11
$\begingroup$

Consider the family $f\colon \mathfrak X \to \mathbb C^*$ of elliptic curves over $\mathbb C^*$ with coordinate $t$ given by the affine equation $y^2 = x^3 - t$. Then all the fibres have $j$-invariant $j = 0$, hence they are all isomorphic. In fact, it is easy to see that the family trivializes after the finite étale base change $s \mapsto s^6$.

On the other hand, it is claimed (e.g. in Exercise 1.6 of "Moduli of Curves" by Harris and Morrison) that the family $f$ is not trivial. How to show this?

One idea would be to show that the family does not have an algebraic/holomorphic section. However I don't know how to do this.

Or one could show that $R^1 f_* \mathbb Z_{\mathfrak X}$ has non-trivial monodromy using the Picard-Lefschetz formula. But this requires doing a semistable reduction first, which boils down to taking the 6-to-1 cover mentioned above and then the monodromy will be trivial because the family is trivial.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Maybe it's possible to compare the elliptic curve over the generic points of $\mathbb{C}^*$ to the same gadget for a trivial family over $\mathbb{C}^*$? The $j$ invariants over $k(t)$ don't distinguish them, though I don't see why the generic fibers should be isomorphic -- is the family $f$ supposed to be locally trivial? If so, that would discount this idea, of course. $\endgroup$
    – Elle Najt
    Aug 31 '16 at 20:49
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ You can probably do this by hand as follows. (Let $k=\mathbb C$.) You have to show that $y^2 = x^3-t$ is not isomorphic to $(y')^2= x'^3-1$ over $k(t)$. However, any isomorphism between these two elliptic curves over $k(t)$ is given by a change of variables (see Silverman Prop. III.3.1.(b)) $x= u^2 x'+r$ and $y=u^3 y' +su^2 x' +t$ with $u,r,s,t \in k(t)$ and $u\neq 0$. It might get ugly, but you can work out that there is no isomorphism using this explicit description. $\endgroup$ Sep 1 '16 at 10:39
13
$\begingroup$

One idea is to show that the total space of the family is rational. In other words, we want to show that the surface $$ \operatorname{Spec} \frac{k[x,y,t]}{(x^3-y^2-t)} $$ is rational. This can easily be seen algebraically. At the level of rings, $$ \frac{k[x,y,t]}{(x^3-y^2-t)} \cong k[x,y] $$ where we used the fact that $R[t]/(t-a) = R$ for $a\in R$. In this case, $R=k[x,y]$. Consequently, our surface is isomorphic to $\operatorname{Spec} k[x,y]=\mathbb{A}^2$, so it is rational. (If you prefer a geometric argument, you can project away from a point.)

This proves that the given family is not trivial: Indeed, the total space of the trivial family is isomorphic to the surface $\mathbb{C}^* \times E$ where $E$ is the elliptic curve $y^2=x^3-1$ (since all the fibers are isomorphic elliptic curves). This surface is not rational, because a rational map $\mathbb{P}^2\dashrightarrow \mathbb{C}^*\times E$ composed with the projection $\mathbb{C}^*\times E\to E$ would give a dominant map $\mathbb{P}^2\dashrightarrow E$ which would mean that $E$ is unirational. Any unirational curve is rational (by Luroth's theorem), which is a contradiction (because an elliptic curve have genus 1, so it is not rational).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ This is a very nice and elementary argument that answers the original question. However, it seems that unlike oxeimon's answer it does not address the question what happens when I shrink the base to a small punctured disc around the origin. $\endgroup$
    – pgraf
    Sep 1 '16 at 17:34
5
$\begingroup$

Whenever you have a family of (generically smooth, but possibly singular) elliptic curves over a smooth 1-dimensional base $B$, the local monodromy of the family around a point $b\in B$ is completely determined by the fiber at that point. Roughly speaking, this monodromy tells you how the homology groups of the fibers changes as you move along a loop in the base $B$. In this case, since the fibers are elliptic curves, their first homology is $\mathbb{Z}^2$, and thus the monodromy associated to a loop in $B$ will be a matrix in $GL_2(\mathbb{Z})$. The point here is that if the family is trivial, then the monodromy will be trivial (ie "the identity" $[[1,0],[0,1]]$).

When $B$ is a curve over $\mathbb{C}$ (or a number field), the relationship between monodromy and the singular fiber is completely classified by Kodaira in one of his papers "On the Structure of Compact Complex Analytic Surfaces" (he wrote a number of papers with this title). (I believe the case of elliptic surfaces over rings of integers in number fields was done by Neron/Tate)

Thankfully, one of the key results can be found here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_surface#Monodromy

In your case, your singular fiber above $t = 0$ is a cuspidal cubic (Kodaira type II), which according to the table has monodromy matrix $[[1,1],[-1,0]]$. Since this monodromy matrix isn't the identity, you can deduce that your family is not a trivial family. (Note that the only way to get trivial monodromy is for the "singular fiber" to actually be smooth, ie Kodaira type $I_0$).

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ A non-Wikipedia reference is Table 6 on p. 210 of Barth-Hulek-Peters-Van de Ven. - I was not aware that the singular fibre completely determines the monodromy. $\endgroup$
    – pgraf
    Sep 1 '16 at 17:41
2
$\begingroup$

As Ariyan commented, it can be done by hand, but it's not ugly at all. Let $k = \mathbb C$. Any change of variables preserving the short Weierstrass form $y^2 = x^3+Ax+B$ is $(x,y) = (u^2x', u^3y')$ for $u \neq 0$ (cf. Silverman III.1). (This needs that the characteristic is $\neq 2,3$). The coefficients transform as $B = u^6 B'$. Thus, an isomorphism between $\{y^2=x^3-t\}$ and $\{y'^2=x'^3-1\}$ over $k(t)$ would give $u \in k(t)^\times$ with $u^6=t$.

So we really need to make the étale base change $k(t) \to k(t^{1/6})$ to trivialise the family.

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

You can do this by computing the Picard-Fuchs equation.

Take the form $\omega(t)=dx/y$, and consider $$\pi(t) \ =\ \int_{\gamma(t)} \omega(t)$$ where for $U$ a small open set, $\gamma(t)\in H_1(X_t;\mathbf{Z})$ is a locally constant choice of loop for each $t\in U$. Then $$\pi(t) \ = \ \int_{\gamma(t)} \frac{dx}{\sqrt{x^3+t}} \ \ \ \text{ and } \ \ \ \pi'(t) \ =\ \int_{\gamma(t)}\frac{-dx}{2\sqrt{x^3+t}^3} $$ However, note that $$ df\ =\ 6t\omega'(t) \ - \omega(t)\ \ \ \text{ for }f \ =\ \frac{x}{\sqrt{x^3+t}}$$ Since the integral of an exact form is zero, $6t\pi'(t)+\pi(t)=0$, which implies $$\pi(t) \ =\ \pi(1)\exp\left( -\int_1^t\frac{d\zeta}{6\zeta}\right)$$ Thus looping around $t=0$ changes $\pi(t)$ by a primitive $6$th root of unity, i.e. we have detected that the initial and final values of $\gamma(t)$ are different. Of course the monodromy of a period in a trivial family is trivial, hence this family isn't trivial.


Note the same $6$ appearing in marlu's answer. Also, the fact that one forms/periods appear is perhaps not surprising: to construct the moduli stack of elliptic curves $E$ you first construct the moduli stack of elliptic curves with a given form $(E,\omega)$, then take the quotient. See Nitsure's ''Theory of descent and algebraic stacks'', chapters $20-22$ for this.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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