Skip to main content
14 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jul 6, 2019 at 23:28 vote accept AZMEH
Jul 5, 2019 at 18:46 comment added Filippo Alberto Edoardo Thanks, corrected.
Jul 5, 2019 at 18:46 history edited Filippo Alberto Edoardo CC BY-SA 4.0
added 425 characters in body
Jul 5, 2019 at 17:15 comment added Will Sawin This is much better. Indeed the key point is to use the main theorem of CM. In your equation in part 1, I don't think you mean to view $H^1(E(\mathbb C), \mathbb Q_\ell)$ as a $\mathbb Q_\ell$-module and then tensoring with $K_\ell$, as that produces a rank $2$ $K_\ell$-module. Instead I think you want to view it as a $K_\ell$-module directly by the action of $K$, and dualize there. This also affects the last line. In part 2, it doesn't make sense to tensor over $\mathbb Q_\ell$ with $K$ . - you want to tensor over $\mathbb Q$.
Jul 5, 2019 at 16:59 history edited Filippo Alberto Edoardo CC BY-SA 4.0
added 2495 characters in body
Jul 3, 2019 at 0:22 comment added AZMEH @WillSawin, Thank you very much for pointing that out.
Jul 2, 2019 at 15:48 comment added Filippo Alberto Edoardo @WillSawin You're certainly right, I will write something more reasonable as soon as I have time. Thank you.
Jul 2, 2019 at 15:47 history edited Filippo Alberto Edoardo CC BY-SA 4.0
added 679 characters in body
Jul 1, 2019 at 23:51 comment added Will Sawin The Tate module only splits as a sum of two modules when $E$ is CM, CM is crucial here.
Jul 1, 2019 at 23:50 comment added Will Sawin This answer is wrong or something is very strange. $H^1 ( E_{\overline{K}}, \mathbb Q)$ has no interesting Galois action, so it can't be isomorphic to the dual of the Tate module.
Jun 25, 2019 at 5:58 history edited Filippo Alberto Edoardo CC BY-SA 4.0
added 1 character in body
Jun 24, 2019 at 16:24 comment added AZMEH Thank you very much for your answer.
Jun 24, 2019 at 16:24 vote accept AZMEH
Jul 3, 2019 at 0:21
Jun 24, 2019 at 16:21 history answered Filippo Alberto Edoardo CC BY-SA 4.0