Friday, 14 August 2009

nt.number theory - Forms over finite fields and Chevalley's theorem

Perhaps it is obvious to most readers, but about a year ago I spent several days trying to determine for which pairs (d,n) there existed an anisotropic degree d form in n variables over a finite field mathbbFq. The question was motivated by Exercise 10.16 in Ireland and Rosen's classic number theory text: "Show by explicit calculation that every cubic form in two variables over mathbbF2 has a nontrivial zero."



As many students have discovered over the years, this is false: e.g. take



f(x1,x2)=x31+x21x2+x32.



I knew about the existence and anisotropy of norm hypersurfaces for all n=d. But what about n<d? I confess that I spent some time proving this result in several special cases and even dragged a postdoc into it. Here is a copy of the sheepish email I sent out (in particular to Michael Rosen) later on:




If K is a field, and f(x_1,...,x_n) is an anisotropic form of degree d in n variables, then f(x_1,...,x_{n-1},0) is an anisotropic
form of degree d in n-1 variables.



So let K be any field which admits field extensions of every positive degree d. Then for all d there is an anisotropic norm form
N in d variables of degree d. For any n < d, setting (d-n) of the variables equal to 0 gives an anisotropic form of degree d in
n variables. In particular, this proves "the converse of Chevalley-Warning".



So, not so fascinating after all, then.



I think it is still nontrivial to ask what happens if the hypersurface f is required to be geometrically irreducible. For instance, despite the fact that (q,3,3) is anisotropic, every geometrically irreducible cubic curve over a finite field has a rational point.




AS's question about classifying anisotropic hypersurfaces with d=n is interesting. It may also be interesting to look at the case d<n. It is certainly not clear to me that all such anistropic hypersurfaces come from intersecting a norm hypersurface of larger dimension with a linear subspace.



I also want to add that the following generalization seemed less trivial to me (and I still don't know the answer): Chevalley-Warning is also true for sytems of polynomial equations f1(x1,ldots,xn)=ldots=fr(x1,ldots,xn) so long as the sum of the degrees of the fi's is strictly less than n. What kind of counterexamples can we construct here when d=d1+ldots+drgeqn?

No comments:

Post a Comment