$\newcommand{\fp}{\mathfrak{p}} \renewcommand{\phi}{\varphi}$ I'm currently trying to understand a paper of Cassels [see page 189 for the relevant content, esp. (4.9)] and I've hit a little snag. The set up is as follows (although I've modernized notation and slightly changed the context):

Let $K$ be a number field, $\fp$ a (finite) prime of $K$, and $k_\fp$ the residue field. Fix an algebraic (resp. separable) closure $\bar{K}_\fp$ (resp. $\bar{k}_\fp$) of $K_\fp$ (resp. $k_\fp$). Let $E,E'$ be elliptic curves defined over $K_\fp$ with good reduction at $\fp$, and suppose we have an isogeny $\phi:E\to E'$ such that $\fp\nmid\deg\phi$. Let $\tilde{E},\tilde{E}'$ be the reduced curves over $k_\fp$. Then by some standard result (I think it's in Silverman somewhere) there is a separable isogeny $\tilde{\phi}:\tilde{E}\to \tilde{E}'$ which is the 'reduction' of $\phi$—that is, the obvious square commutes and the $\bar{k}_\fp$-points of the kernel of $\tilde{\phi}$ are the reduced $\bar{K}_\fp$-points of the kernel of $\phi$.

Now for the bit I don't get. According to Cassels, "because $\tilde{\phi}$ is separable, we have $$E'_1(K_\fp)\subseteq\phi(E(K_\fp))",$$ where $E'_1$ is the kernel of reduction $E'\to\tilde{E}'$. How does this follow?


Your Answer

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.