Skip to main content
7 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Jan 30, 2016 at 12:57 vote accept Max Horn
Jun 8, 2011 at 20:04 comment added Kevin Buzzard Max -- I just raced down some comments. I'm not saying I've answered the question -- I hoped someone could either take over or point out a problem. If $K=F(\sqrt{d})$ then the moment I adjoin another $\sqrt{d}$ to the situation I can unravel everything. $LP=MN$ guarantees that I don't lose control at this point. That's the proof plan anyway.
Jun 8, 2011 at 9:22 comment added Max Horn Accepting this as a black box for the moment, the rest seems clear, assuming new-$F$ maps diagonally into new-$K$. Indeed, can't we then immediately conclude $g=h$?
Jun 8, 2011 at 9:21 comment added Max Horn In your answer, everything up to the final paragraph seems clear. But why exactly does $LP=MN$ imply you can change the setting as described? You somehow seem to arrive at the conclusion that the curve $(a(x,y),b(x,y))$ in the old $K$ (where multiplication "mixes" real and imaginary parts) can be ``untangled'' to $(g(x),h(y))$ and we can thus switch to $\overline F\oplus\overline F$. Since you mention it so casually, it's probably something terribly basic. But I don't see how it follows. Can you give me a hint?
Jun 7, 2011 at 23:50 comment added Kevin Buzzard Over the algebraic closure it seems like I have something like a rational map from affine 2-space to affine 2-space, of the form $(s,t)\mapsto (g(s),h(t))$ (this is the statement that the map is defined over $K$), and whose image is contained in a diagonal affine 1-space. This means each horizontal line and each vertical line must be mapped to a point, and this means that the image of all of affine 2-space must be a point. Am I now done?
Jun 7, 2011 at 23:16 history edited Kevin Buzzard CC BY-SA 3.0
typo
Jun 7, 2011 at 21:50 history answered Kevin Buzzard CC BY-SA 3.0