I've seen two different definitions of an elliptic curve. The first one being that it is a cubic curve of the form $y^2=x^3+ax^2+bx+c$, where all the (complex) roots are different. The other definition is that it is a curve $y^2=x^3+ax+b$ which is non-singular. They both claim that the definition is in Weierstrass form.

I'm unsure whether these two definitions are the same? In case they are, can someone explain why?

  • 3
    $\begingroup$ From $x^3 + ax^2 + bx + c$ make a constant shift in $x$: $x \to x - \frac{a}{3}$ to get ridd of the $x^2$ term. $\endgroup$
    – Winther
    Oct 2, 2014 at 8:05
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The differences in the definitions are about "up to equivalence". If $6\neq0$ in your field, then you can always bring the equation into the form $y^2=x^3+ax+b$ by replacing the original $x,y$ with suitable alternatives. In characteristics two and three you cannot do this, and need terms containing $xy$ and $x^2$ respectively. The definitions seek to cover "a non-singular cubic plane curve (and a specified base point)", but some authors may want to cut a few corners - all depending on their setting. $\endgroup$ Oct 2, 2014 at 8:07

2 Answers 2


The short Weierstrass form for an elliptic curve $E$ over a field $K$ of characteristic not $2$ or $3$ is given by $y^2=x^3+ax+b$, such that the discriminant $\Delta=-16(4a^3+27b^2)$ is nonzero, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_curve. However, the general definition of an elliptic curve is that $E$ is a smooth curve of degree $3$ over $K$, which means, given by an equation $$ y^2+a_1xy+a_3y=x^3+a_2x^2+a_4x+a_6. $$ Now one can show that we can always assume that $a_1=a_3=a_2=0$ by smart substitutions, provided $2\neq 0$ and $3\neq 0$ in $K$.


The "right" definition of an elliptic curve defined over a field $K$ is that it is a pair $(E,\mathcal{O})$, where $E$ is a smooth algebraic curve of genus 1 and where $\mathcal{O}$ is a point in $E(K)$. One then has various theorems giving facts such as the following:

  • There are morphisms $\mu:E\times E\to E$ and $\iota:E\to E$ defined over $K$ that make $E$ into a group variety with identity element $\mathcal{O}$, i.e., $\mu$ is the group law and $\iota$ is inversion.

  • There is an embedding $\phi:E\hookrightarrow\mathbb P^2$ such that the image is a curve of the form $$ Y^2Z + a_1XYZ+a_3YZ^2 = X^3+a_2X^2Z+a_4XZ^2+a_6Z^3 $$ with $a_1,\ldots,a_6\in K$.

  • If $\text{char}(K)\ne2$, then here is an embedding $\phi:E\hookrightarrow\mathbb P^2$ such that the image is a curve of the form $$Y^2Z=X^3+aX^2Z+bXZ^2+cZ^3$$ with $a,b,c\in K$.
  • If $\text{char}(K)\ne2,3$, then here is an embedding $\phi:E\hookrightarrow\mathbb P^2$ such that the image is a curve of the form $$Y^2Z=X^3+AXZ^2+BZ^3$$ with $A,B\in K$.

Note, however, that even if you're working over a field such as $\mathbb Q$, you may want to use the more general equation with integer coefficients so that you can reduce modulo $2$ and $3$ and have a (better) chance of still being non-singular.

Also note that there are many other embeddings of elliptic curves in projective spaces of various dimensions. One nice example is as the intersection of two quadric surfaces in $\mathbb P^3$. That's why i't's overly restrictive to define an elliptic curve as being given by an equation of some particular sort in some particular projective space.


You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .