Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

The rational cuspidal divisor class group of $X_0(N)$

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read For every positive integer N, the rational cuspidal divisor class group of X0(N) is now completely determined.

desk verdict Yoo's paper completes the program for the rational cuspidal divisor class group of X0(N) with explicit generators; worth serious referee time, but the 2-adic and delegated hand computations need checking. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.06411 v4 pith:KXKQAWRO submitted 2019-08-18 math.NT math.AG

Hwajong Yoo This is my paper · ORCID
classification math.NTmath.AG MSC 11G1611G1814G05
keywords rationalcuspidaldivisorclassgroupmodularcurveX0(N)subgroupgeneralizedOggconjectureetaquotientsl-primarydirectsumdecompositionJacobiantorsion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

Every prime-part of the rational cuspidal divisor class group C(N) of the modular curve X0(N) is now computed. For each nontrivial divisor d of N and each prime ℓ, the paper constructs an explicit degree-zero rational cuspidal divisor Z_ℓ(d), gives a closed formula for the order of its class, and proves that C(N)[ℓ^∞] is the direct sum of the cyclic subgroups generated by these classes. The consequence is that the finite abelian group C(N) is completely known for all N, not merely up to order, settling the structure question on the cuspidal side of the conjectured equality with the rational torsion of J0(N). The computation is carried by a vector method: divisors are converted into vectors through an integral eta-quotient matrix, and direct-sum decompositions are certified by lower-triangular matrices of normalized vectors.

What carries the argument

The operating object is the V-vector. For each degree-zero rational cuspidal divisor C, the paper forms the coefficient vector in $S_2(N)$ and multiplies by an explicit integral matrix $\Upsilon(N)$—the tensor product of tridiagonal matrices derived from the eta-quotient order matrix—to obtain $V(C)\in S_1(N)$; the normalized vector $\mathcal{V}(C)=V(C)/\gcd$ behaves like a coordinate vector. The order of C is read off from $\gcd(V(C))$ and the parity of sums $Pw_p(\mathcal{V}(C))$ (Theorem 3.13). The linear-independence criteria (Theorems 5.1–5.3) then say: if the normalized vectors of a list of divisors form a lower-triangular matrix with diagonal ±1 or ℓ-adic units and the parity conditions hold, the subgroups add in direct sum. The rest of the paper is the construction of divisors—$A_p(r,f)$, $B_p(r,f)$, $B_2(r,f)$, $D(p_i^{r_i},p_j^{r_j})$ and their tensor products—whose V-vectors have exactly this shape.

What would settle it

Check the construction at a moderately composite level, e.g. $N=2^5\cdot 3$ and $\ell=2$: compute the normalized V-vectors of the divisors $Y_2(d)$ and $Z_2(d)$ exactly as defined in Sections 4.5 and 6.6, verify that the matrix is lower 2-unipotent with the claimed diagonal units, and compare the orders $n(N,d)$ and $N(N,d)$ with an independent modular-symbol computation of $C(N)[2^\infty]$. A mismatch in any entry of the matrix, or in any order, would falsify the central decomposition; equivalently, verifying the generation propositions for one level with several prime factors would decide the claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the paper's own level of claim, Theorem 6.1 states the complete structure: C(N) is isomorphic to the direct sum of the squarefree part and the cyclic groups generated by Z(d) for non-squarefree d, and for each prime ℓ the ℓ-primary subgroup of the squarefree part is isomorphic to the direct sum over squarefree d of the cyclic groups generated by the divisors Y_2(d). Combining the two, for every prime ℓ the ℓ-primary subgroup of all of C(N) is a direct sum of cyclic groups generated by explicitly defined divisors Z_ℓ(d), one per nontrivial divisor of N, with orders given by the formulas n(N,d) and N(N,d), which are numerators of $G\cdot H/24$ with explicit $G$ and $H$. This gives the exact isomorphism type of C(N), not a bound or a conjecture.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the paper's extensive hand-verified vector arithmetic is correct: the constructed divisors integrally generate the relevant divisor groups, and every normalized V-vector has exactly the claimed zero, ±1, or ℓ-adic-unit entries in the prescribed lower-triangular pattern; a single wrong entry could turn a direct sum into a proper extension, and the text leaves some auxiliary computations, including a beta-case and a genus-zero check, to the reader.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every positive integer N, the finite abelian group C(N) is now known: explicit generators and orders for every prime component, not merely the order of the group.
  • The rational cuspidal subgroup of J0(N) is determined whenever it equals C(N), in particular for N=4M and N=8M with M odd squarefree, giving explicit instances of the conjectured equality with rational torsion.
  • The splitting theorem isolates the non-squarefree part of C(N) as a direct sum of cyclic groups generated by Z(d); the squarefree part is reduced, prime by prime, to cyclic summands generated by Y_2(d).
  • The new linear-independence criteria give a general, order-theoretic method for detecting relations among rational cuspidal divisors, replacing previous case-by-case searches for relations.
  • All constructed generators are supported only at cusps and are defined by explicit formulas, so they can be written down and used in further computations without solving auxiliary equations.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the result is correct, the explicit generators give a ready-made set of candidate torsion points on J0(N); comparing these cyclic summands with Hecke-module or Eisenstein-ideal computations would test the conjectured equality with the rational torsion subgroup on a much larger range than before.
  • The V-vector method is not obviously tied to the particular family X0(N): the same ingredients—orbit-sum cuspidal divisors, an integral order matrix from eta quotients, and degeneracy maps—exist for X1(N) and Atkin–Lehner quotients, so an analogous decomposition may hold there.
  • Because the proof leaves some vector computations to the reader, a machine-checked verification of the relevant tables for all N up to a chosen bound would be a natural companion; it would confirm the lower-unipotent patterns on which the whole argument rests.
  • The splitting into squarefree and non-squarefree parts suggests that the obstruction to a single global basis for C(N), rather than a prime-by-prime ℓ-adic basis, lives entirely in the squarefree component; understanding the transition from ℓ-adic bases to an integral basis is the natural next question.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper develops an explicit vector method to determine the rational cuspidal divisor class group C(N) of X0(N) for every positive integer N. The main results are Theorem 1.5 (splitting of C(N) into a squarefree part plus cyclic non-squarefree summands), Theorem 1.6 (ℓ-primary structure of the squarefree part via divisors Y2(d)), and Theorem 1.7 (ℓ-primary structure of all of C(N) via divisors Zℓ(d)). The technical engine is a computation of V-vectors attached to rational cuspidal divisors, an order formula (Theorem 3.13), tensor and degeneracy-map constructions of divisor families (A_p, B_p, B_2, Z, Y_i, D), and linear-independence criteria (Theorems 5.1–5.3). The proof is remarkably complete in its overall architecture, with explicit generators, explicit order formulas n(N,d) and N(N,d), and an explicit treatment of the difficult 2-primary cases. Several computational checks are, however, delegated to the reader, and one splitting step in Section 6.7 relies on a cited injectivity statement that is not proved or quoted in the text.

Significance. If correct, the paper completely determines the structure of the rational cuspidal divisor class group of X0(N) for all N, with explicit generators and orders. This is the strongest unconditional evidence to date for the generalized Ogg conjecture. The paper has substantial strengths: it reproves the necessary Ligozat criterion, gives a self-contained treatment of cusps and degeneracy maps, provides explicit lower-triangular and lower-ℓ-unipotent matrices that make the direct-sum decompositions concrete, and honestly flags the hard cases (N divisible by 32, the Y2(A(1)) case). The main risk is that the theorem rests on a large body of hand-verified vector identities, several of which are delegated to the reader, and on one injectivity claim whose cited justification is not reproduced. These issues are fixable but need to be addressed before the central claim can be considered fully established.

major comments (4)
  1. [§6.7, Eq. (6.7)] The proof of (6.7) for N divisible by 32 uses the isomorphism π1^*(C(2^r)) ≃ ⊕_{f=3}^r ⟨π1^*(B2(r,f))⟩, justified only by 'Since π1^* is injective (cf. [32, Rem. 2.7])'. For a finite morphism of curves, pullback on Pic^0 is not automatically injective: composing with pushforward gives f_* f^* = deg(f), so elements of torsion order dividing deg(π1)=2^r can lie in the kernel. Since C(2^r) is a 2-group, this is a genuinely nontrivial assertion. The cited remark should be stated and proved, or a direct argument supplied. This step is load-bearing: if injectivity fails, the direct sum in (6.7) can collapse and Theorem 1.5 is not established for N divisible by 32. The author's own Remark 6.28 acknowledges that the proof for this case is indirect, which makes the need for a complete justification more pressing.
  2. [§3.3, Theorem 3.13] The order formula in Theorem 3.13 is foundational for every later order computation, but its proof says that for the fourteen genus-zero levels N ∈ {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,12,13,16,18,25} 'we can easily verify the formula, which we leave to the readers.' This is a finite check, but it is an omitted proof of a result used throughout the paper. Please include the verification, for instance as a short table of genus-zero levels with the relevant orders, or a uniform argument that J0(N)=0 in those cases suffices.
  3. [§2.6, Lemmas 2.21 and 2.22] The proofs of Lemmas 2.21 and 2.22 state that the β-map computations are 'similar' and leave the details to the reader. These formulas are used later in Proposition 5.4 and hence feed directly into the construction of the vectors A_p(r,f) and B_p(r,f) and the generation claims. Since the manuscript's policy is generally to be self-contained, the β-case computations should be written out or at least summarized in an appendix.
  4. [§6.5–§6.6, Propositions 6.14, 6.24, 6.25, 6.35, Lemmas 6.37 and 6.40] The central structural argument consists of a long sequence of asserted identities for V-vectors: that certain entries are zero, that certain diagonal entries are ±1 or ℓ-adic units, and that certain Pw_p sums have the claimed parity. A single wrong entry can convert a direct sum into a proper extension, so these computations are load-bearing. The text often says 'by direct computation' or refers to a displayed table, but does not provide machine-checkable code or a systematic verification certificate. I did not independently verify all of these identities within the review budget. I recommend that the author supply a verification appendix, e.g., computer algebra scripts checking the finite collection of vector identities, or a more detailed case-by-case derivation for the least transparent steps (notably Lemma 6.37 and Lemma 6.40).
minor comments (4)
  1. [§1.1, Theorem 1.7] The statement of Theorem 1.7 does not give the order of Zℓ(d); the order is only defined in a footnote through the prime-to-ℓ parts of n(N,d) and N(N,d′). It would improve readability to state the order of Zℓ(d) directly in the theorem.
  2. [§6.1, Definitions 6.2–6.6] The orderings ≺ and ⊳ are intricate, and the proof that ι is a bijection in Lemma 6.8 is compressed. A small example illustrating ι for a level with t=3 and u=1 would be very helpful to the reader.
  3. [§1.4, Definition 1.17] In Definition 1.17, the expression H(N,p_I) := 2 if I∈(F^1_u∪G^1_u∪{A(1)}) \ (F_s∪G_s), and 1 otherwise, is easy to misread because F_s and G_s themselves depend on s. Please spell out at least one example for the 2-primary case.
  4. [§6.7, end of proof of Theorem 6.1] The sentence 'Since Tu = {I_f : 3≤f≤r}' is correct only when r≥5 and u is the index of the prime 2; for r≤4 the earlier degenerate case is handled separately. Making this conditional explicit at that point would prevent confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

For N divisible by 32, Theorem 6.1's splitting leans on a single self-cited injectivity remark; the rest of the derivation is self-contained.

  1. self citation load bearing [Section 6.7, proof of Theorem 6.1, just after equation (6.7)]
    "Note also that since π∗1 is injective (cf. [32, Rem. 2.7]), we have π∗1( r⨁ f=3 ⟨B2(r, f)⟩ ) ≃ r⨁ f=3 ⟨π∗1 (B2(r, f))⟩."

    This is the only step that turns the already proved direct sum C(2^r) ≃ ⊕⟨B2(r,f)⟩ into a direct sum of the pulled-back subgroups ⟨Z(I_f)⟩ at level N. For a finite morphism of degree 4, pullback on Pic^0 need not be injective on 2-torsion, so injectivity is a substantive fact rather than a formality. The sole justification in the text is 'cf. [32, Rem. 2.7]', a remark in the author's own earlier work: Remark 3.16 identifies [30,32] as 'the previous papers [30, 32], the author computed...'. The present paper supplies no proof of the injectivity and no independent argument for the displayed isomorphism, so the claimed splitting for N divisible by 32 is supported by a load-bearing self-citation rather than by a derivation internal to this paper.

full rationale

Most of the derivation chain is genuinely self-contained and not circular. The order formula (Theorem 3.13) is derived from Ligozat's criterion (Proposition 3.5) through the Υ(N) matrix, GCD computations, and the h(C) parity invariant; the constructed divisors Z(d) and Y2(d) are then shown to integrally generate S2(N)^0 (Propositions 6.14 and 6.24), and their V-vectors are verified to satisfy the lower-unipotent or ℓ-unipotent hypotheses (Propositions 6.25 and 6.35, Lemmas 6.37 and 6.40). Those verifications are substantial hand computations rather than identities by definition, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The order formulas n(N,d) and N(N,d) are proved to match the computed orders (Corollaries 6.27 and 6.39), not assumed by construction. There are genuine verification gaps that are not circularity: Lemmas 2.21 and 2.22 leave the beta-case computations to the reader, Theorem 3.13 leaves the genus-zero check to the reader, and Remark 6.41 concedes that Theorem 5.3 cannot be used for the special divisor I=A(1). These are omitted checks rather than circular reductions and are better treated as correctness or completeness risk. The one load-bearing circularity-type concern is Section 6.7's use of π1* injectivity for N divisible by 32, where the paper relies solely on [32, Rem. 2.7]. If that cited remark contains a complete independent proof, this would be legitimate external support and the score would drop to 0 or 1; as presented, the inference is a bare self-citation. Because this affects only the 2-adically high case and the central method has abundant independent content, the appropriate score is 4 rather than a higher score.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard theorems (Manin-Drinfeld, Ligozat, Stevens), on the structural assumption that C(N) is the relevant object for the conjectures, and on a large set of hand-verified computational identities. Two choices are made by the author to make the proof work: the l-dependent ordering of primes and the hand-tuned coefficients of the constructed divisors. No genuinely new geometric entity is postulated; the new objects are auxiliary divisors whose validity is established only within the paper.

free parameters (2)
  • Ordering of the prime divisors of N (Assumption 1.14) = primes sorted by v_l(gamma_i) decreasing, then by v_l(p_i - 1) increasing, excluding the prime 2 when l = 2
    The divisors Y_2(d), Z_l(d) and the claimed orders N(N,d), n(N,d) depend on this ordering, which is chosen per prime l to make the diagonal entries of the matrix M_0 into l-adic units. The final isomorphism is stated for any ordering satisfying the assumption; the paper asserts that such an ordering always exists.
  • Hand-chosen coefficients in the divisor constructions = e.g., the coefficients in B_2(r,f) patterns and in D(i,j) = gamma_j/gcd(gamma_i, gamma_j) times a tensor minus…
    These coefficients are selected so that the V-matrix becomes lower-unipotent or lower l-unipotent, exactly the condition needed for the linear-independence criteria. They are not fitted to data, but they are hand-built to make the proof machinery apply, so a reader must treat them as constructed inputs rather than derived outputs.
assumptions (6)
  • standard math Finiteness of cuspidal divisor classes (Manin-Drinfeld)
    Invoked throughout Section 3 to ensure every cuspidal divisor has finite order in J_0(N); quoted from Manin [10, Cor. 3.6] and Drinfeld [4] in the introduction.
  • standard math Ligozat's criterion for eta quotients (Proposition 3.5)
    A generalized eta quotient is a modular function on X_0(N) if and only if the four listed conditions hold. The paper reproves it from [7, Sec. 3.2]; it is the engine of the order formula Theorem 3.13.
  • standard math Stevens' description of the Galois action on cusps (Theorem 2.17)
    Cusps of level d are defined over Q(mu_z) with simply transitive Galois action, cited from [24, Th. 1.3.1]. This yields Lemma 2.19, the generation of rational cuspidal divisors by C_d, which is the starting point of the whole computation.
  • domain assumption Ribet's surjectivity question remains open; C(N) is only the image of pi, not the full rational cuspidal subgroup
    C(N) is defined as the image of Div^0_cusp(Q) to C_N(Q); Conjectures 1.2 and 1.3, the equalities with C_N(Q) and with J_0(N)(Q)_tors, are not proven. The paper's theorems concern C(N), so the significance is conditional on these conjectures being the right target.
  • ad hoc to paper Genus-zero verification of the order formula is delegated to the reader
    In the proof of Theorem 3.13 the author writes 'we can easily verify the formula, which we leave to the readers' for the genus-zero levels N in {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 25}. Every stated order n(N,d) and N(N,d) in the paper uses Theorem 3.13.
  • domain assumption Injectivity of the degeneracy pullback pi_1^* (from the author's prior paper)
    Section 6.7 uses 'pi_1^* is injective (cf. [32, Rem. 2.7])' to identify the subgroup G with C(2^r) and to split the direct sum in the N divisible by 32 case. This is a self-citation not reproved in the present text.
invented entities (1)
  • The divisor families Z(d), Z_1(d), Z_l(d), Y_i(d), B_p(r,f), B_2(r,f), A_p(r,f), and D(p_i^r_i, p_j^r_j)
    purpose: Explicit rational cuspidal divisors engineered so that their V-vectors form a lower-unipotent or lower l-unipotent matrix, enabling the direct-sum decompositions of C(N) and its l-primary subgroups.
    These are newly constructed objects of this paper, generalizing the author's earlier work [30, 32] for special cases. Their only evidence is the proofs inside the paper; they have no externally falsifiable handle. They are not new physical entities, so this entry is the formal version of the gravitons problem: the contribution of the paper is precisely these constructions and their proven properties.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The rational cuspidal divisor class group of $X_0(N)$." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/KXKQAWRO

@misc{pith2026190806411,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The rational cuspidal divisor class group of $X_0(N)$},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/KXKQAWRO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.06411}
}
abstract

For any positive integer $N$, we completely determine the structure of the rational cuspidal divisor class group of $X_0(N)$, which is conjecturally equal to the rational torsion subgroup of $J_0(N)$. More specifically, for a given prime $\ell$, we construct a rational cuspidal divisor $Z_\ell(d)$ for any non-trivial divisor $d$ of $N$. Also, we compute the order of the linear equivalence class of the divisor $Z_\ell(d)$ and show that the $\ell$-primary subgroup of the rational cuspidal divisor class group of $X_0(N)$ is isomorphic to the direct sum of the cyclic subgroups generated by the linear equivalence classes of the divisors $Z_\ell(d)$.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Rational torsion of generalised Drinfeld modular Jacobians of prime power level

    math.NT 2024-12 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    For prime power level p^r, all ℓ-primary rational torsion of the cuspidal generalized Drinfeld Jacobian vanishes unless ℓ divides q(q^2-1).

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

35 extracted references · 35 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Josha Box, Quadratic points on modular curves with infinite Mordell–We il group, preprint, arXiv:1906.05206v3 [math.NT]

    work page Pith review arXiv 1906

  2. [2]

    Seng-Kiat Chua and San Ling, On the rational cuspidal subgroup and the rational torsion p oints of J0(pq), Proc. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 125, no. 8 (1997), 2255–2263

    work page 1997

  3. [3]

    228, Springer (2005)

    Fred Diamond and Jerry Shurman, A first course in modular forms , Graduate Text in Math., Vol. 228, Springer (2005)

    work page 2005

  4. [4]

    Appl., 7 (1973), 155–156

    Vladimir Drinfeld, Two theorems on modular curves , Functional Anal. Appl., 7 (1973), 155–156

    work page 1973

  5. [5]

    S/t.sc/r.sc/a.sc/t.sc/e.sc/g.sc/y.sc /f.sc/o.sc/r.sc /t.sc/h.sc/e.sc /c.sc/o.sc/m.sc/p.sc/u.sc/t.sc/a.sc/t.sc/i.sc/o.sc/n.sc In this section, we sketch our idea for computing the group C(N ) and provide necessary tools for later use. 5.1. Criteria for linear independence. Throughout this section, let Ci ∈ Div0 cusp(X0(N ))(Q) for any 1≤ i≤ k. Inspired by ...

    work page

  6. [6]

    More precisely, we pr ove the following, which is a combination of Theorems 1.5 and 1.6

    T/h.sc/e.sc /s.sc/t.sc/r.sc/u.sc/c.sc/t.sc/u.sc/r.sc/e.sc /o.sc/f.scC(N ) In this section, we compute the structure of the rational cuspidal divisor class groupC(N ) of X0(N ) based on the strategy in the previous section. More precisely, we pr ove the following, which is a combination of Theorems 1.5 and 1.6. Theorem 6.1. Let N be a positive integer. The...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Günter Köhler, Eta products and theta series identities , Springer Monographs in Mathematics, Springer-Verlag (2011)

    work page 2011

  8. [8]

    Kubert and Serge Lang, Modular units, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol

    Daniel S. Kubert and Serge Lang, Modular units, Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 224, Springer (1981)

    work page 1981

Show all 35 references
  1. [9]

    Gerard Ligozat, Courbes modulaires de genre 1 , Bull. Soc. Math. France, Mémoire, tome 43 (1975), 5–80

    1975

  2. [10]

    San Ling, On the Q-rational cuspidal subgroup and the component group of J0(pr), Israel J. Math. 99 (1997), 29–54

    1997

  3. [11]

    Lorenzini, Torsion points on the modular Jacobian J0(N ), Compos

    Dino J. Lorenzini, Torsion points on the modular Jacobian J0(N ), Compos. Math., tome 96, no. 2 (1995), 149–172

    1995

  4. [12]

    Manin, Parabolic points and zeta functions of modular curves (in Ru ssian), Izv

    Yuri I. Manin, Parabolic points and zeta functions of modular curves (in Ru ssian), Izv. Akad. Nauk SSSR Ser. Mat., 36 (1972), 19–66. Translation in Math USSR-Izv, 6 (1972), 19–64

    1972

  5. [13]

    Barry Mazur, Modular curves and the Eisenstein ideal , Publ. Math. Inst. Hautes Études Sci., tome 47 (1977), 33–186

    1977

  6. [14]

    196-197 (1991), 215–255

    Barry Mazur and Ken Ribet, Two-dimensional representations in the arithmetic of modu lar curves, Courbes modulaires et courbes de Shimura (Orsay, 1987/1988), Astérisque, No. 196-197 (1991), 215–255

    1991

  7. [15]

    Morris Newman, Construction and application of a class of modular function s, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Vol. 3-7 (1) (1957), 334–350

    1957

  8. [16]

    Morris Newman, Construction and application of a class of modular functions (II), Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., Vol.3-9 (3) (1959), 373–387

    1959

  9. [17]

    Ogg, Rational points on certain elliptic modular curves , Proc

    Andrew P. Ogg, Rational points on certain elliptic modular curves , Proc. Sympos. Pure Math., 24, AMS, Providence, R. I. (1973), 221–231

    1973

  10. [18]

    Ogg, Hyperelliptic modular curves , Bull

    Andrew P. Ogg, Hyperelliptic modular curves , Bull. Soc. Math. France, 102 (1974), 449–462

    1974

  11. [19]

    Math., Vol

    Masami Ohta, Eisenstein ideals and the rational torsion subgroups of mod ular Jacobian varieties II , Tokyo J. Math., Vol. 37, No. 2 (2014), 273–318

    2014

  12. [20]

    Olson, Galois cohomology of cycles and applications to elliptic cu rves, Amer

    Loren D. Olson, Galois cohomology of cycles and applications to elliptic cu rves, Amer. J. Math., Vol. 92 (1970), 75–85

    1970

  13. [21]

    Comp., Vol

    Ekin Ozman and Samir Siksek, Quadratic points on modular curves , Math. Comp., Vol. 88, No. 319 (2019), 2461–2484

    2019

  14. [22]

    Number theory, Vol

    Dimitrios Poulakis, La courbe modulaire X0(125) et sa jacobienne, J. Number theory, Vol. 25 (1987), 112–131

    1987

  15. [23]

    Number Theory, Vol

    Yuan Ren, Rational torsion subgroups of modular Jacobian varieties , J. Number Theory, Vol. 190 (2018), 169–186

    2018

  16. [24]

    Webb, On spaces of modular forms spanned by eta-quotients , Advances in Math., 272 (2015), 200–224

    Jeremy Rouse and John J. Webb, On spaces of modular forms spanned by eta-quotients , Advances in Math., 272 (2015), 200–224

    2015

  17. [25]

    Goro Shimura, Introduction to the arithmetic theory of automorphic forms , Publ. Math. Soc. Japan, Vol. 11, Tokyo-Princeton (1971)

    1971

  18. [26]

    20, Birkhaüuser, Boston, Mass

    Glenn Stevens, Arithmetic on modular curves , Progress in Math., Vol. 20, Birkhaüuser, Boston, Mass. (1982)

    1982

  19. [27]

    Glenn Stevens, The cuspidal group and special values of L-functions, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 291 (1985), 519–550

    1985

  20. [28]

    Algebra, 193 (1997), 180–213

    Toshikazu Takagi, The cuspidal class number formula for the modular curves X0(M ) with M square-free, J. Algebra, 193 (1997), 180–213

    1997

  21. [29]

    Toshikazu Takagi, The Q-rational cuspidal group of J1(2p), J. Math. Soc. Japan, Vol. 66, No. 4 (2014), 1249–1301

    2014

  22. [30]

    Algebra 562 (2020), 410–432

    Liuquan Wang and Yifan Yang, Modular units and cuspidal divisor classes on X0(n2M ) with n|24 and M squarefree, J. Algebra 562 (2020), 410–432

    2020

  23. [31]

    5(1) (2011), 37–62

    Soroosh Yazdani, Modular abelian varieties of odd modular degree , Algebra Number Theory, Vol. 5(1) (2011), 37–62

    2011

  24. [32]

    Hwajong Yoo, On Eisenstein ideals and the cuspidal group of J0(N ), Israel J. Math. 214 (2016), 359–377

    2016

  25. [33]

    3472 (2016), 299–304

    Hwajong Yoo, Rational torsion points on Jacobians of modular curves , Acta Arith. 3472 (2016), 299–304

    2016

  26. [34]

    Hwajong Yoo, On rational Eisenstein primes and the rational cuspidal gro ups of modular Jacobian varieties, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., Vol. 372(4) (2019), 2429–2466. 74 HW AJONG YOO

    2019

  27. [35]

    Hwajong Yoo, The rational torsion subgroup of J0(N ), preprint. C/o.sc/l.sc/l.sc/e.sc/g.sc/e.sc /o.sc/f.sc L/i.sc/b.sc/e.sc/r.sc/a.sc/l.sc S/t.sc/u.sc/d.sc/i.sc/e.sc/s.sc /a.sc/n.sc/d.sc R/e.sc/s.sc/e.sc/a.sc/r.sc/c.sc/h.sc I/n.sc/s.sc/t.sc/i.sc/t.sc/u.sc/t.sc/e.sc /o.sc/f.sc ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.