving element e fixes . So F and e(F) have a
common edge and both of them are adjacent to . Hence, for a suitable choice of k,
ek (F) is an arbitrary face adjacent to and lying on the same side as F with respect
to , while considering c0 ek (F) we obtain an arbitrary face lying on the other side
as F with respect to . Therefore, when k runs over all integers and ε = 0 or 1, the
product cε0 ek runs over all elements of the centralizer of c0 .

Using similar ideas we prove the following.
Lemma 1.3.2. Let e, c0 , . . . , cs be a set of canonical generators corresponding to
a period cycle (n1 , . . . , ns ) of an NEC group Λ and let C(Λ, ci ) be the centralizer
in Λ of ci .
(1) If s = 0 and all ni are odd then
s−1

(ni+1 −1)/2 −1
C(Λ, c0 ) = c0 ⊕ (ci+1 ci ) e .
i=0
(2) If ni , nj are even and ni+1 , . . . , nj−1 are odd, with i < j ≤ s, then

C(Λ, ci ) = ci ⊕ (ci−1 ci )ni /2 ∗ x−1 (cj−1 cj )nj /2 x ,
where x = (cj−2 cj−1 )(nj−1 −1)/2 · · · (ci ci+1 )(ni+1 −1)/2 .

10 1 Preliminaries
(3) If ni , nj are even and ni+1 , . . . , ns , n1 , . . . , nj−1 are odd, with 1 ≤ j ≤ i, then
C(Λ, ci ) = ci ⊕ ( (ci−1 ci )ni /2 ∗ x−1 (cj−1 cj )nj /2 x),

where

j−1
s−i−1
(nj−t −1)/2 −1
x= (cj−1−t cj−t ) e (cs−1−t cs−t )(ns−t −1)/2 .
t=1 t=0
Proof. The element

β = e(cs−1 cs )(ns −1)/2 · · · (c1 c2 )(n2 −1)/2 (c0 c1 )(n1 −1)/2
belongs to C(Λ, c0 ), which gives one of the inclusions in (1). For the converse, let
F be a fundamental region for Λ and let γ 0 , γ 1 , . . . , γ s be the part of the surface
symbol for F corresponding to the period cycle (n1 , . . . , ns ). The axis of c0 splits
into intervals being edges of the images of F abuting , each segment having a label
from the surface symbol to which it belongs. Now for λ ∈ Λ, the conjugate λc0 λ−1
is a reflection with axis λ(). So Λ centralizes c0 if and only if λ() = , while
the last is true if and only if λ(F) abuts on an edge labelled by γ 0 . Thus there is
a bijective correspondence between segments of labelled by γ 0 and elements of
C(Λ, c0 ). Finally,
(ci ci+1 )(ni+1 −1)/2 ci (ci ci+1 )−(ni+1 −1)/2 = ci+1 and ecs e−1 = c0 .
So the segment labelled by γ i is followed by γ i+1 for i = 0, . . . , s − 1 while
γ s is followed by γ 0 . Therefore γ 0 , γ 1 , . . . , γ s , γ 0 are the labels of consecutive
segments on and this labelling repeats on periodically. Hence c0 and β generate
C(Λ, c0 ) indeed. Proofs of claims (2) and (3) are similar and we omit them.

Of particular interest in this monograph is the description of the centralizers of
the canonical reflections of a triangle NEC group. For further reference, we display
the corresponding result in Lemma 1.3.3. The fact that two reflections ci and cj are
conjugate will be denoted by ci ∼ cj .
Lemma 1.3.3. Let Λ be an NEC group with signature (k , , m ) and let c0 , c1 , c2
be a set of its canonical generators. Then, according to the parity of k , , m , the
centralizers in Λ of the reflections c0 , c1 and c2 are the following:
(1) For k = 2k, = 2 and m = 2m we have

C(Λ, c0 ) = c0 ⊕ (c0 c1 )k ∗ (c0 c2 )m ,

C(Λ, c1 ) = c1 ⊕ (c0 c1 )k ∗ (c1 c2 ) ,

C(Λ, c2 ) = c2 ⊕ (c0 c2 )m ∗ (c1 c2 ) .
(2) For k = 2k, = 2 and m = 2m + 1 we have c0 ∼ c2 and

C(Λ, c0 ) = c0 ⊕ (c0 c1 )k ∗ (c2 c0 )m (c2 c1 ) (c0 c2 )m ,
C(Λ, c1 ) = c1 ⊕ (c0 c1 )k ∗ (c1 c2 ) .
1.4 Uniformization and Automorphism Groups of Riemann and Klein Surfaces 11
(3) For k = 2k, = 2 + 1 and m = 2m + 1 we have c0 ∼ c1 ∼ c2 and

C(Λ, c0 ) = c0 ⊕ (c0 c1 )k ∗ (c2 c0 )m (c1 c2 ) (c1 c0 )k (c2 c1 ) (c0 c2 )m .
(4) For k = 2k + 1, = 2 + 1 and m = 2m + 1 we have c0 ∼ c1 ∼ c2 and

C(Λ, c0 ) = c0 ⊕ (c2 c0 )m (c1 c2 ) (c0 c1 )k .
1.4 Uniformization and Automorphism Groups of Riemann

and Klein Surfaces
A classical Riemann surface is a topological surface without boundary together with

an analytic structure. This analytic structure makes the surface orientable. However,
non-orientable surfaces or orientable surfaces with boundary may admit a dianalytic
structure, which behaves in many aspects as the analytic structure of a classical
Riemann surface. Roughly speaking, a dianalytic structure is given by an atlas
whose transition functions are either analytic or antianalytic (a function is antiana-
lytic if it is the composite of an analytic function with complex conjugation). The
only way in which such a non-classical surface X arises is as the orbit space of a
classical Riemann surface S under the action of an antianalytic involution. Such an
orbit space is usually known as Klein surface. For the time being, this is the defi-
nition of Klein surface we shall use. The book [4] of Alling and Greenleaf and the
extensive article [106] of Natanzon are excellent references for the basics on Klein
surfaces.
We define the genus of X as that of S. Although we shall study in detail the
symmetries of the sphere and the tori, throughout this monograph, unless otherwise
stated, the surfaces considered will be compact of genus ≥ 2. As said above, if Γ is
an NEC group then the orbit space H/Γ admits a structure of compact Klein surface.
The importance of NEC groups comes from the fact that, under certain restrictions,
the converse is also true. To explain this we need the notion of surface NEC group.
Definition 1.4.1. An NEC group Γ having signature
s(Γ) = (g; ±; [−]; {(−), . k. ., (−)}), k ≥ 0
is said to be a surface group. If k > 0 then Γ is a bordered surface group. Equiv-

alently, an NEC group Γ is a surface group if and only if it has no non-trivial
orientation preserving element of finite order.
It follows from the Uniformization Theorem that surface Fuchsian groups uni-
formize compact Riemann surfaces. Likewise, surface NEC groups uniformize
compact Klein surfaces. In fact, let X = S/ σ be a compact Klein surface, where
S is a compact Riemann surface and σ : S → S is an antianalytic involution.
If S = H/Λ for some surface Fuchsian group Λ and c : H → H is a lifting of σ,
then the group Γ = Λ, c generated by Λ and c is a surface NEC group such that
X = H/Γ. This shows the following.
12 1 Preliminaries
Theorem 1.4.2. Let X be a compact Klein surface of genus ≥ 2. Then there exists
a surface NEC group Γ such that X = H/Γ as Klein surfaces.
Remark 1.4.3. (1) If X is the orbit space of the compact Riemann surface S under
the action of the antianalytic involution σ and Γ is as above, then S = H/Γ+
as compact Riemann surfaces and σ = Γ/Γ+ , where Γ+ is the canonical
Fuchsian subgroup of Γ.
(2) If we write the Klein surfaces X and X as H/Γ and H/Γ respectively, then
X and X are isomorphic if and only if Γ and Γ are conjugate in the group
Aut(H).
Theorem 1.4.2, together with the classification of NEC groups by means of signa-
tures, opens the door to the combinatorial approach to the theory of Klein surfaces
and their automorphism groups. We now summarize some general results concern-
ing automorphisms of Klein surfaces due to May [82]. The full group of dianalytic
automorphisms of the Klein surface X will be denoted by Aut(X).
Theorem 1.4.4. Let Aut(X) be the full group of automorphisms of the Klein sur-
face X = H/Γ and let N(Γ) be the normalizer of the surface NEC group Γ in
Aut(H). Then,
(1) N(Γ) is an NEC group.
(2) Aut(X) N(Γ)/Γ.
(3) A group G is a subgroup of Aut(X) if and only if it is isomorphic to a factor
group Λ/Γ for some NEC group Λ containing Γ as a normal subgroup.
Remark 1.4.5. If X is not a Klein surface but a Riemann surface S (in which case
Γ is not a surface NEC group but a surface Fuchsian group) then the above holds
true provided that Aut(S) stands for the full group of analytic and antianalytic au-
tomorphisms of S.
Given an NEC group Λ, a factor group Λ/Γ, where Γ is a surface Fuchsian group,
will be called a smooth factor. An epimorphism θ : Λ → G onto a finite group G,
whose kernel is a surface Fuchsian group, will be called a smooth epimorphism.
Observe that a necessary and sufficient condition for an epimorphism θ : Λ → G
to be smooth is that θ preserves the orders of the elements of Λ of finite order. So
an action of a finite group G on the Riemann surface H/Γ is defined by a smooth
epimorphism θ : Λ → G where Λ is an NEC group and ker θ = Γ.
Moreover, two such actions given by θ : Λ → G and θ : Λ → G are said to be
topologically equivalent if there exists a commutative diagram
Λ
ϕ
/ Λ
θ θ

G
ψ
/ G
for some group isomorphisms ϕ : Λ → Λ and ψ : G → G .

1.4 Uniformization and Automorphism Groups of Riemann and Klein Surfaces 13
1.4.1 Maximal NEC Groups
It is a rather difficult task to decide whether a given group of automorphisms of

a Riemann surface is the full group of all its automorphisms. Signatures of NEC
groups prove to be a useful tool in dealing with this problem. The key point in the
solution is that almost all NEC signatures are maximal in some sense, and given
such a maximal signature s there exists a maximal NEC group Λ with signature s.
An NEC group is said to be maximal if it is not properly contained in another
NEC group. In such a case, for every surface Fuchsian group Γ contained in Λ
as a normal subgroup, the full automorphism group of the Riemann surface H/Γ is
precisely Λ/Γ.
Let us denote by dim(Λ) the dimension of the Teichmüller space of the NEC
group Λ (see Sect. 1.4.2 below).
Definition 1.4.6. An NEC signature s is said to be maximal if for every NEC group
Λ containing an NEC group Λ with signature s the equality dim(Λ) = dim(Λ )
implies Λ = Λ . The definition of maximal Fuchsian signature is analogous.
Remark 1.4.7. (1) Let s be the signature of a proper NEC group. If the signature
s+ of its canonical Fuchsian subgroup is maximal then so is s.
(2) Almost all Fuchsian signatures turn out to be maximal. A list of those which
fail to be so was obtained by Greenberg in [47] and completed by Singerman
in [117]. The list consists of nineteen pairs of signatures (s, s ) where s is non-
maximal and s is the signature of a Fuchsian group Δ properly containing a
group Δ with signature s and such that dim(Δ) = dim(Δ ). If Δ is normal in
Δ then (s, s ) is said to be a normal pair ; otherwise it is non-normal. The cor-
responding list of normal pairs of NEC signatures was obtained in [12], while
the non-normal pairs were obtained by Estévez and Izquierdo in [41].
It must be pointed out that the maximality of the NEC signature s(Λ) does not imply
the maximality of the NEC group Λ. However, the following two results, proved in
[22, Chap. 5], should be mentioned.
Theorem 1.4.8. If s is a maximal NEC signature then there exists a maximal NEC
group Λ with s(Λ) = s.
Corollary 1.4.9. Let G = Λ/Γ be a group of automorphisms of the Klein surface

X = H/Γ, where Γ is a surface NEC group and Λ is an NEC group containing Γ
as a normal subgroup. Assume that the signature s(Λ) of Λ is maximal. Then there
exists a maximal NEC group Λ isomorphic to Λ, say via ϕ : Λ → Λ , and the full
automorphism group of the Klein surface H/Γ , where Γ = ϕ(Γ), is G = Λ /Γ
and the actions of G and G are topologically equivalent.
Remark 1.4.10. This corollary is also true if H/Γ is a Riemann surface, in which
case Γ is not a surface NEC group but a surface Fuchsian group.
14 1 Preliminaries
1.4.2 Teichmüller Spaces
The last results in this section rely on rather deep mathematics: Teichmüller theory.
Although we do not enter here into their proofs, we consider it convenient to present
the basics about Teichmüller spaces in the context of NEC groups. The reader is
referred to Sect. 4.7 in the book [113] by Seppälä and Sorvali and the paper [76] by
Macbeath and Singerman.
Let PGL(2, R) be the group of automorphisms of the hyperbolic plane H. Given
an NEC group Λ, let R(Λ) be the set of group monomorphisms t : Λ → PGL(2, R)
such that t(Λ) is also an NEC group. The automorphism group Aut(PGL(2, R)) of
PGL(2, R) acts on R(Λ) by left multiplication, and the orbit space
T(Λ) = R(Λ)/ Aut(PGL(2, R))
is the Teichmüller space of Λ. Since every automorphism α of PGL(2, R) is an inner

automorphism, we see that the orbit [t] of t under this action is
[t] = {t = αt : Λ → PGL(2, R) such that there exists m ∈ PGL(2, R) with

t (λ) = mt(λ)m−1 for all λ ∈ Λ. }.
In this definition m must be in Aut+ (H) in case Λ is a Fuchsian group. If Γ is a

surface Fuchsian group of orbit genus g ≥ 2 then T(Γ) is the Teichmüller space of
Riemann surfaces of genus g.
If Δ is a Fuchsian group with signature s(Δ) = (g; m1 , . . . , mr ) then T(Δ) is a
real cell of dimension
dim(Δ) = 6g − 6 + 2r,
as it was already known by Fricke and Klein [44]. If Λ is a proper NEC group then
dim(Λ) = dim(Λ+ )/2,
as proved by Keen in [64] and Singerman in [118].

There is also a well defined action of the automorphism group Aut(Λ) of Λ
on the Teichmüller space T(Λ), given by right multiplication. This action is not
effective since the inner automorphisms of Λ act trivially on T(Λ). The modular
group of Λ is the factor group M(Λ) = Aut(Λ)/Inn(Λ), where Inn(Λ) is the normal
subgroup of inner automorphisms. So the modular group M(Λ) acts on T(Λ), the
quotient being called the moduli space of Λ. If Γ is a surface Fuchsian group of
orbit genus g ≥ 2 then the moduli space of Γ is the moduli space Mg of Riemann
surfaces of genus g.
The interested reader is also referred to the articles by Earle [40], Buser, Seppälä
and Silhol [28], Natanzon [95, 97] and Seppälä [110–112] to learn about this theory
and how to use it to understand moduli spaces of real objects. It is worth mentioning
also the papers [62], by Huisman and Lattarulo, where they study the moduli space
of all real isotropic and Gaussian hyperelliptic curves and [31], where Cirre obtained
a description of the five connected components of the moduli space of real algebraic
curves of genus 2 by means of polynomial equalities and inequalities.
1.5 Symmetric Riemann Surfaces 15
1.5 Symmetric Riemann Surfaces
We begin by introducing the notion of symmetry of a Riemann surface and defining

the data that classify symmetries topologically. This leads to the notions of species
of a symmetry and the symmetry type of a Riemann surface.
Definitions 1.5.1. Let S be a compact Riemann surface. A symmetry of S is an

antianalytic involution σ : S → S. A Riemann surface admitting a symmetry is
called symmetric.
In order to emphasize the real algebraic geometry counterpart of symmetries, these
are sometimes called real structures of a Riemann surface.
Let Fix(σ) be the fixed point set of a symmetry σ. It is well known that this set
satisfies the following two properties. The first one is known as Harnack’s Theorem;
we provide a proof in Theorem 1.5.3 below. A proof of the second property can be
found, for instance, in [25].
(1) Fix(σ) consists of k disjoint Jordan curves, called ovals in Hilbert’s terminol-
ogy, where 0 ≤ k ≤ g + 1.
(2) S \ Fix(σ) consists of one connected component if the Klein surface S/ σ is
non-orientable, and two otherwise. The symmetry σ is called non-separating,
in the first case, and separating in the second one.
These two properties play a key role in the topological nature of a symmetry
since they classify symmetries up to homeomorphism. This justifies the following
definition.
Definition 1.5.2. The topological type of a symmetry σ of a Riemann surface S is

the triple (g, k, ε), where g is the genus of S, k is the number of connected compo-
nents of Fix(σ) and ε = 1 or ε = 0 according to whether S \ Fix(σ) is connected
or not.
We start this section with a short proof of the classical Harnack–Weichold Theorem,
[59] and [127].
Theorem 1.5.3. A triple (g, k, ε) is the topological type of some symmetry of a
compact Riemann surface of genus g if and only if
1≤k ≤g+1 if ε = 0 with g + 1 ≡ k (mod 2);

0≤k≤g if ε = 1.
Proof. Let σ be a symmetry of a Riemann surface S of genus g ≥ 2. Then S =

H/Γ for some surface Fuchsian group Γ and σ = Λ/Γ for some NEC group Λ
containing Γ as a subgroup of index two. Clearly, Λ+ = Γ and so the signature of
Λ is, by Corollary 1.2.7,
s(Λ) = (g ; ±, [−]; {(−), . k. ., (−)}),

16 1 Preliminaries
where k = g + 1 − ηg with η = 2 if sign (s(Λ)) = “ + ” and η = 1 otherwise.

In addition ε = 0 means that η = 2, and ε = 1 implies g = 0. All of this proves
the “only if ” part.
Conversely, assume that the triple (g, k, ε) satisfies the conditions in the state-
ment of the theorem. Assume first that ε = 0 and let us consider an NEC group Λ
with signature
s(Λ) = (g ; +; [−]; {(−), . k. ., (−)}),
where g = (g + 1 − k)/2. Then the epimorphism θ : Λ → Z2 = a induced by
the assignment
θ(ci ) = a; θ(aj ) = θ(bj ) = θ(ei ) = 1, for i = 1, . . . , k and j = 1, . . . , g
satisfies that ker θ is a surface Fuchsian group having orbit genus g. Thus S =
H/ ker θ is a Riemann surface of genus g having a symmetry of topological type
(g, k, 0).
For ε = 1, let g = g + 1 − k and let Λ be an NEC group with signature

(g ; −; [−]; {(−), . k. ., (−)}). Let θ : Λ → Z2 = a be the epimorphism induced by
the assignment
θ(ci ) = a, θ(dj ) = a, θ(ei ) = 1 for i = 1, . . . , k and j = 1, . . . , g .
Again its kernel ker θ is a surface Fuchsian group of orbit genus g and therefore
S = H/ ker θ is a Riemann surface of genus g having a symmetry of type (g, k, 1).
This completes the proof.
For example, the possible topological types of the symmetries of a genus two
Riemann surface are (2, 1, 0), (2, 3, 0), (2, 0, 1), (2, 1, 1) and (2, 2, 1).
The topological classification of a symmetry σ depends just on the number k of
ovals of Fix(σ) and on the separating character of Fix(σ). These two data constitute
the so called species of σ.
Definition 1.5.4. The species of a symmetry σ, denoted by sp(σ), is +k if its topo-
logical type is (g, k, 0) and −k if its topological type is (g, k, 1).
Let Aut(S) denote the group of analytic and antianalytic self-homeomorphisms
of the Riemann surface S. It is called the automorphism group of S, and its ele-
ments automorphisms of S. Let Aut+ (S) be its subgroup consisting of the analytic
automorphisms. Observe that with this notation, a symmetry of S is an involu-
tion σ ∈ Aut(S) \ Aut+ (S). Two symmetries σ and τ are said to be conjugate
if σ = f ◦ τ ◦ f −1 for some automorphism f (either analytic or antianalytic, see
Remark 1.5.6) of S. Clearly, two conjugate symmetries have the same species. This
motivates the following definition.
Definition 1.5.5. The symmetry type of S is the unordered list of species of all con-
jugacy classes of symmetries of S.
Remark 1.5.6. Notice that two symmetries σ and τ of S are conjugate via a diana-
lytic automorphism if and only if they are conjugate via an analytic automorphism.
Indeed, if τ = ϕσϕ−1 where ϕ is antianalytic then τ = ψσψ −1 where ψ = ϕσ
is analytic. This allows us, if necessary, to focus just on analytic conjugation of
symmetries.
The following is a characterization of the symmetric nature of a Riemann surface

in terms of NEC groups. It is an immediate consequence of Theorem 1.4.4 applied
to the case of Riemann surfaces.
Corollary 1.5.7. The Riemann surface S = H/Γ is symmetric if and only if there
exists a proper NEC group Λ containing Γ as a subgroup of index 2.
As a consequence of this corollary, for each symmetry σ of the Riemann surface

S = H/Γ, there exists a proper NEC group Λ containing Γ as a subgroup of
index 2 such that σ = Λ/Γ. Notice that under these conditions, Γ coincides
with the canonical Fuchsian subgroup Λ+ of Λ. Therefore Λ contains no orienta-
tion preserving elements of finite order, because Λ+ is a surface Fuchsian group.
In other words, Λ is a surface NEC group. It turns out that the species of σ can
be read from the signature of Λ. For example, the number of period cycles of
s(Λ) coincides with the number of boundary components of the Klein surface
H/Λ = (H/Γ)/(Λ/Γ) = S/ σ (see Proposition 1.1.4), which is the number
of disjoint Jordan curves of Fix(σ). Moreover, the sign of the signature of Λ co-
incides with the sign of the species of σ, since, as said above, S \ Fix(σ) has two
components if and only if H/Λ is an orientable Klein surface.
Finally, the formulae for the areas of s(Γ) and s(Λ), together with the Hurwitz–
Riemann formula, imply that the genus of H/Λ equals g + 1 − k if H/Λ is non-
orientable and (g + 1 − k)/2 otherwise, where g is the genus of S. Summarizing,
we have the following theorem.
Theorem 1.5.8. Let Γ be a surface Fuchsian group and let S = H/Γ be a compact
Riemann surface of genus g ≥ 2 which admits a symmetry σ. Write σ = Λ/Γ,
where Λ is a proper NEC group containing Γ as a subgroup of index 2. Then the
species of σ can be read from the signature of Λ in the following way:
⎧
⎪
⎪ 0 if s(Λ) = (g + 1; −; [−]; {−});
⎨
sp(σ) = k if s(Λ) = ((g + 1 − k)/2; +; [−]; {(−), . k. ., (−)});
⎪
⎪
⎩
−k if s(Λ) = (g + 1 − k; −; [−]; {(−), . k. ., (−)}).
The following Lemma 1.5.9 will be useful in the sequel in order to determine
whether a given symmetry fixes points or not.
Lemma 1.5.9. Let σ be a symmetry of a compact Riemann surface S = H/Γ with
Aut(S) = Λ/Γ. Let θ : Λ → Aut(S) be the corresponding smooth epimorphism
with ker θ = Γ. Let us write σ = θ(λ) for some λ ∈ Λ. Then
18 1 Preliminaries
(1) If σ is fixed point free then λ is a glide reflection.

(2) If σ fixes points in S then λ can be chosen to be a reflection (and hence conju-
gate to a canonical reflection).
Proof. Observe that λ is an orientation reversing element of Λ and so it is either
a glide reflection or a reflection. Claim (1) is obvious since the points fixed by a
reflection λ projects onto points in S fixed by θ(λ).
As to claim (2), let q ∈ S be a point fixed by σ and let z ∈ H be a point which
projects onto q. The equality σ(q) = q means that λ preserves the Γ-orbit of z, and
so λ(z) = γ(z) for some γ ∈ Γ. Then γ −1 ◦ λ is an orientation reversing element in
Λ (because Γ is Fuchsian) which fixes points in H. Therefore γ −1 ◦ λ is a reflection
c in Λ and θ(c) = θ(λ) = σ.
1.5.1 Algebraic Conditions
What makes a compact Riemann surface symmetric? Let us look for necessary al-
gebraic conditions on the group Aut+ (S) of analytic automorphisms of a compact
Riemann surface S for it to be symmetric. Let S and Aut+ (S) be represented re-
spectively as H/Γ and Δ/Γ for some Fuchsian groups Γ and Δ, where this last
contains the first as a normal subgroup. Let us view Δ as an abstract group K and
let H be the corresponding normal subgroup of K isomorphic to Γ. By Corollary
1.2.7, there is only a finite number of groups L1 , . . . , Ln which can be realized as
NEC groups and which contain K as a subgroup of index 2. From the proof of
this result we also know the way in which such embeddings K ⊆ Li look like.
Now it is an entirely algebraic matter to decide which Li contains H as a normal
subgroup. Let us call such Li algebraically admissible for S, and let us say that
Li is conformally admissible if in addition it can be realized as an NEC group Λi
containing Δ. It is clear that the existence of algebraically admissible groups is a
necessary condition for S to be symmetric.
The converse is not true: the existence of such a group L may not be sufficient
for S to be symmetric, for reasons of conformal nature. This is so because, as we
already pointed out, dim(Λ) = dim(Λ+ )/2 for the Teichmüller dimensions of a
proper NEC group Λ and its canonical Fuchsian subgroup Λ+ . Simply saying this
means that there are “more” Fuchsian groups isomorphic to K than NEC groups
isomorphic to L. However it is worth mentioning that in such a situation a confor-
mal structure on the underlying topological surface can be defined so that the new
Riemann surface S is symmetric, its group Aut+ (S ) is isomorphic to Aut+ (S)
and the actions of both groups are topologically equivalent. In fact, any NEC group
Λ realizing L contains normal subgroups Δ and Γ isomorphic to Δ and Γ respec-
tively and we have a commutative diagram:
∼ / Δ
Δ

∼ / Δ /Γ
Δ/Γ
where the horizontal arrows are isomorphisms and the vertical ones are the corre-
sponding canonical projections.
In this monograph we shall see that the conformal structure of S usually plays a
modest role in both the qualitative and the quantitative study of symmetries, just up
to determine Aut+ (S) and to decide which of the algebraically admissible groups
are actually conformally admissible. So in certain qualitative and quantitative stud-
ies of symmetries of Riemann surfaces, the matter depends on Aut(S) and on the
topological characteristics of this action. The signature of Λ and the epimorphism
θ : Λ → Aut(S) take care of both. In one word, and this is a general philosophy of
our approach in this monograph, “most of it is an algebraic question”.
Fortunately, the above quoted necessary condition for the surface H/Γ to be
symmetric is also sufficient when Δ is a triangle group, since dim(Δ) = 0. In such
a case any algebraically admissible group is also conformally admissible. Assume
that Δ has signature [k, , m] and let {x1 , x2 , x3 } be a canonical set of generators.
Now a Riemann surface S admitting a group G isomorphic to K/H as the group of
analytic automorphisms corresponds to a pair (a, b) of generators of G of orders k
and respectively and whose product has order m; the surface S can be written as
S = H/Γ, where Γ = ker θ for a group homomorphism θ : Δ → G induced by the
assignment θ(x1 ) = a, θ(x2 ) = b.
To continue, we shall need the following result due to Singerman [118]. As the
original proof contains a harmless gap, we provide a somewhat different one here.
Theorem 1.5.10. Let S be a Riemann surface corresponding to a generating pair
(a, b) where a, b and ab have orders k, and m respectively. Then, S is symmetric if
and only if the mapping ϕ : a → a−1 , b → b−1 or ϕ : a → b−1 , b → a−1 induces
an automorphism of G = a, b = Aut+ (S).
Proof. Let us write S = H/Γ with Γ a surface Fuchsian group, and G = Δ/Γ =
Aut+ (S) where Δ is a Fuchsian group with signature [k, , m] containing Γ as a
normal subgroup.
If S is symmetric then there exists a proper NEC group Λ containing Δ as a
subgroup of index 2 and Γ as a normal subgroup. Then Λ/Γ = Aut(S). According
to Corollary 1.2.7, there are two possibilities for the signature of Λ. If the periods
of Δ are pairwise different then s(Λ) = (k, , m), but if two periods of Δ coincide,
say k = , then either s(Λ) = (k, , m) or s(Λ) = (0; +; [k]; {(m)}). Assume first
that Λ has signature (k, , m) and let {c0 , c1 , c2 } be a set of canonical generators of
Λ. Then
x1 = c0 c1 , x2 = c1 c2 , x3 = c2 c0 (1.2)
constitute a set of canonical generators for Δ. Note that
c1 x1 c1 = x−1
1 and c1 x2 c1 = x−1
2 . (1.3)
Then, for a = Γx1 , b = Γx2 and v = Γc1 ∈ Λ/Γ we have av = a−1 and bv = b−1 .
Therefore, the assignment a → a−1 , b → b−1 induces in fact an automorphism
of G. Observe that Aut(S) = Λ/Γ is a semidirect product G Z2 .
20 1 Preliminaries
Suppose now that s(Λ) = (0; +; [k]; {(m)}) and let {x, e, c0 , c1 } be a set of
canonical generators of Λ. Then
x1 = x, x2 = c0 x−1 c0 , x3 = c0 c1 (1.4)
can be chosen to constitute a set of canonical generators for Δ. Again it is easy to

check that
c0 x1 c0 = x−1
2 and c0 x2 c0 = x−1
1 . (1.5)
Now for a = Γx1 , b = Γx2 and v = Γc0 ∈ Λ/Γ we have av = b−1 and bv = a−1 ,
and therefore the assignment a → b−1 , b → a−1 induces an automorphism of G.
Suppose conversely that the assignment a → a−1 , b → b−1 induces an au-
tomorphism of G. As dim(Δ) = 0, there exists an NEC group Λ with signature
(k, , m) containing Δ. Now a word w = w(a, b) is the identity in Λ/Γ if and only
if w(x1 , x2 ) belongs to Γ, and analogously, w(a−1 , b−1 ) = 1 if and only if w =
w(x−1 −1
1 , x2 ) ∈ Γ. So, as a → a
−1
, b → b−1 induces an automorphism of G, we
see from (1.3) that for w = w(x1 , x2 ) ∈ Γ, also c1 w(x1 , x2 )c1 = w(x−1 −1
1 , x2 ) ∈ Γ
and therefore Γ is a normal subgroup of Λ. In this case, the image of c1 in the factor
group Λ/Γ can be chosen as a symmetry of S.
Finally, assume that the assignment a → b−1 , b → a−1 induces an auto-
morphism of G. Then k = and there exists an NEC group Λ with s(Λ) =
(0; +; [k]; {(m)}) containing Δ as a subgroup of index 2. Also now w = w(x1 , x2 )
belongs to Γ if and only if the same happens to w(x−1 −1
2 , x1 ). Thus, using the above
−1 −1
equalities (1.5) we see that c0 w(x1 , x2 )c0 = w(x2 , x1 ) ∈ Γ for every w ∈ Γ and
therefore Γ is a normal subgroup of Λ. So the surface H/Γ is symmetric because
the image of c0 in Λ/Γ is a symmetry of S.
Remark 1.5.11. From equalities (1.2) and (1.4) above it follows easily that for a
symmetric Riemann surface S with Aut+ (S) = a, b, its automorphism group
Aut(S) is the semidirect product Aut(S) = Aut+ (S) Z2 = a, b t, where
t acts as the automorphism given in the proof of Theorem 1.5.10, and the epimor-
phism from Λ onto Aut+ (S) Z2 is defined as follows: if s(Λ) = (k, , m) then
θ : Λ → Aut+ (S) Z2 ; c0 → at ; c1 → t ; c2 → tb,
whilst for s(Λ) = (0; +; [k]; {(m)}) we have
θ : Λ → Aut+ (S) Z2 ; x → a ; e → a−1 ; c0 → t ; c1 → t(ab)−1 .

Chapter 2
On the Number of Conjugacy Classes
of Symmetries of Riemann Surfaces
As said in the Introduction, under the correspondence between compact Riemann

surfaces and smooth irreducible complex projective algebraic curves, the fact that a
Riemann surface S is symmetric means that the corresponding complex curve C can
be defined over the field R of real numbers. This is why such a symmetry is often
called a real form of C. Symmetries which are non-conjugate in the automorphism
group Aut(S) of S correspond to non-isomorphic real forms of C. In this chapter
we shall pay attention to quantitative results concerning the number of conjugacy
classes of symmetries. We will distinguish cases according to whether the sets of
fixed points of the symmetries are empty or not.
We start with a study of conjugacy classes of involutions in 2-groups at large.
2.1 Conjugacy Classes of Involutions in 2-Groups
Given an abstract group G, it makes sense to say that an involution x ∈ G is a

“symmetry” provided that a concept of orientation in such a group is defined. This
is done in the following definitions.
Definitions 2.1.1. Let G be an abstract group.
(1) G is said to be abstractly orientable if there exists an epimorphism α : G →
Z2 = {±1}. In such a case, α is an orientation of the group G. If an orientation
α is chosen then we say that G is abstractly oriented.
(2) Let α be an orientation of G. An element x ∈ G is orientation preserving
(respectively orientation reversing) with respect to the orientation α if
α(x) = +1 (respectively α(x) = −1).
Examples of orientable groups are provided by proper NEC groups and groups
of automorphisms of symmetric Riemann surfaces.
Lemma 2.1.2. Let G be a 2-group containing a cyclic group ZN = x as a sub-
group of index 2r . Then G has at most 2r+1 − 1 conjugacy classes of involutions.
Furthermore, if G is abstractly oriented and x preserves the orientation then G has
at most 2r conjugacy classes of orientation reversing involutions.


22 2 Number of Conjugacy Classes of Symmetries
Proof. Let
2 2 2 2 2
ZN = H0 ≤ H1 ≤ H2 ≤ · · · ≤ Hr−1 ≤ Hr = G
be a subnormal series for G and let xi ∈ Hi \ Hi−1 for i = 1, . . . , r. Then each

element g ∈ G can be uniquely represented as g = xε xε11 · · · xεrr for some integers
ε ∈ {0, . . . , N − 1} and εi ∈ {0, 1}. Let us denote w = xε11 · · · xεrr and observe
that there are 2r − 1 non-trivial elements of this form. We shall show that for any
such element w = 1 there are at most 2 conjugacy classes of involutions among the
elements of the set {w, xw, x2 w, . . . , xN −1 w}. This will complete the proof of the
first part of the lemma since for w = 1 this set has one involution. Observe that w
may not be an element of order 2 and, furthermore, among these elements there may
not even exist elements of order 2.
Assume then that there are at least two elements xk w and x w of order 2 and
assume also that k and are chosen so that k > and m = k − is minimal. We
shall show that each involution xn w is conjugate either to xk w or to x w. We have
1 = (xk w)2 = xm (x w)2 w−1 xm w = xm w−1 xm w.
So wx−m = xm w and therefore x+sm w has order 2 for each integer s. Moreover,
xsm (x w)x−sm = x+2sm w, (2.1)

xsm (xk w)x−sm = xk+2sm w = x+(2s+1)m w. (2.2)
Now let xn w be an arbitrary element of order 2. Then n = + tm + j for some

integers t, j, where 0 ≤ j < m, and since both xn w and x+tm w have order 2, it
follows by the minimality of m that j = 0. Thus xn w = x+tm w which, by (2.1)
and (2.2), is conjugate to x w if t is even, and it is conjugate to xk w if t is odd. This
shows the first part of the lemma.
Assume now that G is abstractly oriented and that x preserves the orientation.
Then half of the 2r elements w = xε11 · · · xεrr reverses orientation and the other
half preserves it. For each of the 2r−1 orientation reversing ones, the (at most two)
conjugacy classes of involutions in the set {w, xw, x2 w, . . . , xN −1 w} are the only
ones that reverse the orientation. This shows the second part of the lemma.

Let DN be a dihedral group and let x, y ∈ DN be two generating involutions. If
DN is abstractly oriented and x and y reverse the orientation then ZN = xy is a
subgroup of DN of index 2 generated by an orientation preserving element. So, as a
consequence of the above Lemma 2.1.2, we get the following result.
Corollary 2.1.3. Let G be a 2-group containing a dihedral group DN as a sub-
group of index 2r . Then G has at most 2r+2 − 1 conjugacy classes of involutions.
Furthermore if G is abstractly oriented and DN is generated by two involutions
which reverse the orientation then G has at most 2r+1 conjugacy classes of orien-
tation reversing involutions.
The next technical lemma deals with 2-groups of automorphisms of a Riemann
surface. Together with Lemma 2.1.2 and Corollary 2.1.3, it will play a key role in
the sequel.
2.2 Symmetries with Non-Empty Set of Fixed Points 23
Lemma 2.1.4. Let S be a Riemann surface of genus g ≥ 2, and let 2r−1 be the
largest power of 2 dividing g −1. Let G be a 2-group of automorphisms of S of order
2t and assume that t ≥ r + 1. Then G contains a cyclic or a dihedral subgroup of
index 2r .
Proof. Let us write S = H/Γ for some surface Fuchsian group Γ and G = Λ/Γ for
some NEC group Λ containing Γ as a normal subgroup. Assume that Λ has signature
s(Λ) = (h; ±; [m1 , . . . , mν ]; {(n11 , . . . , n1s1 ), . . . , (nk1 , . . . , nksk )}). (2.3)
We claim that s(Λ) has either a proper period or a link period. In fact, by the
Hurwitz–Riemann formula we have
⎛ ⎞
g−1 ν
mi − 1 k si
nij − 1 ⎠
= 2t−r ⎝ηh − 2 + k + +
2r−1 i=1
m i i=1 j=1
2nij
where either η = 1 or η = 2 depending on the sign of s(Λ). Since (g − 1)/2r−1 is

odd and t − r ≥ 1, the expression in brackets cannot be an integer. So there must be
a non-trivial mi or nij , as claimed. Moreover, since G is a 2-group, all periods of
Λ are powers of 2, since otherwise Γ would have elements of finite order. It follows
that mi ≥ 2t−r for some i or nij ≥ 2t−r−1 for some i, j.
Assume first that Λ has a proper period m ≥ 2t−r ; in this case the image x in
G of an elliptic generator of Λ of order m is still an element of order m and so

for m = m/2t−r , the element xm generates a cyclic subgroup of G of index 2r .
Assume now that Λ has a link period n ≥ 2t−r−1 ; in this case the images c and c
in G of two consecutive reflections of Λ whose product has order n are involutions,
since otherwise Γ would be a proper NEC group. Moreover, for n = n/2t−r−1 , the

element (cc )n has order 2t−r−1 and so c and (cc )n generate a dihedral subgroup
of G of index 2r . This completes the proof.

Remark 2.1.5. The proof shows that in fact G contains a cyclic subgroup gener-
ated by an orientation preserving element or a dihedral subgroup generated by two
orientation reversing elements, of index 2r in both cases.
Remark 2.1.6. Let G+ denote the subgroup of G consisting of its orientation pre-
serving elements. With the notations in the above proof of Lemma 2.1.4, the
existence of a proper period or a link period in the signature of Λ shows that G+
acts on S with fixed points.
2.2 Symmetries with Non-Empty Set of Fixed Points
The quantitative study of conjugacy classes of symmetries started with a seminal

result of Natanzon [95] who proved, using topological methods, that a complex
√
algebraic curve of genus g ≥ 2 has at most 2( g + 1) non-isomorphic real forms
with real points. He also showed that this bound is attained for infinitely many values
of g, those being of the form (2n − 1)2 . Here we go further, namely, we determine
the maximal number of conjugacy classes of symmetries with fixed points that a
compact Riemann surface S of genus g ≥ 2 can admit.
Assume that σ1 , . . . , σk are representatives of the conjugacy classes of symme-
tries of S. Since each σi belongs to a Sylow 2-subgroup of Aut(S) and all Sylow
2-subgroups are conjugate, we may assume that all these symmetries generate a
2-group G. We now establish a fundamental result on this topic, whose first proof
appeared in [23].
Theorem 2.2.1. Let S be a Riemann surface of genus g ≥ 2 and let us write g =
2r−1 u+1 with u odd. Then the maximum number of non-conjugate symmetries with
fixed points that S admits is 2r+1 . Furthermore, this bound is attained if and only if
u ≥ 2r+1 − 3.
Proof. Let k be the number of conjugacy classes of symmetries with fixed points
of S. As we observed above, we can choose representatives of these classes such
that they generate a 2-group, say of order 2t . If t ≤ r then k < 2t ≤ 2r and so the
first part of the statement is proved in this case. If t ≥ r + 1 then the first part is a
direct consequence of Lemma 2.1.4, Corollary 2.1.3 and Lemma 2.1.2.
Let now S = H/Γ be a Riemann surface with the maximum number 2r+1 of
conjugacy classes of symmetries with fixed points and let G be a 2-group generated
by 2r+1 representatives of these classes. Let us write G = Λ/Γ for some NEC group
Λ with signature (2.3). Let C1 , . . . , Cn be the different period cycles of Λ involving
these symmetries, and assume that C1 , . . . , Cm are non-empty and Cm+1 , . . . , Cn
are empty. Observe that n > 0 because they are symmetries with fixed points. As
each empty period cycle involves at most one symmetry we see that C1 , . . . , Cm
involve at least 2r+1 − (n − m) symmetries. As each non-empty period cycle Ci of
length si involves at most si non-conjugate symmetries, see Remark 1.1.6, we get
s1 + · · · + sm ≥ 2r+1 − n + m.
We shall show that

2r+1 − 3 2r
Area(Λ) ≥ 2π − .
4 |G|
Observe that each term (1/2)(1 − 1/nij ) occurring in the formula of Area(Λ) is
not smaller than 1/4 because nij ≥ 2.
Since G is generated by 2r+1 orientation reversing involutions, we see that |G| ≥
r+2
2 . In particular, we may repeat the proof of Lemma 2.1.4 to show that Λ has a
proper period ≥ |G|/2r or a link period ≥ |G|/2r+1 . In the first case

2r s 1 + · · · + sm
Area(Λ) ≥ 2π n − 2 + 1 − +
|G| 4
r+1 r+1
2 + 3n + m − 4 2r 2 −3 2r
≥ 2π − > 2π − .
4 |G| 4 |G|
If Λ has a link period ≥ |G|/2r+1 then m > 0 and

s 1 + · · · + sm − 1 1 2r
Area(Λ) ≥ 2π n − 2 + + −
4 2 |G|
r+1 r+1
2 + 3n + m − 7 2r 2 −3 2r
≥ 2π − ≥ 2π − .
4 |G| 4 |G|
So, in both cases,

2r+1 − 3 2r
4π(g − 1) = Area(Γ) = |G|Area(Λ) ≥ 2π − |G|.
4 |G|
Since |G| ≥ 2r+2 we get
|G|
g − 1 ≥ (2r+1 − 3) − 2r−1 ≥ (2r+1 − 3)2r−1 − 2r−1 = 2r−1 (2r+1 − 4).
8
Therefore u = (g − 1)/2r−1 ≥ 2r+1 − 4. However, u is odd by assumption and

consequently u ≥ 2r+1 − 3.
Conversely, let g = 2r−1 u + 1 with u ≥ 2r+1 − 3 and let s = u + 3. Con-
sider a maximal NEC group Λ with signature (0; +; [−]; {(2, s+1 . . . , 2)}), and let
{c0 , . . . , cs+1 } be a canonical set of generators of Λ. Let us consider the group
G = Zr+2 2 = x1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ xr+2 and let a1 , . . . , a2r+1 be the involutions in G
whose length in x1 , . . . , xr+2 is odd. We define a homomorphism θ : Λ → G by
choosing θ(ci ) ∈ {a1 , . . . , a2r+1 } for 0 ≤ i ≤ s + 1 so that θ(ci ) = θ(ci+1 ) for
0 ≤ i ≤ s, and such that θ is in fact an epimorphism. Observe that this is indeed
possible because s ≥ r + 1.
Clearly, ker θ is a surface Fuchsian group. The orbit space S = H/ ker θ is a
Riemann surface of genus 2r−1 u + 1 (by the Hurwitz–Riemann formula) having
G as its full group Aut(S) of automorphisms (by the maximality of Λ). Since the
image under θ of each canonical reflection ci is a symmetry with fixed points we
see that S has 2r+1 non-conjugate symmetries with fixed points.

Every even value of g can be written as 2r−1 u + 1 with r = 1 and u odd. In this
way we obtain the main result in [53] as a corollary of Theorem 2.2.1.
Corollary 2.2.2. A Riemann surface of even genus g has at most 4 non-conjugate

symmetries with fixed points. Furthermore this bound is attained for every even
genus g ≥ 2.
Remark 2.2.3. Given an arbitrary integer g ≥ 2, there is an integer r ≥ 1 and an

odd integer u ≥ 1 such that g = 2r−1 u + 1. Fix r ≥ 1 and consider all values of g
of this form. Observe that the numbers g − 1 are just the solutions of the congruence
x ≡ 2r−1 (mod 2r ). Suppose that u ≥ 2r+1 − 3. Then
g ≥ 2r−1 (2r+1 − 3) + 1 = 22r − 3 · 2r−1 + 1 > 22r − 4 · 2r−1 + 1 = (2r − 1)2 .
√
Henceforth 2( g + 1) > 2r+1 and thus, for the values of g corresponding to
√
u ≥ 2r+1 − 3, the bound 2( g + 1) obtained by Natanzon in [95] for the number
of non-conjugate symmetries with fixed points is not sharp. On the other hand, if
u ≤ 2r+1 − 5 then
g ≤ 2r−1 (2r+1 − 5) + 1 = 22r − 5 · 2r−1 + 1 < 22r − 4 · 2r−1 + 1 = (2r − 1)2 .
√
Hence 2( g + 1) < 2r+1 in this case and so, for the values of g corresponding to
u≤2 r+1
− 5, Natanzon’s bound is better than the one in Theorem 2.2.1. We now
calculate sharp bounds for the remaining values of g.
Notation 2.2.4. For each integer g ≥ 2 we denote by μf (g) the maximal number of
conjugacy classes of symmetries with fixed points that a genus g Riemann surface
can admit.
With this notation, Theorem 2.2.1 can be stated as
μf (g) = 2r+1 for g = 2r−1 u + 1 with u odd and u ≥ 2r+1 − 3.
Next we shall calculate the remaining values of this function, as stated in [23]. To
that end we fix r ≥ 2 (since the case r = 1 is solved in Corollary 2.2.2) and consider
the function
2s−4 − 1
f (s) = ,
2r−s
which is strictly increasing for s > 3. Since f (4) = 0 and f (r + 3) = 2r+2 − 8
we see that for each odd positive integer u < 2r+2 − 7 there exists a unique integer
s ∈ {4, . . . , r + 2} such that f (s) < u ≤ f (s + 1), that is,
2s−4 − 1 2s−3 − 1
< u ≤ .
2r−s 2r−s−1
The next theorem shows that μf (g) depends on this value of s; in fact, it shows
that μf (g) = min{2r−s+2 u + 4, 2s−1 }.
Theorem 2.2.5. Let g = 2r−1 u + 1, where r ≥ 2 and u < 2r+2 − 7 is odd. Let s
be defined as above. Then
⎧
⎪ 2s−4 − 1 2s−3 − 1
⎪
⎨2
r−s+2
u+4 if < u ≤ ;
2r−s 2r−s
μf (g) =
⎪
⎪ 2s−3 − 1 2s−2 − 2
⎩ 2s−1 if < u ≤ .
2r−s 2r−s
Proof. Let S be a Riemann surface of genus g = 2r−1 u + 1 where u < 2r+2 − 7

such that S has k non-conjugate symmetries with fixed points. First we shall show
that k is not greater than the proposed value for μf (g). As before, by Sylow the-
ory, we may assume that the k symmetries generate a 2-group G, say of order 2t .
Observe that the product of two of these symmetries is an orientation preserving
element of G which generates a cyclic subgroup of index ≤ 2t−1 . So Lemma 2.1.2
yields
k ≤ 2t−1 . (2.4)
Let us write S = H/Γ and G = Λ/Γ for some surface Fuchsian group Γ and a
proper NEC group Λ containing Γ as a normal subgroup. It is easy to see, using argu-
ments similar to those in the proof of Theorem 2.2.1, that Area(Λ) ≥ π(k − 4)/2.
So, by the Hurwitz–Riemann formula, 4π(g − 1) = |G|Area(Λ) ≥ 2t−1 π(k − 4),
which gives
k ≤ 2r−t+2 u + 4. (2.5)
Let us suppose first that
(2s−4 − 1)/2r−s < u ≤ (2s−3 − 1)/2r−s . (2.6)
If t ≥ s then k ≤ 2r−s+2 u + 4 by (2.5). If t < s then k ≤ 2t−1 ≤ 2s−2 by (2.4),

and so k < 2r−s+2 u + 4, because 2s−2 < 2r−s+2 u + 4 by (2.6).
We now suppose that
(2s−3 − 1)/2r−s < u ≤ (2s−2 − 2)/2r−s . (2.7)
If t ≥ s + 1 then k ≤ 2r−s+1 u + 4 ≤ 2s−1 , where we have used (2.5) for the first
inequality and (2.7) for the second. If t ≤ s then k ≤ 2t−1 ≤ 2s−1 by (2.4).
To finish the proof we consider an arbitrary integer s ∈ {4, . . . , r + 2} and an
arbitrary odd integer u in the range
(2s−4 − 1)/2r−s < u ≤ (2s−2 − 2)/2r−s .
Let G = Zs2 = x1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ xs . Let A be the set consisting of the 2s−1 involu-
tions of G which can be written as words of odd length in x1 , . . . , xs . Let us write
k = 2r−s+2 u + 4 (k ≥ 5) and let Λ be a maximal NEC group with signature
(0; +; [−]; {(2, . k. ., 2)}). Observe that k > s because u > (2s−4 − 1)/2r−s . Hence
there exists an epimorphism θ : Λ → G such that the image θ(ci ) of each canonical
reflection belongs to A and θ(ci ) = θ(ci+1 ). In addition, if k ≤ 2s−1 then θ can
be defined so that the k canonical reflections c1 , . . . , ck are mapped onto distinct
elements of A.
Then ker θ is a surface Fuchsian group and the orbit space S = H/ ker θ is a
Riemann surface of genus 2r−1 u + 1 having G as its full group of automorphisms.
Now, if k ≤ 2s−1 , which happens if and only if u ≤ (2s−3 − 1)/2r−s, then {θ(ci ) :
i = 1, . . . , k} are representatives of the conjugacy classes of symmetries with fixed
points in S. On the other hand, if k > 2s−1 , which happens if and only if u >
(2s−3 − 1)/2r−s, then the 2s−1 elements in A are representatives of the conjugacy
classes of symmetries with fixed points in S.

Remark 2.2.6. The values of u in the range 2r+1 − 3 ≤ u < 2r+2 − 7 are covered
by both Theorems 2.2.1 and 2.2.5. Let us check that the formulae of μf (g) given
by these theorems coincide for these values of u. First, Theorem 2.2.1 gives directly
μf (g) = 2r+1 . To apply the formula of Theorem 2.2.5 we observe that the value of
the parameter s corresponding to those u in the range 2r+1 − 3 ≤ u < 2r+2 − 7 is
s = r + 2. So,
μf (g) = min{2r−s+2 u + 4, 2s−1 } = min{u + 4, 2r+1 } = 2r+1 ,
because u + 4 ≥ 2r+1 + 1.
Example 2.2.7. The function g → μf (g) is not increasing because μf (g) = 4 for
all even values of g (see Corollary 2.2.2). However, if we write g = 2r−1 u + 1 and
fix a value of r then the function u → μf (2r−1 u + 1) is increasing (but not strictly)
as a function of u. It attains the maximal value 2r+1 for u = 2r+1 − 3 and remains
constant from that moment onwards. We illustrate this in Table 2.1, where the pairs
(g, μf (g)) are computed for small values of r.
Table 2.1 Values of the pair (g, µf (g)) where

g = 2r−1 u + 1 with u odd for small values of r
r=1 r=2 r=3 r=4
(2, 4) (3, 5) (5, 6) (9, 8)
(4, 4) (7, 7) (13, 8) (25, 10)
(6, 4) (11, 8) (21, 9) (41, 14)
(8, 4) (15, 8) (29, 11) (57, 16)
(10, 4) (19, 8) (37, 13) (73, 16)
(12, 4) (23, 8) (45, 15) (89, 16)
(14, 4) (27, 8) (53, 16) (105, 17)
(18, 4) (31, 8) (61, 16) (121, 19)
(20, 4) (35, 8) (69, 16) (137, 21)
(22, 4) (39, 8) (77, 16) (153, 23)
(24, 4) (43, 8) (85, 16) (169, 25)
(26, 4) (47, 8) (93, 16) (185, 27)
(28, 4) (51, 8) (101, 16) (201, 29)
(30, 4) (55, 8) (109, 16) (217, 31)
(32, 4) (59, 8) (117, 16) (233, 32)
(34, 4) (63, 8) (125, 16) (249, 32)
2.3 Symmetries with Empty Set of Fixed Points 29
2.3 Symmetries with Empty Set of Fixed Points
In this section we shall deal with symmetries without fixed points. These symme-
tries correspond to the so called purely imaginary curves, that is, complex algebraic
curves which can be defined over the reals but have no R-rational points.
For an arbitrary value of g ≥ 2, let μi (g) denote the maximal number of con-
jugacy classes of fixed point free symmetries that can be admitted by a Riemann
surface S of genus g which has no symmetry with fixed points.
Theorem 2.3.1. Let us write g = 2r−1 u + 1 with u odd. Then μi (g) ≤ 2r . Further-
more, this bound is attained whenever u ≥ 2r + 1.
Proof. Let S be a compact Riemann surface of genus g having no symmetry with

fixed points and let G be a 2-group of automorphisms of S generated by repre-
sentatives of all the conjugacy classes of fixed point free symmetries. Let us write
S = H/Γ and G = Λ/Γ, where Γ has signature (g; −) and Λ is a proper NEC
group. Since S has no symmetry with fixed points, Λ contains no reflection, and
so its signature is (h; −; [m1 , . . . , mv ]; {−}) for some h ≥ 1. Let 2s be the largest
proper period in s(Λ), if any (observe that each proper period mi is a power of 2).
Then, by the Hurwitz–Riemann formula, 4π(g − 1) = |G|2π(h − 2 + m/2s ) for
some non-negative integer m. Since g − 1 = 2r−1 u we get
|G| m |G|
u= r
h − 2 + s
= r+s (2s (h − 2) + m) .
2 2 2
This yields that the order of G divides 2r+s because u is odd. The image in G of the
elliptic element of order 2s is an orientation preserving element which generates a
cyclic subgroup of index 2r . Hence μi (g) ≤ 2r by Lemma 2.1.2.
To prove the second part, let u ≥ 2r + 1 and let Λ be a maximal NEC group
with signature (h; −; [2, 2, 2]; {−}), where h = (u + 1)/2 ≥ r + 1. Take G =
Zr+1
2 with generating basis {z1 , . . . , zr+1 }, and let θ : Λ → G be the epimorphism
given by θ(di ) = zi for 1 ≤ i ≤ r + 1, θ(di ) = z1 for r + 2 ≤ i ≤ h and
θ(x1 ) = z1 z2 , θ(x2 ) = z2 z3 , θ(x3 ) = z1 z3 . Then Γ = ker θ is a surface Fuchsian
group and X = H/Γ is a Riemann surface of genus g = 2r−1 u + 1, without
symmetries with fixed points and admitting 2r conjugacy classes of fixed point free
symmetries.

The results are more precise if we restrict our considerations to Riemann surfaces
whose full group Aut(S) acts without fixed points, that is, no automorphism of S
(either analytic or antianalytic) fixes points in S. These are the surfaces S for which
the normal covering S → S/ Aut(S) is unramified.
For each g ≥ 3, let μwi (g) denote the maximal number of conjugacy classes of
symmetries that a genus g Riemann surface whose full group Aut(S) acts without
fixed points may admit. Observe that μw i (g) does not make sense for g = 2 since all
surfaces of genus 2 are hyperelliptic and the hyperelliptic involution fixes points.
Theorem 2.3.2. Let us write g = 2r−1 u + 1 with u odd. Then μw i (g) ≤ 2

r−1
.
Assume that g ∈/ {3, 5}. Then the bound is attained if and only if u ≥ r − 2. For
g ∈ {3, 5} we have μw w
i (3) = 1 and μi (5) = 2.
Proof. Let S be a genus g Riemann surface such that Aut(S) acts fixed point freely
and let G be a 2-group of automorphisms of S generated by representatives of the
conjugacy classes of its symmetries. Let us write S = H/Γ and G = Λ/Γ, where
Γ has signature (g; −) and Λ is a proper NEC group. Since the automorphisms in
G act fixed point freely, the group Λ contains no reflection and no elliptic element;
hence s(Λ) = (h; −; [−]; {−}) for some integer h > 2.
By the Hurwitz–Riemann formula, 2π|G|(h − 2) = 4π(g − 1) = 2r+1 πu, which
implies that |G| divides 2r because G is a 2-group and u is odd. The product of
two symmetries generates a dihedral group of index ≤ 2r−2 and so Corollary 2.1.3
yields μw i (g) ≤ 2
r−1
.
Assume that g ∈ / {3, 5}. If this bound is attained then |G| = 2r , h − 2 = u
and, by Lemma 2.1.2, no element of G has order greater than two. So G = Zr2 .
Moreover, since G is generated by the cosets Γdi , where d1 , . . . , dh form a set of
canonical generators of Λ, it follows that h ≥ r and so u ≥ r − 2.
Conversely, if u ≥ r − 2 then u + 2 ≥ 4 since otherwise g = 3 or 5. So
we may take a maximal NEC group Λ with signature (u + 2; −; [−]; {−}). Let
{d1 , . . . , du+2 } be a set of canonical generators of Λ. Take G = Zr2 with generating
basis {z1 , . . . , zr }, and let θ : Λ → G be the epimorphism induced by the assign-
ment θ(di ) = zi for 1 ≤ i ≤ r and θ(dj ) = z1 for r + 1 ≤ j ≤ u + 2. Then
ker θ is a surface Fuchsian group and S = H/ ker θ is a Riemann surface of genus
g = 2r−1 u + 1 with exactly 2r−1 conjugacy classes of symmetries whose full group
Aut(S) acts fixed point freely.
If the bound were attained for g = 3 or g = 5 then, with the above notations,
s(Λ) = (3; −; [−]; {−}), which is not a maximal signature. Indeed, according to the
list of normal pairs of NEC signatures given in [12], for each Λ with the above sig-
nature, there exists an NEC group Λ with signature s(Λ ) = (0; +; [2, 2, 2]; {(−)})
containing Λ as a normal subgroup of index 2. Up to automorphisms in Λ and
Λ , there is a unique embedding of Λ in Λ , given by d1 = x1 c, d2 = cx2 and
d3 = x2 cx3 x2 , see [12, Proposition 4.8], where {x1 , x2 , x3 , c} is a set of canonical
generators of Λ . Using this embedding it is easy to see that any smooth epimor-
phism θ : Λ → G, where G = Z22 if g = 3 and G = Z32 if g = 5, can be extended
to a smooth epimorphism θ : Λ → G where G = Z32 if g = 3 and G = Z42
if g = 5. Hence ker θ = ker θ and so the Riemann surface H/ ker θ = H/ ker θ
admits automorphisms with fixed points, namely, the images under θ of the elliptic
elements of Λ . This is a contradiction and so μw w
i (3) < 2 and μi (5) < 4.
Let us consider now a maximal NEC group Λ with signature (4; −; [−]; {−})
and define the epimorphisms θ1 : Λ → Z2 = σ by θ1 (di ) = σ for 1 ≤ i ≤ 4 and
θ2 : Λ → Z22 = σ1 , σ2 by θ2 (d1 ) = θ2 (d2 ) = σ1 and θ2 (d3 ) = θ2 (d4 ) = σ2 .
The group Aut(Sj ) of the Riemann surface Sj = H/ ker θj acts fixed point freely
and has one conjugacy class of symmetries if j = 1 and two if j = 2. This yields
μwi (3) = 1 because S1 has genus 3, and μi (5) ≥ 2 because S2 has genus 5.
w
2.4 Symmetries of Surfaces Admitting a Fixed Point Free Symmetry 31
We finally show that μw

i (5) < 3. Suppose, to get a contradiction, that there exists
a Riemann surface S = H/Γ of genus 5 with three conjugacy classes of symme-
tries and let G be a 2-group generated by representatives of them. Observe that
|G| ≥ 23 . Writing G = Λ/Γ and using that G acts fixed point freely, we get, by the
Hurwitz–Riemann formula, that s(Λ) = (3; −; [−]; {−}) and |G| = 8. Then
G = Z32 and we may repeat the above arguments to show that the action of G
extends to a group G which does not act fixed point freely.

2.4 Symmetries of Surfaces Admitting a Fixed Point

Free Symmetry
In the previous sections we have studied either collections of symmetries having

fixed points or collections of fixed point free symmetries of surfaces that do not
admit symmetries with fixed points. Now we shall study hybrid configurations. In
this section we calculate the maximal number of conjugacy classes of symmetries
that can be admitted by a Riemann surface S of genus g which has a fixed point free
symmetry. The computation of this bound was also carried out in [18]. It turns out
that this bound is the same as in Theorem 2.2.1 (for symmetries with fixed points)
but now it is attained for a wider range of genera.
Theorem 2.4.1. Let S be a compact Riemann surface of genus g admitting a fixed

point free symmetry. Let us write g = 2r−1 u + 1 with u odd. Then the number of
conjugacy classes of symmetries of S is at most 2r+1 . Furthermore this bound is
attained whenever u ≥ r − 2.
Proof. Let G be a 2-group of automorphisms of S generated by representatives

of the conjugacy classes of symmetries of S. Let us write |G| = 2t . Clearly, G
has at most 2t−1 conjugacy classes of symmetries. If t ≥ r + 1 (otherwise there
is nothing to prove) then Lemma 2.1.4 yields that G contains either a cyclic or a
dihedral subgroup of index 2r . In the first case the number of conjugacy classes of
symmetries in G is ≤ 2r by Lemma 2.1.2 (see also Remark 2.1.5) and ≤ 2r+1 in the
second one by Corollary 2.1.3. Therefore S has at most 2r+1 conjugacy classes of
symmetries. In fact, the above shows that this bound is attained only if G contains
a dihedral subgroup of index 2r and the subgroup G+ of orientation preserving
elements acts with fixed points on S, see Remark 2.1.6.
Suppose now that u ≥ r − 2. Let s = u + 3 ≥ 4 and take a maximal NEC
group Λ with signature (0; +; [−]; {(2, s+1
. . . , 2)}). Let {c0 , . . . , cs+1 } be a canonical
set of generators for Λ and let G = Zr+2
2 = x1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ xr+2 . Since s ≥ r + 1,
the assignment ci → xi for 1 ≤ i ≤ s + 1, where the indices of xi are modulo
r + 1, induces an epimorphism θ : Λ → G. In fact, ker θ is a surface Fuchsian
group and so S = H/Γ is a Riemann surface; its genus equals 2r−1 u + 1 and its
full automorphism group Aut(S) = Zr+2 2 has 2r+1 symmetries which are pairwise
non-conjugate. In addition, S admits fixed point free symmetries since, for instance,
the image under θ of the glide reflection c1 c2 c3 is one of them. Hence the bound
2r+1 is achievable when u ≥ r − 2.

Recall from Theorem 2.2.1 that 2r+1 is also the upper bound for the number
of conjugacy classes of symmetries with fixed points. As a consequence of
Theorems 2.2.1 and 2.4.1 we get the following.
Corollary 2.4.2. The maximum number of non-conjugate symmetries (of any type)
that a Riemann surface of genus g may admit is 2r+1 , where 2r−1 is the largest
power of 2 dividing g − 1.
Corollary 2.4.3. A Riemann surface with the maximum number of non-conjugate

symmetries with fixed points admits no symmetry with empty set of fixed points.
Chapter 3
Counting Ovals of Symmetries
of Riemann Surfaces
Throughout this chapter we will be involved in several enumerations of ovals of the

symmetries of a Riemann surface S. Recall that by an oval of a symmetry σ we
mean a connected component of the fixed point set Fix(σ) of σ. The first section
is short but crucial for the rest of the monograph. Theorem 3.1.1 allows us to find
the number σ of ovals of σ from the algebraic structure of the full automorphism
group Aut(S) and from the topological features of the action of Aut(S) on S. It
was established for the first time in [49]. In Sect. 3.2 we present the current state of
a problem investigated by many authors throughout the years, namely, to calculate
the maximal number of ovals of a fixed number k of non-conjugate symmetries of a
Riemann surface of genus g.
Section 3.3 concerns the total number of ovals of all symmetries of a Riemann
surface. We present Gromadzki’s upper bound [49] for the invariant ν(g), defined as
the maximum of the number of ovals of S, where S runs over all compact Riemann
surfaces of genus g.
The fourth and last section of this chapter is devoted to the study of pairs of
symmetries of Riemann surfaces, a topic on which much work has been done. The
reader may find in [55] an upper bound for the total number of ovals of two symme-
tries of a surface S in terms of the genus of the surface, the order of their product
and the number of points fixed by this product.
3.1 Enumeration of Ovals of Symmetries at Large
We begin by showing how to calculate the number of ovals of a symmetry σ of a

Riemann surface S in terms of the group G = Aut(S) and the topological features
of the action of G on S. This number of ovals will be denoted by σ. Let us write
S = H/Γ and G = Λ/Γ, where Λ is a proper NEC group containing the surface
Fuchsian group Γ as a normal subgroup. Let θ : Λ → G with ker θ = Γ be the
canonical smooth epimorphism. Recall that if the symmetry σ fixes points then it is
conjugate to θ(ci ) for some canonical reflection ci of Λ, see Lemma 1.5.9. The next
theorem, originally proved in [49], gives a formula to calculate σ. In this formula
the centralizer of an element h in an abstract group H is denoted by C(H, h).


34 3 Counting Ovals of Symmetries of Riemann Surfaces
Theorem 3.1.1. With the above notations, the number of ovals of a symmetry σ with
fixed points is
σ = [ C(G, θ(c)) : θ(C(Λ, c)) ],
where c runs over all non-conjugate canonical reflections of Λ whose images under
θ are conjugate in G to σ.
Proof. Let us write σ = Γσ /Γ for some NEC subgroup Γσ of Λ. On the one
hand, Fix(σ) is homeomorphic to the boundary of S/σ, whilst on the other hand
the number of ovals of Fix(σ) coincides with the number of empty period cycles of
s(Γσ ), because the Riemann surfaces S/σ and H/Γσ are isomorphic.
Hence, we have to count the reflections of Λ belonging to Γσ but non-conjugate
there. Observe that Γσ = θ−1 (σ). So, as σ has fixed points, it is conjugate to
θ(ci ) for some canonical reflection ci of Λ; without loss of generality we can as-
sume that θ(ci ) = σ because conjugate symmetries have the same number of ovals.
Now, given w ∈ Λ, its conjugate cw i belongs to Γσ if and only if w belongs to
θ−1 (C(G, θ(ci ))), the inverse image of the centralizer of θ(ci ) in G, which we shall
denote by Ci . In particular we see that Ci normalizes Γσ and so, for v, w ∈ Ci , the
−1
reflections cvi and cw
i of Γσ are conjugate in Γσ if and only if w v ∈ C(Λ, ci )Γσ .
As a consequence, the conjugates of ci give rise to
[Ci : C(Λ, ci )Γσ ] = [C(G, σ) : θ(C(Λ, ci ))]
empty period cycles in Γσ .

−1
Let now cw j ∈ Γσ for some j = i and w ∈ Λ. Then wCj w = Ci . Fur-
−1
thermore, cj ∈ Γσ if and only if vw
v
∈ Ci . Finally, given u, u ∈ Ci and v =

uw, v = u w, the reflections cvj and cvj are conjugate in Γσ if and only if v −1 v ∈
C(Λ, cj )w−1 Γσ w = C(Λ, cj )Γ, which means that u−1 u ∈ wC(Λ, cj )Γw−1 . So
the conjugates of cj give rise to
[Ci : wC(Λ, cj )Γw−1 ] = [Cj : C(Λ, cj )Γ] = [C(θ(Λ), θ(cj )) : θ(C(Λ, cj ))]
empty period cycles in Γσ , and therefore the result follows.

In what follows the index wi = [C(G, θ(ci )) : θ(C(Λ, ci ))] will be called the
contribution of ci to σ. Usually we shall say that ci contributes to σ with wi
ovals.
3.2 Total Number of Ovals of Non-Conjugate Symmetries
In this section we shall find a bound for the maximum number of ovals that k non-
conjugate symmetries of a Riemann surface can admit. For non-conjugate separating
symmetries such a bound was found by Natanzon [96] using methods different from
ours. Our result is more general as we find here the bound without any assumption
3.2 Total Number of Ovals of Non-Conjugate Symmetries 35
on separability. However, it works only for k ≥ 9. As to the cases k ≤ 9 we

should mention the article by Gromadzki and Izquierdo [54], where they showed
that the number of ovals that three non-conjugate symmetries of a Riemann surface
of even genus g can admit does not exceed 2g + 3, and the article by Gromadzki and
Kozłowska-Walania [56], with an analogous study for k = 5, 6, 7 and 8.
The next lemma is clearly important in virtue of Theorem 3.1.1.
Lemma 3.2.1. Let y1 and y2 be two involutions of a finite group G and let n denote
the order of their product. Then, the order of the centralizer C(G, yi ) of yi in G
does not exceed 2|G|/n for i = 1, 2.
Proof. Let H be the dihedral group generated by y1 and y2 and observe first that
C(H, yi ) equals either Z2 or Z2 ⊕ Z2 , according to n being odd or even. Fix a
system R of representatives for the cosets of G/H. Then each element g of G can
be represented as g = yx for some y ∈ H and x ∈ R, both uniquely determined.
Now assume that two elements g = yx and g = y x belong to C(G, yi ). Then
y y −1 ∈ H and y y −1 = g g −1 ∈ C(G, yi ). Thus g g −1 ∈ C(H, yi ) and so the
lemma follows because the order of C(H, yi ) does not exceed 4 for i = 1, 2.

We now prove the following elementary lemma of a combinatorial nature.
Lemma 3.2.2. Assume that k ≥ 3 labels are effectively used to label s points sit-
uated on a circle in such a way that there is no pair of consecutive points with the
same label. Then at least k − 1 points have neighbours with different labels.
Proof. We shall prove the lemma by induction on s. As the cases s = 3 and
s = 4 are trivial, we assume that s ≥ 5. There is nothing to prove if no point
has neighbours with the same label; in this case the s points have neighbours
with different labels. So assume that there are three consecutive points i − 1, i
and i + 1, say with labels 1, k and 1 respectively, and consider the configuration
T = {1, . . . , i − 1, i + 2, . . . , s} obtained by deleting the points i and i + 1.
Assume first that at least one of these points has label k. Then, by the inductive
hypothesis, t ≥ k − 1 points have neighbours with different labels. If, in the new
configuration, the point i − 1 has neighbours with the same label then in the former
configuration these t points have neighbours with different labels whilst, if i − 1
has neighbours with different labels then in the former configuration t − 1 of these
points and one among the points i − 1 and i + 1 has neighbours with different labels.
If none of the points in the set T has label k then we have a configuration of
s − 2 points on a circle labeled by k − 1 labels. For k = 3, necessarily s is even
and the points i − 1 and i + 1 have neighbours with different labels in the initial
configuration. So assume that k > 3. Then, by the inductive hypothesis, k − 2 points
of T have different labels. This way the assertion follows because in this case these
points and the point i + 1 have neighbours whose labels in the former configuration
are different.

We are in a position to explain the main result in [50], which gives a bound for
the maximal number of ovals that k non-conjugate symmetries of a Riemann surface
can admit.
Theorem 3.2.3. Let σ1 , . . . , σk , with k ≥ 9, be non-conjugate symmetries with

fixed points of a Riemann surface S of genus g ≥ 2 such that G = Aut(S) is a
2-group generated by σ1 , . . . , σk . Then
9−k
σ1 + · · · + σk ≤ 2(g − 1) + |G|.
8
Proof. Let us write S = H/Γ and G = Λ/Γ where Γ is a surface Fuchsian group
and Λ is a proper NEC group containing Γ as a normal subgroup. Let θ : Λ → G be
the canonical epimorphism. We write the signature of Λ as
s(Λ) = (g ; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {C1 , . . . , Cm , (−), . . ., (−)}), (3.1)
where Ci = (ni1 , . . . , nisi ) and denote s = s1 + · · · + sm . Observe that every

proper period mi and every link period nij are powers of 2 because G is a 2-group.
Observe also that the images under θ of all canonical reflections of Λ generate G.
For short, the sum σ1 + · · · + σk will be denoted by Σ.
Assume first that none of σ1 , . . . , σk is central in G. Then |C(G, σi )| ≤ |G|/2
for i ≤ k. So any canonical reflection of Λ corresponding to an empty period cycle
of s(Λ) contributes with at most |G|/4 ovals to Σ, by Theorem 3.1.1 and part (3) of
Lemma 1.3.1. On the other hand, a reflection corresponding to a non-empty period
cycle of s(Λ) contributes with at most |G|/8 ovals to Σ, by Theorem 3.1.1 and part
either (1) or (2) of Lemma 1.3.1.
Hence Σ ≤ (2 + s)|G|/8. Now, as Area(Λ) ≥ 2π(m + − 2 + s/4), we get,
by the Hurwitz–Riemann formula, that
g − 1 ≥ (4m + 4 − 8 + s)|G|/8.
Moreover, we claim that

8m + 6 + s > k + 7.
Indeed, since k ≤ + s (see Remark 1.1.6), we have 8m + 6 + s − k − 7 ≥
8m + 5 − 7, which is positive since for m = 0 also s = 0 and so ≥ k ≥ 9.
This way we get
(2 + s)|G| (8m + 8 − 16 + 2s)|G| (16 − 6 − 8m − s)|G|
Σ≤ = +
8 8 8
(9 − k)|G|
≤ 2(g − 1) + .
8
From now we will assume that some of the symmetries σ1 , . . . , σk , say z, is a central
element of G. Let us prove now that the theorem holds true if m = 0. In this case,
by Theorem 3.1.1 and part (3) of Lemma 1.3.1, we have Σ ≤ |G|/2, and, by the
Hurwitz–Riemann formula, 2g − 2 ≥ |G|( − 2). Consequently,
|G| (4 − )|G|
Σ≤ = |G|( − 2) +
2 2
(16 − 4)|G| (9 − k)|G|
≤ 2(g − 1) + < 2(g − 1) +
8 8
because 4 − k > 7 as ≥ k ≥ 9. Thus, in what follows we assume m > 0.
Let us show now that we can assume that = 0. Suppose that = 0 and consider
an NEC group Λ with signature
s = (g ; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {(2, 2, 2, 2, n11, . . . , n1s1 ), C2 , . . . , Cm , (−), −1

. . ., (−)})
which has one empty period cycle less than s(Λ). By a little abuse of the notations,
for the sake of technical simplicity, we denote in the same way as in the group Λ
some of the canonical generators of Λ ; namely those generators which correspond
to “pieces” of the signature of Λ in the signature of Λ and for the sake of termino-
logical convenience we shall refer to these generators of Λ as old generators. To be
more precise, this means that the hyperbolic generators of Λ are a1 , b1 , . . . , ag , bg
or d1 , . . . , dg , according to whether sign(s ) = “+” or sign(s ) = “−”, the elliptic
generators are x1 , . . . , xr , the generators corresponding to the first non-empty pe-
riod cycle are e1 , c0 , c1 , c2 , c3 , c10 , c11 , . . . , c1s1 , the generators corresponding to
the remaining non-empty period cycles are ei , ci0 , ci1 , . . . , cisi , whilst the genera-
tors corresponding to empty period cycles are em+1 , cm+1 , . . . , em+−1 , cm+−1 .
Furthermore, according to this convention, c0 , c1 , c2 and c3 , are the new generators,
whilst the remaining are the old ones.
We may assume, without loss of generality, that θ(c10 ) = z and we shall consider
the following two cases separately:
(1) θ(cm+ ) = z, (2) θ(cm+ ) = z.
Case 1: θ(cm+ ) = z. We define an epimorphism θ : Λ → G via the following

assignment: on the old canonical generators but e1 , the map θ acts as θ, and we
define
θ (e1 ) = θ(e1 · · · em+ )θ(e2 · · · em+−1 )−1 , θ (c0 ) = θ (e1 c1s1 e−1
1 ),
θ (c1 ) = θ (c3 ) = z, and θ (c2 ) = θ(cm+ ).
Then Γ = ker θ is a surface Fuchsian group. Indeed, by Theorem 1.2.2 its signa-
ture has no proper periods, by Theorem 1.2.5 it has no link periods, and finally, by
Theorem 1.2.1, its sign is “ + ”. Let S = H/Γ . As Area(Λ) = Area(Λ ) both S
and S have the same genus. Let Σ be the sum of the number of ovals of represen-
tatives of all conjugacy classes of symmetries with fixed points of the surface S .
We shall prove now that Σ ≤ Σ .
As the images under θ of all, except c10 , old canonical reflections corresponding
to non-empty period cycles and their neighbours coincide with their images under
θ it follows, from Theorem 3.1.1 and either (1) or (2) of Lemma 1.3.1, that each of
these reflections contributes with at least as many ovals to Σ as to Σ. Similarly, by
Theorem 3.1.1 and part (3) of Lemma 1.3.1, old reflections corresponding to empty
period cycles contribute to Σ with at least as many ovals as to Σ. Hence, to prove

the inequality Σ ≤ Σ , it suffices to show that c10 , c0 , c1 , c2 and c3 contribute all
together to Σ with at least as many ovals as cm+ and c10 contribute to Σ.
Let w10 denote the contribution of c10 to Σ. Then c10 contributes to Σ either
with w10 or w10 /2 ovals according to whether θ(c10 c11 )n11 /2 = z or not. Sim-
ilarly, c0 contributes to Σ either with w10 or w10 /2 ovals according to whether
θ(c1s1 −1 c1s1 )n1s1 /2 = z or not. Consequently, the reflections c10 and c0 contribute
to θ (c10 ) with at least as many ovals as c10 contributes to θ(c10 ).
Assume now that cm+ contributes with wm+ ovals to θ(cm+ ). Then c2
contributes to Σ with either wm+ ovals if θ(em+ ) = 1 or wm+ /2 ovals if
θ(em+ ) = 1. In the first case we are done. In the second one, let n and n
be the orders of the products θ (c0 )θ (c2 ) and θ (c2 )θ (c10 ), respectively, and let
n = max{n , n }. Then, by Lemma 3.2.1, the order of the centralizer of θ(cm+ )
is not bigger than 2|G|/n and so cm+ contributes to Σ with at most |G|/n ovals,
i.e., wm+ ≤ |G|/n, whilst now c1 and c3 contribute with |G|/4n + |G|/4n ≥
|G|/2n ≥ wm+ /2 ovals to z. This proves the inequality Σ ≤ Σ also in this case.
Case 2: θ(cm+ ) = z. We define an epimorphism θ : Λ → G as follows; on c0 and
on all old canonical generators, θ acts as in the previous case. Moreover, we define
θ (c1 ) = θ (c3 ) = θ(cm+ ) and θ (c2 ) = θ(c10 ).
Using again Theorems 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.5 it follows straightforwardly that Γ =
ker θ is a surface Fuchsian group and hence S = H/Γ is a Riemann surface. Its
genus coincides with that of S by the Hurwitz–Riemann formula. Let Σ denote
again the sum of the numbers of ovals of representatives of all the conjugacy classes
of symmetries with fixed points of the surface S . As in the precedent case we shall
prove that Σ ≤ Σ .
Also here each old canonical reflection but c10 contributes to Σ with as many
ovals as it contributes to Σ. The new reflection c2 contributes to Σ with no less ovals
than c10 contributes to Σ. Moreover, cm+ contributes to θ(cm+ ) with either
|G|/4 or |G|/2 ovals according to θ(em+ ) = 1 or θ(em+ ) = 1. In the first case
we see that Σ ≤ Σ as also c3 contributes with |G|/4 ovals to Σ . If θ(em+ ) = 1,
then θ (e1 ) = θ(e1 ). Hence, in this case θ (c0 ) = θ(c10 ) and therefore both c1 and
c3 contribute with |G|/4 ovals to Σ . Thus, again Σ ≤ Σ .
This way we have substituted Λ by another NEC group Λ whose signature has
one period cycle less that s(Λ) and Σ ≤ Σ . After repeating the argument we can
assume from the very beginning that Λ has no empty period cycles, i.e., its signature
has the form
s(Λ) = (g ; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {(n11 , . . . , n1s1 ), . . . , (nm1 , . . . , nmsm )}).
The next step is to show that, actually, we can assume that m = 1, that is, Λ has
just one period cycle. Suppose that m > 1. Observe first that we can assume that
θ(c1s1 ) = z and θ(c20 ) = z. Let Λ be an NEC group with signature
(g ; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {(n11 , . . . , n1s1 , 2, 2, n21 , . . . , n2s2 , 2, 2), C3 , . . . , Cs }).

Observe that s(Λ ) has one period cycle less than s(Λ). Moreover, the reflections of
Λ corresponding to the first period cycle are c10 , . . . , c1s1 , c0 , c20 , . . . , c2s2 , c1 , c2
and it is easily seen that Area(Λ) = Area(Λ ). Let us define an epimorphism θ :
Λ → G via the following assignment: except on e1 , the epimorphisms θ and θ
coincide when acting on all old canonical generators and, furthermore, we define
θ (e1 ) = θ(e1 )θ(e2 ), θ (c0 ) = θ (c1 ) = z and θ (c2 ) = θ (e−1
1 )θ(c10 )θ (e1 ).
Using once more Theorems 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and 1.2.5 we realize that Γ = ker θ is a
surface Fuchsian group. Then S = H/Γ is a Riemann surface of genus g. Let Σ
be the sum of the numbers of ovals of representatives of all the conjugacy classes of
symmetries with fixed points of the surface S . Let us check that Σ ≤ Σ . Indeed,
all old canonical reflections, but c10 and c20 , contribute to Σ with at least as many
ovals as they contribute to Σ. Let us denote by wiΣ the contribution of ci0 to Σ. Then
wiΣ = qi /4ki ,
where qi is the order of the centralizer of θ(ci0 ) in G and ki is the order of
the product θ(ci0 ci1 )ni1 /2 θ(e−1 i (cisi −1 cisi )
nisi /2
ei ) for i = 1, 2. In particular
wi ≤ qi /4. On the other hand, since the elements θ (c10 c11 )n11 /2 θ (e1 c1 c2 e−1
Σ
1 )
and θ (c1s1 −1 c1s1 )n1s1 /2 θ (c1s1 c0 ) have order 2, we see that c10 and c1s1 contribute
with no less ovals to Σ than c10 contributes to Σ. Similarly, it is easy to check that
c20 and c2s2 contribute to Σ with no less ovals than c20 contributes to Σ. This proves
our claim Σ ≤ Σ .
Therefore, after repeating the process, we conclude that it is sufficient to deal
with the case of an NEC group Λ with signature
s(Λ) = (g ; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {(n1 , . . . , ns )}).
Observe that the Hurwitz–Riemann formula yields
s ≤ 8(g − 1)/|G| + 4. (3.2)
Let c0 , . . . , cs denote the corresponding canonical reflections. We may assume that
θ(c0 ) is a central symmetry of S and so in particular θ(c0 ) = θ(cs ). Consider
c0 , . . . , cs−1 as s points on a circle labelled by the symbols θ(c0 ), . . . , θ(cs−1 ) re-
spectively. By Lemma 3.2.2, at least for k − 1 indices in range 0 ≤ i1 < · · · <
ik−1 ≤ s − 1, we have θ(cij −1 ) = θ(cij +1 ), where the indices are taken modulo s.
Now, if nij > 2 or nij +1 > 2 then θ(cij ) is not central in G, and so
|C(G, θ(cij ))| ≤ |G|/2. Therefore cij contributes to Σ with at most |G|/8 ovals.
If both nij = nij +1 = 2 then |θ(C(Λ, cij ))| ≥ 8 and thus also now cij contributes
with at most |G|/8 ovals to Σ. The remaining canonical reflections contribute to Σ
with no more than |G|/4 ovals. Consequently, using inequality (3.2) we get
(k − 1)|G| (s − k + 1)|G| s|G| (1 − k)|G|
Σ≤ + = +
8 4 4 8
(1 − k)|G| (9 − k)|G|
≤ 2(g − 1) + |G| + = 2(g − 1) + .
8 8

Remark 3.2.4. We will see in Theorem 3.2.6 that the bound obtained in
Theorem 3.2.3 is sharp for k ≥ 9. However, the proof of Theorem 3.2.3 works
for k ≥ 3, as is easy to see.
Corollary 3.2.5. Let σ1 , . . . , σk , with k ≥ 9, be non-conjugate symmetries with

fixed points of a Riemann surface S of genus g ≥ 2. Then
σ1 + · · · + σk ≤ 2(g − 1) + 2r−3 (9 − k),
where r is the smallest positive integer for which k ≤ 2r−1 .
Proof. As we are looking for the number of ovals of {σ1 , . . . , σk } and conjugate
symmetries have the same number of ovals, we can assume, using Sylow theorem,
that {σ1 , . . . , σk } generate a 2-subgroup G of Aut(S). Clearly, k ≤ |G|/2 and,
moreover, |G| ≥ 2r by the definition of r.
Write S = H/Γ and G = Λ/Γ for a surface Fuchsian group Γ and a proper NEC
group Λ containing it as a normal subgroup. Write the signature of Λ as (3.1) in the
proof of Theorem 3.2.3. As s + ≥ k ≥ 9, it follows from [22, Theorem 2.4.7]
and [41] that s(Λ) is a maximal NEC signature. Hence, by [22, Theorem 5.1.2],
there exists a maximal NEC group Λ isomorphic to Λ, say via ϕ : Λ → Λ . Let
S = H/Γ , where Γ = ϕ(Γ). Then Aut(S ) = Λ /Γ and ϕ induces a group
isomorphism ϕ : Λ/Γ → Λ /Γ . Therefore τ1 = ϕ(σ
1 ), . . . , τk = ϕ(σ
k ) are non-
conjugate symmetries of S .
The group generated by each σi can be written as σi = Λi /Γ for some proper
NEC subgroup Λi of Λ containing Γ as a subgroup of index 2. Here σi is the
number of period cycles of s(Λi ). Thus σi = τi because τi = ϕ(Λi )/Γ .
Therefore G ∼ = Aut(S ) is a 2-group and, by Theorem 3.2.3,
σ1 + · · · + σk = τ1 + · · · + τk ≤ 2(g − 1) + (9 − k)|G|/8.
Since |G| ≥ 2r and 9 − k ≤ 0, the corollary follows.

The next result shows that the bound obtained in Corollary 3.2.5 is attained for
infinitely many values of g. We present here the proof given in [50].
Theorem 3.2.6. Let k ≥ 9 be an integer and let r be the smallest positive integer
satisfying k ≤ 2r−1 . Then, for each t ≥ k − 3 there exists a Riemann surface S
of genus g = 2r−2 t + 1 having k non-conjugate symmetries σ1 , . . . , σk with fixed
points such that
σ1 + · · · + σk = 2(g − 1) + 2r−3 (9 − k).
Proof. Let G = Zr2 = z1 ⊕ · · · ⊕ zr , and let Λ be a maximal NEC group with
s(Λ) = (0; +; [−]; {(2, .2s
. ., 2)}), where s = t + 2 ≥ k − 1. Let {a1 , . . . , a2r−1 }
be all elements of order 2 in G which have odd length with respect to the set
3.3 Total Number of Ovals of all Symmetries of a Riemann Surface 41
of generators {z1 , . . . , zr }, and assume that a1 , . . . , ar generate G. Since r is the

smallest positive integer such that k ≤ 2r−1 we deduce that r ≤ k and so the
assignment
⎧
⎪
⎪ 0 ≤ j ≤ s,
⎨a1 for i = 2j,
θ(ci ) = aj+2 for i = 2j + 1, 0 ≤ j ≤ k − 2,
⎪
⎪
⎩a for i = 2j + 1, k − 1 ≤ j ≤ s − 1,
k
induces an epimorphism θ : Λ → G whose kernel Γ is a surface Fuchsian group.

Hence S = H/Γ is a Riemann surface having k non-conjugate symmetries with
fixed points. Its genus, by the Hurwitz–Riemann formula, equals 2r−2 t + 1.
We see that for each 0 ≤ j ≤ k − 2 the reflection c2j contributes with 2r−3
ovals to a1 , whilst each one of the remaining 2s − k + 1 non-conjugate canonical
reflections of Λ contributes with 2r−2 ovals to the corresponding symmetry. As a
result
σ1 + · · · + σk = 2r−3 (k − 1) + 2r−2 (2s − k + 1) = 2r−1 s + 2r−3 (1 − k)

= 2(g − 1) + 2r + 2r−3 (1 − k) = 2(g − 1) + 2r−3 (9 − k),
which is the equality we were looking for.

3.3 Total Number of Ovals of all Symmetries

of a Riemann Surface
A simple closed curve on a Riemann surface S is said to be an oval of S if it is an

oval of some symmetry of S. Let S be the number of ovals on S and let ν(g) be
the maximum of S where S runs over all Riemann surfaces of genus g. Using
topological methods, Natanzon proved in [100] and [101], that ν(g) ≤ 42(g − 1).
Here, using combinatorial methods as before, we sharpen this result.
To begin with, we state and prove the following Lemma 3.3.1, which is a conse-
quence of part (2) in Lemma 1.3.3.
Lemma 3.3.1. Let Λ be an NEC group with triangle signature (2k, 2 + 1, 2m) and
let {c0 , c1 , c2 } be a system of canonical generators of Λ. Then

C(Λ, c0 ) = c0 ⊕ (c0 c1 )k ∗ (c0 c2 )m ;

C(Λ, c1 ) = c1 ⊕ (c0 c1 )k ∗ (c2 c1 ) (c0 c2 )m (c1 c2 ) .
Proof. By choosing c0 = c2 , c1 = c0 and c2 = c1 we get a system of canonical

generators for the presentation of Λ associated to the signature (2m, 2k, 2 + 1). So
the lemma follows from part (2) in Lemma 1.3.3.

In the same vein as Theorem 3.1.1 we have the following result, see [49].
Theorem 3.3.2. Let S be a Riemann surface represented as H/Γ for some surface
Fuchsian group Γ. Let Λ be an NEC group and let θ : Λ → Aut(S) be a group
epimorphism with ker θ = Γ. Then

(1) S = [Aut(S) : θ(C(Λ, c))], where c runs over a set of representatives of
conjugacy classes of canonical reflections of Λ.
(2) 2S ≤ k |Aut(S)|, where k is the number of non-conjugate canonical reflec-
tions of Λ.
(3) Suppose that every period cycle of Λ has an even link period. Then
4S ≤ t |Aut(S)|, where t is the number of even link periods of s(Λ).
Proof. (1) Each oval of S corresponds to a reflection of Λ and so to the conjugate

cwj of some canonical reflection cj ∈ Λ by some w ∈ Λ. Observe that if the
reflections cj and c are conjugate in Λ then for each w ∈ Λ there exists v ∈ Λ
= cj . Thus, to calculate S we have to count down the ovals con-
such that cw v
tributed by elements of the form cw , where c runs over a set of representatives

of conjugacy classes of canonical reflections of Λ.
Moreover, given v, w ∈ Λ one can show, as in the proof of Theorem 3.1.1,
−1
that cw v
j and cj give rise to the same oval if and only if v w ∈ C(Λ, cj )Γ.
Consequently, the reflections conjugate to cj give rise to exactly
[Λ : C(Λ, cj )Γ] = [Λ/Γ : C(Λ, cj )Γ/Γ] = [θ(Λ) : θ(C(Λ, cj )]
distinct ovals. Finally, as the contributions of non-conjugate canonical reflec-

tions cj and cj are disjoint, the proof of the first part is finished.
(2) This is an evident consequence of part (1), since each group θ(C(Λ, c)) is a
proper subgroup of Aut(S).
(3) As two canonical reflections of Λ corresponding to odd link periods are conju-
gate, in the formula of part (1) we have to sum up over all canonical reflections
corresponding to even link periods. For each such reflection c let c be a con-
secutive canonical reflection such that cc has even order n. Then both c and
(cc )n/2 are in C(Λ, c). Moreover, θ(c) = 1 = θ(cc )n/2 since Γ has no
elements of finite order. Furthermore, θ(c) = θ(cc )n/2 since otherwise the
product (cc )n/2 c would be an orientation reversing element of Γ. Therefore
|θ(C(Λ, c))| ≥ 4 and so the result follows immediately from part (1).

We shall use Theorem 3.3.2 to estimate an upper bound for the function ν.
Throughout the rest of this section we write the genus g surface as S = H/Γ for
some surface Fuchsian group Γ and denote G = Aut(S). Moreover, we denote by
θ : Λ → G a group epimorphism with ker θ = Γ, where Λ is an NEC group.
(3.3.3) A first bound for S in terms of Λ and g.
Let us write the signature of Λ as
s(Λ) = (g ; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {C1 , . . . , Cm , (−), . . ., (−)}),

where Ci = (ni1 , . . . , nisi ), and denote s = s1 + · · · + sm . Thus,
Area(Λ) ≥ 2π(ηg + m + − 2 + r/2 + s/4) (3.3)
and therefore
2(g − 1)
|G| ≤ .
ηg + 3/4 + m − 2 + r/2 + ( + s)/4
So by part (2) in Theorem 3.3.2 we get
|G|( + s) (g − 1)( + s)
S ≤ ≤ . (3.4)
2 ηg + 3/4 + m − 2 + r/2 + ( + s)/4
We are ready to present Gromadzki’s proof, see [49], of the inequality ν(g) ≤
12(g −1) for most values of the genus g ≥ 2. More precisely, we have the following.
Theorem 3.3.4. Let g ≥ 4 be an integer with g ∈

/ {5, 7, 9}. Then ν(g) ≤ 12(g − 1).
Moreover, ν(g) = 12(g − 1) if g = 8m2 + 1 with m ≥ 2. Finally,
ν(2) = 24, ν(3) = 36, ν(5) = 72, ν(7) = 126 and ν(9) = 100.
Proof. Using the previous notations, it is enough to study the case ηg + 3/4 + m+
r/2 < 2 since otherwise, by (3.4), we have S ≤ 4(g − 1). In particular ηg < 2.
If ηg = 1 then m = 0 and, since ≥ 1, we get r = 0 and = 1, i.e.,
Area(Λ) = 0, an absurdity. Thus g = 0 and so 3 + 4m + 2r < 8. In particular
< 3 and if = 2 then m = r = 0, i.e., Area(Λ) = 0, an absurdity. Suppose that
= 1, which implies 2m + r ≤ 2, and in particular either m = 0 or m = 1. In the
first case r = 2 and either m1 > 2 or m2 > 2, because Area(Λ) > 0. But in such a
situation Area(Λ) ≥ π/3 and so
|G| 4π(g − 1)
S ≤ ≤ ≤ 12(g − 1).
2 Area(Λ)
Therefore, if = 1 then also m = 1 and this implies, by (3.3), Area(Λ) ≥ sπ/2.

Consequently,
4π(g − 1)
S ≤ ≤ 8(g − 1).
Area(Λ)
So we may assume that = 0 and 2m + r < 4. But m + = k ≥ 1, that is m = 1
and r ≤ 1. We conclude that it is enough to study the case in which
s(Λ) = (0; +; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {(n1 , . . . , ns )}),
where r ≤ 1.
First, let s = 1. Then r = 1 because Area(Λ) > 0 and so
s(Λ) = (0; +; [m]; {(n)}).
Note that Area(Λ) = 2π(1/2 − 1/m − 1/2n), which implies m ≥ 3. If n = 2 then

m ≥ 5 and thus Area(Λ) ≥ π/10. Then, by part (3) in Theorem 3.3.2,
|G| 4π(g − 1)
S ≤ ≤ = 10(g − 1).
4 4π/10
If n = 3 then m ≥ 4 and so Area(Λ) ≥ π/6. Thus |G| ≤ 24(g − 1) and therefore

S ≤ 12(g − 1) by part (2) in Theorem 3.3.2. If n = 4 then m ≥ 3. So Area(Λ) ≥
π/12 and consequently S ≤ |G|/4 ≤ 12(g − 1).
Now let n = 5. Then, for m ≥ 4 we get
|G| 20
S ≤ ≤ (g − 1).
2 3
For n = 5 and m = 3, |G| = 30(g − 1). Let c0 and c1 be the canonical reflections
of Λ and let e be the connecting generator. Notice that c0 , e(c0 c1 )2 ∈ C(Λ, c0 ) and
θ(c0 ) = θ(e(c0 c1 )2 ). Furthermore, θ(e(c0 c1 )2 ) = 1, because |θ(e)| = 3 while
|θ((c0 c1 )2 )| = 5. Hence, |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 4 and therefore
|G|
S ≤ < 8(g − 1).
4
For n = 6 we have S ≤ |G|/4 ≤ 6(g − 1). Finally, S ≤ |G|/2 < 11(g − 1)
for n ≥ 7. This finishes the analysis of the case s = 1.
Now let s = 2. Again r = 1, because Area(Λ) > 0, and so
s(Λ) = (0; +; [m]; {(n1 , n2 )}).
Note that in this case

1 1 1 1
Area(Λ) = 2π 1 − − + .
m 2 n1 n2
If m ≥ 3 then Area(Λ) ≥ π/3 and so, by part (2) in Theorem 3.3.2,
4π(g − 1)
S ≤ |G| = ≤ 12(g − 1).
Area(Λ)
Assume then that m = 2. If both n1 , n2 are odd then Area(Λ) ≥ π/3 and again by
part (2) in Theorem 3.3.2,
4π(g − 1)
S ≤ |G| = ≤ 12(g − 1).
Area(Λ)
If n1 is even and n2 is odd then Area(Λ) ≥ π/6. Therefore, by (3) in Theorem 3.3.2,
S ≤ |G|/2 ≤ 12(g − 1) because Area(Λ) > 0. In such a case Area(Λ) ≥ π/4
and this implies S ≤ |G|/2 ≤ 8(g − 1). Thus, also the case s = 2 is finished.
The case s = 3 is more complicated and will be considered later on. Assume
now that s ≥ 4. Then for r = 1, Area(Λ) ≥ π(s − 2)/2. Thus, |G| ≤ 8(g − 1)/
(s − 2) and therefore
s|G| 4s
S ≤ ≤ (g − 1) ≤ 8(g − 1).
2 s−2
Hence we can assume r = 0, i.e.,
s(Λ) = (0; +; [−]; {(n1 , . . . , ns )}),
which we shall abbreviate as s(Λ) = (n1 , . . . , ns ), and whose area is

s
1
Area(Λ) = π s − 2 − .
n
i=1 i
If all ni are odd then Area(Λ) ≥ 2π/3. Consequently, |G| ≤ 6(g − 1) and
S ≤ 3(g − 1). Thus, assume that some ni is even and observe that, as in this
case Area(Λ) ≥ π(s − 4)/2, one has |G| ≤ 8(g − 1)/(s − 4) and therefore, for
s > 5, and by (3) in Theorem 3.3.2,
2s
S ≤ (g − 1) ≤ 10(g − 1).
s−4
So let s = 4 and let c0 , c1 , c2 , c3 be the set of canonical reflections of Λ. If each

link period ni is odd then Area(Λ) ≥ 2π/3. Hence, |G| ≤ 6(g − 1) and so S ≤
12(g − 1) by (2) in Theorem 3.3.2. If the number of odd link periods is either 2 or 3
then Area(Λ) ≥ π/3. Hence, |G| ≤ 12(g − 1) and thus S ≤ 6(g − 1), using (3)
in Theorem 3.3.2 once more.
So we can assume that at least three of the link periods, say n1 , n2 , n3 , are even.
Now if n4 is odd and ni ≥ 4 for some i ≤ 3 then Area(Λ) ≥ 5π/12. Therefore
|G| ≤ (48/5)(g − 1) and so S ≤ 3|G|/4 < 8(g − 1). If n4 is even and at least
two of the link periods are ≥ 4 then Area(Λ) ≥ π/2, and consequently, by (3) in
Theorem 3.3.2, S ≤ |G|/ ≤ 8(g − 1). Henceforth, for s = 4 it just remains
to analyze the signature s(Λ) = (2, 2, 2, n) where, necessarily, n ≥ 3 because
Area(Λ) > 0. Note that Area(Λ) = π(n − 2)/2n, which implies
8n
|G| = (g − 1).
n−2
Now the reflections c0 , c1 , c2 ∈ C(Λ, c1 ), and
θ(c0 ) = θ(c1 ) = θ(c2 ) and θ(c0 c2 ) = θ(c1 ).

Moreover, θ(c0 ) = θ(c2 ) since otherwise (c0 c3 )2 ∈ Γ would be an element of

finite order. Thus, |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| ≥ 8 and in the same way one can prove that
|θ(C(Λ, c2 ))| ≥ 8. Therefore, by Theorem 3.3.2,
2|G| 2|G| 3|G| 6n

S ≤ + = ≤ (g − 1) ≤ 12(g − 1)
8 4 4 n−2
for n ≥ 4. Also for n = 3,
2|G| |G| |G| 4n

S ≤ + = ≤ (g − 1) = 12(g − 1).
8 4 2 n−2
Henceforth it only remains to study the case s = 3. If r = 1 then Area(Λ) ≥ π/2

and so, by (2) in Theorem 3.3.2, S ≤ 3|G|/2 ≤ 12(g − 1). So we have proved
that S ≤ 12(g − 1) except for s(Λ) = (k, , m). Note that in this case
1 1 1
Area(Λ) = π 1 − − − .
k m
By [73] we can assume, without loss of generality, that k ≤ ≤ m. Let c0 , c1 , c2 be
a system of canonical reflections for Λ.
If k, and m are odd then Area(Λ) ≤ 4π/15 unless s(Λ) = (3, 3, 5). In the first
cases, by (2) in Theorem 3.3.2,
|G| 15
S ≤ ≤ (g − 1).
2 2
In the last case |G| = 30(g − 1). However, the centralizer C(Λ, c0 ) contains both
c0 and (c2 c0 )2 (c1 c2 )(c0 c1 ). Furthermore, θ(c0 ) = θ((c2 c0 )2 (c1 c2 )(c0 c1 )), because
otherwise Γ would contain an orientation reversing element.
Moreover, since θ(c0 c2 ) = 1, it follows that θ((c2 c0 )2 (c1 c2 )(c0 c1 )) = 1. Thus
|θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 4 and therefore S ≤ (15/2)(g − 1), as all reflections of Λ are
conjugate.
Assume now that some of the integers k, , m is even. As before we can show,
using part (3) in Theorem 3.3.2, that S ≤ 12(g − 1) for k ≥ 3. Thus, suppose
that k = 2 and recall that we have assumed ≤ m. Observe first that for ≥ 8,
Area(Λ) ≥ π/4 and so
3|G|
S ≤ ≤ 12(g − 1).
4
If = 7 then Area(Λ) ≥ 3π/14. Therefore |G| ≤ (56/3)(g − 1) and S ≤

2|G|/4 < 10(g − 1).
Let = 6. Then Area(Λ) = (m − 3)π/3m and this implies
12m
|G| = (g − 1).
m−3
Therefore, for odd m, part (2) in Theorem 3.3.2 implies that
6m
S ≤ (g − 1) < 11(g − 1).
m−3
Let now m be even. Then, by (2) in Theorem 3.3.2,
S ≤ 3|G|/4 ≤ 12(g − 1)
whenever m ≥ 12. Thus, we just have to analyze the cases m ∈ {6, 8, 10}.
Here we have c0 c1 , (c1 c2 )3 ∈ C(Λ, c1 ) and their images under θ are dis-
tinct, since otherwise θ(c0 c2 ) = θ(c1 c2 )4 , which is impossible, as the first of
these two elements has order m while the second one has order 3. Furthermore,
θ(c1 ) ∈ θ(c0 c1 ), θ(c1 c2 )3 . So |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| ≥ 8. Similarly, one can show that
|θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 8. Thus
2|G| |G| 6m
S ≤ + = (g − 1) ≤ 12(g − 1).
8 4 m−3
For = 5, Area(Λ) = (3m − 10)π/10m, that is,
40m
|G| = (g − 1).
3m − 10
If m is odd then m ≥ 5, hence S ≤ |G|/4 ≤ 10(g − 1). If m is even then

S ≤ 2|G|/4 ≤ 12(g − 1) whenever m ≥ 8. Therefore we have to consider the
case m = 6. Here |G| = 30(g − 1). Now c0 c1 , (c0 c2 )3 ∈ C(Λ, c0 ) and again their
images under θ are distinct since otherwise θ(c2 c1 ) = θ(c0 c2 )2 which is impossible,
as the first of these two elements has order 5 while the second one has order 3. As
before we deduce that |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 8 and therefore
|G| |G|
S ≤ + < 12(g − 1).
8 4
So it remains to deal only with the cases = 3 and = 4.
We shall see below that the group G of all automorphisms of a Riemann surface
which has more than 12(g − 1) ovals is a factor group of some group G with a
certain specific presentation which makes it finite. In virtue of the Hurwitz–Riemann
formula, the order of G imposes restrictions on the genera of the corresponding
Riemann surfaces. In most cases the calculation of the order is easily done. In one
particular case, however, the use of a Computer Algebra System has been necessary.
We acknowledge that all the results obtained have been checked by using the GAP
Program (Groups, Algorithms and Programming) developed by J. Neubüsers group
at Aachen [46].
For = 4, Area(Λ) = (m − 4)π/2m, that is,
16m
|G| = (g − 1).
m−4
If |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| < 8 then, by either (1) or (2) in Lemma 1.3.3, θ(c0 c1 ) = θ(c1 c2 )2 ,
and therefore θ(c0 c2 ) = θ(c1 c2 )3 . Thus θ(c0 c2 )4 = 1, which implies that m
divides 4. Hence Area(Λ) ≤ 0, which is false. Therefore |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| ≥ 8.
Now if m is even, similar arguments show that |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 8. So
2|G| |G| 8m
S ≤ + = (g − 1) ≤ 12(g − 1)
8 4 m−4
for m ≥ 12. For m = 10, |θ(C(Λ, c2 ))| ≥ 8, since otherwise θ(c0 c2 )5 = θ(c1 c2 )2
and so θ(c0 c2 )4 = θ(c1 )θ(c2 c0 )θ(c1 ), which implies θ(c0 c2 )5 = 1, an absurdity.
Similarly, |θ(C(Λ, c2 ))| ≥ 8 for m = 6, 8. Therefore, for m = 8, 10,
3
S ≤ |G| ≤ 12(g − 1).
8
Therefore, we just have to deal with the case m = 6.
Observe that |G| = 48(g − 1) and S ≤ 18(g − 1), as we already know that
|θ(C(Λ, ci ))| ≥ 8 for i = 0, 1, 2. If |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| > 8 for each index i = 0, 1, 2,
then |θ(C(Λ, ci ))| ≥ 12 and S ≤ 3|G|/12 = 12(g − 1). Assume then that
|θ(C(Λ, ci ))| = 8 for some i = 0, 1, 2.
If |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| = 8 then, by part (1) of Lemma 1.3.3, θ(c0 c1 )θ(c0 c2 )3 is an
element of order 2, and so G is a factor group of the group with presentation
c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )4 , (c0 c2 )6 , ((c0 c1 )(c0 c2 )3 )2 ,
which can be easily shown to have order 96. So either g = 2 or g = 3. However,

later on we shall show that there exist Riemann surfaces of genera 2 and 3 with 24
and 36 ovals, respectively.
Now if |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| = 8 then θ(c0 c1 )θ(c1 c2 )2 is an element of order 2 and thus
G is a factor group of the group with presentation
which again can be shown to have order 48 and so g = 2 in this case.

Finally, assume that |θ(C(Λ, ci ))| > 8, for i = 0, 1 and |θ(C(Λ, c2 ))| = 8. Then
S ≤ 2|G|/12 + |G|/8 = 14(g − 1). As before we claim that G is a factor group
of the group with presentation
c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )4 , (c0 c2 )6 , ((c1 c2 )2 (c0 c2 )3 )2 ,
which can be shown to have order 192. So the only values that g can attain in this
case are g = 2, 3 or 5. But later on we shall see that there exists a Riemann surface
of genus 5 with 72 ovals.
So let m be odd. Then, for m ≥ 9,
|G| |G|
S ≤ + < 11(g − 1)
8 4
and therefore the only cases left are m = 5 and m = 7. Assume first that m = 7.
Then |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 8. Indeed, if this were not the case then by (2) of Lemma
1.3.3,
θ(c0 c1 ) = θ(c2 c0 )3 θ(c1 c2 )2 θ(c0 c2 )3 = θ(c0 c2 )3 θ(c1 )θ(c0 c2 )θ(c1 )θ(c0 c2 )3 .
Therefore θ(c1 c2 ) and θ(c0 c2 ) are conjugate, which is impossible as they have dis-
tinct orders. Consequently,
2|G| 4m
S ≤ ≤ (g − 1) < 10(g − 1).
8 m−4
Finally, let us assume that m = 5. Then, similarly as above, we can show that
|θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 8. We already know that |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| ≥ 8 and we shall show that
|θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| ≥ 16. Indeed, if this is not the case then θ(c0 c1 )θ(c1 c2 )2 has either
order 2 or order 3. However, one can easily show that in the first case θ(c1 c2 )2 = 1
while in the second one θ(c1 c2 ) = 1, and both equalities are false. Moreover, if
|θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| = 16 then S ≤ |G|/16 + |G|/8 = 15(g − 1) and G is a factor
group of the group with presentation
which can be shown to have order 320. Therefore g equals either 2, 3 or 5 in this
case. Thus, assume that |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| > 16. Then |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| ≥ 20 and we shall
look now for the order of θ(C(Λ, c0 )). If |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| = 8 then S ≤ |G|/20 +
|G|/8 = 14(g − 1) and G is a factor group of the group G with presentation
c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )4 , (c0 c2 )5 , ((c0 c1 )(c2 c0 )2 (c2 c1 )2 (c0 c2 )2 )2 ,
which can be checked to have order 640. So here g = 2, 3, 5 or 9. For g = 2, 3, 5

there exist Riemann surfaces with more than 14(g − 1) ovals. So let g = 9. Then
G = G. However, (c0 c1 )(c1 c2 )2 represents in G an element of order 8. Hence
|θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| = 32 by (2) of Lemma 1.3.3 and thus for g = 9 there exists a
Riemann surface having |G|/8 + |G|/32 = (25/2)(g − 1) = 100 ovals. Finally, if
|θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| > 8 then |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 12, and this implies
|G| |G|
S ≤ + < 11(g − 1).
12 20
Thus we are led to analyze just what happens if s(Λ) = (2, 3, m), whose area is
Area(Λ) = (m − 6)π/6m, and so
24m
|G| = (g − 1).
m−6
Let first m = 2m for some m ≥ 4. We shall show that |θ(C(Λ, ci ))| ≥ 8 for
i = 0, 1. Indeed, if |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| < 8 then, by Lemma 3.3.1, θ(c0 c1 ) = θ(c0 c2 )4 ,
which implies θ(c2 c1 ) = θ(c0 c2 )3 and so θ(c0 c2 )9 = 1, a contradiction. Now if

|θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| < 8 then, again by Lemma 3.3.1, θ(c0 c1 ) = θ(c2 c1 )θ(c2 c0 )m θ(c1 c2 ).
Using the defining relations for Λ we can easily show that

θ(c0 c2 )2 = θ(c1 )θ(c0 c2 )m +1 θ(c1 ).
However, the last implies that θ(c0 c2 )4 = θ(c1 )θ(c0 c2 )2 θ(c1 ) and so θ(c0 c2 )6 = 1,
which is false. Thus, for m ≥ 12,
2|G|
S ≤ ≤ 12(g − 1).
8
Therefore, in case of even m, it remains to deal with the cases m = 8 and m = 10.
Assume first that m = 8. We know that |θ(C(Λ, ci ))| ≥ 8 for i = 0, 1, which
implies S ≤ 2|G|/8 = 24(g − 1). If |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| = 8 then G is a factor group
with presentation
of the group G
c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )3 , (c0 c2 )8 , ((c0 c1 )(c0 c2 )4 )2 .
Consequently, G = G, as the last has order 96. Thus, here S has genus 2. Further-
more, (c0 c1 )(c2 c1 )(c0 c2 )4 (c1 c2 ) represents in G an element of order 2 and so, in
virtue of Lemma 3.3.1, |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| = 8. Hence, there exists a Riemann surface of
genus g = 2 with 2|G|/8 = 24 ovals.
Assume therefore that |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| > 8, which implies that |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| > 12,
since otherwise (θ(c0 c1 )θ(c0 c2 )4 )3 = 1 and from the defining relations for Λ we
deduce that θ(c1 c2 ) = 1, a contradiction. Henceforth, |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 16.
Now, if |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| = 8 then G is a factor group of the group G with
presentation
c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )3 , (c0 c2 )8 , ((c0 c1 )(c2 c1 )(c0 c2 )4 (c1 c2 ))2 ,
which can be shown to have order 384. Thus, S has genus g = 2, 3 or 5 as |G| =
96(g − 1). We have already shown that there exists a Riemann surface of genus
g = 2 with 24 ovals. If g = 5 then G = G, while (c0 c1 )(c0 c2 )4 represents in G

an element of order 4 and thus, in virtue of Lemma 3.3.1, |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| = 16. So
there exists a Riemann surface of genus g = 5 with |G|/8 + |G|/16 = 18(g −
1) = 72 ovals. Finally, we shall show that there exists a Riemann surface of genus
g = 3 with 18(g − 1) = 36 ovals. Indeed, one can show that the group G with
presentation
c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )3 , (c0 c2 )8 , [((c0 c1 )(c1 c2 ))2 , ((c1 c2 )(c0 c1 ))2 ]
has order 192. Moreover, (c0 c1 )(c0 c2 )4 and (c0 c1 )(c2 c1 )(c0 c2 )4 (c1 c2 ) represent
in G elements of order 4 and 2, respectively, and thus, in virtue of Lemma 3.3.1,
|θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| = 16 and |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| = 8. Consequently, the corresponding surface
has |G|/16 + |G|/8 = 18(g − 1) = 36 ovals.
Hence we can assume that |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| ≥ 12. Indeed, if |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| ≥ 16
then
2|G|
S ≤ = 24 = 12(g − 1).
16
Thus, let |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| = 12. Then
|G| |G|
S ≤ + = 28 = 14(g − 1)
16 12
with presentation
and G is a factor group of the group G
c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )3 , (c0 c2 )8 , ((c0 c1 )(c2 c1 )(c0 c2 )4 (c1 c2 ))3 ,
which was checked, using the mentioned GAP program, to have order 4896. But
using GAP once more we see that (c0 c1 )(c0 c2 )4 represents in G an element of order
9. Therefore |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 36 and so
|G| |G|
S = + < 21 < 11(g − 1).
12 36
The orders of the possible factor groups of G which may be smooth factors of Λ
are 1632, 288 and 96. However, in a factor group G of G of order 288 the element
4
(c0 c1 )(c0 c2 ) would still represent an element of order 9 and therefore also in this
case we would have S < 11(g − 1). In those factor groups G of G with orders 96
and 1632, the product (c0 c1 )(c0 c2 )4 would represent an element of order 3, which
we already showed to be impossible.
This finishes the discussion of the case m = 8 and so we shall assume now that
m = 10. Here |G| = 60(g − 1) and, as |θ(C(Λ, ci ))| ≥ 8 for i = 0, 1, we have
2|G|
S ≤ = 15(g − 1).
8
So we can assume that g = 2, 5. If |θ(C(Λ, ci ))| > 8 then |θ(C(Λ, ci ))| ≥ 12 for
i = 0, 1, which implies S ≤ 2|G|/12 = 10(g − 1). So let |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| = 8.
with presentation
Then G is a factor group of the group G
c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )3 , (c0 c2 )10 , ((c0 c1 )(c0 c2 )5 )2 .
In this case G has order 240. We have assumed that g = 2, 5 and we shall see
that also g = 3. Otherwise, if g = 3 then |G| = 120. Now c0 c1 and c1 c2 rep-
resent in G elements generating a subgroup H which either equals G or it has
order 60. However, in the former case Γ would contain an orientation reversing
element, which is impossible. So H has order 60. Clearly c0 c1 and c1 c2 represent
in H elements of order 2 and 3, respectively, whose product is an element of order
10. But then it is easy to show that H contains a normal subgroup of order 2, which
is obviously impossible. If |θ(C(Λ, c1 ))| = 8 then G is a factor group of the group
G with presentation
c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )3 , (c0 c2 )10 , ((c0 c1 )(c2 c1 )(c0 c2 )5 (c1 c2 ))2
of order 720. So g = 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 or 13. We already know that there exist Riemann

surfaces of genera g = 2, 3, 5 with more than 15(g − 1) ovals. Later on we shall
show that there exists a Riemann surface of genus g = 7 with 126 ovals. So we just
have to deal with the cases g = 4 and g = 13. In the latter case G = G. However,
an element of order 6. Hence |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| = 24 by
(c0 c1 )(c0 c2 )5 represents in G
Lemma 3.3.1, and thus S = 10(g − 1). If g = 4 then |G| = 120 and, as in the
case |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| = 8, one can show that this is impossible.
Finally, let m = 2m + 1 be odd. Then |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 8 since otherwise, by (3)
of Lemma 1.3.3,

θ(c0 c1 ) = θ(c0 c2 )m +1 θ(c1 c2 )θ(c1 c0 )θ(c2 c1 )θ(c0 c2 )m .
But then, using the defining relations for Λ, one can show as before that θ(c1 c2 ) and
θ(c0 c2 )2 are conjugate, which implies that θ(c0 c2 )6 = 1, a contradiction. Hence,
|θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 8 and therefore
|G| 3m
S ≤ = (g − 1) ≤ 9(g − 1)
8 m−6
whenever m ≥ 9. So it remains to consider the case m = 7. Here S ≤ 21(g − 1)

and the bound is attained if and only if |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 8. This condition is
equivalent to
θ((c0 c1 )(c2 c0 )3 (c1 c2 )(c1 c0 )(c2 c1 )(c0 c2 )3 )2 = 1.
Therefore, the equality S = 21(g − 1) is equivalent to the fact that G is a factor
with presentation
group of the group G
c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )3 , (c0 c2 )7 ,

((c0 c1 )(c2 c0 )3 (c1 c2 )(c1 c0 )(c2 c1 )(c0 c2 )3 )2 ,
which can be shown to have order 1008. Now c0 c1 and c1 c2 represent elements
which either equals G
generating a subgroup of G or has order 504. However, in the
former case, Γ would contain an orientation reversing element, which is an absurd.
So G = G and this proves that there exists a Riemann surface of genus g = 7 with
21(g − 1) = 126 ovals.
Now if |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| > 8 then |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 12 and so
|G| 2m
S ≤ = (g − 1) ≤ 14(g − 1).
12 m−6
However, the last bound is attained if and only if
θ((c0 c1 )(c2 c0 )3 (c1 c2 )(c1 c0 )(c2 c1 )(c0 c2 )3 )
with presentation
has order 3, or equivalently, if G is a factor group of the group G
c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )3 , (c0 c2 )7 ,

((c0 c1 )(c2 c0 )3 (c1 c2 )(c1 c0 )(c2 c1 )(c0 c2 )3 )3 ,
which can be shown to have order 336. As before we claim that G = G and therefore
S has genus 3.
Finally, if |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| > 12 then |θ(C(Λ, c0 ))| ≥ 16 and this implies
|G|
S ≤ < 11(g − 1).
16
This finishes the proof of the first part of the theorem. Now we will show that the
bound 12(g − 1) is attained for infinitely many values of g.
Let us consider the group Ω = Z2 ∗ Z3 = x, y | x2 , y 3 and let M be the
subgroup of Ω generated by A = [x, y] and B = [x, y −1 ]. A straightforward com-
putation gives
Ax = A−1 , B x = B −1 , Ay = A−1 B, B y = A−1 .
Therefore M is a normal subgroup of Ω and by the Kurosh subgroup theorem [71],

M is free. Now we shall prove that M is non-cyclic. Indeed, otherwise we would
have A = C α and B = C β for some integers α and β and some C ∈ M . Then
A−1 B = C β−α . Now, as M = C is a cyclic infinite normal subgroup of Ω, either
C y = C or C y = C −1 . In the first case
−1 −1
A = (A−1 B)y = (C y )β−α = C β−α = A−1 B. (3.5)
Therefore, B = A2 and so
(A−1 B)2 = (Ay )2 = (A2 )y = B y = A−1 .
Hence, A = B 2 and consequently B 4 = A2 = B, that is B 3 = 1. So B = 1 which

implies A = 1, a contradiction.
−1
In case C y = C −1 we have C y = C −1 , and in this way
−1 −1
A = (A−1 B)y = (C y )β−α = (C −1 )β−α = C α−β = AB −1 .
Whence [x, y −1 ] = B = 1 and this implies A = [x, y] = 1, which is an absurd.

Now let K be the normal closure in M of the set
L = {Ak , B k , [A, B]2 , [A, [A, B]], [B, [A, B]]}.
Clearly, the factor group M/K is a metabelian group of order 2k 2 , provided that k is
even. We claim that if, in addition, k is a multiple of 4 then K is a normal subgroup
of Ω. Indeed, it suffices to show that W x , W y ∈ K for any element W ∈ L. For
−1
W = Ak it is clear that W x = (Ak ) ∈ K and a straightforward computation
shows that
W y = (A−1 B)k ≡ A−k B k [A, B]k(k−1)/2 mod K.
Therefore, if 4 divides k then W y ∈ K. One can deal similarly with the remaining
elements of L.
It is straightforward to check that in the factor group G = Ω/K, the commutator
[A, B] is conjugate to (xy)6 , whilst [A, [A, B]] and [B, [A, B]] are conjugate to
(xy)6 (yx)6 . Therefore, G has the following presentation
x, y | x2 , y 3 , (xy)12 , [x, y]k , (xy)6 (yx)6 (3.6)
and xy represents in G an element of order 12. Thus, G is a smooth factor group

Δ/Γ of a Fuchsian group Δ with signature [2, 3, 12] and so G acts as a group of
automorphisms on a Riemann surface S = H/Γ which, by the Hurwitz–Riemann
formula, has genus g = (k 2 /2) + 1 = 8m2 + 1, because k = 4m is a multiple of 4.
Clearly the assignment x → x−1 , y → y −1 induces an automorphism of G.
So, by Theorem 1.5.10, the surface S is symmetric and therefore Γ is a normal
subgroup of an NEC group Λ with signature (2, 3, 12), as the last is the signature of
all Fuchsian groups containing Δ. Let us write
Λ = c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2 , (c1 c2 )3 , (c0 c2 )12
and denote by a, b and c the images of c0 , c1 and c2 , respectively, under the canon-
ical projection from Λ onto G = Λ/Γ. Observe that x1 = c0 c1 and x2 = c1 c2
are canonical elliptic generators of Δ of orders 2 and 3, respectively, and so we can
assume that x = ab and y = bc. Finally, (ab)(ac)6 and (ab)(bc)(ac)6 (cb) are ele-
ments of order 2 as both are conjugate to (xy)6 x. Therefore, by (2) of Lemma 1.3.3,
|θ(C(Λ, ci ))| = 8 for i = 0, 1 and so, by Theorem 3.3.2, S has 12(g − 1) ovals.

3.4 Total Number of Ovals of a Couple of Symmetries 55
has the following presentation:

It is worth noting that G
a, b, c | a2 , b2 , c2 , (ab)2 , (bc)3 , (ac)12 , (acb)2k , ((ac)6 b)2 . (3.7)
Indeed, the elements x = ab and y = bc generate, in the group defined in (3.7), a

normal subgroup of index 2 having the presentation given in (3.6).
3.4 Total Number of Ovals of a Couple of Symmetries
In this section we shall find, using Theorem 3.1.1, a bound for the total number
of ovals of a pair of symmetries of a Riemann surface of genus g, in terms of g
and the order and number of points fixed by their product. The first precedent of
this kind of result goes back to Natanzon [102], who classified pairs of commuting
symmetries. Afterwards, Bujalance and Costa studied in [19] pairs of symmetries
of p-hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces. Some of the results we present here have been
recently showed by Kozłowska-Walania [69].
Let S = H/Γ be a Riemann surface and let θ : Λ → Aut(S) be a smooth
epimorphism with ker θ = Γ. Recall that if a symmetry σ of S and the image
θ(ci ) of a canonical reflection ci of Λ are conjugate then we denote the index
[C(G, θ(ci )) : θ(C(Λ, ci ))] by wi and we call it the contribution of ci to σ.
Lemma 3.4.1. Let Dn = Λ/Γ be a dihedral group of automorphisms of a Riemann
surface S = H/Γ generated by two non-central symmetries σ and τ , and let C =
(n1 , . . . , ns ) be a period cycle of the signature of the NEC group Λ.
(1) If n is odd then the reflections corresponding to C contribute to σ and τ
with at most 2 ovals in total.
(2) If n is even then the reflections corresponding to C contribute to σ and τ
with at most t ovals in total, where t is the number of even link periods if s ≥ 1
and some ni is even, and with at most 2 ovals in total in the remaining cases.
Proof. Let θ : Λ → Dn be the canonical epimorphism. The case of odd n is an
immediate consequence of Theorem 3.1.1, since all canonical reflections c corre-
sponding to the period cycle C are conjugate, the centralizer C(Dn , θ(c)) has order
two and c ∈ C(Λ, c).
Now, for even n, the centralizer of any non-central element of Dn has order 4.
Since ci ∈ C(Λ, ci ), necessarily the contribution wi of θ(ci ) satisfies wi ≤ 2, and
since σ and τ are non-conjugate, we may assume that either s ≥ 2 or s = 1 and n1
is even. If c belongs to two odd link periods then we can suppose that c contributes
neither to σ nor to τ . If c belongs to an even link period n and the product cc

has order n then (cc )n /2 ∈ C(Λ, c). Now θ((cc )n /2 c) = 1, because ker θ is a
Fuchsian group, and therefore θ(C(Λ, c)) has order 4.

We give now a new proof of an upper bound, first estimated by Bujalance, Costa
and Singerman in [21], for the total number of ovals of two symmetries of a Riemann
surface. The original proof used a deep method due to Hoare [60], while the proof
here is based on Theorem 3.1.1 and follows ideas of Kozłowska-Walania in [69].
Theorem 3.4.2. Let σ and τ be two symmetries of a Riemann surface S of genus g
whose product has order n. Then
⎧
⎪ 2(g − 1)
⎨ + 4 if n is odd;
σ + τ ≤ n
⎪
⎩ 4g + 2 if n is even.
n
Proof. Let t = σ + τ denote the total number of ovals of σ and τ and let
Dn = σ, τ . Hence Dn = Λ/Γ for some surface Fuchsian group Γ and an NEC
group Λ with signature
s(Λ) = (h; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {C1 , . . . , Ck , (n1 ), . . . , (n ), (−), .m. ., (−)}),
where n1 , . . . , n are odd and each period cycle Ci = (ni1 , . . . , nisi ) with either
si ≥ 2 or si = 1 and ni1 is even. Let s = s1 + · · · + sk .
Observe first that either r = 0 or s + = 1. Otherwise s(Λ) would have a
unique link period, say n0 , and so, by Corollary 1.2.7, the signature of the canonical
Fuchsian group of Λ would be s(Λ+ ) = (h ; n0 ). As Λ+ /Γ = Zn , the relation
x1 [a1 , b1 ] · · · [ah , bh ] = 1 in Λ+ would give θ(x1 ) = 1 for the canonical smooth
epimorphism θ : Λ → Dn , which is impossible because Γ = ker θ is a surface
Fuchsian group.
Let us first analyze the case of odd n. We know that t ≤ 2k + 2 + 2m, by
Lemma 3.4.1, and so
2π(g − 1)
= Area(Λ) ≥ 2π(k + + m − 2) ≥ π(t − 4),
n
which implies t ≤ 4 + 2(g − 1)/n.

Let now n be even. Observe that, as both σ and τ have fixed points, either k > 0
or + m ≥ 2. So the only possibilities are:
(1) k ≥ 2,
(2) k = 0 and ≥ 2,
(3) k = = 0 and m ≥ 2,
(4) k = 0, = m = 1,
(5) k = 1 and at least one of h, r, , m is positive,
(6) k = 1 and h = r = = m = 0.
By Lemma 3.4.1, we have 2 + 2m + s ≥ t. Thus

2π(g − 1) r s
= Area(Λ) ≥ 2π ηh + k + + m − 2 + + +
n 3 2 4

r +m t
≥ 2π ηh − 2 + k + + + + ,
2 2 3 4
where η = 2 if the sign of s(Λ) is “+” and η = 1 otherwise. Using that either r = 0
or s + = 1, it is easy to see that in all cases (1)–(5), we have
r +m 3
ηh + k + + + ≥ .
2 2 3 2
Thus

2π(g − 1) t
= Area(Λ) ≥ π −1 ,
n 2
which gives
4(g − 1) 4g
t≤ +2< + 2.
n n
Therefore we can assume that Λ is an NEC group with signature
s(Λ) = (0; +; [−]; {(n1 , . . . , ns )}).
Observe now that for n = 2 the desired bound obviously holds in virtue of Harnack–
Weichold theorem. So let n = 2. The images of the elements xi = ci−1 ci generate
Zn and they satisfy the relation x1 · · · xs = 1. So, if one of the link periods is odd,
then either there is another odd link period or a link period ni ≥ 6. In the first case
we have

2π(g − 1) s−2 2 π 4
= Area(Λ) ≥ 2π −1 + + = s−2− .
n 4 3 2 3
Thus, by Lemma 3.4.1,
4g 4 4 4g
t≤s−2≤ − + < + 2.
n n 3 n
In the second case one gets, similarly,
4g 4 4g
t≤s−1≤ − +2< + 2.
n n n
Therefore, we can assume that n ≥ 4 and all link periods of s(Λ) are even. If there
are more than three link periods ni ≥ 4 then

2π(g − 1) s−4 3 π(s − 2)
= Area(Λ) ≥ 2π −1 + + ≥
n 4 2 2
and, consequently,
4g 4 4g
t=s≤ − +2< + 2.
n n n
If all link periods are equal to 2 except n1 and n2 then n1 = n2 = n and so the
bound holds.
Therefore we can assume that all link periods are equal 2 except ni , ni , ni , and
that 4 ≤ ni ≤ ni ≤ ni . Now, if ni ≥ 6 then

2π(g − 1) s−3 5 π(s − 2)
= Area(Λ) ≥ 2π −1 + + ≥
n 4 4 2
and by Lemma 3.4.1 we have
4g 4 4g
t≤s≤ − +2< + 2.
n n n
On the other hand, if ni = 4 then also n = 4 and arguing as above we get
4g 4 4g
t≤ − +3= + 2.
n n n
So finally let ni = 4 and ni = ρ ≥ 6. Observe that ρ ≥ n/4 and

2π(g − 1) s−3 3 1 s−3 3 1
= Area(Λ) ≥ 2π −1+ + +1− = 2π + − .
n 4 8 ρ 4 8 ρ
Consequently,
4g 4 3 4 4g 3 3 4g
t≤ − + + ≤ + + ≤ + 2.
n n 2 ρ n ρ 2 n

Our next result shows that the precedent upper bounds are sharp in all cases.
Theorem 3.4.3. The upper bounds occurring in Theorem 3.4.2 are attained for all
arithmetically admissible values of g and n.
Proof. Let first n be an odd divisor of g − 1. Consider an NEC group Λ with
signature
s(Λ) = (0; +; [−]; {(−), (g−1)/n
. . . . . . .+. .2, (−)})
and the smooth epimorphism θ : Λ → Dn = σ, τ | σ 2 , τ 2 , (στ )n induced by the

assignment θ(ei ) = 1 for i = 1, . . . , (g − 1)/n + 2 and

σ if i is odd;
θ(ci ) =
τ if i is even.
As every period cycle contributes with one oval to each of the symmetries σ and τ ,
we deduce that
2(g − 1)
σ + τ = + 4.
n
Now let n be an even divisor of 4g. Consider an NEC group Λ with signature
s(Λ) = (0; +; [−]; {(2, . s. ., 2, n, n)})
whose canonical reflections are denoted c0 , . . . , cs , cs+1 , where s = 4g/n. Let

θ : Λ → Dn = σ, τ be the smooth epimorphism induced by the following
assignment:
• If s is even then
θ(c2i ) = σ, θ(c2i+1 ) = τ (στ )n/2−1 for 0 ≤ i ≤ s/2 − 1,

θ(cs ) = σ, θ(cs+1 ) = τ.
• If s is odd then
θ(c2i ) = σ, θ(c2i+1 ) = τ (στ )n/2−1 for 0 ≤ i ≤ (s − 1)/2,

θ(cs+1 ) = τ.
Therefore, the reflections of Λ corresponding to the unique period cycle of s(Λ)

contribute with 4g/n + 2 ovals to σ + τ .

Theorem 3.4.2 provides bounds of the form [2(g − 1)/n] + 4 and [4g/n] + 2,
where [ · ] denotes the integer part function, for the total number of ovals of two
symmetries. We now study such bounds in detail. For instance, we show that the
first bound is attained only for n dividing g − 1. As announced above the following
Theorems 3.4.4, 3.4.5 and 3.4.7 are due to Kozłowska-Walania [69].
Theorem 3.4.4. Let σ and τ be two symmetries of a genus g Riemann surface S,
whose product στ has odd order n. If n does not divide g − 1 then

2(g − 1)
σ + τ ≤ + 3.
n
Even more, for each odd integer n ≥ 3 this bound is attained for infinitely many
values of g.
Proof. Let t = σ + τ denote the total number of ovals of σ and τ and write
σ, τ = Dn = Λ/Γ for some surface Fuchsian group Γ and an NEC group Λ with
signature
s(Λ) = (h; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {C1 , . . . , Ck , (n1 ), . . . , (n ), (−), .m. ., (−)}),
where each Ci = (ni1 , . . . , nisi ) and si ≥ 2. Now, as Area(Λ) = 2π(g − 1)/n

and n does not divide g − 1, it follows that s(Λ) has either link periods or proper
periods.
Observe that if r = 0 then s(Λ) has at least two link periods. Otherwise,
by Corollary 1.2.7, the signature of the canonical Fuchsian group of Λ would be
s(Λ+ ) = (h ; n0 ); but there is no smooth epimorphism from a Fuchsian group with
this signature onto the cyclic group Zn , see the proof of Theorem 3.4.2.
So Λ has either a proper period or at least two link periods. Then

2π(g − 1) 1
= Area(Λ) > 2π k++m−2+ ≥ π(2(k++m) − 3) ≥ π(t−3)
n 2
which in turn gives t ≤ [2(g − 1)/n] + 3 because t is an integer.

To finish we show that for any non-negative integer m there exists a Riemann
surface S of genus g = n(m + 1) admitting two symmetries σ and τ whose product
has order n and having [2(g − 1)/n] + 3 ovals in common. Let us consider an NEC
group with signature
(0; +; [−]; {(−), m+1

. . . , (−), (n, n)}),
and let θ : Λ → σ, τ = Dn be the smooth epimorphism induced by the assignment
θ(ei ) = 1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ m + 2; θ(ci0 ) = σ for 1 ≤ i ≤ m + 1,

θ(cm+2,0 ) = θ(cm+2,2 ) = σ; θ(cm+2,1 ) = τ.
Then ker θ is a surface Fuchsian group and the Riemann surface S = H/ ker θ has
genus n(m + 1) by the Hurwitz–Riemann formula. Theorem 3.1.1 yields that both
σ and τ have m + 2 ovals and so

2(g − 1)
σ + τ = 2m + 4 = + 3.
n

In contrast to the previous theorem, the bound [4g/n] + 2 for even n in
Theorem 3.4.2 without any divisibility conditions on the pair (n, g) cannot be
improved.
Theorem 3.4.5. For each even integer n > 4 there are infinitely many values of g
for which n does not divide 4g and such that there exists a Riemann surface of genus
g admitting two symmetries, whose product has order n, and with [4g/n] + 2 ovals
in total.
Proof. Let Λ be an NEC group with signature
s(Λ) = (0; +; [−]; {(−), (2, .2m

. ., 2)})
and consider the epimorphism θ : Λ → Dn = σ, τ | σ 2 , τ 2 , (στ )n induced by

the assignment
θ(e1 ) = θ(e2 ) = 1, θ(c10 ) = σ
and which maps the reflections corresponding to the unique non-empty period cycle
of s(Λ) alternatively to τ and (στ )n/2−1 σ. The orbit space S = H/ ker θ is a
Riemann surface of genus g = mn/2 + 1 which admits two symmetries having, by

Theorem 3.1.1, 2m + 2 = [4g/n] + 2 ovals in total.

Corollary 3.4.6. Let S be a surface of genus g. Let σ and τ be two symmetries of

S such that
σ = g + 1 − q and τ = g + 1 − q
for some integers q and q satisfying g ≥ q + q + 1. Then σ and τ commute.
Proof. The total number of ovals of these symmetries satisfies
σ + τ = 2g + 2 − q − q ≥ g + 3.
Suppose that σ and τ do not commute. Then the order n of στ is greater than 2. By
Theorem 3.4.2 we get, for even n,
4g
g + 3 ≤ σ + τ ≤ + 2 ≤ g + 2,
n
a contradiction. For odd n,
2(g − 1) 2(g − 1)
g + 3 ≤ σ + τ ≤ +4≤ +4
n 3
and so g ≤ 1, which is not our case.

By Harnack’s theorem, σ ≤ g + 1 for each symmetry σ of a genus g surface.

The symmetries attaining such upper bound are called M -symmetries. This is why
a symmetry σ with g + 1 − q ovals is called an (M − q)-symmetry.
Now, we shall show that for each genus g ≥ 3, and with only one exception for
the values of q and q , the lower bound q + q + 1 for the genus g in Corollary 3.4.6
is in fact the minimal lower bound for g which guarantees the commutativity of an
(M − q)-symmetry and an (M − q )-symmetry of a Riemann surface of genus g.
Theorem 3.4.7. Let g, q and q be integers such that 2 ≤ g ≤ q + q and q, q ≤ g.

There exists a Riemann surface of genus g admitting an (M − q)-symmetry σ and
an (M − q )-symmetry τ such that στ = τ σ if and only if either g = 2 or g > 2
and {q, q } = {1, g}.
Proof. The exceptional case was considered by Natanzon [108], who proved that
two symmetries with g > 2 and 1 ovals, respectively, always commute.
On the other hand, for g = 2 and {q, q } = {1, 2}, we can choose n = 8
in Theorem 3.4.2 to obtain a Riemann surface of such genus 2 with two non-
commuting symmetries having one and two ovals.
So in what follows let {q, q } = {1, g} and we assume that q ≤ q . We define
s = g − q, s = g − q and we distinguish several cases according to the value of
q + q − g (mod 4).
For q + q − g ≡ 0 (mod 4) consider an NEC group Λ with signature

s(Λ) = (h; −; [−]; {(2, . s. ., 2, 4, 2, .s. ., 2, 4)})
where h = (q+q −g)/4, and the epimorphism θ : Λ → D4 = σ, τ | σ 2 , τ 2 , (στ )4

induced by the assignment θ(e) = 1, θ(di ) = σ for 1 ≤ i ≤ h and such that the
consecutive canonical reflections corresponding to the unique period cycle of s(Λ)
are mapped onto

σ, τ στ, σ, τ στ, . . . , σ(στ )2s , τ, στ σ, τ, στ σ, . . . , τ (στ )2s , σ.

s+1 s +1
By the Hurwitz–Riemann formula the surface S = H/ ker θ has genus g and by

Theorem 3.1.1 it admits two non-commuting symmetries σ and τ having g + 1 − q
and g + 1 − q ovals, respectively.
For q + q − g ≡ 2 (mod 4) consider an NEC group Λ with signature

s(Λ) = (h; −; [2]; {(2, . s. ., 2, 4, 2, .s. ., 2, 4)})
where h = (q + q − 2 − g)/4, and the epimorphism θ : Λ → D4 defined as in

the previous case, with the extra data θ(x) = θ(e) = (στ )2 . As before the genus
g Riemann surface S = H/ ker θ admits two non-commuting symmetries σ and τ
having g + 1 − q and g + 1 − q ovals, respectively.
Now, let q + q − g ≡ 3 (mod 4). Consider an NEC group Λ with signature

s(Λ) = (h; −; [4]; {(2, . s. ., 2, 4, 2, .s. ., 2, 4)})
where h = (q + q − 3 − g)/4, and the epimorphism θ : Λ → D4 which sends the

consecutive canonical reflections corresponding to the unique period cycle of the
signature s(Λ) to:

σ, τ στ, σ, τ στ, . . . , σ(στ )2s , τ, στ σ, τ, στ σ, . . . , τ (στ )2s , τ στ

s+1 s +1
and θ(x) = στ , θ(e) = τ σ. Again, the genus g surface H/ ker θ admits two non-
commuting symmetries σ and τ having g + 1 − q and g + 1 − q ovals, respectively.
If q + q − g ≡ 1 (mod 4) and g < q + q − 1 consider an NEC group Λ with
signature

s(Λ) = (h; −; [2, 4]; {(2, . s. ., 2, 4, 2, .s. ., 2, 4)})
where h = (q + q − 5 − g)/4, and the epimorphism θ : Λ → D4 induced

by the assignment that acts on the consecutive canonical reflections correspond-
ing to the unique period cycle of the signature s(Λ) as in the previous case, and
θ(x1 ) = (στ )2 , θ(x2 ) = θ(e) = στ . As before, the genus g surface S = H/ ker θ

admits two non-commuting symmetries σ and τ having g + 1 − q and g + 1 − q
ovals, respectively.
Finally for g = q + q − 1 let us take q ≥ 2 and let Λ be an NEC group with
signature

. . . , 2, 4, 2, q. −2
s(Λ) = (0; +; [−]; {(2, q−2 . . , 2, 4, 4, 4)})
and the epimorphism θ : Λ → D4 induced by the assignment which maps the
reflections corresponding to the only period cycle of s(Λ) as follows:

σ, τ στ, σ, τ στ, . . . , σ(στ )2q , τ, στ σ, τ, στ σ, . . . , τ (στ )2q , σ, τ, σ.

q−1 q −1
Once more the genus g surface S = H/ ker θ admits two non-commuting symme-
tries σ and τ having g + 1 − q and g + 1 − q ovals, respectively.

Chapter 4
Symmetry Types of Some Families
of Riemann Surfaces
This chapter is devoted to three selected examples of families of surfaces whose

symmetries can be completely classified. The last means to calculate the number of
conjugacy classes of symmetries, to count the number of ovals of each of them and
to determine the separating character of each symmetry. The first two sections are
devoted to the sphere and the tori, which require specific methods since they are not
uniformized by the hyperbolic plane. In the third section we study the symmetries
of the hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces. We classified them completely in our joint
memoir [14]. However this work is too extensive to be summarized here. Hence we
just explain the necessary tools to attack the problem and we develop an example in
detail.
To begin with, we classify the symmetries in the genus 0 case, that is, the sym-
metries of the Riemann sphere.
4.1 Symmetry Type of the Riemann Sphere
The group of analytic automorphisms of the Riemann sphere Σ = C ∪ {∞} is the

group of Möbius transformations

az + b
Aut+ (Σ) = : a, b, c, d ∈ C, ad − bc = 1 .
cz + d
The value at ∞ of the Möbius transformation m(z) = (az + b)/(cz + d) is

a/c if c = 0,
m(∞) =
∞ if c = 0.
Let σ1 : Σ → Σ denote the extension to Σ of complex conjugation z → z̄, defined
by σ1 (∞) = ∞. Recall that a map σ : Σ → Σ is an antianalytic automorphism
of Σ if the composition σ ◦ σ1 is an analytic automorphism of Σ. Thus there exist
a, b, c, d ∈ C such that ad − bc = 1 and
az̄ + b
σ(z) = for each z ∈ Σ.
cz̄ + d


66 4 Symmetry Types of Some Families of Riemann Surfaces
A symmetry of Σ is an antianalytic involution of Σ. Two significant examples of

symmetries of Σ are complex conjugation σ1 and the antipodal map σ2 defined by
−1
σ1 : Σ → Σ ; z → z̄ ; σ2 : Σ → Σ ; z → .
z̄
Our goal in this section is to prove that each symmetry of Σ is conjugate either to
σ1 or to σ2 . Before doing this, we recall without proof some well known facts about
semilinear endomorphisms of complex vector spaces.
Definition and Proposition 4.1.1. Let E be a complex vector space.
(1) A map f : E → E is a semilinear endomorphism if
f (au + bv) = āf (u) + b̄f (v)
for all a, b ∈ C and all u, v ∈ E.

(2) The matrix Mf (B) = (aij ) of the semilinear endomorphism f with respect to
the basis B = {u1 , . . . , un } of E is defined by the equalities

n
f (uj ) = aij ui , for 1 ≤ j ≤ n.
i=1
(3) Let B1 = {u1 , . . . , un } and B2 = {v1 , . . . , vn } be two bases of E and let

C(B1 , B2 ) = (cij ) ∈ Mn (C) be the basis change matrix defined by

n
uj = cij vi , for 1 ≤ j ≤ n.
i=1
Then the following equality holds true:
C(B1 , B2 )Mf (B1 ) = Mf (B2 )C(B1 , B2 ).
(4) Let g : E → E be another semilinear endomorphism. Then f ◦ g is a linear

endomorphism of E whose matrix with respect to the basis B is
Mf ◦g (B) = Mf (B)Mg (B).
Theorem 4.1.2. Every symmetry of the Riemann sphere Σ is conjugate either to

σ1 or to σ2 . Moreover, Σ/
σ1 is the closed disk and Σ/
σ2 is the real projective
plane. In particular, σ1 and σ2 are not conjugate.
Proof. Let σ : Σ → Σ ; z → (az̄ + b)/(cz̄ + d) be a symmetry. Denote

ab 1 0
A= and I =
cd 0 1
4.1 Symmetry Type of the Riemann Sphere 67
and consider the semilinear endomorphism

2 2 z1 z̄1
fA : C → C ; → A ,
z2 z̄2
that satisfies MfA (E) = A, where E is the standard basis of C2 . Since σ 2 is the
identity map and det(A) = 1, either fA2 or −fA2 is the identity endomorphism. This
implies, by part (4) in Proposition 4.1.1, that AĀ = ±I. We now distinguish two
cases:
Case 1: AĀ = I, that is, fA2 is the identity. Since fA is not a dilatation, there exists
a vector u ∈ C2 such that {u, fA(u)} is a basis of C2 . Thus also
B = {v1 = u + fA (u), v2 = i(u − fA (u))}

√
is a basis of C2 , where i = −1. Then,
fA (v1 ) = fA (u) + fA2 (u) = fA (u) + u = v1 ,

fA (v2 ) = −i(fA (u) − fA2 (u)) = i(−fA (u) + u) = v2 .
Therefore MfA (B) = I. The basis change matrix

c11 c12
C = C(B, E) =
c21 c22
satisfies, by part (3) in Proposition 4.1.1, the equality I = C −1 AC̄. Let ϕ : Σ → Σ

be the analytic automorphism
c11 z + c12
ϕ(z) = .
c21 z + c22
The equality C = AC̄ means that the antianalytic automorphism ϕ◦σ1 , with matrix
C, coincides with the antianalytic automorphism σ ◦ ϕ, with matrix AC̄. Therefore
ϕ−1 ◦ σ ◦ ϕ = σ1 , that is, σ is conjugate to complex conjugation.
Case 2: AĀ = −I, that is, −fA2 is the identity. Any non-zero vector u ∈ C2 is not
an eigenvector of fA . Otherwise fA (u) = λu for some λ ∈ C and this would imply
−u = fA2 (u) = fA (λu) = λ̄fA (u) = λλ̄u = |λ|2 u,
that is, |λ|2 = −1, an absurdity. So B1 = {w1 = u, w2 = fA (u)} is a basis of C2 .

Moreover, fA (w1 ) = w2 and fA (w2 ) = fA2 (w1 ) = −w1 , i.e.,

0 −1
MfA (B1 ) = .
1 0
Therefore the basis change matrix

c11 c12
C1 = C(B1 , E) =
c21 c22
satisfies MfA (B1 ) = C −1 AC̄ by part (3) in Proposition 4.1.1. Hence, the analytic
automorphism
c11 z + c12
ϕ(z) =
c21 z + c22
of Σ satisfies σ(ϕ(z)) = ϕ(σ2 (z)). So in this case σ is conjugate to the antipo-
dal map.
Finally, let Δ be the closed disk of radius 1 centered at the origin of C. It is easy
to see that the map

i,
[(z + i)/(iz + 1)]σ1 if z =
Δ → Σ/
σ1 ; z →
∞ if z = i,
is a homeomorphism.
On the other hand, let S2 be the unit sphere in R3 and let πN : S2 → Σ be
the extension of the stereographic projection from the north pole (0, 0, 1) ∈ S2 that
maps this point to ∞. Let τ = πN −1
◦ σ2 ◦ πN . Obviously the orbit spaces S2 /
τ
and Σ/
σ2 are homeomorphic. Moreover, for each point p ∈ S2 let us denote by
[p]∼ ∈ P2 (R) the associated projective point, and let [p]τ be its class modulo τ . A
straightforward computation shows that the map
P2 (R) → S2 /
τ ; [p]∼ → [p]τ
is a homeomorphism, and so Σ/
σ2 is the real projective plane.

The closed disk is an orientable surface with one boundary component, that is,
the species of the symmetry σ1 is +1. The real projective plane is a non-orientable
surface with empty boundary; that is, σ2 has species 0. Consequently, Theorem 4.1.2
yields the following.
Corollary 4.1.3. The symmetry type of the Riemann sphere is {+1, 0}.
4.2 Symmetry Types of Tori
Let S be a Riemann surface of genus one. It is well known (see [92, Chap. II]) that,
up to analytic isomorphism, S is the orbit space S = C/L where
L = Zω1 + Zω2 = {rω1 + sω2 : r, s ∈ Z}

4.2 Symmetry Types of Tori 69
is the lattice generated over Z by two R-linearly independent complex numbers ω1

and ω2 . The set
RL = {λω1 + μω2 : 0 ≤ λ, μ < 1}
is called a fundamental parallelogram of L.
We start this section with a description of the analytic automorphisms of a com-
plex torus. This is a necessary step in order to classify symmetries up to conjugacy.
We follow closely the exposition in [3, Chap. 12], [39] and [92, Chap. 3]. We first
consider analytic maps in general.
Proposition 4.2.1. Let S1 and S2 be two tori defined by the lattices L1 and L2 ,
respectively, and let f : S1 → S2 be a non-constant analytic map.
(1) There exist a, b ∈ C with a = 0 such that aL1 ⊂ L2 and
f : S1 → S2 ; z + L1 → (az + b) + L2 .
(2) The index [L2 : aL1 ] of aL1 as a subgroup of L2 is the degree of f . In partic-
ular, f is an isomorphism if and only if L2 = aL1 .
Proof. (1) The map f is unramified because the Euler characteristic of both S1 and
S2 equals 0. In particular, f is a local homeomorphism. Let πi : C → Si ; z →
z + Li be the corresponding universal covering, for i = 1, 2. The domain of
the covering f ◦ π1 : C → S2 is simply connected and so it is isomorphic, as a
covering, to π2 . Therefore there exists a holomorphic function F : C → C such
that
π2 ◦ F = f ◦ π1 .
We shall prove that F (z) = az + b where a ∈ C \ {0} and b ∈ C satisfies
f (0 + L1 ) = b + L2 . In such a case, we will have
f (z + L1 ) = f (π1 (z)) = π2 (F (z)) = π2 (az + b) = (az + b) + L2
for each z + L1 ∈ S1 . Moreover, for each 1 ∈ L1
(a1 +b)+L2 = π2 (a1 +b) = π2 (F (1 )) = f (π1 (1 )) = f (0+L1 ) = b+L2 .
Therefore a1 ∈ L2 and so aL1 ⊂ L2 .

To show that F (z) = az + b it suffices to see that the derivative F is a
bounded (and so a constant) function. Fix a point ∈ L1 and consider the
holomorphic function
F : C → C ; z → F (z + ) − F (z).
Its image F (C) is contained in L2 . In fact, π1 (z + ) = π1 (z) for each z ∈ C,

and so
π2 (F (z)) = π2 (F (z + )) − π2 (F (z)) = f ◦ π1 (z + ) − f ◦ π1 (z) = 0.

Since C is connected and L2 is discrete, it follows that F is constant. Thus

its derivative vanishes identically, that is, F (z + ) = F (z) for all (z, ) ∈
C × L1 . Therefore F (C) = F (P) where P is the closure of a fundamental
parallelogram of L1 . Since P is compact, F is a bounded function, as desired.
So F (z) = az + b for some constant numbers a, b. Observe that a = 0 because
f is not constant. Moreover, b satisfies
b + L2 = π2 (b) = π2 (F (0)) = f (π1 (0)) = f (0 + L1 ).
This concludes the proof of part (1).

(2) Let k = [L2 : aL1 ] and let z1 , . . . , zk ∈ L2 be such that

k
L2 = (zi + aL1 ).
i=1
Let us define ξi = a−1 (zi − b) + L1 ∈ S1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ k. It is easy to check

that f −1 (0) = {ξ1 , . . . , ξk }. Then k = card f −1 (0) = deg(f ) because f is
unramified.

As a consequence of Proposition 4.2.1 we get the following description of the

analytic automorphisms of a complex torus.
Corollary 4.2.2. Every analytic automorphism f : S → S of the complex torus

S = C/L is of the form
f : S → S ; z + L → (az + b) + L
with |a| = 1 such that aL = L and b ∈ C.
Proof. It is clear that f is an automorphism, with inverse f −1 : S → S ; z + L →

a−1 (z − b) + L. So it only remains to show that a is unimodular. Let ∈ L be an
element of minimal length in L \ {0}. Since a ∈ aL = L we have || ≤ |a| =
|a||| and so |a| ≥ 1. Conversely, |a| ≤ 1 using that a−1 L = L.

Observe that, for any b ∈ C, the translation tb : z +L → (z +b)+L is an analytic

automorphism of the torus C/L. Since L is discrete, b can be chosen so that rb ∈ /L
for any r ∈ Z. For such values of b, the order of tb is infinite. In particular, this
shows that, unlike surfaces of higher genus, each torus has infinitely many analytic
automorphisms. Moreover, the complex number b can be chosen so that the order of
the automorphism tb is n for any positive integer n.
However, if we restrict to those automorphisms which fix 0 + L (which corre-
spond therefore to homomorphisms of the group structure of C/L) then the situation
changes significantly, as Proposition 4.2.5 shows. We first introduce two special
kinds of lattices that will play an important role in the sequel.
Definitions 4.2.3. Let L ⊂ C be a lattice generated over Z by two R-linearly

independent complex numbers.
(1) The lattice L is said to be a square lattice if it admits orthogonal generators

over Z of the same length.
(2) The lattice L is said to be a hexagonal lattice if it admits generators over Z of
the same length forming an angle of π/3.
As an application of Proposition 4.2.1 we have the following.
Proposition 4.2.4. (1) Every torus C/L1 where L1 is a square lattice is isomor-
phic to C/L(i) where L(i) = Z + Zi.
(2) Every torus C/L2 where L2 is a hexagonal lattice is isomorphic to C/L(eπi/3 )
where L(eπi/3 ) = Z + Zeπi/3 .
Proof. (1) Let us write L1 = Zω1 + Zω2 . We may assume, after relabeling the
generators if necessary, that ω2 = iω1 . Then f : C/L1 → C/L(i) ; z + L1 →
ω1−1 z + L(i) is a well defined isomorphism. The proof of part (2) is analogous and
we omit it.

Another consequence of Proposition 4.2.1 is the following (see [3, Chap. 9] and
[92, Chap. III]): each torus is analytically isomorphic to S = C/L(ω), where
L(ω) = Z + Zω and the complex number ω can be chosen to satisfy the following
conditions

|ω| ≥ 1 if Re(ω) ≥ 0,
Im(ω) > 0, −1 < 2Re(ω) ≤ 1 with (4.1)
|ω| > 1 if Re(ω) < 0,
where Re(ω) and Im(ω) stand, respectively, for the real and imaginary parts of ω.
In the sequel we will assume that any lattice L is of the form L = L(ω) where ω
satisfies these conditions.
The next proposition shows that, as said above, there are very few automorphisms
of the complex torus C/L which fix 0 + L.
Proposition 4.2.5. Let f : S → S be a non-trivial analytic automorphism of the

complex torus S = C/L such that f (0 + L) = 0 + L. Then
f : z + L → az + L,
where a is a primitive nth -root of unity for n = 2, 3, 4 or 6. Moreover, if L is a

square lattice then a4 = 1, and if L1 is a hexagonal lattice then a6 = 1.
Proof. We may assume that L = L(ω) for some ω satisfying conditions (4.1). Let
us determine the set
M = M (ω) = { ∈ L \ {0} : || is minimal}.

Let ∈ M and write = r + sω with r, s ∈ Z. Clearly, || ≤ 1 because 1 ∈ L.

Therefore
1 ≥ ||2 = (r + sω)(r + sω̄) = r2 + 2Re(ω)rs + |ω|2 s2 .
If s = 0 then 1 ≥ r2 and so r = ±1. Assume now that s = 0. We claim that

|ω| = 1. Otherwise, using that −1 < 2Re(ω) ≤ 1, we get
1 ≥ r2 + 2Re(ω)rs + |ω|2 s2 > r2 + 2Re(ω)rs + s2 ≥

≥ r2 − |rs| + s2 = (|r| − |s|)2 + |rs|.
Thus |r| = |s| and rs = 0, a contradiction. So ω = eiθ with π/3 ≤ θ < 2π/3 and
so −1 < 2 cos θ ≤ 1. Observe that rs ≤ 0 since otherwise 1 ≥ r2 +2rs cos θ+s2 >
r2 − rs + s2 = (r − s)2 + rs ≥ rs ≥ 1, a contradiction. So rs ≤ 0 and hence
1 ≥ r2 + 2rs cos θ + s2 ≥ r2 + rs + s2 = (r + s)2 + |rs|.
The unique integer solutions (r, s) with s = 0 to this inequality are (0, ±1) and
±(1, −1). They correspond to ±ω and ±(1 − ω). However,
|1 − ω|2 = (1 − cos θ)2 + sin2 θ = 2 − 2 cos θ,
and so the unique value of θ ∈ [π/3, 2π/3) for which |1 − ω| ≤ 1 is θ = π/3.

This proves that
⎧
⎨ {±1, ±ω} if ω = eiθ with θ = π/3;
M = {±1, ±ω, ±(1 − ω)} if ω = eπi/3 ;
⎩
{±1} otherwise.
Observe that in all cases || = 1 for each ∈ M.

Let now f : S → S be an automorphism such that f (0 + L) = 0 + L. We
know, by Corollary 4.2.2, that f : z + L → az + L where aL = L and |a| = 1. In
particular this implies that multiplying by a permutes (cyclically) the points in M,
that is, aM = M and so a · 1 = a ∈ M.
• If M = {±1} then a = ±1.

• If M = {±1, ±ω} then either a = ±1 or a = ±ω; in the last case, ±ω 2 = aω ∈
M and so ω 2 = −1, that is, ω = i = ±a.
• If ω = eπi/3 then ω − 1 = e2πi/3 and so a ∈ M = {±1, ±eπi/3, ±e2πi/3 }.
Therefore, if a = ±1 then a is either a primitive 4th-root of unity (in which case

ω = i and L is a square lattice) or a primitive 3rd-root or 6th-root of unity (in which
case L is a hexagonal lattice). Conversely, if L is a square lattice then ω = i and
a4 = 1, whilst if L is a hexagonal lattice then ω = eπi/3 and a6 = 1.

Remark 4.2.6. Every torus admits a non-trivial automorphism. In fact, since

L = −L for every lattice L, the transformation h : z + L → −z + L is an
analytic involution of the torus C/L. Moreover, the automorphisms of C/L fixing
0 + L constitute a cyclic group of order 4 if L is square, of order 6 if L is hexagonal
and of order 2 otherwise.
4.2.1 Symmetric Tori
Let L be a lattice of the form L = L(ω) = Z+Zω where ω satisfies conditions (4.1).
Our first goal is to characterize the symmetric tori C/L(ω) in terms of the complex
number ω. For each symmetric torus we will also determine its symmetries and the
species of each of them.
The next proposition can be seen as the counterpart, for antianalytic maps, of
Proposition 4.2.1. To prove it we adapt some of the already used arguments.
Proposition 4.2.7. Let σ : S → S be a symmetry of the complex torus S = C/L

where L = Z + Zω and ω ∈ C satisfies conditions (4.1).
(1) There exist a, b ∈ C with |a| = 1, aL = L and ab̄ + b ∈ L such that
σ : S → S ; z + L → (az̄ + b) + L.
(2) If a ∈ {±1} then Re(ω) ∈ {0, 1/2}.

(3) If |ω| > 1 then a ∈ {±1} and so Re(ω) ∈ {0, 1/2}.
(4) If L is a square lattice then a ∈ {±1 ± i}.
(5) If L is a hexagonal lattice then a ∈ {±1, ±eπi/3, ±e2πi/3 }.
(6) If |ω| = 1 and L is neither square nor hexagonal then a ∈ {±ω}.
Proof. (1) Let π : C → S ; z → z + L be the universal covering of S. As σ is

locally a homeomorphism, the composite σ ◦ π : C → S is also a covering.
Since its domain is simply connected, it must be isomorphic to the universal
covering of S. Hence there exists a continuous function f : C → C such that
π ◦ f = σ ◦ π. Since π is a holomorphic map and σ is antianalytic, it follows that
f is antianalytic too, see [5, Theorem 1]. Let κ : C → C ; z → z̄ be complex
conjugation. Then g = f ◦ κ : C → C is an analytic function that satisfies
π ◦ g = (π ◦ f ) ◦ κ = σ ◦ (π ◦ κ) = σ ◦ p,
where p = π ◦ κ : C → C/L ; z → z̄ + L. We first show that the derivative

g is a bounded function. Once this is proved, g would be constant and so
g(z) = az + b, where a ∈ C \ {0} and b ∈ C satisfies σ(0 + L) = b + L. In
such a case we will have f (z) = az̄ + b and so
σ(z + L) = σ(π(z)) = π(f (z)) = π(az̄ + b) = (az̄ + b) + L.

Consider the lattice K = κ(L) and let T be the torus T = C/K. The covering
p : C → S factorizes throughout T as p = κ̄ ◦ π where
π : C → T ; z → z + K and κ̄ : T → S ; z + K → z̄ + L.
Then, the map τ = σ ◦ κ̄ : T → S satisfies the equality
τ ◦ π = σ ◦ (κ̄ ◦ π ) = σ ◦ p = π ◦ g.
Fix a point k ∈ K and consider the holomorphic function
gk : C → C ; z → g(z + k) − g(z),
with image gk (C) ⊂ L. In fact, π (z + k) = π (z) for each z ∈ C and so
π(gk (z)) = π(g(z + k)) − π(g(z)) = τ ◦ π (z + k) − τ ◦ π (z) = 0.
Consequently, since C is connected and L is discrete, gk is constant. Thus its

derivative vanishes identically, that is g (z + k) = g (z) for all (z, k) ∈ C × K.
Therefore, g (C) = g (P) where P is the closure of a fundamental parallelo-
gram of K. Since P is compact, the derivative g is a bounded function and so it
is constant. This yields the formula for σ in the statement. Observe that a = 0
since otherwise g would be constant and so would p. We now prove the other
conditions for a and b in part (1).
Since σ has order two we get z + L = σ 2 (z + L) = |a|2 z + ab̄ + b + L and
so
(|a|2 − 1)z + ab̄ + b ∈ L for all z ∈ L.
The discreteness of L yields |a| = 1 and so ab̄ + b ∈ L. Now, for each ∈ L
we have
(a¯ + b) + L = π(a¯ + b) = π(f ()) = σ(π()) = σ(0 + L) = b + L.
So a¯ ∈ L and hence aL ⊂ L. Conjugating this expression and using that

ā = 1/a we get L ⊂ aL. This concludes the proof of part (1).
(2) Since aω̄ ∈ aL = L and by assumption a = ±1, we get ω̄ ∈ L. So also
ω + ω̄ = 2Re(ω) belongs to L and, by conditions (4.1),
2Re(ω) ∈ L ∩ (−1, 1] = {0, 1}.
That is, Re(ω) ∈ {0, 1/2}.
In what follows we write a = r + sω, with r, s ∈ Z, and so
1 = |a|2 = (r + sω)(r + sω̄) = r2 + 2Re(ω)rs + |ω|2 s2 .

(3) Since |a| = 1 it is enough to check that s = 0. Assume to a contrary, that s = 0.

Recall that −1 < 2Re(ω) ≤ 1 by conditions (4.1). So, as |ω| > 1, we get
1 = r2 + 2Re(ω)rs + |ω|2 s2 > r2 + 2Re(ω)rs + s2 ≥

≥ r2 − |rs| + s2 = (|r| − |s|)2 + |rs|.
Thus |r| = |s| and rs = 0, that is, r = s = 0 and therefore a = 0, a

contradiction.
(4) By Proposition 4.2.4 we may assume that ω = i. Then Re(ω) = 0 and so
1 = s2 + r2 . Consequently, either s = 0 and r = ±1 or r = 0 and s = ±1.
This means that a ∈ {±1, ±i}.
(5) Again by Proposition 4.2.4, we may assume that ω = eπi/3 and so 2Re(ω) = 1.
Thus,
1 = r2 + 2Re(ω)rs + |ω|2 s2 = r2 + rs + s2 = (r + s/2)2 + 3s2 /4,
which implies s2 = 0 or 1. Hence a = ±1 if s = 0, and r(r + s) = 0 if

s2 = 1. Therefore a = ±ω if r = 0 and a = ±(ω − 1) = ±ω 2 if r + s = 0.
Consequently, a ∈ {±1, ±eπi/3 , ±e2πi/3 }.
(6) Now Re(ω) ≥ 0 by conditions (4.1) and, in fact, Re(ω) ∈ (0, 1/2) because L
is neither a square nor a hexagonal lattice. Then rs ≤ 0, since otherwise
1 = r2 + 2Re(ω)rs + |ω|2 s2 = r2 + 2Re(ω)rs + s2 > s2 + r2 ≥ 2,
a contradiction. In fact rs = 0 because rs < 0 implies
1 = r2 + 2Re(ω)rs + |ω|2 s2 = r2 + 2Re(ω)rs + s2 > r2 + rs + s2

= (r + s)2 − rs = (r + s)2 + |rs|.
This means r = s = 0, again a contradiction. Therefore either r = 0 and

s = ±1 or r = ±1 and s = 0. In the last case a = ±1, which implies, by part
(3), that Re(ω) ∈ {0, 1/2} against the hypothesis. Therefore a = ±ω.

As a consequence of this Proposition 4.2.7, we get the following characterization
of the symmetric tori C/L(ω) in terms of ω.
Corollary 4.2.8. Let ω ∈ C satisfy conditions (4.1) and let L = Z + Zω. The torus
S = C/L is symmetric if and only if either |ω| = 1 or |ω| > 1 with Re(ω) ∈
{0, 1/2}.
Proof. The necessity of the conditions in the statement follows from part (3) in
Proposition 4.2.7. For the converse, suppose first that |ω| > 1 and Re(ω) = 0 or
Re(ω) = 1/2. In the first case ω̄ = −ω ∈ L, and in the second one ω̄ = 1 − ω ∈ L.
Thus L is invariant under complex conjugation and it follows that
σ : S → S ; z + L → z̄ + L
is a symmetry of S. On the other hand, if |ω| = 1 then S admits the symmetry
σ : S → S ; z + L → ω z̄ + L
because ω ω̄ = 1 ∈ L.

Next we classify, up to conjugation, all symmetries of a given torus. In order to

do that it is convenient to know the explicit formula for f ◦ σ ◦ f −1 where σ is a
symmetry and f is an automorphism which, by Remark 1.5.6, may be assumed to
be analytic.
Proposition 4.2.9. Let L ⊂ C be a lattice and let
f : S → S ; z + L → (cz + d) + L and σ : S → S ; z + L → (az̄ + b) + L
be, respectively, an analytic automorphism and a symmetry of S = C/L.
(1) Then
f ◦ σ ◦ f −1 : S → S ; z + L → (ac2 z̄ + bc + d − ac2 d)
¯ + L.
(2) Suppose that L is neither square nor hexagonal. Then
f ◦ σ ◦ f −1 (z + L) = (az̄ + bc + d − ad)
¯ + L.
Proof. Composing f with the translation C/L → C/L ; z +L → (z −d)+L yields

the automorphism z + L → cz + L of C/L which fixes 0 + L. So c is a primitive
nth -root of unity for n = 2, 3, 4 or 6, by Proposition 4.2.5. Using this fact, the
proof of part (1) is a straightforward computation. For the second part, notice that
Proposition 4.2.5 also implies that c2 = 1 whenever L is neither a square nor a
hexagonal lattice.

To begin with, we classify the symmetries of those tori C/L(ω) with |ω| > 1.
Proposition 4.2.10. Let ω ∈ C satisfy conditions (4.1) with |ω| > 1 such that
Re(ω) = 0 or Re(ω) = 1/2. Let L = Z + Zω and S = C/L.
(1) If Re(ω) = 0 then each symmetry of S is conjugate to one of the following:
σ1 : S → S ; z + L → z̄ + L; σ2 : S → S ; z + L → (z̄ + 1/2) + L;
σ3 : S → S ; z + L → −z̄ + L; σ4 : S → S ; z + L → (−z̄ + ω/2) + L.
The surfaces S/
σ1 and S/
σ3 are closed annuli, while S/
σ2 and S/
σ4
are Klein bottles.
(2) If Re(ω) = 1/2 then each symmetry of S is conjugate to one of the following:
σ1 : S → S ; z + L → z̄ + L; σ3 : S → S ; z + L → −z̄ + L.
Both surfaces S/
σ1 and S/
σ3 are Möbius strips.
(3) The symmetries above are pairwise non-conjugate.
Proof. Given a symmetry σ of S there exist, by part (3) in Proposition 4.2.7, com-
plex numbers a, b with a ∈ {1, −1} such that
σ : S → S ; z + L → (az̄ + b) + L.
Conjugating σ by the automorphism f : S → S ; z + L → (z − b/2) + L we get
1
f ◦ σ ◦ f −1 : z + L → az̄ + ab̄ + b + L.
2
We may assume, after translating by an element of L, that (ab̄ + b)/2 lies in the
fundamental parallelogram RL = {r + sω : 0 ≤ r, s < 1} of L. Since ab̄ + b
belongs to L (by part (1) in Proposition 4.2.7), we see that ab̄ + b is one of the four
vertices of RL , that is,
ab̄ + b ∈ {0, 1, ω, 1 + ω}.
We distinguish cases according to whether Re(ω) = 0 or Re(ω) = 1/2.
(1) Re(ω) = 0. If a = 1 then ab̄ + b = 2Re(b), which is a real number. So
ab̄ + b = 0 or 1. In the first case, σ is conjugate to σ1 ; in the second one, σ is
conjugate to σ2 .
If a = −1 then ab̄ + b = 2Im(b)i, which is purely imaginary. So ab̄ +
b = 0 or ω. In the first case σ is conjugate to σ3 ; in the second one, σ is
conjugate to σ4 .
Next we must determine the topology of the orbit spaces S/
σi for 1 ≤ i ≤
4. Since S has genus one, each surface S/
σi is either an annulus or a Möbius
strip or else a Klein bottle. Therefore the topology of each S/
σi is determined
by the number (two, one or zero, respectively) of its boundary components, that
is, by the number of ovals of the fixed point set Fix(σi ) of each symmetry σi .
Let z = r+sω with 0 ≤ r, s < 1 be a point of the fundamental parallelogram
RL . It is straightforward to check that a point z + L is fixed by σ1 : z + L →
z̄ + L if and only if 2sω ∈ L, that is, 2s ∈ Z. But s ∈ [0, 1) and so either
s = 0 or s = 1/2. This means that Fix(σ1 ) consists of the projection under
the covering map π : C → S of the two horizontal segments [0, 1) × {0} and
[0, 1) × {ω/2} of R. It is clear that the projections are two disjoint ovals in S;
so Fix(σ1 ) has two ovals and S/
σ1 is indeed an annulus.
An analogous argument shows that Fix(σ3 ) consists of the projection under
π of the two vertical segments {0} × [0, ω) and {1/2} × [0, ω). The projections
are also disjoint and therefore S/
σ3 is an annulus.
On the other hand, both σ2 and σ4 are fixed point free and so both S/
σ2
and S/
σ4 are Klein bottles.
(2) Re(ω) = 1/2. If a = 1 then the same argument as above shows that σ is con-
jugate to σ1 or σ2 . But now σ1 and σ2 are conjugate. Indeed, the automorphism
g : S → S ; z + L → (z + Im(ω)i/2) + L satisfies g ◦ σ2 ◦ g −1 = σ1 , as is
easy to check.
If a = −1 then ab̄ + b = 2Im(b)i ∈ iR. As Re(ω) = 1/2, the unique
vertex of the fundamental parallelogram RL that lies in the imaginary axis is 0.
So ab̄ + b = 0 and therefore σ is conjugate to σ3 : z + L → −z̄ + L.
Next we show that S/
σ1 and S/
σ3 are Möbius strips, or equivalently,
their boundaries are connected and non-empty. We study just the first case. Let
us write z = r + sω with 0 ≤ r, s < 1. It is straightforward to check that a
point z + L is fixed by σ1 : z + L → z̄ + L if and only if s(ω − ω̄) ∈ L, that
is, 2sIm(ω)i ∈ L. Since 2Im(ω)i = 2ω − 1 belongs to L and there is no point
of L in the open segment joining 0 and 2Im(ω)i, we see that s = 0. Therefore
Fix(σ1 ) consists of the projection under π : C → S of the horizontal segment
[0, 1) × {0} of the fundamental parallelogram R. This shows that S/
σ1 is
indeed a Möbius strip.
(3) We have already proved that σ1 (respectively σ3 ) in (1) is not conjugate to
σ2 (respectively σ4 ) because S/
σ1 and S/
σ3 are closed annuli and S/
σ2
and S/
σ4 are Klein bottles. On the other hand, it follows from part (2) in
Proposition 4.2.9 that σ1 and σ3 in (1) and (2) are not conjugate. By the same
reason σ2 and σ4 in (1) are not conjugate.
The classification of the symmetries of the tori C/L(ω) where L(ω) is neither
square nor hexagonal and with |ω| = 1 is the following.
Proposition 4.2.11. Let ω ∈ C satisfy conditions (4.1) with |ω| = 1 and such that
0 < Re(ω) < 1/2. Let L = Z + Zω and S = C/L. Then each symmetry of S is
conjugate to one of the following:
σ1 : S → S ; z + L → ω z̄ + L; σ2 : S → S ; z + L → −ω z̄ + L,
and both orbit spaces S/

σ1 and S/
σ2 are Möbius strips. Moreover, σ1 and σ2
are not conjugate.
Proof. The last part is an immediate consequence of part (2) in Proposition 4.2.9.
For the first one we repeat the same arguments as in the beginning of the proof of
Proposition 4.2.10 to get that any symmetry of S is conjugate to
1
σ : z + L → az̄ + ab̄ + b + L where ab̄ + b ∈ {0, 1, ω, 1 + ω}.
2
Here a = ±ω by part (6) in Proposition 4.2.7. Let us write ω = eiθ with π/3 < θ <
π/2. We distinguish cases according to whether a = ω or a = −ω.
If a = ω then

ab̄ + b = eiθ b̄ + b = eiθ/2 eiθ/2 b̄ + e−iθ/2 b ∈ Reiθ/2 .
So ab̄ + b = 0 or 1 + ω since the argument of the other points in {0, 1, ω, 1 + ω}

is different to θ/2. Thus
σ : z + L → ω z̄ + L or σ : z + L → (ω z̄ + (1 + ω)/2) + L,
respectively. But these two symmetries are conjugate via the automorphism z+L →
z + (ω − 1)/4 + L, as is easy to check.
If a = −ω then, writing β = b̄eiθ/2 , we get

ab̄ + b = −eiθ b̄ + b = −eiθ/2 b̄eiθ/2 − be−iθ/2

= ei(π+θ/2) β − β̄ = ei(π+θ/2) 2Im(β)i ∈ Rei(θ−π)/2 .
So ab̄ + b = 0 since the argument of the other points in {0, 1, ω, 1 + ω} is different

to (θ − π)/2. Thus
σ(z + L) = −ω z̄ + L = σ2 (z + L).
To finish we have to prove that S/

σ1 and S/
σ2 are Möbius strips or, equiva-
lently, their boundaries are connected and non-empty. Both cases are similar and so
we just deal with S/
σ1 .
Let us write z = r + sω with 0 ≤ r, s < 1. It is straightforward to check that
z + L is fixed by σ1 : z + L → z̄ + L if and only if (r − s)(1 − ω) ∈ L. This implies
that r − s is an integer and necessarily r = s because |r − s| < 1. Therefore Fix(σ1 )
consists of the projection under π : C → S of the diagonal of the fundamental
parallelogram R joining 0 and 1 + ω. This shows that S/
σ1 is indeed a Möbius
strip.

To finish this section we classify the symmetries of the special tori, that is, those
tori S = C/L where the lattice L is either square or hexagonal. By Proposition 4.2.4
the lattice L may be assumed to be L = Z + Zi if L is a square lattice and L =
Z + Zeπi/3 if L is a hexagonal lattice.
Proposition 4.2.12. Let L = Z + Zi and S = C/L. Then each symmetry of S is

conjugate to one of the following:
σ1 : z + L → z̄ + L; σ2 : z + L → (z̄ + 1/2) + L, σ3 : z + L → iz̄ + L.
Moreover, S/
σ1 is a closed annulus, S/
σ2 is a Klein bottle and S/
σ3 is
a Möbius strip. In particular, the symmetries σ1 , σ2 and σ3 are pairwise non-
conjugate.
Proof. Repeating the same arguments as in the beginning of the proof of Proposi-
tion 4.2.10 we get that any symmetry of S is conjugate to
1
σ : z + L → az̄ + ab̄ + b + L where ab̄ + b ∈ {0, 1, i, 1 + i}.
2
Here a ∈ {±1, ±i} by part (4) in Proposition 4.2.7.

If a = 1 then ab̄ + b = b̄ + b = 2Re(b) ∈ R. So ab̄ + b = 0 or 1. In the first case
σ = σ1 and in the second, σ = σ2 .
If a = −1 then ab̄ + b = −b̄ + b = 2Im(b)i ∈ iR. So ab̄ + b = 0 or i. In the first
case σ : z + L → −z̄ + L; in the second, σ : z + L → (−z̄ + 1/2) + L. However,
conjugating by the automorphism z + L → iz + L we see that the first symmetry is
conjugate to σ1 and the second one to σ2 .
If a = i then ab̄ + b = ib̄ + b = eπi/4 (b̄eπi/4 + be−πi/4 ) ∈ Reπi/4 . So ab̄ + b = 0
or 1 + i, that is,
σ(z + L) = iz̄ + L = σ3 (z + L) or σ(z + L) = (iz̄ + (1 + i)/2) + L.
However, conjugating by the automorphism z + L → (z + (i − 1)/4) + L we see

that both symmetries are conjugate.
If a = −i then ab̄ + b = −ib̄ + b = e3πi/2 b̄ + b = e3πi/4 (b̄e3πi/4 + be−3πi/4 ) ∈
3πi/4
Re . So ab̄ + b = 0, that is, σ(z + L) = −iz̄ + L. However, this symmetry is
conjugate to σ3 via the automorphism z + L → −iz + L, as is easy to check.
As to the topological types of the orbit spaces S/
σi , the calculations used to
compute the species of symmetries σ1 and σ2 in Proposition 4.2.10 show that the
fixed point set of σ1 has 2 connected components, while the fixed point set of σ2 is
empty. Thus S/
σ1 is a closed annulus and S/
σ2 is a Klein bottle.
Finally, by repeating the arguments employed in the proof of Proposition 4.2.11,
we deduce that S/
σ3 is a Möbius strip.

Proposition 4.2.13. Let S = C/L where L = Z + Zω and ω = eπi/3 . Then each

symmetry of S is conjugate to one of the following:
σ1 : S → S ; z + L → z̄ + L; σ2 : S → S ; z + L → ω z̄ + L.
Each orbit space S/

σi is a Möbius strip and the symmetries σ1 and σ2 are non-
conjugate.
Proof. The same arguments as in the beginning of the proof of Proposition 4.2.10
yields that any symmetry of S is conjugate to
1
z + L → az̄ + ab̄ + b + L where ab̄ + b ∈ {0, 1, ω, 1 + ω}.
2
Here a = ekπi/3 = ω k with k ∈ {0, . . . , 5} by part (5) in Proposition 4.2.7.

Observe that

ab̄ + b = ekπi/6 b̄ekπi/6 + be−kπi/6 ∈ Rekπi/6 .
So if k = 3, 4 or 5 then ab̄ + b = 0 since the other points in {0, 1, ω, 1 + ω} have

argument different to kπ/6. If k = 0, 1 or 2 then, in addition to 0, the term ab̄ + b
can also attain the value 1, 1 + ω or ω, respectively. This yields nine symmetries in
total and our goal is to show that each of them is conjugate either to σ1 or to σ2 .
For those symmetries with ab̄ + b = 0 we do as follows: there exists c = enπi/3 ,
for a suitable n, such that ac2 = 1 if a = ekπi/3 with k even and ac2 = ω if k is odd.
For such a value of c, the transformation fc : z + L → cz + L is an automorphism
of S (by Proposition 4.2.5) which conjugates the symmetry z + L → az̄ + L to σ1
if k is even and to σ2 if k is odd.
As to the symmetry z + L → (ω 2 z̄ + ω/2) + L, it is easy to check that it is
conjugate to z + L → (z̄ + 1/2) + L via the automorphism fc with c as above.
Finally, the symmetries z+L → (z̄+1/2)+L and z+L → (ω z̄+(ω+1)/2)+L
are conjugate, via the automorphism f : S → S given by z + L → (z + ω/2) + L,
to σ1 and σ2 respectively.
This proves the first part of the statement. Moreover, Proposition 4.2.9 yields that
σ1 and σ2 are non-conjugate because c2 = ω for all c such that c6 = 1.
To finish we will prove that S/
σ1 is a Möbius strip; we leave the details of the
remaining case S/
σ2 to the reader.
Let us write z = r+sω with 0 ≤ r, s < 1. It is straightforward to check
√ that z+L
is fixed by σ1 : z + L → z̄ + L if and only if s(ω − ω̄) ∈ L, that is, s 3i ∈ L. This
implies s = 0. Consequently, Fix(σ1 ) consists of the projection under π : C → S of
the horizontal segment [0, 1) × {0} of the fundamental parallelogram R. This shows
that S/
σ1 is indeed a Möbius strip.

As a consequence of the results in this section we obtain Corollary 4.2.14, which

describes the symmetry type of each torus. However, it must be pointed out that the
above results provide us with more information than just the symmetry type since
they describe explicitly a symmetry which realizes each species.
Corollary 4.2.14. Let L = Z + Zω be a lattice with ω satisfying conditions (4.1).

Then the symmetry type of the torus S = C/L is:
(1) {0, 0, +2, +2} if |ω| > 1 and Re(ω) = 0;

(2) {−1, −1} if |ω| > 1 and Re(ω) = 1/2;
(3) {−1, −1} if |ω| = 1 and 0 < Re(ω) < 1/2;
(4) {−1, 0, +2} if ω = i;
(5) {−1, −1} if ω = eπi/3 .
For any other value of ω the torus is not symmetric.

4.3 Symmetry Types of Hyperelliptic Riemann Surfaces
Hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces have attracted the attention of geometers since long
time ago. The study of their symmetries began with the works of Natanzon [98, 99]
at the end of the seventies of the past century, and Maskit [78] in 1995. They both
restricted themselves to the case of symmetries whose number of ovals is maximal.
Later on, the authors of this monograph classified all symmetries of each hyper-
elliptic surface without any assumption on the number of their ovals, [14]. This
work is too extensive even to survey it here. Hence we present in this section the
main ingredients to understand why the computation of the symmetry types of hy-
perelliptic surfaces is achievable. We will also explain an illustrative example in
detail. It is worth mentioning that the results are also described in an algebraic way.
That is, the surfaces are given by means of defining polynomial equations and the
symmetries are described as the composite of complex conjugation with birational
transformations.
A Riemann surface is called cyclic p-gonal if it is a cyclic p-covering of the
Riemann sphere. The 2-gonal surfaces are, therefore, the hyperelliptic ones. Sym-
metries on trigonal and cyclic p-gonal surfaces, for p an odd prime, have been
studied by Costa and Izquierdo in [35, 36]. The proofs in these two articles are
based on the theory of NEC groups, in contrast to the more geometric approach we
follow here with hyperelliptic surfaces.
We first recall the notion of hyperellipticity.
Definition 4.3.1. A Riemann surface S of genus g ≥ 2 is hyperelliptic if any of the
following equivalent conditions holds:
(1) There exists a meromorphic function πS : S → Σ = C ∪ {∞} of degree 2.

(2) There exists an analytic automorphism ρS : S → S of order 2 with 2g + 2 fixed
points.
(3) There exists an analytic automorphism ρS : S → S of order 2 such that the
orbit space S/
ρS has genus 0.
The automorphism ρS is unique and it is called the hyperelliptic involution of S. It is

central in the full group Aut(S) of analytic and antianalytic automorphisms of S.
Hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces have the nice property of admitting an easy rep-
resentation by polynomials. Indeed, it is well known that any such surface can be
obtained, after desingularization, from the set of solutions in C2 of an equation of
the form y 2 = P (x), where P ∈ C[x] is a monic polynomial whose roots in C
are simple (see, for example, Sects. 1 and 4 of Chapter III in [92]). Let us fix some
notations to be used later.
Notations 4.3.2. A hyperelliptic Riemann surface S of genus g will be represented
by the affine plane model
S = {(x, y) ∈ C2 : y 2 = PS (x)},
4.3 Symmetry Types of Hyperelliptic Riemann Surfaces 83
where
PS (x) = (x − e1 ) · · · (x − e2g+1+δ ) with ei = ej if i = j and δ = 0 or 1.
In this model we identify the characteristic elements of a hyperelliptic surface. First,

the projection πS onto the first coordinate
πS : S → Σ ; (x, y) → x
is a meromorphic function of degree 2. Its 2g + 2 branch points are thus the roots of
PS together with ∞ if δ = 0. They constitute what we call (by abuse of language)
the branch point set of S, which we denote by BS . With the above notations,

{e1 , . . . , e2g+2 } if δ = 1,
BS =
{e1 , . . . , e2g+1 , ∞} if δ = 0.
The automorphism of S interchanging the two sheets of πS , i.e., the hyperelliptic

involution, has the following formula
ρS : S → S ; (x, y) → (x, −y).
In the sequel we will denote it by ρ if no confusion arises.
Analytic isomorphisms between hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces are closely re-

lated to analytic automorphisms of the Riemann sphere, i.e. to Möbius transfor-
mations. We now describe this relation in terms of polynomial equations of such
surfaces.
Let S and T be hyperelliptic surfaces of genus g whose branch point sets are
denoted by BS and BT , respectively. Every analytic isomorphism f : S → T
induces a Möbius transformation fˆ : Σ → Σ which maps BS onto BT . In fact, fˆ is
defined by the formula fˆ(πS (p)) = πT (f (p)) for any p ∈ S.
f
S - T
πS πT
? ?
fˆ-
Σ Σ
Conversely, every Möbius transformation m : Σ → Σ which maps BS onto BT

induces exactly two analytic isomorphisms f1 , f2 : S → T such that fˆi = m, for
i = 1, 2. In fact, f2 = f1 ◦ ρS = ρT ◦ f1 . We call these isomorphisms liftings of m.
Their formulae can be calculated explicitly.
Liftings of Möbius Transformations
Let us write S = {y 2 = PS (x)} and T = {y 2 = PT (x)}. Let
ax + b
m(x) = with {a, b, c, d} ⊂ C and det m := ad − bc = 0
cx + d
be a Möbius transformation such that m(BS ) = BT . Then the formulae of its lift-
ings, say f and f ◦ ρS , depend on whether ∞ ∈ BS or not and whether m fixes ∞
or not. These formulae, as they appear in [30], are the following.
(1) If ∞ ∈ BS and m(∞) = ∞ then

√
a b a g det m
f (x, y) = x+ , y· .
d d d d
(2) If ∞ ∈ BS and m(∞) = ∞ then

ax + b y · cg
f (x, y) = , − det m · PT (a/c) .
cx + d (cx + d)g+1
(3) If ∞ ∈
/ BS and m(∞) = ∞ then
a g+1
a b
f (x, y) = x+ , y· .
d d d
(4) If ∞ ∈
/ BS and m(∞) = ∞ then

ax + b y · cg+1
f (x, y) = , PT (a/c) .
cx + d (cx + d)g+1
If a Möbius transformation which maps BS onto BT is antianalytic, i.e., of the

form (ax̄ + b)/(cx̄ + d), then the formulae of its liftings are obtained from the above
ones just by replacing x and y for their complex conjugates x̄ and ȳ respectively.
In this section we are mainly interested in automorphisms of S, whose formu-
lae are obtained by making T = S in the above. In this case, the relation between
isomorphisms of hyperelliptic surfaces and Möbius transformations states that the
group Aut(S) of automorphisms of S consists exactly of the liftings of those
Möbius transformations (analytic or antianalytic) which preserve the branch point
set BS . For notational convenience, we denote such a group by AutΣ (S):
AutΣ (S) := {m ∈ Aut(Σ) : m(BS ) = BS }.
Note that, algebraically, AutΣ (S) is nothing else but the factor group Aut(S)/
ρ.
According to the classification of the finite automorphism groups of the sphere,

there are ten different classes of such groups which contain an antianalytic invo-
lution. They appear in a natural way as AutΣ (S) in the combinatorial study of
Aut(S).
4.3.1 A Geometric Method
Apart from the analytic methods used in Sects. 4.1 and 4.2 to compute the symmetry
types of the Riemann sphere and tori, respectively, for surfaces of higher genus the
most common method is the combinatorial study of NEC groups. However, the nice
properties of hyperelliptic surfaces allow to develop a geometric method which turns
out to be easier than the combinatorial one. The goal of this subsection is to explain
this geometric approach.
Assume that the hyperelliptic surface S admits a symmetry σ. Our purpose here
is to compute the species of σ in terms of both its formula and the equation of S.
This is summarized in Theorems 4.3.4 and 4.3.5 below, which are based on results
in [57, Sect. 6], adapted to our point of view.
In the same way as analytic isomorphisms induce Möbius transformations, the
symmetry σ : S → S induces an antianalytic Möbius transformation σ : Σ → Σ,
which also has order 2. We proved in Theorem 4.1.2 that if σ fixes points then it is
conjugate to complex conjugation x → x̄; otherwise it is conjugate to the antipodal
map x → −1/x̄.
is complex conjugation. In this case the polynomial PS
Let us assume first that σ
defining the surface S has real coefficients since its roots are permuted by σ . Then
one of the liftings of σ is σ : (x, y) → (x̄, ȳ) and so its fixed point set consists
exactly of the points with real coordinates of the surface S = {y 2 = PS (x)}. It is
then easy to see that if PS has 2k > 0 real roots then Fix(σ) consists of exactly k
ovals. Moreover, the separating character of Fix(σ) depends on the number of real
roots of PS or, more precisely, since ∞ may be a branch point, on the number of
branch points of S fixed by σ . Indeed, if 2k is the number of branch points fixed by
then
σ ⎧
⎪
⎪ g + 1 if k = g + 1;
⎨
−k if 0 < k < g + 1;
sp(σ) =
⎪
⎪ 1 if k = 0 and g is even;
⎩
2 if k = 0 and g is odd.
is σ ◦ ρ : (x, y) → (x̄, −ȳ). If σ
The other lifting of σ fixes no branch point
then PS is always positive on R; it follows that in this case Fix(σ ◦ ρ) is empty,
that is, sp(σ ◦ ρ) = 0. If σ
fixes some branch point we claim that the species of
σ ◦ ρ coincides with the species of σ. To show this we use the obvious fact that if
α and β are symmetries of two different Riemann surfaces S and T respectively,
and f ◦ α = β ◦ f for some isomorphism f : S → T , then the species of α and β
coincide.
fixes some branch point then sp(σ ◦ ρ) = sp(σ).

Lemma 4.3.3. If σ
Proof. Let r be the greatest real root of PS and let m be the real Möbius transforma-
tion m : Σ → Σ ; x → −1/(x − r). Consider the hyperelliptic Riemann surface T
whose branch point set is BT = m(BS ). Clearly, γ : T → T ; (x, y) → (x̄, ȳ) is a
symmetry of T . Denoting by f a lifting of m it is easy to check that f ◦ σ ◦ ρ = γ ◦ f
and so sp(σ ◦ ρ) = sp(γ ). It remains to see that sp(γ) = sp(σ). Since both sym-
metries γ and σ have the same formula (x, y) → (x̄, ȳ), it follows from the above
that sp(γ) = sp(σ) if and only if the number of branch points of T fixed by γ
coincides with the number of branch points of S fixed by σ . But this is clear be-
◦ m−1 =
cause m ◦ σ γ and so the branch points of T fixed by γ are the images by
m of the branch points of S fixed by σ .

Theorem 4.3.4. Suppose that the branch point set of the hyperelliptic surface S
. Then S admits the symmetries
of genus g is preserved by complex conjugation σ
defined by
σ : S → S ; (x, y) → (x̄, ȳ) and σ ◦ ρ : S → S ; (x, y) → (x̄, −ȳ).
.
Let 2k be the number of branch points of S fixed by σ
(1) If k > 0 then

g + 1 if k = g + 1,
sp(σ) = sp(σ ◦ ρ) =
−k if k < g + 1.
(2) If k = 0 then

1 if g is even,
sp(σ) = sp(σ ◦ ρ) = 0.
2 if g is odd;
If the branch point set of S is preserved by an antianalytic involution σ differ-

ent to complex conjugation but analytically conjugate to it, then we claim that the
species of its liftings σ and σ ◦ ρ also depend only on the number of branch points
fixed by σ . This can be proved similarly to the above lemma. If m ◦ σ ◦ m−1 = σ ,
then σ : T → T ; (x, y) → (x̄, ȳ) and σ ◦ ρ are symmetries of the hyperelliptic
surface T whose branch point set is m(BS ). In fact, if f is a lifting of m then either
f ◦ σ ◦ f −1 = σ (and so f ◦ σ ◦ ρ ◦ f −1 = σ ◦ ρ) or f ◦ σ ◦ f −1 = σ ◦ ρ (and
so f ◦ σ ◦ ρ ◦ f −1 = σ). In both cases {sp(σ ), sp(σ ◦ ρ)} = {sp(σ), sp(σ ◦ ρ)},
which means that the species of σ and σ ◦ ρ depend only on the number of branch
points of T fixed by σ . But the branch points of T fixed by σ are the images under
m of the branch points of S fixed by σ . This proves our claim.
Suppose now that σ is the antipodal map σ : Σ → Σ ; x → −1/x̄. We claim
that in this case the genus g must be odd since otherwise its liftings would not be
involutions. Indeed, using the formulae of its liftings we see immediately that their
squares are

σ 2 (x, y) = (σ ◦ ρ)2 (x, y) = x, y · (−1)g+1 .
So σ 2 = ρ for even g, i.e., σ is a pseudosymmetry in Singerman’s terminology from
[120]. As to their species, since σ fixes no point, the same happens to its liftings.
Therefore sp(σ) = sp(σ ◦ ρ) = 0.
Summing up, we have shown the following theorem, which gives the species of
. If σ
the liftings of an antianalytic involution σ is conjugate to complex conjugation
then we call it a reflection.
Theorem 4.3.5. Let σ : Σ → Σ be an antianalytic involution preserving the branch
point set of the hyperelliptic surface S of genus g. Let σ and σ ◦ ρ be its liftings and
assume that both have order 2.
is conjugate to the antipodal map then g is odd and sp(σ) = sp(σ ◦ ρ) = 0.

(1) If σ
is a reflection which fixes 2k > 0 branch points of S then
(2) If σ

g+1 if k = g + 1,
sp(σ) = sp(σ ◦ ρ) =
−k if k < g + 1.
is a reflection which fixes no branch point of S then

(3) If σ

{1, 0} if g is even,
{sp(σ), sp(σ ◦ ρ)} =
{2, 0} if g is odd.
Remark 4.3.6. Observe that in case (3) we do not know which one is the lifting with
is complex conjugation (see Theorem 4.3.4). When
non-zero species, except if σ
dealing with polynomial equations we can exhibit explicit formulae of both liftings
and so we can decide which one fixes points.
4.3.2 An Example
Let S be a symmetric hyperelliptic Riemann surface of genus g and let AutΣ (S)
be the group of Möbius transformations preserving its branch point set BS . This is
a finite group of isometries of the Riemann sphere and so it has a nice geometric
interpretation. For instance, AutΣ (S) can be the group of (orientation preserving or
reversing) isometries of a regular cube, and it is easy to describe how its elements
permute the 2g + 2 branch points of S. This allows us to describe the distribution of
the branch points on the sphere and, in particular, to find out how many of them are
fixed by a given symmetry, say σ . Once this is achieved, we can use Theorem 4.3.5
to compute the species of its liftings σ and σ ◦ ρ (provided they are involutions).
The distribution of the branch points of S also provides an algebraic equation of
S. With this equation at hand, the formulae of the automorphisms of S can be explic-
itly computed as liftings of the Möbius transformations in AutΣ (S). This way we
get a presentation by means of generators and defining relations of the full group
Aut(S). It is now an exercise in finite group theory to determine the conjugacy

classes of symmetries in Aut(S). Finally, this yields the symmetry type of S. Con-
sequently, the computation of the symmetry types of hyperelliptic surfaces by means
of this geometric method splits naturally into different cases according to the differ-
ent types of groups AutΣ (S). We develop here in detail the case in which AutΣ (S)
is a dihedral group of order 2n ≥ 4 generated by two reflections σ 1 and σ
2 (surfaces
of this type are called surfaces of class I in [14]). For simplicity, we just consider
2 ◦ σ
the case in which the two fixed points of the rotation σ 1 are branch points of S.
Theorem 4.3.7. Let S be a hyperelliptic Riemann surface of genus g such that the
induced group AutΣ (S) of Möbius transformations is dihedral of order 2n ≥ 4
generated by two reflections σ1 and σ 2 . Assume that the two fixed points of the
2 ◦ σ
rotation σ 1 are branch points of S. Then there exist non-negative integers r, p1
and p2 with 2r + p1 + p2 = 2g/n ≥ 3 such that S admits an algebraic equation of
the form

r
p1
p2
y2 = x · (xn − wjn )(xn − w̄jn ) · (xn − λnj ) · (xn + μnj ),
j=1 j=1 j=1
where the roots of the polynomial on the right hand side are simple and λnj and μnj
are positive real numbers for all j. Moreover, the full group Aut(S) of automor-
phisms of S is dihedral of order 4n generated by the symmetries

σ1 : S → S ; (x, y) → (x̄, ȳ) and σ2 : S → S ; (x, y) → x̄e2πi/n , ȳeπi/n .
These are representatives of the unique two conjugacy classes of symmetries of S

and their species are
⎧
⎨ g+1 if pi = g (and hence n = 2),
sp(σi ) = −(pi + 1) if n is even and pi < g,
⎩
−(p1 + p2 + 2)/2 if n is odd,
for i = 1, 2. This yields the symmetry type of S, namely
(1) {−1, g + 1} if pi = g for i = 1 or 2 (and hence n = 2),

(2) {−(p1 + 1), −(p2 + 1)} if n is even and pi < g for i = 1 and 2,
(3) {−(p1 + p2 + 2)/2, −(p1 + p2 + 2)/2} if n is odd.
Proof. After conjugation by a Möbius transformation, we may choose the following

reflections as generators for the dihedral group AutΣ (S):
2 : Σ → Σ ; x → x̄e2πi/n .
1 : Σ → Σ ; x → x̄ and σ
σ
1 is the real axis R∪{∞} while that of σ

The fixed point set of σ 2 is the line {reπi/n :
r ∈ R}∪{∞}. The two fixed points of the rotation σ 2 ◦σ1 : Σ → Σ ; x → x·e2πi/n
are 0 and ∞. It follows that a fundamental region F for the action of

σ1 , σ2 in
Σ is
F = {reiθ : 0 ≤ r, 0 ≤ θ ≤ π/n} ∪ {∞}.
In particular, the branch point set BS of S consists of the orbits of points lying in
this fundamental region.
(1) If w lies in the interior of F then its orbit under the action of
2 consists
σ1 , σ
of the 2n roots of the polynomial (xn − wn )(xn − w̄n ); observe that in this
case wn is a complex number with positive imaginary part.
(2) If λ = 0, ∞ is fixed by σ1 (and hence it lies in the boundary of F) then its orbit
consists of the n roots of the polynomial xn − λn ; observe that λn is a positive
real number.
(3) If ν = 0, ∞ is fixed by σ2 (and hence it lies in the boundary of F) then its orbit
consists of the n roots of the polynomial xn − ν n ; observe that ν n is a negative
real number.
(4) Finally, if α = 0 or ∞ then its orbit is {α} itself.
Let r be the number of branch points lying in the interior of F and, for i = 1, 2, let
pi be the number of branch points lying in F ∩ Fix( σi ) and different from 0 and ∞.
Since we are assuming that both 0 and ∞ are also branch points, the total number
of branch points of S is 2rn + p1 n + p2 n + 2. This yields the equality 2r + p1 +
p2 = 2g/n in the statement of the theorem. In addition, the above also shows that a
defining algebraic equation y 2 = PS (x) of S has the form given in the statement of
the theorem, because the roots of PS (x) are precisely the finite branch points of S.
The condition 2r + p1 + p2 ≥ 3 is necessary to assure that AutΣ (S) has no
more automorphisms than those in
2 and so AutΣ (S) is indeed dihedral of
σ1 , σ
order 2n. In fact, if 2r + p1 + p2 = 1 or 2 then there exist Möbius transformations
in AutΣ (S) \
2 . Explicitly, if p1 = 1 and r = p2 = 0 then the reflection
σ1 , σ
defined as Σ → Σ ; x → λ21 /x̄ belongs to AutΣ (S) \
2 ; the case p2 = 1
σ1 , σ
and r = p1 = 0 is analogous. In case r = 1 and p1 = p2 = 0 the same happens
to the reflection Σ → Σ ; x → |w1 |2 /x̄. In case r = 0, p1 = p2 = 1 the trans-
formation to be considered is Σ → Σ ; x → λ1 μ1 /x and finally, in case p1 = 2
and r = p2 = 0 (the case p2 = 2 and r = p1 = 0 is analogous) the transformation
Σ → Σ ; x → λ1 λ2 /x works.
With the algebraic equation of S at hand it is immediate to check that both maps
σ1 : S → S ; (x, y) → (x̄, ȳ) and σ2 : S → S ; (x, y) → (x̄ · e2πi/n , ȳ · eπi/n )
1 and σ
are liftings of σ 2 respectively. Since σ1 and σ2 have order two and their
composite σ2 ◦ σ1 : S → S ; (x, y) → (x · e2πi/n , y · eπi/n ) has order 2n, we see
that they generate a dihedral group of order 4n which therefore coincides with the
full group Aut(S). In particular, they are representatives of the unique two conju-
gacy classes of symmetries of Aut(S). Let us compute their species. To do this we
use Theorem 4.3.5 and for that we need to calculate the number of branch points
fixed by each σi for i = 1, 2. We can use either the defining algebraic equation of S
or the geometric description of how the branch points are distributed in the above
fundamental region F. Let us choose this last option.
Assume first that n is even. Then the branch points fixed by σ 1 are 0, ∞, the
p1 branch points lying in F ∩ Fix( σ1 ), say λ1 , . . . , λp1 , and the images of these
σ2 ◦ σ
last under the rotation ( 1 )n/2 : Σ → Σ ; x → −x, that is, −λ1 , . . . , −λp1 .
This makes a total of 2p1 + 2 branch points lying on Fix( σ1 ). Hence, according to
Theorem 4.3.5, we have

−(p1 + 1) if p1 + 1 < g + 1;
sp(σ1 ) =
g+1 if p1 + 1 = g + 1.
Observe that this last equality holds just for n = 2 and p2 = 0; in fact, if p1 = g then
the equality 2r+p1 +p2 = 2g/n becomes 2r+p2 = g(2/n−1) which forces n = 2
and r = p2 = 0. As to the branch points fixed by σ 2 , they are 0, ∞, the p2 branch
points lying in F ∩ Fix( σ2 ), say ν1 , . . . , νp2 , and the images of these last under the
σ2 ◦ σ
rotation ( 1 )n/2 : Σ → Σ ; x → −x, namely, −ν1 , . . . , −νp2 . This makes a
total of 2p2 + 2 branch points lying on Fix( σ2 ). Hence, according to Theorem 4.3.5,

−(p2 + 1) if p2 + 1 < g + 1;
sp(σ2 ) =
g+1 if p2 + 1 = g + 1.
Again this last equality holds just for n = 2 and r = p1 = 0. Consequently, the
symmetry type of S for n even is the one given in the statement of the theorem.
Assume now that n is odd and let us keep the above meaning of λ1 , . . . , λp1
1 are 0, ∞, λ1 , . . . , λp1
and ν1 , . . . , νp2 . In this case the branch points fixed by σ
and the images of ν1 , . . . , νp2 under the rotation ( 1 )(n−1)/2 : Σ → Σ ; x →
σ2 ◦ σ
−x · e−πi/n . This makes a total of p1 + p2 + 2 branch points lying on Fix( σ1 ).
Hence, according to Theorem 4.3.5,
sp(σ1 ) = −(p1 + p2 + 2)/2.
As to the branch points fixed by σ 2 , they are 0, ∞, ν1 , . . . , νp2 and the images of
σ2 ◦ σ
λ1 , . . . , λp1 under the rotation ( 1 )(n+1)/2 : Σ → Σ ; x → −x · eπi/n . This
makes a total of p1 + p2 + 2 branch points lying on Fix( σ2 ). Hence, according to
Theorem 4.3.5,
sp(σ2 ) = −(p1 + p2 + 2)/2.
Therefore, the symmetry type of S for n odd is
{−(p1 + p2 + 2)/2, −(p1 + p2 + 2)/2},
as claimed in the statement.

Chapter 5
Symmetry Types of Riemann Surfaces
with a Large Group of Automorphisms
In this chapter we study the symmetries of those surfaces S whose group Aut+ (S)
of analytic automorphisms is large. As said in the introduction, the symmetries of
these surfaces are topologically determined by Aut+ (S). We will explain in detail
results that originally are due to the authors of this monograph in collaboration
with Broughton [8, 9] and to Turbek alone [124]. More precisely, in this chapter we
classify the symmetries of the Macbeath–Singerman, the Accola–Maclachlan and
the Kulkarni surfaces. Our choice comes from the fact that the results are complete
for these surfaces. However, the interested reader is invited to see also [15, 16, 94].
Many arguments are closely related to Gromadzki’s work in [48].
5.1 Some General Results
Let us write the compact Riemann surface S as H/Γ for some surface Fuchsian
group Γ and Aut+ (S) = Δ/Γ, where Δ is a Fuchsian group containing Γ as a
normal subgroup. For the surfaces we shall deal with in this chapter, the group
Δ has triangle signature. We shall find general formulae for the number of ovals
of each symmetry of such surfaces. These formulae appeared in [48], see also the
recent paper [52] for a refined version. Following Theorem 3.1.1 and Lemma 1.3.3
we divide this study into several cases according to the parity of the three proper
periods of Δ.
For the reader’s convenience, let us introduce some technical notions that we will
use in the sequel. Given an automorphism ϕ of a group G, two elements x, y ∈ G
are said to be ϕ-conjugate, and denoted by
x ∼ϕ y if x = wyϕ(w)−1
for some w ∈ G. This notion was introduced in the context of low dimension topol-
ogy by Reidemeister in [109]. Observe that if ϕ is the identity then this notion
coincides with the usual conjugacy.
Recall also that the isotropy group Isotr(ϕ) of ϕ is the subgroup consisting of all
elements of G fixed by ϕ:
Isotr(ϕ) = {x ∈ G : ϕ(x) = x}.


92 5 Symmetry Types of Riemann Surfaces with a Large Group of Automorphisms
Finally, given an element y ∈ G we denote by ϕy and ϕy the automorphisms of G

defined as
ϕy (x) = ϕ(x)y = yϕ(x)y −1 and ϕy (x) = ϕ(xy ) = ϕ(yxy −1 ).
Let S be a symmetric Riemann surface corresponding to a generating pair (a, b).

We know by Theorem 1.5.10 that Aut+ (S) admits an automorphism ϕ induced by
a → a−1 , b → b−1 or by a → b−1 , b → a−1 . We shall call S a surface of the first
type if ϕ is induced by the first assignment, and of the second type otherwise.
We start with surfaces of the first type.
Theorem 5.1.1. Let S be a symmetric Riemann surface of the first type whose group
Aut+ (S) of analytic automorphisms is generated by a pair (a, b) of elements of
order k and = 2 + 1, respectively, whose product has order m = 2m + 1.
(1) The surface S has exactly one conjugacy class of symmetries with ovals. The
number of its ovals is N/M , where N is the order of the isotropy group of ϕ in
Aut+ (S) and
k
2 a (ab)−m b ak b− (ab)m if k = 2k,
M=
(ab)−m b ak if k = 2k + 1.
(2) The surface S has a symmetry without ovals if and only if there is an element
x ∈ Aut+ (S) such that ϕ(x) = x−1 and x is not ϕ-conjugate to 1.
Proof. Let us write S = H/Γ for some surface Fuchsian group Γ and G =
Aut+ (S) = Δ/Γ, where Δ is a Fuchsian group with signature s(Δ) = [k , , m ].
By the proof of Theorem 1.5.10 there exists an NEC group Λ with signature s(Λ) =
(k , , m ) containing Δ and Γ as normal subgroups so that G = Aut(S) = Λ/Γ.
By Remark 1.5.11 we know that the smooth epimorphism θ : Λ → G = G Z2 =
a, b t is given by θ(c0 ) = at, θ(c1 ) = t, θ(c2 ) = tb, where {c0 , c1 , c2 } is a set
of canonical generating reflections of Λ.
Let σ be a symmetry of S and write σ = Γσ /Γ where Γσ is a proper NEC
group. If Γσ contains no conjugate to a canonical reflection then σ fixes no oval by
Lemma 1.5.9. If Γσ contains a conjugate of a canonical reflection then σ fixes κ > 0
ovals, that is, the signature of Γσ has κ > 0 period cycles. Observe that c0 , c1 and c2
are pairwise conjugate since and m are odd. Therefore, the surface S has exactly
one conjugacy class of symmetries with ovals. In addition, Theorem 3.1.1 yields
at) : θ(C(Λ, c0 ))].

κ = [C(G,
Since t and at are conjugate, the centralizers C(G, t) and C(G, at) have the same
order. Now, the restriction to G of conjugation by t is precisely the automorphism ϕ.
It follows that the order of C(G, t) is twice the order of the isotropy group of
ϕ in G. Let us calculate now the order of θ(C(Λ, c0 )). Assume that k = 2k.
5.1 Some General Results 93
Then, using Lemma 1.3.3 and noting that the images in G of the generators of
C(Λ, c0 ) have order 2, we obtain that θ(C(Λ, c0 )) has order 4M , where M is the
order of the element

θ (c0 c1 )k (c2 c0 )m (c1 c2 ) (c1 c0 )k (c2 c1 ) (c0 c2 )m = ak (ab)−m b ak b− (ab)m .
This completes the first part of the proof for k even. The first part of the proof for
k odd is similar and we omit it.
Now, any symmetry σ has the form xt for some x ∈ G and, in fact, ϕ(x) = x−1
because (xt)2 = 1. Observe that σ fixes no oval if and only if σ is not conjugate
to t. But xt is conjugate to t if and only x ∼ϕ 1, as is easy to see. This completes
the proof of the theorem.

As another application of Theorem 3.1.1, we state without proof Theorems 5.1.2

and 5.1.3.
order k = 2k and = 2, respectively, whose product has order m = 2m.
(1) The surface S admits three symmetries with ovals, σ1 , σ2 and σ3 , such that
each symmetry with ovals of S is conjugate either to σ1 or to σ2 or else to
σ3 . Furthermore, σ1 ∼ σ2 , σ2 ∼ σ3 and σ1 ∼ σ3 , respectively, if and only if
a ∼ϕ 1, b ∼ϕ 1 and a ∼ϕ b±1 , respectively.
Let M1 , M2 and M3 be the orders of ak (ab)m , ak b and (ab)m b , respectively,
and let N1 , N2 and N3 be the orders of the isotropy groups of ϕa , ϕ and ϕb in
Aut+ (S), respectively. Then,
• If σ1 , σ2 and σ3 are pairwise non-conjugate then σi has Ni /(2Mi ) ovals
for i = 1, 2, 3.
• If σ1 , σ2 and σ3 are pairwise conjugate then each of them has N1 /(2M1 )+
N2 /(2M2 ) + N3 /(2M3 ) ovals.
• If (u, v, w) is a permutation of (1, 2, 3) such that σu ∼ σv and σw is non-
conjugate to σu and σv then σu has Nu /2(Mu ) + Nv /(2Mv ) ovals and
σw has Nw /(2Mw ) ovals.
x ∈ Aut+ (S) such that ϕ(x) = x−1 and x is ϕ-conjugate neither to 1, nor to
a±1 nor to b±1 .
order k = 2k and = 2, respectively, whose product has order m = 2m + 1.
(1) The surface S admits two symmetries with ovals, σ1 and σ2 , such that each
symmetry with ovals of S is conjugate either to σ1 or to σ2 . Furthermore σ1 ∼
σ2 if and only if a ∼ϕ 1.
Let M1 and M2 be the orders of ak (ab)−m b (ab)m and ak b , respectively, and

let N1 and N2 be the orders of the isotropy groups of ϕ and ϕa in Aut+ (S),
respectively. Then,
• If σ1 ∼ σ2 then σ1 has N1 /(2M1 ) + N2 /(2M2 ) ovals.
• If σ1 and σ2 are non-conjugate then σi has Ni /(2Mi ) ovals for i = 1,2.
(2) The surface S has a symmetry without ovals if and only if there is an ele-
ment x ∈ Aut+ (S) such that ϕ(x) = x−1 and x is ϕ-conjugate neither to
1 nor to a±1 .
If S is a Riemann surface of the second type and (a, b) is a generating pair then
the assignment ϕ : a → b−1 , b → a−1 induces an automorphism. In particular a
and b have the same order. For this type of surfaces we have the following.
Theorem 5.1.4. Let S be a symmetric Riemann surface of the second type whose
group Aut+ (S) of analytic automorphisms is generated by two elements a and b of
order k whose product has order m.
(1) The surface S has exactly one conjugacy class of symmetries with ovals. The
number of its ovals is N/M , where N is the order of the isotropy group of ϕ in
Aut+ (S) and

2 (ab)m/2 (ba)m/2 if m is even,
M=
(ab)(m+1)/2 a if m is odd.
x ∈ Aut+ (S) such that ϕ(x) = x−1 and x is not ϕ-conjugate to 1.
Proof. Write S = H/Γ for some surface Fuchsian group Γ. Then G = Aut+ (S) =
Δ/Γ, where Δ is a Fuchsian group with signature [k, k, m] containing Γ as a
normal subgroup. By the proof of Theorem 1.5.10, there exists an NEC group
Λ with signature s(Λ) = (0; +; [k]; {(m)}) containing Γ and Δ as normal sub-
groups and, by Remark 1.5.11, the group Γ is the kernel of the epimorphism
θ:Λ→G = G Z2 = a, b t induced by the assignment
θ(x) = a, θ(e) = a−1 , θ(c0 ) = t, θ(c1 ) = t(ab)−1 .
Now c0 and c1 are conjugate in Λ and therefore the surface S has exactly one
conjugacy class of symmetries with ovals. In order to count them, we have to
find the number of empty period cycles in the signature of the subgroup Γ0 =
θ−1 (t) = Γ, c0 . By Theorem 3.1.1, the number of ovals of this symmetry equals
t)) : θ(C(Λ, c0 ))]. Now the order of C(G,
[C(G, t)) is 2N , where N is the order of
the isotropy group of ϕ in G and, by Lemmata 1.3.1 and 1.3.2,

c0 ⊕ (c0 c1 )m/2 ∗ e(c0 c1 )m/2 e−1 if m is even,
C(Λ, c0 ) =
c0 ⊕ e(c0 c1 )(m−1)/2 if m is odd.
5.2 Symmetry Types of Macbeath–Singerman Surfaces 95
So for even m, the order of θ(C(Λ, c0 )) is four times the order of (ab)m/2 (ba)m/2 ,
whilst for odd m, it is twice the order of (ab)(m+1)/2 a. This completes the proof of
the first part. The proof of the second part is analogous to that of Theorem 5.1.1.

5.2 Symmetry Types of Macbeath–Singerman Surfaces
A finite group G is said to be a Hurwitz group if there exists a Riemann surface S

of genus g ≥ 2 whose group of analytic automorphisms has order 84(g − 1) and
it is isomorphic to G. In such a case the surface S is said to have a Hurwitz auto-
morphism group and G is said to act as a Hurwitz group on the surface S. Hurwitz
groups are generated by two elements a and b of orders 2 and 3, respectively, whose
product has order 7, see [118, Sect. 4].
It is known that no surface of genus g = 2, 4, 5 or 6 has a Hurwitz automorphism
group, whilst on the other hand Klein proved in [65] that the genus 3 Riemann
surface
S = {[x : y : z] ∈ P2 (C) : x3 y + y 3 z + z 3 x = 0}
has the projective special linear group PSL(2, 7) of order 168 = 84(3 − 1) as a
Hurwitz automorphism group. This surface is the so called Klein quartic. Macbeath
proved in [72] the existence of a unique Riemann surface of genus 7 on which
the group PSL(2, 8) of order 504 = 84(7 − 1) acts as a Hurwitz group. Later on,
Macbeath characterized in [74] the values of the positive integers q for which the
group PSL(2, q) acts as a Hurwitz group on some Riemann surface. These integers
are usually called H-numbers. Macbeath’s characterization is the following, see [74,
Theorem 8].
Theorem 5.2.1. A positive integer q is an H-number if and only if either q = 7 or
q ≡ ±1 (mod 7) is prime, or q = p3 for some prime number p such that p ≡ ±2
(mod 7) or p ≡ ±3 (mod 7).
A first result about the symmetric character of surfaces with large group of ana-
lytic automorphisms is the following.
Theorem 5.2.2. Let p be a prime H-number and let S be a Riemann surface ad-
mitting PSL(2, p) as a Hurwitz automorphism group. Then S is symmetric.
Proof. There exist elements a, b ∈ PSL(2, p) of orders 2 and 3 respectively,

whose product c = ab has order 7 and such that a and b generate PSL(2, p). Let
A, B, C ∈ SL(2, p) be representatives of a, b and c respectively, with C = AB.
Since det(A) = det(B) = det(C) = 1 we have
tr(A) = tr(A−1 ); tr(B) = tr(B −1 ); tr(C) = tr(C −1 ).
Let k be an algebraic closure of the finite field Fp of p elements. By [74, Theorem

3], there exists a matrix U ∈ SL(2, k) such that
U AU −1 = A−1 and U BU −1 = B −1 .
Let u ∈ PSL(2, k) be the class (mod ± I) of U . Hence, conjugation by u is an

automorphism of PSL(2, p) which maps a to a−1 and b to b−1 . It follows from
Theorem 1.5.10 that S is a symmetric surface of the first type.

The surfaces occurring in Theorem 5.2.2 are called Macbeath–Singerman sur-

faces. Our goal in this section is to compute their symmetry types. We shall follow
the presentation in [8], but we shall apply Theorem 5.1.1, which leads us to calculate
the orders of some isotropy groups. To that end, we need some preparatory work. In
what follows, p ≥ 7 will denote a prime number.
Proposition 5.2.3. With the notations in the proof of Theorem 5.2.2, the element
u ∈ PSL(2, k) has order 2. In particular, if u ∈ PSL(2, k) \ PSL(2, p) then the
semidirect product PSL(2, p)u defined by
uau−1 = a−1 and ubu−1 = b−1
is isomorphic to PGL(2, p).
Proof. The argument is easier if u ∈ PSL(2, p). Indeed, it suffices to check that
u2 g = gu2 for each g ∈ PSL(2, p), because PSL(2, p) is a simple group. Moreover,
since a and b generate PSL(2, p), it is enough to show this equality for g = a and
g = b. Recall that ugu−1 = g −1 for these values of g and so
u2 gu−2 = u(ugu−1 )u−1 = ug −1 u−1 = (ugu−1 )−1 = g.
Suppose now that u ∈ PSL(2, k) \ PSL(2, p). Let U ∈ SL(2, k) be a representative

of u. Notice that v = u2 commutes with both a and b, and so vg = gv for each
g ∈ PSL(2, p). Thus V = U 2 satisfies V C = ±CV for every C ∈ SL(2, p).
By [122, Chap. 3, Sect. 6], there exist ω, τ ∈ k such that the matrix V is conjugate
in SL(2, k) either to

ω 0 1 0
D= or to T =± .
0 ω −1 τ 1
Hence V = QXQ−1 where X denotes D or T , indistinctly, and

q1 q2
Q=
q3 q4
is a matrix in SL(2, k). From the equality V C = ±CV it follows that
X(Q−1 CQ) = ±(Q−1 CQ)X

for every C ∈ SL(2, p). Write

α1 α2
C= .
α3 α4
Then
−1 β 1 β2
Q CQ = ,
β3 β4
where

β1 = q1 q4 α1 + q3 q4 α2 − q1 q2 α3 − q2 q3 α4 ,
β2 = q2 q4 α1 + q42 α2 − q22 α3 − q2 q4 α4 .
The matrix C can be chosen so that β1 = 0 and β2 = 0. Now, if X = D we get

β1 ω β2 ω β1 ω β2 ω −1
X(Q−1 CQ) = while (Q−1 CQ)X = .
β3 ω −1 β4 ω −1 β3 ω β4 ω −1
Therefore ω = ω −1 and so u2 = v = 1, that is, u is an involution.

On the other hand, if X = T then

β1 β2
X(Q−1 CQ) =
β3 + τ β1 β4 + τ β2
while
β1 + τ β2 β2
(Q−1 CQ)X = .
β3 + τ β4 β4
Then τ = 0 and again u2 = v = 1.
The last part follows easily from [37, Theorem 7.5].

Proposition 5.2.4. Let S be a Riemann surface admitting PSL(2, p) as a Hurwitz

automorphism group.
(1) The full group of dianalytic automorphisms Aut(S) of S is a semidirect product
Aut(S) = PSL(2, p) Z2 .
Moreover, with the notations in the proof of Theorem 5.2.2,

PSL(2, p) ⊕ Z2 if u ∈ PSL(2, p),
Aut(S) =
PGL(2, p) if u ∈ PSL(2, k) \ PSL(2, p).
(2) Let us denote
ϕu : PSL(2, p) → PSL(2, p) ; g → ugu−1

and let
Isotr(ϕu ) = {g ∈ PSL(2, p) : ϕu (g) = g}
be its isotropy group.
(2.1) If u ∈ PSL(2, p) then the order of Isotr(ϕu ) coincides with the order of
the centralizer in PSL(2, p) of the class (mod ± I) of the matrix

0 1
M= ∈ SL(2, p).
−1 0
(2.2) If u ∈ PSL(2, k)\PSL(2, p) then the order of Isotr(ϕu ) is half the order
of the centralizer in PGL(2, p) of the class (mod ±I) of the matrix

0 1
N= ∈ GL(2, p),
−δ 0
where δ ∈ Fp is a non-square in Fp .
Proof. (1) This part is an immediate consequence of Remark 1.5.11 and
Proposition 5.2.3.
(2.1) Let U ∈ SL(2, p) be a representative of u and consider the Fp -linear endo-
morphism

2 2 x x
f : Fp → Fp ; → U ,
y y
that satisfies f 2 = ε id for some ε = ±1. There exists a vector ω ∈ F2p such
that
B = {ω, εf (ω)}
is a basis of F2p . The matrix of f with respect to B is

0 1
Mf (B) = .
ε 0
Moreover, ε = − det f = −1 and so Mf (B) is precisely the matrix M in

the statement of the proposition. Hence there exists Q ∈ GL(2, p) such that
U = QM Q−1 . Let m be the class (mod ± I) of M and let q be the class of Q
(mod±I). Let Cm be the centralizer of m in PSL(2, p). An easy computation
shows that the map
Cm → Isotr(ϕu ) ; g → qgq −1
is a bijection, which proves our assertion.

(2.2) By the first part we may assume that u ∈ PGL(2, p) \ PSL(2, p). Arguing
as above, we deduce the existence of Q ∈ GL(2, p) such that U = QN Q−1 .
Let n be the class of N (mod ± I) and let q be the class (mod ± I) of Q. Let
Cn be the centralizer of n in PGL(2, p). The result follows because the map
Cn → Isotr(ϕu ) ; g → qgq −1
is two-to-one.

We are ready to compute, by using an elementary geometric argument, the order

of the isotropy group of the automorphism ϕu .
Proposition 5.2.5. Let u ∈ PGL(2, p).

(1) If u ∈ PSL(2, p) then the order of the isotropy group of the automorphism ϕu
of the group PSL(2, p) is

p−1 if p ≡ 1 (mod 4),
| Isotr(ϕu )| =
p+1 if p ≡ 3 (mod 4).
(2) If u ∈ PGL(2, p) \ PSL(2, p) then

p+1 if p ≡ 1 (mod 4),
| Isotr(ϕu )| =
p−1 if p ≡ 3 (mod 4).
Proof. (1) By part (2.1) in Proposition 5.2.4 the order of Isotr(ϕu ) is half the
number of matrices C ∈ SL(2, p) such that CM = ±M C, where

0 1
M= .
−1 0
Writing C as
x y
C= ,
z t
the condition CM = ±M C, together with det C = 1, leads to
⎧ 2 ⎧ 2
⎨ x + y2 = 1 ⎨ x + y 2 = −1
either x −t =0 or x + t = 0.
⎩ ⎩
z +y =0 z −y = 0
Consider the conics
Γ1 = {(x, y) ∈ F2p : x2 +y 2 = 1} and Γ2 = {(x, y) ∈ F2p : x2 +y 2 = −1}.
Clearly,
card(Γ1 ) + card(Γ2 )
| Isotr(ϕu )| = .
2
Suppose now that p ≡ 1 (mod 4). Then there exists ξ ∈ Fp such that ξ 2 = −1
and so the linear isomorphism
F2p → F2p ; (x, y) → (ξx, ξy)
maps Γ1 onto Γ2 . Therefore | Isotr(ϕu )| = card(Γ1 ). The linear isomorphism
F2p → F2p ; (x, y) → (x + ξy, x − ξy)
maps Γ1 onto the hyperbola
Γ3 = {(x, y) ∈ F2p : xy = 1}.
Thus | Isotr(ϕu )| = card(Γ3 ) = p − 1, because Γ3 and F∗p = Fp \ {0} are

bijective, via the map
F∗p → Γ3 ; t → (t, t−1 ).
Assume now that p ≡ 3 (mod 4). We choose a point (x0 , y0 ) ∈ Γ2 and consider
the linear map
F2p → F2p ; (x, y) → (y0 x + x0 y, x0 x − y0 y).
This is a linear isomorphism which maps Γ1 onto Γ2 . Hence | Isotr(ϕu )| =

card(Γ1 ). Moreover, since 1 + t2 = 0 for each t ∈ Fp , the inverse of the
stereographic projection
t2 − 1 2t
Fp → Γ1 \ {(1, 0)} ; t → 2
,
1+t 1 + t2
is a bijection. So | Isotr(ϕu )| = p + 1.
(2) By part (2.2) in Proposition 5.2.4, the order of Isotr(ϕu ) is 1/4 the number of
matrices D ∈ GL(2, p) such that DN = ±N D, where

x y 0 1
D= and N = ,
z t −δ 0
and either xt − yz = 1 or xy − zt = δ. The equalities DN = ±N D are

equivalent to z = ∓δy and t = ±x. This, together with the condition on the
determinant of D, leads us to consider the conics
H1 = {(x, y) ∈ F2p : x2 +δy 2 = 1}, H2 = {(x, y) ∈ F2p : x2 +δy 2 = −1},

H3 = {(x, y) ∈ F2p : x2 +δy 2 = δ}, H4 = {(x, y) ∈ F2p : x2 +δy 2 = −δ},
that satisfy
card(H1 ) + card(H2 ) + card(H3 ) + card(H4 )
| Isotr(ϕu )| = .
4
The linear isomorphism
F2p → F2p ; (x, y) → (y, δ −1 x)
maps Hi+1 onto Hi for i = 1, 3. Therefore
card(H1 ) + card(H2 )
| Isotr(ϕu )| = .
2
If p ≡ 1 (mod 4) then there exists ξ ∈ Fp such that ξ 2 = −1. The linear

isomorphism
F2p → F2p ; (x, y) → (ξx, ξy)
maps H1 onto H2 and so
| Isotr(ϕu )| = card(H1 ) = p + 1,
because, as 1 + δt2 is non-zero for each t ∈ Fp , the inverse of the stereographic

projection from the point (1, 0)
δt2 − 1 2t
Fp → H1 \ {(1, 0)} ; t → 2
,
1 + δt 1 + δt2
is a bijection. Suppose now that p ≡ 3 (mod 4). Hence −1 is not a square in

Fp and so we may assume that δ = −1. This way we have bijections
H2 → H1 ; (x, y) → (y, x) and F∗p → H1 ; t → (t + t−1 , t − t−1 )
and so | Isotr(ϕu )| = card(H1 ) = p − 1.

Remark 5.2.6. The above proof of Proposition 5.2.5 shows in particular that for an
involution u ∈ PSL(2, p), we have
p − 1 ≤ |C(PSL(2, p), u)| ≤ p + 1,
where C(PSL(2, p), u) is the centralizer in PSL(2, p) of u.
Corollary 5.2.7. Let p be an odd prime H-number and let S be a Macbeath–

Singerman surface whose group of analytic automorphisms is presented as
Aut+ (S) = PSL(2, p) = a, b | a2 , b3 , (ab)7 , . . .
for some generating pair (a, b). Let M (a, b) be the order of the element
a(ab)4 bab2 (ab)3 ∈ Aut+ (S).

(1) Suppose that Aut(S) = PSL(2, p) ⊕ Z2 . Then S admits exactly two conjugacy
classes of symmetries. A representative of the first one fixes no oval while the
number of ovals fixed by a representative of the second one is

(p − 1)/(2M (a, b)) if p ≡ 1 (mod 4),
(p + 1)/(2M (a, b)) if p ≡ 3 (mod 4).
(2) Suppose now that Aut(S) = PGL(2, p). Then S admits exactly one conjugacy
class of symmetries. The number of ovals fixed by any of them is

(p + 1)/(2M (a, b)) if p ≡ 1 (mod 4),
(p − 1)/(2M (a, b)) if p ≡ 3 (mod 4).
Proof. The formulae are consequence of Theorem 5.1.1 and Proposition 5.2.5, tak-
ing into account that Aut(S)\Aut+ (S) contains either one or two conjugacy classes
of involutions according to Aut(S) being PGL(2, p) or PSL(2, p)⊕Z2 respectively,
see [38].

Remark 5.2.8. It is well known that Computer Algebra Systems like CAYLEY,
MAGMA , GAP, MATLAB , MAPLE and MATHEMATICA find a presentation of the pro-
jective special linear group of the form
PSL(2, p) = a, b | a2 , b3 , (ab)7 , . . .
very quickly, and they compute the order M (a, b) of the element a(ab)4 bab2 (ab)3
associated to a given presentation of the required form. This enables us, by applying
Corollary 5.2.7, to effectively calculate the number of ovals of each symmetry of a
Macbeath–Singerman surface.
For example, if p = 13 there exists, up to conformal equivalence, a unique
Macbeath–Singerman surface S with Aut(S) = PSL(2, 13) ⊕ Z2 . By Corollary
5.2.7 it admits a fixed point free symmetry and, moreover, M (a, b) = 6; hence
it admits also a symmetry with exactly one oval. On the other hand, there exist
two non-isomorphic Macbeath–Singerman surfaces S1 , S2 such that Aut(Si ) =
PGL(2, 13) for i = 1, 2. In this case all symmetries of each surface Si are conju-
gate and each of them has exactly one oval, because M (a, b) = 7.
Recall that a symmetry σ of a Riemann surface S is said to be separating if
S \ Fix(σ) is disconnected. Otherwise it is said that σ is non-separating. Although
we have just remarked that M (a, b) can be calculated with the aid of a Computer Al-
gebra System, in order to demonstrate the non-separating character of the involved
symmetries, we will also need to show that M (a, b) ≥ 3. This is the goal of the next
proposition.
Proposition 5.2.9. Let p ≥ 7 be a prime number and let a presentation of the
projective linear group be given by PSL(2, p) = a, b | a2 , b3 , (ab)7 , . . .. Then the
order of the element a(ab)4 bab2 (ab)3 is at least 3.
Proof. Multiplying by −I if necessary, there exist representatives A, B ∈ SL(2, p)

of a and b such that A2 = −I, B 3 = I and C 7 = I, where C = AB. We have to
show that the order in SL(2, p) of the matrix
M = A(AB)4 BAB 2 (AB)3
is not equal to 1, 2 or 4. This can be expressed in terms of the trace m = tr(M ).

Clearly, if M has order 1 then m = 2. On the other hand, M 2 = mM − I, by
Cayley–Hamilton theorem, and so mM = 2I if M has order 2, that is, m2 = 4.
Moreover, if M has order 4 then
I = M 4 = (mM − I)2 = m2 M 2 − 2mM + I

= m2 (mM − I) − 2mM + I
= m(m2 − 2)M + (1 − m2 )I,
that is, m = 0. Therefore, it is enough to prove that m ∈ {−2, 0, 2}. To that end we
first express m as a polynomial with respect to the trace γ of C. More precisely, we
will show that the following equality holds:
m = γ(γ 6 − 5γ 4 + 8γ 2 − 5). (5.1)
As p ≥ 5, all elements of order 4 in SL(2, p) are conjugate, see [38]. Hence, we

may assume that

0 1
A=
−1 0
because A has order 4. On the other hand, by Cayley–Hamilton theorem, B 2 =
βB − I with β = tr(B). Thus I = B 3 = B(βB − I) = β(βB − I) − B =
(β 2 − 1)B − βI and so β = −1. Therefore,
B 2 = −(B + I).
Write
M = A(AB)4 BAB 2 (AB)3 = AC 4 DB 2 C 3 ,
where
D = BA.
Notice that γ = tr(AB) = tr(BA) = tr(D) and so
C 2 = γC − I, C 3 = (γ 2 − 1)C − γI, C 4 = (γ 3 − 2γ)C + (1 − γ 2 )I,

D2 = γD − I, D3 = (γ 2 − 1)D − γI, D4 = (γ 3 − 2γ)D + (1 − γ 2 )I.
Taking into account that AC = −B and BC = DB, the matrix M can be

rewritten as

M = −A (γ 3 − 2γ)C + (1 − γ 2 )I D(B + I) (γ 2 − 1)C − γI

= (γ 3 − 2γ)B + (γ 2 − 1)A D (γ 2 − 1)DB − γB + (γ 2 − 1)C − γI .
Moreover, since
DC = BAAB = −B 2 = B + I
and
BDB = B 2 AB = −(B + I)AB = −(DB + C),
we have

M = (γ 3 − 2γ)B + (γ 2 − 1)A (γ 3 − 2γ)DB + (γ 2 − 1)I − γD
= −(γ 3 − 2γ)2 (DB + C) + (γ 3 − 2γ)(γ 2 − 1)B + γ(γ 3 − 2γ)(D + A)
+(γ 3 − 2γ)(γ 2 − 1)(γC − I) + (γ 2 − 1)2 A − γ(γ 2 − 1)AD. (5.2)
Notice that
tr(AD) = tr(ABA) = tr(BA2 ) = tr(−B) = 1
and
tr(DB) = tr(BAB) = tr(AB 2 ) = tr(−A(B + I)) = − tr(AB) − tr(A) = −γ.
Thus tr(DB + C) = 0. We now deduce equality (5.1) after comparing the traces of
both sides in equality (5.2):
m = tr(M ) = (γ 3 − 2γ)(1 − γ 2 ) + γ 2 (γ 3 − 2γ) +

+(γ 3 − 2γ)(γ 2 − 1)(γ 2 − 2) + γ(γ 2 − 1)
= γ(γ 6 − 5γ 4 + 8γ 2 − 5).
Next, we are going to prove that γ is a root of the polynomial
f (T ) = T 3 + T 2 − 2T − 1. (5.3)
Since C 2 = γC − I we get
C 6 = (γC − I)3 = (γ 5 − 4γ 3 + 3γ)C − (γ 4 − 3γ 2 + 1)I.
Consequently,
I = C 7 = C 6 C = (γ 6 − 5γ 4 + 6γ 2 − 1)C − (γ 5 − 4γ 3 + 3γ)I.
Thus, γ is a common root of the polynomials
g(T ) = T 6 − 5T 4 + 6T 2 − 1 = (T 3 + T 2 − 2T − 1)(T 3 − T 2 − 2T + 1),

h(T ) = T 5 − 4T 3 + 3T + 1 = (T 3 + T 2 − 2T − 1)(T 2 − T − 1)
and so γ is a root of f = gcdFp [T ] (g, h).

Therefore, using also equality (5.1), we deduce that γ is a common root in Fp of
the polynomials f (T ) and
m (T ) = T 7 − 5T 5 + 8T 3 − 5T − m.
After dividing one gets
m (T ) = (T 4 − T 3 − 2T 2 + T + 2)f (T ) − rm (T )
and so γ is a root of rm (T ) = 2T 2 + m − 2. Hence m ∈ {−2, 0, 2} and the proof

is finished.

Before proving that the symmetries of a Macbeath–Singerman surface whose

group of analytic automorphisms is PSL(2, p), where p ≥ 7 is prime, are non-
separating, see Theorem 5.2.12, we need the next result concerning separating
symmetries.
Proposition 5.2.10. Let σ be a separating symmetry of a Riemann surface S. Let
τ = σ be another symmetry of S commuting with σ and such that σ and τ have
a common fixed point, and suppose that the fixed point sets of τ and σ share no
connected component. Then h = τ ◦ σ has at most 2σ fixed points.
Proof. Let S+ and S− be the connected components of S \ Fix(σ), and let v denote
a common fixed point of σ and τ . Since τ commutes with σ, either it interchanges
S+ and S− or it maps both of them to themselves. By analyzing the analytic map h
locally around v we see that τ and σ behave like symmetries with respect to circles
meeting at right angles, and this implies that S+ and S− are both mapped by τ to
themselves.
Consequently h(S+ ) = S− and h(S− ) = S+ . Therefore Fix(h) ⊂ Fix(σ) and
so Fix(h) ⊂ Fix(τ ). Thus Fix(h) ⊂ Fix(τ ) ∩ Fix(σ) and, since the converse is
evident, we get
Fix(h) = Fix(τ ) ∩ Fix(σ).
Finally, as the sets Fix(σ) and Fix(τ ) have no common connected component, h
fixes at most two points on each oval of σ, as desired.

The third result we will use in the proof of Theorem 5.2.12 is a classical formula
due to Macbeath [75, Theorem 1] for counting the number of points fixed by an
automorphism. We include a proof here for the sake of completeness. To state it we
introduce some notations. Let S be a Riemann surface of genus ≥ 2 and let G be a
group of automorphisms of S. Let Λ be a Fuchsian group and let θ : Λ → G be a
group epimorphism whose kernel is the surface Fuchsian group Γ that uniformizes
S, that is, S = H/Γ. Let m1 , . . . , mr be the proper periods in the signature of Λ
corresponding to the elliptic canonical generators x1 , . . . , xr of Λ. Given h ∈ G, let
δi (h) = 1 if h is conjugate to a power of gi = θ(xi ) and δi (h) = 0 otherwise.
Theorem 5.2.11. If h ∈ G is not the identity then the number of points of S fixed
by h is given by the formula

r
δi (h)
| Fix(h)| = |NG (h)| ,
i=1
mi
where NG (h) denotes the normalizer in G of the cyclic group generated by h.

Proof. Since each elliptic generator xi fixes a unique point qi ∈ H, the set of points
of H with non-trivial stabilizer under the action of Γ is the disjoint union of the
orbits
Γq1 ∪ · · · ∪ Γqr .
Let h : H → H be the unique lifting of h. The stabilizer of h(qi ) is the subgroup

h(xi )h−1 . Denote by π : H → S the covering projection and let Qi = π (qi ) ∈ S
for 1 ≤ i ≤ r. Then the points of S with non-trivial stabilizer in G are those of the
form g(Qi ) with g ∈ G, the stabilizer of such a point being ggi g −1 .
Note that h has a fixed point in the orbit GQi if and only if h is conjugate to a
subgroup of gi , that is, δi (h) = 1. Thus all reduces to check that if this is the case
then the number of fixed points of h in the orbit GQi is |NG (h)/mi .
Observe that h is conjugate to a unique subgroup of gi . Moreover, h and any
of its conjugates have the same number of fixed points in the orbit GQi . Thus, we
m /d
may assume that h = gi i where d is the order of h.
This way, given g ∈ G, the automorphism h fixes the point g(Qi ) if and only if
g ◦ h ◦ g −1 fixes Qi or, equivalently, g ∈ NG (h). But for each point Q ∈ GQi
there are precisely mi elements g ∈ G such that Q = g(Qi ). Therefore, when
we enumerate the elements g ∈ NG (h) we count each fixed point mi times,
and hence, the number of fixed points of h in the orbit GQi is |NG (h)|/mi , as
desired.

Theorem 5.2.12. Let S be a Macbeath–Singerman surface whose group of analytic
automorphisms is Aut+ (S) = PSL(2, p), where p is an odd prime H-number. Then
each symmetry of S is non-separating.
Proof. Since the result is obvious for symmetries without fixed points, we restrict
ourselves to symmetries with ovals. Let
Aut+ (S) = PSL(2, p) = a, b | a2 , b3 , (ab)7 , . . ..
We have already proved the existence of a symmetry σ of S whose set Fix(σ) of

fixed points is non-empty and such that Aut(S) = Aut+ (S) σ, with σaσ −1 =
a−1 and σbσ −1 = b−1 .
We have seen in Corollary 5.2.7 that all symmetries of S with fixed points are
conjugate. So it suffices to prove that σ is non-separating. To obtain a contradiction,
suppose that σ is separating. Clearly τ = aσ ∈ Aut(S) \ Aut+ (S) and it is in fact
a symmetry as
τ 2 = aσaσ = aσaσ −1 = aa−1 = 1.
Moreover, στ = τ σ, because
στ = σaσ = σaσ −1 = a−1 = a = aσ 2 = τ σ.
Therefore, by Corollary 5.2.7 and Proposition 5.2.10,
p+1
| Fix(a)| ≤ .
M (a, b)
On the other hand, from Theorem 5.2.11,
|C(PSL(2, p), a)|

| Fix(a)| = ,
2
where C(PSL(2, p), a) is the centralizer in PSL(2, p) of the involution a. Therefore,

by Remark 5.2.6 and Proposition 5.2.9, we have
2(p + 1) 2(p + 1)
p − 1 ≤ |C(PSL(2, p), a)| = 2| Fix(a)| ≤ ≤ ,
M (a, b) 3
a contradiction because p ≥ 7.

Remark 5.2.13. Let p be an odd prime H-number and let S be a Macbeath–

Singerman surface with Aut+ (S) = PSL(2, p). From Corollary 5.2.7 and The-
orem 5.2.12 we would completely know the symmetry type of S once we could
decide whether Aut(S) = PSL(2, p) ⊕ Z2 or Aut(S) = PGL(2, p). For a fixed
surface S this is a rather difficult task.
However, using results by Macbeath [74], Hall [58] and Conder [33] we shall
compute, for a fixed p, the symmetry types of the family of all Macbeath–Singerman
surfaces S with Aut+ (S) = PSL(2, p).
Macbeath [74] proved that for each odd prime H-number p there exist exactly
three conformally non-isomorphic Riemann surfaces on which PSL(2, p) acts as
a Hurwitz group. Thus, the numbers d(p) and s(p) of non-isomorphic Riemann
surfaces S having PSL(2, p) ⊕ Z2 and PGL(2, p), respectively, as the full auto-
morphism group Aut(S), satisfy d(p) + s(p) = 3. Hence to finish the study of the
symmetry types of Macbeath–Singerman surfaces one just needs to decide the value
of, say, d(p).
This was done, independently, by Hall [58] and Conder [33] and, to explain the
employed method, we need the following:
(5.2.14) Factorization of f1 (T ) in Fp [T ].
Let us see first that the polynomial
f1 (T ) = T 3 + T 2 − 2T − 1 ∈ Fp [T ]
occurring in (5.3) and having γ = tr(C) as a root, completely factorizes in the

polynomial ring Fp [T ].
Since p is a prime H-number, p2 − 1 ∈ 7Z and so the cyclic multiplicative group
∗
Fp2 contains an element η of order 7. Observe that

T 3 f1 (T + T −1 ) = T 3 (T + T −1 )3 + (T + T −1 )2 − 2(T + T −1 ) − 1
T7 − 1
= 1 + T + T2 + T3 + T4 + T5 + T6 = .
T −1
Therefore μ1 = η + η −1 ∈ Fp2 is a root of f1 , because
6
η7 − 1
η 3 f1 (η + η −1 ) = ηj = = 0.
j=1
η−1
Since η 2 and η 3 have also order 7, both μ2 = η 2 + η −2 and μ3 = η 3 + η −3 are roots

of f1 . Moreover, they are all distinct. In fact, suppose that η j + η −j = η k + η −k for
some exponents j and k such that 1 ≤ j < k ≤ 3. After multiplying both sides by
η k we get
η 2k − η k+j − η k−j + 1 = 0,
which is false. Indeed, the polynomials
P (T ) = 1 + T + T 2 + T 3 + T 4 + T 5 + T 6 ∈ Z[T ] and
Q(T ) = T 2k − T k+j − T k−j + 1 ∈ Z[T ]
are coprime in Z[T ] because P (T ) is irreducible in Z[T ] and deg(Q) ≤ deg(P ).

Thus, by Bezout’s identity, there exist polynomials R1 , R2 ∈ Z[T ] such that
1 = R1 (T )P (T ) + R2 (T )Q(T ).
Since this is an identity with coefficients in Z, we can evaluate it at η to get a

contradiction: 1 = R1 (η)P (η) + R2 (η)Q(η) = 0.
Observe that each μj ∈ Fp , because it is invariant under every automorphism of
Fp2 and Fp2 |Fp is a Galois field extension. Hence, f1 splits in Fp [T ] as
f1 (T ) = (T − μ1 )(T − μ2 )(T − μ3 ) with each μj ∈ Fp .


Consider now the polynomials f2 (T ) = T p−1 − 1 = ξ∈F∗
p
(T − ξ) and
f3 (T ) = f1 (T 2 ) = T 6 + T 4 − 2T 2 − 1 = (T 2 − μ1 )(T 2 − μ2 )(T 2 − μ3 ).
W. Hall and M. Conder defined the invariant δ(p) = deg(gcdFp [T ] (f2 , f3 )), and it
follows that δ(p) = 2κ(p), where
κ(p) = card{1 ≤ j ≤ 3 : μj is a square in Fp }.

3
Observe that j=1 μj = 1 is a square in Fp and that the set of non-zero squares is
an index 2 subgroup of F∗p . Hence, either κ(p) = 1 or κ(p) = 3; so either δ(p) = 2
or δ(p) = 6.
With this terminology, the quoted result by Hall and Conder can be stated as
follows.
Proposition 5.2.15. With the above notations:
(1) If δ(p) = 2 and p ≡ 1 (mod 4) then d(p) = 1.
Example 5.2.16. Let p = 29. To calculate δ(29) observe first that μ1 = 3, μ2 = 7

and μ3 = −11 are the roots in F29 of the polynomial
f1 (T ) = T 3 + T 2 − 2T − 1.
We use the quadratic reciprocity law to decide how many roots μj are squares in
F29 . Indeed, 29 ≡ 2 (mod 3) is not a square in F3 and so μ1 is not a square in F29 .
On the other hand, 29 ≡ 1 (mod 7) is a square in F7 and so μ2 is a square in F29 .
Finally 29 ≡ 7 ≡ −4 (mod 11) is not a square in F11 . Thus −μ3 is not a square in
F29 . Since −1 is a square in F29 , we conclude that μ3 is not a square in F29 .
Therefore κ(29) = 1, that is, δ(29) = 2 and 29 ≡ 1 (mod 4). Hence d(29) = 1
and s(29) = 2. Let S1 , S2 and S3 be non-isomorphic Riemann surfaces on which
the group PSL(2, 29) acts as a Hurwitz group of automorphisms. Then, up to re-
ordering,
Aut(S1 ) = PSL(2, 29) ⊕ Z2 and Aut(S2 ) = Aut(S3 ) = PGL(2, 29).
Let (a1 , b1 ), (a2 , b2 ) and (a3 , b3 ) be generating pairs of PSL(2, 29) with
a2i = b3i = (ai bi )7 = 1,
providing the structures on S1 , S2 and S3 respectively. With the aid of MATHEMAT-

ICA we calculate the orders
M (a1 , b1 ) = 14, M (a2 , b2 ) = M (a3 , b3 ) = 15

of the elements ai (ai bi )4 bi ai bi 2 (ai bi )3 . From Corollary 5.2.7 and Theorem

5.2.12 we deduce that S1 admits two conjugacy classes of symmetries, both non-
separating, the first one is fixed point free and the second one has exactly one oval.
On the other hand, S2 and S3 admit a unique conjugacy class of symmetries, whose
representatives are non-separating and have just one oval.
5.3 Symmetry Types of Accola–Maclachlan

and Kulkarni Surfaces
In the 1960’s, Accola [1] and Maclachlan [77] proved independently that for every
integer g ≥ 2 there is a Riemann surface Xg of genus g whose automorphism
group has order 8g + 8. It is called the Accola–Maclachlan surface. This result is
interesting because 8g + 8 is the largest order of an automorphism group that can
be uniformly constructed for every g. Much later, Kulkarni considered the question
of uniqueness of these surfaces. In other words, is Xg the only surface of genus g
whose automorphism group has order 8g + 8? It turns out, see [70], that this is so
for g ≡ 0, 1, 2 (mod 4) and g sufficiently large. However, for large enough g ≡ 3
(mod 4), Kulkarni also proved that, in addition to the Accola–Maclachlan surface,
there exists exactly one other surface of genus g whose automorphism group has
order 8g + 8. We shall call it the Kulkarni surface and denote it by Yg . Moreover, he
found the following presentations for the groups of analytic automorphisms of Xg
and Yg :
Aut+ (Xg ) = a, b | a2(g+1) , b4 , (ab)2 , ab2 a−1 b2 ;

Aut+ (Yg ) = a, b | a2(g+1) , b4 , (ab)2 , b2 ab2 ag .
Proposition 5.3.1. Both surfaces Xg and Yg are symmetric.
Proof. It suffices to see, by Theorem 1.5.10, that the assignment a → a−1 , b → b−1
induces, in both cases, an automorphism of the group G of analytic automorphisms
of either Xg or Yg . For Xg this is equivalent to saying that a−1 has order 2(g + 1),
b−1 has order 4, a−1 b−1 has order 2 and b−2 is central in G. Since b−2 = b2 , just
the third claim requires some care. Here, |a−1 b−1 | = |ba| = |ab| = 2.
As to the surface Yg , it is enough to check that b−2 a−1 b−2 a−g = 1, which
follows immediately from the last relator in the presentation of Aut+ (Yg ).

5.3.1 Number of Ovals of the Symmetries
Our next goal is to calculate the number of ovals of the symmetries of the surfaces
Xg and Yg . To that end we will apply Theorem 5.1.2. We start with the Accola–
Maclachlan surface Xg .
5.3 Symmetry Types of Accola–Maclachlan and Kulkarni Surfaces 111
Number of Ovals of the Symmetries of the Accola–Maclachlan Surfaces
First, we collect some information about the group Aut+ (Xg ).

Proposition 5.3.2. Let Aut+ (Xg ) = a, b | a2(g+1) , b4 , (ab)2 , ab2 a−1 b2 .
(1) Each element w ∈ Aut+ (Xg ) can be uniquely written as w = ai bj with 0 ≤
i ≤ 2g + 1 and 0 ≤ j ≤ 3.
(2) For each integer i ∈ Z, the following equalities hold:
ba2i+1 b = a−(2i+1) and ba2i b = b2 a−2i .
(3) The element ag+2 b has order 2 if g is odd and order 4 if g is even.
(4) The elements ag+1 b2 and ab3 have order 2.
(5) Let ϕ be the automorphism of the group Aut+ (Xg ) induced by the assignment
ϕ : a → a−1 , b → b−1 .
Then a ϕ 1, b ϕ 1 and a ϕ b±1 .

(6) Consider the automorphisms of the group Aut+ (Xg ) defined by
ϕa : w → aϕ(w)a−1 and ϕb : w → b−1 ϕ(w)b.
Then
| Isotr(ϕa )| = 8, | Isotr(ϕ)| = 4 and | Isotr(ϕb )| = 4(g + 1).
(7) Consider the sets
X = {x ∈ Aut+ (Xg ) : ϕ(x) = x−1 }; Y = {ai bj : 0 ≤ i ≤ 2g+1, j = 0, 2}
and

{b, b3 } for even g,
Z= 3 g+1 g+1 3
{b, b , a b, a b } for odd g.
Then X = Y ∪ Z.
(8) The ϕ-conjugates to 1 in Aut+ (Xg ) are the elements of the form a2i b2j .
The ϕ-conjugates to a±1 in Aut+ (Xg ) are the odd powers of a.
The ϕ-conjugates to b±1 in Aut+ (Xg ) are the odd powers of b.
In particular, ab2 ∈ X and it is ϕ-conjugate neither to 1, nor to a±1 , nor
to b±1 .
Proof. (1) It is easily seen that for different pairs (i, j) = (k, ) with 0 ≤ i, k ≤
2g + 1 and 0 ≤ j, ≤ 3, the products ai bj and ak b are distinct elements in
Aut+ (Xg ). Since the order of this last group is 8(g + 1), we are done.
(2) Note first that a2 ba2 = b because
a2 ba2 = a(aba)a = ab−1 a = ab2 ba = b2 aba = b2 b−1 = b.
This implies b−1 a2 b = a−2 , which we use to prove, by induction on i, the

equality ba2i+1 b = a−(2i+1) , which is evident for i = 0. Hence,
ba2i+1 b = ba2i−1 a2 b = (ba2i−1 b)b−1 a2 b = a−(2i−1) a−2 = a−(2i+1) .
This proves the first equality for non-negative i. Consequently
a2i+1 = b3 a−(2i+1) b3 = b2 (ba−(2i+1) b)b2 = (ba−(2i+1) b)b4 = ba−(2i+1) b
and so the equality also holds for negative exponents.

On the other hand, ba2i b = b2 a−2i . This is obvious for i = 0 and it was
already proved for i = 1. Hence, by induction,
ba2i+2 b = ba2i a2 b = (ba2i b)(b−1 a2 b) = (b2 a−2i )a−2 = b2 a−(2i+2) .
It is easy to check that this equality also holds for negative values of i.
(3) For odd g we get
(ag+2 b)2 = ag+2 (bag+2 b) = ag+2 a−(g+2) = 1
and so ag+2 b has order 2. For even g,
(ag+2 b)2 = ag+2 (bag+2 b) = ag+2 b2 a−(g+2) = b2 .
Hence ag+2 b has order 4 in this case.

(4) As b2 is a central element in Aut+ (Xg ), we have
(ag+1 b2 )2 = a2(g+1) b4 = 1 and (ab3 )2 = abb2 abb2 = (ab)2 = 1.
(5) Suppose that a ∼ϕ 1. Then a = wϕ(w)−1 for some w = ai bj ∈ Aut+ (Xg ),

that is,
a = ai bj (a−i b−j )−1 = ai b2j ai .
So b2j = a1−2i , a contradiction. Analogously, if b ∼ϕ 1 then b = wϕ(w)−1 for
some w = ai bj ∈ Aut+ (Xg ), that is,
b = ai bj (a−i b−j )−1 = ai b2j ai = a2i b2j .
This implies a2i = b1−2j , which is false. Finally, suppose that a ∼ϕ b±1 , i.e.,
there exists w = ai bj ∈ Aut+ (Xg ) such that
a = wb±1 ϕ(w)−1 = ai bj±1 bj ai = ai b2j±1 ai .
Hence a1−2i = b2j±1 , again a contradiction.

(6) An element x = ai bj belongs to Isotr(ϕa ) if and only if
ai bj = ϕa (x) = aϕ(x)a−1 = aa−i b−j a−1 = a1−i b−j a−1
or, equivalently, bj a2i−1 bj = a−1 . For even j this means a2i−1 = a−1 , that is,
a2i = 1. Hence either i = 0 or i = g + 1. This way x ∈ {1, b2 , ag+1 , ag+1 b2 }.
If j is odd then
a−1 = bj a2i−1 bj = ba2i−1 b = a−(2i−1)
or, equivalently, a2(i−1) = 1. Thus either i = 1 or i = g + 2 and so x ∈

{ab, ab3 , ag+2 b, ag+2 b3 }. Consequently,
Isotr(ϕa ) = {1, b2, ag+1 , ag+1 b2 , ab, ab3 , ag+2 b, ag+2 b3 }
and, in particular, | Isotr(ϕa )| = 8.

As to the isotropy group of ϕ notice that x = ai bj belongs to Isotr(ϕ) if and
only if ai bj = ϕ(ai bj ) = a−i b−j , that is, a2i = b−2j . Thus
Isotr(ϕ) = {1, b2 , ag+1 , ag+1 b2 }
and, in particular, | Isotr(ϕ)| = 4.

To finish, x = ai bj belongs to Isotr(ϕb ) if and only if
ai bj = ϕb (x) = b−1 ϕ(x)b = b−1 a−i b1−j
or, equivalently, bai b = a−i b2(1−j) . If i is even then a−i b2 = a−i b2(1−j) , that
is, j = 0 or 2. If i is odd then a−i = a−i b2(1−j) and so j = 1 or 3. Therefore
| Isotr(ϕb )| = 4(g + 1).
(7) Let x = ai bj with even j. Then ϕ(x) = a−i b−j = b−j a−i = x−1 and so
x ∈ X. Hence Y ⊂ X. For odd j, the element x−1 = b−j a−i equals ϕ(x) =
a−i b−j if and only if ai bj = bj ai , that is, ai b2 = bai b.
If i is odd then bai b = a−i , by (2), and the equality ai b2 = a−i cannot hold.
If i is even then ai b2 = bai b = a−i b2 , that is, either i = 0 or i = g + 1.
Therefore X = Y ∪ Z.
(8) An element x is ϕ-conjugate to 1 if there exists w = ai bj ∈ Aut+ (Xg ) such
that
x = wϕ(w)−1 = ai bj (a−i b−j )−1 = ai bj bj ai = a2i b2j .
Analogously, x is ϕ-conjugate to a±1 if there exists w = ai bj ∈ Aut+ (Xg )
such that
x = wa±1 ϕ(w)−1 = ai bj a±1 bj ai = a2i±1 .
Finally, x is ϕ-conjugate to b±1 if there exists w = ai bj ∈ Aut+ (Xg ) such that
x = wb±1 ϕ(w)−1 = ai bj b±1 bj ai = ai bai b2k = ai (bai b)b2k−1 = b2k+ε(i)
with k = 0 or k = 1 and ε(i) = −1 if i is odd and ε(i) = 1 if i is even. In any

case, x is an odd power of b.

Corollary 5.3.3. (1) The Accola-Maclachlan surface Xg admits exactly three

pairwise non-conjugate symmetries σ1 , σ2 and σ3 with fixed points. The num-
ber of ovals of each symmetry is

2 for odd g,
σ1 = σ2 = 1 and σ3 = g + 1.
1 for even g,
(2) The surface Xg admits a fixed point free symmetry. There is one conjugacy class
of fixed point free symmetries if g is even and two classes if g is odd.
Proof. (1) The existence of exactly three pairwise non-conjugate symmetries with
fixed points follows immediately from Theorem 5.1.2 and part (5) in Propo-
sition 5.3.2. Moreover, by part (1) in Theorem 5.1.2 and parts (3) and (6) in
Proposition 5.3.2 we get

| Isotr(ϕa )| 2 for odd g,
σ1 = =
2|ag+2 b| 1 for even g.
Using (4) instead of (3) in Proposition 5.3.2 we obtain
| Isotr(ϕ)| | Isotr(ϕb )|
σ2 = = 1 and σ3 = = g + 1.
2|ag+1 b2 | 2|ab3 |
(2) The first statement follows straightforwardly from Theorem 5.1.2 and part (8)
in Proposition 5.3.2. The second one is an easy exercise in group theory, see [9].

Number of Ovals of the Symmetries of the Kulkarni Surfaces
As to the symmetries of the Kulkarni surface Yg for g ≡ 3 (mod 4), we follow a

similar strategy. We begin by collecting some properties of the group Aut+ (Yg ).
Proposition 5.3.4. Let Aut+ (Yg ) = a, b | a2(g+1) , b4 , (ab)2 , b2 ab2 ag .

(1) Each element w ∈ Aut+ (Yg ) can be uniquely written as w = ai bj with 0 ≤
i ≤ 2g + 1 and 0 ≤ j ≤ 3.
(2) For each integer i ∈ Z the following equalities hold:
ba2i+1 b = a(i+1)(g−1)−g and ba2i = ai(g−1) b.
(3) The orders of ag+2 b, ag+1 b2 and ab3 are 2, 2 and 4, respectively.
(4) Let ϕ be the automorphism of the group Aut+ (Yg ) induced by the assignment
ϕ : a → a−1 , b → b−1 .
Then a ϕ 1, b ϕ 1 and a ϕ b±1 .
(5) Consider the automorphisms of the group Aut+ (Yg ) defined by
ϕa : w → aϕ(w)a−1 and ϕb : w → b−1 ϕ(w)b.
Then
| Isotr(ϕa )| = 8, | Isotr(ϕ)| = 4 and | Isotr(ϕb )| = 2(g + 1).
(6) Suppose that g ≡ 3 (mod 8). Then x = a(g+1)/2 b is ϕ-conjugate neither to 1

nor to a±1 nor to b±1 , but ϕ(x) = x−1 .
(7) Suppose that g ≡ 7 (mod 8). Then each element x ∈ Aut+ (Yg ) satisfying
ϕ(x) = x−1 is ϕ-conjugate either to 1 or to a±1 or to b±1 .
(8) The centralizer of b2 in Aut+ (Yg ) is the subgroup
C(Aut+ (Yg ), b2 ) = {ai bj : i ∈ 2Z, 0 ≤ i ≤ 2g, 0 ≤ j ≤ 3}.
In particular, |C(Aut+ (Yg ), b2 )| = 4(g + 1).

(9) The elements ag+1 and b commute and they generate an abelian group isomor-
phic to Z2 ⊕ Z4 whose only elements of order 2 are ag+1 , b2 and ag+1 b2 .
Proof. (1) It is easily seen that for different pairs (i, j) = (k, ) with 0 ≤ i, k ≤
2g + 1 and 0 ≤ j, ≤ 3, the products ai bj and ak b are distinct elements in
Aut+ (Yg ). Since the order of this last group is 8(g + 1), we are done.
(2) It is enough to prove both equalities, by induction, for i ≥ 0. They are obvious
for i = 0. Moreover, b2 a−1 b2 = (b2 ab2 )−1 = ag and, consequently,
ba2 b = babb3 ab = a−1 b3 ab = a−1 b2 (bab) = a−1 b2 a−1 = a−1 ag b2 = ag−1 b2 .
Therefore,
ba2i+1 b = (ba2 b)b3 a2i−1 b = (ag−1 b2 )b3 a2i−1 b

= ag−1 (ba2i−1 b) = ag−1 ai(g−1)−g = a(i+1)(g−1)−g .
For even exponents we have
ba2i = ba2(i−1) a2 = a(i−1)(g−1) ba2 = a(i−1)(g−1) ag−1 b = ai(g−1) b.
(3) For the first part, using (2) we get

2
(ag+2 b)2 = ag+2 (bag+2 b) = ag+2 a(g+3)(g−1)/2−g = a(g+1) /2
= 1.
For the second it suffices to check that (ag+1 b2 )2 = 1. Using (2) once more,
2 2
(ag+1 b2 )2 = ag+1 b(bag+1 )b2 = ag+1 ba(g −1)/2 b3 = ag+1 a(g −1)(g−1)/4 = 1,
because the exponent (g 2 − 1)(g − 1)/4 is even.

As to ab3 note that

2
(ab3 )2 = ab(b2 ab2 )b = a(bag+2 b) = a(g −1)/2
.
2
Since (g − 1)/2 is odd, (ab3 )2 = 1. However, (ab3 )4 = ag −1 = 1 and so ab3
has order 4.
(4) Suppose that a ∼ϕ 1. Then a = wϕ(w)−1 for some w = ai bj ∈ Aut+ (Yg ) or,
equivalently,
a = ai bj (a−i b−j )−1 = ai b2j ai ,
that is, b2j = a1−2i , which is false.
Analogously, if b ∼ϕ 1 then b = wϕ(w)−1 for some w = ai bj ∈ Aut+ (Yg ),
i.e.,
b = ai bj (a−i b−j )−1 = ai b2j ai .
This implies, by (2), that an odd power of b belongs to the subgroup generated
by a, which is an absurd. Finally, if a ∼ϕ b±1 then there exists w = ai bj ∈
Aut+ (Yg ) with
a = wb±1 ϕ(w)−1 = ai bj±1 bj ai = ai b2j±1 ai
and so b2j±1 = a1−2i , a contradiction.

(5) An element x = ai bj belongs to Isotr(ϕa ) if and only if
ai bj = ϕa (x) = aϕ(x)a−1 = aa−i b−j a−1 = a1−i b−j a−1
or, equivalently, bj a2i−1 bj = a−1 . For j = 0 this means a2i−1 = a−1 , that
is, a2i = 1. Hence either i = 0 or i = g + 1. For j = 1 the condition is
1 = ba2i−1 ba, that is, ba2i−1 = ba or, equivalently, either i = 1 or i = g + 2.
For j = 2 we must solve the equation b2 a2i−1 b2 = a−1 with 0 ≤ i ≤ 2g + 1,
i.e.,
a2i−1 = b2 a−1 b2 = (b2 ab2 )−1 = ag ,
whose solutions are i = (g + 1)/2 and i = 3(g + 1)/2. Finally, for j = 3 we
have b3 a2i−1 b3 = a−1 or, equivalently,
a2i−1 = ba−1 b = a−g = ag+2 ,
that is, i = (g + 3)/2 and i = (3g + 5)/2. Therefore
Isotr(ϕa ) = {1, ag+1 , ab, ag+2 b, a(g+1)/2 b2 , a3(g+1)/2 b2 , a(g+3)/2 b3 ,

a(3g+5)/2 b3 }.
In particular, | Isotr(ϕa )| = 8.
As to the isotropy group of ϕ, note that x = ai bj belongs to Isotr(ϕ) if and
only if ai bj = a−i b−j , that is, a2i = b−2j = b2j . That means i = 0 or g + 1
and j = 0 or 2. Hence | Isotr(ϕ)| = 4 and in fact
Isotr(ϕ) = {1, ag+1 , b2 , ag+1 b2 }.
Let us calculate now the elements x = ai bj ∈ Isotr(ϕb ). This is equivalent to

saying that x = b−1 ϕ(x)b or, in other words,
ai bj = b−1 a−i b−j b = b−1 a−i b1−j ⇐⇒ bai b = a−i b2(1−j) .
This leads us to distinguish two cases, according to the parity of the exponent j.
First, for odd j, we have a−i = bai b. By (2) this forces i to be odd, and hence
a−i = bai b = a(i+1)(g−1)/2−g ⇐⇒ a(i−1)(g+1)/2 = 1 ⇐⇒ i ≡ 1 (mod 4).

For even j we have a−i b = bai . Thus i must be even and a−i b = ai(g−1)/2 b,
that is, ai(g+1)/2 = 1 or, equivalently, i ∈ 4Z. Thus
Isotr(ϕb ) = {ai bj : i ≡ 1 (mod 4), 1 ≤ i ≤ 2g − 1, j = 1, 3} ∪

∪ {ai bj : i ≡ 0 (mod 4), 1 ≤ i ≤ 2g − 1, j = 0, 2}
and in particular | Isotr(ϕb )| = 2(g + 1).
(6) We first check the equality ϕ(x) = x−1 , that is, a−(g+1)/2 b−1 = b−1 a−(g+1)/2
or, equivalently, ba(g+1)/2 = a(g+1)/2 b. Since the exponent (g + 1)/2 is even
we get
ba(g+1)/2 = a(g+1)(g−1)/4 b,
by part (2), and so it suffices to prove the equality a(g+1)(g−1)/4 = a(g+1)/2 ,
that is, a(g+1)(g−3)/4 = 1. This last is evident because g ≡ 3 (mod 8).
We must prove now that x is ϕ-conjugate neither to 1 nor to a±1 nor to b±1 .
Suppose, to obtain a contradiction, that x ∼ϕ 1. Then there exists w = ai bj ∈
Aut+ (Yg ) such that x = wϕ(w)−1 , that is, a(g+1)/2 b = ai b2j ai which forces
j to be odd. Then a(g+1)/2 b = ai b2 ai , and we distinguish two cases according
to the parity of the exponent i. If i is odd then k = (i + 1)(g − 1)/2 − g is also
odd and, by (2),
a(g+1)/2 b = ai b2 ai = ai b(bai ) = ai bak b3 = ai−g+(k+1)(g−1)/2 b2 ,
a contradiction. If i is even then = i(g − 1)/2 is also even, and this implies
a(g+1)/2 b = ai b(bai ) = ai ba b = ai+(g−1)/2 b2 ,

a contradiction again.
Suppose that x ∼ϕ a±1 and let w = ai bj ∈ Aut(Yg ) such that x =
wa±1 ϕ(w)−1 , that is, a(g+1)/2 b = ai bj a±1 bj ai . This is false because the right
hand side of the last equality is an odd power of a. To check this it suffices to
prove, by induction on j, that the product bj a±1 bj is an odd power of a. Indeed,
given j ∈ Z there exists k ∈ Z such that
bj a±1 bj = b(bj−1 a±1 bj−1 )b = ba2k−1 b = ak(g−1)−g

and k(g − 1) − g is odd.
Finally, suppose that x ∼ϕ b±1 , and let w = ai bj ∈ Aut+ (Yg ) such that
x = wb±1 ϕ(w)−1 , that is, there exists k ∈ Z with
a(g+1)/2 b = ai bj b±1 bj ai = ai b2k−1 ai .
For odd k this means that a(g+1)/2 b = ai bai and, by (2), the exponent i = 2
is even. Thus,
a(g+1)/2 b = a2 ba2 = a2 a(g−1) b = a(g+1) b,
and so a(g+1)/2 = a(g+1) . Therefore ag+1 = a2(g+1) = 1, a contradiction.

(7) Let us describe explicitly the set X = {x ∈ Aut+ (Yg ) : ϕ(x) = x−1 }. Write
x = ai bj . For j = 0 we have ϕ(x) = a−i = x−1 , that is, x ∈ X. In this case,
either x ∼ϕ 1 or x ∼ϕ a. Indeed, if i = 2k then x = a2k = ak ϕ(ak )−1 , that is,
x ∼ϕ 1, whilst if i = 2k + 1 then x = a2k+1 = ak aϕ(ak )−1 and so x ∼ϕ a.
For j = 1 the equality ϕ(x) = x−1 reads a−i b−1 = b−1 a−i or, equivalently,
a b = bai . The last forces i to be even, say i = 2k. Therefore
i
a2k b = ba2k = ak(g−1) b ⇐⇒ ak(g−3) = 1.
Thus 2(g + 1) divides k(g − 3). Since 2(g + 1) ∈ 8Z but (g − 3) ∈ 8Z,

necessarily k = 2 is even. Hence
1 = a2(g−3) = a2(g+1)−8 = a−8
and so either = 0 or = (g +1)/4, that is, either i = 0 or i = g +1. In the first

case x = b is ϕ-conjugate to b; in the second one, x = ag+1 b is ϕ-conjugate to
b as well because w = a2 yields
wbϕ(w)−1 = a2 ba2 = a2 ag−1 b = x.
For j = 2 the equality ϕ(x) = x−1 means a−i b−2 = b−2 a−i , that is, ai b2 =
b2 ai and this is equivalent to
ai = b2 ai b−2 = (b2 ab−2 )i = (b2 ab2 )i = a−gi ⇐⇒ ai(g+1) = 1 ⇐⇒ i ∈ 2Z.
We already observed that even powers of a are ϕ-conjugate to 1.

Finally let j = 3. Then ϕ(x) = x−1 if and only if a−i b−3 = b−3 a−i or,
equivalently, ai b3 = b3 ai ; so
ai b = b3 ai b2 = b(b2 ab2 )i = ba−gi .
Hence i = 2k must be even and, in fact,

a2k b = ba−2kg = a−kg(g−1) b ⇐⇒ k(2 + g(g − 1)) ∈ (2g + 2)Z.
In particular, k((g + 1)(g − 2) + 4) ∈ (g + 1)Z, that is, 4k ∈ (g + 1)Z.

Thus k is even because g + 1 ∈ 8Z. On the other hand, let ξ ∈ Z be such that
4k = (g + 1)ξ. Then 2g + 2 divides
η = k(2 + g(g − 1)) = k((g + 1)(g − 2) + 4) = (g + 1)(ξ + k(g − 2))
and so ξ + k(g − 2) is also even. Hence ξ is even and i = 2k = ξ(g + 1)/2,

that is, either i = 0 or i = g + 1.
We must show that both x = b3 and x = ag+1 b3 are ϕ-conjugate to b. The
first is evident, and for the second it is enough to observe that
a3 bϕ(a3 )−1 = a3 ba3 = a3 a2(g−1)−g b3 = ag+1 b3 .
(8) Clearly, an element x = ai bj ∈ Aut+ (Yg ) commutes with b2 if and only if ai

commutes with b2 . But
b2 ai = ai b2 ⇐⇒ ai = b2 ai b2 = (b2 ab2 )i = a−gi ,
that is ai(g+1) = 1 or, equivalently, i is even, as desired.

(9) We check only the equality ag+1 b = bag+1 . Notice that, by (2), we have
bag+1 b−1 = a(g+1)(g−1)/2 = ag+1 because (g − 1)/2 is an odd integer.

Corollary 5.3.5. (1) The Kulkarni surface Yg admits exactly three pairwise non-
conjugate symmetries σ1 , σ2 and σ3 with fixed points. The number of ovals of
each symmetry is
g+1
σ1 = 2, σ2 = 1 and σ3 = .
4
(2) The surface Yg admits a fixed point free symmetry if and only if g ≡ 3 (mod 8).
In such a case, all fixed point free symmetries of Yg are pairwise conjugate.
Proof. (1) The existence of exactly three pairwise non-conjugate symmetries with
fixed points follows immediately from Theorem 5.1.2 and part (4) in Propo-
sition 5.3.4. Moreover, by part (1) in Theorem 5.1.2 and parts (3) and (5) in
Proposition 5.3.4 we get
| Isotr(ϕa )| 8
σ1 = = = 2.
2|ag+2 b| 4
By using again (3) and (5) in Proposition 5.3.4 we obtain
| Isotr(ϕ)| | Isotr(ϕb )| 2(g + 1) g+1

σ2 = 2
= 1 and σ3 = 3
= = .
2|a b |
g+1 2|ab | 8 4
(2) The first statement is an immediate consequence of Theorem 5.1.2 and parts (6)
and (7) in Proposition 5.3.4. The second one is an easy exercise in group theory,
see [9].

5.3.2 Separating Character of the Symmetries
Our goal now is to find out the separating or non-separating character of the sym-
metries of the Accola–Maclachlan and the Kulkarni surfaces. Obviously, the fixed
point free symmetries are non-separating, so we just focus on symmetries with fixed
points. As we observed in Theorem 1.5.3, Hurwitz proved in his classical article [59]
that given a symmetry σ of a genus g Riemann surface the following conditions
hold:
1 ≤ k + ε ≤ g + 1; k ≡ g + 1 (mod (2 − ε)),
where k is the number of ovals of σ and ε = 0 or 1 according to σ being separating
or not. In particular,
(1) If k = g + 1 then ε = 0, and if k = g then ε = 1.
(2) If k = 1 and g is odd then ε = 1.
(3) If g ≡ 3 (mod 8) and k = (g + 1)/4 then ε = 1.
Therefore, with the notations throughout this section, we get the following.
Corollary 5.3.6. Let σ2 and σ3 be representatives of the conjugacy classes of sym-

metries of Xg with σ2 = 1 and σ3 = g + 1. Then σ3 is separating. Moreover,
σ2 is non-separating if g is odd.
Corollary 5.3.7. Let σ2 and σ3 be representatives of the conjugacy classes of sym-

metries of Yg with σ2 = 1 and σ3 = (g + 1)/4. Then σ2 is non-separating.
Moreover σ3 is non-separating if g ≡ 3 (mod 8).
(5.3.8) More on the separating character of the symmetries.

To find out the separating character of the symmetry σ1 for both Xg and Yg , the
symmetry σ2 for Xg and even g, and the symmetry σ3 for Yg and g ≡ 7 (mod 8),
we must appeal to more subtle arguments.
First we identify the symmetries σ1 , σ2 and σ3 of Xg as elements of the group
Aut(Xg ) = Aut+ (Xg )ϕ Z2 , where ϕ is the automorphism of Aut+ (Xg ) induced
by the assignment a → a−1 , b → b−1 and
Aut+ (Xg ) = a, b | a2(g+1) , b4 , (ab)2 , ab2 a−1 b2 .

Let Δ be a Fuchsian group such that there exists a group epimorphism Δ →

Aut+ (Xg ) whose kernel is the surface Fuchsian group Γ that uniformizes Xg , that
is, Xg = H/Γ. Then the signature of Δ is [2(g + 1), 4, 2] and there exists a unique
NEC group Λ containing Δ as a subgroup of index 2. By Theorems 1.2.1, 1.2.2 and
1.2.5, a presentation of Λ is the following
Λ = c0 , c1 , c2 | c20 , c21 , c22 , (c0 c1 )2(g+1) , (c1 c2 )4 , (c0 c2 )2
and so, if we denote Z2 = t, the group Aut(Xg ) is the image of Λ under the
epimorphism θ : Λ → Aut(Xg ) induced by the assignment
c0 → at = σ1 ; c1 → t = σ2 ; c2 → tb = σ3 . (5.4)
In particular, it is worth noting that σ1 σ3 = σ3 σ1 because σ1 σ3 = at2 b = ab has

order 2. Then, as σ1 has two ovals and σ3 is an M -symmetry, that is, a symmetry
with g + 1 ovals, the next result follows.
Proposition 5.3.9. The symmetry σ1 of Xg for odd g is separating.

This is an immediate consequence of the following lemma.
Lemma 5.3.10. Let σ and τ be two commuting symmetries of a genus g Riemann
surface X such that σ is an M -symmetry and τ has two ovals. Then τ is a separating
symmetry.
Proof. There exist a Fuchsian group Λ and an epimorphism θ : Λ → σ, τ whose

kernel is a surface Fuchsian group uniformizing the surface X. By Theorems 1.2.1,
1.2.2, 1.2.5 and [27] the signature of Λ has the following form:
s(Λ) = (h; ±; [2, . v. ., 2]; {(−), . t. ., (−), (2, .r.1., 2), . . . , (2, .r.s., 2)})
for some non-negative integers h, v, t and some even positive integers r1 , . . . , rs be-
cause, as ker θ is a surface Fuchsian group, the canonical reflections corresponding
to a non-empty period cycle of s(Λ) must be mapped, alternatively, to σ and τ . This
implies that r = r1 + · · · + rs ≤ 4, because τ has two ovals.
On the other hand, the hyperbolic area of a fundamental region of Λ is
Area(Λ) = 2π(ηh − 2 + v/2 + t + s + r/4),
where η = 2 if sign(s(Λ)) = “+” and η = 1 otherwise. Now the Hurwitz–Riemann

formula yields
g + 3 = 2ηh + v + 2t + 2s + r/2.
But, as σ and τ have g + 3 ovals in total, we deduce from Theorem 3.1.1 that
g + 3 ≤ 2t + r. After substituting, we get
2ηh + v + 2s ≤ r/2 ≤ 2.
In particular, either s = 0 or s = 1. In the first case also r = 0, and so h = v = 0

and η = 2. In the second case, s = 1, that is, r = 4, h = v = 0 and η = 2. Thus,
either s(Λ) = s1 or s2 , where
s1 = (0; +; [−]; {(−), . t. ., (−)}) and s2 = (0; +; [−]; {(−), . t. ., (−), (2, 2, 2, 2)}),
with t = (g + 3)/2 in the first case and t = (g − 1)/2 in the second one.
Suppose first that s(Λ) = s1 , and let c0 , . . . , ct−1 be a set of canonical reflections
of Λ. Since θ is surjective, it maps some canonical reflection to τ . In fact there is
only one ci with this property; otherwise σ ≤ 2(t − 2) = g − 1, a contradiction.
Thus, θ(cj ) = σ for j = i and so θ maps all connecting canonical generators of Λ
onto (0, 0) ∈ Z2 ⊕ Z2 . Hence, applying Theorem 1.2.1 to the kernel of p ◦ θ, where
p : Z2 ⊕ Z2 → Z2 ⊕ Z2 /τ is the canonical projection, we conclude that τ is a
separating symmetry.
Let us assume now that s(Λ) = s2 . Since ker θ is a surface group, the canonical
reflections c0 , c1 , c2 , c3 and c4 of the non-empty period cycle in s2 are mapped by
θ alternatively to σ and τ . Thus they contribute with two ovals to σ and also
with two ovals to τ . Consequently, the reflections in the empty period cycles
must contribute with g − 1 ovals to σ, and this forces θ(ei ) = (0, 0) for every
connecting canonical generator ei of Λ. Using again Theorem 1.2.1, we deduce that
τ is a separating symmetry.

By combining Proposition 5.2.10 and Theorem 5.2.11 we obtain now a formula
that yields the non-separating character of some symmetries of Xg and Yg .
Proposition 5.3.11. Let G = Aut+ (S) with S = Xg or S = Yg , and consider the
presentation of G given in the introduction of this section. Let σ, τ be two distinct
commuting symmetries of S having a common fixed point such that σ is separating.
For each x ∈ G let δx be either 1 if σ ◦ τ is conjugate to some power of x, or 0
otherwise. Then
δa δb δab
|C(G, σ ◦ τ )| + + ≤ 2σ.
2g + 2 4 2
Proof. Let h = σ ◦ τ . By Proposition 5.2.10 we have | Fix(h)| ≤ 2σ, and so it is

enough to prove the equality
δa δb δab
| Fix(h)| = |C(G, h)| + + .
2g + 2 4 2
This is the formula in Theorem 5.2.11. Indeed, since σ and τ are commuting sym-
metries, h has order 2, and so NG (h) = C(G, h). Moreover, as we observed in
(5.3.8), the proper periods in the signature of a Fuchsian group Δ admitting a group
epimorphism Δ → G whose kernel is the Fuchsian group Γ that uniformizes S are
2g + 2, 4 and 2, and we are done.

Proposition 5.3.12. (1) The symmetry σ2 of Xg is non-separating for even g.

(2) The symmetry σ3 of Yg for g ≡ 7 (mod 8) is non-separating.
Proof. (1) We apply Proposition 5.3.11 with σ = σ2 and τ = σ3 ◦ σ2 ◦ σ3 . We

must show first that they commute. Using the epimorphism defined by (5.4) we
get
σ ◦ τ = σ2 ◦ (σ3 ◦ σ2 ◦ σ3 ) = b2 ,
τ ◦ σ = (σ3 ◦ σ2 ◦ σ3 ) ◦ σ2 = tb2 t = b−2 = b2 ,
and so σ ◦ τ = τ ◦ σ. Moreover, σ and τ have a common fixed point, because

σ ◦ τ is an analytic automorphism of Xg of finite order 2. On the other hand
C(Aut+ (Xg ), σ ◦ τ ) = C(Aut+ (Xg ), b2 ) = Aut+ (Xg ),
because b2 a = ab2 . Hence |C(Aut+ (Xg ), σ ◦ τ )| = 8(g + 1).

Let us prove that δb = 1 and δa = δab = 0, where we are using the notations
in Proposition 5.3.11. The first equality is obvious. As to δa , we see that if b2
were conjugate to some power ai of a then there would exist f ∈ Aut+ (Xg )
such that f b2 f −1 = ai , that is, b2 ∈ a, a contradiction. Thus δa = 0. Finally,
if δab = 1 then there would exist f ∈ Aut+ (Xg ) such that f b2 f −1 = ab, and
so a = b, which is an absurd.
Suppose that σ2 is separating. Then, by Proposition 5.3.11,
δa δb δab 8(g + 1)
2 = 2σ2 ≥ |C(Aut+ (Xg ), σ◦τ )| + + = = 2(g+1),
2g + 2 4 2 4
a contradiction.
(2) We now apply Proposition 5.3.11 with σ = σ3 and τ = σ2 ◦ σ3 ◦ σ2 . As before
it is easily seen that σ and τ are commuting symmetries with a common fixed
point. Moreover, σ ◦ τ = b2 and δa = δab = 0, δb = 1. By Proposition 5.3.4,
|C(Aut+ (Yg )(σ ◦ τ ))| = 4(g + 1) and so, using Proposition 5.3.11 once more,
g+1 δ δb δab 4(g + 1)

= 2σ3 ≥ |C(Aut+ (Xg ), σ◦τ )|
a
+ + = = g+1,
2 2g + 2 4 2 4
a contradiction.

To finish the computation of the topological types of the symmetries of the

Accola–Maclachlan and the Kulkarni surfaces we must calculate the separating
character of the symmetry σ1 of Xg and Yg , the first just for even g. In this case
we apply a different approach due to Hoare and Singerman, [61].
Proposition 5.3.13. (1) For even g the symmetry σ1 of Xg is separating.

(2) The symmetry σ1 of Yg is non-separating.
Proof. We prove just part (1) since the proof of (2) is essentially the same. Let
K = σ1 , σ2 be the subgroup of Aut(Xg ) generated by σ1 and σ2 . From (5.4), we
see that σ1 σ2 = (at)t = a is an element of order 2(g + 1). Hence K is the dihedral
group of 4g + 4 elements. We shall use the obvious equalities
σ1 (σ1 σ2 )i = (σ1 σ2 )2g+2−i σ1 and (σ2 σ1 )−1 = σ1 σ2 .
Let Γ1 be an NEC group with signature
s(Γ1 ) = (0; +; [−]; {(2g + 2, 2g + 2, g + 1)})
containing the surface group Γ that uniformizes Xg . Let us denote by c0 , c1 and c2
the generating reflections of Γ1 satisfying
(c0 c1 )2g+2 = (c1 c2 )2g+2 = (c2 c0 )g+1 = 1.
Then Γ is the kernel of the group epimorphism Φ : Γ1 → K induced by the assign-

ment
c0 → σ1 ; c1 → σ2 ; c2 → σ1 (σ2 σ1 )2g .
To prove this it suffices to use the Hurwitz–Riemann formula and to check that the
orders of the products σ2 ◦ σ1 (σ2 σ1 )2g and σ1 (σ2 σ1 )2g ◦ σ1 are 2g + 2 and g + 1,
respectively.
The quoted result in [61] says that σ1 is separating if and only if the Schreier
graph S of the set of cosets K/σ1 associated to the system of generators G =
{Φ(cj ) : j = 0, 1, 2} of K is bipartite.
The graph S has 2g + 2 vertices, denoted as
vi = {(σ1 σ2 )i , (σ1 σ2 )i σ1 }, 0 ≤ i ≤ 2g + 1.
Let us see how each Φ(cj ) links two vertices of S. First,
Φ(c0 )(vi ) = σ1 (vi ) = {σ1 (σ1 σ2 )i , σ1 (σ1 σ2 )i σ1 }

= {(σ2 σ1 )i−1 σ2 , (σ2 σ1 )i } = {(σ1 σ2 )2g+3−i σ2 , (σ1 σ2 )2g+2−i }
= {(σ1 σ2 )2g+2−i , (σ1 σ2 )2g+2−i σ1 } = v2g+2−i .
Analogously,
Φ(c1 )(vi ) = σ2 (vi ) = {σ2 (σ1 σ2 )i , σ2 (σ1 σ2 )i σ1 } = {(σ2 σ1 )i σ2 , (σ2 σ1 )i+1 }

= {(σ1 σ2 )2g+1−i , (σ1 σ2 )2g+1−i σ1 } = v2g+1−i .
5.4 Algebraic Formulae for the Symmetries 125
Finally,
Φ(c2 )(vi ) = σ1 (σ2 σ1 )2g (vi ) = {σ1 (σ2 σ1 )2g−i , σ1 (σ2 σ1 )2g−i σ1 }
= {(σ1 σ2 )2g−i , (σ1 σ2 )2g−i σ1 } = v2g−i .
Therefore,
Φ(cj )(vi ) = v2g+2−i−j for 0 ≤ i ≤ 2g + 1 and j = 0, 1, 2.
Consequently, the set of vertices of the Schreier graph S, with the loops deleted,
admits a bipartition
V1 = {vi : 0 ≤ i ≤ g}; V2 = {vi : g + 1 ≤ i ≤ 2g + 1},
and so the symmetry σ1 of Xg is separating for even g.

We summarize the results of this section in terms of species (see Definition 1.5.4)
as follows.
Theorem 5.3.14. (1) The species of representatives of the three conjugacy classes
of the symmetries with fixed points of the Accola–Maclachlan surface Xg and
the Kulkarni surface Yg are displayed in the following table:
Surface g σ1 σ2 σ3
Xg odd +2 −1 +(g + 1)
Xg even +1 −1 +(g + 1)
Yg g ≡ 3 (mod 4) −2 −1 −(g + 1)/4
(2) The surface Xg admits one conjugacy class of fixed point free symmetries if g
is even and two classes if g is odd.
(3) The surface Yg admits a fixed point free symmetry if and only if g ≡ 3 (mod 8).
In such a case, all fixed point free symmetries of Yg are pairwise conjugate.
5.4 Algebraic Formulae for the Symmetries
It is well known that the Accola–Maclachlan and the Kulkarni surfaces admit a
nice description by means of defining algebraic equations. Our goal in this sec-
tion is to provide algebraic formulae for the symmetries and automorphisms of
these surfaces when they are described by polynomial equations. We start with the
Accola–Maclachlan surfaces.
Algebraic Formulae for the Symmetries of the Accola–Maclachlan Surfaces
Since the Accola–Maclachlan surface is hyperelliptic, we can use the geometric

method explained in Sect. 4.3 to obtain algebraic formulae of its symmetries and
automorphisms.
Theorem 5.4.1. Let Xg : y 2 = x2g+2 − 1 be the Accola–Maclachlan surface of
genus g. Its full automorphism group Aut(Xg ) has order 16(g+1) and presentation
Aut(Xg ) = a, b, σ | a2g+2 , b4 , σ 2 , (ab)2 , ab2 a−1 b2 , (aσ)2 , (bσ)2 .
Formulae for the generators a, b and σ in this plane model are

1 iy
a : (x, y) → x · e πi/(g+1)
, y , b : (x, y) → , , σ : (x, y) → (x̄, ȳ).
x xg+1
A set of representatives of the conjugacy classes of symmetries of Xg and their

species are the following:
• {σ, aσ, bσ, ab2 σ} if g is even, with
sp(σ) = −1, sp(aσ) = 0, sp(bσ) = g + 1 and sp(ab2 σ) = 1.
• {σ, aσ, bσ, ab2 σ, ag+1 bσ} if g is odd, with
sp(σ) = −1, sp(aσ) = 0, sp(bσ) = g+1, sp(ab2 σ) = 2 and sp(ag+1 bσ) = 0.
This yields the symmetry type of Xg .
Proof. Let AutΣ (Xg ) be the group of Möbius transformations which preserve the
branch point set of Xg . This group has order 8(g + 1) because Aut(Xg ) has order
16(g + 1). Observe that the 2g + 2 branch points of Xg are the (2g + 2)-th roots of
unity, that is, ekπi/(g+1) for k = 0, . . . , 2g + 1. The set of these points is preserved
i : Σ → Σ defined, for i = 1, 2, 3, by
under the action of the reflections σ
1 : x → x̄,
σ 2 : x → 1/x̄ and
σ 3 : x → x̄ · eπi/(g+1) .
σ
It is easy to see that σ 1 and σ

2 commutes with σ 3 , and that these last two reflections
1 , σ
generate a dihedral group of order 4g + 4. Therefore, σ 2 and σ
3 generate a group
D2g+2 ⊕ Z2 of order 8g + 8, which must coincide with AutΣ (Xg ). This group has
four conjugacy classes of symmetries, whose representatives are σ 1 , σ
2 , σ
3 and
σ σ3 ◦ σ
4 := ( 1 )g+1 ◦ σ
2 : Σ → Σ ; x → −1/x̄.
Formulae for their liftings σi : Xg → Xg are
σ1 : (x, y) → (x̄, ȳ), σ3 : (x, y) → (x̄ · eπi/(g+1) , ȳ),

1 iȳ −1 iȳ
σ2 : (x, y) → , g+1 , σ4 : (x, y) → , g+1 .
x̄ x̄ x̄ x̄
Observe that σ1 , σ2 and σ3 are involutions, while σ4 is an involution if and only if

g is odd.
With these formulae at hand it is straightforward to check that the automorphisms
a := σ3 ◦ σ1 , b := σ2 ◦ σ1 and σ := σ1 , which have the same formulae as
those in the statement of the theorem, satisfy the defining relations of Aut(Xg )
given above. Using them, it is an easy exercise in group theory to determine that
Aut(Xg ) has four conjugacy classes of symmetries if g is even, with representa-
tives {σ, aσ, bσ, ab2 σ}, and five conjugacy classes if g is odd, with representatives
{σ, aσ, bσ, ab2 σ, ag+1 bσ}. Let us compute their species by using Theorem 4.3.5.
First, sp(ag+1 bσ) = 0 (if g is odd) since this symmetry is a lifting of the antipodal
map x → −1/x̄. To compute the species of the other symmetries we need to calcu-
late the number of branch points fixed by each σ i for i = 1, 2, 3. Clearly, σ
1 fixes
two branch points, σ 2 fixes all of them and σ
3 fixes none of them. Hence

{1, 0} if g is even,
sp(σ) = −1, sp(bσ) = g + 1 and {sp(aσ), sp(ab2 σ)} =
{2, 0} if g is odd.
Finally, it is easy to see that the points (x, y) of the form x = r · eπi/(2g+2) , y = is
with r, s ∈ R such that s2 = r2g+2 + 1, are points in Xg which are fixed by ab2 σ.
Therefore aσ is the fixed point free symmetry:

2 1 if g is even,
sp(aσ) = 0 and sp(ab σ) =
2 if g is odd,
which finishes the proof of the theorem.

Algebraic Formulae for the Symmetries of the Kulkarni Surface
Now we shall find defining equations for the symmetries with fixed points of the
Kulkarni surface Yg , where g ≡ 3 (mod 4) is large enough. To that end we recall
that Kulkarni proved in [70] that Yg is a (2g + 2)-cyclic covering of the Riemann
sphere. In fact, it admits the following defining equation
y 2g+2 = (x − 1)xg−1 (x + 1)g+2 .
Recall also the presentation of the group
G = Aut+ (Yg ) = a, b | a2(g+1) , b4 , (ab)2 , b2 ab2 ag
of analytic automorphisms of Yg given at the beginning of Sect. 5.3.

First we shall find explicit formulae for the elements of the group G. Second,
observe that if C(x, y) denotes the field of rational functions of Yg , the symmetries
of Yg are nothing else but the√field automorphisms of C(x, y) of order 2 that fix the
real numbers but map i = −1 to −i. In particular, since the polynomial defin-
ing Yg has real coefficients, the automorphism σ of C(x, y) over R induced by the
assignment
σ(x) = x; σ(y) = y; σ(i) = −i
is a symmetry of Yg . Finally, we shall prove that {σ, a ◦ σ, σ ◦ b} are representatives

of the three conjugacy classes of symmetries of Yg having fixed points. Throughout
this section we will follow closely the approach and notations employed by Turbek
in [124].
Our first goal is to obtain explicit formulae for the automorphisms a and b of
Yg or, equivalently, of its function field C(x, y). For that we begin by studying the
ramification data of the coverings associated to some distinguished subgroups of G.
(5.4.2) Coverings associated to some subgroups of Aut+ (Yg ).
Consider the subgroups H = a, b2 and K = a of G, which satisfy [G : H] =
[H : K] = 2. We are going to study the ramified coverings
(8g+8):1
Yg / Yg /G
(2g+2):1 2:1

2:1 / Yg /H.
Yg /K
Let Δ be a triangle Fuchsian group with signature s(Δ) = [2g + 2, 4, 2]. Denote
by x1 , x2 and x3 the elliptic canonical generators of Δ of orders 2g + 2, 4 and 2,
respectively. The kernel of the epimorphism Δ → G induced by the assignment
x1 → a ; x2 → b ; x3 → ab,
is the surface Fuchsian group Γ which uniformizes the surface Yg . In this way we
get a diagram
H / H/Δ

Yg = H/Γ / Yg /G = (H/Γ)/Δ/Γ.
The upper horizontal arrow ramifies over three branching points with ramification
indices 2g+2, 4 and 2, and so the same holds true for the lower horizontal arrow. We
denote by R0 , R∞ , R ∈ Yg /G the ramification points of the projection Yg → Yg /G,
with ramification indices 2g + 2, 4 and 2, respectively.
As to the covering Yg → Yg /K, it is easy to see that we may assume, without
loss of generality, that the automorphism a generating K is defined by (x, y) →
(x, ξy), where ξ = eπi/g+1 . Of course, this is equivalent to saying that a is

the automorphism of the function field C(x, y) of Yg defined by a(x) = x and
a(y) = ξy.
Therefore the covering Yg → Yg /K is nothing else but the projection
Yg → Yg /K = Σ ; (x, y) → x,
that ramifies over the points p−1 , p1 and p0 corresponding to x = −1, x = 0 and
x = 1 in Σ. Using elementary methods, as in [43] or [92, pp. 73, 74], it is easily
checked that the respective ramification indices are
2g + 2 2g + 2 2g + 2
= 2g + 2, = g + 1, = 2g + 2.
gcd(2g +2, g +2) gcd(2g +2, g −1) gcd(2g +2, 1)
Of course, since both Yg /G and Yg /H are covered by the sphere Yg /K, they are
also spheres. To understand the covering Yg /H → Yg /G let us denote by r1 , . . . , rk
its ramification indices. Then, by the Hurwitz–Riemann formula,

k
2g(Yg /H) − 2 = [G : H] 2g(Yg /G) − 2 + (1 − 1/ri )
i=1
and, since g(Yg /H) = g(Yg /G) = 0 and each ri divides the degree of the map
Yg /H → Yg /G, which equals 2, we get −2 = 2(−2 + k/2), i.e., k = 2. Clearly,
the point R0 , that corresponds to a fixed point of the automorphism a, is unbranched
with respect to Yg /H → Yg /G, and so both R and R∞ are branching points whose
ramification index equals 2. Therefore there exist exactly two points q0 , q1 ∈ Yg /H
lying above R0 and there exists a unique point q∞ ∈ Yg /H lying above R∞ .
To finish the analysis of the combinatorics of these coverings let us denote by
s1 , . . . , s the ramification indices of Yg /K → Yg /H. By the Hurwitz–Riemann
formula,

2g(Yg /K) − 2 = [H : K] 2g(Yg /H) − 2 + (1 − 1/si )
i=1
and this leads to = 2. Necessarily q∞ is a branching point of Yg /K → Yg /H, be-

cause its ramification index as a branching point of Yg /K → Yg /G is 4. Thus, only
one among {q0 , q1 } is a branching point of Yg /K → Yg /H, and we interchange
their labels if necessary so that Yg /K → Yg /H ramifies over q0 but not over q1 .
(5.4.3) Formulae for the automorphisms a and b.

We are now in a position to calculate an explicit formula for the automorphism
b of Yg or, equivalently, of the field extension C(x, y)|C. To that end we begin with
b2 . Let b2 K : Yg /K → Yg /K be the automorphism of the sphere Yg /K = Σ
induced by b2 . Since p0 is a ramification point of the covering Yg /K → Yg /H,
while both p−1 and p1 lie over the same point q1 , the automorphism b2 K of Yg /K
or, equivalently, of the field extension C(x)|C, fixes x = 0 and switches x = 1
and x = −1. On the other hand, as Yg /K is a sphere, b2 K is a linear fractional
transformation. Hence, for some α1 , α2 , α3 ∈ C,
α1 x α1 α1
b2 K(x) = and = −1, = 1.
α2 x + α3 α2 + α3 α2 − α3
Therefore α2 = 0 and α3 = −α1 , that is, b2 K(x) = −x. In other words,

b2 (x) = −x when we see b as an automorphism of the function field C(x, y) of Yg .
The function field of the orbit space Yg /H is C(z), with z = x2 , and let bH be
the automorphism of Yg /H or, equivalently, of the field extension C(z)|C, induced
by b. Since the points q0 and q1 lie over the same point R0 of Yg /G, the automor-
phism bH switches these points. Moreover, since q∞ is the only point in the fiber
of R∞ under the projection Yg /H → Yg /G, the automorphism bH fixes q∞ . Since
x = ∞ is the only fixed point of b apart from x = 0, we deduce that q∞ ≡ z = ∞,
while q0 ≡ z = 0 and q1 ≡ z = 1. Thus, with coordinates,
bH(0) = 1, bH(1) = 0 and bH(∞) = ∞.
It follows easily that bH(z) = 1−z, that is, bH(x2 ) = 1−x2 . Hence b(x2 ) = 1−x2 ,
and to calculate b(x) we must find a square root of 1 − x2 in C(x, y). Note that in
this field,
y 2g+2 = (x − 1)xg−1 (x + 1)g+2 =⇒ y 2g+2 x2 = (x2 − 1)xg+1 (x + 1)g+1 .
(5.4.4) Computation of b(x).

√ g0 = (g + 1)/4, which is an integer because
In what follows we write
g ≡ 3 (mod 4). Taking i = −1, we have
−x2 y 2g+2 −x2 y 8g0

1 − x2 = = .
xg+1 (x + 1)g+1 x4g0 (x + 1)4g0
In other words, the function v ∈ C(x, y) defined by
y 2g0
v(x, y) =
xg0 (x + 1)g0
satisfies the equality (ixv 2 )2 = −x2 v 4 = 1 − x2 . Hence, without loss of generality,

we choose b(x) = −ixv 2 . Observe that v 4 = (x2 − 1)/x2 .
(5.4.5) Computation of b(y).
It remains to determine b(y). Note that b(x2 ) = 1 − x2 and so
x2 − 1 b(x2 ) − 1 x2
b = = 2 .
x2 2
b(x ) x −1
We can write
x2 − 1
y 8g0 = x4g0 (x + 1)4g0
x2
and so
x2
b(y)8g0 = b(x)4g0 (b(x) + 1)4g0 .
x2 − 1
After multiplying the respective sides of both equalities we get
y 8g0 b(y)8g0 = x4g0 (x + 1)4g0 b(x)4g0 (b(x) + 1)4g0

= x4g0 (x + 1)4g0 (−ixv 2 )4g0 (1 − ixv 2 )4g0 .
Therefore the quotient
y 2 b(y)2
x(x + 1)(−ixv 2 )(1 − ixv 2 )
is a 4g0 -th root of unity. Among the different possibilities we choose the simplest
one, namely,
y 2 b(y)2 = x(x + 1)(−ixv 2 )(1 − ixv 2 ).

Thus, we are led to find a square root u ∈ C(x, y) of
x(x + 1)(−ixv 2 )(1 − ixv 2 ) = −ix2 (x + 1)v 2 − x3 (x + 1)v 4 .

2
Once this is done, yb(y) = u2 and we choose b(y) = u/y.
Since v 4 = (x2 − 1)/x2 we have
[C(x, v 2 , u) : C(x, v 2 )] = 2 = [C(x, v) : C(x, v 2 )] and [C(x, v 2 ) : C(x)] = 2.
Therefore both C(x, v 2 , u)|C(x) and C(x, v)|C(x) are degree 2 subextensions of
the cyclic Galois extension C(x, y)|C(x) and so they coincide. Hence, u ∈ C(x, v),
that is, there exist Ai ∈ C(x) with 0 ≤ i ≤ 3 such that
u = A0 (x) + A1 (x)v + A2 (x)v 2 + A3 (x)v 3 .

After squaring we get
u2 = (A20 + A22 v 4 + 2A1 A3 v 4 ) + 2(A0 A1 + A2 A3 v 4 )v

+ (A21 + A23 v 4 + 2A0 A2 )v 2 + 2(A0 A3 + A1 A2 )v 3 .
On the other hand, we already observed that u2 = h + v 2 , where
h = −x3 (x + 1)v 4 and = −ix2 (x + 1).
Consequently, the functions Ai are a solution of the system of equations

⎧
⎪
⎪ A3 A0 + A1 A2 = 0,
⎨
A1 A0 + A3 v 4 A2 = 0,
2
⎪
⎪ A0 + A22 v 4 + 2A1 A3 v 4 = h,
⎩
A21 + A23 v 4 + 2A0 A2 = .
We are going to prove that (A0 , A2 ) = (0, 0). Otherwise we deduce, from the two
first equations above, that A21 = A23 v 4 , and so A1 = εA3 v 2 for some ε = ±1. After
substituting these values in the third and fourth equations, and multiplying the first
one by v 2 , we get
⎧
⎨ A1 (εA0 + A2 v 2 ) = 0,
2 2 4 2 2
A0 + A2 v + 2εA1 v = h,
⎩
A21 + A0 A2 = /2.
The first equation leads us to distinguish two cases. First, if A1 = 0 then

A20 + A22 v 4 = h,
A0 A2 = /2.
Consequently,
2
h= + A22 v 4 =⇒ 4v 4 A42 − 4hA22 + 2 = 0.
4A22
The discriminant 16(h2 − 2 v 4 ) of this polynomial (in the variable A2 ) must be a

square in the field C(x). But this is false, because
h2 − 2 v 4 = x6 (x + 1)2 v 8 + x4 (x + 1)2 v 4 = x4 (x + 1)2 (x2 v 8 + v 4 ),
and the factor

(x2 − 1)2 x2 − 1
x2 v 8 + v 4 = + = x2 − 1
x2 x2
is not a square in C(x). Thus A1 = 0, which implies A0 = −εA2 v 2 . Hence,

A22 v 4 + εA21 v 2 = h/2,
A21 − εA22 v 2 = /2.
Substitute A21 by εA22 v 2 + /2 in the first equation to obtain
A22 v 4 + εv 2 (εA22 v 2 + /2) = h/2 =⇒ h − εv 2 = 4A22 v 4 .
Therefore, −x3 (x + 1)v 4 − εv 2 = 4A22 v 4 and so,
−ε
v2 = ∈ C(x),
4A22 + x3 (x + 1)
a contradiction. This way A0 = A2 = 0 and this implies

2A1 A3 v 4 = h,
A21 + A23 v 4 = .
The first equation reads
−x3 (x + 1)
2A1 A3 v 4 = h = −x3 (x+1)v 4 =⇒ 2A1 A3 = −x3 (x+1) =⇒ A3 = .
2A1
Then, the second one says
x6 (x + 1)2 v 4
= A21 + =⇒ 4A41 − 4A21 + x6 (x + 1)2 v 4 = 0.
4A21
After solving this equation one gets
± x3 (x + 1) ix2 (x + 1)(−1 ± x)
A21 = = .
2 2
This forces the sign to be “−” and so A21 = −ix2 (x + 1)2 /2. Since c = (1 + i)/2
satisfies c2 = i/2 we get, up to sign, A1 (x) = cix(x + 1). Therefore,
−x3 (x + 1) −x2
A3 = = = cx2 .
2A1 2ci
This way u = cix(x + 1)v + cx2 v 3 ∈ C(x, y) and finally
cix(x + 1)v + cx2 v 3 y 2g0

b(y) = , where v(x, y) = g0 and 4g0 = g + 1.
y x (x + 1)g0
We are ready to state the following result.

Theorem 5.4.6. Let g be a positive integer with g ≡ 3 (mod 4) and let C(x, y),
where y 2g+2 = (x − 1)xg−1 (x + 1)g+2 , be the field of rational functions of the
Kulkarni surface Yg of genus g. Let ξ be a primitive (2g + 2)-th root of unity, c =
(1 + i)/2 and g0 = (g + 1)/4. Consider the rational functions
y 2g0
v(x, y) = and u = cix(x + 1)v + cx2 v 3 .
xg0 (x + 1)g0
Then the automorphism group of the field extension C(x, y)|C is generated by the
automorphisms a and b defined by
u
a(x) = x, a(y) = ξy; b(x) = −ixv 2 , b(y) = .
y
Moreover, these automorphisms satisfy the equalities
a2g+2 = b4 = (ab)2 = b2 ab2 ag = 1.
Proof. The groups Aut(C(x, y)|C) and a, b coincide because they both have
8(g + 1) elements. The other claims are checked straightforwardly.

(5.4.7) The symmetries of the Kulkarni surface.

Let C(x, y) denote the field of rational functions of the Kulkarni surface Yg of
genus g, where y 2g+2 = (x − 1)xg−1 (x + 1)g+2 . Recall that the symmetries of Yg
are nothing else but the automorphisms of order 2 of the field extension C(x, y)|R
that do not fix i. We already observed that the automorphism σ of C(x, y) over R
induced by the assignment
σ(x) = x; σ(y) = y; σ(i) = −i
is a symmetry of Yg . As we announced at the beginning of this section, we are going

to show that {σ, a ◦ σ, σ ◦ b} are representatives of the three conjugacy classes of
symmetries of Yg having fixed points.
It is clear that both τ = a ◦ σ and γ = σ ◦ b are automorphisms of the field
extension C(x, y)|R and they do not fix i. Let us prove now that they have order 2.
We keep the notations from Theorem 5.4.6.
Since σ(x) = x = a(x) it follows that τ 2 fixes x. Moreover,
τ 2 (y) = τ (a(y)) = τ (ξ r y) = a(ξ¯r y) = ξ¯r a(y) = ξ¯r ξ r y = y.
Hence τ has order 2. As to the automorphism γ, note that

y 2g0
σ(v) = σ =v and so γ(x) = σ(−ixv 2 ) = ixv 2 .
xg0 (x + 1)g0
On the other hand,

y 2g0 u2g0 xg0 (x + 1)g0 1
b(v) = b = = = .
xg0 (x + 1)g0 y 2g0 (−ixv 2 )g0 (1 − ixv 2 )g0 y 2g0 v
Henceforth,
xv 2
γ 2 (x) = γ(ixv 2 ) = σ(b(ix)b(v)2 ) = = x.
v2
Thus γ 2 fixes x and it also fixes y. In fact,
σ(u) cix(x + 1)v + c̄x2 v 3

γ(y) = =
σ(y) y
and this implies

y ci(−ixv)(1 − ixv 2 ) − c̄x2 v
b(γ(y)) = .
u
Therefore

2 y ci(ixv)(1 + ixv 2 ) − cx2 v
γ (y) =
cix(x + 1)v + c̄x2 v 3
and so it remains to check the equality
ci(ixv)(1 + ixv 2 ) − cx2 v = cix(x + 1)v + c̄x2 v 3 ,
which follows automatically from ci = −c.

We have proved that σ, τ = a ◦ σ and γ = σ ◦ b are symmetries of Yg and now
we shall show that they are pairwise analytically non-conjugate.
(1) Suppose first that σ and τ are conjugate. Then there exists φ = ak bj ∈
Aut+ (Yg ) such that
aσ = φ−1 σφ = b−j a−k σak bj =⇒ ak bj aσ = σak bj =⇒ ak bj aσ(v) = σak bj (v).
Recall that σ(v) = v, b(v) = 1/v and observe that

y 2g0 ξ 2g0 y 2g0
a(v) = a = = iv.
xg0 (x g
+ 1) 0 x 0 (x + 1)g0
g
Thus, if j is even then bj (v) = v and so
ik+1 v = ak bj aσ(v) = σak bj (v) = σ(ik v) = (−i)k v,

which is false. If j is odd then bj (v) = 1/v and we have
1/ik−1 v = ak (i/v) = ak bj (iv) = ak bj aσ(v) = σak bj (v) = σak (1/v)

= σ(1/ik v) = 1/(−i)k iv,
a contradiction again.
(2) Suppose now that σ and γ are conjugate. Then there exists an automorphism
φ = ak bj ∈ Aut+ (Yg ) such that σb = φ−1 σφ = b−j a−k σak bj . So bj σb1−j =
a−k σak and, in particular, bj σb1−j (x) = a−k σak (x). But σ(x) = a(x) = x
and so the last equality reads bj σb1−j (x) = x. Recall that b(x) = −ixv 2 .
Therefore,
(2.1) For j = 0 we get x = σb(x) = −σ(ixv 2 ) = ixv 2 , an absurdity.
(2.2) For j = 1 we get x = bσ(x) = b(x) = −ixv 2 , an absurdity again.
(2.3) For j = 2 we get x = b2 σb−1 (x) = b2 σb3 (x).
Notice that
b2 (x) = b(−ixv 2 ) = −i(−ixv 2 )/v 2 = −x ⇒ b3 (x) = −b(x) = ixv 2 .
Consequently,
x = b2 σb3 (x) = b2 σ(ixv 2 ) = b2 (−ixv 2 ) = (−i)(−x)v 2 = ixv 2 ,
a contradiction.
(2.4) For j = 3 we get x = b3 σb−2 (x) = b3 σb2 (x) = b3 σ(−x) = b3 (−x)
= −ixv 2 , a contradiction again.
(3) Suppose finally that τ and γ are conjugate. Let φ = ak bj ∈ Aut+ (Yg ) such
that
σb = φ−1 aσφ = b−j a−k aσak bj =⇒ bj σb1−j = a1−k σak .
Evaluating at x we get bj σb1−j (x) = a1−k σak (x) = x ; however, we have just
proved that this is false.
This way we have shown that the symmetries σ, τ = a◦σ and γ = σ ◦b are pairwise
analytically non-conjugate.
To finish this section we must prove the following.
Proposition 5.4.8. With the above notations, σ, τ = a ◦ σ and γ = σ ◦ b are
symmetries with fixed points of the Kulkarni surface Yg .
Proof. In case g ≡ 7 (mod 8) the surface Yg admits no fixed point free symmetry.
So in what follows we suppose that g ≡ 3 (mod 8). The symmetry σ fixes points,
because the equation
y 2g+2 = (x − 1)xg−1 (x + 1)g+2
admits a real solution for y whenever x ≥ 1.
As to the symmetry τ, note that τ (x) = x and τ (y) = a(y) = ξy where ξ =
eπi/(g+1) . Therefore, since ξ is unitary,
¯
τ ((1 + ξ)y) = (1 + ξ)ξy = (1 + ξ −1 )ξy = (1 + ξ)y.
Hence, after multiplying by κ = (1 + ξ)2g+2 and introducing the linear change of

coordinates x = x, ω = (1 + ξ)y, the equation of the function field of Yg becomes
ω g+2 = κ(x − 1)xg−1 (x + 1)g+2
and κ is a negative real number. Indeed, as the argument of ξ equals π/(g + 1), we
have that arg(1 + ξ) = π/2(g + 1) and so arg(1 + ξ)2g+2 = π.
Notice that
¯
τ (ω) = τ (1 + ξ)τ (y) = (1 + ξ)ξy = (1 + ξ −1 )ξy = (1 + ξ)y = ω.
Thus, τ fixes both x and ω and τ (i) = −i, that is, τ is complex conjugation
with respect to the new coordinates. Moreover, it fixes points because the equation
ω g+2 = κ(x−1)xg−1 (x+1)g+2 admits a real solution for ω whenever −1 ≤ x ≤ 1.
To prove that γ also fixes points we will repeat the strategy above, that is, we
will find a new equation of the function field of Yg so that γ acts as complex conju-
gation with respect to the new coordinates. However, the process is now much more
involved and it requires many computations.
Recall that we defined g0 = (g + 1)/4 and consider the auxiliary functions
y2 1 1 v q
q= ; v = q g0 ; t=q+ ; r=v+ and s = + .
x(x + 1) q v q v
As we proved in part (9) in Proposition 5.3.4, the subgroup M = ag+1 , b of

Aut+ (Yg ) generated by ag+1 and b is isomorphic to Z2 ⊕ Z4 .
(5.4.9) We claim that Fix(M ) = C(t), where Fix(M ) is the subfield of C(x, y)
which is fixed by M . Indeed,
b(y 2 ) u2
b(q) = = 2
b(x)b(x + 1) y (−ixv )(1 − ixv 2 )
2
x(x + 1)(−ixv 2 )(1 − ixv 2 ) 1

= 2 2 2
=
y (−ixv )(1 − ixv ) q
and so b(t) = t. Moreover,
a(y)2 ξ2 y2
a(q) = = = ξ2 q
a(x)(1 + a(x)) x(1 + x)
which implies ag+1 (q) = ξ 2g+2 q = q and so a(t) = t. Therefore C(t) ⊂ Fix(M ).
Thus, to prove the equality it is enough to check that
[C(x, y) : C(t)] = [Fix(M ) : C(t)] = |M | = 8.

Clearly, [C(q) : C(t)] = 2 because the irreducible polynomial Irr(q, C(t)) of q over
C(t) is T 2 − tT + 1. Also, [C(q, x) : C(q)] = 2 since x2 = 1/(1 − q g+1 ); finally
[C(x, y) : C(x, q)] = 2 because y 2 = x(x + 1)q. Hence,
[C(x, y) : C(t)] = [C(x, y) : C(x, q)] · [C(x, q) : C(q)] · [C(q) : C(t)] = 8,
as desired.
(5.4.10) Let us prove now that C(x, q) = Fix(ag+1 ). Indeed, a(x) = x and
(ag+1 (y))2 ξ 2g+2 y 2 y2

ag+1 (q) = = = = q.
x(x + 1) x(x + 1) x(x + 1)
Thus C(x, q) ⊂ Fix(ag+1 ) and the equality follows because
[C(x, y) : C(x, q)] = 2 = |ag+1 | = [C(x, y) : Fix(ag+1 )].
(5.4.11) Now we find an element f ∈ C(x, y) fixed by γ. Note that, as b has

order 4, we may assume that there exists f ∈ C(x, y) such that b(f ) = if . There
are many such elements, and we choose
√
2(i − 1)(v 4 − 1)x
f= .
2v
Recall that b(v) = 1/v and b(x) = −ixv 2 . Hence, a direct computation gives
√
2(i − 1)v v14 − 1 (−ixv 2 )
b(f ) = = if.
2
Consequently, γ(f ) = f because σ(v) = v and σ(x) = x, and so,

√
2(−i)(−i − 1)(v 4 − 1)x
γ(f ) = σ(b(f )) = σ(if ) = (−i)σ(f ) = = f.
2v
(5.4.12) For later purposes let us prove that f 4 = −r2 (r2 − 4).
Of course,
(i − 1)4 (v 4 − 1)4 x4 −(v 4 − 1)4 x4
f4 = =
4v 4 v4
and (v 4 − 1)x2 = −1, that is,
2
−(v 4 − 1)2 (v 4 − 1)x2
4 −(v 4 − 1)2 2 1 2
f = = = − v −
v4 v4 v2
1 2 1 1
= − v 2 + 2 + 4 = − v 2 + 2 + 2 v 2 + 2 − 2 = −r2 (r2 − 4).
v v v
(5.4.13) C(t, f ) = Fix(ag+1 ), [C(t, f ) : C(t)] = 4 and
Irr(f, C(t)) = T 4 + r2 (r2 − 4).
Indeed, recall that a(v) = iv and a(x) = x. Thus,

√
2(i − 1)(a(v)4 − 1)a(x)
a(f ) = = f,
2a(v)
while b2 (f ) = b(if ) = ib(f ) = −f . Therefore C(t, f ) = Fix(ag+1 ) and so
[C(x, y) : C(t)] 8 8
[C(t, f ) : C(t)] = = = = 4.
[C(x, y) : C(t, f )] [C(x, y) : Fix(ag+1 )] |ag+1 |
All we need to check now is that −f 4 = r2 (r2 − 4) ∈ C(t) = Fix(M ). But

a(v) = iv and b(v) = 1/v. Thus a4 (v) = v and since g+1 ∈ 4Z, also ag+1 (v) = v.
Therefore a fixes r2 (r2 − 4). Moreover,
1 2 1 2
b(r2 (r2 − 4)) = b(v)2 − 2
= 2
− v 2 = r2 (r2 − 4).
b(v) v
Hence r2 (r2 − 4) is fixed by both ag+1 and b, that is, r2 (r2 − 4) ∈ C(t).
3
(5.4.14) The sum ψ0 = i=0 bi (y) is fixed by b and σ but ag+1 (ψ0 ) = −ψ0 .
The first assertion is evident since b has order 4. As to the third, recall that b
and ag+1 commute, by part (9) in Proposition 5.3.4. Moreover, a(y) = ξy, where
ξ = eπi/g+1 , and so ag+1 (y) = −y. Hence,

3 3 3

ag+1 (ψ0 ) = ag+1 bi (y) = bi (ag+1 (y)) = bi (−y) = −ψ0 .
i=0 i=0 i=0
As to the second, a straightforward but cumbersome calculation leads us to the ex-

pression
y(v 2 − 1)(v 2 x + x − 1)(v − q)
ψ0 = .
qv 2
Since σ fixes y, q and v it follows that σ(ψ0 ) = ψ0 , and so also γ(ψ0 ) = ψ0 .
√
(5.4.15) The quotient ψ = rψ0 / 2 is also fixed by b and σ, while
ag+1 (ψ) = −ψ. Moreover, ψ 2 = r(s − 2).
Indeed b(r)√= b(v) + 1/b(v) = 1/v + v = r and we already know that
σ fixes v and 2. This proves the first part. For the second, a(v) = iv and, as
g + 1 is a multiple of 4, we have ag+1 (v) = v. Thus ag+1 fixes r, and therefore
ag+1 (ψ) = −ψ.
For the last assertion, observe that 1 − v 4 = 1/x2 and y 2 = qx(x + 1). This way,
ψ02 y 2 (1 − v 2 )2 (x(1 + v 2 ) − 1)2

=
(v − q)2 q qv 4
x(x + 1)(1 − v 2 )2 (x2 (1 + v 2 )2 + 1 − 2x(1 + v 2 ))
=
qv 4
x(x + 1)(x (1 − v ) + (1 − v 2 )2 − 2x(1 − v 4 )(1 − v 2 ))
2 4 2
=
qv 4
x(x + 1)(1−v ) + x(x + 1)(1−v 2 )2 − 2(1 + x)x2 (1−v 4 )(1−v 2 )
4
=
qv 4
2x(x + 1)(1 − v ) − 2(1 + x)(1 − v 2 )
2
2(x2 − 1)(1 − v 2 )
= =
qv 4 qv 4
2 2 2 2 2
2x (1 − v ) 2x (1 − v )(1 + v ) 2
= = = .
q q(1 + v 2 ) q(1 + v 2 )
This way we get
r2 ψ02 (1 + v 2 )2 (v − q)2 (1 + v 2 )(v − q)2

ψ2 = = 2 2
=
2 v q(1 + v ) qv 2
1 + v 2 v 2 + q 2 − 2qv 1 v q
= = +v + − 2 = r(s − 2).
v qv v q v
(5.4.16) Let ζ = f + ψ. Then C(x, y) = C(t, ζ). Moreover, the symmetry

γ = σ ◦ b satisfies
γ(i) = −i; γ(t) = t; γ(ζ) = ζ.
Hence γ acts on Yg as complex conjugation with respect to the coordinates t and ζ.
Indeed, as proved in (5.4.9), we have C(t) = Fix(M ), where M = ag+1 , b
Z2 ⊕ Z4 . Recall that ag+1 , b2 and ag+1 b2 are the only elements of order 2 of M , see
(9) in Proposition 5.3.4, that is, the maximal subfields of C(x, y) containing C(t) are
Fix(ag+1 ), Fix(b2 ) and Fix(ag+1 b2 ). Thus, to check the equality C(x, y) = C(t, ζ)
it suffices to prove that neither ag+1 nor b2 nor ag+1 b2 fixes ζ. Indeed, by (5.4.13)
and (5.4.15)
ag+1 (ζ) = ag+1 (f ) + ag+1 (ψ) = f − ψ = ζ,

b2 (ζ) = b2 (f ) + b2 (ψ) = −f + ψ = ζ,
ag+1 b2 (ζ) = ag+1 (−f + ψ) = −ζ = ζ.
As to the action of γ on i, t and ζ, observe that γ(i) = σ(i) = −i while γ(t) = t

because σ fixes q and b(q) = 1/q, by (5.4.9). Moreover, with the notations used in
(5.4.15), γ(ψ) = ψ and, by (5.4.11), γ(f ) = f . Thus, γ fixes ζ.
Therefore C(t, ζ) is the field of rational functions of Yg and so the irreducible

polynomial of ζ over C(t) is a defining equation for the Kulkarni surface. Since
C(x, y)|C(t) is a Galois extension with Galois group M = ag+1 , b, we have

(5.4.17) Irr(ζ, C(t)) = φ∈M (T − φ(ζ)).
In order to prove that the symmetry γ fixes points we are going to calculate
explicitly this last polynomial. First we will prove the following equality.
2 2
(5.4.18) Irr(ζ, C(t)) = T 2 − r(s − 2) − f 4 − 16f 4 r(s − 2)T 2 .
To calculate Irr(ζ, C(t)) consider first the factor
F1 (T ) = (T − ζ)(T − ag+1 (ζ)) = (T − f − ψ)(T − f + ψ)

= (T − f )2 − ψ 2 = T 2 − 2f T + f 2 − ψ 2 = T 2 − 2f T + f 2 − r(s − 2).
2
Secondly, we calculate the polynomial F2 = F1b whose coefficients are the images
of the coefficients of F1 under b2 . We observed in (5.4.9) that b(q) = 1/q and so
b(v) = 1/v. Hence b fixes r and s while b(f ) = if by (5.4.11). Hence b2 fixes r
and s but b2 (f ) = −f . Consequently,
F2 (T ) = T 2 + 2f T + f 2 − r(s − 2).
After multiplying we get
F3 (T ) = F1 (T )F2 (T ) = (T 2 + f 2 − r(s − 2))2 − 4f 2 T 2 .
Now we calculate, using the equality b(f 2 ) = b(f )2 = −f 2 , the polynomial
F3b (T ) = (T 2 − f 2 − r(s − 2))2 + 4f 2 T 2 .
Finally, we get
Irr(ζ, C(t)) = F3 (T )F3b (T )

= (T 2 +f 2 −r(s −2))2 −4f 2 T 2 (T 2 −f 2 − r(s − 2))2 +4f 2 T 2
2 2
= T 2 + f 2 − r(s − 2) T 2 − f 2 − r(s − 2) − 16f 4 T 4
2 2
+ 4f 2 T 2 T 2 + f 2 − r(s − 2) − T 2 − f 2 − r(s − 2)
2 2
= T 2 −r(s − 2) −f 4 −16f 4T 4 +16f 4T 2 T 2 +f 2 − r(s−2)
2 2
= T 2 − r(s − 2) − f 4 − 16f 4 r(s − 2)T 2
2 2
= T 2 − r(s − 2) + r2 (r2 − 4) + 16r3 (r2 − 4)(s − 2)T 2 .
We should express the coefficients of Irr(ζ, C(t)) as rational functions of the vari-
able t. Notice that
1 1 v q 1
r=v+ = q g0 + g0 and s = + = q g0 −1 + g0 −1 .
v q q v q
Thus it is enough to prove the following formula:

(5.4.19) For each non-negative integer n the function fn (t) = q n + 1/q n satisfies
[n/2]
1 n n−2k 2
fn (t) = t (t − 4)k ,
2n−1 2k
k=0
where [n/2] is the greatest integer less than or equal to n/2.

Notice that f0 (t) = 2 and f1 (t) = t. Moreover,
1 1
fn+1 (t) + fn−1 (t) = q n+1 + n+1 + q n−1 + n−1
q q
1 1
= q n+1 + n−1 + q n−1 + n+1
q q
1 1 1
= q qn + n + qn + n
q q q
= tfn (t).
Thus the sequence {fn (t)}n satisfies the second order recurrence relation
fn+1 (t) − tfn (t) + fn−1 (t) = 0,
whose characteristic polynomial is χ(U ) = U 2 − tU + 1, with roots U = (t ±

√
t2 − 4)/2. Hence there exist α, β ∈ C such that
t + √t2 − 4 n t − √t2 − 4 n
fn (t) = α +β .
2 2

α+β=2
Since f0 (t) = 2 and f1 (t) = t we get , that is, α = β = 1 and so
α−β=0
√ √
(t + t2 − 4)n + (t − t2 − 4)n
fn (t) = ,
2n
which yields, by Newton binomial, the formula in the statement.
As we pointed out, r = fg0 (t) and s = fg0 −1 (t). Moreover, g0 is odd because
g = 4g0 − 1 ≡ 3 (mod 8), and so
(g0 −1)/2
1 g0 g0 −2k 2
r = r(t) = fg0 (t) = t (t − 4)k ∈ R[t], and
2g0 −1 2k
k=0
(g0 −1)/2
1 g0 − 1 g0 −1−2k 2
s = s(t) = fg0 −1 (t) = t (t − 4)k ∈ R[t].
2g0 −2 2k
k=0
Then we get the irreducible polynomial of ζ over C(t) or, equivalently, a new equa-
tion of the function field of Yg , after substituting these values of r(t) and s(t) in the
formula of (5.4.18), that is, P (ζ, t) = 0, where
2 2
P (ζ, t) = ζ 2 − r(s − 2) + r2 (r2 − 4) + 16r3 (r2 − 4)(s − 2)ζ 2 ∈ R[ζ, t].
Hence, to show that the symmetry γ = σ ◦ b fixes points, it suffices to see that the
polynomial P (ζ, t) has infinitely many real zeros.
For each θ ∈ (π/2, π) define v(θ) = e4θi/g+1 ∈ R. Then q(θ) = v(θ)(g+1)/4 =
θi
e and this implies
1
r(θ) = q(θ) + = eθi + e−θi and
q(θ)
v(θ) q(θ)
s(θ) = + = e(g−3)θi/(g+1) + e(3−g)θi/(g+1) .
q(θ) v(θ)
√
Thus −2 < r(θ) < 0 and −2 < s(θ) < 2 because g ≥ 7. Then r(θ)(s(θ)−2) > 0
and so there exists a real number ζ1 (θ) such that ζ1 (θ)2 = r(θ)(s(θ) − 2). Hence,

P (ζ1 (θ), t(θ)) = r4 (θ)(r2 (θ) − 4) r2 (θ) − 4 + 16(s(θ) − 2)2 < 0,
while P (ζ2 , t(θ)) > 0 for big enough values of ζ2 .

Therefore, for each value of θ ∈ (π/2, π) there exist real numbers t(θ), ζ(θ) such
that P (ζ1 (θ), t(θ)) = 0, and we are done.
Chapter 6
Appendix
Let Mg be the moduli space of complex isomorphism classes of complex algebraic

curves of genus g ≥ 2. Let us denote by MR g the complex moduli space of real
algebraic curves of genus g, which consists of complex isomorphism classes of
complex algebraic curves of genus g ≥ 2 that are defined by real polynomials. Since
Mg is a quasiprojective variety defined in some projective space Pn (C) by means
of polynomials with real (in fact rational) coefficients, complex conjugation induces
an anticonformal involution σg∗ : Mg → Mg . It is clear that the set Fix(σg∗ ) of fixed
points of σg∗ contains MR g but, as observed by Clifford Earle [40] at the beginning
of the 1970’s, the inclusion MR ∗
g ⊂ Fix(σg ) is proper if g > 1. The curves whose
isomorphism classes occur in this difference Fix(σg∗ ) \ MR g are called asymmetric.
In this appendix we present an example of a family of hyperelliptic asymmetric
curves of given genus. It is worthwhile mentioning that Seppälä showed in [110]
that every asymmetric curve is, in fact, a covering of a real algebraic curve.
6.1 Compact Riemann Surfaces Without Symmetries
It is a classical result that for g ≥ 3, a “sufficiently general” (smooth, irreducible)

complex projective curve of genus g has no birational automorphism, except the
identity, as proved by Baily [6]. In the same vein, most complex algebraic curves
admit no symmetry. However, Earle in [40] was the first one who found asymmetric
Riemann surfaces admitting antianalytic automorphisms. Here we describe an in-
finite family of hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces admitting no symmetry. The group
of analytic automorphisms of the surfaces in this family is a direct product of two
cyclic groups. The construction we present is a particular case of the one in [26],
where the authors obtain a complete characterization of those hyperelliptic surfaces
which possess an anticonformal automorphism but are not symmetric.
A Family of Asymmetric Surfaces
Let n, be two positive integers, where n is even, and denote g = n − 1. Let

ξ = eπi/n and let B = {b1 , . . . , b2 } ⊂ C be a finite subset of complex numbers
such that all roots of the polynomial

146 6 Appendix
f (x) = (xn − bn1 ) · · · (xn − bn2 )
are simple. The Riemann surface SB with function field C(x, y), where y 2 = f (x),
is a hyperelliptic surface of genus (deg f −2)/2 = g. The automorphism of the field
extension C(x)|C defined by x → ξ 2 x induces a bijection on the set of roots of f ,
because (ξ 2k bi )n = bni . Thus, there exists an automorphism a of the field extension
C(x, y)|C satisfying a(x) = ξ 2 x.
(6.1.1) We look for a suitable choice of the set B such that the surface SB admits
an anticonformal automorphism τ with τ 2 = a. This implies, in particular, that τ is
not a symmetry. Since the covering
SB → Σ = SB /a ; (x, y) → x
ramifies over x = 0 and x = ∞, the automorphism τ must switch these two points.
Hence, there should exist a complex number α such that τ (x) = 1/(αx). In fact,

1 αx
ξ 2 x = a(x) = τ 2 (x) = τ = .
αx ᾱ
Therefore, as ξ is unitary, we can write ξ/ξ¯ = ξ 2 = α/ᾱ and we choose α = −ξ.

This way, for each index i we have

−1 ¯ −b¯i 1
τ (x − bi ) = − bi = x+ ¯ .
ξx x bi ξ
Consequently, −1/b¯i ξ should be a root of f for each root bi of f . Since ξ n = −1

n
and (−1)n = 1, we get (−1/b¯i ξ)n = −1/b¯i and so, for each factor xn − bni also
n
x + 1/b¯i is a factor of the polynomial f . The equalities
n
n n
−1 ¯ n −1 ¯ n −b¯i 1
τ (x −
n
bni ) = − bi = n − bi = n n
x + n and
ξx x x b¯i
n
1 −1 1 1 1 1
τ xn + n = + n = n − n = n n (xn − bni )
¯
bi ξx bi bi x bi x
show that the polynomial f can be assumed to have the form

1
f (x) = (x −
n
bni ) n
x + n .
i=1
b¯i
6.1 Compact Riemann Surfaces Without Symmetries 147
¯
Moreover, let c ∈ C be a square root of the product n
i=1 (−bi /bi ) . Then

1
2
τ (y) = τ (f (x)) = τ (x − bi ) x + n
n n n
i=1
b¯i
¯ n
−b i f (x) cy 2
= = .
i=1
bi x2n xg+1
Henceforth, the field extension C(x, y)|R associated to the surface SB admits the
anticonformal automorphism τ defined by
−1 cy
τ (i) = −i; τ (x) = ; τ (y) = .
ξx xg+1
As to the automorphism a of C(x, y)|C, the equality a = τ 2 implies a(y) = ξ g+1 y.

Indeed,
cy c̄cyξ g+1 xg+1
a(y) = τ = = ξ g+1 y
xg+1 (−1)g+1 xg+1
because g + 1 = n is even and c is unitary.

(6.1.2) The automorphism a has order n and the cyclic group a does not contain
the hyperelliptic involution ρ of SB , defined by ρ(x) = x and ρ(y) = −y. Thus the
group Aut(SB ) of conformal automorphisms of SB contains the group a ⊕ ρ =
Zn ⊕ Z2 . Moreover, the automorphisms τ and aρ have orders 2n and n respectively.
For the first statement, observe that ak (y) = ξ k(g+1) y and ak (x) = ξ 2k x. Hence
k
a is the identity if and only if 2n divides both k(g + 1) and 2k or, equivalently, n
divides k.
On the other hand, suppose that ρ = aj for some exponent j. This implies
ξ j(g+1) y = aj (y) = ρ(y) = −y and ξ 2j x = aj (x) = ρ(x) = x
or, equivalently, j(g + 1) must be divisible by n but not by 2n, and 2j must be a
multiple of 2n. This is impossible because g + 1 is even.
The third statement is evident because ρ commutes with a. Finally, τ 2n = an = 1
and, as n is even,
|τ |
n = |a| = |τ 2 | = =⇒ |τ | = 2n,
gcd(2, |τ |)
and |aρ| = lcm(|a|, |ρ|) = n, where lcm stands for the least common multiple.
(6.1.3) Let H = ρ be the subgroup generated by the hyperelliptic involution
and let G+ be the subgroup of the group G = τ ⊕ H = Z2n ⊕ Z2 consisting of
the conformal elements of G. We claim that G = Aut(SB ) unless the factor group
148 6 Appendix
Aut+ (SB )/H contains a subgroup containing aH and which is isomorphic either
to the dihedral group Dn or to the cyclic group Zkn for some integer k ≥ 2.
Indeed, suppose that G Aut(SB ). Then, the difference Aut(SB ) \ G contains
some conformal automorphism, and so also Zn = G+ /H Aut+ (SB )/H. But
this last factor group is a finite group of automorphisms of the Riemann sphere
SB /H and so Aut+ (SB )/H is isomorphic either to the symmetric group S4 , or to
the alternating groups A4 , A5 , or to the dihedral group Dm or to the cyclic group
Zm , for some multiple m of n.
Assume there exists a multiple m of n such that either Zm = Aut+ (SB )/H or
Dm = Aut+ (SB )/H. In the first case
Zn = G+ /H Aut+ (SB )/H Zm
and so Aut+ (SB )/H, which contains aH, is isomorphic to Zkn for some integer
k ≥ 2. In the second case also Dn ≤ Dm = Aut+ (SB )/H, and this proves our
claim in these two cases. Thus we may suppose that Aut+ (SB )/H A4 , S4 or
A5 , and so n = 2, 4, because S4 , A4 and A5 contain no element of order ≥ 6.
Assume first that n = 2. The Sylow 2-subgroups of A4 and A5 are isomorphic to
the Klein group Z2 ⊕ Z2 , while the Sylow 2-subgroups of S4 are isomorphic to the
dihedral group D4 . In either case the Sylow 2-subgroup of Aut+ (SB )/H containing
aH is isomorphic to Z2 and it is contained either in Z4 or in D2 .
Finally, if n = 4 then Aut+ (SB )/H = A4 or A5 , because these last groups have
no element of order 4. Thus Aut+ (SB )/H S4 and so it contains the dihedral
group D4 . This completes the proof of our claim.
(6.1.4) We are ready to determine explicit conditions on the set B = {b1 , . . . , b2 }
which imply that Aut(SB ) = τ ⊕ H = Z2n ⊕ Z2 . Notice that if this is the case
then the surface SB admits no symmetry. Indeed, the anticonformal automorphisms
of SB are of the form τ j ρ for some odd integer j. If one of them were a sym-
metry, its square aj = τ 2j would be the identity, that is, n would divide j, a
contradiction.
Hence, our task now is to find conditions on the set B such that the factor group
Aut+ (SB )/H contains no subgroup containing aH and which is isomorphic either
to the dihedral group Dn or to the cyclic group Zkn for some integer k ≥ 2.
First assume that Aut+ (SB )/H Zkn . In this case x = 0 and x = ∞ are
fixed by a conformal automorphism of SB of order kn. Thus, if ω = e2πi/kn , the
map x → ωx is an automorphism of order kn of the field extension C(x)|C which
lifts to C(x, y). Therefore, by (6.1.1), for each factor xn − bni of f, the polynomials
kn
xkn − bkn i and x
kn
− (−1)k /b¯i are also factors of f . Hence, for some divisor k
of , the surface SB should admit an equation of the form

/k
(−1)k+1
y2 = (xkn − bkn
i ) x
kn
+ kn
. (6.1)
i=1 b¯i
6.1 Compact Riemann Surfaces Without Symmetries 149
Assume now that Aut+ (SB )/H Dn . Then SB admits a conformal automorphism
of order 2 that interchanges x = 0 and x = ∞. Therefore the automorphism x →
1/x of C(x)|C induces a bijection of the set B. Hence, for each factor xn − bni of
f there exists an index j such that anj = 1/ani or −1/a¯j n = a¯i n . Consequently,
must be even and the surface SB should admit an equation of the form

/2
2 1 1 n
y = (x −
n
bni ) x − n
n
x + n (xn + b¯i ).
n
(6.2)
bi ¯
bi
i=1
This completes the proof of the following theorem.
Theorem 6.1.5. Let n, be positive integers with n even, and denote g = n − 1.

Let B = {b1 , . . . , b2 } ⊂ C be a finite set such that all roots of the polynomial
f (x) = (xn − bn1 ) · · · (xn − bn2 )
are simple. Suppose also that bn+j = −1/b̄nj for j = 1, . . . , .

(1) The compact Riemann surface SB with function field C(x, y), where
y 2 = f (x), is a hyperelliptic surface of genus g.
(2) Let ρ be the hyperelliptic involution of SB , let ξ = eπi/n and let c ∈ C be a

square root of the product i=1 (−b¯i /bi )n . The surface SB admits the group
τ ⊕ ρ = Z2n ⊕ Z2 as a group of automorphisms, where τ is the anticonfor-
mal automorphism of SB induced by the automorphism of the field extension
C(x, y)|R defined as
−1 cy
τ (i) = −i; τ (x) = ; τ (y) = .
ξx xg+1
(3) Suppose that a defining equation for SB cannot be expressed in the form (6.1)
or (6.2). Then τ ⊕ ρ = Z2n ⊕ Z2 is the full group of automorphisms of SB .
In particular, this surface admits no symmetry.
References
1. R. D. M. Accola: On the number of automorphisms of a closed Riemann surface. Trans. Am.

Math. Soc. 131, 398–408 (1968).
2. M. Akbas, D. Singerman: Symmetries of modular surfaces. Discrete groups and geometry.
Birmingham, 1991. London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series 173, 1–9. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge (1992).
3. N. Alling: Real Elliptic Curves. Mathematics Studies. Notas de Matematica. 54. North
Holland, New York (1981).
4. N. Alling, N. Greenleaf: Foundations of the theory of Klein surfaces. Lecture Notes in Math.
219. Springer, Berlin (1971).
5. C. Andreian Cazacu: On the morphisms of Klein surfaces. Rev. Roum. Math. Pures Appl.
31(6), 461–470 (1986).
6. W. L. Jr. Baily: On the automorphism group of a generic curve of genus > 2. J. Math. Kyoto
Univ. 1 2, 101–108 (1961). Correction p. 325.
7. G. Belyi: On Galois extensions of a maximal cyclotomic field. Math. USSR Izv. 14(2),
247–256 (1980).
8. S. A. Broughton, E. Bujalance, A. F. Costa, J. M. Gamboa, G. Gromadzki: Symmetries of
Riemann surfaces in which PSL(2, q ) acts as a Hurwitz automorphism group. J. Pure App.
Alg. 106(2), 113–126 (1996).
9. S. A. Broughton, E. Bujalance, A. F. Costa, J. M. Gamboa, G. Gromadzki: Symmetries of
Accola-Maclachlan and Kulkarni surfaces. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 127(3), 637–646 (1999).
10. E. Bujalance: Normal subgroups of NEC groups. Math. Zeit. 178, 331–341 (1981).
11. E. Bujalance: Proper periods of normal NEC subgroups with even index. Rev. Mat. Hisp. Am.
41(4), 121–127 (1981).
12. E. Bujalance: Normal NEC signatures. Illinois J. Math. 26, 519–530 (1982).
13. E. Bujalance, F. J. Cirre: A family of Riemann surfaces with orientation reversing automor-
phisms. In the Tradition of Ahlfors-Bers, V. Contemp. Math. 510, 25–33, Amer. Math. Soc.
(2010).
14. E. Bujalance, F. J. Cirre, J. M. Gamboa, G. Gromadzki: Symmetry types of hyperelliptic
Riemann surfaces. Mémoires de la Société Mathématique de France 86 (2001).
15. E. Bujalance, F. J. Cirre, J. M. Gamboa, G. Gromadzki: On symmetries of compact Riemann
surfaces with cyclic groups of automorphisms. J. Algebra 301(1), 82–95 (2006).
16. E. Bujalance, F. J. Cirre, J. M. Gamboa, G. Gromadzki: On the number of ovals of a symmetry
of a compact Riemann surface. Rev. Mat. Iberoam. 24(2), 391–405 (2008).
17. E. Bujalance, M. D. E. Conder, A. F. Costa: Pseudo-real Riemann surfaces and chiral regular
maps. Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 362(7), 3365–3376 (2010).
18. E. Bujalance, M. D. E. Conder, J. M. Gamboa, G. Gromadzki, M. Izquierdo: Double coverings
of Klein surfaces by a given Riemann surface. J. Pure Appl. Algebra 169(2–3), 137–151
(2002).
19. E. Bujalance, A. F. Costa: On symmetries of p-hyperelliptic Riemann surfaces. Math. Ann.
308, 31–45 (1997).
151
152 References
20. E. Bujalance, A. F. Costa, G. Gromadzki: On projecting symmetries by unbranched regular

coverings of Riemann surfaces, Transform. Groups 14(1), 115–126 (2009).
21. E. Bujalance, A. F. Costa, D. Singerman: Application of Hoare’s theorem to symmetries of
Riemann surfaces. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. 18, 307–322 (1983).
22. E. Bujalance, J. J. Etayo, J. M. Gamboa, G. Gromadzki: Automorphism Groups of Compact
Bordered Klein Surfaces. A combinatorial approach. Lecture Notes Series 1439. Springer,
Berlin (1990).
23. E. Bujalance, G. Gromadzki, M. Izquierdo: On real forms of a complex algebraic curve.
J. Aust. Math. Soc. 70(1), 134–142 (2001).
24. E. Bujalance, G. Gromadzki, D. Singerman: On the number of real curves associated to a
complex algebraic curve. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 120(2), 507–513 (1994).
25. E. Bujalance, D. Singerman: The symmetry type of a Riemann surface. Proc. Lond. Math.
Soc. 173(3), 501–519 (1985).
26. E. Bujalance, P. Turbek: Asymmetric and pseudo-symmetric hyperelliptic surfaces.
Manuscripta Mathematica 108, 1–11. Springer, Berlin (2002).
27. J. A. Bujalance: Normal subgroups of even index in an NEC group. Arch. Math. 49, 470–478
(1987).
28. P. Buser, M. Seppälä, R. Silhol: Triangulations and moduli spaces of Riemann surfaces with
group actions. Manuscripta Math. 88(2), 209–224 (1995).
29. F. Catanese: Moduli spaces of surfaces and real structures. Ann. Math. (2) 158(2), 577–592
(2003).
30. F. J. Cirre: Birational classification of hyperelliptic real algebraic curves. The geometry of
Riemann surfaces and abelian varieties. Contemp. Math. 397, 15–25, Amer. Math. Soc., Prov-
idence (2006).
31. F. J. Cirre: The moduli space of real algebraic curves of genus 2. Pacific J. Math. 208(1),
53–72 (2003).
32. F. J. Cirre, J. M. Gamboa: Compact Klein surfaces and real algebraic curves. Topics on
Riemann Surfaces and Fuchsian Groups. London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series 287,
113–130 (2001).
33. M. D. E. Conder: Groups of minimal genus including C2 extensions of PSL(2, q) for certain
q . Quart. J. Math. Oxford 38, 449–460 (1987).
34. A. F. Costa, M. Izquierdo: On the connectedness of the locus of real Riemann surfaces. Ann.
Acad. Sci. Fenn. 27(2), 341–356 (2002).
35. A. F. Costa, M. Izquierdo: Symmetries of real cyclic p-gonal Riemann surfaces. Pac. J. Math.
213(2), 231–243 (2004).
36. A. F. Costa, M. Izquierdo: On real trigonal Riemann surfaces. Math. Scand. 98(1), 53–68
(2006).
37. H. S. M. Coxeter, W. O. J. Moser: Generators and Relations for Discrete Groups. (Fourth
Edition). Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete 14. Springer, Berlin (1980).
38. E. Dickson: Linear groups with an exposition of the Galois field theory. Dover, New York
(1980).
39. P. DuVal: Elliptic Functions and Elliptic Curves. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
(1973).
40. C. Earle: On the moduli of closed Riemann surfaces with symmetries. Advances in the theory
of Riemann surfaces. Ann. Math. Stud. 66, 119–130 (1971).
41. J. L. Estévez, M. Izquierdo: Non-normal pairs of non-Euclidean crystallographic groups. Bull.
Lond. Math. Soc. 38(1), 113–123 (2006).
42. B. Everitt: A family of conformally asymmetric Riemann surfaces. Glasg. Math. J. 39(2),
221–225 (1997).
43. H. Farkas, I. Kra: Riemann surfaces. Graduate Text in Mathematics 71, Springer, Berlin
(1980).
44. R. Fricke, F. Klein: Vorlesungen über die Theorie der automorphen Funktionen (2 vols.)
B. G. Teubner, Leipzig. (1897 and 1912).
45. J. M. Gamboa: Compact Klein surfaces with boundary viewed as real compact smooth alge-
braic curves. Mem. Real Acad. Ciencias. 27 Madrid (1991).
References 153
46. GAP-Groups, algorithms and programming. Version 3 Release 4.4 (1997) (Lehrstuhl D für
Mathematik, RWTH, Aachen, Germany).
47. L. Greenberg: Maximal Fuchsian groups. Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 69, 569–573 (1963).
48. G. Gromadzki: Groups of Automorphisms of Compact Riemann and Klein Surfaces.
University Press, WSP, Bydgoszcz (1993).
49. G. Gromadzki: On a Harnack-Natanzon theorem for the family of real forms of Riemann
surfaces. J. Pure Appl. Alg. 121, 253–269 (1997).
50. G. Gromadzki: On ovals on Riemann surfaces. Rev. Mat. Iberoam.16(3), 515–527 (2000).
51. G. Gromadzki: Symmetries of Riemann surfaces from a combinatorial point of view. London
Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series 287, 91–112. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2001).
52. G. Gromadzki: On Singerman symmetries of a class of Belyi Riemann surfaces. J. Pure Appl.
Alg. 213(10), 1905–1910 (2009).
53. G. Gromadzki, M. Izquierdo: Real forms of a Riemann surface of even genus. Proc. Amer.
Math. Soc. 126(12), 3475–3479 (1998).
54. G. Gromadzki, M. Izquierdo: On ovals of Riemann surfaces of even genera. Geometriae Ded-
icata 78, 81–88 (1999).
55. G. Gromadzki, E. Kozłowska-Walania: On fixed points of doubly symmetric Riemann sur-
faces. Glasg. Math. J. 50(3), 371–378 (2008).
56. G. Gromadzki, E. Kozłowska-Walania: On ovals of non-conjugate symmetries of Riemann
surfaces. Int. J. Math. 20(1), 1–13 (2009).
57. B. H. Gross, J. Harris: Real algebraic curves. Ann. Sci. École Norm. Sup.14, 157–182 (1981).
58. W. Hall: Automorphisms and coverings of Klein surfaces. Ph. D. Thesis. Southampton
University (1977).
59. A. Harnack: Über die Vieltheiligkeit der ebenen algebraischen Kurven. Math Ann. 10,
189–198 (1876).
60. A. H. M. Hoare: Subgroups of NEC groups and finite permutation groups. Quarterly J. Math.
Oxford (2) 41, 45–59 (1990).
61. A. H. M. Hoare, D. Singerman: The orientability of subgroups of plane groups. London Math.
Soc. Lecture Note Series 71, 221–227 (1982).
62. J. Huisman, M. Lattarulo: Imaginary automorphisms on real hyperelliptic curves. J. Pure
Appl. Algebra 200(3), 318–331 (2005).
63. M. Izquierdo, D. Singerman: Pairs of symmetries of Riemann surfaces. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn.
Math. 23(1), 3–24 (1998).
64. L. Keen: On Fricke moduli. Advances in the theory of Riemann surfaces. Ann. Math. Stud.
66, 205–224 (1971).
65. F. Klein: Über die Transformationen siebenter Ordnung der elliptischen Functionen. Math.
Ann. 14, 428–471 (1879).
66. B. Köck, D. Singerman: Real Belyi theory. Q. J. Math. 58, 463–478 (2007).
67. B. Köck, E. Lau: A note on Belyi’s theorem for Klein surfaces. Q. J. Math. 61, 103–107
(2010).
68. E. Kozłowska-Walania: On p-hyperellipticity of doubly symmetric Riemann surfaces. Publi-
cacions Matematiques 51, 291–307 (2007).
69. E. Kozłowska-Walania: On commutativity and ovals for a pair of symmetries of a Riemann
surface. Colloq. Math. 109, 61–69 (2007).
70. R. S. Kulkarni: A note on Wiman and Accola-Maclachlan surfaces. Ann. Acad. Sci. Fenn. 16,
83–94 (1991).
71. A. G. Kurosch: Gruppentheorie. Berlin (1953).
72. A. M. Macbeath: On a curve of genus 7. Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 15, 527–542 (1965).
73. A. M. Macbeath: The classification of non-euclidean plane crystallographic groups. Can.
J. Math. 19, 1192–1205 (1967).
74. A. M. Macbeath: Generators of the linear fractional groups. Number Theory Proc. Symposia
in Pure Mathematics 12. American Mathematical Society, Providence, 14–32 (1969).
75. A. M. Macbeath: Action of automorphisms of a compact Riemann surface on the first
homology group. Bull. Lond. Math. Soc. 5, 103–108 (1973).
154 References
76. A. M. Macbeath, D. Singerman: Spaces of subgroups and Teichmüller space. Proc. Lond.
Math. Soc. 31(3), 211–256 (1975).
77. C. Maclachlan: A bound for the number of automorphisms of a compact Riemann surface.
J. Lond. Math. Soc. 44, 265–272 (1969).
78. B. Maskit: Remarks on m-symmetric Riemann surfaces. Lipa’s legacy. Contemp. Math. 211,
433–445 (1995).
79. C. L. May: Automorphisms of compact Klein surfaces with boundary. Pac. J. Math. 59,
199–210 (1975).
80. C. L. May: Cyclic automorphism groups of compact bordered Klein surfaces. Houst. J. Math.
3, 395–405 (1977).
81. C. L. May: A bound for the number of automorphisms of a compact Klein surface with bound-
ary. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 63, 273–280 (1977).
82. C. L. May: Large automorphism groups of compact Klein surfaces with boundary I. Glasg.
Math. J. 18, 1–10 (1977).
83. C. L. May: Maximal symmetry and fully wound coverings. Proc. Am. Math. Soc. 79, 23–31
(1980).
84. C. L. May: The species of Klein surfaces with maximal symmetry of low genus. Pac. J. Math.
111, 371–394 (1984).
85. C. L. May: A family of M ∗ -groups. Can. J. Math. 38, 1094–1109 (1986).
86. C. L. May: Nilpotent automorphism groups of bordered Klein surfaces. Proc. Am. Math. Soc.
101, 287–292 (1987).
87. C. L. May: Supersolvable M ∗ -groups. Glasg. Math. J. 30, 31–40 (1988).
88. C. L. May. Complex doubles of bordered Klein surfaces with maximal symmetry. Glasg.
Math. J. 33, 61–67 (1991).
89. C. L. May: The Groups of Real Genus 4. Mich. Math. J. 39, 219–228 (1992).
90. C. L. May: Finite groups acting on bordered surfaces and the real genus of a group. Rocky Mt.
J. Math. 23, 707–724 (1993).
91. A. D. Mednykh: Hyperbolic Riemann surfaces with the trivial group of automorphisms. De-
formations of mathematical structures (Łdź/Lublin, 1985/87), 115–125, Kluwer Acad. Publ.,
Dordrecht (1989).
92. R. Miranda: Algebraic Curves and Riemann Surfaces. Graduate Studies in Mathematics. 5.
American Mathematical Society (1995).
93. B. Mockiewicz: Real Genus 12, Rocky Mt. J. Math 34(4), 1391–1398 (2004).
94. G. Nakamura: The existence of symmetric Riemann surfaces determined by cyclic groups.
Nagoya Math. J. 151, 129–143 (1998).
95. S. M. Natanzon: On the order of a finite group of homeomorphisms of a surface into itself and
the number of real forms of a complex algebraic curve. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 242, 765–768
(1978). Soviet Math. Dokl. 19(5), 1195–1199 (1978).
96. S. M. Natanzon: Automorphisms of the Riemann surface of an M -curve. (Russian) Funkt-
sional. Anal. i Prilozhen.12(3), 82–83 (1978). Functional Anal. Appl. 12, 228–229 (1978).
97. S. M. Natanzon: Moduli spaces of real curves. Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obshch. 37, 219–253
(1978). Trans. Moscow Math. Soc. 1, 233–272 (1980).
98. S. M. Natanzon: Lobachevskii geometry and automorphisms of complex M -curves. Geomet-
ric methods in problems of analysis and algebra, (Yaroslav), 130–151 (1978). Selecta Math.
Soviet. 1(1), 81–99 (1981).
99. S. M. Natanzon: Automorphisms and real forms of a class of complex algebraic curves. Funk-
tsional Anal. i Priloz. 13(2), 89–90 (1979). Funct. Anal. Appl. 13, 148–150 (1979).
100. S. M. Natanzon: On the total number of ovals of real forms of complex algebraic curves.
Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 35(1), 207–208 (1980). Russ. Math. Surveys 35(1), 223–224 (1980).
101. S. M. Natanzon: On the total number of ovals of four complex-isomorphic real algebraic
curves. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 35(4), 184 (1980). Russ. Math. Surveys 35(4), 177 (1980).
102. S. M. Natanzon: Topological classification of pairs of commuting antiholomorphic involu-
tions of Riemann surfaces. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 41(5), 191–192 (1986). Russ. Math. Surveys
41(5), 159–160 (1986).
References 155
103. S. M. Natanzon: Uniformization of spaces of real meromorphic functions. Dokl. Akad. Nauk.
SSSR 287, 1058–1061 (1986). Sov. Math. Dokl. 33, 487–490 (1986).
104. S. M. Natanzon: Real meromorphic functions on real algebraic curves. Dokl. Akad. Nauk.
SSSR 297, 40–43 (1987). Sov. Math. Dokl. 36, 425–427 (1988).
105. S. M. Natanzon: Finite groups of homeomorphisms of surfaces and real forms of complex
algebraic curves. Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obshch. 51, 3–53 (1988). Trans. Moscow Math. Soc.
51, 1–51 (1988).
106. S. M. Natanzon: Klein surfaces. Uspekhi Mat. Nauk. 45(6), 47–90 (1990). Russ. Math. Sur-
veys 45(6), 43–108 (1990).
107. S. M. Natanzon: Geometry and algebra of real forms of complex curves. Math. Zeit. 243,
391–407 (2003).
108. S. M. Natanzon: Moduli of Riemann surfaces, real algebraic curves, and their superanalogs.
Translated from the 2003 Russian edition by Sergei Lando. Translations of Mathematical
Monographs, 225. American Mathematical Society, Providence (2004).
109. K. Reidemeister: Automorphismen von Homotopiekettenringen. Math. Ann. 112(1), 586–593
(1936).
110. M. Seppälä: Complex algebraic curves with real moduli. J. Reine Angew. Math. 387, 209–220
(1988).
111. M. Seppälä: Real algebraic curves in the moduli space of complex curves. Compos. Math. 74,
259–283 (1990).
112. M. Seppälä: Moduli spaces of real algebraic curves.Topics on Riemann surfaces and Fuchsian
groups. London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Series 287, 133–153, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge (2001).
113. M. Seppälä, T. Sorvali, Geometry of Riemann surfaces and Teichmüller spaces, North-
Holland Mathematics Studies, 169, Amsterdam (1992).
114. R. J. Sibner: Symmetric Fuchsian groups. Amer. J. Math. 90, 1237–1259 (1968).
115. D. Singerman: Non-Euclidean crystallographic groups and Riemann surfaces. Ph. D. Thesis,
University of Birmingham (1969).
116. D. Singerman: Subgroups of Fuchsian groups and finite permutation groups. Bull. Lond.
Math. Soc. 2, 319–323 (1970).
117. D. Singerman: Finitely generated maximal Fuchsian groups. J. Lond. Math. Soc. 6, 29–38
(1972).
118. D. Singerman: Symmetries of Riemann Surfaces with Large Automorphism Group. Math.
Ann. 210, 17–32 (1974).
119. D. Singerman: On the structure of non-euclidean crystallographic groups. Proc. Camb. Phil.
Soc. 76, 233–240 (1974).
120. D. Singerman: Symmetries and pseudosymmetries of hyperelliptic surfaces. Glasg. Math. J.
21, 39–49 (1980).
121. D. Singerman: Mirrors on Riemann surfaces. Contemp. Math. 184, 411–417 (1995).
122. M. Suzuki: Group Theory I. Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 247. Springer,
Berlin (1982).
123. P. Turbek: An explicit family of curves with trivial automorphism groups. Proc. Am. Math.
Soc. 122(2), 657–664 (1994).
124. P. Turbek: The full automorphism group of the Kulkarni surface. Rev. Mat. Univ. Complut.
Madrid 10(2), 265–276 (1997).
125. P. Turbek: Algebraic curves, Riemann surfaces and Klein surfaces with no non-trivial auto-
morphisms or symmetries. Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc. 45(1), 141–148 (2002).
126. E. Tyszkowska: On Macbeath-Singerman symmetries of Belyi surfaces with PSL(2, p) as a
group of automorphisms. Cent. Eur. J. Math. 1(2), 208–220 (2003).
127. G. Weichold: Über symmetrische Riemannsche Flächen und die Periodizitätsmodulen der
zugehörigen Abelschen Normalintegrale erstes Gattung. Leipziger Dissertation (1883).
128. H. C. Wilkie: On non-euclidean crystallographic groups. Math. Zeit. 91, 87–102 (1966).
Index
Symbols canonical surface symbol, 2

H -number, 95 contribution of a reflection, 34
H, 1
Aut(S), 16
dim(Λ), 13 D
L(ω), 71 dianalytic structure, 11
|| S ||, xv
|| σ ||, 33
μf (g), 26, 27 F
μi (g), 29 Fuchsian group, 2
μw triangle, 3
i (g), 29
ν(g), xv fundamental parallelogram of a lattice, 69
sp(σ), xii fundamental region of an NEC group, 2
ϕ-conjugacy, 91
ci ∼ cj , 10
G
(M−q )-symmetry, 61 genus of a Klein surface, 11
C(Λ, c), 9
H
A Hurwitz automorphism group, 95
abstractly orientable group, 21 Hurwitz group, 95
orientation in an, 21 Hurwitz-Riemann formula, 6
abstractly oriented group, 21 hyperelliptic involution, 82
Accola-Maclachlan surface, xviii, 110 hyperelliptic Riemann surface, 82
area
of a signature, 5
of an NEC group, 5 I
asymmetric surface, xix isotropy group, 91
automorphism
group of a Riemann surface, 16
of a Riemann surface, 16 K
of the hyperbolic plane, 2 Klein quartic, xvii, 95
Klein surface, xii, 11
Kulkarni surface, xviii, 110
B
bordered surface NEC group, 11
L
lattice, 69
C hexagonal, 71
canonical Fuchsian group, 2 square, 71
157
158 Index
liftings of a Möbius transformation, 83 S

link periods, 3 set of canonical generators of an NEC group, 3
signature
abstract, 3
M Fuchsian, 6
Macbeath-Singerman surface, 96 maximal Fuchsian, 13
Macbeath-Singerman symmetry, xvii maximal NEC, 13
modular group, 14
NEC, 6
moduli space, 14
of a Fuchsian group, 3
of an NEC group, 3
N triangle Fuchsian, 3
NEC group, 2 triangle NEC, 4
maximal, 13 Singerman symmetry, xvii
triangle , 4 smooth epimorphism, 12
normal pair, 13 smooth factor of an NEC group, 12
species
of a symmetry, xii, 16
O surface NEC group, 11
orbit genus, 3 symmetric Riemann surface, xi, 15
oval of a symmetry, 15 of the first type, 92
of the second type, 92
symmetry
P
non-separating, xii, 15
period cycle, 3
presentation of an NEC group, 3 of a Riemann surface, xi, 15
proper periods, 3 separating, xii, 15
pseudosymmetry, 87 symmetry type, 16
R
real algebraic curve, xi T
purely imaginary, xii Teichmüller space, 14
real form, xii topological type of a symmetry, xii, 15
real structure of a Riemann surface, 15 topologically equivalent actions, 12
Lecture Notes in Mathematics
For information about earlier volumes
please contact your bookseller or Springer
LNM Online archive: springerlink.com
Vol. 1816: S. Albeverio, W. Schachermayer, M. Tala- Vol. 1837: S. Tavaré, O. Zeitouni, Lectures on Probabil-
grand, Lectures on Probability Theory and Statistics. ity Theory and Statistics. Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de
Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXX-2000. Saint-Flour XXXI-2001. Editor: J. Picard (2004)
Editor: P. Bernard (2003) Vol. 1838: A.J. Ganesh, N.W. O’Connell, D.J. Wischik,
Vol. 1817: E. Koelink, W. Van Assche (Eds.), Orthogonal Big Queues. XII, 254 p, 2004.
Polynomials and Special Functions. Leuven 2002 (2003) Vol. 1839: R. Gohm, Noncommutative Stationary Pro-
Vol. 1818: M. Bildhauer, Convex Variational Problems cesses. VIII, 170 p, 2004.
with Linear, nearly Linear and/or Anisotropic Growth Vol. 1840: B. Tsirelson, W. Werner, Lectures on Probabil-
Conditions (2003) ity Theory and Statistics. Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de
Vol. 1819: D. Masser, Yu. V. Nesterenko, H. P. Schlick- Saint-Flour XXXII-2002. Editor: J. Picard (2004)
ewei, W. M. Schmidt, M. Waldschmidt, Diophantine Vol. 1841: W. Reichel, Uniqueness Theorems for Vari-
Approximation. Cetraro, Italy 2000. Editors: F. Amoroso, ational Problems by the Method of Transformation
U. Zannier (2003) Groups (2004)
Vol. 1820: F. Hiai, H. Kosaki, Means of Hilbert Space Vol. 1842: T. Johnsen, A. L. Knutsen, K3 Projective Mod-
Operators (2003) els in Scrolls (2004)
Vol. 1821: S. Teufel, Adiabatic Perturbation Theory in Vol. 1843: B. Jefferies, Spectral Properties of Noncom-
Quantum Dynamics (2003) muting Operators (2004)
Vol. 1822: S.-N. Chow, R. Conti, R. Johnson, J. Mallet- Vol. 1844: K.F. Siburg, The Principle of Least Action in
Paret, R. Nussbaum, Dynamical Systems. Cetraro, Italy Geometry and Dynamics (2004)
2000. Editors: J. W. Macki, P. Zecca (2003) Vol. 1845: Min Ho Lee, Mixed Automorphic Forms, Torus
Vol. 1823: A. M. Anile, W. Allegretto, C. Ringhofer, Bundles, and Jacobi Forms (2004)
Mathematical Problems in Semiconductor Physics. Vol. 1846: H. Ammari, H. Kang, Reconstruction of Small
Cetraro, Italy 1998. Editor: A. M. Anile (2003) Inhomogeneities from Boundary Measurements (2004)
Vol. 1824: J. A. Navarro González, J. B. Sancho de Salas, Vol. 1847: T.R. Bielecki, T. Bjrk, M. Jeanblanc, M.
C ∞ – Differentiable Spaces (2003) Rutkowski, J.A. Scheinkman, W. Xiong, Paris-Princeton
Vol. 1825: J. H. Bramble, A. Cohen, W. Dahmen, Mul- Lectures on Mathematical Finance 2003 (2004)
tiscale Problems and Methods in Numerical Simulations, Vol. 1848: M. Abate, J. E. Fornaess, X. Huang, J. P. Rosay,
Martina Franca, Italy 2001. Editor: C. Canuto (2003) A. Tumanov, Real Methods in Complex and CR Geom-
Vol. 1826: K. Dohmen, Improved Bonferroni Inequal- etry, Martina Franca, Italy 2002. Editors: D. Zaitsev, G.
ities via Abstract Tubes. Inequalities and Identities of Zampieri (2004)
Inclusion-Exclusion Type. VIII, 113 p, 2003. Vol. 1849: Martin L. Brown, Heegner Modules and Ellip-
Vol. 1827: K. M. Pilgrim, Combinations of Complex tic Curves (2004)
Dynamical Systems. IX, 118 p, 2003. Vol. 1850: V. D. Milman, G. Schechtman (Eds.), Ge-
Vol. 1828: D. J. Green, Grbner Bases and the Computation ometric Aspects of Functional Analysis. Israel Seminar
of Group Cohomology. XII, 138 p, 2003. 2002-2003 (2004)
Vol. 1829: E. Altman, B. Gaujal, A. Hordijk, Discrete- Vol. 1851: O. Catoni, Statistical Learning Theory and
Event Control of Stochastic Networks: Multimodularity Stochastic Optimization (2004)
and Regularity. XIV, 313 p, 2003. Vol. 1852: A.S. Kechris, B.D. Miller, Topics in Orbit
Vol. 1830: M. I. Gil’, Operator Functions and Localization Equivalence (2004)
of Spectra. XIV, 256 p, 2003. Vol. 1853: Ch. Favre, M. Jonsson, The Valuative Tree
Vol. 1831: A. Connes, J. Cuntz, E. Guentner, N. Hig- (2004)
son, J. E. Kaminker, Noncommutative Geometry, Martina Vol. 1854: O. Saeki, Topology of Singular Fibers of Dif-
Franca, Italy 2002. Editors: S. Doplicher, L. Longo (2004) ferential Maps (2004)
Vol. 1832: J. Azéma, M. Émery, M. Ledoux, M. Yor Vol. 1855: G. Da Prato, P.C. Kunstmann, I. Lasiecka,
(Eds.), Séminaire de Probabilités XXXVII (2003) A. Lunardi, R. Schnaubelt, L. Weis, Functional Analytic
Vol. 1833: D.-Q. Jiang, M. Qian, M.-P. Qian, Mathe- Methods for Evolution Equations. Editors: M. Iannelli,
matical Theory of Nonequilibrium Steady States. On the R. Nagel, S. Piazzera (2004)
Frontier of Probability and Dynamical Systems. IX, 280 Vol. 1856: K. Back, T.R. Bielecki, C. Hipp, S. Peng,
p, 2004. W. Schachermayer, Stochastic Methods in Finance, Bres-
Vol. 1834: Yo. Yomdin, G. Comte, Tame Geometry with sanone/Brixen, Italy, 2003. Editors: M. Fritelli, W. Rung-
Application in Smooth Analysis. VIII, 186 p, 2004. galdier (2004)
Vol. 1835: O.T. Izhboldin, B. Kahn, N.A. Karpenko, Vol. 1857: M. Émery, M. Ledoux, M. Yor (Eds.),
A. Vishik, Geometric Methods in the Algebraic Theory Séminaire de Probabilités XXXVIII (2005)
of Quadratic Forms. Summer School, Lens, 2000. Editor: Vol. 1858: A.S. Cherny, H.-J. Engelbert, Singular Stochas-
J.-P. Tignol (2004) tic Differential Equations (2005)
Vol. 1836: C. Nǎstǎsescu, F. Van Oystaeyen, Methods of Vol. 1859: E. Letellier, Fourier Transforms of Invariant
Graded Rings. XIII, 304 p, 2004. Functions on Finite Reductive Lie Algebras (2005)
Vol. 1860: A. Borisyuk, G.B. Ermentrout, A. Friedman, Vol. 1884: N. Hayashi, E.I. Kaikina, P.I. Naumkin,
D. Terman, Tutorials in Mathematical Biosciences I. I.A. Shishmarev, Asymptotics for Dissipative Nonlinear
Mathematical Neurosciences (2005) Equations (2006)
Vol. 1861: G. Benettin, J. Henrard, S. Kuksin, Hamilto- Vol. 1885: A. Telcs, The Art of Random Walks (2006)
nian Dynamics – Theory and Applications, Cetraro, Italy, Vol. 1886: S. Takamura, Splitting Deformations of Dege-
1999. Editor: A. Giorgilli (2005) nerations of Complex Curves (2006)
Vol. 1862: B. Helffer, F. Nier, Hypoelliptic Estimates and Vol. 1887: K. Habermann, L. Habermann, Introduction to
Spectral Theory for Fokker-Planck Operators and Witten Symplectic Dirac Operators (2006)
Laplacians (2005) Vol. 1888: J. van der Hoeven, Transseries and Real Differ-
Vol. 1863: H. Führ, Abstract Harmonic Analysis of Con- ential Algebra (2006)
tinuous Wavelet Transforms (2005) Vol. 1889: G. Osipenko, Dynamical Systems, Graphs, and
Vol. 1864: K. Efstathiou, Metamorphoses of Hamiltonian Algorithms (2006)
Systems with Symmetries (2005) Vol. 1890: M. Bunge, J. Funk, Singular Coverings of
Vol. 1865: D. Applebaum, B.V. R. Bhat, J. Kustermans, Toposes (2006)
J. M. Lindsay, Quantum Independent Increment Processes Vol. 1891: J.B. Friedlander, D.R. Heath-Brown,
I. From Classical Probability to Quantum Stochastic Cal- H. Iwaniec, J. Kaczorowski, Analytic Number Theory,
culus. Editors: M. Schürmann, U. Franz (2005) Cetraro, Italy, 2002. Editors: A. Perelli, C. Viola (2006)
Vol. 1892: A. Baddeley, I. Bárány, R. Schneider, W. Weil,
Vol. 1866: O.E. Barndorff-Nielsen, U. Franz, R. Gohm,
Stochastic Geometry, Martina Franca, Italy, 2004. Editor:
B. Kümmerer, S. Thorbjønsen, Quantum Independent
W. Weil (2007)
Increment Processes II. Structure of Quantum Lévy
Vol. 1893: H. Hanßmann, Local and Semi-Local Bifur-
Processes, Classical Probability, and Physics. Editors: M.
cations in Hamiltonian Dynamical Systems, Results and
Schürmann, U. Franz, (2005)
Examples (2007)
Vol. 1867: J. Sneyd (Ed.), Tutorials in Mathematical Bio-
Vol. 1894: C.W. Groetsch, Stable Approximate Evaluation
sciences II. Mathematical Modeling of Calcium Dynamics
of Unbounded Operators (2007)
and Signal Transduction. (2005)
Vol. 1895: L. Molnár, Selected Preserver Problems on
Vol. 1868: J. Jorgenson, S. Lang, Posn (R) and Eisenstein Algebraic Structures of Linear Operators and on Function
Series. (2005) Spaces (2007)
Vol. 1869: A. Dembo, T. Funaki, Lectures on Probabil- Vol. 1896: P. Massart, Concentration Inequalities and
ity Theory and Statistics. Ecole d’Eté de Probabilités de Model Selection, Ecole d’Été de Probabilités de Saint-
Saint-Flour XXXIII-2003. Editor: J. Picard (2005) Flour XXXIII-2003. Editor: J. Picard (2007)
Vol. 1870: V.I. Gurariy, W. Lusky, Geometry of Mntz Vol. 1897: R. Doney, Fluctuation Theory for Lévy Pro-
Spaces and Related Questions. (2005) cesses, Ecole d’Été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXXV-
Vol. 1871: P. Constantin, G. Gallavotti, A.V. Kazhikhov, 2005. Editor: J. Picard (2007)
Y. Meyer, S. Ukai, Mathematical Foundation of Turbu- Vol. 1898: H.R. Beyer, Beyond Partial Differential Equa-
lent Viscous Flows, Martina Franca, Italy, 2003. Editors: tions, On linear and Quasi-Linear Abstract Hyperbolic
M. Cannone, T. Miyakawa (2006) Evolution Equations (2007)
Vol. 1872: A. Friedman (Ed.), Tutorials in Mathemati- Vol. 1899: Séminaire de Probabilités XL. Editors:
cal Biosciences III. Cell Cycle, Proliferation, and Cancer C. Donati-Martin, M. Émery, A. Rouault, C. Stricker
(2006) (2007)
Vol. 1873: R. Mansuy, M. Yor, Random Times and En- Vol. 1900: E. Bolthausen, A. Bovier (Eds.), Spin Glasses
largements of Filtrations in a Brownian Setting (2006) (2007)
Vol. 1874: M. Yor, M. Émery (Eds.), In Memoriam Vol. 1901: O. Wittenberg, Intersections de deux
Paul-Andr Meyer - Sminaire de Probabilits XXXIX quadriques et pinceaux de courbes de genre 1, Inter-
(2006) sections of Two Quadrics and Pencils of Curves of Genus
Vol. 1875: J. Pitman, Combinatorial Stochastic Processes. 1 (2007)
Ecole d’Et de Probabilits de Saint-Flour XXXII-2002. Ed- Vol. 1902: A. Isaev, Lectures on the Automorphism
itor: J. Picard (2006) Groups of Kobayashi-Hyperbolic Manifolds (2007)
Vol. 1876: H. Herrlich, Axiom of Choice (2006) Vol. 1903: G. Kresin, V. Maz’ya, Sharp Real-Part Theo-
rems (2007)
Vol. 1877: J. Steuding, Value Distributions of L-Functions
Vol. 1904: P. Giesl, Construction of Global Lyapunov
(2007)
Functions Using Radial Basis Functions (2007)
Vol. 1878: R. Cerf, The Wulff Crystal in Ising and Percol-
Vol. 1905: C. Prévôt, M. Röckner, A Concise Course on
ation Models, Ecole d’Et de Probabilités de Saint-Flour
Stochastic Partial Differential Equations (2007)
XXXIV-2004. Editor: Jean Picard (2006)
Vol. 1906: T. Schuster, The Method of Approximate
Vol. 1879: G. Slade, The Lace Expansion and its Appli- Inverse: Theory and Applications (2007)
cations, Ecole d’Et de Probabilits de Saint-Flour XXXIV- Vol. 1907: M. Rasmussen, Attractivity and Bifurcation for
2004. Editor: Jean Picard (2006) Nonautonomous Dynamical Systems (2007)
Vol. 1880: S. Attal, A. Joye, C.-A. Pillet, Open Quantum Vol. 1908: T.J. Lyons, M. Caruana, T. Lévy, Differential
Systems I, The Hamiltonian Approach (2006) Equations Driven by Rough Paths, Ecole d’Été de Proba-
Vol. 1881: S. Attal, A. Joye, C.-A. Pillet, Open Quantum bilités de Saint-Flour XXXIV-2004 (2007)
Systems II, The Markovian Approach (2006) Vol. 1909: H. Akiyoshi, M. Sakuma, M. Wada,
Vol. 1882: S. Attal, A. Joye, C.-A. Pillet, Open Quantum Y. Yamashita, Punctured Torus Groups and 2-Bridge Knot
Systems III, Recent Developments (2006) Groups (I) (2007)
Vol. 1883: W. Van Assche, F. Marcellàn (Eds.), Orthogo- Vol. 1910: V.D. Milman, G. Schechtman (Eds.), Geo-
nal Polynomials and Special Functions, Computation and metric Aspects of Functional Analysis. Israel Seminar
Application (2006) 2004-2005 (2007)
Vol. 1911: A. Bressan, D. Serre, M. Williams, and Algebraic Surfaces. Cetraro, Italy 2003. Editors:
K. Zumbrun, Hyperbolic Systems of Balance Laws. F. Catanese, G. Tian (2008)
Cetraro, Italy 2003. Editor: P. Marcati (2007) Vol. 1939: D. Boffi, F. Brezzi, L. Demkowicz, R.G. Durán,
Vol. 1912: V. Berinde, Iterative Approximation of Fixed R.S. Falk, M. Fortin, Mixed Finite Elements, Compati-
Points (2007) bility Conditions, and Applications. Cetraro, Italy 2006.
Vol. 1913: J.E. Marsden, G. Misiołek, J.-P. Ortega, Editors: D. Boffi, L. Gastaldi (2008)
M. Perlmutter, T.S. Ratiu, Hamiltonian Reduction by Vol. 1940: J. Banasiak, V. Capasso, M.A.J. Chaplain,
Stages (2007) M. Lachowicz, J. Miȩkisz, Multiscale Problems in the Life
Vol. 1914: G. Kutyniok, Affine Density in Wavelet Sciences. From Microscopic to Macroscopic. Bȩdlewo,
Analysis (2007) Poland 2006. Editors: V. Capasso, M. Lachowicz (2008)
Vol. 1915: T. Bıyıkoǧlu, J. Leydold, P.F. Stadler, Laplacian Vol. 1941: S.M.J. Haran, Arithmetical Investigations.
Eigenvectors of Graphs. Perron-Frobenius and Faber- Representation Theory, Orthogonal Polynomials, and
Krahn Type Theorems (2007) Quantum Interpolations (2008)
Vol. 1916: C. Villani, F. Rezakhanlou, Entropy Methods Vol. 1942: S. Albeverio, F. Flandoli, Y.G. Sinai, SPDE in
for the Boltzmann Equation. Editors: F. Golse, S. Olla Hydrodynamic. Recent Progress and Prospects. Cetraro,
(2008) Italy 2005. Editors: G. Da Prato, M. Rckner (2008)
Vol. 1917: I. Veselić, Existence and Regularity Properties Vol. 1943: L.L. Bonilla (Ed.), Inverse Problems and Imag-
of the Integrated Density of States of Random Schrdinger ing. Martina Franca, Italy 2002 (2008)
(2008) Vol. 1944: A. Di Bartolo, G. Falcone, P. Plaumann,
Vol. 1918: B. Roberts, R. Schmidt, Local Newforms for K. Strambach, Algebraic Groups and Lie Groups with
GSp(4) (2007) Few Factors (2008)
Vol. 1919: R.A. Carmona, I. Ekeland, A. Kohatsu- Vol. 1945: F. Brauer, P. van den Driessche, J. Wu (Eds.),
Higa, J.-M. Lasry, P.-L. Lions, H. Pham, E. Taflin, Mathematical Epidemiology (2008)
Paris-Princeton Lectures on Mathematical Finance 2004. Vol. 1946: G. Allaire, A. Arnold, P. Degond, T.Y. Hou,
Editors: R.A. Carmona, E. inlar, I. Ekeland, E. Jouini, J.A. Quantum Transport. Modelling, Analysis and Asymp-
Scheinkman, N. Touzi (2007) totics. Cetraro, Italy 2006. Editors: N.B. Abdallah,
Vol. 1920: S.N. Evans, Probability and Real Trees. Ecole G. Frosali (2008)
d’Été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXXV-2005 (2008) Vol. 1947: D. Abramovich, M. Mariño, M. Thaddeus,
Vol. 1921: J.P. Tian, Evolution Algebras and their Appli- R. Vakil, Enumerative Invariants in Algebraic Geo-
cations (2008) metry and String Theory. Cetraro, Italy 2005. Editors:
K. Behrend, M. Manetti (2008)
Vol. 1922: A. Friedman (Ed.), Tutorials in Mathematical
Vol. 1948: F. Cao, J-L. Lisani, J-M. Morel, P. Mus, F. Sur,
BioSciences IV. Evolution and Ecology (2008)
A Theory of Shape Identification (2008)
Vol. 1923: J.P.N. Bishwal, Parameter Estimation in
Vol. 1949: H.G. Feichtinger, B. Helffer, M.P. Lamoureux,
Stochastic Differential Equations (2008)
N. Lerner, J. Toft, Pseudo-Differential Operators. Quan-
Vol. 1924: M. Wilson, Littlewood-Paley Theory and
tization and Signals. Cetraro, Italy 2006. Editors: L.
Exponential-Square Integrability (2008)
Rodino, M.W. Wong (2008)
Vol. 1925: M. du Sautoy, L. Woodward, Zeta Functions of Vol. 1950: M. Bramson, Stability of Queueing Networks,
Groups and Rings (2008) Ecole d’Eté de Probabilits de Saint-Flour XXXVI-2006
Vol. 1926: L. Barreira, V. Claudia, Stability of Nonauto- (2008)
nomous Differential Equations (2008) Vol. 1951: A. Moltó, J. Orihuela, S. Troyanski,
Vol. 1929: Y. Mishura, Stochastic Calculus for Fractional M. Valdivia, A Non Linear Transfer Technique for
Brownian Motion and Related Processes (2008) Renorming (2009)
Vol. 1930: J.M. Urbano, The Method of Intrinsic Scaling. Vol. 1952: R. Mikhailov, I.B.S. Passi, Lower Central and
A Systematic Approach to Regularity for Degenerate and Dimension Series of Groups (2009)
Singular PDEs (2008) Vol. 1953: K. Arwini, C.T.J. Dodson, Information Geo-
Vol. 1931: M. Cowling, E. Frenkel, M. Kashiwara, metry (2008)
A. Valette, D.A. Vogan, Jr., N.R. Wallach, Representation Vol. 1954: P. Biane, L. Bouten, F. Cipriani, N. Konno,
Theory and Complex Analysis. Venice, Italy 2004. N. Privault, Q. Xu, Quantum Potential Theory. Editors:
Editors: E.C. Tarabusi, A. D’Agnolo, M. Picardello U. Franz, M. Schuermann (2008)
(2008) Vol. 1955: M. Bernot, V. Caselles, J.-M. Morel, Optimal
Vol. 1932: A.A. Agrachev, A.S. Morse, E.D. Sontag, Transportation Networks (2008)
H.J. Sussmann, V.I. Utkin, Nonlinear and Optimal Control Vol. 1956: C.H. Chu, Matrix Convolution Operators on
Theory. Cetraro, Italy 2004. Editors: P. Nistri, G. Stefani Groups (2008)
(2008) Vol. 1957: A. Guionnet, On Random Matrices: Macro-
Vol. 1933: M. Petkovic, Point Estimation of Root Finding scopic Asymptotics, Ecole d’Eté de Probabilits de Saint-
Methods (2008) Flour XXXVI-2006 (2009)
Vol. 1934: C. Donati-Martin, M. Émery, A. Rouault, Vol. 1958: M.C. Olsson, Compactifying Moduli Spaces
C. Stricker (Eds.), Séminaire de Probabilités XLI (2008) for Abelian Varieties (2008)
Vol. 1935: A. Unterberger, Alternative Pseudodifferential Vol. 1959: Y. Nakkajima, A. Shiho, Weight Filtrations
Analysis (2008) on Log Crystalline Cohomologies of Families of Open
Vol. 1936: P. Magal, S. Ruan (Eds.), Structured Population Smooth Varieties (2008)
Models in Biology and Epidemiology (2008) Vol. 1960: J. Lipman, M. Hashimoto, Foundations of
Vol. 1937: G. Capriz, P. Giovine, P.M. Mariano (Eds.), Grothendieck Duality for Diagrams of Schemes (2009)
Mathematical Models of Granular Matter (2008) Vol. 1961: G. Buttazzo, A. Pratelli, S. Solimini,
Vol. 1938: D. Auroux, F. Catanese, M. Manetti, P. Seidel, E. Stepanov, Optimal Urban Networks via Mass Trans-
B. Siebert, I. Smith, G. Tian, Symplectic 4-Manifolds portation (2009)
Vol. 1962: R. Dalang, D. Khoshnevisan, C. Mueller, Vol. 1991: F. Gazzola, H.-C. Grunau, G. Sweers, Polyhar-
D. Nualart, Y. Xiao, A Minicourse on Stochastic Partial monic Boundary Value Problems (2010)
Differential Equations (2009) Vol. 1992: A. Parmeggiani, Spectral Theory of Non-
Vol. 1963: W. Siegert, Local Lyapunov Exponents (2009) Commutative Harmonic Oscillators: An Introduction
Vol. 1964: W. Roth, Operator-valued Measures and Inte- (2010)
grals for Cone-valued Functions and Integrals for Cone- Vol. 1993: P. Dodos, Banach Spaces and Descriptive Set
valued Functions (2009) Theory: Selected Topics (2010)
Vol. 1965: C. Chidume, Geometric Properties of Banach Vol. 1994: A. Baricz, Generalized Bessel Functions of the
Spaces and Nonlinear Iterations (2009) First Kind (2010)
Vol. 1966: D. Deng, Y. Han, Harmonic Analysis on Spaces Vol. 1995: A.Y. Khapalov, Controllability of Partial
of Homogeneous Type (2009) Differential Equations Governed by Multiplicative
Vol. 1967: B. Fresse, Modules over Operads and Functors Controls (2010)
(2009) Vol. 1996: T. Lorenz, Mutational Analysis. A Joint Frame-
Vol. 1968: R. Weissauer, Endoscopy for GSP(4) and the work for Cauchy Problems In and Beyond Vector Spaces
Cohomology of Siegel Modular Threefolds (2009) (2010)
Vol. 1969: B. Roynette, M. Yor, Penalising Brownian Vol. 1997: M. Banagl, Intersection Spaces, Spatial
Paths (2009) Homology Truncation, and String Theory (2010)
Vol. 1970: M. Biskup, A. Bovier, F. den Hollander, D. Vol. 1998: M. Abate, E. Bedford, M. Brunella, T.-C. Dinh,
Ioffe, F. Martinelli, K. Netočný, F. Toninelli, Methods of D. Schleicher, N. Sibony, Holomorphic Dynamical Sys-
Contemporary Mathematical Statistical Physics. Editor: tems. Cetraro, Italy 2008. Editors: G. Gentili, J. Guenot,
R. Kotecký (2009) G. Patrizio (2010)
Vol. 1971: L. Saint-Raymond, Hydrodynamic Limits of Vol. 1999: H. Schoutens, The Use of Ultraproducts in
the Boltzmann Equation (2009) Commutative Algebra (2010)
Vol. 1972: T. Mochizuki, Donaldson Type Invariants for Vol. 2000: H. Yserentant, Regularity and Approximability
Algebraic Surfaces (2009) of Electronic Wave Functions (2010)
Vol. 1973: M.A. Berger, L.H. Kauffmann, B. Khesin, H.K. Vol. 2001: O.E. Barndorff-Nielson, J. Bertoin, J. Jacod,
Moffatt, R.L. Ricca, De W. Sumners, Lectures on Topo- C. Kl”uppelberg (Eds.), Lévy Matters I (2010)
logical Fluid Mechanics. Cetraro, Italy 2001. Editor: R.L. Vol. 2002: C. Pötzsche, Geometric Theory of Discrete
Ricca (2009) Nonautonomous Dynamical Systems (2010)
Vol. 1974: F. den Hollander, Random Polymers: École Vol. 2003: A. Cousin, S. Crépey, O. Guéant, D. Hobson,
d’Été de Probabilités de Saint-Flour XXXVII – 2007 M. Jeanblanc, J.-M. Lasry, J.-P. Laurent, P.-L. Lions,
(2009) P. Tankov, Paris-Princeton Lectures on Mathematical
Vol. 1975: J.C. Rohde, Cyclic Coverings, Calabi-Yau Finance 2010. Editors: R.A. Carmona, E. Cinlar,
Manifolds and Complex Multiplication (2009) I. Ekeland, E. Jouini, J.A. Scheinkman, N. Touzi (2010)
Vol. 1976: N. Ginoux, The Dirac Spectrum (2009) Vol. 2004: K. Diethelm, The Analysis of Fractional
Vol. 1977: M.J. Gursky, E. Lanconelli, A. Malchiodi, Differential Equations (2010)
G. Tarantello, X.-J. Wang, P.C. Yang, Geometric Analysis Vol. 2005: W. Yuan, W. Sickel, D. Yang, Morrey and
and PDEs. Cetraro, Italy 2001. Editors: A. Ambrosetti, S.- Campanato Meet Besov, Lizorkin and Triebel (2011)
Y.A. Chang, A. Malchiodi (2009) Vol. 2006: A. Rouault, A. Lejay, C. Donati-Martin (Eds.),
Vol. 1978: M. Qian, J.-S. Xie, S. Zhu, Smooth Ergodic Séminaire de Probabilités XLIII (2011)
Theory for Endomorphisms (2009) Vol. 2007: E. Bujalance, F.J. Cirre, J.M. Gamboa, G.
Vol. 1979: C. Donati-Martin, M. Émery, A. Rouault, Gromadzki, Symmetries of Compact Riemann Surfaces
C. Stricker (Eds.), Śeminaire de Probablitiés XLII (2009) (2010)
Vol. 1980: P. Graczyk, A. Stos (Eds.), Potential Analysis
of Stable Processes and its Extensions (2009)
Vol. 1981: M. Chlouveraki, Blocks and Families for Recent Reprints and New Editions
Cyclotomic Hecke Algebras (2009)
Vol. 1982: N. Privault, Stochastic Analysis in Discrete and Vol. 1702: J. Ma, J. Yong, Forward-Backward Stochas-
Continuous Settings. With Normal Martingales (2009) tic Differential Equations and their Applications. 1999 –
Vol. 1983: H. Ammari (Ed.), Mathematical Modeling in Corr. 3rd printing (2007)
Biomedical Imaging I. Electrical and Ultrasound Tomo- Vol. 830: J.A. Green, Polynomial Representations of
graphies, Anomaly Detection, and Brain Imaging (2009) GLn , with an Appendix on Schensted Correspondence
Vol. 1984: V. Caselles, P. Monasse, Geometric Description and Littelmann Paths by K. Erdmann, J.A. Green and
of Images as Topographic Maps (2010) M. Schoker 1980 – 2nd corr. and augmented edition
Vol. 1985: T. Linß, Layer-Adapted Meshes for Reaction- (2007)
Convection-Diffusion Problems (2010) Vol. 1693: S. Simons, From Hahn-Banach to Monotonic-
Vol. 1986: J.-P. Antoine, C. Trapani, Partial Inner Product ity (Minimax and Monotonicity 1998) – 2nd exp. edition
Spaces. Theory and Applications (2009) (2008)
Vol. 1987: J.-P. Brasselet, J. Seade, T. Suwa, Vector Fields Vol. 470: R.E. Bowen, Equilibrium States and the Ergodic
on Singular Varieties (2010) Theory of Anosov Diffeomorphisms. With a preface by
Vol. 1988: M. Broué, Introduction to Complex Reflection D. Ruelle. Edited by J.-R. Chazottes. 1975 – 2nd rev.
Groups and Their Braid Groups (2010) edition (2008)
Vol. 1989: I.M. Bomze, V. Demyanov, Nonlinear Vol. 523: S.A. Albeverio, R.J. Høegh-Krohn, S. Maz-
Optimization. Cetraro, Italy 2007. Editors: G. di Pillo, zucchi, Mathematical Theory of Feynman Path Integral.
F. Schoen (2010) 1976 – 2nd corr. and enlarged edition (2008)
Vol. 1990: S. Bouc, Biset Functors for Finite Groups Vol. 1764: A. Cannas da Silva, Lectures on Symplectic
(2010) Geometry 2001 – Corr. 2nd printing (2008)
LECTURE NOTES IN MATHEMATICS 123
Edited by J.-M. Morel, F. Takens, B. Teissier, P.K. Maini
Editorial Policy (for the publication of monographs)
1. Lecture Notes aim to report new developments in all areas of mathematics and their
applications - quickly, informally and at a high level. Mathematical texts analysing new
developments in modelling and numerical simulation are welcome.
Monograph manuscripts should be reasonably self-contained and rounded off. Thus
they may, and often will, present not only results of the author but also related work
by other people. They may be based on specialised lecture courses. Furthermore, the
manuscripts should provide sufficient motivation, examples and applications. This clearly
distinguishes Lecture Notes from journal articles or technical reports which normally are
very concise. Articles intended for a journal but too long to be accepted by most journals,
usually do not have this “lecture notes” character. For similar reasons it is unusual for
doctoral theses to be accepted for the Lecture Notes series, though habilitation theses may
be appropriate.
2. Manuscripts should be submitted either to Springer’s mathematics editorial in Heidelberg,
or to one of the series editors. In general, manuscripts will be sent out to 2 external referees
for evaluation. If a decision cannot yet be reached on the basis of the first 2 reports, further
referees may be contacted: The author will be informed of this. A final decision to publish
can be made only on the basis of the complete manuscript, however a refereeing process
leading to a preliminary decision can be based on a pre-final or incomplete manuscript.
The strict minimum amount of material that will be considered should include a detailed
outline describing the planned contents of each chapter, a bibliography and several sample
chapters.
Authors should be aware that incomplete or insufficiently close to final manuscripts
almost always result in longer refereeing times and nevertheless unclear referees’ recom-
mendations, making further refereeing of a final draft necessary.
Authors should also be aware that parallel submission of their manuscript to another
publisher while under consideration for LNM will in general lead to immediate rejection.
3. Manuscripts should in general be submitted in English. Final manuscripts should contain
at least 100 pages of mathematical text and should always include
– a table of contents;
– an informative introduction, with adequate motivation and perhaps some historical re-
marks: it should be accessible to a reader not intimately familiar with the topic treated;
– a subject index: as a rule this is genuinely helpful for the reader.
For evaluation purposes, manuscripts may be submitted in print or electronic form, in
the latter case preferably as pdf- or zipped ps-files. Lecture Notes volumes are, as a rule,
printed digitally from the authors’ files. To ensure best results, authors are asked to use
the LaTeX2e style files available from Springer’s web-server at:
ftp://ftp.springer.de/pub/tex/latex/svmonot1/ (for monographs).
ftp://ftp.springer.de/pub/tex/latex/svmultt1/ (for summer schools/tutorials).
Additional technical instructions, if necessary, are available on request from:
lnm@springer.com.
4. Careful preparation of the manuscripts will help keep production time short besides en-
suring satisfactory appearance of the finished book in print and online. After acceptance
of the manuscript authors will be asked to prepare the final LaTeX source files (and also
the corresponding dvi-, pdf- or zipped ps-file) together with the final printout made from
these files. The LaTeX source files are essential for producing the full-text online version
of the book (see www.springerlink.com/content/110312 for the existing online volumes
of LNM).
The actual production of a Lecture Notes volume takes approximately 12 weeks.
5. Authors receive a total of 50 free copies of their volume, but no royalties. They are entitled
to a discount of 33.3% on the price of Springer books purchased for their personal use, if
ordering directly from Springer.
6. Commitment to publish is made by letter of intent rather than by signing a formal contract.
Springer-Verlag secures the copyright for each volume. Authors are free to reuse material
contained in their LNM volumes in later publications: a brief written (or e-mail) request
for formal permission is sufficient.
Addresses:
Professor J.-M. Morel, CMLA,
École Normale Supérieure de Cachan,
61 Avenue du Président Wilson, 94235 Cachan Cedex, France
E-mail: Jean-Michel.Morel@cmla.ens-cachan.fr
Professor F. Takens, Mathematisch Instituut,
Rijksuniversiteit Groningen, Postbus 800,
9700 AV Groningen, The Netherlands
E-mail: F.Takens@math.rug.nl
Professor B. Teissier, Institut Mathématique de Jussieu,
UMR 7586 du CNRS, Équipe “Géométrie et Dynamique”,
175 rue du Chevaleret
75013 Paris, France
E-mail: teissier@math.jussieu.fr
For the “Mathematical Biosciences Subseries” of LNM:

Professor P.K. Maini, Center for Mathematical Biology,
Mathematical Institute, 24-29 St Giles,
Oxford OX1 3LP, UK
E-mail: maini@maths.ox.ac.uk
Springer, Mathematics Editorial I, Tiergartenstr. 17
69121 Heidelberg, Germany,
Tel.: +49 (6221) 487-8259
Fax: +49 (6221) 4876-8259
E-mail: lnm@springer.com

Pub Symmetries of Compact Riemann Surfaces

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pub Symmetries of Compact Riemann Surfaces

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture Notes in Mathematics 2007

ISBN: 978-3-642-14827-9 e-ISBN: 978-3-642-14828-6

Lecture Notes in Mathematics ISSN print edition: 0075-8434

Library of Congress Control Number: 2010935187

Mathematics Subject Classification (2010): 30F, 14H, 20H, 20D, 57M

c Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Cover design: SPi Publisher Services

Printed on acid-free paper

The content of this monograph is situated in the intersection of important branches

Madrid, Gdańsk, Emilio Bujalance

2 On the Number of Conjugacy Classes of Symmetries

3 Counting Ovals of Symmetries of Riemann Surfaces . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4 Symmetry Types of Some Families of Riemann Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

5 Symmetry Types of Riemann Surfaces with a Large Group

By a symmetry σ of a compact Riemann surface S we mean an antianalytic

St = {[x : y : z] ∈ P2 (C) : Ft (x, y, z) = 0}

admits a structure of compact Riemann surface. In fact, S0 and S1 are birationally

1≤k ≤g+1 if ε = 0 with g + 1 ≡ k (mod 2);

The pair (k, ε) is usually codified by the symbol +k if ε = 0 and −k if ε = 1. It

Section 1.4 concerns uniformization of compact Riemann and Klein surfaces by

Finally, Sect. 3.4 is devoted to the study of pairs of symmetries of Riemann

S = {[x : y : z] ∈ P2 (C) : x3 y + y 3 z + z 3 x = 0},

EP and EQ are isomorphic via a birational isomorphism, say ϕ : EP → EQ . With

maximum number of automorphisms of such a surface is 12(g − 1). This bound

In this chapter we present some preliminary results concerning, mostly, the

1.1 NEC Groups and Their Signatures

E. Bujalance et al., Symmetries of Compact Riemann Surfaces, 1

otherwise. A primed edge is paired to the corresponding unprimed edge by means

s = (g; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {(n11 , . . . , n1s1 ), . . . , (nk1 , . . . , nksk )}). (1.1)

s = s(Γ ) = (g ; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {(n11 , . . . , n1s1 ), . . . , (nk 1 , . . . , nk s )}).

(2) sign(s(Γ)) = “+” if and only if S is orientable.

In what follows we shall say that an abstract signature s is an NEC (respectively

1.2 Normal Subgroups of NEC Groups

A fundamental tool in the combinatorial study of compact Riemann surfaces and

Concerning the sets of proper periods the following theorem holds.

. . . .ij., nij /qij :  = 1, . . . , r, i ∈ I, j ∈ Ji ].

J = {(i, j) ∈ {1, . . . , s} × {0, . . . , s − 1} : i ≤ j, ci−1 , cj+1 ∈ Γ, ci , . . . , cj ∈ Γ}

nj+1 /2, nj , nj−1 , . . . , ni+1 , ni /2, ni+1 , . . . , nj ,

s(Γ) = (g; ±; [m1 , . . . , mr ]; {(n11 , . . . , n1s1 ), . . . , (nk1 , . . . , nksk )})

s(Γ+ ) = (ηg + k − 1; m1 , m1 , . . . , mr , mr , n11 , . . . , n1s1 , . . . , nk1 , . . . , nksk ),

where η = 2 if sign(s(Γ)) = “+” and η = 1 otherwise.

Proof. We have to look for conjugacy classes in Γ+ of elliptic elements of Γ. Let

1.3 Centralizers of Reflections

In order to classify topologically a symmetry σ of a compact Riemann surface we

Lemma 1.3.1. Let c0 , . . . , cs , e be a set of canonical generators corresponding to a

where x = (cj−2 cj−1 )(nj−1 −1)/2 · · · (ci ci+1 )(ni+1 −1)/2 .

C(Λ, ci ) = ci  ⊕ ( (ci−1 ci )ni /2  ∗ x−1 (cj−1 cj )nj /2 x),

Proof. The element

(2) For k = 2k,  = 2 and m = 2m + 1 we have c0 ∼ c2 and

(3) For k = 2k,  = 2 + 1 and m = 2m + 1 we have c0 ∼ c1 ∼ c2 and

1.4 Uniformization and Automorphism Groups of Riemann

A classical Riemann surface is a topological surface without boundary together with

s(Γ) = (g; ±; [−]; {(−), . k. ., (−)}), k ≥ 0

is said to be a surface group. If k > 0 then Γ is a bordered surface group. Equiv-

for some group isomorphisms ϕ : Λ → Λ and ψ : G → G .

1.4.1 Maximal NEC Groups

It is a rather difficult task to decide whether a given group of automorphisms of

Corollary 1.4.9. Let G = Λ/Γ be a group of automorphisms of the Klein surface

1.4.2 Teichmüller Spaces

T(Λ) = R(Λ)/ Aut(PGL(2, R))

is the Teichmüller space of Λ. Since every automorphism α of PGL(2, R) is an inner

[t] = {t = αt : Λ → PGL(2, R) such that there exists m ∈ PGL(2, R) with

In this definition m must be in Aut+ (H) in case Λ is a Fuchsian group. If Γ is a

. . . .ij., nij /qij : = 1, . . . , r, i ∈ I, j ∈ Ji ].

C(Λ, ci ) = ci ⊕ ( (ci−1 ci )ni /2 ∗ x−1 (cj−1 cj )nj /2 x),

(2) For k = 2k, = 2 and m = 2m + 1 we have c0 ∼ c2 and

(3) For k = 2k, = 2 + 1 and m = 2m + 1 we have c0 ∼ c1 ∼ c2 and