Skip to main content
11 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jun 5, 2019 at 10:08 comment added davidoff303 Here is similar question.
Jul 6, 2017 at 14:42 answer added davidoff303 timeline score: 6
Jul 7, 2016 at 19:31 vote accept Tito Piezas III
Jul 6, 2016 at 1:48 comment added Michael Zieve What is surely happening is the following: you must be getting two equations in the three variables $u,v,w$, which together define an elliptic curve. The image of this elliptic curve under the projection $(u,v,w)\mapsto (u,w)$ is your equation (2), and this projection is a $3$-isogeny. You get infinitely many rational $u,v,w$ because the point from your Solution 1 is a rational point on the $(u,v,w)$ curve having infinite order.
Jul 5, 2016 at 15:45 answer added Michael Zieve timeline score: 8
Jul 5, 2016 at 7:36 comment added Felipe Voloch What you wrote is almost certainly a point of infinite order when you regard $p,q$ as variables. This will imply that, for most values of $p,q$, you will get a point of infinite order too but there will certainly be specializations (perhaps not rational) that will give a point of finite order.
Jul 5, 2016 at 1:17 comment added Tito Piezas III @MichaelZieve: What I did was to use an initial solution $u_0$ to generate $u_1$, then $u_2$, and so on, each one becoming more complex. Then I constructed the nonic in $v$, plugged in the $u_i$, and observed if it had a rational root. So far, it has for several iterations already. So I am assuming I can do this ad infinitum, because it would be strange if it would suddenly stop at say, $u_8$. Also, I modified the sentence after $(2)$ re your comment.
Jul 5, 2016 at 1:07 history edited Tito Piezas III CC BY-SA 3.0
More details.
Jul 4, 2016 at 23:57 comment added Michael Zieve Do you know that there are infinitely many pairs of rational numbers $u,v$ satisfying your equation (1)? If so, what is the justification for that? Also, just a minor comment: your sentence after (2) sounds like you're saying that every elliptic curve over $\mathbf{Q}$ has infinitely many rational points, when instead you're presumably saying that the difference between the two "obvious" rational points (namely $(u,w)$ for the value of $u$ you described and the corresponding value of $w$, and the unique rational point at infinity) is a rational point in the Jacobian having infinite order.
Jul 4, 2016 at 23:48 history edited Myshkin
+ top level tag (nt.)
Jul 4, 2016 at 21:42 history asked Tito Piezas III CC BY-SA 3.0