## 97.3 The moduli stack of elliptic curves

Here is what we are going to do:

Start with your favorite category of schemes $\mathit{Sch}$.

Add a new symbol $\mathcal{M}_{1, 1}$.

A morphism $S \to \mathcal{M}_{1, 1}$

**is**an elliptic curve $(E, f, 0)$ over $S$.A diagram

\[ \xymatrix{ S \ar[rr]_ a \ar[rd]_{(E, f, 0)} & & S' \ar[ld]^{(E', F', 0')} \\ & \mathcal{M}_{1, 1} } \]**is**commutative if and only if there exists a morphism $\alpha : E \to E'$ of elliptic curves over $a : S \to S'$. We say $\alpha $*witnesses*the commutativity of the diagram.Note that commutative diagrams glue as follows

\[ \xymatrix{ S \ar[rrr]_ a \ar[rrrd]_{(E, f, 0)} & & & S' \ar[d]_{(E', F', 0')} \ar[rrr]_{a'} & & & S'' \ar[llld]^{(E'', F'', 0'')} \\ & & & \mathcal{M}_{1, 1} } \]because $\alpha ' \circ \alpha $ witnesses the commutativity of the outer triangle if $\alpha $ and $\alpha '$ witness the commutativity of the left and right triangles.

The composition

\[ S \xrightarrow {a} S' \xrightarrow {(E', f', 0')} \mathcal{M}_{1, 1} \]is given by $(E' \times _{S'} S, f' \times _{S'} S, 0' \times _{S'} S)$.

At the end of this procedure we have enlarged the category $\mathit{Sch}$ of schemes with exactly one object...

Except that we haven't defined what a morphism from $\mathcal{M}_{1, 1}$ to a scheme $T$ is. The answer is that it is the weakest possible notion such that compositions make sense. Thus a morphism $F : \mathcal{M}_{1, 1} \to T$ is a rule which to every elliptic curve $(E, f, 0)/S$ associates a morphism $F(E, f, 0) : S \to T$ such that given any commutative diagram

the diagram

is commutative also. An example is the $j$-invariant

which you may have heard of. Aha, so now we're done...

Except, no we're not! We still have to define a notion of morphisms $\mathcal{M}_{1, 1} \to \mathcal{M}_{1, 1}$. This we do in exactly the same way as before, i.e., a morphism $F : \mathcal{M}_{1, 1} \to \mathcal{M}_{1, 1}$ is a rule which to every elliptic curve $(E, f, 0)/S$ associates another elliptic curve $F(E, f, 0)$ preserving commutativity of diagrams as above. However, since I don't know of a nontrivial example of such a functor, I'll just define the set of morphisms from $\mathcal{M}_{1, 1}$ to itself to consist of the identity for now.

I hope you see how to add other objects to this enlarged category. Somehow it seems intuitively clear that given any “well-behaved” moduli problem we can perform the construction above and add an object to our category. In fact, much of modern day algebraic geometry takes place in such a universe where $\mathit{Sch}$ is enlarged with countably many (explicitly constructed) moduli stacks.

You may object that the category we obtain isn't a category because there is a “vagueness” about when diagrams commute and which combinations of diagrams continue to commute as we have to produce a witness to the commutativity. However, it turns out that this, the idea of having witnesses to commutativity, is a valid approach to $2$-categories! Thus we stick with it.

## Post a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked.

In your comment you can use Markdown and LaTeX style mathematics (enclose it like `$\pi$`

). A preview option is available if you wish to see how it works out (just click on the eye in the toolbar).

Unfortunately JavaScript is disabled in your browser, so the comment preview function will not work.

All contributions are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License.

## Comments (0)