Let $f$ be a homogeneous polynomial in variables $x,y,z$.

Suppose that the sum of coefficients of $\frac{\partial^i f}{\partial x^i}$ is $0$ for each $0 \leq i \leq r$.

I believe that, in this situation, $(y-z)^r$ must divide $\textrm{Disc}_x(f)$.

Let us give you a simple example. Let $f=x^2-2xy+z^2$. Then $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}=2x-2y$ and

$$ \textrm{Disc}_x(f)=4y^2-4z^2=4(y-z)(y+z). $$

There are many examples which I computed using program.

Why this happens? Is there any reference which mention on this situation?

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ The equations $f = 0$ and $\frac {\partial^i f} {\partial x^i} = 0$ respectively define a curve $\mathcal C$ and its $i$-th polar $\mathcal C^{(i)}$ with respect to $(1 : 0 : 0)$. The sum of the coefficients of a polynomial $g$ is $0$ iff $P = (1 : 1 : 1)$ belongs to the corresponding curve. Finally, the degree of $(y - z)$ in $\mathrm {Disc}_x (f)$ is the intersection multiplicity $m_P (\mathcal C, \mathcal C')$ at $P$. So, if it helps, you can equivalently state your claim as: if $P$ belongs to $\mathcal C, \mathcal C', \dotsc, \mathcal C^{(r)}$, then $m_P (\mathcal C, \mathcal C') \ge r$. $\endgroup$ – Luca Bressan Jul 24 '19 at 17:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Notice that the case $r = 1$ is trivial: if the sums of the coefficients of $f$ and of $\frac {\partial f} {\partial x}$ are $0$, then $P$ belongs to both $\mathcal C$ and $\mathcal C'$, therefore $m_P (\mathcal C, \mathcal C') \ge 1$, which implies that $(y - z)$ divides $\mathrm {Disc}_x (f)$. $\endgroup$ – Luca Bressan Jul 24 '19 at 17:25
  • $\begingroup$ Beessan // Thank you. I understand what you say vaguely (with helps of wikipidea), but to solve the problem, It might be helpful that I learn about basic intersection theory and algebraic geometry. Can you recommand any referrence? $\endgroup$ – LWW Jul 25 '19 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ Bressan // And why the degree of $y-z $ in $\mathrm {Disc}_x (f) $ is the same as intersection multiplicity? $\endgroup$ – LWW Jul 25 '19 at 2:50
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A classic reference is Plane Algebraic Curves by Brieskorn and Knörrer. If $f = 0$ and $g = 0$ are equations of $\mathcal C$ and $\mathcal D$, we can write the resultant $\mathrm{Res}_x (f, g)$ as $\prod_{k=1}^n (b_k y - a_k z)^{r_k}$. Then, for any $k$ the point $(1 : a_k : b_k)$ belongs to both $\mathcal C$ and $\mathcal D$ and by definition its intersection multiplicity is $r_k$. Since the factors of $\mathrm{Disc}_x (f)$ are the same as those of $\mathrm{Res}_x (f, f')$, it follows that the degree of $(y - z)$ in $\mathrm{Disc}_x (f)$ is the intersection multiplicity at $(1 : 1 : 1)$. $\endgroup$ – Luca Bressan Jul 25 '19 at 7:23

Assume $f$ is of degree $n$. We can write the polynomial as: $$f(x,y,z) = (x^n)P_{n} + (x^{n-1})P_{n-1} + ... (x^{0})P_{0}$$ where $P_k$ denotes a homogeneous polynomial in $z,y$, of degree $n-k$. We can substitute $z$ with $1$ in $f$ at all places (let $f_{1}(x,y) = f(x,y,1)$), and simplify the problem thusly: $P_{k}'s$ become heterogeneous polynomials in $y$, the condition on the coefficients of $f$ and its $x$ derivatives remains the same, and $(y-1)^r$ must divide $\textrm{Disc}_x(f_1)$.

We see that the sum of coefficients of $$f_{1}(x,y) = (x^n)P_{n}(y) + (x^{n-1})P_{n-1}(y) + ... (x^{0})P_{0}(y)$$ can be computed as the sum (for $k = 1 .. n$) of the sums of the coefficients of the individual $P_{k}$'s. We can also observe that the sum of coefficients of $P_{k}(y)$ is equal to the 0'th degree coefficient of $P_{k}(y+1)$. So it would be best to change the variables again such that our old $y$ gets offset as $y+1$. We can study $f_{2}(x,y) = f_{1}(x,y+1)$, and group those 0'th degree coefficients together. By writing $$f_{2}(x,y) = y Q(x,y) + K(x)$$ where $K(x)$ is heterogeneous in $x$ and $Q(x,y)$ is heterogeneous in $x,y$ we see that the sum of $f_{1}$'s coefficients is equal to the sum of $K(x)$'s coefficients, where K is the above component of $f_2$. Our problem becomes to prove that $\textrm{Disc}_x(f_2)$ is divisible by $(y+1 - 1)^r = y^r$ (we've offset $y$ by 1), where the sum of the coefficients of $\frac {\partial^i K} {\partial x^i}$ is $0$, $\forall 0 \leq i \leq r$. However we can again exploit the fact that the sum of coefficients of $K(x)$ is equal to the 0'th degree coefficient of $K(x+1)$. This means (applying to derivatives) that $K(x+1) = x^{r+1}J(x)$. Having $f_{3}(x,y) = f_{2}(x+1,y)$ (and knowing that the value of the discriminant is unaffected by translation in its variable) our final restatement of the problem is:

Let $f_{3}(x,y) = y M(x,y) + x^{r+1}J(x)$. Prove $y^r$ divides $\mathrm{Disc}_x (f_3)$.

This is a much simpler reformulation of our problem. Unfortunately, I'm out of "clever" tricks as to how to solve this. A direct proof can be made by writing the discriminant as the determinant of the Sylvester matrix of $f_{3}$ and $\frac {\partial f_{3}} {\partial x}$ and examining the components of said determinant (particularly those components where the degree of $x$ is less that or equal to $r$), and how they go into the determinant formula:

Consider the Sylvester $S$ matrix of $f_{3}(x)$ and $\frac {\partial f_{3}(x)}{\partial{x}}$ (preferably written like this) . The discriminant $\mathrm{Disc}_x (f_3)$ is the determinant of said matrix. Consider the sub-matrix made of the last $r$ columns of $S$. We see from the Leibnitz formula of the determinant (sum of products of permutations) that every product in the determinant sum must take $r$ terms from said sub-matrix. However, the terms appearing in the sub-matrix are coefficients of degree less than $r$ in $f_3(x)$ and $f_3'(x)$, and $0$. Given that $f_{3}(x) = y M(x,y) + x^{r+1}J(x)$, we see that all such coefficients are multiples of $y$. In other words, all terms in the sum that gives the determinant are multiples of $y^r$. The determinant is a multiple of $y^r$, thus completing our proof.

Edit: at the last step of the proof you have to make sure the Sylvester matrix is large enough to be able to select an $r$-column sub-matrix. If $J(x) \neq 0$ this always happens. However, you can "trick" it if you set $J(x) = 0$. That way you can make $r$ arbitrarily large and no longer fulfill the discriminant condition. Substituting the variables backwards when $J(x) = 0$ to go back to $f$ makes it divisible by $y-z$, giving us the following:

We should add an additional condition to the original problem: $f$ should not be divisible by $y-z$ . For example if we have $f = (y-z)(x^2 - z^2)$ we can plainly see that the sum of the coefficients of $\frac{\partial^i f}{\partial x^i}$ is $0$ for all $i \in \mathbb{N}$, yet $\textrm{Disc}_x(f) = 4(y - z) (y z^2 - z^3) $.

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.