In the Deligne-Rapoport paper entitled "Les schemas de modules de courbes elliptiques" the following is written (I translated in english):

Let $E$ be an elliptic curve with $\Gamma(N)$-level structure defined over $\mathbb{C}((T))$. Let $E'$ be the minimal model of $E$ over $\mathbb{C}[[T]]$. It may happen that $E'$ has bad reduction (i.e. when one reduces modulo $T$). So let $A$ be the neron model of $E'$ over the d.v.r. $\mathbb{C}[[T]]$. Then it seems that the special fiber of $A$ (i.e. when $T=0$) is always isomorphic to $\mathbb{C}^{\times}\times\mathbb{Z}/kN$ for some suitable integer $k$.

Q: How come this $N$ shows up in the special fiber of $A$ ?

This is a little bit strange since in the definition of a Neron model no such $N$ appears.


Roughly speaking, the N-torsion defined over the base injects into the Neron model (in characteristic 0), so the special fiber of the Neron model needs to have a subgroup isomorphic to Z/NZ x Z/NZ, since by assumption there is full level N structure. The special fiber (since there's bad reduction) has the form C^* x F, where F is a finite cycle group. So F contains an N-torsion element, which means F = Z/kN.

  • $\begingroup$ So the fact that you need characteristic 0 means that it does not follow formally from the universal property of the Neron model. So how does the characteristic 0 assumption intervene? Is related somehow to the fact that in characteristic zero finite flat group schemes are etale? $\endgroup$ Jan 6 '11 at 0:51
  • $\begingroup$ I wonder if you need to assume $N \ge 3$ to exclude $I_0^*$-reduction. In that case the component group is $\mathbb Z/2 \times \mathbb Z/2$. Or do you assume multiplicative Reduction right away? In that case characteristic zero is not needed. In charakteristic $p$, you have to be careful because additive reduction gives you a lot of $p$-Torsion. $\endgroup$ Jan 6 '11 at 13:52
  • $\begingroup$ Hugo, your question was phrased over C, so I put in the characterstic 0 assumption to avoid saying something false, since I didn't really think it through in finite characteristic. If you assume a priori that you have multiplicative reduction, then I think you're fine in all characteristics, including p=2. If you simply assume bad reduction, then there are probably problems with p=2 and p=3 for various reduction types. But I haven't thought it through carefully. Note that if p divides N, then there is some p-torsion in the formal group, but none in the multiplicative group. $\endgroup$ Jan 8 '11 at 15:41

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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