Explicit elliptic \(K3\) surfaces with rank 15 (Q734587): Difference between revisions

Let \(\pi:S\to \mathbb P^1\) be a (minimal) elliptic surface (with section) defined over a field \(K\). Denote with \(E(K(t))\) the group of \(K(t)\) rational points of the generic fiber of \(\pi\). If \(S\) is a rational surface then it is know that \(r:=\mathrm{rank} E(K(t)) \leq 8\). For each value of \(r\in \{0,1,\dots,8\}\) there exist explicit examples of rational elliptic surfaces over \(\mathbb Q\), such that \(\mathrm{rank} E(\overline{\mathbb Q}(t))=r\). Similarly, if \(S\) is an elliptic \(K3\) surface over \(\mathbb Q\) then \(\mathrm{rank} E(\overline{\mathbb Q}(t))\leq 18\). \textit{M. Kuwata} [Comment. Math. Univ. St. Pauli 49, No. 1, 91--100 (2000; Zbl 1018.14013)] constructed for each value of \(r\in \{0,\dots 18\}\) explicit examples of elliptic \(K3\)-surfaces over \(\mathbb Q\) such that \(\mathrm{rank} E(\overline{\mathbb Q}(t))=r\), except for \(r=15\). The reviewer [Can. Math. Bull. 50, No. 2, 215--226 (2007; Zbl 1162.14024)] constructed an explicit \(K3\) surface over \(\mathbb Q\) such that the rank of \(E(\mathbb Q(t))\) equals 15. In the paper under review a new example of an elliptic \(K3\) surface with geometric rank 15 is constructed. Part of the construction is similar to the reviewer's construction, in particular, the proof that the rank is at least 15 is the same. To show that the rank is at most 15, the authors consider the reduction modulo two good primes \((5,7)\). The authors calculate the zeta function of both reductions and obtain from this the rank of both reductions is at most 16. Then they calculate in both cases the height of a section that is not the subgroup spanned by the \(15\) kown points of \(E(\mathbb Q(t))\). If there were a 16th independent point in characteristic 0 then the quotient of the heights would be a square [cf. \textit{R. van Luijk}, Algebra Number Theory 1, No. 1, 1--17 (2007; Zbl 1123.14022)]. It turns out that this is not the case. The main difference with the reviewer's construction is that in this paper smaller prime are used (\((5,7)\) instead of \((17,19)\)) and that the authors calculate the height of the extra generator explicitly rather, whereas the reviewer used \textit{J. S. Milne}'s result [Ann. Math. (2) 102, 517--533 (1975; Zbl 0343.14005)] that the Tate conjecture implies the Artin-Tate conjecture, in order to determine the height of the extra section (up to a square) from the zeta function of the reductions.