You are on page 1of 100

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

Justin Scarfy
The University of British Columbia

January 31, 2012

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

1 / 29

Introduction
Background
In the past few lectures we learned the definition of elliptic curves, absorbed the
Nagell-Lutz Theorem, were being introduced to the L-functions of elliptic curves,
and got spoiled by a few mouth-watering conjectures.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

2 / 29

Introduction
Background
In the past few lectures we learned the definition of elliptic curves, absorbed the
Nagell-Lutz Theorem, were being introduced to the L-functions of elliptic curves,
and got spoiled by a few mouth-watering conjectures.

Lecture Plan
Today we shall start discussing a theorem that L. Mordell proved in 1922:
The group of rational points on a non-singular cubic elliptic curve is finitely
generated.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

2 / 29

Introduction
Background
In the past few lectures we learned the definition of elliptic curves, absorbed the
Nagell-Lutz Theorem, were being introduced to the L-functions of elliptic curves,
and got spoiled by a few mouth-watering conjectures.

Lecture Plan
Today we shall start discussing a theorem that L. Mordell proved in 1922:
The group of rational points on a non-singular cubic elliptic curve is finitely
generated.
The main source I follow is that of Silverman-Tate, in which they employ a
technique called heights, and cheerfully partition the so I can serve them to you
by slices.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

2 / 29

Introduction
Background
In the past few lectures we learned the definition of elliptic curves, absorbed the
Nagell-Lutz Theorem, were being introduced to the L-functions of elliptic curves,
and got spoiled by a few mouth-watering conjectures.

Lecture Plan
Today we shall start discussing a theorem that L. Mordell proved in 1922:
The group of rational points on a non-singular cubic elliptic curve is finitely
generated.
The main source I follow is that of Silverman-Tate, in which they employ a
technique called heights, and cheerfully partition the so I can serve them to you
by slices.

Disclaimer
I only have time to serve you a finite portion of the today.
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

2 / 29

Review
Definition (Non-Singular Cubic Elliptic Curve)
Recall the precise definition of a non-singular cubic elliptic curve E is an equation
of the form
y 2 = f (x) = x3 + ax2 + bx + c
(1)
with non-zero discrimant:
:= 16(4a3 + 27b2 ) 6= 0

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

3 / 29

Review
Definition (Non-Singular Cubic Elliptic Curve)
Recall the precise definition of a non-singular cubic elliptic curve E is an equation
of the form
y 2 = f (x) = x3 + ax2 + bx + c
(1)
with non-zero discrimant:
:= 16(4a3 + 27b2 ) 6= 0

Nagell-Lutz Theorem
Let E be a non-singular cubic elliptic curve with the form y 2 = x3 + ax + b,
a, b Z
If P E(Q) is a torsion point of order m 2, then,
1) x(P ), y(P ) Z
2) Either 2P = 0 or y 2 | := 4a2 + 27b2
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

3 / 29

Heights
Definition (Heights)
For all x Q with x =

m
n

where (m, n) = 1, we define H : Q Z+ by


H(x) := max{|m|, |n|}

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

4 / 29

Heights
Definition (Heights)
For all x Q with x =

m
n

where (m, n) = 1, we define H : Q Z+ by


H(x) := max{|m|, |n|}

The Finiteness Property of the Height


The set of all rational numbers whose height is less than a fixed number is finite.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

4 / 29

Heights
Definition (Heights)
For all x Q with x =

m
n

where (m, n) = 1, we define H : Q Z+ by


H(x) := max{|m|, |n|}

The Finiteness Property of the Height


The set of all rational numbers whose height is less than a fixed number is finite.

Heights of Points on Elliptic Curves


For E : y 2 = f (x) = x3 + ax2 + bx + c with a, b, c Z and rational point
P = (x, y) on E,
H(P ) := H(x)
further we define small h height: h : E R0 by:
h(P ) = log H(P )
and finally define the height of point O at infinity to be: H(O) = 1 or h(O) = 0
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

4 / 29

Partitioning the
Theorem (Modrell 1922)
The group of rational points E(Q) is finitely generated.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

5 / 29

Partitioning the
Theorem (Modrell 1922)
The group of rational points E(Q) is finitely generated.

Slice 1
For every M R, the set {P E(Q) : h(P ) M } is finite.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

5 / 29

Partitioning the
Theorem (Modrell 1922)
The group of rational points E(Q) is finitely generated.

Slice 1
For every M R, the set {P E(Q) : h(P ) M } is finite.

Slice 2
Let P0 Q on E be fixed, then there exists a constant 0 depending on P0 and
a, b, c such that h(P + P0 ) < 2h(P ) + 0 for all P E(Q).

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

5 / 29

Partitioning the
Theorem (Modrell 1922)
The group of rational points E(Q) is finitely generated.

Slice 1
For every M R, the set {P E(Q) : h(P ) M } is finite.

Slice 2
Let P0 Q on E be fixed, then there exists a constant 0 depending on P0 and
a, b, c such that h(P + P0 ) < 2h(P ) + 0 for all P E(Q).

Slice 3
There is a constant , depending on a, b, c so that h(2P ) 4h(P ) for all
P E(Q).

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

5 / 29

Partitioning the
Theorem (Modrell 1922)
The group of rational points E(Q) is finitely generated.

Slice 1
For every M R, the set {P E(Q) : h(P ) M } is finite.

Slice 2
Let P0 Q on E be fixed, then there exists a constant 0 depending on P0 and
a, b, c such that h(P + P0 ) < 2h(P ) + 0 for all P E(Q).

Slice 3
There is a constant , depending on a, b, c so that h(2P ) 4h(P ) for all
P E(Q).

Slice 4
Not ready yet will be ready and served next week!
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

5 / 29

Descent Theorem (1/6)


Descent Theorem
Let be an abelian group, and suppose that there is a function h : R0 with
the following three properties:
a) For every M R, the set {P : h(P ) M } is finite.
b) For every P0 , there is a constant 0 with h(P + P0 ) 2h(P ) + 0 .
c) There is a constant so that h(2P ) 4h(P ) for all P .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

6 / 29

Descent Theorem (1/6)


Descent Theorem
Let be an abelian group, and suppose that there is a function h : R0 with
the following three properties:
a) For every M R, the set {P : h(P ) M } is finite.
b) For every P0 , there is a constant 0 with h(P + P0 ) 2h(P ) + 0 .
c) There is a constant so that h(2P ) 4h(P ) for all P .

Then, is finitely generated

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

6 / 29

Descent Theorem (1/6)


Descent Theorem
Let be an abelian group, and suppose that there is a function h : R0 with
the following three properties:
a) For every M R, the set {P : h(P ) M } is finite.
b) For every P0 , there is a constant 0 with h(P + P0 ) 2h(P ) + 0 .
c) There is a constant so that h(2P ) 4h(P ) for all P .
Oh, and further suppose that:
d) The subgroup 2 has finite index in
Then, is finitely generated

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

6 / 29

Descent Theorem (1/6)


Descent Theorem
Let be an abelian group, and suppose that there is a function h : R0 with
the following three properties:
a) For every M R, the set {P : h(P ) M } is finite.
b) For every P0 , there is a constant 0 with h(P + P0 ) 2h(P ) + 0 .
c) There is a constant so that h(2P ) 4h(P ) for all P .
Oh, and further suppose that:
d) The subgroup 2 has finite index in
Then, is finitely generated

Proof of the Descent Theorem (1/6)


First we take a representative for each coset of 2 in , assume there are n of
them, and Let Q1 , Q2 , . . . , Qn be representative of the cosets (i.e. For any P ,
there exists an index i1 , depending on P , such that P Qi1 2).

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

6 / 29

Descent Theorem (2/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (2/6)
After all, P has to be in one of the cosets (i.e. We can write P Qi1 = 2P1 for
some P1 ).

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

7 / 29

Descent Theorem (2/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (2/6)
After all, P has to be in one of the cosets (i.e. We can write P Qi1 = 2P1 for
some P1 ).
Feeding this into the finite state automata yields:
P1 Qi2 =2P2
P2 Qi3 =2P3
..
.
Pm1 Qim =2Pm
where Qi1 , Qi2 , . . . , Qim are chosen from the coset representation Q1 , Q2 , . . . , Qn
and P1 , P2 , . . . , Pm are elements of .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

7 / 29

Descent Theorem (2/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (2/6)
After all, P has to be in one of the cosets (i.e. We can write P Qi1 = 2P1 for
some P1 ).
Feeding this into the finite state automata yields:
P1 Qi2 =2P2
P2 Qi3 =2P3
..
.
Pm1 Qim =2Pm
where Qi1 , Qi2 , . . . , Qim are chosen from the coset representation Q1 , Q2 , . . . , Qn
and P1 , P2 , . . . , Pm are elements of .
Moral: Pi is more-or-less equal to 2Pi+1 , the height of Pi+1 is more-or-less one
fourth the height of Pi . So the sequence of points P, P1 , P2 , . . . should have
decreasing height, and from property a), the set will be finite.
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

7 / 29

Descent Theorem (3/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (3/6)
From the first equation we see P = Qi + 2P1 , and substituting the second
equation P1 = Qi2 + 4P2 into the first gives P = Qi1 + 2Qi2 + 4P2

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

8 / 29

Descent Theorem (3/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (3/6)
From the first equation we see P = Qi + 2P1 , and substituting the second
equation P1 = Qi2 + 4P2 into the first gives P = Qi1 + 2Qi2 + 4P2
Continuing in this fashion, we obtain
P = Qi1 + 2Qi2 + 4Qi3 + . . . + 2m1 Qim + 2m Pm
In particular, this says that P is in the subgroup of generated by the Qi s and
Pm .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

8 / 29

Descent Theorem (3/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (3/6)
From the first equation we see P = Qi + 2P1 , and substituting the second
equation P1 = Qi2 + 4P2 into the first gives P = Qi1 + 2Qi2 + 4P2
Continuing in this fashion, we obtain
P = Qi1 + 2Qi2 + 4Qi3 + . . . + 2m1 Qim + 2m Pm
In particular, this says that P is in the subgroup of generated by the Qi s and
Pm .
Next we show that by choosing m large enough, we can force Pm to have height
less than a certain fixed bound. Then the finite set of points with height less than
that bound, together with the Q0i s, will generate .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

8 / 29

Descent Theorem (3/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (3/6)
From the first equation we see P = Qi + 2P1 , and substituting the second
equation P1 = Qi2 + 4P2 into the first gives P = Qi1 + 2Qi2 + 4P2
Continuing in this fashion, we obtain
P = Qi1 + 2Qi2 + 4Qi3 + . . . + 2m1 Qim + 2m Pm
In particular, this says that P is in the subgroup of generated by the Qi s and
Pm .
Next we show that by choosing m large enough, we can force Pm to have height
less than a certain fixed bound. Then the finite set of points with height less than
that bound, together with the Q0i s, will generate .
Taking one of the Pj0 s in the sequence of points P, P1 , P2 , . . . and examine the
relation between the height of Pj1 and that of Pj . We want to show that the
height of Pj is considerably smaller.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

8 / 29

Descent Theorem (4/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (4/6)
If we apply b) with Qi in place of P0 , we obtain a constant i such that
h(P Qi ) 2h(P ) + i for all P .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

9 / 29

Descent Theorem (4/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (4/6)
If we apply b) with Qi in place of P0 , we obtain a constant i such that
h(P Qi ) 2h(P ) + i for all P .
Now we do this for each Qi , 1 i n.
Let 0 be the largest of the i s, then
h(P Qi ) 2h(P ) + 0 for all P and all 1 i n, this can be done as there
are only Q0i s, and is one place where property (d) that 2 has finite index in .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

9 / 29

Descent Theorem (4/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (4/6)
If we apply b) with Qi in place of P0 , we obtain a constant i such that
h(P Qi ) 2h(P ) + i for all P .
Now we do this for each Qi , 1 i n.
Let 0 be the largest of the i s, then
h(P Qi ) 2h(P ) + 0 for all P and all 1 i n, this can be done as there
are only Q0i s, and is one place where property (d) that 2 has finite index in .
Let be the constant from (c), then we deduce:
4h(Pj ) h(2Pj ) + = h(Pj1 Qij ) + 2h(Pj1 ) + 0 +
which can be rewritten as:
h(Pj )


1
0 +
3
1
h(Pj1 ) +
= h(Pj1 ) h(Pj1 ) (0 + )
2
4
4
4

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

9 / 29

Descent Theorem (5/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (5/6)
From the previous equation we see that if h(Pj1 ) 0 + , then
h(Pj )

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

3
h(Pj1 )
4

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

10 / 29

Descent Theorem (5/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (5/6)
From the previous equation we see that if h(Pj1 ) 0 + , then
h(Pj )

3
h(Pj1 )
4

So in the sequence of points P, P1 , P2 , P3 , . . . , as long as the points Pj satisfies


the condition h(Pj ) 0 + , then the next point in the sequence has much
smaller height, namely h(Pj+1 ) 34 h(Pj ).

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

10 / 29

Descent Theorem (5/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (5/6)
From the previous equation we see that if h(Pj1 ) 0 + , then
h(Pj )

3
h(Pj1 )
4

So in the sequence of points P, P1 , P2 , P3 , . . . , as long as the points Pj satisfies


the condition h(Pj ) 0 + , then the next point in the sequence has much
smaller height, namely h(Pj+1 ) 34 h(Pj ).
N.B. If you start with a number and keep multiplying it by 3/4, it approaches
zero. So eventually we will find an index m such that h(Pm ) 0 +

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

10 / 29

Descent Theorem (5/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (5/6)
From the previous equation we see that if h(Pj1 ) 0 + , then
h(Pj )

3
h(Pj1 )
4

So in the sequence of points P, P1 , P2 , P3 , . . . , as long as the points Pj satisfies


the condition h(Pj ) 0 + , then the next point in the sequence has much
smaller height, namely h(Pj+1 ) 34 h(Pj ).
N.B. If you start with a number and keep multiplying it by 3/4, it approaches
zero. So eventually we will find an index m such that h(Pm ) 0 +
We have now shown that every element P can be written in the form:
P = a1 Q1 + a2 Q2 + + an Qn + 2m R
for certain integers a1 , . . . , an and some point R satisfying the inequality
h(R) 0 +
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

10 / 29

Descent Theorem (6/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (6/6)
Hence the set
{Q1 , Q2 , . . . , Qn } {R : h(R) 0 + }
generates .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

11 / 29

Descent Theorem (6/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (6/6)
Hence the set
{Q1 , Q2 , . . . , Qn } {R : h(R) 0 + }
generates .
From a) and d), this set is finite, which completes the proof that is finitely
generated.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

11 / 29

Descent Theorem (6/6)


Proof of the Descent Theorem (6/6)
Hence the set
{Q1 , Q2 , . . . , Qn } {R : h(R) 0 + }
generates .
From a) and d), this set is finite, which completes the proof that is finitely
generated.

Remark
This Theorem is called a Descent Theorem as the proof imitates the style of
Fermats method of infinite descent: One starts with an arbitrary point P E(Q),
and by manipulation descents to a smaller point [in terms of height, of course].

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

11 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (1/7)


First we recall that if P = (x, y) is a rational point on E, then x and y have the
form
m
n
and y = 3
x= 2
e
e
for integers m, n, e with e > 0 and gcd(m, e) = gcd(n, e) = 1.
This can be shown by mimicking the steps in the proof of Nagell-Lutz Theorem.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

12 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (1/7)


First we recall that if P = (x, y) is a rational point on E, then x and y have the
form
m
n
and y = 3
x= 2
e
e
for integers m, n, e with e > 0 and gcd(m, e) = gcd(n, e) = 1.
This can be shown by mimicking the steps in the proof of Nagell-Lutz Theorem.
Now suppose we write

m
and
M
in lowest terms with M > 0 and N > 0.
x=

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

y=

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

n
N

January 31, 2012

12 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (1/7)


First we recall that if P = (x, y) is a rational point on E, then x and y have the
form
m
n
and y = 3
x= 2
e
e
for integers m, n, e with e > 0 and gcd(m, e) = gcd(n, e) = 1.
This can be shown by mimicking the steps in the proof of Nagell-Lutz Theorem.
Now suppose we write

m
and
M
in lowest terms with M > 0 and N > 0.
x=

y=

n
N

Substituting into the equation (1) of E yields:


m3
m2
m
n2
= 3 +a 2 +b
+c
2
N
M
M
M

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

12 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (1/7)


First we recall that if P = (x, y) is a rational point on E, then x and y have the
form
m
n
and y = 3
x= 2
e
e
for integers m, n, e with e > 0 and gcd(m, e) = gcd(n, e) = 1.
This can be shown by mimicking the steps in the proof of Nagell-Lutz Theorem.
Now suppose we write

m
and
M
in lowest terms with M > 0 and N > 0.
x=

y=

n
N

Substituting into the equation (1) of E yields:


m3
m2
m
n2
= 3 +a 2 +b
+c
2
N
M
M
M
Clearing the denominators gives:
M 3 n2 = N 2 m3 + aN 2 M m2 + bN 2 M 2 m + cN 2 M 3
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

(2)
January 31, 2012

12 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (2/7)


Since N 2 is a factor of all terms on the R.H.S. of (2), it follows that N 2 |M 3 n2 .
But gcd(n, N ) = 1, so N 2 |M 3 .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

13 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (2/7)


Since N 2 is a factor of all terms on the R.H.S. of (2), it follows that N 2 |M 3 n2 .
But gcd(n, N ) = 1, so N 2 |M 3 .
Conversely, we show M 3 |N 2 , in three steps:

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

13 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (2/7)


Since N 2 is a factor of all terms on the R.H.S. of (2), it follows that N 2 |M 3 n2 .
But gcd(n, N ) = 1, so N 2 |M 3 .
Conversely, we show M 3 |N 2 , in three steps:
From (2) we immediately see that M |N 2 m3 , and since gcd(m, M ) = 1, we
find M |N 2 .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

13 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (2/7)


Since N 2 is a factor of all terms on the R.H.S. of (2), it follows that N 2 |M 3 n2 .
But gcd(n, N ) = 1, so N 2 |M 3 .
Conversely, we show M 3 |N 2 , in three steps:
From (2) we immediately see that M |N 2 m3 , and since gcd(m, M ) = 1, we
find M |N 2 .
Using the above back to (2), we find M 2 |N 2 m3 , so M |N .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

13 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (2/7)


Since N 2 is a factor of all terms on the R.H.S. of (2), it follows that N 2 |M 3 n2 .
But gcd(n, N ) = 1, so N 2 |M 3 .
Conversely, we show M 3 |N 2 , in three steps:
From (2) we immediately see that M |N 2 m3 , and since gcd(m, M ) = 1, we
find M |N 2 .
Using the above back to (2), we find M 2 |N 2 m3 , so M |N .
Again by (2), we see that this implies M 3 |N 2 m3 , so M 3 |N 2 .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

13 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (2/7)


Since N 2 is a factor of all terms on the R.H.S. of (2), it follows that N 2 |M 3 n2 .
But gcd(n, N ) = 1, so N 2 |M 3 .
Conversely, we show M 3 |N 2 , in three steps:
From (2) we immediately see that M |N 2 m3 , and since gcd(m, M ) = 1, we
find M |N 2 .
Using the above back to (2), we find M 2 |N 2 m3 , so M |N .
Again by (2), we see that this implies M 3 |N 2 m3 , so M 3 |N 2 .
Therefore, M 3 = N 2 .
Further, during the proof we showed that M |N .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

13 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (2/7)


Since N 2 is a factor of all terms on the R.H.S. of (2), it follows that N 2 |M 3 n2 .
But gcd(n, N ) = 1, so N 2 |M 3 .
Conversely, we show M 3 |N 2 , in three steps:
From (2) we immediately see that M |N 2 m3 , and since gcd(m, M ) = 1, we
find M |N 2 .
Using the above back to (2), we find M 2 |N 2 m3 , so M |N .
Again by (2), we see that this implies M 3 |N 2 m3 , so M 3 |N 2 .
Therefore, M 3 = N 2 .
Further, during the proof we showed that M |N .
So if we let e =

N
M ,we

e2 =
Therefore x =

find that

N2
M3
= 2 = M,
2
M
M

and

e3 =

N2
N3
= 2 = N.
3
M
N

m
n
and y = 3 have the desired form.
e2
e

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

13 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (3/7)


m n 
, then |e2 | H(P ) and
,
e2 e3
|m| H(P ), and we claim there is a constant K > 0, depending on a, b, c such
that
|n| KH(P )3/2
If the point P is given in lowest terms as P =

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

14 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (3/7)


m n 
, then |e2 | H(P ) and
,
e2 e3
|m| H(P ), and we claim there is a constant K > 0, depending on a, b, c such
that
|n| KH(P )3/2
If the point P is given in lowest terms as P =

To prove this we just use the fact that the point satisfies the equation:
substituting into equation (1) and multiplying by e6 to clear denominator:
n2 = m3 + ae2 m2 + be4 m + ce6

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

14 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (3/7)


m n 
, then |e2 | H(P ) and
,
e2 e3
|m| H(P ), and we claim there is a constant K > 0, depending on a, b, c such
that
|n| KH(P )3/2
If the point P is given in lowest terms as P =

To prove this we just use the fact that the point satisfies the equation:
substituting into equation (1) and multiplying by e6 to clear denominator:
n2 = m3 + ae2 m2 + be4 m + ce6
Taking the absolute value and using the triangle inequality yields:
|n2 | |m3 | + |ae2 m2 | + |be4 m| + |ce6 |
H(P )3 + |a|H(P )3 + |b|H(P )3 + |c|H(P )3
So we can take K =

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

1 + |a| + |b| + |c|

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

14 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (3/7)


m n 
, then |e2 | H(P ) and
,
e2 e3
|m| H(P ), and we claim there is a constant K > 0, depending on a, b, c such
that
|n| KH(P )3/2
If the point P is given in lowest terms as P =

To prove this we just use the fact that the point satisfies the equation:
substituting into equation (1) and multiplying by e6 to clear denominator:
n2 = m3 + ae2 m2 + be4 m + ce6
Taking the absolute value and using the triangle inequality yields:
|n2 | |m3 | + |ae2 m2 | + |be4 m| + |ce6 |
H(P )3 + |a|H(P )3 + |b|H(P )3 + |c|H(P )3
So we can take K =

1 + |a| + |b| + |c|

Now we are ready to have Slice 2.


Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

14 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (4/7)


Slice 2
For P0 a fixed rational point on E, there is a constant 0 , depending on P0 and
on a, b, c such that h(P + P0 ) 2h(P ) + 0 for all P E(Q)

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

15 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (4/7)


Slice 2
For P0 a fixed rational point on E, there is a constant 0 , depending on P0 and
on a, b, c such that h(P + P0 ) 2h(P ) + 0 for all P E(Q)

Serving Slice 2 (1/4)


First we remark that if P0 = O, the slice is trivial.
So we take P0 6= O, say P0 = (x0 , y0 ).

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

15 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (4/7)


Slice 2
For P0 a fixed rational point on E, there is a constant 0 , depending on P0 and
on a, b, c such that h(P + P0 ) 2h(P ) + 0 for all P E(Q)

Serving Slice 2 (1/4)


First we remark that if P0 = O, the slice is trivial.
So we take P0 6= O, say P0 = (x0 , y0 ).
To prove the existence of 0 , it suffices to prove that the inequality holds for all P
except those in a some fixed set; this holds because, for any finite number of P ,
we just looking at the difference h(P + P0 ) 2h(P ) and take 0 larger than the
finite number of values that occur. Hence, it suffices to prove for all points P
with P
/ {P0 , P0 , O}.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

15 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (4/7)


Slice 2
For P0 a fixed rational point on E, there is a constant 0 , depending on P0 and
on a, b, c such that h(P + P0 ) 2h(P ) + 0 for all P E(Q)

Serving Slice 2 (1/4)


First we remark that if P0 = O, the slice is trivial.
So we take P0 6= O, say P0 = (x0 , y0 ).
To prove the existence of 0 , it suffices to prove that the inequality holds for all P
except those in a some fixed set; this holds because, for any finite number of P ,
we just looking at the difference h(P + P0 ) 2h(P ) and take 0 larger than the
finite number of values that occur. Hence, it suffices to prove for all points P
with P
/ {P0 , P0 , O}.
We write P = (x, y), the reason for avoiding both P0 and P0 is to have x 6= x0 .
We also denote
P + P0 = (, )

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

15 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (5/7)


Serving Slice 2 (2/4)
Now H(P + P0 ) = , so we need a formula for in terms of (x, y) and (x0 , y0 ):
+ x + x0 = 2 a,

y y0
.
x x0

The Height of P + P0 (5/7)


Serving Slice 2 (2/4)
Now H(P + P0 ) = , so we need a formula for in terms of (x, y) and (x0 , y0 ):
+ x + x0 = 2 a,

y y0
.
x x0

After writing out this a little bit:


(y y0 )2
a x x0
(x x0 )2
(y y0 )2 (x x0 )2 (x + x0 + a)
=
(x x0 )2

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

16 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (5/7)


Serving Slice 2 (2/4)
Now H(P + P0 ) = , so we need a formula for in terms of (x, y) and (x0 , y0 ):
+ x + x0 = 2 a,

y y0
.
x x0

After writing out this a little bit:


(y y0 )2
a x x0
(x x0 )2
(y y0 )2 (x x0 )2 (x + x0 + a)
=
(x x0 )2
Ay + Bx2 + Cx + D
=
Ex2 + F x + G

where A, B, C, D, E, F, G are certain rational numbers which can be expressed in


terms of a, b, c and (x0 , y0 ).
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

16 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (6/7)


Serving Slice 2 (3/4)
Further, we are able to multiply the numerator and denominator by the l.c.d. of
A, . . . , G, and hence we may assume that A, . . . , G Z, which depend only on
a, b, c and (x0 , y0 ), After substituting x = em2 and y = en3 and clearing out the
denominators by multiplying the numerator and denominator by e4 , we find:
=

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Ane + Bm2 + Cme2 + De4


Em2 + F me2 + Ge4

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

17 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (6/7)


Serving Slice 2 (3/4)
Further, we are able to multiply the numerator and denominator by the l.c.d. of
A, . . . , G, and hence we may assume that A, . . . , G Z, which depend only on
a, b, c and (x0 , y0 ), After substituting x = em2 and y = en3 and clearing out the
denominators by multiplying the numerator and denominator by e4 , we find:
=

Ane + Bm2 + Cme2 + De4


Em2 + F me2 + Ge4

Notice we have an expression for as an integer divided by an integer: although


we are uncertain that it is in the lowest terms, but cancellation will only make the
height smaller:
H() max{|Ane + Bm2 + Cme2 + De4 |, |Em2 + F me2 + Ge4 |}

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

17 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (6/7)


Serving Slice 2 (3/4)
Further, we are able to multiply the numerator and denominator by the l.c.d. of
A, . . . , G, and hence we may assume that A, . . . , G Z, which depend only on
a, b, c and (x0 , y0 ), After substituting x = em2 and y = en3 and clearing out the
denominators by multiplying the numerator and denominator by e4 , we find:
=

Ane + Bm2 + Cme2 + De4


Em2 + F me2 + Ge4

Notice we have an expression for as an integer divided by an integer: although


we are uncertain that it is in the lowest terms, but cancellation will only make the
height smaller:
H() max{|Ane + Bm2 + Cme2 + De4 |, |Em2 + F me2 + Ge4 |}
Further, from above we have the estimates
e H(P )1/2 ,

n KH(P )3/2 ,

m H(P )

where K depends on only a, b, c.


Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

17 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (7/7)


Serving Slice 2 (4/4)
Using the above and triangle inequality gives
|Ane + Bm2 + Cme2 + De4 | |Ane| + |Bm2 | + |Cme2 | + |De4 |
(|AK| + |B| + |C| + |D|)H(P )2
|Em2 + F me2 + Ge4 | |Em2 | + |F me2 | + |Ge4 |
(|E| + |F | + |G|)H(P )2

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

18 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (7/7)


Serving Slice 2 (4/4)
Using the above and triangle inequality gives
|Ane + Bm2 + Cme2 + De4 | |Ane| + |Bm2 | + |Cme2 | + |De4 |
(|AK| + |B| + |C| + |D|)H(P )2
|Em2 + F me2 + Ge4 | |Em2 | + |F me2 | + |Ge4 |
(|E| + |F | + |G|)H(P )2
It follows
H(P + P0 ) = H() max{|AK| + |B| + |C| + |D|, |E| + |F | + |G|}H(P )2

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

18 / 29

The Height of P + P0 (7/7)


Serving Slice 2 (4/4)
Using the above and triangle inequality gives
|Ane + Bm2 + Cme2 + De4 | |Ane| + |Bm2 | + |Cme2 | + |De4 |
(|AK| + |B| + |C| + |D|)H(P )2
|Em2 + F me2 + Ge4 | |Em2 | + |F me2 | + |Ge4 |
(|E| + |F | + |G|)H(P )2
It follows
H(P + P0 ) = H() max{|AK| + |B| + |C| + |D|, |E| + |F | + |G|}H(P )2
Taking the logarithm of both sides yields
h(P + P0 ) 2h(P ) + 0
where the constant 0 = log max{|AK| + |B| + |C| + |D|, |E| + |F | + |G|}
depends only on a, b, c and (x0 , y0 ) and does NOT depend on P = (x, y).
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

18 / 29

The Height of 2P (1/10)


Slice 3
There is a constant , depending on a, b, c so that
h(2P ) 4h(P )

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

for all P E(Q)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

19 / 29

The Height of 2P (1/10)


Slice 3
There is a constant , depending on a, b, c so that
h(2P ) 4h(P )

for all P E(Q)

Serving Slice 3 (1/2)


Mimicking the Serving of Slice 2, we ignore the finite set of points satisfying
2P = O since we can always take larger than 4h(P ) for all points in that finite
set.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

19 / 29

The Height of 2P (1/10)


Slice 3
There is a constant , depending on a, b, c so that
h(2P ) 4h(P )

for all P E(Q)

Serving Slice 3 (1/2)


Mimicking the Serving of Slice 2, we ignore the finite set of points satisfying
2P = O since we can always take larger than 4h(P ) for all points in that finite
set.
Let P = (x, y) and write 2P = (, ).
The duplication formula we derived earlier states that
+ 2x = 2 a,

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

where =

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

f 0 (x)
2y

January 31, 2012

19 / 29

The Height of 2P (2/10)


Serving Slice 3 (2/2)
Using y 2 = f (x), we obtain an explicit formula for in terms of x :
=

(f 0 (x))2 (8x + 4a)f (x)


x4 +
= 3
4f (x)
4x +

Note that f (x) 6= 0 because 2P 6= O.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

20 / 29

The Height of 2P (2/10)


Serving Slice 3 (2/2)
Using y 2 = f (x), we obtain an explicit formula for in terms of x :
=

(f 0 (x))2 (8x + 4a)f (x)


x4 +
= 3
4f (x)
4x +

Note that f (x) 6= 0 because 2P 6= O.


Thus, is the quotient of two polynomials in x with integer coefficients. Since the
cubic y 2 = f (x) is non-singular by assumption, we know that f (x) and f 0 (x) have
NO common (complex) roots, and thus the polynomials in the numerator and the
denominator of also have NO common roots.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

20 / 29

The Height of 2P (2/10)


Serving Slice 3 (2/2)
Using y 2 = f (x), we obtain an explicit formula for in terms of x :
=

(f 0 (x))2 (8x + 4a)f (x)


x4 +
= 3
4f (x)
4x +

Note that f (x) 6= 0 because 2P 6= O.


Thus, is the quotient of two polynomials in x with integer coefficients. Since the
cubic y 2 = f (x) is non-singular by assumption, we know that f (x) and f 0 (x) have
NO common (complex) roots, and thus the polynomials in the numerator and the
denominator of also have NO common roots.
Since h(P ) = h(x) and h(2P ) = h(), we are trying to prove that
h() 4h(x)
Hence we reduced our task to proving the following slice about heights and
quotients of polynomials:
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

20 / 29

The Height of 2P (3/10)


Slice 3i
Let (X) and (X) be polynomials with integer coefficients and NO common
(complex) roots. Let d = max{deg(), deg()}
a) There is an integer R 1, depending on and , so that for all rational
numbers m
n,
 m 

m
, nd
divides R
gcd nd
n
n
b) There are constants 1 and 2 , depending on and , so that for all rational
numbers m
n which are NOT roots of ,
m
 (m/n) 
m
dh
1 h
dh
+ 2
n
(m/n)
n

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

21 / 29

The Height of 2P (3/10)


Slice 3i
Let (X) and (X) be polynomials with integer coefficients and NO common
(complex) roots. Let d = max{deg(), deg()}
a) There is an integer R 1, depending on and , so that for all rational
numbers m
n,
 m 

m
, nd
divides R
gcd nd
n
n
b) There are constants 1 and 2 , depending on and , so that for all rational
numbers m
n which are NOT roots of ,
m
 (m/n) 
m
dh
1 h
dh
+ 2
n
(m/n)
n

Serving Slice 3i (1/8)


a) First we observe that since and have degree at most d, both nd
 
nd m
are integers, so their g.c.d. makes sense.
n
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

 
m
n

January 31, 2012

and

21 / 29

The Height of 2P (4/10)


Serving Slice 3i (2/8)
Next we note that and are interchangeable, so for correctness, we will take
deg() := d and deg():=e d.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

22 / 29

The Height of 2P (4/10)


Serving Slice 3i (2/8)
Next we note that and are interchangeable, so for correctness, we will take
deg() := d and deg():=e d.
Then we can write:
(m, n) := nd

m

= a0 md + a1 md1 + + ad nd ,
n
m
= b0 me nde + b1 me1 ndn+1 + + be nd
(m, n) := nd
n
So we need to find an estimate for gcd((m, n), (m, n)) which does NOT
depend on m OR n.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

22 / 29

The Height of 2P (4/10)


Serving Slice 3i (2/8)
Next we note that and are interchangeable, so for correctness, we will take
deg() := d and deg():=e d.
Then we can write:
(m, n) := nd

m

= a0 md + a1 md1 + + ad nd ,
n
m
= b0 me nde + b1 me1 ndn+1 + + be nd
(m, n) := nd
n
So we need to find an estimate for gcd((m, n), (m, n)) which does NOT
depend on m OR n.
Since (X) and (X) have NO common roots, they are relative prime in the
Euclidean ring Q[X], so they generate the unit ideal:

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

22 / 29

The Height of 2P (4/10)


Serving Slice 3i (2/8)
Next we note that and are interchangeable, so for correctness, we will take
deg() := d and deg():=e d.
Then we can write:
(m, n) := nd

m

= a0 md + a1 md1 + + ad nd ,
n
m
= b0 me nde + b1 me1 ndn+1 + + be nd
(m, n) := nd
n
So we need to find an estimate for gcd((m, n), (m, n)) which does NOT
depend on m OR n.
Since (X) and (X) have NO common roots, they are relative prime in the
Euclidean ring Q[X], so they generate the unit ideal:
So we can find polynomials F (X) and G(X) with rational coefficients satisfying
F (X)(X) + G(X)(X) = 1

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

(3)

January 31, 2012

22 / 29

The Height of 2P (5/10)


Servicing Slice 3i (3/8)
Now let A be a large enough integer so that AF (X) and AG(X) have integer
coefficients, and let D = max{deg(F ), deg(G)}.
N.B. A and D do NOT depend on m or n.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

23 / 29

The Height of 2P (5/10)


Servicing Slice 3i (3/8)
Now let A be a large enough integer so that AF (X) and AG(X) have integer
coefficients, and let D = max{deg(F ), deg(G)}.
N.B. A and D do NOT depend on m or n.
D+d
Now we evaluate the identity (3) at X = m
.
n and multiply both sides by An
m
m
m
m
nd
+ nD AG
nd
= AnD+d
nD AF
n
n
n
n

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

23 / 29

The Height of 2P (5/10)


Servicing Slice 3i (3/8)
Now let A be a large enough integer so that AF (X) and AG(X) have integer
coefficients, and let D = max{deg(F ), deg(G)}.
N.B. A and D do NOT depend on m or n.
D+d
Now we evaluate the identity (3) at X = m
.
n and multiply both sides by An
m
m
m
m
nd
+ nD AG
nd
= AnD+d
nD AF
n
n
n
n


Let = (m, n) := gcd (m, n), (m, n)

We have:
n
 m o
n
 m o
nD AF
(m, n) + nD AG
(m, n) = AnD+d
n
n
Since the quantities in braces are integers, we see that |AnD+d

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

23 / 29

The Height of 2P (6/10)


Serving Slice 3i (4/8)
We also need to show |AaD+d
, where a0 is the leading coefficient of (X). We
0
observe that since divides (m, n), it certainly divides:
AnD+d1 (m, n) = Aa0 md nD+d1 + Aa1 md1 nD+d + + Aad nD+2d1 .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

24 / 29

The Height of 2P (6/10)


Serving Slice 3i (4/8)
We also need to show |AaD+d
, where a0 is the leading coefficient of (X). We
0
observe that since divides (m, n), it certainly divides:
AnD+d1 (m, n) = Aa0 md nD+d1 + Aa1 md1 nD+d + + Aad nD+2d1 .
But in the sum, every term after the first one contains AnD+d as a factor; and
we just proved that divides AnD+d .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

24 / 29

The Height of 2P (6/10)


Serving Slice 3i (4/8)
We also need to show |AaD+d
, where a0 is the leading coefficient of (X). We
0
observe that since divides (m, n), it certainly divides:
AnD+d1 (m, n) = Aa0 md nD+d1 + Aa1 md1 nD+d + + Aad nD+2d1 .
But in the sum, every term after the first one contains AnD+d as a factor; and
we just proved that divides AnD+d .
It follows that also divides the first term Aa0 md nD+d1 . Thus, divides
gcd(AnD+d , Aa0 md nD+d1 ); and because (m, n) = 1, we conclude that
divides Aa0 nD+d1

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

24 / 29

The Height of 2P (6/10)


Serving Slice 3i (4/8)
We also need to show |AaD+d
, where a0 is the leading coefficient of (X). We
0
observe that since divides (m, n), it certainly divides:
AnD+d1 (m, n) = Aa0 md nD+d1 + Aa1 md1 nD+d + + Aad nD+2d1 .
But in the sum, every term after the first one contains AnD+d as a factor; and
we just proved that divides AnD+d .
It follows that also divides the first term Aa0 md nD+d1 . Thus, divides
gcd(AnD+d , Aa0 md nD+d1 ); and because (m, n) = 1, we conclude that
divides Aa0 nD+d1
Now using the fact that divides Aa0 nD+d2 (m, n) and repeating the above
argument shows that divides Aa20 nD+d2 ; eventually, we reach the conclusion
that divides AaD+d
, finishing the serving of a).
0

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

24 / 29

The Height of 2P (7/10)


Serving Slice 3i (5/8)
b) Two inequalities to be proven:
- The upper bound is similar to Slice 2 so it is left as an exercise.
- For the lower bound: as usual, we are cool to exclude some finite set of rational
numbers when we prove prove the inequality of this sort: so we assume that the
rational number m
n is NOT a root of .

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

25 / 29

The Height of 2P (7/10)


Serving Slice 3i (5/8)
b) Two inequalities to be proven:
- The upper bound is similar to Slice 2 so it is left as an exercise.
- For the lower bound: as usual, we are cool to exclude some finite set of rational
numbers when we prove prove the inequality of this sort: so we assume that the
rational number m
n is NOT a root of .
1
. So reverting the
For 0 6= r Q, it is clear from the definition that h(r) = h
r
role of and if necessary, we may assume that deg() = d and deg() = e with
e d.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

25 / 29

The Height of 2P (7/10)


Serving Slice 3i (5/8)
b) Two inequalities to be proven:
- The upper bound is similar to Slice 2 so it is left as an exercise.
- For the lower bound: as usual, we are cool to exclude some finite set of rational
numbers when we prove prove the inequality of this sort: so we assume that the
rational number m
n is NOT a root of .
1
. So reverting the
For 0 6= r Q, it is clear from the definition that h(r) = h
r
role of and if necessary, we may assume that deg() = d and deg() = e with
e d.
Continuing from a), the rational number whose height we want to estimate is
 
 
nd m
m
n
n
(m, n)
 =
=  =
m
m
(m,
n)
d
n
n n
except when |(m, n)| and |(m, n)| have common factors.
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

25 / 29

The Height of 2P (8/10)


Serving Slice 3i (6/8)
We showed in a) that there is some R 1, independent of m and n, so that the
g.c.d. of (m, n) and (m, n) divides R.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

26 / 29

The Height of 2P (8/10)


Serving Slice 3i (6/8)
We showed in a) that there is some R 1, independent of m and n, so that the
g.c.d. of (m, n) and (m, n) divides R.
This bounds the possible cancellation, and we find that
1
max{|(m, n)|, |(m, n)|}
R
n
 m 
  o
1

d m
= max nd
, n

R
n
n







1 d m d m

n
+ n

2R
n
n

H()

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

26 / 29

The Height of 2P (8/10)


Serving Slice 3i (6/8)
We showed in a) that there is some R 1, independent of m and n, so that the
g.c.d. of (m, n) and (m, n) divides R.
This bounds the possible cancellation, and we find that
1
max{|(m, n)|, |(m, n)|}
R
n
 m 
  o
1

d m
= max nd
, n

R
n
n







1 d m d m

n
+ n

2R
n
n

H()

In terms of multiplicative notation, we want to compare H() to


 m d
H
= max{|m|d , |n|d }, so we consider the quotient:
n

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

26 / 29

The Height of 2P (9/10)


Serving Slice 3i (7/8)

H()
1

H(m/n)d
2R


  
 
d m d m
n n + n n

max{|m|d , |n|d }
     
m m
n + n
1
 

=
2R
d
max m
n ,1

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

27 / 29

The Height of 2P (9/10)


Serving Slice 3i (7/8)

H()
1

H(m/n)d
2R


  
 
d m d m
n n + n n

max{|m|d , |n|d }
     
m m
n + n
1
 

=
2R
d
max m
n ,1

This suggests that we look at the function p of a real variable t defined by





(t) + (t)


p(t) =
max |t|d , 1

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

27 / 29

The Height of 2P (9/10)


Serving Slice 3i (7/8)

H()
1

H(m/n)d
2R


  
 
d m d m
n n + n n

max{|m|d , |n|d }
     
m m
n + n
1
 

=
2R
d
max m
n ,1

This suggests that we look at the function p of a real variable t defined by





(t) + (t)


p(t) =
max |t|d , 1
Since max{deg(),
deg()} d, we see that lim|t| p(t) 6= 0 and
(
|a0 |
if deg() < d
lim p(t) =
|t|
|a0 | + |b0 |
if deg() = d
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

27 / 29

The Height of 2P (10/10)


Serving Slice 3i (8/8)
So there is a constant C > 0 so that p(t) > C for all t R
Use the fact in the inequality we derived above, we find that
H()

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

C  m d
H
2R
n

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

28 / 29

The Height of 2P (10/10)


Serving Slice 3i (8/8)
So there is a constant C > 0 so that p(t) > C for all t R
Use the fact in the inequality we derived above, we find that
H()

C  m d
H
2R
n

Finally we see that the constants C and R do NOT depend on m and n, so


taking logarithms gives the desired inequality:
m
1 with 1 = log(2R/C).
h() dh
n

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

28 / 29

The Height of 2P (10/10)


Serving Slice 3i (8/8)
So there is a constant C > 0 so that p(t) > C for all t R
Use the fact in the inequality we derived above, we find that
H()

C  m d
H
2R
n

Finally we see that the constants C and R do NOT depend on m and n, so


taking logarithms gives the desired inequality:
m
1 with 1 = log(2R/C).
h() dh
n

Remarks
Notice that there are two ideas in the above proof:
1) to bound the amount of cancellation;
H((x)/(x))
2) to look at
as a function on something compact.
H(x)d
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

28 / 29

Summary
Today we initiated the proof of Modrells Theorem by partitioning the into four
slices, picked up the definition of heights on the road, and proved the Descend
Theorem which connects the to Modrell.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

29 / 29

Summary
Today we initiated the proof of Modrells Theorem by partitioning the into four
slices, picked up the definition of heights on the road, and proved the Descend
Theorem which connects the to Modrell.

Slice 1
For every M R, the set {P E(Q) : h(P ) M } is finite.

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

29 / 29

Summary
Today we initiated the proof of Modrells Theorem by partitioning the into four
slices, picked up the definition of heights on the road, and proved the Descend
Theorem which connects the to Modrell.

Slice 1
For every M R, the set {P E(Q) : h(P ) M } is finite.

Slice 2
Let P0 Q on E be fixed, then there exists a constant 0 depending on P0 and
a, b, c such that h(P + P0 ) < 2h(P ) + 0 for all P E(Q).

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

29 / 29

Summary
Today we initiated the proof of Modrells Theorem by partitioning the into four
slices, picked up the definition of heights on the road, and proved the Descend
Theorem which connects the to Modrell.

Slice 1
For every M R, the set {P E(Q) : h(P ) M } is finite.

Slice 2
Let P0 Q on E be fixed, then there exists a constant 0 depending on P0 and
a, b, c such that h(P + P0 ) < 2h(P ) + 0 for all P E(Q).

Slice 3
There is a constant , depending on a, b, c so that h(2P ) 4h(P ) for all
P E(Q).

Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

29 / 29

Summary
Today we initiated the proof of Modrells Theorem by partitioning the into four
slices, picked up the definition of heights on the road, and proved the Descend
Theorem which connects the to Modrell.

Slice 1
For every M R, the set {P E(Q) : h(P ) M } is finite.

Slice 2
Let P0 Q on E be fixed, then there exists a constant 0 depending on P0 and
a, b, c such that h(P + P0 ) < 2h(P ) + 0 for all P E(Q).

Slice 3
There is a constant , depending on a, b, c so that h(2P ) 4h(P ) for all
P E(Q).

Slice 4 (SPOILER)
The index (E(Q) : 2E(Q) is finite.
Justin Scarfy (UBC)

Mordells Theorem (I/II)

January 31, 2012

29 / 29

You might also like