1
$\begingroup$

Let $(k, |\cdot|)$ be a complete field with a non-Archimedean norm, not necessarily algebraically closed. Define the Tate algebra as follows:

\begin{align*} k \langle T_1, \dots, T_n \rangle = \{ \sum_{m \in \mathbb{N}^n} a_m T_1^{m_1} \cdots T_n^{m_n} \in k[[T_1, \dots, T_n]] \mid \lim_{m \to \infty} a_m = 0 \} \end{align*}

Suppose that $f \in k \langle T_1, \dots, T_n \rangle$ has the property that for every $x \in k^n$ in the closed unitary ball, we have $f(x) = 0$. Does this imply that $f = 0$? I know that this is true if $k$ is algebraically closed because of the maximum principle

Improve this question
$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ You need to assume that $k$ is infinite ($k$ finite with all nonzero element of norm one would yield counterexamples with $n=1$). $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 4, 2023 at 23:59
  • $\begingroup$ How about something like this: the claim is true if $n=1$. If $n>1$ you can write $f(T_1,...T_n)$ as $\sum_{i \geq 0} f_i(T_1,...,T_{n-1}) \cdot T_n^i$. Then the $n=1$ case will tell you that $f_i(x_1,...,x_{n-1})=0$ for all $x \in k^{n-1}$ and you can finish by induction. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 18, 2023 at 14:21

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
6
$\begingroup$

Yes (assuming $k$ infinite: $k$ finite yields easy counterexamples), by a simple argument of elementary analysis.

  • Case $k$ infinite, discrete: then $f$ is a polynomial vanishing on $k^n$, hence is zero.

  • Case $k$ infinite, nondiscrete. Assuming by contradiction $f$ nonzero, write $f(x)=P(x)+R(x)$ where $P$ is a nonzero homogeneous polynomial of degree $m$, and $R$ has only terms of degree $>m$.

Then $t^{-m}f(tx)=P(x)+t^{-m}R(tx)$. Write $R(x)=\sum_{i>m}R_i(x)$ with $R_i$ homogeneous of degree $i$. Then $t^{-m}R(tx)=\sum_{i>m}t^{i-m}R_i(x)$. If $x$ is fixed in the closed 1-ball and $t$ tends to zero, this tends to zero (since the norm is ultrametric and each term in the sum tends to zero). Since $f$ vanishes in the closed 1-ball, we deduce that $P$ vanishes on the closed 1-ball as well. Homogeneity implies that $P$ vanishes on $k^n$, and hence $P=0$, contradiction.

Actually, the proof shows more precisely that $t^{-m}f(tx)$ converges, when $t\to 0$ to a nonzero homogeneous polynomial on the closed 1-ball, where $m$ the least degree appearing in $f$.

Improve this answer
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.