3
$\begingroup$

Crosspost from Math.SE as I did not receive an answer there:

In Lang's book Elliptic Functions, he shows how to generate the ray class field with conductor $N$ of an imaginary quadratic number field $k$ using the $j$-invariant of an elliptic curve $A/\mathbb{C}$ with $\mathrm{End}(A)\cong\frak{o}_\text{$k$}$ and the values of the Weber function at $N$-torsion points of $A$. Namely, Theorem 2 of Chapter 10 reads as follows:

Let $A$ be an elliptic curve whose ring of endomorphisms is the ring of algebraic integers $\frak{o}_\text{$k$}$ in an imaginary quadratic number field $k$, and $A$ is defined over $k(j_A)$. Let $h$ be the Weber function on $A$, giving the quotient of $A$ by its group of automorphisms. Then $k(j_A, h(A_N))$ is the ray class field of $k$ with conductor $N$.

However, his proof starts out by saying "[l]et $K$ be the smallest Galois extension of $k$ containing $j_A=j(\frak{a})$ and all coordinates $h(A_N)$" and then he goes on to prove that $K$ is the ray class field of $k$ with conductor $N$. After that, he concludes that "[t]his proves Theorem 2", without ever mentioning the fact that we have not yet proved $K=k(j_A, h(A_N))$, i.e. we do not yet know that $k(j_A, h(A_N))$ is Galois. Is there an obvious reason I am missing here?

Notice that he does a similar thing when he proves that the Hilbert class field of $k$ is $k(j(\frak{a}))$ with $\frak{a}$ some fractional ideal of $k$: He starts by defining $K$ as the smallest Galois extension of $k$ containing all $j(\frak{a}_\text{$i$})$, where the $\frak{a}_\text{$i$}$ are a set of representatives for the ideal class group, proves that $K$ is the Hilbert class field of $k$ and then decides to be done. However, here I can conclude the argument: It was shown in the course of the proof that all $j(\frak{a}_\text{$i$})$ are conjugate, hence $j(\frak{a})$ has at least degree $h_k$ over $k$ and since this is also the degree of the Hilbert class field of $k$ over $k$, the Hilbert class field must already be $k(j(\frak{a}))$. Maybe something similar is possible for the ray class field?

$\endgroup$
1

1 Answer 1

6
$\begingroup$

I have found out what's going on here and it is so trivial that I wonder why this did not occur to me earlier: The conclusion of the proof is that $K$ is the ray class field of $k$ modulo $N$ - but this means that $K$ is abelian over $k$, so the intermediate field $k(j_A, h(A_N))$ must be Galois over $k$ because all intermediate extensions of abelian extensions are Galois! Duh ...

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

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

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