The Polynomial Method

Jacob Denson

May 16, 2019

 Table Of Contents

1 Intro 2
1.1 Nikodym and Kakeya, and Joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.2 Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2 Lecture 7

3 Sphere 9

4 Restriction Problem 10
4.1 Broad vs. Narrow Points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

1
Chapter 1

Intro

The core techniques of the polynomial method are incredibly elementary,

but can be used to solve questions which have stumped mathematicians
for decades. The technique relies on the fact that polynomials are both a
flexible family of objects, and also a very restricted family. Given any set
of points, we can find a polynomial vanishing on that set. But on the other
hand, the behaviour of a polynomial with low degree is very restricted.
The interplay between these two properties is what makes the polynomial
method click.
The first principle of the polynomial can be described using very basic
ideas in linear algebra, known as parameter counting. Let T : V Ñ W be
a linear transformation with dimpW q ă dimpV q. Then by the rank nul-
lity theorem, the nullspace is nontrivial, so there must be x P V such that
T pxq “ 0. In particular, if V is a vector space of functions on some space
X, we select some finite collection of points x1 , . . . , xm P X, and we consider
the evaluation map T pf q “ pf px1 q, . . . , f pxm qq, then provided n ą m, there
is a function f P V vanishing on the m points. Of course, since polynomi-
als form an infinite dimensional vector space, this principle implies that
for any finite collection of points, we can find a polynomial vanishing on
them. But it is more interesting to finte a low degree polynomial vanishing
on the set of points.
Theorem 1.1. Given a finite set S, there is a polynomial with degree at most
n|S|1{n vanishing on S.
Proof. We let PolypD, K n q denote the vector space of polynomials we de-
gree at most D defined on K n . Now this vector space is spanned by the

2
 m m
monomials x1 1 . . . xn n with m1 ` ¨ ¨ ¨ ` mn ď D. To simplify the combina-
m m
torics, we homogenize, counting monomials x0 0 . . . xn n with m0 `¨ ¨ ¨`mn “
D. But this is just the number of decompositions of D into n`1 equal parts,
and so we conclude that
Dn
ˆ ˙
n D `n
dim pPolypD, K qq “ ě
n n!

Provided that D is much greater than n, this is a good approximation to

the dimension. In particular, given a finite set S Ă K n , there exists a poly-
nomial f with degpf q ď n|S|1{n vanishing on S. This is tight to the bounds
established above if |S| " n.
One example of the restrictedness of polynomials is provided by the
vanishing lemma, which implies polynomials vanishing on enough points
on a line eventually lie on the entire line.

Theorem 1.2. Let f be a polynomial vanishing on degpf q ` 1 points of a line.

Then f vanishes on the entire line.

Proof. Suppose L “ tx ` λy : λ P Ku is a line, for some x, y P K n . Then

f px`λyq is a one dimensional polynomial in λ with degree at most degpf q,
with degpf q ` 1 zeroes. But this means that f px ` λyq “ 0 for all λ, so f
vanishes on the entire line.
We note that this remains true in the projective context. If f is a ho-
mogenous polynomial vanishing on more than degpf q points of a projec-
tive line in KPn , then f vanishes on the entire projective line. This is easy
to prove by reduction to the affine case using a change of coordinates.

1.1 Nikodym and Kakeya, and Joints

Despite the simplicity of the two principles we just described, they are
enough to answer nontrivial questions. The statement of these theorems
involves no mention of polynomials, but the proof we give uses the lem-
mas above. No proof without using polynomials is currently known.
A subset N of K n is called a Nikodym set if, for any x P K, there exists
a line Lpxq through x such that Lpxq ´ txu Ă N . It is believed that any
Nikodym set must be quite large. The main interest of Nikodym sets is

3
in Rn , where the problem becomes analytical. But as a testbed, we might
want to consider the problem where K is a finite field with a large number
of points, and then establishing that a Nikodym set is large becomes a
purely combinatorial question.
Lemma 1.3. If K is finite, f vanishes on K n , and degpf q ă |K|, then f “ 0.
Proof. We prove this theorem by induction. For n “ 1, if f vanishes on K,
the division algorithm gives that X |K| ´1 divides f , which implies degpf q ě
|K| unless f “ 0. For an induction, write
ÿ
k
f px1 , . . . , xn`1 q “ fk px1 , . . . , xn qxn`1
k
ř k
For each value of x1 , . . . , xn P K, k fk px1 , . . . , xn qxn`1 is a polynomial in xn`1
vanishing everywhere, so by the base case, we conclude fk px1 , . . . , xn q “ 0
for all x1 , . . . , xn P K. And then by induction, fk “ 0.
Theorem 1.4. Any Nikodym set in a finite field K n contains Ωn |K|n points.
Proof. Let N be a Nikodym set. By parameter counting, we can find a
non-zero polynomial f with degpf q ď n|N |1{n . If x P K n , then f vanishes
completely on Lpxq, except perhaps at the point x. Suppose n|N |1{n ă
|K| ´ 1. Since f vanishes on at least |K| ´ 1 points of Lpxq, this means that
f vanishes at x as well. Since x was arbitrary, f vanishes on every point
of K n . The last lemma then implies f “ 0. Thus we have a contradiction
unless n|N |1{n ě |K| ´ 1, so it must be true that

|K| ´ 1 n
ˆ ˙
|N | ě ě |K|n n´n p1 ´ n|K|´1 q “ Ωn |K|n
n

In the finite field case, a set B in K n is called a Kakeya, or Besocovitch set

if it contains a line in every direction. That is, for every y P K n , there exists
x such that the line tx ` λy : λ P Ku is a subset of B. Just like Nikodym
sets, in Rn , Kakeya sets are conjectured to be very large in size, and we can
verify this in the finite field case using the polynomial method.
Theorem 1.5. A Kakeya set has Ωn |K|n elements.
Proof. Let B be a Kakeya set. Construct a homogenous polynomial f in
Krx0 , . . . , xn s with degree at most n|B|1{n such that f p1, xq “ 0 all x P B.

4
Assume f has the smallest degree such that it vanishes on B. Since B
contains a line in every direction, we find f p0, xq “ 0 for all x P B. If we
write f pxq “ f0 px1 , . . . , xn q ` x0 f1 pxq, then f0 px1 , . . . , xn q “ 0 for all x1 , . . . , xn P
K. Since degpf0 q ď degpf q ď n|B|1{n , if n|B|1{n ă |K|, then f0 “ 0. This
implies x0 divides f . But then x0´1 f vanishes on B, contradicting the fact
that f was minimal. This gives a contradiction, so we must have n|B|1{n ě
|K|, so |B| ě |K|n n´n .
If L is a family of lines in R3 , a joint is a point lying at the intersection
of three non coplanar lines. One might consider the maximum number of
joints a family of lines with a fixed cardinality L might have. If we take
an S ˆ S ˆ S grid, and we consider the family of axis parallel lines passing
through the gridpoints. Then there are 3S 2 points, and each grid point
is a joint, giving S 3 joints. Thus the number of joints is approximately
L3{2 . To do slightly better, we can consider a generic set of S planes. These
intersect in S choose 2 lines, and S choose 3 joints. If we take S “ 4, we get
a slightly better constant, but still asymptotically L3{2 . And we now prove
this is the maximum one can obtain, up to a constant factor.
Lemma 1.6. If L is a set of lines in R3 determining J joints, then one line
contains fewer than 3J 1{3 joints.
Proof. Let f be a polynomial vanishing at every joint of L, with degree at
most 3J 1{3 . If every line contains more than 3J 1{3 joints, then f vanishes
on all of the lines. But then ∇f vanishes on all of the joints as wells. If we
choose f to have minimal degree vanishing on the joints, this is impossi-
ble.
Theorem 1.7. L lines determine at most OpL3{2 q joints.
Proof. Let JpLq denote the maximum joints from a set of L lines. If L is
a set of L lines determining JpLq joints, then one line contains fewer than
3J 1{3 joints. If we remove this line, the remaining joints are formed by
L´1 lines, and so we obtain that JpLq ď 3JpLq1{3 `JpL´1q. Thus we obtain
that JpLq ď 3LJpLq1{3 , and so JpLq “ OpL3{2 q.
This theorem easily generalizes to high dimensions. The analogy of
Lemma 1.6 is that if lines in Rn determine J joints, then one line must
have fewer than nJ 1{n joints. This gives JpLq ď nJpLq1{n ` JpL ´ 1q, and so
JpLq “ OpnL1`1{n q.

5
1.2 Exercises
Theorem 1.8. Given a set of L m-planes in Rn , we can find a polynomial with
degree at most 2nn{pn´mq L1{pn´mq vanishing on the planes.

Proof. Fix K, and form an orthogonal grid of K m points on each plane.

Then we can find a polynomial with degree at most npK m Lq1{n vanishing
on this grid. Provided that npK m Lq1{n ă K, this polynomial must also van-
ish on all of the planes. It is possible to do this with K ď 2nn{pn´mq L1{pn´mq ,
which gives a polynomial with degree at most 2nn{pn´mq L1{pn´mq vanishing
on the set of planes.

Theorem 1.9 (Schwarz-Zippel Lemma). Suppose A1 , . . . , An are finite subsets

with |Ak | ď N for each k, and f is a polynomial with degree at most D. Then
the number of zeroes of f in A1 ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ An is at most DN n´1 .

Proof. We prove by induction. For n “ 1, the theorem is elementary. In

general, if f has most that DN n´1 zeroes on A1 ˆ ¨ ¨ ¨ ˆ An , then by pid-
geonholing it must have more than DN n´2 zeroes on some line parallel to
the n’th axis. But this is impossible by induction.

Corollary 1.10. In Rn , V pf q always has zero Lebesgue measure.

Proof. We prove this by Riemann integration. Note that

ż
n
|V pf q X r0, 1s | “ Ipf pxq “ 0q dx
r0,1sn

Now by the Schwarz-Zippel lemma,

N
1 ÿ DN n´1
Ipf pm1 , . . . , mn q “ 0q ď “ D{N
N n m ,...,m Nn
1 n “1

Thus, taking N Ñ 8, we conclude that |V pf q X r0, 1sn | “ 0.

6
Chapter 2

Lecture

Given an irreducible polynomial f over an algebraically closed field, it

is useful to find a large vector space containing functions not vanishing
identically on Zpf q. Any polynomial which vanishes identically on Zpf q
is divisible by f . Furthermore, the dimension of the set of polynomials
with degree at msot D which are divisible by f is D´deg f `n
` ˘
n , if deg f ď D.
By linear algebra, given any linear map L : V Ñ W , we can decompose
V as the direct sum of the kernel of L and a complementary subspace.
Here, we can take Lpgq “ g|Zpf q . Thus we get a space with dimension
`D`n˘ `D´deg f `n˘ `D`n˘
n ´ n . Since n Án D n , we find that we can find a space
with dimension Á pdeg f qD n´1 .
Unfortunately, this doesn’t work so well over the real numbers, so we
have to look a little harder. If R is a commutative ring, and I is an idea, we
say it is real if for every sequence r1 , . . . , rn P R for which r12 ` ¨ ¨ ¨ ` rn2 P R,
r1 , . . . , rn P R. A real ideal is radical, because if n “ 1, and r 2N P R, r N P R.
Eventually we obtain that r P R. Given an ideal I, the real radical of I is the
set of all r such that there is s1 , . . . , sn P R such that r n ` s12 ` ¨ ¨ ¨ ` sk2 P I.?The
real nullstellensatz says that I is a real ideal if and only if IpZpIqq “ R I.
There is a nice classification of irreducible polynomials which generate
real ideals. One condition is that there exists x P Zpf q such that ∇f “ 0,
and another is that f changes sign somewhere on Rn .

Lemma 2.1. Let f be a polynomial. Then there exists f 1 with degree smaller
than f , Zpf 1 q Ą Zpf q, and each irreducible component of f 1 generates a real
ideal.

7
Proof. We prove by induction on deg f . Then we may assume f is irre-
ducible. PROVE LATER.

8
Chapter 3

Sphere

Spheres of arbitrary radius:

Forbidden configurations help. But not really many forbidden config-
urations here.
Thus number of spheres times number of points is sharp for incidences
of points and spheres.
However, if no four points are co-circular, then there can be no four
points incidents to two spheres simultaneously. Running the partitioning
machine, we can guess that the polynomial partitioning result will give us
the right result.
More generally, if we take a family of varieties and points, and assume
there is no particular graph lying in the incidence graph of the situation.
Then we can try and bound the number of incidences.
Unit distances in four dimensions:
Idea of Solymozi and Tao: Looks like problem one dimension lower
than the one we started with.

9
Chapter 4

Restriction Problem

To prove a bound of the form }Ef }p Àp }f }8 , it suffices to prove estimates

of the form }Ef }Lp pBR q Àε,p Rε }F}8 for a slightly small value of p.
Parabolic rescaling tells us that if }Ef }Lp pBR q ď A}f }L8 pSq , then }Ef }Lp pBR q ď
Ar 2´4{p }f }L8 pSr q , where f is supported on a cap of radius r.

4.1 Broad vs. Narrow Points

Let f : S Ñ C, with |f pωq| ď 1 for all ω P S. We want }Ef }Lp pBR q Àε Rε }f }8 .
Let K ą 1 be a large number, and divide S into caps of diameter 1{K. We
call a point x P BR narrow if the wave packets passing through x come from
the same 1{K cap.
Suppose all of BR is narrow for a given function f . Suppose we have
already established for some fixed ε, Cε for all balls of radius ď R{2. Let
N “ tx P B2 : no wave packets through xu, so Ef pxq “ 0 on N . For each
1{K cap τ, elt Xτ be the set of points passing through the x cone from the
cap τ. If x P Xτ , then Ef pxq “ Efτ pxq, so
ż ż ż
p p
|Ef pxq| “ |Efτ pxq| ď |Efτ pxq|p
Xτ Xτ BR

Thus Thus we have found }Ef }Lp pBR q À K 6{p´2 Cε Rε }f }L8 .

Now let’s imagine every point in BR is broad. We will prove instead
that if p “ 13{4 ` ε, then
p p 1{4 p 1{4
}Ef }Lp pB q Àε Rε }f }3`ε
L2 pSq
}f }L8 pSq ď Rε }f }3`ε
L2 pSq
max }f }L2 pΘq
R Θ

10
TODO: EXPAND
We want to understand BR |Ef |p . Let D ą 1 be a large integer. Let P
ş

be a polynomial breaking up R3 into a union of OpD 3 q cells. The mass

of |Ef |p is roughly the same in each one of the cells (examine the proof
of polynomial partitioning but rather than taking points take equidis-
tributed mass). Thus on each cell Ω,
ż ż
p
|Ef | “ D ´3
|Ef |p
Ω BpRq

Unfortunately, a wave packet is a thickened line, so even though the line

might not enter a cell, the wave packet might still enter a cell.
Define W “ NR1{2 pZppqq. For each cell Ω, let Ω1 “ Ω ´ W . If a wave
packet supported on a tube T intersects Ω1 , then the line coaxial with T
intersects Ω, then on average each smaller cell Ω1 only intersects |T |{D 2
wave packets. For each cell Ω, let fΩ : S Ñ C be the function whose exten-
sion EfΩ consists of the wave packets that intersect Ω1 .

11
Bibliography

12