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 taking a course on elliptic curves and trying to understand the proof of

Proposition 3.2. Let $E$, $E'$ be elliptic curves over $K$ in Weierstrass form: $$E:y^2+a_1xy+a_3y=x^3+a_2x^2+a_4x+a_6$$ $$E':y'^2+a_1'x'y'+a_3'y'=x'^3+a_2'x'^2+a'_4x'+a_6'.$$ Then $E\cong E'$ over $K$ iff the Weierstrass equations are related by a substitution of the form $$\begin{array}{ll}x&= u^2x'+r \\ y &=u^3y'+u^2sx'+t \end{array}$$ for some $u,r,s,t \in K$, $u \not=0$.

Now, the proof proceeds by examining the degrees of freedom we had when we found a Weierstrass form in Theorem 3.1:

Theorem 3.1 Every elliptic curve $E$ over $K$ is isomorphic to a curve in Weierstrass form, via an isomorphism taking $\mathcal{O}_E$ to $(0:1:0)$.

(We defined an elliptic curve $E$ over $K$ to be a smooth projective curve of genus 1, defined over $K$, with a specified $K$-rational point $\mathcal{O}_E$.)

The proof goes like this: we pick a basis $1, x$ for $\mathcal{L}(2.\mathcal{O}_E)$ and extend it to a basis $1, x, y$ of $\mathcal{L}(3.\mathcal{O}_E)$. Then we see that the seven elements $1,x,y,x^2,xy,x^3,y^2$ of $\mathcal{L}(6.\mathcal{O}_E)$ must satisfy some dependence relation with the coefficients of $x^3$ and $y^2$ non-zero. Rescaling $x$ and $y$ we get $$E':y^2+a_1xy+a_3y=x^3+a_2x^2+a_4x+a_6.$$ Then we show that the rational map $$\begin{array}{llll} \phi: & E & \rightarrow &E' \subset \mathbb{P}^2 \\ &P & \mapsto & (x(P):y(P):1)\end{array}$$ is an isomorphism.

I don't see why all Weierstrass equations for $E$ can be found this way, which is what the proof of 3.2 relies on. I think this is because I don't really understand what is going on in the proof of 3.1. It seems like we do a bunch of stuff which will definitely give us the right kind of equation (i.e. a thing in Weierstrass form), but I don't see why this really ought to be isomorphic to our $E$. (Apart from believing the proof, which shows that $[K(E):K(x)]=2$ and $[K(E):K(y)]=3$ so by the Tower Law $[K(E):K(x,y)]=1$.)

share|improve this question
    
If you don't like this Riemann-Roch, function field business, have you read the main theorems concerning elliptic curves over the complex numbers? You can prove the same statement - all elliptic curves have a Weierstrass equation - using tools from analysis (eg. comparing coefficients of Laurent expansions). –  Thom Tyrrell Jan 29 '13 at 23:01
    
Thank you, but I really do like it! Only I don't know much algebraic geometry, so need (perhaps a rather lot of) help understanding what's really going on. Thanks though, I'll look that up. –  porkramen Jan 30 '13 at 7:11
1  
There is a chapter devoted to it in Silverman's book. –  Thom Tyrrell Jan 30 '13 at 17:08
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I am not sure I understand correctly your question. If $$ y^2+a_1xy+a_3y=x^3+a_2x^2+a_4x+a_6 $$ is a Weierstrass equation of $E$, define $O_E$ be the point with homogeneous coordinates $x=0, y=1, z=0$. Consider $x,y $ as rational functions on $E$. Then the computation of the divisors of rationals functions shows that $\{1, x\}$ is a basis of $L(2O_E)$ and $\{1, x, y\}$ is a basis of $L(3O_E)$. For instance the pole divisor of $x$ is $-2O_E$ and that of $y$ is $-3O_E$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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.