arXiv:1704.04080v1 [] 13 Apr 2017

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS
FABIAN REIMERS
Abstract. This paper studies separating invariants of finite groups acting
on affine varieties through automorphisms. Several results, proved by Serre,
Dufresne, Kac-Watanabe and Gordeev, and Jeffries and Dufresne exist that
relate properties of the invariant ring or a separating subalgebra to properties
of the group action. All these results are limited to the case of linear actions
on vector spaces. The goal of this paper is to lift this restriction by extending
these results to the case of (possibly) non-linear actions on affine varieties.
Under mild assumptions on the variety and the group action, we prove that
polynomial separating algebras can exist only for reflection groups. The benefit
of this gain in generality is demonstrated by an application to the semigroup
problem in multiplicative invariant theory.
Then we show that separating algebras which are complete intersections in
a certain codimension can exist only for 2-reflection groups. Finally we prove
that a separating set of size n + k − 1 (where n is the dimension of X) can
exist only for k-reflection groups.
Several examples show that most of the assumptions on the group action
and the variety that we make cannot be dropped.

Introduction
Invariant theory studies the ring of those regular functions on an affine variety
X that are constant on the orbits of an action of a linear algebraic group G on X,
where the action is given by a morphism G × X → X. This paper considers the
case where G is a finite group. We will always assume that the ground field K,
over which G and X are defined, is algebraically closed, and refer to this setting by
calling X a G-variety.
The group action on X induces an action on the coordinate ring K[X] via σ ·f :=
f ◦ σ −1 for σ ∈ G and f ∈ K[X]. The elements fixed by this action are called
invariants and they form a subalgebra of K[X]:
K[X]G := {f ∈ K[X] | σ · f = f for all σ ∈ G},

which is called the invariant ring. Although K[X]G is finitely generated as a Kalgebra by a classical theorem of Noether [29], its minimal number of generators
can be very large even for small groups and low-dimensional representations X = V
of G (see e.g. [19, Table in Section 5]). Derksen and Kemper [7] introduced the
notion of separating invariants as a weaker concept than generating invariants. A
subset S ⊆ K[X]G of the invariant ring is called separating if for all x, y ∈ X
the following holds: If there exists an invariant f ∈ K[X]G with f (x) 6= f (y), then
there exists an element g ∈ S with g(x) 6= g(y). Let γsep denote the smallest integer
Date: March 14, 2017.
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13A50.
Key words and phrases. Invariant theory, separating invariants, reflection groups, multiplicative invariant theory.
1

2

FABIAN REIMERS

m such that there exists a separating subset of size m. It has been known for a
while that γsep is bounded above by 2n + 1 where n is the transcendence degree
of the invariant ring (see [8] and [19]). In the case of finite groups n is just the
dimension of the variety X.
Therefore, it can make sense to shift the focus on separating sets of invariants
rather than possibly much larger and more complicated sets of generating invariants
(see [20] for other aspects in which separating invariants are better behaved than
generating invariants).
This naturally leads to the question if separating sets of the smallest possible size
and separating algebras with ”good algebraic properties” exist for a given group
action. We formulate the following two questions explicitly:
(Q1) When does there exist a separating algebra A ⊆ K[X]G that is isomorphic
to a polynomial ring (which is equivalent to γsep = n)?
(Q2) When does there exist a separating algebra A ⊆ K[X]G that is a complete
intersection (which includes the case γsep = n + 1)?
In the case of a non-modular linear representation X = V of G the theorem of
Shephard and Todd [33], Chevalley [4], and Serre [32] gives a complete answer for
A = K[V ]G to the first question: The invariang ring K[V ]G is a polynomial ring
if and only if G is generated by 1-reflections (i.e., by elements that act as identity
on a subspace of codimension 1 of V ). Serre also proved that even in the modular
case the invariant ring K[V ]G can only be isomorphic to a polynomial ring if G is a
reflection group. Dufresne [9] generalized this to separating invariants and showed
that the theorem of Serre remains true if we replace the invariant ring K[V ]G by
any separating subalgebra A of K[V ]G .
The first main result of this article extends this to the more general situation of
possibly non-linear actions on varieties that need not be affine spaces.
Theorem 2.4. Assume that the G-variety X is connected and Cohen-Macaulay
and that G is generated by elements having a fixed point. If γsep = n, then G is
generated by reflections.
Notice that for a linear action on a vector space X = V , every group element
has the origin as fixed point.
A case of non-linear actions to which Theorem 2.4 is applicable is given by
multiplicative invariant theory. This is a branch of invariant theory which deals
with the action of a finite group G on a lattice L ∼
= Zn and the induced action on
the group ring K[L]. It is studied in detail in Lorenz’s book [26]. Since K[L] is a
Laurent polynomial ring in n indeterminates, it can be interpreted as the coordinate
ring of an n-dimensional algebraic torus X = Gnm .
An analogous result in multiplicative invariant theory to the Shephard-ToddChevalley-Serre theorem is [26, Theorem 7.1.1] which says that under the assumption that char(K) does not divide |G| the following two statements (among others)
are equivalent:
(a) K[L]G is (isomorphic to) a mixed Laurent polynomial ring, i.e., there exists
±1
an integer k ∈ {0, . . . , n} with K[L]G ∼
= K[x±1
1 , . . . , xk , xk+1 , . . . , xn ],
(b) G is generated by reflections on L and K[L]G is a unique factorization
domain.
Without any assumptions about the characteristic of K, Lorenz [25] proved the
following: If G is generated by reflections, then there is a submonoid M ⊆ K[L]G

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS

3

such that K[L]G is isormorphic to the semigroup algebra K[M ]. The question
whether the converse of this statement holds is called the ”semigroup problem in
multiplicative invariant theory” (see [36, Section 1.5]). Some partial converses are
given in [36] and [26, Section 10.2]. We add another one to the list by proving that
of the above statements (a) implies (b) independently of the characteristic of K.
Theorem 2.8. Let L be a lattice and let G be a finite group acting on L by automorphisms. If K[L]G is isomorphic to a mixed Laurent polynomial ring, then G is
generated by reflections.
For question (Q2) a necessary condition similar to Serre’s theorem was found
by Kac and Watanabe [18] and independently by Gordeev [13]. They showed that
the invariant ring K[V ]G of a linear representation V of G can only be a complete
intersection if G is generated by 2-reflections (i.e., by elements that act as identity
on a subspace of codimension 2 of V ). This was extended by Dufresne [9] to graded
separating subalgebras of K[V ]G , and it is now further extended in this article to
non-linear actions on varieties, and to separating subalgebras that are not complete
intersections globally but satisfy some weaker local property.
Theorem 3.13. Assume that the G-variety X is normal and connected and that
X G 6= ∅. If there exists a finitely generated, separating algebra A ⊆ K[X]G , such
that K[X]G is a finite A-module, and that A is a complete intersection in codimension 2 + cid(A) (where cid(A) is the complete intersection defect of A), then G is
generated by 2-reflections.
In particular, the conclusion of the theorem holds if A is a complete intersection.
The generalization using the complete intersection defect leads to the following
corollary for non-modular (at least 3-dimensional) non-trivial representations X =
V of G: If cid(K[V ]G ) ≤ n − 3, then G \ {id} must contain an (n − 1)-reflection
(see Theorem 3.14).
Recently, Dufresne and Jeffries [10] found a remarkable connection, in the case
of linear actions on n-dimensional affine spaces, between the size of a separating
set of invariants and the property of being a k-reflection group. They proved that
if γsep = n + k − 1, then G is generated by k-reflections. Again we generalize this
to affine G-varieties, which leads to the following result.
Theorem 4.5. Assume that the G-variety X is normal and connected and that G
is generated by elements having a fixed point in X. If γsep = n + k − 1 (with k ∈ N),
then G is generated by k-reflections.
We remark that the assumptions on X and G in Theorem 3.13 and Theorem 4.5
are satisfied both for a linear representation X = V and for the case of multiplicative
invariants where X = Gnm .
This article is organized as follows:
In Section 1 we study connectedness properties of the so-called separating variety
Vsep , leading to a characterization of the connectedness in a certain codimension of
Vsep in relation to group elements which act as reflections (see Theorem 1.5).
Section 2 contains our main results concerning question (Q1). Using Hartshorne’s
connectedness theorem and the results of Section 1, we can prove Theorem 2.4,
which was mentioned above. Several examples show that the assumptions on X

4

FABIAN REIMERS

and G in Theorem 2.4 cannot be dropped. Then we apply our results to the
semigroup problem in multiplicative invariant theory and prove Theorem 2.8.
Section 3 contains our main results concerning question (Q2). Here much deeper
results from algebraic geometry about simply connected quotients and a purity
theorem by Cutkosky are needed.
In Section 4 we prove Theorem 4.5. By using Theorem 1.5 again, this time in
combination with Grothendieck’s connectedness theorem, we follow a similar path
as in Section 2.
Acknowledgement. This paper contains the main results of my dissertation
[31]. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to my thesis advisor G. Kemper,
not only for introducing me to the subject, but also for his constant support and
encouragement.
1. The Separating Variety and Reflections
Let X be an n-dimensional G-variety as in the introduction. The separating
variety of the action of G on X is defined to be the following subvariety of X × X:
Vsep := {(x, y) ∈ X × X | f (x) = f (y) for all f ∈ K[X]G}.

Since G is finite, the invariants separate the orbits (see [7, Section 2.3]). Thus two
points x, y ∈ X lie in the same orbit if and only if (x, y) ∈ Vsep . So the separating
variety really is the graph of the action of G on X:
Vsep = {(x, σx) | x ∈ X, σ ∈ G}.
Hence Vsep is the union of all Hσ := {(x, σx) | x ∈ X}. Each Hσ is an affine
variety isomorphic to X, which leads to the following decomposition of Vsep into
irreducible components.
Sr
Proposition 1.1. Assume that X = i=1 Xi is decomposed into its irreducible
components Xi . Then for all i and for all σ ∈ G the subspace
Hσ,i := {(x, σx) | x ∈ Xi } ⊆ X × X
is an irreducible component of Vsep , and Vsep is the union of all Hσ,i .
Remark 1.2. With the notation of Proposition 1.1 we also see:
(a) It is dim(Vsep ) = n.
(b) It is codimX×X (Vsep ) the minimum of all codimX×X (Hσ,i ). Since
codimX×X (Hσ,i ) = codimXi ×σXi (Hσ,i ) = dim Xi ,
the formula
codimX×X (Vsep ) = min{dim(Xi ) | i = 1, . . . , r}
holds. In particular, if X is equidimensional, then codimX×X (Vsep ) = n.
Definition 1.3. Let k be a non-negative integer. An element σ ∈ G is called a
k-reflection (on X) if its fixed space X σ := {x ∈ X | σx = x} has codimension at
most k in X. For k = 1 we simply say that σ is a reflection.
Remark 1.4. For σ ∈ G let Iσ be the ideal in K[X] generated by all σf − f with
f ∈ K[X]. Then Iσ defines X σ as a subvariety of X, hence σ is a k-reflection if
and only if for the height of Iσ we have htK[X] (Iσ ) ≤ k.

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS

5

Recall that a Noetherian topological space Y is called connected in codimension
k (where k ∈ N0 ) if it satisfies one of the following two equivalent properties:

(1.1)

for all closed subsets Z ⊆ Y with codimY (Z) > k

the space Y \ Z is connected;

(1.2)

for all irreducible components Y ′ and Y ′′ of Y
there exists a finite sequence Y0 , . . . , Yr of irreducible components of Y
with Y0 = Y ′ , Yr = Y ′′ and codimY (Yi ∩ Yi+1 ) ≤ k

for i = 0, . . . , r − 1.

Of course, being connected in codimension k implies being connected in codimension k + 1, so we have a chain of properties of Y . The strongest condition, Y being
connected in codimension 0, is equivalent to Y being irreducible. If dim(Y ) < ∞,
then being connected in codimension dim(Y ) simply means being connected.
It was shown by Dufresne [9] that for a linear action of G on X = K n connectedness in codimension 1 of Vsep implies that the group is generated by 1-reflections.
In the following theorem we extend this to non-linear actions and to k > 1, and we
also add a converse, which will be needed later on.
Theorem 1.5. The separating variety Vsep is connected in codimension k if and
only if X is connected in codimension k and G is generated by k-reflections.
Sr
Proof. Again, let X = i=1 Xi be decomposed into its irreducible components Xi ,
which leads to the components Hσ,i of Vsep as seen in Proposition 1.1. First, we
look at the intersection of two components of Vsep to see which codimension arises.
For σ, τ ∈ G and indices i, j we have
Hσ,i ∩ Hτ,j = {(x, y) | x ∈ Xi ∩ Xj , y = σx = τ x} ∼
= (Xi ∩ Xj )τ

−1

σ

.

We know from Remark 1.2 that dim(X) = n = dim(Vsep ). In addition, we get
(1.3)

codimVsep (Hσ,i ∩ Hτ,j ) = codimX ((Xi ∩ Xj )τ

−1

σ

).

Suppose Vsep is connected in codimension k. By assumption, for all σ ∈ G and i, j
there exists a sequence of irreducible components Hσ0 ,i0 , . . . , Hσs ,is of Vsep with
i0 = i, is = j, σ0 = ι (the neutral element of G), σs = σ and

(1.4)
codimVsep Hσl ,il ∩ Hσl+1 ,il+1 ≤ k for 0 ≤ l ≤ s − 1.
Putting (1.3) and (1.4) together leads to the inequality
σ−1 σl+1
) ≤ k for 0 ≤ l ≤ s − 1.
(1.5)
codimX Xil ∩ Xil+1 l

In particular, (1.5) shows that Xil ∩ Xil+1 has codimension ≤ k. So we have a
sequence of irreducible components from Xi0 = Xi to Xis = Xj that intersect in
codimension ≤ k, hence X is connected in codimension k.
−1
Moreover, (1.5) implies that all X σl σl+1 have codimension ≤ k, i.e., each
σl−1 σl+1 is a k-reflection. Using σ0 = ι and σs = σ we can write
−1
σ = σ0−1 σs = (σ0−1 σ1 ) · (σ1−1 σ2 ) · · · · · (σs−1
σs )

as a product of k-reflections.
So we have proven the only-if-part by simply splitting (1.5) into two weaker
conclusions. It may therefore be surprising that the converse holds as well.
To prove it, let us start with indices i, j, and a sequence of components Xi0 , . . . , Xis
with Xi = Xi0 , Xj = Xis and codimX (Xil ∩ Xil+1 ) ≤ k. Consequently, for σ ∈ G

6

FABIAN REIMERS

we know from (1.3), that all Hσ,il ∩ Hσ,il+1 have codimension ≤ k. So we already
have a sequence from Hσ,i to Hσ,j as desired.
Now take two elements σ ′ , σ ′′ ∈ G. By assumption, there exist k-reflections
τ1 , . . . , τs ∈ G with (σ ′ )−1 σ ′′ = τ1 · . . . · τs . Since for all l we have
τl
min{codimX (Xm
) | m = 1, . . . , r} = codimX (X τl ) ≤ k,

for each τl there exists an il such that
(1.6)

codimX (Xiτll ) ≤ k.

If we write σ0 := σ ′ and σl := σl−1 τl for l = 1, . . . , s, then
σs = σ0 · τ1 · . . . · τs = σ ′ · (σ ′−1 · σ ′′ ) = σ ′′ .
It follows from (1.3) together with (1.6) that
−1

codimVsep (Hσl−1 ,il ∩ Hσl ,il ) = codimX ((Xil )σl−1 σl ) = codimX ((Xil )τl ) ≤ k.
We already saw how to construct a sequence of components from every Hσ,il to
Hσ,il+1 as desired. Putting these together, for all i, j we can construct a sequence
Hσ0 ,i , . . . , Hσ0 ,i1 , Hσ1 ,i1 , . . . , Hσ1 ,i2 , Hσ2 ,i2 , . . . , Hσs ,is , . . . , Hσs ,j ,
from Hσ′ ,i to Hσ′′ ,j such that two successive components intersect in codimension
≤ k.

We specialize Theorem 1.5 to the case k = n = dim(X).
Corollary 1.6. The separating variety Vsep is connected if and only if X is connected and G is generated by elements having a fixed point.
Let us finish this section with a few remarks about ideals that define Vsep . When
studying the separating property, the following map naturally comes into play:
(1.7)

δ : K[X] → K[X] ⊗K K[X],

f 7→ f ⊗ 1 − 1 ⊗ f.

Following the notation of [9] we will refer to (1.7) as the δ-map throughout this
paper. It is obviously K-linear and a quick calculation shows that
δ(f g) = δ(f )(g ⊗ 1) + (f ⊗ 1)δ(g) − δ(f )δ(g)
for all f, g ∈ K[X]. So in particular, δ(f g) lies in the ideal generated by δ(f ) and
δ(g) in K[X] ⊗K K[X]. This shows that the images under δ of all generating sets
of invariants generate the same ideal, which we will denote by Isep , i.e.,
Isep := (δ(K[X]G ))K[X]⊗K K[X] .

The definition of Vsep now reads as
Vsep := VX×X (Isep ) := {(x, y) ∈ X × X | h(x, y) = 0 for all h ∈ Isep }.

Furthermore, a set of invariants S ⊆ K[X]G is now separating if and only if the
image of S under the δ-map defines the subvariety Vsep ⊆ X × X as its vanishing
set. By Hilbert’s Nullstellensatz, this is equivalent to the condition that the radical
of the ideal generated by δ(S) and the radical of Isep conincide. Thus we have
proved:
p
Proposition
1.7. A subset S ⊆ K[X]G is separating if and only if (δ(S)) =
p
Isep .

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS

7

2. Polynomial Separating Algebras
Hartshorne’s connectedness theorem [17] is a main ingredient to the results of
this section. It relates the connectedness property of the spectrum of a Noetherian
ring R to the depths of localizations of R. We will use it in a version with the
Cohen-Macaulay defect. Recall that the Cohen-Macaulay defect of a Noetherian
local ring R is defined to be
cmd(R) := dim(R) − depth(R) ∈ N0 .
More generally, for a Noetherian ring R the Cohen-Macaulay defect is defined to
be
cmd(R) := sup { cmd(Rp ) | p ∈ Spec(R) } ∈ N0 ∪ {∞},

which can be shown to be consistent with the definition of cmd(R) for a local ring.
Theorem 2.1. (Hartshorne [17]) Let R be a Noetherian ring. Assume that
Spec(R) is connected and that k := cmd(R) is finite. Then Spec(R) is connected
in codimension k + 1.

Proof. We have the following condition on the prime ideals p of R: If htR (p) > k+1,
then
k ≥ htR (p) − depth(Rp ) ≥ k + 2 − depth(Rp ),

and hence depth(Rp ) ≥ 2. In [17, Corollary 2.3] it is shown that Spec(R) is locally
connected in codimension k under this condition. If we require Spec(R) to be
connected, this implies that Spec(R) is connected in codimension k (see [17, Remark
1.3.2]).


Now again let X be a G-variety. Combining Hartshorne’s connectedness theorem
with Theorem 1.5 leads to the following.
Theorem 2.2. Assume that X is connected and that G is generated by elements
having a fixed point. Write R = K[X] ⊗K K[X] and define
√
p
k := min {cmd(R/J) | J ⊆ R an ideal with J = Isep }.
Then G is generated by (k + 1)-reflections.
Proof. The assumptions on X and the action of
that Vsep is connected
√ G imply
p
by Corollary 1.6. Let J be an ideal in R with J = Isep and k = cmd(R/J).
Theorem 2.1 tells us now that Spec(R/J), which is homeomorphic to Spec(K[Vsep ]),
is connected in codimension k + 1. Of course, it is equivalent to say that Vsep is
connected in codimension k + 1. Therefore, by Theorem 1.5, G is generated by
(k + 1)-reflections.

Example
2.5 will show that Isep need not be radical and that neither Isep
p
nor Isep must have the smallest Cohen-Macaulay defect among all ideals J ⊆
√
p
K[X] ⊗K K[X] with J = Isep . In particular, the number k in Theorem 2.2
need not be the Cohen-Macaulay defect of K[Vsep ]. Since an ideal is called settheoretically Cohen-Macaulay if there exists a Cohen-Macaulay ideal with the same
radical (cf. [34]), we propose to call this number the set-theoretical Cohen-Macaulay
defect of Isep (or Vsep ).
To the best of the author’s knowledge, no algorithm is known to compute the settheoretical Cohen-Macaulay defect of Isep . In several examples (like Example 2.5)

8

FABIAN REIMERS

it indeed coincides with the minimal number l such that G is generated by (l + 1)reflections. Based on these examples we make the following conjecture.
Conjecture 2.3. Assume the notation and hypotheses of Theorem 2.2. Then
k = min{l ∈ N0 | G is generated by (l + 1)-reflections}.
Now we can prove the main result about separating algebras with n algebraically
independent generators.
Theorem 2.4. Assume that X is connected and Cohen-Macaulay and that G is
generated by elements having a fixed point. If γsep = n, then G is generated by
reflections.
Proof. Since X is Cohen-Macaulay, it follows that X × X is Cohen-Macaulay, too
(see [37]). In addition, X is connected, so X and X × X are also equidimensional,
since local Cohen-Macaulay rings are equidimensional (see [11, Corollary 18.11]).
Now let {f1 , . . . , fn } be a set of separating invariants. Using the δ-map (defined
in (1.7)) this set defines the following ideal in K[X] ⊗K K[X]:
(2.1)

J := (δ(f1 ), . . . , δ(fn )) ,

which has the same radical as Isep by Proposition 1.7. Hence we have
p
(2.2)
ht(J) = ht( Isep ) = codimX×X (Vsep ) = n,
by Remark 1.2. Since K[X] ⊗K K[X] is Cohen-Macaulay, (2.1) and (2.2) imply
that J is generated by a (K[X] ⊗K K[X])-regular sequence. Therefore, (K[X] ⊗K
K[X])/J is Cohen-Macaulay as well (see [11, Proposition 18.13]). Now we can use
Theorem 2.2 with k = 0.

Dufresne [9] gave an example of a representation for which the invariant ring is
not a polynomial ring, but still γsep equals n. This suggested that the choice of J
in Theorem 2.2 matters. The following example illustrates this point as it results
in various Cohen-Macaulay defects. It is taken from the database of invariant rings
of Kemper et al. [22].
Example 2.5. [22, ID 10253] Let char(K) = 2. We look at the following subgroup,
isomorphic to (Z/2Z)3 , of GL4 (K):


1 0 0 0
 b 1 c 0

G := {
0 0 1 0 | a, b, c ∈ F2 } ⊆ GL4 (K).
c 0 a 1
Its natural action on V = K 4 is generated by reflections. Using the computer
algebra system magma [1], we have computed the primary invariants
f1

:=

x1 ,

f2
f3

:=
:=

x3 ,
x21 x3 x4 + x21 x24 + x1 x23 x4 + x1 x3 x24 + x23 x24 + x44 ,

f4

:=

x31 x2 + x1 x2 x23 + x1 x23 x4 + x1 x3 x24 + x42 + x22 x23 + x33 x4 + x23 x24 ,

and a secondary invariant
h := x21 x2 + x1 x22 + x23 x4 + x3 x24 .

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS

9

Hence, the invariant ring
K[V ]G = K[x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ]G = K[f1 , f2 , f3 , f4 , h]
is not a polynomial ring. Between the generating invariants there is the relation
f13 h + f12 f3 + f1 f22 h + f22 f4 + h2 = 0.
So by defining g3 := f1 h + f3 and g4 := f1 h + f4 , we get
h2 = f12 g3 + f22 g4 .
Since char(K) = 2, we see from this relation that the values of f1 , f2 , g3 , g4 at a
point x ∈ K 4 determine h(x). From the definition of g3 and g4 it is clear that the
values of f3 and f4 at x are also determined by this. Hence S := {f1 , f2 , g3 , g4 }
is separating. In this example Isep is not a radical ideal. Let J be the ideal
in R := K[V ] ⊗K K[V ] generated by δ(S). Using the graded version of the
Auslander-Buchsbaum formula, we calculated the following Cohen-Macaulay defects with magma:
p
cmd(R/Isep ) = 2, cmd(R/ Isep ) = 1, cmd(R/J) = 0.
Of course, cmd(R/J) = 0 is not surprising, as it was used in Theorem 2.4.

⊳

Let us look at the assumptions in Theorem 2.4 more closely. Of course, any
example of a (non-trivial) free group action of G on X with an invariant ring
isomorphic to a polynomial ring shows that the assumption that G has fixed points
cannot be dropped from Theorem 2.4.
Example 2.6. Let char(K) = p > 0, and let G = Z/pZ be the cyclic group of
order p. When we look at the additive action of Z/pZ on V = K via (σ, x) 7→ σ +x,
we see that
K[V ]G = K[x]G = K[xp − x]
is a polynomial ring. But a non-zero group element σ ∈ Fp does not have a fixed
point, so in particular, G is not a reflection group.
⊳
The next example shows that the assumption that X is Cohen-Macaulay cannot
be dropped from Theorem 2.4.
Example 2.7. Let char(K) 6= 2 and consider the affine variety

X := V(x21 − x23 , x22 − x24 , x1 x2 − x3 x4 , x1 x4 − x2 x3 ) ⊆ K 4 ,

which is the union of two planes intersecting at the origin:
X = V(x1 − x3 , x2 − x4 ) ∪ V(x1 + x3 , x2 + x4 ).

Hartshorne’s connectedness theorem in the form of Theorem 2.1 now tells us that
X is not Cohen-Macaulay at the intersection point, since it is not connected in
codimension 1 there.
A cyclic group G = hσi of order 2 acts (on V = K 4 and) on X by
σ · (x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ) := (x1 , x2 , −x3 , −x4 ).

The action of G on X interchanges the two planes while fixing the origin. So the
generator of G is a 2-reflection on X.
The invariant ring of the representation V = K 4 of G can be easily seen to be
K[V ]G = K[x1 , x2 , x23 , x3 x4 , x24 ].

10

FABIAN REIMERS

Since we are in a non-modular case, the finite group G is linearly reductive. Therefore, K[X]G is the quotient ring of K[V ]G modulo the vanishing ideal of X. We
get
K[X]G = K[x1 , x2 ].
So the invariant ring of the action on X is a polynomial ring, but in contrast to
Theorem 2.4, G is not generated by reflections.
⊳
As outlined in the introduction, we finish this section on polynomial separating
algebras with an application to multiplicative invariant theory. So now let L be
a lattice of rank n with an action of G on L by automorphisms, and let K[L] be
the group ring of L over K which carries an induced action of G by K-algebra
automorphisms. Since
±1
K[L] ∼
= K[x±1
1 , . . . , xn ]
is a Laurent polynomial ring over K in n indeterminates, the corresponding Gvariety is
(2.3)

n

X := (Gm ) = V(x1 y1 − 1, . . . , xn yn − 1) ⊆ K 2n ,

i.e., X is an n-dimensional algebraic torus.
In multiplicative invariant theory an element σ ∈ G is called a k-reflection if the
sublattice {σl − l | l ∈ L} has rank at most k (see [26, Section 1.7]). But by [26,
Lemma 4.5.1], this is equivalent to the condition that the ideal (σf − f | f ∈ K[L])
in K[L] = K[X] has height at most k, so that a reflection on L is exactly a reflection
on X (see Remark 1.4).
Now we make the following contribution to the semigroup problem in multiplicative invariant theory.
Theorem 2.8. Let L be a lattice and let G be a finite group acting on L by automorphisms. If K[L]G is isomorphic to a mixed Laurent polynomial ring, then G is
generated by reflections.
Proof. Since Gm is a connected linear algebraic group, the affine variety X in (2.3)
is irreducible and non-singular (hence Cohen-Macaulay). Furthermore, every σ ∈ G
fixes the point (1, . . . , 1) ∈ X. Hence the prerequisites of Theorem 2.4 are satisfied.
By assumption, we have
K[X]G = K[L]G = K[f1±1 , . . . , fk±1 , fk+1 , . . . , fn ]
with invariants fi ∈ K[X] (where obviously n = trdegK (K[X]G ) = dim(X)). But
from this generating set of invariants we easily extract the smaller separating set
S = {f1 , . . . , fn },
since the inverses of f1 , . . . , fk are not needed to separate the orbits. So we have
γsep = n and the result follows with Theorem 2.4.

3. Complete Intersection Separating Algebras
Vinberg’s lemma [18, Lemma 2] is one ingredient to the proof of Kac-Watanabe’s
theorem about complete intersection invariant rings. Roughly speaking, it states
that if a finite group acts on a sufficiently nice topological space such that the quotient is simply connected, then the group must be generated by elements having
a fixed point. A version for the Euclidean topology of complex algebraic varieties

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS

11

appears in [30, Section 8.3]. A version for schemes which is designed for a generalization of Dufresne’s and Kac-Watanabe’s results will be given below, in Lemma 3.1,
after some preliminary remarks.
When we look at the action of a group G on a scheme X by morphisms, an
element x ∈ X should be considered a fixed point of a group element σ ∈ G if
and only if σx = x and σ acts as identity on the residue field κ(x) of x. If X is a
separated scheme, then the set of fixed points Xσ (in the above sense) of σ ∈ G is
always a closed subscheme of X (see [14, Chapter 9]). For example if X = Spec(R)
is an affine scheme, then
Spec(R)σ = {p ∈ Spec(R) | σf − f ∈ p for all f ∈ R}.
So Definition 1.3 about k-reflections carries over to actions on separated schemes,
and, for the affine G-variety X, Remark 1.4 shows that an element σ ∈ G is a
k-reflection on X if and only if it is a k-reflection on the scheme X = Spec(K[X]).
We also need some general facts about the quotient of a scheme X by a finite
group G. Following [12] we will call the action admissible if there exists an affine
G-invariant morphism π : X → Y such that OY ∼
= (π∗ OX )G . Then Y is not only the
categorical but also the geometric quotient of X by G (see [12, p. 119]). Moreover,
every open subset V ⊆ Y is the quotient of π −1 (V ) ⊆ X.
Finally, we recall what it means for a scheme Z to be simply connected. An étale
covering of Z is a scheme Z ′ together with a finite étale morphism f : Z ′ → Z.
It is called trivial if Z ′ is a finite disjoint union of open subschemes which are all
isomorphic to Z via f . And Z is called simply connected if every étale covering of
Z is trivial (see [6, Chapter 4, Section 2.2]).
Lemma 3.1. Let X be a separated scheme, connected in codimension k, on which
a finite group G acts admissibly. Let π : X → Y be the quotient and suppose that
X is of finite presentation over Y . Furthermore, assume that Y has the following
property:
(3.1)

for all closed subsets Z of Y with codimY (Z) > k
the space Y \ Z is simply connected.

Then G is generated by k-reflections on X.
Due to the similarity to (1.1), we will refer to (3.1) as simply connected in codimension k, although this is not a standard term. In the case k = 1, Popov and
Vinberg call this property strongly simply connected (see [30, Proposition 8.3]).
Proof. Since X is separated, the finite union
[
L :=

Xσ

σ∈G
codimX (Xσ )>k

is a closed subset of X. In addition, L is G-stable (since for all τ, σ ∈ G we
−1
e := X \ L is
have τ Xσ = Xτ στ ), and has codimX (L) > k. So by assumption, X
connected.
As π is integral (see [12, Proposition 3.1.1]), π(L) is closed and codimY (π(L)) > k
(cf. [14, Proposition 12.12]). So by assumption (3.1), Ye := Y \ π(L) is simply
connected.

12

FABIAN REIMERS

e := X \ L with quotient morphism π
e → Ye . An element
Now G acts on X
e : X
e So we have to
σ ∈ G is a k-reflection on X if and only if it has a fixed point in X.
σ
e
show that G is equal to the subgroup H := hσ ∈ G | X 6= ∅i.
Since H contains the inertia subgroups Ixe := {σ ∈ Gxe | σ = id on κ(e
x)} of all
e
points x
e ∈ X, the induced morphism
e
ϕ : X/H
→ Ye

e
is étale by [24, Satz 4.2.1] or [31, Lemma 4.11]. As Ye is simply connected, X/H
is
e
e and
therefore isomorphic to a disjoint union of finitely many copies of Y . But X
e
therefore X/H
are connected, so there is only one copy, and ϕ is an isomorphism.
e by G and by H are the same.
This shows that the quotients of X
e Since the
Now let σ ∈ G. To show that σ lies in H, take any point x
e ∈ X.
G-orbit of this point is the same as the H-orbit, there exists τ ∈ H with στ ∈ Gxe.
For the quotient π
e of a scheme by a finite group, it is a general fact that the
canonical homomorphism from the stabilizer of x
e to the automorphism group of
the field extension κ(e
π (e
x)) ⊆ κ(e
x) is surjective (see part (iii) of [12, Proposition
3.1.1]). And this holds now for both the stabilizer in G and in H. Thus for στ ∈ Gxe
there exists µ ∈ Hxe such that στ µ is mapped to the identity element of the Galois
group (i.e., lies in the inertia subgroup of x
e). So στ µ ∈ Ixe ⊆ H, and hence σ ∈ H
follows.

The next step is to derive property (3.1) from purity theorems. First recall that
every scheme morphism h : Y1 → Y2 induces a functor h∗ from the category of étale
coverings of Y2 to the category of étale coverings of Y1 by pulling back:
(3.2)

et

g : V −→ Y2

=⇒

et

h∗ (g) : V ×Y2 Y1 −→ Y1 .

Remark 3.2. Suppose that h∗ is an equivalence of categories, and that Y2 is simply
connected. Since disjoint union and fiber product commute, it follows then that Y1
is simply connected, too.
A pair of a scheme Y and a closed subscheme Z is now called pure (see [16,
X, Définition 3.1]) if for all open subschemes U of Y the functor i∗ induced by
the inclusion i : (Y \ Z) ∩ U ֒→ U is an equivalence of categories. Moreover, a
Noetherian local ring (R, m) is called pure if the pair (Spec(R), {m}) is pure.
Remark 3.3. Suppose that (Y, Z) is pure, and that Y is simply connected. It follows
then by Remark 3.2 that Y \ Z is simply connected, too.
Grothendieck [16] proved that local complete intersection rings of dimension ≥ 3
are pure. This was extended by Cutkosky [5] to a larger class of rings. The property
”complete intersection” is generalized in two ways for this.
First there is the notion of the complete intersection defect cid(R) of a Noetherian
local ring R. This can be intrinsically defined via the Koszul complex of R. But
for us it is enough to restrict ourselves to situations where R = S/I is the quotient
of a regular local ring S by an ideal I: Then cid(R) equals the minimal number of
generators of I minus htS (I) (see [23, Satz 1]).
Secondly, recall that a Noetherian ring is called a complete intersection in codimension k if for all prime ideals p ∈ Spec(R) with htR (p) ≤ k the localization Rp
is a complete intersection.

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS

13

Both these generalizations of the complete intersection property appear in combination in the following theorem. The purity theorem of Cutkosky [5] is the main
ingredient for the proof.
Theorem 3.4. Let R be a Noetherian local ring. Assume that Y = Spec(R)
is simply connected, and that R is excellent, a quotient of a regular local ring,
equidimensional, and a complete intersection in codimension 2 + cid(R). Then Y
is simply connected in codimension 2.
Proof. Let Z ⊆ Y be a closed subscheme of codimension larger than 2. If we can
show that the pair (Y, Z) is pure, then the result follows with Remark 3.3. For
that, by [16, X, Proposition 3.3], it is to show that all local rings Rp with p ∈ Z
are pure. But for such a prime ideal p we have
dim(Rp ) = htR (p) = codimY ({p}) ≥ codimY (Z) ≥ 3.
The assumptions on R imply that Rp is also excellent, a quotient of a regular local
ring, equidimensional, and a complete intersection in codimension 2+cid(Rp ). Thus
it follows by the purity theorem of Cutkosky [5, Theorem 19] that Rp is pure. 
For finitely generated K-algebras there is the following (global) complete intersection defect.
Definition 3.5. Let A be an affine K-algebra of dimension n. The (global) complete
intersection defect cid(A) of A (over K) is the smallest number l ∈ N0 such that
there exists an m ∈ N0 and a presentation
A∼
= K[x1 , . . . , xm ]/(f1 , . . . , fm−n+l )
with polynomials fi ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xm ].
It is easy to see that for all prime ideals p of the affine algebra A the (local)
complete intersection defect cid(Ap ) is less or equal to cid(A).
Proposition 3.6. Let A be an affine K-domain that is a complete intersection in
codimension 2+cid(A), where cid(A) is the global complete intersection defect of A.
b the m-adic completion of A. Then Spec(A)
b
Let m be a maximal ideal of A and A
is simply connected in codimension 2.
b satisfies the assumption for R in Theorem 3.4.
Proof. We need to show that A
b is excellent and a quotient of a regular local ring. While it
It is clear that A
need not be an integral domain, it is however equidimensional by [27, Corollary after
b is a complete intersection
Theorem 31.5]. Moreover, Lemma 3.7 below shows that A
b
in codimension 2 + cid(A). The completion A can be viewed as the completion of
the localization Am , and completion of local rings preserves the (local) complete
intersection defect (see [23, Lemma 1]), hence
b = cid(Am ) ≤ cid(A).
cid(A)

b is a complete intersection in codimension 2+cid(A).
b Furthermore,
So a fortiori A
b is simply connected as it is the spectrum of a strictly Henselian local ring
Spec(A)
(see [28, I, Example 5.2(c)]). So the claim now follows with Theorem 3.4.

Lemma 3.7. Let S be a regular ring and let I ⊆ S be a prime ideal, such that
R := S/I is a complete intersection in codimension k. Moreover, let n be a maximal

14

FABIAN REIMERS

b of R is a
ideal of S with I ⊆ n, and let m := n/I. Then the m-adic completion R
complete intersection in codimension k, too.
b as S/I
b Sb where Sb is the n-adic completion of S. Now let
Proof. We can view R
b
b
b
b b
q ∈ Spec(S) with I S ⊆ q and htS/I
b S
b(q/I S) ≤ k. We need to show that (S/I S)q/I S
b,
b
b
which is isomorphic to Sq /(I S)q , is a complete intersection ring.
b q is a complete
Since Sbq is a regular local ring, it is precisely to show that (I S)
b q ) many elements). Let εR and εS
intersection ideal (i.e., generated by ht b ((I S)
Sq

b and S → S,
b respectively. Let p := ε−1 (q) ∈
denote the canonical ring maps R → R
S
b = p/I. Since εR satisfies going-down (see [27,
(q/I
S)
Spec(S). Then I ⊆ p and ε−1
R
Theorem 8.8. & Theorem 9.5]), we have
b ≤ k.
htR (p/I) ≤ ht b b(q/I S)
S/I S

So by assumption on R, it is Rp/I ∼
= Sp /Ip a complete intersection ring, hence Ip
is a complete intersection ideal. Therefore, there exist a1 , . . . , al ∈ I with Ip =
(a1 , . . . , al )Sp and l = htSp (Ip ). This means that for every a ∈ I there exists an
b q is generated
s ∈ S \ p such that sa ∈ (a1 , . . . , al )S . But this also shows that (I S)
by εS (a1 ), . . . , εS (al ). Using going-down for the ring map εS we get:
b q ) ≥ ht b(I S)
b ≥ htS (ε−1 (I S))
b ≥ htS (I) = htSp (Ip ),
ht b ((I S)
Sq

S

S

where the last equality holds since I itself is a prime ideal (with I ⊆ p). It follows
b q is a complete intersection ideal.
that (I S)


One case in which the assumption for an n-dimensional affine algebra A to be a
complete intersection in codimension 2 + cid(A) (as in Proposition 3.6) is certainly
satisfied is when A has isolated singularities (i.e., is regular in codimension n − 1)
and has cid(A) ≤ n − 3. Cutkosky [5] gives various examples where this is the case
(and where A is not a complete intersection). One of them is the following.
Example 3.8. The affine algebra
A = K[x1 , . . . , x6 ]/I with I = (x1 x5 − x2 x4 , x1 x6 − x3 x4 , x2 x6 − x3 x5 )

has dimension 4 and cid(A) = 1. Using the Jacobian criterion (see [21, Theorem 13.10]) we see that the origin in K 6 is the only singular point of the variety
X = V(I). So A is regular in codimension 3. In particular, A is (not a complete
intersection, but) a complete intersection in codimension 2 + cid(A) = 3.
⊳
Now again let X be an affine G-variety. The affine algebra A that appeared in
Proposition 3.6 will be a separating subalgebra of the invariant ring later on. We
will use a different characterization of separating algebras than Proposition 1.7.
Proposition 3.9. A finitely generated subalgebra A ⊆ K[X]G is separating if and
only if the induced morphism θ : Spec(K[X]G ) → Spec(A) is injective.

Proof. Since Spec(A) and Spec(K[X]G ) are of finite type over the algebraically
closed field K, it suffices to show that θ is injective on maximal ideals (see [9, Theorem 2.2]). Every maximal ideal of Spec(K[X]G ) is of the form mG with a maximal
ideal m of K[X], since the quotient morphism π : Spec(K[X]) → Spec(K[X]G ) is
surjective.
So take two maximal ideals mx , my of K[X], which correspond to two points
x, y ∈ X, and assume that mx ∩ A = my ∩ A. Thus an invariant g ∈ A vanishes at x

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS

15

if and only if it vanishes at y. We get g(x) = g(y) for all g ∈ A from this. This gives
G
f (x) = f (y) for all f ∈ K[X]G by the separating property, hence mG

x = my .
In fact, under some mild additional assumptions on the separating algebra A
the map θ will not only be injective, but a universal homeomorphism (i.e., every
base change of θ is a homeomorphism). This also means that the property of being
simply connected passes well between the spectrum of a separating algebra and the
spectrum of the invariant ring.
Lemma 3.10. Assume that X is irreducible and that A ⊆ K[X]G is a finitely generated, separating algebra such that K[X]G is a finite A-module. Then the induced
morphism θ : Spec(K[X]G ) → Spec(A) is a universal homeomorphism, and the
functor θ∗ (as in Equation (3.2)) is an equivalence of categories.
Proof. By Proposition 3.9, θ is injective. In addition, θ is dominant. In [7, Proposition 2.3.10] it is shown that this implies that the extension of the fields of fractions
Quot(A) ⊆ Quot(K[X]G )
is finite and purely inseparable. By the same argument, for all prime ideals p ⊆
K[X]G the extension Quot(A/(p ∩ A)) ⊆ Quot(K[X]G /p) is finite and purely inseparable. By [14, Proposition 4.35], this means that θ is universally injective.
By assumption, K[X]G is a finite A-module, hence integral over A. So θ is finite,
surjective and universally injective. Therefore θ is a universal homeomorphism (see
[14, Exercise 12.32]) and the second claim follows by [15, IX., Théorème 4.10]. 
Remark 3.11. (a) Suppose that K[X] is graded (e.g. if X is the affine cone over
a projective variety) and that the action of G on K[X] is degree-preserving
(so that K[X]G is graded as well). Then every graded, finitely generated,
separating subalgebra A ⊆ K[X]G satisfies the assumption of Lemma 3.10, i.e.,
K[X]G is a finite A-module. This is essentially shown in [7, Theorem 2.3.12].
(b) A situation where K[X] is graded and the action is degree-preserving is the
following: Suppose that V is a linear representation of G. For every normal subgroup N of G we get an induced action of G/N on K[V ]N such that
K[V ]G = (K[V ]N )G/N . So the action of G on K[V ] is split into two actions of
smaller groups. This can be helpful in order to compute the invariant ring. But
now K[V ]N need not be a polynomial ring. However, it inherits the grading of
K[V ] and the action of G/N on K[V ]N is degree-preserving.
As a last step before proving the main theorem of this section we collect the
following facts about completions.
Lemma 3.12. Let R := K[X] be the coordinate ring of the G-variety X, and let
m ⊆ R be a maximal ideal fixed by G. Moreover, let A ⊆ RG be a finitely generated,
separating subalgebra. Then the following hold:
(a) The m ∩ A-adic, the mG -adic, and the m-adic filtrations on R are all equivalent
(i.e., they define the same topology on R).
(b) The m ∩ A-adic, and the mG -adic filtrations on RG are equivalent.
b of R (under the induced action
(c) The invariant ring of the m-adic completion R
G
b
of G on R) is isomorphic to the m -adic completion of the invariant ring:
cG .
b G∼
(R)
=R

16

FABIAN REIMERS

√
p
Proof. (a) Of course, we have (m ∩ A)R ⊆ mG R ⊆ m. For part (a) we need
show that these are actually equalities. For this let p ∈ Spec(R) be any prime ideal
containing m ∩ A. So in A the inclusion m ∩ A ⊆ p ∩ A holds.
It is m∩A a maximal ideal in A (see [21, Prop. 1.2]). Hence we get m∩A = p∩A,
and so in particular mG ∩ A = pG ∩ A. As A is separating, this implies mG = pG by
Proposition 3.9. Since the quotient map is a geometric quotient, this implies that
there exists an element σ ∈ G with σp = m. But σ −1 m = m, hence
p p = m.
So m is the only prime ideal containing (m ∩ A)R, which gives (m ∩ A)R = m.
Part (b) follows with similar reasoning in RG .
Part (c) is left to the reader. Also it is available in the author’s dissertation [31,
Theorem 4.21].

We come to our main result of this section. It extends Dufresne’s result [9,
Theorem 1.3] to non-linear actions on normal and connected varieties (i.e., varieties
whose coordinate ring is an integrally closed domain), and to separating algebras
that are complete intersections in codimension 2 + cid(A).
Theorem 3.13. Assume that the G-variety X is normal and connected and that
X G 6= ∅. If there exists a finitely generated, separating algebra A ⊆ K[X]G , such
that K[X]G is a finite A-module, and that A is a complete intersection in codimension 2 + cid(A), then G is generated by 2-reflections.
Proof. Let m be a maximal ideal of K[X] corresponding to a fixed point x ∈ X G .
By Lemma 3.12 the mG -adic completion of K[X]G and the m-adic completion of
K[X] are isomorphic to the m∩A-adic completion of K[X]G and K[X], respectively.
Furthermore, since K[X]G and K[X] are finite A-modules, these completions are
b (see [27, Theorem 8.7]).
isomorphic to tensor products with A
G
The inclusions i : A → K[X] and j : K[X]G → K[X] induce ring homomorphisms between the completions of these rings. The situation is summarized in the
following diagram:
G

\
K[X]
99
r
r
=: ϕ rrr
∼
r
=, see Lemma 3.11(c)
rr

rr
r
r
b
b
j
i
\G
\
// K[X]
br
// K[X]
A
∼
=


b ⊗A A
A

∼
=


// A
b ⊗A K[X]G
G

∼
=


// A
b ⊗A K[X].

\ corresponds to the homomorphism
b → K[X]
So the homomorphism ϕ : A
idAb ⊗ i :

b ⊗A A −→ A
b ⊗A K[X]G.
A

Therefore, the scheme morphism ω := Spec(ϕ) induced by ϕ corresponds to a base
change of the morphism θ = Spec(i) : Spec(K[X]G ) → Spec(A). This map is a
universal homeomorphism by Lemma 3.10. Hence ω is a universal homeomorphism,
too.
With the complete intersection assumption on A, Proposition 3.6 shows that
b is simply connected in codimension 2.
Spec(A)

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS

17

G

\ ) is simply connected in codimension 2 as follows:
Next we see that Spec(K[X]
G
\ ) be a closed subset of codimension > 2. Since
Let Z ⊆ Spec(K[X]
G

\ ) → Spec(A)
b
ω : Spec(K[X]

b
is finite, the set ω(Z) is closed and of codimension > 2 as well, hence Spec(A)\ω(Z)
is simply connected. The restriction of ω gives a morphism
G

\ ) \ Z → Spec(A)
b \ ω(Z),
ω0 : Spec(K[X]

which is also a universal homeomorphism (since this property is ”local on the target”, see [14, Corollary 4.33]). So as in the proof of Lemma 3.10, it follows by
[15, IX., Théorème 4.10] that the functor ω0∗ is an equivalence of categories. By
G
\ ) \ Z is simply connected as well.
Remark 3.2, Spec(K[X]
\
So we are in a position to apply Lemma 3.1 to Spec(K[X]).
This space is
irreducible by the normality assumption and a result of Zariski [38]. Furthermore,
its quotient is simply connected in codimension 2. So Lemma 3.1 shows that G is
\
generated by elements σ that are 2-reflections on Spec(K[X]).
But such an element σ is a 2-reflection on X as well: For this we need to
show that the ideal J := {f − σf | f ∈ K[X]} in K[X] has height ≤ 2 (see
\ in K[X]
\ has
Remark 1.4). By assumption on σ, the ideal I := {f − σf | f ∈ K[X]}
\
height ≤ 2. But going-down for the homomorphism ε : K[X] → K[X] then gives
htK[X] (ε−1 (I)) ≤ 2. And since ε−1 (I) contains J, it follows that σ is a 2-reflection
on X as well.

An example like Example 3.8 with an invariant ring A = K[V ]G of a representation would certainly be a nice addendum to Theorem 3.13. But for such invariant
rings (at least in the non-modular case) being an isolated singularity is a rather
strong condition (see [35, Lemma 2.4]). This leads to the following result as a
corollary.
Theorem 3.14. Assume that char(K) ∤ |G| and that X = V is a non-trivial linear
representation of G with n = dim(V ) ≥ 3. If cid(K[V ]G ) ≤ n − 3, then G \ {id}
contains an (n − 1)-reflection.
Proof. Assume that G contains no (n − 1)-reflections other than the identity element. By [35, Lemma 2.4], these assumptions on G and V then imply that K[V ]G is
an isolated singularity. But cid(K[V ]G ) ≤ n − 3 now means that K[V ]G is regular
(hence complete intersection) in codimension 2+cid(K[V ]G ). And by Theorem 3.13,
G would be generated by 2-reflections, contradicting the assumption.

For K = C Kac-Watanabe [18, Theorem B] obtained a stronger result than
Theorem 3.14: If cid(C[V ]G ) = k, then G is generated by (k + 2)-reflections.
Example 3.15. Let char(K) 6= 3 and let ζ ∈ K be a third root of unity. The
invariant ring of


1 0 0 0
0 1 0 0

G = h
0 0 ζ 0i ≤ GL4 (K)
0 0 0 ζ

18

FABIAN REIMERS

is minimally generated by
f1 := x1 , f2 := x2 , f3 := x33 , f4 := x23 x4 , f5 := x3 x24 , f6 := x34 .
Between these 6 generators there are 3 relations:
f3 f6 − f4 f5 ,

f42 − f3 f5 ,

f52 − f4 f6 ,

hence cid(K[V ]G ) = 1. So the assumptions of Theorem 3.14 are satisfied. The
conclusion that G contains a 3-reflection other than the identity is not very strong
here, as G is indeed a 2-reflection group.
4. Minimal Number of Separating Invariants
This section extends the result of Dufresne and Jeffries [10] on γsep to non-linear
actions on varieties. The proof relies on Grothendieck’s connectedness theorem and
makes similar use of the separating variety Vsep as the results in Section 2.
Grothendieck’s connectedness theorem is usually formulated with the notion of
connectedness in dimension d: For an integer d, a Noetherian topological space Y
is called connected in dimension d if for all closed subsets Z ⊆ Y with dim(Z) < d
the space Y \ Z is connected.
Remark 4.1. If R is the coordinate ring of an equidimensional affine variety and
Y = Spec(R), then for all closed subsets Z ⊆ Y the formula
(4.1)

codimY (Z) + dim(Z) = dim(Y )

holds (see [21, Corollary 8.23]). Hence Y is connected in dimension d if and only if
Y is connected in codimension n − d where n = dim(Y ).
b is the completion of this coordinate ring R at a maximal ideal, then R
b
Now if R
is local, equidimensional and catenary (see the results of [27, Section 31]). Thus,
formula (4.1) and the above conclusion about connectedness are also true for Y =
b
Spec(R).

Next we state Grothendieck’s connectedness theorem as taken from [2, Theorem
19.2.12].
Theorem 4.2. (Grothendieck) Let R be a complete Noetherian local ring of dimension n such that Spec(R) is connected in dimension d with an integer d <
n. Furthermore, let m be the maximal ideal of R and f1 , . . . , fr ∈ m. Then
Spec(R/(f1 , . . . , fr )) is connected in dimension d − r.
In order to use Grothendieck’s connectedness theorem, we need to bring the
b to Spec(R).
connectedness properties back from Spec(R)

b m)
b its m-adic comLemma 4.3. Let (R, m) be a Noetherian local ring and (R,
b is connected in codimension k, then Spec(R) is connected in
pletion. If Spec(R)
codimension k, too.

b is a faithfully flat R-module, the morphism
Proof. Since R
b → Spec(R), q 7→ q ∩ R,
ϕ : Spec(R)
b is surjective (see [27, Theorem 7.3]).
corresponding to the inclusion ε : R → R,
′
′′
Now let p and p be minimal prime ideals of R. Because of the surjectivity of ϕ
b which are mapped to p′ and p′′ , respectively.
there are prime ideals q′ and q′′ of R
′
b
b which has to be
Since R is Noetherian, q contains a minimal prime ideal of R,

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS

19

mapped to p′ , too, because of the minimality of p′ . Therefore, we can assume that
b is connected in codimension k.
q′ and q′′ are minimal. Now suppose that Spec(R)
By (1.2), this guarantees the existence of a finite sequence of minimal prime ideals
b such that
q0 = q′ , q1 , . . . , qr = q′′ of R
htRb (qi + qi+1 ) = codimSpec(R)
b (V(qi ) ∩ V(qi+1 )) ≤ k

(for i = 0, . . . , r − 1).

With pi := qi ∩ R (for all i) we get:
htR (pi + pi+1 ) ≤ htR ((qi + qi+1 ) ∩ R) ≤ htRb (qi + qi+1 ) ≤ k,
where the second inequality follows from going-down (see [27, Theorem 8.8. &
Theorem 9.5]). So there is a finite sequence of irreducible closed subsets Yi := V(pi )
of Spec(R) which leads from Y0 = V(p′ ) to Yr = V(p′′ ) in a way such that two
subsequent subsets intersect in codimension ≤ k. By (1.2), Spec(R) is connected
in codimension k.

In the proof of Theorem 4.5 we want to check the connectedness property only
at maximal ideals. This works according to the following proposition.
Proposition 4.4. Let R be a Noetherian Jacobson ring with connected spectrum
Y = Spec(R), and assume that for all maximal ideals m of R the spectrum of the
localization Rm is connected in codimension k. Then Y is connected in codimension
k, too.
Proof. The proof is left to the reader. It is also available in the author’s dissertation
[31, Proposition 2.7].

Combining Grothendieck’s connectedness theorem with Theorem 1.5 leads to
our main result of this section.
Theorem 4.5. Assume that X is normal and connected and that G is generated
by elements having a fixed point in X. If γsep = n + k − 1 (with k ∈ N), then G is
generated by k-reflections.
Proof. Let us write
r := γsep = n + k − 1,

so there exists a separating subset {f1 , . . . , fr } ⊆ K[X]G of size r. Using the δ-map
from (1.7) we define
gi := δ(fi ) ∈ K[X] ⊗K K[X] (for i = 1, . . . , n).
Moreover, let J be the ideal in R := K[X] ⊗K K[X] generated by g1 , . . . , gr . Then
by Proposition 1.7, Spec(R/J) is homeomorphic to Spec(K[Vsep ]) where K[Vsep ] is
the coordinate ring of the separating variety Vsep . So according to Theorem 1.5,
we need to show that Spec(R/J) is connected in codimension k, while we already
know from Corollary 1.6 that this space is connected.
Take a point (x, y) ∈ Vsep and its corresponding maximal ideal m of R, and let
b
R be the m-adic completion of R. By assumption, X is normal, hence the product
variety X × X is normal, too. Normality of X × X implies that the spectrum
b is irreducible (see [38]). In particular, Spec(R)
b is connected in dimension d
of R
b
for all d ≤ 2n = dim(R). So we can apply the local version of Grothendieck’s

20

FABIAN REIMERS

connectedness theorem, given in Theorem 4.2, with d = 2n − 1 to the complete
b It shows that the spectrum of
Noetherian local ring R.
is connected in dimension

b R
b = R/(g
b 1 , . . . , gr ) b
R/J
R

(2n − 1) − r = 2n − 1 − (n + k − 1) = n − k.

b R
b is the m-adic completion of R/J. So we have
But by [27, Theorem 8.11], R/J
b R)
b = htR/J (m/J) = dim(R/J) = dim(Vsep ) = n
dim(R/J

b R
b is connected in codimension
(cf. Remark 1.2(a)). Therefore, the spectrum of R/J
k by Remark 4.1.
b R
b is also the completion of the local ring (R/J)m/J , Lemma 4.3 shows
Since R/J
that Spec((R/J)m/J ) is connected in codimension k.
As this holds for any maximal ideal m of K[X] ⊗K K[X] which corresponds to a
point of Vsep , i.e., any maximal ideal m/J of R/J, we conclude with Proposition 4.4
that Spec(K[Vsep ]) ∼

= Spec(R/J) is connected in codimension k.
Notice that the assumptions on G and X in Theorem 4.5 are satisfied both for
a linear action on a vector space X = V (where every group element fixes the
origin) and for the case of multiplicative invariants (where X = Gnm and every
group element fixes the point (1, . . . , 1)). So Theorem 4.5 is now also applicable for
multiplicative invariant theory.
Furthermore, it is interesting to compare the case k = 1 of the above theorem
with Theorem 2.4. In Theorem 4.5 it was necessary to assume that X is normal,
while in Theorem 2.4 it was necessary to assume that X is Cohen-Macaulay. We
can reuse Example 2.7, where X was the union of two planes intersecting in a
single point, to see that the assumption that X is normal cannot be dropped from
Theorem 4.5.
We finish with an example of a G-variety X that is not an affine space and to
which our main theorems apply.
Example 4.6. Let X be the following 3-dimensional irreducible subvariety of C4 :
(4.2)

X = V(x31 + x2 x3 + x3 x4 + x24 ).
{z
}
|
=:h

Since h(x1 , −x2 , −x3 , −x4 ) = h(x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ), a cyclic group G = hσi of order 2
acts on X by
(4.3)

σ · (x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ) := (x1 , −x2 , −x3 , −x4 ).

The invariant ring of this G-variety is generated by 6 elements:
(4.4)

C[X]G = C[x1 , x22 , x23 , x24 , x2 x3 , x2 x4 , x3 x4 ]/(h)
= C[x1 , x2 2 , x3 2 , x2 x3 , x2 x4 , x3 x4 ].

The origin of C4 lies in X and is fixed by this action, hence X G 6= ∅. But there
are no other fixed points in X: A point (x1 , x2 , x3 , x4 ) ∈ C4 is fixed by the action
defined in (4.3) if and only if x2 = x3 = x4 = 0. But for x ∈ X we see with (4.2)
that the vanishing of these three coordinates implies x1 = 0, hence X G = {0}. In
particular, G is not generated by 2-reflections.

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS

21

Since X is a hypersurface, it is also Cohen-Macaulay. Thus, Theorem 2.4 gives
the lower bound γsep ≥ n + 1 = 4.
Of course, we can do better now with Theorem 4.5. We need to check that
X is normal first. A quick calculation with the Jacobian criterion shows that
the singular locus of X is just X sing = {0}. In particular, C[X] satisfies Serre’s
condition (R1 ). As C[X] is Cohen-Macaulay, it satisfies a fortiori the condition
(S2 ). By Serre’s criterion for normality (see [3, Theorem 2.2.22]), we see that C[X]
is normal. So Theorem 4.5 implies that γsep ≥ 5. In addition, Theorem 3.13
shows that no separating subalgebra A ⊆ C[X]G over which C[X]G is integral is a
complete intersection.
A generating set of size 6 was given in (4.4). We claim that the following subset
of size 5 is separating for the action on X:
S = {x1 , x2 2 , x3 2 , x2 x4 , x3 x4 }.
For the proof suppose that u, v ∈ X satisfy g(u) = g(v) for all g ∈ S. The
invariant f = x2 x3 is the only generator missing in S, so we just need to show that
f (u) = f (v). Write u = (u1 , u2 , u3 , u4 ). Then we have
 


v1
u1
v2 
±u2 



v=
v3  ∈ {±u3  | λ ∈ C}.
v4
λ
If u2 = 0, then we get f (u) = 0 = f (v) from this. So assume that u2 6= 0. With
the invariant x2 x4 ∈ S we get
u2 u4 = v2 v4 = ±u2 v4 ,
hence v4 = ±u4 . The definition of X in (4.2) shows that

f = x2 x3 = −x1 3 − x3 x4 − x4 2 ,

and for each of these three summands we now know that it takes the same value
at u and v, so f (u) = f (v).
With Theorem 4.5 we could really pin down γsep to the value of 5 in this example.
⊳
References
[1] Wieb Bosma, John Cannon, and Catherine Playoust. The Magma algebra system. I. The
user language. J. Symbolic Comput., 24(3-4):235–265, 1997.
[2] M. P. Brodmann and R. Y. Sharp. Local Cohomology, volume 136 of Cambridge Studies in
Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 2013.
[3] Winfried Bruns and Jürgen Herzog. Cohen-Macaulay Rings. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1993.
[4] Claude Chevalley. Invariants of finite groups generated by reflections. Amer. J. Math., 77:778–
782, 1955.
[5] Steven Dale Cutkosky. Purity of the branch locus and Lefschetz theorems. Compositio Math.,
96(2):173–195, 1995.
[6] V. I. Danilov. Cohomology of Algebraic Varieties. In Algebraic Geometry, II, volume 35 of
Encyclopaedia Math. Sci., pages 1–125, 255–262. Springer, Berlin, 1996.
[7] Harm Derksen and Gregor Kemper. Computational Invariant Theory. Springer-Verlag,
Berlin, 2002.
[8] Emilie Dufresne. Separating Invariants. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2008. Thesis
(Ph.D.)–Queen’s University (Canada).

22

FABIAN REIMERS

[9] Emilie Dufresne. Separating invariants and finite reflection groups. Adv. Math., 221(6):1979–
1989, 2009.
[10] Emilie Dufresne and Jack Jeffries. Separating invariants and local cohomology. Adv. Math.,
270:565–581, 2015.
[11] David Eisenbud. Commutative Algebra with a View Toward Algebraic Geometry. SpringerVerlag, New York, 1995.
[12] Lei Fu. Etale Cohomology Theory. World Scientific, Singapore, 2011.
[13] N. L. Gordeev. Invariants of linear groups generated by matrices with two eigenvalues different from one. Zap. Nauchn. Sem. Leningrad. Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov. (LOMI), 114:120–130,
219, 1982.
[14] Ulrich Görtz and Torsten Wedhorn. Algebraic Geometry I. Vieweg + Teubner, Wiesbaden,
2010.
[15] Alexander Grothendieck. Revêtements étales et groupe fondamental. Fasc. II: Exposés 6, 8
à 11. Institut des Hautes Études Scientifiques, Paris, 1963.
[16] Alexander Grothendieck. Cohomologie locale des faisceaux cohérents et théorèmes de Lefschetz locaux et globaux. Fasc. I: Exposés 1–8; Fasc. II: Exposés 9–13. Institut des Hautes
Études Scientifiques, Paris, 1965.
[17] Robin Hartshorne. Complete intersections and connectedness. Amer. J. Math., 84:497–508,
1962.
[18] Victor Kac and Keiichi Watanabe. Finite linear groups whose ring of invariants is a complete
intersection. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.), 6(2):221–223, 1982.
[19] Tobias Kamke and Gregor Kemper. Algorithmic invariant theory of nonreductive groups.
Qual. Theory Dyn. Syst., 11(1):79–110, 2012.
[20] Gregor Kemper. Separating invariants. J. Symbolic Comput., 44(9):1212–1222, 2009.
[21] Gregor Kemper. A Course in Commutative Algebra. Springer, Heidelberg, 2011.
[22] Gregor Kemper, Elmar Körding, Gunter Malle, B. Heinrich Matzat, Denis Vogel, and Gabor
Wiese. A database of invariant rings. Experiment. Math., 10(4):537–542, 2001.
[23] Reinhardt Kiehl and Ernst Kunz. Vollständige Durchschnitte und p-Basen. Archiv der Mathematik, 16(1):348–362, 1965.
[24] H. Kurke, G. Pfister, and M. Roczen. Henselsche Ringe und algebraische Geometrie. VEB
Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1975.
[25] Martin Lorenz. Multiplicative invariants and semigroup algebras. Algebr. Represent. Theory,
4(3):293–304, 2001.
[26] Martin Lorenz. Multiplicative Invariant Theory. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 2005.
[27] Hideyuki Matsumura. Commutative Ring Theory. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
1989.
[28] James S. Milne. Étale Cohomology. Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J., 1980.
[29] Emmy Noether. Der Endlichkeitssatz der Invarianten endlicher linearer Gruppen der
Charakteristik p. Nachrichten von der Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen,
Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse, 1926:28–35, 1926.
[30] Vladimir L. Popov and Ernest B. Vinberg. Invariant Theory. In N. N. Parshin and I. R.
Shafarevich, editors, Algebraic Geometry IV, pages 123–278. Springer, 1994.
[31] Fabian Reimers. Separating Invariants of Finite Groups. PhD thesis, Technische Universität
München, 2016.
[32] Jean-Pierre Serre. Groupes finis d’automorphismes d’anneaux locaux réguliers. In Colloque
d’Algèbre (Paris, 1967), Exp. 8, page 11. Secrétariat mathématique, Paris, 1968.
[33] G. C. Shephard and J. A. Todd. Finite unitary reflection groups. Canadian J. Math., 6:274–
304, 1954.
[34] Anurag K. Singh and Uli Walther. Local cohomology and pure morphisms. Illinois J. Math.,
51(1):287–298 (electronic), 2007.
[35] D. A. Stepanov. Gorenstein isolated quotient singularities over C. Proc. Edinb. Math. Soc.
(2), 57(3):811–839, 2014.
[36] Mohammed S. Tesemma. Reflection Groups and Semigroup Algebras in Multiplicative Invariant Theory. ProQuest LLC, Ann Arbor, MI, 2004. Thesis (Ph.D.)–Temple University.
[37] Keiichi Watanabe, Takeshi Ishikawa, Sadao Tachibana, and Kayo Otsuka. On tensor products
of Gorenstein rings. J. Math. Kyoto Univ., 9:413–423, 1969.
[38] Oscar Zariski. Analytical irreducibility of normal varieties. Ann. of Math. (2), 49:352–361,
1948.

SEPARATING INVARIANTS OF FINITE GROUPS

23

Technische Universiät München, Zentrum Mathematik - M11, Boltzmannstr. 3, 85748
Garching, Germany
E-mail address: reimers@ma.tum.de

