Contact
CoCalc Logo Icon
StoreFeaturesDocsShareSupport News AboutSign UpSign In
| Download

All published worksheets from http://sagenb.org

Views: 168693
Image: ubuntu2004

Torsion Points on Elliptic Curves over Quartic Fields

William Stein

(this is joint work with Sheldon Kamienny)

University of Washington

May 2010

 

Motivating Problem

Let KK be a number field.  

Theorem (Mordell-Weil): If EE is an elliptic curve over KK, then E(K)E(K) is a finitely generated abelian group.

Thus E(K)torE(K)_{\rm tor} is a finite group. 

PROBLEMLet K be a number field.  Which finite abelian groups
E(K)_{tor} occur, as we vary over all elliptic curves E/K?
There are a *LOT* of papers on this problem.
OBSERVATION: E(K)_{tor} is a finite subgroup of Q^2/Z^2, so E(K)_{tor}
is cyclic or a product of two cyclic groups.Theo

Problem:  Which finite abelian groups E(K)torE(K)_{\rm tor} occur, as we vary over all elliptic curves E/KE/K?

 

Observation: E(K)torE(K)_{\rm tor} is a finite subgroup of C/Λ\CC/\Lambda, so E(K)torE(K)_{\rm tor} is cyclic or a product of two cyclic groups.

 

 

An Old Conjecture

CONJECTURE (LEVI around 1908; OGG in 1960s): 
  When K=Q, the groups E(Q)_{tor} are the 15 groups:
    Z/mZ               for m<=10 or m=12

   (Z/2Z) x (Z/2vZ)    for v<=4.

 

 

Conjecture (Levi around 1908; re-made by Ogg in 1960s): 

  When K=QK=\QQ, the groups E(Q)torE(\QQ)_{\rm tor}, as we vary over all E/QE/\QQ, are the following 15 groups:

    Z/mZ\ZZ/m\ZZ                            for m10m\leq 10 or m=12m=12

    (Z/2Z)×(Z/2vZ)(\ZZ/2\ZZ) \times (\ZZ/2v\ZZ)    for v4v\leq 4.

 

Note:

  1. This is really a conjecture about rational points on certain curves of (possibly) higher genus (title of Michael Stoll's talk today)...
  2. Or, it's a conjecture in arithmetic dynamics about periodic points.

 

Modular Curves

The modular curves Y0(N)Y_0(N) and Y1(N)Y_1(N):

  • Let Y0(N)Y_0(N) be the affine modular curve over Q\QQ whose points parameterize isomorphism classes of pairs (E,C)(E,C), where CEC \subset E is a cyclic subgroup of order NN.
  • Let Y1(N)Y_1(N) be ...  of pairs (E,P)(E,P), where PE(Q)P\in E(\overline{\QQ}) is a point of order NN.

Let X0(N)X_0(N) and X1(N)X_1(N) be the compactifications of the above affine curves.

Observation: There is an elliptic curve E/KE/K with p#E(K)p \mid \#E(K) if and only if Y1(p)(K)Y_1(p)(K) is nonempty.

Also, Y0(N)Y_0(N) is a quotient of Y1(N)Y_1(N), so if Y0(N)(K)Y_0(N)(K) is empty, then so is Y0(N)Y_0(N)

Mazur's Theorem (1970s)

Theorem (Mazur) If p#E(Q)torp \mid \#E(\QQ)_{\rm tor} for some elliptic curve E/QE/\QQ, then p13p\leq 13.

Combined with previous work of Kubert and Ogg, one sees that Mazur's theorem implies Levi's conjecture, i.e., a complete classification of the finite groups E(Q)torE(\QQ)_{\rm tor}.

Here are representative curves by the way (there are infinitely many for each jj-invariant):

for ainvs in ([0,-2],[0,8],[0,4],[4,0],[0,-1,-1,0,0],[0,1], [1, -1, 1, -3, 3],[7,0,0,16,0], [1,-1,1,-14,29], [1,0,0,-45,81], [1, -1, 1, -122, 1721], [-4,0], [1,-5,-5,0,0], [5,-3,-6,0,0], [17,-60,-120,0,0] ): E = EllipticCurve(ainvs) view((E.torsion_subgroup().invariants(), E))
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[\right], y^2 = x^3 - 2 \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[2\right], y^2 = x^3 + 8 \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[3\right], y^2 = x^3 + 4 \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[4\right], y^2 = x^3 + 4x \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[5\right], y^2 - y = x^3 - x^2 \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[6\right], y^2 = x^3 + 1 \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[7\right], y^2 + xy + y = x^3 - x^2 - 3x + 3 \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[8\right], y^2 + 7xy = x^3 + 16x \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[9\right], y^2 + xy + y = x^3 - x^2 - 14x + 29 \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[10\right], y^2 + xy = x^3 - 45x + 81 \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[12\right], y^2 + xy + y = x^3 - x^2 - 122x + 1721 \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[2, 2\right], y^2 = x^3 - 4x \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[4, 2\right], y^2 + xy - 5y = x^3 - 5x^2 \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[6, 2\right], y^2 + 5xy - 6y = x^3 - 3x^2 \right)
\newcommand{\Bold}[1]{\mathbf{#1}}\left(\left[8, 2\right], y^2 + 17xy - 120y = x^3 - 60x^2 \right)

Mazur's Method

Theorem (Mazur) If p#E(Q)torp \mid \#E(\QQ)_{\rm tor} for some elliptic curve E/QE/\QQ, then p13p\leq 13.

Basic idea of the proof:  

  1. Find a rank zero quotient AA of J0(p)J_0(p) such that...
  2. ... the induced map f:X0(p)Af:X_0(p) \to A is a formal immersion at infinity (this means that the induced map on complete local rings is surjective, or equivalently, that the induced map on cotangent spaces is surjective). 
  3. Then consider the point xY0(p)x \in Y_0(p) corresponding to a pair (E,P)(E,\langle P \rangle), where PP has order pp.  
  4. If EE has potentially good reduction at 33, get contradiction by injecting pp-torsion mod 33 since p>13p>13, so EE has multiplicative reduction, hence we may assume xx reduces to the cusp \infty
  5. The image of xx in A(Q)A(\QQ) is thus in the kernel of the reduction map mod 33.     But this kernel of reduction is a formal group, hence torsion free.  But A(Q)=A(Q)torA(\QQ)=A(\QQ)_{\rm tor} is finite, so image of xx is 0. 
  6. Use that ff is a formal immersion at infinity along with step 5, to show that x=x=\infty, which is a contradiction since xY0(p).x\in Y_0(p).

Mazur uses for AA the Eisenstein quotient of J0(p)J_0(p) because he is able to prove -- way back in the 1970s! -- that this quotient has rank 00 by doing a pp-descent.   This is long before much was known toward the BSD conjecture.  More recently one can:

  • Merel 1995: use the winding quotient of J0(p)J_0(p), which is the maximal analytic rank 00 quotient.  This makes the arguments easier, and we know by Kolyvagin-Logachev et al. or by Kato that the winding quotient has rank 0.

  • Parent 1999: use the winding quotient of J1(p)J_1(p), which leads to a similar argument as above.  This quotient has rank 0 by Kato's theorem.  
/

Kamienny-Mazur

A prime pp is a torsion prime for degree dd if there is a number field KK of degree dd and an elliptic curve E/KE/K such that p#E(K)torp \mid \#E(K)_{\rm tor}

Let S(d)={torsion primes for degree d}S(d) = \{ \text{torsion primes for degree } \leq d \}.  For example, S(1)={2,3,5,7}S(1) = \{2,3,5,7\}

Finding all possible torsion structure over all fields of degree d\leq d often involves determining S(d)S(d), then doing some additional work (which we won't go into).  E.g.,

Theorem (Frey, Faltings): If S(d)S(d) is finite, then the set of groups E(K)torE(K)_{\rm tor}, as EE varies over all elliptic curves over all number fields KK of degree d\leq d, is finite. 

Kamienny and Mazur: Replace X0(p)X_0(p) by the symmetric power X0(p)(d)X_0(p)^{(d)} and gave an explicit criterion in terms of independence of Hecke operators for fd:X0(p)(d)J0(p)f_d: X_0(p)^{(d)} \to J_0(p) to be a formal immersion at (,,,)(\infty, \infty,\ldots,\infty).   A point yX0(p)(K)y\in X_0(p)(K), where KK has degree dd, then defines a point y~X0(p)(d)(Q)\tilde{y} \in X_0(p)^{(d)}(\QQ), etc.

Theorem (Kamienny and Mazur):

  • S(2)={2,3,5,7,11,13}S(2) = \{2,3,5,7,11,13\},
  • S(d)S(d) is finite for d8d\leq 8,
  • S(d)S(d) has density 0 for all dd.

Corollary (Uniform Boundedness): There is a fixed constant BB such that if E/KE/K is an elliptic curve over a number field of degree 8\leq 8, then #E(K)torB\# E(K)_{\rm tor} \leq B.

(Very surprising!)

Torsion Structures over Quadratic Fields

Theorem (Kenku, Momose, Kamienny, Mazur): The complete list of subgroups that appear over quadratic fields is:

            Z/mZ            for m<=16 or m=18
           (Z/2Z) x (Z/2vZ) for v<=6.
           (Z/3Z) x (Z/3vZ) for v=1,2
           (Z/4Z) x (Z/4ZZ)

and each occurs for infinitely many jj-invariants.

What is S(d)S(d)?

Kamienny, Mazur: "We expect that max(S(3))19max(S(3)) \leq 19, but it would simply be too embarrassing to parade the actual astronomical finite bound that our proof gives."

But soon, Merel in a tour de force, proves (by using the winding quotient and a deep modular symbols argument about independence of Hecke operators):

Theorem (Merel, 1996):  max(S(d))<d3d2\max(S(d)) < d^{3 d^2}, for d2d\geq 2.

thus proving the full Universal Boundedness Conjecture, which is a huge result.

Shortly thereafter Oesterle modifies Merel's argument to get a much better upper bound:

Theorem (Oesterle): max(S(d))<(3d/2+1)2\max(S(d)) < (3^{d/2}+1)^2.

for d in [1..10]: print '%2s%10s %s'%(d, floor((3^(d/2)+1)^2), d^(3*d^2))
1 7 1 2 16 4096 3 38 7625597484987 4 100 79228162514264337593543950336 5 275 26469779601696885595885078146238811314105987548828125 6 784 1097324413128695095014498519762948444299315170409742569521688363865669310779664367616 7 2281 16959454617563682698054005840792102521632243876732771232150341713141856731878591823809299439924812705151100914349041188035543 8 6724 247330401473104534060502521019647190035131349101211839914063056092897225106531867170316401061243044989597671426016139339351365034306751209967546155101893167916606772148699136 9 19964 7602033756829688179535612101927342434798006222913345882096671718462026450847558385638399133044640009857513126790996106341658482736771462692522663416083613709397190583473914100243037919870652143046001421207236044960360057945209303129 10 59536 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Parent's Method: Nailing Down S(3)

By Oesterle, we know that max(S(3))37\max(S(3)) \leq 37.  

In 1999, Parent made Kamienny's method applied to J1(p)J_1(p) explicit and computable, and used this to bound S(3)S(3) explicitly, showing that max(S(3))17\max(S(3)) \leq 17.   This makes crucial use of Kato's theorem toward the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture!  

In subsequent work, Parent rules out 1717 finally giving the answer:

 S(3)={2,3,5,7,11,13}   S(3) = \{2,3,5,7,11,13\}  

The list of groups E(K)torE(K)_{\rm tor} that occur for KK cubic is still unknown.  However, using the notion of trigonality of modular curves (having a degree 3 map to P1P^1), Jeon, Kim, and Schweizer showed that the groups that appear for infinitely many jj-invariants are:

    Z/mZ           for m<=16, 18, 20
    Z/2Z x Z/2vZ   for v<=7

What about Degree 4?

By Oesterle, we know that max(S(4))97\max(S(4)) \leq 97.

Recently, Jeon, Kim, and Park (2006), again used gonality (and big computations with Singular), to show that the groups that appear for infinitely many jj-invariants for curves over quartic fields are:

    Z/mZ           for m<=18, or m=20, m=21, m=22, m=24
    Z/2Z x Z/2vZ   for v<=9
    Z/3Z x Z/3vZ   for v<=3
    Z/4Z x Z/4vZ   for v<=2
    Z/5Z x Z/5Z 
    Z/6Z x Z/6Z

Question (Kamienny to me): Is S(4)={2,3,5,7,11,13,17}?S(4) = \{2,3,5,7,11,13,17\}?

Explicit Kamienny-Parent for d=4d=4

To attack the above unsolved problem about S(4)S(4), we made Parent's (1999) approach very explicit in case d=4d=4 and =2\ell=2 (he gives a general criterion for any dd...).  One arrives that the following (where tt is a certain explicitly computed element of the Hecke algebra):

NOTES:

  1. This looks pretty crazy, but this is really just a way of expressing the condition that a certain map is a formal immersion
  2. As pp gets large, there are a LOT of 4-tuples of elements of the Hecke algebra to test for independence mod 2.
  3. Here is code that implements this algorithm: code.sage

Running the Algorithm

After a few days we find that the criterion is not satisfied for p=29,31p=29,31, but it is for 37p9737\leq p \leq 97

Conclusion:

Theorem (Kamienny, Stein):  max(S(4))31\max(S(4)) \leq 31

It's unclear to me, but Kamienny seems to also have a proof that rules out 29,3129,31, which would nearly answer the big question for degree 44

Future Work

  1. Kamienny (unpublished): "Moreover 29, 31, 41 , and 59 can't occur over any quartic field...  I've known an easy geometric proof for a long time, but I simply forgot about it..."  
  2. Kamienny (unpublished): "For 19 and 23 we only get the result for fields in which at least one of 2, 3 doesn't remain prime.  We can try dealing with 19 and 23 by looking (later) at equations for the modular curves if that's computable."
  3. Alternatively, deal with 19 and 23 in a way similar to how Parent dealt with p=17p=17 for d=3d=3, which was the one case he couldn't address using his criterion.  (His paper on p=17p=17 looks very painful though!)
  4. Make the algorithm for showing that max(S(4))31\max(S(4)) \leq 31 more efficient.  Right now it takes way too long.
  5. Given 3, repeat my calculations, but for d=5d=5 and hope to replace the Oesterle bound of max(S(5))271\max(S(5)) \leq 271 by max(S(5))43  (or something close)\max(S(5)) \leq 43 \quad\text{  (or something close)}
float((1+2^(5/2))^2)
44.313708498984766
previous_prime(275)
271