Wiki
Wiki

Research notes on every problem, and a library of the papers behind them. Built from the open erdos repository.

Updated

Erdős 699: an integer factorization of the cubic discriminant


This is a retained earlier research note. The current reading guide gives the latest status and distinguishes completed proofs from remaining cases.

P699 research · The conductor normalization · The integer cubics

The endpoint conditions give a factorization of the cubic discriminant into a square and one additional integer. It applies to every hypothetical bad triple, including the cases with a canceled factor of three. In the hard subcase n=2hn=2^h, jj odd, the equations resemble equations suited to Vieta descent, but their natural coordinate mutations fail to give a smaller positive integral solution. No global finiteness result follows.

1. The factorization for all hypothetical bad triples

Use the established notation

n=2hu,c=n−j,d=n−2j,t=v2(j)=v2(c),m=h−t≥2,n=2^h u,\quad c=n-j,\quad d=n-2j,\quad t=v_2(j)=v_2(c),\quad m=h-t\ge2,

where uu is odd, 4≤j<n/24\le j<n/2, and d2>3n−2d^2>3n-2. Put

K=jcn−1,M=n−22,g=gcd⁡(u,3),v=u/g.K=\frac{jc}{n-1},\quad M=\frac{n-2}{2},\quad g=\gcd(u,3),\quad v=u/g.

Since 3K=22tk3K=2^{2t}k is an integer, the reduced denominator λ\lambda of KK belongs to {1,3}\{1,3\}. Write κ=λK\kappa=\lambda K. If λ=3\lambda=3, then 3∣n−13\mid n-1, so 3∤uM3\nmid uM and 3∤κ3\nmid\kappa. Consequently

gcd⁡(κ,κ−λ)=1,gcd⁡(λ,M)=1.\gcd(\kappa,\kappa-\lambda)=1,\qquad \gcd(\lambda,M)=1.

Lemma. There are unique coprime positive integers A,BA,B such that

M=AB,A∣κ,B2∣κ−λ,M=AB,\qquad A\mid\kappa,\qquad B^2\mid\kappa-\lambda,

where AA contains exactly the prime-power factors of MM whose primes divide κ\kappa.

Proof. For every pa∥Mp^a\Vert M, the endpoint conditions give j mod pa∈{0,1,2}j\bmod p^a\in\{0,1,2\}. The only possibly inactive prime is p=3,a=1p=3,a=1; the same assertion then holds without a restriction. If j≡0j\equiv0 or 2(modpa)2\pmod{p^a}, then pa∣jcp^a\mid jc, hence pa∣κp^a\mid\kappa. If j≡1(modpa)j\equiv1\pmod{p^a}, both j−1j-1 and c−1c-1 are divisible by pap^a. Using

K−1=(j−1)(c−1)n−1K-1=\frac{(j-1)(c-1)}{n-1}

gives p2a∣κ−λp^{2a}\mid\kappa-\lambda. Here p∤λ(n−1)p\nmid\lambda(n-1). Coprimality of κ\kappa and κ−λ\kappa-\lambda makes the alternatives disjoint and proves the assertion. □\square

Write κ=AR\kappa=A R, κ−λ=B2s\kappa-\lambda=B^2s, and e=d/2e=d/2. Both A,BA,B are odd, v2(R)=2tv_2(R)=2t, and v2(e)=tv_2(e)=t. The identity

q=κeλ23tMq=\frac{\kappa e}{\lambda2^{3t}M}

and gcd⁡(B,R)=1\gcd(B,R)=1 imply B∣eB\mid e. Also v∣j,c,ev\mid j,c,e and gcd⁡(v,M)=1\gcd(v,M)=1. The denominators in KK are coprime to vv, so v2∣Rv^2\mid R. Thus positive odd integers r,fr,f are defined by

R=22tv2r,e=2tBvf.R=2^{2t}v^2r,\qquad e=2^tBvf.

The resulting exact equations are

AB+1=2h−1u,22tv2Ar−B2s=λ,λ22tv2f2=λA2−s(2AB+1).(1)\begin{aligned} AB+1&=2^{h-1}u,\\ 2^{2t}v^2Ar-B^2s&=\lambda,\\ \lambda2^{2t}v^2f^2&=\lambda A^2-s(2AB+1). \end{aligned}\tag{1}

For the last equation, use e2=(M+1)2−K(2M+1)e^2=(M+1)^2-K(2M+1). Eliminating B2sB^2s from (1) gives

A3r−λf2=22m−2g2s.(2)A^3r-\lambda f^2=2^{2m-2}g^2s.\tag{2}

The normalized curve from the conductor note therefore has

k0=3Arλ,q0=rfλ,E0: y2=x3−k0x+2q0.(3)k_0=\frac{3Ar}{\lambda},\qquad q_0=\frac{rf}{\lambda},\qquad E_0:\ y^2=x^3-k_0x+2q_0.\tag{3}

These coefficients are integers. In particular, when λ=3\lambda=3, one has 3∤Ar3\nmid Ar and 3∣f3\mid f.

The exact cubic discriminant factorization is

Disc⁡P=27r2sλ3g4.(4)\boxed{\operatorname{Disc}P=\frac{27r^2s}{\lambda^3g^4}.}\tag{4}

Indeed, the earlier discriminant formula is Disc⁡P=27K2(K−1)/(24tu4M2)\operatorname{Disc}P=27K^2(K-1)/(2^{4t}u^4M^2), and substitution gives (4). The only denominator in (4) is a power of three; its integrality is already supplied by P∈Z[z]P\in\mathbb Z[z].

The same equations give gcd⁡(Ar,s)=gcd⁡(B,r)=gcd⁡(A,f)=gcd⁡(s,f)=1\gcd(Ar,s)=\gcd(B,r)=\gcd(A,f)=\gcd(s,f)=1. Equation (2) shows that every common prime divisor of r,fr,f divides 33: any such prime must divide gg or λ\lambda, and λ=3\lambda=3 excludes 3∣r3\mid r. Finally, d2>3n−2d^2>3n-2 gives K<M/2K<M/2, hence

r<λB22t+1v2.(5)r<\frac{\lambda B}{2^{2t+1}v^2}.\tag{5}

2. The odd conductor away from six

For p≥5p\ge5 dividing ss, (2)--(3) give vp(c4)=0v_p(c_4)=0 and vp(Δ)=vp(s)v_p(\Delta)=v_p(s): the reduction is multiplicative, with conductor exponent one.

For p≥5p\ge5 dividing rr, put a=vp(r)a=v_p(r). The coprimalities above give

vp(c4)=a+vp(A),vp(c6)=a,vp(Δ)=2a.v_p(c_4)=a+v_p(A),\qquad v_p(c_6)=a,\qquad v_p(\Delta)=2a.

Write a=6b+da=6b+d with 0≤d<60\le d<6. Scaling the Weierstrass coordinates by p2b,p3bp^{2b},p^{3b} gives valuations 2b+d+vp(A),d,2d2b+d+v_p(A),d,2d. This model is minimal, since its constant coefficient has valuation d<6d<6. It has good reduction for d=0d=0 and additive reduction otherwise. At p≥5p\ge5 the latter has conductor exponent two. Thus, exactly,

N(E0){2,3}′=∏p≥5p∣sp⋅∏p≥5p∣r6∤vp(r)p2.(6)N(E_0)_{\{2,3\}'} =\prod_{\substack{p\ge5\\p\mid s}}p \cdot\prod_{\substack{p\ge5\\p\mid r\\6\nmid v_p(r)}}p^2.\tag{6}

The subscript removes the prime factors two and three. These are the standard local conductor rules used in the conductor note. In particular, if r,sr,s are squarefree away from six, their contribution has the full size r2sr^2s away from six. The endpoint equations alone have not forced repeated prime factors that would improve this bound.

3. Coordinate Vieta mutations in the hard subcase

Now assume u=1,t=0u=1,t=0. Thus g=v=1g=v=1, h≥4h\ge4, and (1) simplifies to

AB+1=2h−1,Ar−B2s=λ,λf2=λA2−s(2AB+1),r<λB/2.(7)AB+1=2^{h-1},\quad Ar-B^2s=\lambda,\quad \lambda f^2=\lambda A^2-s(2AB+1),\qquad r<\lambda B/2.\tag{7}

This includes both λ=1\lambda=1 and the canceled case λ=3\lambda=3. All of A,B,r,fA,B,r,f are odd. Reduction modulo eight shows 8∣s8\mid s and r≡−λB(mod8)r\equiv-\lambda B\pmod8. These conditions and r<λB/2r<\lambda B/2 exclude B=1B=1. Also A>2Bs/λA>2Bs/\lambda.

Eliminating ss gives the quadratic in AA

B(λB−2r)A2+(2λB−r)A+λ−λB2f2=0.(8)B(\lambda B-2r)A^2+(2\lambda B-r)A +\lambda-\lambda B^2f^2=0.\tag{8}

The second root is

A′=−A−2λB−rB(λB−2r).A'=-A-\frac{2\lambda B-r}{B(\lambda B-2r)}.

It is never integral: gcd⁡(B,r)=1\gcd(B,r)=1 makes the fraction's numerator coprime to B>1B>1. Holding A,r,fA,r,f fixed instead gives the quadratic

λ(A2−f2)B2−2A(Ar−λ)B−(Ar−λ)=0,\lambda(A^2-f^2)B^2-2A(Ar-\lambda)B-(Ar-\lambda)=0,

whose second root is B′=−B/(2AB+1)∈(−1,0)B'=-B/(2AB+1)\in(-1,0), also nonintegral.

The other two coordinate choices do not give positive solutions. Eliminating AA and regarding the result as a quadratic in rr gives the second root

r′=−λArλA−2Bs<0.r'=-\frac{\lambda Ar}{\lambda A-2Bs}<0.

Regarding it as a quadratic in ss gives

s′=λ(λ2−r2f2)B3(λB−2r)s≤0,s'=\frac{\lambda(\lambda^2-r^2f^2)} {B^3(\lambda B-2r)s}\le0,

because rf/λ=q0rf/\lambda=q_0 is a positive integer. Changing the sign of ff exchanges j,cj,c. Thus these coordinate root exchanges do not give a descent among positive admissible tuples. This does not exclude other transformations or an argument using higher Lucas digits.

The factorization and the conductor formula are uniform necessary conditions. They do not prove that arbitrary positive solutions of (1) satisfy all the original Lucas conditions, nor do they bound r2sr^2s. A restriction on these factors beyond (1)--(5) is still needed to obtain a contradiction or global finiteness.

4. Splitting the two outer residue groups

The residue-group proof excludes an empty outer group by a small square identity. Here is its extension when both outer groups are present. Write U=C0U=C_0, V=C2V=C_2, B=C1B=C_1, so A=UVA=UV, and use the unnormalized RR from Section 1:

UVR−B2s=λ.UVR-B^2s=\lambda.

Set j=Uaj=Ua, c=Ub+2c=Ub+2, where a,b>0a,b>0 and a+b=2BVa+b=2BV. The same elimination as in the empty-group proof gives

D=2BV2R−λab,UD=2λa−VR>0,D=2BV^2R-\lambda ab,\qquad UD=2\lambda a-VR>0,

and

[VR−λ(a−BV)]2=B2(λ2V2−Ds).[VR-\lambda(a-BV)]^2=B^2(\lambda^2V^2-Ds).

Positivity follows from VR=λac/(n−1)<λaVR=\lambda ac/(n-1)<\lambda a. Since a rational square root of an integer is integral, there is an integer zz with

Ds=λ2V2−z2,∣z∣<λV.Ds=\lambda^2V^2-z^2,\qquad |z|<\lambda V.

When V=1V=1, this restricts DsDs to the short list used in the proof. For variable VV, the list grows with V2V^2. Thus this extension of the identity does not give a uniform bound when all three groups grow.