Fields of moduli of hyperelliptic curves (Q2459314)

Let \(X\) be a curve of genus \(g\) defined over a field \(K\). Let \(K_X\) be its field of moduli. It is known that \(X\) may be defined over \(K_X\) if \(g=0,1\) or if \(\text{Aut}(X)\) has trivial center. This papers considers hyperelliptic curves \(X\) of genus \(g\geq 2\) defined over a field \(K\) of characteristic \(\neq 2\). We denote the hyperelliptic involution of \(X\) by \(\iota\). The main result of this paper is that \(X\) may be defined over \(K_X\) if \(\text{Aut}(X)\) is not cyclic. This proves a modified version of a conjecture of \textit{T. Shaska} [in: Computer mathematics. Proc. 6th Asian Symp., Beijing 2003, Lect. Notes Ser. Comput. 10, 248--257 (2003; Zbl 1051.14033); see also \textit{G. Cardona} and \textit{J. Quer}, in: Computational aspects of algebraic curves. Conf. Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID, USA, May 26--28, 2005. Lect. Notes Ser. Comput. 13, 71--83 (2005; Zbl 1126.14031)] which states that \(X\) maybe defined over \(K_X\) if the characteristic of \(K\) is zero and the order of \(\text{Aut}(X)\) is larger than \(2\). The author gives examples for all \(n>1\) of hyperelliptic curves with \(| \text{Aut}(X)| =2n\) with field of moduli \(K_X={\mathbb R}\) which may not be defined over \({\mathbb R}\). Therefore the conjecture of Shaska is wrong as stated, but the corrected version also holds without assuming that the characteristic of \(K\) is zero. The main tool used in the proof is the classification of finite subgroups of \(\text{PGL}_2(F)\), where \(F\) is an algebraically closed field.