arxiv: v1 [math.nt] 11 Jun 2007

Transcription

1 Centre de Recherches Mathématiques CRM Proceedings and Lecture Notes arxiv: v [math.nt] Jun 2007 Power-free values, reulsion between oints, differing beliefs and the existence of error Harald Andrés Helfgott Abstract. Let f be a cubic olynomial. Then there are infinitely many rimes such that f() is square-free. An integer n is said to be square-free if it is not divisible by any squares other than. More generally, n is free of kth owers if d Z,d k n d = ±; square-freeness is what we get in the case k = 2. Being square-free or at least free of kth owers for some k is a desirable roerty: many things are easier to rove for square-free numbers. Thus, given a set of integers, it is good to know whether infinitely many of them or a ositive roortion of them are square-free. Let f be a olynomial with integer coefficients. Is there an infinite number of integers n such that f(n) is free of kth owers? There are some olynomials for which the answer is clearly no : say k = 2 and f(n) = 4n or f(n) = n 2. Slightly more subtly, consider f(n) = n(n+)(n +2)(n +3) +4, which is always divisible by 4. Assume, then, that f has no factors reeated k times and that the following local condition holds: (*) for every rime, f(x) 0 mod k has at least one solution in Z/ k Z. (Both conditions are obviously necessary, and both can be checked easily in bounded time.) Then, it is believed, there must be an infinite number of integers n such that f(n) is free of kth owers. If deg(f) k, it is not hard to rove as much. If deg(f) > k +, the roblem is too hard, at least when k is small. For deg(f) = k+, the statement was roven by Erdős in 953. In articular, if f is a cubic olynomial without reeated factors and f satisfies the local condition (*), then there are infinitely many integers n such that f(n) is square-free. Like many roofs in analytic number theory, Erdős s roof is rather tricky, in that it uses the fact that most integers are not rime in order to avoid certain essential issues. If a technique is strong enough to rove that infinitely many numbers in the bag are square-free, it is generally also strong enough to show that a ositive roortion are, and even to show which roortion are divisible by certain secific squares and no others. This is certainly the case for all the techniques discussed here. Results of this strength are necessary for alications in which, for examle, we need to go from the discriminant of an ellitic curve to its conductor, which is essentially the roduct of the rime factors of the discriminant. See [2] for some general machinery. c 0000 (coyright holder)

2 2 HARALD ANDRÉS HELFGOTT Perhas because of this, Erdős asked: for f cubic, are there infinitely many rimes such that f() is square-free? (More generally, for f of degree k+, are there infinitely many rimes such that f() is free of kth owers?) He conjectured that there are, but, as might be exected, most tricks used before break down. Hooley ([0], []) roved Erdős s conjecture for k 5. At about the same time, Nair [3] roved the conjecture for k 7, using rather different methods. (He was also the first to treat olynomials with deg(f) k+2, k large; Heath-Brown ([4]) has attained further rogress in this front.) In both aroaches, k small is harder than k large; in articular, the case k 6 remained oen. In [5], I roved Erdős s conjecture for all olynomials f with high entroy; in articular, the roof works when k = 2, deg(f) = 3 and Gal(f) = A 3. However, most cubic olynomials have Galois grou S 3, and their case remained oen until now. I have now managed to rove Erdős s conjecture for general cubics. Main Theorem. Let f Z[x] be a cubic olynomial without reeated roots. Assume that, for every rime q, there is a solution x (Z/q 2 Z) to f(x) 0 modq 2. Then there are infinitely many rimes such that f() is square-free. In fact, f() is square-free for a ositive roortion C f of all rimes where C f is exactly what we would exect (an infinite roduct of local densities). The tools used, develoed and sharened in the roof are mostly from diohantine geometry and robabilistic number theory; there is a key use of the modularity of ellitic curves. Let us take a quick walk through the roof. (A full account shall aear elsewhere.) It is not hard to show that N { N : f() is square-free} = C f () logn (+o()) +O( {x,y N,d N(logN) ǫ : x, y rime, dy 2 = f(x)} ), where S is the number of elements of a set S and C f is the (non-zero) constant we would exect. This (well-known) initial ste goes roughly as follows. Small square factors can be sieved out because we know how many rimes there are in arithmetic rogressions to small moduli; medium-sized square factors amount to a small error term, since d>m N/d2 is quite small with resect to N as soon as m is moderately large. Large square factors cannot be brushed aside by the same argument as medium-sized square factors simly because there are so many of them: an additional term that is overshadowed by N/d 2 in the medium range comes to the fore here. This is why the contribution of the large square factors figures in () as the error term within O( ). The sole roblem from now on, then, is to show that the exression within O( ) is o(n/logn). As you can tell from the notation, we intend to see this as a roblem of bounding the number of integer oints (x,y) on curves dy 2 = f(x), f a fixed cubic olynomial. The issues are two. First, we need very good bounds almost as good as O() for the number of oints for each d, or at least for every tyical d. Second, even a bound of O() would not be enough! There are N(logN) ǫ curves to consider, and a bound of O() er curve would amount to a total bound of O(N(logN) ǫ ), whereas we need o(n/logn). Let us begin with the first issue: we want good boundson the number of integer oints (x,y), x,y N, on the curve C d described by dy 2 = f(x), d fixed. Most techniques for

3 POWER-FREE VALUES 3 bounding the number of oints on curves are based on some kind of reulsion: if there are bees in a room, and each bee stays a yard or more away from every other bee, there cannot be too many bees in the room. Reulsion may haen in the visible geometry of the curve, viz., its grah, as in []; such a ersective, unfortunately, would not be nearly enough in our case. Alternatively, we may look at reulsion in the Mordell-Weil lattice corresonding to the curve. Rational and integer oints on curves. Let C be a curve of genus g > 0 over Q (or a number field K). The curve C can be embedded in its Jacobian J C. The rational oints J C (K) in the Jacobian form a finitely generated abelian grou under the grou law of the Jacobian; they are, furthermore, endowed with a natural norm given by the square root of the canonical height. Hence J C (K) can be naturally embedded in R r, where r is the rank of J C (K). We thus have an (almost) injective ma ι : C(K) L R r, where C(K) is the set of rational oints on C and L is a lattice in R r. What can be said about the image ι(c(k))? If the genus g is, ι(c(k)) is all of L. However, if g >, then ι(c(k)) looks quite sarse within L. Mumford [4] roved that the oints of ι(c(k)) reel each other: for any P,P 2 ι(c(k)) at about the same distance from the origin O, the angle P OP 2 searating P from P 2 is at least 60 (for g = 2), 70.5 (for g = 3), 75.5 (for g = 4),... in general, P OP 2 arccos g. Assume now that the oints P and P 2 come from integer oints on C. Then, as I ointed out in my thesis ([8, Ch. 4] or [7, Lem. 4.6]; see also the earlier work of Silverman [5], [3, Pro. 5], which seems to have originated from the same observation) the angle P OP 2 is larger than if P and P 2 were merely rational: the angle is at least 60 for g =, 75.5 for g = 2,... in general, at least arccos 2g. We obtain better bounds as a consequence. (If g =, we obtain bounds where Mumford s work does not by itself give any.) The bounds are obtained by means of results on shere-acking; indeed, the number of oints fitting at a certain distance from the origin and at a searation of 60 from each other is recisely the number of solid sheres that can fit around a shere of the same size in the given dimension. In the case of the curve E d : dy 2 = f(x), the bounds we obtain are of the form c ω(d), c > fairly small (< 2). This is still not good enough, as, on the average, it amounts to about (logn) c 2, c 2 a small but fixed non-zero constant, for d N; what we would like is a bound of the form (logn) ǫ. Visible vs. Mordell-Weil geometry. In [9], we remark uon the following henomenon. LetP, P 2 betwo integer (or rational) oints on C(K) at about thesame distancefrom the origin. Suose that their coordinates (x,y ), (x 2,y 2 ) are close to each other, either in thereal lace (that is, x y and x 2 y 2 are small) or -adically (that is, x x 2 modd and y y 2 modd for a large integer d). Then the angle P OP 2 in the Mordell-Weil lattice is even larger than it would already have to be. In other words: if two oints are close to each other in the grah of the curve in R 2, they must be esecially far from each other in the Mordell-Weil lattice. Thus, if we artition the set of all rational oints into sets of oints close to each other in the grah of the curve, we shall obtain an esecially

4 4 HARALD ANDRÉS HELFGOTT good bound on the number of elements of each such set. The main concern is then to kee the number of such sets small. In the case of the curve E d : dy 2 = f(x), we have that any two oints (x,y ), (x 2,y 2 ) on E d induce oints P = (x,d /2 y ), P 2 = (x 2,d /2 y 2 ) on E : y 2 = f(x). The y- coordinates of P and P 2 are already close to each other modulo d (that is, modulo the rime ideals in Q(d /2 ) dividing d). The congruence classes mod d into which x and x 2 may fall are rather restricted, as f(x ) 0 modd and f(x 2 ) 0 modd; the total number of congruence classes x modulo d for which f(x) 0 modd is at most 3 ω(d). If P and P 2 have x-coordinates in the same congruence class modulo d, then the angle P OP 2 turns out to be at least 90, or 90 ǫ. Very few oints can fit in R r lying at about the same distance from the origin and subtending angles of 90 ǫ or more from each other. There is the roblem that 3 ω(d) is too large a ower of (logn), on the average, since ω(d) is usually about loglogn. However, with robability, an integer d N has a large divisor d 0 (> N ǫ ) with few rime divisors (< ǫloglogn). We may thus consider oints P, P 2 congruent to each other modulo d 0, rather than d, and obtain angles P OP 2 of size at least 90 ǫ while considering at most 3 ω(d 0) ossible congruence classes. The total bound on the number of integer oints (x,y) on E d : dy 2 = f(x) with x,y N is O((logN) ǫ ) for every tyical d, that is, for each d N outside a set of size at most N/(logN) 000. This is almost as good as O(). The roblem, as said before, is that this is not good enough; since there are N integers d =,2,...,N to consider, the total bound would be O(N). The issue, then, is how to eliminate most d. Probabilistic number theory has just made its first aearance; it shall lay a crucial role in what follows. The ersective of the value and the ersective of the argument. Our task is still to show that (2) {x,y N,d N(logN) ǫ : x, y rime, dy 2 = f(x)} is at most o(n/logn). We have a good bound for each d, namely, O((logN) ǫ ) for each d outside a small set, and a reasonable bound for each d inside that small set. The idea will now be to consider, in a solution to dy 2 = f(x), what kind of integer d = f(x)/y 2 tyically is, and whether it looks much like a tyical integer d. We will show that, for most x, the integer d = f(x)/y 2 must look rather strange, and that thus there can be few such d. Stated otherwise: we shall rove that every rime x N must either lie within a fixed set of size o(n/logn) or be such that, if dy 2 = f(x) for some rime y and some integer d N(logN) ǫ, then d must lie within a fixed set of size O(N/(logN) +0ǫ ). Combined with our bound for each d, this will yield immediately that (2) is indeed o(n/logn). What are, then, the ways in which f(x) will tend to be strange for a random rime x? And which of those ways of strangeness will carry over to d, if f(x) can be written in the form dq 2, where q is a large rime? As far as thesecond question is concerned: since q is rime, f(x) anddhave almost the same number of rime divisors. Thus, if we can show that the number of rime divisors of f(x) is strange for x random, we will have shown that the number of rime divisors of d is strange for x random.

5 POWER-FREE VALUES 5 Now, for x random, the number of rime divisors w(f(x)) will be about loglogn. Thus, w(d) will also be about loglogn. Unfortunately, this is tyical, not strange, for an integer of the size of d. Consider, however, rimes of different kinds. Let K = Q(α), where α is a root of f(x) = 0. Then some rimes will slit comletely in K/Q, some rimes will not slit at all, and some rimes may slit yet not slit comletely. We can write w (n), w 2 (n) and w 3 (n) for the number of rime divisors of n of each kind. Then, as we shall see, w j (f(x)) (and thus w j (d)) will tend to be strange for x random. SuosefirstthatK/QhasGaloisgrouA 3. Theneveryrimemusteitherslitcomletely or not slit at all. If does not slit at all, then f(x) 0 mod has no solutions. Hence w 2 (f(x)) = 0, and so w 2 (d) = 0. This is certainly atyical for an integer d N. (Usually w 2 (d) 2 3 loglogn.) Now suose slits comletely. Then f(x) 0 mod has three solutions mod. Thus, for a random rime x, we shall have f(x) 0 mod with robability 3/. Hence w 2 (f(x)) will most likely be about slits comletely 3 loglogn. Thus w 2 (d) loglogn, whereas an integer d N usually has w 2 (d) 3 loglogn. It is not enough, however, to show that d is strange (i.e., in a set of size o(n)); we must show that d is strange enough (i.e., in a set of size O(N/(logN) +ǫ )). How odd is it for a random integer d N to have w (d) = 0 and w 2 (d) loglogn? The number w (d) equals does not slit X, where X is a random variable taking the value when d and 0 otherwise. Similarly, w 2 (d) = slits comletely X. Now X is with robability / and 0 with robability /. Suose the variables X to be mutually indeendent. Then the theory of large deviations (Cramer s theorem, or, more aroriately, Sanoff s theorem) offers the uer bound Prob X = 0 X > ( ǫ)loglogn. (logn) log3 ǫ does not slit slits comletely Now, of course, the variables X are not actually mutually indeendent; the variables X,X 2,...,X k can be assumed to be (aroximately) mutually indeendent only when 2 k < N. However, the fact that X has only a small robability of being non-zero allows us to use the main technique from Erdös and Kac s Gaussian aer [2] to show that we may treat the variables X, for our uroses, as if they were mutually indeendent. Thus we do obtain Prob(w (d) = 0 w 2 (d) > ( ǫ)loglogn) = O(N/(logN) +ǫ ), (logn) log3 ǫ as desired. We are done roving the main theorem when Gal f = A 3. What haens when Gal f = S 3? While our analysis is in the main still valid, the exonent that we obtain instead of log3 is 2 log3, which is less than, and thus insufficient. (In general, for dyk = f(x), deg(f) = k +, the exonent we get may be exressed as an entroy, which will deend on Gal(f) alone. Sometimes entroy(gal(f)) >, and we are done, and sometimes, as in the case of Gal(f) = S 3, the entroy is <.) The reason is that, when Gal f = S 3, half of the rimes slit in K/Q. These rimes divide f(x) with exactly the same robability that they would divide a random integer,

6 6 HARALD ANDRÉS HELFGOTT and thus they are useless. What is to be done, then? How can one bridge a ga of size /(logn) 2 log3? The existence of error. Modularity. Again: what is a way of strangeness such that, if f(x) is strange and d = f(x)/q 2, q a rime, then d must be strange as well? Having too few or too many rime factors of some kind is one way. Is there another one? We have used the fact that q 2 has only one rime factor; let us now use the fact that q 2 is a square. For any rime modulus, the integer d will be a square mod if and only if f(x) is a square mod. Now, a random integer is as likely to be a square mod as a non-square mod. How likely is f(x) to be a square mod for a random integer x (or a random rime x)? By the Weil bounds, there are +O( ) oints on the curve y 2 = f(x) mod. Hence the robability that f(x) will be a square mod is 2 +O( /2 ). This is not good, as 2 would be the robability if there were nothing amiss to be exloited. Let us show that an error of size about /2 is in fact resent a ositive roortion of the time. Write the number of oints on the curve y 2 = f(x) mod as + a. Then the robability that f(x) will be a square mod is recisely 2 a 2 +O(/); we have to give a lower bound, on the average, for the size of a /2 (or, rather, a 2 / 2, since we shall later use a variance bound). Now, the L-function of E : y 2 = f(x) is a n n s. By the modularity of ellitic curves (roven by Wiles et al.), there is a modular form g associated to L. We may, in turn, define a Rankin-Selberg L-function L g g associated to g, and use the standard facts that L g g = a 2 nn s and that L g g has a simle ole at s = 2. By some Tauberian work (or roceeding as in the roof of the rime number theorem) we deduce that z a 2 / 2 is asymtotic to loglogz; in other words, a 2 is of size about on the average. It is somewhat unleasant to have to use modularity here, as we need not know the behaviour of L E (or L g g ) inside the critical stri. Still, it is hard to see how to do without modularity or some strong kindred result. Marc Hindry and Mladen Dimitrov have ointed out to me that, if one wants to give a (conditional) statement on kth-owerfree values of olynomials of degree k +, k > 2, it may be simler and more roer to work assuming Tate s conjecture on L C C rather than automorhicity. Using many small differences. Exonential moments and high moments. Now, how may we use these small differences between the robability of d being a square (for d a random integer) and the robability of d being a square (for d = f(x)/q 2, x a random rime)? Suose I am throwing a fair coin in the air. A gentle wind blows; it may change directions very often, but becomes gradually milder. I know that the wind has a slight effect on the way the coin lands: if the wind blows from the east, then, I osit, heads are more likely, whereas, if the wind blow from the west, tails are more likely. You, however, will not believe me. How shall I make my oint? Let us assume I can measure the strength and direction of the wind before every coin throw. I shall throw the coin in the air many times, betting on heads or tails according to what I reckon to be more likely, given the wind. If, at the end, I have collected statistically significant winnings, you will have to acknowledge that I am in the right.

7 POWER-FREE VALUES 7 Our situation is analogous. Instead of wind, we have a ; instead of a coin, we have whether or not f(x) is a square mod for a random rime x. (The rime x stays fixed as varies.) If f(x) (and thus d) lands on the more likely side of squareness or non-squareness for significantly more than one-half of all rimes, then d will be sufficiently strange. We can let X be a random variable taking the value a when f(x) is a square mod, and the value a when f(x) is a non-square mod. Then X is a with robability 2 a a 2, and with robability 2 + a 2. It can be seen easily that the exected value of z X is z a2 / 2 loglogz. We may assume airwise indeendence and obtain ( a 2 ) a4 2 loglogz O() loglogz. Thus, Chebyshev 4 that Var( z X ) = z gives us that z X is > ( o())loglogz a roortion of the time. Now let Y be a when a random integer d x is a square residue modulo ; let Y be a otherwise. What is the robability that z Y be larger than ( o())loglogz? The robability that Y take either of its two ossible values is /2. Suose that the variables Y were mutually indeendent. Then the exected value E(e P Y ) of e P Y would be the roduct of the exected values of e Y. We can use this as follows. First of all, Prob( z Now, as we were saying, Hence Y > ( o())loglogz) Prob(e P z Y > (logz) o() ) E(eP z Y ) (logz) o(). E(e P z Y ) = E( z ( = z e Y ) = E(e Y ) = z z ) a a 2 4! ( 2 ea + ) 2 e a ze a P a 2 z = e 2 = e (+o())loglogz = (logz) +o(). (3) Prob( zy > ( o())loglogz) (logz) /2 o(), which is the bound we desire. Now, thevariables Y are not in fact mutually indeendent, and, since therobabilities we are dealing with are close to /2 rather than to 0, we cannot aly the tricks in Erdös-Kac. A simler aroach will in fact do. Let z = N 3loglogN and k = 2 loglogz. Then, while the variables Y are not mutually indeendent, they are more than airwise indeendent: any 2k of them are mutually indeendent (with a small error term). We can thus roceed as in the roof of Chebyshev s theorem, taking a (2k)th ower instead of a square. The bound thus obtained is essentially as good as (3): we obtain that the robability that z Y / be larger than ( o())loglogz is O(/(logz) /2 o() ) = O(/(logN) /2 o() ).

8 8 HARALD ANDRÉS HELFGOTT We conclude that, if d is strange in the two ways we have considered having numbers of rime divisors differing from the norm, and agreeing with the wind for considerably more than half of all s then it lies in a set of cardinality at most ( ) ( O N = O (logn) 2 log3+ 2 ǫ N (logn) ǫ This is smaller than o( N logn (2). Thus (2) is indeed at most o(n/logn), and we are done roving the main theorem. ). ), which was the goal we set ourselves in the discussion after References [] Bombieri, E., and J. Pila, The number of integral oints on arcs and ovals, Duke Math. J. 59 (989), no. 2, [2] Erdős, P., and M. Kac, The Gaussian law of errors in the theory of additive number theoretic functions, Amer. J. Math. 62 (940), [3] R. Gross and J. Silverman, S-integer oints on ellitic curves, Pacific J. Math. 67 (995), [4] Heath-Brown, R., Counting rational oints on algebraic varieties, C. I. M. E. lecture notes, to aear. [5] Helfgott, H. A., Power-free values, large deviations, and integer oints on irrational curves, to aear in J. Théor. Nombres Bordeaux. [6] Helfgott, H. A., On the behaviour of root numbers in families of ellitic curves, submitted, math.nt/ [7] Helfgott, H. A., On the square-free sieve, Acta Arith. 5 (2004) [8] Helfgott, H. A., Root numbers and the arity roblem, Ph.D. thesis, Princeton Univ., htt:// [9] Helfgott, H. A., and A. Venkatesh, Integral oints on ellitic curves and 3-torsion in class grous, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 9 (2006), [0] Hooley, C., On ower-free numbers and olynomials. I, J. reine angew. Math. 293/294 (977), [] Hooley, C., On ower-free numbers and olynomials. II, J. reine angew. Math. 295 (977), 2. [2] Helfgott, H. A., On the square-free sieve, Acta Arith. 5 (2004) [3] Nair, M., Power-free values of olynomials, II, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 38 (979), no. 2, [4] Mumford, D., A remark on Mordell s conjecure, Amer. J. Math. 87 (965), [5] Silverman, J. H., A quantitative version of Siegel s theorem: integral oints on ellitic curves and Catalan curves, J. Reine Angew. Math. 378 (987), H. A. Helfgott, Mathematics Deartment, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 TW, United Kingdom address: h.andres.helfgott@bristol.ac.uk