Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $K$ be a finite extension of $\mathbb{Q}_p$ and $E/K$ an elliptic curve with good reduction. Does the $\mathbb{F}_p[\mathrm{Gal}(\overline{K})]$-module $E[p](\overline{K})$ determine whether the reduction is ordinary or supersingular? I guess this is true when $K=\mathbb{Q}_p$ because in the ordinary case the representation is reducible, while in the supersingular case, the representation is irreducible.

In general I know that the representation is reducible in the ordinary case because it has a $1$-dimensional unramified quotient. But I'm not sure whether or not the representation is irreducible in the supersingular case for arbitrary $K$.

The reason I ask this question is because I was wondering whether or not two curves over a number field with good reduction above $p$ that have isomorphic $p$-torsion representations necessarily have the same reduction type at primes above $p$ (ordinary or supersingular, that is).

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 7 down vote accepted

This can't be the case for all $p$-adic fields. Indeed, start with $E_1{/\mathbb{Q}_p}$ an elliptic curve with good ordinary reduction and $E_2{/\mathbb{Q}_p}$ an elliptic curve with good supersingular reduction.
Let $K = \mathbb{Q}_p(E_1[p](\overline{K}), E_2[p](\overline{K}))$. Then upon base extension to $K$, both $E_1[p]$ and $E_2[p]$ have the same $\mathbb{F}_p[\operatorname{Gal}_K]$-module structure: namely they are both isomorphic as abelian groups to $(\mathbb{Z}/p\mathbb{Z})^2$ and both have trivial Galois action. (Moreover the ordinary/supersingular dichotomy does not change upon base extension: this depends only on the $j$-invariant of $E$ modulo $p$.)

There is something to be said in the positive direction though coming from restrictions on torsion in the formal group of $E_{/K}$ depending on the ramification index $e(K/\mathbb{Q}_p)$. Let me know if you want to hear more details about that...

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you Pete! Your example makes perfect sense. I thought that the absolute ramification index might be relevant, since certain related facts that I've needed to use depend upon $e(K/\mathbb{Q}_p)$ being less than $p-1$. If you have the time to add some more details, I'd definitely appreciate it. – Keenan Kidwell Feb 8 '12 at 20:07
Well, what I know about torsion in formal groups appears in $\S 3.1$ here: These bounds will allow you to show that if $e(K/\mathbb{Q}_p)$ is sufficiently small then in the case of supersingular reduction you will never have nontrivial $p$-torsion over the maximal unramified extension, whereas in the ordinary reduction case you will always have nontrivial $p$-torsion over the maximal unramified extension. (And this goes for abelian varieties as well...) – Pete L. Clark Feb 8 '12 at 20:13
Awesome! Thanks for the reference. I can use this because I'm already assuming the bound on the ramification index. – Keenan Kidwell Feb 8 '12 at 20:22

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.