Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-7drxs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-17T16:58:27.642Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

S-UNIT EQUATIONS IN FUNCTION FIELDS VIA THE abc-THEOREM

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 March 2000

JULIA MUELLER
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Fordham University, Bronx, NY 10458, USA
Get access

Abstract

We consider the equation

a1x1 + ··· + anxn = 1, (1.1)

where the coefficients a1, …, an are non-zero elements of a field K, to be solved for (x1, …, xn) in a finitely generated multiplicative subgroup G of (K*)n. Evertse [2] and van der Poorten and Schlickewei [6] showed, independently, for the most important case in which K is a number field and G is a group of S-units in K, that (1.1) has only finitely many solutions (x1, …, xn) for which no subsum in (1.1) vanishes. Such solutions are called non-degenerate.

In 1990, Schlickewei [7] was the first to obtain an explicit upper bound for the number of non-degenerate solutions of (1.1) when G is a group of S-units of K. His result went through various successive improvements, and the best result to date is the bound (235n2)n3s by Evertse [3, Theorem 3], where s is the cardinality of S. Very recently, Evertse, Schlickewei and Schmidt [4, 5] obtained a remarkable result. They showed, again for K a number field, that the number of non-degenerate solutions of (1.1) with (x1, …, xn) in a finitely generated subgroup of (K*)n of rank r is at most c(n)r+2, with c(n) = exp((6n)4n). The importance of this result lies with its uniformity with respect to the rank r of the group and its independence of the field K. The proofs of the above-mentioned results are all quite difficult and depend on deep tools from Schmidt's Subspace Theorem and diophantine approximation. In this paper we consider equation (1.1) in the rational function field K = k(t) where k is an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. Of course, results of this type will follow rather easily from the above-mentioned results by a specialization argument. However, our object is to show that our approach to the function field case is quite elementary and certainly very different, being a simple and direct consequence of the powerful abc-theorem.

Before stating our result, we first define proportional solutions of (1.1). We say that (x1, …, xn) and (x1, …, xn) are proportional if xi, /, xik, 1 [les ] i [les ] n. This determines equivalence classes of solutions.

Type
NOTES AND PAPERS
Copyright
© The London Mathematical Society 2000

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)