8
$\begingroup$

While searching for a use for the "sum invariant" of indefinite binary quadratic forms of discriminant $D = n^2 + 4$ (see https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/journals/JIS/VOL17/Smith/smith5.html), I believe I have proved the following lower bound for the form class number $D$. Let $\tau(n)$ denote the number of positive divisors of $n$, and let $\tau_o (n)$ denote the number of odd divisors. Then:

$$ h(D) \geq \begin{cases} \tau(n) - 1 &\text{if $n$ is odd}\\ \tau(n) - 2 &\text{if $n \equiv 2 \pmod{4}$}\\ 2\tau_o(n) - 1 &\text{if $n \equiv 0 \pmod{4}$} \end{cases}$$

The idea is simple: for each factorization $n=ab$, we can create a forms $B_{a,b} = ax^2 + (ab+2) xy + by^2$ of discriminant $D$. These forms are primitive unless $a$ and $b$ are even. Using the sum invariant, it is easy to show two distinct such forms must be inequivalent, except that perhaps $B_{a,b}$ may be equivalent to $B_{b,a}$. I then devised a proof that $B_{a,b}$ can only be equivalent to $B_{b,a}$ if one of $a$ and $b$ is either $1$ or $2$, in which case they must be equivalent.

My question is: is the inequivalence of these forms already known, or at least the above bound? If so, is there a reference? If not, is the result interesting in the context of other known results/conjectures about these class numbers? I would hazard a guess that this bound gets pretty poor for large $n$, but for small $n$ it seems reasonably sharp.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It is certainly true that your lower bound gets poor for large $n$, because the regulator for these fields is about $\log n$, hence Siegel's lower bound yields $h(n^2+4)\geq n^{1-o(1)}$ with $o(1)$ tending to zero as $n\to\infty$. However, this bound is ineffective, so your lower bound is not contained in it (even when $n>10^{100}$, say). I don't remember seeing your result in the literature, although I have certainly seen more complicated proofs of the fact that "$h(n^2+4)=1$ implies that $n$ is prime". $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Apr 28 '15 at 1:09
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks GH. I am hoping that this is new as an effective bound, and I have some ideas about how to improve it. BTW, I guess "$h(n^2+4)=1$ implies that $n$ is prime" must be qualified with $n \neq 4$? $\endgroup$ – Barry Apr 28 '15 at 1:33
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, I meant "$h(n^2+4)=1$ for $n^2+4$ square-free implies that $n$ is prime". Your lower bound implies more and in a better way. $\endgroup$ – GH from MO Apr 28 '15 at 2:08
3
$\begingroup$

see Mollin's paper and the various references given there. You will probably also find relevant material in his book "Quadratics".

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Franz. I find it interesting that he found in (3) of his theorem pretty much the same bound on the class group, since the one above is a bound on the narrow class group. $\endgroup$ – Barry May 16 '15 at 22:19

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.