2004
DOI: 10.4064/aa113-4-6
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

On the number of equivalence classes of binary forms of given degree and given discriminant

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2006
2006
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
1

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 11 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Theorem G (Bérczes, Evertse and Győry [3]). Let O be an order with quotient field of degree n ≥ 4 over Q.…”
Section: Bounds For the Number Of Equivalence Classes Letmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…Theorem G (Bérczes, Evertse and Győry [3]). Let O be an order with quotient field of degree n ≥ 4 over Q.…”
Section: Bounds For the Number Of Equivalence Classes Letmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If O is an order of a number field of degree n ≥ 4, then (7) implies an explicit upper bound for the number of strong equivalence classes of monic irreducible binary forms F ∈ Z[x, y] with O F = O. Recently, the following has been established in [3] for not necessarily monic binary forms.…”
Section: Bounds For the Number Of Equivalence Classes Letmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In the case n = 3, the parametrization of cubic orders due to Levi and Delone-Faddeev implies that every order O in a cubic field is the invariant order of a unique integral binary cubic form up to equivalence. For degrees n ≥ 4, Bérczes, Evertse, and Győry proved in [7] that an order O in a number field K of degree n can be the invariant order of at most 2 24n 3 classes of integral binary n-ic forms. This upper bound was subsequently improved to 2 5n 2 by Evertse and Győry [17,Theorem 17.1.1].…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The latter is a consequence of the quantitative subspace theorem. In our arguments we use ideas from [8], [7] and [2]. Theorem 2.3 is proved in Section 9.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%