text:
# Conformal Quantum Mechanics in Two Black Hole Moduli Space

## I Introduction

Recently the study of black hole moduli space has attracted much attention. Quantum black holes have been studied by means of quantum fields or strings interacting with a single black hole. In the past few years the new quantum mechanics of an arbitrary number $`n`$ of supersymmetric black holes has been focused. Configurations of $`n`$ static black holes parametrize a moduli space. The low-lying quantum states of the system are governed by quantum mechanics in the moduli space. The effective theories of quantum mechanics in moduli space of Reissner-Nordström multi-black holes were constructed in . Recently, (super)conformal quantum mechanics are constructed in moduli space of four- and five-dimensional multi-black holes in the near-horizon limit in , .

The motivation behind these works is the hope that information of quantum states will lead to the black hole entropy. The quantum states supported in the near-horizon region can be interpreted as internal states of black holes, and the number of such states is related to the black hole entropy. The other motivation is the hope that investigating these moduli spaces will lead to the understanding of $`\mathrm{AdS}_2/\mathrm{CFT}_1`$ correspondence and unravel some novel features in multi-black hole mechanics.

The geometry of black hole moduli spaces was first discussed by Ferrell and Eardley in four dimensions . Further the black hole moduli spaces geometry with dilaton coupling in $`N+1`$ dimensions was discussed by one of the present authors . In these works the structure of the moduli space geometry is found to be different for dimensions and values of dilaton coupling.

In this paper, we discuss quantum mechanics in the moduli space of two maximally charged dilaton black holes. In section 2, we discuss the moduli space structure of two black hole system with dilaton coupling in any dimensions. In section 3, we find that the quantum mechanics on this moduli space has conformal symmetry in close limit, where multi-black holes approach to each other. We give explicit representation of the dilatational generator $`D`$ and conformal generator $`K`$. Then we study the effect on conformal quantum mechanics from the different structures of the moduli space geometry. In section 4, we consider the bound states by utilizing the moduli space structure for the particular dilaton coupling value in fixed dimensions. In section 5, we will give discussion and conclusion.

## II The Moduli Space Metric for the System of Maximally Charged Dilaton Black Holes

The Einstein-Maxwell-dilaton system contains a dilaton field $`\varphi `$ coupled to a $`U(1)`$ gauge field $`A_\mu `$ beside the Einstein-Hilbert gravity. In the $`N+1`$ dimensions $`(N3)`$, the action for the fields with particle sources is

$`S`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle d^{N+1}x\frac{\sqrt{g}}{16\pi }\left[R\frac{4}{N1}(\varphi )^2e^{\{4a/(N1)\}\varphi }F^2\right]}`$ (2)
$`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle 𝑑s_i\left(m_ie^{\{4a/(N1)\}\varphi }+Q_iA_\mu \frac{dx_i^\mu }{ds_i}\right)},`$
where $`R`$ is the scalar curvature and $`F_{\mu \nu }=_\mu A_\nu _\nu A_\mu `$. We set the Newton constant $`G=1`$. The dilaton coupling constant $`a`$ can be assumed to be a positive value.

The metric for the $`n`$-body system of maximally-charged dilaton black holes has been known as

$$ds^2=U^2(𝐱)dt^2+U^{2/(N2)}(𝐱)d𝐱^2,$$
(3)
where

$`U(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`(F(𝐱))^{(N2)/(N2+a^2)},`$ (4)
$`F(𝐱)`$ $`=`$ $`1+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{\mu _i}{(N2)|𝐱𝐱_i|^{N2}}}.`$ (5)
Using these expressions, the vector one form and dilaton configuration are written as

$`A=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N1}{2(N2+a^2)}}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(𝐱)}}\right)dt,`$ (6)
$`e^{4a\varphi /(N1)}=(F(𝐱))^{2a^2/(N2+a^2)}.`$ (7)
In this solution, the asymptotic value of $`\varphi `$ is fixed to be zero.

The electric charge $`Q_i`$ of each black hole are associated with the corresponding mass $`m_i`$ by

$`m_i`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{A_{N1}(N1)}{8\pi (N2+a^2)}}\mu _i,`$ (8)
$`|Q_i|`$ $`=`$ $`\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N1}{2(N2+a^2)}}}\mu _i,`$ (9)
where $`A_{N1}=2\pi ^{N/2}/\mathrm{\Gamma }(\frac{1}{2}N)`$.

We consider that the perturbed metric and potential can be written in the form

$`ds^2=U^2(𝐱)dt^2+2𝐍d𝐱dt+U^{2/(N2)}(𝐱)d𝐱^2,`$ (10)
$`A=\sqrt{{\displaystyle \frac{N1}{2(N2+a^2)}}}(1{\displaystyle \frac{1}{F(𝐱)}})dt+𝐀d𝐱,`$ (11)
where $`U(𝐱)`$ and $`F(𝐱)`$ are defined by (4) and (5). We have only to solve linearized equations with perturbed sources up to $`O(v)`$ for $`N_i`$ and $`A_i`$. (Here $`v`$ represents the velocity of the black hole as a point source.) We should note that each source plays the role of a maximally charged dilaton black hole.

Solving the Einstein-Maxwell equations and substituting the solutions, the perturbed dilaton field and sources to the action (2) with proper boundary terms, we get the effective Lagrangian up to $`O(v^2)`$ for $`n`$-maximally charged dilaton black hole system

$`L`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}m_i+{\displaystyle \underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}m_i(𝐯_i)^2`$ (13)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(N1)(Na^2)}{16\pi (N2+a^2)^2}}{\displaystyle d^Nx(F(𝐱))^{2(1a^2)/(N2+a^2)}\underset{i,j}{\overset{n}{}}\frac{(𝐧_i𝐧_j)|𝐯_i𝐯_j|^2\mu _i\mu _j}{2|𝐫_i|^{N1}|𝐫_j|^{N1}}},`$
where $`𝐫_i=𝐱𝐱_i`$ and $`𝐧_i=𝐫_i/|𝐫_i|`$. $`F(𝐱)`$ is defined by (5). In general, a naive integration in equation (13) diverges. Therefore, we regularize that divergent terms proportional to $`d^Nx\delta ^n(x)/|x|^p(p>0)`$ which appear when the integrand is expanded must be regularized . We set them to zero. The prescription is equivalent to carrying out the following replacement in equation (13)

$`(F(x))^{\frac{2(1a^2)}{(N2+a^2)}}1+\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi (N2+a^2)}{A_{N1}(N2)(N1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_a}{|𝐫_a|^{N2}}}\right]^{\frac{2(1a^2)}{N2+a^2}}`$ (14)
$`+\left[1+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi (N2+a^2)}{A_{N1}(N2)(N1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{|𝐫_b|^{N2}}}\right]^{\frac{2(1a^2)}{N2+a^2}}.`$ (15)
After regularization, the effective Lagrangian for two body system (consisting of black hole labeled with $`a`$ and $`b`$) can be rewritten as

$`L_{2B}=`$ $``$ $`M+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}M𝐕^2`$ (16)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu 𝐯^2[1{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi (Na^2)}{A_{N1}(N2)(N1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r^{N2}}}`$ (17)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{m_a}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi (N2+a^2)}{A_{N1}(N2)(N1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_a}{r^{N2}}}\right)^{(Na^2)/(N2+a^2)}`$ (18)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{m_b}}(1+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi (N2+a^2)}{A_{N1}(N2)(N1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{r^{N2}}})^{(Na^2)/(N2+a^2)}],`$ (19)
where $`M=m_a+m_b`$, $`\mu =m_am_b/M`$, $`𝐕=(m_a𝐯_a+m_b𝐯_b)/M`$, $`𝐯=𝐯_a𝐯_b`$ and $`r=|𝐱_a𝐱_b|`$. Since the motion of the center-of-mass is separable, we assume that the velocity of center of mass $`V`$ vanishes. Thus the metric of the $`N+1`$ dimensional moduli space for two-body system is

$$g_{ab}=\gamma (r)\delta _{ab},$$
(20)
with

$`\gamma (r)=1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{\mu }}{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi (Na^2)}{A_{N1}(N2)(N1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{M}{r^{N2}}}`$ (21)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{m_a}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi (N2+a^2)}{A_{N1}(N2)(N1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_a}{r^{N2}}}\right)^{(Na^2)/(N2+a^2)}`$ (22)
$`+`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{M}{m_b}}\left(1+{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi (N2+a^2)}{A_{N1}(N2)(N1)}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_b}{r^{N2}}}\right)^{(Na^2)/(N2+a^2)}.`$ (23)
## III Quantum mechanics in two-black hole moduli space

We consider quantum mechanics in moduli space in this section. The quantization of moduli parameters has been discussed in . In this section, we shall reveal that quantum mechanics in moduli space has an $`SL(2,R)`$ conformal symmetry in close limit.

Let us introduce a wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ in the moduli space, which obeys the Schrödinger equation

$`i\mathrm{}{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{\Phi }}{dt}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{}^2}{2\mu }}^2+\mathrm{}^2\xi R_{(MS)}\right)\mathrm{\Phi }`$ (24)
$`=`$ $`H\mathrm{\Phi },`$ (25)
where $`^2`$ is the covariant Laplacian constructed from moduli space metric and $`R_{(MS)}`$ is the scalar curvature of the moduli space. We assume $`\xi =0`$ in this paper though this term may be present in most general case. From the Schrödinger equation (25), we can get the operator formalism of the Hamiltonian.

In the (3+1) dimensions case, Michelson and Strominger discussed the moduli space quantum mechanics . The multi-black hole moduli space has two types of noncompact regions, asymptotically flat region and near horizon region. In these regions, the wave function $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ is defined. Noncompact regions prevent the existence of a normalizable ground state. The asymptotically flat region correspond to widely spreaded black holes. And the near horizon region correspond to near-coincident black holes. In a low-energy and close limit, this asymptotically flat region decouple from the near-horizon region. Furthermore, the noncompact region for near horizon region can be eliminated by a generalization of the DFF suggestion . The result in close limit is that a normalizable ground state and well defined quantum mechanics can be considered. Consequently, when we consider quantum mechanics in close limit, we can simply find the normalizable ground state.

In another dimension and for the other dilaton coupling, it seems unclear whether the conformal structure exist or not. If the the quantum mechanics in the moduli space has a conformal symmetry, the DFF suggestion is available and the well defined quantum mechanics can be constructed. We show that the moduli space has an $`SL(2,R)`$ conformal symmetry in close limit $`r0`$.

In close limit $`r0`$, the moduli space metric (20) is shown the different behavior for each values of dilaton coupling.
For $`a^2<1`$,

$`\gamma (r)`$ $``$ $`k_1r^{\frac{(Na^2)(N2)}{N2+a^2}},`$ (26)
$`k_1`$ $``$ $`M\left({\displaystyle \frac{8\pi (N2+a^2)}{A_{N1}(N2)(N1)}}\right)^{\frac{Na^2}{N2+a^2}}\left(m_a^{\frac{22a^2}{N2+a^2}}+m_b^{\frac{22a^2}{N2+a^2}}\right).`$ (27)
For $`a^2=1`$,

$`\gamma (r)`$ $``$ $`k_2{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{N2}}},`$ (28)
$`k_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi M}{A_{N1}(N2)}}.`$ (29)
For $`a^2>1`$ (here $`a^2N`$),

$`\gamma (r)`$ $``$ $`k_3{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r^{N2}}},`$ (30)
$`k_3`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{8\pi M(Na^2)}{A_{N1}(N2)(N1)}}.`$ (31)
Furthermore another special case exists: For $`a^2=N`$, the moduli space metric is independent of $`r`$,

$`\gamma (r)=1k_4.`$ (32)
From the moduli space metric in close limit, we can obtain the operator formalism of Hamiltonians by (25). The Hamiltonians in the moduli space are as follows.
For $`a^2<1`$ (here except for the case of $`a^2=1/3`$ for $`N=3`$),

$`H={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu k_1}}[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{du^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_1}{u^2}}],`$ (33)
where

$`C_1`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(N3)(N1)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{2(N2+a^2)}{N^2(4+a^2)N+4}}\right)^2l(l+1),`$ (34)
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2(N2+a^2)}{N^2(4+a^2)N+4}}r^{\frac{N^2(4+a^2)N+4}{2(N2+a^2)}}.`$ (35)
For $`a^2=1`$ (here $`N4`$),

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu k_2}}[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{du^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_2}{u^2}}],`$ (36)
where

$`C_2`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(N3)(N1)+{\displaystyle \frac{4l(l+1)}{(N4)^2}},`$ (37)
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N4}}r^{\frac{N4}{2}}.`$ (38)
For $`a^2>1`$ (here $`N4`$),

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu k_3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{du^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{C_3}{u^2}}],`$ (39)
where

$`C_3`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(N3)+{\displaystyle \frac{4l(l+1)}{(N4)^2}},`$ (40)
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{2}{N4}}r^{\frac{N4}{2}}.`$ (41)
Other special cases exist: For $`a^2=N`$,

$$H=\frac{1}{2\mu k_4}[\frac{d^2}{du^2}\frac{C_4}{u^2}],$$
(42)
where

$`C_4`$ $``$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{4}}(N3)(N1)+l(l+1),`$ (43)
$`u`$ $`=`$ $`r.`$ (44)
For $`a^2>1`$ and $`N=4`$,

$`H`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2\mu k_3}}[{\displaystyle \frac{d^2}{du^2}}l(l+1)],`$ (45)
where

$`u`$ $`=`$ $`\mathrm{log}r.`$ (46)
For $`a^2=(N2)^2/N`$, we have two cases, $`N=3`$ (then $`a^2=1/3`$) and $`N=4`$ ($`a^2=1`$). For $`N>4`$ we find $`a^2>1`$, then the Hamiltonian is the same as in the case of $`a^2>1`$.
For $`N=3`$ and $`a^2=1/3`$,

$$H=\frac{1}{2\mu k_1}[\frac{d^2}{du^2}l(l+1)],$$
(47)
where

$$u=\mathrm{log}r.$$
(48)
For $`N=4`$ and $`a^2=1`$,

$$H=\frac{1}{2\mu k_2}[\frac{d^2}{du^2}l(l+1)],$$
(49)
where

$$u=\mathrm{log}r.$$
(50)
Consequently, except for the cases of $`a^2=1/3`$ for $`N=3`$ and $`a^21`$ for $`N=4`$, Hamiltonian (33), (36), (39) and (42) are following form:

$$H=\frac{1}{2\mu k_i}[\frac{d^2}{du^2}\frac{C_i}{u^2}],$$
(51)
where the index $`i`$ runs from $`1`$ to $`4`$. The variables $`u`$ are eq.(35), (38), (41) and (44), where we note that $`u`$ are not necessarily positive power of $`r`$. The form of this Hamiltonian is well known as DFF Hamiltonian . The quantum mechanical system of this Hamiltonian has the conformal symmetry. So, in this model, the quantum mechanics in the black hole moduli space has conformal symmetry. Then the dilatational generator $`D`$ and special conformal generator $`K`$ are defined by

$`D`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{i}{2}}[u{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}+{\displaystyle \frac{d}{du}}u],`$ (52)
$`K`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}\mu k_iu^2.`$ (53)
These generators have the $`SL(2,R)`$ algebra,

$`[D,H]`$ $`=`$ $`2iH,`$ (54)
$`[D,K]`$ $`=`$ $`2iK,`$ (55)
$`[H,K]`$ $`=`$ $`iD.`$ (56)
Therefore the quantum mechanics in the black hole moduli space has the conformal symmetry in close limit. We consider the linear combinations

$`L_{\pm 1}={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\alpha H{\displaystyle \frac{K}{\alpha }}iD),`$ (57)
$`L_0={\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}(\alpha H+{\displaystyle \frac{K}{\alpha }}),`$ (58)
where $`\alpha `$ is a parameter with dimensions of length squared. In these bases the generators obey the standard $`SL(2,R)`$ commutation relation,

$`[L_{+1},L_1]=2L_0,`$ (59)
$`[L_0,L_{\pm 1}]=L_{\pm 1},`$ (60)
where we choose the units such that $`\alpha =1`$. This conformal structure corresponds to the result of Birmingham, Gupta and Sen , where the Hamiltonian which has the form of eq.(51) belongs to the enveloping algebra of the full Virasoro algebra.

In this section, the quantum mechanics are considered in the case of arbitrary dimensions and values of dilaton coupling. Except for the special cases, these quantum mechanics have the same conformal structure because these Hamiltonian are in the same form. Although the structure of moduli space geometry is different for dimensions and values of dilaton coupling , these difference of moduli space does not affect the conformal structures of quantum mechanics.

If we set the dilaton coupling to zero and $`N=4`$ in our analysis based on the moduli metric, we reproduce the same result as dilatational generator and special conformal generator in the work of Britto-Pacumio, Strominger and Volovich , where the quantum mechanics of slowly-moving multi-black holes in 4+1 dimensions is considered and the conformal structure is discussed in two black hole system. Also, if we set the dilaton coupling to zero and one black hole mass to infinity in the case of $`N=4`$ in our model, we reproduce the same result as $`H`$, $`D`$ and $`K`$ in the work of Claus et al. . They discuss the dynamics of a particle near horizon of an extreme Reissner-Nordström black hole. The mechanics of their model has the (super)conformal symmetry. Although our model consider the two black hole system, our model is reduced to the same system when one black hole mass is set to infinity.

## IV The Bound States in the moduli space

Let consider in the case of Hamiltonian (51). Although the Hamiltonian (51) is defined in the moduli space, we can regard $`H`$ as the operator on Hilbert space. Moreover the operator $`H`$ belongs to a general class of objects known as unbounded linear differential operators on Hilbert space. Before considering the bound states, we summarize some properties of this operator along the work of Govindarajan, Suneeta and Vaidya .

The Hamiltonian $`H`$ is written as

$$H=\frac{1}{2\mu k}\left[\frac{d^2}{du^2}\frac{C}{u^2}\right],$$
(61)
where an index $`i`$ of $`C_i`$ and $`k_i`$ is omitted. This is an unbounded differential operator defined in $`R^+[0,\mathrm{}]`$. $`H`$ is a symmetric operator on the domain $`D(H)\{\varphi L^2[R^+,du],\varphi (0)=\varphi ^{}(0)=0\}`$. It is known that for $`C3/4`$, $`H`$ is (essentially) self-adjoint on the domain $`D(H)`$. For $`1/4C<3/4`$, $`H`$ is not self-adjoint on the domain $`D(H)`$ but admits self-adjoint extensions, where the self-adjoint extensions are labeled by a $`U(1)`$ parameter $`e^{iz}`$. Each value of parameter $`z`$ defines the domain $`D_z(H)`$. The operator $`H`$ is self-adjoint in the domain $`D_z(H)`$ which contains all the vector in $`D(H)`$ and vectors of the form $`\varphi _+(u)+e^{iz}\varphi _{}(u)`$, where

$`\varphi _+=(\sqrt{2\mu k}u)^{1/2}H_\nu ^{(1)}(\sqrt{2\mu k}ue^{i\pi /4}),`$ (62)
$`\varphi _{}=(\sqrt{2\mu k}u)^{1/2}H_\nu ^{(2)}(\sqrt{2\mu k}ue^{i\pi /4}),`$ (63)
where $`\nu =\sqrt{1/4+C}`$, and $`H_\nu ^{(1,2)}`$ are Hankel functions.

We can now solve the eigenvalue equation for bound states,

$$\frac{d^2\mathrm{\Phi }}{du^2}+\frac{C}{u^2}\mathrm{\Phi }=2\mu kE\mathrm{\Phi },$$
(64)
where an index $`i`$ of $`C_i`$ and $`k_i`$ is omitted. For $`C3/4`$, there is no bound state. Namely there is no normalizable solution to the Schrödinger equation with negative energy. For $`1/4C<3/4`$, there is exactly eigenfunction

$$\mathrm{\Phi }=B(\sqrt{2\mu kE_b}u)^{1/2}[J_\nu (i\sqrt{2\mu kE_b}u)e^{i\pi \nu }J_\nu (i\sqrt{2\mu kE_b}u)],$$
(65)
where $`J_\nu `$ are Bessel function and $`B`$ is the normalization constant. From eq.(34), (37) and (40) and the condition of $`1/4C<3/4`$, the spatial dimension $`N`$ is restricted. In the case of s wave, the condition of $`a^2`$ and $`N`$ is as follows:

$`Fora^21`$ $`:`$ $`N=3.`$
$`Fora^2>1`$ $`:`$ $`N=3,5.`$
Then the bound states (65) are meaningful. For simplification, we consider the case of s wave in the following discussion.

Note that the quantum system under consideration is discussed in close limit $`r0`$. So this eigenfunction is meaningful in the limit of $`u`$ as close limit $`r0`$. However close limit of $`u`$ is different by the condition of $`a^2`$ and $`N`$. For example, for $`N=3`$ and $`a^2=1`$, $`u=2\sqrt{r}`$. Then $`u0`$ corresponds to close limit of $`r0`$. For another example, for $`N=5`$ and $`a^2>1`$, $`u=2/\sqrt{r}`$. Then $`u\mathrm{}`$ meens close limit of $`r0`$. Consequently, the close limit is separated the following cases,

$`Foru0`$ $`:`$ $`a^2>1/3forN=3.`$
$`Foru\mathrm{}`$ $`:`$ $`a^21/3forN=3anda^2>1forN=5.`$
The value of $`a^2=1/3`$ for $`N=3`$ is the critical point of moduli space structures . Therefore we expect that the difference of moduli space structures affects bound states.

The bound states (65) have the following behavior. In the limit of $`u0`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }B\left[\frac{(\sqrt{2\mu k}u)^{\nu +1/2}}{2^\nu }\frac{(\sqrt{E_b})^{\nu +\frac{1}{2}}e^{i\frac{\nu \pi }{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}\frac{(\sqrt{2\mu k}u)^{\nu +1/2}}{2^\nu }\frac{(\sqrt{E_b})^{\nu +\frac{1}{2}}e^{i\frac{\nu \pi }{2}}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}\right].$$
(66)
In the limit of $`u\mathrm{}`$

$$\mathrm{\Phi }B\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}\underset{n=0}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{(\nu ,n)}{(2\sqrt{2\mu k}u)^n}\frac{e^{\sqrt{2\mu kE_b}u}}{E_b^{n/2}}\mathrm{sin}\nu \pi ,$$
(67)
where

$`(\nu ,n)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(4\nu ^21^2)(4\nu ^23^2)\mathrm{}(4\nu ^2(2n1)^2)}{n!(2)^{2n}}},`$ (68)
$`(\nu ,0)`$ $`=`$ $`1.`$ (69)
From this behavior of bound states, we can obtain the corresponding bound energy $`E_b`$. Because $`H`$ is self-adjoint on the domain $`D_z(H)`$ for $`1/4C<3/4`$, the eigenfunction must belong to the domain $`D_z(H)`$.
When $`a^2>1/3`$ for $`N=3`$, $`u0`$ means close limit. Then

$`\varphi _+(u)`$ $`+`$ $`e^{iz}\varphi _{}(u){\displaystyle \frac{i}{\mathrm{sin}\nu \pi }}[{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{2\mu k}u)^{\nu +1/2}}{2^\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i3\pi \nu /4}e^{i(3\pi \nu /4+z)}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1+\nu )}}`$ (71)
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{(\sqrt{2\mu k}u)^{\nu +1/2}}{2^\nu }}{\displaystyle \frac{e^{i(\pi \nu /4+z)}e^{i\pi \nu /4}}{\mathrm{\Gamma }(1\nu )}}].`$
Since the coefficients of $`u`$ in (66) and (71) must be coincident, the bound energy $`E_b`$ at $`a^2>1/3`$ for $`N=3`$ is,

$$E_b=\left[\frac{\mathrm{sin}(z/2+3\pi \nu /4)}{\mathrm{sin}(z/2+\pi \nu /4)}\right]^{1/\nu }.$$
(72)
In the case of $`a^21/3`$ for $`N=3`$ and $`a^2>1`$ for $`N=5`$, $`u\mathrm{}`$ are close limit.

$$\varphi _+(u)+e^{iz}\varphi _{}(u)2\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi }}e^{iz/2}e^{\sqrt{\mu k}u}\mathrm{cos}\left[\sqrt{\mu k}u\frac{\nu \pi }{2}\frac{3\pi }{8}\frac{z}{2}\right].$$
(73)
From this equation and (67), the bound energy $`E_b`$ is written

$$E_b=\frac{1}{2},$$
(74)
where we consider that the dumping factor dominates the behavior of function more than the fluctuation factor at $`u\mathrm{}`$.

In this section, we have studied the bound states in moduli space. In the work of Govindarajan, Suneeta and Vaidya  and Gupta and Sen , the black hole quantum states are given in the space-time made by one black hole. But we now consider the two-black hole system in this paper and the quantum states are given in the moduli space. When the quantum states are considered in the moduli space, we can exactly treat all interaction between the multi-black holes in principle because the moduli space metric is constructed from the effective Lagrangian contained all interaction. So the quantum mechanics in moduli space is very meaningful. In this paper, however, we have considered the two black hole system. Therefore the interaction between two black holes is very simple and the difference from the other works does not appear explicitly.

## V Conclusion

In this paper, we studied quantum mechanics in the moduli space consisting of two maximally charged dilaton black holes. From the effective action for the two-body system of maximally charged dilaton black hole in any dimensions, we can obtain the moduli space metric of two black hole system. To investigate the Hamiltonian produced from these moduli space metric, we discussed the quantum mechanics in these moduli spaces. Except for the special cases, these quantum mechanics are similar to the DFF model of conformal quantum mechanics , and these system has the $`SL(2,R)`$ conformal symmetry. Although quantum mechanics are considered in the case of arbitrary dimensions and values of dilaton coupling, the difference does not appear in these quantum mechanics. Moreover we studied the boundary states in moduli space. For $`C3/4`$, where $`C`$ is the coefficient of inverse square potential in the Hamiltonian, there is no bound state. For $`1/4C<3/4`$, that is, the cases of spatial dimension $`N=3`$ with any value of dilaton coupling $`a^2`$ and $`N=5`$ with $`a^2>1`$, we found the bound states and corresponding eigenfunction.

Further studies are left following analysis. The obtained bound states are restricted by spatial dimensions, values of dilaton coupling and angular momentum. In the case of arbitrary dimension, dilaton coupling and angular momentum, the bound states must be considered. Also the moduli space structure is different according to the spatial dimensions and values of dilaton coupling. In the work of , we discussed that these difference of moduli space structure affect quantum scattering process. Then we considered the quantum effect of the moduli space structure in the WKB approximation. We would like to discuss the scattering process with quantum states obtained on this work, more precisely.


format: text

text:
# Projective normality of special scrolls.

## 1 Preliminars.

A geometrically ruled surface, or simply a ruled surface, will be a $`𝐏^1`$-bundle over a smooth curve $`X`$ of genus $`g>0`$. It will be denoted by $`\pi :S=𝐏(_0)X`$. We will suppose that $`_0`$ is a normalized sheaf and $`X_0`$ is the section of minimum self-intersection that corresponds to the surjection $`_0𝒪_X(\text{e})0`$, $`^2𝒪_X(\text{e})`$ (see ,V, §2 and ).

If $`|H|=|X_0+\text{b}f|`$ is a base-point-free linear system on a ruled surface $`S`$, $`|H|`$ defines a regular map $`\varphi _H:S𝐏(H^o(𝒪_S(H)^{})`$. The image of $`S`$ is a scroll $`R`$. If $`\varphi _H`$ is a birational map we say that $`S`$ and $`H`$ are the ruled surface and the linear system associated to the scroll $`R`$. We denote de image of a curve $`CS`$ by $`\overline{C}R`$. The curve $`\overline{X_0}`$ is the curve of minimum degree of $`R`$. It is embedded by the linear system $`|\text{b}+\text{e}|`$ on $`X`$.

We will use the well known fact that, if $`m0`$ and $`i0`$:

$$h^i(𝒪_S(mX_0+\text{b}f))\underset{k=0}{\overset{m}{}}h^i(𝒪_X(\text{b}+k\text{e}))$$

Furthermore, if b is nonspecial

$$h^i(𝒪_S(X_0+\text{b}f))=h^i(𝒪_X(\text{b}))+h^i(𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))$$

(see ).

###### Definition 1.1

Let $`V`$ be a projective variety. Let $`_i,i=1,\mathrm{},s`$, coherent sheaves on $`V`$. We call $`s(_1,\mathrm{},_s)`$ the cokernel of the map:

$$H^0(_1)\mathrm{}H^0(_s)H^0(_1\mathrm{}_s)$$

If $`_i`$ are invertible sheaves $`𝒪_V(D_i)`$ where $`D_i`$ are divisors on $`V`$, we will write $`s(D_1,\mathrm{},D_s)`$.

###### Lemma 1.2

If $`s(_1,_2)=0`$, then:

$$s(_1,_2,_3,\mathrm{},_s)=s(_1_2,_3,\mathrm{},_s)$$

Proof: It is sufficient note that $`s(_1,_2,_3,\mathrm{},_s)`$ is the cokernel of the composition:

$$H^0(_1)\mathrm{}H^0(_s)H^0(_1_2)H^0(_3)\mathrm{}H^0(_s)H^0(_1\mathrm{}_s)$$

###### Definition 1.3

Let $`V`$ be a projective variety and let $`|H|`$ be a complete unisecant base-point-free linear system defining a birational map:

$$\varphi _H:V\overline{V}𝐏^N$$

We say that $`(V,𝒪_V(H))`$ is projectively normal or $`𝒪_V(H)`$ normally generated or $`\overline{V}`$ projectively normal if and only if the natural maps:

$$Sym_k(H^0(𝒪_V(H)))H^0(𝒪_V(kH))$$

are surjective for all $`k1`$.

###### Remark 1.4

Thus, $`(V,𝒪_V(H))`$ is projectively normal if and only if $`s(H,\stackrel{k}{\mathrm{}},H)=0`$, for all $`k2`$. Moreover, $`dim(s(H,\stackrel{k}{\mathrm{}},H))`$ is the speciality of $`\overline{V}`$ respect to hypersurfaces of degree $`k`$.

###### Lemma 1.5 (Green)

Let a,b be effective divisors on a smooth curve $`X`$. Let b be base-point-free. If $`h^1(𝒪_X(\text{a}\text{b}))h^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}))2`$ then $`s(\text{a},\text{b})=0`$.

Proof: This is a particular case of $`H^o`$-Lemma in .

## 2 Projective normality of special scrolls.

###### Proposition 2.1

Let $`S`$ be a ruled surface and $`HX_0+\text{b}f`$ an unisecant linear system, such that b is a nonspecial divisor and $`\text{b}+\text{e}`$ is effective. Let $`k2`$. If

$$s(\text{b}+\text{e},\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}},\text{b}+\text{e},\text{b},\stackrel{ki}{\mathrm{}},\text{b})=0\text{ for all }i\text{, with }0ik1$$

then:

$$s(H,\stackrel{k}{\mathrm{}},H)s(\text{b}+\text{e},\stackrel{k}{\mathrm{}},\text{b}+\text{e})$$

Proof: Let $`i,j`$ be non negative integers, with $`i+j>0`$. We will denote by $`W_{i,j}`$ the tensor product:

$$H^0(𝒪_S(H))\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}}H^0(𝒪_S(H))H^0(𝒪_S(HX_0))\stackrel{j}{\mathrm{}}H^0(𝒪_S(HX_0))$$

With this notation it verifies that:

1. $`W_{i,j}H^0(𝒪_S(H))=W_{i+1,j}`$.
2. $`W_{i,j}H^0(𝒪_S(HX_0))=W_{i,j+1}`$
3. We have an exact sequence:

$$W_{i,j}H^0(𝒪_S((i+j)HjX_0)))s(H,\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}},H,HX_0,\stackrel{j}{\mathrm{}},HX_0)0$$
4. The map $`H^0(𝒪_S(H))H^0(𝒪_{X_0}(H))`$ is a surjection, because b is nonspecial. Moreover, we know that $`H^0(𝒪_S(SX_0))H^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}))`$ and $`H^0(𝒪_{X_0}(H))H^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))`$. From this, we have the following exact sequence:

$$\begin{array}{c}W_{i1,j}H^0(𝒪_{X_0}(H))H^0(𝒪_X((i+j)\text{b}+i\text{e}))\hfill \\ s(\text{b}+\text{e},\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}},\text{b}+\text{e},\text{b},\stackrel{j}{\mathrm{}},\text{b})0\hfill \end{array}$$

We will prove that $`s(H,\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}},H,HX_0,\stackrel{ki}{\mathrm{}},HX_0)=0`$ if $`0ik1`$.

We proceed by induction on $`i`$:

1. If $`i=0`$, because $`H^0(𝒪_S(HX_0))H^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}))`$ we inmediately obtain that:

$$s(HX_0,\stackrel{k}{\mathrm{}},HX_0)=s(\text{b},\stackrel{k}{\mathrm{}},\text{b})$$

and this is zero by hypotesis.
2. Now, suppose that the assertion is true for $`i1`$, with $`1ik1`$. Consider the exact sequence:

$$0H^0(𝒪_S(HX_0))H^0(𝒪_S(H))H^0(𝒪_{X_0}(H))0$$

Taking the tensor product with $`W_{i1,ki}`$ we obtain the following conmutative diagram:

where

$$\begin{array}{c}coker(\alpha _{1i})=s(H,\stackrel{i1}{\mathrm{}},H,HX_0,\stackrel{k(i1)}{\mathrm{}},HX_0)\hfill \\ coker(\alpha _{2i})=s(H,\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}},H,HX_0,\stackrel{ki}{\mathrm{}},HX_0)\hfill \\ coker(\alpha _{3i})=s(\text{b}+\text{e},\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}},\text{b}+\text{e},\text{b},\stackrel{ki}{\mathrm{}},\text{b})\hfill \end{array}$$

Moreover,

$$h^1(𝒪_S(kH(k(i1))X_0))\underset{l=0}{\overset{i1}{}}h^1(𝒪_X((kl)\text{b}+l(\text{b}+\text{e})))$$

Because b is nonspecial and $`\text{b}+\text{e}`$ is effective, if $`ik`$ and $`0li1`$ then $`(kl)\text{b}+l(\text{b}+\text{e})`$ is nonspecial. Therefore, $`h^1(𝒪_S(kH(k(i1))X_0)))=0`$.

By induction hypothesis, $`s(H,\stackrel{i1}{\mathrm{}},H,HX_0,\stackrel{k(i1)}{\mathrm{}},HX_0)=0`$ and by the hypothesis of the theorem $`s(\text{b}+\text{e},\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}},\text{b}+\text{e},\text{b},\stackrel{ki}{\mathrm{}},\text{b})=0`$ when $`ik1`$. Thus, since $`\alpha _{1i}`$ and $`\alpha _{3i}`$ are surjections, we deduce that $`\alpha _{2i}`$ is a surjection, and then $`s(H,\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}},H,HX_0,\stackrel{ki}{\mathrm{}},HX_0)=0`$.

Finally, from the above diagram for $`i=k`$, we see that $`\alpha _{1k}`$ is a surjection, because $`s(H,\stackrel{k1}{\mathrm{}},H,HX_0)=0`$. Therefore, $`coker(\alpha _{2k})coker(\alpha _{3k})`$ and,

$$s(H,\stackrel{k}{\mathrm{}},H)s(\text{b}+\text{e},\stackrel{k}{\mathrm{}},\text{b}+\text{e})$$

###### Corollary 2.2

Let $`S`$ be a geometrically ruled surface. Let $`|H|=|X_0+\text{b}f|`$ an unisecant complete linear system on $`S`$, such that b is a nonspecial divisor and $`\text{b}+\text{e}`$ is effective. If

$$s(\text{b}+\text{e},\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}},\text{b}+\text{e},\text{b},\stackrel{ki}{\mathrm{}},\text{b})=0\text{ for all }i\text{, with }0ik$$

for all $`k2`$ then $`(S,𝒪_S(H))`$ is projectively normal.

###### Proposition 2.3

Let $`R𝐏^N`$ be a special linearly normal scroll of genus $`g`$, degree $`d`$ and speciality $`i`$. Let $`S`$ and $`|H|=|X_0+\text{b}f|`$ be the ruled surface and the linear systema asocciated to $`R`$.

If b is nonspecial then the curve of minimum degree of $`R`$ is special, linearly normal and its speciality coincides with the specialty of $`R`$. Moreover, if $`deg(\text{b})2g1`$ then this is the unique special curve of the scroll.

Proof: If b is nonspecial we know that:

$$h^1(𝒪_S(H))=h^1(𝒪_X(\text{b}))+h^1(𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))$$

Thus, the speciality of the curve of minimun degree $`\overline{X_0}`$ is $`h^1(𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))=h^1(𝒪_S(H))=i`$. Furthermore, $`\overline{X_0}`$ is linearly normal because we have a surjective map:

$$H^0(𝒪_S(H))H^0(𝒪_{X_0}(H))H^1(𝒪_S(\text{b}))=0$$

If $`deg(\text{b})2g1`$, the degree of the scroll satisfies $`d2g1+deg(\overline{X_0})`$. Any other directrix curve of $`R`$ different from $`\overline{X_0}`$ has degree $`d^{}ddeg(\overline{X_0})=2g1>2g2`$, so it is nonspecial.

###### Theorem 2.4

Let $`R𝐏^N`$ be a special linearly normal scroll of genus $`g`$, degree $`d`$ and speciality $`i`$. Suppose that $`d4g2i+1`$. Then:

1. $`R`$ has an unique special directrix curve $`\overline{X_0}`$. Moreover, $`\overline{X_0}`$ is the curve of minimum degree, it is linearly normal and it has the speciality of $`R`$.
2. $`R`$ and $`\overline{X_0}`$ have the same specialty respect to hypersurfaces of degree $`m`$. In particular the scroll is projectively normal if and only if the curve of minimun degree if projectively normal.

Proof: Let $`S`$ be the ruled surface and $`|H|=|X_0+\text{b}f|`$ the linear system corresponding to the scroll $`R`$.

1. Since $`R`$ is special, it has a special directrix curve (see ) so the curve $`\overline{X_0}`$ of minimun degree of the scroll verifies $`deg(\text{b}+\text{e})2g2`$.

Suppose that $`d4g2i+1`$. We know that:

$$d2g+2+i=h^0(𝒪_S(H))h^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))+h^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}))$$

If $`deg(\text{b})2g`$, then we can apply Clifford Theorem (, page 343) to the divisors b and $`\text{b}+\text{e}`$. From the above inequiality we obtain:

$$d2g+2+i\frac{deg(\text{b}+\text{e})}{2}+1+\frac{deg(\text{b})}{2}+1=\frac{d}{2}+2$$

and then $`d4g2i`$.

Thus, we see that $`deg(\text{b})2g+1`$ and now we can apply the Proposition above.
2. We will apply the Proposition 2.1. We have to proof that:

$$s(\text{b}+\text{e},\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}},\text{b}+\text{e},\text{b},\stackrel{ki}{\mathrm{}},\text{b})=0\text{ with }0ik1$$

for all $`k2`$.

If $`\text{b}+\text{e}0`$, then the scroll is a cone and it verifies the condition trivialy. Thus, we will suppose that $`\text{b}+\text{e}\sim ̸0`$.

Since $`deg(\text{b})2g+1`$, we can use the Theorem of Castelnuovo to see that $`𝒪_X(\text{b})`$ is normaly generated and then $`s(\text{b},\stackrel{k}{\mathrm{}},\text{b})=0`$ for any $`k2`$. From this, applying Lemma 1.2:

$$s(\text{b},\stackrel{i}{\mathrm{}},\text{b},\text{b}+\text{e},\stackrel{ki}{\mathrm{}},\text{b}+\text{e})=s(i\text{b},\text{b}+\text{e},\stackrel{ki}{\mathrm{}},\text{b}+\text{e})$$

when $`1ik`$.

Let us see that $`s(\text{b},\text{b}+\text{e})=0`$. We apply the Lemma 1.5. We need that:

$$h^1(𝒪_X(\text{b}(\text{b}+\text{e})))<h^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))1$$

Note that $`e=deg(\text{e})0`$ because $`deg(\text{b})2g+1`$ and $`deg(\text{b}+\text{e})2g2`$. We distinguish to cases:

1. If $`\text{e}`$ is nonspecial, it is sufficient to check that $`h^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))>1`$. But $`|\text{b}+\text{e}|`$ is base point free and $`\text{b}+\text{e}\sim ̸0`$, so $`h^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))>1`$.
    2. If $`\text{e}`$ is special, we apply Clifford Theorem (, page 343):

    $$|\text{e}|\frac{1}{2}e\text{, or equivalently, }h^1(𝒪_X(\text{e}))g\frac{e}{2}$$

    But,

    $$h^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))1=deg(\text{b})eg+1+i1=deg(\text{b})eg+i$$

    By hypotesis $`d4g2i+1`$, so $`2deg(\text{b})e4g2i+1`$ and $`deg(\text{b})\frac{4g2i+1+e}{2}`$. Then:

    $$\begin{array}{cc}\hfill h^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))1& \frac{4g2i+1+e}{2}eg+ig\frac{e}{2}+\frac{1}{2}\hfill \\ & \\ & h^1(𝒪_X(\text{e}))+\frac{1}{2}>h^1(𝒪_X(\text{e}))\hfill \end{array}$$

    so we can apply the Lemma of Green 1.5 and we obtain $`s(\text{b},\text{b}+\text{e})=0`$.

Now, let us see that $`s(\lambda \text{b}+\mu \text{e},\text{b}+\text{e})=0`$ when $`\lambda 1`$ and $`0\mu \lambda 1`$:

1. If $`\lambda =1`$, $`\mu =0`$ and it is proved.
    2. Suppose that $`\lambda >1`$. Note that $`(\lambda 1)\text{b}+(\mu 1)\text{e}`$ is a nonspecial divisor, because b is nonspecial and $`\text{b}+\text{e}`$ is effective. Therefore, $`h^1(𝒪_X((\lambda 1)\text{b}+(\mu 1)\text{e}))<h^0(𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))1`$, because $`|\text{b}+\text{e}|`$ is base point free and different from $`0`$. Applying the Lemma of Green 1.5 we deduce that $`s(\lambda \text{b}+\mu \text{e},\text{b}+\text{e})=0`$.

Finally, applying the Lemma 1.2, we see that:

$$s(i\text{b},\text{b}+\text{e},\stackrel{ki}{\mathrm{}},\text{b}+\text{e})=s(i\text{b}+(ki1)\text{b}+\text{e},\text{b}+\text{e})=0$$

when $`1ik1`$, $`k2`$ and the conclusion follows.

###### Remark 2.5

If $`d<4g2i+1`$ the conclusions of the Theorem could fail. Let us see an example:

Suppose that $`X`$ is an hyperelliptic curve of genus $`g3`$. Let b a very ample nonspecial divisor of degree $`2g`$ and let $`\text{b}+\text{e}=_1^ng_2^1`$ be a special divisor, with $`0ng1`$. Consider the decomposable ruled surface $`𝐏(𝒪_X(\text{b})𝒪_X(\text{b}+\text{e}))`$ and the unisecant linear system $`HX_0+\text{b}f`$. We obtain an scroll of degree $`d=2g+2m`$ and speciality $`i=gn`$. In this way $`d=4g2i`$. Since the scroll is decomposable, we know that:

$$dim(s(H,H))=dim(s(\text{b},\text{b}))+dim(s(\text{b}+\text{e},\text{b}+\text{e}))+dim(s(\text{b}+\text{e},\text{b}))$$

But $`X`$ is hyperelliptic and $`deg(\text{b})=2g`$, so $`(X,𝒪_X(\text{b})`$ is not projectively normal (see ) and $`dim(s(\text{b},\text{b}))>0`$. Thus, the scroll and the curve of minimum degree have not the same specialty respect to quadrics.


text:
# Squarefree values of multivariable polynomials

## 1. Introduction

An integer $`n`$ is called squarefree if for all prime numbers $`p`$ we have $`p^2n`$ (that is, $`p^2`$ does not divide $`n`$). Heuristically, one expects that if one chooses a positive integer $`n`$ “at random,” then for each prime $`p`$, the “probability” that $`p^2n`$ equals $`1p^2`$; and the assumption that these probabilities are “independent” leads to the guess that the density of squarefree positive integers equals

$$\underset{\text{prime }p}{}(1p^2)=\zeta (2)^1=6/\pi ^2,$$

where $`\zeta (s)`$ is the Riemann zeta function, defined by

$$\zeta (s)=\underset{n1}{}n^s=\underset{\text{prime }p}{}(1p^s)^1$$

for $`\mathrm{Re}s>1`$. One can formulate this guess precisely by defining the density of a set of positive integers $`S`$ as

$$\mu (S):=\underset{B\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{\#}(S[1,B])}{B}.$$

In fact, the guess can be proved by simple sieve techniques \[HW79, §18.6\].

Now suppose that $`f(x)`$ is a polynomial with integer coefficients, and let $`S`$ be the set of positive integers $`n`$ for which $`f(n)`$ is squarefree. This time one guesses that the density of $`S`$ equals $`_{\text{prime }p}(1c_p/p^2)`$ where $`c_p`$ equals the number of integers $`n[0,p^21]`$ for which $`p^2f(n)`$. When $`\mathrm{deg}f2`$, a simple sieve again shows that the guess is correct. When $`\mathrm{deg}f=3`$, a more complicated argument is needed (see \[Hoo67\], or, for an improved error term, Chapter 4 of \[Hoo76\]). For general $`f`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}f4`$, it is unknown whether the heuristic conjecture is correct, but A. Granville \[Gra98\] showed that it follows from the $`abc`$ conjecture. (Recall that the $`abc`$ conjecture is the statement that for any $`ϵ>0`$, there exists a constant $`C=C(ϵ)>0`$ such that if $`a,b,c`$ are coprime positive integers satisfying $`a+b=c`$, then $`c<C({\displaystyle \underset{p|abc}{}}p)^{1+ϵ}`$.) Granville used the $`abc`$ conjecture in conjunction with Belyi’s Theorem, to bound the number of polynomial values divisible by the square of a large prime. He also proved a conditional result for homogeneous polynomials in two variables, extending some earlier results along these lines, such as \[Gre92\]. (See \[Gra98\] for more references; some of these earlier results were unconditional in low degree cases.)

In this paper we generalize Granville’s results to arbitrary polynomials over $`𝐙`$ in many variables, still assuming the $`abc`$ conjecture. The proof proceeds by reduction to the one-variable case, and the $`abc`$ conjecture is required only because it is used by Granville; it is not required for the reduction. Such a fibering argument was used also in \[GM91\]. One defect of our proof is that it appears not to work for the most natural generalization of density in the multivariable case: see Section 2 and the remark following the proof of Lemma 6.2 for more details. An application of our result is towards estimating, given a regular quasiprojective scheme $`X`$ over $`𝐙`$, what fraction of hypersurface sections of $`X`$ are regular. (See \[Poo02\].)

If $`𝐅_q`$ is a finite field of characteristic $`p`$, we prove an analogue for polynomials over $`𝐅_q[t]`$ unconditionally, using a completely different proof, exploiting the fact that $`𝐅_q[t]`$ has an $`𝐅_q[t^p]`$-linear derivation. One application of this result, suggested by A. J. de Jong \[dJ01, §4.22\], is to counting elliptic curves with squarefree discriminant: see Section 3. The case of squarefree values of a separable irreducible one-variable polynomial over $`𝐅_q[t]`$ (or more generally $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$-power-free values for polynomials over the ring of regular functions on any affine curve over $`𝐅_q`$) was proved earlier by K. Ramsay \[Ram92\]111The formula for the density in Theorem 1 of \[Ram92\] should read $`Z=_{vS}\left(1\rho (kv)/v^k\right)`$. The proof there is correct, but the statement is unfortunately misprinted, with $`\rho (v)`$ in place of $`\rho (kv)`$. using a lemma of N. Elkies involving a derivation. In Section 8, we sketch a generalization of our result to multivariable polynomials over such rings of regular functions.

A related problem asks, given relatively prime polynomials $`f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ and $`g(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ over $`𝐙`$, what is the density of $`n`$-tuples of positive integers for which the values of $`f`$ and $`g`$ are relatively prime? Again there is a heuristic guess, and it was proved in \[Eke91\] that this guess is correct. We generalize by using a stronger definition of density (involving boxes of arbitrary dimensions, instead of only equal dimensions as considered in \[Eke91\]) and by simultaneously proving the function field analogue. The generalizations are needed to prove the corresponding results about squarefree values.

Finally, we confirm a guess made in \[Gra98\], namely that for a nonzero polynomial $`f(x)𝐙[x]`$, the size of the image of $`\{f(1),f(2),\mathrm{},f(B)\}`$ in $`\left(𝐐^{}/𝐐^2\right)\{0\}`$ is $`c_fB+o(B)`$ as $`B\mathrm{}`$, for some constant $`c_f`$ depending on $`f`$. Moreover, we find an explicit formula for $`c_f`$. In particular, $`c_f=1`$ if $`f`$ is squarefree of degree $`2`$.

## 2. Definition of density

In Sections 2 through 7, $`A`$ denotes $`𝐙`$ or $`𝐅_q[t]`$ for some prime power $`q=p^e`$. Let $`K`$ denote the fraction field of $`A`$. For nonzero $`aA`$ define $`|a|:=\mathrm{\#}(A/a)`$, and define $`|0|=0`$. If $`𝔭`$ is a nonzero prime of $`A`$, let $`|𝔭|:=\mathrm{\#}(A/𝔭)`$. Define

$$\mathrm{Box}=\mathrm{Box}(B_1,\mathrm{},B_n)=\{\begin{array}{cc}\{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)𝐙^n:0<a_iB_i\text{ for all }i\}\hfill & \text{if }A=𝐙\text{,}\hfill \\ \{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)A^n:|a_i|B_i\text{ for all }i\}\hfill & \text{if }A=𝐅_q[t]\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

For $`𝒮A^n`$, define

$$\mu (𝒮):=\underset{B_1,\mathrm{},B_n\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{\#}(𝒮\mathrm{Box})}{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}},$$

and define $`\overline{\mu }(𝒮)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\mu }(𝒮)`$ similarly using $`lim\; sup`$ and $`lim\; inf`$ in place of $`lim`$. If a subset $`𝒮𝐙^n`$ and its $`2^n`$ reflections in the coordinate hyperplanes have a common density in this strong sense, then we can estimate $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒮R)/\mathrm{\#}R`$ for regions $`R`$ of many other shapes. For instance, if $`R_B`$ is the ball of radius $`B`$ centered at the origin, then $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒮R_B)/\mathrm{\#}R_B\mu (𝒮)`$ as $`B\mathrm{}`$, since $`R_B`$ can be approximated by a Boolean combination of $`k`$ boxes and their reflections, with an error of at most $`ϵ_kB^n`$ lattice points for $`B`$ large relative to $`k`$, where $`ϵ_k0`$ as $`k\mathrm{}`$.

In some of our results we can prove that the density exists only in a weaker sense. Define

$$\overline{\mu }_n(𝒮):=\underset{B_1,\mathrm{},B_{n1}\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\underset{B_n\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{\#}(𝒮\mathrm{Box})}{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}}.$$

This has the effect of considering only boxes in which the $`n^{\mathrm{th}}`$ dimension is large relative to the others. Define $`\underset{¯}{\mu }_n(𝒮)`$ similarly. If $`\overline{\mu }_n(𝒮)=\underset{¯}{\mu }_n(𝒮)`$, define $`\mu _n(𝒮)`$ as the common value. Also define

$$\overline{\mu }_{\mathrm{weak}}(𝒮):=\underset{\sigma }{\mathrm{max}}\underset{B_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\mathrm{}\underset{B_{\sigma (n)}\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{\#}(𝒮\mathrm{Box})}{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}},$$

where $`\sigma `$ ranges over permutations of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},n\}`$. This definition in effect considers only boxes whose dimensions can be ordered so that each is very large relative to the previous dimensions. Define $`\underset{¯}{\mu }_{\mathrm{weak}}(𝒮)`$ similarly, and define $`\mu _{\mathrm{weak}}(𝒮)`$ if $`\overline{\mu }_{\mathrm{weak}}(𝒮)=\underset{¯}{\mu }_{\mathrm{weak}}(𝒮)`$.

## 3. Theorems

Throughout this paper, $`p`$ represents a prime number. In particular, in a sum or product indexed by $`p`$, it is assumed that $`p`$ runs through only primes. Similarly, $`𝔭`$ represents a nonzero prime of $`A`$.

###### Theorem 3.1 (Relatively prime values).

Let $`f,gA[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be polynomials that are relatively prime as elements of $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Let

$$_{f,g}:=\{aA^n:\mathrm{gcd}(f(a),g(a))=1\}.$$

Then $`\mu (_{f,g})=_𝔭(1c_𝔭/|𝔭|^n)`$, where $`𝔭`$ ranges over all nonzero primes of $`A`$, and $`c_𝔭`$ is the number of $`x(A/𝔭)^n`$ satisfying $`f(x)=g(x)=0`$ in $`A/𝔭`$.

The assumptions and conclusions for the squarefree value theorem differ slightly in the $`𝐙`$ and $`𝐅_q[t]`$ cases, so we separate them into Theorem 3.2 and Theorem 3.4.

###### Theorem 3.2 (Squarefree values over $`𝐙`$).

Assume the $`abc`$ conjecture. Let $`f𝐙[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a polynomial that is squarefree as an element of $`𝐐[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, and suppose that $`x_n`$ appears in $`f`$. Let

$$𝒮_f:=\{a𝐙^n:f(a)\text{ is squarefree}\}.$$

For each prime $`p`$, let $`c_p`$ be the number of $`x(𝐙/p^2)^n`$ satisfying $`f(x)=0`$ in $`𝐙/p^2`$. Then $`\mu _n(𝒮_f)=_p(1c_p/p^{2n})`$.

If the degree of $`x_n`$ in each irreducible factor of $`f`$ in Theorem 3.2 is $`3`$, then it is unnecessary to assume the $`abc`$ conjecture, because the proof reduces to the case of one-variable polynomials of degree $`3`$, for which an unconditional result is known \[Hoo67\].

The $`n=1`$ case of Theorem 3.2 differs slightly from Theorem 1 in \[Gra98\] in that the latter computes the density of squarefree values of $`f(x)/m`$ where $`m`$ is a particular positive integer dividing all values of $`f`$. Such results can be proved in the multivariable case just as easily as Theorem 3.2; the key to all such results is Lemma 6.2.

###### Corollary 3.3.

Let notation and assumptions be as in Theorem 3.2 but without the restriction that $`x_n`$ appears in $`f`$. Then $`\mu _{\mathrm{weak}}(𝒮_f)=_p(1c_p/p^{2n})`$.

Corollary 3.3 for $`f(x_1,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ follows from Theorem 3.2 applied to $`f(x_{\sigma (1)},\mathrm{},x_{\sigma (n)})`$ for all permutations $`\sigma `$, since in the definition of $`\mu _{\mathrm{weak}}`$ we may discard each $`lim\; sup`$ corresponding to a variable that does not appear.

###### Theorem 3.4 (Squarefree values over $`𝐅_q[t]`$).

Let $`A=𝐅_q[t]`$. Let $`fA[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a polynomial that is squarefree as an element of $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Let

$$𝒮_f:=\{aA^n:f(a)\text{ is squarefree}\}.$$

For each nonzero prime $`𝔭A`$, let $`c_𝔭`$ be the number of $`x(A/𝔭^2)^n`$ satisfying $`f(x)=0`$ in $`A/𝔭^2`$. Then $`\mu (𝒮_f)=_𝔭(1c_𝔭/|𝔭|^{2n})`$.

###### Remark .

Note in particular that Theorem 3.4 proves a result for $`\mu `$ instead of only for $`\mu _n`$.

Suppose $`\mathrm{gcd}(q,6)=1`$. One application of Theorem 3.4 is to computing asymptotics for the weighted number $`R_d`$ of isomorphism classes of elliptic curves $`(E,O)`$ over $`𝐅_q[t]`$ with squarefree discriminant, as $`d\mathrm{}`$ for fixed $`q`$ \[dJ01, §4.22\]. “Weighted” means that each isomorphism class receives the weight $`1/\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Aut}(E,O)`$ instead of $`1`$. This number $`R_d`$ is closely connected to the density of $`(A,B)𝐅_q[t]^2`$ such that the discriminant $`\mathrm{\Delta }=16(4A^3+27B^2)`$ of $`y^2=x^3+Ax+B`$ is squarefree, except that one works with homogeneous polynomials $`AH^0(𝐏^1,𝒪(4d))`$ and $`BH^0(𝐏^1,𝒪(6d))`$, so that the density has a factor corresponding to the point at infinity on $`𝐏^1`$ in addition to the affine points. A calculation shows that the density of such $`(A,B)`$ having a double zero at a particular closed point $`𝔭`$ of $`𝐏^1=𝐏_{𝐅_q}^1`$ is $`(2|𝔭|^2|𝔭|)/|𝔭|^4`$, where $`|𝔭|`$ denotes the size of the residue field of $`𝔭`$; from this and our methods we obtain

$$\underset{d\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{R_d}{q^{10d+1}}=\frac{q}{q1}\underset{𝔭𝐏^1}{}\left(1\frac{2|𝔭|^2|𝔭|}{|𝔭|^4}\right),$$

and the number $`\gamma _q`$ of \[dJ01, §4.22\] equals

$$\gamma _q=\frac{q^3}{(q1)^2(q+1)}\underset{𝔭𝐏^1}{}\left(1\frac{2|𝔭|^2|𝔭|}{|𝔭|^4}\right).$$

###### Remark .

Since $`16(4A^3+27B^2)`$ has degree only $`2`$ in $`B`$, it is possible to obtain the result of the previous paragraph by arguments simpler than those needed for the proof of Theorem 3.4 in general. (This was pointed out to me by de Jong.)

For a generalization of Theorem 3.4 to other rings of functions, see Section 8. Analogues where “squarefree” is replaced by “$`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$-power-free” follow immediately from the same arguments once one has Lemma 6.2 (or the corresponding function field result).

###### Theorem 3.5 (Values in $`𝐐^{}/𝐐^2`$).

Let $`f(x)𝐙[x]`$ be a nonzero polynomial. Write $`f(x)=cg(x)^2h(x)`$ where $`c𝐙`$, $`g(x)𝐙[x]`$, and $`h(x)`$ is a squarefree polynomial in $`𝐙[x]`$ whose coefficients have gcd $`1`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}h>3`$, assume the $`abc`$ conjecture. Then the image of $`\{f(1),f(2),\mathrm{},f(B)\}`$ in $`\left(𝐐^{}/𝐐^2\right)\{0\}`$ has size $`c_fB+o(B)`$ for some constant $`c_f[0,1]`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}h=0`$, then $`c_f=0`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}h2`$, then $`c_f=1`$. If $`\mathrm{deg}h=1`$, say $`h(x)=ax+b`$, then

$$c_f=\frac{6}{\pi ^2}\left(\underset{r=0}{\overset{|a|1}{}}\delta _r\right)\underset{pa}{}(1p^2)^1\frac{1}{\pi ^2}𝐐,$$

where $`\delta _r:=1/m^2`$ if $`m`$ is the smallest positive integer satisfying $`m^2rb(moda)`$, or $`\delta _r:=0`$ if no such $`m`$ exists.

Assuming the $`abc`$ conjecture, Granville \[Gra98, Corollary 2\] proved that the size of the image in Theorem 3.5 was at least some positive constant times $`B`$ (when $`f(x)`$ has no repeated roots), and guessed that the size should be asymptotic to a constant times $`B`$, as our Theorem 3.5 shows. An essentially equivalent version of Theorem 3.5 has been independently proved by P. Cutter, A. Granville, and T. Tucker (Theorems 1A, 1B, and 1C of \[CGT02\]), using a similar proof. They also prove a few related results not considered here.

It is natural to ask, as Granville has also done, what the multivariable analogue of Theorem 3.5 should be. Here we formulate a precise question along these lines:

###### Question 3.6.

Suppose $`f𝐙[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ is nonconstant and squarefree as an element of $`𝐐[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. For $`B1`$, let $`S_B=f(\{1,2,\mathrm{},B\}^n)𝐙`$, and let $`T_B`$ be the image of $`S_B`$ in $`\left(𝐐^{}/𝐐^2\right)\{0\}`$. Does $`\mathrm{\#}T_B/\mathrm{\#}S_B`$ tend to a positive limit as $`B\mathrm{}`$?

We do not have enough evidence to conjecture an answer. But even if the answer is yes, it is not clear that we would understand the asymptotic size of $`T_B`$, because even the problem of estimating $`\mathrm{\#}S_B`$ seems very difficult.

## 4. Zero values

The following lemma is well-known. We include a proof mainly because it is a toy version of some of the reductions used later on.

###### Lemma 4.1.

Let $`fA[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a nonzero polynomial. Let $`𝒵=\{aA^n:f(a)=0\}`$. Then $`\mu (𝒵)=0`$.

###### Proof.

We use induction on $`n`$. The base case $`n=0`$ is trivial, so suppose $`n1`$. Let $`f_1A[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]`$ be the leading coefficient of $`f`$ when $`f`$ is viewed as a polynomial in $`x_n`$. Let $`\delta `$ be the $`x_n`$-degree of $`f`$. Now $`𝒵𝒵_1𝒵_2`$ where

$`𝒵_1`$ $`:=\{aA^n:f_1(a)=0\},`$
$`𝒵_2`$ $`:=\{aA^n:f_1(a)0\text{ and }f(a)=0\}.`$
By the inductive hypothesis, $`\mu (𝒵_1)=0`$. For each $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})A^{n1}`$, there are at most $`\delta `$ values $`a_nA`$ for which $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},a_n)𝒵_2`$. Thus $`\mu (𝒵_2)=0`$, by definition of $`\mu `$. Hence $`\mu (𝒵)=0`$, as desired. ∎

## 5. Relatively prime values

The bulk of the work in proving Theorem 3.1 is in the following.

###### Lemma 5.1.

Let $`f,gA[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be polynomials that are relatively prime as elements of $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Let

$$𝒬_{f,g,M}:=\{aA^n:𝔭\text{ such that }|𝔭|M\text{ and }𝔭f(a),g(a)\}.$$

Then $`lim_M\mathrm{}\overline{\mu }(𝒬_{f,g,M})=0`$.

###### Proof.

Since we are interested only in $`𝔭`$ with $`|𝔭|`$ large, we may divide $`f`$ and $`g`$ by any factors in $`A`$ that they have, in order to assume that $`f`$ and $`g`$ are relatively prime as elements of $`A[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$.

The proof will be by induction on $`n`$. The case $`n=0`$ is trivial, so assume $`n1`$. We need to bound the size of $`Q:=𝒬_{f,g,M}\mathrm{Box}`$, whenever the “dimensions” $`B_i`$ of $`\mathrm{Box}`$ are sufficiently large. Without loss of generality, $`MB_1B_2\mathrm{}B_n`$. Set $`B_0=M`$ and $`B_{n+1}=\mathrm{}`$. Let $`f_1,g_1A[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]`$ be the leading coefficients of $`f`$ and $`g`$ when $`f`$ and $`g`$ are viewed as polynomials in $`x_n`$.

Case 1. One of the polynomials, say $`g`$, is a polynomial in $`x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}`$ only.

In this case, we use an inner induction on $`\delta `$, where $`\delta `$ is the $`x_n`$-degree of $`f`$. The base case $`\delta =0`$ is handled by the outer inductive hypothesis, so from now on assume $`\delta >0`$. We may reduce to the case that $`f`$ and $`g`$ are irreducible. If $`gf_1`$, then we can subtract a multiple of $`g`$ from $`f`$ to lower its $`x_n`$-degree $`\delta `$, without changing $`𝒬_{f,g,M}`$ or the relative primality of $`f`$ and $`g`$, so the result follows from the inner inductive hypothesis. Hence we may assume $`gf_1`$. Since $`g`$ is irreducible, $`f_1`$ and $`g`$ are relatively prime in $`A[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]`$.

Now $`Q=_{s=0}^nQ_s`$, where

$$Q_s:=\{a\mathrm{Box}:𝔭\text{ such that }B_s|𝔭|<B_{s+1}\text{ and }𝔭f(a),g(a)\},$$

so it suffices to show that given $`0sn`$, the ratio $`\mathrm{\#}Q_s/\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}`$ can be made arbitrarily small by choosing the $`B_i`$ sufficiently large.

Suppose we fix $`s`$ with $`0s<n`$. (We will bound $`Q_n`$ later.) Let $`X`$ be the subscheme of $`𝐀_A^n`$ defined by $`f=g=0`$. Since $`f`$ and $`g`$ are relatively prime, $`X`$ has codimension at least $`2`$ in $`𝐀_A^n`$. Let $`\pi :𝐀_A^n𝐀_A^s`$ be the projection onto the first $`s`$ coordinates. Let $`Y_i`$ be the (constructible) set of $`y𝐀_A^s`$ such that the fiber $`X_y:=X\pi ^1(y)`$ has codimension $`i`$ in $`\pi ^1(y)𝐀_{\kappa (y)}^{ns}`$. (Here $`\kappa (y)`$ denotes the residue field of $`y`$.) Since $`X`$ has codimension at least $`2`$ in $`𝐀_A^n`$, it follows from Theorem 15.1(i) of \[Mat89\] that the subset $`Y_i`$ has codimension at least $`2i`$ in $`𝐀_A^s`$. In particular, we can choose a nonzero $`hA[x_1,\mathrm{},x_s]`$ vanishing on $`Y_1`$. Also we can find relatively prime $`j_1,j_2A[x_1,\mathrm{},x_s]`$ vanishing on $`Y_0`$ as follows: choose any nonzero $`j_1`$ vanishing on $`Y_0`$; if $`I(Y_0)`$ is not contained in the union of the minimal primes over $`(j_1)`$, then any $`j_2I(Y_0)`$ outside those primes will be relatively prime to $`j_1`$; if $`I(Y_0)`$ is contained in that union, then Proposition 1.11(i) of \[AM69\] implies that $`I(Y_0)`$ is contained in some minimal prime over $`(j_1)`$, but such a prime has codimension $`1`$, contradicting the fact that $`Y_0`$ has codimension at least $`2`$. Define $`Y_2:=_{i2}Y_i`$.

Given $`a=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)A^n`$ and a nonzero prime $`𝔭`$ of $`A`$, let $`a_𝔭=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)_𝔭`$ denote the closed point in $`𝐀_{A/𝔭}^n`$ whose coordinates are $`a_1,\mathrm{},a_n`$. Thus

$$Q_s=\{a\mathrm{Box}:𝔭\text{ such that }B_s|𝔭|<B_{s+1}\text{ and }a_𝔭X\}.$$

Let $`Z:=\{a\mathrm{Box}:h(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)=0\}`$. Define

$$R_2:=\{a\mathrm{Box}:\text{ }𝔭\text{ such that }B_s|𝔭|<B_{s+1}\text{}a_𝔭X\text{, and }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)_𝔭Y_2\},$$

and define $`R_1`$ and $`R_0`$ similarly, using $`Y_1`$ and $`Y_0`$, respectively, in place of $`Y_2`$.

Then $`Q_sZR_2(R_1Z)R_0`$. By Lemma 4.1, $`\mathrm{\#}Z/\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}`$ can be made arbitrarily small by choosing the $`B_i`$ sufficiently large.

Next consider $`R_2`$. It suffices to show that for $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)\mathrm{Box}(B_1,\mathrm{},B_s)`$, the fraction of $`(a_{s+1},\mathrm{},a_n)`$ in $`\mathrm{Box}(B_{s+1},\mathrm{},B_n)`$ for which there exists a prime $`𝔭`$ with $`B_s|𝔭|<B_{s+1}`$, $`a_𝔭X`$, and $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)_𝔭Y_2`$ is small when $`B_s`$ is large. Fix $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)\mathrm{Box}(B_1,\mathrm{},B_s)`$. If $`𝔭`$ is a prime with $`B_s|𝔭|<B_{s+1}`$ and $`y:=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)_𝔭`$ lies in $`Y_2`$, then $`X_y`$ has codimension at least $`2`$ in $`𝐀_{A/𝔭}^{ns}`$, so

$$\mathrm{\#}X_y(A/𝔭)=O(|𝔭|^{ns2})=O((\mathrm{\#}(A/𝔭)^{ns})/|𝔭|^2).$$

Moreover, the implied constant can be made uniform in $`y`$, since the $`X_y`$ are fibers in an algebraic family. Since $`|𝔭|<B_{s+1}`$, the reductions modulo $`𝔭`$ of the $`(a_{s+1},\mathrm{},a_n)\mathrm{Box}(B_{s+1},\mathrm{},B_n)`$ are almost uniformly distributed in $`(A/𝔭)^{ns}`$: to be precise, each residue class in $`(A/𝔭)^{ns}`$ is represented by a fraction at most $`O(\mathrm{\#}(A/𝔭)^{(ns)})`$ of these $`(a_{s+1},\mathrm{},a_n)`$, where the implied constant depends only on $`n`$. Hence the fraction of $`(a_{s+1},\mathrm{},a_n)\mathrm{Box}(B_{s+1},\mathrm{},B_n)`$ satisfying $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)_𝔭X_y`$ is $`O(1/|𝔭|^2)`$, and summing over all $`𝔭`$ with $`B_s|𝔭|<B_{s+1}`$ still yields a fraction that can be made arbitrarily small by taking $`B_s`$ large, since $`_𝔭1/|𝔭|^2`$ converges.

We now adapt the previous paragraph to bound $`\mathrm{\#}(R_1Z)`$. Suppose $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)\mathrm{Box}(B_1,\mathrm{},B_s)`$ and $`h(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)0`$. Let $`\eta `$ be the total degree of $`h`$. Then $`|h(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)|=O(B_s^\eta )`$, where the constant implied by the $`O`$ depends only on $`h`$, not on the $`a_i`$ or $`B_i`$. Thus, provided that $`B_s`$ is large, $`h(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)`$ can be divisible by at most $`\eta `$ primes $`𝔭`$ satisfying $`B_s|𝔭|<B_{s+1}`$. Hence $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)_𝔭Y_1`$ for at most $`\eta `$ primes $`𝔭`$ satisfying $`B_s|𝔭|<B_{s+1}`$. By definition of $`Y_1`$, if $`y=(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)_𝔭`$ for such $`𝔭`$, then $`X_y`$ has codimension at least $`1`$ in $`𝐀_{A/𝔭}^{ns}`$, so $`\mathrm{\#}X_y(A/𝔭)=O((\mathrm{\#}(A/𝔭)^{ns})/|𝔭|)`$, where the implied constant is independent of $`y`$. The reductions modulo $`𝔭`$ of the $`(a_{s+1},\mathrm{},a_n)\mathrm{Box}(B_{s+1},\mathrm{},B_n)`$ are again almost uniformly distributed in $`(A/𝔭)^{ns}`$. Hence the fraction of $`(a_{s+1},\mathrm{},a_n)`$ in $`\mathrm{Box}(B_{s+1},\mathrm{},B_n)`$ whose reduction modulo $`𝔭`$ lies in $`X_y`$ is $`O(1/|𝔭|)`$. Summing over at most $`\eta `$ possible primes $`𝔭`$ with $`|𝔭|B_s`$ still yields a fraction that can be made arbitrarily small by taking $`B_s`$ large.

Finally we consider $`R_0`$. Since $`s<n`$, the outer inductive hypothesis applied to $`j_1`$ and $`j_2`$ implies that $`\mathrm{\#}R_0/\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}`$ can be made arbitrarily small by taking the $`B_i`$ large.

To finish Case 1, we need to bound $`Q_n`$. We have $`Q_nS_0SS^{}`$, where

$`S_0`$ $`:=\{a\mathrm{Box}:g(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})=0\},`$
$`S`$ $`:=\{a\mathrm{Box}:𝔭\text{ such that }|𝔭|B_n\text{ and }𝔭f_1(a),g(a)\}`$
$`S^{}`$ $`:=\{a\mathrm{Box}:g(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})0\text{ and }𝔭\text{ such that }|𝔭|B_n\text{}𝔭f(a),g(a)\text{ and }𝔭f_1(a)\}.`$
Lemma 4.1 bounds $`\mathrm{\#}S_0/\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}`$. The outer inductive hypothesis applied to $`f_1`$ and $`g`$ bounds $`\mathrm{\#}S/\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}`$.

It remains to bound $`\mathrm{\#}S^{}`$. For $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})\mathrm{Box}(B_1,\mathrm{},B_{n1})`$ such that $`g(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})0`$, we will show that the fraction of $`a_n\mathrm{Box}(B_n)`$ such that there exists $`𝔭`$ with $`|𝔭|B_n`$, $`𝔭f(a),g(a)`$ and $`𝔭f_1(a)`$ is small. We use a method similar to that used to bound $`R_1`$. Let $`\gamma `$ denote the total degree of $`g`$. If $`B_n`$ is sufficiently large (depending only on $`g`$), then given $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$, there are at most $`\gamma `$ primes $`𝔭`$ dividing $`g(a)`$ with $`|𝔭|B_n`$. For each such $`𝔭`$, if moreover $`𝔭f_1(a)`$, then the polynomial $`f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},x_n)mod𝔭`$ in $`(A/𝔭)[x_n]`$ is of degree $`\delta `$, and has at most $`\delta `$ roots in $`A/𝔭`$. For each such root, there are at most $`O(1)`$ elements of $`\mathrm{Box}(B_n)`$ reducing to it modulo $`𝔭`$, since $`|𝔭|B_n`$. Thus given $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$, there are at most $`\gamma \delta O(1)=O(1)`$ values of $`a_n\mathrm{Box}(B_n)`$ for which $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)S^{}`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\#}S^{}/\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}`$ can be made small by choosing $`B_n`$ large.

Case 2. The $`x_n`$-degree of $`f`$ and $`g`$ are both positive.

Let $`RA[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]`$ be the resultant of $`f`$ and $`g`$ with respect to $`x_n`$. Since $`f`$ and $`g`$ are relatively prime, $`R`$ is nonzero. Since $`f_1`$, $`g_1`$, and $`R`$ are all nonzero and do not involve $`x_n`$, none of them are multiples of $`f`$ or $`g`$. Since $`f`$ and $`g`$ are irreducible, each of $`f_1`$, $`g_1`$, and $`R`$ must be relatively prime to each of $`f`$ and $`g`$. Moreover, if $`𝔭`$ is a prime dividing $`f(a)`$ and $`g(a)`$, and if the leading coefficients $`f_1(a)`$ and $`g_1(a)`$ are nonzero modulo $`𝔭`$, then by a well known property of the resultant, $`𝔭R(a)`$. Hence

$`\{a\mathrm{Box}:𝔭f(a),g(a)\}`$ $`\{a\mathrm{Box}:𝔭f_1(a),g(a)\}`$
$`\{a\mathrm{Box}:𝔭f(a),g_1(a)\}`$
$`\{a\mathrm{Box}:𝔭f(a),R(a)\}.`$
Taking the union over all $`𝔭`$ with $`|𝔭|M`$ and applying Case 1 to $`f_1,g`$, to $`f,g_1`$, and to $`f,R`$ completes the proof. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 3.1.

Let $`P_M`$ denote the set of nonzero primes $`𝔭`$ of $`A`$ such that $`|𝔭|<M`$. Approximate $`_{f,g}`$ by

$$_{f,g,M}:=\{aA^n:\text{ }f(a)\text{ and }g(a)\text{ are not both divisible by any prime }𝔭P_M\}.$$

Define the ideal $`I`$ as the product of all $`𝔭`$ in $`P_M`$. Then $`_{f,g,M}`$ is a union of cosets of the subgroup $`I^nA^n`$. (Here $`I^n`$ is the cartesian product.) Hence $`\mu (_{f,g,M})`$ is the fraction of residue classes in $`(A/I)^n`$ in which for all $`𝔭P_M`$, at least one of $`f(a)`$ and $`g(a)`$ is nonzero modulo $`𝔭`$. Applying the Chinese Remainder Theorem shows that $`\mu (_{f,g,M})=_{𝔭P_M}(1c_𝔭/|𝔭|^n)`$. By Lemma 5.1,

$$\mu (_{f,g})=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\mu (_{f,g,M})=\underset{𝔭}{}(1c_𝔭/|𝔭|^n).$$

Since $`f`$ and $`g`$ are relatively prime as elements of $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, there exists a nonzero $`uA`$ such that $`f=g=0`$ defines a subscheme of $`𝐀_{A[1/u]}^n`$ of codimension at least $`2`$. Thus $`c_𝔭=O(|𝔭|^{n2})`$ as $`|𝔭|\mathrm{}`$, and the product converges. ∎

## 6. Squarefree values of polynomials over $`𝐙`$

If $`fA[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, and $`M1`$, define

$$𝒯_{f,M}:=\{aA^n:𝔭\text{ with }|𝔭|M\text{ such that }𝔭^2f(a)\}.$$

For the rest of this section, we take $`A=𝐙`$. The following is a variant of Theorem 1 of \[Gra98\], and has the same proof.

###### Lemma 6.1.

Assume the $`abc`$ conjecture. Suppose that $`f𝐙[x]`$ is squarefree as a polynomial in $`𝐐[x]`$. For each prime $`pM`$, let $`c_p`$ be the number of $`x𝐙/p^2`$ satisfying $`f(x)=0`$ in $`𝐙/p^2`$. Then $`1\mu (𝒯_{f,M})=_{pM}(1c_p/p^2)`$.

We are now ready to prove the analogue of Lemma 5.1 for squarefree values of multivariable polynomials over $`𝐙`$:

###### Lemma 6.2.

Assume the $`abc`$ conjecture. Suppose that $`f𝐙[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ is squarefree as a polynomial in $`𝐐[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, and suppose that $`x_n`$ appears in $`f(x)`$. Then $`lim_M\mathrm{}\overline{\mu }_n(𝒯_{f,M})=0`$.

###### Proof.

Factors of $`f`$ lying in $`𝐙`$ are irrelevant as $`M\mathrm{}`$, so we may assume that $`f`$ is squarefree as a polynomial in $`𝐙[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. If $`f`$ factors as a product of two relatively prime polynomials $`g`$ and $`h`$, then the result for $`f`$ follows from the result for $`g`$ and $`h`$ together with Lemma 5.1 applied to $`g,h`$. Hence we may reduce to the case where $`f`$ is irreducible in $`𝐙[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$.

Let $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐙[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]`$ and $`\delta 1`$ be the discriminant and degree, respectively, of $`f`$ considered as a polynomial in $`x_n`$. Given $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_n`$, let $`Q:=𝒯_{f,M}\mathrm{Box}`$. We need to show that if the $`B_i`$ are sufficiently large, and $`B_n`$ is sufficiently large relative to the other $`B_i`$, then $`\mathrm{\#}Q/\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}`$ is small.

The fraction of $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$ in $`\mathrm{Box}_{n1}:=\mathrm{Box}(B_1,\mathrm{},B_{n1})`$ at which $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ vanishes is negligible, by Lemma 4.1. Since $`f`$ is irreducible, when $`f`$ is viewed as a polynomial in $`x_n`$, its coefficients (in $`𝐙[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]`$) are relatively prime (not necessarily pairwise). In particular, the common zero locus of these coefficients has codimension at least $`2`$ in $`𝐀_𝐐^{n1}`$, hence is contained in the subvariety defined by $`\stackrel{~}{f}=\stackrel{~}{g}=0`$ for two relatively prime elements $`\stackrel{~}{f},\stackrel{~}{g}𝐙[x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}]`$. Thus Lemma 5.1 implies that the fraction of $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})\mathrm{Box}_{n1}`$ such that there exists a prime $`pM`$ such that the image of $`f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},x_n)`$ in $`𝐅_p[x_n]`$ is zero is negligible, when $`M`$ is large.

It remains to bound $`\mathrm{\#}(Q(Q^{}\times [1,B_n]))/\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}`$, where $`Q^{}`$ is the set of $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})\mathrm{Box}_{n1}`$ such that

* $`\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})0`$, and
* there is no prime $`pM`$ such that the image of $`f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},x_n)`$ in $`𝐅_p[x_n]`$ is zero.

By the first condition, Lemma 6.1 applies to $`f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},x_n)𝐙[x_n]`$ for each $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})Q^{}`$. Letting $`B_n`$ tend to infinity while $`B_1,\mathrm{},B_{n1}`$ are fixed, we find that it suffices to bound

(1)
$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}}\underset{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})Q^{}}{}B_n\left(1\underset{pM}{}\left(1\frac{c_p(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}{p^2}\right)\right),$$

where $`c_p(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$ is the number of $`x_n𝐙/p^2`$ such that $`f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},x_n)=0`$ in $`𝐙/p^2`$. The inequality $`1\alpha \beta (1\alpha )+(1\beta )`$ holds for $`\alpha ,\beta [0,1]`$; applying this with

$$\alpha :=\underset{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{pM}{p\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}}}{}\left(1\frac{c_p(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}{p^2}\right),\beta :=\underset{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{pM}{p\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}}}{}\left(1\frac{c_p(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}{p^2}\right)$$

and using

$$1\alpha \underset{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{pM}{p\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}}}{}\frac{c_p(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}{p^2}$$

bounds (1) by $`s_1+s_2`$ where

$`s_1`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})Q^{}}{}}B_n{\displaystyle \underset{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{pM}{p\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}}}{}}{\displaystyle \frac{c_p(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}{p^2}},`$
$`s_2`$ $`:={\displaystyle \frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}}}{\displaystyle \underset{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})Q^{}}{}}B_n\left(1{\displaystyle \underset{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{pM}{p\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}}}{}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{c_p(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}{p^2}}\right)\right).`$
When $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})Q^{}`$ and $`p\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$, Hensel’s Lemma implies $`c_p(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})\delta `$, while $`B_n\mathrm{\#}Q^{}\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}`$, so $`s_1_{pM}\delta /p^2`$, which is negligible as $`M\mathrm{}`$. When $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})Q^{}`$ and $`p\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})`$, the image of $`f(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1},x_n)`$ in $`𝐅_p[x_n]`$ has at most $`\delta `$ zeros in $`𝐅_p`$; so $`c_p(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})\delta p`$, and

(2)
$$s_2\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}}\underset{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})Q^{}}{}B_n\left(1\underset{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{pM}{p\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}}}{}\left(1\frac{\delta }{p}\right)\right).$$

Let $`\mathrm{\Phi }(x_n)=_{j=1}^\delta (x_nj)`$. We may assume $`M\delta `$; then

$$1\underset{{\scriptscriptstyle \genfrac{}{}{0.0pt}{}{pM}{p\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1})}}}{}\left(1\frac{\delta }{p}\right)$$

equals the density of

$$\{x_n𝐙:\text{ }pM\text{ such that }p\mathrm{\Delta }(a_1,\mathrm{},a_{n1}),\mathrm{\Phi }(x_n)\}.$$

Hence, as $`B_n\mathrm{}`$ for fixed $`M,B_1,\mathrm{},B_{n1}`$, the right hand side of (2) has the same limit as

$$\frac{\mathrm{\#}((Q^{}\times [1,B_n])𝒬_{\mathrm{\Delta }(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1}),\mathrm{\Phi }(x_n),M})}{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}}.$$

The latter is negligible, by Lemma 5.1. ∎

###### Remark .

It seems difficult to improve Lemma 6.2 to obtain a result for the more natural definition of density, $`\overline{\mu }`$ instead of $`\overline{\mu }_n`$. This would require a version of Granville’s one-variable result that is uniform in the coefficients of the polynomial. Granville’s proof uses Belyi functions, however, whose degrees vary wildly with the coefficients.

###### Proof of Theorem 3.2.

Approximate $`𝒮_f`$ by

$$𝒮_{f,M}:=\{a𝐙^n:\text{ }f(a)\text{ is not divisible by }p^2\text{ for any prime }p<M\}.$$

Then $`𝒮_{f,M}`$ is a union of cosets of $`(I𝐙)^n`$ where $`I=_{p<M}p^2`$. The Chinese Remainder Theorem implies $`\mu _n(𝒮_{f,M})=_{𝔭P_M}(1c_p/p^{2n})`$. By Lemma 6.2,

$$\mu _n(𝒮_f)=\underset{M\mathrm{}}{lim}\mu _n(𝒮_{f,M})=\underset{p}{}(1c_p/p^{2n}).$$

Finally, we show that the product converges (instead of diverging to $`0`$) by showing that $`c_p=O(p^{2n2})`$. (The value of the product could still be zero if some factor were zero.) Let $`X`$ be the subscheme of $`𝐀_𝐙^n`$ defined by $`f=0`$. Since the field $`𝐐`$ is perfect, the nonsmooth locus of $`X\times 𝐐\mathrm{Spec}𝐐`$ has codimension at least $`2`$ in $`𝐀_𝐐^n`$. It follows that for sufficiently large $`p`$, the nonsmooth locus $`Y_p`$ of $`X\times 𝐅_p\mathrm{Spec}𝐅_p`$ has codimension at least $`2`$ in $`𝐀_{𝐅_p}^n`$, so $`\mathrm{\#}Y_p(𝐅_p)=O(p^{n2})`$. Each point in $`Y_p(𝐅_p)`$ can be lifted to an $`n`$-tuple in $`(𝐙/p^2)^n`$ in $`p^n`$ ways. On the other hand, $`\mathrm{\#}(X_pY_p)(𝐅_p)=O(p^{n1})`$ but the nonvanishing of some derivative modulo $`p`$ at a point in $`(X_pY_p)(𝐅_p)`$ implies that such a point lifts to at most $`p^{n1}`$ solutions to $`f(x)=0`$ in $`(𝐙/p^2)^n`$. Thus $`c_p=p^nO(p^{n2})+p^{n1}O(p^{n1})=O(p^{2n2})`$. ∎

## 7. Squarefree values of polynomials over $`𝐅_q[t]`$

Throughout this section, $`A=𝐅_q[t]`$ where $`q=p^e`$. Our goal is to prove Theorem 3.4. We begin by stating the analogue of Lemma 6.2.

###### Lemma 7.1.

Suppose that $`fA[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ is squarefree as a polynomial in $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Then $`lim_M\mathrm{}\overline{\mu }(𝒯_{f,M})=0`$.

Before beginning the proof of Lemma 7.1, we state and prove two results that will be needed in its proof.

###### Lemma 7.2.

If $`fK[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ is squarefree, then

$$F:=f(y_0^p+ty_1^p+\mathrm{}+t^{p1}y_{p1}^p,x_2,x_3,\mathrm{},x_n)K[y_0,\mathrm{},y_{p1},x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]$$

is squarefree.

###### Proof.

We work in $`B:=K^{1/p}[y_0,\mathrm{},y_{p1},x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, where $`K^{1/p}=𝐅_q(t^{1/p})`$. Define $`u:=y_0+t^{1/p}y_1+\mathrm{}+t^{(p1)/p}y_{p1}`$.

We first show that $`K^{1/p}[u]K[y_0,\mathrm{},y_{p1}]=K[u^p]`$. Suppose $`g=\alpha _iu^iK^{1/p}[u]K[y_0,\mathrm{},y_{p1}]`$. The coefficient of $`y_0^i`$ in $`g`$ is $`\alpha _i`$, so $`\alpha _iK`$ for all $`i`$. The coefficient of $`y_0^{i1}y_1`$ in $`g`$ is $`it^{1/p}\alpha _i`$; this too is in $`K`$, so for all $`i`$, either $`pi`$ or $`\alpha _i=0`$. Thus $`gK[u^p]`$, as desired.

It follows that

(3)
$$K^{1/p}[u,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]K[y_0,\mathrm{},y_{p1},x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]=K[u^p,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n].$$

Suppose that $`G^2F`$ for some $`GK[y_0,\mathrm{},y_{p1},x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]K`$. Then $`G^2F`$ in $`B`$. If we view $`B`$ as a polynomial ring over $`K^{1/p}`$ in algebraically independent indeterminates $`u,y_1,\mathrm{},y_{p1},x_2,\mathrm{},x_n`$ (by eliminating $`y_0`$), then $`F=f(u^p,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ does not involve $`y_1,\mathrm{},y_{p1}`$, so $`GK^{1/p}[u,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ too. By (3), $`GK[u^p,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. If we write $`G=g(u^p,x_2,\mathrm{},x_n)`$ where $`gK[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$, then $`g^2f`$ and $`gK`$, contradicting the assumption that $`f`$ is squarefree in $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. ∎

###### Lemma 7.3.

Suppose $`fK[x_1^p,\mathrm{},x_n^p]`$ is squarefree as an element of $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Then $`f`$ and $`f/t`$ are relatively prime as elements of $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$.

###### Proof.

The gcd $`g`$ of $`f`$ and $`f/t`$ in $`K[x_1^p,\mathrm{},x_n^p]`$ equals their gcd in $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. We may multiply $`g`$ by an element of $`K^{}`$ to assume that some coefficient of $`g`$ equals $`1`$. Write $`f=gh`$. Since $`f`$ is squarefree, $`g`$ and $`h`$ are relatively prime in $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. But $`g`$ divides $`\frac{f}{t}=g\frac{h}{t}+h\frac{g}{t}`$, so $`g`$ divides $`g/t`$. The total degree of $`g/t`$ is less than or equal to that of $`g`$, so $`g/t=cg`$ for some $`cK`$. Then each coefficient $`\gamma `$ of $`g`$ satisfies $`\gamma /t=c\gamma `$. One of these coefficients is $`1`$, so $`c=0`$. Thus each coefficient $`\gamma `$ is in $`K^p`$, so $`g=G^p`$ for some $`GK[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. But $`gf`$, and $`f`$ is squarefree, so $`gK`$. Hence $`f`$ and $`f/t`$ are relatively prime. ∎

###### Proof of Lemma 7.1.

We may assume that $`f`$ is squarefree as an element of $`A[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Define

$$F:=f(\underset{j=0}{\overset{p1}{}}t^jy_{1j}^p,\mathrm{},\underset{j=0}{\overset{p1}{}}t^jy_{nj}^p)K[\mathrm{},y_{ij},\mathrm{}]$$

By $`n`$ applications of Lemma 7.2, $`F`$ is squarefree. Let $`B_{ij}=(B_i/|t^j|)^{1/p}`$. As each $`y_{ij}`$ ranges through elements of $`A`$ satisfying $`|y_{ij}|B_{ij}`$, the $`n`$-tuples

$$(\underset{j=0}{\overset{p1}{}}t^jy_{1j}^p,\mathrm{},\underset{j=0}{\overset{p1}{}}t^jy_{nj}^p)$$

exhaust the elements of $`\mathrm{Box}`$, with each element appearing once. Hence Lemma 7.1 for $`f`$ follows from Lemma 7.1 for $`F`$.

Evaluation of $`F`$ at an element $`aA^{np}`$ commutes with formal application of $`/t`$, since $`FK[\mathrm{},y_{ij}^p,\mathrm{}]`$. Thus, for a prime $`𝔭`$ of $`A`$, we have $`𝔭^2F(a)`$ if and only if $`𝔭`$ divides $`F(a)`$ and $`(F/t)(a)`$. Hence Lemma 7.1 for $`F`$ follows from Lemma 5.1 for $`F`$ and $`F/t`$, which are relatively prime by Lemma 7.3. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 3.4.

We mimic the proof of Theorem 3.2 at the end of Section 6, using Lemma 7.1 in place of Lemma 6.2. But the last paragraph of that proof, proving $`c_p=O(p^{2n2})`$ to obtain convergence of the infinite product, does not carry over, since it uses the fact that $`𝐐`$ is perfect to obtain generic smoothness, and $`𝐅_q(t)`$ is not perfect.

Therefore we prove $`c_𝔭=O(|𝔭|^{2n2})`$ by a different method. The fraction $`c_𝔭/|𝔭|^{2n}`$ is unchanged when we replace the $`c_𝔭`$ and $`n`$ for the original $`f`$ by the corresponding values for the $`F`$ defined in the beginning of the proof of Lemma 7.1. This fraction for $`F`$ is bounded by the fraction of $`\overline{a}(A/𝔭)^{np}`$ such that $`F`$ and $`F/t`$ vanish mod $`𝔭`$ at $`\overline{a}`$. By Lemma 7.3, $`F`$ and $`F/t`$ are relatively prime in $`K[\mathrm{},y_{ij},\mathrm{}]`$, so they define a subscheme of codimension at least $`2`$ in $`𝐀_K^{np}`$, and the desired bound follows, just as in the last two sentences of Section 5. ∎

## 8. Squarefree values of polynomials over other rings of functions

Let $`S`$ be a finite nonempty set of closed points of a smooth, projective, geometrically integral curve $`X`$ over $`𝐅_q`$. Define the affine curve $`U:=XS`$, and let $`A`$ be the ring of regular functions on $`U`$. Thus $`A`$ is the set of $`S`$-integers of the function field $`K`$ of $`X`$. An element $`aA`$ is called squarefree if the ideal $`(a)`$ of $`A`$ is a product of distinct primes of $`A`$. Let $`\mathrm{Div}_S`$ denote the set of effective divisors on $`X`$ with support contained in $`S`$. If $`D\mathrm{Div}_S`$, then the $`𝐅_q`$-subspace $`L(D):=\{fK^{}:(f)+D0\}\{0\}`$ of $`K`$ is contained in $`A`$. Let $`\mathrm{}(D)=dim_{𝐅_q}L(D)`$. Define the density $`\mu (𝒮)`$ of a subset $`𝒮A^n`$ as the limit of $`\mathrm{\#}(𝒮\mathrm{Box})/\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}`$ as $`\mathrm{Box}`$ runs through $`L(D_1)\times \mathrm{}\times L(D_n)`$, where $`D_i\mathrm{Div}_S`$ and $`\mathrm{min}_i\mathrm{deg}D_i\mathrm{}`$. The following theorem generalizes Theorem 1 in \[Ram92\]; we state it only for squarefree values, but as mentioned already in Section 3 the lemmas used in its proof will yield the analogous result for $`k^{\mathrm{th}}`$-power-free values.

###### Theorem 8.1 (Squarefree values over rings of functions).

With notation as above, let $`fA[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be a polynomial that is squarefree as an element of $`K[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$. Let

$$𝒮_f:=\{aA^n:f(a)\text{ is squarefree}\}.$$

For each nonzero prime $`𝔭A`$, let $`c_𝔭`$ be the number of $`x(A/𝔭^2)^n`$ satisfying $`f(x)=0`$ in $`A/𝔭^2`$. Then $`\mu (𝒮_f)=_𝔭(1c_𝔭/|𝔭|^{2n})`$, where $`|𝔭|:=\mathrm{\#}(A/𝔭)`$.

###### Sketch of proof of Theorem 8.1.

Most of the proof follows the proofs of Theorems 3.1 and 3.4, so we will comment only on the differences.

First we prove the analogue of Lemma 5.1. Enlarging $`S`$ only makes this analogue harder to prove, since there are more boxes to consider, while the primes $`𝔭`$ involved are the same once $`M`$ exceeds $`|𝔭|`$ for every new $`𝔭`$ thrown into $`S`$. Thus we may assume that $`A`$ is a principal ideal domain. Let $`g`$ be the genus of $`X`$. Given $`\mathrm{Box}=L(D_1)\times \mathrm{}\times L(D_n)`$, let $`B_i=\mathrm{deg}D_i(2g2)`$. We may assume $`\mathrm{deg}D_1\mathrm{}\mathrm{deg}D_n`$. Replace the definition of $`Q_s`$ in the proof of Lemma 5.1 by

$$Q_s:=\{a\mathrm{Box}:𝔭\text{ such that }B_s\mathrm{deg}𝔭<B_{s+1}\text{ and }𝔭f(a),g(a)\}.$$

Replace the argument “Since $`|𝔭|<B_{s+1}`$, the reductions modulo $`𝔭`$ of the $`(a_{s+1},\mathrm{},a_n)\mathrm{Box}(B_{s+1},\mathrm{},B_n)`$ are almost uniformly distributed in $`(A/𝔭)^{ns}`$” by “By Riemann-Roch, if $`D`$ is a divisor with $`\mathrm{deg}D\mathrm{deg}𝔭>2g2`$, then $`\mathrm{}(D)\mathrm{}(D𝔭)=\mathrm{deg}𝔭`$; hence the $`𝐅_q`$-linear reduction map

$$L(D_{s+1})\times \mathrm{}\times L(D_n)(A/𝔭)^{ns}$$

is surjective for $`\mathrm{deg}𝔭<B_{s+1}`$.” Replace the estimate “$`|h(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)|=O(B_s^\eta )`$” by “$`\mathrm{deg}h(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)=O(\mathrm{deg}D_s)=O(B_s)`$ where the implied constants depend on $`h`$ and the genus $`g`$, but not on the $`a_i`$ or $`D_i`$” to bound the number of primes $`𝔭`$ with $`\mathrm{deg}𝔭B_s`$ dividing $`h(a_1,\mathrm{},a_s)`$. The rest of the proof of Lemma 5.1 goes as before.

Next we prove the analogue of Lemma 7.1. Choose any $`tAA^p`$, and note that Lemmas 7.2 and 7.3 go through without change; in fact, we can generalize Lemma 7.2 by replacing the form $`y_0^p+ty_1^p+\mathrm{}+t^{p1}y_{p1}^p`$ by $`t_1y_1^p+t_2y_2^p+\mathrm{}+t_my^m`$ for any $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_mA`$ provided that $`1`$ and $`t`$ appear among the $`t_i`$.

We claim that there exist $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_mA`$ such that for every $`D\mathrm{Div}_S`$ and every $`aL(D)`$, it is possible to write $`a=t_1a_1^p+\mathrm{}+t_ma_m^p`$ with $`a_iA`$ such that $`t_ia_i^pL(D)`$ for each $`i`$. More precisely, we claim that if $`E`$ is the divisor $`(p+1)(2g+5)_{𝔭S}𝔭`$, then the choice $`\{t_1,\mathrm{},t_m\}:=L(E)`$ works. To prove this, it suffices to show, given $`D\mathrm{Div}_S`$ and $`aL(D)L(E)`$, that one can adjust $`a`$ by an element of the form $`t_ia_i^p`$ in $`L(D)`$ to obtain an element in $`L(D𝔭)`$ for some $`𝔭`$ in the support of $`D`$; then iterate. If $`aL(D)L(E)`$, then for some $`𝔭S`$, $`a`$ has a pole of order greater than $`(p+1)(2g+5)`$ at $`𝔭`$. If $`n2g+4`$, Riemann-Roch shows that $`\mathrm{}(n𝔭)\mathrm{}((n1)𝔭)=\mathrm{deg}𝔭`$; in particular there exists a function in $`A`$ having a pole of order $`n`$ with prescribed leading coefficient at $`𝔭`$, and no other poles. Since every integer greater than $`(p+1)(2g+5)`$ is expressible as $`i+pj`$ with $`2g+4i<2g+4+p`$ and $`j2g+4`$, we can find functions $`tL(i𝔭)`$ and $`\alpha L(j𝔭)`$ such that $`t\alpha ^p`$ and $`a`$ have the same order of pole at $`𝔭`$, and the same leading coefficient. Then $`tL(E)`$ and $`t\alpha ^pL(D)`$, so this proves the claim.

By the previous paragraph, for each $`D\mathrm{Div}_S`$, we have a surjection

$`L(D_1)\times \mathrm{}\times L(D_r)`$ $`L(D)`$
$`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_r)`$ $`t_{i_1}a_1^p+\mathrm{}+t_{i_r}a_r^p`$
for some subset $`\{i_1,\mathrm{},i_r\}\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}`$ and for some $`D_i\mathrm{Div}_S`$ depending on $`D`$. Thus in proving the analogue of Lemma 7.1, we may reduce the result for $`f`$ to the result for each $`F`$ in the finite set of polynomials of the form

$$F:=f(\underset{jS_1}{}t_jy_{1j}^p,\mathrm{},\underset{jS_n}{}t_jy_{nj}^p)K[\mathrm{},y_{ij},\mathrm{}]$$

for all possible subsets $`S_1,\mathrm{},S_n\{1,2,\mathrm{},m\}`$.

Choose $`bA`$ such that $`b\frac{}{t}`$ is a nonzero derivation $`AA`$. Then the analogue of Lemma 7.1 for an $`F`$ as above follows from the analogue of Lemma 5.1 applied to $`F`$ and $`bF/t`$.

To complete the proof of Theorem 8.1, it remains to prove $`c_𝔭=O(|𝔭|^{2n2})`$, to obtain convergence of the infinite product. This follows as in the proof of Theorem 3.4 at the end of Section 7, except that the fraction $`c_𝔭/|𝔭|^{2n}`$ for $`f`$ is now bounded by a sum of the analogous fractions for several different polynomials $`F`$. Each of the latter fractions is bounded by $`O(1/|𝔭|^2)`$, and the number of polynomials $`F`$ is $`O(1)`$, independent of $`𝔭`$, so $`c_𝔭/|𝔭|^{2n}=O(1/|𝔭|^2)`$, as desired. ∎

## 9. The image of the values in $`𝐐^{}/𝐐^2`$

This section is devoted to the proof of Theorem 3.5.

###### Lemma 9.1.

Suppose that $`f(x)𝐙[x]`$ is squarefree as an element of $`𝐐[x]`$, and that $`\mathrm{deg}f2`$. Fix $`q𝐐^{}`$ such that $`q1`$. Then the number of solutions $`(m,n)`$ to $`f(m)=qf(n)`$ satisfying $`1m,nB`$ is $`o(B)`$ as $`B\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

Since $`f(m)`$ has constant sign for large positive $`m`$, the result is trivial if $`q<0`$. Therefore assume $`q>0`$.

Theorem 2 in Chapter 13 of \[Ser97\] implies that the number of such solutions on each irreducible component of the curve $`f(m)qf(n)=0`$ in the $`(m,n)`$-plane over $`𝐐`$ is $`O(B^{1/2}\mathrm{log}B)`$ unless some component is a line. If there is a line, it cannot be of the form $`n=\alpha `$ for any $`\alpha 𝐐`$, so it would have an equation $`m=\alpha n+\beta `$ for some $`\alpha ,\beta 𝐐`$. Then $`f(\alpha n+\beta )qf(n)=0`$ as polynomials in $`𝐐[n]`$. Equating leading coefficients shows that $`\alpha 1`$. Choose $`\gamma 𝐐`$ so that $`\alpha \gamma +\beta =\gamma `$. Then the polynomial $`F(x):=f(x+\gamma )`$ satisfies $`F(\alpha x)qF(x)=0`$. Since $`q>0`$ and $`q1`$, there is at most one integer $`d`$ such that $`\alpha ^d=q`$. Thus $`F`$ is a monomial of degree $`d`$, and $`f(n)=c(n\gamma )^d`$ for some $`c𝐐`$. Since $`\mathrm{deg}f2`$, this contradicts the assumption that $`f`$ is squarefree. ∎

We now begin the proof of Theorem 3.5. We easily reduce to the case where $`f(x)=h(x)`$, that is, where the coefficients of $`f`$ have gcd $`1`$, and $`f`$ is squarefree in $`𝐙[x]`$. Also we may assume that the leading coefficient of $`f`$ is positive. The $`\mathrm{deg}f=0`$ case is trivial.

###### Proof of Theorem 3.5 in the case $`\mathrm{deg}f=1`$.

Write $`f(x)=ax+b`$. Changing $`b`$ by a multiple of $`a`$ changes the sequence of values only in finitely many terms, so we may assume $`0<ba`$. Given $`r,N𝐙_0`$, let $`S(rmoda,N)`$ denote the set of positive squarefree integers $`N`$ that are congruent to $`r`$ modulo $`a`$. Identify each element of $`𝐐^{}/𝐐^2`$ with a squarefree integer representative.

We claim that the image of $`\{f(1),f(2),\mathrm{},f(B)\}`$ in $`𝐐^{}/𝐐^2`$ is the disjoint union of $`S(rmoda,\delta _r(aB+b))`$ as $`r`$ ranges from $`0`$ to $`a1`$. Let $`m`$ be as in the definition of $`\delta _r`$, when it exists. If $`sS(rmoda,\delta _r(aB+b))`$, then $`\delta _r>0`$, so the integer $`m`$ in the definition of $`\delta _r`$ exists; then $`m^2sm^2rb(moda)`$ and $`m^2sm^2\delta _r(aB+b)=aB+b`$, so $`m^2s\{f(1),f(2),\mathrm{},f(B)\}`$, and hence $`s`$ is in the image. Conversely, suppose that the squarefree integer $`s`$ represents the image of $`f(n)`$ in $`𝐐^{}/𝐐^2`$ for some $`n\{1,2,\mathrm{},B\}`$. Thus $`f(n)=\overline{m}^2s`$ for some $`\overline{m}`$. Let $`r[0,a)`$ be such that $`rs(moda)`$. Then $`\overline{m}^2r\overline{m}^2s=an+bb(moda)`$, so the $`m`$ in the definition of $`\delta _r`$ exists, and $`m\overline{m}`$. Now $`s=f(n)/\overline{m}^2(aB+b)/m^2=\delta _r(aB+b)`$, so $`sS(rmoda,\delta _r(aB+b))`$. This proves the claim.

When $`\mathrm{gcd}(a,r)=1`$, the density of squarefree values of $`ax+r`$ equals

$$\underset{pa}{}\left(1p^2\right)=\frac{6}{\pi ^2}\underset{pa}{}\left(1p^2\right)^1,$$

so

$$\mathrm{\#}S(rmoda,N)=\left(\frac{6}{\pi ^2}\underset{pa}{}\left(1p^2\right)^1+o(1)\right)(N/a)$$

as $`N\mathrm{}`$. The result follows upon setting $`N=\delta _r(aB+b)\delta _raB`$ for each $`r[0,a)`$ for which $`\delta _r0`$ (such $`r`$ are necessarily prime to $`a`$), and summing over $`r`$. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 3.5 in the case $`\mathrm{deg}f2`$.

Replacing $`f(x)`$ by $`f(x+n)`$ for some $`n`$, we may assume that $`0<f(1)<f(2)<\mathrm{}`$. It suffices to show, given $`ϵ>0`$, that for sufficiently large $`B`$, the image of $`\{f(1),\mathrm{},f(B)\}`$ in $`𝐐^{}/𝐐^2`$ has size at least $`(1ϵ)B`$. For a positive integer $`n`$, let $`𝔰(n)`$ denote the largest positive integer $`m`$ such that $`m^2n`$. Define

$$S_m=\{n\{1,2,\mathrm{},B\}:𝔰(f(n))=m\}.$$

By Lemma 6.1, the density of the set of integers $`n`$ such that $`𝔰(f(n))`$ is divisible by a prime $`p>M`$ tends to zero as $`M\mathrm{}`$. Also, for each fixed prime $`\mathrm{}`$, the set of integers $`n`$ such that $`\mathrm{}^m𝔰(f(n))`$ tends to zero as $`m\mathrm{}`$, because the number of $`n𝐙/\mathrm{}^{2m}`$ such that $`f(n)=0`$ in $`𝐙/\mathrm{}^{2m}`$ is $`O(1)`$ as $`m\mathrm{}`$, since $`f`$ is squarefree. Hence $`\mu \left(\{n𝐙:𝔰(f(n))M\}\right)0`$ as $`M\mathrm{}`$. In particular, if $`M`$ is sufficiently large, then $`\mathrm{\#}(S_1\mathrm{}S_{M1})>(1ϵ/2)B`$ for large $`B`$.

Now $`f`$ maps each $`S_i`$ injectively into $`𝐐^{}/𝐐^2`$. For $`1i<j<M`$, the intersection of the images of $`f(S_i)`$ and $`f(S_j)`$ in $`𝐐^{}/𝐐^2`$ has size $`o(B)`$ as $`B\mathrm{}`$ by Lemma 9.1. Thus the image of $`\{f(1),f(2),\mathrm{},f(B)\}`$ in $`𝐐^{}/𝐐^2`$ has size at least $`(1ϵ/2)B\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{M1}{2}\right)o(B)>(1ϵ)B`$, if $`B`$ is sufficiently large relative to $`M`$. ∎

## Acknowledgements

I thank Johan de Jong and Ofer Gabber for independently suggesting that I try to use ideas from \[Poo02\] to compute the density of squarefree values in the $`𝐅_q[t]`$ case. I thank Brian Conrad for pointing out some errors in an earlier draft, and the referee for helpful suggestions. Finally, I thank Pamela Cutter, Andrew Granville, and Tom Tucker for sharing their preprint with me.