14
$\begingroup$

The $j$-invariant for elliptic curves has a $1728$ in it. According to Hartshorne, this is supposedly for characteristic-$2$ and $3$ reasons, despite appearances to the contrary.

Indeed, it is unfathomable why it would help in char $2$ and $3$ when it would vanish.

For that matter, the functions $g_2$, $g_3$ and $\Delta$ too have these constants. Is there a ``good reason'' why these exist, other than historical reasons? And why are they kept on when we pass to abstract algebraic geometry, when $1728$ only seems to do harm?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I do not know if this is useful, but 1728+1=1729 and 1729 is the smallest number that is the sum of two (positive) cubes in two different ways. $\endgroup$ – Baby Dragon Oct 18 '13 at 22:17
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ It's needed e.g. to make the coefficients of the q-expansion of j to integers (i.e. to remove denominators) $\endgroup$ – user8268 Oct 18 '13 at 22:24
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ When I first learned about Elliptic Curves, it was in a seminar given by Tate. He remarked that $1728$ is the number of cubic inches in a cubic foot, and I always think of it that way. $\endgroup$ – Lubin Oct 19 '13 at 15:31
12
$\begingroup$

Indeed, it is unfathomable why it would help in char 2 and 3 when it would vanish.

It doesn't vanish, in characteristic 2 or 3! Instead, it cancels out the coefficients that would make it otherwise impossible to define the $j$-invariant.

Also, note that the $j$-invariant doesn't have a 1728 in it: the 1728 only appears in the specific formula for the $j$-invariant of a curve expressed in short Weierstrass form.

In characteristic $2$ and $3$, you can't write elliptic curves in short Weierstrass form!

An instructive exercise (it helped me) is to take the forms that you need to use for characteristic $2$ (or $3$), and use the same form to express a rational elliptic curve. Then, compute it's $j$-invariant (e.g. by converting the curve to short Weierstrass form). You'll see the $2$'s or $3$'s cancel out.

$\endgroup$
9
$\begingroup$

@user8268's comment provides the essence, just let me add some detail. The $1728$ removes a common factor from the $q$-power series coefficients of the normalized modular discriminant (with $q=\mathrm{e}^{2\pi\mathrm{i}\tau}$ and $\tau$ the period ratio), as in: $$\eta^{24}(\tau) = \Delta^*(\tau) = \frac{\operatorname{E}_4^3(\tau)-\operatorname{E}_6^2(\tau)}{1728} = \frac{g_2^3(1,\tau)-27\,g_3^2(1,\tau)}{(2\pi)^{12}}$$ where $\eta$ is the Dedekind eta function and $\operatorname{E}_4$ and $\operatorname{E}_6$ are the Eisenstein series normalized to a limit of $1$ for $\Im\tau\to\infty$, that is, $g_2(1,\tau) = \frac{4}{3}\pi^4\operatorname{E}_4(\tau)$ and $g_3(1,\tau)=\frac{8}{27}\pi^6\operatorname{E}_6(\tau)$.

In particular, the first nonzero $q$-power series coefficient of the normalized modular discriminant is $1$, and all following coefficients are integers. Given that the $q$-power series coefficients of $\operatorname{E}_4$ happen to be integers too, a consequence of the normalization is that the $q$-power series coefficients of $$j = \frac{\operatorname{E}_4^3}{\Delta^*} = \frac{1728\operatorname{E}_4^3}{\operatorname{E}_4^3-\operatorname{E}_6^2} = \frac{1728 g_2^3}{g_2^3-27g_3^2}$$ are integers as well.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ how $\eta$ function and j-invariant (Hauptmodul) for $\Gamma^{1}(n)$ are given any clue is of great help $\endgroup$ – thanks May 9 '14 at 8:18

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.