How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Schwartz zippel over finite fields
Statement
Let F be a finite field, , and a nonzero formal polynomial of total degree d. For a nonempty subset and independent uniform , In particular gives the bound . A nonzero constant has zero vanishing probability. Nonzero formal polynomials can nonetheless induce the zero function on the whole finite grid when their degree is large.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: The finite field, nonzero formal polynomial and nonempty A above. Uniform independent sampling gives mass to each tuple.
Total degree is the largest sum of exponents of a nonzero coefficient in the unique finite monomial expansion (Monomials, coefficients, degree in each variable and total degree in ).
A nonzero univariate polynomial of degree r over an integral domain has at most r roots (A nonzero polynomial of degree over an integral domain has at most distinct roots).
In a field every nonzero element has a multiplicative inverse and zero is distinct from one (Field).
Successor induction proves a property for all naturals (The principle of mathematical induction).
Proof
A field is an integral domain: distributivity gives , so additive cancellation gives . If and , multiply by to obtain . Thus F2 applies over F. For m=1 it gives at most d roots in A, and hence probability at most and also at most one. If d=0 in any number of variables, F1 makes f a nonzero constant, with no zero evaluations.
To pass from m-1 to m for , suppose the asserted root-count bound holds in m-1 variables for every nonzero polynomial. Put . If the target minimum is one and the bound is immediate from counting at most all tuples. It remains to consider . Collect monomials by the last exponent as with . F1 gives , and .
By the m-1 assertion the number B of base tuples in on which vanishes is at most . For the other tuples, specialization yields a nonzero univariate polynomial of degree exactly r, so F2 bounds its roots by r. A bad base tuple has at most q possible last coordinates, regardless of whether its specialized polynomial is zero. The total zero count is therefore For r=0 the good specializations are nonzero constants and have zero roots, exactly as this count says. Division by gives .
Step 1.1 supplies the one-variable base; steps 2.1–3.1 pass the root-count bound to each next number of variables, and F4 gives it for every positive m. The case is covered by the constant case or , so no hidden division by q-1 occurs. To see why formal nonzero is the right hypothesis, for any finite F the formal product has leading coefficient one and degree , yet vanishes at every element of F. This finite product needs no ordering choice: commuting factors give the same polynomial in any listing. Thus a vanishing polynomial function is compatible with the bound when degree is large.
Depends on
Used by
Dependency tree · two levels
17 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Arora–Barak Appendix A, Lemma A.25, PDF p.475; nonempty-subset extension by the same counting proof (standard reference, not scraped)