Take the 2-minute tour ×
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.

I'm trying to understand an argument of Deligne (in Courbes elliptiques: Formulaire d'après J. Tate), but I'm not familiar enough with algebraic geometry, so I'm getting quite confused. So even in my statement I might say things that don't make any sense, please correct me if so.

An elliptic curve is a smooth proper morphism $p : E \rightarrow S$ of schemes, such that the geometric fibers are connected curves of genus 1, along with a section $e: S \rightarrow E$. The sheaf of differentials $\Omega_{E/S}$ can be pushed forward to get a sheaf $\omega_{E/S} = p_{*}\Omega_{E/S}$ on $S$.

Next, he shows how $E$ can be embedded in projective space $\mathbb{P}_S^2$, in non-homogeneous coordinates: $ (*)\space\space\space\space y^2 + a_1 xy + a_3 y = x^3 + a_2 x^2 + a_4 x + a_6$.

Then later on, he defines modular forms of weight $n$ as being a law that associates to each elliptic curve $E \rightarrow S$ as above, a section of $\omega_{E/S}^{\otimes n}$ in a manner which is compatible with base change. He next says: applying the definition to the equation above (*), we see that any modular form of weight $n$ is a polynomial of degree $n$ in the $a_i$'s. I sort of see how that might make sense, but I'd appreciate it if someone could explain a bit more to me how to explicitly derive that conclusion (that they're polynomials in the $a_i$'s). Thanks in advance!

Edit: extra question: for a general scheme $S$, what do the $a_i$'s mean? if $S = Spec(R)$, I expect them to be elements of $R$, but what are they in the case of a more complicated scheme?

share|improve this question
About your extra question: usually when a scheme is defined over $Spec(R)$, it more or less means that the equations needed to define the object have coefficients in $R$ as you said. For example, the group scheme $GL_n(R)$ is defined over $R$, but actually one only needs $\mathbf{Z}$ to define the group scheme; $GL_n(R)$ is in fact just the base change of $GL_n(\mathbf{Z})/Spec(\mathbf{Z})$ via the canonical map $Spec(R)\to Spec(\mathbf{Z})$. In that sense, $GL_n(\mathbf{Z})$ is a 'model' for all other $GL_n(R)$. –  vgty6h7uij May 23 '12 at 11:45

1 Answer 1

up vote 14 down vote accepted

Let $\Delta$ denote the discriminant of the cubic curve given by the formula ($*$). (This is a somewhat complicated expression in the $a_i$s which I won't write down here; but let me note that there are standard expressions $c_4$ and $c_6$ which are certain polynomials in the $a_i$s, such that $1728 \Delta = c_4^3 - c_6^2$.) The formula ($*$) then defines an elliptic curve over $S:= $Spec $\mathbb Z[a_1,a_2,a_3,a_4,a_6,\Delta^{-1}].$ Also the invertible sheaf $\omega$ over $S$ attached to this elliptic curve is canonically trivialized, because it admits the global section $dx/(2y +a_1x + a_3) = dy/(3x^2 + 2 a_2 x + a_4 - a_1y).$

Thus any modular form of weight $n$, when evaluated on ($*$), gives rise to a global section of the $\mathcal O_S$, which is to say an element of $\mathbb Z[a_1,\cdots,a_6,\Delta^{-1}].$

Furthermore, as Deligne shows and as you noted, given any ellptic curve $E$ over any base $S'$, we may cover $S'$ by open sets $U$ such that $E_{| U}$ is the pull-back of ($*$) via a map $U \to S$. Thus the value of the modular form on $E$ is determined by its value on $(*)$.

In short, any modular form is determined by giving a certain element of $\mathbb Z[a_1,\ldots,a_6,\Delta^{-1}]$.

Note that not every element of this ring is actually a modular form, because the maps $U \to S$ discussed above are not unique. Thus modular forms are those elements of $\mathbb Z[a_1,\ldots,a_6,\Delta^{-1}]$ which are invariant under the automorphisms of this ring which are induced by "change of Weierstrass equation". Deligne discusses this, and concludes that the ring of modular forms is exactly $\mathbb Z[c_4,c_6,\Delta^{\pm 1}]$. (There is also a question of holomorphicity of the cusps which I am ignoring here; probably Deligne addresses it by allowing certain singular curves as well, and hence working over $\mathbb Z[a_1,\ldots,a_6]$ rather than $\mathbb Z[a_1,\ldots,a_6,\Delta^{-1}].$ This will give the correct answer of $\mathbb Z[c_4,c_6,\Delta]$, i.e. he doesn't allow $\Delta^{-1}$ as a modular forms, since while this is well-defined on true elliptic curves, it is not well-defined on singular cubic curves.)

Note that one can also replace $\mathbb Z$ by another ring $R$, and restrict attention to $R$-schemes, and hence define the ring of modular forms over $R$. E.g. if you take $R = \mathbb F_2$, you get the ring of modular forms mod $2$. You can check, using Deligne's formlas, that $a_1$ is in variant under change of Weierstrass equation in char. $2$, and thus defines a modular form mod $2$, called the Hasse invariant.

Similarly, you can check that $b_2$ is a well-defined modular form mod $3$ (but only mod $3$). This is the mod $3$ Hasse invariant.

These are good examples to think about to practice using Deligne's (actually Tate's) formulas for the change of Weierstrass equation to define modular forms.

share|improve this answer

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.