Wiki
Wiki

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

Updated

Birational similitudes and direct product constructions


Status and scope

The classification and counting results below are proved and independently checked. They strengthen the rational-transformation limitations, but settle neither a density question nor a new infinitude case. In particular, excluding composition laws is not a bound for integer fibers.

Birational similitudes in degree at least four

The external input is de Fernex's Birationally rigid hypersurfaces, Theorem A, page 1: every smooth complex degree-rr hypersurface in Pr\mathbb P^r, for r≥4r\ge4, is birationally superrigid. The theorem and its stated consequences were checked in version 6 of the full paper. A birational map from such a hypersurface to another smooth Fano hypersurface of Picard rank one is therefore an isomorphism.

Theorem. Let KK be finitely generated over Q\mathbb Q, let r≥4r\ge4, and put F=∑i=1raixirF=\sum_{i=1}^r a_i x_i^r with ai∈K×a_i\in K^\times. If T∈Bir⁡(AKr)T\in\operatorname{Bir}(\mathbb A^r_K) and

F(T(x))=mF(x),m∈K×,F(T(\mathbf x))=mF(\mathbf x),\qquad m\in K^\times,

then

Ti(x)=cixσ(i),cir=maσ(i)/ai,(1)T_i(\mathbf x)=c_i x_{\sigma(i)},\qquad c_i^r=m a_{\sigma(i)}/a_i, \tag{1}

for a permutation σ\sigma and ci∈K×c_i\in K^\times. Positivity is not required.

Proof. Over L=K(t)L=K(t), the map and its birational inverse induce a birational map between

Xt: F(X)−tZr=0,Xmt: F(X)−mtZr=0in PLr.X_t:\ F(\mathbf X)-tZ^r=0,\qquad X_{mt}:\ F(\mathbf X)-mtZ^r=0 \quad\text{in }\mathbb P^r_L.

Both are geometrically smooth: their partial derivatives vanish simultaneously only at the zero vector. Their dimension is r−1≥3r-1\ge3, their geometric Picard rank is one, and adjunction gives −KX=OX(1)-K_X=\mathcal O_X(1).

Embed the finitely generated field LL into C\mathbb C and apply de Fernex's theorem. The map becomes an isomorphism. This descends to LL: the two projections from the closure of its graph become isomorphisms after a faithfully flat field extension, hence are already isomorphisms. Since the isomorphism preserves the anticanonical bundle and

H0(PLr,O(1))≃H0(Xt,O(1)),H^0(\mathbb P^r_L,\mathcal O(1)) \simeq H^0(X_t,\mathcal O(1)),

it is induced by a projective linear map MM over LL.

Let Gt=F(X)−tZrG_t=F(\mathbf X)-tZ^r. There is λ∈L×\lambda\in L^\times such that Gmt(MX)=λGt(X)G_{mt}(M\mathbf X)=\lambda G_t(\mathbf X), where here X\mathbf X includes ZZ. The Hessian determinant of either polynomial is a nonzero scalar times (X1⋯XrZ)r−2(X_1\cdots X_rZ)^{r-2}. The Hessian transformation formula therefore makes MM monomial. Write its rows as bj(t)Xσ(j)b_j(t)X_{\sigma(j)}, indexing ZZ by 00.

Comparison of coefficients and then tt-adic valuations gives

rvt(bj)=vt(λ)+1σ(j)=0−1j=0.(2)r v_t(b_j)=v_t(\lambda) +\mathbf1_{\sigma(j)=0}-\mathbf1_{j=0}. \tag{2}

If σ\sigma moved 00, the shifts on the right would include 0,1,−10,1,-1. They cannot all be congruent modulo rr. Thus σ(0)=0\sigma(0)=0. The ZrZ^r coefficient now gives λ=mb0r\lambda=mb_0^r, and the remaining coefficients give

(bi/b0)r=maσ(i)/ai∈K×.(b_i/b_0)^r=m a_{\sigma(i)}/a_i\in K^\times.

A rational function in tt algebraic over KK belongs to KK. Consequently bi/b0=ci∈K×b_i/b_0=c_i\in K^\times. Dehomogenizing and identifying tt with F(x)F(\mathbf x) proves (1). □\square

No composition law birational in one input

For r≥4r\ge4 there is no rational identity

F(C(x,y))=F(x)F(y)(3)F(C(\mathbf x,\mathbf y))=F(\mathbf x)F(\mathbf y) \tag{3}

whose generic x\mathbf x-translation is birational. Apply the theorem over K=Q(y)K=\mathbb Q(\mathbf y), with m=F(y)m=F(\mathbf y). Equation (1) would make a constant multiple of F(y)F(\mathbf y) an rrth power in KK. The valuation at the absolutely irreducible polynomial F(y)F(\mathbf y) is one, which is impossible for an rrth power. Absolute irreducibility follows from smoothness of its projective hypersurface: distinct positive-degree homogeneous factors would intersect and cause a singularity.

Thus for a fixed positive rational FF and r≥4r\ge4, even arbitrarily complicated birational self-maps preserving FF are only its finite monomial symmetry group. Positivity of the image selects the positive coordinate scalings. The fixed-complexity qualification in the earlier rational-map bound is unnecessary for this subclass. The result does not exclude nonbirational rational maps, correspondences, or positive density of the value set.

Birational exponent descent is also excluded

Suppose a birational coordinate change identified FF with a positive diagonal degree-dd form HH in the same rr variables, where 1≤d<r1\le d<r. Their generic projective levels would be birational: one is the degree-rr hypersurface above, the other is the smooth degree-dd hypersurface H(Y)=tZdH(\mathbf Y)=tZ^d in Pr\mathbb P^r. Over C\mathbb C, both are smooth Fano varieties of Picard rank one. Superrigidity forces an isomorphism, but their Fano indices are 11 and r+1−dr+1-d, respectively. This is impossible.

This does not exclude nonbirational power substitutions, such as xi↦xir/dx_i\mapsto x_i^{r/d} when d∣rd\mid r; those substitutions retain uncontrolled power restrictions on the new coordinates.

Direct products of proper subsums

Let Ar,mA_{r,m} be the positive integers expressible as a sum of at most mm positive rr-powerful integers. For 1≤m≤r1\le m\le r, canonical tuple counting gives

#(Ar,m∩[1,X])≪rXm/r.\#(A_{r,m}\cap[1,X])\ll_r X^{m/r}.

Suppose k≥2k\ge2, all mj≥2m_j\ge2, and ∏j=1kmj≤r\prod_{j=1}^k m_j\le r. Expansion of a product shows

Ar,m1⋯Ar,mk⊆Sr,A_{r,m_1}\cdots A_{r,m_k}\subseteq S_r,

because a product of powerful integers is powerful. But this construction has the bound

#(Ar,m1⋯Ar,mk∩[1,X])≪rXmax⁡jmj/r(log⁡(2X))k−1≪rX1/2(log⁡(2X))k−1.(4)\#\bigl(A_{r,m_1}\cdots A_{r,m_k}\cap[1,X]\bigr) \ll_r X^{\max_j m_j/r}(\log(2X))^{k-1} \ll_r X^{1/2}(\log(2X))^{k-1}. \tag{4}

To prove this, put each factor in a dyadic range [2hj,2hj+1)[2^{h_j},2^{h_j+1}). Set αj=mj/r\alpha_j=m_j/r and α=max⁡jαj>0\alpha=\max_j\alpha_j>0. The tuple count in that box is Or(2∑jαjhj)≤Or(2α∑jhj)O_r(2^{\sum_j\alpha_jh_j})\le O_r(2^{\alpha\sum_jh_j}). Only ∑hj≤log⁡2X\sum h_j\le\log_2 X can occur. There are Ok((1+H)k−1)O_k((1+H)^{k-1}) compositions with sum HH; geometric summation proves the first bound in (4). Finally mj≤r/2m_j\le r/2, since another factor has at least two summands. This proves the second bound.

Thus ordinary multiplicative tensoring of proper subsums cannot give positive density, even when every powerful coefficient is allowed. No assertion about more general composition laws follows from (4).