Consider the identity $$ (x+z)^5+(y-z)^5 = (-3 x + 4 y)^2 (x + y)^3 + (x+y) f(x,y,z) $$

Where $f(x,y,z)=(-8*x^4 + 5*x^3*y + 24*x^2*y^2 - 9*x*y^3 - 15*y^4 + 5*x^3*z - 5*x^2*y*z + 5*x*y^2*z - 5*y^3*z + 10*x^2*z^2 - 10*x*y*z^2 + 10*y^2*z^2 + 10*x*z^3 - 10*y*z^3 + 5*z^4)$.

The curve $C : f(x,y,z)=0 $ is genus 1, have infinitely many rational and integral points since it is projective.

For a point $(x,y,z)$ on $C$, the identity becomes.

$$ (x+z)^5+(y-z)^5 = (-3 x + 4 y)^2 (x + y)^3 \qquad (1) $$

(1) has infinitely many integer solutions.

Sum of two coprime fifth powers being squarefull infinitely often contradicts the $abc$ conjecture, so $abc$ implies $\gcd(x+z,y-z) > 1$ (actually it implies the $\gcd$ is sufficiently large, since clearing a small gcd will produce abc triples of sufficiently good quality).

$C$ is birationally equivalent to $ E: y^2 = x^3 - \frac{57648010}{243}x - \frac{346032180025}{19683}$ and computing solutions to (1) gives large gcd, as implied by $abc$. Computing the gcd of the symbolic maps from the Weiersstras model give $\gcd=7$ (modulo errors).

Other similar identities exist, including genus 0 curves. The parametrization of genus 0 and $abc$ for polynomials implies common factor, though the genus 1 case is not clear to me.

Why the $\gcd$ is sufficiently large?

Is there an unconditional proof that for all similar identies the $\gcd$ will be sufficiently large? ($abc$ implies this).

Added Charles asked in a comment about points of infinite order on $C$.

Here are some:

 (27, 1, 15)
 (-1343, -1184, 279)
 (-113217, -61531, 74507)
 (-1038297, 1267624, 243888)
 (18490353467, 11046438881, 1513527591)
 (17139398481243, 15697885061884, 4151488981525)
 (-26723833000980177, 15287849768762549, 47286394561187571)
 (-1316887777770612905003, -1407701177079680302604, 837630236024655513348)

If $(-u,v)$ note the minus is on $E$ a map to (x,y,1) on $C$ is:

x,y=(-170318769169205125-1417766490*u^3-531441*u^4+1975193766630*u^2-40040866545750*v+99059869755*v*u+40507614*v*u^2)/(-601680754627470*u-63038098935*u^2+531441*u^4+1748578671*u^3+135424192071124075), (-2125764*u^4-4017005055*u^3+4664819321190*u^2-261600328098900*u-279987440048888425-91293175724310*v+243146953035*v*u+60761421*v*u^2)/(-1805042263882410*u-189114296805*u^2+1594323*u^4+5245736013*u^3+406272576213372225)

  • $\begingroup$ This seems interesting, but could you clarify? You have shown that C is of genus 1 (birationally, presumably f=0 is quite singular). And that C has a point of infinite order? $\endgroup$ – Charles Matthews Aug 2 '13 at 12:43
  • $\begingroup$ @CharlesMatthews edited the question giving 8 points of infinite order and a map from the Weiersstras model to C. $\endgroup$ – joro Aug 2 '13 at 13:09
  • $\begingroup$ I suspect gcd(x+z,y-z)<max(|x+z|,|y-z|)^E for E small enough might be a putative counterexample to abc for integers, though this is extremely unlikely. There were some large abc triples of moderate quality and low merit after clearing the gcd. $\endgroup$ – joro Aug 2 '13 at 16:51

There is an "abc theorem for higher genus curves".

Let $a,b,c$ be three sections of a line bundle of degree $d$ on a curve $C$ of genus $g$ with no common zeroes such that $a+b=c$. Then the number of zeroes of $abc$ is at least $d+2-2g$.

Proof: Let $f = -a/b$ be a map $C \to \mathbb P^1$ of degree $d$. By Riemann-Hurwitz, the total ramification degree is at most $2d+2g-2$. But the total ramification is at least the ramification over the points $0$, $1$, and $\infty$, which is equal to $3d$ minus the number of zeroes of $abc$.

We conclude that if $x'$, $y'$, and $z'$, the pullback of $x+z$, $y-z$, $-3x+4y$ to $E$ are three sections such that $x'^5 + y'^5= z'^2 (x'+y')^3$, then $x'$ and $y'$ cannot be relatively prime (and if we try harder, we can compute how many factors they must share). This is vindicated by the fact that $(x',y',z')=(0,0,1)$ or $(x,y,z)=(-1,1,1)$ is a point on the curve, and is in fact the singular point, so its preimage on $E$ has large degree.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. This doesn't appear to be unconditional as the second question asks? $\endgroup$ – joro Aug 2 '13 at 15:15
  • $\begingroup$ It is, sorry for the confusion. $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Aug 2 '13 at 15:17
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ What's going on is that the two functions have a common factor in some other embedding of the elliptic curve into projective space. Given enough effort, we could actually compute this embedding and find a common factor. As the point on the curve goes to infinity, the size of the common factor must grow. We can make this precise using heights, and I believe we can show using heights that one never gets a counterexample to abc. $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Aug 2 '13 at 18:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ We can tell that they have a common factor in some embedding because they have common zeroes on the elliptic curve. Those zeroes are exactly the points on $E$ that map to the singular point $(-1,1,1)$. Their existence, in the general case, is guaranteed by a generalization of the argument that proves the Mason-Stothers theorem / abc for polynomials. $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Aug 2 '13 at 18:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Historical remark: Mason and Stothers stated their result for arbitrary curves, not just $\mathbb{P}^1$. It is later expository accounts that consider just polynomials. $\endgroup$ – Felipe Voloch Aug 2 '13 at 20:31

The big gcd can be explained as follows: Upon replacing $x$ with $x-z$ and $y$ with $y+z$, we obtain the slightly more convenient equation \begin{equation*} x^5+y^5=(-3x+4y+7z)^2(x+y)^3. \end{equation*}

On the other hand, we have the identity \begin{equation*} x^5+y^5=(x^2 - 3xy + 6y^2)(x+y)^3-5y^3(y+x)(y+2x), \end{equation*} so if $(x,y,z)$ is a point on the curve, then $(x+y)^3$ divides $5y^3(y+x)(y+2x)$, hence

\begin{equation*} (x+y)^2\text{ divides }5y^3(y+2x). \end{equation*}

By homogeneity we may assume that $\text{gcd}(x,y,z)=1$. Set $d=\text{gcd}(x,y)>0$. Now $(x+y)/d$ is relatively prime to $y/d$ and $(y+2x)/d$. So the previous divisibility yields that $(\frac{x+y}{d})^2$ divides $5d^2$. In particular \begin{equation*} d\ge \frac{\lvert x+y\rvert^{1/2}}{5^{1/4}}. \end{equation*} I believe that a finer kind of this reasoning can improve the lower bound for $d$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $(x+y)^2\text{ divides }5y^3(y+2x)$ certainly doesn't imply gcd(x,y) > 1. There are a lot of counterexamples found by fast bruteforce search. Especially when |x+y|=1. $\endgroup$ – joro Aug 6 '13 at 10:46
  • $\begingroup$ @joro: I didn't say that $gcd(x,y)>1$. All what I say is that $gcd(x,y)$ grows in terms of $\lvert x+y\rvert$. Actually, for any fixed $x+y$, that is setting $y=a-x$ for a fixed integer $a$. you get an elliptic curve in $x$ and $z$, which then has only finitely many integral points. $\endgroup$ – Peter Mueller Aug 6 '13 at 14:33
  • $\begingroup$ I see. It is still not entirely clear how big |x+y| is. In your example with $y=a-x$ there are infinitely many choices for $a$, so either the curves are birationally equivalent or still $x,z$ can't be sufficiently larger than $a$ ? $\endgroup$ – joro Aug 6 '13 at 14:50

The situation appears more complicated.

$abc$ implies something stronger than just large gcd.

The identities are of the form $$ a^5 + b^5 = c^2 d^3$$

Set $g^5 = \gcd(a^5,b^5)$. If $g^2 || c^2, g^3 || d^3$ we still will have sum of two fifth powers being squarefull, which contradicts $abc$.

So abc implies sufficiently large squarefree part of $c^2 d^3$ after clearing the gcd.

Experimentally, $|7^3 d^3|=g^6$, which gives identities of the form

$$ a'^5 + b'^5 = c'^2 d' \qquad (1)$$

(1) gives $abc$ triples of barely good quality.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You seek an explanation for $|7^3d^3|=|g^6|$. I believe I can provide one. Recall that $d=a+b$, and that this is our equation. $a^5+b^5=c^2(a+b)^3$. The equation for a singular form of the elliptic curve is gotten by dividing both sides by $(a+b)$. The singular point is $a=b=0$, $c=1$. It has two inverse images on the elliptic curve, and the order of vanishing of $a$ and $b$ at those images is $1$, while the order of vanishing of $a+b$ is $2$. Since $g$ comes from these points, we expect that $g^2$ divides $d$, which implies the empirical result. $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Aug 19 '13 at 21:32
  • $\begingroup$ Mathematically, note that $(a+b)^4+5(a-b)^4 +10 (a+b)^2(a-b)^2 = c^2 (a+b)^2$, hence $(a+b)^2$ divides $(a-b)^4$ (on the curve), hence $(a+b)$ divides $(a-b)^2$ mathematically. We conclude that $d$ divides $4g^2$. $\endgroup$ – Will Sawin Aug 19 '13 at 21:37

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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