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

Let $p_1=2, p_2 = 3,\ldots,$ be the prime numbers, and define $n_i = \prod_{j=1}^i p_j$. Moreover, let $E_i $ be the elliptic curve defined by $y^2 = x^3 + n_i$.

Can one compute the torsion group $E_i(\mathbb Q)_{tors}$ in terms of $i$? Or at least its cardinal?

I expect it to be trivial. I checked this for all $i\leq 1000$.

I was thinking about considering the reduction of $E_i$ modulo $p_{i+1}$ and showing that $E_i(\mathbb F_{p_{i+1}}) = \{ 0\}$. That would imply the torsion group is trivial.

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 8 down vote accepted

Exercise 10.19 of Chapter X of Silverman's Arithmetic of elliptic curves gives a classification of the torsion subgroup of $E : y^{2} = x^{3} + D$ if $D$ is a sixth-power free integer. The torsion subgroup is trivial unless $D$ is a square, a cube, or $-432$.

One way to prove this is to show that if $p \equiv 2 \pmod{3}$ is prime and $p \nmid 6D$, then $\# E(\mathbb{F}_{p}) = p+1$. The idea then is to use Dirichlet's theorem on primes in arithmetic progressions. (A similar argument for the curves $y^{2} = x^{3} - n^{2} x$ is given in Koblitz's "Introduction to Elliptic Curves and Modular Forms" Proposition I.9.17.)

share|improve this answer
    
A full proof can also be found here: www2.imperial.ac.uk/~rpanneko/m4p32/exercises4sols.pdf –  René May 29 at 14:59
    
Thank you for your answer. –  user1234 May 29 at 16:10

An alternative to the "reduction mod $p$ and Dirichlet's theorem" approach described by Jeremy Rouse is to do a height computation. It is not that hard to find explicit absolute constants $c_1>0$ and $c_2$ so that every point $P=(x,y)\in E_D(\mathbb{Q})$ with $xy\ne0$ satisfies $$ \hat h(P) \ge c_1 \log\bigl|\hbox{Disc}(\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt[6]{D})/\mathbb{Q})\bigr| - c_2. $$ In particular, this shows that for all 6'th power free $D$ larger than some absolute bound, the only possible torsion points have $xy=0$. Finally one notes that $xy=0$ leads to 2-torsion or 3-torsion when $D$ is, respectively, a cube or a square.

To me, this height proof seems more elementary than the mod $p$ proof because it doesn't invoke Dirichlet's theorem; although I guess Dirichlet's theorem for $p\equiv2\pmod3$ probably has an elementary proof. Another advantage of the height proof is that it generalizes quite well to families of twists of abelian varieties of arbitrary dimension.

share|improve this answer
    
Something closer to the full strength of Dirichlet's theorem is needed for the other proof, namely given a prime $\ell > 3$, the existence of some $p \equiv 2 \pmod{3}$ with $\ell \nmid p+1$. –  Jeremy Rouse May 29 at 15:37
    
Thank you for your answer. –  user1234 May 29 at 16:09

Suppose that $(x,y)$ is a torsion point on the curve given by $Y^2=X^3+n$, where $n\ne\pm1$ is a squarefree integer. We can't have $y=0$. So assume $y\ne0$. Then, by Nagell-Lutz, $y^2$ divides $-27n^2$, so $y$ divides $9n$. If $p>3$ is a divisor of $y$, then (note that $n$ is square free) $y^2=x^3+n$ implies that $p$ divides $x^3$, but $p^2$ does not, which is absurd. So $y$ is, up to a sign, a power of $3$, which yields the same contradiction unless $y=\pm1$.

So suppose that $y=1$ (thanks to Jeremy Rouse for pointing out that this case was missing). Then $2(x,y)=(x',y')$ with $y'=(-27n^2 + 18n + 1)/8\ne0$. Again by Nagell-Lutz, $y'$ divides $9n$, which fails for size reasons except for a few small values of $n$ which can be checked by hand.

share|improve this answer
    
Jeremy and I were answering a more general question, but you're right, the specific question is easier (although Nagell-Lutz is only marginally easier than the height argument). More generally, you're argument should work for $y^2=x^3+D$ with $D$ square-free. But it's not clear (to me) if it can be made to work for 6'th power free $D$. –  Joe Silverman May 29 at 15:55
1  
It takes a little bit of work to handle the case that $y = 1$. –  Jeremy Rouse May 29 at 16:06
    
Thank you for your answer. –  user1234 May 29 at 16:10
    
@Jeremy Rouse: Thanks for remarking that $y=1$ isn't covered by the original answer. I fixed it now. –  Peter Mueller May 29 at 19:18

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.