Manin’s conjecture for a certain singular cubic surface
Ulrich DerenthalMathematisches Institut der Universitat Gottingen, Bunsenstr. 3–5, D-37073 Gottingen, Germany. email: derentha@math.uni-goettingen.de
November 27, 2006
Abstract
This paper contains a proof of Manin’s conjecture for the singular cubic surface
with a singularity of type
, defined by the equation
. If
is the open subset of
obtained by deleting the unique line from
, then the number of rational points in
with anticanonical height bounded by
behaves asymptotically as
, where the constant
agrees with the one conjectured by Peyre.
1 Introduction
Let
be a Del Pezzo surface, possibly singular. If its set of rational points
is non-empty, then it is dense in the Zariski topology, and it is natural to ask for the asymptotic behaviour of the number of rational points of bounded height.
If
contains lines defined over
then the number of rational points of bounded height on these dominates the number of rational points in their complement
. Therefore, one is mainly interested in rational points in
.
In this situation, Manin has formulated a far-reaching conjecture for the behaviour of the counting function
where
is an exponential height [?] , [?] . In the special case, when
is associated to the anticanonical embedding of
, the conjecture states that
where
depends only on the geometry of
. A conjectural interpretation of
was later given by Peyre [?] .
In recent years, Manin’s conjecture has been proved for several classes of algebraic varieties. Batyrev and Tschinkel proved it for toric varieties [?] , in particular for all Del Pezzo surfaces of degree
. For smooth Del Pezzo surfaces of degree 5, it was proved by de la Breteche [?] in the split case (i.e., with geometric Picard group defined over
) and later together with Fouvry in several non-split cases [?] . In degree 4, it has been established recently in the case of a split surface with a
-singularity [?] and a non-split surface with a
-singularity [?] . In degree 3, apart from the singular toric surfaces, Manin’s conjecture and its refinement by Peyre have not yet been established. The best progress so far are upper and lower bounds of the right order of magnitude proved by Heath-Brown in case of the Cayley cubic [?] , and by Browning for a surface with a singularity of type
[?] .
Manin’s conjecture seems to be more difficult for surfaces of lower degree or with fewer singularities. The best general upper bound for
for a smooth cubic surface is
, given by Heath-Brown [?] , [?] .
We prove Manin’s conjecture in the case of a cubic surface with a singularity of type
:
|
(1.1)
|
Here,
refers to the Dynkin diagram describing the intersections of exceptional divisors in the minimal desingularization
of
.
Theorem 1.
Let
be the cubic surface with an
-singularity as above and let
be the associated height. Let
, where
is the unique line on
.
Then
where
is a monic polynomial of degree
, and the leading constant
is the one conjectured by Peyre [
?]
.
The invariants appearing in Manin’s conjecture and Peyre’s constant
are calculated in Section 2 .
The proof follows the strategy of de la Breteche and Browning [?] and uses the universal torsor. The passage to the universal torsor was introduced by Colliot-Thelene and Sansuc in their investigations of the Hasse principle on Del Pezzo surfaces [?] , [?] . Salberger proposed using torsors in the study of rational points of bounded height [?] , see also [?] , [?] . For our particular surface, the universal torsor has been calculated by Hassett and Tschinkel using the Cox ring; the torsor is a hypersurface in the
-dimensional affine space [?] . In addition to the equation defining the torsor we need to derive certain coprimality conditions between the coordinates. In Section 3 we compute the torsor and determine these conditions following the more direct approach of Heath-Brown, Browning and de la Breteche [?] , [?] , [?] .
The next step is to count the number of integral points on the universal torsor subject to certain bounds, given by lifting the height function to the torsor, and satisfying the coprimality conditions. For three of the ten variables on the torsor, this summation is done in Section 5 by elementary methods from analytic number theory. The summation over the last seven variables, completing the proof of Theorem 1 , is carried out in Section 6 .
During the final preparation of this paper, I was informed by M. Joyce (Brown University) that similar results towards Manin’s conjecture for certain cubic surfaces will appear in his thesis.
Acknowledgments.
Most of this paper was written while I was visiting B. Hassett at Rice University in February 2005. I am very grateful to him for the invitation and stimulating discussions. I thank T. D. Browning for helpfully explaining the details of his paper [?] . I thank S. Elsenhans and E. Kappos for many useful suggestions. This research has been partially supported by the Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes.
2 Manin’s Conjecture
In this section, we calculate the invariants appearing in Manin’s conjecture and its refinement by Peyre. We use the notation from [?] .
Lemma 2.
Manin’s conjecture predicts in case of
as defined in 1.1 :
where
with
| |
and
| |
-
Proof.
The line
and all exceptional divisors
of the desingularization
are defined over
. Thus,
. By [?] , the effective cone is generated by the classes of
and the exceptional divisors. The dual cone of nef divisors is also simplicial (i.e., the number of generators is equal to
), and
Note that
, in the basis
.
Using the definition, we calculate
The surface
is split over
, so that
By definition,
where, in our case,
and
We use Peyre’s method [?] to compute
and parametrize the points by writing
as a function of
. Since
in
, we may assume
. Since
, the Leray form
is given by
, and we obtain
from
using the transformations
The calculation of
is done as in Lemma 1 of [?] and we omit it here.
3 The Universal Torsor
The universal torsor
is given by the equation
|
(3.1)
|
and the map
defined by
|
(3.2)
|
where we use the notation
.
Note that
with
as in Lemma 2 .
We want to establish a bijection between rational points on the surface
and integral points on the torsor
which are subject to certain coprimality conditions.
More precisely, the coprimality conditions can be summarized in the following table, where a “
” means that the two variables are coprime, and a “
” that they may have common factors. For a variable combined with itself, “
” means that each prime occurs at most once, and “
” means that it may occur more often.
| |
Later, we will refer to the
|
(3.3)
|
Because of the torsor equation
, we can write the coprimality conditions for
equivalently as
|
(3.4)
|
and
|
(3.5)
|
The goal of this section is the following result:
Proposition 3.
The map
induces a bijection between
and
.
The proof of this is split into two parts. First, we establish a similar bijection with slightly different coprimality conditions:
Lemma 4.
Let
be set of all
such that
and the coprimality conditions described by the table hold, except that the conditions
|
(3.6)
|
in the table are replaced by
|
(3.7)
|
Then the map
induces a bijection between
and
.
-
Proof.
Using the method of [?] , we now show that the coprimality conditions lead to a bijection.
We go through a series of coprimality considerations and replace the original variables by products of new ones which fulfill certain conditions. When doing this, the new variables will be uniquely determined.
Since
, and
is equivalent to
, we can write each
uniquely such that
,
, and
.
-
∙
Note that
. Write
with
, where each triple occurrence of a prime factor of
is put in
and each double occurrence in
, so that
are unique if we assume
. Then
must hold for a suitable
. Substituting into
and dividing by
gives
-
∙
Now
, and since
, we have
. Write
, where
. Substituting and dividing by
, we obtain
-
∙
Since
and
, we must have
. Write
, where
, and obtain, after dividing by
, the relation
-
∙
Since
divides our original variables
, it cannot divide
.
Together with
, the fact
implies
. Write
, where
and obtain
-
∙
Let
and write
, where
and
, where
. This gives
-
∙
Now
. Writing
, where
with
, gives
, where
leading to the equation
-
∙
Let
and write
, where
and
, with
. Then
-
∙
Since
, also
. Therefore,
, which means
, and we write
, with
. We obtain
-
∙
Let
. Since
, we have
. Therefore,
and even
. Write
, where
,
, where
, and
, where
. Replacing
, where
, we get
This is the torsor equation
as in 3.1 .
The substitutions lead to
in terms of
as in 3.2 . Conversely, it is easy to check that each
satisfying
is mapped by
to a point
. Note that
and
. Furthermore, the coprimality conditions we introduced impose the following conditions on
:
| |
The condition
is equivalent to
.
We obtain
in the following manner: If
for some prime
, then
by the torsor equation
. On the other hand, a divisor of
cannot divide any of the factors by the coprimality conditions we found.
Similarly, we conclude
.
Finally, if a prime
divides two of
, we see using
that
must divide all of them. Since
and
, we conclude
which is impossible since
. Therefore,
must be pairwise coprime. In the same way we derive that no two of
have a common factor.
It is easy to check that we cannot derive any other coprimality condition because we could construct a solution to
violating it.
Note that the conditions on
are exactly the ones given in the definition of
. Since in every step the newly introduced variables are uniquely determined, we have established a bijection between
and
.
The following Lemma is the second step towards the proof of Proposition 3 :
Lemma 5.
There is a bijection between
and
.
-
Proof.
Given a point
violating 3.6 , we could replace a common prime factor
of
and
by powers of
as factors of
and possibly
such that 3.6 holds. This way, we obtain a point
. This should be done in a way such that
maps
and
to the same point
, and such that we have an inverse map, taking care of the conditions 3.7 .
Let
and
. Decompose the coordinates into their prime factors: Let
where
and
. Note that 3.6 translates to
fulfilling
or
, and that 3.7 means that
must fulfill
. Furthermore,
always holds.
Define the map
| |
where
for
and
for
, and the values of
depend on the size of
compared to
, whether
is even or odd, and whether
is
or
:
-
∙
If
, then
-
∙
if
or
, then
-
∙
otherwise, with
or
:
Conversely, define
| |
where
for
and
for
, and the values of
depend on
modulo
and whether
is
or
:
-
∙
If
and
, then
-
∙
if
and
, then
-
∙
otherwise, with
:
It is not difficult to check that
and
are well-defined, that
and
correspond to the same point
under the map
, and that
and
are inverse to each other.
Together, Lemma 4 and Lemma 5 prove Proposition 3 .
4 Congruences
We will use the following results from Chapter 3 of [?] on the number of solutions of linear and quadratic congruences.
Let
be the number of positive integers
such that
.
Then by equation (3.1) of [?] , we have for any
|
(4.1)
|
where
is the number of distinct prime factors of
. Let
be an arithmetic function such that
where
is the usual Dirichlet convolution.
Lemma 6.
Let
such that
and
. Then
-
Proof.
This is the case
of Lemma 2 of [?] .
Let
where
is the fractional part of
. Let
for
and
otherwise.
Lemma 7.
Let
, where
and
. Let
with
. Then
where
-
Proof.
This is a slight generalization of Lemma 3 of [?] .
Lemma 8.
Let
and
. Let
such that
and
. Then
-
Proof.
For
, this is Lemma 5 of [?] .
Note that if
for
, then
, which implies that there are at most two different values for
with
such that
is integral. Therefore, the sum for
differs from the one for
by at most
.
5 Summations
Note that
is determined uniquely by
and the other variables once a certain congruence is fulfilled. Therefore, our strategy is first to compute the number of possible
depending on
such that there exists a unique
satisfying
. By summing over
, the number of possible
is then computed depending on
. The summation over the variables
is finally handled using the height zeta function.
Let
and
Then the height conditions
lift to
|
(5.1)
|
and
and
|
(5.3)
|
respectively.
Using Proposition 3 , we can now relate the counting of rational points of bounded height on
to a count on the torsor.
Lemma 9.
We have
5.1 Summation over
and
Let
satisfy the coprimality conditions 3.3 , 3.4 and the height conditions 5.2 and 5.3 . Let
be the number of pairs
such that 3.5 , 5.1 and the torsor equation
are fulfilled. Then a Mobius inversion gives
where
has the same definition as
except that
is replaced by the condition
, and
is replaced by
Note that
together with
defines
uniquely once a certain congruence is fulfilled. Therefore,
Note that
and
Therefore, it is enough to sum over all
with
, and since
implies
, we reduce to
.
This implies that there is a unique integer
satisfying
and
such that
We have
where
We also know that
. Now we can apply Lemma 6 to the characteristic function
Since
where we use
and the notation
as in (5.10) of [?] , we conclude
where
gives the total length of the intervals in which
must lie by 5.1 , with
|
(5.4)
|
By equation 4.1 , the number of integers
with
such that
and
is at most
This gives as the first step towards the proof of Theorem 1 :
Lemma 10.
where
Now we show that the error term suffices for Theorem 1 by summing it over all the
which satisfy the height conditions 5.2 and 5.3 ; we can ignore the coprimality conditions 3.3 , 3.4 , 3.5 . We obtain:
| |
For
, we have used the estimate
together with partial summation.
Therefore, we only need to consider the main term when summing over
in order to prove Theorem 1 .
5.2 Summation over
For fixed
satisfying 3.3 and 5.2 , we sum over all
satisfying the coprimality condition 3.4 and the height condition 5.3 . Let
First, we find an asymptotic formula for
where
We have
. Therefore we can replace the condition
by
in the definition of
and perform another Mobius inversion to obtain
| |
where
Note that we must only sum over the
with
because of
.
Let
be the unique integer such that
and
Then
if and only if
.
Since
, we have
. Using Lemma 7 , we conclude
where, by definition of
,
Let
Then for any
, we have
where
| |
By partial summation, we obtain
with
|
(5.5)
|
and
where
is the derivation of
with respect to the first variable.
Lemma 11.
For any
as in 3.3 , 5.2 , we have
where the error term
satisfies
-
Proof.
By Lemma 8 , we have
| |
Therefore,
| |
Summing this over all
, we get using 5.2
| |
5.3 Summation over
Define
We sum
in Lemma 11 over the seven variables
such that the coprimality conditions 3.3 and the height condition 5.2 hold. Note that the definition of
ensures that the main term of
is zero if 3.3 is not satisfied. In view of Lemma 9 , this implies:
Lemma 12.
We have
6 Proof of Manin’s Conjecture for
Our argument is similar to [?] . We need to estimate
for
. Therefore, we consider the Dirichlet series
.
Observing
we get
and writing
as a product of local factors, we obtain:
| |
for any prime
.
Since
for
and
, we have
for
, and defining
we have
for
. Define
for
. Then
has a holomorphic and bounded continuation to
.
Note that
and that for
, we have
Therefore, the residue of
at
is
for some monic polynomial
of degree
.
Lemma 13.
.
-
Proof.
Integrating Perron’s formula for
over
, we have
for
and
.
We apply Cauchy’s residue theorem to the rectangle with vertices
for some
, where
is sufficiently small.
By the convexity bound
for any
, we have
|
(6.1)
|
for any
, using
and that
is bounded.
For the ray going down from
, we get
| |
where we use that
is bounded for
. Integrating from
to
gives the same result.
For the lower edge, we estimate
| |
because 6.1 gives a bound for
,
being continuous gives a bound in an
-neighborhood of
, and the length of the integration interval is
. For the upper edge, we obtain the same bound. For the edge on the left, we have
| |
since the integral over
is bounded independently of
, and using 6.1 again.
Taking
, we have proved
But now
and for
, both integrals are equal to
The proof of the Lemma is completed by choosing
and noting that
and
by the definitions of
and
in Lemma 2 .
By partial summation we conclude
| |
for some monic polynomial
of degree
. Considering definitions 5.4 and 5.5 , note that
Together with Lemma 12 , this completes the proof of Theorem 1 .