Score:0

Multiplicities of poles of a divisor of a rational function w.r.t. an elliptic curve

cn flag

I am reading Sec 5.8.2 in the textbook Introduction to Mathematical Cryptology (Hoffstein, Pipher and Silverman), a precursor to introducing the structure of Weil pairing. It first defines a rational function in one variable, $f(x)$ its corresponding zeroes and poles and uses that to define the $div(f(x))$. They move on to elliptic curves. They define an $E: y^2 = x^3+ax+b$ and consider a rational function in two variables $f(x,y)$ and define poles and zeros of $f$ on $E$ as the points of $E$ where the denominator and numerator of $f$ disappear, respectively. They then consider the example (Example 5.35) where $x^3+ax+b = (x-\alpha_1)(x-\alpha_2)(x-\alpha_3)$. They define $P_1 = (\alpha_1,0)$, $P_2 = (\alpha_2,0)$, $P_3 = (\alpha_3,0)$ amd note that they are of order $2$. They look at the function $y$ and say that it disappears at $P_1, P_2,P_3$, which means they are zeros. They then go on to define the divisor of $y$ as $div(y) = [P_1]+[P_2]+[P_3] - 3[\mathcal{O}]$.

I am not able to understand how they concluded $\mathcal{O}$ is a pole of $y$ and it has multiplicity $3$.

mangohost

Post an answer

Most people don’t grasp that asking a lot of questions unlocks learning and improves interpersonal bonding. In Alison’s studies, for example, though people could accurately recall how many questions had been asked in their conversations, they didn’t intuit the link between questions and liking. Across four studies, in which participants were engaged in conversations themselves or read transcripts of others’ conversations, people tended not to realize that question asking would influence—or had influenced—the level of amity between the conversationalists.