arXiv:1512.08452v1 [math.RA] 28 Dec 2015

Typical ranks for 3-tensors, nonsingular bilinear maps and
determinantal ideals
Toshio Sumi, Mitsuhiro Miyazaki and Toshio Sakata
Abstract
Let m, n ≥ 3, (m − 1)(n − 1) + 2 ≤ p ≤ mn, and u = mn − p. The set Ru×n×m of
all real tensors with size u × n × m is one to one corresponding to the set of bilinear maps
Rm × Rn → Ru . We show that Rm×n×p has plural typical ranks p and p + 1 if and only if
there exists a nonsingular bilinear map Rm × Rn → Ru . We show that there is a dense open
subset O of Ru×n×m such that for any Y ∈ O, the ideal of maximal minors of a matrix defined
by Y in a certain way is a prime ideal and the real radical of that is the irrelevant maximal
ideal if that is not a real prime ideal. Further, we show that there is a dense open subset T of
Rn×p×m and continuous surjective open maps ν : O → Ru×p and σ : T → Ru×p , where Ru×p
is the set of u × p matrices with entries in R, such that if ν(Y ) = σ(T ), then rank T = p if and
only if the ideal of maximal minors of the matrix defined by Y is a real prime ideal.

1

Introduction

For positive integers m, n, and p, we consider an m × n × p tensor which is an element of the tensor
product of Rm , Rn , and Rp with standard basis. This tensor can be identified with a 3-way array
(aijk ) where 1 ≤ i ≤ m, 1 ≤ j ≤ n and 1 ≤ k ≤ p. We denote by Rm×n×p the set of all m × n × p
tensors. This set is a topological space with Euclidean topology. Hitchcock [15] defined the rank
of a tensor. An integer r is called a typical rank of Rm×n×p if the set of tensors with rank r is a
semi-algebraic set of dimension mnp. In the other words, r is a typical rank of Rm×n×p if the set
of tensors with rank r contains an open set of Rm×n×p . In this paper we discuss the typical ranks
of 3-tensors and connect between plurality of typical ranks and existence of a nonsingular bilinear
map.
Let n ≤ p. A typical rank of R1×n×p is equal to an n × p matrix full rank, that is, n. If n ≥ 2,
then the set of typical ranks of R2×n×p is equal to {n, n + 1} if n = p and otherwise min{p, 2n}
[36]. This is also obtained from the equivalent class: almost all 2 × n × p tensors are equivalent to
((En , On×(p−n) ); (On×(p−n) , En )) which has rank min{p, 2n} if n < p (see [18] or [32]), see Section 2
for notation. Suppose that n ≥ m ≥ 3. The set of typical ranks of Rm×n×p is equal to min{p, mn}
if (m − 1)n < p [35]. If p = (m − 1)n then the set of typical ranks of Rm×n×p depends on the
existence of a nonsingular bilinear map Rm × Rn → Rn : It is equal to {p} if there is no nonsingular
bilinear map Rm × Rn → Rn and {p, p + 1} otherwise [33]. Here, a bilinear map f : Rm × Rn → Rr
is called nonsingular if f (x, y) = 0 implies x = 0 or y = 0.
Suppose that (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1 ≤ p ≤ (m − 1)n. A typical rank of Rm×n×p is unknown
except a few cases. First, p is a minimal typical rank, since p is a generic rank of Cm×n×p [5]. The
authors [34] showed that the Hurwitz-Radon function gives a condition that Rm×n×(m−1)n has
1

plural typical ranks. We [24] also showed that Rm×n×p has plural typical ranks for some (m, n, p)
by using the concept of absolutely full column rank tensors. We let m#n be the minimal integer
r such that there is a nonsingular bilinear map Rm × Rn → Rr . Then m#n ≤ m + n − 1 (see
Section 2). The set Rr×m×n of r × m × n tensors is one to one corresponding to the set of bilinear
maps Rm × Rn → Rr . By this map the set of absolutely full column rank tensors is one to one
corresponding to the set of nonsingular bilinear maps.
Theorem 1.1 Let m, n ≥ 3 and (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1 ≤ p ≤ mn.
(1) If there exists a nonsingular bilinear map Rm ×Rn → Rmn−p , then Rm×n×p has plural typical
ranks.
(2) If p ≥ (m − 1)(n − 1) + 2 and Rm×n×p has plural typical ranks, then there exists a nonsingular
bilinear map Rm × Rn → Rmn−p .
(1) of Theorem 1.1 is an extension of one of [24]. Furthermore, we completely determine the
set trank(m, n, p) of typical ranks of Rm×n×p for p≥(m − 1)(n − 1) + 2 by the number m#n.
Theorem 1.2 Let m, n ≥ 3, k ≥ 2, and p = (m − 1)(n − 1) + k. The set of typical ranks of
Rm×n×p is given as follows.


{p, p + 1}, 2 ≤ k ≤ m + n − 1 − (m#n)
trank(m, n, p) = {p},
max{2, (m + n) − (m#n)} ≤ k ≤ m + n − 2


{mn},
k ≥ m + n − 1.

Consider the case where p = (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1, Friedland [12] showed that Rn×n×((n−1)
has plural typical ranks. We extend this result.

2

+1)

Theorem 1.3 Let m, n ≥ 3 and p = (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1. Rm×n×p has plural typical ranks if m − 1
and n − 1 are not bit-disjoint.
This article is organized as follows. Sections 2–7 are preparation to show the above theorems.
In Section 2, we set notations and discuss the number m#n. In Section 3, we study absolutely
full column rank tensors. Since the set of absolutely full column rank tensors is an open set, there
exists a special form of an absolutely full column rank tensor if an absolutely full column rank
tensor exists. In Section 4, we state the other notions and deal with ideals of minors of matrices.
Theorem 4.31 in Section 4 which corresponds with the real radical ideals is quite interesting in its
own right. We show that for integers with 0 < t ≤ min{u, n} and m ≥ (u−t+1)(n−t+1)+2, there
exist open subsets O1 and O2 of Ru×n×m such that the union of them is dense, I(V(It (M (x, Y )))) =
It (M (x, Y )) for Y ∈ O1 and I(V(It (M (x, Y )))) = (x1 , . . . , xm ) for Y ∈PO2 , where It (M (x, Y ))
is the ideal generated by all t-minors of the u × n matrix M (x, Y ) = m
k=1 xk Yk given by the
indeterminates x1 , . . . , xm and Y = (Y1 ; . . . ; Ym ) ∈ Ru×n×m . From this, we can give a subset of
m × n × p tensors with rank p for 3 ≤ m ≤ n and (m − 1)(n − 1) + 2 ≤ p ≤ (m − 1)n. In Section 5
we discuss a property for the determinantal ideals by using monomial preorder. This property
plays an important role for proving Theorem 1.1. We characterize m × n × p tensors with rank
p in Section 6. In Section 7, we show that the existence of an absolutely full column rank tensor
with suitable size implies that p + 1 is a typical rank of Rm×n×p . Moreover there exist a nonempty
2

open subset T1 consisting of tensors with rank p and a possibly empty open subset T2 consisting
of tensors with rank greater than p, corresponding O1 and O2 respectively, such that the union of
them is a dense subset of Rm×n×p (see Theorem 7.14). Finally, in Section 8, we show that p + 2
is not a typical rank of Rm×n×p and complete proofs of the above theorems.

2

Nonsingular bilinear maps

We first recall some basic facts and establish terminology.
Notation (1) We denote by Rn (resp. R1×n ) the set of n-dimensional column (resp. row) real
vectors and by En the n × n identity matrix. Let ej be the j-th column vector of an identity
matrix.
P
(2) For a tensor x ∈ Rn ⊗ Rp ⊗ Rm with x = ijk aijk ei ⊗ ej ⊗ ek , we identify x with T =
(aijk )1≤i≤n,1≤j≤p,1≤k≤m and denote it by (A1 ; . . . ; Am ), where Ak = (aijk )1≤i≤n,1≤j≤p for
k = 1, . . . , m is an n × p matrix, and call (A1 ; . . . ; Am ) a tensor.
(3) We denote the set of n × p × m tensors by Rn×p×m and the set of typical ranks by
trank(n, p, m).
(4) For an n × p × m tensor T = (T1 ; . . . ; Tm ), an l × n matrix P and an k × p matrix Q,
we denote by P T the l × p × m tensor (P T1 ; . . . ; P Tp ) and by T Q⊤ the n × k × m tensor
(T1 Q⊤ ; . . . ; Tp Q⊤ ).
(5) For n × p matrices A1 , . . . , Am , we denote by (A1 , . . . , Am ) the n × mp matrix obtained by
aligning A1 , . . . , Am horizontally.


A1
O


A2


(6) We set Diag(A1 , A2 , . . . , At ) = 
 for matrices A1 , A2 , . . . , At .
..


.
O
At

(7) For an m × n matrix M , we denote by M≤j (resp. j< M ) the m × j matrix consisting of
the first j (resp. last n − j) columns of M . We denote by M ≤i (resp. i< M ) the i × n (resp.
(m−i)×n) matrix consisting of the first i (resp. last m−i) rows of M . We put M <i = M ≤i−1
M<i = M≤i−1 , and M =i = i−1< (M ≤i ) which is the i-th row vector of M .
 
T1
 
(8) We set fl1 (T ) = (T1 , . . . , Tm ) and fl2 (T ) =  ...  for a tensor T = (T1 ; . . . ; Tm ).
Tm

Definition 2.1 A bilinear map f : Rm × Rn → Rl is called nonsingular if f (x, y) = 0 implies
x = 0 or y = 0. For positive integers m and n, we set
m#n := min{l | there exists a nonsingular bilinear map Rm × Rn → Rl }.

3

Let g : R1×u × R1×v → R1×(u#v) be a nonsingular bilinear map. For positive integers m and
n, let f : R1×mu × R1×nv → R1×(m+n−1)(u#v)
be a map defined by f ((a1 , . . . , am ), (b1 , . . . , bn )) =
P
(g(a1 , b1 ), g(a1 , b2 ) + g(a2 , b1 ), . . . , i+j=k g(ai , bj ), . . . , g(am , bn )). It is easily verified that f is
a nonsingular bilinear map. Thus we have the following:
Lemma 2.2 (mu)#(nv) ≤ (m + n − 1)(u#v).
By applying this lemma to nonsingular bilinear maps obtained by multiplications of R, C,
quaternions and octanions respectively, we have the following:
Proposition 2.3 (cf. [30, Proposition 12.12 (3)]) For k = 1, 2, 4 and 8, it holds that
km#kn ≤ k(m + n − 1).
Let H (r, s, n) be the condition
 on the binomial coefficients, called the Stiefel-Hopf criterion,
that the binomial coefficient nk is even whenever n − s < k < r. If there exists a continuous,
nonsingular, biskew map Rr × Rs → Rn then the Stiefel-Hopf criterion H (r, s, n) holds. Put
r ◦ s = min{n | H (r, s, n) holds}.
We have
max{r, s} ≤ r ◦ s ≤ r#s ≤ r + s − 1.
Putting n∗ =

⌈ n2 ⌉

for n ∈ Z, the number r ◦ s is easily obtained by the formula
(
2(r∗ ◦ s∗ ) − 1 if r, s are both odd and r∗ ◦ s∗ = r∗ + s∗ − 1,
r◦s=
2(r∗ ◦ s∗ )
otherwise

(cf. [30, Proposition 12.9]).
P∞
For a positive integer n, we put integers αj (n) = 0, 1, j ≥ 0 such that n = j=0 αj (n)2j is the
P∞
dyadic expansion of n and let α(n) := j=0 αj (n) be the number of ones in the dyadic expansion
of n. Two integers m and n are bit-disjoint if {j | αj (m) = 1} and {j | αj (n) = 1} are disjoint.
For k > h, let τ (k, h) be a nonnegative number defined as
τ (k, h) = #{j ≥ 0 | αj (k − h) = 0, αj (k) 6= αj (h)}.
Proposition 2.4 r#s = r + s − 1 if and only if r − 1 and s − 1 are bit-disjoint.
Proof If r − 1 and s − 1 are bit-disjoint, then r ◦ s = r#s = r + s − 1 (cf. [30, p. 257]).
Moreover, τ (k, h) = 0 if and only if h and k − h are bit-disjoint. There is a nonsingular bilinear
map Rh+1 × Rk−h+τ (k,h) → Rk for k > h ≥ 0 [20] and thus (h + 1)#(k − h + τ (k, h)) ≤ k. Putting
r = h + 1 and k = r + s − 2, we have r#(s − 1 + τ (r + s − 2, r − 1)) ≤ r + s − 2. In particular, if
r − 1 and s − 1 are not bit-disjoint then r#s ≤ r + s − 2.
Let ρ be the Hurwitz-Radon function defined as ρ(n) = 2b + 8c for nonnegative integers a, b, c
such that n = (2a + 1)2b+4c and 0 ≤ b < 4. There is a nonsingular bilinear map Rn × Rρ(n) → Rn
[17, 26] and is no nonsingular bilinear map Rn × Rρ(n)+1 → Rn for any n ≥ 1 [1]. Therefore,
n#ρ(n) ≤ n and n#(ρ(n) + 1) > n.
Corollary 2.5 n#n ≤ 2n − 2. In particular, the equality n#n = 2n − 2 holds for n = 2a + 1.
4

Proof The inequality n#n ≤ 2n − 2 is clear by Proposition 2.4 since n − 1 and n − 1 are not
bit-disjoint.
There is an immersion RPn → Rn+k if and only if there is a nonsingular biskew map Rn+1 ×
n+1
R
→ Rn+1+k (cf. [2, 30]). Note that ρ(2) = 2 and ρ(4) = 4. Then 2#2 = 2 and 3#3 = 4
which follows from 4#4 = 4. Suppose that a ≥ 2. Put m = 2a−1 . Since there is no immersion
RP2m →R4m−2 (cf. [21]), we have 4m = (2m + 1)#(2m + 1).
Many estimations for m#n are known from immersion problem for manifolds, as projective
spaces. For example, the existence of a nonsingular bilinear map Rn+1 × Rn+1 → Rn+1+k implies
that RPn immerses in Rn+k [13].
Proposition 2.6

(1) (n + 1)#(n + 1) ≤ 2n − α(n) + 1 [7].

(2) (2n + α(n))#(2n + α(n)) ≥ 4n − 2α(n) + 2 [8].
(3) (8n + 9)#(8n + 9) ≥ 16n + 6 and (16n + 12)#(16n + 12) ≥ 32n + 14 if α(n) = 2 [10, 31].
(4) (8n + 10)#(8n + 10) ≥ 16n + 1 and (8n + 11)#(8n + 11) ≥ 16n + 4 if α(n) = 3 [9, 10].
(5) (n + 1)#(m + 1) ≤ n + m + 1 − (α(n) + α(n − m) + min{k(n), k(m)}) if m, n are odd and
n ≥ m, where k(n) is a nonnegative function depending only in the mod 8 residue class of n
with k(8a + 1) = 0, k(8a + 3) = k(8a + 5) = 1 and k(8a + 7) = 4 [23].
(6) d(h + 1)#(d(k − h) + τ (k, h)) ≤ dk for k > h ≥ 0 and d = 1, 2, 4, 8 [20].
(7) (n + 1)#(n + τ (2n, n)) ≤ 2n.

3

Absolutely full column rank tensors

For a tensor T of Rn ⊗ Rp ⊗ Rm , we define the rank of T , denoted by rank T , the minimal number
r so that there exist ai ∈ Rn , bi ∈ Rp , and ci ∈ Rm for i = 1, . . . , r such that
T =

r
X

ai ⊗ bi ⊗ ci .

i=1

The set Rn×p×m has an action of GL(m) × GL(p) × GL(n) as
(A, B, C) ·

r
X

ai ⊗ bi ⊗ ci =

r
X

Aai ⊗ Bbi ⊗ Cci .

i=1

i=1

For tensors T1 , T2 ∈ Rm×n×p , T1 and T2 are said to be equivalent if T1 = (A, B, C) · T2 for some
(A, B, C) ∈ GL(n) × GL(p) × GL(m). The equivalence relation preserves the rank. For a subset
U and an open semi-algebraic subset S of Rm×n×p , we say that almost all tensors in S are
equivalent to tensors in U if there exists a semi-algebraic subset S0 of S with dim S0 < mnp
such that any tensor of S \ S0 is equivalent to a tensor of U . In particular, for a given tensor T0 ,
if almost all tensors in Rm×n×p are equivalent to {T0 }, then we say that any tensor is generically
equivalent to T0 .

5

An integer r is called a typical rank of n × p × m-tensors if there is a nonempty open subset O
of Rn×p×m such that rank X = r for X ∈ O. Over the complex number field C, it is known that
there is a unique typical rank, called the generic rank, of n × p × m-tensors for any n, p and m.
The set of typical ranks of n × p × m-tensors over R is denoted by trank(n, p, m) and the generic
rank of n × p × m-tensors over C is denoted by grank(n, p, m).
We recall the following facts.
Theorem 3.1 ([12, Theorem 7.1]) The space Rm1 ×m2 ×m3 , m1 , m2 , m3 ∈ N, contains a finite number of open connected disjoint semi-algebraic sets O1 , . . . , OM satisfying the following
properties.
SM
(1) Rm1 ×m2 ×m3 \ i=1 Oi is a closed semi-algebraic set Rm1 ×m2 ×m3 of dimension strictly less
than m1 m2 m3 .
(2) Each T ∈ Oi has rank ri for i = 1, . . . , M .
(3) min{r1 , . . . , rM } = grank(m1 , m2 , m3 ).
(4) trank(m1 , m2 , m3 ) = {r ∈ Z | min{r1 , . . . , rM } ≤ r ≤ max{r1 , . . . , rM }}.
Let T = (A1 ; . . . ; Ap ) be an m × n × p tensor over R. The tensor T is called an absolutely full
column rank tensor if
p
X
yj Aj ) = n
rank(
j=1

for any (y1 , . . . , yp )⊤ ∈ Rp \ {0}.
From the definition of the absolutely full column rank property, we see the following fact.
Lemma 3.2 Let T be an m × n × p tensor over R and P ∈ GL(m, R). Then T is absolutely full
column rank if and only if so is P T .
Lemma 3.3 (see Corollary 4.20 or [24, Theorem 3.6]) The set of m × n × p absolutely full
column rank tensors is an open subset of Rm×n×p .
Let T be an m × n × p-tensor. We define fT : Rn × Rp → Rm as
fT (x, y) =

p
X

yj Aj x,

j=1

where y = (y1 , . . . , yp )⊤ . Then fT is a bilinear map. This assignment T 7→ fT induces a bijection
from Rm×n×p to the set of all bilinear maps Rn ×Rp → Rm . It is easily verified that fT : Rn ×Rp →
Rm is nonsingular if and only if T is absolutely full column rank. Therefore
Corollary 3.4 There is an m × n × p absolutely full column rank tensor if and only if there is a
nonsingular bilinear map Rn × Rp → Rm , i.e., n#p ≤ m.
Lemma 3.5 Let n, m, and u be positive integers with u ≤ mn. Set p = mn − u. Then the
following conditions are equivalent.
6

(1) n#m ≤ u.
(2) There is a u × n × m absolutely full column rank tensor.
(3) There is a u × n × m absolutely full column rank tensor Y such that

p< fl1 (Y

) = −Eu .

Proof (1) ⇔ (2) follows from Corollary 3.4.
It is clear that (3) ⇒ (2).
(2) ⇒ (3): Let X = (X1 ; . . . ; Xm ) be a u × n × m absolutely full column rank tensor. By
Lemma 3.3, we may assume that p< fl1 (X) is nonsingular. Set Y = −p< fl1 (X)X. Then Y satisfies
the required conditions.

4

Ideals of minors

In this section, we state some results on ideals of minors, which we use in the following of this
paper and interesting in its own right.
First we recall the definition of normality of a ring.
Definition 4.1 (see [22, Section 9]) Let R be a commutative ring. We say that R is normal if
RP is an integrally closed integral domain for any prime ideal P of R.
Remark 4.2

(1) A Noetherian integral domain is normal if and only if it is integrally closed.

(2) If R is a Noetherian normal ring, then R ≃ R/P1 × · · · × R/Pr , where P1 , . . . , Pr are
associated prime ideals of R.
We recall a criterion of normality in terms of Serre’s condition.
Definition 4.3 ([22, page 183]) Let R be a Noetherian ring and i a nonnegative integer.
(1) We say that R satisfies (Ri ) if RP is regular for any prime ideal P of R with htP ≤ i.
(2) We say that R satisfies (Si ) if depthRP ≥ min{i, htP } for any prime ideal P of R.

Lemma 4.4 ([22, Theorem 23.8]) Let R be a Noetherian ring. Then R is normal if and only
if R satisfies (R1 )+(S2 ).
The condition (R1 )+(S2 ) is restated as follows.
Lemma 4.5 Let R be a Noetherian ring. Then R satisfies (R1 )+(S2 ) if and only if the following
condition is satisfied: if P is a prime ideal of R with depthRP ≤ 1, then RP is regular.
Proof First assume that R satisfies (R1 )+(S2 ). Let P be a prime ideal of R with depthRP ≤ 1.
Since R satisfies (S2 ), we see that depthRP ≥ min{htP, 2}. Therefore, htP ≤ 1. Thus by (R1 ), we
see that RP is regular.
Conversely, assume that RP is regular for any prime ideal P of R with depthRP ≤ 1. First
we show that R satisfies (R1 ). If P is a prime ideal with htP ≤ 1, then depthRP ≤ htP ≤ 1.
7

Thus by assumption, we see that RP is regular. Next we show that R satisfies (S2 ). Let P
be an arbitrary prime ideal of R. If depthRP ≤ 1, then by assumption, RP is regular. Thus
depthRP = htP = min{htP, 2}. If depthRP ≥ 2, then depthRP ≥ min{htP, 2} holds trivially.
Next we state notations and definitions used in this section.
Definition 4.6 We denote by u, n, m, and t positive integers with t ≤ min{u, n} and set v = (u −
t+ 1)(n− t+ 1). Let M = (mij ) be a u × n matrix with entries in a commutative ring A. We denote
by It (M )A, or simply It (M ), the ideal of A generated by t-minors of M . For α(1), . . . , α(t) ∈ {1,
. . . , u} and β(1), . . . , β(t) ∈ {1, . . . , n}, we set [α(1), . . . , α(t) | β(1), . . . , β(t)]M := det(mα(i)β(j) ),
and if u ≥ n and α(1), . . . , α(n) ∈ {1, . . . , u}, we set [α(1), . . . , α(n)]
PMm := det(mα(i)j ). For
a tensor T = (T1 ; . . . ; Tm ) and a = (a1 , . . . , am ) we set M (a, T ) :=
i=1 ai Ti and we define
Γ(u × n) = {[a1 , . . . , an ] | 1 ≤ a1 < · · · < an ≤ u, ai ∈ Z}. For γ = [a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ(u × n), we set
suppγ = {a1 , . . . , an }. If B is a ring, A is a subring of B and T is a tensor (resp. matrix, vector)
with entries in B, we denote by A[T ] the subring of B generated by the entries of T over A. If
moreover, B is a field, we denote by A(T ) the subfield of B generated by the entries of T over A.
If the entries of a tensor (resp. matrix, vector) T are independent indeterminates, we say that T
is a tensor (resp. matrix, vector) of indeterminates.
Here we note the following fact, which is verified by using [3, Chapter 1 Exercise 2] or [25,
(6.13)].
Lemma 4.7 Let A be a commutative ring, X a square matrix of indeterminates. Then det X is
a non-zerodivisor of A[X].
Next we recall the following fact.
Lemma 4.8 ([16, Theorem 1 and Corollaries 3 and 4] see also [4, (6.3) Theorem]) Let A
be a Noetherian ring and X a u × n matrix of indeterminates.
(1) ht(It (X)A[X]) = grade(It (X)A[X]) = v.
(2) If A is a domain, then It (X)A[X] is a prime ideal of A[X].
(3) If A is a normal domain, then so is A[X]/It (X)A[X].
We also recall the following fact.
Lemma 4.9 ([16, Theorem 1 and Corollaries 2 and 4] see also [4, (2.1) Theorem]) Let A
be a Noetherian commutative ring and M a u × n matrix with entries in A. If It (M ) 6= A, then
htIt (M ) ≤ v. Moreover, if A is Cohen-Macaulay and htIt (M ) = v, then It (M ) is height unmixed.
The following Lemma is a generalization of [4, (12.4) Lemma].
Lemma 4.10 Let u, n, m, t and v be as in Definition 4.6, A a commutative Noetherian ring,
T = (tijk ) a u × n × m tensor of indeterminates and f1 , . . . , fm elements of A. Suppose that (f1 ,
. . . , fm ) 6= A. Set g = grade(f1 , . . . , fm )A, f = (f1 , . . . , fm ) and M = M (f , T ) = (mij ).
(1) grade It (M )A[T ] = min{g, v}.
8

(2) If g ≥ v + 1 and A is a domain, then It (M )A[T ] is a prime ideal.
(3) If g ≥ v + 2 and A is a Cohen-Macaulay normal domain, then A[T ]/It (M )A[T ] is a normal
domain.
Remark 4.11 If g ≥ v, then grade It (M ) = ht It (M ) = v by Lemma 4.10 (1) and [16, Theorem 1
and Corollary 4].
Proof of Lemma 4.10 Set R = A[T ].
First we prove (1). Set v ′ = min{g, v}. Since It (M ) ⊂ (f1 , . . . , fm )R, we see that
gradeIt (M )R ≤ grade(f1 , . . . , fm )R = g. Thus we see by Lemma 4.9, gradeIt (M )R ≤ v ′ .
To prove the converse inequality, it is enough to show that if P be a prime ideal of R with
P ⊃ It (M ), then depthRP ≥ v ′ . Since if P ⊃ (f1 , . . . , fm )R, then depthRP ≥ g ≥ v ′ , we
may assume that P 6⊃ (f1 , . . . , fm )R. Take l with fl 6∈ P . Then M is essentially a matrix of
indeterminates over A[fl−1 ][tijk | k 6= l]. Thus grade(It (M )R[fl−1 ]) = v by Lemma 4.8. Since RP
is a localization of R[fl−1 ], we see that depthRP ≥ v ≥ v ′ .
Next we prove (2). We may assume f1 , . . . , fm 6= 0. Set B = R/It (M )R. Since It (M )R is
grade unmixed by (1) and [16, Theorem 1 Corollaries 2 and 4] (see also [27, Corollary of Theorem
1.2] or [22, Exercise 16.3]), we see that every associated prime ideal of It (M )R is of grade v. In
particular any associated prime ideal of It (M )R does not contain (f1 , . . . , fm )R, since g > v by
assumption. Thus (f¯1 , . . . , f¯m )B has grade at least 1, where f¯k denote the natural image of fk in
B for 1 ≤ k ≤ m.
Since A[fl−1 ][tijk | k 6= l] is an integral domain and M is essentially a matrix of indeterminates
−1
over A[fl−1 ][tijk | k 6= l], we see that B[f¯l ] = R[fl−1 ]/It (M )R[fl−1 ] is an integral domain for any
l. Thus we see that f¯l is contained in all associated prime ideals of B but one. We denote this
prime ideal by Pl . Since B[(f¯l f¯l′ )−1 ] = R[(fl fl′ )−1 ]/It (M )R[(fl fl′ )−1 ] is not a zero ring by the
same reason as above, we see that Pl = Pl′ for any l and l′ . In particular, Pl = P1 for any l with
1 ≤ l ≤ m. Since grade(f¯1 , . . . , f¯m )B ≥ 1 and any associated prime of B other than P1 contains
(f¯1 , . . . , f¯m )B, we see that P1 is the only associated prime ideal of B.
−1
Therefore, B ⊂ B[f¯1 ] and we see that B is a domain.
Finally we prove (3). Assume that P is a prime ideal of B with depthBP ≤ 1. Since B is
Cohen-Macaulay by (1) and [16, Theorem 1 and Corollary 4] and ht(f¯1 , . . . , f¯m )B ≥ 2, we see that
P 6⊃ (f¯1 , . . . , f¯m )B.
Take l with f¯l 6∈ P . Then B[f¯l−1 ] is a normal domain by Lemma 4.8 and the same argument
as above. Since BP is a localization of B[f¯l−1 ], we see that BP is regular by Lemmas 4.4 and 4.5.
Thus B is normal by Lemmas 4.4 and 4.5.
Here we note the following fact, which can be verified by considering the associated prime ideals
of I and using [22, Theorems 15.5, 15.6].
Lemma 4.12 Let K be a field, x = (x1 , . . . , xm ) a vector of indeterminates and I a proper ideal
of K[x]. Then
dim K[x]/I = max{r | ∃i1 , . . . , ir ; x̄i1 , . . . , x̄ir are algebraically independent over K},
where x̄i denote the natural image of xi in K[x]/I.

9

Lemma 4.13 Let K be a field, T = (tijk ) a u × n × m-tensor of indeterminates, and x =
(x1 , . . . , xm ) a vector of indeterminates. Set R = K[T ], L = K(T ), M = M (x, T ) and
v ′ = min{m, v}. Then
L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ] ∩ It (M )L[x] = (0),

R[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ] ∩ It (M )R[x] = (0),

L[x]/It (M )L[x] is algebraic over the natural image of L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ] in L[x]/It (M )L[x] and
R[x]/It (M )R[x] is algebraic over the natural image of R[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ] in R[x]/It (M )R[x].
Proof Since It (M )L[x] is generated by homogeneous polynomials of positive degree with respect
to x1 , . . . , xm , we see that L ∩ It (M )L[x] = (0).
By Lemma 4.10, we see that It (M ) is an ideal of height v ′ . Thus by Lemma 4.12, we see
tr.degL L[x]/It (M )L[x] = m − v ′ .
Thus there is a permutation i1 , . . . , in of 1, . . . , n such that x̄i1 , . . . , x̄im−v′ are algebraically
independent over L and L[x]/It (M )L[x] is algebraic over L[x̄i1 , . . . , x̄im−v′ ], where x̄i denote the
natural image of xi in L[x]/It (M )L[x]. By symmetry, we see that x̄1 , . . . , x̄m−v′ are algebraically
independent over L and L[x]/It (M )L[x] is algebraic over L[x̄1 , . . . , x̄m−v′ ]. We also see that
R[x]/It (M )R[x] is algebraic over R[x̄1 , . . . , x̄m−v′ ].
Since x̄1 , . . . , x̄m−v′ are algebraically independent over L, we see that
L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ] ∩ It (M )L[x] = (0)
and therefore R[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ] ∩ It (M )R[x] = (0).
Lemma 4.14 Let L/K be a field extension with charK = 0, x = (x1 , . . . , xm ) a vector of indeterminates and Y a u × n × m tensor with entries in L. Set M = M (x, Y ). Suppose that the entries
of Y are algebraically independent over K. Then the followings hold.
(1) If m ≥ v + 1, then L[x1 , . . . , xm−v ] ∩ It (M )L[x] = (0) and L[x]/It (M )L[x] is algebraic over
the natural image of L[x1 , . . . , xm−v ].
(2) If m ≥ v + 2, then L[x]/It (M )L[x] is a normal domain. In particular, It (M )L[x] is a prime
ideal of L[x] of height v.
Proof Since the entries of Y are algebraically independent over K, we see by Lemma 4.13 that
K(Y )[x]/It (M )K(Y )[x] is algebraic over K(Y )[x1 , . . . , xm−v ]. Thus L[x]/It (M )L[x] is algebraic
over L[x1 , . . . , xm−v ] since L[x]/It (M )L[x] = (K(Y )[x]/It (M )K(Y )[x]) ⊗K(Y ) L. On the other
hand, since tr.degL L[x]/It (M )L[x] = dim L[x]/It (M )L[x] ≥ m − v, by Lemmas 4.9 and 4.12, we
see that x̄1 , . . . , x̄m−v are algebraically independent over L, where x̄i denote the natural image of
xi in L[x]/It (M )L[x]. Thus L[x1 , . . . , xm−v ] ∩ It (M )L[x] = (0). This proves (1).
Next we prove (2). Take a transcendence basis S of L/K(Y ) and put
A =
C =

K(Y )[x]/It (M )K(Y )[x],
K(Y )(S)[x]/It (M )K(Y )(S)[x] and

B

L[x]/It (M )L[x].

=

10

By Lemma 4.10 (3), we see that A is a normal domain.
Since
K(Y )[S][x]/It (M )K(Y )[S][x] = (K(Y )[x]/It (M )K(Y )[x]) ⊗K(Y ) K(Y )[S] = A[S]
is a polynomial ring (with possibly infinitely many variables) over A, it is an integrally closed
integral domain. Since C is a localization of the above ring, C is a normal domain.
Now let P be a prime ideal of B with depthBP ≤ 1. By Lemmas 4.4 and 4.5, it is enough to
show that BP is regular. Set Q = C ∩ P . Then since B = C ⊗K(Y )(S) L is flat over C, we see that
depthCQ ≤ 1 by [22, Theorem 23.3 Corollary]. Thus CQ is regular since C is normal. The fiber
ring CQ /QCQ ⊗C BP is a localization of
CQ /QCQ ⊗C B = CQ /QCQ ⊗K(Y )(S) L
which is a 0-dimensional reduced ring, thus regular, since L is separably algebraic over K(Y )(S).
(Note that L is an inductive limit of finitely generated algebraic extension fields of K(Y )(S). Or
see [25, Theorem 3.2.6 and Theorem 3.2.8 (i)] and note the assumption of the existence of a field
containing M and N is not used in the proof of [25, Theorem 3.2.8 (i)].) Thus by [22, Theorem
23.7], we see that BP is regular.
Thus, B is a normal ring. Since B is a nonnegatively graded ring whose degree 0 component
is a field, B is not a direct product of 2 or more rings. Therefore, B is a domain by Remark 4.2.
Moreover, we see by (1), that htIt (M )L[x] = v.
Definition 4.15 Let u, n, m, t and v be as in Definition 4.6. We set
Atu×n×m := {Y ∈ Ru×n×m | It (M (a, Y )) 6= (0) for any a ∈ R1×m \ {0}},
Ctu×n×m := Ru×n×m \ Atu×n×m ,
I := {Y ∈ Ru×n×m | the entries of Y are algebraically independent over Q},
and for Y = (Y1 ; . . . ; Ym ) ∈ Ru×n×m and for integers k, k ′ with t ≤ k ≤ u and t ≤ k ′ ≤ n, we set
µk,k′ (x, Y ) := [1, . . . , t − 1, k | 1, . . . , t − 1, k ′ ]M(x,Y ) ,
where x is a vector of indeterminates. We also define
∂(µtt , µt,t+1 , . . . , µtn , µt+1,t , . . . , µt+1,n , . . . , µu,t , . . . , µun )
(x, Y ),
Jt (x, Y ) =
∂(xm−v+1 , . . . , xm )

<t
1×m
St (Y ) := a ∈ R
| det M (a, Y )<t 6= 0, Jt (a, Y ) 6= 0 and It (M (a, Y )) = (0)
Pt := {Y ∈ Ru×n×m | St (Y ) 6= ∅}.
Remark 4.16

,

u×n×m
(1) A1u×n×m ⊃ A2u×n×m ⊃ · · · ⊃ Amin{u,n}
.

(2) Atu×n×m is stabel under the action of GL(u, R) for any t.
(3) Ctu×n×m 6= ∅ for any t.
(4) Pt is a subset of Ctu×n×m and


det M (a, Y )<t


<t 6= 0, Jt (a, Y ) 6= 0
St (Y ) := a ∈ R1×m and there exist linearly independent vectors bt , . . . , bn ∈ Rn


such that M (a, Y )bj = 0 for any t ≤ j ≤ n
11

Lemma 4.17 Let u, n and t be as in Definition 4.6, A an integral domain and M a u × n matrix
<t
with entries in A. Suppose that det M<t
6= 0 and [1, . . . , t − 1, k | 1, . . . , t − 1, k ′ ]M = 0 for any
′
integer with t ≤ k ≤ u and t ≤ k ≤ n. Then It (M ) = (0). In particular,


det M (a, Y )<t


<t 6= 0, Jt (a, Y ) 6= 0
St (Y ) := a ∈ R1×m and [1, . . . , t − 1, k | 1, . . . , t − 1, k ′ ]M = 0 for any integer with


t ≤ k ≤ u and t ≤ k ′ ≤ n.
Proof

Set


(−1)t+1 [1, . . . , t − 1 | 2, . . . , t − 1, l]M
 (−1)t+2 [1, . . . , t − 1 | 1, 3, . . . , t − 1, l]M 




..


.


ξl :=  (−1)2t−1 [1, . . . , t − 1 | 1, . . . , t − 2, l]M  ∈ An




0


(−1)2t [1, . . . , t − 1 | 1, . . . , t − 2, t − 1]M 
0


for each l with t ≤ l ≤ n ((−1)2t [1, . . . , t − 1 | 1, . . . , t − 2, t − 1]M in the l-th position). Then, since
<t
[1, . . . , t − 1 | 1 . . . , t − 1]M = det M<t
6= 0, we see that ξt , . . . , ξn are linearly independent over
A. Since the k-th entry of M ξl is [1, . . . , t − 1, k | 1, . . . , t − 1, l]M , we see, by assumption, that
M ξl = 0 for t ≤ l ≤ n. Thus, rank M < t and we see that It (M ) = (0).
It is verified the following fact, since Q is a countable field.
Lemma 4.18 I is a dense subset of Ru×n×m .
We also see that Atu×n×m is an open subset of Ru×n×m . First note the following fact, which
is easily verified.
Lemma 4.19 Let X and Y be topological spaces with X compact and f : X×Y → R is a continuous
map. Set g : Y → R by g(y) := minx∈X f (x, y). Then, g is a continuous map.
Corollary 4.20 Atu×n×m is an open subset of Ru×n×m .
Proof

Since Atu×n×m is the set consisting of Y ∈ Ru×n×m such that
min (the maximum of the absolute values of t-minors of M (a, Y )) > 0,

a∈S m−1

we see the result by the previous lemma.
Lemma 4.21 If v < m, then Pt is a dense subset of Ctu×n×m . In particular, Pt 6= ∅.
Proof Let Y ∈ Ctu×n×m and U an open neighborhood of Y in Ru×n×m . In order to prove the
first assertion, it suffices to show that Pt ∩ U 6= ∅.
There exist a nonzero vector a ∈ R1×m and linearly independent vectors bt , . . . , bn ∈ Rn such
that M (a, Y )bj = 0 for t ≤ j ≤ n. Let g3 ∈ GL(m) and g2 ∈ GL(n) such that the first entry of
g3⊤ a is nonzero, t≤ (g2⊤ bt , . . . , g2⊤ bn ) is nonsingular and sufficiently close to Em and En respectively
so that (1, g2−1 , g3−1 ) · Y ∈ U . By replacing Y , a and bt , . . . , bn by (1, g2−1 , g3−1 ) · Y , g3⊤ a and g2⊤ bt ,
12

. . . , g2⊤ bn respectively, we may assume that the first entry of a is nonzero and t≤ (bt , . . . , bn ) is
nonsingular.
Let e ∈ R. We take a tensor P (e) = (pijk ) ∈ Ru×n×m as follows. For any i, j, k with j < t or
k 6= 1, we put
 ij
e
(k = 1, i < t, j < t, )



e
((i, j, k) = (t + l, t + l′ , m − v + 1 + l + l′ (u − t + 1)),
pijk =

0 ≤ l ≤ u − t, 0 ≤ l′ ≤ n − t)



0
(otherwise)
and take pij1 for 1 ≤ i ≤ u and t ≤ j ≤ n so that M (a, P (e))bj = 0 for t ≤ j ≤ n. Note that we
can take such pij1 since the first entry of a is nonzero and t≤ (bt , . . . , bn ) is nonsingular.
Then we have
det M (a, Y + P (e))<t
<t 6= 0

and Jt (a, Y + P (e)) 6= 0

for e ≫ 0.
Therefore, since the entries of P (e) are polynomials of e, we see that for a real number e0 6= 0
which is sufficiently closed to 0,
det M (a, Y + P (e0 ))<n
<n 6= 0,

(4.1)

Jt (a, Y + P (e0 )) 6= 0,
Y + P (e0 ) ∈ U .

(4.2)
(4.3)

(4.1), (4.2) and the fact M (a, Y + P (e0 ))bj = M (a, Y )bj + M (a, P (e0))bj = 0 for t ≤ j ≤ n imply
that a ∈ S(Y + P (e0 )). Thus we have Y + P (e0 ) ∈ Pt and we see that Pt ∩ U 6= ∅.
The latter assertion follows from Remark 4.16.
Lemma 4.22 Suppose that v < m. Then the set Pt is an open subset of Ru×n×m and for any
Y ∈ Pt and a = (a1 , a2 ) ∈ St (Y ), where a1 ∈ R1×(m−v) and a2 ∈ R1×v , there exists an open
neighborhood O(a, Y ) of a1 ∈ R1×(m−v) such that for any b1 ∈ O(a, Y ), there exists b2 ∈ R1×v
such that (b1 , b2 ) ∈ St (Y ).
Proof Assume that Y ∈ Pt and a = (a1 , a2 ) ∈ St (Y ). Then µkk′ (a, Y ) = 0 for any t ≤ k ≤ u
and t ≤ k ′ ≤ n. Thus by implicit function theorem, we see that there is an open neighborhood U
of (a1 , Y ) in R1×(m−v) × Ru×n×m and a continuous map ν : U → R1×v such that ν(a1 , Y ) = a2 ,
and µkk′ (b, Z) = 0 for any (b1 , Z) ∈ U and any k, k ′ with t ≤ k ≤ u and t ≤ k ′ ≤ n, where
b := (b1 , ν(b1 , Z)). By replacing U by a smaller neighborhood if necessary, we may assume that
det M (b, Z)<t
<t 6= 0 and Jt (b, Z) 6= 0 for any (b1 , Z) ∈ U .
Assume (b1 , Z) ∈ U . Put b = (b1 , ν(b1 , Z)). By Lemma 4.17, we see that b ∈ St (Z). Thus
it suffices to set O(a, Y ) := {b1 ∈ R1×(m−v) | (b1 , Y ) ∈ U }. Moreover, since {Z ∈ Ru×n×m |
(a1 , Z) ∈ U } is an open subset of Pt containing Y , we see that Pt is an open subset of Ru×n×m .
By Corollary 4.20 and Lemmas 4.21 and 4.22, we see the following:
Corollary 4.23 If v < m, then Pt ⊂ int Ctu×n×m and P t = int Ctu×n×m = Ctu×n×m .
13

Definition 4.24 We set P̃t := {P Y | P ∈ GL(u, R), Y ∈ Pt }.
Lemma 4.25 P̃t is an open subset of Ru×n×m , stable under the action of GL(u, R) and P̃t =
Ctu×n×m .
S
Proof Since P̃t = P ∈GL(u,R) P Pt and P Pt is an open subset of Ru×n×m for any P ∈ GL(u, R)
by Lemma 4.22 and the fact that multiplication of a nonsingular matrix is a homeomorphism on
Ru×n×m . Therefore, P̃t is an open subset of Ru×n×m . The fact that P̃t is stable under the action
of GL(u, R) is clear from the definition of P̃t . Finally, since Atu×n×m is stable under the action
of GL(u, R), we see, by Remark 4.16, that P̃t ⊂ Ctu×n×m . Therefore, we see that P̃t = Ctu×n×m
by Lemma 4.21.
Lemma 4.26 Let L be an infinite field and x = (x1 , . . . , xm ) a vector of indeterminates.
Set v ′ = min{m, v} and v ′′ = min{m, (u − t + 2)(n − t + 2)}. Then there is a Zariski
dense open subset Q1 of Lu×n×m such that if Y ∈ Q1 , then L[x]/It (M (x, Y ))L[x] is algebraic over the natural image of L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ], L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ] ∩ It (M (x, Y ))L[x] = (0),
htIt (M )L[x] = v ′ , L[x]/It−1 (M (x, Y ))L[x] is algebraic over the natural image of L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′′ ],
L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′′ ] ∩ It−1 (M (x, Y ))L[x] = (0) and htIt−1 (M (x, Y ))L[x] = v ′′ .
Proof Let T = (tijk ) be the u × n × m tensor of indeterminates. Then by Lemma 4.13, we see
that L[T ][x]/It (M (x, T ))L[T ][x] is algebraic over the natural image of L[T ][x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ]. Denote
the natural image of xl in L[T ][x]/It (M (x, T ))L[T ][x] by x̄l . Take a nonzero polynomial fl (t) with
coefficient in L[T ][x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ] such that fl (x̄l ) = 0 for each l with m − v ′ + 1 ≤ l ≤ m. Let g be
the product of all nonzero elements of L[T ] appearing as the coefficient of at least one of fl and
set Q1′ = Lu×n×m \ V(g). Then Q1′ is a Zariski dense open subset of Lu×n×m .
Suppose that Y ∈ Q1′ . And let x̃i be the natural image of xi in L[x]/It (M (x, Y ))L[x] and f˜l
be an element of L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ] obtained by substituting Y to T . Then f˜l is a nonzero element
of L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ] and f˜l (x̃l ) = 0 for m − v ′ + 1 ≤ l ≤ m. Therefore, L[x]/It (M (x, Y ))L[x]
is algebraic over the natural image of L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ]. Thus htIt (M (x, Y ))L[x] = m −
dim L[x]/It (M )L[x] = m − tr.degL L[x]/It (M )L[x] ≥ v ′ . Thus, htIt (M (x, Y ))L[x] = v ′ by Lemma
4.9 and we see that tr.degL L[x]/It (M (x, Y ))L[x] = m − v ′ . Therefore x̃1 , . . . , x̃m−v′ are algebraically independent over L, that is, L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′ ] ∩ It (M (x, Y ))L[x] = (0).
We see by the same way that there is a Zariski dense open subset Q1′′ of Lu×n×m such that
if Y ∈ Q1′′ , then L[x]/It−1 (M (x, Y ))L[x] is algebraic over the natural image of L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′′ ],
L[x1 , . . . , xm−v′′ ] ∩ It−1 (M (x, Y ))L[x] = (0) and htIt−1 (M (x, Y ))L[x] = v ′′ . Thus it is enough to
set Q1 = Q1′ ∩ Q1′′ .
Let L be a field, x = (x1 , . . . , xm ) a vector of indeterminates
and M a u × n matrix with entries
p
<t −1
<t
) ] is
in L[x]. Suppose that htIt (M ) = v and det(M<t
) 6∈ It (M ). Then It (M )L[x][det(M<t
<t −1
a proper ideal of L[x][det(M<t ) ] and M is equivalent to the matrix of the following form in
<t −1
L[x][(det(M<t
) ].


Et−1 O
O
∗
<t −1
) ]. By symmetry, we see
In particular, It (M ) is a complete intersection ideal in L[x][(det(M<t
that if htIt−1 (M ) > v, then It (M ) is a generically complete intersection ideal.

14

We use the notation of [11, p. 219]. Let L be a field of characteristic 0, T a u × n × m tensor
of indeterminates and x = (x1 , . . . , xm ) a vector of indeterminates. Set M = L(T ). Suppose that
m > v. Then It (M (x, T ))M[x] is a prime ideal and htIt−1 (M (x, T ))M[x] > v by Lemma 4.10.
Thus
It (M (x, T )) : Jm−v (It (M (x, T ))) = It (M (x, T ))
by [11, Theorem 2.1] and the argument above.
Thus if we set I ′ = It (M (x, T )) +
′
Jm−v (It (M (x, T ))), then htI > v. Therefore the natural images of x1 , . . . , xm−v in M[x]/I ′
are algebraically dependent over M by Lemma 4.12. Take a transcendence basis xi1 , . . . xid of
M[x]/I ′ over M. By symmetry, we may assume that ik = k for 1 ≤ k ≤ d. Since htI ′ > v, we
see that d < m − v. Take a nonzero polynomial f (t) with coefficients in L[T ][x1 , . . . , xd ] such that
f (xm−v ) ∈ I ′ and let g be the product of all nonzero elements of L[T ] which appear in some nonzero
coefficient of f . Set Q2 = Lu×n×m \V(g). Then Q2 is a Zariski dense open subset of Lu×n×m and if
Y ∈ Q1 ∩Q2 , where Q1 is the one in Lemma 4.26, then ht(It (M (x, Y ))+Jm−v (It (M (x, Y )))) > v
since tr.degL L[x]/(It (M (x, Y )) + Jm−v (It (M (x, Y )))) < m − v.
Until the end of this section, assume that m ≥ v + 2 and let U be the m × m matrix of indeterminates, T the u × n × m tensor of indeterminates, x = (x1 , . . . , xm ) the vector of indeterminates
and L the algebraic closure of R(U ).
Set
 
 ′
x1
x1
 .. 
 .. 
 .  = U  . .
x′m

xm

Then L(T )[x′1 , . . . , x′m ] = L(T )[x] and L(T )[x′1 , . . . , x′m−v+1 ] ∩ It (M (x, T )) is a principal ideal
generated by a polynomial F called the ground form of It (M (x, T )), since It (M (x, T )) is a prime
ideal therefore is unmixed of height v. See [29, parts 28 and 29].
Since L(T )[x′1 , . . . , x′m−v+1 ] ∩ It (M (x, T )) is the elimination ideal, F is obtained by the Buchberger’s algorithm. Let g3 be the products of all elements of L[T ] which appear as a numerator or
a denominator of a nonzero coefficient of at least one polynomial in the process of Buchberger’s algorithm to obtain the reduced Gröbner basis of It (M (x, T )) in L[T ][x]. Set Q3 = Lu×n×m \ V(g3 ).
Then Q3 is a Zariski dense open subset of Lu×n×m and if Y ∈ Q3 , then the Buchberger’s algorithm to obtain the reduced Gröbner basis of It (M (x, Y ))L[x] in L[x] is identical with that of
It (M (x, T ))L(T )[x] in L(T )[x]. In particular, L[x′1 , . . . , x′m−v+1 ] ∩ It (M (x, Y )) is a principal ideal
generated by FY , the polynomial obtained by substituting Y in T in the coefficients of F .
Let d = deg F and let PL (d, m − v + 1) (resp. PR (d, m − v + 1)) be the set of homogeneous
polynomials with coefficients in L (resp. R) with variables x′1 , . . . , x′m−v+1 and degree d. Since
m − v + 1 ≥ 3 and L is an algebraically closed field containing R, we see by [14] that
{G ∈ PR (d, m − v + 1) | G is absolutely irreducible}
= PR (d, m − v + 1) ∩ {G ∈ PL (d, m − v + 1) | G is irreducible}
is a Zariski dense open subset of PR (d, m − v + 1).
Definition 4.27 Set
Q = {Y ∈ Q1 ∩ Q2 ∩ Q3 ∩ Ru×n×m | FY is absolutely irreducible},

15

where Q1 is the one in Lemma 4.26 and Q2 , Q3 and FY are the ones defined after the proof of
Lemma 4.26.
Remark 4.28 Q is a Zariski open subset of Ru×n×m , since the correspondence Y to FY is a
rational map whose domain contains Q3 .
Moreover, we see the following fact.
Lemma 4.29 Q ⊃ I ∩ Q1 ∩ Q2 ∩ Q3 . In particular, Q is not an empty set.
Proof Suppose that Y ∈ I ∩ Q1 ∩ Q2 ∩ Q3 . Then we see, by applying Lemma 4.14 to L/Q,
that It (M (x, Y ))L[x] is a prime ideal. Thus the elimination ideal is also prime and therefore the
generator FY of the elimination ideal is an irreducible polynomial in L[x′1 , . . . , x′m−v+1 ]. Therefore,
Y ∈ Q. Since I is a dense subset of Ru×n×m by Lemma 4.18, we see that I ∩ Q1 ∩ Q2 ∩ Q3 6= ∅.
Thus, Q 6= ∅.
Thus we see that Q is a non-empty Zariski open subset of Ru×n×m . In particular, Q is dense.
Lemma 4.30 If Y ∈ Q, then It (M (x, Y ))R[x] is a prime ideal of height v.
Proof
Since Y ∈ Q, htIt (M (x, Y ))R[x] = v and L[x′1 , . . . , x′m−v+1 ] ∩ It (M (x, Y ))L[x] =
(FY )L[x′1 , . . . , x′m−v+1 ]. Thus R(U )[x′1 , . . . , x′m−v+1 ]∩It (M (x, Y ))R(U )[x] = (FY )R(U )[x′1 , . . . , x′m−v+1 ]
since L is faithfully flat over R(U ). Thus we see that FY is the ground form of It (M (x, Y ))R[x]
[29, part 28]. Since FY is an irreducible polynomial in L[x′1 , . . . , x′m−v+1 ] and therefore in
R(U )[x′1 , . . . , x′m−v+1 ], we see by [29, part 31], that It (M (x, Y ))R[x] is a primary ideal.
On the other hand, since Y ∈ Q1 ∩Q2 , we see that ht(It (M (x, Y ))+ Jm−v (It (M (x, Y )))) > v.
Since It (M (x, Y )) is a primary ideal of height v, we see that
It (M (x, Y )) : Jm−v (It (M (x, Y ))) = It (M (x, Y )).
Therefore, by [11, Theorem 2.1], we see that It (M (x, Y )) is a radical ideal. Thus It (M (x, Y )) is a
prime ideal.
Now we show the following result.
Theorem 4.31 Suppose that m ≥ v + 2. Set O1 = Q ∩ P̃t and O2 = Q ∩ Atu×n×m . Then the
followings hold.
(1) O1 and O2 are disjoint open subsets of Ru×n×m and O1 6= ∅.
(2) O1 ∪ O2 is a dense subset of Ru×n×m .
(3) O 1 = Ctu×n×m = Ru×n×m \ Atu×n×m .
(4) If Y ∈ O1 ∪ O2 , then It (M (x, Y ))R[x] is a prime ideal of height v.
(5) If Y ∈ O1 , then I(V(It (M (x, Y )))) = It (M (x, Y )).
(6) If Y ∈ O2 , then I(V(It (M (x, Y )))) = (x1 , . . . , xm ).

16

Proof The set Atu×n×m is an open subset of Ru×n×m by Corollary 4.20 and P̃t is a nonempty
open subset of Ru×n×m with Atu×n×m ∩ P̃t = ∅ by Lemmas 4.21 and 4.25. Further Q is a Zariski
open subset. Thus (1) holds.
(2): Since Q and Atu×n×m ∪ P̃t are dense open subsets of Ru×n×m by Corollary 4.20 and
Lemma 4.25, we see that O1 ∪ O2 ⊃ Q ∩ (Atu×n×m ∪ Pt ) is also a dense open subset of Ru×n×m .
(3): Since Q is a dense subset of Ru×n×m , and P̃t is an open set, we see that O 1 = Q ∩ P̃t =
P̃t = Ctu×n×m by Lemma 4.25.
(4) follows from Lemma 4.30.
(5): Assume the contrary and take g ∈ I(V(It (M (x, Y )))) with g 6∈ It (M (x, Y )). Set J =
(g)R[x] + It (M (x, Y )). Then J ) It (M (x, Y ))R[x]. Since It (M (x, Y ))R[x] is a prime ideal of
height v by Lemma 4.30, we see that htJ > v and therefore R[x1 , . . . , xm−v ] ∩ J 6= (0).
Take 0 6= f ∈ J ∩ R[x1 , . . . , xm−v ]. Since Y ∈ P̃t , we can take P ∈ GL(u, R) such that
P Y ∈ Pt . Take b ∈ St (P Y ). Since O(b, P Y ) defined in Lemma 4.22 is an open set and f is a nonzero polynomial, we can take (a1 , . . . , am−v ) ∈ O(b, P Y ) with f (a1 , . . . , am−v ) 6= 0. On the other
hand, we see that there are am−v+1 , . . . , am ∈ R such that It (M (a, Y )) = It (P M (a, Y )) =
It (M (a, P Y )) = (0) by Lemma 4.22, where a = (a1 , . . . , am ). Thus by assumption, we see
that g(a) = 0. This contradicts to the fact that f ∈ J = (g)R[x] + It (M (x, Y ))R[x] and
f (a1 , . . . , am−v ) 6= 0.
Finally, (6) is clear from the definition of Atu×n×m .

5

Monomial preorder

In this section, we introduce the notion of monomial preorder and prove a result about ideals of
minors by using it.
First we recall the notion of preorder.
Definition 5.1 Let S be a nonempty set and  a binary relation on S. We say that  is a
preorder on S or (S, ) is a preordered set if the following two conditions are satisfied.
(1) a  a for any a ∈ S.
(2) a  b, b  c ⇒ a  c.
If moreover,
(3) a  b or b  a for any a, b ∈ S.
is satisfied, then we say that (S, ) is a totally preordered set or  is a total preorder.
Notation Let (S, ) be a preordered set. We denote by b  a the fact a  b. We denote by a ≺ b
or by b ≻ a the fact that a  b and b  a. We also denote by a ∼ b the fact that a  b and b  a.
Remark 5.2 The binary relation ∼ defined above is an equivalence relation and if a ∼ a′ and
b ∼ b′ , then
a  b ⇐⇒ a′  b′ .
def

In particular, we can define a binary relation ≤ on the quotient set P = S/ ∼ by ā ≤ b̄ ⇐⇒ a  b,
where ā is the equivalence class which a belongs to. It is easily verified that (P, ≤) is a partially
17

ordered set and (S, ) is a totally preordered set if and only if (P, ≤) is a totally ordered set. As
usual, we denote ā > b̄ the fact ā ≥ b̄ and ā 6= b̄.
Definition 5.3 Let x1 , . . . , xr be indeterminates. We denote the set of monomials or power
products of x1 , . . . , xr by PP (x1 , . . . , xr ). A monomial preorder on x1 , . . . , xr is a total preorder
 on PP (x1 , . . . , xr ) satisfying the following conditions.
(1) 1  m for any m ∈ PP (x1 , . . . , xr ).
(2) For m1 , m2 , m ∈ PP (x1 , . . . , xr ),
m1  m2 ⇐⇒ m1 m  m2 m.
Let ∼ be the equivalence relation on PP (x1 , . . . , xr ) defined by the monomial preorder . We
denote by P (x1 , . . . , xr ) the quotient set PP (x1 , . . . , xr )/ ∼ and by qdeg m the class of m in
P (x1 , . . . , xr ) and call it the quasi-degree of m, where m ∈ PP (x1 , . . . , xr ).
Remark 5.4 Our definition of monomial preorder may seem to be different from that of [19], but
it is identical except we allow m ∼ 1 for a monomial m 6= 1.
Example 5.5 (c.f. [19, Example 3.1]) Let x1 , . . . , xr be indeterminates, W = (w1 , . . . , ws )
an r × s matrix whose entries are real numbers such that the first nonzero entry of each row is
positive. If one defines
def

xa  xb ⇐⇒ (a · w1 , . . . , a · ws ) ≤lex (b · w1 , . . . , b · ws ),
where · denotes the inner product and ≤lex denotes the lexicographic order, then  is a monomial
preorder. In fact, one can prove by the same way as [28] that every monomial preorder is of this
type.
Definition 5.6 Let K be a field and x1 , . . . , xr indeterminates. If a monomial preorder on x1 ,
. . . , xr is defined, we say that K[x1 , . . . , xr ] is a polynomial ring with monomial preorder. Let f
be a nonzero element of K[x1 , . . . , xr ]. We say that f is a form if all the monomials appearing in
f have the same quasi-degree. We denote by qdeg f the quasi-degree of the monomials appearing
in f . Let g be a nonzero element of K[x1 , . . . , xr ]. Then there is a unique expression
g = g1 + g2 + · · · + gt
of g, where gi is a form for 1 ≤ i ≤ t and qdeg g1 > qdeg g2 > · · · > qdeg gt . We define the leading
form of g, denoted lf(g) as g1 .
Remark 5.7 Let K[x1 , . . . , xr ] be a polynomial ring with monomial preorder and f , g nonzero
elements of K[x1 , . . . , xr ]. Then lf(f g) = lf(f )lf(g).
Remark 5.8 It is essential to assume both implications in (2) of Definition 5.3. For example, let
x and y be indeterminates. We define total preorder on PP (x, y) by 1 ≺ y ≺ x and m1 ≺ m2 if
the total degree of m1 is less than that of m2 . Then it is easily verified that
(1) 1 ≺ m for any m ∈ PP (x, y) \ {1}.
18

(2) m1  m2 ⇒ m1 m  m2 m.
Let f = x + y. Then lf(f ) = x while lf(f 2 ) = x2 + 2xy + y 2 6= x2 = (lf(f ))2 .
Definition 5.9 Let x1 , . . . , xr be indeterminates.
Suppose that a total preorder on
{x1 , . . . , xr } is defined.
Rewrite the set {x1 , . . . , xr } as follows.
{x1 , . . . , xr } =
{y11 , . . . , y1s1 , y21 , . . . , y2ss , . . . , yt1 , . . . , ytst }, s1 + · · · + st = r, y11 ∼ · · · ∼ y1s1 ≻ y21 ∼ · · · ∼
y2s2 ≻ · · · ≻ yt1 ∼ · · · ∼ ytst .
Qt Qsi aij
The lexicographic monomial preorder on PP (x1 , . . . , xr ) is defined as follows. i=1 j=1
yij 
Qt Qsi bij
if
and
only
if
one
of
the
following
conditions
is
satisfied.
y
j=1 ij
i=1
Ps1
Ps1
•
j=1 a1j <
j=1 b1j .
Ps1
Ps1
Ps2
Ps2
•
j=1 a1j =
j=1 b1j and
j=1 a2j <
j=1 b2j .
Ps1
Ps1
Ps2
Ps2
Ps3
Ps3
•
j=1 a1j =
j=1 b1j ,
j=1 a2j =
j=1 b2j and
j=1 a3j <
j=1 b3j .
..
.
Ps1
Ps1
Ps2
Ps2
Pst−2
Pst−2
•
a1j =
j=1 at−2,j =
j=1 bt−2,j and
j=1 b1j ,
j=1 a2j =
j=1 b2j , . . .,
Pj=1
P
st−1
st−1
a
<
b
.
t−1,j
t−1,j
j=1
j=1
Ps1
Ps1
Ps2
Ps2
Pst−1
Pst−1
•
a1j =
b1j ,
a2j =
b2j , . . .,
at−1,j =
j=1
j=1 bt−1,j and
j=1
j=1
j=1
j=1
Pst
Pst
j=1 at,j ≤
j=1 bt,j .
Remark 5.10 Suppose that x1 , . . . , xr are indeterminates and total preorder  on {x1 , . . . , xr }
is defined. Suppose also that
x1 ∼ · · · ∼ xm1 ≻ xm1 +1 ∼ · · · ∼ xm2 ≻ · · · ≻ xmt−1 +1 ∼ · · · ∼ xmt ,
mt = r. Then the lexicographic monomial preorder induced by this preorder on {x1 , . . . , xr } is the
one defined as in Example 5.5 by the r × t matrix whose j-th column has 1 in mj−1 + 1 through
mj -th position and 0 in others, where we set m0 = 0.
Definition 5.11 We set
k

[a1 , . . . , ai , . . . , an ] := [a1 , . . . , ai−1 , k, ai+1 , . . . , an ]
and

k

l

[a1 , . . . , ai , . . . , aj , . . . , an ] := [a1 , . . . , ai−1 , k, ai+1 , . . . , aj−1 , l, aj+1 , . . . , an ].
Lemma 5.12 Let K be a field, K[x1 , . . . , xr ] a polynomial ring with monomial preorder, S a subset
of {x1 , . . . , xr } and g1 , . . . , gt ∈ K[x1 , . . . , xr ]. Set L = K[S]. If lf(g1 ), . . . , lf(gt ) are linearly
independent over L, then g1 , . . . , gt are linearly independent over L.
Proof

Assume the contrary and suppose that
X
ci g i = 0
i

19

is a non-trivial relation where ci ∈ L and ci =
6 0 for any i which appears in the above sum. Then
X′
lf(ci )lf(gi ) = 0,

P′
where
runs through i’s with qdeg lf(ci gi ) are maximal. Since lf(ci ) ∈ L for any i, it contradicts
the assumption.
Lemma 5.13 (Plücker relations, see e.g. [4, (4,4) Lemma]) For every u × n-matrix M, u ≥
n, with entries in a commutative ring and all indices a1 , . . . , ak , bl , . . . , bn , c1 , . . . , cs ∈ {1, . . . , u}
such that s = n − k + l − 1 > n, t = n − k > 0 one has
X
sgn(i1 , . . . , is )[a1 , . . . , ak , ci1 , . . . , cit ]M [cit+1 , . . . , cis , bl , . . . , bn ]M = 0,
i1 <···<it
it+1 <···<is
{1,...,s}={i1 ,...,is }

where sgn(σ) is the signature of a permutation σ and the notations are defined in Definition 4.6.
An element a is called a non-zerodivisor if ab = 0 implies b = 0.
Lemma 5.14 Let A = A0 ⊕ A1 ⊕ · · · be a graded ring,
 X
 = (xij ) a u × n matrix with u > n and
X
1×n
entries in A1 and y = (y1 , . . . , yn ) ∈ A1 . Set X̃ =
and Γ = Γ(u × n). Suppose that
y
• δ = [1, 2, . . . , n]X is a non-zerodivisor of A,
• for any k1 and k2 with 1 ≤ k1 < k2 ≤ n,
δ X γX

(γ ∈ Γ),

n+1
[1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]X γX

(γ ∈ Γ \ {δ}) and

n+1
[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]X γX

(γ ∈ Γ, suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , k̂2 , . . . , n})

are linearly independent over A0 and
• In (X̃) = In (X),
where the notations are defined in Definition 4.6. Then, y is an A0 -linear combination of rows of
X.
X
X
Proof We denote γX̃ as γ and
as
for simplicity. Set
γ∈Γ

γ

u+1

[1, . . . , k , . . . , n] =

X

a(k)
γ γ

γ

and

n+1

u+1

[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , k2 , . . . , n] =

X
γ

20

1 ,k2 )
a(k
γ
γ

(k)

(k1 ,k2 )

where aγ , aγ

(k1 ,k2 )

(k)

∈ A. By considering the degree, we may assume that aγ , aγ
n+1

∈ A0 .

u+1

[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , k2 , . . . , n]X̃Cof(X ≤n )
=
=

n+1

u+1

det(Cof(X ≤n ))[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , k2 , . . . , n]
X
1 ,k2 )
δ n−1
a(k
γ,
γ
γ

where Cof(X ≤n ) denotes the matrix of cofactors of X ≤n . On the other hand, since


δ


δ




..


.




δ


 n+1

n+1
≤n
n+1
X̃Cof(X ) = [ 1 , 2 . . . , n] [1, 2 , . . . , n] · · · [1, 2, . . . , n ] ,


n+2
 n+2

[ 1 , 2 . . . , n] [1, 2 , . . . , n] · · · [1, 2, . . . , n+2

n
]




..
..
..
..


.
.
.
.


u+1

u+1

[ 1 , 2 . . . , n]

···

[1, 2 , . . . , n]

u+1

[1, 2, . . . , n ]

we see that

n+1

=

u+1

[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , k2 , . . . , n]X̃Cof(X ≤n )


n+1
n+1
[1,
.
.
.
,
k
,
.
.
.
,
n]
[1,
.
.
.
,
k
,
.
.
.
,
n]
1
2
.
δ n−2 det 
u+1
u+1
[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n] [1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]

Since δ is a non-zerodivisor, we see that
X
1 ,k2 )
a(k
δγ
γ
γ

=
=

n+1

u+1

γ

=

n+1

u+1

[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n][1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n] − [1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n][1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]
X
X
n+1
n+1
aγ(k2 ) [1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]γ −
aγ(k1 ) [1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]γ
γ

(k )
−aδ 1 δ[1, . . . ,

n+1
k2 , . . . , n]

−

n+1

X

aγ(k1 ) [1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]γ

γ∈Γ\{δ}
n+1
(k )
+aδ 2 δ[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]

X

+

suppγ∩{1,...,n}={1,...,k̂2 ,...,n}

+

X

n+1

aγ(k2 ) [1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]γ

suppγ6⊃{1,...,k̂2 ,...,n}

21

n+1

aγ(k2 ) [1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]γ

Suppose that suppγ ∩ {1, . . . , n} = {1, . . . , k̂2 , . . . , n}. Then γ = [1, . . . , k̂2 , . . . , n, l] for some l
l

with n + 1 ≤ l ≤ u. Thus γ = (−1)n−k2 [1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]. By applying Lemma 5.13 to
l

n+1

[1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n][1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n],
by substituting u, n, k, s, l by u, n, k1 − 1, n + 1, k1 + 1 respectively, we see that
l

n+1

[1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n][1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]
n+1

l

n+1

l

n+1

l

=

δ[1, . . . , k1 . . . , k2 , . . . , n] + [1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n][1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]

=

δ[1, . . . , k1 . . . , k2 , . . . , n] + (−1)n−k1 [1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n][1, . . . , k̂1 , . . . , n, l]

n+1

Therefore, if we set
bγ(k1 )

=

(

(k )

(k1 )

2
− (−1)k2 −k1 a[1,...,
k̂

aγ

if γ = [1, . . . , k̂1 . . . , n, l]

2 ,...,n,l]

(k )
aγ 1

otherwise

for γ ∈ Γ \ {δ}, we see that there are bγ ∈ A0 such that
X

X

bγ δγ −

γ

n+1

bγ(k1 ) [1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]γ

γ∈Γ\{δ}
n+1

X

+

aγ(k2 ) [1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]γ = 0.

suppγ6⊃{1,...,k̂2 ,...,n}

Thus we see, by the assumption, that
bγ(k1 ) = 0 if γ ∈ Γ \ {δ}
and
aγ(k2 ) = 0
(k1 )

Therefore, by the definition of bγ

if suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , k̂2 , . . . , n}.

, we see that
(k )

(k )

1
(−1)n−k1 a[1,...,
k̂

1 ,...,n,l]

2
= (−1)n−k2 a[1,...,
k̂

2 ,...,n,l]

and
aγ(k1 ) = 0

if suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , k̂1 , . . . , n}.

Since these hold for any k1 , k2 with 1 ≤ k1 < k2 ≤ n, we see that if we set
(n)

cl = a[1,...,n−1,l]
for l with n + 1 ≤ l ≤ u,
u+1

(k)

[1, . . . , k , . . . , n] = aδ δ + (−1)n−k

u
X

cl [1, . . . , k̂, . . . , n, l]

l=n+1
(k)

= aδ δ +

u
X

l=n+1

22

l

cl [1, . . . , k, . . . , n]

for any k with 1 ≤ k ≤ n.
Set
z=y−

n
X

(s)
aδ X =s

−

s=1

and

u
X

cl X =l

l=n+1

 
X
Z=
.
z

Then
u+1

[1, . . . , k , . . . , n]Z
u+1

= [1, . . . , k , . . . , n]X̃ −

n
X

s

(s)

aδ [1, . . . k, . . . n]X −

s=1

= 0

u
X

l

cl [1, . . . k, . . . n]X

l=n+1

for any k with 1 ≤ k ≤ n. Thus zCof(X ≤n ) = 0 and we see that z = 0 since det Cof(X ≤n ) = δ n−1
is a non-zerodivisor.
Lemma 5.15 Let L be a field, n, m integers with n ≥ m ≥ 3, x1 , . . . , xm indeterminates and α,
β ∈ L with 0 6= α 6= β 6= 0. Then the following polynomials are linearly independent over L.
x2n
1
x2n−1
(x2 − βxm )
1
x2n−1
xs (3 ≤ s ≤ m − 1)
1
xn1 (x2 − αxm )(x2 − βxm )xb1 · · · xbn−2 (1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2)
xn1 (x2 − αxm )xb1 · · · xbn−2 xs (1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2, 3 ≤ s ≤ m − 1)
xn1 xb1 · · · xbn (1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn ≤ m − 1, bn−1 ≥ 3)
x2n−2
(x2 − βxm )2
1
x2n−2
(x2 − βxm )xs (3 ≤ s ≤ m − 1)
1
n−1
x1 (x2 − αxm )(x2 − βxm )2 xb1 · · · xbn−2
x1n−1 (x2
x1n−1 (x2
x1n−2 (x2
x1n−2 (x2
x1n−2 (x2

− αxm )(x2 − βxm )xb1 · · · xbn−2 xs
− βxm )xb1 · · · xbn

(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2)
(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2, 3 ≤ s ≤ m − 1)

(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn ≤ m − 1, bn−1 ≥ 3)

2

− αxm ) (x2 − βxm )2 xb1 · · · xbn−2
2

− αxm ) (x2 − βxm )xb1 · · · xbn−2 xs
− αxm )(x2 − βxm )xb1 · · · xbn

(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2)
(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2, 3 ≤ s ≤ m − 1)

(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn ≤ m − 1, bn−1 ≥ 3)

Proof Set deg x1 = deg x2 = deg xm = 0 and deg x3 = · · · = deg xm−1 = 1. Then the
polynomials under consideration are homogeneous. Thus it is enough to show that for each integer
d, the polynomials of degree d in the above list are linearly independent over L.
First consider the polynomials with degree more than 1. They are
xn1 xb1 · · · xbn
x1n−1 (x2
x1n−2 (x2

(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn ≤ m − 1, bn−1 ≥ 3)

− βxm )xb1 · · · xbn (1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn ≤ m − 1, bn−1 ≥ 3)
− αxm )(x2 − βxm )xb1 · · · xbn (1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn ≤ m − 1, bn−1 ≥ 3).
23

By first substituting β −1 x2 to xm and next by substituting α−1 x2 to xm one sees that these
polynomials are linearly independent.
Next consider the polynomials with degree 1. They are
x2n−1
xs (3 ≤ s ≤ m − 1)
1
xn1 (x2 − αxm )xb1 · · · xbn−2 xs
(x2 − βxm )xs
x2n−2
1
n−1
x1 (x2 − αxm )(x2

(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2, 3 ≤ s ≤ m − 1)

(3 ≤ s ≤ m − 1)

− βxm )xb1 · · · xbn−2 xs
(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2, 3 ≤ s ≤ m − 1)

x1n−2 (x2 − αxm )2 (x2 − βxm )xb1 · · · xbn−2 xs
(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2, 3 ≤ s ≤ m − 1).
By a similar but more subtle argument as above, one sees that these polynomials are linearly
independent.
Finally consider the polynomials with degree 0. They are
x2n
1
x2n−1
(x2 − βxm )
1
n
x1 (x2 − αxm )(x2 − βxm )xb1 · · · xbn−2

(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2)

x2n−2
(x2 − βxm )2
1
n−1
x1 (x2 − αxm )(x2 − βxm )2 xb1 · · · xbn−2
x1n−2 (x2 − αxm )2 (x2 − βxm )2 xb1 · · · xbn−2

(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2)
(1 ≤ b1 ≤ · · · ≤ bn−2 ≤ 2)

By a similar but more subtle argument, one sees that these polynomials are linearly independent.
Lemma 5.16 Let K be a field, T = (T1 ; · · · ; Tm ) = (tijk ) a u × n × m-tensor of indeterminates
with u > n ≥ m ≥ u − n + 2, x = (x1 , . . . , xm ) a vector of indeterminates. Set X = M (x, T ) (c.f.
Definition 4.6), Γ = Γ(u × n), δ = δ0 = [1, . . . , n] and A = K[T ][x]. Then δX is a non-zerodivisor
of A and for any k1 , k2 with 1 ≤ k1 , k2 ≤ n, k1 6= k2 ,
δ X γX

(γ ∈ Γ)

n+1
[1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]X γX

(γ ∈ Γ \ {δ})

n+1
[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]X γX

(γ ∈ Γ, suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , k̂2 , . . . , n})

are linearly independent over K[T ].
Proof The first assertion is clear since A is an integral domain and δX 6= 0. Next we prove
the second assertion. By symmetry, we may assume that k1 = n − 1 and k2 = n. Set δ1 =
[1, 2, . . . , n − 1, n + 1] and δ2 = [1, 2, . . . , n − 2, n, n + 1]. We introduce the lexicographic monomial
preorder induced by the preorder on the indeterminates defined as follows.
If one of the following is satisfied, we define tijk ≻ ti′ j ′ k′ .
24

• i < i′ .
• i = i′ and j < j ′ .
• i = i′ , j = j ′ , k < k ′ and “i < j or i > j + u − n”.
In case 0 ≤ i − j ≤ u − n and (i, j) 6= (n, n − 1), (n + 1, n), we define
ti,j,i−j+1 ≻ ti,j,i−j+2 ≻ · · · ≻ ti,j,m ≻ ti,j,1 ≻ · · · ≻ ti,j,i−j .
In case (i, j) = (n, n − 1) or (n + 1, n), we define
ti,j,2 ∼ ti,j,m ≻ ti,j,1 ≻ ti,j,3 ≻ · · · ≻ ti,j,m−1 .
And
tijk ≻ x1 ∼ x2 ∼ · · · ∼ xm
for any i, j and k.
Set
Γ0 = {[a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ | an−1 = n − 1},
Γ1 = {[a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ | an−1 = n},
Γ2 = {[a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ | an−1 ≥ n + 1},
Γ00 = {[a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ0 | an = n} = {δ0 },
Γ01 = {[a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ0 | an = n + 1} = {δ1 },
Γ02 = {[a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ0 | an ≥ n + 2},
Γ11 = {[a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ1 | an = n + 1} = {δ2 },
Γ12 = {[a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ1 | an ≥ n + 2}.
Then
Γ = Γ0 ⊔ Γ1 ⊔ Γ2
Γ0 = Γ00 ⊔ Γ01 ⊔ Γ02
Γ1 = Γ11 ⊔ Γ12 .
Set α1 = tn,n−1,2 , α2 = tn,n−1,m , β1 = tn+1,n,2 and β2 = tn+1,n,m . Then for γ = [a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ,
lf(γX ) is, up to multiplication of nonzero element of K[T ], as follows.
xn1

if γ ∈ Γ00

x1n−1 (β1 x2 + β2 xm ) if γ ∈ Γ01
x1n−1 xan −n+1 if γ ∈ Γ02
xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan−2 −n+3 (α1 x2 + α2 xm )(β1 x2 +β2 xm ) if γ ∈ Γ11
xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan−2 −n+3 (α1 x2 + α2 xm )xan −n+1 if γ ∈ Γ12
xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan −n+1

if γ ∈ Γ2 .

25

Therefore, for γ = [a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ, lf(δX γX ) is, up to multiplication of nonzero element of K[T ],
x2n
1

if γ ∈ Γ00

x2n−1
(β1 x2 + β2 xm ) if γ ∈ Γ01
1
2n−1
x1
xan −n+1 if γ ∈ Γ02
xn1 xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan−2 −n+3 (α1 x2 + α2 xm )(β1 x2 +β2 xm ) if γ ∈ Γ11
xn1 xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan−2 −n+3 (α1 x2 + α2 xm )xan −n+1 if γ ∈ Γ12
xn1 xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan −n+1

if γ ∈ Γ2 .

For γ = [a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ \ {δ}, lf((δ1 )X γX ) is, up to multiplication of nonzero element of K[T ],
x2n−2
(β1 x2 + β2 xm )2
1

if γ ∈ Γ01
2n−2
x1
(β1 x2 + β2 xm )xan −n+1 if γ ∈ Γ02
n−1
x1 xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan−2 −n+3 (α1 x2 + α2 xm )(β1 x2 +β2 xm )2 if γ ∈
x1n−1 xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan−2 −n+3 (α1 x2 + α2 xm )(β1 x2 +β2 xm )xan −n+1
x1n−1 (β1 x2 +β2 xm )xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan −n+1 if γ ∈ Γ2 .

Γ11
if γ ∈ Γ12

Finally, consider the leading form of (δ2 )X γX , where γ = [a1 , . . . , an ] ∈ Γ and suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , n −
1}. It is easily verified that suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , n − 1} if and only if γ ∈ Γ1 ⊔ Γ2 . Thus the leading
form of (δ2 )X γX is, up to multiplication of nonzero element of K[T ],
x1n−2 xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan−2 −n+3 (α1 x2 + α2 xm )2 (β1 x2 +β2 xm )2

if γ ∈ Γ11

x1n−2 xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan−2 −n+3 (α1 x2 + α2 xm )2 (β1 x2 +β2 xm )xan −n+1
x1n−2 (α1 x2 + α2 xm )(β1 x2 +β2 xm )xa1 xa2 −1 · · · xan −n+1 if γ ∈ Γ2 .

if γ ∈ Γ12

Since
1 ≤ a1 ≤ a2 − 1 ≤ · · · ≤ an − n + 1 ≤ u − n + 1 ≤ m − 1
an−2 − n + 3 ≤ 2 if γ ∈ Γ1
an−1 − n + 2 ≥ 3 if γ ∈ Γ2
and
an − n + 1 ≥ 3 if γ ∈ Γ02 ⊔ Γ12 ,
we see by Lemma 5.15 that
lf(δX γX ) (γ ∈ Γ)
lf((δ1 )X γX ) (γ ∈ Γ \ {δ})
lf((δ2 )X γX )

(γ ∈ Γ, suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , n − 1})

are linearly independent over K[T ]. The assertion follows by Lemma 5.12.
Corollary 5.17 Let K be a field, T a u × n × m tensor of indeterminates with u > n ≥ m ≥
u − n + 2, R a commutative ring containing K(T ), x = (x1 , . . . , xm ) a vector of indeterminates.
26

Set M = M (x, T ) (c.f. Definition 4.6) and B = R[x]. Then δM is a non-zerodivisor of B and for
any k1 , k2 with 1 ≤ k1 , k2 ≤ n, k1 6= k2 ,
δ M γM

(γ ∈ Γ)

n+1
[1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]M γM

(γ ∈ Γ \ {δ})

n+1
[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]M γM

(γ ∈ Γ, suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , k̂2 , . . . , n})

are linearly independent over R.
Proof Set A = K[T ][x]. Then B = A ⊗K[T ] R.
Since R is flat over K[T ], we see that B is flat over A. By Lemma 5.16, we see that δM is a
non-zerodivisor of A and for any k1 , k2 with 1 ≤ k1 , k2 ≤ n, k1 6= k2 ,
δ M γM

(γ ∈ Γ)

n+1
[1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]M γM

(γ ∈ Γ \ {δ})

n+1
[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]M γM

(γ ∈ Γ, suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , k̂2 , . . . , n})

are linearly independent over K[T ]. Since R (resp. B) is flat over K[T ] (resp. A), we see that δM
is a non-zerodivisor of B and for any k1 , k2 with 1 ≤ k1 , k2 ≤ n, k1 6= k2 ,
δ M γM

(γ ∈ Γ)

n+1
[1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]M γM

(γ ∈ Γ \ {δ})

n+1
[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]M γM

(γ ∈ Γ, suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , k̂2 , . . . , n})

are linearly independent over R.
Corollary 5.18 Let x = (x1 , . . . , xm ) be a vector of indeterminates. Suppose that u > n and
Y ∈ I (c.f. Definition 4.15) and set M = M (x, Y ). Then δM is a non-zerodivisor of R[x] and
for any k1 , k2 with 1 ≤ k1 , k2 ≤ n, k1 6= k2 ,
δ M γM

(γ ∈ Γ)

n+1
[1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]M γM

(γ ∈ Γ \ {δ})

n+1
[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]M γM

(γ ∈ Γ, suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , k̂2 , . . . , n})

are linearly independent over R.
Definition 5.19 Let x = (x1 , . . . , xm ) be a vector of indeterminates.
{Y

∈

Ru×n×m

|

δM

6=

0 and δM γM

(γ ∈ Γ),

n+1
[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]M γM

We set Q ′ :=

n+1
[1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]M γM

(γ ∈ Γ \ {δ}),

(γ ∈ Γ, suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , k̂2 , . . . , n}) are linearly independent over R for
any k1 , k2 with 1 ≤ k1 < k2 ≤ n, where M = M (x, Y )}.
27

Remark 5.20 Q ′ is a Zariski open set of Ru×n×m and by Corollary 5.18, we see that Q ′ ⊃ I .
In particular, Q ′ is a Zariski dense open subset of Ru×n×m .
By Lemma 5.14, we see the following fact.
Proposition 5.21 Let u, n and m be integers with u > n ≥ m ≥ u−n+2 and let x = (x1 , . . . , xm )
be a vector of indeterminates. Suppose that Y ∈ Q ′ and y ∈ R1×n×m . Set
 
Y
Ỹ =
.
y
If In (M (x, Ỹ )) = In (M (x, Y )), then fl1 (y) is an R-linear combination of rows of fl1 (Y ).
Proof Set M = M (x, Y ). Since R[x] is a domain and δM 6= 0 by the definition of Q ′ , we see
that δM is a non-zerodivisor of R[x]. Moreover,
δ M γM

(γ ∈ Γ)

n+1
[1, . . . , k2 , . . . , n]M γM

(γ ∈ Γ \ {δ})

n+1
[1, . . . , k1 , . . . , n]M γM

(γ ∈ Γ, suppγ 6⊃ {1, . . . , k̂2 , . . . , n})

are linearly independent over R for any k1 , k2 with 1 ≤ k1 < k2 ≤ n by the definition of Q ′ . Thus
by Lemma 5.14, we see that M (x, y) is an R-linear combination of rows of M = M (x, Y ). Since
x1 , . . . , xm are indeterminates, we see that fl1 (y) is an R-linear combination of rows of fl1 (Y ).

6

Tensor with rank p

Let 3 ≤ m ≤ n, (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1 ≤ p ≤ (m − 1)n and set l = (m − 1)n − p and u = n + l. In the
following of this paper, we use the results of the previous sections by setting t = n. See Definition
4.6. Then v = l + 1 and it follows that v < m since l ≤ m − 2. Note also u + p = nm. We make
bunch of definitions used in the sequel of this paper.
Definition 6.1 We put
V = V n×p×m := {T ∈ Rn×p×m | fl2 (T )≤p is nonsingular}
and define σ : V → Ru×p be a map defined as
σ(T ) = (p< fl2 (T ))(fl2 (T )≤p )−1 .
We denote by A u×n×m the set of all u × n × m absolutely full column rank tensors and put
C
= Ru×n×m \ A u×n×m . Note that A u×n×m = Anu×n×m and C u×n×m = Cnu×n×m in the
notation of Definition 4.15.
Let M be the subset of Ru×nm consisting of all matrices W = (W1 , . . . , Wm ) satisfying that
there are A = (a1 , . . . , ap ) ∈ Rn×p and p × p diagonal matrices D1 , . . . , Dm such that Dk =
u×n×m

28

Diag(d1k , . . . , dpk ) for 1 ≤ k ≤ m, (dj1 W1 + · · · + djm Wm )aj = 0 for 1 ≤ j ≤ p, and


AD1


..


.


 ADm−2 
A≤n−l Dm−1

(6.1)

is nonsingular. Let ι : Ru×p → Ru×nm be a map which sends A to (A, −Eu ). Moreover put
C := {W ∈ Ru×nm | W ∈
/ fl1 (A u×n×m )} = {W ∈ Ru×n×m | W ∈ fl1 (C u×n×m )}.
We define φ : R1×m × Rn → Rp a map defined as


a1 b


a2 b


φ(a, b) = 
 ∈ Rp , where a = (a1 , . . . , am−1 , am ).
..


.
am−1 b≤n−l

Recall that the set A u×n×m is an open subset of Ru×n×m by Lemma 3.3 or Corollary 4.20.
Proposition 6.2 σ is an open, surjective and continuous map.
Proof Clearly σ is surjective and continuous. Let O be an open subset of V and let h : Rnm×p →
Rp×p ×Ru×p be a homeomorphism defined as h(M ) = (M ≤p , p< M ). Then h(fl2 (O)) can be written
by
[
O1,λ × O2,λ
λ

for some open subsets O1,λ ⊂ R

p×p

and O2,λ ⊂ Ru×p and thus
[ [
σ(O) =
O2,λ A−1 .
λ A∈O1,λ

The set O2,λ A−1 is open and then σ(O) is open.
The following fact follows from the definition.
Lemma 6.3 M is stable under the action of GL(u, R).
Lemma 6.4 M ⊂ C.
By observing the first
 column of (6.1),
 we see that a1 6= 0 and at least one of d11 , d12 ,
AD1


..


.
. . . , d1,m−1 is nonzero, since 
 is nonsingular, where Dk = Diag(d1k , . . . , dpk ) for
 ADm−2 
A≤n−l Dm−1
1 ≤ k ≤ m − 1. Since d11 W1 + · · · + d1m Wm is singular, (W1 ; . . . ; Wm ) is not absolutely full column
rank, i.e., M ⊂ C.
Proof

29

Theorem 6.5 Let X ∈ V ⊂ Rn×p×m . Put (W1 , . . . , Wm−1 , Wm ) = ι(σ(X)), where W1 , . . . , Wm ∈
Ru×n . The following four statements are equivalent.
(1) rank X = p.
(2) There are an n × p matrix A, and diagonal p × p matrices D1 , . . . , Dm such that
W1 AD1 + W2 AD2 + · · · + Wm−1 ADm−1 + Wm ADm = O
and





N =


is nonsingular.



AD1
..
.
ADm−2
A≤n−l Dm−1






(6.2)

(6.3)

(3) ι(σ(X)) ∈ M.
Proof It holds that rank X ≥ p, since fl2 (X)≤p has rank p. Put (S1 ; . . . ; Sm ) = X(fl2 (X)≤p )−1
Then rank X = rank(S1 ; . . . ; Sm ) and
n−l<

Sm−1
= (W1 , W2 , . . . , Wm−2 , (Wm−1 )≤n−l ).
Sm
(1) ⇒ (2): Since rank(S1 ; . . . ; Sm ) = p, there are an n × p-matrix A, a p × p-matrix Q, and
p × p diagonal matrices D1 , . . . , Dm such that
ADk Q = Sk
Since



AD1
..
.

for k = 1, . . . , m.





S1
..
.











NQ = 
 = Ep ,
Q = 
 Sm−2 
 ADm−2 
(Sm−1 )≤n−l
A≤n−l Dm−1

we see that N and Q are nonsingular and Q−1 = N . Since

n−l<
Sm−1
= σ(X) = (W1 , W2 , . . . , Wm−2 , (Wm−1 )≤n−l ),
Sm
and ADk = Sk N for k = m − 1, m, we see that

=
=

=

Ou×p
n−l<

n−l<


Sm−1
ADm−1
N−
Sm
ADm
W1 AD1 + · · · + Wm−2 ADm−2




−El n−l<
O
≤n−l
+(Wm−1 )≤n−l A
Dm−1 +
ADm
ADm−1 +
O
−En
W1 AD1 + · · · + Wm−2 ADm−2 + Wm−1 ADm−1 + Wm ADm .
30

Therefore the equation (6.2) holds.
(2) ⇒ (1): Set Q = N −1 . Then, since N Q = Ep , we see that
ADk Q = Sk
and

1≤k ≤m−2

≤n−l
A≤n−l Dm−1 Q = Sm−1
.

Furthermore, since
W1 AD1 + · · · + Wm−2 ADm−2
+(Wm−1 )≤n−l A≤n−l Dm−1 +
=
=
we see that

Thus

W1 AD1 + · · · + Wm ADm
Ou×p ,





−El n−l<
O
ADm
ADm−1 +
O
−En

n−l<


 
 
Sm−1
El n−l<
O
N=
ADm .
ADm−1 +
Sm
O
En


n−l<
Sm−1
ADm−1
Q=
Sm
ADm

n−l<

and we see that ADk Q = Sk for k = m − 1, m. Therefore, rank X = rank(S1 ; . . . ; Sm ) ≤ p and we
see (1).
Finally it is easy to see that (2) ⇔ (3).
Since M ⊂ C by Lemma 6.4, we see the following:
Proposition 6.6 For X ∈ V , if rank X = p, then ι(σ(X)) 6∈ fl1 (A u×n×m ).

7

Contribution of absolutely full column rank property

Let m, n and p be integers with 3 ≤ m ≤ n and (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1 ≤ p ≤ (m − 1)n. We set
u = nm − p and t = n and use the results of Sections 4 and 5. Note v = u − n + 1 = (m − 1)n − p + 1
in the notation of Definition 4.6.
It is known that the generic rank grank(n, p, m) of n × p × m tensors over C is equal to p ([5,
Theorem 3.1] or [6, Theorem 2.4 and Remark 2.5]) and it is also equal to the minimal typical rank
of n × p × m tensors over R. Thus if we discuss the plurality of typical ranks, it is enough to
consider whether there exists a typical rank that is greater than p or not.
Definition 7.1 We set A := ι−1 (fl1 (A u×n×m )) ⊂ Ru×p , where ι and A u×n×m are defined in
Definition 6.1.
Lemma 7.2 If Y ∈ V n×p×m and σ(Y ) ∈ A, then rank Y > p.
Proof

This follows from the fact that rank Y ≥ p if Y ∈ V n×p×m and Proposition 6.6.

31

Theorem 7.3 If A u×n×m 6= ∅, then there are plural typical ranks of n × p × m tensors over R.
Proof By Lemma 3.5, we see that A 6= ∅. Since A u×n×m is an open subset of Ru×n×m , we see
that A is an open subset of Ru×p . Moreover, since σ : V n×p×m → Ru×p is a surjective continuous
map, we see that σ −1 (A) is a nonempty open subset of V n×p×m . Thus, there is a typical rank
greater than p by Lemma 7.2.
Since p is a typical rank of n × p × m tensors over R, we see that there are plural typical ranks
of n × p × m tensors over R.
From now on until the end of this section, we assume that p ≥ (m − 1)(n − 1) + 2. Thus,
m ≥ v + 2.
Definition 7.4 Let Y ∈ Ru×n×m and let x = (x1 , . . . , xm ) be a vector of indeterminates. For i1 ,
. . . , in−1 ∈ {1, . . . , u}, we set


(−1)n+1 [i1 , . . . , in−1 | 2, . . . , n − 1, n]M(x,Y )
 (−1)n+2 [i1 , . . . , in−1 | 1, 3, . . . , n − 1, n]M(x,Y ) 


ψi1 ,...,in−1 (x, Y ) := 
 ∈ R[x]n .
..


.
(−1)2n [i1 , . . . , in−1 | 1, . . . , n − 2, n − 1]M(x,Y )

We define ψ̂i1 ,...,in−1 : R1×m ×

For the definition [a1 , . . . , at | b1 , . . . , bt ], see Definition 4.6.
Ru×n×m → R[x]p by


x1 ψi1 ,...,in−1 (x, Y )
x2 ψi1 ,...,in−1 (x, Y )
..
.

≤p





ψ̂i1 ,...,in−1 (x, Y ) := 



xm−1 ψi1 ,...,in−1 (x, Y )

∈ R[x]p .

We also define the R-vector space U (Y ) by

U (Y ) := hψ̂i1 ,...,in−1 (u, Y ) |

u ∈ V(In (M (x, Y ))),
i ⊂ Rp .
i1 , . . . , in−1 ∈ {1, . . . , u}

For c = (c11 , . . . , cn1 , c12 , . . . , cn2 , . . . , c1m , . . . , cnm ) ∈ R

1×nm

, we set Zk =

1 ≤ k ≤ m, Z = (Z1 ; . . . ; Zm ) ∈ R(u+1)×n×m and



c1k

Yk
· · · cnk



for

gi1 ,...,in−1 (x, Y, c) = [i1 , . . . , in−1 , u + 1]M(x,Z)
for any i1 , . . . , in−1 ∈ {1, . . . , u}. For the definition [i1 , . . . , in−1 , u + 1]M(x,Z) , see Definition 4.6.
Lemma 7.5 Suppose that Y ∈ Ru×n×m . Then the following claims are equivalent.
(1) dim U (Y ) = p.
(2) If c ∈ R1×nm satisfies the following conditions, then c = 0.
(∗)

p< c

= 0 and
32

(∗∗) gi1 ,...in−1 (u, Y, c) = 0 for any u ∈ V(In (M (x, Y ))) and any i1 , . . . , in−1 ∈ {1, . . . , u}.
Proof
The vector d ∈ Rp is perpendicular to U (Y ) if and only if d is perpendicular to
ψ̂i1 ,...,in−1 (u, Y ) for any u ∈ V(In (M (x, Y ))) and any i1 , . . . , in−1 . Since the inner product of
ψ̂i1 ,...,in (u, Y ) with d is gi1 ,...,in−1 (u, Y, (d⊤ , 0)), the result follows.
Next we show the following result. For the definition of M, see Definition 6.1.
Lemma 7.6 If dim U (Y ) = p, then fl1 (Y ) ∈ M.
Proof Set Y = (Y1 ; . . . ; Ym ). Suppose that dim U (Y ) = p. Then there are u1 , . . . , up ∈
V(In (M (x, Y ))) and t11 , . . . , t1,n−1 , . . . , tp1 , . . . , tp,n−1 such that
ψ̂t11 ,...,t1,n−1 (u1 , Y ), . . . , ψ̂tp1 ,...,tp,n−1 (up , Y )
are linearly independent over R. Set uj = (uj1 , . . . , ujm ) for 1 ≤ j ≤ p, Dk = Diag(u1k , . . . , upk )
for 1 ≤ k ≤ m and
A = (ψt11 ,...,t1,n−1 (u1 , Y ), . . . , ψtp1 ,...,tp,n−1 (up , Y )).
Then,
≤p
AD1

 

..

 

.

=
 = (ψ̂t11 ,...,t1,n−1 (u1 , Y ), . . . , ψ̂tp1 ,...,tp,n−1 (up , Y ))
 ADm−2  ADm−2 
A≤n−l Dm−1
ADm−1


AD1
..
.





is a nonsingular matrix and


[1, tj1 , . . . , tj,n−1 ]M(uj ,Y )
 [2, tj1 , . . . , tj,n−1 ]M(uj ,Y ) 


(uj1 Y1 + · · · + ujm Ym )ψtj1 ,...,tj,n−1 (uj , Y ) = 
=0
..


.


[u, tj1 , . . . , tj,n−1 ]M(uj ,Y )

since In (M (uj , Y )) = (0) for 1 ≤ j ≤ p.

Definition 7.7 Set U := {Y ∈ Ru×n×m | p< fl1 (Y ) is nonsingular}, O3 := U ∩ Q ∩ Q ′ ∩ P̃n =
O1 ∩ U ∩ Q ′ and O4 := U ∩ Q ∩ Q ′ ∩ A u×n×m = O2 ∩ U ∩ Q ′ , where Q, Q ′ and P̃n are the
ones defined in Definitions 4.27, 5.19, and 4.24 and O1 and O2 are the ones in Theorem 4.31 under
t = n. Define ν : U → Ru×p as ν(Y ) := −(p< fl1 (Y ))−1 fl1 (Y )≤p for i = 1, 2, where σ is the one
defined in Definition 6.1. Set Oi = ν(Oi+2 ) ⊂ Ru×p and Ti = σ −1 (Oi )⊂ V n×p×m for i = 1, 2.
The following fact is immediately verified.
Lemma 7.8 ι(ν(Y )) = fl1 (−(p< fl1 (Y ))−1 Y ).
By the same way as Theorem 4.31 (1), (2) and (3), we see the following fact.
Lemma 7.9 Then the followings hold.
33

(1) O3 and O4 are disjoint open subsets of Ru×n×m and O3 is nonempty.
(2) O3 ∪ O4 is a dense subset of Ru×n×m .
(3) O3 = C u×n×m = Ru×n×m \ A u×n×m .
Lemma 7.10 fl1 (O3 ) ⊂ M.
Proof Let Y ∈ O3 . By Lemmas 7.6 and 7.5, it is enough to show that if c ∈ R1×nm satisfies (∗)
and (∗∗), then c = 0.
 
Y
1×n
′
1×n×m
Set c = (c1 , . . . , cm ), where cj ∈ R
, c = (c1 ; · · · ; cm ) ∈ R
and Ỹ =
. Then by
c′
(∗∗), gi1 ,...,in−1 (x, Y, c) ∈ I(V(In (M (x, Y )))) for any i1 , . . . , in−1 ∈ {1, . . . , u}. Therefore, by the
definition of O3 and Theorem 4.31 (5), we see that gi1 ,...,in−1 (x, Y, c) ∈ In (M (x, Y )) for any i1 ,
. . . , in−1 ∈ {1, . . . , u}. Thus we see that In (M (x, Ỹ )) = In (M (x, Y )). Thus, by Proposition 5.21,
we see that fl1 (c) is an R-linear combination of rows of fl1 (Y ). Since p< c = 0 and Y ∈ U , we see
that c = 0.
By the same way as Proposition 6.2, we see the following:
Proposition 7.11 ν is an open, surjective and continuous map.
We see the following fact.
Lemma 7.12 Then the followings hold.
(1) Y ∈ A u×n×m if and only if ν(Y ) ∈ A for Y ∈ U .
(2) O1 and O2 are disjoint open subsets of Ru×p and O1 6= ∅.
(3) O1 ∪ O2 is a dense subset of Ru×p .
(4) O1 = Ru×p \ A.
(5) O2 ⊂ A and O2 = A.
Proof
(1): Suppose that Y ∈ U . Since A u×n×m and U are stable under the action
of GL(u, R), we see that Y ∈ A u×n×m if and only if −(p< fl1 (Y ))−1 Y ∈ A u×n×m . Since
ι(ν(Y )) = fl1 (−(p< fl1 (Y ))−1 Y ) and fl1 is a bijection, we see (1).
We see (2) by the facts that P̃n and A u×n×m are stable under the action of GL(u, R), Lemma
7.9, and Proposition 7.11. (3) also follows from Lemma 7.9 and Proposition 7.11. We see by (1)
that if Y ∈ O3 , then ν(Y ) 6∈ A. Thus O1 = ν(O3 ) ⊂ Ru×p \ A. Since O3 = Ru×n×m \ A u×n×m by
Lemmas 7.9 (3), we see that O1 ⊃ ν(O3 ∩ U ) = ν((Ru×n×m \ A u×n×m ) ∩ U ) = Ru×p \ A by (1)
and the surjectivity of ν. Thus we see (4). Therefore O2 ⊂ A by (2). Further, we see that O 2 ⊃ A
by (3) and (4). Thus we see (5).
Lemma 7.13 Let X and Y be topological spaces, f : X → Y a mapping and B a subset of Y .
(1) If f is continuous, then f −1 (B) ⊃ f −1 (B).

34

(2) If f is an open map, then f −1 (B) ⊂ f −1 (B).
Proof (1): Since f −1 (B) is a closed subset of X containing f −1 (B), we see that f −1 (B) ⊃
f −1 (B).
(2): Suppose that x ∈ f −1 (B) and let U be an open neighborhood of x. We show that
U ∩ f −1 (B) 6= ∅.
Since f (x) ∈ B, f (x) ∈ f (U ) and f (U ) is an open subset of Y , we see that f (U ) ∩ B 6= ∅. Take
b ∈ f (U ) ∩ B and a ∈ U such that f (a) = b. Then, since f (a) ∈ B, we see that a ∈ f −1 (B). Thus,
a ∈ U ∩ f −1 (B) and we see that U ∩ f −1 (B) 6= ∅.
Theorem 7.14 Let m, n and p be integers with 3 ≤ m ≤ n and (m − 1)(n − 1) + 2 ≤ p ≤ (m − 1)n.
The followings hold.
(1) T1 and T2 are disjoint open subsets of V n×p×m and T1 is nonempty.
(2) T1 ∪ T2 is a dense subset of Rn×p×m .
(3) T1 ∩ V n×p×m = V n×p×m \ σ −1 (A) and T2 ∩ V n×p×m = σ −1 (A) ∩ V n×p×m .
(4) If T ∈ T1 , then rank T = p.
(5) If T ∈ T2 , then rank T > p.
Proof First note that σ −1 (X ) ∩ V n×p×m = σ −1 (X ) for any subset X of Ru×p by Lemma 7.13,
since σ is an open continuous map.
(1) and (2) follow from Lemma 7.12 and the facts that σ is surjective and V n×p×m is a dense
subset of Rn×p×m .
(3): We see by Lemma 7.12 that T 1 ∩V n×p×m = σ −1 (O1 ) = σ −1 (Ru×p \A) = V n×p×m \σ −1 (A)
and T 2 ∩ V n×p×m = σ −1 (O2 ) = σ −1 (A) ∩ V n×p×m .
(4): Suppose that T ∈ T1 . Then σ(T ) ∈ O1 . Thus there exists Y ∈ O3 such that ν(Y ) = σ(T ).
By Lemma 7.10, we see that fl1 (Y ) ∈ M. Hence ι(σ(T )) = ι(ν(Y )) = −(p< fl1 (Y ))−1 fl1 (Y ) ∈ M,
since M is stable under the action of GL(u, R). Therefore rank T = p by Theorem 6.5.
(5): If T ∈ T2 , then σ(T ) ∈ O2 ⊂ A by Lemma 7.12. Thus rank T > p by Lemma 7.2.

8

Upper bound for typical ranks

In Lemma 7.2, we see a class of tensors with rank greater than p. To complete the proof of
Theorem 1.2, we give an upper bound of the set of typical ranks of Rn×p×m :
Theorem 8.1 Let 3 ≤ m ≤ n and (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1 ≤ p ≤ (m − 1)n. Any typical rank of Rn×p×m
is less than or equal to p + 1.
We prepare the proof.
Let 3 ≤ m ≤ n, (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1 ≤ p < (m − 1)n and u = mn − p. Let
σ ′ : V n×(p+1)×m → R(u−1)×(p+1) be the counterpart of σ : V n×p×m → Ru×p . Also, let A′ ⊂
R(u−1)×(p+1) and T1′ ⊂ V n×(p+1)×m be the counterparts of A ⊂ Ru×p and T1 ⊂ V n×p×m respectively. Let π : Rn×(p+1)×m → Rn×p×m be a canonical projection defined as π(Y1 ; . . . ; Ym ) =
((Y1 )≤p ; . . . ; (Ym )≤p ). Clearly π is a continuous, surjective and open map.
35

Lemma 8.2 π(T1′ ) is an open dense subset of Rn×p×m .
Proof Since T1′ is an open set and π is an open map, π(T1′ ) is an open subset of Rn×p×m .
We show that π(T1′ ) is dense. Let X ∈ V n×p×m . Consider the map f : V n×p×m → V n×(p+1)×m
defined as
f (X1 ; . . . ; Xm−2 ; Xm−1 ; Xm ) = ((X1 , 0); . . . ; (Xm−2 , 0); (Xm−1 , e); (Xm , 0))
where e is the (2n − u + 1)th column vector of the identity matrix En . Since the (p + 1)th
column vector of the matrix σ ′ (f (X)) is zero, f (X) ∈
/ σ ′−1 (A′ ) holds and by Theorem 7.14 (3),
′
f (X) ∈ T1 . Since π ◦ f is the identity map and π is continuous, X ∈ π(T1′ ) ⊂ π(T1′ ) holds.
Therefore V n×p×m ⊂ π(T1′ ) and thus Rn×p×m = π(T1′ ).
By Theorem 7.14 (5), and Lemma 8.2, we have immediately the following corollary.
Corollary 8.3 Let 3 ≤ m ≤ n and (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1 ≤ p < (m − 1)n. T2 6= ∅ if and only if
T2 ∩ π(T1′ ) 6= ∅, and rank T = p + 1 for any T ∈ T2 ∩ π(T1′ ).
Note that arbitrary tensor of π(T1′ ) has rank less than or equal to p + 1 by Theorem 7.14 (4).
Proof of Theorem 8.1 The assertion for p = (m − 1)n holds by [33]. Suppose that (m − 1)(n −
1) + 1 ≤ p < (m − 1)n. Then rank(T ) ≤ p + 1 for T ∈ π(T1′ ). Since π(T1′ ) is dense, arbitrary
integer greater than p + 1 is not a typical rank.
Recall that trank(m, n, p) = trank(n, p, m). We are ready to prove main theorems.
Proof of Theorem 1.1 (1) follows from Theorem 7.3 and Corollary 3.4.
(2): We may assume that 3 ≤ m ≤ n without the loss of generality. Ten Berge [35] showed that
Rm×n×p has a unique typical rank for p ≥ (m − 1)n + 1. Therefore, we see that p ≤ (m − 1)n. Set
u = mn − p. By Theorem 7.14 (2) and (4), we see that T2 6= ∅. Furthermore, T2 6= ∅ ⇒ O4 6= ∅ by
definitions and the surjectivity of σ. Since O4 ⊂ A u×n×m , we see that there exists an absolutely
full column rank u × n × m tensor. The result follows from Corollary 3.4.
Proof of Theorem 1.2

We may assume that 3 ≤ m ≤ n. Note that
trank(m, n, p) = {min{p, mn}}

for k ≥ m [35]. Suppose that 2 ≤ k ≤ m−1. By Theorem 8.1, the maximal typical rank of Rm×n×p
is less than or equal to p + 1. Since p is the minimal typical rank of Rm×n×p , trank(m, n, p) is {p}
or {p, p+ 1}. By Theorem 1.1, Rm×n×p has a unique typical rank if and only if m#n≥ mn − p + 1,
equivalently, k≥ m + n − (m#n). This completes the proof.
We immediately have Theorem 1.3 by Proposition 2.4 and Theorem 7.3. In the case where
p = (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1, we have many examples for having plural typical ranks.
Corollary 8.4 Let m, n ≥ 3 and a ≥ 1. If m ≡ 2a−1 + s (mod 2a ) and n ≡ 2a−1 + t (mod 2a )
for some integers s and t with 1 ≤ s, t ≤ 2a−1 then Rm×n×((m−1)(n−1)+1) has plural typical ranks.
Proposition 8.5 Let a = 4, 8. If m and n are divisible by a, then for each 1 ≤ k < a,
Rm×n×((m−1)(n−1)+k) has plural typical ranks.
36

Proof For a = 4, 8, if m and n are divisible by a, then m#n ≤ m + n − a by Proposition 2.3
and thus m + n − 1 − (m#n) ≥ a − 1. Then the assertion follows by Theorem 1.2.
Corollary 8.6

(1) R4×4×k has plural typical rank whenever 10 ≤ k ≤ 12.

(2) R8×8×k has plural typical rank whenever 50 ≤ k ≤ 56.
Proposition 8.7 Let m, n ≥ 3. If Rm×n×((m−1)(n−1)+1) has a unique typical rank, i.e., m#n =
m + n − 1, then trank(m, n, (m − 1)(n − 1) − k) = {(m − 1)(n − 1) + 1} holds whenever 0 ≤ k <
(m−1)(n−1)
m+n−1 .
Proof Let 0 ≤ k < (m−1)(n−1)
m+n−1 , q = (m − 1)(n − 1) − k and p = (m − 1)(n − 1) + 1. Suppose
m×n×p
that R
has a unique typical rank. Then trank(n, p, m) = {p}. Since the set of all n × p × m
tensors with rank p is a dense subset of Rn×p×m , the image of this set by a canonical projection
Rn×p×m → Rn×q×m is also a dense subset of Rn×q×m . Thus any typical rank of Rn×q×m is less
than or equal to p. On the other hand, by elementary calculation, we see that (m − 1)(n − 1) <
(m−1)(n−1)
mnq
n×q×m
is greater than or equal
m+n+q−2 ⇔ k <
m+n−1 . Thus the minimal typical rank of R
n×q×m
to p. Therefore R
has a unique typical rank p.
Corollary 8.8 Let 3 ≤ m ≤ n. Suppose that Rm×n×((m−1)(n−1)+1) has a unique typical rank, i.e.,
m#n = m + n − 1. If 0 ≤ k ≤ ⌊ m
2 ⌋ − 1 then trank(m, n, (m − 1)(n − 1) − k) = {(m − 1)(n − 1) + 1}.
m
m
Proof Let 0 ≤ k ≤ ⌊ m
2 ⌋ − 1. Then (m + n − 1)(k + 1) ≤ (m + n − 1) 2 ≤ (n + n − 1) 2 < mn
and thus (m + n − 1)k < (m − 1)(n − 1). Therefore the assertion follows from Proposition 8.7.

References
[1] J. F. Adams. Vector fields on spheres. Ann. of Math. (2), 75:603–632, 1962.
[2] J. Adem. Some immersions associated with bilinear maps. Bol. Soc. Mat. Mexicana (2),
13:95–104, 1968.
[3] M. F. Atiyah and I. G. Macdonald. Introduction to commutative algebra. Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co., Reading, Mass.-London-Don Mills, Ont., 1969.
[4] W. Bruns and U. Vetter. Determinantal rings, volume 1327 of Lecture Notes in Mathematics.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1988.
[5] M. V. Catalisano, A. V. Geramita, and A. Gimigliano. Ranks of tensors, secant varieties of
Segre varieties and fat points. Linear Algebra Appl., 355:263–285, 2002; erratum: 367:347–348,
2003.
[6] M. V. Catalisano, A. V. Geramita, and A. Gimigliano. On the ideals of secant varieties to
certain rational varieties. J. Algebra, 319(5):1913–1931, 2008.
[7] R. L. Cohen. The immersion conjecture for differentiable manifolds. Ann. of Math. (2),
122(2):237–328, 1985.
37

[8] D. M. Davis. A strong non-immersion theorem for real projective spaces. Ann. of Math.,
120(3):517–528, 1984.
[9] D. M. Davis. Some new nonimmersion results for real projective spaces. Bol. Soc. Mat.
Mexicana (3), 17(2):159–166, 2011.
[10] D. M. Davis and M. Mahowald. Nonimmersions of RPn implied by tmf, revisited. Homology,
Homotopy Appl., 10(3):151–179, 2008.
[11] D. Eisenbud, C. Huneke, and W. Vasconcelos. Direct methods for primary decomposition.
Invent. Math., 110(2):207–235, 1992.
[12] S. Friedland. On the generic and typical ranks of 3-tensors. Linear Algebra Appl., 436(3):478–
497, 2012.
[13] M. Ginsburg. Some immersions of projective space in Euclidean space. Topology, 2:69–71,
1963.
[14] J. Heintz and M. Sieveking. Absolute primality of polynomials is decidable in random polynomial time in the number of variables. In Automata, languages and programming (Akko, 1981),
volume 115 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 16–28. Springer, Berlin-New York, 1981.
[15] F. L. Hitchcock. The expression of a tensor or a polyadic as a sum of products. J. Math.
Phys., 6(1):164–189, 1927.
[16] M. Hochster and J. A. Eagon. Cohen-Macaulay rings, invariant theory, and the generic
perfection of determinantal loci. Amer. J. Math., 93:1020–1058, 1971.
[17] A. Hurwitz. Über die Komposition der quadratischen Formen. Math. Ann., 88(1-2):1–25,
1922.
[18] J. Ja’Ja’. Optimal evaluation of pairs of bilinear forms. SIAM J. Comput., 8(3):443–462,
1979.
[19] G. Kemper and N. Viet Trung. Krull dimension and monomial orders. J. Algebra, 399:782–800,
2014.
[20] K. Y. Lam. Construction of some nonsingular bilinear maps. Bol. Soc. Mat. Mexicana (2),
13:88–94, 1968.
[21] J. Levine. Imbedding and immersion of real projective spaces. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc.,
14:801–803, 1963.
[22] H. Matsumura. Commutative ring theory, volume 8 of Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, second edition, 1989. Translated from the
Japanese by M. Reid.
[23] R. J. Milgram. Immersing projective spaces. Annals of Mathematics, 85(3):473–482, 1967.
[24] M. Miyazaki, T. Sumi, and T. Sakata. Typical ranks of certain 3-tensors and absolutely full
column rank tensors. preprint, arXiv:1103.0154v2, Dec. 2012.
38

[25] M. Nagata. Theory of commutative fields, volume 125 of Translations of Mathematical Monographs. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1993. Translated from the 1985
Japanese edition by the author.
[26] J. Radon. Lineare scharen orthogonaler matrizen. Abh. Math. Sem. Univ. Hamburg, 1(1):1–14,
1922.
[27] D. Rees. The grade of an ideal or module. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc., 53:28–42, 1957.
[28] L. Robbiano. Term orderings on the polynomial ring. In EUROCAL ’85, Vol. 2 (Linz, 1985),
volume 204 of Lecture Notes in Comput. Sci., pages 513–517. Springer, Berlin, 1985.
[29] A. Seidenberg. Constructions in algebra. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 197:273–313, 1974.
[30] D. B. Shapiro. Compositions of quadratic forms, volume 33 of de Gruyter Expositions in
Mathematics. Walter de Gruyter & Co., Berlin, 2000.
[31] N. Singh. On nonimmersion of real projective spaces. Topology and its Applications, 136:233–
238, 2004.
[32] T. Sumi, M. Miyazaki, and T. Sakata. Rank of 3-tensors with 2 slices and Kronecker canonical
forms. Linear Algebra Appl., 431(10):1858–1868, 2009.
[33] T. Sumi, M. Miyazaki, and T. Sakata. Typical ranks of m × n × (m − 1)n tensors with
3 ≤ m ≤ n over the real number field. Linear Multilinear Algebra, 63(5):940–955, 2015.
[34] T. Sumi, T. Sakata, and M. Miyazaki. Typical ranks for m × n × (m − 1)n tensors with m ≤ n.
Linear Algebra Appl., 438(2):953–958, 2013.
[35] J. M. F. ten Berge. The typical rank of tall three-way arrays. Psychometrika, 65(4):525–532,
December 2000.
[36] J. M. F. ten Berge and H. A. L. Kiers. Simplicity of core arrays in three-way principal
component analysis and the typical rank of p × q × 2 arrays. Linear Algebra Appl., 294(13):169–179, 1999.

39

