Let $C(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ be a nonsigular cubic form with integral coefficients. In his Proof that $C$ fulfills the Hasse-Principle, if $n\geq 9$, Hooley used the following estimate that was provided by Katz in Perversity and Exponential Sums:

There exists a subset $\mathcal{P}$ of primes, having positive Dirichlet density and $A<1$ such that for all $w\in \mathcal{P}$ we have $$ \sum_{\mathbf{b}(\text{mod } w)} |\sum_{\substack{t (\text{mod } w)\\ (t,w)=1}} \sum_{\mathbf{x} (\text{mod } w)}e_w(tC(\mathbf{x})+\mathbf{b}.\mathbf{x})|<Aw^{(3n+1)/2} $$ where $\mathbf{b}$ is the vector $(b_1,\ldots b_n)$, $e_q(z)=e^{2 \pi \text{i} z/q}$ and $\mathbf{a}.\mathbf{b}=\sum_{i=1}^n a_i b_i$.

Question: Can we do the same when we twist the innermost sum by $\chi(t)$ for a multiplicative character $\chi$? (I need it only in the case where $\chi$ is the legendre symbol.)

Context: I try to prove the Hasse-Principle for $C(\mathbf{x})=y^2$ and $n=6$. Everything goes through nicely up to the aforementioned problem.

Looking at prime moduli and not averaging over $\mathbf{b}$, there were sufficient results (provided by Katz) that showed that the additional character does not matter, but I was not able to find it in the averaged case. My own Algebraic-Geometry knowledge is insufficient for trying to change the proof of Perversity and Exponential sums.


First, an elementary manipulation of your sum. $\sum_{t \mod w} \chi(t) e_w (t C(\mathbf{x}))$ is some fixed Gauss sum times $\chi^{-1} ( C(\mathbf{x}))$.

You want to take in the notation of Katz's Section 4:

$R = \mathbb Z$, $S = \operatorname{Spec} \mathbb Z$, $r= n$, $E = \mathbb Z^{n}$, $X = \mathbb A^n$, $V= $ the locus in $\mathbb A^n$ where $C(\mathbf{x}) \neq 0$.

$\mathcal F =$ the Kummer sheaf associated to $\chi^{-1} $, pulled back along $C$.

Then the estimate you desire follows from Theorem 4.10 of Katz's paper as long as the A-number is at least $2$.

To calculate the $A$-number, we first need to calculate the middle extension $K$ of $\mathcal F$ from $V$. I think in this case it's the same as $\mathcal F$ as long as the order of $\chi$ is not $3$. It's easy to see that the middle extension vanishes on the smooth part of the vanishing locus of $C$. To check that it vanishes at $0$, note that the stalk of the middle extension of $\mathcal F$ at $0$, is naturally isomorphic to the stalk of $\mathcal F$ pulled back by scaling by $\lambda$, but $\mathcal F$ pulled back by scaling by $\lambda$ is $\mathcal F$ twisted by $\mathcal L_\chi (\lambda^{3})$, which depends nontrivially on $\lambda$, so these can't be isomorphic unless they vanish.

So that means we just need to calculate the difference between the compactly-supported Euler characteristc of $\mathcal F$ and the compactly supported Euler characteristic of a generial hyperplane section. By the same symmetry argument, the compactly supported Euler characteristic of $F$, vanishes whereas the compactly supported Euler charateristic of a linear section is the Euler characteristic of a Dirichlet character of a smooth cubic polynomial in $n$ variables, which is $1$ minus the compactly supported Euler characteristic of the vanishing locus of that polynomial, which is a smooth affine cubic hypersurface in $n$ variables, which is $2^n$.

So it looks to me like the $A$-number is $2^n-1$ and you are fine as long as $n \geq 2$.


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.