Publ. Math.

Debrecen
Proof-sheets for paper Ref. no.: 5748 (2013), 757–786

Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over

number fields
By ATTILA BÉRCZES (Debrecen), JAN-HENDRIK EVERTSE (Leiden)
and KÁLMÁN GYŐRY (Debrecen)

To the memory of Professor Antal Bege

Abstract. Let f be a polynomial with coefficients in the ring OS of S-integers of

a given number field K, b a non-zero S-integer, and m an integer ≥ 2. Suppose that f
has no multiple zeros. We consider the equation (∗) f (x) = by m in x, y ∈ OS . In the
present paper we give explicit upper bounds in terms of K, S, b, f , m for the heights of
the solutions of (∗). Further, we give an explicit bound C in terms of K, S, b, f such
that if m > C then (∗) has only solutions with y = 0 or a root of unity. Our results
are more detailed versions of work of Trelina, Brindza, and Shorey and Tijdeman. The
results in the present paper are needed in a forthcoming paper of ours on Diophantine
equations over integral domains which are finitely generated over Z.

Mathematics Subject Classification: 11D41, 11D61, 11J86.

Key words and phrases: hyperelliptic equations, superelliptic equations, Schinzel–Tijdeman the-
orem, Baker’s method.
The research was supported in part by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and by grants
K100339 (A.B., K.G.) and K75566 (A.B.) of the Hungarian National Foundation for Scientific
Research. The work is supported by the TÁMOP 4.2.1./B-09/1/KONV-2010-0007 project.
The project is implemented through the New Hungary Development Plan, co-financed by the
European Social Fund and the European Regional Development Fund.
758 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

1. Introduction

Let f ∈ Z[X] be a polynomial of degree n without multiple roots and m an

integer ≥ 2. Siegel proved that the equation

f (x) = y m (1.1)

has only finitely many solutions in x, y ∈ Z if m = 2, n ≥ 3 [25] and if m ≥ 3, n ≥ 2

[26]. Siegel’s proof is ineffective. In 1969, Baker [1] gave an effective proof of
Siegel’s result. More precisely, he showed that if (x, y) is a solution of (1.1), then
( © 2ª
exp exp (5m)10 (n10n H)n if m ≥ 3, n ≥ 2,
max(|x|, |y|) ≤ © ª
exp exp exp (1010n H)2 if m = 2, n ≥ 3,

where H is the maximum of the absolute values of the coefficients of f . In 1976,

Schinzel and Tijdeman [23] proved that there is an effectively computable
number C, depending only on f , such that (1.1) has no solutions x, y ∈ Z with
y 6= 0, ±1 if m > C. The proofs of Baker and of Schinzel and Tijdeman are both
based on Baker’s results on linear forms in logarithms of algebraic numbers.
First Trelina [28] and later in a more general form Brindza [6] generalized
the results of Baker to equations of the type (1.1) where the coefficients of f
belong to the ring of S-integers OS of a number field K for some finite set of
places S, and where the unknowns x, y are taken from OS . In their proof they
used Baker’s result on linear forms in logarithms, as well as a p-adic analogue
of this. In fact, Baker, Schinzel and Tijdeman, Trelina and Brindza considered
(1.1) also for polynomials f which may have multiple roots. Brindza gave an
effective bound for the solutions in the most general situation where (1.1) has
only finitely many solutions. This was later improved by Bilu [3] and Bugeaud
[7]. Shorey and Tijdeman [24, Theorem 10.2] extended the theorem of Schinzel
and Tijdeman to equation (1.1) over the S-integers of a number field. For further
related results and applications we refer to [24], [3], [7], [14] and the references
given there.
In [2] we prove effective analogues of the theorems of Baker and Schinzel and
Tijdeman for equations of the type (1.1) where the unknowns x, y are taken from
an arbitrary finitely generated domain over Z. The approach in that paper is to
reduce the equations under consideration to hyper- and superelliptic equations
or Schinzel–Tijdeman equations over S-integers in function fields and over S-
integers in number fields, by means of an effective specialization method. For the
equations over function fields we can apply existing effective results of Mason
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 759

[19, Chaps. 3,7]. But for the equations over number fields we need effective results
that are more precise than those of Trelina, Brindza, Bilu, Bugeaud and Shorey
and Tijdeman mentioned above. In the present paper, we derive such precise
results. Here, we follow improved, updated versions of standard methods. For
technical convenience, we restrict ourselves to the case that the polynomial f
has no multiple roots. We mention that recently, Gallegos–Ruiz [12] obtained
an explicit bound for the heights of the solutions of the hyperelliptic equation
y 2 = f (x) in S-integers x, y over Q, but his result is not adapted to our purposes.
In Theorems 2.1 and 2.2 stated below we give for any fixed exponent m
effective upper bounds for the heights of the solutions x, y ∈ OS of (1.1) which
are fully explicit in terms of m, the degree and height of f , the degree and
discriminant of K and the prime ideals in S. In Theorem 2.3 below we generalize
the Schinzel–Tijdeman Theorem to the effect that if (1.1) has a solution x, y ∈ OS
with y not equal to 0 or to a root of unity, then m is bounded above by an explicitly
given bound depending only on n, the height of f , the degree and discriminant
of K and the prime ideals in S.

2. Results

We start with some notation. Let K be a number field. We denote by d, DK

the degree and discriminant of K, by OK the ring of integers of K and by MK
the set of places of K. The set MK consists of real infinite places, these are the
embeddings σ : K ,→ R; complex infinite places, these are the pairs of conjugate
complex embeddings {σ, σ : K ,→ C}, and finite places, these are the prime ideals
of OK . We define normalized absolute values | · |v (v ∈ MK ) as follows:


| · |v = |σ(·)|
 if v = σ is real infinite;
2 (2.1)
| · |v = |σ(·)| if v = {σ, σ} is complex infinite;


| · | = (N p)− ordp (·) if v = p is finite;
v K

here NK p = #OK /p is the norm of p and ordp (x) denotes the exponent of p in
the prime ideal decomposition of x, with ordp (0) = ∞.
The logarithmic height of α ∈ K is defined by
1 Y
h(α) := log max(1, |α|v ).
[K : Q]
v∈MK

Let S be a finite set of places of K containing all (real and complex) infinite
places. We denote by OS the ring of S integers in K, i.e.
OS = {x ∈ K : |x|v ≤ 1 for v ∈ MK \ S}.
760 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

Let s := #S and put

PS = QS := 1 if S consists only of infinite places,

t
Y
PS = max NK pi , QS := NK pi if p1 , . . . , pt are the prime ideals in S.
i=1,...,t
i=1

We are now ready to state our results. In what follows,

f (X) = a0 X n + a1 X n−1 + · · · + an ∈ OS [X] (2.2)

is a polynomial of degree n ≥ 2 without multiple roots and b is a non-zero element

of OS . Put
b 1 X
h := log max(1, |b|v , |a0 |v , . . . , |an |v ).
d
v∈MK

Our first result concerns the superelliptic equation

f (x) = by m in x, y ∈ OS . (2.3)

with a fixed exponent m ≥ 3.

Theorem 2.1. Assume that m ≥ 3, n ≥ 2. If x, y ∈ OS is a solution to the
equation (2.3) then we have
¡ ¢ 3 3 2 2
n 8m2 n3 d·b
2 2
max h(x), h(y) ≤ (6ns)14m n s |DK |2m n Q3m
S e h
. (2.4)

We now consider the hyperelliptic equation

f (x) = by 2 in x, y ∈ OS . (2.5)

Theorem 2.2. Assume that n ≥ 3. If x, y ∈ OS is a solution to the equation

(2.5) then we have
¡ ¢ 4 3 3 4 b
max h(x), h(y) ≤ (4ns)212n s |DK |8n Q20n
S e50n d·h . (2.6)

Our last result is an explicit version of the Schinzel–Tijdeman theorem over

the S-integers.
Theorem 2.3. Assume that (2.3) has a solution x, y ∈ OS where y is neither
0 nor a root of unity. Then
2 b
m ≤ (10n2 s)40ns |DK |6n PSn e11nd·h . (2.7)
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 761

3. Notation and auxiliary results

We denote by d, DK , hK , RK the degree, discriminant, class number and

regulator, and by OK the ring of integers of K. Further, we denote by P(K) the
collection of non-zero prime ideals of OK . For a non-zero fractional ideal a of OK
we have the unique factorization
Y
a= pordp a ,
p∈P(K)

where there are only finitely many prime ideals p ∈ P(K) with ordp a 6= 0. Given
α1 , . . . , αn ∈ K, we denote by [α1 , . . . , αn ]K the fractional ideal of OK generated
by α1 , . . . , αn . For a polynomial f ∈ K[X] we denote by [f ]K the fractional ideal
generated by the coefficients of f . We denote by NK a the absolute norm of a
fractional ideal of OK . In case that a ⊆ OK we have NK a = #OK /a.
We define log∗ x := max(1, log x) for x ≥ 0.

3.1. Discriminant estimates. Let L be a finite extension of K. Recall that

the relative discriminant ideal dL/K of L/K is the ideal of OK generated by the
numbers
DL/K (ω1 , . . . , ωn ) with ω1 , . . . ωn ∈ OL ,
where n := [L : K].
Lemma 3.1. Suppose that L = K(α) and let f ∈ K[X] be a square-free
polynomial of degree m with f (α) = 0. Then
[D(f )]K
dL/K ⊇ . (3.1)
[f ]2m−2
K

Proof. We have inserted a proof for lack of a good reference. We write [·]
for [·]K . Let g ∈ K[X] be the monic minimal polynomial of α. Then f = g1 g2
with g2 ∈ K[X]. Let n := deg g1 and k := deg h1 . Then

D(f ) = D(g1 )D(g2 )R(g1 , g2 )2 ,

where R(g1 , g2 ) is the resultant of g1 and g2 . Using determinantal expressions for

D(g1 ), D(g2 ), R(g1 , g2 ) we get

D(g1 ) ∈ [g1 ]2n−2 , D(g2 ) ∈ [g2 ]2k−2 , R(g1 , g2 ) ∈ [g1 ]k [g2 ]n ,

and by Gauss’ Lemma, [f ] = [g1 ] · [g2 ]. Hence

[D(f )] [D(g1 )] [D(g2 )] [R(g1 , g2 )] [D(g1 )]
= ⊆ .
[f ]2m−2 [g1 ]2n−2 [g2 ]2k−2 [g1 ]k [g2 ]n [g1 ]2n−2
762 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

Therefore, it suffices to prove

[D(g1 )]
dL/K ⊃ .
[g1 ]2n−2

Note that [g1 ]−1 consists of all λ ∈ K with λg1 ∈ OK [X]. Hence the ideal
[D(g1 )] · [g1 ]−2n+2 is generated by the numbers λ2n−2 D(g1 ) = D(λg1 ) such that
λg1 ∈ OK [X]. Writing h := λg1 , we see that it suffices to prove that if h ∈ OK [X]
is irreducible in K[X] and h(α) = 0 with L = K(α), then

D(h) ∈ dL/K .

To prove this, we use an argument of Birch and Merriman [4]. Let h(X) =
b0 X m + b1 xm−1 + · · · + bm ∈ OK [X] with h(α) = 0. Put

ωi := b0 αi + b1 αi−1 + · · · + bi (i = 0, 1, . . . , n).

We show by induction on i that ωi ∈ OL . For i = 0 this is clear. Assume that we

have proved that ωi ∈ OL for some i ≥ 0. By h(α) = 0 we clearly have

ωi αn−i + bi+1 αn−i−1 + · · · + bn = 0.

By multiplying this expression with ωin−i−1 , we see that ωi α is a zero of a monic

polynomial from OL [X], hence belongs to OL . Therefore, ωi+1 = ωi α+bi+1 ∈ OL .
Now on the one hand, DL/K (1, ω1 , . . . , ωn−1 ) ∈ dL/K , on the other hand,

DL/K (1, ω1 , . . . , ωn−1 ) = b2n−2

0 DL/K (1, α, . . . , αn−1 )
Y
= b2n−2
0 (α(i) − α(j) )2 = D(h).
1≤i<j≤0

Hence D(h) ∈ dL/K . ¤

Put u(n) := lcm(1, 2, . . . , n). For the possible prime factors of the discrimi-
nant dL/K we have:
Lemma 3.2. Let [L : K] = n. Then for every prime ideal p ∈ P(K) with
ordp (dL/K ) > 0 we have

ordp (dL/K ) ≤ n · (1 + ordp (u(n))).

Proof. Let DL/K denote the different of L/K. According to, e.g., [21,
p. 210, Theorem 2.6], we have for every prime ideal P of L lying above p

ordP (DL/K ) ≤ e(P|p) − 1 + ordP (e(P|p)) ≤ e(P|p) − 1 + e(P|p) ordp (e(P|p)),

 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 763

where e(P|p), f (P|p) denote the ramification index and residue class degree of P
P
over p. Using dL/K = NL/K DL/K , NL/K P = pf (P|p) , P|p e(P|p)f (P|p) =
[L : K] ≤ n, we infer
X
ordp (dL/K ) = ordp (NL/K DL/K ) = f (P|p) ordP (DL/K )
P|p
X
≤ f (P|p)e(P|p)(1 + ordp (e(P|p)) ≤ n(1 + ordp (u(n))). ¤
P|p

Lemma 3.3. (i) Let M ⊃ L ⊃ K be a tower of finite extensions. Then we

have
[M :L]
dM/K = NL/K (dM/L )dL/K .
(ii) Let L1 , L2 be finite extensions of K. Then for their compositum L1 · L2 we
have
[L L :L ] [L L :L ]
dL1 L2 /K ⊇ dL11/K2 1 dL21/K2 2 .
Proof. For (i) see for instance [21, p. 213, Korollar 2.10]. For (ii) apply a
lemma of Stark on differents [27, Lemma 6] and take norms. ¤
√
Lemma 3.4. Let m ∈ Z≥0 , γ ∈ K ∗ and L := K( m γ). Further, let p ∈ P(K)
be a prime ideal with

ordp (m) = 0, ordp (γ) ≡ 0 (mod m).

Then L/K is unramified at p, i.e.

ordp (dL/K ) = 0.

Proof. Choose τ ∈ K ∗ such that ordp (τ ) = 1. Then γ = τ mt ε with t ∈ Z

√
and ordp (ε) = 0. We clearly have L = K( m ε), hence

[D(X m − ε)] [mm εm−1 ]

dL/K ⊇ = .
[1, ε]2m−2 [1, ε]2m−2

This implies ordp (dL/K ) = 0. ¤

3.2. S-integers. Let K be an algebraic number field and denote by MK its set
of places. We keep using throughout the absolute values defined by (2.1). Recall
that these absolute values satisfy the product formula
Y
|α|v = 1 for α ∈ K ∗ .
v∈MK
764 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

If L is a finite extension of K, and v, w places of K, L, respectively, we say that

w lies above v, notation w|v, if the restriction of | · |w to K is a power of | · |v , and
in that case we have
|α|w = |α|[L
v
w :Kv ]
for α ∈ K,
where Kv , Lw denote the completions of K at v, L at w, respectively. In case
that v = p, w = P are prime ideals of OK , OL , respectively, we have w|v if and
only if p ⊂ P.
Let S be a finite set of places of K containing all infinite places. The non-
zero fractional ideals of the ring of S-integers OS (i.e., finitely generated OS -
submodules of K) form a group under multiplication, and there is an isomorphism
from the multiplicative group of non-zero fractional ideals of OS to the group of
fractional ideals of OK composed of prime ideals outside S given by a 7→ a∗ , where
a = a∗ OS . We define the S-norm of a fractional ideal of OS by
NS (a) := NK a∗ = absolute norm of a∗ .
Given α1 , . . . , αr ∈ K we denote by [α1 , . . . , αr ]S the fractional ideal of OS gene-
rated by α1 , . . . , αr . We have
Y
NS ([α1 , . . . , αr ]S ) = max(|α1 |v , . . . , |αr |v )−1 . (3.2)
v∈MK \S

Further, for α ∈ K we define NS (α) := NS ([α]S ). By the product formula,

Y
NS (α) = |α|v for α ∈ K. (3.3)
v∈S

Let L be a finite extension of K, and T the set of places of L lying above the
places in S. Then the ring of T -integers OT is the integral closure in L of OS .
Every fractional ideal A of OT can be expressed uniquely as A = A∗ OT where A∗
is a fractional ideal of OL composed of prime ideals outside T . We put
NT A := NL A∗ , NT /S A := (NL/K A∗ )OS .
Then (
NT A = NS (NT /S A),
(3.4)
NT (aOT ) = NS a[L:K] for a fractional ideal a of OS .
Qt
Let p1 , . . . , pt be the prime ideals in S and put QS := i=1 NK pi . Let
Qt0
P1 , . . . , Pt0 be the prime ideals in T and put QT := i=1 NK Pi . Then for every
prime ideal p of OK we have
Y Y Y
NL P = (NK p)fP|p ≤ (NK p)eP|p ·fP|p ≤ (NK p)[L:K] ,
P|p P|p P|p
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 765

where the product is over all prime ideals P of OL dividing p and where e(P|p),
f (P|p) denote the ramification index and residue class degree of P over p. Hence

[L:K]
QT ≤ QS . (3.5)

3.3. Class number and regulator. Let again K be a number field.

Lemma 3.5. For the regulator RK and class number hK of K we have the
following estimates:

RK ≥ 0.2, (3.6)
1
hK RK ≤ |DK | 2 (log∗ |DK |)d−1 . (3.7)

Proof. Statement (3.6) is a result of Friedman [11]. Inequality (3.7) fol-

lows from Louboutin [18], see also (59) in Győry and Yu [15]. ¤
Let S be a finite set of places of K consisting of the infinite places and of the
prime ideals p1 , . . . , pt . Then the S-regulator RS is given by

t
Y
RS = hS RK log NK pi , (3.8)
i=1

where hS is the order of the group generated by the ideal classes of p1 , . . . , pt and
where hS and the product are 1 if S consists only of the infinite places. Together
with Lemma 3.5 this implies

1 1
ln 2 ≤ RS ≤ |DK | 2 (log∗ |DK |)d−1 · (log PS )t , (3.9)
5

where the last factor has to be interpreted as 1 if t = 0.

3.4. Heights. We define the absolute logarithmic height of α ∈ Q by

1 X
h(α) = max(0, log |α|v ),
[K : Q]
v∈MK

where K is any number field with K 3 α. More generally, we define the logarith-
mic height of a polynomial f (X) = a0 xn + · · · + an ∈ Q[X] by

1 X
h(f ) := log max(1, |a0 |v , . . . , |an |v )
[K : Q]
v∈MK
766 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

where K is any number field with f ∈ K[X]. These heights do not depend on
the choice of K.
We will frequently use the inequalities
n
X n
X
h(α1 · · · αn ) ≤ h(αi ), h(α1 + · · · + αn ) ≤ h(αi ) + log n
i=1 i=1

for α1 , . . . , αn ∈ Q and the equality

∗
h(αm ) = |m|h(α) for α ∈ Q , m ∈ Z.
(see for instance [30, Chapter 3]). Further we frequently use the trivial fact that
if α belongs to a number field K and S is a finite set of places of K containing
the infinite places, then
1
h(α) ≥ log NS (α).
[K : Q]
We have collected some further facts.
Lemma 3.6. Let α1 , . . . , αn ∈ Q and f = (X − α1 ) · · · (X − αn ). Then
n
X
|h(f ) − h(αi )| ≤ n log 2.
i=1

Proof. See for instance [5, p.28, Thm.1.6.13]. ¤

Lemma 3.7. Let K be a number field and f = a0 X n + a1 X n−1 + · · · + an ∈
K[X] a polynomial of degree n with discriminant D(f ) 6= 0. Then
(i) |D(f )|v ≤ n(2n−1)s(v) max(|a0 |v , . . . , |an |v )2n−2 for v ∈ MK ,
(ii) h(D(f )) ≤ (2n − 1) log n + (2n − 2)h(f ),
where s(v) = 1 if v is real, s(v) = 2 if v is complex, s(v) = 0 if v is finite.
Proof. Inequality (ii) is an immediate consequence of (i). For finite v, ine-
quality (i) follows from the ultrametric inequality, noting that D(f ) is a homoge-
neous polynomial of degree 2n − 2 in the coefficients of f with integer coefficients.
For infinite v, inequality (i) follows from a a result of Lewis and Mahler [17,
p. 335]). ¤
Lemma 3.8. Let K be an algebraic number field and S a finite set of places
of K, which consists of the infinite places and of the prime ideals p1 , . . . , pt . Then
for every α ∈ OS \ {0} and m ∈ N there exists an S-unit η ∈ OS∗ with
µ ¶
m 1 hK
h(αη ) ≤ log NS (α) + m · cRK + log QS ,
d d
Qt
where c := 39dd+2 and QS := i=1 NK pi .
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 767

Proof. This is a slightly weaker version of Lemma 3 of Győry and Yu [15].

The result was essentially proved (with a larger constant) in [10] and [13]. ¤
Lemma 3.9. Let α be a non-zero algebraic number of degree d which is not
a root of unity. Then (
log 2 if d = 1,
h(α) ≥ m(d) :=
3
2/d(log 3d) if d ≥ 2.

Proof. See Voutier [29]. ¤

3.5. Baker’s method. Let K be an algebraic number field, and denote by MK

the set of places of K. Let α1 , . . . , αn be n ≥ 2 non-zero elements of K, and
b1 , . . . , bn are rational integers, not all zero. Put

Λ := α1b1 . . . αnbn − 1,
n
Y ¡ ¢
Θ := max h(αi ), m(d) ,
i=1

B := max(3, |b1 |, , . . . , |bn |),

where m(d) is the lower bound from Lemma 3.9 (i.e., the maximum is h(αi ) unless
αi is a root of unity). For a place v ∈ MK , we write
(
2 if v is infinite
N (v) =
NK p if v = p is finite.

Proposition 3.10. Suppose that Λ 6= 0. Then for v ∈ MK we have

N (v)
log |Λ|v > − c1 (n, d) Θ log B, (3.10)
log N (v)

where c1 (n, d) = 12(16ed)3n+2 (log∗ d)2 .

Proof. First assume that v is infinite. Without loss of generality, we assume
that K ⊂ C and | · |v = | · |s(v) where s(v) = 1 if K ⊂ R and s(v) = 2 otherwise.
Denote by log the principal natural logarithm on C (with | Im log z| ≤ π for
z ∈ C∗ . Let b0 be the rational integer such that | Im Ξ| ≤ π, where

Ξ := b1 log α1 + · · · + bn log αn + 2b0 log(−1), log(−1) = πi.

Thus,
B 0 := max(|2b0 |, |b1 |, . . . , |bn |) ≤ 1 + nB.
768 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

A result of Matveev [20, Corollary 2.3] implies that

µ ¶s(v)
−1 1
log |Ξ| ≥ − s(v) e(n + 1) (n + 1)3/2 30n+4 d2 (log ed)Ω log(eB 0 ),
2

where
n
Y
Ω := π max(h(αi ), π).
i=1

Assuming, as we may, that |Λ| ≤ 12 , we get |Ξ| = | log(1+Λ)| ≤ 2|Λ| ≤ 1. Further,

Ω ≤ π n+1 m(d)−n Θ. By combining this with Matveev’s lower bound we obtain a
lower bound for |Λ|v which is better than (3.10).
Now assume that v is finite, say v = p, where p is a prime ideal of OK . By
a result of K. Yu [31] (consequence of Main Theorem on p. 190) we have

NK p
ordp (Λ) ≤ (16ed)2n+2 n3/2 log(2nd) log(2d)enp · · Θ log B,
(log NK p)2

where ep is the ramification index of p. Using that log |Λ|p = − ordp (Λ) log NK p
and ep ≤ d, we obtain a lower bound for log |Λ|p which is better than (3.10). ¤

3.6. Thue equations and Pell equations. Let K be an algebraic number field
of degree d, discriminant DK , regulator RK and class number hK , and denote by
OK its ring of integers. Let S be a finite set of places of K containing all infinite
places. Denote by s the cardinality of S and by OS the ring of S integers in K.
Further denote by RS the S-regulator, let p1 , . . . , pt be the prime ideals in S, and
put
PS := max{NK p1 , . . . , NK pt }, QS := NK (p1 · · · pt ),

with the convention that PS = QS = 1 if S contains no finite places.

We state effective results on Thue equations and on systems of Pell equations
which are easy consequences of a general effective result on decomposable form
equations by Győry and Yu [15]. In both results we use the constant

c1 (s, d) := s2s+4 27s+60 d2s+d+2 .

Pn
Proposition 3.11. Let β ∈ K ∗ and let F (X, Y ) = i=0 ai X
n−i i
Y ∈
K[X, Y ] be a binary form of degree n ≥ 3 with non-zero discriminant which
splits into linear factors over K. Suppose that

max h(ai ) ≤ A, h(β) ≤ B.

0≤i≤n
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 769

Then for the solutions of

F (x, y) = β in x, y ∈ OS (3.11)
we have

max(h(x), h(y))
µ ¶ ³ ´
6 log∗ RS hK
≤ c1 (s, d)n PS RS 1+ · RK + log QS + ndA + B . (3.12)
log∗ PS d
Proof. Győry and Yu [15, p. 16, Corollary 3] proved this with instead
of our c1 (s, d) a smaller bound 5d2 n5 · 50(n − 1)c1 c3 , where c1 , c3 are given
respectively in [15, Theorem 1], and in [15, bottom of page 11]. ¤
Proposition 3.12. Let γ1 , γ2 , γ3 , β12 , β13 be non-zero elements of K such
that
p p
β12 6= β13 , γ1 /γ2 , γ1 /γ3 ∈ K,

h(γi ) ≤ A for i = 1, 2, 3, h(β12 ), h(β13 ) ≤ B.

Then for the solutions of the system
γ1 x21 − γ2 x22 = β12 , γ1 x21 − γ3 x23 = β13 in x1 , x2 , x3 ∈ OS (3.13)
we have

max(h(x1 ), h(x2 ), h(x3 ))

µ ¶ ³ ´
log∗ RS hK
≤ c1 (s, d)PS RS 1 + ∗ · RK + log QS + dA + B . (3.14)
log PS d
Proof. Put β23 := β13 − β12 , β := β12 β13 β23 and define
F := (γ1 X12 − γ2 X22 )(γ1 X12 − γ3 X32 )(γ2 X22 − γ3 X32 ).
Thus, every solution of (3.13) satisfies also
F (x1 , x2 , x3 ) = β in x1 , x2 , x3 ∈ OS . (3.15)
By assumption, β 6= 0. Further, F is a decomposable form of degree 6 with
splitting field K, i.e., F = l1 · · · l6 where l1 , . . . , l6 are linear forms with coefficients
in K. We make a graph on {l1 , . . . , l6 } by connecting two linear forms li , lj if there
is a third linear form lk such that lk = λli + µlj for certain non-zero λ, µ ∈ K.
Then this graph is connected. Further, rank{l1 , . . . , l6 } = 3. Hence F satisfies all
the conditions of Theorem 3 of Győry and Yu [15]. According to this Theorem,
the solutions x1 , x2 , x3 of (3.15), and so also the solutions of (3.13), satisfy (3.14)
but with instead of c1 (s, d) the smaller number 375c1 c3 , where c1 , c3 are given
respectively in [15, Theorem 1], and on [15, bottom of page 11]. ¤
770 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

4. Proof of the results in the case of fixed exponent

Let K be an algebraic number field, put d := [K : Q], and let DK denote

the discriminant of K. Further, let S be a finite set of places of K containing all
infinite places.
Lemma 4.1. Let f (X) ∈ K[X] be a polynomial of degree n and discriminant
D(f ) 6= 0. Suppose that f factorizes over an extension of K as a0 (X − α1 ) . . .
(X − αn ) and let L := K(α1 , . . . , αk ). Then for the discriminant of L we have
³ ´2knk d k
|DL | ≤ n · eh(f ) · |DK |n .

For the case k = 1 we have the sharper estimate

|DL | ≤ n(2n−1)d · e(2n−2)d·h(f ) · |DK |[L:K] .

Proof. By Lemma 3.3 (i), we have

k
|DL | = NK dL/K · |DK |[L:K] ≤ NK dL/K · |DK |n . (4.1)

Applying Lemma 3.3 (ii) to L = K(α1 ) · · · K(αk ) yields

k
Y ¡ ¢[L:K(αi )]
dL/K ⊇ dK(αi )/K . (4.2)
i=1

Further, since αi is a root of f we have by Lemma 3.1,

[D(f )]
dK(αi )/K ⊇ ,
[f ]2n−2

and so µ ¶
[D(f )]
NK dK(αi )/K ≤ NK . (4.3)
[f ]2n−2
By Lemma 3.7 we have
Y Y ¡ ¢s(v) Y
|NK (D(f ))| = |D(f )|v ≤ n2n−1 |f |2n−2
v ≤ n(2n−1)d |f |2n−2
v
∞
v∈MK ∞
v∈MK ∞
v∈MK

where |f |v is the maximum of the v-adic absolute values of the coefficients of f ;

moreover, Y
NK ([f ]−2n+2 ) = |f |2n−2
v .
∞
v∈MK \MK
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 771

Thus, we obtain µ ¶
[D(f )] ³ ´d
NK ≤ n2n−1 · e(2n−2)h(f ) . (4.4)
[f ]2n−2
Together with (4.1), (4.3) this implies the sharper upper bound for |DL | in the
case k = 1. For arbitrary k, combining (4.2), (4.3), (4.4) and the estimate [L :
K(αi )] ≤ (n − 1)(n − 2) · · · (n − k + 1) gives
³ ´k(n−1)(n−2)···(n−k+1)d
NK dL/K ≤ n2n−1 · e(2n−2)h(f ) (4.5)
k−1 k−1
³ ´2knk d
≤ nk(2n−1)n d
· ek(2n−2)n d·h(f )
≤ n · eh(f ) . (4.6)

This in turn, together with (4.1) proves Lemma 4.1. ¤

Let
f = a0 X n + a1 X n−1 + · · · + an ∈ OS [X]
be a polynomial of degree n ≥ 2 with discriminant D(f ) 6= 0. Let b be a non-zero
element of OS , m an integer ≥ 2 and consider the equation

f (x) = by m in x, y ∈ OS . (4.7)

Put
b 1 X
h := log max(1, |b|v , |a0 |v , . . . , |an |v ). (4.8)
d
v∈MK

Let G be the splitting field of f over K. Then

f = a0 (X − α1 ) · · · (X − αn ) with α1 , . . . , αn ∈ G.

For i = 1, . . . , n, let Li = K(αi ) and denote by Ti the set of places of Li lying

above the places of S. We denote by [β1 , . . . , βr ]Ti the fractional of OTi generated
by β1 , . . . , βr . Then we have the following Lemma:
Lemma 4.2. Let x, y ∈ OS be a solution of equation (4.7) with y 6= 0. Then
for i = 1, . . . , n we have the following:
(i) There are ideals Ci , Ai of OTi such that

[a0 (x − αi )]Ti = Ci Am
i , Ci ⊇ [a0 bD(f )]m−1
Ti . (4.9)

(ii) There are γi , ξi with



x − αi = γi ξim , γi ∈ L∗i , ξ ∈ OTi ,
µ ¶ (4.10)
 3 nd 2ndb
h n dn+2 1
h(γi ) ≤ m(n d) e |DK | · 80(dn) + log QS .
d
772 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

Proof. It suffices to prove the Lemma for i = 1. We suppress the index 1

and write α, T , L, γ, ξ for α1 , T1 , L1 , γ1 , ξ1 . Let g := (X − α2 ) . . . (X − αn ).
By [·] we denote fractional ideals in G with respect to the integral closure of OT
in G. Clearly,
[x − α] [x − αi ] [α − αi ]
+ ⊇
[1, α] [1, αi ] [1, α][1, αi ]
for i = 2, . . . , n. This implies
n n
[x − α] Y [x − αi ] Y [α − αi ]
+ ⊇
[1, α] i=2
[1, αi ] i=2
[1, α][1, αi ]
Qn
Noting that by Gauss’ Lemma we have [f ] = [a0 ] i=1 [1, αi ], we see that the
right-hand side contains
Yn Y
[αj − αi ] [D(f )]
= .
j=1
[1, αj ][1, αi ] [f ]2n−2
i6=j
Qn
Using also [g] = i=2 [1, αi ] we obtain

[x − α] [g(x)] [D(f )]
+ ⊇ . (4.11)
[1, α] [g] [f ]2n−2
Writing equation (4.7) as equation of ideals, we get
[x − α] [g(x)]
[b][f ]−1 [y]m = · . (4.12)
[1, α] [g]
Note that the ideals occurring in (4.11), (4.12) are all defined over L, so we may
view them as ideals of OT . Henceforth, we use [·] to denote ideals of OT .
Now let P be a prime ideal of OT not dividing a0 bD(f ). Note that D(f ) ∈
2n−2
[f ] , hence P does not divide [f ] either. By (4.11), the prime ideal P divides
at most one of the ideals [x−α 1] [g(x)]
[1,α1 ] and [g] , and we get

[x − α]
ordP ≡ 0 (mod m).
[1, α]
But [a0 ][1, α] is not divisible by P since it contains a0 . Hence

ordP (a0 (x − α)) ≡ 0 (mod m).

Applying division with remainder to the exponents of the prime ideals dividing
a0 bD(f ) in the factorization of a0 (x − α), we obtain that there are ideals C, A of
OT , with C dividing (ba0 D(f ))m−1 such that [a0 (x − α)] = CAm . This proves (i).
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 773

We prove (ii). The ideal A of OT may be written as A = A∗ OT with an

ideal A∗ of OL composed of prime ideals outside T , and further, we may choose
non-zero ξ1 ∈ A∗ with |NL/Q (ξ1 )| ≤ |DL |1/2 NL A∗ (see Lang [16, pp. 119/120].
This implies NT (ξ1 ) ≤ |DL |1/2 NT A, i.e., [ξ1 ] = BA where B is an ideal of OT
with NT B ≤ |DL |1/2 . Similarly, there exists γ1 ∈ L with [γ1 ] = DC, where D is
an ideal of OT with NT D ≤ |DL |1/2 . As a consequence, we have
γ1 m
a0 (x − α) = ξ ,
γ2 1
where γ1 , γ2 ∈ OT , and
[γ2 ] = DBm .
Using (i) and the choice of B, D, we get

NT (γ1 ) ≤ |DL |1/2 NT (a0 bD(f ))m−1 , NT (γ2 ) ≤ |DL |(m+1)/2 . (4.13)

According to Lemma 3.8 we can find T -units η1 , η2 ∈ OT∗ such that

µ ¶
hL
h(γi ηim ) ≤ d−1
L log NT (γi ) + m · cRL + log QT for i = 1, 2
dL
Q
where dL = [L : Q], c := 39ddLL +2 and QT := P∈T NL P. Putting
P finite

γ := a−1 −1 −1 m
0 γ1 γ2 (η1 η2 ) , ξ = η2 η1−1 ξ1 ,

and invoking (4.13) we obtain x − α = γξ m , with ξ ∈ OT , γ ∈ L∗ and

³m + 1 ´
h(γ) ≤ h(a0 ) + d−1
L log |DL | + m log NT (abD(f ))
2
³ hL ´
+ 2m · cRL + log QT . (4.14)
dL
It remains to estimate from above the right-hand side of (4.14). First, we
have by (3.4) and Lemma 3.7,

d−1
L log NT (a0 bD(f )) = d
−1
log NS (a0 bD(f )) ≤ h(a0 bD(f ))
≤ (2n − 1) log n + 2nb
h. (4.15)

Together with Lemma 4.1 this implies

³m + 1 ´
h(a0 ) + d−1
L log |DL | + m log NT (abD(f ))
2
≤ m(4n log n + 4nb
h + log |DK |). (4.16)
774 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

Next, by Lemma 3.5, Lemma 4.1 and dL ≤ nd we have

max(hL , RL ) ≤ 5|DL |1/2 (log∗ |DL |)nd−1 ≤ (nd)nd |DL |

b
≤ (n3 d)nd e(2n−2)dh |DK |n . (4.17)

By inserting the bounds (4.16), (4.17), together with (3.5) and the estimate c ≤
39(nd)nd+2 into (4.14), one easily obtains the upper bound for h(γ) given by (ii).
¤
Let f , b, m be as above, and let x, y ∈ OS be a solution of (4.7) with y 6= 0.
Let γ1 , . . . , γn , ξ1 , . . . , ξn be as in Lemma 4.2.
p
Lemma 4.3. (i) Let m ≥ 3 and M = K(α1 , α2 , m γ1 /γ2 , ρ), where ρ is a
primitive m-th root of unity. Then
3
n2 d 4m2 n3 d 2
n2 2
n2 4m2 n3 db
|DM | ≤ 10m n |DK |m Qm
S e h
. (4.18)
p p
(ii) Let m = 2 and M = K(α1 , α2 , α3 , γ1 /γ2 , γ1 /γ3 ). Then

4 3 3 4
db
|DM | ≤ n40n d Q8n
S |DK |
4n 25n
e h
. (4.19)
p
Proof. We start with (i). Define the fields L = K(α1 , α2 ), M1 = L( m γ1 /γ2 ),
M2 = L(ρ). Then M = M1 M2 . By Lemma 3.3 (i) we have

|DM | = NL dM/L |DL |[M :L] . (4.20)

By Lemma 3.1, we have dM2 /L ⊇ [m]m , where [m] = mOL . Together with Lem-
ma 3.3 (ii), this implies

[M :M ] [M :M ] 2
dM/L ⊇ dM1 /L1 dM2 /L2 ⊇ mm dm
M1 /L .

Inserting this into (4.20), noting that [L : Q] ≤ n2 d, [M : L] ≤ m2 , we obtain

2
n2 d 2
|DM | ≤ mm (NL dM1 /L )m |DL |m . (4.21)

We estimate NL dM1 /L . Let P be a prime ideal of OL not dividing a prime

ideal from S and not dividing ma0 bD(f ). Then by Lemma 4.2,
µ ¶
a0 (x − α1 )
ordP (γ1 γ2−1 ) ≡ ordP ≡ 0 (mod m),
a0 (x − α2 )
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 775

and so by Lemma 3.4, M1 /L is unramified at P. Consequently, dM1 /L is composed

of prime ideals from U , where U is the set of prime ideals of OL that divide the
prime ideals from S or ma0 bD(f ). Using Lemma 3.2, it follows that
Y
dM1 /L ⊇ Pm(1+ordP (u(m))
P∈U
Y Y Y
⊇ Pm Pm ordP (u(m)) ⊇ u(m)m Pm . (4.22)
P∈U P P∈U

First, by prime number theory, u(m) ≤ mπ(m) ≤ 4m (see Rosser and Scho-
2 2
enfeld [22, Corollary 1]). Hence |NL/Q (u(m)m )| ≤ 4m n d . Second, by an
argument similar to the proof of (3.5), defining V to be the set of prime ideals of
OL which are contained in S or divide ma0 bD(f ),
Y µ Y ¶[L:K] µ Y ¶n2
NL ( P) ≤ NK p ≤ NK p
P∈U p∈V p∈V
n2 2
≤ (QS NS (ma0 bD(f )) ≤ (QS ed·h(ma0 bD(f )) )n
2 2 3
d(log n+b 2 2 3 3
db
≤ QnS mn d e2n h)
≤ QnS mn d n2n d e2n h

where in the last estimate we have used Lemma 3.7. By combining this estimate
and that for |NL/Q (u(m)m )| with (4.22), we obtain
2
n2 d 2mn3 d 2 3
db
NL dM1 /L ≤ 6m n Qmn
S e2mn h
. (4.23)
Finally, by inserting this estimate and the one arising from Lemma 4.1,
2 2
db 2
|DL | ≤ n4n d
· e4n h
· |DK |n (4.24)
into (4.21), after some computations, we obtain (4.18). p
We now
p prove (ii). Let m = 2. Take L = K(α1 , α2 , α3 ), M1 = L( γ1 /γ2 ),
M2 = L( γ1 /γ3 ), so that M = M1 M2 . Completely similarly to (4.23), but now
using [L : K] ≤ n3 instead of ≤ n2 , we get
3 4 3 4
db
NL dM1 /L ≤ 64n d n4n d Q2n
S e
4n h
.
For NL dM2 /L we have the same estimate. So by Lemma 3.3 (ii),
3 4 3 4
db
NL dM/L ≤ (NL dM1 /L )2 (NL dM2 /L )2 ≤ 616n d n16n d Q8n
S e
16n h
.
By inserting this inequality and the one arising from Lemma 4.1,
3 3
db 3
|DL | ≤ n6n d
· e6n h
· |DK |n
into |DM | = NL dM/L |DL |[M :K] , after some computations we obtain (4.19). ¤
776 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

Proof of Theorem 2.1. Let m ≥ 3 and let x, y ∈ OS be a solution to

by m = f (x) with y 6= 0. We have x − α p
m
i = γi ξi (i = 1, . . . , n) with the γi , ξi
as in Lemma 4.2. Let M := K(α1 , α2 , m γ1 /γ2 , ρ), where ρ is a primitive m-th
root of unity, and let T be the set of places of M lying above the places from S.
Let p1 , . . . , pt be the prime ideals (finite places) in S, and P1 , . . . , Pt0 the prime
0
ideals in T . Then t0 ≤ [M : K]t ≤ m2 n2 t. Further, let PT := maxti=1 NM Pi ,
Qt0
QT := i=1 NM Pi .
We clearly have

γ1 ξ1m − γ2 ξ2m = α2 − α1 , ξ1 , ξ2 ∈ OT , (4.25)

and the left-hand side is a binary form of non-zero discriminant which splits into
linear factors over M . By Proposition 3.11, we have

³ log∗ RT ´
h(ξ1 ) ≤ c01 m6 PT RT 1 +
log∗ PT
¡ ¢
× RM + hM · d−1
M log QT + mdM A + B , (4.26)

where A = max(h(γ1 ), h(γ2 ), B = h(α1 − α2 ), dM = [M : Q] and c01 is the

constant c1 from Proposition 3.11, but with s, d replaced by the upper bounds
m2 n2 s, m2 n2 d for the cardinality of T and [M : Q], respectively, and RT is the
T -regulator.
Using d ≤ 2s we can estimate c01 by the larger but less complicated bound,
2
n2 s
c01 ≤ 250 (4m2 n2 s)7m . (4.27)
Next, by (3.5),
2
[M :K] n2
PT ≤ QT ≤ QS ≤ Qm
S . (4.28)
Let C be the upper bound for |DM | from (4.18). Thus, by Lemma 3.5 and (3.9),
2
n2 d−1
max(hM , RM ) ≤ 5C(log∗ C)m .

Further, A can be estimated from above by the bound from (4.10), and B by

h(α1 ) + h(α2 ) + log 2 ≤ h(f ) + (n + 1) log 2 ≤ b

h + (n + 1) log 2

in view of Lemma 3.6. Together with (4.28), this implies

RM + hM · d−1
M log QT + mdM A + B
2
n2 d−1 2
n2 d
≤ 7C(log∗ C)m · d−1 log QS ≤ 7C(log∗ C)m . (4.29)
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 777

Next, by (3.9), the inequality d + t ≤ 2s, and (4.28), we have

2
n2 d−1 0 2
n2 d−1 2
n2 t
RT ≤ C 1/2 (log∗ C)m (log∗ PT )t ≤ C 1/2 (log∗ C)m (m2 n2 log∗ QS )m
2
n2 s 2
n2 s−1
≤ (m2 n2 )m C 1/2 (log∗ C)2m

and
log∗ RT
1+ ≤ 4m2 n2 s log∗ C,
log∗ PT
hence
³ log∗ RT ´ 2 2 2 2 2 2
PT RT 1 + ∗ ≤ (4m2 n2 )m n s Qm
S
n
C 1/2 (log∗ C)2m n s . (4.30)
log PT

Combining (4.29), (4.30) with (4.26) gives

2
n2 s 2
n2 2
n2 s
h(ξ1 ) ≤ 7m6 c01 (4m2 n2 )m Qm
S C(log∗ C)4m
2
n2 s 2
n2
≤ 250 (4m2 n2 s)13m QSm C 2.
Using

h(x) ≤ log 2 + h(α1 ) + h(γ1 ) + mh(ξ1 ), h(y) ≤ m−1 (h(b) + h(f ) + nh(x)),

and the upper bound for h(γ1 ) from (4.10), we get

2
n2 s 2
n2
h(x), h(y) ≤ 251 mn(4m2 n2 s)13m Qm
S C 2. (4.31)

Now substituting C, i.e., the upper bound for |DM | from (4.18), and some algebra
gives the upper bound (2.4) from Theorem 2.1. ¤
Proof of Theorem 2.2. Let x, y ∈ OS be a solution to by 2 = f (x) with
6 0. We have x − αi = γi ξim (i = 1, . . . , n) with the γi , ξi as in Lemma 4.2. Let
y=
p p
M := K(α1 , α2 , α3 , γ1 /γ3 , γ2 /γ3 ),

and let T be the set of places of M lying above the places from S. Notice that
[M : K] ≤ 4n3 . Then

γ1 ξ12 − γ2 ξ22 = α2 − α1 , γ1 ξ12 − γ3 ξ32 = α3 − α1 , ξ1 , ξ2 ∈ OT . (4.32)

By applying Proposition 3.12 to (4.32), and doing the same computations as

above, we obtain the same bound as in (4.31), but with m = 2 and m2 n2 rep-
laced by 4n3 , and with C the upper bound for |DM | from (4.19). After some
computation, we obtain the bound (2.6) from Theorem 2.2. ¤
778 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

5. Proof of Theorem 2.3

We assume that in some finite extension G of K, the polynomial f factorizes

as a0 (X − α1 ) · · · (X − αn ). For i = 1, . . . , n, let Li = Q(αi ), let dLi , hLi , RLi
denote the degree, class number and regulator of Li , and let Ti be the set of
places of Li lying above the places in S. Further, denote by RTi the Ti -regulator
Q
of Li , and denote by ti the cardinality of Ti . Let QTi := P∈Ti NLi P, where
the product is over all prime ideals in Ti . The group of Ti -units OTi∗ is finitely
generated and by Lemma 2 of [15] (see also [9], [10] and [8]) we may choose a
fundamental system of Ti -units, i.e., basis of OT∗ i modulo torsion ηi1 , . . . , ηi,ti −1
such that ti −1
 Y

 h(ηij ) ≤ c1i RTi ,
j=1 (5.1)


 max h(ηij ) ≤ c2i RTi ,
1≤j≤ti −1

where
((ti − 1)!)2 √
c1i = ti −1 , c2i = 29e ti − 2dtLii−1 log∗ dLi ci1 .
2ti −2 dL
We estimate these upper bounds from above. First noting ti ≤ [Li : K]s ≤ ns we
have the generous estimate

ci1 , ci2 ≤ 1200t2t

i
i
≤ 1200(ns)2ns . (5.2)

For the class number and regulator hLi , RLi , we have similarly to (4.17):

max(hLi , RLi , hLi RLi ) ≤ 5|DLi |1/2 (log∗ |DLi |)nd−1

b
≤ (n3 d)nd e(2n−2)dh |DK |n . (5.3)

Further, from (3.9), d ≤ 2s, we deduce

b
RTi ≤ (n3 d)nd e(2n−2)dh |DK |n (log∗ PTi )ns−1
b
≤ (n3 d)nd e(2n−2)dh |DK |n (n log∗ PS )ns−1
b
≤ (4n7 s2 )ns e(2n−2)dh |DK |n (log∗ PS )ns−1 . (5.4)

By inserting this and (5.2) into (5.1), we obtain

tY
i −1
b
h(ηij ) ≤ C1 := 1200(4n9 s4 )ns e2ndh |DK |n (log∗ PS )ns−1 , (5.5)
j=1
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 779

max h(ηij ) ≤ C1 . (5.6)

1≤j≤ti −1

Now let x, y and m satisfy

by m = f (x), m ∈ Z≥3 , x, y ∈ OS , y 6= 0, y not a root of unity, (5.7)

Lemma 5.1. For i = 1, 2 there are γi , ξi ∈ L∗i , and integers bi1 · · · bi,ti of
absolute value at most m/2, such that

(x − αi )hL1 hL2 = η bi1 · · · η bi,ti −1 γi ξ m ,
i1 i,ti −1 i
(5.8)
h(γ ) ≤ C := (2n3 s)6ns |D |2n e4ndbh (b
h + log∗ PS ).
i 2 K

Proof. For convenience, we put r := hL1 hL2 . By symmetry, it suffices to

prove the lemma for i = 1. For notational convenience, in the proof of this lemma
only, we suppress the index i = 1 (so L = L1 , T = T1 , t = t1 , etc.). We use the
same notation as in the proof of Lemma 4.2. Similar to (4.11), (4.12), we have

[x − α] [g(x)] [D(f )] [x − α] [g(x)]

+ ⊇ , [b][f ]−1 [y]m = · ,
[1, α] [g] [f ]2n−2 [1, α] [g]

where [·] denote fractional ideals with respect to OT . From these relations, it
follows that there are integral ideals B1 , B2 of OT and a fractional ideal A of
OT , such that
[x − α]
= B1 B−1
2 A ,
m
[1, α]
where
[D(f )] [D(f )]
B1 ⊇ [b] · , B2 ⊇ [f ] · .
[f ]2n−2 [f ]2n−2
Since
n
Y
[a0 ][1, α] ⊆ [a0 ] [1, αj ] ⊆ [f ] ⊆ [1],
j=1

it follows that [1, α]−1 ⊇ [a0 ]. Hence

[x − α] = C1 C−1 m
2 A ,

where C1 , C2 are ideals of OT such that

C1 , C2 ⊇ [a0 bD(f )].

780 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

Raising to the power r, we get

(x − α)r = γ1 γ2−1 λm , (5.9)

for some non-zero γ1 , γ2 ∈ OT and λ ∈ L∗ with

[γk ] ⊇ [a0 bD(f )]r for k = 1, 2.

By Lemma 3.8, there exist ε1 , ε2 ∈ OT∗ such that for k = 1, 2,

r hL
h(εk γk ) ≤ log NT (a0 bD(f )) + cRL + log QT ,
dL dL

where c ≤ 39ddLL +2 ≤ 39(2ns)2ns+2 . There are ε ∈ OT∗ , a root of unity ζ of L,

and integers b1 , . . . , bt−1 of absolute value at most m/2, such that

m b1 b
ε2 ε−1 t−1
1 = ζε η1 · · · ηt−1 .
Writing
ε1 γ1
γ := ζ −1 , ξ := ελ
ε2 γ2
where η1 , . . . , ηt−1 are the fundamental units of OT∗ satisfying (5.5), (5.6), we get
b
x − α = η1b1 · · · ηt−1
t−1
γξ m ,
where
2r hL
h(γ) ≤ log NT (a0 bD(f )) + 2cRL + 2 log QT . (5.10)
dL dL
By (5.3), d ≤ 2s, (4.15), (3.5) we have
b b
hL , RL ≤ (2n3 s)2ns e2ndh |DK |n , r = hL1 hL2 ≤ (2n3 s)4ns e4ndh |DK |2n ,

d−1 b
L log NT (a0 bD(f )) ≤ (2n − 1) log n + 2nh,

d−1
L log QT ≤ d
−1
log QS ≤ s log∗ PS .

By inserting these bounds into (5.10) and using n ≥ 2, after some algebra we
obtain the upper bound C2 . ¤
Completion of the proof of Theorem 2.3. In what follows, let L :=
K(α1 , α2 ), dL := [L : Q], T the set of places of L lying above the places from S,
and t the cardinality of T . Let again x, y ∈ OS and m an integer ≥ 3 with
by m = f (x), y 6= 0 and y not a root of unity. Put

X := max h(x − αi ).
i=1,...,n
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 781

Without loss of generality we assume

2 b
m ≥ (10n2 s)38ns |DK |6n PSn e11ndh . (5.11)
Then

X ≥ max(C3 , m(4d)−1 (log 3d)−3 ),

2 b
with C3 := (10n2 s)37ns |DK |6n PSn e11ndh . (5.12)

Indeed, by Lemma 3.9 we have

n · X + h(a0 ) + h(b)
m≤ ≤ (2d(log(3d))3 (nX + 2b
h).
h(y)

If X < C3 this contradicts (5.11). If X ≥ C3 the other lower bound for X in the
maximum easily follows.
We assume without loss of generality, that

X = h(x − α2 ).

If |x − α2 |v ≤ 1 for v ∈ T , then using x ∈ OS we have

µY ¶
1
X≤ log max(1, |x − α2 |v )
dL
v6∈T
µY ¶
1 log∗ (n + 1)
≤ log max(1, |α2 |v ) ≤ h(α2 ) ≤ + h(f ),
dL 2
v6∈T

which is impossible by (5.12). Hence maxv∈T |x − α2 |v > 1. Choose v0 ∈ T such

that
|x − α2 |v0 = max |x − α2 |v . (5.13)
v∈T

Then we have
à µ ¶!
1 Y
t
X≤ log |x − α2 |v0 max(1, |x − α2 |v )
dL
v6∈T
à µ ¶!
1 Y
t
≤ log |x − α2 |v0 max(1, |α2 |v ) .
dL
v6∈T

which gives
eXdL /t
|x − α2 |v0 ≥ Q .
v6∈T max(1, |α2 |v )1/t
782 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

Thus we have
¯ ¯ Q
¯ ¯ |α − α1 |v0 v6∈T max(1, |α2 |v )1/t
¯1 − x − α1 ¯ = |α2 − α1 |v0 ≤ 2 . (5.14)
¯ x − α2 ¯v0 |x − α2 |v0 eXdL /t

Put s(v0 ) = 1 if v0 is real, s(v0 ) = 2 if v is complex, and s(v0 ) = 0 if v0 is finite.

Since by Lemma 3.6 we have
Y
|α2 − α1 |v0 max(1, |α2 |v )1/t
v6∈T
Y
≤ 2s(v0 ) max(1, |α2 |v0 ) max(1, |α1 |v0 ) max(1, |α2 |v )
v6∈T

≤ 2s(v0 ) exp(dL (h(α1 ) + h(α2 ))) ≤ 2(n+1)s(v0 ) exp((dL h(f )),

(5.14) gives us
¯ ¯ ³ ´
¯ ¯
¯1 − x − α1 ¯ ≤ exp (n + 1)s(v0 ) log 2 + dL h(f ) − XdL /t . (5.15)
¯ x − α2 ¯v0

Notice that by (5.12) we have

¯ ¯
¯ ¯
¯1 − x − α1 ¯ < 1. (5.16)
¯ x − α2 ¯v0

In general, we have for y ∈ L with |1 − y|v0 < 1 and any positive integer r,

|1 − y r |v0 ≤ 2r·s(v0 ) |1 − y|v0 .

Hence
¯ µ ¶h h ¯
¯ x − α1 L1 L2 ¯¯ ³ ´
¯
¯1 − ¯ ≤ exp (hL1 hL2 + n + 1)s(v0 ) log 2 + dL h(f ) − XdL /t .
¯ x − α2 ¯
v0

Using (5.12) and the estimates (5.3), h(f ) ≤ b

h, dL ≤ nd, s ≤ t ≤ ns, this can be
simplified to ¯
¯ µ ¶h h ¯
¯ x − α1 L1 L2 ¯¯
¯1 − ¯ ≤ exp(−XdL /2t). (5.17)
¯ x − α2 ¯
v0

On the other hand using Proposition 3.10 and Lemma 5.1 we get a Baker
type lower bound
¯ µ ¶h h ¯
¯ x − α1 L1 L2 ¯¯
¯
¯1 − ¯
¯ x − α2 ¯
v0
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 783
¯ µ ¶m ¯
¯ γ1 b11 b1,t1 −1 −b2,t2 −1 ξ1 ¯
= ¯¯1 − · η11 · · · η1,t 1 −1
· η −b21
21 · · · η2,t2 −1 · ¯
¯
γ2 ξ2 v0
³ N (v0 ) ´
≥ exp − c1 (t1 + t2 , dL ) · Θ log B (5.18)
log N (v0 )

where
tY
1 −1 tY
2 −1

Θ := max(h(ξ1 /ξ2 ), m(d)) · max(h(γ1 /γ2 ), m(d)) · h(η1j ) · h(η2j ),

j=1 j=1

B := max{3, m, |b11 |, . . . , |b1,t1 −1 |, |b21 |, . . . , |b2,t2 −1 |),

(
2 if v0 is infinite
N (v0 ) :=
NL P if v0 = P is a prime ideal P,

c1 (t1 + t2 , dL ) := 12(16edL )3t1 +3t2 +2 (log∗ dL )2 .

We estimate the above parameters. First, by (5.8), we have h(γi ) ≤ C2 for

i = 1, 2. Moreover, the exponents bij in (5.8) have absolute values at most m/2.
Together with (5.6) and (5.12), these imply

2 1 3
h(ξ1 /ξ2 ) ≤ max h(ξ1 ) + h(ξ2 ) ≤ (X + C2 ) + (t1 + t2 − 2)C1 ≤ · X+ 2nsC1
m 2 m
X X
≤ (3 + 4d(log 3d)3 · 2nsC1 ) · ≤ 4ns+2 C1 · , (5.19)
m m
where we have used t1 , t2 ≤ ns, d ≤ 2s, n ≥ 2. Further, using (5.5) and
h(γ1 /γ2 ) ≤ 2C2 , we get

X X
Θ ≤ C12 · 4ns+2 C1 · · 2C2 ≤ C4 · , (5.20)
m m
where
¡ ¢ns b
C4 := 2 × 107 410 n45 s18 |DK |5n e10ndh (b
h + 1)(log∗ PS )3ns−2 .
Next, using dL ≤ n(n − 1)d ≤ 2n(n − 1)s, t1 , t2 ≤ ns, we have

c1 (t1 + t2 , dL ) ≤ C5 := (32en2 s)6ns+3 . (5.21)

Finally, by (3.5), (5.11) we have

[L:K] n(n−1)
N (v0 ) ≤ PT ≤ PS ≤ PS

and B = m since the exponents bij in (5.8) have absolute values at most m/2.
784 Attila Bérczes, Jan-Hendrik Evertse and Kálmán Győry

Inserting these and (5.20), (5.21) into (5.18), we arrive at the lower bound
¯ µ ¶h h ¯
¯ x − α1 L1 L2 ¯¯ ³ ´
¯ n(n−1) X
¯1 − ¯ ≥ exp − C4 C5 PS log m .
¯ x − α2 ¯ m
v0

A comparison with the upper bound (5.17) gives

³ ´
n(n−1) X
exp − C4 C5 PS log m ≤ exp(−dL X/2t).
m

By dividing out X and inserting t ≤ n2 s, d ≤ 2s, we arrive at

m n(n−1)
≤ 2n2 sC4 C5 PS
log m
b
< (10n2 s)35ns |DK |5n e10ndh (b
n(n−1)
h + 1) · PS (log∗ PS )3ns−1 .

Applying the inequalities (log X)B ≤ (B/2²)B X ² for X > 1, B > 0, ² > 0 and
X + 1 ≤ (ec−1 /c)ecX for X > 0, c ≥ 1, we arrive at our final estimate
2 b
m < (10n2 s)40ns |DK |6n PSn e11ndh .

This completes our proof of Theorem 2.3. ¤

References

[1] A. Baker, Bounds for the solutions of the hyperelliptic equation, Proc. Cambridge Philos.
Soc. 65 (1969), 439–444.
[2] A. Bérczes, J.-H. Evertse and K. Győry, Effective results for Diophantine equations
over finitely generated domains, preprint, arXiv:1301.7175v1 [math.NT], 2013, Submitted
for publication.
[3] Y. F. Bilu, Quantitative Siegel’s theorem for Galois coverings, Compositio Math. 106
(1997), 125–158.
[4] B. J. Birch and J. R. Merriman, Finiteness theorems for binary forms with given discri-
minant, Proc. London Math. Soc. (3) 24 (1972), 385–394.
[5] E. Bombieri and W. Gubler, Heights in Diophantine Geometry, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, 2006.
[6] B. Brindza, On S-integral solutions of the equation y m = f (x), Acta Math. Hungar. 44
(1984), 133–139.
[7] Y. Bugeaud, Bounds for the solutions of superelliptic equations, Compositio Math. 107
(1997), 187–219.
[8] Y. Bugeaud, Bornes effectives pour les solutions des équations en S-unités et des équations
de Thue–Mahler, J. Number Theory 71 (1998), 227–244.
 Effective results for hyper- and superelliptic equations over number fields 785

[9] Y. Bugeaud and K. Győry, Bounds for the solutions of Thue–Mahler equations and norm
form equations, Acta Arith. 74 (1996), 273–292.
[10] Y. Bugeaud and K. Győry, Bounds for the solutions of unit equations, Acta Arith. 74
(1996), 67–80.
[11] E. Friedman, Analytic formulas for the regulator of a number field, Invent. Math. 98
(1989), 599–622.
[12] H. R. Gallegos-Ruiz, S-Integral points on Hyperelliptic Curves, Int. J. Number Theory
7 (2011), 803–824.
[13] K. Győry, Bounds for the solutions of decomposable form equations, Publ. Math. Debrecen
52 (1998), 1–31.
[14] K. Győry and Á. Pintér, Polynomial powers and a common generalization of binomial
Thue–Mahler equations and S-unit equations, in: Diophantine equations, Vol. 20, Tata
Inst. Fund. Res., Mumbai, Tata Inst. Fund. Res. Stud. Math., 2008, 103–119.
[15] K. Győry and K. Yu, Bounds for the solutions of S-unit equations and decomposable form
equations, Acta Arith. 123 (2006), 9–41.
[16] S. Lang, Algebraic Number Theory, Addison Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1970, 1st edn.
[17] D. J. Lewis and K. Mahler, On the representation of integers by binary forms, Acta
Arith. 6 (1960/1961), 333–363.
[18] S. Louboutin, Explicit bounds for residues of Dedekind zeta functions, values of
L-functions at s = 1, and relative class numbers, J. Number Theorey 85 (2000), 263–282.
[19] R. C. Mason, Diophantine Equations over Function Fields, Vol. 96, London Math. Soc.
Lecture Notes Ser., Cambridge Univ. Press, 1984.
[20] E. M. Matveev, An explicit lower bound for a homogeneous rational linear form in loga-
rithms of algebraic numbers, II (translated from Russian), Izv. Math. 64 (2000), 1217–1269.
[21] J. Neukirch, Algebraische Zahlentheorie, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1992.
[22] J. B. Rosser and L. Schoenfeld, Approximate formulas for some functions of prime
numbers, Illinois J. Math. 6 (1962), 64–94.
[23] A. Schinzel and R. Tijdeman, On the equation y m = P (x), Acta Arith. 31 (1976),
199–204.
[24] T. N. Shorey and R. Tijdeman, Exponential Diophantine Equations, Cambridge Univer-
sity Press, 1986.
[25] C. L. Siegel, The integer solutions of the equation y 2 = axn + bxn−1 + · · · + k, J. London
Math. Soc. 1 (1926), 66–68.
[26] C. L. Siegel, Über einige Anwendungen diophantischer Approximationen, Preuss. Akad.
Wiss., Phys.-Math. Kl. 1 (1929), 70.
[27] H. M. Stark, Some effective cases of the Brauer–Siegel theorem, Invent. Math. 23 (1974),
135–152.
[28] L. A. Trelina, S-integral solutions of Diophantine equations of hyperbolic type, Dokl.
Akad. Nauk. BSSR 22 (1978), 881–884;955 (in Russian).
[29] P. Voutier, An effective lower bound for the height of algebraic numbers, Acta Arith. 74
(1996), 81–95.
[30] M. Waldschmidt, Diophantine Approximation on Linear Algebraic Groups, Springer-Ver-
lag, 2000.
786 A. Bérczes, J.-H. Evertse and K. Győry : Effective results for hyper-. . .

[31] K. Yu, P -adic logarithmic forms and group varieties, III, Forum Math. 19 (2007), 187–280.

ATTILA BÉRCZES
INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS
UNIVERSITY OF DEBRECEN
H-4010 DEBRECEN, P.O. BOX 12
HUNGARY

E-mail: [email protected]

JAN-HENDRIK EVERTSE
UNIVERSITEIT LEIDEN
MATHEMATISCH INSTITUUT
POSTBUS 9512, 2300 RA LEIDEN
THE NETHERLANDS

E-mail: [email protected]

KÁLMÁN GYŐRY
INSTITUTE OF MATHEMATICS
UNIVERSITY OF DEBRECEN
H-4010 DEBRECEN, P.O. BOX 12
HUNGARY

E-mail: [email protected]

(Received January 8, 2013; revised March 23, 2013)