A Integral Points of an Elliptic Curve over a Cyclotomic Tower

  • A
  • Thread starter Thread starter lugita15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Curve Integral
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the integral points of an elliptic curve defined over a cyclotomic tower, specifically examining the equation y² - x³ + 8λx = 0. It questions whether there are finitely many ordered pairs (x, y) in the ring of integers R for a nonzero λ, referencing theorems by Rohrlich and Siegel that suggest a positive answer if the prime p is "good." A prime is deemed "bad" if it divides 8λ, potentially affecting the number of integral points. The conversation highlights a lack of familiarity with elliptic curves among some participants, yet emphasizes the importance of understanding the relationship between cyclotomic fields and integral points. The inquiry remains whether the finiteness of integral points holds when transitioning from the tower to the number field.
lugita15
Messages
1,553
Reaction score
15
##\mathbb{Q}(\zeta_{p^\infty})##, also written as ##\mathbb{Q}(\mu_{p^\infty})## or ##\mathbb{Q}(p^\infty)##, denotes ##\mathbb{Q}## adjoined with the ##p^{n}##th roots of unity for all ##n##. It's the union of a cylotomic tower, and it's studied in subjects like Iwosawa theory and class field theory.

Let ##R## be the ring of integers of this field, and let ##\lambda## be a nonzero element of ##R##.
My question is, are there always only finitely many ordered pars ##(x,y)##of elements of ##R## such that ##y^2-x^3+8\lambda x=0##? Or does there exist a ##\lambda## for which there are infinitely many such ordered pairs?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I am not a number theorist, and the author of this post is clearly more knowledgable than I am. However, I have noticed a post on math overflow, also noticed by the author, from which the answer seems to be "yes", provided the prime p is "good", due to the theorems of Rohrlich and Siegel. I.e. according to that post, Rohrlich proves this elliptic curve is equal to one defined over a number field, and Siegel proves such curves over number fields have finitely many integral points. Perhaps this does not work if the notion of integral points does not carry over from the tower to the number field? Or perhaps the problem is that the constant lambda can be chosen so that the prime is no longer "good"?
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/...ank-growth-in-iwasawa-tower?noredirect=1&lq=1

http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/aa/aa68/aa6827.pdf

Well, a little reading reveals that a prime p is "bad" for an elliptic curve E, iff E becomes singular mod p. Thus in our case p becomes bad if and only if p divides 8.lambda. So I guess a basic question here is whether the curve y^2 = x^3 - 8px, has only a finite number of integral points in R. Notice the author has required lambda ≠ 0, since otherwise the pairs (a^2, a^3) all solve, for any a ≠ 0 in R.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes WWGD and fresh_42
mathwonk said:
I am not a number theorist, and the author of this post is clearly more knowledgable than I am. However, I have noticed a post on math overflow, also noticed by the author, from which the answer seems to be "yes", provided the prime p is "good", due to the theorems of Rohrlich and Siegel. I.e. according to that post, Rohrlich proves this elliptic curve is equal to one defined over a number field, and Siegel proves such curves over number fields have finitely many integral points. Perhaps this does not work if the notion of integral points does not carry over from the tower to the number field? Or perhaps the problem is that the constant lambda can be chosen so that the prime is no longer "good"?
https://mathoverflow.net/questions/...ank-growth-in-iwasawa-tower?noredirect=1&lq=1

http://matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/aa/aa68/aa6827.pdf

Well, a little reading reveals that a prime p is "bad" for an elliptic curve E, iff E becomes singular mod p. Thus in our case p becomes bad if and only if p divides 8.lambda. So I guess a basic question here is whether the curve y^2 = x^3 - 8px, has only a finite number of integral points in R. Notice the author has required lambda ≠ 0, since otherwise the pairs (a^2, a^3) all solve, for any a ≠ 0 in R.
“I am not a number theorist, and the author of this post is clearly more knowledgable than I am.” Actually I know nothing at all about elliptic curves. It’s just that this question arose in my research as a logician.
 
I believe you, but my comment is based on the fact that, until I did some research, I didn't even know what a cyclotomic tower was. (I did know how to spell Iwasawa though, which maybe was a bit of a tip- off.):smile:
 
mathwonk said:
I believe you, but my comment is based on the fact that, until I did some research, I didn't even know what a cyclotomic tower was. (I did know how to spell Iwasawa though, which maybe was a bit of a tip- off.):smile:
Not that it's any consolation, but I didn't know what a Cyclotomic polynomial was. I had heard the term, but didn't know what it was, let alone a Cyclotomic Tower.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Back
Top