5
$\begingroup$

I'm confused by what appears to be contradictory information.

In this post, the claim is made that

"Every elliptic curve over $\mathbb{Q}$ can be written in the form $y^{2}= x^{3}+ax+b$ where $a,b∈ \mathbb{Z}$ with discriminant $Δ=−16(4a^{3}+27b^{2})≠0$. So the number of elliptic curves of discriminant $D$ is bounded above by number of nontrivial pairs $(a,b)∈ \mathbb{Z}^{2}$ such that $D=−16(4a^{3}+27b^{2})$."

Is this true? this post gives an example of an elliptic curve with integer coefficients that is not isomorphic to any curve $y^2 = x^3 + Ax + B$ for $A, B$ integers and discriminant equal to the original. Isn't this in contradiction to the original claim? That is, the curve in the second link would not be counted as a curve with its discriminant, right?

In fact, it seems to me (after plugging through the relevant changes of variables) that most curves of the form $$E: y^2 + a_{1} xy + a_{3} y = x^{3} + a_{2}x^{2} + a_{4}x + a_{6},$$ with discriminant $\Delta$

cannot be written in the form $$ E' : y^{2} = x^{3} + Ax + B $$ with discriminant also $\Delta$ for some $A, B \in \mathbb{Z}$.

Any help?

$\endgroup$
4
$\begingroup$

The statement:

"The number of elliptic curves of discriminant $D$ is bounded above by number of nontrivial pairs $(a,b)∈ \mathbb{Z}^{2}$ such that $D=−16(4a^{3}+27b^{2})$."

is certainly false as stated. For example, the discriminant of the model for the curve $$E:y^2 + y = x^3 - x^2 - 10x - 20$$ is $-11^5$. Any model of the form $y^2=x^3+Ax+B$ with integers $A,B$ has a discriminant of the form $D=-16(4a^3+27b^2)$. But the equation $$-11^5 = -16(4a^3+27b^2)$$ is impossible in integers $a,b$ as the left hand side is odd and the right hand side is even.

One could salvage the statement above, however, and write something in a similar spirit. Going from a generic Weierstrass model to a short Weierstrass model means that the discriminant is multiplied, at worst, by $2^{12}3^{12}$. So one could say

"The number of elliptic curves of discriminant $D$ is bounded above $n_1+n_2+n_3+n_4$, where

  • $n_1$ is the number of non-trivial pairs $(a,b)\in\mathbb{Z}^2$ such that $D=-16(4a^3+27b^2)$,

  • $n_2$ is the number of non-trivial pairs $(a,b)\in\mathbb{Z}^2$ such that $2^{12}D=-16(4a^3+27b^2)$,

  • $n_3$ is the number of non-trivial pairs $(a,b)\in\mathbb{Z}^2$ such that $3^{12}D=-16(4a^3+27b^2)$, and

  • $n_4$ is the number of non-trivial pairs $(a,b)\in\mathbb{Z}^2$ such that $6^{12}D=-16(4a^3+27b^2)$."

and I believe this is a true statement.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Regarding "Going from a generic Weierstrass model to a short Weierstrass model means that the discriminant is multiplied, at worst, by $2^{12} 3^{12}$" Is this true? I've only seen that going from one "short" Weierstrass model to another results in multiplying the discriminant by a $12$th power of $2, 3$ or $6$. In fact in Silverman (pages $42-43$ he gives that $y^{2} + a_{1}xy + a_{3}y = x^{3} + a_{2}x^{2} + a_{4}x + a_{6}$ is isomorphic to $y^{2} = x^{3} - 27c_{4}x - 54c_{6}$ but these two discriminants don't necessarily (and indeed it seems very rarely) differ by a twelfth power. $\endgroup$ – 112358 Feb 25 '14 at 5:10
  • $\begingroup$ If you go from an equation of the form $y^2+Axy+By=f(x)$ to one of the form $Y^2=f(x)$, you need to do a change of the form $Y=y+(Ax+B)/2$. This may introduce a $2^{12}$ in the discriminant. If now you go from $y^2=x^3+Ax^2+Bx+C$ to $y^2=X^3+A'x+B'$, you need a change of the form $X=x-A/3$, and this may introduce a $3^{12}$ in the discriminant. $\endgroup$ – Álvaro Lozano-Robledo Feb 25 '14 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ Okay, I had miscalculated something. I now agree that what you wrote is true. Thanks $\endgroup$ – 112358 Feb 25 '14 at 18:03

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.