Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Consider the familiar Riemann surface

$$ Y_1(N) = \Gamma_1(N) \backslash \mathcal{H} $$

where $\mathcal{H}$ is the upper half-plane and $\Gamma_1(N)$ is the subgroup of matrices in $SL_2(\mathbb{Z})$ which are congruent to $\begin{pmatrix} 1 & * \\\ 0 & 1 \end{pmatrix}$ modulo $N$.

It's a standard theorem that $Y_1(N)$ has a canonical model as an algebraic curve over $\mathbb{Q}$, and this model is a moduli space for pairs $(E, P)$ where $E$ is an elliptic curve and $P$ is an point of order $N$, with the map from $\Gamma_1(N) \backslash \mathcal{H}$ given by sending $\tau$ to $(\mathbb{C} / (\mathbb{Z} + \mathbb{Z} \tau), 1/N)$,

I used to believe that the function field of this canonical $\mathbb{Q}$-model was exactly the meromorphic $\Gamma_1(N)$-invariant functions (with sufficiently slow growth at the cusps) whose $q$-expansions at $\infty$ have coefficients in $\mathbb{Q}$. But some stuff I've just read on Siegel units convinces me that this can't be true.

  • Can one characterize the rational functions on the canonical $\mathbb{Q}$-model in terms of $q$-expansions?
  • Does the field of modular functions with rational $q$-expansions also give a model of $Y_1(N)$ over $\mathbb{Q}$? If so, does it have any natural interpretation as a moduli space?
share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 12 down vote accepted

In the model you describe, the cusp $\infty$ of $X_1(N)$ is not defined over ${\bf Q}$ (but the cusp $0$ is). A way to see this is that the marked elliptic curve $({\bf C}/({\bf Z}+\tau{\bf Z}),1/N)$ is isomorphic to the marked Tate curve $E_q=({\bf C}^\times/q^{\bf Z},e^{2\pi i/N})$ with $q=e^{2\pi i\tau}$. When you let $\tau \to \infty$, you get $q \to 0$ so that $E_q \to ({\bf G}_m,e^{2i\pi/N})$, which is not defined over ${\bf Q}$. This fact is explained in Diamond-Im, Modular forms and modular curves, see 9.3.5 and 9.3.6.

There is an alternative model $Y_\mu(N)$ classifying elliptic curves $E$ together with a closed immersion $\mu_N \hookrightarrow E$ (see loc. cit. 8.2.2). In this model the cusp $\infty$ is defined over ${\bf Q}$, so it gives an affirmative answer to your second question.

You can switch from one model to another with the Atkin-Lehner involution $W_N$, which becomes an isomorphism defined over ${\bf Q}$ — it is only defined over ${\bf Q}(\mu_N)$ when considered as an involution of either $X_1(N)$ or $X_{\mu}(N)$. But I don't see a nice way to characterize those functions which are rational for the canonical model in terms of the $q$-expansion at $\infty$.

share|improve this answer
2  
I think your $Y_\mu(N)$ is a model for $Y_0(N)$. For one thing, $Y_1(N)$ parametrizes elliptic curves with a point of exact order N, not with a cyclic subgroup of order $N$ as $\mu_N$ is. The two moduli problems for $Z/N$ embeddings and $\mu_N$ embeddings are the $\mathcal{A}_N$ and $\mathcal{B}_N$ moduli problems in Deligne-Rapoport's section V.1. –  stankewicz Nov 16 '12 at 21:45
1  
@stankewicz : I don't think the $Y_\mu(N)$ described here is a model for $Y_0(N)$. I really consider the closed immersion as part of the data, not only its image in $E$, like the $\mathcal{A}_N$ and $\mathcal{B}_N$ moduli problems in Deligne-Rapoport. Two closed immersions $i_1 : \mu_N \to E_1$ and $i_2 : \mu_N \to E_2$ are equivalent when there is an isomorphism $psi : E_1 \xrightarrow{\cong} E_2$ such that $i_2 = \psi \circ i_1$. Any $\alpha \in ({\bf Z}/N{\bf Z})^\times$ defines an isomorphism $[\alpha] : \mu_N \to \mu_N$, but in general $(E,i) \not\cong (E,i \circ [\alpha]$. –  François Brunault Nov 17 '12 at 9:10
    
If I've understood Deligne--Rapoport correctly, if $N$ is invertible on the base the moduli problems $\mathcal{A}_N$ and $\mathcal{B}_N$ are identical, aren't they? When $N$ is invertible, $\mu_N$ is etale-locally isomorphic to $\mathbb{Z} / N$ (they become isomorphic after base-change to $\mathbb{Z}[1/N, \zeta_N]$, which is \'etale over $\mathbb{Z}[1/N]$). At least, that would explain why Deligne and Rapoport only mention them in the chapter "Reduction modulo p". –  crocodile Nov 20 '12 at 11:45
    
@crocodile : I'm not familiar with the language of "stacks" used by Deligne-Rapoport but I think you're right. The isomorphism $w : \mathcal{A}_N \to \mathcal{B}_N$ in Deligne-Rapoport is none other than the Atkin-Lehner involution on $X_0(N)$ (or rather its model over $\mathbf{Z}[1/N]$). –  François Brunault Nov 20 '12 at 17:34

There are in fact explicit equations (at least for the prime level) worked out in arXiv:math/0010272.

share|improve this answer
    
link: arxiv.org/abs/math/0010272 –  S. Carnahan Mar 1 at 9:00

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.