Minimal pairs, truncations and diskoids (Q2019294)

We let \(K\) be a field, \(\overline{K}\) be its algebraic closure, \(\nu\) be a valuation on \(K\), \(\bar{\nu}\) be an extension of \(\nu\) to \(\overline{K}\), \(\mu\) be an extension of \(\nu\) to the polynomial ring \(K[X]\) and \(\bar{\mu}\) be an extension of \(\mu\) and of \(\bar{\nu}\) to \(\overline{K}[X]\). The extension of valuation \(\bar{\mu}\) is said to be residually transcendental if the transcendence degree of the residue fields extension of \((\overline{K}[X]/\overline{K},\bar{\mu})\) is \(1\). Given \(a\in \overline{K}\) and \(\delta\) in an extension of \(\bar{\nu}(\overline{K}\backslash \{0\})\), we can define a valuation \(\bar{\nu}_{a,\delta}\) on \(\overline{K}[X]\) by setting, for every \(a_0,\dots,a_n\) in \(\overline{K}\), \(\bar{\nu}_{a,\delta}\left(\sum_{i=0}^na_i(X-a)^i\right)=\min\{\bar{\nu}(a_i)+i\delta \; :\; 0\leq i\leq n\}\). Let \(a\in \overline{K}\) and \(\delta\in\bar{\mu}(\overline{K}[X]\backslash \{0\})\), \((a,\delta)\) is said to be a minimal pair for \(\bar{\mu}\) if \(\bar{\mu}(X-a)=\delta\) and for every \(b\in \overline{K}\) such that the degree of \(b\) over \(K\) is less than the degree of \(a\) over \(K\) we have \(\bar{\mu}(a-b)<\delta\). In the case where \(\delta\in \bar{\nu}(\overline{K})\) (so we can have \(\delta=\infty\)), the closed ball centered around \(a\) and of radius \(\delta\) is the set \(D(a,\delta)=\{x\in \overline{K}\; :\; \nu(x-a)\geq \delta\}\). The author reformulates a previous result [\textit{J. Novacoski}, ibid. 523, 1--14 (2019; Zbl 1498.13011)] by saying that the mapping \(D(a,\delta) \mapsto \bar{\nu}_{a,\delta}\), from the set of closed balls to the the set of residually transcendental extensions, is one-to-one. Let \(Q\in K[X]\), whith positive degree, the truncated map of \(\mu\) with respect to \(Q\) is defined as follows. For every \(f\in K[X]\), we write \(f\) as \(f=f_0+f_1Q+\cdots +f_nQ^n\) where the degrees of \(f_0,f_1,\dots ,f_n\) are less than the degree of \(Q\), and we let \(\mu_Q(f)\) be the minimum of \(\mu(f_0),\mu(f_1Q), \dots,\mu(f_nQ^n)\). For every \(f\in K[X]\) we let \(\epsilon_{\mu}(f)=\max_{i\geq 1}\frac{\mu(f)-\mu(\partial_i f)}{i}\) (where \(\partial_i f\) denotes the \(i\)th formal derivative of \(f\)). We say that \(Q\) is an abstract key polynomial if \(\mathrm{deg}\; f<\mathrm{deg}\; Q \Rightarrow \epsilon_{\mu}(f)<\epsilon_{\mu}(Q)\). If \(Q\) is an abstract key polynomial, then \(\mu_Q\) is a valuation and the author proves that for every \(f\in K[X]\) we have \(\epsilon_{\mu_Q}(f)\leq \epsilon_{\mu_Q}(Q)=\epsilon_{\mu}(Q)\), and equality holds if, and only if, \(\mu_Q(f)=\mu\left(f_iQ^i\right)\) for some \(i>0\). For \(f\in \overline{K}[X]\) we let \(\delta_{\bar{\mu}}(f)\) (or \(\delta(f)\)) be the maximum of the \(\bar{\mu}(X-c)\)'s where \(c\) runs amoung the set of roots of \(f\). The author proves that given \(Q\in K[X]\) and \(a\in \overline{K}\) a root of \(Q\) such that \(\bar{\mu}(X-a)=\delta(Q)\), \(Q\) is an abstract key polynomial if, and only if, \((a,\bar{\mu}(X-a))\) is a minimal pair, and if this holds, then \(\bar{\mu}_{X-a}\) extends \(\mu_Q\). Let \(f\in \overline{K}[X]\) and \(\delta\in \bar{\nu}(\overline{K})\cup\{\infty\}\), the diskoid centered at \(f\) of radius \(\delta\) is the set \(\widetilde{D}(f,\delta)=\{ x\in \overline{K} \; :\; \bar{\nu}(f(x))\geq \delta\}\). For every \(g\in K[X]\) the minimum of \(\{\bar{\nu}(g(x))\; :\; x\in \widetilde{D}(f,\delta)\}\) exists, and it is denoted by \(\bar{\nu}_{\widetilde{D}(f,\delta)}(g)\). Denote by \(G^h\) the Galois group of \(K^h/K\), where \(K^h\) is an henselization of \((K,\nu)\). The author proves that if \(G^h\) acts transitively on the set of roots of \(f\in\overline{K}[X]\), with \(\bar{\mu}(f)\in \bar{\nu}(\overline{K})\), and \(a\) is a root of \(f\) such that \(\bar{\mu}(X-a)=\delta(f)\), then \(\widetilde{D}(f,\bar{\mu}(f))=\bigcup_{\sigma\in G^h}D(\sigma(a),\delta(f))\). As a corollary, he gets that if \(Q\) is an abstract key polynomial with \(\epsilon_{\mu}(Q)\in\bar{\nu}(\overline{K})\) and which is irreducible over \(K^h\), then \(\bar{\nu}_{\widetilde{D}(Q,\mu(Q))}\) is a valuation and it is equal to \(\mu_Q\). The author generalizes the correspondence that he reformulated by showing that the maps which send a key polynomial \(Q\), which is irreducible over \(K^h\) and with \(\epsilon_{\mu}(Q)\in \bar{\nu}(\overline{K}\backslash \{0\})\), to the diskoid \(\widetilde{D}(Q,\mu_Q)\), is onto. Then, there is a one-to-one mapping between the set of diskoid and the set of residually transcendental extensions wich assign \(\widetilde{D}(Q,\mu(Q))\) to \(\mu_Q=\bar{\nu}_{\widetilde{D}(Q,\mu_Q)}\). This paper ends proving that if \(\nu\) is a rank \(1\) valuation, \(Q\) is an abstract key polynomial with \(\epsilon(Q)\in \mathbb{Q}\otimes \nu(K)\), then \(Q\) is irreducible over \(K^h\).