8
$\begingroup$

this is my first question ever on a platform like this so please forgive me any kind of unintended misbehaving.

In Kudla, Rapoport and Yang "On the derivative of an Eisenstein series of weight one" the authors define a (fine) moduli stack $\mathfrak{M}(1,0)$ of elliptic curves with complex multiplication by $\mathcal{O}_K$ where $K$ is the reflex field. This is a stack over $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_K)$.

My question is now the following. What is known about the existence of smooth elliptic curves with such a complex multiplication over the scheme $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_K)$ itself?

Thank you!

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Hi Sebastian. If memory serves me correctly, the main theorem of complex multiplication implies that the j-invariant of such an elliptic curve with complex multiplication generates the Hilbert class field over K, and so at a minimum one would need the class number of K to be 1. $\endgroup$ – Tyler Lawson Aug 15 '13 at 4:58
  • $\begingroup$ Right over $\operatorname{Spec}({\mathcal{O}_H})$, where $H \supset K$ is the Hilber class field, we have it all. But if there are no such elliptic curves over $\operatorname{Spec}({\mathcal{O}_K})$, I would expect $\mathfrak{M}(1,0)$ to be a stack over $\operatorname{Spec}({\mathcal{O}_H})$? $\endgroup$ – Sebastian Thyssen Aug 15 '13 at 15:00
2
$\begingroup$

In the paper you mentioned, $K\subset \mathbb{C}$ is quadratic imaginary so the reflex field is just $K$ itself. Indeed, $\mathcal{M}(1,0)$ is defined over Spec$(\mathcal{O}_K)$, but the smallest field of definition of CM elliptic curves can be either bigger or smaller than $K$.

For example $E: y^2 = x^3+x$ is defined over $\mathbb{Z}$, but has complex multiplication by $\mathbb{Z}[i]$. In this case the $j$-invariant is $1728$, and $H=K$. Note that by definition only the base change of this $E$ to $E\times \operatorname{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_K)$ appears in the family $\mathcal{M}(1,0)$.

If the class number is not 1, $E$ can't be defined over $K$, since $j(E)\in K$ contradicts $K \subsetneq K(j(E)) = H$. But the moduli space itself is still defined over $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_K)$. The right thing to compare with the field of definition of each elliptic curve in the family, is actually $\mathcal{M}$ itself, not the base of $\mathcal{M}$. This is because the universal object for the moduli space is defined over $\mathcal{M}$, and the other objects are obtained by base changing via maps to $\mathcal{M}$.

Suppose $L$ is a field, and let $E$ be an elliptic curve over $\operatorname{Spec}(L)$ belonging to the family $\mathcal{M}$. Since $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_H)$ is the coarse moduli space of $\mathcal{M}(1,0)$, there's a map $\mathcal{M}(1,0) \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_H)$ over $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_K)$. Composing this with the map $\operatorname{Spec}(L) \rightarrow \mathcal{M}(1,0)$ corresponding to $E$, gives a map $\operatorname{Spec}(L) \rightarrow \operatorname{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_H)$ over $\operatorname{Spec}(\mathcal{O}_K)$. This shows $L$ has to contain $\mathcal{O}_H$ (and hence $H$.)

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Ah...got it. Very nice answer! Thanks $\endgroup$ – Sebastian Thyssen Aug 16 '13 at 6:57

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.