arXiv:1701.06125v1 [] 22 Jan 2017

IMAGES OF IDEALS UNDER DERIVATIONS AND
E-DERIVATIONS OF UNIVARIATE POLYNOMIAL
ALGEBRAS OVER A FIELD OF CHARACTERISTIC
ZERO
WENHUA ZHAO
Abstract. Let K be a field of characteristic zero and x a free
variable. A K-E-derivation of K[x] is a K-linear map of the form
I −φ for some K-algebra endomorphism φ of K[x], where I denotes
the identity map of K[x]. In this paper we study the image of an
ideal of K[x] under some K-derivations and K-E-derivations of
K[x]. We show that the LFED conjecture proposed in [Z4] holds
for all K-E-derivations and all locally finite K-derivations of K[x].
We also show that the LNED conjecture proposed in [Z4] holds for
all locally nilpotent K-derivations of K[x], and also for all locally
nilpotent K-E-derivations of K[x] and the ideals uK[x] such that
either u = 0, or deg u ≤ 1, or u has at least one repeated root in the
algebraic closure of K. As a bi-product, the homogeneous Mathieu subspaces (Mathieu-Zhao spaces) of the univariate polynomial
algebra over an arbitrary field have also been classified.

1. Introduction
Let K be a field and A a commutative K-algebra. We denote by 1A
or simply 1 the identity element of A, if A is unital, and IA or simply
I the identity map of A, if A is clear in the context.
A K-linear endomorphism η of A is said to be locally nilpotent (LN)
if for each a ∈ A there exists m ≥ 1 such that η m (a) = 0, and locally
finite (LF) if for each a ∈ A the K-subspace spanned by η i (a) (i ≥ 0)
is finite dimensional over K.
A K-derivation D of A is a K-linear map D : A → A that satisfies
D(ab) = D(a)b + aD(b) for all a, b ∈ A. A K-E-derivation δ of A is
Date: February 19, 2018.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 47B47, 08A35, 16W25, 16D99.
Key words and phrases. Mathieu subspaces (Mathieu-Zhao spaces), the LNED
conjecture, the LFED conjecture, locally finite or locally nilpotent derivations and
E-derivations, Bernoulli polynomials, Bernoulli numbers, the Clausen-von Staudt
Theorem.
The author has been partially supported by the Simons Foundation grant 278638.
1

2

WENHUA ZHAO

a K-linear map δ : A → A such that for all a, b ∈ A the following
equation holds:
(1.1)

δ(ab) = δ(a)b + aδ(b) − δ(a)δ(b).

It is easy to verify that δ is an R-E-derivation of A, if and only if
δ = I −φ for some R-algebra endomorphism φ of A. Therefore an RE-derivation is a special so-called (s1 , s2 )-derivation introduced by N.
Jacobson [J] and also a special semi-derivation introduced by J. Bergen
in [B]. R-E-derivations have also been studied by many others under
some different names such as f -derivations in [E1, E2] and φ-derivations
in [BFF, BV], etc..
Next, we recall the following two notions of associative algebras that
were introduced in [Z2, Z3]. Since all algebras in this paper are commutative, here we recall only the cases for commutative algebras over
a field.
Definition 1.1. Let K be a field and A a commutative K-algebra. A
K-subspace V of A is said to be a Mathieu subspace (MS) of A if for all
a, b ∈ A with am ∈ V for all m ≥ 1, we have am b ∈ V for all m ≫ 0.
Note that a MS is also called a Mathieu-Zhao space in the literature
(e.g., see [DEZ, EN, EH], etc.), as suggested by A. van den Essen [E3].
The introduction of this notion is mainly motivated by the study
in [M, Z1] of the well-known Jacobian conjecture (see [K, BCW, E2]).
See also [DEZ]. But, a more interesting aspect of the notion is that it
provides a natural but highly non-trivial generalization of the notion
of ideals.
Definition 1.2. [Z3, p. 247] Let V be a K-subspace (or a subset) of a
K-algebra A. We define the radical r(V ) of V to be
(1.2)

r(V ) := {a ∈ A | am ∈ V for all m ≫ 0}.

Next we recall the cases of the so-called LFED and LNED conjectures
proposed in [Z4] for commutative algebras. For the study of some other
cases of these two conjectures, see [EWZ], [Z4]–[Z7].
Conjecture 1.3. Let K be a field of characteristic zero, A a commutative K-algebra and δ a LF (locally finite) K-derivation or a LF
K-E-derivation of A. Then the image Im δ := δ(A) of δ is a MS of A.
Conjecture 1.4. Let K be a field of characteristic zero, A a commutative K-algebra and δ a LN (locally nilpotent) K-derivation or a LN
K-E-derivation of A. Then δ maps every ideal of A to a MS of A.

IMAGES OF IDEALS UNDER DERIVATIONS AND E-DERIVATIONS

3

Throughout the paper we refer Conjecture 1.3 as the (commutative)
LFED conjecture, and Conjecture 1.4 the (commutative) LNED conjecture.
In this paper, among some other results, we show the following two
theorems regarding the commutative LFED and LNED conjectures,
respectively.
Theorem 1.5. Let K be a field of characteristic zero and x a free
variable. Let δ be an arbitrary K-derivation or K-E-derivation of K[x].
Then Im δ is a MS of K[x]. In particular, the LFED conjecture 1.3
holds for K[x].
Theorem 1.6. Let K be a field of characteristic zero, I an ideal of
K[x] and δ a K-derivation or K-E-derivation of K[x]. Then δI is a
MS of K[x] if one of the following conditions holds:
1) δ is a locally nilpotent K-derivation of K[x];
2) δ = I −φ for some K-algebra endomorphism φ of K[x] such that
deg φ(x) ≥ 2;
3) δ = I −φ for some K-algebra endomorphism φ of K[x] which
maps x to x + c (c ∈ K), and I = uK[x] such that either u = 0,
or deg u ≤ 1, or u has at least one repeated root in the algebraic
closure of K.
From Theorem 1.6 above and also its proof it is easy to see that the
LNED conjecture 1.4 is established for K[x] except for the case that
δ = I −φ for some K-algebra endomorphism φ of K[x] that maps x to
x + c (0 6= c ∈ K), and I = uK[x] such that deg u ≥ 2 and u has no
repeated root in the algebraic closure of K.
Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 are shown case by case. For some cases, e.g.,
the K-E-derivation case of Theorem 1.5, and Theorem 1.6, 2), etc., certain stronger results are actually proved. Furthermore, as a bi-product
of the proof of Theorem 1.6, 2) all homogeneous MSs of the univariate
polynomial algebra over a field of arbitrary characteristic also are classified (see Proposition 3.4).
Arrangement. In Section 2 we first show that the image of every
K-derivation of K[x] is a MS (see Lemma 2.1), and then show that
d
every LN K-derivation D, i.e., D = a dx
(a ∈ K), maps each ideal
of K[x] to a MS of K[x] (see Proposition 2.3). Consequently, the Kderivation cases of Theorems 1.5 and 1.6 are established. We also give
an example, Example 2.4, to show that the LN condition in the LNED
conjecture 1.4 can not be replaced by the LF condition.

4

WENHUA ZHAO

In Section 3 we let K be a field of arbitrary characteristic and show
the LFED conjecture 1.3 for all the K-E-derivations δ that are not LN
(the LN case of the conjecture also holds and follows from Lemma 4.1
in Section 4). In subsection 3.1 we consider the case δ = I −φ for some
K-algebra endomorphism φ of K[x] that maps x to qx with q ∈ K. As
a bi-product of the proof for this case we also obtain a classification
of all homogeneous MSs of K[x] (see Proposition 3.4). In subsection
3.2 we consider the case δ = I −φ such that φ maps x to w(x) with
deg w(x) ≥ 2. In particular, we show in Proposition 3.7 that δ in this
case actually maps every K-subspace to a MS of K[x], even though δ
itself in this case is not LF (nor LN).
In Section 4 we consider all LN K-E-derivations δ of K[x], i.e., δ =
I −φ for some K-algebra endomorphism φ of K[x] that maps x to x + c
(c ∈ K), and prove Theorem 1.6, 3). Among all the cases studied
in the paper, the proof of this case is the most involved, in which
the Bernoulli polynomials; the Bernoulli numbers; and the Clausenvon Staudt Theorem 4.3 that was found independently by Thomas
Clausen [Cl] and Karl von Staudt [St] in 1840, all unexpectedly play
some crucial roles.
2. The Case of K-Derivations of K[x]
Throughout this section K stands for a field of characteristic zero
and x a free variable. We denote by ∂ the K-derivation d/dx of the
univariate polynomial algebra K[x].
Now, let D be a nonzero K-derivation of K[x]. Then D = a(x)∂
for some a(x) ∈ K[x]. It is easy to see that D is LF (locally finite), if
and only if deg a ≤ 1, and D is LN (locally nilpotent), if and only if
deg a = 0.
We first show Theorem 1.5 for all K-derivations of K[x].
Lemma 2.1. Let D = a(x)∂ with a(x) ∈ K[x]. Then Im D = a(x)K[x].
In particular, the LFED conjecture 1.3 holds for all K-derivations of
K[x].
Proof: Since Im ∂ = K[x], we have Im D = a(x)K[x], which is an
ideal of K[x], and hence also a MS of K[x]. ✷
Next, we consider LN (locally nilpotent) K-derivations. First, let us
recall the following:
Theorem 2.2. Let a 6= b ∈ K and set


Z b
Va,b := f ∈ K[x]
(2.3)
f (x)dx = 0 .
a

IMAGES OF IDEALS UNDER DERIVATIONS AND E-DERIVATIONS

5

Then r(Va,b ) = 0.
For an algebraic proof of the theorem above, see [FPYZ, Theorem
4.1], and for a complex analytic proof with some slightly stronger condition, see [P, Corollary 4.3]. Although the theorem is proven in [FPYZ]
and [P] over the complex field C, by the Lefschetz rule or from the
proof of [FPYZ, Theorem 4.1] it is easy to see that the theorem also
holds over all the fields of characteristic zero.
Now we show Theorem 1.6 for LN K-derivations D of K[x]. Since
the only LN K-derivations of K[x] are a∂ with a ∈ K, it suffices to
consider the case that D = ∂, for the case D = 0 is trivial.
Proposition 2.3. Let I be a nonzero ideal of K[x]. Write I = (u(x))
for some u(x) ∈ K[x]. Then the following statements hold:
1) if u(x) = (x − c)n for some c ∈ K and n ≥ 0, then the image
∂I of I under ∂ is an ideal of K[x]. More precisely,
(
K[x]
if n ≤ 1;
∂I =
(2.4)
n−1
(x − c) K[x] if n ≥ 2.
2) if u(x) 6= (x − c)n for any c ∈ K and n ≥ 0, then the radical
r(∂I) = {0}, whence ∂I is a MS of K[x].
Consequently, the LNED conjecture 1.4 holds for all LN K-derivations
of K[x].
Proof: Since (x − c)n (n ≥ 0) form a K-linear basis of K[x], it is
easy to see that statement 1) holds.
To show statement 2), note first that by the assumption we have that
deg u ≥ 2 and has at least two distinct roots a and b in the algebraic
closure K̄ of K. Now for every f ∈ ∂I, write f = ∂(ug) for some
Rb
Rb
g ∈ K[x]. Then we have a f dx = a ∂(ug)dx = (ug)|ba = 0. Therefore
Rb
∂I ⊆ Va,b := {f ∈ K̄[x] | a f dx = 0}. Applying Theorem 2.2 to K̄[x]
we get r(Va,b ) = {0}, whence r(∂I) = {0} and statement 2) follows.
✷
It is worthy to point out that the LNED conjecture 1.4 can not be
generalized to all LF K-derivations of K[x], which can be seen from
the following:
Example 2.4. Let D = x∂ and I = (x2 − 1)K[x]. Then the image DI
of I under D is not a MS of K[x].

6

WENHUA ZHAO

Proof: Let V = DI. Then for all k ≥ 0, since D(xk+2 − xk ) =
(k + 2)xk+2 − kxk ∈ V , we have
(2.5)

(k + 2)xk+2 ≡ kxk

mod V.

In particular, x2 ∈ V (by letting k = 0) and, inductively by Eq. (2.5),
so are x2n for all n ≥ 1.
On the other hand, x 6∈ V since each nonzero element of V has degree
at least 2, and by Eq. (2.5) neither are x2n+1 for all n ≥ 1. Therefore
(x2 )m x 6∈ V for all m ≥ 1, whence V is not a MS of K[x]. ✷
We end this section with the following remark on an application of
the results proved in this section.
Remark 2.5. Let u, v ∈ K[x], D = u∂, I = v(x)K[x] and Λ the
differential operator of K[x] that maps f ∈ K[x] to u∂(vf ), i.e.,
Λ := u(v∂ + v ′ )
Then it is easy to see that Im Λ = DI. Therefore by Lemma 4.1 and
Proposition 2.3 we see that Im Λ is a MS of A, if deg u ≤ 1. For
example, by letting u = 1 we see that for all v(x) ∈ K[x] the image of
the differential operators v(x)∂ + v ′ (x) is a MS of K[x].
For some other differential operators with the image being a MS, see
[Z1, Z2, EZ, EWZ].

3. The Case of E-Derivations of K[x]
Through this section K denotes a field of arbitrary characteristic, and φ a K-algebra endomorphism of K[x], and δ = I −φ. Since
the case φ = 0 is trivial, we assume φ 6= 0. Denote by w(x) the image of x ∈ K[x] under φ, i.e., w(x) = φ(x). Then φ is completely
determined by w(x). More precisely, for each f (x) ∈ K[x], we have
φ(f ) = f (w(x)).
We start with the following
Lemma 3.1. Assume w(x) = ax + b with a, b ∈ K and a 6= 0, 1. Let ψ
be the K-algebra automorphism of K[x] which maps x to x+(1−a)−1 b.
Then ψ ◦ φ ◦ ψ −1 is the K-algebra automorphism of K[x] which maps
x to ax.

IMAGES OF IDEALS UNDER DERIVATIONS AND E-DERIVATIONS

7

Proof: Note that the inverse map ψ −1 is the K-algebra automorphism of K[x] which maps x to x − (1 − a)−1 b. Then we have

ψ ◦ φ ◦ ψ −1 (x) = (ψ ◦ φ)(x − (1 − a)−1 b = ψ(ax + b − (1 − a)−1 b)
= a(x + (1 − a)−1 b) + b − (1 − a)−1 b

= ax + b + (a(1 − a)−1 − (1 − a)−1 )b
= ax + b − b = ax.
Hence the lemma follows.

✷

Note that K-algebra automorphisms preserve ideals and MSs, and
conjugations by K-algebra automorphisms preserve (LF or LN) derivations and E-derivations. By the lemma above the proofs of Theorem 1.5
and 1.6 for K-E-derivations of K[x] can be divided into the following
four (exhausting) cases:
I) deg w = 0, i.e., w(x) = c for some c ∈ K;
II) w(x) = x + c for some c ∈ K;
III) w(x) = qx for some nonzero q ∈ K;
IV) deg w(x) ≥ 2.
For Case I it is easy to verify, or by the more general [Z4, Proposition
5.2], that we have the following:
Lemma 3.2. Let c ∈ K and φ the K-algebra endomorphism that maps
f ∈ K[x] to f (c). Then the image Im(I −φ) = Ker φ = (x − c)K[x],
and hence is a MS of K[x].
In the rest of this section we consider Case III in subsection 3.1 and
Case IV in subsection 3.2.
3.1. Case III: w(x) = qx
qx. Note that this case has been shown in [Z7,
Corollary 3.15] for multivariate polynomial algebras over a field of characteristic zero. Here we give a more straightforward proof over the field
K (of arbitrary characteristic). As a bi-product the homogeneous MSs
of K[x] are also classified.
Lemma 3.3. Let 0 6= q ∈ K and φ the K-algebra endomorphism of
K[x] that maps x to qx. Set δ = I −φ. Then the following statements
hold:
1) If q = 1, then Im δ = 0.
2) If q is not a root of unity in K, then Im δ = xK[x].
3) If q is a root of unity in K, then r(Im δ) = {0}.
In all the cases above δI is a MS of K[x].

8

WENHUA ZHAO

Proof: 1) In this case φ = I and δ = 0. Hence Im δ = 0.
2) For all n ≥ 1, we have
(3.6)

δxn = xn − (qx)n = (1 − q n )xn .

Since q is not a root of unity, we have 1 − q n 6= 0, and hence xn ∈ Im δ,
for all n ≥ 1. Since δ1 = 0, we have Im δ = xK[x], i.e., statement 2)
follows.
3) If q = 1, the statement follows from statement 1). Assume q 6= 1
and let r be the order of q, i.e., the least positive integer such that
q r = 1. Then r ≥ 2. Let {ni | i ≥ 1} be the sequence of all positive
integers n such that r ∤ n. Then by Eq. (3.6) it is easy to see that Im δ
is the homogeneous K-subspace spanned by the monomials xni (i ≥ 1)
over K. Note that for each integer d ≥ 1, we have dr 6∈ {ni | i ≥ 1}.
Then the statement immediately follows from the lemma below. ✷
Lemma 3.4. Let {ni | i ≥ 1} be a strictly increasing (infinite) sequence
of positive integers such that ni+1 − ni 6= 1 for infinitely many i ≥ 1.
Let V be the (homogeneous) K-subspace of K[x] spanned by xni (i ≥ 1)
over K. Then the following three statements are equivalent:
1) r(V ) = {0};
2) V is a MS of K[x];
3) there exists no integer d ≥ 1 such that md ∈ {ni | i ≥ 1} for all
m ≥ 1.
Proof: 1) ⇒ 2) is obvious.
2) ⇒ 3): Assume otherwise. Let d ≥ 1 such that md ∈ {ni | i ≥ 1}
for all m ≥ 1. Hence xmd ∈ V for all m ≥ 1. If d = 1, then the
sequence {ni | i ≥ 1} contains all positive integers, which contradicts
to the assumption on the sequence {ni | i ≥ 1}. So we have d ≥ 2.
Since (xd )m = xdm ∈ V for all m ≥ 1 and V is a MS of K[x], for
each 0 ≤ r ≤ d − 1 there exists Nr ≥ 1 such that for all m ≥ Nr ,
we have xmd+r = (xd )m xr ∈ V , and hence md + r ∈ {ni | i ≥ 1}. Let
N = max{Nr | 0 ≤ r ≤ d − 1}. Then for all k ≥ Nd we have xk ∈ V ,
whence k ∈ {ni | i ≥ 1}, which contradicts again to the assumption on
the sequence {ni | i ≥ 1}. Hence statement 3) follows.
3) ⇒ 1): Assume otherwise. Let 0 6= f (x) ∈ r(V ), i.e., f m (x) ∈ V
when m ≫ 0. Since 1 6∈ V , we have d := deg f (x) ≥ 1, and since V is
homogeneous, we further have xdm ∈ V . Hence md ∈ {ni | i ≥ 1}, for
all m ≫ 0. Replacing d by a multiple of d we have md ∈ {ni | i ≥ 1}
for all m ≥ 1, which contradicts to statement 3). ✷

IMAGES OF IDEALS UNDER DERIVATIONS AND E-DERIVATIONS

9

One bi-product of the lemma above is the following classification of
homogeneous MSs of univariate polynomial algebra over an arbitrary
field.
Proposition 3.5. Let V be a homogeneous subspace of K[x]. Then V
is a MS of K[x], if and only if one of the following conditions holds:
1) V = K[x];
2) dimK V < ∞ and 1 6∈ V ;
3) 1 6∈ V and there exists N ≥ 1 such that (xN ) ⊆ V ;
4) V is spanned by xni over K for a strictly increasing (infinite)
sequence of positive integers {ni | i ≥ 1} such that there exists
no integer d ≥ 1 with md ∈ {ni | k ≥ 1} for all m ≥ 1.
Proof: (⇐) First, if V satisfies statements 1), 2) or 3), then it is
easy to check directly by Definition 1.1 that V is indeed a MS of A. If
V satisfies statement 4), then it is easy to see that ni+1 − ni 6= 1 for
infinitely many i ≥ 1, and by Lemma 3.4 V is a MS of K[x].
(⇒) Assume that statement 1) fails, i.e., V 6= K[x]. Consider the
case dimK V < ∞. If 1 ∈ V , then by Definition 1.1 we have V = K[x],
Contradiction. Hence in this case statement 2) holds.
Consider the case dimK V = ∞. If 1 ∈ V , then by Definition 1.1
we have V = K[x], contradiction again. So 1 6∈ V and there exists an
infinite increasing sequence {ni | i ≥ 1} of positive integers such that V
is spanned over K by xni (i ≥ 1).
If statement 3) does not hold, then there are infinitely many i ≥ 1
such that ni+1 − ni 6= 1, and by Lemma 3.4 statement 4) holds. ✷
Next, we give the following example to show that the LNED conjecture 1.4 can not be generalized to all LF E-derivations.
Example 3.6. Let 0 6= q ∈ K, φ the K-algebra endomorphism of K[x]
that maps x to qx, and I the ideal of K[x] generated by x2 − 1. Assume
that q is not a root of unity. Set δ := I −φ. Then δ is LF but the image
δI of I under δ is not a MS of K[x].
Proof: Note first that for all k ≥ 0, we have
δ(xk+2 − xk ) = (1 − q k+2 )xk+2 − (1 − q k )xk ∈ δI.
Hence
(3.7)

(1 − q k+2)xk+2 ≡ (1 − q k )xk

mod δI.

In particular, by letting k = 0 we have x2 ∈ δI, for q is not root of
unity. Then by Eq. (3.7) inductively x2n ∈ δI for all n ≥ 1.

10

WENHUA ZHAO

On the other hand, x 6∈ δI, for q is not root of unity and each nonzero
element of δI has the degree at least 2. Then by Eq. (3.7) neither are
(x2 )m x = x2m+1 for all m ≥ 1. Hence δI is not a MS of K[x]. ✷
3.2. Case IV: deg w(x) ≥ 22. In this subsection we fix a K-algebra
endomorphism φ of K[x] that maps x to w(x) with d = deg w(x) ≥ 2.
P
Set δ := I −φ. Write w(x) = di=0 ai xi with d ≥ 2, ad 6= 0 and all
ai ’s in K. Then Theorem 1.6, 2) for δ immediately follows from the
following:
Proposition 3.7. Let f ∈ K[x] such that f i ∈ Im δ for all 1 ≤ i ≤ 3.
Then f = 0. Consequently, r(Im δ) = 0 and δ maps every K-subspace
of K[x] to a MS of K[x].
To prove the proposition above we first fixed the following notations.
Let W = K[w(x)], Λ = N\dN and U be K-subspace of K[x] spanned
by xm (m ∈ Λ) over K. Since d = deg w ≥ 2, it is easy to see that
for each f ∈ K[x] there exist unique f1 ∈ U and f2 ∈ W such that
f = f1 + f2 . In this case we set ℓ(f ) = deg f1 if f1 6= 0, and ℓ(f ) = 0,
otherwise.
With the setting above the following lemma (with assumption d ≥ 2)
can be easily verified.
Lemma 3.8. 1) deg f ≥ ℓ(f ) for all nonzero f ∈ K[x].
2) For all f, g ∈ K[x] with f ≡ g mod W we have ℓ(f ) = ℓ(g).
We also need the following two lemmas.
Lemma 3.9. Let 0 6= f ∈ K[x] with d ∤ deg f . Then ℓ(f ) = deg f .
Proof: Assume otherwise. Then there exists g ∈ U such that f −g ∈
W and deg f 6= ℓ(f ) = deg g. Then f − g 6= 0 and deg(f − g) is a
multiple of d. On the other hand, deg(f − g) is equal to either deg f
or deg g. Therefore, either deg f or deg g is a multiple of d, which is a
contradiction. ✷
Lemma 3.10. For all nonzero f ∈ Im δ, the following statements hold:
1) if f ∈ W , say f (x) = f˜(w(x)), then f˜ ∈ Im δ;
2) if f 6∈ W , then deg f ≥ dℓ(f ) ≥ d.
Proof: 1) Write f (x) = δu = u(x) − u(w(x)) for some u ∈ K[x].
Then f˜(w) = u(x) − u(w) and u(x) = f˜(w) + u(w). Hence u(x) = ũ(w)
with ũ = f˜ + u, and
f˜(x) = ũ(x) − u(x) = ũ(x) − ũ(w) = δũ.

IMAGES OF IDEALS UNDER DERIVATIONS AND E-DERIVATIONS

11

Therefore f˜ ∈ Im δ.
2) Since f 6∈ W , we have f 6= 0 and ℓ(f ) ≥ 1. Write f (x) =
u(x) − u(w(x)) for some nonzero u ∈ K[x]. Since d = deg w ≥ 2, we
have deg f = d deg u. By Lemma 3.8 we also have deg u ≥ ℓ(u) and
ℓ(f ) = ℓ(u). Therefore we have
deg f = d deg u ≥ dℓ(u) = dℓ(f ) ≥ d.
✷
Proof of Proposition 3.7: Assume otherwise, i.e., f 6= 0. If f ∈
W , say f = f˜(w), then f 2 , f 3 ∈ W and by applying lemma 3.10,
1) to f i (1 ≤ i ≤ 3) we have f˜i ∈ Im δ for all 1 ≤ i ≤ 3. Since
deg f = d deg f˜ > deg f˜, by repeating the procedure that replaces f by
f˜, whenever it is possible, we may assume that f 6∈ W and f i ∈ Im δ
(1 ≤ i ≤ 3). In particular, f 6= 0. Furthermore, since d = deg w ≥ 2,
Im δ obviously does not contain any nonzero constant polynomials.
Therefore we also have deg f ≥ 1.
Write f (x) = u(x)−u(w) for some nonzero u(x) 6∈ W with deg u(x) ≥
1. Then ℓ(u) ≥ 1 and
(3.8)

deg f = d deg u.

Assume first that char. K = 0 or p > 2. Then applying Lemma 3.8,
1) to f 2 we have
(3.9)

2 deg f ≥ dℓ(f 2 ).

On the other hand, we also have
f 2 = (u(x) − u(w))2 = u2 (x) − 2u(x)u(w) + u2 (w).
Then by Lemma 3.8, 2) and Lemma 3.9 as well as the assumption
d = deg w ≥ 2 we get
(3.10)

ℓ(f 2 ) = deg u(x)u(w) = (d + 1) deg u.

Combining Eqs. (3.8)–(3.10) we have
2 deg f ≥ d(d + 1) deg u = (d + 1) deg f,
which is a contradiction, for d ≥ 2 and deg f ≥ 1.
Now assume char. K = 2. Then applying Lemma 3.8, 1) to f 3 we
have
(3.11)

3 deg f ≥ dℓ(f 3 ).

On the other hand, we also have
f 3 = (u(x) − u(w))3 = u3 (x) + u2 (x)u(w) + u(x)u2 (w) + u3 (w).

12

WENHUA ZHAO

Then by Lemma 3.8, 2) and Lemma 3.9 as well as the assumption
d = deg w ≥ 2 we get
(3.12)

ℓ(f 3 ) = deg u(x)u2(w) = (2d + 1) deg u.

Combining Eqs. (3.8), (3.11) and (3.12) we have
3 deg f ≥ d(2d + 1) deg u = (2d + 1) deg f,
which is a contradiction, for d ≥ 2 and deg f ≥ 1. Hence the proposition follows. ✷
Remark 3.11. By Lemmas 3.2 and 3.3, Proposition 3.7 and also
Lemma 4.1 in the next section we see that Theorem 1.5 holds for all KE-derivations (not necessarily LF) of K[x]. Furthermore, Proposition
3.7 also implies statement 2) of Theorem 1.6.
4. The Locally Nilpotent E-Derivation Case
In this section we let K be a field of characteristic zero. We consider
the LN (locally nilpotent) K-E-derivations of K[x] and give a proof
for statement 3) of Theorem 1.6. From the exhausting list on page 7
it is easy to see that the only nonzero LN K-E-derivations δ of K[x]
are those in Case II of the list, i.e., δ = I −φ, where φ is the affine
translation that maps x to x + c for some c ∈ K.
Note that, if c = 0, we have φ = I and δ is the zero map, which is
a trivial case. So throughout this section we assume δ = I −φ, and φ
maps x to x + c for a fixed 0 6= c ∈ K.
We first consider the images of the following ideals of K[x] under δ.
Lemma 4.1. Let φ, δ be as above and I = K[x] or (x − a)K[x] for
some a ∈ K. Then δI = K[x].
Proof: It suffices to show the case that I = (x−a), for δI ⊆ δ(K[x]).
First, since δ(x − a) = −c and c 6= 0, we see that 1 = x0 ⊂ δI.
Assume that for some n ≥ 1 all polynomial
f (x) ∈ K[x] with deg f ≤

n+1
n − 1 lie in δI. Consider δ (x − a)
∈ δI:

δ (x − a)n+1 = (x − a)n+1 − (x + c − a)n+1 = −(n + 1)cxn + h(x)

for some h(x) ∈ K[x] with deg h ≤ n − 1. By the induction assumption
above we have h ∈ δI. Therefore −(n + 1)cxn ∈ δI and hence so does
xn . Therefore all polynomial f (x) ∈ K[x] with deg f ≤ n lie in δI,
whence by induction the lemma follows. ✷

IMAGES OF IDEALS UNDER DERIVATIONS AND E-DERIVATIONS

13

In order to consider the images under δ of the ideals of K[x] generated
by polynomials of the degree ≥ 2, we first need to recall some wellknown facts on the Bernoulli polynomials and the Bernoulli numbers
(e.g., see [Wiki1], [Ber] and the references therein).
First, the Bernoulli polynomials {Bn (t) | n ≥ 0} are defined by the
following generating function:
∞

(4.13)

X
uetu
un
=
B
(t)
.
n
eu − 1 n=0
n!

For example, the first four Bernoulli polynomials are given as follows:
B0 (t) = 1,
(4.14)

1
B1 (t) = t − ,
2
1
B2 (t) = t2 − t + ,
6

1
3
B3 (t) = t3 − t2 + t.
2
2
For every n ≥ 0, the following identities of the Bernoulli polynomials
hold:
(4.15)

Bn (t + 1) − Bn (t) = ntn−1 ;

(4.16)

d
Bn+1 (t) = (n + 1)Bn (t).
dt

(4.17)


n 
X
n+1
Bk (t) = (n + 1)tn ,
k
k=0

(4.18)

(−1)n Bn (−t) = Bn (t) + ntn−1 .

One remark on the Bernoulli polynomials is the following:
Proposition 4.2. 1) the K-subspace spanned by the Bernoulli polynomials Bn (x) (n ≥ 1) coincides with the K-subspace V0,1 defined in
Eq. (2.3) with a = 0 and b = 1.
2) Let Λ be a non-empty set of positive integers and W the Ksubspace of K[x] spanned by the Bernoulli polynomials Bi (x) with i ∈
Λ. Then W is a MS of K[x] with r(W ) = {0}.

14

WENHUA ZHAO

Proof: 1) By Eq. (4.15) with t = 0 we have Bn (1) = Bn (0) for all
n ≥ 2. Then by Eq. (4.16) we have for all n ≥ 1
Z 1
1
1
Bn+1 (x) 0 = 0.
(4.19)
Bn (x)dx =
n+1
0

Hence Bn (x) ∈ V0,1 for all n ≥ 1.
Conversely, by Eqs. (4.16) and the fact B0 (x) = 1 we have deg Bn (x) =
n for all n ≥ 0. Hence the Bernoulli polynomials Bn (x) (n ≥ 0) form a
K-linear basis of K[x]. In particular, every f (x) ∈ K[x] can be written
P
uniquely as f (x) = di=0 ci Bi (x) with ci ’s in K. Then by Eqs. (4.19)
and the fact B0 (x) = 1 we see that f (x) ∈ V0,1 , if and only if c0 = 0.
Hence statement 1) follows.
2) By statement 1) we have W ⊆ V0,1 . Then by Theorem 2.2 we
have r(W ) = {0}, whence W is a MS of K[x]. ✷
The constant term Bn of the Bernoulli polynomial Bn (t) is called
the nth Bernoulli number, i.e., Bn := Bn (0). The Bernoulli polynomials
Bn (t) can be expressed in terms of the Bernoulli numbers Bn (n ≥ 0)
as follows:
n  
X
n
(4.20)
Bk tn−k .
Bn (t) =
k
k=0
For the Bernoulli numbers we have the following remarkable theorem,
which was found independently by Thomas Clausen ([Cl], 1840) and
Karl von Staudt ([St], 1840). See also [Wiki2].

Theorem 4.3 (The Clausen-von Staudt Theorem). For each n ≥
1, we have
X 1
B2n +
∈ Z.
q
q: prime
(q−1)|2n

From the Clausen-von Staudt Theorem we immediately have the
following
Corollary 4.4. Let p be an odd prime and νp (·) the p-valuation on Q.
Then the following statements hold:
1) νp (Bn ) ≥ 0 for all 1 ≤ n ≤ p − 2;
2) νp (Bp−1 ) < 0, i.e., p divides the denominator but not the numerator of the reduced fraction form of Bp−1 .
Now we get back to the image of an ideal I under the fixed K-Ederivation δ of K[x].

IMAGES OF IDEALS UNDER DERIVATIONS AND E-DERIVATIONS

15

Lemma 4.5. Let I be the ideal of K[x] generated by the polynomial
x2 − ax for some a ∈ K and β := a/c. Set for all n ≥ 0
(4.21)

Dn (t) :=

Bn+1 (t) − Bn+1
.
(n + 1)t

Then for all n ≥ 0 we have Dn (t) ∈ Q[t] and
xn ≡ Dn (β)cn

(4.22)

mod δI.

Note that by Eqs. (4.15) and (4.20), Dn (t) (n ≥ 0) are actually given
by

n 
1 X n+1
Dn (t) =
(4.23)
Bi tn−i .
i
n + 1 i=0
Proof of Lemma 4.5: First, for each n ≥ 1, we have xn+1 − axn ∈
I, and hence δxn+1 ≡ aδxn mod δI. Consequently, δxn+1 ≡ an δx
mod δI. Since δx = −c, we have
(x + c)n+1 − xn+1 ≡ an c mod δI.

n 
X
n + 1 n+1−k k
c
x ≡ an c mod δI.
k
k=0

(4.24)


n 
X
n + 1 −k k
c x ≡ an /cn = β n
k

mod δI.

k=0

From the equation above it is easy to see recursively that for each
k ≥ 0, we have xk ≡ Ek ck for some Ek ∈ K, which is a polynomial in c,
c−1 and a with coefficients in Q. Furthermore, since δI obviously does
not contain any nonzero constant, Ek (k ≥ 0) are actually unique. In
particular, E0 = 1.
Now we plug the relations xk ≡ Ek ck mod δI (k ≥ 1) into Eq. (4.24)
and get

n 
X
n+1
(4.25)
Ek ≡ β n mod δI.
k
k=0
Since δI does not contain any nonzero constant, the equation above
is the same as

n 
X
n+1
(4.26)
Ek = β n .
k
k=0

16

WENHUA ZHAO

Rt
On the other hand, taking 0 to Eq. (4.17) and applying Eq. (4.16)
we get

n 
X
n + 1 Bk+1 (t) − Bk+1
(4.27)
= tn+1 .
k
k
+
1
k=0

Since Bk+1 = Bk+1 (0), Bk+1 (t) − Bk+1 is divisible by t. Then by
Eq. (4.21) we have Dk (t) ∈ Q[t], for Bk (t) ∈ Q[t], for all k ≥ 0. Furthermore, the equation above can be re-written as

n 
X
n+1
(4.28)
Dk (t) = tn .
k
k=0
Replacing t by β we see that Dk (β) (k ≥ 0) also satisfy the recurrent
relation that satisfied by Ek (k ≥ 0) in Eq. (4.25). Furthermore, by
Eqs. (4.14) and (4.21) we also have D0 = 1 = E0 . Since every solution
of the recurrent relation in Eq. (4.25) is completely determined by the
initial value for E0 , we see that Ek = Dk (β) for all k ≥ 1, whence the
lemma follows. ✷

Note that for the ideal I in Lemma 4.5 it is easy to see that δI does
not contain any nonzero constant. From this fact we immediately have
the following
P
Corollary 4.6. Let I, β be as in Lemma 4.5, and f (x) = di=0 ai xi ∈
K[x]. Then f (x) ∈ δI, if and only if the following equation holds:
(4.29)

d
X

ai Di (β)ci = 0.

i=0

More generally, for the image under δ of an ideal I = uK[x] with
deg u ≥ 2, we have the following:
Remark 4.7. Assume that K is algebraically closed. Let u ∈ K[x]
with d := deg u ≥ 2, I = uK[x], and ri (1 ≤ i ≤ d) be all the roots of u
in K. Set uij := (x−ri )(x−rj ) and Iij := uij K[x] for all 1 ≤ i < j ≤ d.
Then we have
\
Iij ,
I=
1≤i<j≤d

(4.30)

δI =

\

δIij .

1≤i<j≤d

On the other hand, let Ti (1 ≤ i ≤ d − 1) be the affine translation
of K[x] that maps x to x + ri . Then Ti commutes with δ and maps
the ideal Iij (1 ≤ j ≤ d) to the ideal generated by x(x − aij ), where

IMAGES OF IDEALS UNDER DERIVATIONS AND E-DERIVATIONS

17

aij = rj − ri . Then by Corollary 4.6 and Eq. (4.30) above we see that
the polynomials f ∈ δI up to the translations Ti (1 ≤ i ≤ d − 1) are
characterized by a system of equations as the one in Eq. (4.29).
Now we are ready to show the following crucial lemma.
Lemma 4.8. Let u(x) = x(x − a) for some a ∈ K and I = uK[x]. Set
β := a/c. Then the following statements hold:
1) if β = 1, then δI = (x) = xK[x];
2) if β = −1, then δI = (x + a)K[x];
3) if β = 0, then r(δI) = {0}.
In all the cases above δI is a MS of K[x].
Proof: 1) By Eq. (4.15) we have Bn (1) = Bn (0) for all n ≥ 2, and
by Eq. (4.21) Dn (1) = 0 for all n ≥ 1. Furthermore by Eq. (4.23),
D0 (1) = 1. Then by Lemma 4.5 the statement follows.
2) Let I1 and I2 be the ideals of K[x] generated respectively by
x2 − ax and x2 + ax. Denote by T the affine translation of K[x] that
maps x to x + a. Then T maps the principal ideal I1 to I2 . Since T
is a K-algebra automorphism of K[x] and commutes with δ, we have
δI2 = δ(T I1 ) = T (δI1 ). Since δI1 = (x) by statement 1), we have
δI2 = (x + a), as desired.
Another proof of this statement is to use Eqs. (4.18) and (4.21) first
to show Dk (−1) = (−1)k for all k ≥ 0, and then apply Lemma 4.5.
3) Assume otherwise and let 0 6= f (x) ∈ r(δI), i.e., f m ∈ δI for
all m ≫ 0. Since δI does not contain any nonzero constant, d :=
deg f (x) ≥ 1. Furthermore, we may assume that f is monic, and by
replacing f by a power of f , that f m ∈ δI for all m ≥ 1. Write
f (x) = xd +

(4.31)

d−1
X

ai xi ,

i=0

and for all m ≥ 1,
(4.32)

f m (x) = xmd +

md−1
X

Γm,j xi ,

i=0

where Γm,j ’s are some polynomials in ai ’s over Z.
Applying Corollary 4.6 to f m ∈ δI (m ≥ 1) we get
(4.33)

Dmd (0)c

md

+

md−1
X
j=0

Dj (0)Γm,j cj = 0.

18

WENHUA ZHAO

Since by Eq. (4.23) we have Dn (0) = Bn for all n ≥ 1, the equation
above becomes
md−1
X
(4.34)
Bmd cmd +
Bj Γm,j cj = 0.
j=0

Next, we make the following reduction. Note that for all m ≥ 1 the
equations above are polynomial equations over Q in c and ai ’s. We
may apply a similar reduction as in the proof of [FPYZ, Theorem 4.1]
to assume that K is a subfield of the algebraic closure Q̄ of the rational
field Q. Therefore, for each prime p the p-valuation νp of Q can be
extended to K, which we will still denote by νp .
Now, by Dirichlet’s prime number theorem there exist infinitely
many m ≥ 1 such that md + 1 is a prime number. Furthermore,
it is well-known in Algebraic Number Theory (e.g., see [W, Theorem
4.1.7]) that for all but finitely primes p, the values of νp at c and ai
(0 ≤ i ≤ d − 1) are equal to 0. Therefore, we may choose an m ≥ 1
such that the following properties hold:
i) p := md + 1 is an odd prime (In particular, md is even);
ii) νp (c) = νp (ai ) = 0 for all 0 ≤ i ≤ d − 1 such that ai 6= 0.
Consequently, for all 0 ≤ j ≤ md−1 = p−2 we have νp (Γm,j ) ≥ 0 and
by Corollary 4.4, 1), νp Bj ≥ 0. Then by Eq. (4.34) νp (Bp−1 cmd ) ≥
0. Since νp (c) = 0, we have νp (Bp−1 ) ≥ 0. But this contradicts to
Corollary 4.4, 2). Therefore statement 3) follows. ✷
Lemma 4.9. Let I = uK[x] such that u has at least one repeated root
in K̄. Then r(δI) = {0}. In particular, δI is a MS of K[x].
Proof: Let K̄ be the algebraic closure of K. We view K[x] as a Ksubalgebra of K̄[x] in the canonical way and denote by δ̄ the K̄-linear
extension of δ from K̄[x] to K̄[x].
Let r be a repeated root of u in K̄, and T the affine translation of
K̄[x] that maps x to x + r. Denote by I1 and I2 the ideals of K̄[x]
generated respectively by x2 and (x − r)2 . Then T I1 = I2 .
Applying Lemma 4.8, 3) to δ̄ and I1 , we see that the radical r(δ̄I1 )
in K̄[x] is equal to {0}. Since T commutes
 with δ̄ and is a K̄-algebra
automorphism, we have r(δ̄I2 ) = r T δ̄I1 = T r(δ̄I1 ) = {0}. Since
δI ⊆ δ̄I2 , the radical r(δI) in K[x] is also equal to {0}, whence the
lemma follows. ✷
Now we are ready to show the last part of Theorem 1.6, i.e., statement 3).

IMAGES OF IDEALS UNDER DERIVATIONS AND E-DERIVATIONS

19

Proof of Theorem 1.6, 3): Note first that, if c = 0, then φ = I
and δ = 0, whence the statement holds trivially in this case. Therefore
we assume c 6= 0.
Let u ∈ K[x] and I = (u). If u = 0, then δI = 0, whence the
theorem holds. If u 6= 0 and deg u ≤ 1, then the statement follows
from Lemma 4.1.
If deg u ≥ 2 and u has a repeated root in the algebraic closure of K,
then by Lemma 4.9 we have r(δI) = {0}. Hence δI is a MS of K[x],
and the statement holds. ✷
One consequence of Theorem 1.6, 3) is the following corollary on the
image of the quantum derivation Dh (e.g., see [KC]) for all nonzero
h ∈ K, which is defined by setting for all f ∈ K[x]
(4.35)

Dh f (x) :=

f (x + h) − f (x)
.
h

Corollary 4.10. Let c, δ be fixed as before, u ∈ K[x] and I = uK[x].
Assume that either u = 0, or deg u ≤ 1 or u has at least one repeated
root in the algebraic closure of K. Then the quantum derivation Dh=c
maps I to a MS of K[x].
Another remark on the K-E-derivation δ studied in this section is as
follows.
Let S be the affine automorphism of K[x] that maps x to c−1 x. Then
it is easy to check that S −1 δS = −∆, where ∆ is the so-called difference
operator of K[x], i.e., ∆f = f (x+ 1) −f (x) for all f ∈ K[x]. Therefore,
all the results obtained for δ in this section can also be interpreted as
certain results on the images of ideals of K[x] under the difference
operator ∆ of K[x].
References
[BCW] H. Bass, E. Connell and D. Wright, The Jacobian Conjecture, Reduction
of Degree and Formal Expansion of the Inverse. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 7,
(1982), 287–330.
[B]
J. Bergen, Derivations in Prime Rings. Canad. Math. Bull. 26 (1983),
267–270.
[Ber]
http://www.bernoulli.org/.
[BFF] M. Brešar, A. Fošner and M. Fošner, A Kleinecke-Shirokov Type Condition
with Jordan Automorphisms. Studia Math. 147 (2001), no. 3, 237-242.
[BV]
M. Brešar and AR Villena, The Noncommutative SingerWermer Conjecture and φ-Derivations. J. London Math. Soc. 66 (2002), 710-720.
[Cl]
T. Clausen, Theorem. Astronomische Nachrichten 17 (22): 351–352, 1840.
doi:10.1002/asna.18400172204

20

[DEZ]

[E1]

[E2]
[E3]

[EH]
[EN]

[EWZ]

[EZ]
[FPYZ]

[J]
[KC]
[K]
[M]

[P]

[St]
[W]
[Wiki1]
[Wiki2]
[Z1]

[Z2]

WENHUA ZHAO

H. Derksen, A. van den Essen and W. Zhao, The Gaussian Moments Conjecture and the Jacobian Conjecture. To appear in Israel J. Math.. See also
arXiv:1506.05192 [].
A. van den Essen, The Exponential Conjecture and the Nilpotency Subgroup
of the Automorphism Group of a Polynomial Ring. Prepublications. Univ.
Autònoma de Barcelona, April 1998.
A. van den Essen, Polynomial Automorphisms and the Jacobian Conjecture. Prog. Math., Vol.190, Birkhäuser Verlag, Basel, 2000.
A. van den Essen, Introduction to Mathieu Subspaces. “International ShortSchool/Conference on Affine Algebraic Geometry and the Jacobian Conjecture” at Chern Institute of Mathematics, Nankai University, Tianjin,
China. July 14-25, 2014.
A. van den Essen and L. C. van Hove, Mathieu-Zhao Spaces. To appear.
A. van den Essen and S. Nieman, Mathieu-Zhao Spaces of Univariate Polynomial Rings with Non-zero Strong Radical. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 220
(2016), no. 9, 3300–3306.
A. van den Essen, D. Wright and W. Zhao, Images of Locally Finite Derivations of Polynomial Algebras in Two Variables. J. Pure Appl. Algebra, 215
(2011), 2130–2134. See also arXiv:1004.0521 [].
A. van den Essen and W. Zhao, Mathieu Subspaces of Univariate Polynomial Algebras. Submitted. See also arXiv:1012.2017 [].
J. P. Francoise, F. Pakovich, Y. Yomdin and W. Zhao, Moment Vanishing
Problem and Positivity: Some Examples. Bull. Sci. Math., 135 (2011),
no. 1, 10–32.
N. Jacobson, Structure of Rings. Amer. Math. Soc. Coll. Pub. 37, Amer.
Math. Soc. Providence R. I., 1956.
V. Kac and P. Cheung, Quantum Calculus. Universitext, Springer, 2002.
O. H. Keller, Ganze Gremona-Transformationen. Monats. Math. Physik
47 (1939), no. 1, 299-306.
O. Mathieu, Some Conjectures about Invariant Theory and Their Applications. Algèbre non commutative, groupes quantiques et invariants (Reims,
1995), 263–279, Sémin. Congr., 2, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1997.
F. Pakovich On Polynomials Orthogonal to All Powers of a Given Polynomial on a Segment. Bull. Sci. Math. 129 (2005), 749-774. See also
arXiv:math/0408019v1 [math.CA].
K. G. C. von Staudt, Beweis eines Lehrsatzes, die Bernoullischen Zahlen
betreffend. J. reine angew. Math. 21 (1840), 372-374.
E. Weiss, Algebraic Number Theory. McGrawHill Book Co., Inc., 1963.
[MR0159805].
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernoulli polynomials.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von Staudt%E2%80%93Clausen theorem.
W. Zhao, Images of Commuting Differential Operators of Order One with
Constant Leading Coefficients. J. Alg. 324 (2010), no.2, 231–247. See also
arXiv:0902.0210[math.CV].
W. Zhao, Generalizations of the Image Conjecture and the Mathieu Conjecture. J. Pure Appl. Alg. 214 (2010), 1200-1216. See also arXiv:0902.0212
[math.CV].

IMAGES OF IDEALS UNDER DERIVATIONS AND E-DERIVATIONS

[Z3]
[Z4]
[Z5]
[Z6]
[Z7]

21

W. Zhao, Mathieu Subspaces of Associative Algebras. J. Alg. 350 (2012),
no.2, 245-272. See also arXiv:1005.4260 [math.RA].
W. Zhao, Some Open Problems on Locally Finite or Locally Nilpotent
Derivations and E-Derivations. Preprint.
W. Zhao, Idempotents in Intersection of the Kernel and the Image of Locally Finite Derivations and E-derivations. Preprint.
W. Zhao, The LFED and LNED Conjectures for Algebraic Algebras.
Preprint.
W. Zhao, The LFED and LNED Conjectures for Laurent Polynomial Algebras. Preprint.

Department of Mathematics, Illinois State University, Normal, IL
61761. Email: wzhao@ilstu.edu

