Wednesday, 10 August 2011

fields - An unfamiliar (to me) form of Hensel's Lemma

A far more general result is the "non-archimedean inverse function theorem". I haven't looked at Roquette's reference, so maybe he is mentioning it. But it is something which I didn't really find in the standard number theory textbooks - probably you can find it in texts on p-adic analysis - and I learned it from my number theory professor last semester (Jean-Benoît Bost). This theorem is powerful - and I find it fascinating and surprising - and all versions of Hensel's lemma which one usually encounters while learning number theory are immediate consequences.



Let K be a field, left|cdotright| a non-archimedean absolute value on K for which K is complete, mathcalO the associated valuation ring, mathcalM the maximal ideal, pi a uniformizer. Let PhiiinmathcalO[X1,,cdots,Xn] for 1leqileqn and consider the map Phi=(Phi1,,cdots,Phin):mathcalOntomathcalOn. Let J be the Jacobian det(partialPhii/partialXj)inmathcalO[X1,,cdots,Xn].



Theorem. If x0inmathcalOn, y0=Phi(x0) and J(x0)neq0, then for any Rin(0,left|J(x0)right|), Phi induces a bijection overlineB(x0,R)toy0+(DPhi)(x0)overlineB(0,R)

(where DPhi is the derivative we all know!) and furthermore we have a bijection Bcirc(x0,left|J(x0)right|toy0+(DPhi)(x0)Bcirc(0,left|J(x0)right|).



(I use the standard notations overlineB and Bcirc for closed and open balls respectively.)



The proof uses in an essential way the Picard fixed point theorem.



Corollary 1. Take n=1, Phi1=P, x0=alpha, varepsilonin(0,1). Suppose that left|P(alpha)right|leqvarepsilonleft|P(alpha)right|2. Then there exists a unique betainmathcalO such that P(beta)=0 and left|betaalpharight|leqvarepsilonleft|P(alpha)right|. (We take R=varepsilonleft|P(alpha)right| in the first bijection.)



Hence, as a special case, if left|P(alpha)right|<left|P(alpha)right|2, we find left|betaalpharight|<left|P(alpha)right|.



As an even more special case, if P(alpha)inmathcalOtimes and left|P(alpha)right|<1, there exists betainmathcalO such that P(beta)=0 and left|betaalpharight|<1. Restating this in terms of the residue field: a simple zero in the residue field can be lifted to a real zero in mathcalO. This is the really known version of Hensel's lemma, I guess.



[Definition: the Gauss norm of a polynomial with coefficients in K is defined as the maximum of the absolute values of its coefficients. It is very easy to check that the Gauss norm is multiplicative.]



Corollary 2. Take f,g,hinmathcalO[X] such that degg=n, degh=m and degf=degg+degh=n+m. Assume that there exists varepsilonin(0,1) such that left|fghright|leqvarepsilonleft|textRes(g,h)right|2 and deg(fgh)leqm+n1. Then there exist G,HinmathcalO[X] such that f=GH, deg(Gg)leqn1, deg(Hh)leqm1, and also left|Ggright|leqvarepsilonleft|textRes(g,h)right| and left|Hhright|leqvarepsilonleft|textRes(g,h)right|. (Obviously textRes denotes the resultant here, and left|cdotright| the Gauss norm.)



To prove this: write G=g+xi and H=h+eta where xi and eta are polynomials with coefficients in mathcalO and have degrees leqn1 and leqm1 respectively. Then f=GH if and only if f=(g+xi)(h+eta). It can be seen as a map from mathcalOntimesmathcalOmtomathcalOn+m given by polynomials. So consider the map Phi:(xi,eta)mapsto(g+xi)(h+eta)f. We have also textRes(g,h)=det((xi,eta)mapstogxi+heta)). It is easy to see that the theorem above then gives the result.



As a corollary: if f, g and h satisfy overlinef=overlinegoverlineh - where overlinef is f reduced modulo mathcalM et cetera - and if overlineg and overlineh are coprime (this is a condition on the resultant!) then there exist G,HinO[X] satisfying the following conditions: f=GH, deg(Gg)leqn1, deg(Hh)leqm1, overlineG=g and overlineH=h. Hence "a factorization over the residue field lifts to a factorization over mathcalO" (under the right conditions).



Corollary 3. Finally, let us come to the motivation for the question: the more general result is that if PinK[X] is irreducible, then left|Pright| (Gauss) is the maximum of the absolute values of the leading coefficient and the constant coefficient. (As a special case, we find the result which Pete L. Clark cites as the Hensel-Kurschak lemma.)



Indeed, let P(X)=sumni=0aiXniinK[X]. Suppose WLOG that left|Pright|=1. Let mathbbF be the residue field and let overlineP be the image of P modulo mathcalM. Set r=minn:overlineanrneq0. Then we have in the residue field the factorization overlineP(X)=Xrleft(overlineanr+overlineanr1X+cdots+overlinea0Xnrright) and we can lift the factorization by Corollary 2, contradicting irreducibility.



I know this is quite some digression; but I find the whole discussion about the various forms of Hensel's lemma very interesting, and I thought this could add something to the discussion.

No comments:

Post a Comment