THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL JACOBIAN CONJECTURE AND THE LOWER
SIDE OF THE NEWTON POLYGON

arXiv:1605.09430v2 [math.AC] 29 Aug 2017

JORGE A. GUCCIONE1, 2 , JUAN J. GUCCIONE1, 3 , AND CHRISTIAN VALQUI4,5
Abstract. We prove that if the Jacobian Conjecture in two variables is false and (P, Q) is a
standard minimal pair, then the Newton polygon H(P ) of P must satisfy several restrictions
that had not been found previously. This allows us to discard some of the corners found in [7,
Remark 7.9] for H(P ), together with some of the infinite families found in [10, Theorem 2.25].

Introduction
Let K be a characteristic zero field and let L := K[x, y] be the polynomial algebra in two
indeterminates. The Jacobian Conjecture in dimension two, stated by Keller in [13], says that any
pair of polynomials P, Q ∈ L with [P, Q] := ∂x P ∂y Q − ∂x Q∂y P ∈ K × defines an automorphism
of L. If this conjecture is false, then the degrees of the components P := f (x), Q := f (y) of
the hypothetical counterexample f satisfy certain restrictions, found by various authors. In [15]
the author finds that the only possible pairs (deg(P ), deg(Q)) with both entries lower than
100 are (64, 48), (50, 75), (56, 84) and (66, 99). Then he discards these four cases by hand.
In [10, Theorem 2.25] Heitmann determines for possible pairs (deg(P ), deg(Q)) various families
of the form (a + bj, c + dj) with a, b, c, d ∈ N and j running on N, and confirms the four pairs
found by Moh. For example, the family 16(1 + 2j, 1 + 3j) yields for j = 1 the first case found by
Moh.
But Heitmann determines not only the degrees, he also says something about the shape of the
support of P and Q in a hypothetical counterexample. He associates to each counterexample a
corner and gives a list of small possible corners in [10, Theorem 2.24]. For example, the corner
(4, 12) together with the family (1 + 2j, 1 + 3j) yields the family of degrees mentioned above. The
same possible corners of [10] were confirmed in [7, Remark 7.9], using more elementary methods
and discrete geometry on the plane. The shape of the support of P was described in more
detail, finding an edge with starting point A′ below the main diagonal and end point A above
1 Universidad de Buenos Aires. Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Naturales. Departamento de
Matemática. Buenos Aires. Argentina
2 CONICET-Universidad de Buenos Aires. Instituto de Investigaciones Matemáticas “Luis A. santaló” (IMAS). Buenos Aires. Argentina
3 CONICET. Instituto Argentino de Matemática (IAM). Buenos Aires. Argentina
4 Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Sección Matemáticas, PUCP, Av. Universitaria 1801,
San Miguel, Lima 32, Perú.
5 Instituto de Matemática y Ciencias Afines (IMCA) Calle Los Biólogos 245. Urb San César. La
Molina, Lima 12, Perú.
E-mail addresses: vander@dm.uba.ar, jjgucci@dm.uba.ar, cvalqui@pucp.edu.pe.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 14R15; Secondary 13F20.
Key words and phrases. Jacobian Conjecture.
Jorge A. Guccione and Juan J. Guccione were supported by UBACyT 20020150100153BA (UBA) and PIP
11220110100800CO (CONICET).
Christian Valqui was supported by PUCP-DGI-CAP-2015-185.

1

2

JORGE A. GUCCIONE AND JUAN J. GUCCIONE

the diagonal (See for example the beginning of section 6 in [7]). Various restriction were found
1
A where m := deg(P )/ gcd(deg(P ), deg(Q)), leading to the list of [7, Remark 7.9],
for A0 := m
which contains the list of [10, Theorem 2.24].
1 ′
In the present paper we focus on restrictions for A′0 := m
A , which allows us to discard
some of the corners found in [7, Remark 7.9], together with some of the infinite families found
in [10, Theorem 2.25]. We will see in Theorem 3.6 that for such an A′0 there must exist a direction
(ρ, σ) and (ρ, σ)-homogeneous elements G, R ∈ L such that
A′0 = enρ,σ (R) and [G, R] = R2 .

(0.1)

Here we adopt notations and definitions from [7, Section 1]. The condition (0.1) is the main
restriction that allows to discard as possible A′0 all the points for which such (ρ, σ), G and R do
not exist. Our findings can be resumed in the following three useful results:
- We cannot discard any point below the line 2y = x as possible A′0 (Proposition 2.8).
- If (a′ , b′ ) is a possible A′0 , then b′ ≤ (a′ − b′ − 1)2 (Proposition 3.26).
- No possible A′0 can be of the form ℘(n′ + 1, n′ ) for ℘, n′ ∈ N (Proposition 3.29).
In order to obtain the last two conditions we use our main technical result, Proposition 3.12,
which yields restrictions on the directions (ρ, σ) that can occur for an R as above if you fix the
starting point. This result also allows to write an algorithm to determine all possible A′0 with
v1,−1 (A′0 ) < N for some fixed N (by Corollary 3.26 there are only finitely many), which we will
do in a future article.
A straightforward computation shows that for any (a, b) with a > b, the (1, −1)-homogeneous
1
elements R := xa−b (1 + xy)b and G := − a−b
xyR satisfy
(a, b) = en1,−1 (R) and [G, R] = R2 .
Hence, in order to obtain the restrictions for A′0 we need the following result of [4]: The support
of a component of a Jacobian pair cannot have an edge with slope 1. In the first section we
generalize this result, using the more elementary proof of Makar Limanov in [14]. In the second
section, assuming that the Jacobian conjecture is false, we take a Jacobian pair (P, Q) that is a
minimal pair and a standard (m, n)-pair with P (0, 0)Q(0, 0) 6= 0 and we study the lower part of
1
m H(P ), where H(P ) is the Newton polygon of P . In the third section we introduce the notion
1
of admissible chain, which encodes in an abstract way the properties of the lower part of m
H(P ).

1

Generalizing Cassier-Nouges

Throughout this paper l denotes a fixed natural number. Let K be characteristic zero field. Given
a K-algebra A and η ∈ A, we let evη : A[y] → A denote the evaluation map evη (P ) := P (η).
1
(l)
(l)
For the sake of brevity, we set L(l) := K[x± l , y], L̂− := K((x−1/l ))[y] and L̂+ := K((x1/l ))[y].
P
i
i
(l)
(l)
Let P = a i ,j x l y j ∈ L̂+ ∪ L̂− . By definition the coefficient at x l y j of P and the support of P
l
are
n
o
Coef

i

x l yj

:= a i ,j
l

and

Supp(P ) := (i/l, j) : a il ,j 6= 0 ,

respectively. We call a pair (ρ, σ) ∈ Z2 a direction if gcd(ρ, σ) = 1. We will denote by V the set
(l)
(l)
of directions. For (ρ, σ) ∈ V and P ∈ L̂− ∪ L̂+ , we define the (ρ, σ)-degree of P as
ni
o
vρ,σ (P ) := sup ρ + jσ : (i/l, j) ∈ Supp(P ) ∈ R ∪ {∞}.
l

THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL JACOBIAN CONJECTURE

3

(l)

Note that if ρ > 0, then vρ,σ (P ) < ∞ if and only if P ∈ L̂− , while if ρ < 0, then vρ,σ (P ) < ∞ if
(l)
and only if P ∈ L̂+ . For P satisfying vρ,σ (P ) < ∞, we define the (ρ, σ)-leading term of P as
X
i
a i ,j x l y j .
ℓρ,σ (P ) :=
l

{ρ il +σj=vρ,σ (P )}

We define the set of directions associated with P as
Dir(P ) := {(ρ, σ) ∈ V : vρ,σ (P ) < ∞ and # Supp(ℓρ,σ (P )) > 1}.
(l)

(l)

Let η ∈ K((x−1/l )) and P ∈ L̂− or η ∈ K((x1/l )) and P ∈ L̂+ . A straightforward computation
shows that if vρ,σ (η) = vρ,σ (y) = σ and vρ,σ (P ) < ∞, then
evℓρ,σ (η) (ℓρ,σ (P )) = ℓρ,σ (evη (P )),
(l)
L̂−

(1.2)

(l)
L̂+

whenever the left hand side is nonzero. The algebras
and
are topological algebras in a
(l)
natural way. A local base at zero of L̂− is the family (Vu )u∈Z , where
n
o
(l)
Vu := P ∈ L̂− : if (i/l, j) ∈ Supp(P ), then i ≤ u ,
(l)

while a local base at zero of L̂+ is the family (Vu )u∈Z , where
n
o
(l)
Vu := P ∈ L̂+ : if (i/l, j) ∈ Supp(P ), then i ≥ u .
(l)

(l)

There is a unique isomorphism of topological algebras ϕ : L̂+ → L̂− such that ϕ(x1/l ) = x−1/l
(l)
(l)
and ϕ(y) = y. We define two continuous derivations Dx and Dy on L̂− and L̂+ , by

1 1 −1
xl ,
l
It is easy to check that
Dx (x1/l ) :=

Dy (x1/l ) := 0

Dx (y) := 0,

Dy (y) := 1.

and

n
o
X
i
Im(Dx ) = P =
a i ,j x l y j : a−1,j = 0 for all j .
l

Moreover, a direct computation shows that

Dx (evη (P )) = evη (Dx (P )) + evη (Dy (P ))Dx (η).
R
R
(l)
(l)
We also define continuous linear maps y on L̂− and L̂+ , and x on Im(Dx ), by
Z
Z
i
1
1
i
i
i
x l y j :=
x l y j :=
and
x l y j+1
x l +1 y j .
j
+
1
i/l
+
1
x
y

(1.3)

(l)

Lemma 1.1. Let g, f ∈ L̂− . Assume that g ∈ Im(Dx ). If Dy (g) = Dx (f ), then the differential
(l)
form gdx + f dy is exact; i.e., there exists H ∈ L̂− such that Dy (H) = f and Dx (H) = g.
Proof. Consider
H :=

Z

f+

y

Z 
x

g−

Z

y


Dy (g) .

A direct computation shows that Dy (H) = f and Dx (H) = g.


1
l

− 1l

Proposition 1.2. Let P ∈ L(l) and n := v0,1 (P ). There exist u ∈ K[x , x
family (ηi )1≤i≤n of elements of K((x−1/r )), such that
P =u

n
Y

(y − ηi ).

], r ∈ N, and a

(1.4)

i=1

Proof. See [6, Corollary 13.15, page 295].



4

JORGE A. GUCCIONE AND JUAN J. GUCCIONE

Remark 1.3. The same result holds with each ηi in K((x1/r )) instead of K((x−1/r )).
Proposition 1.4. Let P ∈ L(l) and (ρ, σ) ∈ Dir(P ). Assume ρ 6= 0 and let sgn(ρ) denote the
sgn(ρ)
sign of ρ. There exists r ∈ N and η ∈ K((x− r )) of the form
X
η = λxσ/ρ +
λt xt/r ,
tρ<rσ

with λ ∈ K × , such that evη (P ) = 0. Moreover y − λxσ/ρ divides ℓρ,σ (P ).
Proof. We assume that ρ > 0 and leave the case ρ < 0, which is similar, to the reader. Let n, r,
(r)
u and ηi be as in Proposition 1.2. Set Pi := y − ηi ∈ L̂− . Since ℓρ,σ is multiplicative, from (1.4)
we obtain
n
Y
ℓρ,σ (P ) = ℓρ,σ (u)
ℓρ,σ (Pi ).
i=1

Note that ℓρ,σ (u) is a monomial, because all the monomials in x±1/r have different (ρ, σ)-degrees.
Since (ρ, σ) ∈ Dir(P ), there exists at least one i, say i0 , such that the factor ℓρ,σ (Pi0 ) has two
terms, which necessarily are y and λxσ/ρ for some λ ∈ K × . The result follows immediately

taking η = ηi0 .
Theorem 1.5. Let P, Q ∈ L(l) . Set
˜ Q) := Coef x−1 y0 (QDx (P ))x−1 +
J˜ = J(P,

Z

[P, Q],

y

and write g := J˜ − QDx (P ). The following facts hold:
(1) Dy (g) = −Dx (QDy (P )),
(2) g ∈ Im(Dx ),
˜ = vρ,σ (x−1 ), then there is λ ∈ K × such that
(3) If (ρ, σ) ∈ Dir(P ) with ρ 6= 0 and vρ,σ (J)
y − λxσ/ρ | ℓρ,σ (P )

and

evλxσ/ρ (ℓρ,σ (J˜)) = 0.

˜ = [P, Q]. From (1) it follows that
Proof. Statement (1) follows directly from the fact that Dy (J)

 Z
Z
Dy (g) = Dx − QDy (P ) ∈ Im(Dx ).
y

y

R
Therefore, in order to prove (2), it suffices to verify that g − y Dy (g) ∈ Im(Dx ). But this is true
R
since g − y Dy (g) ∈ K[x1/l , x−1/l ] and

Z


Z


˜
Coef x−1 y0 g − Dy (g) = Coef x−1 y0 J − QDx (P ) = Coef x−1 y0
[P, Q] = 0.
y

y

Now we prove statement (3). It is convenient to consider separately the cases ρ > 0 and ρ < 0.
We only deal with the case ρ > 0, since the other one is similar. By Lemma 1.1, statements (1)
and (2) guarantee that the differential form
(J˜ − QDx (P ))dx − (QDy (P ))dy

(l)
is exact. So, J˜ − QDx (P ) = Dx (H) and −QDy (P ) = Dy (H) for some H ∈ L̂− . Let η and λ be
as in Proposition 1.4, so that y − λxσ/ρ divides ℓρ,σ (P ). We will prove that evλxσ/ρ (ℓρ,σ (J˜)) = 0.
A direct computation shows that

evλxσ/ρ (ℓρ,σ (J˜)) = Coef x−1 y0 (evη (J˜))x−1 .

THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL JACOBIAN CONJECTURE

5

Now by equality (1.3),
Dx (evη (H)) = evη (Dx (H)) + evη (Dy (H))Dx (η)

= evη (J˜) − evη (Q) evη (Dx (P )) + evη (Dy (P ))Dx (η)
= evη (J˜) − evη (Q)Dx (evη (P )).

˜ and so Coef x−1 y0 (evη (J))
˜ = 0.
Since evη (P ) = 0, we arrive at Dx (evη (H)) = evη (J),



×

Corollary 1.6. If P, Q ∈ L and [P, Q] = µ ∈ K , then there is no edge of the Newton polygon
of P with slope 1.
Proof. Let J˜ be as in Theorem 1.5. Since P, Q ∈ L and [P, Q] = µ, we have J˜ = µy. Then,
evλx−1 (ℓ−1,1 (J˜)) = evλx−1 (ℓ1,−1 (J˜)) = λµx−1 6= 0
for each λ 6= 0.
But, by Theorem 1.5(3), if there is an edge with slope one, then there exists λ 6= 0, such that
˜ = evλx−1 (ℓ1,−1 (J˜)) = 0,
evλx−1 (ℓ−1,1 (J))
a contradiction.



2

Lower edges

Assume that the Jacobian Conjecture is false. Let (P, Q), m and n be as in [7, Corollary 5.21].
In particular, (P, Q) is a minimal pair and a standard (m, n)-pair in L (see the beginning of
Section 4 of [7] and [7, Definition 4.3]). In that paper we study the possible edges of the convex
hull of the support of P with a corner above the main diagonal. Here we begin the study of the
lower part. In order to carry out this task, we proceed as follows: Consider (a, b) ∈ N0 × N0
with a > b > 0 and suppose that there exists (ρ, σ) ∈ Dir(P )∩](0, −1), (1, 0)[ satisfying
1
enρ,σ (P ).
(a, b) =
m
For such (a, b) we are going to prove that there exist (ρ, σ)-homogeneous elements G, R ∈ L such
that R is not a monomial,
(a, b) = enρ,σ (R)

and [G, R] = Ri

for some i ≥ 2.

This allows to discard as possible (a, b) all the points for which such G, R do not exist.
Proposition 2.1. Let (P, Q) be a Jacobian pair in L, (ρ, σ) ∈ Dir(P ) and (a′ , b′ ) := enρ,σ (P ).
Assume that a′ > b′ > 0 and (0, −1) < (ρ, σ) < (1, 0). Then (ρ, σ) < (1, −1).
Proof. By Corollary 1.6 we know that (ρ, σ) 6= (1, −1). Suppose that (ρ, σ) ∈ ](1, −1), (1, 0)[ ,
which means that ρ > −σ > 0. Since
(ρ, σ) ∈ V>0

and vρ,σ (P ) ≥ vρ,σ (a′ , b′ ) = ρa′ + σb′ > (ρ + σ)b′ ≥ ρ + σ > 0,

we can apply [7, Theorem 2.6]. Hence, there exists a (ρ, σ)-homogeneous polynomial F such that
(a′ , b′ ) ∼ enρ,σ (F ) or

enρ,σ (F ) = (1, 1),

vρ,σ (F ) = ρ + σ

and [F, ℓρ,σ (P )] = ℓρ,σ (P ).

Moreover, by [7, Remark 2.5] we know that F is not a monomial. If (a′ , b′ ) ∼ enρ,σ (F ), then
there exists λ > 0 such that enρ,σ (F ) = λ(a′ , b′ ). So
ρ + σ = vρ,σ (F ) = ρλa′ + λσb′ > λb′ (ρ + σ) =⇒ 0 < λb′ < 1,
which is impossible, since λb′ = v0,1 (enρ,σ (F )) ∈ Z. Consequently, enρ,σ (F ) = (1, 1), and thus,
by [7, Remark 1.8], we have
v0,1 (stρ,σ (F )) < v0,1 (enρ,σ (F )) = 1.

6

JORGE A. GUCCIONE AND JUAN J. GUCCIONE

Therefore stρ,σ (F ) = (k, 0) for some k ∈ Z, and so ρ + σ = vρ,σ (stρ,σ (F )) = ρk which implies
that k > 0. But this leads to the contradiction ρ + σ = ρk ≥ ρ > ρ + σ and finishes the proof. 
In the rest of this section we assume that (P, Q) is an (m, n)-pair in L and we fix a direction
1
enρ,σ (P ) satisfies the inequalities
(ρ, σ) ∈ ](0, −1), (1, −1)[ of P such that the point (a, b) := m
a > b > 0.
Proposition 2.2. The valuations vρ,σ (P ) and vρ,σ (Q) are greater than zero, and there exist a
(ρ, σ)-homogeneous polynomial R and λP , λQ ∈ K × such that
ℓρ,σ (P ) = λP Rm

and

ℓρ,σ (Q) = λQ Rn .

(2.1)

Proof. Let tx (P ) := max{0, degx (P (0, x))}, where by definition degx (0) = −∞. By [16, Theorem 10.2.6], we know that tx (P ) > 0. Therefore vρ,σ (P ) ≥ ρtx (P ) > 0 and similarly vρ,σ (Q) > 0.
Hence,
vρ,σ (P ) + vρ,σ (Q) − (ρ + σ) > 0
since ρ + σ < 0, and so, by [7, Proposition 1.13] we obtain that [ℓρ,σ (P ), ℓρ,σ (Q)] = 0. Moreover,
by [16, Theorem 10.2.1], we have
vρ,σ (P )
v1,1 (P )
m
=
= .
vρ,σ (Q)
v1,1 (Q)
n
Applying now [7, Proposition 2.1(2b)], we finish the proof.



Remark 2.3. From the first equality in (2.1) it follows immediately that R is not a monomial
and enρ,σ (R) = (a, b) .
Corollary 2.4. There exist λ ∈ K × and a (ρ, σ)-homogeneous R0 ∈ L such that ℓρ,σ (P ) = λR0k
k/m
with k maximum (hence m | k and we can assume that R = R0 ).
Proposition 2.5. There exist G0 ∈ L, s ∈ N and µ ∈ K × such that
[ℓρ,σ (G0 ), ℓρ,σ (P )] = µR0s ,
where R0 is as in Corollary 2.4.
Proof. By [7, Lemma 2.2] we know that there exists G0 ∈ L, such that
[ℓρ,σ (G0 ), ℓρ,σ (P )] 6= 0

and [[ℓρ,σ (G0 ), ℓρ,σ (P )], ℓρ,σ (P )] = 0.

Hence, by [7, Proposition 2.1(2b)], given m1 , m2 ∈ Z such that
gcd(m1 , m2 ) = 1, there exist R1 ∈ L and λ1 , λ2 ∈ K × such that
ℓρ,σ (P ) = λ1 R1m1

m2
m1

=

vρ,σ [ℓρ,σ (G0 ),ℓρ,σ (P )]
vρ,σ (P )

and

and [ℓρ,σ (G0 ), ℓρ,σ (P )] = λ2 R1m2 .
k/m1

Let k be as in Corollary 2.4. Clearly m1 | k and we can assume that R1 = R0
m2 k/m1

[ℓρ,σ (G0 ), ℓρ,σ (P )] = λ2 R0

. Therefore

.

So, the result is true with s = m2 k/m1 and µ = λ2 .



Corollary 2.6. There exists a (ρ, σ)-homogeneous polynomial G1 such that
[G1 , R] = Ri
where R is as in Corollary 2.4.

for some i ≥ 0,

(2.2)

THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL JACOBIAN CONJECTURE

7

Proof. Let G0 be as in Proposition 2.5. By Propositions 2.2 and 2.5, we have
µ s
R ,
mRm−1 [ℓρ,σ (G0 ), R] = [ℓρ,σ (G0 ), Rm ] =
λP 0
where s, λP and µ are as in Propositions 2.2 and 2.5. Let k be as in Corollary 2.4. Since m > 1
k
we can choose j ∈ N such that j m
(m − 1) ≥ s. Set
G1 := λP µ−1 mℓρ,σ (G0 )R0t ,
k
(m − 1) − s. Clearly,
where t := j m

mRm−1 [G1 , R] =

λP t 2 m−1
j k (m−1)
= mRj(m−1) .
R0 m R
[ℓρ,σ (G0 ), R] = mR0t+s = mR0 m
µ

So, the equality in (2.2) is true with i = (j − 1)(m − 1).



Proposition 2.7. Let R be as in Corollary 2.4. The point (a, b) satisfies
vρ,σ (1, 0) ≤ vρ,σ (a, b) =

1
vρ,σ (P ) = vρ,σ (R).
m

Proof. Let t be maximum such that (t, 0) ∈ Supp(P ). By [16, Proposition 10.2.6] we know that t
exists and that t > 0. By [16, Theorem 10.2.1] we also know that m | t, so that
1
1
vρ,σ (P ) ≥ vρ,σ (t, 0) ≥ vρ,σ (1, 0),
m
m
as desired.



From Proposition 2.7 it follows that (a, b) can be not of the form (b + 1, b) with b > 0. In fact,
the inequality
vρ,σ (1, 0) ≤ vρ,σ (b + 1, b)
implies that b(ρ + σ) = vρ,σ (b, b) ≥ 0, which is impossible if b > 0, since ρ + σ < 0. On the other
hand, we have the following result:
Proposition 2.8. Let (a0 , b0 ) ∈ N0 × N0 . If (a0 , b0 ) = (k, 0) + j(2, 1) with k > 0 and j > 0,
then there exist (1, −2)-homogeneous polynomials R and G such that
st1,−2 (R) = (k, 0),

en1,−2 (R) = (a0 , b0 ),

[G, R] = R2

and R is not a monomial.
1
Proof. Take R := xk (1 + x2 y)j and G := − j+k
xk−1 (1 + x2 y)j+1 .



Remark 2.9. Let (a0 , b0 ) ∈ N0 × N0 with a0 > b0 > 0. If v1,−2 (a0 , b0 ) > 0, then we can apply
Proposition 2.8 with j := b0 and k := a0 − 2b0 . So (a0 , b0 ) is a possible last lower corner (see
Definition 3.17).

3

Admissible chains

In this section we introduce the notion of admissible chain, which encodes some of the properties
1
of the lower part of m
H(P ) (see Remark 3.20). Here P is the first component of an (m, n)-pair
(P, Q) in L. The main results are Theorem 3.6, which shows we can assume i = 2 in Corollary 2.6,
and our main technical result, Proposition 3.12, which yields restrictions on the directions (ρ, σ)
that can occur for an R as in Corollary 2.6 if you fix the starting point.
We begin by establishing some results that are useful for our purposes.
In the sequel (ρ, σ) ∈ V∩](0, −1), (1, −1)[.

8

JORGE A. GUCCIONE AND JUAN J. GUCCIONE

Remark 3.1. Assume l | l1 , B ∈ L(l1 ) \ L(l) and A ∈ L(l) \ {0}. Then AB ∈ L(l1 ) \ L(l) .
Consequently, if AB ∈ L(l) , A ∈ L(l) \ {0} and B ∈ L(l1 ) , then B ∈ L(l) .
Lemma 3.2. Let (ρ, σ) ∈ V∩](0, −1), (1, −1)[ and let R, G1 ∈ L(l) \ {0} be (ρ, σ)-homogeneous
elements such that [R, G1 ] = Ri for an i ∈ N0 . Write R = xu/ρ r(z) and G1 = xv/ρ g(z), where
z := x−σ/ρ y, r and g are univariate polynomials, u := vρ,σ (R) and v := vρ,σ (G1 ). The following
facts hold:
(1) We have
ρri = ug ′ r − vr′ g.

(3.3)

(2) Let h be a linear factor of r and let s and t be the multiplicities of h in r and g respectively.
Write r = hs r̃ and g = ht g̃. Then

(3.4)
ρhsi r̃i = ht+s−1 (ut − vs)h′ g̃r̃ + h(ug̃ ′ r̃ − vr̃′ g̃) .
(3) If i = 2, deg(g) ≤ deg(r) + 1 and # factors(r) > 1, then there exists a linear factor h
of r such that ut − vs = 0.

Proof. (1) Write
g(z) =

ng
X

bk z k

k=0

By [7, Proposition 1.13],

and r(z) =

nr
X

ak z k .

k=0

iu = vρ,σ (Ri ) = vρ,σ ([R, G1 ]) = vρ,σ (R) + vρ,σ (G1 ) − ρ − σ = u + v − ρ − σ.
Hence,
ak bl (u+v−ρ−σ)/ρ k+l−1
x
z
(lu − kv)
ρ
1
= xiu/ρ [ulbl z l−1 ak z k − vkak z k−1 bl z l ].
ρ

[xu/ρ ak z k , xv/ρ bl z l ] =

Using this we obtain that
[R, G1 ] =

1 iu/ρ
x
(ug ′ (z)r(z) − vr′ (z)g(z)),
ρ

which implies that ρri = ug ′ r − vr′ g, as we want, because Ri = [R, G1 ].
(2) Since
r′ = shs−1 h′ r̃ + hs r̃′ and g ′ = tht−1 h′ g̃ + ht g̃ ′ ,
by statement (1) we have

ρhsi r̃i = ht+s−1 (ut − vs)h′ g̃r̃ + h(ug̃ ′ r̃ − vr̃′ g̃) ,

as we want.
(3) By statement (2), if i = 2 and ut − vs 6= 0 then t = s + 1. If this is true for all factors, then
deg(g) ≥ deg(r) + # factors(r) > deg(r) + 1,
a contradiction that concludes the proof.



Remark 3.3. Let (ρ, σ) ∈ V∩](0, −1), (1, −1)[ and let (a, b) ∈ N0 × N0 with a > b > 0. If a ≤ 2b
and vρ,σ (a, b) ≥ ρ, then
vρ,σ (a, b) > −ρ − σ.
In fact,
(2ρ + σ)(a − b) = (ρ + σ)(a − 2b) + vρ,σ (a, b) ≥ (ρ + σ)(a − 2b) + ρ > 0

THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL JACOBIAN CONJECTURE

9

because ρ + σ < 0 and ρ > 0. So, 2ρ + σ > 0 since a > b, and hence,
vρ,σ (a, b) ≥ ρ = 2ρ + σ − (ρ + σ) > −ρ − σ,
as we want. So, the condition (n − 1)vρ,σ (a, b) + ρ + σ ≥ 0 in Theorem 3.4 is satisfied with n = 2.
Theorem 3.4. Let (ρ, σ) ∈ V∩](0, −1), (1, −1)[, let i, n ∈ N0 with n ≥ 2 and let R, G1 ∈ L(l) be
(ρ, σ)-homogeneous elements. If [R, G1 ] = Ri and (n − 1)vρ,σ (R) + ρ + σ ≥ 0, then there exists
a (ρ, σ)-homogeneous element G2 ∈ L(l) such that [R, G2 ] = Rn . Moreover, if R, G1 ∈ L, then
G2 ∈ L.
1
Proof. If i ∈ {0, . . . , n}, then G2 := G1 Rn−i works. Else take G2 := RGi−n
(in the field 1 Q of
(l1 )
n
quotients of L ), where l1 := lcm(ρ, l). Since clearly [R, G1 ] = R (the Jacobian operator can
be extended in a natural way to 1 Q), we only must check that G2 ∈ L(l) . By Remark 3.1 with
A = Ri−n and B = G2 , in order to carry out this task it suffices to prove that G2 ∈ L(l1 ) . Set
u := vρ,σ (R) and v := vρ,σ (G1 ). By [7, Proposition 1.13] we have

u + v − (ρ + σ) = iu.

(3.5)

Therefore
v = (i − n)u + ((n − 1)u + ρ + σ).
(3.6)
Since ρ + σ < 0 and, by hypothesis, (n − 1)u + ρ + σ ≥ 0, it follows that necessarily u > 0. Hence
equality (3.6) implies that v > 0, because i − n > 0 and (n − 1)u + ρ + σ ≥ 0. Since R and
G1 are (ρ, σ)-homogeneous there exist univariate polynomials r and g such that R = xu/ρ r(z)
and G1 = xv/ρ g(z), where z := x−σ/ρ y. Let h be a linear factor of r and let s and t be the
multiplicities of h in r and g respectively.
We claim that t ≥ s(i − n). Write r = hs r̃ and g = ht g̃. By Lemma 3.2(2) we know that

(3.7)
ρhsi r̃i = ht+s−1 (ut − vs)h′ g̃r̃ + h(ug̃ ′ r̃ − vr̃′ g̃) .

If ut − vs = 0, then by equality (3.5),


vs
ρ + σ
s
t=
≥ s(i − n),
(i − 1)u + ρ + σ = s i − 1 +
=
u
u
u
because ρ+σ
u ≥ 1 − n by hypothesis, and the claim is true. On the other hand, if ut − vs 6= 0,
then comparing the multiplicities of h in (3.7) we obtain that si = t + s − 1. But then
t = s(i − 1) + 1 ≥ s(i − n),
which proves that the claim is also true in this case.
By the claim there exists f (z) ∈ K[z] such that g(z) = r(z)i−n f (z), which implies that
G2 =

G1
xv/ρ g(z)
= x(v−(i−n)u)/ρ f (z) ∈ L(l1 ) ,
=
Ri−n
(xu/ρ r(z))i−n

as desired.
Assume now that R, G1 ∈ L. It remains to check that v−1,0 (G2 ) ≤ 0. For this we compute
v − (i − n)u = (i − 1)u + ρ + σ − (i − n)u = (n − 1)u + ρ + σ ≥ 0,
which yields v−1,0 (G2 ) = v−1,0 (xv−(i−n)u)/ρ f (z)) ≤ 0, since v−1,0 (z) < 0.



Remark 3.5. Let (ρ, σ) ∈ V∩](0, −1), (1, −1)[ and let (a, b) ∈ N0 × N0 with a > b > 0. By
Proposition 2.8, if a > 2b, then there exist (ρ, σ)-homogeneous polynomials R and G such that
R is not a monomial and
(a, b) = enρ,σ (R) and [G, R] = R2 .
Next we prove that the previous result holds under a different condition

10

JORGE A. GUCCIONE AND JUAN J. GUCCIONE

Theorem 3.6. Let (ρ, σ) ∈ V∩](0, −1), (1, −1)[ and let (a, b) ∈ N0 × N0 with a > b > 0. If
vρ,σ (a, b) ≥ ρ and there exist (ρ, σ)-homogeneous elements R, G1 ∈ L(l) \ {0} such that
(a, b) = enρ,σ (R)

and

[G1 , R] = Ri

for some i ≥ 0,

then there exists a (ρ, σ)-homogeneous polynomial G such that [G, R] = R2 .
Proof. By Remark 3.3 we have vρ,σ (a, b) + ρ + σ ≥ 0. So, the hypothesis of Theorem 3.4 are
fulfilled for n = 2, and applying it we obtain a (ρ, σ)-homogeneous polynomial G such that
[G, R] = R2 , as we want.

Lemma 3.7. Let (ρ, σ) ∈ V∩](0, −1), (1, −1)[ and let R, G ∈ L(l) be (ρ, σ)-homogeneous elements such that [G, R] = Ri with i ∈ N and vρ,σ (R) > 0. Then
v0,1 (enρ,σ (G)) ≤ (i − 1)v0,1 (enρ,σ (R)) + 1.

(3.8)

Proof. By [7, Proposition 2.4], either enρ,σ (G) = (i − 1) enρ,σ (R) + (1, 1) or enρ,σ (G) ∼ enρ,σ (R).
In the first case, clearly
v0,1 (enρ,σ (G)) = (i − 1)v0,1 (enρ,σ (R)) + 1.
Assume that enρ,σ (G) ∼ enρ,σ (R) and set u := vρ,σ (R) and v := vρ,σ (G). By [7, Proposition 1.13]
we have v = u(i − 1) + ρ + σ. So
ρ+σ
v
enρ,σ (R).
enρ,σ (G) = enρ,σ (R) = (i − 1) enρ,σ (R) +
u
u
Consequently
ρ+σ
v0,1 (enρ,σ (R)).
v0,1 (enρ,σ (G)) = (i − 1)v0,1 (enρ,σ (R)) +
u
Since ρ+σ
u v0,1 (enρ,σ (R)) ≤ 0 because u > 0, ρ + σ < 0 and v0,1 (enρ,σ (R)) ≥ 0, the the inequality (3.8) also holds in this case.

Remark 3.8. Let f, f ∈ K[x] be polynomials. If f (x) = f (xn ), then λ is a root of f if and only
if λn is a root of f . Moreover, if λ 6= 0, then the multiplicity mλ of λ in f is the same as the
multiplicity mλn of λn in f .
Remark 3.9. Let a, b, l ∈ N. Set
d := gcd(a, bl),

(ρ, σ) :=



bl a
,−
d
d



and

gap(ρ, l) :=

Note that, since gcd(a, b) = gcd(b, d), we have
b
b
bl
=
=
.
gap(ρ, l) =
gcd(bl, dl)
gcd(b, d)
gcd(a, b)

ρ
.
gcd(ρ, l)

(3.9)

Assume now that R ∈ L(l) is a (ρ, σ)-homogeneous element which is not a monomial, write
X
R = xu/l y v f (z), where z := x−σ/ρ y and f (z) =
ai z i with a0 6= 0,

and set (a/l, b) := enρ,σ (R) − stρ,σ (R). Then ai 6= 0 implies gap(ρ, l) | i. In fact, in that case we
have (u/l, v) + i(−σ/ρ, 1) ∈ 1l Z × N0 , which implies −i σρ ∈ 1l Z. Hence ρ | il, and so gap(ρ, l) | i.
Notation 3.10. Let (ρ, σ) ∈ V∩](0, −1), (1,−1)[ and let R ∈ L(l) be a (ρ, σ)-homogeneous

element which is not a monomial. Let υl1 , ν1 := enρ,σ (R) − stρ,σ (R) and υl2 , ν2 := stρ,σ (R).
In the sequel we set
ν1
and
N2 = N2 (R) := gcd(υ2 , ν2 ).
N1 = N1 (R) :=
gap(ρ, l)
Note that by Remark 3.9 we have N1 = gcd(v1 , ν1 ).

THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL JACOBIAN CONJECTURE

11

Notation 3.11. For each l ∈ N and each (r/l, s) ∈ 1l Z × Z \ Z(1, 1), we let dir(r/l, s) denote
the unique (ρ, σ) ∈ V>0 such that vρ,σ (r/l, s) = 0 (see the discussion below [7, Remark 3.1]).
Proposition 3.12. Let (ρ, σ) ∈ V∩](0, −1), (1, −1)[ and let R, G ∈ L(l) be (ρ, σ)-homogeneous
elements such that R is not a monomial and [G, R] = Ri , where i ∈ N, and let N1 and N2 be as
in Notation 3.10. Write u := vρ,σ (R) and v := vρ,σ (G). Assume that there exists ℓ > 0 such that
ℓu + ρ + σ > 0 (or, equivalently, that u > 0). Write R = xu/ρ r(z) and G = xv/ρ g(z), where r
and g are univariate polynomials and z := x−σ/ρ y. Then one of the following three cases occurs:
(1) ρ | l and r = ξhj for some ξ ∈ K × , some linear polynomial h 6= z and some j ∈ N.
(2) There exist ϑ, t′ ∈ N such that
ϑ ≤ N1 ,

0 < t′ < ℓϑ

and

(ρ, σ) = − dir (t′ stρ,σ (R) + ϑ(1, 1)) .

In this case there exists a linear factor of r(z) with multiplicity ϑ.
(3) There exist ϑ, t′ ∈ N such that
ϑ | N2 ,

0 < t′ < ℓϑ

and

(ρ, σ) = − dir (t′ stρ,σ (R) + ϑ(1, 1)) .

In this case ν2 > 0.
Moreover if l = 1 and item (1) occurs, then v1,−2 (enρ,σ (R)) > 0.
Proof. First note that
stρ,σ (R) ∈
/ N0 (1, 1),
(3.10)
since stρ,σ (R) = (n, n) implies 0 < u = vρ,σ (stρ,σ (R)) = (ρ + σ)n ≤ 0, which is impossible. For
each linear factor h of r, we let s and t denote the multiplicities of h in r and g, respectively. By
equality (3.4) we know that
t = s(i − 1) + 1 or ut = vs,
(3.11)
while by Lemma 3.7 we know that
deg(g) ≤ (i − 1) deg(r) + 1.
Therefore, if for all linear factors of r the first equality in (3.11) is satisfied, then there can be
only one linear factor h in r. Since h is not a monomial (since R is not), this implies that
1
(u/ρ, 0), (u/ρ − σ/ρ, 1) ∈ Supp(R) ⊆ Z × N0 ,
l
which yields ρ | l, since gcd(ρ, σ) = 1. So, we are in case (1).
Else there exists a factor h = z − λ for which ut = vs. Now we will prove that if λ 6= 0, then
we are in case (2). We set t′ := s(i − 1) − t. Since [G, R] = Ri , by [7, Proposition 1.13] we have
v = u(i − 1) + ρ + σ.

(3.12)

So

ρ+σ
ρ+σ
v
−s
− t = −s
.
(3.13)
u
u
u
Let ℓ be as in the statement. Since ℓ > − ρ+σ
u > 0 and s > 0, from equality (3.13) we obtain
that 0 < t′ < ℓs. Moreover,
t′ stρ,σ (R) + s(1, 1) ∈
/ N0 (1, 1),
(3.14)
since otherwise stρ,σ (R) = (n, n) for some n ∈ N, and so
t′ = s(i − 1) − t = s

(ρ + σ)(ℓn + 1) = ℓu + ρ + σ > 0,
which is impossible because ρ + σ < 0. Combining (3.14) with the fact that, by equality (3.12),
 ′

t
s(i − 1) − t
+ ρ + σ = vρ,σ
stρ,σ (R) + (1, 1) ,
0 = u(i − 1) − v + ρ + σ = u
s
s

12

JORGE A. GUCCIONE AND JUAN J. GUCCIONE

we conclude that
(ρ, σ) = − dir (t′ stρ,σ (R) + s(1, 1)) .
It remains to check that s ≤ N1 . Remember that (υ2 , ν2 ) := stρ,σ (R) and let r1 be an univariate
polynomial such that r(z) = z ν2 r1 (z). By Remark 3.9, since R ∈ L(l) and
R = xu/ρ r(z) = xu/ρ z ν2 r1 (z) = xυ2 +σν2 /ρ x−ν2 σ/ρ y ν2 r1 (z) = xυ2 y ν2 r1 (z),
there exists an univariate polynomial r̂1 such that r1 (z) = r̂1 (z gap(ρ,l) ). It follows that
s = multr1 (z) (λ) = multr̂1 (z) (λgap(ρ,l) ) ≤ deg(r̂1 ) =

ν1
deg(r1 )
=
= N1 ,
gap(ρ, l)
gap(ρ, l)

where the second equality holds by Remark 3.8. Setting in this case ϑ := s, we are in case (2).
Now assume that there exists a factor h = z − λ for which ut = vs and that λ = 0. Since
equality (3.12) is also true in this case, from the fact that ρ + σ < 0, it follows that
v = (i − 1)u + ρ + σ < (i − 1)u.

(3.15)

We assert that stρ,σ (G) ∼ stρ,σ (R). In fact, otherwise by [7, Proposition 2.4(1)],
stρ,σ (G) = (i − 1) stρ,σ (R) + (1, 1),
and so
t = v0,1 (stρ,σ (G)) = (i − 1)v0,1 (stρ,σ (R)) + 1 = s(i − 1) + 1,
which, combined with the fact that u > 0 by hypothesis, implies that
v=

ut
u
= u(i − 1) + > u(i − 1),
s
s

contradicting (3.15). Write stρ,σ (G) = µϑ1 stρ,σ (R) for some coprime
 natural numbers µ1 and ϑ.
Recall from Notation 3.10 that N2 = gcd(υ2 , ν2 ), where υl2 , ν2 = stρ,σ (R). It is clear that
ϑ | N2 . Set t′ := ϑ(i − 1) − µ1 , and from v = µϑ1 u and (3.12) we obtain t′ = − ρ+σ
u ϑ. Since
µ1
′
ℓ > − ρ+σ
>
0
and
ϑ
>
0,
we
have
0
<
t
<
ℓϑ.
Moreover,
again
from
v
=
u
and
(3.12) it
u
ϑ
follows that
 ′

ϑ(i − 1) − µ1
t
0 = u(i − 1) − v + ρ + σ = u
+ ρ + σ = vρ,σ
stρ,σ (R) + (1, 1) ,
ϑ
ϑ
which implies that (ρ, σ) = − dir (t′ stρ,σ (R) + ϑ(1, 1)), since t′ stρ,σ (R)+ ϑ(1, 1) ∈
/ N0 (1, 1). This
shows that we are in the case (3). Note that in this case ν2 = s > 0.
Finally if l = 1 and statement (1) is satisfied, then enρ,σ (R) = (u − jσ, j), and so
v1,−2 (enρ,σ (R)) = u − jσ − 2j = u − j(σ + 2) > 0,
since σ ≤ −2.



Remark 3.13. Note that the from the equality − dir (t′ stρ,σ (R) + ϑ(1, 1)) in items (2) and (3) of
ρ+σ
Proposition 3.12 it follows that t′ = −ϑ vρ,σ
(R) .
Example 3.14. A straightforward computation shows that for each i, j, u ∈ N and each λ ∈ K × ,
the polynomials R := xu (x−σ y−λ)j and G := ̟−1 xv (x−σ y−λ)j(i−1)+1 , where v := u(i−1)+σ+1
and ̟ := j((j − 1)u(i − 1) − j(σ + 1)) > 0, are in case (1) of Proposition 3.12. In Remark 3.28
we will give a family of examples which are all in case (2). Finally, an example in case (3), with
i = 2, is given by R := 9x14 y 8 (1 + x8 y 5 ) and G := −x7 y 4 (1 + x8 y 5 )2 .

THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL JACOBIAN CONJECTURE

3.1

13

Admissible chains

An (m, n)-pair (P, Q) in L determines a chain of homogeneous polynomials Rj together with a
1
H(P ), where H(P ) is the Newton polygon of P ). The
chain of segments (the lower part of m
last point of this chain is called the last lower corner of (P, Q) (see Definition 3.21). Motivated
by these facts, in this section we introduce the notion of admissible chain, consisting basically of
a family of homogeneous polynomials and segments as above. This notion does not depend on
the existence of a counterexample. The final point of a such chain is named a possible last lower
corner (see Definition 3.17).
Suppose that the Jacobian conjecture is false and let
(
∞
if the Jacobian conjecture is true,

B :=
min gcd(v1,1 (P ), v1,1 (Q)) if JC is false, where (P, Q) runs on the counterexamples.

The Jacobian conjecture is false if and only if the set of last lower corner’s is not empty.
In this section we prove that some points in N0 × N0 are possible last lower corner’s and that
some other points are not.
Definition 3.15. An admissible chain of length k ∈ N0 is a triple of families

C = (Cj )j∈{0,...,k} , (Rj )j∈{1,...,k} , (ρj , σj )j∈{1,...,k} ,

with Cj ∈ N0 × N0 , Rj ∈ L and (ρj , σj ) ∈ V∩](0, −1), (1, −1)[, such that
(1) C0 = (l, 0) for some l ∈ N,
(2) (ρj , σj ) > (ρj−1 , σj−1 ), for j ∈ {2, . . . , k},
and the following facts hold for j ∈ {1, . . . , k}:
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)

Rj is (ρj , σj )-homogeneous and is not a monomial,
Cj−1 = stρj ,σj (Rj ),
Cj = enρj ,σj (Rj ),
v1,−1 (Cj ) > 0,
vρj ,σj (Cj ) ≥ ρj ,
i

(8) there exist a (ρj , σj )-homogeneous Gj ∈ L and ij ∈ N such that [Gj , Rj ] = Rjj .
The point Ck is called the end point of C and denoted Cfin (C) or simply Cfin .
Remark 3.16. For 0 ≤ j ≤ k write (aj , bj ) := Cj . Since (ρj , σj ) ∈](0, −1), (1, −1)[, from items (4)
and (5) it follows that (ai )0≤i≤k , (bi )0≤i≤k and (ai − bi )0≤i≤k are increasing sequences. So, by
item (1), we conclude that aj , bj , aj − bj ∈ N for all 1 ≤ j ≤ k.
Definition 3.17. A point (a, b) ∈ N0 × N0 is called a possible last lower corner if there exists
an admissible chain such that Cfin = (a, b).
Remark 3.18. Note that for every t ∈ N, the point (t, 0) is a possible last lower corner, corresponding to a chain of length 0.
Remark 3.19. Let (a, b) ∈ N0 × N0 with a > b > 0. If a − 2b > 0, then by Remark 2.9 there
exist k > 0 and j > 0 such that (a, b) = (k, 0) + j(2, 1), which, by Proposition 2.8, implies that
there exist a (1, −2)-homogeneous polynomials R such that


(k, 0), (a, b) , R, (1, −2) ,

is an admissible chain of length 1. So, (a, b) is a possible last lower corner.

14

JORGE A. GUCCIONE AND JUAN J. GUCCIONE

Remark 3.20. Let (P, Q) be an (m, n)-pair in L. By [16, Proposition 10.2.6] there exists
(t, 0) ∈ Supp(P ) with t ∈ N. Assume that t is maximum satisfying this condition. If we run
counterclockwise along several edges of the Newton polygon H(P ) of P , beginning in (t, 0) and
stopping at a corner below the main diagonal of the plane, and we apply the homothety of center
1
0 and ratio m
to each edge and each corner, then we obtain the families of edges and vertices of
an admissible chain. In fact, by Proposition 2.2 each corner of H(P ) belongs to mN0 × mN0 ;
by [7, Definition 4.3] and Proposition 2.1 the directions of the edges belong to ](0, −1), (1, −1)[;
by [16, Proposition 10.2.6] condition (1) of Definition 3.15 is fulfilled; conditions (2) and (6)
are clear; the existence of Rj ’s and Gj ’s satisfying conditions (3), (4), (5) and (8) follows from
Proposition 2.2, Remark 2.3 and Corollary 2.6; and condition (7) holds by Proposition 2.7.
Definition 3.21. A point (a, b) ∈ N0 × N0 is called a last lower corner if there exists an
admissible chain, obtained as in Remark 3.20 from a standard (m, n)-pair (P, Q) in L, such that
Cfin = (a, b) and m(a, b) is the last corner of H(P ) below the main diagonal of the plane. In this
case we also will say that (a, b) is the last lower corner of (P, Q).
Remark 3.22. Let (P, Q) be a standard (m, n)-pair in L and let (ρ, σ) ∈ ](0, −1), (1, −1)[∩ Dir(P )
1
such that (a, b) := m
enρ,σ (P ) satisfies a > b > 0. Then, by Remark 3.20 we know that (a, b) is
a possible last lower corner.
Remark 3.23. Let (P, Q) be a standard (m, n)-pair in L and let (A0 , A′0 , (ρ, σ)) be the starting
triple of (P, Q) (see [7, Definition 6.2]). By [7, Remark 6.3] we know that A′0 is a last lower
corner.
Remark 3.24. Let (ρ, σ) ∈ ](0, −1), (1, −1)[ be a direction and let R and G be (ρ, σ)-homogeneous polynomials such that R is not a monomial and [G, R] = Ri , with i ∈ N. Arguing as in
Remark 3.3 we see that if vρ,σ (R) ≥ ρ and v1,−2 (enρ,σ (R)) ≤ 0, then
vρ,σ (R) + ρ + σ > 0.
Since, moreover, it is clear that vρ,σ (R) > 0 and v1,−1 (stρ,σ (R)) 6= 0, the hypothesis of Proposition 3.12 are fulfilled with ℓ = 1.
Lemma 3.25. Let (ρ, σ) ∈ ](0, −1), (1, −1)[ be a direction and let R and G be (ρ, σ)-homogeneous polynomials such that R is not a monomial and [G, R] = Ri , where i ∈ N. Assume that
vρ,σ (R) ≥ ρ and v1,−2 (enρ,σ (R)) ≤ 0, and write (α, β) := stρ,σ (R) and (α′ , β ′ ) := enρ,σ (R). If
β < α and β ≤ (α − β − 1)2 , then β ′ < α′ and β ′ ≤ (α′ − β ′ − 1)2 .
Proof. First note that α − β < α′ − β ′ and β ′ < α′ , because (ρ, σ) ∈ ](0, −1), (1, −1)[ and β < α.
By Remark 3.24 the hypothesis of Proposition 3.12 are fulfilled with ℓ = 1. We will use freely
its notations. Since v1,−2 (α′ , β ′ ) ≤ 0, necessarily statements (2) or (3) of that proposition hold.
In both cases we will use that,
2(α − β)(α − β − 1) = 2(α − β − 1)2 + 2(α − β − 1) ≥ 2β > β,

(3.16)

since β < α and β ≤ (α − β − 1)2 .
In the first case there exist t′ , ϑ ∈ N and ζ ∈ Q>0 such that


ϑ
(α′ , β ′ ) = (α, β) + ζ (α, β) + ′ (1, 1) .
t

Moreover, 0 < t′ < ϑ ≤ N1 , where N1 := gcd(α′ − α, β ′ − β), and so
ϑ
≤ N1 | v1,−1 (α′ − α, β ′ − β) = ζ(α − β) ≤ (α − β)ζ(α − β),
t′

(3.17)

THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL JACOBIAN CONJECTURE

15

which combined with (3.16) yields
ϑ
≤ (α − β)(ζ(α − β) + 2(α − β − 1)).
t′
Multiplying this inequality by ζ and adding the inequality β ≤ (α − β − 1)2 , we obtain that


ϑ
β + ζ β + ′ ≤ (ζ(α − β) + α − β − 1)2 .
t
β+

Combining this with (3.17) we obtain β ′ ≤ (α′ − β ′ − 1)2 , as desired.
In the second case there exist t′ , ϑ ∈ N and ζ ∈ Q>0 such that


ϑ
(α′ , β ′ ) = (α, β) + ζ (α, β) + ′ (1, 1) ,
t
Moreover ζ(α − β) = α′ − β ′ + β − α ∈ N and 0 < t′ < ϑ | N2 , where N2 := gcd(α, β). So
ϑ
≤ ϑ ≤ N2 ≤ α − β ≤ (α − β)ζ(α − β),
t′
which combined with (3.16) yields
ϑ
≤ (α − β)(ζ(α − β) + 2(α − β − 1)).
t′
Hence, arguing as above we obtain that β ′ ≤ (α′ − β ′ − 1)2 , concluding the proof.
β+



Proposition 3.26. If A := (a, b) is a possible last lower corner, then b < a and b ≤ (a − b − 1)2.
Proof. If A = Cfin (C) for an admissible chain C of length 0, then A = (t, 0) for some t ∈ N and
the result is obviously true. Assume that it is true for end points of admissible chains of length k
and that A = Cfin (C) for an admissible chain C of length k + 1. If v1,−2 (a, b) > 0, then b < a − b,
so that b ≤ a− b − 1, and hence b ≤ (a− b − 1)2 . On the other hand, if v1,−2 (a, b) ≤ 0, then by the
inductive hypothesis and Lemma 3.25, we also have b < a and b ≤ (a − b − 1)2 , as desired. 
Corollary 3.27. For a fixed g > 0 there are only finitely many points A ∈ N0 × N0 such that A
is a possible last lower corner with v1,−1 (A) = g.
In the following remark we show that if (a, b) ∈ N0 ×N0 satisfies 0 < b < a and b = (a−b−1)2 ,
then (a, b) is a possible last lower corner.
Remark 3.28. Let n ∈ N. The following example attains the equality in the second bound in
Proposition 3.26. Let R = x(w + 1)n , where w = xn+1 y n . The triple

((1, 0), (n2 + n + 1, n2 )), (R), (n, −n − 1)

is an admissible chain of length 1. In fact it is easy to check that (n, −n − 1) ∈ ](0, −1), (1, −1)[
and that conditions (1) and (3)–(7) of Definition 3.15 are fulfilled, condition (2) is empty, and
−1 2
x y(w + 1)n−1 (w + n + 1) satisfies [G, R] = R2 .
condition (8) holds since the polynomial G := n+1
2
2
Hence (a, b) := (n + n + 1, n ) is a possible last lower corner that satisfies b = (a − b − 1)2 . This
example also shows that for any fixed λ < 1, there is (a, b), which is a possible last lower corner
that satisfies b > λa.
In the proof of the following proposition we will use the concept of cross product introduced
below [7, Notation 1.6] and we will use the property (3.1) established at the beginning of Section 3
of [7].
Proposition 3.29. For each ℘, n′ ∈ N with n′ ≥ 2, the point ℘(n′ , n′ − 1) is not a possible last
lower corner.

16

JORGE A. GUCCIONE AND JUAN J. GUCCIONE

Proof. Assume by contradiction that there exists an admissible chain
(Cj )j∈{0,...,k} , (Rj )j∈{1,...,k} , (ρj , σj )j∈{1,...,k}



with Ck = ℘(n′ , n′ −1) and let Gk be as in Definition 3.15(8). By the conditions of that definition,
the fact that v1,−2 (Ck ) = ℘n′ − 2℘(n′ − 1) < 0 and Remark 3.24, the (ρk , σk )-homogeneous
polynomials Rk and Gk satisfy the hypothesis of Proposition 3.12 with ℓ = 1. Moreover ρk > 1,
because otherwise vρk ,σk (Rk ) = ℘(n′ + (n′ − 1)σk ) ≤ 0. Hence case (1) of that proposition can
not occur. Now set (ρ̃, σ̃) := (n′ − 1, −n′ ) and write (ak−1 , bk−1 ) := Ck−1 . From
1
0 < vρk ,σk (Ck ) = ρk n′ + σk (n′ − 1) = (ρ̃, σ̃) × (ρk , σk ),
℘
we obtain that (ρ̃, σ̃) < (ρk , σk ) < (−ρ̃, −σ̃). Hence, by [7, Remark 1.8],
vρ̃,σ̃ (ak−1 , bk−1 ) = vρ̃,σ̃ (stρk ,σk (Rk )) > vρ̃,σ̃ (enρk ,σk (R)) = 0.
Consequently, we have
N1 , N2 ≤ vρ̃,σ̃ (ak−1 , bk−1 ),
(3.18)
where N1 and N2 are as in Notation 3.10. In fact, N2 divides every integer combination of ak−1
and bk−1 , and, in particular, it divides vρ̃,σ̃ (ak−1 , bk−1 ) > 0. Similarly, N1 divides every integer
combination of ℘n′ − ak−1 and ℘(n′ − 1) − bk−1 , and, in particular, it divides
vρ̃,σ̃ (ak−1 − ℘n′ , bk−1 − ℘(n′ − 1)) = vρ̃,σ̃ (ak−1 , bk−1 ) > 0.
Suppose that we are in case (2) of Proposition 3.12. So there exist ϑ, t′ ∈ N and λ ∈ Q such that
ϑ
(1, 1) = λ(−σk , ρk ).
(3.19)
t′
Moreover, λ > 0 since 0 < v1,−1 (ak−1 , bk−1 ) = −λ(ρk + σk ) and ρk + σk < 0. On one hand,
by (3.18) and the inequalities in (3.19), we have


ϑ
ϑ
vρ̃,σ̃ (ak−1 , bk−1 ) + ′ (1, 1) = vρ̃,σ̃ (ak−1 , bk−1 ) + ′ (n′ − 1 − n′ ) ≥ vρ̃,σ̃ (ak−1 , bk−1 ) − N1 ≥ 0,
t
t
0 < t′ < ϑ ≤ N 1

and (ak−1 , bk−1 ) +

and, on the other hand, by equality in (3.19) and the fact that λ > 0, we have


ϑ
vρ̃,σ̃ (ak−1 , bk−1 ) + ′ (1, 1) = vρ̃,σ̃ (λ(−σk , ρk )) = λvρk ,σk (σ̃, −ρ̃)
t
λ
λ
= − vρk ,σk (℘(n′ , n′ − 1)) = − vρk ,σk (Ck ) < 0,
℘
℘

which yields a contradiction. If we are in case (3) of Proposition 3.12, then replacing N1 by N2 ,
the same argument works, finishing the proof.

Remark 3.30. Propositions 3.26 and 3.29 give nice conditions for possible last lower corners, which
are easy to understand. These conditions follow directly from Proposition 3.12. Consequently,
when we write an algorithm in order to compute the possible last lower corners, it suffices
to consider the conditions of Proposition 3.12, since then the conditions of Propositions 3.26
and 3.29 are automatically satisfied.
Remark 3.31. Let A0 be as in the introduction. Clearly Proposition 3.29 shows that (2, 1),
(3, 2), (6, 3) and (8, 4) are not possible last lower corner’s. Now we state without a formal proof,
that for A0 = (10, 25) we necessarily have A′0 = (2, 1) and for A0 = (14, 35) we necessarily
have A′0 ∈ {(6, 3), (3, 2)}. This allows to discard directly these corners A0 of the list found
in [10, Theorem 2.24], which is included in those given in [7, Remark 7.9]. The corners found in
the two mentioned lists were also given without any proof, and were found by a computer search,
but the algorithm was not given explicitly. The same algorithm justifies the assertions above.

THE TWO-DIMENSIONAL JACOBIAN CONJECTURE

17

Moreover, a straightforward argument shows that if the corner (8, 32) realizes an A0 , then we
would obtain, after a transformation via an automorphism, the corner A′0 = (8, 4), which also is
impossible. So our results permit to discard three of the corners of [10, Theorem 2.24]. We also
can discard two of the infinite families of [10, Theorem 2.25]. In fact, the families (5k + 3, 3k + 2)
and (4k + 3, k + 1), corresponding to A0 = (7, 21), come from A′0 = (2, 1), which is impossible.
This is the first time since Heitmann found the corners, that one of the infinite families can be
discarded.
Furthermore, we can also discard some of the corners found in [7, Remark 7.9], which were
not found by Heitmann. Let B0 and B1 be as in that remark. The cases with B0 = (6, 15) and
B1 = (6, 18 + 6k) where 18 + 6k is not a multiple of 30, would lead to an A′0 = (6, 3) and can be
discarded. Similarly B0 = (8, 28) and B1 = (8, 40) lead to A′0 = (8, 4), which is impossible; and
B0 = (9, 21) and B1 = (9, 27) lead to an A′0 = (9, 6), which also is impossible.
Outlook A more computational paper is in preparation, where we will make explicit the algorithms that yields the corners of both lists (in fact the list of Heitmann is contained in the
list of [7]), and we will explain the construction of the infinite families. We also will give an
algorithm to determine all possible last lower corner with v1,−1 (A′0 ) < N for some fixed N .

References
[1] S. S. Abhyankar, Lectures on expansion techniques in algebraic geometry, Tata Institute of Fundamental
Research Lectures on Mathematics and Physics, vol. 57, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Bombay,
1977. Notes by Balwant Singh. MR542446 (80m:14016)
, Some thoughts on the Jacobian Conjecture, Part II, Journal of Algebra 319 (2008), 1154-1248.
[2]
, Some thoughts on the Jacobian Conjecture. III., Journal of Algebra 320 (2008), 2720-2826.
[3]
[4] Pierrette Cassou-Noguès, Newton trees at infinity of algebraic curves, Affine algebraic geometry, CRM Proc.
Lecture Notes, vol. 54, Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 2011, pp. 1–19. MR2768630 (2012i:14034)
[5] Jacques Dixmier, Sur les algèbres de Weyl, Bull. Soc. Math. France 96 (1968), 209–242 (French). MR0242897
(39 #4224)
[6] David Eisenbud, Commutative algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathematics, vol. 150, Springer-Verlag, New York,
1995. With a view toward algebraic geometry. MR1322960 (97a:13001)
[7] Christian Valqui, Jorge A. Guccione, and Juan J. Guccione, On the shape of possible counterexamples to the
Jacobian Conjecture, J. Algebra 471 (2017), 13–74, DOI 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2016.08.039. MR3569178
[8] Jorge Alberto Guccione, Juan José Guccione, and Christian Valqui, A differential equation for polynomials
related to the Jacobian conjecture, PRO-Mathematica 27 (2013), 83–98.
[9] Jorge A. Guccione, Juan J. Guccione, and Christian Valqui, The Dixmier conjecture and the shape of possible
counterexamples, J. Algebra 399 (2014), 581–633, DOI 10.1016/j.jalgebra.2013.10.011. MR3144604
[10] R Heitmann, On the Jacobian conjecture, Journal of Pure and Applied Algebra 64 (1990), 35–72. MR1055020
(91c :14018)
[11] A Joseph, The Weyl algebra – semisimple and nilpotent elements, American Journal of Mathematics 97
(1975), 597–615. MR0379615 (52 :520)
[12] Heinrich W. E. Jung, Über ganze birationale Transformationen der Ebene, J. Reine Angew. Math. 184
(1942), 161–174 (German). MR0008915 (5,74f)
[13] Ott-Heinrich Keller, Ganze Cremona-Transformationen, Monatsh. Math. Phys. 47 (1939), no. 1, 299–306,
DOI 10.1007/BF01695502 (German). MR1550818
[14] Leonid Makar-Limanov, On the Newton polygon of a Jacobian mate. In Automorphisms in Birational and
Affine Geometry. Springer Proceedings in Mathematics & Statistics VIII (2014), 469-476.
[15] T. T. Moh, On the Jacobian conjecture and the configurations of roots, J. Reine Angew. Math. 340 (1983),
140–212. MR691964 (84m:14018)
[16] Arno van den Essen, Polynomial automorphisms and the Jacobian conjecture, Progress in Mathematics,
vol. 190, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2000. MR1790619 (2001j:14082)

