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

Every automorphism $\varphi \in \mathrm{Aut}(E)$ of an elliptic curve $E$ (with base point $O$ over a field $k$) can be written $\varphi = \tau_Q\phi$ where $\phi \in \mathrm{Aut}(E,O)$ is an isogeny and $\tau_Q$ is a translation by $Q \in E$ (Silverman, The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves, p. 71), by putting $Q = \varphi(O)$ and $\phi = \tau_{-Q}\varphi$.

Suppose $\varphi$ is an involution, so $\varphi^{-1} = \varphi$, and $\varphi = \tau_Q\phi$ as above. What can we say about $\tau_Q$ and $\phi$?

If $\phi = \mathrm{id}_E$, then $\varphi = \tau_Q$ where $Q$ is a point of order 2.

If $\phi = [-1]$, then $\varphi(P) = Q - P$ for some $Q \in E$.

I think that these are the only possibilities, but I don't see how to prove it. I'm most interested in the case that $k$ has characteristic zero, in which case $[-1]$ is the only isogeny of order 2, because $\mathrm{Aut}(E,O)$ is cyclic of order 2, 4, or 6 (p. 103). Can we somehow prove that $\phi$ can't have an order greater than 2? Then we would be done.

Using $\varphi^{-1} = \phi^{-1}\tau_{-Q}$, the condition for $\varphi$ to be an involution becomes $\phi^2(P) + \phi(Q) = P - Q$. This might be helpful, but I am not sure as I am quite sleepy.

Thanks in advance for your replies.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 6 down vote accepted

Well, $(\tau_Q\phi)^2=\tau_Q\phi\tau_Q\phi$, and since $\phi\tau_Q=\tau_{\phi(Q)}\phi$, we get that $(\tau_Q\phi)^2=\tau_{Q+\phi(Q)}\phi^2=\mbox{id}$. In particular, $\phi(Q)=-Q$ (since $\phi(0)=0$), and so we actually have that $\phi^2=\mbox{id}$. This means that $\phi=\pm\mbox{id}$.

Conclusion: If $\phi=-\mbox{id}$, any $Q$ will do. If $\phi=\mbox{id}$, then $Q$ must be a 2-torsion point.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks. Why does $\phi^2 = \mathrm{id}$ imply $\phi = \pm \mathrm{id}$? Is it because those are the only elements of order 1 and 2 in $\mathrm{Aut}(E,O)$? (Why is this true in arbitrary characteristic?) Or is there a simpler reason? – Ricardo Buring Aug 16 '13 at 12:37
Well, at least over $\mathbb{C}$, the only automorphisms that can occur are multiplication by a complex number. This means that $\phi$ is induced by multiplication by some complex number $\lambda$ such that $\lambda^2=1$, and so $\lambda=\pm1$. – rfauffar Aug 16 '13 at 12:51
For characteristic 2 and $j = 0$, we have $\mathrm{Aut}(E,O) \cong \mathrm{SL}_2(\mathbb{F}_3)$ (SL(2,3)). For characteristic 3 and $j=0$, we have $\mathrm{Aut}(E,O) \cong \mathbb{Z}/4\mathbb{Z} \rtimes \mathbb{Z}/3\mathbb{Z} \cong \mathrm{Dic}_{12}$ (Dic12). These also have only one element of order 2, so it's true in general. – Ricardo Buring Aug 16 '13 at 17:42
Thanks for your comment, I forgot how the situation was in positive characteristic. – rfauffar Aug 16 '13 at 23:52

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.