MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Does anyone know of any result that deals with the following problem of counting the number of solutions of a certain algebraic equation over a finite field?

Let $p$ be an odd prime and $(a,b,c,d)\in\mathbb{F}_p^4$. How many solutions does the following equation have:

$$ ab^2 + cd^2 = bc^2 + da^2. $$

And more generally, if $1\le m,n\le q-1$ are two integers, how many solutions does the equation $$ a^mb^n + c^md^n = b^mc^n + d^ma^n $$ have?

share|cite|improve this question

The projectivization of your first equation is a cubic surface which (unless I made a mistake) is smooth for $p>5$. So the number of solutions of the projectivized equation is of the form $N=p^2+\alpha p + \beta$ where $\alpha, \beta$ range over a short finite list of single digit integers. The full list is, I think, in Manin's book "Cubic forms" or in Swinnerton-Dyer "The zeta function of a cubic surface over a finite field", Math Proc Cam Phil Soc 1967. Your first equation then has $pN+1$ solutions.

Whenever the projectivization of your second equation is smooth, you get $p^3+O(p^2)$ solutions by general facts but the answer may not be as clean as the first one.

share|cite|improve this answer
$(p-1)N+1$ solutions, that is. And I think $\beta$ is always $1$ for a smooth cubic. $$ $$ The general case is still a Delsarte (quadrinomial) surface, so the number of solutions can be expressed in terms of Gauss sums, but it won't be as clean as for $(m,n)=(1,2)$. – Noam D. Elkies Nov 27 '12 at 0:53
Yes, thanks, Noam. – Felipe Voloch Nov 27 '12 at 1:27
Can any of you point to an elementary source where this is described. I have zero exposure to algebraic geometry. – azazello Nov 27 '12 at 3:23
Try – Franz Lemmermeyer Nov 27 '12 at 13:03
When it's not smooth, you should still get $p^3+ O(p^{5/2})$ as long as it's irreducible. – Will Sawin Nov 27 '12 at 15:26

The first equation can be worked out in an elementary way. Counting the solutions where $b=0$ or $d=0$ is straightforward. So let's consider the case $bd\ne0$. The equation rewrites as\begin{equation} d(a-\frac{b^2}{2d})^2+b(c-\frac{d^2}{2b})^2=\frac{b^5+d^5}{4bd}. \end{equation} So, given given $b$ and $d$, and upon setting $a=\frac{x+b^2}{2d}$, $c=\frac{y+d^2}{2b}$, and replacing $d$ with $-d$, we have to count the $x,y\in\mathbb F_p$ with \begin{equation} bx^2-dy^2=b^5-d^5. \end{equation} If $b^5-d^5\ne0$, we have an ellipsis with $p-1$ points if $b/d$ is a square, and $p+1$ points otherwise. The former case happens $(p-1)(p-3)/2$ times, and the latter case $(p-1)^2/2$ times. In the remaining case $b^5-d^5=0$ we have solutions $x, y$ if and only if $b/d$ is a square, and the number of solutions is $2p-1$ for each such pair $b,d$.

Indeed, carying out the count we, we find that there are all together $(p^2 + 6p - 6)p$ solutions if $p\equiv1\pmod{10}$, and $(p^2 + 2p - 2)p$ solutions if $p\not\equiv1\pmod{10}$.

share|cite|improve this answer

I have a somewhat different take from Peter Mueller's on an elementary way of solving

$$ab^2 + cd^2 = bc^2 + da^2.$$

To begin with, it's easy to see that there are $1+4(p-1)+2(p-1)^2+4(p-1)^2 = 6p^2-8p+3$ solutions with $abcd=0$. (There is 1 solution with four 0's, $4(p-1)$ solutions with three 0's, $2(p-1)^2$ solutions with two 0's, and $4(p-1)^2$ solutions with one 0.) So it remains to count the number of solutions with $abcd \not= 0$.

Apropos of nothing obvious for the moment, it's worth noting that the equation

$$A+B = C+D$$

(in the finite field) has $1+0+6(p-1)+4(p-1)(p-2) = 4p^2 - 6p +3$ solutions with $ABCD=0$ and hence $p^3-4p^2+6p-3$ solutions with $ABCD \not= 0$.

Getting back to the lowercase equation, if $abcd\not=0$, then each variable is a power of a generator, say $g$, of the finite field: $a=g^\alpha$, $b=g^\beta$, $c=g^\gamma$, and $d=g^\delta$. If we write the equation in these terms and divide everything by $g^{\alpha+\beta+\gamma+\delta}$, we have

$$g^r + g^s = g^t + g^u,$$


$$r=\beta-\gamma-\delta$$ $$s=\delta-\alpha-\beta$$ $$t=\gamma-\delta-\alpha$$ $$u=\alpha-\beta-\gamma$$

This last batch of equations is really a linear system of congruences $\mod(p-1)$. The linear transformation turns out to have determinant with absolute value 5. Consequently, if 5 does not divide $p-1$, i.e, if $p\not\equiv1 \mod5$, then there's a one-to-one correspondence between points $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma,\delta)$ and $(r,s,t,u)$. But in that case, we may as well think of the equation $g^r + g^s = g^t + g^u$ as the equation

$$A+B=C+D$$ with $ABCD\not=0$. As we casually noted earlier, there are $p^3-4p^2+6p-3$ such solutions. Combining this with the $6p^2-8p+3$ solutions with $abcd=0$, we get a total count of

$$(p^3-4p^2+6p-3)+(6p^2-8p+3) = (p^2+2p-2)p$$

solutions when $p\not\equiv1\mod5$, in agreement with what Peter Mueller found. (A small confession: I was initially perplexed by the difference between his mod 10 and my mod 5. A larger confession: Peter's results were a huge help in catching and correcting mistakes I made in my own calculations.)

I'm a bit mired at this point in how to deal with the case $p\equiv1\mod5$, so I'm going to leave things unfinished for now. I'll try to come back to it if I can find more time. Alternatively, if someone sees a slick way to finish and/or streamline things, please post it, either in comments or as a separate answer.

Added 11/30/12: I haven't had any luck making this approach work when $p\equiv1\mod5$, but Peter Mueller's comment has prompted me to go back and look more closely at the determinant of the linear transformation I used. As Peter noted, in the general case ($a^mb^n + c^md^n = b^mc^n + d^ma^n$), the determinant is $n^4-m^4$. That's actually for the linear transformation that turns $g^{m\alpha+n\beta}+g^{m\gamma+n\delta}=g^{m\beta+n\gamma}+g^{m\delta+n\alpha}$ into $g^r+g^s=g^t+g^u$. Note that when $m=1$, $n=2$, $n^4-m^4=15$, which suggests there's a problem not just when $p\equiv1\mod5$, but also when $p\equiv1\mod3$. That is, in fact, what I initially did. But given the results in Peter's answer, I suspected there ought to be a way of getting rid of the 3. I intuited that dividing by $g^{\alpha+\beta+\gamma+\delta}$ would help, and indeed it did, but I didn't really think about why.

Here's what's really going on. In general, you can divide by $g^{h\alpha+j\beta+k\gamma+\ell\delta}$ for any choice of $h,j,k,\ell$. Doing so gives a determinant (up to sign) of

$$n^4-m^4 -(h+j+k+\ell)(n-m)(n^2+m^2) = (n-m)(n^2+m^2)(n+m-h-j-k-\ell).$$

It's clear that one can choose $h,j,k,$ and $\ell$ to make the last factor $\pm1$; there's no particular need to make them all equal, but when $m+n$ is odd it's an appealing option.

The upshot is that the approach falters only for primes $p$ for which $p-1$ has a factor in common with $(n-m)(n^2+m^2)$. Whether it can be coaxed into saying something useful in the cases where it falters, I still don't know.

share|cite|improve this answer
I don't see right now how to deal with $5$ dividing $p-1$. But what is probably interesting is that your approach can handle some cases for general $m$ and $n$: The determinant in this case is $n^4-m^4$. So if $m+n$ is odd, then there are infinitely many primes $p$ such that $p-1$ is prime to $n^4-m^4$, so the number of $\mathbb F_p$-points can be determined. – Peter Mueller Nov 28 '12 at 10:20

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.