Let $A/L$ be an elliptic curve, with complex multiplication by a quadratic imaginary field $K$.

A theorem by Deuring ([13, paragraph 4], Theorem 12 on page 182 of Elliptic Functions by Serge Lang) states that if $\mathfrak{P}$ is a prime of $L$ lying over $p$ at which $A$ has good reduction, then $A$ is supersingular at $\mathfrak{P}$ precisely when there is exactly one prime of $K$ lying over $p$. This means we can "read off" the ordinary or supersingular reduction of $A/L$ by looking at the extension $K/\mathbb{Q}$. (See also here: reduction of CM elliptic curves)

However, Silverman's book "Advanced topics in the arithmetic of elliptic curves" says the following (Exercise II.2.30(c) (proof of theorem II.10.5(b)), alternatively, see here https://wstein.org/129-05/final_papers/Corina_Patrascu.pdf, proof of Theorem 13):

Suppose $K \not\subseteq L$. Let $\mathfrak{P}$ be a prime of $L$ at which $A$ has good reduction. Then the reduction of $A$ at $\mathfrak{P}$ is supersingular if and only if $\mathfrak{P}$ is inert or ramifies in $LK/L$. Hence, this would imply we can read off ordinary or supersingular reduction from the extension $LK/L$.

Although $LK/L$ and $K/\mathbb{Q}$ have somewhat similar splitting behaviour (if a prime splits completely in $L/\mathbb{Q}$, then the behaviour in $LK/L$ and $K/\mathbb{Q}$ is the same), differences can occur when $p$ is (somewhat) inert in $L/\mathbb{Q}$.

My question would then be: where did I make a mistake? Did I misinterpret or misread one of these two theorems?


1 Answer 1


It seems like Silverman's exercise is wrong: see this errata.


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.