3
$\begingroup$

In some recent computation I came across certain cubic forms and was wondering about analogue of following result for quadratic forms.

If $k^*/(k^*)^2$ is finite then there are only finitely many quadratic forms up to equivalence. This can be easily seen because of diagonalisation.

I have been wondering if we can say following: given $k^*/(k^*)^3$ is finite is it true that there are only finitely many cubic forms up to equivalence. Or can I say something about being isotropic.

$\endgroup$
9
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This sees obviously wrong: cubic curves have moduli, even over $\mathbb{C}$, $\endgroup$ May 15, 2016 at 11:56
  • $\begingroup$ An argument is that the dimension of symmetric trilinear forms is $n(n+1)(n+2)/6$, which is $>n^2=\dim(\mathrm{GL}_n)$ as soon as $n\ge 3$. This only leaves some hope for $n=2$; I haven't checked but certainly somebody here knows. $\endgroup$
    – YCor
    May 15, 2016 at 12:09
  • $\begingroup$ In addition, finiteness for cubic forms implies the same for quadratic forms: consider the forms $QL$ where $Q$ is quadratic and $L$ is linear. $\endgroup$ May 15, 2016 at 14:19
  • $\begingroup$ Not all cubic forms can be diagonalized. For example, in $3$ variables a (nondegenerate) diagonalized cubic form over $\mathbf C$ is equivalent to $x^3 + y^3 + z^3$, which can be transformed by an invertible change of variables into the Weierstrass form $y^2z - x^3 + 432z^3$, whose zero set is an elliptic curve over $\mathbf C$ with $j$-invariant $0$. So the Weierstrass equation of any elliptic curve with nonzero $j$-invariant provides an example of a cubic form in $3$ variables that can't be diagonalized. A specific example is $y^2z - x^3 + xz^2$. $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    May 15, 2016 at 14:56
  • $\begingroup$ For the case $n=2$ over $\mathbf C$ see the comment by Frank Thorne at mathoverflow.net/questions/77702/transformation-of-a-cubic-form. $\endgroup$
    – KConrad
    May 15, 2016 at 14:58

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

To expand a bit on the comments. For simplicity, let's assume $k$ is characteristic $0$ (or at least, not characteristic 2 or 3). Let $f(X,Y)=aX^3+bX^2Y+cXY^2+dY^3$ be a cubic form. The case where $f$ is reducible comes down to classifying quadratic forms and linear forms, so let's assume that $f$ is irreducible. More generally, assume that $f(X,1)$ has distinct roots $e_1,e_2,e_3\in\overline k$. Let $\lambda=(e_1-e_2)/(e_1-e_3)$. Then the quantity $j(f)=(\lambda^2-\lambda+1)^3/\lambda^2(\lambda-1)^2$ is an invariant of $f$. And conversely, if $j(f)=j(f')$, then there is a transformation defined over $\overline k$ taking $f$ to $f'$. So what you need to do is fix a value $j_0\in k$ and then look at all (separable) $f\in k[X,Y]$ satisfying $j(f)=j_0$. Fixing one such $f_0$, you should then be able to classify the $\overline k/k$-twists of $f_0$ using Galois cohomology in the usual way.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ $\lambda$ and $j$ are not well-defined unless you fix the point at infinity. Under ${\rm PGL}_2({\bar k})$ all binary cubic forms with distinct roots are equivalent. $\endgroup$ May 15, 2016 at 16:04
  • $\begingroup$ @NoamD.Elkies Right you are. I was thinking of cubic forms up to equivalence by affine transformations. I think that what I said is okay for affine equivalence. But you are, of course, right that for full PGL equivalence, all separable binary cubic forms are equivalent. $\endgroup$ May 15, 2016 at 17:43

Your Answer

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

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