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.

Let $E$ be an elliptic curve with a 3-torsion point $P$ and $G = \operatorname{Gal}(\overline{\mathbb{Q}}/\mathbb{Q})$. Let $X = \{O, P, -P\}$ where $O$ is the point at infinity and $X$ is a $G$-module. Why does $H^{1}(G, X)$ inject into $\operatorname{Sel}_{3}(E/\mathbb{Q})$?

share|improve this question
It's not generally the case that $E[3]$ has $G_{\mathbb{Q}}$ invariant subspaces. For example the mod-$3$ representation associated to the curve $Y^2 = X^3 - 27X - 42$ has full image in $GL_2(\mathbb{F}_3).$ So in general $G$ won't act on $X$ and taking cohomology is therefore out of the question. –  jspecter Jan 6 '13 at 19:22
Wait, ok I see your point. But what would happen if I did happen to suppose $X$ indeed was a $G_{\mathbb{Q}}$ invariant subspace? –  user24764 Jan 6 '13 at 19:32
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 4 down vote accepted

It doesn't (always)!

Nor would you expect it to. Assume $X$ is $G_{\mathbb{Q}}$ stable. Then in general, the group $H^1(\mathbb{Q},X)$ will be infinite whereas the selmer group $Sel_{3}(E/\mathbb{Q})$ finite.

Even more it may not even be the case $H^1(\mathbb{Q},X)$ injects into $H^1(\mathbb{Q},E[3]).$ Here's an exmple:

Consider the curve $E$ given by $y^2 +xy + y = x^3 -171x -874.$ One checks that $E[3]$ has three $\mathbb{Q}(\mu_3)$-points and one $\mathbb{Q}$-point. Therefore, if you let $X$ be the subgroup of $E[3]$ consisting of these $\mathbb{Q}(\mu_3)$-points, then $X$ is Galois stable and $G_\mathbb{Q}$ acts on $X$ through the nontrivial character of $Gal(\mathbb{Q(\mu_3)}/\mathbb{Q}).$ It follows that $X \cong \mu_3$ as a Galois module.

Because $E[3]$ is reducible with a stable one dimensional subspace $X,$ we have $E[3]$ is an extension of a character $\chi$ by $X \cong \mu_3.$ By the weil pairing $\chi \otimes X = \chi \otimes \mu_3 = \mu_3$ and hence $\chi$ is the trivial character.

From the short exact sequence $$0\rightarrow X \rightarrow E[3] \rightarrow \chi\rightarrow 0,$$ one obtains the exact sequence

$$E[3](\mathbb{Q}) \rightarrow \mathbb{F}_3 \rightarrow H^1(\mathbb{Q}, X) \rightarrow H^1(\mathbb{Q}, E[3]).$$

And since $E[3](\mathbb{Q}) = 0,$ it follows that the map $H^1(\mathbb{Q}, X) \rightarrow H^1(\mathbb{Q}, E[3])$ is not injective.

(Conversely, observe that if $H^1(\mathbb{Q}, X) \rightarrow H^1(\mathbb{Q}, E[3])$ is not injective then $E[3]$ must be a nonsplit extension of the trivial character by $\mu_3.)$

The problem is the incongruity in your question. You have assumed lots of local conditions on $Sel_3(E/\mathbb{Q})$ but none on $H^1(\mathbb{Q},X).$ What are the local conditions one might consider for cocylces in $H^1(\mathbb{Q},X)?$

Well, recall that we can attach a selmer group to any $\mathbb{Q}$-isogeny between elliptic curves. For example $Sel_3(E/\mathbb{Q})$ is the selmer group attached to the multiplication by $3$-isogeny. There is a natural isogeny attached to $X,$ namely the projection map $\psi_X: E \rightarrow E/X,$ and because $X$ is Galois stable $\psi_X$ is defined over $\mathbb{Q}.$ We define the Selmer group attached to $\psi := \psi_X$ as the kernel

$$Sel^{\psi}(E/\mathbb{Q}) := \ker(H^1(\mathbb{Q},X) \rightarrow \prod_p H^1( \mathbb{Q}_p,E)).$$

Because multiplication by $3$ factors through $X,$ (or rather because $X \subset E[3]$), we have a map $ Sel^{\psi}(E/\mathbb{Q}) \rightarrow Sel_3(E/\mathbb{Q})$ induced by the map $X \rightarrow E[3].$ One easily checks that the map

$$H^1(\mathbb{Q},X) \rightarrow \prod_p H^1( \mathbb{Q}_p,E)$$

factors through

$$H^1(\mathbb{Q},E[3]) \rightarrow \prod_p H^1( \mathbb{Q}_p,E)$$

and hence $ Sel^{\psi}(E/\mathbb{Q}) \rightarrow Sel_3(E/\mathbb{Q})$ is injective whenever $H^1(\mathbb{Q}, X) \rightarrow H^1(\mathbb{Q}, E[3])$ is injective.

What about when $H^1(\mathbb{Q}, X) \rightarrow H^1(\mathbb{Q}, E[3])$ isn't injective i.e. when $X \cong \mu_3$ and $E[3]$ is a nonsplit extension of the trivial representation by $X?$ Here one sees using the argument above that the map between selmer groups still has a 1-dimensional kernel. Oh well.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.