SUMMARY OF ELLIPTIC CURVES

1. Definition of an Elliptic Curve Here is our rst denition of an elliptic curve: Denition 1.1. An elliptic curve E over a eld k is a nonsingular cubic curve VP (k ) P2 (k ) (where P (x, y, z ) is a degree-3 homogeneous polynomial), together with a chosen point O VP (k ). Remark 1.2. We consider the polynomial P to be part of the data of the elliptic curve. Therefore even if VP (k ) = VP (k ) for distinct homogeneous polynomials P = P , we say that the elliptic curves they dene are distinct. We usually write E (k ) instead of VP (k ) for the vanishing locus in P2 (k ) of an elliptic curve. Let E = (VP (k ), O) be an ellipitic curve dened by a homogeneous polynomial P (x, y, z ). By a tedious application of linear algebra or use of some sophisticated algebraic geometry (Riemann-Hurwitz theorem), one can show that there is a linear change of coordinates transforming this equation to an equation of the form P (x, y, z ) = y 2 z x3 axz 2 bz 3 , for some a, b k . Here O is transformed to the point [0 : 1 : 0]. This is called the Weierstrass normal form of the elliptic curve: Denition 1.3. An elliptic curve E (k ) over a eld k is said to have Weierstrass normal form if its polynomial P (x, y, z ) is of the form y 2 z x3 axz 2 bz 3 for some a, b k , and the point O is the point [0 : 1 : 0]. In order for this elliptic curve to be nonsingular, we must have 4a3 + 27b2 = 0. We will only consider elliptic curves in Weierstrass normal form. Let L = {[x : y : z ] | z = 0} be the line at innity in P2 (k ). Notice that L E (k ) = {[0 : 1 : 0]}, i.e., O is the only point in E (k ) on the line at innity. Any other point [x : y : z ] in E (k ) can be uniquely expressed (by dividing by z ) by an ordered pair (x, y ) k 2 satisfying y 2 = x3 + ax + b. Therefore we can write E (k ) = {[0 : 1 : 0]} {(x, y ) k 2 | y 2 = x3 + ax + b}. This agrees with the description given in your book. 2. Intersection Multiplicities Before we explain the group structure on an elliptic curve, we dene the notion of intersection multiplicity, which is a number we attach to each point of the intersection E (k ) L, where L is any line in P2 and E is an elliptic curve. Assume E is dened by the polynomial y 2 z = x3 + axz 2 + bz 3 . First o, notice the following:
1

SUMMARY OF ELLIPTIC CURVES

Proposition 2.1. Let L be any line in P2 (k ). Then L contains the point [0 : 1 : 0] if and only if it is (a) the line at innity given by equation z = 0, or (b) a line given by equation x = z for some k . Proof. It is clear that the lines z = 0 and x = z both contain [0 : 1 : 0]. Conversely, suppose L is not a line of this form. Therefore it is given by an equation x + y + z = 0, where = 0. Dividing through by and relabeling our coecients, we can write the equation of such a line as y = mx + z. We see that the point [0 : 1 : 0] does not lie on this line since x = z = 0 for this point. We now dene intersection multiplicity on a case-by-case basis. Denition 2.2. Let L be a line in P2 (k), and let E be an elliptic curve. For each point P L E (k ), we associate an integer mL (P ), called the intersection multiplicity of P in L E (k ), as follows: If L = {[x : y : z ] | z = 0} is the line at innity, then we already calculated that L E (k ) = {[0 : 1 : 0]}. We set mL ([0 : 1 : 0]) = 3. If L = {[x : y : z ]| x z = 0} for some k , then the above proposition shows that L E (k ) contains the point [0 : 1 : 0]. In this case we set mL ([0 : 1 : 0]) = 1. Other points of L E (k ) are given by points (x, y ) k 2 such that y 2 = 3 + a + b. For any point P = (x, y ) satisfying this equation, we set mL (P ) to be the multiplicity of y as a root to this equation. The last possible type of line is L = {[x : y : z ] | y = mx + } for some m, k . In this case [0 : 1 : 0] does not lie on E (k ) L, and points P L E (k ) can be expressed as point P = (x, y ) such that (mx + )2 = x3 + ax + . For any point P = (x, y ) in L E (k ), we set mL (P ) to be the multiplicity of x as a solution to the above equation. From the above denition, the following fact is more or less automatic: Proposition 2.3. Let L be any line in P2 (k ). Then the intersection L E (k ) consists of nitely many points. Dene the total intersection multiplicity to be the integer mL =
P LE (k)

mL (P ).

Then mL 3. Moreover, if mL is at least 2, then mL = 3. Proof. The proof was done in class via a case-by-case calculation. We also have the following result: Proposition 2.4. Let L be a line in P2 (k ). Suppose that there exists a point P L E (k ) such that mL (P ) 2. Then L is the tangent line to E (k ) at P .

SUMMARY OF ELLIPTIC CURVES

Proof. Recall that the tangent line to a point [a : b : c] of VP (k ) is dened by the equation P P P (a, b, c)x + (a, b, c)y + (a, b, c)z = 0. x y z In our case P (x, y, z ) = y 2 z x3 axz 2 bz 3 , so the partial derivatives are given by P = 3x2 az 2 , x P = 2yz, y P = 2axz 3bz 2 . z We prove the proposition on a case-by-case basis corresponding to that appearing in the denition of intersection multiplicity: If L = {[x : y : z ] | z = 0} is the line at innity, then L is the tangent line to E (k ) at [0 : 1 : 0], as one can check by plugging in [a : b : c] = [0 : 1 : 0] into the above formula. If L = {[x : y : z ] | x = z }, then a point of multiplicity at least 2 is given by a point [ : y : 1] k 2 such that y is a repeated root of the equation y 2 = 3 + a + b. This only happens if y = 0 and 3 + a + b = 0. In this case we claim that L is the tangent line to E (k ) at [ : 0 : 1]: this tangent line is given by the equation (32 a)x + (2a 3b)z = 0. To show that this agrees with the line x z = 0, we must show that 2 + 3b . = 2 3 + a Multiplying through by 32 + a, we get the equation 33 3a 3b, which equals 0 since was assumed to be a root to 3 + 3a + b = 0. Finally consider a line of the form y = mx + z . In this case a point of multiplicity 2 is given by a point P = (x0 , mx0 + ) such that x0 is a multiple root to the equation (mx + )2 = x3 + ax + b. This is equivalent to x0 simultaneously being a root of the polynomial x3 m2 x2 + (a 2m )x + (b 2 ) = 0 and the derivative of this polynomial, namely 3x2 2m2 x + (a 2m ) = 0. One can check that these two equations precisely imply that the lines (3x2 0 a)x + 2(mx0 + )y + (2ax0 3b)z = 0 (i.e., the tangent line at [x0 : mx0 + : 1]) and mx + y z = 0

SUMMARY OF ELLIPTIC CURVES

are equal, which amounts to saying that m = 3x2 2ax0 3b 0a and = . 2(mx0 + ) 2(mx0 + )

3. Group Structure on an Elliptic Curve We can now dene the group structure E (k ) E (k ) E (k ), (P, Q) P + Q, as follows: (1) Let LP Q be the line in P2 (k ) through P and Q. If P = Q, take LP Q to be the tangent line through P . By Propositions 2.3 and 2.4 above, there is a uniquely determined third point of intersection R in LP Q E (k ), if one counts multiplicities. (2) Consider the line LOR between O and R (if R = O, take LOR to be the tangent line to E (k ) at O, which is the line at innity). Again, there is a uniquely determined third point of intersection in LOR E (k ), which we denote by P + Q. This denes the law of composition on the points E (k ) on the elliptic curve. Proposition 3.1. This composition law gives E (k ) the structure of an abelian group. Proof. Recall that there are four axioms that an abelian group must satisfy: (1) (2) (3) (4) P + (Q + R) = (P + Q) + R for all points P, Q, R. P + Q = Q + P for all points P, Q. there exists a point O such that O + P = P for all points P . for any P E (k ), there exists a point P such that P + (P ) = O.

The rst axiom is by far the most dicult; we will discuss it more in class. Here we assume that the rst axiom holds. The second axiom is obvious, since the denition of P + Q is symmetric in P and Q. For the third axiom, we leave it as an exercise to show that O = [0 : 1 : 0] has this property. For the nal axiom, consider any point P E (k ) such that P = O. Then we can represent P as a point (x0 , y0 ) in k 2 such 2 that y0 = x3 0 + ax0 + b. Then we claim that P + (P ) = O , where we dene P to be the point (x0 , y0 ). To see this, notice that the unique line through P and P is the vertical line x = x0 , and the third point of intersection is O = [0 : 1 : 0]. Then to form P + (P ), we form nd the third point of intersection of the tangent line through O, which is O again (the tangent line through O is the line at innity, which intersects E (k ) at O with multiplicity 3). Therefore P + (P ) = 0. The group law may seem a little unnatural, until one recognizes the following fact: Proposition 3.2. For any line L in P2 (k ) such that L E (k ) has total intersection multiplicity 3, we have mL (P ) P = O.
P LE (k)

Proof. This was discussed in class.

SUMMARY OF ELLIPTIC CURVES

As discussed in class, this fact also essentially determines the rules for the group law above. 4. The structure of E (Q) for an elliptic curve over Q Much of the current work on elliptic curves consists in trying to determine the group E (Q), when E is an elliptic curve over Q. We will only list a few facts in this direction and indicate how they can be used to determine rational points on an elliptic curve. The rst fundamental fact about elliptic curves is the following: Theorem 4.1. (Mordell-Weil) Let E be an elliptic curve over Q. Then the group E (Q) is nitely generated. If youre unfamiliar with the denition of nitely generated, we include a denition: Denition 4.2. An abelian group G is said to be nitely generated if there exists a nite set of elements g1 , ..., gn G such that for any other g G, g = m1 g1 + ... + mn gn for some integers m1 , ...mn . Therefore a natural question for a specic elliptic curve over Q is the following: Given an elliptic curve over Q, nd a nite set of generators of the group E (Q). Unfortunately, there is no PROVEN algorithm for nding a nite set of generators of E (Q). But there is a subgroup of E (Q) that we can get a handle on, namely its torsion subgroup: Denition 4.3. Let G be an abelian group, and let g G. We say that g is a torsion element of G if for some integer n Z, ng = 0. As an exercise, you may show that the torsion elements Gtor form a subgroup of any abelian group G. We can analyze the torsion subgroup E (Q)tor of E (Q) thanks to the following theorem: Theorem 4.4. (Lutz-Nagell) Let E be an elliptic curve over Q, dened by a polynomial y 2 z x3 ax2 bz 3 . Then O = [0 : 1 : 0] is a torsion point of E (obvious). Let P = [x : y : 1] be any other point of E (Q). If P is a torsion point, then x, y Z and either y = 0 or y 2 | 4a3 + 27b2 . It is important to notice that the statement in the theorem is not and if-andonly-if statement: even if y divides 4a3 + 27b2 , [x : y : 1] may not be a torsion point. One must check this directly.

SUMMARY OF ELLIPTIC CURVES

Finally, a deep theorem due to Mazur severely restricts what the torsion subgroup E (Q)tor can look like: Theorem 4.5. The group E (Q)tor is one of the following: (1) Z/mZ for m 10 or m = 12, or (2) Z/2Z Z/mZ for m = 2, 4, 6, 8. Example 4.6. Let us use the Lutz-Nagell theorem to compute E (Q)tor for the elliptic curve y 2 = x3 + 8 This curve has 4a3 + 27b2 = 33 26 = 1728. If y = 0, then x = 2. The point (2, 0) is a torsion point, as you can check. If y = 0, then y 2 | 1728, which leaves the possibilities y = 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 24. Checking these one-by-one, we see that the only point (x, y ) with these y -values are (1, 3) and (2, 4). Howeover, 2(1, 3) = (7/4, 13/8) and 2(2, 4) = (7/4, 13/8). By the Lutz-Nagell theorem again, (7/4, 13/8) are not torsion points. Therefore (1, 3) and (2, 4) are not torsion points either. It follows that the torsion subgroup o E (Q) is {O, [2 : 0 : 1]}.