Let be an irreducible polynomial in three variables. As is not algebraically closed, the zero set can split into various components of dimension between and . For instance, if , the zero set is a line; more interestingly, if , then is the union of a line and a surface (or the product of an acnodal cubic curve with a line). We will assume that the -dimensional component is non-empty, thus defining a real surface in . In particular, this hypothesis implies that is not just irreducible over , but is in fact absolutely irreducible (i.e. irreducible over ), since otherwise one could use the complex factorisation of to contain inside the intersection of the complex zero locus of complex polynomial and its complex conjugate, with having no common factor, forcing to be at most one-dimensional. (For instance, in the case , one can take .) Among other things, this makes a Zariski-dense subset of , thus any polynomial identity which holds true at every point of , also holds true on all of . This allows us to easily use tools from algebraic geometry in this real setting, even though the reals are not quite algebraically closed.

The surface is said to be ruled if, for a Zariski open dense set of points , there exists a line through for some non-zero which is completely contained in , thus

for all . Also, a point is said to be a flecnode if there exists a line through for some non-zero which is tangent to to third order, in the sense that

for . Clearly, if is a ruled surface, then a Zariski open dense set of points on are a flecnode. We then have the remarkable theorem of Cayley and Salmon asserting the converse:

Theorem 1 (Cayley-Salmon theorem)Let be an irreducible polynomial with non-empty. Suppose that a Zariski dense set of points in are flecnodes. Then is a ruled surface.

Among other things, this theorem was used in the celebrated result of Guth and Katz that almost solved the Erdos distance problem in two dimensions, as discussed in this previous blog post. Vanishing to third order is necessary: observe that in a surface of negative curvature, such as the saddle , every point on the surface is tangent to second order to a line (the line in the direction for which the second fundamental form vanishes).

The original proof of the Cayley-Salmon theorem, dating back to at least 1915, is not easily accessible and not written in modern language. A modern proof of this theorem (together with substantial generalisations, for instance to higher dimensions) is given by Landsberg; the proof uses the machinery of modern algebraic geometry. The purpose of this post is to record an alternate proof of the Cayley-Salmon theorem based on classical differential geometry (in particular, the notion of torsion of a curve) and basic ODE methods (in particular, Gronwall’s inequality and the Picard existence theorem). The idea is to “integrate” the lines indicated by the flecnode to produce smooth curves on the surface ; one then uses the vanishing (1) and some basic calculus to conclude that these curves have zero torsion and are thus planar curves. Some further manipulation using (1) (now just to second order instead of third) then shows that these curves are in fact straight lines, giving the ruling on the surface.

Update: Janos Kollar has informed me that the above theorem was essentially known to Monge in 1809; see his recent arXiv note for more details.

I thank Larry Guth and Micha Sharir for conversations leading to this post.

** — 1. Proof — **

Let denote the smooth points of , then is a smooth surface that is a Zariski open dense subset of , and hence Zariski dense in . We consider the projective tangent bundle of ; this is a smooth three-dimensional manifold, which is a bundle of copies of the projective line over , with elements consisting of a point in and the projective class of a direction that is tangent to at and is non-zero. Since and are both irreducible varieties, it is easy to see that is also an irreducible variety.

Inside , we consider the subset of points which obey the flecnode condition (1) for . By hypothesis, the projection of to is Zariski dense. On the other hand, is clearly an algebraic set. Thus the dimension of is at least , and there is at least one component whose projection to is two-dimensional (i.e. is dominant). In particular we can find an irreducible algebraic surface in whose projection to is open dense (not just in the Zariski sense, but also in the differential geometry sense). By removing the singular points of , we may assume that is a smooth surface.

We now claim that the projection map is generically a local diffeomorphism, thus has full rank for a Zariski dense set of points in . This is a simple consequence of Sard’s theorem, but for our purposes it is also instructive to see an ODE proof: if fails to have full rank generically, then it must have rank one generically or rank zero generically. If it has rank one generically, one can use the Picard existence theorem to locally foliate an open dense subset of by curves with the property that for each , the derivative lies in the kernel of , so that if we write , then for all , and so is constant; thus the curves each lie in a single fibre of . This locally describes as a one-dimensional smooth family of curves inside the fibre of , and so the image is locally one-dimensional, contradicting the two-dimensional nature of . A similar argument works when has rank zero generically.

Since is a local diffeomorphism generically, we may apply the inverse function theorem to conclude that on an open dense subset of , we can locally invert this map, which in particular gives *smooth* local maps from open subsets of to unit tangent vectors at such that the flecnode condition (1) is satisfied for all such and .

By the Picard existence theorem, we may thus locally foliate by curves with the property that

for all ; thus has unit speed and is always tangent to a flecnode direction. Thus, by (1) we have

for . Expanding this out in coordinates by the chain rule (and using the usual summation conventions), using to denote the components of , and to denote the first partial derivatives of for , to denote the second partial derivatives, and so forth, we have

We can obtain further differential equations by differentiating the above equations in . For instance, if we differentiate (3) in we obtain

and hence by (4)

Similarly, if we differentiate (4) in we obtain

and hence by (5)

Finally, if we differentiate (6) in we obtain

and hence by (7)

The equations (3), (6), (8) have a simple geometric interpretation: the first three derivatives are all orthogonal to the gradient . Generically, this gradient is non-zero, and we are in three dimensions, so we conclude that are always coplanar. Equivalently, the torsion of the curve vanishes, and hence the curve is necessarily planar (locally, at least). Another way to see this is to start with the identity

where is the cross product, and conclude that is a scalar multiple of whenever it is non-vanishing, which by Gronwall’s inequality shows that has fixed orientation whenever it is non-vanishing.

So there is a plane in in which locally lies. If vanished on this plane, then , being irreducible, would be just and we would be done, so we may assume that is non-vanishing here, thus is at most one-dimensional. On the other hand, (3), (6) show that are both orthogonal to the gradient of restricted to , which is generically non-zero; as we now only have two dimensions, this implies that are parallel. Thus the curvature of now also vanishes, which implies that is a straight line. Hence we have locally foliated at least a small open neighbourhood in by straight lines, which ensures that is ruled as desired.

## 8 comments

Comments feed for this article

28 March, 2014 at 1:12 pm

Nets KatzCompare with Art 437 of Salmon’s Treatise of Analytic Geometry in Three Dimensions volume 2 and is on pages 18-20 of that volume.

28 March, 2014 at 1:44 pm

Nets KatzI mean his only crime is that he uses p,q, r,s,t, \alpha \beta, \gamma, \delta to denote components of the 3-jet of the surface, and now 160 years later, no one will use his textbook.

28 March, 2014 at 1:54 pm

belwasdear terry please change: ‘I think Larry Guth and Micha Sharir’ to I thank

[Corrected, thanks - T.]28 March, 2014 at 8:26 pm

tomcircleReblogged this on Math Online Tom Circle.

29 March, 2014 at 9:33 pm

allenknutsonI don’t understand the statement near the top, “We’ll assume the 2-d oomponent is nonempty, and therefore f is absolutely irreducible.” What about f = x_1 x_2 x_3? Do you maybe want irreducible => absolutely irreducible?

[f is assumed irreducible in the first line of the post - T.]30 March, 2014 at 4:46 am

tomsimSecondlast Intro Paragraph contains a “clsasical” typo.

2 April, 2014 at 11:51 am

MustafaIs there a non-commutative analog of the Cayley-Salmon theorem?

3 April, 2014 at 11:59 am

arch1In paragraph 2 do you mean “…Zariski open dense *set* of points…”?

[Corrected, thanks - T.]