The first one states that if $E/\mathbf Q$ is an elliptic curve, then $E(\mathbf Q)$ is a finitely generated abelian group.
If $K/\mathbf Q$ is a number field, Dirichlet's theorem says (among other things) that the group of units $\mathcal O_K^\times$ is finitely generated.
The proof of Mordell's theorem and the proof of Dirichlet's theorem are somewhat similar (a covolume calculation in one case, and what feels to me like bounding a covolume in the other).
How can these two objects be realized as instances of the same construction? Could it be done so well as to reduce the proof of Mordell-Weil and Dirichlet's theorems to a single proof?
In the correspondence between the class number formula and the conjectured formula for the leading term of $L(E/\mathbf Q, s)$ , it appears that $\mathcal O_K^\times$ really does play the role of $E(\mathbf Q)$ (regulator corresponds to regulator, torsion to torsion). From my understanding, the general belief is that these two objets are analogous. But I'm having a hard time putting them on the same footing.
In fact, there is a generalization of the Birch & Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture to any abelian variety over $\mathbf Q$, but in this case the conjectured leading term of the $L$-function is symmetric in $A$ and $\breve{A}$ (where $\breve{A}$ is the dual abelian variety). This conjecture degenerates to the BSD conjecture in the case of an elliptic curve, which is self-dual.
But $\mathcal O^\times$ isn't an abelian variety. At best, $\mathcal O_K^\times$ can be thought as the $\mathcal O_K$-valued points of the group scheme $\mathbf G_m = \text{Spec }(\mathbf Z[x,y]/(xy-1))$. But: (1), $\mathbf G_m$ isn't an abelian variety over any field, and (2), we are looking at its points in the ring of integers of a number field, rather than in a field. So, why should we expect it to be the same as $E(\mathbf Q)$?
Or, perhaps $E(\mathbf Q)$ and $\mathcal O_K^\times$ the wrong objects to be trying to compare?
-Dylan
– Spooky Oct 10 '15 at 00:22