Generalised quadratic forms over totally real number fields

Part (i) is [BV, Lemma 2.2(i)] and part (ii) follows from an obvious modification to the proof of [BV, Lemma 2.2(ii)].

We begin by showing that \sigma_0 is an additive character modulo \mathfrak{b} if and only if \mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{d}\subset \mathfrak{a}_\gamma. But \sigma_0 is an additive character modulo \mathfrak{b} if and only if \sigma_0(x+z)=\sigma_0(x) for all x\in \mathfrak{o} and z\in \mathfrak{b}. But this happens if and only if \gamma z \in \hat \mathfrak{o} for all z\in \mathfrak{b}, which is if and only if \mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{d}\subset \mathfrak{a}_\gamma. This establishes the claim.

Now suppose that \mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{d}\subset \mathfrak{a}_\gamma, which means that \mathfrak{a}_\gamma\mid \mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{d}. Thus there is an integral ideal \mathfrak{h} such that \mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{d}=\mathfrak{a}_\gamma \mathfrak{h}. We wish to show that \sigma_0 is primitive if and only if \mathfrak{h}\mid \mathfrak{d} with (\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{b})=1. To do so we note that \sigma_0 is primitive if and only if \mathfrak{a}_\gamma \nmid \mathfrak{b}_1 \mathfrak{d} for all \mathfrak{b}_1\mid \mathfrak{b} with \mathfrak{b}_1\neq \mathfrak{b}. Indeed, if \mathfrak{a}_\gamma \mid \mathfrak{b}_1 \mathfrak{d} for some proper divisor \mathfrak{b}_1\mid \mathfrak{b}, then \gamma z \in \hat \mathfrak{o} for every z\in \mathfrak{b}_1, which would mean that \sigma_0 is a character modulo \mathfrak{b}_1. Suppose that \sigma_0 is primitive and suppose that there is a prime ideal \mathfrak{p}\mid \mathfrak{h} such that \mathfrak{p}\mid \mathfrak{b}. Writing \mathfrak{h}'=\mathfrak{h}\mathfrak{p}^{-1} and \mathfrak{b}'=\mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{p}^{-1} it follows that \mathfrak{b}'\mathfrak{d}=\mathfrak{a}_\gamma \mathfrak{h}', whence \mathfrak{a}_\gamma\mid \mathfrak{b}'\mathfrak{d}, which is a contradiction. Thus \mathfrak{h} is coprime to \mathfrak{b} and we must have \mathfrak{h}\mid \mathfrak{d}. Suppose now that \mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{d}=\mathfrak{a}_\gamma \mathfrak{h} for some \mathfrak{h}\mid \mathfrak{d} such that (\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{b})=1. We wish to deduce that \sigma_0 is primitive, for which we suppose for a contradiction that there exists a proper divisor \mathfrak{b}_1\mid \mathfrak{b} such that \mathfrak{a}_\gamma \mid \mathfrak{b}_1 \mathfrak{d}. Writing \mathfrak{b}=\mathfrak{b}_1\mathfrak{b}_2 and recalling that \mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{d}=\mathfrak{a}_\gamma \mathfrak{h}, we deduce that \mathfrak{h} = (\mathfrak{a}_\gamma^{-1}\mathfrak{b}_1 \mathfrak{d})\mathfrak{b}_2, whence \mathfrak{b}_2\mid \mathfrak{h}, which is impossible since (\mathfrak{h},\mathfrak{b})=1.

Finally we note that \sigma_0 is a trivial character if and only if \gamma\in \hat \mathfrak{o}, which is equivalent to \mathfrak{a}_\gamma\supseteq \mathfrak{d}. This is clearly impossible for any primitive character \sigma_0 modulo a proper ideal \mathfrak{b}\subsetneq \mathfrak{o}, since (\mathfrak{d}/\mathfrak{e},\mathfrak{b})=1 if \mathfrak{a}_\gamma=\mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{e}.

We consider the integral ideal \mathfrak{c}=\mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{d}. Observe that \mathfrak{d}^\tau=\mathfrak{d} for all \tau\in \operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q}), since \mathfrak{d}=\hat\mathfrak{o}^{-1} and the trace is invariant under the action of the Galois group. Taking \varepsilon=1 in Lemma 3.1(ii), we can find \alpha\in \mathfrak{c} and a prime ideal \mathfrak{p}_1 coprime to \mathfrak{c}^\tau=\mathfrak{b}^\tau\mathfrak{d}, for every \tau\in \operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q}), with \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{p}_1 \ll \operatorname{N} \mathfrak{b}, and such that (\alpha)=\mathfrak{c}\mathfrak{p}_1. It follows from Lemma 3.1(i) that there exists \nu\in \mathfrak{p}_1 such that ((\nu), \mathfrak{c}^\tau)=1 for any \tau\in \operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q}). But this implies that g=N_{K/\mathbb{Q}}(\nu) is coprime to \mathfrak{c}^\tau, for any \tau\in \operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q}), with g\in \mathfrak{p}_1. We will show that \mathfrak{c}=\mathfrak{a}_\gamma with \gamma=g/\alpha, after which an application of Lemma 3.3 with \mathfrak{e}=\mathfrak{d} will complete the proof. To check the claim we note that

since \mathfrak{p}_1\mid (g) and \mathfrak{b}\mathfrak{d} is coprime with (g).

Let {\Delta}= \operatorname{rank} (c_{i,j,\tau,\tau'})_{(i,\tau)\times (j,\tau')}. Let {\mathscr S}\subset \{1,\ldots, n\}\times \operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q}) be a subset of indices such that the vectors (c_{i,j,\tau,\tau'})_{(j,\tau')}, (i,\tau)\in {\mathscr S}, are linearly independent and |{\mathscr S}| is maximal. Then, for any (k,\sigma)\in \{1,\ldots, n\}\times \operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q}) there are numbers a_{i,\tau}^{(k,\sigma)} (for (i,\tau)\in {\mathscr S}), such that

for all 1\leqslant j\leqslant n and \tau'\in \operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q}). Let {\alpha}\in {\mathfrak o} such that {\alpha} a_{i,\tau}^{(k,\sigma)}\in {\mathfrak o} for all (i,\tau)\in {\mathscr S} and (k,\sigma)\in \{1,\ldots, n\}\times \operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q}). Now, set

Observe that {\mathscr H}_{\mathfrak b}'\subset {\mathscr H}_{\mathfrak b}. Moreover, if {\mathfrak b} and ({\alpha}) are coprime, then the ideal ({\alpha}) may be omitted in the definition of {\mathscr H}_{\mathfrak b}'. Finally, we observe that there is an injection

Hence |{\mathfrak o}^n/{\mathscr H}_{\mathfrak b}'|\leqslant (\operatorname{N} ({\alpha}{\mathfrak b}))^{{\Delta}}, which suffices, since {\mathscr H}_{\mathfrak b}'\subset {\mathscr H}_{\mathfrak b}.

Let {\mathbf v}_1,\dots, {\mathbf v}_n be a set of vectors as in Definition 3.6. By scaling these vectors with a rational integer, we may assume that {\mathbf v}_i\in {\mathfrak o}^n for all 1\leqslant i\leqslant n. We define the auxiliary set

and observe that {\mathscr H}_{\mathfrak b}\subset \widetilde{{\mathscr H}}_{\mathfrak b}. Next, consider the map

which is injective by the definition of admissibility in Definition 3.6. Let {\Gamma} be the image of {\mathfrak o}^n under the map \varphi. Then \varphi induces an isomorphism

Note that {\Gamma} only depends on B(\boldsymbol{X};\boldsymbol{Y}) and vectors {\mathbf v}_1,\dots,{\mathbf v}_n, and hence can be taken to be independent of the ideal {\mathfrak b}. As in (?), we therefore obtain

where C_{\Gamma} is a constant only depending on {\Gamma}. Moreover, there is an ideal \mathfrak{d}_2 such that |{\Gamma}/({\mathfrak b}^n\cap {\Gamma})|=(\operatorname{N}{\mathfrak b})^n whenever (\mathfrak{d}_2,{\mathfrak b})=1. This completes the proof of the lemma.

Our approach is based on breaking the \mathbf{x}-sum in (?) into residue classes modulo {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}. Since Q=P and {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}^n\subset {\mathscr H}_\mathfrak{b}, it follows that this sum equals

for any primitive character \sigma modulo \mathfrak{b}. We apply the multi-dimensional Poisson summation formula (cf. [BV, § 5]). Recalling that K is totally real, we find that the inner \mathbf{x}-sum is equal to

where we recall that \widehat{{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}} }={{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}^{-1}\mathfrak{d}^{-1} is the dual of {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}. Putting everything together in (?), we have therefore established that

with S_\mathfrak{b} (N;\mathbf{m}) as in the statement of the lemma and

A simple change of variables yields \tilde I_\mathfrak{b} (\mathbf{m})=P^{dn} I_\mathfrak{b} (N/P^2;P\mathbf{m}), as required.

For fixed a\in ({\mathfrak o}/{\mathfrak{b}})^*, we have

in the notation of (?). We observe that the function {\mathbf u} \mapsto \psi (2{\gamma} a B({\mathbf u};{\mathbf h})) is a character modulo {{}^G\mathfrak{b} }^n, and it is the trivial character precisely when

We rewrite {\gamma} in the form {\gamma}=g/{\alpha} with ({\alpha})={\mathfrak{b}}{\mathfrak{d}}{\mathfrak p}_1 for some prime ideal {\mathfrak p}_1 and g\in {\mathfrak p}_1\cap{\mathbb Z} with the property that ((g),{\mathfrak{d}}{{}^G\mathfrak{b} })=1. Thus the above condition is equivalent to the condition

Since a \in ( {\mathfrak o}/{\mathfrak{b}})^*, g\in {\mathfrak p}_1 and ((g),{\mathfrak{d}}{{}^G\mathfrak{b} })=1, this is equivalent to saying that

Finally, since this condition on \mathbf{u} is invariant modulo {{}^G\mathfrak{b} }^n, this is equivalent to the condition 2 B({\mathbf u};{\mathbf h}) \in {\mathfrak{b}}, for all {\mathbf u} \in {\mathfrak o}^n, which is equivalent to specifying that {\mathbf h} \in {\mathscr H}_{\mathfrak{b}}, by (?). The statement of the lemma now follows.

This follows from combining Lemmas 3.7 and 4.2.

Returning to the definition of S_\mathfrak{b}(N;\mathbf{m}) in Lemma 4.1 and noting that {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}^n\subset {\mathscr H}_{\mathfrak{b}}\subset \mathfrak{o}^n, we may write

However, orthogonality of characters gives

Since we automatically have \mathbf{m}.\mathbf{h}\in \mathfrak{d}^{-1} for any \mathbf{m} \in \widehat{{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}} }^n and \mathbf{h}\in {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}^n, the statement of the lemma follows.

According to Lemma 3.4, there exists \gamma=g/\alpha \in \mathfrak{F}(\mathfrak{b}) such that \psi(\gamma \cdot) is a primitive character modulo \mathfrak{b}. Then, (?) implies that

Let us write \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_i=b_i for i=1,2. The assumption \gcd (b_1,b_2)=1 implies that ({{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_1,{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_2)=1. Moreover, we have b_1\in \mathfrak{b}_1, b_2\in \mathfrak{b}_2 and

According to Lemma 3.1(i) we find elements \lambda, \mu\in \mathfrak{o} such that \mathrm{ord}_{\mathfrak{p}}(\lambda)=\mathrm{ord}_\mathfrak{p}(\mathfrak{b}_1) and \mathrm{ord}_{\mathfrak{p}}(\mu)=\mathrm{ord}_\mathfrak{p}(\mathfrak{b}_2) for all \mathfrak{p} \mid {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_1{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_2. It follows from the Chinese remainder theorem, in the form Lemma 3.2, that we can write a=\mu b+\lambda c for b \,(\operatorname{mod}{\mathfrak{b}_1}) and c \,(\operatorname{mod}{\mathfrak{b}_2}). Likewise, we claim that we can write \mathbf{x}=b_2\mathbf{b}+b_1\mathbf{c}, for \mathbf{b} \,(\operatorname{mod}{{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_1}) and \mathbf{c} \,(\operatorname{mod}{{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_2}). To prove the claim it suffices to show that there is an isomorphism \mathfrak{o}/{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_1\times \mathfrak{o}/{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_2\to \mathfrak{o}/{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}, given by (u,v)\mapsto b_2u+b_1v. This map is clearly well-defined, since b_1\in {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_1 and b_2\in {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_2. Moreover, injectivity follows from the coprimality conditions ((b_2),{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_1)=((b_1),{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_2)=1, which are a direct consequence of (Proof). The claim follows, since the cardinalities are the same, by the Chinese remainder theorem.

In summary, on observing that b_1\in {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_1 and b_2\in {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_2, it follows that

We claim that \psi(\gamma \mu b_2^2\cdot) defines a primitive character modulo \mathfrak{b}_1. For this we note that

since b_2\in \mathfrak{b}_2 and g\in \mathfrak{p}_1. Now (g) is coprime to \mathfrak{b}_1\mathfrak{d} and (\mu b_2) is coprime to \mathfrak{b}_1. Thus it follows that

where \mathfrak{e}=\mathfrak{d}/(\mathfrak{d},\mu b_2^2\mathfrak{b}_2^{-1}). Clearly \mathfrak{e}\mid \mathfrak{d}. We claim that (\mathfrak{d}/\mathfrak{e},\mathfrak{b}_1)=1. To see this, note that \mathfrak{d}/\mathfrak{e} is equal to the common divisor (\mathfrak{d}, \mu b_2^2 \mathfrak{b}_2^{-1}). Now \mu is coprime to \mathfrak{b}_1 and so is \mathfrak{b}_2. Hence the common divisor of these ideals most be coprime to the ideal \mathfrak{b}_1, as claimed. Thus Lemma 3.3 establishes the claim that \psi(\gamma \mu b_2^2\cdot) is a primitive character modulo \mathfrak{b}_1. It follows that

where \overline{\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2} is the multiplicative inverse of \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2 modulo \mathfrak{b}_1. Similarly,

from which the lemma follows.

On making an obvious change of variables to the a-sum and the \mathbf{x}-sum in (?), we note that S_\mathfrak{b}(c^2N;\0)=S_\mathfrak{b}(N;\0) for any c\in \mathbb{Z} which is coprime to \mathfrak{b}. The statement now follows from an application of Lemma 4.5.

In the course of the proof it will be convenient to write \underline{\mathbf{s}}=(\mathbf{s}_1,\dots,\mathbf{s}_d), \underline{\mathbf{u}}=(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_d), \underline{\boldsymbol{\xi}}=(\boldsymbol{\xi}_1,\dots,\boldsymbol{\xi}_d) and \mathbf{t}=(t_1,\dots,t_d). Recall the definition of the weight function W in §? for a suitable fixed \underline\boldsymbol{\xi}\in \mathbb{R}^{dn}. Making the change of variables in (?), we see that

where {\boldsymbol \tau}=\mathbf{A}^{-1} \mathbf{t} and \mathbf{w}=\mathbf{A}^{-1}\mathbf{y}. It will clearly suffice to prove the properties recorded in the lemma for the integral on the right hand side, \widetilde{f}({\mathbf{w}}) say, regarded as a function of \mathbf{w}. Making the change of variables \underline{\mathbf{s}}=\underline\mathbf{u}-\underline\boldsymbol{\xi}, we have

It is now clear that \widetilde{f}(\mathbf{w})=0 unless \mathbf{w}\in [-C,C]^d for suitable C>0.

Next, we recall that J_{Q_1,\dots,Q_d}(\underline\boldsymbol{\xi}) has rank d. We may assume without loss of generality that

Let \varphi:\mathbb{R}^{dn}\to \mathbb{R}^{dn} be given by

The implicit function theorem implies that there exist open subsets W',W\subset \mathbb{R}^{dn} with \underline\0\in W' and \varphi(\underline\0)\in W, such that \varphi:W'\to W is a bijection and has differentiable inverse \varphi^{-1} on W. It is now clear that we wish to choose \delta>0 small enough to ensure that \underline{\mathbf{s}}\in W' whenever |\underline{\mathbf{s}}|\leqslant \delta.

We may now conclude that

where \underline{\mathbf{s}}'= (s_{1,2},\dots,s_{1,n},\dots ,s_{d,2},\dots,s_{d,n}), and s_{1,1},s_{2,1},\dots, s_{d,1} are implicitly given by \underline{\mathbf{s}}' and \mathbf{w}, and

is the associated Jacobian. Since \varphi^{-1} is smooth this implies that \widetilde{f}(\mathbf{w}) is infinitely differentiable and that its partial derivatives satisfy the bound claimed in the lemma.

We may write

say. It follows from Corollary 4.6 that S(k_1k_2)=S(k_1)S(k_2) if k_1,k_2 are coprime integers. Hence

Since K is Galois we may assume that p admits a factorisation (p)=(\mathfrak{p}_1\cdots \mathfrak{p}_r)^e, with \operatorname{N} \mathfrak{p}_1=\cdots =\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{p}_r=p^f. Let \ell\geqslant 0 and let I_\ell denote the set of integral ideals \mathfrak{b}=\mathfrak{p}_1^{k_1}\cdots \mathfrak{p}_r^{k_r}, with 0\leqslant k_i\leqslant \ell e for 1\leqslant i\leqslant r. Then the union of I_\ell over \ell\geqslant 0 exactly matches the set of integral ideals whose norm is a power of p. Hence

It follows from (?) that

on extending the inner sum to a sum over elements of (\mathfrak{o}/p^\ell\mathfrak{o})^n. Hence, on rearranging, we obtain

where

We claim that \psi(\gamma a\cdot ) runs over all characters modulo p^\ell, as a runs over (\mathfrak{o}/\mathfrak{b})^* and \mathfrak{b} runs over I_\ell. On one hand, since a\in (\mathfrak{o}/\mathfrak{b})^*, each character \psi(\gamma a\cdot ) is a primitive character modulo \mathfrak{b}. Since \mathfrak{b}=\mathfrak{p}^{k_1}\cdots \mathfrak{p}_r^{k_r}, for k_1,\dots,k_r\leqslant \ell e and p^\ell=(\mathfrak{p}_1\cdots\mathfrak{p}_r)^{\ell e}, we conclude that each such character induces a character modulo p^\ell. In order to complete the proof of the claim it remains to show that we get all p^{\ell d} characters modulo p^\ell this way. But the number of characters is precisely

as required.

We may now conclude from orthogonality of characters that

from which the first part of the lemma follows. The second part is standard. Using (?), the solubility of F(\mathbf{x})- N in \mathfrak{o}/p^\ell\mathfrak{o} can be reduced to the solubility of a shifted descended system Q_i(\mathbf{u}_1,\dots,\mathbf{u}_d) -N_i modulo primes powers, for 1\leqslant i\leqslant d, where we have written N=\omega_1N_1+\cdots+\omega_d N_d. Arguing as in work of Birch [birch, Lemma 7.1], for example, the existence of non-singular p-adic zeros of this system is enough to deduce that \mathfrak{S}(N)>0. The details of this will not be repeated here.

Assume that there is some \lambda\in L with

Let V_0\subset \mathbb{A}^n be the affine subspace given by the kernel of A+\lambda B. Then \dim V_0\geqslant 2. Let \mathbb{P}(V_0)=V\subset \mathbb{P}^{n-1} and let Q_B\subset \mathbb{P}^{n-1} be the quadric given by the matrix B. Then \dim V\geqslant 1 and \dim Q_B=n-2 as projective varieties. We deduce that the intersection V\cap Q_B is non-empty. Consider a point \mathbf{x}=(\mathbf{x}',\mathbf{x}'')\in L^n\setminus\{0\} in the affine cone of V\cap Q_B, where \mathbf{x}'\in L^m and {\mathbf x}'' \in L^{n-m}. Then we deduce that

We deduce that {\mathbf x} lies on the quadric given by A and as it is in the kernel of A+\lambda B, it is a singular point of the intersection Q_A \cap Q_B. We claim that {\mathbf x}'\neq 0, i.e. {\mathbf x} is not of the shape (0,{\mathbf x}''). Assume for a moment that {\mathbf x}=(0,{\mathbf x}''). Note that

This is a contradiction to A being non-singular. Hence we found a singular point of the intersection Q_A\cap Q_B which is not of the form (0,{\mathbf x}'').

Assume that \mathbf{A} has symmetric entries a_{i,j}\in \mathfrak{o}, for 1\leqslant i,j\leqslant n, and that \mathbf{B} has symmetric entries b_{i,j}\in \mathfrak{o}, for 1\leqslant i,j\leqslant m. Then the associated bilinear form takes the shape

Now \mathbf{h}\in \mathscr{H}_\mathfrak{b} if and only if 2B(\mathbf{h},\mathbf{k})\in \mathfrak{b} for all \mathbf{k}\in \mathfrak{o}^n. Let \omega_1,\ldots, \omega_d be an integral basis of \mathfrak{o} with {\omega}_1=1. Let l\in \{1,\ldots, d\} and j\in \{1,\dots,n\} and consider a vector \mathbf{k} such that the j-th entry is equal to {\omega}_l and all other entries are equal to zero. Then the condition B(\mathbf{h},\mathbf{k})\in \mathfrak{b} implies that

As the matrix ({\omega}_l^\tau)_{1\leqslant l\leqslant d, \tau\in \operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q})} is invertible, this implies that there exists \beta\in K with \beta^{-1}\in \mathfrak{o} such that

Thus we find that \mathbf{A}{\mathbf h}\in (\beta\mathfrak{b})^n and \mathbf{B}(\mathbf{h}')^\tau \in (\beta\mathfrak{b})^m, where \mathbf{h}'=(h_1,\dots,h_m). As both matrices \mathbf{A} and \mathbf{B} are non-singular, this implies that

Putting these together, the statement of the lemma easily follows.

It follows from Lemma 5.2 that |\mathfrak{o}^n/{\mathscr H}_\mathfrak{b}|\gg (\operatorname{N}{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}})^{m}(\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b})^{n-m}. Thus (?) implies that

Inserting this into Lemma 4.2 yields the desired upper bound. We have already observed in Lemma 4.4 that S_\mathfrak{b} (N;\mathbf{m})=0 unless \mathbf{m}.\mathbf{h}\in \mathfrak{d}^{-1} for all \mathbf{h}\in \mathscr{H}_\mathfrak{b}. Noting that {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}^m\times \mathfrak{b}^{n-m}\subset \mathscr{H}_\mathfrak{b}, the second part easily follows.

Recall that M_l(u)\in O(n). In particular all entries of M_l(u) are bounded independently of u and we obtain

uniformly in u, for all k\in \mathbb{N}. The result now follows from Lemma 4.9.

Let us write \mathbf{c}=(\mathbf{c}',\mathbf{c}''), where \mathbf{c}'=(c_1,\dots,c_m) and \mathbf{c}''=(c_{m+1},\dots,c_n). Keeping in mind (?), we first fix a choice of \mathbf{c}''\in \left(\mathfrak{b}^{-1} {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}} \right)^{n-m} satisfying

for m+1\leqslant i\leqslant n and 1\leqslant l\leqslant d. Choose \lambda\in K such that (\lambda)=\mathfrak{b}^{-1} {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}} \mathfrak{p}_2^{-1}, for a suitable prime ideal \mathfrak{p}_2 of norm O(P^\varepsilon). We may assume that \lambda is well-shaped, in the sense of (?), on multiplying by a suitable unit. Thus X^{1/d}Y^{1/d}\ll |\lambda^{(l)}| \ll X^{1/d}Y^{1/d+\varepsilon}, for 1\leqslant l\leqslant d. Making the change of variables \mathbf{c}''=\lambda \mathbf{d}'' and recalling that \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b} \asymp X and \operatorname{N}{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}} \asymp Y, we must have

for m+1\leqslant i\leqslant n and 1\leqslant l\leqslant d.

We begin by showing that (5.5) holds if L(u)\neq 0. Thus there exists \mathbf{c}\neq \0 counted by L(u). Suppose first that \mathbf{c}''\neq \0. Then there exists i\in \{m+1,\dots,n\} such that

whence 1\ll P^{-d+\varepsilon} X \mathfrak{H}(u)\ll P^{-d+\varepsilon} Y \mathfrak{H}(u)^2, since X\leqslant Y. This is satisfactory for (5.5). Suppose next that \mathbf{c}'\neq \0. In particular we have

As M_l(u) is an orthogonal matrix, this implies that

whence (?) yields

This completes the proof of (5.5) under the assumption that L(u)\neq 0.

Turning now to the estimation of L(u), it readily follows from a result in Lang [lang, Thm. 0 in § V.1] that the overall number of vectors \mathbf{d}'' is

It remains to count the number of vectors \mathbf{c}' associated to a particular choice of \mathbf{c}''. Let L(u,\mathfrak{b},\mathbf{c}'') be the number of \mathbf{c}'\in \mathfrak{o}^m such that (?) holds. Assume that the matrix M_l(u) is given by M_l(u)=(m_{l\alpha\beta})_{1\leqslant \alpha,\beta\leqslant n}. Write

with M_l'(u)=(m_{l\alpha\beta})_{\substack{1\leqslant \alpha\leqslant n\\ 1\leqslant \beta\leqslant m}} and M_l''(u)=(m_{l\alpha\beta})_{\substack{1\leqslant \alpha\leqslant n\\ m< \beta\leqslant n}}. Then we consider the system of inequalities

where \mathbf{r}_l=(r_{li})_{1\leqslant i\leqslant n}=M_l''(u) \mathbf{c}''^{(l)}.

Write

Then, for 1\leqslant i\leqslant n, we can write

Let H be the dn\times dm matrix given by

with 1\leqslant l\leqslant d, 1\leqslant i\leqslant n, 1\leqslant k\leqslant d, 1\leqslant \beta\leqslant m, and consider the lattice

Then L(u,\mathfrak{b},\mathbf{c}'') counts lattice points in \Lambda which lie in a box of side length

We claim that the successive minima of the lattice \Lambda are bounded above and below by constants depending only on K and n. Taking this on faith, it will then follow that

which will settle the lemma, on summing over O(X) choices for \mathfrak{b}\in \mathscr{B}(X,Y).

To check the claim, we order the index tuples (l,i) and (k,\beta) in the matrix H lexicographically. Write

with the n\times m matrix B_l=(m_{li\beta})_{1\leqslant i\leqslant n,1\leqslant \beta\leqslant m}. Note that B_l has orthogonal and norm one columns for 1\leqslant l\leqslant d. We can then write H as a block matrix

Let B=B(u) be the nd\times md matrix which is a diagonal block matrix, with the matrices B_1,\ldots, B_d on the diagonal. Let W be the md\times md block matrix, with blocks {\omega}_k^{(l)} E_{m} at each place 1\leqslant l,k\leqslant d, where E_m is the m-dimensional identity matrix. Then

Consider the lattice \Gamma = W\mathbb{Z}^{md}\subset \mathbb{R}^{md} and note that this only depends on the basis {\omega}_1,\ldots, {\omega}_d. Moreover, if \mathbf{w}\in \Gamma, then

Hence the successive minima of the lattice \Lambda coincide with those of \Gamma, which thereby establishes the claim.

To begin with, according to Assumption 3, for each 1\leqslant l\leqslant d there exists a constant C_l such that

for |t|\geqslant C_l.

We start by examining the case |u_{l_\tau}|\leqslant C_l |u_l|. The first bound |\eth_{l,1}(u)|\ll |u_l| follows directly from (?). Assume now that u_l\neq 0. Note that each of the eigenvalues \eth_{l,i}(u) arises by multiplication with u_l from the eigenvalues of the matrix corresponding to

Write \tilde\eth_{l,i}(u) for those eigenvalues in the same ordering. Assume that the lower bound |\tilde\eth_{l,n-1}(u)|\gg 1 is not satisfied. Thus there exists a sequence of t_j in the range |t_j|\leqslant C_l such that \tilde\eth_{l,n-1}(t_j) \rightarrow 0, for j\rightarrow \infty, where we write \tilde \eth_{l,n-1}(t) for the second smallest eigenvalues of Q^{(l)}+tR^{(l_\tau)}. As the set of t is compact there is a convergent subsequence, convergent to t' say, with \operatorname{rank} (Q^{(l)}+t' R^{(l_\tau)})<n-1. This contradicts Assumption 2.

Now we consider the case m=1 and \tilde m=0. By Assumptions 1 and 3 we deduce that \det (Q^{(l)} + tR^{(l_\tau)}) is a non-zero constant independent of t. In particular the rank of this matrix is always n and the argument above shows that |\eth_{l,n}(u)|\gg |u_l|.

Next we consider the case |u_{l_\tau}|> C_l |u_l| and u_l\neq 0. Again, we write \tilde \eth_{l,i}(u) for the eigenvalues of Q^{(l)} + \frac{u_{l_\tau}}{u_l} R^{(l_\tau)}. Note that we have

Moreover, we observe that

We therefore find that

From this we obtain the lower bound

which completes the proof of the lemma.

On recalling the definition (?) of f(u), we deduce from (?) that

since (?) implies that

Here, we recall that \mathscr{U}^* is the set of u\in \mathscr{U} such that (5.5) holds. Consider for a moment a fixed value of l. If C_l|u_l| \geqslant |u_{l_\tau}|, then Lemma 5.6 yields

If C_l|u_l| < |u_{l_\tau}| and \tilde m\geqslant m-1, then Lemma 5.6 yields

In either of these two cases we therefore have

whence

It follows from (?) that

The contribution gets maximal for Y\asymp X^2, in which case we get the upper bound

The first term is satisfactory for the lemma. If 2-n/2+3m/2\leqslant 0, then the second term is O( P^{-dm+\varepsilon}), which is satisfactory. If n\leqslant 3+3m, on the other hand, then we take X\ll P^d and get the satisfactory upper bound O(P^{d(2-n/2+m/2)+\varepsilon}).

For 1\leqslant i\leqslant m, we clearly have

Hence we find that E_2(P;X,Y) is

If C_l|u_l|\geqslant |u_{l_\tau}|, then Lemma 5.6 leads to the bound

For the case C_l |u_l| < |u_{l_\tau}| we still have

since \tilde m\geqslant m-1. We now deduce that in either case we have

It now follows from (?) that E_2(P;X,Y) is

Let I_1 denote the contribution to the integral from those u for which there exists at least one u_l with |u_l|\gg (P/Y^{1/d})^{2}, and let I_2 denote the remaining contribution.

On recalling that \mathscr{U}^* is the set of u\in \mathscr{U} such that (5.5) holds, it is clear that

Turning to I_1, we see that

by (?). But if there is one u_l with |u_l|\gg (P/Y^{1/d})^{2}, then clearly

Hence, since P^{-1}Y^{1/d}\ll 1, it now follows that

In summary we have shown that

with I_1,I_2 as above.

Since n\geqslant m+4, the exponent of \mathfrak{H}(u) in I_2 is less than or equal to -1. If \frac{n-m-2+\kappa}{2}>1, then it follows from (?) that

However, if \frac{n-m-2+\kappa}{2}=1, then we apply (?) to deduce that the same bound holds.

On the other hand, (?) and (?) also yield

We conclude that

We now consider these three terms separately, starting with the third and recalling that n-m\geqslant 4. If -3m/4+n/4-(4-\kappa)/4\leqslant 0, then we get an upper bound

In the opposite case we get the upper bound \ll P^{-dm/2+\varepsilon }\ll P^{-m+\varepsilon}, on using Y\leqslant P^d and d\geqslant 2.

We now turn to the second term. If 2m/d+n/4-5m/4-(4-\kappa)/4\leqslant 0, then we get the upper bound

In the opposite case, on using X\geqslant Y^{1/2}, we get the upper bound

If d\geqslant 3 or \kappa =0, then we reduce to the case above. If d=2 and \kappa =1, on the other hand, we obtain the upper bound

since Y\leqslant P^d. Clearly (n+m-4)/2\geqslant m if n\geqslant m+4, whence this case contributes O(P^{-m+\varepsilon}), which is satisfactory.

It remains to deal with the first term. Again we use the lower bound X\geqslant Y^{1/2}, allowing us to bound the first term by

If d\geqslant 3 or \kappa =0 then we get O(P^{-2m + 3md/2 + (4-\kappa)d/2 - dn/2+\varepsilon}), which is satisfactory. Alternatively, if d=2 and \kappa=1, then we get

This is \ll P^{-1/2+\varepsilon} since n\geqslant m+4, which thereby completes the proof of the lemma.

Let \mathfrak{p} be a prime ideal of residue degree 1, so that \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{p}=p, for a rational prime p. We may assume that p is unramified in K and that

since the desired estimate is trivial otherwise. Since K/\mathbb{Q} is Galois, this means that there is a factorisation (p)=\mathfrak{p}_1\cdots\mathfrak{p}_d into prime ideals, where \mathfrak{p}_1,\dots,\mathfrak{p}_d are the d conjugates of \mathfrak{p} under \operatorname{Gal}(K/\mathbb{Q}), satisfying \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{p}_i=p for 1\leqslant i\leqslant d.

It will be convenient to write S_\mathfrak{p}=S_\mathfrak{p} (N;\mathbf{v}) and \tilde\mathfrak{p}=\mathfrak{p}^{\tau^{-1}} in the proof. Then \mathfrak{p} and \tilde\mathfrak{p} are distinct prime ideals, with {}^{{G}}\mathfrak{p}=\mathfrak{p} \tilde\mathfrak{p} and \operatorname{N} \mathfrak{p}=\operatorname{N}\tilde{\mathfrak{p}}=p. Choose \gamma=g/\alpha \in \mathfrak{F}(\mathfrak{p}) as in Lemma 3.4, so that \psi(\gamma \cdot) is a primitive character modulo \mathfrak{p}. Then we can write

as in (?).

Lemma 3.2 yields

for suitable \lambda,\mu\in \mathfrak{o} such that

Clearly

and

since the characters \psi( \gamma\lambda \cdot) and \psi( \gamma\mu^\tau \cdot) are both trivial on \mathfrak{o}. Putting everything together, it follows that

where

We estimate the first sum trivially via \Sigma_0\ll (\operatorname{N}\tilde\mathfrak{p})^{n-m}=(\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{p})^{n-m}.

The second sum factorises as

Recall from the definition of \mathfrak{F}(\mathfrak{p}) that \alpha\in \mathfrak{p} \mathfrak{d}. Hence

since \mathrm{ord}_{\tilde \mathfrak{p}}(\mu)=1 and \mathbf{v}\in \widehat{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{p}}^n, by assumption. Making the change of variables

where \overline{2a\mu^2a_i} denotes the multiplicative inverse of 2a\mu^2 a_i modulo \mathfrak{p}, we are led to the expression

since \overline{4}-\overline{2}\equiv -\overline{4} \,(\operatorname{mod}{\mathfrak{p}}). The inner sum is a classical Gauss sum, as found in work of Hecke [hecke, Satz 155], for example. We obtain

where

This completes the proof of the identity

It turns out that the remaining sum \Sigma_2(a) can also be interpreted as a product of Gauss sums. First, we observe that we have the factorisation

on making the change of variables u=w^\tau. The trace is left invariant under conjugation. On recalling that g\in \mathbb{Z}, so that g^\tau=g, it therefore follows that

since (\gamma\alpha)^\tau=g=\gamma\alpha. Hence

where

for 1\leqslant i\leqslant m. The inner sum is a Gauss sum that we can evaluate, as previously. This yields

We now piece everything together in (?). To begin with, it follows from squaring and differencing that

Since \mathfrak{p}\nmid 2, we see that the inner sum is \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{p} if u\in \mathfrak{p} and and 0 otherwise. Hence it follows that |\tau_\mathfrak{p}|=\sqrt{\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{p}}, from which we deduce that

where

Since \mathfrak{p}\nmid 2a_1\cdots a_n b_1\cdots b_m \mu \lambda^\tau, we may replace \overline a by 4a a_1\cdots a_n b_1\cdots b_m \mu^2(\lambda^\tau)^2 by a, in order to obtain

with

with G is given by (?). One notes that \mu^2 (\lambda^\tau)^2 \alpha^2G( \mathbf{v})\in \mathfrak{o} when \mathbf{v}\in (\widehat {}^{{G}}\mathfrak{p})^n. In particular

Thus K_\mathfrak{p} is a Kloosterman sum, if 2\mid m+n, and a Salié sum if 2\nmid m+n. It follows that

The statement of the lemma is now clear.

There is a factorisation \mathfrak{b}=\mathfrak{b}_1\mathfrak{b}_2, where \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_1 is square-free and \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2 is square-full, with \gcd(\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_1,\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2)=1. It follows from Lemma 4.5 and Corollary 5.3 that

We now turn to S_{\mathfrak{b}_1} (\overline{\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2}^2N;(\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2)\mathbf{m}), in which we note that

for 1\leqslant i\leqslant n. Since \operatorname{N} \mathfrak{b}_1 is square-free, we have a factorisation

for distinct prime ideals \mathfrak{q}_1,\cdots,\mathfrak{q}_r of residue degree 1 such that \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{q}_1,\cdots,\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{q}_r are distinct rational primes. Let

for 1\leqslant i\leqslant r. It now follows from a further application of Lemma 4.5 that

In particular, we plainly have (\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2)c_i\mathbf{m}\in (\widehat{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{q}_i})^n, for 1\leqslant i\leqslant r.

We are now aligned for an application of Lemma 6.1. For each i\in \{1,\dots,r\}, this yields

where

Note that

since \operatorname{N}{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{q}_i=(\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{q}_i)^2. Thus

Combining these estimates in (Proof), we conclude that

since (\operatorname{N} \mathfrak{b}_1)(\operatorname{N} \mathfrak{b}_2)=\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b} and (\operatorname{N} {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_1)(\operatorname{N} {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_2)=\operatorname{N} {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}. The statement of the lemma is now clear.

Clearly we get exponential decay in K(u,P\mathbf{m}) unless P|\mathbf{m}|\ll |u| P^\varepsilon, as we now assume. However, on examining each of the factors in K(u,P\mathbf{m}) separately, the essential support of K(u,P\mathbf{m}) is rendered clear. Next, for each i\leqslant m and 1\leqslant l\leqslant d, we have \rho_l(L_i(u))=a_i^{(l)}u_l+b_i^{(l_\tau)}u_{l_\tau}. The second derivative bound for exponential integrals yields

for i\leqslant m, and

for i> m. The statement is now clear.

Let us write \mathfrak{b}=\mathfrak{b}_1\mathfrak{b}_2, where \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_1 is square-free and \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2 is square-full, with \gcd(\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_1,\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2)=1. Then g(\mathfrak{b})= \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2 \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{h}, where \mathfrak{h} is the greatest common ideal divisor of \mathfrak{b}_1 and N. In summary, we may now write

In order to proceed, we assume without loss of generality that u\in V satisfies

Let us write \mathbf{c}=(\mathbf{c}',\mathbf{c}''), where \mathbf{c}'=(c_1,\dots,c_m) and \mathbf{c}''=(c_{m+1},\dots,c_n). Keeping in mind (?), we first fix a choice of \mathbf{c}''\in \left((\mathfrak{b}_1\mathfrak{b}_2)^{-1} {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_1 {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_2\right)^{n-m} satisfying

for m+1\leqslant i\leqslant n and 1\leqslant l\leqslant d. We claim that there exists \lambda\in K such that

for a suitable prime ideal \mathfrak{p}_2 of norm O(P^\varepsilon). To begin with, it follows from part (ii) of Lemma 3.1 that there exists \lambda_3\in \mathfrak{o} such that (\lambda_3)=(\mathfrak{b}_1\mathfrak{b}_2)^{-1} {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_1 {{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_2 \mathfrak{p}_3, for a suitable prime ideal \mathfrak{p}_3 of norm O(P^\varepsilon). A second application of this result reveals that there exists \lambda_2\in \mathfrak{o} and a prime ideal \mathfrak{p}_2 of norm O(P^\varepsilon), such that (\lambda_2)=\mathfrak{p}_3\mathfrak{p}_2. The claim now follows with \lambda=\lambda_3/\lambda_2.

On multiplying by units we can further assume that

for 1\leqslant l\leqslant d, on recalling that \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_1\operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2 \asymp X and \operatorname{N}{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_1\operatorname{N}{{}^{{G}}\mathfrak{b}}_2 \asymp Y. Making the change of variables \mathbf{c}''=\lambda \mathbf{d}'', we deduce that for m+1\leqslant i\leqslant n, we have d_i\in \mathfrak{o} and

for 1\leqslant l\leqslant d. In particular, if \mathbf{c}''\neq \0 then there exists i\in \{m+1,\dots,n\} such that

Recalling that \operatorname{Nm}(u)\leqslant \mathfrak{H}(u)\ll P^{d+\varepsilon}/X, we deduce that

Moreover, arguing as in Lemma 5.5, it readily follows from a result in Lang [lang, Thm. 0 in § V.1] that the overall number of vectors \mathbf{d}'' is O(P^\varepsilon). We must next address the number of \mathbf{c}'\in \mathfrak{o}^m, with (\mathbf{c}',\mathbf{c}'')\neq \0, which satisfy

for 1\leqslant i\leqslant m and 1\leqslant l\leqslant d. It is clear that

Together, (?) and (?) yield the first part of the lemma.

Appealing once more to Lang [lang, Thm. 0 in § V.1], we deduce that the number of \mathbf{c}' is

in the notation of the lemma. Returning to (Proof), we deduce that

since there are O(1) ideal divisors \mathfrak{h}\mid N when N\in \mathfrak{o} is non-zero. Finally, the lemma follows on noting that there are O(\sqrt{X}) integral ideals such that \operatorname{N}\mathfrak{b}_2 is a square-full integer of modulus at most X.

In the proof of this result we shall make frequent use of the observation that

for any i\in \{1,\dots,n\}, which follows from (?).

We may assume without loss of generality that the range of integration is restricted to satisfy

We further break the range of integration into m+1 regions. For 0\leqslant t\leqslant m, let R_t denote the set of u\in V with \mathfrak{H}(u)\leqslant P^{d+\varepsilon}/X, such that (6.4) and (?) hold, with

(Note that the left inequality is vacuous when t=0, and similarly for the right hand inequality when t=m.) In particular, it is clear that R_m=\emptyset when the second inequality in (6.4) holds. Moreover, when t\in \{1,\dots,m-1\}, we observe that

since \mathfrak{H}(L_t(u))\geqslant 1. We have

Thus

where

on taking \mathfrak{H}(L_1(u))\cdots \mathfrak{H}(L_t(u))\geqslant 1.

We first deal with I^{(0)}(X,Y). Recalling that \mathfrak{H}(L_i(u))\ll \mathfrak{H}(u)^2, for 1\leqslant i\leqslant m, it follows that

If 3m/2-n/2\geqslant -1, then (?) yields

Alternatively, if 3m/2-n/2< -1 then the left hand side is O(1) by (?). Thus

which is satisfactory.

Terms with 1\leqslant t\leqslant m-1 only contribute when Y\leqslant P^d. Arguing as above, it follows from (?) and (?) that

since X\leqslant Y. This is satisfactory for the lemma.

It remains to estimate I^{(m)}(X,Y). In this case we may assume that u satisfies the first inequality in (6.4), since R_m=\emptyset otherwise. Hence (?) yields

which is satisfactory and so completes the proof of the lemma.