text:
# Bertini theorems over finite fields

## 1. Introduction

The classical Bertini theorems say that if a subscheme $`X𝐏^n`$ has a certain property, then for a sufficiently general hyperplane $`H𝐏^n`$, $`HX`$ has the property too. For instance, if $`X`$ is a quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏^n`$ that is smooth of dimension $`m0`$ over a field $`k`$, and $`U`$ denotes the set of points $`u`$ in the dual projective space $`\widehat{𝐏}^n`$ corresponding to hyperplanes $`H𝐏_{\kappa (u)}^n`$ such that $`HX`$ is smooth of dimension $`m1`$ over the residue field $`\kappa (u)`$ of $`u`$, then $`U`$ contains a dense open subset of $`\widehat{𝐏}^n`$. If $`k`$ is infinite, then $`U\widehat{𝐏}^n(k)`$ is nonempty, and hence one can find $`H`$ over $`k`$. But if $`k`$ is finite, then it can happen that the finitely many hyperplanes $`H`$ over $`k`$ all fail to give a smooth intersection $`HX`$. See Theorem 3.1.

N. M. Katz \[Kat99\] asked whether the Bertini theorem over finite fields can be salvaged by allowing hypersurfaces of unbounded degree in place of hyperplanes. (In fact he asked for a little more; see Section 3 for details.) We answer the question affirmatively below. O. Gabber \[Gab01, Corollary 1.6\] has independently proved the existence of good hypersurfaces of any sufficiently large degree divisible by the characteristic of $`k`$.\[Kat01\]

Let $`𝐅_q`$ denote the finite field of $`q=p^a`$ elements. Let $`S=𝐅_q[x_0,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ denote the homogeneous coordinate ring of $`𝐏^n`$, let $`S_dS`$ denote the $`𝐅_q`$-subspace of homogeneous polynomials of degree $`d`$, and let $`S_{\mathrm{homog}}=_{d=0}^{\mathrm{}}S_d`$. For each $`fS_d`$, let $`H_f`$ denote the subscheme $`\mathrm{Proj}(S/(f))𝐏^n`$. Typically (but not always), $`H_f`$ is a hypersurface of dimension $`n1`$ defined by the equation $`f=0`$. Define the density of a subset $`𝒫S_{\mathrm{homog}}`$ by

$$\mu (𝒫):=\underset{d\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{\#}(𝒫S_d)}{\mathrm{\#}S_d},$$

if the limit exists. For a scheme $`X`$ of finite type over $`𝐅_q`$, define the zeta function \[Wei49\]

$$\zeta _X(s)=Z_X(q^s):=\underset{\mathrm{closed}PX}{}\left(1q^{s\mathrm{deg}P}\right)^1=\mathrm{exp}\left(\underset{r=1}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}\frac{\mathrm{\#}X(𝐅_{q^r})}{r}q^{rs}\right).$$

###### Theorem 1.1 (Bertini over finite fields).

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏^n`$ of dimension $`m0`$ over $`𝐅_q`$. Define

$$𝒫:=\{fS_{\mathrm{homog}}:H_fX\text{ is smooth of dimension }m1\}.$$

Then $`\mu (𝒫)=\zeta _X(m+1)^1`$.

###### Remarks .

1. The empty scheme is smooth of any dimension, including $`1`$.
2. In this paper, $``$ denotes scheme-theoretic intersection (when applied to schemes).
3. If $`n2`$, the density is unchanged if we insist also that $`H_f`$ be a geometrically integral hypersurface of dimension $`n1`$. This follows from the easy Proposition 2.7.
4. The case $`n=1`$, $`X=𝐀^1`$, is a well known polynomial analogue of the fact that the set of squarefree integers has density $`\zeta (2)^1=6/\pi ^2`$. See Section 5 for a conjectural common generalization.
5. The density is independent of the choice of embedding $`X𝐏^n`$!
6. By \[Dwo60\], $`\zeta _X`$ is a rational function of $`q^s`$, so $`\zeta _X(m+1)^1𝐐`$.

The overall plan of the proof is to start with all homogeneous polynomials of degree $`d`$, and then for each closed point $`PX`$ to sieve out the polynomials $`f`$ for which $`H_fX`$ is singular at $`P`$. The condition that $`P`$ be singular on $`H_fX`$ amounts to $`m+1`$ linear conditions on the Taylor coefficients of a dehomogenization of $`f`$ at $`P`$, and these linear conditions are over the residue field of $`P`$. Therefore one expects that the probability that $`H_fX`$ is nonsingular at $`P`$ will be $`1q^{(m+1)\mathrm{deg}P}`$. Assuming that these conditions at different $`P`$ are independent, the probability that $`H_fX`$ is nonsingular everywhere should be

$$\underset{\mathrm{closed}PX}{}\left(1q^{(m+1)\mathrm{deg}P}\right)=\zeta _X(m+1)^1.$$

Unfortunately, the independence assumption and the individual singularity probability estimates break down once $`\mathrm{deg}P`$ becomes large relative to $`d`$. Therefore we must approximate our answer by truncating the product after finitely many terms, say those corresponding to $`P`$ of degree $`<r`$. The main difficulty of the proof, as with many sieve proofs, is in bounding the error of the approximation, i.e., in showing that when $`dr1`$, the number of polynomials of degree $`d`$ sieved out by conditions at the infinitely many $`P`$ of degree $`r`$ is negligible.

In fact we will prove Theorem 1.1 as a special case of the following, which is more versatile in applications. The effect of $`T`$ below is to prescribe the first few terms of the Taylor expansions of the dehomogenizations of $`f`$ at finitely many closed points.

###### Theorem 1.2 (Bertini with Taylor conditions).

Let $`X`$ be a quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏^n`$ over $`𝐅_q`$. Let $`Z`$ be a finite subscheme of $`𝐏^n`$, and assume that $`U:=X(ZX)`$ is smooth of dimension $`m0`$. Fix a subset $`TH^0(Z,𝒪_Z)`$. Given $`fS_d`$, let $`f|_Z`$ denote the element of $`H^0(Z,𝒪_Z)`$ that on each connected component $`Z_i`$ equals the restriction of $`x_j^df`$ to $`Z_i`$, where $`j=j(i)`$ is the smallest $`j\{0,1\mathrm{},n\}`$ such that the coordinate $`x_j`$ is nonzero at $`Z_i`$. Define

$$𝒫:=\{fS_{\mathrm{homog}}:H_fU\text{ is smooth of dimension }m1\text{, and }f|_ZT\}.$$

Then

$$\mu (𝒫)=\frac{\mathrm{\#}T}{\mathrm{\#}H^0(Z,𝒪_Z)}\zeta _U(m+1)^1.$$

Using a formalism analogous to that of Lemma 20 of \[PS99\], we can deduce the following even stronger version, which allows us to impose infinitely many local conditions, provided that the conditions at most points are no more stringent than the condition that the hypersurface intersect a given finite set of varieties smoothly.

###### Theorem 1.3 (Infinitely many local conditions).

For each closed point $`P`$ of $`𝐏^n`$ over $`𝐅_q`$, let $`\mu _P`$ denote normalized Haar measure on the completed local ring $`\widehat{𝒪}_P`$ as an additive compact group, and let $`U_P`$ be a subset of $`\widehat{𝒪}_P`$ whose boundary $`U_P`$ has measure zero. Also for each $`P`$, fix a nonvanishing coordinate $`x_j`$, and for $`fS_d`$ let $`f|_P`$ denote the image of $`x_j^df`$ in $`\widehat{𝒪}_P`$. Assume that there exist smooth quasiprojective subschemes $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_u`$ of $`𝐏^n`$ of dimensions $`m_i=dimX_i`$ over $`𝐅_q`$ such that for all but finitely many $`P`$, $`U_P`$ contains $`f|_P`$ whenever $`fS_{\mathrm{homog}}`$ is such that $`H_fX_i`$ is smooth of dimension $`m_i1`$ at $`P`$ for all $`i`$. Define

$$𝒫:=\{fS_{\mathrm{homog}}:f|_PU_P\text{ for all closed points }P𝐏^n\}.$$

Then $`\mu (𝒫)={\displaystyle \underset{\mathrm{closed}P𝐏^n}{}}\mu _P(U_P)`$.

###### Remark .

Implicit in Theorem 1.3 is the claim that the product $`_P\mu _P(U_P)`$ always converges, and in particular that its value is zero if and only if $`\mu _P(U_P)=0`$ for some closed point $`P`$.

The proofs of Theorems 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 are contained in Section 2. But the reader at this point is encouraged to jump to Section 3 for applications, and to glance at Section 5, which shows that the $`abc`$ conjecture and another conjecture imply analogues of our main theorems for regular quasiprojective schemes over $`\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$. The $`abc`$ conjecture is needed to apply a multivariable generalization \[Poo02\] of A. Granville’s result \[Gra98\] about squarefree values of polynomials. For some open questions, see Sections 4 and 5.7, and also Conjecture 5.2.

The author hopes that the technique of Section 2 will prove useful in removing the condition “assume that the ground field $`k`$ is infinite” from other theorems in the literature.

## 2. Bertini over finite fields: the closed point sieve

Sections 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 are devoted to the proofs of Lemmas 2.2, 2.4, and 2.6, which are the main results needed in Section 2.4 to prove Theorems 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3.

### 2.1. Singular points of low degree

Let $`A=𝐅_q[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be the ring of regular functions on the subset $`𝐀^n:=\{x_00\}𝐏^n`$, and identify $`S_d`$ with the set of dehomogenizations $`A_d=\{fA:\mathrm{deg}fd\}`$, where $`\mathrm{deg}f`$ denotes total degree.

###### Lemma 2.1.

1. If $`Y`$ is a finite subscheme of $`𝐏^n`$, then the map $`\varphi _d:S_d=H^0(𝐏^n,𝒪_{𝐏^n}(d))H^0(Y,𝒪_Y(d))`$ is surjective for $`d1`$.
2. If moreover $`Y𝐀^n:=\{x_00\}`$, then $`\varphi _d`$ is surjective for $`ddimH^0(Y,𝒪_Y)1`$.

###### Proof.

(a) Let $`_Y`$ denote the ideal sheaf of $`Y𝐏^n`$. Then $`\mathrm{coker}(\varphi _d)`$ is contained in $`H^1(𝐏^n,_Y(d))`$, which vanishes for $`d1`$ by Theorem III.5.2b of \[Har77\].

(b) Dehomogenize by setting $`x_0=1`$, so that $`\varphi _d`$ is identified with a map from $`A_d`$ to $`B:=H^0(Y,𝒪_Y)`$. Let $`b=dimB`$. For $`i1`$, let $`B_i`$ denote the image of $`A_i`$ in $`B`$. Then $`0=B_1B_0B_1\mathrm{}`$, so $`B_j=B_{j+1}`$ for some $`j[1,b1]`$. Then

$$B_{j+2}=B_{j+1}+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_iB_{j+1}=B_j+\underset{i=1}{\overset{n}{}}x_iB_j=B_{j+1}.$$

Similarly $`B_j=B_{j+1}=B_{j+2}=\mathrm{}`$, and these eventually equal $`B`$ by (a). Hence $`\varphi _d`$ is surjective for $`dj`$, and in particular for $`db1`$. ∎

If $`U`$ is a scheme of finite type over $`𝐅_q`$, let $`U_{<r}`$ denote the set of closed points of $`U`$ of degree $`<r`$. Similarly define $`U_{>r}`$.

###### Lemma 2.2 (Singularities of low degree).

Let notation and hypotheses be as in Theorem 1.2, and define

$$𝒫_r:=\{fS_{\mathrm{homog}}:H_fU\text{ is smooth of dimension }m1\text{ at all }PU_{<r}\text{, and }f|_ZT\}.$$

Then

$$\mu (𝒫_r)=\frac{\mathrm{\#}T}{\mathrm{\#}H^0(Z,𝒪_Z)}\underset{PU_{<r}}{}\left(1q^{(m+1)\mathrm{deg}P}\right).$$

###### Proof.

Let $`U_{<r}=\{P_1,\mathrm{},P_s\}`$. Let $`𝔪_i`$ be the ideal sheaf of $`P_i`$ on $`U`$, let $`Y_i`$ denote the closed subscheme of $`U`$ corresponding to the ideal sheaf $`𝔪_i^2𝒪_U`$, and let $`Y=Y_i`$. Then $`H_fU`$ is singular at $`P_i`$ (more precisely, not smooth of dimension $`m1`$ at $`P_i`$) if and only if the restriction of $`f`$ to a section of $`𝒪_{Y_i}(d)`$ is zero. Hence $`𝒫_rS_d`$ is the inverse image of

$$T\times \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(H^0(Y_i,𝒪_{Y_i})\{0\}\right)$$

under the $`𝐅_q`$-linear composition

$$\varphi _d:S_d=H^0(𝐏^n,𝒪_{𝐏^n}(d))H^0(YZ,𝒪_{YZ}(d))H^0(Z,𝒪_Z)\times \underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}H^0(Y_i,𝒪_{Y_i}),$$

where the last isomorphism is the (noncanonical) untwisting, component by component, by division by the $`d`$-th powers of various coordinates, as in the definition of $`f|_Z`$. Applying part (a) of Lemma 2.1 to $`YZ`$ shows that $`\varphi _d`$ is surjective for $`d1`$, so

$$\mu (𝒫_r)=\underset{d\mathrm{}}{lim}\frac{\mathrm{\#}\left[T\times _{i=1}^s\left(H^0(Y_i,𝒪_{Y_i})\{0\}\right)\right]}{\mathrm{\#}\left[H^0(Z,𝒪_Z)\times _{i=1}^sH^0(Y_i,𝒪_{Y_i})\right]}=\frac{\mathrm{\#}T}{\mathrm{\#}H^0(Z,𝒪_Z)}\underset{i=1}{\overset{s}{}}\left(1q^{(m+1)\mathrm{deg}P_i}\right),$$

since $`H^0(Y_i,𝒪_{Y_i})`$ has a two-step filtration whose quotients $`𝒪_{U,P_i}/𝔪_{U,P_i}`$ and $`𝔪_{U,P_i}/𝔪_{U,P_i}^2`$ are vector spaces of dimensions $`1`$ and $`m`$ respectively over the residue field of $`P_i`$. ∎

### 2.2. Singular points of medium degree

###### Lemma 2.3.

Let $`U`$ be a smooth quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏^n`$ of dimension $`m0`$ over $`𝐅_q`$. If $`PU`$ is a closed point of degree $`e`$, where $`ed/(m+1)`$, then the fraction of $`fS_d`$ such that $`H_fU`$ is not smooth of dimension $`m1`$ at $`P`$ equals $`q^{(m+1)e}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`𝔪`$ be the ideal sheaf of $`P`$ on $`U`$, and let $`Y`$ denote the closed subscheme of $`U`$ corresponding to $`𝔪^2`$. The $`fS_d`$ to be counted are those in the kernel of $`\varphi _d:H^0(𝐏^n,𝒪(d))H^0(Y,𝒪_Y(d))`$. We have $`dimH^0(Y,𝒪_Y(d))=dimH^0(Y,𝒪_Y)=(m+1)e`$, so $`\varphi _d`$ is surjective by part (b) of Lemma 2.1, and the $`𝐅_q`$-codimension of $`\mathrm{ker}\varphi _d`$ equals $`(m+1)e`$. ∎

Define the upper and lower densities $`\overline{\mu }(𝒫)`$, $`\underset{¯}{\mu }(𝒫)`$ of a subset $`𝒫S`$ as $`\mu (𝒫)`$ was defined, but using $`lim\; sup`$ and $`lim\; inf`$ in place of $`lim`$.

###### Lemma 2.4 (Singularities of medium degree).

Let $`U`$ be a smooth quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏^n`$ of dimension $`m0`$ over $`𝐅_q`$. Define

$`𝒬_r^{\mathrm{medium}}:={\displaystyle \underset{d0}{}}\{fS_d:`$ there exists $`PU`$ with $`r\mathrm{deg}P\frac{d}{m+1}`$
$`\text{such that }H_fU\text{ is not smooth of dimension }m1\text{ at }P\}.`$
Then $`lim_r\mathrm{}\overline{\mu }(𝒬_r^{\mathrm{medium}})=0`$.

###### Proof.

Using Lemma 2.3 and the crude bound $`\mathrm{\#}U(𝐅_{q^e})cq^{em}`$ for some $`c>0`$ depending only on $`U`$ \[LW54\], we obtain

$`{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\#}(𝒬_r^{\mathrm{medium}}S_d)}{\mathrm{\#}S_d}}`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{e=r}{\overset{d/(m+1)}{}}}\text{ (number of points of degree }e\text{ in }U\text{}q^{(m+1)e}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{e=r}{\overset{d/(m+1)}{}}}\mathrm{\#}U(𝐅_{q^e})q^{(m+1)e}`$
$`{\displaystyle \underset{e=r}{\overset{\mathrm{}}{}}}cq^{em}q^{(m+1)e},`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{cq^r}{1q^1}}.`$
Hence $`\overline{\mu }(𝒬_r^{\mathrm{medium}})cq^r/(1q^1)`$, which tends to zero as $`r\mathrm{}`$. ∎

### 2.3. Singular points of high degree

###### Lemma 2.5.

Let $`P`$ be a closed point of degree $`e`$ in $`𝐀^n`$ over $`𝐅_q`$. Then the fraction of $`fA_d`$ that vanish at $`P`$ is at most $`q^{\mathrm{min}(d,e^{1/n})}`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`\nu =\mathrm{min}(d,e^{1/n})`$, and let $`\mathrm{ev}_P:A_d𝐅_{q^e}`$ denote the evaluation-at-$`P`$ map. If $`e_i`$ is the degree of the projection of $`P`$ onto the $`i^{\text{th}}`$ coordinate, then $`ee_1e_2\mathrm{}e_n`$, so some $`e_i`$ exceeds $`e^{1/n}`$. For that $`i`$, $`\mathrm{ev}_P`$ injects $`_{j=0}^{\nu 1}𝐅_qx_i^j`$ into $`𝐅_{q^e}`$. Hence $`dim_{𝐅_q}\mathrm{ev}_P(A_d)\nu `$, and the codimension of $`\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{ev}_P)`$ in $`A_d`$ is at least $`\nu `$. ∎

###### Lemma 2.6 (Singularities of high degree).

Let $`U`$ be a smooth quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏^n`$ of dimension $`m0`$ over $`𝐅_q`$. Define

$$𝒬^{\mathrm{high}}:=\underset{d0}{}\{fS_d:PU_{>d/(m+1)}\text{ such that }H_fU\text{ is not smooth of dimension }m1\text{ at }P\}.$$

Then $`\overline{\mu }(𝒬^{\mathrm{high}})=0`$.

###### Proof.

If the lemma holds for $`U`$ and for $`V`$, it holds for $`UV`$, so we may assume $`U𝐀^n`$ is affine.

Given a closed point $`uU`$, choose a system of local parameters $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_nA`$ at $`u`$ on $`𝐀^n`$ such that $`t_{m+1}=t_{m+2}=\mathrm{}=t_n=0`$ defines $`U`$ locally at $`u`$. Then $`dt_1,\mathrm{},dt_n`$ are a $`𝒪_{𝐀^n,u}`$-basis for the stalk $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐀^n/𝐅_q,u}^1`$. Let $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ be the dual basis of the stalk $`𝒯_{𝐀^n/𝐅_q,u}`$ of the tangent sheaf. Choose $`sA`$ with $`s(u)0`$ to clear denominators so that $`D_i:=s_i`$ gives a global derivation $`AA`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},n`$. Then there is a neighborhood $`N_u`$ of $`u`$ in $`𝐀^n`$ such that $`N_u\{t_{m+1}=t_{m+2}=\mathrm{}=t_n=0\}=N_uU`$, $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{N_u/𝐅_q}^1=_{i=1}^n𝒪_{N_u}dt_i`$, and $`s𝒪(N_u)^{}`$. We may cover $`U`$ with finitely many $`N_u`$, so by the first sentence of this proof, we may reduce to the case where $`UN_u`$ for a single $`u`$. For $`fA_d`$, $`H_fU`$ fails to be smooth of dimension $`m1`$ at a point $`PU`$ if and only if $`f(P)=(D_1f)(P)=\mathrm{}=(D_mf)(P)=0`$.

Now for the trick. Let $`\tau =\mathrm{max}_i(\mathrm{deg}t_i)`$, $`\gamma =(d\tau )/p`$, and $`\eta =d/p`$. If $`f_0A_d`$, $`g_1A_\gamma `$, …, $`g_mA_\gamma `$, and $`hA_\eta `$ are selected uniformly and independently at random, then the distribution of

$$f:=f_0+g_1^pt_1+\mathrm{}+g_m^pt_m+h^p$$

is uniform over $`A_d`$. We will bound the probability that an $`f`$ constructed in this way has a point $`PU_{>d/(m+1)}`$ where $`f(P)=(D_1f)(P)=\mathrm{}=(D_mf)(P)=0`$. By writing $`f`$ in this way, we partially decouple the $`D_if`$ from each other: $`D_if=(D_if_0)+g_i^ps`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m`$. We will select $`f_0,g_1,\mathrm{},g_m,h`$ one at a time. For $`0im`$, define $`W_i:=U\{D_1f=\mathrm{}=D_if=0\}`$.

Claim 1: For $`0im1`$, conditioned on a choice of $`f_0,g_1,\mathrm{},g_i`$ for which $`dim(W_i)mi`$, the probability that $`dim(W_{i+1})mi1`$ is $`1o(1)`$ as $`d\mathrm{}`$. (The function of $`d`$ represented by the $`o(1)`$ depends on $`U`$ and the $`D_i`$.)

Proof of Claim 1: Let $`V_1`$, …, $`V_{\mathrm{}}`$ denote the $`(mi)`$-dimensional $`𝐅_q`$-irreducible components of $`(W_i)_{\mathrm{red}}`$. By Bézout’s theorem \[Ful84, p. 10\],

$$\mathrm{}(\mathrm{deg}\overline{U})(\mathrm{deg}D_1f)\mathrm{}(\mathrm{deg}D_if)=O(d^i)$$

as $`d\mathrm{}`$, where $`\overline{U}`$ is the projective closure of $`U`$. Since $`dimV_k1`$, there exists a coordinate $`x_j`$ depending on $`k`$ such that the projection $`x_j(V_k)`$ has dimension 1. We need to bound the set

$$G_k^{\mathrm{bad}}:=\{g_{i+1}A_\gamma :D_{i+1}f=(D_{i+1}f_0)+g_{i+1}^ps\text{ vanishes identically on }V_k\}.$$

If $`g,g^{}G_k^{\mathrm{bad}}`$, then by taking the difference and multiplying by $`s^1`$, we see that $`gg^{}`$ vanishes on $`V_k`$. Hence if $`G_k^{\mathrm{bad}}`$ is nonempty, it is a coset of the subspace of functions in $`A_\gamma `$ vanishing on $`V_k`$. The codimension of that subspace, or equivalently the dimension of the image of $`A_\gamma `$ in the regular functions on $`V_k`$, exceeds $`\gamma +1`$, since a nonzero polynomial in $`x_j`$ alone does not vanish on $`V_k`$. Thus the probability that $`D_{i+1}f`$ vanishes on some $`V_k`$ is at most $`\mathrm{}q^{\gamma 1}=O(d^iq^{(d\tau )/p})=o(1)`$ as $`d\mathrm{}`$. This proves Claim 1.

Claim 2: Conditioned on a choice of $`f_0,g_1,\mathrm{},g_m`$ for which $`W_m`$ is finite, $`\mathrm{Prob}(H_fW_mU_{>d/(m+1)}=\mathrm{})=1o(1)`$ as $`d\mathrm{}`$.

Proof of Claim 2: The Bézout theorem argument in the proof of Claim 1 shows that $`\mathrm{\#}W_m=O(d^m)`$. For a given point $`PW_m`$, the set $`H^{\mathrm{bad}}`$ of $`hA_\eta `$ for which $`H_f`$ passes through $`P`$ is either $`\mathrm{}`$ or a coset of $`\mathrm{ker}(\mathrm{ev}_P:A_\eta \kappa (P))`$, where $`\kappa (P)`$ is the residue field of $`P`$. If moreover $`\mathrm{deg}P>d/(m+1)`$, then Lemma 2.5 implies $`\mathrm{\#}H^{\mathrm{bad}}/\mathrm{\#}A_\eta q^\nu `$ where $`\nu =\mathrm{min}(\eta ,\left(\frac{d}{m+1}\right)^{1/n})`$. Hence

$$\mathrm{Prob}(H_fW_mU_{>d/(m+1)}\mathrm{})\mathrm{\#}W_mq^\nu =O(d^mq^\nu )=o(1)$$

as $`d\mathrm{}`$, since $`\nu `$ grows like a positive power of $`d`$. This proves Claim 2.

End of proof of Lemma 2.6: Choose $`fS_d`$ uniformly at random. Claims 1 and 2 show that with probability $`_{i=0}^{m1}(1o(1))(1o(1))=1o(1)`$ as $`d\mathrm{}`$, $`dimW_i=mi`$ for $`i=0,1,\mathrm{},m`$ and $`H_fW_mU_{>d/(m+1)}=\mathrm{}`$. But $`H_fW_m`$ is the subvariety of $`U`$ cut out by the equations $`f(P)=(D_1f)(P)=\mathrm{}=(D_mf)(P)=0`$, so $`H_fW_mU_{>d/(m+1)}`$ is exactly the set of points of $`H_fU`$ of degree $`>d/(m+1)`$ where $`H_fU`$ is not smooth of dimension $`m1`$. ∎

### 2.4. Proofs of theorems over finite fields

###### Proof of Theorem 1.2.

As mentioned in the proof of Lemma 2.4, the number of closed points of degree $`r`$ in $`U`$ is $`O(q^{rm})`$; this guarantees that the product defining $`\zeta _U(s)^1`$ converges at $`s=m+1`$. By Lemma 2.2,

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\mu (𝒫_r)=\frac{\mathrm{\#}T}{\mathrm{\#}H^0(Z,𝒪_Z)}\zeta _U(m+1)^1.$$

On the other hand, the definitions imply $`𝒫𝒫_r𝒫𝒬_r^{\mathrm{medium}}𝒬^{\mathrm{high}}`$, so $`\overline{\mu }(𝒫)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\mu }(𝒫)`$ each differ from $`\mu (𝒫_r)`$ by at most $`\overline{\mu }(𝒬_r^{\mathrm{medium}})+\overline{\mu }(𝒬^{\mathrm{high}})`$. Applying Lemmas 2.4 and 2.6 and letting $`r`$ tend to $`\mathrm{}`$, we obtain

$$\mu (𝒫)=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\mu (𝒫_r)=\frac{\mathrm{\#}T}{\mathrm{\#}H^0(Z,𝒪_Z)}\zeta _U(m+1)^1.$$

###### Proof of Theorem 1.1.

Take $`Z=\mathrm{}`$ and $`T=\{0\}`$ in Theorem 1.2. ∎

###### Proof of Theorem 1.3.

The existence of $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_u`$ and Lemmas 2.4 and 2.6 let us approximate $`𝒫`$ by the set $`𝒫_r`$ defined only by the conditions at closed points $`P`$ of degree less than $`r`$, for large $`r`$. For each $`P𝐏_{<r}^n`$, the hypothesis $`\mu _P(U_P)=0`$ lets us approximate $`U_P`$ by a union of cosets of an ideal $`I_P`$ of finite index in $`\widehat{𝒪}_P`$. (The details are completely analogous to those in the proof of Lemma 20 of \[PS99\].) Finally, Lemma 2.1(a) implies that for $`d1`$, the images of $`fS_d`$ in $`_{P𝐏_{<r}^n}\widehat{𝒪}_P/I_P`$ are equidistributed. ∎

Finally let us show that the densities in our theorems do not change if in the definition of density we consider only $`f`$ for which $`H_f`$ is geometrically integral, at least for $`n2`$.

###### Proposition 2.7.

Suppose $`n2`$. Let $``$ be the set of $`fS_{\mathrm{homog}}`$ for which $`H_f`$ fails to be a geometrically integral hypersurface of dimension $`n1`$. Then $`\mu ()=0`$.

###### Proof.

We have $`=_1_2`$ where $`_1`$ is the set of $`fS_{\mathrm{homog}}`$ that factor nontrivially over $`𝐅_q`$, and $`_2`$ is the set of $`fS_{\mathrm{homog}}`$ of the form $`N_{𝐅_{q^e}/𝐅_q}(g)`$ for some homogeneous polynomial $`g𝐅_{q^e}[x_0,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ and $`e2`$. (Note: if our base field were not $`𝐅_q`$, an irreducible polynomial that is not absolutely irreducible would be a constant times a norm, but the constant is unnecessary here, since $`N_{𝐅_{q^e}/𝐅_q}:𝐅_{q^e}𝐅_q`$ is surjective.)

We have

$$\frac{\mathrm{\#}(_1S_d)}{\mathrm{\#}S_d}\frac{1}{\mathrm{\#}S_d}\underset{i=1}{\overset{d/2}{}}(\mathrm{\#}S_i)(\mathrm{\#}S_{di})=\underset{i=1}{\overset{d/2}{}}q^{N_i},$$

where

$$N_i=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+d}{n}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+i}{n}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+di}{n}\right).$$

For $`1id/21`$,

$`N_{i+1}N_i`$ $`=\left[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+di}{n}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+di1}{n}}\right)\right]\left[\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+i+1}{n}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+i}{n}}\right)\right]`$
$`=\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+di1}{n1}}\right)\left({\displaystyle \genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+i}{n1}}\right)`$
$`>0.`$
Similarly, for $`dn`$,

$$N_1=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+d1}{n1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{n}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+d1}{1}\right)\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{n+1}{1}\right)=d2.$$

Thus

$$\frac{\mathrm{\#}(_1S_d)}{\mathrm{\#}S_d}\underset{i=1}{\overset{d/2}{}}q^{N_i}\underset{i=1}{\overset{d/2}{}}q^{2d}dq^{2d},$$

which tends to zero as $`d\mathrm{}`$.

The number of $`fS_d`$ that are norms of homogeneous polynomials of degree $`d/e`$ over $`𝐅_{q^e}`$ is at most $`\left(q^e\right)^{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d/e+n}{n}\right)}`$. Therefore

$$\frac{\mathrm{\#}(_2S_d)}{\mathrm{\#}S_d}\underset{e|d,e>1}{}q^{M_e}$$

where $`M_e=\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+n}{n}\right)e\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d/e+n}{n}\right)`$. For $`2ed`$,

$`{\displaystyle \frac{e\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d/e+n}{n}\right)}{\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+n}{n}\right)}}`$ $`={\displaystyle \frac{e\left(\frac{d}{e}+n\right)\left(\frac{d}{e}+n1\right)\mathrm{}\left(\frac{d}{e}+1\right)}{(d+n)(d+n1)\mathrm{}(d+1)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e\left(\frac{d}{e}+n\right)\left(\frac{d}{e}+n1\right)}{(d+n)(d+n1)}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{e\left(\frac{d}{e}+n\right)^2}{d^2}}`$
$`={\displaystyle \frac{1}{e}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2n}{d}}+{\displaystyle \frac{en^2}{d^2}}`$
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{2n^2}{d}}+{\displaystyle \frac{dn^2}{d^2}}`$
$`2/3,`$
once $`d18n^2`$. Hence in this case, $`M_e\frac{1}{3}\left(\genfrac{}{}{0pt}{}{d+n}{n}\right)d^2/3`$, so

$$\frac{\mathrm{\#}(_2S_d)}{\mathrm{\#}S_d}\underset{e|d,e>1}{}q^{M_e}dq^{d^2/3},$$

which tends to zero as $`d\mathrm{}`$. ∎

Another proof of Proposition 2.7 is given in Section 3.2, but that proof is valid only for $`n3`$.

## 3. Applications

### 3.1. Counterexamples to Bertini

Ironically, we can use our hypersurface Bertini theorem to construct counterexamples to the original hyperplane Bertini theorem! More generally, we can show that hypersurfaces of bounded degree do not suffice to yield a smooth intersection.

###### Theorem 3.1 (Anti-Bertini theorem).

Given a finite field $`𝐅_q`$ and integers $`n2`$, $`d1`$, there exists a smooth projective geometrically integral hypersurface $`X`$ in $`𝐏^n`$ over $`𝐅_q`$ such that for each $`fS_1\mathrm{}S_d`$, $`H_fX`$ fails to be smooth of dimension $`n2`$.

###### Proof.

Let $`H^{(1)}`$, …, $`H^{(\mathrm{})}`$ be a list of the $`H_f`$ arising from $`fS_1\mathrm{}S_d`$. For $`i=1,\mathrm{},\mathrm{}`$ in turn, choose a closed point $`P_iH^{(i)}`$ distinct from $`P_j`$ for $`j<i`$. Using a $`T`$ as in Theorem 1.2, we can express the condition that a hypersurface in $`𝐏^n`$ be smooth of dimension $`n1`$ at $`P_i`$ and have tangent space at $`P_i`$ equal to that of $`H^{(i)}`$ whenever the latter is smooth of dimension $`n1`$ at $`P_i`$. Theorem 1.2 (with Proposition 2.7) implies that there exists a smooth projective geometrically integral hypersurface $`X𝐏^n`$ satisfying these conditions. Then for each $`i`$, $`XH^{(i)}`$ fails to be smooth of dimension $`n2`$ at $`P_i`$. ∎

###### Remark .

Katz \[Kat99, p. 621\] remarks that if $`X`$ is the hypersurface

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n+1}{}}(X_iY_i^qX_i^qY_i)=0$$

in $`𝐏^{2n+1}`$ over $`𝐅_q`$ with homogeneous coordinates $`X_1,\mathrm{},X_{n+1},Y_1,\mathrm{},Y_{n+1}`$, then $`HX`$ is singular for every hyperplane $`H`$ in $`𝐏^{2n+1}`$ over $`𝐅_q`$.

### 3.2. Singularities of positive dimension

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏^n`$ of dimension $`m0`$ over $`𝐅_q`$. Given $`fS_{\mathrm{homog}}`$, let $`(H_fX)_{\mathrm{sing}}`$ denote the closed subset of points where $`H_fX`$ is not smooth of dimension $`m1`$.

Although Theorem 1.1 shows that for a nonempty smooth quasiprojective subscheme $`X𝐏^n`$ of dimension $`m0`$, there is a positive probability that $`(H_fX)_{\mathrm{sing}}\mathrm{}`$, we now show that the probability that $`dim(H_fX)_{\mathrm{sing}}1`$ is zero.

###### Theorem 3.2.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏^n`$ of dimension $`m0`$ over $`𝐅_q`$. Define

$$𝒮:=\{fS_{\mathrm{homog}}:dim(H_fX)_{\mathrm{sing}}1\}.$$

Then $`\mu (𝒮)=0`$.

###### Proof.

This is a corollary of Lemma 2.6 with $`U=X`$, since $`𝒮𝒬^{\mathrm{high}}`$. ∎

###### Remark .

If $`fS_{\mathrm{homog}}`$ is such that $`H_f`$ is not geometrically integral of dimension $`n1`$, then $`dim(H_f)_{\mathrm{sing}}n2`$. Hence Theorem 3.2 with $`X=𝐏^n`$ gives a new proof of Proposition 2.7, at least when $`n3`$.

### 3.3. Space filling curves

We next use Theorem 1.2 to answer affirmatively all the open questions in \[Kat99\]. In their strongest forms, these are

> Question 10: Given a smooth projective geometrically connected variety $`X`$ of dimension $`m2`$ over $`𝐅_q`$, and a finite extension $`E`$ of $`𝐅_q`$, is there always a closed subscheme $`Y`$ in $`X`$, $`YX`$, such that $`Y(E)=X(E)`$ and such that $`Y`$ is smooth and geometrically connected over $`𝐅_q`$?
>
> Question 13: Given a closed subscheme $`X𝐏^n`$ over $`𝐅_q`$ that is smooth and geometrically connected of dimension $`m`$, and a point $`PX(𝐅_q)`$, is it true for all $`d1`$ that there exists a hypersurface $`H𝐏^n`$ of degree $`d`$ such that $`P`$ lies on $`H`$ and $`HX`$ is smooth of dimension $`m1`$?

Both of these questions are answered by the following:

###### Theorem 3.3.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏^n`$ of dimension $`m1`$ over $`𝐅_q`$, and let $`FX`$ be a finite set of closed points. Then there exists a smooth projective geometrically integral hypersurface $`H𝐏^n`$ such that $`HX`$ is smooth of dimension $`m1`$ and contains $`F`$.

###### Remarks .

1. If $`m2`$ and if $`X`$ in Theorem 3.3 is geometrically connected and projective in addition to being smooth, then $`HX`$ will be geometrically connected and projective too. This follows from Corollary III.7.9 in \[Har77\].
2. Recall that if a variety is geometrically connected and smooth, then it is geometrically integral.
3. Question 10 and (partially) Question 13 were independently answered by Gabber \[Gab01\].

###### Proof of Theorem 3.3.

Let $`T_{P,X}`$ denote the Zariski tangent space of a point $`P`$ on $`X`$. At each $`PF`$ choose a codimension 1 subspace $`V_PT_{P,𝐏^n}`$ not equal to $`T_{P,X}`$. We will apply Theorem 1.3 with the following local conditions: for $`PF`$, $`U_P`$ is the condition that the hypersurface $`H_f`$ passes through $`P`$ and $`T_{P,H}=V_P`$; for $`PF`$, $`U_P`$ is the condition that $`H_f`$ and $`H_fX`$ be smooth of dimensions $`n1`$ and $`m1`$, respectively, at $`P`$. Theorem 1.3 (with Proposition 2.7) implies the existence of a smooth projective geometrically integral hypersurface $`H𝐏^n`$ satisfying these conditions. ∎

###### Corollary 3.4.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth, projective, geometrically integral variety of dimension $`m1`$ over $`𝐅_q`$, let $`F`$ be a finite set of closed points of $`X`$, and let $`y`$ be an integer with $`1ym`$. Then there exists a smooth, projective, geometrically integral subvariety $`YX`$ of dimension $`y`$ such that $`FY`$.

###### Proof.

Use Theorem 3.3 with reverse induction on $`y`$. ∎

###### Corollary 3.5 (Space filling curves).

Let $`X`$ be a smooth, projective, geometrically integral variety of dimension $`m1`$ over $`𝐅_q`$, and let $`E`$ be a finite extension of $`𝐅_q`$. Then there exists a smooth, projective, geometrically integral curve $`YX`$ such that $`Y(E)=X(E)`$.

###### Proof.

Take $`y=1`$ and $`F=X(E)`$ in Corollary 3.4. ∎

In a similar way, we prove the following:

###### Corollary 3.6 (Space avoiding varieties).

Let $`X`$ be a smooth, projective, geometrically integral variety of dimension $`m1`$ over $`𝐅_q`$, and let $`\mathrm{}`$ and $`y`$ be integers with $`\mathrm{}1`$ and $`0ym`$. Then there exists a smooth, projective, geometrically integral subvariety $`YX`$ of dimension $`y`$ such that $`Y`$ has no points of degree less than $`\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

If $`y=0`$, let $`Y`$ be a closed point of $`X`$ of large degree. (Such points exist since $`X(\overline{𝐅}_q)`$ is infinite.) If $`y>0`$, repeat the arguments used in the proof of Theorem 3.3 and Corollary 3.4, but in each application of Theorem 1.2, force the hypersurface to avoid the finitely many points of $`X`$ of degree less than $`\mathrm{}`$. ∎

### 3.4. Albanese varieties

For a smooth, projective, geometrically integral variety $`X`$ over a field, let $`\mathrm{Alb}X`$ denote its Albanese variety. As pointed out in \[Kat99\], a positive answer to Question 13 implies that every positive dimensional abelian variety $`A`$ over $`𝐅_q`$ contains a smooth, projective, geometrically integral curve $`Y`$ such that the natural map $`\mathrm{Alb}YA`$ is surjective. We generalize this slightly in the next result, which strengthens Theorem 11 of \[Kat99\] in the finite field case.

###### Theorem 3.7.

Let $`X`$ be a smooth, projective, geometrically integral variety of dimension $`m1`$ over $`𝐅_q`$. Then there exists a smooth, projective, geometrically integral curve $`YX`$ such that the natural map $`\mathrm{Alb}Y\mathrm{Alb}X`$ is surjective.

###### Proof.

Choose a prime $`\mathrm{}`$ not equal to the characteristic. Represent each $`\mathrm{}`$-torsion point in $`(\mathrm{Alb}X)(\overline{𝐅}_q)`$ by a zero-cycle of degree zero on $`X`$, and let $`F`$ be the finite set of closed points appearing in these. Use Corollary 3.4 to construct a smooth, projective, geometrically integral curve $`Y`$ passing through all points of $`F`$. The image of $`\mathrm{Alb}Y\mathrm{Alb}X`$ is an abelian subvariety of $`\mathrm{Alb}X`$ containing all the $`\mathrm{}`$-torsion points, so the image equals $`\mathrm{Alb}X`$. (The trick of using the $`\mathrm{}`$-torsion points is due to Gabber \[Kat99\].) ∎

###### Remarks .

1. A slightly more general argument proves Theorem 3.7 over an arbitrary field $`k`$ \[Gab01, Proposition 2.4\].
2. It is also true that any abelian variety over a field $`k`$ can be embedded as an abelian subvariety of the Jacobian of a smooth, projective, geometrically integral curve over $`k`$ \[Gab01\].

### 3.5. Plane curves

The probability that a projective plane curve over $`𝐅_q`$ is nonsingular equals

$$\zeta _{𝐏^2}(3)^1=(1q^1)(1q^2)(1q^3).$$

(We interpret this probability as the density given by Theorem 1.1 for $`X=𝐏^2`$ in $`𝐏^2`$.) Theorem 1.3 with a simple local calculation shows that the probability that a projective plane curve over $`𝐅_q`$ has at worst nodes as singularities equals

$$\zeta _{𝐏^2}(4)^1=(1q^2)(1q^3)(1q^4).$$

For $`𝐅_2`$, these probabilities are $`21/64`$ and $`315/512`$.

###### Remark .

Although Theorem 1.1 guarantees the existence of a smooth plane curve of degree $`d`$ over $`𝐅_q`$ only when $`d`$ is sufficiently large relative to $`q`$, in fact such a curve exists for every $`d1`$ and every finite field $`𝐅_q`$. Moreover, the corresponding statement for hypersurfaces of specified dimension and degree is true \[KS99, §11.4.6\]. In fact, for any field $`k`$ and integers $`n1`$, $`d3`$ with $`(n,d)`$ not equal to $`(1,3)`$ or $`(2,4)`$, there exists a smooth hypersurface $`X`$ over $`k`$ of degree $`d`$ in $`𝐏^{n+1}`$ such that $`X`$ has no nontrivial automorphisms over $`\overline{k}`$ \[Poo00\]. This last statement is false for $`(1,3)`$; whether or not it holds for $`(2,4)`$ is an open question.

## 4. An open question

In response to Theorem 1.1, Matt Baker has asked the following:

###### Question 4.1.

Fix a smooth quasiprojective subscheme $`X`$ of dimension $`m`$ over $`𝐅_q`$. Does there exist an integer $`n_0>0`$ such that for $`nn_0`$, if $`\iota :X𝐏^n`$ is an embedding and $`\iota (X)`$ is not contained in any hyperplane in $`𝐏^n`$, then there exists a hyperplane $`H𝐏^n`$ over $`𝐅_q`$ such that $`H\iota (X)`$ is smooth of dimension $`m1`$?

Theorem 1.1 proves that the answer is yes, if one allows only the embeddings $`\iota `$ obtained by composing a fixed initial embedding $`X𝐏^n`$ with $`d`$-uple embeddings $`𝐏^n𝐏^N`$. Nevertheless, we conjecture that for each $`X`$ of positive dimension, the answer to Question 4.1 is no.

## 5. An arithmetic analogue

We formulate an analogue of Theorem 1.1 in which the smooth quasiprojective scheme $`X`$ over $`𝐅_q`$ is replaced by a regular quasiprojective scheme $`X`$ over $`\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$, and we seek hyperplane sections that are regular. The reason for using regularity instead of the stronger condition of being smooth over $`𝐙`$ is discussed in Section 5.7.

Fix $`n𝐍=𝐙_0`$. Redefine $`S`$ as the homogeneous coordinate ring $`𝐙[x_0,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ of $`𝐏_𝐙^n`$, let $`S_dS`$ denote the $`𝐙`$-submodule of homogeneous polynomials of degree $`d`$, and let $`S_{\mathrm{homog}}=_{d=0}^{\mathrm{}}S_d`$. If $`p`$ is prime, let $`S_{d,p}`$ denote the set of homogeneous polynomials in $`𝐅_p[x_0,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ of degree $`d`$. For each $`fS_d`$, let $`H_f`$ denote the subscheme $`\mathrm{Proj}(S/(f))𝐏_𝐙^n`$. Similarly, for $`fS_{d,p}`$, let $`H_f`$ denote $`\mathrm{Proj}(𝐅_p[x_0,\mathrm{},x_n]/(f))𝐏_{𝐅_p}^n`$.

If $`𝒫`$ is a subset of $`𝐙^N`$ for some $`N1`$, define the upper density

$$\overline{\mu }(𝒫):=\underset{\sigma }{\mathrm{max}}\underset{B_{\sigma (1)}\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\mathrm{}\underset{B_{\sigma (N)}\mathrm{}}{lim\; sup}\frac{\mathrm{\#}(𝒫\mathrm{Box})}{\mathrm{\#}\mathrm{Box}},$$

where $`\sigma `$ ranges over permutations of $`\{1,2,\mathrm{},N\}`$ and

$$\mathrm{Box}=\{(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)𝐙^N:|x_i|B_i\text{ for all }i\}.$$

(In other words, we take the $`lim\; sup`$ only over growing boxes whose dimensions can be ordered so that each is very large relative to the previous dimensions.) Define lower density $`\underset{¯}{\mu }(𝒫)`$ similarly using $`\mathrm{min}`$ and $`lim\; inf`$. Define upper and lower densities $`\overline{\mu }_d`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\mu }_d`$ of subsets of a fixed $`S_d`$ by identifying $`S_d`$ with $`𝐙^N`$ using a $`𝐙`$-basis of monomials. If $`𝒫S_{\mathrm{homog}}`$, define $`\overline{\mu }(𝒫)=lim\; sup_d\mathrm{}\overline{\mu }_d(𝒫S_d)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\mu }(𝒫)=lim\; inf_d\mathrm{}\underset{¯}{\mu }_d(𝒫S_d)`$. Finally, if $`𝒫`$ is a subset of $`S_{\mathrm{homog}}`$, define $`\mu (𝒫)`$ as the common value of $`\overline{\mu }(𝒫)`$ and $`\underset{¯}{\mu }(𝒫)`$ if $`\overline{\mu }(𝒫)=\underset{¯}{\mu }(𝒫)`$. The reason for choosing this definition is that it makes our proof work; aesthetically, we would have preferred to prove a stronger statement by defining density as the limit over arbitrary boxes in $`S_d`$ with $`\mathrm{min}\{d,B_1,\mathrm{},B_N\}\mathrm{}`$; probably such a statement is also true but extremely difficult to prove.

For a scheme $`X`$ of finite type over $`𝐙`$, define the zeta function \[Ser65, §1.3\]

$$\zeta _X(s):=\underset{\mathrm{closed}PX}{}\left(1\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)^s\right)^1,$$

where $`\kappa (P)`$ denotes the (finite) residue field of $`P`$. This generalizes the definition of Section 1, since a scheme of finite type over $`𝐅_q`$ can be viewed as a scheme of finite type over $`𝐙`$. On the other hand, $`\zeta _{\mathrm{Spec}𝐙}(s)`$ is the Riemann zeta function.

The $`abc`$ conjecture, formulated by D. Masser and J. Oesterlé in response to insights of R. C. Mason, L. Szpiro, and G. Frey, 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 $`c<C({\displaystyle \underset{p|abc}{}}p)^{1+ϵ}`$.

For convenience, we say that a scheme $`X`$ of finite type over $`𝐙`$ is regular of dimension $`m`$ if for every closed point $`P`$ of $`X`$, the local ring $`𝒪_{X,P}`$ is regular of dimension $`m`$. For a scheme $`X`$ of finite type over $`𝐙`$, this is equivalent to the condition that $`𝒪_{X,P}`$ be regular for all $`PX`$ and all irreducible components of $`X`$ have Krull dimension $`m`$. If $`X`$ is smooth of relative dimension $`m1`$ over $`\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$, then $`X`$ is regular of dimension $`m`$, but the converse need not hold. The empty scheme is regular of every dimension.

###### Theorem 5.1 (Bertini for arithmetic schemes).

Assume the $`abc`$ conjecture and Conjecture 5.2 below. Let $`X`$ be a quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏_𝐙^n`$ that is regular of dimension $`m0`$. Define

$$𝒫:=\{fS_{\mathrm{homog}}:H_fX\text{ is regular of dimension }m1\}.$$

Then $`\mu (𝒫)=\zeta _X(m+1)^1`$.

###### Remark .

The case $`X=𝐏_𝐙^0=\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$ in $`𝐏_𝐙^0`$ of Theorem 5.1 is the statement that the density of squarefree integers is $`\zeta (2)^1`$, where $`\zeta `$ is the Riemann zeta function. The proof of Theorem 5.1 in general will involve questions about squarefree values of multivariable polynomials.

Given a scheme $`X`$, let $`X_𝐐=X\times 𝐐`$, and let $`X_p=X\times 𝐅_p`$ for each prime $`p`$.

###### Conjecture 5.2.

Let $`X`$ be an integral quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏_𝐙^n`$ that is smooth over $`𝐙`$ of relative dimension $`r`$. There exists $`c>0`$ such that if $`d`$ and $`p`$ are sufficiently large, then

$$\frac{\mathrm{\#}\{fS_{d,p}:dim(H_fX_p)_{\mathrm{sing}}1\}}{\mathrm{\#}S_{d,p}}<\frac{c}{p^2}.$$

Heuristically one expects that Conjecture 5.2 is true even if $`c/p^2`$ is replaced by $`c/p^k`$ for any fixed $`k2`$. On the other hand, for the application to Theorem 5.1, it would suffice to prove a weak form of Conjecture 5.2 with the upper bound $`c/p^2`$ replaced by any $`ϵ_p>0`$ such that $`_pϵ_p<\mathrm{}`$. We used $`c/p^2`$ only to simplify the statement.

If $`d`$ is sufficiently large relative to $`p`$, then Theorem 3.2 provides a suitable upper bound on the ratio in Conjecture 5.2. If $`p`$ is sufficiently large relative to $`d`$, then one can derive a suitable upper bound from the Weil Conjectures. The difficulty lies in the case where $`d`$ is comparable to $`p`$.

### 5.1. Singular points with small residue field

We begin the proof of Theorem 5.1 with analogues of results in Section 2.1. If $`M`$ is a finite abelian group, let $`\mathrm{length}_𝐙M`$ denote its length as a $`𝐙`$-module.

###### Lemma 5.3.

1. If $`Y`$ is a zero-dimensional closed subscheme of $`𝐏_𝐙^n`$, then the map $`\varphi _d:S_d=H^0(𝐏_𝐙^n,𝒪(d))H^0(Y,𝒪_Y(d))`$ is surjective for $`d1`$.
2. If moreover $`Y𝐀_𝐙^n:=\{x_00\}`$, then $`\varphi _d`$ is surjective for $`d\mathrm{length}_𝐙H^0(Y,𝒪_Y)1`$.

###### Proof.

Copy the proof of Lemma 2.1. ∎

###### Lemma 5.4.

If $`𝒫𝐙^N`$ is a union of $`c`$ distinct cosets of a subgroup $`G𝐙^N`$ of index $`m`$, then $`\mu (𝒫)=c/m`$.

###### Proof.

Without loss of generality, we may replace $`G`$ with its subgroup $`(m𝐙)^N`$ of finite index. The result follows, since any of the boxes in the definition of $`\mu `$ can be approximated by a box of dimensions that are multiples of $`m`$, with an error that becomes negligible compared with the number of lattice points in the box as the box dimensions tend to infinity. ∎

If $`X`$ is a scheme of finite type over $`𝐙`$, define $`X_{<r}`$ as the set of closed points $`P`$ with $`\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)<r`$. (This conflicts with the corresponding definition before Lemma 2.2; forget that one.) Define $`X_r`$ similarly. We say that $`X`$ is regular of dimension $`m`$ at a closed point $`P`$ of $`𝐏_𝐙^n`$ if either $`PX`$ or $`𝒪_{X,P}`$ is a regular local ring of dimension $`m`$.

###### Lemma 5.5 (Small singularities).

Let $`X`$ be a quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏_𝐙^n`$ that is regular of dimension $`m0`$. Define

$$𝒫_r:=\{fS_{\mathrm{homog}}:H_fX\text{ is regular of dimension }m1\text{ at all }PX_{<r}\}.$$

Then

$$\mu (𝒫_r)=\underset{PX_{<r}}{}\left(1\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)^{(m+1)}\right).$$

###### Proof.

Given Lemmas 5.3 and 5.4, the proof is the same as that of Lemma 2.2 with $`Z=\mathrm{}`$. ∎

### 5.2. Reductions

Theorem 1 of \[Ser65\] shows that $`{\displaystyle \underset{PX_{<r}}{}}\left(1\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)^{(m+1)}\right)`$ converges to $`\zeta _X(m+1)^1`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$. Thus Theorem 5.1 follows from Lemma 5.5 and the following, whose proof will occupy the rest of Section 5.

###### Lemma 5.6 (Large singularities).

Assume the $`abc`$ conjecture and Conjecture 5.2. Let $`X`$ be a quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏_𝐙^n`$ that is regular of dimension $`m0`$. Define

$`𝒬_r^{\mathrm{large}}:=\{fS_{\mathrm{homog}}:`$ there exists $`PX_r`$ such that
$`H_fX\text{ is not regular of dimension }m1\text{ at }P\}.`$
Then $`lim_r\mathrm{}\overline{\mu }(𝒬_r^{\mathrm{large}})=0`$.

Lemma 5.6 holds for $`X`$ if it holds for each subscheme in an open cover of $`X`$, since by quasicompactness any such open cover has a finite subcover. In particular, we may assume that $`X`$ is connected. Since $`X`$ is also regular, $`X`$ is integral. If the image of $`X\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$ is a closed point $`(p)`$, then $`X`$ is smooth of dimension $`m`$ over $`𝐅_p`$, and Lemma 5.6 for $`X`$ follows from Lemmas 2.4 and 2.6. Thus from now on, we assume that $`X`$ dominates $`\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$.

Since $`X`$ is regular, its generic fiber $`X_𝐐`$ is regular. Since $`𝐐`$ is a perfect field, it follows that $`X_𝐐`$ is smooth over $`𝐐`$, of dimension $`m1`$. By \[Gro66, 17.7.11(iii)\], there exists an integer $`t1`$ such that $`X\times 𝐙[1/t]`$ is smooth of relative dimension $`m1`$ over $`𝐙[1/t]`$.

### 5.3. Singular points of small residue characteristic

###### Lemma 5.7 (Singularities of small characteristic).

Fix a nonzero prime $`p𝐙`$. Let $`X`$ be an integral quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏_𝐙^n`$ that dominates $`\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$ and is regular of dimension $`m0`$. Define

$`𝒬_{p,r}:=\{fS_{\mathrm{homog}}:`$ there exists $`PX_p`$ with $`\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)r`$
$`\text{such that }H_fX\text{ is not regular of dimension }m1\text{ at }P\}.`$
Then $`lim_r\mathrm{}\overline{\mu }(𝒬_{p,r})=0`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`X_p`$ is nonempty. Then, since $`X_p`$ is cut out in $`X`$ by a single equation $`p=0`$, and since $`p`$ is neither a unit nor a zerodivisor in $`H^0(X,𝒪_X)`$, $`dimX_p=m1`$.

Let

$`𝒬_{p,r}^{\mathrm{medium}}:={\displaystyle \underset{d0}{}}\{fS_d:`$ there exists $`PX_p`$ with $`r\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)p^{d/(m+1)}`$
$`\text{such that }H_fX\text{ is not regular of dimension }m1\text{ at }P\}`$
and

$`𝒬_p^{\mathrm{high}}:={\displaystyle \underset{d0}{}}\{fS_d:`$ there exists $`PX_p`$ with $`\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)>p^{d/(m+1)}`$
$`\text{such that }H_fX\text{ is not regular of dimension }m1\text{ at }P\}.`$
Since $`𝒬_{p,r}=𝒬_{p,r}^{\mathrm{medium}}𝒬_p^{\mathrm{high}}`$, it suffices to prove $`lim_r\mathrm{}\overline{\mu }(𝒬_{p,r}^{\mathrm{medium}})=0`$ and $`\overline{\mu }(𝒬_p^{\mathrm{high}})=0`$. We will adapt the proofs of Lemmas 2.4 and 2.6.

If $`P`$ is a closed point of $`X`$, let $`𝔪_{X,P}𝒪_X`$ denote the ideal sheaf corresponding to $`P`$, and let $`Y_P`$ be the closed subscheme of $`X`$ corresponding to the ideal sheaf $`𝔪_{X,P}^2`$. For fixed $`d`$, the set $`𝒬_{p,r}^{\mathrm{medium}}S_d`$ is contained in the union over $`P`$ with $`r\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)p^{d/(m+1)}`$ of the kernel of the restriction $`\varphi _P:S_dH^0(Y_P,𝒪(d))`$. Since $`H^0(Y_P,𝒪(d))H^0(Y_P,𝒪_{Y_P})`$ has length $`(m+1)[\kappa (P):𝐅_p]d`$ as a $`𝐙`$-module, $`\varphi _P`$ is surjective by Lemma 5.3(b), and Lemma 5.4 implies $`\overline{\mu }(\mathrm{ker}\varphi _P)=\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)^{(m+1)}`$. Thus

$$\overline{\mu }(𝒬_{p,r}^{\mathrm{medium}}S_d)\underset{P}{}\overline{\mu }(\mathrm{ker}\varphi _P)=\underset{P}{}\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)^{(m+1)}.$$

where the sum is over $`PX_p`$ with $`r\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)p^{d/(m+1)}`$. The crude form $`\mathrm{\#}X_p(𝐅_{p^e})=O(p^{e(m1)})`$ of the bound in \[LW54\] implies that

$$\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\overline{\mu }(𝒬_{p,r}^{\mathrm{medium}})=\underset{r\mathrm{}}{lim}\underset{d\mathrm{}}{lim}\overline{\mu }(𝒬_{p,r}^{\mathrm{medium}}S_d)=0.$$

Next we turn to $`𝒬_p^{\mathrm{high}}`$. Since we are free to pass to an open cover of $`X`$, we may assume that $`X`$ is contained in the subset $`𝐀_𝐙^n:=\{x_00\}`$ of $`𝐏_𝐙^n`$. Let $`A=𝐙[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be the ring of regular functions on $`𝐀_𝐙^n`$. Identify $`S_d`$ with the set of dehomogenizations $`A_d=\{fA:\mathrm{deg}fd\}`$, where $`\mathrm{deg}f`$ denotes total degree.

Let $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\mathrm{\Omega }_{X_p/𝐅_p}`$ denote the sheaf of regular differentials on the reduced scheme associated to $`X_p`$. For $`PX_p`$, define the dimension of the fiber

$$\varphi (P)=dim_{\kappa (P)}\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{𝒪_{X_p}}{}\kappa (P).$$

Let $`𝔪_{X_p,P}`$ be the maximal ideal of the local ring $`𝒪_{X_P,P}`$. If $`P`$ is a closed point of $`X_p`$, the isomorphism

$$\mathrm{\Omega }\underset{𝒪_{X_p}}{}\kappa (P)\frac{𝔪_{X_p,P}}{𝔪_{X_p,P}^2}$$

of Proposition II.8.7 of \[Har77\] shows that $`\varphi (P)=dim_{\kappa (P)}𝔪_{X_p,P}/𝔪_{X_p,P}^2`$; moreover

$$p𝒪_{X,P}\frac{𝔪_{X,P}}{𝔪_{X,P}^2}\frac{𝔪_{X_p,P}}{𝔪_{X_p,P}^2}0$$

is exact. Since $`X`$ is regular of dimension $`m`$, the middle term is a $`\kappa (P)`$-vector space of dimension $`m`$. But the module on the left is generated by one element. Hence $`\varphi (P)`$ equals $`m1`$ or $`m`$ at each closed point $`P`$.

Let $`Y=\{PX_p:\varphi (P)m\}`$. By Exercise II.5.8(a) of \[Har77\], $`Y`$ is a closed subset, and we give $`Y`$ the structure of a reduced subscheme of $`X_p`$. Let $`U=X_pY`$. Thus for closed points $`PX_p`$,

$$\varphi (P)=\{\begin{array}{cc}m1,\hfill & \text{if }PU\hfill \\ m,\hfill & \text{if }PY\text{.}\hfill \end{array}$$

If $`U`$ is nonempty, then $`dimU=dimX_p=m1`$, so $`U`$ is smooth of dimension $`m1`$ over $`𝐅_p`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }|_U`$ is locally free. At a closed point $`PU`$, we can find $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_nA`$ such that $`dt_1,\mathrm{},dt_{m1}`$ represent an $`𝒪_{X_p,P}`$-basis for the stalk $`\mathrm{\Omega }_P`$, and $`dt_m,\mathrm{},dt_n`$ represent a basis for the kernel of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐀^n/𝐅_p}𝒪_{X_p,P}\mathrm{\Omega }_P`$. Let $`_1,\mathrm{},_n𝒯_{𝐀^n/𝐅_p,P}`$ be the basis of derivations dual to $`dt_1,\mathrm{},dt_n`$. Choose $`sA`$ nonvanishing at $`P`$ such that $`s_i`$ extends to a global derivation $`D_i:AA`$ for $`i=1,2,\mathrm{},m1`$. In some neighborhood $`V`$ of $`P`$ in $`𝐀_{𝐅_p}^n`$, $`dt_1,\mathrm{},dt_n`$ form a basis of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{V/𝐅_p}`$, and $`dt_1,\mathrm{},dt_{m1}`$ form a basis of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{UV/𝐅_p}`$, and $`s𝒪(V)^{}`$. By compactness, we may pass to an open cover of $`X`$ to assume $`UV`$. If $`H_fX`$ is not regular at a closed point $`QU`$, then the image of $`f`$ in $`𝔪_{U,Q}/𝔪_{U,Q}^2`$ must be zero, and it follows that $`D_1f`$, …, $`D_{m1}f`$, $`f`$ all vanish at $`Q`$. The set of $`fS_d`$ such that there exists such a point in $`U`$ can be bounded using the induction argument in the proof of Lemma 2.6.

It remains to bound the $`fS_d`$ such that $`H_fX`$ is not regular at some closed point $`PY`$. Since $`Y`$ is reduced, and since the fibers of the coherent sheaf $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝒪_Y`$ on $`Y`$ all have dimension $`m`$, Exercise II.5.8(c) of \[Har77\] implies that the sheaf is locally free. By the same argument as in the preceding paragraph, we can pass to an open cover of $`X`$, and find $`t_1,\mathrm{},t_n,sA`$ such that $`dt_1,\mathrm{},dt_n`$ are a basis of the restriction of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{𝐀^n/𝐅_p}`$ to a neighborhood of $`Y`$ in $`𝐀_{𝐅_p}^n`$, and $`dt_1,\mathrm{},dt_m`$ are an $`𝒪_Y`$-basis of $`\mathrm{\Omega }𝒪_Y`$, and $`s𝒪(Y)^{}`$ is such that if $`_1,\mathrm{},_n`$ is the dual basis to $`dt_1,\mathrm{},dt_n`$, then $`s_i`$ extends to a derivation $`D_i:AA`$ for $`i=1,\mathrm{},m1`$. (We could also define $`D_i`$ for $`i=m`$, but we already have enough.) We finish again by using the induction argument in the proof of Lemma 2.6. ∎

### 5.4. Singular points of midsized residue characteristic

While examining points of larger residue characteristic, we may delete the fibers above small primes of $`𝐙`$. Hence in this section and the next, our lemmas will suppose that $`X`$ is smooth over $`𝐙`$.

###### Lemma 5.8 (Singularities of midsized characteristic).

Assume Conjecture 5.2. Let $`X`$ be an integral quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐀_𝐙^n`$ that dominates $`\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$ and is smooth over $`𝐙`$ of relative dimension $`m1`$. For $`d,L,M1`$, define

$`𝒬_{d,L<<M}:=\{fS_d:`$ there exists $`pM`$ and $`PX_p`$ such that
$`H_fX\text{ is not regular of dimension }m1\text{ at }P\}.`$
Given $`ϵ>0`$, if $`d`$ and $`L`$ are sufficiently large, then $`\overline{\mu }(𝒬_{d,L<<M})<ϵ`$.

###### Proof.

If $`P`$ is a closed point of degree at most $`d/(m+1)`$ over $`𝐅_p`$ where $`L<p<M`$, then the set of $`fS_d`$ such that $`H_fX`$ is not regular of dimension $`m1`$ at $`P`$ has upper density $`\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)^{(m+1)}`$, as in the argument for $`𝒬_{p,r}^{\mathrm{medium}}`$ in Lemma 5.7. The sum over $`\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)^{(m+1)}`$ over all such $`P`$ is small if $`L`$ is sufficiently large: this follows from \[LW54\], as usual. By Conjecture 5.2, the upper density of the set of $`fS_d`$ such that there exists $`p`$ with $`L<p<M`$ such that $`dim(H_fX_p)_{\mathrm{sing}}1`$ is bounded by $`_{L<p<M}c/p^2`$, which again is small if $`L`$ is sufficiently large.

Let $`_{d,p}`$ be the set of $`fS_d`$ for which $`(H_fX_p)_{\mathrm{sing}}`$ is finite and $`H_fX`$ fails to be regular of dimension $`m1`$ at some closed point $`PX_p`$ of degree greater than $`d/(m+1)`$ over $`𝐅_p`$. It remains to show that if $`d`$ and $`L`$ are sufficiently large, $`_{L<p<M}\overline{\mu }(_{d,p})`$ is small. Write $`f=f_0+pf_1`$ where $`f_0`$ has coefficients in $`\{0,1,\mathrm{},p1\}`$. Once $`f_0`$ is fixed, $`(H_fX_p)_{\mathrm{sing}}`$ is determined, and in the case where it is finite, we let $`P_1,\mathrm{},P_{\mathrm{}}`$ be its closed points of degree greater than $`d/(m+1)`$ over $`𝐅_p`$. Now $`H_fX`$ is not regular of dimension $`m1`$ at $`P_i`$ if and only if the image of $`f`$ in $`𝒪_{X,P_i}/𝔪_{X,P_i}^2`$ is zero; for fixed $`f_0`$, this is a condition only on the image of $`f_1`$ in $`𝒪_{X_p,P_i}/𝔪_{X_p,P_i}`$. It follows from Lemma 2.5 that the fraction of $`f_1`$ for this holds is at most $`p^\nu `$ where $`\nu =(d/(m+1))^{1/n}`$. Thus $`\overline{\mu }(_{d,p})\mathrm{}p^\nu `$ As usual, we may assume we have reduced to the case where $`(H_fX_p)_{\mathrm{sing}}`$ is cut out by $`D_1f,\mathrm{},D_{m1}f,f`$ for some derivations $`D_i`$, and hence by Bézout’s Theorem, $`\mathrm{}=O(d^m)=O(p^{\nu 2})`$ as $`d\mathrm{}`$, so $`\overline{\mu }(_{d,p})=O(p^2)`$. Hence $`_{L<p<M}\overline{\mu }(_{d,p})`$ is small whenever $`d`$ and $`L`$ are large. ∎

### 5.5. Singular points of large residue characteristic

As in the previous section, $`X`$ denotes an integral quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐀_𝐙^n`$ that dominates $`\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$ and is smooth over $`𝐙`$ of relative dimension $`m1`$. For fixed $`d`$, let $`𝐀^N=𝐀_𝐙^N`$ denote the affine space whose points correspond to polynomials of total degree at most $`d`$ in $`x_0,\mathrm{},x_n`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X\times 𝐀^N`$ denote the closed subscheme of points $`(x,f)`$ such that the variety $`H_fX`$ over the residue field of $`(x,f)`$ is not smooth of dimension $`m2`$ at $`x`$. Concretely, $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is the subscheme of $`X\times 𝐀^N`$ locally cut out by the equations $`D_1f=\mathrm{}D_{m1}f=f=0`$ where $`f`$ is written with indeterminate coefficients $`c_i`$ (which are the coordinates on $`𝐀^N`$) and the $`D_i`$ are defined locally on $`X`$ as in the penultimate paragraph of the proof of Lemma 5.7.

Let $`X^{\{2\}}=(X\times X)\mathrm{\Delta }`$, where $`\mathrm{\Delta }`$ is the image of the diagonal map $`XX\times X`$. Let $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\{2\}}`$ be the inverse image of $`X^{\{2\}}`$ under the projection $`\mathrm{\Sigma }\times _{𝐀^N}\mathrm{\Sigma }X\times X`$. Thus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\{2\}}`$ is the closed subscheme of $`X^{\{2\}}\times 𝐀^N`$ whose points correspond to triples $`(x_1,x_2,f)`$ such that $`x_1`$ and $`x_2`$ are distinct points where $`H_fX`$ fails to be smooth of dimension $`m2`$.

In the following lemma, it is only the last part that will be used later.

###### Lemma 5.9.

If $`d`$ is sufficiently large, then:

1. The projection $`\mathrm{\Sigma }X`$ exhibits $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ as a rank $`Nm`$ vector subbundle of $`X\times 𝐀^NX`$.
2. The projection $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\{2\}}X^{\{2\}}`$ exhibits $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{\{2\}}`$ as a rank $`N2m`$ vector subbundle of $`X^{\{2\}}\times 𝐀^NX^{\{2\}}`$.
3. The image of the projection $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐^{\{2\}}𝐀_𝐐^N`$ is of dimension at most $`N2`$ over $`𝐐`$.
4. The projection $`\pi :\mathrm{\Sigma }𝐀^N`$ is a birational morphism onto its image $`I`$, and $`I_𝐐`$ is an integral hypersurface in $`𝐀_𝐐^N`$.
5. There exists an integer $`M>0`$ and a squarefree polynomial $`R(c_1,\mathrm{},c_N)𝐙[c_1,\mathrm{},c_N]`$ such that if $`\overline{f}`$ is obtained from $`f`$ by specializing the coefficients $`c_i`$ to integers $`\gamma _i`$, and if $`H_{\overline{f}}X`$ fails to be regular at a closed point in the fiber $`X_p`$ for some prime $`pM`$, then $`p^2`$ divides the value $`R(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _N)`$.

###### Proof.

(a) The $`m`$ equations defining $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ are linear in the $`c_i`$ and are independent at each $`xX`$.

(b) Now there are $`2m`$ equations linear in the $`c_i`$. If $`d2m1`$ these are again independent, by the argument of Lemma 2.1(b).

(c) If $`X_𝐐^{\{2\}}`$ is nonempty, then by (b),

$$dim\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐^{\{2\}}=N2m+dimX_𝐐^{\{2\}}=N2,$$

so the image of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐^{\{2\}}`$ in $`𝐀_𝐐^N`$ has dimension at most $`N2`$.

(d) By (a), $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ is integral and smooth of relative dimension $`N1`$ over $`𝐙`$. By definition of $`I`$, the variety $`I_𝐐`$ is the image of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐𝐀_𝐐^N`$, and the generic point of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ maps to the generic point $`\eta `$ of $`I_𝐐`$. Let $`F`$ be the fiber above of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐𝐀_𝐐^N`$ above $`\eta `$. The fiber of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐^{\{2\}}𝐀_𝐐^N`$ above $`\eta `$ equals $`(F\times _\eta F)\mathrm{\Delta }_F`$ where $`\mathrm{\Delta }_F`$ is the diagonal in $`F\times _\eta F`$. Hence if $`F\eta `$ is not an isomorphism (that is, $`dimF>0`$, or $`F`$ has more than one geometric point), then $`dim\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐^{\{2\}}=2dimF+dimI_𝐐`$, and we get the contradiction

$$N2=dim\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐^{\{2\}}=2dimF+dimI_𝐐dimF+dimI_𝐐=dim\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐=N1.$$

Thus $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐I_𝐐`$ is birational. In particular, $`dimI_𝐐=dim\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐=N1`$. Moreover, since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }_𝐐`$ is integral, $`I_𝐐`$ is integral as well.

(e) Suppose that the equation defining $`I_𝐐`$ in $`𝐀_𝐐^n`$ is $`R_0(c_1,\mathrm{},c_N)=0`$. By (d), $`I_𝐐`$ is integral, so we may assume that $`R_0`$ is an irreducible polynomial in $`𝐙[c_1,\mathrm{},c_N]`$ with content $`1`$. After inverting a finite number of nonzero primes of $`𝐙`$, we may assume that $`R_0=0`$ is also the equation defining $`I`$ in $`𝐀_𝐙^n`$. Choose $`M`$ greater than all the inverted primes. By (d), we may choose an open dense subset $`I^{}`$ of $`I`$ such that the birational morphism $`\pi :\mathrm{\Sigma }I`$ induces an isomorphism $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}I^{}`$, where $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}=\pi ^1(I^{})`$. By Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz, there exists $`R_1𝐙[c_1,\mathrm{},c_N]`$ such that $`R_1`$ vanishes on the closed subset $`II^{}`$ but not on $`I`$. We may assume that $`R_1`$ is squarefree. Define $`R=R_0R_1`$. Then $`R`$ is squarefree.

Suppose that $`H_{\overline{f}}X`$ fails to be regular at a point $`PX_p`$ with $`pM`$. Let $`\gamma `$ denote the closed point of $`𝐀^N`$ defined by $`c_1\gamma _1=\mathrm{}=c_N\gamma _N=p=0`$. Then the point $`(P,\gamma )`$ of $`X\times 𝐀^N`$ is in $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$. Hence $`\gamma I`$, so $`R_0(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _N)`$ is divisible by $`p`$. If $`\gamma II^{}`$, then $`R_1(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _N)`$ is divisible by $`p`$ as well, so $`R(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _N)`$ is divisible by $`p^2`$, as desired.

Therefore we assume from now on that $`\gamma I^{}`$, so $`(P,\gamma )\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$. Let $`W`$ be the inverse image of $`I^{}`$ under the closed immersion $`\mathrm{Spec}𝐙𝐀^N`$ defined by the ideal $`(c_1\gamma _1,\mathrm{},c_N\gamma _N)`$. Let $`V`$ be the inverse image of $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$ under the morphism $`XX\times 𝐀^N`$ induced by the previous closed immersion. Thus we have a cube in which the top, bottom, front, and back faces are cartesian:

Near $`(P,\gamma )X\times 𝐀^N`$ the functions $`D_1f,\mathrm{},D_{m1}f,f`$ cut out $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ (and hence also its open subset $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}`$) locally in $`X\times 𝐀^N`$. Then $`𝒪_{V,P}=𝒪_{X,P}/(D_1\overline{f},D_2\overline{f},\mathrm{},D_{m1}\overline{f},\overline{f})`$. By assumption, $`H_{\overline{f}}X`$ is not regular at $`P`$, so $`\overline{f}`$ maps to zero in $`𝒪_{X,P}/𝔪_{X,P}^2`$. Now $`𝒪_{X,P}`$ is a regular local ring of dimension $`m`$, $`D_i\overline{f}𝔪_{X,P}`$, and $`\overline{f}𝔪_{X,P}^2`$, so the quotient $`𝒪_{V,P}`$ has length at least $`2`$. Since $`\mathrm{\Sigma }^{}I^{}`$ is an isomorphism, the cube shows that $`VW`$ is an isomorphism too. Hence the localization of $`W`$ at $`p`$ has length at least $`2`$. On the other hand $`I^{}`$ is an open subscheme of $`I`$, whose ideal is generated by $`R_0(c_1,\mathrm{},c_N)`$ (after some primes were inverted), so $`W`$ is an open subscheme of $`𝐙/(R_0(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _N))`$. Thus $`R_0(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _N)`$ is divisible by $`p^2`$ at least. Thus $`R(\gamma _1,\mathrm{},\gamma _N)`$ is divisible by $`p^2`$. ∎

Because of part (e) of Lemma 5.9, we want to show that most values of a multivariable polynomial over $`𝐙`$ are almost squarefree (that is, squarefree except for prime factors less than $`M`$). It is here that we need to use the $`abc`$ conjecture.

###### Theorem 5.10 (Almost squarefree values of polynomials).

Assume the $`abc`$ conjecture. Let $`F𝐙[x_1,\mathrm{},x_n]`$ be squarefree. For $`M>0`$, define

$$𝒮_M:=\{(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)𝐙^nF(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)\text{ is divisible by }p^2\text{ for some prime }pM\}.$$

Then $`\overline{\mu }(𝒮_M)0`$ as $`M\mathrm{}`$.

###### Proof.

The $`n=1`$ case is in \[Gra98\]. The general case follows from Lemma 6.2 of \[Poo02\], in the same way that Corollary 3.3 there follows from Theorem 3.2 there. Lemma 6.2 there is proved there by reduction to the $`n=1`$ case. ∎

###### Remarks .

1. These results assume the $`abc`$ conjecture, but the special case where $`F`$ factors into one-variable polynomials of degree $`3`$ is known unconditionally \[Hoo67\]. Other unconditional results are contained in \[GM91\].
2. Theorem 5.10 together with a simple sieve lets one show that the naive heuristic (multiplying probabilities for each prime $`p`$) correctly predicts the density of $`(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)𝐙^n`$ for which $`F(a_1,\mathrm{},a_n)`$ is squarefree, assuming the $`abc`$ conjecture.

###### Lemma 5.11 (Singularities of large characteristic).

Assume the $`abc`$ conjecture. Let $`X`$ be an integral quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐀_𝐙^n`$ that dominates $`\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$ and is smooth over $`𝐙`$ of relative dimension $`m1`$. Define

$`𝒬_{d,M}:=\{fS_d:`$ there exists $`pM`$ and $`PX_p`$ such that
$`H_fX\text{ is not regular of dimension }m1\text{ at }P\}.`$
If $`d`$ is sufficiently large, then $`lim_M\mathrm{}\overline{\mu }(𝒬_{d,M})=0`$.

###### Proof.

We may assume that $`d`$ is large enough for Lemma 5.9. Apply Theorem 5.10 to the squarefree polynomial $`R`$ provided by Lemma 5.9(e) for $`X`$. ∎

### 5.6. End of proof

We are now ready to prove Theorem 5.1. Recall that in Section 5.2 we reduced to the problem of proving Lemma 5.6 in the case where $`X`$ is an integral quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐀_𝐙^n`$ such that $`X`$ dominates $`\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$ and is regular of dimension $`m0`$. In Lemma 5.6, $`d`$ tends to infinity for each fixed $`r`$, and then $`r`$ tends to infinity. We choose $`L`$ depending on $`r`$, and $`M`$ depending on $`r`$ and $`d`$, such that $`1LrdM`$. (The precise requirement implied by each $``$ is whatever is needed below for the applications of the lemmas below.) Then

(1)
$$𝒬_r^{\mathrm{large}}S_d\left(\underset{pL}{}(𝒬_{p,r}S_d)\right)𝒬_{d,L<<M}𝒬_{d,M},$$

and we will bound the upper density of each term on the right. Recall from the end of Section 5.2 that $`X`$ has a subscheme of the form $`X^{}=X\times \mathrm{Spec}𝐙[1/t]`$ that is smooth over $`𝐙`$. We may assume $`L>t`$. By Lemma 5.7, $`lim_r\mathrm{}\overline{\mu }(𝒬_{p,r})=0`$ for each $`p`$, so $`\overline{\mu }\left(_{pL}𝒬_{p,r}\right)`$ is small (by which we mean tending to zero) if $`r`$ sufficiently large relative to $`L`$. By Lemma 5.8 applied to $`X^{}`$, if $`L`$ and $`d`$ are sufficiently large, then $`\overline{\mu }(𝒬_{d,L<<M})`$ is small. By Lemma 5.11 applied to $`X^{}`$, if $`d`$ is sufficiently large, and $`M`$ is sufficiently large relative to $`d`$, then $`\overline{\mu }(𝒬_{d,M})`$ is small. Thus by (1), $`\overline{\mu }(𝒬_r^{\mathrm{large}})`$ is small whenever $`r`$ is large and $`d`$ is sufficiently large relative to $`r`$. This completes the proof of Lemma 5.6 and hence of Theorem 5.1.

###### Remark .

Arithmetic analogues of Theorems 1.2 and 1.3, and of many of the applications in Section 3 can be proved as well.

### 5.7. Regular versus smooth

One might ask what happens in Theorem 5.1 if we ask for $`H_fX`$ to be not only regular, but also smooth over $`𝐙`$. We now show unconditionally that this requirement is so strict, that at most a density zero subset of polynomials $`f`$ satisfies it, even if the original scheme $`X`$ is smooth over $`𝐙`$.

###### Theorem 5.12.

Let $`X`$ be a nonempty quasiprojective subscheme of $`𝐏_𝐙^n`$ that is smooth of relative dimension $`m0`$ over $`𝐙`$. Define

$$𝒫^{\mathrm{smooth}}:=\{fS_{\mathrm{homog}}:H_fX\text{ is smooth of relative dimension }m1\text{ over }𝐙\}.$$

Then $`\mu (𝒫^{\mathrm{smooth}})=0`$.

###### Proof.

Let

$$𝒫_r^{\mathrm{smooth}}:=\{fS_{\mathrm{homog}}:H_fX\text{ is smooth of relative dimension }m1\text{ over }𝐙\text{ at all }PX_{<r}\}.$$

Suppose $`PX_{<r}`$ lies above the prime $`(p)\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$. Let $`Y`$ be the closed subscheme of $`X_p`$ corresponding to the ideal sheaf $`𝔪^2`$ where $`𝔪`$ is the ideal sheaf of functions on $`X_p`$ vanishing at $`P`$. Then for $`fS_d`$, $`H_fX`$ is smooth of relative dimension $`m1`$ over $`𝐙`$ at $`P`$ if and only if the image of $`f`$ in $`H^0(Y,𝒪(d))`$ is nonzero. Applying Lemma 5.3 to the union of such $`Y`$ over all $`PX_{<r}`$, and using $`\mathrm{\#}H^0(Y,𝒪(d))=\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)^{m+1}`$, we find

$$\mu (𝒫_r^{\mathrm{smooth}})=\underset{PX_{<r}}{}\left(1\mathrm{\#}\kappa (P)^{(m+1)}\right).$$

Since $`dimX=m+1`$, $`\zeta _X(s)`$ has a pole at $`s=m+1`$ and our product diverges to $`0`$ as $`r\mathrm{}`$. (See Theorems 1 and 3(a) in \[Ser65\].) But $`𝒫^{\mathrm{smooth}}𝒫_r^{\mathrm{smooth}}`$ for all $`r`$, so $`\mu (𝒫^{\mathrm{smooth}})=0`$. ∎

A density zero subset of $`S_{\mathrm{homog}}`$ can still be nonempty or even infinite. For example, if $`X=\mathrm{Spec}𝐙[1/2,x]𝐏_𝐙^1`$, then $`𝒫^{\mathrm{smooth}}S_d`$ is infinite for infinitely many $`d`$: $`H_fX`$ is smooth over $`𝐙`$ whenever $`f`$ is the homogenization of $`(xa)^{2^b}2`$ for some $`a,b𝐙`$ with $`b0`$.

On the other hand, N. Fakhruddin has given the following two examples in which $`𝒫^{\mathrm{smooth}}S_d`$ is empty for all $`d>0`$.

###### Example 5.13.

Let $`X`$ be the image of the $`4`$-uple embedding $`𝐏_𝐙^1𝐏_𝐙^4`$. Then $`X`$ is smooth over $`𝐙`$. If $`f𝒫^{\mathrm{smooth}}S_d`$ for some $`d>0`$, then $`H_fX\mathrm{Spec}A_i`$ where each $`A_i`$ is the ring of integers of a number field $`K_i`$ unramified above all finite primes of $`𝐙`$, such that $`[K_i:𝐐]=4d`$. The only absolutely unramified number field is $`𝐐`$, so each $`A_i`$ is $`𝐙`$, and $`H_fX_{i=1}^{4d}\mathrm{Spec}𝐙`$. Then $`4d=\mathrm{\#}(H_fX)(𝐅_2)\mathrm{\#}X(𝐅_2)=\mathrm{\#}𝐏^1(𝐅_2)=3`$, a contradiction.

###### Example 5.14.

Let $`X`$ be the image of the $`3`$-uple embedding $`𝐏_𝐙^2𝐏_𝐙^9`$. Then $`X`$ is smooth over $`𝐙`$. If $`f𝒫^{\mathrm{smooth}}S_d`$ for some $`d>0`$, then $`H_fX`$ is isomorphic to a smooth proper geometrically connected curve in $`𝐏_𝐙^2`$ of degree $`3d`$, hence of genus at least $`1`$, so its Jacobian contradicts the main theorem of \[Fon85\].

Despite these counterexamples, P. Autissier has proved a positive result for a slightly different problem. An arithmetic variety of dimension $`m`$ is an integral scheme $`X`$ of dimension $`m`$ that is projective and flat over $`𝐙`$, such that $`X_𝐐`$ is regular (of dimension $`m1`$). If $`𝒪_K`$ is the ring of integers of a finite extension $`K`$ of $`𝐐`$, then an arithmetic variety over $`𝒪_K`$ is an $`𝒪_K`$-scheme $`X`$ such that $`X`$ is an arithmetic variety and whose generic fiber $`X_K`$ is geometrically irreducible over $`K`$. The following is a part of Théorème 3.2.3 of \[Aut01\]:

> Let $`X`$ be an arithmetic variety over $`𝒪_K`$ of dimension $`m3`$. Then there exists a finite extension $`L`$ of $`K`$ and a closed subscheme $`X^{}`$ of $`X_{𝒪_L}`$ such that
>
> 1. The subscheme $`X^{}`$ is an arithmetic variety over $`𝒪_L`$ of dimension $`m1`$.
> 2. Whenever the fiber $`X_𝔭`$ of $`X`$ above $`𝔭\mathrm{Spec}𝒪_K`$ is smooth, the fiber $`X_𝔭^{}^{}`$ of $`X^{}`$ above $`𝔭^{}`$ is smooth for all $`𝔭^{}\mathrm{Spec}𝒪_L`$ lying above $`𝔭`$.

Actually Autissier proves more, that one can also control the height of $`X^{}`$. (He uses the theory of heights developed by Bost, Gillet, and Soulé, generalizing Arakelov’s theory.)

The most significant difference between Autissier’s result and the phenomenon exhibited by Fakhruddin’s examples is the finite extension of the base allowed in the former.

## Acknowledgements

I thank Ernie Croot for a conversation at an early stage of this research, David Eisenbud for conversations about Section 5.5, and Matt Baker and Najmuddin Fakhruddin for some other comments. I thank Pascal Autissier and Ofer Gabber for sharing their preprints with me, and Jean-Pierre Jouanolou for sharing some unpublished notes about resultants and discriminants.


format: text

text:
# Quantum information processing with large nuclear spins in GaAs semiconductors

\[

## Abstract

We propose an implementation for quantum information processing based on coherent manipulations of nuclear spins $`I=3/2`$ in GaAs semiconductors. We describe theoretically an NMR method which involves multiphoton transitions and which exploits the non-equidistance of nuclear spin levels due to quadrupolar splittings. Starting from known spin anisotropies we derive effective Hamiltonians in a generalized rotating frame, valid for arbitrary $`I`$, which allow us to describe the non-perturbative time evolution of spin states generated by magnetic rf fields. We identify an experimentally accessible regime where multiphoton Rabi oscillations are observable. In the nonlinear regime, we find Berry phase interference effects.

\]

Recent advances in spintronics have shown that the coherent control of electron and nuclear spins in semiconductors is experimentally feasible, enabling in particular an all-optical NMR in GaAs, based on the hyperfine interaction between electrons and nuclei. Such a control of nuclear spins can also be achieved via electrical gates as recently demonstrated for GaAs heterostructures in the quantum Hall regime, or even via conventional NMR techniques directly accessing the nuclei. In the present work, we will show that such advances in coherent spin control have opened up the possibility to manipulate the nuclear spins $`I`$ for the purpose of quantum information processing, thereby presenting a scheme that is based on ensembles of large spins $`I>1/2`$ instead of qubits. Nuclear spins are ideal candidates for this purpose due to their long decoherence times.

An implementation of the Grover algorithm has recently been proposed for molecular magnets, based on a perturbative approach to the unitary Grover operations which encode and decode the information stored in the phases of small amplitudes $`a_m`$. An alternative version of Grover’s algorithm was presented in Refs.  that is described by a Hamiltonian that lets a completely delocalized state of the form $`|\psi =_{m=I}^Ia_m|m`$, in some basis states $`|m`$ with equal occupation probabilities $`|a_m|^2`$, evolve into a wanted localized state $`|M`$, where $`|\psi `$ and $`|M`$ are degenerate and have a finite overlap. The information is encoded in the energies of $`|m`$. In order to produce $`|\psi `$, we propose here a novel NMR scheme that allows us to generate any desired distribution of amplitudes $`a_m`$, being not restricted to small values. For this we specifically exploit the properties of GaAs nuclei where quadrupolar spin splitting results in spin anisotropies and thus in non-equidistant energy levels– being a necessary condition for our scheme. The theoretical problem then is to find one magnetic rf pulse—inducing a unitary time evolution of the spins—that produces the desired spin state $`|\psi `$ and a second rf pulse that lets $`|\psi `$ evolve into $`|M`$, given certain spin anisotropies and adjustable magnetic fields (see below). In a non-perturbative approach, we find an analytic solution to this problem, valid for arbitrary spin $`I`$. For the special case of GaAs with $`I=3/2`$, we have confirmed our analytical results by exact numerics. In contrast to previous work our method also holds for vanishing detuning energies, which turns out to be essential to perform non-perturbative unitary operations, i.e. quantum computations (QCs). Once the control over $`2I`$ magnetic fields is established, the scheme proposed here allows for QC and quantum storage with a single pulse, provided that there is sufficient signal amplification due to the spin ensemble.

As a first step towards this goal, it will be useful to generate and monitor multiphoton Rabi oscillations, as we describe in detail below. Finally, we show that oscillating quadratic transverse spin terms, which can be generated by optical pulses in GaAs, give rise to Berry phase oscillations in the transition probabilities.

In the following we mainly focus on a nuclear spin of length $`I=3/2`$, as appropriate for GaAs, but indicate its generalization to arbitray $`I`$. Our nuclear spin system is described by the Hamiltonian $`_0=_\mathrm{Z}+_\mathrm{Q}`$, consisting of the nuclear Zeeman energy $`_\mathrm{Z}=g_N\mu _NH_zI_z`$, $`g_N=1.3`$, and the quadrupolar splitting $`_\mathrm{Q}=A[3I_z^2I(I+1)]`$. The quadrupolar constant is $`A=7\times 10^7`$ K for 69Ga, $`A=3\times 10^7`$ K for 71Ga, and $`A=2\times 10^6`$ K for 75As nuclei. For the purpose of QC we need to achieve complete control over unitary state evolutions, i.e. control over amplitudes $`a_m`$ to form a desired superposition $`|\psi =_{m=I}^Ia_m|m`$ of the nuclear basis states $`|m`$ (eigenstates of $`_0`$). Our goal is now to show that such a control over $`a_m`$ is indeed feasible under experimentally attainable conditions.

We start from a configuration where mainly the ground state $`|3/2`$ is populated, see Fig. 1. This can be achieved by the Overhauser effect. The next goal is to coherently populate all or a part of the excited states $`|m`$, $`m3/2`$, by means of $`\mathrm{\Delta }m=1,2,3`$-photon transitions. Fig. 1 shows the two transition schemes, QC and RO, which will turn out to be appropriate for quantum computation (QC) and multiphoton Rabi oscillations (RO), resp. In the QC scheme the frequencies $`\omega _k`$ of the external transverse magnetic fields, $`H_{x,k}(t)=\stackrel{~}{H}_k(t)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _kt+\mathrm{\Phi }_k)`$, $`k=1,2,3`$, are blue ($`\delta _k<0`$) and red ($`\delta _k>0`$) detuned with respect to the energy level separations $`\mathrm{}\omega _{m,m^{}}`$. In the RO scheme, the transverse fields $`H_{x,k}^{}(t)=\stackrel{~}{H}_k^{}(t)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _k^{}t+\mathrm{\Phi }_k^{})`$, $`k=1,2,3`$, oscillate at frequencies $`\omega _{\mathrm{\Delta }m}^{}=\omega _{3/2\mathrm{\Delta }m,3/2}/\mathrm{\Delta }m`$, which are blue detuned by $`3A`$ ($`6A`$) for the two(three)-photon transition. For GaAs, $`\omega _k,\omega _k^{}10`$ MHz with $`\delta _k1`$ kHz, and a longitudinal magnetic field $`H_z1`$ T is appropriate. It is desirable to make $`H_z`$ sufficiently large to accommodate many spin precessions before the spins dephase. We note that in contrast to the fields $`H_{x,k}(t)`$, the fields $`H_{x,k}^{}(t)`$ lead to transitions governed by non-commuting operators, with the important consequence that the RO scheme suffers from strong interferences between the transitions if two or more fields $`H_{x,k}^{}(t)`$ are nonzero, leading to a quick loss of amplitude control. Indeed, the RO scheme allows control of $`a_m^{}s`$ only for times $`t2\mathrm{}(V_k^{}+V_k^{}^{})/V_k^{}V_k^{}^{}`$, which we estimate from the Baker-Campbell-Hausdorff formula and which we confirmed by exact numerical calculations. Here, $`V_k^{}=2[(g_N\mu _NH_k^{})^kp_{3/2k,3/2}]/_{j=1}^{k1}\mathrm{}\omega _{\frac{3}{2}j,\frac{3}{2}}`$ (see below). Although the RO scheme is only suited for QCs using perturbative approaches, it has its usefulness for testing the coherence of the spin system (see below).

Now we proceed with demonstrating the existence of the desired spin transitions in the QC scheme. For this we evaluate the transition amplitudes for the diagrams of Fig. 1 (a) in high-order perturbation theory which allows us then to obtain an appropriate non-perturbative Hamiltonian (see below). The three transverse fields $`H_{x,k}(t)`$ complete the Hamiltonian $`=_0+V(t)`$, where $`V(t)=_{k=1}^3g_N\mu _N\stackrel{~}{H}_k(t)\mathrm{cos}(\omega _kt+\mathrm{\Phi }_k)I_x,`$ with $`I_x=(I_++I_{})/2`$, and phases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ (see below). Then we expand the $`S`$-operator $`S=_{j=0}^{\mathrm{}}S^{(j)}`$ in powers of $`V(t)`$. We use rectangular pulse shapes of duration $`T`$ for all fields, i.e. $`\stackrel{~}{H}_k(t)=H_k`$ for $`T/2<t<T/2`$, and $`0`$ otherwise. Then we obtain

$`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\frac{3}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^{(3)}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \underset{k=1}{\overset{3}{}}}H_ke^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_k}[{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta _1\delta _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta _1(\frac{6A}{\mathrm{}}\delta _1+\delta _2)}}`$ (3)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{6A}{\mathrm{}}+\delta _1\delta _2}}\left({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\delta _2}}{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{12A}{\mathrm{}}+\delta _1}}\right)`$
$`+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{12A}{\mathrm{}}+\delta _2}}({\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{6A}{\mathrm{}}\delta _1+\delta _2}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\frac{12A}{\mathrm{}}+\delta _1}})]`$
for $`\delta _3=0`$, $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^{(2)}=_{k=1}^2H_ke^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_k}\left(\frac{1}{\delta _1}+\frac{1}{\frac{6A}{\mathrm{}}+\delta _1}\right)`$ for $`\delta _2=0`$ and $`H_3=0`$, and $`\stackrel{~}{S}_{\frac{1}{2},\frac{3}{2}}^{(1)}=H_1e^{i\mathrm{\Phi }_1}`$ for $`\delta _1=0`$ and $`H_2=H_3=0`$, where $`S_{\frac{3}{2}j,\frac{3}{2}}^{(j)}=\frac{2\pi }{i}\left(\frac{g_N\mu _N}{4\mathrm{}}\right)^j\stackrel{~}{S}_{\frac{3}{2}j,\frac{3}{2}}^{(j)}p_{\frac{3}{2}j,\frac{3}{2}}\delta ^{(T)}(\omega _{\frac{3}{2}j,\frac{3}{2}}_{k=1}^j\omega _k)`$, $`p_{m,m^{}}=_{k=m}^m^{}k\left|I_{}\right|k+1`$, and $`\delta ^{(T)}(\omega )=\frac{1}{2\pi }_{T/2}^{+T/2}e^{i\omega t}𝑑t=\frac{\mathrm{sin}(\omega T/2)}{\pi \omega }`$ is the delta-function of width $`1/T`$. The energy is conserved for $`\omega T1`$. Also, the duration $`T`$ of the rf pulses must not exceed the dephasing time $`\tau _\varphi `$ of the spin states. Interestingly, $`lim_{A0}S_{3/2,3/2}^{(3)}=`$ $`lim_{A0}S_{1/2,3/2}^{(2)}=0`$, i.e. destructive interference is maximal. However, if $`A\mathrm{}|\delta _k|`$, $`k=1,2,3`$, destructive interference is negligible.

Now we are in the position to extract an effective Hamiltonian, which governs the desired unitary evolutions. For the QC scheme we use the Hamiltonian $``$. After applying the rotating wave approximation we keep only the most left diagram of Fig. 1(a), which gives the dominant contribution to the transition amplitudes for $`\mathrm{}|\delta _k||A|`$. This is a direct consequence of the non-equidistance of the energy levels $`|m`$ due to the quadrupolar splitting. It is now possible to eliminate the time-dependence of $``$ by a unitary operation $`U(t)`$, the matrix elements of which can be determined by solving $`2I`$ linear equations. This is a transformation to a generalized rotating frame. Then, for a spin $`I`$ we obtain an effective time-independent Hamiltonian

$$_{\mathrm{rot}}^{(2I)}=\left[\begin{array}{ccccc}0& h_1& 0& \mathrm{}& 0\\ h_1& \mathrm{}\delta _1& h_2& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}\\ 0& h_2& \mathrm{}\delta _2& \mathrm{}& 0\\ \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& \mathrm{}& h_{2I}\\ 0& \mathrm{}& 0& h_{2I}& \mathrm{}\delta _{2I}\end{array}\right],$$
(4)
where $`h_k=g_N\mu _NH_k\sqrt{k(2I+1k)}/2`$ ($`k=1,\mathrm{},2I`$). Focusing on $`I=3/2`$, we obtain e.g. for $`H_3=0`$ approximately $`^{(2)}=_0+h_1e^{i(\omega _1t+\mathrm{\Phi }_1)}|3/21/2|`$ $`+h_2e^{i(\omega _2t+\mathrm{\Phi }_2)}|1/21/2|`$ $`+\mathrm{h}.\mathrm{c}.`$. Applying $`U(t)=e^{i[(\omega _1+\omega _2)t+(\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2)]/2}|3/23/2\left|+e^{i[(\omega _1\omega _2)t+(\mathrm{\Phi }_1\mathrm{\Phi }_2)]/2}\right|1/21/2\left|+e^{i[(\omega _1+\omega _2)t+(\mathrm{\Phi }_1+\mathrm{\Phi }_2)]/2}\right|1/21/2|`$ yields $`_{\mathrm{rot}}^{(2)}`$. Note that the Hamiltonian in Eq. (4) remains valid even in the limit $`\delta _k0`$, where perturbation expansions such as in Eq. (3) break down. However, we must require that $`|g_N\mu _NH_k||A|`$, which means that the larger $`|A|`$, the faster the QCs. Propagators of the form $`U^{}(t)e^{i_{\mathrm{rot}}^{(2I)}t/\mathrm{}}`$ have $`2I`$ phases $`\mathrm{\Phi }_k`$ and $`2I`$ detunings $`\mathrm{}\delta _k`$, which determine the $`2I`$ phases and the $`2I`$ moduli of $`a_m`$.

For Grover’s algorithm we must first produce $`|s=(1/\sqrt{n})_m|m`$ (see Fig. 2), $`n`$ being the number of basis states involved in the search. Then we make use of the degeneracy between $`|s`$ and $`|M`$, which yields the resonance condition $`h_k=\mathrm{}\delta _{IM}/20k`$, if $`\delta _k=0kIM`$. In contrast to , $`_{\mathrm{rot}}^{(2I)}`$ has only nearest-neighbor coupling, which results in a decreasing amplification of $`|M`$ with increasing $`I`$ or $`|M|`$. However, even for the largest nuclear spin $`I=9/2`$, we find that the resolution for identifying $`|M`$ is still sufficient ($`10`$%). Fig. 3 shows the example where $`|M=1/2`$ is found out of the three states $`|m`$, $`m=3/2,1/2,1/2`$, for $`I=3/2`$.

As a first test for the proposed schemes, it would be useful to measure generalized ROs involving multiphoton absorptions. They can be thought of as nutation of the large spin $`I`$ between spin states $`|m`$. First, we consider the QC scheme. For the two-photon RO, with frequency $`\nu _{\mathrm{Rabi}}^{(2)}`$, to become observable, we need $`|g_N\mu _NH_k|\mathrm{}\delta _1`$, $`k=1,2`$, so that the one-photon transitions are completely suppressed. To obtain $`\nu _{\mathrm{Rabi}}^{(2)}`$, it is useful to think of (4) as describing the dynamics of a (fictitious) particle in a triple well with nearest-neighbor tunnel coupling $`h_k`$. The independent control of the tunnel couplings $`h_k`$ and the biases $`\mathrm{}\delta _k`$ between the wells is ensured by a large value of $`A`$. Then, the energy (“tunnel”) splitting between $`|3/2`$ and $`|1/2`$ reads for $`\delta _2=0`$

$$\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Rabi}}^{(2)}=\sqrt{3}(g_N\mu _N)^2H_1H_2/\delta _1,$$
(5)
which gives $`\nu _{\mathrm{Rabi}}^{(2)}=\mathrm{\Delta }_{\mathrm{Rabi}}^{(2)}/2\pi \mathrm{}`$. In order to obtain large Rabi frequencies $`\nu _{\mathrm{Rabi}}^{(2)}`$, the external fields $`H_1,H_2`$ and the detuning $`\mathrm{}\delta _1`$ are to be maximized under the conditions $`|H_1|,|H_2|\mathrm{}|\delta _1|/g_N\mu _N|A|/g_N\mu _N`$, i.e. the larger $`|A|`$ the larger $`\nu _{\mathrm{Rabi}}^{(2)}`$ can be achieved. We note that $`|A|`$ could e.g. be enhanced by optical laser pumping or by modulated electric field gradients.

Next we turn to the RO scheme. Here it is sufficient to apply only one single field $`H_{x,k}^{}(t)`$ in order to see the multiphoton ROs shown in Figs. 4, 5. We now also allow for oscillating quadratic transverse anisotropies which can be externally generated by modulating the electric field gradient felt by the nuclei. For this we adopt the most general Hamiltonian

$`^{}`$ $`=`$ $`A[3I_z^2I(I+1)]g_N\mu _NH_zI_z+e^{i\omega _k^{}tI_z}[h_k^{}I_x`$ (7)
$`+B(I_xI_z+I_zI_x)+C(I_x^2I_y^2)]e^{i\omega _k^{}tI_z},`$
where $`h_k^{}=g_N\mu _NH_k^{}`$ ($`k=1,2`$ or $`3`$). Next we transform $`^{}`$ to the rotating frame, which yields $`{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{rot}}{}^{}=A[3I_z^2I(I+1)](g_N\mu _NH_zI_z\mathrm{}\omega _k^{})I_z+B(I_xI_z+I_zI_x)+C(I_x^2I_y^2)+h_k^{}I_x`$. Then the time evolution takes the simple form $`|\psi (t)=e^{i\omega _k^{}tI_z}e^{i{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{rot}}{}^{}t/\mathrm{}}|I`$. Although the transverse quadratic term $`C`$ is not in resonance with any transition energy, it leads to a time-independent transverse quadratic anisotropy in the rotating frame. For the 3-photon transition in the RO scheme we obtain the following Hamiltonian in the rotating frame

$${}_{}{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{rot}}{}^{}^{(3)}=\left[\begin{array}{cccc}3A& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}h_3^{}& \sqrt{3}C& 0\\ \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}h_3^{}& 3A& h_3^{}& \sqrt{3}C\\ \sqrt{3}C& h_3^{}& 3A& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}h_3^{}\\ 0& \sqrt{3}C& \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}h_3^{}& 3A\end{array}\right],$$
(8)
where we have neglected the $`B`$ term since we choose $`Bh_3^{}`$. Inserting a typical value $`C=10^{10}`$ K, we obtain oscillations of the splitting $`\mathrm{\Delta }{}_{}{}^{}{}_{\mathrm{Rabi}}{}^{}^{(3)}`$ between $`|3/2`$ and $`|3/2`$ as a function of $`H_3^{}`$, see Fig. 6. These oscillations are due to the Berry phase in a biaxial spin system as shown in . Note that $`C`$ must be negative for the Berry phase interference to occur. Also, the Berry phase interference is present only for $`\mathrm{\Delta }m`$-photon transitions with $`\mathrm{\Delta }m2`$. In Figs. 4 and 5 the population probabilities $`|a_m(t)|^2`$ are shown for $`C=0`$. The corresponding normalized magnetization reads $`M(t)=_mm|a_m|^2`$.

In order to build parallel single-spin quantum computers or high-density memory devices, one could apply an inhomogeneous magnetic field to the GaAs sample. Then the nuclear Larmor frequencies are spread over a wide range, which could be divided into small frequency intervals that are individually accessible by NMR sources.

In conclusion we have shown that via multiphoton transitions a controlled superposition of spin states can be achieved by appropriate field pulses. Our results can be extended to arbitrary spin $`I`$ and to any single-particle quantum system with non-equidistant energy levels.

Acknowledgement. We thank A. J. Leggett and G. Salis for useful discussions. We acknowledge the Swiss NSF, NCCR Nanoscience, Molnanomag, DARPA, and ARO for financial support. This research was supported in part by the US NSF under Grant No. PHY99-07949.