Derive Group Law on Elliptic Curve with Riemann Roch












2












$begingroup$


Consider $E$ be an elliptic curve and $k$ a field. I read that one way to show that $E(k)$ has an abelian group structure can be derived using Riemann Roch. Could anybody explain how it concretely provides the desired result?



My considerations:



We have a group of divisors $Div(E)$ where the divisors are formal sums $sum_{P in E(k)} n_P (P)$ with $n_P in mathbb{Z}$ and the principal divisors $div(f) = sum_P ord_P(f) (P)$ form a subgroup of $Div(E)$; denote it by $PrDiv(E)$.



The divisor class group is the quotient $Cl(E)= Div(E)/PrDiv(E)$.



We can define canonically a map $E(k) to Cl(E), p to (P)-(O)$ where $O$ is the special point (=neutral element).



Obviously it suffice to show that every divisor $D$ obtained from intersection of a line $L$ with $E$ has three points (counted we multiplicies). Or in language of divisors: For $D:= L cap E$ we have to show that $deg(D)=3$, so $D= (P) + (Q) +(R) + div(f)$ for some principal divisor $div(f)$. This would settle $P+Q=-R$.



But I have some problems to derive it with Riemann Roch:



The RR-formula is:



$$l(D)-l(K-D) = deg(D) +g-1$$



Since $E$ elliptic $g=1$ so it suffice to show $l(D)-l(K-D)=3$.



And here I stuck. I know that $l(D) := dim_kH^0(D, mathcal{O}_D)$ but this doesn't help me. Futhermore what to do with $l(K-D)$?



Remark: I know that there are a lot of other ways to derive the group law but the point of this question is to derive it using Riemann Roch.



Background on my question: @Awenshi's comment in https://mathoverflow.net/questions/6870/why-is-an-elliptic-curve-a-group










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Consider $E$ be an elliptic curve and $k$ a field. I read that one way to show that $E(k)$ has an abelian group structure can be derived using Riemann Roch. Could anybody explain how it concretely provides the desired result?



    My considerations:



    We have a group of divisors $Div(E)$ where the divisors are formal sums $sum_{P in E(k)} n_P (P)$ with $n_P in mathbb{Z}$ and the principal divisors $div(f) = sum_P ord_P(f) (P)$ form a subgroup of $Div(E)$; denote it by $PrDiv(E)$.



    The divisor class group is the quotient $Cl(E)= Div(E)/PrDiv(E)$.



    We can define canonically a map $E(k) to Cl(E), p to (P)-(O)$ where $O$ is the special point (=neutral element).



    Obviously it suffice to show that every divisor $D$ obtained from intersection of a line $L$ with $E$ has three points (counted we multiplicies). Or in language of divisors: For $D:= L cap E$ we have to show that $deg(D)=3$, so $D= (P) + (Q) +(R) + div(f)$ for some principal divisor $div(f)$. This would settle $P+Q=-R$.



    But I have some problems to derive it with Riemann Roch:



    The RR-formula is:



    $$l(D)-l(K-D) = deg(D) +g-1$$



    Since $E$ elliptic $g=1$ so it suffice to show $l(D)-l(K-D)=3$.



    And here I stuck. I know that $l(D) := dim_kH^0(D, mathcal{O}_D)$ but this doesn't help me. Futhermore what to do with $l(K-D)$?



    Remark: I know that there are a lot of other ways to derive the group law but the point of this question is to derive it using Riemann Roch.



    Background on my question: @Awenshi's comment in https://mathoverflow.net/questions/6870/why-is-an-elliptic-curve-a-group










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      Consider $E$ be an elliptic curve and $k$ a field. I read that one way to show that $E(k)$ has an abelian group structure can be derived using Riemann Roch. Could anybody explain how it concretely provides the desired result?



      My considerations:



      We have a group of divisors $Div(E)$ where the divisors are formal sums $sum_{P in E(k)} n_P (P)$ with $n_P in mathbb{Z}$ and the principal divisors $div(f) = sum_P ord_P(f) (P)$ form a subgroup of $Div(E)$; denote it by $PrDiv(E)$.



      The divisor class group is the quotient $Cl(E)= Div(E)/PrDiv(E)$.



      We can define canonically a map $E(k) to Cl(E), p to (P)-(O)$ where $O$ is the special point (=neutral element).



      Obviously it suffice to show that every divisor $D$ obtained from intersection of a line $L$ with $E$ has three points (counted we multiplicies). Or in language of divisors: For $D:= L cap E$ we have to show that $deg(D)=3$, so $D= (P) + (Q) +(R) + div(f)$ for some principal divisor $div(f)$. This would settle $P+Q=-R$.



      But I have some problems to derive it with Riemann Roch:



      The RR-formula is:



      $$l(D)-l(K-D) = deg(D) +g-1$$



      Since $E$ elliptic $g=1$ so it suffice to show $l(D)-l(K-D)=3$.



      And here I stuck. I know that $l(D) := dim_kH^0(D, mathcal{O}_D)$ but this doesn't help me. Futhermore what to do with $l(K-D)$?



      Remark: I know that there are a lot of other ways to derive the group law but the point of this question is to derive it using Riemann Roch.



      Background on my question: @Awenshi's comment in https://mathoverflow.net/questions/6870/why-is-an-elliptic-curve-a-group










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Consider $E$ be an elliptic curve and $k$ a field. I read that one way to show that $E(k)$ has an abelian group structure can be derived using Riemann Roch. Could anybody explain how it concretely provides the desired result?



      My considerations:



      We have a group of divisors $Div(E)$ where the divisors are formal sums $sum_{P in E(k)} n_P (P)$ with $n_P in mathbb{Z}$ and the principal divisors $div(f) = sum_P ord_P(f) (P)$ form a subgroup of $Div(E)$; denote it by $PrDiv(E)$.



      The divisor class group is the quotient $Cl(E)= Div(E)/PrDiv(E)$.



      We can define canonically a map $E(k) to Cl(E), p to (P)-(O)$ where $O$ is the special point (=neutral element).



      Obviously it suffice to show that every divisor $D$ obtained from intersection of a line $L$ with $E$ has three points (counted we multiplicies). Or in language of divisors: For $D:= L cap E$ we have to show that $deg(D)=3$, so $D= (P) + (Q) +(R) + div(f)$ for some principal divisor $div(f)$. This would settle $P+Q=-R$.



      But I have some problems to derive it with Riemann Roch:



      The RR-formula is:



      $$l(D)-l(K-D) = deg(D) +g-1$$



      Since $E$ elliptic $g=1$ so it suffice to show $l(D)-l(K-D)=3$.



      And here I stuck. I know that $l(D) := dim_kH^0(D, mathcal{O}_D)$ but this doesn't help me. Futhermore what to do with $l(K-D)$?



      Remark: I know that there are a lot of other ways to derive the group law but the point of this question is to derive it using Riemann Roch.



      Background on my question: @Awenshi's comment in https://mathoverflow.net/questions/6870/why-is-an-elliptic-curve-a-group







      algebraic-geometry elliptic-curves divisors-algebraic-geometry






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 14 at 0:02









      KarlPeterKarlPeter

      7411416




      7411416






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          The idea is to prove that the map that you defined above (called the Abel-Jacobi map) $$begin{align*}
          J colon E(k) &to mathrm{Pic}^0(E)\
          P &mapsto (P)-(O)
          end{align*}$$



          is a bijection, where $mathrm{Pic}^0(E)$ is the subgroup of $mathrm{Pic}(E)$ of elements of degree $0$. Then the group law of $E(k)$ will be the one that makes the map above an isomorphism of groups.



          Remarks: In this context $mathrm{Pic}(E)$ is just another notation for $mathrm{Cl}(E)$. As $k$ may not be algebraically closed we have to recall that the degree of $D=sum_{pin E}n_p(P)$ is given by $deg(D)=sum_{pin E}n_p[k(p):k]$ so we have $Pin E(k)$ if and only if $deg(P)=1$.





          • Injectivity of the map came from the fact that if
            $(P)-(Q)=text{div}(f)$ then by replacing $D=(Q)$ on Riemann-Roch we
            get $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ and hence $fin H^0(E,Q)$ must be constant.



            Over an algebraically closed field you can also proceed without R-R as here.



          • Surjectivity came from the fact that if $Din mathrm{Div}^0(E)$ then by R-R we have $h^0(D+(O))=1$ so if $fin H^0(E,D+(O))$ is not constant we have $text{div}(f)=-D-(O)+(P)$ for some $P$. As $deg(D)=deg(mathrm{div}(f))=0$ we get $deg(P)=deg(O)=1$ hence $Pin E(k)$ and then $$Pmapsto (P)-(O)sim D$$



          Now to prove that this group law $oplus$ coincides with the geometric group law (the one defined with lines) when $E$ is given by a Weierstrass equation $$E:Y^2Z=4X^3-aX^2-bZ^3$$ it's enough to notice that $Poplus Qoplus R = O$
          $iff$ $P,Q,R$ are coolinear $iff$ there is a degree one homogeneous polynomial $F(X,Y,Z)$ with $V(F)={P,Q,R}$ $iff$ $mathrm{div}(frac{F}{Z})=(P)+(Q)+(R)-3(O)$
          (notice that the intersection multiplicity between $V(Z)$ and $E$ is $3$, hence the $3(O)$ term) $iff$ $P+Q+R=O$ with the addition descrived above. Notice that all the above its true when the set ${P,Q,R}$ degenerates with tangencies.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            So RR is only used to show bijectivity of the map? And the fact that all divisors of the shape $D = L cap E$ have $deg(D)=3$ follows from Bezout /intersection multiplicity argument? And so it can't be deduced directly with RR? One remark to your argument: How do you deduce $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ in the "injectivity" part.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 2:22












          • $begingroup$
            With this approach (that I think is the most classic one) RR is only used to prove the bijectivity. Also you can use Bezout to prove that $Lcap E$ has degree 3 but you can also give an easy direct proof of Bezout when one curve is a line. The fact that $h^0(Q)=1$ came from $h^0(Q)=h^0(W-Q)+deg(Q)+1-g$ and $h^0(W-Q)=0$ because $deg(W-Q)=-1<0$ (recall that $deg(W)=2g-2$ in general).
            $endgroup$
            – yamete kudasai
            Jan 14 at 2:31










          • $begingroup$
            bwt: Do you see a quick argument that for the canonic divisor of ell curve $W= K_E$ we have $W = mathcal{O}_E$? RR says $h^0(W) = h^0(mathcal{O}_E)+deg(W) +g-1= h^0(mathcal{O}_E)=1$ since elliptic. I don't see wy this already imply $W = mathcal{O}_E$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 2:41





















          2












          $begingroup$

          Do you know that for an elliptic curve $K$ is the zero divisor? That is, $K=mathcal{O}_E$? If you knew this, RR implies $l(D)geq 3$ first. Thus $D$ is an effective divisor of degree 3 and thus $l(K-D)=l(-D)=0$, since negative degree divisor can not be effective. Then, you have $l(D)=3$, which is what you want.



          I do not understand your statement `so it suffices to show $l(D)-l(K-D)=3$', but isn't that what RR says, since $deg D=3$?






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Ah yes, of course we have $K=mathcal{O}_E$. I think this follows from $K_C = mathcal{O}(3-deg(C))$ for all nice enough curves $C subset mathbb{P}^2$. Then $K$ is exactly the structure sheaf. This reduces RR to $l(D)= deg(D)$. Now to your question: I think that $deg(D) =3$ is exactly the statement that has to be shown. So I don't understand how do you conclude $l(D) =3$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 1:39














          Your Answer








          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3072705%2fderive-group-law-on-elliptic-curve-with-riemann-roch%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3












          $begingroup$

          The idea is to prove that the map that you defined above (called the Abel-Jacobi map) $$begin{align*}
          J colon E(k) &to mathrm{Pic}^0(E)\
          P &mapsto (P)-(O)
          end{align*}$$



          is a bijection, where $mathrm{Pic}^0(E)$ is the subgroup of $mathrm{Pic}(E)$ of elements of degree $0$. Then the group law of $E(k)$ will be the one that makes the map above an isomorphism of groups.



          Remarks: In this context $mathrm{Pic}(E)$ is just another notation for $mathrm{Cl}(E)$. As $k$ may not be algebraically closed we have to recall that the degree of $D=sum_{pin E}n_p(P)$ is given by $deg(D)=sum_{pin E}n_p[k(p):k]$ so we have $Pin E(k)$ if and only if $deg(P)=1$.





          • Injectivity of the map came from the fact that if
            $(P)-(Q)=text{div}(f)$ then by replacing $D=(Q)$ on Riemann-Roch we
            get $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ and hence $fin H^0(E,Q)$ must be constant.



            Over an algebraically closed field you can also proceed without R-R as here.



          • Surjectivity came from the fact that if $Din mathrm{Div}^0(E)$ then by R-R we have $h^0(D+(O))=1$ so if $fin H^0(E,D+(O))$ is not constant we have $text{div}(f)=-D-(O)+(P)$ for some $P$. As $deg(D)=deg(mathrm{div}(f))=0$ we get $deg(P)=deg(O)=1$ hence $Pin E(k)$ and then $$Pmapsto (P)-(O)sim D$$



          Now to prove that this group law $oplus$ coincides with the geometric group law (the one defined with lines) when $E$ is given by a Weierstrass equation $$E:Y^2Z=4X^3-aX^2-bZ^3$$ it's enough to notice that $Poplus Qoplus R = O$
          $iff$ $P,Q,R$ are coolinear $iff$ there is a degree one homogeneous polynomial $F(X,Y,Z)$ with $V(F)={P,Q,R}$ $iff$ $mathrm{div}(frac{F}{Z})=(P)+(Q)+(R)-3(O)$
          (notice that the intersection multiplicity between $V(Z)$ and $E$ is $3$, hence the $3(O)$ term) $iff$ $P+Q+R=O$ with the addition descrived above. Notice that all the above its true when the set ${P,Q,R}$ degenerates with tangencies.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            So RR is only used to show bijectivity of the map? And the fact that all divisors of the shape $D = L cap E$ have $deg(D)=3$ follows from Bezout /intersection multiplicity argument? And so it can't be deduced directly with RR? One remark to your argument: How do you deduce $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ in the "injectivity" part.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 2:22












          • $begingroup$
            With this approach (that I think is the most classic one) RR is only used to prove the bijectivity. Also you can use Bezout to prove that $Lcap E$ has degree 3 but you can also give an easy direct proof of Bezout when one curve is a line. The fact that $h^0(Q)=1$ came from $h^0(Q)=h^0(W-Q)+deg(Q)+1-g$ and $h^0(W-Q)=0$ because $deg(W-Q)=-1<0$ (recall that $deg(W)=2g-2$ in general).
            $endgroup$
            – yamete kudasai
            Jan 14 at 2:31










          • $begingroup$
            bwt: Do you see a quick argument that for the canonic divisor of ell curve $W= K_E$ we have $W = mathcal{O}_E$? RR says $h^0(W) = h^0(mathcal{O}_E)+deg(W) +g-1= h^0(mathcal{O}_E)=1$ since elliptic. I don't see wy this already imply $W = mathcal{O}_E$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 2:41


















          3












          $begingroup$

          The idea is to prove that the map that you defined above (called the Abel-Jacobi map) $$begin{align*}
          J colon E(k) &to mathrm{Pic}^0(E)\
          P &mapsto (P)-(O)
          end{align*}$$



          is a bijection, where $mathrm{Pic}^0(E)$ is the subgroup of $mathrm{Pic}(E)$ of elements of degree $0$. Then the group law of $E(k)$ will be the one that makes the map above an isomorphism of groups.



          Remarks: In this context $mathrm{Pic}(E)$ is just another notation for $mathrm{Cl}(E)$. As $k$ may not be algebraically closed we have to recall that the degree of $D=sum_{pin E}n_p(P)$ is given by $deg(D)=sum_{pin E}n_p[k(p):k]$ so we have $Pin E(k)$ if and only if $deg(P)=1$.





          • Injectivity of the map came from the fact that if
            $(P)-(Q)=text{div}(f)$ then by replacing $D=(Q)$ on Riemann-Roch we
            get $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ and hence $fin H^0(E,Q)$ must be constant.



            Over an algebraically closed field you can also proceed without R-R as here.



          • Surjectivity came from the fact that if $Din mathrm{Div}^0(E)$ then by R-R we have $h^0(D+(O))=1$ so if $fin H^0(E,D+(O))$ is not constant we have $text{div}(f)=-D-(O)+(P)$ for some $P$. As $deg(D)=deg(mathrm{div}(f))=0$ we get $deg(P)=deg(O)=1$ hence $Pin E(k)$ and then $$Pmapsto (P)-(O)sim D$$



          Now to prove that this group law $oplus$ coincides with the geometric group law (the one defined with lines) when $E$ is given by a Weierstrass equation $$E:Y^2Z=4X^3-aX^2-bZ^3$$ it's enough to notice that $Poplus Qoplus R = O$
          $iff$ $P,Q,R$ are coolinear $iff$ there is a degree one homogeneous polynomial $F(X,Y,Z)$ with $V(F)={P,Q,R}$ $iff$ $mathrm{div}(frac{F}{Z})=(P)+(Q)+(R)-3(O)$
          (notice that the intersection multiplicity between $V(Z)$ and $E$ is $3$, hence the $3(O)$ term) $iff$ $P+Q+R=O$ with the addition descrived above. Notice that all the above its true when the set ${P,Q,R}$ degenerates with tangencies.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            So RR is only used to show bijectivity of the map? And the fact that all divisors of the shape $D = L cap E$ have $deg(D)=3$ follows from Bezout /intersection multiplicity argument? And so it can't be deduced directly with RR? One remark to your argument: How do you deduce $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ in the "injectivity" part.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 2:22












          • $begingroup$
            With this approach (that I think is the most classic one) RR is only used to prove the bijectivity. Also you can use Bezout to prove that $Lcap E$ has degree 3 but you can also give an easy direct proof of Bezout when one curve is a line. The fact that $h^0(Q)=1$ came from $h^0(Q)=h^0(W-Q)+deg(Q)+1-g$ and $h^0(W-Q)=0$ because $deg(W-Q)=-1<0$ (recall that $deg(W)=2g-2$ in general).
            $endgroup$
            – yamete kudasai
            Jan 14 at 2:31










          • $begingroup$
            bwt: Do you see a quick argument that for the canonic divisor of ell curve $W= K_E$ we have $W = mathcal{O}_E$? RR says $h^0(W) = h^0(mathcal{O}_E)+deg(W) +g-1= h^0(mathcal{O}_E)=1$ since elliptic. I don't see wy this already imply $W = mathcal{O}_E$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 2:41
















          3












          3








          3





          $begingroup$

          The idea is to prove that the map that you defined above (called the Abel-Jacobi map) $$begin{align*}
          J colon E(k) &to mathrm{Pic}^0(E)\
          P &mapsto (P)-(O)
          end{align*}$$



          is a bijection, where $mathrm{Pic}^0(E)$ is the subgroup of $mathrm{Pic}(E)$ of elements of degree $0$. Then the group law of $E(k)$ will be the one that makes the map above an isomorphism of groups.



          Remarks: In this context $mathrm{Pic}(E)$ is just another notation for $mathrm{Cl}(E)$. As $k$ may not be algebraically closed we have to recall that the degree of $D=sum_{pin E}n_p(P)$ is given by $deg(D)=sum_{pin E}n_p[k(p):k]$ so we have $Pin E(k)$ if and only if $deg(P)=1$.





          • Injectivity of the map came from the fact that if
            $(P)-(Q)=text{div}(f)$ then by replacing $D=(Q)$ on Riemann-Roch we
            get $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ and hence $fin H^0(E,Q)$ must be constant.



            Over an algebraically closed field you can also proceed without R-R as here.



          • Surjectivity came from the fact that if $Din mathrm{Div}^0(E)$ then by R-R we have $h^0(D+(O))=1$ so if $fin H^0(E,D+(O))$ is not constant we have $text{div}(f)=-D-(O)+(P)$ for some $P$. As $deg(D)=deg(mathrm{div}(f))=0$ we get $deg(P)=deg(O)=1$ hence $Pin E(k)$ and then $$Pmapsto (P)-(O)sim D$$



          Now to prove that this group law $oplus$ coincides with the geometric group law (the one defined with lines) when $E$ is given by a Weierstrass equation $$E:Y^2Z=4X^3-aX^2-bZ^3$$ it's enough to notice that $Poplus Qoplus R = O$
          $iff$ $P,Q,R$ are coolinear $iff$ there is a degree one homogeneous polynomial $F(X,Y,Z)$ with $V(F)={P,Q,R}$ $iff$ $mathrm{div}(frac{F}{Z})=(P)+(Q)+(R)-3(O)$
          (notice that the intersection multiplicity between $V(Z)$ and $E$ is $3$, hence the $3(O)$ term) $iff$ $P+Q+R=O$ with the addition descrived above. Notice that all the above its true when the set ${P,Q,R}$ degenerates with tangencies.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          The idea is to prove that the map that you defined above (called the Abel-Jacobi map) $$begin{align*}
          J colon E(k) &to mathrm{Pic}^0(E)\
          P &mapsto (P)-(O)
          end{align*}$$



          is a bijection, where $mathrm{Pic}^0(E)$ is the subgroup of $mathrm{Pic}(E)$ of elements of degree $0$. Then the group law of $E(k)$ will be the one that makes the map above an isomorphism of groups.



          Remarks: In this context $mathrm{Pic}(E)$ is just another notation for $mathrm{Cl}(E)$. As $k$ may not be algebraically closed we have to recall that the degree of $D=sum_{pin E}n_p(P)$ is given by $deg(D)=sum_{pin E}n_p[k(p):k]$ so we have $Pin E(k)$ if and only if $deg(P)=1$.





          • Injectivity of the map came from the fact that if
            $(P)-(Q)=text{div}(f)$ then by replacing $D=(Q)$ on Riemann-Roch we
            get $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ and hence $fin H^0(E,Q)$ must be constant.



            Over an algebraically closed field you can also proceed without R-R as here.



          • Surjectivity came from the fact that if $Din mathrm{Div}^0(E)$ then by R-R we have $h^0(D+(O))=1$ so if $fin H^0(E,D+(O))$ is not constant we have $text{div}(f)=-D-(O)+(P)$ for some $P$. As $deg(D)=deg(mathrm{div}(f))=0$ we get $deg(P)=deg(O)=1$ hence $Pin E(k)$ and then $$Pmapsto (P)-(O)sim D$$



          Now to prove that this group law $oplus$ coincides with the geometric group law (the one defined with lines) when $E$ is given by a Weierstrass equation $$E:Y^2Z=4X^3-aX^2-bZ^3$$ it's enough to notice that $Poplus Qoplus R = O$
          $iff$ $P,Q,R$ are coolinear $iff$ there is a degree one homogeneous polynomial $F(X,Y,Z)$ with $V(F)={P,Q,R}$ $iff$ $mathrm{div}(frac{F}{Z})=(P)+(Q)+(R)-3(O)$
          (notice that the intersection multiplicity between $V(Z)$ and $E$ is $3$, hence the $3(O)$ term) $iff$ $P+Q+R=O$ with the addition descrived above. Notice that all the above its true when the set ${P,Q,R}$ degenerates with tangencies.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Jan 14 at 2:15

























          answered Jan 14 at 2:06









          yamete kudasaiyamete kudasai

          1,165818




          1,165818












          • $begingroup$
            So RR is only used to show bijectivity of the map? And the fact that all divisors of the shape $D = L cap E$ have $deg(D)=3$ follows from Bezout /intersection multiplicity argument? And so it can't be deduced directly with RR? One remark to your argument: How do you deduce $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ in the "injectivity" part.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 2:22












          • $begingroup$
            With this approach (that I think is the most classic one) RR is only used to prove the bijectivity. Also you can use Bezout to prove that $Lcap E$ has degree 3 but you can also give an easy direct proof of Bezout when one curve is a line. The fact that $h^0(Q)=1$ came from $h^0(Q)=h^0(W-Q)+deg(Q)+1-g$ and $h^0(W-Q)=0$ because $deg(W-Q)=-1<0$ (recall that $deg(W)=2g-2$ in general).
            $endgroup$
            – yamete kudasai
            Jan 14 at 2:31










          • $begingroup$
            bwt: Do you see a quick argument that for the canonic divisor of ell curve $W= K_E$ we have $W = mathcal{O}_E$? RR says $h^0(W) = h^0(mathcal{O}_E)+deg(W) +g-1= h^0(mathcal{O}_E)=1$ since elliptic. I don't see wy this already imply $W = mathcal{O}_E$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 2:41




















          • $begingroup$
            So RR is only used to show bijectivity of the map? And the fact that all divisors of the shape $D = L cap E$ have $deg(D)=3$ follows from Bezout /intersection multiplicity argument? And so it can't be deduced directly with RR? One remark to your argument: How do you deduce $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ in the "injectivity" part.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 2:22












          • $begingroup$
            With this approach (that I think is the most classic one) RR is only used to prove the bijectivity. Also you can use Bezout to prove that $Lcap E$ has degree 3 but you can also give an easy direct proof of Bezout when one curve is a line. The fact that $h^0(Q)=1$ came from $h^0(Q)=h^0(W-Q)+deg(Q)+1-g$ and $h^0(W-Q)=0$ because $deg(W-Q)=-1<0$ (recall that $deg(W)=2g-2$ in general).
            $endgroup$
            – yamete kudasai
            Jan 14 at 2:31










          • $begingroup$
            bwt: Do you see a quick argument that for the canonic divisor of ell curve $W= K_E$ we have $W = mathcal{O}_E$? RR says $h^0(W) = h^0(mathcal{O}_E)+deg(W) +g-1= h^0(mathcal{O}_E)=1$ since elliptic. I don't see wy this already imply $W = mathcal{O}_E$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 2:41


















          $begingroup$
          So RR is only used to show bijectivity of the map? And the fact that all divisors of the shape $D = L cap E$ have $deg(D)=3$ follows from Bezout /intersection multiplicity argument? And so it can't be deduced directly with RR? One remark to your argument: How do you deduce $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ in the "injectivity" part.
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Jan 14 at 2:22






          $begingroup$
          So RR is only used to show bijectivity of the map? And the fact that all divisors of the shape $D = L cap E$ have $deg(D)=3$ follows from Bezout /intersection multiplicity argument? And so it can't be deduced directly with RR? One remark to your argument: How do you deduce $h^0(Q)=2-g=1$ in the "injectivity" part.
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Jan 14 at 2:22














          $begingroup$
          With this approach (that I think is the most classic one) RR is only used to prove the bijectivity. Also you can use Bezout to prove that $Lcap E$ has degree 3 but you can also give an easy direct proof of Bezout when one curve is a line. The fact that $h^0(Q)=1$ came from $h^0(Q)=h^0(W-Q)+deg(Q)+1-g$ and $h^0(W-Q)=0$ because $deg(W-Q)=-1<0$ (recall that $deg(W)=2g-2$ in general).
          $endgroup$
          – yamete kudasai
          Jan 14 at 2:31




          $begingroup$
          With this approach (that I think is the most classic one) RR is only used to prove the bijectivity. Also you can use Bezout to prove that $Lcap E$ has degree 3 but you can also give an easy direct proof of Bezout when one curve is a line. The fact that $h^0(Q)=1$ came from $h^0(Q)=h^0(W-Q)+deg(Q)+1-g$ and $h^0(W-Q)=0$ because $deg(W-Q)=-1<0$ (recall that $deg(W)=2g-2$ in general).
          $endgroup$
          – yamete kudasai
          Jan 14 at 2:31












          $begingroup$
          bwt: Do you see a quick argument that for the canonic divisor of ell curve $W= K_E$ we have $W = mathcal{O}_E$? RR says $h^0(W) = h^0(mathcal{O}_E)+deg(W) +g-1= h^0(mathcal{O}_E)=1$ since elliptic. I don't see wy this already imply $W = mathcal{O}_E$.
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Jan 14 at 2:41






          $begingroup$
          bwt: Do you see a quick argument that for the canonic divisor of ell curve $W= K_E$ we have $W = mathcal{O}_E$? RR says $h^0(W) = h^0(mathcal{O}_E)+deg(W) +g-1= h^0(mathcal{O}_E)=1$ since elliptic. I don't see wy this already imply $W = mathcal{O}_E$.
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Jan 14 at 2:41













          2












          $begingroup$

          Do you know that for an elliptic curve $K$ is the zero divisor? That is, $K=mathcal{O}_E$? If you knew this, RR implies $l(D)geq 3$ first. Thus $D$ is an effective divisor of degree 3 and thus $l(K-D)=l(-D)=0$, since negative degree divisor can not be effective. Then, you have $l(D)=3$, which is what you want.



          I do not understand your statement `so it suffices to show $l(D)-l(K-D)=3$', but isn't that what RR says, since $deg D=3$?






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Ah yes, of course we have $K=mathcal{O}_E$. I think this follows from $K_C = mathcal{O}(3-deg(C))$ for all nice enough curves $C subset mathbb{P}^2$. Then $K$ is exactly the structure sheaf. This reduces RR to $l(D)= deg(D)$. Now to your question: I think that $deg(D) =3$ is exactly the statement that has to be shown. So I don't understand how do you conclude $l(D) =3$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 1:39


















          2












          $begingroup$

          Do you know that for an elliptic curve $K$ is the zero divisor? That is, $K=mathcal{O}_E$? If you knew this, RR implies $l(D)geq 3$ first. Thus $D$ is an effective divisor of degree 3 and thus $l(K-D)=l(-D)=0$, since negative degree divisor can not be effective. Then, you have $l(D)=3$, which is what you want.



          I do not understand your statement `so it suffices to show $l(D)-l(K-D)=3$', but isn't that what RR says, since $deg D=3$?






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Ah yes, of course we have $K=mathcal{O}_E$. I think this follows from $K_C = mathcal{O}(3-deg(C))$ for all nice enough curves $C subset mathbb{P}^2$. Then $K$ is exactly the structure sheaf. This reduces RR to $l(D)= deg(D)$. Now to your question: I think that $deg(D) =3$ is exactly the statement that has to be shown. So I don't understand how do you conclude $l(D) =3$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 1:39
















          2












          2








          2





          $begingroup$

          Do you know that for an elliptic curve $K$ is the zero divisor? That is, $K=mathcal{O}_E$? If you knew this, RR implies $l(D)geq 3$ first. Thus $D$ is an effective divisor of degree 3 and thus $l(K-D)=l(-D)=0$, since negative degree divisor can not be effective. Then, you have $l(D)=3$, which is what you want.



          I do not understand your statement `so it suffices to show $l(D)-l(K-D)=3$', but isn't that what RR says, since $deg D=3$?






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Do you know that for an elliptic curve $K$ is the zero divisor? That is, $K=mathcal{O}_E$? If you knew this, RR implies $l(D)geq 3$ first. Thus $D$ is an effective divisor of degree 3 and thus $l(K-D)=l(-D)=0$, since negative degree divisor can not be effective. Then, you have $l(D)=3$, which is what you want.



          I do not understand your statement `so it suffices to show $l(D)-l(K-D)=3$', but isn't that what RR says, since $deg D=3$?







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Jan 14 at 1:07









          MohanMohan

          11.9k1817




          11.9k1817












          • $begingroup$
            Ah yes, of course we have $K=mathcal{O}_E$. I think this follows from $K_C = mathcal{O}(3-deg(C))$ for all nice enough curves $C subset mathbb{P}^2$. Then $K$ is exactly the structure sheaf. This reduces RR to $l(D)= deg(D)$. Now to your question: I think that $deg(D) =3$ is exactly the statement that has to be shown. So I don't understand how do you conclude $l(D) =3$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 1:39




















          • $begingroup$
            Ah yes, of course we have $K=mathcal{O}_E$. I think this follows from $K_C = mathcal{O}(3-deg(C))$ for all nice enough curves $C subset mathbb{P}^2$. Then $K$ is exactly the structure sheaf. This reduces RR to $l(D)= deg(D)$. Now to your question: I think that $deg(D) =3$ is exactly the statement that has to be shown. So I don't understand how do you conclude $l(D) =3$.
            $endgroup$
            – KarlPeter
            Jan 14 at 1:39


















          $begingroup$
          Ah yes, of course we have $K=mathcal{O}_E$. I think this follows from $K_C = mathcal{O}(3-deg(C))$ for all nice enough curves $C subset mathbb{P}^2$. Then $K$ is exactly the structure sheaf. This reduces RR to $l(D)= deg(D)$. Now to your question: I think that $deg(D) =3$ is exactly the statement that has to be shown. So I don't understand how do you conclude $l(D) =3$.
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Jan 14 at 1:39






          $begingroup$
          Ah yes, of course we have $K=mathcal{O}_E$. I think this follows from $K_C = mathcal{O}(3-deg(C))$ for all nice enough curves $C subset mathbb{P}^2$. Then $K$ is exactly the structure sheaf. This reduces RR to $l(D)= deg(D)$. Now to your question: I think that $deg(D) =3$ is exactly the statement that has to be shown. So I don't understand how do you conclude $l(D) =3$.
          $endgroup$
          – KarlPeter
          Jan 14 at 1:39




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3072705%2fderive-group-law-on-elliptic-curve-with-riemann-roch%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Bressuire

          Cabo Verde

          Gyllenstierna