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?
polynomials finite-fields coding-theory
add a comment |
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?
polynomials finite-fields coding-theory
add a comment |
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?
polynomials finite-fields coding-theory
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
polynomials finite-fields coding-theory
asked Nov 15 at 11:36
Romanda de Gore
1339
1339
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
add a comment |
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.
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.
answered Nov 16 at 15:40
Romanda de Gore
1339
1339
add a comment |
add a comment |
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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