Linear system of hypersurfaces passing through a Galois orbit

Let H(y_{i,j}) be the homogeneous polynomial function on \mathbb A_F(E^n) \simeq \mathbb A_F^{(n+1)m} defined over F whose existence is asserted by Proposition 2.2. We claim that H is not identically 0.

Once this claim is established, Theorem 1.1 readily follows from Proposition 2.2; since F is an infinite field, we can specialize each x_{ij} to some c_{ij} \in F so that H(c_{ij}) \neq 0.

To prove the claim, it suffices to show that H(c_{ij}) \neq 0, for some choice of c_{ij} in a larger field F' containing F. Let us choose F' so that F' splits E/F, i.e., E \otimes_F F' isomorphic to E' \colonequals F' \times \ldots \times F' (m times). In particular, we can take F' to be an algebraic closure of F.

Using Proposition 2.2, we can rephrase the above observation as follows: to prove the existence of a point a = (a_0: a_1: \ldots: a_n) \in \mathbb P^n(E) with the property that it does not lie of any hypersurface of degree d defined over F, it suffices to prove the existence of a point a' = (a_0': \ldots: a_n) \in \mathbb P^n(E^{'}) which does not lie on any hypersurface of degree d defined over F'. To finish the proof, observe that the existence of a' with this property is equivalent to Lemma 2.1 with F = F'.

Let V_0 = H^0(\mathbb{P}^n, \mathcal{O}(d)) be the m-dimensional vector space space of all degree d forms in x_0, \ldots, x_n and V_{i} \subset V be the subspace of forms vanishing at P_1, \ldots, P_i. Clearly V_i \subseteq V_{i-1} for any choice of P_1, \ldots, P_i. Requiring forms to vanish on each P_i imposes one linear condition; hence, \dim(V_i) \geqslant m - i, again for any choice of P_1, \ldots, P_i. We claim that for a suitable choice of P_1, \ldots, P_m, we have

for every i = 1, 2, \ldots, m or equivalently, \dim(V_i) = m - i. In particular, for this choice of P_1, \ldots, P_m, we will have \dim(V_m) = 0, and the lemma will follow.

We will choose P_1, \ldots, P_i so that (Proof) holds, by induction on i \in \{ 1, \ldots, m \}. Indeed, assume P_1, \ldots, P_{i-1} have been chosen. Since \dim(V_{i-1}) \geqslant m - i + 1 > 0, there exists a non-zero element f_i \in V_{i-1}. We will now choose P_i \in \mathbb{P}^n(F) so that f_i(P_i) \neq 0. A point P_i with this property exists since F is an infinite field.

For this choice of P_i, f \in V_{i-1} \setminus V_i, and (Proof) follows. This completes the proof of the claim and thus of Lemma 2.1.

Let M_1, \ldots, M_m be distinct monomials of degree d in x_0, \ldots, x_n. Clearly a = (a_0:a_1: \ldots : a_n) \in\mathbb P^n(E) lies on a hypersurface of degree d in \mathbb P^n defined over F if and only if M_1(a), \ldots, M_m(a) are linearly dependent over F.

Suppose \{b_1, \ldots, b_n\} is an F-basis of E. Write

where the structure constants c_{ij}^h lie in F. Using the basis b_1, \ldots, b_m we can identify E with F^m as an F-vector space (not necessarily as an algebra). Set

where each y_{i, j} \in F.

Using formulas (Proof), for every s = 1, \ldots, m, we can express M_s(a) in the form M_s(a) = p_{s, 1} b_1 + \ldots + p_{s, m} b_m, where each p_{s, t} is a homogeneous polynomial of degree d in y_{i, j} with coefficients in F. By abuse of notation, we will denote these polynomials by p_{s, t}(y_{i, j}).

Now, view y_{i, j} as independent (n+1)m variables, as i ranges from 0 to n and j ranges from 1 to m. Set

For any field extension F'/F, an F'-point (\alpha_{i, j}') \in \mathbb A_F^{(n+1)m} represents a point a' = (a_0': \ldots: a_m') \in \mathbb P^n(E'), where a_i' = \alpha_{i, 1} b_1 + \ldots + \alpha_{i, m} b_m \in E' for each i = 0, 1, \ldots, n. By our construction, H(\alpha_{i, j}) = 0 if and only if M_1(a'), \ldots, M_m(a') are linearly dependent over F', and the proposition follows.

Observe that \deg(\mathcal{H}) = d(q^{m-1}+...+q+1). Since q>d, we have

On the other hand, the degree of a space-filling hypersurface in \mathbb P^n(\mathbb F_{q^m}) defined over \mathbb{F}_q is at least q^{m}+1; see, e.g., [MR98]*Théorème 2.1. We conclude that \mathcal{H} is not space-filling in \mathbb P^n(\mathbb F_{q^m}), and the proposition follows.

Writing t = t_1 + t_2, as in (?) and using Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.2, we obtain

when n\geqslant 3, q\geqslant 3 and d\geqslant 3, while

when n=2, q\geqslant 3 and d\geqslant 6. Note that the right hand sides of these inequalities are precisely the quantities v_1 and v_2 from (?) and (?). The desired conclusion,

now follows from Lemmas 4.7 and 4.6, respectively.

(a) Using Pascal’s identity recursively, we rewrite N_{i+1} - N_i as

The above sum has (d-i) - (i-1) = d - 2i + 1 \geqslant 1 terms by our assumption on i. Moreover, each term \geqslant 1, so the sum is \geqslant d - 2i + 1, as desired.

(b) Write N_{i+1} - N_{1} = (N_{i+1} - N_i) + (N_i - N_{i-1}) + \ldots + (N_2 - N_1). Part (a) tells us that each term in this sum is non-negative, and the last term, N_2 - N_1, is \geqslant d - 3. Thus

as desired.

We first estimate N_1 from below. Note that we assume n \geqslant 2 throughout.

Using this estimate in combination with Lemma 4.1(b), we obtain:

An elementary computation shows that for integers d \geqslant 6 and q\geqslant 3, the expression \displaystyle \left(1 + \left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right) q^{3-d} \right) is at most \displaystyle \frac{29}{27}. (This maximal value is attained when q=3 and d=6.) This completes the proof of part (a).

Similarly, when q\geqslant 3 and d\geqslant 3, the maximal value of the expression \left(1 + \left(\frac{d}{2}-1\right) q^{3-d} \right) is \displaystyle \frac{3}{2}. (This maximal value is attained when q=3 and d=3). This completes the proof of part (b).

Let S = T \cup F, where T and F are disjoint sets of cardinality d and n, respectively. The binomial coefficient \displaystyle \binom{d+n}{n} counts the number of n-subsets of S.

Partition T as T = T_1 \cup T_2 \cup \cdots \cup T_{e}, where |T_i|=d/e for each i, and set S_i = T_i \cup F. Note that |S_i| = (d/e) + n; hence, the binomial coefficient \displaystyle \binom{d/e+n}{n} counts the number of n-subsets of S_i. It is also clear that the number of common n-subsets of S_i and S_j for i\neq j is exactly 1, namely the n-set F. Thus, the total number of n-subsets arising from S_1, S_2, \ldots, S_e is exactly:

Next, we construct additional n-subsets of S that are not contained in any S_k. Fix integers 1 \leqslant i < j \leqslant e. Choose elements a\in T_i and b\in T_j and consider n-subsets of S of the form

for some (n-2)-subset E of F. By our construction, \displaystyle \{a, \, b \} \cup E is not contained in S_k for any 1\leqslant k\leqslant e. The number of subsets of the form \displaystyle \{a, \, b \} \cup E is equal to (d/e)\cdot (d/e)\cdot \binom{n}{n-2} once i and j are fixed, because there are d/e ways to choose a in T_i, d/e ways to choose b in T_j, and \binom{n}{n-2}=\binom{n}{2} ways to choose an (n-2)-subset E of F. Varying (i, j) among the \binom{e}{2} choices, we get a total contribution of

many distinct n-subsets of S that do not arise as n-subsets of S_k for any 1\leqslant k \leqslant e. Consequently,

leading to the lower bound

as claimed in the conclusion of Lemma 4.3.

The bound from (4.4) follows from Lemma 4.3 using that

since d\geqslant e\geqslant 2.

First, we note that the number of divisors e of d with e>1 is at most d-1. Thus the sum the right hand side of \displaystyle u_2\colonequals \sum_{e|d, e>1} q^{-M_e}

has at most d-1 terms. By Lemma 4.4, each term q^{-M_e} is at most \displaystyle q^{- \, \frac{\, 1 \,}{4} \binom{n}{2} d^2 + d - 1}. Lemma 4.5 now tells us that

as desired.

Using (?), we write

For d\geqslant 6, both exponents in q^{3-d} and q^{-\frac{1}{4} d^2 + d } are negative. This yields \Theta(q, d)\leqslant \Theta(3, d) for q\geqslant 3. We now view \Theta(3, d) as a function of d, as d ranges over the interval [6, \infty). On this interval \Theta(3, d) achieves its maximum at d=6. Thus, (d-1) tq \leqslant \Theta(3, 6)\approx 1.125. In particular, (d-1)tq\leqslant 2.

We argue as in the proof of Lemma 4.6. For n\geqslant 3, the definition of v_1 from (?) implies

where we have substituted n=3 in (?). Consequently,

We have \Psi(q, d)\leqslant \Psi(3, d) for q\geqslant 3. Viewing \Psi(3, d) as a function of d and letting d range over the interval [3, \infty), we see that \Psi(3, d) achieves its maximum on this interval when d=3. Thus, (d-1) tq \leqslant \Psi(3, 3)\approx 0.257. In particular, (d-1)v_1q\leqslant 2, as desired.

It is shown in the proof of [Poo04]*Proposition 2.7 that

where \displaystyle N_i = \binom{n+d}{d} - \binom{n+i}{n} - \binom{n+d-i}{n}, as in (?). Parts (a) and (b) now follow from Lemma 4.2(a) and (b), respectively. (Note that the right hand side of the inequality (Proof) is denoted by u_1 in the statement of Lemma 4.2.)

It is shown in the proof of [Poo04]*Proposition 2.7 that

where \displaystyle M_e = \binom{d+n}{n}-e\binom{d/e+n}{n}. The desired conclusion now follows from Lemma 4.5. (Note that the right hand side of the inequality (Proof) is denoted by u_2 in the statement of Lemma 4.5.)

(a) The construction of \mathcal{L}_{\rm red} in the proof of Theorem 1.3(a) goes through over an arbitrary field.

(b) Let \mathcal{L} = \langle f_0, \ldots, f_{t} \rangle of degree d hypersurfaces in \mathbb P^n defined over F, Let

be the member of this system corresponding to \lambda = (\lambda_0: \ldots:\lambda_{t}) \in \mathbb P^t. Assume that every F-element of \mathcal{L} is reducible, that is, f_{\lambda} is a reducible polynomial in F[x_0, \ldots, x_n] for every F-point \lambda = (\lambda_0: \ldots: \lambda_{t}) \in \mathbb P^t(F). Our goal is to show that \dim(\mathcal{L}) \leqslant r-1. Let us consider two cases.

Case 1: The generic member of \mathcal{L} is irreducible. Here by the generic member we mean the member coresponding to the generic point of \mathbb P^t. Equivalently, f_{\lambda} is irreducible as a polynomial in x_0, \ldots, x_n over the field F(\lambda_0, \ldots, \lambda_{t}).

A description of the polynomials f_{\lambda} that may occur in this case can be found in Schinzel’s book [Sch00]*Chapter 3, Theorem 37. It follows from this description that if \operatorname{char}(F) does not divide d, then the maximal dimension of \mathcal{L} is d, and is achieved by the linear system \langle x_1^d, x_1^{d-1}x_2, x_1^{d-2}x_2^2, \ldots, x_2^d \rangle. On the other hand, if \operatorname{char}(F) divides d, then the maximal dimension of \mathcal{L} is either d, attained in the same way as above) or \binom{n+d/p}{n}-1. The latter is achieved by the linear system spanned by all monomials of the form x_0^{p \, i_0}x_1^{p \, i_1}\cdots x_n^{p \, i_n} with i_0 + \ldots + i_n = d/p.

It remains to show that (i) d \leqslant r-1 and (ii) if p \geqslant 2 divides d, then \binom{n + d/p}{n} \leqslant r. By Pascal’s identity, for a fixed d, \binom{n + d - 1}{n} increases with n. In particular, since n \geqslant 2, we have

Since d \geqslant 2, this yields d = (d+1) - 1\leqslant \frac{(d + 1)d}{2} -1 \leqslant r -1, proving (i). To prove (ii), note that d/p \leqslant d-1. Thus

as desired.

Case 2: The generic member of \mathcal{L} is reducible. Equivalently, f_{\lambda} is reducible as a polynomial in x_0, \ldots, x_n over F(\lambda_0, \ldots, \lambda_{t}). Using Gauss’ Lemma, and the fact that f_{\lambda} is homogeneous of degree 1 in \lambda_0, \ldots, \lambda_{t}, we see that

where g \in F[x_0, \ldots, x_n] is a homogeneous polynomial of degree d_1, h_{\lambda} = \lambda_0 h_0 + \ldots + \lambda_{t} h_{t} for some homogeneous polynomials h_0, \ldots, h_{t} \in F[x_0, \ldots, x_n] of degree d_2 \geqslant 1 and d_1 + d_2 = d. Here h_0, \ldots, h_t are linearly independent over F. Thus

This completes the proof of part (b).

To prove (c) and (d), let \mathcal{R} be the locus of reducible hypersurfaces inside the parameter space \mathbb P^{m-1} of all degree d hypersurfaces in \mathbb{P}^n. Denote the dimension of \mathcal{R} by s. Then every linear subspace of (projective) dimension \geqslant m - 1 - s intersects \mathcal{R} in \mathbb{P}^{m-1}; on the other hand, a linear subspace of (projective) dimension < m - 1 - s in general position will not meet \mathcal{R} in \mathbb{P}^{m-1}. Since F is algebraically closed, a nonempty intersection always has an F-point. In other words, the following are equivalent:

• every linear system of (projective) dimension t has a reducible F-member, and

• t \geqslant m - 1 - s.

It remains to show that

this immediately implies both (c) and (d). To prove (?), note that \displaystyle \mathcal{R} = \bigcup_{i =1}^{\lfloor d/2 \rfloor} \mathcal{R}_{i}, where \mathcal{R}_i consists of reducible hypersurfaces F(x_0, \ldots, x_n) = 0, where F = F_1\cdot F_2=0 and F_1, \, F_2 are homogeneous polynomials in x_0, x_1, \ldots, x_n of degree i and d-i, respectively. In other words, \mathcal{R}_i is the image of the map \mathbb{P}^{m_1- 1}\times \mathbb{P}^{m_2-1} \to \mathbb{P}^{m - 1} given by (F_1, F_2)\to F_1\cdot F_2 where m_1 = \binom{n+i}{n}, m_2=\binom{n+d-i}{n}. It is easy to see that

The difference \dim(\mathcal R_{i}) - \dim(\mathcal R_{i+1}) is exactly the quantity N_{i+1} - N_i we considered at the beginning of Section ?; see (?). By Lemma 4.1(a), N_{i+1} - N_i \geqslant 0 whenever 2(i +1) \leqslant d. We conclude that \dim(\mathcal R_i) assumes its maximal value when i=1. In other words,

as claimed.