Integral points on Markoff type cubic surfaces (Q2152486): Difference between revisions

This is a beautiful paper, significant both mathematically (in terms of proof, technique, and structure revealed) and scientifically (in terms of questions raised and rigorously tested). It is a pioneering study on ``critical'' cubic equations; see [\textit{Y. Harpaz}, Ann. Inst. Fourier 67, No. 5, 2167--2200 (2017; Zbl 1401.14125)] for a nice reference on the broader setting of log Calabi-Yau surfaces, in which the present paper lives. Let \(M(x,y,z) = x^2+y^2+z^2-xyz\) be the Markoff polynomial. The authors show that for integers \(k\), the Markoff-type cubic surface \(M = k\) almost always satisfies the integral Hasse principle, but also sometimes fails it (so that ``almost always'' cannot be improved to ``always''). As in past works of the same flavor, the proof is based on a variance-type analysis. But for ``critical'' equations such as \(M = k\), one cannot directly adapt older ``subcritical'' variance-type frameworks (such as those of \textit{R. C. Vaughan} [Proc. Lond. Math. Soc. (3) 41, 516--532 (1980; Zbl 0446.10042)], \textit{J. Brüdern} [Math. Scand. 68, No. 1, 27--45 (1991; Zbl 0759.11031)], and \textit{C. Hooley} [Acta Arith. 173, No. 1, 19--39 (2016; Zbl 1359.11081)]). New issues, related to the square-root barrier in the classical circle method, emerge, in the most difficult piece (44) of the authors' variance-type analysis. At least generically, the authors handle the square-root aspect using the partially quadratic nature of the Markoff cubic, together with a mildly uniform version of the Kloosterman circle method for quadratic forms in \(4\) variables (for example, the delta method of [\textit{W. Duke} et al., Invent. Math. 112, No. 1, 1--8 (1993; Zbl 0765.11038)] and [\textit{D. R. Heath-Brown}, J. Reine Angew. Math. 481, 149--206 (1996; Zbl 0857.11049)] would suffice, up to uniformity questions that have been addressed in [\textit{N. Niedermowwe}, J. Math. Sci., New York 171, No. 6, 753--764 (2010; Zbl 1282.11140)]). But in (44), there are also further multiplicative subtleties involving binary quadratic forms (see Lemma~9.5), which the authors address using [\textit{V. Blomer} and \textit{A. Granville}, Duke Math. J. 135, No. 2, 261--302 (2006; Zbl 1135.11020)]. One also has to produce, for typical integers \(k\), a lower bound on a suitable approximate singular series (36). The quantity (36) is related to the value of an \(L\)-function at \(s=1\) (see (61)), essentially since \(M=k\) is a surface. So (36) is more delicate to handle than similar quantities were in previous works. It is worth mentioning several other aspects of the paper. The equations \(M=k\) define certain relative character varieties, and carry a rich group of nonlinear symmetries (Markoff morphisms, generated by permutations and Vieta moves), rich enough so that the integral points on \(M=k\) (for any \(k\)) lie in at most finitely many orbits. Thus the authors produce (for almost all \(k\)) not only integral points, but in fact a Zariski dense set of integral points (see \S5). Furthermore, Theorem~1.1 provides an ``explicit reduction (descent)'' algorithm on \(M=k\), and this algorithm allows for rigorous numerical study of Hasse failures for \(k\) up to any finite threshold. This leads to the fascinating Conjecture~10.2(1) that the number of Hasse failures for \(0\le k\le K\) as \(K\to \infty\) is asymptotic to a constant times \(K^\theta\), for some \(\theta\in (\frac12, 1)\); the fact that \(\theta\) could be strictly greater than \(\frac12\) is striking, given that so far one only knows how to rigorously produce around \(O(K^{1/2})\) Hasse failures as \(K\to \infty\) (see e.g.~the works [\textit{J.-L. Colliot-Thélène} et al., Ann. Sc. Norm. Super. Pisa, Cl. Sci. (5) 21, 1257--1313 (2020; Zbl 1478.11091) and [\textit{D. Loughran} and \textit{V. Mitankin}, Int. Math. Res. Not. 2021, No. 18, 14086--14122 (2021; Zbl 1485.11106)] inspired by the paper under review). Note that there would be no convincing basis for this conjecture were it not for Theorem~1.1.