An oft cited letter from Tate to Serre on computing local heights on elliptic curves
This document contains a letter written by John Tate to Jean-Pierre Serre in 1979 in which Professor Tate describes a fast and elegant algorithm for computing local canonical heights on elliptic curves over local fields other than . Accounts of Tate’s algorithm were published in  and , the former including a modified algorithm that also allows . But over the years there have been numerous articles that make direct reference to the original handwritten letter, so Professor Tate has kindly given me permission to post this typeset version on the ArXiv.
|Joseph H. Silverman|
|July 24, 2012|
 J. H. Silverman, Computing heights on elliptic curves, Math. Comp. 51 (1988), 339–358.
 H. Tschöpe and H. Zimmer, Computation of the Néron-Tate height on elliptic curves, Math. Comp. 48 (1987), 351–370.
October 1, 1979
Here is an appendix to my letter of 21 June 1968. I want to explain what seems to me an efficient way to compute , the “canonical quasifunction” on an elliptic curve over . The method can be used on an HP25 (see enclosed programs). On the other hand, from a theoretical point of view it can be used to show the existence of the on any local field except in case . The trick is to use as parameter a function with a double zero at 0, but with chosen so that the 2 poles of are conjugate quadratic over rather than being in , so that is bounded on the group of rational points, and the computer can compute by iteration, never overflowing. The method is summed up in:
Let be a local field. Let be an elliptic curve over defined by the usual equation
and define , , , and as usual. Suppose there is an open subgroup of such that does not take the value for .
[Examples: If , we can take ; if , and (or more generally if the point of order 2 on the connected component of has a strictly positive -coordinate) then we can take , the connected component of in .]
Suppose . Define sequences , , and , , inductively by:
There are constants and , independent of , such that
|and for all ,|
and consequently there is a bound such that for all and all . Put
Then is a function continuous on , bounded outside of any neighborhood of in , such that
and such that
We have . Let . Then
Now, under our underlined hypothesis, there is an such that
Hence the function is bounded on , and so is also. But is bounded away from , too, on , because , and has no zero in common with and . Thus is bounded on . From (?) we see that, in the notation of the theorem, we have , and consequently
is well-defined, continuous, and bounded on ; and satisfies
From (?) we find for such that ,
Eliminating from these last two equations we find that the function
because is continuous and , as one sees by putting in (?) and using . ∎
Salut et Fraternité