Skip to main content
9 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 3, 2023 at 2:45 history became hot network question
Nov 2, 2023 at 20:20 comment added R.P. See Lemma 5 in arxiv.org/abs/1404.3641. But it's really a very easy (and general) result, see the reference to Skorobogatov's book Torsors and rational points.
Nov 2, 2023 at 20:12 comment added R.P. You should understand the set of $k$-rational points on $X$ as the disjoint union of the set of $k$-rational points on all quadratic twists of $J$ (where $k$ is any field extension of the base field). That is why multiples of a point on $J$ which projects to a rational point on $X$ also project to rational points on $X$, but sums of two such points in general do not, except when they come from the same twist of $J$.
Nov 2, 2023 at 19:55 vote accept Vik78
Nov 2, 2023 at 19:48 answer added R. van Dobben de Bruyn timeline score: 4
Nov 2, 2023 at 19:37 comment added R. van Dobben de Bruyn The preimage of $X(\mathbf Q)$ is the set of points whose Galois orbit is contained in the fibre. This means that any Galois conjugate of $x$ is either $x$ or $-x$. Since $[n] \colon J \to J$ is defined over $\mathbf Q$, it is $\operatorname{Gal}(\bar{\mathbf Q}/\mathbf Q)$-equivariant, and since $-([n]x) = [n](-x)$, we see that all multiples satisfy the same property. However, for sums the situation is more complicated: if $\{x,-x\}$ is defined over a quadratic field $K$ and $\{y,-y\}$ over a quadratic field $L$, then the orbit of $x+y$ in general contains $\pm x \pm y$, defined over $KL$.
Nov 2, 2023 at 19:36 answer added Joe Silverman timeline score: 4
Nov 2, 2023 at 19:33 history edited Vik78 CC BY-SA 4.0
added 3 characters in body
Nov 2, 2023 at 18:43 history asked Vik78 CC BY-SA 4.0