Jacobian conjecture: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>AnomieBOT
m Dating maintenance tags: {{Clarification needed}}
 
imported>Charles Matthews
Results: rm speculation per WP:CRYSTAL
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Short description|On invertibility of polynomial maps (mathematics)}}
{{Short description|On invertibility of polynomial maps (mathematics)}}
{{More footnotes|date=September 2020}}
{{Infobox mathematical statement
{{Infobox mathematical statement
| name = Jacobian conjecture
| name = Jacobian conjecture
Line 18: Line 17:
}}
}}


In [[mathematics]], the '''Jacobian conjecture''' is a famous unsolved problem concerning [[polynomial]]s in several [[Variable (mathematics)|variables]]. It states that if a polynomial function from an ''n''-dimensional space to itself has Jacobian determinant which is a non-zero constant, then the function has a polynomial inverse. It was first conjectured in 1939 by [[Ott-Heinrich Keller]],<ref>{{Citation
In [[mathematics]], the '''Jacobian conjecture''' is a famous unsolved problem concerning [[polynomial]]s in several [[Variable (mathematics)|variables]]. It states that if a polynomial function from an ''n''-dimensional space to itself has a [[Jacobian determinant]] which is a non-zero constant, then the function has a polynomial inverse. It was first conjectured in 1939 by [[Ott-Heinrich Keller]],<ref>{{Citation
| last1=Keller | first1=Ott-Heinrich
| last1=Keller | first1=Ott-Heinrich
| title=Ganze Cremona-Transformationen
| title=Ganze Cremona-Transformationen
Line 27: Line 26:
| volume=47
| volume=47
| issue=1
| issue=1
| pages=299–306}}</ref> and widely publicized by [[Shreeram Abhyankar]], as an example of a difficult question in [[algebraic geometry]] that can be understood using little beyond a knowledge of [[calculus]].
| pages=299–306}}</ref> and widely publicized by [[Shreeram Abhyankar]],{{cn|date=August 2025}} as an example of a difficult question in [[algebraic geometry]] that can be understood using little beyond a knowledge of [[calculus]].


The Jacobian conjecture is notorious for the large number of attempted proofs that turned out to contain subtle errors. As of 2018, there are no plausible claims to have proved it. Even the two-variable case has resisted all efforts. There are currently no known compelling reasons for believing the conjecture to be true, and according to van den Essen<ref name="vdE1997">{{citation
The Jacobian conjecture is notorious for the large number of published and unpublished proofs that turned out to contain subtle errors.<ref name="vdE1997">{{citation
| last=van den Essen | first= Arno
| last=van den Essen | first= Arno
| chapter= Polynomial automorphisms and the Jacobian conjecture
| chapter= Polynomial automorphisms and the Jacobian conjecture
Line 40: Line 39:
| year= 1997
| year= 1997
| mr=1601194
| mr=1601194
| chapter-url=https://www.emis.de/journals/SC/1997/2/pdf/smf_sem-cong_2_55-81.pdf}}</ref> there are some suspicions that the conjecture is in fact false for large numbers of variables (indeed, there is equally also no compelling evidence to support these suspicions). The Jacobian conjecture is number 16 in [[Smale's problems|Stephen Smale's 1998 list of Mathematical Problems for the Next Century]].
| chapter-url=https://www.emis.de/journals/SC/1997/2/pdf/smf_sem-cong_2_55-81.pdf}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal |last=Bass |first=Hyman |last2=Connell |first2=Edwin H. |last3=Wright |first3=David |date=1982 |title=The Jacobian conjecture: Reduction of degree and formal expansion of the inverse |url=https://www.ams.org/bull/1982-07-02/S0273-0979-1982-15032-7/ |journal=Bulletin of the American Mathematical Society |language=en |volume=7 |issue=2 |pages=287–330 |doi=10.1090/S0273-0979-1982-15032-7 |issn=0273-0979|doi-access=free }} ([https://projecteuclid.org/journals/bulletin-of-the-american-mathematical-society-new-series/volume-7/issue-2/The-Jacobian-conjecture--Reduction-of-degree-and-formal-expansion/bams/1183549636.pdf pdf])</ref> {{As of|2018}}, it has not been proven, even for the two-variable case.{{cn|date=August 2025}} Van den Essen provides evidence that the conjecture may be false for large numbers of variables.<ref name="vdE1997"/>
 
The Jacobian conjecture is number 16 in [[Smale's problems|Stephen Smale's 1998 list of Mathematical Problems for the Next Century]].<ref>{{cite journal | first = Steve | last = Smale|title = Mathematical Problems for the Next Century|journal = Mathematical Intelligencer|year =1998|volume=20|number=2|pages=7–15|citeseerx = 10.1.1.35.4101|doi=10.1007/bf03025291| s2cid = 1331144}}</ref>


==The Jacobian determinant==
==The Jacobian determinant==
Line 105: Line 106:


which is not constant, and the Jacobian conjecture does not apply.
which is not constant, and the Jacobian conjecture does not apply.
The function still has an inverse:
The function has an inverse function when we work over the reals and assume <math>x > 0</math>:


:<math>x=\sqrt{u-v}</math>
:<math>x=\sqrt{u-v}</math>
:<math>y=2v-u,</math>
:<math>y=2v-u,</math>


but the expression for ''x'' is not a polynomial.
However, this expression for ''x'' is not a polynomial. If instead we work over the complex numbers the square root is multivalued.


The condition ''J<sub>F</sub>'' ≠ 0 is related to the [[inverse function theorem]] in [[multivariable calculus]]. In fact for smooth functions (and so in particular for polynomials) a smooth local inverse function to ''F'' exists at every point where ''J<sub>F</sub>'' is non-zero. For example, the map x → ''x''&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''<sup>3</sup> has a smooth global inverse, but the inverse is not polynomial.
The condition ''J<sub>F</sub>'' ≠ 0 is related to the [[inverse function theorem]] in [[multivariable calculus]]. In fact for smooth functions (and so in particular for polynomials) a smooth local inverse function to ''F'' exists at every point where ''J<sub>F</sub>'' is non-zero. For example, the map x → ''x''&nbsp;+&nbsp;''x''<sup>3</sup> has a smooth global inverse, but the inverse is not polynomial.
Line 123: Line 124:
| pages=453–494
| pages=453–494
| date=August 1980
| date=August 1980
| doi=10.1016/0021-8693(80)90233-1 | doi-access=free }}</ref> Hyman Bass, Edwin Connell, and David Wright showed that the general case follows from the special case where the polynomials are of degree&nbsp;3, or even more specifically, of cubic homogeneous type, meaning  of the form ''F''&nbsp;=&nbsp;(''X''<sub>1</sub>&nbsp;+&nbsp;''H''<sub>1</sub>,&nbsp;...,&nbsp;''X''<sub>''n''</sub>&nbsp;+&nbsp;''H''<sub>''n''</sub>), where each ''H''<sub>''i''</sub> is either zero or a [[Homogeneous polynomial|homogeneous]] cubic.<ref name="BCW1982">{{Citation
| doi=10.1016/0021-8693(80)90233-1 | doi-access=free }}</ref> [[Hyman Bass]], Edwin Connell, and David Wright showed that the general case follows from the special case where the polynomials are of degree&nbsp;3, or even more specifically, of cubic homogeneous type, meaning  of the form ''F''&nbsp;=&nbsp;(''X''<sub>1</sub>&nbsp;+&nbsp;''H''<sub>1</sub>,&nbsp;...,&nbsp;''X''<sub>''n''</sub>&nbsp;+&nbsp;''H''<sub>''n''</sub>), where each ''H''<sub>''i''</sub> is either zero or a [[Homogeneous polynomial|homogeneous]] cubic.<ref name="BCW1982">{{Citation
| last1=Bass | first1=Hyman
| last1=Bass | first1=Hyman
| last2=Connell | first2=Edwin H.
| last2=Connell | first2=Edwin H.
Line 146: Line 147:
| pages=303–313
| pages=303–313
| mr=0714105
| mr=0714105
| doi=10.1007/bf01459126 | doi-access=free}}</ref> It seems that Drużkowski's reduction is one most promising way to go forward. These reductions introduce additional variables and so are not available for fixed ''N''.
| doi=10.1007/bf01459126 | doi-access=free}}</ref> These reductions introduce additional variables and so are not available for fixed ''N''.


Edwin Connell and Lou van den Dries proved that if the Jacobian conjecture is false, then it has a counterexample with integer coefficients and Jacobian determinant 1.<ref>{{citation
Edwin Connell and [[Lou van den Dries]] proved that if the Jacobian conjecture is false, then it has a counterexample with integer coefficients and Jacobian determinant 1.<ref>{{citation
| last1=Connell | first1=Edwin
| last1=Connell | first1=Edwin
| last2=van den Dries | first2=Lou
| last2=van den Dries | first2=Lou
Line 247: Line 248:
| doi=10.1007/bf02571929 | doi-access=free}}</ref>
| doi=10.1007/bf02571929 | doi-access=free}}</ref>


It is well known that the [[Dixmier conjecture]] implies the Jacobian conjecture.<ref name="BCW1982"/> Conversely, it is shown by Yoshifumi Tsuchimoto<ref>{{citation
It is well known that the [[Dixmier conjecture]], that every endomorphism of a [[Weyl algebra]] is an automorphism, implies the Jacobian conjecture.<ref name="BCW1982"/> Conversely, it is shown by Yoshifumi Tsuchimoto<ref>{{citation
| last=Tsuchimoto | first=Yoshifumi
| last=Tsuchimoto | first=Yoshifumi
| year=2005
| year=2005
Line 278: Line 279:
| volume= 32
| volume= 32
| pages= 205–214
| pages= 205–214
| mr=2368008}}</ref> who also proved in the same paper that these two conjectures are equivalent to the Poisson conjecture.{{clarification needed|date=December 2024}}
| mr=2368008}}</ref> who also proved in the same paper that these two conjectures are equivalent to the Poisson conjecture, that every endomorphism of the ''N''th complex [[Poisson algebra]] is an automorphism.


== See also ==
== See also ==

Latest revision as of 08:51, 7 December 2025

Template:Short description Template:Infobox mathematical statement

In mathematics, the Jacobian conjecture is a famous unsolved problem concerning polynomials in several variables. It states that if a polynomial function from an n-dimensional space to itself has a Jacobian determinant which is a non-zero constant, then the function has a polynomial inverse. It was first conjectured in 1939 by Ott-Heinrich Keller,[1] and widely publicized by Shreeram Abhyankar,Script error: No such module "Unsubst". as an example of a difficult question in algebraic geometry that can be understood using little beyond a knowledge of calculus.

The Jacobian conjecture is notorious for the large number of published and unpublished proofs that turned out to contain subtle errors.[2][3] since 2018Template:Dated maintenance category (articles)Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters"., it has not been proven, even for the two-variable case.Script error: No such module "Unsubst". Van den Essen provides evidence that the conjecture may be false for large numbers of variables.[2]

The Jacobian conjecture is number 16 in Stephen Smale's 1998 list of Mathematical Problems for the Next Century.[4]

The Jacobian determinant

Let N > 1 be a fixed integer and consider polynomials f1, ..., fN in variables X1, ..., XN with coefficients in a field k. Then we define a vector-valued function F: kNkN by setting:

F(X1, ..., XN) = (f1(X1, ...,XN),..., fN(X1,...,XN)).

Any map F: kNkN arising in this way is called a polynomial mapping.

The Jacobian determinant of F, denoted by JF, is defined as the determinant of the N × N Jacobian matrix consisting of the partial derivatives of fi with respect to Xj:

JF=|f1X1f1XNfNX1fNXN|,

then JF is itself a polynomial function of the N variables X1, ..., XN.

Formulation of the conjecture

It follows from the multivariable chain rule that if F has a polynomial inverse function G: kNkN, then JF has a polynomial reciprocal, so is a nonzero constant. The Jacobian conjecture is the following partial converse:

Jacobian conjecture: Let k have characteristic 0. If JF is a non-zero constant, then F has an inverse function G: kNkN which is regular, meaning its components are polynomials.

According to van den Essen,[2] the problem was first conjectured by Keller in 1939 for the limited case of two variables and integer coefficients.

The obvious analogue of the Jacobian conjecture fails if k has characteristic p > 0 even for one variable. The characteristic of a field, if it is not zero, must be prime, so at least 2. The polynomial xxpScript error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters". has derivative 1 − p xp−1Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters". which is 1 (because px is 0) but it has no inverse function. However, Template:Ill suggested extending the Jacobian conjecture to characteristic p > 0 by adding the hypothesis that p does not divide the degree of the field extension k(X) / k(F).[5]

The existence of a polynomial inverse is obvious if F is simply a set of functions linear in the variables, because then the inverse will also be a set of linear functions. A simple non-linear example is given by

u=x2+y+x
v=x2+y

so that the Jacobian determinant is

JF=|1+2x12x1|=(1+2x)(1)(1)2x=1.

In this case the inverse exists as the polynomials

x=uv
y=v(uv)2.

But if we modify F slightly, to

u=2x2+y
v=x2+y

then the determinant is

JF=|4x12x1|=(4x)(1)2x(1)=2x,

which is not constant, and the Jacobian conjecture does not apply. The function has an inverse function when we work over the reals and assume x>0:

x=uv
y=2vu,

However, this expression for x is not a polynomial. If instead we work over the complex numbers the square root is multivalued.

The condition JF ≠ 0 is related to the inverse function theorem in multivariable calculus. In fact for smooth functions (and so in particular for polynomials) a smooth local inverse function to F exists at every point where JF is non-zero. For example, the map x → x + x3 has a smooth global inverse, but the inverse is not polynomial.

Results

Stuart Sui-Sheng Wang proved the Jacobian conjecture for polynomials of degree 2.[6] Hyman Bass, Edwin Connell, and David Wright showed that the general case follows from the special case where the polynomials are of degree 3, or even more specifically, of cubic homogeneous type, meaning of the form F = (X1 + H1, ..., Xn + Hn), where each Hi is either zero or a homogeneous cubic.[7] Ludwik Drużkowski showed that one may further assume that the map is of cubic linear type, meaning that the nonzero Hi are cubes of homogeneous linear polynomials.[8] These reductions introduce additional variables and so are not available for fixed N.

Edwin Connell and Lou van den Dries proved that if the Jacobian conjecture is false, then it has a counterexample with integer coefficients and Jacobian determinant 1.[9] In consequence, the Jacobian conjecture is true either for all fields of characteristic 0 or for none. For fixed dimension N, it is true if it holds for at least one algebraically closed field of characteristic 0.

Let k[X] denote the polynomial ring k[X1, ..., Xn] and k[F] denote the k-subalgebra generated by f1, ..., fn. For a given F, the Jacobian conjecture is true if, and only if, k[X] = k[F]. Keller (1939) proved the birational case, that is, where the two fields k(X) and k(F) are equal. The case where k(X) is a Galois extension of k(F) was proved by Andrew Campbell for complex maps[10] and in general by Michael Razar[11] and, independently, by David Wright.[12] Tzuong-Tsieng Moh checked the conjecture for polynomials of degree at most 100 in two variables.[13][14]

Michiel de Bondt and Arno van den Essen[15][16] and Ludwik Drużkowski[17] independently showed that it is enough to prove the Jacobian Conjecture for complex maps of cubic homogeneous type with a symmetric Jacobian matrix, and further showed that the conjecture holds for maps of cubic linear type with a symmetric Jacobian matrix, over any field of characteristic 0.

The strong real Jacobian conjecture was that a real polynomial map with a nowhere vanishing Jacobian determinant has a smooth global inverse. That is equivalent to asking whether such a map is topologically a proper map, in which case it is a covering map of a simply connected manifold, hence invertible. Sergey Pinchuk constructed two variable counterexamples of total degree 35 and higher.[18]

It is well known that the Dixmier conjecture, that every endomorphism of a Weyl algebra is an automorphism, implies the Jacobian conjecture.[7] Conversely, it is shown by Yoshifumi Tsuchimoto[19] and independently by Alexei Belov-Kanel and Maxim Kontsevich[20] that the Jacobian conjecture for 2N variables implies the Dixmier conjecture in N dimensions. A self-contained and purely algebraic proof of the last implication is also given by Kossivi Adjamagbo and Arno van den Essen[21] who also proved in the same paper that these two conjectures are equivalent to the Poisson conjecture, that every endomorphism of the Nth complex Poisson algebra is an automorphism.

See also

References

<templatestyles src="Reflist/styles.css" />

  1. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  2. a b c Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  3. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1". (pdf)
  4. Script error: No such module "Citation/CS1".
  5. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  6. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  7. a b Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  8. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  9. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  10. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  11. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  12. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  13. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  14. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  15. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  16. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  17. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  18. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  19. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  20. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".
  21. Script error: No such module "citation/CS1".

Script error: No such module "Check for unknown parameters".

External links