This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Monogenic pure cubics

Zafer Selcuk Aygin Zafer Selcuk Aygin
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Calgary
AB T2N 1N4, Canada
[email protected]
 and  Khoa D. Nguyen Khoa D. Nguyen
Department of Mathematics and Statistics
University of Calgary
AB T2N 1N4, Canada
[email protected]
(Date: September 2020)
Abstract.

Let k2k\geq 2 be a square-free integer. We prove that the number of square-free integers m[1,N]m\in[1,N] such that (k,m)=1(k,m)=1 and (k2m3){\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt[3]{k^{2}m}) is monogenic is N1/3\gg N^{1/3} and N/(logN)1/3ϵ\ll N/(\log N)^{1/3-\epsilon} for any ϵ>0\epsilon>0. Assuming ABC, the upper bound can be improved to O(N(1/3)+ϵ)O(N^{(1/3)+\epsilon}). Let FF be the finite field of order qq with (q,3)=1(q,3)=1 and let g(t)F[t]g(t)\in F[t] be non-constant square-free. We prove unconditionally the analogous result that the number of square-free h(t)F[t]h(t)\in F[t] such that deg(h)N\deg(h)\leq N, (g,h)=1(g,h)=1 and F(t,g2h3)F(t,\sqrt[3]{g^{2}h}) is monogenic is qN/3\gg q^{N/3} and N2qN/3\ll N^{2}q^{N/3}.

Key words and phrases:
Monogenicity, pure cubic fields, function fields, ABC
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
Primary: 11R16, 11R58. Secondary: 11D25

1. introduction

A number field KK is called monogenic if its ring of integers 𝒪K\mathcal{O}_{K} is [θ]{\mathbb{Z}}[\theta] for some θ𝒪K\theta\in\mathcal{O}_{K}. Number fields that are fundamental to the development of algebraic number theory such as quadratic and cyclotomic fields are all monogenic. Certain questions about monogenic number fields (as well as monogenic orders) are closely related to the so called discriminant form equations which have been studied extensively by Evertse, Győry, and other authors. The readers are referred to [EG15, EG16, Ngu17, BN18, Gaá19] and the references there for many interesting results including those over positive characteristic fields.

A pure cubic field is a number field of the form (n3){\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt[3]{n}) where n>1n>1 is cube-free. In a certain sense, pure cubic fields are the “next” family of number fields to investigate after quadratic fields especially from the computational point of view (for example, see [WCS80, WDS83, SS99] of which the third paper treats the function field analogue of pure cubic fields). While every quadratic field is monogenic, many pure cubics are not and the goal of this paper is to study the density of monogenic pure cubic fields and its function field analogue. For instance, the first naive question is whether the set

{cube-free n>1 such that (n3) is monogenic}\{\text{cube-free $n>1$ such that ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt[3]{n})$ is monogenic}\}

has zero density. It turns out that the answer is negative thanks to the below theorem of Dedekind. Satisfactory results have been obtained by Bhargava, Shankar, and Wang [BSW] in which they establish the density of monic integer polynomials of degree nn having squarefree discriminants and, in a certain sense, the density of monogenic number fields of degree nn for any n>1n>1. The questions considered in this paper are quite different in nature since we restrict to the 1-parameter family (n3){\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt[3]{n}) as well as the family of polynomials X3nX^{3}-n none of which have square-free discriminant.

To see why the above question has a negative answer, we start with the following [Mar18, p. 35–36]:

Theorem 1.1 (Dedekind).

Let n>1n>1 be a cube-free integer, let α=n3\alpha=\sqrt[3]{n}, and write n=k2mn=k^{2}m where kk and mm are square-free positive integers. We have the following:

  • If n±1n\not\equiv\pm 1 mod 99 then {1,α,α2/k}\{1,\alpha,\alpha^{2}/k\} is an integral basis of KK.

  • If n±1n\equiv\pm 1 mod 99 then {1,α,(k2±k2α+α2)/(3k)}\{1,\alpha,(k^{2}\pm k^{2}\alpha+\alpha^{2})/(3k)\} is an integral basis of KK.

An immediate consequence is that (n3){\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt[3]{n}) is monogenic when n>1n>1 is square-free and n±1n\not\equiv\pm 1 mod 99. In fact this is the only case when we have a positive density result. For the remaining cases (i.e. k>1k>1 or n±1n\equiv\pm 1 mod 99), the conclusion is in stark contrast with the above. As a side note, a recent paper of Gassert, Smith, and Stange [GSS19] considers the 1-parameter family of quartic fields given by X46X2αX3X^{4}-6X^{2}-\alpha X-3 and shows that a positive density of them are monogenic.

Throughout this paper, for each square-free positive integer kk, let:

𝒮k={square-free m>0(m,k)=1k2m±1 mod 9(k2m3) is monogenic},\mathcal{S}_{k}=\{\text{square-free $m>0$: $(m,k)=1$, $k^{2}m\not\equiv\pm 1$ mod $9$, ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt[3]{k^{2}m})$ is monogenic}\},

and if (k,3)=1(k,3)=1 let

𝒯k={square-free m>0(m,k)=1k2m±1 mod 9(k2m3) is monogenic}.\mathcal{T}_{k}=\{\text{square-free $m>0$: $(m,k)=1$, $k^{2}m\equiv\pm 1$ mod $9$, ${\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt[3]{k^{2}m})$ is monogenic}\}.

From now on, whenever 𝒯k\mathcal{T}_{k} is mentioned, we tacitly assume the condition that (k,3)=1(k,3)=1. Our main results for pure cubic number fields are the following:

Theorem 1.2.

For every ϵ>0\epsilon>0 and square-free integer k2k\geq 2, we have N1/3k|𝒮k[1,N]|k,ϵN/(logN)1/3ϵN^{1/3}\ll_{k}|\mathcal{S}_{k}\cap[1,N]|\ll_{k,\epsilon}N/(\log N)^{1/3-\epsilon} as NN\to\infty. For every square-free k1k\geq 1, we have N1/3k|𝒯k[1,N]|k,ϵN/(logN)1/3ϵN^{1/3}\ll_{k}|\mathcal{T}_{k}\cap[1,N]|\ll_{k,\epsilon}N/(\log N)^{1/3-\epsilon} as NN\to\infty. Consequently, the sets SkS_{k} for k2k\geq 2 and the sets TkT_{k} for k1k\geq 1 have zero density.

A table of monogenic pure cubic fields with discriminant up to 1210612\cdot 10^{6} has been computed by Gaál-Szabó [GS10, Gaá19] and it is noted in [Gaá19, p. 111] that “the frequency of monogenic fields is decreasing”. Our zero density result illustrates this observation. Further investigations and computations involving integral bases and monogenicity of higher degree pure number fields have been done by Gaál-Remete [GR17].

Assuming ABC, we can arrive at the much stronger upper bound:

Theorem 1.3.

Assume that the ABC Conjecture holds. Let ϵ>0\epsilon>0 and let kk be a square-free positive integer. We have |𝒯k[1,N]|=Oϵ,k(N(1/3)+ϵ)|\mathcal{T}_{k}\cap[1,N]|=O_{\epsilon,k}(N^{(1/3)+\epsilon}). And if k2k\geq 2, we have |𝒮k[1,N]|=Oϵ,k(N(1/3)+ϵ)|\mathcal{S}_{k}\cap[1,N]|=O_{\epsilon,k}(N^{(1/3)+\epsilon}).

Remark 1.4.

From the lower bound in Theorem 1.2, we have that the exponent 1/31/3 in Theorem 1.3 is best possible. It is not clear if we can replace N(1/3)+ϵN^{(1/3)+\epsilon} by some N1/3f(N)N^{1/3}f(N) where f(N)f(N) is dominated by NϵN^{\epsilon} for any ϵ\epsilon.

Remark 1.5.

In principle, we can break 𝒯k\mathcal{T}_{k} into 𝒯k+={m𝒯k:k2m1mod9}\mathcal{T}_{k}^{+}=\{m\in\mathcal{T}_{k}:\ k^{2}m\equiv 1\bmod 9\} and 𝒯k={m𝒯k:k2m1mod9}\mathcal{T}_{k}^{-}=\{m\in\mathcal{T}_{k}:\ k^{2}m\equiv-1\bmod 9\}. When choosing the ±\pm signs appropriately, all results and arguments for 𝒯k\mathcal{T}_{k} remain valid for each individual 𝒯k+\mathcal{T}_{k}^{+} and 𝒯k\mathcal{T}_{k}^{-}.

We now consider the function field setting. For the rest of this section, let FF be a finite field of order qq and characteristic p3p\neq 3. A polynomial f(t)F[t]f(t)\in F[t] is called square-free (respectively cube-free) if it is not divisible by the square (respectively cube) of a non-constant element of F[t]F[t]. Every cube-free f(t)f(t) can be written uniquely as f(t)=g(t)2h(t)f(t)=g(t)^{2}h(t) in which g(t),h(t)F[t]g(t),h(t)\in F[t] are square-free and g(t)g(t) is monic. We have the analogue of Dedekind’s theorem for F[t]F[t]:

Theorem 1.6 (function field Dedekind).

Let f(t)F[t]f(t)\in F[t] be cube-free, let α=f3\alpha=\sqrt[3]{f}, K=F(t,α)K=F(t,\alpha), and let 𝒪K\mathcal{O}_{K} be the integral closure of F[t]F[t] in KK. Express f(t)=g(t)2h(t)f(t)=g(t)^{2}h(t) as above. Then {1,α,α2/g}\{1,\alpha,\alpha^{2}/g\} is a basis of 𝒪K\mathcal{O}_{K} over F[t]F[t].

Proof.

The proof is a straightforward adaptation of steps in the proof of Theorem 1.1 given in [Mar18, p. 35–36]

As before, K=F(t,f3)K=F(t,\sqrt[3]{f}) is called monogenic if 𝒪K=F[t,θ]\mathcal{O}_{K}=F[t,\theta] for some θ𝒪K\theta\in\mathcal{O}_{K}. For each monic square-free g(t)F[t]g(t)\in F[t], let

𝒰g={square-free hF[t]: (g,h)=1F(t,g2h3) is monogenic}.\mathcal{U}_{g}=\{\text{square-free $h\in F[t]:$ $(g,h)=1$, $F(t,\sqrt[3]{g^{2}h})$ is monogenic}\}.

For each positive integer NN, let F[t]NF[t]_{\leq N} denote the set of polynomials of degree at most NN. It is easy to show that there are qN+1qNq^{N+1}-q^{N} square-free polynomials in F[t]NF[t]_{\leq N}. Therefore, if we define the density of a subset AA of F[t]F[t] to be

limN|AF[t]N||F[t]N|\lim_{N\to\infty}\frac{|A\cap F[t]_{\leq N}|}{|F[t]_{\leq N}|}

(assuming the limit exists), then the set 𝒰1\mathcal{U}_{1} has density 11/q1-1/q. As before, this is in stark contrast to the case deg(g)>0\deg(g)>0:

Theorem 1.7.

Let gg be a non-constant monic square-free polynomial in F[t]F[t]. We have

qN/3|𝒰gF[t]N|N2qN/3q^{N/3}\ll|\mathcal{U}_{g}\cap F[t]_{\leq N}|\ll N^{2}q^{N/3}

as NN\to\infty where the implied constants depend only on FF and gg.

Remark 1.8.

In Theorem 1.7, an analogous upper bound to the number field setting would be q(1/3+ϵ)Nq^{(1/3+\epsilon)N}. The bound N2qN/3N^{2}q^{N/3} obtained here is much stronger; this is a typical phenomenon thanks to the uniformity of various results over function fields.

We end this section with a brief discussion on the methods of the proofs. As mentioned above, it is well-known that monogenicity is equivalent to the fact that a certain discriminant form equation has a solution in {\mathbb{Z}} (or 𝔽[t]{\mathbb{F}}[t] if we are in the function field case). For the questions involving pure cubic fields considered here, we end up with an equation of the form aX3+bY3=caX^{3}+bY^{3}=c where aa and cc are fixed and bb varies so that the equation has a solution (X,Y)(X,Y). There are several methods to study those Thue equations [EG15, EG16, Gaá19] and we can effectively bound the number of solutions or the size of a possible solution. However, the question considered here is somewhat different: we are estimating how many bb for which we have at least one solution. The unconditional upper bound N/(log(N))1/3N/(\log(N))^{1/3} in the number field case follows from a sieving argument together with a simple instance of the Chebotarev density theorem. The much stronger bound N(1/3)+ϵN^{(1/3)+\epsilon} in the number field case as well as the bound N2qN/3N^{2}q^{N/3} in the function field case follow from the use of ABC together with several combinatorial arguments that might be of independent interest.

Acknowledgments. We wish to thank Professors Shabnam Akhtari and István Gaál for helpful comments. Z. S. A is partially supported by a PIMS Postdoctoral Fellowship. K. N. is partially supported by an NSERC Discovery Grant and a CRC tier-2 research stipend.

2. The number field case

We start with the following:

Proposition 2.1.

Let kk and mm be square-free positive integers. We have:

  • (a)

    m𝒮km\in\mathcal{S}_{k} if and only if k2m±1k^{2}m\not\equiv\pm 1 mod 99 and the equation kX3mY3=1kX^{3}-mY^{3}=1 has a solution X,YX,Y\in{\mathbb{Z}}.

  • (b)

    m𝒯km\in\mathcal{T}_{k} if and only if k2m±1k^{2}m\equiv\pm 1 mod 99 and the equation kX3mY3=9kX^{3}-mY^{3}=9 has a solution X,YX,Y\in{\mathbb{Z}}.

Proof.

For (a), suppose k2m±1k^{2}m\not\equiv\pm 1 mod 99, let α=k2m3\alpha=\sqrt[3]{k^{2}m}, K=(α)K={\mathbb{Q}}(\alpha), and consider the integral basis {1,α,α2/k}\{1,\alpha,\alpha^{2}/k\}. To find θ𝒪K\theta\in\mathcal{O}_{K} such that 𝒪K=[θ]\mathcal{O}_{K}={\mathbb{Z}}[\theta], it suffices to consider θ\theta of the form θ=uα+v(α2/k)\theta=u\alpha+v(\alpha^{2}/k) with u,vu,v\in{\mathbb{Z}}. Then we have:

θ2=2uvkm+v2mα+u2α2.\theta^{2}=2uvkm+v^{2}m\alpha+u^{2}\alpha^{2}.

We represent (1,θ,θ2)(1,\theta,\theta^{2}) in terms of the given integral basis and the corresponding matrix has determinant ku3mv2ku^{3}-mv^{2}. Therefore 𝒪K=[θ]\mathcal{O}_{K}={\mathbb{Z}}[\theta] if and only if the equation kX3mY3=1kX^{3}-mY^{3}=1 has a solution X,YX,Y\in{\mathbb{Z}}.

The proof of part (b) is similar with some tedious algebraic expressions as follows. Suppose k2m±1k^{2}m\equiv\pm 1 mod 99, let α=k2m3\alpha=\sqrt[3]{k^{2}m}, K=(α)K={\mathbb{Q}}(\alpha), and consider the integral basis {1,α,β=(k2±k2α+α2)/(3k)}\{1,\alpha,\beta=(k^{2}\pm k^{2}\alpha+\alpha^{2})/(3k)\}. As before, consider θ=uα+vβ\theta=u\alpha+v\beta with u,vu,v\in{\mathbb{Z}}. Then depending on whether k2m±1k^{2}m\equiv\pm 1 mod 99, we have:

θ2\displaystyle\theta^{2} =u2α2+2uv3k(k2α±k2α2+α3)+v29k2(k2±k2α+α2)2\displaystyle=u^{2}\alpha^{2}+\frac{2uv}{3k}(k^{2}\alpha\pm k^{2}\alpha^{2}+\alpha^{3})+\frac{v^{2}}{9k^{2}}(k^{2}\pm k^{2}\alpha+\alpha^{2})^{2}
=2uvkm3+v2k29±2v2k2m9+(2uvk3+v2m9±2v2k29)α\displaystyle=\frac{2uvkm}{3}+\frac{v^{2}k^{2}}{9}\pm\frac{2v^{2}k^{2}m}{9}+\left(\frac{2uvk}{3}+\frac{v^{2}m}{9}\pm\frac{2v^{2}k^{2}}{9}\right)\alpha
+(u2±2uvk3+v2k29+2v29)α2\displaystyle\ +\left(u^{2}\pm\frac{2uvk}{3}+\frac{v^{2}k^{2}}{9}+\frac{2v^{2}}{9}\right)\alpha^{2}
=c1+c2α+c3β\displaystyle=c_{1}+c_{2}\alpha+c_{3}\beta

where c3=3k(u2±2uvk3+v2k29+2v29)\displaystyle c_{3}=3k\left(u^{2}\pm\frac{2uvk}{3}+\frac{v^{2}k^{2}}{9}+\frac{2v^{2}}{9}\right), c2=2uvk3+v2m9k2u22uvk33v2k49\displaystyle c_{2}=\frac{2uvk}{3}+\frac{v^{2}m}{9}\mp k^{2}u^{2}-\frac{2uvk^{3}}{3}\mp\frac{v^{2}k^{4}}{9}, and the precise value of c1c_{1} is not needed for our purpose. We represent (1,θ,θ2)(1,\theta,\theta^{2}) in terms of the given integral basis and the corresponding matrix has determinant:

3ku3±3k2u2v+k3uv2mk49v3=19(k(3u±kv)3mv3).3ku^{3}\pm 3k^{2}u^{2}v+k^{3}uv^{2}-\frac{m\mp k^{4}}{9}v^{3}=\frac{1}{9}\left(k(3u\pm kv)^{3}-mv^{3}\right).

Therefore if 𝒪K=[θ]\mathcal{O}_{K}={\mathbb{Z}}[\theta] then the equation kX3mY3=9kX^{3}-mY^{3}=9 has a solution X,YX,Y\in{\mathbb{Z}}. Conversely, if (X0,Y0)(X_{0},Y_{0}) is a solution, we can choose v=Y0v=Y_{0} and u=(X0kY0)/3u=(X_{0}\mp kY_{0})/3 and we need to explain why uu\in{\mathbb{Z}}. From k2m±1k^{2}m\equiv\pm 1 mod 99, we have m±k4m\equiv\pm k^{4} mod 99. Using this and the equation kX03mY03=9kX_{0}^{3}-mY_{0}^{3}=9, we have X03±k3Y03X_{0}^{3}\equiv\pm k^{3}Y_{0}^{3} mod 99. Hence X0±kY0X_{0}\equiv\pm kY_{0} mod 33. ∎

The following establish the upper bounds in Theorem 1.2:

Proposition 2.2.

Let aa and bb be positive integers such that b/ab/a is not the cube of a rational number. As NN\to\infty, the number of integers m[1,N]m\in[1,N] such that the equation aX3mY3=baX^{3}-mY^{3}=b has an integer solution is Oa,b(N/(logN)1/3)O_{a,b}(N/(\log N)^{1/3}).

Proof.

Let L=(b/a3)L={\mathbb{Q}}(\sqrt[3]{b/a}) and let LL^{\prime} be its Galois closure. Let SS be the set of primes p3abp\nmid 3ab such that b/ab/a is not a cube mod pp. This means pp remains a prime in LL and p𝒪Lp\mathcal{O}_{L} splits completely in LL^{\prime}; in other words the Frobenius of pp with respect to L/L^{\prime}/{\mathbb{Q}} is the conjugacy class of the 2 elements of order 3. The Chebotarev density theorem gives that SS has Dirichlet as well as natural density 1/31/3. Put s(x)=|S[1,x]|s(x)=|S\cap[1,x]| so that s(x)=π(x)3+o(π(x))s(x)=\displaystyle\frac{\pi(x)}{3}+o(\pi(x)); put r(x)=s(x)π(x)3r(x)=s(x)-\displaystyle\frac{\pi(x)}{3}. Then partial summation gives:

pS,px1p=2xds(t)t=132xdπ(t)t+2xdr(t)t13loglogxas x\sum_{p\in S,p\leq x}\frac{1}{p}=\int_{2^{-}}^{x}\frac{ds(t)}{t}=\frac{1}{3}\int_{2^{-}}^{x}\frac{d\pi(t)}{t}+\int_{2^{-}}^{x}\frac{dr(t)}{t}\sim\frac{1}{3}\log\log x\ \text{as $x\to\infty$}

thanks to the Prime Number Theorem and the fact that r(t)=o(π(t))r(t)=o(\pi(t)). This implies

(1) pS,px(11p)=(logx)1/3eo(loglogx).\prod_{p\in S,p\leq x}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)=(\log x)^{-1/3}e^{o(\log\log x)}.

Now observe that if m[1,N]m\in[1,N] is divisible by some pSp\in S then the equation aX3mY3=baX^{3}-mY^{3}=b cannot have an integer equation since b/ab/a is not a cube mod pp. By sieving [MV06, Chapter 3.2], the number of m[1,N]m\in[1,N] such that pmp\nmid m for all pSp\in S is O(pS,pN(11p)N)O\left(\displaystyle\prod_{p\in S,p\leq N}\left(1-\frac{1}{p}\right)N\right) and we use (1) to finish the proof. ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.2.

The upper bound in Theorem 1.2 follows from Propositions 2.1 and 2.2. For the lower bound, first we consider SkS_{k} and the equation kX3mY3=1kX^{3}-mY^{3}=1. We can always take m=kX031m=kX_{0}^{3}-1 for X0[1,(N/k)1/3]X_{0}\in[1,(N/k)^{1/3}] so that the above equation has a solution (X0,1)(X_{0},1). We need that k2m±1k^{2}m\not\equiv\pm 1 mod 99 and mm is square-free for a positive proportion of such X0X_{0}. A direct calculation shows that regardless of the possibility of kk mod 99, we can always find r{0,,8}r\in\{0,\ldots,8\} such that k2(kr31)±1k^{2}(kr^{3}-1)\not\equiv\pm 1 mod 99. We now choose X0X_{0} of the form X0=9t+rX_{0}=9t+r for t[1,cN1/3]t\in[1,cN^{1/3}] where cc is a positive constant depending only on kk. By classical results of Hooley [Hoo67, Hoo68] (also see [Gra98] for a more general result assuming ABC), the irreducible cubic polynomial f(t)=k(9t+r)31[t]f(t)=k(9t+r)^{3}-1\in{\mathbb{Z}}[t] admits square-free values for at least ccN1/3c^{\prime}cN^{1/3} many tt where c>0c^{\prime}>0 depends only on kk and rr. The proof of N1/3k|𝒯k[1,N]|N^{1/3}\ll_{k}|\mathcal{T}_{k}\cap[1,N]| is completely similar. ∎

We will obtain the stronger upper bound O(N1/3+ϵ)O(N^{1/3+\epsilon}) assuming the ABC Conjecture:

Conjecture 2.3.

Let ϵ>0\epsilon>0, then there exists a positive constant CC depending only on ϵ\epsilon such that the following holds. For all relatively prime integers a,b,ca,b,c\in{\mathbb{Z}} with a+b=ca+b=c, we have:

max{|a|,|b|,|c|}C(primepabcp)1+ϵ\max\{|a|,|b|,|c|\}\leq C\left(\prod_{\text{prime}\ p\mid abc}p\right)^{1+\epsilon}

Theorem 1.3 follows from Proposition 2.1 and the following:

Proposition 2.4.

Assume Conjecture 2.3. Let aa and bb be positive integers such that b/ab/a is not the cube of a rational number and let ϵ>0\epsilon>0. The number of integers mm such that |m|N|m|\leq N and the equation aX3mY3=baX^{3}-mY^{3}=b has an integer solution (X,Y)(X,Y) is Oa,b,ϵ(N(1/3)+ϵ)O_{a,b,\epsilon}(N^{(1/3)+\epsilon}).

Proof.

Let δ\delta be a small positive number depending on ϵ\epsilon that will be specified later. The implicit constants in this proof depends only on aa, bb, and δ\delta. Except for the finitely many mm for which b/mb/m is the cube of an integer, any (m,X0,Y0)(m,X_{0},Y_{0}) such that aX03mY03=baX_{0}^{3}-mY_{0}^{3}=b, |m|N|m|\leq N, and X0,Y0X_{0},Y_{0}\in{\mathbb{Z}} satisfies mX0Y00mX_{0}Y_{0}\neq 0. An immediate consequence of ABC gives:

max{|X03|,|mY03|}|mX0Y0|1+δ.\max\{|X_{0}^{3}|,|mY_{0}^{3}|\}\ll|mX_{0}Y_{0}|^{1+\delta}.

From aX03mY03=baX_{0}^{3}-mY_{0}^{3}=b, we get |Y0||m1/3X0||Y_{0}|\ll|m^{-1/3}X_{0}|. Combining with the above, we get: |X0|3|m2/3X02|1+δ|X_{0}|^{3}\ll|m^{2/3}X_{0}^{2}|^{1+\delta}. Put δ=2(1+δ)3(12δ)23\delta^{\prime}=\displaystyle\frac{2(1+\delta)}{3(1-2\delta)}-\frac{2}{3} so that we have:

|X0|m(2/3)+δand|Y0|m(1/3)+δ.|X_{0}|\ll m^{(2/3)+\delta^{\prime}}\ \text{and}\ |Y_{0}|\ll m^{(1/3)+\delta^{\prime}}.

Therefore, in order to estimate the number of mm, we estimate the number of pairs (X0,Y0)(X_{0},Y_{0}) with X0=O(N(2/3)+δ)X_{0}=O(N^{(2/3)+\delta^{\prime}}) and Y0=O(N(1/3)+δ)Y_{0}=O(N^{(1/3)+\delta^{\prime}}) such that aX03bY03\displaystyle\frac{aX_{0}^{3}-b}{Y_{0}^{3}} is an integer in [N,N][-N,N].

Fix such a Y0Y_{0}, we have the obvious bound |X0|N1/3|Y0||X_{0}|\ll N^{1/3}|Y_{0}| and we now study the congurence aX03baX_{0}^{3}\equiv b mod Y03Y_{0}^{3}. Let pp be a prime divisor of Y0Y_{0} and let d>0d>0 such that pdY0p^{d}\parallel Y_{0}. If pabp\nmid ab, the equation aX3baX^{3}\equiv b mod p3dp^{3d} has at most 3 solutions in /p3d{\mathbb{Z}}/p^{3d}{\mathbb{Z}} thanks to the structure of (/p3d)({\mathbb{Z}}/p^{3d}{\mathbb{Z}})^{*}. If pabp\mid ab and 3d>max{vp(a),vp(b)}3d>\max\{v_{p}(a),v_{p}(b)\}, for the above congruence equation to have a solution, we must have that vp(b)vp(a)v_{p}(b)-v_{p}(a) is a positive integer divisible by 33 and any solution must have the form p(vp(b)vp(a))/3xp^{(v_{p}(b)-v_{p}(a))/3}x where xx satisfies x3ux^{3}\equiv u mod p3d(vp(b)vp(a))p^{3d-(v_{p}(b)-v_{p}(a))} and uu is given by ba=pvp(b)vp(a)u\displaystyle\frac{b}{a}=p^{v_{p}(b)-v_{p}(a)}u. Again, there are at most 3 solutions in this case. In conclusion, there are O(3ω(Y0))O(3^{\omega(Y_{0})}) many solutions in /Y03{\mathbb{Z}}/Y_{0}^{3}{\mathbb{Z}} of the equation aX3baX^{3}\equiv b mod Y03Y_{0}^{3}; here ω(n)\omega(n) denotes the number of distinct prime factors of nn.

Overall, the number of pairs (X0,Y0)(X_{0},Y_{0}) is at most:

Y0=O(N(1/3)+δ)O(3ω(Y0)(N1/3|Y0||Y03|+1)).\sum_{Y_{0}=O(N^{(1/3)+\delta^{\prime}})}O\left(3^{\omega(Y_{0})}\left(\frac{N^{1/3}|Y_{0}|}{|Y_{0}^{3}|}+1\right)\right).

This is O(N((1/3)+δ)(1+δ))O(N^{((1/3)+\delta^{\prime})(1+\delta^{\prime})}) since 3ω(Y0)3^{\omega(Y_{0})} is dominated by |Y0|δ|Y_{0}|^{\delta^{\prime}}. Now choosing δ\delta sufficiently small so that ((1/3)+δ)(1+δ)<(1/3)+ϵ((1/3)+\delta^{\prime})(1+\delta^{\prime})<(1/3)+\epsilon and we get the desired conclusion. ∎

3. The function field case

Throughout this section, let FF be a finite field of order qq and characteristic p3p\neq 3. A polynomial f(t)F[t]f(t)\in F[t] is called square-free (respectively cube-free) if it is not divisible by the square (respectively cube) of a non-constant polynomial in F[t]F[t]. Every cube-free f(t)f(t) can be written uniquely as f(t)=g(t)2h(t)f(t)=g(t)^{2}h(t) in which g(t),h(t)F[t]g(t),h(t)\in F[t] are square-free and g(t)g(t) is monic. We have the function field analogue of Proposition 2.1 whose proof is completely similar:

Proposition 3.1.

Let f,g,hF[t]f,g,h\in F[t] be as above. Then F(t,f3)F(t,\sqrt[3]{f}) is monogenic if and only if there exists X,YF[t]X,Y\in F[t] such that gX3hY3FgX^{3}-hY^{3}\in F^{*}.

In function fields, the Mason-Stothers theorem plays a similar role to ABC:

Theorem 3.2 (Mason-Stothers).

Let EE be a field and let A,B,CE[t]A,B,C\in E[t] be relatively prime polynomials with A+B=CA+B=C. Suppose that at least one of the derivatives A,B,CA^{\prime},B^{\prime},C^{\prime} is non-zero then

max{deg(A),deg(B),deg(C)}r(ABC)1\max\{\deg(A),\deg(B),\deg(C)\}\leq r(ABC)-1

where r(ABC)r(ABC) denotes the number of distinct roots of ABCABC in E¯\bar{E}.

In order to guarantee the condition on derivatives in the above theorem, we need:

Lemma 3.3.

Let g(t),h(t)F[t]g(t),h(t)\in F[t] be non-constant square-free polynomials. Suppose there exist X,YF[t]X,Y\in F[t] such that gX3hY3FgX^{3}-hY^{3}\in F^{*}. Then there exist X1,Y1F[t]X_{1},Y_{1}\in F[t] such that gX13hY13FgX_{1}^{3}-hY_{1}^{3}\in F^{*} and at least one of the derivatives (gX13)(gX_{1}^{3})^{\prime} and (hY13)(hY_{1}^{3})^{\prime} is non-zero.

Proof.

Write g=g1gug=g_{1}\cdots g_{u} and h=h1hvh=h_{1}\cdots h_{v} where the gig_{i}’s and hjh_{j}’s are irreducible over FF. Let nn be the largest non-negative integer such that both gX3gX^{3} and hY3hY^{3} are pnp^{n}-th power of some element of F[t]F[t]. Write gX3=X~pngX^{3}=\tilde{X}^{p^{n}} and hY3=Y~pnhY^{3}=\tilde{Y}^{p^{n}}, we have that X~Y~F\tilde{X}-\tilde{Y}\in F^{*} and at least one of the derivatives X~\tilde{X}^{\prime} and Y~\tilde{Y}^{\prime} is non-zero.

Since p3p\neq 3, from gX3=X~pngX^{3}=\tilde{X}^{p^{n}} and hY3=Y~pnhY^{3}=\tilde{Y}^{p^{n}} we can express X~\tilde{X} and Y~\tilde{Y} as:

X~=g1b1gubuX03andY~=h1c1hvcvY03\tilde{X}=g_{1}^{b_{1}}\cdots g_{u}^{b_{u}}X_{0}^{3}\ \text{and}\ \tilde{Y}=h_{1}^{c_{1}}\cdots h_{v}^{c_{v}}Y_{0}^{3}

where the bib_{i}’s and cjc_{j}’s are positive integer, gcd(X0,g1gu)=gcd(Y0,h1hv)=1\gcd(X_{0},g_{1}\cdots g_{u})=\gcd(Y_{0},h_{1}\cdots h_{v})=1, and bipn1cjpn10b_{i}p^{n}-1\equiv c_{j}p^{n}-1\equiv 0 mod 33 for 1iu1\leq i\leq u and 1jv1\leq j\leq v.

Hence the bib_{i}’s and cjc_{j}’s have the same non-zero congruence mod 33. Depending on whether they are 11 mod 33 or respectively 22 mod 33, we can write

X~=gX13andY~=hY13\tilde{X}=gX_{1}^{3}\ \text{and}\ \tilde{Y}=hY_{1}^{3}

or respectively

X~=g2X13andY~=h2Y13.\tilde{X}=g^{2}X_{1}^{3}\ \text{and}\ \tilde{Y}=h^{2}Y_{1}^{3}.

We need to rule out the second possibility above. Indeed, suppose it happens then the Mason-Stothers theorem implies:

max{2deg(g)+3deg(X1),2deg(h)+3deg(Y1)}\displaystyle\max\{2\deg(g)+3\deg(X_{1}),2\deg(h)+3\deg(Y_{1})\}\leq deg(g)+deg(X1)+deg(h)\displaystyle\deg(g)+\deg(X_{1})+\deg(h)
+deg(Y1)1,\displaystyle+\deg(Y_{1})-1,

contradiction since the RHS is strictly smaller than the average of the 2 terms in the LHS. This finishes the proof. ∎

For P(t)F[t]{0}P(t)\in F[t]\setminus\{0\}, let ω(P)\omega(P) denote the number of distinct monic irreducible factors of PP. As before, we also need an upper bound for ω(P)\omega(P):

Lemma 3.4.

For every P(t)F[t]P(t)\in F[t] of degree N2N\geq 2, we have ω(P)qN/logN\omega(P)\ll_{q}N/\log N.

Proof.

All the implicit constants in this proof depend only on qq. For every positive interger kk, let dkd_{k} be the degree of the product of all monic irreducible polynomials of degree at most kk. Since there are (qn+O(qn/2))/n(q^{n}+O(q^{n/2}))/n monic irreducible polynomials of degree nn, we have

dk=n=1k(qn+O(qn/2))=qk+1q1+O(qk/2).d_{k}=\sum_{n=1}^{k}(q^{n}+O(q^{n/2}))=\frac{q^{k+1}}{q-1}+O(q^{k/2}).

Now we choose the smallest kk such that NdkN\leq d_{k}. This implies that ω(P)\omega(P) is at most the number of monic irreducible polynomials of degree at most kk:

ω(P)n=1kqn+O(qn/2)n=O(qk/k).\omega(P)\leq\sum_{n=1}^{k}\frac{q^{n}+O(q^{n/2})}{n}=O(q^{k}/k).

From the above formula for dkd_{k} and the choice of kk, we have that qkNq^{k}\ll N and klogNk\ll\log N; this finishes the proof. ∎

It turns out that we will need an estimate for 3ω(P)\sum 3^{\omega(P)} where deg(P)N\deg(P)\leq N. Using the above bound N/logNN/\log N for each individual ω(P)\omega(P) would yield O(qN+O(N/logN))O(q^{N+O(N/\log N)}) for the above sum which would not be good enough for our purpose. Instead, we have:

Lemma 3.5.

deg(P)N3ω(P)=O(N2qN)\displaystyle\sum_{\deg(P)\leq N}3^{\omega(P)}=O(N^{2}q^{N}).

Proof.

Let sNs_{N} be 3ω(P)\sum 3^{\omega(P)} where PP ranges over all monic polynomials of degree equal to NN. It suffices to show sN=O(N2qN)s_{N}=O(N^{2}q^{N}). The generating series nsnTn\displaystyle\sum_{n}s_{n}T^{n} has the Euler product:

P(1+3Tdeg(P)+3T2deg(P)+)=P1+2Tdeg(P)1Tdeg(P),\prod_{P}(1+3T^{\deg(P)}+3T^{2\deg(P)}+\ldots)=\prod_{P}\frac{1+2T^{\deg(P)}}{1-T^{\deg(P)}},

where PP ranges over all the monic irreducible polynomials over FF. The denominator is simply the zeta-function 1/(1qT)1/(1-qT) while the coefficients of the numerator are bounded above by the coefficients of P(1+tdeg(P)+t2deg(P)+)2=1(1qT)2\displaystyle\prod_{P}(1+t^{\deg(P)}+t^{2\deg(P)}+\ldots)^{2}=\frac{1}{(1-qT)^{2}}. Therefore the sNs_{N}’s are bounded above by the coefficients of 1/(1qT)31/(1-qT)^{3} and this finishes the proof. ∎

Proof of Theorem 1.7.

For the lower bound, we simply study the equation gX3hY3=1gX^{3}-hY^{3}=1. Either by adapting the arguments in [Hoo67, Hoo68, Gra98] or using a general result of Poonen [Poo03, Theorem 3.4] which is valid for a multivariable polynomial, we have that for a positive proportion of the polynomials XF[t]X\in F[t] with deg(X)(Ndeg(g))/3\deg(X)\leq(N-\deg(g))/3, we have that gX31gX^{3}-1 is squarefree; we now simply take Y=1Y=1 and h=gX31h=gX^{3}-1 for those XX’s. This proves the lower bound.

For the upper bound, we prove that for an arbitrary αF\alpha\in F^{*}, there are O(qN/3)O(q^{N/3}) many hh of degree at most NN such that the equation gX3hY3=αgX^{3}-hY^{3}=\alpha has a solution X,YF[t]X,Y\in F[t]; since deg(g)>0\deg(g)>0 we must have that Y0Y\neq 0. By Lemma 3.3, we may assume that at least one of the derivatives (gX3)(gX^{3})^{\prime} and (hY3)(hY^{3})^{\prime} is non-zero. The Mason-Stothers theorem yields:

deg(h)+3deg(Y)deg(g)+deg(X)+deg(h)+deg(Y)1,and\deg(h)+3\deg(Y)\leq\deg(g)+\deg(X)+\deg(h)+\deg(Y)-1,\ \text{and}
deg(g)+3deg(X)deg(g)+deg(X)+deg(h)+deg(Y)1.\deg(g)+3\deg(X)\leq\deg(g)+\deg(X)+\deg(h)+\deg(Y)-1.

The first inequality gives deg(Y)deg(X)/2+O(1)\deg(Y)\leq\deg(X)/2+O(1) then we use this and the second inequality to obtain deg(X)23deg(h)+O(1)\deg(X)\leq\frac{2}{3}\deg(h)+O(1). Then it follows that deg(Y)N3+O(1)\deg(Y)\leq\frac{N}{3}+O(1).

We now count the number of pairs (X,Y)(X,Y) with Y0Y\neq 0 such that deg(Y)N3+O(1)\deg(Y)\leq\frac{N}{3}+O(1) and gX3αY3\frac{gX^{3}-\alpha}{Y^{3}} is a polynomial in F[t]F[t] of degree at most NN. Hence deg(X)deg(Y)+(N/3)deg(g)\deg(X)\leq\deg(Y)+(N/3)-\deg(g). Arguing as before, for each prime power factor PnP^{n} of YY, the congruence equation gX3α=0gX^{3}-\alpha=0 mod P3nP^{3n} has at most 3 solutions mod P3nP^{3n}. Therefore by the Chinese Remainder Theorem, the congruence equation gX3α=0gX^{3}-\alpha=0 mod Y3Y^{3} has at most 3ω(Y)3^{\omega(Y)} solutions mod Y3Y^{3}. Therefore once YY is fixed, there are at most

3ω(Y)(qdeg(Y)+(N/3)deg(g)3deg(Y)+1+1)3^{\omega(Y)}\left(q^{\deg(Y)+(N/3)-\deg(g)-3\deg(Y)+1}+1\right)

possibilities for XX. Hence the number of pairs (X,Y)(X,Y) is at most:

k=0(N/3)+O(1)Y:deg(Y)=k3ω(Y)(q(N/3)2deg(Y)+1)\displaystyle\sum_{k=0}^{(N/3)+O(1)}\sum_{Y:\ \deg(Y)=k}3^{\omega(Y)}\left(q^{(N/3)-2\deg(Y)}+1\right)
k=2(N/3)+O(1)(q1)qk3O(k/logk)q(N/3)2k+k=0(N/3)+O(1)Y:deg(Y)=k3ω(Y).\displaystyle\ll\sum_{k=2}^{(N/3)+O(1)}(q-1)q^{k}3^{O(k/\log k)}q^{(N/3)-2k}+\sum_{k=0}^{(N/3)+O(1)}\sum_{Y:\ \deg(Y)=k}3^{\omega(Y)}.

The first term is O(qN/3)O(q^{N/3}) since k=03O(k/logk)qk<\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}3^{O(k/\log k)}q^{-k}<\infty while the second term is O(N2qN/3)O(N^{2}q^{N/3}) thanks to the previous lemma and this finishes the proof. ∎

4. Further Questions

Thanks to the lower bounds in our results, we know that the “main terms” N1/3N^{1/3} and qN/3q^{N/3} in the upper bounds are optimal. However, it seems possible that the “extra factors” NϵN^{\epsilon} in the number field case and N2N^{2} in the function field case can be improved. This motivates:

Question 4.1.
  • (a)

    In Theorem 1.3, can one replace the bound O(N1/3+ϵ)O(N^{1/3+\epsilon}) by O(N1/3f(N))O(N^{1/3}f(N)) where f(N)f(N) is dominated by any NϵN^{\epsilon}?

  • (b)

    In Theorem 1.7, can one improve the bound O(N2qN/3)O(N^{2}q^{N/3})? Could this upper bound even be O(qN/3)O(q^{N/3})?

  • (c)

    In the number field case, can one obtain an unconditional power-saving bound O(Nc)O(N^{c}) where c<1c<1?

References

  • [BN18] J. P. Bell and K. D. Nguyen, Some finiteness results on monogenic orders in positive characteristic, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2018 (2018), 1601–1637.
  • [BSW] M. Bhargava, A. Shankar, and X. Wang, Squarefree values of polynomial discriminants I, arXiv:1611.09806.
  • [EG15] J.-H. Evertse and K. Győry, Unit Equations in Diophantine Number Theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 146, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2015.
  • [EG16] by same author, Discriminant Equations in Diophantine Number Theory, New Mathematical Monographs, vol. 32, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016.
  • [Gaá19] I. Gaál, Diophantine Equations and Power Integral Bases: Theory and Algorithms, second ed., Birkhäuser, Cham, Switzerland, 2019.
  • [GR17] I. Gaál and L. Remete, Integral bases and monogenicity of pure fields, J. Number Theory 173 (2017), 129–146.
  • [Gra98] A. Granville, ABCABC allows us to count squarefrees, Int. Math. Res. Not. IMRN (1998), no. 19, 991–1009.
  • [GS10] I. Gaál and T. Szabó, A note on the minimal indices of pure cubic fields, JP J. Algebra Number Theory Appl. 19 (2010), 129–139.
  • [GSS19] T. A. Gassert, H. Smith, and K. Stange, A family of monogenic s4s_{4} quartic fields arising from elliptic curves, J. Number Theory 197 (2019), 361–382.
  • [Hoo67] C. Hooley, On the power free values of polynomials, Mathematika 14 (1967), 21–26.
  • [Hoo68] by same author, On the square-free values of cubic polynomials, J. reine angew. Math. 229 (1968), 147–154.
  • [Mar18] D. Marcus, Number fields, second ed., Universitext, Springer Nature, Cham, Switzerland, 2018.
  • [MV06] H. Montgomery and R. Vaughan, Multiplicative Number Theory I: Classical Theory, Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, vol. 97, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2006.
  • [Ngu17] K. D. Nguyen, On modules of integral elements over finitely generated domains, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 369 (2017), 3047–3066.
  • [Poo03] B. Poonen, Squarefree values of multivariable polynomials, Duke Math. J. 118 (2003), 353–373.
  • [SS99] R. Scheidler and A. Stein, Voronoi’s algorithm in purely cubic congruence function fields of unit rank 1, Math. Comp. 69 (1999), 1245–1266.
  • [WCS80] H. C. Williams, G. Cormack, and E. Seah, Calculation of the regulator of a pure cubic field, Math. Comp. 34 (1980), 567–611.
  • [WDS83] H. C. Williams, G. W. Dueck, and B. K. Schmidt, A rapid method of evaluating the regulator and class number of a pure cubic field, Math. Comp. 41 (1983), 235–286.