arXiv:2104.10817v1 [math.NT] 22 Apr 2021 the odco of conductor eo.Mroe,i the if Moreover, below. is rem where nti oain asradOesterl´e’s and Masser notation, this In hoe 1. Theorem prove: we Specifically, each p this make To ratio. Szpiro modified t the of on context ratio the bound Szpiro modified lower in a statement establish analogous and an conjecture we article, the if that showed Schinzel and y[ By sals htteei oe on on bound lower a is there that establish ntl many finitely with 2020 yan By 1 3 ABC l 6 , [ C T T > ǫ a 14 ,w aethat have we ], 1 c + ahmtc ujc Classification. Subject Mathematics 4 ] nfc,te hwducniinlyta h e flmtpit con points limit of set the that unconditionally showed they fact, In . If . Abstract. on ssapi the if sharp is bound htfrec ftefite oso subgroups torsion fifteen the of each for that ainlnumber rational a tity lblmnmlmdlof model minimal global a 1 1 and ,teeaefiieymn litccre u oioopim satisfyin isomorphism) to (up curves elliptic many finitely are there 0, b ABC 1 ojcuei qiaett h oie ziocnetr [ conjecture Szpiro modified the to equivalent is Conjecture = σ OE ONSFRTEMDFE ZIORATIO SZPIRO MODIFIED THE FOR BOUNDS LOWER E/ C E c m c . ABC The . 6 Let 2 2 2 5 ( h oie ziortoi h nlgo h ult fan of quality the of analog the is ratio Szpiro modified The . Q rpe ema rpe( triple a mean we triple, E r h nainsascae oagoa iia oe of model minimal global a to associated invariants the are o max log = ) C sa litccrewith curve elliptic an is T Let 3 C , rpe with triples quality eoeo h fentrinsbrusalwdb au’ Tor Mazur’s by allowed subgroups torsion fifteen the of one be fa litccurve elliptic an of 3 1 2 E/ ABC × salwrbudo h ult fan of quality the on bound lower a is l T Q C ABC uhta if that such ea litccre h oie ziortoof ratio Szpiro modified The curve. elliptic an be 2 fan of
{ c ojcuehls hnti on ssharp. is bound this then holds, Conjecture q 4 3 C (
E ojcueholds. Conjecture . q ABC ,b c b, a, c , 4 4 4 3 4 and , ( σ ABC ,b c b, a, 6 2 m
q C LXNE .BARRIOS J. ALEXANDER ( ( / 5 E ,b c b, a, ) T ֒ log C , ojcuehls hntesto ii onsof points limit of set the then holds, Conjecture N rmr 10,1D5 11J25. 11D75, 11G05, Primary 1. = ) | ABC ) σ E → rpe( triple ,b c b, a, ( 6 N > E m ,b c b, a, Introduction C , eoe h odco of conductor the denotes E T ֒ = ) E ( + 1 log over E ( 2 where Q → ojcue[ Conjecture hc eed nyo h oso tutr of structure torsion the on only depends which ) where ) × ) san is ) log(rad( T tors ǫ ,b c b, a, max 1 E n[ In . C Q loe yMzrsTrinTerm hr is there Theorem, Torsion Mazur’s by allowed log ( 4 then , c Q ob h quantity the be to log 4 stequantity the is ) ) C N
6 and tors c ,b c b, a, ABC 7 hoe ] rwi,Flst,Greaves, Filaseta, Browkin, 4], Theorem , c E 4 3 abc C ,
σ then , c , m c 16 8 )) 6 ( 6 2 C , E ttsta o each for that states ] r eaieypiepstv integers positive prime relatively are . r h nainsascae to associated invariants the are triple ) 2 l > × σ ABC E m T C } nti ril,w show we article, this In . emdfidSpr conjecture Szpiro modified he ( eas hwta this that show also We . 6 E ) C rpe nti ril,we article, this In triple. 16 l > 9 C , ,wihsae htfor that states which ], . E T 4 5 E and , 10 eie edfiethe define we recise, ABC tains where stequan- the is C g 12 N > ǫ σ rpe nfact, In triple. m C , 3 1 l E T , ( eoe the denotes ,teeare there 0, E . 16 15 2 inTheo- sion sa given as is 8 × ) nthis In . > C 8 + 6 E ǫ . . 2 ALEXANDER J. BARRIOS
The lower bounds are proven in Theorem 4.1. Theorem 4.3 shows that the bounds are sharp if the ABC Conjecture holds. Specifically, the ABC Conjecture is used to deduce that certain polynomials f(x) Z[x] take on infinitely many squarefree values [9]. Next, we state a conjecture that is the counterpart∈ of [6, Theorem 4] in the context of the modified Szpiro ratio. To this end, let Q denote the collection of Q-isomorphism classes of elliptic curves and let [E] denote the E Q Q-isomorphism class of E. Then we can extend σm to be defined on Q by taking σm [E] = E Q σm(E). Since σm depends on a global minimal model of E, this extension is well-defined. With this terminology, Theorem 1 and [6, Theorem 4], lead us to conjecture the following: Conjecture 2. Let T be one of the fifteen torsion subgroups allowed by Mazur’s Torsion Theorem [14]. If the ABC Conjecture holds, then [lT , 6] is the set of limit points of
σm [E] [E] Q, E(Q)tors = T . Q | Q ∈E ∼ In fact, the proof of Theoremn 1 shows that lT is a limit point assumingo the ABC Conjecture. It has also been established that 6 is a limit point if the ABC Conjecture holds [13], [5], [1], [2]. 3 2 We note that σm(E) > 1 is a direct consequence from the fact that ∆ < max c4 ,c6 where ∆ denotes the minimal discriminant of E. Consequently, establishing| | Theorem 1 is re- duced to proving the result for elliptic curves with a non-trivial torsion point. Such curves are parameterizable [12]. In this article, we consider fourteen families of elliptic curves ET where T is one of the fourteen non-trivial torsion subgroups allowed by Mazur’s Torsion Theorem. By [3] and [4], there are necessary and sufficient conditions on the parameters of the family ET to determine its global minimal model as well as the conductor exponent fp of ET at a given prime. This, in turn, allows us in Section 2 to establish an upper bound δT on the conductor NT of lT 3 2 ET . In section 3, we show that δT < max c4 ,c6 . In Section 4, we prove the first part of Theorem 1 by using these inequalities. We then show the lower bounds are sharp by considering fifteen parameterized families with the property that their modified Szpiro ratios tend to lT . 1.1. Notation and terminology. We start by recalling some facts about elliptic curves over Q. For further details, see [18], [17]. An elliptic curve E/Q is given by an (affine) Weierstrass model 2 3 2 (1.1) E : y + a1xy + a3y = x + a2x + a4x + a6 with each aj Q. From (1.1), we define ∈ 4 2 2 c4 = a1 +8a1a2 24a1a3 + 16a2 48a4, (1.2) 2 −3 2 − 2 c6 = a +4a2 + 36 a +4a2 (2a4 + a1a3) 216 a +4a6 . − 1 1 − 3 The quantities c4 and c6 are the invariants associated to the Weierstrass model of E. The 3 2 c4−c6 discriminant of E is then defined as ∆E = 1728 . Each elliptic curve E/Q is Q-isomorphic to a global minimal model Emin where Emin is given by a Weierstrass model of the form (1.1) such min that each aj Z and its discriminant ∆ satisfies ∈ E min ∆ = min ∆F F is Q-isomorphic to E and F is given by (1.1) with aj Z . E {| | | ∈ } min 3 2 In what follows, let c4 and c6 be the invariants associated to E . We call max c4 ,c6 the naive height of E and note that this is slightly different than what appears in the literature [10]. Namely, we have dropped the logarithm from the standard definition. If a prime p divides min gcd c4, ∆E , then E is said to have additive reduction at p. If this is not the case, then E is said to be semistable at p. If E is semistable at all primes, then we say E is semistable. The conductor NE of E is given by fp NE = p p|∆min YE where fp is a positive integer computed via Tate’s Algorithm [19]. In fact, fp = 1 if E is semistable at p, and in general, we have that f2 8, f3 5, and fp 2 for p 5. ≤ ≤ ≤ ≥ LOWERBOUNDSFORTHEMODIFIEDSZPIRORATIO 3
The group of rational points E(Q) of an elliptic curve E/Q is a finitely generated abelian group and by Mazur’s Torsion Theorem, there are precisely fifteen possibilities for the torsion subgroup E(Q)tors of E(Q).
Theorem 1.1 (Mazur’s Torsion Theorem [14]). Let E/Q be an elliptic curve and let CN denote the cyclic group of order N. Then
CN for N =1, 2,..., 10, 12, E(Q)tors = ∼ C2 C2N for N =1, 2, 3, 4. × Now let ET be the parameterized family of elliptic curves given in Table 1 for the listed T . These families parameterize all rational elliptic curves with a non-trivial torsion point as made precise by the following proposition: Proposition 1.2 ([3, Proposition 4.3]). Let E/Q be an elliptic curve and suppose further that -T ֒ E(Q)tors where T is one of the fourteen non-trivial torsion subgroups allowed by Theo rem→1.1. Then there are integers a,b,d such that (1) If T = C2, C3, C2 C2, then E is Q-isomorphic to ET (a,b) with gcd(a,b)=1 and a positive. 6 × If T = C2 and C2 C2 ֒ E(Q), then E is Q-isomorphic to ET (a,b,d) with d =1,b =0 (2) such that d and gcd(a,b)×squarefree.6→ 6 6 (3) If T = C3 and the j-invariant of E is not 0, then E is Q-isomorphic to ET (a,b) with gcd(a,b)=1 and a positive. (4) If T = C3 and the j-invariant of E is 0, then E is either Q-isomorphic to ET (24, 1) or to 0 2 3 the curve EC3 (a): y + ay = x for some positive cubefree integer a. (5) If T = C2 C2, then E is Q-isomorphic to ET (a,b,d) with gcd(a,b)=1, d squarefree, and a even. × 2 3 2 Table 1. The Weierstrass Model ET : y + a1xy + a3y = x + a2x + a4x
T a1 a2 a3 a4 2 2 C2 0 2a 0 a b d 0 − C3 0 0 a 0 2 C3 a 0 a b 0 2 C4 a ab a b 0 − − 2 C5 a b ab a b 0 − − 2 2− 2 C6 a b ab b a b ab 0 2 − 2 −2 2 − 3 −4 2 − 3 3 C7 a + ab b a b ab a b a b 0 2 − 2 2 2 − 3 4 3 3 −2 4 5 C8 a +4ab 2b a b +3ab 2b a b +3a b 2ab 0 − 3 2 − 3 4 −2 3 3 2−4 5 − 3 − C9 a + ab b a b 2a b +2a b ab a a2 0 3 2− −3 3 2 4 − 5 3 2 · 2 C10 a 2a b a b +3a b 2ab (a 3a b + ab ) a2 0 2ab−2 +2b−3 − − − · 4 3 2 2 3 C12 a +2a b + b(a 2b)(a b) (a a(b a) a2 0 2a−2b2 8ab3+6b4 3ab+3−b2)(a2− 2ab+2−b2) − · − − 2 C2 C2 0 ad + bd 0 abd × 2 2 2 C2 C4 a ab 4b a b 4ab 0 × 2 2 −4 − 3 6 − 5− 4 2 C2 C6 19a +2ab + b 10a + 22a b 90a 198a b+116a b + 0 × − −14a2b2 +2ab3− 4a3−b3 14a2b4 +2ab5 4 3 2 − 2 2 C2 C8 a 8a b 4ab (a +2b)(a + 2b(a +4b)(a 8b ) a2 0 × 24− a2b−2 + 64b−4 4−b)2(a2 +4ab +8b2) − − · 4 ALEXANDER J. BARRIOS
2. Upper Bound on the Conductor of ET 0 Let ET be as defined in Table 1 for T = C . Throughout this section, we let 6 3 NT (a,b,d) if T = C2, C2 C2, NT = × NT (a,b) if T = C2, C2 C2 6 × be the conductor of ET . In this section, we establish an upper bound on NT which will allow us to deduce our main result. To this end, let
γT (a,b,d) if T = C2, C2 C2, γT = × γT (a,b) if T = C2, C2 C2. 6 × be as defined in [3, Table 6]. Now write 3 2 c d e with gcd(d, e)=1, and de squarefree if T = C3, (2.1) a = 2 c d with d squarefree if T = C4. −12 By [3, Theorem 4.4], the minimal discriminant of ET is uT γT where
T C5, C7, C9 C6, C8, C10, C12, C2 C2 C2, C2 C4 C2 C6 C2 C8 C3 C4 × × × × 2 uT 1 1or2 1, 2, or4 1, 4, or16 1, 16, or 64 c d c or 2c
In fact, [3, Theorem 4.4] provides necessary and sufficient conditions on the parameters of ET to determine uT . For each uT , let
δT,u (a,b,d) if T = C2, C2 C2, T × δT,uT (c,d,e,b) if T = C3, (2.2) δT,u = T δ (c,d,b) if T = C , T,uT 4 δT,u (a,b) if T = C2, C3, C4, C2 C2, T 6 × be as given in Table 2. The main result of this section shows that if the minimal discriminant of −12 ET is u γT , then NT δT,u . T ≤ | T |
Table 2. The Polynomials δT,uT
T δT uT , δT,uT uT , δT,uT uT , δT,uT 2 2 2 1 C2 b d(b d a ) 1,256δT 2, 4δT 4, 64 δT 2 4 3 2− 2 C3 3bd e (c d e 27b) c d, δT 3 −2 1 C4 bcd (16b + c d) c, 2δT 2c, 16 δT 2 2 C5 ab(a + 11ab b ) 1, δT − 1 C6 ab(a + b)(a +9b) 1, δT 2, 8 δT 3 2 2 3 C7 ab(a b)(a +5a b 8ab + b ) 1, δT − 2 − 2 1 C8 ab(a 2b)(a b)(a 8ab +8b ) 1, δT 2, 8 δT 2− −2 3 − 2 2 3 C9 ab(a b)(a ab + b )(a +3a b 6ab + b ) 1, δT − − 2 2 −2 2 1 C10 ab(a 2b)(a b)(a +2ab 4b )(a 3ab + b ) 1, δT 2, 4 δT − − 2 − 2 −2 1 C12 ab(a 2b)(a b)(a 6ab +6b )(a 2ab + 1, δT 2, 8 δT − 2−b2)(a2 −3ab +3b2) − −3 C2 C2 abd (a b) 1,64δT 2, δT × − 1 1 C2 C4 ab(a +4b)(a +8b) 1,8δT 2, 2 δT 4, 32 δT × 1 1 C2 C6 a(a b)(3a b)(5a b)(9a b)(3a + b) 1, δT 4, 8 δT 16, 512 δT × − − −2 2 − 2 1 1 C2 C8 ab(a +2b)(a +4b)(a 8b )(a +8ab + 1, 2δT 16, 128 δT 64, 4096 δT × 8b2)(a2 +4ab−+8b2) LOWERBOUNDSFORTHEMODIFIEDSZPIRORATIO 5
−12 Lemma 2.1. If p is a prime that divides the minimal discriminant uT γT of ET , then p divides δT,u . In particular, if ET is semistable at p, then vp(NT ) vp(δT,u ). T ≤ T Proof. Throughout this proof, we implicitly assume the necessary and sufficient conditions on −12 the parameters of ET found in [3, Theorem 4.4] to determine the minimal discriminant uT γT of ET . 2 3 2 First, suppose T = C3 so that uT = c d. Recall that a = c d e for d and e relatively prime −12 3 4 8 3 2 squarefree integers. In particular, the minimal discriminant of ET is u γT = b d e c d e 27b . T − By inspection, the lemma holds in this case. Next, suppose T = C4. Then uT is either c or 2c. 2 Recall that a = c d for d a squarefree integer. If uT = c, then the minimal discriminant of −12 4 2 7 2 ET is uT γT = b c d c d + 16b . In particular, any prime dividing the minimal discriminant divides δT,uT . Now suppose uT = 2c so that v2(c) 4 with bd 3 mod 4. In particular, δT,uT −12 −12 4 2 7 2 ≥ ≡ is even. Moreover, the uT γT = 2 b c d c d + 16b and so any odd prime dividing the minimal discriminant divides δT,uT . k Now suppose T = C3, C4. Then uT =2 for some nonnegative integer k. Consequently, if an 6 odd prime p divides the minimal discriminant of ET , then p divides γT . It follows by inspection that p divides δT,uT . Furthermore, if uT = 1, then γT is the minimal discriminant and the lemma follows since γT being even implies that δT,1 is even. By the above, it remains to show the case when T = C3, C4, C5, C7, C9 with uT = 1 and 2 6 6 dividing the minimal discriminant of ET .
Case 1. Suppose T = C2 with uT = 1. Then uT is either 2 or 4. Since δT,uT is even if uT = 2, 6 2 2 we have that the lemma holds in this case. So suppose uT = 4 so that v2 b d a 8 with − ≥ v2(a) = v2(b) = 1 and a 2 mod 8. In particular, δT,u is always even, which concludes this T case. ≡
Case 2. Suppose T = C6 with uT = 1. Then uT = 2 and v2(a + b) 3 and thus δT,uT is even since a +9b is even. 6 ≥ Case 3. Suppose T = C8, C10, C12 with uT = 1. Then uT = 2 and a is even in each case. By 6 inspection, δT,uT is even. Case 4. Suppose T = C2 C2 with uT = 1. Then uT = 2 and v2(a) 4 with bd 1 mod 4. × 6 ≥ ≡ In particular, δT,uT is even. Case 5. Suppose T = C2 C4 with uT = 1. Then uT = 2 or 4. In both cases, we have that × 6 v2(a) 2, and thus δT,u is even. ≥ T Case 6. Suppose T = C2 C6 with uT = 1. Then uT = 4 or 16. If uT = 4, then × 6 v2(a + b) 2 and thus δT,uT is even. Now suppose uT = 16 so that v2(a + b) = 1. In particular, a + b 2≥ mod 4, and this implies that a b, 5a b, and 9a b are each divisible by 4. In fact, one of≡ these must be divisible by 8. This− coupled− with the fact− that (3a b) (3a + b) is divisible − by 8, implies that δT,u is even since v2(512δT,u ) 10. T T ≥ Case 7. Suppose T = C2 C8 with uT = 1. Then uT is either 16 or 64. If uT = 16, then × 6 v2(a) = 1 and by inspection δT,uT is even. So suppose uT = 64 so that v2(a) 2. By inspection ≥ δT,uT is also even under these assumptions, which concludes the proof. −12 Proposition 2.2. If p is a prime that divides the minimal discriminant uT γT of ET , then vp(NT ) vp(δT,u ). In particular, NT δT,u . ≤ T ≤ | T |
Proof. By Lemma 2.1, it suffices to show that vp(NT ) vp(δT,uT ) when ET has additive reduction at p. By [3, Theorem 7.1], there are necessary and≤ sufficient conditions on the parameters of ET to determine the primes p at which ET has additive reduction. We will implicitly assume these conditions throughout this proof. Moreover, if T = C2 C8, then ET is semistable and we × proceed by considering the cases when T = C2 C8. 6 × Case 1. Suppose T = C2. First suppose ET has additive reduction at an odd prime p so that p divides gcd(a,bd). By [4, Theorem 3.3], vp(NT ) = 2 and by inspection vp(δT,u ) 2 T ≥ for each uT . It remains to show that v2(NT ) v2(δT,u ) whenever ET has additive reduction ≤ T 6 ALEXANDER J. BARRIOS at 2. If uT = 1, then ET has additive reduction at 2 and the desired inequality holds since 2 2 v2(δT,uT ) 8. If uT = 1 and ET has additive reduction at 2, then (i) 4 v2 b d a 7 with ≥ 6 2 2 ≤ − ≤ v2(a) = v2(b)=1or(ii) v2 b d a 8 with v2(a) = v2(b) = 1 and a 2 mod8. In both − ≥ ≡ cases, we have that v2(δT,u ) 7. This concludes this case since [4, Theorem 3.2] implies that T ≥ v2(NT ) 5. ≤ 3 2 Case 2. Suppose T = C3 and write a = c d e for d and e relatively prime squarefree integers. Now suppose ET has additive reduction at a prime p = 3. Then p divides de. In particular, 6 vp(δT,u ) 2. By [4, Theorem 3.5], vp(NT ) = 2 and thus vp(NT ) vp(δT,u ). Now suppose ET T ≥ ≤ T has additive reduction at 3. Then v3(a) > 0. First, observe that if v3(de) > 0, then v3(δT,u ) 5 T ≥ and it is always the case that v3(NT ) 5. So suppose v3(de) = 0. Then v3(c) > 0 and thus ≤ v3(δT,uT ) 4. By [4, Theorem 3.5], v3(NT ) 4 which concludes this case. ≥ ≤ 2 Case 3. Suppose T = C4 and write a = c d for d a squarefree integer. If ET has additive reduction at an odd prime p, then p divides d and thus vp(δT,u ) 3 in both cases. By [4, T ≥ Theorem 3.6], vp(NT ) = 2 and so it remains to consider the case when ET has additive reduction at 2. This happens when (i) v2(a) 1 mod2, (ii) v2(a)=2, 4, 6, or (iii) v2(a) 8 is even with ≡ ≥ bd 1 mod 4. For each of these cases, we have that uT = c. By [4, Theorem 3.6], v2(NT ) 6. ≡ 3 ≤ Now observe that v2(δT,u )=1+v2 cd +v2(a + 16b). Consequently, v2(δT,u ) 6 if v2(a) 3. T T ≥ ≥ It remains to show the case when v2(a)=1, 2. For these cases, [4, Theorem 3.6] implies that v2(NT ) = 3. This concludes this case since v2(δT,u ) 4. T ≥ Case 4. Suppose T = C2 C2. By Proposition 1.2, we assume that a is even. If ET has × additive reduction at an odd prime p, then p divides d and thus vp(δT,u ) 3 in both cases. T ≥ Since vp(NT ) = 2 [4, Theorem 3.7], we conclude that vp(NT ) vp(δT,u ). Now suppose ET has ≤ T additive reduction at 2. Then uT = 1 and v2(δT,uT ) 7. By [4, Theorem 3.7], v2(NT ) 6 which gives our desired inequality. ≥ ≤
T p Conditions on a and b uT vp(δT,uT ) vp(NT )
C5 5 v5(a +3b) > 0 1 2 2 ≥ C6 2 v2(a + b)=1, 2 1 2 2 ≥ 3 v3(a) > 0 1, 2 2 2 ≥ C7 7 v7(a +4b) > 0 1 2 2 ≥ C8 2 v2(a) 2 1 4 4 (2.3) ≥ ≥ C9 3 v3(a + b) > 0 1 3 3 ≥ C10 5 v5(a + b) > 0 1, 2 2 2 ≥ C12 3 v3(a) > 0 1, 2 2 2 ≥ C2 C4 2 v2(a)=1 1 4 3 × ≥ v2(a) 2 with v2(a +4b) 3 2 4 4 ≥ ≤ ≥ ≤ C2 C6 3 v3(b) > 0 1, 4, 16 3 2 × ≥ Case 5. Suppose T = C2, C3, C4, C2 C2. Then ET has additive reduction at a prime p if and only if p is a listed prime6 in (2.3) for T ×and the condition on a and b are satisfied. Moreover, under these conditions, we have by [3, Theorem 4.4] that the listed uT corresponds to the conditions on a and b. By inspection, it is verified that vp(δT,uT ) satisfies the listed inequality. Lastly, by [4, Theorem 3.8] we have that the listed vp(NT ) holds for the listed conditions on a and b. Therefore vp(NT ) vp(δT,u ), which concludes the proof. ≤ T LOWERBOUNDSFORTHEMODIFIEDSZPIRORATIO 7
3. The Naive Height of ET
Let ET be as defined in Table 1 and write a in terms of c,d,e as given in (2.1) for T = C3, C4. Next, let
(αT (a,b,d) ,βT (a,b,d)) if T = C2, C2 C2, × (αT (c,d,e,b) ,βT (c,d,e,b)) if T = C3, (3.1) (αT ,βT )= (α (c,d,b) ,β (c,d,b)) if T = C , T T 4 (αT (a,b) ,βT (a,b)) otherwise, be as defined in [3, Tables 4 and 5]. By [3, Lemma 2.9 and Theorem 4.4], the invariants c4 and c6 −4 −6 associated to a global minimal model of ET are uT αT and uT βT , respectively. In particular, −12 3 −12 the naive height of ET is given by uT max αT ,βT . In this section, we show that if uT γT is the minimal discriminant of E , then δ lT < u−12 max α3 ,β2 where l is as given T T,u T T T T T in (3.2). | |
Lemma 3.1. Let mT and lT be as given in (3.2).
T C2 C2 C2 C3 C4 C5, C6, C2 C4 C7, C8, C2 C6 C9, C10 C12, C2 C8 × × × × (3.2) mT 6 6 1212 12 24 36 48
lT 1.5 2 22.43 4 4.5 4.8 Then in the notation of (2.2) and (3.1), the following identities hold:
mT 2 3 b d a αT 1, 1, a2 if T = C2, mT 3 2 3 b c d e αT 1, 1, 1, c3d2e if T = C3, mT αT = 2 3 b c d αT 1, 1, c2d if T = C4, mT 3 b (ad) αT 1, a , 1 if T = C2 C2, mT × 3 b a αT 1, a otherwise, mT 2 2 b d a βT 1 , 1, a2 if T = C2, mT 3 2 2 b c d e βT 1, 1, 1, c3d2e if T = C3, mT βT = 2 2 b c d βT 1, 1, c2d if T = C4, mT 2 b (ad) βT 1, , 1 if T = C2 C2, m a T b × a 2 βT 1, otherwise, a mT 2 lT b d a δT,uT 1, 1, a2 if T = C2, m T b lT (cde) δT,uT 1, 1, 1, 3 2 if T = C3, m c d e T b δT,uT = lT (cd) δT,uT 1, 1, 2 if T = C4, m c d T b lT (ad) δT,uT 1, a , 1 if T = C2 C2, mT × lT b a δT,uT 1, a otherwise. Lemma 3.1 leads us to the following lemma, which pertains to a real-valued function and is the key to deducing our main theorem in the next section.
Lemma 3.2. For each T , let uT be as given in [3, Theorem 4.4]. For T = C4, set
1 if uT = c, vT = 2 if uT =2c. 8 ALEXANDER J. BARRIOS
Then the real-valued function ϕT,u : R R defined by T → −12 3 2 lT u max αT (1, 1, x) ,βT (1, 1, x) δT,u (1, 1, x) if T = C2, T | | − | T | n 3 2 o lT max αT (1, 1, 1, x) ,βT (1, 1, 1, x) δT,uT (1, 1, 1, x) if T = C3, | | − | | −12n 3 2o lT ϕT,uT (x)= vT max αT (1, 1, x) ,βT (1, 1, x) δT,uT (1, 1, x) if T = C4, | | − | | −12 3 2 lT u maxn αT (1, x, 1) ,βT (1, x, 1) o δT,u (1, x, 1) if T = C2 C2, T | | − | T | × −12 3 2 lT u maxn αT (1, x) ,βT (1, x) oδT,u (1, x) otherwise, T | | − | T | is nonnegative. Moreover,n if ϕ (x)=0, then xo is irrational. T,uT Proof. This is verified via a computer algebra system. Mathematica notebooks [11] and SageMath worksheets [7] of these verifications are available upon request. Moreover, solving ϕT,uT (x)=0 1 1 has a solution if T = C2 C4 with uT =2, 4. In fact, 3 √5 , 1 √5 is the solution × 8 − ± 8 ± set in this case which shows that if ϕT,u (x) = 0, then x is irrational. T −12 Corollary 3.3. If uT γT is the minimal discriminant of ET , then lT −12 3 2 δT,u lT where → T C1 C2 C3, C2 C2 C4 C5, C6, C2 C4 C7, C8, C2 C6 C9, C10 C12, C2 C8 × × × × lT 1 1.5 2 2.43 4 4.5 4.8
Proof. Let E/Q be an elliptic curve and let c4 and c6 be the invariants associated to a global 3 2 minimal model of E. Then the identity 1728∆ = c4 c6, where ∆ is the minimal discriminant 3 2 − of E, implies that ∆ < max c ,c and thus σm(E) > 1. Now suppose E(Q) = T where | | 4 6 tors ∼ T is non-trivial. Suppose further that if T = C3, then the j-invariant of E is non-zero. Then Proposition 1.2 implies that E is Q -isomorphic to ET for some integers a, b, and d. By [3, Lemma LOWERBOUNDSFORTHEMODIFIEDSZPIRORATIO 9
2.9 and Theorem 4.4], the invariants c4 and c6 associated to a global minimal model of E are −4 −6 uT αT and uT βT , respectively. Next, let NE denote the conductor of E. By Proposition 2.2 and Corollary 3.3, we have that
lT −12 3 2 3 2 NE δT,u
3 2 lT log δT,uT log NE Theorem 4.1 automatically implies the following corollary. Corollary 4.2. Let E/Q be an elliptic curve such that σm(E) 1.5. Then E(Q)tors is trivial. ≤ Theorem 4.3. The lower bound lT in Theorem 4.1 is sharp if T = C1, C2, C3, or C2 C2. Moreover, the lower bound is sharp if the ABC Conjecture is assumed. × 2 Proof. Let n be an integer and define the elliptic curve FC1 = FC1 (n) by FC1 : y + y = 3 x + (3n + 1) x. For T = C1, let AT , BT , and DT be as given below. 6 T C2 C3 C4 C5, C9, C2 C4 C6, C7 C8, C10 C12 C2 C2 C2 C6 C2 C8 2 × × × × AT 1 1 256n 2n +1 3n +1 4n +1 6n +1 16n 8n +3 4n − 2 BT 8 n 4n 1 n nnn 4n +1 1 n +1 − − DT n 1 For T = C1, C2, C2 C2, let FT (n) = ET (AT ,BT ). For T = C2, C2 C2, let FT (n) = 6 × × .ET (AT ,BT ,DT ). By construction, we observe that T ֒ FT (n)(Q) for each n → From the definition of FT (n) for T = C1, we deduce by [3, Corollary 7.2] that FT is semistable 6 for each integer n. For T = C1, observe that the invariant c4 and c6 of FC1 are 48(3n + 1) and − 216, respectively. Since c6 is six-powerfree, we conclude that FC1 is given by a global minimal − model. In particular, the minimal discriminant DC1 of FC1 is the discriminant of FC1 . Since 2 DC1 = (12n + 7) 144n + 60n + 13 , we see that gcd(216, DTC1 ) = 1. From this, we establish − that FC1 is semistable for each integer n. Now let DT denote the discriminant of FT and denote the invariants c4 and c6 of FT by AT and BT , respectively. By the above and [3, Theorem 4.4] for T = C1, we have that the minimal −12 6 discriminant of FT is wT DT where T C4 C2 C8 C2 C6 C2, C2 C2 otherwise × × × wT 32n 64 16 2 1 −4 In particular, the invariants c4,T and c6,T associated to global minimal model of FT are wT AT −6 and w BT , respectively. It is then verified via a computer algebra system that for n > 1, we T | | 10 ALEXANDER J. BARRIOS have c2 if T = C , C , C , C , C , H = max c3 ,c2 = 6,T 3 5 7 8 9 T 4,T 6,T c3 otherwise. 4,T In Table 3, we give the expression for HT (n). Next, let fT (n) be as given in Table 3. Table 3. The Quantities HT (n) and fT (n) T HT (n) fT (n) 3 2 C1 144n + 48 (12n+7)(144n +60n+13) | | 3 C2 192n +1 n(64n 1) | | − 2 2 C3 (216n 36n + 1) n(27n 1) − − 4 2 3 2 C4 5136n 264n +1 n(2n 1)(2n+1)(20n 1) | − | − − 4 3 2 2 2 2 2 C5 (421n + 526n + 206n + 26n + 1) (5n +4n + 1) n(2n + 1)(25n + 15n + 1) 3 2 3 3 C6 120n + 84n + 18n +1 6n +1 n(12n + 1)(3n + 1)(4n + 1) | | | | 12 11 10 9 3 C7 (577801n + 2519622n + 4989285n + 5920782n + n(2n + 1)(3n + 1)(49n + 4680102n8 + 2590434n7 + 1027173n6 + 293286n5 + 49n2 + 14n + 1) 59682n4 + 8414n3 + 777n2 + 42n + 1)2 8 7 6 5 4 3 C8 (2696n +5984n +5424n +2272n +184n 224n n(4n + 1)(2n + 1)(3n + 96n2 16n 1)2(56n4 + 16n3 16n2 8n− 1)2 − 1)(8n2 1) − − − − − − 18 17 16 15 2 C9 (22329n + 242514n + 1250883n + 4061502n + n(n+1)(2n+1)(3n +3n+ 9272961n14 + 15760494n13 + 20613420n12 + 1)(9n3 + 18n2 +9n + 1) 21173562n11 + 17291556n10 + 11299356n9 + 5916807n8 + 2474496n7 + 819423n6 + 211626n5 + 41607n4 + 5994n3 + 594n2 + 36n + 1)2 12 11 10 9 C10 635920n + 2733440n + 5299680n + 6129200n + n(2n + 1)(4n + 1)(3n + | 4710480n8 + 2534880n7 + 979520n6 + 273840n5 + 1)(20n2 + 10n + 1)(5n2 + 54960n4 + 7720n3 + 720n2 + 40n +1 3 5n + 1) | 12 11 10 C12 42787896n + 129338064n + 173452752n + n(6n + 1)(4n + 1)(5n + | 137824296n9 + 72709428n8 + 26936592n7 + 1)(6n2 +6n + 1)(26n2 + 7205496n6 + 1405032n5 + 198498n4 + 19836n3 + 10n + 1)(21n2 +9n + 1) 1332n2 +54n +1 3 366n4 + 348n3 + 120n2 + 18n +1 3 | | | 2 3 C2 C2 208n 8n +1 n(4n + 1)(12n 1) × | − | − 4 3 2 3 C2 C4 976n + 672n + 200n + 24n +1 n(2n + 1)(10n + 1)(6n + 1) × | | 6 5 4 3 C2 C6 439104n + 1005408n + 958080n + 486360n + (3n + 1)(12n + 5)(18n + × | 138720n2 + 21078n + 1333 3 84n2 + 66n + 13 3 7)(2n + 1)(5n + 2)(8n + 3) | | | 16 15 14 13 C2 C8 51361n + 180064n + 301720n + 511840n + n(n + 1)(2n + 1)(3n + × 1140780| n12 + 2129632n11 + 2812328n10 + 2658400n9 + 1)(n2 2n 1)(7n2 + 1853894n8 + 973088n7 + 387560n6 + 116768n5 + 6n + 1)(5− n2−+4n + 1) 26220n4 + 4256n3 + 472n2 + 32n +1 3 | −12 It is then verified that rad wT DT = rad(fT (n)). Now define ST = n Z n > 1, fT (n) is squarefree . { ∈ | | | } In particular, if n ST , then the conductor NF of FT satisfies NF = fT (n) since FT is ∈ T T | | semistable. By [15] and [8], ST is infinite if T = C1, C2, C3, or C2 C2. For the remaining T , × we have by [9] that ST is infinite if the ABC Conjecture is assumed. It is now checked via a LOWERBOUNDSFORTHEMODIFIEDSZPIRORATIO 11 computer algebra system that log HT lim σm(FT (n)) = lim = lT . n∈ST , |n|→∞ n∈ST , |n|→∞ log fT (n) | | In particular, we have that the lower bound in Theorem 4.1 is sharp since the above shows that there is an infinite sequence of elliptic curves FT (n) with T ֒ FT (n)(Q) with the property that → the modified Szpiro ratio of FT (n) tends to lT as n . | | → ∞ References 1. Alexander J. Barrios, A constructive proof of masser’s theorem, Contemp. Math., vol. 759, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2020, pp. 51–61. 2. , Good elliptic curves with a specified torsion subgroup, arXiv e-prints (2020), arXiv:2012.12475, https://arxiv.org/abs/2012.12475. 3. , Minimal models of rational elliptic curves with non-trivial torsion, arXiv e-prints (2020), arXiv:2001.01016, https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.01016. 4. Alexander J. Barrios and Manami Roy, Local data of rational elliptic curves with non-trivial torsion, arXiv e-prints (2021), arXiv:2104.10337, https://arxiv.org/abs/2104.10337. 5. Michael A. Bennett and Soroosh Yazdani, A local version of Szpiro’s conjecture, Exp. Math. 21 (2012), no. 2, 103–116. MR 2931308 6. J. Browkin, M. Filaseta, G. Greaves, and A. Schinzel, Squarefree values of polynomials and the abc-conjecture, Sieve methods, exponential sums, and their applications in number theory (Cardiff, 1995), London Math. Soc. Lecture Note Ser., vol. 237, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 1997, pp. 65–85. MR 1635726 7. The Sage Developers, Sagemath, the Sage Mathematics Software System (Version 9.1), 2020, http://www.sagemath.org. 8. P. Erd¨os, Arithmetical properties of polynomials, J. London Math. Soc. 28 (1953), 416–425. MR 0056635 9. Andrew Granville, ABC allows us to count squarefrees, Internat. Math. Res. Notices (1998), no. 19, 991–1009. MR 1654759 10. Marc Hindry and Joseph H. Silverman, Diophantine geometry, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 201, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000, An introduction. MR 1745599 11. Wolfram Research, Inc., Mathematica, Version 11.2, Champaign, IL, 2017. 12. Daniel Sion Kubert, Universal bounds on the torsion of elliptic curves, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 33 (1976), no. 2, 193–237. MR 0434947 13. D. W. Masser, Note on a conjecture of Szpiro, Ast´erisque (1990), no. 183, 19–23, S´eminaire sur les Pinceaux de Courbes Elliptiques (Paris, 1988). MR 1065152 14. B. Mazur, Modular curves and the Eisenstein ideal, Inst. Hautes Etudes´ Sci. Publ. Math. (1977), no. 47, 33–186 (1978). MR 488287 15. Trygve Nagel, Zur Arithmetik der Polynome, Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg 1 (1922), no. 1, 178–193. MR 3069398 16. Joseph Oesterl´e, Nouvelles approches du “th´eor`eme” de Fermat, Ast´erisque (1988), no. 161-162, Exp. No. 694, 4, 165–186 (1989), S´eminaire Bourbaki, Vol. 1987/88. MR 992208 17. Joseph H. Silverman, Advanced topics in the arithmetic of elliptic curves, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 151, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994. MR 1312368 18. , The arithmetic of elliptic curves, second ed., Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 106, Springer, Dordrecht, 2009. MR 2514094 19. J. Tate, Algorithm for determining the type of a singular fiber in an elliptic pencil, (1975), 33–52. Lecture Notes in Math., Vol. 476. MR 0393039 Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Carleton College, Northfield, Minnesota 55057 Email address: [email protected]