Counting elliptic curves with an isogeny of degree three
Maggie Pizzo, Carl Pomerance, and John Voight

TL;DR
This paper estimates the number of rational elliptic curves with a degree three isogeny by height, providing insights into their distribution.
Contribution
It introduces a method to count elliptic curves with a specific isogeny degree over the rationals based on height.
Findings
Quantifies the density of elliptic curves with a degree three isogeny.
Provides asymptotic estimates for the count based on height.
Enhances understanding of the structure of elliptic curves with prescribed isogenies.
Abstract
We count by height the number of elliptic curves over the rationals that possess an isogeny of degree three.
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.
Counting elliptic curves with
an isogeny of degree three
Maggie Pizzo
Mathematics Department, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
,
Carl Pomerance
Mathematics Department, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
and
John Voight
Mathematics Department, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755
Abstract.
We count by height the number of elliptic curves over that possess an isogeny of degree .
1. Introduction
Torsion subgroups of elliptic curves have long been an object of fascination for mathematicians. By work of Duke [1], elliptic curves over with nontrivial torsion are comparatively rare. Recently, Harron–Snowden [3] have refined this result by counting elliptic curves over with prescribed torsion, as follows. Every elliptic curve over is defined uniquely up to isomorphism by an equation of the form
[TABLE]
with such that and there is no prime such that and . We define the height of such by
[TABLE]
For a possible torsion subgroup (allowed by Mazur’s theorem [5]), Harron–Snowden [3, Theorem 1.5] prove that
[TABLE]
where is explicitly given, and means that there exist positive constants such that . In the case , i.e., the case of 2-torsion, they show the count is for an explicit constant [3, Theorem 5.5]. (For weaker but related results, see also Duke [1, Proof of Theorem 1] and Grant [2, Section 2].)
In this article, we count elliptic curves with a nontrivial cyclic isogeny defined over . An elliptic curve has a -isogeny if and only if it has a -torsion point, so the above result of Duke, Grant, and Harron–Snowden handles this case. The next interesting case concerns isogenies of degree . Our main result is as follows.
Theorem 1.3**.**
Let count the number of elliptic curves with that possess a -isogeny defined over . Then there exist constants such that
[TABLE]
Moreover, we have
[TABLE]
where is an explicitly given integral (4.8), and the constant is effectively computable.
We obtain the same asymptotic in Theorem 1.3 if we instead count elliptic curves equipped with a -isogeny (that is, counting with multiplicity): see Proposition 2.10. Surprisingly, the main term of order counts just those elliptic curves with and -invariant equal to [math] (having complex multiplication by the quadratic order of discriminant ). Theorem 1.3 matches computations performed out to —see section 6.
The difficulty in computing the constant in the above theorem arises in applying a knotty batch of local conditions; our computations suggest that . If we count without these conditions, we find the explicit constant , given in (5.4)—it is already quite complicated.
Theorem 1.3 may be interpreted in alternative geometric language as follows. Let be the modular curve parametrizing (generalized) elliptic curves equipped with an isogeny of degree . Then counts rational points of bounded height on with respect to the height arising from the pullback of the natural height on the -line . From this vantage point, the main term corresponds to a single elliptic point of order on ! The modular curves are not fine moduli spaces (owing to quadratic twists), so our proof of Theorem 1.3 is quite different than the method used by Harron–Snowden: in particular, a logarithmic term presents itself for the first time. We hope that our method and the lower-order terms in our result will be useful in understanding counts of rational points on stacky curves more generally.
Contents
The paper is organized as follows. We begin in section 2 with a setup and exhibiting the main term, then in section 3 as a warmup we prove the right order of magnitude for the secondary term. In section 4, we refine this approach to prove an asymptotic for the secondary term, and then we exhibit a tertiary term in section 5. We conclude in section 6 with our computations.
Acknowledgments
The authors thank John Cullinan for helpful conversations. Pizzo was supported by the Jack Byrne Scholars program at Dartmouth College. Voight was supported by a Simons Collaboration grant (550029).
2. Setup
In this section, we set up the problem in a manner suitable for direct investigation. We continue the notation from the introduction.
Let denote the set of elliptic curves over in the form (1.1) (minimal, with nonzero discriminant). For , let be the set of elliptic curves over with height at most . We are interested in asymptotics for the functions
[TABLE]
To that end, let , with . The -division polynomial of [7, Exercise 3.7] is equal to
[TABLE]
the roots of are the -coordinates of nontrivial -torsion points on .
Lemma 2.3**.**
The elliptic curve has a -isogeny defined over if and only if has a root .
Proof.
Let be a -isogeny defined over . Then is stable under the absolute Galois group , so . Thus, for all and hence is a root of by definition. Conversely, if with , then letting we obtain a Galois stable subgroup of order and accordingly the map is a -isogeny defined over : explicitly, by the formula of Vélu we have
[TABLE]
(but such is not necessarily in our designated form). ∎
Lemma 2.4**.**
If is a root of , then .
Proof.
For the first statement, by the rational root test, . Thus
[TABLE]
so , whence . ∎
Although the polynomial is irreducible in , the special case where gives and so is automatically a root, corresponding to the elliptic curve and the isogeny by
[TABLE]
We count these easily.
Lemma 2.7**.**
Let be defined as in (2.1) but restricted to with . Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
In light of the above, we have
[TABLE]
a standard sieve gives this count as , see Pappalardi [6]. If such an elliptic curve had another -isogeny, corresponding to a root of , then is a cube and the count of such is . ∎
With these lemmas in hand, we define our explicit counting function. For , let denote the number of ordered triples satisfying:
- (N1)
and ; 2. (N2)
and ; 3. (N3)
; and 4. (N4)
there is no prime with and .
That is to say, we define
[TABLE]
We have excluded from the count for from the function ; we have handled this in Lemma 2.7.
Corollary 2.9**.**
We have
[TABLE]
Proof.
This corollary is immediate from Lemmas 2.3, 2.4, and 2.7. ∎
To conclude this section, we compare and .
Proposition 2.10**.**
We have
[TABLE]
Proof.
The difference counts elliptic curves with more than one -isogeny. Let be an elliptic curve with (at least) two -isogenies and let for . Then , and so the image of acting on is a subgroup of the group of diagonal matrices in . This property is preserved by any twist of , so such elliptic curves are characterized by the form of their -invariant, explicitly [8, Table 1, 3D0-3a]
[TABLE]
for . Computing an elliptic surface for this -invariant, we conclude that every such is of the form for some , where
[TABLE]
Then by Harron–Snowden [3, Proposition 4.1] (with so and ), the number of such elliptic curves is bounded above (and below) by a constant times , as claimed. ∎
In light of the above, our main result will follow from an asymptotic for the easier function defined in (2.8), and so we proceed to study this function.
3. Order of magnitude
In this section, we introduce new variables that will be useful in the sequel, and provide an argument that shows the right order of magnitude. This argument explains the provenance of the logarithmic term in a natural way and motivates our approach. We recall (2.8), the definition of .
Theorem 3.1**.**
There exist such that for all , we have
[TABLE]
We begin with a few observations. First, if and , then
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.3**.**
Let with . Then if and only if all of the following conditions hold:
- (B1)
* and ;* 2. (B2)
* have the same parity; and* 3. (B3)
If are both even, then .
Proof.
The verification is straightforward. ∎
Lemma 3.4**.**
Let satisfy conditions (N1)–(N2). Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
Let . Since , we have
[TABLE]
The inequality for and (3.2) imply that
[TABLE]
so that
[TABLE]
The inequality (3.6) fails for large—in fact, we have —which proves the first part of (3.5). To get the second part, note that the first part and condition (N2) imply that . And since (3.2) implies that
[TABLE]
we have . ∎
Proof of Theorem 3.1.
We first prove the upper bound. Every nonzero can be written uniquely as , where is squarefree and . Replacing , we see that if and only if . Therefore with arbitrary. The inequalities in (3.5) imply that there exist such that
[TABLE]
Thus,
[TABLE]
For , we have
[TABLE]
For the lower bound, we let range over positive, odd, squarefree numbers with and let and as in the previous paragraph; these ensure that conditions (B1)–(B3) hold, so by Lemma 3.3 we have . Conditions (N1) and (N4) are also satisfied, and condition (N3) is negligible. To ensure (N2), we choose
[TABLE]
Then so . Moreover,
[TABLE]
since and the polynomial on is positive and takes the maximum value . Thus, all conditions are satisfied.
We now count the choices for with the above conditions: we have
[TABLE]
By partial summation, the inner sum on is , and then another partial summation gives that , which completes the proof of the lower bound. ∎
4. An asymptotic
In this section, we prove an asymptotic for .
We recall some notation introduced in the proof of Theorem 3.1. Let satisfy (N1), so and is determined by as in Lemma 3.3. Write
[TABLE]
with squarefree, , and . Then
[TABLE]
We rewrite condition (N4) and the conditions in Lemma 3.3 in terms of the quantities as follows.
Lemma 4.3**.**
Conditions (B1)–(B3)* and (N4) hold if and only if all of the following conditions hold: *
- (W1)
; 2. (W2)
Not both and occur; 3. (W3)
Not all of , , and occur; 4. (W4)
Not all of , , and occur; 5. (W5)
; 6. (W6)
Not both and occur; and 7. (W7)
For each prime , not both and occur.
Proof.
This lemma can be proven by a tedious case-by-case analysis. Alternatively, the conditions (B1)–(B3) are determined by congruence conditions modulo and , so we may also just loop over the possibilities by computer. ∎
Lemma 4.4**.**
The proportion among (with squarefree) satisfying the conditions (W1)–(W7) is .
Proof.
For the conditions (W1)–(W6), we just count residue classes (as in Lemma 4.3): we find proportions for conditions (W1)–(W4) and for (W5)–(W6). For condition (W7), the proportion of cases where and is , thus the correction factor is
[TABLE]
Thus the total proportion is
[TABLE]
Let , and suppose is counted by . Define by
[TABLE]
(The quantity arose in the proof of Lemma 3.4.) Moreover, define the functions
[TABLE]
\begin{overpic}[width=346.89731pt]{h_alternating.png} \put(23.0,70.0){} \put(100.0,3.0){} \put(15.0,0.0){} \put(16.0,3.0){} \put(19.5,0.0){} \put(20.5,3.0){} \put(24.0,0.0){} \put(25.0,3.0){} \put(81.0,0.0){} \put(82.0,3.0){} \end{overpic}
The transition points for the piecewise function occur at
[TABLE]
the transition points are algebraic numbers. Then on the intervals , , and and on the complementary intervals and .
We compute numerically that
[TABLE]
The relevance of these quantities (as well as their weighting) is made plain by the following lemma.
Lemma 4.9**.**
The triple satisfies (N2) if and only if
[TABLE]
Proof.
Since , the first inequality in (N2) is equivalent to
[TABLE]
In addition, we have
[TABLE]
so that the second inequality in (N2) is equivalent to
[TABLE]
The result then follows from (4.10) and (4.11). ∎
We then have the following first version of our main result.
Theorem 4.12**.**
We have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and is defined in (4.8).
Proof.
Via (4.1)–(4.2), counts with squarefree, positive, , such that conditions (N2)–(N3) hold as well as the local conditions (W1)–(W7) (which implies (N4)). We may ignore condition (N3) as negligible: for each choice of there are choices of where (N3) fails, subtracting at most from the count.
We first show how to count triples satisfying (N2), not necessarily the local conditions, and define
[TABLE]
We suppress the reminder that is taken to be squarefree. The number of triples with is negligible, so we ignore this condition.
Let . For counted by , we organize by the value of . Taking in an interval of length that does not contain a transition point in its interior, the integers are constrained by
[TABLE]
(with minimal on , taking left or right endpoint) by Lemma 4.9. Given , we have giving approximately possible values of . Repeating this argument with Riemann sum estimates, we obtain
[TABLE]
as . (For a more refined approach with an error term, see (5.7) below.)
We now evaluate this integral. Recall that
[TABLE]
inputting this into (4.14) and letting , we obtain
[TABLE]
Finally, we impose the local constraints (W1)–(W7). The first 6 of these are clear. To impose (W7) note that
[TABLE]
The sum converges rapidly, in fact, for ,
[TABLE]
Further, the proportion of triples with and for some tends to 0 as . So, imposing (W7) introduces the factor as in Lemma 4.4. We conclude that
[TABLE]
as , as claimed. ∎
5. Secondary term
In this section, we work on a secondary term for (giving a tertiary term for ).
We start by explaining how this works for the function defined in (4.13), namely, the triples such that is squarefree, , and where are defined by (4.5). We discuss the modifications to this approach for below.
We begin by working out an analog of Euler’s constant for the squarefree harmonic series.
Lemma 5.1**.**
For real numbers we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and is Euler’s constant.
Proof.
The integer variables in this proof are positive. We have
[TABLE]
The -terms add to . Since
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
the result follows. ∎
Theorem 5.3**.**
We have
[TABLE]
where is defined in (4.8) and
[TABLE]
where is defined in (5.2) and is Euler’s constant.
Proof.
We return to the derivation of the integral expression (4.14) and consider the contribution of a single term . With , the contribution of to the integral is
[TABLE]
Note that is continuous. Let and . Then is strictly increasing and is strictly decreasing. Letting be the inverses of , respectively, we have for any that
[TABLE]
Plugging (5.6) into the integral (5.5), we obtain .
For a choice of , we count the number of nonzero integers with : this is equal to
[TABLE]
So, the error when considering the integral in (4.14) is , i.e.,
[TABLE]
We next consider the evaluation of the integrand
[TABLE]
(with the continued understanding that is squarefree). Let , so that if , then either or . Let be the contribution to the integrand when , let be the contribution when , and let be the contribution when both and . Then
[TABLE]
Using that , for a given value of with , we have
[TABLE]
Summing this over squarefree numbers with and using Lemma 5.1, we get
[TABLE]
Next we consider . For a given value of , we have
[TABLE]
using that the number of squarefree numbers up to a bound is and partial summation. Summing for we get
[TABLE]
Finally, for we have
[TABLE]
Since , combining (5.12), (5.11), and (5.12) we obtain
[TABLE]
The expression (5.13) is then to be integrated over all to obtain as in (5.7). However, in this integration, we may suppose that , since and we may suppose that . Thus, integrating the first error term gives and integrating the second error term gives . We conclude that
[TABLE]
We compute numerically that
[TABLE]
and so the coefficient of the secondary term of is . ∎
Before proving our main theorem, we prove one lemma, generalizing Lemma 5.1. For with , let
[TABLE]
Lemma 5.17**.**
We have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
*and is Euler’s constant. Moreover, for . *
Proof.
The proof follows the same lines as Lemma 5.1. ∎
We now prove our main result.
Proof of Theorem 1.3.
The asymptotic for was proven in Theorem 4.12 and a secondary term with power-saving error term for was proven in Theorem 5.3. To finish, we claim that the local conditions (W1)–(W7) that move us from to can be applied in the course of the argument for Theorem 5.3 to obtain an (effectively computable) constant.
Let satisfy: , squarefree and coprime to 6, , and . Let denote the number of triples counted by with , , and . Then with running over triples consistent with conditions (W1)–(W6), a signed sum of the counts gives . For example, take the case of coprime to 6, which satisfies (W1)–(W6). The contribution of these triples to is
[TABLE]
We have similar expressions for other portions of the -domain of triples.
We now estimate and control the contribution to from large . For the latter, since , we have ; so we may suppose that is so bounded. Getting a good estimate for follows in exactly the same way as with . In particular, we have the analogue of (5.7):
[TABLE]
where it is understood that is squarefree and . The sum here is estimated in the same way, by first considering the contribution when , where , then the contribution when , and finally the contribution when both and . To accomplish this, we use the following asymptotic estimates:
[TABLE]
We also need the sum of , accomplished in Lemma 5.17.
Putting these ingredients together, we get that
[TABLE]
where uniformly, and summing these contribution gives the result. ∎
6. Computations
We conclude with some computations that give numerical verification of our asymptotic expression.
We computed the functions and as follows. First, we restrict to (still squarefree), since this gives exactly half the count. Second, we loop over up to (valid as in the proof of Lemma 3.4) and keep only squarefree . Then we loop over from [math] up to . This gives us the value of . Then plugging into gives
[TABLE]
Then we loop over from to , ignoring , and we take . We then check that ; and letting
[TABLE]
we check that , and if so add to the count for . For , we further check the local conditions (B1)–(B3) and (N4) (or, equivalently, (W1)–(W7)).
In this manner, we thereby compute the data in Table 6 for : we computed for and for .
A best fit with
[TABLE]
confirms
[TABLE]
and the difference between the first two columns is indeed small. Similarly, a best fit with
[TABLE]
gives
[TABLE]
confirms the asymptotic, with an approximate value for the constant as also indicated in the fourth column.
[TABLE]
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] William Duke, Elliptic curves with no exceptional primes , C. R. Acad. Sci. Paris Sér. I Math. 325 (1997), no. 8, 813–818.
- 2[2] David Grant, A formula for the number of elliptic curves with exceptional primes , Compositio Math. 122 (2000), no. 2, 151–164.
- 3[3] Robert Harron and Andrew Snowden, Counting elliptic curves with prescribed torsion , J. Reine Angew. Math. 729 (2017), 151–170.
- 4[4] Wieb Bosma, John Cannon, and Catherine Playoust, The Magma algebra system. I. The user language , J. Symbolic Comput. 24 (1997), vol. 3–4, 235–265.
- 5[5] Barry Mazur, Modular curves and the Eisenstein ideal , Inst. Hautes Études Sci. Publ. Math. No. 47 (1977), 33–186.
- 6[6] Francesco Pappalardi, A survey on k 𝑘 k -freeness , Number Theory, 71–78, Ramanujan Math. Soc. Lecture Notes Ser., vol. 1, Ramanujan Math. Soc., Mysore, 2005.
- 7[7] Joseph H. Silverman, The arithmetic of elliptic curves , 2nd ed., Grad. Texts in Math., vol. 106, Springer, Dordrecht, 2009.
- 8[8] Andrew V. Sutherland and David Zywina, Modular curves of prime-power level with infinitely many rational points , Algebra Number Theory 11 (2017), no. 5, 1199–1229.
