An upper bound for the size of integral solutions to \(Y^ m= f(X)\) (Q1898682)

From MaRDI portal
!
WARNING

This is the item page for this Wikibase entity, intended for internal use and editing purposes.

Unfortunately, we do not yet have an article page for this item.

scientific article; zbMATH DE number 798701
Language Label Description Also known as
default for all languages
No label defined
    English
    An upper bound for the size of integral solutions to \(Y^ m= f(X)\)
    scientific article; zbMATH DE number 798701

      Statements

      An upper bound for the size of integral solutions to \(Y^ m= f(X)\) (English)
      0 references
      0 references
      28 July 1996
      0 references
      Let \(\mathbb{K}\) be an algebraic number field of degree \(\delta\) and discriminant \(D\). The author studies the solutions of the equation \((*)\) \(y^m= f(x)\), \(f(x)\in \mathbb{K} [x]\), \(\deg f=n\), in integers of \(\mathbb{K}\). Let \(e_1, e_2, \dots\) be the multiplicities of the roots of \(f(x) =0\) and put \(m_i= m/ (e_i, m)\), \(i=1, 2, \dots\;\). \textit{W. J. LeVeque} [On the equation \(y^m= f(x)\), Acta Arith. 9, 209--219 (1964; Zbl 0127.27201)]\ has shown that \((*)\) can have infinitely many integral solutions in \(\mathbb{K}\) only if \((m_1, m_2, m_3, \dots)\) is a permutation of either \((2, 2, 1, 1, \dots)\) or of \((t, 1, 1, \dots)\) with \(t\geq 1\). In the opposite case, one has essentially two subcases. Either (a): \(m_1\leq 2\) for each \(i\) and \(m_1= m_2= m_3= 2\), or (b): \(m_1\geq 3\) and \(m_2\geq 2\). These conditions are necessary and sufficient for the curve defined by \((*)\) to have positive genus. Let \(F(x, y)= y^m- f(x)\); define as usual \(H_\mathbb{K} (x)\), \(H_\mathbb{K} (y)\) and \(H_\mathbb{K} (F)\), the heights of the elements \(x\), \(y\) and of the polynomial \(F\), respectively, relative to the field \(\mathbb{K}\). Then, the author proves that \(\max (H_\mathbb{K} (x), H_\mathbb{K} (y))\) is bounded by something which is of the size of \(V_1 (\log V_1 )^{6n^2 \delta}\) in case (a) and of the size of \(V_3(\log V_3)^{m^6 n^2 \delta}\) in case (b); here \(V_1= D^{6n^2} H_\mathbb{K} (F)^{30 n^2}\) and \(V_3= (|D|\cdot H_\mathbb{K} (F))^{m^8 n^2/3}\). Of course, in the paper, there are precise formulations of the corresponding results. The proof, according to the author ``\dots follows the classical argument of \textit{C. L. Siegel} [J. Lond. Math. Soc. 1, 66--68 (1926; JFM 52.0149.02)], using upper bounds for linear forms in logarithms''.
      0 references
      upper bound for integral solutions
      0 references
      hyperelliptic equation
      0 references
      superelliptic equation
      0 references
      JFM 52.0149.02
      0 references

      Identifiers