Let $\mathbb{K}$ be an arbitrary field with a subfield $\mathbb{F}$ of index 2. Let $a,b\in\mathbb{K}[X]$ be univariate non-vanishing polynomials over $\mathbb{K}$ of degree $\leq 3$ each. **Edit: Due to how this problem arises, one may assume that $a,b$ have no common zeros and at least one has degree exactly 3. However, I am also interested in what happens without this extra assumption, but instead the assumption that $char\mathbb{K}\neq2$. The latter to avoid the counterexamples described in the comments.**


Consider the set of points $T:=\{(a(x),b(x)) \mid x\in\mathbb{K}\}$, a subset of $\mathbb{K}^2$.


Prove (or give a counterexample) for the following:



> 
> Claim: Assume every point $T$ is projectively equivalent to a point in $\mathbb{F}\times\mathbb{F}$ (i.e. for every $x\in\mathbb{K}$ we have $a(x)=b(x)\cdot f\_x$ for some $f\_x\in\mathbb{F}$). Then either $\lvert\mathbb{K}\rvert=4$ or 9, or all points in $T$ are projectively equivalent (that is, $T$ is contained in a one-dimensional $\mathbb{K}$-subspace of $\mathbb{K}^2$); put another way, $a/b$ is a constant.
> 
> 
> 


Since we assumed $a,b$ to have no common zeros, we can think of this in terms of projective coordinates. Then the question becomes: If all points on the curve $T$ are $\mathbb{F}$-rational, does this imply that $T$ consists of a single point?


For finite fields, this can be shown using a simple counting argument (had to check the field with 9 elements manually, and found an exception over the field with four elements). It is also not hard to see that the condition of the claim implies that $a,b$ must have coefficients in $\mathbb{F}$.


For $\mathbb{K}=\mathbb{C}$ and $\mathbb{F}=\mathbb{R}$ I have an argument involving the topology and metric of these fields. For the general case, I tried various approaches, and one of them might still work out (but all my ideas seem at some point to end up in heavy, uninsightful and simply ugly computations)...


But I keep wondering if this isn't a problem that somebody with a better background in number theory or algebraic geometry or something like that could quickly solve with "standard" methods.... so before I keep going on with my little knowledge, I though it best to ask here for any pointer or even solutions :).




---


Lastly, here is one thing I was trying, but couldn't quite complete. It's quite possibly a dead end, so you may not want to get yourself overly distracted by it :): Pick $\alpha\in\mathbb{K}\setminus\mathbb{F}$. For each $t\in\mathbb{K}$, define a polynomial $p\_t(x):=a(x+t)b(\alpha+t)-a(\alpha+t) b(x+t)$. They all have $\alpha$ as a zero. And (up to some rescaling), the coefficients of $p\_t$ are in $\mathbb{F}$ by hypothesis.


Now if any of the $p\_t$ vanishes everywhere, then all do, and $a/b$ is constant. So assume the $p\_t$ do not vanish. Then every $p\_t$ is divisible by the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$, and so has degree 2 or 3. Indeed, looking at the coefficients, for at most three $t$ can $p\_t$ have degree 2, so for almost all it has degree 3, and is divisible by the minimal polynomial of $\alpha$. This sounds quite improbable to me (but that proves nothing, only that I lack imagination ;). So we could now compare several of the $p\_t$, and try to derive a contradiction, but this (at least in the naive ways I tried) quickly gets very messy, uninsightful and ugly ;). 



Does "all points rational" imply "constant" for this  "cubic" curve over an arbitrary field?
This isn't an answer but I think it's progress. It started off by thinking of restriction of scalars but I've translated it down to a rather more mundane point of view. 


Let me call the fields $K$ and $F$ to save some typing. 


Let me first deal with the finite field case. My understanding of the question as it currently stands is that we have a morphism $t:\mathbf{P}^1\_K\to\mathbf{P}^1\_K$ of degree exactly 3, with the property that the image of $\mathbf{P}^1(K)$ is contained within $\mathbf{P}^1(F)$ and we want to show that $F$ has size 2.


The case $F$ finite is easy to deal with. The pre-image of an $F$-point has size at most 3, so if $q$ is the size of $F$ then $q^2+1\leq 3(q+1)$ and we quickly deduce $q\leq 3$ and we deal with the case $q=3$ by hand.


Now for the case $F$ infinite. My understanding is that we can assume that the characteristic isn't 2. So we can write $K=F(\sqrt{d})$ for some $d\in F$, not a square. Let me now think of $K$ as a 2-dimensional vector space over $F$ with basis $[1,\sqrt{d}]$ and let's translate the question into a messy algebra one.


We see $a(x+y\sqrt{d})=L+M\sqrt{d}$, where $L$ and $M$ are $F$-linear combinations of the six polynomials $x$, $y$ [real and imag parts of $x+y\sqrt{d}$], $x^2+dy^2, 2xy$ [this comes from $(x+y\sqrt{d})^2$ and $x^3+3dxy^2, dy^3+3x^2y$. Similarly $b(x+y\sqrt{d})=N+P\sqrt{d}$.


We are given that for all $x,y\in F$ we have $L(x,y)+M(x,y)\sqrt{d}=f(x,y)(N(x,y)+P(x,y)\sqrt{d})$ with $f(x,y)\in F$ (forget the finitely many points where $f$ has a pole), and we deduce that $L(x,y)P(x,y)=M(x,y)N(x,y)$ for all $x,y\in F$. But $F$ is infinite and this implies that, as polynomials in $x$ and $y$, we have $LP=MN$ *identically*. This is a piece of information that wasn't clear before.


This means that we can base change our entire situation to the algebraic closure, and replace $F$ with $\overline{F}$ and $K$ with $\overline{F}\oplus\overline{F}$, and (calling these new rings $F$ and $K$) we now have maps $\mathbf{P}^1\_K\to\mathbf{P}^1\_K$ which are defined over $K$ and such that the image of $\mathbf{P}^1(K)$ is in $\mathbf{P}^1(F)$. 
[Note: it's at this point that I'm assuming $K/F$ separable.]. Now I want to say "and now we should be done because of alg geom" but in fact what I mean is "and now someone else will have to take over because I have to clear up the kitchen".


