MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2754430485 · doi:10.19086/da.11075

Diophantine equations in semiprimes

2019· paratext· en· W2754430485 sur OpenAlex

Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base

Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.

fundUn bailleur canadien est enregistré sur le travail.
no affAucune affiliation canadienne : ce travail est invisible pour une base fondée sur la seule affiliation.
Aucune affiliation canadienne. Une base fondée sur la seule affiliation (le devis habituel) n'aurait jamais vu ce travail. C'est l'un des travaux qui justifient l'inversion de la base.

Notice bibliographique

RevueDiscrete Analysis · 2019
Typeparatext
Langueen
DomaineMathematics
ThématiqueAnalytic Number Theory Research
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilQueen's UniversityNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
Mots-clésDiophantine equationInteger (computer science)MathematicsProduct (mathematics)HomogeneousPrime (order theory)Degree (music)CombinatoricsPure mathematicsDiscrete mathematicsPhysicsGeometryComputer science

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Diophantine equations in semiprimes, Discrete Analysis 2019:17, 21 pp. This paper considers the problem of finding integer solutions to integral polynomial equations of the form $$f(x_1,\dots,x_n)=0\qquad\qquad (*)$$ with the condition that each coordinate $x_i$ has a 'small' number of prime factors. This is a very general problem, and even without any added restrictions on the coordinates, determining whether there exists an integral solution to $(*)$ is known to be an impossible task (this is a consequence of the work on Hilbert's 10th problem). However, it was shown by Bryan Birch that under some suitable nondegeneracy conditions on $f$ one can give local-to-global general results. Loosely, these conditions can be interpreted as the statements that $f$ is a function in sufficiently many variables (as a function of the degree) and also that there are no divisibility obstructions to $(*)$. More precisely, the polynomial $f$ needs be large with respect to a certain notion of rank and $(*)$ needs to have solutions over the $p-$adics for all primes $p$. This lower bound on the rank is what is meant by 'sufficiently many variables', and in Birch's result the bound is roughly $2^d$, where $d$ is the degree of the polynomial. A recent paper of Brian Cook and Ákos Magyar proves a variant of Birch's result that counts solutions to $(*)$ in which all the coordinates are primes. The style of that result is in line with Birch's result, but they need far more variables than the $2^d$ benchmark set by Birch. In a slightly different direction, a more recent paper of Magyar and Tatai Titichetrakun gives a Birch-type result on solutions to $(*)$ in which the coordinates are required to be _almost_ primes, which means that they have a small number of prime factors. Interestingly, their result of matches the results of Birch from the point of view of the 'sufficiently many variables' requirement. On the other hand, the notion of an almost prime adds a new quantitative parameter -- how small a number of prime factors we can take. In the paper of Magyar and Titichetrakun, the number of prime factors needed for the main result is $384n^{3/2}d(d+1)$. In particular, it depends on both the degree and the number of variables. It is believed that one can obtain prime solutions -- that is, solutions where there is just one prime factor -- so there is expected to be a great deal of room for improvement. The main result of the current paper does indeed prove a drastic reduction on the number of prime factors needed, right down to 2. A number with exactly two (not necessarily distinct) prime factors is called a _semiprime_, so the paper finds solutions to $(*)$ for which the coordinates are semiprimes. This improvement does come at cost in the required number of variables, but it turns out to be a somewhat modest one: instead of roughly $2^d$ variables, the proof requires roughly $4^d$ variables. The argument is a very clever application of the circle method of Hardy and Littlewood combined with recent work of Damaris Schindler on integral solutions of $(*)$ when $f$ is a bihomogeneous polynomial. To get at the result on solutions in semiprimes the author passes through an intermediate result (Theorem 2.1) which shows up in an analogue of Schindler's work and gives a weighted count of prime solutions to $(*)$ when $f$ is bihomogeneous. This is carried out by an application of the circle method of Hardy and Littlewood (which is somewhat similar in style to an argument of Lilu Zhao). With the result on prime solutions for bihomogeneous equations in hand, finding solutions to $f(x)=0$ in semiprimes is a tractable problem, as it is equivalent to finding solutions to the equation $f(x_1y_1,...,x_ny_n)=0$ in primes $x_1,...,y_n$. A notable feature of the methods used in this paper is what is missing: there is no application of sieve techniques. Almost primes usually arise as a substitute when one faces a Diophantine problem in the primes that is out of reach of current methods. For example, the binary Goldbach conjecture is not approachable with current methods, but Chen Jingrun famously solved this question in semiprimes. There are numerous other examples of results of this flavour, but it is very unusual for them not to rely on some form of sieve techniques.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMéta-épidémiologie (sens strict), Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
Catégories consensuellesCharge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Autre · Signal consensuel: Autre
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,517
Score d'incertitude au seuil1,000

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0020,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0260,018

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,051
Tête enseignante GPT0,387
Écart entre enseignants0,336 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle