There are no elliptic curves over $mathbb{F}_8$ with $7$ or $11$ points
$begingroup$
This is taken from The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves by Silverman on page 154, Q5.10(f).
One way of directly solving this problem is to work out on sage all 8^5 possibilities of elliptic curves and show that no such curve with the required number of points exist. This has been done and in that sense, the problem has been solved.
However, the question advises to use the previous part, which states:
Let $p^i$ be the largest power of $p$ such that $p^{2i}|q$. Then $tr(phi)=0mod p iff tr(phi)=0mod p^i$.
For the case of part (f), this does not seem to be at all useful as $p=2$ and $q=8$, which implies that $i=1$ and so the previous part does not yield any new information.
It might be the case that there is a typo but by testing for several cases of $q$, this was found to not be the case.
Is there anything being misunderstood, especially with regards to the application of part (e) to part (f)?
elliptic-curves
edited Dec 29 '18 at 6:16
Did
248k23226465
asked May 1 '14 at 21:34
Haikal YeoHaikal Yeo
1,027823
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is taken from The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves by Silverman on page 154, Q5.10(f).
One way of directly solving this problem is to work out on sage all 8^5 possibilities of elliptic curves and show that no such curve with the required number of points exist. This has been done and in that sense, the problem has been solved.
However, the question advises to use the previous part, which states:
Let $p^i$ be the largest power of $p$ such that $p^{2i}|q$. Then $tr(phi)=0mod p iff tr(phi)=0mod p^i$.
For the case of part (f), this does not seem to be at all useful as $p=2$ and $q=8$, which implies that $i=1$ and so the previous part does not yield any new information.
It might be the case that there is a typo but by testing for several cases of $q$, this was found to not be the case.
Is there anything being misunderstood, especially with regards to the application of part (e) to part (f)?
elliptic-curves
edited Dec 29 '18 at 6:16
Did
248k23226465
asked May 1 '14 at 21:34
Haikal YeoHaikal Yeo
1,027823
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think you are right. I notice that if you replace 8 with 16 then one may use part (e.) to prove this result (leaving the other numbers the same).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 3:41
$begingroup$
I have tried out all possible examples and the case of $q=8$ has not failed.
$endgroup$
– Haikal Yeo
Jul 9 '14 at 11:55
$begingroup$
what I meant was in reference to your question about using part (e.) in that I think possibly Silverman meant to put $mathbb{F}_{16}$ instead so that one can use the previous part to deduce part (f.).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 14:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is taken from The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves by Silverman on page 154, Q5.10(f).
One way of directly solving this problem is to work out on sage all 8^5 possibilities of elliptic curves and show that no such curve with the required number of points exist. This has been done and in that sense, the problem has been solved.
However, the question advises to use the previous part, which states:
Let $p^i$ be the largest power of $p$ such that $p^{2i}|q$. Then $tr(phi)=0mod p iff tr(phi)=0mod p^i$.
For the case of part (f), this does not seem to be at all useful as $p=2$ and $q=8$, which implies that $i=1$ and so the previous part does not yield any new information.
It might be the case that there is a typo but by testing for several cases of $q$, this was found to not be the case.
Is there anything being misunderstood, especially with regards to the application of part (e) to part (f)?
elliptic-curves
edited Dec 29 '18 at 6:16
Did
248k23226465
asked May 1 '14 at 21:34
Haikal YeoHaikal Yeo
1,027823
$endgroup$
This is taken from The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves by Silverman on page 154, Q5.10(f).
One way of directly solving this problem is to work out on sage all 8^5 possibilities of elliptic curves and show that no such curve with the required number of points exist. This has been done and in that sense, the problem has been solved.
However, the question advises to use the previous part, which states:
Let $p^i$ be the largest power of $p$ such that $p^{2i}|q$. Then $tr(phi)=0mod p iff tr(phi)=0mod p^i$.
For the case of part (f), this does not seem to be at all useful as $p=2$ and $q=8$, which implies that $i=1$ and so the previous part does not yield any new information.
It might be the case that there is a typo but by testing for several cases of $q$, this was found to not be the case.
Is there anything being misunderstood, especially with regards to the application of part (e) to part (f)?
elliptic-curves
elliptic-curves
edited Dec 29 '18 at 6:16
Did
248k23226465
asked May 1 '14 at 21:34
Haikal YeoHaikal Yeo
1,027823
edited Dec 29 '18 at 6:16
Did
248k23226465
asked May 1 '14 at 21:34
Haikal YeoHaikal Yeo
1,027823
edited Dec 29 '18 at 6:16
Did
248k23226465
edited Dec 29 '18 at 6:16
Did
248k23226465
edited Dec 29 '18 at 6:16
Did
248k23226465
248k23226465
asked May 1 '14 at 21:34
Haikal YeoHaikal Yeo
1,027823
asked May 1 '14 at 21:34
Haikal YeoHaikal Yeo
1,027823
asked May 1 '14 at 21:34
Haikal YeoHaikal Yeo
1,027823
1,027823
$begingroup$
I think you are right. I notice that if you replace 8 with 16 then one may use part (e.) to prove this result (leaving the other numbers the same).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 3:41
$begingroup$
I have tried out all possible examples and the case of $q=8$ has not failed.
$endgroup$
– Haikal Yeo
Jul 9 '14 at 11:55
$begingroup$
what I meant was in reference to your question about using part (e.) in that I think possibly Silverman meant to put $mathbb{F}_{16}$ instead so that one can use the previous part to deduce part (f.).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 14:31
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think you are right. I notice that if you replace 8 with 16 then one may use part (e.) to prove this result (leaving the other numbers the same).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 3:41
$begingroup$
I have tried out all possible examples and the case of $q=8$ has not failed.
$endgroup$
– Haikal Yeo
Jul 9 '14 at 11:55
$begingroup$
what I meant was in reference to your question about using part (e.) in that I think possibly Silverman meant to put $mathbb{F}_{16}$ instead so that one can use the previous part to deduce part (f.).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 14:31
$begingroup$
I think you are right. I notice that if you replace 8 with 16 then one may use part (e.) to prove this result (leaving the other numbers the same).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 3:41
$begingroup$
I think you are right. I notice that if you replace 8 with 16 then one may use part (e.) to prove this result (leaving the other numbers the same).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 3:41
$begingroup$
I have tried out all possible examples and the case of $q=8$ has not failed.
$endgroup$
– Haikal Yeo
Jul 9 '14 at 11:55
$begingroup$
I have tried out all possible examples and the case of $q=8$ has not failed.
$endgroup$
– Haikal Yeo
Jul 9 '14 at 11:55
$begingroup$
what I meant was in reference to your question about using part (e.) in that I think possibly Silverman meant to put $mathbb{F}_{16}$ instead so that one can use the previous part to deduce part (f.).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 14:31
$begingroup$
what I meant was in reference to your question about using part (e.) in that I think possibly Silverman meant to put $mathbb{F}_{16}$ instead so that one can use the previous part to deduce part (f.).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 14:31
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You cannot apply part (e) as written, but in fact you can prove in the same way something slightly stronger which does the trick: if $q=p^k$, then
$$
rm{tr}(phi)equiv 0 mod p iff rm{tr}(phi)equiv 0 mod p^{lceil{k/2}rceil}.
$$
(Here, $lceil k/2rceil$ is the ceiling function.)
In this particular case, you get that $rm{tr}(phi)$ must be a multiple of 4.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 5:10
GispsanGispsan
463
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f777561%2fthere-are-no-elliptic-curves-over-mathbbf-8-with-7-or-11-points%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You cannot apply part (e) as written, but in fact you can prove in the same way something slightly stronger which does the trick: if $q=p^k$, then
$$
rm{tr}(phi)equiv 0 mod p iff rm{tr}(phi)equiv 0 mod p^{lceil{k/2}rceil}.
$$
(Here, $lceil k/2rceil$ is the ceiling function.)
In this particular case, you get that $rm{tr}(phi)$ must be a multiple of 4.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 5:10
GispsanGispsan
463
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You cannot apply part (e) as written, but in fact you can prove in the same way something slightly stronger which does the trick: if $q=p^k$, then
$$
rm{tr}(phi)equiv 0 mod p iff rm{tr}(phi)equiv 0 mod p^{lceil{k/2}rceil}.
$$
(Here, $lceil k/2rceil$ is the ceiling function.)
In this particular case, you get that $rm{tr}(phi)$ must be a multiple of 4.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 5:10
GispsanGispsan
463
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You cannot apply part (e) as written, but in fact you can prove in the same way something slightly stronger which does the trick: if $q=p^k$, then
$$
rm{tr}(phi)equiv 0 mod p iff rm{tr}(phi)equiv 0 mod p^{lceil{k/2}rceil}.
$$
(Here, $lceil k/2rceil$ is the ceiling function.)
In this particular case, you get that $rm{tr}(phi)$ must be a multiple of 4.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 5:10
GispsanGispsan
463
$endgroup$
You cannot apply part (e) as written, but in fact you can prove in the same way something slightly stronger which does the trick: if $q=p^k$, then
$$
rm{tr}(phi)equiv 0 mod p iff rm{tr}(phi)equiv 0 mod p^{lceil{k/2}rceil}.
$$
(Here, $lceil k/2rceil$ is the ceiling function.)
In this particular case, you get that $rm{tr}(phi)$ must be a multiple of 4.
answered Dec 29 '18 at 5:10
GispsanGispsan
463
answered Dec 29 '18 at 5:10
GispsanGispsan
463
answered Dec 29 '18 at 5:10
GispsanGispsan
463
answered Dec 29 '18 at 5:10
GispsanGispsan
463
463
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f777561%2fthere-are-no-elliptic-curves-over-mathbbf-8-with-7-or-11-points%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
$begingroup$
I think you are right. I notice that if you replace 8 with 16 then one may use part (e.) to prove this result (leaving the other numbers the same).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 3:41
$begingroup$
I have tried out all possible examples and the case of $q=8$ has not failed.
$endgroup$
– Haikal Yeo
Jul 9 '14 at 11:55
$begingroup$
what I meant was in reference to your question about using part (e.) in that I think possibly Silverman meant to put $mathbb{F}_{16}$ instead so that one can use the previous part to deduce part (f.).
$endgroup$
– sdf
Jul 9 '14 at 14:31