Primitive divisors of elliptic divisibility sequences over function fields with constant j-invariant
Bartosz Naskr\k{e}cki, Marco Streng

TL;DR
This paper establishes the minimal Zsigmondy bound for elliptic divisibility sequences over function fields with constant j-invariant, showing it is 2 in the ordinary case and providing a classification in the supersingular case.
Contribution
It proves the optimal Zsigmondy bound for elliptic divisibility sequences over function fields with constant j-invariant, extending known results from genus-zero sequences.
Findings
Zsigmondy bound is 2 for ordinary elliptic divisibility sequences over function fields.
Complete classification of prime factors in supersingular case.
Extension of Zsigmondy bounds from genus-zero to genus-one sequences.
Abstract
We prove an optimal Zsigmondy bound for elliptic divisibility sequences over function fields in case the -invariant of the elliptic curve is constant. In more detail, given an elliptic curve with a point of infinite order, the sequence , of denominators of multiples , of is a strong divisibility sequence in the sense that . This is the genus-one analogue of the genus-zero Fibonacci, Lucas and Lehmer sequences. A number is called a Zsigmondy bound of the sequence if each term with presents a new prime factor. The optimal uniform Zsigmondy bound for the genus-zero sequences over is by Bilu-Hanrot-Voutier, 2000, but finding such a bound remains an open problem in genus one, both over and over function fields. We prove that the optimal Zsigmondy bound forâŠ
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Primitive divisors of elliptic divisibility sequences over
function fields with constant -invariant
Bartosz NaskrÄcki
Faculty of Mathematics and Computer Science, Adam Mickiewicz University in PoznaĆ, Uniwersytetu PoznaĆskiego 4, 61-614 PoznaĆ, Poland
 andÂ
Marco Streng
Mathematisch Instituut, Universiteit Leiden, P.O. box 9512, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
Abstract.
We prove an optimal Zsigmondy bound for elliptic divisibility sequences over function fields in case the -invariant of the elliptic curve is constant.
In more detail, given an elliptic curve with a point of infinite order over a global field, the sequence , of denominators of multiples , of is a strong divisibility sequence in the sense that . This is the genus-one analogue of the genus-zero Fibonacci, Lucas and Lehmer sequences.
A number is called a Zsigmondy bound of the sequence if each term with presents a new prime factor. The optimal uniform Zsigmondy bound for the genus-zero sequences over is by Bilu-Hanrot-Voutier, 2000, but finding such a bound remains an open problem in genus one, both over and over function fields.
We prove that the optimal Zsigmondy bound for ordinary elliptic divisibility sequences over function fields is if the -invariant is constant. In the supersingular case, we give a complete classification of which terms can and cannot have a new prime factor.
Key words and phrases:
elliptic divisibility sequences; elliptic surfaces; primitive divisors; function fields; constant -invariant
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
11G05, 11B39, 14H52, 11G07, 11B83
Contents
1. Introduction
An elliptic divisibility sequence (EDS) over is a sequence , , of positive integers defined as follows. Given an elliptic curve over and a point of infinite order, choose a globally minimal Weierstrass equation for and write for every :
[TABLE]
where the fractions are in lowest terms. Then set .
A result of Silverman [26] shows that all but finitely many terms have a primitive divisor, that is, a prime divisor such that for all . Equivalently, this says that all but finitely many positive integers occur as the order of for some prime . The question whether there is a uniform bound such that has a primitive divisor for all pairs and all remains open, see [4], [9], [14].
The definition of of (1.1) is equivalent to
[TABLE]
for all non-archimedean valuations and the -coordinate function for a -minimal Weierstrass equation. If and are defined over a number field , then we define the EDS of the pair to be the sequence of ideals of defined by (1.2).
Similarly, if and are defined over the function field of a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over a field , then we define the EDS of the pair to be the sequence of divisors on defined by (1.2). See Section 1.2 for an equivalent definition in the case of perfect . Elliptic divisibility sequences over function fields are studied in [8, 28, 15, 6].
From now on, we will speak of primitive valuations instead of primitive divisors, so as not to confuse with the terms themselves, which are divisors in the function field case. A positive integer is a Zsigmondy bound of the sequence if for every the term has a primitive valuation.
Silvermanâs result and proof are also valid in the number field case [16]. In the case of function fields of characteristic zero, the same result is true, as shown by Ingram, MahĂ©, Silverman, Stange and Streng [15, Theorems 1.7 and 5.5].
This was extended to ordinary elliptic curves over function fields of characteristic by NaskrÄcki [21]. Conditionally NaskrÄcki makes the result uniform in . The special case of the results of [21] where is constant gives a Zsigmondy bound as follows.
- âą
For fields of characteristic [math] we have (see [12, p. 437] and [21, Lemma 7.1]).
- âą
For fields with and field of constants , we have for âtameâ elliptic curves (cf. [21, Definition 8.3]) and a bound for âwildâ ordinary elliptic curves where is the Euler characteristic of the elliptic surface attached to over .
1.1. Our results
All previous Zsigmondy bound estimates exclude the case of supersingular curves. In this paper, we consider the case of function fields and assume , which includes the case of supersingular . In a companion paper we will deal with the case , where we extend the results of NaskrÄcki [21] to arbitrary characteristic and improve the bound .
In the ordinary case, we prove a bound and show that it is optimal. In the supersingular case in characteristic , we show that the terms for have a primitive divisor if and only if , and we give a sharp version for every characteristic.
In more detail, the main results are as follows.
Theorem A** (Theorem 8.1).**
Let be the function field of a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over a field .
Let be an ordinary elliptic curve over and let be a point of infinite order such that , but the pair is not constant, cf. Definition 2.1. Then for all integers , the term has a primitive valuation.
Conversely, for all ordinary -invariants there exist an elliptic curve with and a point of infinite order such that the terms and do not have a primitive valuation and there exist an elliptic curve with and a point of infinite order such that all terms for have a primitive valuation.
Theorem B** (Theorem 8.2).**
Let be the function field of a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over a field of characteristic . Let be a positive integer.
If the entry corresponding to and in Table 1 is ââ (respectively ââ), then for every supersingular elliptic curve over , and every with non-constant and of infinite order, the term has a (respectively no) primitive valuation.
If the entry is ââ, then there exist and as in the previous paragraph such that has a primitive valuation and there exist and such that has no primitive valuation.
In the case where itself is defined over (and not just its -invariant), the result is much stronger, as follows.
Theorem C** (Theorem 2.3).**
Let be the function field of a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over a field of characteristic . Let be an elliptic curve over and a point of infinite order. Let be a positive integer,
- (1)
if or is ordinary, then has a primitive valuation, 2. (2)
if and is supersingular, then has no primitive valuation.
1.2. Alternative definition
We now give a more standard, but more technical, definition of elliptic divisibility sequences over function fields in the case of perfect base fields . It is proven in [15, Lemma 5.2] that this defines the same sequence in the case of number fields ; and the proof at loc. cit. extends to perfect fields .
Let be an elliptic curve over the function field of a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over a perfect field . Let be the KodairaâNĂ©ron model of , i.e., a smooth, projective surface with a relatively minimal elliptic fibration with generic fibre and a section , cf. [24, §1], [27, III, §3]. For example, if the curve is constant (that is, defined over ), then we can take with the natural projection .
Let be a point of infinite order in the MordellâWeil group . We define a family of effective divisors parametrised by natural numbers . For each the divisor is the pull-back of the image of the section through the morphism induced by the point , that is,
[TABLE]
The delicate issues with non-perfect coefficient fields are discussed in detail in Section 7 and Example 7.6.
1.3. Known results about divisibility sequences over function fields
Elliptic divisibility sequences over function fields and related sequences were discussed in several places. We collect some known results here.
First of all, they satisfy the strong divisibility property
[TABLE]
for all positive integers , where . Indeed, the proof in e.g. [30, Lemma 3.3] carries over.
Theorem 1.5 of [15] shows that in case with a number field (and again ) the set of prime numbers such that is irreducible has positive lower Dirichlet density.
Cornelissen and Reynolds [6] study perfect power terms in the case for global function fields of characteristic . Everest, Ingram, Mahé, and Stevens study primality of terms of elliptic divisibility sequences for in the context of magnified sequences, see [8, Theorem 1.5]. Silverman [28] and Ghioca-Hsia-Tucker [11] study the common subdivisor for two simultaneous divisibility sequences on elliptic curves over , where is a field of characteristic 0.
In a broad context, Flatters and Ward [10] prove an analogue of Theorem 8.1 for divisibility sequences of Lucas type for polynomials and Akbar-Yazdani [1] study the greatest degree of the prime factors of certain Lucas polynomial divisibility sequences.
Hone and Swart [13] study examples of Somos 4 sequences over , which are constructed from specific elliptic divisibility sequences. They construct a certain elliptic surface and show that the corresponding sequence is a sequence of polynomials.
1.4. Overview and main ideas of the proof
The main idea behind the proof is to reduce to the case where is defined over the base field of . In that case can be viewed as a dominant morphism over . The primitive valuations of then are exactly the pull-backs of points of order on , which gives Theorem C. For details, see Section 2.
For elliptic curves over where only the -invariant is in , we find an elliptic curve over with the same -invariant and an isomorphism over . Then Theorem 2.3 applies to the sequence obtained from . See Section 3.
At that point, we know exactly which terms of have primitive valuations, and the goal is to conclude which terms of have primitive valuations.
For this, we look at the rank of apparition of a valuation of in the sequence , which is the positive integer
[TABLE]
or if the set is empty. A valuation is primitive in the term if and only if .
The key to our proof is to see how much the rank of apparition of a valuation of can vary between the sequences and . Section 4 shows that this does not vary much, and bounds the variation in terms of the component group of the special fibre of the Néron model.
This is already enough to get a weaker version of the main results, which is not sharp, but is already uniform (Theorems 4.7 and 4.9).
In Section 5 we prove two auxiliary results about the order of a point in the component group at . This is needed in the proof of the main theorems to obtain a sharp result.
In Section 6 we show that the term for sequences in characteristic always has a primitive valuation if . This is also needed in order to obtain a sharp result.
Section 7 contains examples which we use to show that our main theorems are optimal, that is, to prove the converse statement in Theorem A and the -entries in Theorem B.
Finally, in Section 8 we combine all of the above into a proof of Theorems A and B.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Peter Bruin and Hendrik Lenstra for helpful discussions and the anonymous referee for comments that improved the exposition.
2. Constant curves
Let be a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over a field and let be its function field. Let be an elliptic curve and a point. For a field extension and an elliptic curve over , let be the base change of to .
Definition 2.1**.**
We say that is constant if there exists an elliptic curve and an isomorphism defined over .
We say that the pair is constant if there exist such and that also satisfy .
We say that the -invariant of the curve is constant if .
Lemma 2.2**.**
The pair is constant if and only if is constant and for all elliptic curves and isomorphisms we have .
Proof.
The âifâ implication follows from the definition, so it is enough to prove the âonly ifâ implication. Suppose that is constant. There exists an elliptic curve defined over and an isomorphism of -curves such that . Let be an elliptic curve over and another -isomorphism. Let denote the corresponding isomorphism of -curves. It follows that the curves and have equal -invariant and since and are defined over there exists a -isomorphism . Let denote the function field of the curve . We have
[TABLE]
for some . Since , we have . From our assumption it follows that and hence . Combining these statements, we get . As is smooth and geometrically irreducible, it is geometrically integral, hence by [20, Corollary 3.2.14(c)], we get . â
2.1. Constant
Suppose that is constant. Then without loss of generality we consider . Then can be interpreted as a morphism of curves defined over as follows. We give two interpretations, both leading to the same morphism.
Consider the constant elliptic surface where and is the projection on the second factor. Every point on the generic fibre corresponds to a unique section . Composition of with the projection on the first factor is a morphism defined over . By abuse of notation we denote the morphism by .
Equivalently, the point has coordinates in , hence defines a rational map from to . All such rational maps are morphisms as is smooth and is projective.
Applying this abuse of notation to too, we get .
Note that the pair is constant if and only if the morphism is a constant morphism, or equivalently, maps to a single point.
2.1.1. Constant
If maps to a single point, then so does . In particular, for all either or the images of and are disjoint. If has infinite order, then this gives for all :
[TABLE]
2.1.2. Non-constant
Let us assume in this section that is constant and the morphism is non-constant.
Theorem 2.3**.**
Let be the function field of a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over a field of characteristic . Let be an elliptic curve over and a point of infinite order. Let be a positive integer,
- (1)
if or is ordinary, then has a primitive valuation, 2. (2)
if and is supersingular, then has no primitive valuation.
Proof.
We have . Note that
[TABLE]
where denotes the inseparable degree of . If and is supersingular, then the endomorphism is purely inseparable of degree , hence and ; so formula (2.2) gives , which proves (2). Moreover, if is ordinary or , then contains a point of order . Since is a dominant morphism, there is a point that maps to under , and the valuation associated with such a point is a primitive valuation of . â
Remark 2.4*.*
The existence of a cover implies that has genus greater than or equal to .
In fact, as all such covers factor through the identity map , we see that for every elliptic curve , there is one prototypical example given by . In other words, this example has and . The point corresponds to the morphism where is the diagonal map and is the projection on the first factor.
Example 2.5**.**
Let over and . Let be a square root of in a quadratic extension of . Then
[TABLE]
where all the signs are independent. In particular, we obtain
[TABLE]
By symmetry, for the points and only appear together. Because of that, we introduce the following notation. Let
[TABLE]
The divisor is the pull-back of an effective divisor on the affine -line . Let denote a monic polynomial with divisor of zeroes equal to . We get that the divisor has the form
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and we present below only the factorisation of the polynomial .
[TABLE]
This confirms the equality and the fact that terms with have primitive valuations.
3. Relating constant to constant globally
3.1. Definitions and example
Let be an elliptic curve over and let be a point of infinite order. Now suppose . Note that this includes the case where is supersingular by [29, V.3.1(a)(iii)].
The idea behind the proof of our main results is to relate the EDS obtained from with constant -invariant to an EDS obtained from a point on a constant elliptic curve and then to apply Theorem 2.3 to .
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let be a field, let be a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve and let . Let be an elliptic curve with .
Then there exist
- (i)
an elliptic curve with , 2. (ii)
finite extensions and with , 3. (iii)
an isomorphism , 4. (iv)
a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve with , and 5. (v)
a non-constant morphism inducing the inclusion map .
Notation 3.2**.**
On top of the notation of Lemma 3.1, we use the following notation. Given a point ,
- (vi)
let ,
- (vii)
let be the EDS obtained from as defined in (1.2), and
- (viii)
let be the EDS obtained from .
The symbol will denote a place of and will denote a place of lying over .
Proof.
(i) Let be an elliptic curve with , let be an algebraic closure of and let be an algebraic closure of . Then there exists an isomorphism by [29, Proposition III.1.4(b)]. Let be generated over by the coefficients , of .
If is perfect, then we take and (which satisfy (ii) and (iii)) and find by [29, Remark II.2.5] a curve satisfying (iv). The inclusion then gives the morphism of (v).
If is not perfect, then this construction does not always give a smooth curve (see Example 3.3), so we do some additional steps in our construction.
The field is a finitely generated extension of transcendence degree over the algebraically closed field , hence is the function field of a smooth, projective, (geometrically) irreducible curve by [29, Remark II.2.5].
The inclusion induces a non-constant rational map , which is a morphism as the curves are regular and projective.
Choose embeddings over and over . Then embed into via .
(ii,iv) Then let be generated over by the coefficients of a system of defining equations of and . From now on we view as a projective curve over , which is smooth and irreducible over . In particular, the curve is smooth, projective and geometrically irreducible over .
Moreover, the field contains the coefficients of since they are coordinate functions on the copies of . (iii) In particular the morphism can be viewed as a morphism . (v) Similarly contains the coefficients of , so can be viewed as a morphism . â
The following two examples illustrate why the proof of Lemma 3.1 is so complicated for non-perfect base fields . The reader who is interested mostly in the perfect case may wish to skip ahead to Example 3.5.
Example 3.3**.**
Here is an example to show that we cannot just take if is non-perfect. Let , , and , so . Take and where satisfies
[TABLE]
Then is the function field of a regular, projective, geometrically integral curve over with affine open part given by (3.1), but this curve is not smooth. Indeed the given model is smooth exactly outside and is regular at the place .
Example 3.4**.**
To motivate why we embed in such a complicated way in the proof, let be a field of characteristic in which is not a square. Let , , , , and . Take , so . Then , so we can take with as coordinate. The map is then given by .
Now we can take and to be the identity map. If we had defined using only and the images of and , then we would have gotten and . But then is not defined over .
Here is an example where we compute both and and compare them.
Example 3.5**.**
Let be the supersingular elliptic curve over given by
[TABLE]
and let . We start by computing for a few values of . The discriminant is , hence the given model is minimal for all finite places of . Therefore, we can compute these valuations of by computing the square root of the denominator of . For the valuation at infinity, we take , so
[TABLE]
which is minimal since the discriminant has valuation .
To keep the notation short, we write with to mean . In this notation, we compute
[TABLE]
All terms with listed here have a primitive valuation except and . All terms with listed here have no primitive valuation except and .
As , we find that is isomorphic over to
[TABLE]
Next, we look for an isomorphism . All isomorphisms are given in case II of the proof of Proposition A.1.2(b) of Silverman [29] as
[TABLE]
We use the notation and solve for and in (3.5). Choose a th root of , and take such that . Then is an extension of of degree and is the function field of the curve
[TABLE]
over . The inclusion corresponds to the projection
[TABLE]
which is a -fold covering. The isomorphism given by (3.4) is
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
In other words, if we identify with via , then is the (purely inseparable) rd power Frobenius endomorphism (of degree ). In particular, the EDS obtained from is times the EDS of Example 2.5.
3.2. The point is non-constant
Next we show that if is non-constant (cf. Definition 2.1), then the point of Notation 3.2 is non-constant (that is, not in ).
Lemma 3.6** (Tate normal form).**
Let be an elliptic curve over a field and let be a point of order . Then there are unique , and a change of coordinates over such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Starting with a general Weierstrass equation, first translate to get (allowed as ). Then
[TABLE]
With (allowed as ), we get . With and (allowed as ), we get . Then let and . This proves existence.
Unicity follows as we used up all freedom for changes of Weierstrass equations as in [29, III.3.1(b)]. â
Corollary 3.7**.**
Let , , , , , and be as in Notation 3.2 (this includes ). Suppose that has order . If is constant (that is, is in ), then the pair is constant as in Definition 2.1.
Proof.
If , then the Tate normal form of has , . The Tate normal form of has , . By uniqueness of the Tate normal form over , we get , , hence is isomorphic over to a pair defined over . â
In particular, in our case where has order , if the pair is non-constant, then the point is non-constant.
4. Relating constant to constant locally
4.1. Reduction modulo primes of curves with constant
Elliptic curves with constant -invariant admit only places of good or additive reduction. We show that the valuations of additive reduction appear early on in the sequence (Lemma 4.1(2â3)), while those of good reduction appear in the same place as in the corresponding constant sequence (Lemma 4.2).
Recall that the rank of apparition of a valuation of is the smallest positive integer such that (with if it does not exist).
With the notation as in Notation 3.2, let be the completion of at . Let (respectively ) be the subgroup of consisting of points that reduce to a non-singular point (respectively the point ) on the reduction of the minimal Weierstrass equation. In particular, we have if and only if . Moreover the quotient is the component group of the special fibre of the Néron model of at (cf. [27, Corollary IV.9.2] and [5, Theorem 5.5]).
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let be the function field of a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over a field of characteristic . Let be an elliptic curve over and let . Let be a discrete valuation of with and , and let be the order of in the component group .
- (1)
If , then has good or additive reduction at . 2. (2)
If has additive reduction at , then
- (a)
if , then or . 2. (b)
if , then or . 3. (3)
If has additive reduction at , then . 4. (4)
If , then
- (a)
if , then , 2. (b)
if and , then , 3. (c)
if and , then .
Proof.
(1) As , we have , hence does not have multiplicative reduction at by [29, Proposition VII.5.1(b) and ].
(2) Note that is the order of in . In the additive case, the subgroup is isomorphic to the additive group underlying the residue field of . If , then the latter group is torsion-free, so that is or . If , then the latter group has exponent , so that is or .
Write , so . For parts (3) and (4), we will use tables of reduction types to find restrictions on , hence on .
If is perfect, then the reduction types were classified by Kodaira and NĂ©ron and can be found in [27, Table 4.1 in §IV.9] (equivalently [29, Table 15.1 in Appendix C]). For general fields , we need the generalization by Szydlo [32, Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 7.1.1]. All types that are in Szydloâs classification and were not already in the Kodaira-NĂ©ron classification have by [32, (20) on page 96], so we may assume that we are in one of the cases from the Kodaira-NĂ©ron classification.
(3) In the additive reduction case, we get with by [27, Table 4.1].
(4a) Suppose first that is perfect. If , then the reduction type is , hence by the bottom part of [27, Table 4.1], we get or . For general fields Theorem 5.1 and Tables 1 and 4 of [32] give the same result.
(4b) In the same way, the case only happens when or . Indeed, the reduction type is or , the same reference works in the perfect case, and in the general case one needs Table 5 in [32] instead of Table 4.
Combining (4a) with (4b) gives (4c). â
4.2. Relating with
To prove our main results, we link the EDS obtained from to the EDS obtained from . Let be a valuation of lying over a valuation of .
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let the notation be as in Notation 3.2 and suppose that has infinite order.
If does not have additive reduction at , then we have for all .
Proof.
Note that has good reduction at all valuations of . Suppose that does not have additive reduction at . As , we find that also has good reduction at , hence the isomorphism is an isomorphism over the local ring at , which does not affect the valuation of . â
Example 4.3**.**
We continue Example 3.5, so and . In that example, we saw that the EDS is times the EDS of Example 2.5, with , , and .
We compute the difference for the first few terms. To help in this computation, note the following identities.
[TABLE]
We obtain
[TABLE]
The difference is indeed only in the valuations lying over the places and of additive reduction of .
The following lemma shows how much the primitive valuations of the sequence can be âpostponedâ to later terms of .
Lemma 4.4**.**
Let , , , , , and be as in Notation 3.2. Suppose that has infinite order and that has additive reduction at . Let be the order of in the component group .
Let and be the ranks of apparition of the valuations and in the elliptic divisibility sequences associated to and .
- (1)
We have . 2. (2)
If has characteristic [math], then or . 3. (3)
If has characteristic , then or .
Proof.
Parts (2) and (3) are exactly part (2) of Lemma 4.1.
It remains to prove (1). After base-changing to , we get a Weierstrass equation over . As is defined over , it has good reduction at . We have an isomorphism . Claim: . Assuming the claim, we get , hence , hence . So in order to prove (1), it suffices to prove the claim.
Proof of the claim. By [29, VII.1.3(d)] there are , , , with such that for all and :
[TABLE]
In fact, we have as otherwise has good reduction already with its model over .
It now suffices to show that for points of good reduction (i.e., inside ), we have modulo . Using a translation of the coordinates and of by the elements and of we may assume without loss of generality that (but now is given by a non-minimal Weierstrass equation over and ). As we have , we find from [29, Table III.1.2] that , , , so the reduction of our model of modulo is , The only point with is the singular point , so modulo . This proves the claim. â
Example 4.5**.**
In Example 4.3 the valuations of at which has additive reduction are and , corresponding respectively to and of .
The reduction at is of type , hence the component group there has order . As the point does not reduce to the singular point, we have . In the sequence, we see and .
The reduction at is of type , hence the component group has order . As the point reduces to the singular point, we have . In the sequence, we see and .
In both cases, we have .
Proposition 4.6**.**
Let , , be as in Notation 3.2. Suppose that has infinite order and that is non-constant. Let be a positive integer. If is supersingular, assume that . Then
- (1)
* has a primitive valuation or* 2. (2)
there is a valuation of such that divides the order of in the component group .
Proof.
Let be a primitive valuation of , which exists by Theorem 2.3. Let be the restriction of to . Then has good or additive reduction at by Lemma 4.1(1). If has good reduction, then by Lemma 4.2. If has additive reduction, then by Lemma 4.4(1). â
As we have by Lemma 4.1(3), we get the following result.
Theorem 4.7**.**
Let and be as in Notation 3.2. Suppose that is ordinary, that has infinite order, and that is non-constant. Then for all , the term has a primitive valuation.â
Proposition 4.8**.**
Let be a supersingular elliptic curve over . Let be a point of infinite order. Suppose that is non-constant. Let be a positive integer. Then
- (1)
* has no primitive valuation or* 2. (2)
there is a valuation of such that divides the order of in the component group .
Proof.
If has no primitive valuation, then we are done. Otherwise, let be such a primitive valuation, so . Let be an extension of to . Then has good or additive reduction at by Lemma 4.1(1). If has good reduction, then by Lemma 4.2, but that contradicts Theorem 2.3. If has additive reduction, then Lemma 4.4(3) gives , so . â
As we have by Lemma 4.1(3), Propositions 4.6 and 4.8 imply the following result.
Theorem 4.9**.**
Let , , be as in Notation 3.2. Suppose that is supersingular, that has infinite order, and that is non-constant. Let be the characteristic of . Then
- (1)
for all integers with , the term has a primitive valuation, and 2. (2)
for all integers , the term has no primitive valuation.â
5. Component groups
In order to sharpen Theorems 4.7 and 4.9 further, we need to look at the component group. In this section we derive extra restrictions on the order of a point in the component group.
By a local function field, we mean a completion of the function field of a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over a field at a discrete valuation with and .
Proposition 5.1**.**
Let be a local function field of characteristic with valuation and constant field . Let be an elliptic curve over with . Then the component group does not have an element of order .
Proof.
Suppose that the component group has an element of order . We will show , which contradicts our assumption that is a non-zero constant.
By the tables of reduction types in [32, 27] (see the detailed references in the proof of Lemma 4.1(2) above), if has an element of order , then the elliptic curve has reduction at of type for some with . By Szydlo [32, Table 7] (see also Theorems 5.1 and 6.1 of loc. cit.), it follows that has a -minimal Weierstrass model with
[TABLE]
As an alternative reference: under the assumption that is perfect, one can also obtain (5.1) from Dokchitser and Dokchitser [7, Proposition 2], using the fact that (in characteristic ) .
The -invariant equals
[TABLE]
Let , so . We find as all other terms in have larger valuation.
Write for some . It follows that
[TABLE]
If , then
[TABLE]
and is odd, hence non-zero. If , then
[TABLE]
and . â
Proposition 5.2**.**
Let be a local function field of characteristic with valuation and constant field . Let be an elliptic curve over with . Then the component group does not have an element of order .
Proof.
Suppose that the component group has an element of order . Then at the valuation the elliptic curve has reduction of type or (same reference as in the proof of Proposition 5.1).
Let for type and for type . By [32, Table 4] (see also Theorems 5.1 and 6.1 of loc. cit.), there exists a minimal model of the form with
[TABLE]
The -invariant of is
[TABLE]
We will show , which contradicts our assumption that is a non-zero constant. Let and , hence . It follows that , , and .
âąÂ If , then
[TABLE]
âąÂ If , then
[TABLE]
6. The third term when
In this section we give a separate result, with an elementary proof, for the terms and in the case , because the local considerations of Section 5 do not apply to that case.
We first collect some well-known results about elliptic curves with -invariant [math] in the following lemma, of which we give a proof for completeness.
Lemma 6.1**.**
Let be an elliptic curve with -invariant [math] over a field of characteristic .
- (1)
If , then is ordinary. 2. (2)
If , then is supersingular. 3. (3)
If , then has a Weierstrass model of the form
[TABLE]
with . 4. (4)
If and , then any Weierstrass model as in (3) satisfies
[TABLE]
Moreover, all elliptic curves with non-zero -invariant over fields of characteristic and are ordinary.
Proof.
Suppose that is an elliptic curve over with -invariant [math]. Then and are isomorphic over , and one is supersingular if and only if the other is (see e.g. [29, V.3.1(a)(i)]). For (respectively ) Example V.4.6 (respectively V.4.5) of loc. cit. gives supersingular with . If , then we take , which is ordinary if and only if by Example V.4.4 of [29].
In characteristic , there is a short Weierstrass equation and as , we get . This proves (3).
Let and , where again . If , then we claim . Indeed, in that case the map is a bijection, hence so is , which proves the claim. By [29, Theorem 2.3.1(b) in the Second Edition], we then get inside , so . We conclude:
[TABLE]
which proves (4).
For the final remark, it suffices to know that there is exactly one supersingular -invariant in each characteristic . But this follows from the formula for the number of supersingular -invariants in Corollary 12.4.6 of Katz-Mazur [19] (that formula needs the order of the automorphism group of the elliptic curve with -invariant zero, which is computed in Proposition A.1.2(c) of [29]). â
Proposition 6.2**.**
Let be a field of characteristic with , let be a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over and let . Let be an elliptic curve over with -invariant [math] and let be a point of infinite order.
If the pair is not constant, then the term has a primitive valuation.
Proof.
As the characteristic is not or and the -invariant is [math], we get a Weierstrass equation with (cf. Lemma 6.1(3)). If , then is isomorphic over to a curve over and the result is a special case of Theorem 2.3. So we restrict to the remaining case: .
Write . We claim that is non-constant. Indeed, suppose it is . If , then is -torsion, contradiction. So and . If , then is -torsion, contradiction. So we get . Now compute
[TABLE]
Contradiction, hence is non-constant.
As a consequence, the function is also non-constant, so let be a valuation of with . We obtain and , hence . By the transformation , , , which does not change , we then get , hence .
Write , which we compute to be
[TABLE]
Recall and . In particular, the valuation of the denominator of this expression for is positive. The numerator is congruent to modulo , hence is modulo . We conclude and for the minimal Weierstrass equation , hence and . â
Lemma 6.3**.**
Let be a field of characteristic with . Let be a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over and let .
Then there exist a supersingular elliptic curve over with -invariant [math] and a point of infinite order such that has a primitive valuation and is non-constant.
Proof.
Take any valuation and with . Let , let and let . Write .
Note , hence the model is minimal at . As , the triplication formula (6.3) gives , so .
As and , the multiplication-by- formula of Lemma 6.1 gives , so . As and , the same multiplication-by- formula also gives , so . We find that is a primitive valuation of . As , we find that is not a th power, hence is not isomorphic to a curve over , hence the pair is non-constant.
Repeated use of the multiplication-by- formula gives that is strictly decreasing with , hence is non-torsion. â
Example 6.4**.**
Let and . As in the proof of Lemma 6.3, take and . Then
[TABLE]
And indeed the term has a primitive valuation .
7. Additional examples
In this section we gather examples that are crucial for the proof of optimality in the main theorems. In our examples, the function field is always for a field , that is, the examples have . The following result shows that this suffices, in the sense that the existence of such examples implies the existence of examples over all function fields that we consider.
Theorem 7.1**.**
Let be a field and let be the function field of a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over . Let be an elliptic curve over with and let .
If there is a rational place in of good reduction of , then there exist an embedding , an elliptic curve over , and a point such that
- (1)
* and have the same order,* 2. (2)
* and have the same -invariant, and* 3. (3)
for every valuation of , if is the restriction to , then
[TABLE]
The main idea for the proof of Theorem 7.1 is to base change via a suitable morphism of base curves. We will use the following results.
We denote by the branch locus of a finite morphism of normal projective curves over . This is the image through of the set of closed points for which the map is not étale at , cf. [20, Definition 7.4.15].
Proposition 7.2**.**
Let be a field. Let and be smooth projective curves defined over . Let be a dominant morphism of curves over . Let be an elliptic curve over and a point in . Let denote the elliptic curve obtained from the pull-back by the map and the corresponding point on . We assume that the branch locus of is disjoint with the set of places of bad reduction for . Then for every valuation in above in we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
If is a place of good reduction for and is any place above in , then the elliptic curve still has good reduction at and the order of the point modulo is the same as the order of the point modulo .
It remains to prove the result for places of bad reduction, so let be such a place. Let (respectively denote the discrete valuation ring with valuation (respectively ). From our assumptions and [20, Definition 7.4.15] it follows that the extension has ramification index and that the corresponding extension of residue fields is separable.
Let be the Néron model of over . It follows from [3, Theorem 7.2.1(ii)] that the base change is the Néron model of over .
Let (respectively ) be the -coordinate function of a -minimal (respectively -minimal) Weierstrass equation of . For a point , we denote by the corresponding point in . We have for every point that holds if and only if restricts to the zero section of the special fibre, that is, satisfies (see [27, Corollary IV.9.2] and [5, Theorem 5.5]). By base-changing from to , we see that this happens if and only if satisfies , hence if and only if holds.
Applying this to for any , we find if and only if . In particular, we have . â
In order to use Proposition 7.2, we need to find an appropriate morphism for every function field and suitable examples over for prime fields . We use the following result to find such maps.
Theorem 7.3** **(Wild -Belyi theorem of Katz
[18, Lemma 16], [33, Theorem 11]).
Let be a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve defined over a perfect field of positive characteristic. Then there exists a non-constant morphism (over ) that is unramified above . â
Proposition 7.4**.**
Let be any field. Let be a finite set and a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over . If does not contain , then there exists a non-constant morphism (over ) that is unramified above .
[Note that the hypothesis of not containing is automatically satisfied if is infinite.]
Proof.
We give a proof in the case where is infinite and a proof in the case where is perfect. Together, these two proofs cover all cases.
If is infinite. Let be the field of functions of , so . Since is smooth, it is geometrically reduced. As the transcendence degree of is one, it then follows from [20, Proposition 3.2.15] that is a finite separable extension of a purely transcendental extension of . Hence there exists a separable finite morphism . The set is finite by [20, Corollary 4.4.12].
Write and let be an element in , which exists since is infinite. We define a map . It follows that does not contain . The set is finite, so there exists an element that does not belong to it. The map suffices.
If is perfect. By Theorem 7.3 there exists a morphism over with . Take . There exists a fractional linear map over which satisfies . We define and check that it satisfies the claim. â
Question 7.5**.**
In Proposition 7.4 we have assumed that the set is disjoint from . In our situation this is enough for the applications, but it would be interesting to know in general whether one could drop this assumption. We leave it here as an open question to the reader.
Proof of Theorem 7.1.
Let be the set of points such that has bad reduction at the corresponding place. By assumption, the set does not contain , so by Proposition 7.4 there is a morphism that is unramified above . Let (respectively ) be the base change of (respectively ) to via . Then (1) and (2) are clearly true, and (3) follows from Proposition 7.2. â
In Theorem 7.1 and Proposition 7.2, we do a change of base curve , but we do not allow a change of the base field of the base curve. Indeed, the following example shows that the results are false for inseparable changes of base field .
Example 7.6**.**
Let , , , and . The discriminant of is , hence is minimal and of good reduction at all places except . At , the model is minimal and of reduction type in Szydloâs tables [32, Table 4]. At , we have the model , which is minimal because it has discriminant of valuation .
We get that is integral, so , which has no primitive valuation. Now take , let , and let . Take and , so is a model over , hence is not minimal at over . In fact, the model is minimal and of reduction type over .
Over , the resulting point satisfies , so , hence this term has a primitive valuation . We get .
7.1. General characteristic examples
In the case of ordinary with characteristic and , we will see in Theorem 8.1 that every term has a primitive valuation, except possibly and . The following examples show that sometimes these two remaining terms do not have a primitive valuation.
Lemma 7.7**.**
Let be a field with . Let be an element, such that if , then . Then there exists an elliptic curve with defined over the function field of and a point of infinite order such that
- (1)
* is non-constant,* 2. (2)
* has at least one rational place of good reduction,* 3. (3)
, 4. (4)
if is supersingular, then and have primitive valuations.
Proof.
If , take , . Otherwise, let be such that
[TABLE]
defines an elliptic curve over with . Let , which is square-free as the discriminant of is non-zero. Let
[TABLE]
so . We find a point . Note that the given Weierstrass equation is minimal at all primes of , and that the point is integral at all such primes. Moreover, the curve has places of additive reduction of type hence by [25, Corollary 7.5] the point (which does not have order or ) has infinite order.
The point of Notation 3.2 is , which is non-constant. By Lemma 2.2 this proves (1).
Note that has at most three primes at which has bad reduction (the roots of ) and for all fields except and there are more than rational points in , hence there is at least one rational place of good reduction. For , our choice of has only one rational root, hence there are two rational affine places of good reduction. This proves (2).
We also find the following Weierstrass equation, which is minimal for the place at infinity of :
[TABLE]
Then , so is also integral at that place. We find that is an integral point, so .
The duplication formula gives
[TABLE]
which is integral at all finite places of . We also get
[TABLE]
which is integral at infinity. We find that is an integral point, so . This proves (3).
Now suppose that is supersingular. Then , so we take from the beginning. If , then we moreover have and we take , . It remains only to prove that does have primitive valuations for , .
We have and the valuation that appears in with multiplicity does not appear in .
Next, we claim on with for some . If , then the claim follows from [29, Corollary II.2.12], which applies as is perfect and . In case , we have over and a direct calculation proves with , cf. [29, Theorem 2.3.1(b) in the Second Edition].
We conclude that the valuation appears with multiplicity in , hence appears in with multiplicity , hence .
The valuations at the roots of , which appear in do not appear in . They also do not appear in (otherwise by the strong divisibility property (1.3) and they would appear in ), hence they do not appear in either. They do appear with multiplicity in , hence appear in with multiplicity at least , thus . â
Example 7.8** (Ordinary).**
In Lemma 7.7, take , , so . We obtain
[TABLE]
where and are trivial, as we already saw in Lemma 7.7.
7.2. Examples in characteristic 3
Example 7.9** (Ordinary).**
Let be a field of characteristic and let . We consider the elliptic curve
[TABLE]
with -invariant . We consider the quadratic twist of the curve over where . The curve is non-constant and has -invariant and discriminant .
This is a generic fibre of a Kummer K3 surface with places of bad reduction only at the roots of and at , all of type (by e.g. [32, Table 4]). On the curve we have a point of height (hence non-torsion cf. [24]) which satisfies the condition , since .
Example 7.10** (Supersingular).**
Let be a field of characteristic . We consider the curve
[TABLE]
over , which has a point . The discriminant of the equation is , hence there is no place of bad reduction away from . By [32, §5 and Table 4] the reduction type at is and at is and our model is minimal at all places. By Shiodaâs height formula [24, Theorem 8.6] the point has height hence is non-torsion. A direct computation of the divisors reveals
[TABLE]
Remark 7.11*.*
Here is how we came up with the curve and point in Example 7.10. We wanted a pair such that , , and is a point of infinite order such that , , and has a primitive valuation . Such an elliptic curve has a Weierstrass model with . We look for a valuation of bad additive reduction for such that the group of components has order , that is, reduction of type or at (see the proof of Lemma 4.1). Moreover, the point should intersect a non-trivial component at and the point should intersect the component of the zero section but should not be zero itself. Automatically, by additive reduction in characteristic , the point then hits the zero section at .
From [22] it follows that there are only two possible structures for the Néron-Severi group of a rational elliptic surface over an algebraically closed field of any characteristic which admit a primitive embedding of the lattice (which corresponds to the reduction type , namely (type ) and (type ). Over the complex numbers both types of the Néron-Severi group exist, cf. [23].
An example of such an elliptic surface with type over an algebraically closed field of characteristic was constructed in [17, 4.2.18, case 6A, 5.]. The generic fibre over of that surface is where for , we define
[TABLE]
It has reduction of type at , reduction type at and no other singular fibres.
It is easy to verify that from Example 7.10 is isomorphic over to .
7.3. Examples in characteristic 2
Example 7.12** (Supersingular).**
We consider a rational elliptic surface with Weierstrass equation:
[TABLE]
over for any field of characteristic . We have that so the curve is supersingular. The equation above has discriminant , hence there is no bad reduction away from . It has bad additive reduction at (type ) and at (type ) over by the extended Tate algorithm in [32] (Table 5 for and Table 7 for with the model ). From the Oguiso-Shioda classification [22] it follows that the rank of the group is and the group is freely generated by a point of height . We checked that the point satisfies this condition.
It is easy to verify that the divisors , , and are trivial and is supported at and is supported at . More precisely,
[TABLE]
Example 7.13** (Supersingular).**
Let , be an elliptic curve over for any field of characteristic . The curve has discriminant and no bad reduction away from . We apply the extended Tate algorithm [32] to places and . For our model is minimal for each and of type . For the model of with
[TABLE]
is minimal at () and of reduction type by the extended Tate algorithm and Table 7, cf. [32]. For the model of with
[TABLE]
is minimal at and of type .
There exists a point on which is not of order or , hence it is of infinite order on this curve by [25, Corollary 7.5].
- (a)
If , then and have a primitive valuation. More precisely,
[TABLE]
- (b)
If , then and have a primitive valuation. More precisely,
[TABLE]
Example 7.14** (Ordinary).**
Let be a field of characteristic and . For any we have an elliptic curve
[TABLE]
with a point . Let . Then is a generic fibre of an elliptic K3 surface with bad reduction at and . If is a square in , then we have type at and otherwise this is type according to [32, §5.1, §5.2]. In both cases the model
[TABLE]
obtained via a transformation , is minimal at (see also [31, 6.12] with the model obtained from by mapping ).
There is a model at , of the form (with respect to )
[TABLE]
It is minimal and of type if is a square in and of type if is not a square in , cf. [32] or [31, 6.14]. The point is not a -torsion point, hence it is of infinite order by [25, Corollary 7.5]. The point in the model has the form and the point on satisfies the condition , so the points are integral and integral at infinity, hence the divisors and have empty support.
8. Proof of the main theorems
We now have all the ingredients required for proving the following two main theorems.
Theorem 8.1**.**
Let be the function field of a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over a field .
Let be an ordinary elliptic curve over and let be a point of infinite order such that , but the pair is not constant, cf. Definition 2.1. Then for all integers , the term has a primitive valuation.
Conversely, for all ordinary -invariants there exist an elliptic curve with and a point of infinite order such that the terms and do not have a primitive valuation and there exist an elliptic curve with and a point of infinite order such that all terms for have a primitive valuation.
Proof.
For the first assertion, by Theorem 4.7, it suffices to prove that and each have a primitive valuation. Let be the characteristic of .
Proof that has a primitive valuation. Recall that is ordinary. By Proposition 4.6, in order to show that has a primitive valuation, it suffices to show that for every valuation of , the order of in the component group is not .
If and , then Lemma 4.1(4b) gives . If and , then Proposition 5.2 gives .
If , then , by Lemma 6.1(2), so in that case has a primitive valuation by Proposition 6.2.
Proof that has a primitive valuation. Again by Proposition 4.6 it suffices to prove that for every valuation , we have . If , then this is Lemma 4.1(4a). If , then this is Proposition 5.1. This proves the first assertion.
Examples where the terms and also have a primitive valuation are trivial to find: just start from an arbitrary pair and take .
It remains to find examples for every field and every ordinary where the terms and do not have primitive valuations.
By Theorem 7.1, it suffices to find such examples for each rational function field , where ranges over all fields, such that has good reduction at at least one place of degree one in .
For of characteristic not or , and any ordinary -invariant , Lemma 7.7 does the trick. Note that the example has at most three affine places of bad reduction and there are more than rational affine places in , hence at least one rational place of good reduction. We obtain , hence no primitive valuations.
Suppose that has characteristic or and that is an ordinary -invariant. Then , so . For of characteristic , we have Example 7.9 for any . Then , hence has good reduction at the affine rational place . We obtain , hence no primitive valuations.
For of characteristic , we have Example 7.14 for any . It has good reduction at . We obtain , hence no primitive valuations. â
Theorem 8.2**.**
Let be the function field of a smooth, projective, geometrically irreducible curve over a field of characteristic . Let be a positive integer.
If the entry corresponding to and in Table 2 is ââ (respectively ââ), then for every supersingular elliptic curve over , and every with non-constant and of infinite order, the term has a (respectively no) primitive valuation.
If the entry is ââ, then there exist and as in the previous paragraph such that has a primitive valuation and there exist and such that has no primitive valuation.
Proof.
For each entry, the letter(s) below it refer(s) to one or more of the proofs listed below. In case of , the letters before the comma refer to examples where the term has a primitive valuation, and the letters after the comma to examples where it does not. If multiple letters are given, then each separately gives a complete proof.
By Proposition 4.6, in order to prove that has a primitive valuation for , it suffices to prove for every additive valuation of that does not divide the order of in the component group .
By Proposition 4.8, in order to prove that has no primitive valuation, it also suffices to prove for every additive valuation of that does not divide the order of in the component group .
- .
Lemma 4.1(3) states , and if , then Lemma 4.1(4a) states . 2. .
Take any pair with of infinite order. Then for , the pair is such an example. To see this, apply the result in the final two columns (or Theorem 4.9) to . 3. .
Here . If , then by Lemma 4.1(4b). If , then has a primitive valuation by Proposition 6.2. 4. .
Here , so by Lemma 6.1(1). But then by Lemma 4.1(4b). 5. .
This is Lemma 6.3.
To prove the cases with , by Theorem 7.1, it suffices to find examples for each rational function field (over every field of the appropriate characteristic) such that has good reduction at at least one place of degree one in . The following are such examples.
- .
Lemma 7.7 gives examples for all characteristics where and do not have primitive valuations, and and do. They have good reduction at at least one place. 2. .
In Example 7.13(a) the terms and have primitive valuations. In Example 7.13(b) the terms and have primitive valuations. These examples are supersingular over and have good reduction at . 3. .
Example 7.12 gives a supersingular elliptic curve and point in characteristic , where has a primitive valuation for and , but not for . It has good reduction at the rational place . 4. .
Example 7.10 gives a supersingular elliptic curve and point in characteristic such that has a primitive valuation for and , but not for . It has good reduction at the rational place .â
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Amir Akbary and Soroosh Yazdani. On the greatest prime factor of some divisibility sequences. In SCHOLARâa scientific celebration highlighting open lines of arithmetic research , volume 655 of Contemp. Math. , pages 1â13. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2015.
- 2[2] Yuri Bilu, Guillaume Hanrot, and Paul M. Voutier. Existence of primitive divisors of Lucas and Lehmer numbers. J. Reine Angew. Math. , 539:75â122, 2001. With an appendix by M. Mignotte.
- 3[3] Siegfried Bosch, Werner LĂŒtkebohmert, and Michel Raynaud. NĂ©ron models , volume 21 of Ergebnisse der Mathematik und ihrer Grenzgebiete (3) [Results in Mathematics and Related Areas (3)] . Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1990.
- 4[4] Jung Hee Cheon and Sang Geun Hahn. The orders of the reductions of a point in the Mordell-Weil group of an elliptic curve. Acta Arith. , 88(3):219â222, 1999.
- 5[5] Brian Conrad. Minimal models for elliptic curves. Preprint, available at http://math.stanford.edu/~conrad/papers/minimalmodel.pdf , 2015.
- 6[6] Gunther Cornelissen and Jonathan Reynolds. The perfect power problem for elliptic curves over function fields. New York J. Math. , 22:95â114, 2016.
- 7[7] Tim Dokchitser and Vladimir Dokchitser. A remark on Tateâs algorithm and Kodaira types. Acta Arith. , 160(1):95â100, 2013.
- 8[8] Graham Everest, Patrick Ingram, ValĂ©ry MahĂ©, and Shaun Stevens. The uniform primality conjecture for elliptic curves. Acta Arith. , 134(2):157â181, 2008.
