Finding the number of roots of u(X,Y) under certain restrictions











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












Suppose $q$ is a prime power, gcd($s$,$q$)$=1$ and gcd($s$,$t$)$=1$ and $f(X)$ is a polynomial of degree $t$ over $GF(q)$. Also $u(X,Y)=sum_{i,j} u_{ij}X^iY^j$, where $u_{ij}in GF(q)$, $0leqslant i$, $j<s$ and $si+tjleqslant m$, $m inmathbb{N}$. Suppose $P={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q) text{ and } y^s=f(x) }$ and $Z={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q) text{ and } u(x,y)=0 }$. We want to show that $P cap Z$ has no more than $m$ elements. Here's how they do it in the text I'm reading. Since gcd($s$,$q$)$=1$, a field extension $GF(q^l)$ of $GF(q)$ will have a primitive $s$-th root of unity $zeta$. They claim that if $P'={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q^l) text{ and } y^s=f(x) }$ and $Z'={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q^l) text{ and } u(x,y)=0 }$, then even $P' cap Z'$ will have at most $m$ elements. Now, $P'$ can be divided into classes ${ (x,0)}$ if $f(x)=0$ and ${ (x,y),(x,zeta y),ldots (x,zeta^{s-1}y)}$ in the other case. Consider the classes in which the zeros of $u(X,Y)$ are contained. Apparently, one finds the same classes when one looks at the zeros of $$u^*(X,Y)=u(X,Y)u(X,zeta Y)ldots u(X,zeta^{s-1}Y)$$ (how is this even relevant?). One can show that (I get that now, subject of another question) $u^*(X,Y)=V(X)$ with the degree of $V(X)$ at most $ m$. Now we are supposed to be ready to finalise: The zeros of $u^*(X,Y)$ can thus be grouped into at most $m$ classes. A class of the form ${ (x,0)}$ trivially contains at most one zero of $u(X,Y)$. But now for the mysterious part. I quote: A class with $s$ elements contributes at most one zero of $u(X,Y)$ (and at most one zero to each of the other $u(X,zeta^kY)$). I really can't see why that is. What am I overlooking?










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    Suppose $q$ is a prime power, gcd($s$,$q$)$=1$ and gcd($s$,$t$)$=1$ and $f(X)$ is a polynomial of degree $t$ over $GF(q)$. Also $u(X,Y)=sum_{i,j} u_{ij}X^iY^j$, where $u_{ij}in GF(q)$, $0leqslant i$, $j<s$ and $si+tjleqslant m$, $m inmathbb{N}$. Suppose $P={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q) text{ and } y^s=f(x) }$ and $Z={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q) text{ and } u(x,y)=0 }$. We want to show that $P cap Z$ has no more than $m$ elements. Here's how they do it in the text I'm reading. Since gcd($s$,$q$)$=1$, a field extension $GF(q^l)$ of $GF(q)$ will have a primitive $s$-th root of unity $zeta$. They claim that if $P'={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q^l) text{ and } y^s=f(x) }$ and $Z'={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q^l) text{ and } u(x,y)=0 }$, then even $P' cap Z'$ will have at most $m$ elements. Now, $P'$ can be divided into classes ${ (x,0)}$ if $f(x)=0$ and ${ (x,y),(x,zeta y),ldots (x,zeta^{s-1}y)}$ in the other case. Consider the classes in which the zeros of $u(X,Y)$ are contained. Apparently, one finds the same classes when one looks at the zeros of $$u^*(X,Y)=u(X,Y)u(X,zeta Y)ldots u(X,zeta^{s-1}Y)$$ (how is this even relevant?). One can show that (I get that now, subject of another question) $u^*(X,Y)=V(X)$ with the degree of $V(X)$ at most $ m$. Now we are supposed to be ready to finalise: The zeros of $u^*(X,Y)$ can thus be grouped into at most $m$ classes. A class of the form ${ (x,0)}$ trivially contains at most one zero of $u(X,Y)$. But now for the mysterious part. I quote: A class with $s$ elements contributes at most one zero of $u(X,Y)$ (and at most one zero to each of the other $u(X,zeta^kY)$). I really can't see why that is. What am I overlooking?










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      Suppose $q$ is a prime power, gcd($s$,$q$)$=1$ and gcd($s$,$t$)$=1$ and $f(X)$ is a polynomial of degree $t$ over $GF(q)$. Also $u(X,Y)=sum_{i,j} u_{ij}X^iY^j$, where $u_{ij}in GF(q)$, $0leqslant i$, $j<s$ and $si+tjleqslant m$, $m inmathbb{N}$. Suppose $P={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q) text{ and } y^s=f(x) }$ and $Z={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q) text{ and } u(x,y)=0 }$. We want to show that $P cap Z$ has no more than $m$ elements. Here's how they do it in the text I'm reading. Since gcd($s$,$q$)$=1$, a field extension $GF(q^l)$ of $GF(q)$ will have a primitive $s$-th root of unity $zeta$. They claim that if $P'={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q^l) text{ and } y^s=f(x) }$ and $Z'={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q^l) text{ and } u(x,y)=0 }$, then even $P' cap Z'$ will have at most $m$ elements. Now, $P'$ can be divided into classes ${ (x,0)}$ if $f(x)=0$ and ${ (x,y),(x,zeta y),ldots (x,zeta^{s-1}y)}$ in the other case. Consider the classes in which the zeros of $u(X,Y)$ are contained. Apparently, one finds the same classes when one looks at the zeros of $$u^*(X,Y)=u(X,Y)u(X,zeta Y)ldots u(X,zeta^{s-1}Y)$$ (how is this even relevant?). One can show that (I get that now, subject of another question) $u^*(X,Y)=V(X)$ with the degree of $V(X)$ at most $ m$. Now we are supposed to be ready to finalise: The zeros of $u^*(X,Y)$ can thus be grouped into at most $m$ classes. A class of the form ${ (x,0)}$ trivially contains at most one zero of $u(X,Y)$. But now for the mysterious part. I quote: A class with $s$ elements contributes at most one zero of $u(X,Y)$ (and at most one zero to each of the other $u(X,zeta^kY)$). I really can't see why that is. What am I overlooking?










      share|cite|improve this question













      Suppose $q$ is a prime power, gcd($s$,$q$)$=1$ and gcd($s$,$t$)$=1$ and $f(X)$ is a polynomial of degree $t$ over $GF(q)$. Also $u(X,Y)=sum_{i,j} u_{ij}X^iY^j$, where $u_{ij}in GF(q)$, $0leqslant i$, $j<s$ and $si+tjleqslant m$, $m inmathbb{N}$. Suppose $P={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q) text{ and } y^s=f(x) }$ and $Z={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q) text{ and } u(x,y)=0 }$. We want to show that $P cap Z$ has no more than $m$ elements. Here's how they do it in the text I'm reading. Since gcd($s$,$q$)$=1$, a field extension $GF(q^l)$ of $GF(q)$ will have a primitive $s$-th root of unity $zeta$. They claim that if $P'={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q^l) text{ and } y^s=f(x) }$ and $Z'={(x,y)|x,y in GF(q^l) text{ and } u(x,y)=0 }$, then even $P' cap Z'$ will have at most $m$ elements. Now, $P'$ can be divided into classes ${ (x,0)}$ if $f(x)=0$ and ${ (x,y),(x,zeta y),ldots (x,zeta^{s-1}y)}$ in the other case. Consider the classes in which the zeros of $u(X,Y)$ are contained. Apparently, one finds the same classes when one looks at the zeros of $$u^*(X,Y)=u(X,Y)u(X,zeta Y)ldots u(X,zeta^{s-1}Y)$$ (how is this even relevant?). One can show that (I get that now, subject of another question) $u^*(X,Y)=V(X)$ with the degree of $V(X)$ at most $ m$. Now we are supposed to be ready to finalise: The zeros of $u^*(X,Y)$ can thus be grouped into at most $m$ classes. A class of the form ${ (x,0)}$ trivially contains at most one zero of $u(X,Y)$. But now for the mysterious part. I quote: A class with $s$ elements contributes at most one zero of $u(X,Y)$ (and at most one zero to each of the other $u(X,zeta^kY)$). I really can't see why that is. What am I overlooking?







      polynomials finite-fields coding-theory






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 15 at 11:36









      Romanda de Gore

      1339




      1339






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote













          In fact, the proof is wrong, which is a pitty, since this was part of an example of an algebraic geometry (Goppa) code, without going into algebraic geometry (Coding theory, Van Tilborg). Bad Math books (seems to be the norm rather than the exception) take all the fun out of doing maths. Here is a counterexample. If, for example $u(X,Y)= X+XY+X^2+XY^2$ and $f(X)=X^t +1$ with $mgeqslant s + 2t$, then $(0,1)$ and $(0,zeta)$ belong to the same class of $P'$ and are two different zero's of $u(X,Y)$ nonetheless.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














             

            draft saved


            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2999588%2ffinding-the-number-of-roots-of-ux-y-under-certain-restrictions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes








            1 Answer
            1






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes








            up vote
            0
            down vote













            In fact, the proof is wrong, which is a pitty, since this was part of an example of an algebraic geometry (Goppa) code, without going into algebraic geometry (Coding theory, Van Tilborg). Bad Math books (seems to be the norm rather than the exception) take all the fun out of doing maths. Here is a counterexample. If, for example $u(X,Y)= X+XY+X^2+XY^2$ and $f(X)=X^t +1$ with $mgeqslant s + 2t$, then $(0,1)$ and $(0,zeta)$ belong to the same class of $P'$ and are two different zero's of $u(X,Y)$ nonetheless.






            share|cite|improve this answer

























              up vote
              0
              down vote













              In fact, the proof is wrong, which is a pitty, since this was part of an example of an algebraic geometry (Goppa) code, without going into algebraic geometry (Coding theory, Van Tilborg). Bad Math books (seems to be the norm rather than the exception) take all the fun out of doing maths. Here is a counterexample. If, for example $u(X,Y)= X+XY+X^2+XY^2$ and $f(X)=X^t +1$ with $mgeqslant s + 2t$, then $(0,1)$ and $(0,zeta)$ belong to the same class of $P'$ and are two different zero's of $u(X,Y)$ nonetheless.






              share|cite|improve this answer























                up vote
                0
                down vote










                up vote
                0
                down vote









                In fact, the proof is wrong, which is a pitty, since this was part of an example of an algebraic geometry (Goppa) code, without going into algebraic geometry (Coding theory, Van Tilborg). Bad Math books (seems to be the norm rather than the exception) take all the fun out of doing maths. Here is a counterexample. If, for example $u(X,Y)= X+XY+X^2+XY^2$ and $f(X)=X^t +1$ with $mgeqslant s + 2t$, then $(0,1)$ and $(0,zeta)$ belong to the same class of $P'$ and are two different zero's of $u(X,Y)$ nonetheless.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                In fact, the proof is wrong, which is a pitty, since this was part of an example of an algebraic geometry (Goppa) code, without going into algebraic geometry (Coding theory, Van Tilborg). Bad Math books (seems to be the norm rather than the exception) take all the fun out of doing maths. Here is a counterexample. If, for example $u(X,Y)= X+XY+X^2+XY^2$ and $f(X)=X^t +1$ with $mgeqslant s + 2t$, then $(0,1)$ and $(0,zeta)$ belong to the same class of $P'$ and are two different zero's of $u(X,Y)$ nonetheless.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 16 at 15:40









                Romanda de Gore

                1339




                1339






























                     

                    draft saved


                    draft discarded



















































                     


                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2999588%2ffinding-the-number-of-roots-of-ux-y-under-certain-restrictions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

                    How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

                    QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater