2015
DOI: 10.1007/s40879-015-0049-1
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Counting rational points on the Cayley ruled cubic

Abstract: We count rational points of bounded height on the Cayley ruled cubic surface and interpret the result in the context of general conjectures due to Batyrev and Tschinkel.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
2
2
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(13 citation statements)
references
References 17 publications
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…All these varieties are spherical varieties; more precisely, flag varieties and toric varieties are special cases of horospherical varieties (which are toric bundles over flag varieties, at least after blow-ups); wonderful compactifications of semi-simple groups are special cases of wonderful varieties. This approach has also been applied to some nonspherical varieties, namely equivariant compactifications of vector groups [CLT02] and Cayley's singular ruled cubic surface [BBS16].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…All these varieties are spherical varieties; more precisely, flag varieties and toric varieties are special cases of horospherical varieties (which are toric bundles over flag varieties, at least after blow-ups); wonderful compactifications of semi-simple groups are special cases of wonderful varieties. This approach has also been applied to some nonspherical varieties, namely equivariant compactifications of vector groups [CLT02] and Cayley's singular ruled cubic surface [BBS16].…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This conjecture was proven to be correct for the non-normal Cayley ruled surface t 0 t 1 t 2 = t 2 0 t 3 + t 3 1 by de la Bretèche, Browning and Salberger [5]. In this case the infinitely many lines all contribute to the main term precisely in the way as predicted by the conjecture.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 73%
“…and {Q [a:b] } covers Q as long as [a : b] goes thorough P 1 (Q). From this, it is possible to interpret Theorem 1.1 in the framework of the generalized Manin's conjecture by Batyrev and Tschinkel [1], as was done in the work of de la Bretèche, Browning, and Salberger [3]. However, we will not pursue such an explanation here.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…). Then Lemma 2.1(i) gives (DM)(X, X + H; Y, Y + J) = XY 4P (ψ) +3 2 P ′ (ψ) + O(XJL 2 + Y HL 2 ) HJ. Since D is a linear operator, this together with Proposition 4.1 implies that…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%