3
$\begingroup$

For a given infinite set of primes, not too big, eg, satisfying Lang-Trotter conjecture, can we always find an E.C. with supersingular reduction (at least) at these primes? How about E.C. without CM?

$\endgroup$

1 Answer 1

7
$\begingroup$

No. In fact the set can be arbitrarily sparse, i.e. the $n$-th prime in the set can be chosen to exceed $a_n$ for any sequence $\{a_n\}$. This is because the rationals are countable. Fix an enumeration $j_1,j_2,j_3,\ldots$ of $\bf Q$. For each $n$ let $p_n$ be the smallest prime such that $p_n > a_n$ and $j_n$ is not supersingular mod $p_n$ (this is possible because the density of ordinary primes is positive, namely $1/2$ if $j_n$ is one of the thirteen CM $j$-invariants and $1$ otherwise). Then no rational number is the $j$-invariant of an elliptic curve with supersingular reduction at every $p_n$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ What do you mean by "thirteen CM j-invariants"? I don't know this result. Could you explain it or give me some reference? $\endgroup$
    – user42690
    Nov 24, 2013 at 7:11
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @user42690: What Noam Elkies is refering to is that there exixts exactly $13$ values of $j$ which are in $\mathbb{Q}$ and whose corresponding elleptic curves is CM. These are completely explicit and correspond to the $13$ orders in imaginary quadratic fields which are principal domains. $\endgroup$ Nov 24, 2013 at 8:46
  • $\begingroup$ @user42690: Look at Noam's answer there mathoverflow.net/questions/149702/… $\endgroup$
    – ACL
    Nov 24, 2013 at 9:57
  • $\begingroup$ This seems to answer a slightly different question than what is being asked, or am I mistaken? The questions asks whether for each sequence of primes $(p_n)$ there exists an elliptic curve that is supersingular at (at least) all $p_n$. This answer seems to show that for each sequence $(a_n)$ there exists a sequence $(p_n)$ of primes such that there is no elliptic curve that is supersingular at all primes $p_n$. In particular, the sequence $(p_n)$ does not appear to be arbitrary: it depends on both $(a_n)$ and the fact that we can choose $j_n$ to not be s.s. mod p_n. Am I missing something? $\endgroup$
    – Arbutus
    Jan 23, 2023 at 15:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.