1
$\begingroup$

This is question in mathematical exposition, not research, I hope this is ok.

I am writing a book about great theorems. My question is: what is the shortest formulation of the modularity theorem, which includes definitions of all concepts used, except of those included in standard undergraduate courses?

The theorem has many equivalent formulations. One example is given by wikipedia:

Let ${\mathbb H} = \{z \in {\mathbb C}, \text{Im}(z) > 0\}$, $j:{\mathbb H}\to{\mathbb C}$ be given by $j(z) = 1728\frac{20 G_4(z)^3}{20 G_4(z)^3-49G_6(z)^2}$, where $G_k(z)=\sum\limits_{(m,n)\neq (0,0)}(m+nz)^{-k}$. For every positive integer $n$, there exists a non-zero irreducible polynomial $P_n(x,y)$ with integer coefficients such that $P_n(j(nz),j(z))=0, \, z\in {\mathbb H}$. The set $X_0(n)$ of pairs of rational numbers $(x,y)$ such that $P_n(x,y)=0$ is called the classical modular curve over ${\mathbb Q}$.

Elliptic curve C over ${\mathbb Q}$ is the set of rational solution to equation $y^2=x^3+ax+b$, where $a,b \in {\mathbb Q}$ are such that $4a^3+27b^2 \neq 0$. It is called modular if it can be obtained via a rational map with integer coefficients from $X_0(n)$ for some positive integer $n$. The modularity theorem states that in fact every elliptic curve over ${\mathbb Q}$ is modular.

This is reasonably short but is it correct and rigorous? If not, how can it be corrected? Also, what exactly is meant by phrase "can be obtained via a rational map with integer coefficients"? If this formulation is not rigorous and cannot be easily fixed, can you suggest an alternative one?

Update: An even simpler formulation from Wolfram Mathworld http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Taniyama-ShimuraConjecture.html

According to [1, p.40], function $f:{\mathbb H}\to{\mathbb C}$ is a modular function if and only if $f(z)=\frac{P(j(z))}{Q(j(z))}$, where $j(z)$ is defined above, and $P$ and $Q$ are some polynomials with complex coefficients. Now, according to [2], moludar function $f$ has level $N$ if $f\left(\frac{az+b}{cz+d}\right)=f(z)$ for all integers $a,b,c,d$ with $ad-bc=1$ and $N|c$, and the modularity theorem states that, given elliptic curve $y^2=Ax^3+Bx^2+Cx+D$ over $\mathbb Q$, there are conconstant modular functions $f(z)$ and $g(z)$ of the same level N, such that $f(z)^2=Ag(z)^3+Bg(z)^2+Cg(z)+D$. Is this correct?

[1] Apostol, T. M. Modular Functions and Dirichlet Series in Number Theory, 2nd ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1997.

[2] Cox, David A. "Introduction to Fermat's last theorem." The American Mathematical Monthly 101.1 (1994): 3-14

$\endgroup$
7
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the first formulation, you can say that the field of functions on $E$ (given by $\mathbb{Q}(x)[y]/(y^2-(x^3+ax+b)$ is contained in the field of functions of $X_0(N)$ for some $N$ (given by $\mathbb{Q}(x)[y]/(P_N(x,y))$). $\endgroup$
    – Xarles
    Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 20:53
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In the first formulation, curves are not determined by their rational points, so it's incorrect as written but can be fixed by, e.g. looking at complex points instead. $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 15, 2019 at 21:25
  • $\begingroup$ In the second formulation you are muddling two slightly different interpretations of the word "modular"; any function of the form P(j(z))/Q(j(z)) will be modular of level 1. (This is wrong in the MathWorld article too.) $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 17, 2019 at 19:32
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you everyone! David, this is exactly why I decided to double-check here. So, the second formulation does not work. So, I will use the first formulation with complex points instead of rational one, and with definition of modular elliptic curve suggested by Xarles.In case anyone interested, the corrected formulation is here theorems.home.blog/2019/11/14/… $\endgroup$ Commented Nov 18, 2019 at 15:00
  • $\begingroup$ The Mathworld article is correct except the obvious typo that the correct substitution is $x \to g(z)$. The most elementary way to express the existence of the map $X_0(N) \to E$ is the one given by Mathworld, namely that $E$ can be parametrised by modular functions of some level. It is then another (easier) theorem that the level can be taken to be the conductor of $E$. Moreover, this formulation avoids the introduction of modular forms, we only need holomorphic modular functions (to define these, we need to define "meromorphic at the cusps"). $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 10, 2019 at 22:06

0

You must log in to answer this question.