For points on a smooth plane cubic, draw the line through them, using the tangent at when , and let its third intersection with the cubic be . The chord-and-tangent group law defines as the reflection of in the -axis; the point at infinity is the identity and .
If , their chord or tangent has rational coefficients. Substitution into the cubic gives a polynomial with rational coefficients for which two intersection roots are rational, so the third is rational as well. The identity and inverse of every rational point are rational, and closure under addition follows. Assuming the elliptic-curve law is a group law, is therefore a subgroup of .
Let be rational. If the 3-adic valuation satisfies , first cannot be negative: otherwise is the unique term of least valuation in , giving . If , the right side has valuation zero. If , its three terms have valuations at least , at least , and exactly , so . In every case .
The Lutz–Nagell theorem says that ifhas nonzero discriminant and is a torsion point, then and either or
For integrality, fix a prime . If a rational point has nonintegral coordinates, its primitive projective coordinates reduce to , so it belongs to the kernel of reduction. The parameter identifies this kernel with the formal group of an elliptic curve over . The formal logarithm, with the standard separate first-step argument at , shows that this group has no nonzero rational torsion. A rational torsion point therefore has nonnegative -adic valuations in both coordinates for every prime , hence integral coordinates.
Suppose now that . The point is again a nonzero torsion point and hence integral. Its -coordinate is , whereThus is an integer. A rational number whose square is integral is integral, so and in particular . The curve equation and the identitythen prove . This is the divisibility proof in the Nagell–Lutz theorem.
HereBy the Lutz–Nagell theorem, a nonzero rational torsion point has integral coordinates and either or . Part b gives , so . The cubic has no integral zero. Substitution of gives exactlyThis proves the required inclusion.
Since , the point has order three. The point is not torsion because is nonintegral, contradicting Nagell–Lutz. If or were torsion, adding the torsion point would make torsion; their negatives are excluded in the same way. Hence
Articles by others on the same topic
There are currently no matching articles.