1: \documentclass{conm-p-l} 

2: \usepackage{amssymb,array,delarray,latexsym,epsfig} 

3: 

4: \newlength{\sh}

5: \settowidth{\sh}{i}

6: \newlength{\baker}

7: \settowidth{\baker}{{\footnotesize Baker, Alan}}

8: \newlength{\greg}

9: \settowidth{\greg}{{\footnotesize Malajovich, Gregorio}}

10: \newlength{\fw}

11: \settowidth{\fw}{{\footnotesize Fulton, William}}

12: \newlength{\jmr}

13: \settowidth{\jmr}{{\footnotesize Rojas, J.\ Maurice}}

14: \newlength{\jfc}

15: \settowidth{\jfc}{{\footnotesize Canny, John F.}}

16: \newlength{\bernd}

17: \settowidth{\bernd}{{\footnotesize Sturmfels, Bernd}}

18: \newlength{\jones}

19: \settowidth{\jones}{{\footnotesize Jones, James P.}}

20: \newlength{\mati}

21: \settowidth{\mati}{{\footnotesize Matiyasevich, Yuri V.}}

22: \newlength{\tung}

23: \settowidth{\tung}{{\footnotesize Tung, Shih-Ping}}

24: \newlength{\sil}

25: \settowidth{\sil}{{\footnotesize Silverman, Joseph H.}}

26: \newlength{\koi}

27: \settowidth{\koi}{{\footnotesize Koiran, Pascal}}

28: \newlength{\gala}

29: \settowidth{\gala}{{\footnotesize Gallagher, P.\ X.}}

30: 

31: \newtheorem{kho}{Khovanski's Theorem on Real Fewnomials} 

32: \renewcommand{\thekho}{\unskip}

33: \newtheorem{jst}{The JST Theorem}

34: \renewcommand{\thejst}{\unskip}

35: \newtheorem{tungy}{Tung's Theorem}

36: \renewcommand{\thetungy}{\unskip}

37: \newtheorem{lenstra}{Lenstra's Theorem}

38: \renewcommand{\thelenstra}{\unskip}

39: \newtheorem{lemma}{Lemma}

40: \newtheorem{prop}{Proposition}

41: \newtheorem{dfn}{Definition}

42: \newtheorem{lemdfn}[dfn]{Lemma and Definition}

43: \newtheorem{grhp}{Hypothesis GRH$^+$} 

44: \renewcommand{\thegrhp}{\unskip}

45: \newtheorem{main}{theorem} 

46: \newtheorem{thm}[main]{Theorem}

47: \newtheorem{cor}{Corollary}

48: \newtheorem{rem}{Remark}	

49: \newtheorem{ex}{Example}

50: 

51: \newcommand{\gf}{\mathrm{Gal}(K/\Q)} 

52: \newcommand{\tf}{{\tilde{f}}}

53: \newcommand{\twF}{{\tilde{F}}} 

54: \newcommand{\blah}{\hspace{1in}} 

55: \renewcommand{\mod}{\mathbf{mod}} 

56: \newcommand{\pspa}{{\mathbf{PSPACE}}} 

57: \newcommand{\pnp}{{$\mathbf{P}^\np$}} 

58: \newcommand{\ph}{{\mathbf{PH}}}  

59: \newcommand{\am}{{\mathbf{AM}}} 

60: \newcommand{\hie}{{\mathbf{coNP}^{\mathbf{NP}}}}

61: \newcommand{\np}{{\mathbf{NP}}}

62: \newcommand{\conp}{{\mathbf{coNP}}}

63: \newcommand{\corp}{{\mathbf{coRP}}}

64: \newcommand{\rp}{{\mathbf{RP}}}

65: \newcommand{\bpp}{{\mathbf{BPP}}}

66: \newcommand{\crap}{\pp^{\np^\np}}

67: \newcommand{\pp}{\mathbf{P}}

68: \newcommand{\hn}{\mathbf{HN}}

69: \newcommand{\nc}{\mathbf{NC}}

70: \newcommand{\expt}{{\mathbf{EXPTIME}}}

71: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}

72: \newcommand{\cA}{\mathcal{A}}

73: \newcommand{\cD}{\mathcal{D}}

74: \newcommand{\cE}{\mathcal{E}}

75: \newcommand{\od}{{\bar{d}}}

76: \newcommand{\oD}{{\bar{D}}}

77: \newcommand{\oE}{{\bar{E}}}

78: \newcommand{\oF}{{\bar{F}}}

79: \newcommand{\oP}{{\bar{P}}}

80: \newcommand{\cN}{\mathcal{N}}

81: \newcommand{\cO}{\mathcal{O}}

82: \newcommand{\supp}{\mathrm{Supp}}

83: \newcommand{\conv}{\mathrm{Conv}}

84: \newcommand{\size}{\mathrm{size}}

85: \newcommand{\thth}{{\underline{\mathrm{th}}}}

86: \newcommand{\rd}{ {\underline{ \mathrm{rd} } }  }

87: \newcommand{\st}{ {\underline{ \mathrm{st} } }  }

88: \newcommand{\nd}{{\underline{\mathrm{nd}}}}

89: \newcommand{\Pro}{{\mathbb{P}}}

90: \newcommand{\sres}{\mathrm{sres}}

91: \newcommand{\Q}{\mathbb{Q}}

92: \newcommand{\R}{\mathbb{R}}

93: \newcommand{\C}{\mathbb{C}}

94: \newcommand{\N}{\mathbb{N}}

95: \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbb{Z}}

96: \newcommand{\bp}{\pi} 

97: \newcommand{\fii}{\varphi} 

98: 

99: \newcommand{\ch}{\mathrm{char}}

100: \newcommand{\Le}{\mathrm{Length}} 

101: \newcommand{\ord}{\mathrm{ord}}

102: \newcommand{\area}{\mathrm{Area}}

103: \newcommand{\spec}{\mathrm{Spec}}

104: \newcommand{\divisor}{\mathrm{Div}}

105: \newcommand{\codim}{\mathrm{codim}}

106: \newcommand{\choo}{\mathrm{Chow}}

107: \newcommand{\pert}{\mathrm{Pert}}

108: \newcommand{\choa}{\choo_{\mathrm{A}}}

109: \newcommand{\fan}{\mathrm{Fan}}

110: \newcommand{\verte}{\mathrm{Vert}}

111: \newcommand{\cone}{\mathrm{Cone}} 

112: \newcommand{\res}{\mathrm{Res}}

113: \newcommand{\affres}{\mathrm{AffRes}}

114: \newcommand{\newt}{\mathrm{Newt}} 

115: \newcommand{\hyp}{\mathrm{Hyper}} 

116: \newcommand{\hilb}{\mathrm{\mathbf{Hilb}}} 

117: 

118: \newcommand{\Sn}{\mathcal{S}^{n-1}}

119: \newcommand{\Non}{(\N\cup\{0\})^n}

120: \newcommand{\Zn}{\Z^n}

121: \newcommand{\Zm}{\Z^m}

122: \newcommand{\Zno}{\Z^n\!\setminus\!\{\bO\}} 

123: \newcommand{\Qn}{\Q^n} 

124: \newcommand{\Rn}{\R^n}

125: \newcommand{\Rm}{\R^m}

126: \newcommand{\Cn}{\C^n} 

127: \newcommand{\Cm}{\C^m} 

128: \newcommand{\Cs}{\C^*}

129: \newcommand{\Rs}{\R^*} 

130: \newcommand{\Rsn}{{(\R^*)}^n}

131: \newcommand{\Csn}{{(\C^*)}^n}

132: \renewcommand{\qed}{$\blacksquare$}

133: \newcommand{\cM}{{\mathcal{M}}}

134: \newcommand{\cH}{\mathcal{H}}

135: \newcommand{\cI}{\mathcal{I}}

136: \newcommand{\cR}{\mathcal{R}}

137: \newcommand{\cP}{\mathcal{P}} 

138: \newcommand{\cQ}{\mathcal{Q}}

139: \newcommand{\cS}{\mathcal{S}}

140: \newcommand{\cC}{\mathcal{C}}

141: \newcommand{\cU}{\mathcal{U}}

142: \newcommand{\bO}{\mathbf{O}}

143: \newcommand{\vol}{\mathrm{Vol}}

144: \newcommand{\htp}{\mathrm{HTP}}

145: \newcommand{\ratcurve}{\mathrm{RatCurve}}

146: \newcommand{\biggy}{\mathrm{Big}}

147: \newcommand{\card}{\mathrm{ExactCard}}

148: \newcommand{\cd}{\mathfrak{d}}

149: \newcommand{\lie}{\mathrm{Li}}

150: 

151: \newenvironment{mymatrix}{\begin{array}{*{20}{c}}}{\end{array}}

152: 

153: \begin{document}

154: 

155: \title[Algebraic Geometry Over Four Rings]{ 

156: Algebraic Geometry Over Four Rings and the Frontier to Tractability}  

157: 

158: \author{J.\ Maurice Rojas}\thanks{To appear in a volume of Contemporary 

159: Mathematics:   

160: Proceedings of a Conference on Hilbert's Tenth Problem and Related Subjects 

161: (University of Gent, November 1--5, 1999), edited by 

162: Jan Denef, Leonard Lipschitz, Thanases Pheidas, and Jan Van 

163: Geel, AMS Press. 

164: This research was partially supported by a 

165: Hong Kong CERG Grant.}   

166: 

167: \address{Department of Mathematics, City University of Hong Kong, 

168: 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, HONG KONG} 

169: \email{mamrojas@math.cityu.edu.hk\\ {\it Web-Page:}  

170: http://www.cityu.edu.hk/ma/staff/rojas } 

171: 

172: \dedicatory{This paper is dedicated to Steve Smale on the 

173: occasion of his $70^\thth$ birthday.}  

174: 

175: \date{\today} 

176: 

177: \begin{abstract} 

178: We present some new and recent algorithmic results concerning polynomial 

179: system solving over various rings. In particular, we 

180: present some of the best recent bounds on:  

181: \begin{itemize}

182: \item[(a)]{\mbox{the complexity of calculating the complex dimension of an 

183: algebraic set} } 

184: \item[(b)]{the height of the zero-dimensional part of an algebraic set over 

185: $\C$} 

186: \item[(c)]{the number of connected components of a semi-algebraic set}

187: \end{itemize} 

188: We also present some results which significantly lower the complexity of 

189: deciding the emptiness of hypersurface intersections over $\C$ and $\Q$, 

190: given the truth of the Generalized Riemann Hypothesis. 

191: Furthermore, we state some recent progress on the decidability of the 

192: prefixes $\exists\forall\exists$ and $\exists\exists\forall\exists$, 

193: quantified over the positive integers. As an application, we conclude with 

194: a result connecting Hilbert's Tenth Problem in three variables and height 

195: bounds for integral points on algebraic curves. 

196: 

197: This paper is based on three lectures presented at the 

198: conference corresponding to this proceedings volume. 

199: The titles of the lectures were ``Some Speed-Ups in Computational 

200: Algebraic Geometry,'' ``Diophantine Problems Nearly in the Polynomial 

201: Hierarchy,'' and ``Curves, Surfaces, and the Frontier to Undecidability.''

202: \end{abstract} 

203: 

204: \mbox{}\\

205: \vspace{-.3in}

206: \maketitle

207: 

208: \mbox{}\\

209: \vspace{-.7in}

210: \tableofcontents 

211: 

212: \mbox{}\\

213: \vspace{-.7in}

214: \section{Introduction}

215: \label{sec:intro} 

216: This paper presents an assortment of algorithmic and combinatorial 

217: results that the author hopes is useful to 

218: experts in arithmetic geometry and diophantine complexity. 

219: While the selection of results may appear somewhat eclectic, 

220: there is an underlying motivation: determining the boundary 

221: to tractability for polynomial equation solving in various settings. 

222: The notion of tractability here will mean membership in a particular 

223: well-known complexity class depending on the underlying ring and input 

224: encoding. As an example of this principle, we point out that our brief tour 

225: culminates with a result giving evidence for the following assertion: The 

226: recursive unsolvability of deciding the existence of integral roots 

227: for multivariate polynomials begins with polynomials in {\bf three} variables. 

228: The sharpest current threshold is still nine variables (for 

229: {\bf positive} integral roots) \cite{jones9}.\footnote{James P.\ Jones, 

230: the author of \cite{jones9}, attributes the nine variables result to 

231: Matiyasevich.} 

232: 

233: Our main results will first be separated into the underlying 

234: ring of interest, here either $\C$, $\R$, $\Q$, or $\Z$. 

235: Within each group of results, we will warm up with a 

236: non-trivial result involving univariate polynomials. All 

237: necessary proofs are elaborated in section \ref{sec:proofs}, and 

238: our main underlying computational models will either be the 

239: classical {\bf Turing machine} \cite{papa} or the 

240: {\bf BSS machine over $\pmb{\C}$} \cite{bcss}. 

241: The two aforementioned references are excellent sources for 

242: further complexity-theoretic background, but we will only require a minimal 

243: acquaintance with these computational models. 

244: 

245: Before embarking on the full technical statements 

246: of our main theorems, let us see some concrete examples 

247: to whet the readers appetite, and further ground the 

248: definitions we will later require. 

249: 

250: \subsection{A Sparse $\pmb{3\times 3}$ Polynomial System}  

251: \label{sub:3by3}

252: The solution of sparse polynomial systems is a problem with   

253: numerous applications outside, as well as inside, mathematics. The 

254: analysis of chemical reactions \cite{gaterhub} and the computation of 

255: equilibria in game-theoretic models \cite{mucks} are but two diverse examples. 

256: 

257: More concretely, consider the following system of $3$ polynomial equations in 

258: $3$ variables: 

259: \begin{eqnarray}

260: \label{eq:3by3}

261: 144+2x-3y^2+x^7y^8z^9 &=& 0 \notag \\

262: -51+5x^2-27z+x^9y^7z^8 &=& 0 \\

263: 7-6x+8x^8y^9z^7-12x^8y^8z^7 &=& 0. \notag 

264: \end{eqnarray} 

265: Let us see if the system (\ref{eq:3by3}) has any {\bf complex} 

266: roots and, if so, count how many there are. Any terminology or results applied 

267: here will be clarified further in section \ref{sec:complex}. 

268: 

269: Note that the total degree\footnote{ The {\bf total degree} of a polynomial is 

270: just the maximum of the sum of the exponents in any monomial term of the 

271: polynomial.} of each polynomial above is 24. By 

272: an 18$^\thth$-century theorem of \'Etienne B\'ezout \cite{shafa}, 

273: we can bound from 

274: above the number of complex roots of (\ref{eq:3by3}), assuming 

275: this number is finite, by $24\cdot 24 \cdot 24 = \mathbf{13824}$. 

276: However, a more precise 20$^\thth$-century bound can be obtained 

277: by paying closer attention to the monomial term structure 

278: of (\ref{eq:3by3}): Considering the 

279: convex hull of\footnote{i.e., smallest convex set in $\R^3$ containing...} 

280: the exponent vectors of each equation in 

281: (\ref{eq:3by3}), one obtains three tetrahedra. 

282: \mbox{}\hspace{1cm}\epsfig{file=best3by3b.ps,height=1.2in}

283: 

284: These are the {\bf Newton polytopes} of (\ref{eq:3by3}), and 

285: their {\bf mixed volume}, by a beautiful theorem of 

286: David N.\ Bernshtein from the 1970's \cite{bernie}, turns out to be a 

287: much better upper bound on the number of complex roots (assuming there 

288: are only finitely many). For our polynomial system (1), this bound 

289: is\footnote{ \label{see} Please see the Appendix for further details on the 

290: theory and implementation behind our examples. }  {\bf 145}. 

291: 

292: Now to decide whether (\ref{eq:3by3}) has any complex roots, 

293: we can attempt to find a univariate polynomial whose roots 

294: are some simple function of the roots of (\ref{eq:3by3}). {\bf Elimination 

295: theory} allows one to do this, and a particularly effective combinatorial 

296: algorithm is given in theorem \ref{main:complex} of section 

297: \ref{sec:complex}. For example, the roots of 

298: \tiny

299: \vspace{-.4cm}

300: \begin{center}

301: \[ \pmb{P(u)}:= 268435456 u^{145}    -138160373760 u^{137}    

302: -30953963520 u^{130} +3446308601856 u^{129}    -25165824000 u^{123}  \] 

303: \vspace{-.4cm}  

304: \[ -26293995307008 u^{122}  -1694282972921856 u^{121}    +323419618934784 

305: u^{120} -6995155353600 u^{115} \]  

306: \vspace{-.4cm}  

307: \[+87379566133248 u^{114}   +10198949486395392 u^{113}    

308: -166099501774798848 u^{112}    -112538419200 u^{108}\]

309: \vspace{-.4cm}  

310: \[    -82834929745920 u^{107} -324798104395579392 u^{106}

311: -4419977097552592896 u^{105}   +589824000000 u^{101}\] 

312: \vspace{-.4cm}  

313: \[   -35724722176000 u^{100} +8364740005330944 u^{99}   

314: +4439548695657775104 u^{98} -26917017845238005760 u^{97}\]  

315: \vspace{-.4cm}  

316: \[+37910937600000 u^{93}  +51523633570381824 u^{92} 

317:  -1791672886920019968 u^{91} -848160250027183521792 u^{90} \]

318: \vspace{-.4cm}  

319: \[ +616996999355281440768 u^{89}   -664995358310400 u^{85} 

320: +1524560547831644160 u^{84} +745863497970172674048 u^{83} \]

321: \vspace{-.4cm}  

322: \[ +17539603347891497287680 u^{82}+994210006214153207808 u^{81}

323: +12899450880000 u^{78}   

324: -47322888233287680 u^{77}\]

325: \vspace{-.4cm}  

326: \[+33981667956844904448 u^{76}-4986502987101813633024 u^{75}

327: +119063825168001672019968 u^{74}\]

328: \vspace{-.4cm}  

329: \[+31576057329392164012032 u^{73}+751796121600000 u^{70}

330: -9866721074229006336 u^{69}\]

331: \vspace{-.4cm}  

332: \[+1882463818496535244800 u^{68}+3052871408440654112816640 u^{67}

333: +380423482789919103664128 u^{66}\]

334: \vspace{-.4cm}  

335: \[+34866943014558674976768 u^{65} +279569449114214400 u^{62}

336: -302173847078728854528u^{61}\]

337: \vspace{-.4cm}  

338: \[-534702070464812022223872 u^{60} -14973258769647086979053568 u^{59}

339: +4994218012036588712165376 u^{58}\]

340: \vspace{-.4cm}  

341: \[-2021795433676800 u^{55}+8296585706519424000 u^{54}

342: +25005465159580886376960 u^{53} -3783799262749190677321536 u^{52}\]

343: \vspace{-.4cm}  

344: \[+35916388899232830509942784 u^{51}+6316741393466865886715904 u^{50}

345: -61674073526016000 u^{47}\]

346: \vspace{-.4cm}  

347: \[ -554525302200721744896 u^{46}+812163230435877273319104 u^{45}

348: -\underline{2947435596503653060289376000} u^{44}\]

349: \vspace{-.4cm}  

350: \[-141780781258618244980543488 u^{43}+ 6318299549796897024 u^{39}

351: -41096279946826872821088 u^{38}\]

352: \vspace{-.4cm}  

353: \[+294236770231877581913540688 u^{37}+326253143719924635239730432 u^{36}

354: -8845750586564412369214464 u^{35}\]

355: \vspace{-.4cm}  

356: \[ -29428437386188800 u^{32}+886156671237883112160 u^{31} 

357: -12033942692990286448093392 u^{30} \cdots \] 

358: \vspace{-.4cm}  

359: \[-21345681203414534849440320u^{29}+176061998413186705562222592 u^{28}

360: -8770384173478164480 u^{24}\]

361: \vspace{-.4cm}  

362: \[+258178048486605790963020 u^{23} +482019749452059431164020 u^{22}

363: -11741024693522572606851840 u^{21}\]

364: \vspace{-.4cm}  

365: \[+32803667644608000 u^{17}-3065470746100512257520 u^{16}

366: -4365124819437330950400 u^{15}\]

367: \vspace{-.4cm}  

368: \[+272459282567626190070720 u^{14}+19102328814885854400 u^9

369: +12645306845858008350 u^8\]

370: \vspace{-.4cm}  

371: \[ -2606594221714946338575 u^7-48803823903916800 u^2  + 8681150210659989300 \] 

372: \end{center}

373: \normalsize

374: are exactly those numbers of the form $\alpha\beta\gamma$, where 

375: $(\alpha,\beta,\gamma)$ ranges over all the roots of (\ref{eq:3by3}) in $\C^3$. 

376: The above 

377: {\bf univariate reduction} thus tells us that our example indeed has finitely 

378: many complex roots --- exactly$^{\ref{see}}$ 145, in fact. The above 

379: polynomial took less than $13$ seconds to compute using a 

380: naive application of {\bf resultants} and factorization on the 

381: computer algebra system {\tt Maple}. Interestingly, computing 

382: the same univariate reduction via a naive application 

383: of {\bf Gr\"obner bases} (on the same machine with the same version of {\tt 

384: Maple}) 

385: takes over $3$ hours and $51$ minutes.$^{\ref{see}}$ 

386: 

387: Admittedly, computing polynomials like the one above can be an 

388: unwieldy approach to deciding whether (1) has a complex root. An alternative 

389: algorithm, discovered by Pascal Koiran in \cite{hnam} and improved via theorem 

390: \ref{main:koi} of section \ref{sec:complex} here, makes a remarkable 

391: simplification depending on conjectural properties of the distribution of 

392: prime ideals in number fields.

393: 

394: For instance, an unoptimized implementation of this alternative algorithm 

395: would run as follows on our example: 

396: \begin{itemize} 

397: \item[{\bf Assumption 1}]{ The truth of the {\bf Generalized}\footnote{ The 

398: {\bf Riemann Hypothesis (RH)} is an 1859 

399: conjecture equivalent to a sharp quantitative statement on the 

400: distribution of primes. GRH can be phrased as a generalization of this 

401: statement to prime ideals in an arbitrary number field. Further background on 

402: these RH's can be found in \cite{lago,bs}.} {\bf Riemann Hypothesis (GRH)}. } 

403: \item[{\bf Assumption 2}]{ Access to an {\bf oracle}\footnote{ 

404: i.e., a machine, or powerful being, which can always instaneously 

405: and correctly answer such questions. The particular oracle we specify above 

406: happens to be an {\bf $\np$-oracle} \cite{papa}. } which 

407: can do the following:  

408: Given a finite set of polynomials $F\!\subset\!\Z[x,y,z]$ 

409: and a finite subset $S\!\subset\!\N$, our oracle can decide 

410: if there is a prime $p\!\in\!S$ such that the mod $p$ reduction of $F$ has a 

411: root mod in $\Z/p\Z$. } 

412: \item[{\bf Step 1}]{ Pick a (uniformly distributed) random integer  

413: $t\!\in\!\{5\cdot 10^6,\ldots,5\cdot 10^6+2\cdot 10^{11}\}$.} 

414: \item[{\bf Step 2}]{ Using our oracle, decide if there is a prime 

415: \mbox{$p\!\in\!\{2\cdot 10^{22}\cdot t^3,\ldots,2\cdot 10^{22}\cdot 

416: (t+1)^3-1\}$} such 

417: that the mod $p$ reduction of (\ref{eq:3by3}) has a root in $\Z/p\Z$. If so, 

418: declare  that (\ref{eq:3by3}) has a complex root. Otherwise, declare that 

419: (\ref{eq:3by3}) has no complex root. \qed } 

420: \end{itemize} 

421: 

422: The choice of the constants above, 

423: and the importance of oracle-based algorithms, are detailed 

424: further in section \ref{sec:complex}. In particular, the constants 

425: are simply chosen to be large enough to guarantee that, under GRH, the 

426: algorithm never fails (resp.\ fails with probability $\leq\!\frac{1}{3}$) 

427: if (\ref{eq:3by3}) has a complex root (resp.\ does not have a 

428: complex root). Thus, for our example, the algorithm above will 

429: always give the right answer regardless of the random choice in 

430: Step 1.  Note also that while the prime we seek above may be quite large, 

431: the number of {\bf digits} needed to write any such prime is at most 

432: ${\bf 56}$ --- not much bigger than 53, which is the total number 

433: of digits needed to write down the coefficients and exponent vectors 

434: of (\ref{eq:3by3}). 

435: %  (3+3)+(1+3)+(1+3)+(1+3) = 6+4+4+4 = 18 

436: % +(2+3)+(1+3)+(2+3)+(1+3) = 5+4+5+4 = 18 

437: % +(1+3)+(1+3)+(1+3)+(2+3) = 4+4+4+5 = 17  

438: % ------------------------------

439: %                          =           53 

440: We will explain the complexity-theoretic relevance of this 

441: fact in section \ref{sec:complex} as well. 

442: % 56 = (the number of digits of A_F*(t_0+3(1+a_F)+1)^3-1 ) 

443: For the sake of completeness, we observe$^{\ref{see}}$  

444: that the number of real roots of (1) is exactly {\bf 11}. While we will not 

445: pursue the complexity of real root counting at length in this 

446: paper, we will quantitatively explore a more general problem over the 

447: reals. Another example follows. 

448: 

449: \subsection{A Family of Polynomial Inequalities}

450: \label{sub:real}

451: In theorem \ref{main:real} of section \ref{sec:real}, we present 

452: a new bound on the number of connected components of the solution set of any 

453: collection of polynomial inequalities over the real numbers. Bounds of this 

454: type have many applications --- for example, 

455: lower bounds in complexity theory \cite{dl79,sy82} and geometric modelling.

456: 

457: As a simple example, let $S_{a,b}(d,n,p,s)\!\subseteq\!\Rn$ be the solution 

458: set of the following collection of $p$ equalities and $s$ inequalities: 

459: \begin{eqnarray}

460: \label{eq:spike}

461: \mbox{} \ \ \ \ a_{(\ell,0)}+\left(\sum^{n-1}_{i=1}a_{(\ell,i)}x_i\right)+

462: \sum^d_{i=1}b_{(\ell,i)}(x_1x_2\cdots x_n)^i & = & 0 \ ; \ \ \ \  

463: \ell\!\in\!\{1,\ldots,p\} \notag \\

464: \mbox{} \ \ \ \ a_{(p+\ell,0)}+\left(\sum^{n-1}_{i=1}a_{(p+\ell,i)}x_i\right)+

465: \sum^d_{i=1}b_{(p+\ell,i)}(x_1x_2\cdots x_n)^i & > & 0 \ ; \ \ \ \ 

466: \ell\!\in\!\{1,\ldots,s\} 

467: \end{eqnarray}

468: for any $d,n,p,s\!\in\!\N$ and real $a_{(i,j)}$ and $b_{(i,j)}$. 

469: 

470: By a bound proved independently by three sets of 

471: authors between the 1940's and the 1960's \cite{op,milnor,thom}, we 

472: immediately obtain that $S_{a,b}(d,n,p,s)$ has at most 

473: $\pmb{(dns+1)(2dns+1)^n}$ connected components.

474: 

475: However, a much sharper bound can be obtained by again looking more closely at 

476: the monomial term structure involved: 

477: Let $Q_F$ be the convex hull of the union of the origin $\bO$, the standard 

478: basis vectors $e_1,\ldots,e_n$ of $\Rn$, and the set of exponent vectors from 

479: all the polynomials of (\ref{eq:spike}). (In this case, $Q_F$ happens to be 

480: a bipyramid with one apex at $\bO$ and the other at $(d,\ldots,d)$.) 

481: Normalizing $n$-dimensional volume, $\vol_n(\cdot)$, so that the 

482: volume of the $n$-simplex with vertices $\{\bO,e_1,\ldots,e_n\}$ is $1$, 

483: let $V_F\!:=\vol_n(Q_F)$. Theorem \ref{main:real} then says that

484: $\min\{n+1,\frac{s+1}{s-1}\}(2s)^nV_F\!=\!\pmb{\min\{n+1,

485: \frac{s+1}{s-1}\}(2s)^n(d+1)}$ is also an upper bound on the number of 

486: connected components. 

487: 

488: We have thus improved the older bound by a factor of over $s(dn)^n$ (modulo 

489: a nonzero multiplicative constant), for this family of 

490: {\bf semi-algebraic}\footnote{A {\bf semi-algebraic set} is simply a

491: subset of $\Rn$ defined by the solutions of a finite collection of

492: polynomial inequalities.} sets. A broader comparison of our bound to earlier 

493: work appears in section \ref{sub:relatedreal}.  

494: 

495: Let us now fully state our results over $\C$, $\R$, $\Q$, and $\Z$.  

496: 

497: \section{Computing Complex Dimension Faster} 

498: \label{sec:complex}

499: Let $f_1,\ldots,f_m\!\in\!\C[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$, $\pmb{F}\!:=\!(f_1,\ldots,

500: f_m)$, and let $\hn_\C$ denote the problem of deciding whether an 

501: input $F$ has a complex root.\footnote{We say that $F$ is {\bf feasible} 

502: (resp.\ {\bf infeasible}) over $\C$ iff $F$ has (resp.\ does not have) a root 

503: in $\C^n$.}  Also let $\hn$ denote the restriction 

504: of this problem to polynomials in $\Z[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$. We will 

505: respectively consider the complexity of $\hn$ and $\hn_\C$ over 

506: the Turing-machine model and the BSS model over $\C$. 

507: 

508: However, before stating any complexity bounds, let us first clarify our 

509: notion of input size: With the Turing model, we will assume that any input 

510: polynomial is given as a sum of monomial terms, with all coefficients {\bf 

511: and} exponents written in, say, base $2$. The corresponding notion of 

512: {\bf sparse size} is then simply the total number of bits in all coefficients 

513: and exponents. For example, the sparse size of $x^D_1+ax^3_1+b$ is $\cO(\log 

514: D+\log a +\log b)$. The sparse size can be extended to the BSS model 

515: over $\C$ simply by counting just the total number of bits necessary to write 

516: down the exponents (thus ignoring the size of the coefficients). 

517: 

518: Note that the number of complex roots of the polynomial 

519: $x^D_1-1$ is already exponential in its sparse size. 

520: This behavior is compounded for higher-dimensional polynomial 

521: systems, and even affects decision problems as well as enumerative problems. 

522: For example, consider the following theorem. 

523: \begin{thm}

524: \cite{plaisted} 

525: \label{thm:plai} 

526: $\hn$ is $\np$-hard, even in the special case of two  

527: polynomial in one variable. More precisely,  

528: if one can decide whether an arbitrary input polynomial $f\!\in\!\Z[x_1]$

529: of degree $D$ vanishes at a $D^{\thth}$ root of unity, 

530: within a number of bit operations polynomial in the sparse size of $f$, 

531: then $\pp\!=\!\np$. \qed 

532: \end{thm}

533: \noindent 

534: So even for systems such as $f(x_1)\!=\!x^D_1-1\!=\!0$, $\hn$ may be 

535: impossible to solve within bit complexity polynomial in $\log D$ and the 

536: sparse size of $f$. An analogue of this result for $\hn_\C$ (theorem 

537: \ref{thm:smale}) appears in the next section.  

538: 

539: On the other hand, via the classical Sylvester resultant 

540: \cite[Ch.\ 12]{gkz94} and some basic complexity estimates on arithmetic 

541: operations \cite{bcs}, it is easy to see that this special case of $\hn$ can 

542: be decided within a number of bit operations quadratic in $D$ and the sparse 

543: size of $f$. In complete generality, it is known that $\hn\!\in\!\pspa$ --- 

544: an important subclass of $\expt$ \cite{koiran}.\footnote{While 

545: $\pspa$ has important relations to {\bf parallel} algorithms (i.e., 

546: algorithms where several operations are executed at once by several processors 

547: \cite{papa}), we will 

548: concentrate exclusively on {\bf sequential} (i.e., non-parallel) algorithms in 

549: this paper. } 

550: 

551: Alternatively, if one simply counts arithmetic operations 

552: (without regard for the size of the intermediate numbers), one can 

553: similarly obtain an {\bf arithmetic} complexity upper bound of $\cO(D^2)$ for 

554: the special case of $\hn_\C$ corresponding to the univariate problem mentioned 

555: in theorem \ref{thm:plai}. 

556: More generally, it is known that $\hn_\C$ is $\np_\C$-complete\footnote{This 

557: is the analogue of $\np$-complete for the BSS model over $\C$ \cite{bcss}.} 

558: \cite{bss,shub}. 

559: 

560: Curiously, efficient {\bf randomization-free} algorithms for  

561: $\hn$ and $\hn_\C$ are hard to find in the literature. So we present such an 

562: algorithm, with an explicit complexity bound, for a problem including 

563: $\hn_\C$ as a special case.  

564: \begin{main}

565: \label{main:complex}

566: Let $Z_F$ be the zero set of $F$ in $\Cn$ and $\dim Z_F$ the complex dimension 

567: of $Z_F$. Also let $\bO$ be the origin, and $e_1,\ldots,e_n$ the standard 

568: basis vectors, in $\Rn$. Normalize $n$-dimensional volume $\vol_n(\cdot)$ so 

569: that the volume of the standard $n$-simplex (with vertices 

570: $\bO,e_1,\ldots,e_n$) is $1$. Finally, let $k$ be the total number of monomial 

571: terms in $F$ (counting repetitions between distinct $f_i$) and let 

572: $Q_F$ be the convex hull of the union of $\{\bO,e_1,\ldots,e_n\}$ and the set 

573: of all exponent vectors of $F$. Then there is a 

574: deterministic\footnote{i.e., randomization-free} 

575: algorithm which computes $\dim Z_F$, and thus solves $\hn_\C$, within 

576: $\cO(n^4kM^{2.376}_FV^5_F+nk\log(m+n))$ arithmetic operations, where 

577: $V_F\!:=\!\vol_n(Q_F)$ and $M_F$ is no larger than the maximum number of 

578: lattice points in any translate of $(n+1)Q_F$. 

579: \end{main}

580: \noindent 

581: Via a height\footnote{The (absolute multiplicative) {\bf height} of an 

582: algebraic number $\zeta$ is an important number-theoretic invariant 

583: related to the minimal polynomial of $\zeta$ over $\Z$. Height 

584: bounds are also intimately related to more pedestrian quantities 

585: like the maximum absolute value of a coordinate of an isolated root of a 

586: polynomial system, so we use the term ``height'' in this collective sense. 

587: Further details on heights, 

588: and their extension to $\Cn$, can be found in \cite{sil,gregoheight,cool}. } 

589: estimate from theorem \ref{main:height} later in 

590: this section one can also derive a similar bound on the bit complexity of 

591: $\hn$.  We clarify the benefits of our result over earlier bounds  

592: in section \ref{sub:relatedcomplex}. The algorithm for theorem 

593: \ref{main:complex}, and its correctness proof, are 

594: stated in section \ref{sub:proofcomplex}. The techniques 

595: involved will also be revisited in our discussion of quantifier 

596: prefixes over $\Z$ in section \ref{sec:int}.  

597: 

598: There is, however, a fundamentally different approach which, given the truth 

599: of GRH, places $\hn$ in an even better complexity class. 

600: First recall that randomized decision algorithms which answer incorrectly 

601: with probability, say, $\leq\!\frac{1}{3}$, and for which the number of bit 

602: operations 

603: and random bits needed is always polynomial in the input size, define the 

604: complexity class $\bpp$.\footnote{We emphasize that such algorithms can give 

605: different answers when run many times on the same input. However, by accepting 

606: the most popular answer of a large sample, the error probability can be made 

607: arbitrarily small.} Recall also that when a $\bpp$ algorithm is augmented by 

608: an oracle in $\np$, and the number of 

609: oracle-destined bits is always polynomial in the input size, one obtains the 

610: class $\bpp^\np$. Finally, when just {\bf one} oracle call is allowed 

611: in a $\bpp^\np$ algorithm, one obtains the {\bf Arthur-Merlin 

612: class} $\am$ \cite{zachos}. 

613: \begin{thm}

614: \label{thm:koi}

615: \cite{hnam}

616: Assuming the truth of GRH, $\hn\!\in\!\am$. \qed 

617: \end{thm} 

618: \noindent 

619: While probabilistic algorithms for $\hn$ (and more general problems) 

620: have certainly existed at least since the early 1980's, the above theorem 

621: is the first and only example of an algorithm for $\hn$ requiring a number 

622: of bit operations just {\bf polynomial} in the input size, albeit 

623: modulo two strong assumptions. 

624: 

625: In view of the vast literature on GRH from both number theory 

626: and theoretical computer science, the study of algorithms depending on GRH is 

627: not unreasonable. For example, the truth of GRH implies a polynomial-time 

628: algorithm for deciding whether an input integer is prime \cite{miller}. 

629: Likewise, in view of the continuing open status of the 

630: $\pp\stackrel{?}{=}\np$ question, oracle-based results are well-accepted 

631: within theoretical computer science.\footnote{It turns out that $\pp\!=\!\np$ 

632: also implies the existence of a polynomial-time algorithm for primality 

633: testing \cite{pratt}.} 

634: In particular, 

635: Koiran's conditional result gives the smallest complexity class known to 

636: contain $\hn$. Indeed, independent of GRH, while 

637: it is known that $\np\!\subseteq\!\am\!\subseteq\!\pspa$ \cite{papa}, the 

638: properness of each inclusion is still an open problem.

639: 

640: The simplest summary of Koiran's algorithm is that it uses 

641: reduction modulo specially selected primes to decide feasibility over $\C$. 

642: (His algorithm is unique in this respect since all previous 

643: algorithms for $\hn$ worked primarily in the ring $\C[x_1,\ldots,x_n]/\langle 

644: F \rangle$.) The key observation behind Koiran's algorithm is that 

645: an $F$ infeasible (resp.\ feasible) over $\C$ will have roots in $\Z/p\Z$ 

646: for only finitely many (resp.\ a positive density of) primes $p$. 

647: 

648: A refined characterization of the difference between positive and zero 

649: density can be given in terms of our framework as follows:  

650: \begin{thm} 

651: \label{main:koi}

652: Following the notation above, assume now that 

653: $f_1,\ldots,f_m\!\in\!\Z[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$, let\footnote{We point out 

654: that in \cite{hnam}, the notation $\sigma(F)$ was instead used for 

655: a different quantity akin to $2+mD$. } $\sigma(F)$ be the maximum 

656: of $\log|c|$ as $c$ ranges over the coefficients of all the monomial terms of 

657: $F$, and let $D$ be the maximum total degree of any $f_i$. Then there exist 

658: $a_F,A_F\!\in\!\N$, with the following properties: 

659: \begin{itemize}

660: \item[(a)]{$F$ infeasible over $\C \Longrightarrow$ the reduction of 

661: $F$ mod $p$ has a root in $\Z/p\Z$ for at most $a_F$ distinct primes $p$, 

662: and $a_F\!=\!\cO(n^3DV_F(4^nD\log D + \sigma(F)+\log m))$.}  

663: \item[(b)]{Given the truth of GRH, $F$ feasible over $\C \Longrightarrow$ for 

664: each $t\!\geq\!4963041$, the sequence 

665: \mbox{$\{A_Ft^3,\ldots,A_F(t+1)^3-1\}$} contains 

666: a prime $p$ such that the reduction of $F$ mod $p$ has a root in $\Z/p\Z$. 

667: Furthermore, we can take 

668: $A_F\!=\!O\left([V_F\sigma(h_F)(n\log D+\log\sigma(F))]^2\right)$, where $h_F$ 

669: is the polynomial defined in theorem \ref{main:height} below. } 

670: \end{itemize}

671: In particular, the bit-sizes of $a_F$ and $A_F$ are both 

672: \mbox{$\cO(n\log D+\log \sigma(F))$} --- 

673: sub-quadratic in the sparse size of $F$. Simple explicit 

674: formulae for $a_F$ and $A_F$ appear in remarks \ref{rem:shebanga} and 

675: \ref{rem:shebangb} of section \ref{sub:proofcomplex}. 

676: \end{thm}

677: 

678: Via theorem \ref{main:koi}, Koiran's algorithm for $\hn$ can be 

679: paraphrased as follows:\footnote{We point out that, to the best of the 

680: author's knowledge, this is the first time that the constants 

681: underlying Koiran's algorithm have been made explicit.}  

682: \begin{itemize} 

683: \item[{\bf Assumption 1}]{ The truth of GRH.} 

684: \item[{\bf Assumption 2}]{ Access to an $\np$-oracle. } 

685: \item[{\bf Step 1}]{ Pick a (uniformly distributed) random integer  

686: \mbox{$t\!\in\!\{4963041,\ldots,4963041+3a_F\}$.} } 

687: \item[{\bf Step 2}]{ Using our oracle, decide if there is a prime 

688: \mbox{$p\!\in\!\{A_Ft^3,\ldots,A_F(t+1)^3-1  

689: \}$} such that $F$ has a root mod $p$. If so, declare  

690: that $F$ has a complex root. Otherwise, declare that $F$ has no complex root. 

691: \qed } 

692: \end{itemize} 

693: \noindent 

694: In particular, it follows immediately from theorem \ref{main:koi} that 

695: the algorithm above is indeed an $\am$ algorithm, and that the error 

696: probability is $\leq\!\frac{1}{3}$. Better still, the error probability can be 

697: replaced by an arbitrarily 

698: small constant $\eps$ (keeping the same asymptotic complexity), simply  

699: by replacing $3a_F$ by $\frac{1}{\eps}a_F$ in Step 1 above. 

700: 

701: The proof of theorem \ref{main:koi} is based in part on a particularly 

702: effective form of univariate reduction. 

703: \begin{thm} 

704: \label{main:height}

705: Following the notation above, and the assumptions of theorem \ref{main:koi}, 

706: there exist a univariate polynomial $h_F\!\in\!\Z[u_0]$ and 

707: a point $u_F\!:=\!(u_1,\ldots,u_n)\!\in\Zn$ with the following 

708: properties: 

709: \begin{enumerate} 

710: \setcounter{enumi}{-1}  

711: \item{The degree of $h_F$ is $\leq\!V_F$.} 

712: \item{For any irreducible component $W$ of $Z_F$, there is a 

713: point $(\zeta_1,\ldots,\zeta_n)\!\in\!W$ such that 

714: $u_1\zeta_1+\cdots+u_n\zeta_n$ is a root of $h_F$. Conversely, 

715: if $m\!\leq\!n$, all roots of $h_F$ arise this way. } 

716: \item{$F$ has only finitely many complex roots $\Longrightarrow$ the splitting 

717: field of $h_F$ over $\Q$ is exactly the field $\Q[x_i \; \; | \; \; 

718: (x_1,\ldots,x_n)\!\in\!\Cn \text{ \ is \ a \ root \ of \ } F]$. } 

719: \item{The coefficients of $h_F$ satisfy 

720: $\sigma(h_F)\!=\!\cO\left(M_F[\sigma(F)+m(n\log D+\log m)]+n^2V_F\log 

721: D\right)$ and, when $m\!\leq\!n$, 

722: $\sigma(h_F)\!=\!\cO(M_F\sigma(F)+n^2V_F\log D)$.}  

723: \item{$m\!\leq\!n \Longrightarrow$ the deterministic arithmetic complexity 

724: of computing $u_F$, and all the coefficients of $h_F$, is 

725: $\cO(n^3M^{2.376}_F V^5_F)$. } 

726: \item{We have $\log(1+|u_i|)\!=\!\cO(n^2\log D)$ for all $i$.} 

727: \end{enumerate} 

728: \end{thm} 

729: \noindent 

730: Note that we have thus obtained the existence of points of 

731: bounded height on the positive-dimensional part of $Z_F$, 

732: as well as a bound on the height of any point in the 

733: zero-dimensional part of $Z_F$. Put more simply, via a slight 

734: variation of the proof of theorem \ref{main:height}, we obtain 

735: the following useful bound:  

736: \begin{thm} 

737: \label{main:size} 

738: Following the notation of theorem \ref{main:height}, 

739: any irreducible component $W$ of $Z_F$ contains a point 

740: $(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ such that for all $i$, either 

741: $x_i\!=\!0$ or\\ 

742: $|\log|x_i||\!=\!\cO\left(M_F[\sigma(F)+m(n\log D+\log m)]\right)$. 

743: Furthermore, when $m\!\leq\!n$, the last upper bound can be improved 

744: to $\cO(M_F\sigma(F))$. 

745: \qed 

746: \end{thm}

747: 

748: Our final result over $\C$ is a refinement of theorem \ref{main:height} which 

749: will help simplify the proofs of our results in section \ref{sec:int} on 

750: integral points. 

751: \begin{thm} 

752: \cite{gcp}

753: \label{main:unired} 

754: Following the notation of theorem \ref{main:height}, 

755: one can pick $u_F$ and $h_F$ (still satisfying (0)--(5)) so that there 

756: exist $a_1,\ldots,a_n\!\in\!\N$ and $h_1,\ldots,h_n\!\in\!\Z[u_0]$ with the 

757: following properties: 

758: \begin{enumerate} 

759: \setcounter{enumi}{5}

760: \item{ The degrees of $h_1,\ldots,h_n$ are all bounded above 

761: by $V_F$.} 

762: \item{ For any root $\theta\!=\!u_1\zeta_1+\cdots+u_n\zeta_n$ of $h_F$, 

763: $\frac{h_i(\theta)}{a_i}\!=\!\zeta_i$ for all $i$. } 

764: \item{For all $i$, both $\log a_i$ and 

765: $\sigma(h_i)$ are bounded above by $\cO(V^2_F\sigma(h_F))$.}  

766: \item{$m\!\leq\!n \Longrightarrow$ the deterministic arithmetic complexity of 

767: computing all the coefficients of $h_1,\ldots,h_n$ is 

768: $\cO(n^4M^{2.376}_F V^5_F)$. } 

769: \end{enumerate}

770: \end{thm} 

771: 

772: Explicit formulae for all these asymptotic estimates, as well as 

773: their proofs, appear in remarks \ref{rem:height}, \ref{rem:size}, and 

774: \ref{rem:denom} of section \ref{sub:proofcomplex}. However, let us first 

775: compare these quantitative results to earlier work. 

776: 

777: \subsection{Related Results Over $\C$} 

778: \label{sub:relatedcomplex}  

779: Solving $\hn_\C$ too quickly also leads to unexpected collapses of 

780: complexity classes as follows. 

781: \begin{thm}

782: \label{thm:smale} 

783: Suppose there is an algorithm (on a BSS machine over $\C$) which decides  

784: whether an arbitrary input polynomial $f\!\in\!\C[x_1]$ of degree $D$ 

785: vanishes at a $D^{\thth}$ root of unity, within a number of arithmetic 

786: operations polynomial in the sparse size of $f$. Then $\np\!\subseteq\!\bpp$. 

787: \qed 

788: \end{thm}

789: \noindent 

790: This result is originally due to Steve Smale and a proof appears 

791: in \cite{real}. It is currently believed that the inclusion 

792: $\np\!\subseteq\!\bpp$ is quite unlikely. 

793: 

794: Curiously, finding (as opposed to deciding the existence of) roots 

795: for even a seemingly innocent univariate polynomial can lead to 

796: undecidability in the BSS model over $\C$: 

797: \begin{thm} 

798: Determining whether an {\bf arbitrary} $x_0\!\in\!\C$ converges to a 

799: root of $x^3-2x+2\!=\!0$ under Newton's method is undecidable, relative to 

800: the BSS model over $\C$. \qed 

801: \end{thm} 

802: \noindent 

803: This result follows easily via a dynamics result of Barna \cite{barna} 

804: and the proof appears in \cite[Sec.\ 2.4]{bcss}. One should of 

805: course note that this result in no way prevents one from finding 

806: {\bf some} $x_0$ which converges to a root of $x^3-2x+2$. So this 

807: result is a more a reflection of the subtlety of dynamics than 

808: the limits of the BSS model. 

809: 

810: As for the other results of section \ref{sec:complex}, we point out that we 

811: have tried to balance generality, sharpness, and ease of proof in our 

812: bounds. In particular, our bounds fill a lacuna in the literature where 

813: earlier bounds seemed to sacrifice generality for sharpness, or vice-versa. 

814: 

815: To clarify this trade-off, first note that 

816: $\cI_F\!\leq\!V_F\!\leq\!D^n$, 

817: where $\cI_F$ is the number of irreducible components of $Z_F$. 

818: (The first inequality follows immediately from theorem 

819: \ref{main:height}, while the 

820: second follows from the observation that $Q_F$ always lies in a 

821: copy of the standard $n$-simplex scaled by a factor of $D$.) 

822: So depending on the shape of $Q_F$, and thus 

823: somewhat on the sparsity of $F$, one can typically expect $V_F$ 

824: to be much smaller than $D^n$. For example, our $3\times 3$ system 

825: from section \ref{sub:3by3} gives $D^n\!=\!13824$ and $V_F\!=\!243$. 

826: Setting $p\!=\!n$ and $s\!=\!0$ in the example from section \ref{sub:real}, 

827: it is easy to see that the factor of improvement can even reach 

828: $D^{n-1}$, if not more. 

829: 

830: As for the quantities $k$ and $M_F$, we will see 

831: in lemma \ref{lemma:respert} of section \ref{sub:res} that 

832: $k\!\leq\!m(V_F+n)$ and $M_F\!\leq\!\begin{pmatrix} 

833: nD+1\\ n\end{pmatrix}\!=\!\cO(e^n(nD+1)^n)$. Furthermore, just as 

834: $V_F$ is a much more desirable complexity measure than $D^n$, we point out 

835: that the preceding bound on $M_F$ is frequently overly pessimistic: for 

836: example, 

837: $M_F\!=\!\cO(V_F)$ for fixed $n$. The true 

838: definition of $M_F$ appears in section \ref{sub:res}.  

839: 

840: Our algorithm for computing $\dim Z_F$ thus gives the first deterministic 

841: complexity bound which is polynomial in $V_F$ and $M_F$. In particular, 

842: while harder problems were already known to admit $\pspa$ complexity bounds, 

843: the corresponding complexity bounds were either polynomial (or worse) in 

844: $D^n$, or stated in terms of a non-uniform computational model.\footnote{ 

845: For example, some algorithms in the literature are stated in terms 

846: of {\bf arithmetic networks}, where the construction of the 

847: underlying network is not included in the complexity estimate. }  

848: Our algorithm for the computation of $\dim Z_F$ thus gives a significant 

849: speed-up over earlier work. 

850: 

851: For example, via the work of Chistov and Grigoriev from the early 1980's on 

852: quantifier elimination over $\C$ \cite{chigo}, it is not hard to derive a 

853: deterministic arithmetic complexity 

854: bound of $\cO((mD)^{n^4})$ for the computation of $\dim Z$. More recently, 

855: \cite{giustiheintz} gave a randomized arithmetic complexity bound of 

856: $m^{\cO(1)}D^{\cO(n)}$. Theorem \ref{main:complex} thus clearly 

857: improves the former bound. Comparison with the latter bound is 

858: a bit more difficult since the exponential constants and derandomization 

859: complexity are not explicit in \cite{giustiheintz}. 

860: 

861: As for faster algorithms, one can seek complexity bounds which are polynomial 

862: in even smaller quantities. For example, if one has an irreducible algebraic 

863: variety $V\!\subseteq\!\Cn$ of complex dimension $d$, one can 

864: define its {\bf affine geometric degree}, $\delta(V)$, to be the number of 

865: points in $V\cap H$ where $H$ is a generic $(n-d)$-flat.\footnote{ We explain 

866: the term ``generic'' in sections \ref{sec:int} and \ref{sub:h3}.} More 

867: generally, we can 

868: define $\delta(Z_F)$ to be the sum of $\delta(V)$ as $V$ ranges over all 

869: irreducible components of $Z_F$. It then follows (from theorem 

870: \ref{main:complex} and a consideration of intersection multiplicities) 

871: that $\cI_F\!\leq\!\delta(Z_F)\!\leq\!V_F$. 

872: Similarly, one can attempt to use mixed volumes of several polytopes (instead 

873: of a single polytope volume) to lower our bounds. 

874: 

875: We have avoided refinements of this nature for the sake of simplicity. 

876: Another reason it is convenient to have bounds in terms of $V_F$ 

877: is that the computation of $\delta(Z_F)$ is even more subtle 

878: than the computation of polytopal $n$-volume. For example, when $n$ is 

879: fixed, $\vol_n(Q)$ can be computed in polynomial time simply by 

880: triangulating the polytope $Q$ and adding together the volumes of the 

881: resulting $n$-simplices 

882: \cite{volcomplex}. However, merely deciding $\delta(Z_F)\!>\!0$ is 

883: already $\np$-hard for $(m,n)\!=\!(2,1)$, via theorem \ref{thm:plai}. 

884: As for varying $n$, computing 

885: $\delta(Z_F)$ is $\#\pp$-hard, while the computation of polytope volumes is 

886: $\#\pp$-complete.\footnote{ $\#\pp$ is the analogue of $\np$ for enumerative 

887: problems (as opposed to decision problems) \cite{papa}. } 

888: (The latter result is covered in \cite{volcomplex,kls}, while the former 

889: result follows immediately from the fact that the computation of $\delta(Z_F)$ 

890: includes the computation of $V_F$ as a special case.) More practically, for 

891: any fixed $\eps_1,\eps_2\!>\!0$, there 

892: is an algorithm which runs in time polynomial in the sparse encoding of $F$ 

893: (and thus polynomial in $n$) which produces a random variable that is within a 

894: factor of $1-\eps_1$ of $\vol_n(Q_F)$ with probability $1-\eps_2$ \cite{kls}. 

895: The analogous result for mixed volume is known only for certain families 

896: of polytopes \cite{gs00}, and the existence of such a result for 

897: $\delta(Z_F)$ is still an open problem. 

898: 

899: In any event, we point out that improvements in terms of $\delta(Z_F)$ 

900: for our bounds are possible, and these will be pursued in a forthcoming  

901: paper. Similarly, the exponents in our complexity bounds can 

902: be considerably lowered if randomization is allowed. Furthermore, Lecerf has 

903: recently announced a randomized arithmetic complexity 

904: bound for computing $\dim Z_F$ which is polynomial in 

905: $\max_i\{\delta(Z_{(f_1,\ldots,f_i)})\}$ 

906: \cite{lecerf}.\footnote{ The paper \cite{lecerf} actually solves the  

907: harder problem of computing an algebraic description of a non-empty 

908: set of points in every irreducible component of $Z_F$, and distinguishing 

909: which component each set belongs to.} However, the complexity of 

910: derandomizing Lecerf's algorithm is not yet clear. 

911: 

912: As for our result on prime densities (theorem \ref{main:koi}), part (a) 

913: presents the best current bound polynomial in $V_F$ and $M_F$. An earlier 

914: density bound, polynomial in $D^{n^{\cO(1)}}$ instead, 

915: appeared in \cite{hnam}. 

916: 

917: Part (b) of theorem \ref{main:koi} appears to be new, and 

918: makes explicit an allusion of Koiran in \cite{hnam}. 

919: \begin{rem}

920: \label{rem:foo} 

921: We point out that we cheated slightly in our refinement of 

922: Koiran's algorithm: We did not take the complexity of computing 

923: $V_F$ into account. (It is easy to see that this is what dominates 

924: the randomized bit complexity of the algorithm.) This can be corrected, and 

925: perhaps the simplest way is to 

926: replace every occurence of $V_F$ with $D^n$ in our bounds for $M_F$, $a_F$, 

927: and $A_F$. Alternatively, if one want to preserve polynomiality in $V_F$, 

928: one can instead apply the polynomial-time randomized approximation techniques 

929: of \cite{kls} to $V_F$, and make a minor adjustment to the error 

930: probabilities. \qed 

931: \end{rem} 

932: \begin{rem} 

933: Pascal Koiran has also given an $\am$ algorithm 

934: (again depending on GRH) for deciding whether the complex dimension 

935: of an algebraic set is less than some input constant \cite{koiran}. 

936: \qed 

937: \end{rem} 

938: 

939: Regarding our height bound, the only other results stated in polytopal terms 

940: are an earlier version of theorem \ref{main:height} announced in 

941: \cite{stoc99}, and independently 

942: discovered bounds in \cite[Prop.\ 2.11]{cool} and \cite[Cor.\ 

943: 8.2.3]{maillot}. The bound from \cite{cool} applies to a slightly 

944: different problem, but implies (by intersecting with a generic 

945: linear subspace with reasonably bounded coefficients)\footnote{ 

946: Martin Sombra pointed this out in an e-mail to the author.} a bound of  

947: $\cO((4^nD\log n + n\sigma(F))V_F)$ for our setting. Furthermore, 

948: by examining a key ingredient in their proof (Proposition 1.7 from 

949: \cite{cool}), their bound can actually be improved to 

950: $\cO(DM_F\log n+nV_F\sigma(F))$. The last bound is thus close to ours, 

951: and can be better when $m$ and $\sigma(F)$ are large and $n$ is small. 

952: The bound from \cite[Cor.\ 8.2.3]{maillot} uses 

953: Arakelov intersection theory, holds only for $m\!=\!n$, and the statement is 

954: more intricate (involving a sum of several mixed volumes). So it is not yet 

955: clear when \cite[Cor.\ 8.2.3]{maillot} is better than theorem 

956: \ref{main:height}. In any case, our result has a considerably simpler 

957: proof than either of these two alternative bounds: We use only resultants and 

958: elementary linear algebra and factoring estimates.  

959: 

960: We also point out that the only earlier 

961: bounds which may be competitive with theorems \ref{main:height} and 

962: \ref{main:size}, \cite[Prop.\ 2.11]{cool}, and \cite[Cor.\ 8.2.3]{maillot} 

963: are polynomial in 

964: $e^n(nD+1)^n$ and make various non-degeneracy hypothesis, e.g., 

965: $m\!=\!n$ and no singularities for $Z_F$ (see \cite{cannyphd} and 

966: \cite[Thm.\ 5]{gregogap}). As for 

967: bounds with greater generality, the results of \cite{fgm} imply a height bound 

968: for general quantifier elimination which, unfortunately, has a factor of the 

969: form $2^{(n\log D)^{\cO(r)}}$ where $r$ is the number of 

970: quantifier alternations \cite{hnam}. 

971: 

972: As for theorem \ref{main:unired}, 

973: the approach of rational univariate representations ({\bf RUR}) for the 

974: roots of polynomial systems dates back to Kronecker. RUR also goes under the 

975: name of ``effective primitive element theorem'' and important precursors to 

976: theorem \ref{main:unired}, with respective complexity bounds polynomial 

977: in $e^n(nD+1)^n$ and $D^{n^{\cO(1)}}$, are stated in \cite{pspace} and 

978: \cite[Thm.\ 4]{hnam}. Nevertheless, the use of 

979: {\bf toric resultants} (cf.\ section \ref{sub:proofcomplex}), 

980: which form the core of our algorithms here, was 

981: not studied in the context of RUR until the late 1990's (see, e.g., 

982: \cite{gcp}). In particular, theorem \ref{main:unired} appears to be the 

983: first statement giving bounds on $\sigma(h_i)$ which are polynomial 

984: in $V_F$. As for computing $h,h_1,\ldots,h_n$ faster, an algorithm for 

985: RUR with randomized complexity polynomial in 

986: $\max_i\{\delta(Z_{(f_1,\ldots,f_i)})\}$ was derived in 

987: \cite{gls99}. However, their 

988: algorithm makes various nondegeneracy assumptions (such as $m\!=\!n$ and that 

989: $F$ form a complete intersection) and the derandomization 

990: complexity is not stated. 

991: 

992: The remaining bottle-neck in improving our complexity and 

993: height bounds stems from the exponentiality in $n$ present in the quantity 

994: $M_F$. However, the resulting exponential factor,  

995: which is currently known to be at worst $\cO(e^n)$ (cf.\ 

996: lemma \ref{lemma:respert} of section \ref{sub:res}), can be reduced to 

997: $\cO(n)$ in certain cases. 

998: In general, this can be done whenever there exists an expression for a 

999: particular toric resultant (cf.\ section \ref{sub:proofcomplex}) as a single 

1000: determinant, or the divisor of a determinant, of a matrix of size $\cO(nV_F)$. 

1001: The existence of such formulae has been proven in various cases, e.g., when 

1002: all the Newton polytopes are axis-parallel parallelepipeds \cite{wz}. Also, 

1003: such formulae have been observed (and constructed) experimentally in various 

1004: additional cases of practical interest \cite{emican}. Finding compact formulae 

1005: for resultants is an area of active research which thus has deep implications 

1006: for the complexity of algebraic geometry.  

1007: 

1008: Finally, we note that 

1009: we have avoided Gr\"obner basis techniques because there are currently 

1010: no known complexity or height bounds polynomial in $V_F$ (or even 

1011: $M_F$) using Gr\"obner bases for the problems we consider. A further 

1012: complication is that 

1013: there are examples of ideals, generated by polynomials of degree $\leq\!5$ in 

1014: $\cO(n)$ variables, where every Gr\"obner basis has a generator of degree 

1015: $2^{2^n}$ \cite{mm}. This is one obstruction to deriving sharp explicit 

1016: complexity bounds via a naive application of Gr\"obner bases. Nevertheless, 

1017: we point out that Gr\"obner bases are well-suited for other difficult 

1018: algebraic problems, and their complexity is also an area of active research. 

1019:   

1020: \section{Polytope Volumes and Counting Pieces of Semi-Algebraic Sets} 

1021: \label{sec:real}

1022: Continuing our theme of measuring algebraic-geometric complexity in 

1023: combinatorial terms, we will see how to bound the number of connected 

1024: components of a semi-algebraic set in terms of polytope volumes. However, let 

1025: us first see an unusual example of how input encoding influences 

1026: computational complexity, as well as geometric complexity, over the real 

1027: numbers.  

1028: 

1029: Recall that a {\bf straight-line program (SLP)} presents 

1030: a polynomial as a sequence of subtractions and multiplications, starting from 

1031: a small set of constants and variables \cite{bcs,bcss}. (Usually, the only 

1032: constant given a priori is $1$.) The {\bf SLP size} of a polynomial 

1033: $f\!\in\!\Z[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ is then just the minimum of the total 

1034: number of operations needed by any SLP evaluating to $f$. Thus, while 

1035: $(x+2^{2^2})^{1000}-2^{2^{2^3}}$ has a large sparse size, its SLP size is 

1036: easily seen to be quite small, via standard recursive tricks such as repeated 

1037: squaring.  SLP's are thus a more powerful encoding than the sparse encoding, 

1038: since the SLP size of a polynomial is trivially bounded from above by a linear 

1039: function of its sparse size.  

1040: 

1041: Consider the following corollary of theorem \ref{thm:plai}. 

1042: \begin{cor} 

1043: \label{cor:realuni} 

1044: If one can decide whether an arbitrary $f\!\in\!\Z[x_1]$ has a real root, 

1045: within a number of bit operations polynomial in the SLP size of $f$, 

1046: then $\pp\!=\!\np$. \qed 

1047: \end{cor}

1048: \noindent

1049: Thus the hardness of feasibility testing we've observed earlier over $\C$ 

1050: persists over $\R$, albeit relative to a smaller complexity measure. 

1051: Peter B\"{u}rgisser observed the following simple proof of 

1052: this corollary in 1998: Assuming the hypothesis above, consider 

1053: the polynomial system $G\!:=\!(f(w),w(z+i)-iz)$. 

1054: Then $f$ has a real root $\Longleftrightarrow 

1055: G$ has a root $(w,z)$ with $w$ on the unit circle, and our assumption 

1056: thus implies the existence of a polynomial-time algorithm (relative now to the 

1057: SLP encoding) for detecting whether certain systems of two polynomials 

1058: in two variables have a root $(w,z)$ with $w$ on the unit circle. 

1059: This in turn implies an algorithm, requiring a number 

1060: of bit operations just polynomial in the sparse size of $f$, for deciding if 

1061: a univariate polynomial $f$ has a root on the unit circle. This is not quite 

1062: the same problem as the special case of $\hn$ from theorem \ref{thm:plai}, 

1063: but it is nevertheless known to be $\np$-hard as well \cite{plaisted}. 

1064: So we finally obtain $\pp\!=\!\np$ from our initial assumption and our 

1065: corollary is thus proved. 

1066: 

1067: Another complication with detecting the existence of real roots too quickly 

1068: is that the number of real roots, even for a single univariate polynomial, 

1069: can be exponential in the SLP size. (This fact is {\bf not} implied by 

1070: our earlier example of $x^D_1-1$.) To see why, simply consider the recursion  

1071: $g_{j+1}\!:=\!4g_j(1-g_j)$ with $g_1\!:=\!4x(1-x)$. It is then easily 

1072: checked\footnote{ This example is well-known in dynamical systems, and the 

1073: author thanks Gregorio Malajovich for pointing it out. } 

1074: that $g_j(x)-x$ has $2^j$ roots in the open interval $(0,1)$, but an SLP size 

1075: of just $\cO(j)$.  

1076: 

1077: It is an open question whether corollary \ref{cor:realuni}  

1078: holds relative to {\bf sparse} size. More to the point, 

1079: the influence of sparse size on the number of 

1080: {\bf real} roots of polynomial systems remains a deep 

1081: open question. For instance, the classical {\bf Descartes rule of signs} 

1082: states that any univariate polynomial with real coefficients 

1083: and $k$ monomial terms has at most $2k+1$ real roots. However, 

1084: the best known bounds on the number of isolated real roots 

1085: for $2$ polynomials in $2$ unknowns are already exponential 

1086: in the number of monomial terms, even if one restricts to roots 

1087: with all coordinates positive (cf.\ section \ref{sub:relatedreal}).  

1088: 

1089: However, one can at least give bounds which are linear  

1090: in a suitable polytope volume, which apply even in the  

1091: the more general context of polynomial inequalities. 

1092: \begin{main}

1093: \cite{real}

1094: \label{main:real} 

1095: Let $f_1,\ldots,f_{p+s}\!\in\!\R[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and suppose 

1096: $S\!\subseteq\Rn$ is the solution set of the following 

1097: collection of polynomial inequalities: 

1098: \begin{eqnarray*} 

1099: f_i(x)\!&\!=\!&\!0, \ \ \ i\!\in\!\{1,\ldots,p\} \\ 

1100: f_{p+i}(x)\!&\!>\!&\!0, \ \ \ i\!\in\!\{1,\ldots,s\} 

1101: \end{eqnarray*} 

1102: Let $Q_F\!\subset\!\Rn$ be the convex hull of the 

1103: union of $\{\bO,\hat{e}_1,\ldots,\hat{e}_n\}$ 

1104: and the set of all $a$ with $x^a\!:=\!x^{a_1}_1\cdots x^{a_n}_n$ a  

1105: monomial term of some $f_i$. Then $S$ has at most 

1106: \[ \mbox{}\hspace{-.3cm}\min\{n+1,\frac{s+1}{s-1}\}2^ns^nV_F \ 

1107: (\mathrm{for \ } s\!>\!0) \ \ \mathrm{or}   \ \ 2^{n-1}V_F \ 

1108: (\mathrm{for \ } s\!=\!0) \]  

1109: connected components, where $V_F\!:=\!\vol_n(Q_F)$. \qed 

1110: \end{main} 

1111: 

1112: In closing this brief excursion into semi-algebraic geometry, we point out 

1113: that unlike the complex case, it is not yet known  

1114: whether $V_F$ is an upper bound on the number of {\bf real} connected 

1115: components. This is because a complex component may contribute two or more 

1116: real connected components. Nevertheless, it is quite possible that the factors 

1117: exponential in $n$ in our bounds may be removed from our bounds in the near 

1118: future. 

1119: 

1120: \subsection{Related Results Over $\R$} 

1121: \label{sub:relatedreal}

1122: We first recall the following important result 

1123: relating sparse size and real roots for certain non-degenerate 

1124: polynomial systems. (Recall also that the {\bf positive orthant} 

1125: of $\Rn$ is the subset $\{(x_1,\ldots,x_n) \; | \; x_i\!>\!0 

1126: {\text \ for \ all \ } i\}$.)  

1127: \begin{kho} 

1128: {\bf (Special Case)}\footnote{Khovanski's Theorem on Fewnomials 

1129: actually holds for a more general class of functions --- the so-called 

1130: {\bf Pfaffian} functions \cite{few}. } \cite[Sec.\ 3.12, Cor.\ 6]{few}

1131: Following the notation of theorem \ref{main:real}, suppose $p\!=\!n$,  

1132: $s\!=\!0$, and the Jacobian matrix of $F$ is invertible at any  

1133: complex root of $F$. Also let $k'$ be the number of exponent 

1134: vectors which appear in at least one of $f_1,\ldots,f_n$. Then $F$ has at 

1135: most $(n+1)^{k'} 2^{k'(k'-1)/2}$ real roots in the positive orthant. \qed 

1136: \end{kho} 

1137: \noindent 

1138: For example, Khovanski's bound readily implies that our $3\times 3$ example 

1139: from section \ref{sub:3by3} has at most 

1140: $8\cdot 4^9\cdot 2^{36}\!=\!\mathbf{144115188075855872}$ real roots --- quite 

1141: a bit more than $972$ (the estimate from theorem \ref{main:real} above) or 

1142: $11$ (the true number of real roots). Nevertheless, we emphasize that his 

1143: theorem was a major advance, giving the first bound on the number of real 

1144: roots independent of the degree of the input polynomials. 

1145: 

1146: As for other more general results, Khovanski also gave  

1147: bounds on the {\bf Betti numbers}\footnote{These are more subtle 

1148: cohomological invariants which include the number of connected components 

1149: as a special case (see, e.g., \cite{munkres} for further details).} of 

1150: non-degenerate real algebraic varieties \cite[Sec.\ 3.14, Cor.\ 5]{few}. 

1151: Similarly, these results (which thus require $p\!\leq\!n$ and $s\!=\!0$) 

1152: become more practical as the polynomial degrees 

1153: grows and the number of monomial terms remains small. 

1154: 

1155: Closer to our approach, Benedetti, Loeser, and Risler 

1156: independently derived a polytopal upper bound on the number connected 

1157: components of a real algebraic variety in \cite[Prop.\ 3.6]{blr}. 

1158: Their result, while applying only in the case where $p\!\leq\!n$ and $s\!=\!0$, 

1159: can give a better bound when the number of equations $p$ is a small constant 

1160: and $n$ is large. We also point out that their result has a more complicated 

1161: statement than ours, involving a recursion in terms of mixed volumes of 

1162: projections of polytopes. 

1163: 

1164: The only other known bounds on the number of 

1165: connected components appear to be linear in $D^n$. For example, 

1166: a bound derived by Oleinik, Petrovsky, Milnor, and Thom 

1167: before the mid-1960's \cite{op,milnor,thom} gives $D(2D-1)^{n-1}$ for 

1168: $s\!=\!0$ and $(sD+1)(2sD+1)^n$ for $s\!>\!0$. An improvement, also 

1169: polynomial in $D^n$, was given recently by Basu \cite{basu}:  

1170: \mbox{$(p+s)^n\cO(D)^n$,} where the implied constant is not stated explicitly.  

1171: For $s\!>\!0$ our bound is no worse than 

1172: $\min\{n+1,\frac{s+1}{s-1}\}(2sD)^n$ --- better than both preceding bounds 

1173: and frequently much better. For $s\!=\!0$ our bound is no worse 

1174: than $2^{n-1}D^n$ --- negligibly worse than the oldest bound, but 

1175: asymptotically better than Basu's bound.  

1176: 

1177: For the sake of brevity, we have mainly focused on one combinatorial aspect of 

1178: semi-algebraic sets. So let us at least mention a few additional 

1179: complexity-theoretic 

1180: references: Foundational results on the complexity of solving (or counting 

1181: the roots of) polynomial systems over $\R$ can be 

1182: found in \cite{marie}, and faster recent algorithms can be found in 

1183: \cite{esa,moupan}.  More generally, there are 

1184: algorithms known for quantifier elimination over any real closed field 

1185: \cite{renegar,cannyquant,bpr}. 

1186: 

1187: Curiously, the best current complexity bounds for the problems over $\R$ just 

1188: mentioned are essentially the same as those for the corresponding problems 

1189: over $\C$. Notable recent exceptions include \cite{bank} and \cite{rojasye} 

1190: where the complexity bounds depending mainly on quantities relating only to 

1191: the underlying real geometry. (The first paper deals with finding a 

1192: point in every connected component of a semi-algebraic set, while the second 

1193: paper deals with approximating the real roots of a trinomial within time 

1194: quadratic in $\log D$.) Also, with the exception of 

1195: \cite{bank,esa,moupan,rojasye}, all the preceding references present 

1196: complexity bounds depending on $n$ and $D^n$, with no 

1197: mention of sharper quantities like $V_F$. 

1198: 

1199: An interesting question which remains is whether feasibility over $\R$ can 

1200: be decided within the {\bf polynomial hierarchy} (a collection of 

1201: complexity classes suspected to lie below $\pspa$ \cite{papa}), with or 

1202: without GRH. As we will see now, this can be done 

1203: over $\Q$ (at least in a restricted sense) as well as $\C$. 

1204: 

1205: \section{The Generalized Riemann Hypothesis and Detecting 

1206: Rational Points} 

1207: \label{sec:rat} 

1208: Here we will return to considering computational complexity 

1209: estimates: We show that deciding feasibility over $\Q$, for 

1210: most polynomial systems, lies within the polynomial hierarchy, assuming 

1211: GRH. To fix ideas, let us begin with the case of a single univariate 

1212: polynomial. 

1213: \begin{thm}

1214: \cite{lenstra}

1215: \label{thm:lenstra} 

1216: Suppose $f\!\in\!\Z[x_1]$ and $\pm\frac{p}{q}\!\in\!\Q$ is a root of $f$, 

1217: with $p,q\!\in\!\N$ and $\gcd(p,q)\!=\!1$. Then $\log p$, $\log q$, 

1218: and the number of rational roots are all polynomial in $\size(f)$ (the sparse 

1219: size of $f$). Furthermore, {\bf all} 

1220: rational roots of $f$ can be computed within $\cO(\size(f)^{10})$ bit 

1221: operations.\footnote{The exponent was not stated explicitly in 

1222: \cite{lenstra} but, via \cite{lll}, can easily be derived from the description 

1223: of the algorithm given there.} \qed 

1224: \end{thm}  

1225: \noindent 

1226: Note that the complexity bound above does {\bf not} follow directly from 

1227: the famous polynomial-time factoring algorithm of Lenstra, Lenstra, and 

1228: Lovasz \cite{lll}: their result has complexity polynomial in the degree of 

1229: $f$, as well as $\size(f)$. Also, Lenstra actually derived a more general 

1230: version of the theorem above which applies to finding all bounded 

1231: degree factors of a univariate polynomial over any fixed algebraic number 

1232: field \cite{lenstra}. Interestingly, the analogue of theorem 

1233: \ref{thm:lenstra} for the {\bf SLP size} is an open problem and, like theorem 

1234: \ref{thm:plai} and corollary \ref{cor:realuni}, has considerable impact within 

1235: complexity theory (see theorem \ref{thm:tau} of section \ref{sec:int} for the 

1236: full statement). 

1237: 

1238: Curiously, there is currently no known analogue of 

1239: theorem \ref{thm:lenstra} for {\bf systems} of multivariate polynomials. The 

1240: main reason is that the most naive generalizations easily lead to various 

1241: obstructions and even some unsolved problems in number theory.  

1242: For example, as of mid-2000, it is still unknown whether deciding the 

1243: existence of a rational root for $y^2\!=\!ax^3+bx+c$ is even Turing-decidable. 

1244: Thus, the first obvious restriction to make, following the notation of the 

1245: last two sections, is to consider only those $F$ where $Z_F$ is finite. But 

1246: even then there are complications: 

1247: \begin{itemize} 

1248: \item[{\bf Q$_{\mathbf{1}}$}]{The number of integral roots of $F$ can actually 

1249: be exponential in the sparse size of $F$: A simple example is the system 

1250: \mbox{$(\prod^D_{i=1}(x_1-i),\ldots, \prod^D_{i=1}(x_n-i))$,} 

1251: which has $D^n$ integral roots and a sparse size of $\cO(nD\log D)$. \qed }  

1252: \item[{\bf Q$_{\mathbf{2}}$}]{For $n\!>\!1$, the 

1253: integral roots of $F$ can have coordinates with bit-length exponential in 

1254: $\size(F)$, thus ruling out one possible source $\np$ certificates: 

1255: For example, the system $(x_1-2,x_2-x^2_1,\ldots,x_n-x^2_{n-1})$ 

1256: has sparse size $\cO(n)$ but has $(1,2,\ldots,2^{2^{n-2}})$ as a root. \qed } 

1257: \end{itemize}  

1258: So it appears that restricting to deciding the existence of rational 

1259: roots, instead of finding them, may be necessary for sub-exponential 

1260: complexity. Nevertheless, these difficulties may disappear when $n$ is fixed: 

1261: even the case $n\!=\!2$ is open.  

1262: 

1263: As for simple complexity upper bounds, the efficient deterministic algorithms 

1264: of section \ref{sec:complex} can easily be converted to $\pspa$ 

1265: algorithms for finding all rational points within the zero-dimensional part of 

1266: an algebraic set. However, we will use a different approach to place this 

1267: problem within an even lower complexity class: testing the densities of primes 

1268: with certain properties. 

1269: 

1270: First note that averaging over many primes (as 

1271: opposed to employing a single sufficiently large prime) is essentially 

1272: unavoidable if one wants to use mod $p$ root counts to decide the existence 

1273: of rational roots. For example, from basic quadratic residue theory \cite{hw}, 

1274: we know that the number of roots $x^2_1+1$ mod $p$ is {\bf not} constant for 

1275: sufficiently large prime $p$. 

1276: Similarly, Galois-theoretic considerations are also necessary before using 

1277: mod $p$ root counts to decide feasibility over $\Q$.

1278: \setcounter{ex}{2}

1279: \begin{ex}

1280: \label{ex:cool}  

1281: Take $m\!=\!n\!=\!1$ and $F\!=\!f_1\!=(x^2_1-2)(x^2_1-7)(x^2_1-14)$. Clearly, 

1282: $F$ has no rational roots. However, it is easily checked via the 

1283: Jacobi symbol \cite{hw,bs} that $F$ has a root 

1284: mod $p$ for {\bf all} primes $p$. In particular, note that the Galois group 

1285: here is not transitive: there is no automorphism of $\overline{\Q}$ which 

1286: fixes $\Q$ and sends, say, $\sqrt{2}$ to $\sqrt{7}$. 

1287: \end{ex}

1288:  

1289: So let us now state a precursor to our method for detecting rational roots:  

1290: Recall that $\pi(x)$ denotes the number of primes $\leq\!x$. 

1291: Let $\pi_F(x)$ be the variation on $\pi(x)$ where we instead count the number 

1292: of primes $p\leq\!x$ such that the reduction of $F$ mod $p$ has a root in 

1293: $\Z/p\Z$, and let $\#$ denote set cardinality. 

1294: \begin{main}

1295: \label{main:start} 

1296: (See \cite[Thm.\ 2]{jcs}.) 

1297: Following the notation of sections \ref{sec:complex} and \ref{sec:real}, 

1298: assume now that the coefficients of $F$ are integers. Let $K$ be the 

1299: field $\Q(x_i \; | \; (x_1,\ldots,x_n)\!\in\!Z_F \ , \ 

1300: i\!\in\!\{1,\ldots,n\})$. Then the truth of GRH implies the two statements for 

1301: all $x\!>\!33766$:

1302: \begin{enumerate}

1303: \item{ Suppose $\infty\!>\!\#Z_F\!\geq\!2$ and $\mathrm{Gal}(K/\Q)$ acts

1304: transitively on $Z_F$. Then

1305: \[ \frac{\pi_F(x)}{\pi(x)}< \left(1-\frac{1}{V_F}

1306: \right)\left(1+\frac{(V_F!+1)\log^2 x + V_F!V_F\cO(V_F+\sigma(h_F))\log x}

1307: {\sqrt{x}}\right).\] }

1308: \item{ Suppose $\#Z_F\!\geq\!1$. Then independent of $\mathrm{Gal}(K/\Q)$,

1309: we have

1310: \[ \frac{\pi_F(x)}{\pi(x)}> \frac{1}{V_F}(1-b(F,x)),\] }

1311: \end{enumerate}

1312: where $0\!\leq\!b(F,x)\!<\!\frac{4V_F\log^2 x+

1313: V^2_F\cO(V_F+\sigma(h_F)+nV_F\sigma(h_F)/\sqrt{x})\log

1314: x}{\sqrt{x}}$ and $0\!\leq\!\sigma(h_F)\!=$\\

1315: $\cO\left(M_F[\sigma(F)+m(n\log D+\log m)]+n^2V_F\log 

1316: D\right)$. Better still, we have 

1317: $\sigma(h_F)\!=\!\cO(M_F\sigma(F)+n^2V_F\log D)$ when $m\!\leq\!n$. 

1318: \qed 

1319: \end{main} 

1320: \noindent 

1321: The upper bound from assertion (1) appears to be new, and the lower bound from 

1322: assertion (2) significantly improves earlier  

1323: bounds appearing in \cite{hnam,morais,peter} which were polynomial in 

1324: $D^n$. Explicit formulae for the above asymptotic estimates appear 

1325: in \cite[Remarks 9 and 10]{jcs}. 

1326: 

1327: Theorem \ref{main:start} thus presents the first main 

1328: difference between feasibility testing over $\C$ and $\Q$: from  

1329: theorem \ref{main:koi}, we know that 

1330: the mod $p$ reduction of $F$ has a root

1331: in $\Z/p\Z$ for a density of primes $p$ which is either positive or zero, 

1332: according as $F$ has a root in $\C$ or not. 

1333: The corresponding gap between densities

1334: happened to be large enough for Koiran's randomized 

1335: oracle algorithm to decide feasibility over $\C$ (cf.\ 

1336: section \ref{sec:complex}). (We point out that Koiran's 

1337: algorithm actually relies on the behavior of the function  

1338: $N_F$ defined below, which is more amenable than that of $\pi_F$.) 

1339: On the other hand, assertion (1) of theorem \ref{main:start} tells 

1340: us that the mod $p$ reduction of $F$ has a root in $\Z/p\Z$ for 

1341: a density of primes which is either $1$ or $1-\frac{1}{V_F}$, 

1342: according as $F$ has, or {\bf strongly} fails to have, a rational root.

1343: 

1344: Unfortunately, the convergence of $\frac{\pi_F(x)}{\pi(x)}$ to

1345: its limit is unfortunately too slow to permit any obvious algorithm using

1346: subexponential work. However, via a Galois-theoretic trick (cf.\ 

1347: theorem \ref{thm:galois} below) we can nevertheless place rational root 

1348: detection in a lower complexity class than previously known. 

1349: \begin{main}

1350: \label{main:riemann}

1351: \cite{jcs}  

1352: Following the notation and assumptions of theorem \ref{main:start}, 

1353: assume further that $F$ fails to have 

1354: a rational root $\Longleftrightarrow [Z_F\!=\!\emptyset$ or 

1355: $\mathrm{Gal}(K/\Q)$ acts transitively on $Z_F]$. Then the truth of GRH 

1356: implies that deciding whether $F$ has a rational root 

1357: can be done in polynomial-time, given access to an oracle in $\np^\np$, i.e., 

1358: within the complexity class $\crap$.  

1359: Also, we can check the emptiness and  

1360: finiteness of $Z_F$ unconditionally (resp.\ assuming GRH) within 

1361: $\pspa$ (resp.\ $\am$). \qed 

1362: \end{main}

1363: \noindent 

1364: The new oracle can be summarized as follows: Given any $F$ 

1365: and a finite subset $S\!\subset\!\N$, our oracle instantaneously 

1366: tells us whether or not there is a prime $p\!\in\!S$ such that 

1367: the mod $p$ reduction of $F$ has {\bf no} roots in $\Z/p\Z$. 

1368: 

1369: Part of the importance of oracle-based algorithms, such as the 

1370: one above or the algorithm from section \ref{sec:complex}, 

1371: is that it could happen that $\pp\!\neq\!\np$ but the 

1372: higher complexity classes we have been alluding to all collapse 

1373: to the same level. For example, while it is known that 

1374: $\mathbf{NP}\!\cup\!\mathbf{BPP}\!\subseteq\!\mathbf{AM}\! 

1375: \subseteq\!\pp^{\np^\np}\!\subseteq\!

1376: \np^{\np^\np}\!\subseteq\!\cdots\!\subseteq\! 

1377: \mathbf{PSPACE}$, the properness of each inclusion is still unknown 

1378: \cite{zachos,lab,arith,papa}. 

1379: 

1380: The algorithm for theorem \ref{main:riemann} is almost as simple 

1381: as the algorithm for theorem \ref{main:koi} given earlier, and 

1382: can be outlined as follows: 

1383: 

1384: \begin{itemize} 

1385: \item[{\bf Step 0}]{ Let $N_F(x)$ denote the 

1386: {\bf weighted} version of $\pi_F(x)$ where we instead sum the 

1387: total number of roots in $\Z/p\Z$ of the mod $p$ reductions of $F$ 

1388: over {\bf all} primes $p\!\leq\!x$.} 

1389: \item[{\bf Step 1}]{ Let $t^*_0$ be an integer just large enough so that 

1390: $t^*_0\!>\!33766$ and $b(F,t^*_0)\!<\!\frac{1}{10}$.}  

1391: \item[{\bf Step 2}]{Estimate, via a constant-factor approximate counting 

1392: algorithm of Stockmeyer \cite{stock}\footnote{

1393: Stockmeyer's algorithm actually applies to any function from the 

1394: complexity class $\#\pp$, and it is easily verified that 

1395: $N_F$ and $\pi_F$ lie within this class.}, both $N_F(t^*_0)$ and 

1396: $\pi_F(t^*_0)$ within a factor of $\frac{9}{8}$, using polynomially many calls 

1397: to our $\np^\np$ oracle. Call these approximations 

1398: $\bar{N}$ and $\bar{\pi}$ respectively. } 

1399: \item[{\bf Step 3}]{ If $\bar{N}\!\leq\!(\frac{9}{8})^2\bar{\pi}$, declare 

1400: $Z_F\cap\Q^n$ empty. Otherwise, declare $Z_F\cap\Q^n$ \mbox{nonempty. \qed} } 

1401: \end{itemize} 

1402: \noindent 

1403: That our algorithm runs in polynomial time follows easily from our quantitative 

1404: estimates from theorem \ref{main:start} and an analogous estimate 

1405: for $N_F(x)$ (which also depends on GRH) from \cite{jcs}. The same holds for 

1406: the correctness of our algorithm. 

1407: 

1408: Let us now close with some remarks on the strength of our last two theorems: 

1409: First note that our restrictions on the input $F$ are actually rather gentle. 

1410: In particular, if one assumes $m\!\geq\!n$ and fixes the 

1411: monomial term structure of $F$, then it follows easily 

1412: from the theory of resultants \cite{gkz94,introres,gcp} that, for a 

1413: generic choice of the coefficients, $F$ will have only finitely many 

1414: roots in $\Cn$. (See section \ref{sec:int} for our definition of 

1415: generic.) Furthermore, it is quite frequently the case that our hypothesis 

1416: involving $Z_F$ and $\mathrm{Gal}(K/\Q)$ holds when $F$ fails to have a

1417: rational root.

1418: \begin{thm} 

1419: \label{thm:galois} 

1420: \cite[Thm.\ 4]{jcs} 

1421: Following the notation above, fix the monomial term structure of $F$ and 

1422: assume further that $m\!\geq\!n$ and the coefficients of $F$ are integers of 

1423: absolute value $\leq\!c$. Then the fraction of such $F$ with

1424: $\mathrm{Gal}(K/\Q)$ acting transitively

1425: on $Z_F$ is at least $1-\cO(\frac{\log c}{\sqrt{c}})$.

1426: Furthermore, we can check whether $\mathrm{Gal}(K/\Q)$ acts

1427: transitively on $Z_F$ within $\expt$ or, if one assumes GRH, within

1428: $\pp^{\np^\np}$. \qed 

1429: \end{thm} 

1430: \noindent 

1431: Thus, if the monomial term structure of $F$ is such that

1432: $\#Z_F\!\neq\!1$ for a generic choice of the coefficients, it

1433: easily follows that at least a fraction of $1-\cO(\frac{\log c}{\sqrt{c}})$ of

1434: the $F$ specified above also have no rational roots. The case

1435: where the monomial term structure of $F$ is such that $\#Z_F\!=\!1$

1436: for a generic choice of the coefficients is evidently quite rare,

1437: and will be addressed in future work.

1438: \begin{rem}

1439: A stronger version of the $m\!=\!n\!=\!1$ case of theorem \ref{thm:galois}

1440: (sans complexity bounds) was derived by Gallagher in

1441: \cite{gala}. The $m\!\geq\!n\!>\!1$ case follows from a combination of our

1442: framework here, the Lenstra-Lenstra-Lovasz (LLL) algorithm \cite{lll}, and

1443: an effective version of Hilbert's Irreducibility Theorem from \cite{cohen}. 

1444: \qed 

1445: \end{rem}

1446: 

1447: As we have seen, transferring conditional speed-ups from 

1448: $\C$ to $\Q$ presents quite a few subtleties, and these are covered at length 

1449: in \cite{jcs}. We also point out that there appears to be no obstruction to 

1450: extending our algorithm above to detecting rational points over any 

1451: fixed number field, within the same complexity bound. This will be pursued in 

1452: future work. 

1453: 

1454: \subsection{Related Results Over $\Q$} 

1455: We have mainly concentrated on the complexity of detecting rational points on 

1456: certain zero-dimensional algebraic sets, which has been a somewhat overlooked 

1457: topic. Indeed, while a $\pspa$ complexity bound for this problem could have 

1458: been derived via, say, the techniques of \cite{chigo} no later than 1984, 

1459: there appears to be no explicit 

1460: statement of this fact. In any event, that a large portion of this 

1461: problem can be done within the polynomial hierarchy appears to be new. 

1462: 

1463: On the other hand, for algebraic sets of positive dimension, even the 

1464: decidability of feasibility over $\Q$ is open. That the study of rational 

1465: points on higher-dimensional varieties has been, and continues to be, 

1466: intensely studied by some of the best number theorists and algebraic geometers 

1467: is a testament to the difficulty of this problem. Current work on finding 

1468: rational points has thus focused on characterizing (in terms of the underlying 

1469: complex geometry) when a variety has infinitely many rational points, and how 

1470: and where density of rational points can appear. 

1471: 

1472: For example, it was unproved until the work of Faltings in 1983 

1473: \cite{faltings,bomb} that algebraic curves of genus\footnote{We will 

1474: use {\bf geometric} (as opposed to arithmetic) genus throughout 

1475: this paper. These definitions can be found in \cite{hart,miranda}.} 

1476: $\geq\!2$ have only finitely many rational points. (This fact was originally 

1477: conjectured by L.\ J.\ Mordell in 1922.) The seminal work of Lang and 

1478: Vojta has since lead to even deeper connections between the distribution of 

1479: rational points and the geometry of the underlying complex manifold 

1480: \cite{vojta,lang}. More recently, highly refined quantitative results 

1481: (some depending on conjectures of Lang) on the density of rational points on 

1482: certain varieties have appeared (see, e.g., \cite{manin,pacelli,tschinkel} and 

1483: the references therein). 

1484: 

1485: This is of course but a fragment of the wealth of current 

1486: active research on rational points, and we have yet to 

1487: speak of the complexity of finding integral points. 

1488: 

1489: \section{Effective Siegel Versus Detecting Integral Points on Surfaces} 

1490: \label{sec:int} 

1491: The final results we present regard the computational complexity of 

1492: certain problems involving integral points on varieties of dimension 

1493: $\geq\!1$. We will strike a path leading to a relation between 

1494: height bounds for integral points on algebraic plane curves and certain 

1495: Diophantine prefixes in $\leq\!4$ variables, e.g., sentences of the 

1496: form \[ \exists u\!\in\!\N \; \forall x\!\in\!\N \; \exists y\!\in\!\N \; 

1497: f(u,x,y)\!\stackrel{?}{=}0.\] (The last sentence is an example of the prefix 

1498: $\exists\forall\exists$, and we will casually refer to various quantified sentences in 

1499: this way.) We then conclude with some evidence for the 

1500: undecidability of Hilbert's Tenth Problem in three variables (theorem 

1501: \ref{main:h3}). 

1502: 

1503: We first note that Diophantine complexity has quite a rich theory 

1504: already in one variable. 

1505: \begin{thm} 

1506: \label{thm:tau}

1507: \cite[Thm.\ 3, pg.\ 127]{bcss} 

1508: Let $\tau(f)$ denote the SLP size of $f\!\in\!\Z[t]$, starting from 

1509: the sequence $\{1,t,\ldots\}$. Suppose there exists an absolute 

1510: constant $C_2\!>\!0$ such that for all $f$, the number of 

1511: integral roots of $f$ is bounded above by $(\tau(f)+1)^{C_2}$. 

1512: Then $\pp_\C\!\neq\!\np_\C$.\footnote{i.e., the analogue of the 

1513: $\pp\!\neq\!\np$ conjecture for the BSS model over $\C$ would 

1514: be settled.} \qed 

1515: \end{thm} 

1516: \noindent  

1517: In short, a deeper understanding 

1518: of the SLP encoding (cf.\ section \ref{sec:real}) over $\Z$ would have a 

1519: tremendous impact in complexity theory. 

1520: 

1521: Via the sparse encoding, the study of integral roots for polynomials in two 

1522: variables leads us to similar connections with important complexity classes.  

1523: \begin{thm}

1524: \label{thm:biint}

1525: \cite{adleman} 

1526: Deciding whether $ax^2+by\!=\!c$ has a root $(x,y)\!\in\!\N^2$, for an 

1527: arbitrary input $(a,b,c)\!\in\!\N^3$, is $\np$-complete relative 

1528: to the sparse encoding. i.e., there is an algorithm for this 

1529: problem with bit complexity polynomial in $\log(abc)$ iff 

1530: $\pp\!=\!\np$. \qed

1531: \end{thm}

1532: \noindent 

1533: Note that we hit the class $\np$ rather quickly: quadratic polynomials  

1534: (or genus zero curves)\footnote{It will be convenient to describe bivariate 

1535: polynomials in terms of their underlying complex geometry, and we will 

1536: do so freely in this section.} are enough. The case of higher degree 

1537: polynomials is much less understood. To see this, let us denote the following 

1538: problem by $\htp(n)$:\\ 

1539: \vspace{-.4cm}

1540: \begin{center}

1541: ``Decide whether an arbitrary

1542: $f\!\in\!\Z[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ has a root in $\N^n$ or not.''\footnote{

1543: Hilbert's Tenth Problem in $n$ variables is actually the simplification of 

1544: $\htp(n)$ where we seek roots in $\Zn$. However, for technical reasons, it is 

1545: more convenient to deal with $\htp(n)$. }

1546: \end{center}

1547: \noindent  

1548: (So our last theorem can be rephrased as the $\np$-hardness of $\htp(2)$  

1549: for quadratic polynomials.) It is then rather surprising that as of mid-2000, 

1550: the decidability of $\htp(2)$ is still open, even for general polynomials of 

1551: degree $4$ (or general curves of genus $2$). 

1552: 

1553: Alan Baker has conjectured 

1554: \cite[Section 5]{jones81} that the analogue $\htp(2)$ for 

1555: $\Z^2$ is decidable. 

1556: More concretely, the decidability of $\htp(2)$ is known in certain special 

1557: cases, and these form a significant part of the applications of Diophantine 

1558: approximation and arithmetic geometry. To describe the 

1559: known cases, it is convenient to introduce the following functions. 

1560: \begin{dfn}

1561: \label{dfn:big}

1562: Following the notation of sections \ref{sec:complex} and 

1563: \ref{sec:real}, define the function $\biggy_\N : \Z[x_1,x_2] \longrightarrow 

1564: \N\cup\{0,\infty\}$ by letting $\biggy_\N(f)$ be the

1565: supremum of $\max\{|r_1|,|r_2|\}$ as $(r_1,r_2)$

1566: ranges over $\{(0,0)\}\cup (Z_f\cap\N^2)$. The function $\biggy_\Z(f)$ is 

1567: defined similarly, simply letting $(r_1,r_2)$ range over $\{(0,0)\}\cup 

1568: (Z_f\cap\Z^2)$ instead. \qed 

1569: \end{dfn} 

1570: Parallel to $\htp(n)$ and its analogue over $\Zn$, 

1571: the computability of $\biggy_\N$ implies the computability of 

1572: $\biggy_\Z$. (Simply consider the substitution $f(x,y) \mapsto 

1573: f(-x,-y)f(-x,y)f(x,-y)f(x,y)$.) The other direction is actually 

1574: not trivial: there is nothing stopping a curve from having 

1575: infinitely many integral points {\bf outside} of the 

1576: first quadrant, thus obstructing any useful bound for $\biggy_\Z$ 

1577: from being a useful bound for $\biggy_\N$. 

1578: 

1579: The computability of $\biggy_\N$ would of course imply the 

1580: decidability of $\htp(2)$. However, as of mid-2000, even 

1581: the computability of $\biggy_\Z$ is, with a few exceptions, known only 

1582: for those $f$ where $Z_f$ falls into one of the following cases: certain genus 

1583: zero curves \cite{poulaki}, all genus one curves \cite{bakercoates}, certain 

1584: genus two curves \cite{grant,poon}, Thue curves \cite{bakert}, and curves in 

1585: super-elliptic form \cite{bakerh,brindza}. (These also happen to be the 

1586: only cases for which the decidability of $\htp(2)$ is known.) 

1587: For example, it is known that for any polynomial equation of the form

1588: \[ y^2=a_0+a_1x+a_2x^2+a_3x^3, \]

1589: where $a_0,a_1,a_2,a_3\!\in\!\Z$ and $a_0+a_1x+a_2x^2+a_3x^3$ has three

1590: distinct complex roots, all integral solutions must satisfy

1591: \[|x|,|y|\leq \exp((10^6c)^{10^6}),\]

1592: where $c$ is any upper bound on $|a_0|,|a_1|,|a_2|,|a_3|$ \cite{bakertran}. 

1593: (More recent improvements of this bound can be found in \cite{schmidt}.) 

1594: \begin{rem} 

1595: An interesting related conjecture of Steve Smale \cite{steve} is 

1596: that if a plane curve of positive genus has an integral point, then it  

1597: must have an integral point of height singly exponential in the dense size of 

1598: the defining polynomial. (See below for the definition of 

1599: dense size.) \qed  

1600: \end{rem} 

1601: 

1602: Of course, one may still worry whether $\biggy_\Z$ can be computable 

1603: without $\biggy_\N$ being computable. We can resolve this 

1604: as follows: 

1605: \begin{thm} 

1606: \label{main:equiv} 

1607: The function $\biggy_\N$ is computable $\Longleftrightarrow \biggy_\Z$ is 

1608: computable. 

1609: \end{thm} 

1610: \noindent 

1611: The proof follows easily from theorem \ref{thm:silvb} of the next section, 

1612: which describes the distribution of integral points within the real part 

1613: of a complex curve. In spite of theorem \ref{main:equiv}, it is still unknown 

1614: whether replacing $\Z^2$ by $\N^2$ makes a significant difference in the 

1615: complexity of $\htp(2)$. However, via theorem \ref{thm:siegel} of the 

1616: next section, we can prove that a variant of $\htp(2)$ is closely 

1617: related to detecting infinitudes of integral points on plane curves.

1618: \begin{thm}

1619: \label{main:25}

1620: Let $\ratcurve(3)$ denote the problem of deciding whether a 

1621: (geometrically irreducible, possibly singular) 

1622: genus zero curve in $\C^3$ defined over $\Z$ contains a 

1623: point in $\N^3$. Also let $\htp^\infty(2)$ denote the 

1624: problem of deciding whether an arbitrary $f\!\in\!\Z[x_1,x_2]$ has 

1625: infinitely many roots in $\N^2$. Then $\ratcurve(3)$ decidable 

1626: $\Longrightarrow \htp^\infty(2)$ decidable. 

1627: \end{thm} 

1628: \noindent 

1629: We note that the input for $\ratcurve(3)$ is given as usual: 

1630: a set of polynomials in $\Z[x_1,x_2,x_3]$ defining the curve in 

1631: question. 

1632: Curiously, the decidability of $\ratcurve(3)$, $\htp^\infty(2)$, and 

1633: their analogues over $\Z$ are all unknown, in spite of Siegel's Theorem. 

1634: (Siegel's Theorem \cite{siegel} is a famous result from 1934 partially 

1635: classifying those curves with infinitely many integral points.) A  

1636: refined version of Siegel's Theorem appears as theorem \ref{thm:siegel} of 

1637: the next section.

1638: 

1639: The preceding results can all be considered as variations on the study of 

1640: the Diophantine prefixes $\exists$ and $\exists\exists$. So to prove more 

1641: decisive results it is natural to study subtler combinations of quantifiers. 

1642: In particular, we will show that the prefix 

1643: $\exists\forall\exists$ can be solved (almost always) within the polynomial 

1644: hierarchy. To make this more precise, let us make two quantitative 

1645: definitions: 

1646: When we say that a statement involving a set of parameters 

1647: $\{c_1,\ldots,c_N\}$ is true {\bf generically}\footnote{ 

1648: We can in fact assert a much stronger condition, but this one suffices for 

1649: our present purposes.}, we will 

1650: mean that for any $M\!\in\!\N$, the statement fails for at most 

1651: $\cO(N(2M+1)^{N-1})$ of the $(c_1,\ldots,c_N)$ lying in $\{-M,\ldots,M\}^N$. 

1652: Also, for an algorithm with a polynomial $f\!\in\!\Z[v,x,y]$ as input, 

1653: speaking of the {\bf dense encoding} will simply mean 

1654: measuring the input size as $D+\sigma(f)$, where $D$ (resp.\ $\sigma(f)$) is 

1655: the total degree (resp.\ maximum bit-length of a coefficient) of $f$.  

1656: \begin{thm}

1657: \cite{jcs}

1658: \label{main:pepper} 

1659: Fix the Newton polytope $Q$ of a polynomial $f\!\in\!\Z[v,x,y]$  

1660: and suppose that $Q$ has 

1661: at least one integral point in its interior.\footnote{So, among other things, 

1662: we are assuming $Q$ is $3$-dimensional.} Assume further that we measure 

1663: input size via the dense encoding. Then, for a generic choice of 

1664: coefficients depending only on $Q$, we can decide whether 

1665: $\exists v \; \forall x \; \exists y \; f(v,x,y)

1666: \!=\!0$ 

1667: (with all three quantifiers ranging over $\N$ or $\Z$) within $\conp$. 

1668: Furthermore, we can check whether an input $f$ has generic coefficients within 

1669: $\nc$. \qed 

1670: \end{thm} 

1671: \noindent

1672: The hierarchy of complexity classes $\nc$ simply consists of those problems 

1673: in $\pp$ which admit efficient parallel algorithms (see \cite{papa} for a full 

1674: statement). Roughly speaking, 

1675: deciding the prefix $\exists\forall\exists$ is equivalent to determining 

1676: whether an algebraic surface has a slice (parallel to the 

1677: $(x,y)$-plane) densely peppered with integral points, and we have thus 

1678: shown that this problem is tractable for most inputs.  Whether 

1679: $\conp$-completeness persists relative to the {\bf sparse} encoding 

1680: remains an open question. 

1681: 

1682: It is interesting to note that the exceptional case to our 

1683: algorithm for $\exists\forall\exists$ judiciously contains an extremely hard 

1684: number-theoretic problem: the prefix $\exists\exists$ or, equivalently, 

1685: $\htp(2)$. (That $\Z[v,y]$ lies in our exceptional locus is easily checked.) 

1686: More to the point, James P.\ Jones has conjectured \cite{jones81} that the 

1687: decidabilities of the prefixes 

1688: $\exists\forall\exists$ and $\exists\exists$, quantified over $\N$, are 

1689: equivalent. Thus, while we have not 

1690: settled Jones' conjecture, we have at least shown that the decidability of 

1691: $\exists\forall\exists$ now hinges on a sub-problem much closer to 

1692: $\exists\exists$. 

1693:  

1694: Call an algebraic surface $Z\!\subset\!\C^4$ {\bf specially ruled} 

1695: iff it is a bundle of genus zero curves fibered over a genus zero 

1696: curve in the $(u,v)$-plane (coordinatizating $\C^4$ by $(u,v,x,y)$). 

1697: The proof of theorem \ref{main:pepper} is primarily based on a geometric trick 

1698: which easily extends to the prefix $\exists\exists\forall\exists$. In 

1699: particular, we also have the following result. 

1700: \begin{thm}

1701: \label{main:h3} 

1702: At least one of the following two statements is {\bf false}:

1703: \begin{enumerate}

1704: \item{The function $\biggy_\N$ is Turing-computable.}

1705: \item{The Diophantine sentence

1706: \[ \exists u\!\in\!\N \ \ \exists v\!\in\!\N \ \ \forall

1707: x\!\in\!\N \ \

1708: \exists y\!\in\!\N  \ \ f(u,v,x,y)\!\stackrel{?}{=}\!0 \]

1709: is decidable in the special case where the underlying

1710: $3$-fold $Z_f$ contains a specially ruled surface. }

1711: \end{enumerate}

1712: In particular, $\htp(3)$ is a special case of the problem

1713: mentioned in statement (2). 

1714: \end{thm}

1715: \noindent 

1716: A slightly stronger version of theorem \ref{main:h3} appears in 

1717: \cite{tcs} and, for the convenience of the reader, we supply a more 

1718: streamlined proof in section \ref{sub:h3}. 

1719: We thus now have (applying theorem \ref{main:equiv}) a weak version of the 

1720: following implication: $\biggy_\Z$ computable $\Longrightarrow \htp(3)$ 

1721: undecidable. 

1722: 

1723: Since Matiyasevich and Robinson have shown 

1724: that $\exists\exists\forall\exists$ is undecidable (when 

1725: all quantifiers range over $\N$) \cite{matrob}, our last theorem can also 

1726: be interpreted as a restriction of this undecidability to a particular 

1727: subset of the general problem. Whether this subproblem can 

1728: be completely reduced to $\htp(3)$ is therefore of the utmost interest. 

1729: 

1730: \subsection{Related Work Over $\N$ and $\Z$} 

1731: \label{sub:relatedint}

1732: We first point out that the decidability of $\exists\forall\exists$ was an open 

1733: problem and, in spite of theorem \ref{main:pepper}, remains open for {\bf 

1734: arbitrary} inputs. We also note that our algorithm for (most of) 

1735: $\exists\forall\exists$ is based on an important result of Tung for the prefix 

1736: $\forall\exists$.

1737: \begin{tungy}

1738: \cite{tungcomplex} 

1739: Deciding the quantifier prefix $\forall\exists$ (with all quantifiers 

1740: ranging over $\N$ or $\Z$) is $\conp$-complete relative to the dense 

1741: encoding. \qed 

1742: \end{tungy} 

1743: \noindent 

1744: The decidability of $\forall\exists$ (over $\N$ and $\Z$) was first derived by 

1745: James P.\ Jones in 1981 \cite{jones81}. 

1746: The algorithms for $\forall\exists$ alluded to in Tung's Theorem are based 

1747: on some very elegant algebraic facts due to Jones, Schinzel, and Tung. 

1748: We illustrate one such fact for the case of $\forall\exists$ over $\N$. 

1749: \begin{jst}

1750: \cite{jones81,schinzel,tungcomplex}

1751: Given any $f\!\in\!\Z[x,y]$, we have that

1752: $\forall x\; \exists y\; f(x,y)\!=\!0$

1753: iff all three of the following conditions hold:

1754: \begin{enumerate}

1755: \item{The polynomial $f$ factors into the form

1756: $f_0(x,y)\prod^j_{i=1}(y-f_i(x))$ where $f_0(x,y)\!\in\!\Q[x,y]$

1757: has {\bf no} zeroes in the ring $\Q[x]$, and for all $i$,

1758: $f_i\!\in\!\Q[x]$ and the leading coefficient of $f_i$ is positive.}

1759: \item{$\forall x\!\in\!\{1,\ldots,x_0\} \; \exists

1760: y\!\in\!\N$ such that $f(x,y)\!=\!0$, where $x_0\!=\!\max\{s_1,\ldots,s_j\}$,

1761: and for all $i$, $s_i$ is the sum of the squares of the coefficients

1762: of $f_i$.}

1763: \item{Let $\alpha$ be the least positive integer such that

1764: $\alpha f_1,\ldots,\alpha f_j\!\in\!\Z[x]$ and set 

1765: $g_i\!:=\!\alpha f_i$ for all $i$. 

1766: Then the {\bf union} of the solutions of the following $j$ congruences

1767: $g_1(x)\!\equiv\!0 \ (\mod \ \alpha), \ldots, g_j(x)\!\equiv\!0 \ (\mod \ 

1768: \alpha)$ is {\bf all} of $\Z/\alpha\Z$. \qed }

1769: \end{enumerate}

1770: \end{jst}

1771: \noindent 

1772: The analogue of the JST Theorem over $\Z$ is essentially the same, save for the 

1773: absence of condition (2), and the removal of the sign check in condition (1) 

1774: \cite{tungcomplex}. 

1775: 

1776: The study of the decidability of Diophantine prefixes dates back to 

1777: \cite{oldmat,matrob,jones81}, and \cite{hilbert10,tungnew,stoc99,jcs} give 

1778: some of the most recent results. Of course, as we have seen above, there is 

1779: still much left to be done, and we hope that this paper sparks the 

1780: interests of other researchers. 

1781: 

1782: In particular, the precise complexity of checking whether 

1783: an input $f\!\in\!\Z[u,v,x,y]$ satisfies the hypothesis of statement 

1784: (2) of theorem \ref{main:h3} is unknown. (The decidability of 

1785: this problem is at least known, and there are more restricted versions of 

1786: (2) which can be checked within $\nc$ \cite{tcs}.) 

1787: The author conjectures that this hypothesis can in fact be decided within 

1788: $\nc$, relative to the dense encoding.

1789: 

1790: More to the point, it is curious that the complexity of 

1791: deciding whether a given curve has infinitely many integral 

1792: points is also open. 

1793: The best result along these lines 

1794: is the following refined version of Siegel's Theorem: 

1795: \begin{thm}

1796: \label{thm:siegel}

1797: \cite{wow} 

1798: Following the notation of sections \ref{sec:complex} and \ref{sec:real}, 

1799: suppose $f\!\in\!\Z[x_1,x_2]$ is such that $Z_f$ is a geometrically 

1800: irreducible curve. Then $Z_f\cap\Z^2$ is infinite $\Longleftrightarrow$ all of 

1801: the following three conditions are satisfied: 

1802: \begin{enumerate}

1803: \item[(a)]{ $Z_f$ has genus $0$,} 

1804: \item[(b)]{ $Z_f\cap\Z^2$ contains at least one non-singular point, and}  

1805: \item[(c)]{ the highest degree part of $f$ has either (i) exactly one root 

1806: in $\Pro^1_\C$ (necessarily rational) or (ii) has exactly two distinct roots 

1807: in $\Pro^1_\C$ {\bf and} they are both real. \qed }

1808: \end{enumerate} 

1809: \end{thm} 

1810: \noindent 

1811: Joseph H.\ Silverman has pointed out that this result may 

1812: already be known to experts in algebraic curves. 

1813: Another curious fact regarding Siegel's theorem is that it still has no proof 

1814: which settles the computability of $\biggy_\Z$. 

1815: 

1816: A useful result arising from Silverman's proof of theorem 

1817: \ref{thm:siegel} is the following solution to a conjecture 

1818: of the author from \cite{tcs}: 

1819: \begin{thm} 

1820: \cite{wow}

1821: \label{thm:silvb}

1822: Let $W$ be any geometrically irreducible curve in $\C^2$ defined over 

1823: $\Z$ possessing infinitely many integral points. Let $W'$ be any unbounded 

1824: subset of $W\cap\R^2$. Then $W'$ contains infinitely many integral points. 

1825: \qed 

1826: \end{thm} 

1827: \noindent 

1828: This result, combined with a little computational algebraic geometry, 

1829: provides the proof of theorem \ref{main:equiv} and the details appear 

1830: in section \ref{sub:proofint}. 

1831: 

1832: As for more general relations between $\htp(n)$ and its analogue over 

1833: $\Zn$, it is easy to see that the decidability of $\htp(n)$ implies 

1834: the decidability of its analogue over $\Zn$. Unfortunately, 

1835: the converse is currently unknown. Via Lagrange's Theorem 

1836: (that any positive integer can be written as a sum of four 

1837: squares) one can easily show that the {\bf un}decidability of 

1838: $\htp(n)$ implies the {\bf un}decidability of the analogue 

1839: of $\htp(4n)$ over $\Zn$. More recently, Zhi-Wei Sun has 

1840: shown that the $4n$ can be replaced by $2n+2$ \cite{sun}.  

1841: 

1842: \section{Proofs of Our Main Technical Results} 

1843: \label{sec:proofs} 

1844: For the convenience of the reader, let us briefly distinguish what is new 

1845: and/or recent: To the best of the author's knowledge, theorems 

1846: \ref{main:complex}, \ref{main:koi}, \ref{main:height}, \ref{main:size}, 

1847: \ref{main:unired}, \ref{main:equiv}, and \ref{main:25}, and corollary 

1848: \ref{cor:realuni} have not appeared in print before. Also, although theorem 

1849: \ref{main:equiv} was conjectured, along with a plan of attack, in \cite{tcs}, 

1850: its full proof has not appeared before. Finally, while preliminary versions 

1851: of theorems \ref{main:height} \and \ref{main:unired} appeared earlier 

1852: in \cite{gcp}, their corresponding height bounds are new. 

1853: 

1854: As for the remaining results, they have either already appeared, or are about 

1855: to appear, in the references listed in their respective statements.  

1856: 

1857: Our proofs will thus focus on results over our ``outlying'' rings: 

1858: $\C$ and $\Z$. 

1859: 

1860: \subsection{Proofs of Our Results Over $\C$: Theorems \ref{main:complex}, 

1861: \ref{main:height}, \ref{main:size}, \ref{main:unired}, and 

1862: \ref{main:koi}}\mbox{}\\

1863: \label{sub:proofcomplex}

1864: While our proof of theorem \ref{main:koi} will not directly 

1865: require knowledge of resultants, our proofs of theorems \ref{main:complex}, 

1866: \ref{main:height}, \ref{main:size}, and \ref{main:unired} are based on the 

1867: {\bf toric resultant}.\footnote{Other 

1868: commonly used prefixes for 

1869: this modern generalization of the classical resultant \cite{vdv} include:

1870: sparse, mixed, sparse mixed, $\cA$-, $(\cA_1,\ldots,\cA_k)$-, and Newton. 

1871: Resultants actually date back to work Cayley and Sylvester in the 

1872: 19$^\thth$ century, but the toric resultant incorporates some 

1873: combinatorial advances from the late 20$^\thth$ century. } 

1874: This operator allows us to reduce all the computational algebraic geometry we 

1875: will encounter to matrix and univariate polynomial arithmetic, with almost no 

1876: commutative algebra machinery. We supply a precis on the toric resultant in 

1877: the following section. 

1878: 

1879: As mentioned earlier, we will reduce the description of $Z_F$ to 

1880: univariate polynomial factorization. Another trick we will use is to reduce 

1881: most of our questions to finding isolated roots of polynomial systems where the 

1882: numbers of equations and variables is the same. 

1883: 

1884: These geometric constructions are useful for the proof of theorem 

1885: \ref{main:koi} 

1886: as well, but more in a theoretical sense than in an algorithmic sense. As we 

1887: will see in section \ref{sub:koi}, it is number theory which allows us to 

1888: enter a lower complexity class, and univariate reduction is needed only for 

1889: quantitative estimates. 

1890: 

1891: \subsubsection{Background on Toric Resultants}\mbox{}\\

1892: \label{sub:res} 

1893: Since we do not have the space to give a full introduction to 

1894: resultants we refer the reader to \cite{emiphd,gkz94,introres} 

1895: for further background. The necessary facts we need are all 

1896: summarized below. In what follows, we let $[j]\!:=\!\{1,\ldots,j\}$. 

1897: 

1898: Recall that the {\bf support}, $\pmb{\supp(f)}$, of a polynomial 

1899: $f\!\in\!\C[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ is simply the set of exponent vectors of the 

1900: monomial terms appearing\footnote{We of course fix an ordering on the 

1901: coordinates of the exponents which is compatible with the usual ordering 

1902: of $x_1,\ldots,x_n$.} in $f$. The support of the 

1903: {\bf polynomial system} $F\!=\!(f_1,\ldots,f_m)$ is simply the $m$-tuple 

1904: $\pmb{\supp(F)}\!:=\!(\supp(f_1),\ldots,\supp(f_m))$. Let 

1905: $\bar{\cA}\!=\!(\cA_1,\ldots,\cA_{m+1})$ be any $(m+1)$-tuple of non-empty 

1906: finite subsets of $\Zn$ and set $\cA\!:=\!(\cA_1,\ldots,\cA_m)$. If we say 

1907: that $F$ has {\bf support contained in} $\cA$ then we simply mean that 

1908: $\supp(f_i)\!\subseteq\!\cA_i$ for all $i\!\in\![m]$.  

1909: \begin{dfn}

1910: \label{dfn:res}  

1911: Following the preceding notation, suppose we can find line 

1912: segments $[v_1,w_1],\ldots,[v_{m+1},w_{m+1}]$  

1913: with $\{v_i,w_i\}\!\subseteq\!\cA_i$ for all $i$ and $\vol_m(L)\!>\!0$, where  

1914: $L$ is the convex hull of $\{\bO,w_1-v_1,\ldots,w_{m+1}-v_{m+1}\}$. Then we 

1915: can associate to $\bar{\cA}$ a unique (up to sign) irreducible polynomial 

1916: $\res_{\bar{\cA}}\!\in\!\Z[c_{i,a} \; | \; i\!\in\![m+1] 

1917:  \ , \ a\!\in\!\cA_i]$ with the following property: If we identify 

1918: $\bar{\cC}\!:=\!(c_{i,a} \; | \; i\!\in\![m+1] \ , \ a\!\in\!\cA_i)$ 

1919: with the vector of coefficients of a polynomial system $\bar{F}$ with support 

1920: contained in $\bar{\cA}$ (and constant coefficients), then $\bar{F}$ has a 

1921: root in $\Csn \Longrightarrow \res_{\bar{\cA}}(\bar{\cC})\!=\!0$. Furthermore, 

1922: for all $i$, the degree of $\res_{\bar{\cA}}$ with respect to the coefficients 

1923: of $f_i$ is no greater than $V_F$. \qed 

1924: \end{dfn} 

1925: \noindent 

1926: We 

1927: emphasize that the implication above does {\bf not} go both ways: 

1928: the correct converse involves toric varieties \cite{gkz94,jpaa,gcp}.  

1929: A consequence of the above definition is that the toric resultant 

1930: applies mainly to systems of $n+1$ polynomials in $n$ 

1931: variables. However, via a trick from the next section, this 

1932: will cause no significant difficulties when we consider $m$ polynomials 

1933: in $n$ variables. 

1934: 

1935: That the toric resultant can actually be defined as above is covered 

1936: in detail in \cite{combiresult,gkz94}. 

1937: There is in fact an exact formula for the degree of $\res$ 

1938: with respect to the coefficients of $f_i$ involving {\bf mixed} volumes  

1939: \cite{combiresult,gkz94}. Our simplified upper bound follow easily 

1940: from the fact that mixed volume never decreases when the input polytopes 

1941: are grown \cite{buza}. 

1942: 

1943: Another operator much closer to our purposes is the {\bf toric 

1944: perturbation} of $F$. 

1945: \begin{dfn}

1946: \label{dfn:pert}  

1947: Following the notation of definition \ref{dfn:res}, assume further that 

1948: $m\!=\!n$, $\supp(F)\!=\!\cA$, and $\supp(F^*)\!\subseteq\!\cA$. 

1949: We then define \[ \pert_{(F^*,\cA_{n+1})}(u)\!\in\!\C[u_a \; | \; 

1950: a\!\in\!\cA_{n+1}]\] to be the coefficient of the term of 

1951: \[ \res_{\bar{\cA}}(f_1-sf^*_1,\ldots,f_n-sf^*_n,\!\!\!\!\sum_{a\in 

1952: \cA_{n+1}}\!\!\!\!\!u_ax_a)\!\in\!\C[s][u_a \; | 

1953: \; a\!\in\!\cA_{n+1}]\] of {\bf lowest} degree in $s$. \qed 

1954: \end{dfn} 

1955: \noindent 

1956: The constant term of the last resultant is a generalization of the 

1957: classical {\bf Chow form} of a zero-dimensional variety \cite{vdv}. 

1958: The consideration of the higher order coefficients is necessary 

1959: when $Z_F$ is positive-dimensional. In particular, 

1960: the geometric significance of $\pert$ can be summarized as follows: 

1961: For a suitable choice of $F^*$, $\cA_{n+1}$, and $\{u_a\}$, 

1962: $\pert$ satisfies all the properties of the polynomial $h_F$ from theorem 

1963: \ref{main:height} in the special case $m\!=\!n$. In essence, $\pert$ is an 

1964: algebraic deformation which allows us to replace the positive-dimensional 

1965: part of $Z_F$ by a finite subset which is much easier to handle.

1966:  

1967: To prove theorems \ref{main:complex}, \ref{main:height}, and \ref{main:unired} 

1968: we will thus need a good complexity  estimate for computing $\res$ and $\pert$. 

1969: \begin{lemma}

1970: \label{lemma:respert} 

1971: Following the notation above, 

1972: let $\cR_F$ (resp.\ $\cP_F$) be the number of deterministic arithmetic 

1973: operations needed to evaluate 

1974: $\res_{\bar{\cA}}$ (resp.\ $\pert_{(F^*,\cA_{n+1})}$) at any point in 

1975: $\C^{k+n+1}$ (resp.\ $\C^{2k+n+1}$), where $\cA\!\subseteq\!\supp(F)$ and 

1976: $\cA_{n+1}\!:=\!\{\bO,

1977: e_1,\ldots,e_n\}$. Also let $r_F$ be the total degree of 

1978: $\res_{\bar{\cA}}$ as a polynomial in the coefficients of $\bar{F}$  

1979: Then $r_F\!\leq\!(n+1)V_F$, 

1980: $\cR_F\!\leq\!(n+1)r_F\cO(M^{2.376}_F)$, and 

1981: $\cP_F\!\leq\!(r_F+1)\cR_F+r_F(1+\frac{3}{2}\log r_F)$. 

1982: Furthermore, $k\!\leq\!m(V_F+n)$ and 

1983: $M_F\!\leq\!e^{1/8}\frac{e^n}{\sqrt{n+1}}V_F+\prod^n_{i=1} 

1984: (p_i+2)-\prod^n_{i=1} (p_i+1)$, where $p_i$ is the length of the 

1985: projection of $nQ_F$ onto the $x_i$-axis. 

1986: (Note that $e^{1/8}\!\approx\!1.3315$.) 

1987: \qed 

1988: \end{lemma}

1989: \noindent 

1990: {\bf Proof:} 

1991: The bound on $\cR_F$ (resp.\ $\cP_F$) follows directly from \cite{emican} 

1992: (resp.\ \cite{gcp}), as well as a basic complexity result on the 

1993: {\bf inverse discrete Fourier transform} \cite[pg.\ 12]{binipan}. 

1994: 

1995: The bound on $k$ follows by noting that $k\!\leq\!m\ell_F$, where 

1996: $\ell_F$ is the number of lattice points in the polytope $Q_F$. 

1997: By a classical lattice point count of Blichfeldt \cite{blich}, 

1998: we obtain $\ell_F\!\leq\!V_F+n$ and we are done. 

1999: 

2000: As for the bound on $M_F$, we will observe a bit later that 

2001: $M_F$ can be bounded above by the number of lattice points in 

2002: the {\bf Minkowski sum}\footnote{The Minkowksi sum of any two 

2003: subsets $A,B\subseteq\Rn$ is simply the set $\{a+b \; | \; 

2004: a\in A \ , \ b\in B\}$.} $Q'_F\!:=\!nQ_F+\conv\{\bO,e_1,\ldots,e_n\}$. (This 

2005: polytope is clearly contained in the polytope $(n+1)Q_F$ mentioned in 

2006: theorem \ref{main:complex}.) Noting that 

2007: $\frac{(n+1)^n}{n!}\!\leq\!e^{1/8}\frac{e^n}{\sqrt{n+1}}$ via 

2008: Stirling's estimate \cite[pg.\ 200]{rudin}, 

2009: and that the length of the projection of $Q'_F$ onto the $x_i$-axis is exactly 

2010: $p_i+1$, our bound on $M_F$ follows immediately from another 

2011: simple lattice point count \cite[Formula 3.11]{gw}. \qed 

2012: \begin{rem} 

2013: That $M_F\!=\!\cO(V_F)$ for fixed $n$ is immediate from our last lemma.  

2014: Note also that $Q'_F$ is contained in the standard $n$-simplex 

2015: scaled by a factor $nD+1$. Calling the latter polytope $\cQ_F$, 

2016: it is clear that the number of lattice points in $\cQ_F$ 

2017: is yet another upper bound on $M_F$. The latter lattice point count 

2018: in turn has a simple explicit formula in terms of the 

2019: binomial coefficient, and this is how we derived the 

2020: crude bound on $M_F$ mentioned in section \ref{sub:relatedcomplex}. 

2021: \qed 

2022: \end{rem} 

2023: 

2024: Admittedly, such complexity estimates seem rather mysterious without  

2025: any knowledge of how $\res$ and $\pert$ are computed. So let us 

2026: now give a brief summary: 

2027: The key fact to observe is that, in the best circumstances, one can express 

2028: $\res$ as the determinant of a (square) sparse structured matrix 

2029: $\cM_{\bar{\cA}}$ --- a {\bf toric resultant matrix} --- whose entries are 

2030: either $0$ or polynomials 

2031: in the coefficients of $\bar{F}$. (In fact, the $\cM_{\bar{\cA}}$  

2032: we use will have every row equal to a permutation of the 

2033: vector $v=(\cC_i,0,\ldots,0)$, where $\cC_i$ is the vector of coefficients 

2034: of $f_i$ and $i$ (and the permutation) depends on the row.) These matrices 

2035: have their origin in the study of certain spectral sequences \cite{gkz94} and 

2036: there are now down-to-earth combinatorial algorithms for finding them 

2037: \cite{emican,emiphd,emipanmat,emimoumat}. 

2038:  

2039: So the quantity $M_F$ in our theorems is nothing more than 

2040: the number of rows (or columns) of $\cM_{\bar{\cA}}$. The bound 

2041: on $M_F$ from our last theorem thus arises simply by applying the main 

2042: algorithm from \cite{emican}, and observing that this particular 

2043: construction of $\cM_{\bar{\cA}}$ creates a matrix row for every lattice point 

2044: in a translate of the polytope $\conv(\cA_1+\cdots+\cA_{n+1})$. 

2045: In particular, it is also the case that the deterministic arithmetic 

2046: complexity of constructing $\cM_{\bar{\cA}}$ 

2047: is dominated by $\cO(M_F\log n + n^2)$ \cite{new}, so we can 

2048: henceforth ignore this construction in our complexity bounds. 

2049: Better still, the quantity $M_F$ can be expected to admit even sharper 

2050: upper bounds, once better algorithms for building toric resultant 

2051: matrices are found. 

2052: 

2053: However, it is more frequently the case that $\res$ is but a {\bf divisor} of 

2054: $\det \cM_{\bar{\cA}}$, and further work must be done. Fortunately, 

2055: in \cite{emican,emiphd}, there are general randomized and deterministic 

2056: algorithms for extracting $\res$. These algorithms work via subtle 

2057: refinements of the classical technique of recovering the coefficients of a 

2058: polynomial $g$ of degree $D$ by evaluating $g$ at $D+1$ points and then 

2059: solving for the coefficients via a structured linear system. This accounts for 

2060: the appearance of the famous linear algebra complexity exponent 

2061: ($\omega\!<\!2.376$), or simple functions thereof, in our 

2062: complexity estimates. 

2063: 

2064: \subsubsection{The Proof of Theorem \ref{main:complex}}\mbox{}\\

2065: Our algorithm can be stated briefly as follows: 

2066: \begin{itemize} 

2067: \item[{\bf Step 0}]{If $f_i$ is indentically $0$ for all $i$, 

2068: declare that $Z_F$ has dimension $n$ and stop. Otherwise, 

2069: let $i\!:=\!n-1$. } 

2070: \item[{\bf Step 1}]{For each $j\!\in\![2k+1]$, 

2071: compute an $(i+1)n$-tuple of integers\\ $(\eps_1(j),\ldots,\eps_n(j),

2072: \eps_{(1,1)}(j),\ldots,\eps_{(i,n)}(j))$ via lemma \ref{lemma:probe} and 

2073: the polynomial system (\ref{eq:probe}) below.} 

2074: \item[{\bf Step 2}]{Via theorem \ref{main:height}, 

2075: check if the polynomial system  

2076: \begin{eqnarray} 

2077: \label{eq:probe}  

2078: \eps_1(j)f_1+\cdots+\eps_1(j)^mf_m+\eps_1(j)^{m+1}l_1+\cdots+\eps_1(j)^{m+i} 

2079: l_i & = & 0 \notag \\ 

2080: & \vdots  &  \\ 

2081: \eps_n(j)f_1+\cdots+\eps_n(j)^mf_m+\eps_n(j)^{m+1}l_1+\cdots+

2082: \eps_n(j)^{m+i} l_i & = & 0 \notag 

2083: \end{eqnarray} 

2084: has a root for more than half of the $j\!\in\![2k+1]$, 

2085: where\\ 

2086: $l_t\!:=\!\eps_{(t,1)}x_1+\cdots+\eps_{(t,n)}x_n$. } 

2087: \item[{\bf Step 3}]{If so, declare that $Z_F$ has dimension $i$ and stop. 

2088: Otherwise, if $i\!\geq\!1$, set $i\mapsto i-1$ and go to Step 1.} 

2089: \item[{\bf Step 4}]{ Via theorem \ref{main:unired} and a univariate gcd 

2090: computation, check if the system (\ref{eq:probe}) has a root which is 

2091: also a root of $F$.} 

2092: \item[{\bf Step 5}]{ If so, declare that $Z_F$ has dimension $0$ 

2093: and stop. Otherwise, 

2094: declare $Z_F$ empty and stop.} 

2095: \end{itemize} 

2096: \noindent  

2097: Before analyzing the correctness of our algorithm, let us briefly 

2098: clarify Steps 2 and 4. First let $G_{(j)}$ denote the polynomial 

2099: system (3). In Step 2, we apply theorem \ref{main:height} to calculate the 

2100: polynomial $h_{G_{(j)}}$. Since the $G_{(j)}$ all have an equal number 

2101: of variables and equations (and none of the equations is of the form 

2102: $0\!=\!0$), assertion (1) of theorem \ref{main:height} tells us that 

2103: a particular $G_{(j)}$ has a complex root iff $h_{G_{(j)}}$ has positive 

2104: degree. So it suffices to compute $h_{G_{(j)}}$ to check the feasibility of 

2105: $G_{(j)}$. As for Step 4, note that thanks to theorem \ref{main:unired}, 

2106: $G_{(j)}$ has a root in common with $F$ iff 

2107: $\gcd\{h_{G_{(j)}},g_1(h_1,\dots,h_n),

2108: \ldots,g_n(h_1,\ldots,h_n)\}$ 

2109: has positive degree, where $h_1,\ldots,h_n$ are the polynomials 

2110: corresponding to the application of theorem \ref{main:unired} to 

2111: $G_{(j)}$. The preceding gcd and composition of univariate polynomials 

2112: can be computed within $\cO(nk(n\log D)V_F\log^2 V_F)$ arithmetic 

2113: operations via standard univariate polynomial algorithms \cite{binipan}, 

2114: and we will soon see that this complexity is negligible compared to the 

2115: work performed in the rest of our algorithm. 

2116: 

2117: Let us now check the correctness of our algorithm: 

2118: Via lemma \ref{lemma:probe} and theorem \ref{main:height}, we see that Step 2 

2119: gives a ``yes''  answer iff the intersection of $Z_{\twF}$ with a generic 

2120: codimension $i$ flat is finite (and nonempty), where $\twF$ is an 

2121: $n$-tuple of generic 

2122: linear combinations of the $f_i$. Thus Step 2 gives a 

2123: ``yes'' answer iff $\dim Z_{\twF}\!=\!i$. 

2124: Lemma \ref{lemma:gh} below tells us that $\dim Z_F\!=\!\dim Z_{\twF}$ if 

2125: $\dim Z_F\!\geq\!1$. Otherwise, Step 5 correctly decides whether $Z_F$ is 

2126: empty whenever $Z_F$ is finite. Thus the algorithm is correct. 

2127: 

2128: As for the complexity of our algorithm, letting $\cS$ (resp.\ $\cU$, $\cU'$) 

2129: be the complexity of the corresponding application of lemma \ref{lemma:probe} 

2130: (resp.\ theorems  \ref{main:height} and \ref{main:unired}), we immediately 

2131: obtain a deterministic arithmetic complexity bound of 

2132: \[ (n-2)\cS \ \ \mathrm{(All \ Executions \ of \ Step \ 1)} \] 

2133: \[ +(n-2)(2k+1)\cU \ \ \mathrm{(All \ Executions \ of \ Step \ 2)} \] 

2134: \[ +\cU'+\cO(n^2kV_F(\log^2 V_F)(\log D)) \ \ \mathrm{(Step \ 4)} \] 

2135: (The complexity of the ``if'' statements in Steps 3 and 5 

2136: is negligible.) Remark \ref{rem:probe} below tells us that 

2137: $\cS\!=\!\cO((k+n^2)\log(m+n))$. Furthermore, in the proofs of theorems 

2138: \ref{main:unired} and \ref{main:height} (cf.\ sections \ref{sub:unired} and 

2139: \ref{sub:height}) later we will see that $\cU'\!=\cO(n\cU)$ and 

2140: $\cU\!=\!\cO(V^3_F\cP_F)$. Since $k\!\geq\!m$, our overall complexity bound 

2141: becomes $\cO(nk\cU+n\cS)\!=\!\cO(nkV^3_F\cP_F+n(k+n^2)\log(m+n))\!=

2142: \cO(n^4kM^{2.376}_FV^5_F+n(k+n^2)\log(m+n))\!=\!\cO(

2143: n^4kM^{2.376}_FV^5_F+nk\log(m+n))$. \qed 

2144: \begin{rem} 

2145: Note that if we somehow know that $\dim Z_F\!\geq\!1$, then we do not need 

2146: assertion (2) of theorem \ref{main:height}, nor do we need to apply 

2147: theorem \ref{main:unired}. We can thus pick any integral point (not equal to 

2148: $\bO$) for $u_F$ and skip one of the steps of the proof of 

2149: theorem \ref{main:height}. This removes a factor of $V^2_F$ from the 

2150: first (usually dominant) summand of our complexity bound. \qed 

2151: \end{rem} 

2152: 

2153: \begin{lemma}

2154: \label{lemma:probe}  

2155: Suppose $G(w,v)$ is a formula of the form 

2156: \[\exists x_1\!\in\!\C \cdots \exists x_n\!\in\!\C \; 

2157: (g_1(x,w,v)\!=\!0)\wedge \cdots \wedge (g_s(x,w,v)\!=\!0),\] 

2158: where $g_1,\ldots,g_s\!\in\!\C[x_1,\ldots,x_n,w_1,\ldots,w_k, 

2159: v_1,\ldots,v_r]$.  Then there is a sequence 

2160: $v(1),\ldots,v(2k+1)\!\in\!\C^r$ such that 

2161: for all $w\!\in\!\C^k$, the following statement holds: 

2162: $G(w,v(j))$ is true for at least half of the $j\!\in\![2k+1]  

2163: \Longleftrightarrow G(w,v)$ is true for a Zariski-open set of $v\!\in\!\C^r$. 

2164: Furthermore, this sequence can be computed within $\log \sigma + (k+n+r)\log 

2165: D$ arithmetic operations, where $\sigma$ (resp.\ $D$) is the maximum bit-size 

2166: of any  coefficient (resp.\ maximum degree) of any $g_i$. \qed 

2167: \end{lemma} 

2168: \noindent 

2169: The above lemma is actually just a special case of theorem 5.6 of 

2170: \cite{koiran}. 

2171: \begin{rem}

2172: \label{rem:probe}

2173: For the proof of theorem \ref{main:complex}, we have $s\!:=\!n$, 

2174: $(g_1,\ldots,g_s)\!:=\!G_{(j)}$, $r\!:=\!(i+1)n\!\leq\!(n-1)n$, 

2175: $v(j)\!=\!(\eps_1(j),\ldots,\eps_n(j),\eps_{(1,1)}(j),\ldots,

2176: \eps_{(i,n)}(j))$, and we take $w$ to be the vector of coefficients 

2177: of $F$. We thus obtain $\sigma\!=\!1$ and $D\!=\!m+i+1\!\leq\!m+n$. \qed 

2178: \end{rem} 

2179: 

2180: \subsubsection{The Proof of Theorem \ref{main:height}}\mbox{}\\

2181: \label{sub:height} 

2182: \noindent

2183: Curiously, precise estimates on coefficient growth in toric resultants 

2184: are absent from the literature. So we supply such an estimate below. 

2185: In what follows, we use $u_i$ in place of $u_{e_i}$. 

2186: \begin{thm} 

2187: \label{thm:growth} 

2188: Following the notation of lemma \ref{lemma:respert}, suppose the coefficients 

2189: of $F$ (resp.\ $F^*$) have absolute value bounded above by $c$ (resp.\ 

2190: $c^*$) for all $i\!\in\![n]$ and $u_1,\ldots,u_n\!\in\!\C$. 

2191: Also let $\|u\|\!:=\!\sqrt{u^2_1+\cdots+u^2_n}$ and let $\mu$ 

2192: denote the maximal number of monomial terms in any $f_i$. 

2193: Then the coefficient of $u^i_0$ in $\pert_{(F^*,\cA_{n+1})}$ has absolute 

2194: value bounded above by \[ \frac{e^{13/12}}{\sqrt{\pi}}\sqrt{M_F+1}\cdot 

2195: 4^{M_F-i/2}\|u\|^{V_F-i}

2196: (\sqrt{\mu}(c+c^*))^{M_F} 

2197: \begin{pmatrix} V_F\\ i \end{pmatrix},\]

2198: assuming that $\det \cM_{\bar{\cA}}\!\neq\!0$ under the substitution 

2199: $(F-sF^*,u_0+u_1x_1+\cdots+u_nx_n) \mapsto \bar{F}$.  

2200: (Note also that $\frac{e^{13/12}}{\sqrt{\pi}}\!\approx\!1.66691$.)   

2201: \end{thm} 

2202: \noindent 

2203: {\bf Proof:} Let $c_{ij}$ denote the coefficient of 

2204: $u^i_0s^j$ in $\det \cM_{\bar{\cA}}$, under the substitution

2205: $(F-sF^*,u_0+u_1x_1+\cdots+u_nx_n) \mapsto \bar{F}$. 

2206: Our proof will consist of computing an upper bound on $|c_{ij}|$, so 

2207: we can conclude simply by maximizing over $j$ and then invoking a 

2208: quantitative lemma on factoring. 

2209: 

2210: To do this, we first observe that one can always construct 

2211: a toric resultant matrix with exactly $n_F$ rows corresponding 

2212: to $f_{n+1}$ (where $\delta(Z_F)\!\leq\!n_F\!\leq\!V_F$), and the 

2213: remaining rows corresponding to $f_1,\ldots,f_n$. 

2214: (This follows from the algorithms we have already invoked 

2215: in lemma \ref{lemma:respert}.) Enumerating how appropriate collections rows 

2216: and columns can contain $i$ entries of $u_0$ (and $j$ entries 

2217: involving $s$), it is easily verified that $c_{ij}$ is a sum of no more than 

2218: $\begin{pmatrix} V_F \\ i \end{pmatrix} 

2219: \begin{pmatrix} M_F-i \\ j \end{pmatrix}$ 

2220: subdeterminants of $\cM_{\bar{A}}$ of size no greater than $M_F-i-j$. 

2221: The coefficient $c_{ij}$ also receives similar contributions 

2222: from some larger subdeterminants since the rows of $\cM_{\bar{\cA}}$ 

2223: corresponding to $f_1,\ldots,f_n$ involve terms of the 

2224: form $\eta+\nu s$. 

2225: 

2226: Via lemma \ref{lemma:multi} below, we can then derive 

2227: an upper bound of 

2228: \[\begin{pmatrix} V_F \\ i \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} M_F-i\\ j\end{pmatrix} 

2229: \|u\|^{V_F-i}(\sqrt{\mu}(c+c^*))^{M_F-j} \] 

2230: on $|c_{ij}|$. However, what we really need is an estimate on 

2231: the coefficient $c_i$ of $u^i_0$ of $\pert_{(F^*,\cA_{n+1})}$, assuming 

2232: the non-vanishing of $\det \cM_{\bar{\cA}}$. To 

2233: estimate $c_i$, we simply apply lemma \ref{lemma:mignotte} below 

2234: (observing that $\pert_{(F^*,\cA_{n+1})}$ is a divisor 

2235: of an $M_F\times M_F$ determinant) to obtain an upper bound of 

2236: \[\sqrt{M_F+1}\cdot 2^{M_F}\begin{pmatrix} V_F \\ i \end{pmatrix}\max_j\left\{

2237: \begin{pmatrix} M_F-i\\ j\end{pmatrix}\right\} 

2238: \|u\|^{V_F-i}(\sqrt{\mu}(c+c^*))^{M_F} \] 

2239: on $|c_i|$. We can then finish via the elementary inequality $\begin{pmatrix} 

2240: M_F-i \\ j \end{pmatrix}\!\leq\!\frac{e^{13/12}}{\sqrt{\pi}}2^{M_F-i}$,  

2241: valid for all $j$ (which in turn is a simple corollary of Stirling's 

2242: formula). \qed 

2243: 

2244: A simple result on the determinants of certain symbolic matrices, 

2245: used above, is the following. 

2246: \begin{lemma}

2247: \label{lemma:multi} 

2248: Suppose $A$ and $B$ are complex $N\times N$ matrices, where 

2249: $B$ has at most $N'$ nonzero rows. Then the coefficient of 

2250: $s^j$ in $\det(A+sB)$ has absolute value no greater than 

2251: $\begin{pmatrix} N' \\ j \end{pmatrix}v^{N-j}(v+w)^j$, 

2252: where $v$ (resp.\ $w$) is any upper bound on the 

2253: Hermitian norms of the rows of $A$ (resp.\ $B$). \qed 

2254: \end{lemma} 

2255: \noindent 

2256: The lemma follows easily by reducing to the case $j\!=\!0$, via 

2257: the multilinearity of the determinant. The case $j\!=\!0$ is 

2258: then nothing more than the classical {\bf Hadamard's lemma} 

2259: \cite{mignotte}. 

2260: 

2261: The lemma on factorization we quoted above is the following. 

2262: \begin{lemma} 

2263: \cite{mignotte}

2264: \label{lemma:mignotte}

2265: Suppose $f\!\in\!\Z[x_1,\ldots,x_N]$ has total degree $D$ and

2266: coefficients of absolute value $\leq\!c$. 

2267: Then $g\!\in\Z[x_1,\ldots,x_N]$ divides $f \Longrightarrow$ the 

2268: coefficients of $g$ have absolute value $\leq\!\sqrt{D+1}\cdot 2^Dc$. \qed

2269: \end{lemma} 

2270: 

2271: We are now ready to prove theorem \ref{main:height}:\\

2272: {\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{main:height}}:\\

2273: By adjusting the number polynomials $m$ we can immediately assume 

2274: that no $f_i$ is indentically zero. Furthermore, if $m\!=\!0$, 

2275: we can clearly set $h\!:=\!0$. So we can also assume that $m\!\geq\!1$. 

2276: We now consider three obvious cases. 

2277: 

2278: \noindent 

2279: {\bf (The Case $\pmb{m\!=\!n}$):} 

2280: The existence of an $h_F$ satisfying (0)--(5) will follow from 

2281: setting $h_F(u_0)\!:=\!\pert_{(F^*,\cA_{n+1})}(u_0)$ for 

2282: $\cA_{n+1}$ as in lemma \ref{lemma:respert}, $F^*$ as in lemma 

2283: \ref{lemma:fill} below, and picking several $(u_1,\ldots,u_n)$ until a good 

2284: one is found. Assertion (0) of theorem \ref{main:height} thus follows 

2285: trivially. That the conclusion of lemma \ref{lemma:fill} implies assertion 

2286: (1) is a consequence of \cite[Def.\ 2.2 and Main Theorem 2.1]{gcp}.  

2287:  

2288: To prove assertions (1)--(5) together we will then need to pick 

2289: $(u_1,\ldots,u_n)$ subject to a final technical condition. In particular, 

2290: consider the following method: 

2291: Pick $\eps\!\in\![1+\begin{pmatrix} V_F \\ 2\end{pmatrix}]$ and set 

2292: $u_i\!:=\!\eps^i$ for all $i\!\in\![n]$.

2293: The worst that can happen is that  

2294: a root of $h_F$ is the image two distinct points 

2295: in $Z_F$ under the map $(\zeta_1,\ldots,\zeta_n) \mapsto 

2296: u_1\zeta_1+\cdots+u_n\zeta_n$, thus obstructing assertion (2). (Whether this 

2297: happens can easily be checked within $\cO(V_F\log V_F)$ arithmetic 

2298: operations via a gcd calculation detailed in \cite[Sec.\ 5.2]{gcp}, 

2299: after first finding the coefficients of $h_F$.) 

2300: Otherwise, it easily follows from Main Theorems 2.1 and 2.4 of \cite{gcp}  

2301: (and theorem \ref{main:unired} above and theorem \ref{thm:growth} below) 

2302: that $h_F$ satisfies assertions (1)--(3) and (5). 

2303: 

2304: Since there are at most $\begin{pmatrix} 

2305: V_F \\ 2\end{pmatrix}$ pairs of points $(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)$, 

2306: picking $(u_1,\ldots,u_n)$ as specified above {\bf will} eventually 

2307: give us a good $(u_1,\ldots,u_n)$. The overall arithmetic complexity of our 

2308: search for $u_F$ and $h_F$ is, thanks to lemma \ref{lemma:respert},\\ 

2309: $(\begin{pmatrix}V_F \\ 2 \end{pmatrix}+1) \cdot 

2310: (V_F\cP_F+\cO(V_F\log V_F))$. This proves assertion (4), and we are done. 

2311: \qed 

2312: \begin{rem} 

2313: Note that we never actually had to compute $V_F$ above: To pick a 

2314: suitable $u$, we simply keep picking choices (in lexicographic order) with 

2315: successively larger and larger coodinates until we find a suitable $u$. \qed 

2316: \end{rem} 

2317: 

2318: \noindent 

2319: {\bf (The Case $\pmb{m\!<\!n}$):} Take $f_{n+1}\!=\cdots =\!f_m\!=\!f_n$. 

2320: Then we are back in the case $m\!=\!n$ and we are done. \qed 

2321: 

2322: \noindent 

2323: {\bf (The Case $\pmb{m\!>\!n}$):} Here we employ an old trick: We substitute 

2324: generic linear combinations of $f_1,\ldots,f_m$ for $f_1,\ldots,f_n$. 

2325: In particular, set $\tf_i\!:=f_1+\eps_if_2+\cdots+\eps^{m-1}_if_m$ for 

2326: all $i\!\in\![n]$. It then follows from lemma \ref{lemma:gh} below 

2327: that, for generic $(\eps_1,\ldots,\eps_n)$, $Z_{\twF}$ is the union of $Z_F$ 

2328: and a (possibly empty) finite set of 

2329: points. So by the $m\!=\!n$ case, and taking into account the larger 

2330: value for $c$ in our application of theorem \ref{thm:growth}, we are done. \qed 

2331: \begin{rem} 

2332: \label{rem:height}

2333: Following the notation of theorem \ref{thm:growth}, we thus see that the 

2334: asymptotic bound of assertion (3) can be replaced by an explicit bound of 

2335: \[ \log\left\{\frac{e^{13/6}}{\pi}\sqrt{M_F+1}\cdot 

2336: 2^{V_F}4^{M_F}\left(\sqrt{n}\left(\begin{pmatrix}V_F \\ 2\end{pmatrix}

2337: +1\right)^n\right)^{V_F} (c+1)^{M_F} \right\}\]

2338: if $m\!\leq\!n$, or 

2339: \[ \log\left\{\frac{e^{13/6}}{\pi}\sqrt{M_F+1}\cdot 

2340: 2^{V_F}4^{M_F}\left(\sqrt{n}\left(\begin{pmatrix}V_F \\ 2\end{pmatrix}

2341: +1\right)^n\right)^{V_F} 

2342: \sqrt{\mu}^{M_F}(m(mV_F+1)^{m-1}c+1)^{M_F}\right\} \]

2343: for $m\!>\!n\!\geq\!1$. \qed 

2344: \end{rem} 

2345: \begin{lemma} 

2346: \label{lemma:fill} 

2347: Following the notation above 

2348: let $\cA^*_i\!=\!\{\bO,e_1,\ldots,e_n\}\cup\bigcup^n_{j=1}\cA_j$ for all 

2349: $i\!\in\![n]$ and $k^*\!:=\!n\#\cA_1$, where 

2350: $\#$ denotes set cardinality. 

2351: Also let $\cC^*$ be the coefficient vector of $F^*$. 

2352: Then there is an $F^*$ such that (i) 

2353: $\supp(F^*)\!\subseteq\!\cA^*$, (ii) 

2354: $\cC^*\!=\!(1,\ldots,1)$, (iii) $F^*$ has exactly 

2355: $V_F$ roots in $\Csn$ counting multiplicities, and 

2356: (iv) $\det \cM_{\bar{\cA}}\!\neq\!0$ under the substitution 

2357: $(F-sF^*,u_0+u_1x_1+\cdots+u_nx_n) \mapsto \bar{F}$. \qed 

2358: \end{lemma} 

2359: \noindent 

2360: The above lemma is a paraphrase of \cite[Definition 2.3 and Main Theorem 

2361: 2.3]{gcp}. Furthermore, the deterministic arithmetic complexity of finding 

2362: such an $F^*$ is dominated by $\cO(M_F\log n+n^2)$ \cite{new}, and can thus 

2363: be ignored in our main bounds. 

2364: 

2365: \begin{lemma}

2366: \label{lemma:gh}

2367: Following the notation above, let $S\!\subset\!\C$ be any finite set 

2368: of cardinality $\geq\!mV_F+1$. Then there is an 

2369: $(\eps_1,\ldots,\eps_n)\!\in\!S^n$ such that every irreducible component of 

2370: $Z_{\twF}$ is either an irreducible component of $Z_F$ or a point. \qed  

2371: \end{lemma} 

2372: \noindent 

2373: The proof is essentially the same as the first theorem of \cite[Sec.\ 

2374: 3.4.1]{giustiheintz}, save that we use part (0) of theorem \ref{main:height} 

2375: in place of B\'ezout's Theorem. 

2376: 

2377: \subsubsection{The Proof of Theorem \ref{main:size} }\mbox{}\\ 

2378: Since we only care about the size of $x_i$, we can simply

2379: pick $u_0\!=\!-1$, $u_i\!=1$, all other $u_j\!=\!0$, and apply

2380: the polynomial $h_F$ from theorem \ref{main:height}.

2381: (In particular, differing from the proof of theorem \ref{main:height},

2382: we need not worry if our choice of $(u_1,\ldots,u_n)$ results in two distinct

2383: $\zeta\!\in\!Z_F$ giving the same value for $\zeta_1u_1+\cdots+\zeta_nu_n$.)

2384: Thus, by following almost the same proof as assertion (3) of theorem

2385: \ref{main:height}, we can beat the height bound from theorem

2386: \ref{main:height} by a summand of $\cO(n^2V_F\log D)$. \qed

2387: \begin{rem}

2388: \label{rem:size}

2389: Via theorem \ref{thm:growth} (and a classic root

2390: size estimate of Cauchy \cite{mignotte}), we easily see that the

2391: asymptotic bound for $|\log|x_i||$ can be replaced by 

2392: explicit quantities slightly better than those stated 

2393: in remark \ref{rem:height}. In particular, it is clear from our 

2394: last proof that we can simply replace  

2395: the terms of the form $\sqrt{n}\left(\begin{pmatrix}V_F \\ 2\end{pmatrix}

2396: +1\right)^n$ in the formulae from remark \ref{rem:height} 

2397: by $\sqrt{2}$. \qed

2398: \end{rem}

2399: 

2400: \subsubsection{The Proof of Theorem \ref{main:unired}}\mbox{}\\ 

2401: \label{sub:unired} 

2402: All portions, save assertion (8), follow immediately from 

2403: \cite[Main Theorem 2.1]{gcp}. To prove assertion (8), we 

2404: will briefly review the computation of $h_1,\ldots,h_n$ 

2405: (which was already detailed at greater length in \cite{gcp}). 

2406: Our height bound will then follow from some elementary  

2407: polynomial and linear algebra bounds. 

2408: 

2409: In particular, recall the following algorithm for computing 

2410: $h_1,\ldots,h_n$, given $h$ as in theorem \ref{main:height}: 

2411: \begin{itemize} 

2412: \item[{\bf Step 2}]{If $n\!=\!1$, set $h_1(\theta)\!:=\!\theta$ and stop.

2413: Otherwise, for all $i\!\in\![n]$, let $q^-_i(t)$ be the square-free part of

2414: $\pert_A(t,u_1,\ldots,u_{i-1},u_i-1, u_{i+1},\ldots,u_n)$.}

2415: \item[{\bf Step 3}]{Define $q^\star_i(t)$ to be the square-free part of

2416: $\pert_A(t,u_1,\ldots,u_{i-1},u_i+1,u_{i+1},\ldots,u_n)$ for all

2417: $i\!\in\![n]$.}

2418: \item[{\bf Step 4}]{For all $i\!\in\![n]$ and $j\!\in\!\{0,1\}$, let

2419: $r_{i,j}(\theta)$ be the reduction of $\cR_j(q^-_i(t),

2420: q^\star_i((\alpha+1)\theta-\alpha t))$ modulo $h(\theta)$. }

2421: \item[{\bf Step 5}]{For all $i\!\in\![n]$, define

2422: $g_i(\theta)$ to be the reduction of

2423: $-\theta-\frac{r_{i,1}(\theta)}{r_{i,0}(\theta)}$ modulo $h(\theta)$. 

2424: Then define $a_i$ to be the least positive integer so that 

2425: $h_i(t)\!:=\!a_ig_i\!\in\!\Z[t]$. } 

2426: \end{itemize}

2427: 

2428: Following the notation of the algorithm above, the polynomial 

2429: $\cR_0(f,g)+\cR_1(f,g)t$ is known as the {\bf first subresultant} of $f$ and 

2430: $g$ and can be computed as follows: Letting 

2431: $f(t)\!=\!\alpha_0+\alpha_1t+\cdots+\alpha_{d_1}t^{d_1}$ and

2432: $g(t)\!=\!\beta_0+\beta_1t+\cdots+\beta_{d_2}t^{d_2}$, consider the following

2433: $(d_1+d_2-2)\times (d_1+d_2-1)$ matrix

2434: \begin{small}

2435: \[

2436: \begin{bmatrix}

2437: \beta_0 & \cdots & \beta_{d_2} & 0   & \cdots & 0 & 0 \\

2438: 0      & \beta_0 & \cdots & \beta_{d_2} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\

2439: \vdots & \ddots & \ddots &  & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\

2440: 0      & \cdots & 0 & \beta_0 & \cdots & \beta_{d_2} & 0 \\

2441: 0      & 0  & \cdots & 0 & \beta_0 & \cdots & \beta_{d_2} \\

2442: \alpha_0 & \cdots & \alpha_{d_1} & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 \\

2443: 0     & \alpha_0 & \cdots & \alpha_{d_1} & 0 & \cdots & 0\\

2444: \vdots &  \ddots  & \ddots &    &  \ddots  & \ddots  & \vdots   \\

2445: 0      & \cdots & 0 & \alpha_0 & \cdots & \alpha_{d_1} & 0 \\

2446: 0      & 0  & \cdots & 0 & \alpha_0 & \cdots & \alpha_{d_1}

2447: \end{bmatrix}

2448: \]

2449: \end{small}

2450: \hspace{-\sh}with $d_1\!-\!1$ ``$\beta$ rows'' and $d_2\!-\!1$ ``$\alpha$

2451: rows.'' Let $M^1_1$ (resp.\ $M^1_0$) be the submatrix obtained by

2452: deleting the last (resp.\ second to last) column. We then define 

2453: $\cR_i(f,g)\!:=\!\det(M^1_i)$ for $i\!\in\!\{0,1\}$.

2454: 

2455: Continuing our proof of Theorem \ref{main:unired}, we see that 

2456: we need only bound the coefficient growth of the intermediate 

2457: steps of our preceding algorithm. Thanks to theorem \ref{thm:growth}, 

2458: this is straightforward: First note that 

2459: $\sigma(q^-_i)\!=\!\log((V_F+1)\cdot 2^{V_F})+\sigma(\bar{h}_F)$, 

2460: where $\bar{h}_F$ is the square-free part of $h_F$. (This follows trivially 

2461: from expressing the coefficients of a univariate polynomial $f(t+1)$ 

2462: in terms of the coefficients of $f(t)$.) Via lemma \ref{lemma:mignotte} 

2463: we then see that $\sigma(\bar{h}_F)\!=\!\log(\sqrt{V_F+1}\cdot 2^{V_F})+

2464: \sigma(h_F)$, and thus $\sigma(q^-_i)\!=\!\cO(\sigma(h_F))$. 

2465: Similarly, $\sigma(q^\star_i)\!=\!\cO(\sigma(h_F))$ as well. 

2466: 

2467: To bound the coefficient growth when we compute $r_{i,j}$ note 

2468: that the coefficient of $t_i$ in $q^\star_i(2\theta-t)$ 

2469: is exactly $(-1)^i\sum^d_{j=i} \begin{pmatrix}j \\ i\end{pmatrix} 

2470: (2\theta)^j\alpha_j$, where $\alpha_j$ is the coefficient of 

2471: $t^j$ in $q^\star_i(t)$. Thus, via Hadamard's lemma again, 

2472: we see that 

2473: \[ |r_{i,j}(\theta)|\!\leq\!\left(\sqrt{V_F+1}\cdot 

2474: e^{\sigma(h_F)}\right)^{V_F-1} \left(\sqrt{V_F+1}\cdot 

2475: V_F2^{V_F}(2\theta)^{V_F}

2476: e^{\sigma(h_F)}\right)^{V_F-1}\] for all $i,j$. Since $r_{i,j}$ is 

2477: itself a polynomial in $\theta$ of degree $V_F(V_F-1)$, the 

2478: last inequality then easily implies that 

2479: $\sigma(r_{i,j})\!=\!\cO(V_F\sigma(h_F))$. 

2480: 

2481: To conclude, note that for any univariate polynomials $f,g\!\in\!\Z[t]$ 

2482: with degree $\leq\!D$, $\sigma(fg)\!=\cO(\sigma(f)+\sigma(g)+\log D)$. 

2483: Via long division it also easily follows that the 

2484: quotient $q$ and remainder $r$ of $f/g$ satisfy $aq,ar\!\in\Z[t]$ 

2485: and $\sigma(aq),\sigma(ar)\!=\!\cO(D(\sigma(f)+\sigma(g)))$, for some 

2486: positive integer $a$ with $\log a\!=\!\cO(\sigma(g))$. 

2487: 

2488: So by assertion (3) of theorem \ref{main:height} we obtain 

2489: $\log(a_i),\sigma(h_i)\!=\!\cO(V^2_F\sigma(h_F))$. \qed 

2490: \begin{rem} 

2491: \label{rem:denom}

2492: An immediately consequence of our proof is that the 

2493: asymptotic bound from assertion (8) can be replaced 

2494: by the following explicit bound: 

2495: \[ V_F\left\{(V_F-1)\left[\log\left(V_F(V_F+1)^{4} {64}^{V_F}\right)+

2496: 2\sigma(h_F)\right]+\sigma(h_F) \right\}+\sigma(h_F)+\log V_F. 

2497: \text{ \ \qed} \] 

2498: \end{rem}  

2499: 

2500: \subsubsection{The Proof of Theorem \ref{main:koi}}\mbox{}\\ 

2501: \label{sub:koi}  

2502: \noindent 

2503: {\bf Proof of Part (a):} We first recall the following 

2504: useful effective arithmetic Nullstellensatz of Krick, Pardo, and 

2505: Sombra. 

2506: \begin{thm}

2507: \label{thm:cool} 

2508: Suppose $f_1,\ldots,f_m\!\in\!\Z[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and 

2509: $f_1\!=\cdots =\!f_m\!=\!0$ has {\bf no} roots in $\Cn$. 

2510: Then there exist polynomials $g_1,\ldots,g_m\!\in\!\Z[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ 

2511: and a positive integer $a$ such that $g_1f_1+\cdots +g_mf_m\!=\!a$. 

2512: Furthermore, \[ \log a\!\leq\!2(n+1)^3D V_F[\sigma(F)+\log m + 

2513: 2^{2n+4}D\log(D+1)]. \text{ \ \qed } \] 

2514: \end{thm} 

2515: \noindent 

2516: The above theorem is a portion of corollary 3 from \cite{cool}. 

2517: 

2518: The proof of part (a) is then almost trivial: By assumption, 

2519: theorem \ref{thm:cool} tells us that the mod $p$ reduction of $F$ 

2520: has a root in $\Z/p\Z \Longrightarrow p$ divides $a$. Since 

2521: the number of divisors of an integer $a$ is no more than 

2522: $1+\log a$ (since any prime power other than $2$ is bounded below by 

2523: $e$), we arrive at our desired asymptotic bound on $a_F$. \qed 

2524: \begin{rem}

2525: \label{rem:shebanga}

2526: Following the notation of theorem \ref{main:koi}, 

2527: we thus obtain the following explicit bound:  

2528: \[ a_F\!\leq\!1+2(n+1)^3D V_F[\sigma(F)+\log m + 2^{2n+4}D\log(D+1)]. 

2529: \text{ \ \qed } \] 

2530: \end{rem}  

2531: 

2532: \noindent 

2533: {\bf Proof of Part (b):} Recall the following version of the 

2534: discriminant. 

2535: \begin{dfn} 

2536: \label{dfn:disc}

2537: Given any polynomial

2538: $f(x_1)\!=\!\alpha_0+\alpha_1x_1+\cdots+\alpha_Dx^D_1\!\in\!\Z[x_1]$

2539: with all $|\alpha_i|$ bounded above by some integer $c$, define the

2540: {\bf discriminant of} $\mathbf{f}$, $\pmb{\Delta_f}$, to be

2541: $\frac{(-1)^{D(D-1)/2}}{\alpha_D}$ times the following

2542: $(2D-1)\times (2D-1)$ determinant:

2543: \begin{small}

2544: \[ \det

2545: \begin{bmatrix}

2546: \alpha_0 & \cdots & \alpha_D & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 \\

2547: 0     & \alpha_0 & \cdots & \alpha_D & 0 & \cdots & 0\\

2548: \vdots &  \ddots  & \ddots &    &  \ddots  & \ddots  & \vdots   \\

2549: 0      & \cdots & 0 & \alpha_0 & \cdots & \alpha_D & 0 \\

2550: 0      & 0  & \cdots & 0 & \alpha_0 & \cdots & \alpha_D \\

2551: \alpha_1 & \cdots & D\alpha_D & 0 & \cdots & 0 & 0 \\

2552: 0     & \alpha_1 & \cdots & D\alpha_D & 0 & \cdots & 0\\

2553: \vdots &  \ddots  & \ddots &    &  \ddots  & \ddots  & \vdots   \\

2554: 0      & \cdots & 0 & \alpha_1 & \cdots & D\alpha_D & 0 \\

2555: 0      & 0  & \cdots & 0 & \alpha_1 & \cdots & D\alpha_D 

2556: \end{bmatrix},

2557: \]

2558: \end{small} 

2559: \noindent

2560: \mbox{}\hspace{-.15cm}where the first $D-1$ (resp.\ last $D$) rows correspond 

2561: to the coefficients of $f$ (resp.\ the derivative of $f$). \qed

2562: \end{dfn} 

2563: 

2564: Our proof of part (b) begins with the following observation. 

2565: \begin{thm} 

2566: \label{thm:oyster} 

2567: Following the notation of section \ref{sec:rat}, 

2568: suppose $f\!\in\!\Z[x_1]$ is a square-free polynomial of 

2569: degree $D$ with exactly $i_f$ factors over $\Q[x_1]$. 

2570: Then the truth of GRH implies that  

2571: \[ \left|i_f\pi(t)-N_f(t)\right|\!<\!2\sqrt{t}(D\log t+\log 

2572: |\Delta_f|) +D\log |\Delta_f|,  \] 

2573: for all $t\!>\!2$. \qed  

2574: \end{thm} 

2575: \noindent 

2576: A slightly less explicit version of the above theorem appeared 

2577: in \cite[Thm.\ 9]{hnam}, and the proof is almost the same as that of an  

2578: earlier result of Adleman and Odlyzko for the case $i_f\!=\!1$ 

2579: \cite[Lemma 3]{amo}. (See also \cite{weinberger}.) The only new 

2580: ingredient is an explicit version of the effective Chebotarev density theorem 

2581: due to Oesterl\'e \cite{oyster}. (Earlier versions of theorem \ref{thm:oyster} 

2582: did not state the asymptotic constants explicitly.) 

2583: 

2584: The proof of part (b) is then essentially a chain of elementary 

2585: analytic bounds which flows from applying theorem \ref{thm:oyster} 

2586: to the polynomial $h_F$ from theorem \ref{main:complex}. However, a 

2587: technicality which must be considered is that $h_F$ might not be 

2588: square-free (i.e., $\Delta_{h_F}$ may vanish). This is easily taken care of by 

2589: an application of the following immediate corollary of lemmata  

2590: \ref{lemma:multi} and \ref{lemma:mignotte}. 

2591: \begin{cor} 

2592: \label{cor:disc}

2593: Following the notation above, let $g$ be the square-free part 

2594: of $f$ and let $D'$ be the degree of $g$. Then 

2595: $\log |\Delta_g|\!\leq\!D'(D\log 2+\log(D'+1)+\log c)$. \qed 

2596: \end{cor}

2597: 

2598: Another technical lemma we will need regards the existence of primes 

2599: interleaving a simple sequence. 

2600: \begin{lemma} 

2601: \label{lemma:pain} 

2602: The number of primes in the open interval $(At^3,A(t+1)^3)$ 

2603: is at least $\lfloor \frac{1}{12}\cdot\frac{At^2} {\log t+\log A}\rfloor$, 

2604: provided 

2605: $A,t\!>\!e^5\!\approx\!148.413$. \qed 

2606: \end{lemma} 

2607: \noindent 

2608: This lemma follows routinely (albeit a bit tediously) from theorem 8.8.4 of 

2609: \cite{bs}, which states that for all $t\!>\!5$, the $t^\thth$ prime lies in 

2610: the open interval $(t\log t,t(\log t+\log\log t))$. 

2611: 

2612: The key to proving theorem \ref{main:koi} is then to find small constants 

2613: $t_0$ and $A_F$ such that $N_F(A_F(t+1)^3-1)-N_F(A_Ft^3)\!>\!1$ for all 

2614: $t\!\geq\!t_0$. 

2615: 

2616: Via theorems \ref{main:height} and \ref{main:unired}, and a consideration of 

2617: the primes dividing the $a_i$ (the denominators in our rational 

2618: univariate representation of $Z_F$), it immediately follows that 

2619: $|N_F(t)-N_{h_F}(t)|\!\leq\!V_F\sum^n_{i=1}(\log a_i+1)$, for all $t\!>\!0$. 

2620: We are now ready to derive an inequality whose truth will 

2621: imply $N_F(A_F(t+1)^3-1)-N_F(A_Ft^3)\!>\!1$: 

2622: By theorem \ref{thm:oyster}, lemma \ref{lemma:pain}, the triangle inequality, 

2623: and some elementary 

2624: estimates on $\log t$, $t^3$, and their derivatives, it suffices to 

2625: require that $A_Ft^2$ strictly exceed $12(\log A_F+\log t)$ 

2626: times the following quantity: 

2627: \[2(1+\sqrt{2})\sqrt{3A_Ft^3}[V_F(\log(3A_Ft^3)+1)+\log |\Delta_g|]+

2628: V_F\left(\log|\Delta_g| + \sum^n_{i=1}\log a_i +n\right)+1, \] 

2629: for all $t\!>\max\{t_0,e^5\}$, where $g$ denotes the square-free part of 

2630: $h_F$. (Note that we also used the fact that $i_g\!\geq\!1$.) 

2631: 

2632: A routine but tedious estimation then shows that 

2633: we can actually take $t_0\!=\!1296(\frac{1+\log 3}{3}+\log 1296)\!

2634: \approx\!4963040.506$, and $A_F$ as in the statement of part (b). 

2635: Careful accounting of the estimates then easily yields the explicit 

2636: upper bound for $A_F$ we state below. \qed 

2637: \begin{rem} 

2638: \label{rem:shebangb}

2639: The constant $1296(\frac{1+\log 3}{3}+\log 1296)$ arises from trying to find 

2640: the least $t$ for which $t^2\!\geq\!\alpha \log^4t$, where, roughly 

2641: speaking, $\alpha$ ranges over the constants listed in the 

2642: expressions for $A_F,B_F,C_F,D_F$ below. 

2643: \[ A_F\!\leq\!\lceil 1296B^2_F\log^4B_F+36C^2_F\log^2C_F+2D_F\log D_F\rceil, \]

2644: % ... = B^2_F log^4 B_F + C^2_F log^2 C_F + D_F log D_F 

2645: where 

2646: \[ B_F\!:=\!72\sqrt{3}(1+\sqrt{2}) V_F, \ 

2647: % ... = O(Vol_n(Q_F))

2648: % ceil(const)=51

2649: C_F\!:=\!24\sqrt{3}(1+\sqrt{2})\log|\Delta_g| +2, \text{ \ and} \]  

2650: % ... = O(log |Del|) 

2651: %  ceil(const)=17

2652: \[ D_F\!:=\!12V_F\left(\log|\Delta_g|+\sum^n_{i=1}\log a_i+n\right)+13. 

2653: \text{ \ \qed } \] 

2654: % ... = O(Vol_n(Q_F) log |Del|)

2655: % 

2656: \end{rem} 

2657: 

2658: \subsection{Proofs of Our Results Over $\Z$: Theorems \ref{main:equiv}, 

2659: \ref{main:25}, and \ref{main:h3}}\mbox{}\\

2660: \label{sub:proofint} 

2661: The proof of theorems \ref{main:equiv} and \ref{main:25} rely on a refined 

2662: version of Siegel's theorem (theorem \ref{thm:siegel} stated earlier in 

2663: section \ref{sec:int}) and an algorithmic result on factoring polynomials 

2664: over $\C$ (lemma \ref{lemma:fac} below). 

2665: The proof of theorem \ref{main:h3} will mainly use the tools we developed for 

2666: our results over $\C$ from section \ref{sec:complex}, and is a streamlined 

2667: version of the proof from \cite{tcs}.

2668: 

2669: \subsubsection{The Proof of Theorem \ref{main:equiv}}\mbox{}\\ 

2670: \noindent

2671: {\bf ($\mathbf{\Longrightarrow}$):} Simply apply whatever 

2672: algorithm one has for $\biggy_\N$ to the polynomial  

2673: $f(-x,-y)f(-x,y)f(x,-y)f(x,y)$ to obtain the value of  

2674: $\biggy_\Z(f)$. \qed 

2675: 

2676: \noindent 

2677: {\bf ($\mathbf{\Longleftarrow}$):} First calculate 

2678: $b\!:=\!\biggy_\Z(f)$. If $b\!<\!\infty$ then we can 

2679: simply enumerate {\bf positive} integral points until we 

2680: at last know $\biggy_\N(f)$. (This can of course be mind-bogglingly slow, 

2681: but is nevertheless a Turing-machine algorithm which is guaranteed to 

2682: terminate.) 

2683: 

2684: If $b\!=\!\infty$ then let us do the following: Replace $f$ by 

2685: its square-free part. (This can be done within $\nc$ via, say,  

2686: lemma \ref{lemma:fac} below.) 

2687: Then note that any irreducible component of $Z_f$ containing infinitely many 

2688: integral points must be defined over $\Z$. (Otherwise, the action of 

2689: $\mathrm{Gal}(\bar{\Q}/\Q)$ would imply that every integral point has 

2690: multiplicity $>\!1$ --- a contradiction, since the number of 

2691: singular points of a curve is always finite.) So we may also 

2692: assume that $Z_f$ is geometrically irreducible. (Indeed, 

2693: we can find all the irreducible components of $Z_f$ within 

2694: $\nc$ via lemma \ref{lemma:fac}.) 

2695: 

2696: Theorem \ref{thm:silvb} then tells us that $\biggy_\N(f)\!=\!\infty 

2697: \Longleftrightarrow Z_f$ has unbounded intersection with the 

2698: the (open) first quadrant. To decide the latter question, one first finds the 

2699: largest real critical value of the projection $(x,y)\mapsto x+y$, restricted 

2700: to the intersection of $Z_f$ with the first quadrant. (Since we are 

2701: restricting to the first quadrant, one must also consider the 

2702: image of the intersection of $Z_f$ with the coordinate axes under 

2703: this projection as well.) This reduces to finding 

2704: the $(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)$ which maximizes $\zeta_1+\zeta_2$, 

2705: where $(\zeta_1,\zeta_2)$ is either a positive real roots of the polynomial 

2706: system $(f,\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} +\frac{\partial f}{\partial y})$, 

2707: or a point in $Z_f\cap\{xy\!=\!0\}$. 

2708: Thanks to theorems \ref{main:height} and 

2709: \ref{main:unired}, and a fast root approximation algorithm from 

2710: \cite{neffreif}, this can be done within $\nc$. 

2711: 

2712: To conclude, if there is no critical value, we simply check (via the 

2713: techniques just mentioned) if the polynomial system $(f,x+y-1)$ 

2714: has a positive real root. It is then easily checked that 

2715: this system has a root iff $Z_f$ has unbounded intersection 

2716: with the first quadrant. Otherwise, one performs the same 

2717: check with the polynomial system $(f,x+y-\zeta_1-\zeta_2-1)$ instead. 

2718: So we are done. \qed 

2719: 

2720: \subsubsection{The Proof of Theorem \ref{main:25}}\mbox{}\\ 

2721: First note that as in our last proof, we can use 

2722: lemma \ref{lemma:fac} to reduce (within $\nc$, relative to the 

2723: dense encoding) to the case where $Z_f$ is geometrically 

2724: irreducible.  

2725: 

2726: Our algorithm then proceeds as follows: Compute the genus 

2727: of $Z_f$. (By \cite{ks}, this can actually be done within $\nc$ as well.) 

2728: If the genus is positive then theorem \ref{thm:siegel} tells us that 

2729: there are only finitely many integral points and we are done. 

2730: Similarly, via \cite{neffreif}, condition (c) of theorem \ref{thm:siegel} 

2731: can be checked within $\nc$. 

2732: 

2733: So we may now assume that $Z_f$ satisfies condition (c) and has genus zero. 

2734: Find all {\bf positive} integral singular points of $Z_f$. 

2735: (By theorems \ref{main:height}, \ref{main:unired}, and \ref{thm:lenstra}, 

2736: this can also be done within $\nc$.) Call 

2737: these points $\{(\alpha_1,\beta_1),\ldots,(\alpha_N,\beta_N)\}$. 

2738: Then form the polynomial $g(x,y,t)\!:=\!

2739: (x-\alpha_1)^2+(y-\beta_1)^2+\cdots+(x-\alpha_N)^2+(y-\beta_N)^2-t$.

2740: Clearly, $Z_f$ has a nonsingular integral point iff the curve 

2741: $Z_{(f,g)}\!\subset\!\C^3$ has a positive integral point. 

2742: Furthermore, since $Z_f$ has a rational parametrization, the curve 

2743: $Z_{(f,g)}$ admits one as well. Thus $Z_{(f,g)}$ is irreducible and has genus 

2744: zero too.   

2745: 

2746: So assuming $\ratcurve(3)$ is decidable, theorem \ref{thm:siegel} 

2747: tells us that we can decide whether $Z_f$ has infinitely many 

2748: integral points. Converting this to the decidability of 

2749: $\htp^\infty(2)$ is a simple matter, thanks to theorem \ref{thm:silvb} 

2750: and an application of theorem \ref{main:unired} already detailed 

2751: in our last proof. \qed  

2752: 

2753: \begin{lemma} 

2754: \label{lemma:fac} 

2755: \cite{bcgw} 

2756: Suppose $f\!\in\!\Q[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ and $n$ is a constant.  

2757: Then, relative to the dense encoding, we can find all factors of 

2758: $f$ over $\C[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ within $\nc$. Furthermore, 

2759: every factor is given as a polynomial in $\Q[\alpha][x_1,\ldots,x_n]$, where 

2760: the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$ is also part of the output. \qed 

2761: \end{lemma} 

2762: 

2763: \subsubsection{The Proof of Theorem \ref{main:h3}}\mbox{}\\ 

2764: It suffices to show that the truth of both conditions 

2765: implies the existence of an algorithm for $\exists\exists\forall\exists$ 

2766: (with all quantifiers ranging over $\N$), thus contradicting 

2767: the aforementioned result of Matiyasevich and Robinson. 

2768: 

2769: So assuming the truth of (1) and (2), let us construct such an 

2770: algorithm. First note the following fact. 

2771: \label{sub:h3}

2772: \begin{lemma} 

2773: \label{lemma:bound}

2774: Following the notation above, 

2775: let \[\Sigma_f\!:=\!\{(u_0,v_0)\!\in\!\C^2 \; \;  

2776: | \; \; \{(x,y)\!\in\!\C^2 \; | 

2777: \; f(u_0,v_0,x,y)\!=\!0\} 

2778: \text{ \ has \ a \ genus \ zero \ component}\}.\] 

2779: Also let $\Xi_f$ denote the set of  

2780: $(u_0,v_0)\!\in\!\N^2$ such that $\forall x \; \exists y \; 

2781: f(u_0,v_0,x,y)\!=\!0$. 

2782: Then $\Xi_f\!\subseteq\!\Sigma_f\cap\Z^2$, whether all quantifiers range over 

2783: $\N$ or $\Z$. 

2784: \end{lemma} 

2785: \noindent 

2786: {\bf Proof of the Lemma:} 

2787: By theorem \ref{thm:siegel}, 

2788: $\forall x\;  \exists y\;  f(u_0,v_0,x,y)\!=\!0 

2789: \Longrightarrow Z_f\cap\{(u,v)\!=\!(u_0,v_0)\}$ contains a curve of 

2790: genus zero (whether the quantification is over $\N$ or $\Z$). 

2791: So we are done. \qed 

2792: 

2793: Continuing the proof of theorem \ref{main:h3}, consider the following 

2794: algorithm for $\exists\exists\forall\exists$: First decide whether 

2795: $Z_f$ contains a specially ruled surface. (That this is Turing-decidable 

2796: was already observed in \cite{tcs}.) If so, simply apply any 

2797: algorithm for statement (2) to decide the prefix 

2798: $\exists\exists\forall\exists$. 

2799: 

2800: Otherwise, $\Sigma_f$ is the (possibly empty) union of a finite point set and 

2801: a collection of curves of positive genus. Via algorithms already observed in 

2802: \cite{tcs}, the defining polynomials for all these points and curves are 

2803: Turing-computable. So via theorem \ref{main:unired}, and statement 

2804: (1), the worst we need do is enumerate integral points on 

2805: several curves of positive genus. So although our algorithm may be 

2806: very slow, we have succeeded in deriving a contradiction, and we are done. \qed 

2807: 

2808: \begin{rem} 

2809: The usual definition of genericity in computational algebra is 

2810: stronger than the one we gave earlier: 

2811: A statement involving a set of parameters $\{c_1,\ldots,c_N\}$ 

2812: holds {\bf generically} iff the statement is true for all 

2813: $(c_1,\ldots,c_N)\!\in\!\C^N$ outside of some {\bf a priori fixed} 

2814: algebraic hypersurface. That this version of genericity implies 

2815: the simplified version mentioned earlier in our theorems is 

2816: immediate from Schwartz' Lemma \cite{schwartz}. Any 

2817: statement claimed to be true generically in this paper still 

2818: holds under this stronger notion. \qed 

2819: \end{rem} 

2820: 

2821: \section{Acknowledgements} 

2822: The author would like to express his deep gratitude to the 

2823: organizers of this conference for their generous invitation. 

2824: The author also thanks Felipe Cucker, Ioannis Emiris, Teresa Krick, 

2825: Francois Loeser, Gregorio Malajovich, Luis-Miguel Pardo-Vasallo, 

2826: Steve Smale, and Martin Sombra  

2827: for some very useful discussions, in person and via e-mail. Many of the 

2828: results presented in this paper would have been weaker, were it not 

2829: for the wonderful atmosphere of the Hilbert 10 conference in Gent. 

2830: 

2831: I dedicate this paper to Steve Smale. 

2832: 

2833: \section*{Appendix: How the Examples Were Computed}  

2834: \label{sec:app} 

2835: Here we reveal some further details on the computations underlying 

2836: our examples. All of the computations in this paper were performed 

2837: on a Sun 4u Computeserver, named Kronecker, at MIT. The version 

2838: of {\tt Maple} used was {\tt Maple V Release 5}. 

2839: 

2840: The univariate reduction, $P(u)$, for our first $3\times 3$ polynomial 

2841: system is a nonzero constant multiple of the sparse 

2842: resultant of $f_1$, $f_2$, $f_3$, and $u-xyz$. The following {\tt 

2843: Maple} code is how the computation was performed: 

2844: \begin{quote} 

2845: {\tt 

2846: \noindent

2847: with(linalg);\\

2848: 

2849: \noindent

2850: f:=144+2*x-3*y\^{}2+x\^{}7*y\^{}8*z\^{}9;\\

2851: g:=-51+5*x\^{}2-27*z+x\^{}9*y\^{}7*z\^{}8;\\

2852: h:=7-6*x+8*x\^{}8*y\^{}9*z\^{}7-12*x\^{}8*y\^{}8*z\^{}7;\\

2853: k:=u-x*y*z;\\

2854: 

2855: \noindent

2856: r1:=factor(resultant(f,k,x)):\\

2857: r2:=factor(resultant(g,k,x)):\\

2858: r3:=factor(resultant(h,k,x)):\\

2859: 

2860: \noindent 

2861: rr1:=op(4,r1):\\

2862: rr2:=op(4,r2):\\

2863: rr3:=op(3,r3):\\

2864: 

2865: \noindent

2866: s1:=factor(resultant(rr1,rr3,z)):\\

2867: s2:=factor(resultant(rr2,rr3,z)):\\

2868: 

2869: \noindent

2870: ss1:=op(4,s1):\\

2871: ss2:=op(3,s2):\\

2872: 

2873: \noindent

2874: t:=factor(resultant(ss1,ss2,y)):\\

2875: univar:=op(3,t);\\

2876: } 

2877: \end{quote} 

2878: 

2879: We also note that our choice for $P(u)$ was a bit sneaky: 

2880: instead of finding a polynomial whose roots were linear 

2881: projection of the roots of $F$, we found a polynomial whose 

2882: roots were a {\bf monomial map} of the roots of $F$. This 

2883: additional flexibility is useful in practice, and it is also 

2884: possible to improve our quantitative results along these lines. 

2885: These improvements will be detailed in later work, and we 

2886: also point out that other applications of such nonlinear projections 

2887: have appeared in earlier work of the author \cite{esa}. 

2888: 

2889: As for the mixed volume calculation, we used a {\tt C} implementation 

2890: by Ioannis Emiris (publically available at\\ 

2891: {\tt http://www.inria.fr/saga/logiciels/emiris/soft\_geo.html}).

2892: That the mixed volume equals the number of roots in $\C^3$ 

2893: follows easily from the fact that all the polynomials have a 

2894: nonzero constant term, and an exactness condition for Bernshtein's 

2895: Theorem (see, e.g., \cite{bernie} or \cite[Main Theorem 2]{jpaa}). 

2896: Verifying the latter condition amounts to checking whether a 

2897: product of toric resultants vanishes and for the sake of brevity 

2898: we omit this calculation. In any case, it is easily checked that 

2899: $M_F\leq e^{3+\frac{1}{8}}\cdot\frac{243}{\sqrt{4}}+(3\cdot 9+2)^3-(3\cdot 

2900: 9+1)^3

2901: \approx 5202.327253$ for our example, via lemma \ref{lemma:respert}. 

2902: (In practice, the true value of $M_F$ is 

2903: typically {\bf much} smaller than the upper bound from 

2904: lemma \ref{lemma:respert}.)   

2905: 

2906: By a stroke of luck, the polynomial $P$ is irreducible over 

2907: $\Q$, so we immediately obtain that $F$ has exactly $145$ 

2908: {\bf distinct} complex roots. Furthermore, we obtain that for 

2909: any subfield $K\!\subseteq\!\C$, every root of $P$ in $K$ 

2910: is the image of a unique root of $F$ in $K^3$. So we also obtain that $F$ has 

2911: no rational roots. Via the {\tt realroot} command of {\tt Maple} 

2912: (which employs {\bf Sturm sequences} \cite{marie}), we similarly 

2913: obtain the number of real roots of $F$. 

2914: 

2915: As for the comparison with Gr\"obner bases, we 

2916: simply invoked the following {\tt Maple} commands: 

2917: 

2918: \begin{quote} 

2919: {\tt 

2920: \noindent

2921: f:=144+2*x-3*y\^{}2+x\^{}7*y\^{}8*z\^{}9;\\

2922: g:=-51+5*x\^{}2-27*z+x\^{}9*y\^{}7*z\^{}8;\\

2923: h:=7-6*x+8*x\^{}8*y\^{}9*z\^{}7-12*x\^{}8*y\^{}8*z\^{}7;\\

2924: k:=u-x*y*z;\\

2925: 

2926: \noindent 

2927: with(Groebner);\\ 

2928: univpoly(u,[f,g,h,k]);\\ 

2929: }

2930: \end{quote} 

2931: 

2932: The larger time bound given was actually the amount of time 

2933: {\tt Maple} spent calculating a univariate reduction via 

2934: Gr\"obner bases, until the author's remote connection to 

2935: {\tt Kronecker} was terminated. 

2936: 

2937: \footnotesize

2938: \bibliographystyle{acm}

2939: \begin{thebibliography}{A}

2940: 

2941: \bibitem[AM75]{adleman} Adleman, Leonard and Manders, Kenneth, {\it

2942: ``NP-Complete Decision Problems for Quadratic Polynomials,''} Eighth Annual ACM 

2943: Symposium on Theory of Computing (Hershey, PA, 1976), pp.\ 23--29, Assoc.\ 

2944: Comput.\ Mach., 

2945: New York, 1976.

2946: 

2947: \bibitem[AO83]{amo} Adleman, Leonard and Odlyzko, Andrew, {\it

2948: ``Irreducibility Testing and Factorization of Polynomials,''} 

2949: Mathematics of Computation, 41 (164), pp.\ 699--709, 1983. 

2950: 

2951: \bibitem[BM88]{lab} Babai, L.\ and Moran, S., {\it

2952: ``Arthur-Merlin Games: A Randomized Proof System and a Hierarchy 

2953: of Complexity Classes,''} Journal of Computer and 

2954: System Sciences, 36:254--276, 1988. 

2955: 

2956: \bibitem[BF91]{arith} Babai, L.\ and Fortnow, F., {\it

2957: ``Arithmetization: a New Method in Structural Complexity Theory,''} 

2958: Comput.\ Complexity {\bf 1} (1991), no.\ 1, 41--66. 

2959: 

2960: \bibitem[BS96]{bs} Bach, Eric and Shallit, Jeff, {\it

2961: Algorithmic Number Theory, Vol.\ I: Efficient Algorithms,} 

2962: MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1996. 

2963: 

2964: \bibitem[BCGW92]{bcgw} Bajaj, Chanderjit; Canny, John F.; Garrity, Thomas; 

2965: Warren, Joe, {\it ``Factoring Rational Polynomials Over the Complex 

2966: Numbers,''} SIAM J.\ Computing 22 (1993), no.\ 2, pp.\ 318--331. 

2967: 

2968: \bibitem[Bak68]{bakert} Baker, Alan,  {\it

2969: ``Contributions to the Theory of Diophantine Equations I:

2970: On the Representation of Integers by Binary Forms,''} Philos.\

2971: Trans.\ Roy.\ Soc.\ London Ser.\ A, 263 (1968), 173--208.

2972: 

2973: \bibitem[Bak69]{bakerh} \underline{\hspace{\baker}},  {\it

2974: ``Bounds for the Solutions of the Hyperelliptic Equation,''}

2975: Proc.\ Camb.\ Philos.\ Soc.\ 65 (1969), 439--444.

2976: 

2977: \bibitem[Bak75]{bakertran} \underline{\hspace{\baker}},  {\it

2978: Transcendental Number Theory,} Cambridge University Press,

2979: 1975.

2980: 

2981: \bibitem[BC70]{bakercoates} Baker, Alan and Coates, John,  {\it

2982: ``Integer Points on Curves of Genus 1,''} Proc.\ Camb. Philos.\ Soc.\ 67

2983: (1970), 595--602.

2984: 

2985: \bibitem[BGHM97]{bank} Bank, Bernd; Giusti, Marc; Heintz, Joos; Mbakop, G. M.,

2986: {\it ``Polar Varieties, Real Equation Solving, and Data

2987: Structures: the Hypersurface Case,''} J.\ Complexity 13 (1997), no.\ 1, pp.\ 5--27. 

2988: 

2989: \bibitem[Bar56]{barna} Barna, Bela, {\it ``\"Uber die Divergenzpunkte des

2990: Newtonschen Verfahrens zur {B}estimmung von Wurzeln Algebraischer

2991: Gleichungen,''} Publ.\ Math.\ Debrecen, vol.\ 4, pp.\ 384--397 (1956).

2992: 

2993: \bibitem[Bas96]{basu} Basu, Saugata, {\it

2994: ``On Bounding the Betti Numbers and Computing the Euler

2995: Characteristic of Semi-Algebraic Sets,''} Proceedings of the Twenty-eighth

2996: Annual ACM STOC (Philadelphia, PA, 1996), pp.\ 408--417, ACM, New York.

2997: 

2998: \bibitem[BPR96]{bpr} Basu, Saugata; Pollack, Richard; Roy, Marie-Fran\c{c}oise, 

2999: {\it ``On the Combinatorial and Algebraic Complexity of Quantifier 

3000: Elimination,''} J.\ ACM 43 (1996), no.\ 6, pp.\ 1002--1045.

3001: 

3002: \bibitem[BLR91]{blr} Benedetti, R., Loeser, F., Risler, J.\ J., {\it

3003: ``Bounding the Number of Connected Components of a Real Algebraic

3004: Set,''} Discrete and Computational Geometry, 6:191--209 (1991).

3005: 

3006: \bibitem[Ber75]{bernie} Bernshtein, D. N., {\it ``The Number of 

3007: Roots of a System of Equations,"} Functional Analysis and its Applications 

3008: (translated from Russian), Vol. 9, No. 2, (1975), 

3009: pp.\ 183--185.

3010: 

3011: \bibitem[BP94]{binipan} Bini, Dario and Pan, Victor Y., {\it Polynomial and

3012: Matrix Computations, Volume 1: Fundamental Algorithms,} Progress in

3013: Theoretical Computer Science, Birkh\"auser, 1994.

3014: 

3015: \bibitem[Bli21]{blich} Blichfeldt, H.\ F., {\it ``Note on 

3016: Geometry of Numbers,''} Bull.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ {\bf 27}, pp.\ 150--153. 

3017: 

3018: \bibitem[BSS89]{bss} Blum, Lenore; Shub, Mike; Smale, Steve, {\it ``On a 

3019: Theory of Computation and Complexity Over the Real Numbers: NP-completeness, 

3020: Recursive Functions and Universal Machines,''} Bull.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ 

3021: {\bf 21} (1989), no.\ 1, pp.\ 1--46.

3022: 

3023: \bibitem[BCSS98]{bcss} Blum, L., Cucker, F., Shub, M., Smale, S., {\it

3024: Complexity and Real Computation,} Springer-Verlag, 1998.

3025: 

3026: \bibitem[BT99]{tschinkel} Bogomolov, F.\ A. and Tschinkel, Yu., {\it 

3027: ``On the Density of Rational Points on Elliptic Fibrations,''} J.\ 

3028: Reine Angew.\ Math.\ 511 (1999), pp.\ 87--93.  

3029: 

3030: \bibitem[Bom90]{bomb} Bombieri, Enrico, {\it ``The Mordell Conjecture

3031: Revisited,''} Ann.\ Sculoa Norm.\ Sup.\ Pisa Cl.\ Sci.\ (4) {\bf 17}

3032: (1990), no.\ 4, pp.\ 615--640.

3033: 

3034: \bibitem[Bri84]{brindza} Brindza, B., {\it ``On $S$-Integral

3035: Solutions of the Equation $y^m\!=\!f(x)$,''}

3036: Acta.\ Math.\ Hungar.\ {\bf 44} (1984), no.\ 1--2, pp.\

3037: 133--139.

3038: 

3039: \bibitem[BCS97]{bcs} B\"urgisser, Peter; Clausen, Mike; and Shokrollahi, M.\ 

3040: Amin, {\it Algebraic Complexity,} Grundlehren der Mathematischen 

3041: Wissenschaften, 315, Springer-Verlag, 1997. 

3042: 

3043: \bibitem[B\"ur00]{peter} B\"urgisser, Peter, {\it

3044: ``Cook's Versus Valiant's Hypothesis,''} Theoretical 

3045: Computer Science, special issue in honor of Manuel Blum's 

3046: 60$^\thth$ birthday, vol.\ 235, no.\ 1, March, 2000, pp.\ 

3047: 71--88. 

3048: 

3049: \bibitem[BZ88]{buza} Burago, Yu. D. and Zalgaller, V. A., {\it

3050: Geometric Inequalities,} Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften 285,

3051: Springer-Verlag (1988).

3052: 

3053: \bibitem[Can87]{cannyphd} Canny, John F., {\it ``The Complexity of 

3054: Robot Motion Planning Problems,''} ACM Doctoral Dissertation Award 

3055: Series, ACM Press (1987). 

3056: 

3057: \bibitem[Can88]{pspace} \underline{\hspace{\jfc}}, {\it ``Some Algebraic

3058: and Geometric Computations in PSPACE,''} Proc.\ 20$^\thth$ ACM

3059: Symp.\ Theory of Computing, Chicago (1988), ACM Press.

3060: 

3061: \bibitem[Can93]{cannyquant} \underline{\hspace{\jfc}}, {\it ``Improved 

3062: Algorithms for Sign Determination and Existential Quantifier Elimination,''} 

3063: Comput.\ J.\ {\bf 36} (1993), no.\ 5, pp.\ 409--418.  

3064: 

3065: \bibitem[CG84]{chigo} Chistov, A. L., and Grigoriev, Dima Yu, {\it

3066: ``Complexity of Quantifier Elimination in the Theory of Algebraically

3067: Closed Fields,''} Lect.\ Notes Comp.\ Sci.\ 176, Springer-Verlag (1984).

3068: 

3069: \bibitem[Coh81]{cohen} Cohen, S. D., {\it ``The Distribution of Galois Groups 

3070: and Hilbert's Irreducibility Theorem,''} Proc.\ London Math.\ Soc.\ (3) 43 

3071: (1981), no.\ 2, pp.\ 227--250. 

3072: 

3073: \bibitem[DL79]{dl79} Dobkin, David and Lipton, Richard, {\it 

3074: ``On the Complexity of Computations Under Varying Sets of 

3075: Primitives,''} J.\ of Computer and System Sciences 18, pp.\ 86--91, 1979.

3076: 

3077: \bibitem[EC93]{emican} Emiris, Ioannis Z.\ and Canny, John, 

3078: {\it ``Efficient Incremental Algorithms for the Sparse Resultant 

3079: and Mixed Volume,''} J.\ Symbolic Comput.\ 20 (1995), no.\ 2, pp.\ 117--149.  

3080: 

3081: \bibitem[Emi94]{emiphd} Emiris, Ioannis Z., {\it ``Sparse Elimination and

3082: Applications in Kinematics,''} Ph.D. dissertation, Computer Science

3083: Division, U. C. Berkeley (December, 1994), available on-line at {\tt

3084: http://www.inria.fr/saga/emiris}.

3085: 

3086: \bibitem[EM99]{emimoumat} Emiris, Ioannis Z.\ and Mourrain, Bernard, 

3087: {\it ``Matrices in Elimination Theory,''} J. of Symbolic Computation, 

3088: 28(1\&2):3-44, 1999. 

3089: 

3090: \bibitem[EP99]{emipanmat} Emiris, Ioannis Z.\ and Pan, Victor, 

3091: {\it ``Techniques for Exploiting Structure in Matrix Formulae of the Sparse 

3092: Resultant,''} Toeplitz matrices: structures, algorithms and applications 

3093: (Cortona, 1996), Calcolo 33 (1996), no. 3-4, 353--369 (1998). 

3094: 

3095: \bibitem[Fal84]{faltings} Faltings, Gerd, {``Endlichkeitss\"atze f\"ur 

3096: abelsche Variet\"aten \"uber Zahlk\"orpern (Finiteness theorems for abelian

3097: varieties over number fields),''} Invent.\ Math.\ 73 (1983), no.\ 3, 

3098: pp.\ 349--366. 

3099: 

3100: \bibitem[FGM90]{fgm} Fitchas, N., Galligo, A., and Morgenstern, J., 

3101: {\it ``Precise Sequential and Parallel Complexity Bounds for Quantifier 

3102: Elimination Over Algebraically Closed Fields,''} Journal of Pure and 

3103: Applied Algebra, 67:1--14, 1990. 

3104: 

3105: \bibitem[Gal73]{gala} Gallagher, P.\ X.,  

3106: {\it ``The Large Sieve and Probabilistic Galois Theory,''} 

3107: Analytic Number Theory (Proc.\ Sympos.\ Pure Math., Vol.\ 

3108: XXIV, St.\ Louis, Mo., 1972), 91--101, Amer.\ Math.\ Soc., 

3109: Providence, R.I., 1973. 

3110: 

3111: \bibitem[Gal80]{gala2} \underline{\hspace{\gala}},   

3112: {\it ``Some Consequences of the Riemann Hypothesis,''} 

3113: Acta.\ Arith.\ 37 (1980), pp.\ 339--343.

3114: 

3115: \bibitem[GH99]{gaterhub} Gatermann, Karin and Huber, Birk, {\it 

3116: ``A Family of Sparse Polynomial Systems Arising in Chemical Reaction 

3117: Systems,''} Preprint ZIB (Konrad-Zuse-Zentrum f\"ur Informationstechnik 

3118: Berlin) SC-99 27, 1999. 

3119: 

3120: \bibitem[GKZ94]{gkz94} Gel'fand, I. M., Kapranov, M. M., and 

3121: Zelevinsky, A. V., {\it Discriminants, Resultants and Multidimensional 

3122: Determinants,} Birkh\"auser, Boston, 1994. 

3123: 

3124: \bibitem[GH93]{giustiheintz} Giusti, Marc and Heintz, Joos, 

3125: {\it ``La d\'etermination des points isol\'es et la dimension 

3126: d'une vari\'et\'e alg\'ebrique peut se faire en temps polynomial,''} 

3127: Computational Algebraic Geometry and Commutative Algebra (Cortona, 

3128: 1991), Sympos.\ Math.\ XXXIV, pp.\ 216--256, Cambridge University 

3129: Press, 1993. 

3130: 

3131: \bibitem[GLS99]{gls99} Giusti, M., Lecerf, G., and Salvy, B.,

3132: {\it ``A Gr\"obner-Free Alternative to Polynomial System Solving,''}

3133: preprint, TERA, 1999.

3134: 

3135: \bibitem[Gra94]{grant} Grant, David, {\it ``Integer Points

3136: on Curves of Genus Two and Their Jacobians,''} Trans.\

3137: Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ {\bf 344} (1994), no.\ 1, pp.\

3138: 79--100.

3139: 

3140: \bibitem[GW93]{gw} Gritzmann, Peter and Wills, J., 

3141: {\it ``Lattice Points,''} in Handbook for Convex Geometry 

3142: (edited by P.\ Gruber and J.\ Wills), vol.\ B, North Holland, 

3143: Amsterdam, 1993. 

3144: 

3145: \bibitem[GK94]{volcomplex} Gritzmann, Peter and Klee, Victor,

3146: {\it ``On the Complexity of Some Basic Problems in Computational

3147: Convexity II: Volume and Mixed Volumes,''} Polytopes: Abstract,

3148: Convex, and Computational (Scarborough, ON, 1993), pp.\

3149: 373--466, NATO Adv.\ Sci.\ Inst.\ Ser.\ C Math.\ Phys.\ Sci.,

3150: 440, Kluwer Acad.\ Publ., Dordrecht, 1994.

3151: 

3152: \bibitem[GS00]{gs00} Gurvits, Leonid and Samorodnitsky, Alex, {``A 

3153: Deterministic Polynomial-Time Algorithm for Approximating Mixed 

3154: Discriminant and Mixed Volume,''} Proceedings of STOC 2000, ACM Press, 2000. 

3155: 

3156: \bibitem[HW79]{hw} Hardy, G.\ H.\ and Wright, E.\ M., {\it An 

3157: Introduction to the Theory of Numbers,} Fifth Edition, 

3158: The Clarendon Press, Oxford University Press, New York, 1979.

3159: 

3160: \bibitem[Har77]{hart} Hartshorne, Robin, {\it Algebraic

3161: Geometry,} Graduate Texts in Mathematics, No.\ 52,

3162: Springer-Verlag.

3163: 

3164: \bibitem[HS82]{hs} Heintz, Joos and Schnorr, Claus P., {\it ``Testing 

3165: Polynomials Which are Easy to Compute,''} Logic and Algorithmic (Zurich, 

3166: 1980), pp.\ 237--254, Monograph.\ Enseign.\ Math., 30, Univ.\ Gen\`eve, 

3167: Geneva, 1982. 

3168: 

3169: \bibitem[Hir94]{hirsch} Hirsch, Morris, {\it Differential Topology,}

3170: corrected reprint of the 1976 original, Graduate Texts in Mathematics,

3171: 33, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1994.

3172: 

3173: \bibitem[Ier89]{ierardi} Ierardi, Doug, {\it ``Quantifier Elimination 

3174: in the Theory of an Algebraically-Closed Field,''} Proc.\ 21$^\st$ ACM 

3175: Symp.\ Theory of Computing, Seattle (1989), 138--147. 

3176: 

3177: \bibitem[Jon81]{jones81} Jones, James P., {\it ``Classification

3178: of Quantifier Prefixes Over Diophantine Equations,''}

3179: Zeitschr.\ f.\ math.\ Logik und Grundlagen d.\ Math.,

3180: Bd.\ 27, 403--410 (1981).

3181: 

3182: \bibitem[Jon82]{jones9} \underline{\hspace{\jones}}, {\it 

3183: ``Universal Diophantine Equation,''} Journal of Symbolic 

3184: Logic, 47 (3), 403--410 (1982).  

3185: 

3186: \bibitem[KLS97]{kls} Kannan, R., Lovasz, L, and Simonovitz, M., 

3187: {\it ``Random Walks and an $\cO^*(n^5)$ Volume Algorithm 

3188: for Convex Bodies,"} 

3189: Random Structures Algorithms, {\bf 11} (1997), no.\ 1, pp.\ 1--50.

3190: 

3191: \bibitem[Kho78]{kho78} Khovanskii, A. G.,

3192: {\it ``Newton Polyhedra and the Genus of Complete Intersections,"}

3193: Functional Analysis (translated from Russian), Vol. 12, No. 1,

3194: January--March (1978), 51--61.

3195: 

3196: \bibitem[Kho91]{few} Khovanski, Askold, {\it Fewnomials,}

3197: AMS Press, Providence, Rhode Island, 1991.

3198: 

3199: \bibitem[Koi96]{hnam} Koiran, Pascal, {\it ``Hilbert's Nullstellensatz 

3200: is in the Polynomial Hierarchy,''} DIMACS Technical Report 96-27, 

3201: July 1996. ({\bf Note:} This preprint considerably improves the published 

3202: version which appeared in Journal of Complexity in 1996.)  

3203: 

3204: \bibitem[Koi97]{koiran} \underline{\hspace{\koi}}, {\it ``Randomized and 

3205: Deterministic Algorithms for the Dimension of Algebraic Varieties,''} 

3206: Proceedings of the 38$^\thth$ Annual IEEE Computer Society 

3207: Conference on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 

3208: Oct.\ 20--22, 1997, ACM Press. 

3209: 

3210: \bibitem[KS97]{ks} Kozen, Dexter and Stef\'ansson, Kjartan, 

3211: {\it ``Computing the Newtonian Graph,''}  

3212: J.\ Symbolic Comput.\ {\bf 24} (1997), no.\ 2, pp.\ 125--136. 

3213: 

3214: \bibitem[KP96]{krickpardo} Krick, Teresa and Pardo, Luis-Miguel, {\it ``A 

3215: Computational Method for Diophantine Approximation,''} Algorithms in Algebraic 

3216: Geometry and Applications (Santander, 1994), pp.\ 193--253, Progr.\ Math., 

3217: 143, Birkh\"auser, Basel, 1996. 

3218: 

3219: \bibitem[KPS00]{cool} Krick, T., Pardo, L.-M., and Sombra, M., {\it 

3220: ``Sharp Arithmetic Nullstellensatz,''} submitted for publication, 

3221: also downloadable from {\tt http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/math.AG/9911094}. 

3222:  

3223: \bibitem[LO77]{lago} Lagarias, Jeff and Odlyzko, Andrew, 

3224: {\it ``Effective Versions of the Chebotarev Density Theorem,''} 

3225: Algebraic Number Fields: $L$-functions and Galois Properties 

3226: (Proc.\ Sympos.\ Univ.\ Durham, Durham, 1975),  409--464, 

3227: Academic Press, London, 1977. 

3228: 

3229: \bibitem[Lan97]{lang} Lang, Serge, {\it Survey of Diophantine Geometry,} 

3230: Springer-Verlag, 1997.

3231: 

3232: \bibitem[Lec00]{lecerf} Lecerf, Gr\'egoire, {\it ``Computing an 

3233: Equidimensional Decomposition of an Algebraic Variety by Means 

3234: of Geometric Resolutions,''} submitted to the proceedings of the 

3235: International Symposium on Symbolic Algebra and Computation 

3236: (ISSAC) 2000. 

3237: 

3238: \bibitem[LLL82]{lll} Lenstra, A.\ K., Lenstra, H.\ W., and 

3239: Lov\'asz, L., {\it ``Factoring Polynomials with Rational Coefficients,''} 

3240: Math.\ Ann.\ 261 (1982), no.\ 4, 515--534.

3241: 

3242: \bibitem[Len98]{lenstra} Lenstra, Hendrik W., {\it ``Finding Small

3243: Degree Factors of Lacunary Polynomials,''} Number Theory in Progress,

3244: proceedings of a meeting in honor of the 70$^\thth$ birthday of Andrej

3245: Schnizel, W.\ de Gruyter, to appear.

3246: 

3247: \bibitem[Mai00]{maillot} Maillot, Vincent, {\it 

3248: ``G\'eom\'etrie D'Arakelov Des Vari\'et\'es Toriques 

3249: et Fibr\'es en Droites Int\'egrables,''} M\'em.\ Soc.\ Math.\ France, 

3250: to appear. 

3251: 

3252: \bibitem[Mal00a]{gregogap} Malajovich, Gregorio, {\it 

3253: ``Condition Number Bounds for Problems with Integer Coefficients,''} 

3254: Journal of Complexity, to appear september 2000. 

3255: 

3256: \bibitem[Mal00b]{gregoheight} \underline{\hspace{\greg}}, {\it ``Transfer 

3257: Theorems for the $\pp\!\neq\!\np$ Conjecture,''} Journal of Complexity, 

3258: to appear.

3259: 

3260: \bibitem[Man95]{manin} Manin, Yu.\ I., {``Problems on Rational Points and 

3261: Rational Curves on Algebraic Varieties,''} Surveys in Differential Geometry, 

3262: Vol.\ II (Cambridge, MA, 1993), pp.\ 214--245, Internat.\ Press, Cambridge, 

3263: MA, 1995.  

3264: 

3265: \bibitem[Mat73]{oldmat} Matiyasevich, Yuri V., {\it 

3266: ``On Recursive Unsolvability of Hilbert's Tenth Problem,''} Logic, 

3267: Methodology and Philosophy of Science, IV (Proc.

3268: Fourth Internat.\ Congr., Bucharest, 1971), pp.\ 89--110, 

3269: Studies in Logic and Foundations of Math., Vol. 74, North-Holland, Amsterdam, 

3270: 1973.

3271: 

3272: \bibitem[MR74]{matrob} Matiyasevich, Yuri V.\ and Robinson, Julia {\it

3273: ``Two Universal 3-Quantifier Representations of

3274: Recursively Enumerable Sets,''} Teoriya Algorifmov i

3275: Matematicheskaya Logika (Volume dedicated to A. A. Markov), 

3276: 112--123, Vychislitel'ny\u{\i} Tsentr, Akademiya Nauk SSSR, Moscow

3277: (Russian).

3278: 

3279: \bibitem[Mat93]{hilbert10} Matiyasevich, Yuri V., {\it

3280: Hilbert's Tenth Problem,} MIT Press (1993).

3281: 

3282: \bibitem[MM82]{mm} Mayr, E. and Meyer, A., {\it ``The 

3283: Complexity of the Word Problem for Commutative Semigroups 

3284: and Polynomial Ideals,''} Adv.\ Math.\ {\bf 46}, 305--329, 1982. 

3285: 

3286: \bibitem[MM95]{mucks} McKelvey, Richard D., and McLennan, Andrew,

3287: {\it ``The Maximal Number of Regular Totally Mixed Nash Equilibria,''}

3288: preprint, Department of Economics, University of Minnesota, 1995.    

3289: 

3290: \bibitem[Mig92]{mignotte} Mignotte, Maurice, {\it

3291: Mathematics for Computer Algebra,} translated from the 

3292: French by Catherine Mignotte, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992.  

3293: 

3294: \bibitem[Mil76]{miller} Miller, Gary L., {\it

3295: ``Riemann's Hypothesis and Tests for Primality,''} 

3296: J.\ Comput.\ System Sci.\ {\bf 13} (1976), no.\ 3,  300--317. 

3297: 

3298: \bibitem[Mil64]{milnor} Milnor, John {\it

3299: ``On the Betti Numbers of Real Varieties,''}

3300: Proceedings of the Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ 15, pp.\ 275--280, 1964.

3301: 

3302: \bibitem[Mir95]{miranda} Miranda, Rick, {\it

3303: Algebraic Curves and Riemann Surfaces,} Graduate Studies

3304: in Mathematics, Vol.\ 5, American Mathematical Society.

3305: 

3306: \bibitem[Mor97]{morais} Morais, J.\ E., {\it ``Resolucion Eficaz de Sistemas 

3307: de Ecuaciones Polinomiales (Efficient Solution of Systems of Polynomial 

3308: Equations),''} Ph.D.\ Thesis, Univ.\ Cantabria, Santander, 1997. 

3309: 

3310: \bibitem[MP98]{moupan} Mourrain, Bernard and Pan, Victor, 

3311: {\it ``Asymptotic Acceleration of Solving Multivariate Polynomial 

3312: Systems of Equations,''} Proc.\ STOC '98, pp.\ 488--496, ACM Press, 1998. 

3313: 

3314: \bibitem[Mum95]{mumford} Mumford, David, {\it

3315: Algebraic Geometry I: Complex Projective Varieties,}

3316: Reprint of the 1976 edition, Classics in Mathematics,

3317: Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1995.

3318: 

3319: \bibitem[Mun84]{munkres} Munkres, James R., {\it Elements of 

3320: Algebraic Topology,} Addison-Wesley, 1984.

3321: 

3322: \bibitem[NR96]{neffreif} Neff, C.\ Andrew and Reif, John, {\it ``An 

3323: Efficient Algorithm for the Complex Roots Problem,''} 

3324: Journal of Complexity {\bf 12} (1996), no.\ 2, 81--115. 

3325: 

3326: \bibitem[Oes79]{oyster} Oesterl\'e, Joseph, {\it ``Versions Effectives 

3327: du Th\'eor\`eme de Chebotarev sous l'Hypoth\`ese de 

3328: Riemann G\'en\'eralis\'ee,''} 

3329: Ast\'erisque {\bf 61} (1979), pp.\ 165--167. 

3330: 

3331: \bibitem[OP49]{op} Oleinik, O.\ and Petrovski, I., {\it ``On the 

3332: Topology of Real Algebraic Hypersurfaces,''} Izv. Akad. 

3333: Akad.\ Nauk SSSR 13, pp.\ 389--402, 1949. 

3334: 

3335: \bibitem[Pac99]{pacelli} Pacelli, Patricia L., {\it ``Some Uniformity Results 

3336: Following from the Lang Conjectures,''} Number Theory (Ottawa, ON, 1996), 

3337: pp.\ 291--296, CRM Proc.\ Lecture Notes, 19, Amer.\ Math.\ Soc., Providence, 

3338: RI, 1999. 

3339: 

3340: \bibitem[Pap95]{papa} Papadimitriou, Christos H., {\it Computational 

3341: Complexity,} Addison-Wesley, 1995. 

3342: 

3343: \bibitem[Pla84]{plaisted} Plaisted, David A., {\it ``New NP-Hard and 

3344: NP-Complete Polynomial and Integer Divisibility Problems,''} 

3345: Theoret.\ Comput.\ Sci.\ 31 (1984), no.\ 1--2, 125--138. 

3346: 

3347: \bibitem[Poo96]{poon} Poonen, Bjorn, {\it

3348: ``Computational Aspects of Curves of Genus

3349: at Least $2$,''} Algorithmic Number Theory (Talence, 1996),

3350: pp.\ 283--306, Lecture Notes in Comput.\ Sci., 1122,

3351: Springer, Berlin, 1996.

3352: 

3353: \bibitem[Pou93]{poulaki} Poulakis, Dimitrios, {\it

3354: ``Integer Points on Curves of Genus 0,''} Colloq.\

3355: Math.\ {\bf 66} (1993), no.\ 1, pp.\ 1--7.

3356: 

3357: \bibitem[Pra75]{pratt} Pratt, Vaughan R., {\it ``Every Prime   

3358: has a Succinct Certificate,''} SIAM J.\ Comput.\ {\bf 4} (1975), 

3359: 327--340. 

3360: 

3361: \bibitem[Ren92]{renegar} Renegar, Jim, {\it `` On the Computational Complexity 

3362: and Geometry of the First-Order Theory of the Reals, I--III,''} 

3363: J.\ Symbolic Comput.\ 13 (1992), no.\ 3, pp.\ 255--352

3364: 

3365: \bibitem[Roj98]{esa} Rojas, J.\ Maurice, {\it ``Intrinsice Near Quadratic 

3366: Complexity Bounds for Real Multivariate Root Counting,''} Proceedings of the 

3367: Sixth European Symposium on Algorithms (ESA '98, Venice), Lecture Notes in 

3368: Computer Science 1461, pp.\ 127--138, 1998.

3369: 

3370: \bibitem[Roj99a]{jpaa} \underline{\hspace{\jmr}}, {\it ``Toric

3371: Intersection Theory for Affine Root Counting,''} Journal of Pure and

3372: Applied Algebra, vol.\ 136, no.\ 1, March, 1999, pp.\ 67--100.

3373: 

3374: \bibitem[Roj99b]{stoc99} \underline{\hspace{\jmr}}, {\it ``On the Complexity 

3375: of Diophantine Geometry in Low Dimensions,''} Proceedings of the 

3376: 31$^\st$ Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing (STOC '99, May 1--4, 1999,

3377: Atlanta, Georgia), pp.\ 527--536, ACM Press, 1999. 

3378: 

3379: \bibitem[Roj99c]{gcp} \underline{\hspace{\jmr}}, {\it ``Solving Degenerate 

3380: Sparse Polynomial Systems Faster,''} Journal of Symbolic Computation, 

3381: vol.\ 28 (special issue on

3382: elimination theory), no.\ 1/2, July and August 1999, pp.\ 155--186.

3383: 

3384: \bibitem[Roj00a]{tcs} \underline{\hspace{\jmr}}, {\it ``Uncomputably 

3385: Large Integral Points on Algebraic Plane Curves?,''} Theoretical 

3386: Computer Science, special issue in honor of Manuel Blum's 

3387: 60$^\thth$ birthday, vol.\ 235, no.\ 1, March, 2000, pp.\ 145--162. 

3388: 

3389: \bibitem[Roj00b]{real} \underline{\hspace{\jmr}}, {\it ``Some Speed-Ups and 

3390: Speed Limits for Real Algebraic Geometry,''} Journal of Complexity, FoCM 1999 

3391: special issue, to appear.

3392: 

3393: \bibitem[Roj00c]{jcs} \underline{\hspace{\jmr}}, {\it ``Computational 

3394: Arithmetic Geometry I: Sentences Nearly in the Polynomial Hierarchy,''}  

3395: J.\ Comput.\ System Sci., STOC '99 special issue, to appear.

3396: 

3397: \bibitem[Roj00d]{new} \underline{\hspace{\jmr}}, {\it ``The Geometry 

3398: of Elimination I: Complexity and Height Bounds,''} 

3399: Journal of Symbolic Computation, special issue on recent progress 

3400: on resultants, to appear. 

3401: 

3402: \bibitem[RY00]{rojasye} Rojas, J.\ Maurice and Ye, Yinyu, {\it ``Solving 

3403: Fewnomials in Near Logarithmic Time,''} submitted for publication. 

3404: 

3405: \bibitem[Roy96]{marie} Roy, Marie-Fran\c{c}oise, {\it ``Basic Algorithms in 

3406: Real Algebraic Geometry and their Complexity: from Sturm's Theorem to the 

3407: Existential Theory of Reals,''} Lectures in Real Geometry (Madrid, 1994), pp.\ 

3408: 1--67, de Gruyter Exp.\ Math., 23, de Gruyter, Berlin, 1996.

3409: 

3410: \bibitem[Rud76]{rudin} Rudin, Walter, {\it Principles of

3411: Mathematical Analysis,} 3$^\rd$ edition, McGraw-Hill, 1976.

3412: 

3413: \bibitem[Sch82]{schinzel} Schinzel, Andrzej, {\it

3414: Selected Topics on Polynomials,} Univ.\ of Michigan

3415: Press, Ann Arbor, 1982.

3416: 

3417: \bibitem[Sch92]{schmidt} Schmidt, Wolfgang M., {\it

3418: ``Integer Points on Curves of Genus 1,''} Compositio

3419: Mathematica {\bf 81}: 33--59, 1992.

3420: 

3421: \bibitem[Sch80]{schwartz} Schwartz, J., {\it ``Fast Probabilistic 

3422: Algorithms for Verification of Polynomial Identities,''} 

3423: J.\ of the ACM 27, 701--717, 1980.

3424: 

3425: \bibitem[Sha94]{shafa} Shafarevich, Igor R., {\it Basic 

3426: Algebraic Geometry I,} second edition, Springer-Verlag (1994).

3427: 

3428: \bibitem[Shu93]{shub} Shub, Mike, {\it ``Some Remarks

3429: on B\'ezout's Theorem and Complexity Theory,''} {}From

3430: Topology to Computation: Proceedings of

3431: the Smalefest (Berkeley, 1990), pp.\ 443--455, Springer-Verlag, 1993.

3432: 

3433: \bibitem[Sie29]{siegel} Siegel, Carl Ludwig, {\it

3434: ``\"Uber einige Anwendungen Diophantischer Approximationen,''}

3435: Abh.\ Preuss.\ Akad.\ Wiss.\ Phys.\ Math.\ Kl.\ (1929), Nr.\ 1.

3436: 

3437: \bibitem[Sil95a]{silintrat} Silverman, Joseph H., {\it 

3438: ``Counting Integer and Rational Points on Varieties,''} 

3439: Columbia University Number Theory Seminar (New York, 1992), 

3440: Astérisque No.\ 228, (1995), 4, pp.\ 223--236. 

3441: 

3442: \bibitem[Sil95b]{sil} \underline{\hspace{\sil}}, {\it

3443: The Arithmetic of Elliptic Curves,} corrected

3444: reprint of the 1986 original, Graduate

3445: Texts in Mathematics 106, Springer-Verlag (1995).

3446: 

3447: \bibitem[Sil00]{wow} \underline{\hspace{\sil}}, {\it

3448: ``On the Distribution of Integer Points on Curves of

3449: Genus Zero,''} Theoretical Computer Science, special issue in honor of 

3450: Manuel Blum's 60$^\thth$ birthday, vol.\ 235, no.\ 1, March, 2000, pp.\ 

3451: 163--170.

3452:  

3453: \bibitem[Sma98]{steve} Smale, Steve,  {\it ``Mathematical

3454: Problems for the Next Century,''} Mathematical

3455: Intelligencer, to appear (1998).

3456: 

3457: \bibitem[SY82]{sy82} Steele, J.\ and Yao, A., {\it ``Lower Bounds

3458: for Algebraic Decision Trees,''} J.\ of Algorithms 

3459: 3, pp.\ 1--8, 1982. 

3460: 

3461: \bibitem[Sto85]{stock} Stockmeyer, Larry, {\it ``On Approximation 

3462: Algorithms for $\#\mathbf{P}$,''} SIAM Journal on Computing, 

3463: 14(4):849--861, 1985. 

3464: 

3465: \bibitem[Stu94]{combiresult} Sturmfels, Bernd, {\it ``On the Newton

3466: Polytope of the Resultant,''} Journal of Algebraic Combinatorics, 3: 207--236,

3467: 1994.

3468: 

3469: \bibitem[Stu98]{introres} \underline{\hspace{\bernd}}, {\it ``Introduction to

3470: Resultants,''} Applications of Computational Algebraic Geometry 

3471: (San Diego, CA, 1997), 25--39, Proc.\ Sympos.\ 

3472: Appl.\ Math., 53, Amer.\ Math.\ Soc., Providence, RI, 1998.

3473: 

3474: \bibitem[Sun92]{sun} Sun, Zhi Wei, {\it ``A New Relation-Combining Theorem 

3475: and its Application,''} Z.\ Math.\ Logik Grundlag.\ Math.\ 38 (1992), no.\ 3, 

3476: pp.\ 209--212. 

3477: 

3478: \bibitem[Tho65]{thom} Thom, Ren\'e, {\it ``Sur l'homologie 

3479: des vari\'et\'es alg\'ebriques r\'eelles,''} In S.\ 

3480: Cairns (Ed.), Differential and Combinatorial Topology, 

3481: Princeton University Press, 1965. 

3482: 

3483: \bibitem[Tun87]{tungcomplex} Tung, Shih-Ping, {\it

3484: ``Computational Complexities of Diophantine Equations

3485: with Parameters,''} Journal of Algorithms {\bf 8}, 324--336

3486: (1987).

3487: 

3488: \bibitem[Tun99]{tungnew} \underline{\hspace{\tung}}, {\it ``Sentences Over 

3489: Integral Domains and their Computational Complexities,''} Inform.\ and

3490: Comput.\ 149 (1999), no. 2, pp.\ 99--133.

3491: 

3492: \bibitem[Van50]{vdv} van der Waerden, B. L., {\it Modern Algebra,}

3493: 2$^\nd$ edition, F.\ Ungar, New York, 1950.\footnote{Shamefully, 

3494: the sections on resultants were removed from later editions of this book.} 

3495: 

3496: \bibitem[Voj87]{vojta} Vojta, Paul, {\it

3497: Diophantine Approximations and Value Distribution Theory,}

3498: Lecture Notes in Mathematics, 1239, Springer-Verlag (1987).

3499: 

3500: \bibitem[WZ94]{wz} Weiman, Jerzy and Zelevinsky, Andrei, {\it ``Multigraded 

3501: Formulae for Multigraded Resultants,''} J. Algebraic Geom. 3 (1994), no. 4, 

3502: pp.\ 569--597. 

3503: 

3504: \bibitem[Wei84]{weinberger} Weinberger, Peter, {\it ``Finding the Number 

3505: of Factors of a Polynomial,''} Journal of Algorithms, 5:180--186, 1984.

3506: 

3507: \bibitem[Zac86]{zachos} Zachos, S., {\it ``Probabilistic Quantifiers, 

3508: Adversaries, and Complexity Classes: An Overview,''} Proc.\ 

3509: 1$^\st$ Structure in Complexity Theory Conference, vol.\ 223, 

3510: Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, 1986.  

3511: 

3512: \end{thebibliography}

3513: 

3514: \end{document} 

3515: