1
$\begingroup$

This question raised when I tried to calculate $2$-Selmer group of elliptic curve $E:y^2=x^3+17x$ over $\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5})$.

$17x^4+y^2=-1$ does not have solution in $\Bbb{Q}_2$ (https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4730095/does-17x4y2-1-have-solution-in-bbbq-2).

But does $17x^4+y^2=-1$ have solution in $\Bbb{Q}_2(\sqrt{-5})$?

Calculating Hilbert symbol $(-17,-1)=(17,-1)(-1,-1)=1 ((-1,-1)=1$ because $-(\sqrt{-5})^2-2^2=1$ ) yields nothing.

Taking $2-$ adic valuation yields no contradiction, this is because $\Bbb{Q}_2(\sqrt{-5})/\Bbb{Q}_2$ is ramified extension.

$\endgroup$
8
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ The number $17$ is a fourth power in $\mathbf Z_2$ (since $f(t) = t^4 - 17$ has $|f(3)|_2 < |f'(3)|_2^2$, so there is a root in $\mathbf Z_2$ by Hensel's lemma, and one root is $1+2+2^4 + 2^6 + 2^9 + \cdots$), so by scaling $x$ the equation can be simplified to $x^4 + y^2 = -1$ in extensions of $\mathbf Q_2$. $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Commented Jul 5, 2023 at 17:17
  • 10
    $\begingroup$ Since last month you've been asking several questions (here and on math.stackexchange) about solving $ay^2 = b + cx^4$ in various $p$-adic fields. It'd be nice to include context when asking such questions (related to computing Selmer groups?). $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    Commented Jul 5, 2023 at 17:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Here's a nice general trick: Since solvability of the equation $ay^2 = b + cx^4$ is equivalent to finding $x$ such that $a^{-1}(b + cx^4)$ is a square, and in a $p$-adic number field $K^\times / (K^\times)^2$ is finite, for any given $K$ it suffices to know an element up to an explicitly computable order to decide whether it's a square. For $x$ of small valuation, this boils down to deciding whether $a^{-1}c$ is square, and for $x$ of not-too-small valuation this leaves finitely many values of $x$ to check. This can be done quite mechanically. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 5, 2023 at 17:30
  • $\begingroup$ @KContad Thank you for your advice. Indeed, this calculation occurred to calculate Selmer group over quadratic fields. But to judge whether $x^4+y^2=-1$ has solution or not in $\Bbb{Q}(\sqrt{-5})$ seems difficult as the same as original one. $\endgroup$
    – Duality
    Commented Jul 6, 2023 at 5:53
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ As noted in this question, my previous comment is misleading due to an error in Simon's script. $\endgroup$ Commented Jul 14, 2023 at 19:26

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Let me illustrate the approach I sketched in the comments to find a solution:

Let $\pi = 1+\sqrt{-5}$ be a uniformizer of $K=\mathbb{Q}_2(\sqrt{-5})$, and $v$ the valuation with $v(2)=1$, so $v(\pi) = \frac{1}{2}$. In order for $17x^4 + y^2 = -1$, the minimum valuation among the three terms has to occur twice, so there are three cases to study: $2v(x)=v(y)<0$, $v(x)=0\leq v(y)$ and $v(y)=0\leq v(x)$. In the latter two cases, we have to solve your equation in $\mathcal{O}_K$, and it suffices to do so modulo $\pi^9$ due to Hensel lifting (modulo $\pi^5$ in the last case).

In the first case, we may also turn this into an equation in $\mathcal{O}_K$ by multiplying with a suitable power of $\pi$. Let $n = -2v(x)$, then $\pi^n x, \pi^{2n}y \in \mathcal{O}_K^\times$, and multiplying the original equation with $\pi^4$ we are led to the equation $17(\pi^n x)^4 + (\pi^{2n}y)^2 = -\pi^{4n}$. Let us write this as $17u^4 + v^2 = -\pi^{4n}$. By Hensel lifting (in $v$), or equivalently the observation that $(1+\pi^5\mathcal{O}_K)\subseteq (\mathcal{O}_K^\times)^2$, it suffices to solve this equation modulo $\pi^5$. If $n\geq 2$, this means that we are looking for a solution of $17u^4 + v^2 = 0$ with units $u$ and $v$, which doesn't exist since $-17$ is not a square in $\mathcal{O}_K$. If $n=1$, we have that $\pi^4 = 4$ and $17 = 1$ modulo $\pi^5$, so we are asking for a solution to $u^4 + v^2 = -4$, and this does exist: $u=1$ and $v=\sqrt{-5}$.

So the solution to the original equation is found in the vicinity of $(\pi^{-1}, \sqrt{-5}\cdot \pi^{-2})$ with Hensel lifting.

(If we had not found a solution here, we would also have to analyze the other two cases from the introduction, these can of course be done in the same way.)

$\endgroup$
1

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .