MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Let $A$ be an Abelian variety defined over the finite field with $q$ elements. Let $P_i(T)$ be the characteristic polynomial of the action of the Frobenius on the $i^{th}$ étale cohomology group.

Is the following assertion true:

"The Abelian variety $A$ is simple over the finite field with $q$ elements if and only if $P_1(T)$ is irreducible over $\mathbb Q$" ?

One implication is obvious, what about the other one ?

share|cite|improve this question
This is true if the abelian variety is ordinary since in this case Frobenius generates the endomorphism algebra. – ulrich Feb 15 '12 at 14:43
To Ulrich : what means ordinary ? – Xavier49 Feb 15 '12 at 14:48
One way to define ordinary is as follows: if $A$ is $g$ dimensional then $A$ is ordinary if it has $p^g$ points of order $p$ over the algebraic closure of the base field $k$, where $p$ is $char(k)$. – ulrich Feb 15 '12 at 15:07
up vote 13 down vote accepted

The following result follows from Tate-Honda theory

Let $A$ be an abelian variety over a finite field $k$, and let $f_A$ be the characteristic polynomial of $A$. Then $A$ is isogenous to a power of a simple abelian variety if and only if $f_A$ is a power of an irreducible polynomial.

I can't find a set of online notes which contains this statement. Kirsten Eisenträger's notes are generally very good, but they get this result wrong on the first page -- Theorem 1.1 claims that, if $f_A$ is a power of an irreducible polynomial, then $A$ is simple, ignoring the possibility that $A$ is a power of a simple variety.

Let $A$ be isogenous to $\bigoplus A_i^{n_i}$, where the $A_i$ are simple and mutually non-isogenous. Every abelian variety has such a decomposition. Then $f_A = \prod f_{A_i}^{n_i}$.

Suppose that $f_A$ is a power of an irreducible polynomial. Then all of the $f_{A_i}$ must also be powers of that polynomial. In particular, for any $i$ and $j$, either $f_{A_i}$ divides $f_{A_j}$ or vice versa; without loss of generality, suppose $f_{A_i} | f_{A_j}$. By a result of Tate, this means that $A_i$ is isogenous to a subvariety of $A_j$. Since $A_i$ and $A_j$ are simple, this means that $A_i$ and $A_j$ are isogenous. Since we assumed that the $A_i$ were mutually nonisogenous, there must in fact be only one summand in our decomposition of $A$, and $A$ is isogenous to $A_1^{n_1}$ for some simple $A_1$ and some $n_1$.

Suppose now that $A$ is isogenous to $B^{n}$ for $B$ simple. Then $f_A = f_B^n$. So our goal is to show that $f_B$ is a power of an irreducible polynomial. If not, write $f_B = gh$ where $g$ and $h$ are relatively prime of positive degree. By a result of Honda, there exist abelian varieties $C$ and $D$ with characteristic polynomials $g$ and $h$. By the result of Tate cited above, $C$ and $D$ are isogenous to subvarieties of $B$, contradicting that $B$ is simple. $\square$

The answer to the question in your title is "yes", we can decide whether $A$ is irreducible by knowing its $\zeta$ function. Fix a prime power $q$. Let $k$ be the field with $q$ elements. Let $W(q)$ be the set of irreducible monic polynomials over $\mathbb{Q}$ all of whose roots have norm $q^{1/2}$. The main result of Honda-Tate theory (Theorem 4.1 in Kirsten's notes) is that there is a bijection between isogeny classes of $k$-simple abelian varieties over $k$ and $W(q)$. For each polynomial $g$ in $W(q)$, there is some positive integer $n(g,q)$ such that the characteristic polynomial of the corresponding simple abelian variety is $f^{n(g,q)}$. The tricky point is that $n(g,q)$ is not always $1$. For example, in Denis's answer, what is going on is that $n(x-p, p^2)=2$. So it is true that $A$ is $k$-simple if and only if $f_A$ is of the form $g^{n(g,q)}$; you just need to know how to compute that $n$ function. I think you should be able to extract this from sections 4 and 5 of Kirsten's notes, but I don't know the details.

UPDATE: Brian Conrad e-mails to spell out the recipe (hope I copied this correctly). Let $f$ be irreducible of the required form. Let $\pi$ be a root of $f$ and let $F$ be the field $\mathbb{Q}(\pi)$. For every $p$-adic place $v$ of $F$, let $d_v$ be the denominator of $v(\pi) [F_v:\mathbb{Q}_p]/v(q)$ when written in lowest terms. Let $d = LCM(d_v)$ where the LCM ranges over all possible $v$'s. Then $f^d$ is the characteristic polynomial of the simple abelian variety.

If I'm not mistaken, this condition can be stated in an elegant geometric way. For any polynomial $g$ over $\mathbb{Q}_p$, let $N(g)$ be the $p$-adic Newton polytope of $g$. We will subdivide the path $N$ as follows: Recall that, if $h$ is irreducible over $\mathbb{Q}_p$, then $N(h)$ is a line segment, and that, if $g$ factors as $\prod h_i^{r_i}$, then $N(g)$ is the concatenation of $r_i$ copies of each $N(h_i)$, ordered with increasing slope. We will decompose $N(g)$ into one piece for each distinct irreducible factor, with that piece being $r_i$ times $N(h_i)$. For example, $x^2-p^2$, $x^2+p^2$ and $x^2-2xp+p^2$ all have Newton polytope a line segment from $(2,0)$ to $(0,2)$. In the first case, we would subdivide this line segment into two line segments, touching at $(1,1)$, because the two factors $x+p$ and $x-p$ are distinct. In the second case, we would subdivide if $x^2+p^2$ factored in $\mathbb{Q}_p$ (i.e. if $p$ is $1 \mod 4$) but not if it remained irreducible (if $p$ is $3 \mod 4$). In the third case, we would not subdivide, because the factor $(x-p)$ is repeated.

Then I believe the condition is that $f$ is the characteristic polynomial of an abelian variety if and only if all the vertices of $N(f)$, subdivided as above, have heights that are integer multiples of $v_p(q)$.

share|cite|improve this answer
I will study that.Thanks a lot David. – Xavier49 Feb 15 '12 at 16:12

No, an elliptic curve over a field with $p^2$ elements may have zeta function $(X-p)^2=X^2-2pX+p^2$.

(See, e.g., section 4 of Waterhouse's paper "Abelian varieties over finite fields", though this probably goes back to Deuring.)

share|cite|improve this answer
Nice example, thank you. The implication I was thinking about was not so obvious. – Xavier49 Feb 15 '12 at 16:21

Your Answer


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.