[Old] Wants: x3+2y3+4z3≡6xyz(mod7)⇒x≡y≡z≡0(mod7)
[Old] My attempt: With modular arithmetic, I can show that if x≢0, then y≢0, and z≢0; if x≡0, then x≡y≡z≡0(mod7).
But I don't see how to show that x3+2y3+4z3−6xyz≢0(mod7) when x,y,z≢0, other than plugging in all possible nonzero values of x,y,z(mod7) to derive a contradiction. I hope to prove the desired result with least effort.
Update: As @Lubin pointed out in his answer, "the Norm of a nonzero element of the big field is necessarily nonzero in the base field". But I cannot find a reference on this specific statement. Could anyone tell me why is the quoted sentence above true?
Answer
Someone played a dirty trick on you.
The form x3−6xyz+2y3+4z3 is the “norm form” for the extension F73⊃F7. That is, if you take a generator ζ=3√2 of the big field, which is all right, since X3−2 is irreducible over F7, then the Norm of x+yζ+zζ2 is w=x3−6xyz+2y3+4z3, when x,y,z∈F7. But the Norm of a nonzero element of the big field is necessarily nonzero in the base field. And that does it.
How did I know this? Many hand computations of the Norm, over the years. Pencil and paper, friends, pencil and paper.
No comments:
Post a Comment