arxiv: v1 [math.nt] 5 Dec 2017

Transcription

1 THE KERNEL OF A RATIONAL EISENSTEIN PRIME AT NON-SQUAREFREE LEVEL HWAJONG YOO arxiv: v1 [math.nt] 5 Dec 2017 Abstract. Let 5 be a prime and et N be a non-squarefree integer not divisibe by. For a rationa Eisenstein prime m of the Hecke ring T(N) of eve N acting on J 0 (N), we precisey compute the dimension of the kerne J 0 (N)[m] under a mid assumption. In the case of eve qr 2 which vioates our mid assumption, we propose a conjecture based on Sage computations. Assuming this conjecture, we compete our computation in a the remaining cases. 1. Introduction Let N be a positive integer. Consider the moduar curve X 0 (N) overqand its Jacobian variety J 0 (N) := Pic 0 (X 0 (N)) over Q. Let T n denote the n-th Hecke operator in the endomorphism ring End(J 0 (N)) of J 0 (N) and et T(N) denote the Z-subring of End(J 0 (N)) generated by T n for a integers n 1. (For the precise definition, and for detais of what foows, see Section 2.) For a maxima idea m of T(N) containing a prime, there is a continuous odd semisimpe mod Gaois representation ρ m : G Q GL(2, k m ), where G Q := Ga(Q/Q) and k m := T (N)/m, satisfying trace(frob p ) = T p (mod m) and det(frob p ) = p (mod m) for a primes p not dividing N ([9, Th. 6.7] or [28, Prop. 5.1]). Here Frob p denotes a Frobenius eement for p in G Q. The representation ρ m is unique up to isomorphism. We say that m is Eisenstein (resp. non-eisenstein) if ρ m is reducibe (resp. irreducibe), and that m is a rationa Eisenstein prime if ρ m 1 χ, where 1 is the trivia character and χ is the mod cycotomic character. Note that a rationa Eisenstein prime contains I 0 (N), where I 0 (N) := (T p p 1 : for a primes p not dividing N) is an Eisenstein idea of T(N) (cf. [45, 3]). Conversey, if a maxima idea contains and I 0 (N), then it is a rationa Eisenstein prime by a standard argument using the Brauer-Nesbitt theorem and Chebotarev density theorem. We aso note that m is an Eisenstein prime m is a rationa Eisenstein prime when N is squarefree [43, Prop. 2.1], but there do exist Eisenstein primes which are not rationa Eisenstein primes if N is not squarefree (Remark 1.9). For a maxima idea m of T(N) containing a prime, by the kerne of m we mean the foowing k m [G Q ]-modue: J 0 (N)[m] := {x J 0 (N)(Q) : T x = 0 for any T m} Mathematics Subject Cassification. 11F33, 11F80 (Primary); 11G18 (Secondary). This work was supported by IBS-R003-D1. 1

2 2 HWAJONG YOO This kerne has been studied for decades. It is known that dim km J 0 (N)[m] 2 (Lemma 3.3) and dim km J 0 (N)[m] = 2 T m is Gorenstein where T m is the competion of T(N) at m, i.e., T m := im k T(N)/m k ([38, Appendix] or [5, 5.16]). Note that the Gorenstein property of T m (for non-eisenstein m) pays a crucia roe in the proof of Fermat s ast theorem by Wies [41] and Tayor Wies [37]. Suppose that m is non-eisenstein. Then by Mazur [21], the semisimpification of J 0 (N)[m], which we denote by J 0 (N)[m] ss, is the direct sum of copies of V m, where V m is the underying irreducibe two dimensiona k m [G Q ]-modue for ρ m. If V m is absoutey irreducibe (which is aways true when 3), by Boston-Lenstra-Ribet [3], J 0 (N)[m] Vm n for some n 1. In most cases, the mutipicity n is one 1 and hence dim J 0 (N)[m] = 2 and J 0 (N)[m] V m. For the cases where dim J 0 (N)[m] is greater than 2, often caed faiure of mutipicity one 2, see the work of Kiford [17] and of Mazur and Ribet [23, Th. 2]. Now suppose that m is Eisenstein. Then J 0 (N)[m] is not a direct sum of copies of V m. Instead, J 0 (N)[m] ss is the direct sum of one dimensiona k m [G Q ]-modues (cf. [21, Ch. II, Prop. 14.1]). Suppose further that m is rationa Eisenstein. Appying Mazur s argument in [21], if does not divide 2N then we have an exact sequence 0 Z/Z J 0 (N)[m] µ n 0 for some n 1 (Proposition 3.1). This mutipicity n is one if and ony if dim J 0 (N)[m] = 2. When N is a prime, then Mazur proves dim J 0 (N)[m] = 2 without any assumption on residua characteristic [21]. His work is generaized to squarefree N by Ribet and the author when does not divide 6N under a mid assumption [30, 42]. In contrast to the previous discussion, the dimension of J 0 (N)[m] is often greater than 2. For instance, et p q 1 (mod ) be two distinct primes. Then, m = (, T p 1, T q 1,I 0 (pq)) is an Eisenstein prime and dim J 0 (pq)[m] = 5. In 2016, Lecouturier asked the author the foowing mutipicity one question: Question 1.1. As before, et 5 be a prime and p 1 (mod ) a prime. Let m = (, T 2, T p 1,I 0 (4p)) be a rationa Eisenstein prime of T(4p). Is dim J 0 (4p)[m] = 2? In this paper, we answer this question more generay, we are interested in the kerne of a rationa Eisenstein prime when N is not squarefree, i.e., there is a prime p such that p 2 divides N. To introduce our resut, we need some notation: Fix a prime 5 and et N be a non-squarefree integer prime to. Suppose that m is a rationa Eisenstein prime which is new (see Section 2 for the definition). Then by [45, Lemma 2.2] or [22, 2.(c)], we get m = (, T p ǫ(p),i 0 (N) : for a prime divisors p of N), where ǫ(p) = 0 if p 2 divides N and ǫ(p) = ±1 if p exacty divides N, which we mean that p divides N but p 2 does not divide N. Therefore by appropriatey ordering (and indexing) the prime divisors of N, we may assume that N = s i=1 p i t j=1 q j u k=1 re(k) k with e(k) 2; 1 If N is a prime, it is true by Mazur [21] uness = 2 and m is ordinary, i.e., T m. In genera, if does not divide 2N, it foows from [28, Th. 5.2]. For more genera resuts, see [41, Th. 2.1] and the references therein. 2 In the context of Jacobians of Shimura curves, see [29].

3 THE KERNEL OF A RATIONAL EISENSTEIN PRIME 3 m = m (s, t, u), where we define (1) m (s, t, u) := (, T pi 1, T qj + 1, T rk,i 0 (N) : for a i, j and k). Assumption 1.2. When we write m := m (s, t, u), we aways assume that p i 1 (mod ) for 1 i s 0, p i 1 (mod ) for s i s, q j 1 (mod ) for a 1 j t, r k 1 (mod ) for 1 k u 0, r k 1 (mod ) for u k u 1, r k ±1 (mod ) for u k u. Before proceeding, we note that by Lemma 2.2 m := m (s, t, u) is maxima s + u 1 and s 0 + t + u 1 1. We aso note that our convention is not imited at a. Assume that m := m (s, t, u) is maxima, or equivaenty, assume that s + u 1 and s 0 + t + u 1 1. If m is new then it is q j -new and hence q j 1 (mod ) (cf. [43, Th. 1.2(3)]). So, the second condition is necessary for m to be new. In the cases where Assumption 1.2 is not fufied, we can compute the dimension of J 0 (N)[m] by computing the dimension for a ower eve where Assumption 1.2 is satisfied. (In genera, Assumption 1.2 does not impy that m is new. In other words, it is just a necessary condition for m to be new but not a sufficient one 3. Instead of assuming m is new in which case we don t know what is a verifiabe sufficient condition in genera, our convention just rues out some cases that cannot be new.) Now, we can state our main theorem: Theorem 1.3. Let 5 be a prime, and et N = s i=1 p t i j=1 q u j k=1 re(k) k with e(k) 2 not divisibe by. Assume that N is non-squarefree, i.e., u 1. Let m := m (s, t, u) be a rationa Eisenstein prime of T(N). If s 0 s, or u 0 u, or t = 0, then we have dim J 0 (N)[m] = 1 + s 0 + t + u 1. The theorem above gives an affirmative answer to Question 1.1 because it is the situation with p 1 = p and r 1 = 2; s 0 = s = 1, t = 0, u 0 = u 1 = 0 and u = 1. The sketch of the proof of this theorem is as foows: We first generaize a resut of Mazur (Proposition 3.1). Then, by the resuts of Ling-Oesteré and Vatsa on the Shimura subgroup, we can show that J 0 (N)[m] is a prosaic nugget in the sense of Brumer-Kramer (Remark 3.13). So we can obtain an upper bound on its dimension (Theorem 3.20). This bound turns out to be optima if we find enough submodues which are ramified precisey at the primes in the set S m associated to m (Theorem 3.22). Under our assumption that s 0 s or u 0 u or t = 0, we can find such submodues by a eve raising method (Proposition 4.1). We beieve that the assumptions in the theorem above (except that N is non-squarefree) are superfuous and the statement shoud be true for a the remaining cases. In the case of eve qr 2 which vioates the assumptions Sage computations [35] support our beief, so we propose the foowing: Conjecture 1.4. Let 5 be a prime and et N = qr 2 with r q 1 (mod ). Let m := m (0, 1, 1) = (, T q + 1, T r,i 0 (qr 2 )) 3 For exampe, take = 5, p1 = 11 and p 2 = 3. Then m := m 5 (2, 0, 0) is maxima but m is not p 2 -new.

4 4 HWAJONG YOO be a rationa Eisenstein prime of T(qr 2 ). Then, we have dim J 0 (qr 2 )[m] = 3. This conjecture is true under a certain assumption as foows: Theorem 1.5. Let 5 be a prime and et N = qr 2 with r q 1 (mod ). Let n = (, T q + 1, T r 1,I 0 (qr)) be a rationa Eisenstein prime of T(qr). If dim F J 0 (qr)[n] = 3 then Conjecture 1.4 hods. By [42, Th. 4.5], dim F J 0 (qr)[n] is either 2 or 3. Caegari and Ribet [30] conjecture that dim F J 0 (qr)[n] = 3 r spits competey in F q where F q is a certain extension fied of Q(µ ) of degree, which is unramified outside the primes dividing q (see Notation 3.17). Therefore, for a fixed prime q with q 1 (mod ) we expect that #{r S : dim J 0 (qr)[n] = 3} im = 1 r #S where S is the set of primes which are congruent to 1 moduo. This discussion conjecturay expains that our assumption in Theorem 1.5 is often fufied but is a somewhat strong constraint. Exampe 1.6. Here is verification of the conjecture of Caegari and Ribet by Sage [35]. For q = 19 and = 5, dim F5 J 0 (qr)[n] = 3 if and ony if r = 41, 101, 251, 521, 631, 691, 881 and 991 for r < Such primes r are precisey the spitting primes in the extension fied Q(E[5]) defined by the 5-torsion points of E, where E is the eiptic curve 38b1 in the Cremona tabe. For q = 29 and = 5, dim F5 J 0 (qr)[n] = 3 if and ony if r = 181, 191, 251, 401, 491, 541, 601, 701, 911 and 971 for r < 1000, which are precisey the spitting primes in the extension fied Q(F[5]), where F is the eiptic curve 58b1 in the Cremona tabe. Without the assumption above, we have not been abe to prove Conjecture 1.4. However, we can compute the dimension of J 0 (N)[m] in a the remaining cases if Conjecture 1.4 hods. Theorem 1.7. Let 5 be a prime, and et N = s i=1 p t i j=1 q u j k=1 re(k) k with e(k) 2 not divisibe by. Let m := m (s, t, u) be a rationa Eisenstein prime of T(N). Suppose that N is not squarefree, i.e., u 1. Suppose further that t 1 and p i q j r k 1 (mod ) for a i, j and k. In other words, s 0 = s, u 0 = u and t 1. If Conjecture 1.4 hods, then dim J 0 (N)[m] = 1 + s + t + u = 1 + s 0 + t + u 0. The proof of this theorem uses the same strategy as the proof of Theorem 1.3. In fact, Conjecture 1.4 hods if and ony if J 0 (qr 2 )[m] is precisey ramified at both q and r. (At the moment, the author ony knows that it is ramified at r. The assumption in Theorem 1.5 impies that J 0 (qr 2 )[m] is ramified at q as we.) So, it contains enough submodues (cf. Remark 3.23) and hence by a eve raising method, we can verify the assumption in Theorem 3.22 as above.

5 THE KERNEL OF A RATIONAL EISENSTEIN PRIME 5 Remark 1.8. One is immediatey ed to ask whether our methods can be generaized to genera Eisenstein primes. It is cear that which information woud be necessary for appying our methods (e.g. generaizations or modifications of the resuts in Section 3). For instance, if m is Eisenstein but not rationa Eisenstein, then ρ m α α 1 χ for some non-trivia character α : G Q F [12, Th. 2.3]. To compute dim J 0 (N)[m] for such m, some ideas in [40] are usefu. We wi not discuss this generaization in detai. Remark 1.9. An exampe of an Eisenstein prime which is not a rationa Eisenstein prime (in eve 2, which does not fit into our framework) can be constructed as foows: Let ω be the Teichmüer character, which is congruent to χ moduo. Then take an Eisenstein series E on Γ 1 () of weight 2 and character ǫ. The character ǫ is (-adicay) of the form ω k 2 for some even k. Then, the constant term of E is congruent to λb k, where λ is a -adic unit and B k is the k-th Bernoui number. Suppose B k is divisibe by (for some irreguar prime ). Then, there is a cusp form f of weight 2 and character ǫ which is congruent to E moduo by Ribet [26]. The mod representation associated to f is 1 χ ǫ. So, the twist f of f by ω (2 k)/2 is a cusp form for Γ 0 ( 2 ) whose mod Gaois representation is α α 1 χ as desired. See [22, 5], [40, Th. 2.1] or [36, Ex. 4.10] for reevant discussions on the character ǫ. See aso [13] for the discussion on Eisenstein primes of eve 2. This paper wi proceed as foows. In Section 2, we reca severa resuts on moduar curves, their Jacobian varieties, the Hecke operators and so on. In Section 3, we deveop some ideas used in previous work of Mazur, Ribet and the author in order to study the basic structure of the kerne of a rationa Eisenstein prime. In Section 4, we prove the theorems in the introduction. Acknowedgements. I woud ike to thank Kenneth Ribet for very hepfu discussions and correspondence over the years. 2. Background In this section, we review basic theory of moduar curves and Hecke operators. For more detais, see [45, 2] and references therein. For a positive integer N > 1, consider the moduar curve X 0 (N) over Q. It is the compactified coarse modui scheme associated with the stack of the pairs (E, C), where E is an eiptic curve and C is a cycic subgroup of E of order N. We denote by J 0 (N) its Jacobian, which is an abeian variety over Q. Let N = Mp n for n 1 with (M, p) = 1. There are natura degeneracy maps α p, β p : X 0 (N) = X 0 (Mp n ) X 0 (Mp n 1 ) = X 0 (N/p) which, in the eve of stacks, consists of forgetting the eve p structure and dividing by the eve p structure, respectivey. More precisey, they send (E, C M, C p ) to (E, C M, C p [p n 1 ]) and (E/C p [p], (C M C p [p])/c p [p], C p /C p [p]), respectivey, where E is an eiptic curve and C M (resp. C p ) is a cycic subgroup of E of order M (resp. p n ). They induce the foowing maps via two functoriaities of Jacobians: J 0 (N) α p, β p, J 0 (N/p) α p β p J 0 (N) and we denote by γ p := α p + β p : J 0 (N/p) J 0 (N/p) J 0 (N)

6 6 HWAJONG YOO the map sending (x, y) to α p (x) + β p (y). The image of γ p is caed the p-od subvariety of J 0 (N) and denoted by J 0 (N) p-od. The quotient of J 0 (N) p-od is caed the p-new quotient of J 0 (N). The abeian subvariety of J 0 (N) spanned by the p-od subvarieties for a prime divisors p of N is caed the od subvariety of J 0 (N) and denoted by J 0 (N) od. The quotient of J 0 (N) by J 0 (N) od is caed the new quotient of J 0 (N) and denoted by J 0 (N) new. Now, for a prime number p the p-th Hecke operator T p is defined by the composition: T p = β p, α p : J 0(N) α p J 0 (Np) β p, J 0 (N). The n-th Hecke operator T n are defined inductivey as foows: T 1 = 1; T mn = T m T n if (m, n) = 1; T p k = T p T p k 1 pt p k 2 for k 2. The Hecke ring of eve N, denoted by T(N), is the commutative subring of End(J 0 (N)) generated (over Z) by T n for a integers n 1. As before, et N = Mp n for n 1 with (M, p) = 1. For distinction, et T p (resp. τ p ) denote the p-th Hecke operator acting on J 0 (Mp n ) (resp. J 0 (Mp n 1 )). Then by the reation on the p-od subvariety (2) T p = ( τ p p ) 1 0 if n = 1 and Tp = ( τp p 0 0 ) if n 2, the map γ p is Hecke-equivariant. (For a prime q p, T q diagonay acts on the p-od subvariety.) Moreover J 0 (N) p-od and J 0 (N) p-new are both stabe under the action of the Hecke operators. The image of T(N) in End(J 0 (N) p-od ) (resp. End(J 0 (N) p-new )) is caed the p-od (resp. p-new) quotient of T(N) and denoted by T(N) p-od (resp. T(N) p-new ). We say a maxima idea m of T(N) is p-new if it is sti maxima after the projection T(N) T(N) p-new. Anaogousy, J 0 (N) new is stabe under the action of the Hecke operators, and the image of T(N) in End(J 0 (N) new ) is caed the new quotient of T(N) and denoted by T(N) new. A maxima idea of T(N) is caed new if it is sti maxima after the natura projection T(N) T(N) new. Note that if a maxima idea is new then it is p-new for a prime divisors p of N. Now, we reca some resuts on the cusps of X 0 (N). The cusps of X 0 (N) may be convenienty described using Shimura s notation [34, 1.6]. Let Γ 0 (N)\P 1 (Q) be the cusps on X 0 (N)(C). Then for a/b Γ 0 (N)\P 1 (Q) with a, b Z and reativey prime, we denote the associated cusp on X 0 (N) by [ a b ]. The cusps of X 0 (N) then are represented by [ x d ], where d is a divisor of N, 1 x d, and (x, d) = 1 with x taken moduo t := (d, N/d). (Such a cusp [ x d ] is caed a cusp of eve d.) The cusp [ x d ] is defined over Q(µ t ), so the action of Ga(Q/Q) on [ x d ] factors through Ga(Q(µ t )/Q). The action of Ga(Q(µ t )/Q) permutes a the cusps of eve d. (For detais, see [24, 1], [10, 3.8] or [18, 2].) The rationa cuspida subgroup of J 0 (N), denoted by C(N), is the subgroup of J 0 (N) generated by the degree 0 divisors which are supported ony on the cusps and are stabe under the action of Ga(Q/Q). (By Manin and Drinfed [20, 11], it is finite.) It is generated by the eements of the form a d (P d ), with a d ϕ((d, N/d)) = 0, d N d N where the divisor (P d ) is defined as the sum of a the cusps of eve d and ϕ is the Euer s totient function. (From its definition, it is easy to see that (P d ) is of degree ϕ((d, N/d)) and stabe under the action of Ga(Q/Q).)

7 THE KERNEL OF A RATIONAL EISENSTEIN PRIME 7 Let N = p e(p) be the prime power factorization of N, and et N sqf := p and N := p. e(p)=1 e(p) 2 For a divisor M of N sqf with MN 1, we define a cuspida divisor C M,N C(N) by the image in J 0 (N)(Q) of the divisor (3) C M,N = d MN ( 1) ω(d) ϕ(n /(d, N ))(P d ), where ω(d) is the number of distinct prime divisors of d. Then, we have the foowing: Proposition 2.1. The order of C M,N is the numerator of h p M (p 1) p N, p M (p2 1) p N p e(p) 2, 24 where h is either 1 or 2. For a prime q, the Hecke operator T q acts on C M,N by the mutipication by 1 if q divides M, q if q divides N sqf /M, 0 if q 2 divides N, q + 1 if q does not divide N. If N is squarefree (resp. otherwise), this proposition foows from [42, Prop. 2.13] and [44, Th. 1.3] (resp. from [45, Th. 4.2 and 4.7]). Finay, we reca the foowing emma on the maximaity of m (s, t, u). Lemma 2.2. Let 5 be a prime, and et N = s i=1 p t i j=1 q u j k=1 re(k) k with e(k) 2 not divisibe by. Then, m := m (s, t, u) is maxima if and ony if s + u 1 and s 0 + t + u 1 1. Proof. Let u = 0. Then, N is squarefree and m cannot be maxima if s = 0 by [43, Th. 1.2(1)]. Therefore s + u 1 if m is maxima. Now, assume that s + u 1. Let I := (T pi 1, T qj q j, T rk,i 0 (N) : for a i, j and k) be an Eisenstein idea of T(N). Then by [45, Th. 4.2 and 6.1] we get (T(N)/I) Z Z (Z/nZ) Z Z where n is the numerator of s i=1 (p i 1) t j=1 (q2 j 1) u k=1 re(k) 2 k (rk 2 1). 24 By our assumption, q j 1 (mod ) for a j and hence m = (, I). Therefore, m is maxima if and ony if n is divisibe by. Since 5, the atter statement is equivaent to saying that s 0 + t + u 1 1, which impies the caim. Remark 2.3. It is aso true that for M = s i=1 p i, m := m (s, t, u) is maxima MN 1 and C M,N [m] 0.

8 8 HWAJONG YOO 3. The structure of J 0 (N)[m] Let m be a rationa Eisenstein prime of T(N). The structure of J 0 (N)[m] is carefuy studied by Mazur when N is a prime [21]; by Ribet and the author when N is squarefree and does not divide 6N [30, 42]. Most of the ideas can be generaized to arbitrary composite eve without difficuties if we assume that does not divide 2N. For the convenience of readers, we try to provide enough detais. From now on, we fix a prime 3 and assume that N is a positive integer prime to. For ease of notation, we set T := T(N) and J := J 0 (N). Let m denote a rationa Eisenstein prime of T containing. (Note that since a Hecke operators are congruent to an integer moduo m (cf. [45, Lemma 2.2]), k m := T/m F.) Let S = SpecZ and S := SpecZ[1/N]. Let J Z denote the Néron mode of J over S. The description of the specia fiber can be given by the theory of Raynaud [25] using the Deigne-Rapoport [8] (resp. Katz-Mazur [16]) mode of X 0 (N) Fp when p exacty divides N (resp. p 2 divides N). If p does not divide N, J Zp is an abeian variety by Igusa [15]. Note that J Zp is a semi-abeian variety if p exacty divides N and it is not if p 2 divides N. Let J[] S denote the scheme-theoretic kerne of mutipication by in J Z. Then, J[] S is a quasi-finite fat group scheme, whose restriction to S is finite and fat, because 2 does not divide N (cf. [2, 7.3, Lemma 2]). Now, we define J[m] S to be the Zariski-cosure of J[m] in J Z. It is the subgroup scheme extension of J[m] in J[] S in the sense of [21, Ch. I, 1(c)]. (Note that J[m] J[] S (Q) because m.) Therefore J[m] S is a quasi-finite fat group scheme, whose restriction to S is finite and fat. It is a cosed subgroup scheme of J Z by construction, and kied by m. The quotient T/m acts naturay on J[m] S. We often abuse notation and write J[m] for this quasi-finite fat group scheme J[m] S if there is no confusion. For reated discussions, see [21, Ch. I, 1], [22, 1], [4, 3.1] or [6] Mazur s argument. The main resut in this subsection is the foowing: Proposition 3.1. There is an exact sequence: 0 Z/Z J[m] µ n 0 with n 1. The foowing is an easy consequence of the proposition: Coroary 3.2. Let p be a prime different from and et I p be an inertia subgroup of G Q for p. Then, for any σ p I p, (σ p 1) 2 annihiates J[m]. Proof. By definition, (σ p 1) annihiates J[m] Ip, the fixed part of J[m] by I p. Then, by Proposition 3.1 the quotient Q = J[m]/J[m] Ip is isomorphic to µ a for some 0 a 1, which is unramified at p. Therefore (σ p 1) aso annihiates Q which impies the caim. The proof of Proposition 3.1 wi directy foow from the discussion beow. Lemma 3.3. The dimension of J[m] over k m is at east 2. Proof. We appy the arguments in [21, Ch. II, 6, 7]. For an idea a of T, et J[a] := {x J(Q) : T x = 0 for a T a}. Let T m := im T/m k and J m := im k J[m k ]. k

9 THE KERNEL OF A RATIONAL EISENSTEIN PRIME 9 Then, T m is a direct factor of the semi-oca ring T := T Z and J m J T T m, where J := im k J[ k ], the -divisibe group associated to J. Let Ta m (J) := Hom(Q /Z, J m ) = Hom(Q /Z, im k J[m k ]) be the m-adic Tate modue of J, which is isomorphic to Ta (J) T T m. Then by Lemma 7.7 of oc. cit. Ta m (J) Z Q is of dimension 2 over T m Z Q. Note that the argument used in the proof is not dependent on the fact that the eve N is a prime (cf. [40, Prop. 3.1], [41, p. 481] or [7, Lemma 1.39]). Since m is maxima and T acts faithfuy on J, J[m] 0. Suppose that dim km J[m] = 1. Then by Nakayama s emma Ta m (J) is free of rank 1 over T m. Thus, Ta m (J) Z Q is of dimension 1 over T m Z Q, which is a contradiction. Therefore dim km J[m] 2 as desired. Remark 3.4. The proof above is vaid without any hypothesis on and m. Thus, Lemma 3.3 hods for any maxima idea m of T. The foowing is a generaization of [21, Ch. II, Prop. 14.1]: Proposition 3.5. A Jordan-Höder constituents of J[m] is either Z/Z or µ. Proof. We appy the argument on pages of [21]. Let W = J[m] ss be the semisimpification of J[m], and et W be the Cartier dua of W. Let d := dim J[m] as a vector space over T/m F, and et G denote a finite quotient of G Q through which the action on W factors. Let Frob p denote a Frobenius eement for p in G Q. Then for any prime number p not dividing N, by the Eicher-Shimura reation the action of Frob p on W satisfies Frob 2 p (T p mod m)frob p + p = 0. Since T p p 1 m, the ony eigenvaues possibe for the action of Frob p on W are either 1 or p. Since Cartier duaity interchanges these eigenvaues, the characteristic poynomia of Frob p on W W is (X 1) d (X p) d. Note that the characteristic poynomia of Frob p on (Z/Z µ ) d is (X 1) d (X p) d as we. By the Chebotarev density theorem any eement in G is the image of some Frob p (for a prime p not dividing N) and hence any eement g G has the same characteristic poynomia for the representation W W as for (Z/Z µ ) d. Since both representations are semisimpe, they are in fact isomorphic by the Brauer-Nesbitt theorem. Therefore J[m] ss = W (Z/Z) a µ b for some integers a, b 0 with a + b = d as desired. Remark 3.6. The proof above is vaid without any hypothesis on. Thus, Proposition 3.5 hods for any rationa Eisenstein prime m of T. Lemma 3.7. C(N)[m] Z/Z J[m]. Proof. The fact that C[m] 0 foows from [45, Th. 1.3(4)]. More specificay, if we write s t u N = p i q j r e(k) k with e(k) 2 i=1 j=1 k=1 and if m := m (s, t, u), then by Proposition 2.1 C M,N [m] Z/Z, where M = s i=1 p i. Since C(N) J(Q), C(N)[m] (Z/Z) a for some a 1.

10 10 HWAJONG YOO Now, we wi deduce a = 1 from the arguments which parae those given on [21, pp ]. Since N and are reativey prime, we can consider X 0 (N) as a curve over F, which we denote by X 0 (N) F [15]. Consider reductions of J[] S and J[m] S at, and denote them by J[] F and J[m] F, respectivey. (See the beginning of this section.) Note that J[] F and J[m] F are both finite and fat. Let J[] ét F and J[m] ét F denote the étae parts of J[] F and J[m] F, respectivey. Reca the canonica isomorphism δ : J[](F ) H 0 (X 0 (N) F, Ω 1 ) C of [32, 11, Prop. 10], where the superscript C means fixed eements under the Cartier operator. This map δ is defined as foows: an eement x J[](F ) is represented by a divisor D on X 0 (N) F such that D = (f). One takes δ(x) = df/f. Then, the isomorphism above induces an injection: δ : J[](F ) F F H 0 (X 0 (N) F, Ω 1 ) which commutes with the action of T/T (cf. [21, Ch. II, Prop. 14.7]). Aso, the injective q-expansion map H 0 (X 0 (N) F, Ω 1 ) F [[q]] and the arguments of [21, Ch. II, 9] show that H 0 (X 0 (N) F, Ω 1 )[m] is at most of dimension 1. Therefore (J[] ét F )[m] is of dimension 1. Note that m is ordinary because T (mod m). Since 3, we get J[m] ét F = (J[] ét F )[m] (cf. [21, Ch. II, Cor. 14.8]) and this shows that J[m] can have at most one Z/Z as its Jordan- Höder constituents. Thus, a = 1 as caimed. Proposition 3.8. Let M := J[m]/(Z/Z). Then M µ n for some n 1. Proof. The caim n 1 directy foows from Lemma 3.3 if M µ n In the proof of Lemma 3.7, we proved that M ss µ n.. To do that M µ n, we foow the argument on page 125 of [21] (or [40, Prop. 4.2], [4, Rmk ]). Let p be a prime not dividing N. Then, T p acts on M by p + 1 because T p p 1 m. By the Eicher-Shimura reation, for each prime p not dividing N a Frobenius eement Frob p acts on M by Frob 2 p (p + 1)Frob p + p = (Frob p 1)(Frob p p) = 0. Note that M is of mutipicative type, so the ony eigenvaue of Frob p acting on M is p. Therefore, if p 1 (mod ), then (Frob p 1) is an isomorphism on M and (Frob p p) annihiates M by the above formua. Let M be the Cartier dua of M, then M is étae and Frob p acts triviay on M for any prime p N with p 1 (mod ). By the Chebotarev density theorem, M (Z/Z) n and hence M µ n The Shimura subgroup. Let X 1 (N) be the compactified coarse modui scheme associated with the stack of the pairs (E, P ), where E is an eiptic curve and P is a point of exact order N. The natura homomorphism from X 1 (N) to X 0 (N) of moduar curves, which sends a point (E, P ) Y 1 (N) to (E, P ), induces the morphism J 0 (N) J 1 (N) by Picard functoriaity. The kerne of this morphism is caed the Shimura subgroup of J 0 (N), denoted by Σ(N). In their paper [19], Ling and Oesteré gave a compete description of the Shimura subgroup: the structure as an abstract abeian group, the exponent, the order, the action of the Gaois group Ga(Q/Q), the action of the Hecke operators T p for a primes p and so on. Roughy speaking, Σ(N) is a quotient of (Z/NZ) by a sma subgroup of order n, where n is a product of powers of 2 and 3. The smaest common fied of definition of the points of Σ(N) is the cycotomic fied Q(µ e ), where e is the exponent of Σ(N). The Gaois group Ga(Q(µ e )/Q) acts on Σ(N) via the cycotomic character

11 THE KERNEL OF A RATIONAL EISENSTEIN PRIME 11 Ga(Q(µ e )/Q) (Z/eZ). For a prime p not dividing N (resp. dividing N), T p acts by p + 1 (resp. p) on Σ(N). Combining a the resuts, we get the foowing: Proposition 3.9 (Ling-Oesteré). Let N = p pe(p) be the prime power decomposition of N. (1) If T p p (mod m) for some p, then Σ(N)[m] = 0. (2) Suppose that T p p (mod m) for a p. (a) If 5, then Σ(N)[m] µ a, where a is the number of p s which are congruent to 1 moduo. (b) Suppose further that = 3. If p 1 (mod 3) for a p, then Σ(N)[m] µ b 3, where b is the number of p s which are congruent to 1 moduo 9. If p 1 (mod 3) for some p, then Σ(N)[m] µ c 3, where c is the number of p s which are congruent to 1 moduo 3. In Mazur s paper [21, Th. 2], he showed that Σ(N) is the maxima µ-type subgroup of J is the Shimura subgroup when N is a prime. This resut is generaized by Vatsa [39] to composite eve, and the foowing is a specia case of his resut: Proposition 3.10 (Vatsa). If µ J then µ Σ(N). Note that since we assume that does not divide 2N, is odd and J has a good reduction at. Thus, this is a direct consequence of [39, Th. 1.1]. Definition We denote by Q[m] the quotient of J[m] by Σ(N)[m]. Aso, we denote by Q[m] S its associated finite fat group scheme over S, which is defined as the quotient of J[m] S by Σ(N)[m] S. Coroary The quotient Q[m] is an extension of µ k µ Q[m]. by Z/Z for some k 0 such that (Here, k coud be zero, for instance, if N is a prime.) Proof. Since Σ(N)[m] µ a by Proposition 3.9, the first caim foows from Proposition 3.1. Now suppose that µ Q[m]. Let π : J[m] Q[m] be the quotient map. Then, π 1 (µ ) J[m] is an extension of µ by Σ(N)[m] µ a. Since π 1 (µ ) is annihiated by m as we, by the same argument as in the proof of Proposition 3.8 we get π 1 (µ ) µ (a+1) Σ(N)[m] µ J[m], which contradicts Proposition Therefore µ Q[m]. Remark Thanks to Coroary 3.2, even though J does not have semistabe reduction at p if p 2 divides N, both J[m] S and Q[m] S beong to the category D of Schoof [4, p. 2468] 4. Moreover, Q[m] S with a fitration 0 (Z/Z) S Q[m] S is an exampe of a prosaic nugget in oc. cit. If N is not squarefree and m := m (s, t, u) then Σ(N)[m] = 0 and hence J[m] S = Q[m] S is aso a prosaic nugget. 4 The category D is first introduced by Schoof [31, 2] when N is a prime.

12 12 HWAJONG YOO 3.3. Ramification of J[m]. In this section, we provide a criterion for ramification of J[m]: Proposition Let p be a prime whose square does not divide N. If T p p (mod m), then J[m] is unramified at p, i.e., I p acts triviay on J[m], where I p is an inertia subgroup of Ga(Q/Q) for p. In the paper [30], Ribet and the author proved the preceding proposition when N is squarefree. The idea is to use Grothendieck s semistabe reduction theorem [14] and the structure of J[m] in Section 3.1. The argument appies mutatis mutandis as ong as J has semistabe reduction at p, which is equivaent to saying that p 2 does not divide N. For the convenience of readers, we give a compete proof. Proof. If p does not divide N, then J has a good reduction at p and I p acts triviay on J[]. Since J[m] J[], the resut foows. Now, we assume that p exacty divides N, i.e., p divides N but p 2 does not divide N. Let Q = J[m]/J[m] Ip and it suffices to show that Q = 0 if T p p (mod m). First of a, we caim that Q is unramified at p and T p acts on Q by Frob p. Let J Fp denote the specia fiber of the Néron mode of J over F p. Then, by the Deigne-Rapoport mode of X 0 (N) Fp [8] and the theory of Picard functors by Raynaud [25], J Fp is an extension of the component group by a semiabeian variety JF 0 p, caed the identity component. Moreover JF 0 p is an extension of an abeian variety A Fp, which is isomorphic to J 0 (N/p) Fp J 0 (N/p) Fp, by a torus T Fp. If the rank of T Fp is a and the dimension of J 0 (N/p) is b, then the dimension of J is a + 2b and J[] (Z/Z) 2(a+2b). The -torsion subgroup J[] has a natura fitration [14, ]: 0 J[] t J[] 0 J[], where J[] 0 is its connected component over Z p and J[] t is the toric part of J[] 0. Note that J[] 0 JF 0 p [] is of rank a + 4b and J[] t T Fp [] is of rank a. Moreover by Serre and Tate [33, Lemma 2], J[] Ip J Fp [], which impies that J[] 0 J[] Ip. 5 The quotient J[]/J[] 0 (of rank a) is unramified and canonicay isomorphic to X/X, where X is the character group of the torus of the specia fiber of the Néron mode of the dua abeian variety J over F p (cf. [23, Cor. of Prop. 11]). By autoduaity of J, X is isomorphic to the character group of T Fp. By [28, Prop. 3.8], the action of T p on X is equa to that of Frob p on X. Therefore the actions of T p and Frob p on J[]/J[] 0 coincide, and the same is true on J[]/J[] Ip. Since J[m] J[] and J[m] Ip = J[m] J[] Ip, the actions of T p and Frob p on Q = J[m]/J[m] Ip coincide, which proves the caim. Secondy, we show that Frob p acts on Q by p. Since J[m] is an extension of µ n by Z/Z, J[m] Ip is at east of dimension n and Q = J[m]/J[m] Ip is isomorphic to either µ or 0. Therefore the caim foows. Finay, since both (T p Frob p ) and (Frob p p) annihiate Q, so does T p p. If T p p m, then it is a unit in T/m and hence it acts as an automorphism on Q = Q[m]. Therefore Q = 0. Coroary Let p be a prime whose square does not divide N. Then, the quotient Q[m] is unramified at p if T p p (mod m). Proof. Since Q[m] is the quotient of J[m], it is cear. 5 In [22, 1.(b)], Mazur writes F J[] for the finite part of J[]. Using [21, Ch I, Prop. 1.3] or its generaization [6, Cor. 1.5], we get J[] Ip = F J[].

13 THE KERNEL OF A RATIONAL EISENSTEIN PRIME The group of extensions. In the rest of this section, we further assume that 5. For a prime p, Schoof shows that 1 if p ±1 (mod ) dim F Ext Z[1/p] (µ,z/z) = 0 otherwise where Ext Z[1/p] (µ,z/z) denotes the group of extensions of µ by Z/Z over Z[1/p] (cf. [31, Cor. 4.2]). Brumer and Kramer generaize this resut to any composite number N prime to. Let S(N) := {p N : p ±1 (mod )} and et (N) := #S(N). The foowing is Proposition of [4]: Proposition 3.16 (Brumer-Kramer). dim F Ext Z[1/N] (µ,z/z) = (N). For an extension E Ext Z[1/N] (µ,z/z), we define Q(E) by the fied defined by the points of E(Q). If N = p ±1 (mod ) is a prime, then there is a basis eement E Ext Z[1/p] (µ,z/z) by Schoof. Moreover Q(E) is a unique extension fied of Q(µ ) of degree (up to isomorphism) such that Q(E)/Q(µ ) is unramified outside the primes above p and spit over λ, where λ is the unique prime of Q(µ ) above. Ga(Q(µ )/Q) acts on Ga(Q(E)/Q(µ )) by the inverse of the mod cycotomic character. (cf. [4, Lemma ].) Notation From now on, for a prime p ±1 (mod ), we choose a basis of Ext Z[1/p] (µ,z/z) and denote it by E p. Note that E p can be regarded as an extension over Z[1/N] if N is a mutipe of p. In such a case, for an extension E Ext Z[1/N] (µ,z/z), we denote by E E p if there is a k F such that E ke p as eements in Ext Z[1/N] (µ,z/z). Note that if E E p, then Q(E) Q(E p ), so we set F p := Q(E p ), which is unique up to isomorphism. Now, we interpret Proposition 3.16 using characters on a certain Gaois group. We use the same notation as in the proof of [4, Prop ]. Let L be the maxima eementary abeian -extension of F := Q(µ ) such that L/F is unramified outside N and spit over λ F = λ. Let G := Ga(L/Q), G 0 := Ga(L/F) and := Ga(F/Q). For each prime p S(N), et G p := Ga(F p /F). Then, we have (4) Φ : Ext Z[1/N] (µ,z/z) Ext 1 F [G](µ,F ) H 1 (G,F ( 1)) Hom F (G 0,F ( 1)). For each E Ext Z[1/N] (µ,z/z), by a suitabe choice of basis (as an F -vector space), we can obtain a Gaois representation of the form: {( ) } 1 c E ρ E : Ga(Q(E)/Q) : c E H 1 (Ga(Q(E)/Q),F ( 1)). 0 χ Then by the restriction of c E to Ga(Q(E)/F) we get a character 6 ι E : Ga(Q(E)/F) F ( 1) (cf. [4, Rmk 3.5.4]). The composition of the canonica projection G 0 Ga(Q(E)/F) and ι E gives rise to the desired homomorphism Φ(E). 6 Note that ( a b 0 d ) ( 1 x 0 1 ) ( a b 0 d ) 1 ( ) = 1 ad 1 x 0 1.

14 14 HWAJONG YOO By consideration of ramification, the set {Φ(E p ) : p S(N)} forms a basis of Hom F (G 0,F ( 1)). In other words, for any E Ext Z[1/N] (µ,z/z) we can find a p F such that Φ(E) = a p Φ(E p ) p S(N) and a p = 0 for a p S(N) if and ony if E Z/Z µ. By the same discussion as above, we get the foowing: Coroary Suppose that S(N) = {p 1,..., p n }. For each i, et E i Ext Z[1/N] (µ,z/z) such that E i E pi. Then, for any E Ext Z[1/N] (µ,z/z) there is an eement (a 1,..., a n ) F n such that Φ(E) = a p Φ(E p ). Moreover, we have p S(N) (a 1,..., a n ) = (0,..., 0) E Z/Z µ. Remark Since L/F is an eementary abeian -extension, by Kummer theory G 0 = Ga(L/F) G 1 G k for some k with G i Z/Z (cf. [1, Cor. of Lemma 3]). Indeed Φ(E) Hom F (G 0,F ( 1)) can be decomposed as foows: Φ(E) : G 0 G p F ( 1). p S(N) 3.5. The dimension of J[m]. As before, we assume that 5. Let S m := {p S(N) : p 2 N} {p S(N) : p 2 N and T p p m}. Note that by Lemma 2.2, S m is non-empty because m is maxima. The foowing is a generaization of [42, Th. 4.4]: Theorem As a vector space over T/m F, we have dim F Q[m] 1 + #S m. Proof. Let S be the set of a prime divisors p of N, and et S 0 be the subset of S such that p 2 does not divide N and T p p m. Let N 0 be the product of a eements in S but not in S 0, i.e., N 0 := p S S 0 p. Then by Proposition 3.14 the Gaois modue J[m] is unramified outside the primes dividing N 0 and so is Q[m]. Therefore the corresponding group schemes J[m] S and Q[m] S proong to a finite and fat scheme over S, where S = SpecZ[1/N 0 ] (cf. [21, Ch. I, Prop. 1.3] or [6, Cor. 1.5]). We denote them by J[m] S and Q[m] S respectivey. Let dim F Q[m] = 1+k, soq[m] is an extension of µ k byz/z. For 1 i k, et ι i : µ µ k be the embedding into the i-th component and et E i denote the puback by ι i, which is the extension defined by the foowing diagram: 0 Z/Z Q[m] S µ k 0 Z/Z E i µ ι i 0 0.

15 THE KERNEL OF A RATIONAL EISENSTEIN PRIME 15 Then, E i s are extensions of µ by Z/Z over S. Now, we use the same convention as Section 3.4. Let L 0 be the maxima eementary abeian -extension of F such that L/F is unramified outside N 0 and spit over λ F. Let G 0 := Ga(L 0 /F) and := Ga(F/Q). Let Φ(E i ) Hom F (G 0,F ( 1)), defined in (4). If k > #S m, then the set {Φ(E i ) : 1 i k} is ineary dependent because dim F Ext Z[1/N0](µ,Z/Z) = dim F Hom F (G 0,F ( 1)) = #S m. Therefore there exists (a 1,..., a k ) F k {(0,..., 0)} such that k i=1 a i Φ(E i ) = 0. Then, the map ι := k i=1 a i ι i : µ µ k is injective and the puback by ι gives rise to an embedding Z/Z µ Q[m] S : 0 Z/Z Q[m] S µ k 0 Z/Z Z/Z µ µ ι 0 0. This is a contradiction because µ Q[m]. Therefore k #S m and dim F Q[m] = 1+k 1+#S m as caimed. Remark Let Q[m] be an extension of µ k by Z/Z as above. Let Q(Q[m]) be the fied defined by the points of Q[m](Q). Then, Q(Q[m]) contains F. Let G m = Ga(Q(Q[m])/Q) and G m 0 = Ga(Q(Q[m])/F). By a suitabe choice of basis, we can obtain a Gaois representation of the form 1 c 1 c 2... c k 0 χ ρ E : G m 0 0 χ... 0 : c i H 1 (G m,f ( 1)) χ Then Φ(E i ) defined above is equa to the composition of the canonica projection G 0 G m 0 and the restriction of c i to G m 0. Theorem For each p S m, suppose that there is an injection defined over Q i p : E p Q[m], where E p E p. Then, we have dim F Q[m] = 1 + #S m. Proof. By Theorem 3.20, it suffices to show that dim F Q[m] 1 + #S m. If #S m = 1 thendim F Q[m] 2 because dim F E p = 2. Now suppose that S m = {p, q} and we show that dim F Q[m] 3. To do this, it suffices to show that i p (E p ) i q (E q ), which is indeed true because the Gaois modues associated to E p (resp. E q ) is ramified precisey at p (resp. q), and both i p and i q are defined over Q. Appying the same argument inductivey, we get dim F Q[m] 1 + #S m. Remark If dim F Q[m] = 1+#S m, then there is an injection (defined overq) i p : E p Q[m] for any p S m. To show this, et k = #S m and et E i be the extension of µ by Z/Z defined in the proof of Theorem Then, Φ(E i ) s are ineary independent because µ Q[m]. Thus, the set {Φ(E i ) : 1 i k} forms a basis of Hom F (G 0,F ( 1)). Since Φ(E p ) Hom F (G 0,F ( 1)), we have k Φ(E p ) = a i Φ(E i ) i=1

16 16 HWAJONG YOO for some (a 1,..., a k ) F k. Since Φ(E p) is a non-trivia extension, (a 1,..., a k ) (0,..., 0). As above, the puback by k i=1 a i ι i : µ µ k, which is an embedding, defines an injection i p : E p Q[m]. Since this embedding is compatibe with Gaois action, it is defined over Q. 4. Proofs In this section, we prove Theorems 1.3, 1.5 and 1.7. Before doing that we introduce a eve raising method which is very usefu to check the assumption in Theorem Leve raising method. Let m be a new rationa Eisenstein prime of T(N) containing. In this subsection, we assume that does not divide 2N. For any divisor M of N, we define the idea m(m) of the Hecke ring of eve M corresponding to m as foows: m(m) := (, T p ǫ(p) : for a primes p), where p + 1 if p does not divide M, 0 if p 2 divides M, ǫ(p) := 1 if p divides M and T p 1 (mod m), 1 otherwise. Since m is new, if T p 1 (mod m), then p 2 does not divide N. Therefore p 2 does not divide M, either. Note that m(m) may not be maxima. Proposition 4.1. Let N = Mp and et m be a rationa Eisenstein prime of T(N), which is new. Suppose that m(m) is maxima. Let Q[m(M)] denote the quotient of J 0 (M)[m(M)] by Σ(M)[m(M)]. Then, there is an injection defined over Q ι : Q[m(M)] Q[m]. Proof. For a prime divisor p of N, et a p {0, 1, 1} denote the image of T p in T(N)/m. Since we assume that m is new, a p = ±1 if p does not divide M, and a p = 0 otherwise. For ease of notation, we set n := m(m). Moreover, we set J := J 0 (M), J := J 0 (N), Σ := Σ(M) and Σ := Σ(N). In the four cases beow, we wi define the morphism γ defined over Q γ : J J so that the restriction of γ on J[n] induces a map J[n] J [m], which we aso denote by γ. Furthermore, it gives rise to a commutative diagram: 0 Σ[n] J[n] Q[n] 0 π γ γ γ ι 0 Σ [m] J π [m] Q[m] 0. Then, we wi show that the kerne of π γ is Σ[n], so the dotted arrow in the commutative diagram is injective. Since a the maps in the diagram except ι are defined over Q, so is ι. Therefore the resut foows. Now, et α p, β p : J J denote two degeneracy maps in Section 2, which are defined over Q. Case 1: (p, M) = 1 and a p = 1. For x J, et γ(x) := α p(x) β p(x). Case 2: (p, M) = 1 and a p = 1. For x J, et γ(x) := pα p (x) β p (x). Note that p 1 (mod ) because m is new.

17 THE KERNEL OF A RATIONAL EISENSTEIN PRIME 17 Case 3: p M but p 2 M. For x J, et γ(x) := pα p (x) β p (x). (By definition, ǫ(p) = 1.) Case 4: p 2 M. For x J, et γ(x) := α p(x). (By definition, ǫ(p) = 0.) In a cases, γ(j[n]) J [m] by [45, Prop. 2.4]. Let K denote the kerne of π γ. By [19, Th. 4] α p (Σ) Σ and β p (Σ) Σ. Thus, γ(σ) Σ and hence γ(σ[n]) = γ(σ J[n]) γ(σ) γ(j[n]) Σ J [m] = Σ [m]. Therefore π γ(σ[n]) = 0 and Σ[n] K. On the other hand, in a four cases above, the intersection of the kerne of γ and Z/Z J[n] is trivia by [45, Th. 1.4]. Since Σ[n] µ a for some a, the intersection of K and Z/Z is trivia as we. This impies that K is of mutipicative type because J[n] ss Z/Z µ n for some n 1. Since K is annihiated by n, by the same argument as in Proposition 3.8, K µ c for some c. By Proposition 3.10, K = K[n] Σ J[n] = Σ[n]. Therefore K = Σ[n] and ι is injective. Appying this proposition inductivey, we easiy get the foowing: Coroary 4.2. Let M be a divisor of N, and et m be a rationa Eisenstein prime of T(N), which is new. If m(m) is sti maxima, then there is an injection defined over Q ι : Q[m(M)] Q[m]. Remark 4.3. In the proof of Proposition 4.1, the assumption that m is new is ony used to get a p {0, 1, 1}, and p 1 (mod ) if a p = 1. Therefore when m := m (s, t, u) (without assuming m is new), we can sti get the same resut Proof of Theorem 1.3. From now on, et 5 be a prime and et s t u N = p i q j r e(k) k with e(k) 2 i=1 j=1 k=1 not divisibe by. Let m := m (s, t, u) be a rationa Eisenstein prime of T(N). By Assumption 1.2, we have S m = {p 1,..., p s0, q 1,..., q t, r 1,..., r u1 } and #S m = s 0 + t + u 1, which is at east 1 by Lemma 2.2. Note aso that J 0 [m] = Q[m] by Proposition 3.9 since N is not squarefree. Therefore, when s 0 s, or u 0 u, or t = 0, it suffices to check that the assumption in Theorem 3.22 is fufied. In other words, it is enough to show that for each prime q S m, there is an E q such that E q E q and E q Q[m], which is defined over Q. Case 1 : s 0 s or u 0 u. Suppose that q = r k for some 1 k u 1. Let n = m(q 2 ). Then, we caim that we can take E q = Q[n]. By Coroary 4.2 we have E q Q[m], defined over Q. So, it suffices to show that Q[n] E q, which is obtained by the foowing: By Proposition 3.9, Σ(q 2 )[n] = 0 because T p 0 p (mod m). ThereforeQ[n] = J 0 (q 2 )[n]. Note that S n = {q}. Therefore, dim F Q[n] = 2 by Lemma 3.3 and Theorem By Coroary 3.12, Q[n] Ext Z[1/q] (µ,z/z), which is non-trivia. Now, suppose that q S m {r 1,..., r u1 }, i.e., q = p i for some 1 i s 0 or q = q j for some 1 j t. Let p := p s if s 0 s, and et p := r u if s 0 = s but u 0 u. Then by assumption p 1 (mod ). Let n = m(pq), which is maxima by Lemma 2.2. Then, we caim that we can take E q = Q[n]. By Coroary 4.2, it suffices to show that Q[n] E q. This foows from: dim F J 0 (pq)[n] = 2 by [42, Th. 1.3].

18 18 HWAJONG YOO By Proposition 3.9, Σ(pq)[n] = 0 because T p 1 p (mod m). Thus, Q[n] = J 0 (pq)[n]. By Coroary 3.12, Q[n] is a non-trivia extension of µ by Z/Z. By Coroary 3.15, Q[n] is unramified at p and hence Q[n] Ext Z[1/q] (µ,z/z). Case 2 : t = 0 If either s 0 s or u 0 u, then the caim foows from the cases above. Thus, we assume that s 0 = s and u 0 = u, i.e, a prime divisors p of N are congruent to 1 moduo. Let q S m. If q = r k for some 1 k u, then we can take E q = Q[m(q 2 )] as in Case 1 above. Now et q = p i for some 1 i s. To find an appropriate E q, we appy some ideas used in the paper [30]. For ease of notation, we set a := m(q) and T := T(q). Moreover, we set Let Σ denote the -primary part of Σ and et J := J 0 (q) and Σ := Σ(q). A := J/Σ and π : J A be the corresponding quotient isogeny. Note that T acts on A via π because Σ is stabe under the action of T. We caim that A[a] E q and there is an injection defined over Q A[a] Q[m(qr 1 )], which induces an injection A[a] Q[m] by the composition with the map Q[m(qr 1 )] Q[m] given in Coroary 4.2. (By our assumption, u 0 = u 1 so we can pick r 1 1 (mod ).) Therefore we can take E q = A[a]. In the beow, we prove our caim as foowing steps: Step 1: dim F A[a] 2. Step 2: Let V := π 1 (A[a]) J. Then, V is annihiated by η p := T p p 1, for a bad primes p. Step 3: Fix a bad prime p (which is defined beow). Let γ : J J 0 (pq) be the map defined by γ(x) := α p (x) β p (x) (as in the proof of Proposition 4.1). Then, B p := γ(v ) is isomorphic to A[a] and is annihiated by b := (, U p 1, T q 1, η r : for primes r pq) T(pq). (Here, we denote the p-th Hecke operator of eve pq by U p to distinguish it from the p-th Hecke operator of eve q, which we aready denoted by T p.) Step 4: For appropriatey chosen p, A[a] B p = J 0 (pq)[b] E q. Step 5: By taking p = r 1, we get A[a] B r1 Q[m(qr 1 )], as caimed. For Step 1 we appy Mazur s argument used in Lemma 3.3. Since A is isogenous to J, Ta a (A) Z Q is aso of dimension 2 over T a Z Q, which impies that dim F A[a] 2. For Step 2, we reca some resuts of Mazur in [21]. Let I = I 0 (q) := (η r : for a primes r q) be the Eisenstein idea of prime eve q, where η r := T r r 1. Then, IT a T a is principa and η r is a generator for IT a if and ony if r is a good prime (reative to the pair (, q)) (Theorem of Chapter II in oc. cit.). Here, a prime r is good if both r 1 (mod ) and r is not an -th power moduo q (page 124 of oc. cit.). We say a prime is bad if it is not good. Choose a good prime M, so et IT a = (η M ). Let p be a bad prime. Then, η p is not a generator for IT a so, η p = λη M for some λ at a. 7 Let A a denote the a-divisibe group associated to A as in Section 3.1. Namey, A a := im A[a k ] on which T a acts. Via the canonica injection A[a] A a, λ at a annihiates k 7 If λ ata, then η p can generate IT a, which is a contradiction.

19 THE KERNEL OF A RATIONAL EISENSTEIN PRIME 19 A[a]. Now et k be the exact power of dividing q 1. Then, Σ is of order k and V J[ k+1 ]. Furthermore, since Σ is kied by a k, V is kied by a k+1. Thus, the action of T := T Z Z on V (viewed as a submodue in the -divisibe modue J ) factors through that of T a. Note that λ(v ) Σ because π(λ(v )) λ(π(v )) = λ(a[a]) = 0. So, we have η p (V ) = λη M (V ) = η M (λ(v )) η M (Σ ) = 0, which impies η p (V ) = 0 as caimed. For Step 3, we note that the kerne of γ is Σ by Ribet [27, Th. 4.3]. Since Σ V = Σ, we have A[a] B p. Now we show that B p is annihiated by b. Let T b be a generator different from U p 1 (i.e., T =, T q 1, or η r for primes r pq). By abuse of notation, T can be regarded as an eement of T and we get T a. Therefore for any x V we have T x Σ because π(t x) = T (πx) = 0. (Note that π commutes with the action of T.) Since γ commutes with T and its kerne is Σ, we get T (γ(x)) = γ(t x) = 0 for any x V. In other words, T annihiates B p. Now et T = U p 1. By Formua (2) in Section 2 and the fact that V is annihiated by η p (Step 2), for any x V T (γ(x)) = (U p 1)(γ(x)) = γ p ( Tp 1 1 p 1 ) ( x x ) = 0. Therefore B p is annihiated by b as insisted. For Step 4, choose a prime p such that p ±1 (mod ) but p 1 (mod q). (By the Dirichet s theorem on arithmetic progression, we can do that.) Since 1 is an -th power moduo q, p is a bad prime. By [42, Th. 4.9(1)] and Proposition 3.9, dim F J 0 (pq)[b] = dim F Q[m] = 2. Since S b = {q}, we get E q J 0 (pq)[b]. Since A[a] B p J 0 (pq)[b] by Step 3 and dim F A[a] 2 by Step 1, A[a] B p = J 0 (pq)[b] E q. Finay, for Step 5 we take p = r 1, which is a bad prime. Then, b = m(qr 1 ) and A[a] B r1 J 0 (qr 1 )[b]. Since B r1 E q, B r1 cannot contain a modue isomorphic to µ. Therefore B r1 Σ(qr 1 ) = 0 and the foowing composition map is injective: A[a] B r1 J 0 (qr 1 )[b] Q[b]. In both cases above, we have proved that there is an injection E q Q[m] defined over Q for any q S m, so the resut foows from Theorem Proof of Theorem 1.5. By Theorem 3.22, it suffices to find E q and E r satisfying the assumption. Note that we can take E r = Q[m(r 2 )] as in the proof of Theorem 1.3 without any other hypothesis. Now, we caim that we can take E q = Q[n] if dim F J 0 (qr)[n] = 3. Suppose dim F J 0 (qr)[n] = 3. First of a, J 0 (qr)[n] is unramified at r by [42, Th. 4.5]. Thus, Q[n] is aso unramified at r. Then, since Σ(qr)[n] µ by Proposition 3.9, dim F Q[n] = 2 and hence Q[n] is a non-trivia extension of µ by Z/Z over Z[1/q]. This impies that Q[n] E q. Finay, since n = m(qr), by Proposition 4.1 we get an injection Q[n] Q[m] defined over Q, as caimed Proof of Theorem 1.7. Suppose that s 0 = s, u 0 = u 1 and t 1. Let m := m (s, t, u) be a rationa Eisenstein prime of T(N). Then, S m = S(N) = {p 1,..., p s, q 1,..., q t, r 1,..., r u } and #S m = s + t + u. First, J 0 (N)[m] = Q[m] by Proposition 3.9. Therefore by Theorem 3.22, it suffices to show that there is an injection E q Q[m] defined over Q for a q S m, where E q E q. Then, for q = p i or q = r k, we can find an E q as in Case 1 of the proof of Theorem 1.3 above. So, it suffices to show that E q Q[m] for q = q j.