Rational algebraic curves have been intensively studied in the last decades, both from the theoretical and applied point of view. In applications (e.g. level curves, linear homotopy deformation, geometric constructions in computer aided design, etc.), there often appear unknown parameters. It is possible to adjoin these parameters to the coefficient field as transcendental elements. In some particular cases, however, the curve has a different behavior than in the generic situation treated in this way. In this paper, we show when the singularities and thus the (geometric) genus of the curves might change. More precisely, we give a partition of the affine space, where the parameters take values, so that in each subset of the partition the specialized curve is either reducible or its genus is invariant. In particular, we give a Zariski-closed set in the space of parameter values where the genus of the curve under specialization might decrease or the specialized curve gets reducible. For the genus zero case, and for a given rational parametrization, a better description is possible such that the set of parameters where Hilbert’s irreducibility theorem does not hold can be isolated, and such that the specialization of the parametrization parametrizes the specialized curve. We conclude the paper by illustrating these results by some concrete applications.
If \deg(\mathcal{C}(G)), is odd then \mathbb{L} is a field of parametrization.
If \deg(\mathcal{C}(G)) is even then either \mathbb{L} is a field of parametrization or there exists \delta\in \overline{\mathbb{L}} algebraic over \mathbb{L}, with minimal polynomial t^2-\alpha\in \mathbb{L}[t], such that \mathbb{L}(\delta) is a field of parametrization of \mathcal{C}(G).
Observe that the previous result is valid taking \mathbb{L} as any field extension of \mathbb{K}.
If \#(\mathbf{a})=1, then \mathbb{L} is a field of parametrization of \mathcal{C}(G).
By Hilbert-Hurwitz Theorem (see e.g. [myBook, Theorem 5.8] and as explained above), \mathcal{C}(G) is \mathbb{L}–birationally equivalent to either a line or a conic. In the line case, the result is clear. In the conic case, since \#(\mathbf{a})=1, the result follows from Tsen’s Theorem (see e.g. [shafa, Corollary 1.11]).
The proof of Tsen’s Theorem provides a method for computing a regular point on the conic with coordinates in \mathbb{L}. An alternative approach for computing this point can be found in [HW] and [vo].
In the following section we work with G\in \mathbb{K}[\mathbf{a},\gamma][x,y] where \gamma is algebraic over \mathbb{K}(\mathbf{a}). In the case where \#(\mathbf{a})=1, we can view \gamma as the only parameter and write \mathbf{a} in terms of \gamma. More precisely, let M(\mathbf{a},c) \in \mathbb{K}(\mathbf{a})[c] be the minimal polynomial of \gamma. We can view M as a rational expression in \mathbf{a} and consider its numerator
as polynomial in \mathbf{b} with the root \mathbf{a}. Thus, \mathbb{K}(\gamma,\mathbf{a}):\mathbb{K}(\gamma) is a field extension of degree d \le \deg(H). If d=1, by Corollary 2.3, \mathbb{K}(\gamma) is a field of parametrization of \mathcal{C}(G).
In Corollary 2.3, we have seen that if \#(\mathbf{a})=1 then \mathbb{L} is a field of parametrization. The following example shows that if \#(a)>1, in general, \mathbb{L} is not a field of parametrization. We consider the conic defined by {G}:=a_1 x^2+a_2 y^2-1. We prove that \mathcal{C}(G) does not have a parametrization over \mathbb{C}(a_1,a_2). Let us assume that \mathbb{C}(a_1,a_2) is a field of parametrization of \mathcal{C}(G), then \mathcal{C}(G) has infinitely many points in \mathbb{C}(a_1,a_2)^2. \mathcal{C}(G) parametrizes properly as
which inverse is
So, there are infinitely many points in \mathcal{C}(G)\cap \mathbb{C}(a_1,a_2)^2 that are injectively reachable, via \mathcal{P}, for t\in \mathbb{C}(\sqrt{a_1},\sqrt{a_2}). Indeed, note that all points of \mathcal{C}(F), with the exception of (-\sqrt{a_1},0), are reachable by \mathcal{P}. Let t_0\in \mathbb{C}(\sqrt{a_1},\sqrt{a_2}) \setminus \{ 0,\pm \mathrm{i}\} be one of these parameter values; say \mathcal{P}(t_0)=(x_0,y_0)\in \mathbb{C}(a_1,a_2)^2. Then t_{0}^2 = (\sqrt{a_1}+x_0)/(\sqrt{a_1}-x_0) \in \mathbb{C}(\sqrt{a_1},a_2). For x_0 \ne 0, it holds that \sqrt{a_1}+x_0, \sqrt{a_1}-x_0 are coprime (seen as polynomials in \sqrt{a_1}) and
a contradiction. For x_0=0 the curve-points (x_0,y_0)=(0,\pm 1/\sqrt{a_2}) are not in \mathbb{C}(a_1,a_2).
We define the open subset \Omega_{\gamma}:=\mathbb{S} \setminus \mathbb{V}(D) where D:=\operatorname{lcm}(D_0,\ldots,D_{k-1}).
Let f be as in (?). Let \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_\gamma be such that W(\mathbf{a}^0)\neq 0 (see Def. 3.1). If f(\mathbf{a}^0)=0, then \mathrm{Norm}(f)(\mathbf{a}^0)=0.
D(\mathbf{a}^0)W(\mathbf{a}^0)\neq 0. So \gamma^0, f(\mathbf{a}^0) and \mathrm{Norm}(f)(\mathbf{a}^0)=\mathrm{res}_t(f(\mathbf{a}^0,t),p(\mathbf{a}^0,t)) are well-defined. Since f(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0)=0=p(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0), we obtain \mathrm{Norm}(f)(\mathbf{a}^0)=0.
Let H\in \mathbb{F} [\overline{v}], where \overline{v} is a tuple of variables. Let S be the set of all non-zero coefficients of H w.r.t. \overline{v}. Let
note that C\in S\subset \mathbb{F} is a rational function in \mathbf{a},\gamma expressed in canonical form and, hence, its denominator is in \mathbb{K}[\mathbf{a}]. And let
note that \mathrm{Norm}(\mathrm{numer}(C))\in \mathbb{L} and, hence its numerator is in \mathbb{K}[\mathbf{a}]. We associate to H the following open subsets
\Omega_{\mathrm{def}(H)}:=\Omega_\gamma \cap\left( \mathbb{S}\setminus \mathbb{V}(\mathcal{D}(H))\right).
\Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(H)}:=\Omega_{\mathrm{def}(H)} \cap \left(\mathbb{S}\setminus \mathbb{V}(\mathcal{V}(H ))\right).
Throughout the paper, we will define several open subsets of \mathbb{S}. All these open subsets will be included in \Omega_{\gamma} (for the corresponding algebraic element \gamma). So, we observe that \gamma^0 will always be well–defined.
Let H\in \mathbb{F}[\overline{v}], where \overline{v} is a tuple of variables. It holds that
If \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(H)} then H(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,\overline{v}) is well-defined.
If \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(H)} then H(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,\overline{v})\neq 0.
(1) Let \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(H)}\subset \Omega_\gamma. Then, \gamma^0=\gamma(\mathbf{a}^0) is well–defined, and the result follows from the definition of \mathcal{D}(H).
(2) Let \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(H)}\subset \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(H)}. Then, by (1), H(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,\overline{v}) is well–defined. Furthermore, there exists a coefficient of H w.r.t. \overline{v}, say C(\mathbf{a},\gamma), such that \mathrm{Norm}(\mathrm{numer}(C))(\mathbf{a}^0)\neq 0. Since D(\mathbf{a}^0)\neq 0 (see Def. 3.1) and the denominator of C does not vanish at \mathbf{a}^0, by Lemma 3.2, we get that C(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0)\neq 0. So, H(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,\overline{v})\neq 0.
Let f_1,f_2\in \mathbb{F}[u][v]\setminus\{0\} for i\in \{1,2\}, where u,v are variables. Let f_i=f_{i}^{*} \, g, for i\in \{1,2\}, where g=\gcd_{ \mathbb{F}[u][v]}(f_1,f_2). Let A_i\in \mathbb{F}[u] be the leading coefficient of f_i w.r.t. v for i\in \{1,2\} and B\in \mathbb{F}[u] the leading coefficient of g w.r.t. v. Let R=\mathrm{res}_{v}(f_{1}^{*},f_{2}^{*})\in \mathbb{F}[u]. Let
We define the set
In the sequel, unless there is a risk of ambiguity, we will omit in the notation of the gcds, and of the open subset \Omega_{\gcd}, the polynomial ring where the gcd is taken.
Let f_1,f_2,g be as in Def. 3.6. For \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}_{\mathbb{F}[u][v]}(f_1,f_2)}, it holds that
with \lambda(u)\in \overline{\mathbb{K}}[u]\setminus \{0\}. Moreover, \deg_v(g(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,u,v))=\deg_v(g(\mathbf{a},\gamma,u,v)).
Let f_{i}^{*},A_i,B,R be as in Def. 3.6 and let \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}(f_1,f_2)}. f_{i}^{0},g^0,f_{i}^{*\,0},A_{i}^{0},B^{0},R^0 are all well–defined because \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_1 (see Def. 3.6 and Lemma 3.5 (1)). So,
Moreover, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_2 (see Def. 3.6), by Lemma 3.5 (2), B^0\neq 0, R^0\neq 0. Furthermore, f_{i}^0,g^0 preserve the degree in v and, in particular, are also non–zero. This implies that f_{i}^{*\,0} are non–zero too. From (Proof), one has that, up to multiplication by non-zero elements in \overline{\mathbb{K}},
Let us prove that \delta:=\deg_v(\gcd_{\overline{\mathbb{K}}[u][v]}(f_{1}^{*\,0},f_{2}^{*\,0}))=0, in which case taking \lambda(u) as this gcd, the gcd equality in the statement of the lemma would hold. Indeed, let \delta>0. Then, if \tilde{R}(u)=\mathrm{res}_v(f_{1}^{*\,0},f_{2}^{*\,0}), we get that \tilde{R} is zero (see e.g. [Geddes, Corollary page 288]). However, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_2 (see Def. 3.6), by Lemma 3.5 (2), A_{1}^{0},A_{2}^{0} are not zero and, hence, the leading coefficients of f_{i}^{*} do not vanish either at \mathbf{a}^0. Thus, by [winkler, Lemma 4.3.1], R^0=\tilde{R}(u). But R^0\neq 0 which is a contradiction. So, \delta=0. In addition, since B^0\neq 0, \deg_v(g^0)=\deg_v(g).
Let f_1,f_2\in \mathbb{F}[v]\setminus\{0\} for i\in \{1,2\}. Let g=\gcd_{\mathbb{F}[v]}(f_1,f_2). For \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}_{\mathbb{F}[v]}(f_1,f_2)}, it holds that, up to multiplication by non-zero elements in \overline{\mathbb{K}},
Moreover, \deg_v(g(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,v))=\deg_v(g(\mathbf{a},\gamma,v)).
Let f_1,\ldots,f_r\in \mathbb{F}[v]\setminus\{0\}, g=\gcd_{\mathbb{F}[v]}(f_1,\ldots,f_r) and A the leading coefficient of g w.r.t. v. We consider the polynomial f_Z:=f_2+f_3Z+\cdots +f_{r} Z^{r-2}\in \mathbb{F}[Z][v] where Z is a new variable. We define
Observe that if r=2 in Def. 3.10, then Def. 3.6 and 3.10 coincide. In addition, since f_1 does not depend on Z, there exists \mu\in \mathbb{F}\setminus \{0\} such that \gcd_{\mathbb{F}[Z][v]}(f_1,F_Z)=\mu \gcd_{\mathbb{F}[v]}(f_1,\ldots,f_r). Similarly if the polynomials are taken in \overline{\mathbb{K}}[v].
Let f_1,\ldots,f_r be as in Def. 3.10. Let g=\gcd_{\mathbb{F}[v]}(f_1,\ldots,f_r). For \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}_{\mathbb{F}[v]}(f_1,\ldots,f_r)}, it holds that, up to multiplication by non-zero elements in \overline{\mathbb{K}},
Moreover, \deg_v(g(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,v))=\deg_v(g(\mathbf{a},\gamma,v)).
Let g^*=\gcd_{\mathbb{F}[Z][v]}(f_1,f_Z), and \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}_{\mathbb{F}[v]}(f_1,\ldots,f_r)}. By Remark 3.11, g^*\in \mathbb{F}[v]. By Lemma 3.8, there exists \lambda\in \overline{\mathbb{K}}[Z]\setminus \{0\} such that
and \deg_v(g^{*\,0})=\deg_v(g^*). Note that, since g^{*\,0} does not depend on Z, then \lambda \in \overline{\mathbb{K}}\setminus \{0\}. On the other hand, by Remark 3.11, there exists \mu\in \mathbb{F}\setminus \{0\} such that g^*=\mu g. Furthermore, \mu^0:=\mu(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0) is well defined. Moreover, since the leading coefficients of g^* and g do no vanish when specialized, then \mu^0\neq 0. Thus, up to multiplication by non-zero elements in \overline{\mathbb{K}}, it holds that
Moreover, by definition of the open set, the leading coefficient of g w.r.t. v does not vanish at \mathbf{a}^0. Therefore, \deg_v(g^0)=\deg_v(g ).
Let f\in \mathbb{F}[v]\setminus \mathbb{F} be squarefree. Let R be the discriminant of f w.r.t. v and let A be the leading coefficient of f w.r.t. v. We define the open subset
Let f\in \mathbb{F}[v]\setminus \mathbb{F} be squarefree. If \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{sqfree}(f)}, then \deg_{v}(f(\mathbf{a},\gamma,v))= \deg_{v}(f(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,v)) and f(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,v) is squareefree.
Since \mathbf{a}^0\in\Omega_{\mathrm{def}(f)}, by Lemma 3.5, f(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,v) is well–defined. Since \mathbf{a}^0\in\Omega_{\mathrm{NonZ}(A)}, f(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,v)\neq 0 and the equality of the degrees holds. Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(R)}, also by Lemma 3.5, R(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,v) is well-defined and non–zero. Since A(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,v)\neq 0, by [winkler, Lemma 4.3.1], the discriminant of f(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,v) is not zero. Then, by [winkler, Theorem 4.4.1], f(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,v) is squarefree.
We associate to G the open subset (see (?)) \Omega_G:=\Omega_{\mathrm{def}(G)}\cap \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(g_d)}.
Let G be as above and let \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_G. Then
G(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0, x,y) is well–defined and \deg(G(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0, x,y))=\deg(G);
G(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0, x,y)^{h}=G^{h}(\mathbf{a}^0, \gamma^0, x,y,z);
the partial derivatives of G^h, of any order, specialize properly.
Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(G)}, by Lemma 3.5, G(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0, x,y) is well–defined and, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(g_d)}, the equality on the degree holds. Now, since the total degree d=\deg(G) is preserved under the specialization, G(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0, x,y)^h=(g_d(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y)+\cdots+g_0(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y))^h=g_d(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y)+\cdots+g_0(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y)z^{d}=G(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y,z). Finally, since derivatives of G^h do not introduce denominators, all derivatives are well-defined when specializing at \mathbf{a}^0, and the derivative of the specialization is the specialization of the derivative.
For \mathbf{a}^0\in \mathbb{S}, we define \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0} as the smallest subfield of \overline{\mathbb{K}} containing the coefficients of G(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y). Moreover, if \mathcal{F}=\{(f_1:f_2:f_3)\}_{m} is an \mathbb{F}–conjugate family, and \mathbf{a}^0\in \mathbb{S} is such that \gamma^0, f_1(\mathbf{a}^0,t), f_2(\mathbf{a}^0,t), f_3(\mathbf{a}^0,t), m(\mathbf{a}^0,t) are well–defined, we denote by \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) the specialization of \mathcal{F} at \mathbf{a}^0 (and \gamma^0).
Let \mathcal{F}:=\{(f_{1,m}:f_{2,m}:1)\}_{m}\in \mathscr{D}(G^h) be an irreducible \mathbb{F}-family of affine singularities of \mathcal{C}(G^h) (see (?)). Let A be the product of the leading coefficients w.r.t. t of m, f_{1,m}, f_{2,m}. We associate to \mathcal{F} the open set
Let \mathcal{F}:=\{(L_{1,m}:L_{2,m}:0)\}_{m}\in \mathscr{D}(G^h) be an irreducible \mathbb{F}-family of singularities of \mathcal{C}(G^h) at infinity (see (?)). Let A be the leading coefficient of m w.r.t. t. We associate to \mathcal{F} the open set
Let H,m\in \mathbb{F}[t]. Let R be the remainder of the division of H by m w.r.t. t, and let A be the leading coefficient of m w.r.t. t. If H(\mathbf{a}^0,t), m(\mathbf{a}^0,t) are well–defined and A(\mathbf{a}^0)\neq 0, then H(\mathbf{a}^0,t)=R(\mathbf{a}^0,t) mod m(\mathbf{a}^0,t).
Let Q be the quotient of the divison of H by m w.r.t. t. So, H=Q \cdot m +R with \deg_t(R)<\deg_t(m). Since H^0, m^0 are well–defined,\gamma^0 exists. Since A^0\neq 0, then Q^0,R^0 are well–defined. Moreover, \deg_t(m)=\deg_t(m^0). Then H^0=Q^0 m^0 +R^0 with
This concludes the proof.
Let \mathcal{F}\in\mathscr{D}(G^h) be an irreducible \mathbb{F}–family of \mathcal{C}(G^h) (see (?)). If \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(\mathcal{F})}, then \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) is a \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}–family of points of \mathcal{C}(G^h,\mathbf{a}^0) and \#(\mathcal{F})=\#(\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0)).
Let \mathcal{F}=\{(f_{1,m}:f_{2,m}:1)\}_{m}. Let us first show that \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) is a \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}-family of points of \mathcal{C}(G^h,\mathbf{a}^0). Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}(f_{1,m},f_{2,m},m)} (see Def. 3.10) then \gamma^0, f_{i,m}^0 and m^0 are well-defined and, by Theorem 3.12, the \gcd(f_{1,m}^0, f_{2,m}^0, m^0)=1. Furthermore, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{NonZ}(A)} (see Def. 3.3), the degree of f_{i,m} and m is preserved under the specialization. In addition, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{sqfree}(m)}, it holds that m^0 is squarefree (see Lemma 3.14). So the conditions in Def. A.1 hold. Furthermore, note that, after specialization, all polynomials are over \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}. So, \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) is a family over \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}. It remains to prove that the points in \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) are in the specialized curve. Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{G}, by Lemma 3.16, it holds that (G^0)^h=(G^h)^0. Let T(\mathbf{a},t)=G^h(\mathbf{a},f_{1,m},f_{2,m},1). Since \mathcal{F} is a family of points in \mathcal{C}(G^h), it holds that T=0 mod m. Since (G^h)^0 and f_{i,m}^0 are well–defined, then T^0 is well–defined too. We know that m^0 is well–defined and that the leading coefficient of m in t does not vanish after specialization. Therefore, by Lemma 3.19, G^h(\mathbf{a}^0,f_{1,m}^0,f_{2,m}^0,1)=0 modulo m^0. Hence, \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) is a \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}–family of points of \mathcal{C}(G^h,\mathbf{a}^0).
If \mathcal{F}:=\{(L_{1,m}:L_{2,m}:0)\}_{m} all the arguments above apply and, hence, one deduces that \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) is a \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}–family of points of \mathcal{C}(G^h,\mathbf{a}^0).
It remains to prove that \#(\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0))=\#(\mathcal{F}). Let \mathcal{L} be the \mathbb{K}–linear change of coordinates transforming \mathcal{C}(G) in regular position; see Step (1) in the standard decomposition process described in Subsection ?. Then, \#(\mathcal{F})=\#(\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\mathcal{F})). Furthermore, \mathcal{L}^{-1}(\mathcal{F}) is in the form appearing either in (?) or in (?). Therefore, \#(\mathcal{F})=\deg_t(m). Since \mathcal{L} is over \mathbb{K}, we may apply it to \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) and \mathcal{L}^{-1}(\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0)) will be of the form either \{(t:B^0:1)\}_{m^0} or \{(1:t:0)\}_{m^0}. In both cases, \#(\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0))=\#(\mathcal{L}^{-1}(\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0)))=\deg_t(m^0). Now, the result follows using that \deg_t(m)=\deg_t(m^0).
Given an \mathbb{F}–family \mathcal{F}\in\mathscr{D}(G^h) (see (?)), and \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(\mathcal{F})} (see Def. 3.18), we observe that, even though \mathcal{F} is irreducible, \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) may be reducible. We are interested in working with irreducible specialized families. So, factoring over \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0} the defining polynomial of \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0), the family will be decomposed as
where \mathcal{F}_i is an irreducible \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}–family. We refer to \mathcal{F}_i as the irreducible subfamilies of \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0). Note that, if \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0):=\{(f_1:f_2:f_3)\}_{m}, each irreducible subfamily is of the form \{ (f_1:f_2:f_3)\}_{m^*} where m^*(t) is an irreducible factor of m(t) over \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}.
Let \mathcal{F}:=\{(f_1:f_2:f_3)\}_{m}\in\mathscr{D}(G^h) (see (?)) be an irreducible \mathbb{F}–family of r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h) (see Def. A.5), and let H^*(\mathbf{a},x,y,z) be one of the order r derivatives of G^h such that H^*(\mathbf{a},f_1,f_2,f_3)\neq 0 modulo m(\mathbf{a},t) (see Remark A.6). Let H(\mathbf{a},t) be the remainder of the division of H^*(\mathbf{a},f_1,f_2,f_3) by m(\mathbf{a},t) w.r.t. t. Let R(\mathbf{a}):=\mathrm{res}_t(H(\mathbf{a},t),m(\mathbf{a},t)). We define the open subset
We observe that in Def. 3.22, m is irreducible over \mathbb{F}, H\in \mathbb{F}[t]\setminus\{0\} and \deg_t(H)<\deg_t(m). Therefore, \gcd(m,H)=1 and hence R\neq 0.
Let \mathcal{F}\in \mathscr{D}(G^h) (see (?)) be an irreducible \mathbb{F}-family of r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h). If \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{mult}(\mathcal{F})}, then every irreducible subfamily of \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) (see Remark 3.21) is a \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}–family of r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h,\mathbf{a}^0).
\mathcal{F} can be expressed as \mathcal{F}=\{(f_1:f_2:\lambda)\}_{m} where f_1,f_2,m\in \mathbb{F}[t], \lambda\in \{0,1\}, m irreducible over \mathbb{F}, and such that, for the case \lambda=0, \deg_{t}(f_i)\leq 1 and \gcd(f_1,f_2)=1 (see (?)). Let H^*, H be as in Def. 3.22. Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(\mathcal{F})}, by Lemma 3.20, \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) is a \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}–family of points of \mathcal{C}(G^h,\mathbf{a}^0). Let \mathcal{F}_i:=\{(f_1(\mathbf{a}^0,t):f_2(\mathbf{a}^0,t):\lambda)\}_{m^*} be an irreducible subfamily of \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0). Now, let W(\mathbf{a},x,y,z) be any partial derivative of G^h of order smaller than r. Then, W(\mathbf{a},f_1(\mathbf{a},t),f_2(\mathbf{a},t),\lambda)=0 mod m(\mathbf{a},t). Thus, since all the involved specializations are well–defined, W(\mathbf{a}^0,f_1(\mathbf{a}^0,t),f_2(\mathbf{a}^0,t),\lambda)=0 mod m^*. Therefore, the points at \mathcal{F}_i have multiplicity at least r. On the other hand, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{G}, H^*(\mathbf{a}^0,f_1(\mathbf{a}^0,t),f_2(\mathbf{a}^0,t),\lambda) is well–defined and \deg(m(\mathbf{a},t))=\deg(m(\mathbf{a}^0,t)), by Lemma 3.19, H^*(\mathbf{a}^0,f_1(\mathbf{a}^0,t),f_2(\mathbf{a}^0,t),\lambda)=H(\mathbf{a}^0,t) modulo m(\mathbf{a}^0,t). Furthermore, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(H)}, then H(\mathbf{a}^0,t)\neq 0. Moreover, since the leading coefficient of m w.r.t. t does not vanish at \mathbf{a}^0, we have that \mathrm{res}_{t}(H(\mathbf{a}^0,t),m(\mathbf{a}^0,t))=\mu \,R(\mathbf{a}^0) for some non-zero constant \mu\in \overline{\mathbb{K}} (see Lemma 4.3.1 in [winkler]). So, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(R)}, \mathrm{res}_{t}(H(\mathbf{a}^0,t),m(\mathbf{a}^0,t))\neq 0. Therefore, \gcd(H(\mathbf{a}^0,t),m(\mathbf{a}^0,t))=1 and hence H(\mathbf{a}^0,t)\neq 0 mod m^*. Summarizing, \mathrm{mult}(\mathcal{F}_i)=r.
Let \mathcal{F}=\{(f_1:f_2:f_3)\}_m be an irreducible \mathbb{F}-family of r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h). Let \mathbb{F}_m be the quotient field of \mathbb{F}[t]/\!\!<\!\!m(t)\!\!>. The defining tangent polynomial of \mathcal{C}(G^h) at \mathcal{F} is the homogenous polynomial T\in\mathbb{F}_m[x,y,z] of degree r that defines the tangents, with its corresponding multiplicities, to \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{F}}(G^h) at the point (f_1:f_2:f_3). Similarly, we introduce the defining tangent polynomial to a specialized curve.
Let \mathcal{F}=\{(f_1:f_2:1)\}_{m} \in \mathscr{D}(G^h) (see (?)) be an irreducible family of affine r–fold points; similarly if the family is at infinity. The defining tangent polynomial T is the reduction of
modulo m(t).
Let \mathcal{F} be as in Def. 3.25. Then \mathcal{F} is a family of ordinary points if and only if T is squarefree over \mathbb{F}_m. In the sequel, we assume w.l.o.g. that there is no tangent to \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{F}}(G^{h}) at \mathcal{F} independent of x and that for two different tangents T_1(\mathbf{a},x,y,z), T_2(\mathbf{a},x,y,z) it holds that T_1(\mathbf{a},x,1,1)\neq T_2(\mathbf{a},x,1,1). Note that, if this is not the case, one can apply a linear change over \mathbb{K} (and thus invariant under specializations of the parameters \mathbf{a}). Then, the ordinary character of the family is readable from the squarefreeness of T(\mathbf{a},t,x,1,1) over \mathbb{F}_m.
Let \mathcal{F}, with defining polynomial m(t), be an irreducible \mathbb{F}–family of ordinary r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h). Let T be the defining tangent polynomial of \mathcal{F}, where we assume w.l.o.g. that the hypotheses in Remark 3.26 (2) are satisfied. Let D(\mathbf{a},t) be the reduction modulo m(t) of the discriminant w.r.t. x of T(\mathbf{a},t,x,1,1). Let N(\mathbf{a})=\mathrm{res}_t(D,m). Let A(\mathbf{a},t) be the leading coefficient of T(\mathbf{a},t,x,1,1) w.r.t. x and let R(\mathbf{a})=\mathrm{res}_{t}(A,m). Let S(\mathbf{a},x)=\mathrm{res}_t(T(\mathbf{a},t,x,0,0),m). We define the set
In relation to Def. 3.27, we observe the following.
By construction, \deg_t(A)<\deg_t(m) and clearly A is not zero. Since m is irreducible, \gcd(A, m)=1. Hence, R\neq 0.
Since \mathcal{F} is ordinary and the two hypotheses in Remark 3.26 (2) are satisfied, D\neq 0. Because \deg_t(D)<\deg_t(m) and m is irreducible, \gcd(m,H)=1 and hence, N\neq 0.
T(\mathbf{a},t,x,y,z) has a factor in \mathbb{F}_{m}[y,z] if and only if T(\mathbf{a},t,x,0,0)=0. This follows from the fact that the tangents are of degree one and thus, T(\mathbf{a},t,x,y,z)=\prod (A_i(\mathbf{a},t)x+B_i(\mathbf{a},t)y+C_i(\mathbf{a},t)z) for some A_i,B_i,C_i \in \mathbb{F}_{m}. Thus, under our assumption that T(\mathbf{a},t,x,y,z) does not have a factor independent of x, T(\mathbf{a},t,x,0,0) \ne 0. Since m is irreducible, and \deg_t(T(\mathbf{a},t,x,0,0))<\deg_t(m), it follows that S \ne 0.
Let \mathcal{F}\in \mathscr{D}(G^h) (see (?)) be an irreducible \mathbb{F}-family of ordinary r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h). If \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{ord}(\mathcal{F})}, every irreducible subfamily of \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) (see Remark 3.21) is a \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}–family of ordinary r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h,\mathbf{a}^0).
Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{ord}(\mathcal{F})}\subset \Omega_{\mathrm{mult}(\mathcal{F})}\subset \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(\mathcal{F})}, \deg_t(m(\mathbf{a},t))=\deg_{t}(m(\mathbf{a}^0,t)) and, by Lemma 3.24, every irreducible subfamily of \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) is a \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}–family of r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h,\mathbf{a}^0). Let us prove that all points in \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) are ordinary.
Let T^*,T be as in Remark 3.26 (1), or similarly if the family is at infinity. Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{ord}(\mathcal{F})}\subset \Omega_{\mathrm{mult}(\mathcal{F})}\subset \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(\mathcal{F})}\subset \Omega_G, by Lemma 3.16, T^* specializes properly at \mathbf{a}^0, and since \deg_t(m(\mathbf{a},t))=\deg_t(m(\mathbf{a}^0,t)), by Lemma 3.19, T also specializes properly at \mathbf{a}^0.
Now, let P be a point in \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0). Then, there exists a root t_0 of m(\mathbf{a}^0,t) such that P is obtained by specializing \mathcal{F} at \mathbf{a}^0 and t_0. Since P belongs to one of the irreducible subfamilies, P is an r–fold point of the curve \mathcal{C}(G^h,\mathbf{a}^0). Because of the discussion above, E(x,y,z):=T(\mathbf{a}^0,t_0,x,y,z) is the defining tangent polynomial of \mathcal{C}(G^h,\mathbf{a}^0) at P. It remains to prove that E is squareefree. First, let us see that there is no factor of E independent of x. Assume that e(y,z) is a factor of E. Then E(x,0,0)=0, and (\mathbf{a}^0,t_0,x,0,0) is a common zero of T(\mathbf{a},t,x,y,z) and m(\mathbf{a},t). Therefore, see e.g. Theorem 4.3.3 in [winkler], S(\mathbf{a}^0,x)=0 which contradicts that \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(S)}. Thus, it is sufficient to prove the squarefreeness of E(x,1,1). Let us assume that it is not squarefree, then its discriminant is zero. That is, the discriminant of T(\mathbf{a}^0,t_0,x,1,1) is zero. On the other hand, \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(R)}, R(\mathbf{a}^0)\neq 0 and thus, A(\mathbf{a}^0,t_0)\neq 0. By [winkler, Lemma 4.1.3] and the fact that m(\mathbf{a}^0,t_0)=0, it follows that D(\mathbf{a}^0,t_0)=0 and consequently, N(\mathbf{a}^0)=0, in contradiction to \mathbf{a}^0 \in \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(N)}.
Let \mathcal{F}\in \mathscr{D}(G^h) (see (?)) be an irreducible \mathbb{F}-family of ordinary r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h). If \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{ord}(\mathcal{F})}, then all points in \mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0) are ordinary r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h,\mathbf{a}^0) and \#(\mathcal{F})=\#(\mathcal{F}(\mathbf{a}^0)).
We define the open subset (see (?) and Def. 3.15 and 3.27)
Let \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{singOrd}(F^h)}. If \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is irreducible, then
Let d be the degree of \mathcal{C}(F). If \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h))=\emptyset, then \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_F. So, by Lemma 3.16, \deg(F(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y))=d. Since \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is irreducible, by equality (?) in the appendix, one has that
If \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h))\neq \emptyset, then \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{singOrd}(F^h)}\subset \Omega_F and \deg(F(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y))=d. By Corollary 3.30, all elements in \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h)) have the same multiplicity and character as their corresponding elements in \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h,\mathbf{a}^0)) after specialization. New singularities, however, may appear in \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h,\mathbf{a}^0)). So, reasoning as above with the genus formula in (?), or (?), in the appendix, we get the result.
Let \mathcal{C}(F) be a rational curve. Let \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{SingOrd}(F^h)}. If \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is irreducible, then \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is rational.
Let \mathrm{I} be an ideal in \mathbb{F}[\overline{v}], where \overline{v} is tuple of variables, generated by \mathscr{G}\subset \mathbb{F}[\overline{v}]. Let \mathcal{G} be a Gröbner basis of \mathscr{G} w.r.t. some order. We define \Omega_{\mathrm{spGB}(\mathcal{G})}\subset \mathbb{S} as a non-empty open subset such that for every \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{spGB}(\mathcal{G})} it holds that \{ g(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,\overline{v}) \,|\, g\in \mathcal{G}\} is a Gröbner basis, w.r.t. the same order, of the ideal generated by \{ g(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,\overline{v}) \,|\, g\in \mathscr{G}\} in \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}[\overline{v}].
(Affine singularities) With the notation introduced above, let
where U and V are the leading coefficients of f and g w.r.t. x and y, respectively. We define the open subset
where W_{q,y} denotes the leading coefficient of q w.r.t. y; similarly with W_{q,x}.
Note that all polynomials in \mathcal{G}_1\setminus \{f\} do depend on y; similarly for \mathcal{G}_2\setminus \{g\}. The idea of controlling the coefficients W_{q,x} and W_{q,y} in Def. 4.5 is to ensure that the elimination ideal of the specialized Gröbner basis does not include additional generators.
(Singularities at infinity) Let M(\mathbf{a},\gamma,y,z):=F^h(\mathbf{a},\gamma,1,y,z), let U(\mathbf{a},\gamma,t)=\gcd(M(\mathbf{a},\gamma,t,0),M_y(\mathbf{a},\gamma,t,0),M_z(\mathbf{a},\gamma,t,0)) and \tilde{U}(\mathbf{a},\gamma,t):=U/\gcd(U,U'), where U' is the derivative of U w.r.t. t. Let
where J is one the first derivatives of F^h not vanishing at (0:1:0). We define the open subset
We define the open subset
Let \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{sing}_a(F)}\cap \Omega_{\mathrm{sing}_\infty(F)}. Then
Let us denote the specialization of a polynomial Q at \mathbf{a}^0 as Q^0. Let \mathcal{G}^{0}_{1} be a Gröbner basis of <\!\!F^0,F^{0}_{x},F^{0}_{y}\!\!> w.r.t. the lexicographic order x<y, and let \mathcal{G}^{0}_2 be a Gröbner basis of the same ideal w.r.t. the lexicographic order y<x. Since
then \{f^0\}=\mathcal{G}_{1}^{0}\cap \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}[x] and \deg_x(f )=\deg_x(f^0). Similarly, \{g^0\}=\mathcal{G}_{2}^{0}\cap \mathbb{K}_{\mathbf{a}^0}[y] and \deg_y(f)=\deg_y(f^0). Since \mathbf{a}^0 \in \Omega_1, by Corollary 3.9, \gcd(f,f_x)^0=\gcd(f^0,f_{x}^{0}) and \deg_x(\gcd(f,f_x)^0)=\deg_x(\gcd(f,f_x)). Thus,
By Lemma 3.14, it holds that \deg_x(\tilde{f})=\deg_x(\tilde{f}^0) and \tilde{f}^0 is squarefree. Similarly for g and \tilde{g} since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_2. In addition, by Lemma 3.16,
Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{spGB}(\mathcal{G}_3)}, \{A^0,y-B^0\} is a Gröbner basis of \sqrt{<\!\!F^0,F^{0}_{x},F^{0}_{y} \!>}.
Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{sqfree}(A)}, by Lemma 3.14, A^0 is squarefree. Therefore, the number of affine singularities of \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is \deg_x(A^0) and \deg_x(A) is the number of affine singularities of \mathcal{C}(F). By Lemma 3.14, we get that \deg_x(A^0)=\deg_x(A) and, hence, \mathcal{C}(F) and \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) have the same number of affine singularities.
It remains to prove that the number of singularities at infinity is also the same. First we observe
that, if (0:1:0)\in \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h)), then (0:1:0)\in \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h,\mathbf{a}^0)). Moreover, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{(0:1:0)}, if (0:1:0)\not\in \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h)), then (0:1:0)\not\in \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h,\mathbf{a}^0)). For the remaining singularities at infinity, denote by \Sigma the set of the singularities of the form (1:\mu:0)\in \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h)); similarly let \Sigma^0 be the set of singularities of this type in \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h,\mathbf{a}^0)). Let M^0(y,z):=M(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,y,z) (see Def. 4.7), U^0(t):=\gcd(M^0(t,0),M^{0}_{y}(t,0),M^{0}_{z}(t,0)) and \tilde{U}^0(t):=U^0/\gcd(U^0,(U^0)'). Then,
Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}(M(\mathbf{a},\gamma,t,0),M_y(\mathbf{a},\gamma,t,0),M_z(\mathbf{a},\gamma,t,0))}, by Theorem 3.12, it holds that
Let D(\mathbf{a},\gamma,t)=\gcd(U,U') and D^0(t)=\gcd(U^0,(U^0)'). Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}(U,U')}, by Corollary 3.9, one has that
Now, by (?), (?) and (?), we get that \#(\Sigma)=\#(\Sigma^0) and this concludes the proof.
Let \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{genusOrd}(F^h)}. If \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is irreducible, then
Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{sing}_a(F)}\cap \Omega_{\mathrm{sing}_\infty(F)}, by Lemma 4.9, it holds that \#(\mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h))=\#(\mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h,\mathbf{a}^0)). On the other hand, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{SingOrd}(F^h)}, by Corollary 3.30, we know that each ordinary r–fold in \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h)) generates an ordinary r-fold in \mathrm{sing}(\mathcal{C}(F^h,\mathbf{a}^0)). Therefore, applying the genus formula (?) in the appendix, we conclude the proof.
With the notation introduced above, we define the set
Let \mathbf{a}^0 \in \Omega_{\mathrm{blowup}}(F). Then \varphi(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z) is birational.
Since \mathbf{a}^0 \in \Omega_{\mathrm{blowup}}(F) \subset \bigcap_{h\in \mathcal{M}} \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(h)} \cap \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}({\Delta})}, all \mathcal{Q}_i \circ \mathcal{L}_i are well–defined, and birational, when \mathbf{a} is specialized as \mathbf{a}^0. So \varphi(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z) is birational.
Let \mathbf{a}^0 \in \Omega_{\mathrm{blowup}}(F) and let \varphi^0:=\varphi(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z). If F_0(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y,z) is irreducible, then F_r(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z) is the quadratic transformation of F_0(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y,z).
First we observe that because of (the proof of) Lemma 4.12 each \varphi_i:=\mathcal{Q}_i \circ \mathcal{L}_i is well defined at \mathbf{a}^0 and it is birational. Let us prove the result by induction. By hypothesis F_{0}^{h}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y,z) is irreducible. We have the equality F_{0}^{h}(\varphi_i)=x^{n_1}y^{n_2}z^{n_3} F_{1}^{h} for some n_i\in \mathbb{N} and that neither x, y nor z divides F_{1}^{h}. So, F_{0}(\varphi_i)(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z)=x^{n_1}y^{n_2}z^{n_3} F_{1}^{h}(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z). Moreover, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \bigcap_{h\in \mathcal{B}} \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(h)}, we know that neither x, y nor z divides F_1(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z). Furthermore, since \varphi_i is birational when specialized at \mathbf{a}^0 and F_{0}^{h}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y,z) is irreducible, we have that F_{1}^{h}(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z) is also irreducible. Thus, F_{1}^{h}(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z) is the quadratic transformation of F_{0}^{h}. Now, the i-induction step is reasoned analogously using that, by induction, F_{i}^{h}(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z) is irreducible.
Let F \in \mathbb{F}[x,y] be as in (?), and let G \in \mathbb{F}(\gamma^*)[x,y] be the polynomial obtained after the blowup process of F^h. We define the set
Let F \in \mathbb{F}[x,y] be as in (?), and let \mathbf{a}^0 \in \Omega_{\mathrm{genus}(F)}. If \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is irreducible, then
We start recalling that the quadratic transformation defines a birational map (see e.g. [walker, Chapter V, Section 4.2]) from the original curve on its quadratic transformed curve (see the precise definition of transformed curve in Step 2 of the blow up at a point in Subsection ? in the appendix), and that the genus is a birational invariant (see e.g. [mauro, Theorem 7.2.2 or Prop. 8.5.1]). Then, since G^h is the quadratic transformation of F^h, we have that
Let \varphi^0 denote the map \varphi(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z). Since \mathbf{a}^0 \in \Omega_{\mathrm{blowup}(F)}, by Lemma 4.12, \varphi^0 is birational and, by Lemma 4.13, G^h(\mathbf{a}^0,(\gamma^*)^0,x,y,z) is the quadratic transformation of F^h(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y,z) via \varphi^0. Therefore, using the same argumentation as in (Proof), on gets
Moreover, since \mathbf{a}^0 \in \Omega_{\mathrm{genusOrd}(G^h)}, by Theorem 4.10, it holds that
Now, the proof follows from (Proof), (?) and (?).
Let F=A_2(\mathbf{a},\gamma)x+A_1(\mathbf{a},\gamma) y+A_0(\mathbf{a},\gamma)\in \mathbb{F}[x,y] \setminus \mathbb{F}. Since \mathcal{C}(F) is a line, it can be properly parametrized by a polynomial parametrization of the form \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a},\gamma,t)=(\lambda_1 t+\lambda_0, \mu_1 t+ \mu_0)\in \mathbb{F}(t)^2\setminus \mathbb{F}^2. We define the set (see Def. 3.3 and 3.15)
Let F and \mathcal{P} be as in Def. 5.1. For every \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P})}, it holds that \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,t) is a proper polynomial parametrization of \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0).
Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{F}, by Lemma 3.16, F(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y) is well defined and \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is an affine line, obviously irreducible. Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(\lambda_1 t+\lambda_0)} \cap \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(\mu_1 t+\mu_0)} then \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t) is well–defined. Moreover, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \left( \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(\lambda_1)} \cup \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(\mu_1)}\right), \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t) is a polynomial parametrization. Furthermore, F(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t))=0. So, it parametrizes the line \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0). In addition, since the polynomials in the parametrization are linear, the parametrization is invertible on the line \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) and thus proper. Let \mathcal{D} be the irreducible curve parametrized by \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t) (that is the Zariski closure of the image of \overline{\mathbb{K}} by \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t)). Then, since F(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t))=0, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) and \mathcal{D} have infinitely many intersection points. So, since they are irreducible, by Bézout Theorem (see e.g. [walker]) \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0)=\mathcal{D} and we conclude that \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t) is a proper parametrization of \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0).
With the notation in Proposition 5.2, if \mathbf{a}^0\in \mathbb{S}\setminus \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P})}, then:
If \mathbf{a}^0\not\in \Omega_F\setminus \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(F)}, it holds that F(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y)=A_0(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0)\in \overline{\mathbb{K}}, and hence \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) does not define an affine curve.
If \mathbf{a}^0\not\in \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(\lambda_1 t+\lambda_0)} but \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_F (similarly if \mathbf{a}^0\not\in\Omega_{\mathrm{def}(\mu_1 t+\mu_0)}), the specialization \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t) is not well–defined even though \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is a line. In this case, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is rational and a proper parametrization of the specialized line can be provided.
If \mathbf{a}^0\not\in \left( \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(\lambda_1)} \cup \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(\mu_1)}\right) but \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_F\cap \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(\lambda_1 t+\lambda_0)} \cap \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(\mu_1 t+\mu_0)}, then \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t)\in \overline{\mathbb{K}}^2 and hence it is not a parametrization although \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is a line. As in case (2), a polynomial parametrization of the specialized line can be provided.
Let \Omega_1:=\Omega_{F} (see Def. 3.15).
\Omega_2:=\Omega_{\mathrm{def}(p_1)}\cap \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(p_2)}\cap \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(q_1)}\cap \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(q_2)} (see (?)).
We consider the polynomials G_i=p_i(h)q_i(t)-p_i(t)q_i(h)\in \mathbb{F}[h][t]\setminus \{0\} for i\in \{1,2\}. Let \Omega_{3}:=\Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}(G_1,G_2)} (see Def. 3.6).
Let \Omega_{4}:=\Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}(p_1,q_1)} \cap \Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}(p_2,q_2)}; note that p_i,q_j\in \mathbb{F}[t]\subset \mathbb{F}[h,t] and, since \mathcal{C}(F) is not a line, the p_i and q_i are non–zero (see Def. 3.6).
We define \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P})} as
Let \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P})}. Then \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is a rational affine curve in \overline{\mathbb{K}}^2 properly parametrized by \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t).
If \deg(F)=1, the result follows from Prop. 5.2. Let \deg(F)>1. Since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_1, then F^0:=F(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,x,y) is well–defined and \deg(\mathcal{C}(F))=\deg(\mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0)). In particular \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is an affine curve. On the other hand, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_2, by Lemma 3.5 (1), we have that \mathcal{P}^0:=\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t) is well–defined. In addition, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_4, the leading coefficients of p_1,p_2,q_1,q_2 do not vanish at \mathbf{a}^0 (see Def. 3.6). Consequently the degree of all numerators and denominators of \mathcal{P} after specialization are preserved. Furthermore, by Corollary 3.9, and using that p_i/q_i are in reduced form, we get that p_{i}^{0}/q_{i}^{0} are also in reduced form. Therefore,
In particular, \mathcal{P}^0\not\in \overline{\mathbb{K}}^2, and hence \mathcal{P}^0 is a parametrization. Moreover, F^0(\mathcal{P}^0)=0. Thus, \mathcal{P}^0 parametrizes the curve defined by one of the factors, say H(x,y), of F^0. Let us see that indeed \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0)=\mathcal{C}(H).
Let G_i(\mathbf{a},\gamma,h,t) as in Def. 5.4 (3), and let G:=\gcd(G_1(\mathbf{a},\gamma,h,t),G_2(\mathbf{a},\gamma,h,t)). Let \tilde{G}_i(h,t) be the corresponding polynomials associated, as in Def. 5.4 (3), to \mathcal{P}^0. Let \tilde{G}:=\gcd(\tilde{G}_1,\tilde{G}_2). Since p_{i}^{0}/q_{i}^{0} are in reduced form, no simplification of the rational functions have been required, and therefore \tilde{G}_i(h,t)=G_i(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,h,t). Moreover, since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_3, by Lemma 3.8, it holds that
and \deg_t(G(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,h,t))=\deg_t(G(\mathbf{a},\gamma,h,t)). By [SW01, Theorem 3], since \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a},\gamma,t) is proper, we have that \deg_t(G(\mathbf{a},\gamma,h,t))=1. Therefore, it holds that \deg_t(\tilde{G}(h,t))=\deg_t(G(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,h,t))=1. Again by [SW01, Theorem 3], \mathcal{P}^0 is proper. On the other hand, by (?), \deg_t(\mathcal{P})=\deg_t(\mathcal{P}^0). Therefore, by Theorem 4.21 in [myBook], we have that
Moreover, since F is not linear, by (?), no component of \mathcal{P}^0 is constant. Applying again [myBook, Theorem 4.21.], we have that
Finally, since H(x,y) divides F^0, one
has that \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0)=\mathcal{C}(H), which concludes the proof.
Let us analyze the behavior of F and/or \mathcal{P} when specializing in \mathbb{S}\setminus \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P})}.
If \mathbf{a}^0\in \mathbb{S}\setminus \Omega_{1}, since F\in \mathbb{K}[\mathbf{a}][x,y] (see (?)), then F(\mathbf{a}^0,x,y) is always well–defined, and hence, \deg(F(\mathbf{a}^0,x,y))< \deg(F(\mathbf{a},x,y)). So, it can happen that either 0<\deg(F(\mathbf{a}^0,x,y))< \deg(F(\mathbf{a},x,y)), so \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is an affine curve; or 0=\deg(F(\mathbf{a}^0,x,y)), which implies that \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is the empty set or \overline{\mathbb{K}}^2.
If \mathbf{a}^0\in \mathbb{S}\setminus \Omega_{2}, then \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,t) is not defined, and hence the specialization fails.
If \mathbf{a}^0\in \left(\mathbb{S}\setminus (\Omega_{3}\cap \Omega_{4})\right)\cap \Omega_1\cap \Omega_2, at least one of the following assertions hold.
\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,t) is not proper.
\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,t)\in \overline{\mathbb{K}}^2 and hence, \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,t) is not a parametrization.
\mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,t) parametrizes a proper factor of F(\mathbf{a}^0,x,y), that is, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) decomposes and one of its components is rational and parametrized by \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,t).
If \mathcal{P} is proper and polynomial and \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P})}, then \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t) parametrizes properly and polynomially \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0).
Let \mathcal{P} be as in (?). If \mathcal{P} is normal, we define the set
where (\alpha_1/\beta_1, \alpha_2/\beta_2)\in \mathbb{F}^2 is the critical point of \mathcal{P} and, for i\in \{1,2\}, N_i= \alpha_{i} q_i -\beta_{i} p_i,
Let \mathcal{P} be proper and normal. For \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P})}\cap \Omega_{\mathrm{normal}(\mathcal{P})}, \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,\gamma^0,t) parametrizes properly and normally \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0).
As in the proof of Theorem 5.5, we use the same criterion for simplifying the notation. Namely, if Q is a polynomial, or a rational function, we will denote by Q^0 its specialization at \mathbf{a}^0. Similarly \mathcal{P}^0 will denote the specialization at \mathbf{a}^0 of the parametrization \mathcal{P}. In the proof of Theorem 5.5 we have seen that, for \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P})}, \deg_t(p_i )=\deg_t(p_i^0), similarly for q_i, and that the rational functions in \mathcal{P}^0 are in reduced form. Now, if \deg_t(p_1)>\deg_t(q_1) or \deg_t(p_2)>\deg_t(q_2), the result follows from Theorem 5.5 and [myBook, Theorem 6.22]. If \deg_t(p_1)\leq \deg_t(q_1) and \deg_t(p_2)\leq \deg_t(q_2), since \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_2 in Def. 5.4, we get that
is well defined and, by the above remark on the degrees, C is the critical point of \mathcal{P}^0. Now, since \mathbf{a}^0\in\Omega_{\mathrm{gcd}(N_1,N_2)}, by Corollary 3.9, one has that \deg_t(\gcd( {N}_1^0,{N}_2^0))=\deg_t(\gcd(N_1,N_2))>0; recall that \mathcal{P} is normal. Now, the result follows from Theorem 5.5 and [myBook, Theorem 6.22].
Let us consider \mathbb{K}=\mathbb{Q} and \mathbb{F}=\mathbb{L}:=\mathbb{Q}(a_1,a_2). Let
\mathcal{C}(F) is a rational quintic that can be properly parametrized as
The field of parametrization is \mathbb{L}. We determine the open subset \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P})} (see Def. (5.4)). Let us deal with \Omega_1. Clearly \Omega_{\mathrm{def}(F)}=\mathbb{C}^2. The homogeneous component of F of maximum degree is
So, \Omega_{1}:= \mathbb{C}^2 \setminus \mathbb{V}(a_{1}^{5}+a_{2}^{5}+3 a_{1}^{2} a_{2}^{2}-a_{1} a_{2}). One has that \Omega_2:=\mathbb{C}^2\setminus \{(0,0)\}. Note that, if \mathbf{a}^0\not\in \Omega_2, the second component of \mathcal{P} is not well-defined. Let us deal with \Omega_3. The polynomials G_i, G_{i}^{*}, R are
Moreover, A_1=-h a_{1} a_{2}-2 a_{2},A_2=-h a_{1}-3 a_{1},B=-1 (see Def. (3.6)).
Hence, \Omega_1=\mathbb{C}^2. Moreover, \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(A_1)}=\mathbb{C}^2\setminus \mathbb{V}(a_2), \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(A_2)}=\mathbb{C}^2\setminus \mathbb{V}(a_1) and \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(B)}=\mathbb{C}^2. On the other hand, \Omega_{\mathrm{nonZ}(R)} can be expressed as
Therefore,
Finally, we deal with \Omega_4. We have
Thus, \Omega_4=\mathbb{C}^2 \setminus \mathbb{V}(a_1 a_2 (a_{1}^{3}-2 a_{1}+4 a_{2})(a_{2}-27 a_{1})).
Summarizing (see Fig. ?, left)
Let us remark that in the decomposition (?) we can take the union of those \mathbb{S}_i corresponding to each of the three items above; say \mathbb{S}_1, \mathbb{S}_2, \mathbb{S}_3 representing the corresponding item. In this way, we can achieve a unique decomposition of the parameter space \mathbb{S}. The \mathbb{S}_i obtained in this way are constructible sets of \mathbb{S}, and \mathbb{S}_2,\mathbb{S}_3 are a finite union of subsets \Sigma as in (?) and \mathbb{S}_1 is a closed subset directly defined from the implicit equation F.
Moreover, \mathbb{S}_3 can further be decomposed into a finite union of subsets \mathbb{S}_{3,j} such that for every j, there is a proper parametrization \mathcal{P}_j which is well–defined for every \mathbf{a}^0 \in \mathbb{S}_{3,j} and specialized properly.
Finally, since \Sigma of F as in (?) is open and non-empty, depending on the genus of F, either \mathbb{S}_2 or \mathbb{S}_3 is a dense subset of \mathbb{S}.
(Continuation of Example 5.10) Taking into account (?), the closed set \mathcal{Z} (see (?)) decomposes as
We start with \mathrm{J}_1:= <\!\!a_1\!\!> and \mathbb{V}_1:=\mathbb{V}(\mathrm{J}_1). Since \mathbb{V}_1 is rational, surjectively parametrized by \mathcal{Q}_1:=(0,\lambda), we work over the field \mathbb{Q}(\lambda)[x,y]. We have that
and therefore all specializations in \mathbb{V}(a_1) lead to a reducible curve. Additionally, one may distinguish the cases \lambda=0, that corresponds to the point (0,0), where the specialization degenerates, and \lambda\neq 0 where \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) decomposes to the union of a double line and a rational cubic.
The analysis for \mathrm{J}_2:=<\!\!a_2\!\!>, and \mathbb{V}_2:=\mathbb{V}(\mathrm{J}_2) looks similar. Since \mathbb{V}_2 is rational, parametrized by \mathcal{Q}_2:=(\lambda,0), we work over the field \mathbb{Q}(\lambda)[x,y]. We have that
Thus, all specializations in \mathbb{V}_2 lead to a reducible curve; note that \mathcal{Q}_2 is surjective. The case \lambda=0 is covered above, and for \lambda\neq 0, the specialization \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) decomposes to the union of a line and a rational quartic.
Let us study \mathrm{J}_3:=<\!\! a_{2}-27 a_{1} \!\!> and \mathbb{V}_3:=\mathbb{V}(\mathrm{J}_3). Again, \mathbb{V}_3 is rational, parametrized by \mathcal{Q}_3:=(\lambda,27\lambda), and we work over the field \mathbb{Q}(\lambda)[x,y]. We have that
The analysis of \mathbb{V}_3 is identical to \mathbb{V}_2.
Let us study \mathrm{J}_4:=<\!\! a_{1}^{3}-2 a_{1}+4 a_{2} \!\!> and \mathbb{V}_4:=\mathbb{V}(\mathrm{J_4}) that is again rational and it is properly and surjectively parametrized by \mathcal{Q}_4:=(\lambda, -\frac{1}{4} \lambda^{3}+\frac{1}{2} \lambda). We work over the field \mathbb{Q}(\lambda)[x,y]. We have that
Again \mathbb{V}_4 behaves as \mathbb{V}_2 and \mathbb{V}_3. Finally, let us analyze \mathrm{J}_5:=<\!\! a_{1}^{5}+a_{2}^{5}+3 a_{1}^{2} a_{2}^{2}-a_{1} a_{2}\!\!> and \mathbb{V}_5:=\mathbb{V}(\mathrm{J}_5) which is a rational quintic and properly and surjectively parametrized as
Those values for which the parametrization is not defined, i.e. the poles, play no role in this analysis. The polynomial F_{\mathrm{J}_5} is F_{\mathrm{J}_5}(\lambda,x,y)=F(\mathcal{Q}_5(\lambda),x,y)\in \mathbb{Q}(\lambda)[x,y]. It holds that \deg(\mathcal{C}(F_{\mathrm{J}_5}))=4, \mathrm{genus}(\mathcal{C}(F_{\mathrm{J}_5}))=0 and a proper surjective parametrization is \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_5}(\lambda,t):=\mathcal{P}(\mathcal{Q}(\lambda),t) (see (?)). So, we get (see Def. 5.4)
where f:=p_1\, p_2\,p_3\, p_4 and
By Theorem 5.5, for every \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_5})} it holds that \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is rationally parametrized by \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,t) (see (?)) or, equivalently, by \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_5}(\mathcal{Q}^{-1}(\mathbf{a}^0),t). Now, let us analyze the curve in \mathcal{Z}_5:= \mathbb{V}_5\setminus \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_5})}=\{ \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_5}(\lambda_0)\,|\, f(\lambda_0)=0\} (see (?)). We define \mathbf{a}^0_1:=(0,0)=\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_5}(\lambda_0), where \lambda_{0} is a root of p_1 \,p_2; \mathbf{a}^0_2:=(-1,-1)=\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_5}(\lambda_0), where \lambda_{0} is a root of p_3; and observe that p_4 generates 8 points on the curve that we denote by \mathbf{a}^0_{i}, i\in \{3,\ldots,10\} and which correspond to \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_5}(\lambda_0) where \lambda_{0} is one of the roots of p_4. Thus, \mathcal{Z}=\{\mathbf{a}^0_1,\ldots,\mathbf{a}^0_{10}\}, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0_1)=\mathbb{C}^2, and, for i\in \{2,\ldots,10\}, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0_i) are rational cubics parametrized by \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_5}(\mathbf{a}^0_i,t).
Summarizing, \mathbb{S} decomposes as (see (?) and Remark 6.1)
For \mathbf{a}^0 \in \mathbb{S}_1, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) degenerates. For \mathbf{a}^0 \in \mathbb{S}_2, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is reducible (note that \mathbf{a}^0_1\in \mathbb{S}_2). For \mathbf{a}^0\in \mathbb{S}_{3,1}, the specialized curve \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is a quintic parametrized by \mathcal{P}(\mathbf{a}^0,t); for \mathbf{a}^0 \in \mathbb{S}_{3,2}, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is a quartic parametrized by \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_5}(\mathbf{a}^0,t); and for \mathbf{a}^0 \in \mathbb{S}_{3,3}, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is a cubic parametrized by \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_5}(\mathbf{a}^0,t).
Let \mathbb{K}=\mathbb{Q} and \mathbb{F}=\mathbb{L}=\mathbb{Q}(a_1,a_2,a_3). We consider
One has that \mathrm{genus}(\mathcal{C}(F))=1. Using the ideas in Section ?, we compute \Omega_{\mathrm{genus}(F)} (see Def. 4.14). We observe that since \mathcal{C}(F) is an elliptic cubic, no blowup is required and, hence, \Omega_{\mathrm{genus}(F)}= \Omega_{\mathrm{genusOrd}(F)}. Indeed, one gets that (see Fig. ?, right)
Thus, by Theorem 4.10, for every \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{genus}(F)}, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is either reducible or it is a genus 1 cubic curve. Let us analyze the specializations in \mathcal{Z}:=\mathbb{C}^3\setminus \Omega_{\mathrm{genus}(F)}=\mathbb{V}\left(-a_{{2}}a_{{3}} \left( -4\,{a_{{1}}}^{3}-27\,a_{{2}}a_{{3}} \right)\right).
Let \mathrm{J}_1:=<\!\!a_2\!\!> and \mathbb{V}_1:=\mathbb{V}(\mathrm{J}_1). Then, F_{\mathrm{J}_1}:={x}^{3}+a_{{1}}{x}^{2}+{y}^{3}. We observe that \mathrm{genus}(\mathcal{C}(F_{\mathrm{J}_1}))=0 and
is a proper parametrization of \mathcal{C}(F_{\mathrm{J}_1}). Applying Def. 5.4 to F_{\mathrm{J}_1} and \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_1} we get that \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_1})}:=\mathbb{V}_1\setminus \mathbb{V}(a_1). Therefore, by Theorem 5.5, for all \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_1})} it holds that \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is a rational curve parametrized by \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_1}(\mathbf{a}^0,t). However, for the remaining case, namely the points (0,0,\mu) for \mu\in\mathbb{C}, \mathcal{C}(F,(0,0,\mu)) decomposes as the product of three lines.
Let \mathrm{J}_2:=<\!\!a_3\!\!> and \mathbb{V}_2:=\mathbb{V}(\mathrm{J}_2). Now, the situation is identical to the previous case. Let \mathrm{J}_3:=<\!\!-4\,{a_{{1}}}^{3}-27\,a_{{2}}a_{{3}}\!\!> and \mathbb{V}_3:=\mathbb{V}(\mathrm{J}_3). The surface \mathbb{V}_3 can be properly parametrized as
We observe that \mathcal{Q} is not surjective. Indeed, \mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{C}^2)=\mathbb{V}_3\setminus \{(0,0,\mu)\,|\, \mu\in \mathbb{C}\} (see e.g. Remark 3 in [SSV]). However, the specializations in \{(0,0,\mu)\,|\, \mu\in \mathbb{C}\} have already been analyzed. So, we treat the case \mathcal{Q}(\mathbb{C}^2). Then, F_{\mathrm{J}_3} can be taken as
where (\lambda_1,\lambda_2)\in \mathbb{C}^2 \setminus \{(0,0)\}. It holds that \mathrm{genus}(\mathcal{C}(F_{\mathrm{J}_3}))=0 and
is a proper parametrization. Applying Def. 5.4 to F_{\mathrm{J}_3} and \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_3}, we get that \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_3})}=\mathbb{V}_3\setminus \{(0,0,\mu)\,|\, \mu\in \mathbb{C}\}. Therefore, by Theorem 5.5, for all \mathbf{a}^0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_3})} it holds that \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is a rational curve parametrized by \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_3}(\mathbf{a}^0,t).
Summarizing, \mathbb{S} decomposes as (see (?))
For \mathbf{a}^0\in \mathbb{S}_2, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is either reducible or an elliptic curve; and for \mathbf{a}^0\in \mathbb{S}_3, \mathcal{C}(F,\mathbf{a}^0) is a rational cubic parametrized by \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{J}_3}(\mathbf{a}^0,t).
Level curves of a surface.
Let \mathcal{S} be the surface defined over \mathbb{C} by the polynomial
So, with the terminology of the paper, \mathbf{a}=z, \mathbb{K}=\mathbb{Q} and \mathbb{L}=\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{Q}(z). With this interpretation, the idea is to analyze the genus of \mathcal{C}(F) under specializations in \mathbb{S}:=\mathbb{C}. For this purpose, we first compute \mathscr{D}(F^h) as in (?). Following the steps in Subsection ?, we get
The family consists in one ordinary double point. Therefore, \mathrm{genus}(\mathcal{C}(F))=9. Since the singularities are all ordinary, we get that (see Def. 4.14) \Omega_{\mathrm{genus}(F)}=\Omega_{\mathrm{genusOrd}(F)}. Moreover (see Def. 4.8),
Using Theorem 4.15, for z_0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{genusOrd}(F)}, \mathcal{C}(F,(x,y,z_0)) is either reducible or its genus is 9. In any case, no rational level curve appears. For the elements in \mathcal{Z}:=\mathbb{C} \setminus \Omega_{\mathrm{genusOrd}(F)}, we get that \mathcal{C}(F,(x,y,\pm 1)) are irreducible of genus 7 and \mathcal{C}(F,(x,y,0)) is irreducible of genus 0. Indeed, \mathcal{C}(F,(x,y,0)) can be parametrized by (t^{5}, t^{6}-t^{2}).
Linear homotopy deformation of curves.
Let us consider the linear homotopy between the Fermat cubic curve and the unit circle. That is, we consider the polynomial
With the terminology of the paper, \mathbf{a}=\lambda, \mathbb{K}=\mathbb{Q} and \mathbb{L}=\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{Q}(\lambda). Now, we study the genus of \mathcal{C}(F) under specializations in \mathbb{S}:=\mathbb{C}; or, in particular, in the real interval [0,1]. For this purpose, we first observe that \mathrm{genus}(\mathcal{C}(F))=1 and hence (see Def. 4.14), \Omega_{\mathrm{genus}(F)}=\Omega_{\mathrm{genusOrd}(F)}. We get that \Omega_{\mathrm{genusOrd}(F)}=\mathbb{C}\setminus \mathbb{V}(g) where
Using Theorem 4.15, for \lambda_0\in \Omega_{\mathrm{genusOrd}(F)}, \mathcal{C}(F,(\lambda_0,x,y,\lambda)) is either reducible or its genus is 1. In any case, no rational deformation instance appears. For the elements in \mathcal{Z}=\mathbb{C}\setminus \Omega_{\mathrm{genusOrd}(F)}, we get that \mathcal{C}(F,(1,x,y)) is rational, the specialized cubics \mathcal{C}(F,(3/4,x,y)) and \mathcal{C}(F,(3,x,y)) factor as a union of a line and a conic, and for all the other cases the genus remains one (see Fig ?).
Rational solution of functional algebraic equations.
We consider the functional algebraic equation
where \mathbf{f}=(f_1,f_2,f_3):=(\sin(t),\cos(t),\mathrm{e}^{t}). We associate to (7.3) the curve \mathcal{C}(F) where
It holds that \mathrm{genus}(\mathcal{C}(F))=0 and that a proper parametrization is
The open subset in Def. 5.4 turns to be
Since \mathbf{f}\in \Omega_{\mathrm{proper}(\mathcal{P})}, by Theorem 5.5, we have that
for every W\in \overline{\mathbb{C}(\mathbf{f})} such that (7.3) is well–defined, is a rational solution of (7.3). In fact, the last statement holds more generally for every W\in \overline{\mathrm{Mer}(\mathbb{C})}.
The set \mathcal{F}=\{ (f_1(\alpha):f_2(\alpha): f_3(\alpha))\,|\, m(\alpha)=0 \}\subset \mathbb{P}^2(\overline{K}) is called a K–conjugate family of points, or for short K-family of points, if
f_1,f_2,f_3,m\in K[t] and gcd(f_1,f_2,f_3,m)=1,
at least one of the polynomials f_i is not zero,
\deg_t(m)>0 and m is squarefree.
The family is represented as
and m(t) is called the defining polynomial of \mathcal{F}. If m(t) is irreducible over K, we say that \mathcal{F} is irreducible. We say that \mathcal{F}:=\{ (f_1:f_2: f_3)\}_{m} is in canonical form if f_1,f_2,f_3 are reduced modulo m(t). In this paper, we will always assume that families are irreducible and expressed in canonical form.
A single point (a:b:c)\in \mathbb{P}^2(K) can be seen as the K-family \{(a:b:c)\}_{t}.
Factoring the defining polynomial m(t) over K, every family decomposes as a finite union of irreducible families.
For H\in K[x,y,z] and \mathcal{F}:=\{ (f_1 :f_2 : f_3 )\}_{m )} irreducible, H(f_1(t),f_2(t),f_3(t))\neq 0 mod m(t) iff H does not vanish at any point in the family \mathcal{F}.
We say that the irreducible K–family \mathcal{F}:=\{ (f_1:f_2: f_3)\}_{m} is a family of points of \mathcal{C}(G^h) if G^h(f_1(t),f_2(t),f_3(t))=0 modulo m(t).
Let \mathcal{F}=\{(f_1:f_2:f_3)\}_{m} be an irreducible K-family of \mathcal{C}(G^h). Let K_m be the quotient field of the integral domain K[t]/\!<\!m\!>. We defined the curve associated to \mathcal{F}, and we denote it by \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{F}}(G^{h}), as the curve defined by G^h over \overline{K_m}. Note that (f_1:f_2:f_3) is a point on \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{F}}(G^h). By abuse of notation, we will say that \mathcal{F} is a point of \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{F}}(G^{h}) meaning (f_1:f_2:f_3)\in \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{F}}(G^{h}).
Let \mathcal{F}:=\{ (f_1:f_2: f_3)\}_{m} be an irreducible K–family of points of \mathcal{C}(G^h). We say that \mathcal{F} is a family of r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h) if all points of \mathcal{F} are r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h). We denote by \mathrm{mult}(\mathcal{F}) the multiplicity of the points in \mathcal{F}, as points of \mathcal{C}(G^h).
By Remark A.2 (3), the multiplicity of an irreducible family \mathcal{F} can be computed by checking which is the first partial derivative of G^h not vanishing, modulo m(t), at the family. Alternatively, one can determine the multiplicity of \mathcal{F} at a point of the curve associated to \mathcal{F} (see Definition A.4).
Let \mathcal{F}:=\{ (f_1:f_2: f_3)\}_{m} be an irreducible K–family of r-fold points of \mathcal{C}(G^h). We say that \mathcal{F} is ordinary if all points of \mathcal{F} are ordinary singularities in \mathcal{C}(G^h). We say that \mathcal{F} is non-ordinary it is not an ordinary family.
The character of the irreducible family \mathcal{F}:=\{ (f_1:f_2: f_3)\}_{m} can be deduced analyzing the squarefreeness, modulo m(t), of the polynomial defining the tangents to \mathcal{C}(G^h) at (f_1:f_2:f_3). Alternatively, one can work with the curve \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{F}}(G^{h}) (see Def. A.4). Now, the family \mathcal{F} in \mathcal{C}(G^h) turns to be one point in \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{F}}(G^{h}). Then, the character and multiplicity of \mathcal{F} is the character and multiplicity of (f_1:f_2:f_3) as a point in \mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{F}}(G^{h}).
A decomposition of the singular locus of the irreducible curve \mathcal{C}(G^h) as a finite union of irreducible families of K-points, such that in each family the multiplicity and the singularity character is preserved, is called a K–standard decomposition of the singular locus of \mathcal{C}(G^h) (see Remark A.12 below).
We say that the affine plane curve \mathcal{C}(G) is in regular position w.r.t. x if
the coefficient of y^{\deg(G)} in G is a non-zero constant; and
G(a,b_i)=G_x(a,b_i)=0 with i\in \{1,2\} implies that b_1=b_2.
If \mathcal{C}(G) is not in regular position, we may apply a linear change of coordinates over \mathbb{K} such that \mathcal{C}(G) is transformed into regular position (see e.g. Lemma 2 and Remark 3 in [FS90]).
For checking the regularity one may proceed as follows. Condition (1) in Def. (A.10) is easy to check. Let us now deal with the second condition. Let \mathrm{J} be the ideal generated by \{G,G_x\} in K[x,y]. Since G is irreducible over \overline{K}, \mathrm{J} is zero–dimensional. Therefore, using the Shape lemma (see [winkler] page 194), the normed reduced Gröbner basis of \sqrt{\mathrm{J}}, w.r.t. the lexicographic order x<y, is of the form \{ u(x),y-v(x) \}, with u square-free and \deg(v)<\deg(u), if and only if \sqrt{\mathrm{J}}, or equivalently \mathrm{J}, satisfies (2) in Def. (A.10). It remains to have a computational approach to determine \sqrt{\mathrm{J}}. This can be achieved, for instance, using Seidenberg lemma (see e.g. [seidenberg] or [laplagne]). More precisely, if \mathrm{J}\cap K[x]=<\!f(x)\!> and \mathrm{J}\cap K[y]=<\!g(y)\!>, then
\sqrt{\mathrm{J}}=<\!G, G_x, \tilde{f}, \tilde{g}\!>,
where \tilde{f}= f/\gcd(f,f') and \tilde{g}= g/\gcd(g,g') and where f' and g' denotes the derivatives of f and g w.r.t. x and y, respectively.
Throughout the paper, we will use the K-standard decomposition achieved by means of the previous reasoning; we denote it as \mathscr{D}(G^h)). We observe that
where f_{i,m}(t),m(t)\in K[t], L_{i,m}(t)\in \mathbb{K}[t] with \deg(L_{i,m}(t))\leq 1, \gcd(L_{1,m}(t),L_{2,m}(t))=1, and \mathcal{A}_a and \mathcal{A}_{\infty} are finite sets of irreducible polynomials in K[t].
The defining polynomial of \mathscr{A}_{d-2}(\mathcal{C}(G^h)) has coefficients in K(\Lambda). So, the ground field is not extended.
If d is odd one may stop the loop in Step 3 when \rho=3 since cubics can be easily parametrize over the ground field. For parametrizing a conic or a cubic see [myBook].
The direct classical parametrization algorithm, see [walker], [myBook], for \mathcal{C}(G^h), in addition to the computation of the adjoints, needs d-2 simple points of \mathcal{C}(G^h) (indeed, a more sophisticated method in [SW91] shows that only one simple point is enough). Therefore, and alternative to Step 5 is: compute d-2 simple points either on the conic, or on the line, for instance, using \mathcal{Q}(t); apply \mathcal{T} to these simple points; and now use the direct parametrization algorithm for \mathcal{C}(G^h).
The text on this page is from arXiv:2301.04933v2 by Sebastian Falkensteiner and Rafael Sendra, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2301/2301.04933.jsonl.