1: \documentclass[11pt, a4paper, reqno, english]{smfart}

2: 

3: \usepackage[margin=3.5cm]{geometry} 

4: \usepackage{amsfonts, amsthm, amsmath, amscd, amssymb}

5: 

6: 

7: \renewcommand\AA{\mathbb{A}}

8: \newcommand\A{\mathcal{A}}

9: \newcommand\QQ{\mathbb{Q}}

10: \newcommand\cQ{\overline{\mathbb{Q}}}

11: \newcommand\CC{\mathbb{C}}

12: \newcommand\NN{\mathbb{N}}

13: \newcommand\RR{\mathbb{R}}

14: \newcommand\MM{\mathcal{M}}

15: \newcommand\WW{\mathcal{W}}

16: \newcommand\R{\mathcal{R}}

17: \newcommand\B{\mathcal{B}}

18: \newcommand\TT{\mathcal{T}}

19: \newcommand\EE{\mathcal{E}}

20: \newcommand\ZZ{\mathbb{Z}}

21: \newcommand\ZZp{\ZZ_{>0}}

22: \newcommand\ZZnz{\ZZ_{\ne 0}}

23: \newcommand\PP{\mathbb{P}}

24: \newcommand\x{\mathbf{x}}

25: \newcommand\y{\mathbf{y}}

26: \renewcommand\v{\mathbf{v}}

27: \newcommand\z{\mathbf{z}}

28: \renewcommand\k{\mathbf{k}}

29: \renewcommand\d{\,\mathrm{d}}

30: \newcommand{\congr}[3]{{#1} \equiv {#2}\ (\mathrm{mod}\ {#3})}

31: \DeclareMathOperator{\hcf}{gcd}

32: \DeclareMathOperator{\Pic}{Pic}

33: \DeclareMathOperator{\rank}{rank}

34: \DeclareMathOperator{\Res}{Res}

35: \DeclareMathOperator{\vol}{vol}

36: \DeclareMathOperator{\Spec}{Spec}

37: \DeclareMathOperator{\disc}{Disc}

38: \DeclareMathOperator{\supp}{supp}

39: \DeclareMathOperator{\sing}{sing}

40: \DeclareMathOperator{\meas}{meas}

41: \DeclareMathOperator{\Gal}{Gal}

42: \DeclareMathOperator{\Tr}{Tr}

43: \DeclareMathOperator{\Norm}{N}

44: 

45: 

46: 

47: \newcommand{\cp}[2]{{\hcf(#1,#2)=1}}

48: \newcommand{\ncp}[2]{{\hcf(#1,#2) > 1}}

49: \newcommand{\Aone}{{\mathbf A}_1}

50: \newcommand{\Atwo}{{\mathbf A}_2}

51: \newcommand{\Athree}{{\mathbf A}_3}

52: \newcommand{\Afour}{{\mathbf A}_4}

53: \newcommand{\Afive}{{\mathbf A}_5}

54: \newcommand{\Dfour}{{\mathbf D}_4}

55: \newcommand{\Dfive}{{\mathbf D}_5}

56: \newcommand{\Esix}{{\mathbf E}_6}

57: \newcommand{\tS}{{\widetilde S}}

58: \newcommand{\tM}{{\widetilde M}}

59: \newcommand{\tX}{{\widetilde X}}

60: \renewcommand{\le}{\leqslant}

61: \renewcommand{\ge}{\geqslant}

62: \renewcommand{\leq}{\leqslant}

63: \renewcommand{\geq}{\geqslant}

64: \newcommand{\bet}{\boldsymbol{\eta}}

65: \newcommand{\bla}{\boldsymbol{\lambda}}

66: \newcommand{\bal}{\boldsymbol{\alpha}}

67: \newcommand{\bxi}{\boldsymbol{\xi}}

68: \newcommand{\ex}[1]{*+<10pt>[o][F]{#1}}

69: \newcommand\rto{\dashrightarrow}

70: \newcommand\e{\eta}

71: \newcommand\ve{\varepsilon}

72: \newcommand\RE{\Re e}

73: \newcommand\phis{\phi^*}

74: \newcommand\phid{\phi^\dagger}

75: \newcommand\la{\lambda}

76: \newcommand\al{\alpha}

77: \newcommand\be{\beta}

78: \newcommand\D{\Delta}

79: 

80: \newcommand\sfl{\mathsf{\Lambda}}

81: 

82: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}

83: \newtheorem*{theorem-f}{Th\'eor\`eme}

84: \newtheorem*{cor}{Corollary}

85: \newtheorem*{cor-f}{Corollaire}

86: \newtheorem*{con}{Conjecture}

87: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

88: \newtheorem{proposition}{Proposition}

89: \newtheorem{conj}{Conjecture}

90: \theoremstyle{definition}

91: \newtheorem{remark}{Remarque}

92: \newtheorem{example}{Example}

93: \newtheorem*{ack}{Acknowledgements}

94: \newtheorem*{notat}{Notation}

95: 

96: \newcommand{\odd}[2]{{(#1,#2)_\flat}}

97: \newcommand{\M}{\mathfrak{M}}

98: \renewcommand{\ss}{\mathfrak{S}}

99: \newcommand{\ii}{\mathfrak{I}}

100: \newcommand{\n}{\mathfrak{n}}

101: \newcommand{\m}{\mathfrak{m}}

102: \newcommand{\Xns}{X_{\mathrm{ns}}}

103: 

104: 

105: \numberwithin{equation}{section}

106: 

107: 

108: %%%CT

109: \newcommand\kbar{{\overline k}}

110: 

111: \newcommand\pic{{\rm Pic} \hskip1mm}

112: \newcommand\br{{\rm Br} \hskip1mm}

113: \newcommand \Z{{\mathbf Z}}

114: \newcommand\g{{\mathcal G}}

115: \newcommand\Div{{\rm Div}  }

116: \newcommand\X{{  \overline{X} }  }

117: \newcommand\Y{{  \overline{Y} }  }

118: \newcommand\U{{  \overline{U} }  }

119: \newcommand\et{\mathrm{\mathaccent 19 et}}

120: \newcommand\G{{\mathbf G}}

121: 

122: 

123: 

124: 

125: 

126: 

127: \begin{document}

128: 

129: 

130: \title[Rational points on cubic hypersurfaces]{Rational points on cubic hypersurfaces \\that

131:   split off a form}

132: 

133: 

134: 

135: 

136: 

137: \author{T.D. Browning}

138: \address{School of Mathematics\\

139: University of Bristol\\ Bristol BS8 1TW}

140: \email{t.d.browning@bristol.ac.uk}

141: 

142: 

143: \date{\today}

144: 

145: 

146: \begin{abstract}

147: Let $X$ be a projective  

148: cubic hypersurface of dimension $11$ or more,

149: which is defined over $\QQ$. We show that $X(\QQ)$ is non-empty provided

150: that the cubic form defining $X$ can be written as the sum of two 

151: forms that share no common variables.

152: \end{abstract}

153: 

154: \subjclass{11D72 (11E76, 11P55 14G25)}

155: 

156: 

157: \maketitle

158: \tableofcontents

159: 

160: 

161: 

162: 

163: 

164: \section{Introduction}

165: 

166: 

167: 

168: 

169: 

170: Let $X\subset\PP^{n-1}$ be a cubic

171: hypersurface, given as the zero locus of a cubic

172: form $C\in\ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. This paper is concerned with the

173: problem of determining when the set of rational points $X(\QQ)$ on $X$ is

174: non-empty.  There is a well-known conjecture that $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$ as soon as

175: $n \geq 10$.  

176: In fact, for non-singular cubic hypersurfaces, it is expected that the

177: Hasse principle holds as soon as $n\geq 5$. This 

178: states that in order for $X(\QQ)$ to be non-empty it is necessary and

179: sufficient that $X(\QQ_p)$ is non-empty for every prime $p$. 

180: For a large class of possibly singular cubic hypersurfaces $X\subset \PP^{n-1}$, 

181: Salberger has calculated the Brauer group

182: $\mathrm{Br}(Y)$ associated to a projective non-singular model $Y$ of

183: $X$.  A detailed proof of this calculation is provided by 

184: Colliot-Th\'el\`ene in the appendix to this

185: paper. As a consequence of this investigation

186: one has the following prediction.

187: 

188: \begin{con}

189: Let $X\subset\PP^{n-1}$ be a cubic

190: hypersurface defined over $\QQ$ which is not a cone, with $n\geq 5$ and 

191: singular locus which is empty or of codimension at least $4$ in $X$.

192: %%IS THIS NECESSARY ASSUMPTION ON CONE?

193: Then the Hasse principle holds for the locus of non-singular points on $X$.

194: \end{con}

195: 

196: Let us now consider some of the progress that has been made towards

197: this conjecture. 

198: When $C$ is diagonal it follows from the work

199: of Baker \cite{baker} that $X$ has $\QQ$-rational points as soon as

200: $n\geq 7$. At the opposite end of the spectrum, when absolutely no assumptions are

201: made about the shape of $C$, a lot of work has been invested in producing a

202: reasonable lower bound for the number of variables needed to ensure that

203: $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$. Building on work of Davenport \cite{dav-32, dav-16},  Heath-Brown \cite{14} has 

204: recently shown that $n\geq 14$ variables are enough to

205: secure this property for an arbitrary cubic

206: hypersurface defined over $\QQ$.

207: In the light of this body of work it is very natural to try and evince

208: intermediate 

209: results in which the existence of rational points is guaranteed

210: for cubic hypersurfaces in fewer than $14$

211: variables when mild assumptions are made about the structure of the

212: hypersurface. It is precisely this point of view that is the focus of the present investigation. 

213: 

214: Let $\sing(X)$ denote the singular locus of $X$,

215: as a projective subvariety of $X$. When $C\in \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ is

216: non-singular, so that  $\sing(X)$ is empty, it follows from work of

217: Hooley \cite{hooley1} that the Hasse principle holds for $X$

218: provided that $n\geq 9$.

219: As is well-known, the local conditions are automatic when $n\geq 10$,

220: and so $X(\QQ)$ is non-empty for non-singular $X$ provided that $n\geq

221: 10$.  This fact was first proved by Heath-Brown \cite{hb-10}. 

222: When $\sing(X)$ has dimension

223: $\sigma\geq 0$, joint work of the author \cite{roth} with Heath-Brown 

224: shows that $X(\QQ)$ is non-empty provided that 

225: $$

226: n\geq 

227: \begin{cases}

228: 11, & \mbox{if $\sigma=0$,}\\

229: 12, & \mbox{if $\sigma=1$,}\\

230: 13, & \mbox{if $\sigma=2$.}

231: \end{cases}

232: $$

233: We will make use of this result shortly. 

234: 

235: 

236: Let $m<n$ be a positive integer. 

237: We will say that an integral cubic form $C$ in $n$ variables ``splits off an

238: $m$-form'' if there exist non-zero cubic forms $C_1,C_2$

239: with integer coefficients so that

240: $$

241: C(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=C_1(x_1,\ldots,x_m)+C_2(x_{m+1},\ldots,x_n),

242: $$

243: identically in $x_1,\ldots,x_n$. We will merely say that 

244: $C$ ``splits off a form'' if $C$ splits off an $m$-form for some

245: $1\leq m < n$.  The following is our 

246: main result. 

247: 

248: 

249: 

250: \begin{theorem}\label{main}

251: Let $X\subset \PP^{n-1}$ be a hypersurface defined by a cubic

252: form that splits off a form, with $n\geq 13$. Then $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$.

253: \end{theorem}

254: 

255: 

256: The essential content of Theorem \ref{main} is that we can save $1$

257: variable in the result of Heath-Brown \cite{14} when the

258: underlying cubic form splits off a form.

259: It should be stressed that 

260: the existence of a single $\QQ$-rational point on $X$ is

261: enough to demonstrate the $\QQ$-unirationality of $X$, 

262: and so the Zariski density of $X(\QQ)$ in $X$, when $X$ is

263: geometrically integral and not a

264: cone.   Variants of this result have been known for a long time (cf

265: \cite{ct2,manin, segre-b}). 

266: In the generality with which we have stated the result, it appears in 

267: the work of Colliot-Th\'el\`ene and Salberger

268: \cite[Proposition 1.3]{c-t-s} and in that of Koll\'ar \cite{kollar}. 

269: 

270: 

271: Our work has implications for the problem of

272: determining when an arbitrary cubic form $C\in \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ represents 

273: all non-zero $a\in \QQ$, using rational values for the variables. 

274: When this property holds we say that $C$

275: ``captures $\QQ^*$''.  Recall that a cubic form is said to be degenerate if 

276: the corresponding cubic hypersurface is a cone.

277: %%ie. there is a non-singular

278: %%linear transformation over $\cQ$ from $x_1,\ldots,x_n$ to $y_1,\ldots,y_n$ such that the transformed

279: %%form is one in $y_1,\ldots,y_{n-1}$ only.

280: %%that is, the coefficients of all terms containing

281: %%$y_n$ vanish. Degeneration is an absolute property, in the sense that if a form does

282: %%not degenerate by substitutions with coefficients in a particular field (e.g. the

283: %%rationals), this will remain true if the field is extended.

284: Fowler \cite{fowler} has shown that any

285: non-degenerate cubic

286: form that  represents $0$ automatically captures $\QQ^*$ provided only

287: that $n\geq 3$.  Hence it suffices to fix attention on those forms

288: that do not represent zero non-trivially. On multiplying through by

289: denominators it will clearly suffice to establish 

290: that cubic forms of the shape 

291: \begin{equation}

292:   \label{eq:1-form}

293: C(x_1,\ldots,x_n)-ax_{n+1}^3 

294: \end{equation}

295: represent zero non-trivially, with $a$ an

296: arbitrary non-zero integer.  But this form splits off a

297: $1$-form, and so is handled by  Theorem \ref{main}. In

298: this way we deduce the following result.

299: 

300: 

301: \begin{cor}

302: Let $C\in \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ be a non-degenerate cubic form, with

303: $n\geq 12$. 

304: Then $C$ captures $\QQ^*$.

305: \end{cor}

306: 

307: This result should be compared with the work of Heath-Brown \cite{14}, which

308: implies that $n\geq 13$ variables

309: suffice. It follows from the work of 

310: Hooley \cite{hooley1} that this may be improved to $n\geq 8$ 

311: when $C$ is non-singular. As indicated in \cite[Appendix 1]{hb-10} the

312: latter lower bound is 

313: probably the correct one for arbitrary cubic forms, 

314: since \eqref{eq:1-form} always has

315: non-trivial $p$-adic zeros for $n$ in this range.

316: 

317: 

318: Let $n\geq 4$. 

319: When $X\subset \PP^{n-1}$ is a hypersurface defined by a cubic

320: form that splits off a form, we are able to handle fewer 

321: variables when appropriate assumptions are made about one of the forms. 

322: If $X$ is a cone then we will see in Lemma \ref{lem:p1.1} that

323: $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$. If, on the other hand, $X$ is not a cone let

324: us consider the effect of supposing that 

325: the underlying cubic form splits off a

326: non-singular $m$-form $C_1(x_1,\ldots,x_m)$.

327: If $m=n-1$ then $X$ is itself non-singular and we automatically have

328: $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$ when $n\geq 10$. If $m\leq n-2$ then 

329: the residual form $C_2$ defines a projective cubic hypersurface of dimension $n-m-2$, and as such

330: has singular locus of dimension at most $n-m-3$.

331: But then it follows that $X$ has singular locus

332: of dimension at most $n-m-3$. Thus 

333: we may deduce from \cite{roth} that

334: $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$ provided that $n\geq 8+n-m$. 

335: We record this observation in the following result.

336: 

337: \begin{theorem}\label{t:goat}

338: Let $X\subset \PP^{n-1}$ be a hypersurface defined by a cubic

339: form that splits off a non-singular $m$-form, with $m\geq 8$ and

340: $n\geq 10$.

341: Then $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$.

342: \end{theorem}

343: 

344: 

345: It would be interesting to reduce the range of $m$ needed to ensure

346: the validity of Theorem \ref{t:goat}. 

347: Ours is not the first attempt to better understand the arithmetic of

348: cubic hypersurfaces that split off a form. 

349: Indeed, in Davenport's  \cite{dav-16} treatment of cubic forms in $16$ variables,

350: a fundamental ingredient in the treatment of certain

351: bilinear equations is a separate analysis of those forms that split

352: into two.  In further work, 

353: Colliot-Th\'el\`ene and Salberger \cite{c-t-s} have shown that the

354: Hasse principle holds for any cubic hypersurface in $\PP^{n-1}$ that contains a set of 

355: three conjugate singular points, provided only that $n\geq 4$.

356: Given a cubic extension $K$ of $\QQ$, define the corresponding norm form 

357: \begin{equation}

358:   \label{eq:NORM}

359: N(x_1,x_2,x_3):=\Norm_{K/\QQ}(\omega_1 x_1+\omega_2 x_2+\omega_3 x_3),

360: \end{equation}

361: where $\{\omega_1, \omega_2, \omega_3\}$ is a basis of $K$ as a vector

362: space over $\QQ$. In view of the fact that the local conditions are

363: automatically satisfied for cubic forms in at least $10$ variables, we

364: observe the following easy consequence.

365: 

366: 

367: 

368: \begin{theorem}[Colliot-Th\'el\`ene and Salberger 

369: \cite{c-t-s}]

370: \label{main'''}

371: Let $X\subset \PP^{n-1}$ be a hypersurface defined by a cubic

372: form that splits off a norm form, with $n\geq 10$. Then $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$.

373: \end{theorem}

374: 

375: 

376: 

377: 

378: %%As pointed out to the author by Professor Br\"udern, it seems likely

379: %%that one can handle as few as $n\geq 8$ variables when the cubic form

380: %%defining $X$ splits into the sum of a norm form and a non-singular

381: %%cubic form. 

382: It turns out that Theorem \ref{main'''} will play a

383: useful r\^ole in dispatching some of the cases that arise in the proof

384: of Theorem \ref{main}.   Following the strategy of 

385: Birch, Davenport and Lewis \cite{BDL}, 

386: it would however be straightforward to adapt the proof of Theorem~\ref{main}

387: to retrieve Theorem \ref{main'''}.

388: 

389: 

390: An obvious further line of enquiry would be to investigate cubic hypersurfaces that split

391: off two forms, by which we mean that the corresponding cubic form can be written

392: as 

393: $$

394: C(x_1,\ldots,x_n)=C_1(x_1,\ldots,x_\ell)+C_2(x_{\ell+1},\ldots,x_m)+C_3(x_{m+1},\ldots,x_n),

395: $$

396: identically in $x_1,\ldots,x_n$, for appropriate $1\leq \ell< m <n$.  With the extra structure apparent in

397: such hypersurfaces one would like to determine the most

398: general conditions possible under which the conjectured value of $n\geq 10$ variables suffices to

399: ensure the existence of $\QQ$-rational points. 

400: 

401: 

402: One of the remarkable features of our argument is

403: the breadth of tools that it draws upon. The underlying machinery is

404: the Hardy--Littlewood circle method,  and we certainly take advantage

405: of many of the contributions to the theory

406: of polynomial cubic exponential sums that have been made during the

407: last fifty years.  These are detailed in \S \ref{sec:exp_sums}.

408: A further component of our work 

409: involves a detailed analysis of the case in which one of the forms

410: that splits off in Theorem \ref{main} is singular and has a 

411: relatively small number of variables. To deal with this scenario 

412: it pays to reflect upon the classification of singular cubic hypersurfaces. This is a very old

413: topic in algebraic geometry, and can be traced back to the pioneering

414: work of Cayley \cite{cayley} and Schl\"afli \cite{cayley'}.

415: All of the necessary information will be collected together in \S \ref{s:geom}.

416: The final ingredient in  our work comprises good upper bounds for the

417: number of $\QQ$-rational points of bounded height on auxiliary cubic

418: hypersurfaces.  The estimates that we will take advantage of are

419: presented in \S \ref{sec:upper}. 

420: 

421: 

422: When it is applicable, the Hardy--Littlewood circle method allows

423: us to show that $X(\QQ)\neq\emptyset$ for a given cubic hypersurface $X\subset

424: \PP^{n-1}$ by evaluating asymptotically the number of $\QQ$-rational points of bounded

425: height on $X$. It is a well-known but intriguing feature of the method that 

426: one can achieve such precise information by first establishing weaker

427: upper bounds for the growth rate of $\QQ$-rational points on

428: appropriate auxiliary varieties. 

429: In fact, we will show in Lemma \ref{lem:8} that the 

430: $\QQ$-rational points on a non-singular cubic

431: hypersurface $X\subset \PP^{n-1}$ satisfy the growth bound

432: $$

433: \#\{x\in X(\QQ): H(x)\leq P\} \ll_{\ve, X} P^{\dim X-\frac{1}{2}+\ve},

434: $$

435: for any $P\geq 1$,  provided that $\dim X\geq 6$.  

436: Here $H: \PP^{n-1}(\QQ)\rightarrow \RR_{\geq 0}$ is the

437: usual exponential height function.  This should be compared with the

438: Manin conjecture \cite{f-m-t} which predicts that the 

439: exponent of $P$ should be  $\dim X-1$ as soon as $\dim X\geq 3$.

440: 

441: 

442: 

443: 

444: 

445: \begin{notat}

446: Throughout our work $\NN$ will denote the set of positive

447: integers.  For any $\al\in \RR$, we will follow common convention and

448: write $e(\al):=e^{2\pi i\al}$ and $e_q(\al):=e^{2\pi i\al/q}$. The

449: parameter $\ve$ will always denote a very small positive real

450: number.  We will use $|\x|$ to denote the norm $\max |x_i|$ 

451: of a vector $\x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)\in \RR^n$, whereas $\|\x\|$ will

452: be reserved for the usual Euclidean norm $\sqrt{x_1^2+\cdots+x_n^2}$. 

453: All of the implied constants that appear in this 

454: work will be allowed to

455: depend upon the coefficients of the cubic forms under

456: consideration and the

457: parameter $\ve>0$.  Any further dependence will be explicitly

458: indicated by appropriate subscripts.

459: \end{notat}

460: 

461: 

462: 

463: 

464: 

465: \begin{ack}

466: It is a pleasure to thank 

467: Professor Colliot-Th\'el\`ene, Professor Heath-Brown, Professor Salberger and 

468: Professor Wooley for several useful discussions.  

469: While working on this paper the author was supported by EPSRC

470: grant number \texttt{EP/E053262/1}.

471: \end{ack}

472: 

473: 

474: 

475: \section{Geometry of singular cubic hypersurfaces}\label{s:geom}

476: 

477: 

478: 

479: The proof of Theorem \ref{main} will depend intimately on the  

480: dimension of the hypersurfaces defined by the constituent cubic

481: forms, and the nature of their singularities. 

482: A key step will be to determine conditions on this

483: singular locus under which the hypersurface 

484: automatically has rational points.

485: 

486: Let $C\in \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ be an arbitrary cubic form, which

487: we assume takes the shape

488: \begin{equation}

489:   \label{eq:C}

490: C(\x):=\sum_{i,j,k}c_{ijk}x_ix_jx_k,

491: \end{equation}

492: in which the coefficients $c_{ijk}\in \ZZ$ are symmetric in the indices $i,j,k$.

493: Define the $n\times n$ matrix $M(\x)$ with $j,k$-entry

494: $\sum_i c_{ijk}x_i.$  We will say that the cubic form $C$ is ``good'' if 

495: for any $H\geq 1$ and any $\ve>0$ we have the upper bound

496: $$

497: \#\{\x\in\ZZ^{n}: |\x|\leq H,\,\rank M(\x)=r\}\ll H^{r+\ve},

498: $$

499: for each integer $0\leq r\leq n$.  A crucial step in Davenport's \cite{dav-16}

500: treatment of general cubic forms is a proof of the fact that forms

501: that fail to be good automatically possess non-trivial integer

502: solutions for ``geometric reasons''.  

503: Our approach has a similar flavour, although the underlying arguments will

504: be more obviously geometric.

505: 

506: 

507: 

508: Assume throughout this section that $n \geq 3$ and $X\subset

509: \PP^{n-1}$ is a hypersurface defined by a cubic form $C\in \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$.

510: A lot of the facts

511: that we will record are classical. 

512: Suppose for the moment that $C$ is not absolutely irreducible. Then

513: either it has a linear factor $L$ defined over $\QQ$, or it is a product

514: $C=L_1L_2L_3$ of three linear factors that are conjugate over $\cQ$.

515: By considering the equation $L=0$ in the former case, 

516: we deduce that $X(\QQ)\neq\emptyset$. 

517: In the latter case, we arrive at the same conclusion when $n\geq 4$, by

518: considering the system of equations $L_1=L_2=L_3=0$. 

519: When $n=3$ and $C$ is a product of three conjugate factors we deduce

520: that $X$ has precisely three conjugate singular points.  

521: When $n\geq 3$ and $X$ is defined by an absolutely

522: irreducible cubic form, but is a cone, we note that the space of

523: vertices on $X$ must be a linear space globally defined over $\QQ$.

524: Thus $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$ in this case too. 

525: We have therefore established the following simple result.

526: 

527: 

528: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:p1.1}

529: Let $n \geq 4$. If $X$ is not geometrically integral, or if

530: $X$ is a cone, then $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$. When $n=3$ the same

531: conclusion holds unless $X$ contains precisely three conjugate singular points.

532: \end{lemma}

533: 

534: 

535: Recall that a cubic hypersurface $X$ is said to 

536: be non-singular if over $\cQ^n$ the only solution to the

537: system of equations $\nabla C(\x)=\mathbf{0}$ has $\x=\mathbf{0}$. 

538: Henceforth we will be predominantly interested in 

539: singular cubic forms, and then only in the cases $n=3,4$ and $5$.

540: Let $k$ be a field. It has been conjectured by 

541: Cassels and Swinnerton-Dyer that any cubic hypersurface $X \subset \PP^{n-1}$ defined over $k$ that contains a

542: $k$-rational $0$-cycle of degree coprime to $3$, automatically has

543: a $k$-rational point.  The case $n=3$ goes back to Poincar\'e. When

544: the singular locus is non-empty, the case $n=4$  can be 

545: deduced from the work of Skolem \cite{skolem}. A comprehensive

546: discussion of the arithmetic of singular cubic surfaces can be found

547: in the work of Coray and Tsfasman \cite{c-t}. 

548: Coray \cite{coray76b} has established the conjecture for all local

549: fields and,  in a subsequent investigation \cite[Proposition 3.6]{coray87}, has also dispatched

550: the case in which  $n=5$ and the $0$-cycle is made up of double points. 

551: 

552: 

553: Suppose first that $n=3$, so that $X\subset \PP^2$ defines a cubic

554: curve, which we assume to be geometrically integral and not a cone. 

555: When $X$ is singular it contains exactly one 

556: singular point, which must therefore be defined over $\QQ$. Once

557: combined with Lemma \ref{lem:p1.1} we arrive at the following result.

558: 

559: 

560: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:curve}

561: Let $n=3$ and suppose that $X(\QQ)= \emptyset$. Then 

562: \begin{enumerate}

563: \item[(i)]

564: $X$ is non-singular; or

565: \item[(ii)]

566: $X$ contains precisely three conjugate singular points. 

567: \end{enumerate}

568: \end{lemma}

569: 

570: In case (ii) of Lemma \ref{lem:curve} one concludes that

571: the underlying cubic form can be written as a norm form \eqref{eq:NORM},

572: for appropriate $\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3 \in K$, 

573: where $K$ is the cubic number field obtained by adjoining one

574: of the singularities. 

575: 

576: 

577: We turn now to the case $n=4$ of cubic surfaces 

578: $X\subset \PP^3$, which we suppose to be geometrically integral and

579: not equal to a cone. Suppose that $X$ is singular. The classification

580: of such cubic surfaces can be traced back to Cayley \cite{cayley} and Schl\"afli \cite{cayley'}, but we

581: will employ the modern treatment found in the work of Bruce and

582: Wall \cite{b-w}. In particular the singular locus of $X$ is either a

583: single line, in which case $X$ is ruled, or else it contains $\delta\leq 4$

584: isolated singularities and these are all rational double points. 

585: It follows that $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$ unless $\delta=3$ and the

586: three singular points are conjugate to each other over a cubic extension of $\QQ$.

587: In this final case, Skolem \cite{skolem} showed that

588: $C$ can be written as

589: \begin{equation}

590:   \label{eq:4_norm}

591: \Norm_{K/\QQ}(x_1\omega_1+x_2\omega_2+x_3\omega_3)+ax_4^2\Tr_{K/\QQ}(x_1\omega_1+x_2\omega_2+x_3\omega_3)+bx_4^3,

592: \end{equation}

593: for appropriate coefficients $\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3 \in K$ and

594: $a,b \in \ZZ$, where $K$ is the cubic number field obtained by adjoining one

595: of the singularities to $\QQ$. In terms of the classification over $\cQ$ 

596: according to singularity type, the 

597: only possibility here is that $X$ has

598: singularity type $3\mathbf{A}_i$ for $i=1$ or $2$, since the action of

599: $\Gal(\cQ/\QQ)$ preserves the singularity type.

600: Bringing this all together, we have therefore established the

601: following analogue of Lemma \ref{lem:curve}.

602: 

603: 

604: 

605: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:surface}

606: Let $n=4$ and suppose that $X(\QQ)= \emptyset$. Then 

607: \begin{enumerate}

608: \item[(i)] 

609: $X$ is non-singular; or

610: \item[(ii)]

611: $X$ contains precisely three conjugate double points. 

612: \end{enumerate}

613: \end{lemma}

614: 

615: 

616: 

617: 

618: We now try to construct a version of Lemmas \ref{lem:curve} and

619: \ref{lem:surface} for the case $n=5$. 

620: Let $Y\subset X$ denote the singular locus of $X\subset \PP^4$, a variety of

621: dimension at most $2$.  As usual we assume that $X$ is geometrically

622: integral and not a cone.  

623: We analyse $Y$ by considering the intersection of $X$ with a generic

624: hyperplane $H\in {\PP^4}^*$.  

625: In particular the hyperplane section 

626: $$

627: S_H=H \cap X

628: $$ 

629: is a geometrically integral cubic surface which is not a cone (see

630: \cite[Proposition 18.10]{harris}, for example).

631: In taking $H$ to be defined over $\QQ$, we may further assume that

632: $S_H$ is defined over $\QQ$. Any $\QQ$-rational point on $S_H$ visibly

633: produces a $\QQ$-rational point on $X$. 

634: Let $T_H  \subset S_H$ denote the singular locus of $S_H$. 

635: Then the classification of cubic surfaces 

636: implies that $T_H$ is either empty or it is a union of $\delta_H\leq

637: 4$ points or it is a line. 

638: When $T_H$ is non-empty it follows from Lemma~\ref{lem:surface}

639: that either $S_H(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$ or else $T_H$ is finite, with 

640: $\delta_H=3$ and the three points being conjugate

641: to each other over $\cQ$.

642: 

643: Now an application of Bertini's theorem (in the form given by Harris 

644: \cite[Theorem~$17.16$]{harris}, for example) shows that

645: $$

646: H\cap Y =T_H.

647: $$

648: When $S_H$ is non-singular it therefore follows that $H\cap Y$ is

649: empty for generic   $H\in {\PP^4}^*$, whence $Y$ must be finite. In

650: the alternative case, when

651: $S_H$ is singular, we may conclude that $\#(H\cap Y)=3$ for 

652: generic   $H\in {\PP^4}^*$, whence the maximal component of $Y$

653: is a cubic curve.

654: 

655: Let us examine further the possibility that the singular locus $Y$ of

656: $X$ has dimension $1$, and that it contains a cubic curve $Y_0$ as its

657: component of maximal dimension. Clearly $Y_0$ is defined over $\QQ$.

658: Furthermore,  we may conclude from B\'ezout's theorem that the line connecting

659: any two points of $Y_0$ must be contained in $X$, since each such

660: point is a singularity of $X$. 

661: 

662: 

663: If $Y_0$ is reducible over $\QQ$ then there are two

664: basic possibilities: either it is a union of lines or it is a union of

665: a conic and a line.  In the latter case $Y_0$ contains a line defined

666: over $\QQ$ and it trivially follows

667: that $Y_0(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$.  The former case fragments into a number

668: of subcases: either it is a union of $3$ concurrent lines,  or it contains

669: a pair of skew lines, or it is a union of $3$ coplanar lines, or it

670: contains a repeated line. The second case is 

671: impossible since then the join of the two skew lines defines a

672: $3$-plane  that would also be contained in $X$, contradicting the fact that $X$ is geometrically

673: irreducible.  It follows from consideration of the Galois

674: action on $Y_0$ that $Y_0(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$ in every case apart from

675: the one in which $Y_0$ is a union of $3$ coplanar lines. 

676: 

677: 

678: If $Y_0$ is geometrically irreducible then it cannot be a twisted

679: cubic since then the secant variety $S(Y_0)\cong

680: \PP^3$ would be contained in $X$. 

681: Our argument so far has shown that either $Y_0(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$ for trivial

682: reasons, or else $Y_0$ is a cubic plane curve that is either geometrically

683: irreducible or a union of $3$ distinct lines.

684: The plane $P$ containing $Y_0$ is defined over $\QQ$ and, after carrying out a

685: linear change of variables, we may take

686: $x_1=x_2=0$ as its defining equations. But then it follows

687: that the cubic form defining $X$ can be written  

688: $$

689: x_1Q_1(x_1,\ldots, x_5)+x_2Q_2(x_1,\ldots, x_5),

690: $$

691: for appropriate quadratic forms $Q_1,Q_2$ defined over $\ZZ$. 

692: With this notation one sees that $Y$ is the locus of

693: solutions to the system of equations 

694: $$

695: x_1=x_2=Q_1(0,0,x_3,x_4,x_5)=Q_2(0,0,x_3,x_4,x_5)=0,

696: $$

697: in $\PP^4$. It is now clear that 

698: the component $Y_0$ of $Y$ of maximal

699: dimension cannot be a cubic plane curve of the two remaining types.

700: 

701: 

702: It remains to deal with the case in which the singular locus $Y$ of $X$

703: is finite and globally defined over $\QQ$. As shown by C. Segre

704: \cite{segre}, we have $\delta=\#Y\leq 10$, the extremal

705: case of $10$ singular points being achieved by the so-called

706: Segre threefold.  Since $X$ is assumed not to be a cone so we may

707: assume that all of the singularities are double points. Indeed any

708: singularity with multiplicity exceeding $2$ must be a vertex for

709: $X$. In fact, when $\delta\geq 6$ it is known \cite[Lemma 2.2]{6} that

710: all the singularities are actually nodal.  

711: Appealing to Coray's partial

712: resolution of the Cassels--Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture for threefolds,

713: we are now ready to record our analogue of Lemmas \ref{lem:curve} and \ref{lem:surface}.

714: 

715: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:3fold}

716: Let $n=5$ and suppose that $X(\QQ)= \emptyset$. Then 

717: \begin{enumerate}

718: \item[(i)]

719: $X$ is non-singular; or

720: \item[(ii)]

721: $X$ is a geometrically integral cubic

722: hypersurface whose singular locus contains precisely $\delta$ double

723: points, with 

724: $\delta\in \{3,6, 9\}$.

725: \end{enumerate}

726: \end{lemma}

727: 

728: 

729: 

730: In the second case of Lemma \ref{lem:3fold} it follows from

731: \cite{c-t-s} and \cite{6} that the Hasse principle holds for $X$ when

732: $\delta=3$ or $6$. Our investigation would be made easier if we were

733: also in possession of this fact when $\delta=9$.

734: Lacking this, all that we actually require from part (ii) of Lemma

735: \ref{lem:3fold} is that the singular locus should be finite. 

736: In his survey of open problems in Diophantine geometry, Lewis \cite{lewis}

737: reports on unpublished joint work with Blass, which would appear to give

738: Lemma \ref{lem:3fold}. However, in the absence of subsequent

739: elucidation, 

740: we have chosen to present our own proof of this result.

741: 

742: 

743: \section{Cubic exponential sums}\label{sec:exp_sums}

744: 

745: 

746: Let $C\in \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ be an arbitrary

747: cubic form, assumed to take the shape \eqref{eq:C}. 

748: Our work in this section centres upon various properties of the cubic

749: exponential sums

750: \begin{equation}\label{eq:Tcubic}

751: S(\al)=S_w(\al;C,P):=\sum_{\x\in\ZZ^n}w(P^{-1}\x)e(\al C(\x)),

752: \end{equation}

753: for a suitable family of weights $w$ on $\RR^n$, and cubic forms 

754: that are always either good (in the sense of the previous section) or the 

755: hypersurface they define has finite (possibly empty) singular locus.

756: Specifically, we will 

757:  collect together some general upper bounds for $S(\al)$, some estimates for suitable moments of $S(\al)$

758: and some asymptotic formulae for $S(\al)$ when suitable assumptions

759: are made about how $\al$ can be approximated by rational numbers.

760: All of these estimates will depend on the parameter $P$ which should

761: be thought of as tending to infinity.

762: 

763: We must begin by saying a few words about the weight functions that we

764: will be working with. 

765: Let $n_1,n_2\geq 0$ such that $n_1+n_2=n$. When $n_i\geq 1$ we let $\z_i\in\RR^{n_i}$

766: be certain vectors, which we think of as being fixed, but whose

767: nature will be determined later. Similarly we let $\rho>0$. 

768: All of the estimates in our work will be allowed to depend upon the

769: choice of $\z_1,\z_2$ and $\rho$. Define $w_1:\RR^{n_1}\rightarrow

770: \RR_{\geq 0}$, via 

771: \begin{equation}

772:   \label{eq:w1}

773: w_1(\x_1):=\exp(-\|\x_1-\z_1\|^2(\log P)^4),

774: \end{equation}

775: where we have written $\x_1=(x_1,\ldots,x_{n_1})$.

776: Let $P_0=P(\log P)^{-2}$. 

777: Then 

778: $$

779: w_1(P^{-1}\x_1)=

780: \exp(-\|\x_1-P\z_1\|^2 P_0^{-2})

781: $$

782: is exactly the weight function introduced by Heath-Brown

783: in \cite[\S 3]{hb-10}.  

784: Note that 

785: $$

786: \nabla w_1(\x_1)=-2(\log P)^4 w_1(\x_1)(x_1-z_1,\ldots,x_{n_1}-z_{n_1}),

787: $$

788: so that  $\nabla w_1(\x_1)\ll (\log P)^4$ for

789: any $\x_1\in\RR^{n_1}$.

790: Next we let $w_2:\RR^{n_2}\rightarrow \{0,1\}$ denote the 

791: characteristic function 

792: \begin{equation}

793:   \label{eq:w2}

794:   w_2(\x_2):=

795: \begin{cases}

796: 1, &\mbox{if $|\x_2-\z_2|<\rho$,}\\

797: 0, &\mbox{otherwise,}

798: \end{cases}

799: \end{equation}

800: where

801: $\x_2=(x_{n_1+1},\ldots,x_{n})$.

802: 

803: Each weight $w$ appearing in our work will either be of the

804: form $w_1$ or $w_2$ or $w=(w_1,w_2)$, depending on context. To help

805: distinguish which estimates are valid for which choice of weight

806: function, let us denote by $\WW_{n}^{(1)}$ the set of non-negative weight functions on

807: $\RR^n$  that are of the shape \eqref{eq:w1}, and let 

808: $\WW_n^{(2)}$ denote the corresponding set of weight functions on

809: $\RR^n$  of the type \eqref{eq:w2}. We let $\WW_n$ denote the set of

810: mixed functions $w=(w_1,w_2)$, with $w_i\in \WW_{n_i}^{(i)}$ for $i=1,2$.

811: In particular $\WW_{n}^{(i)}\subset \WW_n$ for $i=1,2$.

812: In the definition of these sets the precise value of $\z_1,\z_2$ or $\rho$

813: is immaterial, unless explicitly indicated otherwise, and the

814: corresponding implied constants will always be allowed to depend on these

815: quantities in any way. 

816: 

817: We are now ready to record the upper bounds for $S(\al)$ that feature

818: in our investigation. 

819: 

820: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:B}

821: Let $\ve>0$, let $w\in \WW_n$ and assume that $C\in \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ is a good cubic form.

822: Let $a,q\in \ZZ$ such that $0\leq a< q\leq P^{3/2}$ and

823: $\gcd(a,q)=1$. Then if $\al=a/q+\theta$ we have

824: $$

825: S(\al)\ll P^{n+\ve}\big( q|\theta| +(q|\theta|P^3)^{-1}\big)^{\frac{n}{8}}.

826: $$

827: If furthermore $|\theta|\leq q^{-1}P^{-3/2}$, then we have 

828: $$

829: S(\al)\ll P^{n+\ve}q^{-\frac{n}{8}}\min\{1,(|\theta|P^3)^{-\frac{n}{8}}\}.

830: $$

831: \end{lemma}

832: 

833: \begin{proof}

834: This is the essential content of the investigation of Davenport

835: \cite{dav-16} into cubic forms in $16$ variables. 

836: The bounds are derived in a more succinct manner in

837: Heath-Brown \cite[\S 2]{14}. The fact that we are

838: working with exponential sums that are differently weighted

839: makes no difference to the validity of the argument, and the

840: reader may wish to consult \cite[\S 9]{41}, where the necessary

841: modifications can be found in the setting of quartic forms. 

842: \end{proof}

843: 

844: 

845: Define the complete exponential sum 

846: \begin{equation}

847:   \label{eq:complete}

848: S_{a,q}:=\sum_{\y \bmod{q}}e_q(aC(\y)),

849: \end{equation}

850: for any coprime integers $a,q$ such that $q>0$. It can easily  be

851: deduced from the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:B} that $S_{a,q}\ll

852: q^{7n/8+\ve}$ for any $\ve>0$, under the assumption that the cubic

853: form is good. The following improvement is due to Heath-Brown \cite[\S 7]{14}.

854: 

855: 

856: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:paris}

857: Let $\ve>0$  and assume that $C\in \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ is a good

858: cubic form. Then we have $S_{a,q}\ll q^{5n/6+\ve}$.

859: \end{lemma}

860: 

861: 

862: We now come to the real workhorse 

863: in our argument.  Given $R,\phi>0$ and $v>0$ we define

864: \begin{equation}\label{eq:sig}

865: \Sigma_v(R,\phi,\pm):=  

866: \sum_{R<q\leq 2R} \sum_{\substack{a\bmod{q}\\

867:     \gcd(a,q)=1}}\int_{\phi}^{2\phi} \big|S\big(\frac{a}{q}\pm t\big)\big|^v \d t.

868: \end{equation}

869: The following result provides an upper bound for this quantity.

870: 

871: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:D}

872: Let $\ve>0$, let $w\in \WW_n$ 

873:  and assume that $C\in \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ is a good cubic form.

874: Let $R,\phi>0$, with $R\leq P^{3/2}$ and $\phi\leq R^{-2}$.

875: Then for any $v\in [0,2]$ and any $H\in

876: [1,P]\cap \ZZ$ we have

877: \begin{align*}

878: \Sigma_v(R,\phi,\pm)\ll P^3

879: +R^2\phi^{1-\frac{v}{2}} \left(\frac{\psi_H P^{2n-1+\ve}}{H^{n-1}}F\right)^{\frac{v}{2}},

880: \end{align*}

881: where

882: $$

883: \psi_H:=\phi+\frac{1}{P^2H},

884: \quad

885: F:=1+(RH^3\psi_H)^{\frac{n}{2}}+\frac{H^n}{R^{\frac{n}{2}}(P^2\psi_H)^{\frac{n-2}{2}}}.

886: $$

887: \end{lemma}

888: 

889: \begin{proof}

890: It is clear that $\Sigma_0(R,\phi,\pm)\ll R^2\phi.$

891: Hence it follows from H\"older's inequality that

892: \begin{align*}

893: \Sigma_v(R,\phi,\pm)&\ll

894: (R^2\phi)^{1-\frac{v}{2}} \Sigma_2(R,\phi,\pm)^{\frac{v}{2}}.

895: \end{align*}

896: On employing Heath-Brown's estimate for

897: $\Sigma_2(R,\phi,\pm)$, 

898: which follows from \cite[Eqs. (4.5) and (5.1)]{14},

899: we therefore deduce that

900: \begin{align*}

901: \Sigma_v(R,\phi,\pm)\ll

902: (R^2\phi)^{1-\frac{v}{2}} \left(\psi_H R^2\Big( P^2H + \frac{P^{2n-1+\ve}}{H^{n-1}}F\Big)\right)^{\frac{v}{2}}.

903: \end{align*}

904: As in the deduction of Lemma \ref{lem:B}, the fact that we are

905: working with differently weighted exponential sums makes no

906: difference to the final outcome of the argument.

907: 

908: Using the fact that $R\leq P^{3/2}$ and  $\phi\leq R^{-2}$, with $H\leq P$,

909: it easily follows that the term involving $P^2H$ contributes

910: \begin{align*}

911: \ll 

912: (R^2\phi)^{1-\frac{v}{2}}(\phi R^2 P^3 +R^2)^{\frac{v}{2}}\ll 

913: R^2\phi P^{\frac{3v}{2}}+ R^2\phi^{1-\frac{v}{2}}\ll P^3,

914: \end{align*}

915: since $0\leq v\leq 2$. This completes the proof of the lemma. 

916: \end{proof}

917: 

918: 

919: 

920: Lemma \ref{lem:D} is based on an averaged version of van der Corput's

921: method and comprises the key innovation in the work of Heath-Brown

922: \cite{14} already alluded to. Although we have presented it in the

923: context of denominators $q$ and values of $\al=a/q\pm t$ restricted to

924: dyadic intervals, the general result consists of a bound for 

925: $\int |S(\al)|^2 \d\al$, where the integral is taken over a certain

926: set of minor arcs. For cubic forms in few variables

927: we will have better results available. When $n=1$ and $w\in \WW_1^{(2)}$, Hua's inequality \cite[Lemma 3.2]{dav-book} implies that

928: $$

929: \int_{0}^1|S(\al)|^{2^j}\d\al \ll P^{2^j-j+\ve},

930: $$

931: for any $j\leq 3$ . The following result is due to 

932: Wooley \cite{wooley}, and generalises this to binary forms.

933: 

934: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:hua_2}

935: Let $\ve>0$, let $w\in\WW_2^{(2)}$ and let 

936: $C\in \ZZ[x_1,x_2]$ be a binary cubic form, not of the shape

937: $a(b_1x_1+b_2x_2)^3$, for integers $a,b_1,b_2$. 

938: Then we have 

939: $$

940: \int_{0}^1|S(\al)|^{2^{j-1}}\d\al \ll P^{2^j-j+\ve},

941: $$

942: for any $j\leq 3$.

943: \end{lemma}

944: 

945: 

946: Our next selection of results concern the approximation of $S(\al)$ on a certain set of arcs in

947: the interval $[0,1]$.  For given $A,B,C\geq 0$, define 

948: $\mathcal{A}=\mathcal{A}(A,B,C)$ to be set of $\al\in [0,1]$ for

949: which there exists $a,q\in \ZZ$ such that $0\leq a< q\leq P^A$ and

950: $\gcd(a,q)=1$, with 

951: \begin{equation}

952:   \label{eq:Aqa}

953: \al\in \A_{q,a}:=\Big[\frac{a}{q}-\frac{1}{q^{B}P^{3-C}},  

954: \frac{a}{q}+\frac{1}{q^{B}P^{3-C}}\Big].

955: \end{equation}

956: The major arcs in our work will be a subset of these, but it will be

957: useful to maintain a certain degree of generality.

958: When dealing with cubic forms whose singular locus is very small, we

959: have rather good control over the approximation of $S(\al)$ on the

960: arcs $\A=\A(A,B,C)$, provided that we work with the

961: class of smooth weight functions $\WW_n^{(1)}$.  

962: Recall the definition of $S_{a,q}$ from \eqref{eq:complete} and let

963: $$

964:  I_w(\psi):=\int_{\RR^n}w(\x)e(\psi C(\x))\d\x,

965: $$

966: for $\psi\in\RR$.

967: We will need to work with the familiar quantity

968: \begin{equation}

969:   \label{eq:S*}

970: S^*(\al):=q^{-n}P^n S_{a,q}I_w(\theta P^3),

971: \end{equation}

972: concerning which we have the following result.

973: 

974: 

975: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:F}

976: Let $\ve>0$ and $n\geq 3$. Assume that

977: $C\in\ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ is a good

978: cubic form defining a projective hypersurface that is not a cone, with singular locus of

979: dimension $\sigma\in \{-1,0\}$.

980: Let $A,B,C\geq 0$ such that $A<1$ and $B\in \{0,1\}$, and let $\al\in

981: \A_{q,a}$.  Then there exists $w\in\WW_n^{(1)}$  such that 

982: $$

983: S(\al)-S^*(\al)\ll P^{A(\frac{n}{3}+\frac{\sigma}{2})+\frac{n+1}{2}+\ve}

984: +P^{A(1-B)\frac{n+1+\sigma}{2}+C\frac{n+1}{2}+\ve}.

985: $$

986: Furthermore, if $kn\geq 12$ and $k\leq 9$, then we have 

987: $$

988: \int_\A |S^*(\al)|^k \d\al\ll P^{kn-3+\ve}.

989: $$

990: \end{lemma}

991: 

992: \begin{proof}

993: The proof of this result is based on the investigation carried out by

994: Heath-Brown \cite{hb-10} into non-singular cubic forms in $10$ variables.

995: One of the key ingredients in his approach is the Poisson summation

996: formula, and it is this part of the argument that we plan to take

997: advantage of. 

998: 

999: We begin by choosing $\z_1\in \RR^{n}$ to be a point at which the

1000: matrix of second derivatives of $C$ has full rank 

1001: at $\z_1$.  The existence of such a point follows from

1002: the work of Hooley \cite[Lemma 26]{hooley2}. 

1003: With this choice of $\z_1$ we now select $w$ to be the weight function

1004: in \eqref{eq:w1}, which belongs to $\WW_n^{(1)}$. Let 

1005: \begin{align*}

1006: S_{a,q}(\v)&:=\sum_{\y \bmod{q}}e_q(aC(\y)+\v.\y),\\

1007: J_w(\psi,\v)&:=\int_{\RR^n}w(P^{-1}\x)e(\psi C(\x)-\v.\x)\d\x,

1008: \end{align*}

1009: for any $\v\in \RR^n$, and let $\al=a/q+\theta \in \A_{q,a}$.

1010: Then \cite[Lemma 8]{hb-10} yields

1011: $$

1012: S(\al)-S^*(\al)\ll 1+ q^{-n}\sum_{\substack{\v\in \ZZ^n\\1\leq |\v|\ll

1013:   V}} S_{a,q}(\v)J_w(\theta,q^{-1}\v),

1014: $$

1015: where

1016: $

1017: V:=(\log P)^7 q (P^{-1}+|\theta|P^2),

1018: $

1019: and furthermore,

1020: \begin{equation}

1021:   \label{eq:bound_99}

1022: J_w(\theta,\mathbf{w})\ll P^n(\log P)^{7n}\min \{1, (|\theta|P^3)^{-1}\}^{\frac{n-1}{2}},

1023: \end{equation}

1024: for any $\mathbf{w}\in \RR^n$.

1025: The main  difference between what we have recorded here and the

1026: statement of  \cite[Lemma 8]{hb-10} is that our definition of $S(\al)$

1027: does not involve a summation over $a$. This

1028: deviation makes no difference to the final outcome.

1029: Note that once the existence of a suitable point $\z_1$ is established

1030: for the definition of the weight function, the manipulations  involving

1031: the exponential integral remain valid even when $C$ is singular. 

1032: 

1033: The summation over $\v$ in our upper bound for $S(\al)-S^*(\al)$

1034: implies in particular $V\gg 1$. Since $A<1$ we automatically have 

1035: $(\log P)^7 q P^{-1}\leq (\log P)^7P^{A-1}=o(1)$. 

1036:  Hence the condition $V\gg 1$ implies that

1037: $$

1038: (\log P)^7 q |\theta|P^2\leq  V\ll (\log P)^7 q |\theta|P^2

1039: $$

1040: and 

1041: \begin{equation}

1042:   \label{eq:size}

1043: q^{-1}P^{-2}(\log P)^{-7}\ll |\theta| \leq q^{-B}P^{-3+C}.  

1044: \end{equation}

1045: Putting everything together it follows that

1046: $$

1047: S(\al)-S^*(\al)\ll 1+ q^{-n}(\log

1048: P)^{7n}P^{\frac{3-n}{2}}|\theta|^{\frac{1-n}{2}}\mathcal{T}(V),

1049: $$

1050: where

1051: $$

1052: \mathcal{T}(V):=\sum_{1 \leq |\v|\ll V} |S_{a,q}(\v)|.

1053: $$

1054: We will show that

1055: \begin{equation}\label{eq:JB}

1056: \mathcal{T}(V)\ll q^{\frac{n+1+\sigma+\ve}{2}}(V^n+ q^{\frac{n}{3}}),

1057: \end{equation}

1058: for $\sigma\in \{-1,0\}$. 

1059: Before doing so let us see how this suffices to complete the proof of

1060: the first part of the lemma.  Recalling from above that $V$ has

1061: order of magnitude $(\log P)^7q|\theta|P^2$, 

1062: and employing \eqref{eq:size}, we deduce that

1063: \begin{align*}

1064: S(\al)-S^*(\al)

1065: \ll& q^{-\frac{n}{2}+\frac{1+\sigma}{2}+\frac{2\ve}{3}} P^{-\frac{n-3}{2}}|\theta|^{-\frac{n-1}{2}}

1066: ((q|\theta|P^2)^{n}+ q^{\frac{n}{3}})\\

1067: \ll& q^{\frac{n+1+\sigma}{2}+\frac{2\ve}{3}}|\theta|^{\frac{n+1}{2}}P^{\frac{3(n+1)}{2}}+

1068: q^{-\frac{n}{6}+\frac{1+\sigma}{2}+\frac{2\ve}{3}}|\theta|^{-\frac{n-1}{2}}P^{-\frac{n-3}{2}}\\

1069: \ll& q^{(1-B)\frac{n}{2}-\frac{B}{2}+\frac{1+\sigma}{2}}P^{C\frac{n+1}{2}+\ve}

1070: +P^{A(\frac{n}{3}+\frac{\sigma}{2})+\frac{n+1}{2}+\ve}.

1071: \end{align*}

1072: If $B=1$ then the first term here is $O(P^{C\frac{n+1}{2}+\ve})$,

1073: since $\sigma\leq 0$.

1074: Alternatively, if $B=0$, then the first term is 

1075: $

1076: O(P^{A\frac{n+1+\sigma}{2}+C\frac{n+1}{2}+\ve}).

1077: $

1078: This establishes the first part of the lemma subject to \eqref{eq:JB}.

1079: 

1080: To establish \eqref{eq:JB} we return to the manipulations in

1081: \cite[\S 5]{41}. Things are simplified slightly by no longer needing

1082: to keep track of the dependence on $C$ in each implied

1083: constant.  In particular we may take $H\ll 1$ throughout.

1084: The sum $S_{a,q}(\v)$ satisfies a basic multiplicativity property, as

1085: recorded in \cite[Lemma~10]{41}. 

1086: Write $q=bc^2d$, where 

1087: $$

1088: b:=\prod_{\substack{p^e\| q\\ e\leq 2}} p^e, \quad

1089: d:=\prod_{\substack{p^e\| q\\ e\geq 3, 2\nmid e}} p.

1090: $$

1091: In particular $d\mid c$ and we deduce from \cite[Lemmas~7, 10 and 11]{41} that

1092: \begin{align*}

1093: \mathcal{T}(V)

1094: &\ll q^{\frac{n}{2}}b^{\frac{1+\sigma}{2}+\frac{\ve}{2}}\sum_{1 \leq |\v|\ll V}

1095: \sum_{\substack{\mathbf{a}\bmod c\\ c\mid (a\nabla C(\mathbf{a})+\v)}}

1096: N_d(\mathbf{a})^{\frac{1}{2}}.

1097: \end{align*}

1098: Here, if $M(\x)$ denotes the matrix of second derivatives of $C(\x)$,

1099: then $N_m(\mathbf{x})$ is the number of $\y$ modulo $m$ such that

1100: $M(\mathbf{x})\y \equiv \mathbf{0} \bmod{m}$.

1101: Recalling the notation of \cite[Lemma 12]{41},

1102: in which we take $\v_0=\mathbf{0}$ and $g=C$, 

1103: it follows that there is

1104: an absolute constant $\kappa>0$ such that 

1105: \begin{align*}

1106: \mathcal{T}(V)

1107: &\ll  q^{\frac{n}{2}}b^{\frac{1+\sigma+\ve}{2}}\mathcal{S}(\kappa V,a).

1108: \end{align*}

1109: We would now like a version of \cite[Lemma $16$]{41} which

1110: applies to singular forms as well.  We claim that 

1111: \begin{equation}

1112:   \label{eq:JB'} 

1113: \mathcal{S}(\kappa V,a)\ll 

1114: c^\ve d^{\frac{1+\sigma}{2}}V^{n}\Big(1+\frac{c^2d}{V^3}\Big)^{\frac{n}{2}}.

1115: \end{equation}

1116: This relies completely on first establishing suitable analogues of

1117: \cite[Lemmas 13 and 14]{41}.  

1118: A little thought reveals that in the present setting we have

1119: $$

1120: \sum_{|\mathbf{r}|\leq R}N_m(\mathbf{r})^{\frac{1}{2}}\ll

1121: m^{\frac{n}{2}}\Big(1+\frac{R^3}{m}\Big)^{\frac{n}{2}}R^\ve,

1122: $$

1123: for any $m\in  \NN$ and $R\geq 1$.

1124: Here we have used the fact that $C$ is good to bound the number of

1125: $|\mathbf{r}|\leq R$ such that $\rank M(\mathbf{r})=t$, rather than

1126: using \cite[Lemma 2]{41},  as there. Furthermore, we have

1127: $$

1128: \sum_{\mathbf{a}\bmod d}N_d(\mathbf{a}) \ll d^{n+1+\sigma+\ve}.

1129: $$

1130: When $c<V$ it follows from the latter

1131: bound and an application of Cauchy's inequality

1132: that $\mathcal{S}(\kappa V,a)\ll d^{(1+\sigma+\ve)/2}V^n$, which is

1133: acceptable for \eqref{eq:JB'}. In the

1134: alternative case, when $c\geq V$, the necessary modifications to the 

1135: proof of \cite[Lemma $16$]{41} are straightforward and we omit full details here.

1136: 

1137: We may now insert \eqref{eq:JB'} into the preceeding estimate for

1138: $\mathcal{T}(V)$ to conclude that 

1139: $$

1140: \mathcal{T}(V)

1141: \ll  q^{\frac{n+1+\sigma+\ve}{2}}

1142: V^{n}\Big(1+\frac{q}{V^3}\Big)^{\frac{n}{2}}.

1143: $$

1144: If $q^{1/3}\leq V$ then this is clearly satisfacory for \eqref{eq:JB}. 

1145: Alternatively, if $V<q^{1/3}$ then we can only enlarge our bound for

1146: $\mathcal{T}(V)$ if we replace $V$ by $q^{1/3}$. But then 

1147: $\mathcal{T}(V)$ is easily seen to be bounded by \eqref{eq:JB} in this

1148: case too. This therefore completes the proof of \eqref{eq:JB}.

1149: 

1150: 

1151: 

1152: 

1153: 

1154: 

1155: 

1156: 

1157: 

1158: Our final task is to establish the second part of the lemma. Since $C$ is good, 

1159: we may combine  Lemma \ref{lem:paris} with 

1160: \eqref{eq:bound_99} to deduce that 

1161: $$

1162: S^*(\al)\ll q^{-\frac{n}{6}} P^n(\log P)^{7n} 

1163: \min \{1, (|\theta|P^3)^{-1}\}^{\frac{n-1}{2}}.

1164: $$

1165: Let us write $T=q^{-B}P^{-3+C}$ for convenience. It therefore follows that

1166: \begin{align*}

1167: \int_{\A} |S^*(\al)|^k\d\al 

1168: &\ll P^{kn+\frac{\ve}{2}}\sum_{q\leq P^A}

1169: q^{1-\frac{kn}{6}} \int_{-T}^{T} 

1170: \min \{1, (|\theta|P^3)\}^{-\frac{k(n-1)}{2}}\d\theta\\

1171: &\ll P^{kn-3+\frac{\ve}{2}}\sum_{q\leq P^A}

1172: q^{1-\frac{kn}{6}} \\

1173: &\ll P^{kn-3+\ve},

1174: \end{align*}

1175: since $kn\geq 12$ and $k\leq 9$.

1176: \end{proof}

1177: 

1178: 

1179: We remark that when $\sigma=0$ it seems likely that an even sharper

1180: error term is available in Lemma \ref{lem:F} through a more careful

1181: analysis of the complete exponential sums $S_{a,q}(\v)$, when $q$ is prime.

1182: It follows from \cite[Lemma 28]{hooley2} that the form 

1183: $C$ is automatically good when the corresponding hypersurface has at most isolated

1184: singularities and these are suitably mild.

1185: 

1186: In the setting of $1$-dimensional exponential sums, we have even

1187: better control over $S(\al)$ on the arcs $\A=\A(A,B,C)$.  Let $C(x)=cx^3$ for some non-zero coefficient $c\in \ZZ$.  Then for

1188: any $a,q\in \ZZ$ such that $0\leq a< q\leq P^A$ and $\gcd(a,q)=1$, and

1189: any $\al=a/q+\theta\in \A_{q,a}$, the standard major arc analysis would

1190: provide an estimate of the shape

1191: $$

1192: S(\al)= S^*(\al)+O(P^{A}+P^{A+C-AB}),

1193: $$

1194: where $S^*(\al)$ is given by \eqref{eq:S*}. 

1195: Our final result in this section improves on this substantially,

1196: and is readily derived from the book of Vaughan \cite[\S 4]{vaughan}.

1197: 

1198: 

1199: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:E}

1200: Let $\ve>0$, let $n=1$ and let $w\in\WW_1^{(2)}$. 

1201: Let $A,B,C\geq 0$ with $A,B\leq 1$. Then for any $\al\in

1202: \A_{q,a}$ we have 

1203: $$

1204: S(\al)=S^*(\al)+O(P^{\frac{A}{2}+\ve}+P^{\frac{A+C-AB}{2}+\ve}).

1205: $$

1206: Furthermore, if $k\geq 4$, then we have 

1207: $$

1208: \int_\A |S^*(\al)|^k \d\al\ll P^{k-3+\ve}.

1209: $$

1210: \end{lemma}

1211: 

1212: 

1213: 

1214: 

1215: 

1216: 

1217: \section{Density of rational points on cubic hypersurfaces}\label{sec:upper}

1218: 

1219: 

1220: Let $X \subset \PP^{n-1}$ be a cubic hypersurface, not equal to a

1221: cone, that is defined by an absolutely irreducible cubic form $F\in

1222: \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. For $P\geq 1$, let

1223: $$

1224: N_{n,F}(P):=\#\{\x\in\ZZ^n: |\x|\leq P, ~F(\x)=0\},

1225: $$

1226: According to the conjecture of Manin \cite{f-m-t} one expects 

1227: $N_{n,F}(P)\sim cP^{n-3}$ for some constant $c\geq 0$ as soon as $F$ is

1228: non-singular and $n\geq 5$. 

1229: When $F$ is not necessarily non-singular, or the number of variables

1230: is small, there is the dimension growth conjecture due to Heath-Brown. This

1231: predicts that

1232: \begin{equation}

1233:   \label{eq:upper_2}

1234: N_{n,F}(P)\ll P^{n-2+\ve},

1235: \end{equation}

1236: and has received a great deal of attention in recent years.

1237: Let $\sigma$ denote the projective dimension of the singular

1238: locus of $X$. The dimension growth  conjecture has been established by the author

1239: \cite{cubhyp-circle} when $n\geq 6+\sigma$.

1240: The following result, which may of independent interest,  

1241: shows that one can do better than 

1242: \eqref{eq:upper_2} if larger values of $n$ are permitted. 

1243: 

1244: 

1245: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:8}

1246: We have $N_{n,F}(P)\ll P^{n-5/2+\ve}$ when $n\geq 9+\sigma$.

1247: \end{lemma}

1248: 

1249: \begin{proof}

1250: Our proof of the lemma is based on the approach developed in \cite{cubhyp-circle}.

1251: Arguing with hyperplane sections, as in \cite[\S 2]{cubhyp-circle}, we

1252: see that it will suffice to show that there is an absolute constant

1253: $\theta>0$ such that 

1254: \begin{equation}

1255:   \label{eq:gen1}

1256: N_{w}(g;P)

1257: := \sum_{\substack{\x\in \ZZ^n\\ g(\x)=0}} w(P^{-1}\x)

1258: \ll H^{\theta}P^{n-\frac{5}{2}+\ve},

1259: \end{equation}

1260: for any weight function $w:\RR^n\rightarrow \RR_{\geq 0}$ belonging to

1261: the class of weight functions described at the start of \cite[\S 2]{cubhyp-circle}, any 

1262: $H \geq \|g\|_P$, and any 

1263: cubic polynomial $g\in  \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ such that $n\geq 8$ and 

1264: the cubic part $g_0$ is non-singular.

1265: Here we recall that $\|g\|_P:= \|P^{-3}g(P\x)\|$, where $\|h\|$

1266: denotes the height of a polynomial $h$. 

1267: 

1268: The bulk of \cite{cubhyp-circle} goes through

1269: verbatim, and we are left with reevaluating the 

1270: estimation of $\Sigma_2=\Sigma_2(R,\mathbf{R};t)$ and $\Sigma_1=\Sigma_1(R,\mathbf{R};t)$ in 

1271: \cite[\S 5.1]{cubhyp-circle} and \cite[\S 5.2]{cubhyp-circle}, respectively.

1272: Beginning with the former, 

1273: we note from \cite[Eq. (5.5)]{cubhyp-circle} 

1274: that this breaks into an estimation of $\Sigma_{2,a}$ and $\Sigma_{2,b}$.

1275: The first of these is estimated as $O(H^{\theta}

1276: P^{3n/4-3/4+\ve}+H^{\theta} P^{n-3+\ve})$. Both of the exponents of

1277: $P$ are clearly at most $n-5/2+\ve$ when $n\geq 8$, as required for

1278: \eqref{eq:gen1}.

1279: Turning to $\Sigma_{2,b}$, one easily traces through the argument,

1280: finding that

1281: $$

1282: \Sigma_{2,b}\ll H^\theta P^\ve \big(

1283: P^{\frac{3n}{4}-\frac{3}{4}}+ P^{n-2}E_n + P^{\frac{13n}{16}-1}+P^{\frac{7n}{8}-\frac{5}{3}} 

1284: \big),

1285: $$

1286: where 

1287: $$

1288: E_n=P^{-1-\frac{7n}{40}}R^{2-\frac{3n}{20}}R_2^{\frac{3n}{10}-\frac{3}{2}}\ll 

1289: P^{-1-\frac{7n}{40}}R^{\frac{5}{4}}\ll  P^{\frac{7}{8}-\frac{7n}{40}}.

1290: $$

1291: Here the first term (resp. second term, sum of the final two terms) corresponds to the case $V\geq R_2$

1292: (resp. $(R_2^2R_3)^{1/3}\leq V<R_2$, $V<(R_2^2R_3)^{1/3}$). 

1293: A modest pause for thought reveals that all of these exponents are

1294: satisfactory when $n\geq 8$.

1295: 

1296: We now turn to the estimation of $\Sigma_1$ in 

1297: \cite[\S 5.2]{cubhyp-circle}, which is again written as a sum 

1298: $\Sigma_{1,a}+\Sigma_{1,b}$.  Beginning with $\Sigma_{1,a}$, we easily

1299: observe that

1300: $$

1301: \Sigma_{1,a}\ll H^\theta P^\ve \big(

1302: P^{\frac{3n}{4}-\frac{3}{4}}+ P^{n-2}E_n + P^{n-3}\big),

1303: $$

1304: this time with 

1305: $$

1306: E_n=P^{2-\frac{n}{4}}t^{1-\frac{n}{12}}R^{\frac{11}{6}-\frac{n}{4}}(R_2^2R_3)^{\frac{n}{9}-\frac{1}{2}}

1307: \ll P^{-\frac{1}{2}}R^{-\frac{1}{9}}+P^{-1}R^{\frac{2}{9}}\ll P^{-\frac{1}{2}}.

1308: $$

1309: This therefore shows that $\Sigma_{1,a}\ll H^\theta P^{n-5/2+\ve}$, as

1310: required for \eqref{eq:gen1}.  Turning to 

1311: $\Sigma_{1,b}$,  we will need to modify  the argument slightly.

1312: On noting that $R_2^{3/2}R_3^{1/2}\gg (R_2^2R_3)^{2/3}$,

1313: we easily deduce that 

1314: $$

1315: \Sigma_{1,b}\ll H^\theta P^\ve \big(

1316: P^{\frac{3n}{4}-\frac{3}{4}}+ P^{n-2+\frac{7}{8}-\frac{7n}{40}} + T\big),

1317: $$

1318: where we have set

1319: $$

1320: T:=P^nt R^{2-\frac{n}{2}} (R_2^2 R_3)^{-\frac{2}{3}}

1321: \min\Big\{R_2^n, 

1322: \Big(\frac{R_2^2R_3}{V}\Big)^{\frac{n}{2}}, R^{\frac{3n}{8}}\min\{1, (tP^3)^{-\frac{n}{8}}

1323: \Big\}.

1324: $$

1325: The first and second terms here are satisfactory for $n\geq 8$.

1326: Moreover the third term is clearly satisfactory for $n\geq 16$, on

1327: taking $\min\{A,B,C\}=C$. To handle the contribution from the final term when $8\leq n<16$, it will be convenient

1328: to recall that $V$ has order of magnitude $Rt^{1/2}P^{1/2}$ when

1329: $t\geq P^{-3}$ and $R/P$ when $t<P^{-3}$. 

1330: 

1331: Suppose first that $R\geq

1332: P$. When $t\geq P^{-3}$ we deduce that 

1333: \begin{align*}

1334: T\ll P^{n-3} \min\big\{ 

1335: R^{2-n}(R_2^2R_3)^{\frac{n}{2}-\frac{2}{3}}P^{\frac{n}{2}},

1336: R^{2-\frac{n}{8}} (R_2^2R_3)^{-\frac{2}{3}}\big\}

1337: \ll P^{n-\frac{7}{3}}R^{\frac{5}{6}-\frac{n}{8}}

1338: &\ll P^{\frac{7n}{8}-\frac{3}{2}},

1339: \end{align*}

1340: on taking 

1341: \begin{equation}

1342:   \label{eq:ab}

1343:   \min\{A,B\}\leq A^{\frac{4}{3n}}B^{1-\frac{4}{3n}}.

1344: \end{equation}

1345: This is clearly satisfactory for $n\geq 8$. When $t<P^{-3}$ we easily deduce that the

1346: same bound holds on taking $V$ to be of size $R/P$ in the definition

1347: of $T$.

1348: 

1349: Suppose now that $R<P$ and $t\geq P^{-3}$. 

1350: If $t>(R^2P)^{-1}$, then it is not hard to see that

1351: \begin{align*}

1352: T\ll P^{n-1} R^{-\frac{n}{2}} (R_2^2 R_3)^{-\frac{2}{3}}

1353: \min\big\{(R_2^2R_3)^\frac{n}{2}, R^{\frac{5n}{8}}P^{-\frac{n}{4}}\big\}

1354: \ll P^{\frac{3n}{4}-\frac{2}{3}}R^{\frac{n}{8}-\frac{5}{6}}

1355: &\ll P^{\frac{7n}{8}-\frac{3}{2}},

1356: \end{align*}

1357: using \eqref{eq:ab}.  This is satisfactory for $n\geq

1358: 8$. Alternatively, if $P^{-3}\leq 

1359: t\leq (R^2P)^{-1}$, then one finds that

1360: \begin{align*}

1361: T&\ll P^{n} R^{2-\frac{n}{2}} (R_2^2 R_3)^{-\frac{2}{3}}

1362: \min\big\{t(R_2^2R_3)^\frac{n}{2},

1363: R^{\frac{3n}{8}}t^{1-\frac{n}{8}}P^{-\frac{3n}{8}}\big\}.

1364: \end{align*}

1365: Using \eqref{eq:ab} it easily follows that

1366: \begin{align*}

1367: T&\ll P^{\frac{5n}{8}+\frac{1}{2}} t^{\frac{7}{6}-\frac{n}{8}}R^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{n}{8}}.

1368: \end{align*}

1369: Since $t\leq (R^2P)^{-1}$ and $R<P$ this is clearly satisfactory when

1370: $n=8$.  If instead $n\geq 9$ then we deduce that

1371: \begin{align*}

1372: T&\ll P^{n-3} R^{5-\frac{n}{2}}(R_2^2 R_3)^{\frac{n}{2}-\frac{14}{3}},

1373: \end{align*}

1374: on taking

1375: $\min\{A,B\}\leq A^{1-\frac{8}{n}}B^{\frac{8}{n}}$ rather than \eqref{eq:ab}.

1376: Since $R<P$ we easily conclude that 

1377: $T\ll P^{n-5/2}$ in this case too.

1378: Finally, when $R<P$ and $t<P^{-3}$, we see that

1379: \begin{align*}

1380: T\ll P^{n-3}

1381: \min\big\{ R^{2-\frac{n}{2}}(R_2^2R_3)^{\frac{n}{2}-\frac{2}{3}}, R^{2-\frac{n}{8}}(R_2^2R_3)^{-\frac{2}{3}} 

1382: \big\} \ll P^{n-3} R^{\frac{3}{2}-\frac{n}{8}}

1383: &\ll P^{n-\frac{5}{2}},

1384: \end{align*}

1385: using \eqref{eq:ab}. This therefore concludes the proof of the lemma.

1386: \end{proof}

1387: 

1388: 

1389: It is clear from the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:8} that one actually

1390: achieves an estimate of the shape 

1391: $$

1392: N_{n,F}(P)\leq c_{\ve,n}\|F\|^\theta P^{n-5/2+\ve},

1393: $$ 

1394: for a constant

1395: $\theta>0$, when $n\geq 9+\sigma$.

1396: It seems likely that one can push the analysis further, obtaining

1397: $N_{n,F}(P)\ll P^{n-3+\ve}$ for $n\geq 11+\sigma$, as predicted by Manin.

1398: 

1399: A key step in our argument involves generating good estimates for the

1400: moments 

1401: \begin{equation}

1402:   \label{eq:moment}

1403:   M_{n}(P):=\int_{0}^1|S(\al)|^{2}\d\al,

1404: \end{equation}

1405: where $S(\al)$ is the cubic exponential sum \eqref{eq:Tcubic}, for

1406: an appropriate weight $w\in\WW_n$. 

1407: By the orthogonality of the exponential

1408: function we have 

1409: $$

1410: M_n(P) =\sum_{\substack{\x,\y\in\ZZ^n\\C(\x)=C(\y)}} w(P^{-1}\x)w(P^{-1}\y).

1411: $$

1412: It is clear that there exists a constant $c>0$ depending on $w$ such

1413: that the overall contribution to $M_n(P)$

1414: from $\x,\y$ such that $\max\{|\x|, |\y|\} >c P$ is

1415: $O(1)$,  if $P$ is taken to be sufficiently large. Hence

1416: it follows that

1417: $$

1418: M_n(P)\ll N_{2n,C-C}(cP).

1419: $$

1420: When $C$ is a non-singular form in $n$ variables it is obvious that $C-C$

1421: is a non-singular form in $2n$ variables, defining a hypersurface of

1422: dimension $2n-2$.  

1423: When $C$ has a finite non-empty singular locus it is not hard to see

1424: that $C-C$ has singular locus of dimension $1$.

1425: The following result now flows very easily from

1426: \eqref{eq:upper_2} and Lemma \ref{lem:8}.

1427: 

1428: 

1429: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:C}

1430: Let $\ve>0$ and let $n\geq 3$.

1431: Assume that $C\in \ZZ[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ is a cubic form defining a

1432: projective hypersurface whose singular locus has dimension $\sigma\in\{-1,0\}$.

1433: Then we have  

1434: $$

1435: M_n(P) \ll 

1436: \begin{cases}

1437: P^{4+\ve},

1438: &\mbox{if $n=3$ and $\sigma=-1$,}\\

1439: P^{2n-\frac{5}{2}+\ve}, &\mbox{if $n\geq 5+\sigma$.}

1440: \end{cases}

1441: $$

1442: \end{lemma}

1443: 

1444: 

1445: 

1446: 

1447: 

1448: 

1449: 

1450: 

1451: 

1452: 

1453: 

1454: 

1455: 

1456: 

1457: 

1458: 

1459: 

1460: 

1461: 

1462: 

1463: \section{Cubics splitting off a form}

1464: 

1465: 

1466: In this section we establish Theorem \ref{main}. 

1467: Let $n_1,n_2\geq 1$ such that 

1468: $$

1469: n_1+n_2=n\geq 13.

1470: $$ 

1471: It will be convenient to write $\x=(x_1,\ldots,x_{n_1})$ and $\y=(y_1,\ldots,y_{n_2})$.

1472: We henceforth fix our attention on cubic forms of the shape 

1473: $$

1474: C(\x,\y)=C_1(\x)+C_2(\y),

1475: $$

1476: with $C_1\in \ZZ[\x]$ and $C_2\in \ZZ[\y]$.  

1477: In what follows we may always suppose that $C=C_1+C_2$ is non-degenerate, by which we mean that it

1478: is not equivalent over $\ZZ$ to a cubic form in fewer variables, since

1479: such forms have obvious non-zero integral solutions.

1480: Recall the definition of ``good'' cubic forms from \S \ref{s:geom}.

1481: It follows from \cite[\S 14]{dav-book} that either $C_1$ is good or else the cubic hypersurface $C_1=0$ has a

1482: rational point. The same is true for the cubic forms $C_2$ and

1483: $C_1+C_2$. Since the existence of a rational point on any of these

1484: hypersurfaces is enough to ensure that $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$ in the

1485: statement of Theorem \ref{main}, so we may proceed under the assumption that

1486: $C_1, C_2$ and $C_1+C_2$ are all good.

1487: 

1488: Let $w=(w_1,w_2)\in \WW_n$, as introduced in \S \ref{sec:exp_sums}.

1489: When $C_1$ satisfies the hypotheses in Lemma \ref{lem:F} we will

1490: assume that $w_1\in\WW_{n_1}^{(1)}$ is the weight function

1491: constructed there.  

1492: Our argument revolves around establishing an asymptotic formula for

1493: the sum

1494: $$

1495: N(P):=\sum_{\substack{(\x,\y)\in \ZZ^n\\ C_1(\x)+C_2(\y)=0}} 

1496: w_1(P^{-1}\x)w_2(P^{-1}\y),  

1497: $$

1498: as $P\rightarrow \infty$.  

1499: As is usual in applications of the Hardy--Littlewood circle method,

1500: the starting point is the simple identity

1501: $$

1502: N(P)=\int_0^1 S_1(\al)S_2(\al) \d\al,  

1503: $$

1504: where 

1505: $$

1506: S_i(\al):=\sum_{\x\in\ZZ^{n_i}}w_i(P^{-1}\x) e(\al C_i(\x))  

1507: $$

1508: for $i=1,2$. It will be convenient to define 

1509: $$

1510: S(\al):=S_1(\al)S_2(\al)=\sum_{(\x,\y)\in\ZZ^{n}}w(P^{-1}(\x,\y))

1511: e\big(\al (C_1(\x)+C_2(\y))\big),

1512: $$

1513: where $w=(w_1,w_2)$.  Then $S(\al)=S_w(\al;C_1+C_2,P)$

1514: is a cubic exponential sum of the sort introduced in \eqref{eq:Tcubic}.

1515: 

1516: 

1517: In the usual way one divides the interval $[0,1]$ into a

1518: set of major arcs and minor arcs.  For major arcs we  will take 

1519: the union of intervals 

1520: $$

1521: \M:=\bigcup_{q\leq P^{\D}}\bigcup_{\substack{a=0\\ \gcd(a,q)=1}}^{q-1} \Big[\frac{a}{q}-

1522: P^{-3+\D}, \frac{a}{q}+P^{-3+\D}

1523: \Big],

1524: $$

1525: which is equal to $\A(\D,0,\D)$ in the notation of \eqref{eq:Aqa}.

1526:  The corresponding set of minor arcs is defined modulo $1$ as

1527: $\m=[0,1]\setminus \M$.

1528: Here $\D>0$ is an arbitrary small parameter. It turns out the choice 

1529: $$

1530: \D:=\frac{1}{10}

1531: $$

1532: is acceptable.  

1533: We may deduce from Lemma~15.4 and \S\S 16--18 in \cite{dav-book} 

1534: (see also \cite[Lemma~2.1]{14}) that

1535: $$

1536: \int_\M S(\al)\d\al = \ss \ii P^{n-3}+o(P^{n-3}),

1537: $$

1538: where 

1539: \begin{align*}

1540: \ss&:=\sum_{q=1}^\infty 

1541: \sum_{\substack{a \bmod{q}\\ \gcd(a,q)=1}} 

1542: q^{-n}S_{a,q}^{(1)}S_{a,q}^{(2)},\\

1543: \ii&:=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}

1544: \int_{\RR^{n_1}}\int_{\RR^{n_2}}w(\x,\y)e\big(\theta(C_1(\x)+C_2(\x))\big)\d\x\d\y

1545: \d \theta

1546: \end{align*}

1547: are both absolutely convergent.

1548: Here, the absolute convergence of $\ss$ follows from Lemma

1549: \ref{lem:paris}, and  we have written

1550: $$

1551: S_{a,q}^{(i)}:=\sum_{\mathbf{u}\in (\ZZ/q\ZZ)^{n_i}} e_q\big(aC_i(\mathbf{u})\big),

1552: $$

1553: for $i=1,2$.

1554: Since $\ss$ is absolutely convergent and $C=C_1+C_2$ is

1555: non-degenerate, it follows from standard arguments (see \cite[Lemma 7.3]{dav-32}, for example)

1556: that $\ss>0$. The treatment of the singular integral is routine and we omit giving the details

1557: here, all of which can be supplied by consulting 

1558: \cite[\S 16]{dav-book} and \cite[\S 4]{hb-10}. Assuming that 

1559: neither $C_1$ nor $C_2$ has a linear factor defined over

1560: $\QQ$ it is possible to choose 

1561: $(\z_1,\z_2)\in \RR^{n}$ in the definition of

1562: $w=(w_1,w_2)$, so that 

1563: each $\z_i$ is a non-singular real solution to $C_i=0$. On 

1564: selecting a sufficiently small value of $\rho>0$ in the definition

1565: of $w_2$ we can then ensure $\ii> 0$. 

1566: The case in which $C_1$ or $C_2$ does factorise over $\QQ$ 

1567: clearly enables us to deduce the statement of Theorem \ref{main}

1568: very easily.

1569: 

1570: In order to conclude the proof of

1571: Theorem~\ref{main} it remains to show that the overall contribution

1572: from the minor arcs 

1573: \begin{equation}

1574:   \label{eq:minor}

1575: E:=\int_{\m} S_1(\al)S_2(\al) \d \al,

1576: \end{equation}

1577: is satisfactory.  This is

1578: where the bulk of our work lies and we will find it necessary to

1579: undertake a lengthy case by case analysis to handle the 

1580: different values of $n_1$ and

1581: $n_2$. In doing so it will suffice to handle the case $n_1+n_2=13$,

1582: the case $n_1+n_2>13$ being taken care of by \cite{14}.

1583: Without loss of generality we assume henceforth that $1\leq n_1\leq 6$.

1584: 

1585: 

1586: 

1587: Let $Q\geq 1$ and let $\al \in \m$. By Dirichlet's approximation theorem

1588: we may find coprime integers $1 \leq a \leq q$ such that $q \leq Q$

1589: and $|q\al-a|\leq 1/Q$.   The value of $Q$ should satisfy $1\leq Q

1590: \leq P^{3/2}$ and is chosen to optimise the final stages of the argument.

1591: The obvious approach involves applying estimates for each individual

1592: exponential sum $S_1(\al)$ and $S_2(\al)$ for $\al\in \m$, before then

1593: deriving an estimate for the integral over the full set of minor

1594: arcs. While we have rather good control over these sums when $n_1$ and

1595: $n_2$ are both large,

1596: the case in which one of $n_1$ or $n_2$ is small presents more of an

1597: obstacle.  Instead we apply H\"older's

1598: inequality to deduce that

1599: \begin{equation}

1600:   \label{eq:split}

1601:   |E| \leq \left(\int_{\m} |S_1(\al)|^u \d \al \right)^{\frac{1}{u}}\left(\int_{\m} |S_2(\al)|^v \d \al \right)^{\frac{1}{v}},

1602: \end{equation}

1603: for any $u,v>0$ such that $1/u+1/v=1$. This will allow us to separate

1604: out the behaviour of the exponential 

1605: sums $S_1(\al)$ and $S_2(\al)$ on the minor arcs.

1606: 

1607: 

1608: Before embarking on the case by case analysis alluded to above, it

1609: will save needless repetition if we give some reasonably general

1610: estimates here that can be applied in various contexts.

1611: Our principal means for dealing with small values of $n_1$ relies on

1612: taking the inequality 

1613: \begin{equation}

1614:   \label{eq:Ivu}

1615: \int_{\m} |S_1(\al)|^u \d \al \leq \int_{0}^1 |S_1(\al)|^u \d \al

1616: \end{equation}

1617: in \eqref{eq:split}.  This will in turn be estimated as $O(P^{k+\ve})$

1618: for an appropriate $k>0$, whence a typical scenario 

1619: entails studying

1620: \begin{equation}

1621:   \label{eq:Iuv}

1622:   I_{u,v}(k;\mathfrak{n}):=P^{\frac{k}{u}+\ve}\left(\int_{\mathfrak{n}}|S_2(\al)|^v \d\al\right)^{\frac{1}{v}},

1623: \end{equation}

1624: for $u,v>0$ such that $1/u+1/v=1$ and certain subsets

1625: $\mathfrak{n}\subseteq\m$. We will always assume that $6/5< v\leq 2$.

1626: 

1627: 

1628: Let $\al \in \mathfrak{n}$ and let $Q\geq 1$.  There exist

1629: coprime integers $0 \leq a <q \leq Q$ such that 

1630:  $|q\al-a|\leq 1/Q$.  An argument based on dyadic summation reveals that 

1631: \begin{equation}

1632:   \label{eq:foot}

1633:   I_{u,v}(k;\mathfrak{n})\ll P^{\frac{k}{u}+\ve} (\log P)^2 \max_{R,\phi,\pm} \Sigma_v(R,\phi,\pm)^{\frac{1}{v}}, 

1634: \end{equation}

1635: where $\Sigma_v(R,\phi,\pm)$ is given by \eqref{eq:sig}, and 

1636: the maximum is over the possible sign changes and 

1637: $R,\phi$ such that 

1638: \begin{equation}

1639:   \label{eq:range}

1640: 0<R\leq Q, \quad 0<\phi\leq (RQ)^{-1}.

1641: \end{equation}

1642: Furthermore, $R,\phi$ should satisfy whatever conditions are

1643: appropriate to ensure we are dealing with points on $\mathfrak{n}$. In

1644: particular, since $\mathfrak{n}\subseteq \m$  the inequalities

1645: $R\leq P^\D$ and $\phi \leq P^{-3+\D}$ cannot both

1646: hold simultaneously. 

1647: 

1648: Let $u,v,k$ be given. Define

1649: \begin{equation}

1650:   \label{eq:rp1}

1651:   \rho_n:=\frac{n(vn-8-v)}{vn^2-(3v+4)n+2v}, \quad \pi_n:=

1652: \frac{-2v(n^2-(18-2\frac{k}{u})n-2)}{vn^2-(3v+4)n+2v},

1653: \end{equation}

1654: and 

1655: \begin{equation}

1656:   \label{eq:rp2}

1657:   \rho_n':=\frac{2v}{2-v}\left(\frac{n^2}{2(3n-2)}-\frac{2}{v}\right), \quad \pi_n':=

1658: \frac{2v}{2-v}\left(n-\frac{23}{2}+\frac{k}{u}\right).

1659: \end{equation}

1660: Let

1661: \begin{equation}

1662:   \label{eq:delta}

1663: \delta:=\frac{1}{10^4}.

1664: \end{equation}

1665: Recall that our task is to show that

1666: $E=o(P^{10})$ when $n=n_1+n_2=13$.

1667: The following result provides us with easily checked

1668: conditions on $u,v,k$ and $n_2$ under which 

1669: $I_{u,v}(k;\mathfrak{n})$ makes a satisfactory contribution.

1670: 

1671: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:v<2}

1672: Let $6/5< v<2$. Assume that $n_2\geq 6$ and 

1673: \begin{equation}

1674:   \label{eq:paris}

1675:   \rho_{n_2}+\rho_{n_2'}\geq 1.

1676: \end{equation}

1677: Define $\m_0$ to be the set 

1678: of $\al \in \m$ for which there exist coprime integers $0 \leq a <q$ such that 

1679: $$

1680: q\leq P^{\frac{\pi_{n_2}'-\pi_{n_2}}{\rho_{n_2}'+\rho_{n_2}}+2\delta}, \quad

1681: q^{\rho_{n_2}'}P^{-\pi_{n_2}'-\delta}\leq 

1682: \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq q^{-\rho_{n_2}}P^{-\pi_{n_2}+\delta}.

1683: $$

1684: Then 

1685: $$

1686: I_{u,v}(k;\mathfrak{n}\setminus \m_0)=o(P^{10}),

1687: $$

1688: for any $\mathfrak{n}\subseteq \m$,

1689: provided that 

1690: \begin{equation}\label{eq:in1}

1691: \frac{2}{v}+\frac{21}{2}-n_2 \leq \frac{k}{u}< \frac{103}{10}-\frac{4n_2}{5}

1692: \end{equation}

1693: and 

1694: \begin{equation}

1695:   \label{eq:in2}

1696: \pi_{n_2}'\geq 3.

1697: \end{equation}

1698: \end{lemma}

1699: 

1700: \begin{proof}

1701: We will commence under the assumption that $6/5<v\leq 2$,

1702: saving the restriction $v<2$ until later in the argument.

1703: It is clear that $I_{u,v}(k;\mathfrak{n}\setminus \m_0)\leq I_{u,v}(k;\m\setminus \m_0)$.

1704: Let us consider the consequences of applying Lemma \ref{lem:D} in our

1705: estimate \eqref{eq:foot} for $I_{u,v}(k;\m\setminus \m_0)$. Throughout

1706: the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:v<2} we will denote $\m\setminus \m_0$ by

1707: $\mathfrak{a}$ and we will set $n=n_2$. We may deduce from Lemma

1708: \ref{lem:D} and \eqref{eq:Iuv} that

1709: $$

1710: I_{u,v}(k;\mathfrak{a})

1711: \ll P^{\frac{k}{u}+\ve} \left(P^{\frac{3}{v}}+\max_{R,\phi}

1712: R^{\frac{2}{v}}\phi^{\frac{1}{v}-\frac{1}{2}} \Big( \frac{\psi_H

1713:   P^{2n-1}}{H^{n-1}}F\Big)^{\frac{1}{2}} \right),

1714: $$

1715: where $\psi_H$ and $F$ are as in the statement of the lemma

1716: and $H\in [1,P]\cap \ZZ$ is arbitrary. Furthermore the maximum is over

1717: $R,\phi$ such that

1718: \eqref{eq:range} holds with any choice of $Q\geq 1$ that we care

1719: to choose. We write $Q=P^{\kappa}$, with 

1720: \begin{equation}

1721:   \label{eq:kappa}

1722: \kappa:=\frac{3(2n-21+2\frac{k}{u})}{n-1}+3\ve.

1723: \end{equation}

1724: In particular one easily checks that $0\leq \kappa\leq

1725: 3/2$ if \eqref{eq:in1}  holds and $\ve>0$ is sufficiently small.

1726: It follows from \eqref{eq:in1} that $k/u<11/2$ since $n\geq 6$. Hence

1727: the term involving $P^{3/v}$ contributes $O(P^{8+\ve})$, which is satisfactory. 

1728: 

1729: 

1730: Let  us now turn to the contribution from the term involving

1731: $F$ in our estimate for $I_{u,v}(k;\mathfrak{a})$. Define

1732: \begin{equation}

1733:   \label{eq:sock}

1734:   \phi_0:=(R^{-\frac{2}{v}}P^{-(2n-\frac{23}{2}+\frac{k}{u})})^{\frac{2v}{v(n-1)+2}}.

1735: \end{equation}

1736: Then our investigation will be optimised by taking

1737: $$

1738: H:=

1739: \begin{cases}

1740: \lfloor P^{\ve}\max\{1,R^{\frac{2}{v}}\phi^{\frac{1}{v}}P^{n-\frac{21}{2}+\frac{k}{u}}\}^{\frac{2}{n-1}} \rfloor, &\mbox{if  $\phi>\phi_0$,}\\

1741: \lfloor P^{\ve}\max\{1,R^{\frac{2}{v}}\phi^{\frac{1}{v}-\frac{1}{2}}P^{n-\frac{23}{2}+\frac{k}{u}}\}^{\frac{2}{n}}\rfloor, &\mbox{if  $\phi\leq \phi_0$.}

1742: \end{cases}

1743: $$

1744: If we can show that $F\ll 1$ with this

1745: choice of $H$ then we will have 

1746: $$

1747: \frac{P^{n-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{k}{u}+\ve}

1748:   R^{\frac{2}{v}}\phi^{\frac{1}{v}-\frac{1}{2}}\psi_H^{\frac{1}{2}}}{H^{\frac{n-1}{2}}}

1749: F^{\frac{1}{2}}\ll P^{10-\frac{3\ve}{2}},

1750: $$

1751: since $n \geq 6$. We deduce from \eqref{eq:range} that 

1752: \begin{align*}

1753: (R^{\frac{2}{v}}\phi^{\frac{1}{v}}P^{n-\frac{21}{2}+\frac{k}{u}})^{\frac{2}{n-1}}

1754: &\leq P^{\frac{2(n-\frac{21}{2}+\frac{k}{u})}{n-1}},

1755: \quad (R^{\frac{2}{v}}\phi^{\frac{1}{v}-\frac{1}{2}}P^{n-\frac{23}{2}+\frac{k}{u}})^{\frac{2}{n}}

1756: \leq P^{\frac{2(n-10+\frac{k}{u})}{n}}.

1757: \end{align*}

1758: In either case the final exponent of $P$ is less than 1, by

1759: \eqref{eq:in1}.  

1760: Hence $H$ is an integer in the

1761: interval $[1,P]$ and it remains to show that $F\ll 1$ with this choice of

1762: $H$. Recall the definition of $F$ from Lemma \ref{lem:D}.

1763: 

1764: 

1765: Suppose first that $\phi>\phi_0$, with $\phi_0$ given by

1766: \eqref{eq:sock}. Then $\psi_H\ll \phi$ and it follows that

1767: \begin{align*}

1768: RH^3\psi_H

1769: \ll R\phi P^{3\ve}

1770: (1+R^{\frac{2}{v}}\phi^{\frac{1}{v}}P^{n-\frac{21}{2}+\frac{k}{u}})^{\frac{6}{n-1}}

1771: &\ll 1+ P^{-\kappa} P^{(n-\frac{21}{2}+\frac{k}{u})\frac{6}{n-1}+3\ve},

1772: \end{align*}

1773: by \eqref{eq:range}. It follows from our expression \eqref{eq:kappa}

1774: for $\kappa$ that this is $O(1)$.

1775: Turning to the third term in the definition of 

1776: $F$, we see that

1777: \begin{align*}

1778: \frac{H^{n}}{R^{\frac{n}{2}}(P^2\psi_H)^{\frac{n-2}{2}}}\ll 

1779: \frac{P^{n\ve}}{R^{\frac{n}{2}}\phi^{\frac{n-2}{2}}P^{n-2}}(1+R^{\frac{2}{v}}\phi^{\frac{1}{v}}

1780: P^{n-\frac{21}{2}+\frac{k}{u}})^{\frac{2n}{n-1}}.

1781: \end{align*}

1782: The exponent of $\phi$ in the second term is $2n/(v(n-1))-(n-2)/2$, which is negative

1783: since $v> 6/5$ and $n\geq 6$. Hence this

1784: quantity is $O(1)$ provided that $\phi\geq \phi_1$, with 

1785: \begin{equation}

1786:   \label{eq:knee}

1787:   \phi_1:=R^{-\rho_n}P^{-\pi_n+\delta},

1788: \end{equation}

1789: with $\rho_n, \pi_n$ given by \eqref{eq:rp1} and $\delta$ given by \eqref{eq:delta}.

1790: Here, as is customary, we have assumed that $\ve$ is

1791: sufficiently small.

1792: One also checks that taking $\phi\geq \phi_1$ is enough to ensure

1793: that the first term is $O(1)$, in view of the lower bound for $k/u$ in \eqref{eq:in1}.

1794: 

1795: Suppose now that $\phi\leq \phi_0$.  Then $\psi_H\ll (P^2H)^{-1}$ and it follows that

1796: \begin{align*}

1797: RH^3\psi_H

1798: &\ll \frac{R P^{2\ve}}{P^2}

1799: (1+R^{\frac{2}{v}}\phi^{\frac{1}{v}-\frac{1}{2}}P^{n-\frac{23}{2}+\frac{k}{u}})^{\frac{4}{n}}\\

1800: &\ll 1+  

1801: R^{1+\frac{8}{vn}}(RQ)^{-(\frac{1}{v}-\frac{1}{2})\frac{4}{n}}P^{(n-\frac{23}{2}+\frac{k}{u})\frac{4}{n}-2+2\ve}\\

1802: &\ll 1+  

1803: P^{\kappa(1+\frac{4}{n})}P^{2-\frac{46}{n}+\frac{4k}{un}+2\ve},

1804: \end{align*}

1805: since $Q=P^{\kappa}$. It follows from \eqref{eq:in1} and \eqref{eq:kappa} 

1806: that this is $O(1)$.  Thus the second term makes a satisfactory 

1807: contribution in $F$. Turning to the third term, we find that

1808: \begin{align*}

1809: \frac{H^{n}}{R^{\frac{n}{2}}(P^2\psi_H)^{\frac{n-2}{2}}}\ll

1810:  \frac{P^{\frac{(3n-2)\ve}{2}}}{R^{\frac{n}{2}}}

1811: (1+R^{\frac{2}{v}}\phi^{\frac{1}{v}-\frac{1}{2}}P^{n-\frac{23}{2}+\frac{k}{u}})^{\frac{3n-2}{n}}.

1812: \end{align*}

1813: We now make the assumption $6/5<

1814: v<2$. Hence the overall contribution from the second term

1815: is $O(1)$ provided that $\phi\leq \phi_2$, with 

1816: \begin{equation}

1817:   \label{eq:ankle}

1818:   \phi_2:=R^{\rho_n'}P^{-\pi_n'-\delta},

1819: \end{equation}

1820: with $\rho_n', \pi_n'$ given by \eqref{eq:rp2} and $\delta$ given by \eqref{eq:delta}.

1821: Assuming \eqref{eq:in2} we note that if $\phi\leq \phi_2$ and $R\leq P^{n\ve/(3n-2)}$ then we would 

1822: have a point on the major arcs if $\ve$ is sufficiently small in terms

1823: of $\D$, which we have seen to be impossible. Hence the inequality $\phi\leq

1824: \phi_2$ is also enough to ensure that the first term is $O(1)$.

1825: 

1826: 

1827: When $v=2$ the exponent of $\phi$ is zero in the above and we will

1828: have an overall contribution of $O(1)$ unless 

1829: \begin{equation}

1830:   \label{eq:cas2}

1831: R\leq   P^{\frac{(3n-2)(2n-23+k)}{(n^2-6n+4)}+\delta}.

1832: \end{equation}

1833: We will return to this case shortly.

1834: Recall the definitions \eqref{eq:sock}--\eqref{eq:ankle} of $\phi_0,\phi_1,\phi_2$.

1835: It follows from the inequality $\phi_2<

1836: \phi_1$ that $R^{\rho_n'+\rho_n}< P^{\pi_n'-\pi_n+2\delta}$.

1837: We now employ the assumption \eqref{eq:paris} on the size of $\rho_n'+\rho_n$.

1838: Combining the above we conclude that there is an overall contribution of 

1839: $o(P^{10})$ to $I_{u,v}(k;\mathfrak{a})$ from all of the relevant values of

1840: $R,\phi$, apart from those which satisfy the inequalities

1841: $$

1842: R< P^{{\frac{\pi_n'-\pi_n}{\rho_n'+\rho_n}}+2\delta},\quad \phi_2<\phi <\phi_1.

1843: $$

1844: But then the relevant point is forced to lie in the set $\m_0$

1845: that was defined in the statement of the lemma. This is impossible,

1846: and so completes the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:v<2}.

1847: \end{proof}

1848: 

1849: 

1850: 

1851: Our next result deals with the corresponding case in which $u=v=2$.

1852: In this setting \eqref{eq:rp1} becomes

1853: \begin{equation}

1854:   \label{eq:rp1'}

1855:   \rho_n=\frac{n(n-5)}{n^2-5n+2}, \quad \pi_n=

1856: \frac{-2(n^2-(18-k)n-2)}{n^2-5n+2}.

1857: \end{equation}

1858: Define

1859: \begin{equation}

1860:   \label{eq:r''}

1861:   \rho_n'':=

1862: \frac{(3n-2)(2n-23+k)}{n^2-6n+4}

1863: \end{equation}

1864: and

1865: \begin{equation}\label{eq:psi}

1866: \psi_n:=\rho_n''\left(1+\frac{n}{8}-\frac{(4+n)\rho_n}{8}\right)

1867: +n+\frac{k}{2}-\frac{(4+n)\pi_n}{8},

1868: \end{equation}

1869: for any $k$ and $n$, and recall the definition \eqref{eq:delta} of

1870: $\delta$. 

1871: Then we have the following result.

1872: 

1873: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:v=2}

1874: Let $u=v=2$. Assume that $n_2\geq 6$.

1875: Define $\m_0$ to be the set 

1876: of $\al \in \m$ for which there exist coprime integers $0 \leq a <q$ such that 

1877: $$

1878: q\leq P^{\rho_{n_2}''+\delta}, \quad

1879: \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq 

1880: q^{-\frac{n_2-8}{n_2-4}}P^{-\frac{80-5n_2-4k}{n_2-4}+\delta}.

1881: $$

1882: Then 

1883: $$

1884: I_{2,2}(k;\mathfrak{n}\setminus \m_0)=o(P^{10}),

1885: $$

1886: for any $\mathfrak{n}\subseteq \m$, 

1887: provided that \eqref{eq:in1} holds and 

1888: \begin{equation}\label{eq:in3}

1889: \psi_{n_2}\leq 10-\frac{1}{10}.

1890: \end{equation}

1891: \end{lemma}

1892: 

1893: 

1894: \begin{proof}

1895: We continue to write $\mathfrak{a}=\mathfrak{m}\setminus\m_0$ and 

1896: $n=n_2$ throughout the proof, in order to improve the appearance of

1897: our expressions. Our starting point is the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:v<2}, which on

1898: passing to dyadic intervals via

1899: \eqref{eq:foot}, shows that 

1900: $I_{2,2}(k;\mathfrak{a})=o(P^{10})$ 

1901: unless $\phi<\phi_1$, in the notation of \eqref{eq:knee}, 

1902: and  the inequality \eqref{eq:cas2} holds for $R$.

1903: This much is valid subject to \eqref{eq:in1}.

1904: 

1905: We now consider the effect of applying Lemma \ref{lem:B} in

1906: \eqref{eq:foot} when $R$ and $\phi$ are in the remaining ranges, with

1907: $u=v=2$. This gives

1908: \begin{align*}

1909: I_{2,2}(k;\mathfrak{a})

1910: &\ll P^{n+\frac{k}{2}+2\ve} \max_{R,\phi} 

1911: (R^2\phi)^{\frac{1}{2}} \big(R\phi+ (R\phi P^3)^{-1}\big)^{\frac{n}{8}}\\

1912: &\ll  P^{2\ve}\max_{R,\phi} \big(

1913: R^{1+\frac{n}{8}}\phi^{\frac{4+n}{8}}P^{n+\frac{k}{2}} +

1914: R^{1-\frac{n}{8}}\phi^{\frac{4-n}{8}} P^{\frac{5n}{8}+\frac{k}{2}}\big).

1915: \end{align*}

1916: Taking $\phi<\phi_1$ and recalling the assumed inequality

1917: \eqref{eq:cas2} for $R$ we see that the first term here is 

1918: \begin{align*}

1919: &\ll   

1920: R^{1+\frac{n}{8}}(R^{-\rho_n}P^{-\pi_n+\delta})^{\frac{4+n}{8}}P^{n+\frac{k}{2}+2\ve}\\

1921: &\ll   

1922: R^{1+\frac{n}{8}-\frac{(4+n)\rho_n}{8}}

1923: P^{n+\frac{k}{2}-\frac{(4+n)\pi_n}{8}+2\ve+(\frac{4+n}{8})\delta}\\

1924: &\ll   P^{\psi_n+2\ve+(1+\frac{n}{8}-\frac{(4+n)\rho_n}{8}+\frac{4+n}{8})\delta},

1925: \end{align*}

1926: where $\psi_n$ is given by \eqref{eq:psi}. According to  

1927: \eqref{eq:in3} this contribution is satisfactory. 

1928: Turning to the second term in the above estimate for

1929: $I_{2,2}(k;\mathfrak{a})$, we will have $O(P^{10-\ve})$ as an upper

1930: bound for this quantity provided

1931: that $\phi>\phi_3$, with 

1932: $$

1933: \phi_3:=R^{-\frac{n-8}{n-4}}P^{-\frac{80-5n-4k}{n-4}+\delta},

1934: $$

1935: since $n\geq 6$ by assumption. 

1936: 

1937: Our investigation has therefore allowed us to handle all $\al$ apart from

1938: those for which $R\leq P^{\rho_n''+\delta}$ and $\phi<\phi_3$, where

1939: $\rho_n''$ is given by \eqref{eq:r''}.

1940: Such points are forced to lie on the set of arcs defined in $\m_0$. This therefore

1941: completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:v=2}.

1942: \end{proof}

1943: 

1944: 

1945: 

1946: The ideal scenario is when we can apply

1947: Lemma \ref{lem:v=2} with 

1948: $$

1949: k=2n_1-3=23-2n_2,

1950: $$

1951: and we will find this is possible for 

1952: certain ranges of $n_1,n_2$ such that $n_1+n_2=13$. When this comes to

1953: pass it follows from \eqref{eq:rp1'}, \eqref{eq:r''} that

1954: $\pi_{n_2}=2$ and $\rho_{n_2}''=0$, and furthermore,

1955: $\psi_{n_2}=21/2-n_2/4$. One easily checks that the conditions in

1956: \eqref{eq:in1} and \eqref{eq:in3} are satisfied for $n_2\geq 6$. 

1957: Finally we note that $\m\setminus \m_0=\m$ in the statement of

1958: Lemma \ref{lem:v=2} since clearly any element of $\m_0$ is forced

1959: to lie on the major arcs. We may conclude as follows. 

1960: 

1961: \begin{lemma}\label{lem:v=2'}

1962: Assume that $n_2\geq 6$.  Then 

1963: we have 

1964: $$

1965: I_{2,2}(2n_1-3;\mathfrak{m})=o(P^{10}).

1966: $$

1967: \end{lemma}

1968: 

1969: 

1970: 

1971: 

1972: We are now ready to apply this collection of estimates in our case by

1973: case analysis of the minor arc integral $E$ in \eqref{eq:minor}.

1974: 

1975: 

1976: 

1977: 

1978: \subsection{The case $n_1=1$}\label{s:1.12}

1979: 

1980: 

1981: We will assume that $w\in \WW_n^{(2)}$ throughout this section. 

1982: One of the ingredients in our treatment of this case 

1983: is the use of ``pruning''. We will find it

1984: convenient to sort the minor arcs into subsets

1985: $$

1986: \emptyset=\mathfrak{n}_3\subseteq \mathfrak{n}_2\subseteq \mathfrak{n}_1

1987: \subseteq \n_0:= \m.

1988: $$ 

1989: Recall the definition \eqref{eq:delta} of $\delta$. We define $\n_1$ to be the set of $\al\in \m$ for

1990: which there exists $a,q\in\ZZ$ such that $0\leq a<q\leq P^{17/24+2\delta}$ and $\gcd(a,q)=1$,

1991: with 

1992: \begin{equation}

1993:   \label{eq:box1}

1994: q^{\frac{42}{17}}P^{-4-\delta}\leq \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq q^{-1}P^{-\frac{37}{24}+2\delta},

1995: \end{equation}

1996: We denote by $\n_2$ the corresponding set of $\al \in \n_1$ with the

1997: property that whenever \eqref{eq:box1} holds with $\gcd(a,q)=1$ and $0\leq a< q\leq P^{17/24+\delta}$, then

1998: $$

1999: q\leq P^{\frac{27}{50}}.

2000: $$

2001: We will write $E_i$ for the overall contribution to $E$ from

2002: integrating over the set $\n_i\setminus \n_{i+1}$, for $i=0,1,2$.

2003: Our task is to show that $E_i=o(P^{10})$ for each $i$.

2004: 

2005: To handle the case $i=0$ we begin as in \eqref{eq:split} and

2006: \eqref{eq:Ivu} with $(u,v)=(4,4/3)$.  It easily follows that

2007: $$

2008: \int_{0}^1 |S_1(\al)|^4 \d \al \ll P^{2+\ve},

2009: $$

2010: on interpreting the integral as a sum over the solutions of

2011: the equation $x_1^3+x_2^3=x_3^3+x_4^3$, with $x_i\ll P$, and

2012: applying standard estimates for the divisor function. Hence we have

2013: $$

2014: E_0 \ll I_{4,\frac{4}{3}}(2;\m\setminus \n_1),

2015: $$

2016: in the notation of \eqref{eq:Iuv}.

2017: When $(u,v)=(4,4/3)$, $k=2$ and $n_2=12$ we have 

2018: $$

2019:  \rho_{12}=\frac{30}{37}, \quad \pi_{12}=\frac{62}{37},\quad

2020: \rho_{12}'=\frac{42}{17},\quad 

2021: \pi_{12}'=4,

2022: $$

2023: in \eqref{eq:rp1} and \eqref{eq:rp2}. In particular \eqref{eq:paris}, \eqref{eq:in1} and

2024: \eqref{eq:in2} are satisfied. 

2025: Now it is easily to see  that $\m\setminus\n_1\subset

2026: \n\setminus\m_0$, where $\m_0$ is as in the statement of Lemma~\ref{lem:v<2}, since for $\al\in \m_0$ we have 

2027: \begin{align*}

2028: q^{\frac{42}{17}}P^{-4-\delta}\leq 

2029: \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq 

2030: q^{-\frac{30}{37}}P^{-\frac{62}{37}+\delta}=q^{-1}q^{\frac{7}{37}}P^{-\frac{62}{37}+\delta}

2031: &\leq q^{-1}P^{-\frac{37}{24}+2\delta}.

2032: \end{align*}

2033: It therefore follows from Lemma \ref{lem:v<2} that $E_0=o(P^{10})$, as

2034: required.

2035: 

2036: Turning to the case $i=1$, we begin as above with the observation that 

2037: $$

2038: E_1 \ll I_{4,\frac{4}{3}}(2;\n_1\setminus \n_2),

2039: $$

2040: This time we appeal to Lemma \ref{lem:B}. On observing that 

2041: $$

2042: \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq q^{-1}P^{-\frac{37}{24}+2\delta}\leq q^{-1}P^{-\frac{3}{2}},

2043: $$

2044: for any $\al \in \n_1$, we deduce from the second part of this result

2045: that

2046: \begin{align*}

2047: E_1 &\ll P^{\frac{25}{2}+2\ve} \max_{R,\phi} (R^2\phi)^{\frac{3}{4}}R^{-\frac{3}{2}}\min

2048: \{1,(\phi P^3 )^{-\frac{3}{2}}\}

2049: \ll P^{8+2\ve} \max_{R,\phi} \phi^{-\frac{3}{4}},

2050: \end{align*}

2051: where the maximum is over all $R,\phi>0$ such that 

2052: $$

2053: P^{\frac{27}{50}}< R\leq P^{\frac{17}{24}+2\delta}, \quad

2054: R^{\frac{42}{17}}P^{-4-\delta}< \phi < R^{-1}P^{-\frac{37}{24}+2\delta}. 

2055: $$

2056: Taking the lower bounds for $\phi$ and $R$ that emerge from these

2057: inequalities therefore implies that

2058: \begin{align*}

2059: E_1 &\ll P^{11+\frac{3\delta}{4}+2\ve} \max_{R} R^{-\frac{63}{34}} =o(P^{10}),

2060: \end{align*}

2061: on recalling that $\delta=10^{-4}$ from \eqref{eq:delta} and $\ve>0$

2062: is arbitrary.

2063: 

2064: 

2065: The key idea in our treatment of $E_2$ is to take

2066: advantage of the fact that we have rather good control of the

2067: $1$-dimensional exponential sum $S_1(\al)$ on suitable sets of ``major

2068: arcs''. Recall the definition \eqref{eq:Aqa} of $\A=\A(A,B,C)$.

2069: We will take $(A,B,C)=(24/50,1,35/24+2\delta)$, whence we may deduce

2070: from Lemma \ref{lem:E} that

2071: $$

2072: S_1(\al)=S_1^*(\al)+O(P^{\frac{35}{48}+\delta+\ve}),

2073: $$

2074: for any $\al \in \A_{a,q}$, where $S_1^*(\al)$ is given by \eqref{eq:S*}.

2075: It follows that

2076: \begin{equation}\label{eq:improper0}

2077: E_2

2078: \ll

2079: \int_{\n_2} |S_1^*(\al)S_2(\al)|\d\al

2080: +P^{\frac{35}{48}+\delta+\ve} \int_{\n_2} |S_2(\al)|\d\al

2081: =I_1+I_2,

2082: \end{equation}

2083: say.  We will show that $I_1$ and $I_2$ are both $o(P^{10})$.

2084: 

2085: 

2086: Let us begin by analysing the first term in this bound. 

2087: Now it follows from the second part of Lemma \ref{lem:E} and H\"older's inequality that 

2088: \begin{align*}

2089: I_1&\ll I_{4,\frac{4}{3}}(1,\n_2),

2090: \end{align*}

2091: in the notation of \eqref{eq:Iuv}.  A straightforward application of

2092: Lemma \ref{lem:v<2} reveals that $I_{4,4/3}(1,\n_2\setminus

2093: \n_*)=o(P^{10})$, where $\n_*$ is the set of $\al \in \n_1$ for which

2094: there exists $a,q\in\ZZ$ such that $0\leq a<q\leq P^{17/48+2\delta}$ and $\gcd(a,q)=1$,

2095: with 

2096: $$

2097: q^{\frac{42}{17}}P^{-3-\delta}\leq \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq q^{-\frac{30}{37}}P^{-\frac{68}{37}+\delta}.

2098: $$

2099: To estimate $I_{4,4/3}(1,\n_*)$ we employ the second part of Lemma

2100: \ref{lem:B} in much the same way that we did in our analysis of $E_1$. This implies that

2101: \begin{align*}

2102: I_{4,\frac{4}{3}}(1,\n_*) &\ll P^{\frac{49}{4}+2\ve} \max_{R,\phi} (R^2\phi)^{\frac{3}{4}}R^{-\frac{3}{2}}\min

2103: \{1,(\phi P^3 )^{-\frac{3}{2}}\},

2104: \end{align*}

2105: where the maximum is over all $R,\phi>0$ such that 

2106: $$

2107: R\leq P^{\frac{17}{48}+2\delta}, \quad

2108: R^{\frac{42}{17}}P^{-3-\delta}< \phi <

2109: R^{-\frac{30}{37}}P^{-\frac{68}{24}+\delta}, 

2110: $$

2111: with the inequalities $R\leq P^\D$ and $\phi \leq P^{-3+\D}$ not both

2112: holding simultaneously. 

2113: Taking the lower bound for $\phi$ we obtain the contribution

2114: $$

2115: \ll P^{\frac{31}{4}+2\ve} \phi^{-\frac{3}{4}} 

2116: \ll P^{10+\frac{3\delta}{4}+2\ve}R^{-\frac{63}{34}}.

2117: $$

2118: This is $o(P^{10})$ if $R\geq P^{\delta}$. If on the other

2119: hand $R<P^{\delta}\leq P^{\D}$ we must automatically have $\phi \geq P^{-3+\D}$,

2120:   whence we still obtain a satisfactory contribution. This completes the treatment of 

2121: $I_{4,4/3}(1,\n_*)$, and so that of $I_1$. 

2122: 

2123: 

2124: 

2125: We now turn to the contribution from $I_2$ in \eqref{eq:improper0}.

2126: Breaking the ranges for $q$ and $|\al-a/q|$ into dyadic intervals as

2127: usual, and applying the second part of Lemma \ref{lem:B}, we have

2128: $$

2129: I_2\ll P^{12+\frac{35}{48}+\delta+2\ve} \max_{R,\phi} R^{\frac{1}{2}}\phi \min

2130: \{1,(\phi P^3 )^{-\frac{3}{2}}\},

2131: $$

2132: where the maximum is over all $R,\phi$ such that 

2133: $$

2134: 0<R\leq P^{\frac{27}{50}}, \quad  0<\phi < R^{-1}P^{-\frac{37}{24}+2\delta},

2135: $$

2136: with the inequalities $R\leq P^\D$ and $\phi \leq P^{-3+\D}$ not both

2137: holding simultaneously.  If $\phi >P^{-3}$ then this is 

2138: $$

2139: \ll 

2140: R^{\frac{1}{2}} P^{9+\frac{35}{48}+\delta+2\ve} \ll

2141: P^{10-\frac{1}{1200}+\delta+2\ve}=o(P^{10}), 

2142: $$

2143: whereas if on the other hand $\phi\leq P^{-3}$, then the same basic conclusion holds.

2144: 

2145: Once taken all together, this therefore completes the treatment of the

2146: minor arcs when $(n_1,n_2)=(1,12)$. 

2147: 

2148: 

2149: 

2150: \subsection{The case $n_1=2$}

2151: 

2152: 

2153: We will continue to assume that $w\in \WW_n^{(2)}$ throughout this section. 

2154: In what follows we may assume that

2155: $C_1$ does not take the shape

2156: $a(b_1x_1+b_2x_2)^3$, for integers $a,b_1,b_2$, since otherwise

2157: the resolution of Theorem \ref{main} is trivial.

2158: 

2159: 

2160: Recall the manipulations in \eqref{eq:split} and

2161: \eqref{eq:Ivu}. Taking $(u,v)=(4,4/3)$ it

2162: follows from Lemma \ref{lem:hua_2} that the latter 

2163: inequality is bounded  by $O(P^{5+\ve})$.

2164: Thus we are led to estimate $I_{4,4/3}(5;\m)$, as given by

2165: \eqref{eq:Iuv}.  We clearly have 

2166: $$

2167: \rho_{11}=\frac{44}{57}, \quad \pi_{11}=\frac{103}{57},\quad

2168: \rho_{11}'=\frac{56}{31}, \quad \pi_{11}'=3,

2169: $$

2170: in \eqref{eq:rp1} and \eqref{eq:rp2}.

2171: One easily checks that the conditions \eqref{eq:paris}, \eqref{eq:in1} and

2172: \eqref{eq:in2} in the statement of

2173: Lemma  \ref{lem:v<2} are satisfied with our choice of $u,v,k$ and

2174: $n_2$. Recall the definition \eqref{eq:delta} of $\delta$. 

2175: Define $\m_0$ to be the set 

2176: of $\al \in \m$ for which there exist coprime integers $0 \leq a <q$ such that 

2177: $$

2178: q\leq P^{\frac{31}{67}+2\delta},\quad 

2179: q^{\frac{56}{31}}P^{-3-\delta}\leq \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq q^{-\frac{44}{57}}P^{-\frac{103}{57}+\delta}.

2180: $$

2181: Then we may conclude from Lemma \ref{lem:v<2} that 

2182: $

2183: I_{4,\frac{4}{3}}(5;\m\setminus \m_0)=o(P^{10}).

2184: $

2185: 

2186: It remains to deal with the contribution from $\al\in \m_0$.

2187: We will use Lemma~\ref{lem:B} to handle this remaining range. 

2188: Now it follows that

2189: $$

2190: \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq

2191: q^{-1}q^{\frac{13}{57}}P^{-\frac{103}{57}+\delta}<q^{-1}P^{-\frac{3}{2}}.

2192: $$ 

2193: Recalling the definition \eqref{eq:Iuv} of  $I_{4,4/3}(5;\m_0)$,

2194: we therefore deduce from the second part of Lemma \ref{lem:B} with $n=11$ that

2195: \begin{align*}

2196:   I_{4,\frac{4}{3}}(5;\m_0) &\ll P^{\frac{49}{4}+2\ve} \left(

2197: \sum_{q}q^{-\frac{5}{6}} \int \min\{1,(|\theta| P^3)^{-\frac{11}{6}}\}

2198:     \d\theta\right)^{\frac{3}{4}},

2199: \end{align*}

2200: where the integral is over $q^{56/31}P^{-3-\delta}\leq |\theta|\leq q^{-44/57}P^{-103/57+\delta}$

2201: and the sum is over $q\leq P^{31/67+2\delta}$,

2202: with the inequalities $q\leq P^\D$ and $|\theta| \leq P^{-3+\D}$ not both

2203: holding simultaneously.

2204: The contribution from $q\leq P^{\D}$ is therefore 

2205: $$

2206: \ll 

2207: P^{10+2\ve-\frac{5\D}{8}} \left(\sum_{q\leq P^\D}q^{-\frac{5}{6}} \right)^{\frac{3}{4}} 

2208: \ll P^{10+2\ve-\frac{\D}{2}},

2209: $$

2210: which is satisfactory.  Taking $|\theta|\geq q^{56/31}P^{-3-\delta}$,

2211: we see that the corresponding contribution from 

2212: $q>P^\D$ is 

2213: $$

2214: \ll 

2215: P^{10+\frac{5\delta}{8}+2\ve}  \left(\sum_{q> P^\D}q^{-\frac{145}{62}} \right)^{\frac{3}{4}} 

2216: \ll P^{10+\frac{5\delta}{8}-\D+2\ve}.

2217: $$

2218: This too is satisfactory, and so completes our analysis of the case $(n_1,n_2)=(2,11)$.

2219: 

2220: 

2221: 

2222: 

2223: 

2224: 

2225: 

2226: 

2227: 

2228: 

2229: 

2230: \subsection{The case $n_1=3$}

2231: 

2232: According to Lemma \ref{lem:curve} we may proceed under the assumption

2233: that either $C_1$ is non-singular or else our cubic form $C$ splits off a

2234: ternary norm form. In the latter case Theorem \ref{main'''} readily

2235: ensures that $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$, and so we may focus our efforts

2236: on the case $C_1$ is non-singular. 

2237: We will assume that $w=(w_1,w_2)\in \WW_3^{(1)}\times \WW_{10}^{(2)}$,  throughout this section. 

2238: 

2239: 

2240: Our argument relies upon the same notion of pruning

2241: that was put to good effect in  \S \ref{s:1.12}.

2242: Let us define $\m_1$ to be the set of $\al \in \m$ for which there exists

2243: $a,q\in\ZZ$ such that $0\leq a<q\leq P^{16/25}$ and $\gcd(a,q)=1$,

2244: with 

2245: $$

2246: \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq q^{-1}P^{-\frac{143}{75}}.

2247: $$

2248: It will be convenient to refer to the set $\m\setminus\m_1$ as the set of ``proper minor

2249: arcs'', and  $\m_1$ will be the set of ``improper minor

2250: arcs''.  Let us write $E_{\mathrm{prop}}$ and $E_{\mathrm{improp}}$

2251: for the corresponding contributions to $E$.

2252: 

2253: We begin by estimating $E_{\mathrm{prop}}$. 

2254: Taking $u=v=2$ in \eqref{eq:split} and

2255: \eqref{eq:Ivu}, and applying Lemma \ref{lem:C}, we deduce that 

2256: $E_{\mathrm{prop}}\ll I_{2,2}(4;\m\setminus \m_1)$.

2257: When $u=v=2$, $k=4$ and $n_2=10$ we have 

2258: $$

2259:  \rho_{10}=\frac{25}{26}, \quad \pi_{10}=\frac{21}{13},\quad

2260: \rho_{10}''=\frac{7}{11},\quad 

2261: \psi_{10}=\frac{839}{88}=9.53\ldots,

2262: $$

2263: in \eqref{eq:rp1'}, \eqref{eq:r''} and \eqref{eq:psi}.

2264: Now it is easily to see  that $\m\setminus\m_1\subset

2265: \m\setminus\m_0$, where $\m_0$ is as in the statement of Lemma

2266: \ref{lem:v=2}, since for $\al\in \m_0$ we have 

2267: \begin{align*}

2268: \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq 

2269: q^{-\frac{1}{3}}P^{-\frac{7}{3}+\delta}=q^{-1}q^{\frac{2}{3}}P^{-\frac{7}{3}+\delta}

2270: &\leq q^{-1}P^{-\frac{21}{11}+2\delta}

2271: <q^{-1}P^{-\frac{143}{75}},

2272: \end{align*}

2273: where $\delta$ is given by \eqref{eq:delta}.

2274: On observing that $\psi_{10}$ satisfies \eqref{eq:in3}, and that

2275: the inequalities in \eqref{eq:in1} are trivially satisfied, it therefore follows from 

2276: Lemma \ref{lem:v=2} that $E_{\mathrm{prop}}=o(P^{10})$.

2277: 

2278: 

2279: We now turn to the argument needed to control the overall contribution

2280: to $E$ from the improper minor arcs, which we denote by

2281: $E_{\mathrm{improp}}$. We select $(A,B,C)=(16/25,1, 82/75)$

2282: in the definition \eqref{eq:Aqa} of $\A=\A(A,B,C)$.

2283: It now follows from taking $n=3$ and $\sigma=-1$ in Lemma \ref{lem:F} that

2284: $$

2285: S_1(\al)-S_1^*(\al)\ll P^{\frac{A}{2}+2+\ve}+P^{2C+\ve}\ll 

2286: P^{\frac{58}{25}+\ve},

2287: $$

2288: for any $\al\in \A_{q,a}$, where $S_1^*(\al)$ is given by \eqref{eq:S*}.

2289: Hence 

2290: $$

2291: E_{\mathrm{improp}}

2292: \ll

2293: \int_{\m_1} |S_1^*(\al)S_2(\al)|\d\al

2294: +P^{\frac{58}{25}+\ve} \int_{\m_1} |S_2(\al)|\d\al=I_1+I_2,

2295: $$

2296: say.  Our goal is to show that $E_{\mathrm{improp}}=o(P^{10})$.

2297: 

2298: We begin by handling the contribution from $I_2$.  

2299: Using dyadic summation it follows from Lemma \ref{lem:B} that

2300: \begin{align*}

2301: I_2

2302: \ll P^{10+\frac{58}{25}+2\ve} \max_{R,\phi} R^{\frac{3}{4}}\phi

2303: \min\{1,(\phi P^3)^{-\frac{5}{4}}\}

2304: &\ll P^{7+\frac{58}{25}+2\ve} R^{\frac{3}{4}}\ll P^{10-\frac{1}{5}+2\ve},

2305: \end{align*}

2306: where the maximum is over $R,\phi$ dictated by the definition of $\m_1$.

2307: This is plainly satisfactory and so completes our treatment of $I_2$.

2308: 

2309: 

2310: 

2311: 

2312: 

2313: We now turn to an upper bound for $I_1$. Combining H\"older's

2314: inequality with the second part of Lemma \ref{lem:F} gives

2315: $$

2316: |I_1|\leq

2317: \left(\int_{\m_1} |S_1^*(\al)|^4\d\al

2318: \right)^{\frac{1}{4}}\left(\int_{\m_1}

2319:   |S_2(\al)|^{\frac{4}{3}}\d\al\right)^{\frac{3}{4}}\ll 

2320: I_{4,\frac{4}{3}}(9;\m_1),

2321: $$

2322: in the notation of \eqref{eq:Iuv}. 

2323: Let us dissect $\m_1$ into $\m_1^{a}\cup\m_1^{b}$, where

2324: $\m_1^{a}$ is the set of $\al\in \m_1$

2325: for which there exist coprime integers $0 \leq a <q$ such that 

2326: $q\leq P^{16/25}$ and  $|\al-a/q|\leq q^{1/2}P^{-3+\delta}$, and 

2327: $\m_1^{b}=\m_1\setminus \m_1^{a}$. An application of Lemma 

2328: \ref{lem:B} yields

2329: \begin{align*}

2330: I_{4,4/3}(9;\m_1^b)

2331: &\ll 

2332: P^{10+\frac{9}{4}+2\ve}\left(

2333: \sum_{q\leq P^{\frac{16}{25}}}q^{-\frac{2}{3}}\int_{q^{\frac{1}{2}}P^{-3+\delta}}^{q^{-1}P^{-\frac{143}{75}}}

2334: (\theta P^3)^{-\frac{5}{3}}\d\theta

2335: \right)^{\frac{3}{4}}\\

2336: &\ll 

2337: P^{10+\frac{9}{4}+2\ve}\left(

2338: \sum_{q}q^{-\frac{2}{3}}P^{-5}

2339: (q^{\frac{1}{2}}P^{-3+\delta})^{-\frac{2}{3}}

2340: \right)^{\frac{3}{4}}\\

2341: &\ll P^{10-\frac{\delta}{2}+2\ve}\log P,

2342: \end{align*}

2343: which is satisfactory.

2344: Turning to $I_{4,4/3}(9;\m_1^a)$, we note that when $(u,v)=(4,4/3)$

2345: and $k=9$ one has

2346: $$

2347:  \rho_{10}=\frac{5}{7}, \quad \pi_{10}=\frac{37}{21},\quad

2348: \rho_{10}'=\frac{8}{7},\quad 

2349: \pi_{10}'=3,

2350: $$ 

2351: in \eqref{eq:rp1} and \eqref{eq:rp2}. Since \eqref{eq:paris}, \eqref{eq:in1} and

2352: \eqref{eq:in2} are evidently satisfied in Lemma~\ref{lem:v<2}, a modest pause for thought reveals that

2353: $I_{4,4/3}(9;\m_1^a)=o(P^{10})$,  as required.

2354: 

2355: 

2356: 

2357: 

2358: 

2359: 

2360: 

2361: \subsection{The case $n_1=4$}

2362: 

2363: 

2364: We follow the strategy of the preceding section. 

2365: According to Lemma \ref{lem:surface} we may assume that either $C_1$ is

2366: non-singular or else the surface $C_1=0$ contains precisely $3$

2367: conjugate double points. In the latter case \eqref{eq:4_norm} implies

2368: that our cubic form $C$ can be written as

2369: $$

2370: \Norm_{K/\QQ}(x_1\omega_1+\cdots+x_3\omega_3)+ax_4^2\Tr_{K/\QQ}(x_1\omega_1+\cdots+x_3\omega_3)+bx_4^3+

2371: C_2(x_5,\ldots,x_{13}),

2372: $$

2373: for appropriate coefficients $\omega_1,\omega_2,\omega_3 \in K$ and

2374: $a,b \in \ZZ$, and where $K$ is a certain cubic number field.

2375: Setting $x_4=0$ we arrive at  a cubic form in $12$ variables which is exactly of the type 

2376: considered in Theorem \ref{main'''}. Hence $X(\QQ)\neq \emptyset$ in

2377: this case, and so  we are free to proceed under the assumption that $C_1$ is non-singular. 

2378: Throughout this section we will take $w=(w_1,w_2)$ as our weight function, with

2379: $w_1\in \WW_4^{(1)}$ and $w_2\in \WW_{9}^{(2)}$.

2380: 

2381: 

2382: Let $\m_1$ be the set of $\al \in \m$ for which there exists

2383: $a,q\in\ZZ$ such that $0\leq a<q\leq P^{21/50}$ and $\gcd(a,q)=1$,

2384: with 

2385: $$

2386: \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq q^{-1}P^{-\frac{113}{50}}.

2387: $$

2388: As previously we define $\m\setminus\m_1$ to be the proper minor

2389: arcs and  $\m_1$ to be the improper minor arcs, with the same notation   

2390: $E_{\mathrm{prop}}, E_{\mathrm{improp}}$ for the corresponding

2391: contributions to $E$.

2392: 

2393: We begin by estimating $E_{\mathrm{prop}}$. 

2394: Taking $u=v=2$ in \eqref{eq:split} and

2395: \eqref{eq:Ivu}, and applying Lemma \ref{lem:C}, we find

2396: that $E_{\mathrm{prop}}\ll I_{2,2}(11/2;\m\setminus \m_1)$.

2397: When $u=v=2$, $k=11/2$ and $n_2=9$ we have 

2398: $$

2399:  \rho_{9}=\frac{18}{19}, \quad \pi_{9}=\frac{67}{38},\quad

2400: \rho_{9}''=\frac{25}{62},\quad 

2401: \psi_{9}=9+\frac{15}{124}=9.12\ldots,

2402: $$

2403: in \eqref{eq:rp1'}, \eqref{eq:r''} and \eqref{eq:psi}.

2404: Furthermore, it is easily checked that $\m\setminus\m_1\subset

2405: \m\setminus\m_0$, where $\m_0$ is as in the statement of Lemma

2406: \ref{lem:v=2}.   On observing that \eqref{eq:in3} and 

2407: \eqref{eq:in1} are satisfied, it therefore follows from 

2408: Lemma \ref{lem:v=2} that $E_{\mathrm{prop}}=o(P^{10})$.

2409: 

2410: 

2411: 

2412: It remains to estimate $E_{\mathrm{improp}}$, for which we select

2413: $$

2414: (A,B,C)=\Big(\frac{21}{50},1, \frac{37}{50}\Big)

2415: $$

2416: in the definition \eqref{eq:Aqa} of $\A$.

2417: Taking $n=4$ and $\sigma=-1$ in Lemma \ref{lem:F} therefore gives

2418: $$

2419: S_1(\al)-S_1^*(\al)\ll P^{\frac{5C}{2}+\ve}+P^{\frac{5A}{6}+\frac{5}{2}+\ve}\ll 

2420: P^{\frac{57}{20}+\ve},

2421: $$

2422: for any $\al\in \A_{q,a}$.  It now follows that 

2423: $$

2424: E_{\mathrm{improp}}

2425: \ll

2426: \int_{\m_1} |S_1^*(\al)S_2(\al)|\d\al

2427: +P^{\frac{57}{20}+\ve} \int_{\m_1} |S_2(\al)|\d\al

2428: =I_1+I_2,

2429: $$

2430: say.

2431: We begin by handling the contribution from $I_2$.  

2432: Using dyadic summation it follows from Lemma \ref{lem:B} that

2433: \begin{align*}

2434: I_2

2435: \ll P^{9+\frac{57}{20}+2\ve} \max_{R,\phi} R^{\frac{7}{8}}\phi

2436: \min\{1,(\phi P^3)^{-\frac{9}{8}}\}

2437: &\ll P^{6+\frac{57}{20}+2\ve} R^{\frac{7}{8}}

2438: \ll P^{9.2175+2\ve},

2439: \end{align*}

2440: where the maximum is over $R,\phi$ such that 

2441: $$

2442: 0<R\leq P^{\frac{21}{50}},\quad 0<\phi<R^{-1}P^{-\frac{113}{50}}.

2443: $$

2444: This is plainly satisfactory and so completes our treatment of $I_2$.

2445: 

2446: 

2447: We now turn to an upper bound for $I_1$.  

2448: Since $C_1$ is assumed to be good as well as non-singular, we may

2449: apply the second part of Lemma \ref{lem:F} with $k=3$ and $n=4$ to conclude that

2450: $

2451: I_1\ll I_{3,3/2}(9,\m_1).

2452: $

2453: As in the case $n_1=3$ we write $\m_1=\m_1^{a}\cup\m_1^{b}$, where now

2454: $\m_1^{a}$ is the set of $\al\in \m_1$

2455: for which there exist coprime integers $0 \leq a <q$ such that 

2456: $q\leq P^{21/50}$ and  $|\al-a/q|\leq q P^{-3+\delta}$, and 

2457: $\m_1^{b}=\m_1\setminus \m_1^{a}$. It follows from Lemma 

2458: \ref{lem:B} that 

2459: \begin{align*}

2460: I_{3,\frac{3}{2}}(9;\m_1^b)

2461: &\ll 

2462: P^{12+2\ve}\left(

2463: \sum_{q\leq P^{\frac{21}{50}}}q^{1-\frac{27}{16}}\int_{q P^{-3+\delta}}^{q^{-1}P^{-\frac{113}{50}}}

2464: (\theta P^3)^{-\frac{27}{16}}\d\theta

2465: \right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\\

2466: &\ll 

2467: P^{12+2\ve}\left(

2468: \sum_{q\leq P^{\frac{21}{50}}}q^{-\frac{11}{16}}P^{-\frac{81}{16}}

2469: (q P^{-3+\delta})^{-\frac{11}{16}}

2470: \right)^{\frac{2}{3}}\\

2471: &\ll P^{10-\frac{11\delta}{24}+2\ve}.

2472: \end{align*}

2473: To handle $I_{3,3/2}(9;\m_1^a)$ we note that when $(u,v)=(3,3/2)$

2474: and $k=9$ we have 

2475: $$

2476:  \rho_{9}=\frac{3}{4}, \quad \pi_{9}=\frac{29}{16},\quad

2477: \rho_{9}'=\frac{43}{25},\quad 

2478: \pi_{9}'=3,

2479: $$ 

2480: in \eqref{eq:rp1} and \eqref{eq:rp2}. 

2481: Lemma~\ref{lem:v<2} easily gives 

2482: $I_{3,3/2}(9;\m_1^a)=o(P^{10})$,  as required.

2483: This completes the treatment of the improper minor arcs when $(n_1,n_2)=(4,9)$.

2484: 

2485: 

2486: 

2487: 

2488: 

2489: 

2490: 

2491: \subsection{The case $n_1=5$}

2492: 

2493: An application of Lemma \ref{lem:3fold} reveals that we are free to assume

2494: that $C_1$ defines a projective cubic hypersurface whose singular locus is either empty or finite.

2495: Throughout this section we will take $w=(w_1,w_2)\in \WW_5^{(1)}\times

2496: \WW_{8}^{(2)}$ as our weight function.

2497: 

2498: We let the improper minor arcs $\m_1$ be the set of $\al \in \m$ for which there exists

2499: $a,q\in\ZZ$ such that $0\leq a<q\leq P^{\frac{11}{20}+\delta}$ and $\gcd(a,q)=1$,

2500: with 

2501: $$

2502: \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq P^{-\frac{5}{2}+\delta},

2503: $$

2504: with $\delta$ given by \eqref{eq:delta}, and we let 

2505: $\m\setminus\m_1$  be the proper minor

2506: arcs.  As above, let $E_{\mathrm{prop}}, E_{\mathrm{improp}}$ denote

2507: the corresponding contributions to $E$.

2508: 

2509: 

2510: Taking $u=v=2$ in \eqref{eq:split} and

2511: \eqref{eq:Ivu}, and applying Lemma \ref{lem:C} with $n=5$ and

2512: $\sigma\leq 0$, we find

2513: that $E_{\mathrm{prop}}\ll I_{2,2}(15/2;\m\setminus \m_1)$.

2514: When $u=v=2$, $k=15/2$ and $n_2=8$ we have 

2515: $$

2516:  \rho_{8}=\frac{12}{13}, \quad \pi_{8}=\frac{22}{13},\quad

2517: \rho_{8}''=\frac{11}{20},\quad 

2518: \psi_{8}=9.55,

2519: $$

2520: in \eqref{eq:rp1'}, \eqref{eq:r''} and \eqref{eq:psi}.

2521: Furthermore, it is easily checked that $\m\setminus\m_1\subset

2522: \m\setminus\m_0$, where $\m_0$ is as in the statement of Lemma

2523: \ref{lem:v=2}.   On observing that \eqref{eq:in1} and \eqref{eq:in3}

2524: are satisfied, it therefore follows from 

2525: Lemma \ref{lem:v=2} that $E_{\mathrm{prop}}=o(P^{10})$.

2526: 

2527: 

2528: 

2529: It remains to estimate $E_{\mathrm{improp}}$, for which we select

2530: $$

2531: (A,B,C)=\Big(\frac{11}{20}+\delta,0, \frac{1}{2}+\delta\Big)

2532: $$

2533: in the definition \eqref{eq:Aqa} of $\A$.

2534: Taking $n=5$ and $\delta\leq 0$ in Lemma \ref{lem:F} therefore gives

2535: $$

2536: S_1(\al)-S_1^*(\al)\ll 

2537: P^{3+\frac{5A}{3}+\ve}

2538: +P^{3(A+C)+\ve}\ll P^{3.92},

2539: $$

2540: for any $\al\in \A_{q,a}$.  It now follows that 

2541: $$

2542: E_{\mathrm{improp}}

2543: \ll

2544: \int_{\m_1} |S_1^*(\al)S_2(\al)|\d\al

2545: +P^{3.92} \int_{\m_1} |S_2(\al)|\d\al

2546: =I_1+I_2,

2547: $$

2548: say.

2549: 

2550:    

2551: We begin by handling the contribution from $I_2$.  

2552: Using dyadic summation it follows from Lemma \ref{lem:B} that

2553: \begin{align*}

2554: I_2

2555: \ll P^{3.92+\ve} \max_{R,\phi} R \phi

2556: P^{8}\min\{1,(\phi P^3)^{-1}\}

2557: \ll P^{8.92+\ve} R\ll P^{9.47+\delta +\ve},

2558: \end{align*}

2559: where the maximum is over $R,\phi$ such that 

2560: $$

2561: 0<R\leq P^{\frac{11}{20}+\delta},\quad 0<\phi<P^{-\frac{5}{2}+\delta}.

2562: $$

2563: This is plainly satisfactory and so completes our treatment of $I_2$.

2564: 

2565: 

2566: We now turn to an upper bound for $I_1$. 

2567: Since $C_1$ is assumed to be good, we may

2568: apply the second part of Lemma \ref{lem:F} with $k=12/5$ and $n=5$ to conclude that

2569: $I_1\ll I_{12/5,12/7}(9;\m_1)$, in the notation of \eqref{eq:Iuv}.

2570: When $(u,v)=(12/5,12/7)$, $k=9$ and $n_2=8$ we have 

2571: $$

2572:  \rho_{8}=\frac{4}{5}, \quad \pi_{8}=\frac{66}{35},\quad

2573: \rho_{8}'=\frac{38}{11},\quad 

2574: \pi_{8}'=3,

2575: $$

2576: in \eqref{eq:rp1} and \eqref{eq:rp2}.

2577: Furthermore one easily checks that $k/u=15/4$ satisfies the

2578: inequalities in \eqref{eq:in1}. It therefore follows from

2579: Lemma \ref{lem:v<2} that $I_{12/5,12/7}(9;\m_1\setminus \m_2)=o(P^{10})$, where

2580: $\m_2$ is the set of $\al\in \m_1$ for which there exist coprime

2581: integers $0\leq a<q$ such that

2582: \begin{equation}

2583:   \label{eq:cut}

2584: q\leq P^{\frac{11}{42}+2\delta},\quad q^{\frac{38}{11}}P^{-3-\delta}\leq

2585: \Big|\al-\frac{a}{q}\Big|\leq q^{-\frac{4}{5}}P^{-\frac{66}{35}+\delta}. 

2586: \end{equation}

2587: Note that $q^{-4/5}P^{-66/35+\delta}\leq q^{-1}P^{-3/2}$. 

2588: To handle $I_{12/5,12/7}(9;\m_2)$ we appeal to Lemma

2589: \ref{lem:B}, deducing that 

2590: \begin{align*}

2591: I_{\frac{12}{5},\frac{12}{7}}(9;\m_2)

2592: &\ll P^{8+\frac{15}{4}+2\ve} \max_{R,\phi} (R^2 \phi)^{\frac{7}{12}}

2593: R^{-1}\min\{1,(\phi P^3)^{-1}\}\\

2594: &\ll 

2595: \max_{R,\phi} P^{5+\frac{15}{4}+2\ve}

2596: R^{\frac{1}{6}}\phi^{-\frac{5}{12}}\\

2597: &\ll P^{10+\frac{\delta}{2}+2\ve}R^{-\frac{14}{11}},

2598: \end{align*}

2599: on taking $\phi\geq R^{38/11}P^{-3-\delta}$.

2600: Here the maximum is over the relevant $R,\phi$ determined by \eqref{eq:cut},

2601: with the inequalities $R\leq P^\D$ and $\phi \leq P^{-3+\D}$ not both

2602: holding simultaneously.

2603: Now either $R>P^\D$ and this estimate is satisfactory, or else $R\leq

2604: P^{\D}$ and it follows that we may actually take the lower bound

2605: $\phi>P^{-3+\D}$ in the second term, giving instead

2606: $$

2607: \ll P^{10-\frac{5\D}{12}+2\ve} R^{\frac{1}{6}}\ll P^{10-\frac{\D}{4}+2\ve}.

2608: $$

2609: This too is satisfactory, and so completes the proof that

2610: $I_1=o(P^{10})$, thereby completing the treatment of the minor arcs in

2611: the case $(n_1,n_2)=(5,8)$.

2612: 

2613: 

2614: 

2615: 

2616: 

2617: \subsection{The case $n_1=6$}

2618: 

2619: We now come to the final case that we need to analyse

2620: in our proof of Theorem \ref{main}.

2621: We take $w=(w_1,w_2)\in  \WW_6^{(2)}\times \WW_{7}^{(2)}$, and seek 

2622: an estimate for

2623: $$

2624:   M_6(P;\m):=\int_{\m}|S_1(\al)|^{2}\d\al.

2625: $$

2626: Note that the integral is now taken over the set of minor arcs, rather

2627: than the entire interval $[0,1]$ as in \eqref{eq:moment}.

2628: As usual we assume that $C_1$ and $C_2$ are good. 

2629: We will show that 

2630: \begin{equation}

2631:   \label{eq:log}

2632:  M_6(P;\m)\ll P^{9+\ve}. 

2633: \end{equation}

2634: Once in place, we may take 

2635: $u=v=2$ in \eqref{eq:split} and \eqref{eq:Iuv} to conclude that

2636: $

2637: E\ll I_{2,2}(9;\m),

2638: $

2639: whence the desired conclusion is

2640: given by Lemma \ref{lem:v=2'}.

2641: 

2642: 

2643: It remains to establish \eqref{eq:log}. 

2644: Let us consider the consequences of applying Lemma \ref{lem:D} to

2645: estimate $M=M_6(P;\m)$, following the general approach in the proof of

2646: Lemmas \ref{lem:v<2} and \ref{lem:v=2}.

2647: We have 

2648: $$

2649: M

2650: \ll P^3+P^\ve \max_{R,\phi}

2651: \frac{\psi_H R^2 P^{11}}{H^{10}}F,

2652: $$

2653: where $\psi_H$ and $F$ are as in the statement of Lemma \ref{lem:D}

2654: and $H\in [1,P]\cap \ZZ$ is arbitrary. Furthermore the maximum is over

2655: $R,\phi$ such that

2656: \eqref{eq:range} holds with any choice of $Q\geq 1$ that we care

2657: to choose. We will take $Q=P^{3/2}$.

2658: In our deduction of \eqref{eq:log} it will be convenient to allow the value of $\ve>0$

2659: to take different values at different parts of the argument. 

2660: 

2661: We define $\phi_0:=R^{-2/11}P^{-2}$ and take

2662: $$

2663: H:=

2664: \begin{cases}

2665: \lfloor P^{\ve}\max\{1,(\phi R^{2}P^{2})^{\frac{1}{10}}\} \rfloor, &\mbox{if  $\phi>\phi_0$,}\\

2666: \lfloor P^{\ve} R^{\frac{2}{11}} \rfloor, &\mbox{if  $\phi\leq \phi_0$.}

2667: \end{cases}

2668: $$

2669: If we can show that $F\ll P^{\ve}$ with this

2670: choice of $H$ then \eqref{eq:log} will follow.  It is clear that $H$ is an integer in the

2671: interval $[1,P]$.

2672: 

2673: Suppose first that $\phi>\phi_0$. Then $\psi_H\ll \phi$ and it follows that

2674: \begin{align*}

2675: RH^3\psi_H

2676: \ll P^\ve R\phi (1+\phi R^2P^2)^{\frac{3}{10}}

2677: &\ll 1+ Q^{-1}P^{\frac{3}{5}+\ve}\ll 1,

2678: \end{align*}

2679: by \eqref{eq:range} and the fact that $Q=P^{3/2}$.

2680: The third term in $F$ is 

2681: \begin{align*}

2682: \frac{H^{6}}{R^{3}(P^2\psi_H)^{2}}\ll 

2683: \frac{P^{\ve}}{R^{3}P^{4}\phi^{2}}

2684: (1+\phi R^2P^2)^{\frac{3}{5}}

2685: &\ll

2686: \frac{P^{\ve}}{R^{3}P^{4}\phi_0^{2}}

2687: +\frac{P^{\ve}}{R^{\frac{9}{5}}P^{\frac{14}{5}}\phi_0^{\frac{7}{5}}}

2688: \ll P^{\ve},

2689: \end{align*}

2690: which is satisfactory. 

2691: 

2692: Suppose now that $\phi\leq \phi_0$.  Then $\psi_H\ll (P^2H)^{-1}$ and it follows that

2693: \begin{align*}

2694: RH^3\psi_H

2695: &\ll \frac{RH^2}{P^2}\ll \frac{RP^\ve}{P^2}(1+R^{\frac{2}{11}})\ll

2696: 1+\frac{Q^{\frac{13}{11}}P^\ve}{P^2}\ll 1.

2697: \end{align*}

2698: Turning to the third term in $F$, we find that

2699: \begin{align*}

2700: \frac{H^{6}}{R^{3}(P^2\psi_H)^{2}}\ll 

2701: \frac{H^{8}}{R^{3}}

2702: \ll

2703: \frac{P^{\ve}}{R^{3}}

2704: (1+R^{\frac{16}{11}})

2705: \ll P^\ve,

2706: \end{align*}

2707: which is also satisfactory. This therefore completes the proof of

2708: \eqref{eq:log}, and so our treatment of the case $(n_1,n_2)=(6,7)$.

2709: 

2710: 

2711: 

2712: 

2713: 

2714: 

2715: 

2716: 

2717: 

2718: 

2719: 

2720: 

2721: 

2722: 

2723: 

2724: 

2725: 

2726: 

2727: 

2728: 

2729: 

2730: 

2731: 

2732: 

2733: 

2734: 

2735: 

2736: 

2737: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

2738: 

2739: \bibitem{baker} 

2740: R.C. Baker, 

2741: Diagonal cubic equations, II, {\em Acta Arith.} {\bf 53} (1989),  217--250.

2742: 

2743: 

2744: \bibitem{BDL}

2745: B.J. Birch, H. Davenport and D.J. Lewis,

2746: The addition of norm forms. {\em Mathematika} {\bf 9} (1962), 75--82.

2747: 

2748: 

2749: \bibitem{cubhyp-circle}

2750: T.D. Browning,

2751: Counting rational points on cubic hypersurfaces.

2752: {\em Mathematika} {\bf 54} (2007), 93--112.

2753: 

2754: 

2755: \bibitem{roth} 

2756: T.D. Browning and D.R. Heath-Brown,

2757: Integral points on cubic hypersurfaces.

2758: {\em Analytic Number Theory: Essays in honour of Klaus Roth}, 

2759: Cambridge University Press, to appear.

2760: 

2761: 

2762: \bibitem{41}

2763: T.D. Browning and D.R. Heath-Brown, Rational points on quartic

2764: hypersurfaces. {\em J. reine angew. Math.}, to appear.

2765: 

2766: %\bibitem{brud}

2767: %J. Br\"udern,

2768: %Ternary additive problems of Waring's type.

2769: %{\em Math. Scand.} {\bf 68} (1991), 27--45.

2770: 

2771: \bibitem{b-w}

2772: {J.W. Bruce   and C.T.C. Wall},

2773: {On the classification of cubic surfaces}.

2774: {\em J. London Math. Soc.} {\bf 19} (1979), {245--256}.

2775: 

2776: 

2777: 

2778: \bibitem{cayley}

2779: A. Cayley, A memoir on cubic surfaces. {\em Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.}

2780: {\bf 159} (1869), 231--326.

2781: 

2782: \bibitem{c-t-s}

2783: J.-L. Colliot-Th\'el\`ene and P. Salberger,

2784: Arithmetic on some singular cubic hypersurfaces.

2785: {\em Proc. London Math. Soc.}  {\bf 58} (1989),  519--549.

2786: 

2787: 

2788: \bibitem{ct2}

2789: J.-L. Colliot-Th\'el\`ene, J.-J. Sansuc and P. Swinnerton-Dyer, 

2790: Intersections of two quadrics and Ch\^atelet surfaces. II.  

2791: {\em J. reine angew. Math.}  {\bf 374}  (1987), 72--168. 

2792: 

2793: 

2794: %\bibitem{coray76a}

2795: %D. F. Coray,

2796: %Arithmetic on singular cubic surfaces.

2797: %{\em Compositio Math.}  {\bf 33} (1976), 55--67.

2798: 

2799: 

2800: \bibitem{coray76b}

2801: D. F. Coray,

2802: Algebraic points on cubic hypersurfaces.

2803: {\em Acta Arith.}  {\bf 30} (1976), 267--296.

2804: 

2805: \bibitem{coray87}

2806: D. F. Coray,

2807: Cubic hypersurfaces and a result of Hermite.

2808: {\em Duke Math. J.}  {\bf 54} (1987), 657--670.

2809: 

2810: 

2811: \bibitem{c-t}

2812: D. F. Coray and M. A. Tsfasman,

2813: Arithmetic on singular Del Pezzo surfaces.

2814: {\em Proc. London Math. Soc.}  {\bf 57} (1988),  25--87.

2815: 

2816: 

2817: \bibitem{6}

2818: D. F. Coray,

2819: D.J. Lewis, N. Shepherd-Barron and P. Swinnerton-Dyer,

2820: Cubic threefolds with six double points.  {\em 

2821: Number theory in progress, Vol. 1 (Zakopane-Ko\'scielisko, 1997)},

2822: 63--74, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1999. 

2823: 

2824: 

2825: \bibitem{dav-32} 

2826: H. Davenport, 

2827: Cubic forms in thirty-two variables.

2828: {\em Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London. Ser. A} {\bf 251} (1959), 193--232. 

2829: 

2830: 

2831: \bibitem{dav-16} 

2832: H. Davenport, 

2833: Cubic forms in sixteen variables.

2834: {\em Philos. Trans. Roy. Soc. London. Ser. A} {\bf 272} (1963), 285--303. 

2835: 

2836: 

2837: \bibitem{dav-book}

2838: H. Davenport, {\em Analytic methods for Diophantine 

2839: equations and Diophantine inequalities.} 2nd ed., CUP, 2005.

2840: 

2841: \bibitem{fowler} J. Fowler, 

2842: A note on cubic equations. {\em Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc.} {\bf 58} 

2843: (1962), 165--169.

2844: 

2845: \bibitem{f-m-t}

2846: J. Franke, Y.I. Manin and Y. Tschinkel,

2847: Rational points of bounded height on {F}ano varieties.

2848: {\em Invent. Math.} {\bf 95} (1989), 421--435.

2849: 

2850: \bibitem{harris} 

2851: J. Harris, {\em Algebraic Geometry}, Springer-Verlag, 1992.

2852: 

2853: 

2854: 

2855: \bibitem{hb-10} 

2856: D.R. Heath-Brown,

2857: Cubic forms in ten variables.

2858: {\em Proc. London. Math. Soc.}

2859: {\bf 47} (1983),  225--257.

2860: 

2861: \bibitem{14}D.R. Heath-Brown, Rational points on cubic

2862: hypersurfaces. {\em Invent. Math.} {\bf 170} (2007), 199--230.

2863: 

2864: \bibitem{hooley1}

2865: C. Hooley, On nonary cubic forms.  {\em J. reine angew. Math.}

2866: {\bf 386} (1988), 32--98.

2867: 

2868: 

2869: \bibitem{hooley2}

2870: C. Hooley, On nonary cubic forms. II. {\em J. reine angew. Math.}

2871: {\bf 415} (1991), 95--165.

2872: 

2873: %\bibitem{hooley-38}

2874: %C. Hooley, On the number of points on a complete intersection over a

2875: %finite field.{\em J. Number Theory} {\bf 38} (1991), 338--358.

2876: 

2877: \bibitem{kollar}

2878: J. Koll\'ar,

2879: Unirationality of cubic hypersurfaces.  

2880: {\em J. Inst. Math. Jussieu}  {\bf 1}  (2002),  467--476. 

2881: 

2882: 

2883: \bibitem{lewis}

2884: D.J. Lewis,

2885: Diophantine problems: solved and unsolved.

2886: {\em Number theory and applications}, 103--121, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1989.

2887: 

2888: \bibitem{manin}

2889: Y.I. Manin, {\em Cubic forms}. 2nd ed.,

2890: North-Holland Mathematical Library {\bf 4}, North-Holland

2891: Publishing Co.,  1986. 

2892: 

2893: \bibitem{cayley'}

2894: L. Schl\"afli, On the distribution of surfaces of the third order into

2895: species. {\em Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.}

2896: {\bf 153} (1864), 193--247.

2897: 

2898: \bibitem{segre-b}

2899: B. Segre,  On arithmetical properties of singular cubic surfaces.

2900: {\em  J. London Math. Soc.} {\bf 19} (1944), 84--91.

2901: 

2902: \bibitem{segre}

2903: C. Segre, Suella varieta cubica con dieci punti doppi dello spazio a

2904: quattro dimensioni.

2905: {\em Atta della R. Accademia della Scienae di Torino} {\bf 22}

2906: (1886--87), 791--801.

2907: 

2908: \bibitem{skolem}

2909: T. Skolem, 

2910: Einige Bemerkungen \"uber die Auffindung der rationalen Punkte auf

2911: gewissen algebraischen Gebilden. {\em Math. Zeit.} {\bf 63}  (1955),

2912: 295--312.  

2913: 

2914: \bibitem{vaughan}

2915: R.C. Vaughan, 

2916: {\em The Hardy--Littlewood method}, 2nd ed., CUP, 1997.

2917: 

2918: 

2919: \bibitem{wooley}

2920: T. Wooley,

2921: On Weyl's inequality, Hua's lemma and exponential sums over binary forms.

2922: {\em Duke Math. J.} {\bf 100} (1999), 373--423.

2923: 

2924: 

2925: \end{thebibliography} 

2926: 

2927: 

2928: 

2929: \newpage

2930: \appendix

2931: 

2932:  \setcounter{section}{-1}

2933: \section{Appendice par J.-L. Colliot-Th\'el\`ene}

2934: 

2935: \begin{center}

2936: \textsc{Groupe de Brauer non ramifi\'e des hypersurfaces

2937: cubiques\\  singuli\`eres  (d'apr\`es P. Salberger)}

2938: \end{center}

2939: 

2940: 

2941: \bigskip

2942: 

2943: 

2944: 

2945: En r\'eponse \`a une question de R. Heath-Brown, P. Salberger en 2006

2946: a indiqu\'e les grandes lignes de la d\'emonstration de l'\'enonc\'e suivant, qui

2947: \'etend un r\'esultat

2948: connu  dans le cas lisse (\cite{CT}).   Nous donnons le d\'etail de la d\'emonstration.

2949: On utilise les notations usuelles

2950: dans ce domaine. Pour $X$ un sch\'ema on note $\pic X= H^1_{\et}(X,\G_{m})$

2951: son groupe de Picard et $\br X=H^2_{\et}(X,\G_{m})$ son groupe de Brauer.

2952: Pour les propri\'et\'es usuelles de ces groupes, nous renvoyons le

2953: lecteur \`a   \cite{CTSan}.

2954: 

2955: 

2956: \begin{theorem-f}

2957: Soit $k$ un corps de caract\'eristique z\'ero, $\kbar$ une cl\^oture alg\'ebrique,

2958: $\g$ le groupe de Galois de $\kbar$ sur $k$.  Soit $X \subset {\bf P}^n_{k}$

2959: une  intersection compl\`ete  g\'eo\-m\'etriquement int\`egre de dimension au moins $3$.

2960: Supposons le lieu singulier vide

2961: ou de codimension au moins \'egale \`a $4$ dans $X$.

2962: Alors pour tout   $k$-mod\`ele projectif et   lisse $Y$ de $X$,

2963: \begin{itemize}

2964: \item[(a)]

2965: le groupe de Picard de $\Y=Y\times_{k}\kbar$ est un module galoisien $\Z$-libre de type

2966: fini

2967: qui est stablement de pemutation;

2968: \item[(b)]

2969: on a $H^1(\g,\pic \Y)=0$;

2970: \item[(c)]

2971: on a $\br k    {\buildrel \simeq \over \rightarrow}   {\rm Ker} [ \br Y \to \br \Y]     .$

2972: \end{itemize}

2973: \end{theorem-f}

2974: 

2975: 

2976: \begin{proof}[D\'emonstration]

2977: Les anneaux locaux de $X$ en codimension au

2978: moins 3 sont r\'e\-gu\-liers, donc factoriels (th\'eor\`eme

2979: d'Auslan\-der-Buchsbaum, voir \cite[\S XI Thm. 3.13]{SGA 2}).

2980: Comme $X$ est une intersection compl\`ete,

2981: un  th\'eor\`eme de Grothendieck  \cite[\S XI Cor. 3.14]{SGA 2}, ex-conjecture de Samuel)

2982: implique que tous les anneaux locaux de $X$ sont factoriels.

2983: Ainsi les diviseurs de Weil sur $X$ sont tous des diviseurs de Cartier.

2984: Ceci implique que pour tout ouvert $U \subset X$ la fl\`eche de restriction $\pic X \to

2985: \pic U$ est surjective.

2986: Cette fl\`eche est aussi injective. Soit en effet $D$ un diviseur sur $X$

2987: qui est le diviseur d'une fonction rationnelle $f$ sur $U$.

2988: Comme le compl\'ementaire de $U$ dans $X$ est de codimension

2989: au moins 2 et que sur $X$ diviseurs de Weil et diviseurs de Cartier

2990: co\"{\i}ncident, on conclut que $D$ est le diviseur de $f$ sur $X$.

2991: Le m\^eme argument montre que toute fonction rationnelle sur $X$

2992: d\'efinie et  inversible sur $U$ est d\'efinie et inversible sur $X$,

2993: et comme $X$ est projectif et g\'eom\'etriquement int\`egre,

2994: toute telle fonction est une constante, elle appartient \`a  $k^*$.

2995: 

2996: L'hypoth\`ese sur la codimension du lieu singulier est g\'eom\'etrique,

2997: elle vaut pour $X_{K}$ pour toute extension $K/k$ de corps, par

2998: exemple $\kbar/k$. Les m\^emes conclusions s'appliquent

2999: donc \`a $\X$. En particulier

3000: la fl\`eche de restriction

3001: $\pic \X \to \pic \U $ est   un isomorphisme.

3002: 

3003: Par ailleurs, le Corollaire 3.7 de \cite[\S XII]{SGA 2} montre que la fl\`eche de

3004: restriction

3005: $$

3006: \Z= \pic  {\bf P}^n_{k} \to \pic X

3007: $$

3008: qui envoie la classe de $1 \in \Z$

3009: sur la classe du faisceau inversible ${\mathcal O}_{X}(1)$

3010: est un isomorphisme. Il en est de m\^eme de

3011:   $\Z= \pic  {\bf P}^n_{\kbar} \to \pic  \X $,

3012: et l'action du groupe

3013: de Galois sur $\Z    \simeq  \pic  \X $ est triviale.

3014: 

3015: En conclusion, sous les hypoth\`eses du th\'eor\`eme, le module galoisien

3016: $\pic \U$ est le module galoisien trivial $\Z$   et

3017: l'on a $\kbar^*   {\buildrel \simeq \over \rightarrow}   \kbar[U]^*$, o\`u $\kbar[U]$ est l'anneau des

3018: fonctions d\'efinies sur $\U$. L'argument ci-dessus

3019: montre aussi que l'application naturelle

3020: $\pic U \to \pic \U$ est un isomorphisme.

3021: 

3022: D'une suite exacte bien connue (cf. \cite[p.386]{CTSan})

3023: on d\'eduit que la fl\`eche naturelle

3024: $\br k \to {\rm Ker} [\br U \to \br \U]$ est un isomorphisme.

3025: Par des arguments standards sur le groupe de Brauer (puret\'e et

3026: injection par passage d'une vari\'et\'e lisse \`a un ouvert)

3027: % d\'etailler

3028: un tel \'enonc\'e

3029: implique le m\^eme \'enonc\'e pour toute $k$-vari\'et\'e projective et

3030: lisse $k$-birationnelle \`a $X$ : c'est l'\'enonc\'e (c).

3031: 

3032: 

3033: 

3034: Soit $U \subset Y$ une $k$-compactification lisse de $U$

3035: (le th\'eor\`eme de Hironaka assure l'existence d'une telle compactification).

3036: On a alors la suite exacte de modules galoisiens

3037: $$0 \to \Div_{\infty}\Y \to \pic \Y \to \pic \U  \to 0,$$

3038: o\`u le groupe $\Div_{\infty}\Y $ est

3039: le module de permutation sur les points de codimension 1 de $\Y $ en dehors de $\U $,

3040: et le z\'ero

3041: \`a gauche tient au fait que l'on a $\kbar^* \simeq \kbar[U]^*$.

3042: La suite de modules galoisiens ci-dessus est scind\'ee, car tout groupe

3043: $H^1(\g, P)$ \`a valeurs dans un module de permutation est nul (lemme de Shapiro).

3044: Ainsi $\pic \Y$ est la somme directe de deux modules de permutation,

3045: et est donc un module de permutation. Il en r\'esulte que pour tout autre mod\`ele

3046: projectif

3047: et lisse $Y'$, le module galoisien $\pic  \Y'$ est stablement de permutation

3048: (\cite[Prop. 2.A.1 on p. 461]{CTSan}).

3049: L'\'enonc\'e (b) en r\'esulte.

3050: \end{proof}

3051: 

3052: 

3053: 

3054: 

3055: \begin{cor-f}

3056: Soit $X \subset {\bf P}^n_{k}$ une hypersurface cubique g\'eom\'etriquement in\-t\`egre

3057: de dimension au moins $3$ qui n'est pas un c\^one.

3058: Supposons le lieu singulier vide

3059: ou de codimension au moins \'egale \`a $4$ dans $X$. Alors pour tout mod\`ele projectif

3060: et lisse

3061: $Y$ de $X$, on a $\br k  {\buildrel \simeq \over \rightarrow}  \br Y$.

3062: \end{cor-f}

3063: 

3064: \begin{proof}[D\'emonstration] Au vu du th\'eor\`eme ci-dessus, il suffit de montrer

3065: $\br \Y =0$.

3066: 

3067: Si l'hypersurface $X$ est lisse, on a $\br \X =0$  comme il est

3068: \'etabli dans \cite{CT} sans restriction sur le degr\'e de

3069: l'hypersurface.

3070: Par l'invariance birationnelle du groupe de

3071: Brauer pour les vari\'et\'es projectives et lisses ceci implique $\br \Y =0$.

3072: 

3073: Si  l'hypersurface cubique $X$ est singuli\`ere,

3074: comme elle n'est pas un c\^one,

3075: en utili\-sant les droites passant par un $\kbar$-point singulier on obtient

3076: une \'equivalence birationnelle  de $\X$

3077: avec l'espace projectif ${\bf P}^{n-1}_{\kbar}$, dont le groupe de Brauer est nul.

3078: Par l'invariance birationnelle du groupe de Brauer

3079: pour les vari\'et\'es projectives et lisses ceci implique $\br \Y =0$.

3080: \end{proof}

3081: 

3082: 

3083: \begin{remark}

3084: Il serait int\'eressant de voir si le corollaire vaut pour

3085: les hypersurfaces   de degr\'e sup\'erieur \`a 3.

3086: C'est le cas lorsque les hypersurfaces sont lisses (\cite{CT}).

3087: \end{remark}

3088: 

3089: \begin{remark}

3090: La condition que la codimension du lieu singulier est au moins \'egale \`a 4

3091: est n\'ecessaire. Dans \cite{CTSal} on trouve des hypersurfaces

3092: cubiques g\'eom\'etrique\-ment int\`egres non coniques dans ${\bf P}^4_{k}$,

3093: dont le lieu singulier est  un ensemble fini non vide de points,

3094: et  qui admettent un mod\`ele projectif et lisse $Y$

3095: avec $\br Y/\br k \neq 0$.

3096: \end{remark}

3097: 

3098: \begin{remark}

3099: Lorsque $k$ est un corps de nombres, le corollaire permet de conjecturer

3100: que, sous les hypoth\`eses donn\'ees, le principe de Hasse et l'approxi\-mation faible

3101: valent pour le lieu lisse de l'hypersurface cubique $X$.

3102: \end{remark}

3103: 

3104: 

3105: 

3106: 

3107: 

3108: \renewcommand{\refname}{R\'ef\'erences}

3109: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

3110: 

3111: 

3112: \bibitem{CT}

3113: J.-L. Colliot-Th\'el\`ene,

3114: The Brauer-Manin obstruction for complete intersections

3115: of dimension $\geq 3$, appendix to \cite{PV}.

3116: 

3117: \bibitem{CTSal}

3118: J.-L. Colliot-Th\'el\`ene and P. Salberger,

3119: Arithmetic on some singular cubic hypersurfaces.

3120: {\em Proc. London Math. Soc.}  {\bf 58} (1989),  519--549.

3121: 

3122: \bibitem{CTSan}

3123: J.-L. Colliot-Th\'el\`ene et J.-J. Sansuc,

3124: La descente sur les vari\'et\'es rationnelles, II,

3125: {\em Duke Math. J.} {\bf 54} (1987) 375--492.

3126: 

3127: \bibitem{SGA 2}

3128: A. Grothendieck,

3129: Cohomologie locale des faisceaux coh\'erents et th\'eor\`emes de

3130: Lefschetz locaux et globaux (SGA 2). {\em S\'eminaire de G\'eom\'etrie

3131: Alg\'ebrique du Bois Marie, 1962. Augment\'e d'un expos\'e de

3132: Mich\`ele Raynaud}, Documents Math\'ematiques (Paris) {\bf

3133:   4}, Soci\'et\'e Math\'ematique de France, 2005.

3134: 

3135: 

3136: \bibitem{PV}

3137: B. Poonen and J.F. Voloch, Random Diophantine equations.

3138: {\em Arithmetic of higher-dimensional algebraic varieties (Palo Alto,

3139: CA, 2002)}, 175--184, Progr. Math. {\bf 226}, Birkh\"auser, 2004.

3140: 

3141: 

3142: \end{thebibliography} 

3143: 

3144: 

3145: 

3146: 

3147: 

3148: \begin{flushright}

3149: \scriptsize{

3150: J.-L. Colliot-Th\'el\`ene}\\

3151: \scriptsize{C.N.R.S., UMR 8628 CNRS-Universit\'e}\\

3152: \scriptsize{Math\' ematiques, B\^atiment 425}\\

3153: \scriptsize{Universit\'e   Paris-Sud}\\

3154: \scriptsize{F-91405 Orsay}\\

3155: \scriptsize{France}\\

3156: \texttt{jlct@math.u-psud.fr}

3157: \end{flushright}

3158: 

3159: 

3160: 

3161: 

3162: \end{document}

3163: 

3164: 

3165: