The definition of R-equivalence is given in the paper as Definition 4.1. Coarsely speaking, given a field $K$ and a cubic surface over $K$, two points $x,y$ are R-equivalent over $K$ if they can be covered by a chain of rational curves over $K$ in the cubic surface.

Question: Is there a criterion for the R-equivalence of two points on a given surface (for example, $x^3+y^3+z^3=3$ and a pair of points $(1,1,1),(17/12,5/6,-3/4)$) over $\mathbb{Q}$?


There is a general necessary condition, and then there are ad hoc sufficient conditions. The necessary condition is related to the Brauer-Manin obstruction. Via pullback of Brauer classes, there is a pairing, $$X(K)\times \text{Br}(X) \to \text{Br}(K), \ (x,\alpha) \mapsto x^*\alpha.$$ Said differently, there is a set map, $$ X(K)\to \text{Hom}_{\mathbb{Z}}(\text{Br}(X),\text{Br}(K)).$$ If $x,y\in X(K)$ are $R$-equivalent, then they are in the same fiber of this set map. Thus, if there exists $\alpha\in \text{Br}(X)$ such that $x^*\alpha$ does not equal $y^*\alpha$, then $x$ and $y$ are not $R$-equivalent.

On the other hand, proving that points are $R$-equivalent is much trickier. Regarding cubic surfaces, one important reference is the following.

MR1875181 (2003c:11070) Reviewed
Swinnerton-Dyer, Peter
Weak approximation and R-equivalence on cubic surfaces. (English summary)
Rational points on algebraic varieties, 357–404, Progr. Math., 199, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2001.
11G35 (11G30 14G05)

For trying to prove direct $R$-equivalence, the simplest guess is that there is a singular plane cubic in the cubic surface that contains $x$ and $y$. If $L$ is the line spanned by $x$ and $y$, then either $L$ is contained in $X$ (in which case you are done), or else projection of $X$ away from $L$ defines an elliptic fibration over a complementary $\mathbb{P}^1$. In this case, there is a degree $12$ divisor in $\mathbb{P}^1$ that is the discriminant of the fibration. If that degree $12$ divisor happens to have a rational point, then you are usually done: the normalization of the corresponding singular plane cubic will be what you want. The one caveat is that the singular set of that curve may contain $x$ or $y$, in which case you may not yet be done: the inverse image of that point in the normalization may be a closed point whose residue field has degree $2$ over $K$.


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.