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

I'd like a reference (e.g. something published somewhere that I can cite in a paper) for the proof of the following:

Let $E$ be an elliptic curve over $\mathbb Q$ with minimal discriminant $\Delta$, let $p$ be a prime, at which $E$ has potentially multiplicative reduction and let $\ell$ be a prime different than $p$. Then the mod $\ell$ representation is unramified at $p$ iff $\ell$ divides the valuation of $\Delta$ at $p$.

This is used for instance in the proof of Fermat's last theorem. In On modular representations of ${\rm Gal}(\overline{\mathbb Q}/\mathbb Q)$ arising from modular forms by Ken Ribet he cites Serre's (awesome) paper Sur les représentations modulaires de degré $2$ de ${\rm Gal}(\overline{\mathbb Q}/\mathbb Q)$, which (4.1.12) says this follows immediately from the theory of Tate curves.

It is pretty easy: the Tate curve gives you a explicit description the field obtained by adjoining the $\ell$-torsion points to $\mathbb Q_p$, and one can just check directly that the divisibility condition implies that this field (and thus the mod $\ell$ representation on the $\ell$-torsion points) is unramified at $p$.

Nonetheless I'm curious to know if anyone writes this down explicitly anywhere in the literature.

share|improve this question
2  
For the benefit of other people like me who got a headache trying to understand the one-sentence proof: The Tate curve is a p-adic analytic description of an elliptic curve as the group quotient Q_p^*/{q^n}, where q is some power of p times a number with unit norm. Since the curve has potentially multiplicative reduction, this power of p is nonzero. The l-torsion is then generated by l-th roots of unity together with an l-th root of q. The question is whether this l-th root of q has the same p-adic norm as an integer power of p. \Delta is a power series that looks like q. [out of space] –  S. Carnahan Oct 16 '09 at 4:09
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 6 down vote accepted

I think most people just mentally have in mind the argument you give.

In my thesis I actually wrote this down semi-carefully (including the case l = p, in which case what you want to say is that E[l] is finite over Zp, where E is now the Neron model of your elliptic curve over Q_p.) Or rather I wrote down the direction "l divides Delta => unramified" in Corollary 1.2 of the short version of my thesis. The goal of the thesis, by the way, was to extend this assertion to abelian varieties with real multiplication; the point being that it's not obvious what's supposed to play the role of Delta.

share|improve this answer
    
Awesome! Thanks! –  David Zureick-Brown Oct 16 '09 at 3:19
    
It turns out theorem 1.2 of the following paper proves the same result using Neron models instead of Tate curves: springerlink.com/content/01174u56lpw55562 –  David Zureick-Brown Nov 17 '09 at 22:41
3  
I guess the lesson is that if you're going to include this assertion in your paper you should number it 1.2. –  JSE Nov 18 '09 at 1:30
    
At least up to a transposition (and an extra 0 after the decimal): it is also 2.10 of Ribet & Stein's "Lectures on Serre's conjecture". –  David Zureick-Brown Nov 19 '09 at 19:59
add comment

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.