SYZYGIES OF BOUNDED RANK SYMMETRIC TENSORS
ARE GENERATED IN BOUNDED DEGREE

arXiv:1608.01722v2 [] 6 Jan 2017

STEVEN V SAM

Abstract. We study the syzygies of secant ideals of Veronese subrings of a ﬁxed commutative graded algebra over a ﬁeld of characteristic 0. One corollary is that the degrees of
the minimal generators of the ith syzygy module of the coordinate ring of the rth secant
variety of any Veronese embedding of a projective scheme X can be bounded by a constant
that only depends on i, r, and X, and not on the choice of the Veronese embedding.

1. Introduction
In [Sa], we studied the ideal of the rth secant variety of the dth Veronese embedding of
a projective space (over a field of characteristic 0), and proved the existence of a bound on
the degrees of its minimal generators which is independent of d (but depends on r, as it
must). In fact, the ideal of a secant variety has a purely algebraic definition, and so makes
sense for any Z≥0 -graded commutative ring B (the projective space case is when B is a
polynomial ring) and we also proved analogous results in this level of generality. The basic
idea in [Sa] is to recast the existence of these bounds to showing that a particular ideal in
a new algebraic structure B is finitely generated. Ultimately, one shows that all ideals in B
are finitely generated, i.e., B is noetherian.
A natural question is if all finitely generated modules over B are noetherian; however, from
the perspective of [Sa] it is not clear how to define modules. Our first goal in the current
paper is to translate [Sa] into the language of functor categories in the spirit of [CEF, SS2].
This has the downside of being more abstract, but can handle arbitrary modules with ease,
rather than just ideals. An immediate application of our expanded toolkit is that we can
study free resolutions of secant ideals (for some reasons of interest, see [Oe]). In particular,
we show that the ith syzygy module of the coordinate ring of the rth secant variety of the dth
Veronese embedding of projective space (whose space of minimal generators is the ith Tor
group with the residue field) is generated in bounded degree where the bound is independent
of d (see Corollary 3.5). The case i = 1 corresponds to the results of [Sa] mentioned above.
Furthermore, our techniques show that there are operators acting on these Tor groups in a
way which makes them finitely generated (see Remark 3.4) when considered all at once.
Notation. Given a nonnegative integer n, let [n] = {1, . . . , n} (by convention, [0] = ∅).
The group of permutations of [n] is denoted Σn . Throughout, k will denote a commutative
ring. In some places we will restrict it to be a field of characteristic 0. Given a set X, k[X]
is the free k-module with basis X. On the other hand, k[x1 , . . . , xr ] denotes the ring of
polynomials in variables x1 , . . . , xr with coefficients in k.
Date: November 21, 2016.
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification. 13D02, 13E05, 14M99.
SS was partially supported by NSF DMS-1500069 and Iuventus Plus grant 0301/IP3/2015/73 of the Polish
Ministry of Science.
1

2

STEVEN V SAM

Given a Z-graded algebra A =
A(d)e = Ad+e .

L

e

Ae and d ∈ Z, we write A(d) for the graded shift with

2. The Veronese category
2.1. Polynomial rings. Let k be a commutative ring. Fix r > 0.
To motivate the constructions in this section, we recall some definitions from [Sa, §2.1].
There, we defined a bigraded space A with Ad,n = (Symd kr )⊗n which is equipped with two
products. For the first, let σ be a partition {i1 < · · · < in } ∪ {j1 < · · · < jm } of [n + m] into
subsets of sizes n and m. For ui , vj ∈ Symd kr , define
·σ : (Symd kr )⊗n ⊗ (Symd kr )⊗m → (Symd kr )⊗(n+m)
by (u1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ un ) ·σ (v1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ vm ) = w1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ wn+m with wik = uk and wjk = vk .
The second multiplication is given by
∗ : (Symd kr )⊗n ⊗ (Syme kr )⊗n → (Symd+e kr )⊗n
(u1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ un ) ⊗ (v1 ⊗ · · · ⊗ vn ) 7→ (u1 v1 ) ⊗ · · · ⊗ (un vn ).
Implicit in this definition is that α ∗ β = 0 for α ∈ Ad,n and β ∈ Ae,m when n 6= m. In
[Sa], we were interested in A as a left-module over itself via these two multiplications: in
our application to secant varieties, our primary interest was understanding what an element
in some bigraded space Ad,m generates under left multiplication by all other elements in all
possible ways. The space Ad,m can be thought of as the space of all possible operations
between A0,0 = k and Ad,m , and so A is “freely generated” in bidegree (0, 0). For our
applications to syzygies, we will need the spaces which are freely generated in other bidegrees.
Following [CEF] and [SS2], we will encode the operations from Ad,m to Ae,n as the space of
morphisms from an object (d, m) to an object (e, n) in an abstract category kVr . The above
two operations tell us how to do this when d = e or when m = n. To be precise, when d = e,
an operation from Ad,m to Ad,n is given by the partition σ of [n] and an element of Ad,n−m. A
basis of these operations can be encoded by an order-preserving injection [m] → [n] together
with an ordered list of monomials, and we choose this latter perspective for consistency with
the category OI studied in [SS2, §7]. When m = n, an operation from Ad,n to Ae,n consists
of a choice of an element of Ae−d,n , and has a basis given by the monomials, which again are
represented by an ordered list of n − m monomials in Symd kr . Our preference is to represent
a monomial in Symd kr by its exponent vector in Zr≥0 .
When d 6= e and m 6= n, succinctly describing a basis for the space of operations is
more complicated; roughly, it should be a formal composition of the basic morphisms just
mentioned modulo certain natural identifications. Our task now is to carefully give these
definitions along with their compositions.
Define
(Zr≥0 )d = {(x1 , . . . , xr ) ∈ Zr≥0 | x1 + · · · + xr = d}.
As mentioned, we think of this as a basis for Symd kr , and we define addition componentwise
+ : (Zr≥0 )d × (Zr≥0 )e → (Zr≥0 )d+e .
Definition 2.1. Define the Veronese category Vr as follows. The objects of Vr are pairs
(d, m) ∈ Z2≥0 and a morphism α : (d, m) → (e, n) consists of the following data:
• An order-preserving injection α1 : [m] → [n],
• A function α2 : [n] \ α1 ([m]) → (Zr≥0 )e ,

SYZYGIES OF BOUNDED RANK SYMMETRIC TENSORS

3

• A function α3 : [m] → (Zr≥0 )e−d .
In particular, HomVr ((d, m), (e, n)) = ∅ if d > e. Given another morphism β : (e, n) → (f, p),
the composition β ◦ α = γ : (d, m) → (f, p) is defined by
• γ1 = β1 ◦ α1 ,
• γ2 : [p] \ γ1 ([m]) → (Zr≥0 )f is defined by:
– if i ∈ [p] \ β1 ([n]), then γ2 (i) = β2 (i), and
– if i ∈ β1 ([n]\α1 ([m])), then γ2 (i) = α2 (i′ )+β3 (i′ ) where i′ is the unique preimage
of i under β1 .
• γ3 : [m] → (Zr≥0 )f −d is defined by γ3 (i) = α3 (i) + β3 (α1 (i)).

When d = e, the function α3 is superfluous and the pair (α1 , α2 ) encodes an operation as
discussed above. Similarly, when n = m, the functions α1 and α2 are superfluous, and α3
also encodes an operation as discussed above.
Lemma 2.2. Composition as defined above is associative.
Proof. Suppose we are given three morphisms
α

β

γ

(d, m) −
→ (e, n) −
→ (f, p) −
→ (g, q).
We will verify that all 3 components of both ways of interpreting γβα are the same.
• (γ1 β1 )α1 = γ1 (β1 α1 ) by associativity of function composition.
• Consider [q] \ (γ1 β1 α1 ([m])) → (Zr≥0 )g .
– If i ∈ [q] \ γ1 ([p]), then i 7→ γ2 (i) under both compositions.
– If i ∈ γ1 ([p] \ β1 ([n])), let i′ be the unique preimage of i under γ1 .
Under γ(βα), we have i 7→ (βα)2 (i′ ) + γ3 (i′ ) = β2 (i′ ) + γ3 (i′ ).
Under (γβ)α, we have i 7→ (γβ)2 (i) = β2 (i′ ) + γ3 (i′ ).
– If i ∈ γ1 β1 ([n] \ α1 ([m])), let i′ be the unique preimage of i under γ1 , and let i′′
be the unique preimage of i′ under β1 .
Under γ(βα), we have i 7→ (βα)2 (i′ ) + γ3 (i′ ) = α2 (i′′ ) + β3 (i′′ ) + γ3 (i′ ).
Under (γβ)α, we have i 7→ α2 (i′′ ) + (γβ)3 (i′′ ) = α2 (i′′ ) + β3 (i′′ ) + γ3 (i′ ).
• Now consider the map [m] → (Zr≥0 )g−d .
Under γ(βα), we have i 7→ (βα)3(i) + γ3 (β1 α1 (i)) = α3 (i) + β3 (α1 (i)) + γ3 (β1 α1 (i)).
Under (γβ)α, we have i 7→ α3 (i)+(γβ)3 (α1 (i)) = α3 (i)+β3 (α1 (i))+γ3 (β1 α1 (i)). 
Remark 2.3. For fixed d, the full subcategory of Vr on the objects (d, n) with n varying is
equivalent to the category OIN from [SS2, §7.1] where N = |(Zr≥0 )d |. So Vr combines these
all at once with d varying, but there are additional morphisms between these subcategories
that allow them to interact.

Let kVr be the k-linearization of Vr , i.e., HomkVr (x, y) = k[HomVr (x, y)]. A kVr -module
is a functor from Vr to the category of k-modules. Equivalently, a kVr -module is a k-linear
functor from kVr to the category of k-modules. Morphisms of kVr -modules are natural
transformations, and kVr -modules form an abelian category where submodules, kernels,
cokernels, etc. are computed pointwise.
Remark 2.4. We can define the k-linearization kVr by modifying Definition 2.1 so that
the functions α2 and α3 take values in the space of degree e or degree d − e homogeneous
polynomials in k[x1 , . . . , xr ], respectively, if we impose certain multilinear relations on them.
While this seems complicated, this is necessary in Definition 2.10 where k[x1 , . . . , xr ] is
replaced by a general ring which does not possess a monomial basis.


4

STEVEN V SAM

Given (d, m) ∈ Z2≥0 , define a kVr -module Pd,m by Pd,m (e, n) = k[HomVr ((d, m), (e, n))].
This is the principal projective kVr -module generated in bidegree (d, m), and they give a set
of projective generators for the category of kVr -modules, i.e., every kVr -module is a quotient
of a direct sum of principal projectives. Then Pd,m (e, n) is the space of operations from Ad,m
to Ae,n which we discussed at the beginning of the section, so Pd,m is an A-module freely
generated in bidegree (d, m).
Vr
. A kVr -module M is finitely generated if
To emphasize the category, we will write Pd,m
Lg
there is a surjection i=1 Pdi ,mi → M → 0 with g finite. A kVr -module is noetherian if all
of its submodules are finitely generated.
For the definition of a Gröbner category, see [SS2, Definition 4.3.1]. We will not need this
concept except for its consequence in the next result.
Proposition 2.5. Vr is a Gröbner category. In particular, if k is noetherian, then every
finitely generated kVr -module is noetherian.
Proof. We will use [SS2, Theorem 4.3.2]. So fix (d, m) ∈ Z2≥0 . Let
a
a
Σ = Zr≥0 ∐ Zr≥0 =
(Zr≥0 )e ∐ (Zr≥0 )e−d .
e≥0

e≥d

We order elements of each copy of Zr≥0 by componentwise comparison, i.e., (a1 , . . . , ar ) ≤
(b1 , . . . , br ) if and only if ai ≤ bi for all i. Elements in the different copies of Zr≥0 are
incomparable.
Recall that a poset P is noetherian if, given any infinite sequence x1 , x2 , . . . with xi ∈
P , there exists i < j such that xi ≤ xj . Then Zr≥0 is noetherian by Dickson’s lemma
(alternatively, finite products of noetherian posets are noetherian, see [SS2, Proposition
2.3]). Clearly finite disjoint unions preserve noetherianity, so Σ is also noetherian.
Given a poset P , let P ⋆ be the set of finite length sequences of elements in P . The Higman
order on P ⋆ is defined by (x1 , . . . , xr ) ≤ (y1 , . . . , ys ) if there exists 1 ≤ i1 < · · · < ir ≤ s such
that xj ≤ yij for 1 ≤ j ≤ r. If P is noetherian, then so is P ⋆ by Higman’s lemma (see [SS2,
Theorem 2.5]). In particular, Σ⋆ is noetherian.
Given a morphism α : (d, m) → (e, n), define a word w(α) ∈ Σ⋆ of length n by
(
α3 (j) ∈ (Zr≥0 )e−d if i = α1 (j)
w(α)i =
(2.5.1)
.
α2 (i) ∈ (Zr≥0 )e
if i ∈
/ α1 ([m])
Note that α can be reconstructed from w(α). Define α ≤ γ if there exists β such that
γ = β ◦ α. Then it follows from our definition of composition that the set of morphisms
α : (d, m) → (e, n) with (d, m) fixed and (e, n) varying is naturally a subposet of Σ⋆ , i.e.,
α ≤ α′ if and only if w(α) ≤ w(α′ ). Since noetherianity is inherited by subposets, we
conclude that this partial order on morphisms with source (d, m) is noetherian. This is one
of the conditions to check that Vr is Gröbner.
To finish, we need to show that the set of morphisms with source (d, m) is orderable, i.e.,
for each (e, n), there exists a total ordering on the set of morphisms (d, m) → (e, n) so that
for any β : (e, n) → (f, p), we have α < α′ implies that βα < βα′ . To do this, first put
the lexicographic order on Zr≥0 and then totally order Σ by declaring all of the elements of
the first Zr≥0 to be larger than all of the elements of the second Zr≥0 . Now extend this to a
lexicographic ordering on Σ⋆ to get the desired ordering.


SYZYGIES OF BOUNDED RANK SYMMETRIC TENSORS

5

By our comments in the beginning of the section, [Sa, Corollary 2.9] is a special case of
Proposition 2.5.
Remark 2.6. In the definition of morphisms in Vr , we could drop the requirement that
α1 is order-preserving. The forgetful functor from Vr to this category satisfies property (F)
in the sense of [SS2, Definition 3.2.1]. Hence this new category is quasi-Gröbner and its
finitely generated modules are noetherian when k is noetherian. Furthermore, going back
to Remark 2.3, the full subcategory of this category on objects (d, n), with d fixed and n
varying, is equivalent to the category FIN from [SS2, §7.1] with N = |(Zr≥0 )d |.

2.2. Symmetrized versions. In kVr , the space of morphisms (0, 0) → (d, m) is identified with the tensor power (Symd kr )⊗m . For our applications, we need symmetric powers
Symm (Symd kr ), so we now define symmetrized versions of the Veronese category kVr .
Definition 2.7. Given α : (d, m) → (e, n) and σ ∈ Σn , there is a unique τ ∈ Σm so that
σα1 τ −1 is order-preserving; we refer to τ as the permutation induced by σ with respect to
α1 . Define σ(α) by
• σ(α)1 = σα1 τ −1 ,
• σ(α)2 = α2 σ −1 ,
• σ(α)3 = α3 τ −1 .
This defines an action of Σn on HomVr ((d, m), (e, n)), and we set
HomkVΣr ((d, m), (e, n)) = k[HomVr ((d, m), (e, n))]Σn
where the superscript denotes taking invariants.



Lemma 2.8. Given α : (d, m) → (e, n) and β : (e, n) → (f, p), and σ ∈ Σp , we have σ(β ◦
α) = σ(β) ◦ τ (α) where τ ∈ Σn is the permutation induced by σ with respect to β1 . In
particular, kVΣ
r is a k-linear subcategory of kVr .
Proof. Let ρ ∈ Σℓ be the permutation induced by τ with respect to α1 . Then (σβ1 τ −1 )(τ α1 ρ−1 )
is order-preserving, so ρ is also the permutation induced by σ with respect to β1 α1 . Hence
σ(βα)1 = σ(β)1 τ (α)1 .
Next, we show that σ(βα)2 = (σ(β)τ (α))2. If i ∈ [p] \ σ(β)1 ([n]), then
σ(βα)2(i) = (βα)2σ −1 (i) = β2 (σ −1 (i)) = σ(β)2 (i) = (σ(β)τ (α))2 (i).
Otherwise, if i ∈ σ(β)1 ([n] \ τ (α)1 ([m])), let i′ be the unique preimage of i under σβ1 τ −1 .
Then τ −1 (i′ ) is the unique preimage of σ −1 (i) under β1 , and we have
σ(βα)2 (i) = (βα)2 σ −1 (i) = α2 (τ −1 (i′ )) + β3 (τ −1 (i′ )) = τ (α)2 (i′ ) + σ(β)3 (i′ ) = (σ(β)τ (α))2(i).
Finally, we show that σ(βα)3 = (σ(β)τ (α))3 . For i ∈ [ℓ], we have
(σ(β) ◦ τ (α))3 (i) = τ (α)3 (i) + σ(β)3 (τ (α)1 (i))
= α3 (ρ−1 (i)) + σ(β)3(τ α1 ρ−1 (i))
= α3 (ρ−1 (i)) + β3 α1 (ρ−1 (i))
= (βα)3 (ρ−1 (i)) = σ(βα)3(i).



Σ
A kVΣ
r -module is a k-linear functor from kVr to the category of k-modules. For each
kVΣ
r
(d, m), the principal projective kVΣ
((d, m), (e, n))
r -module is defined by Pd,m (e, n) = HomkVΣ
r

6

STEVEN V SAM

and we say that a kVΣ
r -module M is finitely generated if there is a surjection
M → 0 with g finite.

Lg

i=1

kVΣ

Pdi ,mr i →

Proposition 2.9. If k contains a field of characteristic 0, then every finitely generated
kVΣ
r -module is noetherian.
kVΣ

Vr
and Qd,m = Pd,mr ; we have a natural inclusion Qd,m (e, n) ⊆ Pd,m (e, n)
Proof. Set Pd,m = Pd,m
for all (e, n). Given a kVΣ
r -submodule M of Qd,m , let N be the Vr -submodule of Pd,m that it
generates. Given a list of generators of N coming from M, Proposition 2.5 guarantees that
some finite subset γ1 , . . . , γg of them already generates N. Let π be the symmetrization map

k[HomVr ((d, m), (e, n))] → k[HomVr ((d, m), (e, n))]Σn ,
1 X
σ(α).
α 7→
n! σ∈Σ
n

If α ∈ k[HomVr ((d, m), (e, n))]Σn , then π(α) = α; given β ∈ k[HomVr ((e, n), (f, p))], then
π(βα) = π(β)α by Lemma 2.8.
P
Given any element γ of M, P
we have an expression γ =
i δi γi where δi ∈ kVr . So,
applying π, we get γ = π(γ) = i π(δi )γi , so γ1 , . . . , γg also generate M as a kVΣ
r -module.
Σ
In particular, the principal projectives of kVr are noetherian, so the same is true for any
finitely generated module.

Now assume that k contains a field of characteristic 0. We define the symmetrized
Veronese category Vr = (kVr )Σ as follows. First, set
HomVr ((d, m), (e, n)) = k[HomVr ((d, m), (e, n))]Σn
where the subscript denotes coinvariants under Σn . We have an isomorphism
∼
=

k[HomVr ((d, m), (e, n))]Σn −
→ k[HomVr ((d, m), (e, n))]Σn
1 X
σ(α),
α 7→
n! σ∈Σ
n

and we use this to transfer the k-linear category structure from kVΣ
r to Vr . Note, in parm
d r
ticular, that HomVr ((0, 0), (d, m)) is identified with Sym (Sym k ), which was our goal
mentioned at the beginning of this section.
2.3. General rings. Let B be a graded k-algebra which is generated by B1 and assume
that B1 is a quotient of kr with r < ∞. In [Sa, §§2.2, 3], we defined a generalization B of
the algebra A which satisfies Bd,n = Bd⊗n and also has two multiplications ·σ and ∗. We also
defined the symmetric analogue BΣ which satisfies (BΣ )d,n = Symn (Bd ). This was applied to
secant varieties of Veronese embeddings of general varieties (other than projective spaces).
As in the previous sections, we want to translate the definition of the algebras B and BΣ into
categorical language so that we can discuss modules and apply it to the study of syzygies of
secant varieties. The main technical difficulty is that B in general does not have a monomial
basis, so rather than define a category and linearize it (as was done for Vr ), we have to start
immediately with a k-linear category.
Definition 2.10. Define a k-linear category kVB as follows. Objects of kVB are elements
of Z2≥0 , and a basic morphism α : (d, m) → (e, n) consists of the following data:

SYZYGIES OF BOUNDED RANK SYMMETRIC TENSORS

7

• An order-preserving injection α1 : [m] → [n],
• A function α2 : [n] \ α1 ([m]) → Be ,
• A function α3 : [m] → Be−d .
Then HomkVB ((d, m), (e, n)) is the free k-module generated by basic morphisms modulo the
following “multilinear” relations:
• Let β : (d, m) → (e, n) be a morphism with β1 = α1 , β2 = α2 and β3 (i) = α3 (i) for
all i ∈ [m] \ {j}. Then α + β = γ where γ1 = β1 , γ2 = β2 , and γ3 (i) = β3 (i) for
i ∈ [m] \ {j} and γ3 (j) = α3 (j) + β3 (j).
Furthermore, if β3 (j) = ξα3 (j) for ξ ∈ k, then ξα = β.
• Let β : (d, m) → (e, n) be a morphism with β1 = α1 , β2 = α2 and β3 (i) = α3 (i) for all
i ∈ ([n] \ α1 ([m])) \ {j}. Then α + β = γ where γ1 = β1 , γ3 = β3 , and γ2 (i) = β2 (i)
for i ∈ ([n] \ α1 ([m])) \ {j} and γ2 (j) = α2 (j) + β2 (j).
Furthermore, if β2 (j) = ξα2 (j) for ξ ∈ k, then ξα = β.
In particular,
n
⊗m
⊗k Be⊗(n−m) )⊕(m) .
HomkVB ((d, m), (e, n)) ∼
= (Be−d
More precisely, the morphisms with a given α1 belong to the tensor product of m copies of
Be−d and n − m copies of Be where the ith space is Be−d if and only if i in the image of α1 .
Composition of morphisms is defined as in Vr : the main change is to replace + with
multiplication in B (in Vr , we were dealing with the monomial basis of B = k[x1 , . . . , xr ] so
we used their exponent vectors).

Similarly, we can define kVΣ
B and kVB . So we have an identification
HomkVB ((d, m), (e, n)) = Symm (Be−d ) ⊗k Symn−m (Be ),
and the principal projectives in kVB and kVB are naturally quotients of the corresponding
principal projectives in Vr and Vr . So we get the following result:
Proposition 2.11. Suppose k is a field of characteristic 0. Every finitely generated kVB module is noetherian, and the same is true for finitely generated kVB -modules.
Remark 2.12. These definitions parallel the constructions in [Sa, §3]. In particular, we
can identify BΣ and BΣ from [Sa] with the principal projectives generated in degree (0, 0) in
kVΣ
B and kVB , respectively. Furthermore, the notions of ideal and di-ideal in [Sa] translate to
submodules in both cases. So [Sa, Proposition 3.3] is a special case of Proposition 2.11. 
3. Syzygies of secant ideals
In this section, k is a field of characteristic 0 and B is a graded k-algebra generated by
B1 with dimk B1 < ∞.
The principal projective P0,0 in kVB is the algebra BΣ from [Sa] and each principal projective Pd,m is a module over it. We use BΣ (−d, −m) to denote this module; by Proposition 2.11,
these are all noetherian modules.
In [Sa, §4], we defined IB (1) ⊂ BΣ by setting IB (1)d,m to be the kernel of the multiplication
map Symm (Bd ) → Bdm , and we inductively defined the secant ideals IB (r) by setting
IB (r)d,m to be the kernel of the comultiplication map
m

Sym (Bd ) →

m
M
i=0

Symi (Bd )/IB (1)d,i ⊗k Symm−i (Bd )/IB (r − 1)d,m−i .

8

STEVEN V SAM

By [Sa, Proposition 4.3], IB (r) is a kVB -submodule of P0,0 for all r.
Remark 3.1. Actually, [Sa, Proposition 4.3] shows that assigning the kernel of Bd⊗m → Bdm
to (d, m) is a functor on kVB , in which case one can work over any k (not just fields of characteristic 0). This is the preimage of IB (1) under the quotient map B → BΣ . Unfortunately,
this map is not compatible with all of the relevant algebraic operations, so the preimage of
IB (2) need not be a submodule (see Example 3.8).

L
For d fixed, m IB (r)d,m is an ideal in Sym(Bd ). So we can define an algebra
M
Secd,r (B) =
Symm (Bd )/IB (r)d,m
m≥0

which is a quotient of Sym(Bd ). More generally, if M is a kVB -module, then for d fixed,
L
m Md,m is a Sym(Bd )-module.

Lemma 3.2. Fix d, e, n. Then

M

BΣ (−e, −n)d,m

m≥0

is a free Sym(Bd )-module generated in degree n whose rank is dimk Symn (Bd−e ).
Proof. We have
M

BΣ (−e, −n)d,m =

m≥0

M

(Symn (Bd−e ) ⊗ Symm−n (Bd ))

m≥0

= Symn (Bd−e ) ⊗ Sym(Bd )(−n).

As follows from the definitions, the action of Sym(Bd ) on this space corresponds to the usual
multiplication on Sym(Bd )(−n).

Theorem 3.3. There is a function CB (i, r), depending on i, r, B, but independent of d, such
Sym(Bd )
that Tori
(Secd,r (B), k) is concentrated in degrees ≤ CB (i, r).
Proof. IB (r) is a finitely generated submodule of BΣ , and hence has a projective resolution
· · · → Fi → Fi−1 → · · · → F0 such that each Fi is a finite direct sum of principal projective
modules by Proposition 2.11. For d fixed, we get an exact complex of Sym(Bd )-modules
M
M
M
··· →
(Fi )d,m →
(Fi−1 )d,m → · · · →
(F0 )d,m → Secd,r (B) → 0.
m

If Fi =

Lk

j=1

m

m

BΣ (−dj , −mj ), then set CB (i, r) = max(m1 , . . . , mk ).

In particular, by
Sym(Bd )

Lemma 3.2, this gives a free resolution which can be used to compute Tori
which we conclude is concentrated in degrees ≤ CB (i, r).
Sym(B )

(Secd,r , k)


d
Remark 3.4. Write Ti;d,r (B) = Tori
(Secd,r (B), k). As used above, this is Z-graded,
and we denote the mth graded component by Ti;d,r (B)m . For fixed i, m, r, we get a functor
on the full subcategory of kVB on objects of the form (d, m) by (d, m) 7→ Ti;d,r (B)m . From
the results above, we conclude that this is a finitely generated functor. In particular, as we
allow d to vary, this says that Ti;d,r (B)m is “built out” of Ti;d′ ,r (B)m where the d′ range over
some finite list of integers. This can be thought of as the Veronese analogue of ∆-modules
in the sense of Snowden ([Sn], [SS2, §9]).


SYZYGIES OF BOUNDED RANK SYMMETRIC TENSORS

9

If V is a vector space and X ⊆ V is a conical subscheme, i.e., an affine scheme whose
defining ideal is homogeneous, then we can take B = Sym(V )/IX where IX is the ideal of X
(see [Sa, §5] for some further discussion of these definitions). We write Secd,r (X) instead of
Secd,r (Sym(V )/IX ). The above result then specializes to the following result.
Corollary 3.5. Let X ⊆ V be a conical subscheme. There is a function CX (i, r), depending
on i, r, X, but independent of d, such that the ith Tor module of Secd,r (X) is concentrated in
degrees ≤ CX (i, r).
The case i = 1 refers to the minimal equations generating the ideal of Secd,r (X), so
Corollary 3.5 generalizes [Sa, Theorem 5.1].
For the next proof, we use Schur functors Sλ which are indexed by integer partitions (see
[SS1, §5] and the references given there). In particular, Sd is the dth symmetric power. We
use ℓ(λ) to denote the number of nonzero parts of λ (for symmetric powers, ℓ = 1 since (d)
just has one entry). If Sν ⊆ Sλ ⊗ Sµ , then ℓ(ν) ≤ ℓ(λ) + ℓ(µ) [SS1, §9.1].
Theorem 3.6. In the case X = V , the function CX (i, r) is independent of dim V once
dim V ≥ r + i. In particular, there is a bound that works for all V simultaneously.
Proof. Secd,r (V ) is a direct sum of Schur functors Sλ (V ∗ ) with ℓ(λ) ≤ r since it is contained
in a subspace variety (see [Sa, Remark 5.2]). The ith Tor module of Secd,r (V ) is the ith homology of the Koszul complex on Symd (V ∗ ) tensored (over Sym(Symd (V ∗ ))) with Secd,r (V ),
V
so is a subquotient of i (Symd (V ∗ )) ⊂ (Symd (V ∗ ))⊗i tensored (over k) with Secd,r (V ). So
all Schur functors Sµ (V ∗ ) that appear in the ith Tor module satisfy ℓ(µ) ≤ r + i by the
subadditivity of ℓ mentioned above. In particular, no information is lost by specializing to
the case dim V = r + i [SS1, Corollary 9.1.3].

Remark 3.7. The ideal of the Veronese embedding of any projective space has a quadratic
Gröbner basis (for example, see [ERT, Proposition 17]). By semicontinuity of Tor with
respect to taking initial ideals [MS, Theorem 8.29] and the basic properties of the Taylor

resolution for monomial ideals [MS, §6.1], this implies that CV (i, 1) ≤ 2i for all i.
Example 3.8. Consider the case of B = k[s, t]. Let xi = si t4−i for i = 0, . . . , 4 and
yj = sj t5−j for j = 0, . . . , 5, so that x0 , . . . , x4 and y0 , . . . , y5 are the coordinates of the 4th
and 5th Veronese embeddings of P1 . In each case, the ideal of the second secant variety is
generated by the 3 × 3 minors of the catalecticant matrices




x0 x1 x2
y0 y1 y2 y3
X = x1 x2 x3  ,
Y = y1 y2 y3 y4 
x2 x3 x4
y2 y3 y4 y5

(see [Ei, Exercise 6.2]). Consider the following preimage of det X in B4⊗3 (we omit the ⊗
symbol):
x0 x2 x4 − x0 x3 x3 + x1 x2 x3 − x1 x1 x4 + x2 x1 x3 − x2 x2 x2 .
If we multiply this by tst ∈ B1⊗3 (in the categorical language, apply the morphism α : (4, 3) →
(5, 3) where α3 : [3] → B1 is the function 1 7→ t, 2 7→ s, 3 7→ t), we get the following element
in B5⊗3 :
y0 y3 y4 − y0 y4 y3 + y1 y3 y3 − y1 y2 y4 + y2 y2 y3 − y2 y3 y2 .
If we symmetrize this, the corresponding element in Sym3 (B5 ) is not in the ideal generated
by the 3×3 minors of Y . On the other hand, if we multiply it by stt+tst+tts ∈ (B1⊗3 )Σ3 , the

10

STEVEN V SAM

result is in the ideal generated by the 3 × 3 minors of Y (which follows from [Sa, Proposition
4.3]). Both of these statements can be checked with Macaulay2 [M2]:
R=QQ[y0,y1,y2,y3,y4,y5];
I=minors(3, matrix{{y0,y1,y2,y3}, {y1,y2,y3,y4}, {y2,y3,y4,y5}});
f1=y0*y3*y4 - y0*y4*y3 + y1*y3*y3 - y1*y2*y4 + y2*y2*y3 - y2*y3*y2;
f2=y1*y2*y4 - y1*y3*y3 + y2*y2*y3 - y2*y1*y4 + y3*y1*y3 - y3*y2*y2;
f3=y0*y2*y5 - y0*y3*y4 + y1*y2*y4 - y1*y1*y5 + y2*y1*y4 - y2*y2*y3;
I+ideal(f1) == I --false
I+ideal(f1+f2+f3) == I --true
4. Complements
As in [Sa],
L we can also prove multi-graded versions of the above results. To be precise,
let B = d∈Zℓ Bd be a multi-graded ring which is generated by the Bd with |d| = 1. It
≥0

is straightforward to generalize the definitions of the categories kVB , kVΣ
B , kVB by allowing
the objects to be (d, m) ∈ Zℓ≥0 × Z≥0 and proving analogous results as above. Since the
notation becomes more messy, we will leave this to the interested reader.
The ensuing results can be stated as follows. Define a kVB -module IB (1) by setting
IB (1)d,m to be the kernel of the multiplication map Symm (Bd ) → Bmd and inductively
define the secant ideals IB (r) by setting IB (r)d,m to be the kernel of the comultiplication
map
m
M
Symm (Bd ) →
Symi (Bd )/IB (1)d,i ⊗k Symm−i (Bd )/IB (r − 1)d,m−i .
i=0

As usual, these are kVB -submodules of the principal projective P0,0 , and we define
M
Secd,r (B) =
Symm (Bd )/IB (r)d,m .
m≥0

Theorem 4.1. There is a function CB (i, r), depending on i, r, B, but independent of d, such
Sym(Bd )
that Tori
(Secd,r (B), k) is concentrated in degrees ≤ CB (i, r).
A special case of this arises by consideringLa projective scheme X and line bundles
1
ℓ
L1 , . . . , Lℓ on X. We get a multi-graded ring d1 ,...,dℓ ≥0 H0 (X; L⊗d
⊗ · · · ⊗ L⊗d
1
ℓ ) and we
0
can take B to be the subring generated by H (X; Li ) for i = 1, . . . , ℓ.
As an even more special case of this, we can consider partial flag varieties. Let e =
(e1 < e2 < · · · < eℓ ) be an increasing sequence of positive integers. Given a vector space
V , let F(e, V ) be the partial flag variety of type e: its points are increasing sequences of
subspaces W1 ⊂ · · · ⊂ Wℓ ⊂ V where dim Wi = ei . Its Picard group is isomorphic to Zℓ ,
generated by line bundles L1 , . . . , Lℓ (corresponding to the fundamental weights ωe1 , . . . , ωeℓ
1
ℓ
of SL(V )); set L(d) := L⊗d
⊗ · · · ⊗ L⊗d
1
ℓ . When e = (1), F(e, V ) is projective space. Define
Secd,r (F(e, V )) to be the rth secant variety of the image of F(e, V ) under the map defined
by the line bundle L(d).
Theorem 4.2. There is a function Ce (i, r), depending on e, i, r, but independent of d, such
that the ith Tor module of Secd,r (F(e, V )) is concentrated in degrees ≤ Ce (i, r). In fact,
Ce (i, r) is also independent of dim V once dim V ≥ reℓ + i.
As before, [Sa, Theorem 1.3] is the case i = 1 of this theorem.

SYZYGIES OF BOUNDED RANK SYMMETRIC TENSORS

11

Proof. The only thing that has not already been explained is the independence of Ce (i, r)
from dim V . This is similar to the proof of Theorem 3.6, but we use instead the statement that the Schur functors Sλ appearing in the coordinate ring satisfy ℓ(λ) ≤ reℓ [MM,
Proposition 5.6].

As in [Sa], we can also take finite products of projective schemes. This is essentially
covered by the case of multi-graded rings already. One slightly new case would be to take
finite products of partial flag varieties and getting independence of the bounds from the
dimensions of the vector spaces involved. These are the higher Tor group analogues of the
results in [Sa, §6].
References
[CEF] Thomas Church, Jordan Ellenberg, Benson Farb, FI-modules and stability for representations of
symmetric groups, Duke Math. J. 164 (2015), no. 9, 1833–1910, arXiv:1204.4533v3.
[Ei]
David Eisenbud, The Geometry of Syzygies, Graduate Texts in Mathematics 229, Springer-Verlag,
New York, 2005.
[ERT] David Eisenbud, Alyson Reeves, Burt Totaro, Initial ideals, Veronese subrings, and rates of algebras,
Adv. Math. 109 (1994), 168–187.
[M2] Daniel R. Grayson and Michael E. Stillman, Macaulay 2, a software system for research in algebraic
geometry, available at http://www.math.uiuc.edu/Macaulay2/.
[MM] Laurent Manivel, Mateusz Michalek, Secants of minuscule and cominuscule minimal orbits, Linear
Algebra Appl. 481 (2015), 288–312, arXiv:1401.1956v1.
[MS] Ezra Miller, Bernd Sturmfels, Combinatorial Commutative Algebra, Graduate Texts in Mathematics
227, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2005.
[Oe] Luke Oeding, Are all secant varieties of Segre products arithmetically Cohen-Macaulay?,
arXiv:1603.08980v2.
[Sa] Steven V Sam, Ideals of bounded rank symmetric tensors are generated in bounded degree, Invent.
Math., to appear, arXiv:1510.04904v2.
[SS1] Steven V Sam, Andrew Snowden, Introduction to twisted commutative algebras, arXiv:1209.5122v1.
[SS2] Steven V Sam, Andrew Snowden, Gröbner methods for representations of combinatorial categories,
J. Amer. Math. Soc. 30 (2017), 159–203, arXiv:1409.1670v3.
[Sn] Andrew Snowden, Syzygies of Segre embeddings and ∆-modules, Duke Math. J. 162 (2013), no. 2,
225–277, arXiv:1006.5248v4.
Department of Mathematics, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI
E-mail address: svs@math.wisc.edu
URL: http://math.wisc.edu/~svs/

