1
$\begingroup$

Related to this question.

For polynomial $f$, let $rad(f)$ denote the radical of $f$, the product of irreducible factors.

Suppose that $G(x,y) \in \mathbb{C}[x,y]$ is homogeneous without any repeated factors.

Let $r,s \in \mathbb{C}[u_1,\ldots,u_n] $ be coprime and at least one of them depends on at least two variables. Let $f \in \mathbb{C}[u_1,\ldots,u_n],R,S \in \mathbb{C}[t]$.

A "bad" identitiy is identity of the form $r=R(f),s=S(f)$.

Q1 Is it true that $\deg{(rad(G(r,s)))}\ge \max\{\deg(r),\deg(s)\}(\deg(G)-2) + 2$, except for "bad" identities?


Pasten's nice comment about linear substitution showed bad identities can't be excluded, here is the construction.

From the linked question, let $G(x,y)=x^4+xy^3$.

Certain univariate $r,s$ are counterexample.

The radical is divisible by $t+2$. Set $t=(u+v)^2-2$.

Explicitly:

r=8*u^6 + 48*u^5*v + 120*u^4*v^2 + 160*u^3*v^3 + 120*u^2*v^4 + 48*u*v^5 + 8*v^6 - 48*u^4 - 192*u^3*v - 288*u^2*v^2 - 192*u*v^3 - 48*v^4 + 96*u^2 + 192*u*v + 96*v^2
s=u^8 + 8*u^7*v + 28*u^6*v^2 + 56*u^5*v^3 + 70*u^4*v^4 + 56*u^3*v^5 + 28*u^2*v^6 + 8*u*v^7 + v^8 - 8*u^6 - 48*u^5*v - 120*u^4*v^2 - 160*u^3*v^3 - 120*u^2*v^4 - 48*u*v^5 - 8*v^6 + 24*u^4 + 96*u^3*v + 144*u^2*v^2 + 96*u*v^3 + 24*v^4 - 96*u^2 - 192*u*v - 96*v^2 + 144

The degree of the radical is $17$, which replaces $+2$ with $+1$.

I suspect $abc$ implies this, so $abc$ for multivariate polynomials might solve this.

$\endgroup$
6
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Except for the "+2" (which requires finer analysis on pencils in $\mathbb{P}^2$) a bound of this sort might be proved as follows: a general linear substitution $u=at+b$, $v=ct+d$ will preserve the degree of $r,s$, the coprimality of $r,s$, and cannot increase the degree of $rad(G(r,s))$. $\endgroup$
    – Pasten
    Apr 13, 2015 at 23:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Pasten Many thanks! You essentially solved this (check my answer). Added another question here. $\endgroup$
    – joro
    Apr 14, 2015 at 6:44
  • $\begingroup$ @Pasten I am not satisfied by my answer, though it appears correct. If you have less trivial answer to Q1 please answer. $\endgroup$
    – joro
    Apr 14, 2015 at 10:40
  • $\begingroup$ What my comment hints is a way to prove the bound with $+1$ (using what one knows in the 1-variable case). You understood something different, but this misundertanding is actually interesting (unless I misunderstood my own comment). $\endgroup$
    – Pasten
    Apr 15, 2015 at 15:15
  • $\begingroup$ @Pasten Maybe I misunderstood your first comment, but it lead to something of interest to me :-) $\endgroup$
    – joro
    Apr 15, 2015 at 16:32

0

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.